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

[RoseMontague]

That is an excellent question, I suppose I'll trust the ones that end up convincing the one who's job it is to decide this same thing, Judge and Jury.

I trust the ones that convince me and if I am on the jury that is how I am supposed to do it, not rely on who somebody else trusts.

 

[MDDVS]

Do we all not, in all area's where we have no control over? You may not believe this, but no one here has any control over this trial.

Interesting, so you don't have control over your own opinions.

 

[RoseMontague]

Seeing a couple looking over the rail at a busy intersection with nothing to look at except the gate was probably something he hadn't seen all year. It would easy to connect that unusual sighting when he thought about it. Amanda didn't look or dress like an Italian and stood out as identifiable with Sollecito.

I must have missed that post, I'll look back a ways, but if he though he saw something unusual at that time, I would think he would have said something at that time.

Hmmm.

 

[Grinder]

What do people think that the prosecution will do to prove a sex game? Will the consensual sex evidence be brought out again? Will the early speculation that the perpetrator had met Meredith the night before be brought back?

Whereas a accomplice of Rudi might have been dressed in a way not to leave much behind (gloves, stocking over the head etc.) that would seem much less likely for the kids as per Curatolo's keen observations. Isn't it more likely that some of the unidentified prints and DNA would belong to an accomplice?

As for the involvementor scenario, the one part I like is the possibility that Rudi was with Koko and maybe one other. A really scary guy could be keeping Rudi from spilling the beans about said character.

 

[Grinder]

You think the experts, judges and jury are the real junkies, really?

Curatolo is was a junkie but you knew that, right?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why do you care if the judge was convinced or not? Were you conviced?

Another good question, while in the end I realize I have zero control in the outcome, I am convinced on some parts, not so on others, while I do believe they are not totally innocent, I also don't believe they murdered Meredith. Many here do not think this is possible, I have no Idea why, really, to me this is the most likely scenario. I'm afraid that because of this, plus the fact that the two could not possibly change their stories now, that will be found guilty and spend a great deal of time behind bars. I find that unfortunate.

 

[Dan O.]

I'll trust the experts on this I believe, not internet junkies that think they have mastered Google search and have all the answers. You may think you have all the evidence, but you don't, and even worse some of what you have isn't correct either. I'm sorry if this hurts your pride in any way, I know what you aspire to be and how good it feels when other PIP's pat you on the back and say 'good job', but that's not how it works in the real world thank goodness.

Have you been reduced to appeals to authority and personal attacks?

You've been repeating unfounded allegations and I showed through the evidence that you were wrong. Own up to where you were wrong and drop those claims and we can move on to discussing new aspects of the case instead of retreading the same old ground with every PGP and involvementor that chooses to stop by.

Are you afraid to confront the evidence? Are you afraid that it will change you? Are you afraid that if you start to accept the evidence you will become one of us?

 

[Briars]

Unusual in that it only made sense later. Not unusual that he would give it a second thought otherwise. It was a couple , that's it just a couple in a place where no one would stand and look out. He made small mental note and was able to recall it when asked simply because he remembered seeing them looking over the rail at something. It was an empty square they would be noticed. Not knowing the importance at the time but able to recall something makes sense. They weren't just sitting and chatting they were gazing down where there was nothing to gaze at other than a road and a gate.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hmmm.

Thank you, I suppose it is possible but if it were, I would think Toto would have said so the next day then when asked but I don't think this was the case, he saw them, but didn't think much of it until he realized who Amanda and Raff were...

 

[Briars]

Guede got blood on his pants because he told us he knelt by the victim.There is no evidence that the defendants did this. If they were at the cottage partying why wouldn't they take their jackets off? I can't know that but it makes sense. No one knows what Amanda wore that night but there is reason to believe along with the staged shower she placed clothing to go with that story on her bed. The white skirt is just my opinion of course and strikes me as an interesting choice to suggest innocence for her morning reveal.

 

[MattJones]

Photographs Unreliable Under Window.

Much has been made of the position glass shards in Romanelli's room. I have looked through all the the photographic evidence. In my view, all the photographs are unreliable for purposes of establishing the scene under her window. Here is my logic:

--The original video establishes that state of the crime scene at 15:12, which I believe to be 3:12 p.m. It is grainy and dim, but the physical positions of a number of items can be established.

--The photographs taken at around 4:50 show several items having been moved after the video was taken, including the window itself.

--The video taken at 18:47 (6:47) shows more movement of items under the window.

--The Spheron photos show items moved again.

Each time that crime scene was recorded, something had been moved. Therefore none of the photographic evidence (after the original video) shows the original crime scene. Therefore those photos are unreliable to show the crime scene under the window in Romanelli's room. Whether you can see glass in them or not and where does not matter, because that area had been disturbed. You just can't know much from these photos.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Have you been reduced to appeals to authority and personal attacks?

You've been repeating unfounded allegations and I showed through the evidence that you were wrong. Own up to where you were wrong and drop those claims and we can move on to discussing new aspects of the case instead of retreading the same old ground with every PGP and involvementor that chooses to stop by.

Are you afraid to confront the evidence? Are you afraid that it will change you? Are you afraid that if you start to accept the evidence you will become one of us?

One of us, one of us, one of us.......
You seem to think what you call disappearing foot prints mean anything, I've already gone over this with you and you don't seem to understand. Perhaps, and just perhaps, I am the one missing something here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Show me what you are asking and I will try answer, but again, I think were talking about something different.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Much has been made of the position glass shards in Romanelli's room. I have looked through all the the photographic evidence. In my view, all the photographs are unreliable for purposes of establishing the scene under her window. Here is my logic:

--The original video establishes that state of the crime scene at 15:12, which I believe to be 3:12 p.m. It is grainy and dim, but the physical positions of a number of items can be established.

--The photographs taken at around 4:50 show several items having been moved after the video was taken, including the window itself.

--The video taken at 18:47 (6:47) shows more movement of items under the window.

--The Spheron photos show items moved again.

Each time that crime scene was recorded, something had been moved. Therefore none of the photographic evidence (after the original video) shows the original crime scene. Therefore those photos are unreliable to show the crime scene under the window in Romanelli's room. Whether you can see glass in them or not and where does not matter, because that area had been disturbed. You just can't know much from these photos.

Hello Matt, I thought I read were you said you would be away for a month and unable to post, not that I mind, I also read were you stated that you thought Amanda innocent of murder, but somehow involved. Do you still feel the same way at this point of your quest?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Interesting, so you don't have control over your own opinions.

Only the ones I can control, must be nice having your powers though, use them wisely.

 

[MattJones]

Hello Matt, I thought I read were you said you would be away for a month and unable to post,

Off PMF only. I got a little more heated with them than I should have, my redneck pride having been pricked, and I felt it best to back away from that board for a while. That was both for penance and for prudence.

In the meantime, I had a jury trial cancel. I am all revved up and no place to go, so I am burning off a little energy here before getting back to the more humdrum tasks in the life of a litigator.

not that I mind,

A rare treat to my ears, good sir.

I also read were you stated that you thought Amanda innocent of murder, but somehow involved. Do you still feel the same way at this point of your quest?

Yes. Intellectually, I have conflated it into a presumption of innocence, but it is still what I think. That said, the evidence drives this train.

What do you think about the movement of the crime scene in Romanelli's bedroom? Has this horse already been beaten to death?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Curatolo is was a junkie but you knew that, right?

I know he used and sold drugs, a junkie, not so sure about, tell me, when he said he used heroin, did he call himself a junkie or this just a standard PIP assertion?

 

[Grinder]

I know he used and sold drugs, a junkie, not so sure about, tell me, when he said he used heroin, did he call himself a junkie or this just a standard PIP assertion?

Are you for real? He testified that he was a daily heroin user in Hellmann's court.

1. A narcotics addict, especially one using heroin.

He spoke in Italian so no he didn't use the word junkie. Did Dan O call himself an Internet Junkie? You did.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gregory Turner and Gary Leiterman

Agree, you seem to know a fair bit about DNA, just a question, any idea what the odds might be between having one contaminated sample and four on the same piece, is it common or would the odds be a factor of four?

There are at least two cases in which more than one person's DNA contaminated an item of evidence, the cases of Gary Leiterman and Gregory Turner. How do you think that all of the profiles arrived onto the clasp?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What do you think about the movement of the crime scene in Romanelli's bedroom? Has this horse already been beaten to death?

I'm sure it has but regardless, you can not blame Filomena or any of the others, at that time they had no idea there was also a murder. I also believe we have to take Filomena's word on the glass on top of items, especially her computer which she left on the table but found on the floor, she had to wipe the glass off of it. Either she is lying, or a break in seem unlikely, I see no reason for her to lie at all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There are at least two cases in which more than one person's DNA contaminated an item of evidence, the cases of Gary Leiterman and Gregory Turner. How do you think that all of the profiles arrived onto the clasp?

No sense in guessing, perhaps Meredith was a little more 'active' than what is let on, still would need to know who's dna it is and talk with them. Raff's own dna on there could have a simple explanation as well, perhaps when he arrived on Nov 1st, while Meredith was still asleep, he pick her bra up off the cloths rack and willed it around until Amanda made him stop. I head this mentioned before, who knows, you would think they would have said so, though.