Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

The real question: Why didn't she flush the toilet in the first place?
What is the innocentist explanation?

What's wrong with the explanation that she gave?

ETA:

What's your point with that subtopic? I don't see where are you going with it.

 

[bolint]

What's wrong with the explanation that she gave?

What explanation did she give?

What's your point with that subtopic? I don't see where are you going with it.

I don't believe her story of the cottage visit. It is fishy.
The toilet episode is part of it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Suppose that the bra clasp had been duly collected on the first day, directly from under the body where it was found.

Would the innocentists accept it for proof of involvement?

Speaking for myself, since I learned that Raffaele was at the cottage many times before and Amanda spent a lot of time at his place, I considered any of his hers, or the victims DNA found in the cottage or his flat worthless. I think transfer of DNA is expected when the places are connected by the people visiting or living there.

Vaginal swabs of Raffaele's DNA or identified sperm or blood would be valuable, of course.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What explanation did she give?

IIRC it's in the e-mail.

I don't believe her story of the cottage visit. It is fishy.
The toilet episode is part of it.

That I already know. What do you infer? Why is she lying about it then? What's the point? What do you suspect is the real story?

 

[bolint]

The "edges" of the bathmat print are nothing but sharp and the coverage is not uniform. In fact the print is incomplete and there are areas more soaked, less soaked and parts that left no impression. In my opinion it's consistent with the bloody water flowing down onto the foot during pants cleaning.

Where is the heel?
I don't buy the explanation that the foot was only partially wet and the perpetrator fitted the wet-dry boundary to the edge of the mat.

There is corroboration to this:
- Guede mentioned his pants were wet.
- there was a trace on a lower frame of the bathroom door consistent with someone brushing it with bloody clothing.

It corroborates only that there had been some washing in the bathroom and nobody disputes that. On the contrary.

Drops of bloody water are not unavoidable. If he replaced his shoe after cleaning himself, he could step back to the murder room without leaving any trace before the bloody water soaked his shoe and caused it to begin to leave prints.

I was referring to unavoidable bloody water drops in the bathroom.
No way you wash your pants with so much water that your foot produces such a print and there is no other bloody water on the floor.

 

[bolint]

IIRC it's in the e-mail.

Here it is:

after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
**** that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door

I don't see how is explained why she did not flush it.
Did she think someone interrupted it and wanted to continue?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is not that I just don't want to accept it.
It is quite clear from at least two other quotes of Raffaele that he speaks about the bigger bathroom.
Here he simplified "when she was in the house to take a shower" to "when she was taking a shower".

Before we declare you the Hercule Poirot of poop and agree that the conviction was justified on the basis of the poop evidence, could you maybe explain how exactly this whole poop business is meant to be evidence of guilt with regard to a murder?

Is the thinking that innocent-Raffaele would definitely have checked more thoroughly for poop, or innocent-Amanda could not have been mistaken about the absence of poop because innocence precludes poop-related mistakes, or what exactly?

 

[LondonJohn]

Probably not much.

Who cares ?

Her qualifications are not that important.

The obviousness of the type of work she has done in this case is what really counts...

I agree on the whole. And there's also no current evidence that Stefanoni has attempted to use the title to pass herself off as a PhD or MD. But I do think that it offers an interesting insight into the inherent bias in the opinions of many pro-guilt commentators. It's notable that many of them make a point of always referring to Stefanoni as "Dr Stefanoni". And they are very fond of juxtaposing the authors of the DNA report against lots of people with such prefixes to their names. Here, for example, is a recent post from "The Machine" on .org:

Do you think Vecchiotti's and Conti's opinions are more valid than the opinions of Dr. Stefanoni, Professor Torricelli, Dr. Biondo, Luciano Garofano, Professor Novelli and Dr. Giardina?

I find it extremely interesting that "The Machine" chooses to refer to the independent experts - both of whom are senior professors at a major university, and both of whom are PhD-qualified - as "Vecchiotti and Conti", whereas (s)he chooses to add title prefixes to the names of people on his/her "side" of the debate. It's clear to me that (s)he intends to attach a higher gravitas to the names of the people on his/her "side". And part of that is to refer to Stefanoni as "Dr Stefanoni". "The Machine" is clearly of the belief that Stefanoni holds a higher degree, and that this confers additional gravitas upon her. (S)he didn't bother to check whether that's actually true.

I shall henceforth be using international equivalency of titles - which I think is an entirely rational and proper approach - and refer to Stefanoni as "Ms Stefanoni" (or "The incompetent, mendacious Ms Stefanoni" )

 

[LondonJohn]

The sharp edges of the footprint and the uniform coverage of the sole area does not look like some bloody water was flowing from the pant leg to the foot.
It is more likely that the foot stepped into some pool of bloody water and "stamped" on the mat.
Anyway, where are the drops of bloody water unavoidable also in your explanation?

Correct. The thesis of most of us is that Guede washed the blood from his trouser leg*, and that a dilute mixture of blood and water pooled in the shower pan (or bidet bowl). Guede then stepped into this pooled blood/water mixture, causing the sole of his foot to cover in the blood/water. He then stepped out onto the mat, leaving the partial print. There's no reason to think that his trouser legs would have been dripping wet, particularly if he had a towel at hand to wipe his trousers. Therefore, no need for "drops of bloody water".

* Personally I think that this happened in the shower - as it would have been easier for Guede to use the shower head to direct water straight onto the bloody part of his trouser leg - but others think this was done in the bidet. Another reason to think that the rinsing was done in the shower is that if the bathmat is rotated through 180 degrees the footprint corresponds correctly to where someone stepping out of the shower would naturally place their right foot.

 

[LondonJohn]

Suppose that the bra clasp had been duly collected on the first day, directly from under the body where it was found.

Would the innocentists accept it for proof of involvement?

That would entirely depend on the manner in which it was handled, stored, transported and tested. It's not just the 46-day delay which is a problem. Even if the clasp had been found on day 1 of the investigation, if everything else we know about the clasp's treatment by the "crack" forensics team was the same (dirty gloves, picking it up and putting it down, passing it around, bagging it incorrectly, testing it inappropriately, interpreting the test results inappropriately) there would still be massive problems over its validity as evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't understand it either. But it is Amanda who reports it in the Nov 4 email, bothe the discovery and the disappearance. So for some reason it was important for her.



I don't think they wanted to protect Rudy. Just the opposite, let the police go after the unknown killer.

The real question: Why didn't she flush the toilet in the first place?
What is the innocentist explanation?

Why should she have flushed the toilet? It wasn't the toilet she normally used, and it was a design of toilet that would probably have required more than a simple push of a button to get rid of the faeces. Yours is an ex-post-facto rationalisation from a standpoint of guilt. It's poor reasoning.

By the way, it would be more appropriate to refer to "pro-acquittal" posters rather than "innocentist" (or equivalent).

 

[LondonJohn]

No. If he was only wrong with some timing then it would not be a big problem.
But, for example, also before Matteini he said that they had gone to the town center before going home at about 20:30.
That directly contradicts Amanda's version.

How does Knox's version "directly contradict" Sollecito's claim that the two of them went into town before returning to Sollecito's apartment at around 8.30pm? I don't recall seeing anything written or said by Knox that contradicts this, but I might be wrong. Could you link to evidence please?

 

[bolint]

That would entirely depend on the manner in which it was handled, stored, transported and tested. It's not just the 46-day delay which is a problem. Even if the clasp had been found on day 1 of the investigation, if everything else we know about the clasp's treatment by the "crack" forensics team was the same (dirty gloves, picking it up and putting it down, passing it around, bagging it incorrectly, testing it inappropriately, interpreting the test results inappropriately) there would still be massive problems over its validity as evidence.

It is not only the time, I mean if everything (from collection to interpretation) had been done correctly.

(Of course, I know that no matter how correctly had it been collected, it would now be disputed by the defence that it was not correct. )

But would accepting it change the judgment of innocence?

 

[bolint]

How does Knox's version "directly contradict" Sollecito's claim that the two of them went into town before returning to Sollecito's apartment at around 8.30pm? I don't recall seeing anything written or said by Knox that contradicts this, but I might be wrong. Could you link to evidence please?

Amanda (Nov 4 email and witness testimony) says that they went from the cottage directly to Sollecito's house at about 17:00 and then they remained there all night long without ever going out.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where is the heel?
I don't buy the explanation that the foot was only partially wet and the perpetrator fitted the wet-dry boundary to the edge of the mat.

You've created a false dichotomy. The bathmat was thick and ridged. It's entirely possible that if the weight was on the other foot, Guede placed the front of his foot onto the edge of the bathmat, but the rest of his foot remained suspended in the air above the bathroom floor. I think that the whole of Guede's right foot was covered in dilute blood/water, but that the back half of his foot never made contact with anything. Thus, no evidence of imprint from the back of his foot either on the mat or on the floor.

I was referring to unavoidable bloody water drops in the bathroom.
No way you wash your pants with so much water that your foot produces such a print and there is no other bloody water on the floor.

This is the same false dichotomy. Your use of the word "unavoidable" is illogical and wrong. Let me tell you how it's entirely possible to produce the bathmat print yet leave no bloody water drops in the bathroom:

1) Place bathmat outside shower door, and place towel on bathmat or on sink.

2) Shower blood from trouser legs with shower head - producing a dilute blood/water pool in the bottom of the shower that pools in the shower pan.

3) Stop shower, and open the shower door.

4) Step right foot briefly out of shower to extend reach to retrieve towel, leaving partial print on bathmat

5) Having retrieved towel, place foot back inside shower, and towel off trouser legs (thus preventing any dripping from trouser legs).

6) Rinse shower down thoroughly, then rinse soles of feet before drying soles of feet with towel.

7) Step out of shower and leave bathroom.

And if you're thinking anything along the lines of: "Ah, but in this scenario there would have been blood dripping from the trouser leg when the foot was placed on the bathmat to retrieve the towel", I'd argue two things: firstly, I think that this action would have been very quick - just enough time to grab the towel from that bathmat or the sink area; and second, it's possible that Guede only got blood on his left trouser leg - therefore only his left trouser leg would have been wet, and in my scenario the left leg remains entirely within the shower cubicle while the towel is retrieved.

 

[Diocletus]

We read in the media that Maresca represents the Kercher family. That ain't quite right. He represents Meredith's parents (John and Arline) and Meredith's two brothers (John and Lyle). Meredith's sister (Stephanie) is represented by another attorney, Serena Perna. See Massei Report, English Translation, page 10. Can anyone explain this oddity?

///

Piling on would be my guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is not only the time, I mean if everything (from collection to interpretation) had been done correctly.

(Of course, I know that no matter how correctly had it been collected, it would now be disputed by the defence that it was not correct. )

But would accepting it change the judgment of innocence?

But now you're making a totally spurious argument! You're saying this: "Ah, but if the clasp had been treated entirely properly from start to finish by the Perugia police and forensic scientists, would you accept it as evidence?" The answer is, of course, yes. But that's utterly irrelevant.

What you're saying is equivalent to making the following argument about the Birmingham Six case (where it was later proven that the police had falsified written confessions): "Ah, but if it could be shown that these confessions were actually valid and properly obtained, would you consider the Birmingham Six guilty"? It's a ridiculous and specious argument.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda (Nov 4 email and witness testimony) says that they went from the cottage directly to Sollecito's house at about 17:00 and then they remained there all night long without ever going out.

But Knox's November 4th email says only the following about the evening of November 1st:

after a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to his
house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the
evening and night indoors. we didnt go out. the next morning i woke up
around 1030.....

You might be interpreting the "we didn't go out" part to mean that they didn't go out from 5pm onwards. But I think that a reasonable interpretation is that they didn't go out at the important time when Knox was told the murder took place.

The only reference I can find to Knox's court testimony on this issue is the following:

"On Nov. 1, I told Raffaele that I wanted to watch a movie so we went to his place," Knox said. After dinner, they went upstairs to his room, she said.

"I sat on the bed, he sat at his desk, he prepared the joint and then we smoked it together," she said. "First we made love, then we fell asleep."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...by-police-to-implicate-bar-owner-1703408.html

Again, Knox does not specifically say that she and Sollecito stayed in from 5pm onwards. I'm still not seeing anywhere that Knox "directly contradicts" (your words) Sollecito's version in which they are in town until 8.30pm. So again, please can you provide specific and referenced evidence to back up your claim? Thanks.

 

[Onofarar]

Yes, there is confusion as to Rose's gender back at PMF, so I guess, they could very fast come to the conclusion that snook1 is indeed just a sockpuppet alternative login.

Hate to disappoint, but no, I'm just a follower of this case with, actually pretty decent knowledge, but nowhere near to LondonJohn's, Rose's, Katody's, katy's, Kaosium's, Phantom Wolf's, RWVBWL's, RandyN'sand many many others, that contribute to this debate. As LondonJohn said, there are way too many people to be named, so if I forgot someone important, please forgive me.

Keep up the good work, people!

In addition to the above I apprecite the following for their efforts here to discover the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher and the (wrongful) convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - in no particular order

Halides1 - his efforts to explain and educate us on the DNA evidence and the many resources he referenced to support his position
Komponisto - for introducing the concepts of Bayesian logic to the discuss about the probabilities of unknowable events surrounding the case and rational concise comments in general (second only to Kaos ium's in my opinion)
Kevin Lowe - for many things - rational debunking of various pro-guilt theories, with LondonJohn showing the Mignini ToD to be absurd, and being the first to prove that statistically a string of events with two possible explanations/outcomes when strung together as a "mountain of evidence" become in fact a vey low probability of guilt
CD-Host - for his excellent debunking of the simplistic computer activity analysis by the police either here or at his blog - "Church Discipline"
Charlie Wilkes - for his theories about what happened at various times the night of the murder and his sharing of numerous crime scene photos and videos not all in the public domain
Bruce Fisher - For his passion for truth against the likes of Fulcanelli and his ilk and his efforts to establish a beacon of truth on the case at his website "Injustice in Perugia" and the book of the same title.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Where is the heel?
I don't buy the explanation that the foot was only partially wet and the perpetrator fitted the wet-dry boundary to the edge of the mat.

And no one is making any such explanation.
Please look at the photo of the bathroom floor and the mat.
Do you see how faint the print is? If only so little of the blood dilution got transfered onto the highly absorbent surface, how much do you expect to get onto the tiled floor?
Where's the heel? The answer is simple - it's gone, if ever there was anything noticeable at all.
The colour of the tiles doesn't help in noticing faint diluted blood traces, for sure. Remember how nobody noticed the trail of shoeprints going all the way to the door?

It corroborates only that there had been some washing in the bathroom and nobody disputes that. On the contrary.

Some washing done by Guede. What's the point and where's the controversy then?