Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Get him eventually? If they were all about fabricating evidence they could have got him any day they wanted. Clearly, this investigation was not about fabricating evidence.

All of this was based on the hypothetical condition that he had not had an alibi. His alibi panned out in less than two weeks; they couldn't hold him and therefore did not need to find any evidence against him.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The prosecution literally had to go away from the crime scene to find evidence to pin on Amanda, and it took them six weeks to find evidence to pin on Raffaele.

Like I said, you claimed it took them six weeks to get evidence against Raffaele. This is false. The knife from Raffaele's kitchen is was identified in the first couple weeks and that was not only evidence against Amanda but also against Raffaele, or need I repeat what the High Court told Raffaele in response to his claim that the knife could not be considered evidence against 'him'?

 

[Fulcanelli]

All of this was based on the hypothetical condition that he had not had an alibi. His alibi panned out in less than two weeks; they couldn't hold him and therefore did not need to find any evidence against him.

An alibi will not withstand evidence. Evidence trumps an alibi. If evidence could be provided to place Patrick at the crime scene on the night of the murder, then the investigators would be forced to conclude that the professor that gave Patrick his alibi was lying, for the evidence would have made him a liar.

 

[Mary_H]

Like I said, you claimed it took them six weeks to get evidence against Raffaele.

No, like you said, "But it was you who asserted it took them 6 weeks to get any evidence against them."

Do you do this on purpose? 'Cuz it really takes up a lot of space.

 

[Mary_H]

Massei's report

Okay, I have read the part about the cleaning.

Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith’s murder, some traces were shown to have definitely been erased, a cleaning activity had certainly been carried out. In fact, the bare foot which, stained/covered with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left on the flooring other footprints, also marked out in blood just like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself. Of such other very visible footprints of a bloody bare foot, on the contrary, there was no trace.

Even the drip of blood left on the internal edge of the bathroom door (see photos 141 and 142 already mentioned) seems to be the remainder of a much larger trace.

It doesn't make sense to me that someone would clean up part of the bathroom but leave a trail of bloody footprints in the hall, but whatever. I am going to defer to some of the great legal minds that frequent this space to analyze the following conclusion, because I know there is something wrong with it, but I have stayed up way too late already.

Moreover, this cleaning activity seems to fit in with the planning carried out by taking the telephones which were then immediately thrown away and by locking the door of Meredith’s room, otherwise one cannot see what other significance these behaviours could have had.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, like you said, "But it was you who asserted it took them 6 weeks to get any evidence against them."

Do you do this on purpose? 'Cuz it really takes up a lot of space.

I know it's incredibly difficult to bite one's lip when faced with this sort of argument structure. And that some might take absence of reply to imply "defeat" or "concession". But I've reluctantly concluded that I'm unprepared to carry on debating against a brick wall of misrepresentation, false certitudes and insults. So I'm ignoring certain people - although I don't want to place an "ignore" flag on them since I still want to see what they are writing and where they are coming from. And occasionally, I find areas of their arguments (when they actually DO make arguments, that is..) that I agree with - wholly or partially at least. But I'm now unprepared to engage with them. And if anyone else takes my silence to their responses to my posts (or my silent failure to challenge any of their own posts) as any indication of "defeat", "agreement" or "concession" on my part, then that's a risk I'm now happy to take.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, like you said, "But it was you who asserted it took them 6 weeks to get any evidence against them."

Do you do this on purpose? 'Cuz it really takes up a lot of space.

My use of 'them' was generic, referring to either of them singularly or both collectively. The fact is you claimed it took them six weeks to find any evidence to 'pin on Raffaele'....I showed this claim to be false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It doesn't make sense to me that someone would clean up part of the bathroom but leave a trail of bloody footprints in the hall, but whatever.

Why should they clean up the evidence left by somebody 'else'? The purpose was to clean that which could be linked to Raffaele and Amanda...they didn't give a damn about Rudy.

And it's also clear, the footprints in the corridor were not very visible and to be noticed had to be inspected closely, since none of those who went to the cottage on the afternoon of the 2nd noticed any of the prints in the corridor. Therefore, it looks like Amanda and Raffaele gambled correctly in opting to leave them.

 

[LondonJohn]

All of this was based on the hypothetical condition that he had not had an alibi. His alibi panned out in less than two weeks; they couldn't hold him and therefore did not need to find any evidence against him.

Additionally - and as I've pointed out before - why did it take two weeks for the police to satisfy themselves that there was now enough contrary evidence to warrant his release from custody? One can make a persuasive argument that the police knew of Lumumba's claimed alibi (the Swiss professor) within one or two days maximum of his arrest. One can argue this because the "Swiss professor" issue was placed in the Italian media on or around the 8th, so by definition the police themselves must have known about it on the 6th, 7th, or (with a smaller probability) very early on the 8th.

And the professor himself gave his first statement to Perugia police on the 10th - i.e. four (or, strictly, four and a half) days after Lumumba's arrest. It clearly would have taken (and took) a couple of days to iron out recall issues, but I can't believe that the professor wasn't in a position by, say, the 13th November to state with certainty that he was in Le Chic with Lumumba over the murder period. That's a week after Lumumba's arrest. So why would it take another whole week to release him from custody?

Note, incidentally, that the police did not necessarily have to have become convinced of Lumumba's total lack of involvement before releasing him from custody. Although, in this regard, I'd argue that a firm alibi from a disinterested Swiss university professor would in itself be pretty strong evidence of non-involvement. What the police had by the 13th November (I'd argue) is evidence AGAINST Lumumba (the AK accusation, the text) which was now strongly counterbalanced by evidence FOR Lumumba (a seemingly-unimpeachable alibi from a respected and disinterested professional man). I'd argue that this dramatic re-balancing of the evidence surrounding Lumumba should in itself have justified and warranted his swift release, pending further inquiries.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, apparently the strategy you say they used made them look extremely guilty, because it got them arrested.

But it didn't. It wasn't the strategy to go back in the morning that got them arrested. It was Amanda accusing Patrick that got them arrested.

And as it happens, this strategy was essential, not only for the reasons I gave earlier...but for the fact they 'had' to go back to the cottage the next morning in order to complete the cleaning and the staging. That meant they had to have excuses in place for being there should one of the other housemates arrive home early or someone else visits and finding them there, or a witness may have seen them going to or leaving the cottage, an excuse that wouldn't look guilty in hindsight once Meredith's body had been discovered. That 'excuse' had to actually become a strategy. In other words, in regard to the strategy they took, their hand was forced, that was the strategy they 'had' to take.

 

[katy_did]

Why should they clean up the evidence left by somebody 'else'? The purpose was to clean that which could be linked to Raffaele and Amanda...they didn't give a damn about Rudy.

And it's also clear, the footprints in the corridor were not very visible and to be noticed had to be inspected closely, since none of those who went to the cottage on the afternoon of the 2nd noticed any of the prints in the corridor. Therefore, it looks like Amanda and Raffaele gambled correctly in opting to leave them.

So, do you agree with Massei's vague claim that the footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint must have been cleaned up?

It's just I think this is difficult to reconcile with your earlier suggestion that AK and RS didn't realize the bloody footprint on the bathmat was, indeed, a bloody footprint. Are we supposed to believe that Raffaele made the print, that they then cleaned up a trail of bloody footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint (making special care to remove the heel mark, presumably) but somehow didn't realize the mark on the bathmat was also a footprint?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Additionally - and as I've pointed out before - why did it take two weeks for the police to satisfy themselves of Lumumba's non-involvement? One can make a persuasive argument that the police knew of Lumumba's claimed alibi (the Swiss professor) within one or two days maximum of his arrest. One can argue this because the "Swiss professor" issue was placed in the Italian media on or around the 8th, so by definition the police themselves must have known about it on the 6th, 7th, or (with a smaller probability) very early on the 8th.

And the professor himself gave his first statement to Perugia police on the 10th - i.e. four (or, strictly, four and a half) days after Lumumba's arrest. It clearly would have taken (and took) a couple of days to iron out recall issues, but I can't believe that the professor wasn't in a position by, say, the 13th November to state with certainty that he was in Le Chic with Lumumba over the murder period. That's a week after Lumumba's arrest. So why would it take another whole week to release him from custody?

Because the professor made a mistake in his first statement...he got the times wrong of when he had pizza that evening and went to Patrick's bar, as the police found when they investigated his statement. So, he had to be brought back again and the problem had to be sorted out.

 

[katy_did]

But it didn't. It wasn't the strategy to go back in the morning that got them arrested. It was Amanda accusing Patrick that got them arrested.

And as it happens, this strategy was essential, not only for the reasons I gave earlier...but for the fact they 'had' to go back to the cottage the next morning in order to complete the cleaning and the staging. That meant they had to have excuses in place for being there should one of the other housemates arrive home early or someone else visits and finding them there, or a witness may have seen them going to or leaving the cottage, an excuse that wouldn't look guilty in hindsight once Meredith's body had been discovered. That 'excuse' had to actually become a strategy. In other words, in regard to the strategy they took, their hand was forced, that was the strategy they 'had' to take.

I don't understand... Presumably they must have gone back and forth from the cottage to the flat on the evening of the murder and the next morning, long before Amanda first said she visited the cottage at 11:30 or so. What was their 'excuse' for the traipsing back and forth they'd done before then? Why have a special excuse for Amanda going back to take a shower at 11:30, but nothing to explain their presence earlier?

 

[Amazer]

I didn't state it. Speaking hypothetically, I wrote: "One mistake on Rudy may represent 5% of his data, whereas one mistake on Raffaele represents 100% of his data."

To which you responded, "Only the lab didn't make any mistakes with Rudy, did it?"

I then asked you how we would know whether they made mistakes, and you set up yet another Straw Man, as is your habit.



"Finding" Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife was the first piece of falsified evidence. I actually think Patrizia Stefanoni may have had mixed feelings about it, but eventually realized she had no choice, so forced the results. I sincerely doubt Stefanoni or Mignini thought anyone would question the results, so they didn't feel they had to be terribly brilliant about the whole thing. Anyway, "running out" of sample -- another obvious contrivance -- assured that nobody would be able to double-check the results.

First of all, why do you assume that Stefanoni wouldn't have a choice?
Second of all, why do you assume that Mignini (and Stefanoni) didn't think anyone would question the results? Cases involving foreign nationals are always a little more high-profile then those where only nationals are involved simply because typically the embassy or consular staff are involved. And that is a fact that Mignini wouldn't have been unaware of.

By the time they falsified the bra clasp, they had a lot more at stake -- the kids had now been in prison for six weeks. It was time to be blatantly corrupt. They managed to find "copious" amounts of Raffaele's DNA, which might not be suspicious if we didn't know they had access to copious amounts of DNA by virtue of the fact that Raffaele was in prison.

So, did they take the bra clasp to prison for Raffaele to get a good grip on it... or did they employ some other devious means? Of course a little evidence would be appreciated.

I suppose they could have availed themselves of copious amounts of Amanda's DNA, too, and placed it somewhere, but since they hadn't thought of it soon enough, maybe they didn't want to push their luck. Even the prosecution seems to have had some limits to what they thought was acceptable vs. what was ridiculous.

So they figure it out for Raffaele... but forget about Amanda till it was too late? Right.... in those six weeks it didn't occur to them once that perhaps they needed to plant some DNA of Amanda too.

I'm more then willing to entertain the idea that contamination occurred somewhere but the scenario you present is beyond ridiculous. It involves the police, the prosecutor, the crime lab and personnel from the prison to be willing participants in this little gem of a scheme. And let's not forget the various judges that have from time to time given their verdicts... they're in to it too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So, do you agree with Massei's vague claim that the footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint must have been cleaned up?

It's just I think this is difficult to reconcile with your earlier suggestion that AK and RS didn't realize the bloody footprint on the bathmat was, indeed, a bloody footprint. Are we supposed to believe that Raffaele made the print, that they then cleaned up a trail of bloody footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint (making special care to remove the heel mark, presumably) but somehow didn't realize the mark on the bathmat was also a footprint?

Well, it makes sense.

They didn't realise the print on the mat was a footprint because it wasn't visible as one, it was too feint. As Massei says, the prints leading up to the mat would have been far more visible, since there would have been more blood on the foot, and they would have got fainter and fainter as they reached the mat, with the print on the mat being the faintest of all. They cleaned only that which was clearly discernible as footprints.

And as I said, some blood had to be left as a requirement for their strategy.

 

[katy_did]

Here we go again. Provide an alternative, viable, explanation for them then. If it's plausible, how hard can it be?

The prints are a match for Raffaele and Amanda and were proven to be so in the trial. You can assert and assert, but the house of bricks will still stand

I'm saying, Amanda and Raffaele have been found guilty because they left footprints in Meredith's blood which forms only a SMALL part of the evidence against them, the WHOLE of which convicted them, in a fair trial. That's what I'm saying. But back to the prints...establishing something as fact isn't just about what you can rule 'in' but also what can can be ruled OUT and since all other candidates for the prints can be ruled out, only blood remains, reinforced by the clear bloody print on the mat, the fact the prints happen to match the two convicted and the fact and the fact that the only viable source...BLOOD, was in rich supply on the night of the murder.

Even Massei didn't think the luminol footprints were made in blood, did he? He said they were made in an invisible residue of blood and water left after the person had cleaned their feet.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me. If that's the way the prints were made, how can it be ruled out that Amanda made them when taking her shower that morning and drying her feet on the bathmat (on which, of course, was a diluted mixture of blood and water) - something she claimed she did long before the luminol prints were discovered? I'm wondering if the defence will now suggest that as a possible explanation, given that Massei is virtually screaming at them to make that argument.

 

[Fulcanelli]

First of all, why do you assume that Stefanoni wouldn't have a choice?
Second of all, why do you assume that Mignini (and Stefanoni) didn't think anyone would question the results? Cases involving foreign nationals are always a little more high-profile then those where only nationals are involved simply because typically the embassy or consular staff are involved. And that is a fact that Mignini wouldn't have been unaware of.

Yes, exactly...when you arrest and try two middle class college students (one an American citizen) everyone is going to question the results, not least the rather expensive top-gun lawyers and experts they will certainly have representing them.

 

[katy_did]

Well, it makes sense.

They didn't realise the print on the mat was a footprint because it wasn't visible as one, it was too feint. As Massei says, the prints leading up to the mat would have been far more visible, since there would have been more blood on the foot, and they would have got fainter and fainter as they reached the mat, with the print on the mat being the faintest of all. They cleaned only that which was clearly discernible as footprints.

And as I said, some blood had to be left as a requirement for their strategy.

Well, it doesn't really make sense, since they're supposed to have been there on hands and knees cleaning up a trail of bloody footprints leading to the bloody footprint on the bathmat. Even leaving aside the idea that Raffaele himself is supposed to have made the print, and therefore would presumably have been aware it was a footprint.

I think the idea that they needed to leave 'just the right amount of blood' has already been refuted by LondonJohn's earlier posts. Don't you think the break-in would already have been sufficient reason to call the police? Or, as LJ said, they could simply have trashed the front room, something which would have involved very little risk on their part. Why the need for a 'gradual' discovery anyway?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, it doesn't really make sense, since they're supposed to have been there on hands and knees cleaning up a trail of bloody footprints leading to the bloody footprint on the bathmat. Even leaving aside the idea that Raffaele himself is supposed to have made the print, and therefore would presumably have been aware it was a footprint.

I think the idea that they needed to leave 'just the right amount of blood' has already been refuted by LondonJohn's earlier posts. Don't you think the break-in would already have been sufficient reason to call the police? Or, as LJ said, they could simply have trashed the front room, something which would have involved very little risk on their part. Why the need for a 'gradual' discovery anyway?

***applauds quietly*****

 

[Fulcanelli]

Even Massei didn't think the luminol footprints were made in blood, did he? He said they were made in an invisible residue of blood and water left after the person had cleaned their feet.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me. If that's the way the prints were made, how can it be ruled out that Amanda made them when taking her shower that morning and drying her feet on the bathmat (on which, of course, was a diluted mixture of blood and water) - something she claimed she did long before the luminol prints were discovered? I'm wondering if the defence will now suggest that as a possible explanation, given that Massei is virtually screaming at them to make that argument.

Yes, that's right. He assigns the luminol prints (or at least, most of them) to water residue containing traces of blood deposited after they had washed their feet.


In answer to your other question...Amanda didn't 'dry' her feet on the mat, according to her she 'boogied' on it as a mode of transport to get to her room...in short, according to her she didn't walk on the floor with her bare feet. Moreover, walking on the floor from the shower does not explain Raffaele's luminol footprint. But, this all makes no sense to me at all anyway, since who would boogie barefoot on a mat covered with someone else's blood? I don't believe the bathmat boogie story for a moment.