Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Amanda didn't flush the toilet because she wanted the police to find that evidence, which they did. She's quite cunning, that one!

EDIT: In fact, she mentions what was in the toilet over and over again just to make sure everyone knows what was in there.

I thought she was fixated on the mop more than the poop, but the cops were probably pounding her with questions on both and that is the most likely reason she kept trying to explain them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a persistent myth

To all,

The claim elsewhere on this forum is that people are interested in the Knox/Sollecito case because of Ms. Knox’s “(allegedly) kinky sex life.” The entire quote contrasted Lockarbie to the Knox/Sollecito case: “I'm also not sure that having the Lockerbie threads in SI & CE would have made them much more popular, the central character is an old Libyan spy with cancer up his bum, not an attractive young American with an (allegedly) kinky sex life so I don't think they'd ever have been as keenly posted in.” To answer this view in the thread from which it came would be off-topic there, in my opinion. Why the word allegedly was put in parentheses is a mystery, and no evidence was offered to support it.

Nevertheless, let’s examine this statement for accuracy, because one often hears variations on it. For example one commenter referred to Raffaele as Amanda’s “freakish boy toy,” and another made a poetic claim not entirely unrelated to Mr. Threepwood’s on another thread. One might argue that the claim comes from the prosecution’s theory of the case itself, but the prosecution was at most making a one-off assertion about what happened on the night of the murder, not a general statement. However, the claim looks even weaker when one begins to examine the actual behaviors of Ms. Knox’s and Mr. Sollecito’s defenders.

Mark Waterbury has defended Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito for a couple of years on his blog. This article rebuts the idea that Ms. Knox had anything other than a normal sex life. Likewise Candace Dempsey, on p. 115 of Murder in Italy, quoted Corriere, “’The list of people who visited the women is a long one,’ notwithstanding the actual shortness of the list.” Elsewhere (p. 116, for example) Ms. Dempsey refutes the notion that Ms. Knox was promiscuous.

These two examples should suffice (but other evidence is available, such as Ms. Madison Paxton’s comments on p. 116 of MiI) to suggest that Ms. Knox’s supporters generally believe that her intimate behavior is normal for someone of her age and peer group (as a supporter of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, I fall into the same category). Therefore, those whom I have identified cannot possibly be interested in this case, let alone in defending Ms. Knox, because of her allegedly kinky sex life; we don’t think that she has an abnormal sex life.

Occam’s razor is helpful here: The simplest explanation of why people are interested in the case is that there is a good chance that two innocent lives will be destroyed by it, if indeed this has not already happened. There is one final argument that may be germane here. Some would ask, “What about other possible miscarriages of justice that receive less attention?” My answer is, "if you see one, start a thread or a blog about it. Stop being a consumer of news, and start doing something about it." One person cannot handle more than one or two cases at a time, and these are long, hard slogs.

 

[Alt+F4]

I thought she was fixated on the mop more than the poop, but the cops were probably pounding her with questions on both and that is the most likely reason she kept trying to explain them.

I think she was fixated on the mop too, but I can't figure out why. As for the poop, an unflushed toilet is not indicitive of a crime, yet she makes sure to show it to the Postal Police when they arrive, she she speaks of it in her "first things first" email back home and talks about it again at her trial though she is never asked a specific question about that toilet. She's only asked the vague question, "then what happened?"

 

[snook1]

Amanda didn't flush the toilet because she wanted the police to find that evidence, which they did. She's quite cunning, that one!

EDIT: In fact, she mentions what was in the toilet over and over again just to make sure everyone knows what was in there.

Who wouldn't mention unflushed faeces in such circumstances? Maybe she was very much aware that it could be important evidence against potential killer?

I still do not believe in their guilt, simply beacuse it would mean that Amanda along with Raffaele magically floated in the room while stabbing Meredith Kercher. They left no traces whatsoever of their presence in that room.

The list you provided earlier (twice) is just as weak as I expected it to be, but thank you for your effort.

 

[Alt+F4]

For example one commenter referred to Raffaele as Amanda’s “freakish boy toy,”

That was me! I guess everyone has their own definition of what constitutes "kinky" but personally I don't think having a boy toy (even a freak like RS) or having sex on the first date makes someone kinky.

I do however think the dynamic between them was abnormal and if they hadn't meet each other this murder would not have taken place.

 

[snook1]

That was me! I guess everyone has there own definition of what constitutes "kinky" but personally I don't think having a boy toy (even a freak like RS) or having sex on the first date makes someone kinky.

I do however think the dynamic between them was abnormal and if they hadn't meet each other this murder would not have taken place.

How do you know that?

 

[Alt+F4]

I still do not believe in their guilt, simply beacuse it would mean that Amanda along with Raffaele magically floated in the room while stabbing Meredith Kercher. They left no traces whatsoever of their presence in that room.

AK didn't, RS did. As I mentioned before I don't think AK actively participated in the murder, I don't think she was in that room that night.

 

[Alt+F4]

How do you know that?

Based on what happened to MK.

 

[snook1]

AK didn't, RS did. As I mentioned before I don't think AK actively participated in the murder, I don't think she was in that room that night.

Do you honestly believe that two people(Guede and Sollecito) could kill Meredith Kercher and only one of them left multiple traces of himself in the room(incl DNA INSIDE the body of Meredith), while the other one left nothing? The bra clasp (especially when compared to the evidence against Guede) is hardly an evidence, given the circumstances and the way it was collected.

 

[snook1]

Based on what happened to MK.

Not good enough.

 

[Dan O.]

I think she was fixated on the mop too, but I can't figure out why. As for the poop, an unflushed toilet is not indicitive of a crime, yet she makes sure to show it to the Postal Police when they arrive, she she speaks of it in her "first things first" email back home and talks about it again at her trial though she is never asked a specific question about that toilet. She's only asked the vague question, "then what happened?"

You on the other hand, the ever diligent Mrs. Clean, would have seen the poop and grabbed the brush to flush and clean the toilet. You would have completely forgotten about the door being open and the drops of blood in the other bathroom. The thought that a stranger could have been in the house, could still be in the house, would never enter your mind as you put an extra sparkle on that bowl.

BTW, do you want to see a picture of what you would be cleaning? A simple flushing would have removed the bulk and the toilet paper that contained the DNA but the bowl would still be in need of cleaning.

 

[Mary_H]

BTW, do you want to see a picture of what you would be cleaning? A simple flushing would have removed the bulk and the toilet paper that contained the DNA but the bowl would still be in need of cleaning.

Thank you, Dan. I don't know why, after all these months, people keep referring to the toilet-flushing issue, when it has been clarified many times that we are not talking about an American toilet.

 

[babycondor]

Amanda didn't flush the toilet because she wanted the police to find that evidence, which they did. She's quite cunning, that one!

EDIT: In fact, she mentions what was in the toilet over and over again just to make sure everyone knows what was in there.

If she's innocent, she leaves it there because she just doesn't want to deal with it. Simple enough.

If she's guilty, she leaves it there because she wants the police to find it.

Either way, the unflushed toilet proves absolutely nothing about Amanda's guilt or innocence. Its only evidentiary value is the presence of Rudy's DNA on the toilet paper.

 

[Katody Matrass]

If she's innocent, she leaves it there because she just doesn't want to deal with it. Simple enough.

Actually she explained it. She left the house immediately after she saw it because she was scared.

 

[Mary_H]

These two examples should suffice (but other evidence is available, such as the Ms. Madison Paxton’s comments) to suggest that Ms. Knox’s supporters generally believe that her intimate behavior is normal for someone of her age and peer group (as a supporter of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, I fall into the same category). Therefore, those whom I have identified cannot possibly be interested in this case, let alone defending Ms. Knox, because of her allegedly kinky sex life; we don’t think that she has an abnormal sex life.

Occam’s razor is helpful here: The simplest explanation of why people are interested in the case is that there is a good chance that two innocent lives will be destroyed by it, if indeed this has not already happened. There is one final argument that may be germane here. Some would ask, “What about other possible miscarriages of justice that receive less attention?” My answer is, "if you see one, start a thread or a blog about it. Stop being a consumer of news, and start doing something about it." One person cannot handle more than one or two cases at a time, and these are long, hard slogs.

It is likely the primary reason people got interested in the case in the first place was because the media essentially told them to be interested in it, by covering it extensively. The media covered it, of course, because pretty girls, violence and sex all sell. It doesn't even have to be kinky sex. The pro-innocence posters who have stayed with it, of course, are concerned about the issues surrounding the miscarriage of justice.

On the other hand, people who look at the case for a brief period or who comment without knowing much about it, very well may be drawn to it by the sexual aspects. The great majority of comments in the earliest days of blogging concerned Amanda and Meredith's physical appearances. The emphasis some pro-guilt commentators continue to place on describing the Kerchers as dignified and graceful versus the Knox-Mellas "clan" as trashy is an extension of that focus.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But Meredith's phones were on.

Both of them redirected to voicemail, which is functionally the same as off from the caller point of view. Amanda called Meredith's English phone twice, the second time it was on voicemail, her Italian phone was on voicemail too.

 

[Dan O.]

The bra clasp (especially when compared to the evidence against Guede) is hardly an evidence, given the circumstances and the way it was collected.

I am really looking forward to the day after the computer log evidence is accepted as valid and proving that Raffaele never left his home till 6AM.

Do any of those believing in Raffaele's guilt care to offer a plausible innocuous explanation for how Raffaele's DNA came to be found when the bra clasp was tested or are you all going to wait until that evidence becomes an anchor chain around the prosecutions neck and then try to dismiss it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fair trial versus guilt or innocence

Stellafane,

Some time ago you wrote, “When I first heard about the case, I was pretty much neutral, perhaps leaning just a bit towards the perception that Ms. Knox was being railroaded, or at least being treated unfairly.”

Do you believe that having access to the machine logs, electronic data files, and SOPs are a necessary part of a competent defense in a trial in which DNA plays a role? Do you think that they were withheld in this case? If so, do you believe that Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial? I have documented the reasons why my answers to both questions are “yes” extensively in these threads and would point you to them if asked.

I chose to focus on this point for a couple of reasons. One, whether they are innocent or guilty is a separate question to whether or not the trial was fair. One might believe them to be guilty but still believe that the trial was unfair for the reasons given above or others. Two, the rest of your comment was full of generalizations that lack specifics. Most of the responses to it were civil and constructive, IMO.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think the most logical explanation is that Steve Moore doesn't know what he's talking about. I never believed him when he said that he had access to all the case documents while also saying he had no contact with the defense.

That bloody footprint was probably made by someone stepping on a bloody towel in the bathroom then placing that bloody foot on the bathmat.

Steve Moore was wrong when he said no one could have left that room without blood on the bottom of their shoes. I wonder what else he might be wrong about.

I have no idea what does Steve Moore have to the question of Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence.

The fact is that Rudy Guede left multiple shoeprints on the floor, multiple shoeprints on the pillowcase, fingerprints and DNA on the victim, her clothing and her belongings.

There was no trace of Amanda.

The "bra clasp" evidence found after 47 days is laughable.

 

[Dan O.]

Thank you, Dan. I don't know why, after all these months, people keep referring to the toilet-flushing issue, when it has been clarified many times that we are not talking about an American toilet.

Prison may actually save Rudy's life. He'll at last be getting the fiber he needs