Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

It was Meredith's clothing in the washer/dryer though, wasn't it? And it's potentially further indication that Meredith was confronted, attacked and killed very shortly after getting through the front door. She put a load of washing on before she went to her English friends' house, and it would seem strange that she would leave her completed laundry in the machine, remaining damp and creased, for a couple of hours after getting home.

EDIT: I see that Kestrel made the very same points in response, before I posted mine. Apologies for the duplication!

Hi LondonJohn,
Just FYI, the apartment the gals shared only had a washing machine, not a clothes dryer.
The gals seemingly hung their newly washed clothing on a rack in the hallway.
Ref: "Angel Face" B. Nadeau, page 26+27

Hi all, I noticed there was again some discussion over the last week regarding the infamous interrogation of Amanda from December 2007 in which she supposedly nearly gave herself up. I had this debate with Fulcanelli some time back, in which I disagreed that this was at all the case since we DO have recording of that session. I'm posting it again for all here to see that Amanda again sticks to her same story and that there is no way to deduce from it that she was about to "come clean".

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html

P.S. I've noticed Safari doesn't play nice with this video. Firefox should work.

Greetings Malkmus,
Glad to see you back here again!
Thanks for the link, it was refreshing to see once more.
Seeing the apartment at night was rather interesting.
I wonder if it was there was that much light on the night of Miss Kerchers murder, or had the TV crew just lit it up the night they filmed the residence?

Take it easy,
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi LondonJohn,
Just FYI, the apartment the gals shared only had a washing machine, not a clothes dryer.
The gals seemingly hung their newly washed clothing on a rack in the hallway.
Ref: "Angel Face" B. Nadeau, page 26+27

Hey! Hope you're well. Regarding the washing machine in the girls' cottage, I seem to remember reading elsewhere that it was a combined washer/dryer. These are very popular in Europe, mainly because of reduced space (I have always had one).

Either way, it was Meredith's clothing that was in the machine at lunchtime on the 2nd. I believe there was none of Knox's clothing, and no bedding, towels etc. This obviously makes it highly unlikely that the washing machine figured in any post-murder clean-up.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I'm familiar (from history) with the Dreyfus affair (who isn't) - it could be said to have had some positive outcomes - but I fail to see the relevance to this case even supposing the conspiracy theory is true.

With all due respect the term hyperbole doesn't begin to do justice to the comparison.

Nor are the 80/90's satanic / group child abuse cases relevant if that what the NJ case is.

This is a murder case with obvious media interest/exploitation and certain overtones but that's all - these comparisons don't help your case.

The comparisons are valid; there is no false analogy or hyperbole. To compare what happened in the Dreyfus case is not to say Dreyfus and Amanda are similar. It is to suggest that the same mechanisms that were at work in Dreyfus's case may very well be at work in Amanda and Raffaele's case, including false accusations and suppression of evidence, to name only two of many.

Often the argument is presented that Amanda must be guilty or she wouldn't have been convicted. A valid response is to ask the claimant to reflect on whether Jesus Christ was crucified because he was guilty. The knee-jerk answer invariably comes: "Oh, so now you're comparing Amanda to Jesus Christ!" The intention is ridicule and a cessation of discussion -- in another word, bullying.

We use famous people in our analogies because they are examples known to most readers. It doesn't call to mind the same kind of reasoning if we say, "Look at what happened to people you've never heard of and have to go look up."

Keep your categories straight -- people are people, situations are situations. The point of these analogies is to compare situations. There's nothing hyperbolic about it.

 

[christianahannah]

Hey! Hope you're well. Regarding the washing machine in the girls' cottage, I seem to remember reading elsewhere that it was a combined washer/dryer. These are very popular in Europe, mainly because of reduced space (I have always had one).

Either way, it was Meredith's clothing that was in the machine at lunchtime on the 2nd. I believe there was none of Knox's clothing, and no bedding, towels etc. This obviously makes it highly unlikely that the washing machine figured in any post-murder clean-up.

There were two very wet lilac towels (motivations doesn't identify whose towels they were) taken from the washing machine which were tested but they yielded no results.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks for your reply. Does the Italian justice system also offer a reduced sentence for testifying? I would assume in this case (being that the defendants only knew each other for six days), that either AK or RS would have agreed to this to save their own hide. Of course this assumes that they were actually guilty and had something to testify about.

Gretings Samba,
and welcome to JREF!
You question is a good 1 that I, a surfer who grew up on the streets of Venice Beach has an easy answer for:
If I was somehow involved in a bloody, brutal stabbing murder between 2 female housemates, and was witness or had even any small part in that, to save my own hide from 25 years in the pen, I would have definately become "State's Witness" soooo fast and turned on some chick that I had been bangin' for only a week...

That's just me though.
A guy who has had to sit thru a civil, not criminal, trial for the crime of rape.
Your view might be different...
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

Hi LondonJohn,
Just FYI, the apartment the gals shared only had a washing machine, not a clothes dryer.
The gals seemingly hung their newly washed clothing on a rack in the hallway.
Ref: "Angel Face" B. Nadeau, page 26+27



Greetings Malkmus,
Glad to see you back here again!
Thanks for the link, it was refreshing to see once more.
Seeing the apartment at night was rather interesting.
I wonder if it was there was that much light on the night of Miss Kerchers murder, or had the TV crew just lit it up the night they filmed the residence?

Take it easy,
RWVBWL

I have read conflicting reports about the dryer part of the combo not working or not working properly or taking too long, to the same as what you have quoted from Nadeau that there was no dryer. I am not sure what the state of the dryer was.

I hang quite a bit of my clothing on a rack even though a dryer is available because the directions say not to put in a dryer or I don't like what a dryer does to my clothing.

 

[Chris C]

Hi Chris C,
Thanks for the link.
Can you post the image that you had done earlier where the circle was drawn around what appears to be the 2nd toe?
That is the 1 photograph I would luv to see some debate about, especially if Piktor returns, for I am curious to see what he or she thinks of it...
Thanks, RWVBWL

Ok I re-did the photo and added a 2nd circle.

The middle toe which is longer than the big toe shows a spot where the toe would be at, plus a faint red streak running towards that red spot.

Also the little toe has a red spot that would line up with Guede's little toe.

My question is did they test either of these spots for blood?
When you look at those 2 POSSIBLE blood spots and compare it to the overlaye at of Guede's foot at:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint.html

You will see those red spots line up with the toes. Could be anything, but crimescope did pick them up.

PS There is also a faint red streak on the other toe as well.

 

[RWVBWL]

The police in Milan confiscated the laptop. Rudy showed up at the lawyers office and claimed he had purchased the stolen items, but doesn't appear to have returned them.

Brocchi said the man spoke perfect Italian with a Perugia accent and told him that he had been caught with some things that Brocchi had reported as stolen, and just wanted to tell Brocchi that he had bought those things and paid for them at the Milan train station.

"I told him, 'look, I have no idea who you are'," said Brocchi in court. "And he answered, 'I don't know who you are, either.'" Brocchi then told the young man he just wanted his things back, and shut the door.

Days later, Brocchi said he recognized Guede as the man who had visited him when Guede's picture appeared in newspapers reporting his arrest.

The interesting question is how did Rudy know where the items were stolen from?

Thanks Kestral for that information and the reference!
I truly wish to see what Fulcanelli will respond with after his return from vacation!
The fact that I have heard that the Site Mod at PMF is the same person as our own Fulcanelli has me wondering if he is pulling a "Comodi",
you know, when Prosecutor Manuela Comodi was speaking, in court, to Amanda Knox about that 12:00 o'clock Perugia time/Middle of the night Seattle time phone call that she can not remember, BUT Comodi brought up with incorrect time data apparently to "help" further her case...

Thanks again for the info,
RWVBWL

 

[Chris C]

Why didn't the killers just throw the bathmat and any bloodsoaked clothing into the washing machine, and then dry it out on the radiators. After all, they had all night.

Well I'm sure they would have but Meredith's clothes where in the dryer and they didn't feel like folding and putting them up.

 

[christianahannah]

Ok I re-did the photo and added a 2nd circle.

The middle toe which is longer than the big toe shows a spot where the toe would be at, plus a faint red streak running towards that red spot.

Also the little toe has a red spot that would line up with Guede's little toe.

My question is did they test either of these spots for blood?
When you look at those 2 POSSIBLE blood spots and compare it to the overlaye at of Guede's foot at:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint.html

You will see those red spots line up with the toes. Could be anything, but crimescope did pick them up.

PS There is also a faint red streak on the other toe as well.

Chris the rug was tested but I am not sure if the places you mention were tested.

The photo you have is not a good quality photo so I'm not sure what can be made of it. Dan O and Charlie Wilkes may be able to answer your questions concerning the photo and spots on it.

 

[Chris C]

I have no problem with the defense request in this instance, but I fail to see its relevance as a possible source of exculpatory evidence for Knox (or Sollecito).

And until such time as the contents of her laptop are conclusively established, any speculation as to its contents remains just that - speculation. This was the reason for my reply to RWVBWL's assertion about its contents as "hearsay and speculation".

If Knox said she had a recording of the actual crime on that computer do you think the prosecution would have had it sent to a lab and had it fixed?
Knox says that computer is part of her alibi and it has pictures on there that disprove one of Mignini's many absurd theories concerning this crime. The defense is willing to pay to have it fixed themselves. So the only real speculation should be why wont the Prosecution's office allow it? One of the cold hard facts about this case is, the prosecution is blocking an attempt of Knox to prove her innocence.

I understand its speculation when I say it could show computer activity at the time of the prosecutions ToD. However, if it does show computer activity or has the pictures shouldn't the prosecution want to know they have convicted the right people for the crime. Or is this more about a conviction and less about the right people?

 

[el buscador]

Well I'm sure they would have but Meredith's clothes where in the dryer and they didn't feel like folding and putting them up.

Meredith's cloths were in the washer. There was no separate dryer. The washer could have been a European combination washer/dryer with the dryer part not working, or just a plain washer. But there was no working dryer in the apartment.

 

[Chris C]

From what I have read, in the Italian system one can choose a 'fast track' trial which is often rewarded with a large reduction in the sentence. Neither Amanda or Raffaele chose this route, while Rudy Guede did, and he has since had his sentence cut about in half.

Actually Rudy had his sentenced reduced to fit Knox and Sollecito's sentence and then cut by 1/3 per fast track trial.
What I want to know is if Knox/Sollecito's sentence gets increased to life or 30 years are they gonna increase Guede's sentence, since it was reduced to match Knox/Sollecito's.

 

[christianahannah]

If Knox said she had a recording of the actual crime on that computer do you think the prosecution would have had it sent to a lab and had it fixed?
Knox says that computer is part of her alibi and it has pictures on there that disprove one of Mignini's many absurd theories concerning this crime. The defense is willing to pay to have it fixed themselves. So the only real speculation should be why wont the Prosecution's office allow it? One of the cold hard facts about this case is, the prosecution is blocking an attempt of Knox to prove her innocence.

I understand its speculation when I say it could show computer activity at the time of the prosecutions ToD. However, if it does show computer activity or has the pictures shouldn't the prosecution want to know they have convicted the right people for the crime. Or is this more about a conviction and less about the right people?

That is interesting. I hadn't read that there might be activity on Amanda's computer the night of the murder.

I think Amanda wanted the computer contents preserved for photos of her Meredith which would show their friendship in a positive light.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi all, I noticed there was again some discussion over the last week regarding the infamous interrogation of Amanda from December 2007 in which she supposedly nearly gave herself up. I had this debate with Fulcanelli some time back, in which I disagreed that this was at all the case since we DO have recording of that session. I'm posting it again for all here to see that Amanda again sticks to her same story and that there is no way to deduce from it that she was about to "come clean".

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html

P.S. I've noticed Safari doesn't play nice with this video. Firefox should work.

Thanks Malkmus!

I think it was platonov who recently proposed that Amanda refused to talk about the accusation of Patrick during that interrogation. I think the link you posted settles it for good. She definitely talks about it. What she says is basically the same that she said during trial. Also - she's speaking normally. There is no hysterics or "vedo i flash! vedo i flash!" as some media suggested or uncritically repeated after what the prosecution insinuated.

 

[Chris C]

Meredith's cloths were in the washer. There was no separate dryer. The washer could have been a European combination washer/dryer with the dryer part not working, or just a plain washer. But there was no working dryer in the apartment.

Ah yes, but since its reported as a dryer/washer combo my statement stands correct. They would still have to dry and fold the clothes. If there is no dryer then my statment is still correct. They would still have to dry and fold the clothes.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually Rudy had his sentenced reduced to fit Knox and Sollecito's sentence and then cut by 1/3 per fast track trial.
What I want to know is if Knox/Sollecito's sentence gets increased to life or 30 years are they gonna increase Guede's sentence, since it was reduced to match Knox/Sollecito's.

Thank you for the information. Do you know what the whole story is with the proposed increased sentence to life? How did that come about?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks Malkmus!

I think it was platonov who recently proposed that Amanda refused to talk about the accusation of Patrick during that interrogation. I think the link you posted settles it for good. She definitely talks about it. What she says is basically the same that she said during trial. Also - she's speaking normally. There is no hysterics or "vedo i flash! vedo i flash!" as some media suggested or uncritically repeated after what the prosecution insinuated.

It does appear, at face value, that this December 2007 interrogation has been misinterpreted by some (either accidentally or deliberately....), in order to promote a certain agenda. A generous way to describe this might be "confirmation bias", but there are also less generous explanations.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for the information. Do you know what the whole story is with the proposed increased sentence to life? How did that come about?

I believe the prosecution is appealing against the mitigating factors (including the covering of the body) which the first court applied to lessen the sentence slightly.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't think Massei was tricked.

Thanks for the answer christianahannah,

To clarify, when I wrote that both Massei and Amanda were tricked, I meant strictly the fact that both of them didn't know that Comodi was talking about the 12:47 phone call. It is very clear in the transcript excerpt katy_did posted:

GCM: Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each other in the middle of the night.

AK: Yes, yes, of course.

GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --​

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!

The fact that even Massei was tricked makes me think it's probable the jury also understood it exactly as Comodi intended: That Amanda made a suspicious phone call at 12:00 before anything happened and revealed in that call knowledge of facts that she could know about only after discovering the break-in.

He [Massei] got the time correct in the motivations and only gave the call and prison conversation that of perplexity.

That is not correct. He definitely quotes Comodi's imprecision at least once, without a correction or acknowledging the error. He implies Comodi is only quoting Edda, which is another imprecision. But in other place he directly acknowledges the point which Comodi was trying to make by her trick:

This conversation [the first call] between mother and daughter was not intercepted. The first call, to U.S. phone user 00120069326457, was made at 12:47 pm on November 2 and corroborated by analyzing the telephone traffic of Amanda Knox’s cellphone. However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known.

While Massei is not logical because here he states the 12:47 time (but is he ever?) he fully adopts the point of Comodi's dirty trick. To clarify again - I am sure that at that moment he was already aware of Comodi's foul play. He just found it to be a great idea and used it in the motivation.

Since nothing more is specified in the motivations I don't think it played an important part (if any) in the decision of the court.

I don't agree. Even if Comodi's point were not in the motivation (yet it is there) impressions of the jury still definitely influenced the verdict.