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

[toto]

how to get entrance into filomena's room

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry2------c.html
I wonder if someone can help me here. I can see how you could get into Filomena's room by the picture of the man with his feet on the grid of the window below and his hands on the window sill. But from the second picture on this website how did the man get to that position in the first place? I can't see anything to grab on to in order to get that position. Obviously the man got there somehow. Also if I was in his position (the man in the photo) I can't help but think I would have made use of the nail in the wall. Would it not have been bent a bit if Guede had made use of it?

Also where can I find the transcript for where Guede says Amanda and Meredith were arguing together in Italian? This seems utterly bizarre.
Thanks!

 

[Bill Williams]

I notice you dance around the deposit in Filomena's by using the uncertainty of mixed blood plus the stain that the defense brought up too late. What if it was only her DNA co-mixed in a random spot in Filomena's room. How did it get there? Not cohabitation.

One has to first "time stamp" the DNA... meaning one has to know when the DNA was placed there.... given that the Postal Police allowed both Filomena and Amanda free rein in the cottage before the grisly and horrible discovery, then the question would be, why WOULDN'T Knox's trace DNA be in Filomena's room? Did the PP make them put on little paper booties? That's the reason to take such anti-contamination protocols so that stuff is not tracked from room to room.

It is amazing that these obvious points are always missed when someone makes an observation meant to be suspicious. Such is, "all the other evidence".

You make it seem like there is not need for even anti-contamination protocols? Every other police force in the world would have rendered Filomena's room forensically useless because it was disturbed... not in situ... ooops, there's that term again.

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry2------c.html
I wonder if someone can help me here. I can see how you could get into Filomena's room by the picture of the man with his feet on the grid of the window below and his hands on the window sill. But from the second picture on this website how did the man get to that position in the first place? I can't see anything to grab on to in order to get that position. Obviously the man got there somehow. Also if I was in his position (the man in the photo) I can't help but think I would have made use of the nail in the wall. Would it not have been bent a bit if Guede had made use of it?

Also where can I find the transcript for where Guede says Amanda and Meredith were arguing together in Italian? This seems utterly bizarre.
Thanks!

I'd suggest reading the Massei report for what I believe to be a good description of the mechanics of how Guede got in through that window.

The reason why Massei ruled that Guede, in Massei's opinion, did not do it that way, was because Massei doubted that Guede would go up and down (basically in the position of the man in the photo you saw) three times. Massei, wrongly, said that this would expose Guede to detection from the road.

What Massei misses in my opinion is that all Guede had to do was jump down and be totally secure from the road and from the apartments across the street. The rock thrown through the window would be the test to see if anyone was home at the cottage or if someone across the street noticed.

For my money Massei does a fairly decent job in describing how Guede did it, but in my view errs when he says, "no one would do that three times."

 

[Antony]

And that is what you have to believe to be a PIP, it's utterly amazing. I could see a couple, perhaps a few, but the number you guys have it truly amazing.

What's "amazing" about it? You actually have to close your eyes to what's happened in this case not to see it.

Yes, when you add it to all the others you say, it really is unbelievable, to me anyway.

Kindly say what it is you find unbelievable:

- do you not believe that the interrogation tapes went missing? Not just Amanda's, but Raff's and Patrick Lumumba's as well?

- do you not believe that police chief Arturo di Felice described Amanda's false confession as "facts we knew to be correct"?

- do you not believe that Raff, Amanda and Patrick were denied lawyers for days after they were arrested?

- do you not believe that all the information the police had before the arrests turned out to be wrong, and that the "evidence" they rely on to validate their accusations was all obtained afterwards? Do you seriously believe that 2 of the 3 people they arrested on wrong information just happened to be the right people?

- do you not believe that 3 computers belonging to the defendants and the victim were wrecked in police hands so thoroughly that the information on them could not be retrieved?

- do you not believe that the mixed DNA evidence used against Amanda was obtained by scrubbing the walls and fixtures of the bathroom, and by swabbing more than one location with the same swab? Do you not believe that swabs were held in the fingers of contaminated gloves? (All of this is on a video on YouTube.)

- do you not believe that the kitchen knife was the one item picked at random from Raff's kitchen drawer, and was subjected to a testing process not recognised in forensic science?

- do you not believe that Amanda was falsely told she was HIV positive, advised to make a list of her sexual partners, and that this list was then seized and leaked to news media? Do you believe that this action by the police had a valid reason, other than to blacken her name among potential jurors?

- do you not believe that the bra clasp was collected from the crime scene when it was no longer secure, and was mishandled at collection in a way that exposed it to contamination? (Again, this is all in a YouTube video.)

All of the above is just off the top of my head. No doubt others commenting here can add to the list. I put it to you that all of these aspects of the case demonstrate a story of incompetence, negligence and cover-up on the part of the police, all too clearly.

Not hard to understand, but hard, very hard, to believe.

I would like to know whether you choose to believe things based on considering the facts or on your preconceptions about the kind of people you identify with.

 

[Antony]

Making sense of all aspects of a defendant's story and alibi is important.

Err ... no it isn't, actually. First you have to make sense of all aspects of the accusations against them. Since nobody can do that, they have no obligation to provide any alibi or story.

As it happens, Amanda and Raff's story of being at Raff's flat the whole evening and night is far more convincing than anything that has been placed against them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The police were there, and they refused to break down the door - they didn't even try. Maybe they are the real killers.

They are not allowed to, wrong police, postal police don't even deal with the break in.

 

[toto]

I'd suggest reading the Massei report for what I believe to be a good description of the mechanics of how Guede got in through that window.

The reason why Massei ruled that Guede, in Massei's opinion, did not do it that way, was because Massei doubted that Guede would go up and down (basically in the position of the man in the photo you saw) three times. Massei, wrongly, said that this would expose Guede to detection from the road.

What Massei misses in my opinion is that all Guede had to do was jump down and be totally secure from the road and from the apartments across the street. The rock thrown through the window would be the test to see if anyone was home at the cottage or if someone across the street noticed.

For my money Massei does a fairly decent job in describing how Guede did it, but in my view errs when he says, "no one would do that three times."

Thanks. I have found the relevant pages (pp 47-55 on the pdf as provided by the true justice site). I can see he doesn't deny the possibility of entrance to the flat through athleticism, which I suppose is all the defence needs, though I would like to see a video in which it is done! I would agree that if it can be done once then it can certainly be done three times. The testimony regarding the faulty shutter is of course of great value to the defence but I would have to concede that lack of grass or dirt on the wall is not helpful to the defence (though I see the scuff marks on the windowsill on one of the pictures). I understand Guede chucked away his shoes . I don't suppose any forensic testing on his clothes showed anything up (if they did any). It is thoroughly irritating (in terms of knowing the absolute truth) that the testimony about the glass is not borne out by the photos.

 

[Bill Williams]

They are not allowed to, wrong police, postal police don't even deal with the break in.

I love the way this is put. The reality is that NO ONE is "allowed" to break down a door. The way it's put above makes it sound like they're not allowed to even if they'd known about Meredith! Sheesh.

 

[Dan O.]

Here's another minor point that's related to their story. They spend time banging on the door , try to look in from the outside, peer in the keyhole but don't try her phone once at the cottage? You see a purse on the bed but don't try calling her phone to see if its in the locked room . The room where Sollecito claimed he tried to break down the door. Making sense of all aspects of a defendant's story and alibi is important.

If you were actually making this claim yourself you would know the related facts and know why it is therefore such a stupid claim.

Now we anticipate Briars next unfounded talking point.

 

[Dan O.]

Don't forget to add, after all of that, about a half hour later when the door is finally broken down, they are nowhere to be seen, 'having already done their part'.

Where were Sophie and the rest of the english girls when the door was broken open? Does not being there make them guilty?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What's "amazing" about it? You actually have to close your eyes to what's happened in this case not to see it.

No, actually you have to close your eye's in order to believe all this, sure you may have a few of these things right, but all you really need is one to be dead wrong, I don't like your odds, they bares on the impossible.

Kindly say what it is you find unbelievable:

Lots actually, but that everyone involved in any aspect of this case is incompetent, crooked, lying, dishonest and so on. They really must have a hate on for old Amanda, and what reason would there be? Filomena seems like a very nice girl, she thinks Amanda is guilty, why do you think that is.

- do you not believe that the interrogation tapes went missing? Not just Amanda's, but Raff's and Patrick Lumumba's as well?

Number one, only PIP's call them interrogation, helps their cause I guess, number two, you don't tape witnesses, once they became suspects, the questioning stopped, no need for tapes at all.

- do you not believe that police chief Arturo di Felice described Amanda's false confession as "facts we knew to be correct"?

I know they claimed case closed one she confessed, but why not, it all made sense did it not.

- do you not believe that Raff, Amanda and Patrick were denied lawyers for days after they were arrested?

I have no idea, I believe Amanda stated that she never asked for a lawyer and wasn't her mother there the day she was arrested, ask her why she waited so long to get a lawyer.

- do you not believe that all the information the police had before the arrests turned out to be wrong, and that the "evidence" they rely on to validate their accusations was all obtained afterwards? Do you seriously believe that 2 of the 3 people they arrested on wrong information just happened to be the right people?

You mean like her confession? And yes, it would have been 3 out of 3 had she given Rudi's name instead of Patrick, but she wasn't aware she wasn't going home, had no idea Rudi had left town, and she feared him, immensely. She wasn't going to give his name, ever wonder why she opened her mouth once she thought Raff was.


-

do you not believe that 3 computers belonging to the defendants and the victim were wrecked in police hands so thoroughly that the information on them could not be retrieved?

I don't believe we know the whole story on these computers, why was Amanda diary missing the key months pages 'OCTOBER', that could have told us a lot as well, cops had nothing to do with that.

- do you not believe that the mixed DNA evidence used against Amanda was obtained by scrubbing the walls and fixtures of the bathroom, and by swabbing more than one location with the same swab? Do you not believe that swabs were held in the fingers of contaminated gloves? (All of this is on a video on YouTube.)

Again, Only PIP's think this is a big thing, where do you think those spots on the glove came from, probably doing exactly what he was sent there to do, pick up stuff in a non sterile room. Did you happen to see Raff's DNA on those gloves, and if so, where did it come from, in the room........

- do you not believe that the kitchen knife was the one item picked at random from Raff's kitchen drawer, and was subjected to a testing process not recognised in forensic science?

But is it recognized in forensic science, where did you hear that? The problem was that the sample was so small that in many places, it is not excepted, but Italy has one of the best forensic science person in charge of this, and she did a great job, unless of course again, you're a PIP.

-

do you not believe that Amanda was falsely told she was HIV positive, advised to make a list of her sexual partners, and that this list was then seized and leaked to news media? Do you believe that this action by the police had a valid reason, other than to blacken her name among potential jurors?

No, I don't believe it was deliberate, all prisoner have this test done, and she was told that is is common to have a false positive and they would know better after further tests, all of which is true.

- do you not believe that the bra clasp was collected from the crime scene when it was no longer secure, and was mishandled at collection in a way that exposed it to contamination? (Again, this is all in a YouTube video.)

Do you mean Raff escaped and went back to the scene and left even more DNA there. He spent only a few hours in that house all together, none of which was in Meredith's room, according to him, what do you think his odds are of getting some on the clasp?

All of the above is just off the top of my head. No doubt others commenting here can add to the list. I put it to you that all of these aspects of the case demonstrate a story of incompetence, negligence and cover-up on the part of the police, all too clearly.

Again, only to a PIP, the odds that all these happened is really astronomical, but I do believe a few may very well be correct, but no way all, and without all, she has to be somewhat guilty.

I would like to know whether you choose to believe things based on considering the facts or on your preconceptions about the kind of people you identify with.

Whatever that means, I have no idea. Most seem to think she is guilty, and a lot think she is innocent, I've only seen a few really that think she is only somewhat involved, but I am seeing more and more of this all the time. Again, what you are calling facts, are not really, try looking at these things several ways instead of trying to bend then only so they make her look innocent.
Example, look at the way that Rudi footprint went down here, P's had him leaving the building then coming back, when that looked unlikely, they started to see shoe prints in the Lumina going back to Meredith's room, you can see whatever you like, but the most likely thing that happen, and what the evidence shows, Rudi did not lock that door.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where were Sophie and the rest of the english girls when the door was broken open? Does not being there make them guilty?

I can guarantee, beyond any shadow of doubt, had they been there, banging on Meredith's door, screaming her name, going nuts trying to look in her window and through the key hole, they would probably be the ones breaking down that door, and I have absolute faith that they could have done that, where Raff (the kickboxing king) couldn't.

 

[Dan O.]

I notice you dance around the deposit in Filomena's by using the uncertainty of mixed blood plus the stain that the defense brought up too late. What if it was only her DNA co-mixed in a random spot in Filomena's room. How did it get there? Not cohabitation.

What if the sky were blue? How did it get there? Evidence that the spot is related to the crime has not been established.

 

[Briars]

If you were actually making this claim yourself you would know the related facts and know why it is therefore such a stupid claim.

Now we anticipate Briars next unfounded talking point.

Sollecito and Amanda did not call Meredith's phone while at the cottage

 

[Briars]

What if the sky were blue? How did it get there? Evidence that the spot is related to the crime has not been established.

Seriously? Meredith's blood made it related.

 

[Briars]

One has to first "time stamp" the DNA... meaning one has to know when the DNA was placed there.... given that the Postal Police allowed both Filomena and Amanda free rein in the cottage before the grisly and horrible discovery, then the question would be, why WOULDN'T Knox's trace DNA be in Filomena's room? Did the PP make them put on little paper booties? That's the reason to take such anti-contamination protocols so that stuff is not tracked from room to room.

It is amazing that these obvious points are always missed when someone makes an observation meant to be suspicious. Such is, "all the other evidence".

You make it seem like there is not need for even anti-contamination protocols? Every other police force in the world would have rendered Filomena's room forensically useless because it was disturbed... not in situ... ooops, there's that term again.

Bill try to imagine what co-mingled means in a random spot in another girls room.

 

[GWCarver]

Bill try to imagine what co-mingled means in a random spot in another girls room.

I can answer that. Evidence-wise it is meaningless because it is to be expected.

 

[toto]

It has been said before but it seems to me that whether Amanda was wholly implicated or just present at the scene, then after her breakdown in the interrogation (naming Patrick and putting herself at the scene) it would have been fairly easy to break her down a bit more and get some pertinent details about the whole scenario. Unless someone reminds me otherwise it appears that anything else Amanda may have said was absolutely useless in recreating the crime scene, and really, if you get someone to confess to have been there at the time it seems wholly negligent not to pursue this line of questioning (videoed of course).

 

[Dan O.]

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry2------c.html
I wonder if someone can help me here. I can see how you could get into Filomena's room by the picture of the man with his feet on the grid of the window below and his hands on the window sill. But from the second picture on this website how did the man get to that position in the first place? I can't see anything to grab on to in order to get that position. Obviously the man got there somehow. Also if I was in his position (the man in the photo) I can't help but think I would have made use of the nail in the wall. Would it not have been bent a bit if Guede had made use of it?

There were other photos in that sequence showing it was an easy climb even in a suit. The transition from hands and feet on the lower window to hands on the upper window is easily accomplished by holding on to the top edge of the lower window while reaching up to the sill of the upper window. The distance from the top bar of the lower window to the top of that sill is 1.51m. I am about Rudy's height and I can reach and grap at least 1.6m.

ETA: look to the left of the nail that is still there and you will see the remains of where a nail once was. Rudy didn't need to step on the one nail. He could of stepped on the other one and broken it out of the wall. Or, he could have pulled himself up without steping on any nail.

Also where can I find the transcript for where Guede says Amanda and Meredith were arguing together in Italian? This seems utterly bizarre.
Thanks!

I don't think Rudy says they were arguing in Italian. Rudy claims he heard what they were arguing about so the argument has to be in a language Rudy understands. The question should be, is there any evidence that Rudy would understand the argument if it were not in Italian.

This whole issue is moot anyway because unless Rudy actually testifies and is open to cross examination where these issues can be resolved, everything he says is nothing but hearsay.

 

[toto]

There were other photos in that sequence showing it was an easy climb even in a suit. The transition from hands and feet on the lower window to hands on the upper window is easily accomplished by holding on to the top edge of the lower window while reaching up to the sill of the upper window. The distance from the top bar of the lower window to the top of that sill is 1.51m. I am about Rudy's height and I can reach and grap at least 1.6m.





I don't think Rudy says they were arguing in Italian. Rudy claims he heard what they were arguing about so the argument has to be in a language Rudy understands. The question should be, is there any evidence that Rudy would understand the argument if it were not in Italian.

This whole issue is moot anyway because unless Rudy actually testifies and is open to cross examination where these issues can be resolved, everything he says is nothing but hearsay.

Thanks for clearing up that up especially the language point. I really would want to see Guede in cross examination.