Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

She sent her idle musings about her "friend's" sexual proclivities to her spam list. I stand by that statement as I always have. Whether it paints Amanda in a bad light is really up to the individual to determine. If she hadn't spammed her email list with it then there would be no argument.

Mary's objection is not to the fact that she speculated about Meredith's sexual habits but Mary's own opinion that Amanda was just relating a story about what she'd spoken about with the police. The context shows quite a different reason. Amanda broke a demand for confidentiality from the police just to share this juicy tidbit about Meredith's sex life:

...i was strictly told not to speak about this...

Of all the things she could break confidentiality about, Amanda chose the most disparaging thing that she could. Just think about receiving an email where someone speculated about your sister, mother, or daughter and whether she might be into anal sex. Would that be something you'd expect to read from a good friend?

If so then we do indeed have very different world-views.

You are trying to paint a picture of Amanda's e-mail that is different from reality. You are misinterpreting it through some kind of filter that seems to be so laden with prejudice that it is blinding you.

It is not my opinion that Amanda is relating what the police asked her about -- that is exactly what she is doing. And when you say Merdith's sex life is what Amanda broke confidentiality about, you are trying to make it look like that's all she talked about, when in fact that is a very small part of the subject matter. Here is the excerpt again:

in the morning raffael drove me bck to the police station but had to
leave me when they said they wantrd to take me back to the house for quesioning. before i go on, id like to ssay that i was strictly told not to speak about this, but im speaking with you people who are not involved and who cant do anything bad except talk to journalists, which i hope you wont do. i have to get this off my chest because its pressing down on me and it helps to know that someone besides me knows something, and that im not the one who knows the most out of everyone.
at the house they asked me very personal questions about meredith's life and also about the personalities of our neighbors. how well did i know them? pretty well, we are friends. was meredith sexually active? yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms. does she like anal? wtf? i dont know. does she use vaseline? for her lips? what kind of person is stefano? nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend. hmmm...very interesting....wed like to how you something, and tell us if this is out of normal..."

She then goes on to write the whole last third of her letter, not referring again to Meredith's sexuality. At the beginning of the letter, she had already mentioned that "what im about to say i cant say to journalists or newspapers, and i require that of anone receiving this information as well. this is m account of how i found my roommate murdered the morning of friday, november 2nd."

I seriously doubt the police had asked Amanda to keep clam on account of concerns about Meredith's privacy. There is no indication of what specifically the police had told her not to discuss with others. At any rate, she was under no obligation to keep any secrets.

One glaring point that you seem to be ignoring is that Amanda's e-mail reveals absolutely nothing about Meredith other than she had borrowed some condoms from Amanda. This is hardly earth-shattering information, given that everyone in the cottage was known to be sexually active. Also, when Amanda writes, "WTF?" she is letting her readers know that she thinks the police's line of questoning is unexpected and possibly inappropriate -- not something that she is getting off on talking about.

I am going to turn the tables on you, here, stilicho, and see if you can answer some questions raised in the e-mail about the behavior of the police.

1.) Why did Raffaele have to leave Amanda when the police took her back to the house? Did they want to be alone with Amanda? Was Amanda allowed to bring anyone with her, or was it just her and the cops, alone together, in the empty house? Is that why they asked her not to tell anybody about it?

2.) Why did the police ask Amanda whether Meredith liked anal sex? Was there evidence that Meredith had been anally raped? Was Vaseline found on Meredith's body during the autopsy? I haven't heard of these possibilities mentioned before. Seems like a strange thing for the cops to be asking one of the female roommates about if they didn't have any reason to. Couldn't they have asked Meredith's boyfriend, with whom she was phyically intimate, instead of Amanda?

3.) Oh, and one more -- why couldn't these questions have simply been asked back at the station? Why did they require a visit to the cottage? Is this where the fantasies that eventually gelled in Mignini's mind started to form, when he was told by the cops about the visit?

See how that works?

You were absolutely right when you wrote: "Whether it paints Amanda in a bad light is really up to the individual to determine."

 

[quadraginta]

With respect to media coverage, the case with the most intriguing parallel is probably Darlie Routier's (a thread about her case could be subtitled "guilty - all because of silly string")

What's different with the Kercher murder is that Knox has gotten both favorable and unfavorable press coverage, and it seems inarguable that exposure to one "side" or another has really colored people's interpretation of the evidence.

Although other things had crossed my mind as well, this last aspect was also one that had brought to mind the MacDonald case. I've often wondered what the results would be of a study involving people who had read both Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice, but in different sequence, and how that affected their views of the case.

One of the more interesting works prompted by that whole affair was Janet Malcolm's The Journalist and the Murderer, which offers a perspective on true crime writing that many authors (and readers) would do well to study.

 

[Fiona]

From her trial testimony

LG: For two circumstances, then there's the dossier. Did you go back to the
house in via della Pergola on Nov 4? and with whom?

AK: Yes. So, Raffaele drove me to the Questura, then the Questura, I don't know
why, because I had asked if I could go directly home, and they said no,
come to the Questura, and then we'll take you to your house. So Raffaele
brought me to the Questura, then the police brought me to my house.

LG: With whom? Who was there?

AK: There was an interpreter, and there were a lot of other people.

LG: Was Laura there? Filomena?

AK: So, it seems to me that Laura and Filomena were there, but they had arrived
with other people, while I was in the car with the police and an interpreter,
that's it.

LG: We heard that on that occasion, you had a crisis, a crisis when...

AK: Yes...

LG: A crisis of crying.

 

[quadraginta]

He might have turned the lock from the inside, removed the key and then pulled the door closed behind him.

I thought the lock part was a deadbolt. That was what the photos offered earlier seemed to show. This action you suggest won't work with a deadbolt.

 

[Amazer]

Although other things had crossed my mind as well, this last aspect was also one that had brought to mind the MacDonald case. I've often wondered what the results would be of a study involving people who had read both Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice, but in different sequence, and how that affected their views of the case.

One of the more interesting works prompted by that whole affair was Janet Malcolm's The Journalist and the Murderer, which offers a perspective on true crime writing that many authors (and readers) would do well to study.

I have to admit that my belief that Raffaele was guilty colored the way I read his diary.

 

[Fine]

I thought the lock part was a deadbolt. That was what the photos offered earlier seemed to show. This action you suggest won't work with a deadbolt.

___________________

Yes, it's a deadbolt mortise lock. To lock the door as you leave you must first fully close the door behind you. (There are many photos of the lock on PMF site.) The spring-loaded brass lever handle serves to open or close the door ONLY when the lock is unlocked.

//

 

[Mary_H]

I have to admit that my belief that Raffaele was guilty colored the way I read his diary.

I know what you mean; my belief that he was innocent colored the way I read it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Toto didn't hear Nara's scream either and he was outside, which always seemed like a contradiction of the two witnesses.

Of course he wouldn't have. The basketball was further away from the cottage then Nara's (of which Curatolo was right on the other side of) and was also around a corner, out of the line of site of the cottage, with trees and all sorts in between.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you had the high resolution photograph of the shoe print in the hall you would know that Rudy did not need to turn around. Locking the door was a natural motion from where he was standing.

Complete tosh.

My primary source is the actual court documents. My sources are solid. You are wrong.

Funny, you never quote them, only newspapers and as stated, the Massei report by you is completely ignored, which is odd, not only because it is the primary court document of the trial but is also what the defence have based their several hundred page appeal.

I will try and get this on here tomorrow. We have a baseball game in the afternoon so maybe tomorrow evening.

I can see why you'd like baseball....since they too run in circles.

I believe the last photo taken of Meredith before she was murdered shows her dressed up for Halloween. Halloween is celebrated in Italy.

Because she was English! She and her English friends went out to celebrate Halloween because they do so in England.

 

[Amazer]

I can see why you'd like baseball....since they too run in circles.

Was that really necessary?

 

[Fulcanelli]

He might have turned the lock from the inside, removed the key and then pulled the door closed behind him.

In which case the door wouldn't of been able to close.

 

[Mary_H]

Complete tosh.

Brilliant argument! Bravo.

Will you please explain to me the locations and positions of Rudy's shoeprints outide Meredith's door, so I can figure out exactly where you're coming from with this?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'll say this one final time. Per Curatolo's testimony, nobody was wearing masks.

He gave his testimony on the stand. His statements to police before the trial were also written down and in possession of the court, including the judges and the defence teams. No questions were asked of him on the stand about masks (which they would have been, had he ever said it). The defence seemed more concerned about how he knew the time. The bases for their appeal, in regard to his testimony, is a defence claim there were no buses that night, again, no mention of masks.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Brilliant argument! Bravo.

Will you please explain to me the locations and positions of Rudy's shoeprints outide Meredith's door, so I can figure out exactly where you're coming from with this?

They are all pointing down the hall and away from the door as he's fleeing the bedroom, contrary to what one would see had they stopped to lock the door.

 

[Mary_H]

They are all pointing down the hall and away from the door as he's fleeing the bedroom, contrary to what one would see had they stopped to lock the door.

Thank you. But if the first shoeprint appears at the hinge end of the door, where is the footprint that would have come before that one? Did he step out of the room and his first footfall was at the hinge end of the door? Try that one; it's a lot harder than it sounds. Do you know which foot the first shoeprint represents -- left or right?

 

[Fiona]

I am not sure what your point is, MaryH. Are you saying that the absence of a footprint you would expect to see can tell us something? It might tell us that there is an absence of a footprint, certainly. Some of the ones that are there seem very widely spaced so that there may well be some missing. But the ones that are there all face the same way, do they not? If that is accepted is there some reason to believe that any which are missing would have faced a different way if they had been there? Do you have any reason to believe that footprints which would show that Guede stopped and turned to lock the door have all been erased (or fortuitously did not leave a trace)? Sometimes people do seem to argue that the absence of evidence is proof of a contention, especially if they believe there is some kind of conspiracy. At present this seems to look a little like that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you. But if the first shoeprint appears at the hinge end of the door, where is the footprint that would have come before that one? Did he step out of the room and his first footfall was at the hinge end of the door? Try that one; it's a lot harder than it sounds. Do you know which foot the first shoeprint represents -- left or right?

Right feet. I'm not sure where you get this 'right by the hinge' thing. In any case, I just stepped out of my living room door (the door opens the same way as Meredith's...into my living room with the handle on the left as I open it to go out) and banked right in order to head to my kitchen. My foot landed on the hinge side of the doorway in the corridor (in one step). I really din't see the issue here.

 

[Mary_H]

I am not sure what your point is, MaryH. Are you saying that the absence of a footprint you would expect to see can tell us something? It might tell us that there is an absence of a footprint, certainly. Some of the ones that are there seem very widely spaced so that there may well be some missing. But the ones that are there all face the same way, do they not? If that is accepted is there some reason to believe that any which are missing would have faced a different way if they had been there? Do you have any reason to believe that footprints which would show that Guede stopped and turned to lock the door have all been erased (or fortuitously did not leave a trace)? Sometimes people do seem to argue that the absence of evidence is proof of a contention, especially if they believe there is some kind of conspiracy. At present this seems to look a little like that.

If the shoeprint that is at the hinge end of the door is the left foot, it can be facing down the hall without meaning that the right foot was facing down the hall at the same time. If we have no right shoeprint because that shoe was not bloody, then it is entirely possible Rudy backed out of the room and stood in front of the door and locked the door, with his left foot facing down the hall and his right foot facing toward the door.

Other than that scenario and the scenario in which the police washed up the shoeprints immediately in front of the door, I don't see how we can explain where the right shoeprint would have been.

 

[Mary_H]

Right feet. I'm not sure where you get this 'right by the hinge' thing. In any case, I just stepped out of my living room door (the door opens the same way as Meredith's...into my living room with the handle on the left as I open it to go out) and banked right in order to head to my kitchen. My foot landed on the hinge side of the doorway in the corridor (in one step). I really din't see the issue here.

I didn't say "right by the hinge." I said the shoeprint was at the hinge end of the door because that is where you told me the shoeprint is.

If the first print in the hallway is of Rudy's right foot, then it is unlikely he turned toward the door to lock it.

This leads us to another question, though. If the first print in the hall is Rudy's right foot, then is there a left shoeprint of his just inside the bedroom door?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If the shoeprint that is at the hinge end of the door is the left foot, it can be facing down the hall without meaning that the right foot was facing down the hall at the same time. If we have no right shoeprint because that shoe was not bloody, then it is entirely possible Rudy backed out of the room and stood in front of the door and locked the door, with his left foot facing down the hall and his right foot facing toward the door.

Other than that scenario and the scenario in which the police washed up the shoeprints immediately in front of the door, I don't see how we can explain where the right shoeprint would have been.

Except it's a right foot.