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

[Dan O.]

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?

I have available the 360 degree view from the bathroom which clearly shows the bathtub, toilet, bidet, sink and shower. The picture I linked above is part of this view from the high camera height looking down. The toilet appears to be a pretty standard seat and pedestal with the lid open against the wall. But what is missing is the tank that you would normally find at the back of a western toilet. With no tank, that means no handle to flip to raise the plunger inside the tank to cause the flush.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

What was the reason for you to post here in the first place? Do you expect simply to announce things and have them accepted?

Speaking of 'logic', what was the logic behind her coming up with such a ridiculous story? Who the heck would believe the bathmat shuffle, for instance, on a mat with a bloody foot print on it? So why did she come up with it instead of something simpler? Why did they call the police before they were ready and had everything straight? That one caused such a massive headache there had to be an entire mini-issue (which your side lost) over whether they called before the posties arrived.

I have asked Grinder's question too - why not go into her room and splash about in all the blood getting properly mixed up in the crime scene? Why not go to Gubbio? What did they actually do instead, other than incriminate themselves? Makes you wonder how they got off.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

The point you are raising is a good one - the issue here is to have a comprehensive theory of the crime. It is no good to focus unduly on flushing of a toilet, when all these other issues are left unaddressed. These are real live people here - and at the top of the heap are the Kerchers who deserve to be told the truth about what happened to their loved one.

 

[acbytesla]

I have available the 360 degree view from the bathroom which clearly shows the bathtub, toilet, bidet, sink and shower. The picture I linked above is part of this view from the high camera height looking down. The toilet appears to be a pretty standard seat and pedestal with the lid open against the wall. But what is missing is the tank that you would normally find at the back of a western toilet. With no tank, that means no handle to flip to raise the plunger inside the tank to cause the flush.

Actually I have a toilet just like that and I live in Seattle. The tank is inside the wall cavity. It gives the bathroom a nice clean look. They make them so you put a handle or a button on the wall to flush.

 

[Grinder]

The point you are raising is a good one - the issue here is to have a comprehensive theory of the crime. It is no good to focus unduly on flushing of a toilet, when all these other issues are left unaddressed. These are real live people here - and at the top of the heap are the Kerchers who deserve to be told the truth about what happened to their loved one.

I issue for all of us is the back and forth between the trial and what happened. As Hellmann supposedly said, they were innocent as far as the court can determine but the court didn't know everything.

I have no doubt that the case was not made against them yet I still am not convinced that it was the simple burglary gone bad.

 

[acbytesla]

I issue for all of us is the back and forth between the trial and what happened. As Hellmann supposedly said, they were innocent as far as the court can determine but the court didn't know everything.

I have no doubt that the case was not made against them yet I still am not convinced that it was the simple burglary gone bad.

That's fine Grinder and every one is entitled to their opinion. But I would argue it is very unfair to both Amanda and Raffaele. It's like you are saying it's not enough evidence to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives but we all should view them with suspicion.

 

[christianahannah]

I have available the 360 degree view from the bathroom which clearly shows the bathtub, toilet, bidet, sink and shower. The picture I linked above is part of this view from the high camera height looking down. The toilet appears to be a pretty standard seat and pedestal with the lid open against the wall. But what is missing is the tank that you would normally find at the back of a western toilet. With no tank, that means no handle to flip to raise the plunger inside the tank to cause the flush.

There are in the large and small bathrooms, Italian model toilets with the tanks mounted high above on the wall. You flush by pushing the button on the bottom of the tank.

There is also a mirror in the large bathroom, however, it is smaller than the mirror in the adjoining sink/laundry area.

 

[Briars]

What was the reason for you to post here in the first place? Do you expect simply to announce things and have them accepted?

Speaking of 'logic', what was the logic behind her coming up with such a ridiculous story? Who the heck would believe the bathmat shuffle, for instance, on a mat with a bloody foot print on it? So why did she come up with it instead of something simpler? Why did they call the police before they were ready and had everything straight? That one caused such a massive headache there had to be an entire mini-issue (which your side lost) over whether they called before the posties arrived.

I have asked Grinder's question too - why not go into her room and splash about in all the blood getting properly mixed up in the crime scene? Why not go to Gubbio? What did they actually do instead, other than incriminate themselves? Makes you wonder how they got off.

Why did I post here that's a good question. Sometimes Grinder teases with that notion that the break-in and Amanda's morning activities may indicate another scenario. He quickly retreats if you take the bait. Kokomani is interesting and his olive story is as far fetched as the shower. What I can say if the story is obviously made up there must be a reason for telling it. The morning story served the purpose to alert others to what happened and see how the clues were interpreted. If Kokomani were a witness or involved it wouldn't be a big surprise.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hellmann's statement

That's fine Grinder and every one is entitled to their opinion. But I would argue it is very unfair to both Amanda and Raffaele. It's like you are saying it's not enough evidence to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives but we all should view them with suspicion.

I seem to recall that komponisto translated Hellmann's statement and posted it at IP, and it did not sound at all as if Hellman thought they were guilty. I don't have the citation handy, however.

 

[Briars]

There are in the large and small bathrooms, Italian model toilets with the tanks mounted high above on the wall. You flush by pushing the button on the bottom of the tank.

There is also a mirror in the large bathroom, however, it is smaller than the mirror in the adjoining sink/laundry area.

That is a picture or print as far as I can see, maybe you have a better photo.

 

[acbytesla]

Briars: Why do you keep arguing these insignificant details that any reasonable person could interpret a dozen different ways? If you were arguing Time of Death, or DNA I could respect the argument even if I thought it was wrong. But you're posting on the skeptic's website saying that the logistics of someone's bathroom behavior is compelling evidence of guilt.

I have always thought it was interesting that the police at the time they declared the case was closed and Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick Lumumba did it, also said that the cell phone evidence was significant. Why don't you argue that?

Tell me how the SMS message that Patrick Lumumba who wasn't involved in the murder was significant? Tell me that Amanda couldn't have been at Raffaele's because the call was not compatible with the cell tower that relayed the text and how that same cell tower relayed two calls the following day?

Or explain to me how the the GPRS cell phone event at 10:13 handled by Wind Cell tower 30064 1700 meters away took place at the cottage instead of the the cell tower Via Aquila at 190 meters or the cell tower Lupatelli at 171 meters? BTW it is possible, but the odds of it happening is probably a 1000 to one or less. At least 3 different cell sites provided significantly better signal coverage than the Wind Cell tower. And unless they were down, or saturated with traffic it just wouldn't happen.

Given this fact, do you come to the conclusion that the murder happened after 11:15 or do you accept the fact that it occurred before the 9:58 or 10:00 or 10:13 cell events?

 

[acbytesla]

Dupe

 

[anglolawyer]

Why did I post here that's a good question. Sometimes Grinder teases with that notion that the break-in and Amanda's morning activities may indicate another scenario. He quickly retreats if you take the bait. Kokomani is interesting and his olive story is as far fetched as the shower. What I can say if the story is obviously made up there must be a reason for telling it. The morning story served the purpose to alert others to what happened and see how the clues were interpreted. If Kokomani were a witness or involved it wouldn't be a big surprise.

Well, I think you should stick around and maybe teach us something. I am always happy to learn. Koko is obviously nuts. I have offered an explanation for his odd comings and goings but it runs into a wall of Grinder. We just don't know enough to do more than just not believe him.

Your explanation for the morning story presupposes a need to see and control how the evidence was interpreted, which seems odd. Why not just set it up and get lost? And what evidence is there of them actually controlling anything in a way which didn't attract more suspicion? Maybe the burglary in which nothing was taken but a better idea would have been to take something or just let the cops figure out what was taken. Were they smart or dumb?

 

[Grinder]

That's fine Grinder and every one is entitled to their opinion. But I would argue it is very unfair to both Amanda and Raffaele. It's like you are saying it's not enough evidence to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives but we all should view them with suspicion.

Please read what I say carefully, if you wish to characterize it. I in no way said that they were involved. What I did say was that I don't believe it was just a simple burglary gone bad. I have suggested that Koko could have been involved as a driver and a third accomplice could have been there with Rudi.

I will be interested in what Amanda says in her book and anxiously await Anglo's quotes from it.

 

[Grinder]

Sometimes Grinder teases with that notion that the break-in and Amanda's morning activities may indicate another scenario. He quickly retreats if you take the bait.

Whoa dude, what are you talking about? I insist that you make clear what it is that you claim I suggested for another scenario that stem from the break-in and her morning activities.

I believe the break-in could have been staged by Rudi if he truly thought he had made a date with Meredith and she could have told people he was coming over.

I don't doubt that Amanda did exactly what she said she did in the morning. I don't believe she made up the shuffle because theyw ere going to use luminol because as all good CSI fans she would have expected that from the beginning and would have washed that tiny area with the mop or a rag in about 2 minutes.

 

[Grinder]

Well, I think you should stick around and maybe teach us something. I am always happy to learn. Koko is obviously nuts. I have offered an explanation for his odd comings and goings but it runs into a wall of Grinder. We just don't know enough to do more than just not believe him.

Your explanation for the morning story presupposes a need to see and control how the evidence was interpreted, which seems odd. Why not just set it up and get lost? And what evidence is there of them actually controlling anything in a way which didn't attract more suspicion? Maybe the burglary in which nothing was taken but a better idea would have been to take something or just let the cops figure out what was taken. Were they smart or dumb?

Ah the "Wall of Grinder", I like it .

Can't remember the Anglo Kokomani Fantasy right now but I'm sure I'll get a link to the past post.

Yes, I second the Anglo in asking exactly what they controlled or attempted to control. I'd add that they really made an effort by stepping away from door. Amanda claiming the door was often locked was a stroke of genius. The way she mixed up closed and locked or even better was called out by Filomena and for what? Well her master plan of course, to get the police to leave because it would really confuse things if they left and came back, yeah that's the ticket.

Briars, I notice that you aren't answering the questions I posed. Pity.
Here's one more: why would they call the police and then lie about the door often being locked if they intended to be there when the door was broken down? Why did she need to say anything?

Bonus question: how could Filomena know if M locked her door when it was closed in that she lived on the other side? Did F try the door when M was out?

 

[anglolawyer]

Ah the "Wall of Grinder", I like it .

Can't remember the Anglo Kokomani Fantasy right now but I'm sure I'll get a link to the past post.

Yes, I second the Anglo in asking exactly what they controlled or attempted to control. I'd add that they really made an effort by stepping away from door. Amanda claiming the door was often locked was a stroke of genius. The way she mixed up closed and locked or even better was called out by Filomena and for what? Well her master plan of course, to get the police to leave because it would really confuse things if they left and came back, yeah that's the ticket.

Briars, I notice that you aren't answering the questions I posed. Pity.
Here's one more: why would they call the police and then lie about the door often being locked if they intended to be there when the door was broken down? Why did she need to say anything?

Bonus question: how could Filomena know if M locked her door when it was closed in that she lived on the other side? Did F try the door when M was out?

Ask, and it shall be done. 'Fantasy'?

 

[christianahannah]

That is a picture or print as far as I can see, maybe you have a better photo.

If one sees only a portion of the mirror (the outside frame) it will appear to be a decorative print; it is a large border decorative frame around a smaller mirror.

 

[Grinder]

Ask, and it shall be done. 'Fantasy'?

It is possible that Koko was there and the next day freaked out, talked to a lawyer and went to Albania but remembered how awful it was and then contacted the police in Perugia after somehow figuring he was in the clear. Happy now?

I think he was there. I think he went to Albania with full knowledge of what it was like and with full intent of coming back after a period. He did get a lawyer to set-up a meeting with Mignin which I believe he did to cover his ass if they had found his cell pings from that night. I think he was either there with Rudi or some other dealing people. It is totally possible that he drove Rudi there to rob the cottage to get money owed to the big boys. If there was a big boy along it would explain why Rudi hasn't come more clean.

Briar - do you think it is more likely that Rudi was threaten by Raf's dad or an Albanian drug dealer? Koko and Rudi knew each other.

 

[Dan O.]

There are in the large and small bathrooms, Italian model toilets with the tanks mounted high above on the wall. You flush by pushing the button on the bottom of the tank.

Is it a push or a pull?

It's not so much a button but some kind of control.