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

[RandyN]

The sex-game-gone-wrong theory first seems to show up in the English articles about Claudia Matteini's report of November 9, 2007, which affirmed the arrests of the three original suspects. The Telegraph's headline is "Meredith killed during 'extreme sex game'." However, they don't quote Matteini as having written anything about a game -- they quote her as claiming Sollecito wanted to experience "strong emotions," as he had written in his blog the previous month, and that the two men were interested in sexual relations with Meredith.

I'm not sure the English papers were the first to call it a sex-game-gone-wrong -- they may have gotten it from the Italian papers, from which they were borrowing a lot of stuff at the beginning. I don't know when or if Mignini ever said it.

Interestingly, Massei does not mention sex game anywhere, but the new Supreme Court ruling does, more than once. Apparently, they read about the case in the newspapers.

I wonder if the defenses will get to call the SC judges to question them on exactly where they got their "facts"? Id like to know how they determined positively that Guede never acted alone.

These cant be real judges right? No way!

 

[Antony]

You don't like the law, do you?

If this is meant to justify your obfuscation and excuses for the irregularities of the investigation and the judicial process, then it's a pretty lame way of doing it. When you have brought in points of "law" in your comments, it's obvious you are making it up as you go along - if not, then you need to cite the article of law and the section that covers the point you're making.

An example is your claim that the bra clasp was so-called "non-retainable" evidence, that the police were obliged to dispose of it after the first trial. Just in case we didn't find this believable, you claimed at the same time that the police lab had no way of preserving it from rusting without an expensive coating that would have destroyed the DNA evidence. Of course that excuse isn't credible either.

Then there was your claim that Guede couldn't be arrested after being caught with a stolen knife in a nursery school, while Raffaele was arrested merely for being in possession of a knife in a police station - as if there is any crime of carrying a pocket knife in a public place. Why do you think anyone here would regard you as an authority on Italian law after these pieces of nonsense?

On the subject of law: is it not the case that the Supreme Court is entitled to review the verdict on grounds of procedure only? The fact that they have imposed their interpretation of the evidence over that of the Hellman court means they have broken their own laws - what do you have to say about that?

 

[RoseMontague]

However, you now show little interest in actually solving this horrible crime. The very clothes worn by one of the people you unjustly vilify now has no interest to you.

I will add this to the list of "Machavelli-isms" which show how bizarre this case is as prosecuted. Heck, now the very clothes your alleged murderer wore are of no interest.

But.... you have a heroin dealer as a prime witness, and you believe that Knox knew Guede beforehand where one traded sex for drugs with the other.

You also deny that Mr. Mignini's very first motive he advanced for this whole horrible affair was a ritualistic killing associated with Hallowe'en. I call it his "Satanic rite" motive, although, perhaps you are more correct, Mr. Machiavelli.

You also claim lay-expertise in sleep issues to argue that Ms. Knox was fresh and ready to go at interrogation.

Should I cut and paste your nonsense about that, too?

By disavowing interest in Knox's clothing after spending 10 days avoiding talking about it means you are in full retreat mode. Why do you bother embarrassing yourself like this?

No worries, Bill. Mach is about as interested in testing the clothes AK wore the night of the murder and morning of the supposed cleanup as Steffi was. These people are not interested in determining the truth, they are afraid of it.

The only item listed by Steffi in AK's room that was photographed and cataloged as a piece of evidence that was not tested was Rep 200 (not listed on the test results index because it was not tested).

5. stanza KNOX Amanda + effetti personali
Reperto visionato, fotografato ma non analizzato

Felpa a righe grigio chiaro/scuro
munita di cappuccio e laccetti
* Rep.200

 

[Bill Williams]

No worries, Bill. Mach is about as interested in testing the clothes AK wore the night of the murder and morning of the supposed cleanup as Steffi was. These people are not interested in determining the truth, they are afraid of it.

The only item listed by Steffi in AK's room that was photographed and cataloged as a piece of evidence that was not tested was Rep 200 (not listed on the test results index because it was not tested).

5. stanza KNOX Amanda + effetti personali
Reperto visionato, fotografato ma non analizzato

Felpa a righe grigio chiaro/scuro
munita di cappuccio e laccetti
* Rep.200

Rose - this fear, though, may have developed full blown after Mignini decided to throw the whole shooting match at Sollecito and Knox, and where it was becoming apparent that neither of them were going to crack. Both were going to stay stubbornly with "I wasn't there, and the other one is my alibi."

It's then that someone decided they had to go back into the cottage and get something, anything. The thing which argues against, for me, a full blown intentional conspiracy to frame them is that even after the middle-of-December second search, they'd found so little, and still not remotely enough even to charge them (really), much less convict them.

As many others have said, and I'm no expert on this, in my country this would have have made it to trial. Apart from the media hysteria and the understandable pressure PLE was under to solve this thing quickly, there really is no reason to hold them at all. If John Follain can be believed, Marco Chiacchiera was the one who had the right instinct - let them go and continue to monitor them.

At the end of the day all they had was, "Hey, you told us a story in the wee hours of Nov 6! And now you're saying that's NOT what happened?" Was there no one in the PLE willing to say the king had no clothes, that this dog don't hunt?

If they were afraid of the truth, it was perhaps with the prospect that they were going to have to take this to trial. They found judges and popular judges in the Massei court who got caught up in the osmotic thing.... with perhaps a large dollop of considering what it would look like if they, then, acquitted.

Whatever the case, they are now afraid of the truth. Whatever else they may have done good in their careers will forever be stained by their submission to "group think" in the Kercher murder trial. Whatever it is they've done with the wrongful prosecution, they have not served up justice for the Kerchers.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No worries, Bill. Mach is about as interested in testing the clothes AK wore the night of the murder and morning of the supposed cleanup as Steffi was. These people are not interested in determining the truth, they are afraid of it.

The only item listed by Steffi in AK's room that was photographed and cataloged as a piece of evidence that was not tested was Rep 200 (not listed on the test results index because it was not tested).

5. stanza KNOX Amanda + effetti personali
Reperto visionato, fotografato ma non analizzato

Felpa a righe grigio chiaro/scuro
munita di cappuccio e laccetti
* Rep.200

Just a quick question, how would anyone know that those were the cloths Amanda wore the night/morning of the murder, unless you use the store keepers description of Amanda. Why would any murderer lay out their murdering cloths on a bed for the police to see, I'm kind of thinking if they were smart enough to stage the break in, they were probably smart enough to lay out different cloths, unless again, the store keeper was right obout the cloths he saw her in, again, hard to have it both ways.

 

[Grinder]

Just a quick question, how would anyone know that those were the cloths Amanda wore the night/morning of the murder, unless you use the store keepers description of Amanda.

I agree completely with the first part but as I have been telling you the information about the clothes on the bed most certainly was available to the press even if the photo wasn't published for the general public.

Why would any murderer lay out their murdering cloths on a bed for the police to see, I'm kind of thinking if they were smart enough to stage the break in, they were probably smart enough to lay out different cloths, unless again, the store keeper was right obout the cloths he saw her in, again, hard to have it both ways.

You are trying to be sneaky here . There is little chance that they staged the break-in no matter what, as picking Rudi's MO to a T is totally improbable. But leaving bloody clothes on the bed makes no sense no matter what.

I'm surprised that no PGP has posited that she went to the store on purpose to be seen in those clothes so she could point to them and say "test them, you'll see" but then forgot.

She did wear those clothes the night of the murder and in the morning, but Quintavalle didn't see her and came up with the clothes through the cub reporter or public information.

He also said she had blue eyes (what the supreme court seized on) and pale skin but had no idea what colored eyes Raf had even though he had seen him many times. He claimed he remembered the blue eyes and pale skin because they are unusual in Italy yet Raf's he didn't notice.

You can't have it both ways.

ETA - you'd know what clothes she wore by seeing her on CCTV but somehow they couldn't find any video evidence. I sure wished the defense was given all the video the ILE collected so that it would be clear that they weren't out and about that night.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Just a quick question, how would anyone know that those were the cloths Amanda wore the night/morning of the murder, unless you use the store keepers description of Amanda. Why would any murderer lay out their murdering cloths on a bed for the police to see, I'm kind of thinking if they were smart enough to stage the break in, they were probably smart enough to lay out different cloths, unless again, the store keeper was right obout the cloths he saw her in, again, hard to have it both ways.

The clothing on her bed matches what she was wearing on the day of the murder, according to Filomena as well as Popovic, the medical student who saw her twice that evening.

This is why Massei composed a narrative in which she and Raffaele interrupted their love-making to participate in the bloodbath. If she was naked when she burst into Meredith's room with the large kitchen knife, that would explain why there wasn't any blood on the clothing she wore the day of the murder.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I agree completely with the first part but as I have been telling you the information about the clothes on the bed most certainly was available to the press even if the photo wasn't published for the general public.




You are trying to be sneaky here . There is little chance that they staged the break-in no matter what, as picking Rudi's MO to a T is totally improbable. But leaving bloody clothes on the bed makes no sense no matter what.

I'm surprised that no PGP has posited that she went to the store on purpose to be seen in those clothes so she could point to them and say "test them, you'll see" but then forgot.

She did wear those clothes the night of the murder and in the morning, but Quintavalle didn't see her and came up with the clothes through the cub reporter or public information.

He also said she had blue eyes (what the supreme court seized on) and pale skin but had no idea what colored eyes Raf had even though he had seen him many times. He claimed he remembered the blue eyes and pale skin because they are unusual in Italy yet Raf's he didn't notice.

You can't have it both ways.

ETA - you'd know what clothes she wore by seeing her on CCTV but somehow they couldn't find any video evidence. I sure wished the defense was given all the video the ILE collected so that it would be clear that they weren't out and about that night.

The point I was trying to make was, if she is innocent, then sure, those could be her cloths she wore that night and testing would who up nothing, but if she were guilty, then no way is she going to leave those cloths out, she could put any she wanted onto the bed and testing would be a waist of time again. I'm just thinking, the cloths are pretty useless either way.

 

[anglolawyer]

I see a variety of people every day at work. I don't know the eye colour of any of them. Nor could I recall what any of them wore on Friday except Peter wore a white shirt and tie as he does every day, which is how I know.

 

[Grinder]

The clothing on her bed matches what she was wearing on the day of the murder, according to Filomena as well as Popovic, the medical student who saw her twice that evening.

This is why Massei composed a narrative in which she and Raffaele interrupted their love-making to participate in the bloodbath. If she was naked when she burst into Meredith's room with the large kitchen knife, that would explain why there wasn't any blood on the clothing she wore the day of the murder.

Not exactly. Not if she was running away shortly after the scream. Once again details for guilt don't fit.

She violently kills Meredith or is holding her and gets blood on her naked body and then runs to the shower, showers, drys off and puts her clothes on and then runs away? Doesn't fit with Nara. There would be blood on the clothes unless she really cleaned herself well and that would take more time. Where are the towels? Did she take the time to wash them before running?

Do you know when and where the reports of her attire were made available to the defense, the media, and the general public?

Why do you think the SC didn't use Q's knowledge of the clothes as their seal the deal?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The clothing on her bed matches what she was wearing on the day of the murder, according to Filomena as well as Popovic, the medical student who saw her twice that evening.

This is why Massei composed a narrative in which she and Raffaele interrupted their love-making to participate in the bloodbath. If she was naked when she burst into Meredith's room with the large kitchen knife, that would explain why there wasn't any blood on the clothing she wore the day of the murder.

Really, I have never heard Popovic or Filomena describe what Amanda wore, I thought it was not known. However, both of them never saw Amanda outside so at best they could only say the pants and top, not the coat or scarf, and why was Amanda's coat and scarf on the bed, did she wear a different one back to Rafs after her shower, why did Raff still have his coat on after the body was found and Amanda didn't, weren't they waiting outside when the cops came.

 

[RoseMontague]

I see a variety of people every day at work. I don't know the eye colour of any of them. Nor could I recall what any of them wore on Friday except Peter wore a white shirt and tie as he does every day, which is how I know.

Guys rarely notice details like this, I think they are looking at other things.

 

[Dan O.]

The point I was trying to make was, if she is innocent, then sure, those could be her cloths she wore that night and testing would who up nothing, but if she were guilty, then no way is she going to leave those cloths out, she could put any she wanted onto the bed and testing would be a waist of time again. I'm just thinking, the cloths are pretty useless either way.

Now that you know that those were the clothes she was wearing the night Meredith was murdered, do you accept your own theory that this is evidence that Amanda is innocent or do you ignore logic and switch to Massei's theory of a naked attack?

 

[Grinder]

The point I was trying to make was, if she is innocent, then sure, those could be her cloths she wore that night and testing would who up nothing, but if she were guilty, then no way is she going to leave those cloths out, she could put any she wanted onto the bed and testing would be a waist of time again. I'm just thinking, the cloths are pretty useless either way.

And I agree with that point but also agree with those that think they should have at least grabbed the clothes on the bed as potential evidence. More a statement that they neglected things. I don't think it was one of their greatest mistakes.

And before you say it, I'll agree that if they wanted to frame her they could have put some blood on her clothes.

 

[Grinder]

Guys rarely notice details like this, I think they are looking at other things.

tsk, tsk!

But Q is a guy and he noticed every detail. I;m surprised he didn't estimate her weight and cup size.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now that you know that those were the clothes she was wearing the night Meredith was murdered, do you accept your own theory that this is evidence that Amanda is innocent or do you ignore logic and switch to Massei's theory of a naked attack?

No, Amanda is guilty as hell, and she did it all alone, no help from Raff or Rudi either, she planted Rudi's evidence, she's a she devil like they say. Really?

 

[Grinder]

Now that you know that those were the clothes she was wearing the night Meredith was murdered, do you accept your own theory that this is evidence that Amanda is innocent or do you ignore logic and switch to Massei's theory of a naked attack?

If there was no way for Q to get this information except to see her, that would be pretty damning.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If there was no way for Q to get this information except to see her, that would be pretty damning.

Yes it would, but Q testimony is not reliable on so many levels, I believe it was you that said something to the effect that he probably believes this himself so in a sense he is not really lying. I have no idea why he would persist in saying this, could we not ask that reporter under oath, if he showed Q that photo?

 

[Grinder]

Yes it would, but Q testimony is not reliable on so many levels, I believe it was you that said something to the effect that he probably believes this himself so in a sense he is not really lying. I have no idea why he would persist in saying this, could we not ask that reporter under oath, if he showed Q that photo?

Mach perhaps could answer this. Here in the US it would not be possible to ask the reporter under normal conditions.

Just knowing if the press knew about the clothes and/or the public would shine a light on it. If this were TV the defense would send in a girl and then on the stand ask Q to describe her and he wouldn't remember.

One would think that other reporters would like to uncover the truth of how the kid found all the witnesses.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Not exactly. Not if she was running away shortly after the scream. Once again details for guilt don't fit.

She violently kills Meredith or is holding her and gets blood on her naked body and then runs to the shower, showers, drys off and puts her clothes on and then runs away? Doesn't fit with Nara. There would be blood on the clothes unless she really cleaned herself well and that would take more time. Where are the towels? Did she take the time to wash them before running?

Do you know when and where the reports of her attire were made available to the defense, the media, and the general public?

Why do you think the SC didn't use Q's knowledge of the clothes as their seal the deal?

I would have to dig, but the question of what Amanda wore on Nov. 1 was settled very early in the investigation. Filomena and Popovic both described similar attire, and it matched what is seen on Amanda's bed in the photos.

So, for Amanda to have participated in the murder, she would have had to change or remove her clothes beforehand, or else avoid getting blood on her clothes because none was found when they were finally examined, or else discard the clothes and replace them with something almost identical.

I can see why nobody on the prosecution side wants to discuss this. It's like Meredith's phone connecting with a different repeater at a few minutes past 10 pm - a detail that can be overcome, perhaps, but not without mental gymnastics.

But no gymnastics are required to reconcile the photos and testimony with Amanda's claim that she went home on the morning of Nov. 2, showered, and changed into fresh clothing.

And you're right - committing the murder while naked does not fit with running off into the night. Micheli pitched that fable, but Massei did not.