Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Does anyone know whether it was ever made clear why Dr. Luca Lalli, the original medical examiner, was eventually fired from the case? Looking over many of the early news reports, we see that as early as November 6th, the day Amanda was arrested, theories of the crime had already been worked out and were being announced to the press, but that Dr. Lalli essentially disagreed with them:

"[Chief of Police] Mr De Felice said that the three had “tried to overpower her sexually” but Miss Kercher had resisted. He added that the student had been “morally upright”, and that no traces of drugs had been found in her blood.

"Giuliano Amato, the Italian interior minister, told a news conference: “It’s an ugly story in which people which this girl had in her home, friends, tried to force her into relations which she didn’t want.”

"The Italian media has speculated that two men may have been involved in the killing, with one holding her down while the other killed her. One theory is that Ms Kercher, from Coulsdon, South London, met the man, or men, for sex last Thursday night but that the encounter turned nasty."

In the same reports, we find several mentions of Dr. Lalli's opinion of the assault, which was that there were signs of secual activity, but it could possibly have been consensual:

"Luca Lalli, the pathologist in the case, insisted that she had not been raped, although he said that there were bruises and lesions on her body consistent with a struggle."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2816366.ece

So, what do we (and what did the police) have? During her interrogation, Amanda said Patrick took Meredith in the bedroom, but that she didn't witness what happened in there. The pathologist said Meredith had sex, but he couldn't say for sure she had been raped.

Based exclusively on those two pieces of information the prosecution, the chief of police and the interior minister (?) hold a press conference characterizing the murder as involving three attackers with a sexual motive.

How, pray tell, did they come to their conclusion?

I don't understand what you have issue with here. The quotes you have posted show that everyone was pretty much in agreement that Meredith had some kind of sexual encounter - whether forced or not - with multiple people. The quotes only differ in whether Meredith was raped or not - and given the staging of the body, it's easy to see why there was a bit of difference of opinion at the time (still early in the investigation, the scene had been staged as though she had been raped).

We know now that Patrick wasn't involved. However, on the 6th, the Police thought they had a "reliable" eyewitness/earwitness to Meredith being raped. Sure, looking back we can see that the Police were mistaken. However, you must admit that at the time, given the interrogation/accusation by Amanda and the staging of the scene to indicate a rape, it was not all that extreme/unfounded a statement for the Police to make.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, I knew you were going to go back to the information obtained from the interrogation. The information that we know was not reliable due to the methods used to obtain it.

Why ask the question to begin with? You know the answer?

Let's continue to go in circles.

What methods, Bruce?

Asking Amanda to remember who she had sent a text to that night? Brutal. I tell you what...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

One or the other of the duo stepped in the blood while still wet, so off he or she went, hopping to the bathroom to clean it off. Once in the bathroom, he/she lost his or her balance while attempting to clean up, stepping down on the bathmat. That, in no way, defies any laws of physics, nor of common sense.

I would suggest that your theory very much defies common sense. It also ignores the fact that there is no corresponding bare footprint(s) in the room where Meredith was killed, where the person would presumably have stepped in this blood. Nor does it explain why the print appears to have been made with bloody water rather than pure blood.

 

[Matthew Best]

And round and round we go...

 

[Mary_H]

I don't understand what you have issue with here. The quotes you have posted show that everyone was pretty much in agreement that Meredith had some kind of sexual encounter - whether forced or not - with multiple people. The quotes only differ in whether Meredith was raped or not - and given the staging of the body, it's easy to see why there was a bit of difference of opinion at the time (still early in the investigation, the scene had been staged as though she had been raped).

We know now that Patrick wasn't involved. However, on the 6th, the Police thought they had a "reliable" eyewitness/earwitness to Meredith being raped. Sure, looking back we can see that the Police were mistaken. However, you must admit that at the time, given the interrogation/accusation by Amanda and the staging of the scene to indicate a rape, it was not all that extreme/unfounded a statement for the Police to make.

Oh, but I don't admit it. My question is how they came to the agreement that Meredith had some kind of sexual encounter with multiple people. For example, what in the information they had at the time led them to believe Raffaele was involved in the crime? They implicated Raffaele before they implicated Amanda OR Patrick.

Or did they?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I would suggest that your theory very much defies common sense. It also ignores the fact that there is no corresponding bare footprint(s) in the room where Meredith was killed, where the person would presumably have stepped in this blood. Nor does it explain why the print appears to have been made with bloody water rather than pure blood.

Bloody water on the mat?

Makes perfect sense...whichever of the duo it was that was cleaning their foot managed to loose his/her balance while cleaning their foot, stepping onto the mat with a wet/bloody foot...

And if the blood was still fresh enough in the bedroom, there wouldn't necessarily have been any footprints left. You know, like when you step in something barefoot, realize it, and instead of stepping everywhere else, just hop to the hose/sink/bathtub to clean it off...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, but I don't admit it. My question is how they came to the agreement that Meredith had some kind of sexual encounter with multiple people. For example, what in the information they had at the time led them to believe Raffaele was involved in the crime? They implicated Raffaele before they implicated Amanda OR Patrick.

Or did they?

Amanda and Raffaele were together all night, were they not? That's what they claimed. They then dropped their shared alibis and Amanda's accusation of Patrick places her, and therefore Raffaele, at the cottage.

Really, this isn't that hard a line of reasoning to follow...

 

[Mary_H]

And round and round we go...

I agree. That's why I am a fan of going back to Square One and examining the minute details of the initial days following the crime. If we could establish whether or not the police had reason to suspect Amanda and Raffaele before their interrogations, then we would not have to be at odds about the interrogations, or about the evidence that was created -- er, discovered -- after the arrests. Those would all be irrelevant in the light of the false arrests.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I agree. That's why I am a fan of going back to Square One and examining the minute details of the initial days following the crime. If we could establish whether or not the police had reason to suspect Amanda and Raffaele before their interrogations, then we would not have to be at odds about the interrogations, or about the evidence that was created -- er, discovered -- after the arrests. Those would all be irrelevant in the light of the false arrests.

What "false arrests"? Amanda placed herself at the cottage. That's hardly a "false arrest".

 

[Fine]

That's okay, Sherlock. That was when I was still buying Fulcanelli's claim that there were no other footprints in front of Meredith's door, but of course, there were; they had just been cleaned up.

Unless someone wishes to offer evidence for this claim---that the cops cleaned up these bloody shoeprints--- we can dismiss it as another fabrication from the innocentistis.

Yes, the police found some visible bloody shoeprints in the hallway (later identified as Rudy's shoeprints) which were labeled and photographed by the police, and later cleaned up by the police. Are we supposed to believe that the cops were so stupid that they would clean up visible bloody shoeprints which had NOT been labeled and photographed???? Well, hmmm. maybe, but where is the evidence for such an outrageous claim. And did the cops also dispose of a bloody knife found in the cottage, without labeling or photogaphing it, too?

Yeah, somebody cleaned up some bloody shoeprints, and naked bloody footprints, but it wasn't the cops. Maybe the same parties who disposed of a bloody knife? Who would that be?

///

 

[Mary_H]

What "false arrests"? Amanda placed herself at the cottage. That's hardly a "false arrest".

We can't talk about Amanda placing herself at the cottage unless we talk about the interrogation. We can't talk about the interrogation unless we go round and round again, as Bruce and Matthew pointed out.

Amanda and Raffaele were together all night, were they not? That's what they claimed. They then dropped their shared alibis and Amanda's accusation of Patrick places her, and therefore Raffaele, at the cottage.

Really, this isn't that hard a line of reasoning to follow...

I would imagine it's a pretty hard line of reasoning for Raffaele to follow. The police point out some "inconsistencies" (although none of us knows what they were) that lead Raffaele to say, well, actually, maybe Amanda wasn't home all night after all. Then they use Raffaele's statement to undermine Amanda's confidence in her memory, and get her to say she must have been at the scene of the crime, and, well, yeah, she guesses Patrick was there, too.

Then they go back to Raffaele and say, guess what, bud, it turns out you must also have been there -- even though according to your statement AND Amanda's, she wasn't with you when she committed the murder! Makes sense, no?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

We can't talk about Amanda placing herself at the cottage unless we talk about the interrogation. We can't talk about the interrogation unless we go round and round again, as Bruce and Matthew pointed out.



I would imagine it's a pretty hard line of reasoing for Raffaele to follow. The police point out some "inconsistencies" (although none of us knows what they were) that lead Raffaele to say, well, actually, maybe Amanda wasn't home all night after all. Then they use Raffaele's statement to undermine Amanda's confidence in her memory, and get her to say she must have been at the scene of the crime, and, well, yeah, she guesses Patrick was there, too.

Then they go back to Raffaele and say, guess what, bud, it turns out you must also have been there -- even though according to your statement AND Amanda's, she wasn't with you when she committed the murder! Makes sense, no?

Spin spin spin.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's what I said!

 

[Mary_H]

Unless someone wishes to offer evidence for this claim---that the cops cleaned up these bloody shoeprints--- we can dismiss it as another fabrication from the innocentistis.

Yes, the police found some visible bloody shoeprints in the hallway (later identified as Rudy's shoeprints) which were labeled and photographed by the police, and later cleaned up by the police. Are we supposed to believe that the cops were so stupid that they would clean up visible bloody shoeprints which had NOT been labeled and photographed????

Fulcanelli claimed there were none of Rudy's footprints to be found in front of Meredith's door, not that the police had photographed them and then cleaned them up.

Only one footprint was visible under luminol in the area in front of Meredith's door. In at least one of Charlie's photographs of the bedroom door, blood can be seen on the floor right outside the bedroom door. Apparently it was there the day the photo was taken by investigators, but gone by the time the luminol was applied, in December, 2007, since it is not a part of the luminol evidence.

A minimum of five people stood outside Meredith's bedroom door in their street shoes before the door was broken down. If those prints had been left in place and any of them had iron in them from garden soil, they would have been measurable when the luminol was applied. But they had been cleaned up -- after the investigators left them there, not before.

Fulcanelli's claim that Rudy did not lock the door was the mother of all red herrings.

 

[Mary_H]

Spin spin spin.

Well, how do you reconcile that bit of illogic, Bob? The police confront Amanda with Raffaele's statement that they weren't together all night, then they arrest Raffaele on the basis that he was with Amanda all night.

You know, when I wrote that, I actually felt like crying at the utter flagrancy of their betrayal.

 

[bucketoftea]

Mary H's claim that he did, backwards, while running out the door is just stupid.

 

[Fine]

Fulcanelli claimed there were none of Rudy's footprints to be found in front of Meredith's door, not that the police had photographed them and then cleaned them up.

Only one footprint was visible under luminol in the area in front of Meredith's door. In at least one of Charlie's photographs of the bedroom door, blood can be seen on the floor right outside the bedroom door. Apparently it was there the day the photo was taken by investigators, but gone by the time the luminol was applied, in December, 2007, since it is not a part of the luminol evidence.

A minimum of five people stood outside Meredith's bedroom door in their street shoes before the door was broken down. If those prints had been left in place and any of them had iron in them from garden soil, they would have been measurable when the luminol was applied. But they had been cleaned up -- after the investigators left them there, not before.
Fulcanelli's claim that Rudy did not lock the door was the mother of all red herrings.

______________

Well, at least, there is an attempt here to provide "evidence" that the police inadvertently erased footprints by cleaning areas of the hallway. But the argument is awfully weak. Sure, those people outside of Meredith's door must have left very faint shoeprints---from "dirt" on their shoes---but is there any reason to think that those faint prints---if left undisturbed--- would have glowed in luminol? Or is the dirt in Perugia specially fortified with iron? Well, hmmm, if so......... there should have been a stampede of such shoeprints in Amanda's room and the bathroom, too, showing traffic on days before the murder. Did the cops clean up THOSE rooms too?

///

 

[Supernaut]

Nope, the Mail Group and Telegraph Group are totally independent of each other, and would most definitely regard each other as rivals. The Mail Group is owned by a publicly-listed holding company confusingly called "Daily Mail and General Trust" (DMGT), while the Telegraph Group is owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers (no relation to the bank) as a private entity. And just for completion, Murdoch's News Group owns the Sun (daily paper), and the News of the World (Sunday paper).

This is why I find it most strange that Pisa would be filing copy for two different newspaper groups that have absolutely no ownership or editorial connection, and which would regard each other as rivals. I presume that each editor knows that the story is also going to a rival...

Were you not aware that Murdoch has owned The Times/Sunday Times since 1981?

In the UK, contrary to what many seem to assume, the precedent for disseminating “leaks” from the Italian prosection as factual was not set by ‘tabloids’ (such as the Daily Mail), but by The Times. It was the first paper to report the “crime scene cleanup” and “bleach receipts” lies (the same hack, sorry - columnist dutifully accommodated Mignini thenceforth).

Nov 19th 2007;

Suspect ‘bought bleach to clean murder weapon after Meredith Kercher’s death’

This was well before the case began to be ‘sensationalised’ outside Italy, other editors then sending in their own "columnists" to join the feeding frenzy (to a large extent a matter of their moronic “monkey see, monkey do”, joiner mentality).

The two ‘factoids’ I just mentioned, and many others, are now ‘memes’ which are parroted to this day, never having been explicitly corrected or clarified by these same “news outlets” (or the Italian prosecution).

Thus, for example, even after the verdict in December 2009, the monumentally egregious Ann Coulter, affirming her support for the Italian ‘authorities’ (and her seething envy of attractive, free-spirited youngsters from educated, liberal backgrounds), blithely iterated them and several others on TV, including the “Knox was caught with a mop in her hand” BS (guilters, of course, now luurrve this appalling woman).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLld_dMa4EI

The Times continued to put "columnists" on the story, such as a certain John Follain - to give you an idea of this man’s class;

Kercher trial; Amanda Knox snared by her kust and her lies.

Follain is already trying to cash in with his own “definitive” book on the case, which of course takes Knox’s and Sollicito’s guilt as given, and undoubtedly contains plenty of the usual, juicy ‘speculation’ about all that sex and violence (I do not have the slightest intention of ever reading it to confirm this, and regret having to make its existence known to anyone).

Faux News and Sky News, also Murdoch-owned, two of the biggest, if not THE biggest TV "news outlets" in the world, also gave conspicuous amounts of bland, ‘on-message’ coverage of the “leaks” and innuendo about Knox. Why did Sky News see fit to invite a so-called “criminal psychiatrist" to “analyse Amanda knox’s writings” and pontificate about “A picture of a young woman …. who was self-obessed, who showed a lack of remorse [sic!!], who was enjoying the fame, the notoriety, the infamy...”? He was, of course, talking out of his arse, as any ethical psychologist would tell you.

”prison diaries reveal self-obsessed Knox”

A little OT, but speaking of The Times;

Murdoch was only able to buy the paper (along with the Sunday Times) in 1981 because the recently installed Thatcher administration went as far as radically overhauling regulation of media ownership in the UK to allow him to do so – it would otherwise have been prevented because he was already the proprietor of a national newspaper (The Sun/News Of The World, with which he dragged the ethics of “tabloid journalism” down to an all-time low, where it has remained) and a national TV broadcaster (Sky).

At the time, those who were paying attention were aghast at the shameless cronyism between him and the Thatcher regime (and the latter’s typically contemptuousness disregard for the public interest) - even ‘Tiny’ Rowland, who was subsequently “out-bid” for the Times by Murdoch, backed a lobby for a public enquiry into his and the governments’ machinations.

The Times (i.e. Murdoch) thenceforth played a conspicuous role in keeping the Conservatives in power (surprise, surprise) for the following decade and a half , allowing it to complete its program of asset-stripping UK PLC via relentless “privatisation” (some of the proceeds from this being used to bribe sections of the public into renewing their "mandate" at 2 subsequent general elections).

 

[Mary_H]

______________

Well, at least, there is an attempt here to provide "evidence" that the police inadvertently erased footprints by cleaning areas of the hallway. But the argument is awfully weak. Sure, those people outside of Meredith's door must have left very faint shoeprints---from "dirt" on their shoes---but is there any reason to think that those faint prints---if left undisturbed--- would have glowed in luminol? Or is the dirt in Perugia specially fortified with iron? Well, hmmm, if so......... there should have been a stampede of such shoeprints in Amanda's room and the bathroom, too, showing traffic on days before the murder. Did the cops clean up THOSE rooms too?

///

I don't follow you, Fine. You wrote:

"Yes, the police found some visible bloody shoeprints in the hallway (later identified as Rudy's shoeprints) which were labeled and photographed by the police, and later cleaned up by the police."

What exactly are you trying to straighten out?

 

[bucketoftea]

I would suggest that your theory very much defies common sense. It also ignores the fact that there is no corresponding bare footprint(s) in the room where Meredith was killed, where the person would presumably have stepped in this blood. Nor does it explain why the print appears to have been made with bloody water rather than pure blood.

They took the towels from wherever and used them to stand on, a little bathmat shuffle and *hey presto* no bloody RF or AK footprints in the room, and bloody towels amassed in the corner. AK fetched the bathmat for RS to shuffle to the bathroom on. Blood mixed with water because he had been using water to wash something inside the room. The missing heel may be accounted for by the presence of a second towel/shirt/whatever underfoot during the scooting.