Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[stilicho]

I don't miss the point at all about the locked door. The door argument is one for the internet. I don't believe it will have any bearing on the appeal. Why would Rudy lock the door? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted to buy a little time to get away. It doesn't really matter. Why not lock the outside door also? Who knows? It doesn't really matter. Rudy showed that he was careless.

Yes you did miss the point of the locked door and it is entirely relevant to how the investigators, the prosecutors, and the judges arrived at their conclusions.

You must be asking yourself how come you're so much cleverer than the real-life expensive lawyers paid to defend Amanda and Raffaele. They didn't put half the effort into explaining away the locked door as you have because they don't want it to be featured. It remains one of the rock-solid portions of the prosecution's case that pointed only to Amanda or Raffaele.

Once you are provided the opportunity (courtesy of the volunteers at the PMF) to read the entire Massei Report, you will realise that the locked bedroom door is evidence in and of itself that Amanda helped kill her flatmate.

 

[LondonJohn]

If this was all a conspiracy to set up Amanda, why would the Forensics/Police not ignore the later evidence or tweak it so it indicates Raffaele and Amanda, instead of another seemingly random person the Police missed the first time? The logic just doesn't work.


Let's run through it:

The Police were out to get Amanda.
Forensics evidence was tampered with to achieve this.
The Police arrest Amanda.
More evidence is revealed indicating that Rudy was involved, this evidence was not tampered with.
The Police don't want to admit they were wrong about Amanda, but they go after Rudy anyway (in essence, admitting that they didn't arrest all the guilty parties as they'd thought).
The Police admit they were wrong about Patrick (even though at the time they had no reason not to arrest him/believe Amanda's story).

So, you're saying the Police were wrong 100% of the time (at least at the start) - and yet they've been willing to admit that on at least two occasions, they were wrong about who the suspects/murderers were (missed Rudy at first, Patrick had nothing to do with it). But, I thought they didn't want to admit they were wrong?

If they were so adamant about putting Amanda away that they were willing to tamper with the forensics evidence, why would the Police/Forensics team not have tampered with the evidence against Rudy? They easily could have, they'd already done so, and you accuse them of having done so later.

See, the logic behind this being a conspiracy against Amanda doesn't work.

My view:

The police/prosecutors had no choice but to pursue Rudy Guede. His DNA was all over the crime scene.

The police/prosecutors had no choice but to release Patrick Lumumba. He came up with a cast-iron alibi.

Your assertion that the police were "willing" to admit they were wrong is therefore, in my view, far too generous to them. I say that they had absolutely no option in admitting they were wrong. I might also, incidentally, argue that these enforced changes in the direction of the police's/prosecutors' investigations - which, after all, didn't exactly paint the authorities in a stellar light - could possibly have had a bearing on how AK and RS were subsequently treated:

Can one imagine a scenario where the police and prosecutors felt somewhat wounded by having had to release Lumumba (when they'd already confidently announced that he was one of the culprits), and then having had to switch the investigation to Guede when his DNA came back from the lab? Can one then imagine the police and prosecutors feeling that they weren't going to let their reputations or competence be impugned again? Can one then imagine the police/prosecutors feeling a dogged determination to continue their pursuit of AK and RS, since these two provided the only remaining link to the police's/prosecutors' original theory of the murder/assault? I'm not suggesting that this was the mindset of the police and/or prosecutors. But I am suggesting that it bears scrutiny......

 

[stilicho]

Now this would clearly constitute unreasonable doubt. But I'd argue that this example is nowhere near the quality/"reasonableness" of doubt in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

Do go on.

Actually, don't.

Handwaving away a mountain of fully examined and cross-examined evidence is unreasonable doubt. Not only is your example unusually lurid for your legendary sensitive nature but it is grotesquely oversimplified. This was a tough case for the Perugia police, faced with a torrent of lies from the main suspects, but by no means among the toughest faced by law enforcement around the world.

Amanda and Raffaele left so much evidence that the appeal seems to be based only on changing the story (yet again), employing equally vicious criminals as witnesses, and demanding irrelevant testing while ignoring the mass of rock-solid forensics already supplied.

 

[Mary_H]

Can one imagine a scenario where the police and prosecutors felt somewhat wounded by having had to release Lumumba (when they'd already confidently announced that he was one of the culprits), and then having had to switch the investigation to Guede when his DNA came back from the lab? Can one then imagine the police and prosecutors feeling that they weren't going to let their reputations or competence be impugned again? Can one then imagine the police/prosecutors feeling a dogged determination to continue their pursuit of AK and RS, since these two provided the only remaining link to the police's/prosecutors' original theory of the murder/assault? I'm not suggesting that this was the mindset of the police and/or prosecutors. But I am suggesting that it bears scrutiny......

It is very easy to imagine. As I alluded to above, it also went much higher than just the police and prosecutor.

Announcing the first important breakthrough of the investigation, Arturo De Felice, chief of police in Perugia, said that although a post-mortem examination had found no evidence of rape, there were reasons to suspect a sexual assault. “A sexual motive is probable,” he said.

The people taken in for questioning including an American woman identified as Miss Knox, who is believed to have lived with Miss Kercher and was studying Italian at Perugia; a 24-year-old Italian man, identified by local media as Raffaele Sollecito, from Bari, who is believed to have been Miss Knox's boyfriend; and a Congolese man named as Patrick Diya Lumamba, 37, who runs a shop in the town.

All three were still being questioned this afternoon, on suspicion of involvement in murder and sexual violence. They have not been charged or formally arrested.

Italian reports said that the new version of events had emerged because Miss Knox had "crumbled" under questioning and told police what had occurred.

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.”

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

This was on November 6th, the day Amanda was arrested. At that time, the only evidence they had was Amanda's forced statement from a few hours earlier. They had NOTHING on Raffaele or Patrick.

 

[stilicho]

The police/prosecutors had no choice but to pursue Rudy Guede. His DNA was all over the crime scene.

The police/prosecutors had no choice but to release Patrick Lumumba. He came up with a cast-iron alibi.

You better hook up with Mary H again. She feels that ILE can fabricate evidence whenever they please. Kevin_Lowe equally allowed that the second most likely interpretation of the forensics (apart from them being true) is that they were planted or fabricated. Dan O and Kestrel have at least suggested this. Rose explained how it works on View From Wilmington.

So they had plenty of choice. They could have been consistent with those five posters' most likely alternate narrative and planted evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think reasonable doubt takes into consideration: Motive, means and motivation. There was no love lost between Meredith and Amanda. Mentioning the questions about anal sex, the menstruation blood was completely unnecessary as to what had transpired. Simply mena spirited and a way to demean Meredith. There was opportunity and the means.

It's true that the absence of means or opportunity* could result in reasonable doubt.

For example, if a man's wife was shot dead, and the man could prove that he neither owned nor had any access to a firearm, then he would have no means of committing the murder himself (although he could always have engaged a contract killer!). And if a man's wife was shot dead, but he could prove that he was in his workplace throughout the whole time of the murder, then he wouldn't have the opportunity to commit the murder himself (but the contract killer possibility remains...)

However, on the flipside, evidence of the existence of means, motive or opportunity are not in themselves any proof positive of guilt. It's only their absence that would have any real impact.

To refer back to the example above, if a man's wife was shot dead, and the man owned a firearm, then he would have the means to commit the murder himself. But it wouldn't show in itself that he did commit the murder**. And, likewise, if the man couldn't prove where he was at the time of the murder, then he would have had the opportunity to carry out the crime. But, again, this doesn't in itself indicate that he did commit the crime.

* "motive" is a far more esoteric issue that should actually be largely removed from the arena - and indeed prosecutors are rarely required to prove motive in order to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Many prosecutors do offer motives, since this often tends to "tie together" their case.

** This is assuming that the police couldn't tie his firearm conclusively to the murder (e.g. if the murder weapon was a shotgun, firing commonly-available shot pellets, and the police found no cartridges at the man's house)

 

[Mary_H]

You better hook up with Mary H again. She feels that ILE can fabricate evidence whenever they please. Kevin_Lowe equally allowed that the second most likely interpretation of the forensics (apart from them being true) is that they were planted or fabricated. Dan O and Kestrel have at least suggested this. Rose explained how it works on View From Wilmington.

So they had plenty of choice. They could have been consistent with those five posters' most likely alternate narrative and planted evidence.

Has anyone accused the investigators of removing or covering up forensic evidence they already had? That is what they would have had to do in the case of Rudy. In the case of the other two suspects, previously non-existent evidence was fabricated.

 

[capealadin]

Motive, means and opportunity. Not in itself proof. When you tie in the ever changing stories, the lies, the dna, the staged breakin, the behaviour after the murder, admitting you were there, blaming an innocent person, the mind set...I feel this goes to reasonable guilt.

 

[stilicho]

Has anyone accused the investigators of removing or covering up forensic evidence they already had? That is what they would have had to do in the case of Rudy. In the case of the other two suspects, previously non-existent evidence was fabricated.

How does that mechanism work? Who phones whom to say which forensics have to be faked? How does the laboratory know that they've received real evidence or fake stuff?

 

[Mary_H]

"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.'”

Interestingly, it turns out Amato has twice served as Italy's Prime Minister (Berlusconi is the current one). That might help explain why anyone in Perugia who believes Amanda and Raffaele are innocent would be hesitant to contradict his premature conclusions about the nature of the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Amato

 

[Mary_H]

How does that mechanism work? Who phones whom to say which forensics have to be faked? How does the laboratory know that they've received real evidence or fake stuff?

The laboratory workers don't have to know anything about it. Mignini and Stefanoni are friends who work for the same employer (the State of Italy), an employer that seems not to have a system of checks and balances in place for quality control. Is there anyone who supervises either of those two?

 

[capealadin]

Amato was not the Prime Minister when the murder took place. And what would he have done to the people of Perugia if he was the current PM? And really, Amanda and Raff weren,t even from Perugia. I imagine they are happy that the culprits are in prison. Any other students killed in Perugia since Meredith?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Pleas give me a logical explanation of how Amanda could have put that one footprint in front of the door? Do you think she hopped all over the cottage and only put her foot covered in blood on the floor one time to lock the door? Are you suggesting that scenario?

That print is an undated stain. It was most likely made from a wet foot coming out of the shower. It is almost a complete print. If that print was from blood, the entire foot would have had to be covered in blood. If that was the case, there would have been a lot of prints discovered from that foot. Unless of course you think Amanda hopped around the cottage.

You state that Amanda and Raffaele DID NOT clean up in Meredith's room. With your theory, if the prints discovered with luminal are blood, then Amanda and Raffeele both hopped out of the murder room. This is not logical.

There is no proof that the luminol print outside the door belongs to Amanda. There is no proof the luminol print was made in blood. The print is not dated.

It's because Amanda and Raffaele cleaned the footprints away. As a result, some of the luminol prints were also victims to that cleaning.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Who said Rudy walked through the hall in his bare feet? You are completely changing the subject because Fulcanelli has been backed into a corner. He stated that no clean up occurred in Meredith's room. He also believes that the luminol prints are set in blood. For both of these to be true, Amanda and Raffaele would have had to hop out of Meredith's room. We all know that is not a logical theory.

There is no proof that the luminol stains are blood. It is highly unlikely that anyone's bare foot could have been covered in that much blood to make almost complete footprints without tracking around a lot more blood. Those luminol prints were most likely made with a wet foot coming out of the shower. These prints are not dated. The bleach that is found in bathroom cleaners would be detectable for months with luminol.

If Rudy didn't walk around in bare feet, how then do you assign the bloody footprint on the mat and it's identical partner in the corridor to Rudy?

No clean-up occurred around Meredith's body. I'm not so sure about the area between her feet and the door way though. In addition, there are lots of partial prints in the room, too damaged to match to any individual...no doubt because there was so much activity in such a small place. And as for the hopping idea, I wouldn't put that past them either...why not?

And I will say this for the hundredth time, none of the cleaners in the cottage contained bleach! Bleach doesn't even come into it!

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe your comment would be referring to a clean up effort that was never proven.

The prints were most likely made by wet feet coming out of the shower. household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

Oh, I think it has...but again, you totally ignore the Massei Report. Do you have a phobia with it or something?

As for the bleach nonsense, I dealt with that in a previous post.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is someone telling you this, or is it simply your assumption?

It's a plain straight fact. It was in the defence expert's possession, he was already testing it. Why not test for semen?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I said that is a possibility. I am sure Amanda and the other women that lived in the residence took showers on a regular basis. These stains are not dated.

Keep in mind, there is no proof that those prints belong to Amanda. The prints were not compared to the other women in the house. Even if they were, luminol prints do not provide definitive shapes.

The 'other women' were completely different sizes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I love to read the comments on PMF. They are very entertaining. For the record, my little video was not meant to be anything scientific. It was basically done to prove that Fulcanelli is completely wrong when it comes to the shoe prints. He still believes that the prints were from a right foot. He convinced everyone at PMF that it would be impossible for Rudy to lock the door. This is obviously not the case.

Peggy claimed that my feet were already pointed inward when I exited the room. I actually turned and faced the door as I closed it. It is a very easy and natural motion.

It was mentioned that Rudy would have had to clean the outside handle. This is not true. The outside handle would not have blood on it because I believe that Rudy had already cleaned up in the bathroom at that point. He returned to Meredith's room to go through Meredith's purse. When he left, he stepped in blood, tracking it out of the cottage. His hands were clean when he touched the outside handle. The door latches closed. He did not need to hold the door handle to insert the key. The door has a very simple key configuration.

I have said this repeatedly and I will say it again, the prints on the floor do not prove that anyone locked or didn't lock the door. The evidence provided does show that Rudy could have locked the door.

There is no proof whatsoever that Amanda or Raffaele locked the door.

Actually, my argument was not based on whether the footprints are left or right, it was you that tried to make that a central point. My argument was based on the fact that they were all pointing the wrong way. The pattern of prints tells a distinct story...that Rudy ran out of the cottage without breaking stride.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I do not claim that any stains detected with luminol belong to Rudy.

Rudy walked to the bathroom. I believe that he had blood on the top of his shoe. He washed it off in the bathroom. He went back to Meredith's room, went through her purse, stepped in blood and exited the cottage.

This is not a detailed description of course. I am tired of typing the same thing to you over and over again.

Fulcanelli discussed the clean up or lack of any clean up recently on JREF. You can easily find it.

Why would he need to take it off to wash it, if that were his concern? If he had kept it on to wash it, then the logical place to do so would have been the bidet. If he had taken it off to wash it, then the logical place to do so would have been the sink since that is at a level where he needs to bend down. The problem, is there is blood in BOTH the sink and the bidet. Your second problem, is a 'bit of blood on the top of his shoe) does not suddenly transform into enveloping the whole sole of his foot in order to leave a clearly visible print on the bath mat. Your scenario does not explain how the sole of his foot would have been coated.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There are always unanswered questions. Any question that doesn't have an answer does not lead to the guilt of Amanda or Raffaele. Rudy could have covered Meredith with the duvet, placed the knife on the bed, moved her purse, decided not to take anything, then decided to clean up his shoe, then changed his mind and decided to go back and get the items out of Meredith's purse.

We can sit here and speculate if you like. There is no evidence that would put Amanda or Raffaele into the speculation.

We don't need to speculate. His footprints tell a complete story. Rudy left. He didn't go to the bathroom and then change his mind and go back again to get the contents of the purse. The footprints show he ran straight out of the room and left.