Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

.
Why haven't Amanda's or Raffaele's legal teams sought you out to be a star witness???

In the same manner, why hasn't Elizabeth Johnson been sought out as another star witness??? (That icon of well-informed investigation, Steve Moore has suggested that some sort of international task force of DNA experts who support Amanda should be assembled and set to sea, docking at Port Perugia)

If your analysis is so right, why hasn't the Amanda Knox Defense Fund set aside a few of their air-miles from their treasure chest for people like you? People very close to Amanda read here (and on other sites) on a daily basis.

Maybe they're holding back until the very last minute, to make the future script of the Knox-Mellas approved TV movie all that more suspenseful (the only problem is that meanwhile, Amanda continues in prison, but that's a price that they're willing to pay, it seems).

Perhaps you should bypass official Knox-Mellas approval, and make your own spontaneous appearance and declaration in the appeal court.

Nobody said anything about the defense team being less competent than Amanda and Raffaele's supporters.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have the impression that you make no distinction between the elements of the crime (which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt), the theories of the crime, and the evidence supporting contested issues, as to which the concept of reasonable doubt does not apply.

The elements for homicide in the my state in the US are that the defendant killed someone without justification. The state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is to show 1) the defendant killed, 2) without justification. The charge of murder imposes on the state the burden of proving the killing was with malice aforethought. If the state wishes to enhance the penalties, such as death, findings of special finding are required, and the state must prove the existence of those beyond a reasonable doubt, as well.

Alternative theories of the crime are permitted. The jurors are told they do not have to agree on the theory of the crime. In fact, they simply have to agree from their own reflections after deliberating that they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the elements of the crime and conclude that the defendant is guilty as charged.

But as far as assessing the testimony, and the physical or documentary evidence it is simply what the jurors believe.

I'm not sure what point you are making.

If there is no sensible theory of the crime whatsoever, I don't think you can have proof beyond reasonable doubt by any amount of mental gymnastics.

If there are multiple points at which the proposed theory of the crime, which is the only one that even resembles a plausible theory that anyone can come up with, can be falsified then if any of those points are falsified then I don't think you can have proof beyond reasonable doubt by any amount of mental gymnastics either.

Guilters seem to want to embrace the logical contradiction of there being proof beyond reasonable doubt of a claim which they cannot construct a single remotely plausible narrative for, but when you examine the idea it's patent nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

.
Why haven't Amanda's or Raffaele's legal teams sought you out to be a star witness???

I think you couldn't swing a cat in a second year logic course without hitting someone who is a better logician than Massei, and everyone who has been paying attention to this thread has a better appreciation of the details of what stomach contents can tell you about time of death than Massei, and most of the population of the world outside the confines of asylums for the mentally ill is in better touch with reality than Mignini.

Don't get me wrong - I'm pretty awesome. But in this case you don't need to be me to do a better job than the clowns who put together the prosecution narrative.

In the same manner, why hasn't Elizabeth Johnson been sought out as another star witness??? (That icon of well-informed investigation, Steve Moore has suggested that some sort of international task force of DNA experts who support Amanda should be assembled and set to sea, docking at Port Perugia)

If your analysis is so right, why hasn't the Amanda Knox Defense Fund set aside a few of their air-miles from their treasure chest for people like you? People very close to Amanda read here (and on other sites) on a daily basis.

People keep asking that question, I think because deep down they actually do hope that I'm a lot smarter than the appeals team, and that without my no-doubt-invaluable assistance the appeals might go south.

However as far as we have been able to tell the appeals team is well aware of the issues we independently identified as being conclusive here at the JREF forums. They're the ones who first found the Naruto file, they're well aware of the issues surrounding the time of death, and they're the ones who produced the log files which look likely to nail the case closed for good.

I don't think they need my expertise at this point, they just need an honest court that will give them a fair hearing.

(In any case, if they want an expert witness they'd probably find it a lot easier to find one already in Italy).

Maybe they're holding back until the very last minute, to make the future script of the Knox-Mellas approved TV movie all that more suspenseful (the only problem is that meanwhile, Amanda continues in prison, but that's a price that they're willing to pay, it seems).

Huh? Is there some super-secret fast track appeals process available we don't know about, where an Aussie descends from a QANTAS jet on a beam of light with a few photocopied papers in hand, knocks a few heads together in Perugia and Amanda is out the same day?

If so then I owe everyone an apology for not arranging to have it done sooner. I'll see about booking a flight.

However otherwise I think the appeals team is appealing as fast as the system allows, and the idea that I or anyone else could get them out faster is a figment of your fevered imagination.

 

[Antony]

Or, he's a champion of justice. Depending on how you look at it.

No, it doesn't; it depends on what the truth is. The truth is that Mignini's narrative of the crime doesn't make sense; shifted significantly during the run-up to the trial and during the trial itself; and is "supported" by some thoroughly contrived and suspect "evidence", selective use of evidence, concealing the methods used, and destruction of other evidence that may have exonerated the defendants.

Even Machiavelli, in this forum, says "this crime is very difficult to conceive" - based on the prosecution narrative. If someone as committed to a guilty verdict as this makes a comment like this, then it really says something.

 

[TomCH]

The broken window, murdered girl and stolen goods are all evidence of a break-in.

What 'stolen goods'? Filomena's laptop and jewelry was in plain sight in the room of entry, but they weren't stolen. Her room was ransacked, but nothing was stolen. Why would a burglar DO that?

Also, there is evidence of Rudy's presence in virtually all areas of the house EXCEPT in Filomena's room, the wall he supposedly scaled, and the garden below. Why on earth would he remove all traces from those places, and not the rest of house?

The idea that he broke in is beyond absurd.

 

[Antony]

No.
Let me explain you how I really see it. I think I’ve read this argument from the innocentisti a thousand times now. This idea is repeated all the time, I wish I could just state once for all I disagree with this argument.

It was in fact my earliest feeling or thought about this case, as I approached it, having yet no opinion about Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt yet, and having not read their diaries and cofession/statements, and having not seen luminol footprints and other evidence yet. The first thing I felt was a narrative based on the scenario like one intruder entered the window and climbed through and killed Meredith was not straightforward.

I make clear again one separate thought: the act of assaulting and killing Meredith is anyway not rational in any case, for a normal human perspective, not even if committed by Rudy Guede as a lone assaulter or by any person acting on somewhat rational motives. But this is not the main aspect: also, the scenario of a lone assaulter is in its peculiarlity not straightforward here, not explaining and not fitting the data, and illogical, in the building of an explanation with the evidence of this case.
This is the very first perception that I had on the case, before any in depth analysis of possible evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

The reading of the crime scene with a lone assaulter does not make perfect sense. Nor do the actions of the alleged perpetrator.

The point of entry for burglary is illogic. And dangerous especially because of the glass and the intruder’s balance. The evidence of burglary inside is inconsistent. The sexual assault is inconsistent with being caught by surprise. A murder with no sexual violence would be definitely more consistent with being caught by surprise and discovery would constitute the motive for murder. In this case, instead, the sexual violence – and the possible discovery of this – was the reason and the motive for murder. This sexual violence on Meredith is utterly illogic, and also inconsistent with Rudy’s personality. The faeces in the toilet are inconsistent even with interrupted burglary and with burglary itself, and interrupted burglary is anyway too unlikely on the too limited searching for values around the house. The sexual assault had a kind of staging occurring after, a movement of the body and partial undressing of victim: taking away her sweater after her stabbing is inconsistent, unexplained, not straightforward. Moving her without dropping her blood, using towels: unexplained/illogic, too. The sexual violence is also physically extremely moderate, aborted, contrasting with the extreme and decided violence of the killing action. And her scream, which was actually hared and reported by all witnesses including Rudy, should have started on her discovery of an intruder, even before the sexual violence, not on her killing. And Rudy Guede’s shoe-prints, instead, do show a straightforward scenario. So why a bloody bare foot? Not consistent with his being wearing shoes, and with traces of his movements in the house pointing elsewhere. And the cleanup of the floor in the bathroom is certain: somebody cleaned the floor around the bathmat and left a 26 centimetre long bloody swiping on the door side. This is inconsistent with a burglar too. And the duvet to cover the dead body: the covering is made usually when the murderer is close to the victim, here it is another useless, unmotivated, not straightforward element for a burglar, nor for a violent rapist. Further alteration of the room – that was slightly “tidied up” – is visible. Shoeprints from unknown shoes by more than one person are visible in the victim’s room and in different locations of the house.
Nothing is straightforward in a lone-perpetrator scenario.

By the way, in city of Perugia, at least two other cases of murder with a staged burglary occurred during the last four years.

You have simply allowed yourself to be deceived over this one. The "inconsistencies" you refer to are simply a function of the natural randomness of a crime scene. For example, if the break-in were repeated in the same way, then the scene inside the flat would probably look quite different. But that wouldn't mean that it was staged, either the first time or the second.

 

[TomCH]

It is nonsense, every bit of it. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely innocent. They had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede smashed his way into the place, attacked Meredith with a knife, ripped her clothes off, raped her, stole her money, and left her to die. That is the truth about this case - the only truth.

Well, if that's the only truth, that's not really much is it?

As you yourself say "It is nonsense, every bit of it".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What 'stolen goods'? Filomena's laptop and jewelry was in plain sight in the room of entry, but they weren't stolen. Her room was ransacked, but nothing was stolen. Why would a burglar DO that?

A possible narrative is that Rudy was searching the place looking for rent money and/or drugs, and had not found them when he decided to take a toilet break. Then Meredith came home, he raped and murdered her, and his priorities changed to getting the blood off himself and escaping unremarked-upon rather than thoroughly looting the place. So he left with only the money Meredith had and her phones, which he then disposed of.

This is just another instance where guilters get themselves into a lather of incredulity over a series of events which are perfectly easily explained with even a moderate amount of sensible thought.

Also, there is evidence of Rudy's presence in virtually all areas of the house EXCEPT in Filomena's room, the wall he supposedly scaled, and the garden below. Why on earth would he remove all traces from those places, and not the rest of house?

There were marks on the wall he scaled consistent with scuffing and a nail being dislodged showing fresh brickwork, as can be clearly seen in photographs taken the day after the murder. Police claimed that there was no sign of anyone climbing the wall, but given the photographs we have of the wall this is damns the police more than the defendants.

There were also traces of white powder in Filomena's room that could have been dust from the whitewashed wall Rudy scaled. That's not counting the glass under Filomena's clothes than indicate that someone tossed her stuff around after breaking the window which has to count as a trace in anyone's terms.

There were no traces found of Rudy's presence in the garden below, but why would there be? So far as I know he never admitted to any activities there than should have left noticeable traces.

So in fact there were traces where they should have been, and there is absolutely no reason to think Rudy removed any traces.

The idea that he broke in is beyond absurd.

Once you examine the actual facts, as opposed to the "facts" that bounce around the guilter echo chambers, it turns out that all of the evidence is perfectly consistent with Rudy breaking in all by himself.

Funny that: The simple, obvious explanation turns out to be the right one.

 

[Mary_H]

What 'stolen goods'? Filomena's laptop and jewelry was in plain sight in the room of entry, but they weren't stolen. Her room was ransacked, but nothing was stolen. Why would a burglar DO that?

Also, there is evidence of Rudy's presence in virtually all areas of the house EXCEPT in Filomena's room, the wall he supposedly scaled, and the garden below. Why on earth would he remove all traces from those places, and not the rest of house?

The idea that he broke in is beyond absurd.

I don't necessarily support the break-in theory, but I certainly wouldn't call it beyond absurd. If I wanted to support an argument for it, I would use the evidence other posters have offered here, and factor in the possibility that Filomena's clothes were already on the floor when the window was broken, along with the probability that the investigators were selective in their collection of evidence, based on their bias that the break-in was, indeed, staged.

 

[Withnail1969]

What 'stolen goods'? Filomena's laptop and jewelry was in plain sight in the room of entry, but they weren't stolen. Her room was ransacked, but nothing was stolen. Why would a burglar DO that?

Also, there is evidence of Rudy's presence in virtually all areas of the house EXCEPT in Filomena's room, the wall he supposedly scaled, and the garden below. Why on earth would he remove all traces from those places, and not the rest of house?

The idea that he broke in is beyond absurd.

It's likely that Rudy didn't want to take any items which carried a risk of linking him to the crime scene, once the burglary had turned into a rape and murder.

 

[Kermit]

Zero on the S.A.T. exam for Daisy Hill entrance (it may be enough for S.I.U. however)

It's likely that Rudy didn't want to take any items which carried a risk of linking him to the crime scene, once the burglary had turned into a rape and murder.

.
Of course, I understand your logic:

All the things that Rudy had stuffed into his burglars' backpack before the attack, he took out and put into their place again after the attack (about the time - according to Charlie Wilkes - that he took off his shoes to wash the blood from the soles, them promptly got them bloody again and ran out of the house leaving his additional bloody shoeprints on the floor of the living room).

You're right, that's a good way of eliminating any links between himself and the crime.

 

[Withnail1969]

.
Of course, I understand your logic:

All the things that Rudy had stuffed into his burglars' backpack before the attack, he took out and put into their place again after the attack (about the time - according to Charlie Wilkes - that he took off his shoes to wash the blood from the soles, them promptly got them bloody again and ran out of the house leaving his additional bloody shoeprints on the floor of the living room).

You're right, that's a good way of eliminating any links between himself and the crime.

Did he stuff anything into his burglar's backpack? I didn't know we knew that. I don't think he was washing blood off the soles of his shoes - has anyone suggested that? I think he washed it off his jeans and the uppers of his shoes.

 

[RoseMontague]

A possible narrative is that Rudy was searching the place looking for rent money and/or drugs, and had not found them when he decided to take a toilet break. Then Meredith came home, he raped and murdered her, and his priorities changed to getting the blood off himself and escaping unremarked-upon rather than thoroughly looting the place. So he left with only the money Meredith had and her phones, which he then disposed of.

This is just another instance where guilters get themselves into a lather of incredulity over a series of events which are perfectly easily explained with even a moderate amount of sensible thought.



There were marks on the wall he scaled consistent with scuffing and a nail being dislodged showing fresh brickwork, as can be clearly seen in photographs taken the day after the murder. Police claimed that there was no sign of anyone climbing the wall, but given the photographs we have of the wall this is damns the police more than the defendants.

There were also traces of white powder in Filomena's room that could have been dust from the whitewashed wall Rudy scaled. That's not counting the glass under Filomena's clothes than indicate that someone tossed her stuff around after breaking the window which has to count as a trace in anyone's terms.

There were no traces found of Rudy's presence in the garden below, but why would there be? So far as I know he never admitted to any activities there than should have left noticeable traces.

So in fact there were traces where they should have been, and there is absolutely no reason to think Rudy removed any traces.



Once you examine the actual facts, as opposed to the "facts" that bounce around the guilter echo chambers, it turns out that all of the evidence is perfectly consistent with Rudy breaking in all by himself.

Funny that: The simple, obvious explanation turns out to be the right one.

Yes, the photo's disprove much of what is said about the phony break in. No glass on top of the clothes, in fact the room looks to me already to be in a state of a mess prior to any ransacking. The white powder, scuff marks on the top of the lower window ledge, broken nail from the wall, all of these things point to someone having broken in. The patterns of glass spread through the room to me indicate the window was broken from outside as well.

The big focus of the guilty side is the glass on top of clothes comment which ignores Filomena's testimony that glass was also underneath and in the middle of the clothes and the lack of anything stolen from the room which ignores a simple explanation as in the one you provided.

 

[TomCH]

It's likely that Rudy didn't want to take any items which carried a risk of linking him to the crime scene, once the burglary had turned into a rape and murder.

In that case, he wouldn't have taken the phone and keys, either.

So who did take them?

 

[Fine]

People have been portraying me as a conspiracy theorist for the past two and a half years. Now it's my turn. I am drawing a comparison, which I believe is both fair and relevant, between those who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and the 9-11 truthers. This is a case in which a known burglar left his DNA on two items of the victim's clothing, on her purse, and inside her vagina. He also left bloody fingerprints and shoe prints - all inside the room where the victim was killed. Against that, we've got the bra fastener, a knife from a different location that doesn't fit the wounds, and a supremely improbable premise. And yet the Mignini truthers insist that the case is strong, the evidence is overwhelming. The bum in the park is an unimpeachable witness. The luminol footprints were clearly made with blood, despite negative TMB tests and negative DNA tests. Every one of those tests was meaningless - but a DNA test that barely registered on the machine is good science, as is one collected from a sample that was kicked around on the floor and handled by two people before being dropped in a plastic bag.

It is nonsense, every bit of it. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely innocent. They had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede smashed his way into the place, attacked Meredith with a knife, ripped her clothes off, raped her, stole her money, and left her to die. That is the truth about this case - the only truth.

______________________

But this sounds somewhat impausible Charlie, if---as it seems---you hold to the LONEWOLF/ Interrupted Burglary theory. There would have been scant motive for Rudy to have broken into the cottage to steal. On the contrary, plenty of reason for him not to have attempted it. Aside from the danger and difficulty in scaling the 12 foot high wall below Filomena's window, he should have known that there would be little worth stealing other than the usual electrical gadgetry owned by youngsters,...ipods, laptop computers, and cell phones. (Even Luciano Aviello's story of his brother's attempt to steal valuables at the cottage contains the plausible element of mistaken address.) But if Rudy had thought that the girls were absent, he should have expected their ipods and cell phones to have been absent too, on the person of their owners. And as he learned at the Milan nursery school, laptops are easily traceable, and so hazardous to steal.

So why would he bother to break in? Why not burglarize some place with more prospect of finding cash and valuable jewelry? And even if caught---elsewhere---he wouldn't be saddled with the dishonor of stealing from his acquaintances. (Or did he wish to steal the girls' underwear?)

The most plausible LONEWOLF scenario to me is that he gained entry through the front door---via force or persuasion---then murdered Meredith and staged the burglary. Theft was never his intent. Merdith's phones were taken to keep her from using them, and her bedroom door was locked to keep her from escaping. (By his own account, he left while she was still alive.) He found her 300 euros and so took that, too. Couldn't resist. It's hard to see why he would have murdered her, but, perhaps, she'd armed herself in some manner and so the violence spiraled out of control. In isolation, this would make sense, but how to account for the evidence that incriminates the lovebirds?

Evidence Schmevidence. It's not only evidence. The flagrant evasion and wanton dissemblance. Why does Raffaele refuse to testify? And not only refuse to testify, but comes to court dressed ---apparently by his sister, Vanessa--- wearing what Barbie calls "effeminate, non-threatening hues---lime green, baby-duckling yellow, bubble gum pink." (Angel Face, page 126.) Has our rugged kick-boxing Raffaele now become a ballet dancer, or a hair-dresser? If he's not willing to testify during the APPEAL trial---and answer the difficult questions that need answering and only he can answer---and he still pretends to be a bambina I see no hope for the APPEAL to succeed.

///

 

[TomCH]

broken nail from the wall

What broken nail from the wall?

There was a nail IN the wall, but it wasn't broken, not even BENT!

Quite a trick to scale a wall and totally miss the nail.

 

[Withnail1969]

In that case, he wouldn't have taken the phone and keys, either.

So who did take them?

He needed the keys to exit by the front door. He had to get the phones away from Meredith and out of the cottage in case anyone returning to the cottage heard them ringing.

 

[TomCH]

that he took off his shoes to wash the blood from the soles, them promptly got them bloody again and ran out of the house leaving his additional bloody shoeprints on the floor of the living room

Yes, another absurdity.

If he left bloody shoe prints all over, which he didn't bother to clean up, why would he remove them so he could also leave a bloody BARE footprints, that WERE cleaned up?

 

[RoseMontague]

What broken nail from the wall?

There was a nail IN the wall, but it wasn't broken, not even BENT!

Quite a trick to scale a wall and totally miss the nail.

He didn't miss the other nail in the wall, maybe quite a trick to miss both of them. Look at the high resolution photo of the wall showing nail photo I provided to PMF slightly below and to the left of the remaining nail shows a hole where a nail was that has part of the brick chipped out as ina nail being stepped on and dislodged.

 

[Withnail1969]

Yes, another absurdity.

If he left bloody shoe prints all over, which he didn't bother to clean up, why would he remove them so he could also leave a bloody BARE footprints, that WERE cleaned up?

He left a footprint on the bathmat in a blood and water mix as he was rinsing the obvious bloodstains off his pants and (white)? shoes so he could make his way home without anyone saying something like 'Hi Rudy - have you hurt yourself, you're covered in blood?'.