Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

I do believe you have that backwards. The knife was originally placed in a sealed evidence bag. Back at the police station, it was removed from the bag and placed in a box that formerly contained a calendar

Was there ever any reason given for why?

 

[moodstream]

Was the knife found to have DNA from Sollecito? No. Any unidentified DNA came from knife? No. Don't think the knife was "contaminated" by the shoebox, then.

I don't see how the bidet collection was inappropriate. Used swabs like cleaning rags? She did it right. What do you think removing material with a swab actually is but cleaning the surface?

No "tweezers" are used in laboratories. They are called *forceps*.

How do you clean out of a bidet like that and not get a sample of whoever used the bidet?

 

[moodstream]

Then you have Filomena's mysteriously closing door. Amanda avers that it was closed when she returned to the cottage Friday morning. In his diary, Raffaele says that, when he and Amanda returned, he saw immediately the door was wide open and the window shattered. He seems to be very aware of the significance of what he is here saying.

Is it possible that in his diary he was referring to the cottage front door, and then, after entering Filomena's room by opening her door, that the window was shattered?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie how many samples did Stefanoni swab/collect from the crime scene?

According to the motivations it was Brocci who did the evidence swabbing/collection of the small bathroom.

Stefanoni collected the toilet paper from the large bathroom but I am not sure what else she may have collected. She was present on December 18, 2007 but did she do any evidence swabbing/collection at that time?

Stefanoni collected a number of samples from Meredith's room on November 3, and I believe she is the one who drops the swab from the tweezers in the Dec. 18 video. I can tell because she wears a silver ring with a large setting on her left hand, which is visible under her glove in both the Nov. 3 video and the Dec. 18 video.

 

[Mary_H]

And if they had been able to prove that this was where they were, as Filomina was, none of this would have happened. Amanda and Raffaele asserting that they were at home isn't much of an alibi. Perhaps the computer records will help.

If Amanda and Raffaele had obtained lawyers when Filomena and Laura had, their alibis might have been considered "proven."

 

[The Third Man]

Assumption can be a dangerous thing sometimes.

Have a gander at page 7 of this pdf. It's the instruction manual for Meredith's UK phone:


You'll see that the on/off button is not the "call end" button - as is the case with most mobile handsets - but instead it's a small button on top of the phone. It's not unlikely that the position and usage of this button would have erased (or at least eroded) the "on/off" symbol on it. And the act of removing the battery from many mobile handsets is not immediately intuitive either. This particular model had a "click and slide" rear cover.

I suspect that someone in a heightened state of arousal and fear would have been fumbling with the phone, probably with somewhat shaky hands. It's easy to contemplate how one might turn off the phone from the comfort of one's calm armchair, but to me it's totally reasonable that Guede (if it were he) would have been panicking and pressing random buttons to try to turn off the handset.

I'm fairly sure that for most non-folding handsets the on-off button is located on top of the unit and has been for some years now, I've just done a quick google on the top three Nokia, Ericsson and Motorola and all the keypad models that I checked have the button on the top. If I'm not mistaken I think even the modern screen phones do including the I-phone. Do they have different manufacturers and different phone designs in Italy? (that's a genuine question I'm not trying to be sarcastic)

As for the killer being in an agitated state of panic, fear etc., I agree entirely,
but in this state wouldn't the most urgent motivation be to get away from the crime scene as quickly as possible? Whether the mobile phones are switched on or off, I would argue, would be the last thing he would be thinking about.

 

[Justinian2]

Stilicho wrote at PMF:

In the real world, though, words are quite meaningful. Spader is probably never going to understand this but neither will Mary H, Candace the Blogger, Tex, LooneyJohn, Justinian, Katody, Bruce Fisher, CW, or any of the 100 or less people who still think Knox and Sollecito are innocent

All the internet polls I've seen the results have been significantly been for the innocence of Knox and Sollecito.

This shows what the environment of PMF does to people's perceptions.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Is it possible that in his diary he was referring to the cottage front door, and then, after entering Filomena's room by opening her door, that the window was shattered?

He probably just remembered it differently, or didn't notice it until Amanda had opened it.

 

[Mary_H]

I have wondered about this as well. It is interesting the contrast between Amanda's statements that Filomena's door was closed both when she first got there and when she later returned with Raffaele, yet Raffaele says Filomena's door was wide open both in his diary and in his leaked statements to police revealed in the media.

The interesting thing about this is that I don't remember seeing this obvious difference in statements even mentioned in the various reports by the judges, including Massei. Perhaps I missed it if someone would point it out to me. I just don't understand why this is not pounced on by the several judges that have reviewed this case.

I do see mention in some of the statements that when they entered they actually split up after entering the flat, with Amanda going to put the mop up and Raffaele looking around. It is not clear that they are real certain on the sequence of this. I would appreciate it if anyone has additional information on the subject.

I don't have any additional information, Rose, but I agree that a point probably would have been made of this if there was one to be made. We can't take the Telegraph's report of what Raffaele said at face value, as it was supplied by the police (and probably written by them).

As you and Kevin have implied, Raffaele was not crystal clear about what happened:

"As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket and it carried it in to another room. The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomena had the door wide open. Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open when she entered before). We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder: broken glass on the floor and the room upside down, it was an absurd mess. The window was broken on the left side and was open."

It's entirely possible Amanda opened Filomena's door just as Raffaele walked up to it and they both looked into the room together. It would be impossible to remember every single discrete step of their exploration process that morning.

 

[Mary_H]

Did everyone see this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ll-confident-in-spite-of-evidence-review.html

Fox News had a straightforward interview with Doug Preston last night:

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/author/america-live/

 

[Mary_H]

Stilicho wrote at PMF:

All the internet polls I've seen the results have been significantly been for the innocence of Knox and Sollecito.

This shows what the environment of PMF does to people's perceptions.

The "Free Amanda Knox" page on Facebook alone has almost 7,000 members.

 

[Justinian2]

The "Free Amanda Knox" page on Facebook alone has almost 7,000 members.

Correction: 7001

 

[Mary_H]

I just noticed where all the replies to my JREF comments are. They're over on the PMF site - the site that banned me after five quotes from Mark C. Waterbury.

Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.

 

[Justinian2]

Kaosium was just banned from there, too, within a matter of hours. Many other members of this thread have been banned from there in the past. I'm puzzled by how a group who place such a high value on the image and appearance of intellectualism also engage so readily in the anti-intellectual practice of censorship.

If Kaosium was banned from PMF, then I'm in good company! Makes one almost proud to be banned!
As Knox's father implied, it takes a good deal of intelligence to understand this case.

 

[Mary_H]

If Kaosium was banned from PMF, then I'm in good company! Makes one almost proud to be banned!
As Knox's father implied, it takes a good deal of intelligence to understand this case.

Oh gosh, there's plenty of people here who have been banned -- Rose, LondonJohn, Kevin_Lowe, Bruce Fisher -- how about you, Katody? Were you banned or did you volunteer to leave? katy_did? halides1?

 

[Supernaut]

Can someone clarify the situation re. the pillowcase stain? (Charlie Wilkes?)

I gather AK’s and RS’s defence have requested that it be tested, and Judge Hellmann will make a decision after the review of the existing forensic so-called evidence against them.

- Did Stefanoni explicitly state that a decision was made not to test it because, she claimed, it would in some way compromise the bloody shoe-print evidence on the pillowcase (left by Guede), but without expanding any further?

- Is the stain partially inside, and smeared by one of the shoe-prints (hence, presumably, the pretext given above for not testing it, or claiming not to have done)?

- Wouldn't smearing be a compelling indication that it was made at the time of the murder? That is to say; if it was not only still wet, but had not soaked in to the fabric, thus allowing Guede's shoe to smear it, isn't it unlikely in the extreme that it was deposited "innocently" at some earlier time?

- If the stain is "vaseline" (which I gather reflects the UV a 'crimescope' uses similarly to semen), wouldn't it be rather obvious that it hadn't dried (duh) and was therefore NOT excretia of any kind, and isn't it likely the crack prosecution experts would have disclosed this long ago?

- Wouldn't any kind of excretia (semen, mucous, saliva, sweat, whatever) yield a DNA profile and identify the person who deposited it (unless that person was "unknown", but then ..... )?

- Given all the above, and assuming it wasn't Meredith, wouldn't it be rather difficult for this person to provide an "innocent" explanation for it, whether or not it is semen (but, of course, particularly if it is)?

- (Rhetorical) Isn't the prosecutions' reticence rather odd, when they went to such effort to find even a speck (literally) of evidence to incriminate AK or RS, settling in the end for they want us to believe were found on the bra-clasp and kitchen-knife?

 

[bucketoftea]

No, what you said I said is utterly meaningless.

Is there a pattern of violence by black men as suggested by their higher incarceration rates in America? That's another debate.

My response to your reply follows:

I will never be afraid to recognize patterns because you tell me they cannot exist.
The victim I described was left in a pool of her own blood. The killer left his bloody fingerprints on the car window. Sound familiar?

Also, the killer was known to have treated female acquaintances roughly.

There are many 'lone wolf' precedents.​

My emphasis was about 'lone wolf' cases.

What you write reads as though you are here to wag your racial and other prejudices. Meredith was not killed by a lone wolf. More like a pack.

 

[Mary_H]

And Toto, too?

A couple of friends have responded to my request for their opinions on Curatolo. I can't share their names, but you know I didn't write these answers; they're much more thoughtful than mine. Food for thought:

From an RN/Master's in Counseling: "Have you ever heard of Eckart Tolle? He was homeless for some time and claims to have had many enlightening experiences and has written quite a few books and inspired millions...Power of Now is one of his. Whether you would consider him mentally sound, I don't know. Also, I can't remember how he described his mental state at the time initially...I think it is highly likely one could diagnose your fellow with the DSM-IV....many of us qualify."

From an MSW, LICSW: "With no information my first inclination would be to say the person is either chronic mental health problem or chronic substance abuse problem. Credible witness ???? could go either way......So I have given you a non answer but people don't often choose to be homeless unless there are issues. And to be chronically homeless would lend itself to a chronic problem...."

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Oh gosh, there's plenty of people here who have been banned -- Rose, LondonJohn, Kevin_Lowe, Bruce Fisher -- how about you, Katody? Were you banned or did you volunteer to leave? katy_did? halides1?

FWIW I refuse to join because of the tone over there. Not that I am comparable (in knowledge and probably other areas too) with the likes of Rose, LJ, KL, BF, or katy.

ETA: or Chris or Katody!

 

[bucketoftea]

I had seen the quotes but not the picture. It looks like she is being held there so photographers can get a shot of her. She doesn't look real happy about that.

I don't think it looks that bad. You really think the cops were holding her for a photo against her will? Is that what you're saying? Pulease.