Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Fact remains, that is Amanda's blood, deposited either on the eve of 1.11.2007 or on the 2.11.2007, and her blood was mixed with Mez'. Amanda confirmed with Dr Mignini the blood was not there the day before.

Even if the blood came from Amanda's ear, or brushing teeth, it was wet the same time as Mez'. There's no getting away from it.

You are making claims without evidence. . . .Assuming that Meredeth's DNA was found in the same sample, that does not mean mixed blood but just means mixed DNA.

 

[Planigale]

Dr Gill supports the defense, so is not impartial and objective.

If you analyse his hypothesis, it is astonishingly vapid. If Dr Gill is to be believed, DNA evidence is not valid if the murderer lives in the same household, even if the murderer's blood is mixed in with the victim's.

How fortuitous for the defense, given Amanda's blood was all over the faucet, mixed with Mez' immediately after the murder. Nice one!

So what is the evidence for

1) That there was blood present that belonged to Knox
2) That there was blood present that belonged to Kercher.
3) The time of deposition of each (that Knox failed to see a drop of blood or failed to recall seeing a drop of blood is not evidence of time of deposition).
4) That the samples were mixed as opposed to adjacent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again the thread is shooting all over the place. It seems clear that responding to Vixen on more than one subject at a time just leads to quick responses with standard pro-guilt arguments and no serious engagement with the issues.

In order to not be part of the problem, I am not going to participate in any discussions that involve Vixen unless the thread narrows its focus for at least enough time to get to the point where a reasonable discussion of the particular issue can occur.

Me too. Without any meaningful attempt at a response to:

1) a rapid fire, one sentence factoid
2) a citation from evidence showing it is wrong, and just an invention
3) next rapid fire, one sentence factoid
4) repeat​

It is time to move on.

 

[Dan O.]

How about limiting our replies to currently active discussion topics plus one new topic per day. A reasonable definition for "day" would be the 24 hour period starting at 00:00 gmt. Only the first new topic brought up by a poster in this period should be replied to. All other new topics by the same poster in that 24 hour period should be ignored. (please note, this policy should apply to all posters equally, it is not singling out any particular poster).

 

[Bill Williams]

How about limiting our replies to currently active discussion topics plus one new topic per day. A reasonable definition for "day" would be the 24 hour period starting at 00:00 gmt. Only the first new topic brought up by a poster in this period should be replied to. All other new topics by the same poster in that 24 hour period should be ignored. (please note, this policy should apply to all posters equally, it is not singling out any particular poster).

So - is this your topic for the next 24 hours?

 

[Samson]

How about limiting our replies to currently active discussion topics plus one new topic per day. A reasonable definition for "day" would be the 24 hour period starting at 00:00 gmt. Only the first new topic brought up by a poster in this period should be replied to. All other new topics by the same poster in that 24 hour period should be ignored. (please note, this policy should apply to all posters equally, it is not singling out any particular poster).

This is an interesting idea. But all posts in that first hour might be subject to a ballot, conducted by a process to be suggested. Alternatively the second hour people would vote to choose the best subject. These times could be reduced to 30 minutes.

 

[davefoc]

How about limiting our replies to currently active discussion topics plus one new topic per day. A reasonable definition for "day" would be the 24 hour period starting at 00:00 gmt. Only the first new topic brought up by a poster in this period should be replied to. All other new topics by the same poster in that 24 hour period should be ignored. (please note, this policy should apply to all posters equally, it is not singling out any particular poster).

This seems reasonable to me. But I'm not sure of the nuts and bolts of how it would work. Perhaps if a general consensus develops around the idea people will just gravitate towards some sort of ad hoc implementation that works.

I hadn't thought of being as democratic as you propose but in considering your idea it not only strikes me as more fair than the way I was envisioning it, it strikes me as a way to focus more on a particular side topic than happens now. Quite often only a few people participate in a particular side topic and the topic is gone before I have a chance to think much about it or absorb the details in a way that I would like.

 

[lonepinealex]

Just start more threads, everyone would love that

 

[Dan O.]

Topic creation limit proposal

This is an interesting idea. But all posts in that first hour might be subject to a ballot, conducted by a process to be suggested. Alternatively the second hour people would vote to choose the best subject. These times could be reduced to 30 minutes.

The limit applies to each poster individually. I may choose to start one topic and you may choose to start a different topic. Both topics would be valid that day and both of us may contribute to either topic. The limit just says that we cannot start a new topic until the next 24 hour period.

 

[Dan O.]

Topic creation limit proposal

So - is this your topic for the next 24 hours?

I'll accept that.

Also, it would help to identify what the topic is by setting the title for the post.

 

[Samson]

Amanda names Guede who watched her kill.

The limit applies to each poster individually. I may choose to start one topic and you may choose to start a different topic. Both topics would be valid that day and both of us may contribute to either topic. The limit just says that we cannot start a new topic until the next 24 hour period.

Ok, it appears the coach just turned in to a pumpkin, so my topic is how can it be explained a guilty Amanda might uniquely describe Guede to the police as a visitor to the house, the only witness to her crime she has no possible control over, just before the fateful interrogation?

 

[davefoc]

I'll accept that.

Also, it would help to identify what the topic is by setting the title for the post.

I like your idea and I will attempt to comply.

 

[Dan O.]

Topic creation limit proposal

This seems reasonable to me. But I'm not sure of the nuts and bolts of how it would work. Perhaps if a general consensus develops around the idea people will just gravitate towards some sort of ad hoc implementation that works.

I'd prefer not to use the fixed start time for everyone but it seemed like the easiest solution because we don't see what time zone each poster is in. A floating window would also work where the clock starts when a new topic is posted and that poster must wait 24 hours before posting the next topic.

I hadn't thought of being as democratic as you propose but in considering your idea it not only strikes me as more fair than the way I was envisioning it, it strikes me as a way to focus more on a particular side topic than happens now. Quite often only a few people participate in a particular side topic and the topic is gone before I have a chance to think much about it or absorb the details in a way that I would like.

That's what I hope happens. With fewer topics being discussed we should get more points of view on each topic and deeper research.

 

[Mary_H]

Before you apply the new rules, I am trying to re-familiarize myself with the thread and would like to follow up on an earlier post:

If Amanda did it, and several judges, including the pre-trial judges believed she did, and not only that, wielded the killer knife, then Amanda joins Joanna as being that ultra rare killer, a female who kills by stabbing.

Vixen, I know Nencini claimed Amanda stabbed Meredith, but I don't remember any other judges specifically saying they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Can you direct me to the records supporting these claims? Thank you.

 

[davefoc]

Ok, it appears the coach just turned in to a pumpkin, so my topic is how can it be explained a guilty Amanda might uniquely describe Guede to the police as a visitor to the house, the only witness to her crime she has no possible control over, just before the fateful interrogation?

I believe the situation is that Knox put Guede in a list of people that had been to the house and conceivably could have committed the murder just before the police interrogations begin?

And your contention here is that she voluntarily made the police aware of Guede's visiting the house and if she had been guilty she would have hidden Guede's name from the police because she wouldn't want to help the police identify her accomplice?

A problem with this argument is that it isn't much stronger than the counter argument: Knox knew she was guilty and in an effort to avoid suspicion she put her accomplice's name on the list so that if he was captured she wouldn't be accused of hiding him.

Note: I think some of my memory of the details may be in error. It seems like the list was prepared by Sollecito and Knox together but I'm not sure and I think they created the list without police asking for it? I'm not sure about that either right now.

 

[Dan O.]

Amanda names Guede who watched her kill.

Ok, it appears the coach just turned in to a pumpkin, so my topic is how can it be explained a guilty Amanda might uniquely describe Guede to the police as a visitor to the house, the only witness to her crime she has no possible control over, just before the fateful interrogation?

Hypothetically speaking, it would be risky not to name him along with all the other boys that visited the cottage or met Meredith. There were other witnesses to the fact that Rudy was in the downstairs apartment at the same time as Amanda and Meredith. If Amanda left Ruty out it would appear to be a delibrate hole in her story.

 

[Samson]

I believe the situation is that Knox put Guede in a list of people that had been to the house and conceivably could have committed the murder just before the police interrogations begin?

And your contention here is that she voluntarily made the police aware of Guede's visiting the house and if she had been guilty she would have hidden Guede's name from the police because she wouldn't want to help the police identify her accomplice?

A problem with this argument is that it isn't much stronger than the counter argument: Knox knew she was guilty and in an effort to avoid suspicion she put her accomplice's name on the list so that if he was captured she wouldn't be accused of hiding him.

Note: I think some of my memory of the details may be in error. It seems like the list was prepared by Sollecito and Knox together but I'm not sure and I think they created the list without police asking for it? I'm not sure about that either right now.

Hypothetically speaking, it would be risky not to name him along with all the other boys that visited the cottage or met Meredith. There were other witnesses to the fact that Rudy was in the downstairs apartment at the same time as Amanda and Meredith. If Amanda left Ruty out it would appear to be a delibrate hole in her story.

I contend this is a much higher risk strategy, directing the police effectively to seek out Rudy Guede, when in a real world situation she would hope he was under the radar. Remember she had one encounter, and would not expect him to be front and center in the minds of others. And it turns out the police were slow to find him, so a conservative strategy would have been better than her clever aggressive one.

 

[Kauffer]

8. Even if this was the murder knife Knox's DNA could not originate from handling it at the time of the murder, so is irrelevant. Therefore the evidential value of the knife is purely dependant on the DNA typing of Kercher that may or may not have originated from the knife.

9. Lack of any controls for the testing process that resulted in the positive DNA result for Kercher.

10. The knife did not fit the bloody imprint on the sheet. 11. The knife was incompatible with most of the wounds. (All wounds could have been made by a single knife of a smaller size similar to that suggested by the bloody imprint.

The evidence from the wounds including the eccymosis demonstrates that the kitchen knife was not a murder weapon. This knife is too wide for the small wound and too long for the larger ones. At a depth of 8cms, the hilt of the actual knife used as the murder weapon struck the outside of the wounds - with that knife plunged into Kercher with multiple strikes. We can set aside the DNA evidence altogether. This crime was committed in 2007. Detectives in 1907 would have had the tools to arrive at the correct analysis, thus trumping the abilities of these modern day Italian investigators.

The most extraordinary claim with regard to the knife was the attempt to infer that the location of Amanda's DNA was indicative of her holding the knife in a position compatible with a stabbing motion.

 

[Strozzi]

Before you apply the new rules, I am trying to re-familiarize myself with the thread and would like to follow up on an earlier post:



Vixen, I know Nencini claimed Amanda stabbed Meredith, but I don't remember any other judges specifically saying they believed Amanda wielded the knife. Can you direct me to the records supporting these claims? Thank you.

No, she can't.

 

[Strozzi]

Hypothetically speaking, it would be risky not to name him along with all the other boys that visited the cottage or met Meredith. There were other witnesses to the fact that Rudy was in the downstairs apartment at the same time as Amanda and Meredith. If Amanda left Ruty out it would appear to be a delibrate hole in her story.

Rudi was walking with three of the guys who lived downstairs when Amanda, walking home one day, ran into the group and they all walked back to the cottage as a group. Amanda went into her upstairs apartment. A while later she and Meredith went downstairs to hang out with the group downstairs where they chatted until very late and the guys passed around a few joints. Rudi was one of five guys then downstairs. Please note that Amanda didn't know or remember Rudi's name. She didn't know his nationality. Rudi didn't make much of an impression on her.