Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

I think the odds that this is a picture of Meredith just went down considerably. We all looked for confirmation that it was someone involved with the case. Everybody has been chasing shadows on this one, in my opinion. Thanks Draca for finding this.

I must be missing something, what decreased the odds so drastically? So far I've seen the timing of the call which could be due to an internal clock off a little bit, and a witness testimony which might also be off by a little bit. It would actually seem to me unlikely that everything synchronized perfectly without a previous intention.

She was wearing jeans and carrying a bag, is it the light-looking top? I'd think that would have disqualified it long before as that's what it looked like with the poorer quality video.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm trying to figure out what is left that is in fact positively incriminating to Knox and/or Sollecito. Lack of an alibi is not by itself incriminating of course.

Is there anything left that says, "yes it still looks like they were involved," even if the murder happened shortly after nine?

Rolfe.

The only remaining but disputed piece of evidence that could place Raffaele at the scene is the bathmat footprint which in a shortly after 9PM murder would mean he came later and was only involved in a clean up and staging. The Knox girl still has more baloney to discredit.

Here's a comparison of Raffaele's and Rudy's footprints versus the bathmat stain.

 

[Danceme]

I'd like to echo the congratulations of other posters - changing one's mind in the face of the evidence is a rare and precious skill. Few have it, and you've proved that you are one of them. I dip my hat to you.

Thanks Kevin, although I would hate to think it's a rare thing to change one's mind when faced with convincing evidence. What kind of a society would that be? I expect better of my fellow humans and I hope we see a lot more admitting they are now convinced of the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele, or at least to the level of reasonable doubt if nothing else.

Could Amanda Knox Have an Autism Spectrum Disorder?

interesting...

This was very interesting and could certainly explain a lot.

I'm trying to figure out what is left that is in fact positively incriminating to Knox and/or Sollecito. Lack of an alibi is not by itself incriminating of course.

Is there anything left that says, "yes it still looks like they were involved," even if the murder happened shortly after nine?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, I imagine people could still be convinced of their involvement based on the luminol footprints, the mixed DNA, the "staged" break in, the bloody bathmat print on a blood free bathroom floor, the contradictions in the details of their alibis, Quintavalle........

There are perfectly reasonable alternate explanations for all these, and they've been argued ad nauseum here, but I think if one wanted to continue believing in guilt these items could all have a guilty explanation too.

 

[Danceme]

Kaosium, I have fooled around with those prints many, many times in various software programs, tracing the outlines while zoomed in and overlaying them on the bathmat print. I could not get either print to be a conclusive match based on these photographs and decided it was not possible to positively attribute them to either suspect. I would have liked to analyze the actual bathmat with transparent overlays of the two actual footprints to make a determination either way but of course that's not possible. Perhaps an unknown accomplice made it?

 

[Kestrel]

And, as I've said before, the images are too blurred - and the context too imprecise - for the CCTV to be of any probative value anyhow.

If the cottage had been in the middle of nowhere, along a driveway that had a CCTV camera, then an image capture - however blurry - would be of some value. The prosecution could then argue that the person seen in the image would almost certainly have been involved in some way with the cottage, and would therefore be of value to the investigation.

But this camera captured a person walking along an urban road (albeit one on the outskirts of town). This fact, coupled with the extremely poor quality of the image, means that it has almost no real evidential value. And this would be the same whether this CCTV were of potential help to the defence or the prosecution.

The CCTV image shows someone approaching the cottage driveway. Beyond the driveway, the road is two narrow lanes between a concrete wall and an iron fence. Take a look at Google street view and it's clear there is no room for pedestrians on this street. The person in the CCTV image is almost certainly heading for the cottage.

 

[RoseMontague]

I must be missing something, what decreased the odds so drastically? So far I've seen the timing of the call which could be due to an internal clock off a little bit, and a witness testimony which might also be off by a little bit. It would actually seem to me unlikely that everything synchronized perfectly without a previous intention.

She was wearing jeans and carrying a bag, is it the light-looking top? I'd think that would have disqualified it long before as that's what it looked like with the poorer quality video.

Every cell phone I have had has the time set by the cell phone company. The call times are recorded by the company time, in any case. It is not based on the internal clock of the cell phone in question.

 

[bolint]

I'm trying to figure out what is left that is in fact positively incriminating to Knox and/or Sollecito. Lack of an alibi is not by itself incriminating of course.

Is there anything left that says, "yes it still looks like they were involved," even if the murder happened shortly after nine?

Rolfe.

Lying about the alibi, however, is incriminating by itself.
And they lied about it, both of them.

I know the long list of objections: "coerced lies", "confused lies", "silly lies", "imagined lies", "false beliefs", "the police also lied", "who does not lie?", but for me they are not sufficient.

I think that most of those lies were "true lies".

Falsely accusing someone is also incriminating.

 

[Diocletus]

Lying about the alibi, however, is incriminating by itself.
And they lied about it, both of them.

I know the long list of objections: "coerced lies", "confused lies", "silly lies", "imagined lies", "false beliefs", "the police also lied", "who does not lie?", but for me they are not sufficient.

I think that most of those lies were "true lies".

Falsely accusing someone is also incriminating.

You forgot the part about INADMISSIBLE "lies".

 

[bolint]

The person in the CCTV image is almost certainly heading for the cottage.

Sure, as this was the point of this presentation of the defence.
They were arguing that Meredith was going home.

 

[RoseMontague]

The DNA stuff is exciting, but the time of death looks more important to me. If they got off it would be better and kinder all round if it was absolutely clear that they didn't do it. If the case collapsed based on this DNA news many of the people who are suspicious of Knox will continue to suspect her.

Looking back, it was feeling that Knox wasn't honest in or about her interrogation that has made it relatively easy for me to believe other negative things. I still don't buy the "best truth she can remember" thing, but thinking she was/is lying is quite a few jumps removed from being sure she was involved in a murder.

For all the "we don't need to prove innocence" arguments, it would be a whole lot better all round if that got established in court.

[By the way, I've been meaning to say congrats to Halkides. I've spent a long while saying to him that I would hold off taking his objections to the case seriously until they were argued in court.... This now seems to have happened. Hopefully we'll get some extended version of Stefanoni's response. For all I know she may have some arguments worth hearing. Regardless of what she says, kudos to you!]

The DNA report is sure to change a few minds or at least bring reasonable doubt into question. Having known Halkides since before this case I am certain he feels better having folks say things like this to him. None of us can be right about everything on every occasion but something like this that he has been so passionate about is good to have confirmation of.

 

[Rolfe]

Lying about the alibi, however, is incriminating by itself.
And they lied about it, both of them.

I know the long list of objections: "coerced lies", "confused lies", "silly lies", "imagined lies", "false beliefs", "the police also lied", "who does not lie?", but for me they are not sufficient.

I think that most of those lies were "true lies".

Falsely accusing someone is also incriminating.

I was looking for actual evidence linking either of them to the crime. Evidence that they were idiotic, stoned, pressurised, away with the fairies, whatever, doesn't come under that heading.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

The CCTV image shows someone approaching the cottage driveway. Beyond the driveway, the road is two narrow lanes between a concrete wall and an iron fence. Take a look at Google street view and it's clear there is no room for pedestrians on this street. The person in the CCTV image is almost certainly heading for the cottage.

Not getting the google street view for some reason this morning (must be mad at me for all my cussing at Google yesterday). Where are the stairs in relation to the direction this person is walking? Can you post another pic?

 

[RoseMontague]

Lying about the alibi, however, is incriminating by itself.
And they lied about it, both of them.

I know the long list of objections: "coerced lies", "confused lies", "silly lies", "imagined lies", "false beliefs", "the police also lied", "who does not lie?", but for me they are not sufficient.

I think that most of those lies were "true lies".

Falsely accusing someone is also incriminating.

I don't believe I know anyone who hasn't lied about something. I don't believe they killed anybody however. Personally, I think the more pressure you undergo the greater the chance is that you will lie. Were the cops under some pressure as well?

 

[Diocletus]

Rolfe, I imagine people could still be convinced of their involvement based on the luminol footprints, the mixed DNA, the "staged" break in, the bloody bathmat print on a blood free bathroom floor, the contradictions in the details of their alibis, Quintavalle........

I wonder what the value of the luminol and mixed DNA will be, once the independent experts finish hosing Stefanoni down with a flamethrower?

Hard to believe the judge is going to want to have anything to do with it. It doesn't seem to me that you can toss the knife and clasp on the basis that Stefanoni's work, well, sucks, and then go ahead and use other Stefanoni work product to sustain a conviction. Especially given that she lied about the TCB test.

 

[komponisto]

Lying about the alibi, however, is incriminating by itself.

[...]

Falsely accusing someone is also incriminating.

No it is not! See this post. You're using the affect heuristic here, and it doesn't work. Knox's statements at the interrogation are not in any way entangled with the events in the murder room. (And they are not even "lies". They are speculations explicitly prompted by the police, who instructed her to speculate! )

Read the links!

 

[Onofarar]

<snip>
4. The 8:56 p.m. call? Did Meredith attempt to call after parting with Sophie and it didn't connect? Perhaps she decided to wait until she got home to call and never got a chance.
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/meredith_arriving_home.ppt

At what point in her walk home would she see the cottage? Perhaps she noted something amiss approaching the cottage (list follows) and she dropped the call to investigate?
List:
- Broken window in Filomena's room
- Figure/body/shadow in a window
- Light being turned on / off in the cottage (Rudy may have turned lights on/off in kitchen to investigate it / get oj or in bathroom as he went in?)
- Other (everybody's favorite category)

The problem I have is that any confrontation would most likely have occurred away from Meredith's room - probably in the hallway leading to Laura's room and the 2nd bathroom (where Rudy left his "deposit") or in the kitchen / living room.
How do they end up in Meredith's room? One possibility - Rudy confronts Meredith with his knife threatens her and says he wants her (rent) money . Meredith assuming this is just a robbery remains docile and leads RG to her room - at that point maybe she says something - RG realizes she recognizes him or maybe being behind her he takes advantage of his position to grab her or Meredith takes action (tries to close door on RG or reach for a weapon). I think it is unlikley that whatever happened began at the doorway assuming Ron Hendry's analysis is correct.
Anyway on the spur of the moment a robbery becomes an assault or sexual assault and gets out of control leading to the murder.

 

[Diocletus]

DNA Question

Could someone answer this:

When the independent experts say that Raffael's haplotype is represented in the clasp test results, are they saying that DNA coming from Raffael is in the test results? Or, are they saying something like DNA that is consistent with Raffael, but could be a match to anyone else who is patrilineally related to Raffael within the last, say 5,000 years, is found?

 

[bolint]

No it is not! See this post. You're using the affect heuristic here, and it doesn't work. Knox's statements at the interrogation are not in any way entangled with the events in the murder room. (And they are not even "lies". They are speculations explicitly prompted by the police, who instructed her to speculate! )

Read the links!

Those links are irrelevant as I don't think that Amanda was in the room when the murder happened.
In my version Rudy is the murderer, Amanda not in the room, Raffaele likely not even in the cottage at the moment of the murder.

 

[RoseMontague]

Is the flat the only place somebody walking by this garage in that direction will go? Maybe I am just not understanding this if somebody could help me?

 

[Kestrel]

Not getting the google street view for some reason this morning (must be mad at me for all my cussing at Google yesterday). Where are the stairs in relation to the direction this person is walking? Can you post another pic?

This photo is looking back along the street toward the cottage driveway. The car in this photo is across the street from the CCTV camera. Meredith would have crossed the street there after coming down the parking lot ramp or down the next street. The stairs are off to the left, above the upper level of the parking lot if I recall correctly.