Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[daydreamer]

crime scene tape?

How posters remove bras is eyewitness testimony. Their eyewitness testimony is perfectly valid for an internet debate. An 'expert' would be needed in a court testimony, but this is not a court.

I never touch a bra clasp when taking it off.

Not so. Logic and fact rule in a debate.

If RS used the hook to remove the bra, wouldn't his DNA be on the "eye" (to which it attaches), as well. Does anyone know if they tested the eye for DNA. My guess is that they did not.

 

[Chris C]

If RS used the hook to remove the bra, wouldn't his DNA be on the "eye" (to which it attaches), as well. Does anyone know if they tested the eye for DNA. My guess is that they did not.

Is the bra a front fastener or a back fastener?

 

[Dan O.]

If RS used the hook to remove the bra, wouldn't his DNA be on the "eye" (to which it attaches), as well. Does anyone know if they tested the eye for DNA. My guess is that they did not.

The problem with that is that you can't reach the hook or eye while the hooks are engaged and the bra is being worn (by someone else of course). What was found was DNA on the strap near where the clasp attached where someone would have grabbed the strap to pull it in order to try and force the clasp to fail or to cut it with a knife.

If the investigators were trying to be complete, of corse they would have tested the eye after finding DNA on the hook. But a positive result would not bolster their case and a negative result may weaken it so an investigation whose goal is to prove guilt instead of discovering truth would not test the eye.

 

[Dan O.]

Is the bra a front fastener or a back fastener?

This is a standard hook&eye on the rear strap bra. They are quite easily removed with a single hand. Most times, a sliding pinch with the thumb and forefinger is all it takes. If it's stubborn, it might take three fingers. The fingers touch only the cloth and never the metal of the hook & eye. Of course, if an oaf yanked on the strap and deformed the hooks, it might then require cutting off.

 

[Chris C]

This is a standard hook&eye on the rear strap bra. They are quite easily removed with a single hand. Most times, a sliding pinch with the thumb and forefinger is all it takes. If it's stubborn, it might take three fingers. The fingers touch only the cloth and never the metal of the hook & eye. Of course, if an oaf yanked on the strap and deformed the hooks, it might then require cutting off.

What was Meredith's exact body position when discovered? Was she on her back?

 

[platonov]

From Massei:
He perceived the presence, at the end of the basketball court, of "two young people that were looking like two sweethearts discussing a bit in a heated way amongst them ... every some time one would get up and walk on the way where is the railing and look down" (page 5 hearing of March 28, 2009). He stated he had not seen them coming and when he looked down at the basketball court they were already there (p. 19). He remembers also the presence of other people. He reported of having seen the two young people until before midnight. He recognized the two people as the two defendants, who were in the room, he indicated them and specified he already knew them having seen them before, although never together but each on their own. (page 18 hearing of 28.3.2009). He added, as he left the Piazza shortly before midnight the two youngsters were not there anymore.

What is different between this and the newspaper report?

And it is both your prose and your brevity which make your posts difficult to understand. Massei couldn't be as elusive if he tried.

I think we are done with Curatolo but lets look at the issue of 'understanding the testimony & the courts judgments' using as an example his evidence.

Massei is apparently more elusive than you think.

The section you quoted does not deal with the actual timings of the first or last sighting of AK/RS by Curatolo OR Massei's conclusions w.r.t. said sightings.
(before midnight has quite a range - you need to read further)

As such it can't contradict or confirm London John's use of the newspaper report.

C&P is easier than reading the text and understanding it - especially as this is only 1 of several references to the evidence of Curatolo in the report !!

But if you wish to post (Not A C&P) what you believe were the courts findings on this issue as regards timings, feel free to do so and we will compare notes.

But inferences have been drawn by the jury already - regarding the ability to understand the judgement that is being disputed.

PS Don't call me darling

.

 

[samba]

If four people had been inside that room instead of two, the police would be able to prove it. They wouldn't be pinning their case on one trace of DNA on a metal bra hook, and luminol footprints in the hallway.

Thanks again for stating things so clearly. Seems to me that even the most unqualified and inexperienced forensic people would be able to put 4 people in that room. Whenever I look at the evidence that you mentioned, my immediate thought is "is that all you got?"

 

[samba]

therefore they are guilty, even if I have no idea why they did it, or when, or how they could possibly have actually done so".

This always amazes me. I know it's been brought up before here, but I always thought it was the prosecution's job to answer those questions. In this case it seems like I see more references to "ok defense...prove that you're not guilty".

 

[platonov]

Unlike in the movies

Yes. I think Curotolo is completely unreliable as a witness. I don't think Amanda or Raffaele set foot outside his apartment that evening.

OK, you agree *. But he has to be discredited in the appeal or they are staying put ?

*on the futility of trying to incorporate parts of Curatolo's testimony into the defence case to form a new alibi.

When I got involved in this over two years ago, I anticipated a grueling, years-long process, because of what I have seen with other cases, in the US and around the world. Nothing that has happened since has surprised me. But I don't want to predict the outcome of the appeal. This court has the chance to get it right. I hope they do.

OK - my original Q was not very clear perhaps.

But I'm struck by the failure to engage with the actual details of the appeal generally, relying instead on repetition of talking points and confused complaints about the case at large.

Your lack of certitude will not surprise me in the least. Nobody who thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty has ever come up with a plausible way to explain how they left the evidence attributed to them in the places where it was found.

Curatolo's testimony (to which the certitude issue referred) places them away from RS' flat & close very to and observing the site of the murder.
Their (excited / agitated ?) behavior could indicate that the events that lead to the killing were already underway or being anticipated / prepared for.
Much more than this would be speculation on my part, there is plenty of debate on the various possibilities earlier in the thread.

My lack of certitude stems from the fact that until one of the killers comes clean we may never know precisely the sequence of events.

Unlike in the movies where the flashback at the end explains everything, the real world provides no such certainty.

A fact apparently lost on many of the 'skeptics' here - too much uncritical exposure to Hollywood / CSI obviously.

.

 

[el buscador]

There has been a change in judges for the appeals trial. Wonder what it means?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/429327_knox01.html

 

[Chris C]

OK - but he has to be discredited in the appeal or they are staying put ?



OK - my original Q was not very clear perhaps.

But I'm struck by the failure to engage with the actual details of the appeal generally, relying instead on repetition of talking points and confused complaints about the case at large.





Curatolo's testimony places them away from RS' flat & close very to and observing the site of the murder.
Their (excited / agitated ?) behavior could indicate that the events that lead to the killing were already underway or being anticipated / prepared for.
Much more than this would be speculation on my part, there is plenty of debate on the various possibilities earlier in the thread.

My lack of certitude stems from the fact that until one of the killers comes clean we may never know precisely the sequence of events.

Unlike in the movies where the flashback at the end explains everything, the real world provides no such certainty.

A fact apparently lost on many of the 'skeptics' here - too much uncritical exposure to Hollywood / CSI obviously.

.

Sadly, you are obviously stuck on Curatolo. You faith in his testimony is so strong in your belief that Knox/Sollecito are guilty, that you ignore all the contradictions in his testimony. Would you still believe Knox/Sollecito are guilty without his testimony? Would you still believe his testimony, if tests determine there is no chance that Nara could have heard the scream? Would you still believe his testimony, if more DNA tests are run on the bra clasp and it determines its not Sollecito's DNA? Would you still believe his testimony, if the judge rules that Dr. Lalli performed the autopsy correctly?

 

[platonov]

Sadly, you are obviously stuck on Curatolo. You faith in his testimony is so strong in your belief that Knox/Sollecito are guilty, that you ignore all the contradictions in his testimony. Would you still believe Knox/Sollecito are guilty without his testimony? Would you still believe his testimony, if tests determine there is no chance that Nara could have heard the scream? Would you still believe his testimony, if more DNA tests are run on the bra clasp and it determines its not Sollecito's DNA? Would you still believe his testimony, if the judge rules that Dr. Lalli performed the autopsy correctly?

Sadly you have missed the point yet again.

The exchange with Charlie Wilkes didn't involve a judgment (on my part) on the veracity of Curatolo's testimony.
- it followed on from the discussion of the point asterisked above.

.

 

[RoseMontague]

OK
My lack of certitude stems from the fact that until one of the killers comes clean we may never know precisely the sequence of events.

Perhaps the fact that you are assuming more than one killer contributes to your lack of certitude.

 

[platonov]

Perhaps the fact that you are assuming more than one killer contributes to your lack of certitude.

No you haven't got what the discussion with CW on certitude revolved about.
Read the posts - his & mine.

How on earth do you guys make sense of Massei ??

.

 

[Draca]

She put her hand to the wound and then left finger streaks on the wall.

I tend to think it is Rudy Gruede's fingerprints on the wall. It would explain his stange - I dipped my fingers in blood and wrote 'AF' on the wall. The last sounds she made.


Perugia Shock:

While he was in the bathroom after having made love to Meredith; a fifth man, an Italian, seemingly attacked Meredith, maybe raped her, for sure he stole some money (and who do we finally see…the moving, this un-known.)

Rudy, coming out of the bathroom, apparently bumped into him but he let him go, preferring to rush to Meredith’s aid and she apparently died in his arms while revealing the name of the Italian. But not his complete name. Only his initials. The victim thought better than to breach the “privacy rights” of her assassin. The initials were: no, not G.A. But A.F.

Rudy told judge Karl-Rudolf Winkler he will be able to recognize the guy, he's an italian boy with black hair.

Richard Owen:

Mr Guede said he had knelt by Ms Kercher as she lay dying with "a river of blood" streaming from her throat. "I said to her, what happened?, and she repeated this sound - af, af, af"." He claimed he had tried to write this on the wall with the blood on his hand.

This seems like the most logical location he would have been referring to. He probably said it to give reason why his fingerprints or DNA would be on the wall.

 

[RoseMontague]

No you haven't got what the discussion with CW on certitude revolved about.
Read the posts - his & mine.

How on earth do you guys make sense of Massei ??

.

It was you that claimed more than one killer, not me. That makes everything uncertain simply because it is a false premise. If there is only Rudy, there is no Amanda and Raffaele watching the cottage, no Curatolo watching his watch and watching Amanda who was watching Raffaele watching the cottage waiting on Rudy who was watching for Meredith who had actually arrived more than 2 hours earlier, and of course all watching for the non existent buses that were actually there the night before.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov
I usually restrict myself to pointing out errors of fact or logic in your arguments.


Is there a reason you feel the need to restrict yourself? You should branch out and see if you can find a few errors of fact or logic in the Massei report.

If you hadn't snipped out the rest of the post, the context would be apparent.

But as to Massei , I would but you guys are doing such a bang up job I'm not sure I could handle the competition.

.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you hadn't snipped out the rest of the post, the context would be apparent.

But as to Massei , I would but you guys are doing such a bang up job I'm not sure I could handle the competition.

.

Thanks,
Just say thar she blows occasionally and I'll know you are trying.

 

[Draca]

Meredith was very likely sitting on the edge of the bed, calling her mother, when Guede burst in. She stood up, he grabbed her

I don't think this sounds likely. In Rudy Guede's other encounters he tried to LEAVE. He only pulled out the knife on Christian Tramantano when he found the door locked - when he was trapped. I think it's more likely that Rudy heard Meredith come home and go to her bedroom while on the toilet. He got up and tried to leave but found the door locked. Meredith heard the noise and poked her head around the corner and then he came after her because she recognized him or yelled at him.

Or maybe he came to her bedroom to demand the keys and the confrontation began.

If he tried the door first she would have heard him. Otherwise he could have just tried to sneak back out the window unnoticed.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think this sounds likely. In Rudy Guede's other encounters he tried to LEAVE. He only pulled out the knife on Christian Tramantano when he found the door locked - when he was trapped. I think it's more likely that Rudy heard Meredith come home and go to her bedroom while on the toilet. He got up and tried to leave but found the door locked. Meredith heard the noise and poked her head around the corner and the he came after her because she recognized him or yelled at him.

I guess he could have just decided to rape her... Or maybe he came to her bedroom to demand the keys and the confrontation began.

If he tried the door first she would have heard him. Otherwise he could have just tried to sneak back out the window unnoticed.

That sounds reasonable to me, seems like a pretty good theory (as to the start of the assault).