Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

The police found an empty box for Nike Outbreak 2 shoes in Rudy's apartment. The size and sole pattern of these shoes is an exact match for the shoe prints found in the murder room. Rudy admitted to wearing these shoes on the night of the murder. He also said that while in Germany, his disposed of the shoes and clothes he wore that night

Guede has had his sentence and conviction confirmed, I think we can all agree on that? This is Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal, not Guede’s!

 

[Alt+F4]

The police found an empty box for Nike Outbreak 2 shoes in Rudy's apartment. The size and sole pattern of these shoes is an exact match for the shoe prints found in the murder room. Rudy admitted to wearing these shoes on the night of the murder. He also said that while in Germany, his disposed of the shoes and clothes he wore that night

RG also said he:
- had nothing to do with the murder.
- had flirted with Meredith on Halloween and they had set up a date for the next day.
- that he went into the bathroom, listening to loud music with his earphones, that he heard the doorbell ring, and that after about five minutes he heard screaming, that he went out of the bathroom and caught sight from behind of a shorter man standing at the threshold of Kercher's room.

Need I go on with his lies?​

 

[Justinian2]

I would surround myself with friends and co-workers like Amanda, Raffaele and their families. I presume the guilters would surround themsleves with Guede & Mignini clones.

Funny isn't it? The families of Amanda and Raffaele stand by them with a united solidarity I've never seen before. Yet I've never seen anyone hug Guede or Mignini. Alt+F4, give Guede and Mignini a big hug and kisses for all the guilters.

Are people known by their friends and lack of friends?

I've also heard it said that people are known by their enemies. The bigger their enemy, the bigger they are. For many here, the enemy is bad justice. Worldwide, that's a big enemy.

 

[Justinian2]

About the enemies of Amanda:

William Ellery Channing You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.

Benjamin Franklin A wise man learns more from his enemies than a fool from his friends.

Ovid Talk well of your friends and of your enemies say nothing.

Jonathan Swift In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”

 

[RWVBWL]

Dealer Curatolo...

The article states that he was using heroin and dealing cocaine, I have not seen the cocaine reference before but will keep my eyes open for confirmation.

Frank has confirmed that Curatolo said he was asked if he had seen something by the cops and said no (in the comments of his latest post). Frank also said that the prosecution tried to waive Napoleoni but the judge called her to testify anyway. That is interesting and I wonder what information the judge wants to explore.

Hi RoseMontague,
Thanks for the response.
I've known a lot of guys over the years who did drugs. Some surfed, some did not.
Some have died, some get in NA, CA, AA or other kind of rehab and some just keep on usin'.

Some even were dealers themselves. And I've never met a dealer who did not indulge in the product that they sold.

Heck, we used to have an employee at the old surfshop in DogTown that I ran who was sober for 8 years and then got back into shootin' up Meth. That was fun dealin' with, to say the least.
His dealer, a neighborhood chick -(surfer slang for young, adult woman) would even shoot up with him. She would sometimes walk by, all tore up, spaced out but still movin' right along on a walk to nowhere. Sad to see...

My biological father did heroin off and on all his life in between doin' construction work and died of a heroin OD back in 2004. I do know a few things about drugs, users and dealers...

There is no way that Antonio Curatolo saw a guy arguing in the plaza with Amanda on that cold night and then did not tell the cops this in the early afternoon just shortly after Meredith Kercher's body was found.

Keep in mind that this is a very recognisable guy at that, 1 who looked like the star of the Harry Potter movies that anybody who reads the newspaper late at night on a park bench has obviously heard of and would have seen a photo of before.

No officers, nope I did not see anything unusual.

Well, there was a man who looked like Harry Potter and a woman hanging out from exactly 9:27pm onward for a couple of hours, arguing and looking towards the cottage you are working at. But that is not important for you to know, just yet.
Right...

And this same man is the only man I've ever heard of who doesn't dabble in the drugs that he sells?
Sure...

PS+Some of you here know that I share certain personal details to help explain how I formulate my opinion in this brutal murder we discuss.
My Grandpa helped build the Hoover Dam. His son, my biological Dad, helped build this at LAX airport:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_Building
Even though he was pretty good at construction, I always considered my biological dad to be a lying heroin addict SOB.

And so I find it hard to believe when I read of intelligent people in the pro-guilt community who actually believe and defend ol' Antonio Curatolo...

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings everyone,
I did not watch the LifeTime movie about this case we discuss.
However, I did see a trailer that was eventually removed.
There were 2 scenes that have remained ingrained in my brain, so to say. Both have all 3, Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda attacking Meredith as she lay on the floor of her bedroom in this Hollywood recreation, 1 was a close-up of Meredith in her bra as she screams...

I also did not attend the original trial that convicted Raffaele and Amanda.
So I did not get to see the prosecution "conclude its final arguments with a video dramatazation of the murder, complete with sexy avatars of Amanda, Meredith, Raffaele, and Rudy - the women with big breasts and tiny waists ala Lara Croft, the men with broad shoulders and bulging crotches. It was a bizzare film that superimposed these animated figures over real crime scene photo's."*

I have always wondered how in the heck did Rafaelle Sollecito and Amanda Knox not leave ample amounts of DNA and fingerprint evidence like Rudy Guede did in Meredith Kercher's bedroom?

A moment ago, I read this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-insufficient-convict-her.html#ixzz1Hlp8zt3k
by Nick Pisa

At the bottom of the article are the 2 images from the LifeTime movie trailer that has remained etched in my memory. Although it is a Hollywood re-creation, I still do not see how a brutal attack such as what is portrayed here would not leave ample fingerprints or DNA of Amanda and Raffaele, only Rudy.

Yet the Perugian court wants me, a member of a different court, this 1 being the court of public opinion,
to believe that Amanda and Raffaele sellectively cleaned up all traces of their DNA and fingerprints in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, leaving only Rudy's.

As my ol' Grandama Marie used to say to me when I was a youngster: Fiddlestix!


* - Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau, Page 157

 

[colonelhall]

Colonelhall,

Ms. Nadeau wrote, "But, according to Stefanoni and countless forensic experts, 'DNA doesn’t fly,' and as such, contamination is going to be harder to sell to the appellate jury." One of the defense experts said words to the effect that DNA does not have wings but can fly. Does she really believe that contamination and secondary transfer are impossible? Ms. Nadeau is taking these words too literally. Perhaps she could consult with Skeptical Bystander on the subject of "artistic license, symbolism, using fiction to uncover a larger truth, etc."

Ms. Nadeaus' first paragraph puts her and her fellow reporters at the center of the story.

The question is not whether she really believes it, but whether it was said. Nadeau is a reporter and is showing that there are different views regarding the evidence.

Or are you suggesting that reporters should give the impression that there is only one interpretation of the evidence, namely yours?

By the way, do you know if Candace got her seat in the court room?

 

[pilot padron]

Syllogisms and Effective Argument

Aristotle was pretty much universally admired as a *very* persuasive thinker.

He often resorted to use of syllogism to effectively argue:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion.

As I catch up reading this morning, I wonder what Aristotle might think if he were next to me reading arguments such as these:

The Mellox and Sollecito families show solidarity with hugs and kisses which everyone accepts as a good thing
I have never seen Guede/Mignini get a hug or kiss
Conclusion: Amanda/Raffaelle are good (innocent) and Guede/Mignini are Guilty/Bad
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7025285#post7025285

Our Membership Agreement frowns upon importing from other Forums as well as attacking the arguer.
Uncharacteristically from the particular poster, I read this:
"Perhaps she could consult with Skeptical Bystander on the subject of "artistic license, symbolism, using fiction to uncover a larger truth, etc."
Conclusion: Skeptical Bystander is not from another Forum and the minor premise does not attack her as arguer
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7024575#post7024575

ETA:
Still very cognizant of being personally chastised about how factual and accurate statements need be in this community, may I add:
Since I conceded erring in that Raffaele did make 'several' (more than 2) spontaneous statements, please make a cursory scan of 'several' available visual aids showing Prosecutor Mignini 'several' times (*almost always*) getting the ethnic hug and double air kiss from 'several' people.

 

[Justinian2]

Aristotle was pretty much universally admired as a *very* persuasive thinker.

He often resorted to use of syllogism to effectively argue:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion.

As I catch up reading this morning, I wonder what Aristotle might think if he were next to me reading arguments such as these:

The Mellox and Sollecito families show solidarity with hugs and kisses which everyone accepts as a good thing
I have never seen Guede/Mignini get a hug or kiss
Conclusion: Amanda/Raffaelle are good (innocent) and Guede/Mignini are Guilty/Bad http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7025285#post7025285

Our Membership Agreement frowns upon importing from other Forums as well as attacking the arguer.
Uncharacteristically from the particular poster, I read this:
"Perhaps she could consult with Skeptical Bystander on the subject of "artistic license, symbolism, using fiction to uncover a larger truth, etc."
Conclusion: Skeptical Bystander is not from another Forum and the minor premise does not attack her as arguer
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7024575#post7024575

ETA:
Still very cognizant of being personally chastised about how factual and accurate statements need be in this community, may I add:
Since I conceded erring in that Raffaele did make 'several' (more than 2) spontaneous statements, please make a cursory scan of 'several' available visual aids showing Prosecutor Mignini 'several' times (*almost always*) getting the ethnic hug and double air kiss from 'several' people.

"In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it" - Jonathan Swift.

My syllogism: The premise was that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent and that Mignini and Guede are guilty. My conclusion was that some people don't know how to pick the obvious good guys. That goes for governments too.

My syllogism extents not only to good guys and bad guys but to good and bad characteristics as well. More specifically, some of the good charactistics of the Knox family have been attacked offering further proof that the guilters don't know what is good and bad and would have difficulty in choosing their friends.

If I am wrong, then the guilters would be in this forum. Hmmm...

 

[Supernaut]

The clubs and discos in Perugia, Nov 01 2007.

I'll tell you what really got my goat reading reports of last Saturday's hearing;

Comodi said that the testimony of 4 (?) club owners who confirmed that their places were closed on Nov 1 2007 and hence that there were no shuttle buses serving them is "useless" because there are "many discotheques" whose owners "had not been heard"

So produce them, b****!

Un-%$£~?*#-believable!

 

[RoseMontague]

Aristotle was pretty much universally admired as a *very* persuasive thinker.

He often resorted to use of syllogism to effectively argue:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion.

As I catch up reading this morning, I wonder what Aristotle might think if he were next to me reading arguments such as these:

The Mellox and Sollecito families show solidarity with hugs and kisses which everyone accepts as a good thing
I have never seen Guede/Mignini get a hug or kiss
Conclusion: Amanda/Raffaelle are good (innocent) and Guede/Mignini are Guilty/Bad
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7025285#post7025285

Our Membership Agreement frowns upon importing from other Forums as well as attacking the arguer.
Uncharacteristically from the particular poster, I read this:
"Perhaps she could consult with Skeptical Bystander on the subject of "artistic license, symbolism, using fiction to uncover a larger truth, etc."
Conclusion: Skeptical Bystander is not from another Forum and the minor premise does not attack her as arguer
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7024575#post7024575

ETA:
Still very cognizant of being personally chastised about how factual and accurate statements need be in this community, may I add:
Since I conceded erring in that Raffaele did make 'several' (more than 2) spontaneous statements, please make a cursory scan of 'several' available visual aids showing Prosecutor Mignini 'several' times (*almost always*) getting the ethnic hug and double air kiss from 'several' people.

There is nothing in the MA that says you can't link or quote from other forums as long as it is on topic and does not violate one of the other rules.

I agree with Chris that what Nadeau said in her first paragraph "puts her and her fellow reporters at the center of the story." The quote from Nadeau was:

As the drama played out on the stand, Knox’s tense supporters jeered and pointed, trying to intimidate journalists seated in the public viewing area through guttural growls and stern warnings to “write the truth.”

I would think that I would have seen some other journalist write about this intimidation and guttural growls and stern warnings. If anybody has a link to a similar reporting of this, I would love to see it.

As far as Nadeau's quote about the DNA goes:

But, according to Stefanoni and countless forensic experts, “DNA doesn’t fly,” and as such, contamination is going to be harder to sell to the appellate jury.

I would also like to see just a few hundred of these countless forensic experts that have used the same quote. My search turned up Stefanoni and Alberto Intini, both comments related to this case as well as many who have quoted these two. Intini has also said there has to be direct contact to transfer DNA and even to my non-expert knowledge, that is untrue, especially concerning very minute amounts of DNA considered to be LCN.

http://www.google.com/search?q=dna+...rmd=ivns&ei=WNSRTdC2EYi3twfH5dxf&start=0&sa=N
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ppeal-homeless-mans-contradictory-testimony/#
http://fantasyfreddy.com/cblog/index.php?/archives/20101025.html

As far as the use of "artistic license, symbolism, using fiction to uncover a larger truth, etc.", I use this method all the time and I try to make it clear when I do so as well as when humor and irony are employed. It can be a very effective way to make a point. It can be used in a hurtful manner as well. Perhaps Chris feels the DNA doesn't fly is one such remark that was said sarcastically simply because it doesn't "fly". LOL. It seems to me that taken in context, both Intini and Stefanoni were serious.

As far as Mignini and his kisses go, I think he is cute and only for that one reason I believe he could not possibly do anything remotely harmful to anyone. I invite him to kiss me quite often as I talk to my computer screen while reading about this case.

 

[Fuji]

Yes, a common knife. How would it look if, of all people, either Knox or Sollecito went about town buying a large kitchen knife to replace the discarded one. You must remember they were being followed by investigators. It was a long weekend, a very small town, few shops to buy one.

They were stuck with the knife, so they washed and brushed it as best they could and put it back in the drawer with the other twokitchen knives and silverware, also belonging to the rented apartment.

If the knife was used in the murder, I fail to see what is so unbelievable about Sollecito keeping it afterwards. In that case, Knox and/or Sollecito cleaned the knife and they appear to have been quite skillful at it. They almost got away with keeping one of the murder weapons in plain sight of the investigation (and of course, with the appeals still ongoing, they may yet get away with it, although I doubt discarding the knife as an item of admissible evidence will result in their respective acquittals).

Sure, if that's the case, then Knox and/or Sollecito seem a bit overly self-assured of their own ability to destroy forensic evidence. But it hardly appears foolishly reckless to have done so. If a few dozen more cells had been scrubbed clean, then the knife would not even be an issue at all...

 

[bri1]

I'll tell you what really got my goat reading reports of last Saturday's hearing;

Comodi said that the testimony of 4 (?) club owners who confirmed that their places were closed on Nov 1 2007 and hence that there were no shuttle buses serving them is "useless" because there are "many discotheques" whose owners "had not been heard"

So produce them, b****!

Un-%$£~?*#-believable!

Very good point, Supernaut.
I pointed out (think it was maybe over on Injustice forum) that she should produce them and was urged to wait patiently until the next hearing (last Saturday).
But I haven't heard any mention of her calling a disco owner / bus driver to testify. Does anyone know whether this happened? I also wondered how many out of town discos there actually were operating in November 2007.
The prosecution are not actually very good at providing proof of the claims they make in court (or, more commonly, to the press)!

 

[piktor]

So he would rather risk a murder rap than pay the landlord for the cost of a missing knife? I don't think so.

The problem for Sollecito and Knox was the police were on their case, forget the landlord.

The police would check with the landlord about knives, etc. How would it look if police found out there was a missing knife at Sollecito's apartment?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

day tripper

The problem for Sollecito and Knox was the police were on their case, forget the landlord.

The police would check with the landlord about knives, etc. How would it look if police found out there was a missing knife at Sollecito's apartment?

Piktor,

Why not buy another knife during their day trip on November 2? Why not tell the landlord they lost/broke the knife and offer to pay him or her for it?

 

[bri1]

If the knife was used in the murder, I fail to see what is so unbelievable about Sollecito keeping it afterwards. In that case, Knox and/or Sollecito cleaned the knife and they appear to have been quite skillful at it. They almost got away with keeping one of the murder weapons in plain sight of the investigation (and of course, with the appeals still ongoing, they may yet get away with it, although I doubt discarding the knife as an item of admissible evidence will result in their respective acquittals).

Sure, if that's the case, then Knox and/or Sollecito seem a bit overly self-assured of their own ability to destroy forensic evidence. But it hardly appears foolishly reckless to have done so. If a few dozen more cells had been scrubbed clean, then the knife would not even be an issue at all...

Why keep it? I've lived in a lot of rental apartments, and even if this detailed an inventory exists, the idea that before you move in you (and a representative of the landlord) go through it to check the inventory against actual contents this closely is unrealistic.
If the police got a copy of the inventory from RS' landlord, to check for 'missing' knives, RS could have very easily, and believably, argued that there was no such knife when he moved in. The fact that he signed an inventory document means almost nothing.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I apologize if this has been addressed in the past but I cannot help but wonder how everyone knows what Raffaelle's lease included. Do we know for sure the apartment was furnished? Do we know for sure the utensils were a part of the furnishings? Mostly do we know for sure there was an "inventory list" for that particular apartment?

To have a theory where murderers disposed of their clothing somewhere but did not also dispose of the murder weapon at the same time because of some inventory list that may or may not exist and may or may not include utensils is extremely bizarre.

 

[Kestrel]

I apologize if this has been addressed in the past but I cannot help but wonder how everyone knows what Raffaelle's lease included. Do we know for sure the apartment was furnished? Do we know for sure the utensils were a part of the furnishings? Mostly do we know for sure there was an "inventory list" for that particular apartment?

To have a theory where murderers disposed of their clothing somewhere but did not also dispose of the murder weapon at the same time because of some inventory list that may or may not exist and may or may not include utensils is extremely bizarre.

The prosecution theory also requires two knives, therefore they must have disposed of one weapon and kept a second?

It really is a lot simpler with one knife and one murderer. My take is the Rudy tossed the one and only knife and the same time he dumped his clothing and shoes.

 

[RoseMontague]

I was reviewing the pictures from the latest hearing and I was wondering about these. What do you think they are looking at here?

http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/photos/low/MILESTONE-ED-00Y1V2
http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/photos/show/MILESTONE-ED-00Y1VF

This next one, Raffaele looks very happy. Interesting color choice.

http://www.daylife.com/photo/03K8bVxbfO8Yo?q=Amanda+Knox

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I was reviewing the pictures from the latest hearing and I was wondering about these. What do you think they are looking at here?

http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/photos/low/MILESTONE-ED-00Y1V2
http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/photos/show/MILESTONE-ED-00Y1VF

It is an aerial view of some building with cars in the parking lot.