Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

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!".

But, Alt, it isn't enough to simply say it's strange and therefore it makes Amanda's guilt even more likely. Why don't you finish the thought? She wanted the feces found... Okay, why? So they could pin the blame on Rudy? Yet in all the questioning they never mention Rudy once? You're convinced that they lied about several things, why not lie and throw Rudy completely under the bus. That they came by the apartment and found him raping Meredith but they were scared he would come after them if they said anything. Oh, that would still implicate them? Okay, then how about instead of fingering Patrick just telling the police they should look into this Rudy guy because he was obsessed with Meredith. They would have located Rudy, matched his prints and locked him up. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have still been arrested, but the notion that they wanted evidence of Rudy found but then never mentioned him and implicated someone completely different just doesn't add up.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ah well he could have left a partial palmprint - which might also have evidential value.

But........it's moot in any case, since we know that at least Knox (and possibly also Filomena and one or both of the Postal Police officers) also used the outside handle of the door. It's therefore highly likely that these later prints would smudge and overlay Guede's prints from the night before. Door handles are notoriously difficult places to lift prints from, since so many different people tend to touch them in pretty much exactly the same place. And even when a print is liftable, it's almost always that of the last person to use the handle - in this case definitely not Guede.

 

[Malkmus]

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!

Here's a story for you, Alt:

A man decides to drive down the street to his neighborhood convenience store to buy cigarettes. On the way, the man hits a dog crossing the street. He gets out only to find the dog is most likely dead. He also realizes the dog he has just killed is his neighbor's. The man forgets about the cigarettes and goes back home to ponder what he should do.

"But why didn't he buy the cigarettes?! I mean, he got in his car and everything!"

I feel like that's what you're asking here.

 

[Malkmus]

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".

Really, what's the evidence that Amanda carried a large kitchen knife around in her purse for a week? A knife that most certainly would have lacerated the interior of the purse and damaged its contents.

 

[Chris C]

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.

At best when gripping a round doorknob your middle and pointer fingers will leave fingerprints. Not so much as your thumb, since your thumb is curved upwards.

 

[Chris C]

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.

I think you should read the sites a little more closely.

1st one says 2 hours. Its specificily talking about pizza. Coroner's ToD 2 to 3 hours after eating pizza.

2nd says 4 to 6 hours. However, its referring to empting of the stomach. Empting never started in Merediths case therefore ToD is less than 4 hours. Coroners ToD 2 to 3 hours.

3rd one is talking about the size of meals. Meredith didn't have a light meal and she didn't have a very heavy meal. So according to that site she her ToD would have been 3 to 4 hours. Coroners ToD 2 to 3 hours.

So according to those sites we know that Meredith died between 2 to 4 hours after eating Pizza. ToD using those sites. 2000 hrs to 2200 hrs.

No matter where you go look for information, since Meredith's stomach never started to empty her ToD will be less than 4 hours from eating that pizza. So either her friends are wrong about what time they ate or Meredith was killed before 10pm.

 

[Chris C]

Here's a story for you, Alt:

A man decides to drive down the street to his neighborhood convenience store to buy cigarettes. On the way, the man hits a dog crossing the street. He gets out only to find the dog is most likely dead. He also realizes the dog he has just killed is his neighbor's. The man forgets about the cigarettes and goes back home to ponder what he should do.

"But why didn't he buy the cigarettes?! I mean, he got in his car and everything!"

I feel like that's what you're asking here.

Malkmus,
Why do they keep saying nothing was stolen. Wasn't there money, phones, credit cards and meredith keys stolen. Since rudy was on foot, its not like he could have stolen a tv, a stereo and the couch.

I've lived in 4 places that have been broken into and robbed.

1st time was when i was a 10 yrs old, My puppy was taken that i had just gotten 2 days before.
2nd time was my early teens. Mothers jewelry and a few of my video games.
3rd time was in my late teens. My necklace and a bottle of hennessy.
4th time when i was 20, thieves took stuff they could put in their pockets, coin collections, cd's, cordless telephone. They took this stuff from the same room that I had my guns sitting on a bed. They didn't touch the guns.

How many people you know thats house was broken into and they took large objects. Not Many. For the most part they take small objects, or things they can easily carry and wont look out of place. Thats what was missing from Meredith. Just because nothing was stolen from anyone but the murder victim doesn't mean that a burglary didn't occur. It could very well just mean Rudy hadn't found anything he wanted to take until meredith showed up.

 

[LondonJohn]

Malkmus,
Why do they keep saying nothing was stolen. Wasn't there money, phones, credit cards and meredith keys stolen. Since rudy was on foot, its not like he could have stolen a tv, a stereo and the couch.

I've lived in 4 places that have been broken into and robbed.

1st time was when i was a 10 yrs old, My puppy was taken that i had just gotten 2 days before.
2nd time was my early teens. Mothers jewelry and a few of my video games.
3rd time was in my late teens. My necklace and a bottle of hennessy.
4th time when i was 20, thieves took stuff they could put in their pockets, coin collections, cd's, cordless telephone. They took this stuff from the same room that I had my guns sitting on a bed. They didn't touch the guns.

How many people you know thats house was broken into and they took large objects. Not Many. For the most part they take small objects, or things they can easily carry and wont look out of place. Thats what was missing from Meredith. Just because nothing was stolen from anyone but the murder victim doesn't mean that a burglary didn't occur. It could very well just mean Rudy hadn't found anything he wanted to take until meredith showed up.

I personally think that if Guede were the sole attacker, it's more likely that he originally intended to rummage through all the girls' rooms at leisure. However, when his burglary turned into a sexual murder (before he'd even started looking for things to steal in earnest), I think he panicked - understandably - and decided that his best option was to leave ASAP. I think that the money, cards and phones that he stole from Meredith were opportunistically taken when he searched for her keys in order to be able to exit through the front door.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you should read the sites a little more closely.

1st one says 2 hours. Its specificily talking about pizza. Coroner's ToD 2 to 3 hours after eating pizza.

2nd says 4 to 6 hours. However, its referring to empting of the stomach. Empting never started in Merediths case therefore ToD is less than 4 hours. Coroners ToD 2 to 3 hours.

3rd one is talking about the size of meals. Meredith didn't have a light meal and she didn't have a very heavy meal. So according to that site she her ToD would have been 3 to 4 hours. Coroners ToD 2 to 3 hours.

So according to those sites we know that Meredith died between 2 to 4 hours after eating Pizza. ToD using those sites. 2000 hrs to 2200 hrs.

No matter where you go look for information, since Meredith's stomach never started to empty her ToD will be less than 4 hours from eating that pizza. So either her friends are wrong about what time they ate or Meredith was killed before 10pm.

I think it's more a case of seeing what one wants to see.

It's pretty well-established that Meredith ate a moderate-sized meal of pizza at some time between 6.00 and 7.00pm (and most likely between 6.00 and 6.30pm). It's also well-established that she then relaxed and watched a DVD with friends - the perfect conditions for normal digestive function - pausing at around 7.30-8.00pm to prepare and eat an apple crumble dessert. Furthermore, it's well-established that her autopsy found 500ml of semi-solid contents in her stomach, with a few pieces of recognisable pizza constituents, and nothing at all in her duodenum (which had been correctly tied off by the pathologist).

Every single piece of credible medical evidence suggests that these timings and stomach/duodenum contents are only consistent with a time of death between 90 minutes and 180 minutes after the consumption of the pizza meal. This means that Meredith probably died before 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10.00pm.

I still find it utterly incredible (in the real sense of the word) that Massei chose to buy into the prosecution's 11.30-11.50pm time of death. This is, after all, so far outside the parameters for ToD based on the autopsy stomach/duodenum contents that it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

If someone can post well-sourced, credible evidence from academic research papers (abstracts are fine.....) or named forensic pathologists that contradict this - particularly on the high side, and especially to support an 11.30 ToD - then I will willingly change my tune. I don't think that such evidence can or will be found, though (and I'll bet that quite a few people may have been spending an awful lot of time and effort trying and failing so far).

 

[Malkmus]

Malkmus,
Why do they keep saying nothing was stolen. Wasn't there money, phones, credit cards and meredith keys stolen. Since rudy was on foot, its not like he could have stolen a tv, a stereo and the couch.

I've lived in 4 places that have been broken into and robbed.

1st time was when i was a 10 yrs old, My puppy was taken that i had just gotten 2 days before.
2nd time was my early teens. Mothers jewelry and a few of my video games.
3rd time was in my late teens. My necklace and a bottle of hennessy.
4th time when i was 20, thieves took stuff they could put in their pockets, coin collections, cd's, cordless telephone. They took this stuff from the same room that I had my guns sitting on a bed. They didn't touch the guns.

How many people you know thats house was broken into and they took large objects. Not Many. For the most part they take small objects, or things they can easily carry and wont look out of place. Thats what was missing from Meredith. Just because nothing was stolen from anyone but the murder victim doesn't mean that a burglary didn't occur. It could very well just mean Rudy hadn't found anything he wanted to take until meredith showed up.

Exactly, there were things missing, primarily from Meredith's purse which has Rudy's DNA on it. But those on the guilty side try to spin the notion that since Rudy probably went in to grab valuable objects such as laptops and didn't leave with any that the burglary was staged. I believe his DNA on the purse is a huge conflict with the assumption that Amanda and Raf cleaned up evidence of themselves while leaving behind traces of Rudy. I've already pointed out other reasons that I believe why, but the fact that Rudy had his hands on her purse means almost certainly that he was the one that took the credit cards, cash and phones. But Rudy participating in the staging of the break-in makes no sense as it is alleged by the prosecution that Amanda and Raf were the sole perpetrators of it and that the whole business with the phones was orchestrated by them only. How does Rudy taking those items fit into any of this if AManda and Raf are guilty? It doesn't, unless you re-work the entire theory to fit Rudy into the staging of the break-in which is counterproductive to the notion that they cleaned all traces of the couple but not Rudy.

It's also ridiculous to think that after murdering Meredith, Rudy would have went running through the streets with blood-soaked clothes and a laptop or two.

 

[Malkmus]

At best when gripping a round doorknob your middle and pointer fingers will leave fingerprints. Not so much as your thumb, since your thumb is curved upwards.

I agree, but the point is that a lever/handle is less prone to having fingerprints on it. If Amanda were to have opened that door and left a "partial palmprint", then as soon as someone else gripped it afterwards that print would be ruined.

 

[RoseMontague]

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".

From this quote along with the appeal quote (The Appeals also refer to notes and transcripts of testimony, BTW) we can infer that Filomena may have indicated that one shutter was left open in her 3 December 2007 statement. This clarification of that still means they were not closed tight so they could have easily come open from the wind.

The Massei report gives mounds and mountains of testimony and hardly any reasoning from which they drew a conclusion and when the reasoning is given it comes across as unreasonable. These notes refer to more testimony and don't tell us any more of the courts reasoning or motivation for rendering a guilty verdict. Raffaele's appeal points to this as a defect in the report.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What evidence is there that there was computer activity at 9:26?

Up pops the mole again! A Spotlight search, using the built-in Mac OS search function, performed on a police-provided duplicate of Raffaele's hard drive on an identical laptop, showed that a Naruto file had been opened at 21:26 on the night of the murder. This information comes from Raffaele's appeal document, taken from RoseMontague's docstoc page.

However in the interests of keeping this mole down, here's a link to that post of mine. This is the second time I've had to link back to that post of mine. I'm just saying.

A Naruto file lasts a little over 23 minutes, as best I can ascertain.

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

Sure. There's just no evidence that she was.

Media.

This does not answer the question. How could they have known Meredith's real time of death (probably 21:00, definitely well before 22:00) from listening to the media?

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

One explanation is that their defence team was imperfect.

However as I said before, they were convicted for murdering Meredith two hours after the cartoon was played. If Meredith really had been murdered at 23:30 then a cartoon at 21:26 (rather than 21:10) is not much of an alibi.

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.

Hang on, I am fairly sure you have just moved the goalposts substantially. You just said that it was impossible for Rudy to have closed the door without leaving fingerprints. Then when I pointed out three ways in which it was possible you responded "Yes, but there is no evidence that it happened that way!". I assume you mean evidence other than the lack of prints?

Lack of evidence (particularly of things that usually do not leave evidence) does not back up your original claim, that it was impossible for Rudy to close the door without leaving fingerprints.

I think we should file this claim in the same category as the claim that an untrained woman could wrestle a larger opponent with gusto for ten minutes, and the claim that people usually leave their gloves on when wiping themselves.

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.

I don't want to disregard it, but I very want to take it in its proper context and not try to twist every possible imprecision in their speech into evidence of guilt. People speak without precision all the time. People who strive to be precisely correct in their speech all the time are quite unusual.

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.

On what basis do you call it a fairy tale? All you have provided on that score is a string of arguments from incredulity, based on the assumption that anything that turns out to be relevant must have been made into a major issue by the defence already. Arguments from incredulity are canonical fallacies.

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?

Say what? It is not clear to me how RS could have magically altered the ones and zeroes on his hard drive while he was in prison and the hard drive was in police custody as evidence. If he was unable to do so, then the precise and impartial computer records that state that the file was opened at 21:26 existed long before RS had any need to "come up with" anything at all.

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.

So we agree that the evidence for a faked break-in is worthless, since it's entirely compatible with Rudy simply wearing gloves or the police just missing any forensic evidence he left in that room?

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.

None of that is in the least bit surprising since it was not relevant to the case until the defence realised that the prosecution time of death was provably false, and that the guilt or innocence of Raffaele and Amanda could potentially be determined by computer evidence about what they were doing in the 21:00-22:00 period.

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.

What did you expect to see?

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

As I believe I said earlier, lawyers very rarely if ever make outright lies about matters of fact. Since this particular matter of fact would be trivial to verify for the police and the prosecution, it would be a very strange matter of fact for defence lawyers to lie about. As such I do not find the idea that it is factually false that a Naruto file was opened at 21:26 very plausible.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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

The Massei document is founded on pure speculation that either contradicts the evidence or is unsupported by evidence.

- The pathologists say Meredith had a full stomach, but Massei says she was killed 4-1/2 hours after she ate her dinner.

- Forensic tests on the luminol footprints were negative for blood (and for Meredith's DNA), but Massei says they were made with Meredith's blood.

- Massei says Amanda went to the store to buy cleaning supplies. What evidence is there that she bought cleaning supplies? What did she clean? Why didn't she use the supplies already at the cottage?

- Massei says Amanda called Meredith's phone to make sure it hadn't been found, which then reassured her that it was safe to raise the alarm. What evidence exists to support such reasoning? If that was Amanda's purpose, why did she only call one of Meredith's phones, rather than both of them, before raising the alarm?

- Massei says Amanda was carrying the kitchen knife for protection on the street. What evidence or testimony supports that conclusion?

- Massei says Meredith was playing with her phone like a toddler at 10 pm. What evidence supports that conclusion? Why didn't Meredith make any further attempt to call her mother after the 8:56 call?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a conversation with an anesthesiologist

I conversed with an anesthesiologist this evening. I gave him 6:30 as the time of consumption of the meal and 11:30 as the time of death (I know that these times are approximate). I also indicated that the stomach had not begun to empty. He found this dubious, bearing in mind that they tell patients with surgery at 7 AM not to eat after 12, leaving 7 hours for complete emptying. He found a time of 9-10 PM for the TOD more credible.

He also indicated that many things (pregnancy, drugs, trauma) would slow down digestion. I offer these comments with the suggestion that we all speak with more surgeons and anesthesiologists and see what they say. Speaking for myself, the contents of the stomach only reinforce what the cell phones are clearly saying about the TOD.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I thought the testimony was that she had pulled the shutters to but one stopped short of closing all the way because of the swelled wood, therefore not able to be latched, but that the actual windows were closed and latched. He would not be able to push a window open if it were closed and latched and if he had broken it beforehand and was now standing on the window sill he would have to bend way down to reach his hand through the broken glass and unlatch the window.

Yes, you're right, I confused the inside shutters with the window frame itself in my post.

He wouldn't have to "bend way down" though. He could squat on the ledge, using the left shutter as a handhold, and reach in through the broken window to work the latch, which was on a shaft with a brass knob centered vertically at about the middle of the pane.

The whole operation would be simple and quick. Massei sketches out a scenario that is needlessly complex, and he doesn't even mention the concrete planter.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is some confusion on the PMF forums about this point, and hence possibly some confusion here too, although I tend to give JREF readers more credit than that. Hence a quick clarification:

The gloves/toilet discussion has nothing to do with Perugia police wearing gloves. How that idea got started is beyond me, since nothing posted here could be taken to even hint at such an interpretation.

It is solely about whether it's plausible that Rudy entered the house while wearing gloves, and removed them while using the toilet. Anyone who has tried to wipe themselves while wearing gloves would understand why he might do so. This would provide a very simple explanation for why he left no fingerprints in the process of entering the building and doing whatever he did in Filomena's room, but left fingerprints in the murder room.

These gloves would presumably have been disposed of along with the murder weapon and the other clothes Rudy was wearing at the time.

Nobody is asserting that it is known that Rudy wore gloves. We are merely asserting that it is irrational to claim the fact that the police found no fingerprints on the window or in Filomena's room constitutes proof that the break-in was staged. That conclusion simply does not follow, since there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that failure to find evidence which does not require anybody to have tried to stage a break-in.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
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.

From Amanda's trial testimony:

"....For example, the only time Meredith said something to me, well, it's because the toilets here are a bit different from the ones in America. You have to use a toilet brush here and it happened to me often to just forget to do that. Once she told me, it was a little "awkward" [in English], well it was a bit embarrassing but in the end it was fine, it was "cool"...."

It wasn't simply a matter of flushing -- she would have had to clean the toilet, too. Ick. Possibly she was hoping that whoever was responsible would follow up.

 

[Mary_H]

But, Alt, it isn't enough to simply say it's strange and therefore it makes Amanda's guilt even more likely. Why don't you finish the thought? She wanted the feces found... Okay, why? So they could pin the blame on Rudy? Yet in all the questioning they never mention Rudy once? You're convinced that they lied about several things, why not lie and throw Rudy completely under the bus. That they came by the apartment and found him raping Meredith but they were scared he would come after them if they said anything. Oh, that would still implicate them? Okay, then how about instead of fingering Patrick just telling the police they should look into this Rudy guy because he was obsessed with Meredith. They would have located Rudy, matched his prints and locked him up. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have still been arrested, but the notion that they wanted evidence of Rudy found but then never mentioned him and implicated someone completely different just doesn't add up.

Thank you, Malkmus; great post. Following the thought all the way through was a helpful exercise. The idea that Amanda and Raffaele wanted Rudy to take the blame for a crime the three of them committed has never made one bit of sense.

Did the three of them commit the crime together, then Amanda and Raffaele told Rudy to hurry along while they cleaned up the mess? Then they cleaned up their own mess but left his, never imagining that if he were caught he would turn them in?

This illogic also points up why Amanda would never purposely accuse Patrick in place of Rudy. If Amanda and Raffaele knew enough about DNA to leave all of Rudy's evidence at the scene, then they would know that Rudy would be caught eventually. The only purpose it would serve for Amanda to accuse Patrick would be to buy time for Rudy.

There is no way to reconcile leaving Rudy's clues at the scene with giving Rudy more time to get away.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip> I've lived in 4 places that have been broken into and robbed.

1st time was when i was a 10 yrs old, My puppy was taken that i had just gotten 2 days before.<snip>

That's very sad, Chris; I'm sorry to hear it. Did you get a new puppy?