Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Matthew Best]

I am reading Deceit.

I hope you didn't pay for it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

an alternate theory

So it is not an evidence free framework in which to speculate, it is disingenuous not to document the considerable evidence against this hypothesis. The problem is that if you are just prepared to ignore what evidence there is you can come up with just about any theory. E.g. Kercher had previously expressed some sympathy with the palestinians, a Mossad assassination team targeted her and made her assassination look like a crime gone wrong. Only an agency like Mossad would have the technology to selectively clean up the crime scene. I have previously read that the way the knife was used meant it was wielded by some one with special forces training. What we will find is that Guede will be allowed to quietly emigrate to Israel after his release from jail. In some circles one can be fairly secure that anything bad and obscure can be laid at the door of Mossad.

According to Van der Leek's book, Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up Meredith's blood and had hours to "decontaminate their crime scene" (location 3037) and they may have been "purposefully and selectively contaminating and decontaminating..." (location 3093) Maybe they were trained by Mossad.

 

[Dougm]

I know there have been many wrongful convictions, but have there been any where pro-guilt speculation is based on such nonexistent, made up evidence like this one?

I continue to be amazed at stuff like this book, where the idea that Knox and Sollecito are guilty is based on "facts" that don't exist. How does someone speculate that the two were "shooting up", when neither ever used intravenous drugs?

I think what got me so interested in this case is the completely invented pro-guilt narrative. If that is allowed, they can make up anything about anyone.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[codyjuneau]

It's soooo ... quiet ....

So I will take this opportunity to address the Bomb Threat Phone Call explanation.

I have skipped 95 percent of the posts recently, but I did manage to see the post by MichaelB a while ago which indicated the police knew the telephone number of the man who made the bomb threat phone call to Lana's house, and that he gave a deposition admitting he made the phone call.

However, the deposition stated the call was made on Oct 31, not Nov 1 the night of the murder. And the person, apparently Perugian, said he was merely using up his excess telephone minutes before the end of the month, an explanation which I believe is only consistent with the call being made before Nov 1.

BUT, did not a single person double check Lana's story that the phone call was received Nov 1, the evening before she discovered Meredith's discarded telephones in her garden?

Lana telephoned the police, the police received the call, responded to the call, presumably logged the call, wrote a report, investigated the call, must have found the caller by checking the actual telephone company records for the night in question.

Lana and the police testified in court about the call and their actions. How did the police check their own log of the event if they were not even looking on the correct page in their log book? How did the police find the person that made the bomb threat phone call if they obtained the telephone report for Nov 1, rather than Oct 31?

Lana testified she was so frightened that she called her son who came over to stay with her for the night. Did he not realize which day he came over to stay with his Mom?

Lana testified that the next morning they found one of Meredith's cell phones in the garden and that she thought they might have something to do with the bomb threat phone call that she received the night before so she took it immediately to the police station. A short while later Lana's daughter phoned the police station to say she had found another phone in the garden. And are they all mistakenly thinking the call was the night before, and not 2 days before?

Massei commented in his motivations report about the bomb threat phone call, and said it was received the night of the murder.

So when was the call actually made, Oct 31 or Nov 1?

If Oct 31 why did so many people think it was made on Nov 1?

If Nov 1 then the bizarre explanation and date given by the caller is suspicious, and deserves further investigation, IMO

Cody
.

 

[Dougm]

It's soooo ... quiet ....

So I will take this opportunity to address the Bomb Threat Phone Call explanation.

I have skipped 95 percent of the posts recently, but I did manage to see the post by MichaelB a while ago which indicated the police knew the telephone number of the man who made the bomb threat phone call to Lana's house, and that he gave a deposition admitting he made the phone call.

However, the deposition stated the call was made on Oct 31, not Nov 1 the night of the murder. And the person, apparently Perugian, said he was merely using up his excess telephone minutes before the end of the month, an explanation which I believe is only consistent with the call being made before Nov 1.

BUT, did not a single person double check Lana's story that the phone call was received Nov 1, the evening before she discovered Meredith's discarded telephones in her garden?

Lana telephoned the police, the police received the call, responded to the call, presumably logged the call, wrote a report, investigated the call, must have found the caller by checking the actual telephone company records for the night in question.

Lana and the police testified in court about the call and their actions. How did the police check their own log of the event if they were not even looking on the correct page in their log book? How did the police find the person that made the bomb threat phone call if they obtained the telephone report for Nov 1, rather than Oct 31?

Lana testified she was so frightened that she called her son who came over to stay with her for the night. Did he not realize which day he came over to stay with his Mom?

Lana testified that the next morning they found one of Meredith's cell phones in the garden and that she thought they might have something to do with the bomb threat phone call that she received the night before so she took it immediately to the police station. A short while later Lana's daughter phoned the police station to say she had found another phone in the garden. And are they all mistakenly thinking the call was the night before, and not 2 days before?

Massei commented in his motivations report about the bomb threat phone call, and said it was received the night of the murder.

So when was the call actually made, Oct 31 or Nov 1?

If Oct 31 why did so many people think it was made on Nov 1?

If Nov 1 then the bizarre explanation and date given by the caller is suspicious, and deserves further investigation, IMO

Cody
.

Hi Cody!

That certainly is odd. My first thought is that there certainly was a lot of confusion about dates in this case, in a situation where one would think that confusion would not arise (was it Oct 31, or Nov 1? Halloween, or the next day? Disco buses, or no disco buses?? Men in white bunny suits, or not?).

But I digress.

I must admit that I have always sort of dismissed the bomb hoax call in my mind as being just too random to fit into the case. I agree with many that it is such an odd occurrence it seems that it could be related somehow, but I haven't been able to think of any way it would be related -- I don't really see how it would have helped anyone to have tried to get the cops to find the phones in the garden.

I agree that this report is full of info that doesn't add up. Another item for people to determine if it was some sort of conspiracy, or just incompetence (that no one has asked these questions earlier).

 

[Planigale]

As said so quiet. So I'll throw in one 'fact' I have been uncomfortable with. Guede initially tried to cover in his story various facts that the forensic scientists might have discovered. Thus he admits sexual contact with MK. He admits having contact with her murdered body and having her blood on his hands. He explains the knife cut on his hands. He explains his residue in the bathrooms. He admits to washing his trousers. He admits to going into Filomena's room.

The one thing he never mentions is the break in. His pattern of behaviour would suggest if he knew of the break in he would have tried to explain it. So this would suggest that the break in did not occur until after Guede left.

Discuss.

 

[LashL]

As said so quiet. So I'll throw in one 'fact' I have been uncomfortable with. Guede initially tried to cover in his story various facts that the forensic scientists might have discovered. Thus he admits sexual contact with MK. He admits having contact with her murdered body and having her blood on his hands. He explains the knife cut on his hands. He explains his residue in the bathrooms. He admits to washing his trousers. He admits to going into Filomena's room.

The one thing he never mentions is the break in. His pattern of behaviour would suggest if he knew of the break in he would have tried to explain it. So this would suggest that the break in did not occur until after Guede left.

Discuss.

I would say that Guede cannot admit to the break-in because that would completely undermine his claim that he was invited in by Ms. Kercher and his claim that he had consensual sexual contact with Ms. Kercher. If he admitted to the break in, nobody would have ever believed those claims. (Not that very many people do anyway)

Guede only 'admitted' things he had to in order to try to explain away the forensic evidence that he knew or reasonably expected would be found, and he did so in order to try to make his forensic presence appear innocent in nature. That is, he made up a story to explain away his presence in order to avoid being held responsible for his crimes, but he couldn't admit to the break in because that would demolish his 'innocent' presence tall tales.

 

[Dougm]

I would say that Guede cannot admit to the break-in because that would completely undermine his claim that he was invited in by Ms. Kercher and his claim that he had consensual sexual contact with Ms. Kercher. If he admitted to the break in, nobody would have ever believed those claims. (Not that very many people do anyway)

Guede only 'admitted' things he had to in order to try to explain away the forensic evidence that he knew or reasonably expected would be found, and he did so in order to try to make his forensic presence appear innocent in nature. That is, he made up a story to explain away his presence in order to avoid being held responsible for his crimes, but he couldn't admit to the break in because that would demolish his 'innocent' presence tall tales.

I think that is right. He had a tightrope to walk with his story, and if he admitted to breaking in, he was admitting to both criminal activity (the break in), and also being in the flat uninvited by any of the residents. Being there uninvited was a big problem for him.

 

[codyjuneau]

It's soooo ... quiet ....

So I will take this opportunity to address the Bomb Threat Phone Call explanation.

I have skipped 95 percent of the posts recently, but I did manage to see the post by MichaelB a while ago which indicated the police knew the telephone number of the man who made the bomb threat phone call to Lana's house, and that he gave a deposition admitting he made the phone call.

However, the deposition stated the call was made on Oct 31, not Nov 1 the night of the murder. And the person, apparently Perugian, said he was merely using up his excess telephone minutes before the end of the month, an explanation which I believe is only consistent with the call being made before Nov 1.

BUT, did not a single person double check Lana's story that the phone call was received Nov 1, the evening before she discovered Meredith's discarded telephones in her garden?

Lana telephoned the police, the police received the call, responded to the call, presumably logged the call, wrote a report, investigated the call, must have found the caller by checking the actual telephone company records for the night in question.

Lana and the police testified in court about the call and their actions. How did the police check their own log of the event if they were not even looking on the correct page in their log book? How did the police find the person that made the bomb threat phone call if they obtained the telephone report for Nov 1, rather than Oct 31?

Lana testified she was so frightened that she called her son who came over to stay with her for the night. Did he not realize which day he came over to stay with his Mom?

Lana testified that the next morning they found one of Meredith's cell phones in the garden and that she thought they might have something to do with the bomb threat phone call that she received the night before so she took it immediately to the police station. A short while later Lana's daughter phoned the police station to say she had found another phone in the garden. And are they all mistakenly thinking the call was the night before, and not 2 days before?

Massei commented in his motivations report about the bomb threat phone call, and said it was received the night of the murder.

So when was the call actually made, Oct 31 or Nov 1?

If Oct 31 why did so many people think it was made on Nov 1?

If Nov 1 then the bizarre explanation and date given by the caller is suspicious, and deserves further investigation, IMO

Cody
.

Hi Cody!

That certainly is odd. My first thought is that there certainly was a lot of confusion about dates in this case, in a situation where one would think that confusion would not arise (was it Oct 31, or Nov 1? Halloween, or the next day? Disco buses, or no disco buses?? Men in white bunny suits, or not?).

But I digress.

I must admit that I have always sort of dismissed the bomb hoax call in my mind as being just too random to fit into the case. I agree with many that it is such an odd occurrence it seems that it could be related somehow, but I haven't been able to think of any way it would be related -- I don't really see how it would have helped anyone to have tried to get the cops to find the phones in the garden.

I agree that this report is full of info that doesn't add up. Another item for people to determine if it was some sort of conspiracy, or just incompetence (that no one has asked these questions earlier).

.
Hi Doug

It should still be very easy to verify with certainty which day the call was made.

If it was actually Oct 31 then the Nov 1 memories must be the result of bad recollections, confusion, and incompetence, by people other than Raffaele and Amanda. Exactly the kind of thing that pro guilters argue innocent people never do.

If it was actually Nov 01, then the caller's claims and his reasons for making those claims , plus the police reasons for accepting the claims, should be questioned, IMO.

Cody
.

 

[Dougm]

One thing that seems to jive between Rudy's story and the evidence is that he came and went to the cottage more than once that night. He tells a story about going to the cottage looking for Meredith (even though it was a lot earlier than his invented "date" with her), then going to get something to eat, then returning later. It makes sense that he needed to tell this whole story because someone (or cameras) may have seen him.

I don't think we'll ever know, but my question is: Did he go there earlier to case the joint, and see if anyone was home? Could he have dropped by to see one or more of the boys downstairs, and then, discovering no one was home, get the idea of breaking in to the girl's flat upstairs? Or did he have the whole thing planned in advance, and tossed the rock through the window during the first visit, then went to go eat, coming back to see if anyone reacted to the rock being thrown through the glass?

What feels right to me is the last option. I don't believe he was meeting Meredith, or anyone else. My best guess is that he knew, or suspected, everyone would be away that evening, but he wanted to be sure, so he went by and threw the rock. Then, he would go eat, giving himself an alibi for the broken window in case someone was home and tried to pin that on him. Once he went back and found the place quiet, he could have climbed up into the window in a matter of moments.

Thoughts? I know this part is not critical to the case, but it would tie up some loose ends. My own view is that Rudy broke in mostly for the thrill of invading the girl's space, and secondarily for money. He went there twice to be sure no one was home, and never expected Meredith to return, at least not so early.

 

[Dougm]

.
Hi Doug

It should still be very easy to verify with certainty which day the call was made.

If it was actually Oct 31 then the Nov 1 memories must be the result of bad recollections, confusion, and incompetence, by people other than Raffaele and Amanda. Exactly the kind of thing that pro guilters argue innocent people never do.

If it was actually Nov 01, then the caller's claims and his reasons for making those claims , plus the police reasons for accepting the claims, should be questioned, IMO.

Cody
.

Right. But if it was October 31, how does the Lana's story about the cops being there the night before they found the phones jive? There was a whole narrative told by both the Lanas and the police that the police were there for the bomb call the night before the phones were found.

 

[codyjuneau]

As said so quiet. So I'll throw in one 'fact' I have been uncomfortable with. Guede initially tried to cover in his story various facts that the forensic scientists might have discovered. Thus he admits sexual contact with MK. He admits having contact with her murdered body and having her blood on his hands. He explains the knife cut on his hands. He explains his residue in the bathrooms. He admits to washing his trousers. He admits to going into Filomena's room.

The one thing he never mentions is the break in. His pattern of behaviour would suggest if he knew of the break in he would have tried to explain it. So this would suggest that the break in did not occur until after Guede left.

Discuss.

.
Hi Planigale

That is one I have puzzled over also.

Perhaps Rudy did intend to include it in his story, by saying for example, that he heard a breaking noise over the sound of his IPod while sitting on the toilet, but then paid no more attention to it.

Rudy however had the advantage of seeing the police commit to a hypothesis before his involvement was even known, so when he realized that Amanda and Raffaele were being accused of staging his break-in, he may have decided to alter the story accordingly.

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

.
Hi Planigale

That is one I have puzzled over also.

Perhaps Rudy did intend to include it in his story, by saying for example, that he heard a breaking noise over the sound of his IPod while sitting on the toilet, but then paid no more attention to it.

Rudy however had the advantage of seeing the police commit to a hypothesis before his involvement was even known, so when he realized that Amanda and Raffaele were being accused of staging his break-in, he may have decided to alter the story accordingly.

He didn't put them into his initial story however so they seem to have been developed int his storyline.

 

[codyjuneau]

Right. But if it was October 31, how does the Lana's story about the cops being there the night before they found the phones jive? There was a whole narrative told by both the Lanas and the police that the police were there for the bomb call the night before the phones were found.

.
Exactly. It seems improbable that none of that was true.

The truth should still be easily discoverable.

Cody
.

 

[codyjuneau]

He didn't put them into his initial story however so they seem to have been developed int his storyline.

.
There is little question his story evolved in a self serving way.

Cody
.

 

[Dougm]

According to Van der Leek's book, Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up Meredith's blood and had hours to "decontaminate their crime scene" (location 3037) and they may have been "purposefully and selectively contaminating and decontaminating..." (location 3093) Maybe they were trained by Mossad.

This kind of thing makes me wonder. How many people out there are so ignorant about crime scene dynamics that they would believe this is possible? Even before I read up on this case, I would have immediately said, "yeah, right!" .

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what fun

I hope you didn't pay for it.

I did, and I intend to get my money's worth.

 

[Dan O.]

I see a fair use exception coming.

 

[Antony]

.
Hi Planigale

That is one I have puzzled over also.

Perhaps Rudy did intend to include it in his story, by saying for example, that he heard a breaking noise over the sound of his IPod while sitting on the toilet, but then paid no more attention to it.

Rudy however had the advantage of seeing the police commit to a hypothesis before his involvement was even known, so when he realized that Amanda and Raffaele were being accused of staging his break-in, he may have decided to alter the story accordingly.

Cody
.

That would be ridiculous in the context of the "staged" break-in, because it implies that the staging occurred before the murder! It would make sense in the context of Rudy's original claim that some other guy broke in and killed Meredith while he was taking a dump.

 

[Dougm]

That would be ridiculous in the context of the "staged" break-in, because it implies that the staging occurred before the murder! It would make sense in the context of Rudy's original claim that some other guy broke in and killed Meredith while he was taking a dump.

I think the broken window was the big problem for Rudy when he first told his story, because he had no explanation for it. If he included it in his story, it would have messed up everything. What, the phantom intruder came in through the window?? Too weird a story, even for this situation. So I think he left it out, planning to say, later, that since he and Meredith were not in Filomena's room, he has no idea what went on in there. But when the cops started talking about a staged break in, he added to his story that the window was not broken when he was there, to try to pin things on AK and RS,