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

[LondonJohn]

I I can't tell you ALL my secrets. You might then doubt that I'm a miracle worker. (Cf. Scotty in the 23rd Century.)

Wow! You have secret internet/IT talents! Can you recover Sollecito's hard drives?!

Or are you currently on holiday here in God's own now-economically-and-politically-only-marginally-significant small island off the coast of mainland Europe....?

 

[Welshman]

A weakness of the channel five programme is that it made no mention of Guede's previous break ins which supported the idea of a genuine break in.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hmm. To refresh your memory, here's what you originally wrote, and where my response was directed (I've highlighted the most relevant part for ease):


Expert testimony is not analysis.....

Okay, so what is your opinion on the likelihood of the appeal court permitting “further analysis”?

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, so what is your opinion on the likelihood of the appeal court permitting “further analysis”?

It remains to be seen how the lead judge wants to run the trial. However, I'd suggest that further expert testimony on the footprint is a lot more probable than further analysis (of the bathmat itself, or by making new reference prints of Sollecito and Guede, for instance)

And of course if further expert testimony were allowed, the prosecutor could bring in SomeAlibi to show his colour-coded excel spreadsheet of similarities

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow! You have secret internet/IT talents! Can you recover Sollecito's hard drives?!

Or are you currently on holiday here in God's own now-economically-and-politically-only-marginally-significant small island off the coast of mainland Europe....?

Wanna see the interrogation tapes? All three of the originally charged perps?

 

[Bill Williams]

The channel five programme asked if Rudy killed Meredith with Raffaele and Amanda. The programme neglected to mention that Amanda barely knew Rudy, Raffaele did not know Rudy at all and Amanda and Raffaele had only know each other six days. The programme did not ask the question was it credible that three virtual strangers would commit a brutal sexual assault and murder together.

There is one aspect of the media coverage which angers me. The media have not shown the massive level of misconduct which occurred in this case and how flawed the evidence against Amanda and Raffale was. How many media outlets have asked why the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not recorded and they were denied access to lawyers ? How many media outlets have listed the evidence which was suppressed in this case and the numerous lies told by the police and prosecution? Despite this Machiavelli claims the media was biased in favour of Knox.

All this is reason to be skeptical of the Channel 5 documentary. At some point one realizes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have no reason even to have been known.... any more so than Filomena and her boyfriend of the time, really.

 

[Mary_H]

For those interested in more details about Raffaele's phone, they can be found on pages 317-321 of Massei. The investigators were never able to determine whether Raffaele's phone was actually turned off, so I have to take back what I said about Raffaele telling them he switched it off. He may have said something in his book: I don't remember. The police certainly had no knowledge of that information on the night of the interrogation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, post some pictures for us that can't see it. Please.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/amanda-knox-trial-5-key-questions

It did not take long for Harry Rag to do a cut and paste into the comments' section.....

But RoseM and LJ.... I followed a text-based play-by-play online.... I could not watch the Channel 5 feed.... will wait for youtube.

 

[LondonJohn]

A weakness of the channel five programme is that it made no mention of Guede's previous break ins which supported the idea of a genuine break in.

To be fair though, this sort of thing is of low evidential value when it comes to assessing the Kercher case. In law (and with justified ethical underpinnings) it shouldn't be relevant to the case that Guede had an alleged prior history of B&E, theft, violence or even of pestering women.

The trials of Knox, Sollecito and Guede should be entirely based on reasoning related solely to the evidence connected directly to the Kercher murder. Prior conduct or "similar pattern" evidence is notoriously dicey legally, and should never be used except in a small number of extreme and unusual circumstances. I don't think it should have been used in this case.

However, what DOES need to be examined is the following: 1) Was Guede physically capable of breaking in via Filomena's window? (in my view: yes, most certainly); 2) Is there any evidence of motive for Guede to break into the girls' cottage: (in my view: yes: he was low on money, due on rent, already on the fringes of trouble with the law); 3) Is the evidence consistent with Guede alone breaking in? (in my view: yes); 4) Did Guede therefore have the means, opportunity and motive to break in via Filomena's window? (in my view, yes).

 

[Bill Williams]

To be fair though, this sort of thing is of low evidential value when it comes to assessing the Kercher case. In law (and with justified ethical underpinnings) it shouldn't be relevant to the case that Guede had an alleged prior history of B&E, theft, violence or even of pestering women.

The trials of Knox, Sollecito and Guede should be entirely based on reasoning related solely to the evidence connected directly to the Kercher murder. Prior conduct or "similar pattern" evidence is notoriously dicey legally, and should never be used except in a small number of extreme and unusual circumstances. I don't think it should have been used in this case.

However, what DOES need to be examined is the following: 1) Was Guede physically capable of breaking in via Filomena's window? (in my view: yes, most certainly); 2) Is there any evidence of motive for Guede to break into the girls' cottage: (in my view: yes: he was low on money, due on rent, already on the fringes of trouble with the law); 3) Is the evidence consistent with Guede alone breaking in? (in my view: yes); 4) Did Guede therefore have the means, opportunity and motive to break in via Filomena's window? (in my view, yes).

There's a fair bit of "internet chatter" about the Channel 5 documentary - and, my-bias-alert - the predictable, "What a piece of garbage," comments. Also the comments about how Channel 5 had been bought off by Raffaele's defence team, but curiously, no comments about the much vaunted Seattle-based PR Supertanker.... I guess those comments are yet to be posted.

Harry Rag is all over some comments sections with his cut-and-paste stuff which has been unchanged in 3 or four years. One comment of his was, "the abundant evidence pointing to Raffaele...."

Perhaps someone who believes that Raffaele WAS involved in this would like to comment on the DNA expert who demonstrated just HOW a crime scene gets contaminated with his use of invisible powder. Please include in the comment the video evidence of Stefanoni herself handling the bra-clasp 47 days after the first evidence collection - and where at trial Stefanoni could not confirm or deny that one clip from the video shows her potentially handling the hook with obviously dirty gloves....

I mean, who in the world backs Stefanoni except for Harry Rag, Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt (not counting those who simply quote them)? Any DNA experts?

For me that wee demonstration of the expert shaking hands with someone else, and then that someone else handling an object, shows what DNA transfer is like, and shows WHY forensic anti-contamination protocols NEED to be followed.

Unless you're Stefanoni being judged by Massei!

Is ANYONE going to even mention the impossibility of the climb in through Filomena's window any more?

 

[RoseMontague]

Is ANYONE going to even mention the impossibility of the climb in through Filomena's window any more?

Just like the bleach receipt, it will probably never completely go away.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is ANYONE going to even mention the impossibility of the climb in through Filomena's window any more?

Just like the bleach receipt, it will probably never completely go away.

What does it say about the original investigtors who argued, partially, that the killer had to have been let in the front door because of the impossibility of the climb? There's actually no need to leave scuff marks on the wall...

..... but the issue is - it's almost 6 years, people. Did the investigator NOT get a moderately athletic 20-something to even TRY the climb? Or was their eyeballing of the wall enough?

How can ANYONE defend the way this crime was investigated? The Kerchers deserve better.

 

[RoseMontague]

What does it say about the original investigtors who argued, partially, that the killer had to have been let in the front door because of the impossibility of the climb? There's actually no need to leave scuff marks on the wall...

..... but the issue is - it's almost 6 years, people. Did the investigator NOT get a moderately athletic 20-something to even TRY the climb? Or was their eyeballing of the wall enough?

How can ANYONE defend the way this crime was investigated? The Kerchers deserve better.

I completely agree. I wonder if they watched it and what the reaction will be.

 

[Supernaut]

edit >> I don't want to get banned for referring to certain posters, such as Briars, as rectal sphincters.

 

[Dan O.]

What have I made up be specific please. Your post as to the reason for calling Sollecito that night and whether an arrest was coming is just your opinion. I'm sure the police were surprised that Sollecito considered dessert more important than coming in earlier.

Let's start with this claim:

Briars CP5.12087 |"He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert"|Unsupported claim that Raffaele had desert before going to the station on the 5th

Sollecito was called in to respond to phone evidence. The unusual, not their normal behaviour to shut their phoned off around the same time before 9pm. He arrived at the station at his leisure after dinner and dessert.

The closest support for this claim is in wikipedia, I have not researched the citations:

Sollecito said he was having dinner and would come when he was finished. When told of this Napoleoni exclaimed: "the police are supposed to wait for Raffaele to have his dessert?" (Dempsy p.138, Folian p.128)

Is there any evidence that Raffaele had dessert that night? Where is this evidence?

 

[Dan O.]

Briars CP5.12063 |"I think the police were able to see if and when either defendants were in a habit of turning off their phones."|Unsupported belief that Police can distinguish between a phone being off and a phone being on but unable to reach the network.

There are many other fabrications around this phone meme including the phone being off, the phones were turned off at the same time.

What signal or report can the police reference to see if a phone was physically turned off or turned on other than the common cell tower data that shows when the phone connected to the network?

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, if Mignini felt so strongly about how Knox shouldn't have a lawyer, then why did Mignini tell Bob Graham that Mignini shouted this after the 1:45 statement: "Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!".

But he never told this. I think you mean Griffin, not Graham; I quoted the Italian snippet that you misunderstood. Mignini never claimed he told (nor shouted) such statement to the police. He did not even enter the room, he was elsewhere, and was told about that after the interrogation was over. He phrases the statement 'Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!', to emphasize, to explain Griffin how it works with police interrogation, but he does NOT attribute the statementto himself. You are basically just getting the subject (the speaker) wrong! He is NOT saying that HE told that statement.
And he also says clearly that he was not there during Knox interrogation; when he entered the room and saw Knox first, the interrogation was already over; this means after the minutes had been already signed; and he describes in fact Knox already appearing relieved, with nobody interogating her any more.

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEENyBTWL54&feature=player_embedded&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoEENyBTWL54%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&has_verified=1

Ok - will everyone stop with the impossibility of Guede going in that window... as well as with the impossibility of DNA contamination at the crime scene....

 

[Bill Williams]

But he never told this. I think you mean Griffin, not Graham; I quoted the Italian snippet that you misunderstood. Mignini never claimed he told (nor shouted) such statement to the police. He did not even enter the room, he was elsewhere, and was told about that after the interrogation was over. He phrases the statement 'Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!', to emphasize, to explain Griffin how it works with police interrogation, but he does NOT attribute the statementto himself. You are basically just getting the subject (the speaker) wrong! He is NOT saying that HE told that statement.
And he also says clearly that he was not there during Knox interrogation; when he entered the room and saw Knox first, the interrogation was already over; this means after the minutes had been already signed; and he describes in fact Knox already appearing relieved, with nobody interogating her any more.

Which Mignini resumes... even he admits that!

 

[Bill Williams]

From the Channel 5 documentary.... to which the lawyer said, "You made that look easy...." The prosecution lawyer just shrugged, thinking about whether or not the PLE had actually investigated this crime at all.... note the bars on the window to prevent any further break-ins though this obvious and easy entry point.