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

[bolint]

From the Micheli Report we get:

BS had been heard three times during the preliminary investigation, between 2 and 4 November: only the third occasion, as already mentioned, had reported that his house (downstairs at Via della Pergola 7, which he shared with the villagers, S., and M. L.) was frequented by a guy nicknamed "the Baron" of South African origin, recalling that he was in the apartment with his friends one evening when the test was returned. B. claimed to have noticed that the "Baron" was very drunk, so that soon after he had slept on the toilet: he had added that the boy in question "had a physical attraction for A..
​

No mention of "Rudy" there.

But in the next paragraph:

Testified in the hearing, the witness recalled that he had already glimpsed the G. at the basketball court, first recounted the episode, then position it in the house the evening of the presence of R. about a week before the murder, stating that occasion - unless I'm mistaken - there were also A., M., M. and the previously reported C. (Later in the narrative, but reference B. GS). However, correcting the earlier version at the point where he reported having found the group back into the house but in reality he was sleeping and was awakened by the noise of their return from the other, then looked out the living room.​

Now he is talking about G (presumably Guede). When is this hearing? The context shift and the details sought about G indicates it is not a continuation from the 4th.

A few paragraphs later we get:

B., formerly called in by PG on 11 December 2007, ie a few days after the return of G. from Germany, claimed to know the G. some years, avendoci often played basketball. On that occasion, however, stated he had never shared the way we do, to be R. a habitual liar accustomed to consume alcohol and drugs, and to annoy the girls harassed in public and trying to kiss them.​

Is this a new hearing or more details from the last? It's been several days since Rudy had been identified so it is possible that Stefano had also been called in for a hearing before the 11th.

Wait a minute! This latter "B." is not Stefano. It's the black "friend" of Rudy who was dropped as a witness because of discussing money with journalists for his story.

"Amanda did not speak of "Rudy" before his arrest because as she said in her testimony, she did not know his name."

But she knew him.
And her bugged conversation with her father suggests that she did know his name before it became knews.

 

[smkovalinksy]

A poster at Websleuths has quoted PMF as a rebuttal to those who believe the prosecution's appeal of Hellmann is flimsy, and it is dismaying indeed to see these same old thread-bare assertions dragged out from their mothballs once more:

Interesting you think that, here is a post from Yummi at PMF describing what he thinks about the Prosecution's Appeal:

"Independently from whatever the Supreme Court will decide, the fact that we have now a 100+ pages appeal document against the acquittal signed by Giovanni Galati is a great achievement, the meaning of which will last forever.
As well we have a formal appeal by the Kercher family through Maresca. So we have a clear statement of a definate expressed position of the family and friends of Meredith Kerchers, of twenty-eight judges of various instances, of the Procura of Perugia, and of an officer Prosecution General of the Supreme Court especially threshing Zanetti: Galati is the highest rank magistrate actually in Umbria. We also have the people of Perugia (recall the chanting Vergogna to Hellmann's court). These documents by the Prosecution General and the Kercher will last in history and all those dealing with the knowledge of this case wont be able to hide them or ignore them."

Since I have seen you in other threads observing odd behavior/circumstancial evidence/false statements/bad luck of the accused/good luck of the accused/past behavior/outright lies/etc showing guilt... it makes me wonder why in this case you seem not to even consider the possibility the AK and RS are guilty of at least being accomplices in some way to the murder of Meredith.

I will make a list, but I don't plan to argue my points because I understand that probably each and every one can be poked at in some way or another... no matter how far-fetched or illogical. And this has been done over and over
and I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind. Just basically curious.

1. Both AK and RS claim to have been at RS's on the computer and doing various other things. There is no evidence of this.
2. Both AK and RS turn their phones off the night of the murder. Not usual.
3. AK deletes the message from Patrick, but claims later she didn't know how to delete sent ones.
4. AK states to investigators that they ate dinner late (maybe even 11:30pm) and they had a water leak afterwards. RS's father's blew that alibi when he stated he was told during his call much before 10pm that they had eaten earlier.
5. RS states that AK went back to the cottage that morning with a empty plastic bag and to get the mop. They were supposed to take a trip to Gubio that day... these plans did not happen.
6. AK states she goes back to the cottage to get a mop to clean the water spill from the night before that had to have happened before 9:30pm.
7. AK works a shower story into her return visit to the cottage.
8. AK's story is that she found the front door of the cottage open/unlocked, and noticed blood drops in the sink and bloodstains on the bathmat. Decides to take a shower, jumps in the shower before noticing that there are no towels in the bathroom, and gets out on the bloodstained bathmat. She then uses the bloodstained bathmat to 'shuffle' into the hallway and to her room for towels (also stating her foot may have sliped off the mat a couple of times). During this time her only working light (the lamp found in Meredith's locked room), is not in her room as usual and she does not need a light in the bathroom either because the lightswitch has undisturbed blood smears on it. She then changes clothes and goes to blow dry her hair in the other bathroom (which has poo in the toilet that she doesn't flush). So she thinks nobody is home, the front door is open, there are bloodstains in the sink and on the bathmat, bloodstains on the bathroom lightswitch, her lamp is not in her room, there is unflushed poo in the toilet, AND Meredith's door is shut/locked.
9. There is a bloody bare footprint on the bathmat attributed to RS, not RG although there are plenty of RG's shoeprints in Meredith's room and straight out of the cottage. Were is the rest of the bloody print? Cleaning done?
10. There are bare footprints in the hallway outside of Meredith's room attributed to AK and RS... none for RG. Would this explain the bathmat shuffle story and some mop toting?
11. AK claims to not remember her call to her mother which was the middle of the night for her mother.
12. AK claims to have been present at the cottage after letting Patrick in, and putting her fingers in her ears after hearing Meredith's screaming. Now she is scared of Patrick and he is a bad man... but she had supposidly let him into the cottage and he 'wanted' Meredith.
12. RG happens to have a fancy for AK... not Meredith, as he has let the downstairs boys know this fact.
13. AK actually knew RG having smoked mj around him with the boys, around the basketball court, and at the bars/clubs. If RG is thought to be a small time drug dealer anyway- IMO since AK and RS did do them... they likely knew about one another.
14. A guy is charged for cocaine dealings around Perugia after his phone is contacted BOTH shortly before and shortly after the murder (wasn't she arrested on the night of the 5th) by AK. He first comes under suspicion after investigators find this on her phone.
15. Although worried about the circumstances at the cottage that morning, she returns to RS's apt and they eat brunch and wipe up the spill from the night before before returning to check things out.
16. Upon their return to the cottage they begin to worry over the 'break-in' and thrown clothes on the floor (in Filomena's room) in addition to the blood stains, poo, and Meredith's locked door. In a 'panic' AK goes outside the cottage and tries to look in Meredith's window and RS kicks Meredith's door in an attempt to bust in.
17. AK does not attempt to try and call Meredith's phones from outside the door to see if Meredith is behind the locked door unable to answer.
18. Later before calling Filomena about her worries from the cottage, she had called Meredith's phones and only let them ring a couple of times... IMO this is when the phones were heard in the lady's garden on the outskirts of the town.
19. Filomena told AK to call the police immediately in which AK said she would... she did not.
20. RS states to police in his call that nothing had been stolen. How does he know?
21. When RG is arrested, RS states to his dad in a taped call that he is worried what strange things the arrested Ivorian will say. Why would he be worried... he should be thrilled???
21. In his prison diary writing about Meredith's dna being found on one of his kitchen knives... RS writes a LIE about pricking Meredith while cooking with her even though she had never been to his apt. According to him he said sorry and Meredith forgave him.
22. Patrick in interviews states that AK was not a good worker because she flirted too much. He states that she was going to be demoted to just handing out flyers for the bar and that he told her Meredith was going to come by on certain nights to mix drinks. He states she WAS NOT HAPPY about this revelation.
23. Patrick and AK actually talked to each other after the murder and before she accused him of the crime when she was questioned. If she had been so scared of HIM... why would she have met up with him and talked? Why did she later accuse him of all people? Did she think the bar was closed that night because she had been texted not to come in (which she deleted)?
24. Why if AK was hit or coerced by someone from LE to accuse Patrick can she not identify who from the officers that were there? Why ruin Patrick's life over something he had nothing to do with?
25. RG identified AK and RS as the others having committed the crime after he had already been convicted.
26. Witnesses state having seen both AK and RS near the cottage the night of the murder.
27. Store owner states having seen AK at his shop early the morning after the murder.
28. AK writes a story of a drug/alchohol fueled party and a rape/murder while under arrest.
29. Five instances including one in Filomena's room (where the staging took place) of AK's dna mixed with Meredith's blood. One in the bathroom likely being a AKblood/Meredith's blood mix.
30. Along with the bathmat boogie story AK mentions bleeding ears from piercings when under questioning by investigators to try to explain the possibily of the above and the barefoot prints that may be found in the hallway.
31. RS's sister is relieved of her job with the police for trying to influence proceedings against her bother.
32. AK was even convicted of calunna at appeal... so the forced confession/accusation theory was even denied there.
33. The appeal verdict mainly dismissed the charges due to 2 pieces of evidence 'possibly' being contaminated and without HEARING or SEEING other pieces of evidence. The appeal judge repeatedly makes general statements in his motivation about the young/naive accused and their suffering families.
34. The experts called by the appeal judge did not actually do any new test on the knife as was asked of them... even though the technology now exist to do so.
35. RS can not kick in the door to Meredith's room, but another male was able to in a few kicks at most.
36. There were no signs below the broken window on the ground of an intruder and NO glass outside the shutter line or on the ground below.
37. There was glass on top of the clothes strewn on Filomena's floor.
38. Nothing was stolen (as RS told police) from Filomena's room or elsewhere.
39. It is not anyone elses dna mixed with Meredith's blood except AK...and no other dna evidence of an intruder.
40. The rock was big (IIRC like 8 or 9lbs) too hard to throw from below IMO and not likely to be thrown from the parking area due to being noticed.
41. None of the three ever produced the clothing they were wearing that night either throwing them away or not really remembering what they were wearing... if anything.
42. All of AK's statements (and of course RS even though he wouldn't testify)
both written and verbal are quite suspicious to me and in my opinion show many traits of lying/deflection/deception. IMO any proper analysis of her writing and statements would note the deceptions.
43. Over 25 judges at different levels found the evidence against all three to be enough to hold/charge/prosecute them for being involved in Meredith's murder. Yet their convictions are dismissed because of two pieces of evidence 'possibly' being contaminated or misread. Even though RS's dna was verified of being on the bra-clasp and Meredith's on his kitchen knife along with AK's. Really?


I could go some more but I am tired... and is their really a need?

Could there be that many (and more) inconsistancies/lies/circumstancial evidence/deflection or just plain bad luck against the accused but they are somehow not involved? Not IMO.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159603&page=6
__________________

 

[JREF2010]

Grinder

You're missing out on 'the moving of the body' theory. This is a guilter myth based on Micheli which holds that the two non-Guede perps returned hours later and moved the body. That's how Nara gets straightened out. Btw. Frank Sfarzo thinks she did hear Meredith scream but at an earlier hour. If I understand aright, he thinks her evidence was misconstrued by Massei and that it pointed to a scream at an earlier time (still too late imho) of about 10.30 IIRC.

10:30 doesnt work for me. Alessandra and her boyfriend and possibly those in the broken down car would have heard such a blood curddling , decibel level event as Nara heard it.

I think Nara and her neighbors might have heard something in their apartment hallway or someone unrelated to the crime.

The only people that heard this scream & stairwell noise, were in that small localized area of the apartments.

Furthermore, Naras credibility goes to the garbage when she mentions hearing people walking on a driveway rocks too, thorugh her double pane window.

I think , Nara's words, were blown out of proportion to support a desperate prosecutor's case.

 

[bolint]

And this would point toward what? That they are estranged from each other, and did not maintain a warm relationship through 4 years of prison? I know many PG people who were complaining when they thought they were still in close contact and planning a holiday get together.Either way, whether they remained close or became estranged, it is deemed highly suspicious and quite significant.

It works the other way around, too. Innocentists here initially predicted that he would surely fly over to the US, etc..
Of late they say how natural it is that he does not fly.

My stance is that it is very strange of two "absolutely innocent and unjustly jailed" people that they did not talk a single time since their release.

 

[bolint]

It sounds as if they are going to try to resurrect the argument that Raffaele called 112 after the arrival of the postal police: "Costagliola: Because they called the 112 after the police arrived (Can you guys send him an update?)" I thought that the only people who still believed that were the ones I have been debating.

I read Franks claim but I could not find the reference in the Cassazione appeal.
Where is it mentioned?

 

[bolint]

Such as when the police specifically identified Amanda's boss, Lumumba, when they questioned her about who the text message on her phone was sent to.

We don't know if they knew that the phone number was Lumumba's.

 

[bolint]

We're you the one claiming to be a lawyer or was that someone else.

I take it as an insult.

Only the second trial is over. There is still the appeal and several side cases going on

So they can't talk to each other?

 

[bolint]

But you realize then that there is no way for her have to have avoided suspicion in your book, no matter what she did. She names him, guilty. She doesn't name him, guilty. She describes him but doesn't name him, guilty. I'd be willing to say that the whole naming of Rudy is inconclusive, except for the fact that when she did try to indicate him to police she didn't even know his name. This is more telling than anything. Had she named him specifically by his first name, rather than a description, how would that have been any worse for her? She was just listing off people who visited the cottage. By not naming him, her vague description went completely unnoticed. What strategy is that? This is actually one of the biggest pieces of evidence favoring innocence that I can see actually. If her goal was to throw suspicion on Rudy, the LEAST she could have done was remember his name as someone who at one time casually visited the cottage and passed that on to ILE. You want to have it too many ways.

Her goal was not to throw suspicion on Rudy. It was to remove suspicion from herself.
And indeed, both specifically naming Rudy and not mentioning him at all is wrong to achieve that.

 

[bolint]

Halides, IIRC there's a bit missing from that quote: it should say "She told me to call 112, which I did, but in the meantime the postal police arrived". Thoughtful and Bolint pointed out the missing phrase when this was discussed on PMF; here's a link to one of Bolint's posts on the subject. The full phrase comes from the official statement I think, rather than the newspaper excerpts.

The statement with the phrase "wich i did" appeared in La Stampa, other Italian newspapers (e.g. Corriere) quoted it without that phrase. This was tranlated into English in the British newspapers (and in the Emglish edition of Corriere, too).

So there is no proof of what was in the original police record. But I don't think that La Stampa invented that phrase, leaving it out is more likely, so I find the La Stampa version more credible.

 

[samba]

Hmm....the tapes exist

Here is the proper link for Sfarzo:
http://perugiashock.com/2012/02/14/...-and-the-prosecution-appealing-the-acquittal/

Frank says....I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…

 

[bolint]

There is no doubt that this case has no easy answers that leave no questions. As I said a little up-thread, one would think that if any of the three had a lesser role they would have gone state's witness early on. More so, if their role was as minor as you describe.

But you can't get away cleanly if you undertake any witnessing. You remain involved.

Anyway, supposing that all three are involved, the absence of witnessing, the initial breakdown of the pair and Rudy's changing tales are compatible only with the involvement ranking:

1. Rudy (otherwise he would have indeed turned state's witness)
2. Amanda
3. Raffaele (otherwise he would never have said that Amanda was out that night)

 

[bolint]

Curious as to how the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will handle TOD or if they even do.

With every piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to a death before 10:13 and most likely before 9:30 one wonders how the prosecution or the PGP can still maintain that they will make the TOD 11:30 to accommodate Curatolo (BTW when does he get out, I'm betting he will not see freedom until all Meredith related trials are over. No way they want him interviewed and on YouTube)and Nara. The sheer ridiculousness of Nara hearing the most chilling scream of her life, not calling the police, and hearing shortly (a couple of minutes?) people running away (through double paned windows) making such distinct noises that she knew exactly where they were running, but not coming forward until discovered by ace cub reporter for the local rag.

Now those people running away immediately would make most of the cleanup scenarios not work. When did they take the phones and the money? When did they get the blood on the mat? When did the Rudy take his dump? When did they re-position her? Did the kids run up to the plaza all bloody and wave the knife around? Didn't Koko say it was 10:30?

Oh my, what a mess to straighten out.

Curatolo is not a proof of the 23:30 TOD. He testifies only that they were at Grimana. It could have been after the murder.
Nara has no time data to fix it to 23:30. It could have been earlier, too. (If the scream came from the murder at all, which is another question)

 

[bolint]

Frank says....I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…

These tapes are getting the dimesnions of the Nixon tapes.

But it is interesting that the defense did not request them to be part of the evidence.
Or did they?
I only read that they would have liked to listen to them and then decide if they want to use them or not.

So my question:
Was the case of the tapes discussed at all at the trial?

 

[Bill Williams]

A poster at Websleuths has quoted PMF as a rebuttal to those who believe the prosecution's appeal of Hellmann is flimsy, and it is dismaying indeed to see these same old thread-bare assertions dragged out from their mothballs once more:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159603&page=6
__________________

Thanks for reposting Yummi's work. Those, indeed, are the 43 points on the PGP merry-go-round, and is actually a very good summary of what the PGP mean by, "All the other evidence."

When I dove into this in Oct 2011, that kind of list was bewildering. It certainly fell into the category of "where's there's smoke, there's fire."

Yet at this point for me, four months later, it is possible to take all of those 43 points and say, "You mean you're STILL counting on THAT to be true to justify persecuting innocents?" Some of those 43 actually, truly, and in fact, "beg the question."

The other side of, "Where there's smoke there's fire," is, "The substitution of quantity with quality." When one has been around this 43-horse merry-go-round a couple of times, such an exhaustive list of 43 incredibly tenuous points begins to look very suspicious.

But one can see why a PGP does say, "Oaky, smarty pants, just becuase you've done away with the DNA, what about all the other overwhelming evidence? Huh? HUH!?"

I guess the good folk at PMF will always find conspiracy..... free speech is free speech after all. But where's that tag line when you need it.....

"You have the right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to the evidence."

 

[Bill Williams]

Frank says....I’ve got information, by the way, that the tapes still exist. It’s impossible, but it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court would confirm the slander conviction, and then maybe the tapes come out…

This will be the clincher, either way, if true.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Not pleasant reading from Nadeau from Daily Beast, and Kercher's may also open a wrongful death suit. It is as if time is reversing:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rdict-appealed-will-she-go-back-to-italy.html

 

[Grinder]

But you can't get away cleanly if you undertake any witnessing. You remain involved.

Anyway, supposing that all three are involved, the absence of witnessing, the initial breakdown of the pair and Rudy's changing tales are compatible only with the involvement ranking:

1. Rudy (otherwise he would have indeed turned state's witness)
2. Amanda
3. Raffaele (otherwise he would never have said that Amanda was out that night)

Bolint it was discussed up-thread but again do you have proof he said she was out? If in fact he said that it was during the interrogation that the police needed him to pull the alibi because they were on their way to Amanda's "accusation" that they knew to be what happened. Had Raffaele actually said she was out and if he wasn't involved in the murder he would have cooperated with the police.

Why in the world would Raffaele think he could away cleanly if Amanda had been part of the murder and he had helped clean-up or whatever your theory is? There is no way that one of them wouldn't have come clean as they all would think forensic evidence would prove their involvements.

Curatolo is not a proof of the 23:30 TOD. He testifies only that they were at Grimana. It could have been after the murder.
Nara has no time data to fix it to 23:30. It could have been earlier, too. (If the scream came from the murder at all, which is another question)

The original police theory was an earlier TOD and that's why Patrick's register not recording until 10:30 was a problem for him. It was Nara and Curatolo that moved the time much later. Curatolo's testimony along with the car breakdown people made TOD very difficult for Mignini. Nara testified that she went to sleep and woke some time later which was always put in the 10:30-11:30 time frame but the car people made it have to be later. Curatolo testimony is a joke but he had them there from 9:30 to 11:30 which would mean that if they sneaked off to go kill her they would have to have returned bloody and stood around the plaza.

 

[Malkmus]

Her goal was not to throw suspicion on Rudy. It was to remove suspicion from herself.
And indeed, both specifically naming Rudy and not mentioning him at all is wrong to achieve that.

So she was asked to name all the men who had visited the cottage. Some of them she knew by name, some not. By your inference, anyone who answers those questions is throwing suspicion off themselves. Like the conclusion you've drawn regarding the two not talking to each other post conviction, you jump to a lot of conclusions regarding suspicious behavior. Innocent people would also do these things.

 

[Dougm]

Curatolo is not a proof of the 23:30 TOD. He testifies only that they were at Grimana. It could have been after the murder.
Nara has no time data to fix it to 23:30. It could have been earlier, too. (If the scream came from the murder at all, which is another question)

I don't see how either of them is proof of anything, especially time. Curotolo gave incoherant testimony at the appeals trial, and confirmed he was using heroin on the night in question. Even if we are to accept the fact that he saw them, the time he saw them would clearly be open to question.

Nara testified herself she did not know what time. And she didn't see anyone. Her account might have some value if supported by some other fact that proves what she heard is related to the murder.

 

[Rolfe]

There is no doubt that this case has no easy answers that leave no questions. As I said a little up-thread, one would think that if any of the three had a lesser role they would have gone state's witness early on. More so, if their role was as minor as you describe.

But to feed your theory, perhaps the kids did go to the cottage and stumbled onto the murder being committed by Rudy and someone else. Kokomani could have been the other person or he might have driven both Rudy and his accomplice to the cottage. Possibly Rudy was going through some mafia gang initiation. The kids could have been convincingly threatened that the gang would take care of them inside or outside of prison. Certainly, that scenario is no more wacky than what the prosecution presented.

My problem with all this is, it gets to the point where it's on a level with picking through the "best" published papers claiming homoeopathy is effective. When actually the obvious, parsimonious explanation that accommodates all observations is that the remedies are sugar pills, and coincidental occurrences are being misinterpreted and overinterpreted by people who are starting from their conclusion.

Rolfe.