Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Desert Fox]

There is no evidence of no contact between all 3. Your basis for that is simply they were in college, he was not, they were white, he is black. All three smoked pot and that is a basis for friendship right there.

So all people who smoke pot are in contact with each other
I am not saying that they were adverse to meeting each other just no evidence of contact. I play Role Playing Games but that does not mean I know everybody in the city of Chesapeake who plays them

I wrote up a list for your entertainment:
Have three suspects. Suspects one (male), suspect two (female), suspect three (male). There was a suspect four but we will drop him for various reasons.
Suspect two and three alibi each other.

While I tried some semblance of order, they are out of order:
1. We have body of victim.
2. We have pretty solid palm print in room and DNA (not really trace) on the body and in purse from suspect one (and in the toilet.)
3. We have a bloody shoe print which is at least consistent with suspect one (if not probable.) None of the bloody shoe prints are consistent with suspects two or three.
4. Crime scene is a small space. Would expect there to be traces of everybody else involved. No evidence of suspects two or three in room.
5. No signs of clean up in that space. Cleaning DNA evidence of some people and not others appears next to impossible.
6. When involved in using a knife, those involved usually will get cut.
Suspect one has potential cuts (Same one as the hard DNA trace, and palm print.) Suspects two and three do not. No signs of blood on any of their clothes as well
7. Suspect two (not the one with cuts) after a long interrogation with a language barrier implicates somebody not involved (Suspect four) and makes many mistakes in describing what occurred. In the Norfolk Four, something very similar occurred. Evidence of potential false confession.
8. Bathroom has blood from suspect two but she lives there with DNA of victim who lived there. Just pierced ears. Also a woman who may be menstruating. Blood possible if not probable. Evidence in other places that she is not a great house keeper.
9. Suspect one (left DNA in victim, on purse, with bloody palm print) flees country right after murder.
10. Same suspect also confessed to being at scene to friend (not during an interrogation) and appears to pretend to be a witness but does not call for help.
11. Evidence of knife with DNA was tested beyond limits of machine found DNA of victim although no blood. Retest of the blade with checking handle were later done and no DNA found. Even if DNA had been found, would not be conclusive due to (not sure if there is supporting evidence but is probable) suspect two and victim shared clothes
12. Evidence of Bra clasp of DNA Y-Hapligroup that does not exclude suspect three. Problem is that it is a group that includes a large number of males and there are four other male Y hapligroups on bra clasp. Bra clasp also bounced on the floor for multiple weeks and the forensic teams did not follow what are international standards. There could be an innocent explanation not even involving contamination but contamination is highly possible.
13. Not a 100% certain time but during most likely time of murder (from gastric evidence), evidence on computer of suspect three that he and subject two are watching movie.
14. No records of contact (text, phone, or e-mail) between suspect one with suspects two or three.

This is all before any questions of integrity of the various parties (which I think they stink in some cases especially Law Enforcement / Prosecution) but just the evidence argues for probable guilt for suspect one and not guilty for suspect two and three.

Never answered where you think I am wrong or were you find evidence of guilt in there?

 

[acbytesla]

The question is why you are so obsessed with a man already found guilty. His guilty does not mean the other two are innocent. This is your strawman premise. Please stop bringing up Rudy. There is no evidence he stabbed her with two different knives. There is no evidence he broke into the house. There is no evidence that he could have held her down by himself with so few defensive wounds to MK.

????? Huh? There is no obsession with Rudy except that the fact is that Rudy killed Meredith alone and there is no evidence that he had any help at all.

You're right, Rudy didn't stab her with two different knives and there is no evidence that two knives were used. Also 5 out of 6 experts testified to the fact that it could have been a single assailant. So please stop lying. It's not becoming.

 

[Desert Fox]

????? Huh? There is no obsession with Rudy except that the fact is that Rudy killed Meredith alone and there is no evidence that he had any help at all.

I wish he was white so that the race card could not be used on us. . . .Race is not even important with me.

 

[acbytesla]

I wish he was white so that the race card could not be used on us. . . .Race is not even important with me.

The race card is nonsense in this case. Amanda didn't select Patrick Lumumba as the killer because he was black and Rudy wasn't convicted of murder because he was black.

Hey, if there was a legitimate race issue involved, I would not be averse to an issue of race being raised.

But all I really see is race being raised as a potential issue to inflame and demonize Amanda.

 

[Dan O.]

If she didn't notice the blood before she left the house that day, but noticed it the next day to the point of being scared, as she said, then it must have been deposited that night. It turned out to be her blood and MK's blood in there. How does her blood get there if she wasn't there. Did somebody prick her at RS's house and then deposit it in the cottage bathroom to frame her?

I really think the prescenes of her blood in the bathroom by itself is close to all you need for a conviction. Then they found some of her blood in the room with the broken window. Why would her blood be in there?

Your arguments are stupid if not outright factually wrong. I told you to look at the photo. You choose to simply repeat and embellish your claim instead of looking at the evidence. This board hasn't seen such a display of intellectual dishonesty since the last troll passed through.

Look at the photo of the faucet in the small bath. What you see there is a large irregular reddish brown shape. Then look at the celling. You see the same reddish brown color in the exposed beams and trim around the sky light. Look back at the faucet and you can see that most of that reddish brown shape is the distorted reflection of the celling. You have to look very carefully to spot the actual blood stain burried in the reflection. Without the other blood drips in the bathroom there is no cause for such a close examination. Amanda's statement that the bathroom looked clean the previous day does not date this hidden stain.

 

[Desert Fox]

But all I really see is race being raised as a potential issue to inflame and demonize Amanda.

Liar, sex maniac, druggie, budding criminal, racist, witch, etc. . . .

 

[NancyS]

So all people who smoke pot are in contact with each other
I am not saying that they were adverse to meeting each other just no evidence of contact. I play Role Playing Games but that does not mean I know everybody in the city of Chesapeake who plays them

I wrote up a list for your entertainment:
Have three suspects. Suspects one (male), suspect two (female), suspect three (male). There was a suspect four but we will drop him for various reasons.
Suspect two and three alibi each other.

While I tried some semblance of order, they are out of order:
1. We have body of victim.
2. We have pretty solid palm print in room and DNA (not really trace) on the body and in purse from suspect one (and in the toilet.)
3. We have a bloody shoe print which is at least consistent with suspect one (if not probable.) None of the bloody shoe prints are consistent with suspects two or three.
4. Crime scene is a small space. Would expect there to be traces of everybody else involved. No evidence of suspects two or three in room.
5. No signs of clean up in that space. Cleaning DNA evidence of some people and not others appears next to impossible.
6. When involved in using a knife, those involved usually will get cut.
Suspect one has potential cuts (Same one as the hard DNA trace, and palm print.) Suspects two and three do not. No signs of blood on any of their clothes as well
7. Suspect two (not the one with cuts) after a long interrogation with a language barrier implicates somebody not involved (Suspect four) and makes many mistakes in describing what occurred. In the Norfolk Four, something very similar occurred. Evidence of potential false confession.
8. Bathroom has blood from suspect two but she lives there with DNA of victim who lived there. Just pierced ears. Also a woman who may be menstruating. Blood possible if not probable. Evidence in other places that she is not a great house keeper.
9. Suspect one (left DNA in victim, on purse, with bloody palm print) flees country right after murder.
10. Same suspect also confessed to being at scene to friend (not during an interrogation) and appears to pretend to be a witness but does not call for help.
11. Evidence of knife with DNA was tested beyond limits of machine found DNA of victim although no blood. Retest of the blade with checking handle were later done and no DNA found. Even if DNA had been found, would not be conclusive due to (not sure if there is supporting evidence but is probable) suspect two and victim shared clothes
12. Evidence of Bra clasp of DNA Y-Hapligroup that does not exclude suspect three. Problem is that it is a group that includes a large number of males and there are four other male Y hapligroups on bra clasp. Bra clasp also bounced on the floor for multiple weeks and the forensic teams did not follow what are international standards. There could be an innocent explanation not even involving contamination but contamination is highly possible.
13. Not a 100% certain time but during most likely time of murder (from gastric evidence), evidence on computer of suspect three that he and subject two are watching movie.
14. No records of contact (text, phone, or e-mail) between suspect one with suspects two or three.

This is all before any questions of integrity of the various parties (which I think they stink in some cases especially Law Enforcement / Prosecution) but just the evidence argues for probable guilt for suspect one and not guilty for suspect two and three.

Never answered where you think I am wrong or were you find evidence of guilt in there?

This is a great list, I would also add that no blood was found on the clothes they were seen wearing earlier that day. No blood was found on any other of their possessions and no blood was tracked into either Amanda's room or Raffaele's flat, which seems to be fairly suggestive that they had not recently been in contact with blood

 

[Poppy1016]

Is there a Doctor in the house? Reading this nonsense has made me I'll.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think you are wrong on every item or most every one. There is no evidence of them being there?
1. His DNA on the bra, 2. her blood /DNA in the bathroom and that other bedroom,3. their footprrints in the hall, 4. the bloody print on the mat, 5. her lamp in the room, 6. along with no alibi for either of them.
7. If there was no evidence of them being at the cottage there would be no way for two juries to find them guilty.

1. Addressed on #12
2. She lived there
3. She lived there (Edit: Tested Negative for Blood)
4. That has been proven as false
5. why does it matter
6. Both have an alibi for the most likely time of death based on gastric evidence
7. She lived there - You are suppose to have no evidence of being in a place you lived?

 

[NancyS]

If there was no evidence of them being at the cottage there would be no way for two juries to find them guilty.

And if there was not at least reasonable doubt, another court wouldn't have found them innocent. Although you'll probably now start bleating about how Hellman is corrupt, whilst denying that it is a possibility for there to be any corruption or incompetence in the whole of the Italian Justice system.

 

[Samson]

Your arguments are stupid if not outright factually wrong. I told you to look at the photo. You choose to simply repeat and embellish your claim instead of looking at the evidence. This board hasn't seen such a display of intellectual dishonesty since the last troll passed through.

Look at the photo of the faucet in the small bath. What you see there is a large irregular reddish brown shape. Then look at the celling. You see the same reddish brown color in the exposed beams and trim around the sky light. Look back at the faucet and you can see that most of that reddish brown shape is the distorted reflection of the celling. You have to look very carefully to spot the actual blood stain burried in the reflection. Without the other blood drips in the bathroom there is no cause for such a close examination. Amanda's statement that the bathroom looked clean the previous day does not date this hidden stain.

The reflection of the ceiling in the faucet is new to me, thank you, it was always a puzzle

 

[acbytesla]

I think you are wrong on every item or most every one. There is no evidence of them being there? His DNA on the bra, her blood /DNA in the bathroom and that other bedroom, their footprrints in the hall, the bloody print on the mat, her lamp in the room, along with no alibi for either of them.

If there was no evidence of them being at the cottage there would be no way for two juries to find them guilty.

Amanda's DNA being found anywhere in the apartment is NOT suspicious and Amanda had NO wounds . Does it matter that a drop of Amanda's blood was found in her own bathroom?

If you are honest you will admit that the bathmat footprint could be attributed to maybe Raffaele and maybe Rudy and maybe half the Italian population. It might be suitable to be used to exclude a suspect but it would be abominable to be used to identify a suspect.

As for their footprints in the hall, what footprints are you talking about? The Luminol footprints that also cannot actually be identified to match anyone and tested negative for blood? What does the lamp prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

The DNA evidence supposedly on the bra clasp and the knife HAVE NEVER been confirmed by ANYONE.

Finally, they have each other as alibis and since neither has ever committed a crime in their lives and neither has a real motive for killing Meredith, most people would consider those to be excellent alibis. Finally, there is computer evidence that puts them at Raffaele's apartment at the most likely time of death.

There are more holes in this case than Swiss cheese. I don't care how many people you line up who think they are guilty, no reasonable honest person could say that there isn't more than enough REASONABLE doubt to acquit.

 

[Samson]

Is there a Doctor in the house? Reading this nonsense has made me I'll.

But Aiken77 is making as fine a case as can be made for guilt. Because people have taken the time to analyse his posts, there is no reason not to see the last dozen or so pages as a useful resource, especially for people who have no knowledge of the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you are wrong on every item or most every one. There is no evidence of them being there?
1. His DNA on the bra,
2. her blood /DNA in the bathroom and that other bedroom,
3. their footprrints in the hall,
4. the bloody print on the mat,
5. her lamp in the room,
6. along with no alibi for either of them.

7. If there was no evidence of them being at the cottage there would be no way for two juries to find them guilty.

Just a friendly correction:

1) It is a fallacy that Stefanoni "found Raffaele's DNA on the bra-clasp." At best, for one of the four traces not attributable to Meredith, Raffaele simply cannot be ruled out. The other three traces are consistent with contamination, as is the trace form which R. cannot be ruled out. Stefanoni at the Massei court gave evidence for four possible routes of contamination.

2) Knox's blood (one drip on the faucet) is not mixed with anything. Why her DNA being found in her own bathroom is suspicious is what is wrong with the prosecution of this case involving her.

3) Footprints in the hall. One print, not in blood, is probably attributable to Knox. In the very hallway between her bedroom and the bathroom. Why this is suspicious is beyond me. You saying this means that you truly believe that at 9 pm, Nov 1, 2007, the cottage was a sterile environment ready to accept forensic traces on to a "clean slate". This was Amanda's home!

4) The bloody print on the mat is inconclusive It is more than likely Rduy's print, but in any event, the nature of the material itslef makes id'ing the owner unlikely.

5) The lamp. The most likely candidate for taking the lamp in the room is one of the postal police would otherwise wanted illumination, without going in to contaminate the scene.

6) They are each other's alibi. Indeed, that's the only reason to charge Raffaele with a crime, so as to deprive Knox an alibi. The actual best alibi is the T.O.D. measured by gastric emptying. That means that T.O.D. was probably before 9:20 to 9:30 am.

7) If this were true, then there would be no wrongful convictions.

 

[Dan O.]

The reflection of the ceiling in the faucet is new to me, thank you, it was always a puzzle

Charlie made a nice summary photo that presents the full 360x360 view for most rooms in the cottage pulled from the Spheron imagery. It's probably the only view of the celling in most areas. This should be available in the folds of IA. It's quite usefull for seeing what the photographers didn't think was important.

 

[Strozzi]

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but the police were recording Raffaele and Amanda in the Questura minutes before the interrogation & coercion took place.

Raffaele wrote in his book that while he was being interrogated by the police in one interrogation room he heard the following:
"Then came a sound that chilled my bones: Amanda's voice, yowling for help in the next room. She was screaming in Italian, “Aiuto! Aiuto!”
I asked what was going on, and Moscatelli told me there was nothing to worry about. But that was absurd. I could hear police officers yelling, and Amanda sobbing and crying out another three or four times."

A police officer next to Raffaele leaned over and whispered to Raffaele that if he tried to go help Amanda he would beat him bloody. I believe that that is a threat that a cop might normally say in a loud voice; the reason the cop whispered it to Raffaele is because the cop knew or expected that the conversation was being recorded.

 

[js202]

If you are honest you will admit that the bathmat footprint could be attributed to maybe Raffaele and maybe Rudy and maybe half the Italian population.

I respectfully disagree with this. As I've argued elsewhere, neither the big toe nor the angle of the arch match Sollecito's reference print. They match Guede's just fine. Moreover, Guede admits to having rinsed his pant leg in the bathroom.

For me, this is yet another point that should not be yielded to the other side, because, as one of the small handful of thin strands which supports their case, it is merely more fabricated and massaged nonsense.

 

[Desert Fox]

I respectfully disagree with this. As I've argued elsewhere, neither the big toe nor the angle of the arch match Sollecito's reference print. They match Guede's just fine. Moreover, Guede admits to having rinsed his pant leg in the bathroom.

For me, this is yet another point that should not be yielded to the other side, because, as one of the small handful of thin strands which supports their case, it is merely more fabricated and massaged nonsense.

On my list, I am trying to work in the major pro guilt arguments and work up answers. I hope is is alright I avoid generally so called suspicious activities such as kissing her boyfriend.

Edit: Speaking about suspicious activity - I have a friend who his father died recently. His mother is planning to go on some trips.
Since she is not grieving in the approved manner, does that make her guilty of murder?

 

[Dan O.]

Just a friendly correction:

3) Footprints in the hall. One print, not in blood, is probably attributable to Knox. In the very hallway between her bedroom and the bathroom.

I would disagree with this point. While there is every reason to expect to find Amanda's bare feet printing tracks in diluted blood of Meredith between the bathroom and her bedroom given the fact that she showered and stepped on the blood stained bath mat, the combination of the Luminol and TMB tests show that these prints are something other than recent traces of blood. Luminol and TMB react to the same elements that either provide oxidents or catalizes the release of oxygen from the hydrogen peroxide. For the Luminol to give a strong reaction and the TMB to give none indicates that the element being detected is incorporated in the tile substrate and cannot be lifted by the moistened swab used for the TMB test. A recent blood stain would be easily picked up on a swab as evidenced by the disappearing shoeprints in Meredith's room and the hall and by the positive indication with the TMB test where there was a shoe print at marker #2 that had been earlier scrubbed away.

 

[acbytesla]

I respectfully disagree with this. As I've argued elsewhere, neither the big toe nor the angle of the arch match Sollecito's reference print. They match Guede's just fine. Moreover, Guede admits to having rinsed his pant leg in the bathroom.

For me, this is yet another point that should not be yielded to the other side, because, as one of the small handful of thin strands which supports their case, it is merely more fabricated and massaged nonsense.

That's ok js202. I've looked at that bathmat image and Rudy's and Raffaele's footprints for a long time I've also read the experts reports and my personal opinion is that it is not conclusive. I simply cannot say that it is or isn't a match to either. The bathmat is just too "fuzzy".

I am not interested in sides per se but the truth even if it incriminates Amanda or Raffaele. Maybe someone else can look at that and agree with your conclusion. It is just not me. There is plenty of other evidence in my mind that proves that Raffaele and Amanda weren't involved.