Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

At 8:42 pm RS was talking to his dad according to telephone records. He said AK was there.

By 10:00 MK was dead and her phones had traveled a considerable distance.

Theoretically a "quickie kill" is possible. But the concept is absurd. They would have had to have run for minutes to get over there, killed her, and then run for minutes to throw the phones away.

Anyway, wasn't a car out front?

Hi Justinian2,
I too believe that the car mentioned to have been seen in front of the house has something to do with what went down that night.
Chris C seems to think so too, from what I have read. Many others seem to pay no attention to it.

Rudy mentioned in his German diary that it was white,
and as you wrote, I have read that there was a black car seen there too that night...

Either way, after seeing a recent photo on PMF that "Rebel" had posted of a Google satellite map of the area got me wondering if the killer(s) escaped by car?

And so, writing on a website for skeptical thinking,
I threw out the idea that the person who stole Meredith's cell phones, and hence most likely is involved in her murder,
might have thrown them out, downhill, from a car window as it traveled on Via Andrea da Perugia after leaving the murder scene.

For one cell phone come came to rest nearly 60 feet away from the highway, while the other one was found less than 20 feet away from the same road, buried under some dead leaves and brambles, according to the most detailed description of what I have read about this.

I believe that if Rudy Guede, (who many believe threw an 8 pound rock thru Filomena's window), wanted to get rid of 2 incriminating cell phones while walking or running on the side of the highway after murdering Meredith Kercher, he probably would have thrown both of those cell phones A LOT farther away into what probably probably looked like woods from the side of the Via Andrea da Perugia road...

Was it Rudy who threw the phones away?
Or someone else that was in a car?

So I wonder why Rudy, who many agree can accurately throw a nice sized rock nearly the same distance thru a woman's window at night, can't seem to throw, on a downhill trajectory, a much lighter cell phone any further then 20 feet from the side of a highway while walking or running on it.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Danceme]

Thanks for the explanation. So what would cause someone to come back with a false positive, if they are HIV negative?

It appears common to get a false positive on the ELISA test. On the Alive and Well site there's an article called Questioning the Test, which list a number of common reasons including antibodies produced in response to a cold or flu or the presence of the herpes virus (which Amanda does have).

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

I want make an additional point about the diary. I asked you whether Amanda was aware of the regulations about her writings being subject to confiscation. I see that Amanda answered the question herself in her testimony:

CDV: And this diary which is in the dossier, from the period of Oct 8 to Dec 29, 2007, when you were in prison, do you remember what happened?

AK: Yes. They called me downstairs and told me that they had to confiscate some things in my room. They told me I could either go up with them and do what I wanted and they would come later with a warrant, or I could let them take whatever they wanted spontaneously. I said they could, so they came up with me and they came into my room and looked in all my things, and they took everything on which I had written anything.

If the police were entitled to search and seize Amanda's belongings without her permission, they wouldn't have needed a warrant.

I don't see how this passage shows Amanda actually answers your question above. It describes an event but gives no indication of whether she knew her things were not private in a jail cell. I would think any young american growing up watching all the crime shows on TV could hardly be unaware of your loss of privacy expectations in a prison setting.

Isn't an inmate's mail even read before they can send it out or receive it?

 

[Withnail1969]

Yeah, me too. And I will say I never wanted to kill anyone because of it. I totally disagree that coke would have any part in this murder. On the contrary - if they had been doing coke, they would have been far more preoccupied with doing and/or getting more than killing someone. Amanda had money in the bank so it wouldn't have been motivated by robbery motivated by coke either.

exactly what i was trying to say earlier, it's ludicrous beyond belief to suggest they would have murdered someone because they were so out of control on a gram of poor quality Perugia coke.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, am I to take it from this response to Chris that you have decided to stop talking about the issue of the HIV test and the diary? That's a shame, because I was really hoping you would at least take a stab at my question about assigning responsibility. I see it as an important question, because it is one of the defining characteristics of the giant chasm that separates the colpevoliisti from the innocentisiti.

I want make an additional point about the diary. I asked you whether Amanda was aware of the regulations about her writings being subject to confiscation. I see that Amanda answered the question herself in her testimony:

I left several threads suspended, not just this point.

I can give the obvious answer that I have no idea of what Amanda knew, because I'm not inside her mind. I can equally state that responsability is a concept which may not just depend on what Amanda knows or thinks. This is why the example of an accident in a left driving country. One may be responsible also for knowing or not knowing things, but even while not knowing things in advance one may be responsible just for taking or not taking precautions, for what an action may cause. And the concept of "responsability" is not the only one implied and not necessaryli comes into play, in cases of normal mistakes we do in life we rest on the sheer concept of cause and effect. Amanda's diary and her persnal taste of what to write in it, are the necessary cause to what was published.

There isn't an explicit rule by which specifically her writings are subject to confiscantion, in fact they were not confiscated, they are phisically still her property, but they can be seized and are subject to investigation, because Amanda is a formal suspect. Obviously the police needs a mandate to search her belongings, but not necessarily a prosecutor's mandate. Her correspondence can be equally subjected to reading and investigation, but not to censorship.

The matter of the publication of Amanda's writing does not rest on rules and regulations. There is a more general rule, a general principle, which is whatever a suspect says outside the court in extra judicial context, even before thye became suspects, can be considered as statement and is equally assessed by judges just as statements given in court. This general principle is pervasive in the Italian system, like the right of defendants to lie, like the left driving in the UK. Inmates might well know it, Amanda might well have known her writings could be read, as well as she knew her private conversations in prison were recorded. Anyway this is a principle, not a specific regulation.

If you want an example of what "diary" means in prison, you have it from one of the earliest Frank Sfarzo's articles, when he wrote his blog in Italian. His description of Raffaele's diary:


Perugia Shock - Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Perugia Shock archive - December 2007

Professione Scrittore

Dal diario di Raffaele come prima cosa si evince come non sia un documento genuino. Oltre a sapere, ovviamente, che tutto quanto da lui scritto viene analizzato da chi di dovere (giudici, poliziotti, psichiatri, etc) il cocco di papà sa di redarre un documento destinato alla pubblicazione. A un secondino, infatti, dice "Dimmi il tuo nome, così ti cito nel diario e diventi famoso".
Raffaele, quindi, resosi perfettamente conto della macchina mediatica creatasi attorno a lui, lavora per lei. Scrive letteralmente un diario su commissione.

Ormai pensa di essere un Re Mida, un Gesù, dotato del potere di cambiare la vita a una persona semplicemente scrivendone il nome.

Per rendere il documento credibile, non dimentica di usare uno stile che gli è proprio, tuttavia lo stile rimane comunque molto diverso da quello del blog. Vi è, quindi, un attento controllo della forma così come del contenuto.

Il tentativo di rifarsi un'immagine è evidente. Viene, infatti ripetuto il proposito di astenersi dalle canne, ci sono molti riferimenti a Dio, a Gesù a qualcuno che lo guarda dall'alto (e in effetti il ragazzo sembra proprio aver la tentazione di paragonarsi a Gesù in croce). Sotto questo aspetto va letta anche l'autocritica ai suoi passati comportamenti, sia anche il ringraziamento al destino che l'ha voluto benestante. Sono quelle normali tecniche di captatio benevolentiae. Il giudizio del pubblico è importante.

Per quanto riguarda i fatti, il diario di Raffaele non è altro che una risposta a quello che è stato scoperto. Per esempio, è stato scoperto che non vi era attività umana al computer. E lui giustifica la cosa col fatto che proprio perché era a letto con Amanda non ha usato il computer. E' stato scoperto il Dna sul suo coltello. E lui giustifica la cosa col fatto che una volta, cucinando, aveva punto Meredith.

E così almeno sappiamo che la sostanza biologica sul coltello era sangue. Ricordo, infatti, che la traccia era talmente esigua da non poter far risalire alla natura della sostanza. Addiruttura la squadra del sorriso si era spinta a dire che la sostanza sicuramente non era sangue.

Da cosa nasce cosa, e così capiamo anche il funzionamento mentale della squadra del sorriso.
Loro avevano detto di avere le prove che la sostanza non era sangue (quando neanche la scientifica può dirlo). Sono gli stessi che dicono di avere le prove che al computer vi era attività umana. Sono gli stessi che dicono di aver dimostrato che l'impronta di scarpa era tre numeri superiori alla scarpa di Raffaele.

In effetti qualche dubbio era sorto a tutti sulle loro sicurezze, per quanto recitate con estrema convinzione. Tutti ci siamo chiesti ma se è così perché la procura pensa il contrario? Due sono le cose. O sbaglia la Procura o sbagliano loro.
Ora, le vie dell'errore sono infinite e alla fine Raffaele, così come Amanda, potrebbe anche non entrarci niente.
Ma è anche grazie a simili particolari, tipo quelli che possiamo notare sul diario, che la sensazione è che sbaglino loro. E fin quando sbagliano Raffaele continuerà ad essere R-AF-faele.

F.S. at 6:27 PM 6

 

[Machiavelli]

Frank correctly spots that Raffaele Sollecito's diary is not exactly "badly written", it is not a case of spontaneous writing with casaul grammar misakes due to poor control of the language. The language used by Raffaele is artificial and purposedly crooked even in the grammar structures and lexial choices. Raffaele hasn't a poor grammar control and is perfectly able to express thought immediately and unambiguously - as shown by his writing style in his blog page - but in this writing he follows the crooked purpose to explain his position while appearing spontaneous, but avoiding to make clear details, issues and ambiguities.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If. Mabye if.
But you are putting this statement under "if" before others.
" If anybody is able to proof for certain that Meredith died at 21:10.. "

But nobody up to now is able to proof for certain such a thing. Only you claim you have a proof, and I disagree from the roots even from asserting the remote possibility that anyone could formulate this assertion. Even in normal conditions I would consider foolish the attempt to state a ToD with an error of less than 1 hour based on the sole quantity of the stomach content. I simply reject entirely all your conclusion based on "literature", in fact I would even reject the very faesability of such a research. You will never be remotely able to state a time of death at 21:10, even less with your concept odìf certainity. In this case Your order of logic bond to this "if" is useless to me.

Well look. This is the JREF forums, where reason, logic and scientific fact are used to solve problems.

Blind denial of scientific fact based on no reason or logic at all doesn't cut any ice here.

If you at some later stage come up with something other than blind denial we are here to talk about it. It's what we do. However until then it's obvious that you are articulating cult doctrine, not stating a rational position.

Meanwhile here in the reality-based community we'll go on talking about the facts of matter, which show that Meredith definitely died before 22:00 while Amanda and Raffaele were at home watching cartoons, and almost certainly died around 21:10 when even the prosecution narrative agrees that Amanda and Raffaele were at home.

One of the most amazing things about living in 2010 is that all around the world, trained minds are engaging in rigorous science to find out more about this wonderful universe we live in, and publishing their data in journals which anyone can access if they care to make the effort. Knowledge that previous generations could only have dreamed of possessing is available in easily searchable, thoroughly indexed form. All you have to do is learn enough about science to understand it.

I think it's sad that you seem to want to keep living in the dark ages just to cling to your belief that Knox is guilty no matter what, but I can't live your life for you. We'll be here for you if you change your mind. Come on in, the Enlightenment is fine.

 

[Withnail1969]

..

 

[Machiavelli]

Well look. This is the JREF forums, where reason, logic and scientific fact are used to solve problems.

Blind denial of scientific fact based on no reason or logic at all doesn't cut any ice here.

I invite you to speak for yourself.

Those rantings on philosophic principles ruling the dialogue are not new from you, I've read them already. I invite you to manifest respect for others opinions, especially before knowing them, instead of arbitrarily define them "blind" and "denial".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, I don't agree with this at all. I haven't been following the case closely for long, I have nothing vested in whether they are guilty or not. I have no clue what is correct about the time of death, you guys say that it's reliable, others say it's not. This is why I am really looking forward to the appeals. If this is so easily proven, that a bunch of people on a forum (I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, that describes me as well, obviously) can prove that there is no way Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, then it should be an easy win, right?

In an ideal world, where judges and juries are rational, yes, absolutely.

However the last lot weren't, based on the nonsensical arguments made in the Massei report, and I have no opinion on whether the next lot will be.

And I've been thinking about what someone said in regards to the defense experts, and how their opinions matter as well. This frustrates me, because it seems to happen in a lot of cases; experts for the prosecution say one thing, defense experts say the opposite. How are the judges or juries supposed to know which is correct? They obviously have no scientific training, so what is the point?

It's a really serious problem, and the thing is it's not supposed to happen. If competent and honest experts are hired by both sides they should be saying substantially the same things, only with different emphasis.

In this case the prosecution experts were making claims that we now know were just plain wrong about the time of death. The defence experts were correct in putting the time of death at 21:30 give or take a bit, and the prosecution experts were blatantly ignoring known scientific fact to put it at 23:30.

We can't tell from our perspective whether they were delusional or actively dishonest, but something was sure as hell going on.

As for what a court is supposed to do in that situation, well, a court is supposed to call on additional experts to sort out the truth but Massei refused to do that. He knew what set of opinions he liked and he planned to ignore the ones he didn't.

As for what a jury is supposed to do, a jury in that situation has a real problem. There are enough wild leaps of logic in the Massei report that I am still of the view that a rational and impartial juror could not possibly convict someone based on that narrative, but I don't blame lay jurors for being confused about the forensic evidence after what they heard.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've just learned something. I never knew "the Major" had a surname. But Gowen, it is. I just saw it in the credits at the end of the program.

But was as the name "Gowan" ever spoken during any of the episodes? I've seen them all. And I don't think I ever once heard it.

Completely OT of course, but worth it to inject a tiny amount of levity into this evening's proceedings:

I seem to recall that in one episode Fawlty introduces the Major to either a hotel guest or a visitor to the hotel by saying "May I introduce Major Gowen, our longest-standing resident".

Now you may put that down to some sort of near-autistic recall on my behalf, or I might be totally mistaken, but I think he says it. I might do some pointless sleuthing as much for my sanity as for actual verification purposes...

 

[LondonJohn]

Completely OT of course, but worth it to inject a tiny amount of levity into this evening's proceedings:

I seem to recall that in one episode Fawlty introduces the Major to either a hotel guest or a visitor to the hotel by saying "May I introduce Major Gowen, our longest-standing resident".

Now you may put that down to some sort of near-autistic recall on my behalf, or I might be totally mistaken, but I think he says it. I might do some pointless sleuthing as much for my sanity as for actual verification purposes...

Man I'm good!

The often-maligned google came up trumps again, and I was triumphantly proven right! He said this exact line to the saucy French guest Mrs Peignoir in the "Wedding Party" episode:

http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/109085

Now back to using google for more pertinent scientific research........

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I invite you to speak for yourself.

Those rantings on philosophic principles ruling the dialogue are not new from you, I've read them already.

Ah, but have you understood them?

I invite you to manifest respect for others opinions, especially before knowing them, instead of arbitrarily define them "blind" and "denial".

Are you saying that what you have posted is not your opinion, so we don't know it yet? If so, what have you been posting?

I have been going on the assumption that what you have been posting is the best defence you have of your cult doctrine regarding the Kercher murder, and I'm not going to manifest any respect for that opinion because I don't respect opinions that seem to me to be based on wilful ignorance.

You are not the first pro-guilt speaker to claim that they have a fantastic argument to show that the time of death can plausibly be 23:30 despite the stomach evidence, but that they just don't feel like posting it yet. I do not find any of these claims credible.

I believe that you, and in fact everyone amongst your community, would very dearly love to take me down a peg or two by citing a peer-reviewed scientific source that contradicted my position. If you had something to bring to the table then damned right we'd be hearing about it. I conclude from the fact that you haven't posted it that you just don't have it.

What would reflect an honourable degree of intellectual honesty, if I am correct about your lack of a counter-argument, would be to say "I honestly have no answer to your arguments about the time of death, and indeed if they stand then Knox and Sollecito are innocent. However I want to do some more research before I conclude that you are right". This silly business of claiming you have an argument but not posting it is not an effective argument around here, especially since you are the fourth or fifth person to try adopting this pose.

 

[Chris C]

Well, finally a topic I have some experience on! I don't know if Amanda and Raffaele did coke, I haven't seen anything regarding that yet. I do know that what happens after that hour of happiness, or once the coke runs out, is really ugly. It is the worst, most horrible feeling you can imagine. You aren't comfortable in your own skin, you feel like you'd rather die that sit there without any coke. It's an indescribable feeling. I can see someone coming off of coke (called as being on a "downer") killing someone or becoming violent. So although I have no reason to think that happened in this case, I don't think your assertion is correct that coke has no relation to violence.

Yeah but we also know Knox was not broke, she had money in the bank. The first thing she would have done if she was addicted to coke would be to run to the atm and head straight to the coke dealer.(if she was coming down from a high and felt compelled to do anything) Typically speaking, drug addicts dont start robbing and killing until they are broke themselves. So unless Meredith herself was the coke/pot dealer they would have no reason to return to her when crashing. A crashing drug user returns to their supplier.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I invite you to speak for yourself.

Those rantings on philosophic principles ruling the dialogue are not new from you, I've read them already. I invite you to manifest respect for others opinions, especially before knowing them, instead of arbitrarily define them "blind" and "denial".

If your opinion is not blind, than what informs it? If it is not rooted in denial, then what does it affirm? From what I can see, you have made a categorical assertion with no supporting references.

Here is something I posted awhile back, scanned from a book I own:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden01.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden02.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden03.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden04.gif

This guy is considered one of the world's top forensic pathologists. What is your source?

 

[LondonJohn]

It appears common to get a false positive on the ELISA test. On the Alive and Well site there's an article called Questioning the Test, which list a number of common reasons including antibodies produced in response to a cold or flu or the presence of the herpes virus (which Amanda does have).

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

I believe that the article in the "Alive & Well" site which you quoted may be out of date in regard to the commonality of false positives to the ELISA test. When ELISA was first introduced, it was set up to minimise false negatives, and as a result it tolerated a reasonably high rate of false positives. But since the mid 1990s the test has been refined to bring down the incidence of false positives - mainly to reduce the need for second, more expensive Western Blot tests for confirmation or negation of the ELISA positive.

I am off to bed so I don't want to search for documentary evidence in this area right now, but I will look tomorrow.

Incidentally, I don't know if you were aware of it, but "Alive & Well" is an advocacy group which questions the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS. Here's what they say about themselves:

"What We Do

Most, if not all impartial scientific findings on AIDS contrast with orthodox views and mainstream opinions. Based on this growing body of scientific, medical, and epidemiological evidence, Alive & Well provides information that raises questions about the accuracy of HIV tests, the safety and effectiveness of AIDS drug treatment, and the validity of most common assumptions about HIV and AIDS. Our mission is to open much needed dialogue on HIV, to advocate for unprejudiced scientific research on AIDS, to assist people in making truly informed decisions about their lives and health, and to provide legal, medical and peer support for HIV positives seeking immune-enhancing alternatives to toxic AIDS interventions."

 

[Chris C]

No I am not saying the chain of custody was violated (and not "on evidence", I am talking of copies of files), I am saying there was no chain of custody on the content of Amanda's diary. I recall again, in addition, that the content of her diary was not secret.

So what your saying is its not a violation of chain of custody for the Press to sit down and go through evidence seized by the prosecution. Then take photocopies of her diaries and release this information to the public.

 

[Machiavelli]

This guy is considered one of the world's top forensic pathologists. What is your source?

But - despite this book is obviously a divulgative essay - just a curiosity: did you read the pages you posted? Did you really read them entirely?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

If your opinion is not blind, than what informs it? If it is not rooted in denial, then what does it affirm? From what I can see, you have made a categorical assertion with no supporting references.

Here is something I posted awhile back, scanned from a book I own:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden01.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden02.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden03.gif
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/baden04.gif

This guy is considered one of the world's top forensic pathologists. What is your source?

CW,

I think I read about that very case when researching ToD and stomach contents. Specific names were redacted but it stated 3 children ate identical pizza meals at a specifically known time. It sure seems like it had to be that case. What is the name of that book - Unnatural Death? It looks fascinating.

 

[Machiavelli]

So what your saying is its not a violation of chain of custody for the Press to sit down and go through evidence seized by the prosecution. Then take photocopies of her diaries and release this information to the public.

No, it is not a violation for anyone. But here you are not talking about "evidence seized by the prosecution", you are talking about photocopies. The press - or anyone- can browse though photocopies in possession of a lawyer or a policeman? Obviously they can. Moreover, the diary was, at the time not, legally seized by the prosecution. It was handed over by Amanda herself, who complied to a request from the judicial police. So its first legal qualification was probably not even as "evidence" at all, but simply statements that she accepted to release to the police.

 

[loverofzion]

Their alibi ends at 8:42, as I were saying.

Actually they had SEVERAL great alibis.