Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Thank you for the facts and the reply. I looked in the Massei report to confirm what you said. The small bathroom was near Meredith's room and Amanda's room. The luminol stain was found there. Rudy's legacy was in the other bathroom. I was thinking that an explanation that had them being made at the same time was simpler and thus more logical, but I was wrong.

I'm trying to connect pairs of evidence and fact as many of the evidentiary tidbits are too small to indicate anything by themselves.

Looking the aggregate DNA evidence shows gross incompetence more than anything else. Looking at the DNA evidence separately told a different story in the first trial.

The police diagram is a helpful tool as to what was found where:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/police_crime_scene_composite.jpg

 

[RWVBWL]

RoseMontague,

The first time that Jovanna Popovic came over, it was 5:45 PM. The second time it was about 8:45, according to Murder in Italy. The first time was to ask Raffaele to help her retrieve a suitcase, and the second time was to let him know that she did not need a ride, afterall. I think she only spoke with Amanda the second time.

Hi Halides1 and RoseMontague,
Didn't I read somewhere that Raffaele Sollecito's housekeeper also stopped by and heard both Raff and Amanda's voice while speaking thru the intercom that early evening?

Thanks for any reply,
RW

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi Halides1 and RoseMontague,
Didn't I read somewhere that Raffaele Sollecito's housekeeper also stopped by and heard both Raff and Amanda's voice while speaking thru the intercom that early evening?

Thanks for any reply,
RW

She is mentioned in Raffaele's appeal IIRC as saying Raffaele was kind and treated her well. I believe it was reported that she said the open bottle of bleach was still where it had been all along and that she didn't use bleach to clean. I don't remember the intercom thing.

 

[Justinian2]

Hi all,
I know that most do not believe Rudy Guede's story that he had a "date" with Meredith Kercher and that after they fooled around a bit, they only stopped because Rudy didn't have a condom. I've always thought to myself what kinda guy heads over to a woman's house that he hopes to hook up with and doesn't bring his jimmy's with him? But then I recalled reading that Rudy hadn't had much luck with the ladies in quite awhile, heck he didn't even have a girlfriend, so that made his lack of carrying a condom a little more understandable.

I had wondered, didn't I read that Amanda had a toiletry case in Meredith and hers shared bathroom that had a toy in it, and some condoms too? Thanks for refreshing my memory, Skwinty, it was true, there were condoms in the bathroom. So I thought that if Rudy and Meredith were consensually gettin' it on, well Meredith herself would have known where to find a condom, as any gal would want to if she was really in need of 1 right then. Hadn't she borrowed them before from Amanda?

So Rudy's story, that they stopped their intimate encounter is, as I always knew in my gut anyways, bogus, for he should have known where some condoms where and known of that pink vibrator.

Now I've seen it written before that some rapists will wear a condom when they commit a rape, so as not to leave evidence behind, which makes sense to me. You too?

So how come,
-(if Amanda was there that night, partipated, and then preformed a nearly immaculent clean-up),
when Rudy possibly, no probably pulled his penis out of his pants when Miss Kercher was sexually assaulted, Amanda did not get a him a condom from her bathroom case so that he might also not leave evidence behind? Evidence which was possibly, dare I say, probably, left behind? Evidence that appears to have been wet when the shoeprint stepped on it.
Hmmm,
RW

I have been reading your comments for quite awhile now without making a reply. It seems like the phone would always ring before I could answer. It's nice to read the replies of someone that actually had a close encounter with law enforcement.

In the 1950's TV shows, the bad guy usually wore the black cowboy had and the good cowboy/cowgirl wore the white hat. Now the good guy wears a cop uniform or has a badge and the bad guy threatens and scowls or at least never has a nice smile.

In the age of the beloved cop, CSI expert, and wonderful judge who is patient with stupid people, it's refreshing to read the responses of someone that knows differently. The good guys don't always have a badge. Good guys are frequently accused of crimes by government thugs.

Amanda is a good guy. She looks like a good guy. She talks like a good guy. I know it's not a very convincing argument, but it's a better argument than that made by the bad guys.

 

[bolint]

Uneasy feelings.

Amanda in Nov 4 email:
"it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
**** that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower"

By her own account she had spent at least one hour in the cottage.
What was she doing?
The only sizable alleged activity was the hairwash and drying.
Say 15 minutes. The rest is spent calmly (for what?).
Then she notices the toilet and she runs away with uneasy feeling, locking the door.

During that hour she did not hear a single sound or some noise that would have suggested that somebody was at home.
Yet she left without trying to knock at or open Filomena's door or trying to knock at or open Meredith's door. Nor calling them by name or by phone.

Because first she wanted to discuss it with Raffaele.

Give me a break.

 

[Dan O.]

Bolint, you are making allegations that Amanda and Raffaele had intentionally lied to cover up their involvement in a murder. Your allegations themselves are defamatory if not a criminal act if you cannot substantiate those claims. You need to stop crying about the valid criticisms of your claims and either accept that they could be mistaken/misinterpreted/confused or get on with the business of proving your claims that these "lies" were intentional and intended to decieve. Just repeating the same claims over and over is what is boring and why many of the guilters get labeled trolls and put on ignore.

 

[Skwinty]

Have you ever experienced any uncertainty as to what you did or when you did something on a certain day? Is it your opinion that anyone who doesn't get this right is lying about it?

Well, they are not telling the truth, strictly speaking.

There maybe many reasons for that. Forgetfullness, not wearing a watch etc, or, telling a deliberate lie to get out of a situation.

I can't speak for any of the accused and only they know the reasons why they said what they said.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Does common sense conclusion also imply that Amanda and Raffaele start to lie about there whereabouts and their activities and Amanda accuses Lumumba?

No, but it says it's normal that they don't have a minute by minute recollection of an evening that was one of several similar during the preceding week.
It also says that police coercing testimony from Amanda is a plausible explanation of the all night interrogation statements.

Can you provide a better and more complete explanation? Let's start with the crime itself. What's Amanda guilty of? What did she do? And When?

 

[RoseMontague]

I have been reading your comments for quite awhile now without making a reply. It seems like the phone would always ring before I could answer. It's nice to read the replies of someone that actually had a close encounter with law enforcement.

In the 1950's TV shows, the bad guy usually wore the black cowboy had and the good cowboy/cowgirl wore the white hat. Now the good guy wears a cop uniform or has a badge and the bad guy threatens and scowls or at least never has a nice smile.

In the age of the beloved cop, CSI expert, and wonderful judge who is patient with stupid people, it's refreshing to read the responses of someone that knows differently. The good guys don't always have a badge. Good guys are frequently accused of crimes by government thugs.

Amanda is a good guy. She looks like a good guy. She talks like a good guy. I know it's not a very convincing argument, but it's a better argument than that made by the bad guys.

Indeed. The devil knows how to row.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well, they are not telling the truth, strictly speaking.

If you want to delve into semantics then you can't say that. Their statements are only what they claim to recall, remember, sometimes even "vaguely" as is the case of Amanda's signed statements from the night interrogation. You can't say they're not telling the truth unless you are inside their minds.

On the other hand the various (and much more numerous) false claims of cops, prosecutors and media in this case are strictly what you call "not telling the truth".

 

[RWVBWL]

Re:A question: What if the bra clasp had been duly collected on the first day

Suppose that the bra clasp had been duly collected on the first day, directly from under the body where it was found.

Would the innocentists accept it for proof of involvement?

Hi Bolint,
I am glad to see you back here posting, for it it always good to discuss both sides of the story in our search for the truth about what happened the night that Miss Meredith Kercher had her young life tragically taken from her in such a brutal way.

Getting both sides of the story is why I have read the books Murder in Italy, Angel Face, and am now reading Fatal Gift of Beauty, to gain different perspectives to form my own opinion. And that's why I welcome reading your own thoughts too.

Anyways, with regards to your question, I look at it this way:
If my brother was Raffaele, and he had left not 1 trace of himself in Meredith Kercher's bedroom the night she was stabbed to her death, -(which was a most personal and bloody way to kill someone), except for a tiny speck of alleged DNA on her bra clasp, along with possibly 2 other males DNA, I would be extremely suspicious of this.

Especially since my brother had no prior history of violence. And especially since the investigators chose to pick up the bra clasp by hand, wearing visibly proven dirty gloves and pass it around to each other instead of simply using a set of new, sterile tweezers to pick up and then put immediately into a paper evidence bag and seal it.

Do our thoughts differ too much on the evidence collection technique done with regards to the collection of the bra clasp and my brother's, oppps, Raffaele Sollecito's lack of any prior violence? If this happened to your own brother, would you be satisfied with it?

I'd like to know your thoughts.
Thanks,
RW

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't disagree with you. However, no crime happened in the time frame we are discussing. Neither the prosecution or defense makes that claim. It does not matter where those two were at this time. Meredith was with her friends up to 8:45PM. Why would they lie about what they did at 7PM?

And this is the important point. What Knox and Sollecito were doing between 5pm and 8.45pm on 1st November 2007 is virtually irrelevant to the case*. Doesn't matter if they say they were in Sollecito's apartment during this time, or shopping in Perugia, or playing tennis with the Sultan of Brunei in Gubbio. It's irrelevant as probative evidence in the case. It's as irrelevant to the case as is their whereabouts between 5pm and 8.45pm on the 31st October 2007, or between 7.15am and 10.23am on the 28th October 2007.

There's one other point to make about "lies" or inconsistencies: in order to have probative value, the "lie" must have a direct relationship to the case. The classic demonstration of this is if a woman of around 50 years of age were called to testify in a criminal trial, and she was asked (for some reason) what her weight was. Now, lots of women of that age do not tell the truth about their weight, so suppose that this woman gave an untrue answer about her weight. The unscrupulous lawyer might then say something like: "Ah, but your weight is NOT 50kg as you claim, but 68kg! You are a liar, madam, and your testimony clearly cannot be trusted!"

The point is that any lie must be shown to be relevant to the matter being tried, or it's essentially irrelevant. The only exception to this rule is if there is if a demonstrable pattern of habitual lying on behalf of a defendant/witness, and then only if those lies are of a similar magnitude to any disputed testimony. In general, though, lies or inconsistencies are only relevant if they directly relate to the case being tried.

As an example of this in action, it's clear that the original trial of Sion Jenkins for the murder of his foster daughter was partly influenced by evidence that he had lied on his CV (resume) when he applied for a teaching position. The court improperly took this into account when assessing his truthfulness with regard to his version of events on the day of the murder. But of course it's totally improper to infer that lying on one's CV makes it any more likely that Jenkins would be lying about his non-involvement in the murder. He was cleared on retrial (there were other factors too).

* Unless one believes that Knox and Sollecito had some sort of "murder plan" meeting with Guede during that time. And not even the prosecutors believe this - they are of the view that the murder was unpremeditated and was the culmination of a spontaneous argument (possibly with a little sex-game-getting- out-of-hand crap thrown in for good measure).

 

[LondonJohn]

That's what I doubt.

To my knowledge there is nothing between 18:27 and 20:35 that proves that they were at home.

Is there anything according to you?

1) They don't have to "prove they were at home" during this time. Why do you think they would need to? In fact, they don't have to prove anything. The only people who have to prove things in a criminal trial are the prosecutors (and the court, in the case of Italy).

2) In any case, it's entirely irrelevant to the case where they were or what they were doing between 18.27 and 20.35. It's been definitely established that Meredith was alive and in the company of her English friends between around 4.30pm and just before 9pm.

 

[Katody Matrass]

By her own account she had spent at least one hour in the cottage.
What was she doing?
The only sizable alleged activity was the hairwash and drying.
Say 15 minutes.

I don't know what is your source of the "one hour", but by her own account she took time to shower, change, and dry her hair. I find your estimation of "15 minutes" way off. Ever lived with a girl ?

I see no sensible reason for both of them to lie about the timeline of the morning. Especially if they were guilty of something. In that case they would simply pack up and go for the car trip, leaving the crime for Filomena to discover.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh dear, not yet again

Bolint, you are making allegations that Amanda and Raffaele had intentionally lied to cover up their involvement in a murder. Your allegations themselves are defamatory if not a criminal act if you cannot substantiate those claims. You need to stop crying about the valid criticisms of your claims and either accept that they could be mistaken/misinterpreted/confused or get on with the business of proving your claims that these "lies" were intentional and intended to decieve. Just repeating the same claims over and over is what is boring and why many of the guilters get labeled trolls and put on ignore.

This gets my vote for the most absolutely absurd argument of the week about this case.

Defamatory *and a criminal act*....WOW....WOOOO-EEEEE.

PUH>>>LEEZE
Innocence posters here hundreds of times just this week, have accused each and every ILE, and especially Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni of lying, deliberately concealing evidence, deliberately manufacturing evidence, deliberately altering evidence and deliberately exaggerating evidence in a murder Appeal that is currently examining her work.

These now certainly are unsubstantiated "criminal defamatory" remarks according to your threatening..errr.."argument".
Also recall all the run of the mill less specific slurs to Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni about cheating, stealing, lying, pole dancing, cesspool diving, and using incorrect covers on her mops.

Again, am I to remotely believe that you now threaten the one opposition poster still willing to endure the never ending and never original droll of dimwitted excuses for two murderers, with criminality ??...Really??

But of course as with the unsolicited, unnecessarily childish condescending grammar lessons; the criminality threat does not apply to the above who just happen to all argue innocence.

These above accomplices of yours definitely defame Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni.
But we are to swallow that your nonsensical threat of criminality applies only to guilters?

Somewhat "communications engineered" ....Eh ??

Yes, indeed, let's stop "crying".

 

[Antony]

Complete nonsense.
At least you should know her cockamamie story.

In that story at that time there was no suspicion of any crime.

She even had to consult with Raffaele first to arrive at the conclusion that there is "something strange" there.

OK, put me straight then. What is it about the non-flushing of the lavatory that makes you think it's a "cockamamie story"?

Personally, I find the guilter version, in which there was no occasion for Guede to use the toilet without flushing, far more difficult to reconcile with the unflushed toilet. It's a sign of a lone intruder, an attack that didn't last long, and nobody being in the house until Knox arrived when she said she did.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know what is your source of the "one hour", but by her own account she took time to shower, change, and dry her hair. I find your estimation of "15 minutes" way off. Ever lived with a girl ?

I see no sensible reason for both of them to lie about the timeline of the morning. Especially if they were guilty of something. In that case they would simply pack up and go for the car trip, leaving the crime for Filomena to discover.

In my opinion, this is another of the often-overlooked issues in this case. If looked at with an objective rational mind, it's clear that had Knox and Sollecito indeed been involved in Meredith's murder, they would have either laid low in Sollecito's apartment the following day, or they would have gone to Gubbio (as they'd already told people they were going to do). Objectively speaking, they had absolutely nothing to gain by pursuing the actions that they did actually pursue on the 2nd - if they were culpable of the murder.

To me, it's absolutely classic ex-post-facto rationalisation to suggest that Knox's/Sollecito's actions and behaviour on the 2nd are somehow indicative of their culpability. Ironically, if they had gone to Gubbio as planned, then been contacted by Filomena after she discovered the scene on the afternoon of the 2nd, the pro-guilt commentators (and the courts) would have far more reason to suggest that such behaviour was indicative of culpability. But it's simply a nonsense rationalisation to propose that Knox and Sollecito somehow decided to choreograph the discovery, that they therefore had to play an integral part in it, and that they devised this elaborate "mounting concern" deception to ensure that Filomena was there when the body was found. Sheer nonsense.

 

[LondonJohn]

This gets my vote for the most absolutely absurd argument of the week about this case.

Defamatory *and a criminal act*....WOW....WOOOO-EEEEE.

PUH>>>LEEZE
Innocence posters here hundreds of times just this week, have accused each and every ILE, and especially Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni of lying, deliberately concealing evidence, deliberately manufacturing evidence, deliberately altering evidence and deliberately exaggerating evidence in a murder Appeal that is currently examining her work.

These now certainly are unsubstantiated "criminal defamatory" remarks according to your threatening..errr.."argument".
Also recall all the run of the mill less specific slurs to Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni about cheating, stealing, lying, pole dancing, cesspool diving, and using incorrect covers on her mops.

Again, am I to remotely believe that you now threaten the one opposition poster still willing to endure the never ending and never original droll of dimwitted excuses for two murderers, with criminality ??...Really??

But of course as with the unsolicited, unnecessarily childish condescending grammar lessons; the criminality threat does not apply to the above who just happen to all argue innocence.

These above accomplices of yours definitely defame Doctor (repeat Doctor) Stefanoni.
But we are to swallow that your nonsensical threat of criminality applies only to guilters?

Somewhat "communications engineered" ....Eh ??

Yes, indeed, let's stop "crying".

Any chance of a reply to the questioned posed to you in my last post to you (and those posed by others here in their posts to you)?

How are the crops/livestock/dairy herd coming along this year? What kind of degree do you need to become a "professional farmer"?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is a different picture of the bathmat taken from Rinaldi at a different angle under different lighting. The other stains are clearly seen and marked as evidence.

 

[HumanityBlues]

But of course as with the unsolicited, unnecessarily childish condescending grammar lessons; the criminality threat does not apply to the above who just happen to all argue innocence.

Ok I can't help myself. I actually have never made a comment about someone's spelling or grammar that I can remember. Regardless, you did not properly use a semicolon there! "But of course as with the unsolicited, unnecessarily childish condescending grammar lessons" is a dependent clause and therefore should not have a semicolon coming after it.