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

[Grinder]

So, what time was that screamed heard then, I was under the impression it was between 11:00 and 11:30 but she really wasn't sure. Tow truck was there till about 11:15 I believe, Amanda and Raff were in the court waiting for Rudi and the broken down car to leave, Toto is not entirely sure exactly when they left other than it was before he himself left, he didn't see them go, just noticed they were no longer there when he left.

Giampaolo Lombardo who testified that he had arrived at about 23,00 pm with the tow truck after a phone call received at about 22.30 pm, and had loaded the broken-down car and left again at about 23.15 pm: hearing of 27 March 2009).

The people with the car were right there from 10:30 until the truck arrived and he stayed until 11:15 if you believe it only took 15 minutes to hook up and do the paper work needed.

But that takes out the 11 pm scream of Amanda. How could Amanda scream while in the plaza? Did she go down to the cottage after 11:15 run in and discover Meredith and decide... cover-up don't call the police, please.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm watching the video now (good stuff) and they're going over the cognitive bias that people who do fingerprint analysis bring to the process. To demonstrate, they gave the same prints previously identified as a match by an examiner back to the same examiner but changed the facts of the case and in over half of the cases, they overturned their own findings...pretty scary

I suggested at another board that for the sake of separation of duties and to prevent collusion/fraud (and I will now add cognitive bias) that there should be two independent forensic teams:

One should do the collection and assign control numbers to the case and individual pieces of evidence.

The second team who never visits the site, doesn't know who collected the evidence, doesn't know the facts of the case or to whom any of the evidence relates to does the analysis. Then they could input the findings into a computer that could do the matching based on the control numbers and thereby greatly reducing the chance of collusion, fraud or cognitive bias.

Everyone seemed to think that was unnecessary and would drive up costs too high, be impractical, etc. I'm sure there are other cons as well but I'm not so sure it would be more inefficient and it may be worth the extra cost to ensure the integrity of the final product.

Perhaps my limited knowledge of forensics and DNA analysis is overlooking something obvious that would make this impossible

That fingerprint case was rare anomaly. Fingerprints in general constitute sound evidence. It is rare for two people to have the same fingerprint, but nobody knows how rare, and that case showed that it is possible for two people to have fingerprints that are nearly identical.

At some point, you have to evaluate evidence by whether it fits a believable scenario. In the Madrid bombing case, they came up with a database hit on someone who lived thousands of miles away and had no other possible connection except he was a Muslim. A fingerprint match in those circumstances shouldn't be enough.

Overall, I see much more of a problem in lip prints, bite marks, tool marks, dog scents, etc., where consultants simply invent a glib rationale to make the evidence fit whatever the clients wants. I'd love to see a "forensic odontologist" examine an autopsy photo of a bite mark along with 50 sets of reference bite marks, and pick the suspect without knowing which reference sample is his. A fingerprint analyst could do that, but I don't think the odontologist could.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is a really good example of what FOAKERs do over and over, if they can not follow the process of events to their liking, they change the story completely to make it sound untrue. I am tired or repeating myself over and over, just go back and reread what I actually said or don't bother replying, I could play the same game and put words on your mouths that you didn't speak either but what would be the point, you guys do this over and over, I fail to see what you gain by this.

Sherlock, you can't shift he blame on to us just because the theory you have actually stated here is nonsensical. I'm not "making it sound untrue" by any sneaky means, I'm making it sound untrue by pointing out the places where it contradicts well-established, relevant facts or where it pushes Amanda and Raffaele around like chess pieces to get them where you want them to be with no regard for logic.

Smarter people than either of us have made huge idiots of themselves by falling in love with a pet theory, and clinging to it when the evidence turned against it. It's just how the human brain is wired to behave.

It's a terribly seductive idea that you, personally, out of all the people in the world, have with your genius solved a criminal case which baffled everyone else. Wouldn't it be awesome if you, Sherlock_Holmes had done that? Wouldn't it be a rush if somehow last-minute evidence proved that you were exactly right, and everyone else who ever commented on the case, or prosecuted it, or defended it, had to eat crow?

However rationality means placing no weight on how much you want or even need the emotional rush that would come from a theory being true. Rationality means chucking a theory out the moment it contradicts the evidence.

Meredith almost certainly died around 21:05 while Amanda and Raffaele were almost certainly at home until 21:49 at the very earliest (actually we can say with nearly equal certainty that they were at home all night). Any theory trying for a different timeline needs extraordinarily powerful evidence to make us believe something different and your theory simply has none.

I have observed that when confronted with these facts you snip them, you ignore them and you change the subject to one you like better. If you want to call yourself a detective, you can't do that with evidence you don't like.

 

[yimyammer]

Nonsense. I have spent hours piecing the evidence into a big picture that makes sense.

Guede smashed a window and broke in. He was in the place when Meredith got home, as indicated by the toilet he didn't flush.

He attacked her in her room, holding her from behind with a knife held in his right hand, as indicated by her wounds, the bruises on her face, and the bloodstain patterns.

He cut her throat when she was on her knees in front of her closet. He was behind and on top of her, as indicated by the bloodstain patterns and by the nature of her throat wound.

He dragged her into the middle of the room and ripped her bra off while she was still breathing, again as shown by the bloodstain patterns.

He put a pillow under her buttocks, used towels to mop up the floor, removed her pants and raped her, as shown by the crime scene photos, hand print evidence, and DNA evidence.

He cleaned up in the bathroom and left the bloodstains found there.

He went back to her room, took her money, phones and keys, covered her with a quilt, and bolted the premises after locking her door - all shown by what was found at the crime scene.

He was somewhere else at 10:13 as indicated by the fact that her phone connected with a different tower than the one serving the cottage.

That is the big picture, as reconstructed by me and by any number of experts who have studied the crime scene. It's obvious. It is what really happened.

Your approach, in contrast, is to undermine the obvious narrative by drawing rigid conclusions from a few tiny details. The shoe prints supposedly show that someone else locked Meredith's door. The details of the break-in somehow prove it was staged. Blah blah blah. This is how the truthers try to "prove" the US gov't used explosive to demolish the WTC. It is the working method of a crank.

We're all just speculating here, so I'll throw out a thought.

It seems Rudy didn't go in with the intent of rape & murder but surprised Meredith when he came out of the bathroom (most likely when she arrived after he broke in).

That's when she screamed. Perhaps he tried to leave out the front door but it was locked and had to come back to quiet her or the scream caused him to panic and grab her and attempt to subdue/quiet her.

She fights back..

...things escalate...so he pulls out his knife (perhaps he had it out already when he exited the bathroom).

In the whirlwind of trying to control & quiet her from behind with a knife to her neck and/or his hand over her mouth he cuts her, maybe not even fatally at this point (these might be the little cuts).

Now that its only gotten worse, the struggle continues to ensue & realizing he cant just run away because she knows him he makes the split second, fateful decision that he must kill her to keep her quiet.

flame away

 

[yimyammer]

No problem, PIP and PGP it is, I imagine the G stands for Guilty and the I for innocent, what do the 2P's stand for. Presumed and People maybe?

for me it is "Pro Innocence People" and "Pro Guilt People"

 

[yimyammer]

How about "evidence-based commentators"?

Come on now, that's just as strident or worse and won't identify anyone distinctly. Both sides will lay claim to that moniker

 

[Grinder]

Giampaolo Lombardo who testified that he had arrived at about 23,00 pm with the tow truck after a phone call received at about 22.30 pm, and had loaded the broken-down car and left again at about 23.15 pm: hearing of 27 March 2009).

The people with the car were right there from 10:30 until the truck arrived and he stayed until 11:15 if you believe it only took 15 minutes to hook up and do the paper work needed.

But that takes out the 11 pm scream of Amanda. How could Amanda scream while in the plaza? Did she go down to the cottage after 11:15 run in and discover Meredith and decide... cover-up don't call the police, please.

ETA - TOD was moved later when Nara and Curatolo were "found". The original reports had the murder around 10. I still think that she may have lived until 9;45 or so.

when she finally came forward Nara said it was the most terrifying scream she had ever heard. It still sent shivers down her spine yet she didn't call the police at the time. She didn't call the police the next day when the murder became public or the next day or the next day. When she finally went public it was on TV and she said that she heard about the murder the next day at 11 am about two hours before the body was discovered. Using the logic about the closet and Amanda, maybe Nara should have been a suspect.

Nara is of course on the long list of people that had to be lying or wrong. With people like her taken seriously by the ILE is it a surprise that there is a long list.

Now Christian T wasn't allowed to testify because although he had called the police about Rudi breaking into his house he didn't follow-up with a report at the police station. So the person allowed to testify never contacted the police but the one that did about Rudi breaking-in and using a knife wasn't allowed. It would be funny if...

 

[Bill Williams]

Sherlock, you can't shift he blame on to us just because the theory you have actually stated here is nonsensical. I'm not "making it sound untrue" by any sneaky means, I'm making it sound untrue by pointing out the places where it contradicts well-established, relevant facts or where it pushes Amanda and Raffaele around like chess pieces to get them where you want them to be with no regard for logic.

Smarter people than either of us have made huge idiots of themselves by falling in love with a pet theory, and clinging to it when the evidence turned against it. It's just how the human brain is wired to behave.

It's a terribly seductive idea that you, personally, out of all the people in the world, have with your genius solved a criminal case which baffled everyone else. Wouldn't it be awesome if you, Sherlock_Holmes had done that? Wouldn't it be a rush if somehow last-minute evidence proved that you were exactly right, and everyone else who ever commented on the case, or prosecuted it, or defended it, had to eat crow?

However rationality means placing no weight on how much you want or even need the emotional rush that would come from a theory being true. Rationality means chucking a theory out the moment it contradicts the evidence.

Meredith almost certainly died around 21:05 while Amanda and Raffaele were almost certainly at home until 21:49 at the very earliest (actually we can say with nearly equal certainty that they were at home all night). Any theory trying for a different timeline needs extraordinarily powerful evidence to make us believe something different and your theory simply has none.

I have observed that when confronted with these facts you snip them, you ignore them and you change the subject to one you like better. If you want to call yourself a detective, you can't do that with evidence you don't like.

What Kevin said.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, you look at the evidence first, and look to who might fit into what that evidence shows you. You definitely do not have to bent that evidence to fit your version, nor do you have to discredit almost everyone who had anything to do with this case in order for you version of innocence to unfold.

And unless you believe that doing the splits is an indication of guilt, then there is nothing pointing at Amanda and even less pointing at Raffaele. Case closed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pro-innocence and pro-guilt

No problem, PIP and PGP it is, I imagine the G stands for Guilty and the I for innocent, what do the 2P's stand for. Presumed and People maybe?

I assume that the first p stands for pro-, not in the sense of wanting something to be true, but in the sense of thinking that it is true.

 

[yimyammer]

Actually, now that I think about it, that isn't true either because, almost every PIP or PGP I've talked to has said they started out believing the opposite, looked into the evidence and changed their mind, I myself even fall into that.

I'll admit I came into the case with little understanding of the facts and thought it was obvious that Rudy did this alone. I made a post to that effect in the other forum and proceeded to get my head lopped off by everyone who felt the opposite and knew much more about the case, evidence, etc than I did.

I was shocked and it stopped me in my tracks, so I started to follow the case further and to this day I can't shake the nagging feeling that AK/Raf didn't do this.

Its not the type of feeling one gets standing over a roulette wheel "feeling" red or black is about to come, its the offense to my inner sensibilities when reading the PGP argument and not seeing things as they do.

There are some really smart, informed folks who just "know" they're guilty and its made me question my sanity and ability to truly look at the evidence without bias.

In order for some of the PGP's Ive discussed the case with to believe what they believe, they would have to be wrong on many issues and willfully or unwillfully blind to seeing the case in any other way but guilt.

I can't help but wonder at times if I am guilty of the very same thing. I have no dog in this fight except the truth. I don't care if she is guilty or innocent, I just want the final outcome to match the truth.

At the end of the day, I'll trust my own judgement but this case has made me back pedal and be more thorough before I make any final determinations, which I suppose is a good thing

 

[DrTesla]

Interesting take on the 2 sides of a court case. So when someone is on trial for murder, all and any accusations against them are to be taken at face value without scrutiny, because otherwise it is "putting the accusers on trial". Meanwhile anything they say in their defence is assumed to be false, particularly when it provides an innocent explanation for particular details placed as "evidence" against them.

Ever heard of "presumption of innocence" and "burden of proof on the prosecution", Tesla?

yeah, all the time, until I throw up a little bit in my mouth. it starts to seem like a Miss America Contestant platitude after awhile.

you guys don't seem to afford the cops, or Mignini or Dr Stef the presumption of innocence, or think you have the burden of proof in your many accusations of these people.

 

[yimyammer]

That fingerprint case was rare anomaly. Fingerprints in general constitute sound evidence. It is rare for two people to have the same fingerprint, but nobody knows how rare, and that case showed that it is possible for two people to have fingerprints that are nearly identical.

At some point, you have to evaluate evidence by whether it fits a believable scenario. In the Madrid bombing case, they came up with a database hit on someone who lived thousands of miles away and had no other possible connection except he was a Muslim. A fingerprint match in those circumstances shouldn't be enough.

Overall, I see much more of a problem in lip prints, bite marks, tool marks, dog scents, etc., where consultants simply invent a glib rationale to make the evidence fit whatever the clients wants. I'd love to see a "forensic odontologist" examine an autopsy photo of a bite mark along with 50 sets of reference bite marks, and pick the suspect without knowing which reference sample is his. A fingerprint analyst could do that, but I don't think the odontologist could.

Fair enough, are you not troubled by the cognitive bias that was revealed when they re-evaluated the same fingerprints previously identified but now with a different story surrounding the prints, half of the examiners said it was no longer a match?

That is what I think should be attempted to be removed from the process.

Why does the fingerprint evaluator need to know the details of the crime?

 

[Grinder]

I assume that the first p stands for pro-, not in the sense of wanting something to be true, but in the sense of thinking that it is true.

Yes that was the idea when started.

Although in this case there people on both sides fitting the alternative

 

[yimyammer]

ETA - TOD was moved later when Nara and Curatolo were "found". The original reports had the murder around 10. I still think that she may have lived until 9;45 or so.

when she finally came forward Nara said it was the most terrifying scream she had ever heard. It still sent shivers down her spine yet she didn't call the police at the time. She didn't call the police the next day when the murder became public or the next day or the next day. When she finally went public it was on TV and she said that she heard about the murder the next day at 11 am about two hours before the body was discovered. Using the logic about the closet and Amanda, maybe Nara should have been a suspect.

Nara is of course on the long list of people that had to be lying or wrong. With people like her taken seriously by the ILE is it a surprise that there is a long list.

Now Christian T wasn't allowed to testify because although he had called the police about Rudi breaking into his house he didn't follow-up with a report at the police station. So the person allowed to testify never contacted the police but the one that did about Rudi breaking-in and using a knife wasn't allowed. It would be funny if...

was this the reporter:

http://youtu.be/7uG9PGqaWeo

 

[anglolawyer]

I'll admit I came into the case with little understanding of the facts and thought it was obvious that Rudy did this alone. I made a post to that effect in the other forum and proceeded to get my head lopped off by everyone who felt the opposite and knew much more about the case, evidence, etc than I did.

I was shocked and it stopped me in my tracks, so I started to follow the case further and to this day I can't shake the nagging feeling that AK/Raf didn't do this.

Its not the type of feeling one gets standing over a roulette wheel "feeling" red or black is about to come, its the offense to my inner sensibilities when reading the PGP argument and not seeing things as they do.

There are some really smart, informed folks who just "know" they're guilty and its made me question my sanity and ability to truly look at the evidence without bias.

In order for some of the PGP's Ive discussed the case with to believe what they believe, they would have to be wrong on many issues and willfully or unwillfully blind to seeing the case in any other way but guilt.

I can't help but wonder at times if I am guilty of the very same thing. I have no dog in this fight except the truth. I don't care if she is guilty or innocent, I just want the final outcome to match the truth.

At the end of the day, I'll trust my own judgement but this case has made me back pedal and be more thorough before I make any final determinations, which I suppose is a good thing

No there aren't.

 

[Supernaut]

We're all just speculating here, so I'll throw out a thought.

It seems Rudy didn't go in with the intent of rape & murder but surprised Meredith when he came out of the bathroom (most likely when she arrived after he broke in).

The most likely scenario is that Guede was surprised by hearing the front door opening (ETA>) while he was on the crapper. Also, he almost certainly would have had the bathroom light on. Did Meredith go to investigate? Rememer Guede's story about rushing from the bathroom trying to get his pants fastened? Did he chase Meredith into her room? Like you say - we're speculating.

That's when she screamed. Perhaps he tried to leave out the front door but it was locked and had to come back to quiet her or the scream caused him to panic and grab her and attempt to subdue/quiet her.

It's hard to imagine that Meredith didn't scream several times - when Guede confronted her and during the attack. But what's almost certain is that no-one heard or noticed. The only "witness statements" to "hearing a scream" are Amanda's and that of a dotty, hard-of-hearing old lady, this from inside her double-glazed flat 50 metres away, who "came forward" months later at the prompting of the local press.

She fights back..

...things escalate...so he pulls out his knife (perhaps he had it out already when he exited the bathroom).

Guede showed no hesitation in pulling a knife out when Christian Tramontino surprised him burgling the latter's home. I see no no reason to assume Guede didn't preemptively do the same on this occasion.

In the whirlwind of trying to control & quiet her from behind with a knife to her neck and/or his hand over her mouth he cuts her, maybe not even fatally at this point (these might be the little cuts).

Now that its only gotten worse, the struggle continues to ensue & realizing he cant just run away because she knows him he makes the split second, fateful decision that he must kill her to keep her quiet.

flame away

Whatever. Guede ended by slaughtering her as if she were livestock. That takes a particular kind of so-called human-being.

 

[DrTesla]

The problem with luminol seems to be that it reacts with everything.

From my favorite website, murder of Meredith kercher.com:

A popular defence against the claim that the footprints were made in blood is that Luminol also fluoresces with sprayed on some substances other than blood. The reason the Luminol is useful to crime scene reconstruction rests on the fact that the substances that cause false positives are typically not found at crime scenes and in the cases of substances such as some brands of enamel paint the false positive is easy to detect because the reaction is not limited to a blood deposit pattern but covers the entire affected surface. In our case the Luminol reaction were in the shape of feet with three of the traces having succinct details to identify them as footprints compatible with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The footprints were also limited to the part of the corridor between Meredith and Amanda's room and were not found anywhere else in the cottage. This would allow us to eliminate reactions to paint or to terracotta or ceramic elements in the tile

 

[yimyammer]

No there aren't.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, just because someone may be intelligent and knowledgeable in regard to one subject doesn't make them so on all subjects (or could have been said inversely).

I've noticed a lot of folks that haven prove to be intelligent in one or various subjects can become arrogant and in becoming arrogant think they are just as learned in all subjects. As a result, they become blind and belligerent and are unable to ever see a scenario in which they could be mistaken or wrong. Perhaps this is what you mean and as a result it disqualifies them from being intelligent on any subject?

 

[Dan O.]

Someone asked me to pick one piece and I pick the footprint that bothered me the most. Again, I fail to see how anyone can look at all the evidence and come to the conclusion she was not somehow involved.

It's a process of actually looking at the evidence and how it ties in with the evidence around it. An isolated footprint with no blood, no DNA, that cannot be positively matched to any individual, that cannot be dated and may not even be the print of a foot has little if any evidentiary value.

I did experiments, what are you talking about, and I have never said it was impossible, just highly improbable. You don't think using a set of keys that you have no idea if they are even for that door would make it even more unlikely you don't turn around and face the door you are trying to lock?

Do you realize that our knowledge of the evidence has changed since then? That was a theory based on the position of the footprints that was known at the time. In the last few days I have updated our knowledge by mapping the orientations of the foot prints and deducing their sequence from the degree of fading.

The original theory was that Rudy would test the room key in the lock while the door is open and where the room light helps him see. To do that, he would be standing just about where the prints 5B and 5C are. When those prints were mapped they were facing the other way. This completely destroyed that argument but I published the result anyway. I am not afraid of the truth.