Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

AGAIN, I refer you to the Massei Report (fourth time now).

Micheli did not hear Filomena. She was not cross examined.

Finally, 'what' Filomena ACTUALLY said, was that she couldn't remember if she had LATCHED the shutters, not whether she had closed them or not. She made it very clear that she WAS certain that she had closed the shutters.

The impression I get from reading the Massei report is that the shutters would not close all the way because the wood had become warped over time. I believe she indicated she closed them to the point that the tightness of the fit prevented the shutters from swinging back open. It sounds to me like she is saying she could not close them far enough to latch them. It was probably pretty obvious that they were not closed all the way and therefore not latched.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thoughtful at PMF has posted the 2nd part of his summary of Raffaele's appeal. My reading of this is that he does a pretty good job, and seems to present it fairly, just as he did in part one. I hope he does the same with Amanda's appeal. I appreciate the time and effort he put into this and find the results to be a useful tool for me on a personal level.

 

[katy_did]

I think Italian burglars must have a strong union too. They apparently can't be required to over-exert themselves or do anything risky.

I nearly added a rule about only breaking into buildings where the owners have left a handy ladder leading to the window and a 'welcome thieves!' sign hanging from the sill, and avoiding the impenetrable barrier of half-open shutters.

 

[katy_did]

Absolutely. And it also makes no sense that the English phone was "deliberately left switched on" - so that Knox could successfully register a call attempt to it the following morning. After all, if it had been switched off, Knox would have known* that could equally easily have registered a timed voicemail message ("e.g. Hi Meredith, I'm wondering where you are. Could you give me a call when you pick this up please?"). And Knox/Sollecito/Guede* must also have reasoned that switching off the phone would have greatly reduced the chances of it being found prematurely (i.e during the night or early the following morning). Indeed, the reason the phones were found when they were found appears to be because one of them was ringing.

And ringing because Knox herself called it! That really makes a nonsense of Massei's idea that she rang the phone to make sure it hadn't been found yet. Didn't it occur to her that calling it might be a very good way to lead to its discovery?

Incidentally, the reason Knox says she called Meredith's English phone first, and twice, is that this was the phone Meredith always kept with her because she used it to keep in contact with her mother. In that context it makes perfect sense she would've tried that one first before calling Filomena.

 

[Kestrel]

yes, also like Rudy's DNA on Merediths handbag and his Y-haplotype on the zipped jacket.

Do you have information showing Meredith's handbag and zipped jacket were collected six weeks after the crime?

 

[RoseMontague]

And ringing because Knox herself called it! That really makes a nonsense of Massei's idea that she rang the phone to make sure it hadn't been found yet. Didn't it occur to her that calling it might be a very good way to lead to its discovery?

Incidentally, the reason Knox says she called Meredith's English phone first, and twice, is that this was the phone Meredith always kept with her because she used it to keep in contact with her mother. In that context it makes perfect sense she would've tried that one first before calling Filomena.

I agree. I think Filomena asks her if she tried the other phone because immediately after her talk with Filomena she calls both phones.

 

[katy_did]

Filomena believed she had closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. Even if she had, they did not close all the way and could not be latched.

This problem with the shutters would have been clearly visible to Rudy when he visited the cottage on earlier occasions.

Also mentioned on p227 of Raffaele's appeal:

The sentencing report, in fact, starts from a false certainty: that according to Romanelli, on 1 November, in exiting the building she had not latched the shutters, but had drawn them together.

In connection with this, the same Romanelli, at the hearing of 7 February 2009, confirmed the declarations made to the investigators on 3 December 2007 (p. 115 transcript) according to which she had left open one of the two shutters.

Thoughtful mentions it in the summary of RS's appeal over on PMF, too (no. 41 in the second part).

 

[RoseMontague]

Well. It seems that those who confidently predicted that Sollecito would "drop" Knox at the appeal stage, and tell "the truth" in order to save himself, aren't perhaps as perceptive as they thought they were..... Who'd 'a' thunk it?

I was one who predicted that Raffaele's defense would go a different direction than Knox in the appeal stage. There is no obvious throwing of Amanda under the bus, but it appears that the two appeals were written independently, there does not seem to be a sense of the team effort, both contain some of the same points as a matter of course.

 

[RoseMontague]

Also mentioned on p227 of Raffaele's appeal:

Thoughtful mentions it in the summary of RS's appeal over on PMF, too (no. 41 in the second part).

Quote:
The sentencing report, in fact, starts from a false certainty: that according to Romanelli, on 1 November, in exiting the building she had not latched the shutters, but had drawn them together.

In connection with this, the same Romanelli, at the hearing of 7 February 2009, confirmed the declarations made to the investigators on 3 December 2007 (p. 115 transcript) according to which she had left open one of the two shutters.

I may have to revise my opinion that the glass was broken from the inside. I just hate it when I may have been wrong all this time about the glass.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's an.....interesting piece of analysis:

"On the fingernails I find it interesting that the picture of Meredith on her bed reclining with one of her mobile phones clearly has her with manicured nails with a noticeable tip. The judge's report says that her fingernails were extremely short and that that could be an explanation for no DNA. I'm not so sure they didn't cut her fingernails as part of the clean up. Raffaele and Amanda both knew the importance of DNA ala CSI, the pic with the bleach and cleaver and the fact of the clean up."

I wonder who wrote that incisive and cogent piece of analysis? This piece of analysis which seems to seriously suggest that the killer(s) cut Meredith's fingernails after killing her, to remove any evidence from under her fingernails. Too much Agatha Christie?

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

The Micheli report conforms my claim:



Filomena believed she had closed the shutters, but wasn't certain. Even if she had, they did not close all the way and could not be latched.

This problem with the shutters would have been clearly visible to Rudy when he visited the cottage on earlier occasions.

On which earlier occasion has Rudy been into Filomenas room and how could he check the shutters?

**
Merediths T-Shirt and Handbag have been collected at the same time as the bra-clasp. I am just searching this will provide you then the link.

 

[Danceme]

Do you have information showing Meredith's handbag and zipped jacket were collected six weeks after the crime?

Kestrel, a couple of pages back Charlie posted a document "Selected DNA Results" which showed the items collected on December 18th, the same time the bra clasp was collected. It wasn't the only thing they retrieved that day. There was also Meredith's beige purse, the sweatshirt, a pair of socks and something else I can't recall.
Perhaps Charlie will post it again.

 

[Danceme]

An alternative theory is that the police and prosecutors lied.

The Perugia police claimed to have clear video evidence proving that Amanda was at the cottage on the night of the murder. We now know that the car park video in question wasn't clear enough to recognize a person and is actually Meredith returning to the cottage around 9 PM.

Was this proven to be Meredith? Do you have a cite I can read? I always thought it was inconclusive but that it definitely showed someone wearing white or light colored clothing that looked more like a skirt than the somewhat dark blue jeans Meredith had been wearing.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I may have to revise my opinion that the glass was broken from the inside. I just hate it when I may have been wrong all this time about the glass.

If the window was broken from the inside then the person who broke the window would have had to pick up the broken glass and place the glass on the sill. there are also paint chips under the glass. These paint chips were most likely caused by the rock making contact,shaking and disturbing that old wood. The paint chips would fall right before the broken glass. The evidence shows that this window was broken from outside the cottage.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I was one who predicted that Raffaele's defense would go a different direction than Knox in the appeal stage. There is no obvious throwing of Amanda under the bus, but it appears that the two appeals were written independently, there does not seem to be a sense of the team effort, both contain some of the same points as a matter of course.

Rose, Amanda and Raffaele will stand side by side and defend each other on appeal. They are innocent and they both know it. Please trust me on this.

They have their own attorneys. This was the same with the first trial. The appeals were written by two different defense teams. They will certainly not sound exact.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you have information showing Meredith's handbag and zipped jacket were collected six weeks after the crime?

They were indeed collected on Dec. 18.

 

[RWVBWL]

To keep saying that Rudy had been caught breaking and entering twice is an outright falsehood. He had entered only ONE place, the nursery in Milan because he'd been told it was a doss house and he needed somewhere to sleep. He didn't enter it to burgle it. He has no record for entering anywhere else.

_________________________________________________________________

I'm not assigning any prior break-ins to Guede. I've seen nothing that officially, conclusively demonstrates that Guede has a history of burglaries.

_________________________________________________________________

Greetings Fulcanelli and Fuji,
I was just catching up on some reading and I wanted to respond to this part of your post,
that Rudy Guede did not have a police record or prior history of burglary, so he probably did not commit B+E crimes.

I grew up in a beach community where there is a lot of drugs, and drive by gang shootings sometimes happen.
In fact 1 happened recently at a high school graduation party and a young man died, again. He was a surfer also.
I know of guys who would be considered criminals, who do move drugs and have not been busted, and do not have an 'official' police record.
So does that mean they are not dealing? No way, they just have not been busted yet.

Getting back to Rudy Guede:
Most likely, Rudy Guede did not have an 'official' breaking+entering record on file for the simple reason that he just had not been caught red-handed B+E, yet.
Prior to the murder of Miss Kercher, Rudy Guede was caught with a stolen cellphone and a stolen laptop in his possesion that had come from a burglarized law office,
it being, IIRC,on the second floor.
Soon afterwards, Miss Kercher was brutally murdered in her apartment bedroom,
it being on the second floor.

Both of these crimes have at least 2 things in common, both occurred on the 2nd floor and both have some kind of a connection with Rudy Guede.
And yet even though Rudy Guede did not have an 'official' police record of breaking+entering, I for 1 see a pattern here.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Do you have information showing Meredith's handbag and zipped jacket were collected six weeks after the crime?

Page 205 of the Massei-report : they were collected 18 Dec 2007 -

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Amanda said in court that she was hit bey a policewoman with long chestnut brown hair, but didn't know the her name. So yes, she was able to identify the person who hit her. The claims that she could not are simply lies.

Some more details could have been helpful: such as: estimate age (old, young, middle-aged),figure (tall, small, slim, stout), hairstyle (curly hair, straight hair) how long has she been present at that ingerrogation?, has she been present at previous interrogations?.

The Italian system makes it almost impossible to prove police abuse. In Perugia, even making the allegation is dangerous.

So we are glad to be far away on the vastness of the internet and our personality is hidden by nicknames.

Interrogations are not recorded, lawyers for the suspect are not present. Assuring that any allegation of abuse comes down to the word of the police against the word of a suspect. Any suspect that claims abuse can be charged with criminal defamation by the prosecutor. Amanda has been charged for simply saying she was hit. Others have been charged with slander for simply repeating Amanda's claim. Or for reporting that they have been abused by the same officers.

The police and prosecutors in Perugia know that if they abuse suspects, they will be protected by the Italian legal system.

Have you exact prove that this (the US consulate would be very interested to get the details)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

still waiting for a good explanation

I think this is special pleading, halides1. If they had found DNA on Meredith's arms then we'd be back to secondary transfer and/or contamination. It seems it doesn't matter what the medical examiner's or other forensic reports say. Lack of DNA is presented as evidence against the prosecution case in one spot and presence of DNA is also called evidence against the prosecution case.
The lone-wolf scenario was rejected by Micheli and was never seriously considered after that. The elements leading to its rejection included the forensic reports which I doubt either of us have seen or read. Other evidence affirmed this conclusion and that includes the weakened and finally discarded alibis of the accused.

Stilicho,

The prosecution’s hypothesis is that Guede and Sollecito restrained Meredith. The presence of Guede’s DNA on Meredith’s clothing is consistent with this hypothesis. I am not sure what you mean when you say that the presence of DNA is presented as evidence against the evidence against the prosecution’s case. Neither you nor others have given an adequate explanation of why one would not expect to find DNA in the areas I have listed; instead, you keep changing the subject.

In brief the problems with the bra clasp as evidence include that it was collected in a different location than where it was when the crime was discovered, that it was collected after he was very publicly arrested, that there are as many as three additional DNA profiles in addition to Meredith’s and Raffaele’s, that Raffaele’s profile is in the LCN range according to his appeal, and that his DNA is not on the bra itself (his lawyers made this argument in a preliminary hearing). There may be one additional problem, which I am looking into. If these problems were nonexistent, the clasp would be a much stronger piece of evidence against him.

The notion that the (supposed) lack of an alibi affirms the conclusion that the lone-wolf scenario should be rejected strikes me as being illogical. The lone wolf scenario stands or falls on its own.