Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, please do not tell me that Amanda and Raffaele got so high, and/or drunk that they murdered Meredith, and then preformed a miraculous clean-up that removed all of these traces, but then left what many colpevolisti, you included, believe to be Raffaele Sollecito's footprint outline on the bath mat, in clear open view, for anyone to see. I ain't that stupid...

Have a great weekend Machiavelli,
RWVBWL

Amanda and Raffaele didn't perform any miraculous clean-up. They performd a not-too-excellent clean-up. They left bathmat with a print after they attempted to to clean it but failed to do it properly, and maybe they hesitated as they thought removing it could be something suspicious, an evidence of clean-up (in fact it would have been).

 

[RWVBWL]

Your post starts to become false at that point, when you think you know what the eidence is.
The evidence is no cartwheel, no cry/not crying question. Forget it.
No sexual tools, no guns.

You can forget all of this.

Hi Machiavelli,
Amanda Knox, and hence Raffaele Sollecito,
were convicted BEFORE they even went to trial...

My opinion only,
a surfer who had Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock change my guilty opinion to might, and then truly are, innocent, many months before the verdict came in...
Peace, RWVBWL

 

[Dan O.]

Hi Danceme,
I too had thought of this when I read that passage in B. Nadeau's book "Angel Face".
Did Rudy Guede grab the keys from the area of the tiny foyer to open the front door when he left?

I have seen no evidence that the girls left their keys in the foyer.

Was this area tested for fingerprints also?

A map where all the fingerprints were found has been posted. I don't recall any being found in the foyer area. It is not clear that they tested in there but I would think that the telephone on the wall would be one object they wouldn't have skipped.

So please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like a person would have had to use a key to have locked Meredith Kercher's door
after she was brutally murdered, correct?

Correct. Parts of the lock mechanism can even be seen scattered throughout the room in the crime scene photos. The bathroom have identical locks and the keys to those doors can be seen in the locks on the inside.

Meredith was asked to water her "boy-friend" Giacomo's plants downstairs while he was out of town that weekend.
Page 36 of "Angel Face" says that on the last afternoon of her life, Meredith
"then went downstairs to water the pot. When she finished, she sent Giacomo a flirty text message saying how excited she was to see him when he got back."

I'd like to add that to my timeline if it can be verified. However, I thought that Meredith left the cottage before Amanda and Raffaele and didn't get back till after 9pm.

IIRC, the keys to that downstairs apartment were later found in Amanda Knox's bedroom.

This is a rumor that keeps getting repeated. There was a key in Amanda's room. It was a single key like the keys to the room doors and it was hanging from the bookshelf over her bed. There are two descriptions given for the keys to the downstairs apartment that differ significantly. One was the testimony of the owner of those keys. The other was the tabloid news of their discovery. I discount the tabloid news as the fabrication.

So I got to thinking, did the person who locked the door to Meredith's room grabs 2 different sets of keys -(Meredith's and the boys downstairs), from Meredith or the tiny foyer and then finally figured out which key locked Meredith's door and left the other in Amanda's room, finally leaving with Meredith's keys out the front door?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

That is a consideration that I had not made. I did speculate that one reason to lock Meredith's door would be to test that the keys were the right ones. After trying the key in the lock while the door is open, following through by closing the door and locking it before removing the keys may be an automatic response. This was before I knew about the second set of keys in Meredith's possession. Finding two sets of keys would definitely trigger the desire to test which set worked.

 

[RWVBWL]

Amanda and Raffaele didn't perform any miraculous clean-up. They performd a not-too-excellent clean-up. They left bathmat with a print after they attempted to to clean it but failed to do it properly, and maybe they hesitated as they thought removing it could be something suspicious, an evidence of clean-up (in fact it would have been).

Machiavelli,
So with this in mind, I wonder if it was Amanda Knox looking to buy a replacement bathroom mat the next morning at the store where the guy who owned it didn't recognise them until a year later.
Why not just throw it away, blame it on the unknown murderer?

Same goes with the "super cleaned" knife, that had that itsy, bitsy dot of DNA, not blood, of Miss Kercher on it...
Why not just throw it away, for it was a pretty common knife, from all that I have read.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Dan O.]

It's funny how the prints on the bath mat don't show any signs of running that occur with other stains when you attempt to wash them out of fabric. Does anybody know what cleaning products could have been used to do this?

 

[Mary_H]

Machiavelli,
So with this in mind, I wonder if it was Amanda Knox looking to buy a replacement bathroom mat the next morning at the store where the guy who owned it didn't recognise them until a year later.
Why not just throw it away, blame it on the unknown murderer?

Same goes with the "super cleaned" knife, that had that itsy, bitsy dot of DNA, not blood, of Miss Kercher on it...
Why not just throw it away, for it was a pretty common knife, from all that I have read.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

And why purposely take the police officer into the bathroom to see the blood before taking the time to show him anything else? If Amanda knew where the blood was to show the officer, she could easily have wiped it up before he got there instead of sitting out in the yard waiting.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Dan O,
I just wanted to respond to a few of your answers to my earlier posting.

<snip>
A map where all the fingerprints were found has been posted. I don't recall any being found in the foyer area. It is not clear that they tested in there but I would think that the telephone on the wall would be one object they wouldn't have skipped.

That's the 1st I've heard of a telephone in the gals apartment Dan O,
I guess that kinda shoots down Rudy Guede's "I would have called for help" story on Dec. 7 to Judge Matteini, IIRC...

Correct. Parts of the lock mechanism can even be seen scattered throughout the room in the crime scene photos. The bathroom have identical locks and the keys to those doors can be seen in the locks on the inside.

Thanks for the info Dan O!

I'd like to add that to my timeline if it can be verified. However, I thought that Meredith left the cottage before Amanda and Raffaele and didn't get back till after 9pm.

This is the 1st I'd heard that Meredith went and watered the plants before she split, and I assume this info is from the same text she sent to Giacomo that afternoon,
BUT I'd double check this before you do add it to your excellant timeline, Dan O,
for on the same page 36 of "Angel Face" B. Nadeau also says that "She did not say goodbye to Amanda and Raffaele, who were still in Amanda's room."

But yet Page 46 of Candace Dempsey's book "Murder in Italy" it says "In her email, Amanda said she was playing guitar with Raffaele when Meredith emerged from her room around 4:00 pm, but that the British girl 'said bye and left for the day,' without mentioning where she was going. Meredith wore a white T-shirt tucked under a knitted top, a bright blue Adidas jacket, and Puma athletic shoes. Raffaele later mentioned that he'd thought that it was 'cute' that Meredith was also wearing frayed jeans that had belonged to her ex-boyfriend back in London."

This contradicts Barbie Nadeau's account.
I tend to believe C. Dempsey's account that they all said "goodbye" since IF Amanda and Raffaele were involved in Miss Kercher's murder, I doubt that Raffaele would have said that he thought it "cute" that Maeredith was wearing her ex-boyfriends blue jeans. Then again, maybe it was part of their "alibi".

I too would like to confirm the watering the plants part, maybe it's in the earlier versions of Perugia Shock. If anyone else has any input, please do chime in!

This is a rumor that keeps getting repeated. There was a key in Amanda's room. It was a single key like the keys to the room doors and it was hanging from the bookshelf over her bed. There are two descriptions given for the keys to the downstairs apartment that differ significantly. One was the testimony of the owner of those keys. The other was the tabloid news of their discovery. I discount the tabloid news as the fabrication.

Thanks for the info Dan O, and I am sorry to say that I too am guilty of repeating this information without double sourcing it...

That is a consideration that I had not made. I did speculate that one reason to lock Meredith's door would be to test that the keys were the right ones. After trying the key in the lock while the door is open, following through by closing the door and locking it before removing the keys may be an automatic response. This was before I knew about the second set of keys in Meredith's possession. Finding two sets of keys would definitely trigger the desire to test which set worked.

I have wondered why someone locked Meredith's bedroom door, BUT left the front door unlocked.
Maybe he did not find the correct key, and then panicked upon hearing voices or seeing a car's light as he was leaving and just closed the door behind him.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

The DNA of RS came as a result of Raffaele’s attempt to open the bra with his fingers. This attempt didn’t succeed immediately, considerable force was employed by fingers on the metal hook, so to deform it. Once the clasp was deformed the opening would be even more difficult, so somebody decided to cut the strap. The many skin cells found attached to the metal are the consequence of manual force applied on the metal clasp to open it.

The cutting of the bra strap didn’t cause the bra to come off. The bra remained in place hanging to its shoulder straps, while Meredith was still wearing her blue sweater and white t-shirt. The blue sweater was not removed until after her death. The bra was also not taken off until after her fatal wounding, probably after her death.

Those called here “unidentified profiles” ought to be considered as unidentified DNA sequences, not as separate, unidentified individuals. Those profiles are consistent with segments of Meredith’s DNA and with Amanda’s DNA. Those profiles are anyway probably all females, since there is no other Y-haplotype sequence except one compatible with Sollecito. What I think, is simply this is a piece of clothing, the clasp of a bra strap, on which it is expected to find various residual fragments of DNA, because it is touched many times, possibly by several people: the person who wears it, her boyfriend, people who wash it and hang it to dry.

I think it is obvious why the reading implicate Raffaele alone: because Raffaele was a suspect being a liar in the investigation, because his DNA is not supposed to be on that metal clasp, and has no innocent justification for being there. Amanda and Meredith’s DNA mean little, her boyfriend has an alibi, possible others unidentified are not in the suspects list yet, and anyway they won’t make go away the fact that Raffaele’s DNA is on the clasp.

For the statement about the “astonishing assertion”, I consider this an important point to detail in different posts. I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

It is obvious from the appearance of the hooks that they were deformed when someone tried to pull the bra off without unhooking it. There is no need to touch bra hooks when removing a bra -- usually just the two sides of the cloth clasp are pushed together, and the loss of tension allows the hooks to unhook themselves; in fact, fingers can get in the way. I believe all the defendants were experienced enough to know how to unhook a bra.

In the unlikely event someone forcefully used his hands that night to try to unfasten the bra at the clasp, it is much more likely the DNA would be embedded in the woven fibers of the absorbent cloth than on the smooth metal surface of the hooks. Similarly, in the event the piece were moved or swept around the room over time, biological material would be less likely to adhere to the metal than to the cloth. Yet investigators insist the material was found on the hooks and not on the cloth.

The videotape also makes it clear that when the bra clasp was allegedly retrieved in Meredith's bedroom, the hooks were rubbed, contaminated and heated beyond the point where biological material would remain on them undisturbed, if at all.

If you would like to see an "astonishing assertion," reread Machiavelli's assertion from above:

"I think it is obvious why the reading implicate Raffaele alone: because Raffaele was a suspect being a liar in the investigation....."

If this is the kind of thinking the forensic investigators used, then it supports the allegations that they would go looking for evidence against him based on their belief he was guilty -- of lying, if not the murder.

 

[RWVBWL]

And why purposely take the police officer into the bathroom to see the blood before taking the time to show him anything else? If Amanda knew where the blood was to show the officer, she could easily have wiped it up before he got there instead of sitting out in the yard waiting.

Hi Mary H,
Instead of watching a movie or drinkin' beers or "Jack" with the boys, I'm spending a Friday night online thinking about this brutal, bloody murder
that took the young life of a beautiful young gal a few years ago and afterwards saw the unjust conviction, I feel with all of my being, of 2, maybe 3 individuals...

With this in mind, I too wonder what good it would do to "invite" a police officer, albeit a Postal Police Officer,
into ones house to show them things that had made a person suspicious, thereby trying to create an alibi when 1 is not finished creating that alibi?

Why not just take custody of the phones and say "Thanks officer, I'll give the phones to my friend" and be done with it and then continue with "the clean-up?"

I'll tell ya in my humble opinion, NOBODY who luv's to burn or smoke out or luv's drinkin' wants to deal with a cop whatsoever, especially if they don't have their alibi's down pat nor a "clean-up" finished, dontcha' think?

Anyways Mary H,
I hope that you too are having fun on a Friday night?
RWVBWL

PS-I really, really, really enjoy reading opinions and sometimes corresponding with the long time folks who were here BEFORE or right after the murder of Meredith Kercher, such as Kevin Lowe, ALT F4, TSIG, Dan O, and others who participate here in this particular thread. You folks give me, a guy who thought the cops 1st got it right and then changed his mind, an outsiders view when you too have a look at the evidence that convicted these folks and then chime in...
All the best,
RVWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary H,
Instead of watching a movie or drinkin' beers or "Jack" with the boys, I'm spending a Friday night online thinking about this brutal, bloody murder
that took the young life of a beautiful young gal a few years ago and afterwards saw the unjust conviction, I feel with all of my being, of 2, maybe 3 individuals...

With this in mind, I too wonder what good it would do to "invite" a police officer, albeit a Postal Police Officer,
into ones house to show them things that had made a person suspicious, thereby trying to create an alibi when 1 is not finished creating that alibi?

Why not just take custody of the phones and say "Thanks officer, I'll give the phones to my friend" and be done with it and then continue with "the clean-up?"

I'll tell ya in my humble opinion, NOBODY who luv's to burn or smoke out or luv's drinkin' wants to deal with a cop whatsoever, especially if they don't have their alibi's down pat nor a "clean-up" finished, dontcha' think?

Anyways Mary H,
I hope that you too are having fun on a Friday night?
RWVBWL........

Absolutely, RWVBWL, keeping in mind that fun has a different meaning at our ages from what it used to have.

Your observation about the kind of physical/mental condition Amanda and/or Raffaele might have been in points up how committed they were to "doing the right thing." It's been pointed out a number of times in these discussions that, in the event they actually participated in the murder, there are courses of action that would have made much more sense that the one they are accused of taking.

Some of the more likely courses of action include:

1. Freaking out and calling the police or their parents immediately
2. Staying at the cottage all night to clean it completely, removing all traces, including disposing of the body (maybe on their trip the next day?) and the murder weapon
3. Finishing what they hoped was an effective clean-up, then going back to Raffaele's, lying low until somebody else found the body, then feigning ignorance of anything

Courses of action that don't make sense even in Crazy World include:

1. Participating in the murder
2. Interrupting the clean-up to go back to Raffaele's for a several-hour nap and some I-tunes
3. Carrying a mop around in broad daylight that is intended to clean up the scene of a murder you committed the night before
4. Keeping the murder weapon in the kitchen drawer
5. Calling the police to report there is blood in the bathroom instead of just wiping it up

 

[Jungle Jim]

That's the 1st I've heard of a telephone in the gals apartment Dan O,
I guess that kinda shoots down Rudy Guede's "I would have called for help" story on Dec. 7 to Judge Matteini, IIRC...

Was the telephone even operational? Since they all had cell phones they might not have had the land line in service. In any case, to my knowledge Rudy never mentioned that he tried the telephone in an attempt to help Meredith.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings JREF members and anyone else reading this,
I write this to show you 1 thing and 1 thing only:
Here is an example of the Court in Perugia getting it WRONG:

Judge Claudia Matteini:
"Raffael Sollecito, bored wth the same old evenings and wanting to experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations which break up the monotony of everyday life, went out with Amanda and met Lumumba at Piazza Grimana at 9:00 pm. They went together to the apartment on Via della Pergola 7, to which only Amanda had the key.
It was roughly at this time that both Sollecito and Knox switched off their mobile phones until the following morning. A short while later, Meredith returned or she could have already been there. She went into her bedroom with Patrick, after which something went wrong, in the sense that Sollecito in all probability joined them and the 2 began to make advances, which the girl refused. She was then threatened with a knife, the knife which Sollecito generally carried with him and which was used to strike Meredith in the neck. The 3, realizing what had happened, quickly left the house, creating a mess with the intention of stimulating a break-in, spreading blood everywhere, and in an attempt to clean up drops of blood in the bath, on the ground and in the sink."

Continuing further:
"For Patrick there was the desire to have sex with a girl who had turned him down. Confronted by the refusal of the victim he was unable to stop, but sought to persuade her with a knife which Sollecito always carried. The murder was carried out after the knife had twice wounded the neck of the victim. The 3rd blow deeply penetrated and caused the fatal wound. All 3 suspects were present. We must attribute to them involvement in the crime."
Ref: "Murder in Italy" C. Dempsey, pages 205+206

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.

When Mr. Patrick Lumumba's alibi checked out and the evidence results started coming in, the court, in my humble opinion, should have released everyone and then re-started the investigation instead of just seemingly substituted 1 black guy for another.
BUT I can't imagine a court doing so, especially after parading said suspects thru town proclaiming their guilt, can you?

Of course your opinion may differ than my own, but it's all good...
Have a safe Halloween weekend all,
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

Why not just take custody of the phones and say "Thanks officer, I'll give the phones to my friend" and be done with it and then continue with "the clean-up?"

I don't believe the Postal Police had the phones in their possession just the number of Meredith's Italian phone (which was Filomena's). That was how they located and arrived at the address.

The second phone of Meredith, her UK one, arrived at the police station later. A search was done on the UK phone but they could not locate the owner. The Postal Police at the flat were called and given the information that a second phone was found in the garden of Via Sperandio.

They had two numbers which they showed to Filomena when she arrived. She immediately recognized the numbers. I do not know if the police showed the Italian phone number to Amanda when they first arrived.

Perhaps Amanda and Raffaele thinking that these were the police that Raffaele had called, immediately went into the happenings at the flat and the ownership of the phone(s) became a secondary issue.

 

[Dan O.]

Was the telephone even operational? Since they all had cell phones they might not have had the land line in service. In any case, to my knowledge Rudy never mentioned that he tried the telephone in an attempt to help Meredith.

Rudy says he didn't see a phone. It doesn't matter if the phone wasn't operational because the only way for Rudy to know that would be to pick up the receiver. Rudy didn't pick it up. He was running away to let Meredith die.


What is on the wall in the entry way is not actually a phone. It still would have given Rudy an excellent alibi to show concern by attempting to get help. What we have here is the occupant side of an intercom system so the resident can identify who is at the door while staying secure inside. Both the outside unit and the inside phone can be seen in the photo of the entryway taken on Nov. 14.


This intercom system brings up another question. Rudy claims to have heard the doorbell when he was on the toilet. The outside unit is located behind where the folding gate is stored. The doorbell is only accessible when the gate is closed.

 

[moodstream]

But all these discussions on "subjectivity" of the footprint are worthless in my opinion. The reasons are several and not worth to unfold them all in this post. Any judgement contains a subjective activity and any witness is subjective. How can you distinguish one person from another? How can you be sure the person is actually the one you recognized? Where does your feeling of certainity originate from? Can you always prove your observations or translate your result into a mathemetic theorem? Maybe you feel more the need of "objective standards" rather than I do, and you may wish to rule out human factors, but you may well have a human reason for your position: the idea you express constitutes a human factor as well.
Moreover, I think there are arguments, some of which I expressed, to indicate why the interpretation of the footprint and its features. I don't express, like others, the judgement that "the print looks like". I can offer articulation and consistency. Then, the whole thing then must be put into the context of a trial dialectics: an essential part of the decision is made by the defence argumentations. Whether they are able to convince, to deal with the other argukents, or not. The point is not just if I have a subjective feeling, it is if the defence arguments are able to attack the arguments supporting my certainity. The weakness of defensive arguments becomes a crucial element.
Finally, you must always bear well in mind that the most important aspect of the pieces of evidence is their being many, in a system, consistent with each other.

I don’t think I asked my question clearly enough. You are answering a question that is subtly different from the one I intended. You seem to be answering why it is okay for you to conclude that the footprint was left by Sollecito. But I am asking how certain can you be that the footprint matches Sollecito’s foot, solely (no pun intended) by examining the footprint.

Your response seems to wander into the question of what is knowledge. I am asking how sure are you that the footprint identifies Sollecito based only on factors intrinsic to the print.

I thought you answered that you could not rule out every other foot, and specifically Guede’s, but you could make a guess with a 90% probability of being correct that the footprint identified Sollecito, adding it’s really 99%, if I wanted to know the truth about it. I asked you what system of proof you used, and, correct me if I am wrong, but you replied that, ultimately, it’s just the way you feel, but it’s a sophisticated feeling worked out with consistent, well articulated argumentation.


Do you adopt this point of view for the DNA on the bra clasp? Or the fingerprint left in blood by Guede? Or Knox’s DNA in the bathroom sink, or Meredith’s blood, or Knox’s DNA found on the floor of the cottage, purportedly mixed with the victim’s blood? Aren't these identifications based on systems of proof, systems that exclude every possibility but one?

Are you saying that as evidence, the foot impression on the bathmat is merely suppositional or circumstantial evidence and cannot provide positive identification, although, if you were to take a guess, you would guess it was Sollecito's? Or, are you saying all the evidence, including the DNA evidence, provides proof of identification only so far as it feels true to the beholder(s)? Or are you saying you have established a system of proof or measurements that absolutely exclude every other possible identification except Sollecito? If so, how so?

Perhaps you will clarify.

 

[Chris C]

And why purposely take the police officer into the bathroom to see the blood before taking the time to show him anything else? If Amanda knew where the blood was to show the officer, she could easily have wiped it up before he got there instead of sitting out in the yard waiting.

Thats a good point Mary. Why would you claim they cleaned up and yet they called police to show them the blood? Why would they attempt to remove traces of themselves in the murder room and hallway, yet not remove the evidence in the bathroom? Knox knew the blood was there, why would she not clean up the blood in the bathroom if she was doing a clean up?
If you truely believe that knox had something to do with the crime, then you have to believe Knox knew that print wasn't Sollecito's on the mat.

 

[Chris C]

Of course it would be very easy to drag her, but this would leave visible marks, blood smearings and blood drops, if made by one person alone. This was not done just by lifting or draging a wounded person, because there is no blood trail or link between the previous position of the body and the re-location spot (1,5 meters distant).

Of course you would also have to assume that if after Meredith was stabbed in the throat and THREE people held her down to prevent her from moving while she was bleeding out, that there would be evidence of more than 1 person in the blood or on her body. Yet how many peoples DNA was found on her body? Of course if someone didn't hold her down after she was stabbed, why didn't Meredith move around the room after being stabbed. I'm sure someone had to hold her down since it was a slow bleed out. If Meredith wasn't held down after getting her throat cut, you would have to assume she was unconscious before the fatal slash. Of course people always assume the fatal slash was the last instead of first. Why couldn't the slash come first and the 2 stabbings come next to try and get her to stop fighting. I mean if you put the slash first instead of last, you have whole different scenario of how the murder scene happened.

 

[Chris C]

The DNA of RS came as a result of Raffaele’s attempt to open the bra with his fingers.

Right so he left his supposed DNA on only the clasp because LOL he couldn't get her bra off. Seriously? Then got off her body and had Guede cut it off. Ok this is starting to make sense.

 

[moodstream]

Thats a good point Mary. Why would you claim they cleaned up and yet they called police to show them the blood? Why would they attempt to remove traces of themselves in the murder room and hallway, yet not remove the evidence in the bathroom? Knox knew the blood was there, why would she not clean up the blood in the bathroom if she was doing a clean up?
If you truely believe that knox had something to do with the crime, then you have to believe Knox knew that print wasn't Sollecito's on the mat.

Hey, that got me thinking. If they cleaned up, what did they do with the waste matter? I mean the liquids - the cleaners, the water the cleaner was in, the blood of course. Where did it go? Certainly not down the sink, although you would think so. How about the toilet? Would they really clean up, flush out the waste, and not clean up the toilet? Besides, wouldn't the cleaner be easily detected by the forensics team?

 

[Chris C]

Hey, that got me thinking. If they cleaned up, what did they do with the waste matter? I mean the liquids - the cleaners, the water the cleaner was in, the blood of course. Where did it go? Certainly not down the sink, although you would think so. How about the toilet? Would they really clean up, flush out the waste, and not clean up the toilet? Besides, wouldn't the cleaner be easily detected by the forensics team?

Not only that but what happened to the container, and the rags/mop they used also.