Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Color me disappointed.

I'm running down peer-reviewed journals (from as far away as INDIA), and trying to resolve the paradox that is Kevin_Lowe's 'stance' on premises advanced without the support of such journals, and he's suddenly nowhere to be seen.

I'm starting to get the sense that he's a lot less likely to be a MD than a psych major currently in the midst of cramming for his midterm exams...

Or have I missed something? Did Lowe reveal whether he is a doctor/ gastroenterologist/ forensic pathologist?

Real world issues are still keeping me quite busy at present, and given the demonstrated character and behaviour of a certain prominent subset of guilters I'm still not going to post personally identifying information where you can see it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Given this, the prosecution theory that Amanda killed Meredith requires her to change clothes, kill Meredith, fake a burglary including individual placement of dozens of pieces of glass, perform a magical cleanup of her trace DNA in the murder room, clean herself, change back into the clothes she was wearing the night before, dispose of the second knife, take Meredith's cell phones to a garden several hundred meters away, dispose of Meredith's keys, credit cards and money, dispose of the clothes and shoe she wore during the murder, return the kitchen knife to Raff's place, go back to the cottage to take a shower and change again, carry the mop back to Raff's place, come back to the cottage, make a bunch of phone calls and wait for the cops to show up.

It's quite a list. Especially when you consider that a couple of the tasks are basically impossible.

Indeed, she would have had to either change before the murder or not get any blood on her clothing.

Certainly the photos are consistent with what she claims she did that morning. She got up, went home, had a shower, put on clean clothing, and left the clothing she had worn the previous day strewn across the bed.

 

[platonov]

Posted By Kestrel to Kaosium

Do you consider those of us who support Knox part of the kook farm? That seems to be your implication. The idea that somehow courts and prosecutors are always right and anyone who disputes this is a nut case.

What you seem to have missed is that the prosecutor in this case sees complex conspiracies where more rational minds see only simple crimes. He saw the Monster of Florence case not as the work of a serial killer, but as a conspiracy by a Satanic cult operation out of a Masonic Lodge collecting body parts for rituals. His version of this conspiracy also included a cover up of the cult by high ranking security official within the Italian government. The CT included a body swap to make a murder look like a suicide. When that body was exhumed and DNA proved the body had not been swapped, Mignini didn't back down. He claimed the body had been swapped twice. After the Italian courts threw out his entire case as bunk, and cleared all the defendants, Mignini stuck to his guns. Claiming that only he understood the complex nature of crime.

Take away his title as prosecutor and Mignini would be quickly recognized as a CT nut. He shows the classic sign of never backing down. When part of his theory is shown to be wrong, he just expands his conspiracy theory.

In the Knox case, he didn't see a burglary that turned into rape and murder. He saw a conspiracy to rape and murder by two young lovers who had only met eight days earlier. Two young people with no prior history of violence or mental illness. Who we are expected to believe recruited a third person into this conspiracy one of them barely knew and the other had never met.

As the case progressed, misleading and false information was leaked to the press to damage the reputation of the two suspects. We saw a phony photo of a blood soaked bathroom, heard about washing machines running when the police arrived, head that the suspects called the police after the police had already arrived, heard about video evidence that didn't exist. None of these errors were corrected in the tabloid style reporting of this case. We find them repeated to this day all over the web.

But to some, it's easier to call anyone who disputes the Italian prosecutor a kook. Redefining sanity as "taking the side of the authority figure".

Given that you [ Kaosium ] have made it clear in your posts here that Mignini is the " Dr No " of the piece and Kestrel shares this opinion ......... I begin to see the problem with this discussion and why there is so much confusion.

As Kaosium put it in a post addressed to me

I can't help but think this post illustrates better than any other the 'failure to communicate.' ......................
..................................................

No wonder there is such confusion and failure to understand the details of the case.

While Kaosium is wedded to a CT his point is clear and prose less complex than the Massei Report. And shorter.

The recent move to posting videos may be a good thing - it worked well in another much publicized CT.


ETA Kestrel .. In light of the first bolded piece I take it you share my (and others) opinion that comparison to the Dreyfuss affair is beyond hyperbole.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know if any of you have been following the Sarah Scazzi case but it seems that many comparisons will be made to the Meredith Kercher case now that her 22 year old cousin has been arrested in connection with the murder.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=3.1.1121565721

Yes, but there's potentially a very, very deep family dynamic going on in that case. Very strange things can brew up within families, usually building up over many years. It sounds like something of this sort may have happened in this sad case.

On the other hand, Sollecito and Knox had only known each other for 6 days before the murder, Sollecito barely knew Meredith, and Knox had only known her for 6 weeks (and, to all intents and purposes, got on well with her - as supported by the text messages on Halloween and the afternoon of the 1st November).

 

[piktor]

I have a question about the measurements in the pictures you posted "This is Guede's Exclusively". In the up and down arrows in the first picture the left arrow going down seems to end at about the point that the arrow to the right of it seems to end going upward, but in the second picture the arrow to the right of the first arrow seems to rise much higher above the end of the arrow to its left. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective but I am not sure you would be measuring the same things if this were the case. Maybe I am just missing the significance of all these arrows?
↑ ↓

The arrows on the bathmat are the bathmat's measurements, they are not Guede's.

The green lines are the outer limits of the blue arrows.

The bathmat measurements are related to Sollecito. That's why Sollecito's foot fits exactly.

To put it simply: the photos on the right are Guede's footprint and Guede's measurements.

The photos on the left are the bathmat's but not Guede's measurements.

The pink outline on the bottom left corner photo is Guede's. The measurements on this same bottom left corner are Sollecito's.

 

[Dan O.]

BTW, here is the crimescope photo of the bathmat print with the scale in the view.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bathmat_print_under_crimescope.jpg

What I see in that print is the forefoot and big toe but no little toes. This would be remarkably precise to just happen to step in a puddle of blood that matched those contours. However, I don't believe it would be all that difficult to recreate that pattern with bloody water running down the leg and onto the foot. The bottom of the print looks more like a flow spreading out through the fibers. If the forefoot were placed on the mat and the heal still in the air, drips coming off the heal or the rear cuff would make such a splash.

 

[Chris C]

How could Comodi say that at the time of Amanda's phone call - when the break-in and all the evidence in the house had been discovered, including the blood in the bathroom - "nothing had happened"? That call was made immediately before they called the police, while Comodi was implying it was made before Amanda should have been alarmed. And to do that, she had to say it was made "at 12, at midday" (repeated for emphasis).

If Comodi had said, "Why did you call your mother to tell her nothing had happened, immediately before you called the police to tell them about the break-in", I'm not sure that would have made any sense.

What point do you think Comodi was trying to make when she said "Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened"? Was she really trying to say that Amanda didn't have enough reason to call her mother at that point, given that the call to the police happened immediately afterwards...?

Actually there where many objections by the defense team on how the prosecutors where wording their questions and the judge backed the prosecutors.

 

[Chris C]

Here's a bit more from Amanda' testimony:



Amanda thinks Comodi is referring to a phone call she made at midday, when she went back to Raffaele's place and had found the door open - but before they had discovered the break-in. And Comodi not only doesn't correct her, she says repeatedly that this call was made before anything happened, that it was an unusual time to call someone, that she must have had a motive... She even asks "Why did you do it?" All of which becomes a nonsense as soon as we know that they called the police almost immediately after this phone call!

LOL, I appreciate your posts Christiana, and your willingness to always quote and source anything you argue. Sometimes you've even changed my mind. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.

Which leads to the judge correcting knox and saying the phone call did happen. Which Knox was correct when she said she dont remember THAT phone call. There was 2 untruths to the phone call question.
1. The break in was already discovered.
2. It happened 40+ minutes later than the prosecution claims. You would think that since the ToD window the prosecution is using is like 15 minutes, they would be more exact on asking questions like this.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What I see in that print is the forefoot and big toe but no little toes. This would be remarkably precise to just happen to step in a puddle of blood that matched those contours. However, I don't believe it would be all that difficult to recreate that pattern with bloody water running down the leg and onto the foot. The bottom of the print looks more like a flow spreading out through the fibers. If the forefoot were placed on the mat and the heal still in the air, drips coming off the heal or the rear cuff would make such a splash.

It had to have been something like that. It was obviously a light step, but the stain is evenly distributed except for the part that is missing entirely. Either he had bloody water on the bottom of his foot, or he was wearing a sock that got partially soaked with bloody water, or he stepped on a towel that was soaked with bloody water. There are other marks on the mat, which suggests it may have been the last of these.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Which leads to the judge correcting knox and saying the phone call did happen. Which Knox was correct when she said she dont remember THAT phone call. There was 2 untruths to the phone call question.
1. The break in was already discovered.
2. It happened 40+ minutes later than the prosecution claims. You would think that since the ToD window the prosecution is using is like 15 minutes, they would be more exact on asking questions like this.

It suspect Comodi just didn't have her facts straight when she examined Amanda. If she had deliberately fudged the time, she would have risked having Amanda say, "no, I remember the call, it was after I had talked to Filomena several times and after we found the broken window." As it was, Comodi lucked out because Amanda didn't remember. But there's no way one can make the case that Amanda was lying, because she had no reason to lie, and indeed, she would have been better off had she said, "yes, I remember that I called my mother because I was worried."

The bottom line, once you subtract all the spin and conjecture, is that there is nothing incriminating in the phone record itself, and there is nothing incriminating in Amanda's testimony about her phone activity. Everything she did that morning is consistent with someone who stumbled across a situation she did not understand, and was trying to figure it out.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

ETA Kestrel .. In light of the first bolded piece I take it you share my (and others) opinion that comparison to the Dreyfuss affair is beyond hyperbole.

Dreyfus with one "s." I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond hyperbole." The Dreyfus Affair was a much bigger deal than this case in terms of the controversy it generated, but the underlying motivations are similar. The French military was embarrassed, because they had publicly charged an innocent man with treason. So they sought to cover it up at the expense of an innocent man. That is what is happening in Perugia, except two innocent people are locked up instead of one.

 

[platonov]

Dreyfus with one "s." I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond hyperbole." The Dreyfus Affair was a much bigger deal than this case in terms of the controversy it generated, but the underlying motivations are similar. The French military was embarrassed, because they had publicly charged an innocent man with treason. So they sought to cover it up at the expense of an innocent man. That is what is happening in Perugia, except two innocent people are locked up instead of one.

Good catch on the typo - the Q was posed to Kestrel in light of his post. I'm aware of where you stand.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

--------------------

What I see in that print is the forefoot and big toe but no little toes. This would be remarkably precise to just happen to step in a puddle of blood that matched those contours. However, I don't believe it would be all that difficult to recreate that pattern with bloody water running down the leg and onto the foot. The bottom of the print looks more like a flow spreading out through the fibers. If the forefoot were placed on the mat and the heal still in the air, drips coming off the heal or the rear cuff would make such a splash.

------------------

It had to have been something like that. It was obviously a light step, but the stain is evenly distributed except for the part that is missing entirely. Either he had bloody water on the bottom of his foot, or he was wearing a sock that got partially soaked with bloody water, or he stepped on a towel that was soaked with bloody water. There are other marks on the mat, which suggests it may have been the last of these.

"something like that" What Dan O has posted is stundieworth - your options are different in the sense of being plausible.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

another day at the office

katy_did I disagree that Comodi was being dishonest. I think she was speaking in general terms to the time of the phone call - the same way Edda answered when questioned about the time of the phone call. I don't think either one were being dishonest.

Massei had the correct time in the motivations so the judges understood when the call was made in relation to other events which occurred at the cottage, before and after the call.

Christianahannah,

It is difficult to believe that Ms. Comodi would not have known the exact minute of that call. I think that she asked the question knowing that Amanda did not remember it (if Amanda had remembered it, she could have corrected the time). But with Amanda having forgotten about it, it opened the door for Comodi to insinuate that the call had something to do with Amanda’s anxiety about the murder. Clever and completely unethical. In other words, par for the course among prosecutors.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

-----------------

Given this, the prosecution theory that Amanda killed Meredith requires her to change clothes, kill Meredith, fake a burglary including individual placement of dozens of pieces of glass, perform a magical cleanup of her trace DNA in the murder room, clean herself, change back into the clothes she was wearing the night before, dispose of the second knife, take Meredith's cell phones to a garden several hundred meters away, dispose of Meredith's keys, credit cards and money, dispose of the clothes and shoe she wore during the murder, return the kitchen knife to Raff's place, go back to the cottage to take a shower and change again, carry the mop back to Raff's place, come back to the cottage, make a bunch of phone calls and wait for the cops to show up.

It's quite a list. Especially when you consider that a couple of the tasks are basically impossible.

--------------------

Indeed, she would have had to either change before the murder or not get any blood on her clothing.

Certainly the photos are consistent with what she claims she did that morning. She got up, went home, had a shower, put on clean clothing, and left the clothing she had worn the previous day strewn across the bed.

Indeed - thats not the prosecution 'theory' as we both know.

On the bolded part these are hardly the only options ???

The photos are consistent with the garment being in her room and no more.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no one said anything about ripping out fingernails except you

Hmmm! Kestrel. All rather fanciful and not at all believable.

Poor girl was so exhausted that instead of going to bed, she went to the police station with her latest squeeze. You know the guy, she'd met him the previous week. She then entertained the assembled crowd with some gymnastics.

As for the all night screaming session. Who made that one up?

I know that you have your own idea of the suffering that she endured at the handsof the police. but pleeeease get real!

colonelhall,

I suggest you google something along the lines of "touchless torture." Many of the most effective methods of torture do not involve physical contact at all. Also, there is no reason to put the word waterboarding in quotes, as you did in an earlier post.

What do you think happened between 1:45 and 5:45?

 

[platonov]

Deja Vu

colonelhall,

I suggest you google something along the lines of "touchless torture." Many of the most effective methods of torture do not involve physical contact at all. Also, there is no reason to put the word waterboarding in quotes, as you did in an earlier post.

What do you think happened between 1:45 and 5:45?

Before we overload the search engines searching for unrelated 'evidence by anecdote' what did AK [or RS for that matter] have to say.

Were these techniques similar to those used on Dec 17 - according to AK's testimony they produced the same results.

.

 

[christianahannah]

Christianahannah,

It is difficult to believe that Ms. Comodi would not have known the exact minute of that call. I think that she asked the question knowing that Amanda did not remember it (if Amanda had remembered it, she could have corrected the time). But with Amanda having forgotten about it, it opened the door for Comodi to insinuate that the call had something to do with Amanda’s anxiety about the murder. Clever and completely unethical. In other words, par for the course among prosecutors.

Well Chris it is difficult to believe that Amanda's defense attorneys would not have known the exact minute of the call and object to the line of questioning by Comodi if they felt she was being unethical.

I still believe Comodi was focusing on the call itself rather than the exact minute of the call. That is only my opinion, I cannot be sure since I do not have all the documentation the court has.

Chris please don't be so cynical. There are good, ethical prosecutors. The same holds true for defense attorneys.

 

[Kestrel]

Indeed - thats not the prosecution 'theory' as we both know.

It's the actions implied by the prosecution theory. The prosecution never bothered explaining how the defendants achieved all the tasks they were accused of doing.

As a skeptic, I expect an explanation. Especially for an outlandish claim such as a clean up that somehow scrubbed trace evidence from two defendants while leaving plenty of evidence pointing to a third and left no traces of the cleaning.

 

[Dan O.]

It had to have been something like that. It was obviously a light step, but the stain is evenly distributed except for the part that is missing entirely. Either he had bloody water on the bottom of his foot, or he was wearing a sock that got partially soaked with bloody water, or he stepped on a towel that was soaked with bloody water. There are other marks on the mat, which suggests it may have been the last of these.

A sock would give a different flow around the toes which is why I think it's a bare foot and the crease between the foot and toes created a natural barrior because the water would then have to flow uphill to get on the toes.

BTW, has anyone pointed out that the footprint photo is not taken with the camera plane parallel to the mat? I've made the correction here by using the parallel lines in the mat as a reference.

I've scaled this using to ruler on the mat so if you've got the reference prints that can be similarly scaled I can compare them directly.