Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kaosium]

I've been a member of that forum for years, its a great forum that covers a wide range of topics besides & including poker. There are a lot of very smart people there who I respect and give consideration to their opinions. I participated in that thread extensively for quite a while and finally realized I was wasting my life on the time suck that is discussing the case with people firmly entrenched in one view who shout down and belittle every point or perspective that doesn't align with their view.

The guy you quoted is very knowledgeable about the case & I believe he said he reads/speaks Italian. However, he is obsessively married to the conclusion of guilt and will not consider any other possibility. I think of the phrase "knowledge makes arrogant" when reading his posts but I'd add "Arrogance makes blind" because if you're so arrogant to think you can never be wrong about anything, then you'll never see when you are wrong. He has some sort of law background and I actually think he's screwing with everyone in that thread by playing the role of prosecutor he never got a chance to be because he got out of the law game or didn't finish LS or something. He's so over the top on the side of guilt & unwilling to see the evidence in any other light but he's an intelligent guy so he is either willfully making this choice as part of wearing his prosecutor hat or he is actually deranged enough to believe everything he writes.

He and a poster named "239" have gone at it for years. (I heard about this place from 239's posts--->Are you reading this? Whats your screen name here?) Someone wrote a script showing how many posts each have made and their word count and I think they both exceeded 500,000 words. That thread was fascinating as is this case in general. There is so much to learn on a huge range of subjects by simply following this case with an open mind. I guess that's why I keep an eye on it when I have the time.

As far as this Katy person not being able to join the site, I serious doubt that occurred. Anyone can join at anytime, its easy. The moderators are pretty good and keep things under control and organized making it a great place to go to discuss just about any subject under the sun. I am a little surprised that forum didn't get more pro-innocence folk to counter the pro-guilt crowd but from the folks I spoke to, they had better things to do than go down the black hole of never-ending backing forth to accomplish absolutely nothing. I mean who cares what some obsessed nutcase that appears to camp out in front of his computer 24/7 thinks? Might as well talk to a wall, which is why I quit posting in that thread months ago.

Fair enough, Yimyammer, I only skimmed through a little of that thread, I shouldn't have implied there was anything wrong with the rest of the site. As for what they were referring to regarding Katy, Kady etc I could only guess, there have been attempts to...discourage...people from posting before, and privately e-mailing mods to get the thread shut down had been a tactic employed (here) in the past. It may very well be that whoever was being referred to just decided not to bother, rather than they were prevented as that post kind of implies.

Incidentally if I recall correctly you were asking about Dan-O's wiki and that message I posted suggested that the 'PR campaign' had 'taken over' the wikipedia. As you may realize those aren't the same thing, and their depiction of what occurred at wikipedia is not...accurate. What happened was early on most of the press relied almost exclusively on what the police and prosecution told them and as a result most of what wikipedia considers 'reliable sources' contained inaccurate or incomplete information on a number of subjects.

Once more information was available, and as such more supportive of the idea of Amanda and Raffaele being innocent, some of the ones who were dedicated to the idea of them being guilty used their knowledge of wikipedia and the rules to get anyone posting information not compatible with them being guilty banned from the page and the site. Eventually it got so bad that Jimbo Wales got involved and dispatched some senior editors ('Slim Virgin' is the one I recall) to sort it out and ensure that the page was more representative of the range of information available, which wasn't nearly as suggestive of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty as the page had been previously which displeased a number of people.

I often post links from wikipedia for other subjects and contributed a couple of very minor edits to that page a year or two ago but retreated in abject horror at the prospect of a 'wiki-war' and do not usually edit pages over there anyway. (I'd rather everyone else did that work!) Dan-O's wiki is a repository of information, documents and articles about the case that is in no way related and is private lest it be vandalized and all that work be destroyed. I myself have a password but do not often use it as if I have a contention to support with a link I can find it any number of places online. I also don't like the format wiki uses and find the process of editing anything frightening p) as I'm not a computer genius like Dan-O and like to stick to processes that I understand and won't accidentally mess up and have someone hate me for life!

 

[acbytesla]

Apparently, only those who find Amanda innocent will not find it highly improbable, and for good reason, but just for the heck of it, try it on anyone else. And no, his footprints would have faded, but that is where they would have shown up with the luminal, but they didn't.

There is no way to determine whether Rudy just turned at the waist or returned to the door and there is no way to assess probabilities either. [/QUOTE]

Well, he didn't return to the door unless he took his shoes off, highly unlikely, again, but not impossible, and like I said, yes he could turn at the waist but especially since he didn't know what key to use, hallway probably dark, likely in a hurry, that's not to likely either.

You don't know that. the footprints fade as they go towards the door until the point they disappear. At this point there is nothing left to transfer to the tile floor.

I find the idea that the break in was staged to be extremely improbable and see no justification. Don't you think it is also extremely improbable that Amanda and Raffaele both had other plans on November 1st but still managed to hook up with Rudy Guede without calling him or texting him?

I originally said the beak in could go either way, but if Rudy did not lock Meredith's door, and that looks highly likely to me, then the front door was open for him to leave, who opened it?

There are lots of things that are extremely unlikely in this case. Rudy swiveling at his waist or returning the bedroom door to lock it is not really one of them.

Not if you believe Amanda stayed at Rafs place all night, which I don't.

You can believe whatever you want, it is a free world. But there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele left his apartment that night. No CCTV coverage, no calls, texts or emails to anyone including Rudy. There is also no reason for them to leave his apartment.

You are looking for the devil so that is what you find. You have a preconception and so you interpret the facts that way.

 

[Grinder]

First let's start with the so called staging. I've seen pictures of the wall. The wall is discolored and dirty. I don't believe a thorough examination on the wall ever took place. The minimal visual inspection does not preclude the possibility that some transfer of materials from the ground were on the wall and went unnoticed. And if you are walking on vegetation from below, how much transfer would you expect to be found?

It was November and the ground was not dry. There was no clear signs of a climb you can show.

You would expect glass to be found on top of the clothes if they clothes were there before the window was broken. There is nothing unusual about this.

Yes if the the clothes were tossed after the glass was broken one would expect the glass to be strewn around and not left on top.

As to the shoe prints being at a 90 degree angle, your back would not be facing the door.

If the shoe print is at a 90 degree angle to the door then yes the back is to the door. You seem to think that 90 is 45. The long line of the 'T" is at a ninety degree angle to the short line. The vertical line is at a 90 degree angle to the horizontal in the 'T'. The horizontal would be the door and the shoe print the vertical.

I find the idea of staging to be ridiculous. There is no reason even if Amanda and Raffaele or Rudy did this to "stage anything". The simple fact that door is open and unlocked is enough to demonstrate an intrusion. So called staging by breaking the window accomplishes nothing.

And Edison thought alternating current to be ridiculous and he was wrong and so might you. What evidence of staging would convince you? Clearly there is none since you believe that Rudi entered through the window was interrupted by Meredith and killed her.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Sherlock Holmes, curious that you failed to address or even acknowledge Charlie Wilkes' response to your argument. I believe he completely destroyed your argumentation. Is it the reason?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes, curious that you failed to address or even acknowledge Charlie Wilkes' response to your argument. I believe he completely destroyed your argumentation. Is it the reason?

I believe I answered it in another, if after walking to the front door, the blood getting lighter and lighter, no key to exit, the return trip would have been recorded in the luminal tests, remember, the set of blood prints to the front door were visible to the naked eye.

 

[Grinder]

You can believe whatever you want, it is a free world. But there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele left his apartment that night. No CCTV coverage, no calls, texts or emails to anyone including Rudy. There is also no reason for them to leave his apartment.

You are looking for the devil so that is what you find. You have a preconception and so you interpret the facts that way.

We all know the "they never left the apartment" line but that has nothing to do with whether it is reasonable to believe that Rudi with his feet pointed away from the door locked it. Nothing. It is clearly possibe perhaps likely that he walked off the blood and later came back to the room and locked the door in a normal fashion but left no prints at that time.

If one accepts that they never left the apartment then nothing could tie them to the murder. So to paraphrase you have found an angel and interpret the facts that way.

 

[Dan O.]

..

 

[acbytesla]

It was November and the ground was not dry. There was no clear signs of a climb you can show.

It is true that it was November Grinder but that doesn't mean the ground was not dry. But I don't think it was dry either, but the ground certainly did not appear to be muddy but with vegetation. As you have said multiple times, that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I've seen a couple of pictures of the wall and I'm not sure when the pictures were taken. I don't think obvious transfer from the ground below is a necessity.

Yes if the the clothes were tossed after the glass was broken one would expect the glass to be strewn around and not left on top.

And the clothes were strewn around? Filomena's room was a mess and I believe she made it that way. Also, break some glass on a sweater, turn it over and notice that glass sticks in and on the fabric.

If the shoe print is at a 90 degree angle to the door then yes the back is to the door. You seem to think that 90 is 45. The long line of the 'T" is at a ninety degree angle to the short line. The vertical line is at a 90 degree angle to the horizontal in the 'T'. The horizontal would be the door and the shoe print the vertical.

No, with all due respect Grinder your shoulder is toward the door not your back. Substantial difference.

And Edison thought alternating current to be ridiculous and he was wrong and so might you. What evidence of staging would convince you? Clearly there is none since you believe that Rudi entered through the window was interrupted by Meredith and killed her.

I do like the Edison reference, but I see no evidence of a staging. I only see the argument that there was staging.

You did get one thing right earlier. You said I was looking for an angel, so I found an angel. To a certain degree, I think that is right. I think those that are suggesting guilt have to prove their interpretation more than an innocent interpretation.

I do find the idea of "staging" to be ridiculous. I see no reason for any of the suspects to stage anything. I think the idea that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this crime to be absurd. Not only are these two people so incredibly unlikely to have committed this crime, there is no way that they could have hooked up with Rudy. And I don't see Rudy spending the time to "stage" the crime scene to make it look like a burglar since Rudy was and is a burglar.

 

[Kaosium]

thx, this strikes me as a plausible scenario

This is what's troubling about this case and perhaps what makes its so compelling to all sides because each side can postulate a scenario that supports their view on the case with a lot of the evidence but can rarely say with 100% assurance what actually happened because with the limited information, we are forced to speculate.

Reminds me of discussions about the assassination of JFK and whether it was a lone shooter or a conspiracy. Both sides can put forth lengthy, even persuasive arguments but seemingly nothing can be proved definitively so the debate rages on for decades and perhaps forever. Like this case, I happen to fall on the side of there being one perpetrator but there are obviously a huge number of folks who would disagree. Barring some miraculous revelation, i think the debate will rage on forever without either side ever ceding any ground.

It's still interesting nonetheless.

I just hope for all parties truly effected by this case that the Italian courts can somehow eventually land on the truth, whether by accident or an honest pursuit of justice.

I used to be interested in the JFK assassination, I grew up reading about it and discussing it to the wee hours of the night at parties on occasion, I could (and did) take either side of it. However once the availability of information and analysis exploded in the internet age I found that most of the contentions of the conspiracy canon didn't stand scrutiny and the ones that did weren't as suggestive as I might have once thought. While Jack Ruby waltzing into the garage of a police station and blowing away the most wanted man in America is suspicious as hell, and Oswald's background certainly lends itself to speculation, without anything tangible (real evidence) to support the charges of more than one shooter or that Ruby and Oswald were connected the likelihood that Ruby was just a hot-headed low-life and Oswald a 'silly little socialist' weirdo struck me as the most plausible explanation.

This case is a lot easier to figure out, but there's the same plethora of mis/disinformation out there due to a corrupt and incompetent police and prosecution which was compounded by press errors and then the dedicated denizens of PMF/TJMK disseminated that and their own little pet theories to the four corners of the ether. Those who thought Amanda and Raffaele likely innocent (innocentisti) were not the only ones posting on the case in different venues.

Look at it this way, the police arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick after an all-night interrogation session in which the central feature was an exchange of text messages betwwen Patrick and Amanda right before the most likely time of the murder, one of which used a phrase that suggested a future meeting that night due to Amanda's poor Italian (at that time). The police focused on her because they believed the break-in had to be staged, probably because the window broken appears difficult to access, they certainly didn't have the forensics completed at that stage in order to rely on anything but partial information in that regard anyway.

They took that text message and some information that was eventually proven to be untrue or non-incriminating before Judge Matteini on November 8th, two days later. Incidentally they also found a 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed which is damned curious because it was eventually proven beyond a doubt that it wasn't, but that does give you a idea of how things work in Perugia with witnesses sometimes.

When the forensics were done they found traces of only one man, Rudy Guede, and absolutely nothing for Amanda, Raffaele or Patrick. It just so happens that Rudy Guede was a burglar facing eviction who'd been caught with items stolen from other second-story break ins, had pulled a knife in one instance, and was an athlete with enough promise the richest man in the area had once given him a place to stay as he also owned a (semi-pro) basketball team.

They should have just let the other three go, but the prosecutor who'd made up his theory of a ritualistic masonic killing or sex-game gone wrong out of whole cloth (he had no forensics to rely on when he did it!) refused to reconsider, perhaps because he was receiving international media attention from a tabloid press which was taking his every word as gospel and even helping out by printing bizarre and untrue rumors and distortions. Thus despite (essentially) everything in his case presented before Matteini being untrue or irrelevant, he decided to keep his bizarre theory of a three-person killing and did his best to assemble evidence in support of it. In Italy the prosecutor is the actual head of the investigation, unlike the US and other places where those powers are separate. Some of that 'evidence' stinks to high heaven, and that's not based on speculation either.

However, I wanted to post this bit to show something, this is Massei's representation of the forensic experts testimony, all of them, including the ones the prosecution relied most on:

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person.

With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these.

The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.
But, to actually answer this question, of whether the criminal action which determined Meredith's death was the action of one person alone or several people acting together, it is necessary to take into account, not only the contributions of forensic science, but also other elements which have emerged and which are relevant to this point, and to evaluate the situation in a way which takes the comprehensive picture into account.

(formatting mine for ease of reading)

As you can see, all of the forensic experts found the murder scene compatible with a one attacker scenario. There is nothing at the scene which requires that there be more than one attacker forensically, so Massei has to rely on the speculations and indications the prosecution assembled of why there might have been, being as if he couldn't do that he couldn't bring a case into court, (and many things are possible) and of course barring a clean video of the murder a lot of things can be interpreted as possible indications of this or that. He spends the next few pages on that and if you want I (or someone else) can post that and you can get an idea of just what sort of 'evidence' must be relied on in order to pretend Raffaele and Amanda were there, but that requires not taking into account that were Raffaele and Amanda present at the scene odds are there'd be actual evidence of their presence, much like Rudy Guede left traces of himself all over that room.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but there was a dedicated effort to find anything and all they could come up with was a smidgin of unidentified (substance) DNA on a bra clasp which was passed around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert and fondled freely as well as put back on the floor (this is all on camera!), It was found to contain Y-haplotypes (which is not the same as a DNA match) of four men, one of whom may be Raffaele Sollecito but which had been sitting on the floor for six weeks and has definitely moved around on that floor from where it was originally captured in the videos the day after the murder. The prosecution lab tech would try to hide the fact those other Y-haplotype traces were found, probably because that screams contamination as the videos suggest was likely.

Nothing attributable to Amanda Knox was ever found in the murder room.

 

[yimyammer]

Fair enough, Yimyammer, I only skimmed through a little of that thread, I shouldn't have implied there was anything wrong with the rest of the site. As for what they were referring to regarding Katy, Kady etc I could only guess, there have been attempts to...discourage...people from posting before, and privately e-mailing mods to get the thread shut down had been a tactic employed (here) in the past. It may very well be that whoever was being referred to just decided not to bother, rather than they were prevented as that post kind of implies.

Incidentally if I recall correctly you were asking about Dan-O's wiki and that message I posted suggested that the 'PR campaign' had 'taken over' the wikipedia. As you may realize those aren't the same thing, and their depiction of what occurred at wikipedia is not...accurate. What happened was early on most of the press relied almost exclusively on what the police and prosecution told them and as a result most of what wikipedia considers 'reliable sources' contained inaccurate or incomplete information on a number of subjects.

Once more information was available, and as such more supportive of the idea of Amanda and Raffaele being innocent, some of the ones who were dedicated to the idea of them being guilty used their knowledge of wikipedia and the rules to get anyone posting information not compatible with them being guilty banned from the page and the site. Eventually it got so bad that Jimbo Wales got involved and dispatched some senior editors ('Slim Virgin' is the one I recall) to sort it out and ensure that the page was more representative of the range of information available, which wasn't nearly as suggestive of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty as the page had been previously which displeased a number of people.

I often post links from wikipedia for other subjects and contributed a couple of very minor edits to that page a year or two ago but retreated in abject horror at the prospect of a 'wiki-war' and do not usually edit pages over there anyway. (I'd rather everyone else did that work!) Dan-O's wiki is a repository of information, documents and articles about the case that is in no way related and is private lest it be vandalized and all that work be destroyed. I myself have a password but do not often use it as if I have a contention to support with a link I can find it any number of places online. I also don't like the format wiki uses and find the process of editing anything frightening p) as I'm not a computer genius like Dan-O and like to stick to processes that I understand and won't accidentally mess up and have someone hate me for life!

BTW, I didn't take offense to your post, I just wanted to point out its a great forum to discuss all kinds of subjects that is for the most part fairly moderated. I think a lot of people here might enjoy the place as well and don't want this one topic to cloud their impression of a really great forum.

I received some PM's from some people that told me the thread got locked a few months ago (it was subsequently reopened following the March reversal) It turned out it was because there were several posters that had become new members apparently in order to post only in that thread & got the pro guilt crowd up in arms so a group of them apparently raised enough hell to get them banned and the thread locked.

I didn't read all the posts to know whether the people banned were trolling or not so I cant say whether it was justified or not. From what little I read it appeared ridiculous as it looked like a difference of opinion like most everything discussed about the case in that thread. I think the mods locked it because they got tired of getting hassled by people about the thread (apparently they got a lot of PM's). There are a ton of topics to moderate and the guy that banned people and locked the thread apparently gets a little heavy handed according to comments I've read in other posts I've read there. Personally, I'm not bothered by dissent and felt the opposing views helped to keep the thread alive and was irked by the pro-guilt folks continually suggesting certain posters should be banned.

This group of folks also continually called anyone who thought Amanda was innocent an idiot, retard, shill, liar, troll and/or part of the Amanda Knox Campaign to spread lies yet they were never banned (which as much as I found this repulsive, I didn't want anyone banned on either side). I thought this was not a balanced judgement by the mods but since the pro-guilt folks had clearly participated in the forum for years and made numerous posts in a wide variety of threads, I can only assume the mods sided with the long standing members to quiet the storm.

I've always been able to discuss just about any subject with anyone and gravitate toward discussing subjects with folks who disagree with me because I find I learn the most from those that see things in a different light. I end up refining, reversing or becoming more firm in my position as a result. I like the truth, whatever it may be, and whomever can help me find it, I'm all ears.

Likewise, I think the truth can withstand all comers so I don't fear dissent. Apparently many of the folks in that thread don't agree and it was the only time I can recall where I had to bail out because I found it impossible to have a mutually enlightening dialogue.

If anyone referenced a pro Amanda site, they were all shouted down as shills and liars. If anyone referenced Steve Moore, John Douglas, Greg Hampikian, etc, etc then these sources were idiots, retards, shills etc. If the Hellmann report was referenced, it was dismissed as being horrible, idiotic reasoning. Even when Massei was referenced to support a position of innocence, then Massei was conveniently wrong. Third party DNA experts that opposed the pro-guilt reasoning were all quack-pots as well. It's kind of hard to find a source to support an opposing view when the only acceptable sources must come from the prosecution (Ironically, I think if one was willing to devote the time, a pro-innocence case could be made entirely from facts/sources deemed acceptable by the pro-guilt crowd).

I tried to see if I could find topics that weren't up for debate so a few things could be put to rest in order to narrow down and focus on more important issues.

One was regarding the windows in the flat. If you look at photos at that time, you will see that every window had iron bars covering them making it impossible for anyone to break in or stage a break in without removing those bars first (there was one window on the back side of the house that I wasn't 100% sure if it had bars on it but it was like 12-15 feet above the ground with no window with bars below it to aid in climbing it).

However there was one window that didn't have security bars on it and it was the one in Filomena's room. I was merely trying to make the point that the only window that could have been broken into or staged was in fact Filomena's. This created an outrage and no one would agree to this simple statement that didn't even preclude someone from continuing to argue the break in was staged.

Instead I got shouted down for suggesting that by using the security bars on the window below, it would be possible for someone to gain access through that window. I wasn't saying it actually happened, I was merely suggesting it was possible. All hell broke lose and I was told nothing short of levitation would enable someone to break in through that window. That's when I said, hell with this and quit participating in the thread.

This is why I concur with Wilkes when he said "People just won't accept the proof, because it's not what they want to believe."

 

[Grinder]

Please Tesla explain what a shoe print at 90 degrees to the door means. The door is ----- then where is the shoe print? I say that 90 degrees is | apparently you think that it is ---.

If it is | with the bottom pointing down and the heel up then the front of the leg, the chest and the face point down while the back points up. Up is towards the door.

No one would argue that having one's shoulder to the door is an impossible or highly unlikely position from which to lock a door.

If the shoe print is at a 90 degree angle to the door then yes the back is to the door. You seem to think that 90 is 45. The long line of the 'T" is at a ninety degree angle to the short line. The vertical line is at a 90 degree angle to the horizontal in the 'T'. The horizontal would be the door and the shoe print the vertical.

No, with all due respect Grinder your shoulder is toward the door not your back. Substantial difference.

 

[Grinder]

It is true that it was November Grinder but that doesn't mean the ground was not dry. But I don't think it was dry either, but the ground certainly did not appear to be muddy but with vegetation. As you have said multiple times, that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I've seen a couple of pictures of the wall and I'm not sure when the pictures were taken. I don't think obvious transfer from the ground below is a necessity.

Acxtually that's Bill W that says that and I believe in this case it was Steve Moore that introduced it though I'm not sure and it doesn't really matter.

It had rained just a day or two before and the ground under the window was not paved or graveled. It was not a manicured grass but rather spotty vegetation.

But you again do not answer what would evidence of a staging be?

You and others say there was no evidence of a staging but refuse to say what that evidence could be. A well staged break-in would look exactly like a real break-in so it is a specious to demand such evidence.

I actually do think that F may have had a messy room and left the shutters open but she told the police that her room had been tossed and that she closed the shutters. I don't think the police thinking the B-I was staged was ridiculous.

And the clothes were strewn around? Filomena's room was a mess and I believe she made it that way. Also, break some glass on a sweater, turn it over and notice that glass sticks in and on the fabric.

IIRC it was also the computer.

You did get one thing right earlier. You said I was looking for an angel, so I found an angel. To a certain degree, I think that is right. I think those that are suggesting guilt have to prove their interpretation more than an innocent interpretation.

There is no question for me that the ILE didn't prove their case in a court of law.

I do find the idea of "staging" to be ridiculous. I see no reason for any of the suspects to stage anything. I think the idea that Amanda and Raffaele had anything to do with this crime to be absurd. Not only are these two people so incredibly unlikely to have committed this crime, there is no way that they could have hooked up with Rudy. And I don't see Rudy spending the time to "stage" the crime scene to make it look like a burglar since Rudy was and is a burglar.

There you go again. Just imagine as hard as you can that Rudi had a date with Meredith and that he feared that she had told her friends and that things went haywire and after the murder he worried that he would be the clear suspect so he thought "I'll make it look like someone broke in" and he used his MO to stage.

My point is staging doesn't have to point the finger at the kids. I know that he left copious forensics behind so it wouldn't have worked.

 

[Kaosium]

BTW, I didn't take offense to your post, I just wanted to point out its a great forum to discuss all kinds of subjects that is for the most part fairly moderated. I think a lot of people here might enjoy the place as well and don't want this one topic to cloud their impression of a really great forum.

Heh, once upon a time, shortly before it became popular and was on TV all the time, I spent a while out in Nevada making my living playing (mostly) Texas Hold 'em. It was wonderful fun, I found a nice little town on the border where I could play poker all day and earn my 'comps' as well as some money playing poker, and all the play allowed me maximum entries for the weekly tournament. That allowed me to get to the 'final table' almost every week where once all the tourists were eliminated the rest of us regulars would split it up so we'd all get something (usually $200-400) that amounted to a regular income. It was fun while it lasted, kind of an extended vacation, living in nice hotels and eating steak and lobster every night for months. Then I got drunk at the craps table one night...

I received some PM's from some people that told me the thread got locked a few months ago (it was subsequently reopened following the March reversal) It turned out it was because there were several posters that had become new members apparently in order to post only in that thread & got the pro guilt crowd up in arms so a group of them apparently raised enough hell to get them banned and the thread locked.

That story has a familiar ring!

I didn't read all the posts to know whether the people banned were trolling or not so I cant say whether it was justified or not. From what little I read it appeared ridiculous as it looked like a difference of opinion like most everything discussed about the case in that thread. I think the mods locked it because they got tired of getting hassled by people about the thread (apparently they got a lot of PM's). There are a ton of topics to moderate and the guy that banned people and locked the thread apparently gets a little heavy handed according to comments I've read in other posts I've read there. Personally, I'm not bothered by dissent and felt the opposing views helped to keep the thread alive and was irked by the pro-guilt folks continually suggesting certain posters should be banned.

I agree, and have never pushed that 'report' button at all, here or anywhere else, in the end the discussion is served best if everyone gets to have a say. I will admit I have lost patience with some, and Sherlock's admonition no doubt applies to me, as I have been amongst the ones who've responded scornfully amongst a dozen or so similar replies which can indeed be intimidating for someone pushing a minority position.

This group of folks also continually called anyone who thought Amanda was innocent an idiot, retard, shill, liar, troll and/or part of the Amanda Knox Campaign to spread lies yet they were never banned (which as much as I found this repulsive, I didn't want anyone banned on either side). I thought this was not a balanced judgement by the mods but since the pro-guilt folks had clearly participated in the forum for years and made numerous posts in a wide variety of threads, I can only assume the mods sided with the long standing members to quiet the storm.

Something similar happened here, though there were a number of long-standing regulars, such as Dan-O, who were not inclined to think them definitely guilty and made that case. Others found PMF and sold out body and soul:

'One site to rule them all, one site to find them,
One site to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!'

p)

That worked better before their feud and they were all posting at the site with the default pitch-black background.

I've always been able to discuss just about any subject with anyone and gravitate toward discussing subjects with folks who disagree with me because I find I learn the most from those that see things in a different light. I end up refining, reversing or becoming more firm in my position as a result. I like the truth, whatever it may be, and whomever can help me find it, I'm all ears.

Heh I feel the same way. In fact since some of them had been following and posting on the case since ~2007-2008 they were a gold-mine of arcane knowledge about the case, the Italian System and the culture and habits of modern Italy which was quite helpful. However everything had to be twisted so it made Amanda and Raffaele sound guilty and they were sometimes like a little two-year-old trying to force a piece into the wrong place in a puzzle, all one had to do is take the piece, untwist it, and they'd find it fit nicely into another place and often indicated something about the nature of the prosecution. After a while though what had once been like mining for gold became grabbing them by the ankles and shaking them down for loose change so I lost interest.

Likewise, I think the truth can withstand all comers so I don't fear dissent. Apparently many of the folks in that thread don't agree and it was the only time I can recall where I had to bail out because I found it impossible to have a mutually enlightening dialogue.

I agree with the former and your experience on latter is not unique.

If anyone referenced a pro Amanda site, they were all shouted down as shills and liars. If anyone referenced Steve Moore, John Douglas, Greg Hampikian, etc, etc then these sources were idiots, retards, shills etc. If the Hellmann report was referenced, it was dismissed as being horrible, idiotic reasoning. Even when Massei was referenced to support a position of innocence, then Massei was conveniently wrong. Third party DNA experts that opposed the pro-guilt reasoning were all quack-pots as well. It's kind of hard to find a source to support an opposing view when the only acceptable sources must come from the prosecution (Ironically, I think if one was willing to devote the time, a pro-innocence case could be made entirely from facts/sources deemed acceptable by the pro-guilt crowd).

Yes, a valid observation, especially the last. In particular the Massei and Matteini Reports suggest innocence when one takes into account the nature of the first and what the latter reveals about the initial state of the 'investigation.'

I tried to see if I could find topics that weren't up for debate so a few things could be put to rest in order to narrow down and focus on more important issues.

One was regarding the windows in the flat. If you look at photos at that time, you will see that every window had iron bars covering them making it impossible for anyone to break in or stage a break in without removing those bars first (there was one window on the back side of the house that I wasn't 100% sure if it had bars on it but it was like 12-15 feet above the ground with no window with bars below it to aid in climbing it).

However there was one window that didn't have security bars on it and it was the one in Filomena's room. I was merely trying to make the point that the only window that could have been broken into or staged was in fact Filomena's. This created an outrage and no one would agree to this simple statement that didn't even preclude someone from continuing to argue the break in was staged.

Instead I got shouted down for suggesting that by using the security bars on the window below, it would be possible for someone to gain access through that window. I wasn't saying it actually happened, I was merely suggesting it was possible. All hell broke lose and I was told nothing short of levitation would enable someone to break in through that window. That's when I said, hell with this and quit participating in the thread.

Did you ever find the picture of Raffaele's lawyer climbing up those rungs and easily getting his hands on the sill with his head poking above it? That window does look difficult to access at first glance, but with those rungs as you note it becomes relatively easy to for an athletic person to get into it, especially one with experience breaking into second-story windows...

This is why I concur with Wilkes when he said "People just won't accept the proof, because it's not what they want to believe."

Yes, that is a problem with some people on a variety of subjects.

 

[yimyammer]

Please Tesla explain what a shoe print at 90 degrees to the door means. The door is ----- then where is the shoe print? I say that 90 degrees is | apparently you think that it is ---.

If it is | with the bottom pointing down and the heel up then the front of the leg, the chest and the face point down while the back points up. Up is towards the door.

No one would argue that having one's shoulder to the door is an impossible or highly unlikely position from which to lock a door.

I get the feeling you both might be trying to say the same thing, perhaps you can use the chart below to help clear things up by referring to A, B, C or D instead of trying to describe what you're visualizing in your heads?

 

[acbytesla]

Acxtually that's Bill W that says that and I believe in this case it was Steve Moore that introduced it though I'm not sure and it doesn't really matter.

It had rained just a day or two before and the ground under the window was not paved or graveled. It was not a manicured grass but rather spotty vegetation.

But you again do not answer what would evidence of a staging be?

You and others say there was no evidence of a staging but refuse to say what that evidence could be. A well staged break-in would look exactly like a real break-in so it is a specious to demand such evidence.

And that is all fine and dandy, a well executed "staging" would not leave any evidence behind. That I agree with. But I see no motive for a staging and I don't buy the one that you have proposed.

I actually do think that F may have had a messy room and left the shutters open but she told the police that her room had been tossed and that she closed the shutters. I don't think the police thinking the B-I was staged was ridiculous.

That's fine, but the reason I think the police went down "the staging" road was that the burglar left valuables. That they came to the idea that it wasn't a burglary before they even discovered Meredith's body and they didn't revise that theory because they settled quickly on the idea that Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were involved.

I believe the police "needed" the busted window to be staged. Because without "staging" the burglary was real and they would have no suspects. The idea of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick would be extra absurd (as if it wasn't anyway) if there is "a real burglary".

But I see the fact that valuables were left that could be traced to the murder to be more than reasonable. The murder changes the whole complexion of the burglary and that is why only Meredith's cash, credit cards and phones were taken and my guess is that Rudy rethought the credit cards and the phones later and tossed them.

There you go again. Just imagine as hard as you can that Rudi had a date with Meredith and that he feared that she had told her friends and that things went haywire and after the murder he worried that he would be the clear suspect so he thought "I'll make it look like someone broke in" and he used his MO to stage.

Thanks Ronald Reagan. LOL. I can imagine that Rudy had a date with Meredith all I want, but there is nothing leading me to that hypothesis. No evidence at that Meredith had a date with Rudy. There are no phone calls, texts etc linking them together. NONE. Meredith also never told anyone she had a date that night. Don't you think Meredith would have told somebody she had a date that night? Amanda or Sophie or Robyn or any of her other friends?

My point is staging doesn't have to point the finger at the kids. I know that he left copious forensics behind so it wouldn't have worked.

I understand, I just don't see anything that leads in the direction that anyone else that is suspect did or would "stage" the crime scene. As I said, I think the staging hypothesis was just a necessity in explaining the police's absurd theory of the crime. If for example the police had found Patrick Lumumba's DNA all over Meredith, the idea of him scaling that wall is absurd and the staging theory becomes much more probable. It actually makes a little sense. However, with Rudy, a lithe. athletic basketball player that could easily dunk a basketball with a history of burglaries, I just don't buy it...at all.

 

[acbytesla]

I get the feeling you both might be trying to say the same thing, perhaps you can use the chart below to help clear things up by referring to A, B, C or D instead of trying to describe what you're visualizing in your heads?

[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img856/8799/footmu.jpg[/qimg]

D, but the footprint is much closer to the door than in that image. Also, it should be noted that Rudy also left a shoe print in the bathroom and If you look at the way that Meredith's door closes with the handle virtually at an intersection with the bathroom door, Rudy is actually much more likely to have locked lock the door with that right foot in the bathroom and his left foot which Rudy is not wearing or is not bloody and didn't leave shoe print is slightly in the hall. From that perspective, Rudy is almost looking straight at the door and as I look at it closer, I think that is much more probable.

 

[GWCarver]

I used to be interested in the JFK assassination, I grew up reading about it and discussing it to the wee hours of the night at parties on occasion, I could (and did) take either side of it. However once the availability of information and analysis exploded in the internet age I found that most of the contentions of the conspiracy canon didn't stand scrutiny and the ones that did weren't as suggestive as I might have once thought. While Jack Ruby waltzing into the garage of a police station and blowing away the most wanted man in America is suspicious as hell, and Oswald's background certainly lends itself to speculation, without anything tangible (real evidence) to support the charges of more than one shooter or that Ruby and Oswald were connected the likelihood that Ruby was just a hot-headed low-life and Oswald a 'silly little socialist' weirdo struck me as the most plausible explanation.

This case is a lot easier to figure out, but there's the same plethora of mis/disinformation out there due to a corrupt and incompetent police and prosecution which was compounded by press errors and then the dedicated denizens of PMF/TJMK disseminated that and their own little pet theories to the four corners of the ether. Those who thought Amanda and Raffaele likely innocent (innocentisti) were not the only ones posting on the case in different venues.

Look at it this way, the police arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick after an all-night interrogation session in which the central feature was a text message sent from Patrick to Amanda right before the most likely time of the murder which used a phrase that suggested a future meeting that night due to Amanda's poor Italian (at that time). The police focused on her because they believed the break-in had to be staged, probably because the window broken appears difficult to access, they certainly didn't have the forensics completed at that stage in order to rely on anything but partial information in that regard anyway.

They took that text message and some information that was eventually proven to be untrue or non-incriminating before Judge Matteini on November 8th, two days later. Incidentally they also found a 'witness' to Patrick's bar being closed which is damned curious because it was eventually proven beyond a doubt that it wasn't, but that does give you a idea of how things work in Perugia with witnesses sometimes.

When the forensics were done they found traces of only one man, Rudy Guede, and absolutely nothing for Amanda, Raffaele or Patrick. It just so happens that Rudy Guede was a burglar facing eviction who'd been caught with items stolen from other second-story break ins, had pulled a knife in one instance, and was an athlete with enough promise the richest man in the area had once given him a place to stay as he also owned a (semi-pro) basketball team.

They should have just let the other three go, but the prosecutor who'd made up his theory of a ritualistic masonic killing or sex-game gone wrong out of whole cloth (he had no forensics to rely on when he did it!) refused to reconsider, perhaps because he was receiving international media attention from a tabloid press which was taking his every word as gospel and even helping out by printing bizarre and untrue rumors and distortions. Thus despite (essentially) everything in his case presented before Matteini being untrue or irrelevant, he decided to keep his bizarre theory of a three-person killing and did his best to assemble evidence in support of it. In Italy the prosecutor is the actual head of the investigation, unlike the US and other places where those powers are separate. Some of that 'evidence' stinks to high heaven, and that's not based on speculation either.

However, I wanted to post this bit to show something, this is Massei's representation of the forensic experts testimony, all of them, including the ones the prosecution relied most on:




As you can see, all of the forensic experts found the murder scene compatible with a one attacker scenario. There is nothing at the scene which requires that there be more than one attacker forensically, so Massei has to rely on the speculations and indications the prosecution assembled of why there might have been, being as if he couldn't do that he couldn't bring a case into court, (and many things are possible) and of course barring a clean video of the murder a lot of things can be interpreted as possible indications of this or that. He spends the next few pages on that and if you want I (or someone else) can post that and you can get an idea of just what sort of 'evidence' must be relied on in order to pretend Raffaele and Amanda were there, but that requires not taking into account that were Raffaele and Amanda present at the scene odds are there'd be actual evidence of their presence, much like Rudy Guede left traces of himself all over that room.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but there was a dedicated effort to find anything and all they could come up with was a smidgin of unidentified (substance) DNA on a bra clasp which was passed around like a joint at a Pink Floyd concert and fondled freely as well as put back on the floor (this is all on camera!), It was found to contain Y-haplotypes (which is not the same as a DNA match) of four men, one of whom may be Raffaele Sollecito but which had been sitting on the floor for six weeks and has definitely moved around on that floor from where it was originally captured in the videos the day after the murder. The prosecution lab tech would try to hide the fact those other Y-haplotype traces were found, probably because that screams contamination as the videos suggest was likely.

Nothing attributable to Amanda Knox was ever found in the murder room.

Funny, when i read yimyammer's post today, I thought about JFK and Oswald, too. Simply put, if one looks at the crime scene evidence in each of the murders, the evidence against Oswald and Guede is overwhelming. In addition, they both ran. One major difference is Oswald couldn't take the murder weapon with him to dispose of elsewhere because it would have drawn too much attention. Guede had no such problem. Instead of being forced to dump his weapon as Oswald did with the infamous Mannlichner-Carcano, he just took the knife, cell phones, etc. with him and disappeared into the dark.

 

[yimyammer]

D, but the footprint is much closer to the door than in that image.

I'm just trying to show the footprint in the correct direction (not necessarily in the correct location).

Did I show it in the right direction? If I did, then the foot (toe) would be pointing in the 90 degree position, no?

If I don't have it pointed correctly, let me know and I'll repost a revision.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm just trying to show the footprint in the correct direction (not necessarily in the correct location).

Did I show it in the right direction? If I did, then the foot (toe) would be pointing in the 90 degree position, no?

If I don't have it pointed correctly, let me know and I'll repost a revision.

The heal would be between C and D, and it would be a left shoe print instead of a right.

 

[DrTesla]

Rudy isn't this stupid

I scoff at people on here who claim Rudy Guede scaled up the wall of the house like Spiderman to access the high window. it makes no sense to break into the house from that window when there are lower access points that are also not in view of the main road. there was no evidence of footprints in the wet grass outside of the house or scuff marks on the wall of the house to indicate a break in. also, one of the roommates closed the interior shutters of the window before she left, and that would have made it difficult for gueede to enter the house that way.
Meridith surely would have heard the window being smashed by a rock and prevented guide from entering through the window. he also left his feces in the toilet...since when does a burglar take time to take a crap. the crap in the toilet seems to indicate that he was at the house socially for awhile before the victim was murdered.
Guede is a small man, 160 lbs or so and there is no way he pinned down the victim with little resistance from her as she had few defensive wounds on her body. that girl would have fought like hell if she thought she was going to be raped and or killed. you have to believe he also stabbed her with two different knives in the neck while also holding her down where she couldn't fight back at the same time. that's one powerful man there.