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

[Bill Williams]

Thx, It was my understanding that this window had security bars on it at the time of the crime. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I've promised Grinder I would go looking for it, and have yet to do it. So, I'll repeat that there was a report that on two occasions people went in through Filomena's old window.... which explains why there's now bars in it, too.

So Grinder save your keyboard.... I'll go look.

 

[Dan O.]

[IMGL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=3945[/IMGL]

like I said, I was probably just seeing things and that photo is too dark to say what I think I saw was in any way certain

Like so many issues with this case, this print seems to depend on the eye of the beholder and is too smudged to be of any significant evidentiary value (IMO), certainly not enough to send someone to jail for years

its not like a fingerprint where distinct lines and grooves can be matched exactly to a known print The carpet of the matt distorts the print too much in my opinion

I'm not following you about the hem of Rudys jean hem, if possible can you elaborate?

Here's a closeup view that I straightened out to correct for the camera's angle. Rudy had entered the small bath to clean off the blood on the outside seam of his right pant leg. There's a drip where he brushed the door jam entering the bathroom. I believe he used the shower for this. Others say it was the bidet. The bloody water mix flowing off the pant leg would uniformly coat the bottom of his foot which was then transferred to the mat. The cuff would still be dripping until he reached a towel to pat it dry and in the few moments that his foot is on the mat, the dripping cuff saturates the lower part of the mat and spreads along the edge.


ETA: Here is a depiction showing the mat rotated 180° as it would need to be for Rudy to step out of the shower and onto the mat. The mat could have been returned in either orientation after Amanda's boogie ride down the hallway the next morning. Only Amanda and Rudy would know which way the mat was when Rudy stepped on it. I was hoping that Amanda would clear this up in her book.

Rudy writes that when he left the cottage his pants were wet and he took a sweetshirt to cover them. Meredith's sweetshirt has never been found.

 

[Supernaut]

thanks for the link, the picture below was taken from that link. I was obviously seeing things in the dark photo I was looking at. Assuming the photo below was taken in that bathroom and is reliable, etc, there is clearly no heal marks on the tile. And I'd have to say the footprint is more distinct than I previously thought as well

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/xkziuf.jpg[/qimg]

No worries.

I purloined this from friendsofamanda.org;

Raff/bathmat/Guede.

 

[Grinder]

Actually, it was the kitchen window, off the balcony, easiest window by far to break into and also one Rudi would have seen every time he was at his friends home. It was broken into twice after the murder, I wonder if they have barred that window now as well.

If correct, why in the world would two kids that had never done a second story job decide to throw a large rock through the window instead of just breaking a pane of that window or forcing it with a screwdriver?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think my the time he testified he believed he had seen them. He wasn't just homeless he was high on heroin when he "saw" them and for the 300 days between "seeing" them and being talked into going to the police by a cub reporter. He didn't remember the scene correctly. He apparently testified in two other serious cases. (Just a story about a crack addled woman that testified in multiple cases that are under review here in the US). The prosecution didn't bring out his 2003 arrest for heroin dealing. His original times were from 9:30 to near midnight and were only altered under the guidance of Mignini.

The original TOD was earlier but needed shifting because of Curatolo and Nara. He has them there so fast after leaving their house, there is no time for them to have done anything. If they ran back and forth it would have been when the tow truck and car were there. PG would be better off admitting he was stoned and had no idea.

I don't believe you can not believe his testimony because he was high on drugs, I can think of 2 others that were high on drugs that night as well, also him saying there were disco buses also has no bearing, he's an old man, he goes there every day, how many times did he see Amanda and Raff there at night, probably just the night of the murder, and also, who would know if he was high on heroin that night, that would be totally unknown to everyone.

ToD was most likely between 9:30 and 10:00, this is no problem for my believe of what really happened that night.

 

[Kestrel]

Thx, It was my understanding that this window had security bars on it at the time of the crime. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

The kitchen window that is accessible from the balcony did not have bars at the time of the crime. It did have a functional outside shutter that would need to be pried open before breaking the window. The shutter on Filomena's window was broken and could not be latched.

Another problem for a burglar is that the balcony is lit by a nearby streetlight and easily seen from the road passing by the cottage and homes further up the hill. Filomena's window was in the shadows and hard to see at night.

Those who broke in after the crime would have found Filomena's window boarded up making it difficult to gain entry via that route.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

ok, I don't think the lack of fingerprints is necessary to make the case Knox is guilty, i'm just repeating what I saw Barbie Nadaeu report, which may have been at an early stage of the discovery process and some stuff is always misreported in real time.

Rudy's evidence wasn't "all over the place". again, none of it was in the bedroom where you claimed he came in through the window and then ransacked Fiol's clothes for reasons unknown (maybe he was into fashion?)

I love it when people like you present yourself as Guardians of Science. that's what liberals do in the global warming debate as well. I'm a mechanical engineer and I think that I do ok in scientific discussions and I'm surell not anti-science or logic. engineering is the useful application of science.

I see you've already said your goodbyes, so I won't reply in too much detail. Farewell DrTesla, we shall remember you whenever we talk of seagulls and socks.

Rudy didn't murder or sexually molest anyone in Filomena's room, and since the clothes he wore at the time were never recovered it's entirely possible (though untestable) that he wore gloves when he went through Filomena's room and removed them when he went to the toilet. If you've ever tried wiping yourself while wearing gloves, you will have found it's quite annoying.

It's not terribly extraordinary no DNA was found in Filomena's room. It's certainly a very long way from proof he was never in there.

As for us presenting ourselves as Guardians of Science, that's an invention of pro-guilt posters who need some kind of talking point to respond to the evidence-based demolition of Stefanoni's junk forensics and Mignini's junk time of death. They can't defend either of them on any scientific basis, so they retreat to childish pot-shots about our credentials. The fact is, science is science regardless of who is reporting what science says. The theory of gravity is still true whether you are getting it from Newton or from Bozo the Chimp. Attacking us won't get you anywhere. That's not how science works.

 

[acbytesla]

]I don't believe you can not believe his testimony because he was high on drugs,[/HILITE] I can think of 2 others that were high on drugs that night as well, also him saying there were disco buses also has no bearing, he's an old man, he goes there every day, how many times did he see Amanda and Raff there at night, probably just the night of the murder, and also, who would know if he was high on heroin that night, that would be totally unknown to everyone.

ToD was most likely between 9:30 and 10:00, this is no problem for my believe of what really happened that night.

Really? Have you ever been high on heroin or any opiate based drug like morphine, or oxycodone? Add in the fact that Toto was not only high, he was homeless where issues such as mental illness are significant. The fact that Toto said he saw the disco buses when they weren't running and that kids were dressed in costumes that night clearly shows that Curatolo's testimony is not reliable and certainly detracts from his credibility.

So lets say you are right that the TOD is between 9:30 and 10:00. Which is fine with me although I do believe it was earlier and more like between 9 and 9:15.

We know for a fact that Raffaele was at his apartment at 9:10. You have Amanda and Raffaele meeting with Rudy and continuing on to the cottage probably no earlier than 9:30. We know that Rudy didn't come home with Meredith as Meredith was shown at her gate at 9:00 so he had to arrive with Amanda and Raffaele or show up by himself sometime between 9 and 9:30 knocked on the cottage door and Meredith invited him in. It is my understanding that Meredith didn't know Rudy like Amanda didn't know Rudy. They saw him a couple of times but never really associated with him.

This whole scenario sort of screams of premeditation as you have Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy murdering Meredith within minutes of them arriving at the cottage. Also, it is pretty clear that Rudy must have left with the phones alone as it really appears that the 10:13 call that was handled by the distant Wind tower handled the call. Sort of rules out the drug fueled orgy doesn't it? Then, if you believe old Toto, Amanda and Raffaele returned to the Piazza multiple times...remember Toto doesn't mention Rudy.

But how can it be premeditation? Rudy didn't know Raffaele, barely knew Amanda, and having no real history with them couldn't really trust them. Rudy didn't speak English, Amanda barely spoke any Italian and Raffale spoke little English.

Do you really think this scenario makes any sense??

 

[DrTesla]

I don't think it matters who actually houses the information. You can either get it from IIP or from some site run by someone named (I think) Peggy Ganong, a housewife who does transcription. Why does it matter as long as it is real information? Unfortunately the Perugia court house does not have the information available on a website for all to see.

And Mignini DID say it was about a satanic ritual and he is a liar.

that peggy woman is dumb and a nasty person in general. she's an ultra liberal witch and her website seems to as for leftwingers and Obama politics as it is about Knox. she bans conservatives and anybody who thinks Knox is guilty. she and Fischer are partisans for their beliefs on Knox and don't tolerate disagreement from their belief. she and her paranoid readers even thought I was some kind of secret agent for Knox which is so stupid.

the only useful thing about that site is the translations and transcripts related to the case.

most of the information at Injustice is Fischer's opinion although a lot of his opinion seems cut and paste of Preston and maybe that Moore "FBI agent".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lotsa Barbie links

Barbie strikes me as pretty fair/reasonable as well.

FYI--I got a response from her after Amanda was released on acquittal when I had asked her if she thought Amanda was guilty or innocent and she said she thought it was 50-50 (done via twitter, she later deleted it for some reason)

The trouble with Barbie is that all of her errors tend to make Amanda and Raffaele look worse than the actual facts. It could be her bias is subconscious, but don't see her as being objective. Links here and here to discussions of her work through about 2010 on this case. I think her list of ten questions for Amanda, since updated, also show the same lack of critical thinking.

A blogger wrote, "Barbie Nadeau recently noted that there were mixed genetic traces in spots of blood in which Knox’s traces were higher than Meredith’s and according to dozens of forensic experts, this indicates mixed blood." Barbie never identified these forensic experts. Trying to decide that something is blood based on relative or absolute peak intensities is a little bit like deducing the age of a tree by counting the number of leaves it has.

 

[DrTesla]

I see you've already said your goodbyes, so I won't reply in too much detail. Farewell DrTesla, we shall remember you whenever we talk of seagulls and socks.

Rudy didn't murder or sexually molest anyone in Filomena's room, and since the clothes he wore at the time were never recovered it's entirely possible (though untestable) that he wore gloves when he went through Filomena's room and removed them when he went to the toilet. If you've ever tried wiping yourself while wearing gloves, you will have found it's quite annoying.

It's not terribly extraordinary no DNA was found in Filomena's room. It's certainly a very long way from proof he was never in there.

As for us presenting ourselves as Guardians of Science, that's an invention of pro-guilt posters who need some kind of talking point to respond to the evidence-based demolition of Stefanoni's junk forensics and Mignini's junk time of death. They can't defend either of them on any scientific basis, so they retreat to childish pot-shots about our credentials. The fact is, science is science regardless of who is reporting what science says. The theory of gravity is still true whether you are getting it from Newton or from Bozo the Chimp. Attacking us won't get you anywhere. That's not how science works.

so the entire 8 person jury rejected Science (TM) in the first trial. Hmmmmm.

you can keep wrapping up your belief Knox is innocent in the idea "it is Science (TM)" but I'm confident the next appeals trial is going to find her guilty based on the same logic that I've applied to the evidence.

your assertion is that it is perfectly logical there is no Rudy DNA, or any other trace like debris from the yard, in the bedfroom where he ostensibly came in, but the lack of DNA of Knox and Raff in the victim's room is proof that only Rudy did the murder. I find that logically inconsistent (and of course you guys always ignore or dismiss the Raffe DNA found on the bra clasp even though it would seem that is about the most damning place it could have been found for our hero Raff, and Knox herself b/c only she could have let him in).

so in summary, DNA evidence is only DNA evidence if it points to Rudy's guilt and not the other two.

 

[Grinder]

I don't believe you can not believe his testimony because he was high on drugs, I can think of 2 others that were high on drugs that night as well, also him saying there were disco buses also has no bearing, he's an old man, he goes there every day, how many times did he see Amanda and Raff there at night, probably just the night of the murder, and also, who would know if he was high on heroin that night, that would be totally unknown to everyone.

They didn't remember well, only they admit it. Drugs do mess with memory. It is significant that he messed up with the buses. He testified he was high that night and every night. He denied seeing anything when questioned by the police. What did Galati say about the quality of his testimony?

ToD was most likely between 9:30 and 10:00, this is no problem for my believe of what really happened that night.

Improve your case and drop Curatolo.

 

[DrTesla]

Thx, It was my understanding that this window had security bars on it at the time of the crime. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I never heard that, and given the fact all the guilters make such a big deal about the other window being an easier access point, I think it would have been mentioned.

there's no evidence rudy went in that high window and the break in was clearly staged. if Knox's innocence is riding on Rudy's breaking in through that window, she's cooked. i'd at least look for other explanations for how rudy gained access to the house.

 

[Dan O.]

The trouble with Barbie is that all of her errors tend to make Amanda and Raffaele look worse than the actual facts. It could be her bias is subconscious, but don't see her as being objective.

I think for Barbie this was an open and shut case. She caught somebody inside the sealed crime scene on the morning of November 14th and in exchange for priveledged inside access to the prosecution she kept her mouth shut about the incident.

 

[acbytesla]

I never heard that, and given the fact all the guilters make such a big deal about the other window being an easier access point, I think it would have been mentioned.

there's no evidence rudy went in that high window and the break in was clearly staged. if Knox's innocence is riding on Rudy's breaking in through that window, she's cooked. i'd at least look for other explanations for how rudy gained access to the house.

There is also NO EVIDENCE that he didn't break in through that window or any evidence that it was staged. There was no forensic examination of the wall outside the window. There was no ballistic evidence on how the glass shattered throughout the room.

If you are going to assert something as fact, don't you have to prove it?

But before we move on, I want to see you declare to the forum that you were wrong about there being only 1 fingerprint and that being on the glass. Everyone in the forum slapped you around like a red headed step child on that. So...say it....you were....wrrrrrong. by a long shot and just were talking out your backside without knowing the facts.

C'mon, you can do it. It won't hurt ..except to your pride.

 

[DrTesla]

I think for Barbie this was an open and shut case. She caught somebody inside the sealed crime scene on the morning of November 14th and in exchange for priveledged inside access to the prosecution she kept her mouth shut about the incident.

Barbie always seems to indicate she thinks it can go either way, she doesn't seem to have strong conviction about it either way, like a typical female.

I was surprised her book was titled Amanda Knox: Student Killer b/c her articles at Daily Beast don't have that kind of strong conviction. she comes across as more as thinking this is all too confusing and she's glad she's not the one who has to sort it out.

I caught a clip on CNN or maybe MNSBC where she was on, she seems real laid back and dispassionate about this case. the interviewer asked her some questions and then she went off and then the interviewer talked to Steve Moore and he's just attacking her in a real mean sort of way and just redneck emotional about the case. for some reason these two didn't debate each other and they never even talked to Barbie again, so I got the feeling that she said she wouldn't do the interview if she had to argue with this guy. just doesn't mean that much to her to convince you Knox is guilty, she just wants to report what happens in the trial and what the defense says, and what the prosecution said.

 

[DrTesla]

There is also NO EVIDENCE that he didn't break in through that window or any evidence that it was staged. There was no forensic examination of the wall outside the window. There was no ballistic evidence on how the glass shattered throughout the room.

If you are going to assert something as fact, don't you have to prove it?

But before we move on, I want to see you declare to the forum that you were wrong about there being only 1 fingerprint and that being on the glass. Everyone in the forum slapped you around like a red headed step child on that. So...say it....you were....wrrrrrong. by a long shot and just were talking out your backside without knowing the facts.

C'mon, you can do it. It won't hurt ..except to your pride.

so the prosecution has to prove a negative, that Rudy didn't come in through the window that there is no proof that he did?

I think you guys are clinging on to the fingerprint thing b/c I been owning you across the board on everything else. the fingerprint thing isn't crucial to my case against Knox, it was just one of many things that points to a clean up effort, if true.

Nadaue made the point that there was no blood found in the rest of the house, except for the 5 mixed blood samples, which is surprising given the volume of the victim's blood in bedroom. you would think the multiple killers would have tracked some of that around into the other rooms so this is evidence of a clean up effort. also she points out that no fingerprints were found on the door to the victim's bedroom that was locked and pulled shut. so obviously they were being careful about fingerprints at that point and so it logical to believe they probably engaged in some kind of clean up effort.

 

[Grinder]

Here's a quote from Nadeau:

BARBIE NADEAU: But Amanda was the first person to mention sex. Because she said that Patrick wanted to have sex with Meredith and that she brought Patrick into the house to have sex with Meredith, she said she heard the screams, she described the screams, she covered her ears - that's why Amanda Knox is in prison, no one was ever able to erase that to the extent that they could free her. Whether they should have or not we don't know.

Barbie is not very bright. I wish this video was still up because she show herself in it.

The papers talked about sex from the second day. In no way did Amanda bring up sex first.

This was from this show which took place August of 2011.

 

[acbytesla]

so the prosecution has to prove a negative, that Rudy didn't come in through the window that there is no proof that he did?

I think you guys are clinging on to the fingerprint thing b/c I been owning you across the board on everything else. the fingerprint thing isn't crucial to my case against Knox, it was just one of many things that points to a clean up effort, if true.

Nadaue made the point that there was no blood found in the rest of the house, except for the 5 mixed blood samples, which is surprising given the volume of the victim's blood in bedroom. you would think the multiple killers would have tracked some of that around into the other rooms so this is evidence of a clean up effort. also she points out that no fingerprints were found on the door to the victim's bedroom that was locked and pulled shut. so obviously they were being careful about fingerprints at that point and so it logical to believe they probably engaged in some kind of clean up effort.

No, the prosecution has to prove a positive. They have the burden of proof, not the defense. They have to perform an actual forensic examination of the room and the wall. The window was broken. They are asserting that this is evidence of some kind of staging as opposed to the more likely answer that it was broken in the commission of a a burglary. I think Rudy could have easily climbed that wall. Massei in his motivation said Rudy could do it although he said it wasn't likely because he thought that Rudy would have to climb up and down 3 times. But you know what? It is also possible that Rudy broke the window to see if anyone was home. It is a common practice among burglars break a window and watch for a reaction. Rudy could have thrown the rock through the window and then waited a little while and then noticed Meredith coming home at 9:00 and then went straight to the door.

As for your delusions of grandeur thinking that you have got the best of anyone on this forum.... well feel free to believe that fairy tale. I seriously doubt that you have persuaded a single person who has been reading this forum.

But back to your fingerprint declaration that there was only 1 fingerprint found in the entire cottage, one which was only wrong by a factor of 100. I remember that you said this in response to my assertion of the fools errand of anyone trying to selectively remove their own fingerprints while leaving others.

Quit you're whining and own up to the fact that you don't have a clue about the evidence in this case.

 

[Grinder]

Who touched the door knob in the morning before and while it was being opened? Amanda, Raf, Luca, the PP and ????