Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I didnt need to - you helpfully supplied AK's own testimony that explained the circumstances

While your opinions and those of C Dempsey & Frank S etc etc etc etc
[and opinions of their opinions] are always welcome, as I said before I prefer direct testimony.

Your ability to interpret [translate] what AK really meant* might have been helpful in court but, alas, the court also prefers to hear things 1st hand where possible.

* The FOAker argument seems to depend to a large extent on interpreting what AK meant - she is an honors student, surely she can be allowed to speak for herself.
Admittedly this hasn't worked out so well but .....

.

I prefer direct testimony, too.

CDV: Getting back to the interrogation, with the pubblico ministero. Do you remember that at a certain point it was interrupted?

AK: Yes.

CDV: Do you remember what happened?

AK: Yes. Um, after several hours, um, the pubblico ministero started repeating the same questions, and it was as though I had gone right back to the Questura at that moment. So I didn't feel at ease, it was like they weren't listening to me any more, or hearing me, and so on the advice of the lawyer, I stopped the examination.

CDV: Did you get exactly the same feeling that you had on the night of the 5th/6th?

AK: I was getting that feeling of frustration, yes.

Now, what are you saying this is supposed to prove or disprove? What was the argument?

 

[platonov]

Your thinking is garbled. First, if she was worried that her footprints might be found, she should have told Mignini that she stepped in the blood in the bathroom and then walked to her room. The "bathmat boogie" is not exculpatory, and yet she volunteered this information when she need not have done so.
Second, if she was worried about footprints in the corridor, she should have been far more worried about footprints inside the room where the murder took place. But she wasn't. She wasn't thinking about luminol, or footprints, or any kind of forensic examination. She was desperately trying to get Mignini to realize she is innocent.

No CW your argument has it backwards.

She had already claimed in her Nov 4 email* to have stepped on the bathmat after getting out of the shower, but never mentioned the boogie.
*In which after 'spotting' the stain she thought 'menstrual blood, Ew'.

She now develops this by adding the 'bathmat boogie' - her revulsion at the 'mess' she 'thought' her dead 'friend' had left has been overcome by Dec 17.
Needs must and all that.

.

 

[platonov]

I prefer direct testimony, too.




Now, what are you saying this is supposed to prove or disprove? What was the argument?

The 'argument' was concluded using this testimony - see the link in my earlier post.

.

 

[katy_did]

No CW your argument has it backwards.

She had already claimed in her Nov 4 email* to have stepped on the bathmat after getting out of the shower, but never mentioned the boogie.
*In which after 'spotting' the stain she thought 'menstrual blood, Ew'.

She now develops this by adding the 'bathmat boogie' - her revulsion at the 'mess' she 'thought' her dead 'friend' had left has been overcome by Dec 17.
Needs must and all that.

.

Perhaps she didn't realize the exact way in which she walked back to her room after taking a shower would be a matter of intense discussion on an internet forum three years later. Just a guess.

Why do you think she mentioned it?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why does a scenario have to be based on Massei?

Hi, Fine, of course it's not a requirement.
I was just hoping to see some canonical exegesis of Massei to see how internally consistent it really is. I understand you too don't agree with him and I see a trend emerging: those who try to present a theory of guilt start with dismissing Massei. But I'm OK with it.

I've already sketched a scenario which is consistent and not implausible. It was a flatmate dispute, which spiralled out of control, ...and it doesn't involve switching off phones, taking the knife, or loitering at any piazza.

I understand you reject Curatolo's testimony, and Massei's knife theory. True, we don't know the phones were switched off, but we know they were inactive, never pinged any cell during the night and Raffaele's phone failed to receive the SMS. How would you incorporate it into your scenario?

I don't know how Raffaele's knife got there. Maybe he'd left it at the cottage when he prepared the lovebirds' meal the afternoon of November 1st.

So it would be possible for Meredith to simply touch it. We cannot also exclude intermediate transfer, as the kitchen was common area.

What we want to know is the motive, and that is a tough question. I'm inclined to think that Meredith---outmanned 3 to 1--- had armed herself, and so someone stabbed her "in self-defense."

Yes it is a problem, but what about a buildup to that crime? What caused AK and RS to leave his flat and if they met Guede on the way, why would they invite him in?
Also I think timing is quite critical for your scenario, because we need to incorporate Meredith's phone activity, her clothing, and the broken car people somehow.

But motive is a tough question in a LONEWOLF scenario, too. Why would Rudy stab her, especially if---as the lack of defensive wounds is thought to illustrate---she had not resisted his advances? Why not just leave? Rarely do sexual assaults end in murder, and if Rudy had just left, and Meredith had called the cops, it would have come down to his word against hers as to whether she had been forced to have sex. Sure, sexual assaults occasionally lead to murder. So do flatmate disputes.

In my understanding it is probable from the established evidence that Rudy was surprised by Meredith and than he threatened her into submission and assaulted her sexually. The stabbing could have been deliberate - he realized she recognized him, and the crime he committed is very serious, so killing was his only option.

Would anyone care to explain why Raffaele---if fully innocent as charged---refused to be interrogated during his first trial??? And now, holy cow!, once convicted, would do the same during the appeal trial? (No need to mention again his bubble gum pink attire.) He seems afraid to testify. I wonder why.

I guess he listens to his lawyers.


Thanks and I'm looking forward to further fleshing out of your scenario. I'm sorry if you've already answered the questions I asked. If so, please just point me to the relevant post.

 

[LondonJohn]

What I see in either photo is something that does not look smeared, as though attempted to be removed via cleaning. It’s the luminol that makes the print visible. Without luminol, the print is invisible.

Therefore, the footprint was invisible when made.

If it was invisible when created, I have doubts that it can be correlated to the crime, because the print is solid. It’s not an outline or a few dots here and there connected by deduction, it’s a solid print, like those circles that have to be filled in completely on automated tests.

I just don’t see how blood could be on the bottom of a foot that way, so that every square millimeter is evenly spread with blood, and yet the blood not be visible.

If she dried her foot, then spots of blood and an uneven outline might appear in luminol, but not an even print. How can such an even spread of red blood be deposited and not leave a trace?

I must be wrong because I have not heard this argument before. I would appreciate if someone could educate me though.

Similar logic applies to the partial print on the mat. Many people apparently still believe that this print was a) definitely made by Sollecito, and b) was part of a series of footprints originating in Meredith's room and leading through the hallway to the small bathroom (and presumably terminating in the shower), but that all of the other prints in the series have been removed in a clean-up.

Leaving aside the first part (the term "millimetre accuracy" still makes me smile wryly though), the second part simply can't be true. Why not? Well, because:

1) The partial print on the bathmat was made in a dilute mixture of blood and water. It can't therefore have been the product of somebody stepping in blood in Meredith's room, since this blood was of course all undiluted.

2) The partial print on the bathmat was made with a saturated blood/water mixture across the whole fore-sole of the foot. In other words, the entire front half of the sole which left that print was wet with the blood/water mix when it was placed onto the bathmat. This is evident by the blocked-out nature of the print, with no gaps. But if this print were only one of a series of prints which originated in Meredith's room, there's no way that the sole of the foot would still have been entirely covered with liquid of any kind (whether neat blood or a blood/water mixture) by the time the person reached the small bathroom. The walk from Meredith's room would have required at least two previous right footfalls. Therefore by the time of the third (at least) right footfall onto the bathmat, there would have been relatively little liquid remaining on the sole of the foot - it would mostly have been deposited onto the floor during the previous two (or more) footfalls.

3) If the other footprints in the "series" of prints between Meredith's room and the small bathroom had indeed been cleaned up, there would almost certainly have been some evidence of such a clean-up. However, the floor in Meredith's room, the hallway and the small bathroom showed absolutely no sign of a clean-up. There was no dilute blood in the grouting ridges of the tiles, for example. And the luminol tests did not reveal any smearing or wiping of blood having taken place.

 

[RoseMontague]

There was no need to destroy something that never existed in the first place.

Interviews with witnesses are NOT recorded, and she was a witness at this point, and thus no such tape ever existed.

End of story.

It was my understanding that the interviews with both Filomena and Laura were recorded.

 

[RoseMontague]

I remember Mignini admitting all witness interviews were recorded. He said they "forgot" to record that one.

Does that mean that her interviews prior to the 5th were recorded?

 

[Katody Matrass]

But motive is a tough question in a LONEWOLF scenario, too. Why would Rudy stab her, especially if---as the lack of defensive wounds is thought to illustrate---she had not resisted his advances? Why not just leave? Rarely do sexual assaults end in murder, and if Rudy had just left, and Meredith had called the cops, it would have come down to his word against hers as to whether she had been forced to have sex. Sure, sexual assaults occasionally lead to murder. So do flatmate disputes.

Another problem with such reasoning is that her word would be supported with the break-in evidence. And he was already connected to a similar break-in.

But there is also a possibility that during the assault he wounded her by accident. It would immediately put him in a very bad situation if he counted on "his word vs hers" and left.

 

[platonov]

Perhaps she didn't realize the exact way in which she walked back to her room after taking a shower would be a matter of intense discussion on an internet forum three years later. Just a guess.

Why do you think she mentioned it?

Wow ..... just wow.

OK ..... Obviously not - I'd say she was more concerned with the ongoing questions being put to her by the police 2 days after a murder (in the initial email).
Just a guess.

For her it wasn't a parlour game - she is now doing 26 yrs.

.

 

[katy_did]

Wow ..... just wow.

OK ..... Obviously not - I'd say she was more concerned with questions being put to her by the police 2 days after a murder.
Just a guess.

For her it wasn't a parlour game - she is now doing 26 yrs.

.

That's an odd kind of answer. Why do you think she mentioned the 'bathmat walk' on December 17? I wondered why you thought Charlie had his reasoning back to front.

 

[Alt+F4]

What caused AK and RS to leave his flat and if they met Guede on the way, why would they invite him in?

They probably went back to her apartment so she could get a change of clothes for the day trip to Gubbio planned for the next morning. Considering how close RS and RG lived to each other and the fact that they both used street drugs it's probable that they knew each other before the night of the murder. They might have invited him in to do drugs with him, or he might have already been in her apartment when they arrived.

In my understanding it is probable from the established evidence that Rudy was surprised by Meredith and than he threatened her into submission and assaulted her sexually. The stabbing could have been deliberate - he realized she recognized him, and the crime he committed is very serious, so killing was his only option.

This makes no sense. He's worried that burglary is "very serious" so he decides to stab her in addition to breaking and entering?

 

[platonov]

That's an odd kind of answer. Why do you think she mentioned the 'bathmat walk' on December 17? I wondered why you thought Charlie had his reasoning back to front.

Relative to the odd post it was in response to its the very model of
a straight answer

As for Charlie's reasoning see my earlier mail - cant simplify it any further.
If you bear in mind that AK had, by Dec 17, been held for 6 weeks on
a murder rap [which she would have been trying to beat] all should be clear.

.

 

[katy_did]

Relative to the odd post it was in response to its the very model of
a straight answer

As for Charlie's reasoning see my earlier mail - cant simplify it any further.
If you bear in mind that AK had, by Dec 17, been held for 6 weeks on
a murder rap [which she would have been trying to beat] all should be clear.

.

You are an artist in dodging the question.

Tell me in dummy's language, then. You implied it was incriminating that she mentioned the 'bathmat shuffle' on December 17, but not in her e-mail (she may also have mentioned it during the interrogation of 5/6 November, of course, but we wouldn't know). What was her reason for mentioning it (or making it up) on 17 December?

 

[Katody Matrass]

This makes no sense. He's worried that burglary is "very serious" so he decides to stab her in addition to breaking and entering?

You misread what I wrote. Rape is very serious. In addition to breaking and entering and assaulting her sexually.

 

[LondonJohn]

This makes no sense. He's worried that burglary is "very serious" so he decides to stab her in addition to breaking and entering?

Even though I don't actually agree with this particular theory, your logic in saying it makes no sense is in itself faulty.

Firstly, the serious crime Katody was referring to was the sexual assault, not the burglary. That's perfectly clear. Secondly, it's entirely feasible that if a man had sexually assaulted a woman who would easily be able to identify him (with the attendant strong likelihood of conviction and significant prison time), he might kill the woman in order to prevent such identification - and take the (logically preferable) chance that the police would never be able to establish who had committed both crimes.

As I said, I don't think this is what happened. I think that Guede may have subdued Meredith with the knife, to a position where she was on her knees in front of the wardrobe. I think that he may then have lifted her top in order to get access to her bra and breasts, and that he may have also started to remove her jeans. I think that at this point, Meredith may have realised that a sexual assault was imminent, and either shouted out and/or started to resist. And I think that the knife wounds may well have occurred at this point - to re-establish control and to stop Meredith from making any more noise. I think that Guede may have then turned Meredith over onto her back and carried out his sexual assault (as especially grim as that is) while Meredith lay dying - hence the lack of bruising around Meredith's private parts.

I think that this (or something similar) is the most logical attempt to explain the physical evidence, and it's consistent with an escalating sexual assault. I personally also think it's reasonably likely that the stain on the pillowcase is Guede's semen - I think he either had intercourse with her (and that the DNA inside her came from epithelial cells from his penis) and withdrew to ejaculate, or he aroused himself to ejaculation. I'm sorry to be somewhat graphic, but I think it's important that such a serious element of the crime is able to be discussed rationally.

 

[platonov]

You are an artist in dodging the question.

Tell me in dummy's language, then. You implied it was incriminating that she mentioned the 'bathmat shuffle' on December 17, but not in her e-mail (she may also have mentioned it during the interrogation of 5/6 November, of course, but we wouldn't know). What was her reason for mentioning it (or making it up) on 17 December?

No, I simply dont see the value of endless repetition - I even answered your 'intense discussion on an internet forum three years later' Q.
I realise that it is the mainstay of the FOAker argument hence my earlier 'rendetion' of I Got You Babe
Is there no interest in the court proceedings/appeal ??


No, I didnt.
Already answered - See the previous 'If you bear in mind...'

.

 

[katy_did]

No, I simply dont see the value of endless repetition.
I realise that it is the mainstay of the FOAker argument hence my earlier
'rendetion' of I Got You Babe
Is there no interest in the court proceedings/appeal ??


No, I didnt.
Already answered - See the previous 'If you bear in mind...'

.

So you have no intention of answering the Q, then? I C...

(Dismayed to have missed the musical interlude).

 

[Katody Matrass]

They probably went back to her apartment so she could get a change of clothes for the day trip to Gubbio planned for the next morning.

It doesn't look very probable reason for interrupting a romantic evening, considering that such preparations can always be put off until later, especially that Amanda would want to use her bathroom and her cosmetics in the morning anyway. But let it be, we need them to leave the flat to go on with our "reconstruction". What time do you think it was? After watching Amelie? Or Naruto around 21:30? Do you consider Curatolo credible?

Considering how close RS and RG lived to each other and the fact that they both used street drugs it's probable that they knew each other before the night of the murder.

We know that neither of them admitted to that acquaintance. And Raffaele directly stated he doesn't know Rudy. It means either they were risking that someone who knows that they know each other will out them, or that it was a secret relationship, unknown to anyone. But they had no phone numbers of each other, were no facebook "friends" etc. There is no trace of any contact between them. And no credible witness of their friendship emerged. They also come from quite different social circles. One of them attended classical concerts and studied while the other one "hanged around".
I also don't think we have evidence Rudy used "street drugs". He maybe used marijuana, grown by the guys downstairs and drank alcohol.

Considering that, I think we should turn to the second possibility you provided:

he might have already been in her apartment when they arrived.

Do you mean Meredith let him in, or that he broke in?

 

[Justinian2]

It is NOT the absolute truth, rather it is a lame attempt to corrupt the jury. And frankly, I personally would view any such attempt to pervert my decision EXTREMELY negatively were I a jurist.Tom

My only post for the last ten pages got moved. I was comparing the bars on the buildings in Lima Peru to the bars on the buildings in Perugia.

My previous comment was ten pages ago. My comment was a few lines from a newspaper about the appeal. The non sequitur comment quoted above was the reply. The comment didn't get moved.

Will check in tomorrow as I don’t access the computer much while in Peru.