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

[Bill Williams]

Do you feel the collection of the forensic evidence is one of the most suspect aspect of this case due to the following :-

* The forensic evidence was collected after the arrests of Amanda and Raffaele. Normal procedure is to analyse forensic evidence and arrest a suspect if the evidence matches someone.

* The knife was picked at random from Raffaele's apartment and the only knife taken just happens to be the one used in the murder. No other knives are taken from Raffaele's apartment, Rudy's apartment or the cottage for testing.
* The bra clasp conveniently turns up when it is proved footprints in Meredith's room don't match Raffaele's shoes.

* The bra clasp is not collected and the luminol tests are not done until six weeks after the murder.

* When the luminol tests are done, the footprints of Laura and Filomena are not taken for comparison.

If Nencini convicts on Thursday, this issue of "Raffaele's kitchen knife matches the bedsheet stain" will play big. It will have to. Why? Because that's the last tidbit of anything that would mean that knife had ever made it to the cottage.

And after 6 years of guilter, haters, and prosecution promoting an equally silly "two-knife theory", now that the RIS Carabinieri has told the Nencini court that there is no DNA evidence, the guilters, haters, and prosecution have to make a "last stand" on this knife on something other than DNA. (No matter that it matches none of the wounds.) They now have to invent a new reason why that knife is in the crime, or else there is nothing linking Raffaele (or Amanda for that matter) to this.

Has Crini convicted Nencini et al. though? It is strange, because the motive Crini advances is one with no premeditation.... I mean, did Knox know that Rudy had left a sample in Filomena's toilet? Did Knox bring the kitchen knife because she feared a cleanliness-dust-up was going to break out?

The only reason to invent out of whole cloth the "kitchen knife is a match for the bedsheet stain" is to keep Knox/Sollecito connected to this crime.

It has taken two fairly recent inventions by the Crini prosecution to suggest this - and he just may pull it off.

Mignini himself was too embarrassed to suggest something against the obvious - it's why Mignini invented the two-knife theory. Even Mignini ended the Hellmann trial suggesting the was no motive to this crime; I mean, he'd flown about four of them to no avail. Both Massei AND Hellmann saw no mitve for AK and/or RS to have been involved in this.

To my way of thinking, the Nencini court is now hemmed in. That court still may convict, but they will convict on at least two inventions that not even Cassazione entertained, and those two inventions were not even a reason for Cassazione overturning the acquittals.

But for a conviction to hold, Nencini needs to accept both of them - Nencini needs to accept that the bedsheet stain is a match for the kitchen knife.... because no DNA, no match on the bedsheet.... then there's no reason for that knife to even be entertained....

..... except that Italian justice has kept that knife in this crime against all logic for more than 6 years.

More than six years.

They cannot let go of it now.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

I think this is an instance where the basic elements are correct, but some preciseness was lost in the telling of it. As you note the direct connection is between the reporting of the results and the Sollecito family appearance being aired.

However the Sollecito family had discovered the incompatibility of the footprints with Raffaele's shoes long before that, and talked about it on the phone which ILE was bugging and recording. They listened to, recorded and transcribed about 30k messages in this case, most of them the Sollecito family. Outside those shoeprints there was nothing linking Raffaele to the crime scene, the only contender being the partial bathmat stain which looks even more dubious in the complete isolation it was prior to the second trip once it was realized a six year old could determine the shoeprints didn't match Raffaele's by counting the rings.

That was the situation that caused the prosecution to go on the 'second trip' to gather more 'evidence,' they didn't have enough evidence and they knew from listening in on the Sollecitos that they were about to be exposed as fools before God and all of Italy. Just like it took Stefanoni time to process the results from the second trip, it took the Sollecitos time to arrange for the appearance and then air it afterward.

 

[Diocletus]

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?

Extracted December 29, 2007. Quantified January 3, 2008.

I haven't looked at this closely, so can't say anything definite about the date of the egram, but usually it would be very close to the quantification date. I would say that they had the result a week before January 11.

 

[RoseMontague]

Extracted December 29, 2007. Quantified January 3, 2008.

I haven't looked at this closely, so can't say anything definite about the date of the egram, but usually it would be very close to the quantification date. I would say that they had the result a week before January 11.

Thank you. Very suspicious that they would wait. Unless they already knew about the shoe print. It would be nice to have a transcript of the calls and find out exactly when the Sollecitos began talking about this.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think this is an instance where the basic elements are correct, but some preciseness was lost in the telling of it. As you note the direct connection is between the reporting of the results and the Sollecito family appearance being aired.

However the Sollecito family had discovered the incompatibility of the footprints with Raffaele's shoes long before that, and talked about it on the phone which ILE was bugging and recording. They listened to, recorded and transcribed about 30k messages in this case, most of them the Sollecito family. Outside those shoeprints there was nothing linking Raffaele to the crime scene, the only contender being the partial bathmat stain which looks even more dubious in the complete isolation it was prior to the second trip once it was realized a six year old could determine the shoeprints didn't match Raffaele's by counting the rings.

That was the situation that caused the prosecution to go on the 'second trip' to gather more 'evidence,' they didn't have enough evidence and they knew from listening in on the Sollecitos that they were about to be exposed as fools before God and all of Italy. Just like it took Stefanoni time to process the results from the second trip, it took the Sollecitos time to arrange for the appearance and then air it afterward.

I wonder if will ever be known, the exact timing of this.

 

[AmyStrange]

Amanda is CREEPY looking to me...

-

Photographers who click many photographs or videotape an individual for 20 or 200 seconds of course can look through their photos or frames and select the single still to show the person in an attractive or unattractive manner. Want to present someone appearing attractive, poised, and confident -I can select a good image for you. Want someone looking distant with beady-eyes - just a moment while I grab one from my many photos or video frames. What I am getting at of course is that viewers are often prejudiced by images selected to emphases real or imagined trait. The same goes for written descriptions.

Do any of you readers think Amanda has beady-eyes? Untrustworthy looks? What values do you associate with that.

-

I have said many times here that I think Amanda is creepy looking.

Many people think I'm creepy looking, and almost all those same people say I'm probably one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.

In short, anyone who thinks that looks determines how capable you are of murder is stupid and a dumb^ss idiot to boot. Need I mention how a lot of people thought Ted Bundy was good looking.

Looks are the last thing you should use to determine a person's evilness,

d

-

 

[Welshman]

Do you feel the massive level of corruption and misconduct which was carried out by the police and prosecution is a clear indication the prosecution had a weak case. RandyN has written excellent posts on the corruption which occurred in this case. The prosecution destroyed several computers, refused to hand over the EDFs, refused to hand over CCTV footage. Why would the prosecution have to suppress evidence if they had a a solid case?

During the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele the interrogations were not recorded, Amanda and Raffaele were not told they were suspects and were denied access to lawyers. As I have stated in a previous post, why did the prosecution have to resort to dubious and illegal tactics if they had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele?

The prosecution told numerous lies to the press and in court. There were several instances where the prosecution lied about non existent evidence. For instance, the police leaked a false story to the press bleach receipts had been purchased. Why did the prosecution feel it necessary to lie about non existent evidence if they had a mountain of genuine evidence against Amanda and Raffaele? The prosecution lied where they distorted the evidence Amanda and Raffaele. For instance, to support the notion Raffaele called the postal police after they arrived, they police lied about their time of arrival. Crini recently lied that Raffaele's knife matched the bloody outline on the bed. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele why did they have to disort the evidence and not just present the evidence truthfully? The prosecution lied to Amanda she had HIV and her list of sexual partners was released to the media to attack her character. Why would a prosecution with a mountain of solid evidence have to resort to this kind of tactic? Stefanoni lied about changing gloves. If the prosecution had a solid case, why did they have to lie to cover up sloppy evidence handling?

The guilters often lie when arguing the case for guilt. For instance, the recent pro-guilt wiki was riddled with falsehoods. If there was clear and overwhelming evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, why are the guilters unable to present the case for guilt without having to resort to lying?

Some on this board have argued the DNA on the clasp was planted. Why would the police feel it necessary to manufacture evidence if they had a mountain of solid evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

Do you feel a major problem in this case is the misconduct which happened in this case is barely known. To the best of my knowledge, the media have not described fully the evidence which was suppressed and the lies told by the prosecution.

 

[andreajo]

-


-

I have said many times here that I think Amanda is creepy looking.

Many people think I'm creepy looking, and almost all those same people say I'm probably one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.

In short, anyone who thinks that looks determines how capable you are of murder is stupid and a dumb^ss idiot to boot. Need I mention how a lot of people thought Ted Bundy was good looking.

Looks are the last thing you should use to determine a person's evilness,

d

-

I agree, but it's hard work! There is such a strong human tendency to judge at a glance. This probably came in handy at some points in human development (Pointy teeth! Run!)

To my mind, it takes real discipline to have those 'wait a minute' second thoughts and learn people as we go along and see what they actually do rather than making and holding snap judgments.

I also think that people vary in their tendencies to judge people by their appearances and their positions in the community rather than by their demonstrated behavior.

 

[Strozzi]

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, let me clarify the timing of the shoe and bra clasp claims. This will show that Stefanoni had plenty of time to process the clasp and inform the Perugia prosecutor and police of her alleged finding.

Raffaele's family located the model of shoe owned by Rudy Guede in early December. They talked about it in many phone conversations while the police were monitoring their phones. As a result, on December 18 Stefanoni returned to the cottage in Perugia to collect the bra clasp. Rudy's father did not go on Italian TV to disclose the shoe and compare it to the shoeprint until January 11 2008. Stefanoni had about 23 days from Dec 18 until Jan 11 to process the bra clasp and "discover" Raffaele's DNA on it before the news show with Raffaele's father aired during the day on January 118. That evening , Jan 11, Italian news carried the offsetting claim that police had the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA on it.

 

[Strozzi]

-

I have said many times here that I think Amanda is creepy looking.

Many people think I'm creepy looking, and almost all those same people say I'm probably one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.

In short, anyone who thinks that looks determines how capable you are of murder is stupid and a dumb^ss idiot to boot. Need I mention how a lot of people thought Ted Bundy was good looking.

Looks are the last thing you should use to determine a person's evilness,

d -

Amy, in my post I was trying to call attention to the fact that photographers selectively choose individual photos or video frames from many photos or video frames they have taken. They can easily catch a person in an unflattering pose or facial gesture or eye position. It means nothing about the person. It does not mean they are "creepy". It means a lot about the photographer and editor who are selectively choosing a specific image for effect.

Every photo you see in the media has been selectively chosen. Don't judge people you see in media coverage on their appearance because their appearance looks "creepy". Images shown of Amanda with "beady-eyes" are a setup by photographers and editors.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I agree, but it's hard work! There is such a strong human tendency to judge at a glance. This probably came in handy at some points in human development (Pointy teeth! Run!)

To my mind, it takes real discipline to have those 'wait a minute' second thoughts and learn people as we go along and see what they actually do rather than making and holding snap judgments.

I also think that people vary in their tendencies to judge people by their appearances and their positions in the community rather than by their demonstrated behavior.

-

I agree. I have to keep reminding myself not to judge people by their looks all the time. Like you said, it's not easy to do,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Amy, in my post I was trying to call attention to the fact that photographers selectively choose individual photos or video frames from many photos or video frames they have taken. They can easily catch a person in an unflattering pose or facial gesture or eye position. It means nothing about the person. It does not mean they are "creepy". It means a lot about the photographer and editor who are selectively choosing a specific image for effect.

Every photo you see in the media has been selectively chosen. Don't judge people you see in media coverage on their appearance because their appearance looks "creepy". Images shown of Amanda with "beady-eyes" are a setup by photographers and editors.

-

I couldn't agree more. It has gotten to the point (at least in my opinion anyway) that I can tell how an article (about Amanda and Raffaele) is slanted by the picture of Amanda they use,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

Noob question: What was in the anonymous letter?

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.

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.

A simple reading of that section says that they are opening the outer container and determining the disposition of each sample (presumably in their own sealed container). The loss is due to limitations in that many tests are destructive in that they alter or contaminate the sample.

It sounds like they treat this task as a housecleaning chore that a janitor could do. In reality, this task needs to be carried out by someone that is osmotically familiar with the case and also has a strong background in all forensics tasks so they can best allocate the testing to preserve the findable results. It also needs to be documented why each choice was made.

 

[Mary_H]

Do you feel the massive level of corruption and misconduct which was carried out by the police and prosecution is a clear indication the prosecution had a weak case.<snip>

Yes.

Do you feel a major problem in this case is the misconduct which happened in this case is barely known.

Yes.

To the best of my knowledge, the media have not described fully the evidence which was suppressed and the lies told by the prosecution.

I agree that this is true about the mainstream media and "objective" reporting about the case. To learn about the incompetence and inconsistencies, readers have to look for editorial commentary about the case, of which, thank goodness, there is quite a bit.

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder if will ever be known, the exact timing of this.

Just quickly paging through "Honor Bound" the prosecution had reason to believe there was something...inexact...about the match between Raffaele's shoes and the shoeprints as the original police report (Foligno forensic team) on them was very vague and concluded only a theoretical possibility in the match from the size (Raffaele was a 42.5 and Rudy was a 45) and shape (they were both Nike). Mignini then took the pictures of the shoes to his bitches the Polizia Scientifica and they produced a report saying they were an exact match which is what he took into court before Matteini.

However on November 21st the police searching Rudy's apartment found shoeprints with the exact same pattern as the ones left in Meredith's blood at the cottage. As Raffaele's lawyer was there, the Sollecitos were aware of this and took the results to forensic experts who determined they were an exact match. Raffaele's father and his uncle Giuseppe started searching shops all over Perugia and Bari respectively, looking for the same copy of Nike Outbreak 2 model Rudy wore, so they could demonstrate conclusively in court Raffaele's Nike Air Force 1 shoes hadn't made those prints, Rudy's shoes that he'd disposed of (but kept the box) had made those prints.

Rudy's model was an older one and tough to find in shoe stores at that date so they didn't actually find one until after the second trip to the crime scene, but before that the police would know through monitoring Dr. Sollecito and Giuseppe that they were looking for those shoes and know through their own investigation of Rudy's place the shoeprints there matched the ones left in Meredith's blood at the cottage. Therefore they knew at the very least that the prints at Rudy's and the cottage matched, that the Sollecitos knew that and were looking in shoe stores for the exact model Rudy wore so they could take it into court and prove it.

The police knew they were going to lose the shoeprints against Raffaele, therefore they needed some evidence of his presence during the crime leading to the necessity of the second trip to gather it.

 

[Strozzi]

-


-

I couldn't agree more. It has gotten to the point (at least in my opinion anyway) that I can tell how an article (about Amanda and Raffaele) is slanted by the picture of Amanda they use,

d -

Here is a test you can do. Have a friend take 30 photos of you a few seconds apart as you look in her general direction. Then go through them and identify five that make you look dumb, five that make you look sinister, five that make you look ugly, and a few that make you look alert, confident, and attractive. Then delete those few good ones because if a tabloid were to run a story on you accused of a crime those are NOT the photos they would selectively choose to print.

 

[christianahannah]

Kevin, let me clarify the timing of the shoe and bra clasp claims. This will show that Stefanoni had plenty of time to process the clasp and inform the Perugia prosecutor and police of her alleged finding.

Raffaele's family located the model of shoe owned by Rudy Guede in early December. They talked about it in many phone conversations while the police were monitoring their phones. As a result, on December 18 Stefanoni returned to the cottage in Perugia to collect the bra clasp. Rudy's father did not go on Italian TV to disclose the shoe and compare it to the shoeprint until January 11 2008. Stefanoni had about 23 days from Dec 18 until Jan 11 to process the bra clasp and "discover" Raffaele's DNA on it before the news show with Raffaele's father aired during the day on January 118. That evening , Jan 11, Italian news carried the offsetting claim that police had the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA on it.

Raffaele's family may have located the model of shoe owned by Rudy in early December, however, by that date the police already had in their possession an empty shoebox labeled "NIKE OUTBREAK 2" size 11 (45cm) which was taken from a November 21 search of Rudy's apartment.

The delay in testing of the clasp could have been due to many things none of them nefarious in nature. Timing of the defense consultants to attend, backlog of other case evidence to be tested, motions before the court concerning this piece of evidence are some of the possible reasons for the time delay.

I have done a preliminary timeline concerning different pieces of evidence. There is missing information which may find itself in the different court transcripts. There is much I didn't know and I'm sure much more to know about the investigation of the Kercher Case.

 

[Kaosium]

Raffaele's family may have located the model of shoe owned by Rudy in early December, however, by that date the police already had in their possession an empty shoebox labeled "NIKE OUTBREAK 2" size 11 (45cm) which was taken from a November 21 search of Rudy's apartment.

Christiana, what do you think of Mignini not liking the report from the Foligno forensic team and taking the pictures of the shoes to the Polizia Scientifica and getting a much stronger opinion of an exact match between the shoeprints left at the cottage and Raffaele's shoes so he could take it before Matteini?

 

[anglolawyer]

Raffaele's family may have located the model of shoe owned by Rudy in early December, however, by that date the police already had in their possession an empty shoebox labeled "NIKE OUTBREAK 2" size 11 (45cm) which was taken from a November 21 search of Rudy's apartment.

The delay in testing of the clasp could have been due to many things none of them nefarious in nature. Timing of the defense consultants to attend, backlog of other case evidence to be tested, motions before the court concerning this piece of evidence are some of the possible reasons for the time delay.

I have done a preliminary timeline concerning different pieces of evidence. There is missing information which may find itself in the different court transcripts. There is much I didn't know and I'm sure much more to know about the investigation of the Kercher Case.

There sure is. Let's say, as a kind of thought experiment, the case finally concludes in acquittals across the board (well, not for Rudy) as, of course, it should and, Italy having a bottomless pit of money to burn, decides to look into the conduct of the prosecution. Do you think there is any material justifying a criminal enquiry against anyone?

 

[Strozzi]

Thank you. Very suspicious that they would wait. Unless they already knew about the shoe print. It would be nice to have a transcript of the calls and find out exactly when the Sollecitos began talking about this.

In his book, Honor Bound (paperback pp. 118-121), Raffaele describes the family's search for the shoe model and, after locating it, their discussions of whether to disclose it publicly then or quietly save the information and present/reveal it in court in front of the judges. By this time the Sollecito family believed that the police and prosecutor were falsifying interpretations of evidence against Raffaele and Amanda. The natural reason to not disclose the shoe discovery early, and only reveal it in court, is to not give the police or prosecution an opportunity to prepare false claims to counter it. Of course, with the police listening to their phones, the police knew already that the shoe model had been found and proved that the bloody shoeprints were made by Rudy.

Raffaele describes a humorous incident when his uncle Giuseppe found the Nike Outbreak 2 model worn by Rudy in a sales rack in a store in Adelfia, near Bari in southeast Italy. Giusepe did not buy the shoe because it was a size 44 and the Nike Outbreak 2 shoebox taken from Rudy's flat by the police showed that Rudy wore a size 45! Raffaele describes the phone conversation between his uncle and his father when his uncle asked if he should buy the size 44 one:
"So, should I buy them?" Giuseppe asked.
Capita! What are you talking about?" My father all but exploded on the other end of the line. "Yes, of course?" (pp. 118)

Raffaele comments in his book the reason why it was so difficult to locate the model of shoe that Rudy wore. Raffaele, being affluent, wore a fairly expensive current model, Nike Air Force 1. Rudy, being poor, had purchased a cheaper model. By late 2007, when the Sollecito family was looking in stores in Perugia, Rome, Baria, and elsewhere, Rudy's model was a discontinued model with apparently few left in stock.