Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

Ask them on PMF if you join, honest questions are posted and answered if phrased the right way. Machiavelli says that Amanda knew there could be no one upstairs or downstairs home the whole period. DanO proved otherwise, some way, but Mach is resolute.

-

No thank you, I like it here quite fine, but as far as what Mach said, I wasn't wondering about the people in the house. I was wondering about the neighbors. Are they that far away that no one would hear a window breaking late at night?

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

AmyStrange,
I totally agree!!!
I mean, come on, whose gonna murder someone and start to break glass windows at the house?

Might as well start screaming out loud that "I killed her!"

Oh wait a sec.
wasn't some dude, covered in blood,
found nearby in Perugia early the next morning after Meredith's death, screaming this, right?

I wonder if the hobo Antonio Curatolo
-(ain't that what PM Mignini called him, in court?)
or if Nara C. heard this guy, covered in blood,
screamin' on a early holiday mornin'??

Considering that this guy was at the fountain right there beside the news kiosk which is right in front of toto's favorite bench, it does seem strange. Perhaps that is why the hobo was photographed sitting on another bench the next morning. You know, with all the excitement, bloody hands guy asking for change to use the telephone that's in front of the kiosk and not very far from the basket ball court where Rudy hangs out.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It's not about locking the door. The door would not stay closed unless it was locked. After two weeks, the girls would have developed the habit of unlocking the door and turning around to lock it behind them every time they went through.

-

Maybe. Unless two people were leaving at the same time. The last to leave tells the one leaving, "Don't worry about locking it. I'll lock it on my way out in a couple minutes," or if two people left together, the last one out the door would lock it, not the first,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

-
-

No thank you, I like it here quite fine, but as far as what Mach said, I wasn't wondering about the people in the house. I was wondering about the neighbors. Are they that far away that no one would hear a window breaking late at night?

d

-

It's only a little B&E, what's the big deal? You hide in the shadows until it's all clear. Or, just in case somebody gets in a panic and calls the police, why not pop into town for a kebob. If the police are coming they will be there in under 20 minutes, if they aren't there after 20 minutes, nobody heard anything and it's safe to go inside.

After a murder, it's a whole other ball game. You need time to get away, establish an alibi, perhaps even get out of town.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It's only a little B&E, what's the big deal? You hide in the shadows until it's all clear. Or, just in case somebody gets in a panic and calls the police, why not pop into town for a kebob. If the police are coming they will be there in under 20 minutes, if they aren't there after 20 minutes, nobody heard anything and it's safe to go inside.

After a murder, it's a whole other ball game. You need time to get away, establish an alibi, perhaps even get out of town.

-

I'm talking about why in God's name would Raffaele and Amanda bring attention to a house with a dead body in it by breaking a window. Are the neighbors so far away they wouldn't hear it, and where was Rudy while all this was going on? Did they come back even later that night to break the window and risk the chance that an even later breaking window would be more noticeable than an earlier one?

I don't see them taking that risk after murdering Meredith. Maybe before, but that means they would have had to run over to the house before she got home, break the window,* and then wait for her.

Which brings up the question, how did they know when she would be home?

d

-
*They had to run over, find a rock outside, unlock the door, go in, lock the door, throw the rock through the window, run downstairs, unlock the door, go out, lock the door, find the rock, go back, unlock the door, go in, lock the door, run upstairs and throw it into the bag, go downstairs unlock the door, and run or wait to kill Meredith, while Rudy is there, waiting with them, or not. All without knowing when Meredith was going to get home. Believe it or not.

Or, maybe they brought two rocks up instead, and threw the second one in the bag?

-

 

[RWVBWL]

Forgive me ladies +gents,
but I'm gonna break out a new random theory...


The dude on the CCTV is not Rudy Guede.
Frank Sfarzo noted that the dude did not have the same distinctive walk that Rudy did.

I too have a bit of a different walk,
noted many years ago by my Grandma after my Grandpa had passed away
and I had not seen her in awhile...

A few years back, here on the old JREF,
Danceme, RoseMontague, I and others dug into the CCTV footage,
watching all we could find, looking at those Nike sneakers,
+ we too did not believe that to be Rudy Guede.

Heck,
don't most believe that Rudy Guede was already inside the girlz flat when Meredith got home?
Sure you do, OK then, that's not Rudy...

Rudy mentioned that he saw a car
and drug dealer whom he recognized when he 1st got there that night, right?

LMT posted an interesting blog post years ago about this.
Though LMT's blog is long gone, I copied and posted that 1 here,
so guess what, yep, I can dig it up and re-post it. All right, cool!

Post 79: Alternate motive: Possibly a drug dealer was picking up his supply in front of the house and thought that Meredith was a police informant.

"Perugia may boast stunning views across the Umbrian hills and a world-class jazz festival held in frescoed palazzi, but it also has the highest number of overdose deaths per capita in Italy, as addicts move to be where the wholesalers are. North African dealers lurk on corners in the city centre and Nigerians control the suburbs, all under the watchful eye of the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta mafia."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...rugia-students

"I was in the bathroom when it happened. One thing is certain, Amanda wasn't there."

"I fought with a man when I came out. She was not there." Rudy Guede's taped conversation while on the run in Germay.

Rudy Guede mentions in his German diary that when he arrived at the house that he saw a white car with lights on and a drug dealer that he recognized from Garibaldi street. We have heard from other students that the park near the house was a known area of drug dealing and drug use.

From Rudy's German diary:
"Then I headed for Meredith's house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30 p.m. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn't have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I
didn't make much of this and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guy's place but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard."

Whoever controls the supply of drugs controls the entire drug operation. Small time dealers are supplied with only a limited amount of drugs. They must make contact with their supplier to receive product to sell and then the supplier picks up the money. Hekuran Kokomani was caught with 8 grams of cocaine in February 2009. Who is he? A small time dealer or a supplier? Or as he says innocent because the drugs were not his?

8:01 p.m. Hekuran Kokomani's mobile phone record shows that he entered the area of the cottage at this time, where it had earlier that day placed him in the Assisi locality.

It is not a stretch to believe that possibly Rudy saw a drug dealer making a connection with his supplier right there in front of the house. At that same time, Meredith was arriving at the house from having dinner with her friends. We also know that her cellphone shows that she tried to call home at that very time.

8:56pm (20:56) (Meredith’s house) Meredith’s cell phone calls her mother but call is cut off before it is finished.

If Meredith was making a call home outside with her cellphone at the same time that a drug dealer was picking up his supply in the area of her house, did this drug dealer believe that Meredith was a police informant? Witnessing drug deals have been the reason that others have been murdered by drug gangs.

If the dude on the CCTV camera was not Rudy Guede,
and he was involved in a drug transaction and saw Meredith walking towards his car that was in her driveway on a dark night, as Rudy, who had broken in upstairs already, was listening to his Walkman, err, ipod as he took a crap...


ETA - Changed my avatar.
I still wonder why Kokomani was dressed so sharply for Court in a hoody, sunglasses, and baseball cap.
Heck, what's the dude hiding from? The Judge?
Or those people who were watching the cottage because of ???,
as seen by CCTV in Oggi magazine the night Meredith was murdered...

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Forgive me ladies +gents,
but I'm gonna break out a new random theory...


The dude on the CCTV is not Rudy Guede.
Frank Sfarzo noted that the dude did not have the same distinctive walk hat Rudy did.
I too have a bit of a different walk, noted many years by my Grandma after my Grandpa had passed away and I had not seen her in awhile...

A few years back, here on the old JREF,
Danceme, RoseMontague, I and others dug into the CCTV footage,
watching all we could find, looking at those Nike sneakers,
+ we too did not believe that to be Rudy Guede.

Heck,
don't most believe that Rudy Guede was already inside the girlz flat when Meredith got home?
Sure you do, OK then...

Rudy mentioned that he saw a car and drug dealer whom he recognized when he 1st got there that night, right?

LMT posted an interesting blog post years ago about this.
Though LMT's blog is long gone, I copied and posted that 1 here,
so guess what, yep, I can dig it up and re-post it. All right, cool!


If the dude on the CCTV camera was not Rudy Guede,
and he was involved in a drug transaction and saw Meredith walking towards his car that was in her driveway on a dark night, as Rudy, who had broken in upstairs already, was listening to his Walkman, err, ipod as he took a crap...

-

Thinking outside the box is never a bad idea. Things aren't always as they seem or as we perceive them.

As far as the distinctive walk, I remember a few years back (this may just be a rumor) that the government had software that could identify people from the way they walked and was going to institute it into all the government run cameras out there, and trust me, there's a lot. They figured to catch known terrorist and other wanted criminals this way, but for some reason privacy issues stopped the project.

I don't know the details and it just might be some nut job CT, if it weren't for its feasibility. Many times people have told me that they recognized me from behind by the way I walked,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

When did Meredith last go into the downstairs apartment?

There was testimony from her boyfriend and confirmed by one of her girl friends that this was done. There is a period in the early afternoon of the first that she is not accounted for. She also could have checked on the cat after getting home that evening before entering her own apartment (though this is less likely due to the already streatched time constraint).

Why would she have gone into Stefano's room?

It's unfortunate that we cannot ask her.

The blood stains were on Stefano's mattress and duvet. There was no sheet.

It still could have been folded so that all the blood stain areas were adjacent. Maybe if we had more photos I could say more.

His door was said to have been locked.....if so, how did she have the key?

There are only a dozen or so interrior door keys in those sets. She might have used her own key.

There was blood on the floor of Giacomo's room.

There was a cat running around with a wound

His door had been locked.

"Two keys connected by a ring". That is what the press was saying about the keys to downstairs. What do you supose the second key was for?

The police kicked down his door which suggests his keys had been on Meredith's keyring which was never recovered.

The police kicked down his door on Nov. 2 or 3. The keys were found on the 6th.

Who left the clothes strewn on the floor in the sitting room area?

Who knows?


All of this is just what it is. There is a possible simple innocent solution. And if you twist hard enough you can turn it into anything you want. I'll stick to the innocent solution until something comes along and forces a reevaluation. A downstairs breakin doesn't affect the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Planigale]

The fact is it tudner out Stefanoni was right, because when the Carabinieri RIS analyzed Pascali's items again they found multiple traces of suspect Danilo Restivo.

Thank you for explaining the 'right to silence' of Guede.

My reading of the above is that Pascali may have been right and the fact someone else did something does not prove him wrong. A simple analogy if I am asked to take out an appendix and decline but a surgeon does so successfully, it does not make my refusal wrong. In a rapidly evolving technology such as genetics, a view that trying to test a low level of DNA one year may be correct and be different the next year in a better equipped lab.

 

[Strozzi]

The police kicked down his door on Nov. 2 or 3. The keys were found on the 6th.

Where were the keys found on the 6th - four days after the police discovered the crime?

• Were they in plain sight, like Amanda's jacket which was said to be missing but was on her bed?
• Or were they in plain sight like Amanda's second German-language Harry Potter book at Raffaele's which the police said wasn't there but was seen in police photos of Raffaele's flat?
• Or were they in plain sight like the bra clasp seen on the floor when Meredith's body was removed and found by police a second time off-camera 46 days later?
• Or were they in plain sight like Meredith's blood-soaked jacket seen on the floor with her body on day 1 and finally recovered from the laundry basket many days later?
• Or were they in plain sight like the second set of putative semen drops in the blood stain on the pillow case which Stefanoni's lab overlooked, but was seen and pointed out by the defense?

Just asking!

 

[platonov]

I don't see what the problem is. You emphasized, with bold font, four different times that you were talking about "2 separate issues" in your last reply (after I pointed out to you that Dr. Lalli's estimation of ToD due to state of digestion is an entirely different consideration than t lag, but I digress). Since I was actually talking about the empirical published results on t lag, and you dutifully pointed out you were actually addressing something else entirely (and linked to it), I thanked you for pointing it out since it was a separate independent confirmation that the ToD was actually 2-3 hours after Meredith ate. Not 4 hours, as you initially claimed because you completely misunderstood Lalli's testimony. I was thanking you platonov for giving me new information, and increasing my certainty that Amanda and Raf could not have teamed up with a stranger to perform a pagan sex rite murder on her roommate for no reason.

Just curious -- have you ever admitted you were wrong in the history of ever? Or are you one of those people that aren't even capable of recognizing a complete refutation of your central point?

Aw, this is special.
As long as you believe it yourself that’s all that matters.

This is too labyrinthn to untangle via your links to previous posts,

but platonov:

If you can find any link to show two hours can elapse between eating and food progressing to the duodenum, you will have got to the point where Meredith might have eaten before 7pm.A far more useful suggestion is to debunk Ms Lalli, and claim she suppressed photos or lied about her meticulous autopsy.

Excellent!!!
You and NotEvenWrong should work together.
You might be on the edge of a breakthrough

 

[Magister]

There was testimony from her boyfriend and confirmed by one of her girl friends that this was done. There is a period in the early afternoon of the first that she is not accounted for. She also could have checked on the cat after getting home that evening before entering her own apartment (though this is less likely due to the already streatched time constraint).


- I thought it was understood that Meredith slept very late on the 1st and when she emerged from her room Amanda and Raffaele were there.



All of this is just what it is. There is a possible simple innocent solution. And if you twist hard enough you can turn it into anything you want. I'll stick to the innocent solution until something comes along and forces a reevaluation. A downstairs breakin doesn't affect the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

A downstairs break-in on the same night as the murder upstairs......
and the disorderly state of that downstairs apartment does not accord with the prosecution's ridiculous arguments of a staged break-in and clean-up upstairs.

Now if the blood stains had been properly analysed.......and fingerprints taken.
But they only took reference samples from one of the boys. (Giacomo)

Bongiorno said back in January 2014 that she had a copy of a blood report showing human blood downstairs.

 

[platonov]

Oddly enough back in the day they tried to paint Amanda Knox as an anti-Semite as part of their campaign of character assassination. Apparently she horsed around in a museum display of WW1 stuff at some point in her youth which, with some creative interpretation, they decided made her a Nazi.

Fulcanelli/Michael also appears to have gotten banned from the Italian wikipedia at some point for partisan editing on the Israel/Palestine article. At the time I assumed from his Knox-related Nazi-baiting that he was vandalising wikipedia for a pro-Israel position, but it could have been the other way around, although that would make his statements on the Knox issue even weirder.

Less oddly, I too recall this episode

Supernaut, you and a couple of other posters came up with a CT that sought to explain which ‘group’ was responsible for the public enmity towards a convicted sex killer. What else but a CT involving ‘those people’ could explain the situation!

If you wish to revisit that 'argument' you will have to do without the support of Supernaut on this occasion – perhaps Chris_Halkides could help with the ‘research’.

 

[Numbers]

A downstairs break-in on the same night as the murder upstairs......
and the disorderly state of that downstairs apartment does not accord with the prosecution's arguments of a staged break-in and clean-up upstairs.

Now if the blood stains had been properly analysed.......and fingerprints taken.
But they only took reference samples from one of the boys. (Giacomo)

Bongiourno said back in January 2014 that she had a copy of a blood report showing human blood downstairs.

Some of the outside and/or downstairs blood stains were tested for DNA by Stefanoni and replicated under primate (human)-specific PCR replication. That means human DNA was present (unless there was a chimpanzee, bonobo, etc. living in the neighborhood - super unlikely, the Italian LE would have mentioned that). There was blood on the light switch. Guede had cuts on his hand; there is evidence in a German police photo, and he created a story about Nov. 1 where he had been cut on the hand.

If that DNA belonged to Guede and/or Meredith, there is a more complex story than the police and prosecution invented, and it is exculpatory for Amanda and Raffaele. Entry into the downstairs apartment by a burglar is not consistent with the theory of the crime invented by the Italian authorities. And inferences can be made from the suppression of data by the police and prosecution in this case.

 

[Diocletus]

The treaty goes together with the Strasbourg convention. You can't have one without the other.

But it is a fact that the two justice models appear to pursue some goals ideologically opposed between each other.
The US system seems to place great importance in punshment (identifies justice with a punishment) while the Italian system places a greater importance on the determination of a judicial truth (identifies justice with establishing a truth, while punishment is secondary).

Yes, well, unfortunately the US seems to be generally better at truth and Italy at punishment.

 

[Numbers]

CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY 17362/03 23/09/2014

Violations found by ECHR: Convention Articles 6.1, 6.1 with 6.3d

Summary:

1. The applicant, an alleged terrorist, was convicted on the basis of telephone intercepts allegedly between him and persons identified as "X", and on the alleged out-of-court statements of a number of witnesses, including the acknowledged leader of a terrorist organization.

2. However, the Turkish courts and prosecutor did not allow the applicant (then a defendant under trial in Turkey) from hearing the recordings of the telephone intercepts for comparison to the transcripts of the intercepts that were in the case file and used for conviction. Furthermore, the courts and prosecutor refused to identify the persons "X" who were participants in the telephone intercepts or to present such persons in court to obtain their testimony. All these denials by the court were made in the face of reasoned requests by the defense for such comparisons and such testimony.

3. With regard to the witnesses, including the leader of the terrorist organization, it appeared that some of them, including the leader, had denied out-of-court that they had stated that the applicant (defendant at Turkish trial) was a member of the terrorist organization. In any case, none of the witnesses were allowed to testify in court, despite the reasoned requests of the defense, and only pre-trial statements allegedly issued by these persons naming the defendant as a terrorist were entered into the case file and used for conviction.

4. There was no other evidence used to convict the defendant than that described above (in paragrahps 1, 2, and 3).

Relevance: The parallel is between 1) the denial of the court and prosecution (and their agent, the police) to allow examination and comparison of the EDFs and the graphic and/or tabular compilations of DNA profiling results, and 2) the use of out-of-court or separate proceeding results obtained from Rudy Guede and used by CSC or a court, without any possibility of defense examination, for the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

 

[Numbers]

CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY 17362/03 23/09/2014

Violations found by ECHR: Convention Articles 6.1, 6.1 with 6.3d

Summary:

1. The applicant, an alleged terrorist, was convicted on the basis of telephone intercepts allegedly between him and persons identified as "X", and on the alleged out-of-court statements of a number of witnesses, including the acknowledged leader of a terrorist organization.

2. However, the Turkish courts and prosecutor did not allow the applicant (then a defendant under trial in Turkey) from hearing the recordings of the telephone intercepts for comparison to the transcripts of the intercepts that were in the case file and used for conviction. Furthermore, the courts and prosecutor refused to identify the persons "X" who were participants in the telephone intercepts or to present such persons in court to obtain their testimony. All these denials by the court were made in the face of reasoned requests by the defense for such comparisons and such testimony.

3. With regard to the witnesses, including the leader of the terrorist organization, it appeared that some of them, including the leader, had denied out-of-court that they had stated that the applicant (defendant at Turkish trial) was a member of the terrorist organization. In any case, none of the witnesses were allowed to testify in court, despite the reasoned requests of the defense, and only pre-trial statements allegedly issued by these persons naming the defendant as a terrorist were entered into the case file and used for conviction.

4. There was no other evidence used to convict the defendant than that described above (in paragrahps 1, 2, and 3).

Relevance: The parallel is between 1) the denial of the court and prosecution (and their agent, the police) to allow examination and comparison of the EDFs and the graphic and/or tabular compilations of DNA profiling results, and 2) the use of out-of-court or separate proceeding results obtained from Rudy Guede and used by CSC or a court, without any possibility of defense examination, for the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

It may be useful to read para. 67 and 68 of the ECHR judgment, which applies to the alleged phone tap evidence.

67. The Court further observes that the applicant attempted to challenge the lawfulness of the phone tapping, the authenticity of the audiotapes and the reliability of the transcripts in the case file before the Ankara State Security Court. To this end, on at least ten occasions his lawyer filed petitions and made oral submissions to the trial court (see paragraphs 14, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 39 and 44). The first-instance court allowed the request for a comparative voice analysis and dismissed all the other requests on each occasion. Subsequently, however, the applicant refused to take part in the comparative voice analysis. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant’s reluctance to provide a vocal sample was legitimate. In the Court’s view, given the applicant’s reluctance, it was understandable that the first-instance court accepted that the transcripts in the case file contained conversations between the applicant and a number of persons designated as “X”. However, an examination of the question as to whether the transcripts included in the case file by the public prosecutor and those prepared by Mr L.B., the expert, were consistent with the content of the audiotapes was not carried out (see paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 39 above). Besides, the applicant was not provided an opportunity to get of hold of all the elements that would have enabled him to challenge the reliability of the transcripts. In this connection, the Court observes that the first-instance court either dismissed the applicant’s requests to obtain a copy of the audiotapes without providing any reason (see paragraphs 14, 23, 26, 27, 29 and 32 above) or failed to issue a ruling in respect of them (see paragraphs 28, 35, 39 and 45 above). In addition, the court did not play the audiotapes at the hearings in the presence of the applicant or his lawyer. As a result, the applicant’s inability to have access to the originals of those audiotapes prevented him from effectively challenging the reliability of the transcripts. Moreover, as the applicant was not informed of the reason why the court considered it necessary to restrict his rights, he had no opportunity to argue against any such considerations. Lastly, the Court notes that the Court of Cassation also failed to consider the applicant’s arguments concerning his inability to have access to evidence which had been used to secure his conviction.

68. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the decision‑making procedure applied in the present case failed to comply with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, or to incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

[Wannaknow]

Oddly enough back in the day they tried to paint Amanda Knox as an anti-Semite as part of their campaign of character assassination.

Well, as I remember, she said :

"My people killed your people"

to a Jewish fellow employee. That is cruel at the very least.


Greetings

 

[js202]

Well, as I remember, she said :

"My people killed your people"

to a Jewish fellow employee. That is cruel at the very least.


Greetings

That you believe anecdotal smears such as this reveals much about the way you process this case. Remember, this is a skeptics forum.

 

[Diocletus]

CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY 17362/03 23/09/2014

Violations found by ECHR: Convention Articles 6.1, 6.1 with 6.3d

Summary:

1. The applicant, an alleged terrorist, was convicted on the basis of telephone intercepts allegedly between him and persons identified as "X", and on the alleged out-of-court statements of a number of witnesses, including the acknowledged leader of a terrorist organization.

2. However, the Turkish courts and prosecutor did not allow the applicant (then a defendant under trial in Turkey) from hearing the recordings of the telephone intercepts for comparison to the transcripts of the intercepts that were in the case file and used for conviction. Furthermore, the courts and prosecutor refused to identify the persons "X" who were participants in the telephone intercepts or to present such persons in court to obtain their testimony. All these denials by the court were made in the face of reasoned requests by the defense for such comparisons and such testimony.

3. With regard to the witnesses, including the leader of the terrorist organization, it appeared that some of them, including the leader, had denied out-of-court that they had stated that the applicant (defendant at Turkish trial) was a member of the terrorist organization. In any case, none of the witnesses were allowed to testify in court, despite the reasoned requests of the defense, and only pre-trial statements allegedly issued by these persons naming the defendant as a terrorist were entered into the case file and used for conviction.

4. There was no other evidence used to convict the defendant than that described above (in paragrahps 1, 2, and 3).

Relevance: The parallel is between 1) the denial of the court and prosecution (and their agent, the police) to allow examination and comparison of the EDFs and the graphic and/or tabular compilations of DNA profiling results, and 2) the use of out-of-court or separate proceeding results obtained from Rudy Guede and used by CSC or a court, without any possibility of defense examination, for the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Yes! That was the recording case that I mentioned. Nice work.