Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Dan O.]

Just curious, there's been a lot of discussion about this door and the double-cylinder lock. Was there a glass panel in it or next to it? In the U.S., at least, locks like this are often used with doors where breaking glass could allow a burglar to reach inside and turn the button. Typically the homeowner stashes an extra key near the door where everybody in the house can get to it if they need to. But there is no reason to install such a lock in a door with no glass. In this particular case, if glass wasn't a problem, they wouldn't need to replace the lock. They could just buy an extra key and leave it in the lock, or hang it on a hook on the door. If they had guests, they'd probably want to hide the spare key. Maybe Meredith would be alive if Rudy could have quietly let himself out the front door.

Two of the exterior doors in the cottage has glass panels. Though I don't know if the pattio door had a cylinder lock. Maybe this was a case of "one size fits all" or perhaps that's just the way they do it there. I agree that this condition made the cottage a death trap. Perhaps Meredith's family should be suing the landlord.

 

[Bill Williams]

Indeed, your last line sums up my belief exactly. A problem I have, they are on trial for murder, they did not murder, nor were they involved or responsible for this murder, they should be found not guilty. However, they are lying about what involvement they are responsible for, should that be taken into any account, is there something they should have to pay for this involvement? I believe this is the reason they are and likely will still be found guilty, there is too much evidence pointing that their story is not true, and if it's not true, then the jury is going to convict them, it is too late in the game to change their account of what happened, if they change it again, it won't mastery, they will still be found guilty, so no they are stuck between that rock and a hard place, nowhere to go, except possibly back to jail.

Okay, what evidence? Their original story is that they were at Raffaele's house all night watching videos, blowing grass and having sex. Any revisions to that story were coerced during grueling interrogations without lawyers that were never recorded ("Raffaele, if you were asleep you couldn't know if Amanda sneaked out, right?" "Amanda, we know you were there. You must have blacked out from the trauma. We want to help you. You have to try harder to remember...."). What undisputed evidence contradicts their original story?

There is actually NO evidence that their story is untrue. I mean, what was their story before the late Nov 5th interrogation? It was, "We spent the evening and night at Raffaele's." There is no credible evidence at all that this story is untrue. I agree with Bob001 on this, it was not until they were separated - forcefully separated - and fed information about what the other one was saying, which was either untrue or horribly confused, that any sense of them contradicting each other came out. They had to be manipulated....

The key is that BOTH wondered why the other was saying something other than what they knew to be true up until the night of the 5th - that they'd been together at Raffaele's. And while still separated, what is remarkable is that both were able to put it back together - Raffaele figured out for himself that Amanda couldn't have gone out, and Amanda finally understood that Raffaele had been pressured with his own confusion about activities on Oct 31st and Nov 1st.

This thing is remarkably straightforward. What is also remarkable is that folk who continue to claim, "the students know something they're not telling us", never even hint at what it might be that they're withholding - other than a pet theory.

Also, you never hear any analysis from those folks who continue to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of what the cops themselves did or did not do wrong. I mean, really.... solving the case because of an immature foreigner's behaviour? What's that compared with actually ordering that the body temperature NOT be taken? And do folk really believe that anyone in interrogation buckles because they've been plied with chamomile tea and biscuits?

Until the cops' and PM's own behaviour throughout all this is parsed, it is no wonder people on a soft- or hard-guilt side of things cannot come up with a comprehensive narrative of the crime.

Heck, even Machiavelli has said one isn't needed. What's with that? It's as if there's some sort of threshhold for saying guilty-sounding-things like the kissing, or the crying at wrong times... and not saying a thing about the conduct of the investigation and how it obviously went off the rails will solve this....

.... and if one doesn't think it obvious went off the rails, how does one explain the "case closed" conference? Even before the forensics came back and it had to be reopened to shoehorn Rudy Guede into it.

It's 5 1/2 years later, and what can be known is known. And it is astounding that people still think the two students are lying about their non-involvement.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Guede's shoe prints do not constitute a record of his every step, and luminol won't correct that deficiency. Otherwise the luminol would have recorded the many people who traipsed in and out of that blood-soaked room starting on Nov. 2.

You are using the same approach as the 9-11 truthers - using isolated bits of data to draw wild, unsupportable inferences that contradict the totality of the evidence.

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Guede's shoe prints do not constitute a record of his every step, and luminol won't correct that deficiency. Otherwise the luminol would have recorded the many people who traipsed in and out of that blood-soaked room starting on Nov. 2.

You are using the same approach as the 9-11 truthers - using isolated bits of data to draw wild, unsupportable inferences that contradict the totality of the evidence.

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

A good place to start is actually the evidence. People noted that one of the postal police actually did go into Meredith's room to lift the quilt, and why not. Someone would almost instinctively want to see if the poor girl was not still hanging on... to say that no one went in, in a panic, that decries belief and is actually noted by one of the witnesses.

So much for the pristine crime scene.

That's what's missing from the guilty camp as far as I see it. Both Filomena and Knox are given free rein inside the cottage before Meredith's door is kicked down, and that alone (I won't use the term "in situ" because that causes a reaction) disturbs the scene, so that what the Scientific Police gather evidence from is not exactly the cottage as Rudy left it at about 9:30 pm on Nov 1st.

Then there is undated video and stills, taken by the Scientific Police themselves, one showing an evidence gatherer with his/her bootie stepping in dried blood. One needs to know the date of that photo... was it the immediate forensic sweep or was it the Dec sweep 46 days later? We'd all feel better if it was the later sweep, but what the heck is the technician doing standing in dried blood to begin with?

It's amazing that with the way the crime scene was (mis)handled that anyone can take one clue and build on that as if it were the Rosetta Stone for understanding this.

Everyone has a right to their opinion I guess.

 

[Grinder]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

It can be proven that Rudi locked the door. The shoe print does prove he did not lock the door. Whether Rudi came back after the blood was gone from his shoes or he had removed his shoes or someone else came back can not be determined.

How would you determine that Luminol recorded everyone? Who changes their footwear leaving every room? Certainly not all those going from room to room before the crime was discovered. Could you explain what you were trying to say? What were these "FOAKERs" wrong about?

Are you saying there is no way possible that Rudi left his print by her door and returned later?

 

[Annella]

I wonder what it would take for the PGP to find Curatolo unreliable. He is an admitted herion addict that stated he took heroin every day including the day in question. When asked shortly after the crime, he reported seeing nothing. When he finally came forward he described the wrong day. His first testimony gave the impression that he saw the kids when he arrived just after 9:30 and they were there until he left just before midnight. Later he adjusted that to say he saw them from 9:30 until 11:30, but only noted them about 5 times. In addition, he is reported to have testified in three major cases and had been charged for heroin dealing in 2003.

I have used this info to promote the fact Curatolo could not possibly have been a reliable witness. Sobering facts!

HOW DOES HEROIN AFFECT YOU EMOTIONALLY & MENTALLY?

Heroin causes confusion & clouds your thought processes

You make irrational decisions

It alters your perception of reality

Emotional growth becomes arrested

It suppresses emotions

Heroin causes depression and lack of motivation

It gives you a false sense of detachment from reality & the pain it may cause

You have a false sense of ‘normality’

HEROIN CAN ALSO CAUSE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE TO THE AREAS OF THE BRAIN INVOLVING:

Learning & short term memory

Emotional growth & maturity

Decision making & problem solving

Speech

 

[Chris_Halkides]

right feet versus left feet

All three of the luminol prints in the hallway are right feet. Where are the left feet? In addition, the forensic police wore one piece gowns. I don't recall seeing them with booties over the foot section of their white (tyvek?) gowns.

 

[DrTesla]

hey guys.

I searched the Massei sentencing report located on the PMF website, and on page 75, the lamp is discussed. I think some of you were saying the lamp was not mentioned in the Massei report. I don' think they talked about it in the conclusion of the report where they tie together all the evidence but they do talk about the lamp and Knox's response to the lamp question on page 75. Mignini even asked her if the reason why she wanted to break down the victim's door was that she wanted to get her lamp.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is actually NO evidence that their story is untrue. I mean, what was their story before the late Nov 5th interrogation? It was, "We spent the evening and night at Raffaele's." There is no credible evidence at all that this story is untrue. I agree with Bob001 on this, it was not until they were separated - forcefully separated - and fed information about what the other one was saying, which was either untrue or horribly confused, that any sense of them contradicting each other came out. They had to be manipulated....

The key is that BOTH wondered why the other was saying something other than what they knew to be true up until the night of the 5th - that they'd been together at Raffaele's. And while still separated, what is remarkable is that both were able to put it back together - Raffaele figured out for himself that Amanda couldn't have gone out, and Amanda finally understood that Raffaele had been pressured with his own confusion about activities on Oct 31st and Nov 1st.

This thing is remarkably straightforward. What is also remarkable is that folk who continue to claim, "the students know something they're not telling us", never even hint at what it might be that they're withholding - other than a pet theory.

Also, you never hear any analysis from those folks who continue to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of what the cops themselves did or did not do wrong. I mean, really.... solving the case because of an immature foreigner's behaviour? What's that compared with actually ordering that the body temperature NOT be taken? And do folk really believe that anyone in interrogation buckles because they've been plied with chamomile tea and biscuits?

Until the cops' and PM's own behaviour throughout all this is parsed, it is no wonder people on a soft- or hard-guilt side of things cannot come up with a comprehensive narrative of the crime.

Heck, even Machiavelli has said one isn't needed. What's with that? It's as if there's some sort of threshhold for saying guilty-sounding-things like the kissing, or the crying at wrong times... and not saying a thing about the conduct of the investigation and how it obviously went off the rails will solve this....

.... and if one doesn't think it obvious went off the rails, how does one explain the "case closed" conference? Even before the forensics came back and it had to be reopened to shoehorn Rudy Guede into it.

It's 5 1/2 years later, and what can be known is known. And it is astounding that people still think the two students are lying about their non-involvement.

You are aware they were found GUILTY, and as of right now, they are still guilty going into appeal.

 

[Malkmus]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

If Rudy only stepped in blood accidentally as the last thing he did before leaving, then the Luminol has no bearing on his whereabouts in the house before that moment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

You did not address the point that luminol can't detect blood which isn't there, and that if someone had cleaned themselves off using the shower they might not have had blood on their feet on the second trip in and out.

Given that someone left a bloody footprint on the bathmat, someone cleaned themselves off in that shower. What makes you so incredibly sure that someone wasn't Guede? He's the one person we all agree definitely came into contact with Meredith's blood.

Rudy could have had an accomplice. Kokomani is the obvious candidate. However it's clearly multiplying entities beyond necessity to invoke a whole new participant, to explain something that we could equally well explain with a simple shower which we already know happened.

It seems like you are clinging to this talking point because without some reason to be sure Rudy didn't do it all by himself, you have no justification for roping Amanda and Raffaele into your theory at all. You accuse us of not being able to admit we are wrong: Can you make that admission? Go with it. Rudy washed his pants and shoes and then went back to the murder room, then locked the door when he left it a second time. No second or third person is needed to explain that.

Also, can you please stop going on about "the totality of the evidence"? You are acting as if each individual point of evidence you brought up had not already been shown to be non-evidence. You can't add up a column of zeroes and get a million. You can't add up non-evidence to get to something which overthrows a solid alibi, a total lack of motive and a total lack of any even remotely sane theory of the crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixed DNA and the lack of glove changes

Kaosium, Good post. I would only like to add that if a of the forensic police turned a swab around (letting the sampling side touch the glove) and then did not change gloves, there could be mixing of DNA from one sample to another.

 

[RandyN]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

Well sure ...so Kokomaniac locked the door. Does that satisfy you ? I understand that you don't believe Knox murdered Kercher...so please lets cut to the chase...what do you think happened? Please try to keep that story inside the facts.

Guede could have likely returned to the murder room 10 times. In fact he had the keys (stolen from Kerchers purse) to the boys section downstairs. Perhaps the police should have carefully examined this area rather than kicking out the window and destroying that scene. Who knows...maybe they would have discovered why the flip flops were still wet after 3 days. Or why cats blood was on the wall and light switch. Or why the one persons bed was stripped and the bloody sheets were tossed up near the head board.

That all could have been Kokomaniac...just one problem though...there is no evidence to support that. Kinda like there is no evidence to support AK and RS being involved in a murder committed by Rudy Guede alone...of which there is ample evidence cept for the weakest of minds....

 

[Mary_H]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

Nobody is right or wrong about Rudy, because nobody knows what happened, although Charlie's theory fits the evidence, based on observations by experienced analysts. Almost everything we think or say about Rudy is speculation. Personally, the last time I discussed Rudy locking the door was in 2010. I spend very little energy considering what Rudy may or may not have done that night; to me, it is irrelevant. Rudy's evidence is a case for those who prosecuted him. (It would be nice if they showed at least as much interest in analyzing it as hundreds of uninvolved internet posters do. )

P.S. You are not claiming the inspectors changed their footwear from room to room, are you? Have you ever seen the photos of them standing outside on the porch in their protective footies?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

This is demonstrably false. The cops are recorded on video walking from and to Meredith's room and through the common areas without changing shoe covers. The paramedics and first responders had no shoe covers at all.

Where are the luminol results showing all that traffic?

Not every Guede's print have been noticed and recorded by the police. There are partial prints in the photos that have no evidence markers and are not listed in the evidence. Everything indicates Guede locked the door. There is no evidence at all that someone else did it and there is no trace of any accomplice.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach rule 11.

 

[Rolfe]

Also, you never hear any analysis from those folks who continue to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of what the cops themselves did or did not do wrong. I mean, really.... solving the case because of an immature foreigner's behaviour? What's that compared with actually ordering that the body temperature NOT be taken?

This goes back to what someone was saying further up the thread about absolutely certain evidence of police, forensics and prosecutor incompetence and misconduct in other cases - Stefan Kiszko and Sally Clark were mentioned.

WE KNOW IT HAPPENS. It has happened, and it continues to happen. And it happens to decent, ordinary people, not just to suspects who are already regarded as lowlife.

That's why this argument that the police, the forensics officers and the prosecutors cannot be criticised because these people by definition will do no wrong is just ridiculous.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Kaosium

Just thinking about one point in your long post above - on the supposed impossibility of determining whose DNA it is in a mixed DNA plus somebody's blood scenario. Why is this impossible? The blood owner's DNA is contained in their white blood cells I thought. Just take a sample, lay it out on a petrie dish and look at the cells. Note and find a way to separate the distinct white cells (centrifuge, magnets, tweezers, whatever) and proceed to extraction etc.

If no one else has thought of this btw. the Nobel prize goes to me. But what's wrong with it?

 

[anglolawyer]

EDFs

From one of Kaosium's links:

Professor William Thompson wrote (Tarnish on the 'gold standard:' Understanding recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion. 30(1):10-16, January/February 2006), “A key aspect of discovery in DNA cases is the electronic data produced by the computer-controlled genetic analyzers that are currently used to “type” DNA samples. Analysis of the computer files can not only reveal undisclosed problems and support alternative interpretations of the findings, but also, as discussed above, these files can be crucial for detecting instances of scientific fraud, such as that committed by Jacqueline Blake and Sarah Blair.” Jacqueline Blake was an employee of the FBI whose two-year record of contamination-free work was the result of dumping a portion of the negative control down the sink. Sarah Blair repeatedly substituted a file of a contamination-free blank for the actual blank.
I can think of several things I would look for using the electronic data files. The first is what peak threshold was used for the 400+ runs and whether or not it was the same threshold as the knife blade profile. The second is to zoom in on the small peaks in the bra clasp, as Jason Gilder implied. It is conceivable that the identities of the three additional people who contributed DNA to the clasp could be ascertained. The third is to examine the negative control runs for evidence of fraud, as Professor Thompson noted could be done. The negative controls are the most common place for fraud to be detected.

 

[Dan O.]

You are aware they were found GUILTY, and as of right now, they are still guilty going into appeal.

They? I was aware of Mignini's conviction of abuse of office. Who's the other?

 

[Kaosium]

The luminol did record everyone, remember, they change their footware leaving every room, it records everyone, like Rudy who had traces of blood on their shoes or feet, your approach is unsupported and unsupportable and totally contradict the totality of the evidence, but like all FOAKERs, you guys can not admit when you are wrong. Go with it, Rudi did not lock that door, and according to you, Amanda did not either, so start claiming Rudi had an accomplice, what's so bad about that.

Considering the amount of times the police and prosecution announced evidence they did not have, or outright lied about the quality of it, one handy one being the 'clear cut' CCTV video and that they ignored exculpatory evidence they didn't like the content of such as the entirety of Raffaele's computer records¹ even the obvious ones, the TMB blood test negatives² and the other contributors to the bra clasp (only a tiny fraction of their malfeasance and idiocy in this case) on what possible basis could you contend that the prosecution presented all evidence they collected in court and were not selective in what they chose in making their case or incorrectly evaluated what they did?

That's the reason you can't crack this case, Sherlock. You look at the mote in the 'FOAKer' eye but cannot see the beam in the police and prosecution's eye. It is far more destructive to justice to allow the police and prosecution to lie and cheat and be morons, and in some cases guilty people will get off simply for that very reason, but that's not what happened in this instance. This time the police really screwed the pooch and the prosecution was deranged, and all the ones who actually know how to evaluate evidence figured that out, whatever mistakes they may have made along the way.


¹

With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she [Dr Gino] stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine...and this test...gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile

²

Raffaele’s Computer
The prosecution stated that the last time Raffaele used his computer on November 1, 2007 was 21:10. The defense argues that the prosecution did not take into account downloading activity on Raffaele's computer at 21:26. The court also ignored the computer activity from 5:40 to 6:38. Raffaele was listening to music. The prosecution’s analysis of Raffaele’s computer usage is incomplete. Apparently, the software used by the prosecution’s expert was not effective in retrieving all of the data from Raffaele’s MacBook-pro computer. In light of these circumstances, further investigation is required to ascertain the exact interactions that actually occurred on Raffaele’s computer on November 1, 2007, under Article. 603, first paragraph, cpp.