Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

I don't think we're in agreement here. They may have suspected Lumumbam but they also questioned Knox heavily earlier about Shaky. Remember, my thing here is that even until 10 pm Nov 5, they only reason they thought Knox interesting was because she had a key. And in the "follow the key" meme, she was one of two equally suspicious people, the other being Romanelli, who had the added suspicion attached to her of scoffing her own laptop from behind crimescene tape!

Bill you're just plain wrong. Rather than relying on Dempsey you go back and read the reporting of the time. Amanda's alibi story was always weak. They had the impression that the police had been called after the postals arrived. I don't think anyone, except perhaps you, doesn't understand that the kids behavior at the police station was a little odd and added more suspicion.

I think you are reading way too much into your assessments 4 years later.

It's been four years so some things may not be perfectly clear in memory, but I just don't recall a documented account of Filomena crossing the tape without police permission. I recall she had permission to get it and that takes your whole theory that her getting it should add suspicion to her. Please explain concisely why she would have "scoffed" off with the laptop in the manner you describe if she had killed Meredith.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's been four years so some things may not be perfectly clear in memory, but I just don't recall a documented account of Filomena crossing the tape without police permission. I recall she had permission to get it and that takes your whole theory that her getting it should add suspicion to her. Please explain concisely why she would have "scoffed" off with the laptop in the manner you describe if she had killed Meredith.

Grinder - with all due respect - and you know what's coming when someone starts with, "with all due respect...."

Either I have made my point less than clear, or.... well, I'll get overtly moderated if I complete the "or".

The box-quote above is exactly what I am talking about - taking 20-20 hindsight and applting it to a claim that they'd always had Amanda in their sights? Why did they "always have Amanda in their sights"? Well, because they four days later settle on Amanda. Sounds circular to me.

What the investigators were in was called the "fog of war", or the "fog of a crime scene". No one needs to explain why Filomena would have scoffer her laptop, "if she had killed Meredith", because on the first day of investigation that is rushing to judgment WAY, WAY too quickly, and it is EXACTLY a question we'd ask of someone else with 20-20 hindsight.

A good investigator establishes leads, and makes reasonable inferences. Especially on the first day, one should not trap themselves into an either/or - and I, in fact, do not think they did that with this.

It is not either, "follow Knox, because she has a key, and she seems to have called the cops AFTER they have arrived," or "follow Romanelli because she scoffed her laptop (acc. to Dempsey) from behind a crimescene and went in and out of her own room at least twice that we know of";

At the early invesitgative phase it is both, "follow Knox, because she has a key, and she seems to have called the cops AFTER they have arrived," and "follow Romanelli because she scoffed her laptop (acc. to Dempsey) from behind a crimescene and went in and out of her own room at least twice that we know of".

No one would have known why Filomena did that early on, nor would they, early on, have cared.

And no one would have thought this meant Filomena had killed Meredith either - with all due respect, putting it like this shows that I have either not been clear, or....... (moderator's deletia).

Both Knox and Romanelli, acc. to Dempsey, were in and out of the cottage when they shouldn't have been - when it was a crime scene. Filomena most defintely DI NOT have permission to scoff her laptop, nor be in there that second time - and the cop who gave her permission to go in the first time should have been fired.

Both R. and K. had issues that would make them suspicious. Heck, even Shaky, was in the investigator's sights, however briefly.

I think this is where I'll leave it, unless I get a good dander up later....

 

[Grinder]

From Massei "The Perugia Flying Squad seized the laptops of the accused, the victim, Patrick Lumumba, and later, Rudy Hermann Guede, as well as Sollecito’s Kingston and Seitec USB drives, each 128MB [in size]."

No mention of Filomena's laptop being examined in Massei that I can find. Dempsey solo is not a reliable enough source. You don't give any cite other than Candace and you make no sensible argument why Filomena would have left the computer behind if it had incriminating evidence on it. If it didn't have incriminating evidence, why would she risk seeking into a sealed crime scene.

You haven't addressed the behavior of the kids that justifiably would have put the spotlight on them. Also, if she "scoffed" her laptop by seeking in how did the police figure it out? Are you (Dempsey) saying that she sneacked in and was caught? This is the same savvy person that lawyered up?

 

[Didaktylos]

A recurring theme, meme even, in revealed miscarriages of justice is the whine, by or on behalf of the individuals involved: "... the police were under enormous pressure to solve the case ...". I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that for preventing miscarriages of justice in future, consideration should be given to the provision of resources to enable the police in general better to resist "pressure" from politicians and the media and those actually conducting an investigation to resist pressure and interference from from further up their own chain of command.

 

[Bill Williams]

From Massei "The Perugia Flying Squad seized the laptops of the accused, the victim, Patrick Lumumba, and later, Rudy Hermann Guede, as well as Sollecito’s Kingston and Seitec USB drives, each 128MB [in size]."

No mention of Filomena's laptop being examined in Massei that I can find. Dempsey solo is not a reliable enough source. You don't give any cite other than Candace and you make no sensible argument why Filomena would have left the computer behind if it had incriminating evidence on it. If it didn't have incriminating evidence, why would she risk seeking into a sealed crime scene.

You haven't addressed the behavior of the kids that justifiably would have put the spotlight on them. Also, if she "scoffed" her laptop by seeking in how did the police figure it out? Are you (Dempsey) saying that she sneacked in and was caught? This is the same savvy person that lawyered up?

That Massei misses it means nothing to me. I will look for sources other than Dempsey.

I don't understand the clause: "you make no sensible argument why Filomena would have left the computer behind if it had incriminating evidence on it."

I have addressed "the kids" behaviour. Read what I said about Giobbi and his alleged competition with Mignini. In and of itself, the odd behaviour is only that, odd behaviour. In four years of trying, no one has shown why a cartwheel, missing a memorial, buying underwear, laughing in the Questura, kissing outside the crime scene points to guilt. I've addressed it.

And Dempsey does not say Filomena snuck in and was caught at the scene. Dempsey says Filomena brought it to the Questura the evening of Nov 2 to surrender it, with her lawyer present. Kind of ruins the "chain of possession" doesn't it? So, what was or what wasn't on the computer is a very moot point.

Dempsey says the cops had apoplexy that evening when they got the answer to, "Where'd you get that?" I can imagine Filomena's lawyer taking it from there: "My client is freely returning this, and unless you want to make an issue out of it, I assume we are free to go?" That the cops did not make an issue of it ranks up there as huge - for me.

I also think that all this got left behind in the flotsam and jetsam of the tsunami which hit Knox and Sollecito. That's my point about trying to revoer ANYTHING about Romanelli in the Nov 2-5 period. No one cared after Nov 6 when the Foxy Knoxy myth was born.

 

[Antony]

Sorry Anthony, I don't buy this at all.

The "staged" nature of the break-in was one of the very first things claimed, by Postal Police, then by Romanelli, then by Profazio. All this before 1:45 pm on Nov 2.

Is that so? Can you point me to contemporary reports on this? The reason I ask is that I've not seen any clear account of when the "staged" break-in was first cited, but I had the impression it wasn't until after they were building a case against AK.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is the only thing I can find at short notice about Filomena's laptop, from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Sock, December 1, 2009, OVERWHELMED BY A TSUNAMI
Carlo Dalla Vedova Puts Serious Doubts on the Prosecution Assertions and Asks for Acquittal.


"As we know even Filomena’s laptop was burned. She collected it on November 2, still in its suitcase, but the police asked her to leave it with them. Next day they returned it: shocked. The murderers have been there, was their explanation."

I believe that Frank is implying that she collected it on Novemeber 2 (from her room which was a crime scene), but the police asked her to leave it with them (after having apoplexy because she'd brought it to the Questura). Next day they returned it: shocked (which pretty much makes it useless for finding out if Filomena had fiddled with something on the laptop relavant to the crime).

 

[Bill Williams]

Is that so? Can you point me to contemporary reports on this? The reason I ask is that I've not seen any clear account of when the "staged" break-in was first cited, but I had the impression it wasn't until after they were building a case against AK.

There are very early newspaper reports indicating a suspicion that the break-in had been staged.

Hellmann-Zanetti is silent on the nature of how the staged-break in was deeveloped as a theory. H-Z just says there's no real reason to suspect there was one, and that Guede was fully capable of doing a real break in.

Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi are the postal police on the scene, and it seems that between them and Romanelli, they speculate immediately about the break-in being staged, because Romanelli can't understand why nothing is taken and glass "seems" to be on top of clothes that she claims she had not strewn on the floor.

In any event, by the time Flying Squad chief Profazio gets there (1:45 pm on the 2nd) even Profazio is speculating about a staged break-in. It's in Dempsey's book. That with the early pre-Knox newspaper accounts seems to settle that this was one of the earliest investigative lines established, more so to make known key holders (follow the key!) imporant - meaning Romanelli and Knox.

 

[Grinder]

And Dempsey does not say Filomena snuck in and was caught at the scene. Dempsey says Filomena brought it to the Questura the evening of Nov 2 to surrender it, with her lawyer present. Kind of ruins the "chain of possession" doesn't it? So, what was or what wasn't on the computer is a very moot point.

So how did the police know the computer was in her room? Many people would take a laptop with them if they were going to be away for a day.

I repeat my question. Why would Filomena have left her computer in her room after killing Meredith if there was something incriminating on it?

If she had looked up "methods of breaking and entry" that would have been recorded on the ISP. The other computers would have been useful for the defense in a number of ways if they had time stamps or pictures showing Amanda and Meredith being friends.

What could have been found on Filomena's computer that the police couldn't have found elsewhere?

Their behavior is not a proof of guilt but I fully understand why it would have helped cause the police to focus on Amanda and Raffaele.

I find it quite a stretch to believe that Giobbi was in competition with a lowly Perugia Public Minister and that he would provide the detail of the booty dance, pizza and the rest.

 

[Antony]

A recurring theme, meme even, in revealed miscarriages of justice is the whine, by or on behalf of the individuals involved: "... the police were under enormous pressure to solve the case ...". I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that for preventing miscarriages of justice in future, consideration should be given to the provision of resources to enable the police in general better to resist "pressure" from politicians and the media and those actually conducting an investigation to resist pressure and interference from from further up their own chain of command.

Who's going to make changes to allow police to resist pressure from politicians? However desirable this might be, we have to rely on politicians to do so.

I think it's not really pressure from politicians that's the problem - it's the lack of accountability for those responsible for justice: both police and judges.

 

[Bill Williams]

So how did the police know the computer was in her room? Many people would take a laptop with them if they were going to be away for a day.

I repeat my question. Why would Filomena have left her computer in her room after killing Meredith if there was something incriminating on it?

And I will repeat my answer. No one suspected either Romanelli or Knox of actually killing Meredith in those early hours - ok, maybe one or two cops, who thought a in-shock-kiss meant something suspicious.

Mo one is saying that. What I am saying for the umpteenth time, is that everything "odd" needs to be noted so that cooler heads can put a coherent theory together.

The police knew the computer was in her room, because she'd told the postal police that there was glass on top of the laptop. That was one of the things she said, indicating to them that Filomena thought that the breaking of the window had happened AFTER the strewing of clothes. She mentions the laptop.

She then goes into the room, not once by twice, after the crime scene has been declared. The second time, acc. to Dempsey, she takes her laptop. Why? No one asked her.

On the evening of the 2nd when she's interviewed (with her lawyer) she brings the laptop. When they asked her where she got that, she told them she'd taken it out of her room. If your question is, "How did the police know this," the answer is "She told them."

And if your question is, "Why would Filomena have left her computer in her room after killing Meredith if there was something incriminating on it?", no one is accusing Romanelli of killing Kercher. That is not the ONLY import of what could be forensically noteworthy about what was on the computer.

For one thing, it was forensically noteworthy simply because Romanelli said, "It has glass on top ot it." However, once scoffing the laptop, Romanelli has destroyed one clue as to whether or not the break-in had been simulated.

Note that point. She'd destroyed one clue as to the nature of the break in. This has nothing to do with suspicion as to her as a murderer. For the life of me, interfering with a crimescene means nothing, on the face if it, with allegations of murder.

Maybe Filomena had a diary on there about how much she hated Meredith, and thought that if that got into the hands of the police, then the police WOULD suspect her. I don't know.

But pleas edo not always make the jump to the reality of Filomena having unauthorized entry into the crimescene and suspicion of her as a murderer. Knox, too, tramped all over the place post-police arrival. acc. to Demspey.

I'm not sure why this does not answer your question.

 

[Dan O.]

So how did the police know the computer was in her room? Many people would take a laptop with them if they were going to be away for a day.

That's a good question. We know Filomena told them about the laptop being in her room from her testimony about the glass being on top of it. We know from the police photographs that the laptop was removed early on the 2nd. I cannot conceive of the police letting anyone back into the cottage after discovering the body. But it would have been easy for Filomena to slip into her room on the way out to grab something essential.

Three of the four girls had laptops on their desks in their rooms that night. Meredith was only out for the evening but Amanda, Laura and Filomena were away for the night. While some of us older geeks may be physically unseparatable from our computers, this is not necessarily so for everybody. It's just as easy to browse the net, update a Facebook page or login to an online forum using a friends computer so there is simply no big need to lug a bulky laptop everywhere. What do you think Amanda was using when she sent that email home on the 4th? Her lop top was sealed in the cottage at that time.

 

[Draca]

There is some confusion about a photo from Prof Vinci's demonstration. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf

The photo shows MK's leg on TOP of the duvet. Her leg was indeed on top of a portion of the duvet. The photo shows the postion she was found in after the duvet was pulled off to the left to uncover her.


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...86599.45660.106344459390034&type=3&permPage=1


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...86599.45660.106344459390034&type=3&permPage=1

 

[bolint]

staged break-in

but I think they concluded the break-in was "staged" because they thought Amanda was involved, not the other way around. If there really had been reason to think that the break-in wasn't genuine, then Filomena might have been in trouble, given that it was in her room.

One of the postals did not think it a genuine burglary and said so to the pair who did not say anything.
This before the murder was discovered, so Amanda's involvement was not a factor then.


As for Filomena, she said that she had thought that "what a stupid burglar who did not take anything", this was also before the discovery of the murder.

Also, to correct some other posts, Filomena did not say (in her testimonial) that broken glass pieces were on her clothes. She said that glass pieces were on the top of her computer.

 

[bolint]

The nov 4 bugged conversation

Some claim that it was about Shaky, but I don't agree.
Only the last part of it is about Shaky and it is brought up by Raffaele.

The first part is quite clearly about Juve (or some fictitious character attributed with some of Juve's acts).

It was Juve who found the job for Amanda and it was him who played guitar with her (Silenzi also played guitar with her but he did not find the job).
Juve was also in the cottage the day before the murder (that is oct 31).

 

[Antony]

There are very early newspaper reports indicating a suspicion that the break-in had been staged.

Hellmann-Zanetti is silent on the nature of how the staged-break in was deeveloped as a theory. H-Z just says there's no real reason to suspect there was one, and that Guede was fully capable of doing a real break in.

Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi are the postal police on the scene, and it seems that between them and Romanelli, they speculate immediately about the break-in being staged, because Romanelli can't understand why nothing is taken and glass "seems" to be on top of clothes that she claims she had not strewn on the floor.

In any event, by the time Flying Squad chief Profazio gets there (1:45 pm on the 2nd) even Profazio is speculating about a staged break-in. It's in Dempsey's book. That with the early pre-Knox newspaper accounts seems to settle that this was one of the earliest investigative lines established, more so to make known key holders (follow the key!) imporant - meaning Romanelli and Knox.

All of this doesn't answer my question. Do you have links to the news reports of the time, stating that a staged break-in was suspected? Which was the earliest to mention the possibility?

 

[anglolawyer]

A recurring theme, meme even, in revealed miscarriages of justice is the whine, by or on behalf of the individuals involved: "... the police were under enormous pressure to solve the case ...". I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that for preventing miscarriages of justice in future, consideration should be given to the provision of resources to enable the police in general better to resist "pressure" from politicians and the media and those actually conducting an investigation to resist pressure and interference from from further up their own chain of command.

Quite. I am a lawyer and therefore operate under intense pressure much of the time. Not media pressure, admittely, but pressure from my clients, their opponents, the court and the inherent compexity of the law and the facts of life. I have to be able to handle it or get another job. Many people operate under pressure (surgeons, nurses, teachers) besides the police. Their training and experience enable them to cope. Allowing pressure to get the better of them just means they are bad professionals. Allowing pressure to affect you so much that you take shortcuts, fail to think things through, jettison thoroughness and diligence means you are not up to the job. That simple.

I retain an image of the unbelievable chaos at Dallas police HQ following the Kennedy assassination, with officers fighting their way along corridors jammed with journalists and passers-by (Ruby!) and wonder how on earth anyone got any quiet thinking done there.

Who was quietly, calmly and rationally thinking their way through the Kercher murder in the four days after the murder? I have seen nothing to indicate that anyone was.

 

[bolint]

Filomena most defintely DI NOT have permission to scoff her laptop, nor be in there that second time

She did have. The postals let her in.

and the cop who gave her permission to go in the first time should have been fired.

Give me a break. Everybody was in the cottage when the murder was discovered.

 

[bolint]

Without that night there is no changing stories. There is no accusing a black man. There is no lack of an alibi.

The alibi would have collapsed anyway, as Raffaele was not working on his computer, did not receive the late night call from his father, and it took him years to say (and even then very vaguely and cautiously) that Amanda was always with him that night.

 

[freeski]

This is the only thing I can find at short notice about Filomena's laptop, from Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Sock, December 1, 2009, OVERWHELMED BY A TSUNAMI
Carlo Dalla Vedova Puts Serious Doubts on the Prosecution Assertions and Asks for Acquittal.


"As we know even Filomena’s laptop was burned. She collected it on November 2, still in its suitcase, but the police asked her to leave it with them. Next day they returned it: shocked. The murderers have been there, was their explanation."

I believe that Frank is implying that she collected it on Novemeber 2 (from her room which was a crime scene), but the police asked her to leave it with them (after having apoplexy because she'd brought it to the Questura). Next day they returned it: shocked (which pretty much makes it useless for finding out if Filomena had fiddled with something on the laptop relavant to the crime).

Do we know if and when they returned Amanda's and Raffaele's computers to them? The defence certainly wanted them back to get expert analysis from the disk drive manufacturers but were not permitted access to them, so if they did return them, they re-acquired them. Returning the computer to Filomena (albeit "shocked") would seem to imply they had no interest in her.

Of course this is another example of incompetence. The contents of a room with the break-in (staged or otherwise) of a crime scene where someone is brutally murdered should be kept under lock and key till the investigation is over.