Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Raises hand too...
Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
Raises hand too...
And me
Please spell out the "real" facts, then, without further ado.
Even a reference to a specific area of your website, where I've read some items but by no means all, will serve.
Let's see if we can get this one aspect of the case nailed down before other distractions set in.
The story flickered across my consciousness in the two weeks after the murder, but since then I don't recall reading about it or thinking about it until this thread popped up. I'd been under the impression the housemate's 'confession' was genuine and the black guy and possibly also the housemates boyfriend who I thought the housemate had also implicated. I was pretty confused.
Here's an interesting little quote I just found:
This Mark Chat person seems to have been in both the murder scene and in the team that found the knife at Raffaele's. If this isn't an error of some sort Halides1 should be happy.
Any thoughts anyone?
http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/perugia/2009/02/28/154670-uccisa_scena_inguardabile.shtml
This Mark Chat person seems to have been in both the murder scene and in the team that found the knife at Raffaele's. If this isn't an error of some sort Halides1 should be happy.
Any thoughts anyone?
Last edited:
Wasn't there a whole argument in relation to the LCN DNA on the knife that two different teams searched the two locations, hence no possibility of Meredith's DNA getting accidentally transferred (not that it's likely)? This quote seems to me to undermine that simple dismissal of contamination between the two locations by the forensic teams. This Chat fellow saw Meredith's body at the crime scene and was involved in the discovery of the knife.
Last edited:
If that is reliable it is new and it is potentially important. Until now I had understood that the team which collected the knife was made up of different people from those who did the examination of the cottage. That meant that contamination was impossible at that stage and left only contamination in the lab as a possibility.
If the same people did both; and if they did not adopt proper protocols; then it is not impossible that there was contamation between the two sites. It is not very likely given the quote says they were booted and gloved etc: but it is no longer impossible
If the same people did both; and if they did not adopt proper protocols; then it is not impossible that there was contamation between the two sites. It is not very likely given the quote says they were booted and gloved etc: but it is no longer impossible
This was also posted to PMF by Catnip in a whole series of Italian newspaper quotes that I don't think many people read back in March '09:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=122
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=122
Last edited:
Hmm, that really seems to say he was at the cottage. And later at Sollecito's home. Wish we had the documentation about who searched where.
Maybe I'm making a spurious argument here (If I do please correct me) but wouldn't the possibility of contamination hinge on what he did at those two locations?
Or rather: which members of the search teams were at both locations and what did they handle?
Maybe I'm making a spurious argument here (If I do please correct me) but wouldn't the possibility of contamination hinge on what he did at those two locations?
Or rather: which members of the search teams were at both locations and what did they handle?
Sure, but it complicates the argument.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
I appreciated reading this and I hope everyone else got a chance to read it too. It seems the real issues you have are with the forensics and the possibility, in your opinion, that Amanda participated but Raffaele did not.
You aren't alone in a lot of those suppositions and I could have bought into any of them. The DNA evidence itself would require a lot more hours in the day than I think I have but what I've seen appears to be rock solid. It's the DNA and the footprints that really connect Raffaele to the crime scene and I think that's the only reason that his lawyers aren't simply cutting Amanda loose. You have to wonder about their approach. They must have evaluated the forensics evidence and realised that there was virtually no way to sever the ties completely without Amanda striking back.
The worst problem they have, of course, is Curatolo's testimony and I've noticed that Raffaele's lawyers seem to be on course for trying to discredit him on appeal. That's the only eyewitness who specifically places both of them together, near the crimescene, during the time they both said they weren't there. I think the chances of them convincing the court are dim because other people knew that Curatolo was there and his sense of time was relatively precise.
Thanks again for your taking the effort to explain your position. It sounds as though, first and foremost, your interests are in justice served for all involved.
Hello,
first of all I`m neither a DNA expert nor any sort of other scientific expert,that would be relevant in this case nor do i know every single detail in that case.
I just try to make some conclusions using common sense.
That means, I look for some facts in this case, which both sides (AK + RS guilty, AK + RS innocent) accept as undisputable, and then try to look how these facts fit together with the other issues, on which both sides don't agree.
For example:
I think it`s undisputable, that the crime scene was staged and rearranged: MK`s body was moved some hours after she died, some of her clothes were removed after the blood had dried, there was a bloody bare footprint on the bathmat without bloody footprints leading towards it etc..
So it can be assumed as a fact, that the crime scene was staged and rearranged.
If u take this into account and the other fact, that there was someone in the cottage, who was barefoot, when he stepped into the blood and now look at the claims of the AK supporters, that the luminol revealed bare-footprints, who were found at the scene had nothing to do with the bloody barefoot print, which was found on the bathmat, because luminol also reacts with juice fruit or whatever, which conclusion makes more sense?:
I acknowledge, that the crime scene was rearranged and staged, that there was someone who stepped in the blood while barefeet and that the luminol revealed footprints doesn`t match the ones of RG, but the luminol revealed barefeet had nothing to do with the bloody footprint on the mat. That`s because there is also a possibility, that the luminol reacts with other substances than blood/bleach like juice fruit. The conclusion from the italian investigators, that the footprints were bloody and cleaned up is false or at least highly questionable and that is another proof of the incompetence of the Italian investigators/scientists. Moreover the incompetence of the italian investigators/scientists is confirmed by the fact, that they atributed the footprint on the math to RS, which is false, because it fits RGs footprint.
The other conclusion is:
Italian investigators/scientists, which are plausible and competent revealed cleaned up bloody bare-footprints with luminol. The conclusion, that these footprints were indeed bloody, when they were cleaned up, is totally consistent with the fact, that there was someone in the cottage whose feet were bloody, when he stepped on the bathmat. So if we assume the plausible fact, that these bloody prints were indeed cleaned up, we can take a look at the dimensions of these cleaned up prints. A simple measurement tells us, that these prints don`t match RGs footprints, as they are much too small. But the footprints seem to be in the range of AK and/or RS.
The reliability of all the things discussed above is confirmed by the fact, that the bloody footprint on the math could be attributed to RS by an italian expert on that field.
So if I take a look at both conclusions the second one seems to be plausible and coherent; the first one looks like: ok, i cast doubt on a simple piece of evidence, ignore all facts, that confirm the trueness of that piece of evidence and finally come to the conclusion, that this piece of evidence is false, because i`ve read somewhere something that this evidence can be scientifically interpreted in a different way.
And that is, I think, the main problem in the theory that RG was the lone-wolf murderer. Even if you cast doubt on some pieces of evidence, you can`t build up a plausible scenario, that RG did it alone. If you take all the definitive profen facts into account and realize that they harmonize pretty well with "the highly controversial discussed" pieces of evidence and remember that the jury in Perugia, which heard all the evidence of the case over 11 months, accepted almost every item of them, I think, the scenario that RG did it alone is just not plausible, and the decision of the court to convict all three was correct.
ANd by the way, I`m not sure whether it was ever claimed by an Amanda supporter in the issue about the luminol revealed footprints, discussed above, that," yes, the footprints were cleaned up, but they do belong to Rudy. The fact, that they are smaller than Rudys prints is because you don`t touch the ground with your whole footprint, when you walk"
Well even if this was true, it just wouldn`t make sense. Rudy initially had his Nike sneakers on (bloody print in MKs bedroom). So how could he have done this bloody bare footprints? Either he immediately gets his shoes off after he stabbed Meredith, with no plausible reason, steps into the blood and then runs away barefeet or with his shoes on again (heard by the witness Capezz..). Or he runs away with his shoes on after stabbing MK.
In the second case, he returns later, gets barefeet (why?) without being afraid, that someone had come home, again totally unplausible, staging a rape (for what reason?), cleans up some of "his tracks", but leaves damning tracks behind like his "Nike shoeprint" and the unflushed toilet (again totally unplausible). In the first case it`s the same story, except that he`d already left his bloody footprint.
And last but not least, what I haven`t mentioned yet and what was also discussed controversially: The staged break in.
In my opinion, just using common sense, the scenario, that the break-in was staged is much more plausible than that i was real.
Again i use the same "logic":
You have a rearranged and staged crime scene and you have a "break-in", which consists of so many odd and unusual things (glass on top of clothes, almost impossibility to climb up the wall etc.). So i think the conclusion isn`t far fetched to believe in the falsety of the break-in, if u consider all the unusual things of it, which are backed up by the fact, that someone exhausivetly tried to rearrange the crime scene and a jury that had much more information about the "break-in" and didn`t believe in the realness of it either.
So, what i actually wanted to say, now in only a few words:
The reliability of some of the controversial discussed evidence is backed up by undisputable facts of the case. If you accept the "controversial evidence" it fits quite well into a scenario, in which RG, RS and AK are involved. If you regard the "controversial evidence" as false, believe only in RGs guilt, and take all the undisputable facts into account, you come to scenarios, that are totally unrealistic and implausible.
LiamG.
first of all I`m neither a DNA expert nor any sort of other scientific expert,that would be relevant in this case nor do i know every single detail in that case.
I just try to make some conclusions using common sense.
That means, I look for some facts in this case, which both sides (AK + RS guilty, AK + RS innocent) accept as undisputable, and then try to look how these facts fit together with the other issues, on which both sides don't agree.
For example:
I think it`s undisputable, that the crime scene was staged and rearranged: MK`s body was moved some hours after she died, some of her clothes were removed after the blood had dried, there was a bloody bare footprint on the bathmat without bloody footprints leading towards it etc..
So it can be assumed as a fact, that the crime scene was staged and rearranged.
If u take this into account and the other fact, that there was someone in the cottage, who was barefoot, when he stepped into the blood and now look at the claims of the AK supporters, that the luminol revealed bare-footprints, who were found at the scene had nothing to do with the bloody barefoot print, which was found on the bathmat, because luminol also reacts with juice fruit or whatever, which conclusion makes more sense?:
I acknowledge, that the crime scene was rearranged and staged, that there was someone who stepped in the blood while barefeet and that the luminol revealed footprints doesn`t match the ones of RG, but the luminol revealed barefeet had nothing to do with the bloody footprint on the mat. That`s because there is also a possibility, that the luminol reacts with other substances than blood/bleach like juice fruit. The conclusion from the italian investigators, that the footprints were bloody and cleaned up is false or at least highly questionable and that is another proof of the incompetence of the Italian investigators/scientists. Moreover the incompetence of the italian investigators/scientists is confirmed by the fact, that they atributed the footprint on the math to RS, which is false, because it fits RGs footprint.
The other conclusion is:
Italian investigators/scientists, which are plausible and competent revealed cleaned up bloody bare-footprints with luminol. The conclusion, that these footprints were indeed bloody, when they were cleaned up, is totally consistent with the fact, that there was someone in the cottage whose feet were bloody, when he stepped on the bathmat. So if we assume the plausible fact, that these bloody prints were indeed cleaned up, we can take a look at the dimensions of these cleaned up prints. A simple measurement tells us, that these prints don`t match RGs footprints, as they are much too small. But the footprints seem to be in the range of AK and/or RS.
The reliability of all the things discussed above is confirmed by the fact, that the bloody footprint on the math could be attributed to RS by an italian expert on that field.
So if I take a look at both conclusions the second one seems to be plausible and coherent; the first one looks like: ok, i cast doubt on a simple piece of evidence, ignore all facts, that confirm the trueness of that piece of evidence and finally come to the conclusion, that this piece of evidence is false, because i`ve read somewhere something that this evidence can be scientifically interpreted in a different way.
And that is, I think, the main problem in the theory that RG was the lone-wolf murderer. Even if you cast doubt on some pieces of evidence, you can`t build up a plausible scenario, that RG did it alone. If you take all the definitive profen facts into account and realize that they harmonize pretty well with "the highly controversial discussed" pieces of evidence and remember that the jury in Perugia, which heard all the evidence of the case over 11 months, accepted almost every item of them, I think, the scenario that RG did it alone is just not plausible, and the decision of the court to convict all three was correct.
ANd by the way, I`m not sure whether it was ever claimed by an Amanda supporter in the issue about the luminol revealed footprints, discussed above, that," yes, the footprints were cleaned up, but they do belong to Rudy. The fact, that they are smaller than Rudys prints is because you don`t touch the ground with your whole footprint, when you walk"
Well even if this was true, it just wouldn`t make sense. Rudy initially had his Nike sneakers on (bloody print in MKs bedroom). So how could he have done this bloody bare footprints? Either he immediately gets his shoes off after he stabbed Meredith, with no plausible reason, steps into the blood and then runs away barefeet or with his shoes on again (heard by the witness Capezz..). Or he runs away with his shoes on after stabbing MK.
In the second case, he returns later, gets barefeet (why?) without being afraid, that someone had come home, again totally unplausible, staging a rape (for what reason?), cleans up some of "his tracks", but leaves damning tracks behind like his "Nike shoeprint" and the unflushed toilet (again totally unplausible). In the first case it`s the same story, except that he`d already left his bloody footprint.
And last but not least, what I haven`t mentioned yet and what was also discussed controversially: The staged break in.
In my opinion, just using common sense, the scenario, that the break-in was staged is much more plausible than that i was real.
Again i use the same "logic":
You have a rearranged and staged crime scene and you have a "break-in", which consists of so many odd and unusual things (glass on top of clothes, almost impossibility to climb up the wall etc.). So i think the conclusion isn`t far fetched to believe in the falsety of the break-in, if u consider all the unusual things of it, which are backed up by the fact, that someone exhausivetly tried to rearrange the crime scene and a jury that had much more information about the "break-in" and didn`t believe in the realness of it either.
So, what i actually wanted to say, now in only a few words:
The reliability of some of the controversial discussed evidence is backed up by undisputable facts of the case. If you accept the "controversial evidence" it fits quite well into a scenario, in which RG, RS and AK are involved. If you regard the "controversial evidence" as false, believe only in RGs guilt, and take all the undisputable facts into account, you come to scenarios, that are totally unrealistic and implausible.
LiamG.
LiamG,
There are many people who I think dispute many of your indisputable facts, Bruce for example. There really are very few facts that are not disputed beyond the facts that Meredith is dead and Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are in prison.
There are many people who I think dispute many of your indisputable facts, Bruce for example. There really are very few facts that are not disputed beyond the facts that Meredith is dead and Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are in prison.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
The length of the interviews kept changing in the media, ShuttIt. I don't think anyone who now knows about the Marriott PR campaign is mystified why this happened. I think it was my second post on this thread where I complained that it seemed impossible to tell how long the interviews were from the media reports. Bruce Fisher still has a 53 hour figure on his site.
As with the Kitchen Drawer Of Horrors, it was rather a surprise to discover that they had barely settled into the interview when Amanda blamed Patrick for killing Meredith. No food and water? Wasn't she tucking into a pizza with Raffaele just a few hours earlier?
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
Welcome LiamG:
The results indicated that particular care should be taken to avoid interferences when a crime scene is contaminated with parsnip, turnip or horseradish, and when surfaces coated with enamel paint are involved.
(Source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85007501/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 )
I didn't hear their lawyers argue they were all stomping barefoot making parsnip wine that night!
I wonder what would happen if a criminal washed a floor containing bloody footprints with a solution of water and horseradish.
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,757
Sometimes it helps to use a bit of reductio ad absurdum, Rose. What if all the news you read--everything from stories about a train wreck to a search for a lost child--were filed, edited, and published under false names and paid for by unnamed interests? And, in their defence, the writers, editors, and publishers claimed that their integrity should not be an issue even when the pseudonyms are passed off as real?
How might that change the representation of actual events? Should the lawyers and judges at court trials be allowed to wear masks and create false names? How about the defendants? The police?
I hope you're understanding that I am simply taking the case of a single person and extending it to all involved. My guess is that we'd all become convinced that we were trapped in a Kafka novel. If Frank wants to play reporter then let's give him a costume--maybe a jaunty cap with a "Press" card stuck in it--and treat him as a character in a stage drama.
- Status