Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomCH]

It has been worked out with great skill and creativity on another forum. Amanda used the Harry Potter book as a sheath. I kid you not.

Actually, a book works quite excellently for transporting a knife if you don't have a knife carrying case.

 

[Kermit]

Orwellian doublespeak

You're addressing the heart of the problem. These footprints are random artifacts. They got there somehow, but we don't know how. Nothing links them to the murder, but the prosecutor has made that linkage because he lacks real evidence. And the reason he lacks real evidence is because he is prosecuting two completely innocent people.

Hi Charlie,

Is the term "Random Artifact" the new FOAK-approved euphemism for any item of uncomfortable evidence (i.e. anything unrelated to Rudy, and/or anything which points towards Amanda and Raffaele)?

Are the following items additional "random artifacts"?:
- Amanda's and Raffaele's conflicting alibis
- Double DNA knife
- Amanda's unsolicited (as per her own courtroom testimony) accusation of murder, against Patrick
- Eye-witnesses who placed them around the scene of the crime
- Ear-witness who heard more than one person
- Bathmat footprint which FOAK tried to explain as being Rudy's by having him do gymnastics in the bathroom to clean the soles of his shoes yet not clean anything else, including supposedly bloody feet
- Telephone activity which doesn't jive with Amanda's and Raffaele's accounts of their activity
- etc. etc.

Even if we assume that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent (they are pending appeals for their murder convictions), don't you think that it would be foolish to simply call all this evidence "random", and sweep it away?

 

[platonov]

What's this about more cites? Have you ever cited anything?

What kind of an argument is "read back thru this thread and follow the links?" Exactly the same argument applies to anyone who wants evidence Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

I will assume your charges of racism and xenophobia have fallen by the wayside, since you can't support them with anything but your opinion.

As it happens last time I quoted on this thread posts of a 'certain' nature they were quickly moved to AAH and we must obey the mods - nor do I wish to waste time on something so self evident.

In this case cites are not necessary - the [snipped] nested quotes in the post of mine you quoted containing your own words make my case.

Here's the link


I am happy to rest on his issue & move on.

If your own words in the very post you quoted aren't enough no amount of citing will do.

The mendacity issue has also been accepted [by RoseMontague] it seems.

.

 

[Kermit]

Do your homework

My suspicion is that this knife is related to Raffaele saying he 'pricked' Meredith with a knife. Thus they didn't take that knife randomly, but went looking for it as it matched the description of the knife they thought Raffaele admitted to 'pricking' Meredith with ....

Speculation to be sure, but it seems to make more sense to me than the random grab theory, that makes them look beyond stupid.

Ummm, you have the chain of events backwards. Raffaele invented the "I pricked Meredith with the knife while we were cooking together, then I apologised to her" (my paraphrase) only after police had seized the Double DNA Knife. It was his reaction to realising that the police had the evidence.

As for a "random grab", if you look a images of Raffaele's kitchen cutlery drawer, you'll see that the Double DNA knife was the only one which could have been a useful weapon. Otherwise there was a bread knife and unthreatening normal table knives.

.... it's pretty obvious what actually occurred here and who is guilty of what.

Two college-aged kids return to a house broken into and summon the police inside when they arrive to return a pair of cellphones that were stolen and left nearby. At the behest of one of the inhabitants they break down the door and discover a girl has been murdered....

To go from there to the idea that the break-in had to be staged so the two college kids who called the police could be involved with a man they barely knew to murder a girl because of a satantic rite/rape-prank/hash and comic book inspired mayhem/ no reason at all requires an elevated burden of proof to begin with.

Your "obvious" description seems only obvious to FOAKers. Not even Amanda's lawyer Ghirga dabbled in speculation as to what the state of Filomena's room represented.

As for Satanism and esoteric rites, if you read the Massei report, you'll see that it was not mentioned once in the trial, nor in the formulation of the judicial opinion. That's good news, as that means that FOAKers and The Entourage can stop talking about Satan.

They sure seemed to zero in on Patrick Lumumba, and then wouldn't let him go for three weeks despite the fact that several people came forward to provide an ironclad alibi within days of his arrest

Again, please review the facts. If the police "zeroed in" on Patrick, it was because Amanda had (falsely) accused him.

The "several" people was the Swiss professor who had to be flown in for his testimony. In the meantime Amanda did not lift a finger to write yet another spontaneous declaration in order to deny what she had earlier stated to the police concerning Patrick murdering (according to her) Meredith.

 

[platonov]

Tachyons again ?

My suspicion is that this knife is related to Raffaele saying he 'pricked' Meredith with a knife. Thus they didn't take that knife randomly, but went looking for it as it matched the description of the knife they thought Raffaele admitted to 'pricking' Meredith with.
They believed their own lie. They fed Raffaele a lie about his and Amanda'a prints/DNA being on the 'murder weapon' and Raffaele tried to think about how that was possible and came up with the idea he might have pricked Meredith with a cooking knife that Amanda had also used. Of course he didn't, but police didn't realize that until they couldn't find Meredith's DNA on the knife, which led to the ridiculous unrepeatable LCN data that they wouldn't show the results of.

Speculation to be sure, but it seems to make more sense to me than the random grab theory, that makes them look beyond stupid.

Good theory but it falls foul the retrocausality rule that came up earlier.

Cause must precede effect.

Its fine for Star Trek but wont fly in in this case and this forum

.

 

[RoseMontague]

The mendacity issue has also been accepted [by RoseMontague] it seems.

There is plenty of that going around and it is not limited to one side or another. What I objected to was the "overtones of racism" that you hinted at coming from the side of innocence, first from the "PR campaign" and later you seemed to me to indicate there was plenty of evidence on this thread.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, a book works quite excellently for transporting a knife if you don't have a knife carrying case.

Welcome, TomCH.
Nice to see some other fairly new and/or returning posters as well.

 

[Withnail1969]

Hi Charlie,

Is the term "Random Artifact" the new FOAK-approved euphemism for any item of uncomfortable evidence (i.e. anything unrelated to Rudy, and/or anything which points towards Amanda and Raffaele)?

Are the following items additional "random artifacts"?:
- Amanda's and Raffaele's conflicting alibis
- Double DNA knife
- Amanda's unsolicited (as per her own courtroom testimony) accusation of murder, against Patrick
- Eye-witnesses who placed them around the scene of the crime
- Ear-witness who heard more than one person
- Bathmat footprint which FOAK tried to explain as being Rudy's by having him do gymnastics in the bathroom to clean the soles of his shoes yet not clean anything else, including supposedly bloody feet
- Telephone activity which doesn't jive with Amanda's and Raffaele's accounts of their activity
- etc. etc.

Even if we assume that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent (they are pending appeals for their murder convictions), don't you think that it would be foolish to simply call all this evidence "random", and sweep it away?

I don't know if you've read much of this thread, but the points you mention have all been discussed and dealt with at great length.

This is why the thread keeps going in circles - to you, and those like you, it's as though those extensive discussions never happened. To take just one of your points, the 'eyewitness' Curatolo has been discredited due to the proven lack of disco buses on 1st November, a fact which the defence is going to prove on appeal with the relevant witnesses, and which forum members here, including myself, verified with research and asking someone with 'boots on the ground' in Perugia.

Now you expect to be able to declare Year Zero as though the preceding 20,000 posts never happened. Why not engage with the arguments which have been presented here, rather than pretend they don't exist?

 

[platonov]

There is plenty of that going around and it is not limited to one side or another. What I objected to was the "overtones of racism" that you hinted at coming from the side of innocence, first from the "PR campaign" and later you seemed to me to indicate there was plenty of evidence on this thread.

Good, some agreement at last, you accept at [a minimum] mendacity on the FOAker side.

I am happy to let Mary H explain precisely what her own words mean, should she choose to do so.
They stand as they are for the moment and she seems content to rest [as do I]

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hi Charlie,

Is the term "Random Artifact" the new FOAK-approved euphemism for any item of uncomfortable evidence (i.e. anything unrelated to Rudy, and/or anything which points towards Amanda and Raffaele)?

No, I don't think so. It's a specific term to refer to things put forward as evidence that are in fact unrelated to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

A good example of a similar item from another case might be the doorstop Mignini (in a bizarrely Quixotic moment) claimed was a Satanic artefact in the Monster of Florence case. It was just a doorstop.

The footprints here seem likely to be a similar artefact. There's no evidence they were deposited on the night of the murder, they aren't known to be blood (in fact since they tested negative for blood, blood is less likely than an unknown substance), they aren't known to have been made by Raffaele or Amanda (despite prosecution claims that they could measure luminol reactions to the millimetre, which turns out not to be the case) and thus they aren't known to be evidence.

They don't even fit logically into any narrative anyone has been able to construct, since they are bare prints and there are no bare prints in blood in the murder room.

The simplest hypothesis is that they are just unrelated footprints, no more evidence of anything than the various luminol reactions in Raffaele's house.

Also we're the JREFers, not the Friends of Amanda. Different people. We take a rigorously evidence-based, science-first approach to problems like this unlike certain other internet communities interested in the case.

Are the following items additional "random artifacts"?:
- Amanda's and Raffaele's conflicting alibis
- Double DNA knife
- Amanda's unsolicited (as per her own courtroom testimony) accusation of murder, against Patrick
- Eye-witnesses who placed them around the scene of the crime

No to all of these.

- Ear-witness who heard more than one person

Yes, more than likely that's a random artefact, just some random people running down the street.

- Bathmat footprint which FOAK tried to explain as being Rudy's by having him do gymnastics in the bathroom to clean the soles of his shoes yet not clean anything else, including supposedly bloody feet
- Telephone activity which doesn't jive with Amanda's and Raffaele's accounts of their activity
- etc. etc.

No to all of those too. They aren't random artefacts.

Even if we assume that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent (they are pending appeals for their murder convictions), don't you think that it would be foolish to simply call all this evidence "random", and sweep it away?

Well, yes it would be, however nobody ever did that so you are criticising an argument that nobody ever made in the first place.

In academia and formal argument this is called "attacking a straw man" and it's considered poor form. The goal is to address what the other participants in the thread actually said, rather than making up a dummy out of straw and addressing it instead.

We have discussed all of the points you listed above in detail before, although it would be unreasonable to expect you to read this entire thread to review those discussions. The short version is that in the view of the pro-innocence posters here they all turn out to be irrelevant to the presence of Amanda and Raffaele at the time of Meredith's murder, or there is reasonable doubt (to say the least) about whether they should be taken as convincing evidence for one reason or another.

Are there any particular points on that list you want to discuss?

A question that I think I can safely say many of us here would very much like to see a pro-guilt speaker address is how any remotely coherent story can be concocted which has Amanda and Raffaele involved in Meredith's death when it actually happened (in the 21:05-22:00 time frame, most likely at the very early end of that range) as opposed to the now-falsified time of death Mignini and Massei proposed of 23:30.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
Sorry, I can't resist temptation, but common sense is walking in coffee/ turnip juice/ copper sulfate and jump in the corridoor in leaps, with a bare foot, leaving footprints at two meters form each other. And in Amanda's bedroom, a bit in Filomena's room too. Together with another person who had a different shoe number.

You're addressing the heart of the problem. These footprints are random artifacts. They got there somehow, but we don't know how. Nothing links them to the murder, but the prosecutor has made that linkage because he lacks real evidence. And the reason he lacks real evidence is because he is prosecuting two completely innocent people.

That is the central question on the Luminol prints. I would love to know what caused them, when they were made, and by whom. Neither the prosecution or defense has proven anything in regard to those three questions, in my opinion. The difference is (or should be) the defense should not have to.

Machiavelli seems to me to be arguing that this point system allows the judge/jurors to give this argument weight despite the fact that there is a lot of doubt on the prints. My concern with this is that other arguments made by the defense are not given any points that I can see. The defense has argued about Meredith's cell phone activity in contrast to the prosecutions theory of what caused these calls and who made them. To me the defense argument makes more sense yet the court flatly rejects their argument and seems to give all points to the prosecution. The same can be said of Quintavalle's testimony, that is just ridiculous that they accept his statement despite all the evidence in front of them to the contrary. Nara and Curatolo the same, in my opinion. This point system seems to be highly subjective and biased towards the arguments of only one side. For me it is like the scoring in figure skating, I have little doubt that there is some favoritism going on.

I also have little doubt in regards to Machiavelli's expertise regarding this but to me it seems this system is ripe for abuse. I am beginning to understand how Machiavelli believes that they are still guilty despite the fact that he concedes an earlier TOD is possible, Curatolo may be mistaken, the double DNA knife might not be the murder weapon, Amanda could have been cuffed on the back of the head, etc.

This type of system is troubling. My concern is not that the judge/jurors have followed the system correctly, but whether Amanda and Raffaele are actually guilty or innocent. I am certain that they are innocent based on what I feel is common sense.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

We were talking about it earlier but the pro-guilt advocates here didn't engage with it in any intelligent way so it kind of dropped off the radar.

Per chance *both* of the 'pro-guilt advocates' who are still left here decided that point was not worth addressing..... "in an intelligent way".

Or per chance maybe the two remaining pro-guilt advocates did not want to interrupt the ever so meaningful "arguments and skepticism" that the large remaining cabal of pro-innocent advocates engage in among themselves, complete with ever so relevant autobiographical essays.

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me - I'm not really a pro-guilt advocate any more than the debunkers on the moon landing threads are astronauts.

I accept that the 3 convicted of this crime are guilty as charged and am stress testing the innocentsi arguments to see if a case for unsafe conviction of AK & the white guy can be made.

So far .... its not looking good (much of it is neither believable nor relevant)

As to the screensaver issue, I did engage insofar as I though it necessary and tried to advise caution.
Especially w.r.t. prematurely dropping the early ToD argument but to no avail.

It appears to be grasping at straws [It doesn't tie in with the defendants own claims for starters] but it lead to much 'erotic speculation' in some quarters so all was not lost I guess.

PS Machiavelli tried to explain at length but I'm afraid that approach sometimes confuses things further.
It may be down to his prose [ & he has a suspicious sounding username - the original was a devious (is that redundant on this thread) Italian I believe ]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The defence seem to be saying that an error log (or something similar, I don't think any of us are 100%clear on all the technical details), properly analysed, shows that the screensaver on Raffaele's computerkicked in a few times between 9pm and 1am but never for longer than six minutes, indicating that thecomputer was in more or less constant use for one purpose or another throughout that time.

You appear to be confusing the 'screensaver' issue with the request for further testing generally.
The 'screensaver' claim relates to the period from 6.26pm to 6.22 am.

.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
There is plenty of that going around and it is not limited to one side or another. What I objected to was the "overtones of racism" that you hinted at coming from the side of innocence, first from the "PR campaign" and later you seemed to me to indicate there was plenty of evidence on this thread.

Good, some agreement at last, you accept at [a minimum] mendacity on the FOAker side.

I am happy to let Mary H explain precisely what her own words mean, should she choose to do so.
They stand as they are for the moment and she seems content to rest [as do I]

.

Good as well that you are letting the claim of "overtones of racism" rest (for the moment). My hope is that you don't bring this forward again if you are not prepared to argue it.

ETA: I see you are not letting this go, based on Your "AK &the white guy" comment just prior to my post. The moment was just that, it seems.

 

[platonov]

<snip>



A question that I think I can safely say many of us here would very much like to see a pro-guilt speaker address is how any remotely coherent story can be concocted which has Amanda and Raffaele involved in Meredith's death when it actually happened (in the 21:05-22:00 time frame, most likely at the very early end of that range) as opposed to the now-falsified time of death Mignini and Massei proposed of 23:30.

This has already been addressed here several times and in court.

But I am confused - I thought you had dropped the early ToD when hearing of the 'scrensaver' evidence.

See link

Is it back in play ?

[This 'piglet has been juiced' already in any case]

.

 

[Mary_H]

Good, some agreement at last, you accept at [a minimum] mendacity on the FOAker side.

I am happy to let Mary H explain precisely what her own words mean, should she choose to do so.
They stand as they are for the moment and she seems content to rest [as do I]

.

Do my words need explaining? I don't see the deeper meaning buried in them that you see. You may take them at face value: There is no evidence, and Amanda is not getting a pass for having gone to a certain school. She has thousands of supporters who have never even been to Seattle.

Sounds to me like you're trying to take a walk back. You made accusations of racism and xenophobia, but you are not willing to support those accusations, so now (and earlier) you say the proof is hidden in my words.

Convenient for you, but not effective at making your point. But that's okay -- you are ready to let it rest and move on. No wonder.

 

[Mary_H]

Per chance *both* of the 'pro-guilt advocates' who are still left here decided that point was not worth addressing..... "in an intelligent way".

Or per chance maybe the two remaining pro-guilt advocates did not want to interrupt the ever so meaningful "arguments and skepticism" that the large remaining cabal of pro-innocent advocates engage in among themselves, complete with ever so relevant autobiographical essays.

My perception was that as a group (both pro and con), we realized that anything we said about this before seeing the actual appeals would be sheer speculation, and that it would be most efficient to hold off on discussing the topic.

 

[Kermit]

Disco inferno

I don't know if you've read much of this thread, but the points you mention have all been discussed and dealt with at great length.

... the 'eyewitness' Curatolo has been discredited due to the proven lack of disco buses on 1st November, a fact which the defence is going to prove on appeal with the relevant witnesses, and which forum members here, including myself, verified with research and asking someone with 'boots on the ground' in Perugia.

.
Hi Windnail,

Sorry, I conclude from your comment that the only item of evidence to be wrapped up in this JREF discussion (since you deem that all other evidence which points to Amanda has been conclusively thrown out) is the Luminol footprints.

I wouldn't dare bring up an item which this group has decided to be passé, but since you have brought up Antonio Curatolo, I assume he can be discussed.

Can you please point me to conclusive evidence that there were no "disco buses" on the night of November 1, because I can't find any. The best (attempt at an) argument in that regard would naturally come from the defence, as the defence teams have access to the evidence which we don't.

So ... what does Giulia Bongiorno file in Raffaele's appeal (maybe this is the blockbuster evidence which you hint at)? Let's see:

"Curatolo declared that he left the Piazza that night after the arrival of the buses that bring the young people to the various discos in the area. At that moment Sollecito and Knox were no longer in the place where he had seen them earlier.

With respect to this it is important to point out that the managers of the discos organized at that time (and still do) shuttle services which on the nights when they are open bring the young people to the discos. This service leaves from Piazza Grimana.

Investigations made by the defense have shown that on the evening of Nov. 1, 2007, this service was not functioning.

No bus left from Piazza Grimana, since by the testimony of Signora Rita Pucciarini (event organizer for many years) and Signor Giorgio Brughini (manager of the disco "Etoile 54"), Nov. 1 has always been a holiday for these places.

In fact, now even in Italy Halloween is celebrated on October 31, and the next day all the discos are closed.

Rebus sic stantibus the testimony of Curatolo must be radically reevaluated. His reference to the buses that he saw that evening exclude that what he claimed to have seen (Sollecito and Knox intent on talking and joking from 9:30-22:00 until 23:00-23:30 in the area of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana) can correspond to the evening of the murder, on which no bus left from the Piazza."​

In other words, Bongiorno talks to the manager of the disco "Etoile 54" and he says he and other discos close on November 1. The discos organise the buses. Ergo, if the discos are closed, there are no buses.

However, we know that Rudy danced the night away after Meredith's murder at the Domus disco. Why in the world didn't Bongiorno talk to the manager of the Domus, instead of some other disco not related to this case?

If that's the best she can do, then I'm not expecting much improvement in Raffaele's (or Amanda's) situation through the appeal process.
============================

I apologise if you've already dealt with this issue and have called the case closed. I wouldn't want to introduce any questions into the discussion about the guilt of the three murder convicts (pending appeal).

 

[Mary_H]

.
Hi Windnail,
<snip>
However, we know that Rudy danced the night away after Meredith's murder at the Domus disco. Why in the world didn't Bongiorno talk to the manager of the Domus, instead of some other disco not related to this case?

If that's the best she can do, then I'm not expecting much improvement in Raffaele's (or Amanda's) situation through the appeal process.
============================

I apologise if you've already dealt with this issue and have called the case closed. I wouldn't want to introduce any questions into the discussion about the guilt of the three murder convicts (pending appeal).

Rudy didn't have a car; he walked to the Domus, so it must be in town. Only the discos located away from the campus need to have a bus service to bring in customers.

 

[platonov]

Do my words need explaining? I don't see the deeper meaning buried in them that you see. You may take them at face value: There is no evidence, and Amanda is not getting a pass for having gone to a certain school. She has thousands of supporters who have never even been to Seattle.

Sounds to me like you're trying to take a walk back. You made accusations of racism and xenophobia, but you are not willing to support those accusations, so now (and earlier) you say the proof is hidden in my words.

Convenient for you, but not effective at making your point. But that's okay -- you are ready to let it rest and move on. No wonder.

I'm not taking a walk back from anything that I said.

The link with the Q's and 'answers' is there in my earlier post.
I'm happy with my Q's - you are obviously happy with your A's.

On that basis I'm happy to move on.

.

 

[daydreamer]

So why didn't they check those knives for DNA? Is it that they weren't looking for evidence of a lone killer, they were only looking for evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved? And finding Amanda and Meredith's DNA on a kitchen knife in the cottage would be pretty useless from that perspective.

Does anyone know if they searched Rudy's apt. for compatible knives? If so did they test them for blood and DNA? It seems very strange to me that of all the knives at the cottage, RS's and Rudy's apartment, they picked one to test and that one had MK's DNA.