PDA

View Full Version : Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

JREF2010
20th August 2011, 04:04 PM
__________________

Rose,

Well, it wasn't an excusable typographical err0r, was it?

Massei was either seriously confused about the so-called "bloody footprints" or he was being deceitful. I think he was confused, since there's plenty of evidence for that elsewhere in his Report. What was Massei's state of mind when he decided---as stated explicitly in the report--- We don't need more stinkin' experts?

///

As I recall Frank saying and another journalist, was layjudges would fall asleep, Massei would play with his cell phone, and so thats a possible chance for them to get details mixed up.
During the Defense witnesses, the Cell Tower expert piece (if its still available after they shut down his old site)

Its very possible Massei doesn't understand luminol and forensic science very well either.

Rolfe
20th August 2011, 04:04 PM
I like the picture of the sweet little cats under the yellow moon though....

Rolfe.

Kevin_Lowe
20th August 2011, 04:45 PM
So in fact, Curatolo was a shambling wreck of a man with quite severe mental health issues, who had elected to live on the streets (and who consequently had most likely resisted attempts to place him in a more secure shelter. This was also a man who says he was "always using" heroin, and that he believes that heroin "does not make you hallucinate or anything".

And all of this within months of late October 2010. Strange, huh?


Insofar as whether heroin causes hallucinations, Curatolo is absolutely right. Heroin no more causes hallucinations than paracetamol or any other non-hallucinogenic drug for that matter.

A drug user who only uses heroin is a rare beast, criminologically speaking, and heroin addicts are typically polydrug users, which is a fancy way of saying they will shove anything they can get into their nose, mouth or arm. So it's more likely that Curatolo was on LSD or something on any given night than a randomly selected member of the population, if that's all we know about him, but not greatly so.

Some forms of mental illness can cause hallucinations as well but I am not aware that Curatolo has been diagnosed with any such condition.

His track record of popping up with just the witness statements the Perugia police needed is also hard to reconcile with the theory that he was randomly hallucinating, whether because of drugs or some underlying condition.

I think a far more likely story is just that Curatolo was extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" or coercion by the police that he come forward with some kind of story placing Knox and Sollecito outside their house at a particular time.

JREF2010
20th August 2011, 04:46 PM
Having an opinion of them being "somehow involved" means nothing more than you suspect something. Which comes back to the behavior and acting "suspiciously". As evidence that they should have been considered "suspects" it might work. Or they could have been charged with suspicious activity rather than murder. The cartwheel ought to be good for some community service at the local gymnastics center.

Thats funny "charged with suspicious activity"... it may come down to that.
I know I couldn't convict on "maybe it happened" or "they acted weird".

How about "lies" the prosecution often speak of...my current infatuation!

Example:
One of Raffaele's "responses" is his comment of Amanda leaving at 9 and returning at 1am.
> I was told, and read, that he was confused and talking mistakenly or taken wrong, about Oct 31. Others say he's caught in a lie because hes a murderer.

According to the cell log, for Oct 31
>Raffaele and his Dad talk 44minutes at 10:14pm/22:14.(not something he'd do with Amanda there I doubt.) He talks and SMS to his Dad at Midnight and guess when? .................1am.
>Amandas cell shows up at 00:57am (1am), from guess where?
........VD5Sector 3, which is Raffaeles apartment.

So it seems logical this comment is true, Raffaele could have been talking about Oct 31. That Amanda was gone and came home at 1am. Maybe the police took him wrong during the interrogation, the police thinking he was talking about Nov 1, but Raffaele was in fact talking about Oct 31.


Hellman seems to be ready to end the trial soon, per this article. Maybe he doesnt need to delve into the "truth/lies" folder?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/08/20/amanda-knox-lawyer-assists-parents-in-kelly-denman-tragic-story/

:confused:

LondonJohn
20th August 2011, 05:02 PM
Insofar as whether heroin causes hallucinations, Curatolo is absolutely right. Heroin no more causes hallucinations than paracetamol or any other non-hallucinogenic drug for that matter.

A drug user who only uses heroin is a rare beast, criminologically speaking, and heroin addicts are typically polydrug users, which is a fancy way of saying they will shove anything they can get into their nose, mouth or arm. So it's more likely that Curatolo was on LSD or something on any given night than a randomly selected member of the population, if that's all we know about him, but not greatly so.

Some forms of mental illness can cause hallucinations as well but I am not aware that Curatolo has been diagnosed with any such condition.

His track record of popping up with just the witness statements the Perugia police needed is also hard to reconcile with the theory that he was randomly hallucinating, whether because of drugs or some underlying condition.

I think a far more likely story is just that Curatolo was extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" or coercion by the police that he come forward with some kind of story placing Knox and Sollecito outside their house at a particular time.


Ah but you're seemingly defining "hallucinations" as the vivid audio-visual scenes that are often experienced while under the influence of the so-called "hallucinogen" drugs such as LSD. But opiates such as heroin most definitely both can and do induce hallucinations in users - especially long-term users - that are not the same vivid fantasies but more akin to seeing people who aren't really there, or hearing strange distant voices, or imagining oneself to be lying in water.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003258.htm

bucketoftea
20th August 2011, 05:19 PM
I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

Mary_H
20th August 2011, 05:43 PM
I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

Do you have the records?

bucketoftea
20th August 2011, 06:17 PM
Do you have the records?

I'm afraid I can't find you a linky, but I'm sure others will remember them saying this on television. Edda more than once.

pilot padron
20th August 2011, 06:42 PM
I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.



Do you have the records?

Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

Bruce Fisher
20th August 2011, 07:08 PM
I apologise for referring to a comment from a couple of pages ago, but I simply could not let this mistake stand uncorrected.

Mary H said:
"Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke. "

Were Edda Mellas and Janet Huff also getting their information from Ciolino? I ask because they are both on record saying Amanda never even met Rudy.

It is well known that Amanda and Rudy only crossed paths a couple of times and were certainly not friends.

Dragging Amanda's family into the discussion is not necessary.

Bucket, why not make your avatar about me on JREF too? I am seeing how many avatars I can have dedicated to me. The avatar game is not a childish obsession at all and it is an excellent way to preserve the memory of Meredith!

Mary_H
20th August 2011, 07:17 PM
I'm afraid I can't find you a linky, but I'm sure others will remember them saying this on television. Edda more than once.

That's all right, I was just curious.

Please note that for me to write, "Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke" is not a mistake. It is true.

Mary_H
20th August 2011, 07:21 PM
Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didnít know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

pilot, my friend, you are not citing Chris Halkides, you are citing The Machine, as quoted on Chris's blog.

My argument was about whether or not Amanda ever denied knowing Rudy. I said nothing about Edda and Janet; they were a diversion brought up by BOT.

bucketoftea
20th August 2011, 07:22 PM
That's all right, I was just curious.

Please note that for me to write, "Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke" is not a mistake. It is true.

If you must, but why did Edda say so and Ms Huff? Mystifying.

bucketoftea
20th August 2011, 07:28 PM
pilot, my friend, you are not citing Chris Halkides, you are citing The Machine, as quoted on Chris's blog.

My argument was about whether or not Amanda ever denied knowing Rudy. I said nothing about Edda and Janet; they were a diversion brought up by BOT.

Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

Malkmus
20th August 2011, 07:31 PM
Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didnít know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

I believe the difference between knowing and meeting someone has been discussed before. In the video that the claim originates from Edda states at one point that it was ridiculous that Amanda and Raffaele would join someone they didn't know in murdering Meredith. Later in the same video, Edda references Rudy's Skype call in which he states he knows who Amanda is and that she wasn't there that night. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxU7xY6qgzg

bucketoftea
20th August 2011, 07:34 PM
I believe the difference between knowing and meeting someone has been discussed before. In the video that the claim originates from Edda states at one point that it was ridiculous that Amanda and Raffaele would join someone they didn't know in murdering Meredith. Later in the same video, Edda references Rudy's Skype call in which he states he knows who Amanda is and that she wasn't there that night. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxU7xY6qgzg

No, that's not either one of the appearances. Never even met not "doesn't know"

Mary_H
20th August 2011, 08:04 PM
Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

It diverted from what I was talking about.

If Edda or Janet ever actually did say that Amanda had never even met Rudy, then I am sure they said it because they believed it at the time. As we all know, there has been a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation about the case floating around from Day One. I doubt Edda and Janet still hold to that position.

If you are interested in people misleading other people by conveying information they are not 100% sure about, look no further than the day Perugian authorites announced, "Caso chiuso!"

Kaosium
20th August 2011, 08:20 PM
Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didnít know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

Amanda testified that she was introduced to Rudy, she saw him maybe once at Le Chic and might have seen him around the neighborhood a few times. This in the space of three months.

Thus she interacted with him all of once for a few seconds and saw him around about as often as you do your garbageman in a month. So saying she didn't know him is perfectly correct. She didn't even remember his name.

How well do you know your garbageman?

Kaosium
20th August 2011, 08:25 PM
If you must, but why did Edda say so and Ms Huff? Mystifying.

Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

Because it's absolutely ridiculous to assume Amanda chose to participate in a sex game gone wrong, or ritualistic murder, or whatever came out of Mignini's ass that month with someone she knew as well as most people know their garbageman. Especially as she didn't speak Italian outside the basics which was better than his English. Raffaele didn't know him at all, and Mignini has him murdering and raping with him, which would have been the first time they met.

That's the point, not how many times he might have come in her field of vision for a few seconds after that initial introduction where she didn't recall his name afterward anyway.

RWVBWL
20th August 2011, 08:34 PM
<snip>
Does anyone know any more about the cocaine dealer whose number was in Knox's phone? (in the form of contact both before and after the murder) I haven't seen anything other than just the one news report published with the detail I refer to.
Hey BucketofTea,
Howz it goin? Good I hope...

Anyways, when I read this the other day, I had wondered a bit about what you were insinuating by this? How do you know that the person was not just a friend or an acquaintance?

I have plenty of acquaintances in my large group of friends, as I bet that you do too. In my case, these are people who surf. Some have even dealt drugs before, and you know what? That doesn't mean I am using drugs if I call the person. Similarly speaking, just because I talk with another surfer friend, who happens to be a pastor at a Christian Foursquare church, doesn't mean that I go to his church.
Ya gotta like my comparison, no? :)

BucketofTea,
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?

So without knowing anything more on your posting, I would simply say that this news report you mention of just leads me to believe that Amanda Knox was acquainted with someone who, possibly, might have been dealing drugs. Big deal...

Would you therefore conclude Amanda Knox was guilty of some crime by association with this individual?

If you believe so, what do you make of this post that PMF.org member Thoughtful wrote earlier today:

<snip>
On a more cheerful note, we are about to sit down to celebrate my eldest daughter's engagement to a lovely British Alex, none other than the "A." who was in Perugia in the fall of 2007. Isn't that a strange twist of fate, that my first son-in-law would be someone who was personally acquainted with both Patrick and Rudy? Of all things. Anyway, you're all invited to break open the champagne with our family!

(Hilite mine)

Now I too would like to wish Thoughtful's family best wishes, and do so here. :)

But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

Or is it no big deal, as is probably true in Amanda's case also?
Thanks for any reply,
RW

AmyStrange
20th August 2011, 09:43 PM
Actually, I think that it's very reasonable to suggest that Guede might have initially confronted and attacked Meredith after he found himself cornered and unable to open the front door without keys, but that in the heightened adrenaline and fear after the murder, he forgot this when he came to leave. I therefore think that it's entirely possible that Guede left Meredith's room and headed to the front door without having located her keys (leaving the shoe prints on his way to the door); he then realised that he needed the key to open the door, and returned once again to Meredith's room to retrieve her keys from her bag. It would have been at this point that he decided to lock Meredith's room on his final exit with the keys in his hand.


LJ,

makes sense, but let me play devil's advocate here. In your scenario above, why wouldn't he then just leave the way he came in --Filomena's window?

Dave

-

Fine
20th August 2011, 10:55 PM
So Amanda was a close friend to Meredith? Fine. Top scientists are now learning that affection ain't always a deterrent to violence. At times even a catalyst?..........


Isakin Jonsson was arrested last November after calling police from his apartment in Skara in central Sweden and explaining that he had killed his 40-year-old girlfriend.

He had also cut off her head and other parts of her body, some of which he then ate.

He was also unable to explain the gruesome killing when asked by prosecutors why he did it.

"That's something I also wonder about. ...There was no motive whatsoever. We were a couple with a future together. I've never felt this way with a girl before," he said.


See: Hungry For You (http://www.thelocal.se/32480/20110309/)

///

AmyStrange
20th August 2011, 11:04 PM
-

Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?

Well first off, I rarely ever do quote her, and second, her opinion is very important to me and part of how I arrive at the conclusions that I do. I just don't feel right about pretending to take credit for her critical thinking skills.

But more importantly (if you really think about it and no disrespect is intended), why are you questioning my including her opinions, but not questioning why anyone else who uses other people's opinions does so also? How is what they do any different than what I do?

But don't worry, I won't ever reference her again in the future (after this post),

Dave

P.S. she also told me that she doesn't want to belong to this group. Our website takes up a lot of our time, and she just doesn't like that thinking that the possibility that anything is possible is not encouraged here.

She references the UFO threads here as an example of what she means. She's very skeptical about aliens piloting spaceships, but she doesn't discount that it's a possibility, she just wants to see better evidence of it. Myself, I believe in them.

Besides, she says she'd rather spend her off time doing other things. Myself, I like the discussion that goes on here about the Kercher case.

But, if you want to read some of her thoughts about the evidence from this case (which I helped write) go here and see for yourself what she thinks:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-06.html

Dan O.
20th August 2011, 11:06 PM
LJ,

makes sense, but let me play devil's advocate here. In your scenario above, why wouldn't he just leave the way he came in --Filomena's window?

Dave

-


It's a lot more difficult going down than it is climbing up. Have you tried anything similar? It's a little over 3 meters to the uneven ground below which you can't even see because of the darkness and shadows. You probably don't want to jump down in this condition. One of the tricky bits will be finding the toe hold on the lower window casement. After lowering yourself to about the lever of your armpits, you have to hope your right foot can find that 1 cm wide ledge and get a grip on it. I guess if you miss and end up hanging from your fingertips, you'll have no difficulty putting a foot on one of the bars of the lower window grate (just hope that nail doesn't catch on anything important). On the way up you have the benefit of being able to scout the terrain with your eyes and fingers. On the way down it's just your feet trying to feel the wall through the shoes.

Then there is the question of drawing attention to yourself leaving the scene. Before entering you were watching and listening so you knew if anyone was wandering by that might see you. It also isn't such a big deal as the crime at that point is only B&E. On the way out you don't have this benefit of prior surveillance and now that the crime has escalated to murder, the penalty of getting caught is greater. Much better would be to step out the door and walk away as if nothing had happened. You know Meredith has the keys and there are not many places where they would be: sitting on her desk of night table, in her pants pockets or in her purse.

You may pause for a moment when you discover there are 2 sets of keys But a simple test of one of the keys in Meredith's bedroom door lock will confirm which set is hers.

AmyStrange
20th August 2011, 11:12 PM
It's a lot more difficult going down than it is climbing up. Have you tried anything similar? It's a little over 3 meters to the uneven ground below which you can't even see because of the darkness and shadows. You probably don't want to jump down in this condition. One of the tricky bits will be finding the toe hold on the lower window casement. After lowering yourself to about the lever of your armpits, you have to hope your right foot can find that 1 cm wide ledge and get a grip on it. I guess if you miss and end up hanging from your fingertips, you'll have no difficulty putting a foot on one of the bars of the lower window grate. On the way up you have the benefit of being able to scout the terrain with your eyes and fingers.


Dan O,

that actually makes sense. I remember when I was a kid and climbed trees, climbing down was always harder, because I could not remember exactly how I got the heck up there. Hehehe.

I was just wondering about that as I read LJ's scenario. His arguements are usually pretty lucid and persuasive to me and I had to ask,

Dave

Mary_H
20th August 2011, 11:27 PM
Hey BucketofTea,
Howz it goin? Good I hope...

Anyways, when I read this the other day, I had wondered a bit about what you were insinuating by this? How do you know that the person was not just a friend or an acquaintance?

I have plenty of acquaintances in my large group of friends, as I bet that you do too. In my case, these are people who surf. Some have even dealt drugs before, and you know what? That doesn't mean I am using drugs if I call the person. Similarly speaking, just because I talk with another surfer friend, who happens to be a pastor at a Christian Foursquare church, doesn't mean that I go to his church.
Ya gotta like my comparison, no? :)

BucketofTea,
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?

So without knowing anything more on your posting, I would simply say that this news report you mention of just leads me to believe that Amanda Knox was acquainted with someone who, possibly, might have been dealing drugs. Big deal...

Would you therefore conclude Amanda Knox was guilty of some crime by association with this individual?

If you believe so, what do you make of this post that PMF.org member Thoughtful wrote earlier today:


(Hilite mine)

Now I too would like to wish Thoughtful's family best wishes, and do so here. :)

But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

Or is it no big deal, as is probably true in Amanda's case also?
Thanks for any reply,
RW

Absolutely terrific, Randy. :)

Draca
20th August 2011, 11:46 PM
Dan O,

that actually makes sense. I remember when I was a kid and climbed trees, climbing down was always harder, because I could not remember exactly how I got the heck up there. Hehehe.

I was just wondering about that as I read LJ's scenario. His arguments are usually pretty lucid and persuasive to me and I had to ask,

Dave


Rudy Guede also had nasty cuts in his hand on the way out. It would have made using his hand for leverage and balance really difficult. Keys would be much easier.

I have wondered where Meredith kept her keys. She had the beige tote bag with her that night. Did she put them in there? Was there a special zipped dept in the tote bag? Did she put her brown leather purse inside of the tote bag? Maybe she just set them on top of her desk or bedside table. I wonder if any of the roommates knew where she normally kept them.

AmyStrange
20th August 2011, 11:47 PM
But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

-

Well said RW,

can't remember if anyone else mentioned this, but many people from the pro-guilter's side have postulated that Amanda met Guede to buy drugs.

Like you RW, I think they only smoked pot and since Mez's boyfriend downstairs grew it, why in hell would they go to Guede to buy it? Guede was probably buying it from Mez's boyfriend, which is maybe how Guede knew the guys downstairs.

Which also brings up the idea that Amanda and Raffaele would probably be very cautious about calling the police for any old reason, which quite possibly also might explain why Amanda (although she might have seen some off kilter things when she was there to take a shower) didn't just call the police right off and maybe bring unwanted attention to the guys downstairs, but instead first went to consult with Raffaele as to what to do next.

Just thinking out loud here,

Dave

Draca
20th August 2011, 11:48 PM
-
Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?



There is nothing wrong with your roommate quotes. They add a he said/she said dynamic to your posts that I enjoy. Continue on.

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 12:05 AM
-

Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?

Well first off, I rarely ever do quote her, and second, her opinion is very important to me and part of how I arrive at the conclusions that I do. I just don't feel right about pretending to take credit for her critical thinking skills.

But more importantly (if you really think about it and no disrespect is intended), why are you questioning my including her opinions, but not questioning why anyone else who uses other people's opinions does so also? How is what they do any different than what I do?

But don't worry, I won't ever reference her again in the future (after this post),

Dave

Thanks for the explanation, Dave. There's no reason to change your behavior just because a couple of us asked about it.

I will tell you why I asked about it. You say you rarely quote your roommate, but my (possibly mistaken) impression has been that you have mentioned her in the majority of your posts. Other posters do mention other sources, but they don't make a habit of mentioning personal influences and/or their families.

To be honest, my problem is that it makes me doubt your sincerity. I have wondered whether you are just running a schtick -- in other words, are you trying to work your partner into your act, the way Phyllis Diller worked Fang into hers and Joan Rivers worked Edgar into hers? Until I looked at your website, I had no way of knowing whether this partner is actually a real person, or if she is just your alter ego or your invisible friend -- something created for your own amusement when writing. I would not want any thread about this very serious case to be used by someone who is not serious. (If you have linked us to your blog before, I apologize for not having looked at it sooner.)

I guess the point is, while I admire you for not wanting to take credit for her input, I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.

P.S. she also told me that she doesn't want to belong to this group. Our website takes up a lot of our time, and she just doesn't like that thinking that the possibility that anything is possible is not encouraged here.

She references the UFO threads here as an example of what she means. She's very skeptical about aliens piloting spaceships, but she doesn't discount that it's a possibility, she just wants to see better evidence of it. Myself, I believe in them.

Besides, she says she'd rather spend her off time doing other things. Myself, I like the discussion that goes on here about the Kercher case.

But, if you want to read some of her thoughts about the evidence from this case (which I helped write) go here and see for yourself what she thinks:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-06.html

I'm glad you joined the discussion; you've had a lot of good things to say.

Personally, I ignore any thread that doesn't interest me. I even believe in telepathy.

theRealBob
21st August 2011, 12:06 AM
Amanda testified that she was introduced to Rudy, she saw him maybe once at Le Chic and might have seen him around the neighborhood a few times. This in the space of three months.

Thus she interacted with him all of once for a few seconds and saw him around about as often as you do your garbageman in a month. So saying she didn't know him is perfectly correct. She didn't even remember his name.

How well do you know your garbageman?

Quite right.

When asked for a list of characters who could be considered suspects in her 'interview' Amanda did offer Rudy as one, but said the South African guy (which he isn't, but it's who she meant)

Pointing out that R & A are innocent of this crime is starting to become slightly boring due to it's obviousness.

What would be a lot more interesting would be to see people like Mignini and Steff get really hammered for their involvement in the case.

They should too. They deserve it.....

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 12:08 AM
There is nothing wrong with your roommate quotes. They add a he said/she said dynamic to your posts that I enjoy. Continue on.
-

Draca,

I appreciate it, but I like this thread and I just don't want to cause any unnecessary trouble, but again thank you,

Dave

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 12:33 AM
Thanks for the explanation, Dave.

[...]

I guess the point is, while I admire you for not wanting to take credit for her input, I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.

I'm glad you joined the discussion; you've had a lot of good things to say.

Personally, I ignore any thread that doesn't interest me. I even believe in telepathy.
-

and for taking the time to explain also, and I hope you didn't take offense at what I said. I enjoy your post very much also as I do everyone's here. Even the pro-guilters. They make me think and although it was so much easier to just believe in stuff and not have to explain it so it made sense, being skeptical (and having to prove what I believed) added more substance and weight to whatever it is I had to say about it.

When someone ask me a tough question about my belief, I am at least prepared to give a reasonable answer rather than just stutter uh uh uh, or even worse tried to unlock my brain freeze as all the chirp chirp chirping went on around me (a tip of the hat to whomever wrote "chirp chirp chirp" originally in this forum a few days ago. Sorry, can't remember who off hand).

You might be right about my quoting, and I'm too lazy to look it up, and if I am wrong, I apologize for my mistake and hope you can forgive me,

Dave

P.S. I believe in telepathy also

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 02:13 AM
<snip>P.S. I believe in telepathy also

Maybe we can put our heads together and win that million. :)

bucketoftea
21st August 2011, 03:24 AM
It diverted from what I was talking about.

If Edda or Janet ever actually did say that Amanda had never even met Rudy, then I am sure they said it because they believed it at the time. As we all know, there has been a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation about the case floating around from Day One. I doubt Edda and Janet still hold to that position.

If you are interested in people misleading other people by conveying information they are not 100% sure about, look no further than the day Perugian authorites announced, "Caso chiuso!"

I think that means they were correct, as it happens, not so Edda and Janet. This does certainly suggest that Amanda told her mother (Edda) that she had never met Guede. Edda having spoken to Amanda and all, whereas Ciolino; no.

Did Ciolino just make it up because it is so much more emphatic (and distancing) than if she knew him but, ya know, not very well.

Ciolino must have been informed by Edda, Janet or other family member? Or was Ciolino misinforming the family? Or did AK originally tell her parents that she'd never met Guede.

Where did this substantial error occur? It was most likely AK lied to parents on this point and it spread from there, or is Ciolino using his hyperbole license and it was repeated by E and J because it sounded better to them?

"Misspoken" has the most ridiculous misapplications.

Matthew Best
21st August 2011, 03:39 AM
I think that means they were correct, as it happens, not so Edda and Janet. This does certainly suggest that Amanda told her mother (Edda) that she had never met Guede. Edda having spoken to Amanda and all, whereas Ciolino; no.

Did Ciolino just make it up because it is so much more emphatic (and distancing) than if she knew him but, ya know, not very well.

Ciolino must have been informed by Edda, Janet or other family member? Or was Ciolino misinforming the family? Or did AK originally tell her parents that she'd never met Guede.

Where did this substantial error occur? It was most likely AK lied to parents on this point and it spread from there, or is Ciolino using his hyperbole license and it was repeated by E and J because it sounded better to them?

"Misspoken" has the most ridiculous misapplications.

Yawn. Does any of this matter? :confused:

bucketoftea
21st August 2011, 03:42 AM
Retc said:

"So without knowing anything more on your posting, I would simply say that this news report you mention of just leads me to believe that Amanda Knox was acquainted with someone who, possibly, might have been dealing drugs. Big deal..."

I have yet to see any evidence at all that RG dealt drugs. If there were any, why would I assume any AK wrongdoing by way of her acquaintance with Rudy. I never suggested such a thing. nor did I say AK used cocaine.

Why the "never even met"?? Ciolino makes it up? Probably not, but who knows.

It looks much more likely that AK said this to her parents and they repeated to Ciolino. AK was lying to distance herself from Guede. Simple.

bucketoftea
21st August 2011, 03:45 AM
Yawn. Does any of this matter? :confused:

Indeed. Does it matter?...the truth came out in the end :D

AK knew RG well enough for chitchat and smoking up. Not a stranger at all.

Matthew Best
21st August 2011, 03:48 AM
Indeed. Does it matter?

You tell me. It seems to have little or nothing to do with whether Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher, considering that she almost certainly died at a time when they can demonstrate they were somewhere else. But no doubt somebody or other saying she "never met Guede" when he probably should have said "barely met Guede" is sufficient proof to condemn her to 26 years in prison.

So, "case closed!!", eh?

PhantomWolf
21st August 2011, 03:57 AM
Foot prints are not missing

Really? Here's a picture of the places they were found (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/121212121212.jpg). Rudy's are the ones in red. Care to explain how he got from opposite Amanda's door to the entrance of the living area without leaving prints between them? Want to explain how he left right foorprints in the living area, but only left footprints in the hall?

Rudy's clearly show he left the bedroom and went straight out the front door

Care to explain the 2 groups of 3 prints in the living area? Did Rudy have three feet?

Amanda does have a footprint pointing towards Meredith's though.

Care to prove that the footprint is Amanda's? This was never done in court, the prosecution simply claomed that it was.

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 03:57 AM
I think that means they were correct, as it happens, not so Edda and Janet.

Even you can't think they were correct about Patrick Lumumba.

This does certainly suggest that Amanda told her mother (Edda) that she had never met Guede. Edda having spoken to Amanda and all, whereas Ciolino; no.

"Suggest" is not a strong basis for an accusation.

Did Ciolino just make it up because it is so much more emphatic (and distancing) than if she knew him but, ya know, not very well.

We don't know that he made it up. Maybe it was simply his understanding at the time.

Ciolino must have been informed by Edda, Janet or other family member? Or was Ciolino misinforming the family? Or did AK originally tell her parents that she'd never met Guede.

No one here knows the answers to these questions. If you're interested, maybe you should send an e-mail to these people and ask them.

Where did this substantial error occur? It was most likely AK lied to parents on this point and it spread from there, or is Ciolino using his hyperbole license and it was repeated by E and J because it sounded better to them?

"Misspoken" has the most ridiculous misapplications.

Amanda would have no reason to mislead anybody about whether or not she knew Rudy, because the truth would eventually come out, whether she was guilty or not guilty. She testified in court that she knew Rudy; that is the only thing we have on record about this issue.

Whether anyone else said Amanda did not know Rudy is irrelevant, not "substantial."

Paninaro
21st August 2011, 04:00 AM
So Amanda was a close friend to Meredith? Fine. Top scientists are now learning that affection ain't always a deterrent to violence. At times even a catalyst?..........


Isakin Jonsson was arrested last November after calling police from his apartment in Skara in central Sweden and explaining that he had killed his 40-year-old girlfriend.

He had also cut off her head and other parts of her body, some of which he then ate.

He was also unable to explain the gruesome killing when asked by prosecutors why he did it.

"That's something I also wonder about. ...There was no motive whatsoever. We were a couple with a future together. I've never felt this way with a girl before," he said.


See: Hungry For You (http://www.thelocal.se/32480/20110309/)

///

It was a very common motive for the actual killing, it's the cannibalism he can't explain. (Other than he said he wanted to experience the taste.)

It was just a case of domestic violence with a bizarre twist. The guy obviously has grave mental issues and there were drugs involved. There's a history of problems in both the murderers and the victims life.

It really underlines why this case is different. A young woman with no criminal background rarely or never kill another young woman and so on (well you know the argument.) But maybe that was your point? :)

LondonJohn
21st August 2011, 04:00 AM
Insofar as whether heroin causes hallucinations, Curatolo is absolutely right. Heroin no more causes hallucinations than paracetamol or any other non-hallucinogenic drug for that matter.

A drug user who only uses heroin is a rare beast, criminologically speaking, and heroin addicts are typically polydrug users, which is a fancy way of saying they will shove anything they can get into their nose, mouth or arm. So it's more likely that Curatolo was on LSD or something on any given night than a randomly selected member of the population, if that's all we know about him, but not greatly so.

Some forms of mental illness can cause hallucinations as well but I am not aware that Curatolo has been diagnosed with any such condition.

His track record of popping up with just the witness statements the Perugia police needed is also hard to reconcile with the theory that he was randomly hallucinating, whether because of drugs or some underlying condition.

I think a far more likely story is just that Curatolo was extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" or coercion by the police that he come forward with some kind of story placing Knox and Sollecito outside their house at a particular time.


My first response to your post above only addressed the hallucination angle. But reading it again this morning prompted another thought about Curatolo - one that's been discussed here before, but which merits revisiting.

I believe it's highly possible that Curatolo was essentially under the control of the Perugia police in November 2007 (and long before and long after that time). I think the evidence to support that assertion revolves around his subsequent drug-dealing arrest and conviction. As far as can be ascertained, the allegations that led to his conviction dated from 2004. If so, then the fact that he was not even arrested for the offences until January 2011 has to raise serious questions. And the questions become even more pressing when it appears that the police had cast-iron evidence of Curatolo's criminal offences in the form of video recordings of him dealing, and (most likely, based on the known evidence) a police plant/informant who actually bought the heroin from him. And the police would have had all this evidence in their hands way back in 2004.

Therefore, the most obvious - and damning - question is this: if the police had such hard evidence of Curatolo's heroin dealing in 2004, why was he not arrested and prosecuted until 2011? And the only answer that makes any sense whatsoever is that the police/prosecutors deliberately and consciously decided not to arrest/prosecute Curatolo for some reason.

So the next question would be: why would they decide to hold back on arresting/prosecuting Curatolo? And the only reasonable answer would be this: they wanted to hold the threat of prosecution/conviction over Curatolo in return for his agreeing to help them in some way..

So this in turn leads to the next question: how could Curatolo help the Perugia police/prosecutors to such an extent that they would be willing to hold back on pressing serious criminal charges against him? Again, I think the only reasonable answer is this: Curatolo agreed to be a police informant on the many drug dealers operating in the vicinity of Piazza Grimana, in return for a deferment of the heroin-dealing charges.

When you stop to go through all this in a reasoned and logical manner, this appears to be one of the very few (if not the only) explanations that makes any sense. Curatolo lived in Piazza Grimana, and therefore had constant surveillance capabilities. In addition, his personal circumstances and appearance would give him excellent cover to spy upon - and report back to the police on - all the drug-dealing activities taking place in the vicinity of his park bench. I think that this is very likely to be what happened: the police/prosecutors called Curatolo in for a "polite chat" some time in late 2004; they presented him with the evidence of his heroin-dealing activities; they then told him that they would be willing to hold back on arresting and charging him, so long as he agreed to be a police informant in the war on organised drug gangs.

I think that a person in Curatolo's position would jump at the chance to take such a deal. I think that it made him beholden to the police/prosecutors in many ways. And I think it leads directly to the last link in the puzzle:

By November 2007, Curatolo would have been acting as an informant for some three years (according to my theory). It's likely that his usefulness to the police/prosecutors could have been waning, and/or that they were finding out that he was an unreliable/incompetent informant, partly owing to his continued use of heroin. So when the Meredith Kercher murder occurred, I think it's very possible that the police/prosecutors had another "friendly chat" with Curatolo. I think that in this conversation, they could have told him that they now wanted his assistance in the murder investigation. I think they could again have used the drug charges as currency, in order to "persuade" Curatolo to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder. Essentally, the police/prosecutors could have said something along the following lines to Curatolo: "Agree to become a prosecution witness against Knox and Sollecito, or we'll arrest and charge you immediately on the heroin-dealing charges."

I think that this is how Curatolo came to be in the witness box in Massei's court, with his ludicrously inept and contradictory tale of seeing Knox and Sollecito on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd 2007. I further think that the police/prosecutors realised that Curatolo had made a terrible witness, and it's also possible that news of the police/prosecutor knowledge of his heroin dealing way back in 2004 had somehow come to light (maybe through a leak, or through defence investigations in advance of the appeal). I think that by January 2011 the police and prosecutors therefore decided that they had no option but to pull Curatolo in on these heroin-dealing charges.

LondonJohn
21st August 2011, 04:20 AM
LJ,

makes sense, but let me play devil's advocate here. In your scenario above, why wouldn't he then just leave the way he came in --Filomena's window?

Dave

-


Others have given pretty good answers to your question before I read the board this morning, but I will supplement their answers by trying to paint a picture of Guede's options and risks after the murder:

Firstly, Guede would have been standing in the cottage at around 10pm, having gruesomely murdered Meredith and sexually assaulted her (probably as she lay dying). He had partially cleaned himself up, and now desperately needed to get away from the cottage to the safety of his own apartment.

Now, whichever way he left the cottage, Guede would have reasoned that he had a chance of being seen. But now consider his two reasonable options for exiting the cottage: a) through Filomena's window, then either climbing or jumping down to the sloping ground below; or b) through the front door, provided he could open it.

If Guede left through Filomena's window, not only would this be a somewhat difficult exit (as others have pointed out), but to my mind there would also have been significant additional risks. If someone either walking/driving down the road outside the cottage or looking down from the apartment blocks had seen someone climbing out of a window, it's entirely logical to assume that this would set off alarm bells in their minds*. It's therefore entirely possible that any such witnesses might either continue to watch (and/or follow) Guede, or that they might immediately call the police, or even that they might challenge Guede directly if they were on foot or in a car right outside the cottage.

However, if Guede chose to exit via the front door, then even if there were people driving/walking down the road or glancing out of their apartment windows, they would not register anything unusual whatsoever about a man leaving a house by the front door (even if he left in a hurried manner). It's true that such people might have subsequently been able to identify Guede once the murder was discovered - but this was a risk that Guede could not do anything about, no matter which way he left the cottage. But by exiting through the door, Guede would have minimised (actually, eliminated) the chance of immediate suspicion and consequent confrontation or alerting of the police.

So when you think about it in these terms, the door is by far Guede's best option for exiting the cottage. Furthermore, once he realised that he needed a key to open the door from the inside, he knew (since Meredith had come through the front door) that Meredith had the necessary key to enable him to exit through the same door. All he needed to do, therefore, was to find the key, and he knew he'd be able to unlock the front door and exit via the least conspicuous route. The small additional time and effort needed to find the key (which Guede would know would be fairly easy to find either in Meredith's pockets, in her bag, or on a surface in her room) was nothing in comparison to the advantages to Guede of leaving via the front door rather than via Filomena's window.

* Note that while similar risks apply to Guede's entry through the same window, he had no option but to break-in through a window (since he knew that he couldn't possibly open the front door from outside). And in addition - as others have pointed out - even if the alarm were raised by somebody who witnessed him climbing through Filomena's window, he had only committed a relatively minor crime by this point. On the way out of the cottage, he was now a murderer, and the stakes were therefore much, much higher.

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 04:30 AM
Indeed. Does it matter?...the truth came out in the end :D

AK knew RG well enough for chitchat and smoking up. Not a stranger at all.

Not quite, if you read the testimony carefully, no one ever said Amanda smoked the spinello with Rudy, just that a spinello was smoked at the same party that Amanda was introduced to Rudy. That's notable because if they had evidence of her actually smoking it with Rudy you'd sure think they'd have put a witness on the stand to testify to that 'damning' fact. For crissakes they inquired into her underwear purchases in court, if they had any reason to think Amanda had 'done drugs' with the murderer they'd have feted that 'superwitness' for a week and given them the keys to the city!

So why did they rely on sleazy lawyer tricks to try to imply Amanda smoked the spinello with Rudy, rather than just put a witness on the stand to testify to that fact, or ask her point blank if she had smoked it with Rudy?

bucketoftea
21st August 2011, 05:26 AM
You tell me. It seems to have little or nothing to do with whether Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher, considering that she almost certainly died at a time when they can demonstrate they were somewhere else. But no doubt somebody or other saying she "never met Guede" when he probably should have said "barely met Guede" is sufficient proof to condemn her to 26 years in prison.

So, "case closed!!", eh?

They could have said "barely knew", but they didn't. They said "never even met"

You are being a little naughty, IMO. That is not a sole basis for anything except that it shows someone was dishonestly misrepresenting AK's relationship to the owner of the palm print in the victim's blood. I think it was most likely AK herself, although it could have been Ciolino's creative urge getting the better of him.

I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)

RoseMontague
21st August 2011, 05:54 AM
They could have said "barely knew", but they didn't. They said "never even met"

You are being a little naughty, IMO. That is not a sole basis for anything except that it shows someone was dishonestly misrepresenting AK's relationship to the owner of the palm print in the victim's blood. I think it was most likely AK herself, although it could have been Ciolino's creative urge getting the better of him.

I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)

Even Mignini thinks the case closed comment was crazy, as he indicated in the Bob Graham interview.

As far as Amanda and the fact that she knew who Rudy was and had seen him on one occasion at a party and another at Patrick's bar compared to her parent's version, I don't see what the point is.

Maybe her parents got it wrong. It does not change reality.

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 06:03 AM
They could have said "barely knew", but they didn't. They said "never even met"

You are being a little naughty, IMO. That is not a sole basis for anything except that it shows someone was dishonestly misrepresenting AK's relationship to the owner of the palm print in the victim's blood. I think it was most likely AK herself, although it could have been Ciolino's creative urge getting the better of him.

It also amounts to roughly the same thing too, doesn't it? Outside the fifteen seconds necessary for the introduction where she didn't remember his name? If you go to a wedding or a funeral and have the 'pleasure' of being in the receiving line you might 'meet' hundreds of people, might even see them around a few times during the reception, or wake, but a month later might not even realize you 'met' them. Rudy was kind of distinctive for the neighborhood but she couldn't even give more than a vague description when questioned.


I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)

We can have some fun with this one! :)

Of the 'evidence' produced by this 'thorough' investigation before Matteini, how much of it would you say is 'evidence' of the guilt of Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick in the murder of Meredith Kercher? A rough percentage off the top of your head will do, some specific examples would be nice as well.

If you're having trouble with this one perhaps the 'thoroughly vindicated' assessment of the 'cased closed' statement is premature... :cool:

pilot padron
21st August 2011, 06:05 AM
Yawn. Does any of this matter? :confused:

Yes, of course, absolutely and most certainly, that argument "does not matter".

It came from a person arguing guilt !!!!

Case closed, eh ??

Yawn

Antony
21st August 2011, 06:10 AM
I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated.

The self-delusion in this statement is quite breathtaking.

Dan O.
21st August 2011, 06:56 AM
By November 2007, Curatolo would have been acting as an informant for some three years (according to my theory). It's likely that his usefulness to the police/prosecutors could have been waning, and/or that they were finding out that he was an unreliable/incompetent informant, partly owing to his continued use of heroin. So when the Meredith Kercher murder occurred, I think it's very possible that the police/prosecutors had another "friendly chat" with Curatolo. I think that in this conversation, they could have told him that they now wanted his assistance in the murder investigation. I think they could again have used the drug charges as currency, in order to "persuade" Curatolo to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder. Essentally, the police/prosecutors could have said something along the following lines to Curatolo: "Agree to become a prosecution witness against Knox and Sollecito, or we'll arrest and charge you immediately on the heroin-dealing charges."


Your lead up to this theory is very good but then you fall apart with the "friendly chat"/conspiracy. If Curatolo had been an informant for 3 years as you said and I believe you could be correct, he would have learned over these years not to disagree with anything to police were saying or even appear to be implying. Look for example at his testimony: When asked how he knew what time it was he takes this as an instruction to come up with the answer that he wears a watch (which is conspicuously absent upon his person). When asked if he can be more precise about the time he complies with a much more precise time that he has somehow remembered after three years.

The police would not have to conspire with Curatolo. Their own ineptitude at conducting an interview would illicit the responses that they want to hear.

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 08:31 AM
Yes, of course, absolutely and most certainly, that argument "does not matter".

It came from a person arguing guilt !!!!

Case closed, eh ??

Yawn

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be free this fall and all the lashing out and anger filled rants that will surely continue until that day will do nothing to stop it. Hopefully those who have become consumed with rage over this case will take some time when its all over and actually see the truth.

Hellmann's experts have spoken. It's over.

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 08:38 AM
Indeed. Does it matter?...the truth came out in the end :D

AK knew RG well enough for chitchat and smoking up. Not a stranger at all.

When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

LondonJohn
21st August 2011, 08:52 AM
Your lead up to this theory is very good but then you fall apart with the "friendly chat"/conspiracy. If Curatolo had been an informant for 3 years as you said and I believe you could be correct, he would have learned over these years not to disagree with anything to police were saying or even appear to be implying. Look for example at his testimony: When asked how he knew what time it was he takes this as an instruction to come up with the answer that he wears a watch (which is conspicuously absent upon his person). When asked if he can be more precise about the time he complies with a much more precise time that he has somehow remembered after three years.

The police would not have to conspire with Curatolo. Their own ineptitude at conducting an interview would illicit the responses that they want to hear.


Well, the way I look at it, there would be a difference between a) Curatolo informing on the organised crime of hard drug dealing that was going on in and around Piazza Grimana, and b) Curatolo being asked to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito in the square that night.

I think that the conversation may have taken the form of a coy game of suggestion and response: "Look Toto, we need you to remember certain things about the night of 1st November. You saw this girl and this guy that night, didn't you? (policeman holds up photos of Knox and Sollecito) What time did you first see them? It must have been around 9.30pm, mustn't it? And were they looking furtive and did they repeatedly look towards the cottage? And you saw them on and off for a good few hours that night? Lovely! Just repeat all that in court, and everything will be fine. And that heroin dealing thing from 2004? What heroin dealing thing?!" (policeman winks knowingly)

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 09:05 AM
When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I hope the Super Bowl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFfCKy0nKr0) was as joyous an event for you and your friends as it was around here! :)


I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

Think of how this would have been for Raffaele. Rudy doesn't speak English outside the naughty words, Amanda doesn't speak Italian outside the basics, and Raffaele is the only one who could possibly communicate to coordinate this event, yet he's never seen Rudy and has known Amanda all of six days. So in Mignini's fantasy, at least a couple of them, not only does the wicked little hip-wiggler have to convince Raffaele to participate, she also has to convince him to talk Rudy into it!

At any rate, how well could Amanda have known Rudy anyway? They couldn't really talk. Raffaele spoke English, Rudy did not.

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 09:21 AM
I hope the Super Bowl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFfCKy0nKr0) was as joyous an event for you and your friends as it was around here! :)


No! The Super Bowl was not a joyous event. The Bears had their chance to knock out the Packers (when they were hobbled by injuries) in the championship game and failed. This year the Packers come back healthy and I am afraid the Bears have little chance.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

I am sure this will be reported as off topic so read it fast!

JREF2010
21st August 2011, 09:26 AM
When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

you left out all the people you know, from the internet with fake names, maybe several fake names.

just hope none of them do anything to break the law, or we all might go down! yikes!

We all know the police searched hard to connect the three, and there wasn't a email or cell call.

more fiction evidence.

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 09:44 AM
Well, the way I look at it, there would be a difference between a) Curatolo informing on the organised crime of hard drug dealing that was going on in and around Piazza Grimana, and b) Curatolo being asked to "remember" seeing Knox and Sollecito in the square that night.

I think that the conversation may have taken the form of a coy game of suggestion and response: "Look Toto, we need you to remember certain things about the night of 1st November. You saw this girl and this guy that night, didn't you? (policeman holds up photos of Knox and Sollecito) What time did you first see them? It must have been around 9.30pm, mustn't it? And were they looking furtive and did they repeatedly look towards the cottage? And you saw them on and off for a good few hours that night? Lovely! Just repeat all that in court, and everything will be fine. And that heroin dealing thing from 2004? What heroin dealing thing?!" (policeman winks knowingly)

There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious. However, wasn't he 'discovered' by the same paper that introduced the court to the 'wisdom' of Nara and Quintavalle, two more that are nearly as ridiculous?

His testimony in the trial of the first instance was just as absurd, with him rambling on and forcing the ToD to be extended an hour past basic possibility anyway, and of course he saw the disco buses then as well. However right as the appeal starts he's thrown in prison on that old charge, yet when he testifies again it's just as bizarre as it was the first time if not more so, and Monica Napoleoni doesn't even show up to try to rehabilitate him, very convenient as there was also testimony given at that time showing the police were told there couldn't have been disco buses by the owners themselves on November first, if the cops who patrol the area every year weren't able to figure that out for themselves.

I wonder if they did decide to use Toto, as they had in the past, when the paper brought him to their attention, but he adamantly refused to do anything but tell his 'story'--as ridiculous as it was. That worked all right for the trial of the first instance as Amanda and Raffaele were condemned before they even walked into court, and Curatolo came at the end when all had basically been decided anyway. However in the interim between trials when they realized he might have to come in again they tried to get him to work with them better and either he refused or was simply incapable of doing so. As a result they realized what a worthless asset he was to them, or perhaps in pique, or maybe a little of both, and they finally brought the hammer down on those charges hanging over his head?

Anyway you slice it, the circumstances surrounding Curatolo are downright weird.

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 10:04 AM
There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious. However, wasn't he 'discovered' by the same paper that introduced the court to the 'wisdom' of Nara and Quintavalle, two more that are nearly as ridiculous?

His testimony in the trial of the first instance was just as absurd, with him rambling on and forcing the ToD to be extended an hour past basic possibility anyway, and of course he saw the disco buses then as well. However right as the appeal starts he's thrown in prison on that old charge, yet when he testifies again it's just as bizarre as it was the first time if not more so, and Monica Napoleoni doesn't even show up to try to rehabilitate him, very convenient as there was also testimony given at that time showing the police were told there couldn't have been disco buses by the owners themselves on November first, if the cops who patrol the area every year weren't able to figure that out for themselves.

I wonder if they did decide to use Toto, as they had in the past, when the paper brought him to their attention, but he adamantly refused to do anything but tell his 'story'--as ridiculous as it was. That worked all right for the trial of the first instance as Amanda and Raffaele were condemned before they even walked into court, and Curatolo came at the end when all had basically been decided anyway. However in the interim between trials when they realized he might have to come in again they tried to get him to work with them better and either he refused or was simply incapable of doing so. As a result they realized what a worthless asset he was to them, or perhaps in pique, or maybe a little of both, and they finally brought the hammer down on those charges hanging over his head?

Anyway you slice it, the circumstances surrounding Curatolo are downright weird.
-

Kaosium,

from my way of looking at things (and as I've explained before), there is way more evidence that Curatolo helped Guede murder and rape Meredith (if only as a lookout) than Amanda and Raffaele. For Christ sakes (even though he got the days wrong), he admits being near the house when Meredith was killed, has no alibi whatsoever, and since Guede was known to deal drugs now and again, what's to say he didn't get drugs from him to (I don't know) deflect scrutiny away from him in other robberies or murders.

It would be interesting to know what other cases he testified in and where Rudy was during their commission.

Once again, just thinking out loud here,

Dave

P.S. what in 'ell is a Christian Anarchist anyway?

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 11:21 AM
No! The Super Bowl was not a joyous event. The Bears had their chance to knock out the Packers (when they were hobbled by injuries) in the championship game and failed. This year the Packers come back healthy and I am afraid the Bears have little chance.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

I am sure this will be reported as off topic so read it fast!

It's like I can hear paws and whiskers twitching from here. ;)

However it does tie into something that might make for an interesting diversion whilst we wait for Daddy Hellmann to deliver his verdict. As a Bears fan, you no doubt have a vested interest in punishing incompetence, it seems to be a common theme amongst members of that curious tribe around here, you might even say there were Packer fans more empathetic towards a certain signal-caller after that game you speak of than the merciless antipathy recorded on the airwaves from his own 'supporters.' Talk about hate cults! :p

However there's something I couldn't help but notice as I was making my list of those most responsible for this travesty occurring: they kinda let the ladies twist in the wind here, didn't they? It was Napoleoni, Ficarra, Zugarini and Domino that had to go into that courtroom and tell that absurdist fantasy about cartwheels cupcakes and tea regarding the interrogation, but there were twelve police officers involved in that interrogation, most of, if not all of the rest of them, male. At least three of them outranking Napoleoni, yet they didn't seem to take any responsibility whatsoever. Isn't that strange?

Everyone whose read the Conti-Vecchiotti (http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/) Report thanks to the efforts of Komponisto and Katy-Did, knows in exquisite detail what miserable and suspicious work Stefanoni did on the bra clasp and knife, but Biondi, her boss who 'independently' approved her work and may even have ordered it is hardly even mentioned, doesn't the buck stop at the top in most organizations like that? When does he get his day to squirm on the stand? As the prosecutor is the final arbiter of evidence standards assuming a compliant judge, one might look to Mignini as well in this regard, but curiously he made quite clear that Comodi is the DNA expert and he is a humble dealer in spices as far as that kind of evidence is concerned. That works out nicely for him, doesn't it?

If I were to put together a list of which officials are due condemnation, and my list is a large one even if it is never fulfilled, there is a disproportionate inclusion of the female ones, but as I stop and think on it, is that because the most is known about their role simply because the guys are hiding behind their skirts? Perhaps it is merely wishful thinking, but I think it not impossible that there could be fallout that affects more than a couple people here, although most people I've seen seem to think most will skate away unscathed. However while they didn't invent it of course, the Romans are the ones who made the 'object lesson' famous, even added cool new words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29) for people to use about how ineffectual organizations can be punished. Perhaps something of that tradition survives in Italian culture today, so close to Rome itself and so apparently in need of some baleful oversight?

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 12:27 PM
<snip>

..., I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.

<snip>


Interesting.

It's comments like that which give this thread most of its best entertainment value. Perfectly innocent and guileless irony.

Thanks, Mary.

Justinian2
21st August 2011, 12:27 PM
As you say, this is a classic example of the authorities rushing to judgement, then employing tunnel vision and fitting the evidence to their pre-judgement of Kiszko's guilt. It's also a classic example of the self-preservation instincts of the law enforcement personnel in their increasing desperation to defend their positions and judgement, even as more and more exculpatory evidence emerged. I would imagine that some of these individuals would be claiming to this day that they had "got the right man" if it weren't for the devastating (and incontrovertible) DNA evidence that became available later, and which proved that another man and not Kiszko was the murderer.

And this is exactly the kind of behaviour that I - and very many other rational thinkers - believe is going on in the Knox/Sollecito case. No "vast conspiracies": just an entirely explicable case of police and prosecutors rushing to judgement (in this case, accelerated by the perceived need to "solve the crime" quickly and efficiently, and to appear competent in carrying out major murder investigations), then suffering from tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their urge to "confirm" their judgement. I'm confident that if there is a proper judicial inquiry once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, at least some of this will be exposed to the light.

What about the people for which there was no DNA evidence? I'll bet the innocent people exonerated is small in comparison to the number still in jail.

Then there is the other category - those (like Amanda and Raffaele) convicted because of FALSE DNA evidence or planted DNA evidence. The nice thing about those early cases was that they didn't know about DNA evidence and thus couldn't plant false DNA evidence.

And then there are those cases where tag team interrogations elicited false confessions (like the Tucson Four and Amanda).

These are the neo-dark ages.

snook1
21st August 2011, 12:31 PM
Yes, of course, absolutely and most certainly, that argument "does not matter".

It came from a person arguing guilt !!!!

Case closed, eh ??

Yawn

If you're bored, then maybe you should start answering multiple questions about the case that were asked by many here, instead of attacking other members opinions in a not so polite manner.

Start with time of death. The rest is up for you to decide, however, to date, NO ONE from the guilt side offered a plausible scenario about what happened that night. So maybe you could come up with one? Oh and how is it possible for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not leaving any traces in the murder room? Forget the bra clasp. Hellmann's experts ruled it out.

Antony
21st August 2011, 01:40 PM
Initially, the American gave a version of events we knew to be incorrect. She buckled and gave a version of the facts we knew to be correct. As a result we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles. (Quoted from memory)

This notorious quote from Arturo di Felice after the arrests on Nov 6 came from a Newsweek report, and of course it doesn't give much room for any interpretation other than that the police forced Amanda to agree to their version of "the facts" - IOW, her so-called "accusation" against Patrick Lumumba was fed to her by the interrogators.

My question is: is the Newsweek report the original source of this quote? I would think that they would have got it from an Italian language source - if so, what were di Felice's original words in Italian, and what scope is there for any different translation?

Malkmus
21st August 2011, 01:45 PM
No, that's not either one of the appearances. Never even met not "doesn't know"

Then why is it the appearance TJMK links to in their claim?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_the_media_are_wrong_to_rely_on_amanda_knoxs_fa mily_for_impartial_a/

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 02:48 PM
Interesting.

It's comments like that which give this thread most of its best entertainment value. Perfectly innocent and guileless irony.

Thanks, Mary.

My husband thinks you're a jerk.

Get it?

Katody Matrass
21st August 2011, 02:57 PM
Then why is it the appearance TJMK links to in their claim?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_the_media_are_wrong_to_rely_on_amanda_knoxs_fa mily_for_impartial_a/

Looks to me that you're discussing something that's not there. I think that until (s)he produces that video it is safe to assume that bucketoftea is, let's say, mistaken.

HumanityBlues
21st August 2011, 02:59 PM
My husband thinks you're a jerk.

Get it?

Mary,

I find your posts much more interesting than long boring lectures on door locks, if that makes you feel any better.

Kevin_Lowe
21st August 2011, 03:07 PM
They could have said "barely knew", but they didn't. They said "never even met"

You are being a little naughty, IMO. That is not a sole basis for anything except that it shows someone was dishonestly misrepresenting AK's relationship to the owner of the palm print in the victim's blood. I think it was most likely AK herself, although it could have been Ciolino's creative urge getting the better of him.

I think we're all on the same page insofar as their statement was wrong. Not very wrong, but certainly wrong.

However I don't see what hangs on this. Knox and Sollecito were not convicted on the issue of whether they had "never even met" Rudy or "had seen him a few times but didn't even know his name". The people who made this mistake were not police or prosecutors and had no control over the outcome of the trial.

The sole point seems to be "Ha ha! Someone on the pro-innocence side got something wrong!". It's true but I don't see where it gets you.


I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)

Well now you're just trolling.

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 03:09 PM
Mary,

I find your posts much more interesting than long boring lectures on door locks, if that makes you feel any better.

Thank you, HB. :) I feel the same about yours. I almost feel like I may have met you before through the transmission of your energy across the parallel dimensions of time and space. :D

tsig
21st August 2011, 03:36 PM
It wouldn't surprise me either - nothing would surprise me about the incompetence, corruption or simple disregard for basic human decency of the prosecution team at this stage given all we know already - but it would be an incredibly serious ethical breach if the police had forensic data in hand to show that the putative semen stain was a real semen stain which had been tied to Rudy and they concealed this from the court.

It would also mean that they had done Rudy a huge favour by concealing this evidence at his trial, since knock-down evidence that he had sexually assaulted Meredith after she was fatally wounded until he climaxed would (you would think) count as an aggravating circumstance that would have gotten him the maximum 30-year sentence instead of the lighter 24-year sentence he got (reduced to 16 by the fast-track mechanism).

However such a serious accusation really needs to be backed up by something more than the word of Barbie Nadeau in my view. The allegation should be investigated, to be sure, but Barbie's sloppy enough that she could easily have just gotten confused.

Given that you think that Italian Law is entirely corrupt why do you think the current judge will free Amanda?

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 04:30 PM
My husband thinks you're a jerk.

Get it?


:)

I don't see why we should care about his opinion if he doesn't participate on the board.

Unless he posted it on PMF, of course. That would be different.

Somehow.

:rolleyes:

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 04:42 PM
My husband thinks you're a jerk.

Get it?

Mary H,

Hehehe, I get it and that's funny, and even though I agree with HBlue about many of your post being more interesting than lock lectures, I still like long lectures about door locks too. Sorry.

I also find it interesting how hate for Amanda overides some people's critical thinking skills concerning the evidence,

Dave

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 04:46 PM
:)

I don't see why we should care about his opinion if he doesn't participate on the board.

Unless he posted it on PMF, of course. That would be different.

Somehow

quadraginta,

by the way, it's called ironic sarcasm and I think it's funny. Hehehe.

But while you are here, what do you think the time of death is and what evidence can you offer to prove it?

Dave

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 04:49 PM
Given that you think that Italian Law is entirely corrupt why do you think the current judge will free Amanda?

tsig,

but I can't recall Kevin ever saying the whole Italian system is corrupt, but since you asked, it's pretty obvious Hellmann isn't corrupt.

And oh yes before you go, what do you think the time of death is and what evidence do you have to back it up?

Dave

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 05:12 PM
:)<snip>


That may be the first time I've ever gotten a smiley face out of you.

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 05:16 PM
quadraginta,

by the way, it's called ironic sarcasm.



What is?

I didn't think Mary was being sarcastic in the line of hers I quoted. Neither was I. I did think the irony was spectacular, especially considering the amount of fodder used in this thread from 'people who don't participate on this board.'


But while you are here, what do you think the time of death is and what evidence can you offer to prove it?



At this stage in the thread I don't think of it at all, and hence would not presume to offer any evidence.

That pick-up line is getting a little long in the tooth anyway. You're not gonna score with anything that lame.

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 05:17 PM
Mary H,

Hehehe, I get it and that's funny, and even though I agree with HBlue about many of your post being more interesting than lock lectures, I still like long lectures about door locks too. Sorry.

Thanks, Dave. It's okay, a lot of people are more interested in the engineering aspects of this case than I am. If you like lock lectures, I think there's a bunch of them on the second incarnation of this thread.

I also find it interesting how hate for Amanda overides some people's critical thinking skills concerning the evidence,

Dave

I was just talking to my husband about that on our walk around Green Lake. ;)

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 05:20 PM
That may be the first time I've ever gotten a smiley face out of you.


I'll try to do better.

:hug4

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 05:34 PM
At this stage in the thread I don't think of it at all, and hence would not presume to offer any evidence.


quadraginta,

but you could say that about ALL the evidence, so why (and I assume you think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, and I apologize if I am making the wrong assumption here) do you think they are guilty and what evidence are you using to justify this thought (especially considering what you said in your quote above) or is it just a gut feeling?

Dave

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 05:40 PM
Mary,

I find your posts much more interesting than long boring lectures on door locks, if that makes you feel any better.


My cat likes door locks because they are shiny. Too bad he can't read those wonderful posts you refer too.

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 05:46 PM
Pilot,

If you have a question about something I have written then why not just ask? I personally believe that the West Memphis Three were wrongfully convicted. They got a crap deal because the prosecution refuses to admit mistakes. I don't blame the three for taking the deal as one was facing death. I am hopeful they will be able to eventually clear their names.

I am well aware of the fact that the three are on probation and the court has not acknowledged any wrongdoing.

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 05:57 PM
quadraginta,

but you could say that about ALL the evidence, so why (and I assume you think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, and I apologize if I am making the wrong assumption here) do you think they are guilty and what evidence are you using to justify this thought (especially considering what you said in your quote above) or is it just a gut feeling?

Dave


Apology accepted.

(Hint: In spite of the predominant attitudes reflected in this thread the choice is not a binary one. It is exactly the "If ya ain't with us, yer agin us." mentality which has earned the thread the reputation it has. It also sets the stage for apparently limitless entertainment, but that's a different subject.)

Chris_Halkides
21st August 2011, 06:05 PM
I can't bring myself to condemn the "case closed" remark because it has been thoroughly vindicated. The authorities have my admiration for investigating thoroughly and not doing it the most convenient (and crooked) way by being satisfied with an African man under arrest. (which is exactly what AK and RS hoped/expected they would)
bucketoftea,

Were the authorities being crooked when they claimed to have damning CCTV footage of Amanda but did not? When they claimed that Amanda's clothing was missing when it was right where she said it was? When they claimed that the German-language Harry Potter book was at the girls' flat when there was a second copy at Raffaele's? When they said that there were hundreds of picograms of DNA from the knife blade and there were not?

How eager were the police to investigate Patrick's alibi? If they still have your admiration after the things I listed in the first paragraph and the other things that have been brought to your attention (more than once IIRC), then what behavior (aside from continuing to hold Patrick) would cause you to lose admiration for them?

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 06:18 PM
Apology accepted.

(Hint: In spite of the predominant attitudes reflected in this thread the choice is not a binary one. It is exactly the "If ya ain't with us , yer agin us." mentality which has earned the thread the reputation it has. It also sets the stage for apparently limitless entertainment, but that's a different subject.)

quadraginta,

so basically, you're here for the entertainment value? I can see that, but regardless of the apparent bias "mentality" you think is on display here, at least opposing views are allowed, and although people sometimes do tend to gang up here; it is still way more civil than many of the comment sections of major websites like huffington post and msnbc etc.

But (that being said) there are thoughtful people who do post here and try to explain their positions calmly and politely, and (maybe it's me) but the pro-guilters do tend to spend more time arguing semantics of people's post and/ or the bizarre behavior (or presumptive lies) of Amanda and Raffaele than anything else.

And that is what many of them lay their hat on, but draw the line there and will not argue the time of death which (as they say) is "contested". In reality (like you said) at this point, it's all "contested", but that doesn't mean it still isn't worth discussing. This IS a discussion forum after all and a "skeptical" forum to boot and one about the Kercher case.

Sorry for the long rant but thank you for your apology acceptance and explanation of your position. It is definitely interesting to say the least and also does have a little truth behind it to back it up,

Dave

HumanityBlues
21st August 2011, 06:40 PM
quadraginta,

so basically, you're here for the entertainment value? I can see that, but regardless of the apparent bias "mentality" you think is on display here, at least opposing views are allowed, and although people sometimes do tend to gang up here; it is still way more civil than many of the comment sections of major websites like huffington post and msnbc etc.

But (that being said) there are thoughtful people who do post here and try to explain their positions calmly and politely, and (maybe it's me) but the pro-guilters do tend to spend more time arguing semantics of people's post and/ or the bizarre behavior (or presumptive lies) of Amanda and Raffaele than anything else.

And that is what many of them lay their hat on, but draw the line there and will not argue the time of death which (as they say) is "contested". In reality (like you said) at this point, it's all "contested", but that doesn't mean it still isn't worth discussing. This IS a discussion forum after all and a "skeptical" forum to boot and one about the Kercher case.

Sorry for the long rant but thank you for your apology acceptance and explanation of your position. It is definitely interesting to say the least and also does have a little truth behind it to back it up,

Dave

C'mon Dave. We're all on the fence here. Didn't ya know?;)

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 06:46 PM
C'mon Dave. We're all on the fence here. Didn't ya know?;)

HBlue,

my bad. I forgot,

Dave

P.S. where is this fence by the way. Hopefully it's not topped with barbed-wire, but the real question has to be, can we get cable there? Hehehe.

Kevin_Lowe
21st August 2011, 06:55 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Alt+F4
21st August 2011, 06:59 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

You do know that proposing/adovcating/promoting a trolling game makes you a troll, right?

HumanityBlues
21st August 2011, 07:04 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 07:07 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

I had to look "butt hurt" up in the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt).

Mary_H
21st August 2011, 07:09 PM
Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

I'm not so sure about that. I think his position is more that he thinks the rest of us are guilty. Of something.

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 07:09 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.

Kevin,

simply shocked that you would suggest this, but it would be fun to create bizarre reasons why they are guilty. For example, Amanda Marie Knox is obviously an anagram for "I killed her and liked it" (all the missing letters are silent or as a result of removal when her ancestors originally came over from Europe and simplified the original spelling of their last names).

With an anagram like that, it's a destiny she couldn't avoid and was simply ominous for Meredith,

Just saying...

Dave

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 07:16 PM
quadraginta,

so basically, you're here for the entertainment value?



At this stage of the game. It isn't like there's a continuous deluge of new information. When something does manage to float by I'm more than willing to take it for what it is.



I can see that, but regardless of the apparent bias "mentality" you think is on display here, at least opposing views are allowed, and although people sometimes do tend to gang up here; it is still way more civil than many of the comment sections of major websites like huffington post and msnbc etc.



I don't see why we should care about their opinions if they don't participate on the board.


<snip>

In reality (like you said) at this point, it's all "contested", but that doesn't mean it still isn't worth discussing.



I don't think I said that.


<snip>

Sorry for the long rant but thank you for your apology acceptance and explanation of your position.

<snip>


I don't think I did that.

It isn't necessary to have a "position" to see and even to point out an apparent contradiction. This is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why can't someone follow the thread and make occasional observations without being crow-barred into a partisan cubbyhole?

Bruce Fisher
21st August 2011, 07:20 PM
Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

Are you positive?

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 07:31 PM
Qu'est-ce que c'est?

I had to look "butt hurt" up in the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt).

Mary,

some of those "used in a sentence" examples are funny.

Butthurt would be a good user ID if (and I'm not saying I approve of this in any way, shape or form) anyone decided to do this.

Plus (and I am shocked at myself for even suggesting this), complimenting other people who use misinformation to promote Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, (simply shocked) by adding bizarre evidence also.

For example, that is so true XXX, and you can find the proof of this written in pig's blood on the door that is introduced in the Massei report page 666. This evidence is introduced in the original italian and you can see it by connecting all the letters written at the very right of each line on that page,

Dave

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 07:31 PM
I've thought of a fun trolling game. I think you could have a lot of fun trolling Amanda Knox threads just by following these rules:

1. Snipe at pro-innocence posts with standard guilter talking points without actually asserting that Sollecito and Knox are guilty.
2. If someone assumes you are a guilter, act butthurt and complain that everyone here is mean.
3. If someone asks you a question about the case that guilters can't discuss rationally, avoid discussing it. Any excuse will do. If pressed, act butthurt some more.


You're so cute when you get on your high horse like that.

Do you believe that pointing out that a statement like, "I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.", exhibits a certain ... shall we say ... inconsistency in view of this thread's normal practices is trolling?

I think you are setting the bar rather low. Somewhere around the level of 'Anything Kevin doesn't approve of discussing.'

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 07:43 PM
It isn't necessary to have a "position" to see and even to point out an apparent contradiction. This is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Why can't someone follow the thread and make occasional observations without being crow-barred into a partisan cubbyhole?

quadraginta,

That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that some people here do have a bias "mentality" (both sides do it), but it is way more civil than a lot of other websites. But, if your intention is to only cherry-pick "apparent contradictions" and make "occasional observations" and not directly discuss the case, what's the point of being here? Is this all you have to do with your life?

Not criticizing, just honestly wondering, but you shouldn't be hypocritical and say it's ok for you to make "occasional observations" about other people's "apparent contradictions" here and then complain when other people do it with your statements or anyone's statements?

Personally, I have no problem with you doing that at all, just don't be a hypocrite about it,

Dave

theRealBob
21st August 2011, 07:46 PM
I'm not so sure about that. I think his position is more that he thinks the rest of us are guilty. Of something.

Well I certainly am.

I should go and hand myself in to the Perugian police staion. They'd be a sure thing to stuff the arrest up.

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 07:46 PM
Lets not beat around the bush here any longer. Quadraginta obviously thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.


"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Got it. Thanks for your help. :rolleyes:

(I couldn't have demonstrated my point more emphatically or simply than you have.)

HumanityBlues
21st August 2011, 07:49 PM
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."

Got it. Thanks for your help. :rolleyes:

(I couldn't have demonstrated my point more emphatically or simply than you have.)

You think Amanda and Raffy are guilty. It's obvious.

There are people on this thread who have nuanced or unsure positions. You are not one of them.

Kevin_Lowe
21st August 2011, 08:02 PM
You're so cute when you get on your high horse like that.

Do you believe that pointing out that a statement like, "I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.", exhibits a certain ... shall we say ... inconsistency in view of this thread's normal practices is trolling?

I think some people are very keen to avoid talking about substantial issues, which is why they focus obsessively on who is being inconsistent about quoting someone's room-mate and so forth. I don't think they add anything to the thread and I also think that they know this and do it deliberately.

In fact, it's so hard to get guilters to discuss substantial issues that sometimes people have to resort to importing guilter discussion of substantial issues from elsewhere just so we can discuss actual arguments about the actual case.

The difference as I see it is that the first case is a form of trolling aimed at derailing the thread. The second is a way of engaging in substantial discussion.


I think you are setting the bar rather low. Somewhere around the level of 'Anything Kevin doesn't approve of discussing.'

If my approval is correctly calibrated then I should approve of all constructive posts and disapprove of all time-wasting and trolling. So in that case it would be completely correct to say that there was 100% overlap between worthless posts and things Kevin doesn't approve of.

Did you plan to engage in any substantial discussion of facts related to the actual case, by the way? If not I can always reduce the clutter by putting you on ignore with the other people who contribute nothing worth reading and are here solely to disrupt the conversation.

Danceme
21st August 2011, 08:16 PM
...there's 250 that can be found in common households alone in just this one study. (http://www.iapsonline.com/sites/default/files/A%20Comprehensive%20Experimental%20Study%20of%20In dustrial,%20Domestic%20and%20Environmental%20Inter ferences%20with%20Forensic%20Luminol%20Test%20for% 20Blood.pdf)
Kaosium, I've seen you write this and link this study many times before but I've often wondered if you read the conclusion where the author notes that of the 250 substances tested in the study, 240 do not produce sufficiently intense luminescence to easily be mistaken for blood. Nine apparently do, which are the oft quoted turnips, horseradish, bleach etc. If the footprints are completely unrelated to the crime then is it reasonable to conclude by their strong reaction to luminol that they must be made in one of the nine? And because we know bleach dissipates rather quickly and would not be a source of interference so long after the crime, we can discount it, leaving 8 plausible substances which may have caused the reaction. Of these which do you think it was?

Rudy on the other hand has little to no grasp of English.
I've rarely encountered a young person in Europe who could not communicate at all in English. Rudy lived in a town with a high student population which included many English speakers, and many others who likely had to use english to communicate with those who did not understand their respective native tongues. Its been said Rudy had a particular attraction to this student population so unless there is evidence to prove Rudy had little to no grasp of English, common sense tells me he definitely did.

There's something very strange about Curatolo, as you noted, there had to be something going on there, as taking photos of him dealing heroin in 2004 and not prosecuting him until 2010 when he testifies in three murder trials in the interim is downright suspicious.

I really don't think it's strange at all. Drug investigations usually take years to play out, given that the police generally just keep tabs on the lesser dealers in order to get leads on the the bigger fish. Whenever a large drug bust happens in my neck of the woods it's not uncommon to read it's been the result of several years of investigations, and multiple dealers are arrested simultaneously.



But while you are here, what do you think the time of death is and what evidence can you offer to prove it?

Dave

Dave, for the record, I agree with the earlier time of death. ( as I stated several times on this forum before you came here ) but what I don't agree with is the constant mantra above being requested of everyone who offers a different perspective. You are not the only one who does this so please don't take it personally. Some people want to hear it argued in court to believe it and that's their prerogative. No one has to take the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters as gospel truth on stomach contents and until and if the appeal deals with this matter it's either as simple as you think or as complicated as others think.
Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.

lionking
21st August 2011, 08:22 PM
I think some people are very keen to avoid talking about substantial issues, which is why they focus obsessively on who is being inconsistent about quoting someone's room-mate and so forth. I don't think they add anything to the thread and I also think that they know this and do it deliberately.

In fact, it's so hard to get guilters to discuss substantial issues that sometimes people have to resort to importing guilter discussion of substantial issues from elsewhere just so we can discuss actual arguments about the actual case.

The difference as I see it is that the first case is a form of trolling aimed at derailing the thread. The second is a way of engaging in substantial discussion.



If my approval is correctly calibrated then I should approve of all constructive posts and disapprove of all time-wasting and trolling. So in that case it would be completely correct to say that there was 100% overlap between worthless posts and things Kevin doesn't approve of.

Did you plan to engage in any substantial discussion of facts related to the actual case, by the way? If not I can always reduce the clutter by putting you on ignore with the other people who contribute nothing worth reading and are
here solely to disrupt the conversation.

Does you approval process extend to off topic posts like this?

RandyN
21st August 2011, 08:26 PM
Mignini actually thinks Masons perform rituals barefoot...or is it barefooted? I actually think he claims its something to do with one bare foot.

Why do they call it a Mason jar?

They have a chicken and biscuits dinner at the local Masons lodge and its advertised in the paper but I’ve always been afraid to go although I know absolutely zero about the Masons. I’ve never even heard anything bad. Should I go?

Perugia is supposedly littered with Masonic symbols carved into the ancient stone walls there. Would these be the same Masons down at the local lodge? In the local photos they mostly appear older and many wear those tie like shoe string affairs with a symbolic metal knot that holds it together. And there are titles like “dragon” I think or am I confusing them with the KKK? Maybe its Grand Knight but that may be from the Knights of Columbus...which we call KOFC for short. I’ve always thought these different clubs were originally a way to skirt the Sunday anti drinking laws...back in the day local bars were closed on Sunday ...now they are open but only if they also serve meals...

But now I wonder about these Masonic people…the lodge is only about 3 miles (5 kilometers) away from my home..

So could these Masons be the same guys Mignini has the issues with? It seems to me he involved them with the Monster of Florence case and also with this case somehow....or was I just dreaming that?

Since it seems to be a slow case news day I thought Id try to find out more about the “Mind of Mignini”

quadraginta
21st August 2011, 08:43 PM
quadraginta,

That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that some people here do have a bias "mentality" (both sides do it), but it is way more civil than a lot of other websites. But, if your intention is to only cherry-pick "apparent contradictions" and make "occasional observations" and not directly discuss the case, what's the point of being here? Is this all you have to do with your life?



The quote I cited from Mary's post was a succinct distillation of the reason for her entire post, in her own words. I don't think that amounts to "cherry picking" in most peoples' minds.

The way these threads have been trending, an occasional observation is all that is possible without joining the chorus of repetition. "Directly discussing the case" has almost become a by-product of a conversation largely devoted to one-upsmanship and ridicule of people who are often (if not mostly) not on this board.

That is, of course, what prompted my comment in the first place.

I'm here because I find the social dynamic which has developed fascinating, and occasionally humorous. I read some of the threads in the Politics sub-forum for much the same reason. As far as my time is concerned, I rarely devote as much time, effort, or interest in this thread over an entire month as some of the regulars manage on an average day. Nice try, but you're shooting at the wrong target.


Not criticizing, just honestly wondering, but you shouldn't be hypocritical and say it's ok for you to make "occasional observations" about other people's "apparent contradictions" here and then complain when other people do it with your statements or anyone's statements?



What complaints? I was just pointing out the conditions here. If you see it as a complaint you are reading your own connotations into it.


Personally, I have no problem with you doing that at all, just don't be a hypocrite about it,

Dave

That's "not criticizing"? You're not doing it right, then.

You haven't made a case for hypocrisy on my part, merely for preconceptions and presumptions of your own.

Again.

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 08:45 PM
Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.
-

Danceme,

and I can't really disagree with your opinion (and thank you for your answer by the way), and sorry if it bothers you, but my question is usually more on topic than the post to which I am responding, but you certainly could make a case that I am biased and this is my way of attacking trolls, but it is one of the major things I would like to discuss here so anyone can believe what they wish. It's still something on the very top of my list of things to discuss.

Sorry,

Dave

AmyStrange
21st August 2011, 08:52 PM
You haven't made a case for hypocrisy on my part, merely for preconceptions and presumptions of your own.


quadraginta,

I don't have to make a case. I'm just making an observation about what I think are apparent contradictions in your post, just like you say you do, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here,

Dave

HumanityBlues
21st August 2011, 09:11 PM
Once again I want to thank you for providing me with my opinion.




I have no "position" at all. It is difficult to be nuanced about that.

I wish I could say that I'm sorry I am unwilling to fit into your dichotomy of "innocentisti" or "guilter", but I'm not. As Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." what you choose to believe.

If you and the posters like you were not so relentlessly militant about this sort of thing the tenor of these threads would be much different.

But not as amusing. Carry on, by all means.

I will carry on. You obviously think Amanda and Raffy are guilty, and for some dumb reason you want to maintain this "oh I don't have a real position, how dare you paint me in a corner" attitude. Get real. Like I said, there were several posters here who have middle of the road or unsure positions. Danceme, Lion King, Sherlock Holmes come to mind. You do not fall into that category at all. Why you want to continue this charade that you really don't have a position in your head is your prerogative, but there's no use in keeping it up because no one believes you.

You have a position. You think they're both guilty and it's obvious you think so. Carry on.

Kevin_Lowe
21st August 2011, 09:39 PM
Dave, for the record, I agree with the earlier time of death. ( as I stated several times on this forum before you came here ) but what I don't agree with is the constant mantra above being requested of everyone who offers a different perspective. You are not the only one who does this so please don't take it personally. Some people want to hear it argued in court to believe it and that's their prerogative. No one has to take the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters as gospel truth on stomach contents and until and if the appeal deals with this matter it's either as simple as you think or as complicated as others think.
Although the issue is crucial to the debate, to see it written every time someone offers a differing opinion never ceases to irritate and is counterproductive to hearing and evaluating other opinions.

A different point of view on this: Unless and until someone comes up with a story which makes some kind of sense in light of the facts of the case as we now know them, there's no pro-guilt case worth discussing.

There's nothing to be gained by allowing people to say "I feel like ignoring the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature until some lawyers talk about it in a court" whenever they run into a fact about the universe they don't like.

I also feel it's not correct to refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature as "the opinions of anonymous Internet commenters", as you do. Their names are on their papers, if that's what matters to you.

Perhaps this question irritates you, and if so, so be it. Personally I find the manoeuvres people engage in to find excuses not to answer the question substantially more irritating than the asking.

Kaosium
21st August 2011, 11:44 PM
Kaosium, I've seen you write this and link this study many times before but I've often wondered if you read the conclusion where the author notes that of the 250 substances tested in the study, 240 do not produce sufficiently intense luminescence to easily be mistaken for blood.

If they glowed bright enough for only the eight to apply, they cannot be blood because they tested negative with TMB, that's what I've been getting at! Stefanoni pretended that dilution could cause the negative TMB test, as per the Massei cite in the post you responded to. If they are that diluted so as to give a TMB negative, they cannot glow that brightly. We're way past pretending you found a 'gotcha' by noticing the percentage chemiluminescence of only eight of those substances is similar to hemoglobin. :)

The context of my using that study in this instance was different, it was if the photography or picture program was played with to make it look brighter than it was, (meaning it might well have still been highly diluted blood) then we're back to that study with the 250 endproducts they found in common households they could have brightened so it still was basically impossible to prove it was the result of the bathmat boogie. I was falsifying my own hypothesis. Also keep in mind that list of 240 & 8 is not exhaustive, it's just what they used in that study.

However if the glow was naturally that bright then the odds are extreme it wasn't blood, the dilution case in Massei is disproven by the appearance of the photographs and Stefanoni's testimony they were that bright and the negative TMB test. Also, the one thing the 'bathmat boogie' allows for is the chaotic distribution of the footprints, as while they head in the same general direction, they don't do it like someone was just walking, but if someone was motivating themselves along on a bathmat I could see how for balance and other reasons they might end up off the mat and the distribution looking something like that. No bathmat boogie and odds again become that they weren't simultaneous to each other as the pattern would be so strangely skewed, thus they probably happened on different occasion and might well have been different little female feet, like Meredith's for the one going into her room.




Nine apparently do, which are the oft quoted turnips, horseradish, bleach etc. If the footprints are completely unrelated to the crime then is it reasonable to conclude by their strong reaction to luminol that they must be made in one of the nine? And because we know bleach dissipates rather quickly and would not be a source of interference so long after the crime, we can discount it, leaving 8 plausible substances which may have caused the reaction. Of these which do you think it was?


Truthfully, I really don't care! :)

If they're not blood, then of what significance is it? I'd guess probably some kind of cleaner that made similar marks when Raffaele's place was luminoled that weren't blood either. Something with a peroxidase enzyme, which is what hemoglobin imitates to assist the peroxide oxidizing the reagent to produce the chemiluminescence. I must confess I shamelessly stole that ridiculous verbiage from Chris Halkides site (http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/). In real words some plant gunk or something that acts enough like plant gunk it conspires with the naughty stuff when applied which airs it out sending sparks flying causing something sinister to happen and it lights up really cool! :p

No confirmatory test was done, it tested negative for blood with TMB, that wasn't caused by the age of the stain (46 days ain't long enough to interfere with a TMB test) or the dilution. At this point not only did they not prove for blood, the possibility it was blood is so remote who cares? It doesn't have to be something on that list, just something with the same substances as on that list. Chipped paint in pooled water would do it.

PhantomWolf
21st August 2011, 11:49 PM
I've rarely encountered a young person in Europe who could not communicate at all in English. Rudy lived in a town with a high student population which included many English speakers, and many others who likely had to use english to communicate with those who did not understand their respective native tongues. Its been said Rudy had a particular attraction to this student population so unless there is evidence to prove Rudy had little to no grasp of English, common sense tells me he definitely did.

Looking at Rudy's history it seems he didn't like school and dropped out.

"We took him in as a son, but he was more interested in other things than studying and work. We gave him a job but we had to sack him because he was never there.

"In the end we asked him to leave our home because we just couldn't cope any longer and we have had no contact with him for more than a year.

The claim that Guede can't speak English appears to have come from Madison Paxton who travelled over to Italy to be with Amanda after the killing.

As for the prosecutionís sex game crime theory, which paints Amanda as the instigator and the two young men as mere pawns, Madison points out: ĒRudy doesnít speak English, Amanda didnít speak much Italian, and Raffaele spoke minimal English. How did Amanda orchestrate this and convince them to do it? Was this the most macabre charade ever? How did she pull that off? Because she could not.

pilot padron
22nd August 2011, 12:26 AM
bucketoftea,

Were the authorities being crooked when they claimed to have damning CCTV footage of Amanda but did not? When they claimed that Amanda's clothing was missing when it was right where she said it was? When they claimed that the German-language Harry Potter book was at the girls' flat when there was a second copy at Raffaele's? When they said that there were hundreds of picograms of DNA from the knife blade and there were not?

Why, or what is ever so different and/or unique so that every obvious lie, mis-statement, inconsistent contradiction, quirky, very suspicious, self incriminating actions and statements from Knox and Sollecito makes them only innocent confused, 153+++ hour water boarded, stupid "kids"?

Yet every single act of those horrible Italian Law Enforcers including judges and jurors makes them vengeful guilty conspirators who have this overpowering need to lie, cheat, steal, and deliberately manipulate and/or 'manufacture' evidence.
All this *alleged* incredibly unlawful behavior by individuals with a sworn duty to enforce laws..... all this just to convict "innocent kids" ??

And "as an aside":
I firmly believe the Massei described ToD is at least as credible, and probably more so than the ToD calculations expounded endlessly here and futilely grasped as a guilt 'game changer'.
The long in tooth, tired tactic of endlessly throwing this dull rusted ToD 'gauntlet' out to opposition posters as a 'challenge' whenever they dare to endure inevitable insults and appear here to argue guilt is an absurd simpleton arguing tactic that is understandably usually ultimately wisely ignored.

Lest you also, in desperation, resort to resurrect and repeatedly bray again about the overused and inapplicable argument that my preference to accept Massei's ToD is using "authority", may I suggest that your own silly reliance on Google, library cards, a doggie doctor, a vertical gardening expert and/or a biology teacher in mostly each of your own ToD arguments also unquestionably and obviously also *reeks* of identical reliance on 'authority'.
And finally, even if you reject some/all the above, is not yours admittedly a pretty thinly qualified 'authority' compared to mine ?
This despite my acknowledgement of and respect for some widely heralded post graduate degrees.
However, most of these degrees, incidentally, are unquestionably in obviously unrelated or barely related fields of study/expertise.

pilot padron
22nd August 2011, 01:07 AM
Pilot,

If you have a question about something I have written then why not just ask? I personally believe that the West Memphis Three were wrongfully convicted. They got a crap deal because the prosecution refuses to admit mistakes. I don't blame the three for taking the deal as one was facing death. I am hopeful they will be able to eventually clear their names.

I am well aware of the fact that the three are on probation and the court has not acknowledged any wrongdoing.

Please note that I wish to be very careful in my arguments about remaining "on topic" and not become vulnerable in any iota to accusations I "derail" anyone or anything.

Therefore, might you be so kind and courteous as to cite, quote, or in any way direct my attention to the specific (on topic) "questioning of you" by me... on this Forum to which you above now inexplicably refer??

This, you see, would be a basic prerequisite for my replying in accordance with stated on topic/derail limitations.
Additionally, I hesitate, because I suspect you are possibly confusing me (yet again) with another poster, possibly elsewhere and definitely off topic.

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 01:42 AM
I firmly believe the Massei described ToD is at least as credible, and probably more so than the ToD calculations expounded endlessly here and futilely grasped as a guilt 'game changer'.

Pilot Padron,

because you need the Massei miscalculation of time of death for Amanda and Raffaele to be guilty. The autopsy time of death (medical doctors know more about time of death than lawyers otherwise Massei would have done the autopsy which he didn't), Meredith's interrupted phone call to her mother which wasn't reattempted (probably because she probably tried her mother's number as she entered the house and opened her bedroom door, heard a noise, ended the call, started to pulling off her coat, and then was attacked by Guede), and Guede's Skype call referring to Meredith's scream at 9:20; all together are more credible than Massei,

Dave

snook1
22nd August 2011, 01:54 AM
Pilot Padron,

because you need the Massei miscalculation of time of death for Amanda and Raffaele to be guilty. The autopsy time of death (medical doctors know more about time of death than lawyers otherwise Massei would have done the autopsy which he didn't), Meredith's interrupted phone call to her mother which wasn't reattempted (probably because she probably tried her mother's number as she entered the house and opened her bedroom door, heard a noise, ended the call, started to pulling off her coat, and then was attacked by Guede), and Guede's Skype call referring to Meredith's scream at 9:20; all together are more credible than Massei,

Dave

That's, along with stomach contents and an empty duodendum, more than enough to establish when Meredith died. It amazes me how Massei could come up with a different time of death.

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 02:10 AM
I firmly believe the Massei described ToD is at least as credible
Well if you accept that going from, it could have taken up to 4 hours for the stomach to start emptying and since it takes up to 8 hours for the stomach to finish emptying and it empties faitly quickly, then it is possible, and even probable that it had not had anything pass from the stomach at 11:30pm.

Of course it can also be pointed out that holding up Massei as an authorative source on the correctness of Massei is rather a serious case of circular reasoning.

Kaosium
22nd August 2011, 02:26 AM
I really don't think it's strange at all. Drug investigations usually take years to play out, given that the police generally just keep tabs on the lesser dealers in order to get leads on the the bigger fish. Whenever a large drug bust happens in my neck of the woods it's not uncommon to read it's been the result of several years of investigations, and multiple dealers are arrested simultaneously.


The problem here is we're missing the drug bust. Plus he ended up in prison anyway, nice way to thank him for all his hard work sleeping outside all those years. However he did end up testifying in these extraneous murder cases, and in Raffaele and Amanda's case to something utterly inane.

Oh, and to Dave (I believe) who wondered what a 'Christian Anarchist' was, it's just more proof they were all on drugs in the Seventies! :D

In the US, I suppose the long-haired friends of Jesus in a chartreuse microbus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWO_AIh8drk)

(Anyone else 'rolled up Interstate 44 like a rocket sled on rails?')

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 03:06 AM
When you have to exaggerate reality to this point it is a good sign that the argument has been lost.

I guess I am friends with the cashier at Target, the guy that takes my toll money, the guy that delivers my pizza, the guy that sat next to me a couple of times when we just happened to be waiting for the same train.

I guess I am friends with everyone at the Super Bowl party I attended last year because we ate out of the same chip bowl.

I could go on forever but there is no need. If you need to exaggerate the relationship between Amanda and Rudy to make your theory work, then it's time to rethink your theory.

This is a pitiful reply. Did I ever say "friend?" not a stranger. You shouldn't be beating yourself up to argue against something I never proposed.

We only have AK's word on how many times they met anyway. No reliable source has confirmed.

"Never even met" means something quite specific, and it was a lie to bolster AK's denials. BTW that whole CBS programme was nothing more than a paid advertisement for Amanda's defense. It deliberately misled. CBS (or would that be Halderman...oops..guess not) should be asking for their money back for P Ciolino's "months" of holiday...sorry, I mean investigation in Italy.

Dan O.
22nd August 2011, 03:11 AM
Meredith's interrupted phone call to her mother which wasn't reattempted (probably because she probably tried her mother's number as she entered the house and opened her bedroom door, heard a noise, ended the call, started to pulling off her coat, and then was attacked by Guede)


Dave, I thought we had clearly established within this thread that the phone call was attempted several minutes prior to the time Meredith was captured by the CCTV camera crossing the street. If you need a refresher, i'm sure we can find the published frame from the CCTV video showing the camera time stamp of 20:51:36 as Meredith crosses the street and the defense presentation demonstrating that the CCTV clock is in fact 10-12 minutes slow and not fast as the prosecution had contended.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 03:24 AM
That's, along with stomach contents and an empty duodendum, more than enough to establish when Meredith died. It amazes me how Massei could come up with a different time of death.

It amazes me that you all still stand by your amateur calculations and reliance on outdated methodology.

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 03:25 AM
Dave, I thought we had clearly established within this thread that the phone call was attempted several minutes prior to the time Meredith was captured by the CCTV camera crossing the street. If you need a refresher, i'm sure we can find the published frame from the CCTV video showing the camera time stamp as Meredith crosses the street and the defense presentation demonstrating that the CCTV clock is in fact 10-12 minutes slow and not fast as the prosecution had contended.

Dan,

but then what interrupted her call. I don't recall anyone making an agreed upon explanation except maybe the cell tower dropped it? My theory about her interrupted call is fluid and certainly can be modified by your correction and doesn't affect the time of death credibility of the autopsy report in the least. It just seemed like a credible narrative as to why the call was interrupted.

Thank you for the information though,

Dave

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 03:27 AM
It amazes me that you all still stand by your amateur calculations and reliance on outdated methodology.

bucketoftea,

the autopsy report is an amateur calculation?

Dave

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 03:28 AM
It amazes me that you all still stand by your amateur calculations and reliance on outdated methodology.


It amazes me, the lengths you will go to to deny the bleedin' obvious in this respect.

Rolfe. Not an amateur.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 03:34 AM
bucketoftea,

the autopsy report is an amateur calculation?

Dave

Rolfe = not an amateur vet

Rolfe et al = amateurs in the fields relevant to the investigation.

GI contents have not been regarded as reliable for years.

snook1
22nd August 2011, 03:34 AM
It amazes me that you all still stand by your amateur calculations and reliance on outdated methodology.

The autopsy report leaves no doubt about what was in Meredith's stomach and duodendum.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 03:43 AM
The autopsy report leaves no doubt about what was in Meredith's stomach and duodendum.

It does. However, the method of using GI contents to determine time of death has been shown to be unreliable to the point of reversing murder covictions!

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 03:43 AM
Rolfe et al = amateurs in the fields relevant to the investigation.

GI contents have not been regarded as reliable for years.


I've explained countless times that I'm trained in forensic post mortem work and frequently appear in court in that context.

GI contents may or may not give a reliable indication of time of death. It depends entirely on the particular circumstances of the individual death. This particular case is one of those in which the GI contents provide an unusually good indication of time of death.

And your amateur opinion doesn't change that.

Rolfe.

Dan O.
22nd August 2011, 03:47 AM
Dan,

but then what interrupted her call. I don't recall anyone making an agreed upon explanation except maybe the cell tower dropped it? My theory about her interrupted call is fluid and certainly can be modified by your correction and doesn't affect the time of death credibility of the autopsy report in the least. It just seemed like a credible narrative as to why the call was interrupted.

Thank you for the information though,

Dave


The cell tower never saw that connection.

If we interpolate between the time Sophie left Meredith and the time she is recorded crossing the street we can estimate where Meredith was at the time the call was attempted. What we find there is one of the narrowest streets in Perugia with high walls on either side. Cell phone coverage in this spot could be expected to be spotty.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 03:51 AM
It does. However, the method of using GI contents to determine time of death has been shown to be unreliable to the point of reversing murder covictions!


I don't think you can be quite as uncomprehending as you appear from this post.

Every case is different, and unique. In many cases the GI contents are not particularly helpful in determining time of death. In this case, as it happens, the opposite was true.

The primary court screwed up royally in this respect. For whatever reason, the judge handwaved away the compelling evidence provided by the GI contents (and other circumstantial evidence) and settled on a time of death which was in fact impossible according to the evidence presented.

This evidence is now being re-examined. I think it's unlikely that the screw-up will be perpetuated.

Rolfe.

Chris_Halkides
22nd August 2011, 03:57 AM
Kaosium, I've seen you write this and link this study many times before but I've often wondered if you read the conclusion where the author notes that of the 250 substances tested in the study, 240 do not produce sufficiently intense luminescence to easily be mistaken for blood. Nine apparently do, which are the oft quoted turnips, horseradish, bleach etc. If the footprints are completely unrelated to the crime then is it reasonable to conclude by their strong reaction to luminol that they must be made in one of the nine? And because we know bleach dissipates rather quickly and would not be a source of interference so long after the crime, we can discount it, leaving 8 plausible substances which may have caused the reaction. Of these which do you think it was?
Danceme,

I see no reason to conclude that the list of 250 items is a complete survey of all household products. Indeed, given that there are likely to be differences from one country to another, I think it is not. However, the real problem here is that the forensic police did not follow up their presumptive tests with any confirmatory test (neither TMB nor DNA profiling is confirmatory of blood). If you were asking the defense to say which substance it was, that would be reversing the burden of proof.

Chris_Halkides
22nd August 2011, 04:05 AM
Rolfe = not an amateur vet

Rolfe et al = amateurs in the fields relevant to the investigation.

GI contents have not been regarded as reliable for years.

bucketoftea,

Whether something is reliable or not depends upon that with which it is compared. Just repeating the word "reliable" over and over does not advance an argument, IMO. Do you acknowledge that GI contents give any information at all? If so, what specifically do they indicate or not indicate?

Supernaut
22nd August 2011, 04:06 AM
Deal Frees ĎWest Memphis Threeí in Arkansas (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/20arkansas.html?_r=2&hp)



This is overwhelming. It's hard to even imagine what it is like to be freed after 18 years behind bars without guilt.
wm3.org (http://www.wm3.org/)



Bruce's new article:

What do the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox Have in Common? (http://www.groundreport.com/Business/What-do-the-West-Memphis-Three-and-Amanda-Knox-hav/2940932)

Thank you so much for flagging this. It is, as you say, almost overwhelming (at least, for anyone 'invested' in the case).

FANTASTIC news.

I watched "Paradise Lost" back in the mid-90's, when (IIRC) channel 4 showed it, bought it (and the follow up) on DVD in 2008 to get other people informed about the case..

I wonder if the prime-suspect is now going to be investigated? I noticed that he changed his (phoney) tune some years back, becoming an advocate for innocence, presumably having noticed the way the wind was blowing.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 04:22 AM
I wonder if the prime-suspect is now going to be investigated? I noticed that he changed his (phoney) tune some years back, becoming an advocate for innocence, presumably having noticed the way the wind was blowing.


No chance. They took a very bizarre version of an "Alford plea", and agreed to be held legally guilty while still being allowed to protest their innocence.

This saves the authorities from having to worry that they might sue for compensation, and from the trouble and expense of re-opening the investigation.

Rolfe.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 04:24 AM
I've explained countless times that I'm trained in forensic post mortem work and frequently appear in court in that context.

GI contents may or may not give a reliable indication of time of death. It depends entirely on the particular circumstances of the individual death. This particular case is one of those in which the GI contents provide an unusually good indication of time of death.

And your amateur opinion doesn't change that.

Rolfe.

Sez you, I'm afraid, as to whether this particular case is an exception.


Of course I am a amateur, but common sense dictates against your view. Youdid not conduct the investigations. I'm afraid even a vet pathologist does not hold any weight in a human murder case.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 04:44 AM
You didn't conduct the post mortem either. However, it was videotaped, and the evidence was clear that proper procedure was followed. That being so, it hardly takes an intellectual giant to follow the evidence to its rational conclusion.

As an amateur, you don't seem to be applying the most basic common sense to follow what is in fact a very straightforward argument. I'm afraid that your amateurish and ill-informed comments really merit no more than a return of your childish "sez you!" comment.

Rolfe.

Supernaut
22nd August 2011, 04:46 AM
No chance. They took a very bizarre version of an "Alford plea", and agreed to be held legally guilty while still being allowed to protest their innocence.

This saves the authorities from having to worry that they might sue for compensation, and from the trouble and expense of re-opening the investigation.

Rolfe.

Wishful thinking on my part - you're right, of course.

Not only have 3 young men (one of whom clearly has a very good mind which, fortunately, he doesn't seem to have lost) had so many years taken form them in the most heinous way, but the perpetrator(s) of this truly horrendous crime will never be caught (barring some even more extraordinary turns of events).

That said, I'm a firm believer in cosmic law, karma - whatever you want to call it - and one day these people will come to regret what they did.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 04:53 AM
You didn't conduct the post mortem either. However, it was videotaped, and the evidence was clear that proper procedure was followed. That being so, it hardly takes an intellectual giant to follow the evidence to its rational conclusion.

As an amateur, you seem to be lacking in even the most basic common sense to follow what is in fact a very straightforward argument. I'm afraid that your amateurish and ill-informed comments really merit no more than a return of your childish "sez you!" comment.

Rolfe.

I'm glad to hear that the professionals came up to your standards, but you are ignoring the fact that GI contents as indicator of time of death are not reliable so your reliance on it rather invalidates your conclusions. Like, totally.

Supernaut
22nd August 2011, 04:55 AM
Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didnít know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

There is zero evidence that Amanda "knew" Guede, as in knew him by name by Nov 2 2007.

IIRC, she was able to remember and describe him when asked about visitors she had seen or met in the downstairs flat, but was not able to remember his name.

To you, of course, this was a "lie".

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 04:56 AM
Danceme,

I see no reason to conclude that the list of 250 items is a complete survey of all household products. Indeed, given that there are likely to be differences from one country to another, I think it is not. However, the real problem here is that the forensic police did not follow up their presumptive tests with any confirmatory test (neither TMB nor DNA profiling is confirmatory of blood). If you were asking the defense to say which substance it was, that would be reversing the burden of proof.

Prof Tower (Google translation)

Now the footprints are these then in consulting Rinaldi and Bohemia it is said: "footprints imprinted deposition of blood substance" but how do you say that the fingerprints were impressed by deposition of substance blood, we can say that those footprints are luminescent at luminol, we all know that the fingerprints that we ... are extremely varied other materials that become luminescent luminol, Sarah spoke to me of a funny case, perhaps she wanted to talk about but there was one case in our part of the luminescent luminol footprints that have given problems in the course of an investigation (inc .) blood and not blood, it is also clear that it was ... because they were small because otherwise you could not possibly understand that they were the footprints of the child who had gone swimming in the pool and that it was taking out the dirty feet of chlorine had left all this walk, now I guess if those footsteps were not a child how many experts would have made measurements of the Scientific Police and were likely written for the deposition of blood substance. Goodness does not add that ... 1 in the survey was pulled out of the DNA, in the survey no 7, now with this
luminescence is hard to imagine that it would not be pulled out of the DNA, is a strong luminescence, the first would be appropriate to perhaps make a specific diagnosis of blood but then speak of these things connect. Then we have the impression taken at the plantar Amanda Knox and relief 1 luminol, Bohemia and th_ experts speak Rinaldi I think in this case likely identity, now first of all be aware that literature is not always advisable to make an impression, but only different position, I do not know if in this case has been made because the impression can change depending on the attitude of the foot, an external pressure, internal, and so on but I am not an expert on fingerprints, and can tell you, even measurements I know we discussed the fact that the measures also had been wrong consistently, I would point out that there are no trade these metrics luminescent strips that are made specifically to be put right next to the findings of interest to be photographed with luminol as a reference metric precision and then work on photographs, is longer, is shorter and has a photo taken sideways so it is difficult to reach then a matter of some interest but above all this I ask myself, these gentlemen have made a sea of calculations , I have now read a bit 'of literature on these things but here I did not ... not a matter of reading the literature, it is clear that Amanda has this foot let's call the second index finger of the foot to make themselves more understandable than longus, the impression the second finger is shorter frankly, the impression with luminol, be Amanda's foot that its mark has inked a long second toe, with that luminol was there with shorter second toes, on this I would say that it rains there. Now I'm not a particular fingerprint expert but if there is one thing that catches your eye when we know that most people have the second longest finger of the big however, there has a good share
shorter I do not think it would be silly to take the fingerprints of other young men who frequented the house and that potentially had walked with bare feet coming out of the shower that perhaps maybe it was washed with chlorine for cleaning and may have left fingerprint luminol positive everywhere. I do not want to say but unfortunately I have no precise image, the only other foot as I can see is that the victim, here there is no image that you see well but if I have to say the foot of the victim who seems to invite the pictures of feet of victim available to learn it, it would seem to have shorter second fingers, you can not say because this is slightly flexed, this is to say that the victim may very well one day before, two days before having a shower and made he pounded the floor and leaving a positive imprint with luminol. Attention will discuss the links but the fact that there is the DNA of Amanda down there has absolutely no meaning in the sense of being allowed to relate the luminescence of luminol with the presence of DNA in the house where a person lives is normal there is, I do not say, but almost everywhere. Probable identity, also apply here the same things, even for the second stamp is clearly seen that here there is no trace of the long second toe. Here, about the likely identity of this fact they are talking about these people exist, you just described ... ENS has agreed, among other things is described in a recent Italian text of 2009 which was attended also intimately that it seems to me that the manager of the Scientific Police, I know little of environments Police do not know the grades, does not I know they are called, however identification, this is for shoes, but be careful ... and there is no similar criteria in respect of footprints, however the concept is of a general nature, I say that there is an identity when the terms of comparison
have the same general features and details. Probable identification, this is what our Scientific Police say but be careful to talk about probable identification is a clear match of design and form in the absence of significant differences as a coincidence of the general features or some marks of wear also must be fulfilled at least one of the following criteria are observable marks, what is a tag? In forensic medicine we study the characteristics and markings, the features are the blue eyes, brown hair, are part of the kit are the anatomical characteristics of each man and therefore may have some value to identify a person, I can say that with the hair blond and blue eyes, and the marks are something abnormal, have a tattoo, have an amputation of a finger, are a wound, are a particular surgery, these prints here is to arrive at a probable ... to have an identity must be equal, to have a likely identity must still have the marks or traceable to the batch and then speaks of shoe marks or causal for example, I once walked on the nails and me are full of holes or there is a clear agreement in the specific wear marks then can not be defined, and so on, however, is all. Be careful even with regard to ... I'm almost done, with regard to the luminol literature insists that the luminol spreads easily and can alter the design of fingerprints.


This is very interesting. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look at this luminol print in comparison to Amanda's reference footprint as closely as we have looked at the bathmat print comparisons?

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 05:06 AM
you are ignoring the fact that GI contents as indicator of time of death are not reliable so your reliance on it rather invalidates your conclusions. Like, totally.


Your characterisation of the evidential value of GI contents is simplistic, naive and poorly informed. In other words, I'm afraid you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 05:13 AM
There is zero evidence that Amanda "knew" Guede, as in knew him by name by Nov 2 2007.

IIRC, she was able to remember and describe him when asked about visitors she had seen or met in the downstairs flat, but was not able to remember his name.

To you, of course, this was a "lie".

And to me. She's a proven liar, and imo lied everywhere she thought she saw an advantage, including "never even met" possibly for the consumption of her parents. Or Ciolino lied and parents repeated, or parents lied and Ciolino repeated. Take your pick.

There is evidence she was acquainted with Guede, there is no "evidence" she didn't know him.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 05:14 AM
Any Italian speakers that want to help with this, please send me a PM. This might be a really long term thing with just one day's testimony averaging 150 pages. I only have about 20% of the transcripts (so far).

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 05:18 AM
And to me. She's a proven liar, and imo lied everywhere she thought she saw an advantage, including "never even met" possibly for the consumption of her parents. Or Ciolino lied and parents repeated, or parents lied and Ciolino repeated. Take your pick.n

There is evidece she was acquainted with Guede, there is no "evidence" she didn't know him.

I'd say it's clear you made up the quote, that's why you're unable to provide the source.

Supernaut
22nd August 2011, 05:19 AM
And to me. She's a proven liar, and imo lied everywhere she thought she saw an advantage, including "never even met" possibly for the consumption of her parents. Or Ciolino lied and parents repeated, or parents lied and Ciolino repeated. Take your pick.n

There is evidece she was acquainted with Guede, there is no "evidence" she didn't know him.

To you, she's a "proven liar", but there isn't actually any proof that she ever lied (lie = conscious attempt to deceive, NOT simply stating a falsehood, or even, simply, being mistaken)

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 05:21 AM
Any Italian speakers that want to help with this, please send me a PM. This might be a really long term thing with just one day's testimony averaging 150 pages. I only have about 20% of the transcripts (so far).

Not an Italian speaker, but do you have those transcripts up for download somewhere?

Antony
22nd August 2011, 05:29 AM
I'm glad to hear that the professionals came up to your standards, but you are ignoring the fact that GI contents as indicator of time of death are not reliable so your reliance on it rather invalidates your conclusions. Like, totally.

Where is your basis for saying they're "not reliable"? I think you are misrepresenting a source which stated they were "not sufficiently precise" to be used in quite another murder case in which the point at contention was quite different. You need to put up, or shut up.

Don't forget that the prosecution depends on Meredith's pizza meal remaining undigested and wholly in her stomach from 6:30pm until 11:45pm. You don't need any specialist training to know that this is complete nonsense - unless you happen to be a different species, or from a different planet, than Meredith Kercher.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 05:30 AM
Not an Italian speaker, but do you have those transcripts up for download somewhere?

That is the plan, will let you know.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 05:35 AM
Don't forget that the prosecution depends on Meredith's pizza meal remaining undigested and wholly in her stomach from 6:30pm until 11:45pm. You don't need any specialist training to know that this is complete nonsense - unless you happen to be a different species, or from a different planet, than Meredith Kercher.


I think you have to go with "different planet". I can't think off-hand of any species on this planet that would retain a meal in the stomach, with parts of the food still recognisable as their original form, for that length of time. (Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on amphibians, or reptiles, or hibernating species.)

It takes an extraordinarily strong determination to push for guilt to imagine such a thing might be possible. I can barely imagine that a prosecution would be dishonest enough to try it. That the bench aided and abetted and even elaborated on the mischaracterisations in order to find for guilt is actually quite shocking.

Rolfe.

PS. I wonder if any of the guilter parties have wondered, if GI tract contents are of no evidential use in determining the time of death, why is there such a strict protocol as regards tying off the tract in sections before it's disturbed or opened, to ensure valid information about degree of fill of the different segments can be obtained? I mean, it's useless, right?

Of course, it's not usless. The information needs to be correctly interpreted, in context. That's the sort of nuanced thinnking that isn't really conspicuous in the guilter arguments.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 05:38 AM
I'd say it's clear you made up the quote, that's why you're unable to provide the source.

Excuse me?

Try 48 Hours for Ciolino and most early interviews with Edda and Janet. They said it. I heard it and so did everyone else.

http://willsavive.blogspot.com/2011/02/hdhdhd.html

Bonus lies, too!

I'm sorry I have misquoted Ciolino..he actually said "never clapped eyes on"

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 05:42 AM
Excuse me?

Try 48 Hours for Ciolino and most early interviews with Edda and Janet. They said it. I heard it and so did everyone else.

http://willsavive.blogspot.com/2011/02/hdhdhd.html

Bonus lies, too!

I'm sorry I have misquoted Ciolino..he actually said "never clapped eyes on"
Yes you misquote all the time. Where is Edda saying "never met"?
Sorry I don't buy it. Until you put up the source.

Incivility edited.

bucketoftea
22nd August 2011, 07:24 AM
Yes you misquote all the time. Where is Edda saying "never met"?
Sorry I don't buy it. Until you put up the source
Incivility edited

Sorry,absolutely not worth my time looking through all of their unwatchable interviews. I recall her saying it on at least 2 occasions.

I'm certainly not lying, and even if I were it's not necessary!

Repeat of incivility edited.

Rhea
22nd August 2011, 07:30 AM
PS. I wonder if any of the guilter parties have wondered, if GI tract contents are of no evidential use in determining the time of death, why is there such a strict protocol as regards tying off the tract in sections before it's disturbed or opened, to ensure valid information about degree of fill of the different segments can be obtained? I mean, it's useless, right?


very good point!

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 07:44 AM
Sorry,absolutely not worth my time looking through all of their unwatchable interviews. I recall her saying it on at least 2 occasions.

So, you're either made it up or you can't tell your recollections from fantasies. You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?

I'm certainly not lying, and even if I were it's not necessary! response to personal attack editted.
It interesting that you say it, because a pattern displayed by guilters coming regularly here suggest that they indeed find it necessary to prop up their case with lies and manipulations. We had SomeAlibi with his poorly manipulated photos and his fantasies about hard street drug use, there was another guy pushing nonsense about Amanda's arrest and conviction in Seattle. There was the lie about mixed dna in footprints etc., etc.

Sorry but until you put up a source I assume that what you say is not factual. Whether it is a deliberate lie or confusion or delusion is not that interesting to me.

Justinian2
22nd August 2011, 07:55 AM
Meanwhile, a beautiful young woman is having her best years squandered by a callous government. It used to be thought that a woman was most desirable from 12 to 26*. Amanda will have spent the best years of her life in school or prison.

*The Chinese and other societies that used to give their daughters away in marriage. When Christ walked the earth, parents were eager to engage their daughters in marriage before they lost their virginity. Woman of that era used to get married at 12. I'm no historian, so feel free to call me on this.

Hurry up Italy, hurry up. This isn't a joke!

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 07:57 AM
BTW, thanks for providing the link to that Savive guy blog. It's funny and exemplifies the delusions that are prevalent among guilter circles.

the genius writes:
No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.
That good boy, sympathetic, nice Guede. How could it suggest in any way that he stole from the girl that he just killed and raped? No, that he had to fumble with her purse got nothing to do with the missing things and money. Nor does the facts that he is known to break into places and carry stolen items. How could anyone think Guede may be the thief? No proof whatsoever!

pilot padron
22nd August 2011, 08:05 AM
So, you're either made it up or you can't tell your recollections from fantasies. You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?

(all bolding is mine as a result of abject shock after reading above)

HUH ???

REALLY ????

Do I read that argument as it is ever so clearly and unmistakably unequivocally written ??:eek::eek:


Please with all possible haste inform nearly all those verbose innocent arguers here that about ten thousand or so of their excuses for Knox's six versions of an alibi, and her gift of oral and written confessions, and her disgraceful accusation of Patrick is now finally admitted as absolutely "the same as lying".
Maybe even Mary will not quibble now about her distinction of Knox as only a classic liar versus the oft used more accurate pathological liar

Also include Sollecito's many varied version bollocks stories that he says he made up to protect Amanda as well as his simpleton knife pricking Meredith asininity as also now finally recognized and admitted to be "same as lying"

Gee, thanks again.

But where was that excellent observation and admission argument about 50,000 circular posts ago ??
It would have eliminated the endless ad nauseam repetitive arguing of the Marriott talking point that all Knox's problems were from her "false memories", that now you finally clarify as being indeed the same as blatant lies , liket all those 'horrids' and hater idiots at the premier PMF site have said from day one

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 08:20 AM
<...>

I'm afraid you need to overcome some problems with reading comprehension, pilot. Either this or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Either way doesn't look good.

pilot padron
22nd August 2011, 08:27 AM
Cognizant about what a cornerstone Google is to the ever so important ToD arguers here, try this:

Put "Amanda Knox false memories" in your exalted favorite research device.

Read the pages and pages of links detailing what are now finally correctly admitted to be little other than blatant lies by Knox.

Even I was somewhat shocked at just how much of her alibi is associated with "false memories" which are now correctly admitted to be even more lies

pilot padron
22nd August 2011, 08:38 AM
I'm afraid you need to overcome some problems with reading comprehension, pilot. Either this or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Either way doesn't look good.

Not sure what or how my argument could possibly "misrepresent" what you clearly argued, repeated here for clarity and comprehension

You said:
"You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?"

Pretty straightforward, eh ??
I agree it "does not look good" in light of a couple of ten thousand arguments here that mostly everything Amanda ever lied about was "false memories" or other similar spinmeister specialty euphemisms

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 08:39 AM
BTW the idea that Raffaele wrote about "pricking" because he is guilty doesn't compute.
If the knife wasn't the weapon then he as guilty would certainly know it and laugh about cops inept attempts of psychological pressure.
OTOH To maintain that the knife was the weapon - now that opens a lot of questions:

Why doesn't Raffaele shut up about it or simply say that it's impossible?
Why no blood and no human cells anywhere on the blade?
Why doesn't it fit the wounds or the imprint?
How did it get to the cottage? Why no scenario with the knife that doesn't fall apart immediately?
Why two cops independently took credit for finding and bagging it? Why no single version of how it got from the drawer to the lab?
What's with the missing documentation of the tests and Steffi's lies about it?
Where is any trace of the testing done in November?
Why did she went with the tests despite the too low results? Etc.

To be short, it makes the whole guilters' story beyond implausible.

Justinian2
22nd August 2011, 08:52 AM
(all bolding is mine as a result of abject shock after reading above)

HUH ???

REALLY ????

Do I read that argument as it is ever so clearly and unmistakably unequivocally written ??:eek::eek:


Please with all possible haste inform nearly all those verbose innocent arguers here that about ten thousand or so of their excuses for Knox's six versions of an alibi, and her gift of oral and written confessions, and her disgraceful accusation of Patrick is now finally admitted as absolutely "the same as lying".
Maybe even Mary will not quibble now about her distinction of Knox as only a classic liar versus the oft used more accurate pathological liar

Also include Sollecito's many varied version bollocks stories that he says he made up to protect Amanda as well as his simpleton knife pricking Meredith asininity as also now finally recognized and admitted to be "same as lying"

Gee, thanks again.

But where was that excellent observation and admission argument about 50,000 circular posts ago ??
It would have eliminated the endless ad nauseam repetitive arguing of the Marriott talking point that all Knox's problems were from her "false memories", that now you finally clarify as being indeed the same as blatant lies , liket all those 'horrids' and hater idiots at the premier PMF site have said from day one

Search for tag interrogations. It's a wonderful technique for getting false confessions.

During my arrest for a improperly dismissed "failure to stop for a cop during an illegal u turn" I pushed back the pepper spray and was charged with A & B on a police officer as a result. (I hurt his wrist when I grabbed it - HaHa)

During that incident, I have a false memory or an incident that I can't remember which of two memories was correct. I wasn't even interrogated, except by my lawyer! I was also confused by the police report! I have never had that happen before! I was totally astonished that I had two different memories of that moment in time. Two equally probable recollections!

A person telling the truth has moments when he tries to recall details and gets confused. A person telling a lie has it well rehearsed and will stick to the same rehearsed detail-less story all the time - unless it starts to seem implausible, then he will generate a new story. That's why a lawyer will only allow their client to tell a story once.

Amanda is a perfect example of someone telling the truth.
Guede is a perfect example of someone lying.

Antony
22nd August 2011, 09:00 AM
Cognizant about what a cornerstone Google is to the ever so important ToD arguers here, try this:

Put "Amanda Knox false memories" in your exalted favorite research device.

Read the pages and pages of links detailing what are now finally correctly admitted to be little other than blatant lies by Knox.

Even I was somewhat shocked at just how much of her alibi is associated with "false memories" which are now correctly admitted to be even more lies

Fascinating. The very first article that pops up in Google, far from confirming PP's point, is one that confirms what the pro-innocent side have always said about the coerced "confession/accusation" of 5-6 November: Amanda Knox and the Coercive Interrogation Tactics of the Polizia di Stato in Perugia (http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/index.php/2011/05/03/amanda-knox-and-the-coercive-interrogation-tactics-of-the-polizia-di-stato-in-perugia/).

There are indeed pages and pages of links, but they do not bear out PP's claims. On balance, the scientific ones confirm that false memories are a known phenomenon in exactly the situation she found herself in. The ones that support his position are essentially gossip. Try again, Pilot.

Loss Leader
22nd August 2011, 09:27 AM
Another set of posts have been sent to AAH for personal attacks and arguing about each other, rather than the subject. Please avoid insults. Please don't respond to them or quote them in your posts.

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 10:09 AM
Not sure what or how my argument could possibly "misrepresent" what you clearly argued, repeated here for clarity and comprehension

You said:
"You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?"


Fine, let's try again then. What you quoted was not intended as statement but as a question directed to bucketoftea. It baffles me that it can be read as me "clearly arguing" anything, but anyway I hope it is clearer now.

Mary_H
22nd August 2011, 10:18 AM
The quote I cited from Mary's post was a succinct distillation of the reason for her entire post, in her own words.<snip>

Not true. You missed quite a few nuances.

Mary_H
22nd August 2011, 10:28 AM
Why, or what is ever so different and/or unique so that every obvious lie, mis-statement, inconsistent contradiction, quirky, very suspicious, self incriminating actions and statements from Knox and Sollecito makes them only innocent confused, 153+++ hour water boarded, stupid "kids"?

Yet every single act of those horrible Italian Law Enforcers including judges and jurors makes them vengeful guilty conspirators who have this overpowering need to lie, cheat, steal, and deliberately manipulate and/or 'manufacture' evidence.
All this *alleged* incredibly unlawful behavior by individuals with a sworn duty to enforce laws..... all this just to convict "innocent kids" ??<snip>

I've highlighted the answer to your questions. Different roles carry different responsibilities. That is the basis for all the laws against intimate relationships between teachers and students, doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, etc. It is legitimate to have higher expectations for ethical behavior from trained professionals than for those they are appointed to serve.

Mary_H
22nd August 2011, 10:30 AM
<snip>
Maybe even Mary will not quibble now about her distinction of Knox as only a classic liar versus the oft used more accurate pathological liar.

Don't even think about trying to slip that one past me. :p

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 10:43 AM
A poster at another site has listed some negative credentials on Frank and one of these is quite "shocking".

Disqualifying factors (negative credentials):

1. Has lied frequently in connection to this case (to me, but to others as well); in fact, has written the he enjoys "telling ********s" to people.
2. No credentials as a journalist and no training, so far as we know.
3. Blogs under a pseudonym and thus has zero accountability.
4. Arrives consistently late to hearings, perhaps has trouble staying focused.
5. Has a personal vendetta against the prosecutor and police of Perugia.
6. Has heralded the baby killer and mafia snitch as veritable heroes.
7. Has never indicated under what circumstances he was arrested; there is no proof as of yet that his story (police brutality) is the right one and the police story (resisting arrest) is not. Where is the neighbor Frank alludes to who was so worried about the commotion he came to Frank's rescue?
8. Tried to sell nude photos of Amanda Knox to the tabloids.
9. Is associated with Chris Mellas, the FOA and other partisan forces.

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 10:49 AM
I see hard times acoming for the prosecution.

After the DNA is discredited, and there is no question about that, they will have to continue arguing the case using the rest of the evidence. The problem is that Steffi with her delaying and obstruction tactics not only antagonized the judge, but made him particularly touchy about ******** evidence. He saw the video and received a commentary and explanation from his experts about it. It's really of a kind that cannot be unseen once you've seen it. Hellmann's reaction to Comodi's hoopla with the papers that she tried to introduce is telling - the testing doesn't matter, I've already seen what the cops did at the scene.
There is no doubt Hellmann's approach is going to be critical and his ********meter tuned. The problem is that the rest of the evidence that mignini et al have to reintroduce and defend is incredibly poor.
We have the blurry luminol blobs that tested all negative for blood and were photographed at an angle without a fluorescent measuring tape that Rinaldi ascribed to Raffaele and Amanda using incomprehensible mix of image transformations and leaps of faith.
We have the bathmat print that at first look is Guede's and requires mental backflips to fit it to Raffaele's foot.
There's Quintavalle's story that's contradicted by written cops' report and will get laughed out of court just like Curatolo's.
The mixed dna in bathroom is not worth mentioning. C&V shot down already all the scientifica's work, simply playing the video of the geniuses at work will do.

To summarise, I don't see how the prosecution is going to wring out of it.

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 10:53 AM
A poster at another site has listed some negative credentials on Frank and one of these is quite "shocking".

The old lady finally lost her marbles completely. I don't see how Peggy could come up with something so vile and insane. It must be the summer heat and the building up of pressure and agitation in anticipation of the inevitable.
Let's see how she's going to support her accusation.

BTW I see a lot of agitation at the .org today. Some catfights about the translations :)

HumanityBlues
22nd August 2011, 10:53 AM
A poster at another site has listed some negative credentials on Frank and one of these is quite "shocking".

Keep in mind this person hinted that the mafia might have influence over the strange actions of the independent experts.

Katody Matrass
22nd August 2011, 10:59 AM
Keep in mind this person hinted that the mafia might have influence over the strange actions of the independent experts.

Yes, mafia, masons and scientologists (sic!) plus the conspiracy of conservative Catholic establishment from Seattle or something like that. And they're all there to get her.

Kaosium
22nd August 2011, 11:34 AM
Any Italian speakers that want to help with this, please send me a PM. This might be a really long term thing with just one day's testimony averaging 150 pages. I only have about 20% of the transcripts (so far).

Wow! I am very impressed, I didn't know all this was available, did it just become so? I was wondering where it was all coming from.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 11:50 AM
Wow! I am very impressed, I didn't know all this was available, did it just become so? I was wondering where it was all coming from.

I can't claim any credit on this one.

I will say I have several volunteers already and hopefully more to come. Even if we don't get it all, I will make public what transcripts I do have.

Sherlock Holmes
22nd August 2011, 12:57 PM
Really? Here's a picture of the places they were found (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/121212121212.jpg). Rudy's are the ones in red. Care to explain how he got from opposite Amanda's door to the entrance of the living area without leaving prints between them? Want to explain how he left right foorprints in the living area, but only left footprints in the hall?



Care to explain the 2 groups of 3 prints in the living area? Did Rudy have three feet?



Care to prove that the footprint is Amanda's? This was never done in court, the prosecution simply claomed that it was.


First of all, your diagrams wrong, where did you get it from, Rudy left no prints in the bathroom, secondly, all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 01:11 PM
What time do you estimate Amanda hung up Rudy's coat for him? What time do you estimate she locked the door?

Rolfe.

Chris_Halkides
22nd August 2011, 01:14 PM
bucketoftea,

By using the advanced search function I found up to fourteen comments I have made that were addressed to you. You have only addressed a fraction of them. May I suggest you start with the one below and document what you mean by reliable with citations, as I and others have done. Thank you.

bucketoftea,

Whether something is reliable or not depends upon that with which it is compared. Just repeating the word "reliable" over and over does not advance an argument, IMO. Do you acknowledge that GI contents give any information at all? If so, what specifically do they indicate or not indicate?

Malkmus
22nd August 2011, 01:25 PM
Any Italian speakers that want to help with this, please send me a PM. This might be a really long term thing with just one day's testimony averaging 150 pages. I only have about 20% of the transcripts (so far).

rose, this is great... Curious though if this is appeals testimony or first trial testimony? Thanks!

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 01:31 PM
rose, this is great... Curious though if this is appeals testimony or first trial testimony? Thanks!

First trial

Malkmus
22nd August 2011, 01:34 PM
Awesome, that should clear so much up! :)

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 02:08 PM
Any Italian speakers that want to help with this, please send me a PM. This might be a really long term thing with just one day's testimony averaging 150 pages. I only have about 20% of the transcripts (so far).


I'd be happy to try to help - although I fear that my conversational Italian might struggle when faced with the amount of arcane legalese jargon and fractured sentences. I suspect that the job is better carried out either by native English speakers with an academic fluency in Italian, or by native Italian speakers with a good knowledge of English. Maybe some of the more collegiate and higher-integrity members of another forum might want to contribute to the team?

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 02:16 PM
First of all, your diagrams wrong, where did you get it from, Rudy left no prints in the bathroom, secondly, all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.


1) Guede left a partial print in a dilute mixture of blood and water on the bathmat in the small bathroom. Regardless of the incorrect conclusion drawn in Massei's court, this issue will almost certainly be corrected in Hellmann's court.

2) On what evidence do you base your seemingly-confident assertion that Guede "clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door"? Even if this action did not happen on the occasion when Guede tracked the faint blood shoe prints down the hallway, why is it not possible that Guede then returned to Meredith's room - after all the blood on his shoe had been deposited onto the floor, therefore leaving no prints? In fact, as I argued a day or so ago, it's entirely possible that Guede either forgot that he needed a key to open the front door, or that he had never realised this prior to the confrontation/attack on Meredith. If that were the case, then Guede would almost necessarily have walked/run from Meredith's room towards the front door, then would have had to return to Meredith's room to find and retrieve the key he now knew he needed to open the front door.

3) Who are "you people"? That's a worryingly segregationalist phrase, which is more redolent of a hate group than someone simply debating a murder case.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 02:20 PM
I'd be happy to try to help - although I fear that my conversational Italian might struggle when faced with the amount of arcane legalese jargon and fractured sentences. I suspect that the job is better carried out either by native English speakers with an academic fluency in Italian, or by native Italian speakers with a good knowledge of English. Maybe some of the more collegiate and higher-integrity members of another forum might want to contribute to the team?

What some posters may not be aware of is that a good portion of the Massei report was translated by non-Italian speakers. Your offer is accepted. Expect to receive your first bill within a few weeks.

Any poster on any forum is welcome.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 02:33 PM
First of all, your diagrams wrong, where did you get it from, Rudy left no prints in the bathroom, secondly, all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room and stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him. Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.

The diagram with evidence and pictures the cops presented in court doesn't even match the diagram presented by the prosecution's footprint expert. No need to get upset that we have yet another diagram that is different from the (many) others.

Danceme
22nd August 2011, 02:36 PM
Looking at Rudy's history it seems he didn't like school and dropped out.

The claim that Guede can't speak English appears to have come from Madison Paxton who travelled over to Italy to be with Amanda after the killing.
Well I'm sure she had quite the few conversations with him!

Danceme,

..... If you were asking the defense to say which substance it was, that would be reversing the burden of proof.

No, not the defense, unless Kaosium is actually one of the lawyers!

Prof Tower (Google translation)

This is very interesting. I wonder if it is worthwhile to look at this luminol print in comparison to Amanda's reference footprint as closely as we have looked at the bathmat print comparisons?

Definitely worth doing Rose. If I wasn't almost exclusively using my iPad these days I would attempt it too but I'm lacking suitable programs.

The old lady finally lost her marbles completely. I don't see how Peggy could come up with something so vile and insane. It must be the summer heat and the building up of pressure and agitation in anticipation of the inevitable.
Let's see how she's going to support her accusation.

BTW I see a lot of agitation at the .org today. Some catfights about the translations :)

If you're referring to the claim that Frank tried to sell nude photos of Amanda, I'm certain I read that a couple of years ago. It's not a new claim although the source could be the same, I don't remember. Anyways, even then I never saw any proof, and I'd hazard a guess if he actually had any he would have found a buyer no matter the price and we would know of it by now, likely in a very tawdry way.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 02:38 PM
Your characterisation of the evidential value of GI contents is simplistic, naive and poorly informed. In other words, I'm afraid you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

Rolfe.


It can get very frustrating trying to conduct a worthwhile debate with people who are either stunningly ignorant of relevant facts, or who have a blinkered agenda that they are determined to follow no matter what.

The ToD issue is a very interesting case study. As you're no doubt well aware, a JREF member who is a prominent pro-guilt commentator employed ignorance and confirmation bias* in a failed attempt to rubbish/denounce/nullify the work that Kevin, I and others had done into ToD. This poster repeatedly claimed - here and elsewhere - that there was no scientific validity to the work done by those of us arguing that the stomach/duodenum/small intestine contents found at autopsy (when considered alongside a likely start time of the last meal of around 6.30pm, and the established fact that the victim was still alive just before 9pm) clearly indicated a ToD before 10pm, and most likely between 9.00 and 9.30pm. The poster implied that we didn't know what we were talking about, that we were dabbling in things we knew nothing about, and that we were ourselves allowing confirmation bias to dictate our conclusions.

The next bit was the most interesting: this poster knew that you had medical qualifications, and that you were a reasonable and logical person. He therefore assumed that you would be more than happy to weigh in on his side: to chastise and criticise Kevin, me and others here for our cod-knowledge of pathology and gastro-intestinal physiology, and our ludicrously incorrect deductions. This would then give this poster the "seal of approval" he wanted in order to fully ridicule this argument.

Instead, quite the opposite actually happened. You belatedly had a look at the evidence, and used your knowledge, experience and reason to conclude that the argument put forward by Kevin, I and others here was in fact essentially entirely correct. And you were quite happy both to endorse the argument, and to use it as a key factor in your own reasoning on the wider issue of the guilt/non-guilt of Knox and Sollecito. And this particular pro-guilt commentator does not now seem fit to respect your opinion on the matter - and nor do a bunch of similarly ill-informed and/or confirmation-biased pro-guilt commentators.

The fact remains that Kevin, I and others bothered to do some decent and scientifically-robust research into this subject, and came to the objective conclusion that the available evidence clearly showed that Meredith had to have died well before 10pm - and most likely between 9.00 and 9.30pm. What's more, this pathology-based view clearly tends to be corroborated by other important factors: notably Meredith's failure to call her mother back after the aborted 8.56pm call, the fact that she was still wearing her outer jacket and trainers when she was attacked, and (significantly) Guede placing her scream at "around 9.20pm" in his Skype conversation. As you say, Massei's court (and to a certain extent the defence teams) made a serious error in placing the ToD at 11.45pm. I am highly confident that this is one of very many issues that Hellmann's court will correct in the appeal trial.

* And yes, I do know exactly what "confirmation bias" means and where it should correctly be applied. The simple truth is that the term is applicable to huge swathes of pro-guilt "arguments" - since they simply do not stand up to any decent disinterested scrutiny. It's therefore clear that those making the "arguments" are either ignorant or they are willfully shaping their arguments to fit with prior beliefs. And that would be confirmation bias. But I always appreciate getting patronising lectures on how and when to use the phrase, from people whose opinions I don't respect......

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 02:52 PM
Uh, yes, basically. I'm sorry I didn't read any of the stuff you and Kevin posted, either at the time or belatedly. This thread has always had a tendency to grow faster than I could read it, so I didn't.

I just happened across a description of the post mortem findings in the Massei/Mignini thread which I was reading in an idle moment, and of course it was completely obvious what the situation was. What I couldn't get my brain round were the irrational convulsions of those who sought to deny the bleedin' obvious.

Of course she died between nine and nine-thirty. It's a no-brainer.

Rolfe.

Chris_Halkides
22nd August 2011, 03:08 PM
No, not the defense, unless Kaosium is actually one of the lawyers!
Dancme,

If you want to ask someone to speculate what the substance might be, OK, I can see the point of thinking about this question as an intellectual exercise. However, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that it was blood, Ms. Comodi's nonsense to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, the number of things that might have caused the footprints is large enough to make proving that it was blood by exclusion of all other substances a Sisyphean task. If the jury thought that it was demonstrated that the footprints were set in blood, then they were mistaken. MOO.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 03:10 PM
Uh, yes, basically. I'm sorry I didn't read any of the stuff you and Kevin posted, either at the time or belatedly. This thread has always had a tendency to grow faster than I could read it, so I didn't.

I just happened across a description of the post mortem findings in the Massei/Mignini thread which I was reading in an idle moment, and of course it was completely obvious what the situation was. What I couldn't get my brain round were the irrational convulsions of those who sought to deny the bleedin' obvious.

Of course she died between nine and nine-thirty. It's a no-brainer.

Rolfe.


Oh - no need at all to apologise in any way! We already knew that our research and conclusions were scientific, well-reasoned, robust and defensible. And IIRC, a forensic pathologist had also endorsed our arguments before you came to the very same conclusions. It was (and still is) terribly sad and depressing to see people try to dismiss such arguments purely on the basis that those making the arguments aren't specifically qualified in the relevant fields.

I (and others making the same argument) were perfectly prepared for others to attack the argument itself, so long as they presented evidence that refuted the argument. The fact that they not only didn't manage to do so, but that also they chose to make ridiculous ad hominem attacks on those arguing for a 9.00-9.30 ToD as "library card Google-de-gookers" who did not know what they were talking about, speaks volumes in my opinion.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 03:24 PM
The thing is, sometimes you find evidence that flatly contradicts other evidence. I had a badger caught in a snare, and the intestinal contents showed it had eaten within the previous 24 hours or so. The thing was, histopathology of the wound margins showed without doubt that the animal had been in the snare for at least a week.

So in that situation, something has to go. The histopathology was solid. In the end, the reasonable conclusion was that the snare had allowed sufficient leeway of movement that the animal had managed to find some food even though it was trapped.

In this situation though, there's no contradiction. There's nothing else that suggests Meredith lived beyond 9.30 that evening. Nobody spoke to her, nobody saw her, and there was no evidence of her having done any of the things a live person might have been expected to do during the evening.

So I don't need to go out and find evidence that Meredith took her pizza portion home with her in her bag, and heated it and ate it after she arrived home, or anything like that. Thankfully. Because that's the sort of evidence that would have to be found, to make a time of death of 11.40 consistent with these post mortem findings.

Nobody has even made a coherent case. It's not possible for duodenal contents to slip down to the ileum just by handling and moving a body. If Meredith had been tortured and terrorised for two and a half hours starting with a full stomach, it's as likely that her gut would have started to churn as anything. She could have vomited. And in any case, who started to torture her before 9.30, and how many of them were there?

I see the PMF have also now decided that the official forum view is that the West Memphis Three were guilty child-killers, and have admitted it. Nobody seems to understand the subtleties of that particular version of the Alford Plea, or to have given much thought to how come a man who had been sitting on death row is now free, on account of it. They agree to agree the three are admitted child killers, so that's fine. Fiona knows better, and would like to disagree, but she also knows she can't challenge the group-think.

What a horrible crowd.

Rolfe.

HumanityBlues
22nd August 2011, 03:39 PM
If you're referring to the claim that Frank tried to sell nude photos of Amanda, I'm certain I read that a couple of years ago. It's not a new claim although the source could be the same, I don't remember. Anyways, even then I never saw any proof, and I'd hazard a guess if he actually had any he would have found a buyer no matter the price and we would know of it by now, likely in a very tawdry way.

You bring up a good point. That thing would have sold for a lot of money and very quickly.

Rolfe
22nd August 2011, 03:44 PM
I would have thought that comment was libellous, actually, if it wasn't true. And like you, I assumed that the fact no pictures of that nature were ever published was a pretty fair pointer to its not being true.

Rolfe.

Danceme
22nd August 2011, 03:53 PM
Not only was no picture ever published but no email from frank or document of any sort proving even his quest to find a buyer. If someone makes a claim like that you would think it wouldn't be done without at least a modicum of proof. That is suspicious enough to me to completely discount it as either a lie or completely unfounded and created rumor, which I guess in effect is the same thing.

Justinian2
22nd August 2011, 04:00 PM
Using another common metric of poverty, race, American students still lagged behind. Only forty one percent of white students scored proficient on math. (About 10 percent of white children live in poverty, much lower than the overall rate.) Only 11 percent of black students and 15 percent of Hispanic students scored proficient on math.

Some have wondered about the logic of some posters. Well, logic is taught in math...

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:01 PM
I would have thought that comment was libellous, actually, if it wasn't true. And like you, I assumed that the fact no pictures of that nature were ever published was a pretty fair pointer to its not being true.

Rolfe.


Oh, definitely libellous if not true (just like allegations of sexual harassment and financial impropriety in relation to a young Finnish/Russian ballet dancer - I wonder how that libel action is going.......).

But it also raises another question: If Sfazo was indeed trying to sell nude photos of Knox to the tabloid press, how could Sfarzo possibly have come to have possession of such photos? It would appear beyond belief that Knox's family or friends would have provided Sfarzo with such material. It would also seem that by far the most likely source of any such photos would have been Knox's digital camera or - more likely - her laptop. It's far from unknown for people of that age to experiment with candid photography for their own use and for the use/gratification of their sexual partners, and these would be by far the most likely places where they would store such photos.

And who was in possession of these items (camera and laptop) from the moment of Knox's arrest? Yup, the "crack" postal police. And Sfarzo does not exactly enjoy a cosy personal relationship with the Perugia law enforcement community. The only other possibility I can think of is that Knox had emailed or passed nude photos of herself to a previous boyfriend (DJ, perhaps) before she came to Italy, or a very marginal possibility that she gave such a nude photo to the guy (Daniele) that she had a one-night-stand with in Italy. But either way, I don't see why either of these two people would want to seek monetary gain from such photos, nor why they would want to use Sfarzo as a conduit instead of ringing up the newspapers themselves.

Is it therefore possible that there indeed were at some point some nude (or semi-nude) photos of Knox were being touted for sale - but that the potential seller wasn't Sfazo, but rather either someone closely connected to the Perugia police, or perhaps even one of the officers him/herself?

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 04:07 PM
Is it therefore possible that there indeed were at some point some nude (or semi-nude) photos of Knox were being touted for sale - but that the potential seller wasn't Sfazo, but rather either someone closely connected to the Perugia police, or perhaps even one of the officers him/herself?

Such people would want to destroy the evidence of where they got these photo's. I am certain if the computers that possibly contained such photos were fried we would have heard something about that by now.

HumanityBlues
22nd August 2011, 04:08 PM
Oh, definitely libellous if not true (just like allegations of sexual harassment and financial impropriety in relation to a young Finnish/Russian ballet dancer - I wonder how that libel action is going.......).

But it also raises another question: If Sfazo was indeed trying to sell nude photos of Knox to the tabloid press, how could Sfarzo possibly have come to have possession of such photos? It would appear beyond belief that Knox's family or friends would have provided Sfarzo with such material. It would also seem that by far the most likely source of any such photos would have been Knox's digital camera or - more likely - her laptop. It's far from unknown for people of that age to experiment with candid photography for their own use and for the use/gratification of their sexual partners, and these would be by far the most likely places where they would store such photos.

And who was in possession of these items (camera and laptop) from the moment of Knox's arrest? Yup, the "crack" postal police. And Sfarzo does not exactly enjoy a cosy personal relationship with the Perugia law enforcement community. The only other possibility I can think of is that Knox had emailed or passed nude photos of herself to a previous boyfriend (DJ, perhaps) before she came to Italy, or a very marginal possibility that she gave such a nude photo to the guy (Daniele) that she had a one-night-stand with in Italy. But either way, I don't see why either of these two people would want to seek monetary gain from such photos, nor why they would want to use Sfarzo as a conduit instead of ringing up the newspapers themselves.

Is it therefore possible that there indeed were at some point some nude (or semi-nude) photos of Knox were being touted for sale - but that the potential seller wasn't Sfazo, but rather either someone closely connected to the Perugia police, or perhaps even one of the officers him/herself?

Given the madonna/whore element of this case, I would be shocked if they existed, because the prosecution would have certainly used it against them at trial.

Chris_Halkides
22nd August 2011, 04:11 PM
On a discussion board that covered the West Memphis 3 a question was asked in 2006 about the apparent genital mutilation aspect of the crime by someone who was pretty new to the case. A more knowledgeable poster responded in part, "The Prosecution, as far as I know, had no theory as to what they were actually used for, per se, like where are they, but by putting a 'occult expert' on the stand, they asked him questions to which he answered, basically, that the date of the murders was near a 'Witches Holiday', and that the blood is thought to be a source of power by some."

Since that time, the notion that one of the boys was mutilated by the killer has been questioned. This link (http://www.wm3.org/News/view/NEW-EVIDENCE-ARISES-IN-1993-TRIPLE-MURDER) suggests that animal predation was the explanation for the state of the bodies. My point is that stories about Witches Holidays are fine for campfires, but they are brought up by prosecutors more than they actually happen. The crime was horrific, and the parents must have endured something I cannot imagine, but that does not change fanciful tales about witchcraft into reality. Obviously I see a parallel to the present case, in the allusion to the occult that PM Mignini brought into the pre-trial and (according to Ms. Nadeau's book) wanted to reintroduce in his closing remarks.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:12 PM
Not only was no picture ever published but no email from frank or document of any sort proving even his quest to find a buyer. If someone makes a claim like that you would think it wouldn't be done without at least a modicum of proof. That is suspicious enough to me to completely discount it as either a lie or completely unfounded and created rumor, which I guess in effect is the same thing.


The "evidence" for such things is usually "a well-placed and reliable source" - AKA one or other of Ganong's friends: the freelance journalists Andrea Vogt and Barbie Latza Clouseau Nadeau.

Vogt/Nadeau also appear to have provided Ganong with parts of the Conti/Vecchiotti DNA report, information that a potentially-crucial piece of prosecution evidence (a long light-brown hair) was apparently lost by the "crack" forensic team, allegations regarding the circumstances of Sfarzo's arrest, and various other tidbits about the case. But since both Clouseau and Vogt have been shown to have demonstrated the "holy trinity of ineptitude" - ignorance, misinterpretation and confirmation bias - many times during their inglorious reporting stints on this case, I think we can discount most of this "inside info" as unreliable and/or biased.

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 04:17 PM
The cell tower never saw that connection.

If we interpolate between the time Sophie left Meredith and the time she is recorded crossing the street we can estimate where Meredith was at the time the call was attempted. What we find there is one of the narrowest streets in Perugia with high walls on either side. Cell phone coverage in this spot could be expected to be spotty.
-

Dan,

I'm sure you're busy and I really appreciate that you took the time to get me this information. I will be sure to adjust my time of death arguement to reflect this. Again, thank you,

Dave

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:20 PM
Given the madonna/whore element of this case, I would be shocked if they existed, because the prosecution would have certainly used it against them at trial.


You're probably correct. My point was more that if such photos had existed, it's most likely that they existed on Knox's laptop (or possibly her camera memory) - and that since these items were in the custody of the postal police from November 6th onwards, any attempted sale would more likely have been conducted by the police or someone closely connected to the police.

The truth is more likely to be that no such photos ever existed in the first place. Although there's also the possibility that an unscrupulous postal officer might have discovered nude photos of Knox on his initial examination of the hard drive, then decided to copy them for himself and delete their presence on Knox's machine. In that way, he could potentially make money for himself by selling the photos (possibly via a friend or other connection), while remaining unlinked to the photos' provenance. If that were the case, then the prosecutors would not have had the photos available to use in evidence, even if they would have wanted to do so.

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 04:29 PM
It can get very frustrating trying to conduct a worthwhile debate with people who are either stunningly ignorant of relevant facts, or who have a blinkered agenda that they are determined to follow no matter what.

The ToD issue is a very interesting case study. As you're no doubt well aware, a JREF member who is a prominent pro-guilt commentator employed ignorance and confirmation bias* in a failed attempt to rubbish/denounce/nullify the work that Kevin, I and others had done into ToD. This poster repeatedly claimed - here and elsewhere - that there was no scientific validity to the work done by those of us arguing that the stomach/duodenum/small intestine contents found at autopsy (when considered alongside a likely start time of the last meal of around 6.30pm, and the established fact that the victim was still alive just before 9pm) clearly indicated a ToD before 10pm, and most likely between 9.00 and 9.30pm. The poster implied that we didn't know what we were talking about, that we were dabbling in things we knew nothing about, and that we were ourselves allowing confirmation bias to dictate our conclusions.

-

thank you LJ, Kevin, Rolfe and everyone else for their contributory work in resolving the time of death issue with reference to this case.

Also I would like to send a belated shout-out and thank you to those who helped translate the C&V report and even those who worked on the Massei report and now we have volunteers working on the first trial transcripts.

I am just knocked out by the AWESOME people involved in all this. I am just speechless and have no idea what else to say except that Karma is going to reward all of you big time,

Dave

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:36 PM
-

Dan,

I'm sure you're busy and I really appreciate that you took the time to get me this information. I will be sure to adjust my time of death arguement to reflect this. Again, thank you,

Dave


This is still not a totally definitively-settled issue. However, it does seem reasonable to suggest that the figure in the grainy CCTV images is Meredith returning to the cottage (there would be little reason for anyone else to be walking on that side of the road at that time, and the image appears to show Meredith's light beige tote bag hanging down in front of her jeans as if she might have removed it from her shoulder to retrieve the door key). And if the time stamp data on the CCTV has been correctly interpreted, it appears that Meredith would have arrived back at the cottage at around 9.03-9.05pm (depending on the precise level of the inaccuracy on the timing clock).

So if all the above is correct and accurate, then Meredith would have most likely made the attempted call to her mother as soon as she split from Sophie Purton at around 8.55pm. It's likely that she would have been walking down Via Pinturicchio at 8.56pm - it's a narrow street with thick stone 4-storey buildings on either side, so it's entirely possible that there were black spots in mobile coverage. It's also of course possible that Meredith started to call her mother, but then decided that she would prefer to wait until she was comfortable at home, and therefore voluntarily terminated the call before connection.

Either way, the striking thing about all this is that if Meredith arrived home at the cottage at around 9.05pm, she never made that call to her mother. She made a point of calling her mother - who was sick and in hospital - every single day, and she had not yet placed a call that day. Italy is one hour ahead of UK time, so Meredith arrived home at around 8.05pm UK time. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Meredith would have been conscious of the need to call her mother before around 10.30pm Italy time (9.30pm UK time) at the latest, and in fact it's reasonable to suggest that Meredith would have wanted to call her mother as soon as possible after getting home. I think this also lends weight to the reason why Meredith tried her mother as soon as she split up with Sophie: she realised that the UK was well into the evening, and she didn't want to leave her call too late.

For this reason, I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Meredith would have wanted to call her mother again very shortly after arriving back at the cottage. It makes perfect sense to me that she would have wanted to get in, maybe grab a drink, put the heating on, go to her room and relax on her bed or her chair before calling her mother for her daily chat. Conversely, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that Meredith would have loafed around for over two hours (as per Mignini and Massei) without calling her mother back.

And this is one of very many reasons that support a hypothesis that Meredith was confronted and attacked very shortly after arriving home at the cottage at around 9.05pm. And that she was confronted and attacked by one person, wielding a large knife, who became violent and sexually aroused once the situation escalated. And that one person was Rudy Guede.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:46 PM
-

thank you LJ, Kevin, Rolfe and everyone else for their contributory work in resolving the time of death issue with reference to this case.

Also I would like to send a belated shout-out and thank you to those who helped translate the C&V report and even those who worked on the Massei report and now we have volunteers working on the first trial transcripts.

I am just knocked out by the AWESOME people involved in all this. I am just speechless and have no idea what else to say except that Karma is going to reward all of you big time,

Dave


It's nice to hear thanks, but I speak for myself when I say that I am not after praise or plaudits. I suppose it will be somewhat satisfying to be vindicated when this is all properly resolved (i.e. when Knox/Sollecito are acquitted, followed hopefully by a number of independent inquiries and public disciplinary hearings), but that's about it.

And there are very many other rational, sceptical, intelligent people posting here who have also figured out that the evidence supports no other possible outcome but acquittal (and it also very probably supports a scenario in which neither Knox nor Sollecito has any involvement whatsoever in the crime). A whole host of people have made interesting and valuable contributions to the debate. To me (and so many others), it's now pretty much beyond doubt that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted of the crimes with which they were charged. We can only trust a) that we are correct in our assessment, and b) if we are correct, that Hellmann's court comes to what appears to be the only possible verdict: acquittals for Knox and Sollecito.

Malkmus
22nd August 2011, 04:47 PM
You're probably correct. My point was more that if such photos had existed, it's most likely that they existed on Knox's laptop (or possibly her camera memory) - and that since these items were in the custody of the postal police from November 6th onwards, any attempted sale would more likely have been conducted by the police or someone closely connected to the police.

The truth is more likely to be that no such photos ever existed in the first place. Although there's also the possibility that an unscrupulous postal officer might have discovered nude photos of Knox on his initial examination of the hard drive, then decided to copy them for himself and delete their presence on Knox's machine. In that way, he could potentially make money for himself by selling the photos (possibly via a friend or other connection), while remaining unlinked to the photos' provenance. If that were the case, then the prosecutors would not have had the photos available to use in evidence, even if they would have wanted to do so.

I had always assumed actually, that if such pictures existed that they were taken by PLE as part of her examination for injuries (like the photo of the hickey on her neck taken during such examination). I think I got that notion from this post on PMF last year:


No, the photos that the blogger tried to sell to the tabloids were not taken before her arrest. If there are photose of Knox in the nude "out there" for sale, and they were taken before Nov 1, 2007, they are not the same photos as the ones referred to in Barbie Nadeau's article, which a "blogger" tried to sell. That's what I'm saying.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43141&hilit=nude#p43141


I can't think of what other photos would have been taken of her after her arrest.

Ampulla of Vater
22nd August 2011, 04:51 PM
If you're referring to the claim that Frank tried to sell nude photos of Amanda, I'm certain I read that a couple of years ago. It's not a new claim although the source could be the same, I don't remember. Anyways, even then I never saw any proof, and I'd hazard a guess if he actually had any he would have found a buyer no matter the price and we would know of it by now, likely in a very tawdry way.

Not to mention if he had really done this then I somehow doubt that #9 would be true. I'm not sure why Chris Mellas would be "associated with" someone who tried to sell nude pictures of Amanda.

RoseMontague
22nd August 2011, 04:57 PM
I had always assumed actually, that if such pictures existed that they were taken by PLE as part of her examination for injuries (like the photo of the hickey on her neck taken during such examination). I think I got that notion from this post on PMF last year:




http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43141&hilit=nude#p43141


I can't think of what other photos would have been taken of her after her arrest.

Well they did seem to be rather protective of other people taking pictures of her around that time.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 04:59 PM
I had always assumed actually, that if such pictures existed that they were taken by PLE as part of her examination for injuries (like the photo of the hickey on her neck taken during such examination). I think I got that notion from this post on PMF last year:




http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43141&hilit=nude#p43141


I can't think of what other photos would have been taken of her after her arrest.


Interesting. Very interesting. So if the photos in question were indeed post-arrest police shots of Knox's naked torso/body, well.... the first thing that comes to mind is that they would hardly have been very erotic: a stone-faced Knox standing in front of harsh police examination lights in an office, interview room or custody suite, face-on, side-on, back-to-camera.

But then the important questions start: how and why would such photos have leaked from the police? Who would have leaked them? Who would have had access to them within the police/prosecutor investigating team? How and why would the photos have even ended up in the hands of Sfarzo?

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 05:00 PM
And this is one of very many reasons that support a hypothesis that Meredith was confronted and attacked very shortly after arriving home at the cottage at around 9.05pm. And that she was confronted and attacked by one person, wielding a large knife, who became violent and sexually aroused once the situation escalated. And that one person was Rudy Guede.
-

LJ,

I was thinking (and remembering) something else when I made my time of death theory about the interrupted call and I really have no problem with acknowledging my mistakes, especially when folks are so nice about it and willing to take the time to explain in detail.

Again thank you LJ and Dan,

Dave

Malkmus
22nd August 2011, 05:05 PM
Interesting. Very interesting. So if the photos in question were indeed post-arrest police shots of Knox's naked torso/body, well.... the first thing that comes to mind is that they would hardly have been very erotic: a stone-faced Knox standing in front of harsh police examination lights in an office, interview room or custody suite, face-on, side-on, back-to-camera.

But then the important questions start: how and why would such photos have leaked from the police? Who would have leaked them? Who would have had access to them within the police/prosecutor investigating team? How and why would the photos have even ended up in the hands of Sfarzo?

Correct. I think some of the ambiguity surrounding the nature of the photos (i.e. reluctance to fully disclose what the photos were, who took them, and how someone else would end up with them) stems from the fact that it actually puts PLE in an unfavorable position, and Knox as defenseless and somewhat sympathetic - as opposed to sexual, lurid pics of her as the person the tabloids painted her as.

LondonJohn
22nd August 2011, 05:15 PM
-

LJ,

I was thinking (and remembering) something else when I made my time of death theory about the interrupted call and I really have no problem with acknowledging my mistakes, especially when folks are so nice about it and willing to take the time to explain in detail.

Again thank you LJ and Dan,

Dave


No problem at all. In fact, before the time stamp was discovered from the CCTV images (it had been cropped out in earlier versions), most people - including me - thought it likely that Meredith arrived home at around 8.55pm. This earlier timing was based on Sophie Purton's testimony, although it now appears that she gave various conflicting versions of the timings from that night. And that 8.55pm homecoming timing would have lent weight to the argument that Meredith's 8.56pm call to her mother was interrupted by a confrontation with Guede.

But with the CCTV timestamp - and the factors leading to the reasonable suggestion that the figure in the images in Meredith with her large beige tote bag - it now seems likely that Meredith didn't in fact arrive back at the cottage until around 9.05pm - some 10 minutes later than the original hypothesis.

My personal belief regarding the 8.56pm unconnected call is now this: I think that while Meredith was at her friends' house, she was conscious of not having called her mother. I think she resolved to place the call as soon as she was away from the company of her friends. I think that as soon as Meredith and Sophie parted at around 8.55pm - at the junction of Via Roscetto and Via Pinturicchio - Meredith immediately remembered that she needed to call her mother. I think she retrieved and dialled the number, but then realised that a) it was a cold night, b) she would prefer to be more fully aware of her surroundings on dark, quiet, high-sided streets, and c) she would be home within five minutes anyhow. I think that for all these three reasons, she made the quick decision to abort the call to her mother, with the intention of calling her mother once she was comfortable, safe and warm at home. That call never happened, of course.....

Sherlock Holmes
22nd August 2011, 06:14 PM
What time do you estimate Amanda hung up Rudy's coat for him? What time do you estimate she locked the door?

Rolfe.

I think she hung his coat up around 9:00 - she didn't lock Meredith's door until likely the early morning.

Sherlock Holmes
22nd August 2011, 06:17 PM
1) Guede left a partial print in a dilute mixture of blood and water on the bathmat in the small bathroom. Regardless of the incorrect conclusion drawn in Massei's court, this issue will almost certainly be corrected in Hellmann's court.

2) On what evidence do you base your seemingly-confident assertion that Guede "clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door"? Even if this action did not happen on the occasion when Guede tracked the faint blood shoe prints down the hallway, why is it not possible that Guede then returned to Meredith's room - after all the blood on his shoe had been deposited onto the floor, therefore leaving no prints? In fact, as I argued a day or so ago, it's entirely possible that Guede either forgot that he needed a key to open the front door, or that he had never realised this prior to the confrontation/attack on Meredith. If that were the case, then Guede would almost necessarily have walked/run from Meredith's room towards the front door, then would have had to return to Meredith's room to find and retrieve the key he now knew he needed to open the front door.

3) Who are "you people"? That's a worryingly segregationalist phrase, which is more redolent of a hate group than someone simply debating a murder case.


#1 - yea, good luck with that one

#2 - If that were the case then the Luminol test would have picked it up

#3 - Sorry, meant to say FOAKers

Danceme
22nd August 2011, 06:42 PM
Vogt/Nadeau also appear to have provided Ganong with parts of the Conti/Vecchiotti DNA report....
Other sites post it was Bongiourno who leaked the report.

You're probably correct. My point was more that if such photos had existed, it's most likely that they existed on Knox's laptop (or possibly her camera memory) - and that since these items were in the custody of the postal police from November 6th onwards, any attempted sale would more likely have been conducted by the police or someone closely connected to the police.

The truth is more likely to be that no such photos ever existed in the first place. Although there's also the possibility that an unscrupulous postal officer might have discovered nude photos of Knox on his initial examination of the hard drive, then decided to copy them for himself and delete their presence on Knox's machine. In that way, he could potentially make money for himself by selling the photos (possibly via a friend or other connection), while remaining unlinked to the photos' provenance. If that were the case, then the prosecutors would not have had the photos available to use in evidence, even if they would have wanted to do so.

I had always assumed actually, that if such pictures existed that they were taken by PLE as part of her examination for injuries (like the photo of the hickey on her neck taken during such examination). I think I got that notion from this post on PMF last year:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43141&hilit=nude#p43141

I can't think of what other photos would have been taken of her after her arrest.


Interesting. Very interesting. So if the photos in question were indeed post-arrest police shots of Knox's naked torso/body, well.... the first thing that comes to mind is that they would hardly have been very erotic: a stone-faced Knox standing in front of harsh police examination lights in an office, interview room or custody suite, face-on, side-on, back-to-camera.

But then the important questions start: how and why would such photos have leaked from the police? Who would have leaked them? Who would have had access to them within the police/prosecutor investigating team? How and why would the photos have even ended up in the hands of Sfarzo?

Correct. I think some of the ambiguity surrounding the nature of the photos (i.e. reluctance to fully disclose what the photos were, who took them, and how someone else would end up with them) stems from the fact that it actually puts PLE in an unfavorable position, and Knox as defenseless and somewhat sympathetic - as opposed to sexual, lurid pics of her as the person the tabloids painted her as.

The photos do not exist. There is no need to create scenarios around postal police. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that these photos would not have found the light of day were they for real.

AmyStrange
22nd August 2011, 07:22 PM
I think she hung his coat up around 9:00 - she didn't lock Meredith's door until likely the early morning.
-

Sherlock,

it was Curatolo. There is more evidence that he helped Guede (if only as a look out) murder and rape Meredith than there is that Amanda and Raffaele did it. He has no alibi and admits being near the murder scene on that night and probably knew Guede because he was a drug dealer, and where was Guede on the nights that Curatolo testified those other two three times. Maybe he got heroin from Guede for deflecting suspicion away from him,

Dave

Malkmus
22nd August 2011, 07:33 PM
Other sites post it was Bongiourno who leaked the report.










The photos do not exist. There is no need to create scenarios around postal police. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that these photos would not have found the light of day were they for real.

I think you're probably right. Nadeau fed them a lie and I believe they think it's true. I'm just trying to decipher how they've come to believe this might be true. And it seems the above scenario is what fits the pieces best.

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 07:35 PM
First of all, your diagrams wrong, where did you get it from, Rudy left no prints in the bathroom
The footprint in the bathroom, as has been pointed out, was the one on the bathmat, or per haps you have forgotten that one.
secondly, all the shoe prints are left foot of Rudy's, the prints clearly show he was running out of Meredith's room
If he was running, how did he avoid colliding with the clothes rack which one of his footprints was directly in front of?
stopped in the living room probably to put his coat back on that Amanda had hung up for him.
Now you are just making up stuff out of whole cloth with zip evidence.
Rudy clearly did not stop to lock Meredith's door no matter how you want to spin it but at the same time I know you people can not accept this, because it means Amanda is GUILTY to some degree, Good day sir.
Says the person inventing things out of thin air when the evidence doesn't agree with his theory. Have a good day yourself.

Sherlock Holmes
22nd August 2011, 07:40 PM
The footprint in the bathroom, as has been pointed out, was the one on the bathmat, or per haps you have forgotten that one.

If he was running, how did he avoid colliding with the clothes rack which one of his footprints was directly in front of?

Now you are just making up stuff out of whole cloth with zip evidence.

Says the person inventing things out of thin air when the evidence doesn't agree with his theory. Have a good day yourself.


The bathmat foot print was not Rudy's - now who's making things up.

If the cloths rack is in the way of one of the footprints, then I guess someone must have moved it there after it was made - You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.

And I will sir......

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 07:44 PM
Well I'm sure she had quite the few conversations with him!

Well you know, I think I would rather go with the word of someone connected with the case and who actually was in Perugia rather then what someone who has never been there and knows none of the priciple players believes with no actual evidence.

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 07:46 PM
The bathmat foot print was not Rudy's - now who's making things up.

Looks close to Rudy's footprint to me, and funny thing, when a poll was done here, it looked closer to Rudy's print to the majority of those polled too.

If the cloths rack is in the way of one of the footprints, then I guess someone must have moved it there after it was made - You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.

Or perhaps, shock, horror, the person that made the print was walking, not running, and walked around it.

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 07:48 PM
It amazes me that you all still stand by your amateur calculations and reliance on outdated methodology.

It amazes me that you would call the pathologist that testified in court to the ToD being within three hours of the meal an amateur who was using outdated methodology.

Poppy1016
22nd August 2011, 08:20 PM
Sherlock,
With all due respect, are you seriously saying Amanda hung up Rudy's jacket? Thats sounding wierd and somewhat desperate to make a claim like that. Are you really arguing your belief in guilt in this manner? The thing I don't understand is why some make wild claims and will not argue their point intelligently. Why come here if you do not want to rationally debate ? Many will not answer direct questions in order to further the discussion. I personally welcome the opinions of both sides of the issue, but not statements that cannot be proven. Personal beliefs are fine when they are sincere and thought out. But many argue for the sole purpose of arguing and not fro the purpose of finding the truth.

PhantomWolf
22nd August 2011, 08:27 PM
I'm glad to hear that the professionals came up to your standards, but you are ignoring the fact that GI contents as indicator of time of death are not reliable so your reliance on it rather invalidates your conclusions. Like, totally.

You are right, they aren't reliable. The stomach can start emptying in a healthy unstressed person anywhere between 20 minutes and 3 hours after starting a meal, and in most cases the time of the last meal isn't known either so that throws things in a loop. Of course if the person is stressed or ill that can increase the digestion time significantly.

However, in this case those factors are irrelevant. Meredith was not ill, and between 6pm and 9pm she was far from stresed so digestion was normal. On top of that we know within 30 mins when the meal started, and we know she was still alive at near enough to 9pm that at the longest the stomach should have begun emptying at the latest by 9:30pm all things being equal. That leaves one thing, stress after 9pm. However there is no sign of prolonged stress on her body, no ligature marks, no torture marks, and the Prosecution claims that she spent from 9pm to 11:30pm undisturbed meaning that her stomach had between 5 and 5 1/2 hours unstressed to complete digestion, something that two pathologists in the case stated normally takes only up to 3 hours and one said it could take as long as four hours at a push.

So who is the more likely to be correct about the time of death?

Rudy, who was undoubtably there, and who puts it at 9:20pm
Two Pathologists who put it at 9-9:30pm
One Pathologist who put it between 9 and 10:30pm
ETA: The Italian Court that found Rudy guilty and put it between 9 and 10:30pm

or Massei and Mignini, neither of whom was there and neither of whom has any pathology skills, one of whom puts it at 11:50pm and the other at 11:40pm?

ETA2: Funny how the first five are all in rough agreement with both each other, and the scientific literature, while the last two aren't.

Poppy1016
22nd August 2011, 08:42 PM
bucket,
do you also believe that taking body temperature asap is also not reliable?

Kaosium
22nd August 2011, 09:17 PM
I had always assumed actually, that if such pictures existed that they were taken by PLE as part of her examination for injuries (like the photo of the hickey on her neck taken during such examination). I think I got that notion from this post on PMF last year:




http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43141&hilit=nude#p43141


I can't think of what other photos would have been taken of her after her arrest.

The nude photos of Amanda Knox 'reportedly' offered for sale to a British tabloid source back to this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/09/nuclear-family-fallout.html) Newsweek article by Barbie Nadeau posted here on the Daily Beast:


The trial has also spawned a bizarre online subculture where bloggers bicker and anonymous posters spew vile comments and juvenile threats that often seem straight out of a South Park episode. One blogger even filed a police complaint against another in Seattle. Another blogger reportedly tried to sell nudie pictures of Knox to a British tabloid. While in Perugia, Knox's family and friends hurl insults at "tacky journalists" who dare question the defendant's innocence.

As you can see that article contains an oblique reference to the Cheshire Cat herself who had this to say:

As everyone knows, I am the blogger who filed the police complaint in Seattle - not against another blogger, but rather against identified individuals who were harassing me. But who's the blogger who reportedly tried to sell nude photos of Knox to a British tabloid? How many bloggers out there could gain access to such photos, if they exist? And who would seek to gain financially in such an utterly sleazy way?

So as you can see, not only does the Barbie Nadeau article not name who it is, the term 'reportedly' is employed. It should be remembered Barbie decided to add something like five extra men to Amanda's sex life in Italy based on nothing but rumors that all turned out to be untrue, and of course never actually noticed of the seven listed in her diary, five were Americans she'd known before she got to Italy. So if Barbie, who can blithely go from 'two' to 'twelve' (or so) and considering it worth reporting as fact, anything she writes as unsubstantiated, unsourced rumor is even more suspect.


As of September 1st, 2010 the Cheshire Cat was still only suggesting who she thought was responsible for the 'naked pictures' as per the post (http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271&p=58408&hilit=amanda+knox+naked+photos#p58408) timestamped 2:58 PM. A couple posts down just crack me up, as Katy-Did was 'exposed' as a malignant force by Capealadin for the following comment on JREF:

'Hope the dissenters keep posting though. PMF is so much funner when there are people disagreeing with them."

Her appeal fell on deaf ears as she was then tried by SomeAlibi for treason and executed with no remorse with the dread words: 'Thanks for stopping by.' :p

So all this amounts to is a rumor Barbara Nadeau wrote about, over time it morphed into an accusation that it could only have been Frank Sfarzo, which is kind of ridiculous as it assumes that there actually were nude photos in the hands of police that Frank somehow got access to, that the police themselves didn't bother to trumpet them to the entire world. As they were creatively translating her Myspace story to make it sound like she had 'rape fantasies' and releasing her diary to reporters suggesting she'd had seven lovers in Italy instead of her life, one would think 'obscene' photos would at least be referred to. Poor Raffaele was damned for something along those lines.

One the other end we have British tabloids whom we are supposed to believe actually turned down naked pictures of their 'Foxy Knoxy' who they were in the process of burning at the stake. Not only that, we're supposed to believe they didn't even mention it. I can think of one reason that might be the case, as in those photos weren't legitimate, in other words some blogger from anywhere might well have created or obtained photo-shopped pictures of Amanda Knox and offered them to the tabloids who of course turned them down.

Considering this is the same group of 'intrepid investigators' who 'determined' Steve Moore was the one investigating financial crimes in the South Pacific, LondonJohn wasn't actually from London but really a FOA infilitrator from Texas, (hilarious reading can be had on this in both previous threads and PMF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE&feature=feedf)) Bruce Fisher was a cameraman in Seattle and Frank Sfarzo a 'tool' of the Gogerty-Marriott/FOA PR Supertanker of Doom, the conclusion that whoever and whatever Barbara Nadeau was referring to in that article was Frank Sfarzo is specious at best. At worst it's a false accusation, which reminds me of that police complaint filed also mentioned in that article and the commentary by the Cheshire Cat: what became of that? Was that also a false accusation? ;)

RWVBWL
22nd August 2011, 09:49 PM
You are right, they aren't reliable. The stomach can start emptying in a healthy unstressed person anywhere between 20 minutes and 3 hours after starting a meal, and in most cases the time of the last meal isn't known either so that throws things in a loop. Of course if the person is stressed or ill that can increase the digestion time significantly.

However, in this case those factors are irrelevant. Meredith was not ill, and between 6pm and 9pm she was far from stresed so digestion was normal. On top of that we know within 30 mins when the meal started, and we know she was still alive at near enough to 9pm that at the longest the stomach should have begun emptying at the latest by 9:30pm all things being equal. That leaves one thing, stress after 9pm. However there is no sign of prolonged stress on her body, no ligature marks, no torture marks, and the Prosecution claims that she spent from 9pm to 11:30pm undisturbed meaning that her stomach had between 5 and 5 1/2 hours unstressed to complete digestion, something that two pathologists in the case stated normally takes only up to 3 hours and one said it could take as long as four hours at a push.

So who is the more likely to be correct about the time of death?

Rudy, who was undoubtably there, and who puts it at 9:20pm
Two Pathologists who put it at 9-9:30pm
One Pathologist who put it between 9 and 10:30pm

or Massei who was not there and has no pathology skills who puts it at 11:40pm?
Hi PhantomWolf,
I've just gotta say that this was a nicely laid out explanation for the ToD theory.

But with that said, I doubt you will ever get a member of the pro-guilt community, of which I too was one at 1 point a long time ago, to agree with it though. Heck, IF I were still a pro guilter, I bet old man Stint would be cheerin' me on as I argued with you folks against this ToD theory! And you guys would be baggin' on me too, that stupid RWVB, whatever his initials are, is a stupid, clueless, dope smoking, beach bum clod...

These folks, members of the pro-guilt community, hardly ever seem to publicly recognize any of the basic mistakes that the investigators made in this brutal murder case we discuss, such as the cops who couldn't correctly count the # of rings correctly on the bottom of Raffaele's sneakers, nor that there was a copy of that Harry Potter book at Raff's pad as Amanda said there was, or that the cops were wrong, Amanda'a clothes were exactly where she said that she left them., and on and on, and on.

How do you get them to agree that the cops or court made serious errors on much more important issues is beyond me. To get a member of the pro-guilt community to publicly agree that Steffanoni and her team's workmanship, shown on video for the world to see, was a source of possible, therefore probable contamination, or that the ToD, as argued here on JREF, has merit and is true, might be true, is, simply, I believe, too much to ask for.

Halides1, -a very smart guy, myself, -a more simple kinda guy, and others have argued that we would be open to changing our opinion of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence if simply that huuuge knife handle was ever to be opened up, tested and Meredith' blood was found inside, or if simply that possible semen stain, apparently never tested in a rape/murder case, was then so done, and shown to be from Raffaele.

Heck, here's a new 1 from me. I would be open to changing my opinion of Amanda's innocence if simply a video tape fom Amanda's Nov. 5/6 2007 late night chit chat, tea and pastry get together with the cop chicks existed and then did publicly surface and it indeed showed Amanda, uncoerced, just kickin' it with the ol' Rita, Monica, Lorena and Anna the mediator, opps, I mean interpreter, specifically stating that Patrick Lumumba did kill Meredith while she cowered in the kitchem, covering her ears to block out Meredith's screams. Let's see Amanda state this without any slaps to the head to help her remember. I'll probably change my opinion of much that I feel I know.

But I somehow doubt that any of the hard core guilter's will ever admit the cops made numerous mistakes, or publicly state what, if anything simple not done already, would help convince them of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence. Or that the ToD that a JREF Googler or a Library Card holder has argued about for months does inded have merit.

RW

lionking
22nd August 2011, 11:52 PM
Looks close to Rudy's footprint to me, and funny thing, when a poll was done here, it looked closer to Rudy's print to the majority of those polled too.


Well I'm convinced then. An anonymous poll of mainly AK supporters. Can't argue with that.:rolleyes:

PhantomWolf
23rd August 2011, 12:13 AM
Well I'm convinced then. An anonymous poll of mainly AK supporters. Can't argue with that.:rolleyes:

If the poll was anonomous, how do you know it know that it was mainly AK supporters?

Besides, it was a poll in this forum, so are you saying that most of JREF are AK supporters, and if so, then what does that say about the case since this place is supposed to be full of rational thinkers?

link to poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189522)

Note that less that 5% of those answering thought it was Raffale's footprint, over 23% thought it was Rudy's, and over 50% thought it could have been anyone's.

Katody Matrass
23rd August 2011, 01:34 AM
As prof Vinci pointed out, the shape of the big toe is different from very distinct Raffaele's toe and matches Guede's toe instead.

I think that apart from the simple visual assessment it is useful to consider both the hypotheses ( A - print is Guede's vs B - print is Raffaele's) in context.

A - it is established that Guede was at the scene. There are numerous bloody prints of his that he made no attempt to remove. He admits to going to the bathroom and cleaning himself up, mentioning trouser legs specifically. No problem including the bathmat print into that scenario.

B - Why would Raffaele made the print, call the police and point it out to them?
With the very low probability of any scenario placing AK and RS at the crime scene to begin with it makes the whole thing even more surprising.

Aber
23rd August 2011, 02:03 AM
Meredith was not ill


IIRC didn't she overindulge the night before, and have a hangover at least?

Antony
23rd August 2011, 02:48 AM
I can think of one reason that might be the case, as in those photos weren't legitimate, in other words some blogger from anywhere might well have created or obtained photo-shopped pictures of Amanda Knox and offered them to the tabloids who of course turned them down.

These were my thoughts exactly when I saw your reference to BLN's Newsweek quote.

lionking
23rd August 2011, 02:51 AM
If the poll was anonomous, how do you know it know that it was mainly AK supporters?

Besides, it was a poll in this forum, so are you saying that most of JREF are AK supporters, and if so, then what does that say about the case since this place is supposed to be full of rational thinkers?

link to poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189522)

Note that less that 5% of those answering thought it was Raffale's footprint, over 23% thought it was Rudy's, and over 50% thought it could have been anyone's.

As I suggested, this poll means nothing. What do you would think about a poll which asked the general public (not JREF membership), do you think AK is guilty, innocent, don't know, don't care? I would very confidently suggest that options three and four would dominate. And exactly what would this prove?

Rolfe
23rd August 2011, 03:04 AM
That's not a legitimate comparison at all.

I didn't see the poll at the time, but I looked now, and the three photos (the bathmat print and the two reference prints) were shown in clear in the OP. The specific question was asked, which if either reference print appears to match the bathmat print.

That is very different from a vague vox pop such as you are describing, Lionking. That you would make such a comparison, is something I find very dishonest.

For what it's worth, I'd go with insufficient data to match the bathmat print to either of the reference prints, but if you twisted my arm to choose one or the other I'd definitely go for the one on the left on account of the shape of the big toe and the ball of the foot.

Rolfe.

lionking
23rd August 2011, 03:25 AM
And the relevance?

Paninaro
23rd August 2011, 03:39 AM
Well I'm convinced then. An anonymous poll of mainly AK supporters. Can't argue with that.:rolleyes:

Well, you could try. :)

Can it be ruled out with absolute certainty that it was Rudy Guede's footprint on the bathmat?

I haven't voted in the poll, but my opinion is that it cannot be decided - there is insufficient detail to conclude either way - and that it therefore isn't good enough evidence to put Sollecito on the crime scene.

lionking
23rd August 2011, 03:53 AM
Well, you could try. :)

Can it be ruled out with absolute certainty that it was Rudy Guede's footprint on the bathmat?

I haven't voted in the poll, but my opinion is that it cannot be decided - there is insufficient detail to conclude either way - and that it therefore isn't good enough evidence to put Sollecito on the crime scene.

The poll means nothing. Is it that hard to accept?

Rolfe
23rd August 2011, 04:20 AM
The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

lionking
23rd August 2011, 04:26 AM
The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

A poll on this forum shows that? Really? A poll on another forum shows that it's really an image of Jesus on a piece of toast.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe
23rd August 2011, 04:32 AM
I presume you have eyes. The poll shows the actual pictures. It's perfectly obvious that footprint on its cannot be taken as evidence that any particular person was there.

Crikey, considering the furore there has been about the accuracy of some fingerprints as analysed by actual fingerprint experts (see the Shirley McKie affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie) for example), and fingerprints are actually accepted as having evidential value, the very idea that that footprint could be said to be of anyone in particular with any degree of certainty is ludicrous.

Rolfe.

RoseMontague
23rd August 2011, 04:43 AM
I think it is a great poll, thanks Dan O.

The only conclusion anybody with a lick of sense including experts could come to is that it is impossible to say conclusively whose print this belongs to. Just my opinion.

It does look more like Rudy's print, btw.

LondonJohn
23rd August 2011, 04:54 AM
I presume you have eyes. The poll shows the actual pictures. It's perfectly obvious that footprint on its cannot be taken as evidence that any particular person was there.

Crikey, considering the furore there has been about the accuracy of some fingerprints as analysed by actual fingerprint experts (see the Shirley McKie affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie) for example), and fingerprints are actually accepted as having evidential value, the very idea that that footprint could be said to be of anyone in particular with any degree of certainty is ludicrous.

Rolfe.


While I would actually (partially) agree with Lionking that internet polls are not a particularly good indicator, it's clear in this case that the prosecution "specialist" Rinaldi employed utterly bogus pseudoscience and confirmation-biased measurements to bamboozle the court into an incorrect conclusion on the bathmat partial print.

We know from Rinaldi's own testimony that not only did he have the reference prints of Guede and Sollecito in front of him when he was analysing the bathmat print, but also that he knew which reference print belonged to whom, and whom the police were trying to link to the murder. It's clear that he arbitrarily decided that the big toes shape of the partial print "corresponded more closely" with Sollecito's reference print - almost certainly because he erroneously chose to include the blood drop at the top right of the toe print as part of the toe profile.

Rinaldi then engaged in a classic exercise in confirmation bias: having decided that the bathmat print was probably Sollecito's, he willfully mis-measured reference points on the bathmat print such that they closely matched the corresponding measurements on Sollecito's reference print. He then stunningly contradicted his previous assertion - that imprecise prints such as the bathmat partial print could only be used to exclude people rather than make positive identifications - by stating that the print could not only a) be excluded as a match to Guede (an erroneous conclusion), but also b) be positively matched to Sollecito. In making this u-turn, Rinaldi employed the circular argument that since Sollecito was the only other possible person in the frame, the print had to (by a process of elimination) belong to Sollecito.

The truth about the blood/water partial print on the bathmat is this: it can only be shown to have come from an adult male with above-average foot size. It cannot be either matched to or eliminated from any male with above-average feet who does not have a highly unusual foot shape (e.g. at the extreme ends of width, or with some toes missing, etc). The reason why it's only possible to make such a general analysis of the bathmat print is blindingly obvious to anyone with a scientific and logical mind: the bathmat print was made on an irregular, tufted surface, and there is absolutely no way to know how much weight was placed upon the foot when it deposited the print. Therefore, the margins of the print are incapable of being compared with reference prints made on hard, flat surfaces with precise printer's ink.

As others have already pointed out, all the other available evidence (Guede's proven presence at the murder scene, and his admission to having washed blood off his trouser leg) points to the obvious conclusion: the blood/water partial print on the bathmat belongs to Guede; and he made it by placing the sole of his foot in pooling dilute blood/water (probably in the floor of the shower) while he was washing blood from the front of his trouser leg, then placing his foot down onto the bathmat (probably when he reached across for a towel to dry off his trouser leg, feet and hands).

LondonJohn
23rd August 2011, 05:01 AM
IIRC didn't she overindulge the night before, and have a hangover at least?


You're very probably correct. But that wouldn't have any significant effect whatsoever upon Meredith's gastrointestinal motility. "Ill" in this context means either a specific gastrointestinal disorder (e.g. ulcer, colitis, stomach cancer, dyssentry) or a very serious general illness/condition (e.g. advanced pneumonia, advanced-stage cancer, heart attack/stroke).

Rolfe
23rd August 2011, 05:02 AM
This Rinaldi guy sounds extraordinarily bogus to me. We all know about the literature backing up fingerprint identifications. It's well-researched and scientific. There are many experts who agree on correct procedure and can validate each others' work. And even so, disputes and mis-identifications occur from time to time.

Where is the solid body of evidence backing up footprint identifications? Where is the body of expert opinion which has arrived at a scientific consensus in the subject? Where are this guy's colleagues who can validate his work and give their own opinions on the same prints when blinded as to which is which?

I don't think they exist. I think this is about as scientific as the "ear print" evidence that was exposed as one crank's unvalidated opinions in a different case.

As far as I can see, even if you were to say that it was a known fact that either Guede or Sollecito must have made that print, you couldn't say with certainty which it was. And if you're trying to use that print as proof of Sollecito's presence at the crime scene - well, just, wow.

Rolfe.

Antony
23rd August 2011, 05:03 AM
The poll shows that the bathmat print isn't clearly identifiable as anyone's foot in particular.

Is that hard to accept?

Rolfe.

Actually, I think LK has a point here. Polls are just polls, and don't tell us anything other than the balance of opinion among those who responded - which isn't the same as scientific fact.

At the same time, I agree with Katody Madras: going by the most obvious feature, the shape of the big toe, there's no way the footprint can honestly be ascribed to Raffaele, and Rudy is very much in the frame. What does that tell us about the guilters, who continue to propagate the lie that it is Raff's, and the 5% in the JREF poll who made the same "judgement"?

More to the point, the way that the prosecution employed a totally spurious argument - matching a width measurement incorporating an extraneous blob at the tip of the big toe print, to the width at the base of Raff's big toe - and the fact that Massei accepted it, tells us all we need to know about their lack of objectivity and impartiality.

LondonJohn
23rd August 2011, 05:09 AM
#1 - yea, good luck with that one

#2 - If that were the case then the Luminol test would have picked it up

#3 - Sorry, meant to say FOAKers


#1: No luck required, old chap. It's the simple reality of the situation. The print cannot be positively identified as Sollecito's, and nor can it be excluded as Guede's. And all the other evidence strongly points to it being Guede's. You'll find this out fairly soon in Hellmann's motivations report after the acquittals.

#2: Not necessarily by any stretch. And by your (erroneous) reasoning, Luminol should have detected a continuation of Guede's shoe print nearer to the front door if he went straight out of the door. You're wrong. It's elementary.

#3: Still not acceptable. But if you wish to employ deliberately provocative, insulting and factually-incorrect blanket terms to anyone who argues that Knox and Sollecito (remember Sollecito? He's the one who isn't Knox who's also part of this debate) should be acquitted, that's your prerogative. However in my opinion it says far more about you than it does about the people you seek to demean.

LondonJohn
23rd August 2011, 05:22 AM
This Rinaldi guy sounds extraordinarily bogus to me. We all know about the literature backing up fingerprint identifications. It's well-researched and scientific. There are many experts who agree on correct procedure and can validate each others' work. And even so, disputes and mis-identifications occur from time to time.

Where is the solid body of evidence backing up footprint identifications? Where is the body of expert opinion which has arrived at a scientific consensus in the subject? Where are this guy's colleagues who can validate his work and give their own opinions on the same prints when blinded as to which is which?

I don't think they exist. I think this is about as scientific as the "ear print" evidence that was exposed as one crank's unvalidated opinions in a different case.

As far as I can see, even if you were to say that it was a known fact that either Guede or Sollecito must hve made that print, you couldn't say with certainty which is was. And if you're trying to use that print as proof of Sollecito's presence at the crime scene - well, just, wow.

Rolfe.


You're absolutely correct. Foot print shape analysis has been shown conclusively to be worthless in evidential terms; it has essentially been exposed as bogus pseudoscience dreamed up by people who either had a vested financial (or other) interest in promoting it, or by police/prosecutors who were overzealous in their search for inculpatory evidence against suspects.

The only area where foot prints can be usefully used in evidence is if there is a sufficiently clear and detailed footprint at the scene to show the individual crease, loop and whorl characteristics of the foot. If that is the case, reference prints can usually be either matched or excluded. But of course this situation almost never occurs - and it most certainly didn't occur in this case.

It's now generally accepted that even if a clear footprint is left on a hard flat surface (e.g. a tiled floor) it's not possible to make a positive match to any specific individual - unless that individual and the print share a very unusual characteristic such as webbed toes, missing toes or very extreme length or width. There are just too many variables present to enable an accurate comparison - chief amongst which are the print medium* (and its concentration, viscosity and level of saturation), the weight of the footfall, and the absorbancy of the surface.

And that's the case for a "best case" scenario of a clear whole print made on a smooth, hard, flat surface. In this case, we have a partial print made on a deeply-tufted towelling bathmat with a ridged pattern, made in a saturated blood/water solution, and most likely made from a partially-weighted balance step rather than a regular ambulatory footfall. It is therefore impossible to say any more about the bathmat partial print than that it was deposited by an adult male with above-average foot size. Nothing more than that.

* i.e. the substance (usually a liquid) from which the print has been made.

Supernaut
23rd August 2011, 05:48 AM
As I suggested, this poll means nothing. What do you would think about a poll which asked the general public (not JREF membership), do you think AK is guilty, innocent, don't know, don't care? I would very confidently suggest that options three and four would dominate. And exactly what would this prove?

I noticed Stilicho, like you, often trotting out the "nobody gives a **** anymore" spiel.

I presume that, more in hope than expectation, you wanted to see interest in the case wane as it dragged on for all these months and years, and for AK and RS remain in prison.

Sorry, you're in for a disppointment, and I look forward to seeing your nose rubbed in it.

Rolfe
23rd August 2011, 06:58 AM
.... if you twisted my arm to choose one or the other I'd definitely go for the one on the left on account of the shape of the big toe and the ball of the foot.


I can't tell my left from my right, that's official. I wondered why I was confused. It's the one on the right I thought was the better match, if either!

Rolfe.

christianahannah
23rd August 2011, 08:26 AM
The nude photos of Amanda Knox 'reportedly' offered for sale to a British tabloid source back to this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/09/nuclear-family-fallout.html) Newsweek article by Barbie Nadeau posted here on the Daily Beast:



As you can see that article contains an oblique reference to the Cheshire Cat herself who had this to say:



So as you can see, not only does the Barbie Nadeau article not name who it is, the term 'reportedly' is employed. It should be remembered Barbie decided to add something like five extra men to Amanda's sex life in Italy based on nothing but rumors that all turned out to be untrue, and of course never actually noticed of the seven listed in her diary, five were Americans she'd known before she got to Italy. So if Barbie, who can blithely go from 'two' to 'twelve' (or so) and considering it worth reporting as fact, anything she writes as unsubstantiated, unsourced rumor is even more suspect.


As of September 1st, 2010 the Cheshire Cat was still only suggesting who she thought was responsible for the 'naked pictures' as per the post (http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271&p=58408&hilit=amanda+knox+naked+photos#p58408) timestamped 2:58 PM. A couple posts down just crack me up, as Katy-Did was 'exposed' as a malignant force by Capealadin for the following comment on JREF:

'Hope the dissenters keep posting though. PMF is so much funner when there are people disagreeing with them."

Her appeal fell on deaf ears as she was then tried by SomeAlibi for treason and executed with no remorse with the dread words: 'Thanks for stopping by.' :p

So all this amounts to is a rumor Barbara Nadeau wrote about, over time it morphed into an accusation that it could only have been Frank Sfarzo, which is kind of ridiculous as it assumes that there actually were nude photos in the hands of police that Frank somehow got access to, that the police themselves didn't bother to trumpet them to the entire world. As they were creatively translating her Myspace story to make it sound like she had 'rape fantasies' and releasing her diary to reporters suggesting she'd had seven lovers in Italy instead of her life, one would think 'obscene' photos would at least be referred to. Poor Raffaele was damned for something along those lines.

One the other end we have British tabloids whom we are supposed to believe actually turned down naked pictures of their 'Foxy Knoxy' who they were in the process of burning at the stake. Not only that, we're supposed to believe they didn't even mention it. I can think of one reason that might be the case, as in those photos weren't legitimate, in other words some blogger from anywhere might well have created or obtained photo-shopped pictures of Amanda Knox and offered them to the tabloids who of course turned them down.

Considering this is the same group of 'intrepid investigators' who 'determined' Steve Moore was the one investigating financial crimes in the South Pacific, LondonJohn wasn't actually from London but really a FOA infilitrator from Texas, (hilarious reading can be had on this in both previous threads and PMF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE&feature=feedf)) Bruce Fisher was a cameraman in Seattle and Frank Sfarzo a 'tool' of the Gogerty-Marriott/FOA PR Supertanker of Doom, the conclusion that whoever and whatever Barbara Nadeau was referring to in that article was Frank Sfarzo is specious at best. At worst it's a false accusation, which reminds me of that police complaint filed also mentioned in that article and the commentary by the Cheshire Cat: what became of that? Was that also a false accusation? ;)

Your last paragraph helps my point that the sub-story in the Kercher case is one that is very interesting should anyone have the inclination to research and write about it. I will never understand this seeking out of identities and posting of rumors as facts. There are two sides pitted one against the other and for what I am not sure (and I do not mean the two sides of guilt or innocence).