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

[Grinder]

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

Chris I don't have much hope that they will prevail. My point is that they will be given limited opportunity to make their case as even Hellmann gave them a rather limited amount of review.

I wouldn't waste precious time and access on such things as no one would keep a knife, there is no motive and these are good kids. I'd be going after the key bits of evidence that seem the most powerful for prosecution. I'd go after all the footprints, the DNA on the knife and bra clasp and the interrogation. I'd ask De Felice what he meant when he said they told him what was correct and I'd question Napoleoni about the 6th and 7th as well as her later transgressions.

I point would be to go for the win but have focused points for the court and the media. The lawyers might be quoted as saying something like " we asked for independent DNA review again, independent review of the foot prints and for the transcripts and/or recordings of all the interviews with Amanda, Raf, Patrick and Rudi.

I would try to show that the witnesses were able to get all their testimony from other sources than their own experiences.

This may well end up here in the US at an extradition hearing and they should be able to show that because the third trial (second appeal) was not the trial de novo it is billed as because of the illegal actions of the SC (call Hellmann), they in effect are victims of double jeopardy.

 

[anglolawyer]

Chris I don't have much hope that they will prevail. My point is that they will be given limited opportunity to make their case as even Hellmann gave them a rather limited amount of review.

I wouldn't waste precious time and access on such things as no one would keep a knife, there is no motive and these are good kids. I'd be going after the key bits of evidence that seem the most powerful for prosecution. I'd go after all the footprints, the DNA on the knife and bra clasp and the interrogation. I'd ask De Felice what he meant when he said they told him what was correct and I'd question Napoleoni about the 6th and 7th as well as her later transgressions.

I point would be to go for the win but have focused points for the court and the media. The lawyers might be quoted as saying something like " we asked for independent DNA review again, independent review of the foot prints and for the transcripts and/or recordings of all the interviews with Amanda, Raf, Patrick and Rudi.

I would try to show that the witnesses were able to get all their testimony from other sources than their own experiences.

This may well end up here in the US at an extradition hearing and they should be able to show that because the third trial (second appeal) was not the trial de novo it is billed as because of the illegal actions of the SC (call Hellmann), they in effect are victims of double jeopardy.

This is, at least, a strategy and IMO a good one. Have you any advice for Raffaele?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Murder in most cases is not rational. People that commit murder are not in a calm rational state. I know you would argue it wasn't the murder weapon but it is flawed to argue it isn't the murder weapon because no one would take it home.

Someone is murdered by a gun shot and the police find a gun that could have made one of the wounds but nothing else lines up and the defense argues in addition to the other lackings who would take a gun home. The last part has no weight, no power it is a bad argument.

I'm glad you wouldn't argue the kids didn't bring it back but it seems you still miss the point.

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?

It went with Rudi along with the keys and he tossed them from the train in Germany.

They brought it back because it could be missed when checking the inventory Raf and the landlord had (common in Italy I'd guess) and cleaning it seemed pretty safe since they had plenty of time and it would only take 5 minutes including a little bleach soak ala CSI the TV show.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Damn it Grinder, stop using that darn word. I can't take this much alcohol consumption this early in the morning.

As for your contention that a burglar Rudy wouldn't have committed murder just because he was caught red handed by Meredith, than you're being obtuse...(see..I can use the strange words too....ok, it's not so strange)

1. Have you forgot Tremantano's testimony where Rudy used a knife to
escape??

2. There are lots of cases of this kind of murder happening. Grant you, this is the exception to when this kind of event occurs, but then again, this is where a violent sexual motive comes in to play for Rudy.

This is not minor. BTW, I agree with the rest of the post.

 

[Grinder]

This is, at least, a strategy and IMO a good one. Have you any advice for Raffaele?

I'd have them ask De Felice what happened to Patrick's incoming text he mentioned .

I'd say that Raf would be interested in all the points already mentioned and he would focus on the clasp and the other profiles. I'd push Stefi on those profiles and ask where they came from. I'd ask for the DNA profile they took from all the English girls, the boy' downstairs, the other cottage roommates and Kokomani. This follows up on the Napoleoni questioning of the 6th and 7th when she would be asked to account minute by minute what they did in the cottage and what they did to cause the clasp to fly under the rug.

The footprint work would include the bathmat and they would bring out the bogus grid pattern methodology used by the prosecution.

If he actually sent or wrote emails that night, that should be pursued.

What do you have?

 

[Antony]

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.

My thoughts exactly. Why are we wasting time on double-guessing whether Amanda and Raff, in the alternative universe in which they committed the crime, would have gone to the trouble to take the knife back to Raff's flat?

They may or may not have done so - I personally think it unlikely. However, what really makes this aspect of the case so outlandish is that it requires a pointless 2-way transport of the knife, spawning one of Massei's more extreme spasms of treating speculation as fact.

Is it accepted as fact that the knife belonged in Raff's flat, rather than originating at the cottage? It would at least make a bit more sense (from a PG POV) if someone were to claim that Amanda took a knife from the kitchen at the cottage to do the deed, then afterwards they had the brainwave of taking it back to Raff's flat so as to pass it off as one of his and dissociate it from the murder. But I don't know anyone who claims this.

The story of the knife is really evidence of nothing other than a corrupt prosecution. Nowhere in real life does an investigator genuinely identify a murder weapon by walking into a suspect's home and picking up a kitchen item at random, which then conveniently yields a speck of the victim's DNA in a test with no scientific validity. This kind of concept belongs in a stage conjurer's act, or perhaps a game of Cluedo.

 

[Grinder]

Damn it Grinder, stop using that darn word. I can't take this much alcohol consumption this early in the morning.

As for your contention that a burglar Rudy wouldn't have committed murder just because he was caught red handed by Meredith, than you're being obtuse...(see..I can use the strange words too....ok, it's not so strange)

1. Have you forgot Tremantano's testimony where Rudy used a knife to
escape??

2. There are lots of cases of this kind of murder happening. Grant you, this is the exception to when this kind of event occurs, but then again, this is where a violent sexual motive comes in to play for Rudy.

This is not minor. BTW, I agree with the rest of the post.

Tesla I think if you reread my post you will see that I was making the point that things of this nature don't make sense. Rudi may well have killed her to cover his burglary or attack or something but it was not rational.

Haven't forgotten CT but he didn't try to kill him and he should have known that CT could ID him because Rudi went to the club CT worked in.

I don't think saying that, particularly in the heat of the moment, people would act one way or another to make sense, makes sense.

You know that's an (have a drink) argument.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'd have them ask De Felice what happened to Patrick's incoming text he mentioned .

I'd say that Raf would be interested in all the points already mentioned and he would focus on the clasp and the other profiles. I'd push Stefi on those profiles and ask where they came from. I'd ask for the DNA profile they took from all the English girls, the boy' downstairs, the other cottage roommates and Kokomani. This follows up on the Napoleoni questioning of the 6th and 7th when she would be asked to account minute by minute what they did in the cottage and what they did to cause the clasp to fly under the rug.

The footprint work would include the bathmat and they would bring out the bogus grid pattern methodology used by the prosecution.

If he actually sent or wrote emails that night, that should be pursued.

What do you have?

I was afraid you'd ask. Since he was at home all night his defence is essentially destructive. So, demolish everything that runs against that: clasp, Curatolo, bathmat print. That's it. Because he doesn't have the extradition finagle, he has fewer options. The $64K question is whether to go out and out with the accusations of fraud, corruption etc. Given what he wrote in his book I really see no point in being mealy mouthed anymore. He has been framed by crooks. No getting away from it.

What's Nappy and the 6th and 7th? I don't get what you're referring to there.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I think if you reread my post you will see that I was making the point that things of this nature don't make sense. Rudi may well have killed her to cover his burglary or attack or something but it was not rational.

Haven't forgotten CT but he didn't try to kill him and he should have known that CT could ID him because Rudi went to the club CT worked in.

I don't think saying that, particularly in the heat of the moment, people would act one way or another to make sense, makes sense.

You know that's an (have a drink) argument.

I get that it's not rational, but it does make sense. I'm not sure when people are violent they are necessarily rational. Just because Rudi (or is it Rudy?) happen to go the club that CT worked in, doesn't mean that Rudy felt that CT knew him and could identify him. How often did Rudy go to that club?, Had he ever spoken to Christian, etc. etc. There is a huge difference between being pinpointed in a large crowded club and someone that Rudy spent a couple of hours in the cottage below.

But I don't think for one second, that Rudy in the moment with Christian or Meredith the projecting that far ahead. Maybe Meredith, but definitely not Christian. In Christian, Rudy was confronting another adult fully capable man. A big difference between that and a woman who you have 60 or 70 pounds advantage. .

Do I think Rudy was thinking straight? Hell no. Was it fear of being identified to the police? his friends downstairs? or his family? Or maybe it was that Meredith was a young attractive female and this was just too great of temptation?

Who knows? But I definitely think it makes sense. Rational? Hell no.

 

[codyjuneau]

This has fallen into my hands. Bob Graham turns out to be a Daily Mail journalist. I am told the article was written in 2010. Some randomly chosen quotes:

Quote:
Lawyers planning an appeal for Amanda Knox and her ex-lover will not be allowed to introduce shocking new evidence revealing the third person convicted of murdering British student Meredith Kercher was on a one-man crime spree in the weeks before the killing.
Quote:
'I cannot say if Guede was an informer for the police but it would not be a surprise, this would not be unusual for a man of his background' admitted Giuliano Mignini, the controversial lead prosecutor prosecutor in the trial that four months ago convicted Knox and Sollecito of murder.
Re: the fire in the old lady's apartment:

Quote:
The woman, who pleaded not to be identified admitted 'I complained that it was Rudy Guede who burned my home because I had seen him always staring at it in the days before it happened. The police never did anything'
The Milan arrest:

Quote:
In the Milan incident Guede was taken to the local Venezia-Garibaldi police station where two arresting officers expected to charge him with a number of offences and to detain him in custody.
But a spokesman for prosecutor Maria Vulpio, who was assigned the case, admitted. 'we had a communication from police in Perugia to put him on the train and return him home without charge'.
Etc.

.
Re the first quote, Mignini's phrasing of the answer is interesting, "I cannot say" (although something may be lost in translation).

Re the second quote, Rudy staring at the lady's house may be another significant MO of Rudy's. Here is creepy tidbit from Perugia Shock. It sounds like Meredith's instincts were tragically correct.

From: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

Someone around the house

At mid October a friend who came to see the boys, Giorgio, is very upset for having seen someone hiding in the garden at about 21:30, the fatal hour.

After a week or so Meredith expresses her fear to Giacomo for having seen the same thing, a shadow in the garden.
We heard all details that make us particularly think, if we remember
Amanda saying at the police station It could have happened to me.
Even after such signs Giacomo will keep considering the house as A
safe place. As a matter of fact Meredith will be killed on the very
first evening that she was alone at home. But today we learned that
she was aware of the danger. She wouldn't have opened that door,
always locked, to a stranger. Maybe not even to a man she knew, not
when she was alone and in night time.

.

 

[codyjuneau]

Oh, I thought we were talking about what Rudi did with the knife. .....

.
Did the police ever test any 'divined' kitchen knives from Rudy's apartment, or did the police consider that such a ludicrous possibility that they never bothered?
.

 

[anglolawyer]

.
Did the police ever test any 'divined' kitchen knives from Rudy's apartment, or did the police consider that such a ludicrous possibility that they never bothered?
.

Nice one. A good question for Finzi in cross: how many knives did you collect from Rudy's place? And Lumumba's.

 

[codyjuneau]

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."

.
I gather this is when the police 'guessed' the password to Raffaele's computer. I also assume this is before they attempted to clone the hard drive. My question remains, how really, did they know his password? And why are they lying about it?
.

 

[acbytesla]

.
Did the police ever test any 'divined' kitchen knives from Rudy's apartment, or did the police consider that such a ludicrous possibility that they never bothered?
.

That's a good question, I have the DNA test results from the Knox Sollecito trial.
Not sure what appeared in the RG's trial. The only knives tested in the AK RS trial were Raffaele's They are Rep 33, Rep 35 and Rep 36. #33 and #35 were Raffaele's pen knives and #36 of course is the kitchen knife. But somehow, I imagine that they didn't. The report is not prepared specific to the trials. It is specific to Meredith's murder, but it does say Procidemento Penale Nr 9066/07 Omicido Kercher, Meredith Sussanna Cara

Still if the police had tested any knives there, I would think we would know about it. The guilters would have been crowing that Rudy's knives were clean.

 

[GreyFox]

Matthew Hoffmans confession

Just for what it's worth. A piece from Matthew Hoffmans confession.He climbed a 30' hollow tree and dumped the murder weapons and bodies of two women a boy and a dog down to the base of the sycamore tree.It's the way he says the murder began that resembles our boy rudy.

It was just after midnight on Wednesday, Nov. 10, he said, when he settled in for the night. He woke around daylight and noticed one of the two vehicles in the driveway was gone. He went back to sleep until about 9 a.m. and watched for the pickup truck to leave.
When the coast was clear, Hoffman tried to enter through the front door, but it was locked. He then slid under the partially opened garage door and forced his way through the interior entrance to the home.
“I looked around the house to make sure that no one was there,” Hoffman said. “Even if I did not take anything, there was a certain amount of excitement in being in someone else’s home without them being there.”He searched the house for about an hour, according to the statement transcribed by the Knox County Public Defenders Office, but found very little he thought was “of any real value.” When he was prepared to leave the home, Herrmann returned. At this point, Hoffman said he felt trapped but was prepared to use a knife he took with him for intimidation purposes in case he needed to escape.
When the woman found her way back to her bedroom, Hoffman confronted her and forced her to lie face down on her bed. He said his first instinct was to hit her with his blackjack. With her unconscious, he would be able to leave, he said.
“It (the blackjack) was not doing the job, and I started panicking,” he said.
At this point, Stephanie Sprang appeared and shouted at Hoffman.
“There were now two to deal with and I didn’t know what to do,” Hoffman said.
What comes next in his confession are the details of how Hoffman stabbed the two women and how the reality of what he had just done started to run through his mind.
“At this time I was in a total state of shock,” Hoffman said. “I wandered around [the house] slowly coming to the realization of what I had done and how bad it was. During this time I killed the dog because it wouldn’t stop barking.”


Read more: Hoffman’s confession includes details of murder / Mount Vernon News http://www.mountvernonnews.com/loca...sion-includes-details-of-murder#ixzz2YrJQFxGR

 

[Mary_H]

Chris I don't have much hope that they will prevail. My point is that they will be given limited opportunity to make their case as even Hellmann gave them a rather limited amount of review.

I wouldn't waste precious time and access on such things as no one would keep a knife, there is no motive and these are good kids. I'd be going after the key bits of evidence that seem the most powerful for prosecution. I'd go after all the footprints, the DNA on the knife and bra clasp and the interrogation. I'd ask De Felice what he meant when he said they told him what was correct and I'd question Napoleoni about the 6th and 7th as well as her later transgressions.

I point would be to go for the win but have focused points for the court and the media. The lawyers might be quoted as saying something like " we asked for independent DNA review again, independent review of the foot prints and for the transcripts and/or recordings of all the interviews with Amanda, Raf, Patrick and Rudi.

I would try to show that the witnesses were able to get all their testimony from other sources than their own experiences.

This may well end up here in the US at an extradition hearing and they should be able to show that because the third trial (second appeal) was not the trial de novo it is billed as because of the illegal actions of the SC (call Hellmann), they in effect are victims of double jeopardy.

Rational arguments belong in US courts. Irrational arguments belong in Italian courts. The science has been presented. The Supreme Court's report says, essentially, "We like the science and the witnesses of the prosecution better than we like the science and the witnesses of the defense."

Mignini won the first trial by claiming that it was entirely possible Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the crime. Maybe the defense can win the next trial by claiming it was nowhere near possible Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime. The judges really seem to like subjective arguments.

 

[Grinder]

I was afraid you'd ask. Since he was at home all night his defence is essentially destructive. So, demolish everything that runs against that: clasp, Curatolo, bathmat print. That's it. Because he doesn't have the extradition finagle, he has fewer options. The $64K question is whether to go out and out with the accusations of fraud, corruption etc. Given what he wrote in his book I really see no point in being mealy mouthed anymore. He has been framed by crooks. No getting away from it.

I can't see Bongiorno risking it. That's the problem, if he's not there who will risk the wrath?

Now if they can gin up the PR machine and get the word out. Perhaps Follain will write stories from a secret defense source about these issues.

What's Nappy and the 6th and 7th? I don't get what you're referring to there.

As I understand it that's when the non-CSI PLE went into the house and trashed it. These are the same cops in part that later were charged with messing with good old Nappy's ex and his court psychologist witness.

 

[Grinder]

.
I gather this is when the police 'guessed' the password to Raffaele's computer. I also assume this is before they attempted to clone the hard drive. My question remains, how really, did they know his password? And why are they lying about it?
.

Cool point. Maybe Raf wrote it on his battery or in a manga comic. Now a password for a computer doesn't seem super important so maybe it is sooooo common that people use the maiden name with some other name that they could guess but it seems far fetched.

How do you think they knew the password?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I guess I'm left with this question, Is there blood on this shoe print? Or could it be the result of all the people that were in the hall the next day? The Postal Police, the boys downstairs, etc, etc, etc.

 

[codyjuneau]

Cool point. Maybe Raf wrote it on his battery or in a manga comic. Now a password for a computer doesn't seem super important so maybe it is sooooo common that people use the maiden name with some other name that they could guess but it seems far fetched.

How do you think they knew the password?

.
I am still considering it. Was this Raffaele's own computer, or his Carabinieri sister 's computer?
.