Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
They had footprint samples from Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele, and not from Laura and Filomena, or the young men downstairs. We do know it was not blood because every TMB test was negative and the supposed blood did not contain Meredith's DNA. Strange that if it was her blood that none of her DNA showed up. These prints could have been compatible with a lot of footprints including Filomena's and Laura's if they were compared to theirs, which they were not.
Click to expand...

I thought that two of the luminol footprints/shoeprints/blobs contained Meredith's DNA. Am I thinking of something else?
 
Danceme said:
As for the luminol footprints attributed to Amanda and Raffaele, can anyone explain what they might have been made in in order to only have footprints compatible to these two and none to any of the other roommates or friends who frequented the cottage?
Click to expand...
According to prof Vinci the single footprint attributed by the prosecution to Raffaele was much too small to be his. Prof Vinci's position is easily verifiable from the sources available online for anyone motivated enough. It definitely wasn't Raffaele's footprint.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Is this the intercepted call that several translators found too confusing to really understand or was that another call?
Click to expand...

Not enough has been made of the translation issues, in my opinion. I think her lawyers should have some effort into making that point.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why not? Meredith was of age and was out having fun on Halloween.
Click to expand...

I agree. But some people seem to believe (for some unknown reason) that Meredith was a "high-flyer" destined for a top career in international politics, and that she was an utterly diligent top-performing student. That's not entirely compatible with staying out until 4-5am and aparently drinking to over three times the drink-drive limit....


Do you have any information on what effect the trauma of such a violent attack and slow death would have on digestion?
Click to expand...

I do. The violent attack / slow death would have slowed down her digestive system - this is well documented. But in order for this to have been an issue, she'd have had to have been in extreme fear and/or trauma from 10pm at the very latest. So she was either confronted and attacked before 10pm, or she was subjected to extraordinary levvels of fear between 10.00 and 11.45, at which time (according to the prosecution and court in the first trial) she was killed. Which one do you prefer to go for?
 
RoseMontague said:
The blob in Filomena's room was the only one that I recall offhand.
Click to expand...

It appears there were three which contained Meredith's DNA. I am not sure exactly what each is (footprint, shoeprint, blob, something else) but here are the results according to the motivations. I believe Charlie also had these same results.

Page 194:

The sample called L1 in the inspection report, taken in Romanelli's room, corresponded to the genetic profile of the victim; the sample called L2, also from Romanelli's room, yielded a mixed genetic profile of the victim and Knox; the sample L3, taken from Knox's room, as well as the other two (L4 and L5) yielded Knox's genetic profile. Of the samples L6, L7, L8 and L9, only L8 (item 183) from the corridor, almost in the middle of the corridor in front of the door to Amanda Knox's room, gave the result: victim plus Knox. The last sample L9 yielded no result.
Click to expand...
 
Katody Matrass said:
According to prof Vinci the single footprint attributed by the prosecution to Raffaele was much too small to be his. Prof Vinci's position is easily verifiable from the sources available online for anyone motivated enough. It definitely wasn't Raffaele's footprint.
Click to expand...

Rinaldi said it a bit differently, but I don't think he stated that it was Raffaele's footprint, just that it was compatible.

It would be interesting to have both experts reports, along with court transcripts, for comparison.
 
christianahannah said:
It appears there were three which contained Meredith's DNA. I am not sure exactly what each is (footprint, shoeprint, blob, something else) but here are the results according to the motivations. I believe Charlie also had these same results.

Page 194:
Click to expand...

Item 183 was a shoeprint not attributed to Amanda.

 
christianahannah said:
Rinaldi said it a bit differently, but I don't think he stated that it was Raffaele's footprint, just that it was compatible.

It would be interesting to have both experts reports, along with court transcripts, for comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes, Rinaldi at his first attempt obtained a result of 227mm, which then went up to 244mm.

IIRC Vinci's result was 215mm.
 
christianahannah said:
It appears there were three which contained Meredith's DNA. I am not sure exactly what each is (footprint, shoeprint, blob, something else) but here are the results according to the motivations. I believe Charlie also had these same results.

Page 194:
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's these samples the appeals are arguing contain the DNA of an unknown female.
 
Another interesting observation: The finding 183 is a Rudy's shoeprint, tracking both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA. Could the DNA in Filomena's room be tracked there on someone's shoes, too?
 
halides1 said:
Why don't you try to explain their existence (when and how they were made; why no others were made at the same time; why the TMB test was negative; why the lack of Meredith's DNA in at least some of them) assuming that they are blood?
Click to expand...

Exactly, if we are to believe that the single bare footprint, measurement of which was completely botched by prosecution's expert Rinaldi, if we are to believe it's Raffaele's then we have a tough task to make a sensible scenario out of it.
There are no other footprints of his, therefore they were cleaned up very well, without leaving any typical traces of such cleanup. Even worse, there is a trail of Guede's shoeprints running straight through the corridor, in the middle of the cleaned up area! So we must believe AK and RS had a reason to deliberately clean around Guede's prints, as to not disturb them. The luminol prints were invisible, so the cleaned up ones wouldn't be visible either - it makes the task even harder. Apparently they were also very aware of Guede's prints and very cautious not to step on them - no overlaid prints there.
And why, however impossible it seems to achieve, did they left Rudy's prints intact? To point it out to the police, obviously, just like they pointed out his feces.
Then why on earth when the police comes they show them the blood, the feces, the broken window, but not the prints? Does it make any sense to any of you?
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
No. I'm referring to this bit:


Was Amanda's priority reaching out to Meredith's family? No. Was Amanda's priority helping the police with the investigation? No. Was Amanda's priority being fearful that there was a sex-crazy murderer running loose in the city? No.

Amanda priority...her first priority in her own words....was getting her important documents out of the house.

Again, most dead dogs would have been given more consideration.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you've answered a straight question this time.

I don't see anything disrespectful in Amanda's talking about the practical problems she faced, having been effectively evicted without warning from her home with only the clothes she was wearing. Even faced with horrendous tragedy, people have to continue with the practicalities of existence.

Others have pointed out Amanda's other expressions of her loss of her dear and admired friend, as well as her fears about the unknown (at that time) murderer. You simply do not make your point by focussing out-of-context on something that Amanda typed which doesn't happen to conform to your concept of suitable grieving.

As for helping the police with the investigation, you're being ridiculous. She and Raffaele made themselves available to the police for over 40 hours over the next 3 days, and their goodwill was utterly betrayed. Had they not done so, the police would very likely have selected a different target for their suspicions, and no doubt we would be seeing the same bile being vented against whoever they had chosen as their scapegoat.
 
christianahannah said:
Rinaldi said it a bit differently, but I don't think he stated that it was Raffaele's footprint, just that it was compatible.

It would be interesting to have both experts reports, along with court transcripts, for comparison.
Click to expand...

The thing I find silly about Rinaldi is not this opinion but the opinion that Rudy's footprint can be excluded from the bathmat. I don't give this expert any credibility.
 
Antony said:
I don't see anything disrespectful in Amanda's talking about the practical problems she faced, having been effectively evicted without warning from her home with only the clothes she was wearing. Even faced with horrendous tragedy, people have to continue with the practicalities of existence.

Others have pointed out Amanda's other expressions of her loss of her dear and admired friend, as well as her fears about the unknown (at that time) murderer. You simply do not make your point by focussing out-of-context on something that Amanda typed which doesn't happen to conform to your concept of suitable grieving.
Click to expand...

This seems to me a classic example of how people who aren't trained and careful thinkers can get into a self-reinforcing cycle of confirmation bias. They start off with the belief that Amanda is a horrible, lying murderer and then they read things like her email with that bias, which causes them to cherry-pick out all the lines compatible with their bias while filtering out all the lines which are incompatible, and they end up even more convinced than they started.

Now more convinced, and hence more susceptible to confirmation bias, they start looking at other things like the luminol footprint evidence and by now even the luminol footprint evidence is starting to look good to them... and so it repeats and repeats.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Another interesting observation: The finding 183 is a Rudy's shoeprint, tracking both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA.
Click to expand...
From this, I conclude that he kicked both of their asses.

It was "rough sex" that was the contentious issue, was it not, before the cartwheels became the issue? :p
 
Darth Rotor said:
From this, I conclude that he kicked both of their asses.

It was "rough sex" that was the contentious issue, was it not, before the cartwheels became the issue? :p
Click to expand...

To the dismay of all it was eventually discovered there was no 'rough' or 'hot' sex discussed whilst shopping for unmentionables. She'd been locked out of her house and just wanted a change of undies.
 
Just as a point of clarification: Curatolo's eyewitness testimony is NOT direct evidence. It is circumstantial evidence. In this regard, it's important to note that not all eyewitness testimony is direct evidence - it's only direct if the eyewitness actually witnessed the crime itself in progress. Curatolo did not see (or claim to see) the murder being committed, so his evidence is merely circumstantial. And as such, his testimony is subject to all the scrutiny accorded to circumstantial evidence.

I'm sure all criminal lawyers (and presumably all lawyers with an element of comprehension) would know this already - whether they come from Italy, or (say) California - but I thought I would clarify things for those who might not be familiar with the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.
 
A further point of clarification: the appeal court has NOT limited itself to a "technical" reexamination of just a few points. To think this is to totally misunderstand what took place in the hearings back in December.

The December hearings were merely to establish whether the appeal court wanted/needed to require additional forensic analysis, and/or whether it required further witness testimony. And the appeal court's decision in this area was that it definitely wanted the knife and bra clasp retested, and a fresh evaluation made of the quality and reliability of the original test results. And the court also ruled that it definitely wanted Curatolo to be re-examined. Further to this, the court explicity stated that it reserved judgement as the whether it would require additional testing or testimony, subject to the results of the knife and bra clasp re-eveluation.

The rulings from December had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual scope of the appeal. The appeal will look at every single facet of the case. It will do so based upon the evidence and testimony gathered/presented in the first trial (unless it requests additional testimony or testing). Its therefore completely fallacious to suggest that the December rulings give any indication as to the scope of the appeal.

For example, the court will absolutely look again at the time of death issue. The only question is whether the court will revisit this area based solely upon the evidence and testimony from the first trial (which, incidentally, strongly supports a ToD before 10.30pm in and of itself!), or whether it will ask for further expert testimony on the subject. But it WILL be revisited by the appeal court. And it's the same for everything else: the bathmat footprint, the break-in, the cellphone evidence, the computer evidence, etc,. etc..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom