Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

But based on your response:

Once it became clear that Raffaele did not have a clear alibi, Rudy's story changed to implicate Raffaele instead of that stranger whose description didn't match Raffaele.

it sounds as though you already know what happened and when. If you are going to explain away Raff's diary entry about the Ivorian making up stories shouldn't you already know when that was written vs. media reports, etc.? Otherwise I believe it stands that it was a strange thing for Raff to be worried about. Especially given the assertion Raff and Rudy did not know eachother.

I have a rough idea from reading the various news reports that there was a progression in Rudy's statements from the "curly haired stranger" to identifying Raffaele by name. But since I was reading multiple news streams long after the fact, I haven't verified the timeline relative to the publications of Raffaele's status. You could help if you wish. It's just a matter of going back through the news and documenting the time or first reported evidence of each event. I could be wrong. Maybe we will find evidence that Rudy was fingering Raffaele before Raffaele's name was published.

 

[Danceme]

I guess you haven't watched how it was collected.

.

Of course I did, and I thought it was sloppy too but then again my only knowledge of a crime scene being processed comes from CSI etc so I have no idea whether real life LE are perfect or not.

That 3 second^*) phone call would look very damning (do you think it is damning?) if not for one tiny detail:

Actually I think the damning detail is Amanda saying "...it just kept ringing, no answer". I suspect she didn't even wait till it went to voicemail (only 3 secs) or she would have said both phones went to voicemail, not that the Italian one just rang and rang.

Most of that time was spent on recharging Raffaele's phone credit, phone calls with Filomena, Raffaele's father and sister, Amanda's mother.

For Amanda starting at 12:07, calls to Meredith's phones, Filomena several times till finally her mother at 12:47. Her calls take about 42 minutes.

For Raffaele, starting at 12:35, it took about 3 minutes to charge the phone, 67 seconds to talk to his dad, wait 10 minutes, then 39 seconds to talk to his sister, then finally call 112 at 12:51. All in all about 16 minutes.

*) 3 seconds is the connection registered by the service, after the phone redirected to voicemail, obviously Amanda was on the phone actually much longer.

Not sure what you mean by that?

 

[Dan O.]

Actually I think the damning detail is Amanda saying "...it just kept ringing, no answer". I suspect she didn't even wait till it went to voicemail (only 3 secs) or she would have said both phones went to voicemail, not that the Italian one just rang and rang.

I am now not certain that Amanda would have thought that Meredith's Italian phone was not operational.

My first thought was that Amanda just had this wrong. But in the Massei Report [346], [348] we see from the analysis of Meredith's Italian phone itself that the phone had received the call and then transfered it to voice mail after 3 seconds. A voice mail service is just another phone number and if this is setup incorrectly or the service is down and not busied out the call will just ring. The ring time after the transfer is not billed so Amanda's phone record would only show the same 3 seconds.

(There is a simple code to reprogram the answering service on your phone to any number you choose. You could program your cell phone to transfer to your home phone so if you are at home when someone calls you just wait and answer it on the land line and save your minutes)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

plenty to go around

I hardly see the reason for this post. Do you see yourself as some sort of white knight defending Amanda's virtue?

Danceme,

If you go to another discussion forum on this case that shall remain nameless, you will find both the white knight argument, and the middle-aged lust argument put forth as reasons for people such as Bruce Fisher and Charlie Wilkes defending Amanda Knox. If you go to the second link I previously provided, you will find,

“Amanda Knox, Amanda Knox
Some people think she's really cute.
They shout ‘Free her, she's such a fox!’”

This is another version of the MAL argument, as I see it.

I have heard variations on these arguments, and on some others that are equally bereft of intellectual merit, for so long that I thought it was time to respond and be done with it. No, I do not see myself as a white knight; I see myself as an ordinary citizen. If you believe that the final paragraph of my previous comment was anything other than dead-serious, I suggest you Google the name “Eric Frimpong” and ask yourself whether you think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (just as an example off the top of my head). Don’t be shy about picking a case yourself; there are plenty to go around.

Upon reflection, I see another interpretation of your comment, to the effect that you don’t see the point of my bringing up Ms. Knox’s intimate behavior. I am somewhat uncomfortable discussing it myself, yet this was a trial in which the her buying underwear and possessing condoms and a vibrator were treated.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I have this curious feeling of deja vu

I guess you don't watch Cold Case Files

Danceme,

The issue is not simply the time. It starts with the fact that during this period the bra clasp was moved one or more times. Dan O. has provided evidence to suggest that the crime scene was not exactly secure, if I understand his argument correctly. That the house was later burgled twice (in early 2008) lends credence to the notion that the crime scene was not secure. Pentultimately, there is the the problem of investigator bias when one collects the evidence so late into the case.

If you are entirely unfamiliar with the Duke lacrosse case, this analogy won't be very helpful without some googling. Suppose that 47 days after the spring break party, Officer Gottlieb decided to return to 610 N. Buchanan and collect some items, such as fake fingernails as worn by the alleged victim. Would any student of the case take DNA evidence found on the nails seriously? Given Gottlieb's willingness to perjure himself and flagrantly violate standard line-up procedures, I think not.

 

[Dan O.]

Danceme,

The issue is not simply the time. It starts with the fact that during this period the bra clasp was moved one or more times. Dan O. has provided evidence to suggest that the crime scene was not exactly secure, if I understand his argument correctly.

Don't get me wrong. I posted photographic evidence with a link to the source by a well known journalist whom we are all familiar with that the crime scene was opened and that there may be evidence that ILE covered it up.

 

[Mary_H]

Don't get me wrong. I posted photographic evidence with a link to the source by a well known journalist whom we are all familiar with that the crime scene was opened and that there may be evidence that ILE covered it up.

I favor the explanation that the bra clasp was collected and taken back to the lab with all the original evidence. When they needed some evidence against Raffaele, they got it out, took it back to the house and taped themselves "finding" it.

 

[Alt+F4]

I was offered a hard drive full of material but declined. I chose not to put myself in a position of deciding what can be released into the public domain.

Why does the defense only want to release material to folks like you and Charlie, people who are firmly in the pro-innocence camp?

I'm constantly being told there is zero evidence of Amanda's guilt yet the defense doesn't want to release all the available information. What do they have to hide? Why not post everything (minus photos of the victim, of course) on a website for all to see? At best, it might turn a few heads into believing in innocence and perhaps some amature sleuth might find something everyone else has missed.

Why so little transparancy in a case, I'm told where the prosecution has nothing?

 

[Dan O.]

I favor the explanation that the bra clasp was collected and taken back to the lab with all the original evidence. When they needed some evidence against Raffaele, they got it out, took it back to the house and taped themselves "finding" it.

There was one mention that the clasp wasn't assigned it's own identification because it was part of the bra that was already collected. I need to track down the source of that statement. As for the idea that the clasp was not collected in the initial investigation, one needs only watch the how the investigators methodically check each item before adding it to the pile that they've searched. It's inconceivable that they could have missed the clasp in the first couple of searches. And that would be after they lost track of this clasp that was one of only 2 objects in the middle of the room.

What are the odds that ILE failed to collect the clasp when it was first discovered AND they managed to loose track of the clasp in this totally uncluttered central area of the room AND they failed to find the clasp when they went through every item piece by piece?

 

[Dan O.]

Why does the defense only want to release material to folks like you and Charlie, people who are firmly in the pro-innocence camp?

I'm constantly being told there is zero evidence of Amanda's guilt yet the defense doesn't want to release all the available information. What do they have to hide? Why not post everything (minus photos of the victim, of course) on a website for all to see? At best, it might turn a few heads into believing in innocence and perhaps some amature sleuth might find something everyone else has missed.

Why so little transparancy in a case, I'm told where the prosecution has nothing?

All of the evidence in this case was collected by the prosecution. You are asking the question of the wrong party.

 

[RoseMontague]

I would love to see the full video of the rock breaking the glass reconstruction and I am still looking for the images of Amanda's hand written note which I thought I had a link to at one time.
Of course, the biggest complaint I have is not having the trial and hearings testimony transcripts. What little we have of that is from a few audio transcripts and not entirely reliable reports from journalists and bloggers that were in attendance. Are transcripts available of any of Amanda's or Raffaele's interrogations prior to their arrests? The fact that they are claiming they were not taped makes this even more unbelievable, especially on Amanda's with her language problems and potential translation difficulties. Did Raffaele give/sign a written statement similar to Amanda's?

I share Alt+F4's frustration over the lack of documentation.

 

[christianahannah]

There was one mention that the clasp wasn't assigned it's own identification because it was part of the bra that was already collected. I need to track down the source of that statement. As for the idea that the clasp was not collected in the initial investigation, one needs only watch the how the investigators methodically check each item before adding it to the pile that they've searched. It's inconceivable that they could have missed the clasp in the first couple of searches. And that would be after they lost track of this clasp that was one of only 2 objects in the middle of the room.

What are the odds that ILE failed to collect the clasp when it was first discovered AND they managed to loose track of the clasp in this totally uncluttered central area of the room AND they failed to find the clasp when they went through every item piece by piece?

The motivations mentions this twice, possibly more.

Page 200:

The little piece of fabric with the clasp had been found at night, around 2 AM on November 3, according to what emerged from the video of that inspection. The clasp was immediately brought to her attention and
photographed. It wasn’t however, catalogued during the course of that first search, because, although important, being a missing piece of the bra, there was the fact that "however we had taken the entire bra" (page 121);

Pages 266-267:

She further stated that that piece was photographed, but that no specific letter was placed on it, of those letters which were used to describe the crime scene, as it was counted along with the letter indicating the bra.

 

[christianahannah]

I would love to see the full video of the rock breaking the glass reconstruction and I am still looking for the images of Amanda's hand written note which I thought I had a link to at one time.
Of course, the biggest complaint I have is not having the trial and hearings testimony transcripts. What little we have of that is from a few audio transcripts and not entirely reliable reports from journalists and bloggers that were in attendance. Are transcripts available of any of Amanda's or Raffaele's interrogations prior to their arrests? The fact that they are claiming they were not taped makes this even more unbelievable, especially on Amanda's with her language problems and potential translation difficulties. Did Raffaele give/sign a written statement similar to Amanda's?

I share Alt+F4's frustration over the lack of documentation.

I think (but am not sure) he did sign a written statement similar to Amanda's. The Corriere Della Sera article on November 7 quotes both Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda's statement in the article are almost (if not totally) the same as in her signed (5:45) statement. From that, I take it the quotes of Raffaele in the article also come from his signed statement.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

 

[christianahannah]

Danceme,

The issue is not simply the time. It starts with the fact that during this period the bra clasp was moved one or more times. Dan O. has provided evidence to suggest that the crime scene was not exactly secure, if I understand his argument correctly. That the house was later burgled twice (in early 2008) lends credence to the notion that the crime scene was not secure. Pentultimately, there is the the problem of investigator bias when one collects the evidence so late into the case.

If you are entirely unfamiliar with the Duke lacrosse case, this analogy won't be very helpful without some googling. Suppose that 47 days after the spring break party, Officer Gottlieb decided to return to 610 N. Buchanan and collect some items, such as fake fingernails as worn by the alleged victim. Would any student of the case take DNA evidence found on the nails seriously? Given Gottlieb's willingness to perjure himself and flagrantly violate standard line-up procedures, I think not.

Chris, was this a sealed crime scene?

The difference I find with the flat in this case, as opposed to how other countries process a crime scene, is that it was sealed and no one was allowed to enter without police or live there for a period of time thus, I guess in theory, preserving the evidence within. Whether this is valid, I do not know.

 

[christianahannah]

Don't get me wrong. I posted photographic evidence with a link to the source by a well known journalist whom we are all familiar with that the crime scene was opened and that there may be evidence that ILE covered it up.

I remember that photo and the questions surrounding it. Has anyone been in contact with the well known journalist whom we are all familiar with as to the origin of the photo? Would there not also be a log book of police comings and goings into the flat at any time while the crime scene was sealed?

 

[Dan O.]

Chris, was this a sealed crime scene?

The difference I find with the flat in this case, as opposed to how other countries process a crime scene, is that it was sealed and no one was allowed to enter without police or live there for a period of time thus, I guess in theory, preserving the evidence within. Whether this is valid, I do not know.

The crime scene was sealed in the sense that they put tape on the door and a note to indicate that it was a crime scene. However, on the morning of November 14, 2007, Barbie Nadeau drove by the cottage and took a few photographs including one that clearly shows the front door to the cottage was wide open behind the gate and crime scene tape.

source: http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html

There has also never been any mention of the damage to the seal which is also clearly evident in the photo so either ILE is totally inept or they covered up this illegal entry.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

insecurities

Chris, was this a sealed crime scene?

The difference I find with the flat in this case, as opposed to how other countries process a crime scene, is that it was sealed and no one was allowed to enter without police or live there for a period of time thus, I guess in theory, preserving the evidence within. Whether this is valid, I do not know.

christianahannah,

Not in the days immediately following the incident. However, my point was that by the time someone is arrested, any evidence gathered after that point could arise from LE officers trying to help secure a conviction by planting evidence. Officer Gottlieb's other actions would lead many observers to strongly question evidence that he personally gathered (see the book Until Proven Innocent, if so inclined). When the officers genuinely believe the suspect is guilty and plant evidence to help the case along (one might say), I personally find their actions understandable and wrong in equal measure. I am not saying that evidence was planted in this case; I am saying that making a video in which the clasp gets passed around like a joint at a Jethro Tull concert is cause for concern.

 

[quadraginta]

The crime scene was sealed in the sense that they put tape on the door and a note to indicate that it was a crime scene. However, on the morning of November 14, 2007, Barbie Nadeau drove by the cottage and took a few photographs including one that clearly shows the front door to the cottage was wide open behind the gate and crime scene tape.

source: http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html

Was the gate itself locked or unlocked?

Is this the door which notoriously blows open in a light breeze if it is not properly secured with the deadbolt by someone aware of its foibles?

There has also never been any mention of the damage to the seal which is also clearly evident in the photo so either ILE is totally inept or they covered up this illegal entry.

It isn't clear to me what damage you are referring to. I see crime scene tape which is placed (as is normal) to provide public notification that the the area is off limits to unauthorized personnel. It appears to have been situated in such a fashion as to permit passage. I see a sign for the same purpose taped to the side of the door opening which has one corner that has come partially loose due, most probably, to weather exposure. Is that the clearly evident damage you mean?

There is nothing in that photo which proves that an illegal entry was effected through that door, or even strongly indicates that it was.

Conversely, we know that there was an occasion after the crime was committed when the apartment was broken into. Do we want to discuss (again) what method of entry was chosen as being the most attractive?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Of course I did, and I thought it was sloppy too but then again my only knowledge of a crime scene being processed comes from CSI etc so I have no idea whether real life LE are perfect or not.

I think we can agree they were far from perfection.

Actually I think the damning detail is Amanda saying "...it just kept ringing, no answer". I suspect she didn't even wait till it went to voicemail (only 3 secs) or she would have said both phones went to voicemail, not that the Italian one just rang and rang.

I think you're mistaken on this. The phone logs list connection time - from the moment the call is answered, not the time someone waits for an answer. It's very probable Amanda waited and waited listening to the signal, and just when she was disconnecting the call was redirected to the answering service and the 3 seconds were billed. It's also possible she didn't remember that phone went to voicemail too, like all the other ones, she just remembered long waiting for an answer. These are just two simple and skeptical explanations - while the damning theory that she lied about it as a part of some complicated plan looks rather far fetched.

For Amanda starting at 12:07, calls to Meredith's phones, Filomena several times till finally her mother at 12:47. Her calls take about 42 minutes.

For Raffaele, starting at 12:35, it took about 3 minutes to charge the phone, 67 seconds to talk to his dad, wait 10 minutes, then 39 seconds to talk to his sister, then finally call 112 at 12:51. All in all about 16 minutes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey. The discovery of the break-in happened after 12:30, that's when all the crucial calls were made in quick succession, with the call to "112" at 12:51. It took them from 16 to 20 minutes to call the police. In the meantime they called Filomena, phone recharge, Sollecito's father, Amanda's mother, and carabinieri Vanessa.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Not sure what you mean by that?

It takes substantial time to activate the answering service when the called phone is online. Nobody sets her phone to go to voicemail just after a 3 seconds of ringing. Does it make sense?