Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[emyr]

Neither the defense or prosecution believed the CCTV video showed much of anything. But I would be interested in seeing things we definitively know to be true. Such as Amanda and Raf in the morning arriving or leaving.

 

[otto]

I don't know either, but I DO know that if he arrived at 854pm, then AK and RS were at his apartment. RS might have still been on the phone with his father complaining about the broken pipe.

It helps the convicted murderers to move the time of death as early as possible. Knox and Sollecito have an alibi until about 8:40, when their phones simultaneusly switch off. There is activity on Raffaele's computer until about 9:10, but the complete absence of human interaction is evident. The movie runs out and nothing happens on the computer until 6 AM the following day - not even a cartoon. If the cartoon that is alleged to have been turned on at 9:26 per Sollecito's appeal really happened, there would be a computer record. Instead, the defense alleges that although there are computer records of 9:10 PM and 6 AM, the records for 9:26 PM mysteriously disappeared.

Meredith's friend testified that she got home just in time to watch a TV program. There is a call from Meredith's phone to her mom around 9. Are we to believe that Rudy nabbed Meredith at 8:47 PM and then she phoned her mom and let it ring for a while? In fact, isn't it assumed that Meredith called her mom after she separated from her friend a few minutes before 9 ... thus placing the time of death anytime between 9 PM and 12:10 AM when her father called?

The phone call between Sollecito and his father cannot be stretched as late as 8:49. They talked at 8:30ish.

 

[wasnt_me]

Is the blue jacket that RG has on in this segment the jacket in question? It's the one similiar to the one in the video? And the same he claims his dad (bought or brought) to him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isdrQHFSQaA

Okay, I answered my own question with the post below. He is holding said Jacket over his arm.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't know if this was posted, but Candace discusses an Oggi magazine piece that said:

This week the Italian glossy Oggi posted stills from CCTV camera footage taken on November 1 beginning at 7:41. Reporter Giangavino Sulas says the photos show a figure dressed like Rudy Guede leaving the parking garage and heading over to the cottage–and then coming back about 20 minutes later. The young man in the wool hat does wear a “husky” coat very similar to the one Rudy was wearing when arrested. The figure is also wearing the same shoes that Rudy admits to wearing on the night of the murder: Nike Outbreak 2s, with the telltale white stripe on the bottom.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2009/09/12/amanda-knox-murder-trial-taking-aim-at-rudy-guede/

So according to this RG had been loitering around there since 740pm. Still not sure if this information is the same information that the CCTV video is conveying. Y'all's thoughts? Also seems that the person comes from the right, as if returning from the basketball court. If this was at 740pm, then maybe it coincides with RG saying that he went up there and "chinese guys" were playing ball. Or the last picture could be the 810pm timeframe when he's headed back toward the cottage.

They might not be taking into account that the camera time was slow. If they are not, the times are really 752pm and 822pm. Times completely different than discussed in the possible MK video, which would have been 852pm.

 

[wasnt_me]

Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile said: 'This crime was motivated by a row over money between Meredith and Amanda Knox — and she was killed by Amanda as a result of this row. There is no proof at all to say it was motivated by sex and nothing to suggest our client was involved.

"Rudy has always admitted being at the scene but he had nothing to do with any sexual assault and murder — this crime was motivated by a row over cash and nothing else."

At his fast-track trial the court heard that Mr Guede's DNA had been on a bloodied pillow and on Ms Kercher's body. Mr Guede claims that he was in the bathroom with stomach pains after eating a spicy kebab when the murderer entered the cottage, and emerged to find Ms Kercher dying in a pool of blood.

Mr Guede says that he struggled with a man who resembled Mr Sollecito and that a woman who looked like Ms Knox was at the door of the house waiting.

Mr Biscotti said: 'My client tried to help poor Meredith and put towels around her wound but then ran away. The only thing he is guilty of is not staying to help and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life."

Ms Kercher, from Coulsden Surrey, was on an Erasmus exchange study course and had been in Perugia only two months when she was murdered.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5901705.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

More about RG on our RG weekend preview! :great:

 

[wasnt_me]

This must be where we read about him saying it wasn't his jacket.

Messaggero.
Rudy: "Why was not I in that camera"

PERUGIA - First the allegations, launched by a weekly magazine, (OGGI) that show him as the man with the windbreaker jacket and sneakers in the San Antonio parking lot around 21.00 hours the night of the murder.
Then, afterwards arrived those in writing, those even increasingly more stringent during the hearing process. Also yesterday, Francesco Vinci expert consultant for Raffaele Sollecito, juxtaposed the print of the bloody foot that remained on the bathmat with that of the foot of Rudy to indicate that those footprints are not of Raffaele and the culprit is another.
“The process has restarted but the logic is always the same, that of making me to be the only culprit -says Rudy, from prison to his defense lawyers Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile-. It seeks, therefore to mystify the reality with the help of journalists friends whom to reward the logic are ready to published false reconstructions, truly and proper utter hoax.”

Rudy did not go down with the article “published by the weekly magazine which states that the person photographed by the CCTV cameras inside the parking lot of St. Antonio on the first November around 21 hours with the jacket is me.” According to Rudy all explanations given in the article are false: “My presence in the parking lot supposedly confirmed by the fact that the photographed man was wearing Nike shoes and a jacket that is identical to the one I had in my hand when I arrived at Rome airport from Germany.”
But Rudy has a precise explanation that exonerates him: "That jacket it was brought to me in jail in Germany by my father when it came to visit me: he had just bought it. This is also confirmed by the list of clothes I had the day I entered prison. It’s obvious that it is false. It’s shameful that these falsehoods can be written. It’s a hoax. Furthermore if you look properly at the images, you can see that the person passing under the camera is white and has glasses”. Lawyer Gentile reinforcing adds: “The Sollecito defense instead of bringing technical evidence, continues with magic games. In fact, only a magician can match the imprint left by a person who wears size 43 with that of a person who wears, however, the size 46. This is the usual reconstruction soundly rejected, we must never forget, by the gup Paolo Micheli who indicted them and sent them to trial.

From the PMF page with the skype call.

This article no longer exists apparently. The link was blank when I went to it. But Oggi isn't available either, I don't think. This is red, is that a strawman, Nova? You know I have trouble pointing them out. But he says his father BROUGHT him the jacket and he had it when he checked into prison, so this proves that he didn't have it in Perugia. That's a fallcy in logic.

Assuming that things happened in this order:
1. Video was recorded Nov 1st.
2. RG captured and given the jacket November 24th?
3. RG checks into prison with the jacket.

That doesn't prove he didn't wear the jacket in the video. His father could have gotten the jacket from his house. Where did the father get the jacket from? I don't know that I believe the "sun's" video, but I think these stills from Oggi are more plausible due to the timeframe stamped on the bottom. I can only guess if RG is refuting the Oggi article or the one from "the sun." Each article is showing very different times. but the more I look at them, the more it does look like the same person. So my conclusion is that the picture from Oggi, which has time stamps on the bottom, must be correct, and the sun piece, that is sliced together with the "MK" walking home, must not be.

Or I'm just up too late, looking at it too much.

 

[otto]

I don't know if this was posted, but Candace discusses an Oggi magazine piece that said:

This week the Italian glossy Oggi posted stills from CCTV camera footage taken on November 1 beginning at 7:41. Reporter Giangavino Sulas says the photos show a figure dressed like Rudy Guede leaving the parking garage and heading over to the cottage–and then coming back about 20 minutes later. The young man in the wool hat does wear a “husky” coat very similar to the one Rudy was wearing when arrested. The figure is also wearing the same shoes that Rudy admits to wearing on the night of the murder: Nike Outbreak 2s, with the telltale white stripe on the bottom.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2009/09/12/amanda-knox-murder-trial-taking-aim-at-rudy-guede/

So according to this RG had been loitering around there since 740pm. Still not sure if this information is the same information that the CCTV video is conveying. Y'all's thoughts? Also seems that the person comes from the right, as if returning from the basketball court. If this was at 740pm, then maybe it coincides with RG saying that he went up there and "chinese guys" were playing ball. Or the last picture could be the 810pm timeframe when he's headed back toward the cottage.

They might not be taking into account that the camera time was slow. If they are not, the times are really 752pm and 822pm. Times completely different than discussed in the possible MK video, which would have been 852pm.

Dempsey's latest post and a picture of Knox's friend:

Is the footage relevant to the trial or was it dismissed as not relevant or credible? Are we trying to understand what happened to Meredith Kercher, or are we trying to manipulate information to get Knox out of jail?

 

[otto]

This must be where we read about him saying it wasn't his jacket.

.<snipped>

Is this about connecting some coat or jacket to a video that has been excluded from the case proceedings because it is not connected with the murder?

 

[otto]

Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile said: 'This crime was motivated by a row over money between Meredith and Amanda Knox &#8212; and she was killed by Amanda as a result of this row. There is no proof at all to say it was motivated by sex and nothing to suggest our client was involved.

"Rudy has always admitted being at the scene but he had nothing to do with any sexual assault and murder &#8212; this crime was motivated by a row over cash and nothing else."

At his fast-track trial the court heard that Mr Guede's DNA had been on a bloodied pillow and on Ms Kercher's body. Mr Guede claims that he was in the bathroom with stomach pains after eating a spicy kebab when the murderer entered the cottage, and emerged to find Ms Kercher dying in a pool of blood.

Mr Guede says that he struggled with a man who resembled Mr Sollecito and that a woman who looked like Ms Knox was at the door of the house waiting.

Mr Biscotti said: 'My client tried to help poor Meredith and put towels around her wound but then ran away. The only thing he is guilty of is not staying to help and he will have to live with that for the rest of his life."

Ms Kercher, from Coulsden Surrey, was on an Erasmus exchange study course and had been in Perugia only two months when she was murdered.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5901705.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

More about RG on our RG weekend preview! :great:

That's a bit of bad news for Sollecito and his American girlfriend Knox.

Was it the prosecutor's objective to force their hand, have them parade the prisoner circus through appeal court and then have Guede testify that he either cannot speak or can speak and will implicate the convicted murderers. What then???

If Guede accuses Knox and Sollecito, are they allowed to confront him with questions and, if so, can Knox demonstrate that he is lying? I guess the first question is whether Sollecito and his girlfriend can challenge the third party in court if he confirms or implies their guilt.

This case has dragged on so long for the victim's family ... who have never doubted the verdicts.

 

[otto]

If people find it hard to believe that three holligans would attack a woman by herself, perhaps it's time to question why any one attacks a woman by herself. It happens every day throughout the US. Why is it so hard to understand that a woman from the US went to what she described as a "backwards medieval town" in Italy for a one semester study program where she indulged herself with drugs, alcohol and men ... and things went wrong on an international level? Knox is not a victim like Natalee Holloway. In fact, Meredith Kercher is a victim like Natalee Holloway. Meredith went away to school as an Erasmus Scholar (this is a big deal, by the way) and was murdered by her roommate - but the murderer is trying to get out of it, just like Joran van der Sloot.

 

[SMK]

Well, I see 6 pages of it, then 6 pages of the original, which makes 12 pages. I thought the call was 3 hours long? And the version I read does not have the first part of the conversation when RG is asking for money.

............

 

[SMK]

If people find it hard to believe that three holligans would attack a woman by herself, perhaps it's time to question why any one attacks a woman by herself. It happens every day throughout the US. Why is it so hard to understand that a woman from the US went to what she described as a "backwards medieval town" in Italy for a one semester study program where she indulged herself with drugs, alcohol and men ... and things went wrong on an international level? Knox is not a victim like Natalee Holloway. In fact, Meredith Kercher is a victim like Natalee Holloway. Meredith went away to school as an Erasmus Scholar (this is a big deal, by the way) and was murdered by her roommate - but the murderer is trying to get out of it, just like Joran van der Sloot.

Of course Amanda is not like Natalee Holloway; Holloway is a murder victim. Those who believe Knox is innocent see her as wrongfully convicted. 3 people can kill someone, or 6, or 1. No one has said 3 could not kill one. What has been asserted is the evidence in this case does not seem to support that scenario.
ETA: I cannot wait for the 27th and 30th to be over with, as the rest will just be review and verdict.

 

[wasnt_me]

SMK, I thought for sure you'd come here and help me figure this video confusion out! HELP! :waitasec:

 

[emyr]

Most likely scenario prosecution:

Raf tells Amanda to carry a knife in her purse to defend herself, so she takes one of his kitchen knives. (please clarify for me if this knife was from her flat or his flat). For some reason, though he collects small knives and carries them on him at all times, he does not tell her to carry one of his extra ones with her. The night in question, he and Amanda were watching the movie Amelie. Amanda was supposed to be leaving momentarily for work, Raf had another appointment. At about 8:40 pm they both found themselves abruptly without commitments. They had just finished eating supper and were in a jovial mood, even though Raf's sink had overflowed yet again while cleaning up their dinner including fish, leaving stinky fish smelling water on the floor. (Or this is a false story that was backed up by the defendant's father to protect him). Now, abruptly without commitments they head over to the house to pack up for the trip the next day/fetch a mop/or to have a fun evening out alone. (perhaps they bring some food with them, and the knife to cut it with... makes more sense than carrying a kitchen knife in your purse). They run across Rudy on the way back. They arrive shortly after Meredith arrives, or as soon as she arrives. Rudy does drugs, perhaps he offers them something (lsd, ecstacy, something hardcore). They enter the flat and all chat a bit. Rudy has orange juice then goes and takes a dump. The scene becomes emotionally intense, either as the result of a confrontation (Meredith notices her rent money is missing, Rudy/all three become sexually aggressive to her, or she simply is annoyed and wants to go to bed). The result of this confrontation charges up the scene where she is restrained. Amanda and Raf join in restraining her. Then one of them begins to attack her with a knife and the other two spontaneously join in, stabbing her with their own knives. (Perhaps they were all playing a game with respective knives beforehand). They help to strip her, and Rudy continues the assault on Meredith's person as Amanda and Raf help him to do so, or withdraw to the other room. Abruptly, Rudy is afraid of being caught, and he flees the scene in his bloody shoes and clothing. (He may or may not have stolen from Meredith). Amanda and Raf realize how foolish they have just behaved. They have some blood on them. They do not want to leave any trace they were there. They go straight to the bathroom. Perhaps they were naked during the attack, which explains the lack of blood evidence on their clothing. But there is a shoe footprint (maybe) of Amanda and of Raf in the room, so they both had shoes on. They use the bidet and sink to clean off. Raf leaves a bloody bare footprint on the bathmat. Amanda takes a full shower. They then use the mop to carefully go over the crime scene, wiping away all the obvious evidence that they were there. They see the bloody footprint on the bathmat but hope it will be attributed to Rudy as getting rid of the bathmat would be too suspicious? Cleaning it off would be too suspicious? Amanda has a very trace amount of blood left on the bottom of her foot which leaves sporadic footprints that luminol will pick up later. (there is no evidence of smearing, or attempted clean up, so the clean up for what they could see was very good, but the footprints she couldn't see with her naked eye are not covered up). They cover up Meredith. They are worried that someone the next day will hear her phone ringing in the house so they go down the street and throw her phones into a garden (previous to midnight) and lock her door with the keys. They now need to establish an alibi, so they go back to Raffael's place about 5:30 am and turn on his itunes. They do a more thorough clean up here. They did not want the mop to be found at the previous scene, so they bring it back to his place. They thoroughly clean his place and the knife, though Amanda does not clean off the handle. They succesfully remove all traces of blood from the mop. (Or they cleaned up with the towel and just carry around a mop as part of an elaborate way of deflecting attention or something). The get rid of their own bloody clothes, and Raf's knife but choose to keep the kitchen knife in the drawer of the apartment. They think of leaving for the trip they were supposed to take, but worry that might make them look more guilty. They decide they need someone to come home to discover the crime scene. They go back and stage a break-in to justify calling someone without going into Meredith's room (or they did this between 12 and 5). They lock her room so it will make sense they were never in there. They hope Filomena will arrive and mar any additional evidence there might be. They plan to have her discover the body and enter Meredith's room with her to muddy the scene. They tell Filomena they called the police so she won't call them. The police arrive (surprising them) and start looking everything over. When they break down the door, instead of Knox and Sollecito being as close to the room as possible, (so as to provide a reason why there would be evidence of them in the room), they stay away from it, because the police are a surprise and they are nervous.

Once taken into custody, they crack under the pressure, deliberately creating false scenarios to look innocent. Amanda caves to the suggestion that Lumamba did it, since the police seem suspicious of him, and she knows that if Rudy is caught he will tell them she was there. Neither ask for a lawyer, because they are determined to look as innocent as possible. (they clearly don't watch CSI).

Alternatively: Amanda and Raffaele cleaned themselves up in the bathroom at the location, but did not clean up the location at all. They obviously had blood on them if they needed to clean up, so they still need to get rid of the clothing they were wearing. However, they assumed that all the evidence that was there of them would point to a burglar or Rudy.

But again, note: they did not now Rudy was a burglar, so they got lucky that their fake burglary happened to match up with the fact that he was a burglar. Not a stretch, because there aren't that many options at hand to justify calling Filomena and being worried.

I'll do my best case scenario for defense. I will note that it also has holes in it. I'd like to see a more likely proseuction case that explains the whole timeline better than I have (you can see the holes: why would she have a kitchen knife there? What circumstances would cause them all to spontaneously murder Meredith quickly? Why call Filomena before you have properly cleaned up the murder scene?) It falls further apart if we can 100% verify they called the police before the postal police arrived.

A note that Rudy's suggestion that it was about money can't be true since Amanda had over $4000 euros in her bank account at the time.

 

[SMK]

SMK, I thought for sure you'd come here and help me figure this video confusion out! HELP! :waitasec:

Yikes, sorry, have been bogged down in work and going out with family past 2 days. Sorry. Do you mean all the confusion about Rudy and the jacket? :waitasec: If so, I find it very odd. If another issue, please refresh me.

 

[emyr]

If people find it hard to believe that three holligans would attack a woman by herself, perhaps it's time to question why any one attacks a woman by herself. It happens every day throughout the US. Why is it so hard to understand that a woman from the US went to what she described as a "backwards medieval town" in Italy for a one semester study program where she indulged herself with drugs, alcohol and men ... and things went wrong on an international level? Knox is not a victim like Natalee Holloway. In fact, Meredith Kercher is a victim like Natalee Holloway. Meredith went away to school as an Erasmus Scholar (this is a big deal, by the way) and was murdered by her roommate - but the murderer is trying to get out of it, just like Joran van der Sloot.

I don't find it unbelievable that one of them would do such a thing. The difficult thing to imagine is that it is spontaneous (not planned before 8:20 pm). Between people who don't know each other well (is it 2 weeks or 1 week the relationship with Raffaelle?). Guede is almost a stranger. On top of that it is a murder with multiple knives.

The multiple knives/spontaneous scenario... you would expect with people overtaken by the heat of the moment to all have knives in their hands at the moment they stop behaving rationally. At least I would. In order to make that work, the three murderers would have been playing some sexually charged game with knives that led into the murder. And one of those knives had to have been a kitchen knife brought from Raffaelle's home. OR since it was the day after Halloween (more likely), they decided to go over and scare Meredith with the knives (lie in wait in the dark). Then after having a good laugh over it, the situation progressed to a darker place.

The other scenario, of first Rudy attacking with a knife, and then Raffaelle pulling out his pocket knife from his pocket, then Amanda having to go grab this kitchen knife and then race across the room, down the hallway and into Meredith's bedroom with it to attack Meredith seems amazingly crazy to me. I suppose Amanda could have attacked first, and then Raf and Rudy, who DID carry knives on their person, joined in after. It's also a little weird to see a girl get carried away by a sexually charged atmosphere, such that she is willing to attack someone with a knife.

Anyway, that would make all three of them sociopaths. Sociopaths who met by circumstance.

That being said, I think the initial evidence led them to suspecting Amanda and Raf because the initial evidence is damaging. Showering at a murder scene, wandering around with mops, pointing the finger at an innocent man. ..

 

[Nova]

If people find it hard to believe that three holligans would attack a woman by herself, perhaps it's time to question why any one attacks a woman by herself. It happens every day throughout the US. Why is it so hard to understand that a woman from the US went to what she described as a "backwards medieval town" in Italy for a one semester study program where she indulged herself with drugs, alcohol and men ... and things went wrong on an international level? Knox is not a victim like Natalee Holloway. In fact, Meredith Kercher is a victim like Natalee Holloway. Meredith went away to school as an Erasmus Scholar (this is a big deal, by the way) and was murdered by her roommate - but the murderer is trying to get out of it, just like Joran van der Sloot.

There is no evidence that AK or RS were hooligans.

Natalee Holloway didn't go away to school; she went away from school on vacation, albeit on a trip sponsored by the school.

Amanda Knox is not a victim "like Natalee Holloway", but that doesn't mean she isn't a victim in her own way.

Perugia is a "backwards medieval town." You got that right.

 

[Nova]

To emyr:

Yes, the kitchen knife that supposedly contains the DNA of both AK and MK came from RS' kitchen drawer. A police officer supposedly noticed it because it was "shinier" than the others. The DNA results are in dispute. Among other issues there are far too few cells from MK for a knife allegedly plunged into her flesh. The knife tested negative for blood. It is 12" long and far too big to carry around town conveniently.

There is no evidence of clean-up at the cottage. Footprints that showed up under luminol testing were not smeared as they would have been had the floor been mopped. The prosecution merely claimed vaguely that there was a clean-up to explain the lack of evidence of AK and RS in the murder room.

AK and RS had known each other for six days. AK had met RG once at a party and had seen him "around town" a couple of times. RS and RG had never met. (AK spoke only a little Italian. RG spoke only a little English. RS spoke no English at all. The prosecution has never explained how these three formed a conspiracy in a few minutes.)

ETA: just to be clear, only AK agreed to implicate PL (and she cast doubt on that statement within a few hours). RS implicated no one. PL was suggested as an accomplice to AK by ILE, based on a misreading of her text messages.

 

[otto]

There is no evidence that AK or RS were hooligans.

Natalee Holloway didn't go away to school; she went away from school on vacation, albeit on a trip sponsored by the school.

Amanda Knox is not a victim "like Natalee Holloway", but that doesn't mean she isn't a victim in her own way.

Perugia is a "backwards medieval town." You got that right.

I believe it was Edda that described Perugia as a backwards medieval town - odd description given that there are a couple of colleges and universities that attract an international crowd.

Knox and Sollecito are victims of their own making. If they were innocent of the murder, they should have been truthful and forthcoming from the beginning.

 

[SMK]

That's a bit of bad news for Sollecito and his American girlfriend Knox.

Was it the prosecutor's objective to force their hand, have them parade the prisoner circus through appeal court and then have Guede testify that he either cannot speak or can speak and will implicate the convicted murderers. What then???

If Guede accuses Knox and Sollecito, are they allowed to confront him with questions and, if so, can Knox demonstrate that he is lying? I guess the first question is whether Sollecito and his girlfriend can challenge the third party in court if he confirms or implies their guilt.

This case has dragged on so long for the victim's family ... who have never doubted the verdicts.

When was this article dated?