Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

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.

____________________

I'll repeat. katy_did made an interesting point. I was providing an alternate, less-than-innocent explanation. And for the record, I asked, rhetorically, a long time ago---over at PMF---why don't the Innocentisti just believe Amanda's bathmat boggie story instead of freshly minting explanations involving turnip juice, sauerkraut, mayonaise, or any other mystery substance that might simulate a Luminol reaction to blood.

An ancient Greek proverb, quoted by Aristotle: "So when you choke on water....what do I give you to clear your throat?"

///

 

[Justinian2]

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.

I think your theory is too complicated and stretches the facts too far. This is not a Sherlock Holmes story.

Furthermore, aside from appealing to sexual fantasy, does your theory further the understanding of the crime?

 

[platonov]

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

(Dismayed to have missed the musical interlude).

Well why don't you try and answer the Q yourself [posed after I had given my response to CW as it happens] - try and make it more realistic than the internet guess

Lets see if you can come up with a scenario - or if you prefer, what do you think Mignini and co thought the the Dec 17 boogie story was about [While they were also wondering where their eyebrows had got to]

If you are going to pit you wits against evil cops & prosecutors it helps if you can work out their angles.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a programme on ITV1 right now about the Rachel Nickell murder on Wimbledon Common back in 1992. It reminded me that it served as an object lesson in law enforcement's (and media) tunnel vision and confirmation bias towards a particular suspect - who turned out to be 100% innocent.

After Nickell was murdered, her own young son (who'd horrifically witnessed the killing) and another woman on the common that morning both provided an identification to the police. The description loosely matched a local oddball, Colin Stagg, and a few people phoned the police to say that they thought it was him. When the police investigated Stagg, they soon became convinced that he was their man. He'd been arrested (and was subsequently convicted) for exposing himself on Wimbledon Common earlier that Summer, and he had bizarre interests in ritualistic worship.

At this time, criminal profiling was at the forefront of public awareness (it was not long after the release of the movie of "Silence of the Lambs"), and the police used a profiler to draw up a profile of the man they were looking for. The profiler, Paul Britton (who was subsequently discredited) drew up a profile that matched Stagg, and this convinced the police even further.

At this point, the police "knew" who'd done it, but they had no decent evidence against him. They had no usable forensic evidence from the scene of the murder, and found no evidence in Stagg's flat. They arrested him and brought him in for questioning, but he denied everything. So they decided to trick him into a confession, using a policewoman to pose as a "penpal", and to lure Stagg into confessing to the murder by having the "penpal" say that she'd be very turned on if Stagg told her he had killed someone. Even though he never did make such a confession, he told the "penpal" some details of the crime scene which the police convinced themselves that only the killer would know. The only problem was, Stagg had actually been shown detailed crime scene photos by the police when he was first questioned...

The police and prosecutors' tunnel vision led to them pursuing a prosecution of Stagg, even though there were clearly no good grounds for a prosecution. Fortunately for the cause of justice, a wise judge threw the case out of court almost immediately, and Stagg walked free - although the police (and most of the media) remained in "no doubt" that Stagg was the killer. It was only a couple of years ago that new DNA testing techniques revealed that the killer was a totally different man - Robert Napper - who had a history of serious sexual assaults before the Nickell murder, and who went on to rape and kill more women afterwards.

This case served as a very illuminating illustration of how police and prosecutors can sometimes quickly convince themselves that a particular person committed a particular crime - especially when it's a high-profile crime with media focus and a public clamouring to nail the culprit. And once they've latched onto a person, they can surprisingly easily put on the blinkers and rationalise the crime to fit their suspect.

ETA: Rachel Nickell's father made a statement outside the Old Bailey just after the case against Stagg was thrown out by the judge. He said: "The law was upheld today, but where is the justice?" He had become just as convinced as the police and CPS that Stagg was the true killer, but that he'd "got off" on a technicality. This may also provide a pause for thought when considering the views of the Kercher family regarding the outcome of the first trial in Perugia...

 

[katy_did]

Well why don't you try and answer the Q yourself [posed after I had given my response to CW as it happens] - try and make it more realistic than the internet guess

Lets see if you can come up with a scenario - or if you prefer, what do you think Mignini and co thought the the Dec 17 boogie story was about [While they were also wondering where their eyebrows had got to]

If you are going to pit you wits against evil cops & prosecutors it helps if you can work out their angles.

.

I believe my Q precedes yours, you old trickster. Fair's fair.

 

[Katody Matrass]

And for the record, I asked, rhetorically, a long time ago---over at PMF---why don't the Innocentisti just believe Amanda's bathmat boggie story

I, for one never doubted that story.
First, because going out of the shower and forgetting the towel happened to me personally more than a few times - and bathmat boogie is exactly what I did in such a situation.
Second, contriving such a lie when more sensible alternatives are at hand makes no sense at all.
Third, it is in spirit of Amanda's. She is open about such details like romantically cleaning the ears, dildos, borrowing condoms etc. oblivious to the effect she makes. Bare bathmat shuffling fits quite well.

 

[platonov]

I believe my Q precedes yours, you old trickster. Fair's fair.

No your Q follows a straightforward point, if you dont see it, you dont see it.

So - OK, time to move on.

Pity, as I was hoping you might top the internet guess which was spectacular even by the standards of this thread

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pseudoperoxidase

SNIP
why don't the Innocentisti just believe Amanda's bathmat boggie story instead of freshly minting explanations involving turnip juice, sauerkraut, mayonaise, or any other mystery substance that might simulate a Luminol reaction to blood.
SNIP

///

Fine,

I gently object to saying that turnip juice or any other plant material simulates a luminol reaction to blood. If anything, it is the other way around. Plants contain an enzyme known as peroxidase, and luminol is a substrate for peroxidase. Hemoglobin is not an enzyme, but it has the same prosthetic group, heme. The heme group confers upon hemoglobin a pseudoperoxidase activity in the presence of luminol and a peroxide. Turnips and horseradishs are particularly rich in this enzyme, but other plant materials have them as well.

Back in a couple of days.

 

[RWVBWL]

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

Greetings Katody Matrass,
As you write, Rape is indeed very serious.
I oughta know, for I have been in a court of law here in Los Angeles to defend my dignity and honor against a RAPE accusation!
1)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/050903.pdf
2)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/051203.pdf
3)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/051303.pdf

No charges were filed against me by the Los Angles Police Department for lack of evidence.

BUT I did have to go thru a civil ($$$) lawsuit when I wouldn't back down from defending myself and I then won, with a jury of 8 women+4 men finding me innocent of raping my "friend".
This was a woman that I liked A LOT whom I had given diamond earrings to for Christmas
and with whom I was leaving to vacation in Hawaii a week after our encounter, -(which I did pay for).
It happened after drinking some wine, kissing passionately for the 1st time and then also sleeping together for the 1st time.
Interestingly, after I allegedly raped my "friend", we both went back to sleep, in the same bed...

So I have had to, in a court of law, describe in very intimate detail what my mouth did, what my hands did, and what I did with my penis...

I am the older brother to 3 beautiful sisters.
I feel that Rape is a very horrible thing to do to a woman.
I have NEVER understood how, in a sexual assault + murder, that a stain, very possibly semen, WAS NEVER TESTED by the investigators!?!

If this IS NOT a semen stain, it does not change much.
If it is semen and it belongs to Giacomo Silenzi, it does not change much.
If it is semen and belonged to Raffaele Sollecito, it changes everything I believe in and I am completely wrong,
Raffaele Sollecito is guilty of participating in in Meredith Kercher's murder.

If it is semen and belongs to Rudy Guede,
well Fulcanelli owes me a case of beer!

It also adds this:
The fact that Rudy Guede, after trying to "save" Meredith Kercher, then seemingly touched her genitalia, and then brought himself to climax,
and left a little of his "seed" between her legs on the pillowcase that was lying underneath Meredith makes me wonder of the intimate details of this incident.

I ask this for it was describing, in very intimate detail what had happened between myself and my "friend", while in her bed,
in my own court testimony that then helped me to clear my name.

What exactly did Rudy Guede do in that bedroom?

IF by any chance Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were there too, what were they doing?
Sitting there watching as Rudy Guede climaxed?

I would think that IF Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were in Meredith's bedroom when this sexual assault took place,
they would have increased the chances that they would leave evidence of their presence and also get Meredith Kercher's blood upon themselves. But I don't see it. Do you?

Have a good rest of the day all, I'm outta here!
RWVBWL

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.

Greetings Kermit,
I won't even bother wondering why you ask me "to squirm out of this with a minimum amount of dignity"
since my dignity does not come from chatting with some guy or gal on an internet forum, whether right or wrong...
Peace, RW

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

____________________

I'll repeat. katy_did made an interesting point. I was providing an alternate, less-than-innocent explanation. And for the record, I asked, rhetorically, a long time ago---over at PMF---why don't the Innocentisti just believe Amanda's bathmat boggie story instead of freshly minting explanations involving turnip juice, sauerkraut, mayonaise, or any other mystery substance that might simulate a Luminol reaction to blood.

An ancient Greek proverb, quoted by Aristotle: "So when you choke on water....what do I give you to clear your throat?"

///

I don't think anyone has ever seriously proposed turnip juice as a factor in this investigation. We have, however, pointed out forensic test results that were negative for blood and the victim's DNA.

I could understand how three years ago, people would think Amanda Knox was involved in this murder. I thought so too. But to pretend that nothing has changed in that intervening period, that the case is as strong as ever, is, I think, an extremely delusional perspective. Who are the forensic experts, outside the tight little circle of cronies inside the Italian system, who still think the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele holds up? Are Peter Quennell and "Harry Rag" experts in criminal investigation? They are the most visible exponents of your POV. Perhaps that would tell you something, if you were capable of listening.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thanks for the story, RWVBWL
You seem to be a great guy, and I really feel for you. I can hardly imagine how it must be to endure the suffocating weight of being falsely accused.

 

[billyryan]

When and if this stain is tested can any form of contamination come into play

Rudy was there when this substance was deposited,he must know if it is his semen,he has not requested that it be tested which surely indicates that he knows the result will be bad for him

What real power has Maresca on behalf of the kerchers in this case,could he not have requested that it be tested,

A crime that was supposed to be a sex/murder how could any police force justify a possible semen stain between the victim legs not needing to be tested

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

<snip>

I think your theory is too complicated and stretches the facts too far. This is not a Sherlock Holmes story.

Furthermore, aside from appealing to sexual fantasy, does your theory further the understanding of the crime?

Justinian2

We seem to agree on something but I think you are being unfair to C Doyle.
While its true some of the later stories seemed to repeat earlier themes, he never repeated precise details a second time & certainly not of an imagined sexual assault.

.

 

[katy_did]

No your Q follows a straightforward point, if you dont see it, you dont see it.

So - OK, time to move on.

Pity, as I was hoping you might top the internet guess which was spectacular even by the standards of this thread

.

Your evasion is not so much noted, as displayed in glaring technicolour detail for all to see.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

___________________

Katody Matrass,

Why does a scenario have to be based on Massei? 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 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. Maybe it was part of a "picnic package" placed in Amanda's bag for their planned trip to Gubbio the next day. Must everything be explained before anyone is convicted?

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."

As others have pointed out this skips a few important steps like explaining why they left Raffaele's place after 9pm on a cold night to do whatever, how Rudy Guede got into the house when there's no evidence Meredith, Amanda or Raffaele knew him well enough to plausibly do so, why Meredith would pull a knife on someone, why someone else (who?) would then pull a knife on Meredith rather than calling the police, why they were having this argument in Meredith's room, how a "self-defence" stabbing ends up resembling a wound most commonly inflicted from behind, and who sexually assaulted Meredith after she had been fatally stabbed.

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.

It is simply a matter of fact that far, far more murders happen as a result of people interrupting burglars in their homes than as a result of arguments between flatmates with absolutely no history of violent crime who gang up with a person they barely know to sexually assault and murder their friend for no reason.

So trying to argue that the burglary-gone-wrong theory is just as unlikely as your theory is simply silly.

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.

Lawyers advise their clients not to take the stand all the time - it's widely considered a bad idea outside of very unusual circumstances. It's relatively easy for a clever prosecution lawyer and confirmation bias to make anyone look bad on the stand even if they are totally innocent.

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.

It's news to me that all drug users know each other, or know all other drug users within a certain radius. Certainly no evidence that they knew each other well enough to invite each other in has been found.

What time do you think they left Raffaele's place for this purpose, and how do you reconcile that with the computer evidence?

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

Dead girls don't identify you to the police.

 

[platonov]

Shuffling thru locked doors.

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.

Sometimes it comes so thick & fast you miss it.

CW this is even more 'garbled' if I may borrow your term.

AK had some chance of explaining away possible or 'anticipated' evidence in the bathroom, hallway or her own room - hence the ludicrous 'bathmat shuffle' etc.

But how on earth could she explain, via a 'story', her presence in blood in the murder room - you know, the locked room, that contained the body, that she definitely hadn't been in

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

plant material from outside?

I don't think anyone has ever seriously proposed turnip juice as a factor in this investigation. We have, however, pointed out forensic test results that were negative for blood and the victim's DNA.

I could understand how three years ago, people would think Amanda Knox was involved in this murder. I thought so too. But to pretend that nothing has changed in that intervening period, that the case is as strong as ever, is, I think, an extremely delusional perspective. Who are the forensic experts, outside the tight little circle of cronies inside the Italian system, who still think the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele holds up? Are Peter Quennell and "Harry Rag" experts in criminal investigation? They are the most visible exponents of your POV. Perhaps that would tell you something, if you were capable of listening.

Charlie,

I agree that the luminol-positive substance is unlikely to be turnip juice or other fruit juices, but if the prints were in the kitchen, I might feel differently. However, it could conceivably arise if someone were outside barefoot and picked up plant material or another catalyst at that time. Another possibility is a cleaning product of some kind. The absence of DNA disfavors the hypothesis that blood caused the luminol reaction.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Sometimes it comes so thick & fast you miss it.

CW this is even more 'garbled' if I may borrow your term.

AK had some chance of explaining away possible or 'anticipated' evidence in the bathroom, hallway or her own room - hence the ludicrous 'bathmat shuffle' etc.

But how on earth could she explain, via a 'story', her presence in blood in the murder room - you know, the locked room, that contained the body, that she definitely hadn't been in

.

No such evidence exists in the murder room, so she doesn't have to explain it. My point is that the bathmat shuffle doesn't explain luminol footprints, whereas stepping on the mat and walking to her room might, if her thinking had been guided by those considerations.

 

[Mary_H]

Greetings Katody Matrass,
As you write, Rape is indeed very serious.
I oughta know, for I have been in a court of law here in Los Angeles to defend my dignity and honor against a RAPE accusation!
1)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/050903.pdf
2)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/051203.pdf
3)- http://www.smdp.com/pdf/051303.pdf

No charges were filed against me by the Los Angles Police Department for lack of evidence.

BUT I did have to go thru a civil ($$$) lawsuit when I wouldn't back down from defending myself and I then won, with a jury of 8 women+4 men finding me innocent of raping my "friend".
This was a woman that I liked A LOT whom I had given diamond earrings to for Christmas
and with whom I was leaving to vacation in Hawaii a week after our encounter, -(which I did pay for).

Thanks for sharing your story, RWVBWL. I think the lesson you took from it (last line of last article) shows what a humble person you are, which always comes across in your posts, too.

I have to admit I got a giggle out of the fact that she took the Hawaiian vacation anyway.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

J2, I will think of you every time spell check tells me to change Perugian to Peruvian.