• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
Uhhhh exactly the point. Maybe you'd now like to explain how the prosecution's "expert" convinced the court that the bath mat print matched Sollecito's reference print, and specifically didn't match Guede's?
Click to expand...

Well how are you, not an expert, not having seen either the bathmat or the ink prints taken by the police, so certain who's it is?

I don't it can be determined as to who's print it is.
 
Alt+F4 said:
It's my understanding that the police did not return to the apartment until then because the defense did not agree to it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is true. At least, I remember Fulcanelli first saying that the delay was due to the defence, and I asked him if he knew when they were first notified, how long the delay actually was etc. Uncharacteristically, he didn't reply with a source.

Maybe you have a cite? It's a claim I keep seeing repeated so it'd be good to know where it originates.
 
katy_did said:
I'm not sure this is true. At least, I remember Fulcanelli first saying that the delay was due to the defence, and I asked him if he knew when they were first notified, how long the delay actually was etc. Uncharacteristically, he didn't reply with a source.

Maybe you have a cite? It's a claim I keep seeing repeated so it'd be good to know where it originates.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Let me look it up.
 
el buscador said:
But the apartment was sealed by the police, correct? So, would it have mattered if they had returned days or even weeks earlier? The scene would have looked the same.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous theory anyway. Any efficient police department would have removed all the evidence and documented everything long before there even was a 'defence'.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Well how are you, not an expert, not having seen either the bathmat or the ink prints taken by the police, so certain who's it is?

I don't it can be determined as to who's print it is.
Click to expand...

You haven't been following this thread recently, have you?

The entire point is that it's impossible to tell whose print is on that bath mat. I'm not alleging that it's definitely Guede's, or even that it's definitely not Sollecito's. I'm alleging that no positive identification can be made, and that any attempt to do so is pseudoscientific nonsense.

So I'm happy to say that I'm in complete agreement with you in that nobody can be certain whose print that is. However, you might or might not be aware that the court saw things differently in the first trial. And that's what this part of the discussion is all about.
 
Changing your mind

daydreamer said:
I am impressed by the level of knowledge about the case that has been demonstrated in this forum on both sides. People seem pretty entrenched on their positions here and I was wondering if anyone has changed their minds about as to guilt or innocence. And if they did switch, what was the item that turned the tide.
Personally, I was about 90/10 for guilt in the early days ( Jan ’08). Most of my input was from TJMK and PMF. Later in 2008, I started reading Perugia Shock, where I learned about the false HIV results and 3 fried computers. I started questioning the prosecution’s tactics, evidence and logic. By the end of 2008, I was about 50/50 on guilt. I actual trial was an eye-opener and hearing the “other side” has pushed me to 90/10 on innocence.
I would like to if you changed you position, what was the deciding factor. Or possibly, what would it take to change your mind. For me it was the tactics, evidence and logic of the prosecution.
Click to expand...

With me, I didn't take an interest in this case until the verdict was in the news; and after some early confusion over what turned out to be disinformation, my initial instincts have just been confirmed at every turn. I remember feeling slight surprise at the verdict (because the case didn't sound right even then) - but thinking that the evidence against Knox would no doubt become clear. Of course, it didn't, and the longer I went on reading the blogs on the case, the more convinced I became that Amanda and Raffaele were completely innocent.

What struck me early on when there was plenty of comment on both sides in the news websites, was the frenzy of those applauding the verdict along with the thinness of their arguments. There were opinion columns on the lines of "let's remember that the real victim in this case is Meredith Kercher" (yeah, right - because someone was murdered, let's not ask any questions as to whether the right people were convicted).

What it would take for me to change my mind is information showing the police had real evidence implicating Amanda and Raffaele before the investigation settled on them as suspects. That and if the police were to make public the recordings of the interrogations, particularly of the night of Nov 5-6, showing that Amanda made her statements voluntarily and without pressure from them. But of course all of this would have been in the public domain long ago if it existed, so I'm not holding my breath.
 
Withnail1969 said:
I am sorry but I do not understand what you are talking about. The entire crime scene should have been done, dusted, tagged, bagged, filmed, Luminoled, whatever, in 48 hours as per UK (i.e. professional) police standards.

So by 03/11/07 the cleaners would have been in and the cottage would have been back to normal. By 3rd November there was no 'defence' as yet. What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Are you saying that a crime scene involving a murder is not revisited after 48 hours? Are you really saying that the cottage would "have been back to normal", meaning Laura and Filomena living back there two days after the discovery of the body? Really?

I never said there was a defense on November 3rd. Please read what I actually typed. If I do a little research are you going to tell me that I'm not going to find a murder case in the UK where the police revisited the crime scene multiple times? I don't think so.
 
Beige Cloth bag

el buscador said:
A partial list of what was taken from the house in March is on Frank's site, Perugia Shock.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/03/we-were-joking.html

He lists among other things, Amanda's and Merediths guitars, 2 Harry Potter Books, a little pot of vaseline, a sweatshirt (possibly Amanda's) and Meredith's cloth purse which was blood stained. I think this was the purse she was carrying that night.

But I also read on Frank's blog that the lab refused to test the items from March but I can't find where I read that.
Click to expand...

Perugia Shock:
"Last Friday there was a get-together at the house of horrors.
All of the sudden the lawyers got a call from the police and had to go there. Some things had to be seized, which is why the presence of the parties was necessary.

Among the items seized: Meredith's purse, Meredith's guitar, Amanda's guitar, the 2 Harry Potter books, a hair-dryer, a little pot of vaseline, a sweatshirt, etc. It seems that all of this seized stuff will be tested in light of some clues provided by a witness.

The purse was not the leather one we see on the bed but a cloth purse with Meredith's i-pod and make-up kit still inside. It seems that it was blood stained. Everything will be analyzed. Blood, fingerprints, more hair, etc."


In MARCH the Cloth bag that Meredith was wearing that night was still at the cottage according to Frank Sfarzo.

What is disturbing about this is we do not know where Meredith would have put the keys that were needed to leave the cottage. If the keys were in the cloth bag she wore that night Rudy would have had to have touched this bag to find the keys. He could have left DNA. It is not likely she put them in the leather purse she didn't use that night.

Searching the cloth bag is also possibly when he stepped in the blood that he trailed out of the cottage. Proper and timely testing could have perhaps provided a more complete scenario.
 
Last edited:
Withnail1969 said:
I think poor little ALT + F4 is a little overwhelmed without his buddies. Maybe he needs to press ALT + F4.
Click to expand...

You're new to the JREF fourms so I'll tell you two things:
1. I'm a woman
2. I've been posting on the JREF forums for four years. I post on many topics. As a point of information, the conspiracy sub-forum is that away.
 
Withnail1969 said:
crime scene tape?
Click to expand...
Thanks, Withnail1969, I was about to give the same answer. There is a photo around somewhere that actually shows the front door of the house open with the crime scene tape across the door. The date on the photo is sometime in late November 2007, I believe. It seems someone could have breached the crime scene or it could have been that pesky lock on the front door if the police forgot to use the keys. I'll see if I can find that photo.
 
Machiavelli said:
However your Sollecito's reference measurement is 102-103 mm.
That would probably work anyway for a good overlay of the contour.
However the contour of the print should be visible, so it should be overlayed to the print for a better assessment.

I think Rinaldi's measurements on the prints are correct, but I consider the photo is definitley a less precise source of information on what regards proportion and measurement, also because of the intrinsic optical properties of photography, which always produces a slight deformation, albeit not perceived by the eye, unless there are some very sophisticate and very professional conter-measurements, special equipments, etc. Only a centimetred grid over the stain would produce a good retference.
The properties of deformation / shrinking of the bathmat as a soft material are also potentially influent on proportions and scale error.
The assessment of the correct scale on two images like thesre is not a banal operation. In fact it has to follow a morphologic assessment: to understand what are the points of reference and the degree of rotation of one in respect to the other, before confronting the scales.
Click to expand...

After parsing your elegant prose, I realize you are making a simple but important point: measurements taken from photos of stained fabric are subject to error. Therefore, Rinaldi is a buffoon of the first order, and Massei is a fool for taking him seriously. I could not agree more. Thank you for saying it so well.
 
Ahhh the old

"People who believe Knox and Sollecito were wrongly convicted should be classified as conspiracy theorists"

misdirection rears its ugly head again! Very instructive!
 
Withnail1969 said:
That's exactly right, a crime scene involving a murder is not revisited in the UK for forensic purposes after 48 hours, because by that time all the evidence has been gathered and the crime scene has been cleaned by professional cleaners.
Click to expand...

Please cite a link from a UK law enforcement agency that all forensic evidence is gathered from a murder scene within 48 hours and that the scene is not revisited again. Again, I know you are new to the JREF forums and don't post anywhere except but this sub-forum. This is a sub-forum of a skeptics website, not an Amanda Knox website.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
After parsing your elegant prose, I realize you are making a simple but important point: measurements taken from photos of stained fabric are subject to error. Therefore, Rinaldi is a buffoon of the first order, and Massei is a fool for taking him seriously. I could not agree more. Thank you for saying it so well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Millimetre precision" can be Rinaldi's epitaph.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom