Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

I cannot agree with that, as I pointed out earlier.
You saw in the climbing lawyer's photo, that his shoes are definitely not soiled.
You have no evidence (not even testimony) that the ground was wet on Nov 1 night.
Common experience suggests that stepping on dry fallen leaves and vegetation doesn't result in soiling your shoes.

This idea looks like thiking a luminol print could be 215 mm long. Common experience would suggest that walking on that surface (as it was at the time) would cause to track soil around.
The "whitewash" theory is also going to remain out of the scope of a court. The white powder in the room is not whitewash (that "whitewash" in fact won't leave any powder, and its powder is impalpable, it is extremely thin powder). Although I understand that people who are committed in seeing innocence are availeble to just assume arbitrarily pro-innocent positions on all points even if unsubstantiated.
If you think that you can substantiate your theories by looking at lawyer's shoes in a picture and think they are clean, and propose your common experience of gardens as an argument to me to assert it is normal there are no shoeprints and no traces of soil inside, or propose it to a judge who sees hundreds of burglaries every year, I anticipate this won't work.

 

[truethat]

You have to be more careful not to be found guilty, & this involves dealing with the actual evidence not talking points like 'sequestered juries' or 'satanic plots' which have absolutely no relevance to the actual case.

Seriously its not X factor - there is a real trial with real consequences.

Why do you keep mentioning X factor? Who has compared it to X factor?


Yes a real trial with real consequences that needs real money to keep going.

Her personality has a lot to do with that.


And if she wasn't there then how can she say WHO did it? There could be another person involved, there could be tons of things. You are basically expecting her to lie to satisfy some need?

She doesn't know who committed the crime. At this point even with all the convictions and all the guilt none of us know what happened really that night. Even RG is hazy and has changed the story. So what purpose would it serve.

Anyway this is a slight insignificant point, not worthy of taking us so much space on this thread. So back on topic.

 

[platonov]

OK. But there is an awful lot that "people" do in relation to this case that isn't focused on the courtroom. A lot of energy has been expended on winning over hearts and minds in the wider world. Presumably something other than book deals and free plane tickets is expected to be achieved by all this. None of that is very important unless one starts assuming that everything that is done is done with both eyes on the court room. Other explanations are possible.

Yeah, obviously there are vultures out to make a quick buck and equally obviously a willing audience.

But all this PR and media froth in the english speaking world had will have IMO absolutely no effect,bar possibly a slightly negative one, on the actual trial appeal.

Media coverage [as part of legal strategies] in Italy may ? have had a very minor role but the case will be decided in court.

This emphasis on the power of the (US) media or Movies to rescue the heroine is very misplaced but much seen.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hello, Machiavelli! I believe I answered all of your points. If you think I was wrong somewhere, feel free to point it out. E.g. what is wrong with the window measurements and possible ways to open it end enter?
I assumed you quietly accepted most of my points so far. If it's not the fact, I'd love to see where I'm wrong.

(... )

By a general rule, might be useful to know that I don't quitely accept anything. As long as I am quiet, this means my position has remained unchanged. When I change opinion I always declare it very clearly. In this case, the responses I read could only confirm my previous opinion, because of the weaknesses of the counter points.
And, I still don't know why you believe the burglary was not staged. Because one thing is have concerns on points, like having a doubt on a testimony. One thing is being sure of the opposite. As a neautral person is concerned about a point of suspicion, would ask for futher investigation and search in order to find further elements to confirm or disprove.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

I would be interested in hearing a single coherent version of events that takes into account all of the evidence, from the pro-guilt perspective. That would be far more novel than rehashing old stuff.

No Halides. No running from the answer. We;re talking multiple versions here.....the rest can come later............

 

[JREF2010]

However, Rudy did have multiple versions, and I strongly doubt that I can name them all off the top of my head. At one point he said that Amanda was not there (IIRC, this was during a skype conversation). At one point he admitted being there, but he blamed a left-handed assailant. Months after the crime he started associating the assailant with Raffaele, who is right-handed. Ann Wise and Nikki Battiste gave an account of one of Rudy’s court appearances here.

If you read the German Diary translation Rudy even mentioned it might have been the boys downstairs.

If Amanda and Raffaele are found to be innocent will Rudy then be charged with a Calunnia charge and get extended years in prison automatically?

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps I don't climb enough walls. I don't recall if any video exists of the defence wall climbing demo? Anybody know?

There was no video of this climb. But there were a series of still shots that show the progression. The lawyer clearly climbed the wall unassisted.

Of course, it is my belief that this is the hard way to get up. Simply stepping over to the top bar of the lower grating from the slope just below the porch would be much easier and wouldn't involve stepping in the area that the forensic police used for their break room.

 

[capealadin]

She's getting 26 years anyway or did ya miss that bit. The question was why isn't she accusing Guede, and I'm saying no one believes her anyway and it's just going to be yet another thing they spin against her. Don't know if you are from the US but it is very common for guilty white women to blame it on the black guy or the minority.

Susan Smith is one example, there's another recently in Canada where the woman threw acid on her face and then blamed it on a black or hispanic looking woman.

It's a valid point, True that. I think though, It just happened that Patrick was black. Rudi happened to be black. I don't think colour came into it for Amanda. The Text message, at that time, the anger that he had demoted her. Interesting, though, she has never blamed Rudi. But, he sure has hell has blamed her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

still waiting for that coherent, all-inclusive narrative

No Halides. No running from the answer. We;re talking multiple versions here.....the rest can come later............

capealadin,

I thought we were done. Was there some specific point you wanted me to address? I know I forgot to mention that Rudy's foster father called him a terrible liar--sorry for the omission.

You have not been here for some time, and you changed the subject out of the blue. One or more pro-innocence posters has or have asked the pro-guilt posters for a coherent explanation over the last month or so. Those that have even attempted to do so have distanced themselves from the Massei narrative. I am very eager to get back on topic and hear your response.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not that mole again

It's a valid point, True that. I think though, It just happened that Patrick was black. Rudi happened to be black. I don't think colour came into it for Amanda. The Text message, at that time, the anger that he had demoted her. Interesting, though, she has never blamed Rudi. But, he sure has hell has blamed her.

capealadin,

Whoa, I thought you had finally conceded that Patrick did not demote Amanda. I hope we do not have to revisit this issue yet again. Are you saying that you find Rudy credible?

 

[pilot padron]

Pardon my 'perspective'

Rudy calls Amanda and Raff the killers, and the prosecution does not appeal his sentence reduction. Sounds like a good outcome from Rudy's perspective.

But, do I understand that you are telling us that under Italian law the Prosecution had the option of an Appeal when the defendant opts to have a fast track trial, and the fact that they failed to do so now carries some significance?

 

[capealadin]

There was discussion yesterday about Guede's innocence. I couldn't find any mention of Guede's fingerprints in the Massei report yesterday, but I did find this with a search of 'handprint' today.

From pgs 43 and 44 of the Massei translation:

Multiple elements collected and analysed by the Scientific Police give further secure indications that Rudy was present in the house at via della Pergola 7, and in Meredith'ʹs room, when Meredith was killed.

The handprint found on a pillow in the room, on which the lifeless corpse of Meredith was found placed, turned out to have been made by Rudy Guede; the vaginal swab of the victim contained the DNA of the victim and of Rudy Guede; the DNA of Rudy Guede was [30] also found on the cuff of Meredith'ʹs sweatshirt found in her room, and on a strap of the bra that she was wearing, found cut off and stained with blood; the DNA of Rudy Guede was also found on Meredith'ʹs purse, which was also in the room that she occupied. Further biological traces of Rudy Guede were found on the toilet paper taken from the toilet of the larger bathroom. The faeces present in the toilet of that bathroom did not, however, yield any results, and Dr Stefanoni, the biologist of the Scientific Police, explained that the presence of numerous bacteria easily destroys what DNA might be found in faeces. Finally, in the corridor leading to the exit from the house coming from Meredith'ʹs room were found prints from a shoe stained with the blood of the victim. At first, these prints were held to be compatible with the shoes of Raffaele Sollecito. Later tests (as we will see subsequently) finally ruled out this compatibility, showing that they were in fact actually from shoes of the same brand, type and size as a pair of shoes that might have been contained in a shoebox found in the home of Rudy Guede in via del​

There is quite a bit of evidence that links Guede to the crime scene.

Hi Just. There is quite a bit of evidence that links Guede to the crime scene. But, DURING? How about the evidence that Links Amanda and Raff? And, if there's no evidence of Rudi in the staged break-in, is he innocent? Glad you had a good time in Peru. You were missed, I know.

 

[platonov]

Why do you keep mentioning X factor? Who has compared it to X factor?

Yes a real trial with real consequences that needs real money to keep going.
Her personality has a lot to do with that.
And if she wasn't there then how can she say WHO did it? There could be another person involved, there could be tons of things. You are basically expecting her to lie to satisfy some need?

She doesn't know who committed the crime. At this point even with all the convictions and all the guilt none of us know what happened really that night. Even RG is hazy and has changed the story. So what purpose would it serve.

Anyway this is a slight insignificant point, not worthy of taking us so much space on this thread. So back on topic.

Arguments [uninformed or otherwise] made here are insignificant - what the co-accused in a murder case [albeit one with 2 separate trials] 'say' about each other is most certainly not !

On this , its not quite that straightforward I'm afraid - follow the links from here if you are interested in (some of) what the court actually heard on this matter.

ETA Is that what its called these days - the media once had a slightly cruder term !

 

[capealadin]

Why do you keep mentioning X factor? Who has compared it to X factor?


Yes a real trial with real consequences that needs real money to keep going.

Her personality has a lot to do with that.


And if she wasn't there then how can she say WHO did it? There could be another person involved, there could be tons of things. You are basically expecting her to lie to satisfy some need?

She doesn't know who committed the crime. At this point even with all the convictions and all the guilt none of us know what happened really that night. Even RG is hazy and has changed the story. So what purpose would it serve.

Anyway this is a slight insignificant point, not worthy of taking us so much space on this thread. So back on topic.

Hi, Truethat: Amanda said she was there, and I believe her.

 

[truethat]

Found this!

thought you guys would like it.

Makes her look very guilty to me. But it isn't biased.


http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/06/the-italian-job.html#

 

[Magister]

Bear with me...
If all 3 are innocent as is now thought in some quarters,
then none of them could know who was the real killer.
Guede initially said he did not recognise his attacker.
Supposing that attacker was indeed the mafiosi Antonio Aviello who had broken in with the Albanian.
There were unidentified prints and DNA in the cottage.
Perugia is the centre of a large mafia controlled drugs trade.
Guede was beaten up in prison.....to stop him talking?
So it was convenient for him having a fast track trial with 1/3rd off, and then later accusing Knox and Sollecito, and possibly being out in around 6 years.
Yet it was Luciano Aviello who wrote to the court accusing his brother who is believed to have fled the country.....
but there have been no reports of any police investigation.

 

[Solange305]

halides1 didn't say anything about you being "mentally deficient/ poorly educated/ unable to count to two." He said, "If you cannot master the arithmetic concepts of one versus two, you don't stand much of a chance trying to understand PCR amplification or other aspects of DNA profiling that require more advanced mathematical skills.".

That is basically the same thing, is it not?? All you did is reword it Mary.

 

[capealadin]

OK. But there is an awful lot that "people" do in relation to this case that isn't focused on the courtroom. A lot of energy has been expended on winning over hearts and minds in the wider world. Presumably something other than book deals and free plane tickets is expected to be achieved by all this. None of that is very important unless one starts assuming that everything that is done is done with both eyes on the court room. Other explanations are possible.

Shutlt: Winning over mind and hearts. Yeah. Mentioning mortgage, retaing a PR firm, glad handing golf buddies. That may be necessary.

Kind of sticks in the craw, though, when real tears appear, only when mentioning the MORTGAGE........Call me cynical, and yes, it has no bearing on guilt or innocence. However, adding up the lies, and multiple alibis ( STOP) no more excuses, innoscenti) Forensics.........behaviour, ( debatable) for sure: However, a picture emerges, and boy, is it damning. Depending, of course, just how attractive you find the guilty.

 

[Justinian2]

But no evidence that he actually stabbed her, or that he even entered the room before she was stabbed.

He was at the scene of the crime, and he had a motive for the murder (money and not wanting to be caught and perhaps even sex). I'm no specialist in the evidence required for conviction, but I have seen enough documentaries and read enough to know that the body, motive and proximity to the murder scene is enough for conviction.

He was known to have broken in to the second story before for the purpose of robbery, he was known to carry a small knife, he confessed to being in the bathroom when she died, his handprint was on the pillow beside her, his shoe footprint in blood was nearby, his DNA was in many places near the body and in the body.

To believe that Rudy didn't stab and kill MK is like believing that flying saucers and advanced technology were necessary for the Incas to build the stone walls that they built.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

I thought we were done. Was there some specific point you wanted me to address? I know I forgot to mention that Rudy's foster father called him a terrible liar--sorry for the omission.

You have not been here for some time, and you changed the subject out of the blue. One or more pro-innocence posters has or have asked the pro-guilt posters for a coherent explanation over the last month or so. Those that have even attempted to do so have distanced themselves from the Massei narrative. I am very eager to get back on topic and hear your response.

Well, Halides, For a start, It was a terrible LIE, Blaming Patrick. You were taliking about lies......I'm listening.