Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Frank reported that it was essentially crazy glue (cyanoacrylate) fumes plus a dye to look for fingerprints. Dan O. has suggested phenolphthalin (Kastle Meyer test), which has oxidized to phenolphthalein. I am not certain, although I lean slightly toward the latter.

Yeah, I tend to disagree with Frank here, because even the "crack" Perugia forensics team would be hard-pushed to conduct a superglue test on such a large area: they'd essentially have had to place polythene sheeting up over most of the room to create an airtight seal, in order for the glue fumes to work properly. This sort of testing is almost always only done in lab conditions, usually in a specially designed chamber, or a designated testing room for larger objects. My money's firmly on phth.

 

[Antony]

Well then, I'm sure Knox and Sollecito will be home in time for Thanksgiving. Their attorneys must be biding their time, waiting until just the right moment to unleash their demolition of the prosecution's established theory of crime scene staging. Masters of suspense, they truly are. Any day now. I can't wait.

One thing at a time. The latest hearing focussed on the central so-called "evidence": the knife, the bra clasp and Curatolo's testimony. It's now clear that Curatolo was talking about Oct 31, and not Nov 1 at all, while the DNA on the knife has magically disappeared and the bra clasp has been effectively destroyed as evidence by further negligence on the part of the police "experts".

The next stage is an audit of the methods used to obtain the DNA evidence, which will confirm what the innocence side has been saying all along. It's my understanding that Amanda was also convicted of allegedly "staging" the break-in, so that will have to be addressed in due course. I fully expect that the prosecution's claims will melt away even more rapidly than the DNA and "witness" statements.

 

[Dan O.]

My guess is that it was phenolphthalein - a presumptive blood test which turns pink quickly when applied to blood, but which oxidises to the same pink colour in air within a couple of minutes. If it was phth, then the "crack" forensics team didn't know what they were doing applying it over such a broad area - phth tests are usually carried out on small swabbed samples or very small patches, owing to their time sensitivity.

That's what I said way back when I believe we were still on the original thread. You can read about the presumptive blood test on Wikipedia.

If the Italian Cops^(TM) knew what they were doing, we would have Solid evidence in the form of individual photos of the test swatches in the bathroom.

 

[LondonJohn]

One thing at a time. The latest hearing focussed on the central so-called "evidence": the knife, the bra clasp and Curatolo's testimony. It's now clear that Curatolo was talking about Oct 31, and not Nov 1 at all, while the DNA on the knife has magically disappeared and the bra clasp has been effectively destroyed as evidence by further negligence on the part of the police "experts".

The next stage is an audit of the methods used to obtain the DNA evidence, which will confirm what the innocence side has been saying all along. It's my understanding that Amanda was also convicted of allegedly "staging" the break-in, so that will have to be addressed in due course. I fully expect that the prosecution's claims will melt away even more rapidly than the DNA and "witness" statements.

With regard to Curatolo, I think the new clarity is that he doesn't really know what he's talking about at all. I think that the appeal court will completely discount his testimony as entirely unreliable. I don't think he simply got the date wrong (i.e. I don't think he saw Knox and Sollecito over a large portion of the evening, but on 31st Oct rather than 1st Nov). I think he made the entire thing up, and I think I know why he made it up.

BTW, as I've said before, even if the alleged "staging" is never addressed in the appeal, it's still absolutely no bar to Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals. There is NOT a simple causal link between a staged break-in and Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in the murder (although many people would love to believe this to be the case). This is because even if Guede were solely responsible for the crimes (or if he committed them with others as yet unidentified), if he was let into the house by Meredith, then he clearly had a motive to pretend that the culprit was a stranger-burglar.

Imagine that Guede's standing over Meredith's body, thinking what to do next. He realises that if he simply leaves by the front door, the police will quickly conclude that Meredith knew her killer well enough to let him into the house on a night when she was there alone. He'd have easily been able to realise that very few people in Perugia would fit into this category - including him. And given that all the boys from the lower cottage were visibly away, and that many other student friends of Meredith's would also have been away that night, he'd have reasoned that the pool of potential suspects would be pretty small.

Therefore, by staging a break-in, Guede would seek to change the potential pool of suspects away from anyone Meredith actually knew, into any burglar. And that group contains an awful lot of males between 16 and 50 years old. So - even though Guede himself had form for burglary - it would actually make sense for him to fake a break in, since it would potentially lessen police attention on him.

However, all that having been said, I still think that the break-in was real, not staged, and that Guede (or possibly an accomplice of Guede) was the culprit. I am merely pointing out that there's not a strict causal link between a staged break-in and Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in the crime.

 

[Chris C]

The fact that there was any crime scene staging at all points squarely at only one person - Knox. By using Knox as (one of) his alibi(s), Sollecito consequently implicates himself.

Maybe you could bridge your point of view with first a quote of what Sollecito said and how it implicates him with staging the crime. Just showing a lie only implicates that Sollecito lied. Also once again you said crime scene staging was a fact. Where is that evidence? Got pictures of the staging evidence? Got a theory on how they made the window look like it was broken from the outside? Where is that fact your talking about? The only fact is there is no physical proof ever admitted to show it was staged.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you think you missed some important testimony of Nara's?

I don't know. I haven't read what she actually testified to. Have you?

She was on the stand 1 day and it has been reported several places.

So you only have hearsay and second hand knowledge as to what she actually testified to. What exact word did she use to describe the scream?

I don't think the defense had the benefit of the Oggi report 2 years ago and didn't explore these things. I do know they questioned her ability to hear the footsteps/running over leaves and also questioned why she stated the first time she could not tell where the scream came from yet in court said it was from Meredith's flat.

As far as I know they questioned her ability to hear the footsteps/running based on the fact that her windows were closed and her windows were double-pained. Was there any evidence presented at trial that she is "nearly deaf" and "nuts"? If not, why is this "information" just being released now?

They also questioned her statement about reading about the murder in the morning papers which was actually a day later and seeing Amanda and Raffaele standing in a place at a time they were not there.

What was she asked in regard to this? No one other than Frank said she testified to this.

Thank you for the link and yes after the Oggi report and this one I think she is most likely at least a little crazy.

What evidence is there that she is a "little crazy"? Is a "little crazy" a medical or legal term, because this is all about the evidence, right?

 

[Chris C]

You have a point there, although I think it's distracting if the person typing the message can't spell or punctuate or parse grammar correctly. Having said that, I'm not above having a little fun pulling someone up on spelling when they are expressing a particularly obtuse POV.

I think if you want to be taken seriously, then it's worth taking a little effort to make sure you type in good English. My bugbears are the use of the Grocer's apostrophe in plurals, "your" instead of "you're", "it's" instead of "its", "loose" instead of "lose". And if it's someone's name, don't you think it's a matter of courtesy to them to get it right?

I guess if you was speaking directly to the person it's a matter of courtesy. However, I have not bothered to find out what the correct spelling of Hellmann's name is. Regardless if I spell it Helmann, Helman, Hellman, Hellmann does it really matter? If you are posting on this forum and don't know who he is, then that person should probably read more. If you do know who he is, whats the big deal?

 

[Alt+F4]

Regardless if I spell it Helmann, Helman, Hellman, Hellmann does it really matter? If you are posting on this forum and don't know who he is, then that person should probably read more. If you do know who he is, whats the big deal?

Yikes! I agree with you Chris.

 

[Alt+F4]

If the Italian Cops^(TM) knew what they were doing, we would have Solid evidence in the form of individual photos of the test swatches in the bathroom.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Folks on the Internet? Why do you think you are entitled to see evidence in a murder trial in which you have no involvement?

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

If the Italian Cops(TM) knew what they were doing, we would have Solid evidence in the form of individual photos of the test swatches in the bathroom.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Folks on the Internet? Why do you think you are entitled to see evidence in a murder trial in which you have no involvement?

This reminds me of the sig of another poster, who coincidentally takes care of the 'stundies'

"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF"

 

[Alt+F4]

This reminds me of the sig of another poster, who coincidentally takes care of the 'stundies'

"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF"

Proof of what in regard to 9/11? I have relatives that were there in the aftermath, they told me personally what they saw. You have no such knowledge in regard to this murder trial. Do you even read Italian?

No one has yet been put on trial for what happened on 9/11, therefore there is no trial transcript. There is a trial transcript for what happened in this case, you just haven't read it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Who is this "we" you speak of? Folks on the Internet? Why do you think you are entitled to see evidence in a murder trial in which you have no involvement?

Actually yes, evidence that has been presented in court should be publically available. Justice done where the evidence is kept from public scrutiny is justice denied.

 

[babycondor]

Imagine that Guede's standing over Meredith's body, thinking what to do next. He realises that if he simply leaves by the front door, the police will quickly conclude that Meredith knew her killer well enough to let him into the house on a night when she was there alone. He'd have easily been able to realise that very few people in Perugia would fit into this category - including him. And given that all the boys from the lower cottage were visibly away, and that many other student friends of Meredith's would also have been away that night, he'd have reasoned that the pool of potential suspects would be pretty small.

Therefore, by staging a break-in, Guede would seek to change the potential pool of suspects away from anyone Meredith actually knew, into any burglar. And that group contains an awful lot of males between 16 and 50 years old. So - even though Guede himself had form for burglary - it would actually make sense for him to fake a break in, since it would potentially lessen police attention on him.

So after all this brilliant reasoning and crime scene staging, he somehow forgets to flush the toilet and wipe up his bloody prints from the murder scene, and leaves his DNA on Meredith's body?

NOBODY staged a break in. Full stop.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Proof of what in regard to 9/11? I have relatives that were there in the aftermath, they told me personally what they saw. You have no such knowledge in regard to this murder trial. Do you even read Italian?

No one has yet been put on trial for what happened on 9/11, therefore there is no trial transcript. There is a trial transcript for what happened in this case, you just haven't read it.

Oh really?

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh really?

Yeah, really. He was in jail when 9/11 happened. Get it?

 

[platonov]

Proof of what in regard to 9/11? I have relatives that were there in the aftermath, they told me personally what they saw. You have no such knowledge in regard to this murder trial. Do you even read Italian?

No one has yet been put on trial for what happened on 9/11, therefore there is no trial transcript. There is a trial transcript for what happened in this case, you just haven't read it.

Alt+F4

I was referring to the highlighted part of Dan O's post not your response.

As it happens I believe there is enough info about the case/trial to make a judgement, unfortunately most of the repetitive arguments on this thread seem to ignore what we do know in favour of what can only be described as nonsense.

As for my proficiency in Italian - its on the same level as Kevin Lowe or C Dempsey - close to zero. The difference is I acknowledge that fact.

 

[Alt+F4]

Actually yes, evidence that has been presented in court should be publically available.

No, you as an anynomous person shouldn't have the right to read the autopsy report of my murdered loved one and no, you as an anynomous person shouldn't have the right to see the gory photographs of my loved one's dead (possibly naked) body. You have no right to anything but the trial transcript and whatever other information the victim's family wishes to release.

Justice done where the evidence is kept from public scrutiny is justice denied.

No justice denied to AK and RS then as we are constantly being told that all the evidence is out there.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4

I was referring to the highlighted part of Dan O's post not your response.

Ok, sorry I missed that.

As it happens I believe there is enough info about the case/trial to make a judgement,...

I (mostly) side with the court because they are the people who actually heard and saw all the evidence and it's illogical to believe that so many people are involved with a cover-up and/or conspiracy.

As for my proficiency in Italian - its on the same level as Kevin Lowe or C Dempsey - close to zero. The difference is I acknowledge that fact.

As is my proficiency in Italian - zero.

 

[Chris C]

Yikes! I agree with you Chris.

I don't get upset when people misspell part of my name. Between my full first name, middle name and full last name, I got 3 double consonants and a double vowel. Just like I'm sure the judge after all these years is used to people misspelling his last name.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't get upset when people misspell part of my name. Between my full first name, middle name and full last name, I got 3 double consonants and a double vowel. Just like I'm sure the judge after all these years is used to people misspelling his last name.

I have a long name too and over the years have gotten used to it being misspelled, which doesn't bother me as I'm a poor speller myself.

As this is an Internet forum and not folks writing legal briefs or papers regarding the case I don't think misspellings have any bearing on the point a poster is trying to make.