Saturday, December 14, 2013
Why Is Appeal Prosecutor Crini So Very, Very Interested In The Precise Position Of Filomena’s Door?
Posted by Cardiol MD
[Above, we can see Filomena’s grey door, at hard left; ahead are Meredith’s & Knox’s bedrooms]
Do please bear in mind that this appeal was initiated by Knox and Sollecito, and the verdict, sentence and sentencing report they dispute is Judge’s Massei’s from the 2009 trial.
The subject of one of Dr Crini’s focuses - whether or not Filomena’s door was open at the various times Knox and Sollecito stated they went to the women’s apartment on the morning-after ““ is a crucial one, relevant to proving Knox’s and Sollecito’s lies and obfuscations.
Wasn’t the staged break-in to Filomena Romanelli’s room glaringly obvious? In the early morning of November 2nd, 2007? In spite of the Knox/Sollecito obfuscations? There is much information in Massei on this question, pointing to many very obvious obfuscations.
Now, for the legal requirements of beyond-reasonable-doubt (BRD) actual, literal quotations are needed. Much relevant information can easily get “˜lost in translation’ not only at the superficial level of paraphrase, as in “They said that”¦..”, but also at the more subtle level of the formats used for quotations.
Some of the Massei Report as translated consists of the actual oral quotations of witness statements, some are quotations of the content of written documents, but some consist only of paraphrases of both oral statements and of written documents.
For some quotations, especially nested-quotations the translation uses various formats, beginning either with a comma or an apostrophe, ending with an apostrophe, and, in my copy, some back-slashes.
This mixture can be confusing to some readers, and Knox and Sollecito are seasoned veterans of exploiting such translational losses. That is a major factor in their continuing obstruction of justice: using chronic obfuscation.
He said, “She yelled, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ “
This quotation-format has been substituted in this post where it seems appropriate. It is hoped that when this format is used only to indicate editorial irony it will be self-evident.
John Follain and Will Savive also make a number of relevant references, and so do some Wiki articles whose authors are too modest to identify themselves though “˜Underhill’ has been mentioned as a co-ordinator.
Of course, the members of the Florence Appellate Court have access-to, have probably already read, thousands of pages of evidence, including the actual verbatim witness-transcripts, and that Court will make up its own mind independent of what is written elsewhere.
Here are some of the Massei “˜door’ instances - this is a selection of a relevant 6 out of a grand total of 192 instances:
Massei Page 28: [Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ““ said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called since “coming back to the cottage in the morning because they had been away for the night” and finding “the entrance [15] door open and then the window broken” (see declarations by Battistelli, hearing of February 7, 2009, page 64).]
Access to the Court Records would help us better-understand this passage, but Follain (Page 67, Kindle location 939), indicates that Battistelli is actually quoting Sollecito, substituting “˜they’ for “˜we’, so it seems that Sollecito was already obfuscating the facts, encouraging the inference that their shocking observations began only when both he and Knox arrived together and discovered together both the open apartment entrance-door, and from inside Filomena’s room, the broken-window, so we are all being steered away, by Sollecito, from the true answer to our question.
Massei Pages 29-30: [Around midday(Nov, 2nd, 2007), at ten past twelve, when they had not yet arrived at the car park of the Fair, and she(Filomena) was in the car with her friend Paola Grande, she received a phone call: it was Amanda letting her know that there was something strange. She had arrived and had found the door open: she had had a shower and it had seemed to her that there was some blood; moreover she said that she was going [17] to Raffaele’s place (declarations of Romanelli page 31, hearing of February 7, 2009).
To her (Filomena’s) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.]
Filomena had apparently not been told by Knox, in this 1st phone-call, about the broken pane, the stone, and the bedroom-disarray, as if Knox was not yet aware of these stunning facts. The obfuscation continues.
Massei Page 30: [Marco Zaroli, who was without a car because Ms. Romanelli had taken it, had called his friend Luca Altieri and they had gone together to the house in Via della Pergola, where they arrived around 1:00 pm, at almost the same time as Filomena Romanelli and Paola Grande. In the house there were the also the two present accused and ““ as we have seen ““ Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi. The presence of the latter two was linked by Ms. Romanelli to what Amanda had told her about the open door, the broken pane, her own room in a mess.]
When Knox first told Ms. Romanelli about her visit, she had omitted reference to Laura’s and Filomena’s doors, whether they were open, whether they were openable, whether Knox opened them, and whether Knox looked inside and saw the broken pane, the stone, and the bedroom-disarray. It is implausible that Knox tried only Meredith’s door and not the others.
It is also implausible that Knox even took a shower at the women’s apartment, colder as it was than Sollecito’s. Amy Frost testified that hours after the body was discovered Amanda Knox told her that she never took the shower, because when she noticed the blood that had stopped her from showering.
The Postal Police commented that Knox also emanated an unpleasant, “˜post-shower’ odour, inconsistent with Amanda having recently had a shower anywhere, implying Knox was lying about taking the shower.
Knox is steering Ms. Romanelli away from these crucial facts which logically demanded that their “˜discoverer’ flee (again), and call the Police. Knox is obfuscating by selective piece-meal feeding-of-the-facts to Filomena.
Massei Page 38: [On the day of November 2, 2007 at police headquarters, Amanda was also there and she said that that night she had been with her boyfriend Raffaele and that the next morning at around 11:00 am she had gone back home to get changed. She had found the entrance door open and this seemed strange to her: she had gone into the house and into her room and she had taken a shower and had seen drops of blood.
She said that after the shower she got dressed and noticed that Meredith’s door was locked. She went into the other bathroom and said that there were faeces in the toilet. Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside. She told these things to her and the other girls present. Then she related that she had gone back to Raffaele’s house and had rung Filomena. She remembered that on that occasion at police headquarters Raffaele was very calm, silent.]
When Knox first called Filomena, Knox had omitted any mention of the most significant information - the (staged) break-in, as if she had not ‘noticed’ it.
Now, later, paraphrasing, Massei states: “Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside.”
Had Massei not paraphrased, but had written “Then I went into Filomena’s room and ‘noticed’ that her window had been broken and that there was glass inside.”, we could use it as BRD evidence.
The actual, verbatim quote should be among the many thousands of Court Records relied upon by Massei; Nencini’s Court should use such Record in reaching its decision.
Massei Page 65: [Upon returning home, she [Amanda] noticed that the door was wide open. She thought someone had gone to take the trash out or gone to the floor below, closing the door behind them but not locking it. She asked loudly whether anyone was at home, but no one answered. The door to Meredith’s room was closed, and this meant she was sleeping. She undressed in her own room and took a shower in the bathroom, (the one) nearest to (both) her room and to Meredith’s.
When she got out of the shower, she realised that on the little bath mat where she had placed her feet, there was blood and also, there were drops of blood on the sink and the faucet. She left the bathroom and went to get dressed in her own room. Then, she went in the other bathroom to dry her hair, where there was a blow dryer. It was at this time that she noticed feces in the toilet, which surprised her. She then took the mop and returned to Raffaele’s home, locking the door (on the way out.)
She told Raffaele what she had seen and he suggested that she call one of her friends. She then called Filomena Romanelli, who said that she had been out with her boyfriend and that Laura Mezzetti was also away, in Rome with her family. She then realised that the only one to have spent the night in Via della Pergola was Meredith, about whom, however, nothing was known. Filomena seemed worried, so Amanda (Page 66) told her that she would call Meredith, who would then call her back.
She then called the two cellphones that Meredith had, but without getting any response (from her). She then returned home, this time with [55] Raffaele. Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, “šbut her computer was in its place on the desk.”› Convinced that there had been a burglary, she went into the other rooms: Laura’s room was in order, and nothing was missing from her own room.
However, Meredith’s door was closed. She began to knock and to call out, without receiving any answer. She was then seized with panic and went on the balcony to see if she was able to see anything, but she couldn’t see anything. She went down to the apartment below to ask someone, but no one was there. She therefore went back inside and Raffaele said that he wanted to try to break down the door of Meredith’s room, but he wasn’t able to. It was then that they decided to call the police, which is what Raffaele did. She let Filomena know about this, asking her to come home.]
Now, only after returning “home, this time with [55] Raffaele.” does Knox allege that she had then “opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, “šbut her computer was in its place on the desk.”
Knox continues to obfuscate by selective piece-meal feeding-of-the-facts.
Massei Page 66: [While they were waiting, two police officers arrived (at the scene) and she showed them all that she had seen. Then Filomena arrived with her boyfriend and two other friends, and they broke down the door of Meredith’s room.]
True. There are a number of other Massei references to Filomena’s door and room, but they are basically repetitive of information already in the above references.
This seems to be enough for Nencini’s Court to reach its verdicts re Knox and Sollecito.
[Below: the area from which Knox would have been looking at Filomena’s door]
Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/14/13 at 10:50 PM in Evidence & Witnesses, Real crimescene, Faked breakin, Other witnesses, Appeals 2009-2015, Florence 2014+, Hoaxes against Italy, 6 No staging hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax
Comments
Here is Kermits Powerpoints on the floor plan of the house showing where Filomena’s room was:
Two REAL burglaries of the house took place in 2009. Guess what? They both took place via the balcony - and via that window at left in the shot just above here, where the glass was presumably quietly broken, using a little flower pot not a giant boulder.
Perhaps a matter of a minute - not the 10-20 minutes it would have required to enter via Filomena’s window, not yet achieved by anybody, which would have required 3-4 walks right by that balcony for opening of shutters and stuff under bright lighting from above.
Unbelievable that the poor posturing wannabees that Sfarzo leads around by the noses still try to push the Lone Wolf theory and “proof” of an entry via that bedroom.
No wonder Knox and Solllecito seem to have got cold feet about it as their escape ladder as Massei and Cardiol explain. Here is some more from Kermit:
Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/14/13 at 11:53 PM | #
It is very suspicious that Amanda didn’t quickly open the door and check Filomena’s bedroom for signs of disturbance as soon as Amanda became alarmed at seeing blood spots and Meredith’s locked door.
She could then call Filomena to say, “Get here immediately, your room’s been broken into!” As you say, Amanda chose to divvy out the facts in a piece-meal fashion.
Posted by Hopeful on 12/15/13 at 01:43 AM | #
Raffaele Sollecito diary from prison 7 Nov 2007
TRANSLATION
“those moments I remember very well as I was alarmed and agitated .... as a first thing I noticed the door of Filomena’s (aka Molly) room was wide open. Ah, i was forgetting Amanda opened with the keys (they asked me repeatedly as she said she had found the cottage door wide open when she had come in) .... we were saying that Filomena’s room was in a complete mess: broken glass on the floor and the room in a great, absurd, mess. The window was broken on the left side and was open”
ORIGINAL
http://qn.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/12/08/53233-amanda_meredith.shtml
“Quei momenti li ricordo bene perché ero agitato e allarmato….Per prima cosa ho notato che la camera di Filomena (chiamata Molli) aveva la porta spalancata. Ah, dimenticavo, Amanda ha aperto la casa con le chiavi (cosa che mi hanno ripetutamente chiesto visto che lei mi aveva detto che aveva trovato la porta di ingresso spalancata quando era entrata). Dicevamo che la camera di Filomena era completamente in disordine: vetri rotti per terra e la camera sottosopra, c’era un casino assurdo. La finestra era rotta sul lato sinistro ed era aperta. “
Posted by Popper on 12/15/13 at 04:04 AM | #
How Knox failed to notice Filomena’s broken window (clearly visible at distance from the gate to the cottage) and walk past it (more or less in front of her nose) on her way to the open front door, is literally beyond belief.
This lie could only be believable if Knox was cartwheeling down the drive from the gate with an open carton of turnip juice in each hand sloshing around everywhere.
Obfuscation abounds.
Posted by DF2K on 12/15/13 at 06:03 AM | #
thank you…
Posted by Bettina on 12/15/13 at 06:30 AM | #
Thanks Popper for “.... as a first thing I noticed the door of Filomena’s (aka Molly) room was wide open.”
I remembered the “...wide open…” statement, but not it’s source. Now you have IDed the source for us: Raffaele Sollecito diary from prison 7 Nov 2007 (page 3 of 11)
In ‘Honor Bound (page 313, Kindle location 4401) Sollecito states:
“Then I pushed open Filomena’s door which had been left slightly ajar, and saw that the place was trashed.”
So here we have 2 of Sollecito’s versions re Filomena’s door: “slightly ajar” and “wide open”.
Can the Nencini Court overlook Sollecito’s and Knox’s lies?
Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/15/13 at 07:18 AM | #
Ok. Let us give all these heroes the benefit of doubt.
How AK can confuse whether she took shower or not on that date? Is it really possible?
The Judge asked quite succinctly to the heroine: what kind of heating is there in the flat? The heroine could not figure out what he is driving at!
Another point is the use of “locked” vs “closed”. AK must have walked to the door and tried to open just to confirm that it is “locked” and not simply “closed”. Once she did this exercise, she must have tried the same on all the other doors that were “closed”. This is something an American student is not expected to confuse.
DF2K: Horseradish juice is better than turnip juice! (Horseradish contains the protein that gives even better signal than blood itself- the protein is commonly called horseradish peroxidase or HRP in short. Both haemoglobin and HRP share the same group heme that is responsible for the test). It will also explain the wonderful stink she was reported to emanate that fine winter morning.
I thought the broken pane is on the right side (looking from the inside of the room) of the window but RS says it is left side!
Posted by chami on 12/15/13 at 09:24 AM | #
“Massei Page 38: [On the day of November 2, 2007 at police headquarters, Amanda was also there and she said that that night she had been with her boyfriend Raffaele and that the next morning at around 11:00 am she had gone back home to get changed. She had found the entrance door open and this seemed strange to her: she had gone into the house and into her room and she had taken a shower and had seen drops of blood.
She said that after the shower she got dressed and noticed that Meredith’s door was locked. She went into the other bathroom and said that there were faeces in the toilet. Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside. She told these things to her and the other girls present. Then she related that she had gone back to Raffaele’s house and had rung Filomena. She remembered that on that occasion at police headquarters Raffaele was very calm, silent.]”
Cardiol, you quote the above from Massei, page 38.
Two interesting things from it. 1. Noticing that Meredith’s door was locked just after her shower. Logically this suggests that she must have tried the door. 2. Going into Filomena’s room after visiting the large bathroom after “her shower”, and noticing the broken window.
To put the above quote in context Massei is discussing the evidence of Meredith’s girlfriends and in particular here, it would seem, that of Natalie Hayworth. Which explains “she told these things to her and the other girls present.”
In other words it is what Amanda recounted to Natalie at the police station and is not what is to be found in Amanda’s testimony and writings.
I do think we have to be careful, not because Natalie and the other girls would be making things up but because they may have made innocent misconnections in the timing of events to which the information from Amanda related. OR maybe not!
It is very important to have the actual trial testimony to hand rather than rely entirely upon Massei.
We can refer to McCall’s Wiki. Here are are extracts from Natalie’s testimony (which I have tidied up from the googletranslate).
NH:
She said she had found the front door open which she thought was a bit ‘weird. Then she went into the house, went to her room and then took a shower in their bathroom, she said it was a bit ‘strange, there were drops of blood.
GM:
Excuse me for a moment, from what you could understand Amanda took a shower before or after seeing the drops of blood?
NH:
Afterwards.
GM:
So first she sees the blood and then take a shower.
NH:
Yes.
GM:
Have you noticed any other details, She went to Meredith’s room, did she tell you this? What did she tell you?
NH:
She said that after the shower she dressed and noticed that Meredith’s door was locked.
GM:
Locked.
NH:
Yes.
GM:
What about the other rooms? According to what she told you of course.
NH:
Yes, she said she went into the other bathroom, and said that there was poop in the bathroom and thought it was strange. Then she went into another room and the window had been broken with glass inside.
Posted by James Raper on 12/15/13 at 01:25 PM | #
DF2K
The same morning, sometime later AK returned to the cottage with RS. (From his flat.) Walking down the path, leading to the cottage, neither of the two noticed Filomena’s open and broken window.
Equally difficult to believe.
Posted by Babushka on 12/15/13 at 01:48 PM | #
Talking about misconnections and disconnections there is also this from the testimony of Amy Frost -
GM:
Look, you met Amanda and Sollecito at the police station?
AF:
Yes, I remember that Sophie has been called in for questioning and Robin and I were sitting together. We saw Raffaele but we did not know who he was. He approached us and said “I’m Amanda’s boyfriend,” he said, “Amanda was at my house last night, last night, this morning and then went back to Meredith’s house. She said that she had noticed that the front door was open, she went to the bathroom, she saw that there was blood, and also that there was ... he used the word (“scit”) ... interpreter, “which I translate into shit, “in the toilet.
GM:
(Inc. - off microphone) said that?
AF:
No. She decided not to take a shower because she had seen the blood and had to return to his home. Then both of them are going to Meredith’s house. (Then she tried to throw already kicked the door of Meredith?) And then he also said that they both thought it strange that the poop in the toilet was gone.
GM:
Before you go ahead a question. But it was Raffaele who told you that?
AF:
Yes.
GM:
So Raffaele told you that Amanda had seen the blood and therefore had not had a shower.
AF:
Yes.
Posted by James Raper on 12/15/13 at 02:18 PM | #
The taking of that shower does come and go. Nice catch James! So much to do still to show where their stories contradicted their own, one another’s, and everybody else’s. Having the testimony in one place sure is helpful. .
Regarding the broken glass, from the inside it is the left window that was broken. And as it was open toward the inside. the broken pane may not have been visible from the outside; the shutters were semi-closed anyway.
Here is PatAz’s excellent post on the room and the window with some images showing the disarray on the floor and quotes from Judge Massei’s report.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/15/13 at 02:55 PM | #
DF2K
We can read about AK and RS examining Filomena’s broken and open window outside the cottage in AK’s second letter of Nov 9, 2007 to her lawyers.
“Raffaele’s sister said to call the Carabinieri. So we did. We waited for a little inside, I put the mop away, but then we went outside to see Filomena’s window. I couldn’t figure out why someone would break the window if it looked impossible to get to to climb into.”
She said it.
Everyone would agree.
RG did not break in. No one did.
Posted by Babushka on 12/15/13 at 03:42 PM | #
@Peter
Do you think an American student of creative writing will confuse between “locked” and “closed”? I do not think she ever mentioned that she came to the door and tried to open it (during the early testimonies).
The rock, if it is really thrown from the outside, will approach the window at an angle. Because of the presence of the shutters (the one that opens outside), it will be practically impossible to hit the left side window pane. Looking from inside, the parking lot is the most likely place for throwing the stone, and it appears to be slightly left of the window.
I am also curious about their visit to Gubbio. When they decided that they are not going to make it? In particular, I want to hear about their preparations for the trip.
It was also VERY clear from the beginning that she wanted to draw special attention to the kebab leftovers in the big bathroom. There is a purpose for this but I am not very sure.
Posted by chami on 12/15/13 at 05:05 PM | #
So, in taking the shower/not taking a shower, did she also scoot down the hall naked with her foot on the bathmat?
Posted by Ergon on 12/15/13 at 05:06 PM | #
Hi, chami, the parking lot is flush to the window, but the railings that would restrict a thrower are as you say, to the left of the window. What I found hard to believe was that a thrower would chose a 20x15x7 cms rock weighing 4 kilos, or 8.8 lbs (seriously?!) across that distance, which was 10-12 feet, when much more suitable sized rocks were available?
Posted by Ergon on 12/15/13 at 05:38 PM | #
@ Cardiol:
“I remembered the “...wide open…†statement, but not it’s source. Now you have IDed the source for us: Raffaele Sollecito diary from prison 7 Nov 2007”
Actually, this is not the first time he says that.
We also have his police statements.
Posted by Yummi on 12/15/13 at 06:39 PM | #
chami
The kebab leftover in the big bathroom belonged to RG, and as such, it became a piece of evidence of RG’s presence there. His DNA was found on the tissue paper used by him.
Practically anyone, finding faeces in the toilet, would have flushed it immediately. AK claimed in her famous e-mail that ‘We are very clean’ - referring to all the girls in the flat, including herself, of course. Are we? Then why not flush the toilet with faeces in it? She had her reason: she knew who had left it there.
Also, do we believe that AK only noticed the faeces after! she had dried her hair, not on entering the bathroom? Was there no smell, after the piece resting in the toilet for many hours?
When on her return to the cottage with RS, the faeces was no longer visible, AK panicked, thinking that someone had been in the cottage and flushed the toilet, whilst she was away. The burglar returned or never left?
No, AK panicked, because she did not want to lose this precious piece of evidence against RG.
Posted by Babushka on 12/15/13 at 07:01 PM | #
Hi, Babushka, again, there are inconsistencies. She showered, no she did not shower. But she washed her hair, otherwise why was she using the hairdryer so she noticed the poop in the toilet?
The police officers outside said she had B.O. so, given the inconsistencies, plus Raffaele’s interview with Kate Mansey, no wonder the police started to doubt the duo.
Posted by Ergon on 12/15/13 at 07:14 PM | #
Well, our heros did not get enough time to rehearse the details. They did not had enough time.
Sometime back I happen to watch the interview of Edda and Chris. They did not do much better.
When you are telling a lie, it is very important that you stick to it, howsoever absurd it may appear to others.
Once you get caught, the whole story comes down and it takes you along…
Telling that the rest of world is up against the “late-bloomer-creative-writer” does not work. A creative writer should be able to come up with a convincing and consistent story.
As Cardiol correctly pointed out in the beginning, the language itself is a poor vehicle of a statement; both body language and tone conveys details that cannot be caught in a written language. Even a part is lost in translation (drugged-up-tart is a nice example) and we have people who are not speaking in their native language.
There can always be variations in detail and I am always ready to accept that. However, some of the critical points give away their game. “The Shower”, the “the rock” and the “bathroom mat” are the examples in this case.
She came to the cottage for a shower and change. I never heard about the clothes she was wearing before and after. Perhaps it is a bit delicate topic but police must have got these details. But I am still curious why she cancelled her visit to Gubbio? It never figures in the discussions. Strange.
Posted by chami on 12/15/13 at 07:20 PM | #
James re your 12/15/13 at 07:25 AM Post:
“In other words it is what Amanda recounted to Natalie at the police station and is not what is to be found in Amanda’s testimony and writings.â€
Absolutely. In the interest of Post-brevity I assumed that meticulous readers, such as yourself, would read the whole page-reference from which my quote was selected; thank you for justifying my assumption.
“I do think we have to be careful, not because Natalie and the other girls would be making things up but because they may have made innocent misconnections in the timing of events to which the information from Amanda related. OR maybe not!â€
I agree with you, James.
“GM:
What about the other rooms? According to what she told you of course.
NH:
Yes, she said she went into the other bathroom, and said that there was poop in the bathroom and thought it was strange. Then she went into another room and the window had been broken with glass inside.â€
“Then” she went into another room and the window had been broken with glass inside?
“Then†in Knox’s versions is a Knight’s-move-in-Narrative, on to her 2nd alleged visit that morning, only-this-time she was now allegedly accompanied by Sollecito.
I rest my case on the evidence of these obfuscations.
“Of course, the members of the Florence Appellate Court have access-to, have probably already read, thousands of pages of evidence, including the actual verbatim witness-transcripts, and that Court will make up its own mind independent of what is written elsewhereâ€, to re-quote myself, in this Post.
Posted by Cardiol MD on 12/15/13 at 07:59 PM | #
When planning the staged burglary, AK and RS forgot to consider one very important aspect of their project: how convincing it would look outside the cottage.
According to AK’s own opinion, as I previously quoted from her second letter of Nov 9, 2007 to her lawyers:
“I couldn’t figure out why someone would break the window if it looked impossible to get to to climb into.â€
Precisely.
Channel 5, in their reconstruction program, engaged an experienced rock climber, who managed to pull himself up on the windowsill, but he was a rock climber, with very strong arms, hands and fingers, mandatory for serious rock climbing. Also he was wearing special shoes, and we do not know what material was used to build the wall, the texture of the material, the width of the lower window frame, the width of the windowsill, etc. These are small details, nevertheless important, when someone is trying to reach a window, so high up from the ground. Regardless, the experiment stopped half-way, and we never saw the same gentleman firmly gripping the windowsill, covered with loose shards, the sharp pieces of glass cutting into and embedding themselves in his palm and fingers, and his bleeding hands and fingers leaving bloodstains on the windowsill. This i.e. the real test was conveniently omitted from the experiment, because this part (of the experiment) could not have been accomplished.
Another misleading program.
Posted by Babushka on 12/16/13 at 03:12 AM | #
There are also inconsistencies in Knox’s declarations regarding the blood in the bathroom. In one of her first interrogations she reported having noticed the blood before taking a shower. As her interlocutor expressed his surprise that it didn’t deter her she changed her version in subsequent narrations, saying she noticed the blood after taking her shower.
Posted by Xarta on 12/16/13 at 11:33 AM | #
Hi, chami, the reasons given by AK for her visit to the cottage in the morning, on the 2nd of November, 2007 are:
To have a shower
Change of clothing
Pick up the mop
These reasons are repeated regularly, sometimes just one, sometimes two, and at other times all the three reasons mentioned together. It is difficult to decide which one of the three was the most important.
The shower.
Had AK really needed one, she could have had one in RS’s warm flat, instead of the very cold cottage. It is doubtful if she had any shower at all, not only at the cottage, but also in RS’s flat the previous night.
Mop.
The real need for it is highly questionable, more about this later.
Change of clothing.
Yes, but taking into account the plans to travel to Gubbio on the 2nd of November, AK should have had a change of clothing with her already the previous day.
Alternatively, drive down to the cottage in RS’s car, change there or pick up the change of clothing, and continue your way to Gubbio.
Mr Quintavalle, the store owner, described the clothes AK was wearing, when waiting outside the store, for the store to open, in the early hours on the 2nd of November. The same items of clothing (described by Quintavalle) could be seen on AK’s bed, on the photograph, taken in her room by the police. (With one piece missing, which I could not recall here, but I will check it.)
RS writes in his diary on November 7, 2007
“I do not remember how she was dressed on November the 1st, but I am sure that she had changed and that she had put on the white skirt and her usual black hiking shoes. She was cleaned up and she had brought me a Vileda mop…â€
What happened to the white skirt, because by the time AK was talking to the police outside the cottage, she was wearing jeans. She must have changed again – from her white skirt to her jeans - but where and when and why?
What an extraordinary comment from RS: “She (AK) was cleaned up.†What did he mean? Cleaned up, like an object would be cleaned up, and why did she need a cleaning up?
Posted by Babushka on 12/16/13 at 04:21 PM | #
RS was a geeky introvert, awkward among strangers. Why would he have voluntarily approached a group of unknown women at a police station to offer them any information whatsoever? It was clearly damage control and spin. Testing the waters for when he would inevitably have to give some tweaked version of this story to the detectives. The idea of a woman showering in a blood spattered bath does not go down believably? Okay then She didn’t shower!
As to the Gubbio trip, the only way they could have made their escape would have been to depart directly from his flat, do not stop at the cottage, do not alert Filomena. Return the mop later in the day; who would have missed it? Alas, they could not stay away, because they had to A) double check their handiwork B) observe the reactions of whoever got home first and discovered their dirty work.
Posted by mimi on 12/16/13 at 07:38 PM | #
Babuska makes good points about the clothing. I often wondered about those clothes laying out on the bed - and how was a photo even made public? Anyone know? and had forgotten about the white skirt change to jeans (in the midst of scurrying around the apartment, running outside to see if they could climb up to the window, or alternatively not being concerned at all too much, why the double change of clothing? and who would have had time to think about that?) I suppose it could be said as well why would she even put on a little white skirt on a late autumn day - would not be sufficiently warm, as evidenced by RS’s large scarf and her jacket. Everything is just a small piece of the puzzle. It could be plausible that a girl would go home to get more clothes, take another shower etc before a trip to Gubbio in other circumstances. It was only five minutes away. But the thing that stands out to me is the contrast between the stories of being alarmed, and dashing about to see if they can break in, and the evidence that they were unconcerned and did not even mention the room break-in to Filomena on the telephone, and seemed perfectly calm when police arrived. Plus many other points of evidence of course.
Just went on ABC website last night and nearly all of the commenting people are vehement about her innocence, and even threatening people who disagree. Not sure who ‘harryrag’ is but he sure gets pounded every time he speaks up with evidence of guilt. Really wondering how this is going to play out finally.
Posted by believing on 12/18/13 at 05:17 PM | #
The turning off of the phones, AK’s lamp in MK’s room, the mixed DNA of AK/MK in Romanelli’s bedroom, the change of clothes on the bed almost exactly as Quintavalle described, the shoeprint on the pillowcase, the call to mom when “nothing had happened yet”, all are the most damning evidence, IMO. AK’s callous attitude and cartwheels and splits are just icing on the rotten cake. True Justice For Meredith.
Posted by zinnia on 12/19/13 at 04:13 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Appeal Session #6: Case For Knox’s & Sollecito’s Guilt - The Civil Parties
Or to previous entry Why Meredith Might Have Survived If The Attackers Had Cared And Called For Help Very Fast