Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

the lamp bled?

 

[Grinder]

Dup

 

[Dan O.]

When the PGP were still on boards that allowed debate the question of how the kids knew to stage the break-in Rudi-style came up often. The PGP explained that either Rudi had regaled them with his break-in techniques or they had read about it in the local paper's crime section. Now, of course, no one could produce said crime report but what the hey.

Bayesian logic clearly reveals Rudi did the break-in Rudi-style.

No, simply stupid guilters that can't see the connections. Sophie Purton witnessed Rudy breaking into the Lawyers office from her bedroom window. she tells Meredith, Meredith tells Amanda and Amanda tells Raffaele. The problem is that Sophie wouldn't know who Rudy WAS.

Additionally, the m.o. Was compleatly different. The lawyers office required stealth being on a quiet cul-de-sack with residences all around and breaking into a business presumed to be closed for the weekend. The cottage required an alarming noise to jog any resident that might be home studying and not want to be disturbed by visitors.

 

[Antony]

There is mixed blood on the faucet and bidet, in Filomena's room (x 2).

It matters not a jot, why Amanda was bleeding. What's salient is her blood was mixed with Mez' dying blood whilst both were wet.

Amanda therefore ipso facto, was at the murder scene either during, or within twenty minutes of it.

QED::

No. This is all more guilter fabrication. There was never any "mixed blood" claimed in any evidence in court - just "mixed DNA" (which clearly resulted from sloppy collection practices).

Vixen, these bogus claims only ever convinced people who were poorly-informed on the case. Everyone here already knows what the evidence was, and also all the bogus "evidence" that was bandied about in the blogosphere while the case was current. It won't advance your argument in the slightest with the people on this forum.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"nonsense" is the best word I could think of

There's the language of lur-ve. Lots of couples get by barely understanding each other's language. This is a red herring.

Vixen,

Rudy and Amanda barely knew each other. Your explanation is nonsense.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Wow, not mixed blood again

There is mixed blood on the faucet and bidet, in Filomena's room (x 2).

It matters not a jot, why Amanda was bleeding. What's salient is her blood was mixed with Mez' dying blood whilst both were wet.

Amanda therefore ipso facto, was at the murder scene either during, or within twenty minutes of it.

QED::

Vixen,

No, there is no mixed blood; there is mixed DNA (the handy Q and A format of this blog entry may facilitate the discussion). DNA cannot tell you what biological matter it was associated with, nor when it was deposited. There are examples of mixed DNA in the forensic literature that cannot possibly have been deposited at the same time.

 

[Kaosium]

It's helpful to read the earliest reports. First impressions and hunches are often the correct ones, before the chattering classes overthink it.

For that reason, I do think the early judges' belief the motive was aggressive sex by more than one person, the most likely. We know both Raf and Amanda had strong rape and stalker fantasies. That does not prove anything in itself. However, if you are going to argue "burglary gone wrong, therefore Rudy", then by the same logic, if it was a sex orgy scenario gone wrong, as Massei reasoned, then the profile of aggressive sex fantasists as perps fits, by the same criteria as "it must have been by a career cat burglar".

That wasn't his reasoning, you've never read Massei.

 

[Kaosium]

the lamp bled?

LOL!!!!

 

[Kauffer]

OK. The lamp.

And we have another winner!

But here we go again. You say "The lamp". You don't say "The lamp because..." and make an argument for why you think it is relevant.

You are adducing the presence of Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room as evidence of her presence in the room at the time of the murder.

Please explain how this is proof?

Let me help you. The only theory about the presence of the lamp that I have heard is in relation to the idea that Amanda cleaned Meredith's room of evidence of her and Raffaele's presence and involvement in the murder. So, the story goes, after slaughtering Kercher, she leaves her room and walks into her own to collect her lamp. But there is no evidence of this journey having taken place.

She then walks back into Kercher's room with the lamp. But there is no evidence of this journey taking place either. She then plugs in the lamp and uses it as a light source to help her identify evidence of herself and Raffaele in Meredith's room in order that she can clean it up. But wait! She needs cleaning materials. Where does she get them? From the kitchen? From Raffaele's? Does she go to the kitchen or to Garibaldi? Choices, choices. But wait, there's no evidence she went to the kitchen and there's no evidence, in the form of transfer from the crime scene on her clothes or at Raffaele's flat.

So, now, back in Meredith's room, with the cleaning materials she's obtained from the kitchen or from Raffaele's and with the benefit of the lamp, she gets down on her hands and needs, searching for and finding every tiny piece of evidence of herself and Raffaele in the room, carefully distinguishing these traces from Guede's traces, item by item, piece by piece, including invisible DNA. But wait! There's no evidence she got down on her hands and knees in blood in Meredith's room and there's no evidence in the form of transfer of blood on her clothes.

Additionally, there is no evidence in the room that any cleaning activity took place, even if it is possible to identify and distinguish all of her traces and all of Raffaele's traces from Guede's traces, which it isn't. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any cleaning materials having been used anywhere in connection with the murder, including mops, buckets, rags, cloths, water, detergent, bleach and bleach substitute.

So, it would seem, this theory about the lamp being proof of Amanda's presence in Meredith's room, hasn't got much to it.

I expect your theory must be a better one and I'd love to hear it.

I'd also like to hear from you how many innocent explanations for the presence of the lamp can you think of?

 

[Dan O.]

There is proof others were there that night. Amanda herself confirmed they were her footprints,as highlighted by luminol, on Diane (?) Sawyer show. There's the Raf footprint on the bathmat, there's the mixed Amanda/Mez DNA. Both would need to have been bleeding within twenty minutes of each other for the blood DNA to mix and set in such a fashion.

The rock would have been thrown - whether from the inside or the outside - by whoever had the idea.

You read much and comprehend little. Amanda confirmed that she might have left bare footprints in the hall that could have diluted traces of Meredith's blood when she presented the story of sliding back to her room on the bathmat after discovering that her towel was not in the bathroom. She made this statement on November 17 at least 24 hours before the police claim they applied the luminol in that hall.

I put up a photo lineup for that bathmat footprint in front of a bunch of skeptics that had not before seen the evidence and weren't following the case. While the majority oppinion was that they had insufficient information to make a decission, of the ones that could decide, the decission was 2 to 1 in favor of the match for Rudy.

The mixed blood is a guilter fantasy. Please describe what laboratory magic was used to determine that the mixed DNA actually came from blood from both donors?

Do you really thing the evidence in Filomena's room could be created by throwing the rock from the inside? Let's see your detailed explanation for how this could be done.

 

[Kaosium]

So you confirm Amanda was bleeding as of the time of the murder,

No, he didn't.

From Massei, page 280 of the PMF translation:

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

and Grinder confirms there was blood on her pillow from the earrings.

Yep, but from several days before.

If you were a detective, that wouldn't ne a clue?

Detectives need to be able to evaluate facts, you can start here when you're ready to emerge from the cave.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol yet again?

There is proof others were there that night. Amanda herself confirmed they were her footprints,as highlighted by luminol, on Diane (?) Sawyer show. There's the Raf footprint on the bathmat, there's the mixed Amanda/Mez DNA. Both would need to have been bleeding within twenty minutes of each other for the blood DNA to mix and set in such a fashion.

The rock would have been thrown - whether from the inside or the outside - by whoever had the idea.

Vixen,

This is utter hogwash. One, the luminol foot tracks have no distinguishing marks. The one in Amanda's room does not look like her reference footprint with respect to the second toe. Can you provide an exact quote with respect to what Amanda said. Two, Like DNA, luminol cannot be dated. Three, Rinaldi discredited himself so badly with respect to the shoe prints in Meredith's room, that I don't see how he has even the slightest bit of credibility with respect to the track on the mat.

IMHO the bathmat print should not be taken as evidence against anyone; it lacks detail; it was made on an irregular surface; it was probably made in bloody water that did not allow for a particularly clear image to be made. It is more likely than not that the luminol tracks were not made in blood. This point has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere.

There were luminol-positive blobs in Filomena's room, but a true confirmatory test for blood was either not done, or it was not reported. The evidence collected on 18 December deserves to be taken with a deep discount, if it is even accepted as evidence at all. The risk of contamination over six weeks, with so much foot traffic in the intervening period, is too great.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, but if Rudy "lived within walking distance of two other high rise burglaries within two weeks", then the same could be said of Raf, who lived close by to Rudy.

I hear what you're saying, but you have to be careful not to make causal links that have no logical basis on closer examination.

Stupid response ignores the links. In one case Rudy was identified by an eye witness. In the other Rudy was caught in possession of the stollen property. Did you really not know this?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's helpful to read the earliest reports. First impressions and hunches are often the correct ones, before the chattering classes overthink it.

For that reason, I do think the early judges' belief the motive was aggressive sex by more than one person, the most likely. We know both Raf and Amanda had strong rape and stalker fantasies. That does not prove anything in itself. However, if you are going to argue "burglary gone wrong, therefore Rudy", then by the same logic, if it was a sex orgy scenario gone wrong, as Massei reasoned, then the profile of aggressive sex fantasists as perps fits, by the same criteria as "it must have been by a career cat burglar".

- Factoid: "We know both Raf and Amanda had strong rape and stalker fantasies." There is no evidence at all of this. If there was, you would present it. It there was, the ISC in March 2015 would not have exonerated them - exonerated mainly from these evidenceless speculations which have plagued this case.

- Factoid: "if it was a sex orgy scenario gone wrong, as Massei reasoned, then the profile of aggressive sex fantasists as perps fits." You have obviously not read Judge Massei's report. His report is now officially annulled anyway, but he said that it was a crime begun with Rudy's lust, the beginning of which had nothing to do with AK and/or RS. Once again, you make evidenceless speculations, something that has plagued this case from the beginning, which the ISC of March 2015 corrected.

- Factoid: "by the same criteria as "it must have been by a career cat burglar"." Your equivalency does not work. The fact is, Rudy was a "cat burglar" on a break-in spree. There is no similar criteria for either AK and/or RS. None. Not even the now annulled convicting judges did that.​

Why do you? Once again, you'll simply ignore this question and continue with your random factoid generator.

 

[Dan O.]

Kauffer, speaking of Amanda's diary, what is your theory as to why she tore out the pages in October leading up to the murder? Enquiring minds need to know.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rison-guard-Angela-Antonelli-reveals-all.html

The song she credits with helping her through her four years in prison was Let It Be, the final Beatles single before Paul McCartney left the band.

It meant so much to her that, according to warder Angela Antonelli, she tore out a page from her notebook and wrote out the lyrics, in English and Italian, and gave it to Ms Antonelli* as a gift.​

 

[Bill Williams]

OK. The lamp.

I knew we'd get around to the lamp.

There's a funny thing about that lamp. It's mainly because there is no evidence, none at all, of Amanda Knox in Meredith's bedroom that the lamp needs to be trotted out.

Where is AngloLawyer when you need him?

Vixen - first and foremost: what was the lamp being used for?

 

[Kaosium]

There is mixed blood on the faucet and bidet, in Filomena's room (x 2).

No there wasn't.

It matters not a jot, why Amanda was bleeding. What's salient is her blood was mixed with Mez' dying blood whilst both were wet.

No it wasn't.

Amanda therefore ipso facto, was at the murder scene either during, or within twenty minutes of it.

No, she wasn't.

Explain to me why Stefanoni hid the TMB tests on these items (except for the ones on the tap & bidet) and lied about them in court.

Because they were negative.

 

[Kaosium]

I knew we'd get around to the lamp.

There's a funny thing about that lamp. It's mainly because there is no evidence, none at all, of Amanda Knox in Meredith's bedroom that the lamp needs to be trotted out.

Where is AngloLawyer when you need him?

Vixen - first and foremost: what was the lamp being used for?

Anglo will be so cross with us that Vixen brought up the lamp and we didn't wait for him!

 

[carbonjam72]

No. This is all more guilter fabrication. There was never any "mixed blood" claimed in any evidence in court - just "mixed DNA" (which clearly resulted from sloppy collection practices).

Vixen, these bogus claims only ever convinced people who were poorly-informed on the case. Everyone here already knows what the evidence was, and also all the bogus "evidence" that was bandied about in the blogosphere while the case was current. It won't advance your argument in the slightest with the people on this forum.

And Alan Dershowitz, who is a Harvard professor, ergo all knowing, wise and fair.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see how Rudy not speaking English and Amanda not speaking Italian prevents drugs, sex and crime sharing?

Have you never been in a loud club or disco, where, despite not being able to hear a word, couples manage to get off with each other. Where there's a will...

They may "get off together",but they don't murder together. I can just see myself having a 3 way with 2 girls who barely speak my language and I just met and one of girls tells me to stab the other one. Am I going to pull a knife from my pants or something else? I'm not going to kill for some woman I just met.

Your suggestion is total lunacy.