Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Wattson]

I think I can say that while it is vaguely possible that Guede did not murder Meredeth, I would argue in a jury room that it is still beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

I agree.

 

[AmyStrange]

It doesn't prove he killed her, in my opinion, only that he was there.

It makes it more probable that he was the killer than that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers, but it still doesn't prove it absolutely and definitely.

I don't believe in using one set of criteria for one defendant and another set for the other defendants. That also includes all the evidence against Rudy, but that is just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: Hell, for all we know, Rudy might have broken in and found Meredith dying or already dead and decided to try and save her, or decided to have some fun, Rudy style. And double hell, for all we know, while Meredith was opening the door, someone came from behind her and put a knife to her throat and forced her to let him/ her in and up the stairs. Later after Rudy broke in... Or even that she got home, got Giacomo's key went downstairs to water the plants before she called her mother and someone down there, put a knife to her throat and forced her upstairs to her room... even I don't believe any of that, but it's possible, just not very probable, although that last scenario might explain the blood found downstairs. It also may explain why Rudy (or someone else) may have staged the upstairs break-in to divert attention from what went on downstairs, but all that is just pure speculation on my part.

I think I can say that while it is vaguely possible that Guede did not murder Meredeth, I would argue in a jury room that it is still beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

-

I added a downstairs scenario, what do you think of that?

You wouldn't want me on your jury,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

No, the evidence tells us that Rudy was there when the stabbing occurred. Not just his bloody palm print but also his bloody footprint on the smudged semen stain.

Two items which should also be noted.
1. If somebody else attacked Meredeth, I would expect physical evidence of them for the attack.
2. If he was a witness, he would have kept his story and not blamed Amanda and Raff.

 

[Desert Fox]

-
I added a downstairs scenario, what did you think of that?

You wouldn't want me on your jury,

I have no clue if something happened downstairs. . . .I think it is too much speculation
Fact is that, as I wrote to Wattson, we only have evidence of Guede is the room where Meredeth was murdered.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

All that hilited part really proves absolutely and definitely is that he was there when (or shortly after) she was killed and nothing else. I'm not saying you have to believe this, because it's just what I believe, and that's only my opinion and my opinion is not a fact.

If I had been in charge of the investigation, I would have made sure all the evidence pointing to a staged break-in was video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and taken to the lab for testing. Inside the room, outside the window, and I would have also videotaped someone (or maybe a couple, two, three someones) trying to climb up there, of course, after all the evidence was gathered.

And I would have also done the same thing for Meredith's whole room and the downstairs, and made sure that it (Meredith's room at least) was swabbed for DNA and dusted for prints from top to bottom, and also that the body temp was taken immediately, and the semen stain tested, and everything in that room video-taped, photographed, bagged, tagged and also taken to the lab for more testing, and also made sure everything was done to the strictest of protocols, and fired anyone on the spot who didn't follow them, but then I probably would have put ILE over budget after the very first murder of which I was put in charge.

Plus, I would have tested all the knives there and also at Raffaele's place and opened up each one of them and done the same thing.

That's what I would have done, but that's me,

d

No, the evidence tells us that Rudy was there when the stabbing occurred. Not just his bloody palm print but also his bloody footprint on the smudged semen stain.

-

Please reread MY hilited part again,

d

-

 

[Wattson]

-


-

It doesn't prove he killed her, in my opinion, only that he was there.

It makes it more probable that he was the killer than that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers, but it still doesn't prove it absolutely and definitely.

I don't believe in using one set of criteria for one defendant and another set for the other defendants. That also includes all the evidence against Rudy, but that is just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: Hell, for all we know, Rudy might have broken in and found Meredith dying or already dead and decided to try and save her, or decided to have some fun, Rudy style. And double hell, for all we know, while Meredith was opening the door, someone came from behind her and put a knife to her throat and forced her to let him/ her in and up the stairs. Later after Rudy broke in... Or even that she got home, got Giacomo's key went downstairs to water the plants before she called her mother and someone down there, put a knife to her throat and forced her upstairs to her room... even I don't believe any of that, but it's possible, just not very probable, although that last scenario might explain the blood found downstairs. It also may explain why Rudy (or someone else) may have staged the upstairs break-in to divert attention from what went on downstairs, but all that is just pure speculation on my part.

-

There was no staged break in. There is evidence to show that.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have not quoted it in the last day or two here.

It's true. I haven't quoted it here in the last day or two.

 

[Wattson]

-




-

Please reread MY hilited part again,

d

-

You then made a remark that he might have came along after someone else stabbed her.

You've got his bloody palm print on the pillow under her butt.
..... his footprints in the blood.
..... his dna inside her, on her clothes, and on her purse
Guess what...Rudy killed her.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Two items which should also be noted.
1. If somebody else attacked Meredeth, I would expect physical evidence of them for the attack.
2. If he was a witness, he would have kept his story and not blamed Amanda and Raff.

-

I agree with both items, except for all of the second example. because if I was black and familiar with how LE worked and was only a witness, I would have lied too.

It's interesting what Rudy said the killer said to him as he ran past him (in the hall) out of Meredith's room after she was killed. I can't remember off hand exactly what it was but it was something like, "black man found guilty" or something like that,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You then made a remark that he might have came along after someone else stabbed her.

You've got his bloody palm print on the pillow under her butt.
..... his footprints in the blood.
..... his dna inside her, on her clothes, and on her purse
Guess what...Rudy killed her.

-

Yes, maybe to you it does, but to me, all it proves absolutely and definitely was that he was there. That's it,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

You have not quoted it in the last day or two here.

I find it curious that you ask for citation since you, for example, have cited one of the most known articles, by Barni (one of the two experts who tested the knife in the Florence trial) et al., albeit only quoted the abstract

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6578501#post6578501

(...)At the Friends of Amanda website, you can find an article about luminol from the journal Talanta (Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913). If you go through the references, two or three of them deal with DNA recovery. I have previously given these citations on this thread or the preceding one, but I do not recall previously citing the paper below. “It [luminol] had the greatest sensitivity and specificity. It did not destroy the DNA, and it could be reapplied.” Figure 1 and Table 4 show a profile and give the DNA peak heights. In this study Bluestar did not interfere with DNA recovery, but curiously its specificity was much lower than luminol.
Shanan S. Tobe M.Sc., Nigel Watson Ph.D., Niamh Nic Daéid Ph.D
“Evaluation of Six Presumptive Tests for Blood, Their Specificity, Sensitivity, and Effect on High Molecular-Weight DNA” Journal of Forensic Sciences 52, 2007, 102-109. (...)

 

[AmyStrange]

-

There was no staged break in. There is evidence to show that.

-

If Rudy got in the house another way and decided (for some stupid strange reason) he needed to break the window from the outside to make it look like that's how the killer (someone else) got in, wouldn't you say that was a staged break-in?

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree with both items, except for all of the second example. because if I was black and familiar with how LE worked and was only a witness, I would have lied too.

It's interesting what Rudy said the killer said to him as he ran past him (in the hall) out of Meredith's room after she was killed. I can't remember off hand exactly what it was but it was something like, "black man found guilty" or something like that,

He had access to a lawyer before he said anything to the police. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. Theoretically, if he just never said anything, his punishment should have been the same if I am understanding the Italian legal system and fast track.

Otherwise, to be blunt, if there was another person responsible, I would expect them to have left significant evidence of their involvement. I don't believe you argue that there was any cleanup.

 

[Wattson]

-


-

If Rudy got in the house another way and decided (for some stupid strange reason) he needed to break the window from the outside to make it look like that's how the killer (someone else) got in, wouldn't you say that was a staged break-in?

d

-

It was a real break in. Look at the dent (with glass imbedded in it) in the window frame. Look at the glass spray in the room. Look at the scuff mark at the top of the downstairs window. Look at the how the TV on top of the bureau is jammed against the wall from someone stepping on or tripping over the cable wire. All evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

I became 100% sure she was a murderer in summer 2009, after I listened to Knox's court testimony. At that point (after hearing her testimony) I looked back at other evidence, I read her hand written memory and I read her mop-shower story and reads parts of the papers of her Dec. 17. interrogation, and I started to look at the luminol footprints. Then I looked at the autopsy report findings and physical details of the scene.

I already believed there was very strong circumstantial evidence, but didn't know if she had a full role in the murder or maybe just a minor involvement of some kind.

But it was based on a) the autopsy, and on b) her testimony + her mop-shower story + Dec. 17. interrogation, and c) luminol prints, that I became 100% sure that she was fully involved in the murder. I have reached this complete certainty short after hearing court testimony.

-


-

I would never say 100%, unless I was there, but I appreciate your honesty.

My biggest problem (from the beginning, and still is) was the way she acted after they found Meredith's body. It was very very odd and not like most people would act after their roommate had been killed, but then again I have no idea how I would act in such a circumstance, but I would be dishonest if I said that it's not probable that I would have acted any differently. I'm a very odd person myself.

Plus, and as a purely psychologically experiment, I have studied how different people react and act at funerals and wakes, and some people act just like Amanda did. And at some of those funerals or wakes, some people who were the deceased best friend and/ or boy/ girlfriend, never even showed up at either.

Some people just don't act or speak well or coherently under pressure, especially in a courtroom setting, so unless she stood up in court and declared she killed Meredith right then and there, I take any of the testimony said in court with a big glass of salt water.

Some of the problems I myself have with Raffaele and Amanda's guilt I've already discussed HERE, so I won't go over them again, but I think it's possible she may have gone back to her apartment later and discovered the body, or heard strange scary sounds coming from behind Meredith's locked door, and decided not to say anything for some reason (but I wouldn't send her away for 26 years for that), but I find it highly improbable they or she killed her.

But, that's all just my opinion.

One thing that would definitely sway me, would be if they actually opened the knife they say was used to kill Meredith (actually any knife they found in Raffaele's apartment) and found an abundant amount of both Meredith's blood and DNA under there, that would do it.

But I wouldn't want Dr. S to do it. She's just too controversial, in my opinion. I would want someone appointed by the ISC to do it, and then have their work video taped, checked and double checked, including having all the data (electronic or otherwise) available for public review,

d

-

I, too, appreciate Machiavelli's honesty. He appears to actually believe the content of his posts.

Yet, what he believes is incredible. At one point Machiavelli said he could glean from her writings that she was immune from sleep deprivation issues. What is at stake there is that he believes she went into the Nov 5/6 interrogation ready and rested to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigators.

It's things like that which are troubling is if truly believes it, as well as the specific method by which he claims to have accumulated the belief.

 

[Desert Fox]

I, too, appreciate Machiavelli's honesty. He appears to actually believe the content of his posts.

Yet, what he believes is incredible. At one point Machiavelli said he could glean from her writings that she was immune from sleep deprivation issues. What is at stake there is that he believes she went into the Nov 5/6 interrogation ready and rested to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigators.

It's things like that which are troubling is if truly believes it, as well as the specific method by which he claims to have accumulated the belief.

He may very well believe what he writes. . . .Humans are pretty good at self deception.

None of us are immune but we can only do the best we can. Because of that, I have challenged repeatedly the pro guilt side to argue their case but get nothing back of substance.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

He had access to a lawyer before he said anything to the police. He could have simply kept his mouth shut. Theoretically, if he just never said anything, his punishment should have been the same if I am understanding the Italian legal system and fast track.

Otherwise, to be blunt, if there was another person responsible, I would expect them to have left significant evidence of their involvement. I don't believe you argue that there was any cleanup.

-

Thank you for being blunt.

I'm not arguing that Rudy isn't the killer, although I think it's possible (if he did kill her) that it might have been an accident.

All I'm saying is that there is no evidence that absolutely and definitely proves that Rudy did kill her. The killer might have had gloves on for all we know. Do they find forensic scientist's DNA at crime scenes?

Hopefully you're not saying that no evidence being there proves absolutely that no one else was there, because although it makes it very improbable, it's not impossible.

And you know as well as I do, criminals do and have done (and will probably do forever) stupid things,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

I, too, appreciate Machiavelli's honesty. He appears to actually believe the content of his posts.

Yet, what he believes is incredible. At one point Machiavelli said he could glean from her writings that she was immune from sleep deprivation issues. What is at stake there is that he believes she went into the Nov 5/6 interrogation ready and rested to pull the wool over the eyes of the investigators.

It's things like that which are troubling is if truly believes it, as well as the specific method by which he claims to have accumulated the belief.

The Man Who Whispers the Other Man's Opinion Re-writing it is back...

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It was a real break in. Look at the dent (with glass imbedded in it) in the window frame. Look at the glass spray in the room. Look at the scuff mark at the top of the downstairs window. Look at the how the TV on top of the bureau is jammed against the wall from someone stepping on or tripping over the cable wire. All evidence.

-

All good points, but (and although this IS improbable in my mind) that doesn't mean he didn't do all that to make it look more convincing, but that's still just my opinion,

d

-

 

[LondonJohn]

I find it curious that you ask for citation since you, for example, have cited one of the most known articles, by Barni (one of the two experts who tested the knife in the Florence trial) et al., albeit only quoted the abstract

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6578501#post6578501

Well, strangely enough, the abstract to the paper referenced here reads as follows (my highlighting):

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix®, Hemident™, and Bluestar© are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00324.x/abstract


Now call me Mr Picky, but that paragraph suggests explicitly to me that this paper found that both Luminol and TMB (Hemastix) equally sensitive (where "sensitive" is used here in the non-statistical meaning of dilution ratios).

Furthermore, while this paper uses Hemastix as the TMB test, the most appropriate form of TMB test - particularly when used following a Luminol positive - is the full two-part test (Hemastix combines both parts of the test onto the same test strip). The proper two-part TMB test (the one Stefanoni should have done) is considerably more specific (in both the statistical and colloquial sense) for blood than is Luminol. Therefore, a positive Luminol followed by a negative (for blood) 2-part TMB test indicates very strongly that the substance being tested is not blood. That's precisely why the 2-part TMB test is done in this scenario.