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

[AmyStrange]

strength of evidence, volume of evidence, whatever Dan O

-

I have to disagree with your echo chamber analogy. Here it's the strength of the evidence that counts and not the volume of the chant reverberating off the empty walls.

-

I'm not the one who came up with the original echo chamber analogy. I was just expanding on it as a way to hopefully help explain to lionking why the only way to silence an innocence echo chamber is by using a reverse echo (evidence of guilty) to stop it.

But, if you want to be petty and argue about semantics, fine, knock yourself out.

Either kind of evidence is always better than just making fun of people as a way to silence this innocence echo chamber. I'm sure arguing about a petty little thing like strength versus volume will make a big difference in changing anyone's mind here,

d

-

 

[katy_did]

Not only that, but because there is no motivations report the US system isn't open to the criticism of the detail.

Very good point; given the nonsensical reasoning some of the trained judges in Italy come up with, it's a little scary to think of the kind of supporting arguments we might get from lay juries. Interesting that the higher courts in the U.S. have to justify their decisions with written arguments, but juries can convict or acquit without needing to explain their reasoning at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

There were smaller bloodstains on the underside. Amanda admitted seeing the larger stain so that was the side she shuffled on? So with your theory she needed to have placed her entire foot on the large bloody print. Just like an ink pad stamp , she must have fit her entire foot inside the print in order to transfer whole prints in the hall? Quite the theory , surprising that the mat print wouldn't blur with the effort of her wet foot twisting and turning as she scooted down the hall. Amanda must have been.thinking along the same lines, I believe the mat story was told to Mignini on the 17th a day before investigators were expected to test with luminol.

Is there any particular reason you believe this, other than that you come to this thinking her guilty? Is not the evidence supposed to lead to the conclusion, rather than the conclusion driving the interpretation of evidence?

 

[Dan O.]

So those footprints could still be there if luminol is reapplied. Hmm.

I doubt it. The cottage was the site of a bloody murder with blood left on the floor for over 18 months. As part of the renovation to remove the bio-hazard they would have scrubbed the floor with harsh chemicals and applied a sealer on top. A weak acid would etch the metal ions from the surface and the sealer would cover it up. Luminol needs direct contact with the metal ion to catalizes the peroxide.

 

[katy_did]

There were smaller bloodstains on the underside. Amanda admitted seeing the larger stain so that was the side she shuffled on? So with your theory she needed to have placed her entire foot on the large bloody print. Just like an ink pad stamp , she must have fit her entire foot inside the print in order to transfer whole prints in the hall? Quite the theory , surprising that the mat print wouldn't blur with the effort of her wet foot twisting and turning as she scooted down the hall. Amanda must have been.thinking along the same lines, I believe the mat story was told to Mignini on the 17th a day before investigators were expected to test with luminol.

The footprint wasn't the only area of the bathmat to have blood on it; there were traces of blood on many other areas of the mat as well. According to witnesses there was a significant amount of water on the mat mixed with the dilute blood, and this would have created a mixture which could well have coated Amanda's foot when she stood on the mat.

No idea what you're talking about with regard to the "smaller bloodstains on the underside", do you have a picture?

The fact that you interpret Amanda's statements about the bathmat (are you quite sure it was the 17th, by the way?) made before the discovery of the prints to be yet another sign of her guilt just shows your confirmation bias. That might be a reasonable interpretation had she only mentioned the incident after the prints were found, but she didn't. I find it more likely that, as I think Dan O has suggested, the police used luminol in the corridor as a direct result of hearing Amanda's statements about the bathmat: they already knew what they were likely to find.

 

[Grinder]

Very good point; given the nonsensical reasoning some of the trained judges in Italy come up with, it's a little scary to think of the kind of supporting arguments we might get from lay juries. Interesting that the higher courts in the U.S. have to justify their decisions with written arguments, but juries can convict or acquit without needing to explain their reasoning at all.

Yes but only on the law not the facts and god knows nobody can understand or criticize their thinking on legal matters. pointing at a certain somebody

 

[Grinder]

Is there any particular reason you believe this, other than that you come to this thinking her guilty? Is not the evidence supposed to lead to the conclusion, rather than the conclusion driving the interpretation of evidence?

She's correct about the timing of Amanda's giving this account. The fly for Briars is that nobody could see these footprints without luminol and there is no evidence of visible ones being cleaned. Raising the question as how she would know or think that invisible prints were left there.

It is very difficult to get rid of dried blood. It doesn't go away without using a strong cleaning agent. How did the ICSI remove Rudy's shoe print? Did they scrape the blood or swab only the visible spots?

Anyone want to predict when the PGP will bring back the bloody shoe prints as Raffaele's?

 

[AmyStrange]

You'll probably disagree with this also Dan O...

-

I disagree again. A timeline is an osmosis of ones argument tying together all of the parts. It shows the possibility of a position that does not conflict with the acceptable evidence. Guilters don't have a timeline. That says a lot.

-

sorry, but the only timeline the innocent camp has is that Meredith was killed by Rudy alone almost as soon she got home and that was too early for Raffaele and Amanda to be involved. That really doesn't help prove your case does it? A timeline is not evidence.

If it did and it was, why aren't people coming in here believing in guilt and leaving in droves, believing in innocence? That's because a timeline is not evidence of anything. It's an opinion based on what you believe the important evidence really is. it doesn't convince anyone of anything.

Sure it might shut up some posters, but that's it. It doesn't help silence the innocence echo chamber complainers.

As a matter of fact, I agree with lionking that a timeline is not necessary to post here. As a matter of fact, I never posted a guilt timeline here either, but if that's what's necessary, here's my Raffaele and Amanda are guilty (of killing Meredith) timeline:

Raffaele and Amanda hook up with Rudy after he comes over to their house and tells them that Meredith is home. They immediately run over and kill Meredith wearing disposable gloves and booties. One of Raffaele's gloves rips and he leaves a little tiny bit of DNA on Meredith's bra, and then they come back to tell Rudy (who has been at Raffaele's house keeping the computer from going to screen saver) and he goes back to do what he wants with her, forgetting to wear gloves and booties, because he doesn't think they have his DNA on file. He's stubborn and stupid in that way,

d

-

 

[Katody Matrass]

She's correct about the timing of Amanda's giving this account.

Well, no. Amanda wrote about the bathmat shuffle in the letter to her lawyers right after the arrest.

 

[anglolawyer]

-


-

sorry, but the only timeline the innocent camp has is that Meredith was killed by Rudy alone almost as soon she got home and that was too early for Raffaele and Amanda to be involved. That really doesn't help prove your case does it? A timeline is not evidence.

If it did and it was, why aren't people coming in here believing in guilt and leaving in droves, believing in innocence? That's because a timeline is not evidence of anything. It's an opinion based on what you believe the important evidence really is. it doesn't convince anyone of anything.

Sure it might shut up some posters, but that's it. It doesn't help silence the innocence echo chamber complainers.

As a matter of fact, I agree with lionking that a timeline is not necessary to
post here.

Here's my Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of something timeline:

Raffaele and Amanda hook up with Rudy after he comes over to their house and tells them that Meredith is home. They immediately run over and kill Meredith wearing disposable gloves and booties. One of Raffaele's gloves rips and he leaves a little tiny bit of DNA on Meredith's bra, and then they come back to tell Rudy (who has been at Raffaele's house keeping the computer from going to screen saver) and he goes back to do what he wants with her, forgetting to wear gloves and booties, because he doesn't think they have his DNA on file. He's stubborn and stupid in that way,

d

-

There aren't any times in your time line.

I disagree with your post. The prosecution assembled a jumble of supposedly incriminating things that don't fit together. That is the whole point. What time was the attack? 9.00 p.m? No. They were at home then. 10.00 p.m? They were in the piazza under the gaze of Toto. And she didn't scream for another hour. 11.00 p.m. No. Toto and the tow truck. Midnight? Yes, that's it! Everything fits! Except Meredith needs to be doing things she was not doing between 9 and 12, including undressing, going to bed, using her phone, digesting food, making notes for class, sleeping or anything. Curiously, none of these things is a problem if Rudy acted alone which is also what the forensics say.

Have another go.

 

[Grinder]

Well, no. Amanda wrote about the bathmat shuffle in the letter to her lawyers right after the arrest.

Pretty sure she gave it to Mignini on the 17th. But not really that significant one way or the other.

18th August 2011, 02:03 PM That's not quite right. The interview in which Amanda mentioned the "bathmat shuffle" took place on December 17, 2007, a day before police performed the luminol tests that revealed the footprints in the corridor. And the "bathmat shuffle" wouldn't account for these footprints in any case.

Amanda did not offer this detail to explain away incriminating evidence. She need not have mentioned it at all. She did so because she was trying to be as meticulous as possible in describing her activities on the morning of November 2.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Pretty sure she gave it to Mignini on the 17th. But not really that significant one way or the other.

You're right about it but it wasn't the first time she mentioned it.

9 November 2007 she wrote in a letter to Ghirga and Vedova

I had forgotten my towel in my room so I used the mat to get to my room without getting the floor wet to retrieve my towel.

 

[katy_did]

Well, no. Amanda wrote about the bathmat shuffle in the letter to her lawyers right after the arrest.

Great catch. I'm sure Briars will now explain that this was also just a cunning plan to explain the invisible prints she knew would be detected (Amanda being a forward-thinker, though apparently not forward-thinking enough to clean the prints she knew she'd made so that they couldn't be detected at all).

 

[Grinder]

There aren't any times in your time line.

I disagree with your post. The prosecution assembled a jumble of supposedly incriminating things that don't fit together. That is the whole point. What time was the attack? 9.00 p.m? No. They were at home then. 10.00 p.m? They were in the piazza under the gaze of Toto. And she didn't scream for another hour. 11.00 p.m. No. Toto and the tow truck. Midnight? Yes, that's it! Everything fits! Except Meredith needs to be doing things she was not doing between 9 and 12, including undressing, going to bed, using her phone, digesting food, making notes for class, sleeping or anything. Curiously, none of these things is a problem if Rudy acted alone which is also what the forensics say.

Have another go.

Of course a timeline isn't evidence but it USES known facts to put it together. If the TOD were fixed by a stopped wristwatch and the suspect had a video standing in front of store at that time, there could be no timeline that would make sense for that suspect to have committed the crime.

When people come here and say some version of all the lies or changing stories or mixed blood or any of the litany rather than going through the lengthy argument of why they are incorrect, we can accept what they say, but ask them to tell us how it happened considering the facts known. When the digestive evidence is added to all the other facts concerning cell phone use etc. the latest TOD of 10 pm makes much of the other evidence obviously wrong (Nara and Curatolo) or of little value.

Basically the only 'witness' to break their alibi falls away. The PGP need to admit that the theory of the crime that requires a 11:30 TOD is bogus.

 

[Grinder]

You're right about it but it wasn't the first time she mentioned it.

9 November 2007 she wrote in a letter to Ghirga and Vedova

Amanda must have been.thinking along the same lines, I believe the mat story was told to Mignini on the 17th a day before investigators were expected to test with luminol.

She didn't say it was the first time Amanda had ever said it. She was correct in what she said

 

[Desert Fox]

Great catch. I'm sure Briars will now explain that this was also just a cunning plan to explain the invisible prints she knew would be detected (Amanda being a forward-thinker, though apparently not forward-thinking enough to clean the prints she knew she'd made so that they couldn't be detected at all).

Let us be honest though, many people who deal with one situation like a genius will fall flat on their face otherwise.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course a timeline isn't evidence but it USES known facts to put it together. If the TOD were fixed by a stopped wristwatch and the suspect had a video standing in front of store at that time, there could be no timeline that would make sense for that suspect to have committed the crime.

When people come here and say some version of all the lies or changing stories or mixed blood or any of the litany rather than going through the lengthy argument of why they are incorrect, we can accept what they say, but ask them to tell us how it happened considering the facts known. When the digestive evidence is added to all the other facts concerning cell phone use etc. the latest TOD of 10 pm makes much of the other evidence obviously wrong (Nara and Curatolo) or of little value.

Basically the only 'witness' to break their alibi falls away. The PGP need to admit that the theory of the crime that requires a 11:30 TOD is bogus.

I don't disagree Grinder but there is a point to be made about this timeline thing and the meme the guilters have got hold of that this is a circumstantial case in which you have to look at all the evidence.

A circumstantial case can be very strong but it must all point to one thing. After all, only one thing really happened. There was only one set of events and each event happened at one moment in time. We don't have to know everything to the second and the witnesses and indicators don't have to point to exact times but some kind of a picture does have to emerge. In our case, the events are time-critical (they don't always have to be but they are here) because there are known parameters for most of the key events. If we can't make them fit then we either have to chuck some elements out or permit some tolerance to them. This is where the fun starts, with people trying to move the scream forward or let Curatolo see them only in gaps between bouts of newspaper reading or screw around with digestion etc etc.

This is the very short version of the answer to Lionking's point about bullying.

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by Briars
They told her she no longer had an alibi, that was the threat. Why didn't she cry out that's not true why did R say that it's not true .Any innocent percent would have just repeated that . Instead she confusedly remembers meeting this bad man and bringing him home in a short time. Really? Believe what you will.Her statements fit with evidence she was there. Believe the footprints were turnip juice coming out of the bedroom , I'm getting back to the Olympics and the Canadian women's great game! (end of Briar's comment)


Briars, how do you know Amanda didn't say that - that she didn't respond that way? How do you know she didn't deny it? My understanding is that Amanda did respond correctly - that she was at Raffaele's. Said she was not at her flat. In fact had said that through 17-19 hours of actual interrogation in the previous 3 days. But that is not what her interrogators wanted to hear. They accused of her lying.

How do you know exactly what Amanda understood them to be saying? With the same nuance you put to it? Were the police speaking English?

Play the tapes, Briars, and we will know for sure what the interrogators said, what vocabulary they used, how they said it, with what inflection, accusation, and volume in their voices. And then we will also know what Amand said. One party or the other was speaking in a broken English or broken Italian, and the other was comprehending (or miss-comprehending) the other's broken speach.

Donnino was sent for because the police knew they were miscommunicating, but Donnino didn't arrive until much later.

By the way, Briars, what is the Italian word for alibi? Did Knox know that word in Italian? Do you know for sure? How much Italian had Knox had at that point? One semester in college and six-weeks in country?

 

[Planigale]

There were smaller bloodstains on the underside. Amanda admitted seeing the larger stain so that was the side she shuffled on? So with your theory she needed to have placed her entire foot on the large bloody print. Just like an ink pad stamp , she must have fit her entire foot inside the print in order to transfer whole prints in the hall? Quite the theory , surprising that the mat print wouldn't blur with the effort of her wet foot twisting and turning as she scooted down the hall. Amanda must have been.thinking along the same lines, I believe the mat story was told to Mignini on the 17th a day before investigators were expected to test with luminol.

One of the comments often made is how come AK did a shuffle on a blood stained bath mat. The answer is obvious (at least to me) AK is shortsighted, but is a little too self conscious to wear glasses. i suspect she wears contact lenses (but maybe just goes through life in a blur). One takes out ones contact lenses before having a shower (I'd take them out in my own room) then go and have a shower in a blur. No way would I see a blood stain. Also i frequently do a bath mat shuffle cold floor poorly heated London flat just had a hot shower.

Now this is a testable hypothesis even now I plan on booking a flight to Seattle with a Snellen chart cornering AK and making her do an eye test. Alternatively someone may just know; is AK myopic?

 

[NancyS]

So with your theory she needed to have placed her entire foot on the large bloody print. Just like an ink pad stamp , she must have fit her entire foot inside the print in order to transfer whole prints in the hall?

So you think that Amanda stood in Meredith's blood - her whole foot pressed in the blood just like an ink pad -and yet left no trace of this in Meredith's room? Surely you can see how ridiculous an assertion this is?

All we really know about the footprints is that they could have belonged to anyone, some didn't contain DNA, they were all completely random and they tested negative for blood with TMB - how can this be evidence of anything?

If people are really suggesting that they tested negative for blood because they were so dilute - and not just a little dilute but really really really dilute - perhaps some time in the previous months/years, there was some menstrual blood mixed with the water in the shower - or perhaps one of the many sexually active young men to visit the flat had a case of non-specific urethritis and sprinkled outside the bowl. If anyone wants to claim it is blood, then prove it is blood - otherwise it is just more meaningless nonsense.