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

[Dan O.]

Later an accusation made against Amanda was that she tried to misdirect the investigation by giving the policewoman a false story about the disappearing poop which happily was recovered to all of our relief, I'm sure. The PLE use it as one of their indications that Amanda and Raffaele tried to steer or, in Machiavelli's words, "control" the investigation.

This is the crap the PLE uses as "osmotic" evidence of guilt!

Can anyone enlighten us as to how this bit about the disappearing poo that hasn't disappeared is supposed to misdirect the police. I imagine every PGP that repeats that line has the same thought wondering how it's supposed to work but are too afraid of exposing their ignorance by bring it up. Well, here I've brought it up in a public forum where it can be answered to knock the PIPs down a notch or as I suspect, it will remain unanswered and thus expose the meme as a mass delusion of the PGP.

 

[xinonix]

We must consider the possibility that the marijuana they were smoking was of very poor quality, and the problem with it's low THC content was fixed by adding PCP (angel dust) to make it appear more powerful.
If someone who has a tendancy to go mental smokes this ****, the PCP may amplify their anger and block their sense of judgement.
According to the multiple attacker theory, nobody climbed through the window to enter. The door was opened for them.
Rudy was "on a date" with Meredith there and neglected to flush the toilet.
Meridith had been complaining that Amanda was not using the brush to clean the toilet.
Apparently Amanda enters the bathroom and sees the big turd there in the toilet. Knox gets this idea that Meredith left a whole turd in the toilet as a way to make a visual statement. Amanda then goes postal and kills Meredith, and keeps stabbing her until she calms down.

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by xinonix
The turd that Rudy left behind was not in the bathroom that meredith usually used, it was in the other one. Kercher died before she would see said turd. . .

Posted by Strozzi
Meredith might have seen it. Rudy might have left it in the toilet in the hallway bathroom - the one Meredith and Amanda use. The turd might have moved. It might have been transported - perhaps in Amanda's purse. Yea, that's it. It moved from that bathroom to the other bathroom, the one that the Italian women share - where it was finally found.

This caused me to erupt in spontaneous outright laughter.

Mary, I hope you are not out in public like in a Starbucks reading this case and laughing out loud. People sitting next to you might ask what you are laughing about. How are you going to explain that it is about a murder trial in Italy where the prosecutor says a terrible fight began over a burglar not flushing the toilet?
Strozzi

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

One of the things I truly admire in individuals is their ability to stand in there, in the midst of what they might regard as "group think", and maintain the integrity of their own position.

Of course I am talking about you. This "JREF Continuation" lately must seem to you like a long exercise in confirmation bias and group think amongst those who believe in RS's and AK's innocence.

If group think has set in, it is by default. We don't control who posts here. Anyone could come here to argue that Crini did a masterful job of proving the prosecution's case. But they would then face the task of supporting that argument, so for the most part, they don't bother.

It's the same with the Shroud of Turin, 9-11, Wakefield, Bigfoot, and every other topic that draws in cranks. They come to JREF and they get skewered, so they crawl back to cult sites that coddle their delusions.

 

[acbytesla]

Can anyone enlighten us as to how this bit about the disappearing poo that hasn't disappeared is supposed to misdirect the police. I imagine every PGP that repeats that line has the same thought wondering how it's supposed to work but are too afraid of exposing their ignorance by bring it up. Well, here I've brought it up in a public forum where it can be answered to knock the PIPs down a notch or as I suspect, it will remain unanswered and thus expose the meme as a mass delusion of the PGP.

I don't get how or why Amanda and Raffaele could be the masters of misdirection? On the one hand, they are pointing out things to the police, The PGP are making them out to be David Copperfield and David Blaine but then say the are dumb and ignorant.

They would have had to have been magicians to eliminate themselves so well from that bedroom and yet leave so much evidence of Rudy. There are footprint after footprint after footprint of Rudy in that bedroom and yet none of Raffaele? I noticed that Crini argued that one of footprints in the bedroom belonged to Amanda. Not sure how he can argue that with a straight face, but that wasn't the only whopper he told yesterday.

 

[Grinder]

It's just ridiculous. I've read people discussing that the corridors must have been cleaned and only Amanda and Raffaele had a motive to do this - however, Guede would have had a strong motive to do this imaginary cleaning. Lock Meredith's door and clean up the rest of the house, so that if any of her housemates came home that night, they wouldn't raise an immediate alarm - and this would give him some time to decide what to do next.

Or what about another accomplice that cleaned his evidence after Rudi ran in a panic. A guy that had dressed for success and had made sure he left little behind but wiped down where he needed.

I'm sure the prosecution can reject that idea because there is no evidence of a clean-up.

The entire area of the hallway and bathroom could have been washed down in minutes including the sink and the bathmat.

Of course, Amanda didn't notice the mat until the police showed up. I mean she could have just thrown it in the shower of the other bathroom, but she couldn't see it even though it is totally impossible to believe that she would have stepped on it because it was so visible whew...that wears one out.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Mary, I hope you are not out in public like in a Starbucks reading this case and laughing out loud. People sitting next to you might ask what you are laughing about. How are you going to explain that it is about a murder trial in Italy where the prosecutor says a terrible fight began over a burglar not flushing the toilet?
Strozzi

Fortunately, I was home, Strozzi. There was some great stuff here yesterday -- I loved Nancy's "poo rage" and "Poorugia" among many others. Today's been good, too.

Yup, I would have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

 

[smkovalinksy]

We must consider the possibility that the marijuana they were smoking was of very poor quality, and the problem with it's low THC content was fixed by adding PCP (angel dust) to make it appear more powerful.
If someone who has a tendancy to go mental smokes this ****, the PCP may amplify their anger and block their sense of judgement.
According to the multiple attacker theory, nobody climbed through the window to enter. The door was opened for them.
Rudy was "on a date" with Meredith there and neglected to flush the toilet.
Meridith had been complaining that Amanda was not using the brush to clean the toilet.
Apparently Amanda enters the bathroom and sees the big turd there in the toilet. Knox gets this idea that Meredith left a whole turd in the toilet as a way to make a visual statement. Amanda then goes postal and kills Meredith, and keeps stabbing her until she calms down.

I think you just solved the case.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's just ridiculous. I've read people discussing that the corridors must have been cleaned and only Amanda and Raffaele had a motive to do this - however, Guede would have had a strong motive to do this imaginary cleaning. Lock Meredith's door and clean up the rest of the house, so that if any of her housemates came home that night, they wouldn't raise an immediate alarm - and this would give him some time to decide what to do next.

But since there is no evidence of cleaning in the hallway, why bother coming up with an explanation for a hallway cleanup?

Absence of evidence is not proof that evidence once existed and was magically removed.

This is precisely the problem that Judge Massei faced in writing his motivations report - accounting for a clean-up, when there was no actual evidence that a clean up had been done - and, in fact, evidence in the face of evidence that a clean-up was not done! I mean, why clean-up and leave the mat?

It was as simple as this - Massei could not account for the lone footprint on the bathmat in the bathroom with no intervening prints. So, he simply said, there MUST have been a clean-up. Just like Crini inventing that the whole murder was sparked by a fight over pooh, Massei just made it up, as by his own admission he said he'd be at a loss to account for how that lone footprint on the mat got there with nothing inbetween.

So it is as you say - there is no evidence to even suggest a clean-up, except that "evidence" seems to be missing, ie. the phantom intervening footprints which aren't there. Not only aren't they there, there's no evidence at all suggesting that something in the hall had been removed.... esp. blood (in the shape of a footprint) because it is actually hard to remove ALL microscopic traces of blood which luminol detects.

So, what do folk like Massei or Crini do with their dilemmas? They simply make crap up. For Crini, I mean that literally.

It's clear, then, that if the Nencini court convicts, and the future ISC upholds those convictions, then Italy is saying (through the highest court in the land) that evidence doesn't count.

The ability to make things up does.

 

[acbytesla]

If group think has set in, it is by default. We don't control who posts here. Anyone could come here to argue that Crini did a masterful job of proving the prosecution's case. But they would then face the task of supporting that argument, so for the most part, they don't bother.

It's the same with the Shroud of Turin, 9-11, Wakefield, Bigfoot, and every other topic that draws in cranks. They come to JREF and they get skewered, so they crawl back to cult sites that coddle their delusions.

That is the reality Charlie. Unlike in Italy, he would be challenged to prove his theory. There is more accountability in the JREF forum than there is an Italian court of law.

It flabbergasts me that Crini was allowed to spout contention after contention without so much as shred of evidence for any of them. In fact Crini argue two things that he should have been shut down on immediately. One was the TOD was either before 10:30 or after 11:30. And second, was the idea that they didn't have to prove anything and it was up to the defense to disprove?

Crini manage to insist that he didn't have to prove that the defendants were guilty, but the defense had the burden to prove they were innocent.

 

[Kaosium]

I was curious whether the prosecution raised it yesterday, but I guess if they are going to use it would be in closing arguments; as for weight I am not sure, everything related to Guede’s trials has been entered into evidence for this appeal, just as the independent report (V & C) from the annulled appeal none of this evidence has featured much so far so I assume it will be used in the motivation report, I guess.

Perhaps they don't mention it because it's a terrible argument? The prosecution also advanced those elements in the trial against Raffaele and Amanda and some (such as the supposed lack of aspirated blood droplets and whether the forensic evidence indicated more than one attacker) were successfully challenged in that trial which had an active defense presenting evidence which the Massei Court could not ignore.

Separation of the trial process was at Guede lawyers request; nonetheless it has always been one murder case.

I'm not sure what you mean by this; do you realize that Guede was convicted before Amanda and Raffaele had even been charged with the crime?

 

[Strozzi]

Can anyone enlighten us as to how this bit about the disappearing poo that hasn't disappeared is supposed to misdirect the police. I imagine every PGP that repeats that line has the same thought wondering how it's supposed to work but are too afraid of exposing their ignorance by bring it up. Well, here I've brought it up in a public forum where it can be answered to knock the PIPs down a notch or as I suspect, it will remain unanswered and thus expose the meme as a mass delusion of the PGP.

If you have been reading this board awhile, you will have seen Machiavelli refer many times to the lies that Amanda and Raffaele told. These lies are some of the evidence which Machiavelli relies on to be certain that they are guilty.

Well, Amanda told the policewoman the poop had been flushed. That turns out to have been wrong. It is seen as a lie Amanda made in an effort to control the investigation. The policewoman did not fall for it. The police found the poop and collected it - or at least a sample from the associated toilet paper.

Some Italians are very devoted to divining hidden meanings in the actions of others. They take it very seriously, and I have noticed that once they convince themselves that they discern a hidden meaning they don't want to change their view and recognize they were wrong. Italian has a word for it: "dietrology", which is roughly translated as "behind-ology". They look for meanings behind things. On this board our valued friend and contributor, Machiavelli, sees meanings and significance where the rest of us do not.

When Raffaele called police to report that someone had broken in through a window, the police operator asked him if anything was stolen. Raffaelle, who had looked in Filomena's room and had seen the broken window and rock on the floor, apparently also saw valuables in the room - a TV and laptop computer visible. He also had seen a camera on the kitchen counter or table. These valuables, the sort of things a burglar might take, were still there. So Raffaele replied to the police operator's question whether anything was stolen that "No, nothing was stolen". Turns out that was incorrect (a lie), as cash, cell phones, keys, and credit cards were taken from another (still locked) room, Meredith's room.
The police and prosecutor and Machievelli cite this as a lie by Raffaele. How could he know if anything was stolen, they say. Proof that he attempted to steer or control the investigation.
I guess they teach that in Dietrology 101, but to free up the Police Academy budget for it they had to give up something else - Lab Science 101.

 

[acbytesla]

If you have been reading this board awhile, you will have seen Machiavelli refer many times to the lies that Amanda and Raffaele told. These lies are some of the evidence which Machiavelli relies on to be certain that they are guilty.

Well, Amanda told the policewoman the poop had been flushed. That turns out to have been wrong. It is seen as a lie Amanda made in an effort to control the investigation. The policewoman did not fall for it. The police found the poop and collected it - or at least a sample from the associated toilet paper.

Some Italians are very devoted to divining hidden meanings in the actions of others. They take it very seriously, and I have noticed that once they convince themselves that they discern a hidden meaning they don't want to change their view and recognize they were wrong. Italian has a word for it: "dietrology", which is roughly translated as "behind-ology". They look for meanings behind things. On this board our valued friend and contributor, Machiavelli, sees meanings and significance where the rest of us do not.

When Raffaele called police to report that someone had broken in through a window, the police operator asked him in anything was stolen. Raffaelle, who had looked in Filomena's room and had seen the broken window and rock on the floor, apparently also saw valuables in the room - a TV and laptop computer visible. He also had seen a camera on the kitchen counter or table. These valuables, the sort of things a burglar might take, we're still there. So Raffaele replied to the police operator's question whether anything was stolen that "No, nothing was stolen". Turns out that was incorrect (a lie), as cash, cell phones, keys, and credit cards were taken from another (still locked) room, Meredith's room.
The police and prosecutor and Machievelli cite this as a lie by Raffaele. How could he know if anything was stolen, they say. Proof that he attempted to steer or control the investigation.

But of course the PGP would have spun this the other way if Raffaele had said "yes things had been stolen", since how would Raffaele know what Meredith was missing?

So many of the guilty interpretations have been like this. If every single detail was remembered exactly by both Raffaele and Amanda, it would be because they practiced their story first.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

We must consider the possibility that the marijuana they were smoking was of very poor quality, and the problem with it's low THC content was fixed by adding PCP (angel dust) to make it appear more powerful.

Based on my experience with PCP, that would be a case where appearances are not deceiving.

But it's not what happened. What happened is that Guede broke into the place and killed Meredith when she got home.

 

[Strozzi]

I saw a video of a police stop of a random motorist at a DUI checkpoint. The police officer started asking questions of the driver. The driver responded to every question with "I don't answer questions". It surprised the officer who, after 4 or 5 questions getting the same answer, sent the motorist on his way.

In contrast, Amanda and Raffaele tried to help the police by answering their questions for hours and hours and hours, and look what Napoleoni, Giobi, Stefanoni, Mignini, Comodi, Massei, and others did to them. Even after that terrible nighttime interrogation where Amanda was hit by the police, when she wrote her gift statement she forgave the police by recognizing the difficulty they are under to solve the crime. She thought at that time she was in protective custody to protect her, not railroad her.

Whenever I get my hackles up over a news story about police overacting, I calm myself by reminding myself that a police officer could be the first-responder to save my life if I am ever in a car accident, or the first-responder to save my daughter if she is ever being attacked, or the first-responder to go into my house to see if there is ever a robber with a gun in there.

 

[Grinder]

But of course the PGP would have spun this the other way if Raffaele had said "yes things had been stolen", since how would Raffaele know what Meredith was missing?

So many of the guilty interpretations have been like this. If every single detail was remembered exactly by both Raffaele and Amanda, it would be because they practiced their story first.

Come on Tesla, if laptops were missing for an example, Amanda could easily have noted it. If innocent it was one of the most unfortunate comments made by either one of them not under pressure.

It is totally fair to ask how he knew nothing was missing. In fact, there was that missing make-up (maybe that's where she kept her drugs).

He wasn't asked what Meredith was missing anyway. His proper answer and the one almost anyone would say would be "I don't know" or maybe "it doesn't seem so" or "nothing for sure".

Not even Amanda could have known in a couple of minutes that nothing was stolen from Filomena's or her own room. She didn't even check for her cash.

 

[acbytesla]

I saw a video of a police stop of a random motorist at a DUI checkpoint. The police officer started asking questions of the driver. The driver responded to every question with "I don't answer questions". It surprised the officer who, after 4 or 5 questions getting the same answer, sent the motorist on his way.

In contrast, Amanda and Raffaele tried to help the police by answering their questions for hours and hours and hours, and look what Napoleoni, Giobi, Stefanoni, Mignini, Comodi, Massei, and others did to them. Even after that terrible nighttime interrogation where Amanda was hit by the police, when she wrote her gift statement she forgave the police by recognizing the difficulty they are under to solve the crime. She thought at that time she was in protective custody to protect her, not railroad her.

Whenever I get my hackles up over a news story about police overacting, I calm myself by reminding myself that a police officer could be the first-responder to save my life if I am ever in a car accident, or the first-responder to save my daughter if she is ever being attacked, or the first-responder to go into my house to see if there is ever a robber with a gun in there.

My closest friend in the entire world is a Seattle police officer, so is his sister, who I have known since she was ten, she's a detective and she's engaged to someone else on the force. One of his other sisters was married to sergeant on the force for 15 years until they got divorced. So I've heard the horror stories over the years on how badly they are treated on the job. I used to think they were exaggerating. But since then I've gone on at least a half a dozen ride-alongs. (this is something I'd recommend everyone doing) Now I think they were underselling it. You just wouldn't believe how badly people act towards them. Treat them with respect, they deserve it. But if you are being investigated, shut up. and get a lawyer if necessary but don't tell them a thing.

 

[acbytesla]

Come on Tesla, if laptops were missing for an example, Amanda could easily have noted it. If innocent it was one of the most unfortunate comments made by either one of them not under pressure.

It is totally fair to ask how he knew nothing was missing. In fact, there was that missing make-up (maybe that's where she kept her drugs).

He wasn't asked what Meredith was missing anyway. His proper answer and the one almost anyone would say would be "I don't know" or maybe "it doesn't seem so" or "nothing for sure".

Not even Amanda could have known in a couple of minutes that nothing was stolen from Filomena's or her own room. She didn't even check for her cash.

It is totally fair to ask the question. But I think it is unfair to make a conclusion based on this. So Raffaele jumped to the wrong conclusion and answered before he actually knew the facts? He wasn't the only one. What is clear now, that a lot of people jumped to the wrong conclusions.

 

[Strozzi]

Come on Tesla, if laptops were missing for an example, Amanda could easily have noted it. If innocent it was one of the most unfortunate comments made by either one of them not under pressure.

It is totally fair to ask how he knew nothing was missing. In fact, there was that missing make-up (maybe that's where she kept her drugs).

He wasn't asked what Meredith was missing anyway. His proper answer and the one almost anyone would say would be "I don't know" or maybe "it doesn't seem so" or "nothing for sure".

Not even Amanda could have known in a couple of minutes that nothing was stolen from Filomena's or her own room. She didn't even check for her cash.

Grinder, no police operator would expect a caller to know for sure whether or not something was missing until a complete item inspection and inventory was done. All the operator can reasonably expect the caller to know and note at that point is if the caller notices something specific is missing. Until an inventory is done, the operator should take a "no" as meaning "I don't at this moment know of anything taken, subject to subsequent inspection and inventory by all occupants".

I do believe when Raffaele called the police he referred to the house as his American girlfriend's place, which signals two things - 1) the reason he is making the call, rather than she (poor Italian skills), and 2). it's not my place, so I certainly don't know the contents at the property.

I find nothing suspicious or wrong or cavalier in Raffaelle's answer. Valuable items that a burglar might normally steal - TV, laptop, camera - were visible to him and not stolen. Had a TV that he had previously used in the living room been taken, with severed antenna wire dangling across the floor, he would have noted and reported that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can anyone enlighten us as to how this bit about the disappearing poo that hasn't disappeared is supposed to misdirect the police. I imagine every PGP that repeats that line has the same thought wondering how it's supposed to work but are too afraid of exposing their ignorance by bring it up. Well, here I've brought it up in a public forum where it can be answered to knock the PIPs down a notch or as I suspect, it will remain unanswered and thus expose the meme as a mass delusion of the PGP.

Both John Follain in his book as well as Sollecito in his report that Napoleoni thought that Raffaele was too insistent that she notice the pooh. For some reason that made Napoleoni suspect that the two, AK and RS, were trying too hard to direct police, and possibly misdirect them.