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

[sherlockh]

And now you lost me. What did I say about a footprint excluding someone? As we've gone over before, the footprints are simply guesstimated to be Amanda's and Raf's for multiple reasons. No reference prints of the other roommates to compare to, the prints themselves are mostly blobs, and prints were incorrectly photographed. So all it comes down to is the police recognizing what looks like prints and assuming they belong to Amanda and Raf. If you have evidence to the contrary please share.

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I referred to the bathmat as that is a good example of how they came (in the first trial) to the conclusions that the print excluded both Amanda and Rudy, and was compatible (indeed you can't say match) with Rafaelle. They don't just look at the lengths of the toes but at a whole set of specific characteristics of the foot.

Just saying that one print can't be Amanda's because one toe is a bit shorter or longer than another print of hers is therefore not logical as there are more characteristics of a foot involved in the equation. Whereas the length of the toe can differ from one print to another (from the same person). It just depends on how you put your foot down.

Especially in this situation I don't think they were calmly walking around but tried not to leave any prints. After all there is no clear trail of prints. Amanda herself gave an indication how they managed to do that with her 'bathmat surfing' story. Besides this print was inside Amanda's room. There are no indications that any other girl ever put 'bleach' on her foot and went in that room.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In Amanda's own words, she arrived at 9pm and so did Rudy and so did Meredith. Raffaele could have followed a little later, or Amanda could have picked him up because she got into a fight with Meredith and wanted revenge. Anything is possible. They all just lived minutes walking distance apart anyway.

You must mean the words of Perugia's finest, not Amanda's, but that is tangential. How did Amanda communicate with Rudi?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I already did. Apparently you think you know better than the coroner who did the autopsy. That is your right, just like it is my right to trust the coroner on his ability to distinguish a mushroom from an apple.

I rebutted your arguments from comment #601 in comment #604, and you did not respond to the rebuttal. I suggest you reread Massei. Only then will you be convinced that the problem is that Massei wants to talk about the time for complete emptying of the stomach, not the time at which it begins to empty. We have Lalli's report filtered through Massei's report, and something might have gotten lost in translation (I think that Lalli is at least as good at his job as Rinaldi and Stefanoni). Massei is careless with respect to the time of Meredith's meal, placing it at 7:00 to 7:30 (p. 119), when in fact none of the English friends placed it that late. Also, Massei wrote, "Thus Dr. Lalli, while affirming that gastric emptying begins as soon as one part of the stomach’s contents has become sufficiently liquid to pass through the pylorus, and that this occurs around the 3rd to 4th hour after the meal..." This is not a correct summary of the literature on this subject, as exemplified in the paper by Hellmig and coworkers. They indicated that the median t(lag) is about 82 minutes, not 120-180. Whether the error is Lalli's or is Massei's is not easy to determine.

The testimony of the consultant for the Kercher family, Professor Norelli is on p. 123 of the translation. "With regard to the gastric contents, he stressed that this finding could not be used conveniently to establish the time of death, due to the variability of digestion times, both from the physiological point of view and because of situations which may cause variability of these [digestion] times; above all, because of the impossibility of ascertaining when a meal was actually consumed, because it is clear that if I know for certain when the meal was consumed, then the situation can have significance with reference to the time of death, but if I don’t know with certainty that the meal was consumed at a given time or what [kind of] meal was consumed at that time, it is obvious that I can say very little on the basis of the digestive datum‛." Two of the major potential unknowns cited by Norelli, the time of the last meal and its contents, are known in this instance. Professor Introna's testimony also hit upon this point: "Professor Introna maintained that in order to apply these criteria, it was necessary to know the values of certain initial parameters: the time when the last meal began..." Professor Introna (p. 132) notes the time at which the meal began is the key. He used a time (6:30) which is actually later than the testimony of the English friends indicated.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei wrote, "Thus Dr. Lalli, while affirming that gastric emptying begins as soon as one part of the stomach’s contents has become sufficiently liquid to pass through the pylorus, and that this occurs around the 3rd to 4th hour after the meal..." (p. 177).

There is also a similar passage on p. 115 in the Massei report, "the emptying of the stomach then begins to occur when some of the contents have become sufficiently fluid to reach the pylorus, which happens the third or fourth hour after eating. This is when one can find food material at the level of the duodenum (page 63 of the Lalli report)."

My previous comment (#623) interpreted "third or fourth hour" to mean 120-180 minutes, but upon rereading this passage, it should probably be interpreted to mean 180-240 minutes, which is even farther away from two independent measurements of t(lag) in the scientific literature, both of which are near 82 minutes.

 

[Sonata]

That is the problem ... Knox stated that Patrick was guilty, therefore she had to be there at the time of the murder.

Hahahaha :floorlaugh:

So... you are stating that Knox is guilty. Ergo, by your logic, you were there?

 

[otto]

Hahahaha :floorlaugh:

So... you are stating that Knox is guilty. Ergo, by your logic, you were there?

Huh??? Knox knew details about the murder before the information was made public. She described that three people participated in the murder, and evidence supported that statement. She stated that Meredith "f-ing bled to death" before there was a cause of death. She was correct. She falsely implicated Patrick, a black man, and sure enough, we have Rudy Guede, a black man, convicted of participating in the murder.

From this, how to you jump to the conclusion that I must also have been present at the murder?

 

[Sonata]

From this, how to you jump to the conclusion that I must also have been present at the murder?

Haha, I don't. However, from the statement you made several pages back which I duly quoted, you imply that you must have been there. Your logic that Amanda accused someone of murder (even though that accusation was false) indicated that she must have been there at the time implies that since you accuse her of murder, you must have been there also. I am simply demonstrating the flaw in the logic is all.

She falsely implicated Patrick, a black man, and sure enough, we have Rudy Guede, a black man, convicted of participating in the murder.

I'm not sure what the racial demographic is like where you come from, or in Italy, but by UK standards the fact of two black men being implicated does not really seem significant. Especially when you factor in the Western tendency to 'blame it on the black guy', which is unfortunately still a problem in much of modern western society. Plus which, the implication of Lumumba came from LE initially, so I am not sure how one could argue that Amanda blamed him for the sake of pinning it on another black man. Frankly, if Amanda had been trying to place the blame on someone, and had been involved, wouldn't it be more logical to blame Rudy knowing that there would be evidence to tie him to it?

Knox knew details about the murder before the information was made public.

She stated that Meredith "f-ing bled to death" before there was a cause of death. She was correct.

Yes it was before a cause of death, but she was there when the body was discovered. Do you really think that she wouldn't have garnered anything about the body even if she did not see it? That someone couldn't have mentioned the pool of blood on the reveal? Or the fact that her throat was slit? I don't think Amanda needed to wait for a press release about the body that was discovered in her flat while she was there.

She described that three people participated in the murder, and evidence supported that statement.

Did she? I must have missed this. Reference please anyone?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

She described that three people participated in the murder, and evidence supported that statement.

Amanda said nothing to indicate that Raffaele was involved. Nor did she say anything about a supposed clean-up or a supposedly staged break-in. Amanda magically transports back to Raffaele's flat (or something), and she recalls waking up in his bed. There is nothing in between. Really, the whole statement does not make a lick of sense.

 

[otto]

What up with modifying my comments?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What up with modifying my comments?

I am not sure what you mean. I usually just quote a relevant sentence or paragraph, not the whole comment, when I respond.

 

[Malkmus]

Rudy's Skype call has been translated by PMF and still available. Here is what he said:


8:20-8:30pm they go inside and the scream happened 9:20-9:30pm. Do we really have to ask him if he means that Meredith was killed after about an hour?

This entails believing that Meredith and Rudy went into the cottage together. I don't believe that, nor do most people. There's no reason to think he wasn't there from the times he states. The only difference being that Meredith wasn't there until 9.

 

[Malkmus]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I referred to the bathmat as that is a good example of how they came (in the first trial) to the conclusions that the print excluded both Amanda and Rudy, and was compatible (indeed you can't say match) with Rafaelle. They don't just look at the lengths of the toes but at a whole set of specific characteristics of the foot.

This is a non-starter. First, Amanda is excluded from the bathmat because the print is much larger. And as we know the first and second courts have disagreed on the compatibility between it and Raf/Rudy. But as we also know, the defining characteristics of Raf's foot are not present in the mat (The hammer second toe, and mushroom shaped big toe).

Just saying that one print can't be Amanda's because one toe is a bit shorter or longer than another print of hers is therefore not logical as there are more characteristics of a foot involved in the equation. Whereas the length of the toe can differ from one print to another (from the same person). It just depends on how you put your foot down.

I would like to know what measurements were specifically taken into account to match any of the prints to the pair. They were, for the most part, shapeless blobs and no reference prints were taken of the roommates to measure their compatibility.

Especially in this situation I don't think they were calmly walking around but tried not to leave any prints. After all there is no clear trail of prints. Amanda herself gave an indication how they managed to do that with her 'bathmat surfing' story.

If the prints were made in blood and wiped away, why aren't they in the shape of wipes/streaks?

Amanda herself gave an indication how they managed to do that with her 'bathmat surfing' story.

The bathmat story managed to do what exactly? You and others on here have said this a million times but never explained how her story tries to explain anything. This is another example of something you find "unlikely' to be true but can't explain how it fits into a guilty theory.

Besides this print was inside Amanda's room. There are no indications that any other girl ever put 'bleach' on her foot and went in that room.

Any of those prints could be the other girls'.

 

[otto]

what you mean

Like this?

The problem with pulling a phrase, or sentence, from a comment is that anything taken out of context means something else ... or would you suggest that my modification of your comment is acceptable. I'm okay with that if that's the direction this thread has taken.

What you mean?

 

[Malkmus]

Huh??? Knox knew details about the murder before the information was made public. She described that three people participated in the murder, and evidence supported that statement.

The last time you stated this I asked for a citation because it isn't true and you never responded. So again, please cite where she said three people were involved in the murder.

She knew what details before they were public? That one of the reasons Meredith died was from bleeding to death? A detail that everyone on the scene knew that morning when the door was kicked down? Does that make Paola and Luca guilty too?

She stated that Meredith "f-ing bled to death" before there was a cause of death. She was correct. She falsely implicated Patrick, a black man, and sure enough, we have Rudy Guede, a black man, convicted of participating in the murder. (snip)

Why would his skin color be of any importance? Or were the police already looking for a black man? Would it have made a difference if Patrick was white? What does the text message which the police mistook for a rendez-vous have to do with his skin color?

 

[Malkmus]

Like this?

The problem with pulling a phrase, or sentence, from a comment is that anything taken out of context means something else ... or would you suggest that my modification of your comment is acceptable. I'm okay with that if that's the direction this thread has taken.

What you mean?

You actually modified Chris's sentence. He didn't do that to you, and his quoting of you didn't take it out of context. Also, this is something you should be bringing up to the mods. I think they would find your comparison laughable, and frankly, I find it rather childish which is probably why you didn't.

 

[Malkmus]

The problem with pulling a phrase, or sentence, from a comment is that anything taken out of context means something else (snip)

So you didn't actually mean that Amanda said three people were involved in the murder?

 

[otto]

So you didn't actually mean that Amanda said three people were involved in the murder?

Knox said that Patrick murdered Meredith and that she was in the kitchen with her fingers stuck in her ears. She said that someone ran past, out of the house ... and I really don't remember the rest of her lies. She's all about lies. The fact remains that evidence suggests more than one person was involved in the murder, and Knox claimed that more than one person was involved in the murder. Meredith bled to death and Knox, out of the blue, knew this before the body had been removed from the scene.

 

[Malkmus]

Knox said that Patrick murdered Meredith and that she was in the kitchen with her fingers stuck in her ears. She said that someone ran past, out of the house ... and I really don't remember the rest of her lies. She's all about lies. The fact remains that evidence suggests more than one person was involved in the murder, and Knox claimed that more than one person was involved in the murder. Meredith bled to death and Knox, out of the blue, knew this before the body had been removed from the scene.

So she never said three people were involved in the murder then. Hopefully this ends your repetition of this misinformation then.

 

[otto]

"Knox told police that she was in the flat when Meredith Kercher was murdered and actually stuck her fingers in her ears as Kercher screamed, according to The Star. Amanda's additional year of sentence resulted when she went on to name the alleged murderer at the scene as Patrick Lumumba, her employer at a bar in Italy."

http://www.examiner.com/article/amanda-knox-getting-bald-spot-as-defense-wraps-up-case

Knox knew that more than one person was involved, and that is supported by the evidence. She knew that Meredith bled to death before the cause of death was known.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Like this?

The problem with pulling a phrase, or sentence, from a comment is that anything taken out of context means something else ... or would you suggest that my modification of your comment is acceptable. I'm okay with that if that's the direction this thread has taken.

What you mean?

Anyone can click on the quoted phrase, and it will take them back to the original comment; therefore, it is not as if your original words can be hidden. I don't see a problem, unless you mean someone is deliberately changing the meaning of what you wrote. Do you have a specific example that you think is problematic?