Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

What I heard when I joined it is because Randi is a bit of a prude and wanted a loftier tone on a board with his name on it. That's why we could call Judge Massei a poopyhead but not a **** for brains--obviously, it's far more intellectually advanced and appropriate at a church lemonade social. Now that we are out from under his puritanical thumb you'd think a freer, more relaxed air would sweep through the board, but no, not yet.

It's not just on this site but everywhere. The S word is one of George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on television but poop and crap have never been bleeped. Why is that? All mean exactly the same thing but for whatever reason **** is not acceptable.

Who decided this?

 

[Strozzi]

Wow! 14 posts from 11:51 am to 1:05 pm . . .

Yes, it is a lot of comments in a short period of time, but what she is doing is energetically defending her arguments.

 

[Bill Williams]

The following quote is from a Lockerbie thread,from a seasoned observer of what drives the various "sides" in these debates:

"It's an odd characteristic of the conspiracy nut that they latch on to a single point that they deem enormously significant, and then refuse to examine the rest of the evidence to see if this actually supports (or indeed torpedoes) their pet theory."​

There are many corollaries to this. One corollary which can be fashioned surrounds the claim above, which seems to be dismissing the reality of the bathmat-foottrack being found on the soft-cloth of the mat-material.

It's a simple dismissmal, that claims to explain so much: "Of course footprints are measurable. We know it's a porous cotton bathmat so we adjust for it. The fact it is diluted blood is neither here nor there. "

Adjust for it? Adjusting for it is like Cinderella's step-sisters trying to cram their feet into the glass-slipper! All the while, with a rather wide margin-of -error introduced by the porous cotton, that the commentator dismisses with the way of a hand.

The important thing, is what it proves: not how one arrives at the proof.

Corollary #1.

 

[bagels]

I wonder if the bloody bathmat print belongs to the known criminal who was proven to be at the murder and confessed, on paper, to going into the bathroom because of "so much blood."

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if the bloody bathmat print belongs to the known criminal who was proven to be at the murder and confessed, on paper, to going into the bathroom because of "so much blood."

Can you, in your inimitable way, explain the issue of Rudi's missing footprints or shoe-prints in relationship to the harry rag bathmat?

For me it is a simple explanation. He had blood on one shoe and left those prints and later after the blood had worn off he went to the bathroom and washed his leg off and then stepped on the mat.

 

[Grinder]

Well Bill you'll like this:

http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2015/12/13/ASZLZKl-amanda_misure_cassazione.shtml

The judgment on the crime of Perugia, the last, the one that finally acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the charge of murdering Meredith Kercher, had established a number of principles. The scientific findings should be done with rigor , the investigations follow at least a decent minimum of logic, you must indicate the motive with a certain likelihood. Maybe not indulging in morbid reconstructions and moralistic (the orgetta attempted with the British student) who make accusations game, because the winks to unconventional sexuality always cast a bad light on the defendants.

Like it or not, in the dispute between colpevolisti and innocentisti that accompanies every great fact of crime (always), were the principles of legal culture finally to modern and civilized country. Applying them, it would also avoid the indecent spectacle of inquiries and above cumbersome processes coaster, flying up and down by the courts of appeal to the Supreme Court.

The confirmation of the sentence Stasi is a step backwards. Whether guilty or not, there were against him more clues about Amanda (more on that urge). Investigations have moved immediately into chaos. The crime scene was trampled by 24 people and the autopsy did not respect even the most basic protocols, pace of the rigor of the findings. The motive indicated fear that Clare reveal the passion of Stasi to pornography (and not for pornography, a crime, which has been completely exonerated) seems laughable today.


You may think that a person's reputation would be ruined when it was known that watching some video red light ?

Yet this time the Supreme Court has said ok, that's fine the condannicchia 16 years remedied by the Stasi in the second appeal process. Pace dell'inconsueta fact that not defense but the prosecution, the Attorney General of the Supreme Court, has demolished the ruling, highlighting the contradictions marchiane.

What happened this time? Not wanting to evoke fanciful and improbable reconstructions, it is clear that the judges are convinced that the plant of the same accusations still standing . This, however, contradicts the same principles set out in the judgment of Perugia. Stasi is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?". When even those who should support the charge does the opposite, with full details and arguments, it is really hard to sustain. Even by the government, by the Secretary to the Prime Minister Scalfarotto arrive doubts: "It is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt a citizen convicted after a trial process so rough?". Unless you want to argue that the principles of legal culture are not to be bandied about when the story has an echo that goes beyond national borders, even in the US. And for the Italian justice, for internal use, they are worth a bit 'less.

 

[Planigale]

It is nothing to do with a subjective opinion of "what it looks like". It was scientifically measured by forensic footprint experts with a serious job to do.

Yep. Seeing is believing. Have a butchers of the hammer toe and broad ball width. Rudy's feet are totally dissimilar to Raff's, being long and slender.

BTW, who cleaned up the heel part of the footprint, off the mat?

Clue: cui bono?

Have you looked at the bath mat?
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bathmat_Footprint
http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/13.jpg
http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/page26.jpg

Note how the bath mat has an irregular surface partly flock and partly smooth. The heal is not on the absorbent surface of the mat, it is off the edge. The pictures of the mat in situ show the presence of the heal on the adjacent tile. So first error in your assumptions; the heal print is present and was not removed.

Look at the pictures yourself, then admit that you are wrong in your claim the heal print was cleaned away.

We can note this was dilute blood, there are no 'clots' on the surface as we would see with fresh blood, this was dilute blood that soaked into the mat.

The police 'experts' who examined this were fingerprint specialists. The appropriate experts for examining footprints are forensic anthropologists or forensic podiatrists. When asked about whether he considered the shape of the footprint Lorenzo he relied ‘we didn’t consider it … because I hold that it requires knowledge of orthopedics’. Exactly if you do not have knowledge about anatomy of the foot you are not an expert of footprints.

The sad thing is the footprint analysis is the clearest example of malfeasance as the figures to prove it are given.

The standard footprint is taken standing with a viscous ink (does not run), on a firm non-absorbent surface. No print would be expected to be identical, footprints vary in size from morning to evening by 3 - 5mm depending on parameter, by a similar movement comparing a static stand with a dynamic step. Repeated prints at the same time on the same surface will vary +/- 1mm. A good example of this is the measurement of the same dimensions on the well defined sample print of Sollecito is not identical between Vinci and the Scientific Police. (Also of note Vinci found hairs on the bath mat not noticed by the scientific police).

A priori a footprint by stepping on an absorbent, yielding (will wrap round the foot), surface with a runny (dilute fluid) would be expected to give a larger print than the standard print. The bath mat print was deposited at the end of the day and should be bigger than the standard print taken during the day. The bath mat print has no clear edge.

So what results do the police 'experts' get?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34277&d=1450198223
50% of measurements are identical. This is just impossible.

But the key measure is the length of the ball of the foot. This is measured as being 50 mm on the bath mat vs. 57mm for Sollecito. If the other measures are mm accurate then this measure MUST exclude Sollecito as the source. One cannot argue that this measure is inaccurate because if one tries to extend this dimension on the bath mat to match Sollecito then most other measures are affected and then increase by 5+ mm and no longer match Sollecito.

It cannot be emphasized too much. The prosecution ‘expert’ was a paid consultant a fingerprint expert with no expertise in footprints a very different issue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well Bill you'll like this:

http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2015/12/13/ASZLZKl-amanda_misure_cassazione.shtml

The judgment on the crime of Perugia, the last, the one that finally acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the charge of murdering Meredith Kercher, had established a number of principles. The scientific findings should be done with rigor , the investigations follow at least a decent minimum of logic, you must indicate the motive with a certain likelihood. Maybe not indulging in morbid reconstructions and moralistic (the orgetta attempted with the British student) who make accusations game, because the winks to unconventional sexuality always cast a bad light on the defendants.

Like it or not, in the dispute between colpevolisti and innocentisti that accompanies every great fact of crime (always), were the principles of legal culture finally to modern and civilized country. Applying them, it would also avoid the indecent spectacle of inquiries and above cumbersome processes coaster, flying up and down by the courts of appeal to the Supreme Court.

The confirmation of the sentence Stasi is a step backwards. Whether guilty or not, there were against him more clues about Amanda (more on that urge). Investigations have moved immediately into chaos. The crime scene was trampled by 24 people and the autopsy did not respect even the most basic protocols, pace of the rigor of the findings. The motive indicated fear that Clare reveal the passion of Stasi to pornography (and not for pornography, a crime, which has been completely exonerated) seems laughable today.


You may think that a person's reputation would be ruined when it was known that watching some video red light ?

Yet this time the Supreme Court has said ok, that's fine the condannicchia 16 years remedied by the Stasi in the second appeal process. Pace dell'inconsueta fact that not defense but the prosecution, the Attorney General of the Supreme Court, has demolished the ruling, highlighting the contradictions marchiane.

What happened this time? Not wanting to evoke fanciful and improbable reconstructions, it is clear that the judges are convinced that the plant of the same accusations still standing . This, however, contradicts the same principles set out in the judgment of Perugia. Stasi is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt?". When even those who should support the charge does the opposite, with full details and arguments, it is really hard to sustain. Even by the government, by the Secretary to the Prime Minister Scalfarotto arrive doubts: "It is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt a citizen convicted after a trial process so rough?". Unless you want to argue that the principles of legal culture are not to be bandied about when the story has an echo that goes beyond national borders, even in the US. And for the Italian justice, for internal use, they are worth a bit 'less.

Did I not post this? I'm slipping - as attention goes elsewhere, I suppose.

This piece isn't even subtle - it says that the truly revolutionary conclusion to the 7 1/2 year judicial debacle was finally coming to some justice, namely, "The scientific findings should be done with rigor , the investigations follow at least a decent minimum of logic, you must indicate the motive with a certain likelihood."

As for the Stasi debacle, this piece clearly sees that as a step back to the same old, same old - the roulette wheel of justice as dispensed in the regions and in Rome.

Totally missing is the remaining English-language guilter-narrative. You know - the one where some of the few remaining English-language folk cling to the view that Marasca/Bruno are six inches from being hauled off as enemies of the state; or that M/B found as factual that Knox and Sollecito were actually there.

Where's THAT in the Italian language press within Italy?

So it is, I promise you one last "Hoots!", Grinder, as other things are claiming interest these days.

 

[Grinder]

Note how the bath mat has an irregular surface partly flock and partly smooth. The heal is not on the absorbent surface of the mat, it is off the edge. The pictures of the mat in situ show the presence of the heal on the adjacent tile. So first error in your assumptions; the heal print is present and was not removed.

It depends what you mean by "in situ" as Amanda moved the mat to her room and back. The mat could have been in the direction that allowed for the print to come from the shower.

The heel print could have been wiped away by Amanda moving it or the police during their CSI work.

 

[Welshman]

Actually, Amanda herself chillingly writes in her Prison Diary she carried a kitchen knife in her bag from Germany.

Both Amanda and Raff had a known fascination with violence. Amanda wrote detailed fantasies of rape and murder. In prison, she wrote about a woman at a party with with her top torn off and lying dead, for which she won a prize, possibly as being the only literate prisoner there. Raff was obsessed with violent manga porn, leading Mignini to comment about the remarkable similarity of the crime scene with the "blood on walls and floor" of his graphical books. Raff posted a creepy pic of himself dressed up as a mad scientist wielding meat cleaver and pink potion in beaker. Amanda posted pics of her in front of the cannon in the war museum laughing manically. She wrote a caption on 'My Space: 'the Nazi within'; told a Jewish work colleague, "My people killed your people"; she took part in a sordid video with H.O.T., featuring the same butcherlike figure holding rotten apples crawling with maggots and spooky Mez-ike figures in nooses, their heads covered and their limbs tied to a chair, looking out of the window all in black with an umbrella, to turn around showing a face causing horror in the regardee. We have Amanda running down some stairs exactly in imitation of Mez' own musical video, pursued by three sinister hooded figures.

Charming, I'm sure!

If the prosecution had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case, why is that PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder to argue their case rather than direct evidence which Vixen has done in her post?

The PGP often lie about things which happened outside the murders. The PGP have lied that Raffaele stabbed a girl in school which is debunked in the FAQ section on AmandaKnoxcase.com. Machiavelli lied that Amanda had carried out a rape prank in Seattle. Vixen claims in her post that Amanda won a prize in prison for a story about a murdered woman. Where is the evidence for this? When was this story written? Have the prosecution used it? Has this been mentioned on the TJMK/PMF hate sites who have left no stone unturned in attacking Amanda? If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong and there was so much evidence, why do the PGP have to resort to lying about things which happened outside the murder of Meredith?

The story about the anti semitic remark has been discredited which is detailed on Nigel Scott's Groundreport 40 myths articles. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to rely on discredited stories to argue their case?

 

[Grinder]

If the prosecution had so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and a strong case, why is that PGP have to rely heavily on things which happened outside the murder to argue their case rather than direct evidence which Vixen has done in her post?

The PGP often lie about things which happened outside the murders. The PGP have lied that Raffaele stabbed a girl in school which is debunked in the FAQ section on AmandaKnoxcase.com. Machiavelli lied that Amanda had carried out a rape prank in Seattle. Vixen claims in her post that Amanda won a prize in prison for a story about a murdered woman. Where is the evidence for this? When was this story written? Have the prosecution used it? Has this been mentioned on the TJMK/PMF hate sites who have left no stone unturned in attacking Amanda? If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so strong and there was so much evidence, why do the PGP have to resort to lying about things which happened outside the murder of Meredith?

The story about the anti semitic remark has been discredited which is detailed on Nigel Scott's Groundreport 40 myths articles. If there was a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why do the PGP have to rely on discredited stories to argue their case?

While agree with much of this, using a GR article by an FOA member isn't very powerful.

Nigel wrote: Myth 5 – ‘My people killed your people’

Irrelevant but often repeated is the story that Amanda is anti-Semitic. It started out in February 2008, soon after the murder, as a quote in the Seattle paper, ‘The Stranger’ in an article written by Charles Mudede. This is the full quote:

“You know, a lot of people are saying she is a sweet girl and they can’t believe she could have done such a thing. But, to be honest, I’m not surprised she is a suspect. Really. The first time I met her, when I got the job here, she asked me if I was Jewish. I told her I was. She then screamed: ‘My people killed your people and began laughing hysterically. I didn’t know what to say. She just kept laughing about her Germans killing my Jews. After that, I did not like her. She really freaked me out.”

It is attributed to an anonymous ‘friend’ of Mudede’s called ‘Matthew’. His identity has never been revealed. It is likely that he does not exist and the quote and the person are figments of Mudede’s imagination. The quote quickly went viral in the heated atmosphere created by Mignini and contributed to the public perception of Amanda as cruel, heartless and likely to be a brutal killer.


How in the world would Nigel know if the quote was real or not. Without checking, I would bet that Matthew was not a friend of Muede but rather a worker at a coffee house that Amanda had worked at - World something" on Roosevelt about 52nd street which was about 4 blocks from her rental house.

While I know it has nothing to do with the murder, I really don't doubt she said it. Watch the drinking video and read the caption under the machine gun and then say she would never have said such a thing.

ETA - well I was right and wrong - the guy was an old friend of Mudede whom he hadn't seen for years and worked at World Cup on Roosevelt with Amanda. I doubt he didn't exist but certainly understand why he didn't want his name associated with the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

It depends what you mean by "in situ" as Amanda moved the mat to her room and back. The mat could have been in the direction that allowed for the print to come from the shower.

The heel print could have been wiped away by Amanda moving it or the police during their CSI work.

"In situ" - which was our first fight! - has a specific meaning in this situation.

It means no more and no less than the placement of the mat when first interpreted as part of the murder. It then becomes an investigative matter to determine if/how Amanda did a mat-shuffle on it - presumably when Amanda herself did not know it had any forensic interest to the, then, undiscovered crime.

In situ means in situ. The issue of the mat's orientation, flipped or not, is part and parcel of a competent investigation of the crime. If no one could say that the mat was in its original orientation, then the prudent thing was/is to throw out that issue as being investigatible.

 

[Grinder]

"In situ" - which was our first fight! - has a specific meaning in this situation.

It means no more and no less than the placement of the mat when first interpreted as part of the murder. It then becomes an investigative matter to determine if/how Amanda did a mat-shuffle on it - presumably when Amanda herself did not know it had any forensic interest to the, then, undiscovered crime.

In situ means in situ. The issue of the mat's orientation, flipped or not, is part and parcel of a competent investigation of the crime. If no one could say that the mat was in its original orientation, then the prudent thing was/is to throw out that issue as being investigatible.

Ah the good old days. Actually it was your position on Hellmann but why quibble.

In situ means:
adverb & adjective
in its original place.
"mosaics and frescoes have been left in situ"

I would say the original position was when Rudi left the bathroom.

 

[acbytesla]

While agree with much of this, using a GR article by an FOA member isn't very powerful.

Nigel wrote: Myth 5 – ‘My people killed your people’

Irrelevant but often repeated is the story that Amanda is anti-Semitic. It started out in February 2008, soon after the murder, as a quote in the Seattle paper, ‘The Stranger’ in an article written by Charles Mudede. This is the full quote:

“You know, a lot of people are saying she is a sweet girl and they can’t believe she could have done such a thing. But, to be honest, I’m not surprised she is a suspect. Really. The first time I met her, when I got the job here, she asked me if I was Jewish. I told her I was. She then screamed: ‘My people killed your people and began laughing hysterically. I didn’t know what to say. She just kept laughing about her Germans killing my Jews. After that, I did not like her. She really freaked me out.”

It is attributed to an anonymous ‘friend’ of Mudede’s called ‘Matthew’. His identity has never been revealed. It is likely that he does not exist and the quote and the person are figments of Mudede’s imagination. The quote quickly went viral in the heated atmosphere created by Mignini and contributed to the public perception of Amanda as cruel, heartless and likely to be a brutal killer.


How in the world would Nigel know if the quote was real or not. Without checking, I would bet that Matthew was not a friend of Muede but rather a worker at a coffee house that Amanda had worked at - World something" on Roosevelt about 52nd street which was about 4 blocks from her rental house.

While I know it has nothing to do with the murder, I really don't doubt she said it. Watch the drinking video and read the caption under the machine gun and then say she would never have said such a thing.

ETA - well I was right and wrong - the guy was an old friend of Mudede whom he hadn't seen for years and worked at World Cup on Roosevelt with Amanda. I doubt he didn't exist but certainly understand why he didn't want his name associated with the case.

I thought this was addressed a few times. No one confirms Mudede's story. It's weird that you might believe Mudede's story and disbelieve Christian and CD about Ms Diaz's burglary.

I do know for a fact that the details in the Daily Mail's publication on the party was a total fabrication. About the only thing true about that story is the ticket.

 

[Grinder]

I thought this was addressed a few times. No one confirms Mudede's story. It's weird that you might believe Mudede's story and disbelieve Christian and CD about Ms Diaz's burglary.

I do know for a fact that the details in the Daily Mail's publication on the party was a total fabrication. About the only thing true about that story is the ticket.

Well since Mudede's attribution isn't really related to the crime at all it is of almost no significance whereas Rudi burning down neighbor's houses and killing cats seem much more significant.

While it may have been addressed a few times by the likes of Nigel no one has ever produced anything of any weight. Did Amanda deny it? I doubt she bothered because it just isn't important.

As for the party I have posted the police report many, many a time proving that the story was bull. But you are not correct that the only truth was the ticket. A neighbor did call, there were rocks in the street, Amanda was issued the ticket and warned about the rock throwing and the party was loud.

Have you watched the drinking video? Now answer honestly. Have you read the caption under her picture with the machine gun? Clearly the German heritage had a place in her being that came out in not the nicest ways.

But since I never brought any of this against her, I'll agree that Mudede made it up if you will agree that Diaz didn't have the events Nina described and CT only fingered Rudi after he was in the paper and even then wasn't sure.

 

[acbytesla]

Well since Mudede's attribution isn't really related to the crime at all it is of almost no significance whereas Rudi burning down neighbor's houses and killing cats seem much more significant.

While it may have been addressed a few times by the likes of Nigel no one has ever produced anything of any weight. Did Amanda deny it? I doubt she bothered because it just isn't important.

As for the party I have posted the police report many, many a time proving that the story was bull. But you are not correct that the only truth was the ticket. A neighbor did call, there were rocks in the street, Amanda was issued the ticket and warned about the rock throwing and the party was loud.

Have you watched the drinking video? Now answer honestly. Have you read the caption under her picture with the machine gun? Clearly the German heritage had a place in her being that came out in not the nicest ways.

But since I never brought any of this against her, I'll agree that Mudede made it up if you will agree that Diaz didn't have the events Nina described and CT only fingered Rudi after he was in the paper and even then wasn't sure.

We agree entirely although I do believe that the story about Ms. Mandy Diaz was true but legally irrelevant as in fact we do not know who broke into her apartment despite her suspicions.

But our discussion is ignoring Welshman's point and that is the extraneous unproven nonsense shouldn't be part of the discussion of whether the couple is innocent or guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah the good old days. Actually it was your position on Hellmann but why quibble.

In situ means:
adverb & adjective
in its original place.
"mosaics and frescoes have been left in situ"

I would say the original position was when Rudi left the bathroom.

Hellmann!? We fought over Hellmann?? Disagreed, maybe, but fought? C'mon - I would have remembered!

You're going to make me look this up aren't you! In situ applies more to the bra-clasp issue..... the police photographed it in one place, then 46 days later retrieved it from another place.

Your definition could include the shelf in the store the mat was bought from.

Ah...... the good old days!

 

[Bill Williams]

Ah the good old days. Actually it was your position on Hellmann but why quibble.

In situ means:
adverb & adjective
in its original place.
"mosaics and frescoes have been left in situ"

I would say the original position was when Rudi left the bathroom.

Grinder:

Read this Wiki-article on trace evidence, and the use of the term "in situ" in relation to evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_evidence

 

[Planigale]

It depends what you mean by "in situ" as Amanda moved the mat to her room and back. The mat could have been in the direction that allowed for the print to come from the shower.

The heel print could have been wiped away by Amanda moving it or the police during their CSI work.

Always define your terms - fair point.

In this situation 'in situ' means as first found by the crime scene investigators. The location of items should be recorded photographically and also by annotated sketch in notebooks documenting the process of investigation. Thus photographing the position of the bra hook prior to recovery is 'in situ' picking up and putting it backdown means it is no longer in situ. It is recognised that there may have been disturbance to the crime scene between the crime and its forensic examination but in situ refers to the state at the time of initiating the investigation.

 

[Welshman]

If Raffaele had left his footprint on the bathmat, the following questions are raised :-

1) In the section on the bathmat on AmandaKnoxcase.com, there is a transcript of a phone converstion when Raffaele mentions the footprint on the bathmat when calling the police. Why would Raffaele do this if he had left his footprint on the mat?

2) Why did Raffaele not get rid of the bathmat if he had left his footprint on it?

3) If Raffaele had left the footprint, why did his defense team ask experts to examine the mat and disprove Raffaele had left the footprint. Surely Raffaele would worry experts would not be able to disprove he had left his print on the mat.

4) As has been mentioned on this forum, it is difficult to establish who the print belonged to due to how the print was made. If the prosecution had a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using inconclusive evidence to argue their case?

5) If the prosecution could establish with 100% certaintity the print was made by Raffaele, the prosecution would have had damming slam dunk evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. If the bathmat provided strong evidence, why did the prosecution have to resort to lying, supressing evidence, using evidence with no credibility, smear tactics etc if they had such conclusive evidence at their disposal.