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

[Grinder]

I can barely stand reading the obnoxious & insulting posts I've read thus far.

I'd suggest you write a book on the subject since you've seemed to dedicate enormous amounts of time, (years apparently) researching the subject.
I'll even attend your book signing. (no I won't)

Just seems a little ridiculous you've made the choice to post to me twice, now taking the time to point out that I haven't invested the time that you have while insulting me... Instead of just answering my damn question!

If that's what you consider a worthwhile way to spend your time... Carry on and please put me on ignore.

Originally Posted by HotNostril View Post
can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?

Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?

I believe I addressed your issues with the footprint Rudy left.

 

[HotNostril]

I believe I addressed your issues with the footprint Rudy left.

Yes, you did. Thank you.

 

[acbytesla]

What do you think of the arguments that are presented on Websleuths? They are, for the most part, convinced that they are guilty and have argued that the prosecution has proven it. I think they are convincing. They often argue that the footprints detected by luminol belonged to Amanda and that it does not matter whether or not the bra clasp was contaminated because Sollecito's DNA was not supposed to be on it in the first place.

1. How do they know the Luminol footprints belonged to Amanda? There is actually no proof of who they belonged to .
2.How do they know that the Luminol reacted to blood given that Luminol reacts to many substances?
3. How do come to the conclusion that it is blood given the negative TMB test and lack of confirmatory test.

I don't get the point about bra clasp contamination. If you're one of the 5 or six people that they passed the bra clasp back and forth to and then down to the floor again and you had touched something in the cottage that Raffaele had touched, you have just potentially contaminated the bra clasp with his DNA. You do know that Raffaele was in the cottage for hours before the murder. That he had lunch that day with Amanda and Meredith. That he showed up with Amanda that day. That he tried to get into Meredith's bedroom

Who's to say exactly how the bra clasp was contaminated. You can't see DNA, Raffale for example could have sneezed in the cottage and Meredith's bra could have been hanging from the drying rack. It's impossible to know.

That's what makes the ISC decision that it is not enough to show the possibility of contamination is enough. You have to show how that specific sample was contaminated. A VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

But who cares? Right?

 

[Welshman]

These are questions I would like to ask anyone who believes Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy came together to murder Meredith :-

• Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede and no evidence has come forward of a relationship or contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Guede. If Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede and there was no contact prior to Meredith’s murder, how exactly did Amanda and Raffaele arrange the murder of Meredith with Guede?
• When did Amanda and Raffaele plan the murder with Guede if there was no previous contact prior to the murder?
• There is no evidence Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith despite claims made on the pro-guilt hate sites. No witness has said Amanda showed any hostility towards Meredith. No witness has come forward to say Meredith said Amanda had shown any hatred towards her. Raffaele did not know Meredith prior to dating Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating Amanda six days. Is it credible Raffaele would build an intense hatred towards someone he barely knew? In view of this why would Amanda and Raffaelle help a stranger to sexually assault and kill Meredith if they had no animosity towards Meredith?
• Is it credible that a woman would help a stranger to sexually assault and kill another woman? In cases where women help men commit sex crimes against other women, the woman has been in a long term dysfunctional relationship with a domineering man. Myra Hindley is an example of this. The scenario of a woman helping a stranger to sexually assault and kill another woman has no precedent in criminal history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Amanda had only been in Italy a short period of time and only spoke basic Italian. Guede did not speak English. Is it credible to suggest that the two communicated well enough with each other to plan a brutal murder?
• The telephone conversations of Amanda and Raffaele were monitored for three days with no mention made of Guede. Is it credible Amanda and Raffaele could go all this time without mentioning someone they have committed a brutal murder and rape with?
• A variety of factors suggest Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 9.30 pm; the call to Meredith’s mother at 8.56 pm which was cut off and there was no attempt to make a further call. The analysis of Meredith’s stomach contents. The fact Meredith was wearing her jacket which indicated she was attacked immediately after arriving home. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm. If Meredith was attacked between 9.00 pm and 9.30 pm how could Amanda and Raffaele been involved in the Meredith’s murder? A car broke down and a tow truck came to repair the car. The occupants of the car and tow truck were outside the cottage between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm and saw nothing suspicious. If Raffaele was using his computer at 9.26 pm, this leaves just one hour for three virtual strangers to come together to commit a brutal sexual assault and murder. In addition if the prosecution believe the testimony of Curalto, Amanda and Raffaele were at the basketball court between 9.30 pm and 11.30 pm. In view of this, When did Amanda and Raffaele commit the murder with Guede?
• A violent struggle occurred in a confined space. If Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder of Meredith with Guede, why was Guede the only attacker to leave forensic traces? Amanda and Raffaele did not leave any forensic traces such as dna, palm prints, finger prints, hair or saliva. Forensic experts have argued it is impossible to commit a crime of this nature without leaving forensic traces.
• Misconduct was carried out on a massive by the police and prosecution when they prosecuted Amanda and Raffaele. Evidence was suppressed and numerous lies were told by the police and prosecution. The police and prosecution did not supress a single piece of evidence or tell a single lie with regards to Guede. How is this difference explained if Amanda and Raffaele committed the same crime with Guede? Why did the police prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying with Amanda and Raffaele but did not do the same with Guede? If the police and prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying this indicates they have a weak case. If three people have committed a crime together, there should be a strong case against all the defendants.

If you can not answer these questions, how can you claim Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed a murder together?

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for this, and thanks to anglolawyer and abytesla also. I won't clog up the thread with multiple replies.

Ok, feel a bit dumb for not having gleaned this - my discussion is with people who seem to think that its either from the outside or inside and this is what I had thought the prosecution had suggested as well. I may have been distracted by John Douglas in the Forgotten Killer who says in the staged section of his chapter

"photos reveal that prior to breaking the window, the rock first struck the inside edge of the exterior shutter, indicating it was thrown from outside......glass fracture examination of the window would prove this." -

A number of people (including myself!) had difficulty deciphering the part where Massei represents the prosecution theory on the breaking of the glass.

Anyway thanks for the replies. On a more general note, is there any source (meaning court) document that shows the lack of cooperation from the prosecution and/or refusals by the court of defence applications to test evidence? I'm having trouble finding English translations of the procedural stuff. Arguing that the process was weighted against the defendants is so much easier with source docs.

I'm sure these exist being as they were submitted to the court and the Court gave their decision at the outset of both appeals. It was one of these defense applications that led to the appointment of Conti and Vecchiotti, but that was the only 'yes' amongst numerous petitions that were denied. I also recall all defense petitions were denied by the Nencini court.

I am not the person to ask about translations, however thankfully there are a number of people working on it. Some post on this board.

 

[acbytesla]

I can barely stand reading the obnoxious & insulting posts I've read thus far.

I'd suggest you write a book on the subject since you've seemed to dedicate enormous amounts of time, (years apparently) researching the subject.
I'll even attend your book signing. (no I won't)

Just seems a little ridiculous you've made the choice to post to me twice, now taking the time to point out that I haven't invested the time that you have while insulting me... Instead of just answering my damn question!

If that's what you consider a worthwhile way to spend your time... Carry on and please put me on ignore.

With all due respect Hot Nostril. Take accountability for your posts and your arguments. Prove them. Show how they are right. Don't just make excuses for them and yourself.

 

[lionking]

If I recall, you're more on the fence, but leaning a little towards guilt being possible.

If you have doubts about the time of death being around 9:30, I can understand your belief that it's possible they all did it.

-

Correct. What I don't understand (and I know I've said this several times) is how the absolute confidence of TOD by most in this thread was not shared by the defence team. Why wasn't stomach content analysis the key component of the defence? And I simply don't buy "incompetence" as the reason.

 

[RoseMontague]

What do you think of the arguments that are presented on Websleuths? They are, for the most part, convinced that they are guilty and have argued that the prosecution has proven it. I think they are convincing. They often argue that the footprints detected by luminol belonged to Amanda and that it does not matter whether or not the bra clasp was contaminated because Sollecito's DNA was not supposed to be on it in the first place.

Funny you should mention Websleuths. That is the only place I have seen that Latko case brought up earlier today discussed in relation to the Kercher murder.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder,

I was on the fence, but after reading this thread, I lean toward innocence because there are impossibilities present in the arguments that they are guilty and after reading the Massei report, I believe that the break-in was not staged, at all. The prosecution concluded that the break-in was staged on flimsy evidence. Filomena testified that she likely did not close the shutters, but the prosecution asserted that they were, in fact, closed and that one would need a tool in order to open them. This was an immediate red flag to me. Why would they assume that the shutters were closed when Filomena said it was not likely that she closed them? The glass was found scattered on the window sill and inside the room, which is what would occur if the rock was thrown from the outside, and Sergeant Pasquali, ballistics expert, testifies to this, but they come to the conclusion that it was "distributed in a homogeneous manner." Why?

One, the climber in the Channel 5 documentary showed that it would be easy for a burglar outside to open the shutters while standing on the grate outside the downstairs window. I don't really understand what is meant by the conclusion that it was distributed in a homogenous manner. I'm not sure what that point is supposed to mean.

Another thing that I found alarming was that it was testified that mixed traces of DNA is a normal circumstance and of no significance. But then the prosecution asserts that it is important and proves that the break-in was staged by Amanda.

They are talking out their backsides. Just because they say it proves the break in was staged doesn't mean it does. I mean seriously. how does this piece of evidence prove anything? It means that at some point in time Amanda was in Filomena's bedroom and that is all.

From what I read, they did not even prove that the break-in was staged in the first place.

I agree.

I am a little awestruck that people buy this since the conclusions of the prosecution are illogical. Perhaps it was that Rudy had broken in by using a rock like he had in previous burglaries. Yet they go into this tangent about a conspiracy between the three.

Well said.

 

[Dan O.]

What do you think of the arguments that are presented on Websleuths? They are, for the most part, convinced that they are guilty and have argued that the prosecution has proven it. I think they are convincing. They often argue that the footprints detected by luminol belonged to Amanda and that it does not matter whether or not the bra clasp was contaminated because Sollecito's DNA was not supposed to be on it in the first place.

I've posted the side by side photos of the two overlapping prints at Marker 2 in the hall, one in visible blood made by Rudy's Nike shoe and the other not visible except when enhanced by Luminol showing what might be a bare foot. How did the one get cleaned up without affecting the other? The photo was last posted only a few bags back. You should have seen it.

As for the bra clasp, for starters, do you know how that clasp was detached from the bra? It's been at least a couple of weeks since we talked about that.

 

[RoseMontague]

Correct. What I don't understand (and I know I've said this several times) is how the absolute confidence of TOD by most in this thread was not shared by the defence team. Why wasn't stomach content analysis the key component of the defence? And I simply don't buy "incompetence" as the reason.

It's a good question. Personally, like Hellmann I believe the timing of Guede's movements along with the cell phone evidence is pretty much a slam dunk for an early TOD. Recently we have seen the movement in the prosecutions presentations to an earlier TOD as well, pretty much ignoring the problems with Curatolo and Nara. We have also seen an attempt in guilter world on that fake wiki of theirs to claim these two said something they didn't say in order to allow for an earlier TOD while keeping some semblance of reliability in their testimony. Unfortunately, for those that actually read the testimony, they can see this is at the very least, disingenuous.

I recall several years ago you had doubts both about Mignini's character and the reliability of the DNA. Has that changed at all over the years?

 

[lane99]

I am unneccessarily aware this is my 12th post in this thread

...If your goal is to remain ignorant you have come to the wrong place.

And to the right place if he's so inclined to wade through a whale-bloated monstrosity where no matter is too tangential or trivial to not warrant being poured over and pontificated on with talmudic earnestness by the faithful.

Instead of taking 2 or 3 posts to explain why you won't answer someone's question, how about just taking one to answer it? In the end, that will work out to the best advantage for everyone. Save perhaps those for whom Knoxology is a full time make work project.
.
.

 

[anglolawyer]

Correct. What I don't understand (and I know I've said this several times) is how the absolute confidence of TOD by most in this thread was not shared by the defence team. Why wasn't stomach content analysis the key component of the defence? And I simply don't buy "incompetence" as the reason.

Sigh. Pretty sure this was posted the other day:

Time of Death
The defense argues that the time of death was improperly calculated. Due too errors early on, the time of death cannot be accurately estimated. The prosecution stated the time of death to be close to midnight. The defense argues that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. Times were estimated using body weight, temperature and digestion. Dr. Lalli estimated the body weight at just 50 kg upon first viewing the body at the cottage. Dr. Lalli later stated after doing the autopsy that the weight was closer to 55 kg based on his best guess. Dr. Lalli never officially weighed the body. Defense experts stated that the body weighed between 55.4 and 60 kg. When looking at the correct weight along with normal digestion, the defense argues the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:00pm. The ideal weight formulas show her weight to be from 55.4 to 60 kg, with the average at 57 kg. Using this formula produces a more accurate time of death at around 9:30pm.

The court has indicated wrongly that Professor Ronchi testified that it can take 4 to 5 hours for stomach contents to empty, when his actual testimony on October 19, 2009, stated that it takes 3 to 4 hours. The court also concluded incorrectly that there was a failure to allow ligation of the duodenum, that there was slippage after traveling 5 meters in the small intestine so the court found it unreliable that Dr. Lalli found the duodenum empty. However, the court watched the actual autopsy on November 11, 2009, by Dr. Lalli who did correctly close the duodenum to prevent any slippage from the stomach down. The court talks about her eating food and drinking back at the cottage in one section but later says she had no alcohol. The prosecution assumes a mushroom was eaten after she returned home. Based upon experts and medico-legal criterion, Meredith died at 2-3 or 3-4 hours after her last meal which was completed around 6:30pm to 7:00pm. This places the death using 3 hours at 9:30pm to 10:00pm. The only food found in her stomach was consistent with what her friends indicated she ate for dinner that night. The food had not emptied into the duodenum and failed to initiate gastric emptying, which was properly closed by ligation as seen on the video footage. An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus was kept in a container but never tested to determine what is was, which likely was an apple from the apple pie desert she ate after dinner and not a mushroom from her home. The defense requests that this sample be tested to confirm what it is. If the sample is apple as the defense believes, the time of death would be closer to the range that the defense suggests, 9:30pm to 10:00pm.

Hey! But it's more fun to form settled opinions based on complete ignorance.

ETA one thing people don't seem skeptical about on this so-called skeptics forum is their own qualifications to form opinions.

 

[js202]

I think some people are grossly overestimating the amount expected to be found, how much was actually tested, as well as what I believe is evidence of a staged scene and cleanup.

Would you include career FBI agent John Douglas amongst "some people"? He has put his name and considerable reputation behind his unequivocal belief that Knox and Sollecito are completely innocent.

What are your professional credentials with regard to the assessment of evidence collection, crime scene staging, and the like?

 

[Bob001]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I've read the court decisions, watched some testimony, read the writings of AK & RS and have reached my own opinion. I don't care what the priest's opinion is. I don't care about John Douglas's opinion either. Or the retired FBI dude that loves to speak about it, I don't care about her mothers opinion.

And I realize my opinion doesn't matter.

If you were called to jury duty you would be asked during voir dire questioning whether you would be able to render an impartial verdict on the basis of the law and evidence alone, without prejudice toward or against either side. If you confessed to "some bias" for the prosecution, you would be excused immediately. The only way you could be seated on an American jury would be if you lied under oath. And your rejection of expert analysis by "that FBI dude" and many others is an expression of pure contempt for the facts.

You sure you're not Italian?

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy got rid of the cells, came back for more body moving, money searching and raping, and while he was doing that (with the door closed), Amanda came home for a minute, and what she heard behind Meredith's door scared the hell out of her, and for some reason didn't tell Raffaele about it, because he had nodded off and she had been gone for only fifteen minutes. She looks like that's what happened, and that scenario actually fits her confession/ accusation better than anything I've heard anywhere, so far.

There isn't evidence of later body moving. That's just the prosecutors story that he tells while trying to fit the students to the crime. All of the evidence is consistent with Rudy murdering Meredith very soon after she got home and leaving the cottage before 10PM.

Amanda doesn't have a key to Raffaele's apartment or shared front door. She would have to ring Raffaele to get back in so Raffaele would know that she went out. Raffaele is not going to risk spending the next 30 years in prison covering for a girl he just met two week earlier. If Raffaele knew that Amanda had returned to the cottage and is lying about it, he would cut a deal with the prosecutor today instead of risking more prison time.


If you want to see a false confession in action, check out the Ryan Ferguson case. I posted a link to the video in a thread here.

 

[RoseMontague]

These are questions I would like to ask anyone who believes Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy came together to murder Meredith :-

• Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede and no evidence has come forward of a relationship or contact between Amanda and Raffaele with Guede. If Amanda and Raffaele did not know Guede and there was no contact prior to Meredith’s murder, how exactly did Amanda and Raffaele arrange the murder of Meredith with Guede?
• When did Amanda and Raffaele plan the murder with Guede if there was no previous contact prior to the murder?
• There is no evidence Amanda had any animosity towards Meredith despite claims made on the pro-guilt hate sites. No witness has said Amanda showed any hostility towards Meredith. No witness has come forward to say Meredith said Amanda had shown any hatred towards her. Raffaele did not know Meredith prior to dating Amanda and Raffaele had only been dating Amanda six days. Is it credible Raffaele would build an intense hatred towards someone he barely knew? In view of this why would Amanda and Raffaelle help a stranger to sexually assault and kill Meredith if they had no animosity towards Meredith?
• Is it credible that a woman would help a stranger to sexually assault and kill another woman? In cases where women help men commit sex crimes against other women, the woman has been in a long term dysfunctional relationship with a domineering man. Myra Hindley is an example of this. The scenario of a woman helping a stranger to sexually assault and kill another woman has no precedent in criminal history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Amanda had only been in Italy a short period of time and only spoke basic Italian. Guede did not speak English. Is it credible to suggest that the two communicated well enough with each other to plan a brutal murder?
• The telephone conversations of Amanda and Raffaele were monitored for three days with no mention made of Guede. Is it credible Amanda and Raffaele could go all this time without mentioning someone they have committed a brutal murder and rape with?
• A variety of factors suggest Meredith was killed between 9.00 pm and 9.30 pm; the call to Meredith’s mother at 8.56 pm which was cut off and there was no attempt to make a further call. The analysis of Meredith’s stomach contents. The fact Meredith was wearing her jacket which indicated she was attacked immediately after arriving home. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm. If Meredith was attacked between 9.00 pm and 9.30 pm how could Amanda and Raffaele been involved in the Meredith’s murder? A car broke down and a tow truck came to repair the car. The occupants of the car and tow truck were outside the cottage between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm and saw nothing suspicious. If Raffaele was using his computer at 9.26 pm, this leaves just one hour for three virtual strangers to come together to commit a brutal sexual assault and murder. In addition if the prosecution believe the testimony of Curalto, Amanda and Raffaele were at the basketball court between 9.30 pm and 11.30 pm. In view of this, When did Amanda and Raffaele commit the murder with Guede?
• A violent struggle occurred in a confined space. If Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder of Meredith with Guede, why was Guede the only attacker to leave forensic traces? Amanda and Raffaele did not leave any forensic traces such as dna, palm prints, finger prints, hair or saliva. Forensic experts have argued it is impossible to commit a crime of this nature without leaving forensic traces.
• Misconduct was carried out on a massive by the police and prosecution when they prosecuted Amanda and Raffaele. Evidence was suppressed and numerous lies were told by the police and prosecution. The police and prosecution did not supress a single piece of evidence or tell a single lie with regards to Guede. How is this difference explained if Amanda and Raffaele committed the same crime with Guede? Why did the police prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying with Amanda and Raffaele but did not do the same with Guede? If the police and prosecution have to resort to suppressing evidence and lying this indicates they have a weak case. If three people have committed a crime together, there should be a strong case against all the defendants.

If you can not answer these questions, how can you claim Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy committed a murder together?

It is a good list. Thank you. I doubt you are going to have a plethora of takers on the pro-guilt side willing to answer.

 

[Vibio]

You sure you're not Italian?

Would you explain what that means?

 

[Grinder]

Correct. What I don't understand (and I know I've said this several times) is how the absolute confidence of TOD by most in this thread was not shared by the defence team. Why wasn't stomach content analysis the key component of the defence? And I simply don't buy "incompetence" as the reason.

Damn when dealing with the Italian legal system you've taken my core argument off the table. Lalli, the original coroner, stated in court that the time to move into the duodenum is 2 to 4 hours. That would put the very outside time to 10:30 if the dinner was not started until 6:30.

The theory of the late TOD developed well into the case as none of the witnesses came forward until month after the murder. The prosecution seemed to change their own much earlier time frame to fit Curatolo and Nara et al. and perhaps the defense was wary to fight for an obvious earlier time as they feared the prosecution were setting them up. Keep in mind I'm not allowed to use incompetence.

For me and many here EVERY piece of known evidence points to an early TOD. Nothing points to a late TOD except fitting in Curatolo and to a lesser extent the ear witnesses.

I wish that the defense would let us in on why they didn't pound the digestive evidence on top of the phone activity, the only witness that saw something at the time (Formica) even if it wasn't Rudy said it was about 10:20.

Perhaps they thought it was so obvious that the 11:30 TOD was ridiculous they didn't bother. It is inexplicable when incompetence is taken off the table.

 

[Kaosium]

Correct. What I don't understand (and I know I've said this several times) is how the absolute confidence of TOD by most in this thread was not shared by the defence team. Why wasn't stomach content analysis the key component of the defence? And I simply don't buy "incompetence" as the reason.

The stomach content analysis argument predates the original trial, it was first brought forth by Raffaele's experts when they got the autopsy and it was my quoting on the conspiracy thread Massei's attempt to explain how it was possible for someone to eat at 6:00-6:30 and still have passed nothing to the duodenum by 11:45 that prompted Rolfe's first posts on the case, as that is outright impossible.

Duiring the Hellmann appeal the prosecution split, Comodi (who knows something about science and did the courtwork for the DNA etc) went with an earlier time of death, Mignini kept arguing for a later one as that's what's necessary to 'keep' Curatolo and the screams he moved to later in the night during the original trial so they'd line up with Curatolo. Just as he moved the time of death from 10:30 in Rudy's trial to 11:45 (with some help from Massei as Mignini didn't allow time for the murder to take place) in Raffaele and Amanda's trial.

It is yet to be seen what Nencini's court will decide on for time of death, but my guess it will be as early as possible given his comments after the trial regarding Joanna Popovic (~8:40) and Patrick's text message (~8:20) giving them both the 'night off' as he put it.