Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

These would be the incompetent Keystone Kops, right?

Convenient how they can switch from bumbling to diabolical when it is helpful to the rhetoric, isn't it?

There are particular actions that make no sense for an honest cop that knows how to do his job such as handling the knife at the police station, taking it out of the sealed bag it was collected in before sending it to the lab to be analyzed. Was this the act of a bumbling fool or part of a diabolical scheme to insure there was sufficient evidence to account for the arrests?

 

[Kaosium]

You're doing a lot of assuming there. If they cleaned it and assumed they cleaned it well, would it not be smarter to put it back, since it belongs to the landlord and she would tell the cops a knife is missing? I don't think they are master criminals, and I think it's pointless to think in retrospect what you would have done, and assumed that in the heat of the moment they would have done the same.

This was a pretty common type of knife according to Frank at Perugia Shock. It would be fairly easy to throw it and buy a new one. Do you think they're going to go for the sociopath angle this time around? That's what putting a knife you murdered with back in the drawer so you could eat with it would imply.

 

[quadraginta]

None, because the knife was not the murder weapon and therefore was not bleached. However, in their usual childishly naive fashion, as though speaking to an audience of simpletons, the Perugia police claimed to notice 'a strong smell of bleach' at Raffaele's apartment. As though they wouldn't have just opened a window.

So your evidence that the knife was "thoroughly" washed is that it wasn't "thoroughly" washed?

And this is because the police claimed that they smelled bleach?

Sounds about right, at least for the caliber of argument we've grown accustomed to here.

 

[Solange305]

This was a pretty common type of knife according to Frank at Perugia Shock. It would be fairly easy to throw it and buy a new one. Do you think they're going to go for the sociopath angle this time around? That's what putting a knife you murdered with back in the drawer so you could eat with it would imply.

Buy a new one, in the middle of the night? In a small town? However, I always wondered, maybe that is why Amanda went to that little store she was supposedly in, maybe to see if they sold knives. Im just speculating about the last part, obviously, but I think it's safe to say it would not have been a cakewalk for them to just go buy a knife and replace it, considering the circumstances...

 

[Withnail1969]

This was a pretty common type of knife according to Frank at Perugia Shock. It would be fairly easy to throw it and buy a new one. Do you think they're going to go for the sociopath angle this time around? That's what putting a knife you murdered with back in the drawer so you could eat with it would imply.

Even if they didn't cook with the knife (and Frank tells us they did after the murder), only the most deranged psychopaths could have withstood seeing the murder weapon right there in the drawer every time they opened it.

If they were that crazy there would have been signs earlier in life, and I'm not talking about noise tickets.

 

[quadraginta]

Within minutes. We're talking about traces here, not an entire finger. one part of bleach in 10 parts of water would do it. Obviously neat bleach straight from the bottle would be what any sensible murderer would use.

Please elaborate on the use of "instantly" and "within minutes" as synonyms.

 

[Withnail1969]

So your evidence that the knife was "thoroughly" washed is that it wasn't "thoroughly" washed?

And this is because the police claimed that they smelled bleach?

Sounds about right, at least for the caliber of argument we've grown accustomed to here.

When did I claim that the knife had, in actuality, been thoroughly washed in bleach? I was talking about the hypothetical case where the knife was actually the murder weapon, which it was not.

It's the police who claimed that, in so many words.

Massei Report page 106.

 

[Withnail1969]

Please elaborate on the use of "instantly" and "within minutes" as synonyms.

The DNA molecules begin degrading as soon as the bleach hits them and the process is complete within a few minutes.

 

[treehorn]

Even if they didn't cook with the knife (and Frank tells us they did after the murder), only the most deranged psychopaths could have withstood seeing the murder weapon right there in the drawer every time they opened it.

If they were that crazy there would have been signs earlier in life, and I'm not talking about noise tickets.

I think you're finally catching on.

 

[Kaosium]

Buy a new one, in the middle of the night? In a small town? However, I always wondered, maybe that is why Amanda went to that little store she was supposedly in, maybe to see if they sold knives. Im just speculating about the last part, obviously, but I think it's safe to say it would not have been a cakewalk for them to just go buy a knife and replace it, considering the circumstances...

Why buy it in the middle of the night? They had most of the week.

Do you really suppose they planned to (or did!) cut their food with it?

 

[Fuji]

Nonsense. There are all sorts of ways that it could be established that one or more items from Amanda and/or Raffaele's wardrobe had gone missing. All it would take would be one photograph of them, or security camera image, or witness who remembered a particular article of clothing, that they could not then produce. Yet no evidence has ever emerged that any of Amanda or Raffaele's shirts, pants, dresses, shoes or any other articles of clothing that they owned vanished around the time of the murder.

Perhaps to a pedant, my statement "there is no way for anyone other than AK & RS to know if any items of their clothing are missing" could be construed as "nonsense". However, within the context of the ongoing discussion, it should be rather apparent that I was referring to clothing whose existence was not already established through photographic or testimonial means as to have been in the possession of AK or RS at a time shortly before Meredith's murder. These items of clothing existed, and neither you nor anyone else besides AK & RS can have anything substantive to say about their quantity or quality. As such, my original assertion remains logically irrefutable.

It's cute that you are trying to use proper terms now, but this simply isn't a case of special pleading.

Rudy had a fortnight to dispose of his bloody clothes and the murder weapon, Raffaele and Amanda did not. Rudy's guilt was so clear-cut I would be surprised if anyone even bothered to inventory his wardrobe, but we know for a fact that police were investigating this angle with respect to Amanda and Raffaele because of the business with Amanda's clothing "going missing" and then being found.

I'm not sure if it's "cute", but it certainly is ironic that in attempting to dismiss my accusation of special pleading, you proceed to introduce yet another case of special pleading.

You state that "Rudy had a fortnight to dispose of his bloody clothes... Raffaele and Amanda did not". However, as you are well aware, the amount of time it would actually take to dispose of clothing would be a trivially small fraction of a 2-week period. In fact, all three defendants had ample time to dispose of incriminating clothing. You emphasize Rudy's fortnight of opportunity in an attempt to obscure the weakness of your argument and the double standard employed (yet again).

He had to be wearing something. The idea that a burglar with a history of getting in through windows might wear clothes suited to the task might seem like a fun target for some good old pro-guilt incredulity, but it doesn't seem like a strange idea to me. Your mileage obviously varies.

You have no evidence at all that RG wore gloves. None. In fact,the crime scene itself and the genetic indicators RG left behind all indicate that RG was not wearing gloves. You are only hypothesizing the existence of these gloves because you see it as an element that supports the "genuine break-in theory", not because you have any evidentiary reason for doing so.

 

[Fuji]

For that matter has it occurred to you that multiple "experts" gave multiple differing estimates of the possible range of times of death any they cannot possibly all be right?

And this is supposed to support your assertion of ToD as determined by GI contents being a strong indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's innocence, how exactly?

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Some of it is from the court testimony. There are also loads of interviews with her family and supporters talking about the cartwheel and why she did it. Some of it contradicts other versions. It all agrees though that she did some homework, did some kind of exercise and talked to the police in an informal kind of a way in the waiting room.

So the cartwheel was the same day as the interrogation? I got the impression that was previous in the week when she was being interviewed.

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

Kaosium, Where are you getting this stuff ?
Most of your arguments in the rest of this (and recent related posts) are equally at variance with the facts as accepted by most who are familiar with the case [for example - the translator, the timings 1.45 vs 5.45, the admissibility issue, the hordes, etc]

I genuinely don't wish to be rude but IIRC (one of) my very first post on this thread was to correct a similar factually challenged argument regarding the dates of interrogations in (one of) your very first post - and we seem to be making no progress.

Wouldn't it be better to debate based on the actual facts of the case.
Its difficult to win an argument that doesnt exist.

 

[shuttlt]

There are particular actions that make no sense for an honest cop that knows how to do his job such as handling the knife at the police station, taking it out of the sealed bag it was collected in before sending it to the lab to be analyzed. Was this the act of a bumbling fool or part of a diabolical scheme to insure there was sufficient evidence to account for the arrests?

I recall this being suggested, but my recollection was that it had not in fact been removed from the bag. Are you sure? You don't remember the source of this, do you?

 

[Fuji]

... The evidence against Rudy was found before he was identified as a suspect...

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was found after the police had staked their reputation on their guilt...

So?

You appear to be asserting that evidence collected against known suspects is of inherently lower probative value than that collected against suspects unknown. Other than it being convenient for you in confidently proclaiming Knox's & Sollecito's innocence, for what possible reason would you do so?*

*I do not accept either the relevance or the verity of your assertion "the police had staked their reputation on their guilt".

 

[Withnail1969]

I recall this being suggested, but my recollection was that it had not in fact been removed from the bag. Are you sure? You don't remember the source of this, do you?

Massei Report p 107

He said that upon returning to the police station, inspector Finzi handed him the material seized in the home of Sollecito Raffaele. The first thing he handed over was the knife which was inside a new bag that was well wrapped and submitted closed, and thus had no contact with the exterior (pages 201 and 223). He specified that when handing over such knife he had new gloves on, which he had not used on other occasions and which he took from the office.
Therefore, with those gloves, he removed the knife from the bag and put it inside a box that he sealed with scotch-tape. He specified that such box previously contained a desk diary and no other items apart from "the new desk diary offered" by a bank (page 202). This box was then sent, along with other findings, to the Scientific Police in Rome (page 203).

 

[shuttlt]

Even if they didn't cook with the knife (and Frank tells us they did after the murder), only the most deranged psychopaths could have withstood seeing the murder weapon right there in the drawer every time they opened it.

If they were that crazy there would have been signs earlier in life, and I'm not talking about noise tickets.

Once they'd taken it home to clean it, they had to dispose of it. If they were seen, the were **********. If the knife was found and linked back to them, they were **********. Maybe they made a poor risk assessment, but it's probably a difficult thing to do under the circumstances.

As for earlier signs in her life. Who would be telling us about that? Her family certainly aren't about to.

 

[Solange305]

Why buy it in the middle of the night? They had most of the week.

Do you really suppose they planned to (or did!) cut their food with it?

You are right, my mistake. I forgot the knife was found a week later. I still think we are playing "armchair criminals" (as opposed to armchair detectives), but point taken. I can still think of some reasons though, perhaps they were afraid they were being followed or watched, or just though it would be too risky.

 

[shuttlt]

Why buy it in the middle of the night? They had most of the week.

Given the attention given to the g-string trip, can you imagine if they had gone knife shopping too?

 

[Withnail1969]

Once they'd taken it home to clean it, they had to dispose of it. If they were seen, the were **********. If the knife was found and linked back to them, they were **********. Maybe they made a poor risk assessment, but it's probably a difficult thing to do under the circumstances.

But that doesn't make much sense. How would they have got the knife back home for cleaning without some blood or DNA traces on Amanda's bag and presumably her Harry Potter book which apparently she used as a knife sheath to avoid her bag being damaged?