Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Malkmus]

In any case the trap is irrelevant because Amanda said that Raffaele accidentally spilled the water on the floor. No mention of a broken pipe at all. If she meant that she needed the mop to clean up water leaking from a missing sink trap then I do not think she would have used the words "spilled a lot of water by accident". Unless that is one of the differences in the use of language between the uk an america. Is it?

Fiona, is this newer information than the June 12 testimony? Because there she clearly mentions the broken pipe. Where did she say that RS just accidentally spilled the water himself?

LG: And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

AK: Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from
underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath
and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates
"broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down" (si e rallentato)]
and water was coming out.

GCM: Can you say what time this was?

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and
he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but
it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm,
the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he
told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken
again. So, umm...

 

[Fiona]

@ Mallkmus. No, it is older information: it is what she said in her e-mail on the 4th Nov 2007. I am aware she said something different in court. The e-mail was closer in time to the event and she was under no pressure of any kind when she wrote it. She was not under oath in court. I do not know which version is true but I think the difference is interesting. Can you say whether the form of words in the e-mail conveys the idea of a broken or leaking pipe in america?

ETA: sorry she may well have been under oath when she gave the court version: sorry

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Good points. When the bra clasp was collected 47 days after the initial search it was found in Meredith's bedroom, correct?

Yes. Under a pile of Meredith's clothes. So it's not likely for Raffaele's Dust to have even landed on it. The contamination must have come from the clothes, the floor, or the gloves of those collecting it. Which, given that Raffaele was never in the room and left little DNA evidence of ever being in the cottage (much less enough of a trace to contaminate the gloves and rub off on the clasp in such a relatively large concentration), leaves us still wondering how the clasp could have been contaminated with his DNA.

 

[Kermit]

sorry she may well have been under oath when she gave the court version: sorry

.
Suspects are not under obligation to tell the truth. Witnesses are subject to this requirement.

 

[Malkmus]

@ Mallkmus. No, it is older information: it is what she said in her e-mail on the 4th Nov 2007. I am aware she said something different in court. The e-mail was closer in time to the event and she was under no pressure of any kind when she wrote it. She was not under oath in court. I do not know which version is true but I think the difference is interesting. Can you say whether the form of words in the e-mail conveys the idea of a broken or leaking pipe in america?

ETA: sorry she may well have been under oath when she gave the court version: sorry

Thanks, Fiona, I hadn't really paid attention to her e-mail much before. But I agree that usually when one says they spilled something accidentally it implies human error, and she doesn't indicate the pipe. However, she does mention the pipe in her handwritten note to the police two days later. Hard to tell if the e-mail explanation of the water was worded that way simply to generalize the fact that water was "spilled" on the floor, without going into the specifics of the pipe breaking. You can look at it two ways I suppose. Either she lied about the water on the floor altogether, or the details of the incident just didn't seem important to her until she was questioned by the police about it.

As far as lying about the spill, I don't think there was much reason to, as the whole mop incident was blown out of proportion by the media when they reported that AK and RS were found by the postal police "holding" a mop (not true), as if caught red-handed cleaning the crime scene. I think if Amanda had lied, it would have been to cover the fact that she had used the mop to clean the crime scene and had to explain why the mop was against the wall outside. However, I don't think the mop could have possibly been used to clean up a bloody crime scene (even as a final polish), without picking up some blood. And I don't think the mop was ever brought up in court as evidence. Therefore, I don't think the mop was used for anything other than to mop up the water in RS's flat, and she therefore had no reason to lie about the water spill in the first place.

 

[stilicho]

Thanks, Fiona, I hadn't really paid attention to her e-mail much before. But I agree that usually when one says they spilled something accidentally it implies human error, and she doesn't indicate the pipe. However, she does mention the pipe in her handwritten note to the police two days later. Hard to tell if the e-mail explanation of the water was worded that way simply to generalize the fact that water was "spilled" on the floor, without going into the specifics of the pipe breaking. You can look at it two ways I suppose. Either she lied about the water on the floor altogether, or the details of the incident just didn't seem important to her until she was questioned by the police about it.

As far as lying about the spill, I don't think there was much reason to, as the whole mop incident was blown out of proportion by the media when they reported that AK and RS were found by the postal police "holding" a mop (not true), as if caught red-handed cleaning the crime scene. I think if Amanda had lied, it would have been to cover the fact that she had used the mop to clean the crime scene and had to explain why the mop was against the wall outside. However, I don't think the mop could have possibly been used to clean up a bloody crime scene (even as a final polish), without picking up some blood. And I don't think the mop was ever brought up in court as evidence. Therefore, I don't think the mop was used for anything other than to mop up the water in RS's flat, and she therefore had no reason to lie about the water spill in the first place.

I agree that the alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 was not specific enough about either the mop or the spilled water at Raffaele's place. We can only assume that the amount of water allegedly spilled wasn't that serious. Who would anyone leave a "lot of water" on the floor in their suite overnight?

Amanda also habitually uses the term "a lot of" in her speech and writing:

"I understand that the police are under a lot of stress..."

06 NOV 2007 Note

"I thought a lot of things..."

Ibid.

"[He] had to go to a lot of trouble to get me my spot there..."

15 SEP 2007 Myspace blog.

" spent a LOT of time in hamburg shopping with my sister..."

02 SEP 2007 Myspace blog.

" received calls from a lot of different people..."

04 NOV 2007 email.

It's used in a general way as a preamble or as a bridge to fill in an interval.

Amanda likely used the story of the water to explain the mop. The mop was important enough to her to warrant explanation and was almost surely a part of their alibi even if it wasn't important to the investigators or the prosecution. We're only guessing but there must have been something that happened with the mop at Raffaele's the previous night, or they thought someone had seen her with it, and she wanted to have an explanation at hand in case anything was discovered.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, I may have made a mistake on the soap. I will look into it. This has nothing to do with the fact that the clasp was mishandled.

Admit that the clasp wasn't properly handled.

No. I don't see any reason to do that.

 

[lector]

I agree that the alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 was not specific enough about either the mop or the spilled water at Raffaele's place. We can only assume that the amount of water allegedly spilled wasn't that serious. Who would anyone leave a "lot of water" on the floor in their suite overnight?

Conversely, of course, if it's not "a lot of water", who doesn't just swab it up with a towel, paper or cloth? Not to mention that you don't need a mop if it's not "a lot of water."

There's something odd about that pesky mop.

 

[Dan O.]

In review, I see that Fiona, stilicho and Fulcanelli have been claiming that the cottage was sealed without providing any reference for this purported fact.

[Post 500]
Author : Fiona
Date : 9th December 2009 10:27 AM
It was in a sealed crime scene with no source of contamination.

[Post 725]
Author : stilicho
Date : 11th December 2009 12:34 PM
Regarding the crimescene, MB, the entire cottage was sealed off after the body was discovered.

[Post 866]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 12th December 2009 05:56 PM
But as it happens, they did have more time then their colleagues in say, the UK or US, considering they had the crime scene sealed off for over a year
​

But I missed Kermit's response earlier where he not only repeats the claim that the crime scene was sealed but preemptively moves the goalposts with another unfounded speculation.

.
Umm, .... Charlie, you may have noticed that both of those photos which I imagine you posted to insinuate somehow that the police were in and out several times before 18 December 2007, .... well, both photos are dated 18 December 2007.

If you have some photos dated 1 December 2007 or 25 November 2007, maybe that would be more interesting, .... but not even that, because if they were ILE photos with whatever date, we could assume that the police had authorisation to enter the cottage.

The photos you would have to dig up to surprise us would be of some "plumber" friends of the Sollecito clan, holding a late November newspaper and the bra clasp, by the light of a flashlight. But since that didn't happen (and no one, neither Raffaele's nor Amanda's legal teams have said it happened), I guess you won't be surprising us.

Given that statement, it would be foolish for the defense to show what they have until the police clearly and irrevocably certify every access made to the cottage while it was under their control.

 

[Amazer]

You've given no indication that you would accept the results of my calculations.

If your calculation hold up... how could I not accept them?

 

[Fiona]

In review, I see that Fiona, stilicho and Fulcanelli have been claiming that the cottage was sealed without providing any reference for this purported fact.

[Post 500]
Author : Fiona
Date : 9th December 2009 10:27 AM
It was in a sealed crime scene with no source of contamination.

[Post 725]
Author : stilicho
Date : 11th December 2009 12:34 PM
Regarding the crimescene, MB, the entire cottage was sealed off after the body was discovered.

[Post 866]
Author : Fulcanelli
Date : 12th December 2009 05:56 PM
But as it happens, they did have more time then their colleagues in say, the UK or US, considering they had the crime scene sealed off for over a year
​

But I missed Kermit's response earlier where he not only repeats the claim that the crime scene was sealed but preemptively moves the goalposts with another unfounded speculation.




Given that statement, it would be foolish for the defense to show what they have until the police clearly and irrevocably certify every access made to the cottage while it was under their control.

The police testified, so presumably if the defence had evidence that there was unauthorised and uncontrolled access to the scene, they would have asked them about it in court? I have no idea what you are getting at here. Do you think that court proceedings are all dramatic, and that trials hang on one major piece of incontrovertible evidence pulled out like the proverbial rabbit? Not usually. Just as barrack room lawyering over unlikely "possibilities" does not establish "reasonable doubt"

Do you have any reason to believe the crime scene was not sealed? Do you have any reason to imagine that there were unauthorised intrusions to that scene, apart from the burglaries we know about? Do you have any reason to suppose that if there is such evidence the defence would not have brought it out in the first trial, given that their aim was to establish the truth which would free their clients? Do you assert that such evidence has come to light since the trial and that it changes the whole picture? If that is your contention how do you know?

Most police and court work is slog and detail, Dan_O. That does not make good television but it is how it actually works in practice. I accept there is a fair amount of theatre too: but what you seem to imply here makes little sense to me

 

[stilicho]

In review, I see that Fiona, stilicho and Fulcanelli have been claiming that the cottage was sealed without providing any reference for this purported fact.

There were plenty of news stories about the crimescene being sealed. There were pictures of police tape from the exterior of the cottage. The defence teams did not claim in court that the cottage was not sealed.

Nobody is "claiming" anything except for you.

If you've lost the references to the cottage being sealed then that's your problem.

 

[stilicho]

If your calculation hold up... how could I not accept them?

You don't need calculations to show what happens when you throw a 4kg boulder a distance of a couple metres through a window. Even assuming a perfect shot the first time, there will be glass all over the place, including under the window on the outside.

Not only that but the rock won't always land in exactly the same place.

I don't know why Dan O doesn't just find a large stone and try it on an old window set up against his garage or something. The placement of the rock inside Filomena's room wasn't what disproved the burglary. Or, at least, it wasn't the only thing that disproved a break and enter.

 

[Kermit]

I missed Kermit's response earlier where he not only repeats the claim that the crime scene was sealed but preemptively moves the goalposts with another unfounded speculation .... Given that statement, it would be foolish for the defense to show what they have until the police clearly and irrevocably certify every access made to the cottage while it was under their control.

The police testified, so presumably if the defence had evidence that there was unauthorised and uncontrolled access to the scene, they would have asked them about it in court? I have no idea what you are getting at here.

.
Dan O, are you suggesting that the defence purposefully withheld information in court during the trial which found Amanda guilty of murder (information which demonstrates that the cottage had been broken into before December 17)? And that this information could be beneficial to Amanda's legal stand?

My opinion is that Luciano Ghirga is smarter than a dozen FOAKers bound together.

 

[Amazer]

You don't need calculations to show what happens when you throw a 4kg boulder a distance of a couple metres through a window. Even assuming a perfect shot the first time, there will be glass all over the place, including under the window on the outside.

Not only that but the rock won't always land in exactly the same place.

I don't know why Dan O doesn't just find a large stone and try it on an old window set up against his garage or something. The placement of the rock inside Filomena's room wasn't what disproved the burglary. Or, at least, it wasn't the only thing that disproved a break and enter.

I agree that the stone is but a small part (if any) in the whole that discredits the break-in scenario. It's just that stone is something that I know well. I've worked with stone for more then a decade so I'm quite comfortable judging what it can do and what it can't. Hence my focus on the rock.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fiona,
The various water spill/broke pipe stories and the detailing of the movement of that pesky mop have always been troubling to me. When I first saw that photo of the area under Raffaele's sink, I thought it was posed and that is before I knew that was a box of Laundry detergent. Who keeps laundry detergent under their sink? I think most people keep it in the same area as their clothes washing machine. The photo struck me as being disingenuous then and even more so now. Add another "staged" scene as far as I am concerned.

 

[Fiona]

I keep soap powder under my sink. I do not think that is unusual here. But I agree with you and Stilicho. The whole story is troubling. I suspect that Knox and Sollecito thought the mop was important for some reason (rightly or wrongly) and therefore they made different attempts to account for it. There is no reason to presume that we have grasped what they were worried about because none of us knows what actually happened and so we cannot second guess its significance

 

[Alt+F4]

Fiona,
The various water spill/broke pipe stories and the detailing of the movement of that pesky mop have always been troubling to me. When I first saw that photo of the area under Raffaele's sink, I thought it was posed and that is before I knew that was a box of Laundry detergent. Who keeps laundry detergent under their sink? I think most people keep it in the same area as their clothes washing machine. The photo struck me as being disingenuous then and even more so now. Add another "staged" scene as far as I am concerned.

We keep the laundry detergent under the sink in my house because we don't have a washing machine in the apartment (we go to the laundry mat, as we call it where I live). What struck me as odd about the photo is that Amanda claimed there was so much water that she had to go all the way back to her apartment get a mop to clean it up yet I saw no indication that the box of detergent under the sink came into any contact with water.

 

[Fiona]

We keep the laundry detergent under the sink in my house because we don't have a washing machine in the apartment (we go to the laundry mat, as we call it where I live). What struck me as odd about the photo is that Amanda claimed there was so much water that she had to go all the way back to her apartment get a mop to clean it up yet I saw no indication that the box of detergent under the sink came into any contact with water.

The picture is not credible as presented as you say: and as shown the use made of it is not right, either insofar as it relates to what we are to make of the knife. But it is relevant to the mop: only it makes the matter more confusing rather than less for the reasons you give.

 

[Alt+F4]

There is no reason to presume that we have grasped what they were worried about because none of us knows what actually happened and so we cannot second guess its significance

While this is true a few of the details can be figured out quite easily by someone just asking:
1. Rafaelle's landlord if there was a dishwasher in the apartment.
2. Rafaelle's (second) cleaning lady if he had a mop in the apartment and to clairfy her testimony that she "mopped" his apartment on a weekly basis. Did she mean mop as a noun or a verb or both?