Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

I've yet to read a straightforward and reasonable narrative that puts Rudy as the lone killer while explaining all the evidence. Take the footprint on the bathmat for example. I've heard that it was Rudy's, I've also heard it's Amanda's. I've heard that Rudy wore his sneakers into the bathroom, I've also heard that he was barefoot.

Amanda said that Filomena's door was closed, Raffelle said it was open. And that's just two examples that show there is no straightforward and reasonable narrative.

Alt+F4, I agree, there's a problem with every narrative. I believe Rudy was wearing shoes the entire time. The theory that he went into the bathroom to wash his pant legs of blood so he could go into the dark night and walk the 10 minutes home without being seen with blood on his pant leg doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Unless he was wearing white pants the stain from either wet blood or water would not be too different or detectable in the dark.

If Rudy had to go into the bathroom, where are the drips of blood from his pants or the bloody shoeprints? If his shoes were clean and he only got them bloody by returning to the room for the keys, where did he step in the blood? There is a clear path to the beige purse as well as the purse on the bed which doesn't require him to step in any blood at all.

 

[RoseMontague]

I could explain what the Williams/Rose quote has to do with some of the opinions surrounding this case [as I understood the quote] but given that the mods are overworked and I'm from the science as opposed to literature field I'll leave it to Rose to explain if she wishes.

ETA This is both OT and strangely apposite

Nice to have you here and I appreciate you catching the reference.

 

[katy_did]

It's my understanding that the evidence of him (either DNA or fingerprints) was found on the toilet paper and not what he left in the toilet bowl.

I think it was on used toilet paper... (i.e. in the bowl, so would've been flushed away).

 

[Katody Matrass]

What is the "innocent explanation"? If it is so innocent, why was it rejected by the court?

Hello Alt+F4, the court made an error, that's clear to us having all the information about the case and the reasoning of the court in the motivation. The reasons of that error are complex and I think involve some cognitive factors, maybe some political. Mistakes were made on the part of the ILE, the defense, the prosecution and the court. I hope we'll live to see some kind of analysis of them after the case will conclude in court, but for now it looks like a typical case of wrongful conviction - LE blinded by tunnel vision and confirmation bias, overzealous prosecutor pushing such tainted case through a favorable court.

I've yet to read a straightforward and reasonable narrative that puts Rudy as the lone killer while explaining all the evidence. Take the footprint on the bathmat for example. I've heard that it was Rudy's, I've also heard it's Amanda's. I've heard that Rudy wore his sneakers into the bathroom, I've also heard that he was barefoot.

Amanda said that Filomena's door was closed, Raffelle said it was open. And that's just two examples that show there is no straightforward and reasonable narrative.

I'm glad that you decided to revisit those topics that were discussed not long ago. While I search the forum to see on what have we suspended the discussion why don't you think about a few problems that I have with the colpevolisti's story:
How and why did the kitchen knife from Raffaele's got to the cottage?
What was the motive of the murder?
How did Amanda manage to persuade a student she knew for a week and another stranger to get involved in a killing?

 

[LondonJohn]

Alt+F4, I agree, there's a problem with every narrative. I believe Rudy was wearing shoes the entire time. The theory that he went into the bathroom to wash his pant legs of blood so he could go into the dark night and walk the 10 minutes home without being seen with blood on his pant leg doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Unless he was wearing white pants the stain from either wet blood or water would not be too different or detectable in the dark.

If Rudy had to go into the bathroom, where are the drips of blood from his pants or the bloody shoeprints? If his shoes were clean and he only got them bloody by returning to the room for the keys, where did he step in the blood? There is a clear path to the beige purse as well as the purse on the bed which doesn't require him to step in any blood at all.

But Guede's bloody shoeprints were almost certainly deposited on the pillow underneath Meredith, which suggests that he stepped on the pillow after stepping in some of the pooling blood. He very possibly repositioned Meredith's body slightly - necessitating him placing his feet very near to her body - and it's likely that he placed the duvet over her at the same time. He also probably had to search in her bedside drawer to find her money.

And regarding the blood-on-trousers issue, it's fair to point out that blood on dark jeans would look similar to water. But on mid-coloured trousers, it would be recognisably dark red; and in any case, even if the blood were hard to identify as such, I think it's entirely logical that one would prefer to be walking around town with a water patch on one's trousers than a blood patch. Blood also smells of iron and salts, so that's another possible reason to wash it off.

As far as blood dripping is concerned, it's very unlikely that Guede's (or any killer's, for that matter) trousers would have become so saturated in blood during the attack that blood was literally dripping off. Most trousers are made of pretty absorbent material, so any blood would have soaked into the material and stayed put.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I think it's highly unlikely that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window because there is no evidence of him ever being in that room. I've heard time and time again that Amanda couldn't have murdered Meredith because there is no evidence of her being in the bedroom. Fair enough. So how is it logical that Rudy might not leave evidence of being in Filomena's rooom but it's impossible for Amanda to not leave evidnece of being in Meredith's room?

Because they barely tested Filomena's room, while carrying out extensive tests in Meredith's room. Charlie can say more on this, perhaps, but I think it was just the luminol positive marks, the rock, the presumed blood/hair on the window... Maybe one or two more? Contrast that with the many, many tests carried out in Meredith's room, most of them on areas of visible blood stains (of which there was only one in Filomena's room, which gave no result). The police obviously assumed at the time they would find all the evidence they needed in Meredith's room, and didn't anticipate the prosecution would be trying to convict people of whom there was barely a trace in the room where the murder happened (and no trace at all, in Amanda's case).

When you add to that the fact that a violent struggle ending in rape/murder is highly likely to leave DNA evidence of those involved, while simply being in a room is less likely to do so, that they found no DNA from Rudy in Filomena's room isn't difficult to explain. And as I pointed out, if Rudy had only flushed, there'd have been no evidence he was in the large bathroom either.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes
They were on a desperate quest for anything they could use to support their claim.

Why?

Why do YOU think?



Quote:
They didn't bother to investigate whose blood was on the tissues in the driveway outside the cottage. They didn't try to figure out whose DNA was on the cigarette butts in the ashtray. All they cared about was finding evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Alt + F4:
Why?

Alt + F4: Perhaps YOU could shed some light? From YOUR perspective? It would appear pretty obvious to most readers and surely it is unfair to expect each and every statement to be explained umpteen times - IMHO it simply clogs up and clutters the thread. There have been other posts for this very reason in my opinion. Puerile attempts to derail the thread and extremely childish.

Hopefully, the discussion can now get back on track and no further suspensions will be deemed necessary by the lovely Moderators.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think it was on used toilet paper... (i.e. in the bowl, so would've been flushed away).

Ah, ok I think you're right about that. So the question becomes why didn't he flush the toilet? Also, why didn't Amanda flush the toilet when she says she saw it on the morning after the murder? Everyone who has lived with another person (family, roommates, lovers, etc.) has a one time or another come across an unflushed toilet. Hey, it happens. Who doesn't flush when you see it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol, interferences, and presumptivity of the luminol test

To all,

I found some quotes in Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913. This paper is linked at the Friends of Amanda web site, and I have discussed it previously.

“The most problematic chemicals for a correct interpretation of luminol test results are those which provoke intensification or a generation of a chemiluminescence emission even if blood is not present, leading to false-positive results. Due to the possible presence of these substances at the crime scene, the luminol test must not be considered sufficiently specific to permit an unequivocal identification of blood [15,18,51,88,89].

Those compounds which generate luminol chemiluminescence, or enhance the luminol emission in the presence of bloodstains can be divide into three major categories (Fig. 13):

1. compounds showing a catalytic true peroxidase or peroxidase-like activity;
2. compounds with a high oxidizing capacity towards luminol;
3. compounds with a complex chemical composition with an undefined action mechanism towards luminol mixture.

The first group encompasses inorganic or bioinorganic species and undoubtedly is the major source of luminol interferences as these compounds often show excellent catalyzing properties in redox reactions such as that involving luminol oxidation and are widely distributed in the environment and in plants. In general three main types may be characterized in this group: free metal ions, in most cases included in inorganic compounds such as rust or soils; biological complexes between metal ions and organic components (such as metal–porphyrins, and including bacterial or plant pigments) often within protein structures; enzymes belonging to the oxidoreductases class such as horseradish-peroxidases.” (emphasis added)

SNIP

“Generally visual examination is used when the luminol test is employed in a forensic situation, rather than instrumental detection of the luminescence. An experienced practitioner may
distinguish the true blood-catalyzed chemiluminescence from that produced by other substances by the evaluation of parameters observable to the naked eye such as emission intensity,
duration and spatial distribution. However this approach may also lead to misinterpretation, due to a subjective, informal and non-quantitative evaluation, for example, because its intensity is
qualitatively much weaker than that expected for blood. In other circumstances an emission of similar intensity may be thought to derive from diluted bloodstains and is accepted. Therefore,
caution should be exercised when using the test. Any confusion which may arise over a stain can usually be resolved by an intelligent observation and, if necessary, by further testing [73], for example, by using a different presumptive test for blood, such as the immunochromatographic test for the confirmation of human blood presence Hexagon OBTI (Human GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany) [137].”

I doubt presumptivity is a word (yet), but perhaps Lewis Carroll would be amused. It is intended to differentiate between whether a test is presumptive or conclusive.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What is the connection between false confessions and Amanda Knox? She never confessed to murdering Meredith.

The substance of her Nov 5/6 statements, the means by which they were elicited, later written statements strongly indicate a persuaded false confession mechanism.

Persuaded false confessions occur when police interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and become temporarily persuaded that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime of which he is being accused, despite the fact that he has no memory or actual knowledge of committing it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it was on used toilet paper... (i.e. in the bowl, so would've been flushed away).

Yes, that's right. The bacteria in the faeces had made it untestable for DNA, but I'm guessing that there were skin cells present on the used paper.

 

[Alt+F4]

Hello Alt+F4, the court made an error, that's clear to us having all the information about the case and the reasoning of the court in the motivation.

You have all the information about the case? It's about 10,000 pages and in Italian. Might I ask how you were able to gain access to all of it? Are you fluent in Italian? Did you pay the 2 Euro a page the court was charging for the documentation?

How and why did the kitchen knife from Raffaele's got to the cottage?

You're new to this sub-forum so I'll be brief in my answer as to not annoy other posters who have already heard my theory. The kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment never left his apartment. It's not the murder weapon. Raffaele believed it was because he was so high on drugs he didn't know what knife was used. He made up a lie about the knife to cover his tracks.

What was the motive of the murder?

No motive is necessary for someone to commit murder but in this case I think it was a combination of drugs and a situation that just got out of control.

How did Amanda manage to persuade a student she knew for a week and another stranger to get involved in a killing?

She didn't. I don't think she was an active participant in the murder at all. I believe her initial statement that she was in the living room with her hands over her ears when the murder took place.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because they barely tested Filomena's room, while carrying out extensive tests in Meredith's room. Charlie can say more on this, perhaps, but I think it was just the luminol positive marks, the rock, the presumed blood/hair on the window... Maybe one or two more? Contrast that with the many, many tests carried out in Meredith's room, most of them on areas of visible blood stains (of which there was only one in Filomena's room, which gave no result). The police obviously assumed at the time they would find all the evidence they needed in Meredith's room, and didn't anticipate the prosecution would be trying to convict people of whom there was barely a trace in the room where the murder happened (and no trace at all, in Amanda's case).

When you add to that the fact that a violent struggle ending in rape/murder is highly likely to leave DNA evidence of those involved, while simply being in a room is less likely to do so, that they found no DNA from Rudy in Filomena's room isn't difficult to explain. And as I pointed out, if Rudy had only flushed, there'd have been no evidence he was in the large bathroom either.

And, in addition, it's highly likely that if Guede did break into Filomena's room via her window, he would have been wearing gloves (for personal safety vis-a-vis glass fragments, as well as a desire to avoid leaving prints or DNA). I imagine that the gloves might have stayed on if the burglary had gone as planned, in which case it's likely that Guede would have left no forensic evidence of his presence at the crime scene. However, the arrival of Meredith would have changed the whole dynamic. It's only because Guede must have removed gloves (if he had been wearing them to start with), and because he stepped in blood, that the police found forensic evidence at all of his presence in Meredith's room and the hallway.

 

[katy_did]

Hey, don't go dissing science Katy!

However, I do think that you have a point in saying that discussions about this case can get a little bogged down in very narrow scientific discourse. On the other hand, scientific analysis can provide levels of objective certainty that simply may not be possible any other way.

No no, I'm fascinated by science! Mostly brains rather than stomachs, it has to be said, but even so. I remember seeing Susan Greenfield talking about how she first knew she wanted to be a neuroscientist when she was dissecting a brain and got a bit of it on her fingernail, and she wondered whether it was a bit of someone's imagination, or of their childhood memories, or something else... And I thought, that's so cool.

So I wasn't dissing science, just complimenting Rose's clever literary references. Mark Waterbury's use of science and literature in his recent articles is quite a nice amalgamation of the two.

But instead of accepting that the testimony of the people in the broken-down car makes the ToD only possible before 10.15pm or after 11.45pm, Massei instead appears to completely ignore this inconvenient factor in his conclusions on the timeline. He doesn't even bother to say that he disregards the testimony of the broken-down car people - he just seems to flat-out ignore the massive contradiction that their testimony places at the heart of his narrative.

Yes, the absence is glaring. This and other similar holes in Massei's logic are what almost make me think he wrote the thing so that it could be overturned...

 

[Danceme]

But Guede's bloody shoeprints were almost certainly deposited on the pillow underneath Meredith, which suggests that he stepped on the pillow after stepping in some of the pooling blood.

Yes, I think he undoubtedly stepped in blood during the assault. So if his shoes were bloody, did he then remove them before he went to the bathroom for towels?

He very possibly repositioned Meredith's body slightly - necessitating him placing his feet very near to her body - and it's likely that he placed the duvet over her at the same time. He also probably had to search in her bedside drawer to find her money.

If he searched her bedside drawer after the assault, with his shoes already bloody, there should be bloody shoeprints on the floor in front of the bedside table and most likely bloody fingerprints on the drawer itself. Were his shoeprints and fingerprints found here? I know there was one toward the end of her bed by the doorway but haven't heard they were also by the bedside table.

And regarding the blood-on-trousers issue, it's fair to point out that blood on dark jeans would look similar to water. But on mid-coloured trousers, it would be recognisably dark red; and in any case, even if the blood were hard to identify as such, I think it's entirely logical that one would prefer to be walking around town with a water patch on one's trousers than a blood patch. Blood also smells of iron and salts, so that's another possible reason to wash it off.

As far as blood dripping is concerned, it's very unlikely that Guede's (or any killer's, for that matter) trousers would have become so saturated in blood during the attack that blood was literally dripping off. Most trousers are made of pretty absorbent material, so any blood would have soaked into the material and stayed put.

I agree about the blood on trousers but I also think that after the attack, if Rudy had gone to the small bathroom, there would have been a trail of bloody footprints showing this. After all, he supposedly straddled Meredith from behind while she was on her knees, and stabbed her in the throat three times likely while she struggled at least a little. His feet would likely have changed position more than once while restraining her and likely have come in contact with the blood. His trail of bloody footprints show him going straight out the front door. It doesn't seem possible that he could have avoided stepping in blood during the attack, therefore not leaving a trail heading to the bathroom and back, yet he steps in it while he returns to look for the keys. Does this ring true for you?

 

[Alt+F4]

The substance of her Nov 5/6 statements, the means by which they were elicited, later written statements strongly indicate a persuaded false confession mechanism.

According to your quote: "Persuaded false confessions occur when police interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and become temporarily persuaded that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime of which he is being accused, despite the fact that he has no memory or actual knowledge of committing it."

Again, Amanda never, ever in any way, shape or form said or suggested that she, herself committed the crime. There is NO false confession in this case, just a false accusation.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Alt+F4,
Here's my post from last time I wrote about the issue of open/closed doors. Feel free to review the discussion and respond to it.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're new to this sub-forum so I'll be brief in my answer as to not annoy other posters who have already heard my theory. The kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment never left his apartment. It's not the murder weapon. Raffaele believed it was because he was so high on drugs he didn't know what knife was used. He made up a lie about the knife to cover his tracks.

I don't think I can remember this theory of yours from previous posts (apologies). If the kitchen knife never left Sollecito's apartment, how did Meredith's DNA come to be on the blade? Presumably you'd argue that the DNA finding was either due to contamination or secondary transfer of some kind? And if the kitchen knife wasn't involved, what knife (or knives) were the murder weapons?

 

[Alt+F4]

And, in addition, it's highly likely that if Guede did break into Filomena's room via her window, he would have been wearing gloves (for personal safety vis-a-vis glass fragments, as well as a desire to avoid leaving prints or DNA). I imagine that the gloves might have stayed on if the burglary had gone as planned, in which case it's likely that Guede would have left no forensic evidence of his presence at the crime scene. However, the arrival of Meredith would have changed the whole dynamic. It's only because Guede must have removed gloves (if he had been wearing them to start with), and because he stepped in blood, that the police found forensic evidence at all of his presence in Meredith's room and the hallway.

There is no evidence that he wore gloves. Was he wearing gloves when he broke into the kindergarten?

 

[Katody Matrass]

You have all the information about the case? It's about 10,000 pages and in Italian. Might I ask how you were able to gain access to all of it? Are you fluent in Italian? Did you pay the 2 Euro a page the court was charging for the documentation?

I meant of course all the information that is available. If you have some hidden information please share. If you simply believe that the court had some undisclosed information that decisively indicates guilt, than this discussion is futile, because you cannot provide that information, so it is like discussing God's existence.

You're new to this sub-forum so I'll be brief in my answer as to not annoy other posters who have already heard my theory. The kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment never left his apartment. It's not the murder weapon. Raffaele believed it was because he was so high on drugs he didn't know what knife was used. He made up a lie about the knife to cover his tracks.



No motive is necessary for someone to commit murder but in this case I think it was a combination of drugs and a situation that just got out of control.



She didn't. I don't think she was an active participant in the murder at all. I believe her initial statement that she was in the living room with her hands over her ears when the murder took place.

That's food for thought
I see that we agree that the court made an error.