Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Rafay/Burns case

("stilicho", PMF, Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:47 am)

LondonJohn,

Sounds as if stilicho needs to do his homework on the Rafay/Burns case as well as the Knox/Sollecito case. "He [Hampikian] points further to forensics evidence that he says leads away from Burns and Rafay: a hair found on a bed that was neither theirs nor the victims', and blood found that was a mixture of Rafay's father's and some unknown person's." The police apparently used luminol or some other test for blood (it lit up like a Christmas tree, I think is how one police officer described it). I would like to know whether or not they did a confirmatory test for blood. The entire article is worth reading and is pertinent to the present case. stilicho getting the forensics wrong? Right now you can knock me over with a feather.

post script
Here is another link, one written by Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, and one more. It is a strange case. I am not certain of what really happened, but there are some parallels with the present one.

 

[quadraginta]

Ahh!

Thank you.

It seems that a current and encyclopedic knowledge of the activities on other message boards is a necessary prerequisite to following some of the posts here. I guess I will remain at a disadvantage unless I expand my reading list.

It would be helpful if those posters would take the time, as you have so kindly done, to include things like explanations of the references (and maybe even links) for the edification of those of us who are not quite so invested in the failings of other sites.

You're welcome. Personally, I would like to see such references made only when absolutely necessary.

Just to be clear, I have no issues with anyone bringing up anything that they believe might be relevant to the discussion here, and it wouldn't really matter if I did because I couldn't do anything about it anyway. The mods are quite capable of determining when content from other sources, even other message boards is relevant to this thread, and they are the only ones empowered to take any actions in that regard.

All I'm asking for is, when new directions are taken, that the initiator of those tangents take a moment to explain why, and if possible provide some context and/or links which support that context. It isn't hard. You did it in one short sentence and with one link.

This is what I meant by "references".

Although it may seem incredible to some of the participants here, not everyone reading this thread is simultaneously engaged in a full-time preoccupation with other groups pursuing the subject, much less some sort of vendetta against any of them in particular. I understand that such a preoccupation can lead to an assumption that we all have the same referential background and post accordingly, but what really happens is that some of those posts simply read like spontaneous disconnected outbursts.

 

[Dan O.]

Anyhow, it's reasonable to suggest that that there was an initial verbal confrontation lasting a minute or two, followed by an intensive physical confrontation. Under such a scenario, it's then reasonable to suggest that the stab wounds themselves would have been inflicted at some point between 9.10 and 9.20pm. If Guede then carried on with a sexual assault as Meredith lay dying, this might have taken until around 9.30 - which would probably have been coincidental with Meredith's death from asphyxiation and blood loss.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, I'll choose to give Rudy the benefit of doubt and assume that any sexual assault took place before the stabbing. This though requires at least a partial undressing to get to the point of being able to digitally fondle her and this is definitely going to use up several minutes.

I don't believe the knife came out until Rudy tried and failed to pull the bra off. The cut edge of the bra strap doesn't show a line of blood that would occur if the knife were already covered in blood.

Meredith was prepped to be raped after being fatally stabbed but Rudy may have stopped there.

...
So I think that Guede might have left the cottage at just after 10pm. He walked around the city wall (to minimise contact with others), and I think that Meredith's UK phone gave an audible alert for an incoming MMS message (probably a photo) at 10.13pm, and automatically initiated a WAP connection and started downloading the photo. I think that Guede fumbled around, and stopped the download 9 seconds later. He then realised that having the phones in his possession was a liability, and walked/ran a bit further up the road to where he thought there was a wild ravine - where he tossed the phones into what he presumed was undergrowth.

Rudy would have gotten off the road as quickly as possible to avoid being caught in the headlights of any oncoming car. He would therefore have taken a path through the park. The path leads to an entrance in the wall which is very close to Rudy's residence. However, Rudy would be too late to enter here as they lock it around 9PM. There is another entrance further around the wall but the path diverges from the wall first. The path comes to a junction with the main road. Across the road there is a hedge row and the land appears to drop away. Another road angles back towards the city wall and the entrance gate that Rudy can use this late in the evening. Guess what property is on the other side of that hedge! The park appears to be an open orchard so this is the first opportunity since entering the park that Rudy has to dispose of the phones where they presumably won't be found immediately.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lab equipment

To all,

A commenter asked about the make and model of the equipment in the DNA lab. "The Applied Biosystem’s Quantifiler Kit was used for a quantity of DNA [207] suitable for it to be amplified. The trace amount was quantified with the software designed for quantification, which is included with the instrument, the [ABI Prism] 7700 that was used." Massei, p. 200.

 

[RWVBWL]

I doubt it. Burglars do all sorts of odd things when breaking into houses, and the unfortunate effect of adrenalin/fear/nerves in that situation has been mentioned on the thread. Plus, Rudy had eaten that kebab... Raffaele's appeal notes that the intruder in the two other break-ins Rudy had been linked to had also apparently used the bathroom: in the nursery, the teacher found that someone had used the toilet and left it unflushed, and in the lawyer's office the bathroom light had been left on.

I agree with you about the problematic length of time between Meredith coming home and the phones being taken, if we assume she died within 5-10 minutes or so after arriving home. But all we know is that she probably died 10-15 minutes after the fatal wounds were made, which doesn't tell us how long the assault went on before that. Personally I think it's much more likely to have been a prolonged, escalating attack, in which Rudy probably had no intention initially of killing her. To me, that fits both the evidence and the overall situation better than a very sudden, deliberate attack by Rudy, and it would explain why he didn't try and turn off the phones till shortly before 10.

Hi Katy Did and others,
As we know, Rudy Guede liked to smoke out.
But it is my personal knowledge and opinion, and many others too it seems, that getting high does not make a mellow person violent. From what I have read, Rudy Guede was not a violent person, one involved in fist fights, threatening others, being a bully.

SO I have wondered what might make a guy, this guy, Rudy Guede turn violent?
That answer came to me awhile back when I watched 2 surfer gal pals, who are definately NOT violent people, drinking A LOT of beer and then hard alcohol in a get together we had.
The girls became loud, argumentative and belligerent. I could have easily seen a cat fight happen.
This was a far cry from the mellow, happy-go-lucky gals they normally are when they would just smoke a fatty and get stoned.

Rudy Guede was, in my humble opinion, probably under the effects of alcohol, possibly drunk the night he was inside Meredith Kercher's bedroom that night she died. What else would help explain the rage that must have occurred in that bedroom when Meredith was stabbed to her death?
I wonder,
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

When Raffaele met Amanda...

Rafaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox met a short time before the brutal, bloody murder of Miss Meredith Kercher.
They met at a concert. A classical music concert!
Not at a Rave very popular with the young, partyin' crowd.
Not at the Domus nightclub, heck, not even at the Red Zone, were Rudy Guede's lawyer had his 50th birthdy party.
They met at a concert. Not one playing punk rock, death metal, heavy metal, rock n roll, or even gangsta' rap,
But at a concert featuring classical music, of all places.

It takes a certain kind of person to actually sit thru a concert featuring classical music.

I know this personally, for as I tried to get off the beach a bit and become more cultured in the last decade, I did so by often attending the free classical music concerts that the Santa Monica Orchestra has 4 times each year.
I didn't do this because I was on a mission to change my life or anything, I simply went at the behest of a friend, another surfer gal pal, 1 who plays violin in this orchestra and surf's in "DogTown" at Bay Street regularly.
My friend, Miss Jenifer Argenti, whom I helped coach a few years ago to become a W.S.A. West Coast amateur surfing champion also, helped expose me to Bach, Mozart, and Beethovan, among others...

Young folks who meet at classical music concerts,
who can actually sit thru a concert of this type of music are of a different breed than the average person in their own age group.
Brutal killers they are not...

They are not the type of individuals that would hook up with a barely known/completely unknown drug dealer and then brutally murder 1 of their housemates and watch as this same barely known/completely unknown person then sexually assaulted that same housemate while she lay in a pool of her own blood.

They are not the type of people who would NOT CALL OUT FOR HELP
if they had come across a person in need of medical assistance.

This whole case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox is such a travesty of justice that it bothers me enough to have spent much time following, reading, learning and finally speaking up about this injustice, something that I have never done before. It is nice to see others who feel the same way speak up too...

With the holidays in mind, I wish Peace to you all,
may your days be filled with the luv of family and friends...
RWVBWL

 

[Onofarar]

Thank you.

To all,

A commenter asked about the make and model of the equipment in the DNA lab. "The Applied Biosystem’s Quantifiler Kit was used for a quantity of DNA [207] suitable for it to be amplified. The trace amount was quantified with the software designed for quantification, which is included with the instrument, the [ABI Prism] 7700 that was used." Massei, p. 200.

Thanks for responding to my question. Have a great Christmas holiday!

 

[moodstream]

I have seen this assertion made several times in this thread. I am aware that in a tapped phone conversation between Amanda and Filomenia, Filomenia states that she has (will) contact a lawyer to see about getting out of their lease (btw, a course of action that Amanda does not disagree with). Do you have a source that shows that Filomenia and/or Laura "immediately" hired a lawyer?

IIP says she hired one 'early on'.

 

[stilicho]

Ahh!

Thank you.

It seems that a current and encyclopedic knowledge of the activities on other message boards is a necessary prerequisite to following some of the posts here. I guess I will remain at a disadvantage unless I expand my reading list.

It would be helpful if those posters would take the time, as you have so kindly done, to include things like explanations of the references (and maybe even links) for the edification of those of us who are not quite so invested in the failings of other sites.

Dr Hampikian is presently under investigation to determine who is paying for his advocacy position regarding Amanda Knox. His enterprise uses tax-exempt dollars from all Americans to champion the wrongfully convicted, especially those disadvantaged due to ethnicity and income. Since Knox does not fit either of these categories, and the case is still undergoing an automatic appeal process in a foreign country, there are burning questions about Dr Hampikian's misappropriation of taxpayer-funded resources and who paid for his trip to Italy to meet with the sex killer's family.

On 18 JUL 2010, Prof Halkides wrote to me the following challenge:

Can you document where Hampikian is being employed as a representative of the Innocence Project with respect to this case? I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[moodstream]

There is documented psychiatric analysis that break-and-enter burglars have an unusually high propensity for leaving stools in the toilets (o even on the floors/beds) of the houses into which they've broken.


The suggestion is that certain burglars are subconsciously marking their new territory, and/or inflicting an element of humiliation upon the householder. Also, there appears to be evidence that the heightened anxiety of the period surrounding the actual act of breaking in, followed by the dissipation of fear and relative safety of confirming that one is alone inside the house, may lead to a physiological bowel release.

And Guede seemingly has form in this department.

Methamphetamine apparently can also make you poop.

One of the side effects I didn't mention was when you do the drug, it makes your guts contract and tense up and the result is usually a good ****; so I was hoping that maybe this would get things moving. I did a small line -- and sure enough, I could feel my guts starting to move,

http://www.poopreport.com/Techniques/meth_lax.html

-( That’s right, I am citing a blog called the ‘poop report’. What of it?)

I think I have heard that criminals like to use this drug because it energizes them and gives them confidence. Wikipedia says It increases alertness, concentration, energy, and in high doses, can induce euphoria, enhance self-esteem, and increase libido.

 

[Chris C]

Rafaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox met a short time before the brutal, bloody murder of Miss Meredith Kercher.
They met at a concert. A classical music concert!
Not at a Rave very popular with the young, partyin' crowd.
Not at the Domus nightclub, heck, not even at the Red Zone, were Rudy Guede's lawyer had his 50th birthdy party.
They met at a concert. Not one playing punk rock, death metal, heavy metal, rock n roll, or even gangsta' rap,
But at a concert featuring classical music, of all places.

????????

Music don't make you commit murder or not commit murder. I know plenty of plenty of people that like listening to classical music when their high. These same people listen to gangsta rap and/or death metal.

 

[TomCH]

Rudy Guede was, in my humble opinion, probably under the effects of alcohol, possibly drunk the night he was inside Meredith Kercher's bedroom that night she died. What else would help explain the rage that must have occurred in that bedroom when Meredith was stabbed to her death?

Simple.

Rudy didn't stab her, someone else did.

I wonder who?

 

[TomCH]

It takes a certain kind of person to actually sit thru a concert featuring classical music.

Such as Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange".

 

[Fine]

Raffaele's SECOND VERSION

Your interpretation is wrong. Let's get to it by the means of auxiliary questions:

What is it that Amanda told him to say?​

_________________________

Okay, Katody, this is an important issue. So let's proceed in baby steps, since you don't accept my interpretation of what Raffaele is saying in his Diary. Here's one of the two passages in which Raffaele relates what Amanda had persuaded, or induced, him to say:

___________________________________________
"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but
the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she
worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that
pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big
problem? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore they should stop
bothering me and start investigating her." (By the way, this statement in his Diary is written under the date November 7. This date must be wrong, since he saw the judge on November 8th.)
___________________________________________


Certainly one natural reading of this passage is that Amanda had persuaded Raffaele to make the following statement---or a statement with the same cognitive content--- to the cops:


On the night of November 1st Amanda left me to go to work at Le Chic.


In my opinion, this statement constitutes the "second version" and it is clearly the second version which Amanda persuaded Raffaele to express to the cops.


///

 

[Diastole]

Such as Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange".

Ha! - well played sir!

Judge Massei seems to share a bit of a Burgess' flair for writing dystopian science fiction. Although, I think his literary efforts would benefit from giving his protaganists more believable (or any) motivations...

 

[shuttlt]

shuttlt,

I will give you points for trying, but it is not very plausible. Why would Amanda and Raffaele not want to call the police, instead of taking Rudi's side? Amanda barely knew Rudi, and Raffaele did not know him at all. That is just one of many questions I have with your scenario. The problem is not coming up with a story, it is coming up with one that makes sense and fits the data.

So, you want a story where one would expect a murder to be committed from the outset based on the facts? Why? You exclude all possible scenarios where the murder is down to bad luck, mistakes, poor decisions, foolishness and misunderstandings.

You really, honestly can't imagine a scenario where Amanda and Raffaele might think that Meredith was over reacting to what ever Rudy may have done? This couldn't happen? Why on Earth not?

 

[Mary_H]

Dr Hampikian is presently under investigation to determine who is paying for his advocacy position regarding Amanda Knox. His enterprise uses tax-exempt dollars from all Americans to champion the wrongfully convicted, especially those disadvantaged due to ethnicity and income. Since Knox does not fit either of these categories, and the case is still undergoing an automatic appeal process in a foreign country, there are burning questions about Dr Hampikian's misappropriation of taxpayer-funded resources and who paid for his trip to Italy to meet with the sex killer's family.

On 18 JUL 2010, Prof Halkides wrote to me the following challenge:

Under investigation? By whom? PMF? TJMK? I'm sure he's quaking in his boots.

 

[shuttlt]

Under investigation? By whom? PMF? TJMK? I'm sure he's quaking in his boots.

The same way the Italian justice system is quaking in their boots over what is said here?

 

[Mary_H]

_________________________

Okay, Katody, this is an important issue. So let's proceed in baby steps, since you don't accept my interpretation of what Raffaele is saying in his Diary. Here's one of the two passages in which Raffaele relates what Amanda had persuaded, or induced, him to say:

___________________________________________
"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big problem? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore they should stop bothering me and start investigating her." (By the way, this statement in his Diary is written under the date November 7. This date must be wrong, since he saw the judge on November 8th.)
___________________________________________

Certainly one natural reading of this passage is that Amanda had persuaded Raffaele to make the following statement---or a statement with the same cognitive content--- to the cops:

On the night of November 1st Amanda left me to go to work at Le Chic.


In my opinion, this statement constitutes the "second version" and it is clearly the second version which Amanda persuaded Raffaele to express to the cops.


///

In your bolding, you leave out an important qualifier: "...but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me..."

He is recounting what he told the police. He is not claiming that Amanda actually persuaded him.

P.S. I, too, have found that some dates are missing from the diary.

 

[Mary_H]

The same way the Italian justice system is quaking in their boots over what is said here?

Has anyone made that claim?