Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

IIRC Amanda claims she was whizzing around on a bath mat and the luminol could have detected pineapple juice, rather than blood.

Post of the day, irresistable imagery. Now I am challenged by CJ72's determination to not use emoticons on principal, and I sort of know where he is coming from. Damn.

 

[carbonjam72]

Knox says she had a shower the next morning and stood on the bath mat. Sufficient to explain highly dilute blood on her feet, which she then deposited as she walked down the hall. If to take the common pro-guilt argument Knox got blood on her feet at the time of the murder, then the Luminol positive marks would be from undiluted blood, and should be TMB positive. The Luminol positive marks cannot be attributable to someone standing in blood, they might be compatible with highly dilute blood, or some other chemical (e.g. iron rich soil, bleach etc.).

Just like the Knox DNA on the handle of the knife, the Luminol positive marks even if attributable to blood are most compatible with the innocent actions of Knox the next morning.

I thought Amanda said she did a bathmat shuffle, so how would that leave the residual luminol (but below TMB) threshold foot prints? By the way, does anyone know offhand how large that window of dilution is supposed to be that Amanda's feet miraculously dampened to?

I can't buy that scenario, the 'just the right dilution' scenario seems beyond reasonable doubt, and in any event, not relevant to the crime given the evidence in the murder room.

I applaud the ingenuity, but I think its bending over backwards to satisfy a pseudo-science hypothesis.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought Amanda said she did a bathmat shuffle, so how would that leave the residual luminol (but below TMB) threshold foot prints? By the way, does anyone know offhand how large that window of dilution is supposed to be that Amanda's feet miraculously dampened to?

I can't buy that scenario, the 'just the right dilution' scenario seems beyond reasonable doubt, and in any event, not relevant to the crime given the evidence in the murder room.

I applaud the ingenuity, but I think its bending over backwards to satisfy a pseudo-science hypothesis.

Presumably, she bathmat-shuffled from the bathroom to the bedroom wherein she had left her towel, dried herself off and then walked about the apartment barefoot. By that means, she could have transferred diluted blood to the floor. There is nothing wrong with that argument and nothing wrong with yours. Legal arguments are often layered:

1 the luminol did not reveal blood (negative TMB + lies about TMB + Phony's evidence that if TMB comes up negative you can be sure it's not blood)

2 but if the luminol shows blood, it still has to be proved that it was deposited by Amanda's feet. The presence of her DNA on the floor might have nothing to do with the blood there and may have been there already, and

3 further, if the blood was deposited by Amanda's bare feet there is a reasonable, innocent explanation which is consistent with her account of what she did.

Personally, I don't see how they get past point 1 but there is nothing wrong with having further arguments to hand.

 

[Grinder]

There is an argument (pace Mach), that highly dilute blood may be detected by Luminol, but not TMB. It may not be blood, if it is blood it fits with Knox's story. Either way not evidence of guilt.

Well, well, well, I hear Chris coming as I made this argument for years. The literature seems to make Luminol much more sensitive but several here argue TMB works in a different way and gives no false negatives.

To me it raises two questions: Would that mean there could have been blood on the knife and why didn't she test it with Luminol?

To your idea I added that a former renter could have showered with a tiny amount of blood in the water and then left the prints.

Of course the prints didn't match Amanda, they were only compatible, so not really evidence against Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

DNA does not lie around in 'specks', for the most part. It is housed within cells from which it must be extracted. [And before Chris shows up and wraps me on the knuckles, I have not forgotten about free DNA but I am sure Vixen is not talking about that].

It's "raps", not "wraps", unless, of course, he's applying clingfilm.

 

[Grinder]

Uh oh, somebody hasn't been reading Vixen's theory, have they? Which in turn owes a lot to Barbie's fantasy in which they were naked when they committed the murder, a fact Guede glossed over to save everyone from embarrassment, presumably. I think in Vixen's version they were naked because they had calculated (but not bothered to tell Guede, the moron) they could better conceal their involvement that way, whereas, as Barbie has it, it was because they were making love in Amanda's room and transited to murder without getting dressed.

But Nara heard them running away directly after the scream and Curatolo never saw them naked.

 

[Dan O.]

Er, hello? You've just had a shower, smell fragrant. Go to dry your hair and EW! there's a very smelly pile of faeces in the toilet, and you don't immediately flush it, whilst holding your nose and your breath? Really?

You are just repeating the arguments of the stupid guilters. Really.


There are pro flush arguments: it is disgusting **** and needs to be flushed. But there are also no flush arguments which you are apparently unaware of: Amanda has recently been chastized for not cleaning her own bowl, Filomena has implemented a fine system for insuring house chores are regularly done and cleaning this bathroom is a chore for somebody else. Amanda is thinking one of the possibilities is there has been an intruder and if there is an intruder you don't want to disturb the evidence left by the intruder.

Will Vixen address these counter arguments or just continue spamming the guilter arguments until he eventually reboots and starts all over again? We should be creating a list of these guilter arguments so we can just check them off on subsequent cycles. Or maybe create Guilter Argument Bingo cards.

 

[Kauffer]

Post of the day, irresistable imagery. Now I am challenged by CJ72's determination to not use emoticons on principal, and I sort of know where he is coming from. Damn.

It's on principle

 

[Grinder]

Yes, and Al Capone was only prosecuted by authorities who were offended because of his tax evasion.

So what? You made a claim that AFAIK is completely false. Mignini wasn't charged for accusing Spezi but rather for tapping the phones of LE and journalists. If there was a charge similar to what you claimed please source it.

IIRC, numbers has done some good DNA posts, as have others. It hard to tell who's an expert, and who has just done their homework well enough to fool me.

There are many here that have Number's expertise as Number's made clear.

And yes, I have a secret economic report on the per capita effect of the mass student exodus after the crime, the cost per Perugia resident per unsolved crime minute, as well as TGP (Tuscany Gross Product) loss valuations projected out for a full year. Unfortunately though I can't share this data for fear of compromising my sources. I refuse to use emoticons on principle.

Hysterically funny but of course you just made this claim to explain why Mignini started a frame up immediately. I forget, was this to explain not taking the body temp, which as Numbers a body temp expert has agreed wouldn't have made significant difference?

I don't think PIP emulating PGP argument style helps.

 

[Vixen]

No, I disagree. The bloody hand print is the total game-changer here. That forced Guede to admit that he had been in Kercher's room after she had been fatally stabbed. Otherwise he could have claimed that he'd had a consensual sexual fumble with Kercher, then gone home alone before the murderer(s) even entered the cottage.

And once Guede was forced (by way of the bloody hand print) to admit that he was in Kercher's room after she'd been fatally stabbed, his only option was to claim that the only reason he'd been there at that time was that he had arrived in the room after the stabbings had been inflicted (by the "real murderer(s)") and had tried valiantly to save Kercher. OK so far (as a potentially-plausible version of events).

But then the question arises: if he'd been valiantly trying to save Kercher, then why hadn't he called for help - either using the phone in the cottage or by running less than a minute to Piazza Grimana to get someone to call for an ambulance? Ooops - this is now a problem for Guede's version of events. So he decided to deal with it by claiming that he'd been traumatised and terrified (and threatened by the "real murderer(s)"), and therefore he felt unable/unwilling to raise the alarm.

OK - just about plausible. But now comes the bottom of the cul-de-sac into which Guede has just driven himself. He provably went home and went out dancing into the small hours of the night. This behaviour is absolutely incompatible with Guede's claims to have been in a traumatised, terrified state. A person in that state would have holed himself up in his apartment all night. Guede was, as they say, hoist by his own petard.

Just to play "devil's advocate" for a while. Suppose Rudy's statement is broadly true. He is waiting outside the cottage. Mez arrives and asks, "Have you been waiting long?"

Rudy is waiting for Amanda who owes him money for drugs. Whilst there, he is offered Fanta from the fridge and he and Mez chat - after all, Rudy did claim to know Mez' mother was seriously ill in England. Suppose they did get romantic and indulged in foreplay. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? However, there are no condoms, so it doesn't go further.

Amanda arrives. Rudy demands his money. His kebab starts making rumbling noises so he goes to the bathroom.

In the meantime, Amanda asks Mez to borrow it. Mez gives her short shrift. Amanda forcibly steals the cash from Mez' drawer. Raf turns up whilst Rudy is on the loo playing his ipod.

Mez is still vociferous towards Amanda. Raf restrains her and the pair pull knives on her.

They flee after the killing. Rudy comes out just in time to bump into Raf. He applies towels to Mez, etc. This accounts for bloody handprint and footprints, etc.

Of course, as the judge says, Rudy's story is highly implausible. However, to ignore all DNA evidence means to deny justice to one of the perps and also the victim, if indeed all were involved.

 

[Vixen]

You are just repeating the arguments of the stupid guilters. Really.


There are pro flush arguments: it is disgusting **** and needs to be flushed. But there are also no flush arguments which you are apparently unaware of: Amanda has recently been chastized for not cleaning her own bowl, Filomena has implemented a fine system for insuring house chores are regularly done and cleaning this bathroom is a chore for somebody else. Amanda is thinking one of the possibilities is there has been an intruder and if there is an intruder you don't want to disturb the evidence left by the intruder.

Will Vixen address these counter arguments or just continue spamming the guilter arguments until he eventually reboots and starts all over again? We should be creating a list of these guilter arguments so we can just check them off on subsequent cycles. Or maybe create Guilter Argument Bingo cards.

Amanda thinks there "might have been an intruder" but doesn't even mention it to Raf until over an hour later, after breakfast?

 

[Numbers]

So what? You made a claim that AFAIK is completely false. Mignini wasn't charged for accusing Spezi but rather for tapping the phones of LE and journalists. If there was a charge similar to what you claimed please source it.



There are many here that have Number's expertise as Number's made clear.



Hysterically funny but of course you just made this claim to explain why Mignini started a frame up immediately. I forget, was this to explain not taking the body temp, which as Numbers a body temp expert has agreed wouldn't have made significant difference?

I don't think PIP emulating PGP argument style helps.

{Emphasis added to quote.}

I have agreed that it is possible that body temperature wouldn't have made a practically significant difference in estimating time of death.

I consider all the quibble words important, in part because of my high level of "expertise".

 

[Kauffer]

IIRC Amanda claims she was whizzing around on a bath mat and the luminol could have detected pineapple juice, rather than blood.

I don't know what point you are addressing, but it's nothing I said in my post. And nobody has ever suggested pineapple juice for the reagent.

My point, which you cannot address, is that the various prosecution hypotheses require Amanda's multiple entrances to and exists from Kercher's room and entrances and exists from other rooms and into and out of walkways. Yet there is no foot or shoe tracked blood evidence present to demonstrate these hypotheses. Nothing, at all.

For example, the break in, to have been staged, particularly and specifically requires somebody to have left Kercher's room after the slaying and walk into Romanelli's room and then back again. The presence of a glass shard in Kercher's room is proof of this. No guilty theory of Amanda permits that she could leave Kercher's room after slaughtering her flatmate in abattoir style without returning there later.

 

[Samson]

It's on principle

Yes indeed, I like that the forum has no spell check, so we are on our own. Not that spell check would have arrested me for that misdemeanour.

 

[Kauffer]

Just to play "devil's advocate" for a while. Suppose Rudy's statement is broadly true. He is waiting outside the cottage. Mez arrives and asks, "Have you been waiting long?"

Rudy is waiting for Amanda who owes him money for drugs. Whilst there, he is offered Fanta from the fridge and he and Mez chat - after all, Rudy did claim to know Mez' mother was seriously ill in England. Suppose they did get romantic and indulged in foreplay. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? However, there are no condoms, so it doesn't go further.

Amanda arrives. Rudy demands his money. His kebab starts making rumbling noises so he goes to the bathroom.

In the meantime, Amanda asks Mez to borrow it. Mez gives her short shrift. Amanda forcibly steals the cash from Mez' drawer. Raf turns up whilst Rudy is on the loo playing his ipod.

Mez is still vociferous towards Amanda. Raf restrains her and the pair pull knives on her.

They flee after the killing. Rudy comes out just in time to bump into Raf. He applies towels to Mez, etc. This accounts for bloody handprint and footprints, etc.

Of course, as the judge says, Rudy's story is highly implausible. However, to ignore all DNA evidence means to deny justice to one of the perps and also the victim, if indeed all were involved.

I can come up with a bunch of evidence absent theories too. You are telling a story, a fiction, which omits an appreciation of known facts. Not even Richard Owens' reports allow for your fantasy.

 

[katy_did]

I thought Amanda said she did a bathmat shuffle, so how would that leave the residual luminol (but below TMB) threshold foot prints? By the way, does anyone know offhand how large that window of dilution is supposed to be that Amanda's feet miraculously dampened to?

I can't buy that scenario, the 'just the right dilution' scenario seems beyond reasonable doubt, and in any event, not relevant to the crime given the evidence in the murder room.

I applaud the ingenuity, but I think its bending over backwards to satisfy a pseudo-science hypothesis.

You also have to take into account the misapplication of the luminol - seems like they used too much of it, which would've further diluted the samples available for TMB testing.

There's certainly an argument that if a TMB test is negative, then the default assumption should be that no blood is present. So from a legal point of view, and in terms of the usability of the evidence, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the footprints be discounted.

But in terms of what is actually likely to have made them, Amanda stepping on the bloody bathmat that morning does seem like the most obvious explanation, doesn't it? I mean, if you knew nothing except that those prints had been found, it's the one explanation that fits with what we know. I could never figure out how Massei was able to suggest that the prints were made in diluted blood residue after someone had cleaned their feet of blood, without it being really obvious to him that stepping on the bathmat as Amanda says she did would've produced exactly the same result - almost as if he was inviting the defence to make that argument.

 

[Samson]

So what? You made a claim that AFAIK is completely false. Mignini wasn't charged for accusing Spezi but rather for tapping the phones of LE and journalists. If there was a charge similar to what you claimed please source it.



There are many here that have Number's expertise as Number's made clear.



Hysterically funny but of course you just made this claim to explain why Mignini started a frame up immediately. I forget, was this to explain not taking the body temp, which as Numbers a body temp expert has agreed wouldn't have made significant difference?

I don't think PIP emulating PGP argument style helps.

Numbers'

 

[Kauffer]

Yes indeed, I like that the forum has no spell check, so we are on our own. Not that spell check would have arrested me for that misdemeanour.

In my world people get arrested for misdemeanours of this type all the time.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding violations of Convention Article 5 in the Knox-Sollecito case, this recent ECHR judgment may lay out relevant evaluation criteria for the fairness of extended imprisonment after an initial justification of arrest hearing:

MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
26289/12 29891/12

104. As noted at paragraph 75 above, Article 5 § 3 is structurally concerned with two separate matters which confer distinct rights and which are not temporally linked: the early stages following an arrest on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, and the period pending any trial before a criminal court, during which the individual may be detained or released with or without conditions (see T.W. v. Malta, cited above, § 49, McKay, cited above, § 31 and Medvedyev v. France, cited above, § 119). During the initial stage under the first limb of Article 5 § 3, the detainee’s detention may be justified by the existence, on its own, of a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. However, the persistence of suspicion will not suffice to justify, after a certain lapse of time, the prolongation of the detention, although the Court has not attempted to translate this concept into a fixed number of days, weeks, months or years, or into various periods depending on the seriousness of the offence (Stögmüller v. Austria, cited above, § 4). It therefore falls to the Court in the present case to decide whether the applicants were at all times detained under the first limb of Article 5 § 3, or whether at some point their continued detention could no longer be justified by the existence of “reasonable suspicion”.
105. In the present case the applicants were detained for twelve days, which was a relatively short period of time. As such, the Court considers that they were at all times in “the early stages” of the deprivation of liberty, when their detention could be justified by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence; it was not, therefore, necessary that any consideration be given to their conditional release during this period.

{Emphasis added.}

 

[Grinder]

{Emphasis added to quote.}

I have agreed that it is possible that body temperature wouldn't have made a practically significant difference in estimating time of death.

I consider all the quibble words important, in part because of my high level of "expertise".

I thought after you read my expert comment, with quote that rigor would have fully set in by then, you see that temp 8 hours or more after death in uncertain temperature conditions would have precluded the test making a significant difference in TOD estimate accuracy.