Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Scorpion NITE]

Just in case your looking for a link to Rudy's confession, which is the real elephant that no one really discusses.

Rudy's original confession.

Thanks for the link, Chris - that was fascinating reading. Something jumped out at me that Frank alludes to:

''...About the final part of the interview it looks like Matteini was quite nervous. You don't know what via Sperandio is, then I don't talk to you any longer. Not very nice of her. She could have asked him: "Do you know that the spot where Meredith's cellphones have been found is right next your house? And how do you explain that?" In this way he would have been forced to respond of this precise and important circumstance...''

The spot where Meredith's cellphones were found is right next to your house?

Worth repeating.

 

[Chris C]

More Rudy Confession Information. You will also notice that Rudy also confesses that he can recognize the man that killed Meredith. Its an Italian man with BLACK hair maybe raped and stole her money. He also Mentions the RAPE of Meredith roughly 15 days after the murder. More reason to test the semen stain. Rudy is pointing the finger at a man that has black hair. If I had to guess, i'd say Sollecito's hair is Brown. There is also evidence of black hairs in Meredith's fingernails that have never been tested. So we have untested black hairs, an untested semen sample and Rudy claiming a man with black hair raped and murdered Meredith. There is also mention of money being taken. Everything Rudy has given the police in the last 2 posts I made about his confessions have pointed to someone other than Sollecito.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on the what the jurors said

That is interesting about the stomach contents. Is that one of the things that will be disputed in the appeals? If it's as clear-cut as you guys say, it should be an easy win in that regard.

About talking to the jurors, I don't know if I would consider talking about American criticism with reporters the same as discussing the case itself. Although I can see why some people would be troubled by it, I don't find it as troubling as I would if they were discussing evidence or other case related matters with the press.

Solange305,

When the trial is still in progress, talking to the jury about anything but the weather is open to question. But the fact that the reporters had such easy access to the jurors right after the trial suggests that access was easy during the trial. The fact that Barbie spoke to a juror at all during the trial is troubling.

John Hooper wrote, "Artegiani said no one on the jury had been influenced by the lurid newspaper headlines during the trial." The fact that they even saw the headlines raises the question of how they could avoid being influenced. Try not to think of a blue elephant. It can't be done.

Hooper also reported the words of another juror, "'It was hard to see Knox doing this, but it is possible. People can let things get out of control, we can all drink too much then get in a car and drive,' said Ceccarini." That is a pretty strange thing to say. Many of us drink socially, but (I hope) none of us has ever stabbed a roommate. And "possible" is a pretty low hurdle, much lower than reasonable doubt.

 

[katy_did]

Thanks for the link, Chris - that was fascinating reading. Something jumped out at me that Frank alludes to:

''...About the final part of the interview it looks like Matteini was quite nervous. You don't know what via Sperandio is, then I don't talk to you any longer. Not very nice of her. She could have asked him: "Do you know that the spot where Meredith's cellphones have been found is right next your house? And how do you explain that?" In this way he would have been forced to respond of this precise and important circumstance...''[/B]

It's also an interesting piece in relation to one often-repeated claim - that Rudy wouldn't have disposed of the phones there because he was local, and would've known it was a garden. Well according to Rudy, he doesn't even know where the road itself is, let alone that there's a house in that area. Unless he's lying, of course, which leads to the obvious question as to why he felt the need to lie about it...

 

[Antony]

(msg #6099, p153)
The police lied when they wrote Amanda's statement saying the text to Patrick was a plan to meet up later. That was their mistranslation. Not Amanda's, it would have made no sense for her to misunderstand her own text message.

To be fair to the police on this point, my understanding is that Amanda sent the text to Patrick in Italian, using a word-for-word translation of the English expression "see you later". I find it entirely believable that it's not an expression ever used in Italian, and in the normal run of things would simply be comical.

It was only in the aftermath of the murder that jumpy police almost inevitably turned something merely strange into something sinister.

That doesn't excuse their other lies, of course.

 

[katy_did]

Hey, whats going on, I thought this baby was put to rest already... Don't use stomach contents to determin TOD...... Simple...

That sounds to me as if you're just waving away evidence rather than addressing it. Stomach content obviously is useful to one degree or another in determining time of death, especially where the time of the last meal and its contents are known, as in this case, and where it's known the victim died no earlier than 3 hours after beginning the meal.

I'm open to the possibility that Meredith's stomach contents don't rule out a later time of death, if some evidence can be provided to support that. I'd like to see it put in terms of probability: Massei estimates a T.O.D. of 11.30, but what's the actual probability that it happened then, based on the stomach contents? What's the probability it happened between 9 and 10?

So far, the only evidence I've seen cited supports the idea that it would be very unusual for Meredith's last meal to still be in her stomach if she died at 11.30. Even the evidence from people trying to argue against that has actually turned out to support the theory they're trying to challenge. What typically happens then is that the whole idea that you can estimate T.O.D. using stomach contents gets dismissed as unreliable (which is exactly Massei's attitude too), conveniently meaning the time of death can be placed at whichever time best suits Massei's theory, i.e. when Amanda and Raffaele don't have an alibi.

If there's evidence to contradict the arguments that Kevin_Lowe and LondonJohn have been putting forward, let's hear them. Handwaving the whole issue away doesn't seem all that productive to me.

 

[Kestrel]

To be fair to the police on this point, my understanding is that Amanda sent the text to Patrick in Italian, using a word-for-word translation of the English expression "see you later". I find it entirely believable that it's not an expression ever used in Italian, and in the normal run of things would simply be comical.

It was only in the aftermath of the murder that jumpy police almost inevitably turned something merely strange into something sinister.

That doesn't excuse their other lies, of course.

The text message Amanda sent to Patrick:
"Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata"

See you later. Good evening.

 

[Chris C]

I been reading through some of the old articles on Perugia Shock when he still thought Knox and Sollecito where guilty. I have found another interesting article on the Q and A with the supreme court about their detentions.
Solletito's Q and A

You will notice that in this Q and A with the supreme court that was held before the trial there are a few interesting things discussed.
1. Solletito's defense is pointing to a 2100 ToD. The supreme court respondes on 2 different occasions that the ToD is between 2200 and 2300. Which is not what the Prosecution convicted them on. Which makes one wonder if the Supreme Court would have still held them in custody if they would have known that the Prosecution didn't have enough evidence to convict them between 2200hrs and 2300hrs.

2. They are ruling against him on the shoe print. Which is later proved wasn't his. Plus there was no blood traces on his shoes. They also never found any blood traces on any of their clothes. Plus the prosecution has told the supreme court that Rudy's shoe size is to big to have left those prints. Oh not more faulty evidence against Sollecito told to the supreme court.

Knox's Q and A There are some interesting things here also.

1. The court rules that Guede's Statements can't be used against him, but they can be used against knox or to help her. Which means the defense can use Guede's previous statements to attack what he told at their trial. When they where not allowed to cross examine his statement.

2. The supreme court says there are clues to hold knox. Clues that have never been present in court or were shown in court to be lies. The supreme court said they couldn't find the sweater knox wore on Nov. 1st(found), sollecito's shoe print in blood(not his).

 

[Malkmus]

To be fair to the police on this point, my understanding is that Amanda sent the text to Patrick in Italian, using a word-for-word translation of the English expression "see you later". I find it entirely believable that it's not an expression ever used in Italian, and in the normal run of things would simply be comical.

It was only in the aftermath of the murder that jumpy police almost inevitably turned something merely strange into something sinister.

That doesn't excuse their other lies, of course.

I understand that, but that's not my point. The "lie" was writing it in her statement as if she said it, which is ridiculous because it was their misunderstanding and something she never would have said since it requires misinterpreting her own text.

 

[ForTruth]

Just incase your looking for a link to Rudy's confession, which is the real elephant that no one really discusses.

Rudy's original confession. Rudy's confession could be one of the reasons the Defense is trying to move the ToD closer to 2200. So it lines up with his confession. The prosecution never tried to line up Rudy's confession with the ToD in the Knox/Sollecito trial. The prosecution avoided that confession like the plague.

Guede's confession to German police. Though it can't be used against him, because the court declared he didn't have a lawyer present, why wasn't it used in the Knox/Sollecito trial? German Confession. In this confession he says, "Guede said he met Kercher shortly after 8:30 p.m. at the cottage on the night of the murder for consensual sex, but that "an Italian man" he did not know followed them in and killed her while he was in the bathroom" An italian man followed them at 8:30pm. Sollecito has an alibi for that time period. We also know Kercher arrived home less than 30 minutes later. Thats a fairly accurate statement. Of course apparently after the Italian man followed them in he went to the bathroom.

Notice that in both confessions, he points to he was in the bathroom. He is trying to prove he was in the bathroom at the Merdith's ToD, so he gives evidence freely to try and corroborate his claim he is on the toilet. He gives a rough ToD, which is way earlier than the Prosecutions in the Knox/Sollecito case. He gives how he entered the home, which makes no mention of two roommates. He points to a single attacker not multiple attackers. He points to the LONE attacker entering while he is on the toilet. Even later after he changed his story and tried to throw Knox under the bus, he never changed 4 parts of his story. Consensual Sex, ToD, Lone Attacker, and He was on the toilet.

These are the first 2 statments Rudy has made to police. Both point to either an earlier ToD or to an Italian man that couldn't be Sollecito.

If you look closely at all the statements you start to see a pattern here. 2 MEN. Rudy's 2 confessions, both mention another man. Rudy's skype message. The 2 Nut cases in jail. All these instances mention 2 men breaking into that apartment. Rudy really could be telling the truth. He could have been sitting on the toilet when Meredith walked in and his partner killed her. Thats just a wacky theory, and I think Rudy killed her all by himself. I think he is inventing this 2nd man to take blame off him. However, Rudy's own testimony show that Meredith's ToD doesn't line up with the Prosecutions ToD and it has always shown a Lone Attacker. The defense also could be trying to line up the Guede's testimonies with the child murderer and convicted mobster.

Chris, I am always intrigued by this second person story possibility.
The fair question to ask, even for those of us who feel Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because we see no credible traces of them in the murder room, is are there traces in blood in the murder room that can be excluded from being that of Rudy?

Or course knowing what is under the fingernails and a DNA profile for the pillow stain will also be enlightening in this regard... but are there bloody unidentified traces - clearly non-Rudy?

 

[Chris C]

Chris, I am always intrigued by this second person story possibility.
The fair question to ask, even for those of us who feel Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because we see no credible traces of them in the murder room, is are there traces in blood in the murder room that can be excluded from being that of Rudy?

Or course knowing what is under the fingernails and a DNA profile for the pillow stain will also be enlightening in this regard... but are there bloody unidentified traces - clearly non-Rudy?

There are unidentified dna traces that are clearly not Guede's, Knox's, or Sollecito's.

 

[Antony]

(msg #6159, p154)
The "actual scientific literature" reveals that scientists do not much trust stomach contents as an accurate TOD indicator. Viz.:

Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court. [emphasis added]

That depends on what is meant by an unacceptable degree of imprecision. In many cases, a 2 or 3-hour time window for TOD would be exactly that.

It doesn't mean that you can tell nothing from stomach contents, and particularly it doesn't mean that it makes sense to reject it in favour of an even more imprecise indicator (body temperature more than 24 hours later), which is what the pro-guilt faction seek to do.

"Within 3 hours of her last meal" is rather imprecise. But it still excludes the Massei/Mignini narrative of the crime.

 

[Chris C]

That depends on what is meant by an unacceptable degree of imprecision. In many cases, a 2 or 3-hour time window for TOD would be exactly that.

It doesn't mean that you can tell nothing from stomach contents, and particularly it doesn't mean that it makes sense to reject it in favour of an even more imprecise indicator (body temperature more than 24 hours later), which is what the pro-guilt faction seek to do.

"Within 3 hours of her last meal" is rather imprecise. But it still excludes the Massei/Mignini narrative of the crime.

Actually the Prosecution ToD is the scream, not the Body Temperature. They try and pretend the body temperature is their ToD.

 

[Antony]

The text message Amanda sent to Patrick:
"Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata"

See you later. Good evening.

I don't know Italian, but I'd confidently guess that "piu tardi" means something like "when it gets late" - and it wouldn't occur to an Italian speaker that it was intended just to mean "next time we meet".

I am open to correction on this one, and I'm certainly not sticking up for the Perugia police. It might just have been the trigger that put into someone's mind that she was hiding something about the events of the night.

 

[lane99]

...while the laptop was in police custody some process or another updated the metadata for the relevant files, destroying the claimed evidence that they watched Stardust. It's a bit awkward for the prosecution case that the police destroyed the evidence which they knew at the time was vital to Amanda and Raffale's alibis...

The police seem to have done a pretty good job of preempting their ability to fairly defend themselves in a number of ways.

Apart from the computer fiasco, another that comes to mind is not providing a recording of the interrogation that produced Knox's false confession.

Such a recording most likely would belie the police account of what transpired, and confirm Knox's.

 

[RWVBWL]

Sadly everyone wants to point to the big elephant called Stomach Contents. Though I believe that in this case its accurate to use stomach contents since emptying never started. However, the real elephant is Rudy's own statements. Those statements he has never retracted. Like he has never admitted to Knox/Sollecito letting him in the house. He admitted to sexual contact with Meredith. He admits that he was fighting with Meredith's attacker and leaves the apartment at 2230hrs. He also admits to seeing the people in the broke down car, which confirms that he had left the apartment before 2330 since we know the times the car was out front. Now we can discuss to our faces turn blue about whether or not the evidence supports Knox/Sollecito being there. However, Guede has given actual evidence to support a ToD at 2200 hrs or earlier. Guede's testimonies are the Real Elephant.

Hi Chris C,
I am glad to see you bring some focus onto what Rudy Guede has said and/or written, for 1 thing we all can agree on was that he was in Miss Kercher's house at some time that night...

I would like to add this, and 2 links for others to read about what Rudy Guede said or wrote:
From Rudy's German diary:

"Then I headed for Meredith's house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30 p.m. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn't have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn't make much of this and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guy's place but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard."

I have always been interested in this statement since, who was it, Luciano Aviello who said his brother and another guy went to Miss Kercher's house by mistake to rob it, and she was afterwards killed. Whose car is it that Rudy Guede writes of, A LONG TIME before Mr. Aviello comes forward with the story of his brothers involvement?

Link here:
http://alternatetheories-perugiamur.../11/post-79-another-motive-possibly-drug.html

This post that I link below talks of the fight Rudy Guede had with a person who has brown hair when he was inside Miss Kercher's house:
http://alternatetheories-perugiamur.../11/post-72-update-did-rudy-fall-in-both.html

Interesting theories from a person who believes that the real killer of Miss Kercher is NOT any of the 3 suspected, and now convicted, of her death.
"Keep in mind that I believe the killer is a psycho - not any of the three suspects."
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I do not believe a lot of what Rudy Guede has said or writes of, for his "adopted" father said he is a liar.
However, some of the stuff he mentions is true, for he knows that he left evidence that he was there.
Didn't he mention at 1 time that he drank orange juice while there too?
So, might there be any truth about this car he wrote of?

 

[Chris C]

Hi Chris C,
I am glad to see you bring some focus onto what Rudy Guede has said and/or written, for 1 thing we all can agree on was that he was in Miss Kercher's house at some time that night...

Don't get me wrong. I think Rudy did the murder by himself or if not alone was part of a 2 man team. (possibly had a lookout) I'm trying to point out that the guilters have put so much stock on Knox lies because she said it in the interrogation. That they refuse to acknowledge Rudy's original statements and only show where he changed his story in the face of getting a reduced sentence if he did. There is so much factual evidence in his statements its hard to ignore it, yet the prosecution and courts have.
1. He confirms a time of death around 2200 or sooner.
2. He confirms another MAN other than Sollecito killed Meredith.
3. He confirms his time of departure using the presence of the broken down car on the street. (broken down car was gone during prosecution ToD)
4. He confirms his presence underneath Filomena's window. (point of entry)
5. He confirms money was stolen from Kercher. (of course its his DNA on her purse)
6. He confirms that Knox or Sollecito where not there when he arrived.
7. He confirms that Meredith arrived home alone.
8. He confirms sexual contact with Meredith and claims another man may have raped her. (there is a semen stain that supposedly went untested)
9. He confirms a man with black hair attacked Meredith. (Meredith has black hairs under her fingernails.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

on luminol

Ana Castelló , Francesc Francés, Fernando Verdú. Talanta 77 (2009) 1555–1557.
“It is considered to be a highly sensitive reagent, capable of detecting latent stains even when these are quite old, and useful for investigating large expanses of surfaces and helping to reconstruct the events that may have occurred at a crime scene [6]. It has also been shown that, following luminol treatment, DNA can be extracted and subsequently analysed using PCR [7,8]. Despite this, luminol cannot be considered a specific proof of blood detection. Studies on its selectivity show that, like other presumptive reagents, luminol is sensitive to contaminating oxidizing compounds which produce oxidation in the reagent (giving a positive reaction) both in the presence and absence of blood, thereby giving rise to a non-specific reaction [9].”

[6] J.Webb, J.I. Creamer, T.I. Quickenden, Luminescence 21 (4) (2006) 214–220.
[7] D. Laux, J. Forensic Sci. 36 (1991) 1512–1520.
[8] A.M. Gross, et al., J. Forensic Sci. 44 (4) (1999) 837–840.
[9] T.I. Quickenden, J.I. Creamer, Luminescence 16 (4) (2003) 295–298.

The topic of luminol comes up frequently here and elsewhere; therefore, I am including a relevant citation and quote (see above). Because luminol is a presumptive test, it is not conclusive proof that blood is present. The burden of proof is on the investigator (presumably the forensic police), and there are several possible follow-up tests. IMO, only if one ruled out every other contaminating substance would one be entitled to conclude that a luminol-positive substance were blood. The burden of proof should not fall onto the defense to identify the contaminant.

Here is a quote from an anonymous commenter on another forum, Yummi:
“Since the debate is on my "main argument", I want to make clear that my opinion is that the luminol footprints were produced after the cleaning. I am definitely inclined to believe the second option, that the luminol bare footprints were produced in water with a slight blood dilution and they were invisible to the naked eye. I think however that one of the footprints (actually, a luminol- enhanced shoeprint) can be dated before the cleaning on the floor, while the other eight traces were produced later.

I consider also the possibility that all footprints were produced before, but I consider it a second chance scenario. Not because of the idea that blood won't survive cleaning, but rather for other logical reasons.
It is imortant to realize that the problem of surviving a cleanup does not affect just blood, it would affect much also the alternative substances (fruit juice, etc) which are more soluble than blood, and almost all of them (all except the metal salts) would loose their capability to react with lumiol when dry.”

I am a biochemist, and I consulted a teacher of forensic chemistry with respect to some aspects of Yummi’s argument. I don’t find it persuasive. Dried blood does perform well in luminol tests, but that is because some of the iron in hemoglobin becomes oxidized from the +2 to the +3 oxidation state. Peroxidase in fruit juice and pulp also reacts with luminol, and peroxidase has virtually the same prosthetic group as hemoglobin. Both have an iron ion chelated by a protoporphyrin IX ring, the combination of which is called heme. It is difficult to see why drying would affect peroxidase more than hemoglobin on theoretical grounds. A study by Creamer et al., Luminescence 2003;18:193–198 dried wet substances before testing their ability to bring about chemiluminescence. These interfering substances included vegetable pulps presumably containing peroxidase. Therefore, I cannot find empirical support to Yummi’s claim either. Quite the contrary.

Moreover, Yummi does not say why one should exclude metal ion salts as the cause of the reaction with luminol. I will try to come back to the subject of luminol later.

 

[Matthew Best]

Why does every source I consult say that stomach contents are a bad method for determining TOD, and can't be used alone?

You're right, and that is why no-one is using the stomach contents alone to determine the time of death. If you think they are, then you should read again.

The stomach contents alone give a fairly broad range for time of death, which is narrowed considerably by witness evidence. Is it really possible you haven't noticed this? It's been repeated over and over.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on Rudy's statements

I do not recall seeing this 2008 post from Perugia-Shock in the recent links.