Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

Over at P** there was a short conversation about FOA people talking crazy things such as Kokomani's possible involvement.

Do you think it is crazy to speculate that a man who was there at the time of the murder, knew Rudi, left shortly after the murder for Albania, and was later convicted of drug dealing might have been involved?

The other idea that Curatolo was al ookout doesn't fly with me because he wouldn't have been able to see much and how would he have communicated with Koko or Rudi?

Being that Hellman's court ruled there was no staged break-in, and if you exclude the calunnia as proof of anything related to the murder, what is it that makes you sure they were involved?

The Kokomani thing is not new. I recall the feelings of some people from the time of his testimony. Albeit his testimony was "crazy", and also interpeted in very different ways form various parties, there was a feeling of something more behind it. There was like an underlying narrative in Kokomani's narrative that sounded very disturbing. Essentially he was putting crazy opbects an names in a narrative that was some kind of very dark event. It was basically a negotiation between him and Rudy Guede, for the possible use of a car, a negotiation to which Knox and Sollecito opposed (Knox is described a very altered mental state). He is not credible, and we could say that everything he says it's false or made so to appear impossible to believe, but one wonders why he choses to tell such a story. So there is something very strange in him deciding to talke about that story, I remember people were wondering if he had maybe purposely "changed" things in his account order to not incriminate himself of something as drug dealing, while trying to exploit his poor knowledge of Italian to put confusion in his testimony.
People retained the feeling that there was "something more" than pure folly in Kokomani's account, there was deception and lies and absurdities, yet his testimony cannot thoroughly explained through this.

I would not discard completely the thought that he might be in fact a witness to something, that he knows more than what he says. But its' pure speculation.

Curatolo never changed his version and happened to be crossed with several witnesses who endorse his credibility. I think he could have seen something, and I think he would not have communicated with Rudy nor Kokomani. However, I am not able to assess completely his credibility because I did not listen to all his testimony and arguments by other witnesses entirely.

I believe they are involved because I see a long series of pieces of evidence made of several areas.
Essentially, an important element of evidence to me always to take in account in this system is the "logical proof" (argumentum a contrariis), which means lack of defensive explanation: the defensive explanation consists in a series of hypothesys/points each one weaker than the opposing theory.

First, I disagree that the break in is not staged: I do not consider seriously any possible true break in on that physical evidence.
Then the other areas of evidence I see are:
evidence of cleanup beyond doubt (tracks L9 and clean floor in the bathroom)
multiple attackers from autopsy report and phisical findings in the room
further alteration of the scene
luminol footprints as a system of complex compelling evidence, their morphology and distribution and features logically demonstrating a relation of both with the murder
blood of Knox in the small bathroom (logically related to the context of the murder)
bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede
bra clasp DNA and knife DNA are not discredited by Vechiotti/Conti report, this became obvious to me as I read the report
an astouding seris of lies by Amanda Knox in her inacceptable account before her false accusation
a furhtere series of contraditions by Knox after her false confession
a series of lies by Sollecito, and the egregious changing in his alibi
phone records, in particular the 24:00 ping on Lana's cell
Amanda's false accusation and the not credible/inconsistent justifications about it
(my evaluation of evidence includes full credibility attributed to witnesses as Anna Donnino and Filomena Romanelli, which I deem a judge is compelled to trust entirely)
no logical alternative to explain Rudy Guede's traces and the isolated bathmat print through a single perpetrator scenario
four direct witnesses (Quintavalle, Curatolo, Nara, Antonella)

I think the above mentioned evidence is just crushing. There is evidence of implication beyond doubt.

 

[Malkmus]

First, I disagree that the break in is not staged: I do not consider seriously any possible true break in on that physical evidence.

Question for you about the break-in. In staging all the pieces, why did Amanda and Raffaele decide to place the rock inside the bag under the window? What was the thought process in doing that?

 

[Malkmus]

luminol footprints as a system of complex compelling evidence, their morphology and distribution and features logically demonstrating a relation of both with the murder

Whose footprint is this?



The second toe is neither a match for Amand or Raf.

 

[Malkmus]

blood of Knox in the small bathroom (logically related to the context of the murder)

How do you reconcile this with a lack of wounds discovered on Amanda's body when inspected by the police, and the only part of her body that had been bleeding in the days prior to the murder was an infected ear?

 

[Malkmus]

(my evaluation of evidence includes full credibility attributed to witnesses as Anna Donnino and Filomena Romanelli, which I deem a judge is compelled to trust entirely)

How do you reconcile Amanda's knowledge of Anna Donnino breaking a leg and being traumatized from it, unless it was in an effort to convince Amanda she had been traumatized as well?

 

[snook1]

First, I disagree that the break in is not staged: I do not consider seriously any possible true break in on that physical evidence.

luminol footprints as a system of complex compelling evidence, their morphology and distribution and features logically demonstrating a relation of both with the murder
blood of Knox in the small bathroom (logically related to the context of the murder)
bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede

an astouding seris of lies by Amanda Knox in her inacceptable account before her false accusation
a furhtere series of contraditions by Knox after her false confession
a series of lies by Sollecito, and the egregious changing in his alibi
phone records, in particular the 24:00 ping on Lana's cell
Amanda's false accusation and the not credible/inconsistent justifications about it
(my evaluation of evidence includes full credibility attributed to witnesses as Anna Donnino and Filomena Romanelli, which I deem a judge is compelled to trust entirely)

If Hellmann writes in his motivations a perfectly good explanation on the break in, would you be able to accept it?

- clean floor in the bathroom
Yet they left the bathmat?
No sense at all.

- multiple attackers from autopsy report
The report didn't conclude if Meredith was attacked and killed by more than one person or at least it didn't rule out a possibility that only one person did it, remember dr Lalli? It's yet another confusing story.

- bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede
Says who? Prosecution's experts. And what did the defense's experts say? Something completely opposite.

- bra clasp DNA and knife DNA are not discredited by Vechiotti/Conti report, this became obvious to me as I read the report
Then we must've read different reports, even The Machine claimed it was favourable for Knox and Sollecito, the report was damning for the prosecution and it was a key to the acquittals

- no logical alternative to explain Rudy Guede's traces and the isolated bathmat print through a single perpetrator scenario
Give me one logical explanation on why there's no sign of Knox and Sollecito in the murder room ,then we can move on to whatever you like.

-Nara isn't a direct witness, never was...she didn't see anything.
The rest, so called evidence, that you listed, isn't evidence.

There's nothing that can't be refuted.

 

[snook1]

Question for you about the break-in. In staging all the pieces, why did Amanda and Raffaele decide to place the rock inside the bag under the window? What was the thought process in doing that?

It'll be fun to actually see Machiavelli answering this one, and the next one about the footprint. I'm excited!

A first time killers, decided to stage a break in and they even thought about placing a rock in the paper bag under the chair(or table- can't recall), so that it looked more real. Give me a break. It was more than clear that this was a real break in.

 

[LondonJohn]

How do you reconcile Amanda's knowledge of Anna Donnino breaking a leg and being traumatized from it, unless it was in an effort to convince Amanda she had been traumatized as well?

Rather astonishingly, Donnino herself testified in the Massei trial that she had told Knox the story of her "traumatic amnesia" related to her broken leg. Presumably, Donnino didn't even realise the sheer impropriety of such an interjection from someone who was supposed to be an interpreter and not an interrogator. To me, Donnino's testimony is proof in and of itself that the police were employing totally improper coercion techniques upon Knox.

 

[Malkmus]

bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede

How does Raffaele change the shape of his big toe from being mushroom-shaped to the more oval one on the bathmat?

 

[LondonJohn]

How does Raffaele change the shape of his big toe from being mushroom-shaped to the more oval one on the bathmat?

[qimg]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/391/sidebysideeo.jpg[/qimg]

I believe that Hellmann's motivations report will forever destroy the ludicrous myth of the "millimetre accuracy" of the match to Sollecito's print. Rinaldi employed bogus pseudoscience and suspect-centric predetermination in his risible "analysis" of the bathmat print. Any fool can see that the print is unmatchable, but that of the two reference prints, it tends to more closely resemble that of Guede.

I firmly believe the bathmat partial print was made by Guede, and I firmly believe that Hellmann will reach exactly the same conclusion in his report. Anyone who drank the Rinaldi koolaid (including Massei, and most prominent pro-guilt commentators) needs to take a long, hard look at their powers of reasoning, logic and objectivity.

 

[Grinder]

The Kokomani thing is not new. I recall the feelings of some people from the time of his testimony. Albeit his testimony was "crazy", and also interpeted in very different ways form various parties, there was a feeling of something more behind it. There was like an underlying narrative in Kokomani's narrative that sounded very disturbing. Essentially he was putting crazy opbects an names in a narrative that was some kind of very dark event. It was basically a negotiation between him and Rudy Guede, for the possible use of a car, a negotiation to which Knox and Sollecito opposed (Knox is described a very altered mental state). He is not credible, and we could say that everything he says it's false or made so to appear impossible to believe, but one wonders why he choses to tell such a story. So there is something very strange in him deciding to talke about that story, I remember people were wondering if he had maybe purposely "changed" things in his account order to not incriminate himself of something as drug dealing, while trying to exploit his poor knowledge of Italian to put confusion in his testimony.
People retained the feeling that there was "something more" than pure folly in Kokomani's account, there was deception and lies and absurdities, yet his testimony cannot thoroughly explained through this.

I would not discard completely the thought that he might be in fact a witness to something, that he knows more than what he says. But its' pure speculation.

Thank you for the response. A few comments, why was he not charged with calunnia if his testimony was not believed? It was more than a negotiation over the car, he said they were in the street at 10:30 with a knife. He also said he threw his phones at them. The only reason I could think of for him coming out with his story, as I've said before, is that he feared they could trace him to the murder area the night of the murder through his phone pings.

If you step back for a moment, wouldn't he be a key suspect if the whole sex game with Raf and Amanda wasn't already a closed case. He knows Rudi. He is associated with drug dealers maybe even the Albanian mafia. He leaves for two months waiting, perhaps, for things to cool down. He was there at the time of the crime. His time is much better for the most likely TOD.

Being crazy is even more reason to suspect him.

Curatolo never changed his version and happened to be crossed with several witnesses who endorse his credibility. I think he could have seen something, and I think he would not have communicated with Rudy nor Kokomani. However, I am not able to assess completely his credibility because I did not listen to all his testimony and arguments by other witnesses entirely.

Okay. I will never believe a man high on heroin that is found by a newspaper reporter a year after the crime who had told the police he hadn't seen anything and had date information incorrect.

I believe they are involved because I see a long series of pieces of evidence made of several areas.
Essentially, an important element of evidence to me always to take in account in this system is the "logical proof" (argumentum a contrariis), which means lack of defensive explanation: the defensive explanation consists in a series of hypothesys/points each one weaker than the opposing theory.

Obviously we disagree. You are saying that in Italy the suspect must produce a better explanation, e.g. they must prove their innocence.

First, I disagree that the break in is not staged: I do not consider seriously any possible true break in on that physical evidence.
Then the other areas of evidence I see are:
evidence of cleanup beyond doubt (tracks L9 and clean floor in the bathroom) multiple attackers from autopsy report and phisical findings in the room further alteration of the scene luminol footprints as a system of complex compelling evidence, their morphology and distribution and features logically demonstrating a relation of both with the murder blood of Knox in the small bathroom (logically related to the context of the murder) bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede bra clasp DNA and knife DNA are not discredited by Vechiotti/Conti report, this became obvious to me as I read the report an astouding seris of lies by Amanda Knox in her inacceptable account before her false accusation a furhtere series of contraditions by Knox after her false confession a series of lies by Sollecito, and the egregious changing in his alibi phone records, in particular the 24:00 ping on Lana's cell
Amanda's false accusation and the not credible/inconsistent justifications about it (my evaluation of evidence includes full credibility attributed to witnesses as Anna Donnino and Filomena Romanelli, which I deem a judge is compelled to trust entirely) no logical alternative to explain Rudy Guede's traces and the isolated bathmat print through a single perpetrator scenario
four direct witnesses (Quintavalle, Curatolo, Nara, Antonella)

I think the above mentioned evidence is just crushing. There is evidence of implication beyond doubt.

Sorry but not clear on the L9. My readings have not produce any evidence of a big cleanup. Someone washed blood off their hands and probably their pants. There was no evidence of bleach on the floors or marks of the cleaning. There is no evidence of cleaning utensils or material. No blood or DNA in the mop or bucket. The only evidence of a real cleaning is that for the Massei theory to work he needed cleaning so he said there must have been cleaning.

Footprints at best are compatible with both of them. Why if Raf put his foot on the mat didn't they dispose of it as they did with clothes, cleaning supplies etc.?

If you believe in the blood in the bathroom evidence, explain why they didn't wipe it off with a tissue and flush it? You must explain why they left the blood when they could have wiped it 10 seconds and you know they saw it because they told Filomena and the Postal Police.


None of the witnesses are worth a nickel.

 

[Oliebol]

in particular the 24:00 ping on Lana's cell

This one sounds interesting. The phone was in the garden at the time, wasn't it? What is special about that?

 

[Malkmus]

This one sounds interesting. The phone was in the garden at the time, wasn't it? What is special about that?

Scratching my head over this one as well.

 

[Paninaro]

Is Lumumba really telling the truth?

Fine and others:

I have been in contact with journalist Antonia Hoyle regarding this article where Patrick Lumumba claims to have been beaten by the Perugian police. She confirms that this indeed was what he told her in her 2007 interview with him:

At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1aY9A2pck

Today this is his version:

Mr Lumumba said: 'One thing I could never understand is that Amanda has always said she was given a rough time by the police. But I was named as the one who killed Meredith, the black third-world African, and they never gave me any problems

. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ress-says-Patrick-Lumumba-accused-murder.html

 

[Malkmus]

Fine and others:

I have been in contact with journalist Antonia Hoyle regarding this article where Patrick Lumumba claims to have been beaten by the Perugian police. She confirms that this indeed was what he told her in her 2007 interview with him:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1aY9A2pck

Today this is his version:

. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ress-says-Patrick-Lumumba-accused-murder.html

Since you're in contact with her, do you think you could have her clarify the "I fired Foxy Knoxy" line, as it has been the only source guilters ever cite for saying Patrick fired her, and from everything else we know she was not fired.

 

[JREF2010]

Bri. Yes people are idiots about most things. But you have to remember your coworkers don't really care. Amanda Knox to them is just another celebrity crime show where people take 1/2 baked opinions. They don't want to engage with someone who actually cares about the case, since that violates the cultural function of this case. They want to have a debate along the orders of "The Phillies are better than the Red Socks" and you are trying to have a debate long the orders of "I don't think that's the right equation for light traveling through a medium which refracts".

so true. half-baked opinions....a person at work knew I was following the trial.
he made a comment "i think they were guilty..but I didn't read much about it."

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank quoting Hellmann:

Simulation of crime: acquitted. “Because the fact doesn’t exist”.

Interesting the way this is stated on the staging of the crime scene charge. It appears he is saying that no such crime took place.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

If Raf could have been over to the cottage several times before the murder and obviously, as depicted by Mignini, for hours on the murder night, and yet only left DNA on the cigarette and according to Stefanoni on the bra clasp, then clearly someone that came in with Rudy could have been part of the killing and left no DNA or prints or anything.

You agree with that, correct?

It seems so much more likely that Rudy was working with Kokomani and maybe a third thief than the kids hooking up with Rudy in minutes after Popovich had told them she didn't need help that night. Not withstanding Nara the murder by every other piece of evidence happened well before 11 or 11:30. The phone activity, state of dress, washing machine left full, no activity on her computer, food in stomach and the quick bodily cleaning of hands and pants points to death no later than 10.

If Koko, Rudy and mister 7 had gone to rob the cottage on Rudy's info, they could have brought a folding ladder with them or two could worked together to get in. Koko's car was parked in the drive which would have partially shielded view of the window. Koko on lookout could have told them when the coast was clear to climb the window. I know no marks of a ladder was discovered by the PLE but that seems a possible miss by them, since they knew it was a staged break in.

And establishing an alibi story would have pretty easy. We stayed home ate after Popovich left and smoked pot, drank some wine and made love until we fell asleep.
They didn't need to lie about computer use or phone calls. If a phone call came in while they were out killing, they would just say must of missed it. They could even have said that after dinner they took a walk along the path they actually used to go to the plaza in case anybody saw them.

They had such a crappy alibi story because they never coordinated it.

 

[Ammonitida]

First, I disagree that the break in is not staged: I do not consider seriously any possible true break in on that physical evidence.

How coincidental to stage a break-in such a manner that it strongly resembles another break-in perpetrated by Rudy Guede. Fortunately, the defense brought this up at the appeal and I'm sure that weighed in on the minds of the jurors.

Then the other areas of evidence I see are:

evidence of cleanup beyond doubt (tracks L9 and clean floor in the bathroom)

Why clean the bathroom floor and then leave a bathmat with a bloody footprint that you believe implicates Sollecito? Why not clean the sink with Amanda's blood? How could they have missed all that? And why did one of those luminol prints look so clear, hardly smudged at all? Rather strange if they were cleaned away.

If there was a clean-up in the bathroom perhaps Rudy did it after he had gotten out of the shower with his bloody foot. We know that he bloodied those towels. A cleanup doesn't necessarily implicate Knox.

multiple attackers from autopsy report and phisical findings in the room

The scientific evidence from the autopsy could not rule out a lone attacker. Massai agreed with this.

luminol footprints as a system of complex compelling evidence, their morphology and distribution and features logically demonstrating a relation of both with the murder

Luminol footprints that revealed no DNA evidence from Meredith despite blood being a highly concentrated source of DNA. And since Amanda's DNA was found in one of the print samples, this undermines the prosecution's explanation that the DNA was destroyed by the luminol. In addition to this, they all tested negative using another presumptive test for blood. So I don't see what is so compelling about them.

blood of Knox in the small bathroom (logically related to the context of the murder)

Logically? Blood on a faucet can't be dated.

bathmat print is egregiously compatible with Sollecito and not compatible with Guede

Wrong. The morphology and size of the footprint is more compatible with Rudy's foot as shown by Vinci's work and certainly accepted by Hellman's court. The prosecution expert bungled when he included a blood drop (that blended in with the print) in his measurement of the big toe. Exclude that drop and you got a near match to Rudy in width. The foot morphology is also more consistent with Rudy in that both the bath print and Rudy's ink print show a big toe that is of an average shape whereas Sollecito has a very unusual shape to his toe that is not at all consistent with the oval shape seen on the bathmat. There are other morphological similarities that appear to exclude Raff and implicate Rudy such as the area just below the big toe which is of a smooth oval appearance. Just like Rudy's and not like Raff's which is irregular.

Check out this thread regarding the print. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189522

Most thought the print was too inclusive to decide but for those that didn't most picked Rudy as the match.

bra clasp DNA and knife DNA are not discredited by Vechiotti/Conti report, this became obvious to me as I read the report

The bra clasp DNA had a mixture of several other males not including Rudy which Stefonini wrongly tried to pass off as "stutters" at the original trial. The existence of others in that mixture supports the contamination theory and the defense team rightly stressed this during their closing arguments. For me it's either the result of contamination or it was planted (makes you wonder who those other males are, perhaps cops?).

The knife is incompatible with several of the neck wounds and does not match the blood stain imprint, so one has to invoke a two knife theory which I think is grasping. It's weak evidence based on the wound exclusions alone. The Vechiotti/Conti report just further undermines its value as "evidence".

an astouding seris of lies by Amanda Knox in her inacceptable account before her false accusation

You still haven't shown us any lies by Amanda. We're still waiting.

Your position for guilt relies on shaky forensic evidence, theories of clean-ups that are not logical, poor eyewitness testimony from "professional murder witnesses" and drugged-out lowlifes, and supposed lies that can be explained away by the abusive interrogation tactics endured by the defendants. Nothing you mention is tangible unlike the evidence implicating Rudy Guede.

Let's look at the tangible evidence, shall we.

We have evidence of a break-in by an intruder in which a rock was thrown through a window and a wall was scaled to enter.

One of the suspects, Rudy Guede, had a history of such break-ins as evidenced by a stolen laptop found in his possession during another crime. That laptop belonged to a lawyer who testified that an intruder threw a rock through the window of his office, scaled the wall and stole it.

This same man left behind a truckload of incriminating, tangible evidence at the crime scene. So strong in fact that it forced him to admit that he was there during Meredith's murder. Not merely trace evidence of DNA on a bra clasp (that was mixed in with other unknown males) or supposed DNA on a knife blade (that was so miniscule as to be unreliable), but DNA inside her, on her, and on her purse. Even more compelling is the fingerprint and palm print made in Meredith's blood. Multiple bloody shoe prints on a pillowcase matching a pair of Nike shoes he owned. More bloody shoe prints outside the bedroom that also matched these shoes. You can't argue that this stuff was "contaminated" or that the red stained prints matching Rudy were bleach or some other iron concentrated substance. The evidence against Rudy impeachable, unshakable.

So we have evidence of a burglary, his criminal history as a burglar, the impeachable, non-ambiguous forensic evidence against him versus your house of cards consisting of illogical clean-up theories, staged break-ins, weak eyewitness accounts, supposed "lies" that are not really lies, and forensic evidence that amounts to nothing more than conjecture. Hellman's court made the right decision.

 

[Rolfe]

Frank quoting Hellmann:

Interesting the way this is stated on the staging of the crime scene charge. It appears he is saying that no such crime took place.

Absolutely. I spotted that from the BBC voice-over translation on the night. I think it's highly significant. Hellmann is finding that the break-in was not staged. In that case, it seems he thinks it was a real burglary. Which fits Guede's modus operandi.

This more than anything makes me pretty sure he's cooking up a motivations report which states or implies that Guede was the sole killer. And indeed, how can he do otherwise? The evidence relied on in Guede's trial to find that he was not the sole killer was the unchallenged evidence that Knox and Sollecito were there. Now that evidence has been challenged and has fallen apart. There is no evidence of anyone else at the crime scene, and nothing to compel a conclusion of more than one assailant.

I hope he does this, because it's what the Kerchers need to hear. If they don't read something to let them understand that the outcome of Guede's trial does not prove that more than one person was involved, they're going to go on imagining that justice has not been done because some participants are not in custody.

Of course justice has not been done because Guede's sentence was far too lenient. But that's an anomaly of the system for which they can blame Mignini, Maresca and everyone who failed to press maximum charges against Guede in order to allow Knox and Sollecito to be prosecuted.

Rolfe.