Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Slayhamlet]

Kevin, I thought we wacked this mole already? If it was Amanda he touched with the knife then why the heck isn't her DNA on it? How can touching one person with a knife deposit another person's DNA on it?

Your appropriation of Kevin's mole-whacking figure of speech, while cute, might have been more effective had the point it accompanied actually engaged Kevin's argument by showing that you understood it. The question isn't about the lack of Amanda's DNA on the knife, which everyone acknowledges, but the reason why Sollecito offered an explanation of how it got there after he was falsely told of its presence by the police. The reason seems intuitively obvious to me: having taken the lab report at face value (and why would he not have?) when the police confronted him with it, he racked his memory to come up with a scenario that would explain how Amanda's DNA got on the knife. You and the rest of the guilters have failed to show how this implicates him or Amanda in the crime. Fake but accurate?

 

[Alt+F4]

The "ladder" is much larger beneath Amanda's window and better hidden from the road, why would he not choose Amanda's window over Filomena's? Once the window is broken and unlocked it's just as easy to crawl through. Were her shutters closed too perhaps?

You bring up an intresting point. Amanda said she didn't realize that morning that her lamp (only sourse of artifical light in the room) was missing which means, if she is telling the truth, the shutters were open, that's where she was getting light from when changing. So yes, why didn't the burglar come in through her room?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kevin, I thought we wacked this mole already? If it was Amanda he touched with the knife then why the heck isn't her DNA on it? How can touching one person with a knife deposit another person's DNA on it?

I agree with you here. I think Raffaele came up with this story in the hope that it would explain away the evidence that had been described to him. It was stupid, but it doesn't mean he was involved in the murder.

 

[Alt+F4]

Your appropriation of Kevin's mole-whacking figure of speech, while cute, might have been more effective had the point it accompanied actually engaged Kevin's argument by showing that you understood it. The question isn't about the lack of Amanda's DNA on the knife, which everyone acknowledges, but the reason why Sollecito offered an explanation of how it got there after he was falsely told of its presence by the police. The reason seems intuitively obvious to me: having taken the lab report at face value (and why would he not have?) when the police confronted him with it, he racked his memory to come up with a scenario that would explain how Amanda's DNA got on the knife. You and the rest of the guilters have failed to show how this implicates him in the crime. Fake but accurate?

He was NOT told by the police about the DNA evidence, he heard about it on television. Please present evidence that the polices ever confronted him about it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's DNA on the kitchen knife

How? When?



Amanda said she came home that morning took a shower, changed and dryed her hair in the other bathroom, and guess what? Only one fingerprint of her's was found in the entire apartment! If fingerprint can go "missing" why not DNA too?

Alt+F4,

If Amanda cooked at Raffaele's house, she would leave her DNA on the knife. It is uncontroversial that the existence of DNA does not give information on when it was deposited. The prosecution's theory would have us believe that the knife blade was cleaned to the point that blood was undetectable, but the handle was not cleaned at all. Would there be no blood on the handle? Would a putative murderer not clean her fingerprints even if there were no blood on the handle? I am confused, because I thought you said that the knife never left the drawer (I would agree).

The police were not conducting a search for Amanda's fingerprints as such. Besides, were there no partial prints from Amanda? I seem to recall that there were. I would also point out that it might be a stretch to draw too close an analogy between depositing DNA and leaving usable fingerprints.

 

[Alt+F4]

I agree with you here. I think Raffaele came up with this story in the hope that it would explain away the evidence that had been described to him. It was stupid, but it doesn't mean he was involved in the murder.

Why didn't he just say it was impossible? He had no problem saying it was impossible that he murdered Meredith.

 

[Alt+F4]

If Amanda cooked at Raffaele's house, she would leave her DNA on the knife. It is uncontroversial that the existence of DNA does not give information on when it was deposited. The prosecution's theory would have us believe that the knife blade was cleaned to the point that blood was undetectable, but the handle was not cleaned at all. Would there be no blood on the handle? Would a putative murderer not clean her fingerprints even if there were no blood on the handle? I am confused, because I thought you said that the knife never left the drawer (I would agree).

I don't think the knife itself is at all incriminating and the prosecution got it wrong. It's RS's lie about it that is incriminating. If he just kept his mouth shut about it, as Charlie said, I think the whole second knife argument would go away.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ILE told Amanda about the knife

He was NOT told by the police about the DNA evidence, he heard about it on television. Please present evidence that the polices ever confronted him about it.

Alt+F4,

You may be right about the police not telling Raffaele, and I have also heard that he saw it on TV. However, according to Amanda's diary, the police did tell her about the DNA and asked her if she wanted to change her story. Very odd that they would ask her and not him. Also, if the officer who asked her that question did not record their conversation, he probably broke the law that covers precautionary detention.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You bring up an intresting point. Amanda said she didn't realize that morning that her lamp (only sourse of artifical light in the room) was missing which means, if she is telling the truth, the shutters were open, that's where she was getting light from when changing. So yes, why didn't the burglar come in through her room?

[/QUOTE]

Amanda's window is smaller, and the ledge is higher on the wall. But the feature you are overlooking (which Massei neglects to mention as well) is the concrete planter adjacent to Filomena's window. All someone would have to do is grab the edge of the roof and swing across to the window ledge.

 

[Danceme]

Amanda's window is smaller, and the ledge is higher on the wall. But the feature you are overlooking (which Massei neglects to mention as well) is the concrete planter adjacent to Filomena's window. All someone would have to do is grab the edge of the roof and swing across to the window ledge.

I addressed this in my post. It is not as easy as that.

 

[Alt+F4]

You may be right about the police not telling Raffaele, and I have also heard that he saw it on TV. However, according to Amanda's diary, the police did tell her about the DNA and asked her if she wanted to change her story. Very odd that they would ask her and not him. Also, if the officer who asked her that question did not record their conversation, he probably broke the law that covers precautionary detention.

Your assuming that the police broke the law rather than either RS or AK lying or being mistaken. Why?

There are many contradictions and inconsistencies between his diary and hers.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Arrested Abroad

Your assuming that the police broke the law rather than either RS or AK lying or being mistaken. Why?

There are many contradictions and inconsisties between his diary and hers.

I suppose that two conditions would have to be fulfilled for the officer to have broken the law. The first is that the conversation took place. I cannot think of a good reason not to believe Amanda's diary in this instance, regardless of guilt or innocence. The second is that the conversation was not recorded. Obviously I cannot be sure, but Amanda did not mention seeing the officer pulling out a recording device. Obviously, Raffaele would not have any knowledge of this conversation (between Amanda and an officer).

The manuscript by Benjamin M. Sayagh, "Arrested Abroad," discusses the 1995 amendment covering interrogations on page 15.

 

[Alt+F4]

I suppose that two conditions would have to be fulfilled for the officer to have broken the law. The first is that the conversation took place. I cannot think of a good reason not to believe Amanda's diary in this instance, regardless of guilt or innocence. The second is that the conversation was not recorded. Obviously I cannot be sure, but Amanda did not mention seeing the officer pulling out a recording device. Obviously, Raffaele would not have any knowledge of this conversation (between Amanda and an officer).

The manuscript by Benjamin M. Sayagh, "Arrested Abroad," discusses the 1995 amendment covering interrogations on page 15.

Well considering how whiney RS was in his diary regarding his plight it's hard to believe he would leave out an interrogation about this. In addition, did his lawyers ever say he was questioned or interrogated about it?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You are saying that the entire murder, sexual assault and everything else that occured for which there is evidence for occurred between 9:05 and 10:00. Ok, considering how short that amount of time is, it's more likely that more than one person was involved.

Why?

Amanda said she came home that morning took a shower, changed and dryed her hair in the other bathroom, and guess what? Only one fingerprint of her's was found in the entire apartment! If fingerprint can go "missing" why not DNA too?

Except they found Amanda's DNA in several places. They just didn't find it in Meredith's room.

Even if you're right, and it would somehow be possible for Amanda to participate in this brutal murder without leaving any physical trace in the room where it took place, there's no evidence that she did so. Nothing. They found her DNA in the bathroom she used everyday. They found her DNA in her own room. They supposedly found her DNA in Filomena's room, probably because they didn't change gloves. But they did not find one, solitary piece of evidence that Amanda ever set foot in Meredith's room. Nor have they ever come up with anything like a motive. At 8:40 that night, she cheerfully bantered with some woman who stopped by Raffaele's apartment. She watched a light-hearted movie. But then somehow, she and Raffaele decided to go out, they hooked up with Guede and, with everything to lose and nothing to gain, collaborated with him to kill Meredith. And the only reason we know they were there at all is because of this one sample of DNA on a the bra fastener... oh, and Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat, which he generously left as evidence after spending the whole night cleaning and scrubbing every other trace of his presence.

Is that what you believe? You seem intelligent. How can you buy into this?

 

[Malkmus]

Here is Dr. Stefanoni’s publication record retrieved in the same way:

This made me laugh.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5060)

Initially they said Guede's shoe prints were Raffaele's. After extensive research proved the prints weren't compatible with Raffaele's shoes, the bra fastener came along.

Yet they never tested the suspected semen stain on the pillow. If they were so desperate still after 46 days to find something to pin on Raffaele and they didn't test this, did they know something about it that we don't?

(This was a point made by RoseMontague in msg #368, p 10.)

 

[Alt+F4]

Except they found Amanda's DNA in several places. They just didn't find it in Meredith's room.

Charlie, I've always believed that Amanda did not kill Meredith, but rather that she was present at the time so not finding her DNA in Meredith's room does not conflict with my theory.

Nor have they ever come up with anything like a motive.

As we both know, a motive is not necessary for a conviction, but it's helpful. I keep hearing that Amanda wouldn't participate in a killing because she had no history of violence. Then when the point is brought up that there are many, many murderer who had no history of violence the goalpost shifts to Amanda couldn't kill Meredith because they were such great friends.

Could someone point me to a photograph of Amanda and Meredith together? A post from either of their MySpace or Facebook accounts where they talk about how great friends they were? An email to a family or friend?

I'm not saying this proves that they hated each other but I don't understand why, if there is no evidence against Amanda, do her supporters continue this great friends line of which there is no evidence.

At 8:40 that night, she cheerfully bantered with some woman who stopped by Raffaele's apartment.

"Cheerfully bantered"? She knocked on the door and Amanda told her hee was in the bathroom.

She watched a light-hearted movie. But then somehow, she and Raffaele decided to go out, they hooked up with Guede and, with everything to lose and nothing to gain, collaborated with him to kill Meredith.

No, that's not what I think happened. I think RG was already in the apartment when AK and RS came back there to get her clothes for the next morning's day trip.

And the only reason we know they were there at all is because of this one sample of DNA on a the bra fastener... oh, and Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat, which he generously left as evidence after spending the whole night cleaning and scrubbing every other trace of his presence.

The bra clasp evidence isn't going away. Even RS's defense team is unsure how to approach it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Yet they never tested the suspected semen stain on the pillow. If they were so desperate still after 46 days to find something to pin on Raffaele and they didn't test this, did they know something about it that we don't?

I believe RS's appeal is asking for this to be tested. Does anyone know why? If it's Rudy's it doesn't change anything for RS. If it's from unknown male then RS's defense of Rudy as the lone attacker goes out the window.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5075)

delete

This was in response to my msg #5045. Does Tsig imagine he is posting in PMF? Is this how PMF works?

 

[Danceme]

Amanda's window is smaller, and the ledge is higher on the wall. But the feature you are overlooking (which Massei neglects to mention as well) is the concrete planter adjacent to Filomena's window. All someone would have to do is grab the edge of the roof and swing across to the window ledge.

Actually Charlie, that's not correct. Amanda's window is not as tall as Filomena's but the sill is at the exact same height on the wall.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/25/article-1173558-0485812B000005DC-50_468x286.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/11/article-1199111-05AA8B0F000005DC-971_634x407.jpg