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

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox is a criminal, a liar convicted for calunnia.
They are actually two liars and two murderers.

Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective.

Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito.

You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive.

I would appreciate it if you could:

1) PM me with such a list, or
2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's.

My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime.

I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this."

Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth.

I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm a little disappointed that JHunter hasn't returned to the thread to continue discussing the points he raised.

Rolfe.

I'm not. What's the point?

Most people believe, on the basis of intuition about how they think they would handle an interrogation, that innocent suspects seldom or never incriminate themselves or confess under any circumstances short of physical torture.

US juries definitely believe that, which is why Billy Wayne Cope is in prison even though he is obviously innocent and the physical evidence all points to someone he didn't know.

I knew, before Amanda Knox was ever arrested, that false confessions are disturbingly common and have resulted in many wrongful convictions. Equipped with this knowledge, I could see that her statements were in no way indicators of her guilt. In fact, the more I learned about her statements, the more I saw them as an obvious indication that she was being railroaded.

But people who formed a strong opinion without this knowledge, and are just now catching up to it, find some reason to believe it doesn't apply to this case - that even though Amanda's statements are demonstrably false and do not conform to the forensic facts of the crime, or even to the prosecution's theory of what happened, they somehow constitute a viable admission of guilt.

From what I have seen, nothing will ever convince such people otherwise.

 

[Machiavelli]

I asked Frank about this in December, (fourth comment) and he assured me they would pick it up in Turin. Are you saying Frank Sfarzo is wrong? You've said that before and he turned out to be right, what makes this time different?

First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment.

Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his ensurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying?

That's how it should have been for the appeal, but he wormed his way into that somehow,

He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice.
However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome.

That is until Mignini was muzzled, or so we heard, after the Bob Graham interview debacle. Do you have any juicy inside details about that?

I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the origina, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle.

It was also his case prosecuted again in court, complete with nuggets debunked even by Massei like the 'mixed blood'

The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression.

As you pointed out repeatedly between the trial and the appeal, Costagliola could have made an entirely different case, instead it was just a rehash of the original trash--including some things too far-fetched for Massei.

No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General.

You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli... I have been on the hunt for a list of these lies. PGP refer to them often, I have only found two sources which actually lists these "lies" from a PGP perspective. One is Harry Rag's list which makes it on to just about every "comments" forum where there's news about the Kercher trial and it's aftermath. Another was from a very obscure blog which had been set up by someone I'm unfamiliar with, who listed some lies from their perspective.

Discounting duplicates, there are 15 "lies" listed. The intriguing thing is that Harry Rag's list has 11 lies Raffaele was supposed to have told, one lie Knox was supposed to have told (the Lumumba calunnia one) and then one last one attributed to Knox but when you read it, it is yet another which should be pegged on to Sollecito.

You owe me nothing, I admit that. Yet I have been having private PM's with verious interesting people from a PGP perspective - and none of them are willing to offer a "list of lies", even to confirm or deny that they view Harry Rag's list as definitive.

I would appreciate it if you could:

1) PM me with such a list, or
2) point to a list - knowing that I already have Harry Rag's.

My point is that the "iles" is what most PGP point to as their chief reason they think Knox or Sollecito had something to do with this horrible crime.

I will understand if you refuse. One PGP said to me while refusing to offer a list is, "This has been debated so much that I am tired of answering questions like this."

Yet they, like you, continue with the "all the lies" myth.

I would appreciate it if you could help out. Seriiously.

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

 

[Dan O.]

$361 would be about 250 Euro. You need to multiply the dollar number by the .69895 number. The Euro was worth more than a dollar at 1.45 dollars for one Euro. You conversion number is reversed - it was .69895 Euro equals one dollar.

Thanks, I thought I checked that with Google Calculator but still got it wrong (probably my inflated estimate of self worth won't accept that another currency could be more valuable than the US$).

A quick search for [perugia atm withdrawal limit] revealed that 250 euro is the typical daily limit. This could be raised by the bank but a student would probably have the lower limit.

I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar.

Someone posted earlier that Meredith had withdrawn 250 euro from her account 2 days before her death. I don't believe that had been verified.

 

[Kaosium]

Let's see what happens when the tapes hit YouTube.

This will happen sooner than you think.

What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this:

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…

However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else?

 

[Dan O.]

this

According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day.

I wonder if that part of the story might be true? The rest with the olive-throwing and the proven falsehoods certainly makes anything he says dubious, but it is interesting that 400 matches the amount that might have been Meredith's rent money. Of course the next day Rudy was planning his departure from the country and might want to 'borrow' a car....

The record is all over the place on this story:

ABC News

According to Kokomani, Guede offered him $400 to borrow his car the next day. Then he said he saw Sollecito in his rear-view mirror approaching the car with a knife. Kokomani said that at that point he drove away.

Two+Two forum

Kokomani claims to have had a confrontation with Amanda and Raffaele by rubbish bins. Both Amanda and Raffaele had knives but he defended himself from inside his car and drove away. He then saw Rudy in the driveway of the cottage. He claims that Rudy who he knows in the driveway of the cottage. Rudy offered him 50 Euros to borrow his car for the night and Kokomani declined so Rudy offered 250 Euros. There was a load noise from the cottage and Kokomani claims Rudy told him there was a birthday party at the cottage. Kokomani claims to have seen Raffaele coming up behind him with the knife out in his side mirror so he took off up the street. That is when he almost hit the tow-truck that was tending to the broken down car.

Sky News

"Then he started asking if he could borrow my car to move some furniture he offered me 100 euro, then 200 and then 250. I said no because I needed it and I didn't trust him.

This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him.

 

[Bill Williams]

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point.

Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position?

 

[Malkmus]

If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion.

 

[Bill Williams]

As for me, I have wrote summaries of what I consider evidence. The lies are one chapter of it. But there is a number of points, evidence from various sources. The whole to be assessed altogether.
I always refrained from writing and explaining my detailed list of the lies, never altogether.
Besides the fact that she is actually convicted for being a liar - thus demonstration is not needed in the first place - what demonstrates the presence of lies, of fictional accounts, on the whole of her declarations, is inconsistency.
Inconsistencies in Knox and Sollecito's accounts are on multiple levels (with other statements, eith facts, with the story itself etc) and on a huge number of key points.
I will answer separately, but I am not entering here specific issues.

For the sake of transparency of my position, Machiavelli, I regard the way you've phrased the above as representative of the evasion I've received when asking for a list. (I believe I also read a post of yours about the murder acquital not being final until the SC has ruled, and now the claim is made that Knox is a "liar" because Hellmann sustained the Massei conviction. But I'll leave that point for now - but it is evidence for me of the application of differing standards.)

Also for the sake of transparency of my position, the "inconsistencies" I have seen (esp. Harry Rag's list) relate mainly to the nature of the interrogation - and the nature of that will not be in dispute forever. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

This is the difficulty I am having in trying to inderstand why the alleged "lies" or "inconsistencies" are central to the PGP position here. It's the common theme regardless of whether a PGP things this a crime of opportunity, a crime of jealously, or a crime of premeditated psychopathology.

It's why I ask, and I remain puzzled why I get no direct answer.

"Demonstration" is exactly what I am asking for - for example, Mignini, Massei, AND Hellmann disagree about the motive for the "confused inconsistency" regarding Knox's interrogation statements about Lumumba. When you read what they say, they "demonstrably" find differing motives for inconsistencies. Most of the PGP points I read on other boards bring in even wider divergence as to the nature of the statements made at interrogation.

And, of course, innocentatii have another version of which you are well aware, and which you do not subscribe to. Therefore, for me a listing from someone who is articulate and as informed as you would be helpful, because I regard the inconsistencies and mistruths claimed about Knox to be at best exaggerations of what she had said, and at worst outright fabrications.

So, it would be helpful to see a list - so that if I am being unfair to various PGP positions, it can be evaluated.

Otherwise I will remain with my bias that really PGP regard Knox to be a liar, "just because". I can fathom no other rationale for either the reluctance or the outright refusal to deal in specifics.

Can you not see my position?

 

[Bill Williams]

If the tapes ever come out it will officially be the end of the PGP. There will be absolutely nothing left to argue. I bet the majority of PMF members wouldn't even bother to listen to the tapes if they knew they existed. The rest would probably point out that ( if it's audio only) they don't hear the sound of Amanda being hit, therefore no coercion.

The essence of a defence against the calunnia charge concerning Lumumba, relates NOT to the coersion, but to the non-spontaneous nature of what Knox said, coerced or not.

There is a full discussion on IIP.

I believe that Mignini's CNN interview, translated into English by ("Jools"?) and anrranged by Peggy Ganong, and available in the TJMK website, shows what I mean.

Mignini himself knows that "spontaneity" of Knox's statements is what's at issue. It's one of the chief reasons there are TWO interrogations on the night of Nov 5/6.

In the CNN interview, Mignini quotes the law, as if he had quoted it to the officers who had conducted the pre-1:45 am interview of a "person informed of the facts." He then describes to CNN how it is he himself breaks that law by going fishing for "spontaneous" statements from Knox, where he acts, "only as if a notary." That "only as if a notary," is the excuse Mignini gives for actually breaking the law - but he had to risk it for the sake of the issue missing from.....

... both the text of the 1:45 am Memoradum signed by Knox, but more importantly completely missing in the only intact description of how Lumumba's name came into the room pre-1:45 am.

There is nothing wrong with Knox's pre-1:45 am confused admission about Lumumba if it was only Lumumba they were after.

What is wrong, is that to further pin the murder onto Knox, they had to make it seem that she'd made that admission "spontaneously", and coersion really doesn't matter, really.

Mignini knew it, which is a major agenda for the second interrogation.

AngloLawyer did a "side by side" comparision of each, and what had changed as important for the second.

Then again, all of this will be moot.

 

[Kaosium]

First of all, I have always provided correct informati on while Frank instead has wrote quite a heap of delusional crap (part of which he delated), including falsehoods for which he is currently under indictment.

Everyone is aware of Mignini's attempt to silence Frank, however what 'falsehoods' is he under indictment for? Here's a description of the charges from your very favorite reporter on the case:

I’ve read Judge Paola Belsito’s one-page court order, which names Mignini as the “injured party” and complainant in a defamation lawsuit. A “Decree of Preventative Seizure,” it evokes Article 321 of the Italian criminal code and gives a two-graph explanation.

The first graph claims Perugia Shock must be seized because Frank has defamed PM Mignini “widely” by “evaluating” the prosecutor’s work during an ongoing trial, specifically by linking him to “drug dealers” and “vagrants.” As proof, Frank’s blog post “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” is attached to the court order. I’ve reproduced it below.

In the second graph, the order claims Perugia Shock must be seized because of the “well-founded danger” that Frank will repeat his criminal act (e.g., write) and that others will “exacerbate or extend the consequences of the crime” by spreading Frank’s “evaluations” across the Internet.

“The accessibility of the site to third parties allows an indeterminate number of people to inspect its contents, and then to spread any defamatory evaluations,” the order reads.

Those are the only explanations offered. Neither the court nor Google contacted Frank to get his side of the story. Mignini made the seizure request, faxed “Mysterious Disappearances in the Knox-Sollecito case” to the court at some point, and Judge Belsito rubber-stamped his request.

That was enough for Google to silence Perugia Shock.

So how did Frank link Mignini to ”vagrants and drug dealers?” The court order lists no other defamations. Indeed, it consists merely of the cover sheet (see end of blog), the decree of seizure (containing the two graphs explained above) and a photocopy of Frank’s post.

Rather than link Mignini to lowlifes, Frank says the exact opposite. He describes the prosecutor’s dismay when super-witness/vagrant Antonio “Toto” Curatolo turns out to be a heroin dealer/user:

Frank wrote: “I remember the prosecutor was quite surprised, at the time when Toto came out, in hearing he was into drugs.”

So where are the 'falsehoods' for which he is under indictment? Curatolo and Kokomeni were drug-culture denizens of Perugia, they both ended up in prison as the result of drug charges.

Second, in the article you link there is not even a mention of an indictment of Mignini. You are saying - literally - that Frank assured you that the Procura of Turin would pick it up (would put him under indictment)? Let me understand: a person under indictment (Frank) gives you his insurance that a Procura from another region will issue a request of indictment against a person. Is that what you are buying?

Frank, like you, is an Italian interested in the case who is familiar (now more than he wanted!) with the Italian legal system. His track record regarding developments in the case has been pretty damn good. You too have been right about some things, I did notice by the way that the insertion of Naruto at 9:26 wasn't included in the Hellmann report, which you told me would happen months ago, so your input is not valueless. I bring his opinion to your attention and wonder why you think he will not be indicted in Turin and he thinks it's assured. I know you don't like Frank, however that doesn't have much to do with whether Mignini will get indicted in Turin or not, nor does Mignini's trumped up charges which I've never quite understood the details on. Does Candace Dempsey have it right in that article? That it's about his referring to Mignini's embrace of Kokomani and Curatolo as ill-advised is what Frank is being 'charged' with?

As far as Mignini's case in Turin, being as it was only dismissed on the jurisdiction technicality it wouldn't surprise me if it was pressed in Turin. They did get a conviction in the first trial and a prison sentence, thus it ought to be replicable or at least an attempt made. However I would be willing to listen to your input as well as to why he won't be facing the charges again.

He did not worm somehow, he was requested from the Prosecution General to cooperate with Costagliola. He was not there by his own choice.

I find that a particularly unlikely tale.

Yes, I did read that Mignini said he was asked to 'assist' on the case, but being as he (and Comodi) basically took it over and Costagliola was almost invisible throughout the appeal, that suggests to me they wanted to be on it, or Costagliola was trying to distance himself from it--or both.

However, Galati cannot appoint him to the supreme court. He would be useless after all, since there is no matter of investigation any more, it's in the hands of specialists about legitimacy issues in Rome.

From what I've read the 112 page prosecution appeal is wide in latitude, so much so that some say it far oversteps what the Supreme Court has purview over. That sounds like Mignini at work! It certainly wouldn't surprise me if he was 'asked to assist' on that as well. Just speculation on my part however.

I don't think there was any "interview debacle": the interview I read the transcript and translated it from the original, it was polite and exaustive, nothing like a debacle.

I was referring to the part where it was given to Costagliola and shortly thereafter Mignini stopped being quoted in the press, yet one story actually 'sourced' a quote to an 'anonymous person not allowed to speak for the prosecution.' That quote sounded like Mignini and Comodi was taking his place with the press openly so I doubt it was her.

The "mixed blood" has never been "debunked" by Massei, in Italian the stains have always been called "mixed traces", but that it was in fact "Knox's blood" mixed with Meredith's blood in the same context - in the same bathroom and left there at the same time, and leaving mixed DNA traces - this is indeed physical evidence and a logical conclusion. "Mixed blood" would be thus a correct and accurate expression.

No, it wasn't Amanda's blood and Meredith's blood mixed together, not even Massei thought so¹. It was Meredith's blood that Rudy got in Amanda's bathroom when he washed up there. Finding Amanda's DNA in Amanda's sink is expected (and virtually impossible to avoid considering the curious 'collection methods') and Massei is generous when he allows for his 'vigorous scrubbing theory,' but not even he will pretend there was actually mixed blood from both of them there. There's also the fact Amanda had no wounds, nor is there any explanation for how she got the blood on her from the murder room as there's no trace of her there. The reality is there's no reason to even think the DNA mixed because of the 'inappropriate methods' as Hellmann laid out quite definitively.²

No, Costagliola actually spoke only about the evidence that was re-discussed again: Aviello, Curatolo, Rudy's sentence. The case was made as a standard appeal, which means it was based on the previous judges' conclusions. Costagliola's stetting - which embedded the performances of Mignini and Comodi - could have proposed different theories and arguments but not substantially different conclusions. Anyway Costagliola decided alone the line that was to flatly reject the appeal without further explanations. This is not Mignini dominating the case: it's the conclusion of a Prosecutor General.

You are free to believe Mignini "has influence over" whatever. But do you think that makes sense? If he has as much power as Quinlan or Citizen Kane, why is he a deputy prosecutor and not a boss? Why so many highly respected people (such Manuela Comodi, president of the local ANM, Costagliola, Galati, Massei) are so eager to obey him? What are the motivations for him doing all this? And how to make sense of saying that he has influence on people, given that it is this other people who are responsible of decisions? Shouldn't this be equivalent to say that it is those others who are the cause, and not him?

Not quite, because he is the impetus. They all got sucked down into his whirlpool, but he's at the center of it. It's his theory and his case. If Costagliola can 'ask him to assist' on the appeal, Galati can ask for input on the Supreme Court appeal. The amount of 'support' he receives from others (outside Comodi) could also be mere formality for the benefit of the institution, not as much support of Mignini because in the end it doesn't amount to much more than the pretty words they say.

It's kinda like at the end of the original trial where Amanda 'thanks' Mignini for destroying her life prosecuting her, or Hellmann saying nice things about Mignini at the end of the appeal. It's words they have to say because they're part of the script and the way the scene is blocked, not because they mean them.

Have you read the prosecution appeal? Who do you think is the legal mind behind it?


¹

TRACES IN THE SMALL BATHROOM

The traces of blood detected in the small bathroom, which was usually used by Meredith and by Amanda, located next to the door of Meredith’s room, facing Amanda’s room, have already been discussed.
Dr. Stefanoni gave precise details about these traces and about the outcome of the analyses which concerned the following items:

On the right side of the inside doorframe there was a tiny droplet of the victim’s blood.

Also on top of the toilet-seat cover of the toilet there was blood from the victim.

In the bidet there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen having the biological profiles of Amanda and Meredith.

Also in the sink, there was a substance which appeared to be diluted blood, and which was shown to be a mixed trace specimen with the same result.

On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.

On the box of cotton buds/Q-tips sitting on the sink/washbasin there were stains and these showed the presence of blood and a mixed trace from Amanda and Meredith.

On the light switch in the same bathroom there was a mark which proved to be the victim’s blood.

The sky-blue mat found in that bathroom was stained with blood which was shown to be from the victim.

On the outcome of such tests, not only these but also others of a biological nature, carried out in observance of the provisions contained in Article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no significant and specific criticisms were made. Instead, the defendants’ teams maintained that these traces and the outcome of the analyses with reference to the mixed sample traces were irrelevant. In this regard, starting from the scientific data which emerged, according to which DNA analysis does not permit the age of the sample/trace to be determined, nor, in the case of a sample/trace indicating the presence of several biological profiles, can it be established whether their apposition-formation was contemporaneous or not, it was affirmed that, since it concerned a bathroom which was used both by Meredith and by Amanda, the presence of mixed traces seemed to be a completely normal circumstance, and had no significance. All the more so since the samples had been taken using the same blotting paper which had been used for various parts of the bidet and the sink.


The Court, however, believes that the presence of the biological trace specimens that were found is of great importance.

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean. It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim. Such traces, in particular the dribble of blood left on the right inside edge of the door and the stains left on the light switch (see photographic illustrations 141, 142; 158, 159) lead to the deduction that whoever entered that bathroom had his or her hands covered in Meredith’s blood. Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat. And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.


At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.


While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.

Against this conclusion, the observations with respect to the shared use of the bathroom by the two young women, the resulting likelihood of their biological traces being present, and the way in which these specimens were gathered [by the police], are not valid, in the sense that they are not considered either convincing or plausible, neither in relation to the overall situation present in the bathroom, which has been described, nor with [regard to] the statements made by Gioia Brocci and by Dr. Stefanoni, who both stated that the trace specimens present in the bathroom and in the bidet were of the same colour, as of diluted blood, and appeared to constitute one single trace, one [part] in the bidet and one in the sink. The drop at the top and the drop at the bottom had continuity and formed a continuous pattern. The specimens were collected accordingly, just like any other specimen which necessarily occupies a certain space, and which the technician does not collect one little spot after another.


It should also be noted that the statements according to which the traces in the sink and in the bidet each constituted a single specimen correspond to the act of cleaning the victim’s blood, an action previously mentioned and during which it would have been easy to leave a mixed sample, constituted precisely of biological material from the victim (blood) and biological material from whoever was cleaning (cells lost during scrubbing/rubbing). It should further be noted that such mixed trace specimens, with the morphology shown, were found both in the sink and in the bidet.

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood. This print will be dealt with subsequently. Reference to it is made now in order to make the point that the presence of such a print of a bare foot brings one to consider that Amanda (also) could have had bare feet, stained with Meredith’s blood.


The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - still with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become *blood+ stained in Meredith’s room, where there were widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet she left a trace specimen of what appeared to be diluted blood, which contained both her own DNA and that of Meredith.

²

Footage of this procedure was shown in Court: Officer Brocci is clearly seen to run the same swab of blotting paper again and again several times, with a dragging motion, from the rim of the sink down to the drain and back, and on both sides [of the sink]. The same procedure for the bidet, where the swab – presumably a different one – is used to accurately clean the drain area.

About this procedure, Dr Stefanoni observed “that apparently this might not seem appropriate for collection” but that in that specific context it was, “because of the typology of traces that were collected” which “were clearly pinkish, hence they appeared as traces definitely mixed with water and they were seemingly all of the same origin because they were seepages…a rivulet of sorts starting from above and ending in the drain”.

In her judgement it was improbable that this was a case of two DNA [samples] that were separate at the origin and which then combined in a single trace; as can be read in the ruling on page 212, this was “because of both the single location concerned and the same appearance of very diluted blood”. A statement whose generality and inconsistency need hardly be stressed, all the more so since it is in stark contrast with another statement, much more logical and convincing, made by Stefanoni herself and quoted below.

Now, it is not possible to agree with what Dr. Stefanoni claimed about the correctness of the sampling procedure of the traces on the sink and on the bidet.
It is obvious even to a layperson that the two bathroom fixtures concerned, intended for personal hygiene, are a natural repository of DNA, that is released easily when washing: epithelial cells, organic fluids (sweat, saliva), hair and body hair flow swept by the water and, at least partially, remain on the ceramic surface, particularly in the area around the drain, and there they reside, short of a frequent and accurate cleaning.

It must be remembered that Lead Officer Brocci had occasion to state that she had also collected (ruling, p. 100) a sample of hair on the sink, of whose genetic analysis, however, there is no mention, if it was ever performed. And on the faucet, blood was found belonging only to Knox.

The small bathroom at issue was used by the two girls, Meredith and Amanda, while the other two (Mezzetti and Romanelli) used the larger bathroom.

It seems, then, wholly believable that the DNA of the two girls could be found on the fixtures of the small bathroom.

In such a situation, evidence collection by means of repeatedly rubbing from rim to drain and back, on both sides with the same swab of blotting paper, is, contrary to what Dr. Stefanoni claimed, manifestly the least appropriate way to obtain a reassuring result. Surely in this manner all of the DNA present on the path was collected, creating a mixture that probably did not exist originally.
We must remember what was stated in a general sense by Stefanoni herself and written on page 221 of the ruling: it is not possible to date a trace nor establish whether one was left before another.

More precisely, with specific reference to the traces on the sink and on the bidet, she stated, as can be read in the ruling on page 228 “that they were dry and it was impossible to date them or to determine if the trace attributable to Knox was left first and then that attributable to the victim, or the other way around”.

Thus it seems totally irrelevant, for purposes of a decision unfavorable to Knox, that her DNA was found mixed with the victim’s DNA on the bathroom fixtures.

If, indeed, the mixture had been pre-existent at the moment of application [apposizione], it should also have been detected on the toilet lid, on the light switch and on the door framework: this did not happen, no doubt because the person who put the victim’s blood in that precise spot did not find any DNA previously deposited.

Even more questionable are the genetic results from the samples taken from the cotton-swab container: according to Stefanoni (ruling p. 223) a third person could even be present, also of female sex. And this is because the alleles where very homogeneous in height, and one could think of pairings different from those attributed to Knox and Kercher, so involving other people besides those already present. An opinion shared by Dr. Torricelli, consultant for the Kercher family (ruling, page 243).

Which leads one to think of the superposition of traces at different times — from the jar [barattolo] having passed through several hands — rather than a single contact by the murderer.

So we cannot agree with the relevant conclusions reached in the ruling, on page 405 et seq..

According to the first-level Court, the two defendants, stained with Meredith’s blood, are supposed to have gone into the adjacent small bathroom and washed themselves there (it will be remembered that according to the first judges the footprint on the mat had been left by Sollecito’s right foot).

But if it had been so, one cannot explain why the smallest genetic trace of Sollecito was not found in the small bathroom, despite the fact that the scrubbing due to the cleansing should involve the loss of flaking cells (as we read again in the ruling).

The fact that only Amanda’s DNA was found together with Meredith’s leads us to believe that the mixture was created by the Police during an inappropriate collection operation.
(bolding emphasis mine)

 

[Kaosium]

The record is all over the place on this story:

ABC News



Two+Two forum



Sky News



This could be the normal drift of an oral tradition being passed from one story teller to the next. Or, Kokomani is making up the whole thing and tells it like he believes it should be to every reporter that will interview him.

Thank you Dan-O!

I didn't realize there was more to this. It occurs to me that at those exchange rates $400 would equal about 250 Euros, wouldn't it?

By the time I first got interested Kokomani was so badly discredited not even the bunnies would bring him up, thus I never spent much time studying anything he said. It would not surprise me to find out he dealt with Rudy after the crime, and the one thing that is consistent is he was offered good money for the use of his car and he didn't trust him enough, outright saying that in one story.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you can post a link, I would appreciate it. Also, if you could post a separate list. I am not sure what is meant by, "I am not entering here specific issues," because for me that's the whole point.

It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann.

Finally, if and when the interrogation tapes became known, would you be willing to revise your position?

No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me.

I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event.

The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years).

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events.

 

[Grinder]

Bill the lies meme has been the center point of the PR Kon-Tiki since very early on in their guilt campaign. Even the police chief's comment the day Amanda was arrested said that the kids had told them many untruths.

It was always clear that most of these "lies" were not really lies and most cases made no sense for them if they were guilty. I speculated in the past that if one of the kids was involved it was Raffaele based on the things he said.

The Mansey article demonstrates that Raffaele was not articulate in communications about events. If he were guilty with or without Amanda, there is no reason he would say they went to a party that night. It was clearly the night before and wouldn't stand up.

The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1.

 

[RoseMontague]

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

From Amanda's testimony:

GB: You saw -- you were shown the written statement, and underneath it thereis a signature. This statement which was written on a computer, was itwritten at your dictation? Did you dictate the words that were written in the statement?

AK: No. They wrote; they asked me: "Okay, what do you imagine?" And I said "Maybe I imagine this," and they said "Okay, let's write this, and thenyou tell us if it's all right or not. So they were writing, saying "Okay, you met Patrick at Piazza Grimana, for example, you saw this, you covered your ears." "Okay, fine, fine.

"GB: Okay. But when they made you sign the statement, you didn't explicitly ask to reread it or to change anything? AK: They gave it to me to read, but...well, I did like this and then I just signed.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I will forever be amazed at the love the guilters have for Rudy Guede. Their group claims to exist in order to preserving the memory of Meredith Kercher. So why do they feel the need to constantly coddle the man that murdered her?

Guilters have recently done everything possible to prove that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money. Of course there is absolutely no proof of this so they must speculate. Each guilter has his or her own story of how it might have happened. All fiction.



Hellmann described Guede's proven history of criminal activity and the guilters are appalled. They just can't believe that a judge would possibly insinuate that his recent past had anything at all to do with Meredith's murder.

This protection of Guede has always exposed the guilters true intentions. There is absolutely no way to convince them that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. When it comes to judging Knox and Sollecito, speculation is perfectly fine. When it comes to judging Guede, proven facts are ignored.

 

[Dan O.]

The interview was given a day after the discovery and I wonder if she communicated the party story to the police. If she did, the police would have used that to get him to give them the erroneous account of the night of Nov. 1.

I had read somewhere that it was from reading the interview in the paper that caused Giobbi to call for Raffaele to be interviewed again on the 5th. Whether this was speculation or something Giobbi had said seems impossible to find now. Does Giobbi read English or would that interview have to have been translated to Italian for him?

 

[anglolawyer]

It means that I will not explain in detail the whole list of lies, the explanations and demonstrations. I don't want to provide this information in the present moment to Knox and her defence. Possible I will talk about them in Italian wen they will be useful against Hellmann.



No, that makes no sense. The whole thing about tapes is a point that exists only for the pro-Knox supporters: this is a non issue to me.

I have never been really interested in the existence or non-existence of tapes. The basis of any reasoning, to me, it has to be the position of Knox about her interrogation (her testimony and already existing declarations) and the Police and other witnesses description of the same event.

The recounts by Knox on one side, and by the other witnesses on the other, are not significantly different. The only difference is the hitting twice at the back of the head. No other claim was made by Knox and defence for months (years).

There was no other claim or complain by Knox about any specific different event (there is instead an inconsistence and changing within Knox's recollections). The thing like "they asked to imagine things" was a not a claim by Knox or her defence, it was said by Edda Mellas, and in her latest testimony, years later, Amanda Knox was still vague, elusive and contradictory.

So what I see in Knox's declarations is basically a confirmation of the sequence described by police and by Anna Donnino. So there is nothing to "seek" though the tapes: in the whole pre-trial stage, and still during the first trial, there was a fundamental void of any counter-claim on the side of Knox, and instead she gave from the beginning only elements confirming the same version of events.

Of course, she may have been obliged to show restraint in her criticisms of the police by the propensity of the public prosecutor for firing writs in all directions in their cause. So, I would not draw any very strong inferences from the supposed absence of criticism. I do not share your understanding anyway. We know she:
1 was screaming (suggesting distress)
2 was deprived of sleep for a prolonged period
3 was deprived of refreshment
4 was not afforded legal assistance and
5 produced two statements whose content showed that what she said was fed to her by her interrogators

If the tapes were not critical they would have emerged by now.

 

[anglolawyer]

What are the two of you talking about? Catching up at Perugia Shock today I saw this:




However I didn't see much else about it. Is there more information or are you guys talking about something else?

Kaosium - I know no more (considerably less probably) than you. If Frank says the tapes exist I believe him and I also believe truth will out (in this instance).