Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Supernaut · Oct 29, 2010

Supernaut said:
..... it would surprise me if someone leaving a print from a wet, bare foot (or wearing socks worn for some time and presumably containing a nice combination of perspiration and epithelial cells **) wouldn't stand a very good chance of leaving enough biological material to facilitate it.

a note about the circumstances under which the bathmat print and the luminol-revealed "hallway prints" were made, the latter presumably also made by wet feet;

if those in the hallway were made by a resident (whether or not it was Amanda), it would likely have been after showering which, I would have thought, would reduce the chance of their leaving biological traces.

Whoever left the print on the bathmat had just removed their shoe and (probably) sock, and cursorily rinsed their foot and pant leg under running water which would be rather different, and I repeat - I find it very hard to see how they would have left no trace of themself in it.

RWVBWL · Oct 29, 2010

Charlie Wilkes said:
The post to which I refer was #7352, back on page 184. It contains a number of errors, but what I noticed at the time was this:

He did not move her right after the stabbing, because the body remained near the closet for some time and was moved only after at least 10-15 minutes as the coddling of the blood stains shows.

This is flatly contradicted by the crime scene photos. Meredith was moved from the spot where her throat was cut, in front of the wardrobe, to the spot where she was found, with her head adjacent to the left side panel of the wardrobe, while she was still alive (albeit barely alive) and gasping for breath. Experts have determined that because the same aspirated blood spatter that appears on the wardrobe doors also appears on the side panel.

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

Also, the volume of blood found at that location shows that her heart was still beating, causing blood to actively flow from her wounds. People don't bleed like that after they are dead. And Meredith most certainly did not survive for 15 minutes after she received that enormous slashing wound to her throat.

You have bought into a ridiculous fable because you don't have the facts particular to this case, and you lack even the most basic knowledge of criminal investigations in general. Certainly you are not in a position to critique Steve Moore.

Greetings Charlie Wilkes,
After viewing the details of the photograph that you had linked,

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

I was reminded about how horrible Miss Kerchers death was.

I decided to see if there were other high resolution photographs on the
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/
website of Miss Kercher's bedroom and the rest of the apartment.
But I could not find any.
Do you know if there are others available?

Thanks, RWVBWL

Mary_H · Oct 29, 2010

quadraginta said:
I was already familiar with the story of Fred Zain.

It is not clear what your point is. Perhaps you yourself would benefit from rereading the post of mine you cited. You don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals of it yet.

It doesn't matter how many examples of malfeasance or misadventure from elsewhere you can cite. No one is challenging the fact that such things can happen, or that they do happen. The problem is that these examples have absolutely no merit as evidence, much less proof, that it happened this time.

Endless litanies of instances of deplorable acts or regrettable errors serve only as an appeal to emotion. That is a rhetorical device, not any sort of deductive, inferential, or logical progression towards proof. No matter how many more of them you cite, or how often you repeat them the basic truth of this does not change.

If you really want to try and pursue such a form of persuasion then the very least you need to do is establish some sort of demonstration of how often this happens out of all criminal cases. Is it 1% of the time? 10%? 0.000001%? This might begin to make such citations germane, but even that would only be a beginning.

Otherwise all you are doing is a sort of spotlighting, singling out examples you find convenient for your position, and asserting a commonality to this instance without any support for the assertion, while ignoring a preponderance of other examples which are less useful to your argument.

If I were to present an interminable procession of cases where the accused were actually guilty and the prosecutors were innocent of any misdeeds even though the defense claimed otherwise you would disregard that as being irrelevant to this discussion, and rightfully so. The tactic is no more legitimate when it is used by the side of the discussion you have aligned yourself with.

Thank you, quadraginta, for your well-written post. It goes farther than previous posts (not necessarily by you) that have stopped at simply ridiculing the use of analogies.

Your references to rhetoric, persuasion and tactics focus on the structure but not the content of the discussion. I don’t want to speak for other supporters of Amanda and Raffaele, but personally, I am not as strongly motivated by a desire to persuade others of my beliefs as I am by the impulse to correct misinformation and counter the malicious, proactive movement to vilify Amanda and Raffaele. As such, my participation in this discussion is reactive and requires no more than knowledge of the facts. Any further creative use of language or argumentation is unnecessary and elective; it just adds to my enjoyment of the process.

Contrary to your assertion that “no one is challenging the fact that such things” as lab misconduct can or do happen, other commentators have conveyed their beliefs that such things happen so rarely, the topic isn't relevant to this discussion, particularly the concept of actually planting evidence. When analogies have been offered, it often has been in response to such expressions of disbelief. The intention is not to claim that since it happened in other situations, it happened here; the intention is to educate readers that it happens.

Another way analogies have been used successfully here is to challenge accusations of xenophobia. A number of examples have illustrated that Amanda and Raffaele's supporters are not singling out Italy as the only place bad things happen.

Yesterday, you referred to the section of my Wiki citation that stated “analogy is often used as a rhetorical device to take advantage of a listener's weakness of understanding and sway them to an erroneous conclusion by suggesting a similarity which does not actually exist.” This is a rhetorical device the innocenstisti would never have use for.

RWVBWL · Oct 29, 2010

Originally Posted by RWVBWL
Greetings Draca,
I am curious if anyone can shed any light on where Miss Kercher usually put her house keys.
Reading in Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face" on page 13 it says:
"The house was L-shaped, with a covered portico at the front that opened into a tiny foyer where the girls hung keys, parked umbrellas, and kept a bulletin board with messages to each other." Etc...

If so, did Meredith also hang her keys there too?

Danceme said:
If the girls routinely hung their keys there, then Rudy likely grabbed them on his way out and opened the door.

Hi Danceme,
I too had thought of this when I read that passage in B. Nadeau's book "Angel Face".
Did Rudy Guede grab the keys from the area of the tiny foyer to open the front door when he left?
What if it was Luciano Aviello's brother who stabbed Miss Kercher to her death. Did he grab her keys and exit the door?
Was this area tested for fingerprints also?

A question for someone who might know:
Meredith Kercher's bedroom door was found locked.
Was it the kind of door lock that a person could just turn the lock or push in the button and close the door
or was it similiar to a double keyed deadbolt where only Meredith's key could lock it?

ADD-in #1:
LoverofZion sent me a kind note saying to have a look at Perugia Murder File.
And though I can not read any postings anymore, since I am not a member, I can look at the Gallery still.
I found this photograph of the type of lock on Meredith's bedroom door:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1289
and here:
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1279
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1280

So please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like a person would have had to use a key to have locked Meredith Kercher's door
after she was brutally murdered, correct?

Meredith was asked to water her "boy-friend" Giacomo's plants downstairs while he was out of town that weekend.
Page 36 of "Angel Face" says that on the last afternoon of her life, Meredith
"then went downstairs to water the pot. When she finished, she sent Giacomo a flirty text message saying how excited she was to see him when he got back."

IIRC, the keys to that downstairs apartment were later found in Amanda Knox's bedroom.
Who left them there? Meredith? Amanda? The person who killed Meredith?

Add-in #2:
After walking my dog around the block, I was trying to figure out the significence, if any, to put Giacomo's downstairs keys into perspecive.
Do they mean anything as far as the murder of Meredith Kercher goes?
Would Meredith have still had them on herself when she died?
Or after she had watered the plants, did she just hang the keys up in the tiny foyer that B. Nadeau writes of?

And so I dug back into my own younger days and thought of how proud I was of my own "green thumb" that allowed me,
with my folks knowledge and OK, to "grow my own".How I would always luv to show my plants off to the bro's, as they did too with their own.
So I got to thinking, after Meredith split to go hang out with her English gal pals, did Amanda maybe take her new boyfriend Raffaele downstairs to show him some "greenery", and then afterwards, just forget to put the keys back?
Or did the person who locked the door to Meredith's room grabs 2 different sets of keys -(Meredith's and the boys downstairs), from Meredith or the tiny foyer and then finally figured out which key locked Meredith's door and left the other in Amanda's room, finally leaving with Meredith's keys out the front door?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Chris_Halkides · Oct 29, 2010

cautionary notes

quadraginta said:
It doesn't matter how many examples of malfeasance or misadventure from elsewhere you can cite. No one is challenging the fact that such things can happen, or that they do happen. The problem is that these examples have absolutely no merit as evidence, much less proof, that it happened this time.

Quadraginta,

What you wrote about forensic scientists (that no one challenges that misconduct* happens) may be true. However, some commenters have implicitly challenged the notion that DNA contamination ever happens. I gave a list of some cases in response to this mistaken notion in message 6905 on September 21st. And the Phantom of Heilbronn case is another cautionary note. Moreover, errors in labs are not limited to contamination but also included documented clerical errors.
*by misconduct I mean evidence tampering here

Charlie Wilkes · Oct 29, 2010

Machiavelli said:
I disagree on several points, first of all to the statement "Meredith certainly did not survive 15 minutes". The posssible dynamics of her death do not allow us to estimate the timing of her death with this precision. Even the seconds or minutes tha passed between the first and the last wound are an unknown time.

Then, you are pointing to a detail frankly of secondary value. You are just speaking about the timing that occurred between the stabbing and moving of the body. The pattern on the wardrobe side means really little. What has a logical value is the evidence this movement of the body occurred, and in addition there are indications that a movement occurred later after the stabbing. Any (only possible, imho) evidence that movements occurred also before while she was alive do not have a logical value, because they cannot exclude anything. The evidence of actions made after her death, movement and alteration of the scene later after her death are multiple and very obvious.

While a very important aspect is the lack of prints on her body, which would he impossible if her body was closely manipulated by a person after her death in the context of a sexual violence. No bloody prints or bloody smearings consistent with manipulation were found on her breast and on her body, this obviously rules out the possibility that somebody had a close sexual contact her after the stabbing.

Othr macroscpic elements contribute to the picture, like the duvet on her body. But the story would be long.

This is pure nonsense. You don't have the first clue.

Gaspode · Oct 29, 2010

Derail moved to AAH. Keep on-topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Gaspode

Draca · Oct 29, 2010

RWVBWL said:
Hi Danceme,
I too had thought of this when I read that passage in B. Nadeau's book "Angel Face".
Did Rudy Guede grab the keys from the area of the tiny foyer to open the front door when he left?

Here's a photo of the entry way. I don't see a hook to hang keys. There is no way to know where Meredith put them that night anyway though.

I have heard that a key was needed to lock Meredith's bedroom door.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=164785023545977&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Katody Matrass · Oct 29, 2010

Antony said:
This is an astonishing assertion, because it is the technique used that shows the quality of the evidence obtained. "Evidence" can indeed be obtained by questionable techniques, but it does not have the value of evidence properly obtained. The more flaws shown in the handling of the evidence, the more compromised it becomes.

On the contrary, the presence of RS's DNA, or anyone other than Meredith's, is quite difficult to explain on the assumption that it was placed there at the time of the killing. Since the bra was removed by cutting the strap instead of unfastening the clasp, the assailant(s) would have had no occasion to touch the hooks at all.

How, exactly, did RS's DNA come to be on the bra clasp as a result of his alleged participation in the assault? How did the unidentified DNA profiles come to be there? And why are the total readings regarded as evidence implicating RS alone?
I'm sure people here appreciate you continuing to post when the rest of the PMF faction are absent, but I find your reasoning on the evidence to be unconvincing. It's not even clear to me why it convinces you.

Excellent post, it's a pity it went unnoticed, Antony.
These are some serious questions that I'd love to see being tackled.

Charlie Wilkes · Oct 29, 2010

RWVBWL said:
Greetings Charlie Wilkes,
After viewing the details of the photograph that you had linked,

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

I was reminded about how horrible Miss Kerchers death was.

I decided to see if there were other high resolution photographs on the
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/
website of Miss Kercher's bedroom and the rest of the apartment.
But I could not find any.
Do you know if there are others available?

Thanks, RWVBWL

Machiavelli · Oct 29, 2010

Charlie Wilkes said:
This is pure nonsense. You don't have the first clue.

I think it is pure nonsense to see the features of the affaire Dreyfuss in this case. But I look with interest at your quality pictures. I don't see in this later picture and in your argument anything that would implicate a post mortem violence by Rudy Guede. I can't see precisely how you can assert this theory based on the phisical scene. Neither how can you think that one (alone) person dragged Meredith from one position to another. These simply go against the findings.

Machiavelli · Oct 29, 2010

RoseMontague said:
There was human interaction on the computer at 9:10PM so the earliest they would get over there and the scene to play out almost immediately would be around 9:30, so it gives you a whole 1 hour window and of course, the park bench gentleman now gives them an alibi for this time.

I disagree. 1) The human interaction was maybe not human. 2) A human interaction is not an alibi. Nothing prevents Amanda from being at the cottage at 9:10 while Raffaele touches the screen. 3) 9:10 is only a spot in time, not a time frame. Sollecito's apartment is only 1 minutes 45 seconds of walk from the cottage door, in five minutes one can leave the cottage, go there and come back. Can be that one person goes home, fetches something (like the knife or else) closes windows on the computer screen, and comes back. That doesn't make an alibi. 4) Curatolo doesn't provide any alibi: to provide them an alibi means to confirm their alibi, it must be the alibi the suspects declare and not something that contradicts them. If their alibi is denied by evidence or testimony showing they were lying, this simply becomes an evidence of their implication, can never be used to affirm innocence.

Chris C · Oct 29, 2010

Machiavelli said:
I think it is pure nonsense to see the features of the affaire Dreyfuss in this case. But I look with interest at your quality pictures. I don't see in this later picture and in your argument anything that would implicate a post mortem violence by Rudy Guede. I can't see precisely how you can assert this theory based on the phisical scene. Neither how can you think that one (alone) person dragged Meredith from one position to another. These simply go against the findings.

Well having a ToD of 2330hrs goes against the findings yet Mignini makes that leap. Then again I toss bags all day that weigh atleast 100 pounds. I could move meredith very easily. Heck I could drag Meredith behind me on my daily 2 mile walk. Yall act like she weighs 300 pounds. Yet dragging her would take very little muscle for a man.

Machiavelli · Oct 30, 2010

halides1 said:
Why couldn't the knife handle simply be broken away from the blade and each piece be checked?

Maybe it could. But i'm not sure if can be useful to simply broke matter to find evidence. If there is no microscopic separation between blade and handle molded together, I intutively don't expect to find somehing in between. However the defence can request to disassemble it. Did they express this request?

Machiavelli · Oct 30, 2010

Chris C said:
Well having a ToD of 2330hrs goes against the findings yet Mignini makes that leap. Then again I toss bags all day that weigh atleast 100 pounds. I could move meredith very easily. Heck I could drag Meredith behind me on my daily 2 mile walk. Yall act like she weighs 300 pounds. Yet dragging her would take very little muscle for a man.

Of course it would be very easy to drag her, but this would leave visible marks, blood smearings and blood drops, if made by one person alone. This was not done just by lifting or draging a wounded person, because there is no blood trail or link between the previous position of the body and the re-location spot (1,5 meters distant).

samba · Oct 30, 2010

Machiavelli said:
I think it is pure nonsense to see the features of the affaire Dreyfuss in this case. But I look with interest at your quality pictures. I don't see in this later picture and in your argument anything that would implicate a post mortem violence by Rudy Guede. I can't see precisely how you can assert this theory based on the phisical scene. Neither how can you think that one (alone) person dragged Meredith from one position to another. These simply go against the findings.

You've stated before that you don't necessarily believe that Amanda participated in the murder...but that she was somehow responsible. What do you think Raffaele's role was? Can you give your scenario as to how the murder occurred....who was present in the room at the time....when or if Amanda and Raffaele entered the room....who moved the body....etc, etc, etc.

Malkmus · Oct 30, 2010

Charlie Wilkes said:
Here is a list of some of the material that I have posted over the past several months in the context of this ongoing discussion:

Thanks, Charlie!

RWVBWL · Oct 30, 2010

Machiavelli said:
I disagree. 1) The human interaction was maybe not human. 2) A human interaction is not an alibi. Nothing prevents Amanda from being at the cottage at 9:10 while Raffaele touches the screen. 3) 9:10 is only a spot in time, not a time frame. Sollecito's apartment is only 1 minutes 45 seconds of walk from the cottage door, in five minutes one can leave the cottage, go there and come back. Can be that one person goes home, fetches something (like the knife or else) closes windows on the computer screen, and comes back. That doesn't make an alibi. 4) Curatolo doesn't provide any alibi: to provide them an alibi means to confirm their alibi, it must be the alibi the suspects declare and not something that contradicts them. If their alibi is denied by evidence or testimony showing they were lying, this simply becomes an evidence of their implication, can never be used to affirm innocence.

Good evening Machiavelli,
I just finished looking at the photographs that Charlie Wilkes has so kindly posted links to.

Blood, blood, blood...

Now I am no scientist, doctor, detecive or CSI crime buff, BUT I feel that there should have been at least some of Amanda Knox's or Raffaele Sollecito's bloody fingerprints, or hair, or other type of DNA
-(in sufficent quantities on which to perform more than 1 test upon)-
in the bedroom that Miss Kercher died in.

Where is that evidence
-(beside some itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, {no, not yellow polka-dot bikini} alleged DNA of 1 suspect Raffaele Sollecito)-
of these 2 individuals in Miss Kercher's bedroom?

Not a single bloody fingerprint. Nor footprints or shoeprints.

Look at this photo:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/clothing_on_amandas_bed.jpg

No bloody drops anywhere in Amanda Knox's room -(Thank goodness, er Rudy Guede, for that!)
No blood on any of Amanda Knox's clothing, either on the white skirt that she was wearing while still allegedly trying to finish her clean-up,
nor on any of her clothing that she wore the night Meredith Kercher was killed.

Hmmm, who last saw Amanda Knox the night Mereith Kercher was murdered?
Oh yes I remember, it was Jovanna Popovic. I would like to think that the police interviewed Jovanna and she must have told them what Amanda was last seen wearing.
All the clothing that Amanda Knox was wearing that night tested negative for Meredith kercher's blood, IIRC...

What a sec, what about Antonio Curatolo, he with the incredible memory and eyesight, who says he saw Amanda Knox that night.
Did he tell the police what Amanda Knox was wearing?
He surely must have, so if so, were those clothing items then tested for Meredith's blood too? Oh wait, were they even "found"?

So anyways, where's the real evidence? Oh, here it is:
Amanda did cartwheels at the police station, she didn't cry when she was "supposed" to,
she brought boys over, and had condoms and a vibrator in the bathroom but didn't clean the toilet.
She even got a ticket for having a "going away party" where some drunk boys threw rocks.
And don't forget that she held a gun at a war museum, and wrote of rape in a class writing project.
There's the evidence...

BUT there is not a single drop of Meredith's blood in Amanda Knox's bedroom or on her clothing.
Nor is there any evidence that she was even in Meredith Kercher's bedroom that night. How come?
Easy, Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith Kercher!
Nor was she involved in her murder whatsoever!

What about Raffaele Sollecito.
Surely there must have been some blood on him, somehow, someway, don't you think?
There must have been at least 1 little drop of blood that inadvertaintly touched against, brushed, or bumped into something somewhere that then left a bloody stain that Raffaele or Amanda did not see.
Where? No where is where!

Raffaele Sollecito did not kill Meredith Kercher, nor have anything to do with her death!

Machiavelli, please do not tell me that Amanda and Raffaele got so high, and/or drunk that they murdered Meredith, and then preformed a miraculous clean-up that removed all of these traces, but then left what many colpevolisti, you included, believe to be Raffaele Sollecito's footprint outline on the bath mat, in clear open view, for anyone to see. I ain't that stupid...

Have a great weekend Machiavelli,

RWVBWL

Machiavelli · Oct 30, 2010

Antony said:
This is an astonishing assertion, because it is the technique used that shows the quality of the evidence obtained. "Evidence" can indeed be obtained by questionable techniques, but it does not have the value of evidence properly obtained. The more flaws shown in the handling of the evidence, the more compromised it becomes.

On the contrary, the presence of RS's DNA, or anyone other than Meredith's, is quite difficult to explain on the assumption that it was placed there at the time of the killing. Since the bra was removed by cutting the strap instead of unfastening the clasp, the assailant(s) would have had no occasion to touch the hooks at all.

How, exactly, did RS's DNA come to be on the bra clasp as a result of his alleged participation in the assault? How did the unidentified DNA profiles come to be there? And why are the total readings regarded as evidence implicating RS alone?

The DNA of RS came as a result of Raffaele’s attempt to open the bra with his fingers. This attempt didn’t succeed immediately, considerable force was employed by fingers on the metal hook, so to deform it. Once the clasp was deformed the opening would be even more difficult, so somebody decided to cut the strap. The many skin cells found attached to the metal are the consequence of manual force applied on the metal clasp to open it.

The cutting of the bra strap didn’t cause the bra to come off. The bra remained in place hanging to its shoulder straps, while Meredith was still wearing her blue sweater and white t-shirt. The blue sweater was not removed until after her death. The bra was also not taken off until after her fatal wounding, probably after her death.

Those called here “unidentified profiles” ought to be considered as unidentified DNA sequences, not as separate, unidentified individuals. Those profiles are consistent with segments of Meredith’s DNA and with Amanda’s DNA. Those profiles are anyway probably all females, since there is no other Y-haplotype sequence except one compatible with Sollecito. What I think, is simply this is a piece of clothing, the clasp of a bra strap, on which it is expected to find various residual fragments of DNA, because it is touched many times, possibly by several people: the person who wears it, her boyfriend, people who wash it and hang it to dry.

I think it is obvious why the reading implicate Raffaele alone: because Raffaele was a suspect being a liar in the investigation, because his DNA is not supposed to be on that metal clasp, and has no innocent justification for being there. Amanda and Meredith’s DNA mean little, her boyfriend has an alibi, possible others unidentified are not in the suspects list yet, and anyway they won’t make go away the fact that Raffaele’s DNA is on the clasp.

For the statement about the “astonishing assertion”, I consider this an important point to detail in different posts. I disagree logically on your (and others) statement about the implications expressed by the category “evidence properly obtained”. It is not true – meaning it is not a strict logical always true statement - that evidence requires to be “properly obtained”, and it is not true that improper techniques (in this case: allegedly improper techniques) necessarily determine the evidence to be invalid. It is not true, besides, that collecting technique was “improper”: and concepts like “proper” or “good” or “correct” are always relative and contextual, they depend on something like, the use, the logical conditions (“good/proper for what? At what conditions?”).

Machiavelli · Oct 30, 2010

RWVBWL said:
Good evening Machiavelli,
I just finished looking at the photographs that Charlie Wilkes has so kindly posted links to.

(...)

So anyways, where's the real evidence? Oh, here it is:
Amanda did cartwheels at the police station, she didn't cry when she was "supposed" to,
she brought boys over, and had condoms and a vibrator in the bathroom but didn't clean the toilet.
She even got a ticket for having a "going away party" where some drunk boys threw rocks.
And don't forget that she held a gun at a war museum, and wrote of rape in a class writing project.
There's the evidence...

Your post starts to become false at that point, when you think you know what the eidence is.
The evidence is no cartwheel, no cry/not crying question. Forget it.
No sexual tools, no guns.

You can forget all of this.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Banned

Master Poster

Philosopher

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Indestructible

Graduate Poster

Master Poster

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Scholar

Muse

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher