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

[Grinder]

The contraction is you're. haha.

your so smart!

 

[Grinder]

Ahh not true...I gave two.

Drive it out to Lake Narducci and toss it...although that would not be my choice...even though the prolonged submersion would certainly destroy all DNA including any capillary actioned DNA that may have been drawn up into the handle space. That would make it just a knife...rather common, cheap, non identifiable knife that some diver may or may not find.

So are you joking again? Ha Ha. It's not so easy to fire up one's car in the middle of the night and drive off after killing someone and throw things into lakes. They would be very fearful of being seen. What would the cover story be? Even if the DNA would disappear the inventory list wouldn't.

I would open a small hole in the ground and slip it into this tiny slice in the earth...I may even use the very knife to slice into the ground...

Are where would this be and at what time?

I bet I can give you exact coordinates of the corners of a square mile area and you will never find this knife. Forget that it could be in a thousand sq mile area... and it would still be a normal impossibly clean knife that never had any MK DNA on it in the first place...

Attempting humor? So they would have time to drive 30 miles.

Can you spell metal detector?

I don't think you are putting them in the state they would have been in. You don't seem capable of getting beyond your assessment of their innocence to examine individual points[/quote]

Sure criminals keep valuable guns ....stupid criminals that is.

Guns and other weapons used in crimes are recovered all the time. The best move with the knife would have been to clean it and keep it. As you know there was no blood or DNA on the knife.

 

[Grinder]

I agree, Randy. I often wish I had something to hide, because I can think of some dang good hiding places where no one would ever find what I put there.

Are you talking about those things you file away and can't find?

The best place to hide things would be in my house because I can never find anything.

 

[Grinder]

In the past, Anglo has called other PIP arguments weak, too, not just this one. And look, in the time it took for this day to elapse, he has reconsidered his opinion, on the very next page!

The PGP and the PIP play completely different roles and have completely different duties, thus their techniques are not comparable. PGP have the burden of proof, PIP need only raise reasonable doubt.

No the PIP need to show she is innocent. This isn't the trial. There is no doubt that the ILE didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt.

Anglo change it to be not a bad point and then goes on to say that the criticism of the lawyers is misplaced. You backing him there?

Not returning the knife is a weak argument and can be refuted by the prosecution easily and that's not a good tactic.

 

[anglolawyer]

No the PIP need to show she is innocent. This isn't the trial. There is no doubt that the ILE didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt.

Anglo change it to be not a bad point and then goes on to say that the criticism of the lawyers is misplaced. You backing him there?

Not returning the knife is a weak argument and can be refuted by the prosecution easily and that's not a good tactic.

To clarify: there are weak points, bad points and rank bad points. I am saying 'they would never take the knife home' is not rank and not bad (Hellman bought it ergo it can't be either) but it is weak. I hope that clears this whole thing up.

 

[Grinder]

They weren't under surveillance until at least November 2nd. You go to Gubbio or wherever, dump the items and then come right back when Meredith is discovered. As I've pointed out, the actual murder weapon was never discovered nor any of the clothes the suspect wore during them.

Disposing of the items wasn't a problem for Rudy. If Amanda and Raffaele had been involved, it really wouldn't have been that hard for them either.

Rudi wasn't there when the door was opened. He knew he had time and he says he disposed of his shoes in Germany. Why we wouldn't believe that escapes me.

They didn't go to Gubbio and I have made the argument that they should have. I would say the argument that had they killed Meredith they would have gone to Gubbio to get out of town, dispose of things along the way and not be front and center is a much stronger argument than no one would keep a murder knife.

The actual murder related things weren't found because Rudi took them out of town and he had that freedom because he wasn't front and center from the beginning. He didn't live at the cottage which would give him a different set of realities to deal with.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I agree, Randy. I often wish I had something to hide, because I can think of some dang good hiding places where no one would ever find what I put there.

Unless of course, someone saw you hiding it, or it was caught on camera, or you told someone you trusted and they betrayed that trust. You never know for sure.

 

[Grinder]

Given that Amanda did not know their plans and assuming she and Raffaele participated in the crime, why leave the clean up until the morning? Surely, desperate measures were called for including, if needs be, staying up the whole night and scrubbing. There would be time to run the bathmat through the washer and maybe even dry it. The bathroom could be properly cleaned, leaving no blood at all. If for some insane reason they wanted to wipe all their prints from the entire apartment they had plenty of time to do it and more besides that to fix their story. What the heck were they doing leaving everything until the morning?

Since the "evidence" of cleaning would indicate about 15 minutes max I think they could still have slept and left for Gubbio by 9 or 10.

I totally agree that even if they had cleaned, and we know they didn't, it could have been done after the murder in a short time.

 

[Grinder]

Good point, especially since they were dealing with an investigation team whose alma mater is Klown Kollege.

But we know they didn't go to Gubbio. We know that so that can't be used. They couldn't know that the PLE was what they seem to be.

So if they murdered Meredith and didn't go to Gubbio they would have had a few hours in the middle of the night to dispose of things. There were CCTV all over town.

 

[Grinder]

Petitio principii

And not otiose

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Since the "evidence" of cleaning would indicate about 15 minutes max I think they could still have slept and left for Gubbio by 9 or 10.

I totally agree that even if they had cleaned, and we know they didn't, it could have been done after the murder in a short time.

 

[Grinder]

There is something wrong with this but right now I can't put my finger on it. I don't think the presumption of innocence is a premise in an argument. Maybe that's it.

Thanks for this comment because it is at the heart of much of what I see as a problem in discussing this case.

This recent subject has often had someone say but they are innocent so the whole knife thing is bogus anyway (or in some parts of the south, anyways).

I'm a proponent of the point that the ILE didn't make their case against the kids. In court they should have been found not guilty. I'm not involvementor. Damn there goes my ranking.

On this question one can't fall back in court on the but they are innocent argument when the prosecution gives examples of knives brought back and used.

I post here because it isn't a PIP or PGP site and to me that means we are always arguing from the facts we are currently discussing and not an opinion on guilt or innocence.

 

[Dan O.]

Can you spell metal detector?

Perugia Shock 2007-12-18 Surprise.. Surprise..
(reposted here because Mignini had the original deleted):

The Scientifica inspection at Meredith's house is just over. I leave them chatting out of the house. After one month and a half since the crime occurred a knife was found in the underbrush around the house.
And who found it? The police? No, one from the smiling team.
Of course, they are the ones who want the weapon of the crime to be not Raffaele's knife.
And indeed, as soon as they entered the gate the lawyer went to find the knife and some blood stained hankies. How lucky...
By the way, it's just a round kitchen knife unable to make those cuts. But it's notable that they didn't search around the house previously.
They even didn't search the cliff, which is a natural spot to throw a weapon. I expected that cliff to be cleaned from bushes and searched by a squad of 100 climbers right after the crime. In my dreams. I know it's difficult, very difficult, but... I'd cost less than a single Dna test.
This morning they used a metal detector not in the ravine but through the bushes around the house. Yes, not on november 2nd, today.
Anyways -and this is important- the expert prof. Saverio Potenza, hired from the smiling team, couldn't find the shoe print today. It apparently disappeared. Good for Daddy's boy. If this turns to be true they're not gonna nail him even not with a drill.
But Procura said they knew that. It "evaporated" due to previous tests (luminol and others). So pictures and measurement of it, according to Procura, should be valid anyway.

Also, the Harry Potter book in german -that Amanda said she read in Raffaele's place that night- has, instead, be found in Meredith's house.

Details.. Details...

Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirga has denied everything that was published yesterday about Amanda's interrogation. I said "we don't know too much" but, as always, newspapers knew everything. Yesterday the interrogation was just finished and they were already describing it in details, what she said, the way she was crying, when she refused to answer... Everything as if they were present to it... What to say? Keep on buying newspapers...
FRANK SFARZO AT 9:05 AM​

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for this comment because it is at the heart of much of what I see as a problem in discussing this case.

This recent subject has often had someone say but they are innocent so the whole knife thing is bogus anyway (or in some parts of the south, anyways).

I'm a proponent of the point that the ILE didn't make their case against the kids. In court they should have been found not guilty. I'm not involvementor. Damn there goes my ranking.

On this question one can't fall back in court on the but they are innocent argument when the prosecution gives examples of knives brought back and used.

I post here because it isn't a PIP or PGP site and to me that means we are always arguing from the facts we are currently discussing and not an opinion on guilt or innocence.

Is there a difference? Most posters here are avowedly pro-innocence and most arguments gravitate to one or other of those poles.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Are the defense lawyers trying to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?

Andrea Vogt wrote, "Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie 'Stardust' had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.

'We aren't saying who it was, but you can imagine,' said Sollecito's attorney, Luca Maori during a break in the trial, noting that Sollecito left his computer at home and went into police headquarters 21:40 p.m. on November 5 for questioning, leaving the keys to his house with police. He has been in jail ever since."

 

[GreyFox]

We shall have to agree to disagree. This question, though, once you start thinking about the possibilities, is one that exclusively leads back to the inevitable conclusion that their participation in the crime was impossible. IMO.

I think to get to this point I must first accept a story about a Sadistic halloween ritual (now) turned to just sex crime followed by a new fish story (PM fed) that put's a Household kitchen knife in a purse for protection or cutting fish. Pending on what week it is.

Hmmm...Raf went too, so the protection storys gone.

He has his own pocket knives anyhow.

Doesnt match the murder weapon imprint on the bed sheet though.

She has her own knives at the flat . Do we know they arent good for cutting fish?
I am aware of what a fillette knife is by the way. Have rusted some hooks myself in my day. (Note:hooks arent coated like a bra clasp but thats another story).

Sorry but I'm with Mary here ! Your not gonna get me to the flat (by imagining) with the knife until someone can explain to me why in HELL we are taking this ridiculous kitchen knife that was not clean (starch), in her purse. It doesnt make sense to take this knife in the first place.

People do leave murder weapons laying around in some cases. In some cases they hide them very well. The godfather had the gun broken down and put by pieces into different chimneys. Look up Mathew Hoffman from Mt.Vernon Ohio and see where he hid Sahara Maynards family's remains and murder weapons (pssst...in a tree). Seriously...Rudys alot like him.Robbery gone bad.

I myself wouldnt have thought to use bleach.Or remember the landlords inventory. On the other hand I've seen places that i've said thats where I would hide money/a body etc. No one would ever find that spot ! It can work either way once you get past transportation of the knife I guess. Again though- Knox is a genius on one hand and yet really stupid on the other.
Nope ...cant do it. Too much of a stretch.

 

[Grinder]

The ILE seems to accept Stefanoni's work and that the wounds fit the death wound.

All the PIPs can wail and moan that the knife is totally bogus to no avail. The added argument that no one would ever take a murder knife back home is weak and a bad point. It would be easy for the prosecution to find a few cases where knives were found totally undermining the argument and making the defense look foolish.

Sorry but I'm with Mary here ! Your not gonna get me to the flat (by imagining) with the knife until someone can explain to me why in HELL we are taking this ridiculous kitchen knife that was not clean (starch), in her purse. It doesnt make sense to take this knife in the first place.

But it makes sense to murder Meredith? The murder makes no sense. Burglary gone bad, oh I know 'I'll brutally kill Meredith so I don't get caught for burglary', please.

What some don't seem to get is one doesn't have to buy into anything to see that the argument on it's own merits that no one would bring the knife back home is bogus, weak, bad, and yes otiose.

If the defense uses it as part of the appeal defense I'd suggest getting ready for the extradition hearings.

The defense needs to focus on key elements such as the bogus DNA work and lack of reference footprints from other household members.

They need to address the luminol prints and show that they could be from months or even years before and in any case they show no pattern that would be part of the murder.

They need to show that there is no evidence of a cleanup and therefore the luminol prints attributed to Amanda need to have a source in Meredith's room and that needs to be demonstrated by the prosecution.

Curatolo's timing needs to be challenged because the disco bus timing no longer works.

It needs to be shown that Q could easily have known of her blue eyes and wardrobe.

Etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Not sure about the premise

Grinder, How sure are you that even if the defense did everything you said, that they would prevail in Florence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The shoe doesn't fit

The defense needs to focus on key elements such as the bogus DNA work and lack of reference footprints from other household members.

They need to address the luminol prints and show that they could be from months or even years before and in any case they show no pattern that would be part of the murder.

There is that pesky shoe print in the hallway that Rinaldi did not match to any shoe. I am uncertain as to why he did not, but it either had to do with lack of proper sizing of the image, or that he did not have any matching tread in the shoes that he had. If that shoe print was not made by any shoe that he had, then whose she is it and when was it made? Same questions for Rep. 180, the footprint in Amanda's room that does not appear to match Amanda's reference print.

 

[GreyFox]

The ILE seems to accept Stefanoni's work and that the wounds fit the death wound.

All the PIPs can wail and moan that the knife is totally bogus to no avail. The added argument that no one would ever take a murder knife back home is weak and a bad point. It would be easy for the prosecution to find a few cases where knives were found totally undermining the argument and making the defense look foolish.



But it makes sense to murder Meredith? The murder makes no sense. Burglary gone bad, oh I know 'I'll brutally kill Meredith so I don't get caught for burglary', please.

What some don't seem to get is one doesn't have to buy into anything to see that the argument on it's own merits that no one would bring the knife back home is bogus, weak, bad, and yes otiose.

If the defense uses it as part of the appeal defense I'd suggest getting ready for the extradition hearings.

The defense needs to focus on key elements such as the bogus DNA work and lack of reference footprints from other household members.

They need to address the luminol prints and show that they could be from months or even years before and in any case they show no pattern that would be part of the murder.

They need to show that there is no evidence of a cleanup and therefore the luminol prints attributed to Amanda need to have a source in Meredith's room and that needs to be demonstrated by the prosecution.

Curatolo's timing needs to be challenged because the disco bus timing no longer works.

It needs to be shown that Q could easily have known of her blue eyes and wardrobe.

Etc.

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove that this is the knife ? Are we taking Stefanonis word for it again ? Her boss's? How exactly does it match the Death wound ? Is it like ballistics and leaves markings that only that knife and no other in the world could have been used ? Or is it again because it's big and shiney.
I would not argue that the kids didn't bring the knife back. I would argue the motive for taking the knife from Raf's to Amanda's.The whole thing sounds a lil fishy to me.


Why is the defense and PIP always having to explain why things are not evidence. If Mignini threw it up on the wall he should have to prove it sticks as evidence.
While the lawyers halfass defend this crap that nut case prosecutor simply piles more on.
The prosecution has never proven anything.The court system is backwards.So are we saying the only way out is backwards ? Defend against the rumors. I would start by saying ...Why is this the murder weapon and not the knife imprinted on the bedsheets in blood? Where is this knife? If we say they brought one knife back and cleaned it then why hide the other knife. Is it hidden in that really good spot with the keys?