Monday, March 1, 2010

An interim evaluation of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito

Part IX in a series on the Knox/Sollecito case

Here is an interim overview of some of the evidence in the murder of Meredith Kercher; individual issues may be covered in greater depth once the reasons for the verdict have been announced. We have already examined some of the problems with the DNA of the knife and bra clasp. Problematic as the LCN DNA of the knife and the weak, mixed DNA of the clasp are, they are the only things that tie Mr. Sollecito to the room and Ms. Knox to a supposed murder weapon. Without them the whole case looks insubstantial.

Forensic evidence
The investigators failed to perform and especially to report the DNA forensics to the usual degree of completeness, and this leaves many questions unanswered. The investigators did not take Filomena’s or Laura’s reference DNA samples, even though they were Meredith’s roommates. Chris Mellas, Amanda’s stepfather, said that despite a court order in the summer of 2009, the investigators failed to disclose the electronic data files of the DNA evidence (called .fsa files) and logs to the defense. The lack of disclosure of evidence concerning the DNA forensics was one of the reasons that the defense essentially moved for a mistrial in the fall, a motion which was denied. According to Barbie Nadeau (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-14/no-mistrial-for-knox/), “Just as court adjourned in July, it was revealed that the prosecution had held back key evidence from the defense and civil attorneys. On Monday, clutching the Italian constitution, Sollecito’s lead defense attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, told the judge: ‘My client has been denied his right to adequate representation.’”

Although Ms. Nadeau does not indicate the nature of the evidence withheld, the subsequent Johnson/Hampikian open letter of 19 November 2009 noted specifically lack of disclosure of the .fsa files. Because it is difficult to see why the defense would not share such files with Dr. Johnson and Professor Hampikian (or at least make them aware that the files had been finally disclosed), the open letter tends to corroborate Mr. Mellas’ account. In addition, Bob Graham wrote (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233539/Amanda-Knox-victim-anti-American-trial-campaigners-urge-Hillary-Clinton-launch-investigation.html), “Other forensic experts in several countries – including two from Britain – have started to study the DNA results but have delayed giving a verdict until they have received precise details on the methodology used by their Italian counterparts. The failure of the prosecution to provide these details to Knox and Sollecito’s defence teams is one of their central complaints.”

Why are the .fsa files important? Technical bulletin 40-035 from Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc., is a checklist of what the laboratory is expected to provide, and it states, “Copies of all data files used and created in the course of performing tests and analyzing data in this case, including .fsa files, if applicable. These files should include all data necessary to independently reanalyze the raw data.” In response to a question on this subject, Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.” According to a knowledgeable source, “Each tested sample has its own file. The file contains the full electropherogram trace information along with other information about the testing conditions (e.g., date, time, injection time, voltage, temperature, current, the RFU threshold used by the analyst). If you have the electronic data, you can use the DNA analysis software (GeneScan & Genotyper or GeneMapper ID) to independently analyze the electronic data. That allows you to examine the results as closely as possible (zoom in on the electropherogram to evaluate low-level results) and establish the RFU threshold of your choosing.”

One leaves DNA by many mechanisms including shedding hair and skin. Finding Ms. Knox’s DNA in her own flat is a very unsurprising result, whether or not it happened to be mixed with Meredith’s blood. Her DNA was found in Mr. Sollecito’s flat as well. The lack of their DNA in Meredith’s room on all but the bra clasp is a silence that shouts. In a pretrial hearing, Mr. Sollecito’s lawyers argued that it would have been very unlikely for him to be able to leave DNA on the bra clasp without also leaving it on the bra as well, yet none was found there (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255101/DNA-on-Meredith-Kerchers-bloodied-bra-was-due-to-lab-contamination-claims-Sollecito.html).

The other biological forensics was also problematic. Luminol was overapplied to one of the footprints, according to Colonel Garofano in the book Darkness Descending, leading to a loss of detail in the image. Moreover, luminol is a presumptive test for blood, one that should be confirmed by further testing. Although some claim to have the ability to tell blood from other substances via luminol alone, this claim is controversial in the forensic literature. Moreover, defense expert witness Sara Gino stated "We were not told that, first of all, the prints were treated with a substance which should have indicated whether they were blood, and the result was very uncertain." In addition, the investigators did not obtain reference footprints from all of the roommates. The temperature of Meredith’s body was taken about two days after death had occurred, making it harder to estimate the time of death.

The investigators could have performed the electronic forensics much more professionally. For example, the investigators damaged three hard drives, Meredith’s, Amanda’s, and one of Raffale’s, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234298/Amanda-Knox-The-troubling-doubts-Foxy-Knoxys-role-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html). Amanda’s hard drive is said to have pictures of her and Meredith, evidence that would belie the impression that the two roommates did not get along, but her drive has not yet been salvaged. Her defense team has offered to pay for a different group of experts to attempt to retrieve the information, but this offer was rebuffed. The investigators also inadvertently erased a piece of potential alibi information (http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmsSezioni/cronache/200909articoli/47691girata.asp), the time that the file Stardust was accessed (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/computer-places-knox-and-sollecito-at.html).


Non-forensic evidence
The prosecution would have us believe that a gang rape occurred, despite the fact that this is an unusual occurrence. Ms. Knox and Mr. Guede had met only twice, the two men had never met, and neither Ms. Knox nor Mr. Sollecito communicated with Mr. Guede in any documented way. It strikes me as extraordinarily risky to commit a crime with someone one does not know. Then Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are imagined to have removed evidence linking them to the crime but not evidence linking Mr. Guede to the crime. In addition, the prosecution changed the motive during the trial but did not have evidence to support either motive.

Raffaele’s kitchen knife is too large to have made the bloody outline of the knife on the sheet. It is too large to make two of the three wounds, and any knife could have made the third. There is no reason for Raffaele and Amanda to have transported the knife in the first place. On top of that we are asked to believe that Raffaele and Amanda would not dispose of this knife, even though Rudy would have seen them use it and could rat them out, and even though the other knife was disposed of. We are also asked to believe that they would clean the blade of the knife but not the handle. This whole scenario would be risible if it were in a third-rate mystery novel.

Raffaele and Amanda are said to have faked evidence of the flat’s being burglarized. I do not find the argument that the break-in was staged to be convincing. There is little evidence pointing that way. Filomena’s room was tidy when she left it, but she recalled that when she returned, there was glass on her clothes. This suggests that someone put the clothes on the floor to simulate a break-in, then broke the window in her room. However, the photographic evidence is not definitive, and it is possible to imagine a number of explanations. Suppose the window were broken, and glass ended up on the laptop. Then suppose that the laptop were moved from the desk to the floor, where some of the glass slid off to some clothing and some remained on the computer. Also, Filomena was allowed back into her room to retrieve some items, and it is possible that she inadvertently did something to put glass on the strewn clothes and remembers the room as though she found it that way.

It has been argued that Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the unexpected arrival of the Postal Police, in an attempt to portray himself as a concerned but innocent citizen, then lied and said that his call to the Carabinieri preceded the appearance of the Postal Police (who were returning missing cell phones). The prosecution wants us to believe that Mr. Sollecito lied to the police about when he placed the call, before he was a suspect. The explanation for what probably did happen is complex, but unless one believes that Mr. Sollecito is very stupid, the prosecution’s theory does not make much sense. Attempting to lie about when the call to the Carabinieri would have little upside (he could have said to the postal police that he was just about to call them or the Carabinieri), and has a huge downside. One would generally believe that the police would be meticulous record keepers about the times of calls and other matters. If Mr. Sollecito were tempted to concoct this story, a moment’s thought should have been enough to convince him of the likelihood of being found out. The two defendants did do some dumb things, but I do not believe that they are that stupid.

Ms. Knox’s incriminating statements were thrown out as evidence for the murder trial; therefore, they cannot be used to assess her legal guilt or innocence. However, suppose we consider her incriminating statements against Lumumba in assessing factual innocence and ask why she made them. Her subsequent comments about the interrogation are similar to those made by people who have been pressured into making false confessions. Francesca Bene’s interrogation provides a modest amount of support for what Ms. Knox said, as discussed in a previous post. In addition, we have Douglas Preston’s account of his being interrogated in a foreign language, and his evaluation that his halting answers made him sound like a liar. It is quite possible that Ms. Knox’s interrogators misperceived similar behaviors of hers as evidence that she had something to hide and therefore pressed harder. Moreover, her later statement, “But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream,” implicitly disavows Lumumba’s involvement.

The investigators claim that no undue coercion was used, but Dr. Giobbi said that he heard Amanda screaming. The investigators claim that they did not record the key interrogations with Amanda that night, despite having previously recorded her interviews and phone calls. Furthermore, they lied when they said that Amanda came in to the police headquarters of her own volition (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html). Therefore, Ms. Knox’s account of her interrogation is more credible than theirs is.

Ms. Knox’s allegedly performing a cartwheel at the police station was the fodder for a great deal of negative publicity. Her own explanation of that episode, as relayed through Chris Mellas to Frank Sfarzo of Perugia-Shock, is that she was stretching to relieve stress when a policeman commented on her flexibility. They fell into a conversation, and he asked her what other gymnastics or exercises she knew. Ms. Knox’s testimony at her trial mentioned meeting the policeman but did not say whether or not he asked her to demonstrate other gymnastic moves. Elsewhere, she implied that she did at least some exercises or stretches of her own accord. Therefore, her testimony neither contradicts nor confirms the version Mr. Sfarzo reported. In any case, her yoga or gymnastics have little or no bearing on her guilt or innocence.

What about Raffaele’s probable lie about his cooking with Meredith and his pricking her finger? Does this not generate suspicion? His statement was made only after he had heard that her DNA was found on the knife blade, not before, and it was made without knowledge of the quality of the data. His statement was stupid, but understandable. Therefore, I would say that there is reason to be suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele, probably not enough to indict, and certainly not enough to convict.

The defense have argued that this tragic crime was the work of a lone assailant, Rudy Guede. The evidence linking Mr. Guede to the crime is much stronger; there is a bloody handprint, the bowel movement in the toilet, and there are several pieces of DNA evidence. I am puzzled by the sexual aspect of the crime, but despite this reservation, Mr. Guede acting alone in the rape and murder is the most logical explanation to me. If information about Rudy’s involvement had come back earlier, I doubt that the investigators would have ever moved for an indictment against Raffaele or Amanda. In other words, this is an instance of garden-variety tunnel-vision on the part of the investigators.

88 comments:

Katy said...

Great summary. As regards the infamous statement about Raffaele pricking Meredith with the knife, I noticed something he wrote in his journal, when he'd just learned about the DNA on the knife: "today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing..."

He wrote that a day before making the comment about Meredith, which suggests that at the time, he may have believed the knife had been taken to the girls' house at some point. We know that he'd cooked meals there too, including the afternoon of the murder when Meredith was there and they asked her if she wanted food ("she said that she had already eaten"). So perhaps something like the incident he describes did happen, even if it was just him bumping into Meredith and apologizing, and in hindsight assuming the knife must have touched her, for example. Certainly gives a different perspective to it anyway.

Anonymous said...

I agree with so many aspects of your summary. And speaking of tunnel vision, I understand that Rudy hung out with some very rough characters. One of them, I understand, left Perugia after the crime and has not been seen or heard of since then. Have you heard anything about this?
TM

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the overview of some of the evidence in the murder of Meredith Kercher. I agree with you on many points, Chris. I don't believe the 'double DNA' knife found in Raffaele's apartment is the murder weapon and the DNA supposedly found on it belonging to MK is very questionable. I also don't believe RS participated in the murder and I have reasonable doubt that AK was part of that. Yet there is other evidence and many of the facts don't make sense.

The 'staged' break in. Rudy left DNA everywhere and did not even bother to flush the toilet. Yet in Filomena's room there is no trace of him. No fingerprints, no DNA on the busted window or rock he threw, no hair or footprints and none of his DNA anywhere. Why would he bother to clean up evidence he broke in then tore up her room in an apparent robbery. At the same time, no attempt was made to clean up evidence of his presence in Meredith's room, where the murder took place. One would have to think that Rudy was more concerned with not getting caught for the robbery than he was concerned about being fingered for the murder. Unless of course, he did not throw a rock though the window from a somewhat visable and high traffic location at a fairly early hour and then climb up to that window for any passing car to see, to climb in over all that broke glass without cutting himself or leaving a trace of his presence, then beginning to tear the room apart again leaving no trace. At the same time one piece of evidence exists that you have not mentioned about Filomena's room, and that is Amanda's DNA was found there mixed with Meredith's blood. Perhaps you are planning to examine that DNA test at a later date?

Another piece of evidence that bothers me is Amanda's bedside table lamp found in Meredith's room. It is obvious that Rudy didn't try to remove his presence from that room, so why would he need a lamp? To better see his handiwork? Again, it makes no sense that Rudy brought this into that room. In addition the body was staged by pretty convincing forensic evidence a good bit after the original attack. Why in the world would Rudy make the murder also look more like a rape? Again, as long as he avoided those pesky burgalry charges, maybe he thought he was in the clear?

One more piece of evidence is bugging me, the bloody shoeprint on the pillow under the body. It seems too small to be either Rudy's or Sollecito's and about the right size for Amanda. Is this something you plan on addressing as well?
Lastly, it seems you are presenting Amanda's conflicting testimony and lies as the result of police intimidation and you even find her to be more credible. It is hard for me to see her as credible in anything she said, Chris. That also includes times when she was obviously not under coercion. I also don't find her apparent loss of memory very credible, as we have discussed previously.

Rose

Joe said...

I agree with so many aspects of your summary. And speaking of tunnel vision, I understand that Rudy hung out with some very rough characters. One of them, I understand, left Perugia after the crime and has not been seen or heard of since then. Have you heard anything about this?
TM

March 1, 2010 3:52 PM

TM,
To your post, I would like to add that Alessandro Formica provided a deposition to the police a few days after the murder (unlike the fake witnesses who showed up months or a year after the murder) and testified at the trial that she and her boyfriend bumped into a man rushing up steps in the immediate vicinity of the murder house at 10:30. She stated to be positive that it was not Rudy, and that he was taller. Could this be Rudy's accomplice, or vice versa? I believe it is important to note that 13 unattributed, readable fingerprints were found in the flat, 4 of them in Meredith's bedroom.

Chris,
I believe it is imperative to address Toto, Marco, Kokomani, and Fabio Giuffredi, who provided eyewitness "testimony" placing Amanda and Raffaele out of Raffaele's apartment and/or in the company of Rudy. Frank thoroughly described in Perugia Shock why their testimony completely fell apart at trial.

Just one example I would like to share is the testimony of Kokomani. He was driving by the cottage and what he thought was a bag on the side of the road turned into Amanda and Raffaele. When he stopped, Amanda pulled The Knife out of her bag and held it over her head with both hands and yelled at him "Come here and I'll show you!" Kokomani then threw olives at her and punched Raffaele in the face. There was much more nonsense to his testimony as well.

This was a murder trial trying to bring justice for the murder of an innocent young woman and a trial in which the futures and freedom of two suspects was on the line. The testimony of all four of these individuals is not credible. In a fair trial, these “witnesses” should have been prohibited from taking the stand or their testimony should have been stricken from the record. Only in kangaroo courts is noncredible testimony allowed to stand.

I anxiously await the written justification from Massai!

Joe

Joe said...

Rose,
What is more compelling, no presence of Amanda and Raffaele (aside from the highly suspect knife and bra clasp) in the murder room or no presence of Rudy in Filomena's room?

Concerning the partial shoe print on the pillow case - the prosecution's expert confirmed that it showed the same tread pattern as Rudy's Nike Outbreak 2. None of Amanda's shoes had that pattern. Did they go together to buy gangrape and murder outfits so they would have the same tread pattern?

The mixed DNA sample of Meredith and Amanda in Filomena's room would be a big problem if it contained the blood of Amanda. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression that this sample contained the blood of Meredith and nonblood biological substance of Amanda. Considering that Amanda lived at the flat and her DNA could have made it onto Filomena's floor in any number of ways, this evidence is circumstantial at best. I find it interesting that the other stain in Filomena's room contained only Meredith's DNA. In addition, I also found it interesting that scientists in other media questioned whether Stefanoni tested areas just outside of these stains to provide controls, which would establish whether Amanda's DNA was found outside of the mixed stain.

Joe

halides1 said...

Rose,

I think that when Guede was taken into custody, he had a minor cut on his hand. Perhaps this was from entering the broken window. He may have failed to flush the toilet because Meredith returned unexpectedly, then forgot about it having his clean-up and getaway to think about.

CHris

Anonymous said...

Joe,
Regarding the footprint on the pillowcase, from what I have read the prosecution expert said the print matched the size of Amanda's foot and the defense argued the print was caused by a crease or fold in the pillowcase. I don't recall testimony on the tread of this print matching Rudy's but again, there is a lot of conflicting information out there about almost every piece of evidence.
Chris, if Rudy cut his hand on the glass in Filomena's window, why is none of his blood or DNA showing up there? And of course, if he cut his hand on the glass then he would not have been wearing gloves which would make it likely that during that frantic search of the room, he would have left a fingerprint or four. Looking at the few pictures of that broken window it is hard for me to imagine him squeezing through it without leaving some evidence. I have not seen a report that they even found fiber evidence there. Do you think he went in head first or feet first?
Two other footprints of Amanda's were found mixed with Meredith's blood. One outside Amanda's room and one heading into Filomeana's room. How are those to be explained?
Rose

オテモヤン said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
halides1 said...

Rose,

Are the footprints really Amanda's or are they merely "compatible" with Amanda's? And how can we be sure without reference footprints from the other flatmates? Was the substance really blood, or was it only luminol-positive? This is a complex story.

Chris

Anonymous said...

Chris,
I read somewhere that the Luminol reaction color of blood is brighter than other things like the fruit juice or bleach you mentioned in one of your early posts. The investigators said the reaction was more the appearance of blood. It has been pointed out that to me that it was listed as Amanda's footprints with Meredith's blood just outside of Amanda's room as well as heading into Meredith's room (not Filomena's as I stated above). I thought I have seen it both ways in different reports, but I may be wrong about that.

To me the most complex parts of this case revolve around the prosecution's theory of motive as well as the prosecution's theory of the assault. I don't think either of these theories is accurate and because of that (and not the dubious DNA results) I am amazed that the prosecution got a guilty verdict.

The fact that there are many things that don't make sense about the evidence is one of the things that make this case so interesting. Despite the guilty pending appeal verdict, most of what happened is not certain at all.

Rose

Katy said...

Apparently luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not evidence of blood in itself (because of the number of things with which it can react). Why then were none of the footprints tested for blood? Or were they, and the results weren't to the prosecution's liking? Surely this would be a very basic test to do on anything revealed with luminol, so why don't we know the results?

I'd be interested to read a theory as to how the footprints were made, from the prosecution's side. The position of them seems consistent with Amanda's account of taking a shower, drying her feet on the bathmat and using it to walk part-way back to her room (because Guede had taken the towels into Meredith's room), and stopping on the way to knock on Meredith's door after noticing the blood in the bathroom. Some of the prints may have been made through the bathmat, and some when she stepped off the mat into her room; they could either have been made in the dilute blood/water mix on the bathmat, or from traces of cleaning product on the mat from previous occasions when the bathroom had been cleaned.

If the prints were indeed Amanda's, that seems like a reasonable explanation as to how they were made to me, consistent with the positioning of the prints. But what's the prosecution's explanation as to how the prints appeared in those particular places? Why is one pointing INTO Meredith's room, and others down the corridor, rather than going into the bathroom as we would expect from someone with blood-covered feet? Why aren't there any luminol revealed prints in the room itself? Did Amanda get blood on her foot in the room, then jump backwards to the doorway...? And how did either Amanda or Raffaele get blood on their feet anyway, when the prosecution's theory is that they left immediately after the attack and only returned some time later, after the blood had dried? So many questions...

Anonymous said...

Katy,
Amanda dragging that bathmat around the flat does have a ring of truth to it, does it not? Perhaps she dragged the bath mat to Meredith's room and when she stepped off it at the door, her foot had picked up the blood from Rudy's having stepped on it earlier. The fact that the mat was wet probably was the reason it had not quite dried and the print was picked up by the Luminol tests. Then seeing she would need more light to arrange the crime scene she dragged that mat back to her room to get her lamp, again stepping off it when she reached her room.

Joe said...

Rose,

I have lamented before on this blog about inconsistent reporting about evidence and testimony about this case. There is so much misinformation out there, it is difficult to know what is fact or fiction. It would be helpful to be able to read the entire trial transcript, if it was translated to English.

halides1 said...

Rose,

The issue of differentiating between blood and other substances with luminol is complex, and I found within a single review article some tension between two quotes:

Due to the possible presence of these substances at the crime scene, the luminol test must not be considered sufficiently specific to permit an unequivocal identification of blood [15,18,51,88,89]….

Generally visual examination is used when the luminol test is employed in a forensic situation, rather than instrumental detection of the luminescence. An experienced practitioner may distinguish the true blood-catalyzed chemiluminescence from that produced by other substances by the evaluation of parameters observable to the naked eye such as emission intensity, duration and spatial distribution. However this approach may also lead to misinterpretation, due to a subjective, informal and non-quantitative evaluation, for example, because its intensity is qualitatively much weaker than that expected for blood. In other circumstances an emission of similar intensity may be thought to derive from diluted bloodstains and is accepted. Therefore, caution should be exercised when using the test.

Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913.

I am not sure whether this answers your question or not.

Chris

DUDE said...

AMANDA AND RAFFAELE ARE INNOCENT
TIME LINE MEREDITH'S LAST CALL HOME 8:56 pm,
The call was interrupted by Guede's attack before her mother could answer the call.
Nov. 1, 2007 pm
~06:00 Meredith ate dinner at friends home Via Bontempi

~08:30 Guede captured on the parking garage CCTV cam

~8:40 Amanda answered the door at Raffaele's flat.

~08:45 Meredith & Sophie start walking home together

~08:40 Guede busted the window and enters the apartment

~08:55 She got home, went straight to her room and placed a phone call to her mom, *8:56 pm, police testimony

*08:56 Meredith's call to mom is interrupted, GUEDE ATTACKED

>8:56 She put up one hell of a fight so Guede stabbed her soon after he attack.

* 9:10, 9:26 - 9:46 The scientific police determined Raffaele was active on his PC, watching a cartoon.

~09:30 Meredith is dead. It's a 10 minute walk to where her phones were found plus Guede did some clean up work.

~10:00 Guede used her UK phone and the wrong area code to call her UK bank.The call connects to a cell tower that services Ponte Rio, Montelaguardia

*10:13 Her phone receives pic. message from same cell tower

DUDE said...

WAS WINDOW IN FILOMENA'S ROOM, BUSTED FROM OUTSIDE OR INSIDE OF THE APARTMENT?

The following portion of the judge Micheli's report says the Judge based his proclamation that the window was busted from the inside on the perception of Filomena. If the window was busted after the clothes were on the floor there would not be glass under her clothes, but nobody knows if glass was under her clothes or not.

"The first element of mystification was just mentioned: the glass was broken from inside, and made him who carried the DNA in that room already killed the girl. The R.[Filomena Romanelli] in one of the records containing her statements, remember that the glass window above the clothes were thrown on the ground, which confirms that the glass was broken after the activation of who fumbled into the room, even if the minutes and photographs of this particular spot is apparently not, it is significant to record what was the perception of the girl.

DUDE said...

SHORT VERSION MINUTE TIME LINE. RAFFAELE'S DISPUTED 112 CALLS; Raffaele said he called 112 before the two isp. offices arrived at the apartment door where Raffaele and Amanda stood waiting for the police to arrive. The prosecution claim he hid and called 112 after the officers arrived at the door in order to establish an alibi.

afternoon:
12:35 isp.car arrive at parking lot gate captured by CCTV cam.
12:45 CCTV cam timer was demonstrated to be 10 minutes slow (not by police) so their arrival time is approximately 12:45 pm.
12:46 isp headquarters logs 2nd phone received at headquarters.
12:47 Between 12:47 - 12:49, headquarters notifies officers the 2nd phone was delivered.
12:48 This time line shows the officers had approximately 2 minutes to get to the door after being notified about the 2nd phone
12:50 Raffaele calls his sister.
12:51 Raffaele calls 112, Told call back.
12:54 Raffaele calls 112, and reports a possible burglary
12:55 Raffaele completes his 112 call
12:56 Sometime between 12:56 and 12:59 the isp. officers arrive at the apartment door asking about two phones found.
12:57 Officers did not see Raffaele talking on his phone at any time.
13:00 Officer contacts Strada Borghetto di Prepo at isp. post, and reports information received from Amanda about phones.
13:01 Following their conversation about the phones, Raffaele and Amanda are busy showing the officers the apartment.
13:15 Meredith's body is found under a comforter when officer enters her room.


The above posted to TIMESONLINE Feb 8, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6945636.ece

Judge Micheli's report;
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AToWexHWXGUuZGR0OXBycDdfOWNkbjZiYmht&hl=en

DUDE said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DUDE said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DUDE said...

WAS WINDOW IN FILOMENA'S ROOM, BUSTED FROM OUTSIDE OR INSIDE OF THE APARTMENT?

The following portion of the judge Micheli's report says the Judge based his proclamation that the window was busted from the inside on the perception of Filomena Romanelli, because he does not have records or pictures of glass on or under her clothes. If the window was busted after the clothes were on the floor there would not be glass under her clothes, but nobody knows if glass was under her clothes or not.

"The first element of mystification was just mentioned: the glass was broken from inside, and made him who carried the DNA in that room already killed the girl. The R.[Filomena Romanelli] in one of the records containing her statements, remember that the glass window above the clothes were thrown on the ground, which confirms that the glass was broken after the activation of who fumbled into the room, even if the minutes and photographs of this particular spot is apparently not, it is significant to record what was the perception of the girl.


Also the prosecuting said they knew the rock was thrown from inside the apartment because it hit the shutter which was closed.
FILOMENA IS NOT SURE SHE CLOSED THE SHUTTER:
Heard in person by the prosecutor about the state of her room the evening of November 1, R.[Romanelli Filomena ] suggested that there were certainly valuable items, including a laptop, a pair of sunglasses and some gold jewelry, stored in a drawer: a look superficial, it seemed that nothing was missing, except maybe some articles maquillage. As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows but leaving the dark probably open: the shutters Although not a hundred percent sure, thought to have them shut, but without anchoring both since left the tax resistance is encountered the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but from your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. [ who is A? ] celebrating a birthday), but had then departed in a hurry because it was already late

THE HONORABLE (SOB) MISQUOTES FILOMENA'S STATEMENT ABOUT LEAVING HER SHUTTER CLOSED. See Filomena's statement above, she said she did not remember if she closed her shutter or not, because she was in a hurry to go to a birthday party.
"Neither one had to climb the rock in his hand, being able to actually run by the kind of guard rail (and not from below, as he wanted to object to the PM, with the risk that fell on top of the pitcher). However, the choice of the window in question indicates a certain chance that a thief hardly used: according to the statements of R. [ Romanelli Filomena ], she had left the shutters virtually parted, even a bound on the sill due to the expansion of the wood over time; and nothing, since there is some light inside, could reveal the man with the stone in his hand that was not locked behind a dark old way, with the risk of throwing the stone and having it bounce below. Without forgetting that the more gambling G. [Rudy Guede] is to have chosen the window exposed to the street and into the headlights of cars in transit".

definition, virtually
1) In fact or to all purposes; practically.
2) Almost but not quite; nearly.


JUDGE MICHELI'S REPORT
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AToWexHWXGUuZGR0OXBycDdfOWNkbjZiYmht&hl=en

Anonymous said...

DUDE,
I think the judge went a bit to far in thinking the window had been busted from the inside based on Filomena's statements. I do think it would be reasonable to think that the window had been busted (from inside or out) after the room had been trashed based on her statements.

As far as the timing of Raffaele's 112 call, I think it is just to close as far as the sequence of events to conclude that he called after he knew the police were already on the scene.

Rose

Debrah said...

Well, "Dude".

I didn't get a hit from your link information on the Micheli Report.

However, here's a link to Oprah's coverage.

If Oprah says it's this way....or that way....then it must be true!

Please take the directions that "Rose" provided on an earlier thread. He gave an amazing tutorial on direct linking.

I know, I know. Many people don't want to be bothered with direct linking. I've never been enthralled with technicalities, myself; however, direct linking makes it so much easier for readers.

Anonymous said...

I suspect there was a bit of sarcasm in Debrah's comments regarding Oprah. She was doing what she does best, which is promoting. In this case she was promoting the innocence of Amanda Knox. As such things go, it was not even as effective as our host's selective interim evaluation of the evidence that precedes these comments.

Those nasty Italians just don't like little girl Amanda, they don't understand science, and their entire system of justice is flawed and corrupt. It is almost as if they are presenting Amanda as having been kidnapped. The audience showed more concern over Amanda's predicament than Amanda showed over Meredith's murder. I hope the judges report that is due out very soon will actually give us more solid information about the jury's decision. Anything is better than the constant PR attacks being waged against the guilty verdict.

Most of the news coverage of this case has been biased towards one side or another and most of the blogs that cover the Meredith Kercher murder have done the same. Oprah probably put 10 minutes into reading up on this case and her stance was decided in advance.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Did not Filomena and the Postal police say the washing machine was warm when they arrived? Washing machines are never warm nor would the clothes be warm after a rinse cycle. The testimony of these people is highly questionable.

halides1 said...

Rose,

I am counting on the commenters here to examine some of the issues that I have not had time to study. For example, I find it interesting that there was a 10 PM call on Meredith's phone to her bank, but it used the wrong area code, from what I can gather. To me, that sounds as if the killer had the phone in his possession at this time, putting the time of her death much earlier than the prosection.

Chris

Joe said...

Rose,

I am counting on the commenters here to examine some of the issues that I have not had time to study. For example, I find it interesting that there was a 10 PM call on Meredith's phone to her bank, but it used the wrong area code, from what I can gather. To me, that sounds as if the killer had the phone in his possession at this time, putting the time of her death much earlier than the prosection.

Chris

March 3, 2010 5:31 PM

Chris,
There was also an attempt to make an internet connection with her bank at 10:13.

Anonymous said...

It seems the judges report is out, 427 pages worth. It may be awhile before a decent translation is on the web. All I see are some news articles dealing with the motivation for the crime.

LaRepublica/Google translated


Rose

Debrah said...

Scroll down on this one to get Donald Trump on the case.

The Obama administration should intervene?

Americans should boycott Italy?

Ridiculous.

Trump is without a doubt a savvy businessman and has done lots of good things; however, this latest seems a bit over-the-top.

Anonymous said...

Here's an article on the judges report that says they jury did not buy into the prosecution's theory of the crime nor particularly rely on the DNA evidence.

Seatle 'PR'

RoseRed

Anonymous said...

Correction to my above posting. It appears they did rely on the DNA evidence but still did not like the prosecutions theory of the crime. LOL.

First blush has many surprises (and many appeal possibles). Interesting.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Debrah,
I also thought Mr. Trump to be somewhat arrogant in his reaction to this case. He said: “I think I’m good at judging people. I study people and I’ve become rich because I understand what people are about. And I watched the Amanda Knox case unfolding in news reports. And this is not a guilty person.”

It seems to me he sometimes judges people, especially pretty girls, by their appearance.

Rose

halides1 said...

Rose,

Here is the quote with respect to the DNA evidence from Andrea Vogt's report:

"For example, the jury disagreed with the murder dynamic that prosecutors put forth. Both the alleged murder weapon (a knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and a trace amount of Kercher's on the blade) and the bra clasp with Sollecito's DNA were considered reliable elements of proof."

Therefore the discussion at this blog centering around the knife and the bra clasp is probably pertinent to the appeal.

Chris

RoseMontague said...

I believe you are correct, Chris. That is Andrea's take on the report in any case. At this point, consider yourself considerably vindicated. I appreciate both the time and effort you have put into this discussion.

Rose

RoseMontague said...

An interesting quote fron another article this morning: In a riposte to Knox's family and friends who claim she was the victim of a mistrial based on flawed evidence, the judges said the prosecution had drawn "a comprehensive and coherent picture, without holes or inconsistencies". The defendants had been able to describe Ms Kercher's injuries, and their guilt was clear from DNA traces and naked footprints found "in various parts of the house".

UK Timesonline re judges report

Anonymous said...

Its remarkable. The jury believed none of the prosecution's motives but they believed the evidence they produced. Let's just retest that evidence now.

Debrah said...

"It seems to me he sometimes judges people, especially pretty girls, by their appearance."
**********************************

No question.

If this were someone like Rosie O'Donnell doing the Coliseum, Trump would not be found on such a case.

By the way....it would be worth the price of admission to witness another sparring session between Trump and Rosie O'.

LOL!

Anonymous said...

"...the opinion largely supports the prosecution's case, particularly on the forensics, but also leaves room for different interpretations that will likely feature prominently in Knox's appeal -- namely the motive and murder dynamic inside the apartment."

The forensics it is or so it seems. The jury could not see the problems with the "murder weapon" or the "DNA" found there or the bra clasp DNA.

No "holes" or "inconsistencies."

They must be just brilliant.

Observer

PS If the window was broken from the inside, why isn't the glass outside instead of on/under the clothes in the floor?

Anonymous said...

Observer,
The defense had ample opportunity to challenge every bit of forensic evidence, including the knife and the bra clasp. It was reported that they did so. Yet the jury believed the prosecution experts over those of the defense teams. Perhaps the best option for appeal regarding the DNA results may be to support the claim that Chris has made several times. That claim being that some of the key DNA evidence (the .fsa files) were not provided to the defense team. Other than that, I'm not sure that 'new' expert opinions will really be useful on appeal.

It does seem fairly obvious that a reduced sentence is possible on appeal just based on the fact that the judges did not buy into the motive for the crime nor the actual reconstruction of the assault as presented by the prosecution.

I thought it was interesting that they felt the footprints were important and those are some of the forensics not yet examined here.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Frank has a "part one" summary of the report up at Perugia Shock, well worth reading.

Knox no Sox

halides1 said...

Rose,

Let me quote from Mark Waterbury’s blog (http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/10/lcn-dna-profiling-part-ii-watch-where.html):
[Quote]
We're not through. Laboratories performing LCN rely heavily on what are called “negative controls.” The following quote is from The Law Society of Scotland's publication at: http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx

“In forensic science the fact to be established is that the DNA profile originated from the material recovered from a crime scene or a suspect, not the investigator, the laboratory, packaging, or analytical instruments. A “negative control” is set up by simply processing a “blank” sample that has no DNA. All being well, this control will not show any DNA. The presence of DNA in the negative control illustrates that there has been a source of contamination in the analytical method. It does not, of itself, show where that occurred, merely that it has. The tradition over many years has been, for very sound reasons, that anything found in the “negative control” invalidates the analysis.

...even in a tightly controlled analytical procedure a significant number of supposedly negative controls give a positive result, i.e. they indicate the presence of DNA.”

Stefanoni apparently did not perform any negative controls with same system parameters as that used for the kitchen knife DNA. That's another deficiency.

And note here, the statement, “It does not, of itself, show where that (contamination) occurred, merely that it has.” When Sara Gino was pressed, under cross-examination, to say where and how Stefanoni contaminated the samples, she could not give a specific answer, but only cited, “the literature.” This was seen as a weak response. But how could she possibly know at what point in the handling or processing contamination by 50 picograms of material may have happened? This is something you test for the presence of, not something you can possibly see happen. Even if someone followed the sample with a microscope in real time, it would be virtually impossible to witness the inadvertent transfer of such a minute amount of material. Gino's response, that she could "cite the literature,” which lists typical sources of contamination to guard against, was correct.
[Endquote]

Perhaps the defense needs to do a better job explaining DNA contamination, as well as examine the fsa files.

Chris

Anonymous said...

CBS News quoting their own private investigator has just come out with a hit piece on the judges decision.

"Ciolino called the judges' explanation "lies, half-truths, and nonsense," saying it points up the "silliness" of the theory of a sex-game gone wrong. He said the verdict against Knox was "pre-ordained" and the document could have been written before the trial."


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6267820.shtml

Rose

Anonymous said...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-judge-rules-killed-animosity/story?id=10007363&page=1

According to this Ted Simon is encouraged by the judge's opinion. The judge does dismiss some of the prosecutor's more inane theories and substitutes gentler but not so coherent theories of his own...like the kids killed "without animonsity" or premeditation in the oddity of the moment...no mention, though, of how the supposed "murder weapon" happened to get from Mr. Sollecito's apartment to the murder scene.

Ted Simon says the opinion is an important step in the eventual exoneration of Ms. Knox.

It is some relief to see that the jury/judge rejected the prosecutor's attempt to make Ms. Knox into a Charlie Manson.

Observer

Anonymous said...

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

Part 2 from Frank is up.

And I have reconsidered my sarcastic comment about the "brilliance" of the jury/judges.

Ted Simon may be exactly correct. This opnion is an important first step towards exoneration.

Why? Because it seems to contain such amazingly poor reasoning.

Perhaps this is the only way Judge Massei could pave the way for the reversal without completely ruining the professional reputations of the prosecutors, his fellow members of the Italian bar.

Unless we've lost something in translation, I cannot imagine a trained lawyer producing a piece of reasoning of this caliber, so now I am thinking Judge Massei may have known exactly what he was doing with this opinion.

halides1 said...

Guede is alleged by his cellmate to have said that someone else, not Knox or Sollecito, was present the night of the murder.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05/crimesider/entry6271397.shtml

Chris

Anonymous said...

Observer,
I believe there is something to be said for the "lost something in translation" scenario you mentioned regarding Frank's Part 2 Summary.

Frank's English is not perfect but you are still getting a better sense of the report than you would from a google translation. However, it is clear that the jury had a radically different view of the evidence than the case presented by the prosecution. Based on that, I still find it incredible that they returned a guilty verdict on the murder charges. It will be interesting to see a side by side of the prosecutions case compared to the judges/jury's conclusions. Just bizarre, in my opinion.

Chris, Frank also mentions that cellmate confession in his Part 2 and does not seem to give it much credibility.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Bizarre in my opinion, too.

The Rudy cellmate confession is pretty interesting. I am not at all clear the cellmate has much to gain from this. And neither does Rudy as far as I can tell.

Observer

Kate said...

Chris wrote: Guede is alleged by his cellmate to have said that someone else, not Knox or Sollecito, was present the night of the murder.

I said over at Perugia Shock that although I don't believe the story that there was someone else with Guede who attacked Meredith, I do think this sounds very like something Guede would say - it allows him to maintain his innocence while exonerating Amanda and Raffaele, which is something he's tried to do from the start actually (saying Amanda wasn't there during the tapped phone call, and continuing to say they weren't there for five months after he was arrested). If the cellmate had just wanted to grab headlines, the more obvious story to make up would have been to say that Guede admitted committing the crime on his own, not to say that someone else did it.

It seems unlikely there's mileage in this for the defence though, given the unreliability of the cellmate (geez, couldn't they have put Guede in with someone who committed a minor traffic violation or something? :p). But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Guede actually did say what this guy claims.

It's also interesting to see the PMFers making the argument that there couldn't have been someone else involved - his DNA would've been in the bedroom!

Well, quite...

Randy said...

This trial has been really interesting. Reading all of the comments from web pages, blogs, etc...and how people react to different things is almost as interesting. I have read most of the blogs you have posted and they are insightful and without any biases.

Many times people make comments about the events in this tragic case and go off of trashy newspaper articles or rumors or half truths.

The way things are connected in this case, the alibis, the items that are in evidence, the witnesses...every time I would read something it was more amazing or unbelievable than the last item.

I believe that the murderer was in jail before the AK & RS trial started. However, the way that those 2 talked with police and the alibis they gave makes me think that they may have some part after the fact. Maybe they were there later that night. High...not sure what they were looking at...the scream that woman claims to have heard, maybe that was Amanda seeing Meredith. They run out the door and she hears their footsteps. I think that was like around 11:30pm...which is more than an hour after those strange calls from Meredith's cell phones.

With the faked burglary, maybe Rudy threw the rock through the window to see if anyone was there. He knew it as a holiday in Italy and the Italian kids may not be there. He waits over by that parking garage where the CCTV camera sees someone that looks like him heading across the street towards the cottage.

There are so many different turns and ways to see things. The cell phones- AK & RS turned off then turned back on...could they have been in a bad spot and didn't actually get touched? If they turned them off so they couldn't be traced back to the house, why not leave them turned on in RS bedroom for the same reason.

The Monster of Florence connection with the prosecutor and the troubles the prosecutor himself is having with the law.

I read about the judge's report on perugia shock on Friday (3/5). The jury saying it wasn't premediated and was an accident gone bad. How they believed all the DNA testing results. That seems to be far away from the original belief that it was some sort satanic cult event and that Amanda wanted to get even with her. I think the prosecutor attempted to prove his theory and not prove what the evidence actually showed to happen. Dietrologia- the Italian word for the science of what is behind...the science of what's behind it all...
the art of finding dark, ulterior motives behind the most obvious decisions...

will we ever know what really happened that terrible night? Non so...I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Kate said: It's also interesting to see the PMFers making the argument that there couldn't have been someone else involved - his DNA would've been in the bedroom!

Well, quite...


It is interesting how the sites that believe AK and RS are guilty see the report as tying things up into a neat little package and those that believe AK and RS are innocent see the report as opening up a plethora of appeal possibles. The same sites see this possible new evidence in the same manner.

Randy said: However, the way that those 2 talked with police and the alibis they gave makes me think that they may have some part after the fact. Maybe they were there later that night.

I agree with you on this one. I still believe that the evidence shows that AK and RS for some unknown reason, staged the burglary and the murder scene. I also believe that was after Rudy left and they had no clue that Rudy killed Meredith. A mystery still present, in my opinion.

I have seen mention of a few Italian articles claiming Rudy is denying having said anything to this "cell-mate". I don't know the accuracy of this yet, but find it credible.

Rose

RoseMontague said...

Two of the article from the Italian press dealing with the jail 'confession'.

Corriere

NewNotizie

Anonymous said...

It appears that the jail house confession will be officially investigated. Guess who is in charge? LOL.

New Investigation

Rose

Kate said...

It appears that the jail house confession will be officially investigated. Guess who is in charge? LOL.

You're kidding! :O

Surely that's a conflict of interests, or...something.

halides1 said...

Rose,

In Amanda Knox's defamation case with respect to the authorities, they did not even investigate whether or not her allegation of verbal and physical abuse were true (this information from Frank Sfarzo). Amazing.

Chris

Anonymous said...

I believe the "investigation" of that consisted of everybody heard her say that in court and they also heard the cops deny it. I'm not sure how she expected the accusation to go any further. It is clear that her word is not worth much, and some of that is her own doing. She had already been shown to have falsely accused Patrick as well.

Speaking of Patrick, there have been some interesting comments in Frank's latest Part 2 summary, regarding possible mistreatment of Patrick when he was arrested due to Amanda's false accusation. If true, that would help give her accusation more bite.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Rose,

My understanding is that Patrick Lamumba gave an extensive interview to a publication after his arrest wherein he described considerable mistreatment by the police. He later retracted this after the story was published. That retraction may have had something to do with the slander charge Mr. Mignini brought against Ms. Knox and Mr. Lamumba's hope of monetary recovery from Ms. Knox and her family.

Also, you probably know there is a police official from some other part of Italy who stated he was in the police station during the questioning of Ms. Knox and heard her scream. That was during the time the police claimed to be treating her so well with tea and cookies.

Plus, there is another official report of police abuse against a couple of Romanians who were accused of and arrested for rape. Ultimately, they were cleared but not before being smacked in the back of the head by someone who sounded very much like the heavy set woman Ms. Knox claimed hit her...to improve her memory.

Finally, Douglas Preston has written pretty extensively about his treatment during questioning with Mr. Mignini. Mr. Preston is very clear that the questioning was quite aggressive...to the point he was terrified and thought he would never see his family again. He also stated that Mr. Mignini told him to leave Italy or face jail.

Mr. Mignini denied the claim.

Never mind, of course, that Mr. Mignini did jail Mr. Preston's co-author, Mario Spezi, for some 29 or so days. About this there is simply no question whatsoever.

This information is available from a variety of places including The Monster of Florence.

Observer

halides1 said...

Rose,

Let's not forget about Francesca Bene's account of her interrogation, either. She specifically singled out the woman whom Amanda alleges hit her. I would also ask whether Amanda's story has been consistent, other than her interrogations on the night of November 5.

Moreover, if the police were recording what she said before then, why not on that crucial occasion? The police also lied about whether they brought Amanda in or whether she came of her own accord. I can't give the police a pass when they lie.

Chris

Joe said...

Observer,
Are you referring to Dr. Edgardo Giobbi, the crime guru from Rome who stated that he knew Knox was guilty by observing her behavior?
His testimony at trial was very interesting because it contradicted the testimony of the detectives, who said Knox wasn’t summoned to be questioned on Nov. 5. Giobbi testified that he was positive that he gave the order to bring Knox and Sollecito together to be questioned because he wanted them in custody before Knox’s mother was scheduled to arrive the next day. Giobbi testified that he was monitoring the questioning from another room and that Knox was screaming during the questioning.
Also, as you wrote, those detectives testified that Amanda was treated very well. They neglected to mention the screaming though.

Anonymous said...

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/mar/EveryOne%20-%20Report%20Police%20Violence%20in%20Italy_ENG.pdf

This is a report about Italian police brutality and attendant solidarity in the face of accusations. You will find many familiar echoes here. Don't miss reading it. These incidents have been carefully documented.

Thank you, Joe and Chris, for straightening out and clarifying my story lines. Yes and yes, Ms. Bene and Dr. Giobbi are the sources for the stories.

Observer

Kate said...

I think the pretty obvious proof that Amanda was hit is the fact that she first mentions it in the handwritten statement she gave to the police shortly after the interrogation finished. She'd have to be pretty stupid to lie about something like that to the people who interrogated her!

halides1 said...

Here is an article on the footprints:

http://knoxarchive.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/manuela-comodi-asks-for-common-sense/

Debrah said...

Observer--

The Everyone Group documentation that you reference is, indeed, interesting.

And with regard to the Knox case, it perhaps adds another layer of concern.

However, given the studied and sometimes-questionable motives we often witness from the constantly "aggrieved" who are championed by so many of these "groups" with an agenda, I don't approach such accounts with the shock and surprise I used to.

Or without a healthy dose of skepticism.

Simply because of the degree of hyperbole and selective reporting which are usually a feature of such accounts.

To wit:

"This attitude, which the leaders of EveryOne themselves have witnessed on several occasions, prevents the rogue officers [from] being
isolated and their behaviour discouraged. On the contrary, it makes them feel part of an agency in
which they are allowed to act above the law using violence, threats and acts of gratuitous coercion.

According to the activists, after reporting misconduct by uniformed police officers towards racial minorities, it is not rare for the activists themselves to be followed by plain clothes policemen or summoned to police stations or headquarters and 'advised' not to take any further action."


Without a doubt, Italy seems to have an abusive justice system in many ways; however, how objective is the EveryOne Group with this often-unsubstantiated-word-of-mouth reporting?

I just don't see the Knox case as the beneficiary of inhumane tactics.

A dirty prosecutor, no doubt.

But just how dirty in this Knox case remains a question.

I'm sure those on the Knox/Solliceto defense will try to transpose all of Italy's warts onto this case and use it......semi-effectively.

Debrah said...

Scroll down on that pdf page.

It comes up blank at the top.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you that it does not make much sense, Chris. I do think it is clear that there are other prints that are not Rudy's. The explanation above (AK scooting around on a bathmat) may give some possible explanation, even though I was being a bit sarcastic when I posted it.

Rose

Anonymous said...

Debrah said:
"Without a doubt, Italy seems to have an abusive justice system in many ways; however, how objective is the EveryOne Group with this often-unsubstantiated-word-of-mouth reporting?

I just don't see the Knox case as the beneficiary of inhumane tactics."


There was no water-boarding reported that I am aware of. Amanda also had several opportunities (including at trial) to apologize to Patrick for her false accusation. When asked about it she showed no remorse. Very strange, it would seem to me.

♥ Rose

Debrah said...

TO "Rose"--

Of course this Mignini is a horrendous human being who should be held accountable for his misdeeds; however, there's just something about this case that gives me pause.

And since I do not have the expertise of Chris and those in his field of study, it's nothing concrete and substantive which one could call "evidence".

And perhaps it's the coverage I remember of Knox by the American media that still lingers.

Whatever it is, there's something about her that doesn't add up to the image her zealous supporters are putting forth.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that her "zealous" support has seemed to dwindle in recent weeks, Debrah. There has been an emphasis on TV appearances (like Oprah) and appeals to government and big wigs (like Trump). On the blogs however, those sites that have supported her in the past are quiet, almost dead, with little or no posts in weeks or months.

In contrast, the sites that believe in her guilt are still going strong. The only pro-Amanda site that has even covered recent events is Frank's. You would think this "jail house confession" and the judges report would have drawn a new post or three. I am not seeing it and I am beginning to wonder if those folks are starting to doubt the PR image of Amanda that has been floated in the MSM.

Rose ω

Ray Turner said...

Not the case Rose. Keep in mind we are all busy and have jobs. At some point it is redundant to post a lot of things since people will find the information somewhere else anyways.

Debrah said...

TO "Rose"--

I think everyone develops a kind of fatigue about such cases after a while.

The Duke Lacrosse Hoax was a special case in blogdom because of KC and his indefatigable journey and analysis of the case.

And, of course, all of the bloggers who showed up---talented in their own right---created an atmosphere and excitement about a case which are unmatched.

Right now, I seem to have developed a bit of fatigue regarding the Lacrosse Hoax....which I never thought would happen.

This latest Crystal Mangum arrest just doesn't do it in the heightened interest category. Everyone knows what brand of individual she is and what more can be said?

Discussing her life is gutter-fare and enormous overkill.

It's been done except for reporting on the sentence she will get---long overdue---for her latest criminal conduct.

Enough already.

And it gets so sickening seeing people who live halfway across the country with nothing more to do than try to still keep up with a now-old case in the Triangle.

They show up and post the same old things....over and over......ugh.

Perhaps the Knox bloggers are fatigued as well; however, they don't have someone like KC analyzing the case and making it fresh daily.

One thing that is curious, though.

It would seem the Knox/Sollecito case would engender much more interest than the Lacrosse Hoax simply because a crime actually took place and a woman is dead.

Very odd.

In addition, there were a few facts and angles from the Lacrosse Hoax which were never discussed and highlighted as they should have been. There were many more nuances and layers to the tactics and behavior of the Gang of 88 and Duke's administration that should have been openly underscored with regard to the never-ending culture wars.

There were many more layers and participants in the Lacrosse Hoax than the Knox case, but it does seem a murder would produce more enduring interest.

Someone inside The Diva World mentioned the Anthony Hopkins film Fracture as a possible example of someone having committed the perfect crime---almost.

The prosecutor might be a bad guy; however, that doesn't mean that those he is using dirty tactics against aren't as well.

Anonymous said...

Rose,

May I point out that there are now 68 comments on this post and 261 comments on the last Perugia Shock post and 2 comments on the last TrueJustice post.

Granted it's a fairly new post over at TJ. This one in case you haven't read it is about who might be Meredith Kercher's best friends now if she were still alive. They are posting a lot of stuff over there that has absolutely nothing to do with the case and quite a bit to do with keeping the memory of Meredith Kercher fresh by analysing what she would be seeing, doing, thinking, studying etc had she not been murdered.

Plus, they've added quite a lot of information about another poor soul who disappeared some years ago.

Aside from almost worshipping Ms. Kercher, hammering Oprah, lauding Mr. Mignini and generally trashing Ms. Knox, Mr. Sollecito and their families I don't see that they are doing much over there, and commments are sparse. And it doesn't appear to me their readership is very broad or engaged.

Were you thinking of another site?

No doubt the EveryoneGroup is an activist organization and sees things from that immigrant perspective. Regardless, the details of this material parallels what we've seen in the Knox/Sollecito case. For example, the threat or actuality of slander charges in response to complaints about police abuse is striking. The comaraderie amongst the police such that there is no real investigation into any charges of police brutality also seems common. The details of the interrogation tactics designed to elicit a particular response (confession) also resonate.

Ms. Knox is far from alone in her accusations that the Italian police have overstepped some sensible boundaries. That's the point I took away from the report. I sincerely doubt Ms. Knox was familiar with this report when she described how she was treated. Unlike terrorist organizations who may train people to claim brutality as a matter of course, I suspect Ms. Knox was simply relaying what she experienced in the course of the interrogation.

Given Ms. Benne's statement, Dr. Giobbi's statement, Douglas Preston's statements, the Statewatch report and the no doubt about it all night interrogation, it would seem to me there's plenty of reason to believe Mr. Mignini and the police to be not entirely credible in their claims that Ms. Knox was treated well.

Observer

Anonymous said...

I had to work this weekend and only heard about the crime being not premeditated. So how did The Knife get there? I asked myself all weekend.
If I had another million years to live I don't think I would have come up the judge's response.
But then I thought, could the knife pick up MK's DNA in Amanda's purse?

Randy said...

how did the knife get there?

the jury believes AK carried it to her house from RS's place. And she may have been carrying it around for protection since RS was a collector of knives.

from that link to the shoe and foot prints: "Altogether, there were six latent bare footprints, three in the hallway, three in Amanda’s room, and none in Meredith’s room. Each was swabbed and tested for DNA, and not one of them revealed Meredith’s DNA. Is it common sense, therefore, to conclude that they were made with her blood?"

is that supposed to be because AK & RS cleaned up with bleach?

"For The Knife, the fact that the blood test was negative depends on the quantity used for that test, extremely small, but it doesn't mean that it can't be blood." from the Perugia Shock site...

what if you say something similar for the supposed conversation with Rudy and Messi like..."for the confession, the fact there was another person depends on the quantity of different DNAs used for that test, extremely small, but it doesn't mean that it can't be another person." The another person being this unknown person Rudy supposedly mentioned.


The police woman hitting AK...I think that is impossible to prove. She said vs they said.

Why didn't AK & RS make up the same story after that night? They had time to do that...too busy cleaning? went right to sleep afterwards? Why wash MK's clothes?

awhile back I looked at a map of Perugia...there is a big lake like 20 or 30km away...why not get in RS's car and toss some stuff in the lake?

Anonymous said...

Observer,
I was thinking of Perugia Murder File as well as True Justice. I should not have left off View From Wilmington (LOL) as a site that leans towards innocence. We seem to have a pretty fair discussion here. In contrast the discussion atJ.R.E.F
seems slanted towards guilt and has been very active in recent days. Some of the "innocent" sites I have had bookmarked have not been active and it may be that I am just missing some. Ray Turner (Nice site Ray, good to see you posting), Mark Waterbury, Candace Dempsey, Free Amanda, Friends of Amanda, and Alternate Theories seem to be very quiet lately.

BTW, I linked to a pic at PMF rather than the index page because it shows Amanda with a purse (Could that be the handle of a knife sticking out of the top of that purse?). LOL.

I don't see her carrying around that big (almost a foot long) knife in her purse. You start digging around in there and you are going to get cut or the knife could start poking holes through the purse as well. RS would have given her one of his smaller folding knives, in my opinion.

Rose

Joe said...

This is from a cbsnews.com article out today:
"Alessi says there are three other prisoners who heard Guede's statements. Sources close to the case tell CBS News that since Alessi came forward, those three prisoners have been quietly moved out of Viterbo and scattered to other prisons throughout Italy."

I have no idea how reliable this report is.

Debrah said...

This must be the latest report.

Anonymous said...

From the same article: "CBS News has learned that while Guede was in jail in Perugia in 2007 and 2008, he told his Ivory Coast birth-father that he was with an unidentified male at the crime scene. He refused to name that person. That conversation was recorded and is part of Guede's Perugia case file."

If true, that does give a bit more credibility to the idea that Guede gave the same story to Alessi and the other three, although not necessarily to the truth of the story itself.

Something else that occurred to me in terms of the style of the story being very like something Guede might say is that line about needing to 'finish her off or we'll rot in jail'; it sounds like it was taken from some Hollywood prison movie. Micheli commented about the 'black man found, black man guilty' line that it was like something out of a movie, and Guede's diary is also like some melodramatic B movie. His stories definitely have a certain style!

Kate said...

Whoops, that was me.

Rose said...

Frank has an interesting post up about the case: Frank's Groundhog Day .

I like this quote: The public opinion about the case has been dominated by beliefs, wrong data and cliches. And supporters of both sides could pick the ones they liked.

For those who hated Amanda Knox she was a ruthless murderer, Raffaele was a puppet in her hands, the police and the prosecutors were perfect, and so on.
For those who loved Amanda Knox she was a saint, Rudi was a monster and the only killer, Mignini was a nut, Massei (along with Cristiani, Micheli, Matteini, Comodi, Court of Freedom, Supreme Court) was an idiot, the police were corrupted, the scientific police were incompetent and the Italian judicial system was all wrong (and they were the ones who could reform it...)."


Sometimes you can't help liking Frank whether you agree with him or not. Just seems to me to be a nice man. Frank ends (begins) with this: "In other words the Meredith Kercher case is just about to start."

I agree with Frank that the conclusions of the judge/jury do not meld very well with the facts. Maybe the truth will come out this time around.

Anonymous said...

I think Rudy must be a recent graduate of the diva school of smack-down.

"As usual in this beloved country of ours, there are many false people, devoted to lying. As there are people who give voice to them without consciously asking themselves whether it is worth giving space to such insinuations.

In these last few days I have heard nothing but blasphemous insinuations against me, false rumors, which have done nothing but be reported here and there on television channels even if for those of good sense, they were nothing but the pure invention of a wicked mind. It must be said that what I heard reported by means of the media regarding what was falsely declared by that filthy being called Alessi Mario, whose conscience is nothing but stinky garbage, are only inventions by a sick and contorted mind: fantastic and false declarations by an ogre, which as is known to the whole of Italy, is stained by a dreadful killing in which he took the life of a small human angel.

Lying, he is now saying things that I have never said to him, things that are not true in heaven or earth. To his putrified statements, it is my intention to put in writing, that I have never confided in this filthy being, as I have also nothing to confess or say and that everything I had to say I already told the judges and will continue to do so for as long as I'm alive to scream and fight and until truth and justice will prevail regarding these lies. I also did not speak on my own or with others to other detainees about matters regarding my trial and if I had had something to say, do you not think I would have spoken to my lawyers?

To use or give credit to that which is a blasphemous statement by a sick mind by an ogre that had no pity towards a child.

With this latest show in which myself, my lawyers and my relatives are now used to (...), this latest ogre Alessi. And I hope that Italians and the rest of the world realize what pigs they are having to deal with, pigs who smell of false slime but which despite all this go around showing their face and suffocate people with their stench of falsity. This latest show does nothing else but give me the strength and awareness to fight more than ever to make sure that the truth that they intend to hide is before everyone's eyes.

As far as I am concerned, in the full serenity and tranquility of my soul of he who is right and does not pretend to show unjustified suffering, but precisely because he is in the right, I trust in Justice and in the good sense of Italians and finally I hope that sooner or later judges will realize my total non involvement in what was the dreadful murder of the splendid and marvelous girl Meredith, by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Guede Rudy"


ℜΟŠ€

Anonymous said...

I agree with Frank that the conclusions of the judge/jury do not meld very well with the facts. Maybe the truth will come out this time around.

Rose it may be a bit premature to evaluate the conclusions of the judge/jury until we have a chance to read the complete 400+ page report.

Christiana

Anonymous said...

Rose:

Guede's letter is interesting. In the last sentence he comes out and states that Knox and Sollecito are responsible for Meredith's murder, something I don't believe he has stated so explicity prior. His lawyer has tempered that last sentence by saying that Rudy meant the two have been announced guilty by the court (of course, Guede was also found guilty by the court).

It will be of interest to see what else Guede might or might not say when he is questioned by Mignini today.

Christiana

Rose said...

Christiana,
The report has been out for some time now. It would seem to me that we would have more than just some initial reactions, quick summaries, and CBS hit jobs. Frank may not be unbiased but my feeling is that he is honest and has tried to give a fair summary.

It seems to me from what I have read that the judges/jurors were convinced the DNA evidence was solid and yet the prosecution's theory of the crime was not. I don't believe the knife presented as the murder weapon is (or one of) the murder weapon(s). I also have doubts about the DNA on the bra clasp. The brief summaries I have seen indicate some doubt about some of the prosecution's witnesses as well. Despite not believing these witnesses nor buying into the prosecutions theories regarding motive and the actual assault the jury still returned a guilty verdict.

My opinion remains that the prosecution failed to prove their case and the judges report has made a new case that has not been proven in court. Frank's characterization of this as "Day 1" of a new trial is not far from the reality of the situation.

Anonymous said...

Rose,

Yes, the report has been out a full week. We have summations of the motivations but not dissection of the complete report. That is being done now (and had been started prior). I don't believe even Frank has posted the whole report on his blog, taking each piece of evidence, along with the judges' reasonings for their decisions and showing whether their decision was sound or not. Summations are good for a general idea of what is contained in a report, but are just that - summations.

Not every piece of evidence will have equal weight attached to it. I will be curious to see how much weight was attached to witness statements, DNA forensics, Knox's and Sollecito's statements/testimony, electronic evidence, etc.

It will be good to be able to read the whole report (in Italian and English) and have a clearer idea what the motivations of the judges were in handing down their decision.

Christiana

Anonymous said...

"My opinion remains that the prosecution failed to prove their case and the judges report has made a new case that has not been proven in court. Frank's characterization of this as 'Day 1' of a new trial is not far from the reality of the situation."

Here, here.

Observer

Rose said...

It seems I left off an interesting "Innocent" website. It appears to be a fairly recent addition and unlike the others I mentioned has several recent updates.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

Kate said...

It seems I left off an interesting "Innocent" website. It appears to be a fairly recent addition and unlike the others I mentioned has several recent updates.

Yes, I think this is quite a good site, and has information I haven't seen anywhere else - photos of the transfer blood on the duvet, for instance, where it was always argued that the lack of transfer blood meant the duvet had been thrown over Meredith some time after the attack.

Apparently the site is also going to post a translation of the Massei report when it's completed, the only site I've seen which is intending to do that (TJMK is apparently just going to post summaries).

halides1 said...

Rose,

I am still working on the footprints...

Chris

Anonymous said...

Rose,

Very good work finding this new site. Thank you!

Observer

Rose said...

Kate,
Those photo's of the duvet are very interesting. I was also under the impression there had not been much if any blood transfer. This sheds some new light on that. It is very possible this was thrown over her body shortly after the assault rather than several hours later.

My understanding is that the defense team contested the staging of the burglary but not so much the murder scene. If that was the case, perhaps it was a mistake.