Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I'm inclined to agree, and yet many people do appear to be struck by the feeling that she is too unlikely a killer for the police, or anyone else to suspect unless the evidence is absolutely overwhelming (I don't wish to open up a debate about whether it is, or isn't overwhelming).

I've seen this sort of reaction in other instances, most often when a young, reasonably photogenic mother is accused of murdering their own child. The disbelief that a parent could do such a thing, and the almost visceral denial that a mother could be responsible never fails to surprise me, because the statistical evidence is clear. For small children, one time out of three it is the mother. Another third is the other parent, and most of the rest are family or friends.

It is curious how strongly people want to use appearance or propriety as a metric for behavior. "He doesn't look like a serial killer." is almost a mantra, chanted with wide-eyed innocence over and over, as if the past is obliterated each time. There is a nearly palpable sense of relief when criminals have the decency to actually look evil.

 

[Kestrel]

Agatha,

I believe that Amanda was at Raffaele’s flat for most or all of the evening. There seems to be the view at this forum that Raffaele presently believes Amanda was elsewhere for a long time on the night of the murder. Maybe so, but I doubt it. Here are two quotes from Raffaele’s diary:

“Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.”

“they are keeping me in jail because there is a kitchen knife with a
trace of Meredith's DNA. It seems like a horror movie ... Looking back
and remembering it came to mind that the night dad sent me an sms
message of goodnight to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with
Amanda), then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not
been with me at this time she would be dead. Thinking and
reconstructing, it seems to me that she always remained with me, the
only thing I do not remember exactly is when she left in the early
evening for a few minutes.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return
Home.”

Amanda left Raffaele to go to work, got a text message from Patrick telling her she didn't need to come in that night and returned to Raffaele's flat. Jovana Popovic testified that Amanda was at Raffaele's flat at 8:40 PM. Meredith left Robyn Butterworth's home five minutes later.

ETA: Amanda spent the remainder of the night doing things like watching a movie, reading Harry Potter, making love with her boyfriend and sleeping.

 

[tsig]

"Several of the real reporters were in the courtroom, too, and speak Italian and yet this statement of Quintavalle's is nowhere to be found. Isn't it odd that most of the reports state that he was certain AK was there and only Frank states that she was not?"

Ya it is odd, but only in the sense that it enunciates just how bad the reporters in the courtroom must be, or many were too stupid to realize how significant that statement actually is. Good for Mr. Sfarzo to catch it. I think we both know he said it. I personally find nothing exceptional in the other reporters I've seen to make me think they would've have caught it. Again, it's either he said it or he didn't.

And I have to ask, were I to show you with a transcript that he did say it, would you continue on this facade that his testimony was "rock solid"? It's not.

The reporters are inept, the judges are corrupt, the defense attorneys are incompetent, the lab results are contaminated and the prosecution is vindictive.

This is what I have understood from this thread to be Amanda's defense.

She'll be speaking real good Italian by the time her sentence is done.

 

[tsig]

On your other note, if you want to defend, interpret, analyze and critique Ms. Anne Coulter, be my guest. You will be wasting a lot of time. No one should be blamed for not even getting to the merits of the argument of an idiot like her.

It doesn't matter who makes the case? Interesting. I was not aware of this rule.

Nice strawman you have there.

 

[tsig]

BobTheDonkey, I wonder how many more times you will have to ask that question before one of Knox's defenders answers it?

Humanity Blues, if Anne Coulter says the sky is blue, or the the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth, do you automatically discount what she says because of the abhorrent views she holds on other issues? That seems less than sceptical to me.

It's also an Ad Hominem Argument.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Fulcanelli]

I assume that it is Rudy's lower arch (contacting with more floor and causing a larger print) which forced FOA to shrink his print to 23 cm.

((I haven't made 15 posts here yet, so I can't links files ... here's the address of my image file. Please do check it out:
After

))

In these images, we see on the left, an untouched image of the bathmat print. In the middle is FOA's pink overlay which they insinuate shows that Rudy's foot matches ... however for some reason they don't take the edge of the pink print all the way to the right, to the edge of the inside of the ball of the foot behind the big toe.

In the right hand image, I applied your 25.7 cm estimate (I would take it up to 26 or so, but let's use your measurement) and a 96 mm width, and placed the image behind the pink Hobbit foot and the original bathmat print. Interestingly enough (or perhaps it's not surprising), Rudy's print seems to coincide better with the width of the bathmat print (better than in the pink Hobbit attempt) as there is a point where they line up, just at the 96 mm point. However, by extending the print to 25.7 cm, not only is it's length far beyond the FOA image, the arch of the foot is seen to leave a large print area which the bathmat print doesn't cover.

In fact, the bathmat print's arch behind the ball of the foot cuts across, much more in line with Raffaele's print.
========================

As I mentioned, I'm humbled by your critical review of my powerpoints. Keep in mind, however, that they are amateur constructions by myself, a single person. On the other hand, FOA and the overall Knox PR campaign is a million dollar (at this point, probably more) business, with a professional, multimember team who - according to their website - works with some of the largest American business corporations.

I can only hope that your critical eye - which I do appreciate - also trains itself on the FOA audio, visual, and text material. Because it's THERE where spin has to be taken apart.

Just putting Kermit's pic in for him

 

[Kermit]

.... quotes from Raffaele’s diary:
"Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night."

Quoting Raffaele is not a sure way of getting a believable, consistent statement. Police questioning (where the Sollecito team has never suggested abuse) records Raffaele not denying that they slept together (whenever that happened) but that before sleeping, Amanda was not in his flat:

From the initial investigation report: Verso le ore 20.30 - 21.00 la Knox si era allontanata dicendogli che sarebbe andata presso el pub Le Chic per incontrare degli amici mentre le stesso era rientrato nella propria abitazione, che alle ore 23.00 aveva ricevuto una telefonata de parte del padre sull'utenza fissa, che si era trattenuto sul computer per altre due ore facendosi una canna, che la ragazza era rientrata probablemente verso la una ....

(Rough translation: "Around 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., Knox left, saying to him that she would walk to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his flat, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 11:00 p.m., and that he was using his computer for two hours more while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned probably around 1am ....")

.... quotes from Raffaele’s diary:
"they are keeping me in jail because there is a kitchen knife with a trace of Meredith's DNA. It seems like a horror movie ... "

From different wire services: "Murder victim Meredith Kercher's DNA was found on a kitchen knife because suspect Raffaele Sollecito had once "pricked" her with it while cooking, he has claimed in his leaked prison diary.

Computer studies student Sollecito, 24, made the suggestion in a 40-page notebook given to his lawyers and entitled "Notes on a Prison Journey."

He has been held in jail with his girlfriend Amanda Knox, 20, for more than a month suspected of murdering Meredith, 20, found semi-naked with her throat slashed.

Raffaele Sollecito has written a prison diary in which he says the DNA of Meredith Kercher was only on his knife because they had cooked together

In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

.... quotes from Raffaele’s diary:
"Looking back and remembering it came to mind that the night dad sent me an sms message of goodnight to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with Amanda), then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not been with me at this time she would be dead."

Raffaele received his SMS around 6 in the morning, when his mobile phone was turned on. It may well be true that Amanda was with him at around that time. She actually may have made that statement.

But that doesn't relate to whether she was in Raffaele's flat the prior evening.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda left Raffaele to go to work, got a text message from Patrick telling her she didn't need to come in that night and returned to Raffaele's flat. Jovana Popovic testified that Amanda was at Raffaele's flat at 8:40 PM. Meredith left Robyn Butterworth's home five minutes later.

ETA: Amanda spent the remainder of the night doing things like watching a movie, reading Harry Potter, making love with her boyfriend and sleeping.

No. Witness testimony had Meredith leaving her friend's at 9 pm.

Amanda spent her time doing that, did she really? Funny, since Raffaele can remember none of those things. The first time he can actually remember even seeing her that night after 9 pm was at 1 am.;

And he certainly can't remember the supposed suicided mother/lesbian school angst deep conversation Amanda claimed they had.

There's only two things they can remember during the murder period that they both agree with each other happened..they ate dinner which was followed by the leak in the kitchen.

No, wait...those things didn't even happen during the murder period as they both had claimed because daddy called Raffaele at 8:42 that evening and Raffaele told him in that conversation that he'd just had a leak under his sink. That means the latest they had dinner was 8:30 and the leak had already happened by 8:40.

So, that leaves not one single occurrence that occurred during the murder period (post 9 pm let's say), that both Amanda and Raffaele between them agree happened. So...run it by us again Kestrel, what WERE they both doing post 9 pm that night?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you (and does Bob, Stilicho, Quadraginta, Fiona, and Fulcanelli) support the principle that the fsa files should in all cases involving DNA forensics be released to the defense? I am not asking whether you think that the files were released in this case (that has already been debated here without resolution); I am asking for a general answer, and I have previously documented that such release is near universal. How many times will I have to ask this question before I get a straight answer?

halides1, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that the defence are being denied as much as a single piece of evidence or data they are legally entitled to. I've not heard the defence claim it. I keep asking for evidence of this and nobody provides it, while continuing to assert it as some fact. The best they have been able to do to support it is to offer claims made by a random unqualified FOA blogger, Mark Waterbury. That is not evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unresponsive

halides1, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that the defence are being denied as much as a single piece of evidence or data they are legally entitled to. I've not heard the defence claim it. I keep asking for evidence of this and nobody provides it, while continuing to assert it as some fact. The best they have been able to do to support it is to offer claims made by a random unqualified FOA blogger, Mark Waterbury. That is not evidence.

Fulcanelli,

You did not answer my question. Do you support the principle of complete release of fsa files in all DNA-based cases, why or why not?

FYI, I contacted Chris Mellas and he confirmed the non-release of these files. You can accept this as evidence or not; I cannot force you.

Chris

 

[katy_did]

Katy_Did, I am both humbled and honoured by your interest in taking apart my powerpoints. However, most of this discussion is old. My friends on the PMF board already pointed out some of my measurement imprecisions months ago (mostly based on the fact that there's some "overhang" on the front and back of a foot).

So please save your breath and time if you're objective is to prove that my measurements aren't exact. As I explained in my prior post and as I explained in my powerpoints, my objective with the first footprint Powerpoints was to demonstrate that there was no lone-wolf in the cottage, as the luminol and visible footprints were of varying sizes. Independently of whether my measurement estimates were exactly correct, we saw that the barefoot footprints varied in size in relation to each other.

Hi Kermit. No, my intention was never simply to show that your measurements aren't exact, or even really to take apart your powerpoints. I just wanted to debunk the myth that Rudy's foot is to big to have made the prints, and unfortunately since your powerpoints are often referenced to support that belief, including on this thread, I had to point out the inaccuracies in the meaurements to do that. I appreciate that you perhaps didn't anticipate that kind of discussion at the time that you made them, however! As I said, I agree that the FOA print is smaller than it should be (apologies for misquoting your estimate of the length, by the way; I'm happy to go with 23cm), but that in itself doesn't mean that Guede's foot is too big to have made the print.

FOA and people who claim to be close to the Knox PR operation often have referred to the inside information they have. Charlie sent me a (supposed) image of police measurements of Rudy's foot. Interestingly enough, it didn't have the "notch" measurement of 57 mm, but rather a 72 mm measurement from the foremost point on the front of the ball of the foot (behind the middle toe), to a corresponding point directly behind, on the arch. What this measurement demonstrates is that Rudy's arch angles back quickly (while Raffaele's arch cuts across, not increasing much the "notch" measurement).

I assume that it is Rudy's lower arch (contacting with more floor and causing a larger print) which forced FOA to shrink his print to 23 cm.

((I haven't made 15 posts here yet, so I can't links files ... here's the address of my image file. Please do check it out:
After h-t-t-p-:-/-/, paste:
img251.imageshack.us/img251/5392/picture583.png ))

In these images, we see on the left, an untouched image of the bathmat print. In the middle is FOA's pink overlay which they insinuate shows that Rudy's foot matches ... however for some reason they don't take the edge of the pink print all the way to the right, to the edge of the inside of the ball of the foot behind the big toe.

In the right hand image, I applied your 25.7 cm estimate (I would take it up to 26 or so, but let's use your measurement) and a 96 mm width, and placed the image behind the pink Hobbit foot and the original bathmat print. Interestingly enough (or perhaps it's not surprising), Rudy's print seems to coincide better with the width of the bathmat print (better than in the pink Hobbit attempt) as there is a point where they line up, just at the 96 mm point. However, by extending the print to 25.7 cm, not only is it's length far beyond the FOA image, the arch of the foot is seen to leave a large print area which the bathmat print doesn't cover.

In fact, the bathmat print's arch behind the ball of the foot cuts across, much more in line with Raffaele's print.
========================

Thanks for that. Interesting to know about the different measurements on the police print.

If I can offer one alternative theory: although I agree with you that Guede's lower arch is outside the bounds of the bathmat footprint, I also think the lower arch is one of the 'missing areas' of the print, along with the upper right portion of the foot. If you look to the lower left of the footprint, you can see what may be the start of this lower arch, which fades away and makes the print artificially narrow.

Guede's print has a pronounced curved crease which is most likely the start of the arch. In a 'perfect' print, like the one he gave at the police station, this area would be visible, but it would very likely not show up if he had stepped more lightly, as the person who made the bathmat print obviously did. I think this curved area aligns closely with the 'missing' area of the bathmat footprint. The pictures below show (from left to right): the lower arch area of Guede's foot, the bathmat footprint with what may be the start of the arch marked, and what Guede's footprint would look like if he did not step heavily enough for the arch area to appear:

Now I'm certainly not suggesting this is the *only* interpretation of the footprint, or the definitive one; it's just another theory as to how it could have been made. But my point in discussing the footprint has always been that it's impossible to say with any certainty that any particular person made it, and certainly Guede cannot be excluded from consideration here.

I do appreciate the time, effort and ingenuity that obviously went into making the Powerpoints, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions. You should certainly take it as a compliment that they've been the subject of so much discussion and analysis!

 

[stilicho]

Agatha,

Just doing a quick read, I see at least four problems with the Ann Coulter piece on this case....Fourth, she refers to bloody footprints when she should say luminol-positive footprints. Given the lack of a positive result when the prints were tested for blood, calling them bloody is an overstatement.

Chris

Well, that certainly settled that. I guess AK is innocent and soon to be released.

@Kestrel: I think you have the wrong alibis. Those were the ones they tried out at first but in which they couldn't keep their facts straight. Do you remember anything about this case? RS told the police that AK's explanations (which you presented in condensed form) were rubbish. Do you remember that? So AK decided to voluntarily accuse an innocent man of sexual assault and murder. Do you remember that too?

So, again, where was Amanda on the evening of 01 NOV 2007?

 

[stilicho]

The reporters are inept, the judges are corrupt, the defense attorneys are incompetent, the lab results are contaminated and the prosecution is vindictive.

You forgot that the medical examiner was also inept. He apparently confused multiple knife wounds to the face and neck with mere bruising to the arms. It wasn't mere bruising that forced the court to close the autopsy sessions to journalists.

Here's an indication (thanks to M at PMF) of what those in the courtroom witnessed:

"The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a 'strange' enjoyment of her suffering."

That was in the judge's statement in the refusal for AK's application for house arrest in JUN 2008.

Nobody who has seen the medical examiner's evidence has come away thinking that the wounds Meredith suffered were the result of a single assailant. She was subdued, tortured, and murdered.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

You did not answer my question. Do you support the principle of complete release of fsa files in all DNA-based cases, why or why not?

FYI, I contacted Chris Mellas and he confirmed the non-release of these files. You can accept this as evidence or not; I cannot force you.

Chris

halidis1, I'll answer your second point first. Chris Mellas, we've never met but all the same he and I know each other well. I'll say this...I do not hold either him or his word in very high esteem. He doesn't like me much either. My extensive experience with him has put my level of trust in anything he may say at zero. This is completely due to, time and again, the information he has put out there having been proven to be false. He cannot be regarded as part of the defence, but rather he is an instrumental figure of the FOA. The two are separate things. One is credible, albeit to a limit, the other is not. I'm sorry, but he is just not credible as a source, on any level.

In regard to the fsa files. You demand a solid position on them from myself. This I cannot give. This is for several reasons. First of all, I do not know if under Italian law they are entitled to them (can you demonstrate this is so?). I do not know if they've been denied them (can you offer any evidence this is the case, specifically from the actual defence rather then from the FOA?). Finally, I do not know what these records 'IF' they are not in the hands of the defence, could prove what other computer records do not. Perhaps you could explain. What would the fsa. files show that the other records, such as the cache and more specifically, the I/O record do not?

In short, what is it that they are needed to prove that the other records can not? What are the 'facts' that you assume to be there that as yet are not established due to a lacking of these files? If you have not seen these files, surely then you don't know what they'll prove, rather you are hoping? What 'is' this hope and on what tangible basis is it founded on?

 

[stilicho]

Now I'm certainly not suggesting this is the *only* interpretation of the footprint, or the definitive one; it's just another theory as to how it could have been made. But my point in discussing the footprint has always been that it's impossible to say with any certainty that any particular person made it, and certainly Guede cannot be excluded from consideration here.

Was that the interpretation made by either of the defence teams in court? I know a little about AK's famous naked bathmat shuffle but there's not too much on what they said about the footprint itself.

Are you convinced at least that your theory does not exclude Sollecito?

 

[Kestrel]

Nobody who has seen the medical examiner's evidence has come away thinking that the wounds Meredith suffered were the result of a single assailant.

You seem to have forgotten about Carlo Torre's statements regarding a single attacker.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You seem to have forgotten about Carlo Torre's statements regarding a single attacker.

And??? Torre defends impossible cases for a hobby. Have you reviewed the past cases he has defended and his far fetched reconstructions in those? Let's face it, Torre's a guy whose testimony should always begin with 'Once upon a time..'

But to be fair anyone can screw up on occasion, so they should be judged on the merits of each new argument they offer. I looked at Torre's reconstruction. It simply isn't credible. The judges agreed, with good reason. And let's face it, these were judges that got sold the whole sob story, they were willing to bend over backwards for the pair and did. But even with all that, they didn't accept Torre's crock.

 

[Fulcanelli]

By the way Kestrel, you ignored my question. What were the couple doing that night after 9 pm?

 

[Kestrel]

By the way Kestrel, you ignored my question. What were the couple doing that night after 9 pm?

I already responded to that question.

If you require an answer that conforms to your belief system, may I suggest looking for it on the TJMK site instead of on a skeptics forum like JREF.

 

[Kestrel]

And??? Torre defends impossible cases for a hobby. Have you reviewed the past cases he has defended and his far fetched reconstructions in those? Let's face it, Torre's a guy whose testimony should always begin with 'Once upon a time..'

But to be fair anyone can screw up on occasion, so they should be judged on the merits of each new argument they offer. I looked at Torre's reconstruction. It simply isn't credible. The judges agreed, with good reason. And let's face it, these were judges that got sold the whole sob story, they were willing to bend over backwards for the pair and did. But even with all that, they didn't accept Torre's crock.

An attack on the person instead of the argument, loaded language, appeal to authority. It still needs a lot of work to match the JREF record for logical fallacies in a two paragraph post.