Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

forensics and feces

Quote: I respectfully submit the Patricia Stallings case for your consideration. At least four times a clinical laboratory claimed to find ethylene glycol in Ryan Stallings' blood or in his feed bottle. His mother was sentenced to life. Trouble is, the lab work was beyond slipshod, and Ryan had a metabolic disease that mimicked some but not all of the symptoms of ethylene glycol poisoning. What are the odds that four chemical analyses would be wrong? I don't know, but they were wrong, and Ms. Stallings was eventually released from prison.

Chris,
I had actually read this, as your site is one of several I have accessed in reading about this case. I am not trying to imply it is unbelievable the lab testing could be erroneous. In fact, I believe the knife had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. What I find difficult to fathom is for all the lab/DNA evidence to be erroneous in addition to all the (credible) witnesses being mistaken, in addition to the several versions of alibis, in addition to all the other ‘happenstances’ that would have had to have occurred for those kids to be innocent.

The over-zealous prosecution is not lost on me; I know it happens (Duke, for one.) But it is the numerous other details, each of which on their own can be explained away but in toto are difficult to swallow.

Just one of those instances which troubles me is this: in Amanda’s own statement she states she noticed the feces when she put the hair dryer back in the bathroom. Who in the world would see that and NOT flush it? Why would you just leave that there… unless you wanted it to be present for a reason? It is the accumulation of all these little nagging details which bother me.

PDiGirolamo,

The problem with much of the forensics lies not in the data but rather in its interpretation. For example, that there are luminol-positive footprints in the hall is clear, but what is under dispute is whether or not they are due to blood. Further testing (TMB, DNA) by the forensic police did not support the presence of blood, but the pro-guilt group treats them as if they were.

I do not know why she did not flush them away, but I have difficulty believing that leaving them there was part of an attempt to frame Rudy, if that is what you are implying.

 

[Alt+F4]

No it's not impossible. He could well have been wearing gloves at this point, he could well have closed the door with his foot, or he might have slid his hand off the doorknob, smudging and destroying his prints, rather than lifting his fingers off leaving clear prints behind.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

There is no evidence that he wore gloves, that he closed the door with his foot or slid his had off the door handle. And by the way, I'm pretty certain it was a door handle, not a door knob, making a slide off even more unlikely.

I don't think it's either honest or reasonable to take absolutely everything Amanda and Raffaele said under stressful conditions to be either absolutely, precisely true or a giveaway that they are murderers. He wasn't aware of anything being taken, so he said nothing had been taken. I don't think any reasonable, decent human being would take that to be a claim that he had personally overseen a complete inventory of the house contents that morning and was absolutely sure nothing had been taken.

He didn't say that he wasn't aware that nothing was taken. He didn't say he didn't know if anything was taken. He said nothing was taken. You seem to want to disregard everything they said because of "stressful conditions" or they were upset, confused or had bad memories.

It may have slipped your mind that they were convicted of a murder that allegedly happened long after 21:26, or even 21:49. As far as I can tell Amanda and Raffaele were far too ready to believe the stories concocted by the prosecution, and had absolutely no idea that Meredith had actually been murdered around 21:00.

It may have slipped your mind that the murder occured before 10:00, I don't care what the prosecution said. The Naruto fairy tale was concocted a year after the murder.

If I want to veer into guilter-logic speculation, I could well speculate that if Raffaele and Amanda had murdered Meredith they would have known when it happened, and would have been alert to the potential defence benefits of contesting the prosecution's time of death. The fact that they did not do so could be taken as a strong indication that they had no more idea than anybody else did about when Meredith died.

They knew when the crime took place and they also knew that the prosecution didn't. When they found out the prosecution was putting the time of death so late, RS came up with the Naruto business to cover that time period. Why else do you think it didn't come up earlier?

The prosecution theory is that they did it together: If one of them was at home, then at least one of them has been wrongfully convicted, and the prosecution case is still falsified.

Again, I think the prosecution is wrong.

As has been established, the prosecution and the guilters conveniently ignore the parts of Filomena's that don't suit them, which indicate that glass was mixed through her possessions and was under them, and focus solely on the bit where she said glass was on top of her possessions.

Since Filomena moved some of the glass while looking to see what might have been stolen both the glass and her statements about it are pretty useless.

Raffaele opened that Naruto file at 21:26. The computer records say so. The defence got this information from a copy of Raffaele's hard drive provided to them by the police, so there is absolutely no possibility that this evidence is fabricated by the defence or the defendants. That is a cold, hard fact and it is not up for dispute.

No, it's not a "cold, hard fact not up for dispute". It was never brought up at trial, neither AK or RS stated it in any of their personal correspondences or in their statements to the police. It's nothing other than an issue that RS's defense team wants brought up on the appeal.

Saying "Because they did not bring it up at the trial then it must be false! Because Amanda did not mention it then it must be false! Because Raffaele did not mention it then it must be false!" is deeply irrational. The computer records are impartial and precise. It is only rational to challenge them if something equally hard and fast contradicts them.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

You believe the computer records are impartial and precise yet in RS's appeal this issue is covered in about two paragraphs and basically says, the file is on there and it was opened.

If the hard evidence says Raffaele opened a Naruto file at 21:26, then you need to immediately chuck out all of your guesswork based on social processes that says different.

Again, there is no hard evidence. It's something that the defense wants examined on appeal.

 

[Alt+F4]

We know his defence were incompetent.

Were they? Are either RS or AK changing lawyers for the appeal?

 

[Alt+F4]

Just one of those instances which troubles me is this: in Amanda’s own statement she states she noticed the feces when she put the hair dryer back in the bathroom. Who in the world would see that and NOT flush it? Why would you just leave that there… unless you wanted it to be present for a reason? It is the accumulation of all these little nagging details which bother me.

That's a good point. I think everyone who hasn't lived alone has come accross this "experience" at least once. Is there anyone who, when seeing that, didn't flush?

Somehow I think the answer to this question is going to be the same, tired old, "confusion! fear! upsetment!".

 

[Alt+F4]

So you believe that part of her fantasy, but do you believe the rest of her story which would include the fact that her "see you later" was confirming an appointment with Patrick at the basketball court so she could take him home and wait for Meredith to arrive or to meet Meredith (without Raffaele of course, as in her story she leaves him at his place)? Then she was in the kitchen (not the living room BTW)while somehow Patrick was in Meredith's bedroom and she may have hear a thud or a scream but she had her hands over her ears. And while she is giving this statement she is holding her head in her hands and shaking her head. And it is also her story in that statement that she woke up the next morning in Raffaele's bed and she came back to her place later and found the apartment open etc, etc, so there is not only no Raffaele involved and there is no cleanup or staging in her story. Do you believe her claim in the same statement (Verbale 5:45)that she was very confused and upset and could have imagined what happened?

Rose, I don't believe 100% of Amanda's story and I don't believe 100% of the prosecution's theories. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Straw Men? The coroner estimated the ToD using the stomach contents at 2 to 3 hours after eating her last meal. So there is no straw man here. There are just people giving information that shows how the coroner reached that estimate. The coroner is a prosecution EXPERT witness. The same witness that gave the ToD using the body temp. Mignini used the middle of that huge Body Temp ToD for his estimation of death and ignored the stomach contents eventhough it fell inside the body temp ToD. If I remember correctly the coroner is also the same witness that said all of Merediths knife wounds could have been created by the same knife.

Chris, there is a reason why most doctors state tha TOD by stomach contents is very unreliable. Sure some people on here will show show you links to sight that say whatever they believe or want to believe themselves, but look it up for yourself and you'll find everything fron an hour or two to 4 to 6 hours. Here are a few sites that state no later than 1 or 2 hours

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/stomach-contents-as-a-means-of-evidence.html

http://www.dplylemd.com/Articles/timelydeath.html

http://bennettkids.homestead.com/autopsies.html

should the case be re-opened and Meredith's English friends be charged

I don't think so.....

Oh, by the way, your correct about the lock picking, that would be one way.

 

[Dan O.]

Why would someone want to remove gloves they already had on for that?

Are you now saying that Rudy was Coprophobic?


I was thinking of the kind light cloth gloves that could be inconspicuously worn on a November evening and that would offer the wearer some protection if they should happen to encounter bits of glass while crawling through broken windows. Your image of the use of gloves in the bathroom is apparently quite different.

The contention has been that the reason he didn't flush the toilet was that he was startled by hearing Meredith entering the apartment. Now you would have us believe that after the murder he comes back to the bathroom to retreive the gloves but not flush the toilet? Don't go with the argument that he forgot he used the toilet, you're saying that is the reason why he took off the gloves to begin with. If he forgot he used the toilet, then why remember to come back for the gloves?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The reason for not flushing is to attempt to sneak out of the house without alerting Meredith that he was inside. He would therefor take his gloves with him as he made for the front door. There is no blood found in the large bathroom so Rudy never returned to that bathroom after encountering Meredith.

 

[RoseMontague]

Your truth maybe, its you and your FOA's that have the problems with all these judges, the rest and vast majority of us feel they are doing a stand up job.

I am not FOA either. This "vast majority" has been pretty quiet lately. I am surprised they have not ventured out to herald the wonders of the Massei report and defend criticism of the report's lack of reasoning.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, I don't believe 100% of Amanda's story and I don't believe 100% of the prosecution's theories. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

We have some common ground then.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your truth maybe, its you and your FOA's that have the problems with all these judges, the rest and vast majority of us feel they are doing a stand up job.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I wasn't making any assessment whatsoever on whether or not these judges did a "stand up job" - I did not address their collective competencies whatsoever.

However, what I DID say was that these judges (apart from the actual two trial judges) were not making judgments about whether Knox/Sollecito were guilty or not guilty of the sexually-aggravated murder of Meredith Kercher. They were, in fact, making judgments on issues such as whether to keep Knox/Sollecito in custody, or whether to send them to trial. These judgments involve a far, far lower burden of proof than a trial judgment - they only require the presence of prima facie evidence of involvement.

Before you make remarks like these again, please will you have the courtesy to actually read what I have written. Thank you.

PS I am not "FOA", and I don't have any confederates.

 

[Supernaut]

Doesn't matter, the truth remains that nothing was taken. A burglar goes to the trouble of throwing a rock through a window, climbing in the window and takes....nothing!

This has been addressed before, here at JREF.

We are discussing a murder, not a burglary, remember?

Even Guede wasn't too stupid to realise that tracable items would be sought as clues in a murder manhunt, not merely stolen property. Obviously.

 

[Matthew Best]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

There is no evidence that he wore gloves, that he closed the door with his foot or slid his had off the door handle. And by the way, I'm pretty certain it was a door handle, not a door knob, making a slide off even more unlikely.

There is no evidence that he must have left fingerprints on everything he touched either. In fact, everything I've read about fingerprints tells me that they are not as common as you seem to be suggesting.

They knew when the crime took place and they also knew that the prosecution didn't.

This is called begging the question and it's a logical fallacy. You're assuming they knew when the murder took place because you think they did it. If they didn't do it, then how would they know when it took place?

Really, your arguments are becoming rather desperate.

When they found out the prosecution was putting the time of death so late, RS came up with the Naruto business to cover that time period. Why else do you think it didn't come up earlier?

But it doesn't cover that time period! The prosecution put the time of death much, much later than the playing of the cartoon. If, as you seem to be implying, the story of the cartoon was concocted by the defence, then the defence would simply have said they were watching the cartoon at a time to give them an alibi for the time when the prosecution actually claims the murder took place. The truth, as usual, is probably simple - they were actually watching the cartoon at the time indicated by the computer records.

Again, I think the prosecution is wrong.

In that case, you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, correct?

 

[Supernaut]

There is no evidence that he [Guede] wore gloves.

That is ...... unarguable!

 

[Alt+F4]

I was thinking of the kind light cloth gloves that could be inconspicuously worn on a November evening and that would offer the wearer some protection if they should happen to encounter bits of glass while crawling through broken windows. Your image of the use of gloves in the bathroom is apparently quite different.

If the purpose of wearing the gloves was to not leave fingerprints, then yeah, I would have left the gloves on while using the toilet. But as long as we are making up stuff up then there is every reason to believe Amanda was wearing gloves when she murdered Meredith and that is why there is no evidence of her in Meredith's bedroom.

You're right, it was a chilly evening and every reason to believe Amanda was wearing gloves.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

The reason for not flushing is to attempt to sneak out of the house without alerting Meredith that he was inside. He would therefor take his gloves with him as he made for the front door. There is no blood found in the large bathroom so Rudy never returned to that bathroom after encountering Meredith.[/quote]

 

[Alt+F4]

There is no evidence that he must have left fingerprints on everything he touched either. In fact, everything I've read about fingerprints tells me that they are not as common as you seem to be suggesting.

So Amanda could have been in Meredith's room and not left fingerprints.

This is called begging the question and it's a logical fallacy. You're assuming they knew when the murder took place because you think they did it. If they didn't do it, then how would they know when it took place?

Media.

But it doesn't cover that time period! The prosecution put the time of death much, much later than the playing of the cartoon. If, as you seem to be implying, the story of the cartoon was concocted by the defence, then the defence would simply have said they were watching the cartoon at a time to give them an alibi for the time when the prosecution actually claims the murder took place. The truth, as usual, is probably simple - they were actually watching the cartoon at the time indicated by the computer records.

Then why didn't anything come up about this cartoon until a year after the murder?

In that case, you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, correct?

I think Amanda should have gotten a lighter sentence as I don't think she actively participated in the murder.

 

[Matthew Best]

So Amanda could have been in Meredith's room and not left fingerprints.

I would have thought it was almost certain that Amanda was in Meredith's room at some point. They were flatmates after all. However, there's a difference in terms of the likelihood of leaving evidence behind between simply being in a room and taking part in a violent bloody struggle, wouldn't you agree?

 

[piktor]

I am not FOA either. This "vast majority" has been pretty quiet lately. I am surprised they have not ventured out to herald the wonders of the Massei report and defend criticism of the report's lack of reasoning.

The Massei report has notes all over it. We do not have those notes or the 10,000 pages of trial documents.

A small sample from Massei page 48:

she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).

We do not have photos, video, documents of any sort that the courtroom players have.

The Massei document is founded upon evidence and not on "lack of reasoning".

 

[Malkmus]

There is no evidence that he wore gloves, that he closed the door with his foot or slid his had off the door handle. And by the way, I'm pretty certain it was a door handle, not a door knob, making a slide off even more unlikely.

Which raises a point. It's less likely that anyone would leave fingerprints on a door handle as it requires only the downward force from your palm to manipulate. A doorknob is more likely to have at least a thumb impression since it requires gripping with the fingers.

 

[Malkmus]

Reading over Raf's 112 call I realized something that doesn't add up if you think Raf is guilty.

RS: You can see the signs. There are also stains of blood in the bathroom. They didn't take anything. The problem is the door is locked ... There is some blood...

If the bloodstains were from Amanda being wounded during the assault and the bloody footprint on the mat was Raf's WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE CALL THE POLICE AND POINT OUT HIS OWN BLOODY FOOTPRINT AND AMANDA'S OWN BLOOD TO THE POLICE?

He wouldn't of course, because the footprint wasn't his and Amanda was never involved in the murder.

 

[Malkmus]

No, it's not a "cold, hard fact not up for dispute". It was never brought up at trial, neither AK or RS stated it in any of their personal correspondences or in their statements to the police. It's nothing other than an issue that RS's defense team wants brought up on the appeal.

So what do you think it is? A blatant lie on the part of the defense? You know they'll have to show proof of this at trial, right? Do you think the defense doesn't know that the judge/jury won't just take their word?