Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Readin' a karmac map while others are lookin' for luv...

Hi all,
This is definately an interesting case we discuss.

A long time ago, 1 of my close friends Mom, an old Venice hippy chick named Prudence, who was really, really into astrology, read my cards. Trippy kinda voodoo stuff, I always felt, but hey to each their own...

Recently, while havin' a read at PMF.org, I came across a post by a fella named Ergon. He too is really into astrology, and posting on different sites on the World Wide Web, such as this one I quoted below that was found on TJ4MK, he makes comparisons between Amanda Knox and others, and also what her birthdate seems to imply. Check this out:

Considering the discovery that OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox share the same birthdate, July 09, here’s some more similarities between the two cases:
Frenzied knife attack
Racial element
Wonky alibis
Blood soaked glove/bathmat
Arguments about time frames
Shoe/foot prints
Allegations of police/prosecutorial misconduct
Astroturf he’s/she’s innocent groups
And CNN, playing it up for all its worth!

Today, I was checkin' in at PMF.org again.
Nothin' wrong with that, I like to get opinions and thought from both sides of the story, it gives me a proper balance and perspective on this case we discuss here on JREF.

Ergon was at it again:

<snip>
And since astrology is a theoretical science, it will never be 'proven' as there are indeed too many variables, so I'll avoid any blanket statements as to how, or when. @ Catnip, I agree, Judge Hellmann is a wild card!

But, shortly after bucket of tea got me into this and I said whatever about some Cancers, the eastern seaboard of the U.S. was struck by a rare earthquake and the Washington Monument cracked. And the US is a Cancer country, born on July 4.

So, if astrology is just a karmic map, I can say the U.S., (and Amanda Knox) is in for some interesting times!

Hmmm, this dude is a trip, IMHO...

If you read here often at JREF, you might recall a recent post that I wrote about titled Acquaintances. For in a strange twist, regular PMF poster Thoughtful's future son-in-law is acquainted with Rudy Guede. Small world, huh?

In another strange twist, another PMF poster, this one named Agatha, wrote earlier today that she has a son born on the same birthday, including the year too, as Amanda Knox! What a coincedence!

My eldest son shares a birthday (day month AND year) with AK, and he shows no sign of being a murderer; far from it! He graduated with a first in computer science, works for a major software provider in London, and has just celebrated his third year with his girlfriend who is studying Japanese at university.

Strangely, I've yet to see Ergon even mention Agatha's eldest son as he reads his karmac map. I wonder why?
Come on Ergon, spread the luv to your fellow pro-guilt groupies!


Speakin' of luv.
Today is the day, 1 week ago, that my little old doggie Tang died.
A few days after his death, I really, really wanted some luvin',
heck, I guess the need was because I simple wanted to feel alive...

When I think back to this brutal murder case we discuss, I can now see no wrong when I recall Raffaele tellin' Amanda that after buying those thong panties at 'Bubbles', they were gonna have some good luvin' that night. It kinda makes a person fell alive again, in my humble opinion, after a personal tragedy happens. And what is wrong with that?

See ya,
RW


PS - I would like to thank you JREF folks for all the nice emails when my lil' guy died. Your kind words and stories were deeply appreciated...
Thanks, RW

 

[LondonJohn]

These have been available here but they appear to be missing the frame or image number. I wonder if they actually took more than 4 photos in 45 minutes. Are there other Luminol photos that perhaps show faint traces from Rudy's shoes or did they only record what looked like bare feet because that is what they went there to find?

It's entirely possible that they only took four useful photos in 45 minutes: they would have to carefully set up the camera for each shot using artificial light to assist, then darken the scene and spray the Luminol, then open the shutter. I also presume that they took a number of photos of areas of the floor in-between those areas that showed luminescence - since they would have no way of knowing in advance which areas were going to luminesce. In other words, it's likely that they advanced sequentially along the corridor, and only saved those photos where luminescence was present.

But just looking at those four photos again confirms to me the suspicion that they were massively overexposed - and that the luminescence areas are therefore artificially brightened. The important thing to look for is the level of background "noise" - the constellation of tiny spots of light and lighter areas visible on all the tiling. This is totally inconsistent with either blood deposit or post-crime cleaning: if the floor had become blood-stained during the murder, and had then been mopped, the Luminol would have revealed linear or circular smearing (or, if bleach had been used, the Luminol would have revealed nothing at all). By contrast, the mass of tiny dots of "noise" is nothing more than the result you would get if you pushed the exposure on a Luminol photo of any area of hard flooring in a domestic residence. It's Stefanoni's "too low" issue all over again....

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fiona is a well respected former member of this forum who by some strange coincidence had posted quite regularly in all the Amanda Knox threads except for those that you have posted in.

"is a former member of this forum" reads a little better. Just my unneeded opinion.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here

And I might add with LOTS of sarcasm that these arguments that emanate profusely from individuals here who, when compared to Prosecutors and ILE...., all here have at least equally qualified backgrounds to include specific academic degrees *in related fields*, accreditation by appropriate professional Associations, and *long* years of related experience *in directly related* criminal forensics.

PLEASE:
1) Spare me the excessively time worn and equally excessively absurd argument endlessly parroted in the hundreds of posts here that Google, You Tube, and Library card proficiency is 'superior' to academic excellence *in related fields* as well as formal recognition by Professional Associations *in related fields*.

2) Spare me also tossing at me yet again the dull rusty bent out of shape 'gauntlet like' challenge to state (again) what time I think Meredith died.
2A) I have previously stated same.
2B) Such silliness as part of any rebuttal argument neither impresses me nor diminishes me and/or my above argument.

Do you think that Curatolo used the money he received from SomeAlibi to help pay for heroin? Did you know this is a very common practice for drug addicts. They actually take the money they acquire and buy the drug they are addicted to.

If you want to help Curatolo then you need to get him professional help. If you hand him money for a photo opportunity simply to help prove your point in an online debate then you are simply using the heroin addict for your own benefit. That's just a touch on the side of wrong don't you think?

Funny thing is that SomeAlibi's photo along with the touching story didn't prove anything other than the fact that Curatolo was alive and homeless.

 

[pilot padron]

Your opening sentence says it all

pilot padron,
This thread is the main source of information for me about the Knox/Sollecito case. The information provided here obviously favors the theory that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. My view which is strongly affected by the opinions and evidence posted here is that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

However, I am very open to the idea that various biases, a limited source of information or just a failure to understand the relevant evidence have caused me to have an incorrect view. So what is it in the evidence that has been released to the public that leads you to your views? What are the specifics of the reason that you reject the opinions of most of the people posting in this thread?

The argument that seems to be the most significant driver of your views is that prosecutors, police and forensic examiners usually work for the conviction of people who are guilty and the people convicted by juries are usually guilty. And I agree with you, this is strong evidence that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. However, there are many counter examples where the authorities have worked to convict people that are now known beyond all reasonable doubt to have been innocent. So the fact that Knox and Sollecito were prosecuted and found guilty is clearly not proof that they are guilty or even that the evidence against them meets a beyond a reasonable doubt test.

So what is it beyond your faith in the views of the authorities that Knox and Sollecito are guilty? What do you think of the lead prosecutor? Do you have any qualms about the questionable nature of some of his previous prosecutions, his convictions on witness harassment charges or his reference to graphology in his closing argument? Does this reduce your faith in the prosecution in this particular case at all?

1) Your courteous well written request is appreciated.

2) My main source of information about the case is each and every available court transcript, and translated documents, naturally the Motivations Report, 4 complete books, and as many as six Forums at various times, as well as most media and even Internet reports.

3) My "faith in the prosecution" is a significantly lesser motivating factor for me than you again incorrectly infer

4) My opinion of Prosecutor Mignini is that he is a highly qualified well respected Official doing a very difficult job in a very difficult enviornment.
He is human, not perfect, but certainly not deserving of the vile vitriol directed at him mostly on this Forum and mostly as a result of him simply trying to perform his dictated duties to the best of his ability.

5) Your reading of my most "significant driver" of guilt as mere "faith in authorities" bears no resemblance to actuality, and is very puzzling in itself.
My main convictions toward guilt *starts* with the inability of two individuals found in close proximity to a savagely murdered innocent young woman to provide any conceivably correct convincing by any stretch of the imagination answer to that horribly difficult initial question: "Where were you when Meredith was murdered?".
The, by my latest count, *Nine (9) varying, contradicting, throwing each other and Mr Lumumba under the bus 'answers' from the pair to the 'where' question did indeed impress me.
*(Three (3) Sollecito, and six (6) Knox)

6) My convictions toward guilt have little or any of the shallow "authorities are always correct" foundation that you oddly infer.
Your acknowledgement about strong (additional) evidence of guilt is appreciated.
There are indeed many, many more pieces of evidence that cause me to continue to believe in guilt:
staged break in, absurdity of 'Lone Wolf' being possible as per testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith, the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, the Luminol footprints, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, and on and on and on.

And of course you have only heard one side so far about the knife and clasp.
The timing, necessity, and absurdity of Sollecito's pricking story tells me mountains more than C and V about what was indeed on that knife blade at one time anyway.

I provide these to you not as basis to ignite and argue each.

Please understand; I ignore most less courteous similar challenges precisely because each and every piece of above evidence has been in some way argued at least one hundred and possible thousands of times here..
With absolutely no moving of positions (save possibly yours?).

Your request directed to me probably more due to being sole remaining guilt advocate today, flatters, and in fact prompted the above uncharacteristic summary.
However, others have argued these points much better than I.

If you sincerely seek contrary opinions, yet for whatever reason you read only here, may I suggest you do a search and read how Some Alibi incredibly and efficiently exposed as fallacious and erroneous any and all of the arguments thrown up here during his stay from those that you state above so influenced you.

For sundry and sometimes simpleton reasons, this audience chooses to ridicule and discard with abundant scorn any and all possibilities of guilt.
I do not choose to go another 60,000 rounds of that, nor do I attempt to argue each and every of those *yet again*, nor do I ask you to accept my belief, particularly ..... if all you read is here.

Such is the privilege here.
I choose to expose the more blatant biased obvious inaccuracies, because when left unchallenged they become 'fact' solely from repetition here.
However, your well written thoughts immensely help me understand your subsequent beliefs in light of your opening sentence.
Hope this helps you understand mine.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think that Curatolo used the money he received from SomeAlibi to help pay for heroin? Did you know this is a very common practice for drug addicts. They actually take the money they acquire and buy the drug they are addicted to.

If you want to help Curatolo then you need to get him professional help. If you hand him money for a photo opportunity simply to help prove your point in an online debate then you are simply using the heroin addict for your own benefit. That's just a touch on the side of wrong don't you think?

Funny thing is that SomeAlibi's photo along with the touching story didn't prove anything other than the fact that Curatolo was alive and homeless.

And that he didn't smell of alcohol fumes......

Although it doesn't take a genius to know that heroin (when injected intravenously - by far the most common method of ingestion among street users) doesn't leave any residual smell whatsoever. So the fabled "smell test" was utterly irrelevant in detecting Curatolo's personal substance addiction: not alcohol but heroin. It's near certain that Curatolo was addicted and using in late October 2010. I'm sure 20 Euro cash-in-hand would have come in rather handy for him in that regard.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a continuation, it appears that the owner of the girls' cottage has had ongoing problems in renting the property, owing to its gruesome association with Meredith's murder. I'm sure the owner is therefore somewhat less than happy to find crime tourists casing the cottage to take multiple photographs (even trespassing onto - and inside - the property to snoop around) and placing memorials on the gate. That must help enormously......

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

These have been available here but they appear to be missing the frame or image number. I wonder if they actually took more than 4 photos in 45 minutes. Are there other Luminol photos that perhaps show faint traces from Rudy's shoes or did they only record what looked like bare feet because that is what they went there to find?

Here they are in the original resolution with original file names:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/144.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/145.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/146.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/147.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/148.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/149.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/150.jpg
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/151.jpg

I have recompressed these with Irfanview, to create smaller files that are more or less indistinguishable from the originals.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room,

Where are you getting that? There is no such evidence.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

1) Your courteous well written request is appreciated.

2) My main source of information about the case is each and every available court transcript, and translated documents, naturally the Motivations Report, 4 complete books, and as many as six Forums at various times, as well as most media and even Internet reports.

3) My "faith in the prosecution" is a significantly lesser motivating factor for me than you again incorrectly infer

4) My opinion of Prosecutor Mignini is that he is a highly qualified well respected Official doing a very difficult job in a very difficult enviornment.
He is human, not perfect, but certainly not deserving of the vile vitriol directed at him mostly on this Forum and mostly as a result of him simply trying to perform his dictated duties to the best of his ability.

5) Your reading of my most "significant driver" of guilt as mere "faith in authorities" bears no resemblance to actuality, and is very puzzling in itself.
My main convictions toward guilt *starts* with the inability of two individuals found in close proximity to a savagely murdered innocent young woman to provide any conceivably correct convincing by any stretch of the imagination answer to that horribly difficult initial question: "Where were you when Meredith was murdered?".
The, by my latest count, *Nine (9) varying, contradicting, throwing each other and Mr Lumumba under the bus 'answers' from the pair to the 'where' question did indeed impress me.
*(Three (3) Sollecito, and six (6) Knox)

6) My convictions toward guilt have little or any of the shallow "authorities are always correct" foundation that you oddly infer.
Your acknowledgement about strong (additional) evidence of guilt is appreciated.
There are indeed many, many more pieces of evidence that cause me to continue to believe in guilt:
staged break in, absurdity of 'Lone Wolf' being possible as per testimony of numerous forensic experts who testified that more than one person killed Meredith, the mixed blood samples, Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the blue bathmat, the Luminol footprints, the three traces of Meredith’s blood in Knox’s room, the mobile phone and computer records that provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied, Knox’s telephone calls and conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007, Knox’s false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba which she didn’t retract the whole time he was in prison, and on and on and on.

And of course you have only heard one side so far about the knife and clasp.
The timing, necessity, and absurdity of Sollecito's pricking story tells me mountains more than C and V about what was indeed on that knife blade at one time anyway.

I provide these to you not as basis to ignite and argue each.

Please understand; I ignore most less courteous similar challenges precisely because each and every piece of above evidence has been in some way argued at least one hundred and possible thousands of times here..
With absolutely no moving of positions (save possibly yours?).

Your request directed to me probably more due to being sole remaining guilt advocate today, flatters, and in fact prompted the above uncharacteristic summary.
However, others have argued these points much better than I.

If you sincerely seek contrary opinions, yet for whatever reason you read only here, may I suggest you do a search and read how Some Alibi incredibly and efficiently exposed as fallacious and erroneous any and all of the arguments thrown up here during his stay from those that you state above so influenced you.

For sundry and sometimes simpleton reasons, this audience chooses to ridicule and discard with abundant scorn any and all possibilities of guilt.
I do not choose to go another 60,000 rounds of that, nor do I attempt to argue each and every of those *yet again*, nor do I ask you to accept my belief, particularly ..... if all you read is here.

Such is the privilege here.
I choose to expose the more blatant biased obvious inaccuracies, because when left unchallenged they become 'fact' solely from repetition here.
However, your well written thoughts immensely help me understand your subsequent beliefs in light of your opening sentence.
Hope this helps you understand mine.

Let's discuss just one of your alleged pieces of evidence. Please show proof that Meredith's blood was found in Amanda's room.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks Charlie. Just amazing what the court has assumed about this evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

IMHO, the above rather all inclusive, erroneously as well as excessively dogmatic, agenda directed, confirmation biased proclamation you proffer is actually little more than just another "atta boy" add on 'argument' and more significantly, is too glaringly incomplete to pass uncorrected.

It's also true, Pilot.

To be more correct it should read:
The prosecution has been found to be wrongby the arguments on this Forum. on about every item that's been placed under thoughtful scrutiny this time by those arguing innocence here

Have you noticed the appeals court has shown those arguments made here were right about the three most important elements of 'evidence' from the Massei Court? The 'witness' that broke the alibi, the 'murder weapon' and the only item found in the murder room of the two victims of this incompetent 'investigation?'

What did the 'good day for guilt' amount to? Rudy Guede sitting in court silently while Mignini read a letter more than a year old that amounted to 'oh no, not me, you can blame these two too?'

And I might add with LOTS of sarcasm that these arguments that emanate profusely from individuals here who, when compared to Prosecutors and ILE...., all here have at least equally qualified backgrounds to include specific academic degrees *in related fields*, accreditation by appropriate professional Associations, and *long* years of related experience *in directly related* criminal forensics.

The experts are on the side of the good guys here, Pilot. The seven forensic DNA experts, at least five other PhD's including a professor of biochemistry, Psychiatry,(MD) a MD, a materials science PhD, and Professor Michael Krom of Leeds University, Meredith's school are actively campaigning for their innocence. The pathologist (PhD) on this forum seems to this humble observer decidedly unimpressed with the arguments regarding Massei's time of death or anything much past 9 PM, nor as far as I've seen any of the guilt arguments at home or away. There's three former FBI agents who've weighed in on this case whose reaction to the conviction ran the gamut from dubious, to outraged and actively working for their exoneration. I've lost track now of the lawyers and others in related fields who've weighed in on the trial or the forensics, including a judge, a renowned defense attorney, a DNA legal expert, another highly esteemed forensics expert.

PLEASE:
1) Spare me the excessively time worn and equally excessively absurd argument endlessly parroted in the hundreds of posts here that Google, You Tube, and Library card proficiency is 'superior' to academic excellence *in related fields* as well as formal recognition by Professional Associations *in related fields*.

The truly sad thing is any clown on the internet can expose the shoddy work of the prosecution and back it up with logic, argument and citations from peer-reviewed literature. That means hitting it head on and showing how the ToD is fantasy, how the DNA work was egregious if not criminal, and how the prosecution lied about 'bloody footprints.' On the other hand kittens and bunnies whisper frighteningly about furriers and try to find typos and silly reasons to pretend sources that say the same as all the rest including in both Italy and Europe somehow 'discredit' the DNA expert's report.

2) Spare me also tossing at me yet again the dull rusty bent out of shape 'gauntlet like' challenge to state (again) what time I think Meredith died.
2A) I have previously stated same.
2B) Such silliness as part of any rebuttal argument neither impresses me nor diminishes me and/or my above argument.

What argument? On all grounds, whether it's credentials, common sense, law, logic or science the prosecution is overwhelmed, as have been its apologists.

 

[RoseMontague]

Luminol/evidence numbering system

I admit some confusion on exactly which sample in Charlie's pictures is the sample found in Amanda's room. Is the Sample L3 the same as Rep 5? Is that the one with the toe problem? Maybe somebody who can read this better than me can help me out with this.

In any case, the 3 presumed blood samples found in Amanda's room are listed below. None tested positive for blood, for the one Luminol print we know all of those tested negative for TMB and I see no specific test for blood run on this sample (or any of the Luminol positive samples). The only one that had any DNA at all was the Luminol print found on Amanda's floor. No surprise that her DNA might be found on the floor of her own room. No Meredith's DNA, no positive (specific) blood test.

Rep.174 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken from the surface of the bedside table place in the room in use by Amanda Maria KNOX (sample R) – page 165 A.F./217 R.;
Rep.175 – Sample of presumed blood substance taken from a portion of wall situated above the back of the bed in the room in used by Amanda KNOX (sample S) – page 165 A.F./217 R.;
Rep.178 – Sample of presumed blood substance (which shows the shape of a human foot) revealed by luminol, present on the floor situated in the room in use by Amanda Marie KNOX (sample L3) – page 166 A.F./220 R.;

 

[Katody Matrass]

I admit some confusion on exactly which sample in Charlie's pictures is the sample found in Amanda's room.

It's the photo 144.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's the photo 144.

Thats the one with the second toe problem? Really? LOL.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thanks for this Charlie!

Photo 146 is very interesting. According to Rinaldi the print encircled by tape belongs to Raffaele. Yet it's clear that it's a girl's print, and a small one, barely longer then the 20 cm measuring tape.

The large drops of fluid look like overapplying of luminol to me. The other print is completely ruined because of it.

Other noticeable things - luminol reactions on top of cop's shoecovers, the cop stepped into the luminol and smeared it, too.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thats the one with the second toe problem? Really? LOL.

It's the only one with anything resembling a second toe

Amanda's second toe is longer then the big toe. In the print it is clearly shorter.

 

[Katody Matrass]

photos 150, 151 - Luminol again applied in huge globs, creating puddles. I thought you're supposed to spray it, not pour?

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for this Charlie!

Photo 146 is very interesting. According to Rinaldi the print encircled by tape belongs to Raffaele. Yet it's clear that it's a girl's print, and a small one, barely longer then the 20 cm measuring tape.

The large drops of fluid look like overapplying of luminol to me. The other print is completely ruined because of it.

Other noticeable things - luminol reactions on top of cop's shoecovers, the cop stepped into the luminol and smeared it, too.

That's a pretty strong Luminol reaction on the guy's boots. Must have spilled some turnip juice on them. Nice catch.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Garofano and luminol in DD

photos 150, 151 - Luminol again applied in huge globs, creating puddles. I thought you're supposed to spray it, not pour?

Colonel Garofano described the luminol as being overapplied in Darkness Descending. The overapplication leads to loss of detail and dilation in an image, according to him. Although I do not consider him to be a reliable source of DNA information (or of other forensic information), he may have been closer to the truth with respect to this issue. However, it looks worse than I expected, based on his description.