Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kestrel]

No, actually Raffaello said on the phone to the police that "nothing had been taken".

When you talk on the phone is everything you say precise, exact and absolutely complete?

Imprecision in language is not proof of guilt. It's proof that you are human.

 

[christianahannah]

On the subject of footprints, it's odd that people elsewhere are still being linked to a post on TJMK which gives the length of Rudy's footprint as 28cm in order to show he couldn't have made the bathmat print. I know that the actual length of his foot wasn't known at the time that post was written, so fair enough. But haven't the people who are still citing it (and actually accusing the FOA site of shrinking the same print on that basis) read the Massei report? It gives the actual size of Rudy's footprint. From page 348:


Notice also that the possibility that Guede made the print is being ruled out here because his footprint is 2mm bigger than the blurry luminol print, while Sollecito's is 1mm smaller. Conclusive evidence indeed...

Massei also cites other criteria why Guede's print is incompatible with the print in finding 2 (and why Sollecito's is compatible), page 348 of PMF English translated Massei Motivations:

Dr. Rinaldi pointed out the differentiating characteristics of Luminol-positive finding 2 with respect to the right foot of Rudy Guede, since, in the sole-print of the latter, (cf. page 19 of the report on the correction of perspective) one can notice:

- a different length of the foot (which measures 247mm, compared to the 245mm of finding 2, Sollecito's foot being 244mm long)

- the lesser width of the heel (51mm for Guede's foot, against the 58mm of the finding and the 57mm of Sollecito's foot)

- the lesser width of the big toe (which in Guede measures 23mm, against the 28mm of finding 2 and the 30mm of the big toe of the co-defendant)

- the difference in the metatarsus, which for Guede has a width of 93mm against the 95mm of finding 2 and the 96mm of Sollecito (table 16).

The differentiating factor in the sole prints of the two defendants lies, as was pointed out with regard to the print on the mat, in the specific width [373] of Sollecito's big toe and metatarsus, distinctive characteristics which were identified in the Luminol-positive prints of finding 2 and which are lacking, in an obvious manner, in Rudy Guede's sole-pring, [which is] more tapered, narrower and longer than the other's [sole-pring].

 

[Kestrel]

Amanda was proven to have met Rudy on several occasions, at the neighbors' downstairs as well as in the pub where she worked.
They had a passing acquaintance, he was suppsedly stuck on her, and he may well have provided Amanda and Raf with the drugs they wre using the night of the murder.

Raffi was proven to have been in the murder room by his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in several different locations in the house.
Let us not forget the double DNA knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade. There is NO way to explain that away (tho Raffi tried by twice suggesting he pricked M with the knife while cooking. They had never shared a meal or cooked together).
There is no conspiracy theory at work here; the staged crime scene has nothing to do with conspiracy.

You are waving a red flag that is really not relevent to the convictions of Amanda and Raffaeloo.

If you look upthread, you will find that haldes1 has answered your questions about the DNA evidence.

Yes, Amanda had met Rudy. At a party in the downstairs flat they were introduced and said hi. Amanda may have also seen him at the pub where she worked. Not exactly the kind of close relationship one expects between close conspirators.

As for the rejecting that the prosecution had a conspiracy theory, you are simply in denial. You also don't understand that the cleanup required by the prosecution theory is simply impossible.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think it is YOU who is looking silly now.

"No evidence" and "Mr. Mignini is a blahblahblah" are among the very lowest name calling and outright denials in the hierarchy of defense mechanisms.

Read up in psychoanalytic books why they really don't cut it when crisis arrive.

And you guys are in for a huge one if you DON'T DO BETTER THAN THIS!

This response contains absolutely nothing that might make a rational person change their mind about the issue. Around here we are not impressed by mindless cheerleading. We are impressed by facts and logic.

If you want to persuade anyone here, check your facts. Do not repeat things as true just because you heard them somewhere on a web forum and you liked the sound of them. Verify that your claims are actually true. Most of what you have been claiming is based on premises which are simply false.

Guilter forums are their own little isolated world where they can exclude annoying people who correct errors, and as such errors grow like mould and spread from person to person. Over here you could say that there's more vigorous intellectual hygiene.

Check your times.
They called the police AFTER the postal police arrived. unexpectedly.

We have examined this issue in detail here already. Your claim is factually incorrect. The postal police arrived after the police were called, and phone records and security camera footage prove this.

Sorry Chris wrong again.
Filomena was unanimously described as being very neat.
The clothes were NOT on the floor when she left; and yes, the glass pieces were sprinkled ON TOP of the contents of her room.
Plus what burglars don't take designer sunglasses or a computer in plain sight?

We have examined this issue in detail here already. Your claim is factually incorrect. Filomena stated that there was glass on the floor under her clothes, as well as mixed in with her clothes and on top of them. This is perfectly consistent with Guede searching the room after breaking through the window.

Only in the PMF/TJMK echo chambers has the idea taken root that there was no glass on the floor under her clothes.

And finally how did Raf know that nothing had been taken when he first called the police to report the break-in?

He can be wrong or overstate his knowledge without being guilty of murder.

Amanda was proven to have met Rudy on several occasions, at the neighbors' downstairs as well as in the pub where she worked.
They had a passing acquaintance, he was suppsedly stuck on her, and he may well have provided Amanda and Raf with the drugs they wre using the night of the murder.

This claim that Rudy was their drug dealer is utter speculation based on no evidence and no statements from Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy or anyone else.

In any case, add up everything you have there and it is still not plausible that they teamed up with a drug-dealing acquaintance to commit murder.

Raffi was proven to have been in the murder room by his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in several different locations in the house.

Nobody has yet been able to satisfactorily explain to use why Amanda's DNA being found mixed with Meredith's blood is evidence of anything. Including Massei.

Let us not forget the double DNA knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade.

Nobody has yet been able to satisfactorily explain to use why Amanda's DNA being found on the handle of that knife is evidence of anything. Including Massei.

As for Meredith's claimed DNA, it is unreproducible, nobody but the prosecution saw the tests happen, the lab refused to hand over their raw data or their contamination logs, and it was not blood on the knife. It's hard to imagine a worse piece of DNA evidence or one more likely to be the result of contamination.

There is NO way to explain that away (tho Raffi tried by twice suggesting he pricked M with the knife while cooking. They had never shared a meal or cooked together).

This is another guilter trope with no basis in reality, and we have been over this repeatedly. If you read what Raffaele actually wrote, he was almost certainly saying he touched Amanda's hand with a knife, not Meredith's (and you certainly cannot prove the opposite). All this proves is that Raffaele was too trusting of the police and was not an expert in DNA forensics.

There is no conspiracy theory at work here; the staged crime scene has nothing to do with conspiracy.

Yet there is no evidence for a staged crime scene besides the unsupported word of police who mysteriously failed to properly document their claimed observations, and no evidence of a clean-up except a total lack of clear evidence where the evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's presence in the murder room should be.

@tsig

It also followed all the text book indications of a lie.

I can only echo the request that you explain what you think the indications of a lie are, as opposed to the indications of an internalised false confession, and explain why you think her false witness statement is one but not the other.

 

[LondonJohn]

Massei also cites other criteria why Guede's print is incompatible with the print in finding 2 (and why Sollecito's is compatible), page 348 of PMF English translated Massei Motivations:

Ummmmmmmmmm, a couple of points:

1) The pages you have quoted are not Massei's resoning, but instead a verbatim regurgitation of the prosecution expert's report on the footprint. This is the same expert (Rinaldi) who had confidently assured the prosecutor that certain shoe prints had been made by Sollecito's Air Force 1 trainers, whereas a child's analysis could show that they were instead clearly made by Guede's Nike Outbreak shoes - a completely different model of show with a visibly different sole.

2) The pages you have quoted actually concern two footprints in the hallway - and not the bathmat print at all. The Rinaldi opinion on the bathmat print is instead given on pp338-342 (and the pseudoscience used by Rinaldi to link this print to Sollecito is priceless reading in itself. It's sheer nonsense!).

Other than that, excellent rebuttal!

 

[Antony]

(msg #5136, p129)

Because there is more evidence for the three, rather than the one.

Mystifying. Evidently there's no purpose in talking about the contrast in the clear-cut evidence implicating Guede, and the house of cards passed off as "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele.

What I find odd is that you (and "Sherlock Holmes") don't seem to agree with either Prosecutor Mignini's narrative, or Judge Massei's alternative narrative of the killing; yet both of you think that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty - of something other than actually killing Meredith. Does this mean that even if (when) the judgement is overturned on appeal, they should still stay in prison? How many versions of the accusations against them are to be repudiated before they can be free?

Yes, I do.

Nothing wrong with asking questions of course; except that half the time (at least) the answers are in the post you're replying to - frequently directly following the sentence you quote. It would be a matter of courtesy at least to read the previous post properly and understand the points made, even if you don't agree with them.

Please give the names of those people responsible and give the specific details on how they are responsible, exactly what they did, when they did it and why they did it. After all, according to you, it's in the public domain. Thanks.

Answered by Mary_H in #5163 (thanks, Mary!) I can give you one name - Stefanoni - who provided the spurious positive reading for Meredith's DNA using an improperly conducted test, from a knife that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the murder. You don't need me to say the names of the hacks who wrecked 3 of Raffaele's and Amanda's computers, and overwrote crucial records on another machine, to know that the police were responsible for destruction of evidence.

RS, according to his own account he heard it on television. Nothing more is known about it. Do you have further information?

This was the report of the supposed finding of Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's kitchen knife. The information (or rather, disinformation) in the TV report originated from the police, as I said.

Please provide evidence that he "still trusted the police" at that time.

An example of raising questions that are already answered. Instead of telling himself "this is nonsense", Raffaele still thought that the positive DNA reading on the knife might be genuine, and tried to rationalise it. This is something that was readily understandable from the context of the point I was making.

It's very easy to latch onto isolated fragments of the other person's posting and demand unnecessary explanations. Maybe it gives you satisfaction to take up people's time in this way, but you don't advance the discussion by doing so.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Massei also cites other criteria why Guede's print is incompatible with the print in finding 2 (and why Sollecito's is compatible), page 348 of PMF English translated Massei Motivations:

Of course Massei agrees with Rinaldi.
Having seen Rinaldi corrected a few times by prof. Vinci I tend to trust Vinci more.

The other thing that makes me suspicious of Rinaldi's conclusions:
Despite the lack of visible ridges and general blurriness of the watered down bathmat print Rinaldi happily measures details of it with millimeter precision. And then bases his conclusion on the size of the big toe measured in such a way.

Finally, I'm not an expert, but looking at foot marks is not rocket science, and having seen Raffaele's very distinct foot and toes configuration and the blurry track on the bathmat I must say that if there is a single foot that can be excluded it is his.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's very easy to latch onto isolated fragments of the other person's posting and demand unnecessary explanations. Maybe it gives you satisfaction to take up people's time in this way, but you don't advance the discussion by doing so.

I agree, it would be more interesting to see how the crime events unrolled according to Alt-F4.

Alt, you seem to disagree with the prosecution, do you have a scenario of your own?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes... To be fair, the actual measurements weren't known at the time the presentation was made, and Guede does have surprisingly small feet for his shoe size (just 3mm bigger than Sollecito's, even though he takes a shoe several sizes bigger!).

But what I don't understand is why - now that the actual measurements are known - the PP is being linked as proof that Guede could not have made the print, when the measurements used for both Sollecito and Guede's prints are now known to be inaccurate. Particularly as part of an argument to point out supposedly inaccurate measurements on other sites.

The overall length of Sollecito's reference footprint is about 236mm and Guede's about 251mm, but the difference is in the heel. The forefoot measurements are simiilar, and in fact Guede's forefoot is a little smaller.

What gives it away is the big toe. The toe print on the mat is exactly like Guede's and completely different from Sollecito's. Plus it makes no sense to think that Sollecito would leave a bloody footprint on the bathmat after supposedly cleaning up other footprints, and then go so far as to mention blood in the bathroom in his call to the emergency number. But, they were short on evidence against Sollecito, no absolute proof was possible regarding the print on the mat, so the prosecutor's expert went to work with the "grid of LM Robbins" and reached a Robbins-esque conclusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course Massei agrees with Rinaldi.
Having seen Rinaldi corrected a few times by prof. Vinci I tend to trust Vinci more.

The other thing that makes me suspicious of Rinaldi's conclusions:
Despite the lack of visible ridges and general blurriness of the watered down bathmat print Rinaldi happily measures details of it with millimeter precision. And then bases his conclusion on the size of the big toe measured in such a way.

Finally, I'm not an expert, but looking at foot marks is not rocket science, and having seen Raffaele's very distinct foot and toes configuration and the blurry track on the bathmat I must say that if there is a single foot that can be excluded it is his.

I was going to make pretty much the same point here. The bath mat partial print was made in a wet mixture of blood and water, on a highly absorbent surface with large ridges and heavily tufted fabric pile. In these circumstances, it's patently ridiculous to pretend that the footprint can be measured to the millimetre, then compared with static ink-on-paper prints of Sollecito and Guede. After all, even Rinaldi must know that absorbent towelling cloth tends to spread moisture in a "blotting"-style action, and that the very action of depressing the mat with the foot would have distorted the thick pile of the mat.

I probably wouldn't go so far as to exclude Sollecito as a possible source of the print, but I'd definitely go so far as to include Guede as a highly possible source.

 

[katy_did]

The overall length of Sollecito's reference footprint is about 236mm and Guede's about 251mm, but the difference is in the heel. The forefoot measurements are simiilar, and in fact Guede's forefoot is a little smaller.

What gives it away is the big toe. The toe print on the mat is exactly like Guede's and completely different from Sollecito's. Plus it makes no sense to think that Sollecito would leave a bloody footprint on the bathmat after supposedly cleaning up other footprints, and then go so far as to mention blood in the bathroom in his call to the emergency number. But, they were short on evidence against Sollecito, no absolute proof was possible regarding the print on the mat, so the prosecutor's expert went to work with the "grid of LM Robbins" and reached a Robbins-esque conclusion.

I fully agree with you about the big toe, and the reasons as to why Sollecito would hardly have left his own footprint on the bathmat, particularly since they supposedly cleaned up a trail of footprints leading up to the mat (as well as the excellent points made by Katody and LJ).

Where are you getting your measurements from, though? Massei says the lengths of the prints are 247mm (Guede) and 244mm (Sollecito):

− a different length of the foot (which measures 247mm [Guede's foot], compared to the 245mm of finding 2 [luminol print], Sollecito’s foot being 244mm long)... (p348).

...where the length of Raffaele Sollecito’s right sole-print is equal to 244mm (with the big toe being 30mm wide, the width of the metatarsus, taken from the base to the green dots positioned at the end of the right and left outlines, being 96mm, with height 57mm – cf. table 16 cited - and width of the heel of 57mm) (p347)

ETA: Hmmm, I was just wondering if the difference might be that one refers to the actual foot length and the other to the footprint length, but then I noticed Massei refers to both foot and footprint length as being 244mm in Sollecito's case, heh...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Massei also cites other criteria why Guede's print is incompatible with the print in finding 2 (and why Sollecito's is compatible), page 348 of PMF English translated Massei Motivations:

The problem is that the measurements are bogus. The toe print on the bathmat is not 30 mm in width. Rinaldi arbitrarily extended the measurement:

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

Undoubtedly this is why he used a photo taken with ordinary lighting rather than the one taken with forensic lighting to sharpen the contours of the stain:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/bathmat_print.jpg

The toe print is exactly like the one on Guede's reference print and not at all like Sollecito's toe, which is wider, with a gap between the sole of the foot and the tip of the toe.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

OK, I am not going to ask why that would be but I do want to know how long you think they should remain where they belong
for not killing Meredith¿¿¿

I don't know the exact extent to their involvement, but 5 years for Raff and 10 for Amanda, Rudy should get 100 and even then some. They need to come clean but with all the lies, even if they did, who's going to believe them?

 

[katy_did]

I personally don't believe that Knox was "panicked" on the morning of the 2nd. I believe that this is an ex-post rationalisation in her email to friends - given that when she wrote the email she knew that Meredith had been lying murdered behind her bedroom door all that morning. I therefore believe that Knox may very well have been amplifying her "panicked" state in her email recollection, owing to her subsequent knowledge of the horror of what actually unfolded later that day.

Yep, I think so too: in her e-mail she's very focused on telling her friends how she came to 'find [her] roommate murdered', and so of course, everything is centred around that. Knowing what she does at the time she's writing, and given the whole purpose of writing the e-mail, she naturally focuses more on the murder than she does on what she had for breakfast that morning, and probably exaggerates the panic she felt.

I think Filomena does the same thing, too: although she said in Court Amanda's first phone call shocked her, her actions don't really suggest that. She didn't head home, didn't try and call Meredith, and wrongly remembers that she told Amanda to call the police during that first phone call when her friend Paola says it was during the last call. She said she asked Amanda, "But where's Meredith?" - to me, even the phrasing suggests she's remembering with the benefit of hindsight, as if at the time she asked the question she already knew something bad had happened (why not just say, 'Is Meredith there?' or 'Could you get hold of Meredith?').

It's just the natural process of people shaping their memories in hindsight, viewing the past through the prism of what they already know to have happened. It's kind of disturbing that Massei doesn't even consider that, and apparently isn't even aware of it as a possibility.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I fully agree with you about the big toe, and the reasons as to why Sollecito would hardly have left his own footprint on the bathmat, particularly since they supposedly cleaned up a trail of footprints leading up to the mat (as well as the excellent points made by Katody and LJ).

Where are you getting your measurements from, though? Massei says the lengths of the prints are 247mm (Guede) and 244mm (Sollecito):

ETA: Hmmm, I was just wondering if the difference might be that one refers to the actual foot length and the other to the footprint length, but then I noticed Massei refers to both foot and footprint length as being 244mm in Sollecito's case, heh...

I analyzed the images in Rinaldi's presentation with a caliper tool. Sollecito's foot might be longer than his footprint because the reference print doesn't show his second toe (usually the longest) at all.

You can find Rinaldi's presentations here:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi1.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi2.pdf

 

[Malkmus]

No, actually Raffaello said on the phone to the police that "nothing had been taken".

This again?

Alright, Meredith's keys, credit cards, cash and phones were stolen from her, the phones presumably so she couldn't call for help, but the cards and cash for what? So it would fit with the staged break-in? Loverofzion, why would they take Meredith's belongings, only to tell the police nothing had been taken? This is another damned-if-they-do/damned-if-they-don't scenario. Had Rafaelle told the police that those things had been taken it would definitively prove he was guilty. But he said the complete opposite and is still faulted by the guilters. You're assumption also ignores that Amanda did a quick run-through of the house and, having noticed no major items missing, told Rafaelle that nothing appeared stolen.

 

[Malkmus]

Amanda was proven to have met Rudy on several occasions, at the neighbors' downstairs as well as in the pub where she worked.
They had a passing acquaintance, he was suppsedly stuck on her, and he may well have provided Amanda and Raf with the drugs they wre using the night of the murder.

This adds no plausibility to the notion that because Amanda "knew" Rudy she would have helped him sexually assault and kill Meredith simply because she and Raf were around when he decided he wanted some sex and murder.

Raffi was proven to have been in the murder room by his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in several different locations in the house.
Let us not forget the double DNA knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade. There is NO way to explain that away (tho Raffi tried by twice suggesting he pricked M with the knife while cooking.

No one outside of the online guilter community (or the judge/prosecutor obviously) doesn't question the shaky forensic evidence against Amanda and Raf. Barbie Nadeau's book finds it dubious, as does Darkness Descending, Murder in Italy and practically every other book/journalist/author. Tell me, where is the book/article/expert/author that describes the forensic evidence as cast-iron? That should tell you something. And please don't say the Massei Report, as we're talking about unbiased criticism here.

 

[Malkmus]

Alt +F4, I am quickly becomming a huge fan. Keep up the very good work.

I would love to hear just how you think this whole murder did go down, because I have a feeling, it's simular to what I have been thinking as well.

I don't know why you're holding your theory in. If it fits with what we know then I think you should reveal it.

 

[christianahannah]

Ummmmmmmmmm, a couple of points:

1) The pages you have quoted are not Massei's resoning, but instead a verbatim regurgitation of the prosecution expert's report on the footprint. This is the same expert (Rinaldi) who had confidently assured the prosecutor that certain shoe prints had been made by Sollecito's Air Force 1 trainers, whereas a child's analysis could show that they were instead clearly made by Guede's Nike Outbreak shoes - a completely different model of show with a visibly different sole.

2) The pages you have quoted actually concern two footprints in the hallway - and not the bathmat print at all. The Rinaldi opinion on the bathmat print is instead given on pp338-342 (and the pseudoscience used by Rinaldi to link this print to Sollecito is priceless reading in itself. It's sheer nonsense!).

Other than that, excellent rebuttal!

In response to your points:

1) I didn't intend to imply that was Massei's reasoning (as I would imagine neither did katy_did). I was responding to katy_did's quote and response concerning page 348 and giving additional information from the same page. Perhaps I would have been more clear if I had wrote Massei Motivations rather than Massei? Further reading from page 348 through page 356 will give the opinion of the court with respect to the prints.

2) Yes, and that is what I was referring to in answer to katy_did's post (the part I bolded had to do with the luminol prints). The last paragraph was just added information from page 348 which ties in the bathmat print to the hallway print.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a fundamental tenet of DNA profiling

Amanda was proven to have met Rudy on several occasions, at the neighbors' downstairs as well as in the pub where she worked.
They had a passing acquaintance, he was suppsedly stuck on her, and he may well have provided Amanda and Raf with the drugs they wre using the night of the murder.

Raffi was proven to have been in the murder room by his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in several different locations in the house.
Let us not forget the double DNA knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade. There is NO way to explain that away (tho Raffi tried by twice suggesting he pricked M with the knife while cooking. They had never shared a meal or cooked together).
There is no conspiracy theory at work here; the staged crime scene has nothing to do with conspiracy.

You are waving a red flag that is really not relevent to the convictions of Amanda and Raffaeloo.

loverofzion,

It is a fundamental tenet of DNA forensics, almost axiomatic, that the presence of DNA on an item does not tell us when or how the DNA was deposited. Amanda's DNA on the knife handle is strictly meaningless, because she cooked with it. Likewise, one does not know when Amanda's DNA came to be in the locations where it was found with Meredith's blood.

Amanda met Rudy one time, and she said he MAY have come into the club. You are exaggerating how many times they met.

Please document any claims you make about Amanda or Raffaele's drug use (besides cannabis) on the night of the murder. If you cannot back up your claims with citations, they are baseless rumors. And I know you cannot.