Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

Well, I know what footwear Meredith was wearing when she was confronted by Guede.

We also know what footwear Guede was wearing when he attacked and killed Meredith.

What we don't know is what footwear Amanda and Raffaele wore. Why? Beacuse there are no shoeprints at the crime scene belonging to them. Something that can't be said about Guede.

 

[LondonJohn]

It could take that long? November?

How many court dates are there? I thought that there is only one week delay or two at most.

Next one is on September 5th and then, according to Hellmann, will be hearings everyday, just to make sure the DNA report issues are solved. How long can it take? 3,4 days? Then what? Closing arguments?

Despite your predictions, is there any chance for a verdict in early October?

I think that a September wrap to this trial is near-impossible. Stefanoni will appear on the 5th September, then closing arguments will begin immediately thereafter. In the Massei trial, the argument phase lasted for three and a half weeks, and the deliberation lasted for around a week. I get the feeling that the defence teams will spend significantly longer on their argument than they did in the first trial (in which they spent barely a week in argument).

I therefore get the impression that the verdict will not come until mid-October at the earliest, and that it might even get pushed into November. But that's not to say that I might be totally wrong, and that the argument phase might only take a couple of weeks in this trial!

 

[LondonJohn]

We also know what footwear Guede was wearing when he attacked and killed Meredith.

What we don't know is what footwear Amanda and Raffaele wore. Why? Beacuse there are no shoeprints at the crime scene belonging to them. Something that can't be said about Guede.

Ah, but that's because Knox and Sollecito were both a) barefoot during the murder, and b) suspended from the ceiling by wires, like tom Cruise in Mission Impossible

 

[snook1]

Ah, but that's because Knox and Sollecito were both a) barefoot during the murder, and b) suspended from the ceiling by wires, like tom Cruise in Mission Impossible

I always thought that they were flying in and out of the room, not that they were suspended. You know, many people think Amanda's a witch, so she could just say the right spell and there you go, they can fly.


Thanks for explaining the timeline. Keeping my fingers crossed for an early October verdict.

 

[RWVBWL]

We also know what footwear Guede was wearing when he attacked and killed Meredith.

What we don't know is what footwear Amanda and Raffaele wore. Why? Beacuse there are no shoeprints at the crime scene belonging to them. Something that can't be said about Guede.

Hi Snook1 and LondonJohn,
I was having a read elsewhere and found a few interesting tidbits of info that I wasn't aware of concerning Rudy Guede's footprints:

According to Oggi, defense experts will now display many more Rudy footprints from the murder room. Professor Francesco Vinci, of the University of Bari’s department of Forensic Medicine, has examined the pillowcase on which the victim lay. Judge Massei granted him permission to enter Rome’s forensics lab from Judge Massei. What he saw astonished him.

As Oggi says: “With the use of Crimescope which helps to select prints, treated chemically with fluorescing products, he found on the pillow case five good prints (3 superimposed) of a left shoe that delineates a sole that corresponds and measures exactly to a Nike Outbreak 2, size 45. Thus the foot of Guede. The disconcerting thing is that on that pillowcase the forensic police found only 2 traces: one of Guede and the other of a woman size 37.”

The police have tried to pin the latter print, not too convincingly, on Amanda. “Today the discovery of Prof. Vinci bewilders everyone. On this cushion only the youth of color has ‘walked.’ The report of the professor will be presented in court at the re-start of the trial and will surely be at the center of a clash between experts. Will he succeed in establishing the truth?”

Oggi contends that all of the blood-stained footprints in Kercher’s bedroom are Rudy’s size 11 Nike Outbreak 2 shoeprints. Lorenzo Rinaldi, the director of print identity in the Rome forensic police division said that in court in May 2009. Oggi goes further, saying there are no women’s shoeprints in the room at all. And all of the prints appear to be from Rudy’s left foot.
<snip>
The drawing below is from the Oggi story. It shows the five footprints from the murder room and–an even bigger surprise–a Rudy-attributed footprint from the famous room with the broken window (a room once occupied by Filomena Romanelli). The defense contends Rudy Guede broke in that way; the prosecution insists the broken window was part of an elaborate staging.

Bolding + hilite from me.

Link:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2009/09/12/amanda-knox-murder-trial-taking-aim-at-rudy-guede/

I wasn't aware that a shoeprint of Rudy Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom where the alleged staged break-in took place.
Thoughts anyone?
Thanks, RW

PS - Even C. Dempsey doesn't mention, in the article above, if Guede's sneakers were black or white, so if anyone has an answer, please give a shout-out, thanks.

 

[LondonJohn]

I always thought that they were flying in and out of the room, not that they were suspended. You know, many people think Amanda's a witch, so she could just say the right spell and there you go, they can fly.


Thanks for explaining the timeline. Keeping my fingers crossed for an early October verdict.

Flying? Now that's just too far-fetched!

With regard to the timing of the verdict, it's still possible (although in my opinion it's massively improbable) that Hellmann might go for a directed acquittal at the defence's request (i.e. Hellmann would order their immediate acquittal without judicial panel deliberation, if he thinks there's clearly no case for guilt).

It's also possible (still not very likely in my opinion, but relatively much more likely than a directed acquittal) that Hellmann could ask for abbreviated arguments, so that the judicial panel can convene for deliberation as soon as possible. If that were to happen, it's possible that the deliberation could start by the third week of September, with a verdict coming before the end of that month.

But for me, the most likely progression is that all parties (prosecutors, defence, Maresca, the court) will engage in a full, unabbreviated argument phase. And in fact, I think this will, in the long run, be to the benefit of Knox and Sollecito. If (when they are acquitted), it will be because Hellmann's court has looked at the totality of the evidence and associated arguments, and found the case for guilt wanting.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Snook1 and LondonJohn,
I was having a read elsewhere and found a few interesting tidbits of info that I wasn't aware of concerning Rudy Guede's footprints:


Bolding + hilite from me.

Link:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2009/09/12/amanda-knox-murder-trial-taking-aim-at-rudy-guede/

I wasn't aware that a shoeprint of Rudy Guede's was found in Filomena's bedroom where the alleged staged break-in took place.
Thoughts anyone?
Thanks, RW

PS - Even C. Dempsey doesn't mention, in the article above, if Guede's sneakers were black or white, so if anyone has an answer, please give a shout-out, thanks.

That is indeed extremely interesting, and well picked-up by you! It appears that Massei chose to totally overlook this piece of evidence when he "reasoning" his staged break-in theory. But it's potentially highly significant evidence. If Guede's shoe print is in Filomena's room, and it's not made in Meredith's blood, it implies that Guede was in Filomena's room before the murder*. And this makes no sense within the prosecution (and Massei) narrative. But it fits neatly with the defence argument that Guede entered the cottage via Filomena's window.

Even if one were to suppose that Guede's show print could have been deposited after the murder, it still doesn't fit with the prosecution (and Massei) narrative. It would suggest instead that Guede either participated in the "staging", or that he decided to rummage through Filomena's room before exiting the cottage.

* Even if it was a right shoe print (Guede's left shoe was the one which made prints with traces of Meredith's blood), there would almost certainly have been corresponding faint-blood prints from Guede's left shoe in Filomena's room if he'd gone in there wearing his shoes after the murder. If it's a left shoe print of Guede's in Filomena's room, then this is even more suggestive that the print was deposited before the murder if there is no blood present in the print.

 

[Fine]

That is indeed extremely interesting, and well picked-up by you! It appears that Massei chose to totally overlook this piece of evidence when he "reasoning" his staged break-in theory. But it's potentially highly significant evidence. If Guede's shoe print is in Filomena's room, and it's not made in Meredith's blood, it implies that Guede was in Filomena's room before the murder*. And this makes no sense within the prosecution (and Massei) narrative. But it fits neatly with the defence argument that Guede entered the cottage via Filomena's window.

Even if one were to suppose that Guede's show print could have been deposited after the murder, it still doesn't fit with the prosecution (and Massei) narrative. It would suggest instead that Guede either participated in the "staging", or that he decided to rummage through Filomena's room before exiting the cottage.

* Even if it was a right shoe print (Guede's left shoe was the one which made prints with traces of Meredith's blood), there would almost certainly have been corresponding faint-blood prints from Guede's left shoe in Filomena's room if he'd gone in there wearing his shoes after the murder. If it's a left shoe print of Guede's in Filomena's room, then this is even more suggestive that the print was deposited before the murder if there is no blood present in the print.

__________________

John,

The Oggi article is mistaken. It's a photograph of one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints in Meredith's room.

///.

 

[LondonJohn]

__________________

John,

The Oggi article is mistaken. It's a photograph of one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints in Meredith's room.

///.

Ah!!!! Thanks for the correction! I wondered why we hadn't heard more about this print! Dempsey really should have corrected her online article accordingly.

 

[RWVBWL]

__________________

John,

The Oggi article is mistaken. It's a photograph of one of Rudy's bloody shoe prints in Meredith's room.

///.

Hi Fine,
Was exhibit marker A from Meredith's bedroom or in Filomena's?
Thanks for the help finding out the truth, whatever it may be. Your earlier post today nailed the rock issue, in my humble opinion!
RW

 

[Fine]

Hi Fine,
Was exhibit marker A from Meredith's bedroom or in Filomena's?Thanks for the help finding out the truth, whatever it may be. Your earlier post today nailed the rock issue, in my humble opinion!
RW

______________________

RWVBWL,


See marker "A" on the floor of Meredith's bedroom..........

///

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Fine,
Was exhibit marker A from Meredith's bedroom or in Filomena's?
Thanks for the help finding out the truth, whatever it may be. Your earlier post today nailed the rock issue, in my humble opinion!
RW

Yes, the "A" marker was near the doorway in Meredith's room. In addition, the flooring in Filomena's room was different to that in Meredith's room - the tiles contained specks of red and orange stone set in a grey concrete base. This is different from the background of the tiles shown in the photo with the shoe print - the tiles in the photo match those in Meredith's room.

So it's pretty clear that the Oggi article (and Dempsey by virtue of repetition) got this wrong. The print was in Meredith's room, not Filomena's.

 

[RWVBWL]

______________________

RWVBWL,


See marker "A" on the floor of Meredith's bedroom..........

[qimg]http://gator941.hostgator.com/~michael/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=1671&sid=0033c71a9f04bf4153b723c78e5dfa19[/qimg]

///

Thanks Fine,
I had kind of guessed that marker "A" would start in Miss Kercher's bedroom, but I figured I should double check, heck you never know if a blatant mistake could be staring rightatcha...

I also found it interesting in that same Oggi/Dempsey artilce that there were 5 of Rudy Guede's shoe prints found. And it states that there was not a womans shoeprint found, contrary to what I recall in early reporting on this case. Is the Oggi/Dempsey article correct on this matter? Forgive me if I ask a few dumb questions, since I haven't read the Massei report, as I am sure others have not either...
Thanks for your time,
RW

 

[Mary_H]

HUH ??

Other than an argument that seems like little other than a strange obsession (fetish) with a poster who proved himself to be a master of masters when decimating your past arguments here, and has long since made it quite clear that he would not be posting here again, what really is the significance of you knowing "which is which" ??

And, BTW, I'd be interested to know that if PMF is such a horrible, hate filled place as endlessly argued here...
Why would you squander so much time scouring the past months of what Some Alibi from that PMF 'hate site' wrote about this miniscule minute of nothingness concerning unrelated items of Curatolo, Pepperdine et al.

And (oh dear) you actually went all the way back to research what he wrote here in 2010...
But why, pray tell, and what pray tell, does that shocking depth of obsessive interest in Some Alibi in your argument add to the topic here.

Are not we supposed to pile on, tag team, ridicule, and challenge any stray opposition poster who dares show up here that he must argue only our favorite ToD, or other items *we* want ??

Might not the obviously extensive research about Some Alibi evident in your above argument be better directed to being a tad more accurate about details like what footwear Meredith was wearing when murdered by Knox, Sollecito, and Guede ?

pilot, I think you are overly impressed by what you think of as extensive research. All LJ had to do to find comments about Pepperdine was click on "Search this thread" in the upper right hand corner of the page and enter the word Pepperdine (he probably had to go back to the last thread for a comment from December). It doesn't take an obsession to recall that a certain poster has discussed certain topics; it just takes a memory.

Same with looking on PMF. I don't know if LJ has the capacity to do searches there, but since he remembered that SomeAlibi had talked about Pepperdine in the past month or so, all he had to do was go to discussions from the past month, and on each page, hit Control + F (find) and again, enter the word Pepperdine. It takes very little time.

As far as SomeAlibi being a master of masters when it comes to decimating other posters' arguments in this venue, well, if that were true, he would still be here, wouldn't he? Who would willingly give up such a rewarding gig?

 

[RWVBWL]

Ah!!!! Thanks for the correction! I wondered why we hadn't heard more about this print! Dempsey really should have corrected her online article accordingly.

Hi all,
Today was an interesting day, for 1 of the big guns on the innocentisti side,
LondonJohn, made a mistake in 1 of his online posts and then, in another post of his, due to incorrect information, jumped the gun, developed an incorrect theory and then ran with it . But hey, the guy is human, not someone who can never seem to be proven wrong, like Mignini, in my humble opinion. LondonJohn even thanked the correction of his posts and has, I bet, dusted off his suit and tie and will be back here soon for another round, raisin' hell, oppps, I mean doubt about the evidence collction, theory/ies, trial and convictions.

I for 1 await the next round.
L8, RW

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's virtually inevitable that we (and they - unfortunately for them) will have to wait until October (or even early November) to hear Hellmann pronounce the verdicts.

I can see that logic. Indeed, a "no case to answer" situation does not seem legally possible at this stage of the proceedings in the context of the verdict in round 1.

I'm going to win then, I think. My pet project should blow up in a lot of people's faces before October, Deo volente.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi all,
Today was an interesting day, for 1 of the big guns on the innocentisti side,
LondonJohn, made a mistake in 1 of his online posts and then, in another post of his, due to incorrect information, jumped the gun, developed an incorrect theory and then ran with it . But hey, the guy is human, not someone who can never seem to be proven wrong, like Mignini, in my humble opinion. LondonJohn even thanked the correction of his posts and has, I bet, dusted off his suit and tie and will be back here soon for another round, raisin' hell, oppps, I mean doubt about the evidence collction, theory/ies, trial and convictions.

I for 1 await the next round.
L8, RW

You're spot on, RW! I am always willing to be corrected and/or shown to be wrong. I don't see it as a dent to my pride or as any sort of embarrassment: I see it as a learning experience and a chance to develop my thinking. As with so many others arguing for acquittal, I am constantly evaluating my opinion based upon the evidence to hand. If the evidence changes - or if my interpretation of certain evidence is shown to be wrong - then those changes/corrections merely factor themselves into my next re-evaluation. And as I've also said many times before, if any new evidence came to hand which proved (or even strongly indicated) Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in the murder, I'd be readily prepared to change my entire viewpoint on the case.

I believe that this sort of approach is the only intellectually-honest way to construct any type of argument. In contrast, to come to an overarching position early on, and to then try to shoehorn the evidence into supporting this prior conclusion - and to reject any evidence which does not support the prior conclusion - is a deeply flawed approach. No prizes for guessing which side of the Knox/Sollecito debate mainly employs this methodology of constructing an argument........

 

[LondonJohn]

I can see that logic. Indeed, a "no case to answer" situation does not seem legally possible at this stage of the proceedings in the context of the verdict in round 1.

I'm going to win then, I think. My pet project should blow up in a lot of people's faces before October, Deo volente.

Rolfe.

Oooh, the race is on! You reckon the "three months to live" Libyan will have his conviction overturned before Knox/Sollecito are acquitted?! Now I'm interested!

(BTW: I promise to transition over to the Lockerbie threads before long - just tying up the loose ends here first.....)

 

[LondonJohn]

pilot, I think you are overly impressed by what you think of as extensive research. All LJ had to do to find comments about Pepperdine was click on "Search this thread" in the upper right hand corner of the page and enter the word Pepperdine (he probably had to go back to the last thread for a comment from December). It doesn't take an obsession to recall that a certain poster has discussed certain topics; it just takes a memory.

Same with looking on PMF. I don't know if LJ has the capacity to do searches there, but since he remembered that SomeAlibi had talked about Pepperdine in the past month or so, all he had to do was go to discussions from the past month, and on each page, hit Control + F (find) and again, enter the word Pepperdine. It takes very little time.

As far as SomeAlibi being a master of masters when it comes to decimating other posters' arguments in this venue, well, if that were true, he would still be here, wouldn't he? Who would willingly give up such a rewarding gig?

Well, actually it happened like this: I was looking back for SA's posts with the misleading timing of the disco bus photos. I knew these posts had to have been made some time later than early November 2010, so I simply did a search of SA's posts after that date. I came across the post dealing with the Pepperdine correspondence by chance - it was posted at the same general time as the disco bus posts.

When I read the Pepperdine-related post (in which SA stated that he had written to Pepperdine), I then remembered SA's denial of having had any correspondence with Pepperdine over on .org. And then, as you say, I remembered that this post had taken place soon after news of Moore's out-of-court settlement came out. I therefore simply browsed all .org posts around that date and soon found SA's denial.

And that's how it happened. Not complicated, not furtive, not devious, not diabolical. I happened upon a post while looking for another post, and I immediately remembered a contradictory recent post by the same poster on another forum. I thought that was strange and interesting, so I checked to see whether I was correct. And I was correct.

 

[Antony]

Oooh, the race is on! You reckon the "three months to live" Libyan will have his conviction overturned before Knox/Sollecito are acquitted?! Now I'm interested!

(BTW: I promise to transition over to the Lockerbie threads before long - just tying up the loose ends here first.....)

I'm intrigued by this suggestion as well. Rolfe, is a new development imminent in the Lockerbie case?

I would add that few things would please me more.