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

[Grinder]

Does anyone know, the message Patrick sent Amanda and the message she replied with, were they in English, Italian or combination of both?

Italian.

 

[Grinder]

Would Barbie have been allowed into the house at the time the picture was taken? If not, what would stop her and anybody else from entering?

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok, Ok.... I 'm guessing you didn't know what I meant, what I was saying is, Barbie probably took that picture right after the scientific police went inside. In order to go inside you have no choice but to break the seal and open the door, I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer. It is quite possible, that this picture means absolutely nothing. Now tell me what you know about Saskatchewan?

The point is a legal one. It has to do with protecting the integrity of the crime scene. It literally is like the plastic wrap over the top of a pill bottle. It is proof that what's inside has not been tampered with.

If the plastic wrap looks torn, you're advised to throw out the pills, because the manufacturer cannot guarantee the integrity of what's inside.

Similarly with a crimescene. Let's leave aside for a moment that both Amanda and Filomena were allowed to rummage through the cottage before anyone was aware of what kind of crimescene it was. No one knew at the time that the condition of Filomena's room would be crucial to determining if a break in was real or staged.

Yet, Filomena was allowed to, as guilter author John Follain says, "rummage" through her room. And incredibly, even after the place was theoretically sealed off after the horrible discovery, Filomena goes inside to retrieve her laptop... all the while, the glass on top was considered a clue as to the nature of the flippin' break-in!!!!

The tape goes up following the early November Scientific Police's work, for the same reason that plastic wrap goes around a pill bottle cap. It's so that if they need to return, the police can prove that what's inside remains untampered with.

Yet guilter Barbie Nadeau takes a picture, sometime between the end of the first SP search, and the middle of December, showing that the tape has been tampered with. Did she do it? Did she go inside?

Who knows? Has anyone asked Barbie...... under oath and the penalties of perjury?!

The point is that even if Barbie's photo is bogus.... they did the Dec search with Meredith's mattress in the kitchen and her track-jacket in the hamper, and with the bra-clasp not where it was back in November.....

How much of this does a court need to consider ANYTHING post-Nov 3 or 4th as forensically worthless.

If you don't believe me, go to your local drugstore and start peeling the security seals off all the pill bottles on the shelf. See where that gets you.

And as for Saskatchewan.... I had to scroll back to recall what that was about. I think all I was saying is that I was impressed that someone could spell "Saskatchewan"! Mostly it's misspelled as "Saskabush".

 

[Dan O.]

Ok, Ok.... I 'm guessing you didn't know what I meant, what I was saying is, Barbie probably took that picture right after the scientific police went inside. In order to go inside you have no choice but to break the seal and open the door, I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer. It is quite possible, that this picture means absolutely nothing. Now tell me what you know about Saskatchewan?

Sherlock Holmes, have you gone to the source of that photo?

http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html

Do you note the date on that page?

Have you looked at the photos of the door taken by ILE immediately prior to reentering the cottage in December?

Have you noted the time stamp in the metadata on that image: "Date and time of data generation 13:14, 18 December 2007"

Why do you come here presenting the persona of clueless? You are destroying your own credibility.

 

[Dan O.]

Would Barbie have been allowed into the house at the time the picture was taken? If not, what would stop her and anybody else from entering?

The house is a crime scene. Only criminals may enter without authorization.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point is a legal one. It has to do with protecting the integrity of the crime scene. It literally is like the plastic wrap over the top of a pill bottle. It is proof that what's inside has not been tampered with.

If the plastic wrap looks torn, you're advised to throw out the pills, because the manufacturer cannot guarantee the integrity of what's inside.

Similarly with a crimescene. Let's leave aside for a moment that both Amanda and Filomena were allowed to rummage through the cottage before anyone was aware of what kind of crimescene it was. No one knew at the time that the condition of Filomena's room would be crucial to determining if a break in was real or staged.

Yet, Filomena was allowed to, as guilter author John Follain says, "rummage" through her room. And incredibly, even after the place was theoretically sealed off after the horrible discovery, Filomena goes inside to retrieve her laptop... all the while, the glass on top was considered a clue as to the nature of the flippin' break-in!!!!

The tape goes up following the early November Scientific Police's work, for the same reason that plastic wrap goes around a pill bottle cap. It's so that if they need to return, the police can prove that what's inside remains untampered with.

Yet guilter Barbie Nadeau takes a picture, sometime between the end of the first SP search, and the middle of December, showing that the tape has been tampered with. Did she do it? Did she go inside?

Who knows? Has anyone asked Barbie...... under oath and the penalties of perjury?!

The point is that even if Barbie's photo is bogus.... they did the Dec search with Meredith's mattress in the kitchen and her track-jacket in the hamper, and with the bra-clasp not where it was back in November.....

How much of this does a court need to consider ANYTHING post-Nov 3 or 4th as forensically worthless.

If you don't believe me, go to your local drugstore and start peeling the security seals off all the pill bottles on the shelf. See where that gets you.

And as for Saskatchewan.... I had to scroll back to recall what that was about. I think all I was saying is that I was impressed that someone could spell "Saskatchewan"! Mostly it's misspelled as "Saskabush".

Actually, for Saskatchewan, I was hoping it was because you were from there, that's were I've lived my whole life, we could have gotten together for a beer and discussed this case. Other than the internet, I have never met anyone who even cared the slightest bit about this case. Most have never even heard about it, and those that have could care less it seems. I forced my sister to read one of the books I have on it, when she finished and I asked if she would like another, she said no. My own wife really could care less as well so I basically only have the internet to discuss it.

Now, as for the door to the cottage, I'm guessing Barbie took that picture after the police and the defense and prosecution entered the house. The defense won't let the prosecution go in without them and vice versa so I'm sure the date they were going to go in was made public and Barbie showed up, took a picture after they had entered.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes, have you gone to the source of that photo?

http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html

Do you note the date on that page?

Have you looked at the photos of the door taken by ILE immediately prior to reentering the cottage in December?

Have you noted the time stamp in the metadata on that image: "Date and time of data generation 13:14, 18 December 2007"

Why do you come here presenting the persona of clueless? You are destroying your own credibility.

The picture you show on Nov 14, does not look like the one I saw with the door open and the police tape is in tack. How do you know the picture on Dec 18 was not taken after they had entered. I know a lot of you guys think your Sherlock Holmes, but really, if there was anything wrong with these pictures, don't you think the defense would have brought them up. Internet detectives are everywhere and a dime a dozen, if you think your so smart, get a hold of the defense and tell them what they have overlooked, and good luck with that.

 

[Grinder]

The picture you show on Nov 14, does not look like the one I saw with the door open and the police tape is in tack. How do you know the picture on Dec 18 was not taken after they had entered. I know a lot of you guys think your Sherlock Holmes, but really, if there was anything wrong with these pictures, don't you think the defense would have brought them up. Internet detectives are everywhere and a dime a dozen, if you think your so smart, get a hold of the defense and tell them what they have overlooked, and good luck with that.

The door is open on the linked photo.

There was no visit my the defense and prosecution until the 18th IIRC.

Even Barbie say the defense was the reason they were convicted as the prosecution didn't present a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FOA PR supertanker pays us way more than .085 cents .

The Italian system being what it is may preclude the defense saying anything because they would be charged with defamation.

Much evidence could survive an unsealed cottage, but the bra clasp reappearing 47 days later with the only DNA linked to the crime of Raf's, make that open door significant.

It is amazing how every piece of so-called evidence is so tainted. The witnesses deny all the week of the crime but 9 months later can be specific to the minute in one case and in another recall the surface people were running on. The bra has Raf's DNA but was only collected the day after his shoes were proven not to have the ones that left the prints. The knife needs to have the test done beyond the limits of the machine.

The foot prints test negative for blood and don't match anyone's foot. The Luminol is applied so heavily that the technicians boots light up. The bloody bathroom turns out to have only a couple drops of blood. The bath mat print doesn't match anybody and the method used by the prosecution's footprint expert is the debunked grid system. Three or four computers have their hard drives fried.

Meredith's body temp is taken late and they mishandle her blood in such a way that the alcohol content is 5 times what it really was.

They leave behind her bloody clothes. They put evidence in wrapping paper that was from the cottage. They store evidence in the cottage's freezer.

What difference would a securely sealed cottage make anyway? They used dirty gloves, didn't change them enough, mixed blood with residue on the sink and stored crucial evidence in a way that it was destroyed.

 

[Skind]

How do you know the picture on Dec 18 was not taken after they had entered.

We don't. Any picture taken on Dec 18th is irrelevant to any picture taken beforehand.

I know a lot of you guys think your Sherlock Holmes, but really, if there was anything wrong with these pictures, don't you think the defense would have brought them up.

All it would have got them is arguement exactly like you've just given. Rather than place the onus onto the prosecution, the onus would be wrongly placed on the defence to show evidence of transgression - hard to do when the police record is as poor as it turned out to be.

It is the prosecution who have to show photographic evidence that the scene was properly sealed when they left, and that the scene was properly sealed when they returned. If they fail to do this, we have no evidence that the scene was ever properly sealed at all.

If both these photographs are absent from the case files, but a contrary photograph is available, we have to assume the scene was not properly sealed until the prosecution show otherwise.

 

[el buscador]

Sherlock, The ILE and the PGP claim the house was sealed after the scientific police finished with the murder scene and the house wasn't entered again until the 18th. This supposed fact was a really big deal to try and keep the integrity of the bra clasp evidence (which is shot regardless). But actually ILE came in and tossed the place at least twice, moving Meredith's mattress and closet doors out of her room and totally trashing her room. How else could the bra clasp have been found in the trash heap under the rug?

Since you post on PMF you might go over and ask Michael to explain it to you. He had a lot to say on the issue and there are probably many posts on the subject in earlier threads here on JREF,

 

[Grinder]

Anybody know the reasoning for not allowing the defense to send Amanda's computer to Toshiba to recover the damage they inflicted on the hard drive?

 

[yimyammer]

I checked out that site just now... yea... bit creepy isn't it?

I glanced around at some of his lists of Amanda Knox's lies or whatever and I came back around to a thought I've had before...

I'd like to pose an interesting question to any and all of you who care to entertain it:

If you find yourself in a situation where you are being prosecuted for a crime you DID NOT commit, and they are pursing angles of inquiry which are just absurd... like for instance you're one of the West Memphis 3 guys and you're being accused of Satanically sacrificing 3 small boys... and they ask you if you've ever drawn pentagrams, or something... for instance...

Do you have a moral right to lie about such things, again knowing that you are innocent of the accused crime, so as to not give them any more fuel for their insane witch hunt?

Personally, I say yes.

If you're innocent of a murder but being prosecuted for it anyway, I think you are completely within your moral rights to omit things which you are concerned would make you look more guilty.

So for instance, Amanda Knox leaves out some trivial argument she had with her roommate who ended up dead? Completely legit IMO.

It never seems like a good idea to lie to the police as that could backfire as well. Seems better to clam up and get an attorney ASAP

 

[Grinder]

Do you have a moral right to lie about such things, again knowing that you are innocent of the accused crime, so as to not give them any more fuel for their insane witch hunt?

Sure, it would be moral to deny drawing pentagrams even if one had. The issue others have addressed is: would it be smart and that would probably be a no.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sure, it would be moral to deny drawing pentagrams even if one had. The issue others have addressed is: would it be smart and that would probably be a no.

If guilty it's best to lie though.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sherlock, The ILE and the PGP claim the house was sealed after the scientific police finished with the murder scene and the house wasn't entered again until the 18th. This supposed fact was a really big deal to try and keep the integrity of the bra clasp evidence (which is shot regardless). But actually ILE came in and tossed the place at least twice, moving Meredith's mattress and closet doors out of her room and totally trashing her room. How else could the bra clasp have been found in the trash heap under the rug?

Since you post on PMF you might go over and ask Michael to explain it to you. He had a lot to say on the issue and there are probably many posts on the subject in earlier threads here on JREF,

Really and truly, DNA-analysis is not my thing. Truth be told, I'd rather poke my eye out than read EDFs..... fortunately, Stefanoni did not release them so I am safe.

And speaking of going, "over to PMF and ask Michael to explain it to you," it was not Michael, but one of the PMs I had with (a surprisingly nice person!) who was a guilter..... this peripheral point always came up.....

.... if you're going to throw out all the forensics against Raffaele and Amanda, it's only fair to throw out the forensics against Rudy, too.

At the time, I had no answer, really. But when this business of the integrity of the crime-scene comes into serious question between Nov 4, and the middle of December, consider this.

What he and I got into was the assumption that what the Scientific Police walked into in the middle of December was the same "pristine" crime-scene as at 1:15 pm on Nov 2nd. I did not challenge that particular point and am now kicking myself.

First off - Barbie Nadeau's stuff calls into serious question the crime-scene tape; meant to make it a crime for someone to cross; potentially to disturb evidence. (This was also one of the reasons why Raffaele and Amanda were kept in precautionary detention - they feared that AK and RS would tamper with the evidence. So for this, AK and RS have an iron clad alibi - they were in jail...... I bet the guilters find a way to accuse them of mucking with the crime-scene tape!)

Second-off - once the SP people arrive in the middle of December, it is patently obvious that the crime scene HAS been mucked with.... innocently or conspiratorially it does not matter. It's a pass/fail test legally, or should be.

If the crime-scene tape is mucked with, EVERYTHING found after is worthless as evidence. If there is obvious shuffling around of Meredith's stuff (her mattress in the kitchen, her track-jacket in the hamper, the bra-clasp some feet from where it'd been 6 weeks' previously), EVERYTHING found after is worthless as evidence.

It's as simple as that, or it should be. There's no argument. I wish I'd thought of all this when PM'ing with guilters who said, "If you throw out the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, then you have to throw out the evidence against Rudy."

Yet the very first PLE examination of the cottage, specifically in Meredith's room, shows Rudy and only Rudy. That room is the ONLY room that had not been "rummaged" around in, in the two hours before Meredith's body was tragically found. Knox herself had been active in the cottage on Nov 1st, as had Raffaele when the two then went to his place for the evening, and Meredith went out to be with her friends.

As of Nov 4th, there was NOTHING from the cottage that pointed forensically to the two students. Not the Nike-print, which turned out to be Rudy's, not the knife, which was found at Raffaele's, and the bra-clasp, really, was the ONLY prize from the middle of December PLE SP examination.....

..... of a hopelessly compromised crime-scene.

I truly wonder what Barbie Nadeau would say under oath about this....

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The picture you show on Nov 14, does not look like the one I saw with the door open and the police tape is in tack. How do you know the picture on Dec 18 was not taken after they had entered. I know a lot of you guys think your Sherlock Holmes, but really, if there was anything wrong with these pictures, don't you think the defense would have brought them up. Internet detectives are everywhere and a dime a dozen, if you think your so smart, get a hold of the defense and tell them what they have overlooked, and good luck with that.

Have you seen the photos/video from Nov. 2-3 vs. that from Dec. 18? You don't have to be an ace detective to see that somebody trashed the place.

 

[yimyammer]

If the crime-scene tape is mucked with, EVERYTHING found after is worthless as evidence. If there is obvious shuffling around of Meredith's stuff (her mattress in the kitchen, her track-jacket in the hamper, the bra-clasp some feet from where it'd been 6 weeks' previously), EVERYTHING found after is worthless as evidence..

I can't remember, was the bra clasp found in Merediths room or near the mattress dragged into the kitchen?

 

[Grinder]

If guilty it's best to lie though.

and that's why half the PGP take their position.

I'm not enamored of Amanda nor do I think she is exceptional and I think she may have many of the characteristics ascribed to her by the PGP, but that doesn't make her guilty.

 

[Dan O.]

Have you seen the photos/video from Nov. 2-3 vs. that from Dec. 18? You don't have to be an ace detective to see that somebody trashed the place.

The police were still occupying the cottage through November 6 and there is very little documentation of what they did during that period. We know they painted the bathroom pink probably late on the third. It's surprising that they didn't take one last round of pictures to show how the cottage looked before it was sealed on the 6th. But then, maybe they didn't want that kind of evidence.

 

[Supernaut]

I've just been suspended from the 'Injustice Anywhere' forum for "rudeness".

ME? RUDE?

I think I'm just blunt and to-the-point, actually.