Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Sherlock Holmes]

How does this show that he could not have locked the door? There are only two of Rudy's footprints in the hallway, yet six, both left and right, in the living room. How did Rudy get from opposite Amanda's room to the living room without leaving any prints, and how did he avoid leaving right footprints at all until the living area? If footprints are missing in the hallway, likely where half the police force of Perugia walked, then why can't other footprints which were outside the door have been destroyed by the constant tyraffic in and out of Meredith's room, just like his right one obviously was, unless you are going to try and claim he hopped down the hallway.

Foot prints are not missing - Rudy's clearly show he left the bedroom and went straight out the front door, the only prints that are missing are the ones that point towards Meredith's door to show him locking it because he never did. Amanda does have a footprint pointing towards Meredith's though.

 

[LondonJohn]

Foot prints are not missing - Rudy's clearly show he left the bedroom and went straight out the front door, the only prints that are missing are the ones that point towards Meredith's door to show him locking it because he never did. Amanda does have a footprint pointing towards Meredith's though.

No, this is simply not correct. The very faint footprints made by Guede's shoe in Meredith's blood show that he walked from Meredith's room towards the kitchen/lounge and front door - at some point after the murder. They do not show that he left the bedroom and "went straight out the front door". In fact, it's entirely possible that Guede went back to Meredith's room after having left those shoe prints in the hallway (the shoe prints fade out completely as the hallway becomes the kitchen/lounge area - they do not even lead to the front door).

Actually, I think that it's very reasonable to suggest that Guede might have initially confronted and attacked Meredith after he found himself cornered and unable to open the front door without keys, but that in the heightened adrenaline and fear after the murder, he forgot this when he came to leave. I therefore think that it's entirely possible that Guede left Meredith's room and headed to the front door without having located her keys (leaving the shoe prints on his way to the door); he then realised that he needed the key to open the door, and returned once again to Meredith's room to retrieve her keys from her bag. It would have been at this point that he decided to lock Meredith's room on his final exit with the keys in his hand.

It's also possible that Guede might not have realised that a key was needed to open the front door until he tried to exit after the murder. It could be that either 1) Meredith confronted him before he even attempted to leave via the front door, or 2) he tried unsuccessfully to exit via the front door after Meredith arrived home, but thought the door was stuck or that he wasn't operating the latch properly. Either way, it's entirely possible that it wasn't until after the murder that Guede realised a key was needed to open the door - precipitating a return to Meredith's room to find the key after an initial trip from her room to the front door.

 

[LondonJohn]

I read the article, and again I'm struck by the similarities with the wrongful conviction of Stefan Kiszko. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed




You could practically write the script.

The good outcome from the Kiszko case was that the police had to accept that Kiszko was not the murderer, and re-opened the inquiry. The real murderer was convicted in 2007, OVER THIRTY YEARS after the murder took place, due to DNA evidence collected in relation to another investigation providing a "direct hit".

Rolfe.

As you say, this is a classic example of the authorities rushing to judgement, then employing tunnel vision and fitting the evidence to their pre-judgement of Kiszko's guilt. It's also a classic example of the self-preservation instincts of the law enforcement personnel in their increasing desperation to defend their positions and judgement, even as more and more exculpatory evidence emerged. I would imagine that some of these individuals would be claiming to this day that they had "got the right man" if it weren't for the devastating (and incontrovertible) DNA evidence that became available later, and which proved that another man and not Kiszko was the murderer.

And this is exactly the kind of behaviour that I - and very many other rational thinkers - believe is going on in the Knox/Sollecito case. No "vast conspiracies": just an entirely explicable case of police and prosecutors rushing to judgement (in this case, accelerated by the perceived need to "solve the crime" quickly and efficiently, and to appear competent in carrying out major murder investigations), then suffering from tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their urge to "confirm" their judgement. I'm confident that if there is a proper judicial inquiry once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, at least some of this will be exposed to the light.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, I think that it's very reasonable to suggest that Guede might have initially confronted and attacked Meredith after he found himself cornered and unable to open the front door without keys, but that in the heightened adrenaline and fear after the murder, he forgot this when he came to leave. I therefore think that it's entirely possible that Guede left Meredith's room and headed to the front door without having located her keys (leaving the shoe prints on his way to the door); he then realised that he needed the key to open the door, and returned once again to Meredith's room to retrieve her keys from her bag. It would have been at this point that he decided to lock Meredith's room on his final exit with the keys in his hand.

It's also possible that Guede might not have realised that a key was needed to open the front door until he tried to exit after the murder. It could be that either 1) Meredith confronted him before he even attempted to leave via the front door, or 2) he tried unsuccessfully to exit via the front door after Meredith arrived home, but thought the door was stuck or that he wasn't operating the latch properly. Either way, it's entirely possible that it wasn't until after the murder that Guede realised a key was needed to open the door - precipitating a return to Meredith's room to find the key after an initial trip from her room to the front door.

And that's the point about reasonable doubt, isn't it. If a reasonable explanation for the evidence exists that is compatible with innocence, the court is bound to accept it. Sherlock Holmes seems unable to understand that his personal interpretation of certain items as proving guilt is just that - his personal interpretation. There are equally or even more probable explanations which don't implicate Knox or Sollecito at all.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

That makes me wrong, then?

For goodness sake, what's so hard about it? The state of Meredith's digestion shows she was killed within about three hours of her last meal. That doesn't change no matter how many degrees you have or haven't got.

What is amusing are the attempts by people who have no medical or scientific knowledge at all to google up specious arguments in their desperate attempts to refute the bleedin' obvious. And in that I include the attempts to rubbish the expert report into the DNA findings, as well as the risible sophistry about the time of death.

Rolfe.

When you see "arguments" such as that one, you realise that there's very little point in engaging in debate at all. I have no emotional attachment to one particular side of this case: I am merely arguing a position based on what I see as the only rational and reasonable way to view this case. And that is that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that Knox or Sollecito should - or will - be ultimately convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. As I see it, there is not only insufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than that, there is virtually no solid evidence of guilt at all. I think that every single piece of prosecution "evidence" is either bogus or has a perfectly reasonable and feasible explanation that is consistent with innocence.

As many others have already pointed out, just because there are two opposing arguments taking place, that doesn't necessarily mean that the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle. In this instance, the truth is that Knox and Sollecito should - and will - be acquitted by Hellmann's court. And more than that, the truth is most likely that neither Knox nor Sollecito were involved at all with the murder, its planning or its aftermath. In my opinion, anyone arguing otherwise - particularly on the crucial "acquittal vs conviction" argument - is either a) ignorant of the facts, b) deficient in logic and reasoning, c) emotionally over-invested in a pro-guilt position, or d) willfully engaging in contrarian behaviour for their own amusement (or a combination of some or all of the above). That's the way I see things; others are free to disagree with my opinion.

 

[Rolfe]

I see WantsJustice has categorically declared Meredith was killed at 22.30. He'll probably be banned for that because The Machine has decreed that she died a few minutes after 23.30. (WantsJustice didn't give any reason for that opinion.)

Stilicho has just said, on PMF, without a trace of irony, that all Amanda Knox threads should be sent to a private sub-forum restricted to snarky cranks.

That's actually funny.

Rolfe.

 

[Fine]

I have posted there but recently it seemed to be doing better. Good to know that I am not the only one of the Knox clan having some degree of difficulty with this.

So how does Massie come up with the bare footprint in the corridor that contains both Meredith's and Amanda's DNA? Mistake or intentional? The Machine's continued claims in this area?

__________________

Rose,

Well, it wasn't an excusable typographical err0r, was it?

Massei was either seriously confused about the so-called "bloody footprints" or he was being deceitful. I think he was confused, since there's plenty of evidence for that elsewhere in his Report. What was Massei's state of mind when he decided---as stated explicitly in the report--- We don't need more stinkin' experts?

///

 

[LondonJohn]

So, apparently Antonio Curatolo was entirely lucid, calm, coherent man in October 2010. Yet he was arrested some two and a half months later (in January 2011 - not 2012, which, ahem, is in the future....), and charged with heroin dealing going back to 2004.

Here's an excerpt of Curatolo's testimony in Hellmann's court in March 2011:

Hellmann: Do you take drugs?
Curatolo: Yes, heroin.

Hellmann: Were you taking drugs on that night?
Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.

Now, to me, Curatolo's replies to these two questions clearly imply that he was a regular heroin user during the entire period when he was sleeping rough on the bench in Piazza Grimana ("I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night"). So most rational people would also conclude that Curatolo was an active heroin user in late October 2010.

And in relation to the "calm, coherent" matter, here's what Curatolo had to say about his state of mind in Hellmann's court in March 2010 - five months after October 2010:

Curatolo told the court he had been sleeping in Piazza Grimana for seven or eight years before 2007. "I was an anarchist, then I read the bible and became a Christian anarchist," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/26/amanda-knox-appeal-contradictory-testimony

and

"I consider myself an anarchist," he (Curatolo) said Saturday, "and I chose this lifestyle."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...ss-drug-use/UPI-77041301252234/#ixzz1VbzZCGDn


So in fact, Curatolo was a shambling wreck of a man with quite severe mental health issues, who had elected to live on the streets (and who consequently had most likely resisted attempts to place him in a more secure shelter. This was also a man who says he was "always using" heroin, and that he believes that heroin "does not make you hallucinate or anything".

And all of this within months of late October 2010. Strange, huh?

PS I don't read a particular website, but I am "told" of things on that site that might be of personal interest to me. Yeah, right..............

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I find TV detective dramas utterly nauseating. Needless to say they give a completely false idea of how people behave in situations like this, and arguably are responsible for all of the "innocent people don't do that!" attitudes we've seen in comment on this case. Equally needless to say, they don't generally include much content based on police screwing up, beating up suspects or accusing people without evidence. (One of the biggest ironies I've seen in this debate was when I was arguing that Amanda's statements from the all-night interrogation were obviously coerced, and my antagonist came back accusing me of having watched too many TV police dramas!)

The most laughable aspect of them is when the the cast assemble at the end of the episode to hear the detective character recount his/her solution to the crime, facing repeated interruptions (which s/he calmly rebuts) from the character who turns out to be the culprit, culminating with the policeman stepping in to put the handcuffs on when the solution is announced. How can anyone imagine that this represents a real-life situation?

Perhaps... but Columbo was fabulous!

People who find it difficult to believe Amanda was coerced should really pay more attention to Preston and Spezi and what they have to say about what they endured at the hands of some of the same people.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see WantsJustice has categorically declared Meredith was killed at 22.30. He'll probably be banned for that because The Machine has decreed that she died a few minutes after 23.30. (WantsJustice didn't give any reason for that opinion.)

Stilicho has just said, on PMF, without a trace of irony, that all Amanda Knox threads should be sent to a private sub-forum restricted to snarky cranks.

That's actually funny.

Rolfe.

A clear indicator to me of the sheer idiocy of some of the pro-guilt arguments is when commentators assert that Knox and Sollecito should be categorised in the same bracket as Fred & Rosemary West, or Myra Hindley / Ian Brady, or Paul Bernardo / Karla Homolka. This is an idiotic and utterly misleading comparison: because even if Knox/Sollecito were culpable of Meredith's murder, the crime would be utterly incomparable to those of these other couples. These "comparator" couples all planned and executed horrific torture and sexual homicide on multiple victims - usually vulnerable young girls who were lured into a trap. And these crimes were committed over periods of several years, and there was always a lengthy period (always well over a year) after the couples first met before any crimes of violence or sexual deviance were committed.

So even if you were to believe that Knox and Sollecito teamed up with Guede to sexually assault and kill Meredith, you would make a total fool of yourself to assert that the crime was in any way comparable to those of the notorious "killer couple" serial murderers. Heck, even Massei had to conclude that there was no premeditation - which in itself puts the crime in a whole different bracket, even if you accept the Massei judgement wholesale (and you'd have to be an idiot to do that, of course....)

 

[JREF2010]

__________________

Rose,

Well, it wasn't an excusable typographical err0r, was it?

Massei was either seriously confused about the so-called "bloody footprints" or he was being deceitful. I think he was confused, since there's plenty of evidence for that elsewhere in his Report. What was Massei's state of mind when he decided---as stated explicitly in the report--- We don't need more stinkin' experts?

///

As I recall Frank saying and another journalist, was layjudges would fall asleep, Massei would play with his cell phone, and so thats a possible chance for them to get details mixed up.
During the Defense witnesses, the Cell Tower expert piece (if its still available after they shut down his old site)

Its very possible Massei doesn't understand luminol and forensic science very well either.

 

[Rolfe]

I like the picture of the sweet little cats under the yellow moon though....

Rolfe.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So in fact, Curatolo was a shambling wreck of a man with quite severe mental health issues, who had elected to live on the streets (and who consequently had most likely resisted attempts to place him in a more secure shelter. This was also a man who says he was "always using" heroin, and that he believes that heroin "does not make you hallucinate or anything".

And all of this within months of late October 2010. Strange, huh?

Insofar as whether heroin causes hallucinations, Curatolo is absolutely right. Heroin no more causes hallucinations than paracetamol or any other non-hallucinogenic drug for that matter.

A drug user who only uses heroin is a rare beast, criminologically speaking, and heroin addicts are typically polydrug users, which is a fancy way of saying they will shove anything they can get into their nose, mouth or arm. So it's more likely that Curatolo was on LSD or something on any given night than a randomly selected member of the population, if that's all we know about him, but not greatly so.

Some forms of mental illness can cause hallucinations as well but I am not aware that Curatolo has been diagnosed with any such condition.

His track record of popping up with just the witness statements the Perugia police needed is also hard to reconcile with the theory that he was randomly hallucinating, whether because of drugs or some underlying condition.

I think a far more likely story is just that Curatolo was extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" or coercion by the police that he come forward with some kind of story placing Knox and Sollecito outside their house at a particular time.

 

[JREF2010]

Having an opinion of them being "somehow involved" means nothing more than you suspect something. Which comes back to the behavior and acting "suspiciously". As evidence that they should have been considered "suspects" it might work. Or they could have been charged with suspicious activity rather than murder. The cartwheel ought to be good for some community service at the local gymnastics center.

Thats funny "charged with suspicious activity"... it may come down to that.
I know I couldn't convict on "maybe it happened" or "they acted weird".

How about "lies" the prosecution often speak of...my current infatuation!

Example:
One of Raffaele's "responses" is his comment of Amanda leaving at 9 and returning at 1am.
> I was told, and read, that he was confused and talking mistakenly or taken wrong, about Oct 31. Others say he's caught in a lie because hes a murderer.

According to the cell log, for Oct 31
>Raffaele and his Dad talk 44minutes at 10:14pm/22:14.(not something he'd do with Amanda there I doubt.) He talks and SMS to his Dad at Midnight and guess when? .................1am.
>Amandas cell shows up at 00:57am (1am), from guess where?
........VD5Sector 3, which is Raffaeles apartment.

So it seems logical this comment is true, Raffaele could have been talking about Oct 31. That Amanda was gone and came home at 1am. Maybe the police took him wrong during the interrogation, the police thinking he was talking about Nov 1, but Raffaele was in fact talking about Oct 31.


Hellman seems to be ready to end the trial soon, per this article. Maybe he doesnt need to delve into the "truth/lies" folder?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...assists-parents-in-kelly-denman-tragic-story/

 

[LondonJohn]

Insofar as whether heroin causes hallucinations, Curatolo is absolutely right. Heroin no more causes hallucinations than paracetamol or any other non-hallucinogenic drug for that matter.

A drug user who only uses heroin is a rare beast, criminologically speaking, and heroin addicts are typically polydrug users, which is a fancy way of saying they will shove anything they can get into their nose, mouth or arm. So it's more likely that Curatolo was on LSD or something on any given night than a randomly selected member of the population, if that's all we know about him, but not greatly so.

Some forms of mental illness can cause hallucinations as well but I am not aware that Curatolo has been diagnosed with any such condition.

His track record of popping up with just the witness statements the Perugia police needed is also hard to reconcile with the theory that he was randomly hallucinating, whether because of drugs or some underlying condition.

I think a far more likely story is just that Curatolo was extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" or coercion by the police that he come forward with some kind of story placing Knox and Sollecito outside their house at a particular time.

Ah but you're seemingly defining "hallucinations" as the vivid audio-visual scenes that are often experienced while under the influence of the so-called "hallucinogen" drugs such as LSD. But opiates such as heroin most definitely both can and do induce hallucinations in users - especially long-term users - that are not the same vivid fantasies but more akin to seeing people who aren't really there, or hearing strange distant voices, or imagining oneself to be lying in water.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003258.htm

 

[bucketoftea]

I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

 

[Mary_H]

I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

Do you have the records?

 

[bucketoftea]

Do you have the records?

I'm afraid I can't find you a linky, but I'm sure others will remember them saying this on television. Edda more than once.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear Mary...yet another cite request

I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

Do you have the records?

Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

It is well known that Amanda and Rudy only crossed paths a couple of times and were certainly not friends.

Dragging Amanda's family into the discussion is not necessary.

Bucket, why not make your avatar about me on JREF too? I am seeing how many avatars I can have dedicated to me. The avatar game is not a childish obsession at all and it is an excellent way to preserve the memory of Meredith!