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

[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?

Grinder,
Haven't you ever noticed something odd, dismissed it only to think about it again later and come to the conclusion that maybe you were wrong to dismiss it?

How can you read something into the minutiae and the mundane?

Briars views all these tiny little details through the lens of someone who already had a conclusion and tries to come up with some logic that supports his view. I understand that, it is easy to do.

Frankly, I think the poop is ****. It is odd, that is all.

 

[Briars]

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.

They may have been busy going over the cottage scene rather than risk the morning departure to Gubbio.I think with Guede about and not being sure if they left evidence was enough to make them stick around. A day trip after the murder is no alibi. God forbid if someone like Filomena accidentally returned and flushed the toilet. What do you think she might have to throw away? She walked over there to get the dryer. She neatly returned it but couldn't flush. Were not talking about having to take out stinky garbage and the work involved. Doesn't add up.

 

[Briars]

No there is a photo with what appears to be a print.

 

[Briars]

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.

There is a photo with a section of a print not mirror in the large bathroom.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Have you seen the video of Stefanoni collecting the poo from the loo? I know Grinder hasn't, otherwise he would know Guede most certainly did wipe his ass with the paper. To prevent Dan O. from carrying out his threat to start posting poo pictures can I just say that standing at the doorway of the bathroom it might well have been possible to see into the pan, assuming the smell (thanks for bringing that up Halides) didn't prompt her to crane her neck.

This is such a weak point Briars. Are you serious? If guilty, she has to invent a reason to discover Guede's faeces because she obviously already knows about it. So why not just invent a story like this:

'I went into the other bathroom because I noticed a smell and that's where I noticed the pan had not been flushed. Ew.'

So, a guilty Amanda would invent a better story, therefore she can't be guilty. But, on the other hand, a guilty Amanda might also realise that an innocent Amanda would not tell a straightforward story so she would invent something like the hair-dryer account to throw people off the scent, which means she is guilty after all. This is what Galati calls a corax and since it is, what I want to know is, why isn't it in the appeal?

 

[Briars]

Grinder,
Haven't you ever noticed something odd, dismissed it only to think about it again later and come to the conclusion that maybe you were wrong to dismiss it?

How can you read something into the minutiae and the mundane?

Briars views all these tiny little details through the lens of someone who already had a conclusion and tries to come up with some logic that supports his view. I understand that, it is easy to do.

Frankly, I think the poop is ****. It is odd, that is all.

There is nothing mundane about looking the logistics of a story. Its not the time to say "spare me the details".

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
Haven't you ever noticed something odd, dismissed it only to think about it again later and come to the conclusion that maybe you were wrong to dismiss it?

How can you read something into the minutiae and the mundane?

Briars views all these tiny little details through the lens of someone who already had a conclusion and tries to come up with some logic that supports his view. I understand that, it is easy to do.

Frankly, I think the poop is ****. It is odd, that is all.

Tesla - sure I have, but in this case after finding the door wide open, enough blood to note it and later report it, and poop in the toilet, I think I would have mentioned it immediately on returning to Raf's at the latest.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Bill,
Wasn't Napoleoni the one who declared the break in was staged?

That's the whole damn problem with this case. Napoleoni playing Sherlock Holmes and the entire police force, the court system and the guilters goose-stepped behind her.

What's wrong with cracking this case with the evidence, such as CCTV video evidence, cell phone evidence, fingerprint evidence etc. She gets a feeling and everything that followed is the result of that feeling.

I determined by looking at Google Earh Street View that there were 3 CCTV cameras minimum between Raffaele's flat at 110 Corso Garibaldi and the cottage. You'd a thought that a professional police would have secured camera footage from every CCTV camera within 10 blocks of the cottage on the the first day. You'd also think that the Mignini wouldn't have stopped the coroner from taking the body temperature. You'd think they would get experts to retrieve the evidence from the computers instead of some fool.

The Perugian authorities have only themselves to blame for screwing up their investigation. They really were the Keystone cops. Unfortunately, they thought they were good.

 

[Dan O.]

They may have been busy going over the cottage scene rather than risk the morning departure to Gubbio.I think with Guede about and not being sure if they left evidence was enough to make them stick around. A day trip after the murder is no alibi. God forbid if someone like Filomena accidentally returned and flushed the toilet. What do you think she might have to throw away? She walked over there to get the dryer. She neatly returned it but couldn't flush. Were not talking about having to take out stinky garbage and the work involved. Doesn't add up.

What exactly is involved in flushing that toilet?

 

[Briars]

Have you seen the video of Stefanoni collecting the poo from the loo? I know Grinder hasn't, otherwise he would know Guede most certainly did wipe his ass with the paper. To prevent Dan O. from carrying out his threat to start posting poo pictures can I just say that standing at the doorway of the bathroom it might well have been possible to see into the pan, assuming the smell (thanks for bringing that up Halides) didn't prompt her to crane her neck.

This is such a weak point Briars. Are you serious? If guilty, she has to invent a reason to discover Guede's faeces because she obviously already knows about it. So why not just invent a story like this:

'I went into the other bathroom because I noticed a smell and that's where I noticed the pan had not been flushed. Ew.'

So, a guilty Amanda would invent a better story, therefore she can't be guilty. But, on the other hand, a guilty Amanda might also realise that an innocent Amanda would not tell a straightforward story so she would invent something like the hair-dryer account to throw people off the scent, which means she is guilty after all. This is what Galati calls a corax and since it is, what I want to know is, why isn't it in the appeal?

The problem with that is would she notice the "smell" from her room or the other bathroom. No of course not she needed a reason to go there. If the smell was so bad why not flush , they would ask her. Combine the dryer/poop side trip with boogie story invention (Dec 18) = no shower

 

[Grinder]

They may have been busy going over the cottage scene rather than risk the morning departure to Gubbio.I think with Guede about and not being sure if they left evidence was enough to make them stick around. A day trip after the murder is no alibi. God forbid if someone like Filomena accidentally returned and flushed the toilet. What do you think she might have to throw away? She walked over there to get the dryer. She neatly returned it but couldn't flush. Were not talking about having to take out stinky garbage and the work involved. Doesn't add up.

Of all the PGP's wacky ideas the one about wanting Rudi to be found is the wackiest. I already pointed out that there is no evidence of any significant time consuming clean-up. There. Is. No. Proof. Of. A. Clean-Up. So what did they need more than a few minutes to break the window and ???. Filomena flushing the toilet wouldn't hurt them a bit. It is idiotic to think they would want Rudi caught yet worry about him "being about".

Do you think after the police arrived they would notice something they forgot and just pick (do do do do) it up? The day after isn't an alibi for sure but not being there when the crime is discovered is a good thing as that is one reason they were suspects.

Were not talking about having to take out stinky garbage and the work involved. Doesn't add up

No real idea what that means but I was suggesting she might have a tissue or a wrapper for something and took a step towards the toilet or as I said maybe the toilet paper from Rudi was on the bowl, visible.

The poop caper just has no weight.

 

[Bill Williams]

They may have been busy going over the cottage scene rather than risk the morning departure to Gubbio.I think with Guede about and not being sure if they left evidence was enough to make them stick around. A day trip after the murder is no alibi. God forbid if someone like Filomena accidentally returned and flushed the toilet. What do you think she might have to throw away? She walked over there to get the dryer. She neatly returned it but couldn't flush. Were not talking about having to take out stinky garbage and the work involved. Doesn't add up.

And so far, all of this is speculation to make a guilt peg fit into a innocence round hole. All of this is speculation with not on iota of evidence.

Opportunistic killers flee. Who fled this scene? (Apologies to all, I am reading John Douglas these days. He seems to have garnered a wee bit of a reputation on these matters.)

 

[Dan O.]

There is a photo with a section of a print not mirror in the large bathroom.

Mirror mirror on the wall, how I wonder where you are.

So based on a partial print, you declare that there is no mirror. Perhaps you should reflect on that thought for a moment.

BTW, the self portrait here of the Spheron camera is not nearley as artistically composed as the one from Laura's room.

 

[Briars]

What exactly is involved in flushing that toilet?

Nothing that's the point

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla - sure I have, but in this case after finding the door wide open, enough blood to note it and later report it, and poop in the toilet, I think I would have mentioned it immediately on returning to Raf's at the latest.

Maybe we all would, but maybe not. Not everybody's minds think the same way.

Maybe Amanda was thinking about other things? Maybe she was thinking about Raffaele, their relationship, that maybe things were progressing too fast? Should she really go to Gubbio with him? Or maybe she was just thinking about how much fun she was going to have in Gubbio?

Yes it is odd in hindsight. But how many times have we blown something odd out of proportion?

People are mind reading because they know that someone was murdered. Would it really be so odd if Sophie was fine and spent the night with Robyn or Sophie?

God if it was me, I'd have almost positively ignored all these things and have gone to Gubbio without another thought about it.
Then the guilters would say that Amanda and Raffaele, used that time to get rid of the evidence and to establish an alibi.

They make a big deal out of Amanda and Raffaele pointing out the poop, and then make a big deal out of them not being the first through Meredith's door. Every little detail that has no probative value at all is being used in a half baked Rorschach logic test.

Give me evidence, not details that can be read 40 different ways.

 

[anglolawyer]

The problem with that is would she notice the "smell" from her room or the other bathroom. No of course not she needed a reason to go there. If the smell was so bad why not flush , they would ask her. Combine the dryer/poop side trip with boogie story invention (Dec 18) = no shower

She was clever though, wasn't she, in remembering to leave her clothes on the bed. Gotta hand it to the little minx.

 

[Briars]

Mirror mirror on the wall, how I wonder where you are.

So based on a partial print, you declare that there is no mirror. Perhaps you should reflect on that thought for a moment.

BTW, the self portrait here of the Spheron camera is not nearley as artistically composed as the one from Laura's room.

Print as in reproduced image or painting not print as in photo

 

[anglolawyer]

Print as in reproduced image or painting not print as in photo

Personally I think Briars is right. I looked at pictures of the bathroom at IA and could not see a mirror. There is a mirror in the laundry room (I posted the photo) but, Briars, where does she claim she went into the bathroom to dry her hair?

She want to get the hair dryer and says she put it back after. It's not completely clear to me, I will admit, whether she dried her hair in the laundry room, adjacent to the bathroom, or went back to her bedroom or to the other bathroom to do it but I can't see why it matters. Returning the hair dryer to the place it can be seen in the other photo I posted, i.e. at the entrance to the bathroom, surely makes it possible she saw something in the pan, doesn't it? If not, why not?

 

[Dan O.]

Nothing that's the point

The point is that you don't know. You haven't got a clue. It's laughable that you are telling us that Amanda should have flushed the toilet while you don't even know how yourself.

 

[Briars]

She was clever though, wasn't she, in remembering to leave her clothes on the bed. Gotta hand it to the little minx.

Sorry are you saying that the clothes were evidence that she actually changed? I do see them as evidence of her shower story.