Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

A quick question:

If I happen to be in Perugia, and I amble over to look at the girls' cottage, and I discover that the front door is ajar, would it be OK for me to step inside and take a series of photographs of the kitchen/dining area of the cottage, as well as numerous close-up photos of the door lock as it looks today? Further, would it be OK if I then proudly post these photos on a publicly-accessible website? Would I get almost universally applauded by other people for this "audacious" behaviour? Or would that in fact be trespassing on private property and an invasion of privacy? And, just hypothetically, would the people who ran the website where I posted these photos be chiefly concerned about how people on another website might react, or should they be actually more concerned whether they or I were committing criminal acts? I wonder.....

 

[Supernaut]

Face it innocentisti, what have you got? Just the support of some high-profile legal pros, an international best-selling author, a Pulitzer-prize winning journo (and some others of zero consequence writing for the likes of The Independent), a veteren FBI investigator, a multi-billionaire property magnate, a bunch of published PHd signitories to an open letter denouncing Stefanoni's forensics, forum contributors such as Kevin_Lowe, Halides, Dan.O, Mary_H, Malkmus et al who are manifestly dumb or delusional to a man or woman, etc'.

I mean, come on - what credibility do these lightweights have in the face of the daunting intellectual phalanx bringin' it for the guilters - the likes of Margaret 'Peggy' Ganong (modestly holding forth under a message-board pseudonym), Peter Quennell (waddaya mean you never heard of him?), Barbie Nadeau (surely up for a Pulitzer or three?), some of the most brilliant minds of our time at the incomparably benevolent and democratic PMF and TJMK and ..... er ...... yeh!

Just give it up FOAKers - Amanda (may she rot in jail 'til the day she dies, which can't come soon enough) and Raff are guilty! guilty! guilty!

Apologies to all I missed out of my cursory list of the dumb or deluded at JREF (Hi, London_John).

 

[RoseMontague]

More of the same. Argument by anecdote.

The practice of offering examples of other instances to support the argument that something could have happened in this particular instance is no more persuasive now than it has been in the past. This does not address at all the likelihood that such a thing actually did happen this time. Efforts to do so that I have seen here to date depend largely on insinuation and prejudice.

Yes,
It is rather like offering the example of Oxi-clean as an example of a cleaning product other than bleach, only to find out it also reacts positively to luminol.

It is simply an argument that it could have happened in response to those that say it could not. In your example, I believe you, they cleaned with Oxi-clean.

 

[Malkmus]

Strange, exactly the same thing can be said about Rudy Guede.

Yeah, we know he's the kind of guy that will leave you for dead without the courtesy of calling you an ambulance. What a guy. We also have reports form witnesses saying he was pushy with women, and from his diary we can even deduce that he was raised by an abusive father. All much more telling than Amanda fantasizing about sex with a stranger and getting a noise violation ticket.

 

[RoseMontague]

A quick question:

If I happen to be in Perugia, and I amble over to look at the girls' cottage, and I discover that the front door is ajar, would it be OK for me to step inside and take a series of photographs of the kitchen/dining area of the cottage, as well as numerous close-up photos of the door lock as it looks today? Further, would it be OK if I then proudly post these photos on a publicly-accessible website? Would I get almost universally applauded by other people for this "audacious" behaviour? Or would that in fact be trespassing on private property and an invasion of privacy? And, just hypothetically, would the people who ran the website where I posted these photos be chiefly concerned about how people on another website might react, or should they be actually more concerned whether they or I were committing criminal acts? I wonder.....

Hey LJ, I think in this particular case that person would probably get enough grief over this that anything we could add might be considered piling on.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh, really? I have seen it suggested many, many times. I thought the guilters' argument has always been that Raffaele and Amanda cleaned up the crime scene after themselves.

So, the partial cleaning of a crime scene equates to 'cleaning up DNA' in your mind? Not cleaning blood and footprints and things like that, it can only 'possibly' be DNA?

Like I said, straw man.

Can you cite any forensic experts who will certify that a young man can hold a struggling murder victim and participate in the knifing and sexual assault of the victim without leaving any evidence of his presence?

He did, his DNA is on her bra clasp. His bloody footprints are on the bath mat and in the corridor. It sounds like a non-argument to me.

And you're quite willing to accept that a man can climb a sheer wall, hall himself through a whole in the window, ransack the room and leave not a trace, but that's convenient. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[quadraginta]

Of course, we can watch the interrogation tapes and decide for ourselves in the Casey Anthony case as they were played over and over on such shows as Nancy Grace.

See! Media bias.

(Grumble, grumble. Darned third world country. Grumble grumble.)

 

[quadraginta]

A quick question:

If I happen to be in Perugia, and I amble over to look at the girls' cottage, and I discover that the front door is ajar, would it be OK for me to step inside and take a series of photographs of the kitchen/dining area of the cottage, as well as numerous close-up photos of the door lock as it looks today? Further, would it be OK if I then proudly post these photos on a publicly-accessible website? Would I get almost universally applauded by other people for this "audacious" behaviour? Or would that in fact be trespassing on private property and an invasion of privacy? And, just hypothetically, would the people who ran the website where I posted these photos be chiefly concerned about how people on another website might react, or should they be actually more concerned whether they or I were committing criminal acts? I wonder.....

Why do I have the suspicion that this is a not purely hypothetical question?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The argument concerning bleach is different: in cleaning the house, such a product might indeed have been spread about in the various rooms. But in actual fact, it was not known when and by whom
such widespread and extensive cleaning, and which had involved these various rooms, had been carried out.

You are making a false point. Massei handles his rebuttles in in a particular specific way. In this case, the absence of bleach products is not relevant to the actual point he's making here.

Moreover, the defence were hardly able to contradict Filomena's and Laura's testimony.

Moreover, you have failed to address the clear holes in your logic which I pointed out the shower being negative for bleach and likewise, the corridor and bathroom floor were not covered in luminol prints as they would be if they had a 'bleachy shower'. Meredith had just had a shower the day before and would use it daily for her shower...yet she left no prints. Magic shower.

 

[RoseMontague]

You are making a false point. Massei handles his rebuttles in in a particular specific way. In this case, the absence of bleach products is not relevant to the actual point he's making here.

Moreover, the defence were hardly able to contradict Filomena's and Laura's testimony.

Moreover, you have failed to address the clear holes in your logic which I pointed out the shower being negative for bleach and likewise, the corridor and bathroom floor were not covered in luminol prints as they would be if they had a 'bleachy shower'. Meredith had just had a shower the day before and would use it daily for her shower...yet she left no prints. Magic shower.

Did she clean the shower with a mildew remover or tub and tile cleaner the day before? I have asked you for a few cites for your claims recently and have not received any of them.

 

[el buscador]

You are making a false point. Massei handles his rebuttles in in a particular specific way. In this case, the absence of bleach products is not relevant to the actual point he's making here.

Moreover, the defence were hardly able to contradict Filomena's and Laura's testimony.

Moreover, you have failed to address the clear holes in your logic which I pointed out the shower being negative for bleach and likewise, the corridor and bathroom floor were not covered in luminol prints as they would be if they had a 'bleachy shower'. Meredith had just had a shower the day before and would use it daily for her shower...yet she left no prints. Magic shower.

Were Meredith's footprints actually taken to compare with the footprints found on the floor? From what I understand neither Filomena's nor Laura's was taken to compare. The shoe sizes were probably known, but from the differences in foot sizes compared to shoe sizes between Raffaele and rudy's feet we can see that knowing shoe size doesn't completely relate to footprint size.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Meredith had just had a shower the day before and would use it daily for her shower...yet she left no prints. Magic shower.

Maybe she dried her feet, most probably she put on slippers. Or maybe it's her footprints.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes,
It is rather like offering the example of Oxi-clean as an example of a cleaning product other than bleach, only to find out it also reacts positively to luminol.

It is simply an argument that it could have happened in response to those that say it could not. In your example, I believe you, they cleaned with Oxi-clean.

I provided no example of what they cleaned with. I provided an example of a bleach alternative which I use to demonstrate that your argument from incredulity was flawed.

The fact that OxiClean in particular also happens to provide some reaction to Luminol in no way changes the validity of that example. Neither would fruit juice, although I would caution you against its use when laundering your whites.

 

[Katody Matrass]

So, the partial cleaning of a crime scene equates to 'cleaning up DNA' in your mind? Not cleaning blood and footprints and things like that, it can only 'possibly' be DNA?

Yeah, a partial cleaning indeed.

What did they clean then? Why is there zero evidence of that cleaning?

 

[RoseMontague]

I provided no example of what they cleaned with. I provided an example of a bleach alternative which I use to demonstrate that your argument from incredulity was flawed.

The fact that OxiClean in particular also happens to provide some reaction to Luminol in no way changes the validity of that example. Neither would fruit juice, although I would caution you against its use when laundering your whites.

For a moment there I thought you had failed to see the humor in this one. Yours is funny as well. Blessed be.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5797)
This could just mean that Amanda, after becoming aware that the investigators did not believe her first story, gave up/caved in/buckled. I would have thought 'buckled' is a fairly obvious way to describe what happens when someone realizes that their lie isn't working and then come out with the truth.

This is something that only happens in cheap police dramas. It doesn't happen in real life.

or you could read it as "Amanda now provided a statement which was better aligned with the facts that the police were already aware of"

See below. There had been no investigation, so they had no facts. If there had been an investigation, then there would be details established at this period which would be part of the prosecution case. Felici's statements about knowing what was correct or incorrect, are straightforward lies. Of course, their "facts that we knew to be true" included that Patrick Lumumba was the murderer, and this soon had to be abandoned.

What can't be denied is that the Felici had decided in advance what statement would come out of the session with Amanda.

You are mistaken if you believe that's the only thing that prevents me from believing that Amanda was physically coerced.

It won't prevent anyone from believing it; only from saying it. As for your reasons for what you believe: that's something I can only guess at.

Amanda didn't complain... she accused a number of officers of violating the law. She did without having any evidence with which to back up her accusations.

What evidence do you expect her to have? Are you seriously saying that someone is not entitled to give their side of a story without the threat of a six-year jail sentence?

The police have no independent evidence that they did not hit her, other than their own uncorroborated denials; and we know that this police force, as a corporate body, tells lies. Unlike Amanda, they could be expected to provide the recorded evidence to show what happened or didn't happen, but for whatever reason they either didn't record it or are withholding the recordings.

There is a slight difference there (between complaining and accusing) even if you don't realize it.

Whatever the difference, the significance of it in this context is thoroughly obscure. It seems you are OK with the state of affairs that police can arrange things so that they can behave however they like in this situation, and will use their powers of prosecution to suppress any criticism.

What do you think those investigators were doing from the time the body of Meredith was discovered and the night of November 6? Drinking espresso and eating the Italian equivalent of donuts, while they were waiting for facts/evidence to magically present themsevles?

What do you think they were doing? As far as I can gather, the "investigation" in the first days consisted entirely of harrassing Amanda and Raffaele (over 40 hours of "interviews" with Amanda alone between midday on 2 Nov and daybreak on 6 Nov), gathering salacious details to leak to the press, and manipulating them into incriminating each other.

As someone who has lived most of his life in foreign countries, I can assure you that you are wrong.

Breathtaking. Have you any experience of being arrested and interrogated? Did it happen to you at the age of 20?

 

[RoseMontague]

Yeah, a partial cleaning indeed.

What did they clean then? Why is there zero evidence of that cleaning?

Perhaps because there was no cleaning.

Katody,
Maybe you can help me with this. I asked for a cite that there was no bleach or any products containing bleach in Meredith's apartment. The Massei report does not say this and as shown above Massei actually considers it possible that there were such products used in the house. The other cite I asked for is the one where both Laura and Filomena testified that there was no bleach or any products containing bleach in the apartment. There is no mention of this in the report either. The third cite I asked for was to show that the police took an inventory of all the cleaning products in the apartment.

The only related cite I can find was where Raffaele's housekeeper was asked about bleach.

The reason I ask is that I believe the prints were caused by a substance other than bleach. I was interested in that link that showed a reaction to vinegar and am presently looking for a cite that would show if wine reacts with luminol. There is certainly plenty of wine flowing around in Italy. Besides, wine is one of my favorite topics.

 

[Solange305]

I mean, come on - what credibility do these lightweights have in the face of the daunting intellectual phalanx bringin' it for the guilters - the likes of Margaret 'Peggy' Ganong (modestly holding forth under a message-board pseudonym), Peter Quennell (waddaya mean you never heard of him?), Barbie Nadeau (surely up for a Pulitzer or three?), some of the most brilliant minds of our time at the incomparably benevolent and democratic PMF and TJMK and ..... er ...... yeh!

You forgot they also have the court of law, including real experts, real judges, and real jurors, who were AT the trial as opposed to getting all their info off the interwebs. In the end, who will decide Amanda and Raffaele's fate? Steve Moore? Candace Dempsey? Be reasonable, and stop being so patronizing. I cant believe the level of snark and downright immaturity some posters on here have. No one is going to see your side of things when you act that way, why not intelligently and politely argue your side? If things are really the way you say there are, people might come around?

Breathtaking. Have you any experience of being arrested and interrogated? Did it happen to you at the age of 20?

Nope. Did it happen to YOU? So who's the expert? Neither of you

 

[Fulcanelli]

The police have no independent evidence that they did not hit her, other than their own uncorroborated denials; and we know that this police force, as a corporate body, tells lies. Unlike Amanda, they could be expected to provide the recorded evidence to show what happened or didn't happen, but for whatever reason they either didn't record it or are withholding the recordings

And your independent evidence to show they 'did' hit her is 'where' exactly?

Seems like we're back to articles of faith again.

What do you think they were doing? As far as I can gather, the "investigation" in the first days consisted entirely of harrassing Amanda and Raffaele (over 40 hours of "interviews" with Amanda alone between midday on 2 Nov and daybreak on 6 Nov), gathering salacious details to leak to the press, and manipulating them into incriminating each other.

[irony]Sure, because the police weren't also spending those days question everyone else as well.[/irony]

 

[Fulcanelli]

Perhaps because there was no cleaning.

Katody,
Maybe you can help me with this. I asked for a cite that there was no bleach or any products containing bleach in Meredith's apartment. The Massei report does not say this and as shown above Massei actually considers it possible that there were such products used in the house. The other cite I asked for is the one where both Laura and Filomena testified that there was no bleach or any products containing bleach in the apartment. There is no mention of this in the report either. The third cite I asked for was to show that the police took an inventory of all the cleaning products in the apartment.

The only related cite I can find was where Raffaele's housekeeper was asked about bleach.

The reason I ask is that I believe the prints were caused by a substance other than bleach. I was interested in that link that showed a reaction to vinegar and am presently looking for a cite that would show if wine reacts with luminol. There is certainly plenty of wine flowing around in Italy. Besides, wine is one of my favorite topics.

Sophistry - demand I prove a negative.

It is you that is claiming bleach was on the property. Therefore, it is you that has the requirement to provide evidence that it was.

Plus, you are still ignoring my points. Where is this magic bathroom bleach that does not exist in the bathroom but only comes into existence when it comes off of her feet and only off of hers and Raffaele's feet alone?

Where is the evidence from the defence that there was bleach on the property?

What about Laura and Filomena, are we calling them liars again?

And yes, the Massei Report does say there was cleaning.