Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

A court of law disagrees.

All because of a large bag.

 

[katy_did]

It sounds like it can't be used as evidence exonerating Amanda, as the start of the machine cycle doesn't have any independent source. What about the computer? Wasn't Meredith's computer one of the ones wrecked by the Perugia police?

I type this not as one doubting Amanda's innocence, but trying to gather just how many different indications there are of an attack beginning immediately after Meredith's return home.

Yes, I agree about the washing machine evidence; not something that could be used in court, since there's no independent verification for it. As for the computer, I know that Meredith's was one of those damaged originally, but for some reason I thought they'd managed to restore it. I had a quick look through Massei and the appeals and couldn't find anything to confirm that, though, so I could well be wrong (you would think they'd have made it a priority to restore it, but...).

 

[Onofarar]

He's a famous CTer, apparently.

Glad to see that you don't make ad homimen attacks.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

All because of a large bag.

No, because of judge Giancarlo Massei, deputy judge Beatrice Cristiani and six lay judges. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

[tsig]

tsig,

I was threatened once. A second time (different individual) the threat was more subtle, but still clear enough. Both are in the first Knox thread (in which you participated), and I made specific reference to them in one of the auxiliary threads, possibly in forum community. The husband of a member here was harassed.

Links?

 

[Kestrel]

Can someone put me straight on the end-of-cycle washing machine? How do we know it would have been ready to be unloaded when Meredith came in?

Contrary to rumors spread shortly after the crime, the washing machine was not running or warm when the police arrived. It was full of Meredith's wet clothes ready to be taken out to dry. None of the clothes Meredith wore the night she was murdered were in the machine.

Meredith had been gone for over three hours. If she started the machine before leaving for dinner, it would have been ready when she came home. It's possible she simply ignored the wet laundry, but I find that unlikely for a young lady that dresses well.

Meredith could have loaded and started the machine after getting home. But it seems unlikely that she would have done so without taking off her jacket. And why wouldn't she have tried calling her mother again?

I have seen speculation that the killer started the washing machine. That would make sense if it was an attempt to remove trace evidence pointing to the killer on the clothes the victim was wearing. But why wash other clothing belonging to the victim?

 

[RandyN]

AK made reference to the wash machine being loaded by MK shortly after MK woke up late on Nov 1. She showered, etc as RS and AK ate lunch. In court it is circumstantial evidence. Realistically, I agree with Rolfe...its meaningless. I have started laundry and completely forgot about it for days, requiring another run thru the wash cycle.

Is there some debate starting as to whether or not persons are attacked by guilter sites? Just go to TJMK or PMF you can find plenty of such attacks and also the planning of such attacks. Today Kermit @ TJMK posts another rambling rant with large photo about some news article and reporter who dared write a favorable (and true) article in some magazine.

Recently I remember an attack being launched at PMF against a teacher in Hawaii. They put up the address and info to contact the principle of this school.

Just try to get a fact posted at Wiki about this case that leans towards innocence.

Come on guilters....at least own up to your nutty ways. They are posted to sites that can be read after all.

 

[Rolfe]

Such as the "moderator" of the Per-woo-gia Files website who seems to be infatuated with Rudy Guede and apparently fantasizes about Guede coming to live with him when he is released from prison.

If true, that has to be about the most disturbing thing I ever heard.

Rolfe.

 

[Danceme]

The picture of Meredith's hand show her fingernails were short but certainly not too short. It seems entirely possible there would be DNA there if she had only managed to scratch her attacker. I had always pictured them down to the quick.

 

[Danceme]

Many of them seem to be lonely, depressed and, most decidingly, bitter people who envy the attention that Knox gets and are lashing out.

Then you have the groupies (that most high profile cases attract). Such as the "moderator" of the Per-woo-gia Files website who seems to be infatuated with Rudy Guede and apparently fantasizes about Guede coming to live with him when he is released from prison.

Where did you get that from? Sounds like you're exaggerating or deliberately maligning. Can you post the proof anyone is fantasizing about Guede coming to live with him please.

If true, that has to be about the most disturbing thing I ever heard.

Rolfe.

Rolfe, I really don't think this is true at all. Lane99 should post her proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

The picture of Meredith's hand show her fingernails were short but certainly not too short. It seems entirely possible there would be DNA there if she had only managed to scratch her attacker. I had always pictured them down to the quick.

But if Meredith had been clawing at her attacker(s) with enough force to accumulate genetic material (skin cells, hair follicles, possibly blood) under her fingernails, then one would expect two things: The assailant(s) would have visible fingernail marks on their body, and Meredith would have significantly more defensive wounds.

There's a fallacy put around by many pro-guilt commentators that Meredith's body was covered in bruising and other marks which were clearly suggestive of restraint by multiple assailants. But this is complete nonsense. The autopsy report states that apart from the stab wounds and choke hold marks on the neck, the other injury to the body was actually very slight (my bolding):

There were no noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen.

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response.

A small, very slight patch of colour was noticed on the anterior inner surface of the left thigh. Another bruise was noted on the anterior surface, in the middle third of the right leg.

The doctor also stated that, after sectioning the corpse, he noted at the level of the head "a very slight area of bruising" in the region just below the top of the head;

(Massei, p112, English trans)


In other words, there was no extensive bruising, and only very slight evidence of very mild defensive wounds. If Meredith had been being forcibly restrained by one or two people, while a third attacked her, there would have been extensive bruising at the hold points (most likely including the wrists or upper arms). And I would argue that if Meredith had at any stage had her arms free enough to have been clawing at people (all of whom apparently had knives....), she would very probably have received significant knife wounds to her hands and forearms.

The autopsy evidence all suggests that Meredith was essentially restrained by just one attacker, who did not hold her firmly by the wrists, elbows or upper arms at any time. Rather, the evidence suggests that the only real point of forcible contact was to the neck. I believe that this is wholly consistent with a single attacker using non-contact means (the threat of a knife and threatening language) to force Meredith into a position of submission, and then restraining her around the neck while he initiated a sexual assault.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where did you get that from? Sounds like you're exaggerating or deliberately maligning. Can you post the proof anyone is fantasizing about Guede coming to live with him please.



Rolfe, I really don't think this is true at all. Lane99 should post her proof.

It's not relevant to the case discussion either. I happen to have certain views on the state of mind of many of the pro-guilt commentators. But these views don't impact on how I approach the argument. If anyone could present a cogent, logical proof of guilt with supporting evidence, I'd readily change my stance to guilt - regardless of who else resides in the pro-guilt community.

But even though it's not relevant to the debate, I'd suggest that there might be a clear correlation between 1) a stubborn adherence to a pro-guilt position in this case and 2) a particular underlying state of mind. The recent ostrich-like behaviour of many people in regard to Curatolo's meltdown and the likely outcome of the DNA report is a pretty good case in point.

Just sayin'....

 

[Rolfe]

The autopsy evidence all suggests that Meredith was essentially restrained by just one attacker, who did not hold her firmly by the wrists, elbows or upper arms at any time. Rather, the evidence suggests that the only real point of forcible contact was to the neck.

So much for the two-hour torture session that caused all digestive processes to halt in their tracks....

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

A New Blog

Steve Moore has a new blog. For those unaware, he's the FBI veteran of 25 years who looked into the case and came to the conclusion Raffaele and Amanda had nothing to do with it and started campaigning on their behalf. His latest post is on the Daily Beast and Barbara Nadeau, pointing out just how badly this particular media outlet has served its readers regarding this case, and actually served to harm innocents in an attempt to carve out a 'niche' in the American media.

I think this article, which I was re-introduced to whilst waiting for updates from her 'twitter' account on the courts proceedings, pretty much sums up how completely snookered she was, and still is, by the prosecution in Perugia. In this piece she's strutting about how she got it 'right' and (most of) the rest of the American media got it 'wrong,' however I think what she produces as evidence of her contention just goes to show how gullible she is.

The two excerpts she claims suggested to the prosecution, and presumably her, evidence of a "darker, more enigmatic personality" or "a vixen with dark impulses" are either taken so completely out of context, or on the face of them so innocuous, it beggars belief a person wouldn't wonder about anyone who drew those conclusions from that material. The first one, as one might have gathered from the title, is about a boy struggling with the realization his brother has done Something Awful. There's nothing 'cavalier' about how it's presented except by the villain of the story. Suggesting that because the theme of the story condemned it that really meant Amanda sought such experiences is so insipid it defies understanding. Even Nadeau implies she might not find it compelling evidence of the picture they were painting, which ought to have been a big thwack with the cluestick!

The other is similar, I fail to see how kissing fingers implies anything dark and dangerous in the slightest; I suspect it merely reveals something about whoever read that into it. I'd say 'vaguely lurid' is about as far as anyone could go with that if they were looking for it, I think 'innocently allusionary' is a better description, but whatever. What should have set off massive alarm bells with her is if they are basing their portrait off drivel like this, there is probably something very wrong with their theories. It's hardly like this is an isolated or extreme example if one goes through the various 'theories' of the crime and 'motives' produced by the prosecution. One actually sent to (and rejected) by the Italian Supreme Court suggested comics books and hash motivated Raffaele and Amanda to murder. A cursory look at the theorist's past would also reveal a history of bizarre hypotheses not supportable by facts. It was also apparent the pursuit of them was being punished.

I think the last part of the article is the most telling though. She then goes through a laundry list of reasons she didn't like or trust the people presenting alternative information about Amanda Knox, not realizing how petty and irrelevant they are compared to the idiot assumptions of the prosecution and the litany of lies and mistakes presented throughout the case to the media and courts that is obvious to the most casual observer. Reading through them suggests that her perception is skewed at best, and undermines the point she is trying to make! If what she is saying is an accurate representation, then rather apparently the ones opposing her view are not some sort of well-oiled machine capable of bamboozling the American media. Frankly I'd like to see those e-mails, as the rest of this and other articles suggests she reads into things and finds what's not actually there. For one thing I know Joe Tacopina is still commenting on the case.

I wonder if she realizes now just how vapid this piece makes her look? Here she is pretending she's some sort of noble bastion of 'truth' for resisting the information presented from one side of the issue for frankly absurd reasons, the whole time reporters are being investigated and having charges filed on them for the most absurd of reasons in Perugia by the prosecution! They are being lied to about the case wholesale by authorities and she's niggling to find utter irrelevancies to condemn the messenger without bothering to listen to the message, which is something that can be corroborated with facts, logic and just plain common sense?

If she found that people were unwilling to work with her, it highly likely wasn't any grand conspiracy of this Seattle PR firm, it probably was because a reading of her articles strongly suggests she was completely taken in by the lies of the prosecution. It is apparent she ignored the facts and arguments of the other side of the story for personal and petty reasons. If she ever has difficulty finding work in the future it might be because it appears to me there is very little chance that it won't eventually become universally acknowledged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent, and that a media firestorm created by lies from Mignini and the police was one of the main reasons anyone ever thought them guilty in the first place. It may very well be that no one will want to buy the songs of the Executioners Bitch....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA transfer; more on digestion; bloody nose

Rolfe and London John,

If Meredith were forcibly restrained for a long time, I would expect DNA transfer onto her body, on the basis of studies of simulated strangulation that I have previously cited, for example this one. If some areas of contact became covered in blood, this would probably have eliminated being able to detect such DNA in those areas.

I spoke with an anesthesiologist this evening and he was surprised that there would be no material in the duodenum even at 9 PM. I also asked him about hitting a person hard enough to cause a nosebleed. He felt that bruising would be likely, but he also noted it might be covered up by make-up. The bruising would be unlikely to disappear in only a few days.

 

[odeed]

But if Meredith had been clawing at her attacker(s) with enough force to accumulate genetic material (skin cells, hair follicles, possibly blood) under her fingernails, then one would expect two things: The assailant(s) would have visible fingernail marks on their body, and Meredith would have significantly more defensive wounds.

There's a fallacy put around by many pro-guilt commentators that Meredith's body was covered in bruising and other marks which were clearly suggestive of restraint by multiple assailants. But this is complete nonsense. The autopsy report states that apart from the stab wounds and choke hold marks on the neck, the other injury to the body was actually very slight (my bolding):



(Massei, p112, English trans)


In other words, there was no extensive bruising, and only very slight evidence of very mild defensive wounds. If Meredith had been being forcibly restrained by one or two people, while a third attacked her, there would have been extensive bruising at the hold points (most likely including the wrists or upper arms). And I would argue that if Meredith had at any stage had her arms free enough to have been clawing at people (all of whom apparently had knives....), she would very probably have received significant knife wounds to her hands and forearms.

The autopsy evidence all suggests that Meredith was essentially restrained by just one attacker, who did not hold her firmly by the wrists, elbows or upper arms at any time. Rather, the evidence suggests that the only real point of forcible contact was to the neck. I believe that this is wholly consistent with a single attacker using non-contact means (the threat of a knife and threatening language) to force Meredith into a position of submission, and then restraining her around the neck while he initiated a sexual assault.

I don't remember any of the pro-guilt side putting forward the idea that the victim was covered in bruising, I do remember that the argument was the lack of defensive wounds suggested she was held by at least one other person while being assaulted by another, otherwise "if Meredith had at any stage had her arms free enough to have been clawing at people (all of whom apparently had knives....), she would very probably have received significant knife wounds to her hands and forearms", to quote yourself.

However, you seem to be suggesting that the victim in this case would be less capable to put up a struggle against a single attacker than with multiple attackers.

 

[Kaosium]

If true, that has to be about the most disturbing thing I ever heard.

Rolfe.

I think that would be an unfair representation of Michael's views, if that is the person being referred to, the male administrator of PMF, now the sole one of PMF.net.

There are those that believe that Rudy was merely peripherally involved, and was dragged into it by Amanda Knox. The prosecution's 'theory' was that Amanda was an irresistible mankiller who'd made virtual slaves of Raffaele and Rudy.

It is also sometimes tough to tell when Michael is joking. Steve Moore, the former FBI agent whose new blog I just posted, once said that he was so sure Amanda was innocent he'd let his own daughter room with him. That might have been what precipitated such a comment.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unfinished business

Links?

tsig,

One of them is here, and another one is here, with a follow-up here. For those of you who wondered whether the cartwheels were as advertised by ILE, here is an article.

 

[pipelineaudio]

tsig,

One of them is here, and another one is here, with a follow-up here. For those of you who wondered whether the cartwheels were as advertised by ILE, here is an article.

Where's the follow up by you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the virtues of moderation

Where's the follow up by you?

I did not follow up in the thread; the follow-up to which I referred came from the other person. I reported the latter two to the mods because they revealed my identity, but they decided not to take action. I discussed these comments when I gave my impressions of the history of the Knox threads in the Forum Community last February, IIRC. I felt that there have been a number of instances in these threads in which the decisions of the mods were open to question.