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

[Bill Williams]

Doubt it , she put her nose to the keyhole and failed to smell the large quantity of blood, (Matt made the point that blood has a metallic smell). Speaking of that why did she write in her book she saw nothing looking through the key hole? Earlier she had seen the purse on the bed. These edits for the books that both Sollecito and Amanda have made do nothing to help their cause.

She wasn't a wasp. If she had been, she could not just have smelled the blood through the key hole but flown through it and taken a looksee. Can you remember how many of those who showed up next day reported smelling the blood? That would be none, right?

Once again, Briars shows this tunnel-vision and fixation on Knox. It's not just the "smelling the blood" issue that no one else smelled...

.... then again Briars is not fixated upon Postal Police Battistelli who (like you say AL) himself did not smell blood....

It's even worse than this. Given Briars' criterion for smelling out guilt, there's this issue of "delaying finding the body", not to mention that people know things they are not telling us.

This is where I heavily suspect that Postal Police Battistelli is involved in this crime. Battistelli knows something he's not telling us ("Knowing something he/she's not telling us," is another ideological sorting hat....)

Note how at Filomena's insistence, Battistelli, too, refused to knock down Meredith's door. Does he know something he's not telling us? Is he trying to delay the discovery of the body?

 

[Briars]

She wasn't a wasp. If she had been, she could not just have smelled the blood through the key hole but flown through it and taken a look see. Can you remember how many of those who showed up next day reported smelling the blood? That would be none, right?

Amanda and Sollecito led the tour of the bathrooms and Filomena's room. The PP were busy looking at the room 'where nothing was missing'. They initially imagined the burglar had cut himself in the bathroom. They were not told about the purse on the bed , they were led to believe Meredith ofter locked her door. Amanda had no need to go into the large bathroom, her hair that morning did not have the smooth appearance of a blow dry. It had the look of a wash and no time or bother to dry.

 

[Grinder]

Absolutely not. Contacts trhough judges or in official venues (like tests in the incidente probatorio) are something totally different. If they had contacts with an external, unofficial experts that influenced thir report, 1) they committed a crime and 2) their report is trash.

What is an unofficial expert? Were C&V official proper experts?

If C or V talked with one of their research fellows at the university would that be a criminal violation? What about the other technicians besides Stefanoni at the lab?

What would be the logic of making it a crime to try to get things correct?

Were they allowed to use reference books or work only from rote.

 

[Bill Williams]

This would be a very serious crime. The crime would be committed by Vecchiotti and Conti.

If judge-appointed experts have any informal contact with other experts - but especially with experts linked to the defence or who already expressed a view on the case - that would be a very serious crime, and it would cause their report to become trash paper in any Italian trial.

Is the Italian system REALLY this prejudicial to the defence that court appointed experts are not even allowed to talk to them, outside of the oversight of the prosecution or the court?

I tend to disbelieve you, Machiavelli. Because to believe you would be to accept that the Italian court system is corrupt, simply on this point alone.

Take 30 seconds, everyone, and think through what Machiavelli has just claimed.

They're not even allowed to call a buddy ( a fellow expert) in the middle of the night and say, "Hey Bobby, I've been laying awake wondering about LCN tests and I hear you gave some experience in this... can you fill me in on....."?

Machiavelli - are you REALLY claiming that the Italian system is this corrupt to disallow that? That calling a buddy in the middle of the night for more information is a crime?

 

[Briars]

She wasn't a wasp. If she had been, she could not just have smelled the blood through the key hole but flown through it and taken a look see. Can you remember how many of those who showed up next day reported smelling the blood? That would be none, right?

Amanda and Sollecito led the tour of the bathrooms and Filomena's room. The PP were busy looking at the room 'where nothing was missing'. They initially imagined the burglar had cut himself in the bathroom. They were not told about the purse on the bed , they were led to believe Meredith ofter locked her door. Amanda had no need to go into the large bathroom, her hair that morning did not have the smooth appearance of a blow dry. It had the look of a wash and no time or bother to dry.

 

[anglolawyer]

Amanda and Sollecito led the tour of the bathrooms and Filomena's room. The PP were busy looking at the room 'where nothing was missing'. They initially imagined the burglar had cut himself in the bathroom. They were not told about the purse on the bed , they were led to believe Meredith ofter locked her door. Amanda had no need to go into the large bathroom, her hair that morning did not have the smooth appearance of a blow dry. It had the look of a wash and no time or bother to dry.

Let's stick to one thing at a time. Follain, Kindle version, p.72 has Luca Altieri look through the keyhole. All he could glimpse was part of a bed and a wall. He did not report smelling blood. Isn't this enough to convince you your point is a bad one? If not, why not?

 

[Bill Williams]

What is an unofficial expert? Were C&V official proper experts?

If C or V talked with one of their research fellows at the university would that be a criminal violation? What about the other technicians besides Stefanoni at the lab?

What would be the logic of making it a crime to try to get things correct?

Were they allowed to use reference books or work only from rote.

They were only allowed to consult with Stefanoni or Stef's boss. And they were bound by law to accept Stefanoni's results and explanations of how she got them. That's what Mach is saying....

 

[Grinder]

Amanda and Sollecito led the tour of the bathrooms and Filomena's room. The PP were busy looking at the room 'where nothing was missing'. They initially imagined the burglar had cut himself in the bathroom. They were not told about the purse on the bed , they were led to believe Meredith ofter locked her door. Amanda had no need to go into the large bathroom, her hair that morning did not have the smooth appearance of a blow dry. It had the look of a wash and no time or bother to dry.

The PGP theory has always been that Amanda wanted to be there when the body was found. Why would she not mention the purse if she wanted the door broken down?

Why did she say anything at all and why would she change the story now if it is so incriminating?

At what point did it look like a natural dry? Did she complete the dry or decide it was time to vamous?

Yes, clearly she lied about her hair care. Instead of saying that she went for the dryer and smelled the poop and decided to get out of there she lied and said she dried her hair. Obviously, you have observed that her hair wasn't dried so when she made up the story why would she add that detail?

At some point the PGP need to make sense out of her lies in terms of her evil plot.

 

[Grinder]

They were only allowed to consult with Stefanoni or Stef's boss. And they were bound by law to accept Stefanoni's results and explanations of how she got them. That's what Mach is saying....

Please let Mach answer, he doesn't need your book learned help

They had many others in the lab and they worked at their own lab with technicians. Mach is saying they could not deal directly with Stefanoni either.

 

[Briars]

The point of smelling blood has only surfaced recently by a new poster. I found it interesting as can detect that odor in smaller quantities.That may be a gift limited to a small portion of the population, so its not a big point. Certainly the purse/no purse through the keyhole contradiction is more important. Also more important is the little discussed knowledge that the hair drying station was in a separate room not near the toilet. Did Amanda stop drying her hair walk into the bathroom to find the smell and then leave it ?? The fake shower with the side trip to the other bathroom where there was no evidence that she styled her hair is also more important than smelling blood.

 

[anglolawyer]

The point of smelling blood has only surfaced recently by a new poster. I found it interesting as can detect that odor in smaller quantities.That may be a gift limited to a small portion of the population, so its not a big point. Certainly the purse/no purse through the keyhole contradiction is more important. Also more important is the little discussed knowledge that the hair drying station was in a separate room not near the toilet. Did Amanda stop drying her hair walk into the bathroom to find the smell and then leave it ?? The fake shower with the side trip to the other bathroom where there was no evidence that she styled her hair is also more important than smelling blood.

It's not a point at all. Please tell whoever brought that up to forget about it completely. You will be doing them a favour. The interesting thing about it is your willingness to parrot it uncritically. I'll pass on your other points until you explain them properly.

 

[Bill Williams]

The point of smelling blood has only surfaced recently by a new poster. I found it interesting as can detect that odor in smaller quantities.That may be a gift limited to a small portion of the population, so its not a big point. Certainly the purse/no purse through the keyhole contradiction is more important. Also more important is the little discussed knowledge that the hair drying station was in a separate room not near the toilet. Did Amanda stop drying her hair walk into the bathroom to find the smell and then leave it ?? The fake shower with the side trip to the other bathroom where there was no evidence that she styled her hair is also more important than smelling blood.

What it points to is the tendency of PGP to search for even the smallest thing Knox did or didn't do and harp on about it as if it has something to do with something. It is Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox, Knox and more Knox.

Why not look at evidence and see if it converges on something? Oooops, if you do that, then Rudy must have don't this alone.

Please remember what it was that pulled this off the rails. "Knox buckled and told us what we already knew." This fetish about Knox, that "Knox knows something she's not telling us," creates great fiction, but does nothing for the Kerchers who actually do deserve to know what happened to their kin.

 

[GWCarver]

OK, I'm caught up. Amanda is guilty because she can smell an unflushed dump in a toilet but not blood through a keyhole, blood that none of the other people in the hallway smelled either.

I wonder how many people actually can recognize the smell of blood? I certainly have no idea how it smells.

 

[Dan O.]

Amanda and Sollecito led the tour of the bathrooms and Filomena's room. The PP were busy looking at the room 'where nothing was missing'. They initially imagined the burglar had cut himself in the bathroom. They were not told about the purse on the bed , they were led to believe Meredith ofter locked her door. Amanda had no need to go into the large bathroom, her hair that morning did not have the smooth appearance of a blow dry. It had the look of a wash and no time or bother to dry.

Basically Brairs, I think you are being dishonest. There's is in fact nothing visibly missing from the open rooms of the cottage. There are in fact a number of high profile objects that one would expect to be stolen in a burglary that were in plane sight in each of the open rooms. The stated claim that nothing was stollen is totally accurat for a first impression.

The locked door/closed door issue has been discussed at length. Without physically trying to open the door it is not possible to distinguish between a locked door and a closed door. Italians don't even have significantly different words for it. And it doesn't make a bit of sense. What is it that the PGP say about this issue? That Amanda is trying to delay discovery?! After already calling the police!? Are you joking??

How do you know nothing was taken? Have you checked the photos of the three bedrooms that were open. In both Amanda's and Laura's rooms we see a laptop computer sitting in the open on a desk. These are things one would expect a thief to have taken.

It is claimed that there was also a laptop in Filomena's room. This was part of the evidence at the scene, Filomena testifies that it was there, but its not in any of the photos. Do you know what happened to Filomena's laptop?

Now you are an expert on hair appearance? Can you point to an unbiased study that shows the difference between blow dried and wind blown hair? I doubt that you consulted any references for this claim. I suspect this is a case where you take any factoid and spin it towards guilt. Actually, I know you did no such thing. Someone else made this claim and you bought it with absolutely no validation because it confirmed your bias towards guilt. These claims that you make say so much more about you than being arguments for guilt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Basically Brairs, I think you are being dishonest. There's is in fact nothing visibly missing from the open rooms of the cottage. There are in fact a number of high profile objects that one would expect to be stolen in a burglary that were in plane sight in each of the open rooms. The stated claim that nothing was stollen is totally accurat for a first impression.

<.......... sinister deletia ...........>

It is claimed that there was also a laptop in Filomena's room. This was part of the evidence at the scene, Filomena testifies that it was there, but its not in any of the photos. Do you know what happened to Filomena's laptop?

As far as simple suspicion goes... If Knox was suspected because she was a keyholder, had only her boyfriend as an alibi AND admitted to being at the scene all alone on the morning of Nov 2, then Filomena was a keyholder, had her boyfriend as her alibi AND ........ fill in the blank about the laptop and you'll get my drift.

The big difference is that Filomena was, what, 29 and worked in a law office. Knox was a naive foreigner who thought she could help.

 

[Sonia]

It is claimed that there was also a laptop in Filomena's room. This was part of the evidence at the scene, Filomena testifies that it was there, but its not in any of the photos. Do you know what happened to Filomena's laptop?

Dempsey talks about a computer that Filomena took from her room on Nov 2. Is this the laptop?

"Filomena carried her computer out of the cottage and put it into the back of Marco’s car. At the questura, incredulous police would take it away from her, asking her what she had been thinking, removing objects from a crime scene. When she got it back, something strange had happened to the hard drive and she would be hard-pressed to recover the contents."

Dempsey, Candace (2010-04-27). Murder in Italy: Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher, and the Murder Trial that Shocked the World (p. 77). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.

 

[Briars]

Basically Brairs, I think you are being dishonest. There's is in fact nothing visibly missing from the open rooms of the cottage. There are in fact a number of high profile objects that one would expect to be stolen in a burglary that were in plane sight in each of the open rooms. The stated claim that nothing was stollen is totally accurat for a first impression.

The locked door/closed door issue has been discussed at length. Without physically trying to open the door it is not possible to distinguish between a locked door and a closed door. Italians don't even have significantly different words for it. And it doesn't make a bit of sense. What is it that the PGP say about this issue? That Amanda is trying to delay discovery?! After already calling the police!? Are you joking??

How do you know nothing was taken? Have you checked the photos of the three bedrooms that were open. In both Amanda's and Laura's rooms we see a laptop computer sitting in the open on a desk. These are things one would expect a thief to have taken.

It is claimed that there was also a laptop in Filomena's room. This was part of the evidence at the scene, Filomena testifies that it was there, but its not in any of the photos. Do you know what happened to Filomena's laptop?

Now you are an expert on hair appearance? Can you point to an unbiased study that shows the difference between blow dried and wind blown hair? I doubt that you consulted any references for this claim. I suspect this is a case where you take any factoid and spin it towards guilt. Actually, I know you did no such thing. Someone else made this claim and you bought it with absolutely no validation because it confirmed your bias towards guilt. These claims that you make say so much more about you than being arguments for guilt.

Dan I won't return the favor and call you dishonest you just don't know certain things. Any women could tell you that a blow dry and brush is used to achieve a smooth and styled finish. Bill who do you think is actually obsessed with Amanda?

 

[yimyammer]

That page is nothing but an opinion poll of the uninformed masses. If you search the site you will find that they also conduct 1 on 1 debates and one such debate was a clear victory for innocence.*

Perhaps so, I just think its interesting how so many people are passionately convinced of her & Rafs guilt, its not just on this site, its quite widespread, what the exact break down between PIP's & PGP's are, I dont know, its not really my point. Truth isn't a popularity contest, so however it breaks down is irrelevant to me.

I don't believe either format is the proper way to search for the truth. In the debate, neither side had anywhere near the depth of understanding of the evidence that we have here. Even here we spend an awful lot of energy rehashing the same things over and over. I've always believed there ought to be a better way.

Over thirty years ago I was interviewed by a young debater where somehow the topic of the role of computers in debate came up. My view then as it is today was was that it would not be the computer's artificial intelegence that would be important but the simple basics of the computers's ability to store and organize information. I envisioned then a form of truth machine where each issue could be broken down into ever finer grains until an item was so simple that the truth could be formally proven or shown through repeatable tests. When I started looking at Wikipedia I realized that the wiki software would form a suitable base for the truth machine that I envisioned.*

Interesting, I like the idea of organizing the facts and evidence as you've already started. I'm not wild about the WIKI layout. I'd like to see a well designed site with a more attractive and visually enjoyable design that could be divided into different categories/pages such as

Known Indisputable Facts - Ex: crime occurred in Perugia, Meredith Kercher was the victim

Evidence not in dispute - Ex: Rudy Guedes DNA in MK's room

Controversial Evidence - Rafs DNA and then have it broken down into two columns where each sides arguments are displayed

Noise - Ex: the meaning and origination of "Foxy Knoxy"

Players - Ex: Mignini, his background, bio, etc

Everything would have to be sourced and there would be no speculation allowed, a mere compilation of the facts properly sourced. I'm sure there are much better ways of organizing it, that's just a stab. I realize the wiki is kind of doing this, I'm just not wild about the layout, etc

I tell you man, this case has me so curious and frustrated at times that I've seriously contemplated moving over there to study Italian, work for a good chef and while I'm there learn how the italian culture works, watch and learn the legal system, visit Perugia and the cottage (pay the tenant to let me video myself climbing through and into that damn window) and then ultimately finding a way to see all the source docs and evidence and perhaps if I learned enough Italian, I could understand the transcripts. Post everything I find to your wiki or other website for the world to see

I'm so frustrated by the media and sources that seem to always have a spin or bias or conflict of interest that makes one doubt the veracity of what they claim. I'd like to see a site called Truth or something started where the unvarnished fully documented truth regarding a variety of subjects could be provided. Seems like if someone did that, it would draw a lot of interest, then again, they probably wouldn't because thats not controversial enough and people like drama. Vice is a nice site in that vein and it looks like its paying off for them

But the wiki only stores and organized the information it is given. It does not track down the source of the information. It does not form the arguments and counter arguments. For these tasks it still needs people. These are the tasks that we love.*

It sure would be handy if your truth machine could do this.

Where I'm at now (and have been for some time) is deciding how to move the wiki forward. The wiki is currently hosted on a borrowed plan which is the primary reason for not making it publicly accessible. I could acquire my own hosting but am reluctant to make such an investment if people aren't going to use it. I've looked at Google sites but their wiki is missing some key functionality.*I could piggyback on another site but the wiki should be independent of sites advocating innocence or guilt. The facts define their own side.

I agree with the need for independence, hard to find someone interested enough to manage it that's not already polarized one way or the other, imo

 

[anglolawyer]

Yimyammer

The best way to learn about relevant Italian culture would be to move to Perugia and hang outside the questura with a sign board accusing the cops of corruption. You could then learn Italian at Capanne university for free and give us the inside dope after a few years.

 

[yimyammer]

Next we have Amanda and Meredith arguing. The only evidence for this is from Rudy, not exactly a reliable source. He also claims that the two were arguing in Italian, which is how he knew what they were saying. Trouble is again, Amanda's Italian was extremely poor and if she and Meredith were arguing it would be far more logical that they would do so in the language that was native to them both, English.

we know that Rudy drank from a carton of Orange Juice. When did he do this in your timeline? I find it hard to believe he did it after the attack and not even someone with terrible manners is going to grab a carton and drink from it in someone else's home when the owners are right there. For me this would only happen if the owners were not there, so done when Rudy was alone, but the only time you have him alone is during the attack.

I find these observations to be quite compelling and savvy, nice job.

I like this kind of thinking and I would think it would be difficult for rational open minded folks not to agree with these observations regardless of where one stood on the issue of guilt or innocence