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

[Bill Williams]

He's not debating. How about answering a few of the questions?

Perhaps give them to Briars one at a time... how about this one:

What did De Felice mean when he said that his men questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct, which was that Patrick had killed Meredith?

Ok - Briars - how about it?

 

[Briars]

I thought De Felice said ' she crumbled she confessed there were holes in her alibi .Her phone records were crucial' That's different from your account of what he said. De Felice may have bragged but it seemed reasonable given that Sollecito's withdrawal of her alibi had them look closely at her phone. She was the one who called Lumumba "That bad man'. She could have just said I didn't have to work after all and that's all the text meant. You can't blame them for looking at the last text,standard police work None of this would have come about if they hadn't already heard Sollecito's bombshell.It seems to me that naming Lumumba brought a halt to the questioning when she worried what Sollecito was saying.You want to imagine that they forced her to make up a story after 2 3/4 hours , that's speculation. What other questions? never mind that mine are waved away. The clasp was found under the rug it originally had been under Meredith.There is no evidence of where any contamination might have come from. Not from being collected late from the sealed room. I agree the blob in Filomena's room had not been tracked by anyone , one of my points there wasn't a diminishing trail. I think it was more of a drip. Add that to no evidence of Guede and there is the segue into the staged break-in.

 

[Grinder]

I thought De Felice said ' she crumbled she confessed there were holes in her alibi .Her phone records were crucial' That's different from your account of what he said. De Felice may have bragged but it seemed reasonable given that Sollecito's withdrawal of her alibi had them look closely at her phone. She was the one who called Lumumba "That bad man'. She could have just said I didn't have to work after all and that's all the text meant. You can't blame them for looking at the last text,standard police work None of this would have come about if they hadn't already heard Sollecito's bombshell.It seems to me that naming Lumumba brought a halt to the questioning when she worried what Sollecito was saying.You want to imagine that they forced her to make up a story after 2 3/4 hours , that's speculation. What other questions? never mind that mine are waved away. The clasp was found under the rug it originally had been under Meredith.There is no evidence of where any contamination might have come from. Not from being collected late from the sealed room. I agree the blob in Filomena's room had not been tracked by anyone , one of my points there wasn't a diminishing trail. I think it was more of a drip. Add that to no evidence of Guede and there is the segue into the staged break-in.

“Lots of people came and went through her house and she was unfortunately at the crossroads when this group came together.” De Felice also confirmed the contents of the statements that had been published in Italian newspapers but refused to add any further detail.

He said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

This is the link

She didn't call him "that bad man" in the first interrogation. They told her they had evidence. They showed her the response and told her that it meant she was going to meet him right away. Do you think that she sent a text that said she was going to meet him right away?

No one blames the police for looking at her phone. That would e a straw man.

She did tell them that he had said she didn't need to work. The issue was whether the bar was closed or slow They "knew she was lying" what do you think they did when they knew she was lying?

There is no doubt her statement ended the buckling interrogation. She gave them what they wanted: Patrick.

The clasp came from a heap of debris IIRC. The way things work is that all protocol must be followed and contamination must be proven not to possibly occurred, that's how it works. It is very odd that the only RS DNA was found on a part of a bra and not on the other, don't you think?

I do not accept that the cottage and the room were sealed from all entrance of the police. The recent fiddling by Napoleoni adds to the suspicion something untoward occurred.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought De Felice said ' she crumbled she confessed there were holes in her alibi .Her phone records were crucial' That's different from your account of what he said. De Felice may have bragged but it seemed reasonable given that Sollecito's withdrawal of her alibi had them look closely at her phone. She was the one who called Lumumba "That bad man'. She could have just said I didn't have to work after all and that's all the text meant. You can't blame them for looking at the last text,standard police work None of this would have come about if they hadn't already heard Sollecito's bombshell.It seems to me that naming Lumumba brought a halt to the questioning when she worried what Sollecito was saying.You want to imagine that they forced her to make up a story after 2 3/4 hours , that's speculation. What other questions? never mind that mine are waved away. The clasp was found under the rug it originally had been under Meredith.There is no evidence of where any contamination might have come from. Not from being collected late from the sealed room. I agree the blob in Filomena's room had not been tracked by anyone , one of my points there wasn't a diminishing trail. I think it was more of a drip. Add that to no evidence of Guede and there is the segue into the staged break-in.

Before responding, I do want to compliment you for answering. You are almost unique among people on that side of the fence.

But there is no one who claims de Felice said what he said, if what you are claiming is that the quote above replaces what he also said about, "Knox crumbled and told us what we already knew."

Re: the looking closely at her phone.... the trouble is, what was seen on her phone was her alibi as uninterpreted by the cops, who interpreted it as "we will meet shortly" - in no way, shape or form did either Lumumba's text to her, or her response indicate that they were going to meet. The police (it is proved) in fact erased Lumumba's incoming text which said something very different.

In fact, they did not meet - even from the guilter point of view. So the texts could not have said that they had planned on meeting could they, even in your version?

If her phone records, "were crucial", in what way shape or form? There were NO exchanges - text or voice or e-mail - between Knox and Guede.

I d want to express appreciation for you giving this a go. I really do. But this explanation of yours just muddies things, and also further makes assumptions about her reaction to Sollecito (in the next room) which the record also does not bear out.

Are you seriously suggesting that when de Felice says that Knox's phone records "were crucial", in the context of the "case closed" on Nov 6th that they were crucial in nabbing Lumumba?

But thanks anyway. You've done, on my request, what almost all simply do not do. Answer. Thanks at least for that.

 

[acbytesla]

The 560.00 deposit was mentioned by a family friend on this site I believe she made that bank deposit as well as having 200 euro on her. If someone can explain it it would clear up where it came from.. Her job paid little so it is a curious amount equal to the rent money. They may have not physically fought but Meredith complained to her sister about Amanda.

I know nothing about this money. It is not in the court testimony anywhere. There is little reason to believe it or factor it into any contemplation in the case. My guess is it is like the non-existent bleach or Amanda having sex on a train. One of those little details that is said by one person and repeated and changed over time.

Yes normal to laugh at bittersweet memories of a loved one and sharing that. This was different it was a horrible murder days earlier she was just having a good time with her boyfriend at the Questura not normal. An example of her lack of social awareness the kind that irritated her roommates. Why do you think Sollecito mentioned her behavior at the Questura and how it looked in his book?

Maybe Sollecito mentioned it in the book because some people said it was strange and he was addressing the fact that people thought it was strange. At best it was strange, but it is certainly not an indicator of guilt or callousness. You're reading ink blots again.

A 5 minute walk from Sollecito's to the cottage I believe.

5 minutes if you are walking at a fast clip. But you're saying they went to get drugs. That they met Rudy on the way, even though, he never said he even talked to Amanda but once. How much time is involved in this especially if it was a chance encounter? Did they talk with each other first?

There are 3 CCTV cameras on the way. Where is the footage from those 3 CCTV cameras on Corso Garibaldi to provide proof?

Curatolo says Amanda and Raffaele were just hanging around the Piazza Grimana between 9:30 and 11:30 PM. But with the murder happening at 10PM, how is that possible?

If we are to believe Curatolo, then Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi from the prosecution's "star witness". If we disbelieve Curatolo, there is NO evidence at all that they ever left Raffaele's flat.

Which is it?

Speculation maybe but how is that different from speculating that she was so mistreated, and now even RS says he threatened too!!,

How is this speculating? Amanda and Raffaele both testified to this and Patrick Lumumba said in an interview that he was threatened as well. The police were 3 for 3!!! I'm not speculating I'm repeating testimony and what Patrick Lumumba said in an interview.

Speculation that the clasp which lay protected under under the carpet in the sealed room somehow became contaminated with Sollecito's DNA.

In fact the seal was broken, lying in room that dozens of unknown people were walking around. And it wasn't found under a carpet. It was on the bare floor, clear to see. I''ve seen the video of it in multiple places on the floor.

I don't have to speculate, it was contaminated. It violates every single chain of custody rule and proper collection technique. I could offer probably a hundred references from forensic manuals. I'd be happy to, if you need it.

Speculation that the DNA mixed with blood blob in Filomena's room was not dropped by Amanda.

No, in fact, I'm not speculating at all. I'm making a reasonable assumption since, Amanda lived in the house. Her DNA was and is naturally all over the cottage. Even if her DNA was found in the murder room which it was NOT, it is not evidence of Amanda's involvement.

corruption or bad lab work.

How do you explain 3 computer hard drives failing. I'm not speculating, I'm saying that is corruption or bad work. Or do you suggest this was some freak one in a trillion chance?

You see Briars, I'm commenting on actual evidence and testimony of actual witnesses I didn't make anything up out of thin air.

 

[acbytesla]

Good for you Briars for posting your opinion. But can't you see that you are starting from the position that Amanda is guilty and your theory is based on your own assumption and not the evidence?

The proof of that, is your theory of how Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele joined up and proceeded to the cottage together some time between 9:15 and 9:45 and murdered Meredith by 10:00 There is no testimony you could be basing this theory. There is no physical or even circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony that puts them together or would logically lead to your theory.

Instead of extending your theory from some provable fact such as, an image of Amanda and Raffaele passing by a CCTV camera at 9:30 halfway between the cottage and Raffaele's flat, or maybe two people spoke to them along the way on Corso Garibaldi between 9:00 and 9:30.

But none of that happened, there is zero evidence to base your theory. The only evidence that was presented at trial that they left Raffaele's flat that night was from a crazy old heroin addict. And if the time of death was before 11:30, than that crazy old heroin addict becomes a star witness for the defense.

Please provide us with logical ties between the known evidence and your theory of the murder.

I'm declaring to you that there is no way resolve the available evidence with a conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. I'm pretty sure the murder took place between 9:00 and 9:30 at the latest, but I'm willing to go with your theory that it happened at 10:00 PM. Most of the available evidence points to Amanda and Raffaele being at his flat at 9:15 and as late as 9:30. Very narrow window wouldn't you agree? The science of digestion suggests that the murder happened at 10:00 PM at the latest and more likely 30+ minutes earlier. The cell phone evidence very clearly demonstrates that the murder happened well before 10:13.

So this means that Curatolo and Nara are both clearly wrong. So we should eliminate them as reliable witnesses. Wouldn't you agree? So, then all we have left is Quintavalle who comes forward after a year and contradicts his own statements to Inspector Volturno made days after the murder.

So, now would you agree that there are no reliable eyewitnesses?

I believe that there is evidence of Rudy at a friend of his at 11:30. (on this point, I might be mistaken, someone else informed me of this fact). I was under the impression that Rudy was not seen until later the next morning dancing at Domus disco. Maybe you can confirm or deny that he was with a friend at 11:30? I'd like a cite if possible from anyone reading. Since Rudy definitely was involved in the murder, than the 11:30 time of death does not seem possible.

I suggest to you that either all the witnesses are worthless or the science is.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

John Douglas's new book, Law and Disorder, is out:

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Disorder-...d=1362302709&sr=1-1&keywords=Law+and+Disorder

It's an excellent book, and it ends with his analysis of the Meredith Kercher case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately, Briars still does not appear to understand that courts cannot convict people of criminal offences based on speculation, particularly when the facts are also wholly consistent with reasonable speculation in the opposite direction (i.e. non-guilt or innocence).

Here's one important example: suppose the bra clasp had been identified and collected in a proper and timely fashion, stored and handled entirely properly, and analysed/interpreted in accordance with standard protocols. Imagine if all that had happened, and that Sollecito's DNA had been found on the clasp. I (and a court) would then have to conclude that there is no explanation for Sollecito's DNA to be there that is consistent with Sollecito's non-guilt - he, by his own admission, never went into Meredith's room, and there's no other reasonable explanation for him coming into contact with Meredith's bra clasp. That would then weigh extremely heavily towards Sollecito's guilt, and would by extension weigh significantly on Knox's guilt too.

However, that's not what happened, is it? What happened was that the clasp was manifestly appallingly dealt with by the "crack" goons in the forensics team. They introduced many, many viable routes for the ultimate "results" to be unreliable (including mixing the clasp with all the other contents of the floor and its dust/detritus; leaving it in the rather unsecured cottage for some 6 weeks; handling he clasp with dirty gloves, passing the clasp round the team in some sort of weird ritualistic practice, having absolutely no proper chain of custody for the clasp once it HAD finally been collected; having the clasp tested and interpreted by an underqualified scientist in a poorly-run laboratory; and there are more even than that....)

So the police made so many huge mistakes and acts of malpractice in relation to the bra clasp that any DNA "results" obtained from it are wholly unreliable - and are thus essentially worthless. That's because there now exist perfectly feasible and viable ways in which Sollecito's DNA might have got onto the clasp that are entirely compatible with Sollecito's non-guilt/innocence. And therefore the clasp has no probative value, thanks entirely to the police's incompetence and malpractice - leading to the very real possibility (probability) that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp was the result of contamination (at best) or deliberate planting (at worst). It was the job of the police to close off the doors to these possibilities. The police failed to do so. It's entirely their fault.

That's just one example of many. In fact, there's not ONE SINGLE piece of evidence in this case that is only consistent with the guilt of Knox and/or Sollecito, while not at the same time also being wholly and reasonably consistent with their non-guilt/innocence. Not one. That's the case for acquittal in a nutshell.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, De Felice said BOTH quotes during the course of the triumphalist press conference on 6th November.

He most definitely spoke of Knox "buckling" and making "an admission of facts that we (the police) knew were correct". There are only two possible ways to interpret this astonishing statement from the Chief of Police of Perugia: either he's a liar, or he's telling the truth. If he's a liar, then that in itself is damning of the Perugia police. But if he's telling the truth, then it clearly implies that the police knew "the truth" about the crime before Knox ever sat down for her interrogation on the night of the 5th/6th; and it further implies that "the truth" the police thought they knew was that Knox and Lumumba had gone to the cottage together, where Lumumba had assaulted and killed Meredith while Knox cowered in horror. His interesting use of the word "buckled" also heavily implies that Knox was subjected to intense pressure up to the point where she made her "confession/accusation". To "buckle" is very different from "changing her story", and implies a very different interrogation environment.

 

[acbytesla]

My issue with Briars LJ is that he isn't starting from a known piece of evidence like Meredith's phone was definitely not at the cottage at 10:13, or "Meredith's digestion suggests" or that "Raffaele and Amanda were in his flat at 9:15."

Allow me Briars to suggest that you have to present your case with evidence that Amanda and Raffaele left his apartment that night.

 

[acbytesla]

By the way, De Felice said BOTH quotes during the course of the triumphalist press conference on 6th November.

He most definitely spoke of Knox "buckling" and making "an admission of facts that we (the police) knew were correct". There are only two possible ways to interpret this astonishing statement from the Chief of Police of Perugia: either he's a liar, or he's telling the truth. If he's a liar, then that in itself is damning of the Perugia police. But if he's telling the truth, then it clearly implies that the police knew "the truth" about the crime before Knox ever sat down for her interrogation on the night of the 5th/6th; and it further implies that "the truth" the police thought they knew was that Knox and Lumumba had gone to the cottage together, where Lumumba had assaulted and killed Meredith while Knox cowered in horror. His interesting use of the word "buckled" also heavily implies that Knox was subjected to intense pressure up to the point where she made her "confession/accusation". To "buckle" is very different from "changing her story", and implies a very different interrogation environment.

Of course that is what De Felice said, is there any doubt that they made Amanda buckle??

 

[bookworm]

Hate to go OT, but is the IA forum down? For the last 2 days I get a "Fatal Error"" when I try to go there. The IA website loads fine but the forum does not.

Yes, the forum is down.

 

[anglolawyer]

And of course, De Felice also said they found texts from Lumumba on Amanda's phone setting up a meeting. Oops!

@ Bill

You may be more catholic than the Pope re: Lumumba's text. I don't claim to have proved the cops deleted it. My Ground Report article concludes:

I suggest these points, taken together, afford strong grounds for believing that, probably sometime during the night of 5th-6th November 2007, someone other than Amanda Knox deleted Lumumba’s text from her cell phone ...

While on this topic, I see in another place a certain 'Jackie' has fallen into error in discussing the article. I would reply on his own forum but my posts are presently being disallowed by the moderator for a variety of reasons.

He first took me to task for overlooking the 'fact' that the content of text messages is preserved by the carrier, thus rendering deletion futile. As he put it:

At least one of the people commenting saw through that garbage: Deleting a text message from a phone does not 'destroy' it because the data in question is also stored on the carrier's server. Everyone in the game knows this: police, prosecutors, defense lawyers...even - perhaps, especially - divorce lawyers.

'Everyone in the game'. I like that. Anyhow, it turns out that, as someone pointed out to Jack, 'everyone' is wrong so far as Italy in 2007 (and now) is concerned, not that it matters either way since, even if the content of Lumumba's message had turned up later that would not prove who deleted it from her phone nor would it have done them any good, since Matteini had already locked them up and thrown away the key.

Thus baulked, Jackie made another killer point. He thinks I think leading questions are unfair. Er, wrong. I cited this question as unfair:

PACELLI: How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message?

AK: I had a limited amount of space in my phone, and whenever I received a message that I didn't need to remember something for, I deleted them.

It is unfair, but it's not leading and I did not say it was. The problem is it's compound and compound questions are unfair. If Jackie would care to read back through the transcript he will not find it established that she had deleted the text. So the question compounds 'did you delete the text?' with 'how did you come to decide to do so?' Neither of those questions is leading. Everyone in the game knows this.

In fact, the point I was making is a serious one which bears repeating since Jackie and maybe others have not grasped it. When Amanda was allowed to give a free-flowing account of the interrogation, very shortly after the giving the quoted testimony, she dredged up the same fragment of memory as she told her mother on 10 Nov 2007:

AK: … the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days...all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn't know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing. That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone.

Maybe Jackie and everyone else 'in the game' knows why no one pulled her up on the inconsistency. If so, it should be pretty safe posting anonymously from behind Peggy's skirts and I'll read with my usual interest and attention.

 

[bookworm]

“Lots of people came and went through her house and she was unfortunately at the crossroads when this group came together.” De Felice also confirmed the contents of the statements that had been published in Italian newspapers but refused to add any further detail.

He said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.

This is the link

She didn't call him "that bad man" in the first interrogation. They told her they had evidence. They showed her the response and told her that it meant she was going to meet him right away. Do you think that she sent a text that said she was going to meet him right away?

No one blames the police for looking at her phone. That would e a straw man.

She did tell them that he had said she didn't need to work. The issue was whether the bar was closed or slow They "knew she was lying" what do you think they did when they knew she was lying?

There is no doubt her statement ended the buckling interrogation. She gave them what they wanted: Patrick.

The clasp came from a heap of debris IIRC. The way things work is that all protocol must be followed and contamination must be proven not to possibly occurred, that's how it works. It is very odd that the only RS DNA was found on a part of a bra and not on the other, don't you think?

I do not accept that the cottage and the room were sealed from all entrance of the police. The recent fiddling by Napoleoni adds to the suspicion something untoward occurred.

What I would really like to see is Briars' conclusion after re-analyzing this point taking into consideration the information you just provided. That's the way rational discussion and thought progresses. Somehow that never seems to happen with the PGP point of view. I'm starting with only this point to keep the discussion clear although there have been other points of Briars' countered with evidential information.

Briars, you said: " I thought De Felice said ' she crumbled she confessed there were holes in her alibi .Her phone records were crucial' That's different from your account of what he said."
Grinder has provided back up that DeFelice DID say what was originally stated. How does this affect your position after you consider it?

Briars, what do you have to say?

 

[bookworm]

While on this topic, I see in another place a certain 'Jackie' has fallen into error in discussing the article. I would reply on his own forum but my posts are presently being disallowed by the moderator for a variety of reasons.

For a variety of reasons? Didn't she say the reason was because you're boring? . What a way to run a forum, huh?

 

[acbytesla]

Here is a conspiracy theory. Peggy and Peter hacked into Injustice Anywhere and brought the site down!!!!

 

[anglolawyer]

For a variety of reasons? Didn't she say the reason was because you're boring? . What a way to run a forum, huh?

Boring, shallow etc. (guilty m'lud) The latest is they are not allowing new posters until May or some such (like they are swamped with applications or something).

In fact:

Hello Wevil,

You are receiving this notification because your post "Re: XXX. MAIN
DISCUSSION, OCTOBER 27, 2012 -" at "Perugia Murder File" was disapproved by
a moderator or administrator.

The following reason was given for the disapproval:

Thanks for stopping by!

Greetings:

Thanks for signing up with PMF.org - at this time we are not accepting
posts from new registrants.

Posts from new registrants will be accepted once again in April 2013.

Best regards,
PMF Administrators


--
Thank You, Skeptical Bystander (Administrator/Moderator)

 

[Briars]

Here is a conspiracy theory. Peggy and Peter hacked into Injustice Anywhere and brought the site down!!!!

Much more likely to be a cleanup following the disappearance of Frank and his contributions!

 

[acbytesla]

Much more likely to be a cleanup following the disappearance of Frank and his contributions!

funny.... I like it.

 

[Dan O.]

Much more likely to be a cleanup following the disappearance of Frank and his contributions!

"Frank" is a member of this forum, though he hasn't been active, it is still against the rules to make personal attacks against forum members.