Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Where did Rudy throw his bloody clothes?

He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.

 

[Katody Matrass]

LOL,
You are being generous regarding guilter Rose, Katody.

I too had a lot of misconceptions about the case, as some of them were repeated over and over so much (like the one LoZ just repeated about AK surprised by the police with a mop in hand) it was hard to sift through all of it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes.

So when are you going to show us how you arrived at your claim that Amanda met Rudy "once at most" notwithstanding Amanda's own testimony and the testimony referred to in the Court's judgment (as posted above)?


PS It's now painfully clear to all of us that you haven't bothered to read the Court's judgment.

Is that your idea of 'trained thinking' and rational analysis?

I believe katy_did pointed out an error on the part of the PMF translators twice now. Did you read her posts on this?

 

[treehorn]

As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith./QUOTE]

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.

 

[treehorn]

He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.

So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.

 

[katy_did]

So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.

Apparently not, since they [ETA: Amanda and Raffaele, that is...] had to wipe off the knife and put it back in the kitchen drawer...

 

[Katody Matrass]

So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.

It's entirely possible he used a dumpster in Perugia. Or some ravine overgrown with bushes. As far as we know ILE didn't search for the disposed items.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe katy_did pointed out an error on the part of the PMF translators twice now. Did you read her posts on this?

I think not. I don't think he realises either that he compounded the problem by erroneously stating that Marco Marzan had been quoted in Massei as having seen Guede in the boys' cottage at the same time as Meredith and Amanda - whereas in fact this testimony was provided by Giorgio Cocciaretto (who didn't live in the boys' cottage).

 

[LondonJohn]

So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.

What?

 

[komponisto]

A crook she didn't know...

A crook she barely knew. Does that satisfy you?

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.

You're changing the subject, evidently because you're incapable of usefully replying.

 

[Katody Matrass]

As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith.

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.

Are you accusing anyone here of racism? I suggest you support your words or retract them immediately and apologise.

What problem do you have with the term "drifter"?

 

[LondonJohn]

As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith./QUOTE]

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina - wouldn't you agree?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina - wouldn't you agree?

Spot on

straight to AAH I guess, but nevertheless it made me LOL.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's entirely possible he used a dumpster in Perugia. Or some ravine overgrown with bushes. As far as we know ILE didn't search for the disposed items.

The important point here (in my belief) is this: Guede had ample time and opportunity to dispose of bloody clothing/shoes/knife/other, either in Perugia or anywhere along the route of his train journeys to Germany. Therefore, if the Perugia police had done a proper investigation and had searched all the public rubbish grounds, skips and landfills in the city (as well as searching the ravine between the girls' cottage and Sig.ra Lana's house), and they hadn't found anything related to Guede, this wouldn't have much probative value - since Guede could be considered as likely (and possibly more likely) to have disposed of incriminating evidence during his journey to Germany.

On the other hand, if the police had searched properly, and had failed to find any such evidence relating to Knox or Sollecito, this would be useful evidence in their favour (albeit far from conclusive), since they (Knox and Sollecito) had virtually no opportunity to dispose of evidence outside of Perugia. And of course if the police HAD found Knox's and/or Sollecito's bloody clothing/footwear/knives/other, then this would have been extremely strong evidence of their guilt.

 

[katy_did]

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina - wouldn't you agree?

Ha. I totally guessed what that meant and got it right (we didn't study fancy subjects like Latin at my school. Ad astra per alia porci. I kinda wish we did. ETA: learn Latin, I mean, as well as the other).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No, that isn't the definition. A murderer is someone who murders, not someone who is believed to murder.

This leads to semantics. I would concede the point. One may fairly describe someone who has been convicted of murder as a "convicted murderer." Similarly, Treehorn is right when he says the law regards cannabis as an "illicit narcotic" and so he may fairly use the term.

But, by accepting all of that, we only acknowledge a social context, rather than the underlying realities of what Amanda is like and what she did. Calling marijuana an "illicit narcotic" will not turn Amanda into a desperate addict. Calling Amanda a "convicted murderer" does not strengthen the forensic evidence.

Really what it comes down to is this proposition: society has sanctioned hatred for Amanda Knox as a legitimate pastime, and certain people have chosen to indulge accordingly. This is a universal aspect of human society. In Puritan colonies, offenders were manacled in the town center, and the public was invited to spit on them. Whenever someone is executed in the US, a group forms outside the prison walls to celebrate. Villagers with pitchforks are never in short supply. A subset of the population needs a group-sanctioned target for their hostility.

 

[quadraginta]

Thanks Rose (LOL, a ferry? I'd forgotten how many annoyingly good points you made as a guilter [ETA: -ish sort of type] ).

I'd thought the e-mail was odd too, at first, till it occurred to me that it probably just reflected the questions she was being asked at the police station (which does suggest the police were zeroing in on Amanda and Raffaele and the mop even then, now I think about it).

I can understand the need for a mop after a leaking pipe spill, because even if most of the water had been cleaned up, you'd still be left with a residue on the floor. We had a water pipe burst at work last week, and even after the water had dried there were still those dirty 'tidemarks' (for want of a better term...) that it's easiest to clean with a mop. So it does make some kind of sense to me that they'd need a mop to clean it, especially if it was an ongoing leak every time the sink was used, as it sounds like it was.

What makes less sense to me is why they'd make up the mop story if they were guilty. Why bother, really, especially since (barring the bizarre mop-switching theory) there's no sign a mop was used to clean the crime scene? I'm hoping LoZ can enlighten me on that one, though.

I don't think there was a water pipe "burst". I think there was a leaky drain trap. (Allegedly, that is.) Maybe I'm mistaken.

There are some fundamental differences between the two, not least being an absence of any water pressure in the latter case. The leak, at its largest, cannot be any larger than the amount of water intentionally run into the sink. Normally it would be much less, unless the drain trap fell off altogether. This is an unlikely occurrence due to the fitting configuration of most sink traps. In general, leaky traps are often unnoticed entirely when in an enclosure such as a kitchen counter until someone opens the cabinet below and sees that it is wet. Worst case would be pulling the plug on a full sink of water after the trap had been removed altogether. This is an old fraternity prank, but is exceedingly rare in day-to-day usage.

It isn't very often that a mop would be required for clean up. Most of the time that would be a much bigger PITA than a sponge and a handful of paper towels.

I'm a bit puzzled by the entire mop element of this saga myself. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful to either party, yet it looms so large in the early parts of the story. It seems like Knox is more fixated on it than any of the other players, but maybe that is just the way the data has been presented.

I've filed it away in the 'not enough information' bin until something more comes along.

 

[Kaosium]

What is your point? It has been established that amanda was acquainted with Rudy, had smoked with him on at least one occasion , met him at the pub and most likely saw him on the basketball court on her way to school regularly.

What exactly is your point?

Preventing creepage.

It's been established that Amanda was once introduced to Rudy at a party where at sometime a spinello was smoked, and thinks she might have seen him once at Le Chic. Perhaps Rudy was on the basketball court sometimes when she went by.

 

[Chris C]

Preventing creepage.

It's been established that Amanda was once introduced to Rudy at a party where at sometime a spinello was smoked, and thinks she might have seen him once at Le Chic. Perhaps Rudy was on the basketball court sometimes when she went by.

Yep, apparently the prosecution proved that Rudy was currently staying in the same city as Knox.

 

[Justinian2]

Patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her??!
Are you for real.
He would have had to put his hand on her BRA in order for his DNA to stick.
That, at least has never been presented as plausible by any of the defense team.

Raffaele sneezes twice. Ah choo a a Ah choo! Covers mouth as he sneezes to be polite. Rubs nose. Passes by Meredith at a Halloween party. Places hand on her back and says excuse me in Italian.

As I have said, find one plausible theory and the prosecution crashes and burns. There are many possible scenarios. Not all of them are probable, but all I have submitted are possibe. Possible. Possible.

Just one exception, and our psychic-wanna-be prosecutor is again proven wrong.

Raffaele's LCN DNA on the bra clasp is NOT as incriminating as Guede's bloody palm print on the wall. Guess why?