Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

IDK. That's confusing. The photos of the sprayed bathroom I have are dated Dec 18th. The pink bathroom photos were taken Dec 18th, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/what-the-bathroom-really-looked-like-to-amanda-t905.html

That photo was taken on the 18th. But if you look closely, you will notice that it is not the same photo. We can't yet say for certain that the press photo was taken on the 18th, only that photos of the pink bathroom were taken on the 18th which may be as close as we'll get unless you have more.

I suspect I may know what happened here. Going through the Matteini report caused me to recall an old discussion elsewhere on the genesis of that picture and the claim the bathroom looked like that when Amanda saw it, which was printed in the Telegraph article. The Matteini Report doesn't actually say the bathroom was sprayed with blood, however at the bottom of page four it starts with this, referring to the murder room:

[bottom of page 4] … the door, once opened, revealed an astonishing scene, insofar as the room was found in total disarray, with blood stains everywhere, on the floor and on the walls, and furthermore from underneath the eiderdown of the bed, a foot was visible.

I also seem to recall something to the effect that when reporters were first getting news about this that the police would helpfully issue summaries of events, I think might have been passed out by Monica Napoleoni. They'd include salacious lines and often incorrect information. I wonder if this didn't begin by either a reporter misreading the Matteini Report or a police press release incorrectly noting the bathroom had been sprayed down with blood, perhaps by someone who'd seen the chemically treated bathroom and didn't know the whole story?

Thus the legend of the blood-soaked bathroom began, compounded when that picture was released a month or two later without explanation. Whether that happened on purpose or was just another example of 'constructive incompetence' is the question in my mind....

 

[platonov]

'evidence' - Did "The Machine" testify ?

odeed,

Do you care to discuss "The Machine's" take on the mixed DNA? She wrote, "The mixed blood samples are perhaps the strongest and most damning of all the physical evidence in the case."

'evidence' - Did "The Machine" testify ??

I thought I had already cleared up your confusion over Col. Garofano last year and now you bring up another poster on another* forum !

* Or is this one of the many posts/posters here that are invisible to most of us

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Machine on mixed DNA and on contamination

'evidence' - Did "The Machine" testify ??

I thought I had already cleared up your confusion over Col. Garofano last year and now you bring up another poster on another* forum !

* Or is this one of the many posts/posters here that are invisible to most of us

platonov,

Both you and anonymous commenter The Machine are confused about Colonel Garofano, not I. I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss The Machine's "theories" on the mixed DNA. Some time ago I discussed in one of the main Knox/Sollecito threads why her rhetorical question on DNA contamination was misleading and ill-informed. Not much has changed with respect to her understanding of forensics in the intervening time.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I can't help noticing that one side of this discussion makes their points in simple declarative sentences that are easy to understand (even for simpletons such as myself) while the other side seems to want to make their points as difficult as possible to figure out, couching them in obfuscatory language or directing people towards links which lead to other links which lead to yet more links which end up saying something apparently quite different.

Why is that, do you think?

Not to mention overuse of highlights and emoticons. An independent clause or two followed by a period wouldn't hurt either sometimes.

 

[Fine]

"On the night of November 1st, she left me to visit friends at Le Chic."

Notice that if November 1st = Halloween...............the statement would have been both true and Amanda would have "induced" Raffaele to say it.

And if Raffaele had, mistakenly, believed that November 1st = Halloween, he would have believed the statement to be true and would have thought Amanda "unduced" him to say it.

Of course, no Italian guy would believe that November 1st = Halloween!!! Err,... except for Curatolo? See: Meredith Murdered On Halloween

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

'evidence' - Did "The Machine" testify ??

I thought I had already cleared up your confusion over Col. Garofano last year and now you bring up another poster on another* forum !

* Or is this one of the many posts/posters here that are invisible to most of us

I too see no point in discussing Machine's delusions. Stafanoni didn't say anything about mixed blood. Reason why the DNA traces she tested are mixed is obvious to any rational person who has seen the collection of those.

 

[lane99]

...one side of this discussion makes their points in simple declarative sentences that are easy to understand...while the other side seems to want to make their points as difficult as possible to figure out...

Why is that, do you think?

Not to mention overuse of highlights and emoticons. An independent clause or two followed by a period wouldn't hurt either sometimes.

Why? Couldn't say for sure.

But my working theory presupposes that the circus must be in town.

 

[Poppy1016]

I started following this case early on. My first impression was that AK and RS were guilty. But I decided to read about both sides of the issue. The first thing that raised doubts for me was when the police declared case closed. That and seeing that AK's was posted on the wall of shame. All this before she was even a true suspect on trial. It started me on the path thinking that the police had jumped the gun, hoping they had quickly solved the case. Common sense then showed me that evidence was invented to fit the premature conclusion of guilt. Like Matthew Best stated, clear statements from those believing in innocence easily outweighed the confusing and false statements being made by many who believed in guilt. Common sense made it easy for me to see that a great injustice had been done.

 

[pilot padron]

Not so common 'common sense'

I started following this case early on. Like Matthew Best stated, clear statements from those believing in innocence easily outweighed the confusing and false statements being made by many who believed in guilt. Common sense made it easy for me to see that a great injustice had been done.

Then I am sure your 'common sense' might also tell you something else.

Matthew Best never stated "clear statements from those believing in innocence easily outweigh....." in his above 'argument'

To toss out terminology often used on opponents here; your "confirmation bias" about innocence is showing.
Your unjustified conclusion and/or misstatement defining which side makes 'clear statements' that made it so easy for you to "see that a great injustice had been done" is in itself obfuscatory as well as presumptive and erroneous .

 

[LondonJohn]

Then I am sure your 'common sense' might also tell you something else.

Matthew Best never stated "clear statements from those believing in innocence easily outweigh....." in his above 'argument'

To toss out terminology often used on opponents here; your "confirmation bias" about innocence is showing.
Your unjustified conclusion and/or misstatement defining which side makes 'clear statements' that made it so easy for you to "see that a great injustice had been done" is in itself obfuscatory as well as presumptive and erroneous .

Q.E.D.

 

[Danceme]

A discussion was going on about Raffaele's differing versions of his statements, Kaosium goes off and finds the relevant Matteini translation which was barely discussed before Katody chimes in twice to try and change the subject. First asking pilot why Massei rejected the postals arrival time and sweatshirts, shoe prints et al., pilot posts again about the statements and Katody again asks him about the postals. LJ posted on topic. Then Kaosium changes the subject again to Amanda's statements being made under duress. Then lo and behold halides decides to ask odeed about the Machine's take on the mixed DNA. Kaosium then brings up the pink bathroom again. Katody discusses cell towers.

The interesting discussion which began on Raffaele's statements got overwhelmed and Matthew Best thinks the innocentisti are always clear and concise! My head hurts.

 

[platonov]

A discussion was going on about Raffaele's differing versions of his statements, Kaosium goes off and finds the relevant Matteini translation which was barely discussed before Katody chimes in twice to try and change the subject. First asking pilot why Massei rejected the postals arrival time and sweatshirts, shoe prints et al., pilot posts again about the statements and Katody again asks him about the postals. LJ posted on topic. Then Kaosium changes the subject again to Amanda's statements being made under duress. Then lo and behold halides decides to ask odeed about the Machine's take on the mixed DNA. Kaosium then brings up the pink bathroom again. Katody discusses cell towers.

The interesting discussion which began on Raffaele's statements got overwhelmed and Matthew Best thinks the innocentisti are always clear and concise! My head hurts.

Not quite - the discussion began when I, while dealing with Rolfes fatuous 'what was she smoking' argument, referred in a ps to London John's (& Kevin Lowe's and others) fatuous 'he wasn't sure if she went out after he fell asleep' argument and it cartwheeled from there

mea culpa

 

[Danceme]

Paraphrasing the translations Kaosium posted.

At the review hearing R says he was at his house by 20 or20:30, ate with A, went to sleep together and woke around 10am.

November 5th interview - at the cottage till 18:00, went to town centre with A. A left to meet friends at le chic, R went home, went on computer, A back by around 1am. This is described as rebutting his previous version on the premise A convinced him to "refer to untrue circumstances".

Prison diary Nov. 7 - talks of confused memories, doesn't remember how long A was absent but doubts she was. Is sure she slept with him that night though. He muses on how the court said he gave 3 versions and the only difference he finds is that A brought him to say crap in the 2nd version, that she had gone out to le chic. Says agin he doesn't remember how long she was absent.

Prison diary Nov. 12 - says A very likely with him all night, never leaving.

He did not confuse anything with Halloween as Fine likes to think. He tells that story with a lot more detail. He was at his friend Francisco's graduation, stayed at his friend Paolo's house, later met A and passed the day with her, had supper. Then she left to go downtown painted like a cat. He goes out later, painted as well, meets up with A and they went home right away and watched a film.

Any comments?

 

[Danceme]

You're probably right platanov, it started a little earlier with your posts. Funny how it derailed so quickly though, it was just getting interesting

 

[Kaosium]

It could be someone's trying to change the subject

Better in these situations to drop it - No

Thanks Fine. I was aware that Sollecito had spoken before Judge Matteini at his appearance in court on November 8th. I'm just not aware that it has ever been established that Sollecito claimed that Knox left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd. And I'm still not aware that this fact has ever been established.

No, LondonJohn was exactly right! I'd forgotten that part too, what I recalled was that it wasn't relevant as it sounded like he was talking about the day before, and the cops had confused him, or perhaps he just told them what they wanted so they'd go bug Amanda. I got that by taking into account what he said in his diary as well, as it's ambiguous what he means by what caused him to tell them a 'load of crap.'

Raffaele said something about the village center when talking about 9-1, not that Amanda had left his apartment. That's the 'load of crap' from page 7 of the report.

He refuses to confirm before Matteini that she went out, saying he couldn't remember for sure. That's the part from Page 9:

he added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not

Add to that this additional information from "Murder in Italy:"

"Secondly he'd said Amanda had gone out, but now he thought that, too, was wrong. Once the police left him alone, he wasn't sure she ever left the building.

'So did she go out?' the judge asked.

'I am not certain.'

'You can't remember if Amanda went out or not?'

'Seriously Your Honor, she went out the night before and other nights, so I don't remember exactly.'

'Answer me, I'm not interested in other nights. I want to know if Amanda went out that night.'

'Non posso. Non posso.' I can't. I can't.

'You have only three options,' the exasperated judge told Raffaele: 'Yes. No. I don't remember.'

'I don't remember exactly.'"

So despite what he told the cops, Raffaele refused to confirm it before Matteini, and the most he would say was he wasn't sure if she went out. He recanted. It was the cops who put that idea there, he'd never considered it before they insisted upon it. Do you know what else they insisted on that he also recanted? That he called the caribinieri after the Postal Police arrived. As you know, they lost that one in court, as if you correlate the time stamp on the camera and adjust it properly it shows the police arriving after the time on the phone records.

If they could confuse him on when he called the cops when there's hard evidence he did before they arrived, they could confuse him as to whether Amanda left, after all the poor kid is stoned and has no idea this is going to get either of them charged with murder. He has no reason to think they're lying when they're insisting either, he probably goes along because he figures they must be right. Did you expect him to argue with them?

 

[LondonJohn]

I too see no point in discussing Machine's delusions. Stafanoni didn't say anything about mixed blood. Reason why the DNA traces she tested are mixed is obvious to any rational person who has seen the collection of those.

I keep seeing people trying to make the following argument: "Ah, but what about that spot of blood on the sink tap (faucet)? That contained only Knox's DNA, so it has to have been Knox's blood! And, what's more, it has to have been deposited on the night of the murder, since Knox herself stated that there had been no blood on the tap the previous day!"

Well, this would be a good argument.... if there had actually been any blood on the tap. In fact, there was no visible blood on the tap on 2nd November 2007. The front portion of the tap appears to have been somewhat randomly swabbed by the forensics team - and the fact that it yielded Knox's DNA merely means that it's likely that Knox deposited DNA there either through touching the tap at some point, or by rinsing out her mouth after brushing her teeth.

We know that there was no blood on the tap through the video and photos taken by the police on the 2nd or 3rd November 2007. This photographic/video evidence was taken prior to any swabbing of the bathroom - as is evidenced by the presence of unswabbed visible blood elsewhere such as in the plughole of the bidet.

Here are photos of the sink tap (faucet), showing no blood present:




and of the bidet, showing pink/red diluted blood round the chrome plughole:




To add further to this point, the Massei Report itself clearly omits any reference to "blood" when discussing the swab taken from the front portion of the sink faucet (tap):

In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim's blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces "of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour" (page 76) which also came from the victim; a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.

(Massei, p192, English trans, my bolding)


To summarise: there was no visible blood on the front part of the sink tap (faucet). The forensics team decided to swab there anyhow, and the swab yielded Knox's DNA. Since I'm pretty certain that no presumptive or confirmatory tests for blood were conducted on the front of the sink tap, I feel confident in asserting that the Knox DNA found there was most likely from either hand contact or from gum lining cells spat out when rinsing her mouth - either of which activity could clearly have innocently occurred at any time during Knox's time in the cottage prior to the murder.

 

[platonov]

You're probably right platanov, it started a little earlier with your posts. Funny how it derailed so quickly though, it was just getting interesting

Funny is one way of putting it - how do you think fatuous arguments can survive and be reintroduced over and over without this kind of trolling and tag-teaming.

What's funny is that anyone thinks it isn't transparent or a hallmark of CTs.

Check out the link odeed posted earlier and read a page or 2 - very revealing.

 

[platonov]

No sale here

No, LondonJohn was exactly right! I'd forgotten that part too,

<snip>

No London John was wrong as usual. [I hadn't ]

Here is my original post, again.

<snip>

On the night of the 5th RS 'admits' his earlier alibi story [which he says was AK's idea ] was 'a load of BS' and now claims that AK was out between 9pm and 1 am* on the night of the murder but he was at (his) home.
* Note - not that he wasn't sure if she went out after he fell asleep as London John and others have claimed ~ 46 times despite being corrected several times.

& LJ's response

Are you sure that this claim of Sollecito's that Knox was not in his apartment between 9pm and 1am wasn't an erroneous reference to the night before, when Knox went to a Halloween party without Sollecito?

Can you also point me towards the point in the first trial where testimony was introduced that had Sollecito placing Knox outside his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of 1st/2nd November?

That's what I mean by transparent.

That might work for Rolfe and you guys but no sale here


ps The fact that RS refused to confirm this 'betrayal' [out between 9pm and 1 am] before the Judge on the 8th is hardly news to even you Kaosium I hope ?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Katody chimes in twice to try and change the subject. First asking pilot why Massei rejected the postals arrival time and sweatshirts, shoe prints et al., pilot posts again about the statements and Katody again asks him about the postals.

Well, my subject is independent and earlier. And so far causes pilot's swift retreat all the time
pilot made very bold statements about the postals (and then lies in general). I just can't wait for him to explain why he disagrees with Massei (and reason and logic too, this time, however strange Massei looks in company of those terms ) So far he hides head in sand and plays dumb, unable to support what he said, for obvious reasons and unable to backtrack (for emotional reasons I suppose).

 

[LondonJohn]

Funny is one way of putting it - how do you think fatuous arguments can survive and be reintroduced over and over without this kind of trolling and tag-teaming.

What's funny is that anyone thinks it isn't transparent or a hallmark of CTs.

Check out the link odeed posted earlier and read a page or 2 - very revealing.

Funnily enough, I don't see any "trolling and tag-teaming"* going on in relation to this particular point. Instead, I see a pretty good refutation of your core point. You have no idea how or why Sollecito made this fleeting, confused and momentary adjustment to his recollection of events. Furthermore (and far more importantly), you have no idea why this potentially extremely damaging piece of evidence (for Knox at least, and also probably for Sollecito) was never presented in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito.

*And you wouldn't be accusing other JREF members of engaging in such behaviour, would you.....?