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

[Bill Williams]

One, mixed blood and DNA proves what, exactly? Mixed DNA is a common forensic occurrence. Two, the bra clasp does not have Raffaele's complete profile. How could it? Raffaele and Meredith share about ten alleles, and her peaks dominate the clasp. Three, Raffaele probably sent emails very late (or very early the next morning, depending on how one defines the terms). If so, they don't have direct value as exculpatory evidence, but neither would there be any reason for Raffaele to lie about them (which I strongly doubt that he did). The emails (like the playlist) have modest indirect value as evidence to some of us, inasmuch as neither activity sound like what someone who has just committed murder and perhaps not yet executed a miraculous clean-up/disposal of evidence would do with his time. I cannot understand how you can claim that he lied on the basis of absolutely nothing. Four, with respect to Meredith's relationship to Amanda, neither the other roommates nor Giocomo testified to tension. I hope you stay around long enough to explain these things.

Briars is making the same points that a poster by the pseudo of Super8 has made elsewhere.

Of particular interest, he/she is the ONLY person I know from the guilt camp who even attempts to answer those five things Massei finds as factual. Everyone else ignores then, not even mocking them.

Even though I agree, Halides1, that a belief in mixed DNA proves.... well, what exactly DOES it prove in a cottage shared by the two, with shared hallway and bathroom... unless someone wants to claim that the upstairs was in a laboratory-sterile condition before 9 pm on Nov 1.... then there might be a point to be made.

But both Super8 and Briars have broken ranks with other guilters by:

- even attempting to answer the five findings of fact by Massei
- admitting there is no mixed blood, which is a staple of what one hears from folk like The Machine​

 

[Grinder]

No I don't think they are innocent.

I was referring to the Sollecitos but this is better.

Their actions show coverup.

Okay. Top three actions with more than Follian as a cite

There was no evidence of mistreatment to illicit the original story of Amanda being at the cottage.

What do you think De Felice meant when he said the police questioned her until she buckled and told us what they knew to be correct? I would think he meant they knew what the truth was and they interrogated her until she told them what they knew was the truth. But, it wasn't the truth.

Patrick gave an interview in which he told how he was abused by the police. He later recanted but Mignini didn't file charges. Why?

That is more evidence of mistreatment than you have for cover-up, personality disorders, or the lack of a shower.

They were not railroaded by Mignini.

Okay, I'll bite. Who did railroad them?

The exposed Frank saga should give you a clue.

Stipulating that all your people's story-lines on him are true, how would that impact Mignini's rep? He may have used that rep to cover his behavior, but he didn't make his rep.

The morning shower story and disappearing panic of the locked door was as staged as the break in.

Do you know this by reading the stars?

There was no shower and there was no need to wipe the floors with the bathmat.

I think you need to explain this.

There was also no need to make repeated visits to the toilet Grinder. The hairdryer and mirror were not in the bathroom!

?

Bill there doesn't need to be mixed blood unless the perp is bleeding. Mixed blood and Dna is enough.

Tell the machine, but wait your a trickster because you said "mixed blood and DNA is enough" instead of saying DNA mixed with another's blood is enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

Tell the machine, but wait your a trickster because you said "mixed blood and DNA is enough" instead of saying DNA mixed with another's blood is enough.

Yikes - I missed that. What's the difference between, "mixed blood", and "mixed blood plus DNA"?

So Briars, you DO agree with The Machine about mixed blood. And you disagree with the finders of fact at trial, all of whom said there was no mixed blood.

Apologies. I misunderstood your position. Thanks, Grinder, for catching it.

 

[anglolawyer]

No mirror or hair dryer

This was Amanda's evidence at trial:

Then I went into the other bathroom to dry my hair, because there was no hair dryer in my bathroom. So I went there, I took the hair dryer, I was drying my hair, and then when I put the hair dryer back, I saw that in the toilet, which was that kind of toilet that isn't really flat, it's like this, kind of ew, that there were faeces on that upper part, and that for me was the strangest thing of all. In fact [swallowing], of all the things I saw, in the bathroom of Laura and Filomena who are very clean people, for me it was strange, and I thought, "What? What could this be?" Okay, so I didn't know what to think, but it was strange. Then I took this mop that was near my room that was in a closet thing near my room, and I went to Raffaele's house,

Briars' point is that there is no mirror or hair dryer in the bathroom in which Guede defecated. This seems to be correct but her evidence was not that she dried her hair there. Rather she just collected and returned the hair dryer, which you can see in the picture. There is a mirror above the sink in the laundry room but, as I read her evidence, she didn't use that either.

How this proves anything, even if her evidence was as suggested by Briars, beats me but somebody should tell Galati about it because I think he missed it.

 

[RandyN]

The washing machine was humid that morning. I don't remember anything about a dryer. I have never read a definitive report on the status of the heater. If the heater wasn't turned on the status of her jacket means nothing as on a 50 degree F night without heat keeping a jacket on would be natural.


This is why I called these items lessor valued circumstancial evidence indicating the actual TOD. There was no dryer. The washing machine was full of washed and still wet clothes. And if you wish to make the point that the heat was low and therefore it was normal for MK to have her jacket on until 11 PM ....well that is an argument I would expect more from Mignini rather than from someone who pretends to read nothing but yet somehow remains a know it all about the details of this case.

snip

"The ILE always said they didn't look for AK's prints or DNA where it was meaningless, as in her room or on her guitar. The PGP, at first, made a big deal about the lack of prints. For them it proved the clean-up. I'm not convinced they didn't find F's DNA in her room. It could be be as above. They either didn't look there except the Luminol spots or they didn't report finding F's DNA in her own room.

"

So at what point do you suppose ILE didn't need to consider Filomena or her prints? And continuing on with that hollow reasoning, then how did they decide whose reference footprints needed to be taken? And when does logic allow them to stop investigating... and then suddenly start again as in the Dec 18th return to the crime scene?

As for Mignini....those who cant see his blatant and corrupt acts used to arrest, hold, and then leak and lie for a year before the trial against two clearly innocent persons are simply ignorant of the facts of the matter. Additionally, his office is guilty of filing extraneous charges against almost everyone not seeing things his way... but sure go ahead and prop up this idiot because he may just be a little dimwitted or forgetful. The truth is he is as dirty as any mafia member...in fact worse because he runs his corrupt operation at the expense of the Italian taxpayer and abuses the power and trust granted to him.

Who arrests 18 family members and creates years of nightmares for them by subjecting them to trials that cost them all fortunes to defend against; the judge finally writing a 1000 plus page motivation report (Is War and Peace that long)... finding them all innocent?...Mignini does. And why? Because he thinks the dead dug up guys pants don't fit properly.

This man is a criminal who belongs in jail or in an asylum.

As for Italy...so what that the Sollicitos were exonerated in the end? Mignini should never have charged them in the first place. And who repays for the legal costs? The damaged reputations? But if you agree that Mignini is to be held blameless then indeed why does he pick and choose who to charge? Lumumba? NO. Follian? No. He saw Comodi threaten witnesses in court....why not charge her? He saw Comodi (twice) try to sneak false control data sheets into the court record....why no charges? He knows Stefanoni lied at the prelim hearing about quantification of a "sample" on the knife blade....and she continued to lie and deceive and withhold data and controls that proved she was bad. Why no charges for her? Because Mignini operates his office with the same moral compass as the mafia. But he is worse than them...they at least understand they are corrupt. But after almost 5 years you still wish to give the man a pass? That is a foolish argument.

 

[anglolawyer]

The mirror

My system would not let me upload this photo of the mirror in the laundry room. It's not my understaning of Amanda's evidence that she stood in front of this mirror drying her hair. Maybe Briars would come back and explain his point. For my part, I can't see why she couldn't see the state of the toilet without stepping right inside the bathroom, if that's the point. Maybe Briars is letting his conclusion drive his premises. I do that too but it's important to recognise when you're doing it.

 

[acbytesla]

One, mixed blood and DNA proves what, exactly? Mixed DNA is a common forensic occurrence. Two, the bra clasp does not have Raffaele's complete profile. How could it? Raffaele and Meredith share about ten alleles, and her peaks dominate the clasp. Three, Raffaele probably sent emails very late (or very early the next morning, depending on how one defines the terms). If so, they don't have direct value as exculpatory evidence, but neither would there be any reason for Raffaele to lie about them (which I strongly doubt that he did). The emails (like the playlist) have modest indirect value as evidence to some of us, inasmuch as neither activity sound like what someone who has just committed murder and perhaps not yet executed a miraculous clean-up/disposal of evidence would do with his time. I cannot understand how you can claim that he lied on the basis of absolutely nothing. Four, with respect to Meredith's relationship to Amanda, neither the other roommates nor Giocomo testified to tension. I hope you stay around long enough to explain these things.

He's not going to. You can count on that. The facts simply contradicts the comments Briars has been posting on every news article and in every forum on the Internet for 5 years. But I would say this to Briars, I'd respect him if he changed his position publicly as opposed to just melting away.

I'm not sure why he insists on making an untenable and and unprovable argument. Perhaps it is because he so vested in this position that he would be too embarrassed.

 

[Dan O.]

It's not my understaning of Amanda's evidence that she stood in front of this mirror drying her hair. Maybe Briars would come back and explain his point. For my part, I can't see why she couldn't see the state of the toilet without stepping right inside the bathroom, if that's the point. Maybe Briars is letting his conclusion drive his premises. I do that too but it's important to recognise when you're doing it.

My recollection is that Amanda noticed the state of the toilet when she was putting the hair dryer away.

You can see in those last two photos that there is a convenient outlet for plugging in the dryer just to the right of the sink. That outlet would be the most logical place for her to use the dryer. Her detailed account does not talk about walking through the house twice more to take the dryer back to her room or the other bathroom.

Putting the dryer away still requires moving a few steps towards the bathroom. While the state of the toilet is not visible from there, it would be noticeable. Just another step or two into the bathroom and the state is fully visible. (Do you need to see the picture?)

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not sure why he insists on making an untenable and and unprovable argument. Perhaps it is because he so vested in this position that he would be too embarrassed.

Would it be unreasonable to presume that Marriott is the only actor in the game with a public relations budget?

 

[Grinder]

This is why I called these items lessor valued circumstancial evidence indicating the actual TOD. There was no dryer. The washing machine was full of washed and still wet clothes. And if you wish to make the point that the heat was low and therefore it was normal for MK to have her jacket on until 11 PM ....well that is an argument I would expect more from Mignini rather than from someone who pretends to read nothing but yet somehow remains a know it all about the details of this case.

I have read plenty and from the beginning. The argument that she had to be attacked when entering the house because she still had a jacket on is without merit and is ridiculous. This becomes even more ridiculous if the heat was never turned on that night, which is something I don't think anyone knows and what I was asking about.

If I was agreeing with Mignini on one point that means nothing. Those that feel they must be on the other side of every PGP argument is foolish.

 

[Briars]

She returned the dryer neatly to the other room with the mirror and the brush. No need to go into the bathroom and see or flush the toilet.

 

[Briars]

What assumptions you make. My first post was late 2011.

 

[Dan O.]

She returned the dryer neatly to the other room with the mirror and the brush. No need to go into the bathroom and see or flush the toilet.

Why do you say "no need"? Is she so tall that she can see the state of the toilet from outside the bathroom door? Does she have fantastic stretching arms that she could reach the pull to flush the toilet without going in?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my thoughts on the second toilet

[speculation] Although I don't believe she ever said so, Amanda might have first noticed the smell from Rudi's bowel movement before actually seeing it. [/speculation]

 

[Grinder]

My recollection is that Amanda noticed the state of the toilet when she was putting the hair dryer away.

You can see in those last two photos that there is a convenient outlet for plugging in the dryer just to the right of the sink. That outlet would be the most logical place for her to use the dryer. Her detailed account does not talk about walking through the house twice more to take the dryer back to her room or the other bathroom.

Putting the dryer away still requires moving a few steps towards the bathroom. While the state of the toilet is not visible from there, it would be noticeable. Just another step or two into the bathroom and the state is fully visible. (Do you need to see the picture?)

To add to your point on this scatological issue, why the PGP are so obsessed with Rudi's poop is very odd, it was the tissue paper that actually yielded the DNA. Therefore, we know that Rudi at a minimum touched the paper, and I would take the leap and say he most probably used some and left it in the bowl and maybe visible from outside the toilet room.

I have never understood why the fact of feces being in the toilet wouldn't have been a big deal for Amanda. As Amanda became more aware of oddnesses in the house the poop would be frightening. I will concede to the PGP that it is odd that she didn't carry that discomfort back to Raf's and mention it immediately. Having said that, if she were telling a story why not say that she ran back to Raf's and expressed her grave concerns immediately?

 

[Briars]

What I'm saying is the hairdryer mirror and accessories were not in the bathroom . She had no need to go there. Logically if in fact her story was true she would dry her hair at the hair drying station set up in the laundry room. If you think it makes more sense to cart the dryer back to the other bathroom with the blood evidence fine. Either way looking at the unflushed toilet in the bathroom where the dryer was not found or was not returned was not necessary. I don't believe there was a shower taken that morning.

 

[acbytesla]

To add to your point on this scatological issue, why the PGP are so obsessed with Rudi's poop is very odd, it was the tissue paper that actually yielded the DNA. Therefore, we know that Rudi at a minimum touched the paper, and I would take the leap and say he most probably used some and left it in the bowl and maybe visible from outside the toilet room.

I have never understood why the fact of feces being in the toilet wouldn't have been a big deal for Amanda. As Amanda became more aware of oddnesses in the house the poop would be frightening. I will concede to the PGP that it is odd that she didn't carry that discomfort back to Raf's and mention it immediately. Having said that, if she were telling a story why not say that she ran back to Raf's and expressed her grave concerns immediately?

Poop in the toilet?? Who da thought that so many people would be so anally obsessed? I really don't understand the PGP obsession with it. Hasn't anyone ever heard of a floater? I'm sorry, but this little scatological fact provides ZERO probative value.

Way too many people think they can read something into the case based on the feces in the toilet.

 

[Grinder]

What I'm saying is the hairdryer mirror and accessories were not in the bathroom . She had no need to go there. Logically if in fact her story was true she would dry her hair at the hair drying station set up in the laundry room. If you think it makes more sense to cart the dryer back to the other bathroom with the blood evidence fine. Either way looking at the unflushed toilet in the bathroom where the dryer was not found or was not returned was not necessary. I don't believe there was a shower taken that morning.

Why if she was making all this up wouldn't she just make it believable? Do you think she didn't know that the drying station was not in the room where the toilet is? Why do you think she didn't step in the shower for 3 minutes and dry herself off if that was going to be her story.

A bigger question is why they just didn't go to Gubbio. No one could possibly believe that she wanted to "control" the investigation. You don't believe that somehow they were able to clean all their evidence and leave Rudi's while not leaving any obvious cleaning traces, do you?

They could have rinsed away the few spots of blood in the bathroom and left the door locked - the perp came and went through the window - and even left Meredith's door unlocked but closed. So in the morning she goes early to the house and notices nothing because F's shutters are closed as is her door and the door to Meredith's is closed. No blood at all and she either takes the shower or just picks up stuff for the trip. She goes back to Raf's and they motor to Gubbio and have breakfast or brunch while waiting for the call or text. If it never comes they go back to Perugia and go directly to Raf's. If by some chance they hear nothing she calls Meredith a couple of times, maybe even leaves a message.

Another option would have been to discover the body and rush in barefooted (if that's how you imagine she was during the murder) kneel down, try to help Meredith getting blood all over herself and then tracking it throughout the house. Retrace all places she had gone during the murder but now.

Oh one more poop discovery possibility would be that she had something to throw away and stepped into the toilet room to toss it in the toilet and saw the poop.

 

[Bill Williams]

Poop in the toilet?? Who da thought that so many people would be so anally obsessed? I really don't understand the PGP obsession with it. Hasn't anyone ever heard of a floater? I'm sorry, but this little scatological fact provides ZERO probative value.

Way too many people think they can read something into the case based on the feces in the toilet.

Acc. to both John Follian's and Raffaele Sollecito's books, this played big for detective Monica Napoleoni in the first few hours of the investigation. It's part and parcel of a guilter theory of why Raffaele particularly was so intent on pointing out the pooh to the police.

Briars might correct this if wrong, but it seems guilters want to have both Knox and Sollecito trying to not-so-subtly get them to notice the pooh, because in guilter-land they assume that the two students knew it was Rudy's. So for Briars that extra foot and a half between the hairdryer and where the pooh would be visible has to be the Berlin Wall - Knox CANNOT have wandered that extra foot to make the pooh visible because if she did, then Briar's theory falls apart.

For me this is part of an organized retreat in guilter-land. Briars would rather the argument be here, rather than on other issues - like judges who are triers of fact being unanimous (regardless of being in the either the Massei or Hellmann court) that there is no mixed blood. Briars has said it is "mixed blood plus DNA".

Guilters intent on defending the investigators contradict the court by claiming these things.... and at this point 5 years later it is not about remembering Meredith, for me it is a full on defence of investigators who horribly botched the investigation.

The reason why Briars is so intent on redefining the pooh and what it means - the manner of its discovery - is because that is Napoleoni's first line of defence. When she is on the stand at her own trial in the years to come to explain why she botched this case so much, she needs to say, "Look, there is no way Ms. Knox could have seen the pooh from where that hair-dryer is, therefore she must have known about it from the previous evening."

That point hinges on one foot of distance.

So let's recap. The DNA pointing to the students is useless, the superwitnesses are gone, some English lawyer has proven that the cops themselves erased Lumumba's incoming message to Knox (therefore depriving Knox of an iron clad alibi)..... and 5 years later we're still arguing about pooh.

Why? Because of what is at stake at this point in that botched investigation of 5 years ago. Fairly soon the liberty of the investigators themselves will be on the line.

 

[Dan O.]

What I'm saying is the hairdryer mirror and accessories were not in the bathroom

Briars, is there a mirror in the large bathroom or not?

You are posting speculations backed by nothing but your pre-judgement of guilt. I don't think you even know the evidence in this case but are echoing what you have read so you can fit in with another group that gives you pats on the back for bravely comming here to pretend to debate.