Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[SomeAlibi]

You obviously don't appreciate that I'm objecting to the use of the pejorative term "fit up" as part of an implicit suggestion that to believe Sollecito's conviction is unsafe is to believe that he was "fitted up".

You have said repeatedly that you don't believe there is any supporting evidence for their prosecution. You can't have it both ways.

 

[LondonJohn]

On your first point, there is another mechanism which is if the stain was made by someone exiting the shower from where they were showering. The orientation of the bathmat could have been changed by Amanda if she really did a bathmat shuffle where she replaced it where it should go in her own words. But not the very unlikely rotation point.

On the second, there wouldn't be if they had been cleaned. We know that there isn't any evidence of egregiously stepping in the main areas of blood. Meredith was killed in the far corner of the room, on her knees facing away from the attackers who were restraining her. We know that *no-one* stepped in the very thickest part of the blood stains.

On the reason for the bathmat still being left there, Amanda and Raffaele were reported as being "startled" when the police turned up and they were sat with the mops outside the house, probably trying to get some fresh air and think. They knew they had a number of problems outstanding as they had not yet finished with the clean-up. She knew there was blood on the faucet, in the sink and on the mat which she nevertheless used to do the bathmat shuffle despite the fact that she thought it was menstrual blood (one look at it, makes this very hard to believe, surely, even to people who believe her) and that it was "ewwww". Amanda detailed all of these locations of blood in her extraordinarily micro-detailed alibi creation in her email home to friends and family written in the small hours of the fourth of November.

She knew she had to account for all of it and came up with all of the ideas in that extraordinary 2,900 word email in the early hours of the 4th, 1,900 words of which are taken up by the incredibly fine detail of her movements on the 1st and 2nd *before* the finding of the body. It smacks of someone trying to create a detailed alibi for themselves before they have to go back for questioning. It's an email where there is one reference to Meredith being "beautiful, funny". There are no references in 2,900 words whatsoever about feelings of grief, fright, horror, terrible thoughts about if she suffered, *nothing* that one gets from friends in such situations. She does talk about being "bummed" about having to move out of the house though...

Would those mops be the ones which had only water in them (i.e. no trace of bleach or any oxidising agent), and which had no trace whatsoever of blood or DNA on them or their buckets? These were the "clean up the bloody murder scene" mops, were they?

 

[Dan O.]

His hands were still "full of blood" and his trousers dirty. Doesn't sound like someone who had a terribly good or effective wash up to me...

When the inspectors examined Rudy's apartment, did they happen to find traces of blood on the door handles going into his place of on any of the light switches?

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi, Had you viewed the original mat? Or are you basing your opinion of the non-dilution of the print on the enhanced photos?

Since you are sticking to Massei's theory of tracking the blood from the bedroom to the bathroom mat, where do you place the foot steps starting from the point of stepping in the pool of blood to the step onto the mat? Where in the bedroom are the extensive pools of blood to get that coverage of the bare foot? Are there any that would allow the next placement of the left foot outside of the bedroom? Or are you going to extend the cleanup theory into the bedroom itself?! Alternatively, do you presume hopping on one foot, navigating around Meredith's body, avoiding any of the smaller blood splatter in the bedroom and making it into the small bath where inexplicably the foot is planted on the bathmat right when there is maximum support in the form of fixtures in the bath and even the opportunity to sit down on the toilet without dropping the foot and leaving a track?!

By excluding my simple alternative you are accepting Massei's claim for which he doesn't even postulate a viable mechanism to fulfill it.

I posted an answer covering most of your post just above but just to clarify, I am fully aware its an enhanced photo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That some things have happened is more important than why they happened

Still interested in someone please explaining to me the motivation of the judge and jury to "fit up" a young Italian man who is the son of a prominent and wealthy Italian medic?

SomeAlibi,

I don’t have an explanation. But neither do I have an explanation for why D.A. Michael Nifong and police officer Gottlieb tried to frame three upper middle class or even well-to-do and well connected lacrosse students. I am not sorry in the least that they had expensive lawyers. They earned their money, by showing that Dr. Meehan and Mr. Nifong in effect conspired to hide exculpatory DNA evidence. The point is that it happened. Read more in the book "Until Proven Innocent," by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

semen stain testing; fast track trial

Ok, I see your point. Do you think there was a nefarious reason the prosecution didn't test the stain? I thought Rudy's short sentence was because he took a "short track" trial and that a shorter sentence is given, despite the crime.

Did the defense ask for the testing of the stain during the originial trial?

I have never been able to document from a reliable source the claim that a shorter sentence was the result of a fast-track trial, but I have heard private comments that challenged this notion. I am also under the impression that there may have been two separate reductions of his sentence.

I do not know the answer about the defense. I think tunnel-vision may be part of the story for not testing the stain originally. I think that the prosecution owes the Italian people an explanation for why they did not appeal Rudy's sentence.

 

[SomeAlibi]

When the inspectors examined Rudy's apartment, did they happen to find traces of blood on the door handles going into his place of on any of the light switches?

I presume not since none of us have heard about it.

But there doesn't seem any conceivable reason Rudy would make this up in his diary written in Germany. He had already completely placed himself at the scene of the crime. He'd already said he wrote in blood on the wall. He could perfectly well have said that he was horrified to have the blood on him and tried to clean it off at the cottage without any loss to his position if that were true. He's talked about abandoning a dying girl because of his cowardice after all...

I think it's much more likely that the "dirty" trousers and hands full of blood is him simply relating what happened when he got back. And that tells us something about who washed-up at the cottage.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have said repeatedly that you don't believe there is any supporting evidence for their prosecution. You can't have it both ways.

You know very well indeed that the term "fit up" clearly implies a deliberately malicious intent to convict a suspect, whilst at least suspecting (and often knowing) that the suspect is not culpable.

There are many other ways in which a person can get wrongfully convicted, and you also know that. In this case, I believe that the court (to whom you explicitly referred) genuinely believe that it has rightfully found Sollecito (and Knox) guilty. In fact, I further believe that Mignini et al believe that they have convicted the right people, and that they did an exemplary job. I, however, believe that they may have been wrongly influenced by an adherence to a publicly-announced theory of the crime. I believe they may have viewed the evidence through that lens.

I also believe that, in a more general way, police and prosecutors in Perugia were under intense public pressure to find and convict the killer(s), having failed to solve the equally high-profile Sonia Marra case the previous year (and having implicitly been accused of incompetence in that case). I think that they were therefore very keen to announce that they'd "solved the crime" - which they hastily and improperly did within days of the actual murder. From then on, I think they were all tied in to protecting that theory.

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi,

I don’t have an explanation. But neither do I have an explanation for why D.A. Michael Nifong and police officer Gottlieb tried to frame three upper middle class or even well-to-do and well connected lacrosse students. I am not sorry in the least that they had expensive lawyers. They earned their money, by showing that Dr. Meehan and Mr. Nifong in effect conspired to hide exculpatory DNA evidence. The point is that it happened. Read more in the book "Until Proven Innocent," by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson.

Right but it's manifestly different: 'fit ups' happen when Police don't have someone in the frame for the killing as with any number of cases and here they had Guede. It has been serially characterised by some that Amanda Knox was framed for some anti-American reason. I could sort of understand this conspiracy theory on the part of the passionate if it wasn't for the inclusion of Sollecito in the case. I think it rather obviously gives the lie to that suggestion.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

A simple google search for ["Rudy Guede" "wet trousers"] reveals the statement "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt." purportedly written in his German diary while awaiting extradition.

The interesting thing about this statement is it (presumably) places Rudy in the bathroom getting wet. Seems to be some support for the 'bathmat footprint belongs to RG as a result of cleaning himself up' theory.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I have never been able to document from a reliable source the claim that a shorter sentence was the result of a fast-track trial, but I have heard private comments that challenged this notion. I am also under the impression that there may have been two separate reductions of his sentence.

I do not know the answer about the defense. I think tunnel-vision may be part of the story for not testing the stain originally. I think that the prosecution owes the Italian people an explanation for why they did not appeal Rudy's sentence.

H1 - all defendants who elect for a fast track trial in Italy and are convicted receive a one-third deduction from their sentence. This is unquestioningly fact. I'm really surprised you actually doubt this which has been well documented including in Guede's sentencing. Wow.

 

[SomeAlibi]

The interesting thing about this statement is it (presumably) places Rudy in the bathroom getting wet. Seems to be some support for the 'bathmat footprint belongs to RG as a result of cleaning himself up' theory.

If that was the totality of it, you could interpret it that way. But it's not. Please see posts further up.

 

[LondonJohn]

You have said repeatedly that you don't believe there is any supporting evidence for their prosecution. You can't have it both ways.

Incidentally, where have I said that I "don't believe there is any supporting evidence for their prosecution"? I certainly DO believe that there is evidence supporting the prosecution's case. I don't however believe that there may be sufficient prosecution evidence to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who was it that was taking about being misrepresented...?

 

[SomeAlibi]

You know very well indeed that the term "fit up" clearly implies a deliberately malicious intent to convict a suspect, whilst at least suspecting (and often knowing) that the suspect is not culpable.

There are many other ways in which a person can get wrongfully convicted, and you also know that. In this case, I believe that the court (to whom you explicitly referred) genuinely believe that it has rightfully found Sollecito (and Knox) guilty. In fact, I further believe that Mignini et al believe that they have convicted the right people, and that they did an exemplary job. I, however, believe that they may have been wrongly influenced by an adherence to a publicly-announced theory of the crime. I believe they may have viewed the evidence through that lens.

I also believe that, in a more general way, police and prosecutors in Perugia were under intense public pressure to find and convict the killer(s), having failed to solve the equally high-profile Sonia Marra case the previous year (and having implicitly been accused of incompetence in that case). I think that they were therefore very keen to announce that they'd "solved the crime" - which they hastily and improperly did within days of the actual murder. From then on, I think they were all tied in to protecting that theory.

I acknowledge your clear statement of your personal position. The alternative fit-up theory which I asked to everyone is, as you know, one that has a lot of proponents and what I was asking about as I literally don't understand the logic. But I note your position is not that at all.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Incidentally, where have I said that I "don't believe there is any supporting evidence for their prosecution"? I certainly DO believe that there is evidence supporting the prosecution's case. I don't however believe that there may be sufficient prosecution evidence to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who was it that was taking about being misrepresented...?

Sorry, I've never seen you do it. What evidence do you think there is, even if it is not sufficient in your estimation? That would be helpful.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

reduction

Rudy was not sentenced to 16 years. He was sentenced on appeal to 24 years and receives the automatic fast track deduction down to 16. Completely not the same thing. It's an important point in terms of comensurate sentencing between the three. "Rudy only gets 16" types of comment are frequently misused by Knox-supporters (not saying you) both to suggest some sort of favouritism towards Guede (which is therefore shown to be specious) and to introduce a false note of hope that Amanda can also expect to be "reduced" to 16. Candace Dempsey has made this mistake on more than one occasion.

Was there a reduction from 30 to 24 years in the appeal? Could the prosecution have appealed such a reduction?

 

[Katody Matrass]

As I say in the quotation above your question, I'm not sure if I've actually seen the other part. Those supporting Amanda have the info, not me.

I understand that you then base your theory on the 3 short sentences quoted without context by Massei.



To touch Comodi a little bit more - I was apparently wrong that Massei wouldn't dare to admit Comodi's dirty tricks directly into the motivation. Of course he did. On page 74 of the motivation Massei quotes Comodi's dirty lie imprecision directly from the trial transcripts without any clarification:

She didn’t remember calling her before (that particular instance), during the course of that morning. She didn’t even remember that during the course of a discussion which she had with her mother in prison, on November 10 — she [la stessa: the mother] apparently told her: "But at 12:00 noon, nothing had happened yet" (page 76).

"Mother apparently told her", according to Comodi of course.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the key is the word reliable

H1 - all defendants who elect for a fast track trial in Italy and are convicted receive a one-third deduction from their sentence. This is unquestioningly fact. I'm really surprised you actually doubt this which has been well documented including in Guede's sentencing. Wow.

I heard about the automatic reduction frequently enough from an unreliable source. I am surprised that you would think I would take his word on it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, I've never seen you do it. What evidence do you think there is, even if it is not sufficient in your estimation? That would be helpful.

The bathmat foot print is on its own enough to convict Sollecito, when set against his version of events. But I believe that the prosecution and the court were misled by the prosecution's "expert" in this area.

The lack of clarity from both Knox and Sollecito about events from 8.00pm on the 1st until 1.00pm on the 2nd is also clearly good prosecution evidence. But not enough (as far as I'm concerned) for a murder conviction.

The knife and bra clasp are also good pieces of prosecution evidence against Knox and Sollecito respectively, but only as they stand right now. I believe that the knife evidence will most likely be thrown out in the appeal, and that there is a very strong argument to be made about the propriety of the bra clasp evidence.

And the Luminol-revealed Knox foot prints in the hallway are good prosecution evidence, although I think they can be explained by Knox's showering activities in the house on the 2nd - but I think the defence made a lousy job of arguing this properly.

In general, I don't believe that the defence made a very good job at all in the first trial of addressing the most serious evidence against either of their clients. I suspect that this will change for the appeal. In this regard, the concept of a sentencing report is very useful to the defence, in that it highlights (in theory) the parts of the prosecution's case which the court found the most credible and indicative of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this particular case, it has the added benefit of showing to the defence where the court made significant errors in its reasoning.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Would those mops be the ones which had only water in them (i.e. no trace of bleach or any oxidising agent), and which had no trace whatsoever of blood or DNA on them or their buckets? These were the "clean up the bloody murder scene" mops, were they?

The sheer amount of references to the mops in both their statements and diaries lead me to think this was a relatively more intelligent call on their part. The mops are so over-mentioned by both in order to point to the fact that they knew they hadn't been used and that there was nothing on those mop heads (which are swapable on Vileda mops). What could be better than to appear to have cleaning up instruments at the scene or a somewhat cleaned up scene and to have nothing on them. Clearly innocent people unconnected to the crime is the impression that's trying to be conveyed - a double bluff.

Raffaele can't help himself in his diary:

"As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance
and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the
devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken
and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket
and it carried it in to another room"

He was "shaken and alarmed" but he wants to remember the micro-movements of a mop? It's not relevant to what's going on in any way shape or form, much less when you are "shocked and alarmed". Other than, of course, if it is being positioned as part of an alibi because you know there's no evidence on it. The alibi is a double bluff and the over-mentioning is called a "tell" in the business.

No-one who believes in the innocence of defendants can ever see this stuff. It's overwhelmingly frequently the family of the defendant who is there in absolute denial, even when cases are going horribly against.