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

[Grinder]

I was going to correct you on that MySpace page not working, because it just so happens I had visited it yesterday or the day before, but it turns out you're right! That Myspace page was taken down in the last day or so. I recall when I looked at it that it hadn't been updated since 2009, so it seemed to be abandoned, I wonder what caused him to take it down in the last day or so?

At any rate here's the latest archive of it from the Wayback machine from 2009.

Maybe someone from the PGP decided to contact him again and he had enough

Who or what is JOH?

It was already described up-thread to those that read something but books

He is the sole genesis of the 'rape prank theory.' He posted the message Grinder quoted above (note it says nothing about rape) on a comments section in 2007 and The Cheshire Cat (PG) contacted him and said she 'verified' it.

Then the tale grew in the telling....

I assume it is the initials of the person posting.

No that's his first name.

Thanks. Good job someone reliable and independent followed it up.

 

[Bill Williams]

He is the sole genesis of the 'rape prank theory.' He posted the message Grinder quoted above (note it says nothing about rape) on a comments section in 2007 and The Cheshire Cat (PG) contacted him and said she 'verified' it.

Then the tale grew in the telling....

Thanks. Good job someone reliable and independent followed it up.

I think this thing, as an internet phenomenon, has been unprecedented. The sheer number of these things that have gone viral, with little (if any) basis is compelling.

Like Sex on a Train. There's no basis for it, but man oh man is it a great story to be passed on for those intent on vilifying someone else.

It's why, for me, it's important to challenge folk like Leila and Machiavelli who compose elaborate narratives based on the phrase, "It's plausible that....." Machiavelli built this whole narrative about Guede being a pimp and one of the occupants of the cottage being his prostitute on this very basis... he claims it was known that within the student population of Perugia that some would trade sex for drugs, and Machiavelli concluded that, "it then becomes plausible that..." Guede was so-and-so's pimp.

Leila has just ventured an opinion that the reason that there are no forensics pointing to Knox in the murder room (no one pointed out to her, though, that she then actually concedes the point!) is because when the knife started to inflict bloody injuries, Knox and Sollecito retreated to the hall. Someone else pointed out to her that this, then, heavily implies that the bathmat footprint is Guede's.....

...... but the reasoning put forth was always couched in, "it's plausible that.....", mainly put that way so that they can let themselves off the hook for actually having to prove it.

The "rape-prank" myth is yet another of the "mountain of evidence" which when put under the microscope becomes a grain of sand in that mountain which is not there. The question is: if all such grains of sand contribute to the sheer size of the mythos which has developed on this - if all these grains disappear, is the mountain still there?

 

[yimyammer]

More of discussing anything but the actual case:

All three killers exhibited high-risk behaviour prior to the assault. Sollecito collected animal porn. Knox hosted wild parties. Guede allegedly peddled drugs in Perugia.

Let's see, Knox was given a noise ticket once, Raf had some porn on his computer ar a younger age and Rudi was "alleged" to peddle drugs and these are "high" risk behaviors.

They go gone to once again bring up the "alleged" ski mask prank that had no basis other than a comment on a blog.

Except if you carry out a brutal 'prank / hazing', with knives and sexual assault, on the night of 1 November, and leave the victim alive, you're arrested no later than 2 November and you've gone and added water to your Acme Instant Boulder Pellet while holding it over your own head. Golden Future kaput. (The alleged 'ski mask prank' in Seattle just consisted of masked men enlisted by Knox bursting into her female housemate's room -- and then going, 'Surprise!' or whatever. Nasty, very, but this particular 'hazing' at 7 Pergola was, even at the minimum, a lot worse than that, and Knox was not in her hometown comfort zone, even if her shag-of-the-week assured her that his family was rich and 'connected' and could make the cops go away.)

ETA - more breaking news - Then there is all the other aspects of his life that are red flags. A mother that committed suicide, a family that is associated with organized crime, the ridiculous degree of helicopter patenting his dad demonstrates, Raffaele's sexual inexperience, braggadocious drug consumption, previous consequence free issues with the law, completely directionless in life and dependent on his family for everything, etc.

Lastly, and quite important is that there is very strong evidence that Sollecito has stabbed a girl before Meredith and that it was all covered up so he escaped consequence free from that as well.

This sounds like the PGP from my poker forum.

Where do these guys get this stuff? All I could ever see is some vague reference to these events but no concrete verifiable evidence of the events described from a reliable source.

Who among us could withstand this level of scrutiny?

Porn on a guys computer....shocking!

It almost seems like there is some type of psychological reason why some people want her to be guilty, perhaps so they can justifiably vent their hatred and or personal unhappiness in righteous indignation toward someone other than themselves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

falsehoods about Mr. Sollecito

I know of zero evidence that Mr. Sollecito's mother committed suicide, and I strongly suspect that this is simply false. Also, the PGP used to say that he was a virgin before meeting Ms. Knox, but now it is "inexperience." Perhaps someone actually read Mr. Sollecito's book and realized that he or she was wrong.

 

[GreyFox]

!

It almost seems like there is some type of psychological reason why some people want her to be guilty, perhaps so they can justifiably vent their hatred and or personal unhappiness in righteous indignation toward someone other than themselves.

Because that's what stalkers do. They become obsessed with their victim and make reasons up to justify why their victim is worthy of the punishment they want to give them! I just never knew they schooled together like fish until this case.

 

[GreyFox]

What I would like to know is how anyone can look at that foot print on the bath mat and try to pin point who's foot it is. To me it's just a smudged ,diluted foot print that tell's ....nothing !

 

[codyjuneau]

Because that's what stalkers do. They become obsessed with their victim and make reasons up to justify why their victim is worthy of the punishment they want to give them! I just never knew they schooled together like fish until this case.

.
Evolution, they hunt in cyber packs now.
.

 

[Dan O.]

What I would like to know is how anyone can look at that foot print on the bath mat and try to pin point who's foot it is. To me it's just a smudged ,diluted foot print that tell's ....nothing !

It dosen't tell nothing. This print is in Meredith's blood and it is desernable as a bare footprint. It is part of the story of what happened the night Meredith was murdered.

The pattern shows the ball of the foot clearly and the big toe but not all of the small toes and not the heal. The print appears to be made in diluted blood and along the outside edge the mat is saturated showing a flow of diluted blood onto the mat.

I've proposed a mechanism that would produce this very pattern. If blood is rinsed off the outside right pant leg with the leg bent and the big toe pointing down, the diluted blood will flow onto the bottom of the foot and down to the big toe but would not coat the little toe because this would require the mixture to flow uphill. If this foot is then placed on the bath mat, the liquid would continue to drip off the pant cuff saturating the outer edge.

Some suggest that the rinsing operation took place over the bidet. This might be because the stain was found on the edge of the mat in front of the bidet. But the drip rubbed off on the edge of the door entering the bathroom indicates that the blood on the pants was higher than what the bidet would reach. And the mat could have been rotated when Amanda returned it after her morning boogie ride. The shower would easily handle the rinsing operation and be easily self cleaned afterwards.

The shower episode then also fits into the larger timeline of events that evening. The bloody footprints on the pillow case and the bloody footprints leading out of Meredith's room and into the living room all appear to have been made with diluted blood. This suggests the sequence was attack and stabbing leaving Meredith bleeding and on her left sholder facing the wardrobe - washing up in the bathroom possibly returning with a towel soaked in the bloody water from the pants - transfering the bloody water to the left shoe perhaps by stepping on the towel - moving Meredith's body resulting in ripping off her bra and loosing the clasp under the pillow which is stepped on several times - walk out turning around at the front door and returning to the living room.

Other events need to be worked in such as searching Meredith's purse, taking her phones and credit card, locking the bedroom door, leaving the second partial trail of prints in whole blood, unlocking the front door and leaving the cottage. But markers for these events have not been found to fix their position in the timeline.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

[/HILITE]


Because that's what stalkers do. They become obsessed with their victim and make reasons up to justify why their victim is worthy of the punishment they want to give them! I just never knew they schooled together like fish until this case.

That's a very apt comparison.

Especially so since as a group they've shown an unhealthy interest in stalking anyone who effectively speaks out against their hate campaign.

 

[JREF2010]

It dosen't tell nothing. This print is in Meredith's blood and it is desernable as a bare footprint. It is part of the story of what happened the night Meredith was murdered.

The pattern shows the ball of the foot clearly and the big toe but not all of the small toes and not the heal. The print appears to be made in diluted blood and along the outside edge the mat is saturated showing a flow of diluted blood onto the mat.

I've proposed a mechanism that would produce this very pattern. If blood is rinsed off the outside right pant leg with the leg bent and the big toe pointing down, the diluted blood will flow onto the bottom of the foot and down to the big toe but would not coat the little toe because this would require the mixture to flow uphill. If this foot is then placed on the bath mat, the liquid would continue to drip off the pant cuff saturating the outer edge.

Some suggest that the rinsing operation took place over the bidet. This might be because the stain was found on the edge of the mat in front of the bidet. But the drip rubbed off on the edge of the door entering the bathroom indicates that the blood on the pants was higher than what the bidet would reach. And the mat could have been rotated when Amanda returned it after her morning boogie ride. The shower would easily handle the rinsing operation and be easily self cleaned afterwards.

The shower episode then also fits into the larger timeline of events that evening. The bloody footprints on the pillow case and the bloody footprints leading out of Meredith's room and into the living room all appear to have been made with diluted blood. This suggests the sequence was attack and stabbing leaving Meredith bleeding and on her left sholder facing the wardrobe - washing up in the bathroom possibly returning with a towel soaked in the bloody water from the pants - transfering the bloody water to the left shoe perhaps by stepping on the towel - moving Meredith's body resulting in ripping off her bra and loosing the clasp under the pillow which is stepped on several times - walk out turning around at the front door and returning to the living room.

Other events need to be worked in such as searching Meredith's purse, taking her phones and credit card, locking the bedroom door, leaving the second partial trail of prints in whole blood, unlocking the front door and leaving the cottage. But markers for these events have not been found to fix their position in the timeline.

I think its highly possible the print was a wet sock, not barefoot. Of course pure fictional guessing, but socks wet,,will add a mask like distortion to the foot pattern too.

if they had only focused more on Rudy, and Maresca hadn't protected him as a prosecution witness, we'd all know so much more.
if they instead had made deals for him to tell the truth , he might have...

instead it seems the court system helped him with a reduced sentence for lying.

 

[JREF2010]

This sounds like the PGP from my poker forum.

Where do these guys get this stuff? All I could ever see is some vague reference to these events but no concrete verifiable evidence of the events described from a reliable source.

Who among us could withstand this level of scrutiny?

Porn on a guys computer....shocking!

QUOTE]

It comes up a lot in this case, this sex issue, the judgemental obsessed with sex comments.
Isnt it funny we can watch people splattered in the news, CSI gruesome effects on TV....but shant see a bare butt or boobs or a penus! oh no no no...no naked bodys that's ..well its evil...LOL how strange..

That friend Paxton, said something really well about having a bunch of sex or no sex or whatever has nothing to do with Merediths murder.
She actually had several good lines throughout this bizarre witch hunt.

 

[Dan O.]

I think its highly possible the print was a wet sock, not barefoot. Of course pure fictional guessing, but socks wet,,will add a mask like distortion to the foot pattern too.

I would disagree on two grounds. Unless it's a very thin sock, wicking would pull the bloody water mix up to the small toes. But also, if someone is going to the trouble of removing their shoe to wash the pants, they are going to pull off the sock too. The exception of course would be if Rudy was wearing pantyhose it would both be thin enough to not show noticeable wicking and be impractical to remove.

 

[RandyN]

Just wanted to say something about that type of lock. It is more or less a standard type of lock in most of Europe. For example, here in Germany you will find it on virtually every door, with the exception of inside-the-flat doors, but even then the general "style" of the lock is the same (i.e. handle at the top that can be pushed down to open the door, and the locking mechanism at the bottom for the key, just that the inside-ddors usually have the actual lock inside the assembly, instead of a separate cylinder, and are also much less safe).

The thing where the cylinder goes in is the "Einsteckschloß". You can see images of such here on the German Wikipedia. Note that in the first image you see what i referred to as the type often used on inside doors. The next one (for the interior view) is one where you have to put the cylinder in.

Those "Einsteckschlösser" come in various versions, one of them with what they called "Anti-Panik" mechanism. This allows to unlock the thing without a key from the inside only.

As for the cylinder, there are various length. The _standard_ length does not allow to have keys in both sides. If you put a key in on one side, and just slightly rotate it, you are unable to insert the key fully from the other side, effectively locking everyone else out. Only slightly longer cylinders allow for that.

Again, this king of lock combination is bog standard over here, unlike the US, where (from i have seen) completely different types of locks are used.

Greetings,

Chris

Hi Chris,

So I looked at the wiki and still don't quite understand this lock. It seems to be a combination of what we call a dead bolt lock ...that is a bolt type bar that projects out from the door and slides into a matching hole in the door jam. This is the most secure type of lock and is harder to defeat by kicking, prying, credit card slipping etc...this lock always opens from the outside by key or perhaps a code and electronic movement. From the inside it is never opened by the key or code...but rather a simple twist knob...in fact it is illegal to have a lock that requires a key from the inside...it is simply a foolish hazard that could trap someone inside their own home in an emergency such as a fire...

Are you telling me that Europeans are not aware of this danger? Such a common sense safety item it seems so unlikely.

We have laws against walk-in cooler and freezer doors as well...they must have opening mechanisms on the inside in case someone gets closed inside the cooler...it is usually a push button type affair...

So you could technically leave your home and lock your children inside and there would be no way for them to get out without a key? That seems just wrong.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Hi Chris,

So I looked at the wiki and still don't quite understand this lock. It seems to be a combination of what we call a dead bolt lock ...that is a bolt type bar that projects out from the door and slides into a matching hole in the door jam.

[...snip...]
Are you telling me that Europeans are not aware of this danger? Such a common sense safety item it seems so unlikely.

Uh, no. These locks have two "bolts" actually. One (at the top) is actuaded by the handle (but can also pulled back by the key or cylinder/key), the other (at the bottom) with either a key (for simlpe in house locks) or a cylinder/key combination (usually for outside/front doors, but sometimes found inside as well).

The upper "bolt" is also not just a bar, it has one side angled, so one can close the door by just pushing it (or slamming it, whatever one prefers). Most front doors have only one manual handle, on the inside, while on the outside a fixed, that is "non movable" knob. That way you can open the door from the inside without a key, but need a key from the outside. Inside doors have a manual handle on both sides.

Only if you actually lock it with the key or cyclinder/key, it really is locked, i.e. you can no longer open the door just with the manual handle. However, there are variations that allow the lower bolt/bar to be retracted if the manual handle is used on the inside, but they are rare.

Hope that cleared things up a bit.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dan O.]

[imgl]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444c523152d07ef.jpg[/imgl]This lock does require a key to lock and unlock from the inside. We have a very good set of pictures that Charlie recently posted showing the key cylinder on both sides. One could argue that it would be possible to link the inside handle to the deadbolt release thus not requiring a key to unlock the door. But if that were the case then there would also be no need for the key cylinder on the inside as a simple thumb turn would be sufficient.

In the US, there is an exception to the inside key rule when there is a glass panel in the door or an adjacent window that would permit reaching in to unlock the door from the outside.


BTW: the lock set on the cottage door has 4 bolts. There are 2 remote deadbolts activated by the inside handle but these have been disabled by somebody (probably Laura's handyman friend) jamming the latch with a piece of wood.

 

[Christian Klippel]

[imgl]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444c523152d07ef.jpg[/imgl]This lock does require a key to lock and unlock from the inside. We have a very good set of pictures that Charlie recently posted showing the key cylinder on both sides. One could argue that it would be possible to link the inside handle to the deadbolt release thus not requiring a key to unlock the door. But if that were the case then there would also be no need for the key cylinder on the inside as a simple thumb turn would be sufficient.

In the US, there is an exception to the inside key rule when there is a glass panel in the door or an adjacent window that would permit reaching in to unlock the door from the outside.


BTW: the lock set on the cottage door has 4 bolts. There are 2 remote deadbolts activated by the inside handle but these have been disabled by somebody (probably Laura's handyman friend) jamming the latch with a piece of wood.

I guess the image you posted is part of dsc_0020.jpg, right? In the full image You can see the manual handle right above the cylinder. That someone jammed that bolt is unfortunate, because yes, then only the key can be used. But that is not how it normally should be.

Over here, it is _standard_ that the cylinder is on both sides, thumb turn's are somewhat unusual here. They exist, but are not the default. Default is a single cylinder that can be operated with a key from both sides, for the lower bolt, and a manual handle for the upper bolt (while, as said, usually the upper bolt can be retracted as well by using the cylinder, in addition to the manual handle).

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Grinder]

If I understand the lock conversation correctly and the front door could be locked in such a way that one would need a key from the inside to get out, it would seem reasonable for Meredith to have left her key in the door on the inside after coming home which would eliminate the need to go back to her room to retrieve it.

Does anybody know how long the front door was broken? Can the door be opened from the outside if there is a key on the inside?

ETA - Does someone have a picture of the keyhole they looked through?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Can the door be opened from the outside if there is a key on the inside?

It depends on the actual cylinder used in that lock and the position of the key on the inside.

In a standard cylinder, when you insert the key on one side and slightly twist it, you can longer insert a key on the other side completely and twist it. If the inside key is left vertical and not twisted, the outside key is able to push it back out and thus can unlock from the outside.

However, longer cylinders usually allow the use of both sides at the same time, and there are also versions of standard cylinders that expressly allow to be used from both sides.

So, it all depends on what kind of cylinder is actually used in the door.

Peeping through a normal keyhole will give you very, very little sight normally. For one, they are rather slim. Then, the door has it's thickness, while zhe actual lock is "in the middle" of that doors thickness, together with the shaped keyhole for the actual key.

If you want i can make a photo of a typical keyhole for such inner doors, and try to capture how a "look through" would look like. But i doubt i can do the latter well with my simple camera.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Grinder]

It depends on the actual cylinder used in that lock and the position of the key on the inside.

In a standard cylinder, when you insert the key on one side and slightly twist it, you can longer insert a key on the other side completely and twist it. If the inside key is left vertical and not twisted, the outside key is able to push it back out and thus can unlock from the outside.

However, longer cylinders usually allow the use of both sides at the same time, and there are also versions of standard cylinders that expressly allow to be used from both sides.

So, it all depends on what kind of cylinder is actually used in the door.

Peeping through a normal keyhole will give you very, very little sight normally. For one, they are rather slim. Then, the door has it's thickness, while zhe actual lock is "in the middle" of that doors thickness, together with the shaped keyhole for the actual key.

If you want i can make a photo of a typical keyhole for such inner doors, and try to capture how a "look through" would look like. But i doubt i can do the latter well with my simple camera.

Greetings,

Chris

Danke sehr.

It would seem for safety's sake leaving a key in the door would make sense and if the cylinder was too short to allow another key from the outside it could be only partially inserted from the inside.

I can't imagine that one could see much of anything through the lock shown in the pictures above.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Danke sehr.

It would seem for safety's sake leaving a key in the door would make sense and if the cylinder was too short to allow another key from the outside it could be only partially inserted from the inside.

And many people do exactly that.

I can't imagine that one could see much of anything through the lock shown in the pictures above.

Careful. Again, there are two common types of locks used here. One that requires a cylinder, and one that does not.

Look at this drawing: http://www.pw-internet.de/images/cms/schloss1.gif

The big, white opening on the side view is where a cylinder is inserted. The other variant is like in this image: http://www.lehrerfreund.de/xinha/plugins/ImageManager/demo_images/tec/schloss_bemasst_einsteckschloss.png. This one is a "complete" lock that directly takes a rather crude key.

You can't really look through a cylinder. The keyway is too small, and most of the time the moving part in the center of the cylider blocks the view. At best you can hardly see a tiny bright spot if there is light on the other side.

You can somewhat look through the other type of lock. But again, you won't see that much. These simple keys (Buntbart-Schlüssel) have a profile, as you can see here: http://www.pw-internet.de/images/cms/schloss2.gif. There are of course different profiles, but you get the idea. Note how it is asymetric. Looking through such a lock, the second opening would be the mirror image of the first one (after all, the key has to work from both sides). There are slightly more secure versions that combine this profile with a Chubb-like thing as well, but these are rare.

Again, on doors to the outside there is virtually always a cylinder lock. Doors inside are most often of the second variant. From what i can see in the pictures, the same is true for that cottage there.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Leaving the key in the cylinder on the inside makes sense if the door is locked through the cylinder, to be able to quickly open it if needed. If it is not locked, however, then there is normally no need for that, since the upper bolt (Falle) can be manually retracted by using the door handle (Türgriff). But in either case, most people around here leave the key in the cylinder on the inside when they are home. Quite a convenient place as well, no more guessing where you placed those damn keys this time...

ETA2: Knwoing these two types of locks also somewhat dispells the notion that one had to look what key would lock Merediths door. In all likelyhood the keyring had three keys. One for the outer door on the main entry, one for the outer door to their shared part of the cottage, and one for her room door. The first two would be for a cylinder, the last one would be a "Buntbart-Schlüssel". There is no way that someone can mistake them. And what's also likely is that for the first and second outer door the same key could be used, which would reduce the number of keys on the keyring to two, and two completely different keys at that.