• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
I would imagine that Guede might have more luck taking his case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg rather than the ECHR in Strasbourg. It's the ECJ which is the "overlord" court for European Union member states. I hope Guede's attorneys know what they're talking about!
Click to expand...

A defendant cannot appeal to the ECJ.
 
nopoirot said:
Greetings all. I wonder if sufficient attention has been devoted to Raffaele's betrayal of Amanda. As I follow the timelines, Raffaele and Amanda attend classes on the morning of Nov. 5. That evening, they dine together, and present themselves at the police station somewhere around 10:15. While Raffaele is being questioned, Amanda whiles away the time with exercises. Around 10:30 or so (I don't know that the exact time is here important), Raffaele begins to change his testimony. There is much dispute about the nature of this change. Raffaele's diary is hardly a model of lucidity, but in his entry of Nov. 12 he says ". . . in the first statement I made I said that Amanda had stayed with me all night long . . . (trans. Clander.) This leaves little room for doubt that the "big cabbage" came in the second version. One of the cabbage leafs is the claim that Amanda had induced him to "talk crap," another that Amanda had parted from him that evening to go to Le Chic. Some strained attempts have been made to propose that the "big cabbage" did not catch Amanda from the blind side, but I think them unpersuasive. What prompted Raffaele to throw it? On what theory would he substitute a lie for the truth, or one lie for another? What persuasive evidence militates against the commonsensical inference that, having had a couple of days to study on the dangers of perjury, he decided to "come clean"? It did not take him long to realize, of course, that he had dropped himself into a pot of boiling water, but that is beside the point. Amanda, poleaxed with news of Raffaele's betrayal, was thrown into a state of panic and shock. Like Thurber's squirrel, she darted this way, that, "lost her head" and ran right into the tire. Another cuff on the head might well have induced her to confess to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It has been plausibly argued, here and elsewhere, that her first "confession" came as early as 1:45. She made herself "roadkill" with that statement, and from it all else flowed. It may not be admissible, in a court of law, but Amanda could hardly have known that. It did not take her long to realize that, in addition to making a most imprudent accusation against Lumumba, she had implicated herself in one of the most lurid crimes of recent memory. I don't know that we need a theory of coercion to account for her subsequent statements. They are but attempts to mitigate the admission that she had been untruthful twice over. In the vernacular, she was "crawfishing." And now she gives to understand that her troubled psyche is throwing up images that may or may not be grounded in reality--you know, like in one of those Jason Bourne movies. Were I the judge, I would be disinclined to spring the door of her cage unless she comes forward with a reasonably plausible account of the facts.
Click to expand...

What if the police told him in his interrogation that they had solid evidence showing that Knox was involved in the murder? What if they then told him that even though he had previously said Knox was with him all night, how could he be certain that she hadn't left his apartment at some point in the night if he'd drifted off to sleep? What if at some point he also got so confused that he began to mix up the events of the night of 1st November with those of the night of 31st October - a night when Knox had indeed gone out without him to a Halloween party?
 
To Katody: If Rudy's diary was meant to be read by the investigators, does this hold true, insofar as Raffaele's diaries?
 
odeed said:
A defendant cannot appeal to the ECJ.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, thanks - you're right and I was wrong. It seems that Guede's only possible source of final appeal might be to the ECHR in Strasbourg under Article 6: the right to a fair trial.
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, what evidence do you think there is of a clean-up?
Click to expand...

3/4 weeks ago you posted if there was a cleanup that "one would expect to see wiping/smearing patterns" and "one would also expect luminol to expose dilute blood in the grouting between the tiles", which I replied with links to pictures of what you expected:
odeed said:
The first photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?1 shows luminol reaction in the grouting between the tiles.

The second photo http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?2 shows a footprint on the right (possible second print just to the left of it), with what looks like a pattern of smearing or wiping on the left of the picture.
Click to expand...

So do you still think that there was no cleanup?
 
capealadin said:
I have no idea if Rudy saw the bathroom pics, which looked very gruesome, after it had been sprayed. From a logical point of view, though, he mentions all the blood in the bedroom, and then all the blood in the bathroom and CORRIDOR. I don't see how mentioning the bloody bathroom and corridor directs suspicion away from him. He has already mentioned all the blood in the bedroom, where he admits to being in. Also, the bathroom, to get the towels. As to the drug dealer, whatever, there may have been an ulterior motive in mentioning it.
Click to expand...

Frank S. has a photo of the pink bathroom on his blog dated January 16, 2008. Was this photo distributed to the media before this date?

When was the bathroom sprayed with the chemical which turned it pink?

Also, what were the dates Rudy composed his diary?
 
odeed said:
3/4 weeks ago you posted if there was a cleanup that "one would expect to see wiping/smearing patterns" and "one would also expect luminol to expose dilute blood in the grouting between the tiles", which I replied with links to pictures of what you expected:


So do you still think that there was no cleanup?
Click to expand...

Yes, I still think there was no clean-up. The amount of luminescence in the grout areas of the first picture is way below what one might expect if there were still blood there - as witnessed by the much brighter footprint. And in the second image I can see no evidence whatsoever of smearing - that looks more like confirmation bias to me.

In both photos, incidentally, the exposures must have been extremely long, since there are tiny dots of low luminescence which cannot be attributable either to the crime or to a clean-up. It appears that the "crack" Perugia forensics teams may have been "turning up the dials" on the Luminol testing as well....

ETA: Oh, in the second photo, are you supposing that the strange shadowy artifacts at the top left and lower left side of the photo are Luminol-revealed smears? "Smears" that are in a different colour range (lilac) to the turquoise-blue of the true Luminol luminescence? "Smears" that are in fact almost certainly camera artifacts of some sort?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Yes, I still think there was no clean-up. The amount of luminescence in the grout areas of the first picture is way below what one might expect if there were still blood there - as witnessed by the much brighter footprint. And in the second image I can see no evidence whatsoever of smearing - that looks more like confirmation bias to me.

In both photo's, incidentally, the exposures must have been extremely long, since there are tiny dots of low luminescence which cannot be attributable either to the crime or to a clean-up. It appears that the "crack" Perugia forensics teams may have been "turning up the dials" on the Luminol testing as well....
Click to expand...

Shifting the goalposts, they show exactly what you expected.
 
capealadin said:
I have no idea if Rudy saw the bathroom pics, which looked very gruesome, after it had been sprayed. From a logical point of view, though, he mentions all the blood in the bedroom, and then all the blood in the bathroom and CORRIDOR. I don't see how mentioning the bloody bathroom and corridor directs suspicion away from him. He has already mentioned all the blood in the bedroom, where he admits to being in. Also, the bathroom, to get the towels. As to the drug dealer, whatever, there may have been an ulterior motive in mentioning it.
Click to expand...

I guess, it was a nice surprise to Rudy that 3 people were jailed almost immediately and "case closed" was announced. He was baffled by all this a bit. Yes, he knew the horror of Meredith's room. But the fake blood bathroom photo, the exaggerated news reports about amount of blood all over the house (corridor included), along with the swift arrests gave him a false hope that maybe something unforeseen happened that would allow him to lie out of this somehow.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I think Rudy could be very well alluding to the pink horror bathroom photo. Wasn't it all over the media by that time? When he asks "how could she have taken shower" he merely repeats after the media.

It it clear that he tries to direct suspicion away from him, and his "diary" is meant to be read by the investigators. AK and RS were in jail and all over the TV and press. That makes them obvious decoy. But he knows they were not there and has no idea that ILE won't realize it's a dead end, that's why he also mentions some drug dealer, who he knows from Corso Garibaldi (I bet there really was one who really had a white car).
Click to expand...

Not that this matters, but you could read Rudy's statement as two separate observations not necessarily connected: 1. white car; 2. drug dealer.

Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn’t have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard.
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
What if the police told him in his interrogation that they had solid evidence showing that Knox was involved in the murder? What if they then told him that even though he had previously said Knox was with him all night, how could he be certain that she hadn't left his apartment at some point in the night if he'd drifted off to sleep? What if at some point he also got so confused that he began to mix up the events of the night of 1st November with those of the night of 31st October - a night when Knox had indeed gone out without him to a Halloween party?
Click to expand...

I am reluctant to propose this, and so perhaps my idea will quietly go away without requiring any further action on my part, but, would anyone be interested in joining together to develop a system for classifying arguments so that the board is not just an endless cycle of repetition?
 
Katody Matrass said:
I guess, it was a nice surprise to Rudy that 3 people were jailed almost immediately and "case closed" was announced. He was baffled by all this a bit. Yes, he knew the horror of Meredith's room. But the fake blood bathroom photo, the exaggerated news reports about amount of blood all over the house (corridor included), along with the swift arrests gave him a false hope that maybe something unforeseen happened that would allow him to lie out of this somehow.
Click to expand...

I had asked these questions of capealadin up thread but I will also ask you (perhaps you know the answers).

Frank S. has a photo of the pink bathroom on his blog dated January 16, 2008.

Was this photo distributed to the media before this date?

When was the bathroom sprayed with the chemical which turned it pink?

Also, what were the dates Rudy composed his diary?
 
christianahannah said:
I had asked these questions of capealadin up thread but I will also ask you (perhaps you know the answers).

Frank S. has a photo of the pink bathroom on his blog dated January 16, 2008.

Was this photo distributed to the media before this date?

When was the bathroom sprayed with the chemical which turned it pink?

Also, what were the dates Rudy composed his diary?
Click to expand...

The answer to the last question is that this particular diary was composed some time between 20th November 2007 (the date of Guede's arrest in Germany) and 26th February 2008 (the date of his extradition back to Italy).

And the article below suggests that the police only released the photo of the small bathroom on 16th January 2008:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html

Interesting that the Mail jumps to the conclusion that the staining is from blood......

I can't answer as for when the bathroom was sprayed, but I imagine it might have been done in December 2007, at the same time as the Luminol tests.
 
LondonJohn said:
The answer to the last question is that this particular diary was composed some time between 20th November 2007 (the date of Guede's arrest in Germany) and 26th February 2008 (the date of his extradition back to Italy).

And the article below suggests that the police only released the photo of the small bathroom on 16th January 2008:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html

Interesting that the Mail jumps to the conclusion that the staining is from blood......

I can't answer as for when the bathroom was sprayed, but I imagine it might have been done in December 2007, at the same time as the Luminol tests.
Click to expand...

Good catch, I was about to suggest searching some tabloid archives.

This article says he was extradited in December:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7130808.stm
 
Unbiased witness

Fulcanelli said:
Why? Is sitting in a park illegal? What's two youngsters minding their own business got to do with the cottage? How was Curatolo to know they had anything to do with the crime? What was Curatolo supposed to have done, rushed down the police station screaming "I Saw two youths sitting on a park bench!!!"? In that case with that logic, should he also not have gone down and reported seeing...people walking though the park or driving by it...or reported the kiosk vendor for being in the park? What made Raffaele and Amanda so in need of immediately reporting to the police as opposed to any of the other people he may have seen in or driving by the park...what had they done in front of him to indicate that they had anything to do with the murder? What was there to report before they were arrested?

How would he have heard a scream from way over in the park which had buildings in between it and the cottage?
Click to expand...
Hi Fulcanelli,
The only reason I bring up this story that I, a citizen, got involved was because I had done so previously in the past, as it appears Mr. Antonio Curatolo has done too.
Though I've been kicked by a cop before, I still step up and call the cops+get involved when I see things amiss.

Earlier this year, I heard a huge car crash, but no squealing brakes, thru the brick walls and 1/4" glass of my old surfshop 1 evening after hours. Though busy doing something, I quickly ran outside, checked the scene, heard a bunch of yelling, and so I decided to grab my video camera and film the aftermath. I then noticed a white guy with friends had crashed into the rear end of a car driven by a black family.
The white guy was staggering around abit, and so I filmed that. By the time an SMPD officer "friend" that I knew showed up, he appeared a bit more normal. I told my "friend" what I saw and filmed. The car driver did very well on his field sobriety tests. But my "friend" listened to my info and the car driver was tested for his BAC, which was, IIRC, .32%, about 4 times over the California legal limit of .08%. He was arrested and sent to jail.:)

I've seen car crashes were the suspect burned rubber outta there, side swipin' a few other cars on the way. They got away.:mad:
I was witness where a gal, the only 1 driving on the oncoming road, ran a red light a good 5 seconds after it changed and hit a car turning left that was clear to turn. She just didn't stop, as you would've assumed at a red light. Months later I was contacted by the old couple she had hit, she had lied and said that they had ran the red light(!), so I spoke up about what really happened. :)
I had a gal run a stop sign and hit my own car, she said that I didn't stop at my own stop sign. But there wasn't even 1 at that particular intersection, and I had got the name, phone and address of an un-biased witness that day, who also spoke up about what he truthfully saw that day.:)

My point is this, Fulcanelli:
Since Antonio Curatolo had already been a unbiased(?) witness in another murder trial a few years ealier, he should have, in my humble opinion, gotten himself up off his bench or stopped diggin' thru other people's garbage cans and went over and talked with his "friends" -(the 1's that he knew from testifying before or who had met him over the 5-10 years that he had spent sleepin' under the stars), after word spread thru out the neighborhood that a bloody murder had occurred and then told them what he saw last night. Wouldn't you?

We are talking about a murder that happened, not a simple car crash DUI fender bender!

Since I have been an unbiased witness before, I am sure that if unbiased witness Antonio Curatolo had done this,
his personal recollection of events would have been significently more clearer and definately more detailed than they were when he finally came to the police investigators attention from the efforts of, who was it, a journalist?
Don't you agree?

Happy Holidays,:)
RWVBWL
 
LondonJohn said:
This is what a clean-up looks like under luminescence chemical treatment:

http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/gallery/2005_02/19.html
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/gallery/2005_02/17.html
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/gallery/2005_02/30.html
http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/gallery/2005_02/09.html
Click to expand...

Link to the full gallery http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/gb/gallery.php rather than cherry picking pictures, also from that site

Visible blood traces are often washed off but reappear larger when reacting with BLUESTAR® FORENSIC. If rinsing dilutes blood, it also widens the trace, making it easier to discover.
Click to expand...

And from the above quote, I would say that this picture showsattempted cleanup of footprint and this shows handprint not cleaned up.

The pictures I originally posted from the Kercher crime scene, show what you expected in earlier posts, and you resort to shifting the goalposts by introducing caveats of something I expect you have little or no knowledge of, as well as trying to ridicule the forensic investigation without any evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom