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

[acbytesla]

Great point ACbyTesla,
Heck, they could have buried the body in the valley below that Briars often mentions.
Or they could have parked Raff's Audi in the driveway and carried Meredith's body outside and put it in the trunk, drove out on that trip to Gubbio, stopped somewhere along the way in the early morning hours of that holiday weekend, with probably not much traffic around and buried the body...

But they didn't.

Instead, they sounded the alarm, called the police, showed everyone what they found, and after wearing the same underwear for a coupla days, Raff went out with Amanda, as she was probably scared to travel alone around town at the time after Meredith's murder and bought some plain red underwear with a cow cartoon on it. Pricey $$, those chonies*, but clean at least!
RW


* - http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/205992/what-are-chonies-

My question RW is, how do you go from a chaste kiss, a yoga split, sexy underwear and a discussion of whether Meredith locked or didn't lock her door to concluding that anyone is guilty of murder? How does one make that leap?

It's like saying a+b=c is a true or false statement. You simply have no way to know.

 

[RWVBWL]

Not even questioned yet by police investigators, Rudy Guede flees the country...

My question RW is, how do you go from a chaste kiss, a yoga split, sexy underwear and a discussion of whether Meredith locked or didn't lock her door to concluding that anyone is guilty of murder? How does one make that leap?

It's like saying a+b=c is a true or false statement. You simply have no way to know.

Hi ACbyTesla,
Funny how Rudy Guede,
the man who left his fingerprints, his palm prints, his shoeprints, and his DNA inside of Meredith Kercher, went out dancing that night+the next 1 too, must have gotten nervous+paranoid without even having the police questioning him, and left town, even fleeing the country, (as did his bro Kokomani?), while Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito stayed in Perugia to help the police solve a horrible murder which obviously made The News!

I wrote this a coupla years ago, right after Amanda+Raff were set free, and yet it still baffles me:
Hi all,
I still learn of new tidbits of info in this case we've been discussng.

Digging into some of Frank Sfarzo's old posts a moment ago,
I found out that on Sunday, Nov 4, they went out with a friend and watched a soccer game.
A soccer game? I'd never even heard of this.

In my mind, what with all of the police questioning that they had been going thru, any guilty person involved in a murder would have been extremely paranoid when dealing with the police. If guilty, shouldn't they have spent the time alone together rehashin' their alibi's, instead of watching a soccer match? Yet 2 days after Meredith was found dead, A+R go watch a soccer game. Hmmm....

Heck, the next morning, Amanda even went back to school!
Who goes back to class after a holiday weekend when you killed your housemate?

Later on that evening, they then went out to nearby friend of Raffaele's to have dinner with, trying to regain a sense of normalacy, I believe that it was. And even got high...

All the while, these 2 still made themselves available for further police questioning, even when they were stoned(!) and for some reason did not lawyer up. Hardly the actions of 2 young people who participated in their 1st murder, in my humble opinion.

I'm so glad that they are free!
See ya, RW

 

[acbytesla]

Hi ACbyTesla,
Funny how Rudy Guede,
the man who left his fingerprints, his palm prints, his shoeprints, and his DNA inside of Meredith Kercher, soon left town, while Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito stayed in Perugia to help the police solve a horrible murder which obviously made The News!

I wrote this a coupla years ago, right after Amanda+Raff were set free, and yet it still baffles me:
Hi all,
I still learn of new tidbits of info in this case we've been discussng.

Digging into some of Frank Sfarzo's old posts a moment ago,
I found out that on Sunday, Nov 4, they went out with a friend and watched a soccer game. A soccer game? I'd never even heard of this.

In my mind, what with all of the police questioning that they had been going thru, any guilty person involved in a murder would have been extremely paranoid when dealing with the police. If guilty, shouldn't they have spent the time alone together rehashin' their alibi's, instead of watching a soccer match? Yet 2 days after Meredith was found dead, A+R go watch a soccer game. Hmmm....

Heck, the next morning, Amanda even went back to school!
Who goes back to class after a holiday weekend when you killed your housemate?

Later on that evening, they then went out to nearby friend of Raffaele's to have dinner with, trying to regain a sense of normalcy, I believe that it was. And even got high...

All the while, these 2 still made themselves available for further police questioning, even when they were stoned(!) and for some reason did not lawyer up. Hardly the actions of 2 young people who participated in their 1st murder, in my humble opinion.

I'm so glad that they are free!
See ya, RW

Me too RW.
Guilters take everyday events and turn them into something nefarious.

Machiavelli keeps calling these things evidence? Evidence of what? That Amanda didn't want to wear the same underwear day after day after day?

Evidence proves something. None of these things prove anything.

 

[Supernaut]

Raffaele wrote (p. 31), Filomena was asked about the locked door. "Filomena told him no, absolutely not, unless Meredith was away in England. I didn't hear her say this because I was busy repeating the question in English for Amanda. And, unfortunately, I misunderstood Amanda's answer. I thought Amanda said that, yes, Meredith sometimes kept the door closed, even when she was in town. But that was not right; Amanda said exactly the same thing as Filomena. Because of this translation error..."

Amanda wrote (p. 71), {quote}
"Are you sure nothing was stolen?"
"Not as far as we can tell," I said. "But Meredith's door is locked. I'm really worried.
"Well is that unusual," they asked.
I tried to explain that she locked it sometimes, when she was changing clothes or was leaving town for the weekend, but Filomena whelled around and shouted, "She never locks her door!" {endquote}

November would have been only the second time Meredith was due to pay a month's rent since she had moved in (in September).

Whether or not she habitually locked her door when she went out, she sure as hell would have done on the 1st of November, given she had several 100 Euro stashed in a drawer in her room. Only an idiot wouldn't, and I don't believe she was an idiot.

IOW, it's likely that anyone trying her door that day, while she was at her friends' place, would have found it locked.

 

[Supernaut]

Holiday weekend coming up,
all the boyz downstairs are outta town, including the 1 Meredith dates.

The 2 local gals, whom Mez was renting from, are also outta town.
The American chick has been stayin' at her new boyfriends pad for the last week,
since that classical music concert they went to together.

The girlz flat will be empty for the 1st time.

Meredith just withdrew the rent $$$ to give to Filomena.
It's in her bedroom.

Question:
Do you think that Meredith locked her bedroom door when she went over to Robyn's pad to hang out with her, Sophie and the other girlz, eat some pizza, look at Halloween pix, borrow a history book and watch a movie?


I'd bet ya $$$ she did.
As I'm sure she probably did previously too...
Who doesn't when living with others?

Weird - we often seem to chime in to make almost exactly the same point, RWVBWL!

 

[Strozzi]

Nice post up above Kwill,

But Sexy underwear?

No, Amanda didn’t buy a red g-string a couple of days after the murder for a night of wild sex with Raff,
just a pair of red bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on them. IIRC, it was that time of the month, right?

Sexy underwear?
Sure Guilters, sure...

This is the first time I read that there was a cartoon cow on Amanda's underwear (thank you RWVBWL for rememberng this important detail! ). I also remember that, according to Raffale, when he was interrogated on the night of Nov 5/6 the police referred to Amanda as "that cow". Now I must wonder if there is a subliminal message in all this? Maybe it is related to how urgently Amanda wanted the police to bust open Meredith's door. Or maybe Laura had a cow decoration on a garment and it is proof that young Amanda looked up to her. I better consult my dieterology textbook.

 

[Strozzi]

Weird - we often seem to chime in to make almost exactly the same point, RWVBWL!

Supernaut, I noticed it too. There is an easy explanation for that. RWVBWL love kittens.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hiya Strozzi,
I'd read of what Amanda Knox had bought by reading her book "Waiting to Be Heard",
and yet people, especially Guilters, still call it Sexy Underwear!
Sure...

Heya Supernaut,
I'd recently read your post (here or elsewhere?-I forget!)
where-in you were the 1st to mention that I've ever read that surely Meredith would have locked her bedroom door when headin' over to Robyn's that night. Good point!
RW

 

[RWVBWL]

Have a look at the photograph I posted above, it shows the area below the cottage, surely a much better place to hide a body then by simply locking the bedroom door, calling the police to come over and have a look inside, and then not go on that planned day trip to Gubbio, right?

 

[Strozzi]

Hiya Strozzi,
I'd read of what Amanda Knox had bought by reading her book "Waiting to Be Heard",
and yet people, especially Guilters, still call it Sexy Underwear!
Sure...

RWVBWL, I read Knox's book, too, but did not pick up on the cow logo when she described her underwear. My mind was probably thinking of other things at the point. Like why she didn't get rid of the body!

 

[Machiavelli]

No. I was asking about those things that have been presented as evidence things that have led some observers to a belief in guilty of murder.

The list is long.

Amanda had sex with three different men in Perugia.
Amanda got a noise ticket in Seattle.
Raffaele carried a pocket knife.
Amanda did not use the scrub brush on the toilet.
Amanda was jealous of Meredith.
Amanda was loud.
Raffaele was dependent on his father.
Amanda was not a serious student.
Amanda was a party girl.
Raffaele smoked pot.
Raffaele had looked at bestiality porn.
Amanda didn't cry at the police station.
Amanda bought sexy underwear.
Amanda didn't want the door to Meredith's room to be opened.

To me, all these things are absurd, but it seems that they carry a great deal of weight with some observers. (...)

Autopsy report; Knox's lies; Sollecito's lies; luminol footprints; bathmat print; phisical evidence of staged burglary; cell phone records; testimonies of Filomena, Capezzali, Monachia; knife DNA: bra clasp DNA; mixed DNA on blood drops and luminol stains; Knpox's calunnia...

These that I just listed are the actual areas of evidence.

You above list instead is just a list of facts, useful for building conjecture. They are just details, they are very small accessories, they only help suggesting a context, a scenario, once the evidence has been established. All little elements except the last point (Knox's behaviour before Meredith's door) which belongs to the list of evidence of lying, this is one of the many points which show a factual contradiction (a lie) in Knox's account.

 

[Strozzi]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/21/r6c8.jpg//

This is the first time I have seen a picture of the cottage taken from this direction. Look at all that vegetation and the downhill escape route! No wonder Rudy broke in a window on an obscure side of the cottage rather than the front side facing the apartment building where apartment residents could more readily observe him. What dumb detective misses this angle???

I don't know much about accoustics, but I would like to understand how sound waves from a scream can transmit out Meredith's bedroom window and strike all that vegetation and bounce back through the Ear Lady's double-pane glass apartment window. Maybe Briars can explain it again using this photo to walk me through it.

 

[Machiavelli]

These things only matter if Amanda Knox is guilty, and then, it just gives you bragging rights for having guessed the correct explanation of her behavior, providing she ever confesses to it. Until then you are simply imputing your point of view into reports of certain events that occurred subsequent to the murder. That's what you think - Knox seemed not to display a feeling of urgency and to you that shows guilt. Fine.

Let's complete the picture: Knox did not display any feeling of urgency on that situation, while she reported about her displaying a feeling of urgency in her e-mail and account, and she also referred to this urgency in her narrative to motivate their previous attempts to break down the door.

There is a problem with consistency.

The problem with consistency in Knox's version is real, is a factual property of these reports, it's not my thought nor my imagination.

Think what you want. But just cause you think it does not make it evidence, and does not imply that whatever you choose to conclude about these events represents the truth.

This element of contradiction is a piece of evidence; I mean not direct evidence of being guilty of murder, but evidence of lying.
Amanda Knox offers a set of information about this point, which is utterly inconsistent, not credible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Two lawyers used the phrase and neither the judge nor Mignini corrected them or objected to the use of the phrase.

Because it's irrelevant, as for what concerns the trial documentation.

It's like when you say Amanda is guilty because when she had the opportunity to say she was not guilty, she didn't take advantage of it.

Well actuall Knox missed all opportunities to make claims of various kinds, for years.

(..)

ETA: What, specifically, was the defense's complaint when they took the 1:45 and 5:45 statements to the Italian Supreme Court?

I never saw the full defence complaint, that one is a document the defence never made public; I'd like to read it entirely (why don't you ask Knox to put it on her blog?).
I only have the answer by the SC quoted by Ghirga (but only to one of the two(?) defence request points).

 

[acbytesla]

Let's complete the picture: Knox did not display any feeling of urgency on that situation, while she reported about her displaying a feeling of urgency in her e-mail and account, and she also referred to this urgency in her narrative to motivate their previous attempts to break down the door.

There is a problem with consistency.

The problem with consistency in Knox's version is real, is a factual property of these reports, it's not my thought nor my imagination.



This element of contradiction is a piece of evidence; I mean not direct evidence of being guilty of murder, but evidence of lying.
Amanda Knox offers a set of information about this point, which is utterly inconsistent, not credible.

No there's not. This is just silly. The fact is that Amanda and Raffaele called the police, they called Meredith, they called Filomena. They demonstrated substantial urgency. Saying they didn't is a total lie. So yes, it is just your imagination.

 

[Machiavelli]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/21/r6c8.jpg//

This is the first time I have seen a picture of the cottage taken from this direction. Look at all that vegetation and the downhill escape route! No wonder Rudy broke in a window on an obscure side of the cottage rather than the front side facing the apartment building where apartment residents could more readily observe him. What dumb detective misses this angle!!!

I don't know much about accoustics, but I would like to understand how sound waves from a scream can transmit out Meredith's bedroom window and strike all that vegetation and bounce back through the Ear Lady's double-pane glass apartment window. Maybe Briars can explain it again using this photo to walk me through it.

The broken window was the most exposed to sight, the closest to the road and the most illuminated (as well as the less easy one to climb in).

 

[andreajo]

Let's complete the picture: Knox did not display any feeling of urgency on that situation, while she reported about her displaying a feeling of urgency in her e-mail and account, and she also referred to this urgency in her narrative to motivate their previous attempts to break down the door.

There is a problem with consistency.

The difference could easily be a difference in perception. AK could have felt urgency and thought she had shown urgency. Observers may not have thought so at the time. Observers may have thought so at the time, but may have had their recollections colored by subsequent events. Many things could be at the root of this discrepancy. It does not mean that she was lying.

The problem with consistency in Knox's version is real, is a factual property of these reports, it's not my thought nor my imagination.

There are a variety of reasonable interpretations that could be put on these differing reports. You are just seeing them through guilt-colored glasses.

 

[Machiavelli]

No there's not. This is just silly. The fact is that Amanda and Raffaele called the police, they called Meredith, they called Filomena. They demonstrated substantial urgency. Saying they didn't is a total lie. So yes, it is just your imagination.

But no, this means nothing, basically all stagers call the police.
They had no urgency; Knox called the police two hours later after she found blood and strange things in the house, open front door feces etc., Rudy's bloody footprints, in the corridoor, she had already very good reasons to check the house.
Instead she waited and waited.

She did not even call Meredith beyound the 16 seconds and four second calls on her phones (on one of them she only tried once).

Knox and Sollecito had no urgency.
Knox deplayed no urgency before the locked door.
Inconsistency is obvious your attempts to deny it are desperate and irrational.

 

[Diocletus]

Because it's irrelevant, as for what concerns the trial documentation.



Well actuall Knox missed all opportunities to make claims of various kinds, for years.

(..)



I never saw the full defence complaint, that one is a document the defence never made public; I'd like to read it entirely (why don't you ask Knox to put it on her blog?).
I only have the answer by the SC quoted by Ghirga (but only to one of the two(?) defence request points).

Oh, you mean the part where they said that the statements couldn't be used because Knox had no lawyer and the statements weren't spontaneous?

I mean, the statements would have been usable if either (i) Knox had a lawyer present, or (ii) the statements were spontaneous. But they weren't.

Not only did they violate Italy's laws on interrogations, but they also violated the ECHR, as we will find out.

 

[acbytesla]

Because it's irrelevant, as for what concerns the trial documentation.

Well actuall Knox missed all opportunities to make claims of various kinds, for years.

(..)



I never saw the full defence complaint, that one is a document the defence never made public; I'd like to read it entirely (why don't you ask Knox to put it on her blog?).
I only have the answer by the SC quoted by Ghirga (but only to one of the two(?) defence request points).

Another total lie. Amanda told her story many times to the police before they arrested her. She told her story under oath. Then she told it in her book.

You certainly have a vivid imagination. Are you delusional? I'd tell you that you have a career in fiction Machiavelli, but your prose is lacking. And no one outside Italy would believe your plot.

Whether or not her lawyers decided to make their arguments public is another irrelevant point.

No evidence, no motive, no crime.