Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

I also have a strong recollection of a winged being leaving a dollar under my pillow in exchange for a tooth I left there.

I am sure I can, if necessary, Google for hours, researching Scotland Yard procedures and all manner of things, to satisfy your imperious demands that i fulfil your every desire and whim for every possible nuance of British police procedures as they stand in 2010.




But I'm not going to.

 

[christianahannah]

Here it is:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BZD30a25FmE/Rz11xR3I6kI/AAAAAAAACJY/qgTeHey702M/s1600-h/Perugia+crime+scene+-+front+door.jpg


http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html


IIP Forum discussion:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/nov-14-crime-scene-photo-link-posted-in-general-blog-t170.html#p1644

This is what the motivations has to say about the crime scene:

Pages 273 -274:

While the Scientific Police were in the house, it was under surveillance, and after that the seals were placed. After November 7th, the last day of the search by the personnel of the Questura of Perugia, the next access to the house on via della Pergola was the entry on December 18, 2007, which has already been discussed, [294] and no seals were broken between November 7 and December 18, 2007. So there was no illicit access to the house during this period.

I assume this means police access also, but I am not sure.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm almost embarrassed to have to point out that not only is Charlie not asserting that the print is that of Guede, but he's also refuting the positive identification of the print as that of Sollecito.

Have you even been to Charlie's website? He states:

1. Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher and he acted alone.

and....

2. It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

Bolding mine. Get it?

 

[Alt+F4]

Withnail, I am on your side, but your second paragraph above is not okay in this forum. It's an ad hominem attack, very negative, and it's not accurate, anyway, because Alt+4 is not a died-in-the-wool PMFer.

Also, Alt+4 is well within her rights to ask for citations. If you don't want to provide them, that's okay, too, but it doesn't look good for you to suggest she search for support for your claims.

I've never posted at PMF or in fact anywhere else on the Internet. JREF is my spot.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Changing your mind

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.

I came to this case even later: I only took notice of it because of the discussion here, and as you could tell from my early posts it took me a while to get up to speed.

However what tilted me towards thinking that Knox and Sollecito were probably innocent was the sheer inanity of the arguments I saw in the thread for their guilt. You don't necessarily need to know what the facts are to spot a flawed argument: If I said that all flibbets were gizzles, and Ted was a gizzle, therefore he was a flibbet, sufficiently cluey people will know at once I'm making a fallacious argument even without knowing what flibbets and gizzles are.

By the same token the arguments I was seeing for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito had holes you could drive a truck through, and were presented with certainty which was completely disproportionate to the evidence.

Of course as we nailed down more and more of the actual facts, as opposed to "facts" established in the mind of Massei or in carefully protected internet echo chambers, it turned out that the guilter case hinged on false factual claims and bad arguments.

The Massei report was for me the final nail in the coffin, because once again the arguments were so laughably flawed that it was obvious the conviction was unsound. Massei repeatedly engages in tenuous speculation, announces a conclusion as certain, and then moves on as if it really was certain. By doing so repeatedly he conjured "proof beyond reasonable doubt" out of a chain of suppositions every one of which should be doubted by any reasonable person.

At this stage it's only barely conceivable that new evidence could come along that made me think Raffaele and Knox were guilty. If they confessed and led police to a pile of their bloody clothes and murder weapons that would do it.

However I don't think it's even conceivable that I could be talked into thinking that the conviction was justified, having read the Massei report, because no amount of evidence will turn a fallacious argument into a sound one.

 

[RoseMontague]

Withnail, I am on your side, but your second paragraph above is not okay in this forum. It's an ad hominem attack, very negative, and it's not accurate, anyway, because Alt+4 is not a died-in-the-wool PMFer.

Also, Alt+4 is well within her rights to ask for citations. If you don't want to provide them, that's okay, too, but it doesn't look good for you to suggest she search for support for your claims.

You should have at least as long as Alt+4 is taking to find the cite he earlier told katy_did he would look up, I am interested in that one as well.

 

[Alt+F4]

You should have at least as long as Alt+4 is taking to find the cite he earlier told katy_did he would look up, I am interested in that one as well.

I haven't forgot about it and I'm not asking anyone else to do my research for me. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. And by the way Rose, I'm a she.

 

[LondonJohn]

Withnail, I am on your side, but your second paragraph above is not okay in this forum. It's an ad hominem attack, very negative, and it's not accurate, anyway, because Alt+4 is not a died-in-the-wool PMFer.

Also, Alt+4 is well within her rights to ask for citations. If you don't want to provide them, that's okay, too, but it doesn't look good for you to suggest she search for support for your claims.

I'd agree. However, it's unlikely that there even exists a written record within UK police procedures etc which says something like "all crime scene examination should be finished within x days, after which the scene is unsealed and returned to the owner/occupant etc".

It's easily possible to demonstrate that modern police forces aim to secure the crime scene within an hour of the crime being discovered, and that the analysis of the crime scene should be one continuous, unbroken process undertaken as quickly as possible (without losing accuracy or detail), in order to preserve as much evidence as possible. It's manifestly obvious that it would not be good practice to process some of the crime scene, then to go away for a week or two, then to return back to process the remainder of the scene.

So, in my opinion, Alt+F4 is falling back into "cite" mode when she knows that these sorts of things are probably difficult to cite explicitly. But if she thinks that modern police forces are in the habit of leaving important pieces of evidence at crime scenes, then coming back to identify and collect them some weeks later (not forgetting the widespread disruption of the crime scene in the intervening period), then I'm very happy to let her bask in that belief.

 

[LondonJohn]

Have you even been to Charlie's website? He states:

1. Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher and he acted alone.

and....

2. It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

Bolding mine. Get it?

This is one enormous straw man you're in the process of constructing

 

[RoseMontague]

I haven't forgot about it and I'm not asking anyone else to do my research for me. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. And by the way Rose, I'm a she.

My apologies, and I will also try and find that cite for you. I have heard it claimed before but I have not seen the source.

 

[Draca]

Sock not retrieved until Dec 18th

There were a few items tested after the December 18 search which yielded results, a sock which was rolled up in the rug, the zippered jacket, the brown handbag (which I think was retrieved from the wardrobe) blood from the wall (I assume the handprint but am not sure) and the bra clasp.

On two items were the profile and/or haplotype of Rudy (handbag and zippered jacket), on one item the profile/haplotype of Raffaele (bra clasp).

All items included the profile of Meredith with the exception of the blood on the wall (no profile). The sock amazingly, only included the profile of Meredith though rolled up in the blue rug. I am not sure of its placement on November 2-3. That would be something to check.

The leather purse was on the bed.

Both socks were found early on. One was found underneath Meredith's body and one is easily seen in early photos on the blue rug.

These socks would have been REMOVED from Meredith's body by the KILLER. No matter who you think is guilty, if DNA was found it would have been pretty damning.

They didn't want to test the socks until Dec 18th to see whose DNA may be found on the cuff of the sock from removing them?

Not bagged and tagged even though photographed in early photos? Just like the bra clasp.

In this photo you can see the sock on the rug in the middle of the tote bag handle loop:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=158997610791385&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

 

[Dan O.]

From what I remember, however others may correct my memory, the crimescene was not entered after November 6-7, 2007 (it may have been sooner that the house was sealed, I am not sure) until December 18, 2007.

That is the official story and can be found in the Massei report. However, that does not explain how Barbie Nadeau managed to photograph the cottage on November 14 with the front door wide open.

http://lastrada.blogspot.com/2007/11/perugia-crime-scene-14-november-2007-as.html

 

[Alt+F4]

This is one enormous straw man you're in the process of constructing

You posted:

Nearly everyone I'm aware of (including myself) arguing in this area on JREF is of the opinion that the bath mat print can't be matched to anyone with any level of certainty whatsoever.

Wrong. This has already been shown to you.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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 guess you got this result because it was rotated from the original position. But we can see if shrinking it changes much. I scaled it down a percent and used a less inclusive outline. The overlay is a good idea - it clearly shows where the prints mismatch. I tried to position it as much the way you did as I could:
(will enlarge when clicked)

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.

Indeed it's not trivial, that's why I relied on what Rinaldi did. But as we see a millimeter or two one or other way doesn't really change the outcome - the mismatch of the big toe is still prominent.

PS. Photoshop is much fun, guess it's never too late to learn something new

 

[Alt+F4]

I guess you got this result because it was rotated from the original position. But we can see if shrinking it changes much. I scaled it down a percent and used a less inclusive outline. The overlay is a good idea - it clearly shows where the prints mismatch. I tried to position it as much the way you did as I could:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054cc611566b5b0.jpg[/URL] (will enlarge when clicked)

Indeed it's not trivial, that's why I relied on what Rinaldi did. But as we see a millimeter or two one or other way doesn't really change the outcome - the mismatch of the big toe is still prominent.

PS. Photoshop is much fun, guess it's never too late to learn something new

And your conclusion is?

 

[Katody Matrass]

And your conclusion is?

My conclusion is not changed from what I wrote yesterday.
BTW Here's Rudy overlaid in the same style.

 

[Alt+F4]

My conclusion is not changed from what I wrote yesterday.
BTW Here's Rudy overlaid in the same style.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054cc6157e81411.jpg[/URL]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can I assume that it is your opinion that the print is Rudy's?

 

[Withnail1969]

My conclusion is not changed from what I wrote yesterday.
BTW Here's Rudy overlaid in the same style.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054cc6157e81411.jpg[/qimg]

It's Rudy's footprint. Logic, reason, observation, empiricism, forensics and common sense say that it is.

We have reached a point now, I believe, where those who fervently claim that it is Sollecito's print have something mentally wrong with them because his foot simply does not fit this print.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's Rudy's footprint. Logic, reason, observation, empiricism, forensics and common sense say that it is.

We have reached a point now, I believe, where those who fervently claim that it is Sollecito's print have something mentally wrong with them because his foot simply does not fit this print.

Well thank you again for proving that John was wrong what he posted in #12493:

Nearly everyone I'm aware of (including myself) arguing in this area on JREF is of the opinion that the bath mat print can't be matched to anyone with any level of certainty whatsoever. Many of us have pointed out in passing that, if anything, the print tends to match Guede more than Sollecito.

But that doesn't in any way mean that we think the print should be positively linked to Guede. We merely believe that the print should not (and cannot) be positively linked to Sollecito, and likewise that it should not (and cannot) be positively excluded as Guede's.

The Injustice in Perugia website which clearly states that the bathmat print belongs to Rudy is operated by Bruce Fisher, not Charlie. Sorry for the error.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well thank you again for proving that John was wrong what he posted in #12493:

Nearly everyone I'm aware of (including myself) arguing in this area on JREF is of the opinion that the bath mat print can't be matched to anyone with any level of certainty whatsoever. Many of us have pointed out in passing that, if anything, the print tends to match Guede more than Sollecito.

The Injustice in Perugia website which clearly states that the bathmat print belongs to Rudy is operated by Bruce Fisher, not Charlie. Sorry for the error.

He did say nearly everyone as well as on JREF so finding one poster here does not make him wrong. I don't know that it really matters that much how you define nearly everyone. I think the print looks more like Guede's as well and don't see how it can be Raffaele's, nor can I see how the prosecution expert excluded Rudy from this print.