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

[Charlie Wilkes]

I see your point about the e-gram however, it's clear that CD's and CV's point was that the the only organic material found in 36B Sample was organic material that resembles' starch. This is nitpicking over nuances in Candace's reporting

I agree, it is nitpicking and it completely misses the big picture, especially if one is comparing Candace and Andrea Vogt. Candace was among the first reporters to see the problems with the case against Amanda and Raffaele These problems only became more obvious over time, leading her from skepticism about official claims to a firm belief in their innocence.

I don't see that as the mark of a bad reporter. It is the mark of someone who is perceptive and intelligent.

Vogt meanwhile is still taking the kitchen knife seriously as a possible murder weapon. She was even willing to speculate that the presence of Guede's DNA on the knife might confirm his story of being an innocent bystander who was stabbed by Amanda or Raffaele when he went to Meredith's aid. Six years into this case, with all the information that has come down the pike, that is the mark of an absolute nitwit. She should go back to scaling logs.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree, it is nitpicking and it completely misses the big picture, especially if one is comparing Candace and Andrea Vogt. Candace was among the first reporters to see the problems with the case against Amanda and Raffaele These problems only became more obvious over time, leading her from skepticism about official claims to a firm belief in their innocence.

I don't see that as the mark of a bad reporter. It is the mark of someone who is perceptive and intelligent.

Vogt meanwhile is still taking the kitchen knife seriously as a possible murder weapon. She was even willing to speculate that the presence of Guede's DNA on the knife might confirm his story of being an innocent bystander who was stabbed by Amanda or Raffaele when he went to Meredith's aid. Six years into this case, with all the information that has come down the pike, that is the mark of an absolute nitwit. She should go back to scaling logs.

I know we are preaching to the choir in regards to this.

Sure, Dempsey made up her mind about the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele almost right away. That doesn't mean that she hasn't been objective. They are not mutually exclusive.

I can fully understand how a reporter after hearing that Amanda "confessed" and that Raffaele called the police after the Postal police arrived and that the police found Meredith's DNA on the blade of knife taken from Raffaele's flat and that there were the bloody shoe prints in Meredith's bedroom that matched Raffaele's sneakers, to come to the conclusion that the kids were almost certainly guilty. That said,it is the mark of objectivity when finding out that this was all actually bs, to change their mind.

The people I don't respect, are those that are unwilling to reevaluate when new more credible information becomes available.

 

[RWVBWL]

Man,

I still dig Candace Dempsey's style of writing,
no matter what the Grinder says...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/


PS-Thanks Kaosium for the response, for from reading it+CD's blog,
I now have a clearer picture of what the meaning of AK's newly found DNA means...

Have a great weekend everyone!

 

[davefoc]

That is reasonable. From what I can see, while not be 100 correct, the spirit of Candace Dempsey's report is accurate....

That seems correct to me. I cringed a bit when I saw something like it in print before, but I assumed that what the author meant was that C & V found starch (as opposed to blood) on the knife and that C & V was not saying that DNA found by Stefanoni was actually starch.

So who was wrong in davefoc land:
Grinder - 50%
He over rated the importance of Dempsey's imprecise language

acbytesla - 50%
The exchange went on for several posts before acbytesla acknowledged that by the literal meaning of Dempsey's statement she was wrong.

 

[davefoc]

I still dig Candace Dempsey's style of writing,
no matter what the Grinder says...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/

I agree, the article you linked to was well written.

PS-Thanks Kaosium for the response, for from reading it+CD's blog,
I now have a clearer picture of what the meaning of AK's newly found DNA means...

Thanks not only to Kaosium. but also to several other people that have been kind enough to provide information on the DNA testing. I had wondered about some aspects of DNA testing for awhile and the discussion on the DNA testing satisfied some long standing curiosity about the issue for me.

Dempsey wrote:

This latest sample contains two teensy pictographs of Knox’s DNA found between the handle and blade.

1. Did she mean picograms and not pictographs?

2. London John said, I think, that they just retested old samples and that they didn't collect new samples from the knife. When Dempsey says "DNA found between the handle and blade" is she talking about the fact that the sample was obtained in the crack where the handle and the blade meet or that they obtained a sample by removing the handle and sampling underneath it?

 

[acbytesla]

That seems correct to me. I cringed a bit when I saw something like it in print before, but I assumed that what the author meant was that C & V found starch (as opposed to blood) on the knife and that C & V was not saying that DNA found by Stefanoni was actually starch.

So who was wrong in davefoc land:
Grinder - 50%
He over rated the importance of Dempsey's inexact language

acbytesla - 50%
The exchange went on for several posts before acbytesla acknowledged that by the literal meaning of Dempsey's statement she was wrong.

Frankly, Dave, I misunderstood the evidence somewhat. I was under the impression that they found starch granules precisely at the 36B location. But that doesn't change my opinion that the essence of Candace's reporting was accurate although I am definitely wrong about precise literal definition of the words.

 

[Katody Matrass]

No you watch it again.

You are completely wrong. He never goes down to the ground again. He lowers himself so his feet are on the grate and demos that it would be easy to open the shutters.

In the only climb from the ground he puts his feet on the bottom window sill and then springs up grabbing first the upper sill and then the new grate that now covers the window. It would have much more difficult had the upper grate not been there even if the shutters were open.

Here's the video the climb starts at about 18 min.

Well, watch again from 19:40 on.

It makes total sense. He threw the rock and waited to see if anybody heard. Meredith came home and he either talked her into letting him in or forced his way.

Go on, you're omitting the more interesting part. What happened inside, in what sequence? Don't forget to mention the evidence that support your scenario. One would expect some evidence of 'forcing in'. Explaining who and when cleared the window frame of glass shards would be a bonus.

It's perfectly plausible to you that he "waited to see if anybody heard" and then 'talked himself in' when someone come instead of abandoning the plan of burglary? It seems a bit stretched.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree, the article you linked to was well written.

Thanks not only to Kaosium. but also to several other people that have been kind enough to provide information on the DNA testing. I had wondered about some aspects of DNA testing for awhile and the discussion on the DNA testing satisfied some long standing curiosity about the issue for me.

Dempsey wrote:


1. Did she mean picograms and not pictographs?

2. London John said, I think, that they just retested old samples and that they didn't collect new samples from the knife. When Dempsey says "DNA found between the handle and blade" is she talking about the fact that the sample was obtained in the crack where the handle and the blade meet or that they obtained a sample by removing the handle and sampling underneath it?

1. Yes, she means picograms. Science and journalism are usually dreadful bedfellows. I recommend a read of "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

2. Correct. In fact, they tested just ONE old sample. That sample was the one labelled 36I. It was collected back in late 2010/early 2011 by Conti & Vecchiotti. My understanding is that it was obtained by sort of bending the blade back so that a small gap appeared where the blade meets the handle, then swabbing tight into that gap. The handle was not removed as such.

To reiterate: as I understand it, the Carabinieri were not given the knife itself to test. Rather, they were given a swab containing the sample 36I, which had been previously taken from the knife by C&V. And the reason they were given this sample - and only this sample - to test was that C&V in their report had stated that 36I did contain human DNA (including, incidentally, super-tiny levels of male DNA), but that it was at such minute quantities that it made testing/identification of the DNA impossible. The Supreme Court ordered that if it was possible to retest and identify this DNA, then it must be done. The new appeal court duly ordered the retest.

 

[katy_did]

Now THAT would be a fascinating motivations report to read.

So far there is nothing, nada, nil, niente, zilch, zero.... to even suggest that Sollecito and Knox were involved with this horrible crime. So far, it seems, EVERYTHING the ISC ordered reevaluated has gone the defence's way...

So on what basis would Nencini reinterpret Hellmann's and Zanetti's, "they didn't do it," with a, "they may know something, but the prosecution simply didn't prove it"?

What worries me is not so much that they might reach a 'not proven' verdict, but that they might compromise by finding that there's not enough evidence Amanda and Raffaele were actually involved in the murder, but enough evidence that they were present at the time.

I think the knife will be determined not to be the murder weapon. Given all the importance the prosecution and the SC placed on the new test, it's unlikely a negative outcome (negative as far as evidence is concerned) is going to leave things completely unchanged, even if possible in theory.

But removing the knife from the equation would leave them free to come up with some kind of in-between theory in which the evidence outside Meredith's room proves they were in the house after the murder and staged the burglary, but that they didn't commit the murder itself. They could even draw on Massei's theory and just change it a bit: Amanda and Raffaele ran next door to Meredith's room not to help in the murder, but to find that Guede had already committed it.

If they were convicted just for staging the burglary or for manslaughter (if that's possible, as Vogt suggests it is) the court could also give them a light sentence - perhaps a year or two longer than they've already served - which would neatly bypass the thorny and embarrassing question of extradition. It wouldn't be worth going through all that rigmarole just for an extra year or two on Amanda's sentence. They may see it as a way of trying to please everyone while in reality pleasing no one...

At the moment I'm betting either on this kind of a 'compromise' verdict or an acquittal.

 

[katy_did]

And all over the wardrobe, as well as her finger streaks in blood on the wardrobe. Your scenario doesn't work. If he stabbed her while removing the bra, that would have to be by the wardrobe. There would have been way more blood on her breasts and torso if her top was undressed at that point.

Yes, I realize that there were droplets of blood found on the wardrobe (and floor) as well, but I was talking specifically about her clothing. As far as I know those droplets were only found on her bra.

I'm not clear as to why you think the location of the bra is important (ETA: if that is what you're saying; re-reading I'm less sure I've understood you properly!). There are various possibilities: it was removed after the fatal stab wound, then tossed there by Guede, or moved/kicked there later; it was removed during the final attack, then tossed there by Guede, or moved/kicked there later; or it was removed after one or both of the minor wounds were made, but before the fatal one. In the latter case, it may be that the final location of both the bra and clasp (found nearer the middle of the room) indicates where it was removed. In any of these possibilities, the bra's final location isn't exactly decisive.

I don't think it follows that there would've been more blood on Meredith's breasts and torso if her top was undressed at that point. The T-shirts gathered around her neck would've absorbed the initial bleeding, and after she slumped forward all the blood would obviously have run forwards onto the floor, not backwards onto her chest.

 

[katy_did]

The logical sequence of your theory is not logical at all. Your idea that the semen could not be Guedes or is even semen does not work. The pillow was not fully under MK. Perhaps he knelt on the pillow as he worked his magic. In any case I still happen to think it is a urine stain belonging to MK which is most logical but far from certain. I agree that Guede may have made an excuse for it but remember that he did mention something about this in his call and that something was a denial IIRC. Personally I dont think Guede said all that much until he understood quite well what the police were leaking and what the press was reporting. He had volumes of information and lots of time to rehearse different stories....but honestly I dont think this guy is a mastermind or anything...just a pretty slick liar but who like all liars never understands when he has gone too far or else he overestimates his ability to deceive.

I would take all bets that this is exactly why someone ...gee I wonder who...suggested and approved his application for a fast track trial. No need for all that harsh and revealing cross examination...much easier to catch the toss of the soft ball.

I owe you a reply to your longer post, Randy, but just to answer this one: I didn't argue the 'semen' couldn't be Guede's or that it couldn't be semen. I was just pointing out that if Meredith was lying on top of the stain - if it was 'under her hips', as described - it would be difficult for Guede to also tread on it. While I agree that the pillow wasn't fully under Meredith, if you compare the diagram showing her position on the pillow (lying diagonally over the left half of it) with the area where the photograph shows the stain to be, it does look as if she was definitely lying over it. There should also have been traces of semen on her body if she was lying on top of it. That assumes, of course, that they were looking for traces of semen on the body of a sexual homicide victim, which may be too big of an assumption.

If urine reacts to the black light or whatever it was they used in the same way as semen, I agree with you that's a possibility. It would mean Vinci was wrong about the shoe print smearing the stain, but from the photos it looks like the print was an inch or two to the right of the stain proper anyway, so perhaps it is unrelated (a bit of make-up from the night before, maybe).

That Guede wasn't properly questioned about his story is indeed crazy. The problem is that by the time they got around to interrogating him, the police's blunders had already given him a ready-made excuse for why he was there (a date) and a couple of people to blame for the murder - and of course they weren't that interested in finding the holes in his story anyway, since doing so might expose the holes in their own theory...

 

[snook1]

What worries me is not so much that they might reach a 'not proven' verdict, but that they might compromise by finding that there's not enough evidence Amanda and Raffaele were actually involved in the murder, but enough evidence that they were present at the time.

But removing the knife from the equation would leave them free to come up with some kind of in-between theory in which the evidence outside Meredith's room proves they were in the house after the murder and staged the burglary, but that they didn't commit the murder itself. They could even draw on Massei's theory and just change it a bit: Amanda and Raffaele ran next door to Meredith's room not to help in the murder, but to find that Guede had already committed it.

If they were convicted just for staging the burglary or for manslaughter (if that's possible, as Vogt suggests it is) the court could also give them a light sentence - perhaps a year or two longer than they've already served - which would neatly bypass the thorny and embarrassing question of extradition. It wouldn't be worth going through all that rigmarole just for an extra year or two on Amanda's sentence. They may see it as a way of trying to please everyone while in reality pleasing no one...

At the moment I'm betting either on this kind of a 'compromise' verdict or an acquittal.

If the court rules that they were there when the murder was commited by another person, then that would mean accessory to murder and they end up with a large number of years in prison given to both. It doesn't matter if they watched or run away. All that matters is that they knew and didn't do anything about it.

If the court rules that they were there after the murder and didn't really witness it but for some reason decided to stage a break in (or whatever), then this is a way to give them lesser convictions and not to demand extradition.

I think there is a chance for "not enough evidence" verdict that means no additional time behind bars. I'm not sure if it's possible they will be acquitted the same way as they were by Hellmann, simply beacuse of the SC's ruling.

 

[katy_did]

If the court rules that they were there when the murder was commited by another person, then that would mean accessory to murder and they end up with a large number of years in prison given to both. It doesn't matter if they watched or run away. All that matters is that they knew and didn't do anything about it.

If the court rules that they were there after the murder and didn't really witness it but for some reason decided to stage a break in (or whatever), then this is a way to give them lesser convictions and not to demand extradition.

I think there is a chance for "not enough evidence" verdict that ends up with no time behins bars. I'm not sure if it's possible they will be acquitted the same way as they were by Hellmann, simply beacuse of the SC's ruling.

Thanks snook1, I thought it was something like that. My guess then would be either (2) or (3). I agree with you that they won't be as unequivocal as Hellmann if they acquit, but I also don't think they'll just rubber-stamp Massei's guilty verdict either.

 

[acbytesla]

What worries me is not so much that they might reach a 'not proven' verdict, but that they might compromise by finding that there's not enough evidence Amanda and Raffaele were actually involved in the murder, but enough evidence that they were present at the time.

I think the knife will be determined not to be the murder weapon. Given all the importance the prosecution and the SC placed on the new test, it's unlikely a negative outcome (negative as far as evidence is concerned) is going to leave things completely unchanged, even if possible in theory.

But removing the knife from the equation would leave them free to come up with some kind of in-between theory in which the evidence outside Meredith's room proves they were in the house after the murder and staged the burglary, but that they didn't commit the murder itself. They could even draw on Massei's theory and just change it a bit: Amanda and Raffaele ran next door to Meredith's room not to help in the murder, but to find that Guede had already committed it.

If they were convicted just for staging the burglary or for manslaughter (if that's possible, as Vogt suggests it is) the court could also give them a light sentence - perhaps a year or two longer than they've already served - which would neatly bypass the thorny and embarrassing question of extradition. It wouldn't be worth going through all that rigmarole just for an extra year or two on Amanda's sentence. They may see it as a way of trying to please everyone while in reality pleasing no one...

At the moment I'm betting either on this kind of a 'compromise' verdict or an acquittal.

Can they "convict" Amanda & Raffaele of a lesser charge? I know Vogt suggests this, but is this really possible? This type of compromise verdict doesn't seem logical to me given the evidence. It really is absurd. But the reality is that being logical and insane doesn't seem to be an obstacle for the Italian Justice system.

 

[katy_did]

Can they "convict" Amanda & Raffaele of a lesser charge? I know Vogt suggests this, but is this really possible? This type of compromise verdict doesn't seem logical to me given the evidence. It really is absurd. But the reality is that being logical and insane doesn't seem to be an obstacle for the Italian Justice system.

Yeah, I'm not too sure either if a lesser charge is even possible, as Vogt suggests it is. Maybe if they decided Amanda was in the kitchen and too scared to intervene, that could be manslaughter? But from what I've heard that would also be considered murder, albeit maybe with a lower sentence.

On the other hand, if they decide that Amanda and Raffaele arrived too late to do anything, Guede fled, and they tried to cover it up, then I suppose they could convict for the staging but say there was too little evidence they were in the room to support a murder conviction. That seems more likely to me than any sort of lesser charge. It would even be a sort of compromise on the bra clasp evidence: Raffaele's DNA is there because he was in the room immediately afterwards, but it only arrived on the clasp itself because it was left on the floor for 46 days...

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, I'm not too sure either if a lesser charge is even possible, as Vogt suggests it is. Maybe if they decided Amanda was in the kitchen and too scared to intervene, that could be manslaughter? But from what I've heard that would also be considered murder, albeit maybe with a lower sentence.

On the other hand, if they decide that Amanda and Raffaele arrived too late to do anything, Guede fled, and they tried to cover it up, then I suppose they could convict for the staging but say there was too little evidence they were in the room to support a murder conviction. That seems more likely to me than any sort of lesser charge. It would even be a sort of compromise on the bra clasp evidence: Raffaele's DNA is there because he was in the room immediately afterwards, but it only arrived on the clasp itself because it was left on the floor for 46 days...

This kind of decision does the same thing the Massei did. IGNORED THE EVIDENCE.

The narrative for this compromise has NO connection to reality. To the world outside of Italy this would make Italy seem even more insane than it already does. (not that this seems to stop the Italian judicial system)

The fact is there is NO relationship with Rudy so why would they cover it up and stage a burglary? I can imagine covering up a crime for a very close friend or relative , I could see a motive for a scenario like that. But this is different. Rudy is basically a total stranger to both of them.

As our English friends would say "NOT BLOODY LIKELY". No, they are either covering up their own involvement or not at all.

 

[snook1]

Can they "convict" Amanda & Raffaele of a lesser charge? I know Vogt suggests this, but is this really possible? This type of compromise verdict doesn't seem logical to me given the evidence. It really is absurd. But the reality is that being logical and insane doesn't seem to be an obstacle for the Italian Justice system.

Actually, I think they can. Not sure if it would be logical, given the history, but there is a chance that they could throw out most of the charges and convict them for staging a burglary, just as katy_did say. And after writing this, I think it would not be logical at all, but I've seen things like this happening in my country. If I can recall, there are 5 counts against them - murder, sexual assault, theft, staging a crime scene, carrying a knife. Staging burglary seems to be the only one that could mean they didn't witness the murder and got there later and therefore it could mean they get, let's say, a couple of years each if convicted.

Anything other than that(apart from the murder itself) would mean that they get both 15 years for being accesory to murder, I don't think there is a chance for less years if found guilty of that. I can't imagine the court convicting them for theft, unless the judge ignores the evidence.

This is just speculation, though. I think there are two most probable scenarios right now:
1. Guilty of murder.
2. Not enough evidence.
Anything else would be quite difficult to understand and to motivate, even for Italian public opinion and judges.

As to them staging the crime scene - few years ago I've seen people arguing that Amanda and Raffaele staged the burglary beacuse when they discovered the murder, they were still stoned and afraid the police might think they were actully involved. However, if they staged the crime scene and in particular staged a burglary, then it would mean that they knew Guede killed Meredith(his past with breaking and entering) and that would quickly led to being accessory to murder. Given that there is no evidence of them being attached to Guede, no evidence of them being in the murder room, no motive and no reliable witnesses, the only possible thing is that they are clearly innocent and none of the charges brought by the prosecution should be considered serious after the investigation. Unfortunetely, we all know what happened.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, I think they can. Not sure if it would be logical, given the history, but there is a chance that they could throw out most of the charges and convict them for staging a burglary, just as katy_did say. And after writing this, I think it would not be logical at all, but I've seen things like this happening in my country. If I can recall, there are 5 counts against them - murder, sexual assault, theft, staging a crime scene, carrying a knife. Staging burglary seems to be the only one that could mean they didn't witness the murder and got there later and therefore it could mean they get, let's say, a couple of years each if convicted.

Anything other than that(apart from the murder itself) would mean that they get both 15 years for being accesory to murder, I don't think there is a chance for less years if found guilty of that. I can't imagine the court convicting them for theft, unless the judge ignores the evidence.

This is just speculation, though. I think there are two most probable scenarios right now:
1. Guilty of murder.
2. Not enough evidence.
Anything else would be quite difficult to understand and to motivate, even for Italian public opinion and judges.

While I agree with you that compromise verdicts happen all the time. I'm not sure how manslaughter for example might fit into a compromise verdict. That said, I just CANNOT see HOW they could be convicted of staging a burglary to cover up a crime for a stranger. OTHOH, I've tried to apply logic in the past to this process and it didn't work.

Finally, I agree with your two most probable scenarios. Not that Number 1. makes any sense either.

 

[snook1]

Applying logic to any guilty scenario (murder or staging a crime scene, doesn't matter), is extremely difficult. What's even more difficult is coming up with a plausible scenario of how, when, why AK, RS and RG killed Meredith Kercher. No one did it so far and no one will. Ever.

 

[acbytesla]

Applying logic to any guilty scenario (murder or staging a crime scene, doesn't matter), is extremely difficult. What's even more difficult is coming up with a plausible scenario of how, when, why AK, RS and RG killed Meredith Kercher. No one did it so far and no one will. Ever.

You would think it would matter.

And I agree, they will never come up with a plausible scenario that fits the evidence for Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. NEVER, EVER, EVER.

I actually like watching them try. There are ALWAYS LOGICAL HOLES so big your can drive a a freight train through.