Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA and footprint forensics

Charlie,

From an article in the Winston-Salem Journal on 29 August 2005 by Phoebe Zerwick: “'What we do know is we’ve had a lot of false convictions in cases that seem to have been caused by exaggerated or misleading presentations of science,' said William Thompson, a professor of criminology at the University of California at Irvine and an expert on the use of DNA testing in criminal cases.

"'It’s difficult for jurors to evaluate it based on common sense … if they’re hearing testimony cloaked in the mantle of science, I think they’ll give it a great deal of credibility. They’re going to think it’s accurate unless they have some reason to think otherwise.'"

From the same article: “Louise Robbins wasn’t a witness who said, ‘I saw a footprint there and it looks like the same size as the defendant’s foot’ – what anyone else could say,” said Rich Rosen, a law professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “She said, ‘I’m a scientist, an objective, neutral observer, and based on scientific principles, I can tell you that was the defendant’s footprint.’ That carries tremendous weight with the jury.”

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Louise Robbins

More on Louise Robbins from Craig Cooley:
As the United States Supreme Court even noted, Robbins “was allegedly well known for her willingness to fabricate unreliable expert testimony.”¹³⁷ In short, Robbins “helped put people in prison for life, even though she had never actually proved she could match up a single unidentified shoe print with the person who made it.”¹³⁸

 

[Fine]

Can you describe what makes this grid so special that it needs a new name as opposed to say a Cartesian Grid?

___________________

Dan,

Apparently it was special because it was clear plastic. You can see the Robbins Transparent Metric Grid in Figure 3 HERE. (Did she have a cottage industry manufacturing and selling them to the forensic community?)

///

 

[codyjuneau]

........
Thanks very much for the posts on the mushroom. I am glad to see I am not alone on it. The put down post Smokalinsky quotes reveals ignorance in large degree, as the writer does not know there is not just mushroom in the fridge but it is there in quantity and very likely on Meredith's shelf (once more, there is a jar with her name on it right next to the mushroom and thus us a shared, student apartment). He also seems not to know about the human digestive system (neither do I) so it is interesting to read the post above on the improbability of a morsel of apple remaining undigested in the stomach for a couple of hours.

If it is what Dr Lalli said (and btw. there are several references to the mushroom, not just the one quoted in a post above) various quite important things may follow:

1 Meredith was not attacked on arrival
2 the apartment front door was probably locked (and thus had to be unlocked after the attack)
3 Meredith ate some mushroom shortly before being murdered
4 together with other signs, it is probable she ate the mushroom shortly after arriving home

All of which points to an early TOD and no confrontation in the kitchen. It's interesting that the prosecution, the court at first instance and, on appeal, Raffaele's team all thought it pointed to a late TOD. I think they were all wrong.

I believe it is possible there was a confrontation in the kitchen so I am curious why you think the mushroom excludes it. I have posted something similar to this on IIP but I will use this as an excuse to post it here also (and with the addition of the mushroom):

• Rudy believes everyone in the cottage will be away all night.
• Rudy breaks in and makes himself at home per his MO.
• Rudy uses the bathroom by the laundry room to take a crap.
• Rudy turns up his iPod and listens to a tune with his earphones while doing so.
• Meredith arrives home without Rudy hearing her and without Meredith being aware of Rudy.
• Meredith goes to her bedroom and drops her books and purse on her bed.
• Meredith returns to remove her laundry from the laundry room.
• On the way she has to go by the fridge so grabs a mushroom and swallows it.
• She goes into the laundry room and spots Rudy.
• Rudy spots Meredith and half pulls up his pants and starts coming out of the bathroom.
• Meredith retreats to the kitchen and grabs a kitchen knife to protect herself.
• Rudy comes into the kitchen with his pants still partly down.
• Meredith now terrified slashes at Rudy.
• Rudy wrestles the knife from her but cuts his hand in the process.
• Meredith screams and retreats to her bedroom.
• Rudy now enraged chases her to the bedroom.
• Rudy catches and pins her near the head of the bed.
• Rudy leaves finger streaks on the wall with the blood from his bleeding fingers.
• Meredith tries to escape by going around him.
• Rudy tackles her and stabs her.

This closely matches Rudy's own story. The main difference being that the man he confronted in the hallway is actually Meredith. I think Rudy's initial explanations tried to portray himself as innocent while keeping as close to the actual events as possible. That gave Rudy the best chance that his innocent version would match the evidence.

Unfortunately the source of finger trace blood stains on the wall above the head of Meredith's bed were not positively identified.

 

[anglolawyer]

I believe it is possible there was a confrontation in the kitchen so I am curious why you think the mushroom excludes it. I have posted something similar to this on IIP but I will use this as an excuse to post it here also (and with the addition of the mushroom):

• Rudy believes everyone in the cottage will be away all night.
• Rudy breaks in and makes himself at home per his MO.
• Rudy uses the bathroom by the laundry room to take a crap.
• Rudy turns up his iPod and listens to a tune with his earphones while doing so.
• Meredith arrives home without Rudy hearing her and without Meredith being aware of Rudy.
• Meredith goes to her bedroom and drops her books and purse on her bed.
• Meredith returns to remove her laundry from the laundry room.
• On the way she has to go by the fridge so grabs a mushroom and swallows it.
• She goes into the laundry room and spots Rudy.
• Rudy spots Meredith and half pulls up his pants and starts coming out of the bathroom.
• Meredith retreats to the kitchen and grabs a kitchen knife to protect herself.
• Rudy comes into the kitchen with his pants still partly down.
• Meredith now terrified slashes at Rudy.
• Rudy wrestles the knife from her but cuts his hand in the process.
• Meredith screams and retreats to her bedroom.
• Rudy now enraged chases her to the bedroom.
• Rudy catches and pins her near the head of the bed.
• Rudy leaves finger streaks on the wall with the blood from his bleeding fingers.
• Meredith tries to escape by going around him.
• Rudy tackles her and stabs her.

This closely matches Rudy's own story. The main difference being that the man he confronted in the hallway is actually Meredith. I think Rudy's initial explanations tried to portray himself as innocent while keeping as close to the actual events as possible. That gave Rudy the best chance that his innocent version would match the evidence.

Unfortunately the source of finger trace blood stains on the wall above the head of Meredith's bed were not positively identified.

I don't think the consumption of the mushroom excludes a kitchen confrontation but, along with the absence of any sign of a struggle there, I see it as a pointer away from that scenario because it clearly shows, at least for the time it would take to go the fridge etc. a confrontation free period in the kitchen. It also shows Meredith was unaware of Rudy's presence in the bathroom.

As my personal (and provisional) reconstruction of events indeed differs from yours I will comment on those of your bullet points which pose a threat to my theory:

[*]Rudy breaks in and makes himself at home per his MO.
[*]Rudy uses the bathroom by the laundry room to take a crap.

I think you can exclude the first of these two steps as Meredith noticed nothing unusual in the kitchen, nor did Amanda the next day. This also points to an early TOD, if anything.

[*]Rudy turns up his iPod and listens to a tune with his earphones while doing so.
[*]Meredith arrives home without Rudy hearing her and without Meredith being aware of Rudy.

Rudy's story about the iPod is not part of his sticking as close to the truth as possible (I agree that, generally, this is a good thing to do in the circs.) but part of his explanation of how unauthorised entry and violence went on without him knowing or doing anything about it.

It strikes me as more natural to suppose he left the two doors open and turned on a light to take a dump but switched off the light when he heard Meredith's key in the door. The doors are not of the 'swing shut' type judging by the video shot the next day. I wonder whether any prints of his were lifted from the inside door handles of those two doors.

If the doors were open, then even with an iPod he would have seen the kitchen light go on.

[*]Meredith goes to her bedroom and drops her books and purse on her bed.
[*]Meredith returns to remove her laundry from the laundry room.
[*]On the way she has to go by the fridge so grabs a mushroom and swallows it.

Possibly (except I cannot allow the second one). I have her going to the kitchen first then to her room. Things get harder for your theory below.

[*]She goes into the laundry room and spots Rudy.
[*]Rudy spots Meredith and half pulls up his pants and starts coming out of the bathroom.
[*]Meredith retreats to the kitchen and grabs a kitchen knife to protect herself.
[*]Rudy comes into the kitchen with his pants still partly down.
[*]Meredith now terrified slashes at Rudy.
[*]Rudy wrestles the knife from her but cuts his hand in the process.
[*]Meredith screams and retreats to her bedroom.
[*]Rudy now enraged chases her to the bedroom.

This sequence cannot be correct. First, there is no sign of violence in the laundry room, the kitchen or the passage leading to her room. The passage even contains an obstacle (a clothes dryer) which would have impeded the chase and the kitchen is likewise a confined space.

Second, where is the knife used to slash Rudy? Third, where in the kitchen is the blood resulting from the slashing? Fourth, Steve Moore has explained that attackers using knives lacking a hilt (like a flick knife) often cut themselves in a manner consistent with Rudy's hand injury because the hand slips onto the blade during the attack. Fifth, there is no sign of disturbance resulting from a struggle at the bedroom door (to force it open). The first encounter is at the head of the bed. Sixth, the scream is now placed at just after 9.00 p.m. None of the witnesses' evidence can be stretched to fit a scream at that time. Seventh, one might expect Rudy to pull his own knife rather than wrestle with Meredith for control of hers (with ensuing kitchen-located bloodbath).

[*]Rudy leaves finger streaks on the wall with the blood from his bleeding fingers.
[*]Meredith tries to escape by going around him.
[*]Rudy tackles her and stabs her.

On 18/12/2007 the scientific police performed an elaborate scraping of the blood in these finger streaks. I will bet you a shedload of Second Life currency (is anyone still living there?) or Euros (same thing) that is Meredith's blood, transferred to her hand when she raised it to her throat as Rudy stabbed her. As you seem to think the first stabbing was in the opposite corner of the room you have to explain the blotch more or less immediately below the handprint, not the stain transferred to that area by the police, but the one filmed on 02/11/2007. That is Meredith's blood.

I rest my case.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

___________________

Dan,

Apparently it was special because it was clear plastic. You can see the Robbins Transparent Metric Grid in Figure 3 HERE. (Did she have a cottage industry manufacturing and selling them to the forensic community?)

///

Clear plastic... Eureka! Why couldn't I have thought of that? Every police dept. in the world would be using the "Wilkes Transparent Metric Grid." Buy three and I'll toss in a free decoder ring, for secure communications at the crime scene.

This seems to be an ordinary, tiled overlay, not exactly a tool of deception, but not a distinctive technology for which one needs to assign credit, either. And that begs the question - why did Rinaldi choose to associate his work with a notorious fraud?

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe it is possible there was a confrontation in the kitchen so I am curious why you think the mushroom excludes it. I have posted something similar to this on IIP but I will use this as an excuse to post it here also (and with the addition of the mushroom):

• Rudy believes everyone in the cottage will be away all night.
• Rudy breaks in and makes himself at home per his MO.
• Rudy uses the bathroom by the laundry room to take a crap.
• Rudy turns up his iPod and listens to a tune with his earphones while doing so.
• Meredith arrives home without Rudy hearing her and without Meredith being aware of Rudy.
• Meredith goes to her bedroom and drops her books and purse on her bed.
• Meredith returns to remove her laundry from the laundry room.
• On the way she has to go by the fridge so grabs a mushroom and swallows it.
• She goes into the laundry room and spots Rudy.
• Rudy spots Meredith and half pulls up his pants and starts coming out of the bathroom.
• Meredith retreats to the kitchen and grabs a kitchen knife to protect herself.
• Rudy comes into the kitchen with his pants still partly down.
• Meredith now terrified slashes at Rudy.
• Rudy wrestles the knife from her but cuts his hand in the process.
• Meredith screams and retreats to her bedroom.
• Rudy now enraged chases her to the bedroom.
• Rudy catches and pins her near the head of the bed.
• Rudy leaves finger streaks on the wall with the blood from his bleeding fingers.
• Meredith tries to escape by going around him.
• Rudy tackles her and stabs her.

This closely matches Rudy's own story. The main difference being that the man he confronted in the hallway is actually Meredith. I think Rudy's initial explanations tried to portray himself as innocent while keeping as close to the actual events as possible. That gave Rudy the best chance that his innocent version would match the evidence.

Unfortunately the source of finger trace blood stains on the wall above the head of Meredith's bed were not positively identified.

Interesting scenario, and I'd agree with much of it. But I'm intrigued as to why you propose that Meredith might have grabbed a knife in the kitchen for self-defence, and that Guede wrestled the knife from her hand. Are you proposing that Guede used this same knife in the attack, or that he simply threw that knife aside once he'd removed it from Meredith's grasp, and then used his own knife for the attack?

And either way, what would have happened to this knife? Even if it had been wrestled and then tossed aside, it would likely have had DNA or fingerprint evidence on it. And if it were used in the commission of the murder, then it's even more likely that this would have been the case. Or are you proposing that Guede took this knife when he left the cottage, and subsequently dumped it (maybe together with his clothes, while en route to Germany)? If so, wouldn't Filomena/Laura/landlord have been able to tell that a knife was missing from the cottage's kitchen?

Personally, I like your scenario up to the confrontation in the kitchen. I don't think it's necessary to suggest that Meredith picked up a knife to defend herself (which in itself is a pretty aggressive and extreme action, especially if Guede was not brandishing a knife himself at that point). I suspect that Guede was carrying his own knife somewhere on his person, and that he either emerged from the bathroom with the knife already in hand, or that he perhaps started by trying to charm/bully his way out of the situation. In the latter scenario, it's entirely possible that Meredith didn't buy the charm/bullying, and announced that she was going to call the police etc, at which point Guede opted for "plan B": the knife and the use of physical violence and threats.

And whether Guede confronted Meredith with his knife drawn from the start, or whether he only produced the knife after failing to charm his way out, I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that the situation then quickly escalated into one of domination/control with sexual elements, as Guede's baser instincts and repressed frustration over his lack of success with women came out in the heightened atmosphere.

 

[Dan O.]

Interesting scenario, and I'd agree with much of it. But I'm intrigued as to why you propose that Meredith might have grabbed a knife in the kitchen for self-defence, and that Guede wrestled the knife from her hand.

This is coming from the claim by Rudy that he was cut with a knife. The claim is ludicrous. The wound on Rudy's hand is superficial and wasn't made by anything sharper than a pair of rounded tip plastic scissors. I personally think this wound is not even a cut but a friction burn caused by the object upon which Rudy's DNA was discovered.

 

[Grinder]

If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”

Apparently there is a new wrinkle on this old saying.

If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hamburger helper.”

 

[Bill Williams]

If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”

Apparently there is a new wrinkle on this old saying.

If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hamburger helper.”

I think I may have just pee'd myself. Thanks alot Grinder!

PGP seem to have only four things left in their arsenal.

1) Arguing the bathmat footprint.
2) Hamburger Helper
3) When losing the argument, say, "But you're disrespecting the Kerchers!"
4) Bully an innocenter poster when they post on one of the hate sites. Avoid the issue they raise like the plague - refer to #3 above - and accuse them of bringing "tired worn lies that have long since been disproven," and then ban them from posting ever again.

My sincere hope is that reasonable people will agree with this assessment, however, your definition of "reasonable" will vary.

 

[Grinder]

In the scenarios I'd like to know when Meredith drank, what she drank, with whom and how much.

According to Lalli as reported by Massei (page [106] or pdf 112)her blood/alcohol was at .43 g/l. If I've figured this correctly, that is what two drinks will produce if consumed in a short time frame.

The English girls said that there was no drinking at their movie and pizza gathering. Meredith would have had to drink after returning home or been extremely drunk on arriving at 5:30 at the party or she did drink at the party.

For whatever reason this subject has little interest here of elsewhere, but it continues to interest me because it needs explaining. Did she meet Rudy and share a bottle of wine? Did she have a bottle in her purse? Was there wine in the refrigerator at the cottage? Did they find a glass with her prints that had contained alcohol?

 

[Kaosium]

The maddening thing about these 2 pieces of evidence - supposedly the cherries on the top of the "mountain" of prosecution evidence - is that they don't prove anything even if genuine. The guilters always claimed there was no innocent explanation of them; but the guilty explanation was itself so unlikely as to be virtually excluded as well. There was no way that the murderer(s) would transport a knife from Raff's flat to the cottage and back again when it wasn't even the only knife used; and anyone taking part in the attack on Meredith would have no occasion to touch the metal hook of her bra clasp. That leaves contamination as the overwhelmingly likely explanation - and that's even without knowing about the irregular way they were collected, handled and tested.

That always struck me too, that the press couldn't figure that part out. As the DNA forensic scientists pointed out¹ from the moment they sent their letter to the court, even if the DNA was legitimate, they weren't evidence of murder. I think on one level there was confusion caused because there were so many grounds on which that DNA 'evidence' was questionable it didn't quite get through to the press how bad it really was until the Italian experts concurred. Do you remember people telling us to 'make up our minds?' That there were so many reasons to object to that evidence that somehow it was deeply suspicious to some that there were so many? That too many discrepancies somehow validated all of them!

But what gives them both away straight off is that they were the result of very obvious conjuring tricks by the investigating officers: "we take an ordinary knife and ... Abracadabra! It's the murder weapon!" And even more theatrically in the notorious YouTube video: "here we are 'finding' the bra clasp ... oh, let me look at it too ... you can see the DNA on it right there ... here we are photographing it next to a 'Y' marker .... Abracadabra! It's Raffaele's DNA!"

It's like they could see it with their Superman vision or something! Although it has been said they made the same display 'finding' the bloody shirt Meredith was wearing which only had Rudy Guede's DNA on it of course. Still, watching that video, knowing it's the day after they were humiliated into having to re-visit the crime scene as all 'evidence' of Raffaele had evaporated (I guess they hadn't thought of 'attributing' the bathmat stain to him just yet, probably because it looked so much more like Rudy's) for them to 'find' that bra-clasp they just left there some 46 days later in a different spot than where they left it begs the question in my mind if they were trying to pretend they were so incompetent (to do it like that) that it would be difficult to say they were corrupt.

¹

DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Kaosium]

530.1 does not imply "proof of innocence without doubt". Instead, it implies that there was no evidence pointing to guilt. That's very different. Any case where there was an acquittal because of "proof of innocence without doubt" should never have got to trial in the first place. And very few innocent defendants can ever prove their innocence. But of course that's not the point: defendants are not required to prove their innocence (but of course it's an instant game-winner to them if they can do so!). Rather, the court has to find guilt beyond all doubt based in human reason, in order to convict. If such a burden of proof cannot be met, the the defendant has to be acquitted and presumed innocent.

On a related issue, I wonder just what Maresca's motivation is at this point. He must surely realise that he is facing an ethical dilemma regarding his fee: given that the civil judgement against Knox/Sollecito has been thrown out, he has no way of claiming his (presumably massive) fees other than demanding it from the Kerchers themselves. Even he can probably understand how uneasily this would sit with his stated "crusade" on behalf of the Kerchers: yep, go ahead and wipe them out financially! Nice work! I therefore can't help thinking that Maresca is a somewhat desperate man at this stage, and is rolling the dice on the chances of a successful prosecution Supreme Court appeal. As far as I can tell, his only hope of getting paid without attracting huge public opprobrium is if the case gets sent back to the appeal court, if Knox/Sollecito are subsequently convicted, and if the civil judgement is re-awarded. But that's not going to happen, and I suspect Maresca knows it. Oh dear.

I wonder this as well, a good portion of his reputation is at stake. Even if he demurs on payment, he's still left with the problem he made a damned fool out of himself being defeated. I don't think that last shock-stunt with the full-size pictures of Meredith's naked body before all the jurors and press will make it into his brochure.

I wonder if him making noise might just be so he can say he was ready to fight it to the last, to overcome the 'PR campaign' which 'got to' the court, but that in deference to the family he was forced to stand down? That way he can claim he was defeated by ulterior forces and only 'consideration' for the 'victims' stayed his hand?

 

[Kaosium]

Maresca is playing a PR game, and knows better.

Komponisto, how does he get away with this though? I don't get that part, how he and Mignini can say things entirely untrue and divorced from reality like this, or that Rudy Guede's SC motivations would doom Raffaele and Amanda, yet no one in Italy chimes in to say they're full of bilge. Is it the calunnia and/or Diffamazione laws which inhibit such exposure?

 

[Grinder]

The PGP are busy piling onto Hellmann as one would expect, but they keep saying he had no criminal experience. I thought that he had had experience and that it included a high profile murder case. so I Googled...

From one of their most trusted sources, Andrea Vogt (where are they now?):
"The new judge assigned to Knox's case is no stranger to allegations of judicial error. In fact, he was one of three judges who, in 2000, overturned a controversial conviction in the stabbing murder of Cinzia Bruno, setting free a man who had been jailed for more than seven years.

Bruno's husband, Massimo Pisano, was convicted along with his lover in the stabbing death of Bruno, who was found in 1993 on the banks of the Tiber River, near Rome. He was sentenced to life in prison, a ruling upheld in all three phases of Italian court process, including the Supreme Court.

Then, a "revision" of the case by a three-man court of appeals panel, including Pratillo Hellman, freed Pisano after he had already served seven years, six months and 12 days behind bars.

The Bruno case is, of course, no indicator of how Pratillo Hellman might approach Knox's case. However, it shows a willingness to go against the judicial grain that is likely to please hopeful Knox supporters."

Perhaps someone could let them know.

 

[Kaosium]

As to the 1:45, 5:45 and “Gift” statements, Hellmann holds that the statements are inadmissible in connection with the murder because:

1) Knox was a suspect when the statements were made (explaining that the Supreme Court has already decided that these statements are inadmissible because “given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect [indagata]”); and

2) The statements were not “spontaneous” (explaining that Knox “did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes”).

I find this very interesting in light of discussions that we have had on this subject previously. It was strenuously argued, by someone who claimed to have knowledge of Italian law, that Knox’s right to counsel was not violated because she had not been formally declared a “suspect” at that time the statements were made. According to this poster, only a de jure suspect and not a de facto suspect can have a right to counsel under Italian law. It turns out that this is wrong according to the Supreme Court and Hellmann, who, it appears, have both said that Knox was a suspect entitled to counsel prior to the time that Mignini decided to formally declare her as such.

In fact, Hellmann is explaining that the Supreme Court held that each of the 1:45, 5:45 and Gift statements are inadmissible to show murder because Knox was an “indagata” who was denied counsel. In addition, Hellmann himself rejects the prosecution’s argument that the statements should nevertheless be admitted as “spontaneous” statements, and to support this conclusion, holds that Knox was deprived of counsel in violation of her rights.
Based on this, we can clearly say that the police and Mignini violated Knox’s right to counsel. This is a violation of Italian domestic law and European human rights law. The interrogation was illegal and the statements are the fruit of this illegal interrogation.

This opens up a very nice discussion on the issues of entrapment and the exclusionary rule . . .

Another very nice byproduct of the Hellmann Report is it basically admits that the cops lied in court, their story which can be found here by going to pages 204-220 or so, (it's backwards) as it's from the part of Perugia Shock that was never restored after Mignini had it shut down. There you'll find the cartwheels cookies and tea story they told the court, that Amanda was just chatting away and 'spontaneously' all of a sudden names Patrick out of the blue to their complete surprise, they weren't interrogating her or anything, just admonishing her about cartwheels, kissing, cuddling and the rest of Amanda's dire deficiencies in their mind.

Compare that to this, where Hellmann recognizes the obvious signs of harsh interrogation from the note and the circumstances:

In that context, it is understandable that Amanda Knox, yielding to pressure and fatigue, would have hoped to put an end to that situation by giving her interrogators that which, in the end, they wanted to hear: a name, a murderer.

But why Patrick Lumumba, exactly? Because the police had found, on Amanda Knox’s phone, the message “see you later”, sent by her to Lumumba on the evening of November 1; which could also mean she actually intended to see him later to go somewhere, maybe to the house on Via Della Pergola — whence the insistent questioning about that message, its meaning, and its intended recipient.

By “giving up” [Dando "in pasto"] that name to those who were interrogating her so harshly, Amanda Knox probably hoped to put an end to that pressure, now a true torment after long hours, while adding details and constructing a brief story around that name would certainly not have been particularly difficult, if for no other reason than that many details and inferences [illazioni] had already appeared in many newspapers the next day [after the crime], and were circulating all throughout the city, considering the modest dimensions of Perugia.

This reminds me that long ago I swore I read that one of the epithets hurled at Amanda during the interrogation was 'dirty bitch,' here is one place where it is mentioned, and that they stopped making that charge in lieu of 'liar.' I bet they called her a lot of things....

 

[Grinder]

I think I may have just pee'd myself. Thanks alot Grinder!

PGP seem to have only four things left in their arsenal.

1) Arguing the bathmat footprint.
2) Hamburger Helper
3) When losing the argument, say, "But you're disrespecting the Kerchers!"
4) Bully an innocenter poster when they post on one of the hate sites. Avoid the issue they raise like the plague - refer to #3 above - and accuse them of bringing "tired worn lies that have long since been disproven," and then ban them from posting ever again.

My sincere hope is that reasonable people will agree with this assessment, however, your definition of "reasonable" will vary.

Sorry about that.

Do you ever check your PM here? I sent you one a while back.

There really isn't anything new to discuss. The inability for some to see how bad a case the prosecution has/had is perplexing.

Curatolo was obviously whack. His sightings actually made their involvement impossible and he clearly didn't have a full deck. If I were PG I'd have disclaimed Curatolo and Nara from the get.

How can anybody believe that Nara could hear the most terrifying scream of her life and not call the police or anybody, like another resident of the building. To believe Nara one have to believe that Rudy, Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith were together and that after the murder all three ran in the streets with blood all over them. Meredith couldn't have screamed at the end of the attack because her voice had already been taken away so how could they all run away right after?

I also would have disclaimed the knife and the bra. I would have admitted that the PLE had done a crappy job.

Basically although PG I'd have said they just can't convict because they don't have any hard, direct, circumstantial evidence. Yes, John, I know what circumstantial means, but fingerprints in blood, DNA on the victim, footprints set in blood are circumstantial yet much more direct and hard than cartwheels or a bad alibi delivery.

But the gymnastics that the PG people have to do to get the three together at the same time and a time that works with the obvious TOD limits is worthy of a 10 at the Olympics.

They should reread what Lalli, the only expert to examine the body, and peruse what he said about TOD and stomach contents.

"Dr. Lalli specified that [110] death was considered as occurring not more than two to three hours after eating (page 47 of the hearing transcript, and the adjustment described in the footnote on February 13, 2008). He stated that the emptying of the stomach occurs between a minimum of two hours and a maximum of four hours after the meal is consumed (page 62, transcripts) and also confirmed that the duodenum was empty (page 63)."

 

[Grinder]

From PMF: "The 'unthinkable' thing is strange, because I wouldn't have thought such student-on-student crimes were unknown in the US (or elsewhere) at all. Lawyers will be better informed than me, but I'd think that if a female college student is killed in her college accommodation - that is, not out on the town, or at her parents' place, or away on holiday - the killer is quite likely to be a rival female college student in the same (or nearby) accommodation."

A rival female college student? Female students at colleges are all rivals with each other? Wow, just wow.

For the record, I will wager that when a female college student is murdered it most often is by a male, with the possible exception of a female only facility.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the concentration of alcohol may have been lower

In the scenarios I'd like to know when Meredith drank, what she drank, with whom and how much.

According to Lalli as reported by Massei (page [106] or pdf 112)her blood/alcohol was at .43 g/l. If I've figured this correctly, that is what two drinks will produce if consumed in a short time frame.

The English girls said that there was no drinking at their movie and pizza gathering. Meredith would have had to drink after returning home or been extremely drunk on arriving at 5:30 at the party or she did drink at the party.

For whatever reason this subject has little interest here of elsewhere, but it continues to interest me because it needs explaining. Did she meet Rudy and share a bottle of wine? Did she have a bottle in her purse? Was there wine in the refrigerator at the cottage? Did they find a glass with her prints that had contained alcohol?

Grinder,

You may also wish to consult pp. 152-153 of the English translation of the Massei report: "In the liver too a very slight quantity had been detected, equal to 0.2, which was comparable from the pharmacokinetic point of view with the 0.43 verified by Dr. Lalli at the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Perugia, rather than with the value of 2.72. He [Professor Cingolani?] concluded on this point that that was no pharmacokinetic condition which could justify all three of these values, that is zero in the stomach, 2.72 in the blood and 0.2 in the liver. On the basis of these elements they had concluded that Meredith was not in a condition of alcoholic intoxication." I am not sure which value is most reliable. I recall looking into this a year and a half ago, and I recall thinking that the rate at which alcohol is cleared from the body is a little faster than I had imagined it to be.

 

[Bill Williams]

Okay, now I get it. Call me slow, but I think I get it.

Some think Amanda Knox was there with Rudy Guede on Nov 1. Therefore when she signed the police-written "confession" they think she was lying by accusing Patrick Lumumba. Therefore Knox is a liar. And probably other psycho-social things.

Others think she spent the night at Raffaele Sollecito's place, just like she said she did. Just like Sollecito said she did, until the police said to him, "If you were asleep, how'd you know she didn't get up and leave?" Succumbing to this razor sharp logic (what a weenie!), Sollecito said, "If you put it that way, then I guess I don't know for sure that she was there all night."

Therefore when the police came into Knox's interrogation room, they called her a liar, even though she had (even by PGP standards) not lied about anything yet. The decision point about "lying" starts with Lumumba, and why one thinks Knox acted to divert stress from herself.

Others then think that Knox did not "lie" when she put her signature to the police-written confession. What Judge Hellman says she was doing (ie. her motive) was to end the interrogation in any way she could (in weenie-like fashion).

It all hinges on one's pre-conceived notion. Was Knox there with Guede at the cottage or wasn't she? If you believe she was - you'll look at the evidence and conclude that she was. Therefore she's a liar and not to be believed on anything. It also opens the door to believing all sorts of psycho-stuff.

If you believe that the evidence demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that she wasn't there - then that puts the issue of "lying" quite differently. She may be responsible for using the police's certainty that Lumumba was involved to say something akin to, "Ok, if you're so certain, then who am I to argue? I'll imagine anything you want me to imagine!!! Just stop the slapping and calling me a liar." But that proves no more than that she's a bit of a weenie when it comes to standing up to bullies.

As one may expect when you look at the larger picture: twenty-year old in a foreign country, who is receiving interrogation designed to break Mafia toughs. Hell, I'd be a weenie under those circumstances!

I truly think this is the point of divergence. The point of divergence is that some think she was there with Guede even with no evidence to support that view, or some think she was not there, because there is no evidence that even suggests she could have been.

That's it in a nutshell. I realize this sounds biased on my part. It just happens to be a bias that fits the evidence, not the other way around.

She's either a killer or a someone who caves easily in the face of the Reid Technique designed for Mafiosi. I go with the latter.