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

[katy_did]

You are hung up on facts and logic. If they cared about facts and logic, they wouldn't be doing this at all. They're looking at how they can placate internal stakeholders, along with the nitwit mob that supports them politically, without adding to the outside pressure on their system.

I might be wrong about how they will ultimately balance those interests, but I understand what the interests are.

We'll see in a week or so what they do.

And I, of course, think that you're disregarding facts and logic and being overly cynical. Remember your predictions before the Hellmann verdict?

I actually think that the 'easiest' verdict, if that were a main concern, would be an acquittal for murder but a conviction for staging the scene, together with an explanation that it can't be ruled out that they actually participated in the murder, but the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Almost the same as Massei with minor adjustments, and has the advantage of avoiding a potentially embarrassing extradition request.

As you say though, we'll know for certain soon enough.

 

[acbytesla]

You are hung up on facts and logic. If they cared about facts and logic, they wouldn't be doing this at all. They're looking at how they can placate internal stakeholders, along with the nitwit mob that supports them politically, without adding to the outside pressure on their system.

I might be wrong about how they will ultimately balance those interests, but I understand what the interests are.

We'll see in a week or so what they do.

While I agree with you that facts and logic don't seem to matter to the Italian judiciary, still your predicted outcome would be even more bizarre than anything we've seen yet and that as you know is saying something.

Nencini would be pulling that kind of verdict out of thin air or his backside..(your choice) With all due respect Charlie and I do respect you, I just don't see it. I think this prediction based on your perception of the Italian judiciary thumbing their noses at the US and little else. (maybe some misogyny thrown in for good measure)

I'd make a prediction, but I decided to get out of that business after the last moronic decision. (Besides, my Ouija board is broken)

 

[Strozzi]

Hey! I calculated pi to 100 digits! Check it for yourself. How did I do it, you ask? I have a number of answers:

1 what does it matter? I got it right so my method must be valid.
2 I filed the calculation at court in October 2008
3 I divided 10 by 3 and sort of lopped a bit off and it came out right
4 I invited you to come see me make the calculation but you didn't show up.

The prosecution like your work. They accept your number and now say that is the exact number of people who attacked Meredith.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

concise and cogent summary of the CSC

If it's a rant, it is a well-informed rant. It is less about the facts of the case than it is about the warped thinking that keeps the case alive.

Back in Nov. 2007, I followed the media coverage and concluded that Amanda Knox was an utterly disturbed, callous and repulsive human being, another Justina Morley. But I changed my mind as I gained a better understanding of the facts, and as I began to see good reasons to doubt the official claims.

Many people will never change their mind. They are incapable of doing so. Their beliefs flow from subjective but indelible character assessments. Their gut tells them they are right, even if the facts don't check out, so they find ways to dismiss the facts or distort their meaning. That is the problem Snowden addresses, and I think he does a good job.

Charlie,

Good post. Snowden also wrote, "In vacating Knox’s acquittal, the Court of Cassation moved the goalposts on some evidence (making the impractical demand that independent tests not only identify lab errors and other possible or probable sources of DNA contamination, but also find the exact vectors that led to each piece of evidence being contaminated) and demanded additional tests be done on the knife." That is a concise and cogent summary of the CSC's imperviousness to science IMO.

 

[Diocletus]

I think that at that stage during a trial in Italy, a judge can only order the acquisition of new evidence if there's a clear need to do so from the point of view of reaching a verdict. They can't order it simply to gain more details on how the crime happened unless those details are critical to the decision. So what Massei is attempting to explain (albeit with pretty weak arguments) is why the outcome of such a test wouldn't be critical and therefore he doesn't have enough justification to order it (incidentally, that's why I think the RIS test on the knife has to have some kind of impact; it wouldn't have been ordered unless it was important in terms of reaching a verdict).

I agree that they probably have a rule like this. But, in the context of a 7+ year trial process, and given the fact that the prosecution has exclusive control and access to most of the critical evidence, it's a dumb rule. At least as applied in this case.

Frankly, it appears to me to be a violation of ECHR Art. 6 involving equality of arms.

 

[Dan O.]

Remembering that for Guede this blood washed down onto his foot from his blood covered pant leg...probably filled his shoe right up and soaked his foot.

No! What you need to remember is that there were none of the little toes represented in that print. I have described on numerous occasions how to recreate that partial footprint.

You start with Meredith's blood on the outside seem of Rudy's pant leg. There is no blood in or on the shoe at this time. If this is the first trip to the small bathroom, his hands are covered in blood too. Rudy goes into the bathroom brushing that right pant leg against the inside edge of the door on the way in. This is very fresh blood given the way the drip flows down the edge of the door. Rudy slips off his right shoe and steps into the shower. He uses the shower wand to clean his hands and then while holding his right foot up tries to rinse the blood from the trousers. A stream of bloody water flows off the bant leg onto his foot which is at an angle with the big toe down. This stains the middle part of the foot and the big toe but not the little toes or the adjacent part of the foot. Rudy then takes a partial step out of the shower planting the front of his foot on the corner of the mat nearest the shower door. Bloody water continues to flow off the pant cuff on the right side and saturates this part of the mat. The bloody water on the saturated mat spreads to the edge of the mat. Rudy grabs a towel, dries his foot and pats down the soaked pant leg. He then uses the shower wand to rinse out the stains in the shower.


Those of you that wear pants can try this experiment yourself. You don't need to use blood or any stain as a wet print will show up fine on a dark fluffy towel or mat. Lay the towel or mat next to the shower then step into the shower and proceed to rinse the pant leg as I described above. Step out onto the mat with the front of your foot keeping the heal raised. Lift your foot and observe the results. Post photos.

 

[anglolawyer]

No! Bidet!

No! What you need to remember is that there were none of the little toes represented in that print. I have described on numerous occasions how to recreate that partial footprint.

You start with Meredith's blood on the outside seem of Rudy's pant leg. There is no blood in or on the shoe at this time. If this is the first trip to the small bathroom, his hands are covered in blood too. Rudy goes into the bathroom brushing that right pant leg against the inside edge of the door on the way in. This is very fresh blood given the way the drip flows down the edge of the door. Rudy slips off his right shoe and steps into the shower. He uses the shower wand to clean his hands and then while holding his right foot up tries to rinse the blood from the trousers. A stream of bloody water flows off the bant leg onto his foot which is at an angle with the big toe down. This stains the middle part of the foot and the big toe but not the little toes or the adjacent part of the foot. Rudy then takes a partial step out of the shower planting the front of his foot on the corner of the mat nearest the shower door. Bloody water continues to flow off the pant cuff on the right side and saturates this part of the mat. The bloody water on the saturated mat spreads to the edge of the mat. Rudy grabs a towel, dries his foot and pats down the soaked pant leg. He then uses the shower wand to rinse out the stains in the shower.


Those of you that wear pants can try this experiment yourself. You don't need to use blood or any stain as a wet print will show up fine on a dark fluffy towel or mat. Lay the towel or mat next to the shower then step into the shower and proceed to rinse the pant leg as I described above. Step out onto the mat with the front of your foot keeping the heal raised. Lift your foot and observe the results. Post photos.

Any blood on that shower wand? If so, I concede the shower. If not, why not? What you always overlook Dan, if I may say so, is that to get that footprint the way you would have it, he has to step right into the shower, turn around and walk back out facing the door. Why would he do that? If he washed his right pants leg, he would not need to go right inside the shower, just put his leg in, wash it and withdraw when the foot print would point at the shower but would be at the wrong end of the bathmat.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not certain, but I do believe Diocletus' avatar is Johnathan Swift. If it's not, (everyone in a powdered wig looks pretty much the same to me!) it would have been a good choice.

Don't need no stinkin avatar to know which way the wind blows.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are hung up on facts and logic. If they cared about facts and logic, they wouldn't be doing this at all. They're looking at how they can placate internal stakeholders, along with the nitwit mob that supports them politically, without adding to the outside pressure on their system.

I might be wrong about how they will ultimately balance those interests, but I understand what the interests are.

We'll see in a week or so what they do.

And I, of course, think that you're disregarding facts and logic and being overly cynical. Remember your predictions before the Hellmann verdict?

I actually think that the 'easiest' verdict, if that were a main concern, would be an acquittal for murder but a conviction for staging the scene, together with an explanation that it can't be ruled out that they actually participated in the murder, but the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Almost the same as Massei with minor adjustments, and has the advantage of avoiding a potentially embarrassing extradition request.

As you say though, we'll know for certain soon enough.

The old saw is: not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

This means it has to be transparent, and there needs to be a long series of just decisions, seen to be just, before a decision one doesn't know much about can be trusted.

Say what you want.... if this thread were the be-all and end-all of this case, Nencini is in a no win situation. If he convicts, Wilkes and Halkides (and perhaps me, if I really had a good grasp of it!) would claim that Nencini has just ignored basic science, and now puts all Italians at potential risk.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, will say that Nencini is a Mason from a well know family of Masons who was bought off by US media interests, using the Masons as a cash-go-between for bribe money....

The thing I like about Wuilkes and Halkides is that they spell out their reasons for judging Nencini beforehand.

Like last time with Hellmann... we're not hearing a peep from guilters about Nencini, really.

So - Machiavelli - are you willing to say something BEFORE Jan 30 about Nencini's Masonic connections? Or will his decision itself determine whether or not you like the guy? What are the criteria for determining his bona fides?

It would be nice if we heard this BEFORE the verdict. If AK and RS are deemed guilty, then Nencini is not a Mason. If AK and RS are acquitted then Nencini IS a Mason.... that sort of thing.....

 

[Bill Williams]

.
I think it was the book 'Monster of Florence', which was written well before the murder of Meredith, that explained how the courts in Italy often used the 'it is compatible with' weasel phrase . Other things also, like the tendency to believe nothing is as it appears.

It turned out to be a more accurate portrayal than I imagined.
.

That is what I find frustrating in discussing this with guilters... they seem infected with this. It really does not matter, then, what Massei says, for instance. It's really "code" for something else anyway.

Like Machiavelli's claim about Knox saying "I was there". The plain meaning of that was her telling her mother she was at Raffaele's.

Yet all of a sudden it becomes "Mafia Code", where things means the opposite.

Let's just hope Nencini et al. don't catch the Italian legal 'flu like this.

 

[Grinder]

The white outside wall which his shoes needed to grab onto had no dirt neither did the bars on the lower window. Those are two leaves by the way which look pretty pristine and not stepped on. You are right about the sill looking dirty with debris near the leaves in the corner. probably just old leaf dust flaking paint and bird droppings.You would think if his shoe pressed in that area some of the debris would have tracked into the room

It would be better for the real break-in advocates if there was a footprint on the side of the cottage and muddy prints inside etc. The Ch. 5 demonstration shows that a climber could easily reach the sill, the shutters and window while standing on the upper frame of the lower window. The climb is easier than either you or I thought it was.

Once the window was broken and the climber was standing with his shoulders at the sill height he could reach in and up to open the window. Once open he could pull himself through or even squat on the sill and step in the room.

Truly there is no evidence of a staging in any reasonable use of the word evidence. There are many factoids pointing to staging (using the correct definition of factoid) just no facts.

 

[Grinder]

Here is what Mr. Snowden wrote about the DNA: "The new tests concluded on the knife in question showed no trace of the victim’s DNA or blood anywhere on it, confirming the results of the independent experts’ report and further debunking the prosecution’s scientific case." He is absolutely correct about the DNA. The new tests showed only Amanda's DNA, which had already been found on the handle previously. He is not correct with respect to blood, but three previous attempts to search for blood had already come up negative.

Now the DNA was truly DEBUNKED.

I did not find anything about dust in his article, but I did find this: "Prosecutors still have Knox’s DNA in the apartment she shared with Kercher and two others, but since there’s no way to determine when that DNA was deposited–people constantly shed DNA in the form of skin cells, skin oils, hair, and sweat–it doesn’t tie her to the scene of the murder at the time of the murder." Maybe you can explain what you think is wrong with this passage. Before you do, you might want to consult a 2008 article by Toothman, Brown, and their colleagues, which found DNA in dust. All in hall, his article is more accurate than your quick summary IMO.

Amanda's DNA was found everywhere but the murder room which tells me she was a big time DNA shedder and yet without a cleanup there is none of her DNA in Meredith's room hmmmm.

 

[Grinder]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true and as such I think his criticism was warranted. The article was in the rant genre, and as such perfect attention to facts is never expected, at least by people that agree with the rant. People that disagree with the rant are not so forgiving and look for the imperfections to create a reason to ignore the conclusion of the rant.

The bottom line here is that the rant genre is useful for entertaining the folks that agree with the rant but it is not an effective form of prose for changing the minds of the people that disagree with the rant.

 

[Grinder]

This seems like the most likely explanation but it seems like by the time the Massei trial is underway that there was enough doubt about what was going on that it is hard to imagine what was really in his mind about this. Of course, the time stamp argument is complete crap, but what was Massei really thinking? Without more facts to constrain the speculation I can imagine lots of possibilities and there are certainly a lot more possibilities that I can't imagine right now.

I think this is where Mach makes a point that the judge is not permitted to open a new investigation at this point. It makes no sense to me but could be the Italian law.

 

[Dan O.]

http://web.archive.org/web/20101015.../2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

This wasn't easy. Is some form of Perugia Shock active today? I found a link to it in what looked like a reliable source and it was a site in Japanese. Somebody made a list of links to wayback versions of the articles on Quora but the link to this article didn't work. Eventually I found a link to the article in a blog which didn't work either but I used the date from that link to find the article in the wayback machine.

I have an index of all the old articles on my wiki with links to the now expired google cache where I found them. I probably should convert the google addresses to wayback addresses now that the archive is showing them. I started to upload the text of the articles so the content would get indexed but this is a lot of work for something that nobody is using.

ETA: In more recent news:

This is Google's cache of http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/cards-on-table-on-knox-sollecito-trial.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Apr 24, 2011 09:39:44 GMT. The current page could have changed _{(or removed at the request of a looney prosecutor)} in the meantime.

Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti were sworn in today, and were given ninety days to reevaluate the knife and bra clasp. Conti, despite being virtually new in the forensic scene, immediately showed to be most active, asking if he could disassemble the knife. It’s not surprising, males always want to disassemble toys.

The defense should have all interest in not opening the knife, since, if it was the murder weapon, some blood would have necessarily remained between the handle and blade.
But the defense agreed, meaning that they know the Marietti knife is not the murder weapon.

The prosecution should have all interest in opening it, to find the remains of blood.
But the prosecution, believe it or not, opposed such action (Comodi and Maresca literally jumped). It means they also know something: that the Marietti knife is NOT the murder weapon.

See in what unexpected ways players come to put their cards on the table?

 

[Bill Williams]

In defense of Briars, the article claims in effect that there is no DNA evidence against RS/AK. This is not strictly true and as such I think his criticism was warranted. The article was in the rant genre, and as such perfect attention to facts is never expected, at least by people that agree with the rant. People that disagree with the rant are not so forgiving and look for the imperfections to create a reason to ignore the conclusion of the rant.

The bottom line here is that the rant genre is useful for entertaining the folks that agree with the rant but it is not an effective form of prose for changing the minds of the people that disagree with the rant.

The reason why Grinder is smiling, is that it is in, "True Rant" format!

(C'mon, Grinder, even you have to think this funny!)

 

[Bill Williams]

It would be better for the real break-in advocates if there was a footprint on the side of the cottage and muddy prints inside etc. The Ch. 5 demonstration shows that a climber could easily reach the sill, the shutters and window while standing on the upper frame of the lower window. The climb is easier than either you or I thought it was.

Once the window was broken and the climber was standing with his shoulders at the sill height he could reach in and up to open the window. Once open he could pull himself through or even squat on the sill and step in the room.

Truly there is no evidence of a staging in any reasonable use of the word evidence. There are many factoids pointing to staging (using the correct definition of factoid) just no facts.

It would have been even better if Rudy had signed his name on the wall with a large felt-marker-pen, with an arrow pointing up.....

And for the part after, "truly there is no evidence....", are you sure I didn't hack your account and write this for you? Just asking!

 

[Dan O.]

Any blood on that shower wand? If so, I concede the shower. If not, why not? What you always overlook Dan, if I may say so, is that to get that footprint the way you would have it, he has to step right into the shower, turn around and walk back out facing the door. Why would he do that? If he washed his right pants leg, he would not need to go right inside the shower, just put his leg in, wash it and withdraw when the foot print would point at the shower but would be at the wrong end of the bathmat.

The outside of the shower wand can be easily cleaned. I do this all the time to remove soap residue from the wand in my shower. The wand could have been collected and opened to test for blood on the inside.

A piece you are missing is that there is testimony given that the mat was moved between the time of the murder and when the bathroom was photographed. The stain was not noticed by someone walking into the bathroom but rather was noticed when stepping out of the shower. When this case is settled I may ask for further clarification from the witness.

We can also deduce the hight of the stain on the pants from the drip on the door leading into the bathroom. I haven't done the exact measurements for this but it appears to be higher than the bidet will spray.

 

[Diocletus]

. That Hamilton guy certainly musta been a peppery old fella.

Yeah. I know a certain boot-shaped European country that could use some of Hamilton's pepper.

 

[anglolawyer]

The outside of the shower wand can be easily cleaned. I do this all the time to remove soap residue from the wand in my shower. The wand could have been collected and opened to test for blood on the inside.

A piece you are missing is that there is testimony given that the mat was moved between the time of the murder and when the bathroom was photographed. The stain was not noticed by someone walking into the bathroom but rather was noticed when stepping out of the shower. When this case is settled I may ask for further clarification from the witness.

We can also deduce the hight of the stain on the pants from the drip on the door leading into the bathroom. I haven't done the exact measurements for this but it appears to be higher than the bidet will spray.

I thought I had you there. I still say bidet though. So what if the mat was moved. It doesn't have to have ended up differently than when it started. And you still have Guede walking right inside the shower and walking out face forward when all he was washing was one leg.