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

[bookworm]

I too would like to visit Perugia one day, I'm retiring this year and I've talked this over already with my wife. I would prefer to be there on Nov 1st, perhaps for a couple of days, and yes, I would leave a rose on the gate like that other guy did.

Great! Maybe you and your wife will get to see firsthand how the Perugia cops operate! Then you can relay your opinion about it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

'Just saying' what? How does her incorrect understanding that the body was found in the closet prove she is guilty of murder? Please provide something resembling a meaningful explanation. See, on the one hand there is a crime scene utterly devoid of evidence of presence at the material time, plus a completely incredible narrative. And on the other are a handful of these non-points that people try to make something out of but without doing the job properly.

Can you attempt to explain the thought process the 'lie' about the closet is supposed to reveal? I mean, it's an error, right? It reveals no inside knowledge that only a guilty person would know. On the contrary, it suggests she had no clue what the crime scene looked like.

I don't believe every word she says. I believe the evidence, only part of which is what she says. Not all of what she says is correct but, as I posted before, that is sometimes the result of her succumbing to the unreasonable expectations of those who expect her to have perfect total recall. Please give me a detailed account of what you did last Saturday, including timings, conversations, emails, telephone calls, what you ate etc. I will ask you to repeat the exercise in two years' time (referencing the same Saturday) and if you get any of the details wrong, or just out of order, you go to jail for four years.

I don't know, but if Rudi had said it, you probably wouldn't be asking this because you (and everyone else) know he was there. If Amanda says it, you don't believe she was there so it makes no sense, try asking a guilter the same question and I'm guessing I know what his reply will be.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Great! Maybe you and your wife will get to see firsthand how the Perugia cops operate! Then you can relay your opinion about it.

I have no worries at all, as bad as you FOAKERs think this case was conducted, it is no better anywhere else in the world. It's the defense's job to tear down whatever the prosecution puts forward. Look at the O.J. Simpson trial, everything was in that trail as well, inept police, they even tried to frame O.J. by smearing blood on his door, the defence disputed everything and of course has all their own experts who opposed everything the prosecution experts put forward. Nothing worse was done here that we don't see at home.

 

[bookworm]

I have no worries at all, as bad as you FOAKERs think this case was conducted, it is no better anywhere else in the world. It's the defense's job to tear down whatever the prosecution puts forward. Look at the O.J. Simpson trial, everything was in that trail as well, inept police, they even tried to frame O.J. by smearing blood on his door, the defence disputed everything and of course has all their own experts who opposed everything the prosecution experts put forward. Nothing worse was done here that we don't see at home.

I look forward to hearing about your satisfaction when you're the victim of the framing.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't know, but if Rudi had said it, you probably wouldn't be asking this because you (and everyone else) know he was there. If Amanda says it, you don't believe she was there so it makes no sense, try asking a guilter the same question and I'm guessing I know what his reply will be.

OK, so let's say Rudy's story was that after confronting the stranger he later recognised as Raffaele, he went into the bedroom and there she was lying in the closet and he pulled her out and put her in the middle of the room in an attempt to help her. Something like that? I would believe the body had been in the closet only if there were forensic evidence it was there. Copious amounts of blood would be expected and since that's missing I would choose to disbelieve him. I might not believe him for other reasons too but this one is enough by itself.

IOW I do not believe Amanda and disbelieve Rudy as some sort of prejudice in favour of her and against him but on due consideration of the facts of the case. I would be curious if Rudy made this claim and would wonder why he made it but it would only play a small part in the opinion I formed of his guilt. In Amanda's case, a long way before I get to even think about these meaningless phone calls and statements is the physical evidence at the scene, of which there's not a shred against her. That kind of trumps everything else.

Of course, things could have been different. She might have been seen returning to Raf's covered in blood and crying, or throwing the knife away or doing something else suspicious like buying bleach from Quintavalle at an early hour on 02 Nov, but there's nothing. Only the so-called 'confessions' and as these:

a) were beaten out of her
b) contain material suggesting a false confession, and
c) are inadmissible anyway

I discount them altogether. What's left?

 

[anglolawyer]

How does this type of testing work elsewhere? Can the defense do their own testing? How is chain of custody handled.

As far as E & W is concerned I would not know. Because it's an adversarial system it's no business of the court to solve the crime so, while the prosecution would be required to disclose the existence of the stain and the material under the nails, I doubt whether the defence in most cases could care less whether it was tested since it would always be possible to submit that the existence of such material gave rise to doubt.

The defence can employ its own experts to review the crown's forensic evidence (in which case suitable assurances as to the preservation of original samples and items would be given) but I am not sure whether the defence has free rein to go rummaging through unused material. It's probably something the judge could order if sufficiently persuaded. If I find the relevant provision of the procedural code I'll post it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unlucky Lindy

I have no worries at all, as bad as you FOAKERs think this case was conducted, it is no better anywhere else in the world. It's the defense's job to tear down whatever the prosecution puts forward. Look at the O.J. Simpson trial, everything was in that trail as well, inept police, they even tried to frame O.J. by smearing blood on his door, the defence disputed everything and of course has all their own experts who opposed everything the prosecution experts put forward. Nothing worse was done here that we don't see at home.

Look at the Lindy Chamberlain trial, in which the defense opposed the prosecution's expert witnesses, as they should have. The prosecution's witnesses gave misleading testimony and failed to respect the principle of discovery.

 

[Dan O.]

I've found that the regular posters here can be persuaded with evidence and reasoned arguments. That the bra clasp was not cut off is one such hard fought battle. The timestamp of the CCTV video of Meredith crossing the street is another. The debate between the shower and bidet is still up in the air because there is insufficient evidence to prove it either way. But these same people are sufficiently immune to postings of repeated tripe. If you want anyone here to change their minds you have to back your argument with solid evidence. Ignoring the rebuttals to your arguments instead of addressing them will simply result in you being treated as a kook and for the most part ignored except for entertainment value. When your argument is shot down, to turn around and attack the arguer is considered especially bad form and can get you sanctioned and even evicted from this board.

 

[Matthew Best]

Also, constantly crowing about how you are "winning" the argument when you are plainly not, doesn't help either.

 

[acbytesla]

lol, I could make the same silly accusation of you. you guys don't ever explain anything, you have no rational answer for Amanda's lamp in the room on the floor,

Nobody knows, nobody cares, it was never really a point in the the trial. Meredith could have borrowed it from Amanda, the police could have brought it into the room. NO ONE KNOWS....and it merely absurd speculation as to what it was doing in the Meredith's bedroom. It is evidence of NOTHING

no answer for how she could have know the victim was in the closet at one point,

Well as has been said, this is irrelevant as Meredith was not in the closet or moved from the closet. Clearly Amanda is repeating something she thought she heard. The fact that it is wrong just means that people overhear things and repeat it...and nothing else.

no answer for how the victim's blood was on the blade of the knife found at raffe's house,

NOW, this makes me angry. YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS LIE OVER AND OVER. The knife was tested by Stefanoni for blood. Result: NEGATIVE It was tested by Conti and Vechiotti Result: NEGATIVE.

What gives you the right DrTesla to repeat over and over and over a LIE after it has been shown to you at least a half a dozen times that you are MISTAKEN? I can forgive a mistake, we all make them. But it is impossible to forgive people for DELIBERATELY LYING. And that is what you are doing. To the Moderator, I know we are not supposed to address the person but the argument, but don't those involved in the debate have some responsibility to tell the truth?

no answer for how raffe's dna was found on the bra clasp of the victim,

We also have no answers for how at least 4 other men's DNA was also found on the bra clasp or why the bra clasp was not recovered 46 days earlier or why it was in a different spot from where it was during the initial investigation.

you have no evidence that rudy came through that window which would be a most illogical entry point.

Saying it was illogical does not make it so. It was more than climbable, The window was broken, there was rock on the floor, there was a chip or dent in the shutters. It also has never been proven that the break in was staged.

But let's say your right, Rudy didn't climb through that window...even though I think he did. It is just as possible that Rudy threw the rock through the window to see if anyone was home. Waited a few moments and then saw Meredith approaching, waited for her to enter the house and just followed her in.

knox was challenged on almost every assertion that she made and her story consistently doesn't check out when compared to the cell phone record, other people's testimonies, physical evidence, and an understanding of human psychology. you guys are the Cult of Bryan Fischer, you parrot his dumb claims on here that any lawyer would eat up in court.

[/QUOTE]
You keep saying this bull, but in fact every single assertion that she made CONSISTENTLY CHECKED OUT when compared to the cell phone records and physical evidence. As to other people's testimonies, the fact that people have minor differences is NOTHING. In fact if they were exact, that would actually be more suspicious as people are not on average "good witnesses" and memories differ. And last but not least, since you keep getting everything wrong. His name isn't Bryan Fischer, it is Bruce Fischer...

 

[Grinder]

Funny you should say that, years ago, when I was looking for a way they could be innocent, I told my wife the bra clasp was a problem, contamination was highly unlikely, he had been over there just once, if it was contaminated, way more likely you would find traces of someone who actually lived there. Anyway, I mentioned the cloths rack, Meredith had a shower that morning, if the bra was on the towel rack, he could have grabbed it and just spun it around in the air, he's 23, I could have that when I was his age, the only thing about that though, is why didn't Amanda or Raff say this. I have no idea how his dna got on that clasp, something creepy I presume, no way do I buy contamination.

Where do you get the idea he had only been there once? The rack was used for drying clothes so the bra would not be there just when Meredith was showering or in the house.

As I understand it there were more people's DNA on it, how do you explain that? I believe an expert in DNA covered that upstream.

I could easily imagine after fumbling with Amanda's he checked out a bra on the rack, thinking it was Amanda's, and practiced while she was showering or otherwise indisposed.

If his DNA were on the other side of the bra or his was the only DNA besides Meredith it would be much more incriminating. Once again, it should be noted that according to theory he was part of a violent murder and staging but left no other DNA. According to your theory he somehow was involved with the aftermath only but touched the dead girl and removed her bra. I just can't buy it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've found that the regular posters here can be persuaded with evidence and reasoned arguments. That the bra clasp was not cut off is one such hard fought battle. The timestamp of the CCTV video of Meredith crossing the street is another. The debate between the shower and bidet is still up in the air because there is insufficient evidence to prove it either way. But these same people are sufficiently immune to postings of repeated tripe. If you want anyone here to change their minds you have to back your argument with solid evidence. Ignoring the rebuttals to your arguments instead of addressing them will simply result in you being treated as a kook and for the most part ignored except for entertainment value. When your argument is shot down, to turn around and attack the arguer is considered especially bad form and can get you sanctioned and even evicted from this board.

Name for me, one FOAKer or Guilter that changed their mind because a Guilter/FOAKer came here and convinced him/her otherwise. I also doubt you could find any FOAKer/Guilter that won't tell they originally believed the opposite until they saw all the evidence, one that was being truthful anyway.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where do you get the idea he had only been there once? The rack was used for drying clothes so the bra would not be there just when Meredith was showering or in the house.

As I understand it there were more people's DNA on it, how do you explain that? I believe an expert in DNA covered that upstream.

I could easily imagine after fumbling with Amanda's he checked out a bra on the rack, thinking it was Amanda's, and practiced while she was showering or otherwise indisposed.

If his DNA were on the other side of the bra or his was the only DNA besides Meredith it would be much more incriminating. Once again, it should be noted that according to theory he was part of a violent murder and staging but left no other DNA. According to your theory he somehow was involved with the aftermath only but touched the dead girl and removed her bra. I just can't buy it.

I don't have an answer for the bra, I was only stating, like you, that perhaps that was possible, but if it were, I would think one of them would have said something about it, unless of course they had smoked another joint and can't remember anything again.

 

[Bill Williams]

We've been treated to a presence here which reminds me of the time between the conviction (Dec 2009) and the release of Judge Massei's motivations report. With the conviction, but without the input of the reasons for conviction, guilters were free to quote the prosecution's case as if each element had been proven. Of course, with the release of the motivations report, we found out that even the convicting panel threw out major elements of the prosecution's case: no mixed blood, no motive, no bad feelings between Meredith and Amanda despite the prosecution calling the British friends and Filomano to the stand to talk about bad toilet habits and all.

What we have had in the last few days is - the continual demand for innocenters to "prove" why the lamp was in Meredith's room, and "prove" that Amanda or Raffaele did not put it there. (It begs a question - what was the lamp for? A clean-up that distinguished between DNA samples in the room? That's some lamp!)

Or why did Knox seem to "know" that Meredith's foot was sticking out of the closet? (As if this was forensically interesting?) I'm not sure why this point is continually pulled out as suspicious, because in the demand for everyone to know what happened, rumours of all types flew around. Is everyone who passed on an untrue rumour in the early hours to be suspected?

Then the canard of the "blood on the knife" comes out. The one thing that can be known for sure is that there was no blood on the kitchen knife. There probably was no DNA of Meredith's either, but one thing everyone can agree upon is that there was no blood. So instead of admitting it and moving on, there are posters here still who repeat and repeat and repeat, "You still have no answer for how blood got on that knife." Sheesh. If repetition solved this case it would have been solved long ago.

Then there's "no answer for how Raffaele's DNA got on to the bra clasp." Sheesh again. This was found after 46 days, after Meredith's mattress had been removed from her room, indicating that th cottage was now unsealed as a crime scene, and the clasp was not found where it had been photographed 46 days earlier. And all should watch the very video the Scientific Police themselves took of their collection of it - dirty gloves can be seen. But this does not stop the repetition of, "You have no answer for how Raffaele's DNA got onto the bra-clasp," because the next demand is as always - prove contamination. Sheesh. For the record, the reason why police have collection and testing protocols is because it is up to the police to prove that contamination did not happen - it's never the other way around.

Then the break in - rather that having the accusers prove that the break-in was a staging, once again the burden is reversed - prove it is not a staging. There's a stone thrown through a window, a perp with a known M.O. of breaking in like that actually admits to being present during the murder... and we're supposed to ignore it all?

All this and the cell phone records all checked out..... and the poster does not submit any evidence... once again just keeps reasserting it...

It is truly like thos times for four months after Dec 2009 when guilt could be assumed, and worse than that, that the prosecutions total case was assumed true. Then Massei's report came out. Even the convicting judge had Raffaele called the carabinieri before the postal police arrived, had no motivie and no psychopathology for Sollecito and Knox....

And some people assume nothing has ever been found as factual since Dec 2009.

We should all at least take an oath that the starting point for the Florence trial should be the facts as known - which is decidedly NOT the prosecution's case and it is not the mere repetition of known falsehoods.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This closet thing, why Amanda said it and so forth, has no answer, no answer we know of but maybe it's possible Amanda and Raff were going to put Meredith into the closet, but she wouldn't fit. Not saying that's what I think happened, but it can't be ruled out, she didn't get it from anyone who was there, obviously. Didn't she also have Filomena's computer in the wrong place, I believe as well.

You have to remember, when Amanda made these statements, she wasn't really herself, she had been up all night with no sleep, and had just taken part in a murder, how do you think you would react under the same conditions.

 

[Bill Williams]

This closet thing, why Amanda said it and so forth, has no answer, no answer we know of but maybe it's possible Amanda and Raff were going to put Meredith into the closet, but she wouldn't fit. Not saying that's what I think happened, but it can't be ruled out, she didn't get it from anyone who was there, obviously. Didn't she also have Filomena's computer in the wrong place, I believe as well.

You have to remember, when Amanda made these statements, she wasn't really herself, she had been up all night with no sleep, and had just taken part in a murder, how do you think you would react under the same conditions.

It actually can be ruled out.

 

[anglolawyer]

Name for me, one FOAKer or Guilter that changed their mind because a Guilter/FOAKer came here and convinced him/her otherwise. I also doubt you could find any FOAKer/Guilter that won't tell they originally believed the opposite until they saw all the evidence, one that was being truthful anyway.

Well you can call me untruthful if you want but until October 2011 I thought they were probably guilty (based on casual and superficial interest). Then they got off on appeal which surprised me so I came online and asked some questions, the first being a humdinger: what about the bleach she bought twice early on 02 Nov? Clearly, some frantic cleaning had been going on. It turned out to be a lie. I was astounded. At this distance in time I cannot remember what I looked at next. I remember buying Follain's book, the first I read, and going into things further and further online. Every single element fell apart on close inspection.

I have tried to argue the case with those of a different opinion just about the whole time, here and on the PGP sites from all of which I got banned. I am still at a loss to understand what accounts for their POV. Just in the last few pages here we have had one bad point after another e.g.

- the lamp, which no one has properly understood imho
- the 'lie' about the closet, offered as if self-evident proof of guilt
- the blood on the knife, of which there was none (the key piece of evidence in the whole case and it's worthless)
- the bra clasp, worthless because contaminated
- luminol, which did not reveal blood (and where are the luminol prints in the bedroom?)
- the staged burglary (not staged but if it was not evidence against A & R and the rock was clearly thrown from outside)
- time of death, on which the PGPs are all over the place, bringing it forward to 10 o'clock and then re-writing a lot of the evidence to make that work
- Curatolo who, to accommodate an early TOD, must now be taken to have just happened to see them whenever he looked in their direction, allowing them to be elsewhere whenever he blinked.

I might be willing to accept a concession that there exists reasonable doubt if the prosecution case had not been demolished so comprehensively. Guede did it alone, almost certainly before 9.30 p.m., and that theory fits all the reliable evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Name for me, one FOAKer or Guilter that changed their mind because a Guilter/FOAKer came here and convinced him/her otherwise. I also doubt you could find any FOAKer/Guilter that won't tell they originally believed the opposite until they saw all the evidence, one that was being truthful anyway.

What's in a name? I can only think of one poster here that has actually met Amanda and that would only have happened after her release. So why do you insist on casting such a wide FOA brush?

As for changing minds, it was generally assumed that the bra clasp had been cut to remove the bra. That's what the prosecution was testifying to and that's what the press was reporting. I accepted it myself and even wrote a couple of scenarios where the knife is used to cut the band. But then when better evidence became available I started to reanalyze the clasp in detail. I closely examined the best resolution photographs of the clasp and the bra. I researched how bras are constructed. And all the evidence showed that nothing had been cut.

I then looked at what action would result in the bra unraveling like that. The right strap had unstitched from the back band. In order to pull these apart, the band needs to be grasped below the right shoulder and pulled out and down (relative to a person standing). This just happens to be the same direction needed to pull when Meredith is lying on her left shoulder facing the side of the wardrobe to get her to the center of the room where she was found. The DNA evidence on the bra even tells us who it was that pulled on the band to move Meredith. Rudy Guede's abundant DNA was found on the right band.

As for who else changed their mind when presented with this evidence, That would be just about every one of the regular posters here. There are of course the occasional staunch defenders of the status quo who maintain rigid irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence because that is what some authority said and the righteous authorities can never be questioned.

 

[yimyammer]

Great post. The discussion goes round and round rather than forward. The lamp should not be discussed until someone properly explains why Mignini did not elicit the evidence that would have been available of its presence had it really been there. He had at least four witnesses who could give that evidence. This is an extremely simple inferential point by no means beyond the grasp of the posters on this thread.

Similarly as regards the body in the closet. If she had said she found the body under a duvet lying on a pillow that would have been incriminating. That she said it was in the closet when it never was (she certainly was not killed in the closet) proves what? Innocence, if anything, but more likely shock and incomprehension.

A couple of things I believe played a great part in this case that I don't feel are discussed enough is the miscommunications that almost assuredly occurred due to Italian not being AKs native tongue and that the info/evidence has to be translated into english for people who only speak english. How much is lost or incorrect in the translation? Its hard enough to get people that speak the same language to communicate effectively, add in a different language and the chances of misunderstandings occurring has to go up measurably. I can't help but think her comments regarding what she heard happened at the time of the discovery of the body isn't at least a little clouded due to the language gap, not to mention the likelihood of the state of mind of everyone at the time had to be a little frenzied and chaotic.

You're also dealing with a different culture that AK was not raised within and I am sure her actions were viewed differently in the context of that culture which may have contributed to the Italians viewing her suspiciously. I know in some cultures professional wailers are hired to cry at funerals & I assume this happens to generate a public display of grief from the people attending them. If I was at a funeral like that, I think it would freak me out and I might be judged for not showing acceptable levels of grief and I in turn would be tempted to judge them as being over the top, maybe even a little nuts when in reality its just a clash of two different cultures that in no way determines the validity of whatever expression of grief is displayed by either party.

At the end of the day, I can't imagine having to send someone to jail based on my interpretation of their behavior & speculating on the various meanings of statements that may have been made. I think its ok to investigate someone based on their behavior/statements and ultimately find evidence that justifies a conviction but I can't honestly draw what I feel are accurate conclusions on behavior/statements alone, but thats just me and as is the case with so many issues in this case, I know many people will disagree vehemently and that is their right.

Just my two cents and probably worth as much

 

[GWCarver]

This closet thing, why Amanda said it and so forth, has no answer, no answer we know of but maybe it's possible Amanda and Raff were going to put Meredith into the closet, but she wouldn't fit. Not saying that's what I think happened, but it can't be ruled out, she didn't get it from anyone who was there, obviously. Didn't she also have Filomena's computer in the wrong place, I believe as well.

You have to remember, when Amanda made these statements, she wasn't really herself, she had been up all night with no sleep, and had just taken part in a murder, how do you think you would react under the same conditions.

Sounds like your arguments are running low on petrol. Anyway, here is a look at one of your crazed killers.

http://www.today.com/video/today/51914864#51914864