Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I'm more than familiar with the 911 calls., and with Anthony's other transgressions. Your use of the qualifier "virtually" is all that makes your assertion of "everybody" utterly mistaken. It isn't difficult to find statements by friends of Casey who were stunned that she would be believed to be capable of such a crime.

That is moot though, because all I addressed was her parents' statements about her behavior as a mother. If you dig some more, though, you will actually find that even those are somewhat dubious, since there is reason to believe that at one time her mother had contemplated taking legal action to get custody of Caylee. But that is an entirely different story.

I know what the stats are. I've discussed this subject in these threads in the past. That is the reason I pointed out earlier in this exchange that LE has an entirely different expectation about filicide than the general public. I'm surprised that this escaped you.

This has a certain relevance to the Knox case. Unlike the perceptions of the general public, when LE is confronted with a home attack their first instincts are not to suspect a stranger, because the culprit is most often ... by a huge margin ... someone who is close to the victim. Apparent evidence of a break-in does not override this instinct. Attempts to shift suspicion are also far from uncommon. If those attempts are not persuasive then they properly return to the procedures that experience has shown to be most successful.

We frequently read in these threads about Knox advocates' puzzlement that Knox would be in the sights of the ILE at all, much less at the onset. We need look no further than this for an explanation. Any competent investigator would first be looking carefully at her, the other roommates, and Meredith's close friends.

Very misleading. I think you'll find that if you were to look at the breakdown of murders, it's incredibly rare for friends to murder friends. When statistics refer to "people who know each other", it's almost always partners, ex-partners, or jealous lovers (or jealous people who had fantasised about being the victim's lover, and who might perhaps have been spurned by the victim).

In a far smaller amount of "known to the victim" cases, the perpetrator is a family member (mothers or fathers killing children, adult children killing parents, sibling murder over jealousy or inheritance). And an even smaller bracket would include an acquaintance of the same sex killing someone over rivalry towards the same third person (e.g. love triangles, or one person's jealousy over another person's partner). Lastly, of course, people acquainted with each other can kill each other over significant matters of money or status - the classic example of which might be the right to "own" a patch of turf for drug-dealing, or - amongst young males in particular - for leadership of the gang or group.

But I'd suggest that it's only in a vanishingly small number of murder cases that friends kill friends without one of these factors being present. In the Kercher case, Knox and Meredith were unrelated, had known each other for all of six weeks, and were not known to be competing for the same male. Similarly, Sollecito barely knew Meredith, had just started what appeared to be a fulfilling and exciting relationship with Knox, and had exhibited no prior history of having a sexual interest in Meredith. Guede, on the other hand, was not in a relationship with a woman, by all accounts had difficulty in forming relationships with women, and had (by all accounts) a reputation for hassling women in an inappropriate and sexually-suggestive manner.

 

[shuttlt]

That's how it works in the scientific community. When a new theory is published (like string theory) the theorist has to defend his theory against the entire scientific community.

Call Magnini's theory "The Bra string theory".

Nobody knows how or when that DNA got into the forensic lab test vessel - unless they are psychic.

So now you want the prosecutions theory to be proven to a scientific standard of proof? My, my.... Why not demand a logical proof, that way there is no way for error.

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Women don't wear underwear or T-shirts. They wear panties and bras.

Women borrow stuff.

College men steal panties and bras from dorm rooms.

Things get mixed up in the laundry.

There are all types of ways the bras could have been mixed up.

The myth that the bra clasp DNA was put there by Raffaele while he was helping Guede kill Meredith is busted until the prosecution can answer every challenge to their theory.​

I call shenanigans. Either you're joking, or you're Nando Ronteltap.

Any women on this thread ever borrow a bra, have one borrowed or know someone who did?

Any woman on this thread ever mix up sox or other garmets in the wash?

 

[bri1]

Newbie

Hi everyone,
I'm a new member of the forum, and wanted to introduce myself before posting some initial thoughts on the case.
About me:
I'm a philosophy PhD student
I have spent a lot of time in the Perugia area (I have family who have lived halfway between Perugia and Gubbio all my life - 30 odd years).
I live in the UK.
My sister was also an ERASMUS student, at a University in mid / northern Italy.

The reason I'm letting you guys know all of this is that I think I have some insights that are interesting / useful, although obviously I expect you all to judge this from the content of my arguments and my posts, not just take my word for it!

I have been interested in the case from the beginning, but it's only in the past year that I have made an effort to become conversant with the full facts of the case. I have, over the past few weeks attempted to read all of this thread.
It's been really interesting, but there's obviously a lot of material, so please be understanding if I talk about aspects of the case that have already been discussed because I've missed a post or two.
Anyway, hi!

I think what I'm going to do is post a synopsis of my views of the case, which may turn out to be quite long! In the meantime I have a few thoughts about Rudy & Amanda 'knowing' each other.
I think it's genuinely a stretch to say that RG & AK 'knew' each other. One conversation, and one or possibly two other occaisions where 'hello's' are exchanged does not mean that two people know each other. I spent an afternoon with a celebrity once- but it would be disingenuous of me, to say the least, to say that I 'know' her. By normal usage of the terms, RG and AK did not KNOW each other. They were acquainted with each other.
I'd also like to repeat many posters' objection that it makes no difference at all to establishing the closeness of the connection / friendship / acquantance between RG and AK, whether Rudy had a crush on or was attracted to Amanda.
Why not?
a) It makes no difference whenever we are tring to establish how well person A knows person B to say that person B had stated their attraction to person A. If we are trying to establish how well Brad Pitt knows my friend Marcie, it doesn't help us to know that Marcie had previously stated her attraction to Brad.
b) It makes even less difference when dealing with certain people.
There are certain people for whom noting a sexual attractedness would be a big deal- perhaps because they are very reserved about sexual matters, or very inexperienced in this area, or a very private person, or they could only be sexually attracted to someone if they knew them personally.
This isn't the case with Rudy.
For someone to be described as a harraser of women in Italy is to note a sexual aggressiveness that, in the UK, would be aberrent.

 

[shuttlt]

Any women on this thread ever borrow a bra, have one borrowed or know someone who did?

Any woman on this thread ever mix up sox or other garmets in the wash?

Were Amanda and Meredith even the same cup size? In any case, the defence might need to put it forward before the prosecution have to disprove it. In any case the jury need to find your bra swapping idea convincing before the prosecution has to worry overly about it.

 

[bri1]

And, in reply to Justinian, I am indeed a girl, and I have before borrowed housemates' bras, and vice versa.
There also would have been times when my boyfriend collected up my housemates' dry clothes from the tumble drier / drying racks around the house to make way for my / his clothes.
Perfectly plausible.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

Women don't wear underwear or T-shirts. They wear panties and bras.

Women borrow stuff.

College men steal panties and bras from dorm rooms.

Things get mixed up in the laundry.

There are all types of ways the bras could have been mixed up.

The myth that the bra clasp DNA was put there by Raffaele while he was helping Guede kill Meredith is busted until the prosecution can answer every challenge to their theory.​

Any women on this thread ever borrow a bra, have one borrowed or know someone who did?

Any woman on this thread ever mix up sox or other garmets in the wash?

Has Amanda ever stated that she borrowed her housemates bra, I mean any of the women she lived with? Have the defence provided any evidence that the housemates shared garments such as bra's.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi everyone,
I'm a new member of the forum, and wanted to introduce myself before posting some initial thoughts on the case.

Hi Bri1, and welcome! I look forward to hearing your views on this case - your first point makes a lot of sense. I (and I think many others here) will be happy to point you towards information if you need it (if we know where it can be found, of course!). BTW, are you conversationally fluent in Italian?

 

[shuttlt]

And, in reply to Justinian, I am indeed a girl, and I have before borrowed housemates' bras, and vice versa.
There also would have been times when my boyfriend collected up my housemates' dry clothes from the tumble drier / drying racks around the house to make way for my / his clothes.
Perfectly plausible.

Let the defence claim this then and see if it has any legs. It could be that Raffaele is a cross dresser and Amanda had taken Meredith's bra for him to try on. Thus the prosecution theory is shot down in flames until they can prove this did not happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

Re the bra, I think it might be moot to be discussing the possibility of Amanda borrowing Meredith's bra. I think the more important question is this: how on earth could Sollecito's DNA have got onto the tiny metal hook of the clasp, yet it (his DNA) apparently was not present on any of the surrounding material? After all, the surrounding material actually covers the hooks and catches while the bra is being worn, and the relatively rough texture of the cotton or nylon material would be considerably more likely to slough off sweat or skin cells from Sollecito's fingers than the tiny smooth metal hook. One can only presume that the "crack" forensics team tested the entirety of the recovered clasp, and presumably the rest of the bra as well - yet nowhere else is Sollecito's DNA found but on an extremely small hook which is virtually impossible to access without handling the surrounding material. Doesn't sound quite right to me.....

 

[Justinian2]

Were Amanda and Meredith even the same cup size? In any case, the defence might need to put it forward before the prosecution have to disprove it. In any case the jury need to find your bra swapping idea convincing before the prosecution has to worry overly about it.

The "Bra string theory" that the prosecution sold as "fact" has several plausible breaks in addition to what I have just posted. The gloves or test vessels in the lab could have been contaminated. This DNA test showed LCN DNA so there are many ways that contamination could have happened. The "evidence" was on the floor of the bedroom for weeks and perhaps swept across the floor a time or two. An employee, under pressure from a senior, could have contributed a molecule of Raffaele's DNA.

Perhaps Raffaele was behind Meredith and sneezed or patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her to one side or say 'hello'.

The proscecution needs to prove that this key evidence is solid, otherwise nobody should believe them.

 

[nopoirot]

I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational because it's not supposed to be, but I've seen others on this forum make similair statements. Can I ask, If you feel like this, why even discuss or debate it? I personally can't be that certain either way which is the very reason I come to forums like this in the first place, to hear others opinions and maybe offer some of my own. Are your goals different to that, i.e., is your motive some form of competitive debate and/or are you attempting to influence others, because, (and I mean this genuinely) there are probably better platforms/places to do that.

Odd, isn't it? Offhand, I don't recall anyone here acknowledging any real uncertainty on the head of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Where credibility would require a forthright acknowledgment of difficulty with some aspect of one's position, resort is had to "making the worse appear the better argument." You will find useful information here, but you would do well to be guided by the principle "distrust and verify."

There are only two major camps here. Those who suspect both may have got it wrong have apparently drifted elsewhere.

 

[quadraginta]

To that, I'd say firstly that many things can be put forward as possible in the widest definition of the term, but the more important hurdle is whether they are a reasonable possibility.

And secondly, and most importantly, there has to be a reasonable alternative possibility for every significant piece of evidence in order to introduce the possibility of reasonable doubt into the case as a whole. In this case, I don't think there's a reasonable alternative explanation for a mother taking a month to report her very young daughter as missing. And I'd count that as one of the most serious pieces of evidence pointing to her culpability. QED.

Personally? I agree with you completely. (See how easy it is for us to agree? )

As soon as I heard "thirty days" and "the nanny did it" I said to myself , "Guilty!"

Some might argue that this is clear proof of prejudgment, and all of my ensuing investigation into the available facts surrounding the case have been colored by my own preconceptions. Confirmation bias, all the way.

Is it impossible that Caylee was abducted? Well ... no. Is it impossible that Casey was operating under duress, in fear of threatened retribution to her child for that period, until the die was cast by her mother's 911 call. Well ... no. Not impossible.

Charlie was just a bit off target in his understanding of the sequence of events. The Anthony parents first became aware of difficulties when they received notice that the car Casey was using (registered in the parents' name, but Casey's regular ride) had been impounded because it had been found abandoned in a nearby store parking lot, and went to get it out. This was the origin of "the smell" They then tried to locate their daughter. Once Cindy (the mom) found her at the current boyfriend's apartment, sans granddaughter Caylee, she began to interrogate Casey concerning the child's whereabouts. The now famous 911 call was the result of that.

Casey has stuck to her version like white on rice. Once the child's remains were discovered she could probably have claimed that a terrible accident occurred and she simply panicked. After all, there wasn't enough left of the remains to determine CoD. This would probably have gotten her off with less time than she has already spent in jail waiting for her trial, Yet she has adamantly maintained her innocence.

Surely there must be something else going on.

 

[bri1]

Hi John!
No, unfortunately I'm not anywhere near fluent in Italian. My aunt, uncle, and cousins are all bilingual, so we speak a lot of english when over there. (Us lazy Brits, eh? Or just me...). My cousin is a nurse in one of Perugia's hospitals.
Thanks, I'm starting to build a file of all the 'primary sources' (reports, photos, video, etc) but it's nowhere near complete yet.

 

[Justinian2]

And, in reply to Justinian, I am indeed a girl, and I have before borrowed housemates' bras, and vice versa.
There also would have been times when my boyfriend collected up my housemates' dry clothes from the tumble drier / drying racks around the house to make way for my / his clothes.
Perfectly plausible.

Welcome to the discussion. Thanks for the needed input.

I also agree with & liked your first post.

 

[Justinian2]

Re the bra, I think it might be moot to be discussing the possibility of Amanda borrowing Meredith's bra. I think the more important question is this: how on earth could Sollecito's DNA have got onto the tiny metal hook of the clasp, yet it (his DNA) apparently was not present on any of the surrounding material? After all, the surrounding material actually covers the hooks and catches while the bra is being worn, and the relatively rough texture of the cotton or nylon material would be considerably more likely to slough off sweat or skin cells from Sollecito's fingers than the tiny smooth metal hook. One can only presume that the "crack" forensics team tested the entirety of the recovered clasp, and presumably the rest of the bra as well - yet nowhere else is Sollecito's DNA found but on an extremely small hook which is virtually impossible to access without handling the surrounding material. Doesn't sound quite right to me.....

The DNA was only on the clasp? Is that a supposition or a fact?

If that's a fact, then the "Bra string theory" has more holes than a sieve.

 

[bri1]

Let the defence claim this then and see if it has any legs. It could be that Raffaele is a cross dresser and Amanda had taken Meredith's bra for him to try on. Thus the prosecution theory is shot down in flames until they can prove this did not happen.

Not quite sure what you're saying here.
Having lived in many shared houses over the years I know that housemates (and their partners and friends) would have all kinds of innocent reasons for touching each others' clothes.
RS being a cross dresser and borrowing or tring on MK's bra would be such an explanation, but one that extremely unlikely given the statistical rarity of cross dressing. Therefore the prosecution pointing to this as a possibility for how the DNA ended up there would be (without any independent evidence of RS's crossdressing habits) ridiculous and a jury would be right in dismissing it as an unreasonable claim.
However the claim that RS's DNA ended up on the clasp innocently through (eg) clearing or folding dry clothes would not be unreasonable or improbable occurence.

 

[quadraginta]

Very misleading. I think you'll find that if you were to look at the breakdown of murders, it's incredibly rare for friends to murder friends. When statistics refer to "people who know each other", it's almost always partners, ex-partners, or jealous lovers (or jealous people who had fantasised about being the victim's lover, and who might perhaps have been spurned by the victim).

<snip>

You are merely being pedantic (Mary_H Alert!) about specific usages of the term "friend". This sort of pedantry is a recurring weakness in your arguments.

The simple fact is that most murders which occur in a home are committed by someone with a close social proximity to the victim. Investigators will generally start with those who are closest and work their way out.

If they had reason to suspect that the alleged break-in was actually staged then that would only cause them to look even more closely at the victim's immediate social group, since such efforts are invariably the result of someone attempting to shift blame away from that group.

It is truly bizarre that you would attempt to argue against these obvious truths on no more than the basis of some tortured usages of the word "friend". One might suspect that your objections are less than sincere.

 

[bri1]

You are merely being pedantic (Mary_H Alert!) about specific usages of the term "friend". This sort of pedantry is a recurring weakness in your arguments.

The simple fact is that most murders which occur in a home are committed by someone with a close social proximity to the victim. Investigators will generally start with those who are closest and work their way out.

If they had reason to suspect that the alleged break-in was actually staged then that would only cause them to look even more closely at the victim's immediate social group, since such efforts are invariably the result of someone attempting to shift blame away from that group.

It is truly bizarre that you would attempt to argue against these obvious truths on no more than the basis of some tortured usages of the word "friend". One might suspect that your objections are less than sincere.

I disagree that John is being pedantic here. Sex is a powerful thing, and relationships become much more complex and fraught when sex is involved. Familial relationships are also much more fraught than friendships- when people feel that they are connected in a more fundamental way, through blood, then the possibility of solving problems by walking away from someone and discontinuing a relationship with them becomes more remote than with a friend.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not quite sure what you're saying here.
Having lived in many shared houses over the years I know that housemates (and their partners and friends) would have all kinds of innocent reasons for touching each others' clothes.
RS being a cross dresser and borrowing or tring on MK's bra would be such an explanation, but one that extremely unlikely given the statistical rarity of cross dressing. Therefore the prosecution pointing to this as a possibility for how the DNA ended up there would be (without any independent evidence of RS's crossdressing habits) ridiculous and a jury would be right in dismissing it as an unreasonable claim.
However the claim that RS's DNA ended up on the clasp innocently through (eg) clearing or folding dry clothes would not be unreasonable or improbable occurence.

Did Amanda or Raffaele defence teams ever raise the possibility that Amanda either shared underwear or that Raffaele ever picked up washed or unwashed closthing whilst visiting? I can only recall Raffaele diary entry about the possibility of how Meredith's DNA could have gotten onto the knife.