Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bolint]

As far as I know, the only evidence that Rudy didn't take the route through town and up the steps as he claimed is a construction accounting for why Meredith's English phone wasn't turned off. I have the alternate paths on the map on the bottom of the page at http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/ (click on the map to see the in-town route). I should note that an alternate in-town route would have Rudy avoiding the prominent 360° CCTV camera by going up the steps on the othe side of the basket ball court, around the back of the University for Foreigners to the narrow steps between the buildings that leads to his street. But that route also takes him past a CCTV camera that was on the restaurant behind the school.

It is not at all sure that the phones were thrown there right at that time.
Even the past midnight ringing is only compatible with Lana's garden but it might as well be Rudy's flat. I think his house is covered by that cell. (Raffaele's is not.)

 

[Grinder]

There was the Naruto download as well.

Of course it's more complicated to destroy Filomena's alibi, but most people wouldn't consider Amanda's alibi weak in the first place - that's why Raff had to be dragged into it. Mignini could have cobbled something together I'm sure. Russ Faria's prosecutor did, despite him having four alibis, CCTV and receipt evidence in his favour.

Look at Patrick - he was in his bar most of the night and it was obviously a massive wrench for them to finally admit defeat on his alibi and let him go.

They didn't have the Naruto download until after the arrest. According to Anglo the police didn't ask Amanda or Raf what they were doing so they probably didn't ask anyone because that would tip them off they were suspects - that's probably why the british girls high-tailed it back to England.

Two people alibiing each other is weak by definition - add in two other people and the strength is increased logarithmically.

 

[Bill Williams]

They didn't have the Naruto download until after the arrest. According to Anglo the police didn't ask Amanda or Raf what they were doing so they probably didn't ask anyone because that would tip them off they were suspects - that's probably why the british girls high-tailed it back to England.

Two people alibiing each other is weak by definition - add in two other people and the strength is increased logarithmically.

All this is true, and in the hands of a competent police/prosecution would have had the logical outcome.

Can you explain why the PLE did not heed any of the mathematics of this?

 

[Grinder]

As far as I know, the only evidence that Rudy didn't take the route through town and up the steps as he claimed is a construction accounting for why Meredith's English phone wasn't turned off. I have the alternate paths on the map on the bottom of the page at http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/ (click on the map to see the in-town route). I should note that an alternate in-town route would have Rudy avoiding the prominent 360° CCTV camera by going up the steps on the othe side of the basket ball court, around the back of the University for Foreigners to the narrow steps between the buildings that leads to his street. But that route also takes him past a CCTV camera that was on the restaurant behind the school.

Nice mapping work.

 

[Bill Williams]

What did he write? I have never really understood the family dynamics that lead to Raffaele ignoring the advice of his father and Caribinieri sister and repeatedly returning to the police station without legal representation.

He simply did not take seriously the idea that he could be a suspect. It was on its face absurd, and so, like a lot of young people, he just ignored family members telling him how to behave. Most innocent people who've never looked closely at how murder cases can go wrong would do exactly the same thing.

I don't think his father and sister took it all that seriously either, to be honest. Do you think for one second that if his father had believed R was in danger, he wouldn't have hustled up to Perugia and taken over during those first few days? Based on his behavior in the years since the arrest, I'm pretty sure he thought that R was safe from crazy prosecutors.

The possibility entertained by those who think Raffaele was perhaps guilty, is that this was all part of a master-plan. Whereas in his book, Honor Bound, Raffaele was simply careless and unthinking about bringing a pocket-knife to the Questura (on the night of Nov 5th), guilters have it as part of a recklessly executed plan to dupe the cops.

 

[Grinder]

What did he write? I have never really understood the family dynamics that lead to Raffaele ignoring the advice of his father and Caribinieri sister and repeatedly returning to the police station without legal representation.

The father called in his personal attorney who didn't think there was anythinbg to worry about. A policeman disagreed and told Raf to get one. Always wondered why the sister didn't push the point.

That is an important point. . . . .All the people at a party make an alibi for her but not all the people in the club for Patrick.

The bar didn't have much business that night, remember? Also, Patrick was not recording sales until 10:30.

 

[AmyStrange]

Actually, if you want to talk about absurdities...

-

Point is, both Filomena and Knox HAD essentially the same alibi as of what the cops were hearing on the afternoon of Nov 2, 2007.

Even at that time three people supported Filomena's alibi.

-

But on Nov 2, what was the reason to so quickly narrow in on Knox and exclude Filomena?

Beyond the weaker alibi, Knox was the first known person to visit the cottage after the murder and she came up with quite an absurd story of what she was doing there.

-

Actually, the weaker alibi and more absurd story is Rudy's, especially when you compare it to the fact that Amanda lived at the house and had more right to be there then he did (he was also the first person there during and after the murder attempt, not Amanda), regardless of how absurd her story may seem to Gumpers.

Amanda acting oddly is what singled her out almost from the beginning and Raffaele became collateral damage, as a result.

One of the detectives was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that when he saw Raffaele eating pizza with Amanda after the discovery of the murder is when he started becoming suspicious. Pizza eating as a suspicious activity is absurd all by itself, but it doesn't stop there.

The problem with using Amanda's odd behavior as proof is that she had always acted oddly her whole life, long before the murder. If she never acted oddly before, then yes, I would have to agree that her odd behavior after the murder could possibly be used as evidence against her, but it would still be extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best.

It's almost an axiom of homicide investigations that with most murders the victim usually knew their killer, but that (in my opinion) is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. But, it's still a good place to start none the less, and because of that, the PLE had every right to suspect Amanda from the very beginning.

I can't fault them for that, but if you want to discuss Amanda's odd behavior and absurd stories, then you really have to also discuss the really odd and absurd way the investigation was conducted and the ridiculous way the Gumpers have made their case for guilt since. From the staged break-in assumption (without getting evidence to back up this assumption), the way Steffie wrapped up of the mop for transport, the use of the freezer for evidence storage, etc. etc., all the way up to the destruction of the computers, the 46 day gap in evidence collection and the duodenum and contamination denial make for very odd and absurd behavior indeed (in my opinion) and that's just all off the top of my head.

Add to that, the way the pictures of the bathroom (after being sprayed with luminol [SP?] and looking like there was a light film of blood everywhere) were leaked to the press (with the implication that Amanda took a shower while it looked like that), and the absurd statement after Amanda's alleged confession (which was the worst confession I have ever read in my life. She never even gives any details about the murder or even says she saw the murder, L goes in M's bedroom with her, and then she hears a scream and that's it. That's the end of the confession) where they say Amanda cracked and told them what they already knew. That last, in my mind anyway, goes a long way to proving she was considered a suspect before the confession and her interrogation should have been recorded if only for that reason alone.

And then when Amanda told her story about the prank she pulled, how the Gumpers almost danced with glee, because if she had done something similar before, this helped prove that she must be guilty, at least in their psychologically challenged minds any way. Forgetting entirely that other people were also involved in this prank, and if their psychological assumptions were correct, these other people should have or will someday kill people also. That's what happens when you use faulty psychology to prove murder, because misleading assumptions lead to misleading conclusions.

It's not like I haven't done this also, but I'm willing to change my mind when all the evidence together doesn't add up, and I have to absurdly twist things to prove my assumptions correct. Twisting things to prove yourself correct is also an absurdity all by itself.

Amanda's odd behavior is small time in comparison to all of that other crazy crap, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

The father called in his personal attorney who didn't think there was anythinbg to worry about. A policeman disagreed and told Raf to get one. Always wondered why the sister didn't push the point.

One item which concerns me is that getting a lawyer for being questioned is beyond the legal means on many people. Obviously, that was not an issue with Raff and they all would have saved a ton of money if they had just lawyered up immediately.

The bar didn't have much business that night, remember? Also, Patrick was not recording sales until 10:30.

My understanding was that there were at least some people in the bar most of the night and that the professor was not the only alibi witness.

 

[AmyStrange]

Good point Bolint...

-

Of course I dont' "know" if it is a lie.
But I don't believe that he went out at the gates into the streetlight in a clear area in bloody clothes. No way.

In my view he is not reliable. Nor is he refuted, though.

One objectively sure thing is that on Nov 2 at about 15:00 Curatolo was sitting there reading some magazins as documented by a tourist student girl walking that quarter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akatus/1831863747/in/photostream/
while the crime inspection was going on at the cottage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/akatus/1831784905/in/photostream/

Because they were not there, I think.

Simply adding some small detail to make a lie more credible.He could not say "I am innocent, but I still went through the ravine ..." or some other way.

-

Adding small details to help make a lie more credible is a good point, but the best way to do that is to add small details that are true and then only diverting from the truth where it's necessary. Adding a lie to make a lie more credible doesn't make sense to me, at least in my opinion anyway,

d

-

 

[bolint]

I have never really understood the family dynamics that lead to Raffaele ignoring the advice of his father and Caribinieri sister and repeatedly returning to the police station without legal representation.

His family, per his book, never advised him to take a lawyer.
I think partly because a lawyer cannot be present at the questioning unless his client "gained" legal suspect status (not the same as just being suspicious).

 

[Bill Williams]

What did he write? I have never really understood the family dynamics that lead to Raffaele ignoring the advice of his father and Caribinieri sister and repeatedly returning to the police station without legal representation.

He, in the book, had not one scintilla of suspicion that he needed representation. So much so that he casually rejects overt signs from others. In fact, he writes about his growing annoyance that he was being used simply to transport people back and forth as the only vehicle owner.

I grew frustrated , too, by the way the police seemed to rely on me as a taxi service. I would take Amanda to the Questura in the morning, then pick her up again when she was done. Concentrating on my thesis became increasingly difficult. After the first couple of days, I had to resist the urge to say: If you want her, come and get her yourselves.​

He writes about his own discomfort with Amanda's behaviour. This is not in the sense of it being even remotely "suspicious" as far as the murder was concerned, but that....

The English girls later said they were appalled by Amanda's behavior, and I admit, it made me a little uneasy too......

In the moment, I didn't say anything because I didn't want to make Amanda feel worse. The whole purpose of my being there was to comfort her. So I defended her, even beyond the point where I felt comfortable or could be said to be looking out for my own interests. I don't know how to account for this entirely, except to say I was not thinking straight and badly underestimated the possible consequences of my actions.​

He even talks about an issue I've brought up repeatedly.... that Amanda is so, so, so Seattle.

In talking about what other from Britain or native to Italy found so offensive, Raffaele writes:

This was Amanda free-associating, as Amanda the West Coast dreamer was in the habit of doing; she too did not stop to think that someone might later read what she was writing and judge her for it.​

But then it comes to is admitted monumental mistake, judged by cruel 20/20 hindsight.

Amanda was getting her period, one more reason for her to feel uncomfortable and moody, and she sent me out to buy tampons and a slice of pizza. As I left the Questura, I noticed that a police-woman had followed me out. She approached me surreptitiously, as though not wanting to be seen.

She slipped a business card in my hand and said it was for a lawyer. "Give him a call," she said deliberately. "You're going to need him for sure."

It could not have been a more explicit warning. But I didn't know this woman and I refused to take her seriously. I thought, What do I have to be worried about?

I put the card in my wallet and forgot about it. Regrettably, I never saw the police woman again.

My family did not share the breezy optimism about the way things were going.... my father decided he'd call a friend who was a criminal lawyer and ask his opinion......

Tiziano said he put a call into the Questura and there was nothing to worry about. He was told it was all routine.....

The first time (Vanessa) called the Questura, they left her waiting on the line, even though she announced herself as a lieutenant in the carabinieri, and never took her call.

The second time she had herself put through from the carabinieri's regional switchboard, to make it more official. This time she got through, but only to a junior policeman clearly her inferior. (In Italian law enforcement, protocol on such matters is followed scrupulously.) "Listen," the man told her impatiently, "everything is fine."....

Unlike Tiziano Tedeschi, though, my sister did worry. To her, the conversation raised a lot more questions than it answered.​

 

[AmyStrange]

-

[...]

He even talks about an issue I've brought up repeatedly.... that Amanda is so, so, so Seattle.

[...]

-

Ha ha, that's why I moved to Seattle. My odd behavior fits in better here on the Left Coast than it did on the East Coast. I got into more trouble there than I ever have in the twenty plus years that I've lived here,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, the weaker alibi and more absurd story is Rudy's, especially when you compare it to the fact that Amanda lived at the house and had more right to be there then he did (he was also the first person there during and after the murder attempt, not Amanda), regardless of how absurd her story may seem to Gumpers.

Amanda acting oddly is what singled her out almost from the beginning and Raffaele became collateral damage, as a result.

One of the detectives was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that when he saw Raffaele eating pizza with Amanda after the discovery of the murder is when he started becoming suspicious. Pizza eating as a suspicious activity is absurd all by itself, but it doesn't stop there.

The problem with using Amanda's odd behavior as proof is that she had always acted oddly her whole life, long before the murder. If she never acted oddly before, then yes, I would have to agree that her odd behavior after the murder could possibly be used as evidence against her, but it would still be extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best.

It's almost an axiom of homicide investigations that with most murders the victim usually knew their killer, but that (in my opinion) is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. But, it's still a good place to start none the less, and because of that, the PLE had every right to suspect Amanda from the very beginning.

I can't fault them for that, but if you want to discuss Amanda's odd behavior and absurd stories, then you really have to also discuss the really odd and absurd way the investigation was conducted and the ridiculous way the Gumpers have made their case for guilt since. From the staged break-in assumption (without getting evidence to back up this assumption), the way Steffie wrapped up of the mop for transport, the use of the freezer for evidence storage, etc. etc., all the way up to the destruction of the computers, the 46 day gap in evidence collection and the duodenum and contamination denial make for very odd and absurd behavior indeed (in my opinion) and that's just all off the top of my head.

Add to that, the way the pictures of the bathroom (after being sprayed with luminol [SP?] and looking like there was a light film of blood everywhere) were leaked to the press (with the implication Amanda took a shower while it looked like that), and the absurd statement after Amanda's alleged confession (which was the worst confession I have ever read in my life. She never even gives any details about the murder or even says she saw the murder, L goes in M's bedroom with her, and then she hears a scream and that's it. That's the end of the confession) where they say Amanda cracked and told them what they already knew. That last, in my mind anyway, goes a long way to proving she was considered a suspect before the confession and her interrogation should have been recorded if only for that reason alone.

And then when Amanda told her story about the prank she pulled, how the Gumpers almost danced with glee, because if she had done something similar before, this helped prove that she must be guilty, at least in their psychologically challenged minds any way. Forgetting entirely that other people were also involved in this prank, and if their psychological assumptions were correct, these other people should have or will someday kill people also. That's what happens when you use faulty psychology to prove murder, because misleading assumptions lead to misleading conclusions.

It's not like I haven't done this also, but I'm willing to change my mind when all the evidence together doesn't add up, and I have to absurdly twist things to prove my assumptions correct. Twisting things to prove yourself correct is also an absurdity all by itself.

Amanda's odd behavior is small time in comparison to all of that other crazy crap, in my opinion,

d

-

This.

 

[acbytesla]

-
Actually, the weaker alibi and more absurd story is Rudy's, especially when you compare it to the fact that Amanda lived at the house and had more right to be there then he did (he was also the first person there during and after the murder attempt, not Amanda), regardless of how absurd her story may seem to Gumpers.

Amanda acting oddly is what singled her out almost from the beginning and Raffaele became collateral damage, as a result.

One of the detectives was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that when he saw Raffaele eating pizza with Amanda after the discovery of the murder is when he started becoming suspicious. Pizza eating as a suspicious activity is absurd all by itself, but it doesn't stop there.

The problem with using Amanda's odd behavior as proof is that she had always acted oddly her whole life, long before the murder. If she never acted oddly before, then yes, I would have to agree that her odd behavior after the murder could possibly be used as evidence against her, but it would still be extremely weak circumstantial evidence at best.

It's almost an axiom of homicide investigations that with most murders the victim usually knew their killer, but that (in my opinion) is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. But, it's still a good place to start none the less, and because of that, the PLE had every right to suspect Amanda from the very beginning.

I sort of disagree. While I understand not ruling Amanda out as a suspect is fine since it is true that most murderers know their victims. However actually suspecting Amanda really is not. Sure Amanda is different, but being different does not mean that there is reason to suspect Amanda. As you said "eating pizza" is not really something that should make someone suspicious. Neither is going "ta da" when putting on a pair of booties.

-
I can't fault them for that, but if you want to discuss Amanda's odd behavior and absurd stories, then you really have to also discuss the really odd and absurd way the investigation was conducted and the ridiculous way the Gumpers have made their case for guilt since. From the staged break-in assumption (without getting evidence to back up this assumption), the way Steffie wrapped up of the mop for transport, the use of the freezer for evidence storage, etc. etc., all the way up to the destruction of the computers, the 46 day gap in evidence collection and the duodenum and contamination denial make for very odd and absurd behavior indeed (in my opinion) and that's just all off the top of my head.

Add to that, the way the pictures of the bathroom (after being sprayed with luminol [SP?] and looking like there was a light film of blood everywhere) were leaked to the press, and the absurd statement after Amanda's alleged confession (which was the worst confession I have ever read in my life. She never even gives any details about the murder or even says she saw the murder, L goes in M's bedroom with her, and then she hears a scream and that's it. That's the end of the confession) where they say Amanda cracked and told them what they already knew. That last, in my mind anyway, goes a long way to proving she was considered a suspect before the confession and her interrogation should have been recorded if only for that reason alone.

And then when Amanda told her story about the prank she pulled, how the Gumpers almost danced with glee, because if she had done something similar before, this helped prove that she must be guilty, at least in their psychologically challenged minds any way. Forgetting entirely that other people were also involved in this prank, and if their psychological assumptions were correct, these other people should have or will someday kill people also. That's what happens when you use faulty psychology to prove murder, because misleading assumptions lead to misleading conclusions.

It's not like I haven't done this also, but I'm willing to change my mind when all the evidence together doesn't add up, and I have to absurdly twist things to prove my assumptions correct. Twisting things to prove yourself correct is also an absurdity all by itself.

Amanda's odd behavior is small time in comparison to all of that other crazy crap, in my opinion,

d

-

Agreed

 

[AmyStrange]

Good point AC...

-

I sort of disagree. While I understand not ruling Amanda out as a suspect is fine since it is true that most murderers know their victims. However actually suspecting Amanda really is not. Sure Amanda is different, but being different does not mean that there is reason to suspect Amanda. As you said "eating pizza" is not really something that should make someone suspicious. Neither is going "ta da" when putting on a pair of booties.

-

That makes sense to me also. I should have written it the way you explained it.

And you're right that saying "ta-da" may be odd, but not really suspicious. Homicide detectives use dark humor a lot as a way to (sort of) distance themselves from the reality of what they're investigating. What does that say about them? That they're all homicidal maniacs? Maybe a very, very small number of them are, but to most of them, it's simply a defense mechanism more than anything else,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

-
Ha ha, that's why I moved to Seattle. My odd behavior fits in better here on the Left Coast than it did on the East Coast. I got into more trouble there than I ever have in the twenty plus years that I've lived here,

I am thinking about trying to move to Seattle in a few years myself

 

[Desert Fox]

-
And you're right that saying "ta-da" maybe odd, but not suspicious. Homicide detectives use dark humor a lot as a way to (sort of) distance themselves from the reality of what their investigating. What does that say about them? That they're all homicidal maniacs? Maybe a very very small number of them are, but to most of them it's simply a defense mechanism more than anything else,

Listening to Jason Badwin of the WM3 and he jokes around what happened to him. Sometimes you have to use a bit of humor.

 

[AmyStrange]

Ha ha...

-

Listening to Jason Badwin of the WM3 and he jokes around what happened to him. Sometimes you have to use a bit of humor.

-

Maybe that's what happened to Nencini when he was writing (or dictating) his motivational report. Maybe he just finished watching an episode of "Big Bang Theory" and listened to one of Sheldon's intellectual diatribe's and thought to himself (as he chuckled maniacally), these are gonna kill, simply kill, at the next Rudy fan club meeting. Ha ha,

d

-

 

[anglolawyer]

They didn't have the Naruto download until after the arrest. According to Anglo the police didn't ask Amanda or Raf what they were doing so they probably didn't ask anyone because that would tip them off they were suspects - that's probably why the british girls high-tailed it back to England.

Two people alibiing each other is weak by definition - add in two other people and the strength is increased logarithmically.

It's likely they did ask the virgins about their evening and probably in some detail, especially Sophie who was the last person to see her alive. It's interesting, given the likelihood that this true, that the virgins are allowed to not remember precisely what time dinner started and ended and exactly what Metedith ate and when. Very suspicious.

But it only takes a moment's thought to realise that detailed questions of Amanda and/or Raf might have put them on alert. Imagine them telling their folks the police wanted them to account for their evening in detail.

 

[Grinder]

It's likely they did ask the virgins about their evening and probably in some detail, especially Sophie who was the last person to see her alive. It's interesting, given the likelihood that this true, that the virgins are allowed to not remember precisely what time dinner started and ended and exactly what Metedith ate and when. Very suspicious.

But it only takes a moment's thought to realise that detailed questions of Amanda and/or Raf might have out them on alert. Imagine them telling their folks the police wanted them to account for their evening in detail.

Anglo, my good fellow, Amanda lived at the cottage. It would be nearly impossible not to inquire as to where she was that evening and night.

So you stayed with your boy friend in sin last night and didn't return until 10 this morning is that correct?

(Così Sei già con il tuo ragazzo amico nel peccato la scorsa notte e non tornare fino alle 10 di questa mattina è corretto?)

You didn't come by the place here after you left at what time?

(Non sei venuto dal posto qui dopo aver lasciato a che ora ?)

Did you call or text Meredith last night? When did you talk with her last?

(Ho chiamato voi o testo Meredith la notte scorsa ? Quando hai parlato con lei durare ?)

We know this difficult and seems of no value but we need to find out everything. If she had tried to call you at 9 or 9:30 would you have been able to take the call?

(Sappiamo che questo difficile e sembra di nessun valore , ma abbiamo bisogno di scoprire tutto . Se avesse provato a chiamarti a 9 o 9:30 avresti potuto prendere la chiamata ?)

There is a news account that has Amanda over at the british girls' place. I don't think the police making sure they were informed of the facts would have been suspicious.