• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
davefoc said:
...And the murderer is so sure of Knox's loyalty that he decides to stick around town because he knows Knox won't tell the police about him?

...
Click to expand...

This seems like a very strong argument that Guede didn't have accomplices. How is it that he thinks he is going to get away with this murder if he had accomplices that he couldn't have known nearly well enough to develop a strong trust relationship with? Knox was only newly arrived in town and even if you imagine Knox/Sollecito meetings with Guede for which there is no evidence what in the world would make Guede think they wouldn't turn on him?
 
JREF2010 said:
maybe Nencini will shock everyone and re-convict Patrick based off glimpsing Matteini's Report.(sarcasm)
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I think that Matteini's report is a very serious issue in this case.

You have a judge basically convicting the defendants of a sensational crime before there has even been a trial. Not only that, but the decision is based on information which has been entirely refuted and/or was known to be false by the prosecution at the time of the hearing. Then the judge goes on to publish a lengthy opinion on the subject, to the grave prejudice of the defendants.

This is on my list of possible ECHR violations.
 
RoseMontague said:
I am told this very point was brought up in Raffaele's closing arguments on the DNA at the last hearing. The argument was that without knowing all the dates there is really no way to to tell if there is really a 6 day gap.
Click to expand...

There are 73 gaps in the extraction records that correspond to the "gap." Meaning, that there are up to 73 unknown samples that could have been extracted during the 11/7 to 11/12 period.
 
Dan O. said:
I somehow missed that article. I copied the Google translation of every article indexed under Meredith Kercher (there are 2 from 11/8). Somehow that one got skipped. Have you got the link to the original article?

The times of the forensics tests are also important. Is there any better reference to exactly when the tests were run? Too bad their tech wasn't better at keeping records.
Click to expand...

It's on this page for the 8 November Italian articles "Meredith Kercher"

https://www.google.com/search?q="me...ange:2454413-2454413&safe=off&tbs=lr:lang_1it
 
I've been reviewing what rudy says in the days before his capture. Rudy is either telling the best truth that he can or Rudy is telling the best lie that he can. One snippet that I brought out before is where Rudy says that the window wasn't broken when he left. Specifically, in the Skype call he says:

Rudy's Skype call said:
Rudy: Yes but then, after, though, from what I've read, someone else came, because when I left, the window wasn't broken, Giacomo, the window of the house, that window out front, it wasn't broken.
Click to expand...


If Rudy is telling the truth, this is evidence of the staging. But then, how does Rudy know that it was the window out front that was broken?



Broken window news

  • 2007-11-02 Republica (dead)
    The squad of Perugia - directed by Marco Chiacchera - and the forensic police have started investigations. It appears that traces of blood have been found on the broken window and on a handkerchief near a railing which delimits the overlying road, as well as in the chamber of the victim.
  • 2007-11-03 BBC NEWS | UK | Hunt for British student's killer
    BBC correspondent Christian Fraser said the door to the bedroom in which she was found had been locked from the inside and it is thought the murderer may have left through a broken window.
  • 2007-11-03 Mirror (Nick Piza) BRIT STUDENT DEAD IN BED WITH THROAT CUT
    Tv footage showed officers focusing on a window of the victim's room as the door had been locked from the inside. Bloodstained scraps of paper were said to have been found near the body.
  • 2007-11-03 thepost.co.za - British student has throat slit in Italy - Post | IOL.co.zaPolice forced open her locked door and found her body under a mattress. Blood was also detected on a broken window through which her attacker is thought to have escaped.
  • 2007-11-03 Republica (mystery of Meredith)
    Police are also searching for the weapon used to kill the girl - maybe a knife or a screwdriver - and the key to the door of the room where the girl was found dead. The room was in fact found locked, and the possibility remains that privileged murderer who killed both and then escaped through the window.
  • 2007-11-04 Mirror (Kate Mansey) ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
    Investigators say the killer most probably broke in through a window, locked Meredith's door after killing her and then escaped in a hurry, leaving the front door open and throwing the mobile phones into woodland as he fled. Last night, in a significant development, detectives said they believed Meredith had sex on the night she was murdered - but it was not clear whether it was consensual or forced.
  • 2007-11-06 The Island (Malcolm Moor) Student’s sex party that ended in murder
    Knox originally told police that she and Sollecito spent the night at his house and returned the next day to find Miss Kercher’s body. Detectives say they broke a window and ransacked the flat to give the impression she was killed by a burglar.
  • 2007-11-07 Republica (screams)
    Before leaving the house, l 'murderess (or murderers) clumsily simulate an attempted robbery, breaking the glass of a door-window with a rock to be found in the lounge.
  • 2007-11-09 Mail - Judge's report reveals horrific details of Meredith's final hours | Mail Online
    "And that she had tried to contact Meredith but without any result, and that she went back to the apartment in Via della Pergola in the company of Sollecito and that she noticed that the glass of a window was broken, and that she discovered the door of the room occupied by Meredith was locked and that she decided to call the Carabinieri after Sollecito called his sister to ask what they should do.
  • 2007-11-09 Telegraph - How the sex game went wrong/ Judge's report - Telegraph
    And that she had tried to contact Meredith but without any result, and that she went back to the apartment in Via della Pergola in the company of Sollecito and that she noticed that the glass of a window was broken, and that she discovered the door of the room occupied by Meredith was locked and that she decided to call the Carabinieri after Sollecito called his sister to ask what they should do.
  • 2007-11-11 Corriere.it
    Someone smashed a window in an attempt to simulate a burglary. But who?


If the factoid of the broken window is not reported in the news as being "out front" then Rudy is bleeding his reality into his lie.
 
davefoc said:
This seems like a very strong argument that Guede didn't have accomplices. How is it that he thinks he is going to get away with this murder if he had accomplices that he couldn't have known nearly well enough to develop a strong trust relationship with? Knox was only newly arrived in town and even if you imagine Knox/Sollecito meetings with Guede for which there is no evidence what in the world would make Guede think they wouldn't turn on him?
Click to expand...

He must have been pissed when he found out they had selectively cleaned the place to point the finger at him only AND faked his MO. Why didn't Amanda say at the questura, during the interrogations or before, that she had got the creeps about this Rudy guy she ran into once downstairs. Hint, hint. Well, she didn't. I guess the loyalty she showed naming Lumumba was good enough to blank out all the rest in Rudy's eyes.
 
Diocletus said:
This is a good point. I think that Matteini's report is a very serious issue in this case.

You have a judge basically convicting the defendants of a sensational crime before there has even been a trial. Not only that, but the decision is based on information which has been entirely refuted and/or was known to be false by the prosecution at the time of the hearing. Then the judge goes on to publish a lengthy opinion on the subject, to the grave prejudice of the defendants.

This is on my list of possible ECHR violations.
Click to expand...

We should compare lists Diocletus. I had about 11 on mine (it's far back somewhere on about the 3rd or 4th continuation).

It would be very amusing if JREF2010's fantasy became reality and the focus swung back on Patrick. Swiss professor my ass!
 
RoseMontague said:
Never mind then, enjoy the discussion
Click to expand...

Sorry if I seemed nonresponsive. My point though, was that not only do we not know the exact "gap" dates, but we don't even know if the gap is real because we don't know what samples were tested in the gap. For all we know, they were samples from this case, and thus the "gap" is just a records-production "gap," not a "testing" gap. This would make sense, because, after all, it appears to have been illegal for Stefanoni to have done testing during the "gap." Did she really drop everything and start working on a different case? Or, did she do testing on this case and then conceal the records because the testing was illegal? This was literally the world's most important case at this time.

It's instructive to go back to the anonymous letter sent to Hellmann, and read it in light of this issue.
 
Diocletus said:
There are 73 gaps in the extraction records that correspond to the "gap." Meaning, that there are up to 73 unknown samples that could have been extracted during the 11/7 to 11/12 period.
Click to expand...

Diocletus said:
Sorry if I seemed nonresponsive. My point though, was that not only do we not know the exact "gap" dates, but we don't even know if the gap is real because we don't know what samples were tested in the gap. For all we know, they were samples from this case, and thus the "gap" is just a records-production "gap," not a "testing" gap. This would make sense, because, after all, it appears to have been illegal for Stefanoni to have done testing during the "gap." Did she really drop everything and start working on a different case? Or, did she do testing on this case and then conceal the records because the testing was illegal? This was literally the world's most important case at this time.

It's instructive to go back to the anonymous letter sent to Hellmann, and read it in light of this issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of your posts and the fact is even if there is a gap it really means nothing without knowing if the equipment used afterwards was tested and cleaned or used in other tests then cleaned during that time. After seeing examples of Stefi's work and having read her testimony, I don't have much confidence in her procedures, or her record keeping, or her honesty.

Just having one of those days.
 
machine logs

The date at which they began to use the Qubit fluorometer is also troubling. They should have released the machine logs as part of discovery.
 
Diocletus said:
Sorry if I seemed nonresponsive. My point though, was that not only do we not know the exact "gap" dates, but we don't even know if the gap is real because we don't know what samples were tested in the gap. For all we know, they were samples from this case, and thus the "gap" is just a records-production "gap," not a "testing" gap. This would make sense, because, after all, it appears to have been illegal for Stefanoni to have done testing during the "gap." Did she really drop everything and start working on a different case? Or, did she do testing on this case and then conceal the records because the testing was illegal? This was literally the world's most important case at this time.

It's instructive to go back to the anonymous letter sent to Hellmann, and read it in light of this issue.
Click to expand...

Noob question: What was in the anonymous letter?
 
andreajo said:
Noob question: What was in the anonymous letter?
Click to expand...

This is the part that I find interesting in this context:

When on the exhibits more than one test must be made (e.g. residues of the shot, ballistic, biological, fingerprints, etc.) it is practice that the boxes or containers in which all the material was packaged are opened and, before the date for beginning the operations is established, one goes on with the "household disposal" [not clear what it is, probably jargon] of the exhibits, as though they were relative to different cases. In this way it is very high the possibility of losing important information about exhibits that maybe someone decides arbitrarily to allocate to the ballistics analysis rather than to that of the residues of the shot.
Click to expand...

My take on this is that it is common practice for the lab to open exhibits before the official date set for testing (i.e., the date stated in the notice to the defendants) and perform some sort of operations on them. I find this interesting because: 1) it would seem to be illegal, 2) what are the implications for contamination?, and 3) the first batch of tests in this case was in fact performed under a different case number.

Was Rep. 36 opened at some time prior to the testing date in order to perform the blood testing? Interesting that the tests were negative; had they been positive, it would have been necessary for Stefanoni to produce the actual records of the testing and not simply a summary of the testing as set forth in the SAL.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
The date at which they began to use the Qubit fluorometer is also troubling. They should have released the machine logs as part of discovery.
Click to expand...

The QF logs start on 11/6.

There are Real Time records for some of the samples quantified on 11/6, and QF records for the rest (16 traces).
 
RoseMontague said:
The bra clasp was not planted, it was still there on the floor. All the other tests had been run already and they did not think they needed anything else against Raffaele because of the shoe print. When that was shown to be not his print after all they had to have something else to place him at the scene of the crime. That is when they decided to make another trip to the cottage.
Click to expand...

I think you might want to check the timeline on that. I could be misremembering, but I think this is a bit of pro-innocence fan fiction that doesn't actually check out.

The results of Stefanoni's second trip were announced shortly after the shoe print lie got busted, but you can't run a whole bunch of DNA tests overnight. Stefanoni's trip, as I recall, took place well before the shoe print "evidence" was exposed.

I agree completely that Stefanoni's conduct with respect to the second trip and its results was as shady as hell. It's just not quite right to present it as a trip taken in direct response to the shoe print evidence being exposed as nonsense.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I think you might want to check the timeline on that. I could be misremembering, but I think this is a bit of pro-innocence fan fiction that doesn't actually check out.

The results of Stefanoni's second trip were announced shortly after the shoe print lie got busted, but you can't run a whole bunch of DNA tests overnight. Stefanoni's trip, as I recall, took place well before the shoe print "evidence" was exposed.

I agree completely that Stefanoni's conduct with respect to the second trip and its results was as shady as hell. It's just not quite right to present it as a trip taken in direct response to the shoe print evidence being exposed as nonsense.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the correction. It was announced on TV on 11 January 2008 that the shoe matched a Nike Outbreak 2 and a few hours later the cops announced they had found RS DNA on the clasp. That does sound like a lot of time between collection and announcing the results. Something still doesn't feel right about this. What are the dates on the testing?
 
Honor Bound indicates a lot of phone calls going on about the shoes between the family before the announcement. I wonder if those were intercepted and the cops had planned to announce the DNA find immediately afterwards. I also wonder when they began to talk about the shoes over the phone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom