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

[Grinder]

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.

Well you did make it quite clear that you believed it wasn't Rudi and implied that meant Amanda but if you wish to say otherwise now okay.

For the hundredth time, when the blood wore off or dried it would no longer leave anything behind including material that would show up after luminol was applied.

The prosecution wasn't trying Rudi. He had been tried and found guilty. Why would the prosecution make the case that he had returned to Meredith's when for them it was a benefit for him not to have returned. The defense didn't need to counter the argument that he hadn't returned because no one had made that argument. No one in court believed what you believe, that she was an abettor after the fact.

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.

You say it was the most likely and give as evidence that after the cottage was sealed people broke in through the balcony.

Filomena's window had to be secured in order for the house to be sealed. I'm not sure the exact method but most likely a piece of plywood over the window area.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Sherlock can't hear the answer even though it's been given many times.

1. Look at the fading print as Rudy walks from Meredith's room to the living room. At 5C we see an almost complete print. At step Y there are only a few thin lines left. And then there are several steps a H in front of the couch. These last prints aren't even recognizable unless you have been following the progression. What if anything is going to be left in the return trip?

2. ILE was looking for those shoe prints yet they completely missed the print by the pink bag. If they can't see a big visible print with several partial rings, how can they be expected to see a few tiny marks of the residual print?

3. Luminol is not a magic. You still have to know what you are looking for and recognize it when you see it. There are no photographs of ILE surveying the entire floor. They only have three spots in the hall that were photographed with luminol where they found large blobs. If there were tiny marks from Rudy's return trip they weren't photographed or they were lost in the noise. There is nothing that constitutes evidence that they didn't exist.

4. (new) I have spotted a mark just inside Meredith's room but I'll need to do an overlay comparison between Y, H and this new mark to confirm that it is a possible candidate for a residual shoe print mark.

ETA:
5. There is a source for a non-blood substance that will react strongly with luminol in every room of that cottage including the hall. On the floor under the regulator valve on each radiator there is a stain. This stain is from the rust from the corroding pipes and fittings in the hot water plumbing. It is the iron in hemoglobin that catalizes the retraction causing luminol to glow. Rust is itself iron oxide. This rust could have been spread around by the mop, stepped in with bare feet and tracked to other locations. Once the iron sits and stains the tiles it will be difficult to clean up and will not dissipate with time. These prints and splotches could be years old.

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.

And here we are back to making stupid arguments as in every burglar would always use the "most likely" point of entry so all other possibilities are irrelevant. ha, ha, you are funny.

 

[Bill Williams]

Judges Hellmann and Zanetti have thrown down the gauntlet, criticizing publically the reasons for the 26 March reversal of their acquittals, as well as criticizing heavily the ISC's reasons as found in their motivations.

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

Hellmann and Zanetti's appraisal seems to be, "the fix is in."

I cannot wait to hear Machiavelli's response to this. Machiavelli already considers Hellmann a criminal, accusing Hellmann of taking a bribe from the Masons to acquit the pair in Oct 2011.

What I believe we are witnessing is an internecine war between individuals in the Italian judiciary.... one that, apparently, stretches all the way to the Italian Supreme Court.

For the position taken by the forces of darkness, Machiavelli will fill us in on that side of things.

 

[Dan O.]

You say it was the most likely and give as evidence that after the cottage was sealed people broke in through the balcony.

Filomena's window had to be secured in order for the house to be sealed. I'm not sure the exact method but most likely a piece of plywood over the window area.

Not to mention that when the crime scene is sealed it is guaranteeing that there will be nobody home. This is a significant factor when considering the best means of entry.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy Guede had a cell phone!?!

Guess what Grinder,
I refreshed my memory a bit last night inbetweenst watching some sick surfing go down in Bali...



Check this out:
According to Ms. Maria Mandu-Diaz, who lived next door to Rudy Guede,
she "knew Rudy casually because when walking her dog, Rudy was often outside his apartment, trying to get a cell signal."

What the heck?
The Guede-o,
(who some might think had a "date' with Mez while her boyfriend was away on holiday), had a cell phone!

Yet he never called nor texted Meredith,
ya know, sayin' "What's up?, how ya doin' let's hang out, gaud you looked HOT last night, wanna see me tonight?, I gotta fatty+a bottle of wine"...

Weird, huh?
Didn't they exchange phone #'s the night before?

Surely Meredith,
who had met Rudy only once before,
did not tell The Gued-o to "JUST come on over,
at 9:00pm tomorrow night"?
Without calling 1st.
Really?
Nope...


Link:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981070613

 

[Bill Williams]

You say it was the most likely and give as evidence that after the cottage was sealed people broke in through the balcony.

Filomena's window had to be secured in order for the house to be sealed. I'm not sure the exact method but most likely a piece of plywood over the window area.

Not to mention that when the crime scene is sealed it is guaranteeing that there will be nobody home. This is a significant factor when considering the best means of entry.

One of the things I promised Grinder a long time ago was a picture of Filomena's window with the plywood nailed over it. The other thing I promised back then to Grinder was a newspaper account of thieves who broke into the cottage when it was a crime scene, and (allegedly) set up a satanic rite inside, in what was regarded as mocking Mignini....

But, take this for what it's worth.... until I can re-find the blessed things....

 

[NancyS]

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?

That's really quite shocking - and it would have been fairly easy for them to check with Filomena if they were the clothes she had worn earlier that day

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

You can't claim "sleep deprivation" and pin everthing of what Knox said and wrote on it. You are the one who should be actually doing reality checks on your wild claims.

And btw, do you really think tests on clothes would "confirm or deny Knox's story"?

 

[Bill Williams]

That's really quite shocking - and it would have been fairly easy for them to check with Filomena if they were the clothes she had worn earlier that day

NancyS - you really need to stick it out here, because Machiavelli will defend saying all those things. Hellmann was paid off by the Masons, Knox was fresh and ready to go on the night of Nov 5/6 and wilfully bamboozled the cops, and that Knox and Guede had a little game going in the days' previous to the murder in trading sex for drugs. And there's more.

I am not criticizing Filomena for lawyering up, almost immediately after Meredith was discovered. Ostensibly, she lawyered up not because she became aware that the PLE was suddenly becoming interested in all the front-door key holders (her and Knox being the two most obvious), but because working in a lawyer's office, she knew that she'd not have access to the cottage for weeks or perhaps even months.

Filomena lawyered up because, like Amanda, she was worried where they were going to live from now on and would they be liable for the rent while the cottage was behind tape?

(Some of the authors who write about this claim she also took her laptop from her room, and she later confessed this down at the Questura in front of her lawyer....) That laptop was reported to be a key element of the "burglary was staged" nonsense.

Would Filomena have told PLE which clothes Amanda had been wearing on the 1st of Nov? I don't know. In the months to come she became pretty savvy at knowing how to answer questions put to her by authorities.

When testifying, she was asked if she, herself, had indulged in the marijuana at the cottage. Her answer was, "Yes, I have sinned." My own bias is that if she had been asked about Knox's clothes, she'd want a conference with her lawyer to know the implications of a "yes she was wearing them," or "no she wasn't wearing them." On such innocent answers depended a year in precautionary detention....

...... witness Knox answering questions about what "See you later" meant. Ya, like that one went well!

Reread Machiavelli's posts. It's rare that one can read that sort of "down the rabbit hole" stuff. Right now Machiavelli is probably preparing something about that well known Mason, Judge Hellmann, who M. alleges took a bribe to free an obviously guilty Knox and Sollecito.

Where's the popcorn when you need it?

 

[Bill Williams]

You can't claim "sleep deprivation" and pin everthing of what Knox said and wrote on it. You are the one who should be actually doing reality checks on your wild claims.

And btw, do you really think tests on clothes would "confirm or deny Knox's story"?

Well, all this started because you were claiming expertise on the subject, to try to demonstrate that Knox didn't need sleep. So I defer to you and your expertise.

In summary, your expertise was your own personal and family experience with sleep issues (for which I sympathize), but also that you made clinical evaluations as a lay-person based on her writings and your own theatre experience. "writings" and "theatre". Yes, you said that. Apparently that's how sleep clinicians do these things these days.

The point about the clothes was that the PLE didn't even collect them.

NancyS might also not know that there was a semen-like stain on the pillow, with Rudy's shoe print in it. Massei in his motivations report makes a big deal about why a stain on a pillow under Meredith's hips was NOT even tested to determine it's owner and its compostion - preferring instead to concentrate on the shoeprint, which at the time the PLE was convinced was Raffaele's.

It turned out to be Rudy's. And the alleged semen stain remains untested.

NancyS - get ready for Machiavelli's "down the rabbit hole" response to this!!!! You'll love it!

 

[Dan O.]

One of the things I promised Grinder a long time ago was a picture of Filomena's window with the plywood nailed over it. The other thing I promised back then to Grinder was a newspaper account of thieves who broke into the cottage when it was a crime scene, and (allegedly) set up a satanic rite inside, in what was regarded as mocking Mignini....

But, take this for what it's worth.... until I can re-find the blessed things....

I'm not certain that there would be plywood added. The shutters were pulled flush and likely latched. The inner shutters could be closed and latched to keep out the wind. The only thing I would have added to that would be a sheet of plastic to keep out the rain and perhaps a bit of bailing wire to insure things stayed closed.

There were two separate break ins:

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/GdM_traduci_notizia.php?IDNotizia=290343&IDCategotia=2699

18 FEB 2009 - Unknown Place in the house of the crime of breaking the glass window from the kitchen, on the back of the cottage. The house is turned upside down and inside was found on the kitchen floor, a knife placed on top of a blue plastic bag with the word 'police, similar to those often distributed in opportunities for promotions.​

19 MAR 2009 - New raided by unknown assailants inside the house on Via della Pergola. Disappears from the house the mattress of the bed of Meredith Kercher along with pillows and a suitcase that contained several knives and had been left in the chamber of Amanda Knox.
​

 

[Grinder]

Bill, I wish you'd stop with the sleep expert criticism. We all here talk about things in which we are not formally educated.

How often have people expounded on the Reid technique?

I personally think the criticism of Mach's analysis on this issue is his ability to analyze the writing quality of Amanda in those notes. I don't feel like looking it up right now but didn't Amanda get some sleep before she wrote her notes?

There can be no question that she had been experiencing stress and shock whether innocent or guilty.

Clearly you may elect to continue to bash Mach on sleep knowledge if you choose.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well you did make it quite clear that you believed it wasn't Rudi and implied that meant Amanda but if you wish to say otherwise now okay.

I don't believe Rudi locked that door, and yes, if he didn't who did? (and don't say Raff)

For the hundredth time, when the blood wore off or dried it would no longer leave anything behind including material that would show up after luminol was applied.

For the hundredth time, I don't believe the blood would have wore off to that degree, I do believe there is a logical answer to this, but like I've said (a hundred times) I haven't heard it yet.

The prosecution wasn't trying Rudi. He had been tried and found guilty. Why would the prosecution make the case that he had returned to Meredith's when for them it was a benefit for him not to have returned. The defense didn't need to counter the argument that he hadn't returned because no one had made that argument. No one in court believed what you believe, that she was an abettor after the fact.

Of course no one had made that argument, why is what I've been asking. And no one in court believed what you state either, that she was innocent.

You say it was the most likely and give as evidence that after the cottage was sealed people broke in through the balcony.

Yes, twice to be exact.

Filomena's window had to be secured in order for the house to be sealed. I'm not sure the exact method but most likely a piece of plywood over the window area.

So, your saying because her window was boarded up, they had to choose the kitchen, I see, and that is a good observation. I'm not a burglar, I am only looking at pictures and stating that the balcony looks like the easiest one to me. Her window being boarded up would limit their options for sure.

 

[Grinder]

NancyS might also not know that there was a semen-like stain on the pillow, with Rudy's shoe print in it. Massei in his motivations report makes a big deal about why a stain on a pillow under Meredith's hips was NOT even tested to determine it's owner and its compostion - preferring instead to concentrate on the shoeprint, which at the time the PLE was convinced was Raffaele's.

It turned out to be Rudy's. And the alleged semen stain remains untested.

Are we sure it was thought to be Raf's and not Amanda's? Where was the little print that turned out to be part of Rudi's shoe print?

 

[RoseMontague]

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

Amazing. This also confirms what many of us suspected about the Supreme Court decision. That it basically instructs the appeals court to make a guilty verdict sound reasonable.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are we sure it was thought to be Raf's and not Amanda's? Where was the little print that turned out to be part of Rudi's shoe print?

Rinaldi's claim was that it was Amanda's. Vinci disputed this and Massei passed on the question of the small shoe print on the pillow as moot as he believed Amanda was barefoot in any case.

 

[Grinder]

Rinaldi's claim was that it was Amanda's. Vinci disputed this and Massei passed on the question of the small shoe print on the pillow as moot as he believed Amanda was barefoot in any case.

Thanks that's how I remembered it. There was a defense demonstration showing the print looked smaller because of the folds in the material.

 

[charlatan]

Amazing. This also confirms what many of us suspected about the Supreme Court decision. That it basically instructs the appeals court to make a guilty verdict sound reasonable.

For now PGP are still crowing that the fix is in without thinking through the troubling implications. Within a few weeks I fully expect them to be arguing, perversely, that the Cassation report isn't too prescriptive and isn't too hard on the defense -- and, oh, let's just overlook their "occasional" mistakes. Once again (see Massei) we'll be quoting a pro-guilt document to deflate pro-guilt talking points.

The more things change...

 

[Wildhorses]

I love this Judge Hellmann:

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

I'm so happy to see this. We can complain all day, but nothing's gonna change until Italian legal professionals speak up.

However, the article also shows why they won't...

"Maybe in another state, in another dimension, with another freedom - instead Zanetti said, according to a report today - I could say different things. But since I am a magistrate in his career, which has not resigned, I have say that I'm wrong and the Supreme Court is right.''

I'm trying to find Hellman's interview in Oggi.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, all this started because you were claiming expertise on the subject, to try to demonstrate that Knox didn't need sleep. So I defer to you and your expertise.

Oh, no. The sleep deprivation issue was not started by me, not at all. That was others' idea. Kaosium and you claimed that theory and attempted to argue about evidence of sleep deprivation, and about a consequential link with Knox's written memoir. You were the ones bringing claims (blostered somehow by statements in Knox's book) and arguments about sleep deprivation, and playing the "experts" (without actually even a shred of experience).