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

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by Massei p. 382
In this regard, what has been previously observed on the subject is called to mind; with specific reference to the stains found on the pillowcase, particular mention of which was made by Sollecito’s defence *team+ during the trial and in the related illustrative memorandum, the following should be noted: even if a genetic investigation established the spermatic nature of these stains, such an investigation, as a rule, would not allow these stains to be dated and, in particular, it would not be possible to establish that they had been deposited on the night on which Meredith was killed. It having furthermore been established that Meredith had an active sexual life and at times had intercourse in her own room (cf. on this point the statements of her boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi) such an investigation, besides not being of a strictly necessary nature due to the impossibility of dating [i.e. establishing the date] (cf. what was elucidated on this aspect by the genetic experts), might also yield an entirely irrelevant outcome even for establishing the spermatic nature of those very stains and seems to be, therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested.

Am I understanding correctly that Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith's boyfriend, has provided information to the police or prosecutor that he and Meredith at times had intercourse in her own room? If so, the PLE may know the details of any role the pillow played in their intimate act(s). Wouldn't statements taken from Silenzi on this be automatically available to the defense? Or only if they asked the right questions at the right stage in the process?

 

[LondonJohn]

It would be interesting to have a link to the Mail news item that Nigel Scott refers to in the Ground Report item, but it doesn't seem to be on MailOnline. A search for articles mentioning "Perugia" and dated between 1 and 8 November 2007 throws up only the initial news item (3 Nov) and these 3 headlines from 7 November:

Lumumba: The popular and gentle bar owner willing to help anyone;

YouTube video of 'FoxyKnoxy' drunk while at university;

Murdered Meredith: Flatmate's 'crazy' boyfriend poses with a meat cleaver and bleach;

... all of which suggests that if Police were briefing the press about their theories then it wasn't Lumumba who was chiefly being lined up as the killer.

I suspect that this sort of reporting was probably the result of two factors, neither of which was anything to do with briefings by the authorities:

1) It's quite clearly a far more salacious story (especially to the UK tabloids) that Meredith's young, attractive, FEMALE housemate had been arrested for her murder, along with her bookish-looking boyfriend.

2) Immediately after the announcement of the three arrests, reporters were tasked with digging up as much dirt information on all three as they could - and they naturally struck much more gold with Knox and Sollecito than with Lumumba, since the two students had a far higher online social media presence.

I suspect that it's primarily these two things that caused the skew in media stories towards Knox in particular, and Sollecito next, with Lumumba "bringing up the rear". I'd even perhaps argue that the media's immediate obsession with Knox might well have played a part in the authorities' refusal to reconsider their "theory" of the crime in light of the new information about Guede - indeed, it's even arguable that it may have influenced the authorities in the way they increased the participation element of Knox (and Sollecito) in the months between initial arrest and trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nigel brings up a good point by implying that the semen may have been sampled while still wet, which makes a lot of sense. They could have just scraped some up, and there would have been no need to cut up the fabric, as so adamantly opposed by Machiavelli.

But if the stain was semen, and if it was deposited at around the time of the murder, then I suspect it would likely have dried by the time of the first possibility of obtaining a sample. If we suppose that it was deposited at 9.30pm on the 1st November, it couldn't have been sampled until at least 3pm on the 2nd - some 18 hours later. And in fact, given that the pillow in question was underneath Meredith's body, it's possible that sampling wouldn't have been possible before around midnight on the 2nd/3rd - some 27 hours after deposit.

But all this is probably moot, since it would have been entirely possible to collect a sample of even a fully-dried stain using a moist sterile swab, without any need to cut the fabric. Any way you look at it (and regardless of what the stain actually might be, and who might be responsible for depositing it), this was a significant and inexplicable error on behalf of the investigating authorities.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder if the police tag team that set to work on Knox on that fateful night of 5th/6th November 2007 had learned any of their "special" interrogation techniques from the SAS. Apparently they even go so far as to tie recruits to railway tracks, then send some rolling stock down the line, to see whether the recruits will panic and buckle (where have I heard that word before...?) or use their initiative to try to make the most of the situation:

...the (SAS) instructors will also handcuff a recruit to a set of railway lines and (unbeknownst to the recruit) send a train running down the same line. On hearing the train, the unfortunate guy will then start to panic; some men handle it quite well by positioning themselves so that the train will (hypothetically) cut the handcuffs, whilst some accidentally assume a position which would have resulted in their deaths should a train have actually come down the tracks. Which it didn’t, thanks a series of points a couple of meters up the tracks from the unfortunate’s head.

http://onewordlouder.com/2012/05/30/sasbadass/


(This account of the railway line test was, IIRC, first revealed in Tony Geraghty's well-sourced and tacitly-approved book about the SAS, "Who Dares Wins". I also know (though admittedly only indirectly) someone who's endured it.)

 

[Belz...]

The repeated appeal trial (which is the trial currently in progress) is expected to deliver a verdict in late January.

But that verdict will also then have to be ratified or rejected by the Italian Supreme Court before it becomes final and binding. And that is unlikely to happen for at least a year after the appeal court verdict. If the SC ratifies the appeal court verdict, then the case is finally concluded from the point of view of the Italian judiciary. But if the SC throws out part or all of the appeal court's verdict, then everything goes back to yet another appeal level trial (and subesquent SC ratification/rejection).

Ask a simple question........

I meant a verdict from the posters of this forum. This has been going on for quite some time, now. I'd expect one of the sides to gain more momentum than the other.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't really know what you mean by that. It's blindingly obvious that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it. It's also blindingly obvious that this series of trials is a car crash of monumental proportions run by a bunch of people with very little connection to either reality or legality.

Anyone who claims to be able to predict what verdict will be returned by the court has a better class of crystal ball than I have.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the majority are pro-innocence

Belz,

I would say that the majority of the people who post here are pro-innocence. However, there are some pro-guilt posters. I agree with Rolfe's comments.

 

[toto]

I meant a verdict from the posters of this forum. This has been going on for quite some time, now. I'd expect one of the sides to gain more momentum than the other.

Based on the quality of posts on this site as opposed to those on pro guilt sides I would say Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito will both be acquitted, with probably not the ringing proclamations of innocence that the Hellman court provided. I then think that the Supreme Court will uphold the judgement. (Luckily on a sceptical website like this I can't be accused of tempting fate). Should they find them guilty then the SC will uphold that verdict too. My sense is that the mainstream media who have investigated this are generally pro innocence and the fact remains that a previous court has reviewed the evidence and found no cause for guilt, and the first court which found them guilty also had the damaging animated video and did not see Curatolo's evidence under Hellmann or the subsequent testimony of the DNA scientists. So I remain hopeful.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Is there any chance the article is available?

It would be interesting to have a link to the Mail news item that Nigel Scott refers to in the Ground Report item, but it doesn't seem to be on MailOnline.

Antony,

Would a subscription to the Mail give one access to more articles?

 

[Mary_H]

Antony,

Would a subscription to the Mail give one access to more articles?

It may not have made the online edition, only the hard copy. Maybe Nigel can make a copy of it.

 

[Mary_H]

That is completely creepy. I wonder what she was trying to accomplish?

Here is the article (with photos) that Kathleen, a/k/a Professor Snape, a/k/a Media Watcher, wrote about going to the interview: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...99.9999_of_seattle_from_a_pestilent/#comments

I notice in the comments The Machine wrote, "I find it heartening that you and Bedelia have been proactive and made sure that Meredith wasn’t forgotten when Sollecito tried to promote his disgusting book." I don't know who Bedelia is, but perhaps s/he was the person behind the computer hacking.

 

[MichaelB]

Here is the article (with photos) that Kathleen, a/k/a Professor Snape, a/k/a Media Watcher, wrote about going to the interview: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...99.9999_of_seattle_from_a_pestilent/#comments

I notice in the comments The Machine wrote, "I find it heartening that you and Bedelia have been proactive and made sure that Meredith wasn’t forgotten when Sollecito tried to promote his disgusting book." I don't know who Bedelia is, but perhaps s/he was the person behind the computer hacking.

Bedelia is Amy Revell from New York who handed out flyers wearing fish net stockings when Raffaele gave one of his interviews there. She's the one who went to bookstores in her local area and put leaflets inside every copy of Honor Bound the store had. Amy and her daughter had a "vigil" in NYC for Meredith and released balloons.

She thinks Guede was set up and a patsy.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks Michael, was that something Nencini said at the last hearing?

The only things left now are Bongiorno/Maori's closing arguments and the prosecution rebuttals, starting on the 9th but probably going on till the 10th or longer. If the verdict isn't until the 20th that seems like a long time between closing arguments and the verdict, at least by comparison with the last appeal, where I think the verdict came shortly after the closing arguments (if I'm not misremembering!).

Linda Byron ‏@LByronK5 2 Jan
Amanda Knox Verdict is now expected to happen on January 20 instead of January 10. Trial is taking place in Florence, Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

But if the stain was semen, and if it was deposited at around the time of the murder, then I suspect it would likely have dried by the time of the first possibility of obtaining a sample. If we suppose that it was deposited at 9.30pm on the 1st November, it couldn't have been sampled until at least 3pm on the 2nd - some 18 hours later. And in fact, given that the pillow in question was underneath Meredith's body, it's possible that sampling wouldn't have been possible before around midnight on the 2nd/3rd - some 27 hours after deposit.

But all this is probably moot, since it would have been entirely possible to collect a sample of even a fully-dried stain using a moist sterile swab, without any need to cut the fabric. Any way you look at it (and regardless of what the stain actually might be, and who might be responsible for depositing it), this was a significant and inexplicable error on behalf of the investigating authorities.

It's an error which is continuing to be made. Perhaps Machiavelli is right, that there is something enshrined in the Italian Constitution prohibiting testing of such things.....

Can you attempt a rationale for this, even as a devil's advocate?

 

[Strozzi]

. . .it would have been entirely possible to collect a sample of even a fully-dried stain using a moist sterile swab, without any need to cut the fabric. Any way you look at it (and regardless of what the stain actually might be, and who might be responsible for depositing it), this was a significant and inexplicable error on behalf of the investigating authorities.

London John, your statement makes perfect sense to me. But why should anyone have confidence that the Scientific Police would always use a sterile swab?

 

[Bill Williams]

Aside from Judge Massei saying that it was no use to test the presumed semen stain, because it cannot be time-stamped, Massei offers this as a more "procedural" reason why it cannot be tested....

"therefore, a purely explorative activity, [which] is not permitted at this stage of the proceedings because it is lacking in the requirement for absolute necessity which was, on the contrary, requested."

It's hard to know exactly what the heck this means.....

My take is that it does not need testing because Massei already knew who the killer was.... for Massei the killer was Rudy, Rudy's motive was his lust, and Amanda and Raffaele came into Meredith's room after hearing the commotion and inexplicably joined in with Rudy in the murder.

No sex-game, gone wrong or otherwise - no domestic dispute over Rudy's pooh in Filomena's/Laura's toilet. No Satanic right, no right honouring the day of the dead.

The "requirement for absolute necessity" seems to mean that Massei already knew whose it was, or more properly, Massei had figured out who the killer(s) were using other bits of (il)logic.

He's reasoning that finding out whose it was, wouldn't change the fact that the three of them killed Meredith.... and because of there being no way to date-stamp the specimen, it wouldn't change Massei's (confirmation) bias as to guilt for any of the three of them.

Ok. However, why Massei did not apply this "time stamp reasoning" in relation to Knox's "biological material" (as Massei constantly refers to it) is a real poser. There's no way, really, to time stamp DNA of Amanda's found in the very cottage in which she lived, particularly the bathroom.

Massei says that this "biological material" must have been scuffed off of Knox in her act of cleaning herself in the bathroom, presumably cleaning Meredith's blood off of herself. This "reasoning" might find traction in an otherwise sterile environment... but it was the bathroom they shared, for pete's sake. Any of Meredith's blood cleaned off by anyone is bound to be mixed with the DNA of the room's primary occupant, someone who even used the room after the murder itself!

It is baffling the rulings Massei makes. And then there's the ISC who in March 2013 ruled on the lower courts' use of law and procedure... an ISC who ignored all this, and went back to a sex-game gone wrong.

.... and for pete's sake, the Florence court, now with every reason in the world, listening to the ISC, to test that stain because of the renewed "sex angle", it does not test the stain!!!! Instead it offers up another motive, which coincidentally is a reason not to have the semen stain tested.... Crini now says it's a fight over pooh!

How weird can this get?

If Nencini acquits, that's simply a reason for the ISC to throw it back for a flippin' fourth trial.

 

[christianahannah]

But if the stain was semen, and if it was deposited at around the time of the murder, then I suspect it would likely have dried by the time of the first possibility of obtaining a sample. If we suppose that it was deposited at 9.30pm on the 1st November, it couldn't have been sampled until at least 3pm on the 2nd - some 18 hours later. And in fact, given that the pillow in question was underneath Meredith's body, it's possible that sampling wouldn't have been possible before around midnight on the 2nd/3rd - some 27 hours after deposit.

But all this is probably moot, since it would have been entirely possible to collect a sample of even a fully-dried stain using a moist sterile swab, without any need to cut the fabric. Any way you look at it (and regardless of what the stain actually might be, and who might be responsible for depositing it), this was a significant and inexplicable error on behalf of the investigating authorities.

Wasn't the stain saved because when it was discovered it had the partial imprint of the shoes which were part of the evidence against Rudy? And there was also the handprint evidence along with the second shoe print evidence which might also have been imprinted in the stain (I am not certain of which evidence was or was not imprinted in the stain).

Cutting or swabbing would probably destroy or alter the print evidence. And since the print evidence was being used to convict Rudy, and at a lesser extent, Amanda (the second shoe print) there was probably a decision made as to which would be more important to preserve or test for the prosecution case.

I am also not certain when the stain was first discovered and how either the prosecution or defense would go about requesting to having it tested if it was much later after all prior tests had been done.

 

[Grinder]

Here is the article (with photos) that Kathleen, a/k/a Professor Snape, a/k/a Media Watcher, wrote about going to the interview: http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...99.9999_of_seattle_from_a_pestilent/#comments

I notice in the comments The Machine wrote, "I find it heartening that you and Bedelia have been proactive and made sure that Meredith wasn’t forgotten when Sollecito tried to promote his disgusting book." I don't know who Bedelia is, but perhaps s/he was the person behind the computer hacking.

Dear god why, why did I go there? She refers to herself as a he because she she is Prof Shape and the other nutters in comments do as well.

I really would like to read about Jackson being taken down and hope those with more knowledge on these guys would file a complaint with the UW.

MichaelB, btw, how is Bedelia's real name known ?

 

[LondonJohn]

Wasn't the stain saved because when it was discovered it had the partial imprint of the shoes which were part of the evidence against Rudy? And there was also the handprint evidence along with the second shoe print evidence which might also have been imprinted in the stain (I am not certain of which evidence was or was not imprinted in the stain).

Cutting or swabbing would probably destroy or alter the print evidence. And since the print evidence was being used to convict Rudy, and at a lesser extent, Amanda (the second shoe print) there was probably a decision made as to which would be more important to preserve or test for the prosecution case.

Uh yep, that's what the authorities said (btw, the hand print was on a totally separate part of the pillowcase, away from the staining - it's just the shoe prints that had some overlap). Unfortunately, it appears to be arrant nonsense.

In the worst-case scenario of having to cut the fabric (which would be unnecessary anyhow, since any stain constituents could have been lifted from the intact fabric with a damp swab), the shoe prints could have been carefully photographed in detail before any cutting was made. Any removed fabric need have been no more than 0.5cm squared maximum, so the overwhelming majority of the shoe print evidence would have been preserved in any case. And the combination of the photos and the physical pillowcase (save for the tiny square removed for examination of the stain) would have been more than enough to validate the existence of the shoe prints.

I am also not certain when the stain was first discovered and how either the prosecution or defense would go about requesting to having it tested if it was much later after all prior tests had been done.

I think (IIRC) the defence teams realised the potential value of the stain as soon as they were given the pillowcase to examine (they viewed it under crimescope lighting). They certainly made a request to have it examined. And I cannot for one moment buy the theory that it should have made a jot of difference if any test on the stain was conducted months - or even years - after the other tests on the pillowcase had been concluded. Why on Earth should that matter? Fresh tests were being run on Sollecito's kitchen knife as late as October 2013, for Heaven's sake.

It's perfectly (and depressingly) simple: that stain might have had real probative value to the investigation. It should have been tested. Testing it would not in any way whatsoever have lessened the quality of any of the other forensic evidence on the pillowcase. The "excuses" offered up by the authorities for not having it tested were both mealymouthed and ludicrous.

 

[Dan O.]

It would be interesting to have a link to the Mail news item that Nigel Scott refers to in the Ground Report item, but it doesn't seem to be on MailOnline. A search for articles mentioning "Perugia" and dated between 1 and 8 November 2007 throws up only the initial news item (3 Nov) and these 3 headlines from 7 November:

This article?

DID TWO MEN KILL MEREDITH?

Ryan Parry In Perugia 6/11/2007

Police look at sex encounter theory

Student Meredith Kercher may have been the victim of two killers after a sexual encounter went tragically wrong, it was claimed yesterday.

The theory came as Italian news reports said detectives wanted to question a North African man who knew Meredith and an unnamed Libyan man over her murder.
...