Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Malkmus]

Interesting then that AK was charged with theft... not RG.

Yes, very interesting (Raf too by the way, not just Amanda). I believe this stems from the belief that if they staged the break-in then they must have stolen the money too.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dgfred,

I think your position on TOD makes no sense, but if you don’t want to debate it, that’s that. I am not a fan of long lists, such as the one you posted, for a variety of reasons. However, this is Lent, and perhaps reading and responding to such a list counts as an act of penance.
1-3. Already discussed.
4. Did Raffaele’s father say that they had eaten dinner, or did he say that they were washing dishes?
9. This and other comments are worded in a distinctly subobtimal way. The attribution of the footprint to Raffaele by the prosecution’s expert witness is obviously hotly disputed by the defense. I don’t believe that a print without ridges on an uneven surface should be attributed to anyone with certainty; however, it looks more like RG’s than RS’s to me. I think Rudy set his foot down briefly (possibly on a towel that was over the mat), after he rinsed off. I have heard reasonable arguments that he rinsed in the bidet or that he rinsed in the shower. I don’t have a strong opinion on which it was. You seem to be implying that the pro-innocence people have Rudy in and out of shoes in an unrealistic way. I think the same is true of the pro-guilt community and Amanda. Some still want to attribute one shoe print in Meredith’s room to Amanda, but also want to claim that she is responsible for footprints in the hall.
10. My evaluation of the hallway footprints changed when I saw a luminol footprint in Amanda’s room. The second toe looked nothing like Amanda’s footprint. If that print was made by another woman, then what was the luminol-reactive material on her foot, and when was it made? Once one realizes that this footprint had nothing to do with the murder, one is forced to concede that the other footprints may also be unrelated to the crime. In addition, all three of the footprints in the hallway are right feet. Where are the left feet?
11. The phone call was at 4:45 Seattle time (not 3 AM, as PM Comodi implied), and this is not the middle of the night for RoseMontague, for example. Amanda made several calls to her mother, so I don’t see why she should be expected to remember them all.
12. Amanda’s 1:45 and 5:45 statements about Patrick are in disagreement with each other, as very recently discussed at JREFF. That is just more evidence of how worthless they are as evidence against either person, IMO.
20. Filomena’s computer was in sight. IIRC Filomena’s camera was in sight, but perhaps not in her room.
23. This is one more reason not to put any value in the 5:45 statement, but it is somewhat in conflict with what you said in 22 about Patrick’s and Amanda’s relationship. I think that she accused him because the police pressured her to do so. Within 36 hours she had given a complete retractions (with the second memorial of 7 November).
24. She identified a woman with chestnut hair, IIRC. The second question would be a good one if it were addressed to ILE. They kept his bar closed for months after the crime.
25. What Rudy said in the Skype call is more likely to be true, IMO. If all three were involved, why didn’t Amanda and Raffaele turn on him?
26. Curatolo and Kokomani? I wish there were an olive-throwing emoticon.
27. Quintavalle? I will let other commenters deal with this one.
29. What makes you think that even one spot in the bathroom is Amanda’s blood mixed with Meredith’s blood?
30. The pierced ear might explain the unmixed blood on the faucet. There is a pillowcase of Amanda’s that also has a bloodstain. Makes sense to me.
32. I disagree with your premise; let’s see what the supremes say. I also disagree with your conclusion; Hellman acknowledges the pressure, but he finds her guilty anyway. I don’t buy into his reasoning, but Komponisto has expressed it much better than I can.
35. Maybe Raffaele felt the same conflict as the PP did; not wanting to take responsibility for damaging the door. As an indicator of guilt, it makes no sense, anyway. If they are guilty and know the body is there, the best thing to do is to go to Gubbio. If they don’t go, the next best thing is neither to press forward, nor to hinder the discovery of the body.
36. There were signs of a break in, such as Rep. 198 and 199.
37. I’ll take a photo over someone’s memory any day of the week. Nor is there a persuasive reason to believe that Filomena left no clothes on the floor. My understanding is that she testified to being a neat person, which is not the same thing.
38. Money was stolen.
39. At this point you already know what I think about the mixed DNA evidence.
40. Sgt. Pasquali’s demonstration is convincing enough for me. The idea that one would not throw a rock from the parapet because of the chance of discovery is thin gruel.
41. Amanda’s clothes were right where she said that they were, despite what ILE may have implied about it.
42. People’s ability to judge truth from deception is pretty limited, based on what I have read. However, one could easily ask the same question about statements that came from ILE. In the latter case, the deceptive or misleading statements have been documented. RS testified in front of Judge Matteini. I happen to believe that the accused, whether innocent or guilty, should not testify as a tactical matter, except under unusual circumstances.
43. The premise is false; Hellman’s motivation report discusses many other things. The most reasonable explanation for the knife profile is contamination. The 800 pound gorilla with respect to the clasp is the presence of DNA on it that does not belong to Meredith or Raffaele. If their DNA arrived innocently, there is no reason to assume that Raffaele’s did not.

 

[dgfred]

Thanks for at least trying to answer/explain.

Now how did I know you wouldn't agree with my TOD thoughts? :innocent:


9. The argument that RG washed in the bathroom taking off a shoe, but left no bare or shoed footprints along the way or back is ridiculous IMO. In fact his shoeprints lead straight out the cottage front door from Meredith's room.

Why wouldn't his dna be mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom, instead or with AK's too? AK's stories of bloody ears and bathmat shuffles are only ways to cover up the possibility of just this- her blood/dna mix in the bathroom and barefoot prints in the hallway IMO. Just what was found BTW.

My opinion is at least one of the spots in the bathroom are a mix of AK's and Meredith's blood... if it isn't blood then is not a casebreaker for me as still believe she was at least washing up in there at some point that night.

I understand the old 'AK lives there' theory, but find it odd that AK's just happens to be clearly mixed with Meredith's blood (not RG/not RS/not Filomena or Laura) just after the night Meredith is murdered in both the bathroom and in Filomena's room.

AK/RS can easily be wearing shoes during the attack and come back later in the evening and clean up barefooted... maybe even take a shower. Both the hallway bare prints and bare print on the bathmat in fact show that they were barefoot at some point, but it doesn't matter so much when does it?

10. I realize the staging and luminol prints HAVE to be shown to be false for AK and RS to be innocent... since neither have been IMO, they show that they were co-responsible along with RG in Meredith's death.
It seems anything but two barefoot people (a male-hallway/bathmat AND female-hallway specifically) fits your argument, but it just so happens there are those prints that HAVE to be explained away.

11. Regarding that 'first' call... her parents sure did remember it. It's timing was certainly awkward for AK because of what was supposidly known/unknown to her at that moment. 88 seconds worth of something.

12. All of AK's statements/email/short stories/etc are in 'disagreement' with each other if you really look at them IMO. It is a writing analysist dream assignment IMO trying to figure out what is the truth and what is not... and what is real/un-real/etc.

20. Both the policeman and Filomena testified there was glass on top of the laptop and on top of the clothes. I don't understand why that is not believed... but a photo or two from after Filomena and investigators/police had been there and possibly moved some things is taken as the facts.
Just the glass doesn't explain why there was NO other evidence of anyone but AK being in Filomena's room. No glass or footprints outside the window, no glass beyond the window shutter, and no evidence someone crawled thru that broken window and ransacked the room stealing nothing.

23. AK never 'retracted' her statement accusing Patrick. If she had, she might not be appealing her conviction for accusing him. I believe she did tell her mother it was her fault he was in jail... maybe they should have said something then. Calling her second, third, ??? statements retractions is not accurate IMO... especially after reading them for myself.

29. Like I said above I believe that at least one spot was AK's blood mixed with Meredith's. I know you don't agree, but that is what I think. What it shows me if it is = AK and Meredith were both bleeding on the night Meredith was murdered.

Haha @ "gruel" ..... I like that word. Thanks.

 

[Footwarrior]

11. The phone call was at 4:45 Seattle time (not 3 AM, as PM Comodi implied), and this is not the middle of the night for RoseMontague, for example. Amanda made several calls to her mother, so I don’t see why she should be expected to remember them all.

Comodi asked Amanda about a call to her mother "before anything had happened". The actual call was not at the time Comodi claimed and a lot of things had already happened. Amanda discovered the broken window and locked door, attempted to call Meredith, and talked to Filomena who was now returning. Amanda wasn't sure what to do next and called her mother for advice. The kind of phone call any good parent would find appropriate regardless of the time of day.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dgfred,

23. I have never seen a full text of the second memoriale of 7 November (not the first memoriale of 6 November), but PM Mignini quoted portions of it back to Amanda at the trial, and PMF translated it. PM Mignini: "You wrote: 'I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.' Then you add 'But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.' Can you explain these concept to me?" Amanda also retracted her accusation in a letter to her lawyer on 9 November 2007 (Dempsey, p. 294).

9. I think that Rudy cleaned up in the bathroom, returned to Meredith’s room (perhaps for the keys or the money), stepped in blood, and tracked this blood when going to the front door.

10. There are many problems with the footprints in the hallway, some of which I have already discussed. None had DNA, and none tested positive for blood via TMB. The notion that one luminol print would be too dilute for TMB to pick up is difficult to accept, but the notion that 5 luminol-positive areas would all be too dilute for TMB is really a stretch. At least one of the prints points toward Meredith’s door. There are no reference footprints from Laura or Filomena (or even Meredith, IIRC), just Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy. That is a biased, suspect-centered approach with predictable results. Now let’s return to the footprint in Amanda’s room. On the basis of the second toe, it is not Amanda’s foot, and there are no other female suspects. So it must be Laura, Filomena, Meredith or some other female who made it, probably before the murder. This also means that reaction with luminol is unlikely to be due to blood. If we conclude that this footprint is not set in blood and not related to the crime, then the same can be true of the footprints in the hallway.

20. Filomena’s testimony with respect to the shutters changed with time. It is not unheard of for a witness’s testimony to change with time; it also happened in the Todd Willingham case. Even if she were correct, my understanding is that she was in a hurry on the morning of 1 November, and she might have left clothes on the floor. Do you believe Massei’s version of how the window was broken? Do you not accept Rep. 198 and Rep. 199 as evidence of a break in?

I think Rudy was looking for cash or drugs, not items that would have to be fenced.

29. AK and MK shared a bathroom. If I took a vial of Filomena’s blood, placed several spots in the bathroom that she shared with Laura, and swabbed for DNA using a similar collection technique as the FP did, I think it is likely that we would find Laura’s DNA. I think that if Rudy were bleeding on the night of the murder, then not finding his DNA is a little surprising (depending on how severely he bled and how thoroughly he rinsed away blood). Rudy may have bled but perhaps most of his blood was absorbed into the towels that the FP failed to store correctly. Which spot in the bathroom (other than the unmixed sample on the faucet) do you think has Amanda’s blood?

IMO your TOD range is unrealistic, based on the lack of material in the duodenum. This piece of evidence alone is close to proof of innocence for me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There are several reasons to be skeptical that greater sensitivity of luminol is the explanation for why the TMB test was negative for luminol-positive spots in this case. I will outline five:

There are substances in some of the photographs of the application of luminol that give off a blue glow, as posted in these threads. There were blue flecks on a ruler, on a pair of boots worn by someone within the FP, and on the grouting between tiles. False positives are not just a hypothetical concern.

I have seen quite a range of values for the sensitivities of both the luminol test and the TMB test. Some values suggest that luminol test slightly more sensitive, but I have seen claims that both tests can detect blood that is diluted up to 1 part in 1,000,000. However, let us assume for the purposes of illustration that TMB detects blood to 1 part in 10,000 and that luminol detects blood to one part in 100,000, a tenfold difference in sensitivity. However, there is a 10,000 fold range (from undiluted blood to blood that has been diluted ten thousand fold) in which both will be positive. In other words each and every dilution would have to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold to be TMB-negative and luminol-positive in this situation.

Some of the luminol-positive areas were also negative for DNA. Luminol has a slight negative effect on how much DNA can be culled from a sample, and this depends on the formulation. However, it is certainly not the case that the use of luminol precludes testing for DNA. Moreover some luminol-positive areas did have Amanda’s DNA, so we know that luminol does not always interfere with DNA profiling. So if the luminol reaction were responding to Meredith’s blood, why is there none of Meredith’s DNA in many areas and no DNA at all in others?

If the only reason why TMB were negative when luminol was positive is the lesser sensitivity of TMB to luminol, then there would be no reason whatsoever to follow a luminol test with a TMB. A negative TMB would not be meaningful, and a positive TMB is still not a confirmatory test. According to the Massei report (p. 258, English translation), Sara Gino testified about the use of TMB: “She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive…” This sounds reasonable if one believes that the purpose of the TMB test in the field is to reduce the number of false positives, as is my understanding. This interpretation is also consistent with Stefanoni’s testimony about the nature of the TMB test, as discussed in the Hellmann report: “Professor Tagliabracci, specified, without being refuted (hearing of July 18 2009, p. 174), that the tetramethylbenzedine (TMB) test is very sensitive, so much as to give a positive result even with only five red blood cells present. Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.”

As blood is made more dilute, the luminol reaction becomes fainter (http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/CSFS_vol39_bluestar_blum.pdf and http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/De...Light_Emitting_Blood_Enhancement_Reagents.pdf). There is no evidence to suggest that these luminol reactions were especially faint.

 

[otto]

What's the general conscensus regarding the prosecution's appeal? Is it good? Will it end in a new trial, or will it merely be another stack on the mountain of paperwork in this case?

 

[Kaosium]

Interesting then that AK was charged with theft... not RG.

It's extraordinarily interesting considering the lack of evidence that it could have happened, there being no motive being as she had plenty of money, and the evidence on the purse that the broke and jobless Rudy left there. It kind of gives you a taste of what really happened in the case: they had so much evidence of Rudy they tried to sluff some of it off on Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Kaosium]

What's the general conscensus regarding the prosecution's appeal? Is it good? Will it end in a new trial, or will it merely be another stack on the mountain of paperwork in this case?

My guess is it is a formality, though I've not yet seen the 112 page appeal document translated. Even if it is overturned, the new trial would be an acquittal, Amanda (at least) being tried in absentia. They cannot re-create the conditions of 2009 when they convicted them both off the absolution of guilt they built in the air in Perugia and the press. The 'evidence' has been exposed, there's no possible rehabilitation for it after the Hellmann Report, and a legal technicality (which is all the Court of Cassation rules on) won't change the fact there's no evidence of Raffaele and Amanda being involved, just conjecture and badly manufactured and sophistic evidence that's already been revealed for what it really is: the kind of 'evidence' that gets collected against innocent people.

Once the curtain has been torn down, there's no putting the aura of the Wizard back together.

 

[SMK]

What's the general conscensus regarding the prosecution's appeal? Is it good? Will it end in a new trial, or will it merely be another stack on the mountain of paperwork in this case?

I hope Kaosium is correct, but I have my doubts. I had expected the prosecution not to appeal at all, despite their vows. Now, it would appear that all is being questioned, opening the door to a comprehensive re-analysis. I am wondering if the whole past has not come back with a vengeance.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Interesting then that AK was charged with theft... not RG.

dgfred,

If Amanda stole money to fuel a supposed drug habit, then how is it possible that she would be able to deposit such a large sum? This is a paradox. I also find the general idea that Amanda had money problems to be without foundation. She had roughly 4000 euros in her bank account, as of 1 November was working, and also had a reserve fund of roughly $9000 with her parents.

I don't see the exact location of Rudy's DNA on Meredith's purse as being important; the mere fact of its existence suggests he handled it. However, even if you toss all DNA evidence in this case (for whatever reason), Rudy is still the far more plausible thief, for reasons that others have given.

 

[dgfred]

dgfred,

If Amanda stole money to fuel a supposed drug habit, then how is it possible that she would be able to deposit such a large sum? This is a paradox. I also find the general idea that Amanda had money problems to be without foundation. She had roughly 4000 euros in her bank account, as of 1 November was working, and also had a reserve fund of roughly $9000 with her parents.

I don't see the exact location of Rudy's DNA on Meredith's purse as being important; the mere fact of its existence suggests he handled it. However, even if you toss all DNA evidence in this case (for whatever reason), Rudy is still the far more plausible thief, for reasons that others have given.

I didn't say it was to 'fuel' a supposed drug habit. IMO is was all a part of the 'prank' to harass Meredith.
I also didn't say she had money problems... but I believe that is why Charlie posted the information (whoops) in the first place. I believe she might have even been planning to return the money before Meredith found out... but I doubt it.

Well, the RG thief scenario ONLY fits if there wasn't a prank or another reason (staging theft maybe) why the money was taken.
Still haven't seen any reasonable explanation of where the money for the 389.69 E deposit came from. In addition to the 215 E she had on her at arrest.
Why would the courts find AK and RS guilty of theft... but not RG :waitasec: ? Seems they had a reason or two.

 

[Malkmus]

I didn't say it was to 'fuel' a supposed drug habit. IMO is was all a part of the 'prank' to harass Meredith.
I also didn't say she had money problems... but I believe that is why Charlie posted the information (whoops) in the first place. I believe she might have even been planning to return the money before Meredith found out... but I doubt it.

Well, the RG thief scenario ONLY fits if there wasn't a prank or another reason (staging theft maybe) why the money was taken.
Still haven't seen any reasonable explanation of where the money for the 389.69 E deposit came from. In addition to the 215 E she had on her at arrest.
Why would the courts find AK and RS guilty of theft... but not RG :waitasec: ? Seems they had a reason or two.

They were only charged with theft, not found guilty of it.
How does stealing Meredith's money work into a prank scenario? I'm curious to hear the details of your theory.

 

[dgfred]

Well same thing. They must have had a reason or two to charge them for theft IMO.

Really? Honestly? I don't wish to type out a long answer to be told how it 'doesn't make sense' or it is 'ridiculous'.

I have a sneaky feeling that just might be the case.

 

[Malkmus]

Well same thing. They must have had a reason or two to charge them for theft IMO.

Really? Honestly? I don't wish to type out a long answer to be told how it 'doesn't make sense' or it is 'ridiculous'.

I have a sneaky feeling that just might be the case.

Fred, I usually try to explain why I don't agree with something in some detail, rather than just say "that's ridiculous". If you were to post your reasoning, I would counter (or possibly agree with some aspects) with data or anecdotal evidence. It's one thing to say you think the missing money is part of the murder, and another to explain why. One is more convincing than the other.

 

[dgfred]

I don't think convincing you of my theories is very likely from past experience.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't think convincing you of my theories is very likely from past experience.

No, Fred, it's highly unlikely you'll be abler to convince me that Meredith was murdered over a prank of any nature. However, I am not the only person in this thread reading your comments. There are others, some who believe the pair are guilty, some not, and some who are neutral. And if you make an argument that AK and RS killed Meredith Kercher over a prank involving stealing her money and it is convincing and logical, then I am the one who will look silly for dismissing it. And vice versa if the theory is full of contradictions and baseless assertions. It all depends on how seriously you take your own theory. If you yourself don't believe in it, then neither will others.

 

[dgfred]

Right. I'm worried for my baseless assertions. Thanks.

 

[dgfred]

Since you don't believe the money had anything to do with the prank, you don't believe it had anything to do with drugs, in fact you don't believe AK had anything to do with the stolen money at all... it seems my theory would have a hopeless beginning. If anyone from the neutral or guilt side is interested in my personal ideas they can PM me... or read at PMF.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dgfred, You wrote, "28. AK writes a story of a drug/alchohol fueled party and a rape/murder while under arrest." This was in the Telegraph: "Knox wrote the story in Capanne prison, sometime during the last two years, according to the Corriere della Sera newspaper. Prison authorities would not confirm whether it was her work or not. It was signed Marie (Knox's second name) Pace, Italian for "peace"." So we really do not know who wrote the story, IMO.