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

[Christian Klippel]

Your reply makes little sense, I close doors that way as well, that is not the question here, do you lock those doors that way, especially doors you have never seen before and could not possibly know if you even have the correct key in your hand, she had several you know, the boys downstairs, the front door takes a different key as well.

As i have written several times: the key-type used for the front door (the cylinder in it, to be correct) is _completely_ different to the type of key used on her door (which has a standard lock commonly used on inside/room doors). One would not even need to look at them to check which is which, just handling it would be sufficient.

Of course it is possible that the boys downstairs had the same style of key. Then it would be two such keys. Note that a wrong key could not even be inserted into the lock at all. Also, it is very common that people leave their keys in the lock, either the front door (if it is theor own flat/house) or in their room door (if it a shared flat). So it is highly likely that the key was already in the lock, on the inside. One would just have to pull it out and insert it in the other side to lock the door from the outside.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Grinder]

You added a line while I was replying to the first line, anyway

The shoe prints lead out Meredith's door and do not return even under Lumina examination, Rudi did not lock that door when he left and he didn't return to lock it later, those were his final prints out the door, show me where he returned, you can't. Now, because this was not brought up at trial, I'm guessing there is probably a very good reason why, I would like to know, but no one seem to know the answer.

Are you just disingenuous or ....

If Amanda and Raf could be part of the murder and leave no trace in the murder room surely Rudi could return after the traces wore off his shoes.

You can't address Dan's question of where the next luminol print is because it is the end of the trail indicating that either the blood had all worn off or he stopped in the kitchen and took off his shoes.

Can you prove that he ever entered the room walking using your logic? There are NO shoe prints entering the room so maybe by your thought process he never entered but only just appeared there.

The lock is a red herring.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Dan O has demonstrated that the visible prints became luminol prints which then just ended. There is no leap needed to have Rudi walk back to the room and go through the purse and then go out the door, turn and lock it.



I believe that will be the case except the defense will be allowed one heroin addict for their alibi.



Just maybe even the Italians can see that Rudi could have returned and most likely did return to the room in order to go through her purse. Damn that DNA on her purse or was it a bloody print.

I like the theory that they murdered Meredith after she screamed and then all three of them ran out of the house but Rudi needed to return to get into that purse or did he immediately stop as the others ran out and riffled the purse? Did A and R clean themselves before returning to the plaza or did they go home directly and leave no traces at Raf's either? Do you believe that Rudi went straight out and never returned and the kids went with him?

Dan O - thanks for your work. I hope the defense uses some of your work.

Rudi acted alone, the 'kids' were not even there.........but I leave open the possibility they are more involved than what I believe, just hopping justice gets served as I'm sure most here want as well.

 

[Grinder]

Rudi acted alone, the 'kids' were not even there.........but I leave open the possibility they are more involved than what I believe, just hopping justice gets served as I'm sure most here want as well.

So Nara didn't hear the scream and then the running.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you just disingenuous or ....

If Amanda and Raf could be part of the murder and leave no trace in the murder room surely Rudi could return after the traces wore off his shoes.

You can't address Dan's question of where the next luminol print is because it is the end of the trail indicating that either the blood had all worn off or he stopped in the kitchen and took off his shoes.

Can you prove that he ever entered the room walking using your logic? There are NO shoe prints entering the room so maybe by your thought process he never entered but only just appeared there.

The lock is a red herring.

Coming from the king of disingenuous comment, I'm not sure if that is a compliment or not....

 

[Grinder]

Coming from the king of disingenuous comment, I'm not sure if that is a compliment or not....

Cites please

The argument that Rudi could have reentered Meredith's room has no basis, period. Not only do you not know how to spell luminol you apparently have no idea how it is used or works.

Shoes that have had blood on them do not make lumina prints for ever. You are either disingenuous or xxxx because that is perfectly clear. Dan has patiently pointed out several times that the lumimol prints come to an end and therefore as he keeps walking NO TRACE is left. Therefore he could walk back into the room without leaving a trail.

He could also have put the key in the door as he walked out and then shut the door and just turned the key even with the shoe position as shown.

This is like so much of the PG case. Did they call the police before the PP arrived? It doesn't really matter because they had with no doubt called Filomena so she was on the way. Did she call her mother when it was 3 am in Seattle? Who cares?

 

[Dan O.]

Front doors usually do not have a manual handle (which works on the upper bolt) on the outside, only on the inside. It simply is a matter of taste,preference, whatever, where one would place a knob/handle on the outside. There are many variations, for example a static knob where the manual handle would normally be, or a big raised plate as handle, or a bar across the door as a handle, or knobs in the middle. It has no significance as to the lock itself, since it won't be connected to it anyways.

The best identity we have for the front door lock is a Corbin model "PS350 03 50" multipoint mortise lock. I used to have a link to the catalog but the site no longer carries the Corbin brand.

 

[codyjuneau]

“Contamination must be proven with certainty not supposition.” SCAs other posters have mentioned already, I find it absolutely incredible that the SC has made this statement. If this was the case, you wouldn't have to bother with ANY of the forensics guidelines about collection and storage and testing. You might as well rock up at the crime scene with a used tissue for swabbing, empty coca cola bottles for sample collections, and a roll of scotch tape for fingerprint analysis! (Which they basically did do with the wrapping paper).
I am really very interested, if any of the Italian-reading posters can help me out, if any legal scholars in Italy have talked to the press about this statement or the verdict more generally?
If the top legal scholars are not shouting loudly about this, then Italy's truly screwed. I am going to do some research and start contacting some academics directly, to ask their opinions. If the academic community let rubbish like this stand, then their standing in the international academic community will be irrevocably damaged, surely?
Has the Supreme Court in effect just set a precedent that police are under no obligations at all to use proper forensic methodology? (Do precedents get set in this way in Italy? Does this contradict any point of statute in Italian law?). Defending yourself against a criminal case under these circumstances will be almost impossible. Also, there's a wider point of law at stake, where they are in effect turning the whole burden on it's head; that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's not reasonable to doubt the validity of evidence when proper forensics guidelines were clearly not followed, then perhaps there is nothing that even counts as reasonable doubt, and we're left with a situation where literally all the prosecution has to do is prove that it was possible? I'd be up in arms (not literally) about this if I was Italian.

.
I wonder if the Supreme Court judges would be so cavalier about standards and regulations if they took their family to a restaurant that had 50 violations of food safety handling procedures while preparing their meal.

And I wonder if they would be unconcerned by the subsequent food poisoning of their family, because they could not prove precisely when, where, or how the bacteria got in their meals.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

I once got calunnia right didn't I, before foolishly reading Mignini and losing that one!

What's your point then? I happen now to have a perfect record for prediction! Instead of criticizing you should be reflecting in awe!

Are you sure you never said the SC would uphold the acquittals? And IIRC you did not predict calunnia so much as agree with Hellman's verdict. I just think predicting the outcome of legal cases (especially this one) is silly.

I said that my prediction record was perfect, but I did not say which way.

If I'd stuck to my (looney) guns on calunnia I would have at least had bragging rights about being right once. But that would have spoiled a perfect record - which I can now claim. I failed to predict ANY of them.

I am a reverse barometer. Where's Machiavelli when you need him. He at least exhibits the strange behaviour of actually understanding what goes on in the Italian judicial system

How strange is THAT!?

He's the one who called it - that C&V might just be prosecuted for committing crimes by "colluding" with the defence. Heck even Barbie Nadeau is writing that the Kercher's themselves might sue C&V for their misbehaviour.

I'll say one thing for the Italians.... they certainly know how to mount an offence against their enemies. Me: I can't even call right the likely decision of a court case.

I'm thinking of changing my name to "Reasonable Person." To my way of thinking, I'm the only reasonable person here other than you.

And I have serious doubts about you!

 

[Christian Klippel]

The best identity we have for the front door lock is a Corbin model "PS350 03 50" multipoint mortise lock. I used to have a link to the catalog but the site no longer carries the Corbin brand.

Yea, but the sampe principle applies. Look at dsc_0019.jpg, you can see that the upper bolt is jammed with some wood or something. That bolt would normally actuated with the inside handle, which you can see in dsc_0020.jpg, right above the cylinder. Pushing the handle down would retract the upper bolt, normally.

These larger multipoint locks are basically the same as the regular locks for cylinders (Einsteckschlösser). The only difference is that they have multiple bolts that are actuated with the cylinder, usually one above and one below the normal deadbolt (which would be the lower, flat headed bolt that you can see in dsc_0019).

The screw right below that bolt is used to secure the cylinder, btw.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Bill Williams]

“contamination must be proven with certainty not supposition.” sc

.
I wonder if the supreme court judges would be so cavalier about standards and regulations if they took their family to a restaurant that had 50 violations of food safety handling procedures while preparing their meal.

And i wonder if they would be unconcerned by the subsequent food poisoning of their family, because they could not prove precisely when, where, or how the bacteria got in their meals.
.

Where's the smiley when you need it!

 

[Dan O.]

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7840[/IMGL]

He could also have put the key in the door as he walked out and then shut the door and just turned the key even with the shoe position as shown.

I used to think Rudy was fiddling with the keys while creating the prints at 5C and 5B. But these are pointed the wrong way. He could still test the lock once he's turned around (5A) and pull it closed, turning the lock behind him (3) (note the very short step from 5A to 3. If he was just walking through this would have been a full pace. Rudy may be opening the door in this sequence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you just disingenuous or ....

If Amanda and Raf could be part of the murder and leave no trace in the murder room surely Rudi could return after the traces wore off his shoes.

You can't address Dan's question of where the next luminol print is because it is the end of the trail indicating that either the blood had all worn off or he stopped in the kitchen and took off his shoes.

Can you prove that he ever entered the room walking using your logic? There are NO shoe prints entering the room so maybe by your thought process he never entered but only just appeared there.

The lock is a red herring.

The lock may or may not be a red herring.... the point is that one does not build an understanding of the case under some such anomaly.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Btw, this seems to be the Corbin lock:

http://www.handlesandhinges.co.uk/corbin-multipoint-3-deadbolts-50mm-backset/

However, this one os PS3500250 instead of PS3500350. My guess is that 02 instead of the 03 indicates the faceplate width (20mm vs. 30mm). The 50 indicates that backset (50mm), there is also a 45 with 45mm backset (distance faceplate/cylinder).

As with single-point locks, the upper bolt (latch) is actuated by the door handle, usually only on the inside for front doors (after all, you don't want giving random folks outside a door handle to use to walk in).

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dan O.]

Btw, this seems to be the Corbin lock:

http://www.handlesandhinges.co.uk/corbin-multipoint-3-deadbolts-50mm-backset/

However, this one os PS3500250 instead of PS3500350. My guess is that 02 instead of the 03 indicates the faceplate width (20mm vs. 30mm). The 50 indicates that backset (50mm), there is also a 45 with 45mm backset (distance faceplate/cylinder).

As with single-point locks, the upper bolt (latch) is actuated by the door handle, usually only on the inside for front doors (after all, you don't want giving random folks outside a door handle to use to walk in).

Greetings,

Chris

Thanks for that. My old link had gone bad.

The operation of that lock differs from a description provided by someone at PMF:

According to a researcher at PMF, the auxiliary latches on the model PS350 series are operated via the inside handle; rotating the handle up 45 degrees sets the auxiliary latches, rotating the handle down 45 degrees releases the latches (and presumably retracts the slide bolt). This does not apparently throw the main deadbolt which must be actuated with the key from inside or out. Also, there may be no way to release the auxiliary latches from outside so this would lock out the roommates.

Maybe someone will need to bug the current tenant or contact the locksmith that subsequently fixed the lock to get a definitive ruling on how this lock operated in its modified condition.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks for that. My old link had gone bad.

The operation of that lock differs from a description provided by someone at PMF:

According to a researcher at PMF, the auxiliary latches on the model PS350 series are operated via the inside handle; rotating the handle up 45 degrees sets the auxiliary latches, rotating the handle down 45 degrees releases the latches (and presumably retracts the slide bolt). This does not apparently throw the main deadbolt which must be actuated with the key from inside or out. Also, there may be no way to release the auxiliary latches from outside so this would lock out the roommates.

Maybe someone will need to bug the current tenant or contact the locksmith that subsequently fixed the lock to get a definitive ruling on how this lock operated in its modified condition.

I highly doubt that that description is correct. The whole point of a multipoint lock is to add security/protection against forcefully open the door. It would be silly to have that extra protection only if you lock yourself in, but not when you go out and lock the door. Every multipoint-lock that i have ever seen operates the extra bolts with the cylinder always, whereas the manual handle action is just an extra, assuming the handle is on the inside only.

Yes, there are multipoint-locks that can lock by using the manual handle. There are various types, actually, 3-fold, 4-fold, 6-fold. But IIRC they all allow the extra bolts to be actuated by the cylinder, or at least configured to do so, if only one side has a manual handle. It is considered some kind of "comfort function", so that you can quickly use the bolts without needing to fiddle with the key if you are inside.

Although in German, check this Swiss company's multipoint locks:

http://dabag.bwise.ch/?srv=sortiment&pg=lst&partnerId=4&rub=412&groupId=0

They all have/allow the basic working of operating all the deadbolts with the key. In addition, some allow to use the handle to retract them, or retract and engage them, etc. A special variant allows to lock/unlock the bolts with the handle, while the cylinder is then used to enable/disable that function. There are also variants require a combination of using the cylinder and the manual handle. However, those are normally only used when you have manual handles on both sides. It would be really silly to do use such a configuration if only one side (inside) has a manual handle, since, as said, one would loose the extra protection that those extra bolts bring when leaving the house.

Also note the use of the phrase "(and presumably retracts the slide bolt)", which indicates that the person who wrote that (or gave that information) doesn't really know about that particular lock's workings either.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[snook1]

Can someone, please, say what the SC said about C/V report? Will it be presented at the Florence trial or is it erased like the rest of Hellmann?

Also, I really do wonder if Hellmann will address the report in any way (just like he did with the decision back in March) and I can't wait for some kind of words of wisdom from the defense teams.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can someone, please, say what the SC said about C/V report? Will it be presented at the Florence trial or is it erased like the rest of Hellmann?

Also, I really do wonder if Hellmann will address the report in any way (just like he did with the decision back in March) and I can't wait for some kind of words of wisdom from the defense teams.

I am reciting from news reports, I do not know the actual wording (or implication for the lower court) of the ISC motivations.... but here it goes with that caveat.

It said that the C&V report never should have been allowed, because first there had to be clear evidence that somehow Stefanoni had erred or that samples had been contaminated. In the absence of the defence demonstrating contamination, the court should have no authority to order a review of police work. In essence, if I am reading this correctly, the ISC said that Judge Massei and the 1st Court was correct in disallowing an independent review.

There was a brief exchange upthread - which I'll PARAPHRASE!!!!! - which gave the gist of what Judge Massei had said. He'd concluded that there was no contamination, because Stefanoni and her boss had assured the court that they'd never had any instances of that sort of thing.

There was also some suggestion that the ISC ruled Hellmann overturned on the basis of the C&V report because, they implied, he turned over his judicial function as a decider of fact to this independent team. Apparently, if this is correct, you're not allowed to do that (whatever it is that this means!).

It echoes another thing Massei had said in disallowing an independent review of Stefanoni's work. PARAPHRASE ALERT!!!!! - "Even if it came back to me contrary to what the Scientific Police found, I'd then be in a position of having to decide between the two. So I'll just decide that Stefanoni is correct right now and dispense with the review."

Apparently in Italy (as in all countries really, except for those with separate juries) it is up to the judge to make the finding of fact. Going to an "expert opinion" gives the impression that the experts in the field might know something the judges do not.

That's the best I can do.

 

[charlatan]

Can someone, please, say what the SC said about C/V report? Will it be presented at the Florence trial or is it erased like the rest of Hellmann?

Also, I really do wonder if Hellmann will address the report in any way (just like he did with the decision back in March) and I can't wait for some kind of words of wisdom from the defense teams.

My read on it is that the report is not "erased" per se, but 1) Hellmann should have allowed more sensitive tests on the new trace (which will presumably now go ahead), 2) contamination must be proven, even in the face of flawed investigative methods, and 3) Hellmann erred in considering C&V to be the decisive word on the genetic investigations and failed to properly evaluate the criticisms and claims of the other experts. My understanding is that going forward C&V will be considered one perspective among many, and it's up to the next judges to manufacture the legal truth, science be damned.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs *21

4pm AK RS goodbye MK

4.30pm AK RS head to RS flat

8.18pm text from PL dont come in - AK angry

8.20pm finds/bumps into RG who lives near to RS. AK flirts and suggests he steals MK rent money in exchange for cocaine, gives him her key (and RS kitchen knife) and says meet at basketball court at 9.30pm to party

8.35pm AK returns to RS flat texts PL seeya!

8.45pm Popovic sees AK at RS flat

9.00pm RG arranges HK meet him near cottage to supply cocaine

9.15pm RG HK enter cottage with key make themselves at home - goes to steal money surprised to find MK there - she is angry - confrontation RG sexual assault ; HK's contribution is brief but deadly

9.30pm AK RS wait at basketball court for RG

9.45pm MK fatally wounded HK flees early with his weapon. RG left amongst devastation - flees

10.00pm AK RS at basketball court argue as to what has gone on and what to do

10.30 - 11.15pm breakdown truck near to cottage - sees and hears nothing

11.15pm AK RS visit cottage. AK screams when they see body and realise what her actions have led to. They stage scene to make it point to a male outsider.

Next morning AK RS stay around cottage to manage discovery and gauge reaction/evidence found