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

[acbytesla]

Exactly.

I think we may be getting too confused here by the difference between:

a) what we think was most likely to have happened, and/or what the evidence suggests was most likely to have happened; and

b) what - within the bounds of logical reasoning - COULD feasibly have happened.

It's absolutely obvious that it's at least FEASIBLE that Knox was insanely jealous at Meredith's offer of work at Le Chic. It's unlikely, given what we think we know about Knox, but it's LOGICALLY FEASIBLE. And it's similarly logically feasible that in Knox's head this jealous rage became so intense that Knox simply had to punish Meredith. Again, given what we think we know about Knox, this is incredibly, incredibly unlikely. But it's FEASIBLE!!!!

When that girl (forget her name) who shot various school friends from her window in the US back in the 70s was arrested and questioned,she said she'd done it because "I don't like Mondays". People sometimes do horrific things for trivial reasons. We cannot logically say it's IMPOSSIBLE that Knox got enraged at Meredith over the Le Chic gig, and that the rage led to the murder. What we CAN say, however, is that there's absolutely no evidence to support this theory, and that it appears not to fit with what we know of Knox's personality.

From my perspective that goes right out the window when we add the possibilitiy of co-conspirators especially co-conspirators that knew each other so poorly.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you are making good points. The problem with the knife is multiple. Hey, a single crazy person might grab a cooking knife out of a drawer and put in their purse and then go kill someone. But it certainly demonstrates premeditation. Then bringing it home and putting it in back the drawer is really strange but still possible.. But then not washing it considering that you cleaned everything else doesn't make sense. The problem is that you have Amanda not taking a knife from her own drawer, but Raffaele's when there are plenty of knives back at the cottage. Does Amanda take the knife with the full knowledge of Raffaele?

Raffaele: Honey, umm, sweetie, where you going with that big knife?
Amanda: Back to the cottage.
Raffaele: Why?
Amanda: To kill Meredith.
Raffaele: Can't we just watch the end of Amelie first?

Seriously???

But it's logically possible at least!!!

You know and I know that the chances in reality of it ever having happened are extremely small indeed. But strange and inexplicable things DO happen from time to time - and arguably the heightened situation of a murder might make such inexplicable things less vanishingly-unlikely than "normal".

That's not the point though! There are two important points, one of which is critical to the case, and the other of which supports and tends to confirm the first point. The first point is that there is absolutely no evidence that your above scenario took place. The second point is that from what we think we know of Knox and Sollecito - and what we know about human behaviour in general - it's extremely unlikely to see how your scenario could ever have happened.

Therefore, we rationally conclude that a) your scenario has no legal weight, and should not be considered as part of the narrative, and b) in all likelihood, nothing like your scenario ever happened, nor could ever have happened in the same circumstances.

 

[LondonJohn]

From my perspective that goes right out the window when we add the possibilitiy of co-conspirators especially co-conspirators that knew each other so poorly.

AAAGHHHH!!!! I know. I totally agree with you! The circumstances of the murder, and the nature of the alleged participants, means that it's humungously unlikely - to the point of near-impossibility - that it ever happened. And there's no evidence to support the contention that it ever happened.

Again, you're confusing a) what reasonable people think most likely (or even "almost certainly") happened, with b) the entire spectrum of things that MIGHT FEASIBLY have happened.

 

[Dan O.]

What do you mean by approaching police? Are you suggesting they approached with sirens blaring for a prank phone call? You think the police were worried that there was bomb in the toilet?

Do you think the Perugia police are psychics and knew this was a prank before investigating yet they investigated anyways. It's strange that we know almost nothing about this bomb threat event, what time did the police arrive on scene, what time they left. This would be recorded in their police logs and the time is relevant for the Kercher case. Why is this information missing? ... oh wait, I remember now, this is the Perugia police we are talking about. That explains everything.

Are you suggesting he saw the police going to Lana's and threw the phones into her yard as a response?

If you read what I wrote, I said that there were two possible stimuli that could have precipitated the act of tossing the phones. I cannot know any more than that and Rudy isn't talking.

I wouldn't think that he would run as that would call attention to him. He had washed off most of the blood and put a sweatshirt over his pants. but, no, I doubt he approached the cops as he threw phones into the yard they were approaching.

When it comes to being caught literally red handed vs the mere possibility of a black man wearing dark cloths being spotted at night before he could see the approaching cars with bright headlights shining his way. I think he would be off the road and into the bushes without a moments thought.

Highly doubtful he would go in that direction to dump them.

Making his way home through the unoccupied outskirts of the city vs walking through the basketball court where his friends were still playing, past all the partiers waiting to board the disco busses, across the intersection that always has heavy traffic that makes it impossible to hear a woman scream less than two blocks away and up a narrow well light street with nowhere to hide. Rudy tells up which way he went. I think he was lying.

If he threw them that night I always wondered why they could {not?} find prints or DNA on them even after the cops handled them.

Why don't I just throw a possibility out there. I've always maintained that the bloody shoe prints were made with diluted blood. This sets a base time after Rudy has been in the shower. Rudy stands up at the end of the bed facing Meredith's body. He turns around, walks out of the room, down the hall, through the living room, stops at the end of the kitchen table, takes a step towards the front door then turns back into the living room where he stops in front of the couch and paces in place several times. The possibility that I will add is that Rudy picked up his coat where he left it at the end of the table before entering the large bathroom and he stops in front of the couch to put his coat on while thinking about how he is going to get out with the door locked. Rudy returns to Meredith's room where he finds the keys in her purse leaving DNA on the zipper. Then after donning his gloves from the coat pockets, he grabs the phones and stuffs them into the pockets and leaves locking Meredith's bedroom door on the way out.

 

[Grinder]

I, too, think it is reasonable to acknowledge Grinder's point. On the other hand, I think it reasonable not to assume this is something a murderer might do, without having some support for that claim.

Yes, there have been murders and attacks in which the perpetrator grabbed an instrument in a rage, but have there been any in which the enraged perp took the time to put the weapon into a cloth bag first, to use about a half-hour later? That suggests planning that is not in keeping with an enraged state.

Look I'm ONLY saying that it is a weak argument to say killers would never take a weapon, specifically a knife to another location and then bring it back. I'll bet people have taken an axe to kill someone certainly guns.

Please drop the Massei green bag method.

Have there been any murders and attacks in which two people acting together grabbed an instrument and then ran about a mile to use it, keeping the goal of murder in mind the whole time and arriving with that goal still feeling realistic to them? I would like to see some evidence that any murder like that has ever occurred.

I would like to know of an innocent person that couldn't remember what time they ate or if they made love that also called their mother at 4 in the morning (mother time). If I were to find the example would you then think her guilty?

Few of us here believe they killed her but if they did I wouldn't doubt the knife movement.

And really, when it comes down to it, how many murderers do bring their murder weapons home and use them in the kitchen? Your Jeffrey Dahmers are very rare.

That was a little more than bringing a knife home. The police find murder weapons often at the home of the killer. You buy me a drink and dinner for every one I find?

In this sense, I don't necessarily agree it is confirmation bias to say the defendants would not, or even could not have taken the knife in a rage and used it in the murder. Based on the lack of support for the argument so far, it seems reasonable to say that the statistical chances of them doing it appear to be about the same as the chances of them taking any object from Raffaele's house and using that to kill Meredith. The only reason it doesn't look obviously ridiculous to Grinder is because we are talking about a knife and not a fork. But forks can kill, too.

Well fork you . If the police claimed that they had brought a toothpick from Raf's and killed her, I would say impossible.

Isolate the question; is it possible that a knife was moved from the flat to the cottage and back? Clearly the answer is yes.

Do I think it happened that way? No.

 

[acbytesla]

But it's logically possible at least!!!

You know and I know that the chances in reality of it ever having happened are extremely small indeed. But strange and inexplicable things DO happen from time to time - and arguably the heightened situation of a murder might make such inexplicable things less vanishingly-unlikely than "normal".

That's not the point though! There are two important points, one of which is critical to the case, and the other of which supports and tends to confirm the first point. The first point is that there is absolutely no evidence that your above scenario took place. The second point is that from what we think we know of Knox and Sollecito - and what we know about human behaviour in general - it's extremely unlikely to see how your scenario could ever have happened.

Therefore, we rationally conclude that a) your scenario has no legal weight, and should not be considered as part of the narrative, and b) in all likelihood, nothing like your scenario ever happened, nor could ever have happened in the same circumstances.

But this scenario grows exponentially less possible with each person you add into the murder. Add Raffaele who Amanda has been dating for all of one week. OK, they were hot and heavy that week...but still, just a week. But how does Rudy come into this scenario?

We go from a simple murder involving a burglar or a male rapist. Happens all the time. To a scenario where a 20 year old girl who has shown no propensity for violence ..who while may be socially a little tone deaf actually seems very level headed grabbing a cooking knife from her very, very, new boyfriend's apartment, even though she knows there is about a dozen knives that will do the trick at the cottage. Even if you think that Amanda could have manipulated Raffaele who has also demonstrated being cool and level headed in joining him in this premeditated murder, why would Rudy have joined in?

Everything about this murder scenario is a joke. It wouldn't even work as a possible script on Law and Order. NOBODY WOULD BUY IT.

 

[Skind]

Yes, but Vecchiotti is the court expert, she also has the trial file. She is supposed to access it, at least. Including the file at the preliminery judge's office. Since she is paid to reaserch it and she quotes it.
But Vecciotti apparently doesn't know what is already in the case file.
She doesn't even know what is said in the transcript (which she quotes).

Vecchiotti also says Stefanoni was cooperative, implying she send her all what she has requested.
Now, figure out this situation: Vecchiotti has read the Oct. 2008 transcripts, from the transcripts she knows that Stefanoni (as by the transcripts) declares that she always did negative controls on all tests; and also declares that she will deposit the negative controls at the clerk's office. Vecchiotti has this documeentation, has these declarations, and she receives from Stefanoni documentation without negative controls. How is it possible that she does not write back to Stefanoni, asking her: could you please send me the negative controls as well, since you declared you have them?
How is it possible that she receives documentation which omits negative controls, which Stefanoni declared to have done, she asks for them and doesn't receive them, and she calls Stefanoni "cooperative"?
And how is it possible that she does not mention in her report "here Stefanoni declares she made the negative controls" while "here she refused/failed to provide them" so "here there is a contradiction by Stefanoni"?

The answer is simple.

Stefanoni declared - but did nothing to demonstrate - that she had the controls. She claimed intent to deposit them, but no-one has provided any documentation indicating that they were actually deposited. No docket number, no reciept, no deposition reference, nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nil.

Vechiotti asked her for the files related to the testing, which would include the controls. Vechiotti did not recieve the controls.

The only logical inference at this point is that the controls did not exist and that Stefanoni did not do them, otherwise, why were they not in the evidence files, or the files submitted for review? It's a matter of severe professional misconduct in any profession outside of Italy to fail to submit the enitirety of a piece of work for review when you know that work is under review.

In other countries, case reviews can include everything written about the case, even handwritten scribbles - if it's related to the case , it's in.

Stefanoni's trust of Vecchiotti is irrelevant. Stefanoni's responsibility is to show her work, not try to trick another person into thinking she'd done work she presented zero evidence of doing. Saying "they're in the files" is worthless when you can easily re-produce them or signpost on to their exact location.

Stefanoni had no professional reason not to prepare to hand over the entirety of her case files to C+V before they even requested them.

No reason at all.

If you assume this point of view, or even that Stefanoni may just have had some suspecion, you see there is no reason why Stefanoni should provide non-requested material which is already part of the trial documentation.

The reason is that there is a court appointed expert reviewing her work. Stefanonis interest is irrelevant at this point. You're essentially arguing that anyone hiding poor work should be allowed to hide it on the basis that it is in their interest to hide their poor work.

Your arguement is not only illogical, but immoral.

 

[acbytesla]

AAAGHHHH!!!! I know. I totally agree with you! The circumstances of the murder, and the nature of the alleged participants, means that it's humungously unlikely - to the point of near-impossibility - that it ever happened. And there's no evidence to support the contention that it ever happened.

Again, you're confusing a) what reasonable people think most likely (or even "almost certainly") happened, with b) the entire spectrum of things that MIGHT FEASIBLY have happened.

Well, I guess that is the problem. There are senseless crimes...no doubt. But mass delusion?? Even that happens..one just needs to look at NAZI Germany, Jonestown, the Mansons. But even all that is much more understandable than this.

It's a puzzle where NONE OF THE PIECES FIT. Not unless you say Rudy did it alone or with one of his long time buddies. But I'm convinced Rudy did it alone.

It's a sad, boring, even pedestrian crime. If people demonstrated even the slightest bit of sanity around this case, NONE of us..well except say Mary or Kaypea wouldn't even be able to recall Amanda's name today.

 

[Grinder]

I think you are making good points. The problem with the knife is multiple. Hey, a single crazy person might grab a cooking knife out of a drawer and put in their purse and then go kill someone. But it certainly demonstrates premeditation. Then bringing it home and putting it in back the drawer is really strange but still possible.. But then not washing it considering that you cleaned everything else doesn't make sense. The problem is that you have Amanda not taking a knife from her own drawer, but Raffaele's when there are plenty of knives back at the cottage. Does Amanda take the knife with the full knowledge of Raffaele?

Why do you keep saying it wasn't cleaned? Of course, had they returned it to the drawer it would have been after cleaning. The theory is that they missed a tiny piece of non-blood DNA, not that they didn't clean it.

 

[acbytesla]

Why do you keep saying it wasn't cleaned? Of course, had they returned it to the drawer it would have been after cleaning. The theory is that they missed a tiny piece of non-blood DNA, not that they didn't clean it.

I know what the theory is Grinder.

I'm sorry, it's not that hard to clean and remove any and all DNA. A simple soak in HOT WATER AND SOAP would remove all traces of DNA. After all, they were magical cleaners Grinder.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder;have you seen any of Amanda's interviews lately,does she not display an extraordinary lack of bitterness to what has happened to her to her family at the hands of these criminals,I just looked at one this evening where she talked about her future as a writer what she hoped to achieve in the future,Mignini Comodi Stefanoni and Napoleoni should have to do four years in solitary confinement for what they did to this innocent girl
Despite a six year campaign by the Kerchers through Maresca to put her in solitary confinement in a foreign prison to destroy her family financially,she ignores all of this and offers the Kercher's the hand of friendship,because she remembers what a great friendship she had with Meredith.

Can you point to anything Amanda said or done that leads you to think she would feel any resentment to Meredith over a two bit part time job with a creep like Lumumba,because that is what I think Lumumba is,and he did not just become that since his arrest he probably always was a slimy little opportunist

Billy if she were guilty do you think she would be showing bitterness? If she had been mad as hell with Meredith about the only job she had, do ypu think she would ever mention it?

If she were guilty do you think she would be acting differently?



Lumumba had a good reputation for character. Certainly Patrick was brought into this because of Amanda's statement. I happen to believe that it was suggested by the police but still he might reasonably wish she hadn't made it. She herself has lamented that she should have been stronger, but take her word?

 

[LondonJohn]

***EXTREME IDIOT/BIAS ALERT***

A pro-guilt commentator has posted a commentary piece whose central assertion is as follows:

1) Guede wrote in his diary while he was on the run in Germany in November 2007 about "blood in the hallway".

2) But the police didn't discover any alleged blood evidence in the hallway until December 2007, and it remained essentially invisible until then - therefore

3) Guede must have "known in advance" that there was blood in the bathroom - otherwise why would he have mentioned it at all? And therefore

4) There was at one time more blood in the hallway than was apparent from 1pm on 2nd November (i.e. the time the body was found, and therefore......

5) There MUST have been a clean-up of blood at some time between Guede's "recollection" of it and 1pm on 2nd November

And of course the attendant implication is that it was Knox and Sollecito who conducted this "now-proven" clean up....


BUT............................................

Guede was demonstrably reading press reports of the crime while he was on the run. He was reading reports such as these, perhaps (and their even more embellished versions in the Italian press):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-die-refusing-extreme-sexual-experiences.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-British-student-butchered-naked-Italy.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/world/europe/13perugia.html

From reading these sorts of florid reports (which both predate and postdate Knox's/Sollecito's arrest, but which were all online while Guede was on the run in Germany), it's not exactly hard to conjure up an image of the entire area of the cottage being awash in blood. Even someone with no connection to the murder might have imagined that there was visible blood in the corridor, if they read these sorts of reports and knew the layout of the cottage.

So it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Guede must have been privy to some sort of "inside knowledge" about lots of blood in the hallway,simply on the basis that he referred to it in his diary (a diary which, let's not forget, was also a conscious effort from Guede to distance himself from the murder).

In short, the person who wrote this article is either incredibly stupid, or blinded by personal and/or groupthink bias, or both. Dreadful.


PS: Reading reports like those I linked above reminds me again just how shockingly inaccurate and anti-Knox/Sollecito those early reports could be. Horrible.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

But no it's quite the contrary. Vecchiotti says she did not specifically request them. She states instead that she asked repeatedly... the files related to the testings.
NOT the negative controls.
Vecchiotti says "no". She has a contorted way of saying no, instead of saying that explicitly, she just talks about what she requested. Which, she admits, was not specifically the negative controls.

She never made a specific mention about the negative controls in her e-mails.
It is also clear from her subsequent answer "I don't see why they should not be included".

Let's assume for a moment your scenario is valid. You are stating the files were deposited into the file twice and Vecchiotti either missed them or didn't look for them.

So here is Comodi's perfect chance to completely discredit Vecchiotti by whipping out either the chancellery record showing they were, in fact, deposited in October 2008 or the transcript showing it, and she doesn't do it?

This would mean Comodi is a complete idiot.

 

[Grinder]

Do you think the Perugia police are psychics and knew this was a prank before investigating yet they investigated anyways. It's strange that we know almost nothing about this bomb threat event, what time did the police arrive on scene, what time they left. This would be recorded in their police logs and the time is relevant for the Kercher case. Why is this information missing? ... oh wait, I remember now, this is the Perugia police we are talking about. That explains everything.

I don't believe they were concerned that the phone call warning of a bomb in the toilet was taken seriously. I doubt they went at top speed with siren blaring.

Why don't I just throw a possibility out there. I've always maintained that the bloody shoe prints were made with diluted blood. This sets a base time after Rudy has been in the shower. Rudy stands up at the end of the bed facing Meredith's body. He turns around, walks out of the room, down the hall, through the living room, stops at the end of the kitchen table, takes a step towards the front door then turns back into the living room where he stops in front of the couch and paces in place several times. The possibility that I will add is that Rudy picked up his coat where he left it at the end of the table before entering the large bathroom and he stops in front of the couch to put his coat on while thinking about how he is going to get out with the door locked. Rudy returns to Meredith's room where he finds the keys in her purse leaving DNA on the zipper. Then after donning his gloves from the coat pockets, he grabs the phones and stuffs them into the pockets and leaves locking Meredith's bedroom door on the way out.

Okay. When did he step on the bath mat? Not a challenge as the rest is kinda what I think. He walked out and left shoe prints and then returned. He didn't just leave as the PGP say.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Yes of course, but it's in Italian, and I didn't translate it.

That's okay. I will try to translate it. I need the experience with Italian so I can buy the house I desperately want to buy over there (which is for sale now, so I need to get studying.)

 

[Grinder]

I know what the theory is Grinder.

I'm sorry, it's not that hard to clean and remove any and all DNA. A simple soak in HOT WATER AND SOAP would remove all traces of DNA. After all, they were magical cleaners Grinder.

Perhaps but I'd use bleach as well.

Why did you keep repeating that they put the uncleaned knife in the drawer?

The same reason Candace said the DNA turned out to be starch? Sounds better?

 

[LondonJohn]

But this scenario grows exponentially less possible with each person you add into the murder. Add Raffaele who Amanda has been dating for all of one week. OK, they were hot and heavy that week...but still, just a week. But how does Rudy come into this scenario?

We go from a simple murder involving a burglar or a male rapist. Happens all the time. To a scenario where a 20 year old girl who has shown no propensity for violence ..who while may be socially a little tone deaf actually seems very level headed grabbing a cooking knife from her very, very, new boyfriend's apartment, even though she knows there is about a dozen knives that will do the trick at the cottage. Even if you think that Amanda could have manipulated Raffaele who has also demonstrated being cool and level headed in joining him in this premeditated murder, why would Rudy have joined in?

Everything about this murder scenario is a joke. It wouldn't even work as a possible script on Law and Order. NOBODY WOULD BUY IT.

Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy. I'm obviously no good at explaining my point. Permit me to try again:

OK. I completely agree that it's MASSIVELY UNLIKELY that this happened - for all the reasons you list and more.

But....that's....not....the...point. *breathes deeply a few times*

Here, let me try this: It's massively unlikely that I would go to a catwalk show, get in backstage, finding Candace Swanepoel (google her ), telling her I wanted sex with her right away, her enthusiastically agreeing, us having sex in a deserted area backstage, me saying "hey Candace, even though we've only just met and had sex, how about joining me in a thrill kill of a homeless man down underneath Waterloo Station?", her agreeing enthusiastically, saying it was something she'd always secretly fancied doing, the two of us running, high on passion and adrenaline, to Waterloo and strangling a homeless old man in a dark unobserved alleyway.

Can you see perhaps that the above scenario is SIMULTANEOUSLY both

1) Unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility, and

2) Logically feasible - in that it could conceivably happen and is not an absolute impossibility or entirely outside the absolute boundaries of reason.


Does that help at all? I hope it does, cos I don't really want to have to try to explain it again!

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's assume for a moment your scenario is valid. You are stating the files were deposited into the file twice and Vecchiotti either missed them or didn't look for them.

So here is Comodi's perfect chance to completely discredit Vecchiotti by whipping out either the chancellery record showing they were, in fact, deposited in October 2008 or the transcript showing it, and she doesn't do it?

This would mean Comodi is a complete idiot.

If my memory serves correctly, isn't what happened something along the following lines:

In Hellmann's court, Vechiotti said she had never received the negative controls. Comodi butted in to say that this was all ridiculous because the negative controls were in fact deposited with the courts during one of the very early preliminary hearings.

Hellmann said something like "OK, fine, we'll get someone to pull the relevant document out from the file dating from that time period". Someone looked, but couldn't in fact find any such negative controls in the court file from that time period or any other time.

Comodi said something like "Well, we DID lodge them with the court, but here's a copy anyhow if you can't manage to find them", and handed over a smudgy photocopy that - under closer examination - did not appear to be a genuine negative control run from the right overall experimental run.

Is this anything near an accurate recollection?

 

[acbytesla]

Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy. I'm obviously no good at explaining my point. Permit me to try again:

OK. I completely agree that it's MASSIVELY UNLIKELY that this happened - for all the reasons you list and more.

But....that's....not....the...point. *breathes deeply a few times*

Here, let me try this: It's massively unlikely that I would go to a catwalk show, get in backstage, finding Candace Swanepoel (google her ), telling her I wanted sex with her right away, her enthusiastically agreeing, us having sex in a deserted area backstage, me saying "hey Candace, even though we've only just met and had sex, how about joining me in a thrill kill of a homeless man down underneath Waterloo Station?", her agreeing enthusiastically, saying it was something she'd always secretly fancied doing, the two of us running, high on passion and adrenaline, to Waterloo and strangling a homeless old man in a dark unobserved alleyway.

Can you see perhaps that the above scenario is SIMULTANEOUSLY both

1) Unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility, and

2) Logically feasible - in that it could conceivably happen and is not an absolute impossibility or entirely outside the absolute boundaries of reason.

Does that help at all? I hope it does, cos I don't really want to have to try to explain it again!

No, I can see that as possible. Totally!!! I mean why not?? She's probably a freak.but it's actually even crazier than that. The two of you would get Giselle Bundchen to join you.


This damn story drives me CRAZY. Especially when the answer is so simple and staring everyone down.

I want to smack the guilters and the Italians upside the head and say "MACFLY, MACFLY THINK, THINK!!!!"

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps but I'd use bleach as well.

Why did you keep repeating that they put the uncleaned knife in the drawer?

The same reason Candace said the DNA turned out to be starch? Sounds better?

Because, the weren't worried about being considered a suspect for a murder that they didn't commit and weren't soaking the cooking knife after every use.

Believe me, when you murder someone you clean the murder weapon.