Thursday, October 17, 2019
Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Presence: HIS Footprint Is Proved
Posted by James Raper
Prosecutor Dr Manuela Comodi introduced this very tough evidence
Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.
1. Series And Post Overviews
Previously in our hard-physical-evidence series we put Sollecito rock-solidly at the scene of the crime through his DNA in Meredith’s bedroom.
This post also puts him at the scene of the crime through a footprint unmistakably his. It was not Guede’s as one of the PR hoaxes has it - always a very weak claim, as there is no evidence that Guede ever took his shoes and socks off, and not even a compelling scenario.
Again, please bear in mind the trial circumstance. Read this trial report for a taste of how the footprint evidence sent the defenses into shrill disarray. Starkly obvious to the jury (panel of judges) but never without exception mentioned by the PR.
The purpose of this post is to explain exactly why the right sided footprint, as seen below in the bottom right hand corner of the bathroom mat, can be, indeed was, attributed to Raffaele Sollecito.
Saying that it was attributed to him is not to exclude any number of other people to whom it could also belong, but as we shall see we can, perfectly reasonably, exclude the two other suspects in the case, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.
2. Bathmat Footprint Evidence At Trial
In evidence was a forensic analysis of the footprint, undertaken by Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia, comparing the print to the reference prints, made on a flat surface, of each of the three suspects. After taking measurements it was clear that the print could not be attributed to Amanda Knox because her foot is smaller in size. That then leaves us with Sollecito and Guede.
The mat, of course, is not a flat surface. It contains the tufts of weave which form the pattern on the mat.
In this image below the colour has been enhanced, whereas the image above reflects the reality of a stain where the blood is clearly diluted, and this, in itself, is a matter which has a part to play in attributing the stain.
We can now consider what those comparative measurements were.
On the basis of the above measurements compiled from Rinaldi’s and Boemia’s Report, Sollecito’s foot is a far better fit for that on the mat than Guede‘s, and for this reason Rinaldi and Boemia came to the conclusion that the bathmat print belonged to Sollecito.
The trial judge, Massei, wrote -
“The analyses of the size of the big toe, Sollecito’s being absolutely the widest, led in itself to the conclusion of compatibility between the print on the mat and the right foot of the defendant, whereas the comparison between the sole print of Guede and that of Sollecito also demonstrated the different size of the plantar arch, with Guede’s narrower one attesting to the fact that the Ivory Coast national has an altogether narrower foot in comparison to Sollecito’s foot. The sole prints of the two defendants in question therefore present considerable differences in terms of :- (1) the big toe; (2) the width of the metatarsus; (3) the width of the plantar arch……”
Clearly the disparity in the width of Sollecito’s and Guede’s big toes is significant.
However Professor Vinci, Sollecito’s expert, disputed Rinaldi and Boemia‘s finding as to the width of the big toe on the mat. He noted that the big toe, as seen in Exhibit Two above, falls on elevated weave in the shape of a spiral. According to Vinci the flourishes of weave in this part of the curl of the spiral did not exactly match and the top right of the stain was not in fact part of the big toe, but attributable to the second toe. Once this was detached, the width of the big toe on the mat was more akin to the width of Guede’s big toe.
Furthermore, he argued, the detached stain could not belong to Sollecito because his second toe did not appear in his reference print - it did not touch the ground due to a case of valgus on the right of his big toe.
True, but the point is a non-sequitor as Sollecito’s second toe is not required for his big toe to match the width of the stain - indeed held back in a hammer position we should be even more confident of the width of the big toe - and, in any event, the mark to be detached could not belong to Guede’s second toe, as we shall see.
Massei was unable to agree with the operation of detaching the mark from the toe because it depended on an assumption that there was an interruption in continuity.
“The base of the material in the disputed point shows that the trace of blood is a single unit on all of the curl (flourish), and is uniformly linked, forming a single unit with all the other parts of the material on which the big toe was placed.”
Massei continued -
“Although it is possible to agree that in the calculation of the width of the big toe the point of measuring may fall in an unstained place, nevertheless a comprehensive view of the bathmat clearly shows why this was done. Considering that the small region under discussion is part of the tip of the big toe, the point on the right of the toe giving the 30 mm measurement lies along the line descending perpendicularly from that tip, without any widening……………..furthermore, the association of the bathmat footprint with Guede’s foot (see the CD ROM provided by Professor Vinci showing “the superimposition sequence” for Guede’s foot) appears, frankly, as strained, given that Guede’s footprint, apart from having a morphology which is generally longer and more tapered, also has a second toe print which unequivocally falls quite far from the big toe print, so that the small mark whose detachment from the big toe is in question here could hardly be attributed to the second toe of the defendant (Guede)”.
We can now move to how Hellmann considered the evidence when his appeal court acquitted Knox and Sollecito.
Noting that there is an unstained section of the bathmat print, where apparently Sollecito’s toe should be, were we to have a complete print of his big toe on the mat, Hellmann disparages what he considers is Massei’s assertion that one can simply draw a line down from the disputed mark of blood in accordance with the shape of Sollecito’s toe, hence arriving at a measurement for the width of the big toe coinciding with Sollecito’s.
Looking back I think that Massei did leave himself open to criticism with that remark, but more particularly because (unlike Guede) the vertical axis of Sollecito’s big toe (see below) does have a more obvious tilt to the left (which might be a consequence of the valgus and consequent “hammer position” of the second toe) and which, together with the blood on the flourish of the weave (on the right) would give a reading for the width of the big toe, without relying on part of that measurement falling in an unstained section.
However there are a number of other reasons which Massei believed were persuasive, and which Hellmann ignores. The first is a disparity in the length of the respective big toes, Guede having a longer toe than Sollecito. Secondly, the position of the left hand curve of the ball of the foot, and the lower section (the left side of the plantar arch – there can be a number of measurements here as the plantar arch tapers off significantly in width), on the bathmat is fairly clear and if one lines up the suspects’ curves with that on the bathmat, then the tip of Guede’s big toe is noticeably higher than the mark of the toe on the mat, whereas Sollecito’s coincides. In addition, the top of the ball of Guede’s foot is noticeably higher whereas Sollecito’s more or less coincides.
Below are the respective representative prints for Sollecito and Guede. Placing them side by side for comparison purposes is subject to formatting considerations. Superimposed upon them is an outline of the stain to illustrate the points made above. Of course, to some extent the outline of the stain is subject to one’s own interpretation, but I believe it is reasonably accurate.
Guede’s print has 7 points of disparity with the stain – Sollecito 1 as below.
Hellmann draws attention to the fact that the comparison print for Sollecito’s right foot shows that the distal phalange of the big toe (the part of the big toe which connects it to the ball of the foot) is absent on a flat surface, but is present on the bathmat, and that in Guede’s representative print the distal phalange is present.
Having criticised Massei for, he says, the subjective element of his interpretation, Hellmann then gives us his own subjective interpretation.
“Now, since the contact of the foot with blood took place on the floor of Meredith’s room, namely on a flat and rigid surface, the distal [phalange] would not have been able to have become stained, and thus it would not have been able to leave the very visible trace on the bathmat.”
Hellmann goes on to state that the print was left by Guede, in accordance with Professor Vinci’s contention.
But hold on! Why should we be required to accept that Sollecito would necessarily have stood in blood in Meredith’s room (and remember that the mark on the mat was diluted blood, which aspect modifies, if not negates, any direct correlation) or, if he did, that it was on a flat and rigid surface there, since there was blood on Meredith’s clothing on the floor, and indeed there were towels soaked in blood in her room, although it is not, at first sight, an unreasonable hypothesis? However, be it the assumption (which does not explain the diluted blood) is hypothetical given that Hellmann does not accept that the print on the bathmat is Sollecito’s, nevertheless Hellmann’s logic is circular and deficient given that there are no connecting bloody footprints between the blood in Meredith’s room and the bathmat print.
He could, of course, explain that, but not without giving credence to the removal of blood traces, which he ignores in his report.
Hellmann also ignores the pertinent and critical point made by Massei that the point of Guede’s second toe falls some distance from the big toe such that it is unlikely to be responsible for the width of the big toe on the mat.
Hellmann’s grasp of detail is poor, his attention is selective, and his grasp of context almost non-existent.
Cassation’s Fifth Chambers were worse, if that was possible -
“Finally, the footprints found at the murder scene can in no way be traced to the appellant.”(i.e Sollecito)
Yes, seriously, that’s all they had to say on the subject! They did not even give any reasons for the assertion.
But even if the bathmat print can “in no way” be traced to Sollecito, can it be traced to Guede? How did Guede get to the bathroom to leave his supposed print without leaving a trace on the way there?
It would appear, on the forensic evidence, that Guede left Meredith’s room and proceeded direct to the front door. Initially he left just- about -visible bloody left shoe prints. The blood trailed off but the shoe prints were picked up again by the application of luminol. He did not divert to the small bathroom, or for that matter to Filomena’s room to stage a break-in.
3. Defense’s Attempts To Nail Rudy Guede
Sollecito’s defence team had an improbable theory - that Guede, immediately after the murder and despite his homicidal rage, was smart enough to hop out of Meredith’s room on his left foot with a clean shoe on, and the other bare but covered in blood, and that having by this means entered the bathroom and washed his bloody right foot, disastrously leaving his (supposed) imprint there in the process.
He then returned to Meredith’s bedroom, inadvertently standing in blood again with his clean left shoe and leaving with a trail of bloody left shoe prints - in which case the exercise of washing his foot was entirely in vain, on two counts, after all that careful hopping around. Neither is it entirely clear why his right shoe came off in the first place. His shoes were foot-hugging Nike Outbreak 2. Improbable that one could have come off even in a struggle.
It is patently obvious that his washing his foot was the most inept performance in all this given the mark the foot subsequently left on the mat. The same observation obviously applies to Sollecito as well but in his case, and not with Guede, or any other unknown male, it is far more credible to accept that he had diluted blood on the sole of his foot for a reason unconnected with his having just washed it.
All the above, as it pertains to Guede, or another unknown male assailant, is exceedingly unlikely and there is a far simpler explanation. Someone with more time to spare than Guede, or his unknown mate, and with less risk of discovery attached, was responsible for the diluted blood and had inadvertently stepped in it.
There had, undoubtedly, to be blood on the floor (and elsewhere) between Meredith’s room and the small bathroom, probably prints, and these and other such traces (bathroom door, Meredith’s door etc) were deliberately and carefully removed by wiping them away with wet towels, cloths etc. Probably whoever had done this had then stepped on one of the towels or cloths in question and then stepped onto the mat without thinking. Hence the diluted blood.
It is interesting to note that Guede, during his stay in jail in Germany, wrote (emphasis added) –
“I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor.”
The reason for removing the blood was not just to conceal who would have made prints (the print on the bathmat was, after all, left in situ) but, from a visual perspective, to conceal any blood that might be noticeable and alarming to anyone approaching Meredith’s room. Guede’s bloody left shoeprints in the corridor, pointing to the exit, were visible but only on close inspection.
The prime stager, the person who would have had most interest in attending to a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces would, of course, have been Amanda Knox. It was a prerequisite if her account of having stopped by the cottage to have a shower, before the discovery of the body, was to work in the manner for which she hoped.
However, having attended to this she would then, from the position of her own narrative, be in a position to instigate and manage, entirely innocently from anyone’s perspective, the discovery of her flatmate’s murder. Visiting the cottage to have a shower and collect a mop, with no visible blood in unexplainable places to alarm her, was an indispensible opening sequence in the narrative.
She did, though, leave the mat in situ. This may simply have been because it never occurred to her that this could be used as evidence incriminating Sollecito and, of course, the absence of the mat would no doubt have been remarked on by her flatmates. Having eliminated other blood traces, removing the mat might have been conceived as being a step too far as it would have raised questions.
Finally Guede, for numerous reasons, is simply not a credible candidate for the clean up, particularly given the numerous and incriminating traces of himself that he did leave at the crime scene.
Given the comparative measurements, given the full context of the crime scene, including the removal of blood traces and the attribution of a luminol revealed footprint to Sollecito outside Meredith’s room, and given the fact that the murder weapon was in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer and that his DNA was on the bra clasp, there can be little doubt that the bathmat print belonged to him.
Posted by James Raper on 10/17/19 at 09:32 PM in
Comments
Judge Marasca places Raffaele Sollecito at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
He knows Sollecito’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp and Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife.
He knows the bloody footprint on the bathmat is a near-perfect match for Sollecito’s foot and that it couldn’t possibly belong to Rudy Guede.
He also knows that Sollecito repeatedly told the police a pack of lies. There is no evidence of anybody else being at the cottage on the evening of murder.
Is it so hard to connect the dots?
Countless people have been convicted of murder on far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in cases all over the world and nobody batted an eyelid.
Marasca has contradicted three panels of Supreme Court judges who think the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is strong. His report is contradictory and manifestly illogical. It stinks to high heaven. There should be an appeal.
Posted by The Machine on 10/19/19 at 03:23 PM | #
Hi Machine
“Marasca has contradicted three panels of Supreme Court judges who think the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is strong. His report is contradictory and manifestly illogical. It stinks to high heaven. There should be an appeal.”
All true, though a routine further appeal is ruled out.
But this is ITALY don’t ever forget?! Which in so many areas over many centuries has led the world, has the most fair justice system in the world, and is more patient than we are in expecting geological timespans to play out.
Play out as they almost always do in actions and reactions, zigs and zags, yins and yangs, what goes around comes around, karma at the end of the day. With its automatic three levels of appeal, in the justice system zigs and zags are actually built in.
Now in 2009 we all saw a just trial (Massei); in 2011 the appeal outcome was bent (Hellmann); in early 2013 we saw a just appeal (Chieffi) and in early 2014 another (Nencini) which followed Chieffi’s guidelines.
Finally in 2015 the last appeal was bent (Marasca and Bruno; note Bruno wrote the report) on the same lines as Hellmann, and quite remarkably, Chieffi’s guideline was miscontrued (illegal in itself).
Everyone in law in Italy knew that to assign the final appeal to the Fifth Chambers was in effect to hand it to a bunch of monkeys with typewriters. Murder law - in fact, criminal law in general - was just not their thing.
The Kerchers could have fought this for sure.
But of course they got no financial help from the UK government, and in their sole lawyer Maresca they had only a one-man-show, one with little English and no Cassation expertise, who was in some perceptions running scared. (He “dropped the ball” in not appealing the absurd pro-Knox Boninsegna outcome too.)
Quite apart from (1) all the FACTS you and many here point to which Marasca and Bruno mistated or ignored, also (2) they broke APPEAL LAW which included no sticking of noses into the evidence. Read this amazing report (it is an official document on file in the Florence court) on all those illegalities:
And (3) they ALSO broke appeal law in missing the sentencing report deadline of three months, late June 2015, by a full TEN WEEKS.
The Kerchers and their lawyer could have been appealed all this, too, to Cassation’s Chief Justice, or to the Council of Magistrates.
Post 2015, the only appeal route could have been to the President of the Republic who has the constitutional power to overturn court outcomes upon petition. But:
(1) the Kerchers alone have the power to petition here and it would have been long, costly and painful for them; and only a tiny fraction of petitions even get looked at anyway.
(2) the 2015 President is long gone. Also the PM back then, Renzi, and his Minister of Justice might have counseled “No” to the President, as the US government had applied a certain weight (along with Sollecito’s unsavory chums).
*******
Did Marasca and Bruno DELIBERATELY botch the Sentencing Report? A signal that the political and mafia pressures were like guns to their heads? Their way of blinking three times? And thus quite deliberately open it to attacks like ours?
Many law experts in Italy suspect they did.
A while back, we asked why the UK government had shelled out many millions to “solve” the Madeleine McCann case, but had offered the Kerchers zero financial help, to allow them to be in court for many more days and to hire a legal team skilled at Cassation appeals.
We in the US will soon leave the PR with nowhere to hide. I guess this is our last main task.
For you in the UK, perhaps your own last main task could be this? Mobilise a second look at the UK political level, as the McCanns have done.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/19 at 05:54 PM | #
@TheMachine
What about Scott Peterson? The only DNA was on the anchor and a hair.
For Marasca-Bruno to claim conversely Massei’s fact-finding showed ‘insufficient evidence’ you just know they have sabotaged a fair and strong conviction.
@JamesRaper Of course the bath mat is not sufficient evidence *on its own* but taken in context with the huge body of other evidence that fits a clear consistent patter it’s astonishing Marasca-Bruno can claim off hand it wasn’t Sollecito’s.
The clue to Marasca is in their resurrecting the wild and whacky theories of Hellmann and his side show of Conti & Vecchiotti and the debunked claim that the investigators were ‘suspectcentric’ when Chieffi Supreme Court and Massei had already weighed that legal argument and rejected it.
Posted by KrissyG on 10/21/19 at 01:01 PM | #
Hi Krissy,
There was no DNA evidence against Simon Hall either. The Innocence Project publicly supported him and his case was investigated by the BBC series Rough Justice in 2007. His supporters made the assumption that the absence of DNA evidence was evidence of absence. They also made the ridiculous claim he had no motive as if there is a logical and rational reason to murder someone.
His case was taken to the Court of Appeal in 2011, but the judges upheld his conviction.
He was convicted of the murder on the totality of the evidence. He couldn’t account for the missing hour on the night of the murder, he gave conflicting statements to the police and he was linked to the murder by fibres found at the crime scene. He later confessed to killing Joan Albert and he admitted was “seriously violent” and said there had been “sexual aspects” to the murder.
His wife called him a “highly disturbed individual”.
Despite the fact he confessed, his supporters are still in denial and demanding to know how he could have killed Joan Albert.
Jeremy Bamber’s legal team are still trying to quash his convictions for murdering hs family and free him from prison. His supporters are just as deluded as the supporters of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, Adnan Syed and Simon Hall.
Posted by The Machine on 10/21/19 at 02:16 PM | #
@TheMachine
It’s the syndrome of ‘find the one-armed bandit’ that made a series called ‘The Fugitive’ so popular once. People love a good mystery and they’ll write books explaining why they think a convicted killers is really innocent. It intrigues people and sell books. There is always an alternative theory.
In the James Hanratty A4 murder case the ‘new evidence’ was some landlady in Blackpool or up north claimed Hanratty can’t have done it as he was in her lodging house at the time. After a few of these theories you begin to realise it is just a defence tactic to sow doubt in the hope of a verdict overturn.
Posted by KrissyG on 10/21/19 at 03:54 PM | #
Hi KrissyG and Machine
Thanks for listing two kinds of helpful examples we could always use more of:
(1) incriminating evidence in other cases that amounted to almost nothing (especially compared to this case); and
(2) attempted poisoning of the jury pools by mafia tools and the PR of the defense forces especially by way of the CSI Effect.
In part this is a case of “follow the money trail”. The US Innocence Project parades its less than 400 releases (many generating huge windfall damages) but turns a blind eye to the est 200,000 wrongly imprisoned because they were made terrified during the “plea bargaining”.
What was the outcome to this surprising British government impulse, do you know?
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/21/19 at 07:05 PM | #
James Raper makes an ample argument why the bloody footprint on bath mat is logically Raffaele Sollecito’s. I think Knox should have taken a wet cloth and tried to rub away or distort the print on the bathmat more completely, but she had probably gone “blood blind” and hardly saw it after the massive amount of blood she had already tried to clean. She knew it wasn’t HER footprint, that’s all that counted perhaps.
Speaking of feet:
Raffaele was agitated and indignant when his shoes were removed from his feet at the Questura. Maybe he feared police were taking his footprint measurements. He remembered walking barefoot throughout the cottage and knew he might have left evidence on the floors.
Amanda was reactive to Filomena’s screams of “A foot! a foot!” when the door to Meredith’s room was opened. Knox may have subliminally remembered she had left a bloody shoeprint of her foot on a pillow in that room near the body. She might on the other hand have been reacting to “a foot, a foot” with incredulity, knowing there was an entire body in the room and wondering why the Italian girls would mention only “a foot”.
Knox might not have recalled that the duvet was pulled up over Meredith’s body slightly to expose the foot. Knox might have pulled the duvet over Meredith herself and thought she had fully covered her, thus was perplexed the foot was visible at all.
I agree with the heartbreaking roller coaster of Peter Quennell’s legal timeline where true verdicts were followed by bent juries, then appeals set things right only to have the next appeal backslide again into la-la land of a bad decision with compromises made politically. The long arm of the law may yet apprehend the real culprits, escapees from justice. I really liked Chieffi’s hard work to analyze the case and of course the bold Nencini.
I guess Francesco Maresca the Kercher’s attorney just didn’t want to extend the painful struggle for their broken family on slim hopes. Maybe he saw that Knox had been revealed as a killer by the press if not the courts so that some truth came out about what had happened to Meredith. He’d already seen the honest witness Toto die in prison for simply telling the truth about seeing Amanda and Raf talking heatedly in the courtyard as they peered down at the cottage on the fatal night. Poor Toto was “punished”, it seemed.
The footprint analysis was done as carefully as possible given the raised nap on the rug. Good logic would say it had to be Raffaele’s foot—Guede ran around with shoes on the whole time.
Guede’s telling remark in prison about “so much blood in the room and in the corridor” AND IN THE CORRIDOR reveals the Luminol did not hit on turnip juice in those hallway prints of Amanda’s.
I’ve been reminiscing after this post about the shock of the 2015 acquittal when many thought the case had been proven beyond doubt. Back then I shared how the Willie Nelson song “Uncloudy Day” helped me mourn the defeat and gave hope for long range justice. Knox and Raf also came to mind with the song “Just To Satisfy You” by Waylon Jennings where Willie Nelson joins him.
Brad Pitt listened to that as he went to do art sculpture at a friend’s, after Pitt’s marriage crashed. “How many tears were cried, how many dreams have died, just to satisfy you?” is part of chorus. Willie Nelson chimes in on one duet with Waylon, both lamenting a manipulative, game-playing disastrous lover.
On happier note I continue painting in acrylics. The latest amateur fun is a black silhouette of Space Shuttle, Saturn One and Saturn V rockets, (the latter took men to the moon) in front of blue and pink sunset. One day all will be right.
Posted by Hopeful on 10/24/19 at 08:32 PM | #
Amanda Knox has inserted herself into the public eye yet again.
https://www.newsweek.com/amanda-knox-calls-out-lady-gaga-1467816
Posted by The Machine on 10/25/19 at 05:53 PM | #
@The Machine, yes, I saw Knox’s slap-back to Lady Gaga’s comment that “Fame is a prison.” Knox tweeted something like, “I hear ya…but prison is prison” in a smart-aleck comeback. Knox is no doubt envious of GaGa’s fame and prefers to think of her incarceration as greater fame and a much bigger tragic drama. The narcissist Knox will insert herself into the public eye for the rest of her life.
She lives for it. She’s doing “VICE”, making speeches, running to conventions, setting up crowdsourcing for the world to pay for her belated wedding, and on interviews with Lester Holt on TV. The narcissist needs narcissistic supply like oxygen.
However, Nick van der Leek at True Crime Rocket Science puts Knox in her place. He has created a YouTube takedown of Gladwell’s facile opinion about Knox. It’s called “Debunking Gladwell’s Analysis of Amanda Knox” in a five part YouTube video narrated by Van Der Leek himself. There are photos from the crime scene, abundant.
The comments are loaded with powerful arguments from Harry Rag who does intellectual warfare with commenters Tom Graham and a “Francisco”. Harry Rag battles hard for the truth while Graham and Francisco are biased and rather dim. They can’t see the big picture, think the bra clasp and knife evidence were tossed out, don’t understand the dreadful import of Knox’s many lies and false alibis to police.
They try hard, they are tough opposition but they keep handwaving away every bit of evidence against Knox by pointing to her one written statement from prison where she said she was doubtful of the verity of her accusations against Lumumba. That pitifully lame and double-tongued retraction is enough “proof” to them that all is well, she’s innocent.
From that one penned statement every lie from her lips is handwaved away as stress-induced. The cell phone records that prove she lied about phone calls are considered a minor case of forgetfulness. The Knox commenters are mired in loving prejudice, blind as bats.
They must be family members basking not in truth but a barely concealed triumphalism due to Knox’s acquittal. Their beloved bird has flown free and now they seek to retroactively justify her. Not a chance.
Harry Rag overrides their specious reasoning time and time again.
The three of them (and many more) go to it hammer and tongs in the Van der Leek comments section but Harry Rag can quote chapter and verse and knows the case like the back of his hand. He has a steel trap memory for detail.
They try to evade his thrusts and parries but he wins every time despite odds of two against one, he’s incredibly intelligent—good man.
Nick van der Leek also totally refutes the bogus Knox and her muddled apologist Mr. Gladwell who wrote “Talking to Strangers”.
See website TrueCrimeRocketScience
Posted by Hopeful on 10/25/19 at 11:02 PM | #
A newbie here but I’ve been following this case for a several years now.
Initially I thought AK had been railroaded (media reports driven by PR). But it was soon clear that something was amiss in those conflicting stories.
Her testimony in court (YouTube) was the turning point. Then I found your site. Thanks to all of your hard work here to provide legal proceedings, witness statements, forensic testing, photos, translations .. and much more.
Thanks to Peter Q for suggesting than I join in and provide the odd item that you may not have seen. A couple of recent ones here:
from https://www.instagram.com/amamaknox/
Amanda seems to be fascinated with topics of death, murder, etc. with frequent innuendos to Meredith’s demise.
It’s amazing that she has such a large following and a ‘fan’ base.
Posted on Aug 28: a little book that she made.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B1tjvVfDPmg/
(unfortunately the comments are no longer viewable unless logged in)
and on Twitter Oct 09: “Finally, a horror film I can watch!”
Kittens recreate classic ...
https://m.imgur.com/t/funny/ztUC8a5 via @imgur
Posted by Julan on 10/30/19 at 08:43 AM | #
Amanda Knox seems to be trying to achieve the world record for appearing in the media as much as is humanly possible. Days after attracting media attention by sending a tweet to Lady Gaga, The Seattle Times has just broken the news she is going to have her own advice column for some obscure media outlet in West Seattle that’s on its last legs. It’s a non-story.
Knox has clearly contacted The Seattle Times because she has a pathological need to be constantly in the public eye. She has her own unique narcissistic personality disorder.
I expect she’ll attract more media headlines tomorrow when she invites journalists to take photographs of her in her Halloween costume. Her husband won’t need to wear a Halloween costume.
Posted by The Machine on 10/30/19 at 11:44 AM | #
Hi Julan.
Thanks for the always-welcome links and welcome. I followed the Machine’s Seattle Times link and this was something I had missed.
Knox recently married Chris Robinson, a member of the family that publishes Westside Seattle as well as the Ballard News Tribune and the West Seattle Herald.
Hmmm. Several years ago there were some mild attempts by our Twitter friends to engage those owners (struggling owners as the Machine said) and several furious responses came back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Newspapers
Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/31/19 at 02:10 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry The Best Alternative-Sources Series: Roberta Glass’s True Crime Reports
Or to previous entry The Hachette Hoax: A Guide To Our Dozen Posts