Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[43degreesNorth]

I am ready for another video re-enactment to be posted. I think Bruce has measurements anyway between the grate and the ledge and the flower planter and the window. I don't have a suitable wall and window available to me.

 

[katy_did]

You can't reach the ledge when your feet are at the bottom of the grate. To get feet to top of the grate you have to let go of the grate. So are we talking about 'pinch holds' on the brick that rock climbers use? i think not.

I disagree: the defence lawyer was easily able to hold onto the sill while standing two rungs down on the grating. The bottom 'rung' is two steps further down from that, and I think even the lawyer would've had a shot at reaching the sill. Rudy Guede, being 6ft+, would've had little difficulty. Probably this is why the police wanted to know the names of "tall men" who'd visited the house.

And again, whether or not it's possible to climb up to the sill is really a non-issue now, since Micheli, Massei and the jury all agreed it was possible.

 

[LondonJohn]

On a different subject: I wonder when prosecutor Giuliano Mignini's appeal against his criminal conviction for abuse of power is due to take place? That should make for interesting observation...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The defence only needs to show that entry to the house was physically possible via at least one route (and obviously a route which is not contradicted by proven evidence regarding the exterior condition of the house). The defence does not have to prove which of the potential possible routes was chosen.

Exactly. As far as I understand it's also possible that Guede talked his way in the front door, and then tried to make it look like a random break-in afterwards. Either possibility is enough to constitute reasonable doubt.

 

[katy_did]

Speaking of the “bleach receipts”; this was one of the earliest examples of non-existant “damning evidence”, and the first English-speaking paper to riff on it was …. The Times..

It floated the story immediately it was “leaked” by Mignini to the Italian press, within days of the arrests.

The same hack, sorry, reporter (Richard Owen) had also written a ‘companion’ piece the same week asserting that it was known that the flat had been “cleaned with bleach”. This lack of concern for fact-checking is something you'd expect of tabloids such as the Sun or the Mail, not a so-called ‘broadsheet’.

(The Times subsequently assigned a scribbler called John Follain to report on the trial itself, and his pieces wouldn’t have been out of place in any tabloid – The Kercher trial – Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies, Amanda Knox tells of Meredith Kercher's “yucky” death, etc’). You get the idea -the Times "reporting" of the case remained uniformly in this vein.

I have to say, it always struck me as odd that it was this “prestigious” (in some people’s eyes) newspaper which set the precedent for "reporting” Migini’s unverified and unverifiable “leaks” (I prefer "lies", which they are) as factual in the English speaking press, NOT tabloids such as the the Mail (they simply joined the feeding frenzy opportunistically). It was as if it was a matter of editorial policy, perhaps even of a proprietorial directive.

I've wondered about the reporting in the Times as well. I remember reading the story about 'bleach receipts' and assuming that since it wasn't in a tabloid paper, it must be accurate! I don't know if it's just that they had the same direct link to the prosecution's office that the Italian papers had, rather than basing their reports on what the Italian papers published as the other UK papers presumably did (meaning they were maybe a bit more circumspect about what they published). I noticed an interesting bit in one of the early Italian articles in Corriere:

Among the English papers dealing with the case, the argument by the majority is that this is the story of a love gone wrong. The facts, says the Sunday Times, seem to exclude the possibility that the culprit was a thief caught red-handed: a computer and Meredith's jewellery were left untouched. It is possible, they add, that the student could have been killed by a lunatic, a sexual maniac, but "intuitively it is more probable that the girl was followed home by someone she knew well".

Seems odd that the one paper which reported the prosecution's early theory of the crime most accurately is taken as representative of the UK papers generally, doesn't it?! Particularly since the source the Times used is probably the same as that used by Corriere, so to cite the Times report as if it somehow validates what the Italian papers were publishing (and hence the prosecution's theory of the crime) seems...odd.

 

[katy_did]

The problem arises when you have pulled yourself up the wall to about shoulder level with your hands. At that point you are NO LONGER PULLING, you have to start PUSHING, and your arms have very little leverage to raise yourself up any higher. True, good gymnasts can proceed to where they bring their waist all the way up to the elevation of their hands, but they are gripping a bar-- not supporting themselves with their fingers on a ledge---and so are permitted to engage additional arm muscles. (I'd love to see a home video from Bruce where he performs this feat.) So, the next question LondonJohn......have YOU---outside of your healthy imagination---ever done such a thing?

In the picture of the lawyer, the sill is already at about shoulder level, even though he has another rung of the grating still to climb. On 6ft+ Rudy, the sill would easily be at mid chest level. The climber would need only to be tall and athletic, which Rudy was.

 

[bucketoftea]

1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The rest of this post, and most of the others about the possibility of climbing in through the window, seem to be an extended argument from incredulity.

I think you've discovered the exception that tests the rule. Or. Show me the evidence that shows someone did climb through the window. No one did.

 

[Fine]

In the picture of the lawyer, the sill is already at about shoulder level, even though he has another rung of the grating still to climb. On 6ft+ Rudy, the sill would easily be at mid chest level. The climber would need only to be tall and athletic, which Rudy was.

_______________

Thankfully, the court wasn't using LondonJohn's standard of what is possible ---viz, whether LondonJohn can imagine it. The court only recognized the possibility of the climb because the court knew that there was a NAIL in the wall to serve as a foothold for a climber.

///

 

[Mary_H]

Unfortunately for you the reality that is sinking in is not the one you hoped for.

Jeeze, Amazer, it's not like we want to argue about this. I, for one, would like nothing better than to see all the colpevolisti "fold their tents, like the Arabs, and quietly steal away." That, of course, would include Mignini, Comodi, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Biscotti, Gentile, Napoleone, Torricelli, Matteini, Massei, Micheli, et ceterini!!! May they all find better ways to spend the rest of their lives.

 

[katy_did]

_______________

Thankfully, the court wasn't using LondonJohn's standard of what is possible ---viz, whether LondonJohn can imagine it. The court only recognized the possibility of the climb because the court knew that there was a NAIL in the wall to serve as a foothold for a climber.

///

Micheli never mentions the nail. And Massei only mentions it as something the climber would have come into contact with in some way; he never says he couldn't have gotten into the room unless he used the nail as a foothold. That's a misreading of what Massei wrote.

Where exactly was this nail, anyway? Have any photos of it surfaced yet?

 

[Fine]

Micheli never mentions the nail. And Massei only mentions it as something the climber would have come into contact with in some way; he never says he couldn't have gotten into the room unless he used the nail as a foothold. That's a misreading of what Massei wrote.

Where exactly was this nail, anyway? Have any photos of it surfaced yet?

_____________________

Yeah, we'd all like to see a photo of that nail, and a photo showing exactly where it is situated on the wall. (Maybe for now LondonJohn can tell us where he imagines the nail to be situated. That should help.) I'll post the photos if and when I find them.

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sometimes a kitchen knife is just a kitchen knife

* DNA on bra clasp: Contamination, or conspiracy, or bad luck, or...she did it.

* Blood on knife: Contamination, or conspiracy, or alternate reality in which Kercher actually did visit Sollecito's flat, or...she did it.

* Knox lying to implicate ex-boss: Psychotic break with reality, or (shucks, I really don't really know what else), or...she did it.

Spot any trends there? Just three pieces of evidence (and of course, there's mountains of others), and to make it work you have to live in a world where the police are corrupt, the forensic labs are incompetent, Knox and Sollicito are incredibly unlucky, and Knox tells self-destructive lies for no reason whatsoever.

Stellafane,

There was no blood on the knife. If a bloody knife were cleaned, one would lose the ability to detect DNA more quickly than blood. That is why contamination is the only plausible explanation for the DNA profile culled from an ordinary kitchen knife. The DNA from several other individuals was found on the bra clasp. How do you explain that?

I find it very interesting that both you and stilicho come back over and over again to the falsehoods that Amanda and Raffaele told. If that is all you have, it is not even a molehill.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shortcomings of the clasp

Heh, again with more insults. Not unexpected however; I have enough experience with conspiracy theorists to know that if you attempt to engage them in any meaningful discussion, they quickly exhaust what little ammunition they have and in frustration their "arguments" inevitably devolve into personal insults. So although I'm a bit surprised with the alacrity with which my expectation came to pass, I can't really say I'm surprised by it.

Stellafane,

Your very first post was insulting; therefore, you have no standing to point fingers when others respond in a fashion you consider to be demeaning. The bra clasp was moved by person or persons unknown in the forty six days it remained in Meredith's room. When it was collected, it was not handled with disposable tools; it was passed around like a photograph. Maybe you should explain why you would accept it as evidence in spite of the shortcomings I have listed here and previously.

 

[RoseMontague]

Micheli never mentions the nail. And Massei only mentions it as something the climber would have come into contact with in some way; he never says he couldn't have gotten into the room unless he used the nail as a foothold. That's a misreading of what Massei wrote.

Where exactly was this nail, anyway? Have any photos of it surfaced yet?

Here is a quote from that section of the Massei report Fulcanelli posted:

In fact, there are no visible signs on the wall, and furthermore, it can be observed that the nail - this was noted by this Court of Assizes [?] during the inspection - remained where it was, and it seems difficult to hypothesise that the climber, given the position of that nail and its characteristics visible in the photo 11 - did not somehow "encounter" that nail and force it, inadvertently or by using it as a foothold, causing it to fall or at least bending it. On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci cited above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli, and she said: "I observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and I noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and all of the vegetation underneath the window did not appear to have been trampled; nothing." (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci). She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "going around the outside of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

I believe jutted out about 6cm would be roughly 2.4 inches.

 

[act1roson]

I staunchly believe in the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Help me understand those of you who believe in guilt. Do I have the following list right? Maybe this is how we can pinpoint where our differences lie.

This is my own creation, and I need it in list manner to understand you. I want to update it when notified of discrepancies with trustworthy sources. I will make additions that are in complete sentences referring to specific verifiable actions.

In order of importance, those who believe in guilt believe:

1) Amanda Knox accused Patrick Lumumba voluntarily of murder in her final middle-of-the-night unrecorded confession without coercion on the part of the interrogation team.

2) Even though Amanda pointed a finger towards Patrick Lumumba as the murderer and he proved innocent, her other statements in the interrogation were truthful, such as she was in the cottage covering her ears. This “covering my ears” statement is as good as admitting to abetting in the murder of Meredith Kercher, even though Amanda made no other statements regarding witnessing the actual murder.

3) That during this final interrogation, Amanda Knox was not threatened with jail for 30 years, nor hit on the back of the head, and she had an adequate professional interpreter. The denying of an attorney was for expediency and she was not yet a suspect. She was good enough at speaking Italian and mature enough to understand what was occurring. She deserves being sued for defamation for stating she was struck by the policewoman she identified with “long, chestnut colored hair.”

4) Rudy Guede was in the murder room assisted by Amanda Knox and Raffaele, even though there is no DNA or other evidence of Amanda's being there, and no communication was ever proven prior (or subsequently) via cell phone, or any evidence produced that they even really knew each other. Amanda knew Rudy by sight and had seen him a few times (due to her downstairs roommates) and Raffaele didn’t know him at all.

5) The bra clasp with Raffaele’s DNA collected 47 days after the murder (all the while Raffaele was in jail with NO evidence against him) found in a separate part of the murder room and even dropped on the floor by the collection team unquestioningly did indeed have his DNA along with 3 other people still unidentified. This DNA had to have been deposited while the murder was taking place by Raffaele himself. The rare low copy number process of DNA analysis used is sound.

6) The Double DNA knife found in Raffaele’s apartment several blocks away was indeed one of the murder weapons (there had to be 2 knives because Raffaele’s apartment knife was too big for two of the neck wounds), and the fact that Amanda’s DNA was on the handle, which could be expected since she cooked with it, definitely proves to be the murder weapon because Meredith’s non-blood DNA was found on the blade. No other knives from this drawer were tested to cross check for contamination. This is proof Amanda did at least one neck injury to Meredith.

7) The smoking of hashish by Amanda and Raffaele is an indication of poor character and helped lead them to becoming murderers. They may have been addicts. Amanda and Raffaele’s positive school attendance records and teacher interactions, or lack of prior history towards violence, have no bearing on this case.

8) Amanda Knox heavily influenced Rudy Guede and Raffaele. She had power over them.

9) Even though Amanda never did a true “cartwheel” at the police station while talking politely with police officers (she really did a yoga exercise), it doesn’t matter. It was behavior of a murderess, along with her purchase of underwear, and odd behavior at the police station witnessed by Meredith’s British friends who had learned of the murder several hours after Amanda.

10) Rudy Guede’s prior brushes with the law do not indicate a violent person. He needed Amanda Knox to push him to murder.

11) The times Amanda and Raffaele turned off their cell phones is an indication of guilt.

12) The conflicting statements by Amanda regarding times and durations of phone calls made to roommates and Amanda’s mother before the murder was discovered is an indication of guilt. The time of Amanda’s call to her mother in a different time zone, waking her up, is also an indication of guilt.

13) The interrogations were done properly and legally, and there is no way that Amanda Knox’s final statement in the middle of the night after 50+ hours of attendance at the police station and interrogations during the first 90 hours of the discovery of the body would have made the statements she did unless she was guilty. Doesn’t matter that she attended class that week and couldn’t sleep at night, because she was guilty. (Many students were fleeing Perugia due to fear.)

14) The mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith in the bathroom they shared must be due to Amanda’s involvement in the murder. Also, the one case of mixed DNA of Amanda’s in another roommate’s room Amanda had entered is an indication of guilt.

15) There was a staged break-in. No doubt about it. (I need a succinct sentence or two here on why those who believe in guilt believe this.)

16) The prosecution’s leaking of evidence and falsehoods to the press in Italy has nothing to do with the outcome of the trial.

17) The illegal behavior in a prior serial murder case by the main prosecutor of Amanda and Raffaele, Giuliano Mignini, has no bearing on this case.

18) The noise citation Amanda Knox received due to live bands at a party she had in Seattle is an indication of a troubled person. (There was no rock throwing at this party as reported in tabloids.)

To sum up, I request those of you who believe in guilt to advise me where I am misunderstanding your positions as outlined above.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If he had succeeded, the LONE WOLFERS would be shouting "Success"!
Since he failed, the LONE WOLFERS prefer not to talk about it.
///

Did he fail? I have been told he was able to climb through the window.

 

[Darat]

Quite a few Members have chosen to ignore my warning therefore this thread will be closed until a member of the Moderating Team has time to go through it and remove the many posts that are in breach of my warning. Do not attempt to start a discussion about this topic in either a new thread or another open thread, doing so will result in an immediate suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for re-opening the thread.

Regarding the absence of blood on the "murder knife": one of the appeal documents appears to say that eminent forensic scientists believe there's a very, very low possibility of a false negative. That's to say, the fact that the tests for blood showed no presence of blood is (in their view) a virtual assurance that there was no blood on the knife. The blood tests appear to be sensitive to even miniscule traces of blood.

It's extremely interesting, therefore, that no blood was found on the knife, yet DNA from Meredith apparently was found on the knife - albeit found at sensitivities new to the world of forensic science, and sensitivities which have never been peer-reviewed, tested in research laboratory conditions, or replicated.

This raises interesting questions. For example, if the knife were one of the murder weapons, how could it have been cleaned sufficiently to remove all traces of Meredith's blood, but yet not cleaned enough to remove other sources of her DNA, such as skin cells? And, for example, if the knife had been extensively scrubbed with bleach after the murder to remove incriminating evidence, why did the oxidising agent in the bleach destroy any and all blood DNA, but leave some skin cell DNA intact?

 

[katy_did]

Yay. Thanks mods. Rose posted an extract from AK's appeal over on PMF about the test for blood done on the luminol footprints, which I think may also be relevant to the knife, LJ:

During the hearings, and in particular with the deposition of the SAL documentation (Project Progress Report) of the Scientific Police in July 2009, it emerged for the first time that the same samples (luminol positive) had also been analysed using the tetramethylbenzidine test to detect the presence of blood.

This test was negative for all traces, as expressly indicated in the SAL for the traces from 176 to 183.

A negative test for all these traces is sufficient on technical scientific grounds to exclude the nature of the substance being blood.

4. Yet the Court of Assizes, in order to prove that blood was present, stated on purely hypothetical grounds, as already suggested in relation to the knife, that a negative tetramethylbenzidine test for the presence of blood could have derived from the small amount of material in the same trace.

The argument in question is not acceptable and should recall, in this regard, the arguments and analyses carried out on Exhibit 36 and with particular reference to the sensitivity of the tetramethylbenzidine test in detecting the blood nature of a sample.

On this point, we return once again to the declarations of Dr Stefanoni who has affirmed the sensitivity and reliability of the tetramethylbenzidine test for excluding the presence of blood:
S: "It is very sensitive, I can't tell you now but it is in common practice."
D: "You also cite the occurrence of false positives."
R: "Yes in the sense that it cannot distinguish between human and animal blood for example.
D: "But where it is negative I think that leaves us quite convinced that it is not blood."
R: "Yes that it is not blood, it cannot be" (verbal transcription of the preliminary hearing 4 October 2008, pag. 175).

Prof. Tagliabracci testified incontrovertibly that:
"Generic analysis was performed with tetramethylbenzidine, a test which is extremely sensitive and which can detect as little as five blood cells".

The declarations of Dr. Stefanoni and Prof. Tagliabracci are confirmed by Dr Gino, who explained in a similarly definitive way that:
"Tetramethylbenzidine is a test which is normally employed in the laboratory to try to ascertain whether or not a track could be blood, it is a very sensitive method although not specific because we sometimes see false positives with this... with the tetramethylbenzidine so something which tests positive could in reality not be blood" (transcription of the hearing of 26 September 2009, pag. 74).

The risk, therefore, for tetramethylbenzidine is once again that it may result in false positives, and not false negatives due to a paucity of material as was proposed by the Court of Assizes.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For those interested in the nail, I have posted a photo:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/wall_showing_nail.jpg