Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

That is a very good point - as long as they are positive it is not RS's they can't lose. Thats very good thinking on their part for once but wouldn't it be a hoot, if it did come back RS's......

Well, at least it would clear things up one way or another. If it did turn out to be Raffaele's, I know I for one would start to believe he was guilty. I guess the defence must be very confident it isn't his...

 

[katy_did]

Meredith's phone call gives its ping to the cell in the area of via Sperandio at around midnight, and what causes the phone to ping this cell, is that the phone is transported at that time (not at 22:13 as the defence says, which is not in between the cottage and via Sperandio and does not locate the phone in Parco S. Angelo). The phone pings the new cell as a consequence of having "lost" the signal of cell 30064 becoming too weak, enters roaming mode and catches the best signal. This is the actual phone record clue.

I think it was established that the connection around midnight was due to Meredith's dad ringing her phone, rather than because the phone was moving...?

 

[katy_did]

I had a look back to see what Amanda said about the bathmat business in her December interrogation. I don't think she is particularly vague about it, as has been suggested, considering that at this stage she had no idea about the luminol prints (unfortunately it's through the interpreter, so we don't have her actual words). Sure, she doesn't mention precisely which foot went where, but then she had no particular reason to do so then, or even to think that it might be important:

Interpreter; When she went into the bedroom to have a shower she forgot the towel. And so there was also, what do you call it in Italian?

Mignini; The bathmat.

Interpreter; …the bathmat that she used to go back…walk to the bedroom to get a towel.

Mignini; Sorry I don’t understand. You took the bathmat to walk, to go to the bedroom?

Interpreter; So she didn’t slip with bare feet.

Mignini; When did you notice the blood?

Knox; I saw the blood when I went into the bathroom.

Interpreter; In the washbasin when she took her earrings out. After the shower she realised she didn’t have a towel and she used the bathmat.

That Amanda mentions this even before the testing was carried out (this was on the 17th according to PMF, while I think the testing happened on the 18th?) is pretty strong evidence in her favour to suggest it actually happened, and a plausible explanation for the luminol prints. It isn't as if she suddenly came up with the story on being accused of having left the prints. At the very least, it's reasonable doubt that they're directly connected to the murder, and made by someone who was involved.

I also came across something that Stewart Home wrote on PMF after attending some of the Court sessions, in which I think he makes some very valid points:

For example, AK's barefoot print with M's trace blood showing up under luminol but not visible to the naked eye, matches perfectly her walking around the house with wet/damp feet mixing blood and water after her shower. Using that print as part of the evidence to convict her would be a mistake given her testimony well before the prints were documented. She is providing reasonable doubt if of course we believe what is said. So we need more than bare feet and trace blood. If such prints attributable to AK were found in M's room, that is another story, but it was not.

 

[Kermit]

LondonJohn, get out the boron again

Hi RWVBWL, why don't you take a cue from LJ and try to squirm out of this with a minimum amount of dignity by transforming the "AK-paraded-like-a-prize-turkey-through-Perugia" argument into the "Giobbi-was-a-bad-man-because-he-announced-the-arrests" argument.

I was ready to leave the prize-turkey-parade discussion (I haven't returned to it since LJ's last post on the issue), but now LondonJohn is going to have to pull out his bag of boron and dump it on your posts, as he did with the prior discussion.

Hi Kermit,
A couple of things are seemingly incorrect with this posting of yours, and in the spirit of debate, I wish to point them out to you...
1st, there are actually not 2 BUT 3 cars leaving in the video Halides1 linked.

No problem, three cars.

.... please re-read what I wrote:
"The 2nd thing I learned is that it was true. After being arrested, and with the cameras rollin', Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were indeed driven thru town with lights ablaze and sirens blazin'".

Where am I wrong in my comprehension of what I had watched?
.... That you can not clearly see Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito?
I believe that Patrick Lumumba is in the 1st car, Amanda Knox is in the 2nd and Raffaele Sollecito is in the 3rd...

I think that Rose (correct me if I'm wrong), identified Patrick through a glimpse of his "dreadlocks". I don't know if Patrick's hair there qualifies as dreadlocks, but I too, going through the video frame-by-frame, could see someone who had what looks to be "African" hair. As I went frame-by-frame I couldn't see anyone who was identifiable in the other cars.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that some combination of Patrick, and probably the other two suspects were in those cars, but if I know that, it's because the reporter is saying so, not because I (if I were a neighbour of Perugia who just happened to be walking by the gate of the police station on the outskirts of town at that moment) could see through the reflection and glare and movement of the vehicles, and could identify RS, AK, and Patrick. You can hardly call this a parade of prize suspects.

(Please don't reply with the quote of the passerby who saw policemen waving their arms - which we don't see here - as they arrive at the police station - which neither is the case)

Now, yet once again, I have to disagree with this statement of yours: "After being arrested, and with the cameras rollin', Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were indeed driven thru town"
Indeed? The suspects were driven "thru town" only insofar as they covered the 200-300 metres to the highway cloverleaf (partial cloverleaf) which is the access to the road to Capanne.

You guys keep repeating that they were taken not out of town directly to Capanne (the police station is not downtown), but that they were taken into town, and driven around on a route which is exactly the opposite to what they would take to Capanne. I still haven't seen any evidence of it.

If you want to insist that the 200 metres to the cloverleaf is a "parade through town", well that's a pretty short parade, and it's not exactly through the winding streets of town (unless if the curve of the highway cloverleaf counts as a winding Perugian street, according to FOAKer Doublespeak).

Keep trying (unless LondonJohn dumps his boron on you. LJ, you better stock up on it).

 

[RoseMontague]

Huh? I think you misunderstood. I am not taking up the task of responding to Kevin Lowe's demand, and I am not attempting to construct the crime theory with anyone here at this point. I answered some questions, and maybe that was my mistake, but I'm not going to start going round and round about this again, after all this time I think you know our theories about what happened (more or less) and have already pointed out why they don't fit your supposed "facts". The problem is, our theories will never match because we don't agree on the "facts" that you take as proven and absolute. I really don't need to hear for the umpteenth time about TOD and stomach contents and miracle ears, if I don't agree the first couple of times you say it, I won't agree now. You can call me stupid and ignorant and every name in the book, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot come to the same conclusions you guys do, and discount some of the evidence that points to them being there that night.

Personally, I am glad you are here and I appreciate your participation. I also am glad both you and Machiavelli have answered a few questions and given your opinion on some aspects of the evidence. I don't like to be called stupid or ignorant either and really don't appreciate being called a "damned liar" as Michael did yesterday. It appears to me that not only do those that believe in innocence have different opinions on some of the evidence, the same is true for those on the guilty side. To me, this just shows how much mystery still remains and how poor a job the prosecution did in attempting to prove the case against Raffaele and Amanda. The discussion coming on the appeals should be interesting and I hope some of the mystery will be cleared up. I hope we have good discussion from both sides and have a civil discussion on the points we don't agree on.

 

[Kermit]

Take a closer look

There is no was to positively match this to Amanda as an identical print:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/383964ce88426b0e47.jpg[/qimg]

.
You're right, Rose. Your image doesn't offer much information as presented:


However, the digital file contains the lines of the floor tiles, and in particular a police metric ruler as we can see here:


That ruler, in such an overhead shot is pretty useful for getting a good measurement and comparing it to Amanda's foot.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi RWVBWL, why don't you take a cue from LJ and try to squirm out of this with a minimum amount of dignity by transforming the "AK-paraded-like-a-prize-turkey-through-Perugia" argument into the "Giobbi-was-a-bad-man-because-he-announced-the-arrests" argument.

I was ready to leave the prize-turkey-parade discussion (I haven't returned to it since LJ's last post on the issue), but now LondonJohn is going to have to pull out his bag of boron and dump it on your posts, as he did with the prior discussion.


No problem, three cars.


I think that Rose (correct me if I'm wrong), identified Patrick through a glimpse of his "dreadlocks". I don't know if Patrick's hair there qualifies as dreadlocks, but I too, going through the video frame-by-frame, could see someone who had what looks to be "African" hair. As I went frame-by-frame I couldn't see anyone who was identifiable in the other cars.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that some combination of Patrick, and probably the other two suspects were in those cars, but if I know that, it's because the reporter is saying so, not because I (if I were a neighbour of Perugia who just happened to be walking by the gate of the police station on the outskirts of town at that moment) could see through the reflection and glare and movement of the vehicles, and could identify RS, AK, and Patrick. You can hardly call this a parade of prize suspects.

(Please don't reply with the quote of the passerby who saw policemen waving their arms - which we don't see here - as they arrive at the police station - which neither is the case)

Now, yet once again, I have to disagree with this statement of yours: "After being arrested, and with the cameras rollin', Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were indeed driven thru town"
Indeed? The suspects were driven "thru town" only insofar as they covered the 200-300 metres to the highway cloverleaf (partial cloverleaf) which is the access to the road to Capanne.

You guys keep repeating that they were taken not out of town directly to Capanne (the police station is not downtown), but that they were taken into town, and driven around on a route which is exactly the opposite to what they would take to Capanne. I still haven't seen any evidence of it.

If you want to insist that the 200 metres to the cloverleaf is a "parade through town", well that's a pretty short parade, and it's not exactly through the winding streets of town (unless if the curve of the highway cloverleaf counts as a winding Perugian street, according to FOAKer Doublespeak).

Keep trying (unless LondonJohn dumps his boron on you. LJ, you better stock up on it).

It was not me who made the claim that it was Patrick, identified by his dreadlocks. The only claim I have seen until recently on this issue is that there was a parade of sorts when Patrick was initially arrested. I don't know if that is true or not, as far as I am concerned there is plenty of other reasons to believe law enforcement showed a lack of professionalism in the handling of this case that it really does not matter to me either way.

 

[Withnail1969]

I was ready to leave the prize-turkey-parade discussion...

If you could show us the rulebook you are using for what exactly does or does not constitute a parade in Perugia, I'm sure everybody would be very grateful.

 

[katy_did]

In the motivations it says fluorescent reference tapes were used, but were they taken up before the photos were taken? Also, in reference to the blurry photos it was stated that a tripod was used for a stable support for the camera. Do you know what camera was used to cause the blur of the footprints?

During the shots, fluorescent measuring tapes were used (normal measuring tapes were used when the photos taken in natural light were shot, it was explained), so that the metric reference could be used for the subsequent measuring of the photographed prints.

Page 345:

Most likely an error:

Durante lo scatto non erano stati adoperati nastrini metrici fluorescenti (si erano utilizzate strisce metriche comuni, quando si erano scattate le foto a luce naturale, è stato spiegato), dove il riferimento metrico sarebbe servito per la successiva misurazione delle impronte fotografate.

During the shots, fluorescent metric tapes were not used (normal metric tapes were used when the photos were shot in natural light, it was explained), where the metric reference would have allowed for the subsequent measuring of the photographed prints.

This is confirmed later in the same page of the translated report:

Coming, therefore, to the Rinandi-Boemia report, Dr Rinaldi highlighted, during the course of his statement, that the Luminol-positive prints, unlike the print on the mat which, having had the measuring strip placed next to it (cf. photo 1 on page 5646), was photographed in visible [370] light, the second category of prints was characterised, as already mentioned, by the absence of the measuring reference, since the shots had been taken in complete darkness.

Accordingly, it was necessary to make use of some of the technical findings of the forensics team in order to obtain a definite metric reference.

 

[Kermit]

It was not me who made the claim that it was Patrick, identified by his dreadlocks. The only claim I have seen until recently on this issue is that there was a parade of sorts when Patrick was initially arrested. I don't know if that is true or not, as far as I am concerned there is plenty of other reasons to believe law enforcement showed a lack of professionalism in the handling of this case that it really does not matter to me either way.

Okay, Rose. I didn't mean to get you involved in RWVBWL's return to the prize-turkey-parade discussion.

 

[RoseMontague]

.
You're right, Rose. Your image doesn't offer much information as presented:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/383964ce88426b0e47.jpg[/qimg]

However, the digital file contains the lines of the floor tiles, and in particular a police metric ruler as we can see here:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_389264ce8f6b844881.jpg[/qimg]

That ruler, in such an overhead shot is pretty useful for getting a good measurement and comparing it to Amanda's foot.

Thanks Kermit,
I know you have done a lot of work on these footprints and I appreciate this information. I see no reason to exclude Amanda from being the owner of this print, as I stated before. Unfortunately, I don't have Laura's or Filomena's prints to compare to see if they are excluded. My understanding is the only other female reference footprint the police had was Meredith's and I don't recall seeing that hers could be excluded. If you have Laura's and Filomena's I would be interested in comparing those as well. I feel there is a significant difference in claiming a persons print can't be excluded and one claiming the prints are identical. I see similar issues with the bathmat footprint as shown by the many pages we have spent discussing that one.

 

[katy_did]

I agree with you. katy_did and katody are both wrong.

Not really sure how it can be disputed that Amanda mentioned having a shower and using the bathmat to walk back to her room before the luminol tests were even carried out. In Court, her lawyers asked her in more detail how she walked back to her room - naturally enough, since it had become an important detail at that stage - but the most significant facts had been mentioned by Amanda long before that.

 

[Kermit]

A stone's throw is not a parade

If you could show us the rulebook you are using for what exactly does or does not constitute a parade in Perugia, I'm sure everybody would be very grateful.

.
You folks can make up your own definitions if you wish, but for me a short drive (200-300 metres?) to the nearest highway entrance ramp to go to Capanne prison does not classify as a parade through the winding streets of Perugia.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not really sure how it can be disputed that Amanda mentioned having a shower and using the bathmat to walk back to her room before the luminol tests were even carried out. In Court, her lawyers asked her in more detail how she walked back to her room - naturally enough, since it had become an important detail at that stage - but the most significant facts had been mentioned by Amanda long before that.

It would not surprise me if the police insinuated that some of the visible prints were hers, this tactic is also show by them initially claiming the CCTV footage was of her as well. The story just sounds contrived and a little silly. Just my opinion and I could be the one who is wrong about this.

 

[Kermit]

Thanks Kermit,I see no reason to exclude Amanda from being the owner of this print, as I stated before. Unfortunately, I don't have Laura's or Filomena's prints to compare to see if they are excluded. My understanding is the only other female reference footprint the police had was Meredith's and I don't recall seeing that hers could be excluded. If you have Laura's and Filomena's I would be interested in comparing those as well. I feel there is a significant difference in claiming a persons print can't be excluded and one claiming the prints are identical.

Yeah, the "compatibility" question is sticky. For me the significance of the luminol prints is not so much that you can go beyond "compatibility" and declare "that's Amanda's print" or "that's Raffaele's print", but rather that there are a set of different sized prints, implying that there were a number of different persons involved..

 

[Withnail1969]

Yeah, the "compatibility" question is sticky. For me the significance of the luminol prints is not so much that you can go beyond "compatibility" and declare "that's Amanda's print" or "that's Raffaele's print", but rather that there are a set of different sized prints, implying that there were a number of different persons involved..

Or more accurately that there are a number of different prints in the house which cannot be connected to the murder with any certainty since it's unknown when they were made, who made them, or what caused the Luminol reaction. The only thing we do know about them is that Meredith's DNA was not found in the prints.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's very simple. And theories are not dead nor whacked, they are obvious (while Kevin's statistical calculations are egregiously wrong). It's so simple: nobody is able to propose a reasonable alternative for how the prints wre produced. The defence wants to produce a reasonable doubt. They need a reasonable alternative to make a doubt, and they don't have it. They don't have a reasonable alternative nor clue for any of the basics (substance, circumstance, time, etc.). We have only the assertion by Charlie Wilkes that they are a "random artifact". But they are not a random artifact. They are not something obtainable randomly.

Do you know that it would be unusual to detect footprints on a tile floor in a place where no crime had occurred? I honestly don't know, but the results from Raffaele's apartment suggest it might not be unusual.

Keep in mind that not only did the police do a TMB test that came back negative on every one of the bare footprints, they also did DNA tests, and Meredith's DNA did not show up in any of them. You are taking the position that the defense must explain how the footprints were made in order to establish a reasonable doubt. That is absurd. The forensic test results, in and of themselves, go far beyond establishing a reasonable doubt. They constitute strong evidence that the footprints were not made with Meredith's blood. Factor in the random locations of the prints and the lack of evidence that anyone with bare feet stepped in blood inside Meredith's room, and the net result is a practical certainty that these footprints have nothing whatsoever to do with the crime. They are random artifacts.

 

[LondonJohn]

.
You folks can make up your own definitions if you wish, but for me a short drive (200-300 metres?) to the nearest highway entrance ramp to go to Capanne prison does not classify as a parade through the winding streets of Perugia.

As I've previously pointed out, there seems to be fairly good evidence that the police were acting in a strangely triumphalist manner that day, and locals are quoted as saying the convoy activity and waving out of the car windows etc was almost unheard of. This was the Perugia police telling the general public: "We solved the crime! Aren't we great! Everyone can feel safe again now."

And whether that happened with Knox, Sollecito and Guede in the cars at the time or not is immaterial to me (though obviously not to you).

At what time on 1st November do you think Meredith died?

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a very good point - as long as they are positive it is not RS's they can't lose. Thats very good thinking on their part for once but wouldn't it be a hoot, if it did come back RS's......

If it came back as Sollecito's semen, I would immediately change my view of him as culpable, since there's reason to believe this substance was still wet at the time of the murder. And if there was damning evidence like this against Sollecito, then I'd believe far more strongly in Knox's guilt too.

I think this is what many people fail to understand. My beliefs (and, I think, those of many other people here) are based purely on where the evidence takes me. I don't need Knox or Sollecito to be guilty or not guilty - there's nothing in it for me whether they are guilty or not. And I'm also perfectly willing to believe that there's conclusive evidence of their guilt that's already been aired in a court, but that I've failed to notice it or understand it. However, based on what I know at the moment, I believe there's no way that Knox and Sollecito should have been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. I'll change my view readily, though, if I am presented with what I'd consider to be good enough evidence of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not really sure how it can be disputed that Amanda mentioned having a shower and using the bathmat to walk back to her room before the luminol tests were even carried out. In Court, her lawyers asked her in more detail how she walked back to her room - naturally enough, since it had become an important detail at that stage - but the most significant facts had been mentioned by Amanda long before that.

I wanted to add that I believe I remember seeing this (an early claim supposedly released by the police that some prints were Amanda's) on a wayback machine search of some of the Italian news sources on articles that are no longer archived on the current site. I'll see if I kept that reference and let you know.