Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

Danceme, I think your missing the whole point. The prosecution was trying to prove that Sollecito/Knox bought bleach to cleanup Knox's apartment after the murder. They couldn't find a witness that saw them buy bleach, so they looked for receipts to try and prove they purchased bleach on the morning of Nov. 2. The best they could do was get a guy to change his story a year later and say he saw Knox and Sollecito in his store the morning after the murder but they didn't buy anything. Even though a few days after the murder he was showed their pictures and made it CLEAR that neither of them was in his store the morning after the murder. The prosecution also claimed to the media that Knox/Sollecito bought bleach on Nov. 4 but it turns out to be pizza. Of course it baffles me why it was so important about buying bleach on Nov 4, when you are trying to prove a clean up on Nov. 2. The reason they where looking for receipts for the purchase of bleach is because they needed empty bottles of bleach. The 2 bottles at Sollecito's place, (1 parcially used) had a witness to the level of bleach in the open bottle. Apparently they didn't find any empty bottles of bleach in the garbage cans or that would have been entered as evidence.

No, I'm not missing the point. You're simply reading too much into what I wrote. All I meant was if a store doesn't itemize their sales it's impossible to tell what was sold......therefore you cannot categorically state bleach was not purchased. I'm not saying it was...but I can't say it wasn't either based on the way these two shops do their receipts.
I think it is the Nadeau book that claims bleach receipts were found but given that they were not introduced in the trial I can safely say no receipts itemizing a bleach sale on Nov. 2nd were found in Raffaele's apartment.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

A question for the thread in general: Is there any hard evidence that puts Meredith Kercher's time of death later than 9:30?

I don't know of any. Her friend left her just before 9 pm. She tried to call her mother around 9 pm but the call didn't go through. And then somebody speed-dialed her bank without entering the country code around 10 pm. Massei asks us to believe that she was toying with the phone at that time. I think it is more likely that the phone was in Guede's hands. He was examining it and pushing buttons, perhaps trying to power it off.

It also seems unlikely that she would not have tried her mother again after a few minutes. That, along with the unflushed toilet, suggests that Guede was in the place when she got home, and he attacked her within minutes of her arrival.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought the time of death must have been determined by the time that the Amanda and Raffaele did not have an alibi, not by science or common sense. Mignini's efforts to get the correct timing out of Curatolo and finally getting it right once after getting it wrong a dozen times is a good example of this. The one right time in his testimony is considered reliable, the others are ignored.

There was a beginning of a discussion at PMF regarding the cell phone records as covered in Raffaele's appeal but that was seen as an attempt to move the time of death and was strongly discouraged. Certainly the time of death should be in the 9pm to 10pm range based on the time of Meredith's last meal but Massei seems to rely on any experts that stretch this to a later time and ignore those experts that seem to give the conventional wisdom on this and an earlier time of death.

They also wanted the time of death to fit not only Curatolo's suspect testimony but also the miracle ear lady hearing that scream. The appeal points out that her recall of the events of the following morning are completely incorrect yet her recall of the scream the night before is seen as reliable.

I though that was what was going on, but I do like to have my ducks in a row.

I can see why the PMFers are violently resistant to discussing that particular issue though: Once it's established by the phone records and the autopsy report that Meredith died before 9:30pm, a very large chunk of the prosecution case suddenly becomes a huge liability to the guilter side. Their favourite witnesses are immediately shown to be wrong or lying on their major points, the computer records they tout as evidence that Knox and Sollecito lied to the police turn out to exonerate the pair, and the whole prosecution case looks decidedly wrongheaded.

 

[Chris C]

No, I'm not missing the point. You're simply reading too much into what I wrote. All I meant was if a store doesn't itemize their sales it's impossible to tell what was sold......therefore you cannot categorically state bleach was not purchased. I'm not saying it was...but I can't say it wasn't either based on the way these two shops do their receipts.
I think it is the Nadeau book that claims bleach receipts were found but given that they were not introduced in the trial I can safely say no receipts itemizing a bleach sale on Nov. 2nd were found in Raffaele's apartment.

The problem with the clean up theory is this. The floor outside the room wasn't mopped. It is possible that some blood might have been picked up by the bathmat, Amanda did say she drug the mat down to her room to keep from getting the floor wet. However, nothing in the rest of the house was wiped down. Sink wasn't cleaned. There was traces of atleast 3 females in the sink, plus there was blood in it. Just go to injusticeinperugia and look under lies and misinformation. You will see a picture of a bathroom that has parts that are covered in pink and red. Now if that bathroom sink would have been cleaned with bleach it wouldn't have turned up pink because bleach breaks down protein. Bathroom floor still had some blood on it. Merediths room had clearly not been cleaned. No towels, sheets, blankets or chemicals where reported to be missing either. Things you use to clean up a mess. The mop bucket wasn't used to mob the apartment if it had shown signs of being used that morning it would have been entered into evidence. Last but not least, I've read report of Sollecito's place smelling like bleach, but I haven't heard anything that says the postal police smelled bleach.
So here is what we know about the clean up theory. Since knox didnt use any of the stuff already at the apartment, she would have had to buy Cleaning liquids. She would have also had to buy towels, a mop and a mop bucket. She would have needed all this to clean the apartment to try and cover up her DNA and finger prints. Only problem is the investigators found no evidence of any of this being purchased, or found evidence of this in the trash. They found no evidence of the apartment even being cleaned. So whats so important about the BLEACH that they didn't buy? Whats so important about a shop keeper that didn't see her buy anything? Apparently this show keeper had an Elvis/Knox sighting. America gets Elvis sightings all the time.

 

[Dan O.]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2894139.ece

Police said that further evidence against Mr Sollecito had come to light in the form of receipts from a shop near his flat for bleach, bought on the morning after the murder and allegedly used to clean an 8in kitchen knife and Mr Sollecito’s Nike trainers. The first receipt was timed at 8.30am on November 2, and the second 45 minutes later, suggesting that the first container of bleach had not been sufficient. The bleach was also used to clean up the flat itself.

This is very specific information which the article claims originated from the police. It says the shop was identified, the purchase was identified and the date and times were identified. It's not being wishy-washy about some unidentifiable purchase.

The fact is that there were no receipts dated November 2nd, there were no receipts for purchases at 8:30 AM or 9:15 AM. Mignini went looking for bleach receipts and when he found nothing the police manufactured this lie.

 

[lane99]

Hello everyone!

...Have spent months reading the entire thread ...I have also read copious amounts on PMF and Perugia Shock, but feel JREF is more suited to me, if I am to submit any comments, musings etc...

The entire thread? Wow, you're a better person than I.

And although the dedicated websites all suffer from a bias (depending upon the site, ranging from mild to virulent) you're wise to have checked them out. I get the feeling I'd have a far weaker grasp on this case if I'd insisted on basing my opinions solely on what has or hasn't been mentioned here on JREF.

You're probably already aware of it. But in case you're not, the "Injustice in Perugia" website is also worth reading.

 

[lane99]

I did not see anything in that post about climbing in the window either, perhaps linked to the wrong post.

It's the correct post. And if one follow the links there, they'll find just one of many examples where it was claimed it was next to impossible to get through the window.

The police, from the beginning, were seen to be using bogus arguments such as that to prop up the case against Knox. It's what first sparked my skepticism about the police investigation and, ultimately, the prosecution of this case.

 

[Supernaut]

Well, here's what Amanda said in her court testimony:

_____________________________________
"CP [Carlo Pacelli, Patrick's attorney]: For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?

AK [Amanda Knox]: No, I wasn't called. I went with Raffaele because I didn't want to be
alone." (Translation courtesy of Thoughtful, PMF> Board Index> InTheirOwn Words> Amanda Knox)
_____________________________________


So Amanda clearly wasn't "called" to the police station the night of November 5th. But nonetheless, according to Halides, she had been "summoned" to the police station? Umm, OK, but I understand a summons as a request to be present. Maybe someone will kindly explain this apparent absurdity.

///

More "incredulity".

Giobbi stated, in testimony, that he gave orders to summon both Raff and Amanda for questioning on November 5th 2007.

He wasn't asked to expand on this, but he should have been, and perhaps may still be at the appeals.

If I was Raff's or Amanda's lawyers I would insist that the records of these orders be produced.

The fact that Amanda hadn't been called by the time she and Raff arrived at the station will have been because either;

- his subordinates forgot to call her in – quite undestandable, given how low she was on their radar at the time. Not.

or

- the intention from the outset was to interrogate Amanda and Raff separately, starting with Raff, without allowing them to talk to each other, and effectively AS SUSPECTS.

(You guys seem to get a lot of your, er, inspiration from TV and movies - if you need it explained to you how this works, why don't you check out the "interrogation" scene in 'L.A Confidential'?)

As it happened, the cops didn't need to call her in - she pre-empted them by accompanying Raff to the station, as any moderately intelligent/perceptive person could have told him she was bound to.

Amanda's and Raff's their evening was undoubtedly arranged for them WELL in advance.

That being the case, the interrogations (with no council and, of course, no recordings made) could be ruled to have been ENTIRELY illegal and EVERYTHING obtained by them ruled as inadmissable, not just Amanda's so-called "confession".

 

[Supernaut]

That is an extremely copious dose of personal supposition intended to prop up an opinion at the expense of any sort of reality or reasonable truth. It has its only basis in the belief in a conspiracy where seasoned officers are so afraid to say they went for a coffee that they let a lie proceed that results in two innocent people going to prison for a horrific murder. Come on.

Battistelli has proved to be "mistaken" about entering Meredith's room and about the time he arrived at the cottage.

On the latter issue, he claimed to have a specific recollection of looking at his watch.

He's either incompetent or dishonest - recording times and places is, I would have thought, something one would expect to be done dilligently and accurately by a police officer.

 

[LondonJohn]

So...it seems like Quintavalle's "perfect recall" is considerably less than perfect. It now seems pretty likely to me that his testimony will be thrown out at the first appeal. And this also appears to cast significant doubt on Massei's powers of inference, since he appears to have accepted Quintavalle's testimony virtually completely and uncritically - even though crucial parts of his (Quintavalle's) recollection are contradicted by a police officer and by his own employee. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't see the relevance of this "gotcha" to the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case. You could argue this goes to Fine's personal credibility, but in this thread in particular unsupported assertions do not get far regardless of who makes them. Perhaps you could drop this one in the interests of focusing on the thread topic?

To be fair, this issue does have some relevance to the case (admittedly a tenuous relevance), since it touches upon Knox and the kitchen knife. The prosecution have put forward a ludicrous theory that perhaps the knife (a rigid, 9-inch-blade kitchen knife, don't forget) was carried around by Knox in her handbag as a self-defence weapon. There was then a discussion around the subject of the illegality (not to mention impracticality) of carrying a large kitchen knife around in one's handbag, and the pepper spray argument was an offshoot of this. Incidentally, did the police ever make an inventory of the contents of Knox's handbag after she was arrested? I'd be very interested to see whether pepper spray was one of the items she carried.

The PMF crowd really do love his presentations too: he's iconic, in his own way, of the culture there. You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the broader applicability of Nathan Poe's famous dictum.

They are truly classic. Personally, I cannot wait for the next installment.

A question for the thread in general: Is there any hard evidence that puts Meredith Kercher's time of death later than 9:30? This was one of the points I planned to stake out over at PMF if they didn't ban me, because it appears to me that the prosecution's entire castle in the air falls to Earth if Meredith Kercher's death can't be pushed back to a time consistent with Amanda and Raffaele getting there and hanging around for a fair while before murdering her.

If there isn't any such hard evidence, the entire edifice falls over. You can have all the circumstantial evidence you like linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime (although I think we've now called all of it into serious question), but if the crime you are trying to link them to took place when they couldn't possibly have been there, then they still couldn't have been there.

(They are very sensitive about this point over at PMF: I saw one person being threatened with the ban hammer just for starting to move in this direction, which is one of the reasons I didn't expect a long stay).

I don't believe there's any physical evidence placing the time of death beyond 9.30pm. All the police have is the questionable testimony of the "blood-curdling scream" at beyond 11pm - which was apparently heard clearly by a middle-aged woman living nearby, but by NOBODY ELSE in the entire neighbourhood.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that the autopsy report, in and of itself, firmly places the time of death in the 9.00-9.30pm range (and, actually, towards the earlier end of that range). If the autopsy findings have been accurately reported, I believe that a competent pathologist would be able to give very important testimony regarding time of death in the appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quick two questions:

Why would the Perugia police feel it necessary to order wiretaps of Sollecito's and Knox's mobile phones before 5th November, and also electronically eavesdrop upon them in the police waiting room - but yet not record their interviews in rooms where such recording equipment is commonplace and readily available?

2) If the police/prosecutors claim that the interviews were not recorded because Knox/Sollecito were being treated as witnesses and not suspects until 01.45 (approx) on 6th November, then what business (or mandate) did the police have wiretapping their phones and performing other electronic eavesdropping upon them in the preceding days? I believe that, even in Italy, police are not allowed to perform wiretaps or other electronic eavesdropping of anyone unless they can prove to a judge or senior police officer that the subject(s) is/are suspected of involvement in a serious criminal offence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps some of the commentators on this case who are exhibiting bile-filled schadenfreude over the personal problems of a woman who is unaffiliated to any of the parties in this case (and, incidentally, against whom no charges have as yet been brought) would like to comment equally forcefully about the criminal conviction for Abuse of Office of the lead prosecutor of Knox and Sollecito - one G. Mignini.

 

[LondonJohn]

A quick hint to all those who think they have identified Anne Bremner posting comments under a newspaper article about her own alleged DUI case under a pseudonymous user name (IPAYATTENTION), because somebody with the same user name had previously mentioned representing a client name Ed Bylsma:

Perhaps Ed Bylsma had more than one legal representative. Someone named Stafford Frey Cooper, for example.

Just a thought.....

 

[Mary_H]

Perhaps some of the commentators on this case who are exhibiting bile-filled schadenfreude over the personal problems of a woman who is unaffiliated to any of the parties in this case (and, incidentally, against whom no charges have as yet been brought) would like to comment equally forcefully about the criminal conviction for Abuse of Office of the lead prosecutor of Knox and Sollecito - one G. Mignini.

I agree, LJ. Some people seem to be quite bent out of shape by the possibility that Anne Bremner pulled some strings and used some connections -- in other words, that there may be collusion in Seattle's legal system.

Whoever heard of collusion in a local legal system?

 

[Chris C]

Quick two questions:

Why would the Perugia police feel it necessary to order wiretaps of Sollecito's and Knox's mobile phones before 5th November, and also electronically eavesdrop upon them in the police waiting room - but yet not record their interviews in rooms where such recording equipment is commonplace and readily available?

2) If the police/prosecutors claim that the interviews were not recorded because Knox/Sollecito were being treated as witnesses and not suspects until 01.45 (approx) on 6th November, then what business (or mandate) did the police have wiretapping their phones and performing other electronic eavesdropping upon them in the preceding days? I believe that, even in Italy, police are not allowed to perform wiretaps or other electronic eavesdropping of anyone unless they can prove to a judge or senior police officer that the subject(s) is/are suspected of involvement in a serious criminal offence.

Thats a good point. The prosecution has been steadfast on saying that Knox wasn't a suspect until after 0145 on 6 November. However, they have made statements saying they knew they where guilty the first time they saw them. Supposedly interviewed them for 5 days as witnesses. How many other witnesses did they interview for 5 days and called in 12 interrogators to interview? Apprently just 2. Plus like you said, they wiretapped them and put them under surveillance. I guess Perugia is the only place in the World where these actions are performed on witnesses not suspects. So if thats what they do for witnesses, what do they do for suspects?
Beat them in the interrogation room.
Threaten and persecute their families.
Threaten them with life in jail if they dont tell them what they want to hear.
Deny them legal rights.
This sounds more like a Police State than a Democracy.

 

[christianahannah]

You have a point, but it is part of a larger point that you don't seem to grasp. The the operative word is "IF." IF Amanda was involved in the murder, then why indeed would she risk being seen anywhere near the crime scene? IF she wanted to clean up evidence (although there is no indication that anyone did) then why not use the cleansers available in the cottage, which were conveniently stored in a cabinet in the hallway?

It is discouraging to see intelligent people waste so much time trying to work out the details of a fable that makes no sense. Amanda was having the time of her life in Italy. She has no history of violence or aggression, she had no reason to harm Meredith, and she would have been horrified had anyone so much as suggested the idea. This whole thing is a big, fat, painfully obvious frame-up, designed to protect the reputations of officials who very publicly announced a dramatic theory that is both wrong and stupid.

Charlie I agree there is much speculation as to what might have happened the night of 1 November and the day of 2 November. I cannot answer how one would act if they commited a horrific act.

I try to not waste so much time trying to work out the details of a fable. I much prefer to look at the documents, transcripts, motivations, appeals, testing, etc. for the truth.

Amanda and Raffaele have a second chance to try their case. If they are innocent I hope they will succeed in this second chance.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Welcome Scorpion NITE,
You read it all? I feel your pain.

Many thanks for the welcome, Rose.

Painful but very enlightening.

No gain without pain...

 

[Scorpion NITE]

The real pain will be experienced when he rereads and understands the first post

Welcome Scorpion NITE, we look forward to your contributions.

Thanks Dan, how did you know I was a male?

I've probably forgotten a lot of points made as the thread has been an exhaustive read over a long period of time, but it has certainly been educational...well, for the most part.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

The entire thread? Wow, you're a better person than I.

And although the dedicated websites all suffer from a bias (depending upon the site, ranging from mild to virulent) you're wise to have checked them out. I get the feeling I'd have a far weaker grasp on this case if I'd insisted on basing my opinions solely on what has or hasn't been mentioned here on JREF.

You're probably already aware of it. But in case you're not, the "Injustice in Perugia" website is also worth reading.

The previous thread too, if I'm being honest....lol

An enthralling case that has me hooked - a tragic, tragic outcome for Meredith. I think we all agree that we want justice for her, but I do feel distinctly uneasy about the convictions of AK/RS (Rudy IS guilty IMHO) the more I have learnt about the questionable actions of others and the misinterpretations of many.

You make an excellent point about checking out the other sites and Yes, I have visited Bruce's website a number of times - also TJMK, Candace Dempsey's blog, other blogs too; such as Chris H's and even the Sciencespheres (?) one. Some others too which I cannot recall the exact names of, like the one where Nadeau blogs (it is late and I'm tired...lol).