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

[Wildhorses]

You could have fooled me. After reading your post, I felt like I was on trial myself.

It was not my intent to make you feel you were on trial, but I realize it's hard to know the tone of a post. I assumed you posted your "verdict" because you wanted to discuss it.

I will only answer one question from your post. This is because I believe that this type of intellectual masturbation is disrespectful to the victim, and I have already crossed that imaginary boundary long ago on this forum. I understand that most people here do not share that POV and I accept that. However, my POV on this topic is equally valid. We can just agree to disagree on this point.

Please know respect for the victim is of GREAT concern to others. At least it is to me. My family suffered the loss of a young person, not through murder, but through an accident that could have been prevented. I sat through support groups for grieving parents and family members for years and can't describe... I'll leave it at that, except to repeat: respect for the victim is a matter of enormous importance to me.

I think distorting the facts of the case is extremely disrespectful of Meredith's memory.

1)AK's blood in the bathroom, multiple mixed DNA (AK &MK) in bathroom, no RG DNA in the bathroom
2)RG footprints go out the front door, not trail into the bathroom
3)Multiple mixed DNA in Filomena's room
4)Sollecito's footprint on bathmat
5)Bra clasp (DNA does not float through the air)
6)The calunnia conviction
7)Confession (large discrepancies in her interrogation experience, even given by herself)
8)etc.

The Meredith wiki makes more sense to me than the information on IIP. I don't even take the information on wiki-spaces seriously, because any site that contains sordid information on people not directly related to the actual case, is a big red flag.

I thought your opinion was based on reading the court transcripts. It may be the Meredith wiki makes more sense to you, but it does not present the facts accurately or objectively.

I don't know why various people have an agenda, but CLEARLY they do. I wholeheartedly agree dragging in extraneous people is a flaming red flag -- as is, IMO, dragging in hearsay, wild speculation, and baseless assumptions about AK/RS.

No need to debunk the above. I'm sure in the thousands of posts on this forum, these points have been discussed endlessly and debunked.

No need to debunk, eh. Yeah, except it's just so sad to see people calling for the ruin of two more young lives. Over nothing. Over distortions of the facts.

FYI: DNA quite easily floats through the air.

I will wait to read the motivation report in the spring.

Until then, I have served no one. If Amanda and Raffaele are truly innocent (which I do not believe they are), then I am sorry for this post and for believing in their guilt. Whether they are innocent or guilty, I apologize to the victim for using this case as a vehicle for ruminating discussions.

This case is a no win situation for anyone. Very, very sad for everyone.

Indeed, the case is tragic all around. If the police hadn't leaped to judgement, if evidence had been collected more carefully, if fewer cultural factors had been in play (a factor I happen to think is enormous), if AK/RS had had lawyers...

And, above, all if Rudy Guede hadn't done what he so horribly and tragically did.

 

[LondonJohn]

From Nara's testimony...




So she goes to bed 9-9:30PM



So she gets up to go to the bathroom 2 or 2.5 hours later, putting the time 11PM to midnight. (The fake wiki claims 10:30-11PM but this is not what the testimony says)

The now deceased heroin addicted drug dealing park bench bum that has managed to testify in 3 trials for the prosecution puts AK and RS at the basketball court until 11:30PM-to midnight.

So the two super witnesses have placed the TOD by the scream and by AK and RS at the basketball court sometime after 11:30, meaning that meal was still there after 5 hours or more since the start of the meal before the scream was heard.

In my opinion the evidence indicates Meredith was attacked almost immediately by Rudy when she arrived at her cottage a few minutes past 9PM and at a time when both AK and RS were still at his apartment.

You're absolutely correct. And this - coupled with the inconvenient (to the prosecution and Massei) presence of the broken-down car outside the cottage until some time around 11.30pm - led Massei to the stunningly misguided conclusion that the ToD was some time later than 11.30pm.

In my opinion, the defence teams have never made enough of this issue. Yes, there have been some defence arguments on ToD in the appeals, but in my view they should have brought out the big guns on this issue in the Massei trial. They should have introduced expert pathologists and/or gastroenterologists who could have stated unequivocally (and unimpeachably) that the stomach/duodenum evidence simply was not possibly compatible with a ToD later than 10.30pm, and that it very strongly indicated a ToD before 9.30-9.45pm.

The problem (in my view) was that the defence teams didn't nail this issue in the first (Massei) trial. After all, from that point onwards they were at the mercy of the appeal trial judges as to what new evidence/testimony they could introduce. I find it very hard indeed to understand how they collectively didn't seemingly realise that this was a significant issue to address - even if it might have assumed a greater importance as the trial process progressed, it should have been obvious from the start that it at least had some importance. To me, it's up there with other defence blunders in the Massei trial, such as the abject failure to discredit Curatolo (via the ludicrously simple device of picking up the phone and establishing that the out-of-town disco buses were not running on the night of the murder) or Quintavalle.

 

[bri1]

To LBR:
It's stupid to come into a case that's 6 years old and expect to find people with 'open minds'. Most people here have been following and studying the case for some time. It is not reasonable or rational to keep an open mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. Many people such as myself came to JREF because a) we thought AK and RS were probably guilty, but with open minds and b) because the standards of discussions at PMF and TJMK were obviously so low.
By looking in depth at the evidence, educating ourselves about forensic science, psychology and miscarriages of justice, we came to the conclusion that the standard of guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' has not been met and cannot be met on the evidence in existence, and many came to believe that actually the evidence supports factual innocence. However, the fact that the standard of proof has not and cannot be met on this evidence alone marks out this case as a miscarriage of justice, and for many, that's a good enough reason to carry on the discussion. Many people involved at JREF have since become interested in other miscarriages of justice, as there are common errors in all systems of justice; tunnel vision and rushing to judgment, over reliance on behavioural evidence, confirmation bias, suspect-centric forensics, dodgy interrogations and false confessions, character smearing,
As for your quote about fools and wise men, it's clear that you've misunderstood it's meaning.

 

[NancyS]

Why does she have to be involved in the actual murder and be present when the murder took place to have involvement?

Because she's on trial for murder - not for some possible and unproved involvement.

Regardless of whether you think they are innocent or guilty, I find it harder to accept that people believe there is not reasonable doubt - and even harder to accept that people believe the DNA evidence was professionally collected and tested and has any scientific validity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because she's on trial for murder - not for some possible and unproved involvement.

Regardless of whether you think they are innocent or guilty, I find it harder to accept that people believe there is not reasonable doubt - and even harder to accept that people believe the DNA evidence was professionally collected and tested and has any scientific validity.

Exactly. And anyhow, even those who - for reasons apparently known only to themselves - subscribe to some form of "involvement but no direct participation" theory have to overcome two critical hurdles before such a theory has any credence whatsoever:

1) What evidence is there that Knox and/or Sollecito played such a role in the murder? (hint: there's none)

2) Why in the world would Knox and/or Sollecito be motivated to play such a role? Seeing as Guede was provably directly involved in the murder (and there's no reliable evidence of any other participant), why would Knox/Sollecito possibly want - or need - to cover up for Guede? Neither of them owed Guede any allegiance; indeed, Sollecito had never even met him.

 

[Mary_H]

To LBR:
It's stupid to come into a case that's 6 years old and expect to find people with 'open minds'. Most people here have been following and studying the case for some time. It is not reasonable or rational to keep an open mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. Many people such as myself came to JREF because a) we thought AK and RS were probably guilty, but with open minds and b) because the standards of discussions at PMF and TJMK were obviously so low.
By looking in depth at the evidence, educating ourselves about forensic science, psychology and miscarriages of justice, we came to the conclusion that the standard of guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' has not been met and cannot be met on the evidence in existence, and many came to believe that actually the evidence supports factual innocence. However, the fact that the standard of proof has not and cannot be met on this evidence alone marks out this case as a miscarriage of justice, and for many, that's a good enough reason to carry on the discussion. Many people involved at JREF have since become interested in other miscarriages of justice, as there are common errors in all systems of justice; tunnel vision and rushing to judgment, over reliance on behavioural evidence, confirmation bias, suspect-centric forensics, dodgy interrogations and false confessions, character smearing,
As for your quote about fools and wise men, it's clear that you've misunderstood it's meaning.

Yeah, I think he's gone, bri1. He's over at TJMK and the PMFs asking them to apologize to the victim for using this case as a vehicle for ruminating discussions.

 

[NancyS]

You're absolutely correct. And this - coupled with the inconvenient (to the prosecution and Massei) presence of the broken-down car outside the cottage until some time around 11.30pm - led Massei to the stunningly misguided conclusion that the ToD was some time later than 11.30pm.

In my opinion, the defence teams have never made enough of this issue. Yes, there have been some defence arguments on ToD in the appeals, but in my view they should have brought out the big guns on this issue in the Massei trial. They should have introduced expert pathologists and/or gastroenterologists who could have stated unequivocally (and unimpeachably) that the stomach/duodenum evidence simply was not possibly compatible with a ToD later than 10.30pm, and that it very strongly indicated a ToD before 9.30-9.45pm.

The problem (in my view) was that the defence teams didn't nail this issue in the first (Massei) trial. After all, from that point onwards they were at the mercy of the appeal trial judges as to what new evidence/testimony they could introduce. I find it very hard indeed to understand how they collectively didn't seemingly realise that this was a significant issue to address - even if it might have assumed a greater importance as the trial process progressed, it should have been obvious from the start that it at least had some importance. To me, it's up there with other defence blunders in the Massei trial, such as the abject failure to discredit Curatolo (via the ludicrously simple device of picking up the phone and establishing that the out-of-town disco buses were not running on the night of the murder) or Quintavalle.

I'd agree that it doesn't sound like the defence did a particularly good job in the first trial - although it also appears that science isn't held in particularly high regard by much of the Italian justice system.

Medical science can be incrediblt complicated and rarely works in definites - and there are usually anomalies or exceptions to every rule and I think this often makes it hard to use in a trial situation. It's easy to confuse an issue with technical language and obscure exceptions to the rule. However, what should be important is what is most likely - and the evidence suggests that it is most likely Meredith died closer to 9pm and this is corroborated by both phone records, autopsy and Guede.

Meredith most likely died at a time when it was extremely unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele were present. Although I can accept that possibly Meredith had a 1 in a million digestive system - or that possibly Amanda and Raffaele left the flat after 9.30 with a big knife, went to the square to be seen by Curatalo, met Rudy and invited him back, got out of their heads on unknown drugs/alcohol and then killed Meredith over a poo argument, all before 10pm - it does seem incredibly unlikely. Especially when you consider that there is no trace of them in Meredith's room, they are not caught on CCTV even though they are supposedly running back and for between the square and cottage and there is no trace of blood on the clothes they were wearing earlier that day and no other bloody clothes found.

I would need some fairly solid and conclusive evidence to believe the above - instead we have Amanda's DNA being found in her bathroom and flat - DNA evidence on the bra/knife that is not accepted as valid by independent experts, random splodges or footprints that might be compatible and might possibly have contained blood, although did test negative, some confused statements by Amanda that shouldn't even have been entered as evidence - and the rest seems to be character smears. There is reasonable doubt

 

[Wildhorses]

Exactly. And anyhow, even those who - for reasons apparently known only to themselves - subscribe to some form of "involvement but no direct participation" theory have to overcome two critical hurdles before such a theory has any credence whatsoever:

1) What evidence is there that Knox and/or Sollecito played such a role in the murder? (hint: there's none)

2) Why in the world would Knox and/or Sollecito be motivated to play such a role? Seeing as Guede was provably directly involved in the murder (and there's no reliable evidence of any other participant), why would Knox/Sollecito possibly want - or need - to cover up for Guede? Neither of them owed Guede any allegiance; indeed, Sollecito had never even met him.

I used to think that. My first theory of the crime -- based on one or two articles -- was that Amanda Knox was a raging sociopath. I wanted to know her background/home life so I could make sure my daughter didn't get a college roommate like her.

After reading a bit, I got a pretty clear picture of the two versions of Amanda Knox: cold-blooded murderous sexpot versus the girl next door. The discrepancy drove me crazy, so I kept reading and started to absorb actual facts. HOWEVER, for quite a while I had a "where there's smoke, there's fire" theory.

I don't follow crime stories. I'd have never predicted I'd be reading court documents for a murder trial, so it took me a while to seek forums about the case. But yeah, in the interim I figured she had to have done SOMETHING. Maybe not murder, but she had to have some kind of involvement.

Raff wasn't on my radar for months, save the fact that I ALWAYS thought it unlikely TWO sociopaths would find each other, have a week-long romance and not turn on each other.

 

[NancyS]

Raff wasn't on my radar for months, save the fact that I ALWAYS thought it unlikely TWO sociopaths would find each other, have a week-long romance and not turn on each other.

If there were guilty they would likely have turned on each other - and would definitely have turned on Guede. Guede would have been the perfect person for them to blame. If guilty they would have been terrified that there would be lots of evidence of them in Meredith's room and would have blamed the person they knew was there.

Even Guede has only given the most vague suggestion of their involvement. If Guede had met them and Amanda had invited him into their flat, why has he never said this, why would he protect them?

 

[Wildhorses]

Yeah, I think he's gone, bri1. He's over at TJMK and the PMFs asking them to apologize to the victim for using this case as a vehicle for ruminating discussions.

Ugh, you made me look and you were only kidding.

That was a nasty prank, Mary. I avoid those sites. It hurt my mind to be exposed to all the distortions and irrationality embedded in remarks like this:

"The wiki site clarifies one alarming fact: it says that the Supreme Court of Cassation “accepts that footprints made by Amanda Knox, containing her and Meredith Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. To me this is proof positive that Amanda Knox was at the murder scene, walking in blood."

Yeah, right. She found that "fact" alarming.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy is a convicted murderer and a liar who still believes the only thing he did wrong was to not offer Meredith assistance as she was dying. Everything he says must be questioned and not given free pass.

I agree that everything Rudy says must be questioned and not given a free pass. But why would he lie about this detail? Rudy says this during his Skype call with Giacomo, and many times later. And he never lies about being there during the murder. What possible benefit would there be for Rudy to lie about this detail?

While I think it is total bs that someone rang the doorbell while he was on the toilet. (Why would Amanda ring the doorbell?...she had a key) And came in and murdered Meredith?

People lie about things that help to serve their story. How does the time of death help to support that Rudy was on the john when Meredith was murdered?

If your honest, you have to come to the conclusion that it doesn't.

Overall, Rudy's TOD matches the evidence. It matches the gastric evidence right on, not to mention the anecdotal evidence like the strange phone calls at 9:58. 10:00 and 10:13. Then there are the clothes in the washer, the not returning of the call to her mother, and not removing her jacket.

While, it probably is difficult to one hundred percent pinpoint the time of death as before nine thirty, the preponderance of evidence certainly points to that time.
[/QUOTE]

 

[andreajo]

Yeah, I think he's gone, bri1. He's over at TJMK and the PMFs asking them to apologize to the victim for using this case as a vehicle for ruminating discussions.

Ugh, you made me look and you were only kidding.

That was a nasty prank, Mary. I avoid those sites. It hurt my mind to be exposed to all the distortions and irrationality embedded in remarks like this:

"The wiki site clarifies one alarming fact: it says that the Supreme Court of Cassation “accepts that footprints made by Amanda Knox, containing her and Meredith Kercher’s DNA, were made in blood. To me this is proof positive that Amanda Knox was at the murder scene, walking in blood."

Yeah, right. She found that "fact" alarming.

She said it with such a straight face. I just about looked, too.

 

[RoseMontague]

C&V negative control testimony, Google translation. This seems to proceed the way I remember it contemporaneously, in contrast to the way it was told by a poster here previously.

 

[RoseMontague]

I will note C&V asked Stefi twice for the negative controls and still did not have them as of the morning of this hearing and also note that the defense is still requesting the raw data.

 

[RoseMontague]

She said it with such a straight face. I just about looked, too.

She should have saved it for an April Fool's prank. Good one. Psych.

 

[andreajo]

Who said I believed Amanda and Raffaele were involved in slaughtering Meredth? That is what I actually don't get about the guilt/innocent sides and these argurments. Seems either they both had to be in the room with Rudy inflicting the wounds on MK or they were both at Raffaele's. Isn't there an almost limitless range of possibilities and levels of involvement?? I never said AK and Raffaele were in MK's room with Rudy and I actually believe that were not involved in the actual murder.

In order to explore your ideas, you'd need to be more specific about what you mean.

From the post above, you seem to be starting with the following points in your hypothesis:

1) AK and RS were not in the room with RG and Meredith.

2) AK and RS did not physically participate in the murder.

I note from one of your previous posts that you think that only one of AK and RS may have remained at RS apartment to trigger the computer activity.

You are wondering about some different level of involvement and a sea of possibilities. Please give one specific possibility out of the limitless possibilities that you describe so that it may be seriously considered.

 

[Antony]

You could have fooled me. After reading your post, I felt like I was on trial myself.

I will only answer one question from your post. This is because I believe that this type of intellectual masturbation is disrespectful to the victim, and I have already crossed that imaginary boundary long ago on this forum. I understand that most people here do not share that POV and I accept that. However, my POV on this topic is equally valid. We can just agree to disagree on this point.

With respect, LBR, your POV could only be considered equally valid if it were supported by facts. Your answer to Wildhorses's next question shows that it isn't:

1)AK's blood in the bathroom, multiple mixed DNA (AK &MK) in bathroom, no RG DNA in the bathroom
2)RG footprints go out the front door, not trail into the bathroom
3)Multiple mixed DNA in Filomena's room
4)Sollecito's footprint on bathmat
5)Bra clasp (DNA does not float through the air)
6)The calunnia conviction
7)Confession (large discrepancies in her interrogation experience, even given by herself)
8)etc.

1) Meaningless. AK's blood in the bathroom consisted of a single spot on the tap, not related to the crime;
2) Faulty reasoning. The shoeprints do not indicate that RG left the flat at the time of making them;
3) Meaningless;
4) False. The footprint is visibly not a match to Sollecito, and the claims that it is are based on fraudulent measurements;
5) Crime scene compromised beforehand, faulty evidence collection, faulty analysis - and furthermore the result would not indicate guilt even if it were genuine;
6) Appeal to authority fallacy;
7) Worthless because of the circumstances in which it was obtained. What discrepancies?
8) The "etc" has to include the long list of police and prosecution misconduct and lies which in a civilised court would have led to the case being thrown out before the first trial.

The Meredith wiki makes more sense to me than the information on IIP. I don't even take the information on wiki-spaces seriously, because any site that contains sordid information on people not directly related to the actual case, is a big red flag.

No need to debunk the above. I'm sure in the thousands of posts on this forum, these points have been discussed endlessly and debunked.

I will wait to read the motivation report in the spring.

Until then, I have served no one. If Amanda and Raffaele are truly innocent (which I do not believe they are), then I am sorry for this post and for believing in their guilt. Whether they are innocent or guilty, I apologize to the victim for using this case as a vehicle for ruminating discussions.

It would be better to start looking at the facts rather than to offer apologies.

This case is a no win situation for anyone. Very, very sad for everyone.

That at least is something we can agree on.

 

[Antony]

Questions for the pro AK camp:

So what is the consensus on Rudy's motive for breaking into 7 in the first place? Is it purely burglary or burglary and rape? Or is it burglary that just happens to lead to sexual assault that leads to murder? Or is it burglary that leads to murder with no intention of sexual assault?

Some reasons I find the break in theory hard to swallow:
- Most break in burglaries occur in the daytime when there is no chance of anyone being home because they are either at school or work. What makes Rudy think that no one is home? Even if he ascertains that by the lack of response after throwing the rock or simply knocking on the door, what makes him think that no one is going to walk in on him?
- Even if he is risking someone walking in on him, why risk it in place where the residents know him? He is breaking in at the riskiest time of someone walking in on him and the residents know him. Is this really something a burglar does, commit a crime during a time and place with where the risks of being caught and identified are least favorable to the burglar?
- The biggest factors where a burglar decides to break in are concealed entry point and easy getaway route. Why would RG break in in the most exposed are of the apartment, a window that faces the parking lot and a busy road with cars passing by? Suspecting he thought darkness gave him a bit more concealment, early evening is the busiest time of road traffic at night. I have to agree with Massei on this point.
- Why would you break in to the apartment in the most exposed area of the apartment and then assume that no one saw you? I mean, he was relaxed enough to take a poop in the bathroom, he must have felt some sense of security of not having been noticed, no? To take a poop, he must have thought he had no urgency to leave as soon as possible. Burglars want to limit their time in the house, no?
- If sexual assault was the motive, or afterthought, why commit on someone who knows you and can easily ID you, even if Rudy was wearing mask? He was a tall basketball player, Ivorian. Is a mask going to really hide his identity?

Lamasheen, instead of asking us to double-guess Rudy's thinking and reasons for acting as he did, why don't you question the wholly implausible accusations against Amanda and Raff?

There's nothing odd about burglar miscalculating the risks of a particular break-in - IMV, he did not expect Meredith to return home as early as 9pm so he planned on being in and out of the cottage well before 10pm. To suggest this is odd or unlikely while ignoring the totally fanciful and unsupported nature of the prosecution scenario, to me shows a complete lack of impartiality and objectivity.

full disclosure: I am brand new to this forum, just read Honor Bound and parts of the Massei report and other websites and do not know the merits of this case as well as most on this forum. I came here because the case is utterly fascinating and needed to voice my own opinions and theories. I am leaning slightly toward some involvement/guilt of AK after initially believing otherwise. I am just trying to understand the arguments of both sides to make an informed opinion.

Not only are you new to the forum, you also claim earlier to be fresh to the whole discussion of the case, except for having read Raff's book. Yet you repeat a series of (discredited) assertions and arguments coming straight from the sources promoting the claims of AK and RS's alleged guilt in the murder. Why would people here accept that you have ever "initially believed otherwise"?

 

[Grinder]

What page # is this on Grinder? I haven't read him yet.

Most likely already given by someone but it is from Amanda's compilation of testimonies etc. found here

As I said my post was from a Google translation. I have asked the Italian speakers, in particularly Briars and other PGP, to translate it to no avail.

The prosecution tries to fix what he is saying because they know it moves TOD beyond a reasonable time.

 

[Strozzi]

... But I am also not a human forensic expert that can understand the variabilities found in post-mortem gastric emptying. . . .

LBR, why do you think Mignini fired Lalli, the medical examiner, from the case?