Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[codyjuneau]

The only "evidence" I can think of is staged breakin and that anyway is theoretical. What else is there? I can't think of anything that can't be explained.
.....

I posted on this yesterday and I think it is very important.

A staged break in hypothesis still implicates lone wolf Rudy!

If Rudy entered by some method other than a break in he would have to stage a break in because he left DNA inside Meredith and he could not clean that up. He could clean up obvious signs of himself at the crime scene but he could not clean up the DNA inside Meredith.

So the only way Rudy could explain this innocently was to say he had consensual sex with Meredith. But how to disconnect himself from the Murder? Simple. Clean up physical signs of himself involved in the murder as best he could. Then stage a break in with the implication that it happened after he left Meredith. That was his only practical option!

The prosecution does not have a free pass to claim there was a staged break in hence Rafaelle and Amanda did it. It is completely logical that Rudy would stage a break in if he had entered in any way other than an actual break in*. He had to. He left his DNA inside Meredith. How else could he explain that?

I don't think I am over estimating the importance of this for the defense! In my opinion it blocks the prosecution's path from a staged break in and clean up to R&A guilty (which they will attempt to use again because it worked last time).

* For example by asking to use the toilet, by following Meredith through the door, by entering the open door while Meredith was downstairs tending the cat, etcetera.

 

[Rolfe]

So did they say she used a knife when she did this?

Oh come on, what are you expecting? Sense?

I only posted that because I thought there was definite drug-test evidence to refute it. I note several people saying the evidence wasn't available, but Dan O. says it's mentioned in the Nadeau book.

ETA: Ah, they got there. http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=1&t=324&start=11250#p87292

The idea that Rudy behaved as he did because he was high on cocaine seems plausible. I suppose there was too long a gap before he was apprehended for there to be any definite evidence about this one way or the other.

Rolfe.

 

[Dougm]

In short: there's zero evidence that Knox or Sollecito were using any drugs other than alcohol and marijuana/cannabis around the time of Meredith's murder, and nor is there any evidence whatsoever that they were anything other than mildly stoned on grass on the night of the murder itself. It's time to put this insulting, inaccurate and partisan myth to bed once and for all.

I wanted to highlight this. These drug allegations are completely fabricated, there is no evidence at all.

 

[Paninaro]

I posted on this yesterday and I think it is very important.

A staged break in hypothesis still implicates lone wolf Rudy!

Of course it can and a proven staged break in is anyhow in no way conclusive evidence that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. There are no witnesses to this alleged crime, and the only circumstancial evidence is Quintavalles testimony that is highly questionable, to say the least.

 

[bolint]

Actually, we can flip this and say that all of the *prosecution's* arguments must be explained to the point of being cumbersome. There has never been anything elegant about the prosecution's case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

- They have a would-be false accusation/"confession," but -- conveniently and illegally -- it was not recorded. Or at least there is no record of any recording extant.

Could you cite something that it was illegal no to record?
If it was illegal why was this illegality not used by the defence?

- They have a burglar with a past history of breaking and entering through windows

I know of the Tramontani and the lawyer's office burglary but it was not proven to be Rudy, though I'm willing to believe that he was the one in both cases.

"and yet the prosecution strains to argue that the break-in at the cottage was staged by Amanda Knoxx and Raffaele Sollecito."

There is reason to argue that way.
Amanda's story of spending more than one hour in the cottage and seing some disturbing signs and not even knocking on anyone's door is ridiculous.
Also, they contradict each other about Filomena's door. Raffaele says it was open, Amanda says it was closed when they entered tha cottage.

- They claim that AK and RS have no alibi for the night of Kercher's murder, and yet the Perugian authorities damaged hard drives that could have provided exculpatory evidence.

Three drives were damaged, but two of them (those in Raffele's second computer and Meredith's computer) have been repaired and it was possible to read them.
The only unreadable hard drive is Amanda's but I don't see what exculpatory evidence could come out of it. In Amanda's version her computer was not used during that night and the next day.

 

[Dougm]

I posted on this yesterday and I think it is very important.

A staged break in hypothesis still implicates lone wolf Rudy!

If Rudy entered by some method other than a break in he would have to stage a break in because he left DNA inside Meredith and he could not clean that up. He could clean up obvious signs of himself at the crime scene but he could not clean up the DNA inside Meredith.

So the only way Rudy could explain this innocently was to say he had consensual sex with Meredith. But how to disconnect himself from the Murder? Simple. Clean up physical signs of himself involved in the murder as best he could. Then stage a break in with the implication that it happened after he left Meredith. That was his only practical option!

The prosecution does not have a free pass to claim there was a staged break in hence Rafaelle and Amanda did it. It is completely logical that Rudy would stage a break in if he had entered in any way other than an actual break in*. He had to. He left his DNA inside Meredith. How else could he explain that?

I don't think I am over estimating the importance of this for the defense! In my opinion it blocks the prosecution's path from a staged break in and clean up to R&A guilty (which they will attempt to use again because it worked last time).

* For example by asking to use the toilet, by following Meredith through the door, by entering the open door while Meredith was downstairs tending the cat, etcetera.

Are you thinking that it would be a better defense strategy to accept the possibility of a staged breakin, but argue that, even if it happened that way, it does not implicate Amanda?

It is my opinion that would be a mistake.

 

[Dougm]

Oh, I just thought I'd very quickly add something a little OT but worthy (in my view) of putting to bed:

Stint7 over on .org (who, ironically, posts here under a different user name) is accusing various JREF posters - including, seemingly, me - of creating multiple identities here. In stint7's fevered imagination, I and others have created these supposed sockpuppets with the primary aim of posting approving comments on our own posts.

I can't speak for anyone else whom stint7 is accusing of such behaviour, but I can state with categorical certainty that I am not engaging in such behaviour, and I never would and never will. I post here under just one identity and username, and always have done. Furthermore, I have never made any post or comment anywhere else on the internet under a username other than the one I use here. And in fact the only other places I've ever posted about this case are my short, unpleasant sojourn at PMF and a solitary post on the IIP forum (which I wrote in response to a specific request to do so).

So I wanted to clear that up, once and for all. I won't mention it again. I hope that this slight diversion is OK from a mod perspective: I think it's important to clarify and refute all accusations of devious posting behaviour. Thanks.

This is something that I have noticed that comes up, and is, to me, more evidence that the pro-innocence argument is much stronger. Both here and elsewhere on the net, I have seen new people come to a forum, and argue on the side of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence. When that happens, the first thing that comes from the pro-guilt side is not a discussion of the evidence, but an accusation that the "new" poster is not really new, but just an alternative identity of someone already there. I believe it is because they have trouble accepting that new people are different people that disagree with them. Part of the argument against the facts many of us are arguing here (PG posters excepted), is that the people that are pro-innocence are a small band of deluded people -- and that simply is false.

The recent addtion of some new people to this thread, including myself, Grinder, Dave, and a few others, I believe has been received in that vein. Seems odd, when clearly each new person sounds different, and has their own point of view.

Now, if there can just be some arguments that use the evidence to prove AK and RS's guilt in a logical way, instead of red herrings, that might be more valuable to the case discussion.

 

[Lothian]

This is something that I have noticed that comes up, and is, to me, more evidence that the pro-innocence argument is much stronger. .......

Now, if there can just be some arguments that use the evidence to prove AK and RS's guilt in a logical way, instead of red herrings, that might be more valuable to the case discussion.

 

[Rolfe]

It reminds me a lot of the quality of the response when you ask Lockerbie "guilters" why they are of that opinion. "He was using a false passport and he told a pack of lies to a journalist." In fact he had two legitimate passports, one in a false name to facilitate the smuggling of aircraft spare parts he was engaged in on behalf of the Libyan national airline (which was blocked from buying spares by UN sanctions), and picked up the wrong one when he left home. And when you've just been accused by Americans of a capital crime you had nothing to do with, an immediate panic reaction of denying everything (the false name and the trip to Malta) isn't all that suspicious.

What they will never do is touch the actual evidence of the Malta-Frankfurt-Heathrow route of the bomb, or deal honestly with the eyewitness identification evidence. Because neither of these things stands up to scrutiny, and yet they are the only evidence linking the suspect to the actual crime.

And here, we get "she accused an innocent man!" "She's a liar!" "She didn't take a shower she had messy hair!" And similar irrelevant dreck. There's no evidence placing Knox in the murder room, and the knife evidence is clearly spurious. The rest of it just shows her presence in her own home. The confused run-around that happened on the morning of 2nd November is far from the behaviour a guilty person who had had time to think over their response would have demonstrated.

They're clutching at straws.

Rolfe.

 

[codyjuneau]

Are you thinking that it would be a better defense strategy to accept the possibility of a staged breakin, but argue that, even if it happened that way, it does not implicate Amanda?

It is my opinion that would be a mistake.

Not at all. The defense can argue the break in was real.

But they can also argue that even if there was a staged break in it would be Rudy that had the reason to do it not Raffaele and Amanda.

The alternative is to give the prosecution an uncontested inference from staged break in to proof Raffaele and Amanda are guilty. Under those circumstances If the prosecution can convince the majority of the jury there was a staged break in (and they will try) then Raffaele and Amanda are done, period. In my opinion.

 

[bolint]

Good to see you Bolint. IIRC you used to post back in the early Shock days but maybe not there, anyway I have a question for you.

I first posted on PMF in the summer of 2008.

What do you think the police chief meant when he said that they questioned Amanda until she buckled and told them what they knew to be the truth? We know that it wasn't the truth.

The police chief's boasting is irrelevant. Even Miginini called it "stupidity" in the Graham interview.

"We know that at midnight they used a tag team of around 12 officers to question her for 2 hours before she agreed to sign a statement the police knew to be the truth.Exactly what was the truth they knew? If that truth was that Patrick had killed Meredith, do you think it was just a coincidence that Amanda fabricated the same truth?

By no means was it coincidence.
She fabricated it beacuse she did not know what Raffaele had told them and they were asking her about Lumumba's SMS.

PS: I'd suggest you reread her 2nd and 3rd statements and rethink as to whether while being held in solitary, having been told that she needed to admit to what they knew and ask yourself how absolute of a recantation you'd expect. Remembering that the police told her they had evidence, how strongly could she have written? What would you think she would think would happen if she said it was all wrong? How surprised do you think the cops were that she had the nerve to report the head slaps?

As I read it I have the feeling that it is a damage control.
She would like to retract it without definitely retracting it because in that case she could not answer a lot of questions.
The first one: Why did she accuse Lumumba?

It is no wonder that she broke down before Mignini on Dec 17.
She fully knew that in the 5:45AM questioning and confession there were no beating, yelling, etc. And she did not have the courage to tell into the Mignini's face that he had coerced her. Because he did not and Amanda knew that. So she again availed herself of the option of not responding.

 

[RWVBWL]

Drug Tested on Nov. 6, 2007

Yes, I know that. I was trying to find out for sure if there was a negative drug test for cannabis cocaine that would refute the speculations, but nobody seems to have a citation.

Rolfe.

I have seen 8 November mentioned in relation to this but I don't remember the source, will try to find it.

Hey BucketofTea,
Howz it goin? Good I hope...
<snip>
BucketofTea,
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?<snip>

Hi Rolfe, RoseMontague, and Dan O,
Here is the info that I have:
Page 162 Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau

"As for Amanda and Raf, when they were finally arrested, on November 6, only the slightest unidentifiable trace of narcotics was found through hair samples - not even enough to identify the substance."

Bolding by me.
Whack a mole? You're not kdding, Dan O!
See ya,
RW

 

[Rolfe]

Not at all. The defense can argue the break in was real.

But they can also argue that even if there was a staged break in it would be Rudy that had the reason to do it not Raffaele and Amanda.

The alternative is to give the prosecution an uncontested inference from staged break in to proof Raffaele and Amanda are guilty. Under those circumstances If the prosecution can convince the majority of the jury there was a staged break in (and they will try) then Raffaele and Amanda are done, period. In my opinion.

Well put. One has to bear in mind that the defence do not have to present their own theory of the crime, and should not concentrate on that. However compelling that theory, it can all come unstuck if the court doesn't buy it and the only alternative you have left on the table is the prosecution theory.

The defence have to maintain that the break-in was real, and then they have to say that if the court rejects that view and decides it was staged, they argue that in that case this doesn't automatically implicate the defendants anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I first posted on PMF in the summer of 2008.

The police chief's boasting is irrelevant. Even Miginini called it "stupidity" in the Graham interview.

By no means was it coincidence.
She fabricated it beacuse she did not know what Raffaele had told them and they were asking her about Lumumba's SMS.

As I read it I have the feeling that it is a damage control.
She would like to retract it without definitely retracting it because in that case she could not answer a lot of questions.
The first one: Why did she accuse Lumumba?

It is no wonder that she broke down before Mignini on Dec 17.
She fully knew that in the 5:45AM questioning and confession there were no beating, yelling, etc. And she did not have the courage to tell into the Mignini's face that he had coerced her. Because he did not and Amanda knew that. So she again availed herself of the option of not responding.

You're a mind-reader? Have you thought of going for the MDC?

Rolfe.

 

[bolint]

You should construct a plausible timeline for what happened that accounts for the evidence that has been revealed. If you cannot do that then you have no case. The prosecution argued for a timeline that was preposterous. Their case is in shambles with no witnesses, no evidence, not even a believable theory (or do you believe the 11:30 tod?). You believe they are guilty so why can't you show how it happened?

What I see established is that she was at the cottage around 21:00 and on.
And their account of the events of the night and the next morning is not believable.

That's enough for me to conclude that at least Amanda is involved somehow.

 

[bolint]

What do you think about the fact that Lumumba first told reporters that the Police officers hit him and yelled at him and called him a dirty black

I believe him, though I don't remember that he said that he had been beaten.

then for his life couldn't understand that the Police were partly to blame for the false confession of Knox - not mentioning at all that he too was put under the same kind of pressure Knox testified about -and put forward charges against Knox, but not had a bad word to say against the Police and there actions? Everything was Knox's fault.

His lawyer explained to him the Italian defamation laws.
Did they ask him about his treatment by the police?

Then, now, several years later, he tells somebody he meets for the first time that, sure, he was hit by the Police.

He did not know that it would be posted on some blog.

Has Lumumba been lying to the court?

It depend's on what he said.
What did he say?

 

[Rolfe]

What I see established is that she was at the cottage around 21:00 and on.

Evidence?^TM
Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi Rolfe, RoseMontague, and Dan O,
Here is the info that I have:
Page 162 Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau

"As for Amanda and Raf, when they were finally arrested, on November 6, only the slightest unidentifiable trace of narcotics was found through hair samples - not even enough to identify the substance."

Bolding by me.
Whack a mole? You're not kdding, Dan O!
See ya,
RW

Thanks RW. This cocaine thing is just completely bogus. If the evidence is so strong why do those on the side of guilt see fit to just make these things up?

 

[bolint]

Maybe the reason your assumptions doesn't allow you to logically connect the dots and get a coherent mental picture is that they are simply wrong?

That's certainly one possibility, but so far I have found the opposite assumption even wronger.

That's not exactly an explanation. I guess you mean at the cottage while Guede was raping, murdering and robbing Meredith. So what did she do there, that caused her to make those two confused statements instead of telling what really happened?

If I "knew" what she was doing there then the case would be solved.
I don't know what she was doing there. There are many scenarios and no detailed knowledge to select the true one.

But I think if she was there for whatever reason and knows what happened and she does not tell it, then there is reason to convict her.

 

[bolint]

And through the screensaver logs, it confirms Raffaele's story that he was home all night using his computer till he went to bed AFTER 6AM the next morning.

Can you tell me details about the screensaver log evidence?

Was it discussed during the appeal?

Why is it that I can't find anything about it in the appeal file distributed by RoseMontague and Bruce?

I know the 9 pages published as images on TGCOM. What is it, then?