Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#4

[miley]

A reminder of Hellmann-Zanetti report:

the personality of Rudy Guede, as it emerges from witness statements, does not reveal any particular respect for other people.

Not only had he — as recalled above — acquired experience as the perpetrator of burglaries in others’ apartments, sometimes even committed with the robbery victims present in the house (see Tramontano);

not only had he not hesitated to use a knife to threaten the victim that had chased him (Tramontano again, but also in the Milan nursery he had taken possession of a 40-cm-long knife), but several times on the street, especially when he was drunk, he had importuned young women, attempting to hug and kiss them, and even the very fact (only seemingly banal; in reality very indicative of his ways)

that he was in the habit of using the bathroom in other people’s houses (as a guest or as an intruder, it matters not here) to defecate or urinate without flushing afterward (on one evening this had happened on the lower floor of the house on Via Della Pergola, as reported by witness Stefano Bonassi; in the Milan nursery that he had gotten into, as alleged by Salvatori Del Prato, the children’s toilet was found dirty, despite having been surely left clean beforehand; and even on the evening of the murder, he had gone to the bathroom in the house on Via Della Pergola, leaving it dirty, to the extent that the Scientific Police was able to recover his DNA from the toilet paper) signifies an absolute — perhaps even ostentatious — lack of respect towards others.

Which leads one to conclude that he found no obstacle to entering for the purpose of committing robbery even in the house in which he had been welcomed as a friend (although in reality he had been hosted on the lower floor, by the young men absent on the night of November 1, and not on the upper floor where the young women lived).​

http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/Hellmann+Report#15

 

[miley]

Hellmann-Zanetti report: And it should also be remembered that on December [recte: November] 20, 2007, when he was arrested by the German police, Rudy Guede had wounds on his right hand, compatible with the breaking of the glass and with the climb.

 

[Amber29]

From the Supreme Court reasonning of the DNA evidence collection:

"Not even the traces recovered in the small bathroom were spared from rejection, for the illogical reason that the blood traces containing Ms Knox’s and Ms Kercher’s DNA were the result of a mixture arising from an error in collection technique by the Scientific Police, who mixed the blood of the victim carried into the bathroom by who knows whom, with other biological material of Amanda Knox deposited prior to the crime. The [Prosecutor General maintains that] the argument did not even attempt to justify the singular coincidence of the presence of Amanda’s DNA in all the mixed traces containing the victim’s blood, lacking, amongst other things, the presence of DNA from others which could have explained who had carried in Ms Kercher’s blood, and how."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Are you referring to people who think she's guilty as "AK haters"? I don't consider myself a "hater" because I believe she's guilty. I also have NEVER heard anyone who thinks she's guilty refer to RG as an innocent victim.

No body is discounting RGs involvement by believing that Ak/RS were also involved.

Point taken. Yet it is also true that some (but not all) people who believe that AK and RS are guilty refer to Guede as a patsy or talk about his supposed attempts to better himself in prison (which IMO indirectly suggests he is somehow less worthy of blame). IIRC Follain's book suggests that Mignini and/or Comodi had a similar view, but I don't have the passage handy at the moment.

 

[sherlockh]

It's possible that only part of the shoe actually had blood on it. Personally I think there was some necrophilia going on, hence the DNA found inside Meredith.

His full shoe print was on the pillow. There is no blood evidence of any necrophilia thing going on. Since he had blood on his hands this would have been obvious. Nothing in his past either that would indicate necrophilia. Where is the logic?

 

[Amber29]

A reminder of Hellmann-Zanetti report:

the personality of Rudy Guede, as it emerges from witness statements, does not reveal any particular respect for other people.

Not only had he — as recalled above — acquired experience as the perpetrator of burglaries in others’ apartments, sometimes even committed with the robbery victims present in the house (see Tramontano);

not only had he not hesitated to use a knife to threaten the victim that had chased him (Tramontano again, but also in the Milan nursery he had taken possession of a 40-cm-long knife), but several times on the street, especially when he was drunk, he had importuned young women, attempting to hug and kiss them, and even the very fact (only seemingly banal; in reality very indicative of his ways)

that he was in the habit of using the bathroom in other people’s houses (as a guest or as an intruder, it matters not here) to defecate or urinate without flushing afterward (on one evening this had happened on the lower floor of the house on Via Della Pergola, as reported by witness Stefano Bonassi; in the Milan nursery that he had gotten into, as alleged by Salvatori Del Prato, the children’s toilet was found dirty, despite having been surely left clean beforehand; and even on the evening of the murder, he had gone to the bathroom in the house on Via Della Pergola, leaving it dirty, to the extent that the Scientific Police was able to recover his DNA from the toilet paper) signifies an absolute — perhaps even ostentatious — lack of respect towards others.

Which leads one to conclude that he found no obstacle to entering for the purpose of committing robbery even in the house in which he had been welcomed as a friend (although in reality he had been hosted on the lower floor, by the young men absent on the night of November 1, and not on the upper floor where the young women lived).​

http://amanda-knox.wikispaces.com/Hellmann+Report#15

Have you read the Supreme Court reasoning that overturned Hellmann and basically tore his reasoning for disregarding evidence apart?

 

[Sonata]

His full shoe print was on the pillow. There is no blood evidence of any necrophilia thing going on. Since he had blood on his hands this would have been obvious. Nothing in his past either that would indicate necrophilia. Where is the logic?

The logic, as I have stated, is in the fact that RG's DNA was located inside of Meredith. I'd say that's pretty logical. Not to mention the fact that the pillow was found propping up her hips.

I have to say I find it laughable that people would argue that no previous evidence of necrophilia is a legitimate argument here, while the same people would maintain that AK and RS are guilty of murder despite no evidence of previous murder. To me that is far more illogical. There is a first time for everything.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From the Supreme Court reasonning of the DNA evidence collection:

"Not even the traces recovered in the small bathroom were spared from rejection, for the illogical reason that the blood traces containing Ms Knox’s and Ms Kercher’s DNA were the result of a mixture arising from an error in collection technique by the Scientific Police, who mixed the blood of the victim carried into the bathroom by who knows whom, with other biological material of Amanda Knox deposited prior to the crime. The [Prosecutor General maintains that] the argument did not even attempt to justify the singular coincidence of the presence of Amanda’s DNA in all the mixed traces containing the victim’s blood, lacking, amongst other things, the presence of DNA from others which could have explained who had carried in Ms Kercher’s blood, and how."

The CSC made many incorrect statements about the DNA evidence in this case; therefore, caution is in order IMO. The murderer carried Meredith's blood into the bathroom, and the police chose to sample one presumed blood trace from the rim to the drain plug, a questionable choice as I mentioned yesterday. They should have sampled less of the stain and/or sampled the drain plug where the trace was not seen (this is akin to a substrate control). There is no obvious mechanism by which the murderer would deposit his DNA when rinsing off Meredith IMO. Rinsing blood from one's skin might rinse a little of one's own DNA off, but not much, and it will be in the water and run down the drain. Had the police correctly stored the towels, we might have more DNA samples (perhaps from the killer's blood) and be able to tell a more complete story.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Have you read the Supreme Court reasoning that overturned Hellmann and basically tore his reasoning for disregarding evidence apart?

The CSC used the word illogical quite a bit. I would call it projection. One commenter has written an in-depth response to the CSC's illogical report.

 

[Amber29]

The CSC made many incorrect statements about the DNA evidence in this case; therefore, caution is in order IMO. The murderer carried Meredith's blood into the bathroom, and the police chose to sample one presumed blood trace from the rim to the drain plug, a questionable choice as I mentioned yesterday. They should have sampled less of the stain and/or sampled the drain plug where the trace was not seen (this is akin to a substrate control). There is no obvious mechanism by which the murderer would deposit his DNA when rinsing off Meredith IMO. Rinsing blood from one's skin might rinse a little of one's own DNA off, but not much, and it will be in the water and run down the drain. Had the police correctly stored the towels, we might have more DNA samples (perhaps from the killer's blood) and be able to tell a more complete story.

If that's the case as rinsing in water the DNA would go down the drain, then how is it that Amanda's DNA was found in the bidet and not "the killers"? I assumed that all one does in a bidet is rinse with water.

 

[dgfred]

His full shoe print was on the pillow. There is no blood evidence of any necrophilia thing going on. Since he had blood on his hands this would have been obvious. Nothing in his past either that would indicate necrophilia. Where is the logic?

There will be none it seems. Some don't realize RG's dna was most likely due to an assault before Meredith was killed. Or they are avoiding it.

Like I have said before. You could possibly take RG completely out of the picture... and AK and RS might have still killed Meredith.

I wish I still had the numbers from the deposit AK made just after the murder... that info would blow Amber's mind. I will look it up again or maybe otto can help.

There was a withdrawal for basically the amount of their rent, no pay from Patrick, and an even larger amount deposited a few days later. Wonder where that money came from? Didn't have the rent money before the murder (said Patrick hadn't pd her), withdrew about that amount, then after the murder deposited an even larger amount. Very interesting to me.

 

[sherlockh]

The logic, as I have stated, is in the fact that RG's DNA was located inside of Meredith. I'd say that's pretty logical. Not to mention the fact that the pillow was found propping up her hips.

I have to say I find it laughable that people would argue that no previous evidence of necrophilia is a legitimate argument here, while the same people would maintain that AK and RS are guilty of murder despite no evidence of previous murder. To me that is far more illogical. There is a first time for everything.

First time murder is more illogical than a first time necrophiliac? How does that work? All behavioral arguments for Knox and Solelcito are explained as 'normal', but for Guede it is no problem to make a huge jump to something so extreme as necrophilia. Same goes for the evidence. Makes no sense to me.

There is no blood involved in the sexual assault. Guede's DNA is from skin cells. His hands must have had blood on them (see bloody hand print). Sorry but the necrophiliac scenario makes no sense. JMO.

 

[dgfred]

I do not take RG as the pillar of truth, I understand he has lied in this case. This is just for all those that say RG has never named AK and RS.

This is the transcript from the hearing on Alessi:

Quote:CDV:
The question is: which is the truth seeing that you have reported it now, in this letter, and seems to be a new truth.
RG:
Absolutely no is not a new truth.
CDV:
Because?
RG:
Is not a new truth because, as I said before one I’m not here to answer on a different criminal proceedings but on this one criminal proceedings, that letter was, a reaction to the statements I heard, to the absurd declarations of a certain person and, as I said before, I have not said anything new in this letter by me, I simply written down everything that I always told to investigators, to Judges and my lawyers.
CDV:
And so, Mr. Guede, when you textually write that it was “a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean to say exactly? Did you say this before?
RG:
Right, this part, explicitly in this manner I’ve never said it however I always believe it.
CDV:
So why did you write it?
RG:
I wrote it because it is a thought that is always been inside me.
CDV:
But then it is not true.
RG:
No it’s very true.
CDV:
And so can you elaborate better? What you mean?
RG:
It’s very true.
CDV:
Do you confirm this fact? The by?
RG:
Okay, I in the… right, like I said before, this is a thought which is always been in my mind, is a thought that in the end although I’ve decided to put it down in writing upon hearing certain absurdities, according to me and I assume all responsibility, after hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. So, if I wrote those words is because they are and always have had them in my mind. It is not up to me to decide who is the one who killed Meredith, in my statements that I made in my trial I always said who had been in that house on that cursed night, therefore I am not saying anything new. I simply put down in writing my thoughts and I conveyed them in concrete terms, all here. So I can’t see what other question I should answer."

Maybe this needed reposting since it is perfectly clear what he said/wrote. Thanks Amber.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If that's the case as rinsing in water the DNA would go down the drain, then how is it that Amanda's DNA was found in the bidet and not "the killers"? I assumed that all one does in a bidet is rinse with water.

I am basing my argument partially on what Colonel Garofano said in Darkness Descending (he said words to the effect that you can find all sorts of stuff in a drain plug). If there is solid matter that is partially biological in origin, such as epithelial cells, then rinsing won't remove it (or my bathroom would be cleaner than it is, sadly), but rubbing with a pad probably would. The best way to be certain about this sort of question is to do an experiment. That is the purpose of a substrate control.

 

[Sonata]

First time murder is more illogical than a first time necrophiliac? How does that work? All behavioral arguments for Knox and Solelcito are explained as 'normal', but for Guede it is no problem to make a huge jump to something so extreme as necrophilia. Same goes for the evidence. Makes no sense to me.

There is no blood involved in the sexual assault. Guede's DNA is from skin cells. His hands must have had blood on them (see bloody hand print). Sorry but the necrophiliac scenario makes no sense. JMO.

You have completely missunderstood my post. I stated that I find it illogical that someone would believe that people would use no history as an excuse for Guede, but at the same time argue that lack of history is irrelevant for AK and RS. Am I being clear?

I think this was willfully missunderstood, since I was extremely clear in my statement that there is a first time for everything. I have been very clear that I do not think that no prior history of a crime means that someone is not the perp. That would make zero sense.

 

[dgfred]

Ask Charlie W... he posted it at JREF IIRC. You have seen it I am quite sure.

Who said that was the only reason? Yes, I am completely serious most every time I post.

 

[Amber29]

Maybe this needed reposting since it is perfectly clear what he said/wrote. Thanks Amber.

And why the cassation court didn't agree with Hellman disregarding RGs declaration:

"The finding of absolute unreliability of Guede’s declarations is incorrect, [according to the Prosecutor General], given that Guede never changed his story as to the presence of others at the crime scene, always indicating [26] the current defendants."

 

[MichaelSmith]

Ask Charlie W... he posted it at JREF IIRC. You have seen it I am quite sure.

Who said that was the only reason? Yes, I am completely serious most every time I post.

Where is your proof in the court documents, transcripts or prosecution appeal documents? <modsnip>

 

[aa9511]

One, not all DNA is low template DNA. Two, it is a near universal norm that electronic data files are given to the defense (and the negative controls are part of the EDFs), but they were not released to the defense in this case. Given one and two, skepticism about the DNA evidence is entirely warranted. Finally, you could throw out 100% of the DNA evidence against Guede, and there is still enough evidence left to convict him BARD twice over. So if we are all agreed that the DNA evidence was poorly collected and even more poorly documents and should be thrown out, I am OK with that.

The only part I might agree with you on this is the Low Template DNA part. But there were multiple data-points of Amanda's DNA....it's stretching to say that all of them are wrong or contaminated, IMO. They collected Rudy's with the same techniques they used to collect hers - same people, same type of gloves, same techniques, same lab, etc..

And another thing is, like you said, DNA evidence is only one part of the entire picture. In trial jury instructions, they always say circumstantial evidence does not weigh less than physical evidence. One might corroborate or support the other. In this case, you have much circumstantial evidence pointing to Amanda's guilt, and the DNA/forensic evidence also backs it up and supports it.

 

[aa9511]

One, not all DNA is low template DNA. Two, it is a near universal norm that electronic data files are given to the defense (and the negative controls are part of the EDFs), but they were not released to the defense in this case. Given one and two, skepticism about the DNA evidence is entirely warranted. Finally, you could throw out 100% of the DNA evidence against Guede, and there is still enough evidence left to convict him BARD twice over. So if we are all agreed that the DNA evidence was poorly collected and even more poorly documents and should be thrown out, I am OK with that.

And one more point I want to make on this is that we know Rudy did it. And the forensics corroborate that. In Amanda's case, we don't know if she did it or not, but there is forensic evidence pointing to her.

R x g = DNA evidence
A x ? = DNA evidence

g stands for GUILTY

The logical conclusion putting those two ideas together, is that Amanda is also guilty.