Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Sherlock Holmes]

Filomena is just as plausible as Amanda, and her alibi is that she spent the night with her boyfriend. The only difference between Amanda and Filomena is that Amanda found the situation at the cottage and Filomena didn't share a bathroom with Meredith.

And, Filomena, didn't do cartwheels in the police station, isn't that how this thread was started to begin with. Now we've gone full circle...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Surely lots of murders are 'unique' if you include enough detail. How rare is it for someone to kill their housemate for ******** reasons? It's surely not so rare that it doesn't happen.

"Surely" doesn't cut a great deal of ice around here. Do you have any evidence that otherwise law-abiding university students murder their housemates?

How rare is it for someone without a history that would lead you to expect them to get involved in a murder to **** up in some way and get involved in a murder? It's surely not so rare that it beggars our imagination when faced with the possibility.

Again, just saying "surely" something is true is not much of an argument.

The issue here is that Mignini's original theory was some kind of satanic rite connected with Halloween, but his colleagues on the prosecution team realised that this was ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy and so they went with the marginally less ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy theory of a drug and sex party gone wrong.

This theory isn't, in my view, remotely plausible. However it sounds plausible to people who think that drugs are Satan's tools and that people who have promiscuous sex are probably only a spliff away from raping and murdering.

Steve Moore pointed out that people who rape and murder almost always have serious criminal histories. Crimes like this don't happen out of the blue. Rudy had a history of armed housebreaking and recent brushes with the law, and there are unsupported allegations that he bothered women and stole from their handbags, which makes him a far more likely candidate than soft drug users with absolutely no history of violent crime or antisocial behaviour.

Before we look at the evidence, people killed in their own homes are quite likely to have been killed by the people they lived with, surely?

I would welcome any statistics you can present that bear upon the matter, but my impression was that this is a side-effect of the fact that people are often murdered by their lovers or family. It wouldn't surprise me at all if housemate-on-housemate murder was very infrequent since housemates can just move out if a relationship turns dangerous.

Child abuse, spouse abuse and elder abuse are all relatively common. Housemate abuse I've never even heard of. Maybe it's a real problem that I am just ignorant of, and I repeat that any statistics you can find would be appreciated, but I'm not buying it on a "surely".

 

[moodstream]

How rare is it for someone without a history that would lead you to expect them to get involved in a murder to **** up in some way and get involved in a murder? It's surely not so rare that it beggars our imagination when faced with the possibility.

That's exactly what happened. Guede was no murderer up until then. The multiple tries needed to accomplish his task attest to that.

Look at reality.

Knox and Kercher, known for a month or so, seem to get on well enough (snarky claims of minor irritations raised by Kercher’s friends notwithstanding). Kercher does not seem like the sort that would associate with a dangerous crowd, or let herself be put in a vulnerable situation, and it seems to me at least, that nothing about her relation with Knox, or Knox with the other housemates, would indicate the slightest signal that anyone thought Knox would represent a danger. (Sign of the killer http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1288)

Nor does Knox’s past, nor her behavior after the crime reflect that she might be dangerous to know. There is simply nothing violent in Knox’s life to indicate violent behavior.

That’s true for Sollecito, her boyfriend of just a few days as well. He is to those who know him a friendly, reasonably bright, nice enough looking kind of geeky guy, with a vague resemblance to Harry Potter. There are just no violent expressions in his past. And, from his photos from the appeal, it does not look like a violent streak has become manifest since the crime. Yeah, he carried around a pen knife and owned another one. That is not evidence of a violent personality, just a male personality.

They have known each other for such a short time, and they can only be described as happy. Very happy. So happy, that it sort of looks like she is preferring to live in his nicer apartment, with a Audi parked out front, over her cramped cottage. Who can blame her? That’s where she’s been staying for the last few days. Nov 1 was a night just like any other for her. She stayed the night at her boyfriends, caught a shower and change of clothes (because she had not moved in with him, she did have to go home to get a change of clothes), and was scheduled to return to Sollecito’s place to spend the day with him.

Where does Guede fit into this picture? Not even during the interrogation. So remote is his connection with Knox/Sollecito, that not only did the police not connect him with the pair, not even the pro-guilt contingent, up to and including today, will criticize the police for failing to make the connection between Knox and/or Sollecito at the time of the interrogation. In fact, the police have never made a satisfactory connection for the trio. How unlikely is that?

The suggestion that Knox/Sollecito, happy as larks, without any history of violent behavior, with a day of sightseeing already planned out for Nov 2, happy in their home, precisely as they had been the prior days, would suddenly both (and they would have to make this decision independently of each other – they knew each other such a short time) depart from their well established characters as well as their home, travel to the cottage for no clear reason, have Sollecito and Guede develop a bond entirely on the spot, strong enough to last from that moment on til now, have Amanda form bond with a male stranger not her boyfriend, again virtually out of thin air, that will last through the crime and up to today, and for no discernible gain whatsoever invest themselves in some weird cruel sexual practice completely foreign to all three, culminating with Knox and Sollecito simply bystanding as this stranger rapes and brutalizes their friend, and then, for no reason in particular, sadistically slay her – this is far beyond unlikely. It is simply absurd.

Oh yeah - and don't let me forget - then they call the police on themselves the next day! And then there is the whole bizarre clean up/faked burglary.

I am reading an old book by Peter Fleming, the brother of Ian Fleming, called Brazilan Adventure. There is a quote in the book – ‘ a tendency to underrate the value of plausibility’. No phrase better sums up my view of the Massei report for me than that –

‘a tendency to underrate the value of plausibility’

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two boyfriends

I assume it has been satisfactorily established that the leaks by the police to the media about Raffaele's interrogation were made of whole cloth. Curiously enough, though, they seem to agree with what he told his diary he had represented to the police. Oh, he also admits to some doubts about Amanda's fidelity.

nopoirot,

I suspect that the police put the thoughts about Amanda's fidelity into his head. She only had two boyfriends while she was in Italy, contrary to early rumors.

 

[nopoirot]

The meme that our star crossed lovers faltered only briefly, and inconsequentially, in their duet will not survive a close reading of Raffaele's diary. I recommend the Clander translation.

 

[Chris C]

The Micheli report says that Rudy claimed to have gone to a friend's house after he left the cottage (and after he went home to change). He said he arrived at his friend's at 11:30, and stayed until 2 or 3 when they went to the Domus.

That's one lie we wish were true, eh? (His friend denied it.)

Believe it or not, the police tried the same thing they did in England years back. They sent a cop undercover into that group of friends who denied seeing him. They admitted they saw him that night to the undercover cop. IF i remember correctly that was part of his appeal, that if they lied about seeing him that night of the murder, then they could have lied about seeing him with meredith the previous day.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The meme that our star crossed lovers faltered only briefly, and inconsequentially, in their duet will not survive a close reading of Raffaele's diary. I recommend the Clander translation.

So the logic goes like this, I take it?

Premise: Amanda and Raffaele were not totally consistent in their stories at all times, according to some sources.

Premise: Amanda and Raffaele could not have been physically present when Meredith Kercher was murdered because they were at Raffaele's house at that time.

Conclusion: Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith Kercher.

 

[Chris C]

I suspect that the police put the thoughts about Amanda's fidelity into his head. She only had two boyfriends while she was in Italy, contrary to early rumors.

Amanda's Fidelity and her Promiscuity


Thats another thing the prosecution tried to play both sides on. They claim that Meredith and Knox where at odds with each other over Knox sleeping with a guy at the apartment. Then they turn around and say they didn't test the possible semen sample because there was no way to date the sample or that it could have been from Meredith's drug dealing boyfriend.

So basicly they where saying that Meredith didn't like knox sleeping with a guy at the apartment because Meredith viewed this as wrong. Then turn around and accuse Meredith of sleeping with a guy at the apartment.

 

[Mary_H]

And Filomena got an attorney.

That's right.

 

[Mary_H]

Another difference might be that Filomenia attended a birthday party the night of the murder and was in the presence of a number of people during the time the murder occurred.

And Amanda was at Raffaele's during the time the murder occurred.

 

[Mary_H]

I assume it has been satisfactorily established that the leaks by the police to the media about Raffaele's interrogation were made of whole cloth.

This point has been discussed very little here. The only record we have of Raffaele's interrogation/confession is one that was supplied by the police to the newspapers.

Curiously enough, though, they seem to agree with what he told his diary he had represented to the police.

Not exactly. There is more in the leaked article than there is in the diary.

Oh, he also admits to some doubts about Amanda's fidelity.

As suggested by the information the police gave him.

 

[Mary_H]

And, Filomena, didn't do cartwheels in the police station, isn't that how this thread was started to begin with. Now we've gone full circle...

Who knows what Filomena would have done if she were in Amanda's circumstances. Possibly something even MORE suspicious than - gasp - a cartwheel.

 

[nopoirot]

Actually, i was thinking more along the line that, putting the forensic miasma aside, we have a spectacular crime, with two primary suspects claiming lapse of memory. Then we have a record which, despite the efforts at "damage control" lavished upon it, seems to show that one suspect has accused the other of inducing him to lie to the authorities. The other suspect (I suppose I should say 'convict'), running true to form with defendants who regret having incriminated themselves while in police custody, is setting up the well-worn claim of "police brutality."

No, I don't believe Amanda is guilty of what she has been charged with, but I'm satisfied she has yet to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think Rudy left long before 10:30. He was in the place when she got home, and he accosted her almost immediately, and that is why she never got through to her mother and made no further attempt after the 8:56 call.

I would guess he was out of the place not much after 9:30. He may have grabbed the phones because they were easy to fit in his pocket, but then he realized they could lead the police to him, so he ditched them. While they were in his possession, he examined them and/or wiped them clean and in doing so, he pushed some buttons.

Hi DanO, Halides1, RoseMontague, Charlie Wilkes, Mary H, LondonJohn, Katy did, Katody Matrass and others,

I'm still curious about more than a few things in this brutal murder that we discuss that took a young womans life away from her family and friends,
so if you have a moment, please give me your opinion of what I ask below:

It appears that Rudy Guede left the girls apartment around 10:30pm the night Meredith Kercher was murdered.
If so, could the unknown person who pressed random buttons on the dial on Meredith's cell phone have been Meredith herself?
Was it she herself trying to call out, to anyone, for help?

I probably know the answer to that question already, but it does bring to mind that Alessandra Formica saw someone of color leaving the area of the scene of the crime at around 10:30pm.
IIRC, she said in her court testimony that this person apparently did not want to be seen and was not Rudy Guede.

Now this is what I find strange:
Miss Formica, an unbiased witness says that the person she saw was not Rudy Guede. Didn't this guy run into her and her guy "friend"? He must have been very close to both of them when this occurred.
Many do not seem to believe Alessandra Formica though and think that she did indeed see Rudy Guede leaving the area.
Well then, what about the cell phone calls then? Weren't they made by a different cell phone tower, suggesting that the cell phones had already left the gals apartment?

Antonio Curatolo, who, if he did even see Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox that night, did so from a much greater distance than Alessandra Formica did, but yet NO ONE seems to doubt that it was Raffaele and Amanda he saw.

An unbiased witness who saw someone close-up and then came forward on her own is mistaken,
BUT a unbiased(?) witness, who came forward at the behest of a journalist and says that he saw a guy and girl from much farther away is correct in his identification?

I wonder of this and a few different things today as the rain continues to fall here in Los Angeles.
Happy Holidays,
RWVBWL

PS-The rest of the continental USA has some big storms comin' their way!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, i was thinking more along the line that, putting the forensic miasma aside, we have a spectacular crime, with two primary suspects claiming lapse of memory. Then we have a record which, despite the efforts at "damage control" lavished upon it, seems to show that one suspect has accused the other of inducing him to lie to the authorities. The other suspect (I suppose I should say 'convict'), running true to form with defendants who regret having incriminated themselves while in police custody, is setting up the well-worn claim of "police brutality."

No, I don't believe Amanda is guilty of what she has been charged with, but I'm satisfied she has yet to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

If you interrogate people long enough, get them to recall an incident often enough, get them to speculate about the incident enough, and scrutinise their responses hard enough you can create the impression than anyone is hiding something about anything.

Unless you count Curatolo or the two contested DNA results, there's no compelling evidence they were in the murder room at the time, that they staged a break-in or that they cleaned up the crime scene. Those were all, as far as I can tell, figments of the prosecution's imagination that they ginned up evidence for after already fixing their conclusions.

(It has occurred to me, possibly over-optimistically, that the reason the presiding judge has elected to see new evidence about Curatolo and the DNA tests first is that he is of the view that if those two pieces of evidence fall over there is no case to answer, so that the case could be resolved economically and without airing more of the Perugia police department's dirty laundry than necessary).

It's possible they were involved somehow, but I've never seen any remotely plausible narrative that explains how and why. They didn't know Rudy, they had no motive to cover up for Rudy, they weren't there when Rudy murdered Meredith and would have no reason to get involved.

 

[Chris C]

"the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Thats an American legal term. Yet the prosecution and the interrogators aren't telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", do you think they should be convicted of murder also?

 

[Diastole]

Sollecito's butt

Could anyone confirm whether the cigarette butt in the cottage ashtray, upon which Sollecito's DNA was found, was from a spinelli? Was he known to be a tobacco smoker? Perhaps a shared spinelli was the source for secondary DNA transfer to the bra clasp? His DNA was found in relatively high quantity on the butt. I'm aware that the post-mortem toxicology tests were reportedly negative for intoxicants other than ethanol, but I havn't seen any further specifics about this testing.

Of course, given that Sollecito was present in the cottage while Meredith dressed on the day of her murder, there could be a variety of other potential deposits of his DNA which she could have touched.

BTW, apologies in advance for the intentionally misleading title of this posting.

 

[TomCH]

So yes, this would lend weight to the suggestion that the assailant tried to turn both handsets off, and had success turning off the Italian handset but no success with the UK handset (with whose operation and on-screen menu he'd have been unfamiliar).

Ever cell phone I have (or have ever seen) gets turned off by the power button, which is clearly indicated.

Now, if one is too stupid to find a clearly marked button, then simply remove and replace the battery, as this will also turn off any phone.

It's really not difficult.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Could anyone confirm whether the cigarette butt in the cottage ashtray, upon which Sollecito's DNA was found, was from a spinelli? Was he known to be a tobacco smoker? Perhaps a shared spinelli was the source for secondary DNA transfer to the bra clasp? His DNA was found in relatively high quantity on the butt. I'm aware that the post-mortem toxicology tests were reportedly negative for intoxicants other than ethanol, but I havn't seen any further specifics about this testing.

Of course, given that Sollecito was present in the cottage while Meredith dressed on the day of her murder, there could be a variety of other potential deposits of his DNA which she could have touched.

BTW, apologies in advance for the intentionally misleading title of this posting.

It was a tobacco cigarette butt. Amanda does not use tobacco, but apparently was not averse to kissing someone who did... hence the mixed profile.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I hear what you are saying. I still just cannot visualize how it can come to be that the blood sample could be 'accidentally' contaminated with alcohol?

Is it a common problem? What went wrong - assuming it was accidental.

It is not common, but I have heard of other cases where blood clots and hardens inside the container and then ferments slightly, so when they draw the sample with a dropper and test it, they get a BAC that is off the charts. It can happen with stomach contents too.