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

[Grinder]

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't know what was going on in Raffaele's mind. That said, I don't see how it can be interpreted as a suspicious, unless you are of a suspicious mind. You wouldn't give it a moments notice if Meredith wasn't dead behind that bedroom door. At worst, you could say it was curious. It certainly isn't proof of anything. Just an unanswered question that is boring.

Suspicious, not proof. Did I say it was proof of anything? No.

What could he have responded to 911 that would be suspicious for you, within reason?

Now if Meredith wasn't dead then there would be no reason that the robbery was staged so there would be no suspicions about anything. The only reason that there was a theory of a staged break-in is that Meredith was murdered. Without the murder the break-in would hardly be investigated. Hell if they had caught Rudy in there, they would have just sent him off to Milan.

Now, obviously we have a different take and I doubt either of us are going to change the others mind. One of is all right and one of us is all wrong. You can decide for yourself. I'll do the same.

I decided. You're wrong to say that his answer wasn't suspicious to a reasonable person under the circumstances.

GTG to the store to get some supplies. Have a great Thanksgiving Grinder. Almost time for football and turkey!!!

Hope Flynn plays well.

 

[Grinder]

No it wasn't. Only a Mickey Mouse police force would interpret the statement as anything other than what it was.

The thing is, they were completely out of their depth in investigating a murder, and they were looking to "solve" the crime the easy way from the off. Within days, the idiot police were wrongly identifying Meredith's image on CCTV as Amanda returning to the cottage when she insisted she hadn't, and criticising her for not crying at the "right" times and eating pizza.

Maybe it's possible to argue that they didn't set out to frame people they knew to be innocent, but at the very least they were totally reckless as to whether their chosen suspects really had anything at all to put them in the frame.

Any police force anywhere would view his comment as suspicious all things considered. I need not defend the force or the rest of their work to say the answer was suspicious.

Now the video mis-identification has nothing to do with whether or not it was reasonable to view his statement as suspicious.

Do you think they altered the 911 call in order to frame them?

 

[acbytesla]

I decided. You're wrong to say that his answer wasn't suspicious to a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Somehow, I knew that would be your decision. Funny, I decided too.

 

[MDDVS]

Any police force anywhere would view his comment as suspicious all things considered. I need not defend the force or the rest of their work to say the answer was suspicious.

Now the video mis-identification has nothing to do with whether or not it was reasonable to view his statement as suspicious.

Do you think they altered the 911 call in order to frame them?

Why is the comment suspicious?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's important to note that even Mignini and Comodi conceded that the kitchen knife was not a match for the outline on the bedsheet. For pete's sake, that's why they invented (with no proof) the "two-knife" theory.

Now the two knife theory is gone.

CoulsdonUK - how many times do Italian prosecutors get to reinvent this crime, before someone admits the two students are innocent?

 

[Grinder]

Clearly Crini doesn't cook and prepare meals. 36I is exactly where one would grip a knife and one of the most likely places to find the DNA of someone who is using the knife. In reality, Amanda's DNA on the handle and on the part of the blade near the handle is only proof that Amanda had used the knife...to cut bread or celery or parsley or chicken or beef or pork..etc...etc. etc.

Exactly where is 36-I?

But on November 6, a tiny speck of matter, that weighs a couple trillionth of a gram, is going to make a sound like a kettle drum. It is evidence trace number 36-i. As Crimesider reported in September, trace 36-i is located on the blade of a butcher knife that was found in the kitchen drawer of Sollecito's apartment in Perugia in 2007. Italian prosecutors have said it is the murder weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.

I don't usually put my fingers on the blade. I use the handle. Now of course I would also use the handle to murder someone. It is most likely she got her DNA on the blade while cleaning it or putting it away.

 

[Poppy1016]

Exactly where is 36-I?

But on November 6, a tiny speck of matter, that weighs a couple trillionth of a gram, is going to make a sound like a kettle drum. It is evidence trace number 36-i. As Crimesider reported in September, trace 36-i is located on the blade of a butcher knife that was found in the kitchen drawer of Sollecito's apartment in Perugia in 2007. Italian prosecutors have said it is the murder weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.

I don't usually put my fingers on the blade. I use the handle. Now of course I would also use the handle to murder someone. It is most likely she got her DNA on the blade while cleaning it or putting it away.

Shouldn't trace DNA from Raf also be on the handle?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A yummi tweet for Thanksgiving

Therefore we are discussing the only new ideas put forth, and the theoretical dispute over Guede's defecation is one of them. The other is Crini's claim about the recent test apparently showing Amanda's DNA on the knife, which comports with an earlier finding no one has ever disputed. He says this is proof it was the murder weapon, because the DNA was in a place where it wouldn't be found if she used the knife to prepare food, but would be found if she used it as a murder weapon.

I say this is pure garbage being tossed out by a lawyer who doesn't have a case. My view reflects the consensus of people here who have studied the case. If the consensus is wrong, and we are all missing something, please present your argument. Explain why we should give serious thought to Crini's reasoning, as opposed to the authority and power that stand behind him, which we all recognize.

Crini's assertion (via a tweet by Yummi: "Knox’s DNA between the blade and the handle (36-i) is very significant. It’s not from sweat or contact.") is pure, scientific nonsense. DNA cannot tell you what tissue is arose from. Period. For him to say what he did is an insult to good forensic science.
EDT
If you do a Google image search for Chef's knife, or something similar , you will see images of people holding the knife at the base of the blade.

 

[Grinder]

Shouldn't trace DNA from Raf also be on the handle?

Yes. I think he has said he never used that knife.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly where is 36-I?

But on November 6, a tiny speck of matter, that weighs a couple trillionth of a gram, is going to make a sound like a kettle drum. It is evidence trace number 36-i. As Crimesider reported in September, trace 36-i is located on the blade of a butcher knife that was found in the kitchen drawer of Sollecito's apartment in Perugia in 2007. Italian prosecutors have said it is the murder weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.

I don't usually put my fingers on the blade. I use the handle. Now of course I would also use the handle to murder someone. It is most likely she got her DNA on the blade while cleaning it or putting it away.

36I is on the blade next to the handle.

See this link on how to hold a cooking knife
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/knifeskills/ss/knifegrips.htm

 

[acbytesla]

Shouldn't trace DNA from Raf also be on the handle?

You would think, but put a knife in hot soapy water and you've destroyed whatever DNA that was on the knife. You could eliminate all the DNA from a knife in less than a second.

 

[Antony]

Any police force anywhere would view his comment as suspicious all things considered. I need not defend the force or the rest of their work to say the answer was suspicious.

No it isn't. You give the PGP too much credit in their thinking

Now the video mis-identification has nothing to do with whether or not it was reasonable to view his statement as suspicious.

No, but it's got a lot to do with the same joke cops looking for an easy "solving" of the crime.

Do you think they altered the 911 call in order to frame them?

Sorry don't understand what you're asking. Do you mean they altered Raff's words to make the statement seem more suspicious?

 

[Grinder]

You would think, but put a knife in hot soapy water and you've destroyed whatever DNA that was on the knife. You could eliminate all the DNA from a knife in less than a second.

happen to have a cite for the above?

 

[kwill]

Any police force anywhere would view his comment as suspicious all things considered. I need not defend the force or the rest of their work to say the answer was suspicious.

Good grief.

What Raffaele said (there's nothing missing) is "suspicious" for about a minute and a half. The only thing that makes it suspicious is that it seems as if he could be claiming knowledge he couldn't/shouldn't have.

But thinking about this for 45 seconds gets you to these possibilities:
1. He doesn't really know anything, he's just excited and talking without choosing his words carefully.
2. He's guilty and he knows that things were taken, but he's lying about that.
3. He's guilty and he thinks he knows that nothing was taken, so he's telling the truth.

Now for the other 45 seconds. If he's guilty and has just committed a bloody murder and staged a break-in and cleaned up everything but Rudy's DNA, he does not call the police in the first place. He and Amanda are off enjoying themselves in Guibbio (or whatever that place is called).

So yes. Suspicious for a moment, then easily dismissed by rational people.

 

[Samson]

Well, they work at a law office so they just called a lawyer they knew and didn't have to pay from the first moment. As I understand it, they were more concerned about their lease obligations and responsibilities.

Did they bring the lawyer(s) to interviews with the police? I don't think so.

At the very beginning I'm most surprised that Raf didn't have an attorney

This case is intriguing to many with no connection to it. Filomena, Laura, the English friends and the boys downstairs, say a dozen in total could be expected to analyse all the evidence with huge interest. One or more would conclude innocence from a statistical perspective. That they appear to remain silent puzzles me.

 

[Grinder]

36I is on the blade next to the handle.

See this link on how to hold a cooking knife
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/knifeskills/ss/knifegrips.htm

Well if that's where 36 I was then Crini's argument should be destroyed by the defense.

Bread knives are held differently but the flat knife wasn't a true bread knife even if that's what it was used for.

Now since Amanda is of German heritage I think this is a better demo and the hand isn't on the blade as in your example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9MHR27_gc

 

[Grinder]

This case is intriguing to many with no connection to it. Filomena, Laura, the English friends and the boys downstairs, say a dozen in total could be expected to analyse all the evidence with huge interest. One or more would conclude innocence from a statistical perspective. That they appear to remain silent puzzles me.

Agreed. Probably worried they would be sued or prosecuted.

 

[Dan O.]

Do we have a transcript or recording of the actual conversation?

We have both including the translation to English. What we don't have is direct documentation of the conversation between Amanda and Raffaele or the call to his sister.

While it could be suspicious if we were privy to exactly what was said between all parties, I have yet to see any exact transcripts of how this conversation took place that would enable me to draw such nefarious conclusions.

But I admit I come from a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, so I tend to give them the benefit of doubt, especially considering the language barrier and extreme likelihood of misunderstandings taking place.

The only indication of guilt is the claim after the fact by the prosecution and echoed by the guilters. There has been no evidence presented that this is in fact evidence of guilt. It's ludicrous on it's face that someone staging a burglery would tell the police that nothing was stollen because there is no conceivable advantage to do so. If anyone disagrees then let's hear their argument as to how such a statement would benifit the guilty.

 

[acbytesla]

Good grief.

What Raffaele said (there's nothing missing) is "suspicious" for about a minute and a half. The only thing that makes it suspicious is that it seems as if he could be claiming knowledge he couldn't/shouldn't have.

But thinking about this for 45 seconds gets you to these possibilities:
1. He doesn't really know anything, he's just excited and talking without choosing his words carefully.
2. He's guilty and he knows that things were taken, but he's lying about that.
3. He's guilty and he thinks he knows that nothing was taken, so he's telling the truth.

Now for the other 45 seconds. If he's guilty and has just committed a bloody murder and staged a break-in and cleaned up everything but Rudy's DNA, he does not call the police in the first place. He and Amanda are off enjoying themselves in Guibbio (or whatever that place is called).

So yes. Suspicious for a moment, then easily dismissed by rational people.

Excellent analysis Kwill. I happen to love how people are over analyzing every sentence.

 

[MDDVS]

"Nothing (from what I can see/have been told) was stolen.

Is it really suspicious?