Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

If Knox bought a mop head in the Conad store at just after 8am on 2nd November 2007, wouldn't that purchase have shown up in the till receipt records of the store, and/or the stock management system of the store? I'm guessing that the "crack" Perugia police checked this sort of thing. I'm also guessing that they found nothing, since otherwise we'd have heard about it in court.

Isn't the actual truth that Knox most likely didn't buy a mop head at that time on that morning? That she didn't buy bleach either, nor, in fact, anything whatsoever that morning? That she most likely wasn't even in the store that morning? That Quintavalle is most likely either honestly mistaken or a liar?

 

[Katody Matrass]

new judge

I'm a bit skeptical about the new judge. Yes, he was around when they exonerated that guy, but did he play any active role in it? This is unknown.

I suppose the most important thing to consider is that Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is a Perugian. Apparently sizeable part of perugian establishment invested their reputations and egos in the investigation and conviction. Would Pratillo Hellmann show the will to step on their toes? He would have to oppose the incompetent yet distinguishably decorated police force, the criminal yet strangely irreplaceable publico ministero, not to mention exposing the logical deficiencies of his own judiciary colleagues. All of this under mostly unfavorable local press and public opinion.

I wouldn't put much weight on his involvement in the Pisano exoneration. We don't know if he played any active role there, and importantly the false conviction corrected was not a perugian court's error.

I'm afraid that the fact he is the part of the establishment could be decisive and we'll not see any logic or decency in the verdicts until the case reaches the Supreme Court. But I hope to be wrong about it

 

[Katody Matrass]

Isn't the actual truth that Knox most likely didn't buy a mop head at that time on that morning? That she didn't buy bleach either, nor, in fact, anything whatsoever that morning? That she most likely wasn't even in the store that morning? That Quintavalle is most likely either honestly mistaken or a liar?

Well I think it is agreed Quintavalle's story is a pure fantasy. Not one of the guilters even tries to defend it on logical grounds anymore. But it is an important article of their faith. By embracing Quintavalle one steps into a higher reality plane where she's no longer constrained by conventional logic

 

[Chris_Halkides]

barking up the wrong tree?

Treehorn,

I searched on my username and "treehorn" as my search term. I generated about 10 comments directed toward you that have not been answered. They included comment numbers 12773, 12752, 12723, 12682, 12640, and 12637, plus several others earlier than these. Would you be so kind as to have a look at them and to respond as you see fit? I would hate to think that all of my research that went into my responses was for nought, but maybe I was barking up the wrong tree.

 

[RoseMontague]

The reason I asked Michiavelli about the Luminol stains at Raffaele's is simply because I think it shows how common it is to see some Luminol reactions as well as mixed DNA samples from people sharing the same space. I have seen a few that believe that these reactions are from some type of clean up after the crime when Raffaele and Amanda got home, but it is not shown to be Meredith's blood or her DNA. Michiavelli states it is not important and that is true that it is not important in showing that they committed a crime but it's value lies in showing how easy it is to get the same type of results that showed up in Meredith's flat. I guess I am still wondering if we all bought a luminol testing kit, how many of us would see positive reactions in our households?

 

[RoseMontague]

Though Rudy's lawyer's are trying to challenge this in his appeal, according to Frank.



I'm assuming "Rudi's friends told her she had seen him after the crime" should be "Rudi's friends told her they had seen him after the crime"! It'll be interesting if the Court accepts it, since it would support the defence's theory that the murder happened before 22:30 (when Rudy says he left the cottage). His estimate on that was apparently based on the time he arrived at his friend's place, 23:30. I suppose it does make a bit more sense that if Rudy was looking for an alibi, he'd go and see people who knew him, rather than just turning up in a club and hoping to be noticed.

That is very interesting. Thank you for finding this one. I wonder how hard the police tried to confirm Rudy's story. I also wonder if his "friends", knowing that the police were investigating a murder, did not want to place themselves as being in Rudy's company that evening.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly, Machiavelli. But in this case he did implicate his "co-conspirators" and guess what? No retaliation from them. They didn't turn on him and come clean about being there and try to blame him for everything. Amanda and Raf have never admitted to being there that night. If they were, then after Rudy implicated them (on top of the evidence the police had against them) you'd think they would have come clean. But there hasn't been any "turning on each other" because only one of the three convicted was actually there that night. And Rudy's story didn't involve anymore detail about what Amanda and Rudy might have done to Meredith that night because he has no idea, because they weren't there with him.

Really? I thought the opposite. I thought things went this way: they tried to put all the blame on him first - in particular, Sollecito's defense set things in this strategy - and only after he retaliated implicating them, albeit it is still a mild, retained retaliation.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The other problem with your story is that Rudy did in the end finger Amanda and Raffaele, and they did not "retaliate" by fingering Rudy. So your claimed motivation for him making up a story about a solo killer doesn't make much sense anyway.

But there is no "my story". I only reject the argument based of "what Rudy said shows they were not with him".
This is not logical, there is no argument. It doesn't stand. This has been shown to be inconsistent, which doesn't prevent anyone from propose it again and afain and afirm it is logical. I'm not going to argument against obviously irrational beliefs.
Rudy has good motivation not to testify about the involvement of the other two, if you just consider that he considers how the involvement of the other two would expose him to the truth, and his priority was to conceal the truth. Not much more is needed to say or explain, to see his sequence of testimony has been logical.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is the description for Sample 95 in the index of the DNA test results prepared by the Scientific Police:

Rep. 95 - Campionatura di presunta traccia ematica effettuata sul pavimento del bagno (evidenziazione mediante tecnica del "luminol")

We have already agreed that Massei is an idiot, and now we know he is a sloppy researcher as well, because this refers to a luminol stain with mixed DNA of Amanda and Raffaele. If you agree with me that it means nothing, we should then revisit the question of how much probative value can be assigned to Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's DNA in the bathroom they shared at the cottage. Do you think maybe it is being used as evidence simply because they don't have any real evidence?

No Charlie, i think it means blood. There are also drops that are proven to be blood and appear like blood before Luminol enhanchement. Amanda's blood means nothing because Amanda's presence in Raffaele's apartment means nothing in terms of evidence.
But Amanda's blood on the faucet of the cottage small bathroom implicates Amanda's presence the night of the murder in Via della Pergola cottage.
That drop was already dry in the morning when Amanda noticed it. On the other hand she maintained the stain was not there in the afternoon, the last time she used the bathroom. The stain was also very visible so very likely to be cleaned by anybody using the bathroom meanwhile, and it is contextual with several other blood stains in the same bathroom that are subsequent the murder and related with the murder.
So this stain has a value as evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm a bit skeptical about the new judge. Yes, he was around when they exonerated that guy, but did he play any active role in it? This is unknown.

I suppose the most important thing to consider is that Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is a Perugian.
(...)

Just to know, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is a native from Padova.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well I think it is agreed Quintavalle's story is a pure fantasy. Not one of the guilters even tries to defend it on logical grounds anymore. But it is an important article of their faith. By embracing Quintavalle one steps into a higher reality plane where she's no longer constrained by conventional logic

I never agreed Quintavalle's story is pure fantasy.
I never thought he lied. I have doubts on the reliability of his memory in terms of recognize the right person. But I would never assume his recollation is fantasy. I think there is evidence it is not.

 

[Onofarar]

Just to know, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is a native from Padova.

Another reason to like the new judge.

 

[Machiavelli]

But why make up a story about a solo killer, if he would reasonably have expected at that point that the forensic evidence was going to show that three people did it? Even if Amanda and Raffaele were in on it, Rudy couldn't have known at that point that Amanda and Raffaele had miraculously left absolutely no trace of their presence in the room except for a trace of DNA on a bra hook which Stefanoni would have to make a special trip out to discover weeks later.

(...)

This coment makes no sense. We don't know how three people did it. We only know three people were there and are responsible.

There may be nothing miraculous in finding DNA three weeks later.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

anatomy of the small intestine

Kenneth Saladin (Anatomy and Physiology, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill) described the small intestine on page 964: “Thus it is the longest part of the digestive tract—about 6 to 7 m long in a cadaver, but because of muscle tonus, only 2 m long in a living person.”

How do we know that the small intestine is elastic? The threefold change in length is indicative of elasticity, is it not? As Sherlock Holmes might have said, “It’s alimentary, my dear Watson.”

 

[Jungle Jim]

That is very interesting. Thank you for finding this one. I wonder how hard the police tried to confirm Rudy's story. I also wonder if his "friends", knowing that the police were investigating a murder, did not want to place themselves as being in Rudy's company that evening.

That could be. On the other hand, they would take the risk of having other witnesses saying they saw them in Rudy's company. This might bring obstruction of justice or perjury charges, or even aiding and abetting.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol positive marks

This discussion about the DNA findings from Sollecito's house is interesting, which is perhaps why Machiavelli wants to steer the conversation away from it. It casts DNA findings from the cottage in a very mundane, everyday light. So just as Halkides has been pointing out, one would expect to find the DNA of housemates mixed together. Look: Knox and Sollecito only knew eachother a few days, and there it is.

I agree with you, and I also would like to point out that the prosecution in effect asked about a luminol-positive spot, "What else besides blood could it be?" This tactic reverses the burden of proof. The prosecution should do its job and offer confirmatory test results, not say to the defense, you need to identify the substance causing the false positive.

 

[JREF2010]

I guess I am still wondering if we all bought a luminol testing kit, how many of us would see positive reactions in our households?

I've been looking on the internet for the same answer and haven't found any hobbyist, or professionals, that have sprayed their house down and checking for glow that is definitely non-related to blood.

But several sites mention the glowing-luminol sticks, glowing chemical in and of itself. As I understand it the luminol will glow without any help, but its the professional who is supposed to be able to tell by the intensity if they interpret it as blood and then test the area for blood.

I'd also like to see pictures of a known non-blood luminol test done.

 

[Kaosium]

One possible answer is, the obvious, he doesn't accuse them because he is afraid of something, as always happens in crimes committed by multiple individuals in association, what the person tries to avoid most is the testimony of the others. They don't accuse each other because they don't want to expose themselves to a retailation testimony.

With all the evidence they had of Rudy, and him surely knowing it looked bad for him what with him fleeing the country, they didn't need testimony from anyone else. Nor did they ever get it, unless you are trying to say to me Amanda and Raffaele testified against him? He, on the other hand needed someone else to blame who he knew was at the scene. If he 'knew' Amanda and Raffaele were there, he wouldn't be talking about any left-handed strangers, that would only get his goose cooked when the police presumably found evidence of Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy 'protecting' Amanda and Raffaele--at his own expense--instead of blaming them makes little sense, he had little to fear from testimony, he'd left his spore all over the crime scene.

At any rate, that's just one small example of why a narrative of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder can't be constructed. There's instances of this all over the timeline, the most prominent being the interrogation and 'accusation/confession' of Amanda in the police station. Just like with Rudy's failing to name Amanda and Raffaele, for that to be used as evidence of murder all context must be removed. It is the fact everything must be taken out of context that no rational coherent theory of their involvement can be constructed. However the whole thing can be put into context with the reliable information available if you assume it is possible the police screwed up and tried to gather evidence of innocent people.

 

[christianahannah]

Well I think it is agreed Quintavalle's story is a pure fantasy. Not one of the guilters even tries to defend it on logical grounds anymore. But it is an important article of their faith. By embracing Quintavalle one steps into a higher reality plane where she's no longer constrained by conventional logic

Also this from LondonJohn:

Isn't the actual truth that Knox most likely didn't buy a mop head at that time on that morning? That she didn't buy bleach either, nor, in fact, anything whatsoever that morning? That she most likely wasn't even in the store that morning? That Quintavalle is most likely either honestly mistaken or a liar?

Did Quintavalle testify to Amanda buying bleach or a mop head the morning of November 2? I thought he only testified to the fact that he saw her that morning in/near the shop.

There is a photo that Charlie linked on this thread a time back that showed clothes on Amanda's bed taken November 2 or 3. On the bed is what appears to be jeans, a gray jacket, a jean jacket, a scarf, a black and gray striped shirt, maybe some other clothing.

In the motivations, page 83, Quintavalle testifies to what he believes Amanda was wearing that morning:

She was wearing jeans, a gray coat, a scarf, a hat. ("I say hat; I don’t remember if it was a headset/cap or something else, however she had a head cover" page 73),

I had asked if this photo had been distributed among print media or television before Quintavalle came forth a year later with his information. I don't know that answer but perhaps someone does.

While this photo and Quintavalle's testimony does not carry enough weight for me to consider Amanda guilty (as with Nara's testimony or Curatola's testimony), it does suggest that Quintavalle may be telling the truth about having seen Amanda in his shop. His questioning by both the prosecution and defense would either lend or take away from his memory of the events of November 2 and it is entirely possible he did see Amanda in his shop but on another day (other than the morning of November 2). Hopefully, the appeal will be able to delve further into Quintavalle's testimony concerning the morning of November 2.

 

[Kaosium]

Really? I thought the opposite. I thought things went this way: they tried to put all the blame on him first - in particular, Sollecito's defense set things in this strategy - and only after he retaliated implicating them, albeit it is still a mild, retained retaliation.

Which explains quite nicely why he might change his story to try to implicate them, but doesn't explain why he tried to blame it on someone else first. You've shown a motive for him to lie against them, the real question is why he would 'lie' for them.

No testimony from anyone was needed to convict Rudy Guede, I'm sure Italian courts convict solo criminals all the time, they do it using evidence of the kind collected on Rudy Guede.