Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

They must have done because then they watched an episode of Naruto until 21:26.

The appeals team claim that the Naruto file was opened at 21:26.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This has already been explained to you. They went to her apartment so she could get a change of clothes for the next mornings planned trip to Gubbio.

I'd say between 8:30 and 9:00.

The challenge was to produce a theory compatible with the facts as we know them. Someone opened Naruto at 21:26, and was operating the computer all night, so this attempt also fails.

This haven't been proven, it's just something mentioned in the appeal. Neither Raffaele or Amanda ever stated that he was using the computer "all night". Even it is proven that the computer had human use during the night it in no way, shape or form provides an alibi for Amanda. Face it, she doesn't have one.

She indeed has an alibi, via Raffaele.

I do wish you would realise that you can't just shift gears to assuming guilt and demanding evidence of innocence without getting called on it. The prosecution has to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt Amanda did it - it is totally insufficient to argue for her guilt on the basis that she can't prove beyond unreasonable doubt that she couldn't have done it.

You don't know that Rudy cut her thoat then molested her. Now you just making stuff up.

Her bra was cut off after the fatal wound had been inflicted. That allows us to say with a good deal of confidence that the sexual assault continued and/or climaxed after the fatal wound had been inflicted.

Best "story" I've heard is Rudy cleaning his foot in the bidet. What a joke.

Hiding under a blanket and firing ridicule at random targets might be psychologically easier on you than admitting that you might have been completely wrong, but it's not a very convincing argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, Chris C agrees there is something more important to talk about.

Such as this.


I must have missed your response to my questions about your claims that Meredith's bra was contaminated before Sollecito's unproven DNA appeared on the clasp.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6596449&postcount=17258

Machiavelli, have you come up with a better theory, other than 3 other people touched only her bra clasp earlier that night before she returned home and was tragicly murderered?

Seriously though, please stop dodging the question. When concerning the bra clasp, is it Contamination or not.

There are no "3 unidentified profiles", there are no "3 unidentified people" who touched the bra. Nothing of such kind has ever been proven. I already said this is just a supporters myth. There is just an expert (Tagliabracci) who claims that some loci could - theoretically - originate from different contributors.
The meaning of this is nothing.

And there isn't any question like "contamination or not". The word contamination has no specific logical meaning. The meaning of "contamination", without any further specification, is nothing.
I think all traces on the bra are more likely to be previous to the murder. But if they are from during the murder or from after the murder, this changes nothing. The question is there contamination? means nothing. The answer to this question is always "yes", for any item or sample there is always some kind of contamination, if contamination is assumed in its generic meaning. But this does not make the samples irrelevant and useless.

There is only one precise question: why is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
Not if the bra clasp is contaminated. But why is it contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. This is the question.
Either you have an innocent, reasonable answer to explain why Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, or you haven't.

 

[RWVBWL]

Why would Rudy kill Meredith and how is Knox involved with him?

Dont think I'm 100 percent sure Rudy did it either.

There is also the more plausible scenario. Where he drives up to the place with a friend to see the guys downstairs and try and score some pot. After realizing no one is home, decides to break into the upstairs apartment to steal something or even look for drugs. Meredith returns home while he is sitting on the toilet and the friend he is with enters the house behind Meredith, then rapes and kills her. Rudy gets in an argument with his friend over this. He leaves the scene and Rudy stays and tries to help Meredith. or It could be vice versa where Rudy rapes and kills her and his friend stays to try and help Meredith. This scenario is more plausible the the sex fueled drug induced girl gone satanicly wrong scenario that Mignini's force fed Perugia. It also puts guilt on Rudy's shoulder and he is forced to not give up the friend. Though I honestly believe in the lone wolf scenario, there is still the possibility that the car in the driveway belonged to an accomplice/killer.

Unlike most people I'm willing to consider Knox committed the crime. I just want proof and the proof presented is absurd. The cops keep saying this crime required multiple people that is why Knox/Sollecito helped Rudy. Yet they refuse to accept that the car could have belonged to the killer. They also refuse to accept that Rudy had friends other than Knox that was capable of killing. I honestly dont feel Knox is capable of killing someone, but if you feel she is, you also have to consider that Rudy had friends that hung out with him that could have done the crime also. Knox wasn't running around Italy on a crime spree. Apparently robbing places and having stolen merchandise in his possession was the norm for Rudy. How did he afford those shoes btw. Did they find a receipt for them?

Hi Chris C,
I wonder something, and maybe you can help me as I try to include this into my own theory of what happened that night Meredith Kercher was brutally stabbed to her death,

It was from reading the current issue of The L.A. Weekly this afternoon that I remembered wanting to ask the group here what they knew or thought of something.
The article I was reading:
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-11-25/news/the-chiller-killer/
mentioned how a gal that Ashton Kutcher was casually dating many years ago seemingly let her killer inside, who then allegedly brutally stabbed her to death. Sound familiar?
Anyways, the gals friends say that if she "knew" someone, she probably woulda let them into her pad.

Well, I have always wondered how had Meredith Kercher's killer gotten inside?
Was it thru Filomena's window or maybe, just maybe, did Meredith let him in thru the front door, as the woman in that "LA Weekly" article I read did?

IIRC Rudy Guede has previously said that he was on the toilet and he heard the doorbell ring.
I believe there could be some truth to this.
Maybe Guede heard it himself when he himself that rang the doorbell when he first came over to the apartment complex that night.
So he then used it later in his "alibi".
The boys downstairs are not home, are the girls? Let's see, zzzzz....

I recall participating,
-(in my "Goofy, or is it Mrs. Simpson(?)" writing style),
during a recent debate with Alt-F4 about whether Rudy would/should be considered a "friend" to someone they barely met,
so I doubt that Meredith would have opened a closed door for Rudy Guede.

But she might have let him inside if he was already at the premises when she arrived home that night
and he had said "Hi Meredith, I stopped by to see Giacomo and the boys to hang out but they're not home."
"Could I please, please use the bathroom?"

Do you or anyone else know if the gals apartment had a working doorbell?
Thanks,
RWVBWL

PS-I recall writing a post where I had mentioned that at least 10 people were in the girls apartment before Meredith's dead body was discovered.
Well, if the door to the apartment was left open all night,
who knows how many others might've come into the place overnight?
And might someone have tried to wipe any trace of their own presence in this apartment, if it was found with it's unlocked front door open sometime that cold night?

I ask the question above, for before I was a "wannabe" surfer,
-(as some kook on PMF recently said)
who became a 1984 U.S.A. Surf team member, a 1984 WSA Wset Coast Champion, and a TOP 16 member of the PSAA U.S. Pro Tour of Surfing in the late '80's,
I was flirting with the wrong side of life,
which was understandable, since I grew up in Venice Beach, what was back then considered, in some parts, a "ghetto-by-the sea".

Get ready, here's another personal story which makes me want to continue to put forth my opinion of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's innocence of any involvement in the death of Meredith Kercher.

Have you ever been doing something you shouldn't have? Of course.
Me too. I've been arrested 1 time here in California, 1 time in Mexico.Early '80's.
In Santa Monica, California,
one night, I, along with a few other "friends", were breaking into,
-(well, not really breaking into) an unlocked VW Bug in a parking structure.
(Go ahead, hate me, I was a scum bag pot smokin' idiot petty thief!)
The cops, driving thru the parking lot, showed up, and even though we were not inside the car, we all ran...
When the cop who chased me finally pulled his gun on me and shouted out to freeze, -(since I was outrunnin' the guy),
well I did freeze and lay down in a submissive position and then recieved a very hard kick to the side of my stomach, a place where it would never show up in any police misconduct investigation.

As this was not my 1st time stealin', but it was my 1st gettin' caught,
well I learned many a quick lesson.

1 thing I learned was that cops will sometimes hit/kick you if they want too
and you probably will not have any way to prove it,
unless you get "lucky" and it's videotaped, anyone remember Rodney King?

So now you know why I do believe that it it probably very true that Amanda Knox was slapped up a little, to help her "remember", so to say,
especially if the officers who did it knewthat the interogation was not being recorded...

And you also know why I do believe that Rudy Guede was probaly B+Ein' elsewhere, before he too was finally busted...

And I would bet that Rudy Guede was probably a "police informant",
but hey, that's another personal story you would have never guessed that I was involved in that I will have to mention some other day...
Peace,
Randy
LAsurfpix.com

PSS- Arrest #2 Mexico?
Skinny dippin' at the Rosarito Hotel past midnight with some HOT chicks!

 

[Machiavelli]

LondonJohn is getting bored by the endless discussion of this miniscule part of the case. LJ believes that there is ample other evidence that the police acted in various improper ways (the press conference on the 6th November and the Knox photo in Giobbi's hallway in Rome are examples with cast-iron proof), and is personally perfectly willing to say that there was no triumphalist behaviour in any motorcades if that will mean we can get onto discussing more important things.
(..)

LondonJohn could spare the time he wastes repetaing himself boorishly.

 

[Kaosium]

You appear to have misinterpreted my post again

I dont doubt your faith in (or your knowledge of) Hollywood - It's touching [as is the belief in Moore & Dempsey] but movies wont spring the pair from prison.

They will be out of prison long before the real movie gets made, the one where someone gets an academy nod playing Mignini.

It certainly seems to have coloured your view of the world, as it has others here who are also disappointed that this 'movie' doesn't finish with the explanatory flashback scene showing precisely how the murder happened and then the pretty heroine free & vindicated. But this is the real word.

I stuck my tongue out for that one, isn't that enough of a clue that I was joking?

At any rate, you bring up something I was pondering when I heard (initial reports at least) that the first movie, the one with Hayden Panetierre, wouldn't even show the murder scene, it would leave that part a mystery. I think that would be especially effective, as if they stick to the facts as close as anything Hollywood can, that would more or less exonerate her in everyone's eyes anyway.

On the defence docs (further confusion), the request was very simple 'Fully translate docs in english please'
If you had looked a little harder you would have found english 'summaries' on IIP before settling for 5 line media reports. Your research skills are slightly wanting in this regard.

Not exactly, I was just looking for newer information than available there. I also didn't want you to catch any 'cooties' from Steve Moore. I know you're allergic.

But on this I am happy to stick with my earlier claim that the 'knife' argument* is very weak (and a sign of weakness) on the part of the defence. Time will tell.

I don't think it's a sign of 'weakness' per se, but that there's a 'mountain of evidence' the first trial was a farce. As for this particular issue, I couldn't say for sure, not knowing the innards of Italian Law, but it is a rather embarrassing omission that they forgot all about the real murder weapon in place of one that never left the drawer that night.

It might just be that embarrassment factor they're counting on. Otherwise you might say with a couple of extras added on, the appeal amounts to: 'here is the Massei report, now read it!

You do realise that the defence teams are actually working to overturn the verdict but their claims may not be accepted by the appeal court.

Platonov, I have no doubt that Amanda and Raffaele will go free long before any sentence imposed on them is fulfilled. It's a matter of when, not if. If I can figure it out, the whole time trying to 'prove' guilt, then I'm damn sure the serious people in positions of political and legal power in Europe can too. It's very much easier for someone coming into this late to see just how weak the case is, and where the train started to go off the tracks. All the 'suspicious' crap that was so influential in convincing people of guilt way back in the beginning has boiled off to leave the slimy residue of crap which is all that is left of the 'evidence' against Amanda and Raffaele. On the other side is big brass boxes of evidence of police and prosecutor misconduct.

The longer this goes on the higher the stakes for the real loser: the Italian Court System which with the highest number of life sentences in the EU, as well as being the most condemned member by the ECHR, doesn't really need much in the way of less prestige. Too much loss of prestige and it might just get an anal exam by lawyers whose Italian is no better than yours or mine, but whose French and German is exquisite. In any case my guess is Amanda goes back to the US even in the unlikely event of all appeals--including to the EU--failing, and odds are will be effectively a free woman the moment she steps off the plane.

 

[platonov]

Watches are complicated devices

The appeals team claim that the Naruto file was opened at 21:26.

I thought they were claiming [or had shown to your satisfaction] that the computer was in use continuously from 9pm - 1am 6pm - 1am or was it 6.26pm - 6.22am ??

.

 

[Kaosium]

There is only one precise question: why is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
Not if the bra clasp is contaminated. But why is it contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. This is the question.
Either you have an innocent, reasonable answer to explain why Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, or you haven't.

Raffaele had been in that house, that bra had been in that house, there's infinite possibilities of dust mites attempting to mate there.

The one explanation that doesn't make any sense is that it is the only residue of murder from a bloody death struggle.

BTW, do you think the new prosecutor will even attempt to put Raffaele and Amanda in that room?

 

[Draca]

Her bra was cut off after the fatal wound had been inflicted. That allows us to say with a good deal of confidence that the sexual assault continued and/or climaxed after the fatal wound had been inflicted.

Where did the information come from that the square of the bra with the hooks was cut off instead of ripped off? I really can't tell from the photos that Chalie posted earlier way. Are there cut marks documented somewhere?

 

[Kaosium]

Was it thru Filomena's window or maybe, just maybe, did Meredith let him in thru the front door, as the woman in that "LA Weekly" article I read did?

Then the break-in was staged? By whom?

I must admit after all the acres of ether dedicated to this subject I'd laugh if it turned out Rudy did a full confession and it was your theory of being let in that was true, but also that he had to break out. He dropped the keys and kicked them under a refrigerator or something and couldn't get out so he had to break the window.


BTW, do you know if there was ever an explanation as to why Rudy's bloody clothes, and most especially the murder weapon, was never found? You'd think that's something the police would have asked shortly after he was returned to Perugia...

 

[platonov]

They will be out of prison long before..............

<snip>

I don't know what most (any ? ) of the above has to do with this case bar your repeated confusion regarding what you think the court heard.

This isn't a movie; the marines aren't coming, late night phone calls aren't being made, even if that commie Obama gets replaced.

It's going to play out in an Italian courtroom - and its not as big a deal [for the good guys in the corridors of power] as you seem to think, its mostly a story to sell to a certain demographic - more National Enquirer than NYRB.

PS I don't see what S Moore has to do with you missing the summaries on IIP - while posting 5 line media mentions. Does he do translations as well as covert ops ?

.

 

[platonov]

Then the break-in was staged? By whom?

I must admit after all the acres of ether dedicated to this subject I'd laugh if it turned out Rudy did a full confession and it was your theory of being let in that was true, but also that he had to break out. He dropped the keys and kicked them under a refrigerator or something and couldn't get out so he had to break the window.


BTW, do you know if there was ever an explanation as to why Rudy's bloody clothes, and most especially the murder weapon, was never found? You'd think that's something the police would have asked shortly after he was returned to Perugia...

They asked, he answered (on the clothes).

.

 

[Draca]

Hendry's 1st piece on the broken window should tell you all you need to know about his work.

For example - one of his longer 'analysis' on this deals with the notion that the rock was thrown from inside - out. Its reminiscent of the 'perplexity' on this thread around page 100 ? & 170.

I think you need to read his work again. He does not say the rock was thrown from the inside out at all. One of the main things he says is the police made to a huge mistake by jumping to the conclusion that the break in was staged without investigating .

The early posturing of the break-in as a staged situation without a rigorous investigation and sound factual evidence to back it up resulted in the murder investigation being turned upside down from the beginning. The threshold for proving it was other than a burglary break-in as it outwardly appeared should have been very high. Instead the threshold for proving it was a burglary break-in was set very high and seriously handicapped by the failure of the police to perform due diligence in promptly investigating and fully documenting the inside and outside areas as a break-in.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html


I would also appreciate that you debate the point that he makes instead of giving a general scoffing of his work. The same with Candace Dempsey.

What are your thoughts about the police making the bloody marks under the bed themselves by throwing the bloody boots into the pile of shoes and then later using the blood marks they created to insinuate the crime scene had been staged by Amanda and Raffaele? Perhaps the police deserve some equal time scoffing? Have you looked at Ron's paper on this? What do you not agree about with it? It seems awfully clear that he has nailed this one on the head to me, but then I'm an FOAker.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry11.html

 

[Kaosium]

I don't know what most (any ? ) of the above has to do with this case bar your repeated confusion regarding what you think the court heard.

This isn't a movie; the marines aren't coming, late night phone calls aren't being made, even if that commie Obama gets replaced.

It's going to play out in an Italian courtroom - and its not as big a deal [for the good guys in the corridors of power] as you seem to think, its mostly a story to sell to a certain demographic - more National Enquirer than NYRB.

PS I don't see what S Moore has to do with you missing the summaries on IIP - while posting 5 line media mentions. Does he do translations as well as covert ops ?

.

"Hollow laughter in marble halls..." ?

Not my point, Platonov. I think she will be cleared, perhaps not in Perugia, but almost certainly in Rome, and it's not the 'status' of the case, but the obvious innocence of the defendants that will compel it. The 'story' only gives it coverage, it's the fact there's no real evidence of anything but a crazed prosecutor and police force that royally screwed the pooch that gives it meaning.

I thought you wouldn't be interested in the IIP summaries, that's all, so I looked to a source I thought might have less 'biased' and perhaps newer, information.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There is only one precise question: why is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.

The problem is that there are several possible answers to that question. Raffaele's DNA might have gotten on the bra fastener when police trashed the place on November 5 or 6. Maybe someone picked it up, handled it, and tossed it over by the desk, just as someone tossed the bloody boots under the bed. Maybe someone stepped on it after walking in an area where Raffaele had sneezed. Maybe one of the the two people who pressed it between their thumb and forefinger on December 18 - at precisely the spot where Raffaele's DNA was found - had touched some other surface or object on which Raffaele's DNA was present. Perhaps one of them grasped the outside handle of the door to Meredith's room, or touched the same area on that door where Raffaele's fingerprints were found.

None of these possibilities can be proven, but they cannot be ruled out either. Once the police botch an investigation, the damage cannot be undone.

 

[Chris C]

There are no "3 unidentified profiles", there are no "3 unidentified people" who touched the bra. Nothing of such kind has ever been proven. I already said this is just a supporters myth. There is just an expert (Tagliabracci) who claims that some loci could - theoretically - originate from different contributors.
The meaning of this is nothing.

And there isn't any question like "contamination or not". The word contamination has no specific logical meaning. The meaning of "contamination", without any further specification, is nothing.
I think all traces on the bra are more likely to be previous to the murder. But if they are from during the murder or from after the murder, this changes nothing. The question is there contamination? means nothing. The answer to this question is always "yes", for any item or sample there is always some kind of contamination, if contamination is assumed in its generic meaning. But this does not make the samples irrelevant and useless.

There is only one precise question: why is Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
Not if the bra clasp is contaminated. But why is it contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. This is the question.
Either you have an innocent, reasonable answer to explain why Raffaele Sollecito's DNA is on the clasp, or you haven't.

Glad you clarified that. You believe someone took Meredith's bra off prior to her arriving at the apartment where she was later murdered. After all, for there to be someone elses dna on that bra clasp that didn't require someone else taking it off prior to her murder, then Meredith's bra would have had to gotten dna from the floor or she would have had to have used a dirty bra that 3 other people had taken off her at a previous time. The fact that you believe that no matter how the other peoples dna got on there, that it changes nothing, is a biased opinion that goes against logic.

It changes tons of things. For one, the amount of dna, is less than 200 picograms but with enough alleles to create partial profiles for atleast 3 other people. That means they where getting multiple allele markers for the same loci. Nearly half of the markers that the EXPERT prosecution witness said where part of Sollecito's partial profile are clearly in dispute. Even Massei notes that those markers can't be attributed to Sollecito. So now either the DNA profile that the prosecution claims is Sollecito's is contaminated with someone elses profile or the entire profile itself belongs to someone else.

All that doesnt even include the fact that Sollecito had been in that apartment before and some how he managed only to touch the bra clasp just like the other 3 people.

Of course you cleary state that contamination has no specific logical meaning. Perhaps you would like to elaborate further on this.

 

[Dan O.]

Her bra was cut off after the fatal wound had been inflicted. That allows us to say with a good deal of confidence that the sexual assault continued and/or climaxed after the fatal wound had been inflicted.

Where did the information come from that the square of the bra with the hooks was cut off instead of ripped off? I really can't tell from the photos that Chalie posted earlier way. Are there cut marks documented somewhere?

The evidence shows that the bra was removed after a major wound was inflicted and before death. The cutting of the strap however may have occurred before blood was drawn and is possibly evidenced by the fact that there is little blood at the site of the cut.

The cut is coincidentally at the location where the hook part is stitched to the strap. This is a weak point where the strap would fail if it were stressed to the point of failure. The characteristic of a cut cord or strap is that all the fibers remain lined up with an even cut through them. A stress failure has the weakest fiber break and snap back into the bundle then the next fiber breaks etc.. The result is an uneven break with a tangle at the end. It should have been easy for the crack team from Rome to figure out that the strap was cut but I won't guarantee they got this right.

 

[Dan O.]

BTW, do you know if there was ever an explanation as to why Rudy's bloody clothes, and most especially the murder weapon, was never found? You'd think that's something the police would have asked shortly after he was returned to Perugia...

I believe in one of Rudy's statements he says the clothes and shoes were dumped somewhere out of town. Rudy was most definitely a suspect and was already talking to a lawyer before the Italian police could question him. Any admission to even having a knife would be incriminating and his lawyer would have advised him not to talk about it.

 

[JREF2010]

The evidence shows that the bra was removed after a major wound was inflicted and before death. The cutting of the strap however may have occurred before blood was drawn and is possibly evidenced by the fact that there is little blood at the site of the cut.

The cut is coincidentally at the location where the hook part is stitched to the strap. This is a weak point where the strap would fail if it were stressed to the point of failure. The characteristic of a cut cord or strap is that all the fibers remain lined up with an even cut through them. A stress failure has the weakest fiber break and snap back into the bundle then the next fiber breaks etc.. The result is an uneven break with a tangle at the end. It should have been easy for the crack team from Rome to figure out that the strap was cut but I won't guarantee they got this right.

if there was blood on the bra clasp it would lean towards after the stabbing, if there was no blood on the bra clasp then the knife had not yet seen blood.

or "little blood" from the environment, of being under the pillow, and on the floor in general? Did the bra and the removed bra clasp both show blood at the cut?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Where did the information come from that the square of the bra with the hooks was cut off instead of ripped off? I really can't tell from the photos that Chalie posted earlier way. Are there cut marks documented somewhere?

Hendry thinks it was torn apart rather than cut. He showed me a bra with similar construction, where the part with the clasp is a separate, stitched-on piece of fabric.