• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RWVBWL said:
Hi Kermit,
At around 11:00am on Nov 3, 2007,
Amanda Knox was driven back to the apartment she lived at.
Several detectives were there, as was prosecutor Mignini.

I am sure you have seen the photograph of Amanda Knox surrounded by a bunch of male police officers,
the 1 where she has her hands together and 1 cop has his hand on his forehead.

They took her downstairs to look at the guys apartment and ask her more questions.
Police had found blood spots in several places, even on the light switches.
It turned out the blood was from Giacomo's cat.

Kermit, as a member of the PMF crew, I would really like to get your opinion on something I feel might be relevant to this murder case:
Who do you believe it was that went into the guys apartment downstairs and got cats blood on the light switches?
From what I have read, Stefano's room had been stripped of linens and his comforter had been shoved on top of his bed, with blood drops on it.

What was going on downstairs while the boys were outta town?
Did someone who might have had Meredith's keys, with Giacomo's key too, s
spend the night in Stefano's room, after the murder?
Do you think that the 2 incidents are connected?

I wonder if you, Kermit, a person who has spent much time discussing and working on this case, will share your opinion on what happened below the girls apartment...

Thanks, RWVBWL
Click to expand...
.
Hi RWVBWL,

I honestly don't know what to think of the cat's blood. Didn't Giacomo's cat have an ear infection or something of the sort?

As far as the comforter and messed up linen, being a guy and having been a student for a number of years, I remember leaving my rooms topsy-turvey for long weekends, without worrying to clean them up. Perhaps the simple, innocent explanation is the best.

Now, your mention of the possibility that someone spent the night of November 2 in the cottage is the first time I have heard that. By 1 p.m. on November 2, there were cops swarming all over the place. Video of the examination of the cottage and the removal of Meredith's body was made late at night, into the wee hours of the morning of November 3. I don't think that any non-investigation persons were wandering around the boys' flat at that time.

In any case, if you have any further references to the state of the boys flat or the possibility of other persons being there, please send them on.
 
Kaosium said:
If they went straight to that drawer after the interrogation that suggests to me that Raffaele did at some point under questioning say that he pricked Meredith with that knife, and the police considered that an 'admission' that it was the murder weapon. Then later in his diary he sticks to that story, which as far as we know he might have convinced himself of, how the hell else might it have gotten there?

Absent the transcripts or tapes of that interrogation we'll never know for sure, however that seemingly unexplainable facet of the case puzzled me and I thought that a reasonable explanation.
Click to expand...

In my honest opinion its less reasonable than the earlier retrocausality idea.

If you start talking [apropos of nothing] about pricking a murder victim with a knife while being interviewed as a witness about alibis, I suspect the slowest cop in the world will have to arrest you on the spot .

& probably check the records to see are you the local nutter :)
.
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
You can read it and listen to it.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

AK= Amanda
CP= Carlo Pacelli (Patrick's lawyer)

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say "This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

[An interlude in which the judge Massei asks the interpreter to not do
a simultaneous translation in which her voice is heard at the same time as
Amanda's, but to translate short phrases consecutively. Because everyone
wants to hear the answer in English, and it is being recorded. He advises
Amanda to speak in very short phrases.]

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.
Click to expand...

Where is the admittal that she smoked pot WITH Rudy?
 
Machiavelli said:
The others, aren't they adults? Aren't they responsible for what they decide? And for what they buy?

Manuela Comodi
Claudia Matteini
Massimo Ricciarelli
Paolo Micheli

Patrizia Stefanoni
Lorenzo Rinaldi
Monica Napoleoni
...
Giancarlo Massei
Beatrice Cristiani
...


The prosecutor in the case is now Giancarlo Costagliola
Click to expand...

What do you know of him, incidentally?

As for the others, I imagine they will eventually say they were just following orders or just doing their jobs. The impetus of this going from a tragic break-in to this bizarre pornographic fantasy was Mignini, and the others are going to have to come up with pretty good explanations of why they didn't (or try harder to) put a stop to it.
 
LondonJohn said:
.
Click to expand...

You are invited to join my conversation with self in an effort to calculate a probability for guilt. Refer to previous posts on this page.

Psbi = Probability of the break-in being staged
Pcg = Probability of collusion with Guede

My last post was an attempt to calculate the probability of collusion with Guede. Since there was no evidence in the murder room, the evidence is slight. Perhaps the only evidence is the bra clasp and that doesn't implicate Amanda except by vague association.

If the break-in was NOT staged, then the probability of collusion seems to drop to zero. However, even if the break-in were staged it still doesn't prove that there was collusion; they may have gotten spooked having seen the dead body that morning.

Pcg = what?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I would disagree with this type of statistical analysis. The different pieces of evidence should not be treated in a "serial" fashion as in a chain, but rather in a parallel fashion.

I think the best analogy to return to is Vincent Bugliosi's "rope" analogy. Imagine that each piece of evidence represents a strand in a rope. The thickness of each individual strand is related to the strength of that particular piece of evidence in determining guilt. When all the individual strands (representing pieces of evidence) are bundled together into a rope, it gets tugged to see whether it will hold fast or snap. If it holds fast, then that represents guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, if one piece of evidence was a credible eyewitness who saw the crime being committed, this would constitute a single very thick strand. This one strand on its own would probably be sufficient to make a rope strong enough not to break - i.e. this one piece of evidence is probably sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, if there were 50 pieces of much weaker evidence, then even though the "thickness" of each of these 50 "strands" would be far less, when placed together they might form a strong enough "rope" to convict.

It seems to me that if this analogy is applied to the case against Knox and Sollecito, the court in the first trial believed that there were six fairly thick strands to the rope: a) the partial print on the bathmat belonging to Sollecito and definitely not to Guede; b) the Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife being valid and not the result of contamination; c) the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp being valid and not the result of secondary transfer or contamination; d) the break-in definitely being the result of staging; e) the footprints in the hallway being directly associated with the crime and/or post-crime clean-up; f) the telephone and computer records, and their relation to the version of events given by Knox and Sollecito. And then there were a number of thinner strands (ear/eye witnesses, confused alibis, post-murder behaviour etc).

The question now is, if one or more of the six major strands (plus some of the thinner strands) are removed from the "rope" in the appeal, will the "rope" still be strong enough not to snap when tested? I believe that a fair few strands will be removed, and the remaining rope will most likely be too thin, and will snap in the appeal court. But we shall see.
Click to expand...


Considering the probabilities, and how the strength of various clues and assertions add up to the guilt conclusion, it's worth noticing that some pieces of the puzzle qualitatively differ from the rest.

There are some "necessary conditions" for AK and RS guilt, for now 2 come to my mind:

1) The time of death must be 23:30 or later

2) The break-in must be staged

Any of that conditions is not fulfilled or not probable, and the case tips over.
Incidentally both of those points are rather weak.

There is no serious evidence for the staging apart from doubtful witness statements, not supported by any written or photographical documentation from the investigation. Also the prosecution chose not to try proving that the window climb is impossible (In some way it was wise, but it doesn't help the plausibility of the staging theory).

Regarding the ToD it is noticeable even by reading only the motivation, how arbitrary and against experts conclusions is the ToD assumed by Massei. It's glaring how Massei dismisses obvious clues: Meredith's phone activity, her clothing, and the rest of the facts pointing to the earlier ToD.

For those necessary conditions there is no adding up. The case is as strong as any of them. If there was no staging the case falls. The same if the ToD is shortly after 21:00.


Going back to the logical terms, interestingly, there are no "sufficient conditions" for AK and RS guilt at all, while in Rudy's case there are multiple: The bloody shoe prints, fingerprint, DNA on the victim.
 
Justinian2 said:
You are invited to join my conversation with self in an effort to calculate a probability for guilt. Refer to previous posts on this page.
Click to expand...


Psbi = Probability of the break-in being staged
Pcg = Probability of collusion with Guede

My last post was an attempt to calculate the probability of collusion with Guede. Since there was no evidence in the murder room, the evidence is slight. Perhaps the only evidence is the bra clasp and that doesn't implicate Amanda except by vague association.

If the break-in was NOT staged, then the probability of collusion seems to drop to zero. However, even if the break-in were staged it still doesn't prove that there was collusion; they may have gotten spooked having seen the dead body that morning.

Pcg = what? (without factoring in other probabilities)

Perhaps Pcg is the same as the Probability of Amanda's guilt.
 
platonov said:
In my honest opinion its less reasonable than the earlier retrocausality idea.
If you start talking [apropos of nothing] about pricking a murder victim with a knife while being interviewed as a witness about alibis, I suspect the slowest cop in the world will have to arrest you on the spot .

& probably check the records to see are you the local nutter :)
Click to expand...

Then this would suggest that it didn't just 'come up' wouldn't it?

I think an excellent way of catching a real murderer might be to just tell him you found his DNA on the murder weapon, and then watch him break down and confess. It wouldn't work every time, of course, but it will with some and is worth a shot considering it's very time efficient.

It might just be that Raffaele's answer didn't just come out of the blue. How many hours did this interrogation last? They must have been talking about something, and I bet some questions got asked over and over, in many different ways...
 
Kermit said:
.
Hi RWVBWL,

I honestly don't know what to think of the cat's blood. Didn't Giacomo's cat have an ear infection or something of the sort?

As far as the comforter and messed up linen, being a guy and having been a student for a number of years, I remember leaving my rooms topsy-turvey for long weekends, without worrying to clean them up. Perhaps the simple, innocent explanation is the best.

Now, your mention of the possibility that someone spent the night of November 2 in the cottage is the first time I have heard that. By 1 p.m. on November 2, there were cops swarming all over the place. Video of the examination of the cottage and the removal of Meredith's body was made late at night, into the wee hours of the morning of November 3. I don't think that any non-investigation persons were wandering around the boys' flat at that time.

In any case, if you have any further references to the state of the boys flat or the possibility of other persons being there, please send them on.
Click to expand...
Hi Kermit,
Thanks for the response.
It's true, from what I have read, that Giacomo's cat had a cut ear.
I believe that he had asked Meredith to look after the cat and water his plants while he was gone for the holiday weekend.

So with that in mind, I can't see a woman like Meredith not cleaning up the blood nor even informing Giacomo by phone or text about the blood getting everywhere.

From what I have read, the detectives asked Amanda about Stefano's room, for all of the other rooms were tidy, except his.
Amanda said that Stefano usually made his bed.

So I do find that his room being messy, with the comforter being shoved on top of his bed a little odd, as there was blood drops on it too.

I think that you might have mis-understood my meaning of something that I wrote.
Since Meredith had Giacomo's apartment key to watch the cat and water the plants, I had wondered if the person who had stolen Meredith's keys also had the downstairs apartment key too -(was it ever found?), and since Stefano's room was seemingly disturbed, I wondered if that same person might have went downstairs and stayed there after their involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder the night she died, not the night after she was found.

If anyone else want to chime in, please do.
Thanks, RWVBWL
 
If I remember correctly there was a picture taken before the scientifica team returned to collect more evidence, that showed the door open. So I'm wondering. If they are claiming the scene was untouched, who broke the seal to close and relock the door?
 
Kaosium said:
Then this would suggest that it didn't just 'come up' wouldn't it?

I think an excellent way of catching a real murderer might be to just tell him you found his DNA on the murder weapon, and then watch him break down and confess. It wouldn't work every time, of course, but it will with some and is worth a shot considering it's very time efficient.

It might just be that Raffaele's answer didn't just come out of the blue. How many hours did this interrogation last? They must have been talking about something, and I bet some questions got asked over and over, in many different ways...
Click to expand...


I am speechless [but can still type] :)

He flipped on the alibi shortly after the interview began and was then arrested as I understand it - well the longer it took, the less time available for AK's waterboarding.

Where are you getting this knife talk - Also there is retrocausality in your theory again.
.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
There is more than one conceivable reason.
One of them is to finish Meredith off. Or, it could be a prank, something in the stile like Sollecito’s picture of himself brandishing a cleaver. Very stupid things and meaningless, like this picture, are not difficult to conceive and not obvious to guess, and they are possible as the picture shows. We can easily think a non conceivable event happened that lead to this murder, as this murder itself is an action very difficult to conceive rationally.
Click to expand...
(my highlighting)

I won't address the rest of your post, as clearly we don't agree about psychic powers needed to pick out the knife from Raff's cutlery drawer. However, I find your comment rather interesting here.

I pointed out that bringing the knife from Raff's flat to the cottage and back again afterwards, doesn't make sense. Your reply is that there is a lot that doesn't make sense about the case. Does this mean you're coming round to our point of view? It's only the prosecution narrative that doesn't make sense.

Let's try a different narrative: an intruder broke a window at the cottage and climbed through, looking for money to steal. He was surprised by Meredith coming home, and then sexually molested and killed her. This is a case where the straightforward reading of the crime scene makes perfect sense, and actually fits all of the facts without difficulty.

The confusion, and your difficulty in finding a rational way to conceive of the case, only arise when the Perugia police become involved.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Then this would suggest that it didn't just 'come up' wouldn't it?

I think an excellent way of catching a real murderer might be to just tell him you found his DNA on the murder weapon, and then watch him break down and confess. It wouldn't work every time, of course, but it will with some and is worth a shot considering it's very time efficient.

It might just be that Raffaele's answer didn't just come out of the blue. How many hours did this interrogation last? They must have been talking about something, and I bet some questions got asked over and over, in many different ways...
Click to expand...


Mark Waterbury of ScienceSpheres believes the police went looking for a kitchen knife because they already suspected Rudy was involved in the slaying and he as known to have a kitchen knife at the nursery break-in.

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

In Raffaele's diary, you can see the evolution of his comment about the knife. His lawyer tells him the knife is not necessarily inculpatory, because the girls at the cottage might have borrowed it for cooking. The wheels of Raffaele's imagination turn, and by the next day he has convinced himself, based on the lawyer's suggestion, that he did have the knife at the cottage and he must have pricked Meredith, because that is the only possible way in his mind to explain how Meredith's DNA got on the knife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom