Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

What are you talking about?

I have no idea. Google "Idaho Innocence Project" - and then let me know if it has any relevance to the case. If you feel like it, drop them an email and ask them if they've received any strange and threatening communications over the past few days......

 

[The Third Man]

I doubt it. Burglars do all sorts of odd things when breaking into houses, and the unfortunate effect of adrenalin/fear/nerves in that situation has been mentioned on the thread. Plus, Rudy had eaten that kebab... Raffaele's appeal notes that the intruder in the two other break-ins Rudy had been linked to had also apparently used the bathroom: in the nursery, the teacher found that someone had used the toilet and left it unflushed, and in the lawyer's office the bathroom light had been left on.

I agree with you about the problematic length of time between Meredith coming home and the phones being taken, if we assume she died within 5-10 minutes or so after arriving home. But all we know is that she probably died 10-15 minutes after the fatal wounds were made, which doesn't tell us how long the assault went on before that. Personally I think it's much more likely to have been a prolonged, escalating attack, in which Rudy probably had no intention initially of killing her. To me, that fits both the evidence and the overall situation better than a very sudden, deliberate attack by Rudy, and it would explain why he didn't try and turn off the phones till shortly before 10.

Well, I bow to your greater knowledge of the case, I didn't know that. If it's repeated behaviour it almost seems fetishistic.

 

[The Third Man]

To answer your last question first: I'd be fairly confident that her boyfriend killed her. He then disposed of mess (blood? broken items) that had been caused during the killing, along with the pizza that she was planning to eat, in a rubbish bag which he dumped somewhere on his way out with her body. He then dumped her body at some point on the journey to his parents' house. Give it a couple of weeks, and they'll find some evidence or a good witness who saw him at a time and place that he hadn't said that he was..

Yeah, my suspicions are with the boyfriend for the timebeing as well, the fact that the police and the family are ruling him out, might I think, be the police allowing him to run free for a bit, hoping that he'll incriminate himself, as they did in the Tracey Andrews case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, I bow to your greater knowledge of the case, I didn't know that. If it's repeated behaviour it almost seems fetishistic.

There is documented psychiatric analysis that break-and-enter burglars have an unusually high propensity for leaving stools in the toilets (o even on the floors/beds) of the houses into which they've broken.

http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/2010/05/14/dirty-burglar-smeared-poo-and-spunk-on-widows-walls/

http://www.guyanachronicleonline.co...uspect-faeces-gang&catid=4:top-story&Itemid=2

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=74051

http://upgraded.antiguaobserver.com/?p=21121

http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=12662

The suggestion is that certain burglars are subconsciously marking their new territory, and/or inflicting an element of humiliation upon the householder. Also, there appears to be evidence that the heightened anxiety of the period surrounding the actual act of breaking in, followed by the dissipation of fear and relative safety of confirming that one is alone inside the house, may lead to a physiological bowel release.

And Guede seemingly has form in this department.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, my suspicions are with the boyfriend for the timebeing as well, the fact that the police and the family are ruling him out, might I think, be the police allowing him to run free for a bit, hoping that he'll incriminate himself, as they did in the Tracey Andrews case.

Yup. There are also parallels in the murder of Rachel McLean in Oxford in 1991. Her boyfriend, John Tanner, pretended that he'd seen her off on a train from Oxford rail station. He took part in a TV appeal urging everyone to help. In reality, he'd strangled her and hidden her body under the floorboards of her house. A uni friend of mine had lived in the same house two years previously - spooky.

PS If one of my parents had just been in a fairly serious accident, and my partner was also suffering from a very painful injury, I don't think I'd be spending any of my time posting on an internet forum. Maybe that's just me, though. Then again, I don't think I'd find either of these things appropriate to being brought up on a specific internet forum in the first place either. Probably because I'm reptilian. And have real friends and family with whom I discuss matters like these.

 

[The Third Man]

There is documented psychiatric analysis that break-and-enter burglars have an unusually high propensity for leaving stools in the toilets (o even on the floors/beds) of the houses into which they've broken.

The suggestion is that certain burglars are subconsciously marking their new territory, and/or inflicting an element of humiliation upon the householder. Also, there appears to be evidence that the heightened anxiety of the period surrounding the actual act of breaking in, followed by the dissipation of fear and relative safety of confirming that one is alone inside the house, may lead to a physiological bowel release.

And Guede seemingly has form in this department.

Jesus, sometimes I can't believe I'm the same spieces as these people!

 

[Kestrel]

I think that this timeline doesn't leave any large and strange periods unaccounted for. But that's just my opinion.

Assuming the original security camera footage showing Meredith returning home still exists, we can pinpoint her arrival within a couple of minutes.

 

[Justinian2]

Perhaps. I haven't read it.


I don't think you understand the butterfly effect or chaos theory.

Your post had the effect of a dead butterfly.

 

[Mary_H]

What are you talking about?

"treehorn" has started posting as "Jackie" on another thread, and sparked a campaign against Greg Hampikian:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=310&start=250

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I don't think that accusing Greg Hampikian of being "a crook" is a particularly wise thing to do. Libel laws can be draconian (and very, very expensive), online identities don't stay hidden in the event of actions such as these, and screen grabs can be done in the blink of an eye. Just sayin'

 

[quadraginta]

What are you talking about?

I have no idea. Google "Idaho Innocence Project" - and then let me know if it has any relevance to the case. If you feel like it, drop them an email and ask them if they've received any strange and threatening communications over the past few days......

What sort of snide, snarky, fatuous response is that supposed to be? There can be no question that it was intended to be insulting as well as demeaning ... and apparently only that, since it was otherwise content free.

I have been following the various Innocence Projects with great interest ever since the first one was founded by Barry Scheck nearly two decades ago. I have no reason to think that your knowledge of them is in any way superior to mine. I am also quite aware of Greg Hampikian's status as a poster child for the Knox advocates fixated on the DNA aspects of the case under discussion here, and his affiliation with the IIP. Hampikian's involvement in the Knox case has been mentioned more than a few times by halides1.

None of that can help me divine the motives which prompted your apparently random outburst.

Looks like the Idaho Innocence Project can look forward to a spate of unpleasant emails and amateur sleuthing from a bunch of over-invested weirdos.

<snip>

Still, get those vitriolic emails flowing ASAP, comrades! What's the worst that could happen?!

​

Perhaps you are experiencing psychic premonitions?

I'm quite interested in reading your explanation of the relevance of this to our discussion of Knox's guilt or innocence, if you can take time out from insult and bluster long enough to offer one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no evidence

Here is a one out of a thousand stories that might have happened:

Meredith let's Rudy in. Things are fine at first, but very quickly go down hill. Amanda and Raffaele turn up (for one of a hundred reasons). Meredith wants to call the police an get Rudy arrested for sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele try to calm things down, maybe they think she's over reacting. Meredith is hysterical and has to be restrained to prevent her calling the cops and is now accusing Amanda and Raffaele who are now convinced that she is over reacting. Rudy restrains Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele discuss what the heck they're going to do. Meredith breaks free, runs for the phone in her room and the whole thing ends with Rudy and a knife in Merediths room. After that, Rudy leaves, Amanda and Raffaele decide that the best thing to do is cover up what little evidence of them there is, make it look like somebody broke in and hope for the best. Between Amanda and Raffaele entering the house and the murder is only 20 minutes.

Again the odds of this being what happened are low, and the prior probability of these events occuring and a million to one against. If it wasn't an incredibly unlikely event kids would be getting murdered all over the place.

shuttlt,

I will give you points for trying, but it is not very plausible. Why would Amanda and Raffaele not want to call the police, instead of taking Rudi's side? Amanda barely knew Rudi, and Raffaele did not know him at all. That is just one of many questions I have with your scenario. The problem is not coming up with a story, it is coming up with one that makes sense and fits the data.

 

[quadraginta]

"treehorn" has started posting as "Jackie" on another thread, and sparked a campaign against Greg Hampikian:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=310&start=250

Ahh!

Thank you.

It seems that a current and encyclopedic knowledge of the activities on other message boards is a necessary prerequisite to following some of the posts here. I guess I will remain at a disadvantage unless I expand my reading list.

It would be helpful if those posters would take the time, as you have so kindly done, to include things like explanations of the references (and maybe even links) for the edification of those of us who are not quite so invested in the failings of other sites.

 

[Mary_H]

I think the drug-blaming is cowardly. There are many people out there who have not participated in any kind of drug taking. So for many, it connotes this mysterious, shady lifestyle and wild-eyed people committing crimes. Because many people have very little first-hand knowledge of drugs and their effects, it is easier to persuade them that this crime was committed by otherwise seemingly non-criminal people. "It was the drugs that turned them into psychopathic killers" is the theory. And who out there can counter that? Even stating that they 'did' drugs makes them somewhat evil, right?

There are very few drugs that would cause someone not otherwise capable to commit a crime, much less such a heinous crime as this. It is simply a non-issue whether they smoked 5 joints or snorted an 8-ball. The drugs did not play any factor in this murder. To suggest otherwise is to try to invoke an element of the seedy unknown for many readers who are unfamiliar with drugs. I guess the real evidence isn't enough for some so they add (oh my God!) drug use.

Very well said, PD. I agree.

And Quennell's references to Ritalin-type drugs are off-the-charts absurd. That guy will say absolutely anything to raise suspicion.

 

[LondonJohn]

What sort of snide, snarky, fatuous response is that supposed to be? There can be no question that it was intended to be insulting as well as demeaning ... and apparently only that, since it was otherwise content free.

I have been following the various Innocence Projects with great interest ever since the first one was founded by Barry Scheck nearly two decades ago. I have no reason to think that your knowledge of them is in any way superior to mine. I am also quite aware of Greg Hampikian's status as a poster child for the Knox advocates fixated on the DNA aspects of the case under discussion here, and his affiliation with the IIP. Hampikian's involvement in the Knox case has been mentioned more than a few times by halides1.

None of that can help me divine the motives which prompted your apparently random outburst.

​

Perhaps you are experiencing psychic premonitions?

I'm quite interested in reading your explanation of the relevance of this to our discussion of Knox's guilt or innocence, if you can take time out from insult and bluster long enough to offer one.

But, before you go, a response to this post:

I was suggesting that some people with what I might term a distorted viewpoint (not because they are convinced of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt per se, but because of their approach towards anyone who argues for their non-guilt or innocence) are encouraging each other to launch investigations into the IIP's involvement in Knox's case. This seems to involve writing letters to anyone from the IIP to Barry Scheck to the Federal Government.

I was therefore making the point that the only people who have an interest in this are the US authorities which bestow and monitor charitable status, the actual donors to the IIP, and the central coordinators of the Innocence Project. I then pointed out that they can't fail to be aware of the IIP's involvement, since it hasn't been hidden. (All of this was in the part of my post which you snipped).

I then implied that any rational person would realise that this is the case, and would therefore realise the futility of launching attacks on Mr Hampikian and the IIP. If the US charitable authorities, the donors, or the Innocence Project believe that the IIP has done anything wrong or outside its remit, they will deal with things through the appropriate channels. I also implied that previous experience suggests that many of the emails sent might be....ermm...less than civil, and that this might not be a good strategy to pursue.

So its relevance to the case is that the IIP is on record as having offered its assistance to Knox's defence in her appeal. Some people seem to have convinced themselves that this is improper. I have no idea whether it's improper or not (although on the face of it I can't really see the problem, provided that the correct governance procedures have been followed). But my point is that everyone who needs to decide whether it's improper or not is almost certainly already apprised of the situation, and that the writing of emails or letters will therefore be of no value ether way.

 

[Mary_H]

Ahh!

Thank you.

It seems that a current and encyclopedic knowledge of the activities on other message boards is a necessary prerequisite to following some of the posts here. I guess I will remain at a disadvantage unless I expand my reading list.

It would be helpful if those posters would take the time, as you have so kindly done, to include things like explanations of the references (and maybe even links) for the edification of those of us who are not quite so invested in the failings of other sites.

You're welcome. Personally, I would like to see such references made only when absolutely necessary.

 

[Mary_H]

Isn't there a great deal of falsehood put about against Amanda? I imagined that when the truth is finally made official, one of the priorities of her legal team (and Raffaele's) will be to challenge it in all its aspects.

I agree it is likely, Antony. This case could keep Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers employed for the rest of their lives.

 

[quadraginta]

By the way, I don't think that accusing Greg Hampikian of being "a crook" is a particularly wise thing to do. Libel laws can be draconian (and very, very expensive), online identities don't stay hidden in the event of actions such as these, and screen grabs can be done in the blink of an eye. Just sayin'

I guess this is another 'message in a bottle' somehow related to your earlier cryptic outburst. (Now less so thanks to Mary_H.)

Do you have a system you use to determine when it is beneath you to include such oddities as quotes, links, and ... you know ... explanations?

 

[Kestrel]

shuttlt,

I will give you points for trying, but it is not very plausible. Why would Amanda and Raffaele not want to call the police, instead of taking Rudi's side?

The Massei report clearly states that Amanda and Raffaele chose evil because they had been smoking marijuana and reading vampire comic books.

 

[Dan O.]

At least two of the pro-innocence posters have discussed as yet untested evidence that would make us change our minds about the case, depending on the results of those tests--with the obvious caveat of their being done objectively. I will spare you the search: breaking open the ordinary kitchen knife and looking for blood inside, and determining the donor of the putative semen stain. What evidence would cause you to change your mind?

Before accepting any new evidence in this case, I would want to see an investigation into why the cottage door was open on November 14th and why the tampering with the seal was not noted when the cottage was reopened on December 18th.

I will not be swayed by any single piece of evidence. I require enough evidence to build a complete picture of what happened to remove the reasonable doubt that the evidence may be misinterpreted or even tampered with. (Yes, I firmly believe there is a possibility that the primary evidence in this case was tampered with. Giobbi broke the seal on the knife for no apparent reason and somebody broke the seal on the cottage before the bra clasp was retrieved.)

I would have preferred to see the biological evidence tested blind with both positive and negative controls. Blind testing is a way to keep the lab honest and reduce confirmation bias when interpretation of the results is subjective. Having the same lab technician both collect the sample and analyze it is just asking for confirmation bias. In the case of the knife blade, the bias went to the extreme level of knowing that a result was required and doing whatever it took to produce the desired result.

I would want to see contemporaneous documentation of the evidence and not oral testimonies produced a years later after the prosecution has produced their theory of the crime. Memories change over time, especially if there are periodic reminders of what the memory is supposed to be. The officers that testified that there was no glass outside the window may have come to believe that they didn't see any glass in the grass (did they actually say they looked in the "grass" or is that just my memory playing tricks). If they were down there looking, they would have made notes of their findings and there should have been a photograph or two to document this evidence.


I don't know what evidence could still exist that would lead me to believe the pair are guilty. ILE did such a wonderful job of botching the investigation that there may not be anything left to build a case on. Hidden DNA within knife is a possibility but only if the bag we see it wrapped in has a proper tamper evident seal that had been recorded before the case went to trial. Perhaps there is something on one of the hard drives that have been secured by duplication on on Amanda's which is secured by being in a totally inaccessible state. At this point, I would not ask for the presumed semen stain to be tested because it would be too easy for it to have been doctored as a last ditch effort to preserve the guilty verdict and block questioning the validity of the other evidence.