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

[Grinder]

It's one crazy assumption to assume that burglars are going to be smarter than people that stage a burglary - just google stupid burglars

And what a coincidence that they used a large rock to break a second story window just like the lawyers office. Why not try the window and just push it open? Or use a screwdriver on the front door? Or just leave the balcony door unlocked? Or the front door unlocked and open?

I've always thought that if Amanda/Raffaele had been guilty the best way to cover their tracks would have been to come home that morning and find Meredith themselves - they could have used the excuse of checking if she was alive to cover themselves with blood and totally ruin the crime scene. It would have been far easier than all the staged burglary and selective DNA cleaning that they are accused of

I agree and would add that it would either be that or just go to Gubbio. They could wait for a message or if none came just go to Raf's. Amanda could then return the next morning and do exactly as you suggested. She or they would come to the cottage and find the door open and become worried about Meredith and call Filomena after trying Meredith's phones. They could then break down the door (or just open it if they didn't lock it which they had no reason to do) and rush in and try to save her.

I was also wondering if anyone was able to confirm what they had been wearing the day before - and if those clothes were ever tested? If these were clear, does an outfit change also need to be included in the timeline. Blood really does get everywhere, even the tiniest drop

I don't think it was ever positively established what they were wearing. They would have have to dispose of those clothes, their shoes and any rags or sponges they used for cleaning. It is just about impossible for them to have returned to Raf's and not brought blood and DNA with them. But they were in possession of a Dial-A-Matic DNA vacuum so that can be explained.

 

[Grinder]

I have had the same thought. Rather than an obviously impossible clean up (deliberately leaving signs of Rudy, but then naming Lumumba so as not to implicate Rudy ) just get up to your arms in gore and rush outside freaking out and call the cops.

And the bookkeeper keeps with his Hicham being the first black they tried to accuse. No PGP can explain why they would leave evidence of their accomplice and then not direct the investigation towards him. They also can't explain why they didn't wipe away the blood on the faucet that they had seen because they told the PP about it right away. A piece of toilet paper and 5 seconds and flush.

Also, was it smart to toss the phones without turning them both off? I mean as smart college kids, one of them technically savvy, would they not realise the phones had to be disabled? Like Hellman said (I think) just switch them off and leave them in the room or remove the batteries likewise. Don't toss them, necessitating the possibility of being seen in a funny place, and certainly don't alert the neighbourhood by calling them.

Like you say, Nancy, they were dumb, they were smart, they were dumb, etc etc

Why take the phones at all? If they thought about them at all, why not just leave them? Who would hear them ringing that would be a problem for the kids? Rudi would have taken them as a regular thing he stole or he might worry that someone would hear them before he could vamos. There is no way they were taken to prevent Meredith from using them.

 

[NancyS]

I don't think it was ever positively established what they were wearing. They would have have to dispose of those clothes, their shoes and any rags or sponges they used for cleaning. It is just about impossible for them to have returned to Raf's and not brought blood and DNA with them. But they were in possession of a Dial-A-Matic DNA vacuum so that can be explained.

I keep thinking of what they would have needed to do - they would have needed to strip off clothes and place in bag, without getting any blood anywhere else in house or on outside of bag. As no blood traces found at Raffaele's they must have washed and changed into clean clothes at Amanda's - yet didn't transfer any blood to Amanda's closet or room whilst getting new clothes and only minimal blood to shower - and whose clothes did Raffaele wear on the way back to his house and whilst they hung out at the square? He couldn't have been wearing clothes from the murder as some trace of blood would have ended up somewhere at his house - even after the most thorough clean-ups, tiny amounts of blood are usually found. Was he wearing Amanda's clothes and would he fit her clothes? At some time that night they must have found somewhere to throw bloody clothes and I'm assuming police would have checked the local area

Are we supposed to believe that as well as leaving no traces of themselves at the murder scene - no trace of Meredith was transferred to Amanda/ Raffaele even though there was blood all over the scene?

I do phlebotomy regularly on my job and blood gets everywhere and is horribly difficult to clean up - I'm sometimes amazed that a tiny drop of spilt blood can travel so far and can turn up in completely random places - they must have had one hell of a magic DNA and blood Hoover!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock is there a trail of Rudi's prints leading into Meredith's bedroom? According to you there is no such trail, yet we absolutely know he was in her bedroom; therefore it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rudi could enter without leaving a shoe print trail or any evidence that he walked towards the room. If he could do this once, it is absolutely proven he could do it more than once.

Where do you think that Rudi's last visible and last luminol prints are?

Why do you believe that once shoes have a substance on them, leaving a trail, those shoes will always leave a trail? Obviously you don't believe that, so you must believe that he could walk into her room a second or third time and there would be no proof of that.

The court may not have discussed this but they also didn't consider that she was just involved after the fact. If you wish to dispense with the real possibility that he returned on the basis that the court didn't discuss it, then you must give up your involvement argument based on the same thing.

If the ILE had charged her with accessory after the fact, I'm sure the point would be made that the shoe print in an awkward position to lock the door doesn't preclude that Rudi came back and locked it.

Can you prove he didn't come back? No.

No, I can see no way that he did go back, but the prosecution did not bring this up at trial, therefore I'm sure there is a simple explanation, I have no idea what it is and I haven't heard from the PIP's that makes sense either, but clearly the prosecution and the defense know what it is because it was never an issue.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And if he went to see the boys first, then the girls last (why would he see the girls at all? He didn't 'know' them in the same way), he's a few feet from a unbarred, open shuttered window with what amounts to a ladder right below it.

And a place to pick up a rock from.
And a place to hide if someone turned out to be in.
And a place to hide if someone came to investigate the sounds of smashing glass.
And he's in a place that he has an excuse to be in if caught (hey! I came to see who smashed the window too!)
And he's in a place he can easily escape from.

None of this should have needed pointing out.

PIP's seem to think he went there to rob them, I certainly don't, I'm only pointing out the most likely way to break in to the house and that the only two times we know for sure the house was broken into, they used the balcony. That my friend is why it needs to be pointed out.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why take the phones at all? If they thought about them at all, why not just leave them? Who would hear them ringing that would be a problem for the kids? Rudi would have taken them as a regular thing he stole or he might worry that someone would hear them before he could vamos. There is no way they were taken to prevent Meredith from using them.

I'd love to know why he took the phones, he supposedly is this thief that broke in to steal, but only stole 2 phones and some money, yet most here have him killing her before 9:30 and he was still there for the 10:00 pm attempted call on her phone, what was he doing for over a half hour there, he left computers and camera's there but took phones and keys.

 

[RoseMontague]

Filomena's window had to be barred, it's a bit famous in those parts and I'm sure the owner still wants to rent out the room. Is the kitchen window barred as well? That would be a good question. I'm not positive, but if this murder had happened in Canada, I'm pretty sure the landlord would have been bright up on charges as well, especially for the way the front door locked.

My understanding is that Filomena was in charge of getting the landlord to fix two security issues. The door that would not stay closed without being locked and her window shutters that would not close.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My understanding is that Filomena was in charge of getting the landlord to fix two security issues. The door that would not stay closed without being locked and her window that would not close.

Do you know if the kitchen window was barred as well? You can't see that one from Google but you would have to think so.

 

[NancyS]

I'd love to know why he took the phones, he supposedly is this thief that broke in to steal, but only stole 2 phones and some money, yet most here have him killing her before 9:30 and he was still there for the 10:00 pm attempted call on her phone, what was he doing for over a half hour there, he left computers and camera's there but took phones and keys.

He was probably totally freaking out about what he had done and how to get the hell out of there without anyone seeing him or noticing that he was covered in blood - stealing stuff, particularly easily traced stuff, no longer seemed quite so important.

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you know if the kitchen window was barred as well? You can't see that one from Google but you would have to think so.

Doesn't appear to be from this picture, will check some others when I get a chance.

 

[Grinder]

No, I can see no way that he did go back, but the prosecution did not bring this up at trial, therefore I'm sure there is a simple explanation, I have no idea what it is and I haven't heard from the PIP's that makes sense either, but clearly the prosecution and the defense know what it is because it was never an issue.

You seem to have missed the point. There is no evidence that he ever entered the room from the hallway or any other way. We know he did enter the room because his shoe prints were found in the room.

Do you understand that there is trail of prints leading to Meredith's room therefore we know he could get into her room without leaving shoe or foot prints?

Why would the prosecution bring this up at trial? They didn't really care if Rudi went back to go through the purse or whether he only entered the room once. Had the prosecution made a big deal about the position of the shoe print the defense would have just said: fine, he went back later it certainly doesn't prove that Amanda did it.

No one made your case of involvement so no one defended against it.

PIP's seem to think he went there to rob them, I certainly don't, I'm only pointing out the most likely way to break in to the house and that the only two times we know for sure the house was broken into, they used the balcony. That my friend is why it needs to be pointed out.

After the murder the window to Filomena's was secured. I'm not sure if it was boarded up or exactly how but they needed to do something for the "secured" crime scene. They certainly didn't just leave it as it was after Rudi someone broke it.

Nancy pointed out that even if there was a better way to break-in that doesn't mean Rudi wouldn't have done it wrong. Cars have their windows broken when the doors were unlocked. That's why people in high crime areas put a sign in the car to let people know the doors are unlocked.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He was probably totally freaking out about what he had done and how to get the hell out of there without anyone seeing him or noticing that he was covered in blood - stealing stuff, particularly easily traced stuff, no longer seemed quite so important.

I quite agree, but why the phones?

 

[Dan O.]

Doesn't appear to be from this picture, will check some others when I get a chance.

 

[Grinder]

I'd love to know why he took the phones, he supposedly is this thief that broke in to steal, but only stole 2 phones and some money, yet most here have him killing her before 9:30 and he was still there for the 10:00 pm attempted call on her phone, what was he doing for over a half hour there, he left computers and camera's there but took phones and keys.

Well I think she was killed later around 9:45. His plans may have changed once he murdered Meredith.

He was probably totally freaking out about what he had done and how to get the hell out of there without anyone seeing him or noticing that he was covered in blood - stealing stuff, particularly easily traced stuff, no longer seemed quite so important.

I would think the same. He no longer was in the frame of mind to be fencing phones in Milan.

Doesn't appear to be from this picture, will check some others when I get a chance.

Of course the kitchen window would require a spiderman climb to the balcony.

I think the balcony might have been an easier and safer access but so-what? Because Rudi picked the second best way to get in, Amanda's guilty.

Where is the evidence that the kids entered f's room? The spot on the floor that may well have been brought in by the police or F or ? the day after.

Does anybody have pictures of the cops rummaging through the house on the 6th and 7th? Were they wearing booties and gloves? Did they change them each time they handled something?

 

[Grinder]

I quite agree, but why the phones?

I've already addressed this. He wouldn't know if Amanda or Laura or Filomena might return later or early in the morning. He might have just thought he didn't want them ringing in the middle of the night. Faster to take them than to figure out how to quiet them.

Rudi had just murdered Meredith and maybe didn't have completely clear thinking patterns. He soon decided he needed to ditch them.

 

[NancyS]

I quite agree, but why the phones?

No idea - but it makes no more sense for Amanda/Raffaele to have taken them. The most likely explanation is that they were small and they were just there in Meredith's room - as soon as he was out the house it seemed much more sensible to lose them, especially if he couldn't switch them off in his panic to get away.

It just doesn't make sense that other people were involved - I don't know much about criminal psychology. However, from the little bit I did as a student I remember being told that in a lot of similar crimes it isn't that the culprit is so different from ourselves, but that it usually comes down to being able to control your emotions and anger in difficult and highly charged situations. It makes sense to me that Rudy lost control following being caught and challenged during a burglary. For 3 people who didn't know each other well to all lose control at the same time, seems so unlikely and would need some pretty damning evidence to make me believe it

 

[Bill Williams]

It's one crazy assumption to assume that burglars are going to be smarter than people that stage a burglary - just google stupid burglars and you get thousands of examples of unwise decisions made during a burglary or robbery. Just check out this guy http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ed-after-using-plastic-bag-as-a-disguise.html

If I wanted to be as completely ridiculous as the above assumption, I could argue that as Amanda and Raffaele are both college educated, they would be less likely to make the less clever choice of Filomena's window over balcony - although I'm still not sure whether they are considered criminal masterminds or criminal boneheads (or does that depend on what best fits the guilty argument at the time)

I've always thought that if Amanda/Raffaele had been guilty the best way to cover their tracks would have been to come home that morning and find Meredith themselves - they could have used the excuse of checking if she was alive to cover themselves with blood and totally ruin the crime scene. It would have been far easier than all the staged burglary and selective DNA cleaning that they are accused of

I was also wondering if anyone was able to confirm what they had been wearing the day before - and if those clothes were ever tested? If these were clear, does an outfit change also need to be included in the timeline. Blood really does get everywhere, even the tiniest drop

I am not sure what, these days, counts as confirmation. Knox says that the clothes she wore on the evening of Nov 1st, ended up at the cottage on her bed after her Nov 2 morning shower, and change of clothes for her weekend with Raffaele. Just where they were photographed and laying untested for weeks....

I mean, if that was Knox`s story, that those were the clothes she wore, why on earth did they lay on her bed for weeks untested by the PLE? You don't even have to believe Knox.... if that's her story, why.... okay, I asked the obvious question and won't go on repeating and repeating it...

But if nothing else it shows the way this crime was investigated. Poorly.

This is where things are, at least on the face of it.... there is no forensics of Knox in the murder room, and the clothes she said she wore on the night of Nov 1 were never even tested to confirm or deny that claim. I fully concede that guilters will distrust her claim that those were the clothes... but, c`mon folks.... they didn`t test them or even collect them!??????

Machiavelli has a theory that Knox wilfully misdirected the investigation; which is why he claims authority as a sleep-expert in how she was fresh and ready to go at 11:30 pm Nov 5, to completely bamboozle seasoned and experienced interrogators about "See you later" and what "Confusedly remembers" means.

I guess part of Machiavelli's claim is that she actually bamboozled PLE not to test out the clothes she said she wore on the night of the murder.

I want to meet this woman. Check that..... with her obvious supernatural powers of persuasion she'll have me thinking I have a future as a blogger.

She'll persuade me that Machiavelli's opinions on "sleep disorders" are bogus, and that his opinion that Judge Hellmann was bought off as part of a Masonic conspiracy is bogus. She'll have me convinced with her supernatural powers that she was not actually being pimped by Rudy either... check that, that it was merely possible that erugian students traded sex for drugs... or whatever nonsense Machiavelli peddles at any one time.....

She'll have me convinced that Conti and Vecchiotti were not paid off by the defence..... because acc. to Machiavelli, Amanda Knox managed to convince them to leave the clothes on her bed, the very clothes she claims she wore the night of Nov 1.

Machiavelli has me convinced. I'm coming around to see it Machiavelli's way out of sheer exhaustion having to deal with him! What about you?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You seem to have missed the point. There is no evidence that he ever entered the room from the hallway or any other way. We know he did enter the room because his shoe prints were found in the room.

Do you understand that there is trail of prints leading to Meredith's room therefore we know he could get into her room without leaving shoe or foot prints?

Why would the prosecution bring this up at trial? They didn't really care if Rudi went back to go through the purse or whether he only entered the room once. Had the prosecution made a big deal about the position of the shoe print the defense would have just said: fine, he went back later it certainly doesn't prove that Amanda did it.

No one made your case of involvement so no one defended against it.

Nobody said Amanda did it, but if Rudi didn't, I think she would be the next most likely candidate. Had Rudi walked to the front door and then returned, the prosecution would have said he didn't return because his prints would have shown up when checked with luminol, he had blood on his left shoe, my question which no seems to understand is why didn't the prosecution bring this up, and yes, I know there most likely is a very good answer, but I haven't heard it yet.

After the murder the window to Filomena's was secured. I'm not sure if it was boarded up or exactly how but they needed to do something for the "secured" crime scene. They certainly didn't just leave it as it was after Rudi someone broke it.

Nancy pointed out that even if there was a better way to break-in that doesn't mean Rudi wouldn't have done it wrong. Cars have their windows broken when the doors were unlocked. That's why people in high crime areas put a sign in the car to let people know the doors are unlocked.

Really, I've never heard of that but regardless, we are only pointing out the most likely way to break in to that apartment, whether or not there are other ways into the house that are possible as well is irrelevant, I don't believe Meredith's window was barred as well, you may need some kind of ladder there, but it's not impossible either.

 

[snook1]

I love this Judge Hellmann:

''The judges of the Supreme Court entered a straight leg in matters of substance. Could not and should not do. They should be limited to questions of legitimacy," Hellmann said in an interview with the weekly magazine Oggi, "instead are committed to evaluate the evidence. It has been a serious impropriety. In fact, a violation of the law."
Hellmann also said: ''They delivered the Court of Assizes of Florence a judgment already ready-made, telling them how they must do in order to convict the two defendants."

http://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/2013/06/25/909821-amanda-meredith-raffaele-sollecito-processo.shtml

 

[Dan O.]

I'd love to know why he took the phones, he supposedly is this thief that broke in to steal, but only stole 2 phones and some money, yet most here have him killing her before 9:30 and he was still there for the 10:00 pm attempted call on her phone, what was he doing for over a half hour there, he left computers and camera's there but took phones and keys.

• 21:58 Attempt to call voice mail (from phone memory)
  Massei Report pg 350
• 22:00 Kercher's phone attempts to call Abbey Bank.
  Source Micheli Report. Call fails because 44 prefix for UK not used.
• 22:00 (aprox) Hoax bomb threat call to Elisabetta (villa where phones were recovered)
  (Massei Report pg 13)
• 22:13:19 Kercher's mobile phone had received a picture message.
  Source Micheli Report. Connected via cell area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia.
  the phone connected to the 30064 Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte La Guardia cell (Massei 337)
  (Massei Report pg 348) GPRS (internet) lasting 9 seconds to the IP address 10.205.46.41

I seem to be missing the cell tower data for the first two calls (assuming that there was a connection to the tower for those calls).

The cell tower data can give an indication of where the phone is. But within walking distances it's not going to be reliable enough to say the phone is or is not at any specific location. We had discussed this extensively complete with google maps addresses of the various cell towers and terrain effects that would interfere with the signal reception from each tower.

I had also on several occasions posted links to resources that are available to help map the cell coverage or just to experience how reception can shift from tower to tower in your own area. If anyone is interested I can dig up those links again.

ETA, the timing of that hoax bomb threat throws in a bit of a twist. The area where the cell phones were eventually found would be an active crime scene from shortly after 10 pm. Once the cops arrive, who is going to approach that area after leaving the scene of a murder carrying the victim's phone?