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

[anglolawyer]

Circumstantial evidence need not seem immediately significant but it must be correct. A smudged fingerprint that is made in blood but isn't clear enough to tie it to someone shouldn't be added to the pile of evidence. I don't think that the bloody footprint on the mat is worth anything just because it "could" be someone the police suspect.

I don't believe that that footprint would have been allowed in this trial if it were held here. Even the Italians didn't include smudged prints that could have been someone they suspected.

Then there is part about inverse relationship of significance to the number of connections the evidence could have. The fact that Curatolo saw a couple in the plaza isn't significant because it could have been hundreds of couples. Since he didn't come forward with a description before the kids' pictures were widely distributed. I wonder if they ever used a line-up even as late as he recovered his repressed memory.

Anglo please post that section with inverse relationship again.

As requested:

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item's] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability. [The judge] must, finally, proceed to the final synthesis, ascertaining whether the items under examination are consistent [concordanti], i.e. whether they can be linked to a single cause or a single effect, so that the existence or nonexistence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

Curatolo's evidence is neither serious not consistent (but it sure was precise!). It was not serious because of the all the factors affecting his reliability and credibility and it was not consistent because of the disco buses. Galati calls his evidence 'astonishingly accurate' by the way.

 

[anglolawyer]

Inverse proportionality

I am not sure the problem with Curatolo's evidence is that there are too many people he could have been mistaking A and R for. That is a question of the overall reliability of his identification not one of connection count.

the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections,

How many logical connections does Curatolo's evidence have? The more connections there are the less grave the evidence is. Meredith's blood on Raffaele's kitchen knife is grave because, other than being used as the murder weapon, there aren't so many logical connections it could have. I don't find this business of identifying, let alone counting, connections at all easy, especially if they have to be logical.

I can't think of any logical connections at all so far as Curatolo is concerned. If he said he saw them pass through the square at 9.30 p.m. and someone else saw them entering from Corso Garibaldi and someone else saw them leaving the square and heading to the apartment then that would be two logical connections but that suggests the more logical connections the better, which is the opposite of what Galati is saying.

Perhaps 'reasonable explanations' could be substituted for 'logical connections' but even then I am still not sure this inverse relationship thing is sound.

 

[Grinder]

I am not sure the problem with Curatolo's evidence is that there are too many people he could have been mistaking A and R for. That is a question of the overall reliability of his identification not one of connection count.



How many logical connections does Curatolo's evidence have? The more connections there are the less grave the evidence is. Meredith's blood on Raffaele's kitchen knife is grave because, other than being used as the murder weapon, there aren't so many logical connections it could have. I don't find this business of identifying, let alone counting, connections at all easy, especially if they have to be logical.

I can't think of any logical connections at all so far as Curatolo is concerned. If he said he saw them pass through the square at 9.30 p.m. and someone else saw them entering from Corso Garibaldi and someone else saw them leaving the square and heading to the apartment then that would be two logical connections but that suggests the more logical connections the better, which is the opposite of what Galati is saying.

Perhaps 'reasonable explanations' could be substituted for 'logical connections' but even then I am still not sure this inverse relationship thing is sound.

Anglo - I was trying to convey that to me all that was sure (precise?) was that he saw a couple in the square and that only if we accept that he had the night correct. Had he testified that he saw a couple there that night, which is all I believe he could have honestly said it would have had so many possible connections (all youngish couples) it would not have had value.

In order for his testimony to have narrowed done the couple to A & R he would have needed to ID them in a line up or at least have described them in the days after the murder not months.

I think the logical connections are alternatives that could be true. If a smudged print were our circumstantial evidence and the print could have been made by a hundreds fingers in Perugia (allow that enough points were there to reduce the total number) there would be those be all those logical connections thereby reducing the value of the print - the inverse relationship - more connections less probative value.

Almost all of the circumstantial evidence had large number of alternative connections. The bare foot prints were not matches for Amanda therefore they could have left by another woman that night.

The DNA found of Amanda's was definitely hers but could have left at another time - more connections.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo - I was trying to convey that to me all that was sure (precise?) was that he saw a couple in the square and that only if we accept that he had the night correct. Had he testified that he saw a couple there that night, which is all I believe he could have honestly said it would have had so many possible connections (all youngish couples) it would not have had value.

In order for his testimony to have narrowed done the couple to A & R he would have needed to ID them in a line up or at least have described them in the days after the murder not months.

I think the logical connections are alternatives that could be true. If a smudged print were our circumstantial evidence and the print could have been made by a hundreds fingers in Perugia (allow that enough points were there to reduce the total number) there would be those be all those logical connections thereby reducing the value of the print - the inverse relationship - more connections less probative value.

Almost all of the circumstantial evidence had large number of alternative connections. The bare foot prints were not matches for Amanda therefore they could have left by another woman that night.

The DNA found of Amanda's was definitely hers but could have left at another time - more connections.

So logical connections = reasonable alternative explanations, just like I was saying!

 

[Grinder]

How many logical connections does Curatolo's evidence have? The more connections there are the less grave the evidence is. Meredith's blood on Raffaele's kitchen knife is grave because, other than being used as the murder weapon, there aren't so many logical connections it could have. I don't find this business of identifying, let alone counting, connections at all easy, especially if they have to be logical.

I think the connections are not as you describe above. Or perhaps I'm just missing it. I think logical connections from the Italian translation of their guidelines for circumstantial evidence means other explanations.

If one found a fingerprint left but not in the blood of the victim it could have been left there at any time so there is another connection besides being left there that night.

Finding Amanda's DNA in the bathroom could have been from anytime the previous month and each trip to the bathroom a possible connection.

Connections equals other explanations for the evidence and more of them the lower the gravity (value) the piece has. IMO

It seems your snip gives too little importance to precision without which a piece shouldn't have any value (the smudged print or bath mat print)

 

[anglolawyer]

I think the connections are not as you describe above. Or perhaps I'm just missing it. I think logical connections from the Italian translation of their guidelines for circumstantial evidence means other explanations.

If one found a fingerprint left but not in the blood of the victim it could have been left there at any time so there is another connection besides being left there that night.

Finding Amanda's DNA in the bathroom could have been from anytime the previous month and each trip to the bathroom a possible connection.

Connections equals other explanations for the evidence and more of them the lower the gravity (value) the piece has. IMO

It seems your snip gives too little importance to precision without which a piece shouldn't have any value (the smudged print or bath mat print)

So logical connections = reasonable alternative explanations, just like I was saying!

 

[anglolawyer]

It's no good. Can't sleep until I figure this out. WTF are logical connections, how do you count them and why is there an inverse numeral relationship with gravity (as in seriousness)? LCs can't be equivalent to RAEs because Italy would have said so and RAEs may be small in number (as in only one) but very significant, thus destroying the inverse relationship thing.

A RAE for the scream Nara heard is that it was someone else screaming (we exclude the likelihood that she heard nothing at all as if we draw that conclusion we can ditch her evidence altogether). You don't need another 7 RAEs and it will probably often not be possible to think of more than one or two anyway. And RAEs are not 'logically connected' to anything.

What about TOD and blood stained jacket? The jacket is a possible indicator of an early TOD and is logically connected with other similar indicators and it seems to me the more the better, rather than the opposite.

 

[Grinder]

It's no good. Can't sleep until I figure this out. WTF are logical connections, how do you count them and why is there an inverse numeral relationship with gravity (as in seriousness)? LCs can't be equivalent to RAEs because Italy would have said so and RAEs may be small in number (as in only one) but very significant, thus destroying the inverse relationship thing.

A RAE for the scream Nara heard is that it was someone else screaming (we exclude the likelihood that she heard nothing at all as if we draw that conclusion we can ditch her evidence altogether). You don't need another 7 RAEs and it will probably often not be possible to think of more than one or two anyway. And RAEs are not 'logically connected' to anything.

What about TOD and blood stained jacket? The jacket is a possible indicator of an early TOD and is logically connected with other similar indicators and it seems to me the more the better, rather than the opposite.

Okay, I'll give it a whirl but expect a when it is connections more or less equals RAEs.

Part of the difficulty with Nara or Curatolo is the accuracy of their recollections. Let's say I believe both of them but not the precision. I believe that Nara heard something and Curatolo saw a couple I just don't believe either were the night of the murder.

Just as Galati wishes to look at the circumstantial evidence (CE) as a package I wish to look at RAEs as package. Since neither of the witnesses came forward in a timely fashion and in the case of Curatolo he didn't look at a line-up maybe ever, I think that RAEs should be considered for that lack of precision.

I can't believe that either of their testimonies being CE would be allowed in, given that they were interviewed by the police just after the murder. But once allowed, I would think that their recollections should be subjected to RAEs or connections.

As for the inverse aspect, it seems pretty clear. A fingerprint of Amanda's in her cottage not in MK's blood has a lot of other connection and therefore has no value. The same would hold true for her DNA. The blood on the faucet also has a number of connections and given she had no injuries from the attack, other connections seem very reasonable.

On the other hand, Rudi's fingerprint found in the house with no blood involved wouldn't have another reasonable connection.

The Luminol prints if we were to accept them as a match to R & A would have limited alternative connections and therefore would be of value.

The PLE didn't print much of the house because finding prints there wouldn't mean much unless they came from someone that hadn't a history of being in the cottage.

Having only one doesn't destroy the inverse relationship and one would think the probability of the RAE would play into the equation. So a print of Amanda not in blood in the house only needs one RAE i.e. she lived there to make it of no value. Perhaps they should or do say the more the RAEs are worth the less value the CE.

 

[anglolawyer]

Okay, I'll give it a whirl but expect a when it is connections more or less equals RAEs.

Part of the difficulty with Nara or Curatolo is the accuracy of their recollections. Let's say I believe both of them but not the precision. I believe that Nara heard something and Curatolo saw a couple I just don't believe either were the night of the murder.

Just as Galati wishes to look at the circumstantial evidence (CE) as a package I wish to look at RAEs as package. Since neither of the witnesses came forward in a timely fashion and in the case of Curatolo he didn't look at a line-up maybe ever, I think that RAEs should be considered for that lack of precision.

I can't believe that either of their testimonies being CE would be allowed in, given that they were interviewed by the police just after the murder. But once allowed, I would think that their recollections should be subjected to RAEs or connections.

As for the inverse aspect, it seems pretty clear. A fingerprint of Amanda's in her cottage not in MK's blood has a lot of other connection explanation and therefore has no value. The same would hold true for her DNA. The blood on the faucet also has a number of connections explanations and given she had no injuries from the attack, other connections seem very reasonable.

On the other hand, Rudi's fingerprint found in the house with no blood involved wouldn't have another reasonable connection explanation.

The Luminol prints if we were to accept them as a match to R & A would have limited alternative connection explanation and therefore would be of value.

The PLE didn't print much of the house because finding prints there wouldn't mean much unless they came from someone that hadn't a history of being in the cottage.

Having only one doesn't destroy the inverse relationship and one would think the probability of the RAE would play into the equation. So a print of Amanda not in blood in the house only needs one RAE i.e. she lived there to make it of no value. Perhaps they should or do say the more the RAEs are worth the less value the CE.

See what I mean?

 

[Grinder]

See what I mean?

Not exactly. Could you provide the rules for CE in the original Italian?

Once again it makes sense to me that the alternative explanations could be weighed by value - the more likely the more weight and therefore the inverse works.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not exactly. Could you provide the rules for CE in the original Italian?

No, but I trust komponisto's translation.

Once again it makes sense to me that the alternative explanations could be weighed by value - the more likely the more weight and therefore the inverse works.

It does, it's just a long way from what Galati says.

 

[Grinder]

No, but I trust komponisto's translation.


It does, it's just a long way from what Galati says.

Dear friend, I too trust Komponisto, but thought it might interesting to evaluate the original. Perhaps connection is an acceptable translation, but so might be "explanation".

I remain troubled by the acceptance of the mat print at all. The best the prosecution could get out of the experts were "compatible with" not matching. It would seem that Galati would say that we've narrowed it down to two people and therefore being compatible with Raf or even more compatible with Raf needs to be added into the pile of evidence. I don't think the print is evidence of anything accept that someone with some blood on his foot stepped on the mat. It would be like looking at a partial DNA that could be 10% of the males in Perugia and saying it is evidence against anyone.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dear friend, I too trust Komponisto, but thought it might interesting to evaluate the original. Perhaps connection is an acceptable translation, but so might be "explanation".

This is taken from the PDF version at PMF.org (US version)

It acquires the status of proof only when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence can all be brought back again to one single cause or one single effect. In practice, therefore, the court must proceed in the first place with an examination of each piece of circumstantial evidence, identifying all the logical links possible, and therefore ascertaining the weight, which is inversely proportional to the number of such links,as well as their precision, which correlates to the clarity of its outline, to the clarity of its representation, to the source of knowledge, direct or indirect, from which it derives, to the reliability of the same. It must, lastly, proceed to a final synthesis, ascertaining whether the examined circumstantial evidence is concordant, that is, whether it can all be linked to one sole cause or a sole effect, such that the existence or non-existence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

I remain troubled by the acceptance of the mat print at all. The best the prosecution could get out of the experts were "compatible with" not matching. It would seem that Galati would say that we've narrowed it down to two people and therefore being compatible with Raf or even more compatible with Raf needs to be added into the pile of evidence. I don't think the print is evidence of anything accept that someone with some blood on his foot stepped on the mat. It would be like looking at a partial DNA that could be 10% of the males in Perugia and saying it is evidence against anyone.

I was reading this part of Galati today. He fastens on Hellman's analytical error in supposing the person who went in the bathroom only had blood on one foot, rather than that he made the print in the manner described here. But I don't see him saying the print is provably Raffaele's. He just bitches about Hellman's reasoning.

 

[Grinder]

It acquires the status of proof only when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence can all be brought back again to one single cause or one single effect. In practice, therefore, the court must proceed in the first place with an examination of each piece of circumstantial evidence, identifying all the logical links possible, and therefore ascertaining the weight, which is inversely proportional to the number of such links,as well as their precision, which correlates to the clarity of its outline, to the clarity of its representation, to the source of knowledge, direct or indirect, from which it derives, to the reliability of the same. It must, lastly, proceed to a final synthesis, ascertaining whether the examined circumstantial evidence is concordant, that is, whether it can all be linked to one sole cause or a sole effect, such that the existence or non-existence of the fact to be proved can be inferred.

It makes no sense that one would start with the logical links or explanations. The first thing would be to determine whether the CE is even evidence. The knife DNA even if it was Meredith's wasn't a problem because of the links but because it was bad science, bad protocol and bad police work.

Of course, the perfect fingerprint wouldn't mean diddly because of the other explanations unless in blood.

If this isn't a case of being lost in translation but rather lost in legalese, pity (Stanley/Livingstone joke punch line). How could connections/explanations come before accuracy (precision) of the evidence?

Originally Posted by Grinder
I remain troubled by the acceptance of the mat print at all. The best the prosecution could get out of the experts were "compatible with" not matching. It would seem that Galati would say that we've narrowed it down to two people and therefore being compatible with Raf or even more compatible with Raf needs to be added into the pile of evidence. I don't think the print is evidence of anything accept that someone with some blood on his foot stepped on the mat. It would be like looking at a partial DNA that could be 10% of the males in Perugia and saying it is evidence against anyone.

I was reading this part of Galati today. He fastens on Hellman's analytical error in supposing the person who went in the bathroom only had blood on one foot, rather than that he made the print in the manner described here. But I don't see him saying the print is provably Raffaele's. He just bitches about Hellman's reasoning.

Well, it seems if Galati is correct on these things, Italian law is strange. Once again, there is no doubt that there is a footprint but it couldn't be matched to anyone because it isn't precise enough. I could see it clearing someone, but not contributing to a conviction. It has only one explanation without a doubt but has no precision.

 

[anglolawyer]

It makes no sense that one would start with the logical links or explanations. The first thing would be to determine whether the CE is even evidence. The knife DNA even if it was Meredith's wasn't a problem because of the links but because it was bad science, bad protocol and bad police work.

You are very smart. It took Italy 2,500 years to work this out. I posted about it here. See the last couple of paragraphs.

Of course, the perfect fingerprint wouldn't mean diddly because of the other explanations unless in blood.

If this isn't a case of being lost in translation but rather lost in legalese, pity (Stanley/Livingstone joke punch line). How could connections/explanations come before accuracy (precision) of the evidence?

Under Italian law, they don't IMO.

Well, it seems if Galati is correct on these things, Italian law is strange. Once again, there is no doubt that there is a footprint but it couldn't be matched to anyone because it isn't precise enough. I could see it clearing someone, but not contributing to a conviction. It has only one explanation without a doubt but has no precision.

The print can rule people out (because it's too big or small) but obviously cannot positively put any particular person in the bathroom.

 

[Grinder]

You are very smart. It took Italy 2,500 years to work this out. I posted about it here. See the last couple of paragraphs.

A pox on your house for making me read that again.

It keeps coming back to the idea that the knife fits in all ways other than actually having the DNA on it so it should still be considered. The process continues to appear backward minded. There is only one logical explanation for the DNA on the knife in Raf's house (ignoring the size of the knife, the lack of any evidence of how it was moved, the abysmal collection protocol and even more abysmal testing protocol) and that is one of the kids was involved.

Of course, Hellmann threw out the knife and that's that, unless the C & V report is thrown out, which is a different issue.

The print can rule people out (because it's too big or small) but obviously cannot positively put any particular person in the bathroom.

just like I was saying!

Galati seems to be reading PGP blogs and believing them. They have been bleating the so many things to explain away meme for years. Of course, most of the things were of the value of the bathmat print or the testimony of someone on heroin recalling incorrectly seeing them the night of the murder. I really don't know how Italy can get decent witnesses if they publish all the case detail in real time. I'm surprised they didn't tweet the interrogation answer by answer, with photos.

I would really like to see the transcripts of the key witnesses in their first police interviews.

 

[Grinder]

While I can understand that some people think the kids were involved in the murder, what I can't understand is the PGP's thinking on DNA and the rest of the police work or for that matter the use of Mignini as the prosecutor. I asked about that last bit almost from the beginning because he had the charge out there and the issues with MOF. Why they didn't use someone else and why the PGP didn't agree is a mystery.

Now they are bleating that a man released in Texas shouldn't have been because the DNA exonerating (ignoring the witness that recanted) was not collected to the standards C & V required. They will not acknowledge the difference between freeing someone on DNA and convicting someone using the same DNA. This guy was a bad guy of some sort. The hairs found on scene didn't match him but someone else. They had no CE on him and based most of the trial on testimony of some other crooks, at least that's how the article went. Now hairs are not touch DNA, so there's another difference.

These people are either mentally challenged or they are just disingenuous. I think a combo.

ETA - Perfect example is the bra clasp. They hand wave away the 47 days because some others were convicted years aftyer DNA collection. They neglect to mention when the evidence was collected and what type of evidence it was. Was it a bloody piece of clothing found in the perps house a year later that matched the victims DNA or was it a tiny amount or the perps DNA found months after in a place the perp had spent time. Was the evidence collected the only DNA of the perp and the only evidence of his presence in the crime scene room or was it added top other CE and DE?

Now we have a story of the chief detective in the case being investigated for misuse of the data base system and charges by two people of harassment. Does this bother the PGP? Nope, they pretend to have known about the troubles of ole Nappy and blame the victims. They actually bring up that she requested the 911 call tape and it didn't exist. Proof she is in the right or she never would have requested the recording (hello maybe she knew it had been destroyed - that the way they roll in Perugia).

The bra clasp was soooooo convenient to find after the shoe prints didn't match Raf. He would have been released had they not found the miracle DNA on one side of the bra. Any chance by that time the police had his DNA available? They say the cottage was secured but it was broken into and used as party spot later. Does anyone seriously think that if she or another person wanted to get into the cottage they couldn't?

 

[anglolawyer]

Lumumba's text

On the off-chance there may still be someone left who is interested, I now have conclusive proof, from a witness who was present at the time and whose recollection was recorded only a few days after the event, that Amanda Knox did not delete Lumumba's text from her phone. Step forward ... Miss Knox!

This comes from a transcript of a call between Amanda and her mother on 10 Nov 2007, it was recorded and transcribed by the cops and it is cited by Galati at p.88 of the PMF translation* (US) version:

AK: I said < that what happened was that everyone had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers had said: ‘I’m the only one that can save you, I’m the only one that can save you. Just give me a name.’ And I said: ‘I don’t know!’ And then they said, I said: ‘can you show me the message that I received from Patrick?![‘] Because I don’t remember having replied to him, and so they showed me the message and then I had said: ‚Patrick <‛ And then I thought of Patrick, of seeing Patrick, and so I thought that I had completely lost my [102] mind, and I imagined him uhm <of seeing him and <

I rest my case.

Now, we know the message was deleted and since that was not done by Amanda it can only have been done by the cops and I suspect that happened between 1.45 and 5.45 a.m. on 06 Nov. My reason is that in the 1.45 statement Amanda gives the tenor of Patrick's message but in the 5.45 she doesn't. Remember the sequence:

8.30 PL texts Amanda
8.35 she replies
8.38 his phone is pinged in the area of the apartment

It follows from the theory the cops constructed around this that his message should have said: 'meet me in the Piazza now' and not 'no customers, don't come in'. Therefore, they simply deleted it leaving her message intact. Further, they exploited the tiny difference in his recollection and hers at the crucial hearing before Matteini on 08 Nov when preventive detention was authorised (an absolutely critical achievement for Mig and the team).

Let's say these speculations are right, for the sake of argument - what would it imply for the integrity of this prosecution? Please remember, it is not a question of deliberately framing innocent people or just bungling. There is a middle possibility (the correct one IMO) namely that of framing people they 'knew' were guilty.

A very similar thing happened in the 1950s when Timothy Evans was hanged for two murders committed by John Christie. There, again, the police encountered the inconvenient fact that Evans could not possibly have hidden the bodies in the small outhouse because council workmen were working in it at the material time and were absolutely certain there could be no bodies there. The cops just fixed the evidence so that it conformed with their theory, which had too strong a grip to be falsified. Same here.


* all hail to the translators. This must have been tough.

 

[RoseMontague]

On the off-chance there may still be someone left who is interested, I now have conclusive proof, from a witness who was present at the time and whose recollection was recorded only a few days after the event, that Amanda Knox did not delete Lumumba's text from her phone. Step forward ... Miss Knox!

This comes from a transcript of a call between Amanda and her mother on 10 Nov 2007, it was recorded and transcribed by the cops and it is cited by Galati at p.88 of the PMF translation* (US) version:


I rest my case.

Now, we know the message was deleted and since that was not done by Amanda it can only have been done by the cops and I suspect that happened between 1.45 and 5.45 a.m. on 06 Nov. My reason is that in the 1.45 statement Amanda gives the tenor of Patrick's message but in the 5.45 she doesn't. Remember the sequence:

8.30 PL texts Amanda
8.35 she replies
8.38 his phone is pinged in the area of the apartment

It follows from the theory the cops constructed around this that his message should have said: 'meet me in the Piazza now' and not 'no customers, don't come in'. Therefore, they simply deleted it leaving her message intact. Further, they exploited the tiny difference in his recollection and hers at the crucial hearing before Matteini on 08 Nov when preventive detention was authorised (an absolutely critical achievement for Mig and the team).

Let's say these speculations are right, for the sake of argument - what would it imply for the integrity of this prosecution? Please remember, it is not a question of deliberately framing innocent people or just bungling. There is a middle possibility (the correct one IMO) namely that of framing people they 'knew' were guilty.

A very similar thing happened in the 1950s when Timothy Evans was hanged for two murders committed by John Christie. There, again, the police encountered the inconvenient fact that Evans could not possibly have hidden the bodies in the small outhouse because council workmen were working in it at the material time and were absolutely certain there could be no bodies there. The cops just fixed the evidence so that it conformed with their theory, which had too strong a grip to be falsified. Same here.


* all hail to the translators. This must have been tough.

Wow, Just Wow. Nice find.

 

[anglolawyer]

Wow, Just Wow. Nice find.

Thank you Rose. You and I are the only ones still on the case.

I wanted to add that we now need a bat-poo/pooh PGP theory to explain why Amanda would invent this story for her mother's benefit. I actually don't dare to read the thread because I know someone will come up with something utterly inane, post it with passive-aggressive insouciance and leave me seething.