Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

In my opinion this is another "leap of faith" type of reasoning as discussed in Raffaele's appeal. I disagree not just on the basis of lack of anecdotal evidence of such evidence but also on the basis that this type of reasoning is very common in the Massei report.

Exactly, here's another example of Massei's absurdity

The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room;

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I meant that he pointed out the footprint to police. Sorry for the confusion.

Actually, this is one of the biggest pointers to the print not being Sollecito's. I know that some people have Knox and Sollecito down as evil criminal masterminds, but for Sollecito to point out his own blood/water print to the police - saying, in effect, "I bet you can't prove it's mine, MWAHAHAHAHA!" - is just ludicrous.

And incidentally, I notice that I didn't get any response from our esteemed special guest about the fundamental problems surrounding the supposition that the print was made by someone going from Meredith's room into the bathroom (the problems being the fact that it was made in a dilute blood/water mix rather than neat blood, and the fact that if this was the third or fourth footfall of someone who'd picked up the neat blood in Meredith's room, it would be far less complete). I'd be interested to see if anyone could make a cogent response to these problems......

EDIT: Oh, and if Sollecito (and Knox, for that matter) were so eager to point out the bath mat print to the police, it rather gives a lie to the theory that the reason it wasn't destroyed was that they forgot about it. Unless anyone's suggesting that they forgot about it right up until the Postals turned up, at which point they turned to each other and said "Oh no! Just remembered! The bath mat print! We forgot to get rid of it! D'oh!"

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

If you look at the Nicarico murder case in Illinois, the authorities continued to press the case against two innocent suspects long after the real killer had confessed and DNA evidence had shown that he was the guy. In Florida, a prosecutor risked letting a pedophile loose on the community so he convict two young boys for murder, because he had announced publicly that the boys (rather than the pedophile) killed their father. Fortunately, the pedophile was convicted on sex charges, but he probably did the murder as well.

The salient point in these cases is that the prosecutor and/or police had taken a strong public position, and they did not want to have to admit they were wrong. There are many, many cases like this in the US and around the world. If you think those of us who believe Knox and Sollecito have been railroaded are conspiracy theorists, it's because you are not well enough informed to see what is glaringly obvious to us.

 

[christianahannah]

If there was a shred of such evidence Amanda would have been confronted with it. Instead we've seen dirty tricks and sarcastic remarks ("you called to tell that nothing happened") from Comodi.

As I have written, I do not know the contents of the prison conversation. Anything about that conversation, other than the snippet in the motivations, is speculation.

A state of perplexity by Edda does not equate a state of alarm by Edda. That tells me whatever the court felt caused Edda's perplexity wasn't prominent. Edda could ask, "How would you know that?" without it being evidence of which to convict.

I do not know what importance Massei placed on certain pieces of evidence and how it was decided on what to include and not include in the motivations. There is a reference for the prison conversation in the motivations. Reading the transcript may or may not give the reasoning for the statement on page 95.

 

[platonov]

On conspiracy theories

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.

This post seems on the face of it a reasonable position, not one I agree with nor one I'm sure is consistent with all your posts but I may be wrong on the latter.

So you dismiss the 'fit-up' theory ; Would it not be accurate to describe it as a conspiracy theory - leaving aside the anti-americanism issue for the moment - Surely by definition it must.

If so then Charlie Wilkes position as outlined below is a CT

Because they had staked their reputations on a public statement that got picked up by the media across Europe and North America. If they had to admit they were completely wrong, that Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick had nothing to do with it and it was all this other guy, Rudy Guede, they'd look like fools. Reporters would ask, "why did you make this dramatic announcement before you even looked at the fingerprint and DNA evidence?"

Once they realized they had screwed up, they went into damage control mode. They had to release Patrick, because he had a multiple witness alibi. So they substituted Rudy for Patrick in the "sex game," and everything else stayed the same. That way they could say they were right all along, and blame Amanda for tricking them into making a false arrest.

Next, they got busy with evidence. They couldn't find any. So they made up stories... "We found bleach receipts!" "We found the book Amanda said she was reading at Raffaele's place, but it was at the cottage!"

Things looked bad when Raffaele's family did the spadework to prove the bloody shoe prints didn't match his sneakers, and announced it on TV. But, lo and behold, the very next day... they found the bra fastener. How about that? Just when it looked like they weren't going to have any proof of Raffaele's involvement, they found exactly what they needed, in a pile of junk that had gotten swept into a corner.

I followed this case for quite awhile before I formed a strong opinion. But at a certain point, it became very, very obvious, to me at least. That is because I have read about many other cases like this. It's a particular interest of mine.


See above.

Now posters on either side of the debate are happy to hold any position they wish but it may be interseting to see how widespread the CT /Fit Up belief is.

 

[Alt+F4]

Knox's Italian flatmates would have seen her practically every day for the six weeks before the murder...

Evidence?

...and I strongly suspect that they would have seen most of Knox's limited clothing and footwear during that time.

Evidence?

And unless Knox changed into some sort of special "murder outfit", she was most likely wearing the kind of clothes and shoes that she wore every day on the evening of the 1st. Yet nobody can remember a piece of clothing or footwear that they'd seen Knox wearing previously that was no longer accounted for. I'd say that's fairly interesting.

Evidence?

 

[katy_did]

Exactly, here's another example of Massei's absurdity

Oh Lord, this one is just ridiculous isn't it? If you think about the situation (an innocent) Amanda would have been in at that time: initially at the centre of the whole situation, and the main source of information for what was going on in the house; then the four Italians arrive, older than her by nearly ten years, all speaking in rapid Italian which she didn't understand. My first thought was that I would've probably gravitated to the outside of the group too. Then I read a comment from Amanda (perhaps in her testimony?) where she gives exactly this as the reason why she was standing apart from the others.

That it's a very flawed argument is obvious from the fact that you could interpret whatever Amanda did at this stage as evidence of guilt: if she had gone near the door, you could argue that she wanted to appear concerned, that she wanted to control the situation, and that she wanted to be near the door when it was broken down in order to explain any DNA she might have left in the room. It's pretty unbelievable that Massei includes this sort of speculative reasoning in the report, IMO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Strange. I'm watching Discovery Channel, and there's a programme on called "Secrets of Interrogation". It just showed a classic false confession in which the suspect broke down under fierce accusatory questioning and admitted to being an accessory to murder (together with details of the crime). Only, he was later found to have been in a different continent at the time! Fortunately, the interrogation was videotaped.

And here is a clip of that portion of the programme. It bears viewing:

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/secrets-of-interrogation-admission-of-guilt/

I think it is, as they say, germane to the Knox situation.......

 

[Alt+F4]

And incidentally, I notice that I didn't get any response from our esteemed special guest about the fundamental problems surrounding the supposition that the print was made by someone going from Meredith's room into the bathroom (the problems being the fact that it was made in a dilute blood/water mix rather than neat blood, and the fact that if this was the third or fourth footfall of someone who'd picked up the neat blood in Meredith's room, it would be far less complete). I'd be interested to see if anyone could make a cogent response to these problems......

Who is the "esteemed special guest"? And incidentally, I noticed that I didn't get any response regarding Rudy saying that he used his sweatshirt to cover up the blood on his trousers. If he was telling the truth the blood on his trousers would have been above the knee, making a clean up in the bidet just another ridiculous scenario for those so desperate to find Amanda not guilty that they just make things up.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you think about the situation (an innocent) Amanda would have been in at that time: initially at the centre of the whole situation, and the main source of information for what was going on in the house; then the four Italians arrive, older than her by nearly ten years, all speaking in rapid Italian which she didn't understand. My first thought was that I would've probably gravitated to the outside of the group too.

So Amanda was freaking out so much as to where Meredith was that she was banging on the door, yelling her name, tried looking over a window to see into the room and looking through the keyhole, yet when native speaking Italians arrived she backed off? Are you kidding me? Her boyfriend was a native speaker.

 

[LondonJohn]

Evidence?



Evidence?



Evidence?

You're not really worth debating with when you employ these sorts of "argument" techniques.

Firstly, all the girls shared the same small house, none of them worked long hours, and it's therefore inevitable that they encountered each other at least once most days.

Secondly, note the use of the words "likely" and "strongly suspect". These are non-definitive qualifiers.

Thirdly, no evidence was introduced that any clothing was identified as missing. This means that either the police didn't investigate this angle, or that they did and they drew a blank. What I'm suggesting is not that this is positive evidence of Knox's non-culpability - and I have never intonated this. I am, instead, suggesting that it's interesting, in light of the fact that Knox probably (qualifier) had a very limited range of clothing and footwear, which both of her Italian housemates had likely (qualifier) seen her wearing.

And lastly, the police/prosecutors most certainly thought this was an important area. For a while, they were convinced that a sweater of Knox's had gone missing after the murder, and that it was therefore linked to the crime. And if I recall correctly, they imparted this information to the media. Pity, then, that the sweater in question subsequently turned up, totally clean, in Knox's room, where it had been all along.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Who is the "esteemed special guest"? And incidentally, I noticed that I didn't get any response regarding Rudy saying that he used his sweatshirt to cover up the blood on his trousers. If he was telling the truth the blood on his trousers would have been above the knee, making a clean up in the bidet just another ridiculous scenario for those so desperate to find Amanda not guilty that they just make things up.

I believe he was referring to Some Alibi.

As far as the trousers thing, maybe he did pull his sweatshirt down to cover blood. I'm more interested in how/when/where his trousers got wet. Assuming, as you state, he was telling the truth.

 

[LondonJohn]

Who is the "esteemed special guest"? And incidentally, I noticed that I didn't get any response regarding Rudy saying that he used his sweatshirt to cover up the blood on his trousers. If he was telling the truth the blood on his trousers would have been above the knee, making a clean up in the bidet just another ridiculous scenario for those so desperate to find Amanda not guilty that they just make things up.

Guede says that he was covered in blood when he arrived back at his apartment, yet not a speck of Meredith's blood was ever found in his apartment. I'd say that Guede was very probably lying, wouldn't you?

And if his sweatshirt was covering up a stain on his trousers (whether blood or water), why couldn't that stain be around his knees. Since it's not unlikely that Guede would have been on his knees during the attack, it's not unlikely that he got blood from the floor onto his knees in the process. And why could he not then wash blood off from his knees by placing his right foot in the bidet and applying water to the knee area of his trousers, bending his leg so that the water ran down into the bowl of the bidet rather than down his trouser leg?

By the way, I'm not desperate to find Knox (or Sollecito) not guilty, and I don't think that many people posting on here are either. That may just be a figment of your feverish imagination.

 

[Alt+F4]

You're not really worth debating with when you employ these sorts of "argument" techniques.

This is a skeptics forum. We demand evidence for statements made. Provide the evidence for what you post or retract it. It's that simple.

Firstly, all the girls shared the same small house, none of them worked long hours, and it's therefore inevitable that they encountered each other at least once most days.

It's my understanding that Filomena and Laura worked full time.

Thirdly, no evidence was introduced that any clothing was identified as missing.

Who would have said any clothing was missing?

This means that either the police didn't investigate this angle, or that they did and they drew a blank. What I'm suggesting is not that this is positive evidence of Knox's non-culpability - and I have never intonated this. I am, instead, suggesting that it's interesting, in light of the fact that Knox probably (qualifier) had a very limited range of clothing and footwear, which both of her Italian housemates had likely (qualifier) seen her wearing.

You have no idea how much clothing she had.

And lastly, the police/prosecutors most certainly thought this was an important area. For a while, they were convinced that a sweater of Knox's had gone missing after the murder, and that it was therefore linked to the crime. And if I recall correctly, they imparted this information to the media. Pity, then, that the sweater in question subsequently turned up, totally clean, in Knox's room, where it had been all along.

I'm not familiar with this. Cite please.

 

[katy_did]

Who is the "esteemed special guest"? And incidentally, I noticed that I didn't get any response regarding Rudy saying that he used his sweatshirt to cover up the blood on his trousers. If he was telling the truth the blood on his trousers would have been above the knee, making a clean up in the bidet just another ridiculous scenario for those so desperate to find Amanda guilty that they just make things up.

In my view, the fact Rudy not only admitted to going into the bathroom twice immediately after the crime (a time when he would certainly have had blood on him) but also knew details he couldn't possibly have known unless he was telling the truth (that two blood-soaked towels were underneath/next to Meredith's body) is enough to at least cast doubt on the theory Knox and Sollecito were the ones to leave those traces in the bathroom. The exact way in which the traces were left is not as important, though there are many possibilities: I favour the idea he lost a shoe during the struggle at some point, stepped in some blood, and hopped through to the bathroom to wash it off. He was obviously aware he was leaving shoe prints and that they could be incriminating (hence he threw away his shoes) so it stands to reason he'd want to avoid leaving unnecessary bare footprints too (even more incriminating). But any of the other theories put forward are also possible.

Then alongside the crucial fact Rudy can be placed in the bathroom immediately after the crime, there's the sheer lack of logic in the theory Knox and Sollecito left the blood traces there. We would have to believe that they cleaned up a trail of footprints leading up to the bathmat footprint, but left that print in full view; that despite knowing Amanda had left traces of blood in the bathroom (and isn't it a bit of a coincidence the DNA was from her, the person who lived in the house, and not from either of the other two?) they didn't bother taking five minutes to clean it up. Then, when the police arrived, they point out the traces of blood!

It just isn't credible they had all night to perform a 'clean-up', but still left those blood traces there. IMO the only believable 'guilter' argument on this would be that they knew Guede was the one to leave blood in the bathroom, and so left it there to incriminate him (as is argued with the unflushed toilet). And I can see why people wouldn't want to argue that, since even if it were true and they did leave it there deliberately, the evidence would still only incriminate Guede.

I think sometimes people are so blinded by the dazzle of "millimeter-precise measurements" (on a faint, partial footprint which cannot possibly be measured in a 'millimeter-precise' way) that they forget to apply simple common sense and logic.

 

[tsig]

I'm disappointed that you chose to use the loaded term "fitted up" where that term is entirely inappropriate to the issue at hand. Either you did it deliberately, in order to set up a false dilemma, or you did it accidentally. Either option isn't good. And, believe me, I'm not feeling intellectually threatened

I thought the police induced an "internalized false confession", that sounds like being "fitted up" to me.

 

[Alt+F4]

Guede says that he was covered in blood when he arrived back at his apartment, yet not a speck of Meredith's blood was ever found in his apartment. I'd say that Guede was very probably lying, wouldn't you?

He might be lying. On what date did the police inspect his apartment?

And if his sweatshirt was covering up a stain on his trousers (whether blood or water), why couldn't that stain be around his knees. Since it's not unlikely that Guede would have been on his knees during the attack, it's not unlikely that he got blood from the floor onto his knees in the process. And why could he not then wash blood off from his knees by placing his right foot in the bidet and applying water to the knee area of his trousers, bending his leg so that the water ran down into the bowl of the bidet rather than down his trouser leg?

So now you have moved your bloody pants leg theory up to the knee. Wow, it's even more ridiculous to think that someone would try to wash off their trousers at the knee in a bidet then at the ankle. Try again.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I thought the police induced an "internalized false confession", that sounds like being "fitted up" to me.

That's nice. The fact is that police typically induce them thinking that they are genuine confessions, and the police then take a great deal of persuading otherwise (if indeed they can ever be persuaded otherwise at all).

 

[Dan O.]

They don't seem to have tested any door handles or light switches. They tested about 15 items and found no DNA other than Guede's.

I find that quite interesting. Apparently there were several visible bloody footprints but they couldn't get a DNA profile (not even Rudy's). It really makes one wonder how they got a profile off the knife when nothing at all was visible.

I saw the name of the lab that processed the evidence from Rudy's place and didn't recognize it as the same lab in Rome that processed the rest of the evidence. Is it correct that a different lab was used?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a skeptics forum. We demand evidence for statements made. Provide the evidence for what you post or retract it. It's that simple.



It's my understanding that Filomena and Laura worked full time.



Who would have said any clothing was missing?



You have no idea how much clothing she had.



I'm not familiar with this. Cite please.

Nah, I'm done with this. You obviously can't tell the difference between supposition and alleged fact. I have not alleged any fact, merely proposed a theory.

You might as well ask PM Mignini for a "cite" about his interesting supposition in court that Knox said to Meredith "You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex." Cite, PM Mignini?