Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

Whether Rudy needed to or not... do you suppose he might have had some interest in spending the night in the cottage with two pretty girls???

///

Both of whom were going out with other guys? Not really. I would have thought he would have preferred to go out clubbing, as he eventually did do.

 

[moodstream]

What you say is entirely possible. A long time ago I mused on the idea of the shower having been used for a clean up - providing that the shower head was not permanently fixed to the wall. I would have thought that if one had blood on one's trouser leg that one wanted to remove whilst still wearing the trousers, a hand-held shower head would probably be the most effective thing to use. And of course the bath mat wasn't superglued to the floor in front of the sink, so it's entirely logical to suggest that it might have been moved to the shower entrance as well. Lastly, as you say, any hosing down of the shower cubicle, coupled with Knox's shower the following morning, would probably have been enough to get rid of any luminol-detectable blood on the shower cubicle walls or in the floor pan.

I am just curious to know how someone could be careful enough to clean up the shower, but be careless enough to leave the rest of the bathroom a mess. I don't get that.

 

[moodstream]

Withnail,

Well, you don't like Massei's reconstruction in which the precipitating event was Rudy entering Meredith's bedroom---with intent to molest--- while the lovebirds were in Amanda's bed. Consider this variation...............

The lovebirds had gone to bed. Period. Rudy was spending the night, on the sofa. Meredith comes out of her room. surprised to find Rudy. She screams. The lovebirds come out of Amanda's room, in their undies. An argument ensues over whether Amanda is permitted to have two "strange men" spend the night. The argument escalates. Meredith gets killed. This scenario requires that the three suspects snuck into the cottage and that Meredith's door had been closed............but, hey, didn't Amanda herself say that Meredith often closed her door???

///

Why would they kill her for that? Why wouldn't they at worst tell her to go to hades and then go back to bed? How could that escalate to murder? The trio have obtained their objective. What could Meredith have done?

 

[Kaosium]

I dont know about the Daily Beast but your understanding of the Daly Mail demographics appears somewhat confused (to put it mildly) I'm afraid.
<...>

If the FOAkers cant get the DM readers, natural allies one would have thought, on board then all is lost.

ETA Why isn't there a chest puffed out smilie

.

I find it ironic you can't figure out the reason it was the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph in the UK leading the English language defamation campaign, while it was the Independent and Guardian who were more reserved and somewhat skeptical at times. In the US it was Fox News offering more of a guilt perspective than the other networks, with Ann Coulter leading the charge.

Perhaps because your fixation on finding 'racism and xenophobia' blinds you to the fact that a primary tenet of guilterism is to believe the police about everything no matter how suspicious or deceptive they acted.

 

[Withnail1969]

I find it ironic you can't figure out the reason it was the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph in the UK leading the English language defamation campaign, while it was the Independent and Guardian who were more reserved and somewhat skeptical at times. In the US it was Fox News offering more of a guilt perspective than the other networks, with Ann Coulter leading the charge.

Perhaps because your fixation on finding 'racism and xenophobia' blinds you to the fact that a primary tenet of guilterism is to believe the police about everything no matter how suspicious or deceptive they acted.

While the guilters may paint themselves as liberals, they are essentially authoritarians. The decisions of State authorities may not be questioned in their world. Hence the interminable arguments from authority.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't think that's the reason. I believe the purpose is to show that the Court did not pursue possible leads. This guy wrote the judges about three times claiming he had this proof of his brother's involvement and could show them. They ignored him. There might be technical legal reasons this is more important than it looks to both of us at first glance, as it appears to me to be something of a waste of time for the reasons you stated.

I suppose it's also possible that the brother wasn't actually involved in the murder, but met up with Rudy afterward, perhaps even was the guy in the mystery car and that's how he ended up with those keys. It could be he could testify that neither Amanda nor Raffaele was involved.

You're right, there may be some legal technicality that we're missing because from what we do know, this gangster can't help Amanda's appeal at all. He's not saying that his brother is an accessory but rather the actual killer. In additon, he can't testify that neither Amanda or Raffaele was involved because his whole story is hearsay.

Even if the police and prosecution ignored him, so what? Just come up with the location of the keys and phone. Don't trust the police to retrieve them, I'm sure many media outlets would be glad to help out.

 

[TomCH]

While the guilters may paint themselves as liberals, they are essentially authoritarians. The decisions of State authorities may not be questioned in their world. Hence the interminable arguments from authority.

No, on the contrary, in a true democracy (where I live, and YOU don't), I trust the various authorities, and vote them out if/when I don't. Of course, YOU can't do that!

 

[Withnail1969]

I trust the various authorities

That's all you needed to say.

 

[Solange305]

Well, nor can any clear-thinking, objective observer either (in my opinion). Trouble for the prosecution is, they've never been able to link to any clothing or footwear worn by Knox or Sollecito during the murder then subsequently cleaned or disposed of. And they know it. So - as with the knife situation - their answer is to suspend disbelief to make the narrative fit the evidence (or lack of evidence in the case of clothing). Hence the near- or full-nakedness of Knox and Sollecito.

Now where was that sweater of Knox's that the police/prosecutors were convinced she was wearing on the night of the murder and had subsequently disposed of, again....?

It may seem hard to believe, but so is murder. Maybe, as discussed, Amanda and Raffaele were getting intimate, they heard Rudy trying to get Meredith to get with him, and decided to join in or pressure her. It seems strange to us, but then so does murdering a woman. Yet it happened.

Also, if we want to talk about scenarios that are "possible" yet seem ridiculous, do I really need to point out your theory of Amanda and Raffaele walking through coffee grounds, rusty pipes, or some other yet to be found substance through the hall? Or Rudy swinging like a gymnast from one landing to the window? It may be possible, but with the other ways to get into the cottage, it sounds as ridiculous to me as the assertions we make seem to sound to you. If you can't comprehend the similarities, I don't know what to tell you. It would be nice to see a little less hypocrisy in this thread, you can still argue your case without the hypocritical snide statements. The fact that you need to make them, one after the other, makes me wonder....

A bit defensive are we? Worried about the upcoming appeals? (your words, not mine, but they seem fitting.)

 

[Katody Matrass]

What makes you think that there has to be single, complete theory that explains the crime in order to convict?

If the evidence is too incomplete to give a definitive answer, there should be even more then one scenario fitting that evidence - the less of the facts are known the more is open to assumptions and interpretation.

Neither Massei, nor his supporters, despite taking freedoms with assumptions and interpretations are able to provide even a hypothetical but still believable and comprehensive scenario of events.

This is troubling, because on the other side it is not hard to draw a scenario in which Amanda and Raffaele are victims of a mistake. Erroneous interpretation of phone records, led ILE to view defendants' behavior with a certain bias. The ensuing mistake of ascribing Raffaele's shoes and his knife to the crime scene (both of the items he brought to the Questura on Nov 5) and the following unlawful interrogation sealed their fate and staged the tragedy.

The fact that there is no conclusive or sufficient evidence of their involvement, and what is there is highly controversial works in favor of that latter scenario.
The single perpetrator scenario don't suffer from such "bottlenecks" of probability like the Massei theory. There is no need to stretch the ToD, and moving that ToD by a few minutes doesn't topple the whole case. There is no need to contrive any implausible stories in which strangers are enrolled to help in a murder or 30 cm kitchen knives are carried for protection etc.

Summing up - if Massei or his supporters were able to conceive some explanation encompassing the known facts, we would have something to consider and compare with the lone wolf scenario.
So far nothing like it emerged and it won't, because there will be no new facts indicating AK and RS guilt, only more facts revealing the truth.

 

[Withnail1969]

It may seem hard to believe, but so is murder. Maybe, as discussed, Amanda and Raffaele were getting intimate, they heard Rudy trying to get Meredith to get with him, and decided to join in or pressure her. It seems strange to us, but then so does murdering a woman. Yet it happened.

A murder happened, that's for sure. For all manner of reasons, the scenario you describe did not.

Also, if we want to talk about scenarios that are "possible" yet seem ridiculous, do I really need to point out your theory of Amanda and Raffaele walking through coffee grounds, rusty pipes, or some other yet to be found substance through the hall?

Nobody has expressed any such theory. Nobody knows who made the Luminol reactive footprints in the cottage, or when they were made.

 

[Solange305]

While the guilters may paint themselves as liberals, they are essentially authoritarians. The decisions of State authorities may not be questioned in their world. Hence the interminable arguments from authority.

I have been involved in many arguments where i have sided against police or the judicial system. So please enough with the statements trying to paint everyone with the same broad brush. The point most of us have made is that from what we know, we don't have proof that the police framed or made any major mistakes in this case. Many of us agree that some mistakes were made, but not enough to convince us that they convicted these three in error. What is so hard to understand about that? Stop misrepresenting people's position, if truth is on your side, why the need to lie or embellish?

 

[Solange305]

A murder happened, that's for sure. For all manner of reasons, the scenario you describe did not.



Nobody has expressed any such theory. Nobody knows who made the Luminol reactive footprints in the cottage, or when they were made.

It's been insinuated. If they are prints that are Raffaele's (unless im mistaken and misunderstood), they have to have been in the 6 days before the murder. What a coincidence that he stepped in something within a period of 6 days, that reacted to luminol, right in the hallway next to Meredith's room. Due to those circumstances, I would as a juror want to know what they could have been made of. Although the burden of proof is to prove guilt, that doesn't apply to every single piece of evidence by itself. It applies to the whole picture. If the jurors hear other testimony that makes them side towards guilt, and then they are presented with the footprints, I can understand why they would be more inclined to believe they are blood if those footprints cannot reasonably be something else (I say reasonably, not impossible)

 

[Katody Matrass]

It may seem hard to believe, but so is murder. Maybe, as discussed, Amanda and Raffaele were getting intimate, they heard Rudy trying to get Meredith to get with him, and decided to join in or pressure her. It seems strange to us, but then so does murdering a woman. Yet it happened.

Why were they getting intimate in the cottage and not at Raffaele's place? And What was Rudy doing there at all?

Also, if we want to talk about scenarios that are "possible" yet seem ridiculous, do I really need to point out your theory of Amanda and Raffaele walking through coffee grounds, rusty pipes, or some other yet to be found substance through the hall?

First of all there was no Raffaele's footprint in luminol. And there is nothing ridiculous in leaving a footprint in some detergent or slightly rusty water.

Or Rudy swinging like a gymnast from one landing to the window? It may be possible, but with the other ways to get into the cottage, it sounds as ridiculous to me as the assertions we make seem to sound to you.

Again nothing improbable in simply climbing a ladder of a metal grill. Exactly like the lawyers office before.

 

[Withnail1969]

I have been involved in many arguments where i have sided against police or the judicial system. So please enough with the statements trying to paint everyone with the same broad brush. The point most of us have made is that from what we know, we don't have proof that the police framed or made any major mistakes in this case. Many of us agree that some mistakes were made, but not enough to convince us that they convicted these three in error. What is so hard to understand about that? Stop misrepresenting people's position, if truth is on your side, why the need to lie or embellish?

If you're oblivious to the many breaches of Italy's international obligations in terms of human rights and principles of justice in the conduct of this case, then that's an issue for you. It's not an issue for the appeal, since it's one of the central planks of the case they have built.

 

[Solange305]

Why were they getting intimate in the cottage and not at Raffaele's place? And What was Rudy doing there at all?

Why not? Maybe they decided to go back to the cottage to smoke out, and invited Rudy along (perhaps he gave them the weed, and asked if he could hang out for a bit)

First of all there was no Raffaele's footprint in luminol. And there is nothing ridiculous in leaving a footprint in some detergent or slightly rusty water.

Thanks, can you sum up for me what they found based on the prints (if its too much trouble Ill look it up, i dont want to get accused of wasting people's time)


Again nothing improbable in simply climbing a ladder of a metal grill. Exactly like the lawyers office before.

I still think it is. Why is it Charlie Wilkes believes he swung over as opposed to climbing from the bottom window? There must be something that makes him uncomfortable with that scenario, at least somewhat.

 

[Kaosium]

You're right, there may be some legal technicality that we're missing because from what we do know, this gangster can't help Amanda's appeal at all. He's not saying that his brother is an accessory but rather the actual killer. In additon, he can't testify that neither Amanda or Raffaele was involved because his whole story is hearsay.

Even if the police and prosecution ignored him, so what? Just come up with the location of the keys and phone. Don't trust the police to retrieve them, I'm sure many media outlets would be glad to help out.

Yeah, I wondered as well why he didn't just tell them where to go and get the keys. I suppose he might be trying to use it as some kind of bargaining chip, but frankly I was dubious of the whole thing. I asked Machiavelli in hopes he might provide some insight into the legal ramifications, but he demurred.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And in the same vein, here's the latest article from the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ched-international-law.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

(Looks like Machine / Harry Rag has been pushing those "like/dislike" arrows in the comments section until his fingers have bled )

I read it, and it means nothing of the sort, all they are saying is what Amanda's lawyers are presenting, nothing wrong in that, the thing I find amazing is the comments posted after, like the one, Amanda's confession was beat out of her after 36 straight hours of interigation. Why is it only the FOAKers get stuff like that so wrong. Unbelievable.......

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why not? Maybe they decided to go back to the cottage to smoke out, and invited Rudy along (perhaps he gave them the weed, and asked if he could hang out for a bit)

Around 21 they were relaxing at Raffaele's place, they had weed, food, a bed, a PC with movies and music and comfort of undisturbed intimacy and of a bathroom not shared with flatmates. So why did they decide to switch their phones off, take a 30cm kitchen knife and go outside into the chilly evening?
At 21:28 Toto saw them for the first time on the piazza. Rudy was not with them. Where and when did they meet him?
In the meantime Meredith broke the phone call to her mother before connecting, and didn't try to call again. She is at home for half an hour already. She made no calls, send no texts, didn't even change her street clothes or take off her shoes.

Thanks, can you sum up for me what they found based on the prints (if its too much trouble Ill look it up, i dont want to get accused of wasting people's time)

The print ascribed to Raffaele was measured by Rinaldi as 245 mm long. Vinci measured it 215 mm (closer to woman's size). I'd rather bet on Vinci as he corrected ILE's errors multiple times. All the prints are rather blurry from overapplying of luminol and some photos are badly shaken (camera blur). No footprints of other tenants or Meredith's boyfriend were taken for comparison and there is no way to tell with any certainty to whom they really belong.

I still think it is. Why is it Charlie Wilkes believes he swung over as opposed to climbing from the bottom window? There must be something that makes him uncomfortable with that scenario, at least somewhat.

Ask him. Maybe he doesn't know you can easily reach to the latch and open the window while standing safely on the grating.

 

[platonov]

'Ironic' is ironically much misapplied

I find it ironic you can't figure out the reason it was the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph in the UK leading the English language defamation campaign, while it was the Independent and Guardian who were more reserved and somewhat skeptical at times. In the US it was Fox News offering more of a guilt perspective than the other networks, with Ann Coulter leading the charge.

Perhaps because your fixation on finding 'racism and xenophobia' blinds you to the fact that a primary tenet of guilterism is to believe the police about everything no matter how suspicious or deceptive they acted.

I find it less ironic that you appear to have misinterpreted the initial point of my post which dealt with Katody Matrass's 'understanding of the Daly Mail demographics'.

You may view all media outlets thru the prism of how they* report the MK case (Is this what the 'strategists' call a hot button issue ??)
But rest assured I wouldn't use such a narrow spectrum - such a 'black & white' analysis I find simplistic & naive.

* Itself a misunderstanding - more accurately a journo or columnist in their employ, even the rags are not necessarily homogenous or consistent in their reportage on many issues.

As for 'a primary tenet of guilterism' ; What can I say - Is it the new 'yellow peril' or 'red menace'

While the guilters may paint themselves as liberals, they are essentially authoritarians. The decisions of State authorities may not be questioned in their world. Hence the interminable arguments from authority.

They hate freedom - this is 'a primary tenet of guilterism' .

.