Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

creative writing

Admit it: Knox's background, before the murder, included unlawful behavior ranging from the use of street drugs and under-age drinking to throwing rocks at cars. (It may also have included the staging of an "April Fool's Day Rape Prank" at UW, if you believe the comment section of the UW's student paper - a claim that is certainly NOT undermined by the fact of her having published "rape/ stalking stories.")

treehorn,

We are all agreed that Amanda, like millions of other college students, used marijuana and drank underage, but referring to marijuana as a street drug is misleading. As I have documented before, date rape and other shock elements are common in undergraduate creative writing courses. However, your claim that Amanda threw rocks at cars is not supported by the facts.

 

[shuttlt]

Katody,

Thanks for the clarification. Whether a proof of the staged burglary is important depends on how you weigh up the case.

Incidentally, the staged breaking is connected in my mind with the DNA evidence in Meredith's bedroom. One of the conclusions I drew from my reading about the bedroom was that one leaves far fewer traces of DNA than I had at assumed. If it's possible to climb up the side of the house, through the window, etc.. without leaving a trace, I don't see that it should be impossible to have been involved in the murder in some capacity and left no trace.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi, Machiavelli! I see misunderstandings creep in from the start.
Did I say you put that blur there?
I just said you need to compensate for it, as every light spot in the photo is stretched into a 1,5 - 2 cm line by camera shake:

That was another picture. The lines caused by camera shake can be easilly assessed. They do not cause a direct "cut" in lenght or in any direction. It depends case by case.

Well, you didn't do it, that's only your approximation. I don't think it can be honestly done.

Well if you find by observation that one print has an apparent size of at least 227 mm based on a reference scale on a point closer to the camera's lens, and you assess that the real size of the print must be bigger, based on perspective, since its calculation will have to be subjected to a perspective correction that will increase its length, than you have to admit that 215mm is a finding not fit with the set of data, while instead, a 245 mm size at least could be fit with the set of data.

 

[Machiavelli]

Great sacrifice it is that you demand from me.

It would be also a step in good direction if you revealed your sources of the claim that the shutters were open.

From the rest of your post I presume you depleted your arguments regarding your point 1.

No no, I don't deplete anything. I didn't even have the time to read back the posts ot hte last day in this forum, I still was answering to a post to moodstram (that maybe I will never publish). So you will have to wait.
However, maybe not all points will be worth a discussion.

The source for the open shutters of the balcony window is Amanda Knox. Amanda said the door window shutters were open and the correidoor and her room took full light from there as she cam home in the morning of nov 2. The same door window by her claim was open also at 18:00 as Amanda left the house.
The implication is that either Meredith closed the window after she came home before being killed, and then the alleged murderer re-opened the shutters and closed the window, or the window shutter were open during the murder.
Because it is nonsense to think the murderer re-opened the shutters after the crime, the shutters were open in the night of nov 1.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Incidentally, the staged breaking is connected in my mind with the DNA evidence in Meredith's bedroom. One of the conclusions I drew from my reading about the bedroom was that one leaves far fewer traces of DNA than I had at assumed. If it's possible to climb up the side of the house, through the window, etc.. without leaving a trace, I don't see that it should be impossible to have been involved in the murder in some capacity and left no trace.

There's always such a possibility.

But I think we must consider the amount of samples taken in Meredith's room vs Filomena's before any conclusions.
While they found some DNA and other traces in Meredith's room there was still more that could have been done. IIRC they didn't test her skin for DNA in places where the attacker would have grabbed, they didn't test her blue jacket sleeves etc.

On the other hand Filomena's room was tested rather superficially and I don't think the outside approach path (window grill) was tested at all.

It is quite possible that if the tests were more extensive, the disparity between amount of evidence in Meredith's room and elsewhere could have been even more apparent. But the more Rudy's traces there is the worse for the prosecution, isn't it?

 

[Kaosium]

Surely, in the sense of there being a need that staging being specifically proved, this argument is false? There could be no evidence from the break in to indicate it was anything but authentic, however, if there is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime, then the break in is indirectly proved to be fake.

This seems to be a common theme, that the prosecution must prove every element of their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the break-in wasn't staged and they did it, then someone must have broken in the same night Meredith was killed and by pure coincidence used the MO of one of the ones accused of the crime who admitted being at the scene.

If they did it and staged the scene, it's interesting the cat burglar didn't object to his methods being used to 'stage' the break-in knowing there was evidence of him all over the scene. Or, if it was only Amanda and Raffaele who staged the scene that they'd know Rudy Guede--whom by all accounts available they barely knew--had recently been caught breaking into a second story window.

It's intriguing they never said a thing about him under intense questioning that got them both thrown in jail for murder. It would seem like they had the perfect patsy, after all they must have known there couldn't be much of anything to tie them to the scene, and being as one lived there and another had visited, there was a believable reason some little thing might show up in that room from either.

When the scene starts with two college kids calling the cops to report a break in, it does indeed take an unlikely sequence of events to determine that break in was staged to cover a plot of them and another person they hardly knew to murder a girl for no definable reason. It's a lot easier if you just say they did it, thus they must have staged the break in, but then again you've assumed your conclusion on the break-in at that point, haven't you?
If they did it, why not just leave the door open like Amanda reported? Why start throwing rocks through windows when you're trying to flee a murder scene? Don't you kinda have to prove the break-in was staged or someone might think you're begging the question?

 

[Katody Matrass]

That was another picture.

Actually it's the same photo. It's just a blowup of a single print. Look closely.

The lines caused by camera shake can be easilly assessed. They do not cause a direct "cut" in lenght or in any direction. It depends case by case.

Yes, it depends if you consider them or not. They all go in the same direction. e.g. Rinaldi measured the print including the starting points of the streaks and their endings on the other side. The streaks go roughly perpendicular to the print, thus his 227 mm result was already wrong by a cm or two, before any perspective correction.

Well if you find by observation that one print has an apparent size of at least 227 mm based on a reference scale on a point closer to the camera's lens, and you assess that the real size of the print must be bigger, based on perspective, since its calculation will have to be subjected to a perspective correction that will increase its length, than you have to admit that 215mm is a finding not fit with the set of data, while instead, a 245 mm size at least could be fit with the set of data.

But the reference scale is not closer. It's in the print. Both of the tile lines cut directly through that footprint. They give one axis of the coordinate system that is roughly perpendicular to the print. If you stretch the print, you rescale the reference. My proposition stands. You cannot make a perspective correction that would elongate it to 245 mm, just try it. It's not doable.

 

[shuttlt]

If the break-in wasn't staged and they did it, then someone must have broken in the same night Meredith was killed and by pure coincidence used the MO of one of the ones accused of the crime who admitted being at the scene.

Is lobbing a brick through a window and climbing in really an MO?

If they did it and staged the scene, it's interesting the cat burglar didn't object to his methods being used to 'stage' the break-in knowing there was evidence of him all over the scene. Or, if it was only Amanda and Raffaele who staged the scene that they'd know Rudy Guede--whom by all accounts available they barely knew--had recently been caught breaking into a second story window.

Perhaps they knew about his recent history, do we know if he hid it? Or perhaps they didn't. I can't see that there is anything so specific about what it is claimed they did that one might not naturally do anyway once the idea that it would be much better all round if a stranger had broken in and committed the crime a la Murder on the Orient Express.

It's intriguing they never said a thing about him under intense questioning that got them both thrown in jail for murder. It would seem like they had the perfect patsy, after all they must have known there couldn't be much of anything to tie them to the scene, and being as one lived there and another had visited, there was a believable reason some little thing might show up in that room from either.

Hard to know what might have been going through their minds. Maybe they hoped neither he, no they would be caught? Maybe they were afraid that if they starting talking, so would he? Maybe they felt it was safer not to be the ones who told the police who to go looking for. Presumably if they were involved the night at the police station didn't go according to plan? That being the case, who but they can say what the original plan was?

When the scene starts with two college kids calling the cops to report a break in, it does indeed take an unlikely sequence of events to determine that break in was staged to cover a plot of them and another person they hardly knew to murder a girl for no definable reason.

Isn't this a bit sharpshooter and barn door?

It's a lot easier if you just say they did it, thus they must have staged the break in, but then again you've assumed your conclusion on the break-in at that point, haven't you? If they did it, why not just leave the door open like Amanda reported? Why start throwing rocks through windows when you're trying to flee a murder scene? Don't you kinda have to prove the break-in was staged or someone might think you're begging the question?

To take things to a silly extreme, if there was footage of the murder and it included Amanda and Raffaele it wouldn't matter whether one could prove the breakin was staged. That being the case, proving the breakin was staged isn't necessarily required. Perhaps it is, but that is down to how you read the evidence.

Personally I'm not very interested in the breakin as it seems too wooly a point to pin down.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol is a presumptive test

Yet no DNA from Rudy Guede in Filomena's bedroom...mmmmmmmmm.

A drop of Meredith's blood was found in Filomena's bedroom, via LUMINOL, correct?

treehorn,

Incorrect. Luminol is a presumptive test for blood. A confirmatory test must be done to conclude that something is actually blood or not. Are you keeping track of the number of misstatements you have made?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The source for the open shutters of the balcony window is Amanda Knox. Amanda said the door window shutters were open and the correidoor and her room took full light from there as she cam home in the morning of nov 2.

I guess you're paraphrasing Amanda's court testimony here.

Let's consult her about it:

GCM: It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?

AK: Natural.

GCM: And what window was it coming from, this natural light?

AK: I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony.

GCM: And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?

AK: The door of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in
light, and then there was the window.

GCM: So, from the balcony, the corridor, the light actually reached your room?

AK: Yes.​

I highlighted some freedoms you took in your paraphrase that are not in the original. Don't want to nitpick, but she's not asked nor does she say that the shutters where wide open. Shutters can very well let in light while being completely latched.

The same door window by her claim was open also at 18:00 as Amanda left the house.

This time I can't say what your source is. Could you just quote Amanda directly on it or say where this comes from?

 

[pilot padron]

From an article by Andrea Vogt in today's Seattle P-I:

"The amount of Kercher's DNA found on the blade was such a trace amount it registered with a "too low" reading when analyzed.

"A top geneticist at one of Europe's top forensic labs at the University of Salzburg confirmed in an interview with seattlepi.com that it is possible to amplify such a small amount of DNA, as Stefanoni did, until DNA can be identified.

"But the expert added that it would not be allowable unless the result could be reproduced, something police biologist Stefanoni said under cross-examination could not be done."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/431257_knox06.html

Interesting case of how a reader's contrasting preconceived notions tend to direct them to remember and quote different portions of the same article and author.

My memorable parts of that same SeattlePI article Mary quotes was:

One of Italy's top forensic biologists, retired Caribinieri General Luciano ....believes Knox was involved in the murder, ... he is convinced Kercher's death was a fight that degenerated, then later staged as a rape.

Interviewed by seattlepi.com, Garofano said his read of Knox's appeal was that it was mostly a rehashing of "points that have already been debated."

"The knife is a weak element . . . they could argue it should be thrown out because the amount of DNA does not meet international forensic standards.

But that still leaves a lot of other evidence," Garofano said. "I do not believe there is enough there to convince an Italian magistrate and jury to overturn this conviction."

PS:
Please spare us all yet another automatically actuated knee jerk hub bub hullabaloo about 'arguing from authority'.
That pathetic, played and petered out, overtaxed, overworked, reflex regurgitated refrain grew to be redundant, repetitive, and ridiculous about 15,000 posts ago.

 

[platonov]

Is lobbing a brick through a window and climbing in really an MO?


Perhaps they knew about his recent history, do we know if he hid it? Or perhaps they didn't. I can't see that there is anything so specific about what it is claimed they did that one might not naturally do anyway once the idea that it would be much better all round if a stranger had broken in and committed the crime a la Murder on the Orient Express.


Hard to know what might have been going through their minds. Maybe they hoped neither he, no they would be caught? Maybe they were afraid that if they starting talking, so would he? Maybe they felt it was safer not to be the ones who told the police who to go looking for. Presumably if they were involved the night at the police station didn't go according to plan? That being the case, who but they can say what the original plan was?


Isn't this a bit sharpshooter and barn door?


To take things to a silly extreme, if there was footage of the murder and it included Amanda and Raffaele it wouldn't matter whether one could prove the breakin was staged. That being the case, proving the breakin was staged isn't necessarily required. Perhaps it is, but that is down to how you read the evidence.

Personally I'm not very interested in the breakin as it seems too wooly a point to pin down.

On the contrary Shuttlt - it wasn't at all woolly.
If you go on the explanations/understanding of the Foakers everything bar that which points to the guilt of RG is woolly/false/planted.

It was clearly established during the investigation and covered during the trial - and was probably one of the earliest indications to the cops of what they were dealing with.

Its not a minor* point - the staged break in was of probative value in the case.

* Or indeed [contrary to the befuddlement exhibited by some here earlier ] a complex one.

 

[platonov]

Next up on the 'Wheel of Doubt' -The Break-In

<snip>

Don't you kinda have to prove the break-in was staged or someone might think you're begging the question?

If you dont already know that it was easily 'proven' someone might think you are not familiar with the case.

.

 

[shuttlt]

On the contrary Shuttlt - it wasn't at all woolly.
If you go on the explanations/understanding of the Foakers everything bar that which points to the guilt of RG is woolly/false/planted.

It was clearly established during the investigation and covered during the trial - and was probably one of the earliest indications to the cops of what they were dealing with.

Its not a minor point - the staged break in was of probative value in the case.

OK. I'm not about to get into a drawn out argument over this. It's not important in my thinking, I only see at as one possible reason why the police were suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[platonov]

OK. I'm not about to get into a drawn out argument over this. It's not important in my thinking, I only see at as one possible reason why the police were suspicious of Amanda and Raffaele.

Nor am I - I don't wish to get into a further debate as its been covered at great [much more than was required] length already - I was going to point you to ~ p168 in this thread if you were interested.

But while you [or I] may not be interested, that's not to say the court weren't or that its a contested point in the real world.

I believe the appeal docs don't pay too much attention to it for obvious reasons.

.

 

[Kaosium]

Is lobbing a brick through a window and climbing in really an MO?

It is when it's the second story and requires athletic ability. Some have claimed they think it impossible, I never understood that once I saw the picture, but it would take skill.

Perhaps they knew about his recent history, do we know if he hid it? Or perhaps they didn't. I can't see that there is anything so specific about what it is claimed they did that one might not naturally do anyway once the idea that it would be much better all round if a stranger had broken in and committed the crime a la Murder on the Orient Express.

I'd have just left the door open, maybe I'm just lazy.

The idea in the Massei Report that they staged it by going down and getting a rock, then took it upstairs and threw it out the window, then retrieved the rock and took it back upstairs is something one has to read with a smile on one's face. Oh, and they did all that after trashing the room, which is a big part of the 'proof' it was staged due to where some glass fragments were.

It all sounded backwards to me...

Hard to know what might have been going through their minds. Maybe they hoped neither he, no they would be caught? Maybe they were afraid that if they starting talking, so would he? Maybe they felt it was safer not to be the ones who told the police who to go looking for. Presumably if they were involved the night at the police station didn't go according to plan? That being the case, who but they can say what the original plan was?

I suspect if they could get Raffaele to temporarily say Amanda left and told him to lie, and Amanda to 'accuse' someone else and then recant it, if they knew Rudy was involved they'd have given him up. Raffaele might have gone home with Patrick if he'd have just stuck to the story that Amanda left and told him to lie. I think some people attribute to these college kids the kind of loyalty elite special forces units admire.

Isn't this a bit sharpshooter and barn door?

That would be exactly what the Perugian police did in my opinion. They arrested Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele and then tried to make the evidence fit. Unfortunately for them they found out the only physical evidence at the site was of someone else entirely, which is why their target doesn't match up very well with their bullet holes...

To take things to a silly extreme, if there was footage of the murder and it included Amanda and Raffaele it wouldn't matter whether one could prove the breakin was staged. That being the case, proving the breakin was staged isn't necessarily required. Perhaps it is, but that is down to how you read the evidence.

Personally I'm not very interested in the breakin as it seems too wooly a point to pin down.

I skipped over the 'impossible' window to climb into nonsense, but the rest of it is often entertaining due to the charisma of some of the main posters on the subject. I understand your point, though it is just one more indication of backwards thinking in my view.

 

[Kaosium]

If you dont already know that it was easily 'proven' someone might think you are not familiar with the case.

.

Then make an argument, Platonov.

 

[Machiavelli]

I guess you're paraphrasing Amanda's court testimony here.

Let's consult her about it:

GCM: It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?

AK: Natural.

GCM: And what window was it coming from, this natural light?

AK: I only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because there's a balcony.

GCM: And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?

AK: The door of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in
light, and then there was the window.

GCM: So, from the balcony, the corridor, the light actually reached your room?

AK: Yes.​

I highlighted some freedoms you took in your paraphrase that are not in the original. Don't want to nitpick, but she's not asked nor does she say that the shutters where wide open. Shutters can very well let in light while being completely latched.

This time I can't say what your source is. Could you just quote Amanda directly on it or say where this comes from?

But the shutters were open because they were documented to be open, while there is no witness report about their having being closed or re-opened after 18:00 of nov 1. So they were open. It's simple how things works, even if we limit ourself to this level. We just cannot assume in the first instance something that is not documented and insert it arbitraily in the story. Moreover, it is wrong to expect that we discuss the further sources to establish these details, because these should not be discussed as long as the trial is ongoing. If I have a number of sources for being convinced about a detail, I cannot discuss these points until the whole process is closed.

ps. btw - not directly related. You may note that the cottage suffered two further break ins, both were (obviously from the windows on the balcony, regardless of external shutters which are very easy to open if you can just stand there with both hands free.

 

[Kaosium]

This post is something one has to read with a smile large grin on one's face.

I didn't think it was possible to be more befuddled on this issue than Kevin Lowe (and co ) were but you have just taken the prize.

Indeed !

.

For some reason when I try to quote my copy of the report from the PDF it comes out gibberish so I have to type it all which is a pain in the ass, so here's this:

http://www.sciencespheres.com/

Speaking of inconsistencies, if you think about the Court’s conclusion on this matter, it comes down to this: Amanda and Raffaele went outside, got a rock, brought it back into the house, and inexplicably threw it out through the window to simulate its having been thrown in through the window. Then they went back outside, found the rock they had thrown, and brought it back into the room. Why would anyone do something so stupid? Why would they throw a rock through the window backwards, going through several extra steps to do so, when all they would have had to do was throw it in from the outside?

Remember, Platonov, one cannot 'discredit' someone with ad hominem in my view, though I understand you find it a compelling argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

But the reference scale is not closer. It's in the print. Both of the tile lines cut directly through that footprint. They give one axis of the coordinate system that is roughly perpendicular to the print. If you stretch the print, you rescale the reference. My proposition stands. You cannot make a perspective correction that would elongate it to 245 mm, just try it. It's not doable.

But my calculation is based on one specific segment (maybe one that you indicated as "105 pixels"), it is not made by taking as reference a tile that cuts though the print (I don't see any).
A measurement of the print can made easilly without getting confused by the camera moved effect. A contrast function highlights the difference between outlines and blurs, and moreover, one has to work on the original photo with the original orientation (how can I chec this is a blowup though the naked eye?). So my measurement of the print on screen (that was I think 76 mm) compared to , I think 55 mmm of the tile, would bring a rough first calculation of the print as equivalent 227 mm if we tahe that tile as a unit reference (we can't in fact take it as linear unit, because this is on a part of the grid that has a bigger scale).
My finding was that a perspective correction to 245 mm can be done. However, I also noted that Vinci did not demonstrate this can't be done, because he didn't deal with the process of measurement of the picture that was done by Rinaldi. (I mean the measurement, not the perspective correction)