Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can I assume that it is your opinion that the print is Rudy's?

No you can't

But you can look it up and read, it's not far away up the thread.

I'd like to add to my conclusion that in my opinion Rinaldi measured the toes in an extremely biased way.

 

[christianahannah]

The leather purse was on the bed.

Both socks were found early on. One was found underneath Meredith's body and one is easily seen in early photos on the blue rug.

These socks would have been REMOVED from Meredith's body by the KILLER. No matter who you think is guilty, if DNA was found it would have been pretty damning.

They didn't want to test the socks until Dec 18th to see whose DNA may be found on the cuff of the sock from removing them?

Not bagged and tagged even though photographed in early photos? Just like the bra clasp.

In this photo you can see the sock on the rug in the middle of the tote bag handle loop:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=158997610791385&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

The leather purse was on the bed November 2-3. It was retrieved from the closet on December 18.

Page 191:

an imitation leather handbag, listed as number 166, which had been seen on the mattress in the victim's room during the first search, and was found in the closet of the same room on December 18,

 

[Draca]

The leather purse was on the bed November 2-3. It was retrieved from the closet on December 18.

I see, that makes sense. They would have had to move the purse to a different location before laying the clothes on the bed. I read they moved the mattress itself out of the room also. I'm baffled why they did some of these things. What was the purpose of moving the mattress and making piles of clothes and shoes. The dresser drawers are missing also. Why wouldn't they just leave them intact. I don't follow the reasoning made to take these actions.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm not sure this is true. At least, I remember Fulcanelli first saying that the delay was due to the defence, and I asked him if he knew when they were first notified, how long the delay actually was etc. Uncharacteristically, he didn't reply with a source.

Maybe you have a cite? It's a claim I keep seeing repeated so it'd be good to know where it originates.

I know Alt+4 is still checking this but I could not find a source for this claim. It is mentioned in a few comment threads including here but not sourced on any of them that I could find.

 

[christianahannah]

I know Alt+4 is still checking this but I could not find a source for this claim. It is mentioned in a few comment threads including here but not sourced on any of them that I could find.

Rose, I found this reference on page 204 of the motivations.

[213] Returning to the examination of the piece of bra, she confirmed that the investigator who was shedding light on it had also touched the hooks which were on that piece of bra. She stressed that the investigator, immediately before having touched said hooks, changed his protective gloves‚ both he and I were going in, let’s say, in the room, for the sole purpose, at this stage, to look for the clasp. So we had just changed, and he was looking for where it could be, with the flashlight so he was looking, let’s say, more attentively‛. (Pages 162 and 163, where acknowledgement is made of the agreement by all parties and of the consequent certified provision to acquire Dr. Stefanoni’s deposition given in the preliminary hearing).

I don't know if this agreement by all parties has anything to do when the bra clasp was to be collected but it might be a start at finding that reference if it exists.

 

[Kaosium]

Exactly my point Charlie, so why do many of those who think AK and RS are innocent insist that the print is RG's? How are they any different than Rinaldi and Massei?

Because they're not trying to use it as proof of a murder and send a young man to prison for at least three years and possibly life?

I think it looks more like Rudy's too, and that fits with all the rest of the available evidence. Can I say it with absolute certainty? No, but I can say to pretend it's Raffaele's takes a lot more imagination. How did that one print get there and absolutely no other trace of his part in the murder? Rudy's DNA is all over, but Raffaele's is conspicuously missing from basically everywhere else. So if that print is Raffaele's and thus he participated in the murder, where's everything else?

I think I do understand your underlying point, but when some post that it's Rudy's print there's logic to back up that claim, whereas with Raffaele there's just the funny-looking footprint that looks to many more like Rudy's.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Exactly my point Charlie, so why do many of those who think AK and RS are innocent insist that the print is RG's? How are they any different than Rinaldi and Massei?

This is a fair question. I can only speak for myself in answering it.

In my opinion, the footprint was made by the individual who killed Meredith Kercher. I don't see any other possibility. I believe, because of the bloody fingerprints and multiple DNA traces in the murder room, that this killer was Rudy Guede. Therefore, the footprint must have been left by him. In presenting my analysis, I have sought to demonstrate that there is no inconsistency between Guede's reference footprint and the one on the mat, whereas the big toe shape on the mat is quite different from Sollecito's reference print.

HOWEVER, I do not hold this footprint out as strong evidence. If it were the only evidence against Guede, it would not be enough to convince me of his guilt. But if the bloody fingerprints on the pillow were the only evidence, I would still regard the case against Guede as sound.

 

[Chris C]

Exactly my point Charlie, so why do many of those who think AK and RS are innocent insist that the print is RG's? How are they any different than Rinaldi and Massei?

Actually its not so much trying to prove its Guede's, as its using Guede's as an example of another male in that apartment which the bloody footprint looks more like. However, did the prosecution not use a statement in which Guede says Sollecito killed Meredith while he was taking a crap. Since he is the only eyewitness to admit being there during the murder and he says the only other male present was Guede, It has to be 1 or the other. There are no other choices since the prosecution's many theories only involved 2 males. Since it looks more like Guede's than Sollecito's its just more evidence that Rudy is lying about what happened in that apartment that night. Of course if you are going to believe Rudy's story or even think its possible that a man busted in while he was taking a crap and there was a woman outside yelling. The most logical thing to do would be to take dna samples and foot prints from the 2 in the car outside the house.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Rose, I found this reference on page 204 of the motivations.

[213] Returning to the examination of the piece of bra, she confirmed that the investigator who was shedding light on it had also touched the hooks which were on that piece of bra. She stressed that the investigator, immediately before having touched said hooks, changed his protective gloves‚ both he and I were going in, let’s say, in the room, for the sole purpose, at this stage, to look for the clasp. So we had just changed, and he was looking for where it could be, with the flashlight so he was looking, let’s say, more attentively‛. (Pages 162 and 163, where acknowledgement is made of the agreement by all parties and of the consequent certified provision to acquire Dr. Stefanoni’s deposition given in the preliminary hearing).

I don't know if this agreement by all parties has anything to do when the bra clasp was to be collected but it might be a start at finding that reference if it exists.

I don't see anyone change gloves during that entire video. Two people handled the clasp by the hooks, touching the very spot where Raffaele's DNA magically appeared, just when it was needed most, right after his lawyers proved that the shoe prints did not match his shoes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

morning of the second

Greeting JREF members,
I was re-reading some postings on Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock, and found this that I would like to bring up:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/06/voice-of-amanda-knox.html

for something odd stuck out at me that I would LUV to have any of the colpevolisti answer.

When the Postal Police Officers Battistelli and Marzi arrived to return the cell phone to the residence of Filomena Romanelli,
and Amanda Knox apparently was going to recieve custody of them -(she being the only resident home at the time),
how come she then -(if she is indeed guilty of having any part in Miss Meredith Kercher's murder),
informed these postal police of the strange happenings that she noticed that morning?

Why didn't she just take the phones and say "Grazie, sono un ufficiale bel giorno."
Thank you, have a nice day officer, head back inside the apartment and finish the "cleanup"?

RWVBWL,

I think this is a very good point. I have read speculations to the effect that Amanda wanted to control the discovery of the body. These never made much sense to me, and now they make even less. If the police came too early, she could have just taken the phones and left it at that, as you suggest.

 

[Chris C]

The leather purse was on the bed.

Both socks were found early on. One was found underneath Meredith's body and one is easily seen in early photos on the blue rug.

These socks would have been REMOVED from Meredith's body by the KILLER. No matter who you think is guilty, if DNA was found it would have been pretty damning.

They didn't want to test the socks until Dec 18th to see whose DNA may be found on the cuff of the sock from removing them?

Not bagged and tagged even though photographed in early photos? Just like the bra clasp.

In this photo you can see the sock on the rug in the middle of the tote bag handle loop:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=158997610791385&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

Lots of people assume the Killer(s) undressed Meredith. Though to be honest she could have just as easily been attacked while she was undressing.

 

[Chris C]

And your conclusion is?

Though to be honest with all of you, the more I look at that print the more I wonder whose it really is. The main problem with the bloody footprint is heel half of the foot. Anytime you try and line that front part of the bloody footprint with either Guede or Sollicito the back half doesn't line up. Also another problem is we know the mat was moved prior to it being bagged for evidence. Knox admits to standing on it, if I remember correctly. When they measured the prints how did they lay the mat? Did they lay it flat and stretch it out any. Was the mat perfectly flat on the floor when the killer left his footprint. For all we know the mat could have been not perfectly stretched out and then got stretched out for the measuring.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I see, that makes sense. They would have had to move the purse to a different location before laying the clothes on the bed. I read they moved the mattress itself out of the room also. I'm baffled why they did some of these things. What was the purpose of moving the mattress and making piles of clothes and shoes. The dresser drawers are missing also. Why wouldn't they just leave them intact. I don't follow the reasoning made to take these actions.

I'm baffled as well. It looks like they tossed the place in a frantic search for some particular item, but I don't know what it could have been.

 

[Danceme]

Though to be honest with all of you, the more I like at that print the more I wonder whose it really is. The main problem with the bloody footprint is heel half of the foot. Anytime you try and line that front part of the bloody footprint with either Guede or Sollicito the back half doesn't line up.

I've traced both footprints carefully at high zoom in Autocad, scaling them to the dimensions given and overlaying them on the bathmat print and it's exactly as you say, there is no way to simultaneously make both halves of either footprint line up with the print on the mat. I've fooled around with them so much I think I can conclusively say that, for me at least, it's inconclusive.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't see anyone change gloves during that entire video. Two people handled the clasp by the hooks, touching the very spot where Raffaele's DNA magically appeared, just when it was needed most, right after his lawyers proved that the shoe prints did not match his shoes.

I don't doubt your word Charlie. Stefanoni explains this in the paragraph following the one I quoted above.

Pages 204-205:

She added that one could not see the gloves being changed in the video footage because the purpose of the video was to document the technical activities and not the instrument handling processes such as the changing of gloves. She confirmed, therefore, that before having touched the clasp with those gloves, the gloves had not touched any other objects, since they had just been put on. With those very same gloves, however, the sock was then taken and catalogued [repertato] (page 166). She pointed out, however, that on that sock only Meredith’s traces were found. To this regard she pointed out that, since over a month had gone by (it was the search
carried out on December 18), the traces were ‚very dry, dehydrated and, therefore, the possibility that I could contaminate the findings by touching them is practically equal to zero‛ (page 167).

I thought that both Rinaldi and Vinci came to the conclusion that the shoeprint was not Raffaele's. Weren't both offical reports after December 18?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't doubt your word Charlie. Stefanoni explains this in the paragraph following the one I quoted above.

I thought that both Rinaldi and Vinci came to the conclusion that the shoeprint was not Raffaele's. Weren't both offical reports after December 18?

Raffaele's family figured it out before Rinaldi or Vinci entered the picture, but you are right, the news came out in January rather than December. On January 10, Raffaele's father appeared on an Italian TV show and explained what the family had discovered:

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/servizio/41595/sollecito-innocente.html

And the next day, the world learned of the DNA trace on the bra fastener:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575287/DNA-link-in-Meredith-Kercher-case.html

 

[Mary_H]

I see, that makes sense. They would have had to move the purse to a different location before laying the clothes on the bed. I read they moved the mattress itself out of the room also. I'm baffled why they did some of these things. What was the purpose of moving the mattress and making piles of clothes and shoes. The dresser drawers are missing also. Why wouldn't they just leave them intact. I don't follow the reasoning made to take these actions.

They appear to have done the same thing in Raffaele's apartment. The video of them looking in his bedroom shows a huge pile of junk on the bed, a couple of pieces of which they tentatively pick up and look at and put back in the pile. Amanda and Raffaele were sleeping in the bed the night of the murder, so I doubt the bed looked like that then.

 

[Draca]

Meredith's clothes were removed

Lots of people assume the Killer(s) undressed Meredith. Though to be honest she could have just as easily been attacked while she was undressing.

Meredith's jacket had Rudy Guede's DNA on the cuff. It was found with the sleeves pulled inside out as well as the entire jacket. It was forcibly removed. It was located near the wardrobe drenched in blood.

Meredith bra was cut off. The bra clasp was found under her body.

One of the socks was also found under her body.

Her other sock and shoes were found on or near the rug that was itself out of place. That rug should have been near her bed.

Her underwear was rolled up on the floor by her feat. The same as the bra that was cut off of her.

The jeans were just to the right.

I think considering the location and state of the clothes it is actually highly illogical to think she was undressing herself.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=158997610791385&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

 

[Onofarar]

Regarding the return of the phones I think just taking the phones and wishing the officers good day as the way a guilty AK would act does not think through the implications. If you accept that AK was involved and a cleanup was underway (I do not believe either) then the arrival of the postal police would pose a problem to a guilty AK & RS. Anyone should know that the ToD would be easily determined to be hours before the phones are returned. So unless AK & RS dispose of the body away from the cottage how would they explain not inviting the police in to investigate? Thus inviting the police to investigate the cottage showing them what they found and asking for MK's door to be breached is the only realistic choice for either a guilty or innocent AK & RS. As much as I would like to categorize their actions as favorable to innocence, the best I can say is neutral. But having said that I have come, in the past few weeks, to believe they are totally innocent of any involvement (not just not guilty due to reasonable doubt(s) but innocent).

 

[quadraginta]

This is one of the more spectacular straw man arguments I've seen for a while.

Your initial (erroneous) position was this:

"why do many of those who think AK and RS are innocent insist that the print is RG's?"

I tell you that this is a misrepresentation, and your "rebuttal" offering is a quote from Charlie Wilkes in which he states:

"There is absolutely no way the print belongs to Raffaele."

I'm almost embarrassed to have to point out that not only is Charlie not asserting that the print is that of Guede, but he's also refuting the positive identification of the print as that of Sollecito.

I'm definitely embarrassed to have to point out that he clearly says the print was positively not Sollecito's, as opposed to your suggestion that he is saying it is not positively Sollecito's.

Since Alt-F4's point was that such an assertion of positive exclusion has been made, and she provided this citation demonstrating exactly that, your rebuttal bears no relationship at all to her point.

I know the old G. B. Shaw quip about being separated by a common language, but I think you might be overworking it.