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

[yimyammer]

I couldn't tell you for sure, but I doubt she did. Why would it matter? He's talking about when he cooked over at the cottage, which is where the cigarette butt came from. That's pretty clear from the fact that happened, that the context is shortly after Tiziano suggested Amanda might have taken it to the cottage to cook with, and that the girls lived in a 'house' (cottage) and Raffaele in an apartment.

Are you saying he was saying he was cooking at Amanda's flat when he pricked Meredith with the knife and that the knife was brought there from his place? I totally misunderstood if that's the case. If so, did any of the room mates verify this?

Yes, I agree. However the latter isn't an 'argument' it's basic forensic DNA science, especially dealing with trace DNA. Have you read any of the papers posted, or would you like more?

Oh God no, I've more than enough to read that I'll probably never get around to, but thx

Ah, OK, I cannot see much of anything there. It was my understanding that the bathmat was moved, and I didn't know there was anyone who ever contended otherwise. I thought it originally was outside the shower and ended up in front of the sink, though I'm not sure how certain that ever was, it just made sense that the bathmat was originally in front of the shower as that's where they often are.

I was looking at a bad photo, as you can see upthread, I retracted this observation

 

[Dan O.]

LOL, or there weren't multiple killers

Reminds me of the witch test I heard on Monty Python (IIRC) where they would determine if a woman was a witch by tying stones to her and placing her in water. If she floated, she was a witch and would be burned at the stake immediately. If she sunk and drowned, then she wasn't a witch.

The correct MP logic is that witches burn because they are made of wood. Wood floats on water. Something else that floats on water is a duck. If she weighs the same as a duck, she is made of wood and therefore a witch. I think you are confusing MP with actual witch trials.

 

[Dan O.]

Are you saying he was saying he was cooking at Amanda's flat when he pricked Meredith with the knife and that the knife was brought there from his place? I totally misunderstood if that's the case. If so, did any of the room mates verify this?

Raffaele clarified this in his book and recent interviews. He was cooking at the cottage using his own flick knife. He slipped and touched Meredith's hand with the tip. Meredith was not cut.

He says that in prison he had confabulated this memory with his kitchen knife that the prosecution was touting as evidence.

The only part that was actually news to us here on JREF was that the knife involved was Raffaele's flick knife. We were able to figure out the rest from the available evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

Are you saying he was saying he was cooking at Amanda's flat when he pricked Meredith with the knife and that the knife was brought there from his place? I totally misunderstood if that's the case. If so, did any of the room mates verify this?

He was figuring in his diary how it must have occurred remembering an incident at the cottage when he was cooking that seemed to be the answer, having just been told Amanda might have borrowed it for cooking. That knife never left his apartment in reality. It also didn't get Meredith's DNA on it as a result of her being cut with it. How the DNA got there--if it ever had any--is an intriguing question. Have you ever heard how that knife was collected?

No roommates were ever asked, why would they be? This is just internet speculation, not anything official. Did I ever tell you that a bunch of people got interested in this case and have now spent over five years trying to find reasons to think that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty?

I was looking at a bad photo, as you can see upthread, I retracted this observation

Ah, OK, I probably didn't notice as it took me a while to respond to your post.

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread closed for cleanout. As always, do not attempt to continue this discussion elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread reopened. Do not personalize your arguments and remain civil and polite. Also, do not post dubiously-titled Amazon reviews, poetry, snarky one-liners, pictures of kittens, recipes, or other such nonsense. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread placed on Moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

since when has anything Knox done seen logical? you act like the murder is supposed to make sense in some way which strikes me as child like. Just re-read Knox's written declaration to the police and you will understand that woman is batty.

the reasons for murder is never all that logical unless its out of self defense.

"Since when has anything Knox done seen [sic] logical"? She's not exactly Shakespeare but she obeys the laws of physics at least. She's never been caught in two places at once, which is what she'd have to do in order to be simultaneously in Raffaele's bed at 21:05 and also back in her own house stabbing Meredith.

But okay, she defies the laws of physics. Whatever. Does she have mind control powers too, to organise a three-way murder pact among people with no common language? I guess so. Nothing she does seems logical, so it follows, right?

All we need now is some kind of time travel power so she can make Rudy and Raffaele and herself all stab Meredith at once, with the same knife, so that nobody can give evidence about anyone else. Nothing she does seems logical, so hey, what's another impossibility?

Nothing she does makes sense, so it's a perfectly good theory of the crime.

 

[anglolawyer]

The Lamp

I know, I know. But its been brought up and it's a hobby horse.

There is no evidence the lamp was brought into the room by anybody before the door was broken down. I can't see why no one gets this simple and decisive point. The photo in post 1763 is what everyone thinks the cops saw when the door was broken in. It might be and it might not. You need evidence of that. All the photo proves is how things looked when the photo was taken. There were at least 15 minutes before anyone other than the posties were inside the apartment during which time either one of them might have borrowed the lamp to shine it around and check out what happened. That this is very likely what happened may be inferred from their and Luca Altieri's failure to give evidence that the lamp was already there (look how obvious it is!) which is how such a fact would be most easily proved. It may be inferred also from the strange way Mignini dealt with it, advancing no positive case on it and from the lack of tests.

All these things must be explained, not hand-waved away, especially by those for whom the lamp is a big point. If it really had been in the room it would be a significant clue, especially if it had Rudy's or Raffaele's prints on the plug. Maybe not so much Amanda's but even those would not be totally worthless.

Battisteli moved it most probably.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The bottom line is that just like you, DrTesla has no coherent theory of the crime that makes any lick of sense. He hasn't actually got a position to defend, as such, just a bunch of disconnected talking points that hint that guilt is possible without ever coalescing into a theory, a case or anything remotely logical.

We could do with an intelligent, informed, rational pro-guilt poster with a coherent theory of the crime. We could get our teeth into that. DrTesla is no such beast, sadly.

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, lawyers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

 

[DrTesla]

"Since when has anything Knox done seen [sic] logical"? She's not exactly Shakespeare but she obeys the laws of physics at least. She's never been caught in two places at once, which is what she'd have to do in order to be simultaneously in Raffaele's bed at 21:05 and also back in her own house stabbing Meredith.

But okay, she defies the laws of physics. Whatever. Does she have mind control powers too, to organise a three-way murder pact among people with no common language? I guess so. Nothing she does seems logical, so it follows, right?

All we need now is some kind of time travel power so she can make Rudy and Raffaele and herself all stab Meredith at once, with the same knife, so that nobody can give evidence about anyone else. Nothing she does seems logical, so hey, what's another impossibility?

Nothing she does makes sense, so it's a perfectly good theory of the crime.

your way of debating is to just to agree with everything Knox claims. Her boyfriend pulled his alibi for her and you act like that did not happen. there was also no evidence that he was on his computer all night, and that was actually his second alibi as he first told them they were at a party with some friends. most people don't forget if they are at a party or if they were home alone.

you want to talk about law of physics but then you claim the 160 lbs rudy pinned down the victim with absolutely no fight from her.

 

[Dan O.]

So Raffaele is supposed to watch Amanda's movie alone while she runs off to fetch the mop?

Then she let's Rudy into the cottage and let's him use the Italian girls bathroom?

Now he has both Amanda and Meredith in the cottage with Rudy in the bathroom. Why doesn't Rudy flush and why does he rush out of the bathroom without secureing his pants? Even Rudy was able to come up with a better answer but here he's comming out before anything happened.


What's happening here is that Sherlock is starting with a conclusion that he wants to reach and forcing the scenario to conform. Instead of starting with the known events and organizing them into a timeline, fitting the pieces together as the data dictates, he is recutting the pieces to force them together. Naturally he has lots of loose ends that don't fit in so like Mignini before him he must invent fixes.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I know, I know. But its been brought up and it's a hobby horse.

There is no evidence the lamp was brought into the room by anybody before the door was broken down. I can't see why no one gets this simple and decisive point. The photo in post 1763 is what everyone thinks the cops saw when the door was broken in. It might be and it might not. You need evidence of that. All the photo proves is how things looked when the photo was taken. There were at least 15 minutes before anyone other than the posties were inside the apartment during which time either one of them might have borrowed the lamp to shine it around and check out what happened. That this is very likely what happened may be inferred from their and Luca Altieri's failure to give evidence that the lamp was already there (look how obvious it is!) which is how such a fact would be most easily proved. It may be inferred also from the strange way Mignini dealt with it, advancing no positive case on it and from the lack of tests.

All these things must be explained, not hand-waved away, especially by those for whom the lamp is a big point. If it really had been in the room it would be a significant clue, especially if it had Rudy's or Raffaele's prints on the plug. Maybe not so much Amanda's but even those would not be totally worthless.

Battisteli moved it most probably.

SENTENCE OF THE COURT OF ASSIZES OF PERUGIA

She insisted on having searched Meredith’s room: that she was in the corridor and left without going into any other rooms, adding that "every time we entered and left the house we changed shoe covers and gloves" (page 261). She recalled that when she entered Mere" dith’s room "there was a black lamp that had fallen behind the door. Then there was Meredith’s lamp, which was by the bedside; it was on the floor between her bedside table and bed

. Neither she nor Raffaele had seen the inside of Meredith’s room after the door was broken down. The news reported about this was what they had heard from the people who were present, and who were talking about it. As for the black lamp discovered in Meredith’s room, she couldn’t give an explanation. She remembered that she had an identical lamp, but she didn’t know if it was still there, since she didn’t pay attention to it.

. She didn’t know what to think, but she was worried and wanted to break down the door. She denied that she wanted to break down the door to get her lamp back. Anyway, they did not even know that the lamp was missing from her room.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

zeitgeist

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, layers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

We don't have to sluff over mixed blood or lies, either, because they are not true (beyond Amanda's lying about use of Marijuana). Stefanoni's views about gloves and the ease of transfer of DNA are so far out of the mainstream that we can estimate her competence on that basis alone. Miscarriages of justice don't require everyone involved to sit around a big table, but they sometimes involve a zeitgeist (for lack of a better term). Once people start believing person X is guilty, they alter their memories and interpretations of events according to that belief. Somewhat surprisingly, forensic results are not immune to this problem, as we have discussed in this thread many times.

 

[GWCarver]

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, layers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

Why not provide us with a single, comprehensive timeline of the murder that doesn't involve Guede acting alone, and does include the whereabouts and actions of Amanda and Raffaele the night of the Meredith was killed? Then we could discuss it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Toto set a precedent

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, lawyers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

Toto: police stooge and professional liar whose evidence made no sense. Another case surfaced today of a cop using a prostitute and drug addict as a professional witness right in New York in the US of A:

A review by The New York Times showed that the detective played a key role in other questionable convictions. Inmates said he made up confessions, and Mr. Scarcella acknowledged having used the same crack-addicted prostitute as an eyewitness on at least six different occasions.

 

[Dan O.]

The lamp

I know, I know. But its been brought up and it's a hobby horse.
...

Battisteli moved it most probably.

I would say that Battisteli is one possibility. Rudy is another. By removing Amanda from participation in the murder, there is no motive for her to bring the lamp into Meredith's room. And of course, the lamp could have been there from the start if Meredith had borrowed it in the proceeding week since Amanda was spending the nights with Raffaele and therefore wasn't using it.

Possibly tying in with the lamp are the two footprints of Rudy's standing at the end of the bed facing into the room. This is about where someone would stand if they were surveying the room. I havn't figured out any other explanation for Rudy's footprints in that location.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, the Doc and I have theories that don't require about half of Italy being lying, incompetent, dishonest and evil just to make our theory work. Look at the people you have in that group, lawyers, judges, police, forensics personnel, hobo's, store owners and even the girls she lived with and the guys downstairs. We also don't have to sluff over facts we can't explain like the break in, Toto, Meredith's locked door, the bathmat, mixed traces of blood, false confessions, cartwheels or splits, lies and strange behaviour.

I feel a need to circulate, yet again, the 2006 report written in Canada about Canadian wrongful convictions. The common element amongst all the high profile wrongful convictions is precisely the combination of lying and incompetent officers of courts and police forces - each one who grants the benefit of the doubt, sometime huge doubts, to people/agencies on their side of the fence. It's a form of confirmation bias, and the feeling that only guilty people are arrested or suspected to begin with.

It's the very reason why all the "innocent until proven guilty" safeguards are there.

Ninety-five percent of the time these biases are correct - the police indeed have arrested the perp. It's that 5%, into which I believe Sollecito and Knox have fallen, that produce tese sorts of scenarios where all the agencies circle the wagons around one another and try to ride out the storm.

What it takes is one office of some court to say what everyone else is afraid to say.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would say that Battisteli is one possibility. Rudy is another. By removing Amanda from participation in the murder, there is no motive for her to bring the lamp into Meredith's room. And of course, the lamp could have been there from the start if Meredith had borrowed it in the proceeding week since Amanda was spending the nights with Raffaele and therefore wasn't using it.

Possibly tying in with the lamp are the two footprints of Rudy's standing at the end of the bed facing into the room. This is about where someone would stand if they were surveying the room. I havn't figured out any other explanation for Rudy's footprints in that location.

If Rudy moved it then it was in the room when the door was busted open. This is not easy to reconcile with the points I made about Mignini's case on the lamp. Care to address that?

Rudy did not need Amanda's lamp. Meredith's was working. And I don't believe Meredith would have just taken the lamp without asking nor that she needed one either. You used to argue that when you thought it was plugged in by the door, but it was plugged in behind Amanda's nightstand or bed head, meaning a hands and knees operation to retrieve it with no reason to do so.

That Battisteli (most likely) moved it explains everything, including its role in the trial and is consistent with his known curiosity which he untruthfully denied.

 

[Grinder]

I know, I know. But its been brought up and it's a hobby horse.

There is no evidence the lamp was brought into the room by anybody before the door was broken down. I can't see why no one gets this simple and decisive point. The photo in post 1763 is what everyone thinks the cops saw when the door was broken in. It might be and it might not. You need evidence of that. All the photo proves is how things looked when the photo was taken. There were at least 15 minutes before anyone other than the posties were inside the apartment during which time either one of them might have borrowed the lamp to shine it around and check out what happened. That this is very likely what happened may be inferred from their and Luca Altieri's failure to give evidence that the lamp was already there (look how obvious it is!) which is how such a fact would be most easily proved. It may be inferred also from the strange way Mignini dealt with it, advancing no positive case on it and from the lack of tests.

All these things must be explained, not hand-waved away, especially by those for whom the lamp is a big point. If it really had been in the room it would be a significant clue, especially if it had Rudy's or Raffaele's prints on the plug. Maybe not so much Amanda's but even those would not be totally worthless.

Battisteli moved it most probably.

Anglo while all your points are reasonable, I believe that the lamp means nothing since Amanda's room was right next to Meredith's and the only other room and lamp at that end of the house.

Whether it was the police or a perp that moved it, it is logical that Amanda's lamp would be the lamp of choice. Now if Amanda's or Raf's bloody fingerprint were on the lamp or the plug, tada!

ETA - if the lamp was from Laura's room and her room was next door to Meredith's room would anyone suggest it had any probative value? No, of course not. The lamp has no weight in the solving of the crime. Only after judging Amanda guilty can it be used as evidence.