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

[Grinder]

Who calls their mother at 4am then when nothing had happened?

The same people, PGP, that push this argument say that when she arrived at the house and found the door open and the "bloody" bathroom should turned tail and run.

The question for those with the aha moment over this call that the mother admitted receiving but denies Amanda said she had killed Meredith, is why didn't the little angel liar just lie and say she called and described the scene. When pressed on the time she would just lie and say she didn't think about it.

This side of the PGP argument is very tedious. There is nothing in the lamp, this call, the mop, the surprise of the police, the cleanup without anything showing it etc.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's Rudi's. He left in a panic and when he reached the outdoors he realized he needed a plan and needed to clean up (as he himself reported using a sweatshirt to hide his pants) so he returned after a short time. His shoe no longer left blood at this point. It is almost certainly what happened.

Surprisingly, I am not in agreement. Indeed, I am completely certain nothing of the kind happened . He killed and stripped her, mopped up some blood, sexually assaulted then to the bathroom to clean up his hands, jeans etc (foot in bidet) then back to the room to rifle through her bag, then out.

 

[yimyammer]

Also, they could not have fabricated the evidence because the prosecution has their own copy of Raffaele's computer hard drive. The appeal contained enough information including file names and time stamps for the data to be independently extracted and analized.

Speaking of hard drives, can you or anyone clear up (& cite) whether they were destroyed by LE and if so, how many were destroyed?

It sounds like what you're saying is that even if they were destroyed, both sides were able to save copies of the drives and therefore have all the data needed, is this correct?

 

[Kaosium]

I don't follow. The fact is there was a smashed window and with Amanda's self-incriminating account the cops had to conclude the burglary was faked. It is a further fact that she had spent the previous three days denying all knowledge and failing to make mention of Patrick. Therefore, as soon as she came forth with the admission that she had been there and knew that Patrick was the killer it was entirely reasonable that she become a suspect. I emphasise, I say all this on the assumption the confessions, statements or admissions were freely made.

This is what happens when I don't use smilies I guess.

My point had little to do with what you are talking about, my post was not about whether the police should have arrested Amanda on the basis of those statements, that was...peripheral.

I concede utterly that placing herself at the scene after not saying anything about that all week is legitimate suspicion for arrest. I don't have time now but perhaps it will come up again.

I put 'confession' in quotes in my post. They are statements that contain admissions.

Yeah, and not enough...here they have a 'witness' who 'witnesses' (almost) nothing...

Again, I disagree, on the said assumption. They (thought they) had a wealth of material on Patrick. Amanda placing him at the scene was the final piece in the jigsaw. Correct or not, they thought the exchange of texts meant something (I am pretty sure they did not know the content), that his phone was pinged near the apartment, that he called her at the questura on the night of 02 Nov (true) and they surreptitiously met on the morning of 05 Nov to evade surveillance. They also had Pasquale to contradict his claim the bar was open although, admittedly, they did not dig him up until 07 Nov. That seems plenty to justify preventive detention while enquiries were pursued further.

This is interesting, I vaguely recall something about that, though I've read of it in some time. Is that from Matteini?

Regarding Pasquale, I always wondered why they went out of their way to note they acquired that information on the seventh.

What I am suggesting is that your cynicism is only justified on the basis that the admissions were not voluntary, not because of their content. Neither the cops nor the judge were required to accept their content on an all-or-nothing basis. She admitted she was there when the killing took place. They could legitimately accept that as true (why else make such an admission) but reject her attempt to diminish her role. That is exactly what Guede did after all.

They actually had a story out of Guede though, didn't they?

If you were making some other point I am sorry but I didn't get it.

It was an epic fail on my part!

 

[Grinder]

The hits keep on coming, I've never heard of this one. What did Mignini do to silence Curatolo?

Convicted him on acharge that was 7 years old at the time, putting in the slammer away from the press and then after the appeal he dies there.

 

[yimyammer]

Is creating lies the way you handle having your arguments demolished? There is no credible evidence that Raffaele left his apartment and there is evidence that he was there all night till 6 am the next morning. There is no evidence that Amanda was in Meredith's room and no credible evedence that she even left Raffaele's apartment. The Italian supreme court may have overturned Hellmann's acquittal but the report and testimony of the independent DNA experts still exists.

You're referring to the C&V report correct? I think I asked this upthread, but did the SC decision make the C&V report useless/void (or whatever the correct nomenclature is)? Or, is it still considered evidence accepted by the court?

 

[yimyammer]

The information on the screensaver times was in the addendum to the appeal. Raffaele's computer is an apple MacBook pro laptop which has a trackpad instead of a mouse. Amanda's account is that she had sex and fell asleep. Raffaele's account is that he then stayed up for a bit, received a message from his father and then went to bed. Raffaele initially said he received a call from his father around 11 pm. His father actually sent an SMS at 11:41 and that's what the timestamp would show on Raffaele's phone. The phone did not actually receive this message until 06:03. This is right after Raffaele created the playlist at 05:56 so we know Raffaele is still up at this time and may have moved his phone or turned it on so it could receive the SMS.

there they go lying again, we all know that's not how it works

 

[anglolawyer]

Kaosium

Let's not talk passed each other. I plainly did not grasp what you said to Mary. Kindly use more smilies next time then we'll get along jest fine!

It's a settled fact that Patrick called Amanda at the Questura on the night of 02 Nov (it's in her book for one thing) but it's only a surmise of mine the cops thought this suspicious when tied up with other stuff. I had a bet with Grinder on continuation thread 4 (which I won but he welshed) that the Patrick's name did not come up at all prior to the night of 05-06. Again, it's only surmise but I think reasonable surmise, that the cops considered her failure to mention this black man she worked for highly suspicious. They were focused on her from the first, probably got that info from several people (Laura and Filomena for example) and wondered why, in all the hours of questioning she never referred to him. Then they met on the church or university steps on 05 Nov, a meeting I am sure was observed and interpreted as an attempt to communicate without being overheard. That might have been the clincher, although the exchange of texts was the real key due to its timing.

An alternative theory is they genuinely did not know she knew Patrick or worked at Le Chic. But that requires them to be stupid cops. Wait a second.

 

[Grinder]

If Meredith was so upset with Amanda and so close to her family where are the emails or text messages that prove it? The testimony in court certainly doesn't validate that POV.

 

[Grinder]

He became an Italian Supreme Court judge.

That's a lie . Kokomani was arrested and convicted of dealing.

 

[Dan O.]

Surprisingly, I am not in agreement. Indeed, I am completely certain nothing of the kind happened . He killed and stripped her, mopped up some blood, sexually assaulted then to the bathroom to clean up his hands, jeans etc (foot in bidet) then back to the room to rifle through her bag, then out.

You haven't been looking at the bloody footprint evidence as I have recently. You've probably seen the row of markers down the hall, through the living room and right up to the door. What you haven't seen and what I just posted about yesterday is that the prints form two distinct trails. I know that Charlie has posted about this in the past including stopping at the kitchen table. But I don't recall him mentioning that there were two different tracks crossing the living room floor. The second track which I have yet to find the start of crosses the living room and angles towards the front door.

 

[Grinder]

This is a big divide between the PIPs and the PGPs: whether you believe an innocent person could be prevailed upon to 'confess' to a crime. The PIPs have approached this difficult point from many angles:

- referencing other cases featuring false confessions
- addressing the content of the documents themselves
- addressing the context in which the confessions were made
- discussing the law governing suspects' rights

All to no avail. Perhaps one of the PGPs can explain why none of the points advanced under these heads is accepted as persuasive?

Sheeesh. You forget the absolutely most important element. The police chief announced that they question her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct. Since it wasn't correct, how did the police know it was correct before she told them?

 

[anglolawyer]

Sheeesh. You forget the absolutely most important element. The police chief announced that they question her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be correct. Since it wasn't correct, how did the police know it was correct before she told them?

No, I didn't forget. That is a key part of the context. Maybe I should have said 'factual matrix' to sound more like Gelati.

 

[anglolawyer]

You haven't been looking at the bloody footprint evidence as I have recently. You've probably seen the row of markers down the hall, through the living room and right up to the door. What you haven't seen and what I just posted about yesterday is that the prints form two distinct trails. I know that Charlie has posted about this in the past including stopping at the kitchen table. But I don't recall him mentioning that there were two different tracks crossing the living room floor. The second track which I have yet to find the start of crosses the living room and angles towards the front door.

Still, I am sticking with my sequence. I recall something about the chairs though. I think Rudy said something about touching one of the chairs, doubtless apprehending his prints being found there. It could be he sat down to take his drink, then went to the john, then murdered her and straightened out that chair on his way out. Does that fit?

 

[Dan O.]

Speaking of hard drives, can you or anyone clear up (& cite) whether they were destroyed by LE and if so, how many were destroyed?

It sounds like what you're saying is that even if they were destroyed, both sides were able to save copies of the drives and therefore have all the data needed, is this correct?

In one colossal blunder, the postal police managed to toast 3 out of 4 hard drives they were supposed to be protecting. The 4 drives were from Raffaele's MacBook pro, Raffaele's sisters computer which he wasn't using at the time, Amanda's Toshiba laptop and Meredit's MacBook laptop. Of the 4 drives, only the drive from Raffaele's MacBook pro survived unscathed. Hte other three drives were toasted but the first recovery service was able to recover the content of Meredith's computer by swapping the logic card. Amanda's hard drive went through 3 different recovery services which probably resulted in making the problem worse because of the way that particular drive stores the geometry data on the logic card. The defense offered to pay to have that drive sent to the manufacturer where it would have the best chance for recovery. The prosecution objected and the court refused to allow it. I am not aware of any recovery effort for Raffaele's second hard drive.

I have seen it reported that a laptop was taken from Rudy and also toasted but question this as Rudy was last known to have a stollen laptop which he supposedly returned.

And there is also a report that Filomena who managed to remove her laptop from the cottage after the murder discovery was told to bring it to the police station the next day. And when she did they returned it toasted.

I can't confirm these last two but the first event with the 4 drives is well documented with hearing transcripts and expert reports.

 

[JREF2010]

In one colossal blunder, the postal police managed to toast 3 out of 4 hard drives they were supposed to be protecting. The 4 drives were from Raffaele's MacBook pro, Raffaele's sisters computer which he wasn't using at the time, Amanda's Toshiba laptop and Meredit's MacBook laptop. Of the 4 drives, only the drive from Raffaele's MacBook pro survived unscathed. Hte other three drives were toasted but the first recovery service was able to recover the content of Meredith's computer by swapping the logic card. Amanda's hard drive went through 3 different recovery services which probably resulted in making the problem worse because of the way that particular drive stores the geometry data on the logic card. The defense offered to pay to have that drive sent to the manufacturer where it would have the best chance for recovery. The prosecution objected and the court refused to allow it. I am not aware of any recovery effort for Raffaele's second hard drive.

I have seen it reported that a laptop was taken from Rudy and also toasted but question this as Rudy was last known to have a stollen laptop which he supposedly returned.

And there is also a report that Filomena who managed to remove her laptop from the cottage after the murder discovery was told to bring it to the police station the next day. And when she did they returned it toasted.

I can't confirm these last two but the first event with the 4 drives is well documented with hearing transcripts and expert reports.

Dan O,
And wasn't the "main" Raffaele hard drive also brought up in the Hellman appeal request but was rejected by Hellman?
It seems there was talk at the time of the Appeal, the police didn't use all the recovery softwares available. Some other activity could have been found using more sophisticated software used for recovering data of other kinds..
in short "they missed some data".

I think Raffaele mentions this in his book, that he holds the pc police-bumbling job, as the destruction of his best proof, his alibi of being home on the internet or activity destroyed.

but then again, theres so many scenarios of when the crime happened from the prosecutors side it's impossible to understand what accusation a person is fighting.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You haven't been looking at the bloody footprint evidence as I have recently. You've probably seen the row of markers down the hall, through the living room and right up to the door. What you haven't seen and what I just posted about yesterday is that the prints form two distinct trails. I know that Charlie has posted about this in the past including stopping at the kitchen table. But I don't recall him mentioning that there were two different tracks crossing the living room floor. The second track which I have yet to find the start of crosses the living room and angles towards the front door.

You've gotten further than I have. I could see that the tracks peter out in the common area, but some of them are close together, suggesting something other than a direct progression to the exit. I assume he may have paused to adjust his outer garments, so it would be hard for anyone on the street to get a good look at him.

I have always wondered about the "missing" shoe print between the corridor and the common area. He had to sidestep the drying rack. Do you suppose he stepped on the pink bag?

 

[Dan O.]

Still, I am sticking with my sequence. I recall something about the chairs though. I think Rudy said something about touching one of the chairs, doubtless apprehending his prints being found there. It could be he sat down to take his drink, then went to the john, then murdered her and straightened out that chair on his way out. Does that fit?

Do you have access to the original photos? They show up on FOA or IA from time to time and I try to grab whatever is there. I just looked at print "H" which is between G and J. I had trouble making it out at first because I don't have a closeup. I just figured out that "H" is again Rudy's left shoe but there are two overlapping impressions with a small rotation and it's pointing back towards the bedrooms. Well, Golly. It looks like Rudy did turn around. Do you think he forgot something? The keys to unlock the front door perhaps?

ETA: Rudy says he fell on his but when he ran out of the bathroom and battled the stranger and his pants fell down. If we properly sprayed the room with luminol we would probably find a full moon.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Still, I am sticking with my sequence. I recall something about the chairs though. I think Rudy said something about touching one of the chairs, doubtless apprehending his prints being found there. It could be he sat down to take his drink, then went to the john, then murdered her and straightened out that chair on his way out. Does that fit?

I have always thought your sequence was the most likely. But it's important to differentiate between what is certain versus what is likely.

He cut her throat, and he tore off her bra, in that order and in quick succession. That is certain from the bloodstain evidence.

I think it is most likely he then removed her pants and underwear, put the pillow under her buttocks, and performed some kind of sexual assault, after which he went into the bathroom to clean up. Then he went back to her room and looted her purse, and then he left the shoe prints in the corridor.

But that is not certain. He might have gone out into the hallway and kitchen for some reason before he cleaned up in the bathroom. He might have cleaned up in the bathroom and then gone back to complete the sexual assault.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have always thought your sequence was the most likely. But it's important to differentiate between what is certain versus what is likely.
He cut her throat, and he tore off her bra, in that order and in quick succession. That is certain from the bloodstain evidence.

I think it is most likely he then removed her pants and underwear, put the pillow under her buttocks, and performed some kind of sexual assault, after which he went into the bathroom to clean up. Then he went back to her room and looted her purse, and then he left the shoe prints in the corridor.

But that is not certain. He might have gone out into the hallway and kitchen for some reason before he cleaned up in the bathroom. He might have cleaned up in the bathroom and then gone back to complete the sexual assault.

Sure.