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

[Kaosium]

And I might add that this was by some measure the highest-profile investigation in the recent history of the Perugia State Police. And that the interviews in question were being conducted in a new regional police HQ, which - beyond a shadow of a doubt - had the requisite recording equipment readily available. And that the interviews were being conducted at a time of night when it is vanishingly unlikely that there would have been any volume pressure on either officers, rooms or equipment.

As you, I and others have pointed out several times before, recordings of interviews serve to protect BOTH the police and the interviewee. If the police had only the most honourable intentions regarding that night's interviews, then logically they should have been clamouring to record them! After all, what would be the potential downside to the police of not doing so? It would have required minimal extra investment of time, manpower or money, and could serve to protect the police against any possible accusations of malpractice down the line.

So this raises a potentially-interesting point: is it possible to argue that the police might either have a) destroyed any tape of the interviews that might have existed, in order to destroy evidence of police malpractice (this has been argued before of course); or b) deliberately chosen not to record the interviews, in the prior knowledge that it would make life easier for the police not to have such recordings in evidence given the sorts of interviews they intended on conducting that night.....?

Considering everything else they taped before and after that of Raffaele and Amanda, at the Questura and elsewhere, it is difficult to believe they did not record this big interview, and as Strozzi pointed out there's definite indications they did. For one thing you'd think taking a statement from someone who barely spoke Italian they'd need to--just to ensure they didn't miss anything.

It sure is easier to make a false case for guilt when they can pick and choose what they wish to disclose. Like with showing the luminol results but hiding the negative TMBs, or just alllowing people to see some of the DNA work but witholding the EDFs and the results from some samples they didn't want to cough up for whatever reason.

 

[acbytesla]

Did Crini say it was just the disregard of housekeeping no , but this group loves to repeat that.

Yea, but what did he say that was provable at all? Massei said it was just housekeeping. Crini said that Rudy's turd caused a blowup. Of course he has no proof of this. Just some bizarre kind of logic.

For all the so called tension between Amanda and Meredith, they sure did spend a lot of time with each other. The chocolate festival and the concert, only one week before.

Please tell us of an incident where Amanda got mad at Meredith. Just one. For any reason whatsoever.. Please enlighten us about this massive tension between the two. Because neither Italian roommate said word one corroborating this.

 

[Kaosium]

What is known about the taping systems in the Perugia police headquarters?

The headquarters is a very modern building with modern systems, according to Paul Collino, a retired Chicago detective who was a consultant to CBS and who spoke with various police detectives involved in the case and who visited Perugia police headquarters.

I understand that there is audio/video recording equipment built into the interrogation rooms in which Amanda and Raffaele were placed and also in hallway waiting areas. Giobbi referred to being in the "control room" listening to Amanda's screams as she was interrogated, so we know he was there. Mignini referred to being there, too, late in her interrogation watching Amanda's body language on video camera. So these are the guys watching the video screens at the control panel who either forgot or for budget reasons did not press the "record" button?

Who else was probably there? The police chief?

Good remembrance--I'd forgotten that. The ones involved in the interrogation can be derived from the list of twelve who were originally 'eligible' to file calunnia charges against Amanda. The list was available at Candace Demsey's site at one point I seem to recall.

 

[Briars]

Briars,
Thank you for coming on JREF to argue for guilt. The more the better. It helps keep the conversation fresh.

Can you stand to go back to the topic of the phone calls. Sorry, I missed out on the discussion
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems your core claim is that RS stating there was no theft was a “boo boo” and he knew it. RS knows there was no theft because he staged the break in. By telling the police there was no theft, RS is giving himself away. You also just don’t like that RS’s account of the call in Honor Bound does not seem to you to correspond with an accurate objective reporting of the call, and you feel this is an intentional distortion, a lie.

One puzzling thing is that when RS told the police nothing was taken, RS actually knew something was taken, the $400 and the phones. How does this fit with your claim? You can’t be suggesting RS did not know of the theft from Ms Kercher’s room but did know nothing was missing from Filomena’s room, especially as you make a point of RS/AK not calling Ms Kercher after arriving at the cottage. How do you fit this with your claim that RS stating there was no theft was a boo-boo, if, as is so, there was a theft? On the other hand, had RS said it seemed like a theft occurred, that would have implied he must be guilty because how could he have known? Isn’t it damned if he did and damned if he didn’t? Seriously, that’s a question. Putting the money and phones aside, if the break in was staged but a decision had been made not to actually steal anything (which you explain how? btw), what’s the problem with telling the police nothing was stolen. It can’t be your position that the dispatcher would have expected RS to have an inventory of Filomena’s possessions! You’re not building your claim on a distinction between the spoken phrase ‘they did not take anything’ and ‘it doesn’t appear anything was taken’. Are you?

I just don’t see where RS’s statement to the police has any implicative value. I think you are falling into the basic guilter loop. You are forcing the conclusion that RS’s acts because he is guilty and offering your forced conclusion as proof your conclusion is correct.

I'm not clear on your post. He could not have said the phones were missing because he should have assumed they were with an alive Meredith. Is the 400 the money in the locked room? An innocent response to was there a theft ?should have been I don't know. Clearly in his rewrite he fabricates a story of the dispatcher's impatience and the grilling over the possible cut on glass as the reason for saying there was no theft. The other stilted part of the calls was RS's reaction to the dispatcher assuming that the intruder had cut himself , the reason for the blood in the bathroom. After the hangup RS explains he doesn't know if the intruder went from the breakin room to the bathroom and mentions the locked door again , and there is a flatemate who is not here he adds.So the dispatcher naturally says so there is blood near or outside this locked door? RS no only in the bathroom.I agree with vibio it was call that sounded like it was reporting a break in, but with no theft.Maybe the cop might not come over in a hurry over especially because the foolish intruder had cut himself and stolen nothing. Not what RS wanted so hangup to make his purpose for calling clearer.

 

[Skind]

Yeah, hanging up - thereby delaying the police further - was a really good tactic to get the police to come quicker.

Briars, please put some thought into what you type.

 

[Briars]

But it should make you question whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt - and most Italians kiss hello/goodbye

Here are a few more
Raffaele is drinking out a glass - Meredith picks up glass to wash
Meredith's clothes are drying in the flat - Raffaele touches them
Raffaele uses their bathroom, rinses mouth and spits in sink - Meredith touches sink
Raffaele uses towels in their bathroom - Meredith uses towels

There are so many possible ways to transfer DNA if two people have spent time in the same place.

There may be ways but there is so much more to the case. The removal of the bra was related to the post attack moving and staging of the body.An action
believed to be committed by others who participated in the crime. We cannot agree because you don't believe the other evidence and so assume the DNA is innocent. That is o.k and we can't resolve our differences in opinion here.

 

[Strozzi]

The ample amount of his DNA needs a realistic point of transfer. If she cannot be sure that the glove didn't touch the metal you still need a realistic source from where his DNA came from. Unfortunately there was only one source outside the cigarette mixed sample in the entire cottage.Not the mixed cigarette sample not the open door, not the soaked towel so where? A realistic source for that amount involving a possible touch from a glove would be a deliberate plant. Short of this which only your side believes possible I don't see it.

Briars, you got it right! Stefanoni deliberately stroked the bra clasp hook with her contaminated glove. It was a deliberate plant and it was caught on camera! . Case closed! Thank you, Briars.

 

[Briars]

SKind Please try harder. RS hesitates with the statement so he cut himself on the glass and went to the bathroom? NO ANSWER says to Amanda cosa fai? then hangup.Calls back immediately the dispatcher right way is back to the question so the intruder cut himself on the glass and went to the bathroom? Now the composed RS I don't know there is a locked door....

 

[acbytesla]

Again, Briars, why don't you start talking about evidence not metaphysics? None of this crap you keep posting is evidence of anything. They may be curious, but they hardly constitute evidence of anything.

I'll tell you why you don't. It's because there isn't any. No evidence of a burglary being staged, no evidence that they even left Raffaele's apartment. No bloody clothes, no knife that fits the wounds or the bloody stain. No fingerprints, no confirmable footprints or shoe prints in blood. NOTHING.

Instead, you want to talk about why Raffaele wrongly said there wasn't a theft. You talk about tension between Amanda and Meredith, yet there is no proof of that. In fact, the evidence is the opposite. They hung out together, they went to the chocolate festival together, they went to a concert together, Meredith even penned a fake tattoo on Amanda. Not one time can you come up with where Amanda was witnessed getting angry at Meredith.

No evidence, no motive, no crime.

 

[NancyS]

There may be ways but there is so much more to the case. The removal of the bra was related to the post attack moving and staging of the body.An action
believed to be committed by others who participated in the crime. We cannot agree because you don't believe the other evidence and so assume the DNA is innocent. That is o.k and we can't resolve our differences in opinion here.

So what you're saying is that there is 'reasonable doubt' that the DNA on the bra-clasp was not from the murder - but that there is so much other evidence that you still know they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think we may be back to osmosis

 

[Grinder]

There may be ways but there is so much more to the case. The removal of the bra was related to the post attack moving and staging of the body. An action believed to be committed by others who participated in the crime.

Well that's one theory. When you say there is so much more to the case does that mean you concede that the bra isn't credible evidence because of the collection methods and the fact that there are many ways the tiny amount of DNA could get on it?

We cannot agree because you don't believe the other evidence and so assume the DNA is innocent. That is o.k and we can't resolve our differences in opinion here.

I think it is the other way around. You believe anything that could be against them because you are sure they are guilty.

I don't know what happened for sure but I know that the bra clasp "evidence" shouldn't have been allowed in a court of law. They screwed the pooch on it and that's the story.

The PGP deny that the bra and knife are crucial but they are the only things that tie them to the murder night.

That's why the PGP are discussing whether Amanda slept with the coke dealer alleged to be on her phone dialer. They are relying on one article in an Italian tab yet prattle on about something that if true would have nothing to do with the murder.

 

[Strozzi]

. We have not heard much from Machiavelli these days...

Maybe someone out there who's feeding Machiavelli info, has just found out he's blabbing things under the "Machiavelli" pseudo.... I'll admit, that could not be pleasant for M. having his own people criticise him like that...

Gosh, I miss Machiavelli. He is not nearly as dogmatic as some other PGP posters who have been posting here recently.

Maybe Machiavelli is busy helping Mignini's legal team prepare for the January 15 dismissal of the case against Mignini's.

 

[Grinder]

Gosh, I miss Machiavelli. He is not nearly as dogmatic as some other PGP posters who have been posting here recently.

Maybe Machiavelli is busy helping Mignini's legal team prepare for the January 15 dismissal of the case against Mignini's.

He's posting at pmf

 

[Bill Williams]

There may be ways but there is so much more to the case. The removal of the bra was related to the post attack moving and staging of the body.An action
believed to be committed by others who participated in the crime. We cannot agree because you don't believe the other evidence and so assume the DNA is innocent. That is o.k and we can't resolve our differences in opinion here.

You are if nothing else an endless source of factoids.

Here you are caving in on one of those factoids - that Raffaele's DNA is on the clasp through some other means than ccontamination - and you effortlessly slide into another. ...

... this time it is a staging of the body. Guilters have an endless supply of factoids like these to take up the time of readers to places like JREF, to give the impression of "all the other evidence." When this one is debunked you'll slide effortlessly to the next. Sigh.

Suffice it to say that not even Massei, what with all his probablies and rhetorical inventions, failed to mention this. As Crini these days too who would rather go for the more sane theory of the court convicting on the strength of pooh.....

It does not seem to matter to you. You probably read this on McCall's Meredith Wiki, so it must be true.

No matter that Crini won't mention this, because as the prosecutor, he'd then be tasked with placing Knox and/or Sollecito even in the room..... which is difficult because even you have given up on the clasp.......

When do these factoids stop?

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh, I miss Machiavelli. He is not nearly as dogmatic as some other PGP posters who have been posting here recently.

Maybe Machiavelli is busy helping Mignini's legal team prepare for the January 15 dismissal of the case against Mignini's.

When Machiavelli first posted on JREF he gave what amounts to a full biography. Physics, literature and theatre.

He certainly now does not want to correct his claim that Jan 15 is not Mignini's trial for abuse of office.

I just hope that when they iinterrogated Mignini about this they remembered to video tape it and that he was not denied a lawyer.

 

[Briars]

So what you're saying is that there is 'reasonable doubt' that the DNA on the bra-clasp was not from the murder - but that there is so much other evidence that you still know they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think we may be back to osmosis

To be honest the sloppy kiss or tranfer from an unknown source , when no other source was found is a huge stretch I was trying to be kind . Especially when the clasp was twisted and forced off the victim. So apart from a plant which I don't believe it is still a strong piece of evidence.

 

[tsig]

Seriously Briars,

What the hell do you get out of this?

Are you so internally brainwashed that you can't see there isn't "evidence" beyond a reasonable doubt? That while maybe, there is room for suspicion, there is nothing that rises above that. Raffaele's statement that there was no theft isn't evidence, it is reading tea leaves. So is whether Filomena's door is ajar, so is Amanda's behavior at the Questura.

Evidence is Rudy's shoeprints that match the make model and size of the box that Rudy left in his abandoned apartment that he fled to go to Germany. Evidence is his palm print. Evidence is his DNA on and inside Meredith. What you have is things that make you go hmmm, but not thing that says Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith.

Are you so vested in your own opinion that you cannot see this? Are you so afraid of admitting that you were possibly mistaken that you will close your eyes?

I think it's time to take a deep breath and look in the mirror and consider that you, like everyone else is infallible and that it is ok to make mistakes.

Hell, even Edison made a mistake when he dissed alternating current. Einstein made a mistake when he dissed quantum mechanics. Both of them admitted that these were mistakes. Granted, both took a while to do so, but they did. Think about it.

Someone isn't.

 

[Skind]

SKind Please try harder. RS hesitates with the statement so he cut himself on the glass and went to the bathroom? NO ANSWER says to Amanda cosa fai? then hangup.Calls back immediately the dispatcher right way is back to the question so the intruder cut himself on the glass and went to the bathroom? Now the composed RS I don't know there is a locked door....

Yeah, go back and think about it.

Sollecito and Knox are trying to get the police round and blame the whole thing on an imaginary burglar.

They want the police to think the burglar may have cut himself. A guilty Sollecito has oodles of cause to say "Yes, obviously!".

An innocent Sollecito has no way of determining the answer to that question, and it's actually not a reasonable question.

An innocent Sollecito has cause to hesitate, a guilty one does not.

Go away and think about that.

 

[kwill]

To be honest the sloppy kiss or tranfer from an unknown source , when no other source was found is a huge stretch I was trying to be kind . Especially when the clasp was twisted and forced off the victim. So apart from a plant which I don't believe it is still a strong piece of evidence.

It might be a strong piece of evidence if the police hadn't lost it. Or if they'd collected it carefully & with clean gloves and not put it back on the floor. Or if they hadn't destroyed it for future DNA testing. Or if there hadn't been other profiles on it that remain unidentified. Of if they knew how it moved across the room. Or if they'd secured the crime scene. Or if they'd turned over all the testing records.

As it is, though . . . it's just sad reminder of what happened to Meredith. Raffaele had nothing to do with that.

 

[bri1]

To be honest the sloppy kiss or tranfer from an unknown source , when no other source was found is a huge stretch I was trying to be kind . Especially when the clasp was twisted and forced off the victim. So apart from a plant which I don't believe it is still a strong piece of evidence.

There was probably a fair amount of Raff's DNA in the cottage. He'd spent time there on a few occasions over the previous few days. To say ''No other source was found' when we all know how good a job Forensics did in that house, is disingenuous. How many of Amanda's fingerprints were found in the house? If a thorough sampling was done (according to international standards, of course) we would know a bit more about how likely this kind of contamination was. The fact is that Raff tried to break the door down. His DNA was for sure around there. To call this suggestion 'a stretch' is really the stretch. There are at least 6 or 7 (I'd say) plausible scenarios for the DNA on the bra clasp, and only one of them has to be true.
Actually, only one of them has to be a possibility in order to consider the bra clasp (without collection & handling errors, without the 47 days, without the 4 other contributors) as non-probative. According to C.P.P. Article 192, it wouldn't be 'precise'.... For this to be considered probative, there would have to be only one plausible explanation. If there are others, then the DNA on the clasp, doesn't meet the standard of Article 192, and according to Italian law, should therefore not be considered in conjunction with any other piece of evidence.