Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Any particular reason you're citing news articles more than two years out of date? There was a trial since then--or didn't you hear?

Google picked out the wrong judges report. Sorry about that.

The point is still valid however. Writing bad logic on paper doesn't turn it into good logic.

 

[katy_did]

Possibly so. For me, an extended quot from the Motivations document would be required to be certain. It would be nice to have a timeline we can all agree on.

Yes, I agree it's not entirely clear just from that extract. However, the fact Frank doesn't mention the phone call as evidence against Knox and Sollecito is another suggestion that the defence's argument was accepted by the court.

Bongiorno's argument was, I think, extremely convincing, and even the prosecution altered their theory during closing by suggesting the call may have been made only 5 minutes prior to the postal police's arrival, presumably in response to her presentation. So I would be unsurprised if the court had accepted it too.

I didn't read that into it.

The fact the report talks about 'residual' traces of Meredith's blood would seem to indicate they weren't made with a full footprint of blood. That said, Frank's English is a little ambiguous there; I'm not clear as to whether the residual traces of blood are 'under the foot' (i.e. on the floor) or on the foot itself. Presumably the latter though, since if it were just that she'd walked on a floor that had residual traces of blood that would be proof of nothing.

From what I've read, the footprints having been made with residual (invisible) traces of a luminol-positive substance is the only realistic scenario anyway. The tiles are non-porous, which means any minor attempt to clean them with soap and water would remove all trace of the prints; and even if it didn't, there would still be evidence of the clean-up itself in the form of swirling marks around the footprints, of which there was no sign. And then there's their location: why would someone walk down the corridor and into Amanda's room with feet covered in blood, as opposed to going into the bathroom to wash it off?

Do we know it was his?

Which is rather a good argument for testing it, isn't it? Unless they're seriously saying that sperm from Guede and/or Sollecito in Meredith's bedroom could have been made innocently at some other time...

 

[shuttlt]

The possibility of an interrupted burglary seems to have been dismissed out of hand.

We'd need to see the full document to know that, wouldn't we? Frank is compressing hundreds of pages into, what 2500 words? Perhaps it was dismissed for perfectly good reasons that Frank has skimmed over.

Perhaps because it didn't support the suspects determined guilty by purely psychological means being actually guilty.

What about the issues mentioned with their alibi and the forensics? Franks summary doesn't seem to focus on psychology as a reason for believing them guilty at all.

 

[katy_did]

The possibility of an interrupted burglary seems to have been dismissed out of hand. Perhaps because it didn't support the suspects determined guilty by purely psychological means being actually guilty.

Besides, we do know that cash, cell phones, and credit cards were taken.

Yes, and I suppose that dismissal of the interrupted burglary scenario out of hand is at the heart of the whole case, really. I've only been able to find mention of a 'staged' burglary after Knox and Sollecito were arrested, which suggests to me they only determined it was staged once they needed it to be for their theory - and that the main evidence for that was the (frankly bizarre) logic that nothing valuable was taken (even though cash and bank cards WERE taken, and the cash-strapped Guede needed money to flee the country). Interesting that Massei seems to have disagreed with Micheli, who thought in order to climb up to the window you would only need to be "agile, as certainly Guede was".

 

[shuttlt]

Which is rather a good argument for testing it, isn't it? Unless they're seriously saying that sperm from Guede and/or Sollecito in Meredith's bedroom could have been made innocently at some other time...

I would imagine if it was possible to do so they would have done. Seems like an odd thing for nobody have mentioned if there was a test that returned a profile, or a sample like this that nobody had thought to test.

 

[katy_did]

What about the issues mentioned with their alibi and the forensics? Franks summary doesn't seem to focus on psychology as a reason for believing them guilty at all.

I'd disagree with you there - there's a whole lot about what Knox and Sollecito would have done, if they were innocent. That they would have stood at the door when it was being broken down, for instance, or that Amanda would have gotten up early that morning instead of going to take a shower. All highly speculative.

 

[katy_did]

I would imagine if it was possible to do so they would have done. Seems like an odd thing for nobody have mentioned if there was a test that returned a profile, or a sample like this that nobody had thought to test.

Perhaps. I'm just going on Frank's statement that it wasn't considered important to test the stain, because even if it was semen it couldn't be dated. There may be more to it.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, and I suppose that dismissal of the interrupted burglary scenario out of hand is at the heart of the whole case, really. I've only been able to find mention of a 'staged' burglary after Knox and Sollecito were arrested, which suggests to me they only determined it was staged once they needed it to be for their theory

Or that they didn't want Amanda and Raffaele to know this is what they believed.

Even if that isn't the case I don't see anything dodgy needs to be going on. Why couldn't it be that once they became sufficiently suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele they went back and re-analysed their assumptions about the crime scene and found that the scene made more sense as a faked burglary than a real one.

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps. I'm just going on Frank's statement that it wasn't considered important to test the stain, because even if it was semen it couldn't be dated. There may be more to it.

Where does he say it wasn't considered important enough to test. All I saw is:

The stains of presumed semen on the pillowcase are not that important since, even once the test confirms that it's sperm, it couldn't be dated.

He could mean that it wasn't tested, or he could mean that it was but it didn't matter anyway. Frank's English is good, but I don't think it's flawless enough to be sure of his meaning here.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do we know it was his?

We don't even know it was semen. It simply showed up as a stain when a certain type of light was ran over the pillow. The defence didn't get it tested. Many things will also light up that way, including make-up and vaseline. Since Meredith used both make-up and vaseline (her vaseline lip balm), one would expect to find it on her pillow.

If it 'was' semen, it could have got there at an earlier time, as since we don't even know if it was semen or not we've also no idea 'whose' semen it was.

And if it 'was' semen and got there the night of the murder, there's just as much chance it was Raffaele's as Rudy's (which would explain why the defence didn't risk getting it tested and introduced it to the court at the last moment when it was too late for tests). And if it 'was' Rudy's semen, I don't see how that would exculpate Amanda and Raffaele in any case. The court has already accepted Rudy was there and that he sexually assaulted Meredith. What else would the semen stain demonstrate, if it is semen and it is Rudy's?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, and I suppose that dismissal of the interrupted burglary scenario out of hand is at the heart of the whole case, really. I've only been able to find mention of a 'staged' burglary after Knox and Sollecito were arrested, which suggests to me they only determined it was staged once they needed it to be for their theory - and that the main evidence for that was the (frankly bizarre) logic that nothing valuable was taken (even though cash and bank cards WERE taken, and the cash-strapped Guede needed money to flee the country). Interesting that Massei seems to have disagreed with Micheli, who thought in order to climb up to the window you would only need to be "agile, as certainly Guede was".

Nonsense logic. The police witheld LOTS of information about the crime in the first few days. And the Postal Police did not 'suddenly' decide after their arrest that they saw glass on top of the clothing and pointed out to Raffaele and Amanda that the break-in was staged (something Raffaele and Amanda have never denied). Neither did Filomena 'suddenly' decide after their arrest that she had to shake off glass that was on top of her stuff. Neither did all the clear evidence that the break-in was staged suddenly appear after their arrest. And if the evidence was weak, conjectured merely to support a theory, it wouldn't have been accepted by 8 judges under vigorous opposition by the best defence team in the land. The staging in blindingly obvious to all.

Of the things that were taken, only Meredith's things were taken and only then to make it appear there'd been a burglary. The phones were tossed just down the road. Why? because they weren't wanted in the first place, it was a fake theft. And I note katy_did, you contradict yourself...you claim the obvious reason none of Laura's, Filomena's or Amanda's stuff was taken because a murderer would wouldn't risk taking items that would link him to the crime. The very next moment, your're screaming about how stuff 'was' stolen from Meredith, there was a robbery,, apparently completely contradicting your claim that a murderer wouldn't steal items from the crime scene for fear of being linked to it. So, which is it?

As for Micheli, he did not examine the crime scene in person (just like you never did either). These judges did. They went to see the window for themselves. Therefore, I consider their judgement authoritative. And for the record, Judge Micheli also concluded neither Guede or anyone else entered via the window. You left that bit out.

 

[Fulcanelli]

(even though cash and bank cards WERE taken, and the cash-strapped Guede needed money to flee the country)

Except he didn't. He made no move to leave Perugia for days. Instead, he went out clubbing two nights in a row, SPENDING money. Hardly the actions of someone desperately trying to get money together in order to leave the country. If at that time he'd really wanted to go he'd have gone. He wasn't thinking of leaving the country while he was at the cottage. And why the Hell would he take Meredith's credit cards? He couldn't possibly use them, he couldn't even pretend to be the card holder since they were in a woman's name. They would have been useless to him.

Moreover, it completely contradicts your argument for why nothing was stolen from Amanda, Laura and Filomena, being that the murderer wouldn't want to be linked to the crime by the stolen goods. What would link you to the crime more then credit cards with the name of your murder victim, her signature and her account number all over them???

So again, why was nothing stolen from Laura, Filomena or Amanda? Because the burglary was staged, that's why.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'd disagree with you there - there's a whole lot about what Knox and Sollecito would have done, if they were innocent. That they would have stood at the door when it was being broken down, for instance, or that Amanda would have gotten up early that morning instead of going to take a shower. All highly speculative.

Rather, it is 'logic', they are considered clues of guilt. Just in exactly the same way a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo is.

 

[katy_did]

Except he didn't. He made no move to leave Perugia for days. Instead, he went out clubbing two nights in a row, SPENDING money. Hardly the actions of someone desperately trying to get money together in order to leave the country. If at that time he'd really wanted to go he'd have gone. He wasn't thinking of leaving the country while he was at the cottage. And why the Hell would he take Meredith's credit cards? He couldn't possibly use them, he couldn't even pretend to be the card holder since they were in a woman's name. They would have been useless to him.

I think Guede said he left two days after the murder, after the second nightclub incident, which is hardly 'days' (well alright, it is technically). Why do you think he went to the nightclub - you reckon he just fancied a boogie, needed to let off some steam? Lots of purses in nightclubs to steal... Or did he need another alibi...? Any petty thefts reported around Perugia that night?

And you don't think a thief could ever make use of someone's credit card or bank card? I guess that means you never cancel your bank cards when you lose them, then. After all, it's not like anyone could use them to steal your money or anything. It also explains why thieves only ever steal credit cards from people of the same sex as themselves. Heh. Your argument is a little naive...

He probably took the cards to see if he could make use of them, and threw them away when he found he couldn't, or he didn't want to risk trying. If Meredith's pin number had been stored in her phone, for example (bit stupid if it was, but possible) he could've taken money from her account, or paid for a train ticket online. Happens all the time (never heard of credit card fraud?).

Moreover, it completely contradicts your argument for why nothing was stolen from Amanda, Laura and Filomena, being that the murderer wouldn't want to be linked to the crime by the stolen goods. What would link you to the crime more then credit cards with the name of your murder victim, her signature and her account number all over them???

So again, why was nothing stolen from Laura, Filomena or Amanda? Because the burglary was staged, that's why.

There's no contradiction in my argument: I said Guede would not have stolen something in order to SELL it, which would have left witnesses who would doubtless have come forward once his picture was splashed all over the papers. Guede had been linked to one crime that way, so this time he only took cash, and cards that may have allowed him to get his hands on more cash. Pretty simple, really.

Meredith's purse was right in front of Guede, and he needed to get hold of the keys anyway since Meredith would have locked the front door (you saw my earlier post on that, right?). He probably just took everything that was in her pockets and purse. No sense in him hanging around to look elsewhere, since he didn't know if Amanda, Filomena or Laura may have been back at any moment.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think Guede said he left two days after the murder, after the second nightclub incident, which is hardly 'days' (well alright, it is technically). Why do you think he went to the nightclub - you reckon he just fancied a boogie, needed to let off some steam? Lots of purses in nightclubs to steal... Or did he need another alibi...? Any petty thefts reported around Perugia that night?

And you don't think a thief could ever make use of someone's credit card or bank card? I guess that means you never cancel your bank cards when you lose them, then. After all, it's not like anyone could use them to steal your money or anything. It also explains why thieves only ever steal credit cards from people of the same sex as themselves. Heh. Your argument is a little naive...

He probably took the cards to see if he could make use of them, and threw them away when he found he couldn't, or he didn't want to risk trying. If Meredith's pin number had been stored in her phone, for example (bit stupid if it was, but possible) he could've taken money from her account, or paid for a train ticket online. Happens all the time (never heard of credit card fraud?).

Actually, Rudy claimed he can't remember which day he left town.

Why'd he go clubbing? Partly to form an alibi and partly because it was his normal routine. There is no evidence he stole purses so it's quite desperate to insinuate that was his reason for going clubbing.

A thief possibly could make use of a credit card. Only Guede obviously couldn't because he didn't. And had he tried, he may as well have announced to all and sundry that he'd murdered Meredith plus provided a trail of his activities. He also would have known from the get go if he'd be able to use them or not. He didn't take the cards. It would have been far less risky to sell the stolen phones and laptops. Oh, but wait, he didn't steal them.

There's no contradiction in my argument: I said Guede would not have stolen something in order to SELL it, which would have left witnesses who would doubtless have come forward once his picture was splashed all over the papers. Guede had been linked to one crime that way, so this time he only took cash, and cards that may have allowed him to get his hands on more cash. Pretty simple, really.

Meredith's purse was right in front of Guede, and he needed to get hold of the keys anyway since Meredith would have locked the front door (you saw my earlier post on that, right?). He probably just took everything that was in her pockets and purse. No sense in him hanging around to look elsewhere, since he didn't know if Amanda, Filomena or Laura may have been back at any moment

Really? Why'd he steal Meredith's two phones then? Why the phones and not a laptop?

What crime had he been linked to before the murder that had his picture in the papers?

Rudy didn't need the keys to get out the front door. We've been through this.

The evidence proves he not only didn't go into Meredith's purse, he didn't even open it. Strange for a thief. He also left Meredith's I-pod and we know he likes those.

No sense in his hanging around to look elsewhere? According to your precious lone wolf theory (completely thrown out by two courts and counting) he would have already ransacked Filomena's and Laura's rooms and knew already what was of value and where it all was, he didn't need to 'look' any further, just go right to it and grab it...in Filomena's case, a nice shiny laptop in her room that was in its bag and so ready to go with her room conveniently being on the way out. Yet he didn't. That's because there was no lone wolf crime and the burglary was staged.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm amazed by the persistence of the thread gymnastics. Even after the report is released, people who believe in Amanda's innocence are still willing to nitpick and play the same mental gymnastics they require to be safe in their little belief.

 

[shuttlt]

If you are going to fear any items that you take are going to be linked back to the crime scene, surely the phones and the cards are the ones? Once the disk is wiped, and it's been passed on, who's going to identify the laptop? Even if it's possible to discover the MAC address, or other unique information none of this is broadcast by the laptop in a way that makes it identifiable unless you luck out and stumble upon it. On the other hand every use of the cards will be traced, the phone can be tracked down via the IMEI number.

 

[shuttlt]

"New IMEIs can be programmed into stolen handsets and 10% of IMEIs are not unique."
Still more risky than the laptop though. Also, weren't Meredith's phones a bit old and rubbish? What can the sell on value of an old stolen phone be?

 

[katy_did]

Actually, Rudy claimed he can't remember which day he left town.

Why'd he go clubbing? Partly to form an alibi and partly because it was his normal routine. There is no evidence he stole purses so it's quite desperate to insinuate that was his reason for going clubbing.

A thief possibly could make use of a credit card. Only Guede obviously couldn't because he didn't. And had he tried, he may as well have announced to all and sundry that he'd murdered Meredith plus provided a trail of his activities. He also would have known from the get go if he'd be able to use them or not. He didn't take the cards. It would have been far less risky to sell the stolen phones and laptops. Oh, but wait, he didn't steal them.

He was caught with a woman's watch in his backpack when he was arrested in Milan, and Momi said he hassled women and tried to steal their purses. I'd thought Momi's evidence had been dismissed, but Nadeau says they used a witness's evidence that he hassled women as part of the verdict, so presumably they saw some merit in his testimony. And we know Guede was a petty thief; it's hardly a stretch to think he stole purses when he had the chance. And he was broke (unless you're denying that?).

Really? Why'd he steal Meredith's two phones then? Why the phones and not a laptop?

Why not? They would have been in her purse and pockets, which he certainly went through. And they were small enough to put in his pockets and carry unnoticed, whereas someone might have noticed a laptop bag. But I think he took them first to check whether he could get her bank details from them (hence the call to her bank), and second so that if anyone called her, they wouldn't hear her phones ringing from behind her door and hence might just assume her door was locked because she was out. This is consistent with the more general attempt to delay the discovery of the body.

What crime had he been linked to before the murder that had his picture in the papers?

Erm, perhaps when his DNA was found all over the crime scene and he was arrested? Don't you think if someone had bought a laptop from him and then saw his pictures in all the papers, there'd be quite a high chance they'd have come forward?

Rudy didn't need the keys to get out the front door. We've been through this.

LOL. I provided the evidence, and you chose to ignore it without comment, let alone providing any evidence to disprove what I posted. Nice try.

The evidence proves he not only didn't go into Meredith's purse, he didn't even open it. Strange for a thief. He also left Meredith's I-pod and we know he likes those.

Don't be ridiculous. Just because his DNA isn't on the zipper doesn't mean he didn't open it. Otherwise presumably we have to assume that no one opened it, since no one else's DNA was found on it. We also have to assume that Amanda was never in Meredith's bedroom, since her DNA wasn't there either.

No sense in his hanging around to look elsewhere? According to your precious lone wolf theory (completely thrown out by two courts and counting) he would have already ransacked Filomena's and Laura's rooms and knew already what was of value and where it all was, he didn't need to 'look' any further, just go right to it and grab it...in Filomena's case, a nice shiny laptop in her room that was in its bag and so ready to go with her room conveniently being on the way out. Yet he didn't. That's because there was no lone wolf crime and the burglary was staged.

Why would he know where everything was in Laura and Filomena's rooms? He was interrupted before he'd even had a chance to go into Laura's room, and in the middle of ransacking Filomena's. It's silly to think someone who'd just killed a woman would stop to grab a laptop on the way out to sell it - especially someone who'd already been linked to another crime through possession of a stolen laptop. Maybe he WOULD have grabbed it if Meredith hadn't come home and interrupted him, however.

Incidentally, why wouldn't Guede have grabbed a laptop anyway, even if he didn't break into the house? He was a thief and he needed cash. Does he only steal things during working hours or something?

 

[katy_did]

If you are going to fear any items that you take are going to be linked back to the crime scene, surely the phones and the cards are the ones? Once the disk is wiped, and it's been passed on, who's going to identify the laptop? Even if it's possible to discover the MAC address, or other unique information none of this is broadcast by the laptop in a way that makes it identifiable unless you luck out and stumble upon it. On the other hand every use of the cards will be traced, the phone can be tracked down via the IMEI number.

They wouldn't identify the laptop (well they might, but that's not really the point), they'd identify Guede as the one who sold it to them. Selling it would mean creating witnesses who could've connected Guede to the crime, and it would've blown his 'date' story right out of the water. As for the cards, they would've traced the use of them (if they'd been used to withdraw cash, for instance) but not who had used them, and perhaps not even when. IIRC, there was some question in court as to whether they had been used the day after the murder; it turned out they hadn't, and that the transaction had just gone through a day late. But certainly, if Guede had used them to withdraw cash a day or two later, there would've been nothing to definitively link him to their use.

He wouldn't have tried to sell the phones. He probably took them to see if he could get access to her bank account (hence the call to the bank), and because if he left them in her room, one of her roommates might call them and hear them ringing. This would make the locked door more alarming, whereas if the phones didn't ring her roommates might just assume she was out. As I said above, it's consistent with the general attempt to delay the discovery of the body.

And also, he may simply have taken them because he was going through her purse/pockets (probably to look for the front door keys - Guede said they were in her purse, which seems an odd detail for him to know if he didn't take them?) and the phones were there, and small enough to put in his pockets. Might be a mistake to presume he was thinking totally rationally about it.