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

[acbytesla]

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

Logistics about poop? You are making a conclusion about Amanda and Raffaele's guilt based on the poop? Logistics about someone else's bathroom activities and whether their minds were preoccupied?

Ever notice that many people have bathroom routines and they don't even think about what they are doing? They just do it. That their minds are almost always somewhere else?

Why not base your perception based on something with actual probative value Briars?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Not really.... declaring the break-in "staged" seems to have been a group effort. One of the investigators went outside and deemed the climb up to Filomena's window too difficult. (That was an observation that Judge Massei himself did not agree with, Judge Massei invented yet another reason for Rudy not to have done the climb... Massei said that Rudy would have had to have done it three times! With the cover from the street and apartments being at the base of the house below Filomena's window... someone like Rudy could have gone up and down to the window 100 times with virtual stealth....)

The "staged" break-in, if you believe the authors, started with Battistelli and Romanelli who looked at the room and said, "This is no burglary." Both were correct on that score, since nothing had been taken from Romanelli's room. But that declaration of "no burglary" is not exactly a declaration of a staged break-in, it just morphed into one. Those comments of Battistelli's and Filomena's could just have easily be meant as what Filomea said, "Who breaks in and doesn't steal anything?" That's not exactly a denial that the breakin happened, just that it was a dumb burglar who did it.

Follain, who is the author who most closely conveys the cops' inner thoughts, has his bit about the condition of Filomena's room to butress what Follain said had happened at the bathroom. Follain leaves his readers with less of the sense of why the cops thought of the room as being staged, than with Amanda's and Raffaele's reaction... as well, as their assumed interest in making sure that the cops found the room - as well as the toilet.

Follain couldn't be plainer if he'd invented a line of dialogue from one of the students: "Gee, inspector, look at the pooh in the toilet, and look at the condition of Filomena's room? You don't think this was a break-in do you? Nudge nudge."

Apologies for going off on a Follain tangent. But I think his book is the first shot in saying that the cops got it wrong, but can't be blamed for getting it wrong. Knox and Sollecito know something they're not telling us, and fooled the cops as a result. I think that's Follain's theory at this point.

The three great chapters of his book can be summarized thusly:

1) The cops were right to suspect Knox and Sollecito
2) the trials show why the evidence against them falls apart
3) the reaction of the friends and family of Meredith to the acquittals​

That's the grand summary of Follain's book, and it is the first shot of defence for the investigators when they claim that they were misdirected by the two students, and that's why things went wrong.

In short, two punk kids, one of whom didn't even speak the language, bamboozled trained investigators with misdirection. Misdirection about the pooh, misdirection about the condition of Filomena's room.

That's the theory that even Briars is advancing. Ya, sure.

 

[Dan O.]

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?

I posted those pictures here long ago. From a position in front of the sink directly in front of the mirror where you would see your reflection in the mirror, nothing at all can be seen in the toilet. But with just a little better angle such as by raising the camera head about 1/2 to 1 meter, the contents of the bowl are clearly visible.

 

[Briars]

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.

What are you saying how clear do I need to be?? Flushing a toilet is a simple action like flicking a light switch. There is no reason on earth not to if it smelled. She viewed the toilet at some point but I don't believe it was combined with any shower or hair drying activity. If you want to believe she thought it was Laura's and just left it why then tell RS about it By the picture it stayed put in the toilet, so there was no credibility to her it was in the toilet and gone story,

 

[acbytesla]

Not really.... declaring the break-in "staged" seems to have been a group effort. One of the investigators went outside and deemed the climb up to Filomena's window too difficult. (That was an observation that Judge Massei himself did not agree with, Judge Massei invented yet another reason for Rudy not to have done the climb... Massei said that Rudy would have had to have done it three times! With the cover from the street and apartments being at the base of the house below Filomena's window... someone like Rudy could have gone up and down to the window 100 times with virtual stealth....)

The "staged" break-in, if you believe the authors, started with Battistelli and Romanelli who looked at the room and said, "This is no burglary." Both were correct on that score, since nothing had been taken from Romanelli's room. But that declaration of "no burglary" is not exactly a declaration of a staged break-in, it just morphed into one. Those comments of Battistelli's and Filomena's could just have easily be meant as what Filomea said, "Who breaks in and doesn't steal anything?" That's not exactly a denial that the breakin happened, just that it was a dumb burglar who did it.

Follain, who is the author who most closely conveys the cops' inner thoughts, has his bit about the condition of Filomena's room to butress what Follain said had happened at the bathroom. Follain leaves his readers with less of the sense of why the cops thought of the room as being staged, than with Amanda's and Raffaele's reaction... as well, as their assumed interest in making sure that the cops found the room - as well as the toilet.

Follain couldn't be plainer if he'd invented a line of dialogue from one of the students: "Gee, inspector, look at the pooh in the toilet, and look at the condition of Filomena's room? You don't think this was a break-in do you? Nudge nudge."

Apologies for going off on a Follain tangent. But I think his book is the first shot in saying that the cops got it wrong, but can't be blamed for getting it wrong. Knox and Sollecito know something they're not telling us, and fooled the cops as a result. I think that's Follain's theory at this point.

The three great chapters of his book can be summarized thusly:

1) The cops were right to suspect Knox and Solelcito
2) the trials show why the evidence against them falls apart
3) the reaction of the friends and family of Meredith to the acquittals​

That's the grand summary of Follain's book, and it is the first shot of defence for the investigators when they claim that they were misdirected by the two students, and that's why things went wrong.

In short, two punk kids, one of whom didn't even speak the language, bamboozled trained investigators with misdirection. Misdirection about the pooh, misdirection about the condition of Filomena's room.

That's the theory that even Briar's is advancing. Ya, sure.

I guess my point was that non-experts were making conclusions without real expertise. It wasn't a typical burglary because the burglary was interrupted. So they got that right, but their determination that the break in was stage was pure speculation.

Instead of relying on conclusive facts such as Time of Death ...oooops they screwed that up, or CCTV video coverage...ooooops screwed that up. Computer activity...ooooops screwed that up again and again and again. Or the DVR....ooooops screwed the pooch on that one too, they relied on their ability read ink blots.

The police advanced the theory that the break in was staged. Why didn't they try and prove it as opposed to just claiming it? Why didn't they take a single pane window and point a a high speed camera at it and throw a big rock through it?

Briars is doing the same as the police. He sees them as guilty and then looks at an ink blot and puts the ink blot in front of us and says....see they're guilty. Plain as day.

And those of wanting real evidence are left going huh? Explain that to me again? And we still are shaking our heads.

 

[Dan O.]

What are you saying how clear do I need to be?? Flushing a toilet is a simple action like flicking a light switch. There is no reason on earth not to if it smelled. She viewed the toilet at some point but I don't believe it was combined with any shower or hair drying activity. If you want to believe she thought it was Laura's and just left it why then tell RS about it By the picture it stayed put in the toilet, so there was no credibility to her it was in the toilet and gone story,

Where is that switch you can so easily flick to flush the toilet? Is this like the mirror where you see a corner of something and extrapolate with what you know?

 

[Briars]

Where is that switch you can so easily flick to flush the toilet? Is this like the mirror where you see a corner of something and extrapolate with what you know?

No flushing a toilet is as easy as flicking a switch. I thought making the comparison would show how easy it is something we do without thinking!

 

[Dan O.]

No flushing a toilet is as easy as flicking a switch. I thought making the comparison would show how easy it is something we do without thinking!

Posting here is something that you are doing without thinking. Are you searching for that picture of the toilet? Here's one...

 

[Grinder]

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.

Tesla way to put up and knock down straw men. Have I ever said anything about not being first through the door? No. Did I ever mention that pointing out the poop was an issue? No.

I think it is reasonable to question why she didn't mention the scene immediately on returning to the flat. Does that make her a murder (sic)? No.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla way to put up and knock down straw men. Have I ever said anything about not being first through the door? No. Did I ever mention that pointing out the poop was an issue? No.

I think it is reasonable to question why she didn't mention the scene immediately on returning to the flat. Does that make her a murder (sic)? No.

Grinder, that's fine that you think that. I can see why you would. But on the other hand, I think you are seeing things through your eyes. If it was me, I'd a just flushed the toilet. On that Briars and I agree. But I also don't think it offers any probative value as how it relates to innocence and guilt.

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess my point was that non-experts were making conclusions without real expertise. It wasn't a typical burglary because the burglary was interrupted. So they got that right, but their determination that the break in was stage was pure speculation.

Instead of relying on conclusive facts such as Time of Death ...oooops they screwed that up, or CCTV video coverage...ooooops screwed that up. Computer activity...ooooops screwed that up again and again and again. Or the DVR....ooooops screwed the pooch on that one too, they relied on their ability read ink blots.

The police advanced the theory that the break in was staged. Why didn't they try and prove it as opposed to just claiming it? Why didn't they take a single pane window and point a a high speed camera at it and throw a big rock through it?

Briars is doing the same as the police. He sees them as guilty and then looks at an ink blot and puts the ink blot in front of us and says....see they're guilty. Plain as day.
And those of wanting real evidence are left going huh? Explain that to me again? And we still are shaking our heads.

I agree. It's why Briars does not respond to the other stuff... and seems intent on finding something conspiratorial about whether or not Amanda should have flushed the toilet in the other bathroom.

All this while other guilters are trying to make the case that Knox's unorthodox toilet habits were a cause of tension between her and Meredith - a tension with all the triers of fact said did not exist (even though the unorthodox toilet habits are simply a matter of record.)

As an aside, guilters are painting a picture of Meredith as an extremely shallow person if normal household tensions are somehow painted as a "deteriorating relationship" between the two.

But Briars is VERY selective as to what is relevant - reminds me of Super8 on another board. Briars is honest enough to at least have a go at Massei's 5 points which contradict the prosecution's ever changing theories, but simply ignores stuff that don't fit into the scattergun approach to proving the guilt that is assumed before going in.

 

[Dan O.]

The scene at the cottage is clearly bothering Amanda. But is she going to rush home and immediately demand that her new boyfriend drop everything to come deal with what could be nothing? It's such a minor thing that she's probably forgotten about it by the time she gets back to Raf's place. As I recall, it was over breakfast that she casually mentions the problems at the cottage. A door that didn't latch properly was found open, a few drops of blood in a bathroom, a toilet that doesn't flush properly was found unflushed. If she want's to keep this boyfriend, she's not going to present herself in the first week as a ditsy girl that panics over trivia. She mentions the issues to Raffaele, he agrees to check it out when they return the mop (They probably have to walk that way anyhow to get to Raffaele's car).

 

[Dan O.]

If it was me, I'd a just flushed the toilet.

How would you do that?

Here's another picture...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4095[/qimg]

 

[Briars]

Posting here is something that you are doing without thinking. Are you searching for that picture of the toilet? Here's one...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4096[/qimg]

I've seen the toilet located far enough away from adjoining laundry hair station thanks. You haven't come up with a reason why she went into the bathroom with no mirror no hairdryer no using of the toilet. The toilet contents could not be viewed from the other room. The smell idea was not enough for her to flush? She grabbed or returned the hairdryer to the laundry room worrying about Meredith but didn't peek in Filomena's room as she passed by? The story about open front door, the shower, no heat, boogie on the mat with the large stain makes sense?? There is no logic behind the entire shower story and no reason for me to continue to post here.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, that's fine that you think that. I can see why you would. But on the other hand, I think you are seeing things through your eyes. If it was me, I'd a just flushed the toilet. On that Briars and I agree. But I also don't think it offers any probative value as how it relates to innocence and guilt.

To some extent everything we see is through our own optics.

I have come back from walks and found my door open. Although, I immediately assume that I didn't close it properly and am greatly relieved to see my laptop sitting on the coffee table, I'm still a little cautious as I move around the house and make sure I'm alone.

A wide open door is disconcerting even without poop and blood.

Anglo can correct me but this is circumstantial evidence that is precise and that other thing but has many explanations so is of low value. Taking my simple statement that I found this part of her story odd doesn't translate into therefore she's guilty.

 

[Dan O.]

The authorities at that other site must have abandoned Briers. He can't answer questions that haven't already been answered there and cannot say that he doesn't know because he cannot know that the answer isn't already known. It's so much better to debate with posters that are acting as their own agent. They then have the ability to learn and even teach so it's a win for everybody involved. Toying with the mice that get tossed into the lion's den while entertaining for a while is not productive.

 

[acbytesla]

How would you do that?

Here's another picture...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4095[/qimg]

[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry Dan, My monitor is going on the fritz and images are being blurred so I can only see a fuzzy image on images. Isn't there a handle visible?

But my point is that pooh doesn't matter. It doesn't prove anything. It offers NO probative value if she flushed it or didn't flush it. What I would do or what Briars would do is irrelevant because we weren't there in Amanda's mind.

Maybe she was just preoccupied. I'm one of the most absent minded person in the world when it come to every day things. I'm great at other things, but I'd lose my head if if wasn't screwed on. But even detailed oriented people can get preoccupied. Logic sometimes just doesn't come into play.

We are putting ourselves in other people's minds. I can't understand why people get tattoos or piercings, but millions of people do.

 

[Grinder]

Briars,

I forget where you posted what but a few PG questions for you.

Do you subscribe to the theory that Curatolo, Kokomani, Quintavalle and Nara are all believable witnesses?

Does it not trouble you that not even Massei believed Koko?

Does it not trouble you that Cura was a charged heroin dealer and admitted user that didn't come forward until a cub reporter recruited him, after not knowing anything when asked by the police the next day, that saw buses that weren't there and coincidentally had been a witness in a couple of other major cases? Do you believe a a person high on heroin, a extreme mind altering drug, could ever be a credible witness on something that had occurred a year before?

Do you believe that a later to be convicted coke dealer, Koko, drove up to a bag that turned into Amanda and Raf?

Do you believe that an article in a paper that came out four years after the trial saying someone Amanda had on her phone list was a coke dealer has any weight at all in guilt or innocence.

Do you believe that she was involved in a prank in Seattle? If so, why do believe that the victim or one of her friends didn't sell that story. Have you told people on your site that they shouldn't use the prank story because it was only a post on the Slog and has no verification?

Do you correct your PG friends on the noise ticket party? Do you make it clear that she was given the ticket as the renter of the house not because of her personal actions? Do you understand that she didn't go to court because it was just a ticket?

Why do you think that Quintavalle didn't come forward before the same cub reporter talked him into it? Why didn't he share thius very significant detail with the cop when interviewed the week of the crime?

Why do you think the judges denied a noise test to see what Nara could have heard?

 

[acbytesla]

To some extent everything we see is through our own optics.

I have come back from walks and found my door open. Although, I immediately assume that I didn't close it properly and am greatly relieved to see my laptop sitting on the coffee table, I'm still a little cautious as I move around the house and make sure I'm alone.

A wide open door is disconcerting even without poop and blood.

Anglo can correct me but this is circumstantial evidence that is precise and that other thing but has many explanations so is of low value. Taking my simple statement that I found this part of her story odd doesn't translate into therefore she's guilty.

I agree an open door is disconcerting. This in fact happened to me last week. But 20 seconds after entering the house I just figured I didn't lock it when I left. When you live with 3 other people it's even easier to write it off.

But the point is that we are putting ourselves in other people's minds. The Pooh is curious, I agree. I know you think it is curious too and like me you can't really give it any weight. We don't really disagree on this point. I say it shouldn't be used as a factor at all in determining guilt. ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE.

 

[Grinder]

But the point is that we are putting ourselves in other people's minds. It's curious, I agree. I know you think it is curious too and like me you can't really give it any weight. We don't really disagree on this point. I say it shouldn't be used as a factor at all in determining guilt. ZERO PROBATIVE VALUE.

As a matter in court I would make it zero but of little value. For discussion here and there I think it is worth something. Unlike others I won't make up some long analogies where it could be more important but I accept that you think it isn't of any value - so you get the last word