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

[Strozzi]

So, if the window is left open for the cat to get in and out then why cant police or anyone else for that matter just open up that window?

Maybe the window had security bars to keep out burglars.

 

[acbytesla]

To be fair, the defense using the family had a bit of a 'road show' doing national TV shows and their surrogates on crime shows like Nancy Grace. Bremner was out talking railroad job from hell etc.

Both sides made this a new media trial.

I find it difficult to blame the family for hiring Maresca and taking his advice. I wonder if there is any of the family members that have doubt.

No Grinder, that isn't fair. Long before the defense did a "road show" there were endless lies printed in the media. And it is far easier to persuade minds that don't have an opinion than to change them. This became a "media show" the day that Amanda and Raffaele were captured on camera kissing. And the prosecution and police might as well have hired a press agent. Or did you forget the press conference with a dozen police declaring "case closed"?

Also, Amanda and Raffaele's family was working to save their chidren's lives. There is a significant difference than the crap what Harry Rag posts

 

[Strozzi]

One more thing about the police entry into the lower flat. No one in the Perugia police dept knows how to pick a simple door lock? They have to use a flying kick from Lorena (actually quite amazing action for a fat chick btw....don't hate me Mary I am using sarcasm) to bust the glass and ruin the crime scene with such "Big Foot" maneuvers?

I don't care about waiting for someone to delicately pick the lock. The police should have kicked in the downstairs door within minutes of finding the victim upstairs and searched the place in case there was a gravely injured second victim there requiring life-saving medical aid. That would have been the right thing to do.

 

[Kaosium]

There is chasm between not accepting or stating as fact and debunking.

Here's one place that Massei discusses the call to the Carabinieri

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

Perhaps you can give a quote where Massei 'debunks' the Carabinieri call.

Read it closer, especially the words right before you started highlighting, then the reason he gives right after you stopped highlighting. This is the only mention he makes of the major prosecution contention that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived on the scene: he dismisses it in a parenthetical aside. If you read the section on 'mixed blood' you may get the impression the prosecution didn't even make that contention as he quotes from where Stefanoni admitted that with the tests they did there was no way to establish that, then goes on more extensively than with the 112 call as to why it wasn't mixed blood.

So in these two instances you have a convicting judge rejecting the contentions and offering the reason(s) why they are specious, what more would you expect from a debunking?

 

[Kaosium]

Weren't the cuts still healing ten days to two weeks after the murder? How do you slice the flesh of the underside of your fingers with a knife, not bleed, but still have noticeable cuts healing ten days to two weeks later? How long did it take for the slice wounds to heal completely? Three weeks? Four weeks? Surely the police or prison staff noted that in the record.

You can still see them in the picures taken when he was arrested.

I'm just pointing out that the man who would know best (and would have good reason to incorporate into his story that he was bleeding at the scene) said that the cuts didn't bleed, something I've noticed myself with paper cuts and the like on my fingers from time to time: sometimes they sting like hell but don't bleed much if at all.

However, he could have been mistaken for other reasons I offered, or he may have been lying for some unfathomable reason. Perhaps he didn't realize how those small bleeding cuts could be used to (attempt to) explain his evidence found at the scene? Perhaps he was caught in a web of his own lies and felt he needed to deny that for whatever reason?

It struck me as odd as well, which is why I brought it up.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>One more thing about the police entry into the lower flat. No one in the Perugia police dept knows how to pick a simple door lock? They have to use a flying kick from Lorena (actually quite amazing action for a fat chick btw....don't hate me Mary I am using sarcasm) to bust the glass and ruin the crime scene with such "Big Foot" maneuvers?

She's not fat. Nina Burleigh said she's built like an East German swimmer.

I think Bo Jo (RS almost useless lawyer) knows there was human blood found downstairs. I doubt she is guessing about something like this.

I think it's "GioBo."

...how much blood does a cat hold?

It depends on the size of the cat but about 3.0 quarts for a average cat.

Note the two comments at the end.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is chasm between not accepting or stating as fact and debunking.

Here's one place that Massei discusses the call to the Carabinieri

And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary.

Perhaps you can give a quote where Massei 'debunks' the Carabinieri call.

Read it closer, especially the words right before you started highlighting, then the reason he gives right after you stopped highlighting. This is the only mention he makes of the major prosecution contention that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived on the scene: he dismisses it in a parenthetical aside. If you read the section on 'mixed blood' you may get the impression the prosecution didn't even make that contention as he quotes from where Stefanoni admitted that with the tests they did there was no way to establish that, then goes on even more extensively than with the 112 call as to why that isn't so.

So in these two instaces you have a convicting judge rejecting the contentions and offering the reason(s) why they are specious, what more would you expect from a debunking?

-

Grinder - I'm only going to do this one more time, because I've done it before....

Look at the timing Massei sets up, and you will get my point (and Kaosium's point.)

On November 2, 2007, a little after 1:00 pm in the building at Via della Pergola 7 in Perugia, the body of the English student Meredith Kercher was found.

Massei uses the expressing, "a little after" to indicate time. In the case of describing when the postal police arrived, he times it using the expression, "a little before...."

At the moment when the lifeless body Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was found, in the house at 7 Via della Pergola there were present, as well as the present accused, Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends: Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri. All had arrived at the house around 1:00 pm on the day of November 2.

Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm.

Given that Massei has Raffaele calling 112 .....

The phone calls made to the Carabinieri just mentioned were at 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm on November 2, 2007 by Raffaele Sollecito.

......... the latter one being mere seconds after he'd called his sister, who'd told him to: "call the carabineiri!"....

.... the point is, rather than Knox and Sollecito trying to be secretive that morning, they were raising the alarm with everyone and had been for some time. Them raising the alarm is the whole reason that Filomena and her crew arrived... "at around 1 pm."

The whole point of the factoid that Mignini and the guilters propagate about the 112 calls being made AFTER the arrival of the postal police, is to make it seem that neither AK nor RS were raising the alarm, and then only tried too late once the postals were already there.

In short, Massei debunks one of the guilter factoids. Massei debunks Mignini on this point.

How many of these do you need? I can do all 13... in fact I HAVE done all 13.

 

[LashL]

Mistranslation. It's the case of similar words having different meanings.

La sentenza would mean the ruling rather then the conviction or anything related to punishment.

Mistranslation makes sense; ('ruling' would be synonymous with 'disposition' as used in my prior posts on the point). Thanks, Katody.

LashL,

With respect to the role of the Florence court one translation of the motivations report from the CSC reads, "The outcome of such an organic evaluation will be decisive, not only to demonstrate the presence of the two defendants at the crime scene, but also possibly to clarify the subjective role of the people who committed this murder with Guede, against a range of possible scenarios, going from an original plan to kill to a change in the plan which was initially aimed only at involving the young English girl in a sexual game against her will to an act with the sole intention of forcing her into a wild group erotic game which violently took another course, getting out of control."

The other translation reads, "The outcome of this assessment will be crucial not only to osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range of hypothetical situations, ranging from agreement on genetic option of death, to the modification of a program that initially contemplated only the involvement of the young English woman in an unwanted sex game, to the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control."

I am very concerned about this passage. It seems to me that the CSC is telling the Florence court to convict the pair of something, and the only latitude revolves around the relative culpability of Guede versus the pair.

Thanks, Chris. Those are seriously differing translations, purportedly of the same paragraph. Obviously, they cannot both be correct and it is entirely possible that neither is correct. Can you advise who did the 'translation' of each of those versions?

 

[Kaosium]

Grinder - I'm only going to do this one more time, because I've done it before....

Look at the timing Massei sets up, and you will get my point (and Kaosium's point.)



Massei uses the expressing, "a little after" to indicate time. In the case of describing when the postal police arrived, he times it using the expression, "a little before...."



Given that Massei has Raffaele calling 112 .....



......... the latter one being mere seconds after he'd called his sister, who'd told him to: "call the carabineiri!"....

.... the point is, rather than Knox and Sollecito trying to be secretive that morning, they were raising the alarm with everyone and had been for some time. Them raising the alarm is the whole reason that Filomena and her crew arrived... "at around 1 pm."

The whole point of the factoid that Mignini and the guilters propagate about the 112 calls being made AFTER the arrival of the postal police, is to make it seem that neither AK nor RS were raising the alarm, and then only tried too late once the postals were already there.

In short, Massei debunks one of the guilter factoids. Massei debunks Mignini on this point.

How many of these do you need? I can do all 13... in fact I HAVE done all 13.

Nice catch Bill! I never noticed that de facto acceptance of the defense presentation which showed by correlating the CCTV video of the Carabinieri arrival with the cell phone times that the CCTV camera timestamp was indeed ~10 min slow.

Perhaps Grinder gave too much weight to the translation of 'according to' thinking that Massei was just representing the defense argument in that passage? The context makes it clear that's not the case, he's saying what his court holds and the reason why and doesn't even deign to represent the prosecution contention, he just dismisses it completely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nice catch Bill! I never noticed that de facto acceptance of the defense presentation which showed by correlating the CCTV video of the Carabinieri arrival with the cell phone times that the CCTV camera timestamp was indeed ~10 min slow.

Perhaps Grinder gave too much weight to the translation of 'according to' thinking that Massei was just representing the defense argument in that passage? The context makes it clear that's not the case, he's saying what his court holds and the reason why and doesn't even deign to represent the prosecution contention, he just dismisses it completely.

The one who drew my attention to this was BRMull, who, apparently, is one of the few guilters who have actually read and understood the Massei motivations report.

BRMull (Dr. Mull) then said he respectfully disagreed with Massei's assessment of the relative timing of these calls. At least, though, he had the chops to have actually read and understood what Massei was saying and claiming, BEFORE he tried to make the case that Sollecito was being evilly-sneaky in trying to get a call into 112 AFTER the postals had arrived.

At that point, BRMull was honest and straight forward, with a degree of integrity... I mean, he was wrong, but he acknowledged the issues and the lay of the land in relation to Massei.

IIRC it was Machiavelli who'd put dietrology into high gear on this one, trying to rescue Mignini's version of the factoid, trying to claim that Massei in essence agreed with the esteemed prosecutor; or at least the two issued "compatible" accounts.

You know Machiavelli and what it is to be compatible!

 

[Caper]

When is the verdict set to come?

 

[AmyStrange]

When is the verdict set to come?

JAN 30

 

[RWVBWL]

When is the verdict set to come?

Gosh,
I hope that this Italian Court does not allow what happened in Judge Massei's Court to occur:

1) Judge Massei, while on the podium, answers his cell phone while the trial is underway.
2) During the mind numbing cell phone network details, the prosecutor falls asleep.
3) One eldery juror becomes well known for napping after his lunch.
4) Prosecutor Manuela Comodi plays solitaire on her computer when she wasn't on the podium.

Wierd way to run a Court when a murder trial is under way, right?



Reference:
1) Page 319, Murder in Italy, Author: Candace Dempsey
2) Page 122/123 Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau
3) Page 123 Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau
4) Page 310, Murder in Italy, Author: Candace Dempsey

 

[RWVBWL]

A true guest would have been directed to the correct bathroom.

But what if Meredith was on a date with Rudy?
I recall a Skype conversation that these 2 fooled around, just some oral...

Maybe Mez wanted to freshen up a bit, so she told Guede-o to use that front bathroom while she used her own?
Na...

 

[Kaosium]

The one who drew my attention to this was BRMull, who, apparently, is one of the few guilters who have actually read and understood the Massei motivations report.

BRMull (Dr. Mull) then said he respectfully disagreed with Massei's assessment of the relative timing of these calls. At least, though, he had the chops to have actually read and understood what Massei was saying and claiming, BEFORE he tried to make the case that Sollecito was being evilly-sneaky in trying to get a call into 112 AFTER the postals had arrived.

At that point, BRMull was honest and straight forward, with a degree of integrity... I mean, he was wrong, but he acknowledged the issues and the lay of the land in relation to Massei.

IIRC it was Machiavelli who'd put dietrology into high gear on this one, trying to rescue Mignini's version of the factoid, trying to claim that Massei in essence agreed with the esteemed prosecutor; or at least the two issued "compatible" accounts.

You know Machiavelli and what it is to be compatible!

The contention that Raffaele called the Carabinieri afterward is almost impossible for bunnies to give up on because it, at least in isolation, 'solves' a number of inexplicable things.

Fortunately there's not only the cameras and the cell phone records, and that neither of the Postals noticed these calls as Massei points out, there's also all the other calls Amanda made, especially those to Filomena where she told Amanda to call the police and that she was heading home. They'd been reporting what they found long before, belying any likelihood they were trying to delay the discovery of the murder and only belatedly tried to call the Carabinieri to 'cover up' that they were trying to delay discovery of the murder....that they'd started calling people about long before.

In context the contention is ridiculous.

 

[Dan O.]

It would be interesting to know whether we're talking about an ear infection, otitis externa, which is probably secondary to ear mite infestation (Otodectes cynotis), or a traumatic injury to the ear (such as a fight injury) which may have become infected.

Really, though, you're only likely to see significant amounts of blood from a recent fight injury, probably a clawed ear. Something recent. The other possibilities probably don't involve much blood.

Rolfe.

Surely you've lanced an abscessed wound or two. I believe Meredith assisted the cat in opening an abscess and depending on the condition this can result in a significant amount of blood. Cats of course won't sit still when you do this unless they really trust you. So, we have a bleeding cat being chased around the apartment getting blood everywhere before it finally escaped out the window. There weren't any pools of blood like upstairs, just drips and smears. Consistent enough for a small wound.

 

[NancyS]

Rudy's got the worst luck for an innocent guy. Not only did he get stabbed in the abdomen earlier on by a drug dealer, he got his fingers sliced struggling with a mysterious killer while coming out of the bathroom with his pants down. Then, the night after his secret love is killed by some other guy, Rudy goes dancing at the club and doesn't hear the DJ ask everyone to pause for a moment of silence, leaving Rudy to dance on alone in front of everyone else as they stop to remember Meredith. Then he is dragged into the case with an Italian nerd he's never even met and falsely accused by Mignini of being a bit player in the murder under the spell of a Luciferina. "Poor Rudy".

And Amanda and Raffaele have to be the luckiest guilty murderers ever. Can you imagine commiting a violent murder and sexual assault and not leaving a trace of yourself in the murder room. They must have nerves of steel not to have buckled in terror of what the police would find.

 

[Dan O.]

I think the blood rings are drips off of a garment that has been semi-rinsed. But who knows.

There is Rudy's wet trousers which he covered with the sweetshirt. Trotting down the steps could force dripping at each landing. If this is the source I would expect the drips to be evenly spaced on every other step or about 2 meters apart if he double stepped and towards the outside of the steps since this would be comming from the outside of the right pant leg.

Heading down the steps and out through the woods would be the safest route to leave the cottage and get back to his own home. But Rudy claimed that he went past the basketball court after leaving the cottage and he mentioned being frightened by a noise downstairs just before leaving.

Between Stefanoni's evidence collections and Rudy's lying, it's amazing that there are any solid facts in this case.

 

[Samson]

And Amanda and Raffaele have to be the luckiest guilty murderers ever. Can you imagine commiting a violent murder and sexual assault and not leaving a trace of yourself in the murder room. They must have nerves of steel not to have buckled in terror of what the police would find.

The police found nothing on these two, but someone called Yummi has kindly filled in the gaps with this post just now from TJMK. I don't know how much is allowed to be imported from another forum, but here it is, simply because I find it from a completely different planet. And yes, I know Yummi is a member here under a different name.

This is, in a nutshell, the Prosecutor General Crini’s idea about motive. Even if he does not put a genesis theory inclusive of planned prank into the equation.

He says there is no evidence that the three had planned doing something specific to Meredith, like a prank or a planned sex assault. He calls a planned scenario “unnecessary”, while he does not state for sure that there wasn’t any; there is just no specific evidence of it.

However, this does not change the dynamic of the crime into nothing but details about the previous time, the genesis of the previous context.

Crini sticks to the most simple and stark elements needed for an explanation using the known factual elements, he says the background behind an emerging argument - the prior “genesis” of some conflict, especially that lead to possibility to spark arguments on Meredith’s part - should be considered the disagreements about house managements, meaning habits related to the sharing of the house.

The sharing of a common space is one certain background, one sure terrain where an argument or negative emotions must have sparked from. (This obviously does not rule out likely contribution by other causal factors).

How did the potential conflict, anger or annoyance on Meredith’s part, come to emerge and generate an argument at a specific moment? And in what situation did this happen?

The path leading to this event, did it go through a planned prank? Through an annoying party or else? We don’t know.

It’s possible that something was going on which we will never know. However the one thing we know, somethign that must have occurred on this path, is the physical, certain elements, are the unflushed toilet and the presence of Rudy Guede.

These are elements that are certain and that must have played a role, as they would generate a complain on the part of Meredith, anger against Knox’s behaviours which were already complained about, and may well indicate that Meredith felt disturbed by the invading of her home space (unknown men, noise, dirt, and maybe the invasion of her private space, touching money in her private room as Guede’s testified). And this behaviour generated an argument.

The key point of reasoning of Crini was that the assault on Meredith had both the nature of sexual violence, and the nature of violent hate aggression. However, the component of rage aggression was predominant over the sexual violence component, which should be considered a minor aspect.

The aggression was triggered by rage more than by sexual arousal. The sexual violence is a kind of accessory. This is my understanding of Crini’s argument. But as being an accessory, it is also a kind of pretext.

A drugged-up Knox may not be able to stand the bursting humiliation of being insulted and threatned to be thrown out from the apartment or maybe accused of things involving stealing or maybe other aspects of behaviour (sex, cleaning etc). The sexual harassement is a response intended to “win” and humiliate, a letting out a feeling of rage.

But at this point, when this happens, the actual motive sets in.

Only after all this, at this point, this is the moment when the “motive”, in Crini’s scenario, actually takes shape.

It is the motive that Earthling described: the motive for the killing is fear, on the part of Knox and Sollecito, about the ultimate consequences of their “prank”, or of Knox’s not being able to control her emotions and letting go her resentment in a way that she could not control - that none of the three was able to control.

When the three idiots realized that they had gone too forward, that they were committing a violence, and they would pay extreme consequence for it, they realized they were gone beyond a no-return point.

At this point, as for at least two of them, Sollecito and Knox, the victim needs to die. Because this was the only way they could silence her.

Crini explains this pointing at the element that summed up their terror and triggered their lethal response: Meredith’s scream. The traumatic memory about this scream, the terror that they themselves had, probably at the idea that someone could hear this scream, and their killing to stop the scream.

 

[michellesings]

Look, these are examples of what I really don't appreciate about your approach to discussion, why I always see your arguments as not intellectually honest.
I don't know what Meredith did with other guys. But you asked about whether a casual sexual encoutner was the same thing as the Meredith-Giacomo relation. I answered, well, it is apparently not exactly the same thing, if we want to be pedantic. But it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, we are not judgemental about private behaviours.
Then you come back again on the topic of Meredith's private life - or better with speculations about what could be the unknown part of Meredith private life.
I don't think this line of discussion on your part makes any sense.
Are you contending that a scenario of a meeting between Knox and Guede is unreasonable? Because if you have something to say in terms of evidence that such scenario is unreasonable, that would be the only subject of relevance in a discussion about this point.

"We are not judgemental about people's private encounters". I wish that were true on both ends there.

There is nothing at all that points to a meeting of Rudy and Knox at ALL. So, yes, it is completely unreasonable. Especially, being there is no evidence as well. The logic here is extremely lacking.