Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

It seems to me that you are ducking a vital part of the challenge put to you.

LondonJohn asked for a Corbin domestic lockset which resembles the one installed in the girls' house, and where the key operates both the deadbolt and the spring latch.

In response you assert (without evidence) that you can go to any locksmith get a Corbin domestic lockset where the key operates both the deadbolt and the spring latch.

Why don't you do that last little bit of work and (a) show that such a system exists and (b) show that it resembles the one installed in the girls' house?

I don't think you've been paying attention.

Without the model number of the specific lock assembly on that specific door it would be quite impossible to prove that that lock had that feature. Even if we did know the model number it would be impossible to prove that that particular installation of that lock had that particular feature enabled.

This has been pointed out repeatedly. The first time by Dan O., who certainly can not be accused of evasion in an effort to defame Knox & Co.

The initial discussion was prompted by my observation that the specific lockset in question was not exactly "broken" as had been alleged for so long, but had been deliberately defeated. LJ chose to offer the opinion that this condition must have been the consequence of an inept designer or installer. I disputed this.

I pointed out that such a condition as he proposed was neither needful or likely. He questioned the very existence of such lockset features as I described. I provided an example. The goalpost moved.

We have indeed seen a lockset that "resembles the one installed in the girls' house" in these very pages. Thanks to katy_did's quite cogent and helpful contributions to this topic both Dan O. and I noticed a likely candidate in the Corbin catalog pages which LJ himself posted.

The info provided in that catalog page was insufficient to verify the specific features of the lockset represented on that page, but that is unimportant. First, since we cannot prove that it does anything more than "resemble" the apt. lockset it establishes nothing. Beyond an opportunity to move the goalpost yet again, that is. Second, I can comfortably rely on my knowledge of the field to conjecture with some authority that such a mortise lockset application could (and quite probably would) be adapted to a key function such as I have described.

I think that you may have lost sight of the fact that aside from LJ's initial disbelief that such a lock function even existed at all, and his continued insistence that even if it did it was somehow rare and unusual, this entire topic is moot

As I have said, repeatedly.

There has been no suggestion after the photos of the door latch were brought forward in this thread that the latch was not intentionally disabled, which was my point. Whether that was done in response to an abysmally incompetent installation (a theory which LJ seems quite enamored of for some reason) or because the design had proven to be inconvenient to some user (my hypothesis) makes no difference to that point.

I have devoted a fair amount of time to explaining the reasoning behind this hypothesis. I have even offered some basic education about the nature and variety of lockset technology. It is quite possible that those particular details of the particular lockset in question may not even be available in a on-line format. We have already looked at one "likely" example which didn't. Please note that the one we have looked at did not offer any suggestion that such a key function was unavailable, or that it was. The data was not included as part of the ad. Anyone with enough familiarity with the subject to know to ask would realize that such functionality was probably available.

Not that it would matter, since we don't even know with any certainty the particular lockset in question.

My suggestion that if LJ wishes to improve his own personal knowledge of the subject further (at least beyond the depths and heights available on the website of an English version of Home Depot) by consulting someone who will have, on hand, a great deal of product information that is often not accessible by Internet as well as the knowledge and experience to use it is quite reasonable.

Accusing me of "ducking a vital part of the challenge" by declining to spend yet more of my own time on a web search for data which may not posted to the web in the first place, in defense of a detail irrelevant to the point I was making, for the edification of someone whose motives may be more rhetorical than sincere is not very reasonable of you.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe the passage is stating Amanda moved about the crime scene barefoot (not that the print in question is a combination of Amanda's barefoot print and Rudy's shoeprint).

That would make more sense, Christiania. Thanks.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There are too many indicators presented by the prosecution, debated by the defence teams, and judged upon, to ignore Amanda's direct participation in both the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher.

These include but are not limited to:

- Raffaele told the Italian courts that he should not be held responsible for actions taken by Amanda.
- Amanda's lamp was inside Meredith's locked room.
- Amanda's DNA was on the knife also containing Meredith's DNA.
- Amanda knew many details of the attack that could possibly have been learned from remaining in the kitchen but are more probably associated with active participation.
- Amanda created a story out of whole cloth to explain away her bare footprints.
- Amanda was obviously not with Raffaele during his phone calls on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 when they claimed they were asleep.
- If Amanda was not involved there was little reason for her to be the one to work on most of the cleanup by herself.
- In her alibi email, Amanda explained why her DNA should be expected to be found mixed with Meredith's in various locations in the crimescene.
- Amanda went to great lengths to explain away the mop, even though elaborating on this detail was unnecessarily complicating her protestations of innocence.

Knox is a charming murderer like Ted Bundy was. Her coyness and physical stature work in her favour to create a positive image of innocence. Her parents and her groupies here help to reinforce that image. But, as Amanda would say, it's all a mere vision with no substance whatsoever.

Your entire list doesn't amount to much. It is easily taken apart. Please tell me what details of the murder that Amanda knew that she should not have known. This is one of your talking points that has been long refuted. It is very clear that the only information that Amanda knew was what she heard in the cottage as the door was forced open. Please tell me something that I may have missed.

I must be one of those groupies as you like to say. I base my conclusions on facts. Please explain to me how it is dishonest to show forensic expert Vinci's report that was presented at trial. Please tell me where the dishonesty is?

Do you believe that Amanda left a bloody shoe print on the pillow? If you do then I suggest that you review that "dishonest" report as you like to call it.

Please explain to me why Amanda could not have remained asleep when Raffaele was talking on the phone. Please explain to me how it is not possible that Raffaele went back to bed after talking on the phone.

When some asks you when you woke up, you tell then the time you got out of bed for the day. You don't say, well I got up at 3 am and used the bathroom, then I was up again at 5 am to close the window, and then I was up again at 7 am because the phone rang.

That is not logical reasoning. When someone asks you when you woke up, you tell them when you got out of bed for the day. You don't detail every event that occurred throughout the night.

There is NO proof of any clean up. The judge's report ran into trouble with this aspect because the bare foot prints would have appeared as smears if they had been cleaned up. So the court simply concludes that the prints were not cleaned up, they were just invisible. This completely contradicts the prosecution's theory.

Raffaele's kitchen knife had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. Let me ask you this, if Amanda's DNA was deposited on the knife handle during the attack, why wasn't any blood from Meredith found on the handle? If Amanda's DNA was deposited on the knife handle at the time of Meredith's death, Meredith's blood would have certainly been on the handle.

If you claim that the blood was cleaned off the handle then that cleaning process would have certainly cleaned off Amanda's DNA.

This fact proves that Amanda's DNA was deposited on the knife handle at another time. Most likely when she used the knife to prepare food in Raffaele's kitchen.

There is no logical scenario to connect Amanda's DNA on the handle with Meredith's murder.

Where is that mountain of evidence that you keep talking about?

I know that it is claimed that Rudy couldn't have left that print on the bathroom rug because he ran right out of the cottage. It has been repeatedly argued that Rudy never went anywhere else, he just ran right out the front door.

If that's the case, please tell me how Rudy retrieved the towels from the bathroom?

I have asked you a series of logical questions. These questions are all based on the facts of this case. Some are based on past comments that you have made on JREF.

The case against Amanda and Raffaele is very weak. Many details have been exaggerated to appear incriminating such as exact times of phone calls. When you look at the actual facts of this case the truth is very clear. Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted.

 

[Kestrel]

I believe the passage is stating Amanda moved about the crime scene barefoot (not that the print in question is a combination of Amanda's barefoot print and Rudy's shoeprint).

The crime scene is the apartment where Amanda lived. It's easy to believe she moved around barefoot in her own apartment. The mistake is assuming that the footprints must have been created at the time of the crime. Especially considering that the footprints tested negative for blood.

 

[RoseMontague]

The crime scene is the apartment where Amanda lived. It's easy to believe she moved around barefoot in her own apartment. The mistake is assuming that the footprints must have been created at the time of the crime. Especially considering that the footprints tested negative for blood.

I believe she is referring to the "contested" shoeprint on the pillow. Her interpretation of the passage makes more sense than mine. The court seemed to reluctantly acknowledge that it was Rudy"s print because Amanda was probably barefoot which would fit more with their theory somehow. Meaning the fact that the police were wrong only confirmed the court's version (LOL).

Hopefully we will get that long awaited translation maybe even tonight and will be better able to make sense of it. In general, I believe her point that the court did not put much if any weight on this possibly being Amanda's print is correct.

 

[stilicho]

As I have said, repeatedly.

I don't know what's going on with the lockset issue. Hammerite at the PMF asked me to link to this:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=52051#p52051

This is not a huge mystery and can be easily solved by visiting a hardware store or querying it on the internet.

 

[Malkmus]

Where is that mountain of evidence that you keep talking about?

It's rather amazing actually. For easily the first two years following the murder the "guilty" side did have a mountain of evidence. There was unquestionable proof of Amanda shopping for bleach, Raf lying about calling the police after they had arrived, previous translations of Raf's 112 call showed he knew more than he should, Amanda apparently knew more than she should have also, video of Amanda walking to the cottage, the witnesses hadn't been known to be contradictory yet, the DNA evidence seemed rock solid before Stefanoni's techniques were known to be highly dubious, and on and on... So it's not surprising that in the wake of discrediting most of this evidence, or even flat out discovering it was false to begin with, the ones who were trumpeting its copious amount are still clinging to it. With so much talk of "other cases" requiring less evidence to prove guilt let me ask:

In this case, where is circumstantial evidence that's as strong as:

A. Joran Van der Sloot being caught on tape entering a room with a girl and then leaving that room with her left dead inside.

B. Scott Petersen cheating on his wife and telling his mistress that his wife was already dead two weeks before she actually was and that they would be able to spend the holidays together because his wife was dead, then getting caught by police after changing his appearance and on the verge of going into hiding.

C. Casey Anthony not reporting her daughter was missing more than a month after her disappearance.

All three of these high profile cases demonstrate undeniably strong circumstantial evidence that the accused acted with guilty behavior. IMO, the only piece of evidence in the Meredith Kercher case that comes close to any of the above examples is if you believe that Amanda's story to police accusing Patrick wasn't coerced. Personally, when I read Amanda's testimony of how she was led to believe she was there that night, plus the police's mistranslation of her text to Patrick, and how it integrates with their interrogation with Raf where they (incorrectly) thought they had matched his shoeprint to a bloody one, it simply makes sense to me and fits all the pieces of that night... as opposed to the other way of thinking that Amanda broke down out of the blue as soon as the interrogation started and accused Patrick.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know what's going on with the lockset issue. Hammerite at the PMF asked me to link to this:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=52051#p52051

This is not a huge mystery and can be easily solved by visiting a hardware store or querying it on the internet.

I wonder why Hammerite can't post this information on JREF all by him/herself, without having to go through an intermediary?

And it's all good stuff, but it isn't a Corbin lockset and it isn't for a front door (it's made for slimline aluminium doors such as patio doors or french windows). Otherwise it's a perfect match!

 

[LondonJohn]

It's rather amazing actually. For easily the first two years following the murder the "guilty" side did have a mountain of evidence. There was unquestionable proof of Amanda shopping for bleach, Raf lying about calling the police after they had arrived, previous translations of Raf's 112 call showed he knew more than he should, Amanda apparently knew more than she should have also, video of Amanda walking to the cottage, the witnesses hadn't been known to be contradictory yet, the DNA evidence seemed rock solid before Stefanoni's techniques were known to be highly dubious, and on and on... So it's not surprising that in the wake of discrediting most of this evidence, or even flat out discovering it was false to begin with, the ones who were trumpeting its copious amount are still clinging to it. With so much talk of "other cases" requiring less evidence to prove guilt let me ask:

In this case, where is circumstantial evidence that's as strong as:

A. Joran Van der Sloot being caught on tape entering a room with a girl and then leaving that room with her left dead inside.

B. Scott Petersen cheating on his wife and telling his mistress that his wife was already dead two weeks before she actually was and that they would be able to spend the holidays together because his wife was dead, then getting caught by police after changing his appearance and on the verge of going into hiding.

C. Casey Anthony not reporting her daughter was missing more than a month after her disappearance.

All three of these high profile cases demonstrate undeniably strong circumstantial evidence that the accused acted with guilty behavior. IMO, the only piece of evidence in the Meredith Kercher case that comes close to any of the above examples is if you believe that Amanda's story to police accusing Patrick wasn't coerced. Personally, when I read Amanda's testimony of how she was led to believe she was there that night, plus the police's mistranslation of her text to Patrick, and how it integrates with their interrogation with Raf where they (incorrectly) thought they had matched his shoeprint to a bloody one, it simply makes sense to me and fits all the pieces of that night... as opposed to the other way of thinking that Amanda broke down out of the blue as soon as the interrogation started and accused Patrick.

I have to admit, I too am getting increasingly bemused by these strange (and increasingly irrational) attempts to compare the Kercher case with various other cases. I don't know why these "comparisons" - usually stuffed full of inaccuracies and false inferences - add anything to this particular case. The underlying conditions, relationships, motives, opportunities, behaviours, investigations and evidence are dramatically different in all of the cases being held up for comparison. It seems that some people are trying to show "guilt by osmosis" - i.e. "Look everyone! These guys committed murder, and they are in SO many ways similar to Knox and/or Sollecito - so that must mean Knox and Sollecito committed murder too, right?!" Uhhhh....wrong.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't know what's going on with the lockset issue. Hammerite at the PMF asked me to link to this:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=52051#p52051

This is not a huge mystery and can be easily solved by visiting a hardware store or querying it on the internet.

I didn't see anywhere in that picture where it stated the brand was Corbin. Unless I missed that, and I welcome correction if that is the case, it looks like Hammerite has just found a random picture of a lockset that has both bits operated by a single key and proclaimed victory.

Further illustrations of the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work over there aside, I have to admit that I have lost the thread of this subtopic and I'm not at all clear what matter of importance depends on the lockset at this stage.

Is it just that Quandraginta thinks it's less likely for Rudy to have accidentally left the front door open as he left, in the Lone Wolf Scenario, if it was one of the dual-operating locksets? If so, I'm personally inclined to call Texas Sharpshooter and move on, however it's entirely possible I've missed something and I'd welcome a recap of the lockset's significance from either of the major players (LondonJohn or Quadraginta) in the subtopic.

 

[quadraginta]

It's rather amazing actually. For easily the first two years following the murder the "guilty" side did have a mountain of evidence. There was unquestionable proof of Amanda shopping for bleach, Raf lying about calling the police after they had arrived, previous translations of Raf's 112 call showed he knew more than he should, Amanda apparently knew more than she should have also, video of Amanda walking to the cottage, the witnesses hadn't been known to be contradictory yet, the DNA evidence seemed rock solid before Stefanoni's techniques were known to be highly dubious, and on and on... So it's not surprising that in the wake of discrediting most of this evidence, or even flat out discovering it was false to begin with, the ones who were trumpeting its copious amount are still clinging to it. With so much talk of "other cases" requiring less evidence to prove guilt let me ask:

In this case, where is circumstantial evidence that's as strong as:

A. Joran Van der Sloot being caught on tape entering a room with a girl and then leaving that room with her left dead inside.

B. Scott Petersen cheating on his wife and telling his mistress that his wife was already dead two weeks before she actually was and that they would be able to spend the holidays together because his wife was dead, then getting caught by police after changing his appearance and on the verge of going into hiding.

C. Casey Anthony not reporting her daughter was missing more than a month after her disappearance.

All three of these high profile cases demonstrate undeniably strong circumstantial evidence that the accused acted with guilty behavior. IMO, the only piece of evidence in the Meredith Kercher case that comes close to any of the above examples is if you believe that Amanda's story to police accusing Patrick wasn't coerced. Personally, when I read Amanda's testimony of how she was led to believe she was there that night, plus the police's mistranslation of her text to Patrick, and how it integrates with their interrogation with Raf where they (incorrectly) thought they had matched his shoeprint to a bloody one, it simply makes sense to me and fits all the pieces of that night... as opposed to the other way of thinking that Amanda broke down out of the blue as soon as the interrogation started and accused Patrick.

What is the purpose of offering as anecdotal evidence other cases which you yourself point out are dissimilar to this one? It is weak as a rhetorical technique, and utterly pointless as an argument.

Personally, I find the pair's sustained pattern of evasion, inconsistency, and willful deception quite damning. This even without the staged break-in, which, in spite of mental gymnastics far more impressive than any of Knox's cartwheels remains un-impeached to me.

Efforts to attack various items separately with "might have" and "it's possible" arguments have been less than persuasive as well. The body of evidence is far less damaged than the chorus of "Hail fellow. Well met." we've been entertained with here recently would suggest.

Since you bring it up, I'm very familiar with the Anthony case in all its spectacular detail. I even read each and every word of the first several thousands of pages of discovery released by the OCSO as they were put out, and I must say that I could engage in the same sort of sophistry and rhetorical tactics to fabricate a case for her 'possible' innocence that has been employed to defend Knox here.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if Anthony had been accused of the same crime she has here in the U.S. with all the same circumstances, but in another country instead, that there would have been an equally strong contingent of Anthony supporters doing exactly that.

Nonetheless I'm inclined to believe she is guilty. As are you, it seems. If Knox's case had happened in Orange County, FL. do you think she would enjoy the same degree of support she does now?

You don't need to answer that. I can guess how you'll respond. I don't agree, though.

Do you think that the same standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" which has been argued in Knox's defense here will keep Casey Anthony out of prison when her trial finally comes around?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

In this case, where is circumstantial evidence that's as strong as:

A. Joran Van der Sloot being caught on tape entering a room with a girl and then leaving that room with her left dead inside.

B. Scott Petersen cheating on his wife and telling his mistress that his wife was already dead two weeks before she actually was and that they would be able to spend the holidays together because his wife was dead, then getting caught by police after changing his appearance and on the verge of going into hiding.

C. Casey Anthony not reporting her daughter was missing more than a month after her disappearance.

OH, I don't know, how about accusing an innocent man of the crime, for one.

 

[Dan O.]

I didn't see anywhere in that picture where it stated the brand was Corbin. Unless I missed that, and I welcome correction if that is the case, it looks like Hammerite has just found a random picture of a lockset that has both bits operated by a single key and proclaimed victory.

This was posted a few pages back...

Here are pictures of the front door:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_front_door01.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_front_door02.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_front_door03.jpg

And you should compare that to the multipoint lockset code "PS350 03 50" on page 124/125 of the Corbin catalog also posted a few pages back...

http://www.mul-t-lock.co.uk/uploads/file/pdfs/Corbin/Corbin locks.pdf

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

We established something else that is important. The Massei report's claim that smoking hashish, watching dirty movies and reading sexually explicit comic books led to AK and RS participation in the murder is completely ludicrous.

Would you be so kind and tell me the page-# of the Massei report on which this topic is described. Thanks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have to admit, I too am getting increasingly bemused by these strange (and increasingly irrational) attempts to compare the Kercher case with various other cases. I don't know why these "comparisons" - usually stuffed full of inaccuracies and false inferences - add anything to this particular case. The underlying conditions, relationships, motives, opportunities, behaviours, investigations and evidence are dramatically different in all of the cases being held up for comparison. It seems that some people are trying to show "guilt by osmosis" - i.e. "Look everyone! These guys committed murder, and they are in SO many ways similar to Knox and/or Sollecito - so that must mean Knox and Sollecito committed murder too, right?!" Uhhhh....wrong.

I think two things are going on there.

One, confirmation bias. Once you're convinced deeply enough that AK and RS are guilty, everything starts looking like evidence, even if a second's objective thought would make you realise that it's absolutely irrelevant. You can see the same kind of thinking with the 9/11 kooks referencing Operation Northwood.

Two, the echo chamber effect. In a crowd of True Believers you can post almost anything that supports the groupthink consensus and get a rewarding round of applause. Again it doesn't matter if it's irrelevant: at this stage of commitment to the group idea, both relevant and irrelevant contributions get the same biochemical reward pathways going in the brain.

The giveaway that rational thought isn't at work in those comparisons is that we've already cited plenty of cases of police interrogations leading to false confessions, and false accusations of innocent persons. We've also cited cases of police hiding or ignoring exculpatory evidence. So why aren't these cases (that do have points of relevance) brought up in the same breath as irrelevant cases like the Petersen murder? They are more relevant objectively, but confirmation bias makes the other cases seem like evidence and the relevant cases seem irrelevant.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

so that must mean Knox and Sollecito committed murder too, right?!" Uhhhh....wrong.

What do you mean, 'Wrong'. You told me yourself that you believe Knox is guilty, but that the prosecution just didn't prove it. When did you go over to the dark side? I must admitt however, I've never read anything you've ever printed that would put Knox on the guilty side and have wondered why you ever stated that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quick question:

I'm puzzled about the whole area of Knox's table lamp in Meredith's room. Two things interest me: why was it in Meredith's room in the first place, and why was it (allegedly) plugged in outside the room into a socket in the hallway?

Did the postal police "first responders" (or Filomena or the two boyfriends) testify that they saw the flex extending under the door when they were debating whether to break it down? I feel pretty confident that a mains flex plugged into a hallway socket and leading into Meredith's room would have been both noticeable and notable to the police and the housemates, particularly when they were growing worried about Meredith's welfare and whereabouts.

And what (if anything) did Knox say about why her lamp might have been in Meredith's room? Had Meredith ever borrowed the lamp previously? I personally find it plausible that Knox might not have noticed that her table lamp was in her room while she was showering etc that morning, since there was ample natural light.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't see anywhere in that picture where it stated the brand was Corbin. Unless I missed that, and I welcome correction if that is the case, it looks like Hammerite has just found a random picture of a lockset that has both bits operated by a single key and proclaimed victory.

Further illustrations of the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work over there aside, I have to admit that I have lost the thread of this subtopic and I'm not at all clear what matter of importance depends on the lockset at this stage.

Is it just that Quandraginta thinks it's less likely for Rudy to have accidentally left the front door open as he left, in the Lone Wolf Scenario, if it was one of the dual-operating locksets? If so, I'm personally inclined to call Texas Sharpshooter and move on, however it's entirely possible I've missed something and I'd welcome a recap of the lockset's significance from either of the major players (LondonJohn or Quadraginta) in the subtopic.

Ah it's ultimately of limited importance, insomuch as the more important facts about the door stand independent of this issue. Those important facts are that the door needs to be unlocked from the inside using a key, and that the door needs to be locked with the key from either side in order to keep it shut.

This all came about because I posited that the girls in the house were evidently concerned about the door blowing open if unlocked. I then argued that if the latch could indeed be operated by the key from either side, then all they needed to do was remove the very visible obstruction jamming the latch open. If they'd done this, then the door would have locked shut when closed, without the need to use the key to operate the deadbolt. I argued that the hassle of needing to remember your keys when leaving the house would be greatly outweighed by the removal of the need to lock and unlock the door using the key every time the door was opened from either the inside or the outside.

I therefore suggested that the key didn't operate the latch - meaning that removing the obstruction would not solve the problem, but instead would increase the problem significantly. I then therefore suggested that the original installation of the lock might have been shortsighted. Q took exception to this, and I then said that if (s)he could show me a Corbin lockset similar to that in the girls' house where the key could also operate the latch, that would be fine. And that's still my position.

But you're right - it's essentially a storm in a teacup, over something that's entirely peripheral to an examination of the case. The important factor is that whoever exited via the front door needed the key in order to do so, and that if they neglected to lock the front door behind them after exiting, it would eventually swing ajar again.

 

[LondonJohn]

What do you mean, 'Wrong'. You told me yourself that you believe Knox is guilty, but that the prosecution just didn't prove it. When did you go over to the dark side? I must admitt however, I've never read anything you've ever printed that would put Knox on the guilty side and have wondered why you ever stated that.

Where to start...?

Well, firstly, what you've "cleverly" done here is quote half of the penultimate sentence and the final two-word sentence of my post completely out of context. And I suspect that you know why you've done that.

If you were being intellectually open, you would have quoted the entire penultimate sentence, which was this:

It seems that some people are trying to show "guilt by osmosis" - i.e. "Look everyone! These guys committed murder, and they are in SO many ways similar to Knox and/or Sollecito - so that must mean Knox and Sollecito committed murder too, right?!"

When put in the proper and correct context, it's entirely clear that what I'm saying here is this: some people are trying to claim that, to some degree, a comparison with other notorious convicted murderers gives a justification - in and of itself - of Knox and/or Sollecito's culpability in the crimes of which they are accused.

And it is this proposition to which I then provide my own reply:

"Uhhhh....wrong."

So the word "wrong" in no way applies to the question of Knox or Sollecito's actual culpability - but instead it clearly applies to the poor logic of extrapolating their culpability by comparison with other cases (which, in any event, all exhibit totally different circumstances to the Kercher murder case).

Secondly......... what I've actually said since I got up to speed with information on this case is this: I am not sure whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito participated in this crime. I think there's a possibility that they might have done so, but that there's an increasingly greater possibility that they had nothing to do with it. But - I argue - either way, I believe that they might have been incorrectly convicted on poor, misinterpreted or flat-out false evidence.

It is absolutely true to say that a quick reading of "Darkness Descending" in early April led me to an initial view that Knox and Sollecito (and Guede) were guilty, and that they were properly convicted as such. But then I started to gain more knowledge and information about the case, and much of the content of "Darkness Descending" that was presented as fact turned out to be anything but. I changed my view of the crime within a couple of weeks, and have not altered it significantly since then. And as key pieces of prosecution evidence get weaker and weaker, my view of an unsafe conviction gets stronger and stronger.

I hope that makes my position clear. Please let me know if you'd like further clarification though.

 

[Kestrel]

Quick question:

I'm puzzled about the whole area of Knox's table lamp in Meredith's room. Two things interest me: why was it in Meredith's room in the first place, and why was it (allegedly) plugged in outside the room into a socket in the hallway?

Did the postal police "first responders" (or Filomena or the two boyfriends) testify that they saw the flex extending under the door when they were debating whether to break it down? I feel pretty confident that a mains flex plugged into a hallway socket and leading into Meredith's room would have been both noticeable and notable to the police and the housemates, particularly when they were growing worried about Meredith's welfare and whereabouts.

And what (if anything) did Knox say about why her lamp might have been in Meredith's room? Had Meredith ever borrowed the lamp previously? I personally find it plausible that Knox might not have noticed that her table lamp was in her room while she was showering etc that morning, since there was ample natural light.

Knox stated in court that she didn't notice the lamp was missing from her room or that her lamp was in Meredith's room.

The only other mention of the lamp in the Massei Report states that it was present when the scientific staff started to examine the room hours later.

Has anyone seen any witness statement indicating the a lamp cord going under the door was seen before Meredith's door was opened?