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

[Kaosium]

Both times according to the test results. Nothing found.

Thanks. I had a niggling memory she had as she did a number in the murder room, but the lack of results made me wonder if she hadn't on that sample for some reason.

 

[davefoc]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I've read the court decisions, watched some testimony, read the writings of AK & RS and have reached my own opinion. I don't care what the priest's opinion is. I don't care about John Douglas's opinion either. Or the retired FBI dude that loves to speak about it, I don't care about her mothers opinion.

And I realize my opinion doesn't matter.

Your opinion does matter. You've come on this board and said you believe AK & RS committed murder. Many people have read that opinion. The fact that somebody has looked at the evidence and decided that RS & AK are guilty has the potential to affect the opinions of others on this case.

You would be right that your opinion doesn't matter, if you chose not to share your opinion. If that were the case it wouldn't matter that you'd made up your mind based on whatever criteria you were comfortable with regardless of whether the criteria were objective or not. But you chose to share your opinion, so did you attempt an objective survey of the evidence to base your opinion on?

It certainly doesn't look like that based on what you've posted here, especially with regard to the responses from people that have shown many of your ideas about this case to be wrong.

Your approach is certainly not typical for the Americans that I have been on jury panels with. I didn't see signs that anybody had anything but a very serious intent to objectively weigh the evidence. You state that you have a pro-prosecution bias. That is a very reasonable bias to have, if it is even reasonable to call it a bias. The overwhelming majority of people prosecuted are guilty. If all you know about somebody is that they are being prosecuted, the reasonable assumption is that the prosecution is justified and they are guilty.

However, not all prosecutions are justified as has been demonstrated with the numerous examples of falsely convicted people that have been put forth in this thread. The claim here is that Knox and Sollecito have been wrongly prosecuted. When you decided that they hadn't been wrongly prosecuted did you just go to your pro-prosecution bias and decide to trust everything the prosecution says to reinforce your pro-prosecution bias? Right now that looks exactly like what you have done. So what does you opinion amount to? Is it just an opinion that prosecutors are good people and the people that they prosecute are bad so AK & RS must be guilty? Your willingness to accept discredited prosecution theories and an unwillingness to examine the wildly unlikely nature of this crime suggests that you have done something like that.

 

[souldonut]

I think she was more than happy to volunteer up her false accusations. I don't believe she was hit or tortured.
.....
(different post)
Their story rapidly unraveled under ordinary police interrogations.

Do you believe Patrick Lumumba when he reported in an interview, after his own arrest and release, that he was hit by the Perugia police, punched, and kicked, and threatened with a 30 year prison sentence? Either we have differing opinions on what constitutes an "ordinary police interrogation", or maybe you think Patrick Lumumba lied when he said these things upon his release from jail? Or did the journalist fabricate quotations from Patrick, in which the journalist should be prosecuted?

Or perhaps you don't dispute Patrick's quotations from this article, but you just have it out for Amanda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

-sd

 

[HotNostril]

It matters to you. And you are willing to voice your opinion, so you must think or hope your opinion matters to others. Or else, why would you spend your time and energy posting your remarks?



And I'm with you in that I tend to favor the prosecution. They are right MOST of the time. But I want some real evidence, not subjective opinions about evidence.



Frankly, that is all John Douglass has as well. But the difference between him and the Perugia investigators is the mountain of very serious crimes he's investigated. For the Perugia detectives this is a once in lifetime crime. For Douglass, this was a common every day crime. Discounting his expertise so cavalierly yet accepting others seems very shortsighted



All I really want from people is for them to fairly examine the evidence that an actual juror should. That they base their opinion on the normal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Hey, I can understand you viewing Amanda suspiciously, but I cannot see how you or anyone for that matter come to the opinion that the evidence against her rises to that level.



So when you express your opinion so stridently that you think that they are guilty. I expect you to show how it is not reasonable to believe in their innocence. How the EVIDENCE concludes that it is any belief in their innocence is NOT reasonable.



The ball is in your court Nostril. Think you can do that?



With all due respect, I don't think you can. There simply isn't that kind of evidence.

Speaking honestly, I don't thoroughly understand,with any sort of real confidence, how the DNA found mixed with AK's in the room with the broken window can be dismissed. It's found mixed in more than one spot, correct?

I can't wrap my head around all the excuses made for RS's DNA on that clasp.

Same with the knife. I don't care the test couldn't be replicated. It was there and it was a match to Meredith. If RS didn't, with his own words, didn't put her blood on that knife ...maybe I could get over my suspicion.

I can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?
Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?
The phone call to her mother @3am. That's some coincidence.

There's more...I'm pressed for time.

 

[Vibio]

"What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won."

Among other things.... the scream:

Rudy Guede: "I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...

Amanda Knox: "... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears."

 

[souldonut]

More positive coverage of Amanda in the UK, including face on the cover of the Guardian Weekend

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/08/who-is-amanda-knox-interview

Amazing article. Many great quotes, but this stood out, referring to Curatolo:

"Heroin's not a big deal when it's for a witness, but pot is a big deal when it's the suspect. Pot turns two kids who have never had any history of violence or aggression or antisocial behaviour into psychotic sex predators," she says bitterly. "Like that's convenient."
- Amanda Knox

 

[HotNostril]

That is a suitably humble and honest account of your position.



Are you here to learn or just let us know that your opinion isn't going to be influenced by any points we have to make?

I read every post an evaluate it based on my limited understanding of the material.
I have more doubts now than I did previously..so my participation isn't just to stand stubbornly in defense of my opinion.
The personal insults take away from otherwise interesting & thought provoking points being made.
I've found it's not a great idea to insult those you're trying to educate or change their opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

HotNostril:

Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.

In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.

I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.

Yet there were 5 traces from Rudy. not to mention half a dozen of his shoe prints and his palm print. And ZERO from Amanda. And here's the thing. If they had found Amanda's DNA in that bedroom it still wouldn't have necessarily been incriminating since Amanda lived in the room next door.

Rudy doesn't live there and they find five DNA traces? You see, the lack of Amanda's DNA is conspicuous by it absence.

You're right though Vibio. That doesn't prove that Amanda WASN'T there, but you miss the point. You're the prosecution. YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT SHE WAS THERE.

Not finding Rudy's DNA from Filomena's bedroom means far less. Since they took very few swabs from Filomena's room and he wasn't in a violent struggle in her bedroom.

What Vibio, Hot Nostril etc should keep in mind. They have a responsibility to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt not just spout probablies and could haves.

Unless of course they think that the legal and moral standard shouldn't be beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[bolint]

Among other things.... the scream:

Rudy Guede: "I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...

Amanda Knox: "... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears."

Amanda's version of the loud scream could be known to Rudy as it was published in the media on the day of arrest, so his report is not necessarily independent.

 

[HotNostril]

I love that you mentioned Law and Order. You do realize that is a fiction don't you? What I like about Law and Order is just how every story comes down to "sweating a suspect in the box". Every one.



But they virtually never do keep their mouth shut on that show do they? Do you ever actually see them reading the suspects their rights? That they run their mouths even when they have a lawyer sitting right next to them.



That the show doesn't even remotely resemble a true interrogation.

Do you know that the vast majority of their interrogations portrayed in that show would be thrown out of court? And in real life suspects hardly ever just break down and confess which happens most of the time on the show. You should watch some of real videos of suspect interrogations.



That's the problem with the Perugian interrogation. It's like they have watched too many episodes of Law and Order.



You should read up on the Reid interrogation method. Which the Perugians readily admit that they were employing.



But here's the thing Hot Nostril. What part of the actual crime did they confirm during the interrogation. What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won.

I am familiar with Reid.

It was my lame attempt at being funny in reference to Miranda.

The one thing I do have control over is my mouth. I have no trouble keeping it shut.

I think my issue is more about her lack of accountability and remorse for what happened to PL as a result of her running her own mouth.

 

[davefoc]

HotNostril:

Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.

In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.

I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.

This is nonsense. The claim is that Knox participated in this murder. The fact that there is no evidence in the murder room in a non-bizarro world would suggest that she may not have been in the room when the murder occurred. When there is a lot of blood and nobody except the known murderer's shoe prints are found in that blood then that is very strong evidence that nobody else was in the room when the murder was committed. When it is possible to find DNA of the known murderer in numerous places then it is reasonable to expect that it would be possible to find DNA of accomplices in the room as well if they had existed.

This entire line of reasoning is based on nutty theorizing about the need for accomplices when a small woman is attacked by a strong athletic man with a knife. As a person that was on a wrestling team I can assure that size and strength are major advantages in physical confrontations. I might have had some chances against somebody in one or two weight divisions larger than mine, but by the time the strength and weight advantage was the equivalent of Rudy versus Kercher my only chance was to get a gun.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

Hello

First, thanks to everyone for an interesting and informative thread. I have been reading it for well over a year.

I have registered because I am in discussions on another forum and the issue of the possible forensic test on the glass has arisen. I am aware that there is a simple test which could establish that the glass was broken from the inside or outside, but that this was not carried out by the prosecution. It has been put to me that the defence should have done this test to protect their client and obviously this is right. I am aware that the prosecution were not terribly forthcoming with cooperation in the DNA tests, but I cannot find whether or not the defence attempted to carry out the test on glass and whether or not it was refused. I know that many defence motions were refused but I have trawled through a few sites without joy on this issue.

Can anyone help me on this issue? With source documents? I'm sorry if this has been covered earlier, I have read many many pages but can't remember if any details of why the test was not carried out was referred to. Thanks in advance.

 

[acbytesla]

"What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won."

Among other things.... the scream:

Rudy Guede: "I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...

Amanda Knox: "... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears."

What does that prove? The scream? Seriously? How can you even prove that Meredith did scream? What time was it when this happened? And who else can confirm that they heard a scream at that specific time?

Rudy? Rudy also said that Amanda wasn't there. Rudy also said that this happened at 9:20. Do you think Amanda and Raffaele were there killing Meredith at 9:20? And Nara hadn't even gone to bed ...so her testimony is out.

Try again.

 

[Bill Williams]

HotNostril:

Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.

In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.

I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.

What you are missing is that even the first prosecutor, Mignini, moved Amanda out of the room into the hall for these reasons. You are making examples which have little to do with this.

Rudy's forensics are a case in point. You'd then have to explain why "multiple attackers" is so compelling, if only one attacker left a sufficient set of forensics, including inside the victim.

These examples are exceedingly misleading.

 

[anglolawyer]

"What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won."

Among other things.... the scream:

Rudy Guede: "I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...

Amanda Knox: "... at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears."

Superficially, but it's like saying there was a lot of blood. Woman is brutally murdered with a knife. What do you expect? Blood? Yes. A scream? Why not? If she had imagined instead something incongruous that only someone who was present could know about then you might have something. The scream was suggested to her by her interrogators. Rudy was just building his story around things that he thought might have been heard or discovered afterwards.

Mind you, Cassazione agrees with you but I would not take that as a good sign.

 

[RoseMontague]

Speaking honestly, I don't thoroughly understand,with any sort of real confidence, how the DNA found mixed with AK's in the room with the broken window can be dismissed. It's found mixed in more than one spot, correct?

In Filomena's room only one spot, we don't know who made that spot as it was a blob. Another mixed DNA on a Luminol shoe print (not footprint) in the hallway close to Filomena's door. That shoe print does not match any of the shoes and appears to be a man's shoe print. The third is the bare footprint found in Amanda's room that doesn't match Amanda's foot.


I can't wrap my head around all the excuses made for RS's DNA on that clasp.

Try harder. There are three other male profiles on the bra clasp. either Meredith was a lot more active sexually or it is due to contamination. Which do you think it is?


Same with the knife. I don't care the test couldn't be replicated. It was there and it was a match to Meredith. If RS didn't, with his own words, didn't put her blood on that knife ...maybe I could get over my suspicion.

They have such standards for LCN testing for a reason. The knife tested negative for blood with Stefi, with C&V, and with the RIS. Yet there was starch left on the knife so it is highly unlikely it was cleaned.

I can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?
Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?
The phone call to her mother @3am. That's some coincidence.

There is no call to her mom at 3AM. It was a few minutes before 5AM Seattle time. And so what? At this time something had happened. They knew there had been a breakin, Amanda had already told Filomena, and Raffaele was talking to his father and sister.

There's more...I'm pressed for time.

Hope you saved the best for last.

My comments bolded.

 

[Vibio]

Amanda's version of the loud scream could be known to Rudy as it was published in the media on the day of arrest, so his report is not necessarily independent.

That quote from Amanda? Was published on the day of the arrest?Link please... or at least please cite your source.

 

[acbytesla]

I am familiar with Reid.

It was my lame attempt at being funny in reference to Miranda.

The one thing I do have control over is my mouth. I have no trouble keeping it shut.

I think my issue is more about her lack of accountability and remorse for what happened to PL as a result of her running her own mouth.

How much remorse do you want Amanda to express about Patrick? She has expressed remorse at least a few dozen times from two days after she was incarcerated. And has in interviews, in her book. All the while Patrick has been trashing her.

Frankly, I think the police should express some remorse for Patrick. They arrested him with nothing but Amanda's statement even though it was contradicted by a half a dozen of his bar patrons. And then they kept him incarcerated for a couple of weeks even though Amanda had retracted her statement hours after the accusation. Then they kept his bar closed for 6 months. Just enough time to bankrupt Patrick.

 

[Kaosium]

That the murderer was black.

Which the police also had evidence of, whether it was the 'black man's hair' left at the scene as Nadeau described, or simply figuring the haplogroup from the Y-STR testing they did.

Might that explain why they were so interested in the text messages Patrick and Amanda exchanged the night of the murder?

 

[Vibio]

The scream was suggested to her by her interrogators.

Please cite your source.