PDA

View Full Version : WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Nova
04-03-2011, 07:30 PM
I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Nor I. In all other threads I've seen, "pro-guilt" is understood to mean one believes in the guilt of the defendant or primary suspect.

otto and I have our differences at times, but nobody here has remotely implied that otto wants anything but justice in this case. If somebody were to do so, I believe there would be a mass uproar from both those who agree with otto and those of us who disagree.

otto
04-03-2011, 07:31 PM
Yet, no evidence whatsoever of cocaine being involved in this crime.

No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?

SMK
04-03-2011, 07:34 PM
Everyone wants to see guilty people prosecuted. Is everyone is "pro-guilt".oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)

Nova
04-03-2011, 07:39 PM
It's a can of worms and you know it as well as I. Dr Sollecito was interviewed, and there were a couple of hundred pages in his testimony. None of his testimony has been translated to English. The courts understood that the lovebirds had dinner, and when they did the after-dinner dishes the water leaked under the sink. That water spill was mentioned to Dr Sollecito during the 8:42 phone call. The lovebirds then left the puddle of water on the kitchen floor until the following day at noon. I know that you want to argue that the court's understanding was incorrect, that the water leak at 8:40 was unrelated to dinner, that they ate dinner some other time corresponding to Amanda's 9:30, 10 and 11 PM dinner times ... splashing around in the puddle while they cooked. Go for it ... we've had this discussion and I know your point of view. I assume you know mine.

Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.

Nova
04-03-2011, 07:43 PM
oh, this is silly---Pro can mean in this sense "belief in" -okie, you belong to the BIAK&RSG and I am in the BIAK&RSI (believers in their guilt versus believers in their innocence) or you can be in the BIPC versus DBIPC (believers in the prosecution case versus disbelievers in same)

I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.

Malkmus
04-03-2011, 07:43 PM
No evidence of any hard drugs of any sort? Isn't cocaine out of the system in a couple of days? When was Knox tested for drugs? After she was arrested ... 5 days later?

I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?

otto
04-03-2011, 07:44 PM
Are you confusing me with another poster? 'Cause I don't see the can of worms here.

Either Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was finished around 8:40 OR Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the leak and the Court assumed that meant dinner was finished. As I read the Motivation Report, it seems to be the latter.

There's not much I can do with hundreds of pages of untranslated testimony. I am working from the MR translation, but I find it odd that if Dr. S actually said RS said "dinner is over," the MR doesn't say so. Courts usually prefer direct testimony to circumstantial testimony; there would be no reason not to prevent both.

I have no opinion re the various times AK mentioned for dinner; I never argued for any one of them, much less all three.

But I do think it's important to distinguish between actual testimony and conclusions drawn from that testimony.

Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.

Malkmus
04-03-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm beginning to think otto doesn't actually care which terms we use. He merely wants to play word games and object to whatever terms we eventually adopt.

We might as well go back to "pro-guilt" and "pro-innocence." Everyone else seems to understand these terms perfectly well.

Yes, seems to be a lot of arguing for the sake of it today.

I'll talk to you guys later... Hope everyone had an enjoyable weekend! :)

Nova
04-03-2011, 07:54 PM
Sure ... anything is possible. It's possible that Amanda and Raffaele poured water all over the kitchen floor, decided to just leave it there, and then they cooked a fish dinner - splashing around in the puddle. Why not. That must mean that they really did eat dinner at 9:30, 10 and again at 11.

So I assume you are conceding that, as far as we know, Dr. S merely said RS spoke of water on the floor, not the actual time of eating.

That may mean that RS and AK ate earlier and discovered the leak after dinner, but it does not necessarily prove they did so, not in my experience.

otto
04-03-2011, 07:57 PM
The link I provided below is the discussion we had about the dinner, the leak, the dinner time. The discussion follows for many pages. I see no reason whatsover to repeat the discussion.

"m saying I don't know. 3 and a half hours is certainly long enough to have a small meal and then eat again later. (Particularly with college-age people; I find them to have rather irregular eating habits.)

Did RS say to his father, "We have now eaten our entire dinner and will eat no more tonight"? I doubt it. I think it's far more likely RS said they had been cooking pasta and there was a leak. That would be a more believable conversation.

In the Court Report, the judge merely assumes the cooking mentioned at 8:30 pm represented all the cooking for the evening. It doesn't not quote RS or his father as saying so.

Lots of European countries eat dinner later than we do in the states. Dining out at 10 or 11 is not at all uncommon.

So I repeat: why is it assumed that cooking pasta at 8:30 means RS and AK couldn't have cooked and eaten a fish at 11?


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994&highlight=leak&page=10

Nova
04-03-2011, 08:04 PM
The link I provided below is the discussion we had about the dinner, the leak, the dinner time. The discussion follows for many pages. I see no reason whatsover to repeat the discussion.



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994&highlight=leak&page=10

I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.

ETA: your post #238 on this page:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125994&highlight=leak&page=10


illustrates my point. You quote the MR as to the dinner times, but when it comes time to talk about Dr. S' testimony, YOU switch to your own voice to claim Dr. S testified that RS said dinner was over. You then continue to quote the MR, but the MR merely says Dr. S claimed RS mentioned a leak and then the MR deduces that dinner was over. I have questioned that deduction; it is an opinion, but far from a fact.

otto
04-03-2011, 08:05 PM
I'm sorry, was there somewhere in your post where you gave evidence that cocaine was used the night of the murder?

I think there are several uses of the word "conceivable".

otto
04-03-2011, 08:09 PM
I take my hat off to you, otto! That discussion was more than 2 months ago and I had completely forgotten it.

Yes, I also questioned at one time whether AK and RS might have eaten more than once. As I'm sure you know, pasta isn't usually the main course in Italy as it is in America (or it wasn't when I was there 30 years ago). So in theory, it's possible that AK and RS had pasta at 8:30 and fish at 11.

One would have to ask them. I wonder if anybody did?

Nonetheless, my question today concerned the testimony of Dr. S. It wasn't a trap to go back and discuss the eating habits of Italians or college kids.

It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.

SMK
04-03-2011, 08:45 PM
Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".http://www.*********.com/contributed-news/8583113-some-internet-forums-hostile-regarding-wikipedia-founders-review-of-knox-material

Nova
04-03-2011, 08:46 PM
It's just that we've had this discussion, and debated everything from the time of dinner to why police believe that occurred prior to the water leak. You stand steadfast in the belief that because this detail is implied, and not specified, dinner could have been later in the evening. I stand steadfast in the court's interpretation that dinner occurred prior to the leak. We've both presented our reasoning for our opinions ... and we've walked away standing by our original beliefs. Rehashing the discussion will not result in a different conclusion and therefore I see no reason to re-visit this can of worms.

We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.

otto
04-03-2011, 09:10 PM
Otto---Since before you had told me to check out the Wikipedia cabal discussion, I wanted you to see what one of the editors has said, aptly (this is from an article I did last week):

All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.”

This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Wikipedia reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.
From, "Some thoughts upon coming back to Wikipedia".http://www.*********.com/contributed-news/8583113-some-internet-forums-hostile-regarding-wikipedia-founders-review-of-knox-material

I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.

SMK
04-03-2011, 09:12 PM
I followed the changes to the wiki article for about a week, and then completely lost interest. Wiki is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but the Meredith Kercher article has turned into another war of wills where some want every single aspect of the case mentioned and debated on the online encyclopedia. Last I heard, there were something like 45 topics in the article ... they may as well publish another book. The Italian wiki article is still intact, and describes the case in very general terms ... which is what one would expect from an encyclopedia.
I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said. :(

otto
04-03-2011, 09:23 PM
We can certainly agree to disagree as to what the evidence implies, otto. (FWIW, I readily admit there may be something in the original, untranslated Italian testimony of Dr. S that makes the Court's deduction more probable. For purposes of discussion, however, I can only work with the translations we have.)

But when either of us takes our deduction (or even the Court's deduction) and presents it as actual testimony, we should expect others to object.

This is what is included in the Judges summary, and why I believe, as fact, that the pair ate dinner at about 8:30 prior to the water leak:

"She also had to get a mop, because the evening before, Raffaele, after dinner, had spilled water from the sink and was not able to clean it up." (pg 65)

"Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn’t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house." (pg 67)

"They ate dinner, ‚but very late‛ (page 77). They ate fish and salad. Then, while Raffaele was washing the dishes, from the sink, a leak was noticed: ‚water was leaking below and he looked at it; he turned off the water and then looked below the sink, and this pipe had become loose, so the water that was coming from the faucet was leaking out.‛ (page 77)." (pg 69)

"Returning to the episode of the water leaking from the sink of Raffaele’s house, she stated that that (leak) had happened after dinner" (pg 73)

"Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill" (p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink." (pg 78)

"He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor‛, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)." (pg 63)

otto
04-03-2011, 09:31 PM
I was asking your opinion on what the good gentleman editor hath said. :(

I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.

SMK
04-03-2011, 09:39 PM
I don't think the debate about whether the verdicts were just has any place in an encyclopedia at this stage of the game. The court of first instance has declared the three to be guilty. Rudy's appeals are complete. Amanda and Raffaele are in the middle of their appeals. I don't think it's relevant that some people think the verdicts were given in error. After the appeal, we will know whether there were mistakes. At that time, the verdicts could in fact be overturned. The encyclopedia could then include a clause about two people being convicted but new interpretations of the evidence overturned the verdicts. Dragging an encyclopedia article through the debate seems a bit ridiculous to me. I see no reason for the information to be updated hourly or even daily or weekly. The highlights should be covered, not the arguments about whether Barbie Nadeau's book is credible. Candace Dempsey even jumped into the mud and started spouting off all her credentials. The article is a mess ... and it shouldn't be.

Many issues are controversial, but it is not necessary to inject the controversy into the encyclopedia.

ETA: "credentialed experts" in the wiki article refers to people like Hendry ... people that were not there, did not visit the crime scene, did not examine the evidence, and who do not have any type of credentials that can be verified ... that much is pointed out in the debate.:mad::mad::mad:

Nova
04-03-2011, 09:41 PM
This is what is included in the Judges summary, and why I believe, as fact, that the pair ate dinner at about 8:30 prior to the water leak:

"She also had to get a mop, because the evening before, Raffaele, after dinner, had spilled water from the sink and was not able to clean it up." (pg 65)

"Raffaele, after having eaten, had washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes had occurred under the sink. And water was leaking, with flooding on the floor. Since they didn’t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day with a mop that she could get from her house." (pg 67)

"They ate dinner, ‚but very late‛ (page 77). They ate fish and salad. Then, while Raffaele was washing the dishes, from the sink, a leak was noticed: ‚water was leaking below and he looked at it; he turned off the water and then looked below the sink, and this pipe had become loose, so the water that was coming from the faucet was leaking out.‛ (page 77)." (pg 69)

"Returning to the episode of the water leaking from the sink of Raffaele’s house, she stated that that (leak) had happened after dinner" (pg 73)

"Francesco Sollecito also explained that, during the 8:42 pm call, his son mentioned "that while he was washing dishes he realised he had a water spill"(p. 45). This fact, which was also mentioned by Amanda Knox (who links it to the need to fetch the mop to dry up the floor), is relevant because it allows us to determine the time of dinner as being around 8:30 pm and before the call at 8:42 pm, in which Raffaele tells his father that while washing the dishes he had a leak from the sink." (pg 78)

"He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor‛, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)." (pg 63)

Thank you, otto. But only one of those references specifically mentions the leak with reference to dinner. (The others start with the mention that the leak was noticed while washing dinner and then assume that must have been after dinner.) The bolded reference from page 73 claims "she" testified that they noticed the link "after dinner", so perhaps they did and all eating ended by 8:40 or so. I'm assuming the "she" in question is AK.

I'm not entirely convinced, simply because I don't have a context for what exactly she said, what she thought she was saying, when she said it or why. HOWEVER, I understand why you consider the matter settled and, unless something else comes to light, I'll stop challenging you on the subject.

Thanks for the clarification.

otto
04-03-2011, 09:42 PM
:mad::mad::mad:

What are you trying to say .. that because people that follow the case are divided on the verdict it is important to recognize the controversy, or important to include the controversy in an encyclopedia.

otto
04-03-2011, 09:48 PM
Thank you, otto. But only one of those references specifically mentions the leak with reference to dinner. (The others start with the mention that the leak was noticed while washing dinner and then assume that must have been after dinner.) The bolded reference from page 73 claims "she" testified that they noticed the link "after dinner", so perhaps they did and all eating ended by 8:40 or so. I'm assuming the "she" in question is AK.

I'm not entirely convinced, simply because I don't have a context for what exactly she said, what she thought she was saying, when she said it or why. HOWEVER, I understand why you consider the matter settled and, unless something else comes to light, I'll stop challenging you on the subject.

Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, when I read the references I posted, I think all but the a couple mention the leak without mentioning dinner. The courts clearly conclude that dinner was before the leak.

I gave the page references so you are most welcome to read the context ... a context that clearly places the leak after doing the dinner dishes. Here's the document: http://www.westseattleherald.com/sites/robinsonpapers.com/files/attachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

I know that you don't want to believe this, and have said that you don't put much faith in the Judge's summary ... but that is not a reason to conclude that I am making things up. I am stating documented facts and referencing them. That you do not want to accept or believe those documented, referenced facts is not a reflection of my accuracy, but an indication of your skepticism.

SMK
04-03-2011, 10:01 PM
What are you trying to say .. that because people that follow the case are divided on the verdict it is important to recognize the controversy, or important to include the controversy in an encyclopedia.Both. :( and Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia--it is very newsy, trendy, almost tabloid-like. Why should they be surprised at Bruce Fisher's demands. Within their purview, he has rights. I certainly concede his right to have the controversy highlighted. Wikipedia is as many venues a mile wide and an inch deep. Of course the editor spoke rightly. :coffeews::waiting::nono:

otto
04-03-2011, 11:13 PM
Both. :( and Wikipedia is no ordinary encyclopedia--it is very newsy, trendy, almost tabloid-like. Why should they be surprised at Bruce Fisher's demands. Within their purview, he has rights. I certainly concede his right to have the controversy highlighted. Wikipedia is as many venues a mile wide and an inch deep. Of course the editor spoke rightly. :coffeews::waiting::nono:

That's an interesting perspective. I would agree insofar that the English language Meredith Kercher wiki article is like a tabloid at this time. Two weeks ago it was a normal condensed overview of the case ... nothing about the uncertain controversy (it is under appeal ... which should suffice for an encyclopedia entry). When researching architectural history, wikipedia functions like a traditional encyclopedia. I think that was the intent with wikipedia ... but the recent fiasco with this murder of a British woman in Italy has made wiki look like a bunch of circus clowns yelling "I'm right!".

otto
04-03-2011, 11:49 PM
It's conceivable, but what I don't understand is why AK and RS didn't go directly to the police. In your scenario, they invite a guest to the cottage and encourage him to ask MK to join them, but they have no prior knowledge that RG will rape and kill MK. So maybe they felt guilty on some level, but so guilty they didn't notice that they hadn't caused the murder? So guilty it never occurred to them that in staging a break-in they were only making matters worse? So guilty it never occurred to them that cleaning up was tampering with evidence? I find all that a stretch (ETA particularly since RS had a close relative who worked for the police).

But I have to wonder, why do you hold such enmity toward AK? Is it only that she accused an innocent man (no small sin, I agree)? Because in your scenario, she doesn't really do much to MK but say to a mutual friend, "Let's do some hash and party!"

***

Re the language barrier, I'm glad you're letting AK order pizza now. But the fact is we don't know her precise level of fluency beyond that. We know it fell well short of perfect knowledge of Italian, but how far short we just don't know.

Dempsey carefully documents the conversations that Amanda initiated with Meredith, and also with Laura and Filomina, about whether she was cheating on DJ. She raised the issue after she was seeing Raffaele (and another guy while she was seeing Raffaele), saying that she felt guilty because of DJ. DJ, on the other hand, said they'd split up. Amanda agreed and knew this ... so why did she repeatedly raise the issue about monogamy in relationships. Meredith did not judge, but was in favor of monogamy ... something that Amanda tried to justify breaking (with reference to DJ). That strikes me as weird. Amanda knew perfectly well that she and DJ were not an item, so why did she talk about feeling guilty with DJ and cheating on her non-boyfriend?

Thinking out loud ...

Meredith disagreed with Amanda's loose and carefree attitude towards men. Amanda was quite comfortable lying to police and accusing an innocent man of murder. She's a bold woman. After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go.

I don't like Amanda because she is not a very nice person. She's a liar. I don't like people like that ... I find them to be a waste of time and mental energy. She put an innocent man in jail and then remained silent for two weeks, at which time he was freed without a word from her. That makes her a liar of the worst kind. I also don't like her because she takes advantage of people, as we saw with her uncle in Berlin. I see her as an opportunist who thinks she's smarter than everyone else, someone that will exploit people if it suits her.

According to Dempsey, other than ordering pizza, Amanda couldn't speak Italian. Raffaele couldn't speak English.

otto
04-04-2011, 12:01 AM
The one where three people who had at most known each other less than a week conspire to kill a girl together out of lust? That's the only conspiracy I see. Otherwise, there's the well-documented incompetence on the part of police that led to what is probably two wrongful convictions, and is much more common in every part of the world. But that's just bad police work, I don't think they were smart enough to conspire against anyone.

Moreso the scenario where Amanda and Raffaele go to the square to score some hard drugs and they meet with Rudy. Perhaps he has to go somewhere else to get what they want, and the lovebirds wait in the basketball court. Perhaps they all go to the cottage to do drugs ... that is where Amanda was quite familiar with drug abuse. Perhaps the lovebirds, moreso Amanda, put Rudy up to a trist with Merdith ... suggesting that she would be up for it.

We are talking about two lovebirds that have nothing in common beyond sex and drugs. Who is to say that they didn't attempt to deepen their affection for each other with better drugs and an evening of fun ... and things got really out of hand.

otto
04-04-2011, 12:37 AM
Did Dr. S actually say that, otto? Because my memory is that the Motivation Report holds that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water at 8:40ish, and then the Report deduces that dinner was concluded by that time. That was one of the leaps in the MR that made me go, "Huh?"

You are right. The report deduces that dinner occurred prior to the leak.

8:42, Raffaele told his father that the pipe was leaking.
Amanda told police that they ate dinner and the leak occurred while doing dinner dishes.
Deductively, those two pieces of information mean that they had dinner before 8:42.

SMK
04-04-2011, 07:10 AM
That's an interesting perspective. I would agree insofar that the English language Meredith Kercher wiki article is like a tabloid at this time. Two weeks ago it was a normal condensed overview of the case ... nothing about the uncertain controversy (it is under appeal ... which should suffice for an encyclopedia entry). When researching architectural history, wikipedia functions like a traditional encyclopedia. I think that was the intent with wikipedia ... but the recent fiasco with this murder of a British woman in Italy has made wiki look like a bunch of circus clowns yelling "I'm right!". that is assuming the controversy has no objective valididty :snooty::snooty::snooty:

SMK
04-04-2011, 07:47 AM
After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go. If Rudy wandered down the hall thinking to score with Meredith, and she protested, it would seem an extreme thing to me to begin threatening her with a knife. And that would then be Rudy's responsibility. Would not really be Amanda and Raffaele in trouble, but Rudy. To join in at that point would be a huge and sudden escalation. I have always had more of an intuition that possibly Amanda and Raffaele had suggested to Rudy that he go rob Meredith because no one was home (I recall Rudy had been saying he needed rent money). They may have just been talking; maybe feeling annoyed with M. Then went to check on things later that night, saw what had occurred, and felt that to call the police now would only bring to light that they had opened the door to all. In reality, if such occurred, far better to come clean and let all point to the actual perpetrator. But imagine trying to explain to authorities and parents that you had suggested to this casual drug acquaintance Rudy that he go in there? And they may have imagined a caught Rudy saying, "Well it began when A and R told me I should go in, because the cottage would be empty." Of course, we don't know that any of this happened. It is only a nagging intuition. That scenario is as far as my mind goes when I try to picture that maybe AK and RS are not completely innocent or ignorant in all of this. I can never see the 3 of them attacking Meredith as real - unless they really were in a horrid, horrid fight with M, and M had been harsh and nasty and cruel and had gotten them enraged. But that does not sound like M, from all accounts I have heard.

SMK
04-04-2011, 07:59 AM
If Rudy wandered down the hall thinking to score with Meredith, and she protested, it would seem an extreme thing to me to begin threatening her with a knife. And that would then be Rudy's responsibility. Would not really be Amanda and Raffaele in trouble, but Rudy. To join in at that point would be a huge and sudden escalation. I have always had more of an intuition that possibly Amanda and Raffaele had suggested to Rudy that he go rob Meredith because no one was home (I recall Rudy had been saying he needed rent money). They may have just been talking; maybe feeling annoyed with M. Then went to check on things later that night, saw what had occurred, and felt that to call the police now would only bring to light that they had opened the door to all. In reality, if such occurred, far better to come clean and let all point to the actual perpetrator. But imagine trying to explain to authorities and parents that you had suggested to this casual drug acquaintance Rudy that he go in there? And they may have imagined a caught Rudy saying, "Well it began when A and R told me I should go in, because the cottage would be empty." Of course, we don't know that any of this happened. It is only a nagging intuition. That scenario is as far as my mind goes when I try to picture that maybe AK and RS are not completely innocent or ignorant in all of this. I can never see the 3 of them attacking Meredith as real - unless they really were in a horrid, horrid fight with M, and M had been harsh and nasty and cruel and had gotten them enraged. But that does not sound like M, from all accounts I have heard.Just afterthoughts: The reason I cannot see any of it as premeditated, is that if you are going to have a sex game and use knives, you will still have to see the person the next day, and then what? Amanda lived with Meredith, after all. Plus, this crime seemed disorganized: there was no attempt to dispose of the body. If they had, Meredith might have been like thousands of girls who "go missing" and are never found. Also, if they wanted to make this seem a random breakin by a stranger, they would have flushed the toilet, since they seemingly had a connection with Rudy. The more one tries to puzzle this out, the less it makes sense...:waitasec:

SMK
04-04-2011, 09:58 AM
:waitasec:In a sense though, all of the above ruminating annoys me, as there is no real evidence to suggest any of this occurred. Otto, don't you believe that skeptical intellectuals of forums such as JREF must at least have some reasonable causes for feeling that solid evidence of a 3 on 1 is really sorely lacking??? One post from that forum which they do allow you to link to, echoes my own belief about Amanda's "confession", and the more you think on it, the more it appears that LE in Perugia had tunnel vision and jumped to conclusions: Knox had been traumatized by the murder at the cottage, was having nightmares, which is typical in trauma, so they convinced her, as Amanda later says, "that my dreams are real".

But what I am suggesting is that the interrogating police had made the connection between the timing of the text from Knox to Lumumba, the content of that text (which they mistakenly interpreted to mean that Knox had arranged to meet Lumumba), and the fact that Knox was insisting that she'd been with Lumumba inside his apartment all night on 01/02 NOV 2007.

I'm suggesting that the interrogating police might therefore have concluded that Knox was lying when she said she'd been with Sollecito in his apartment all night.

I'm then suggesting that the police came to the conclusion that the only explanation for Knox lying was that she was involved in the murder, and that the meeting with Lumumba was an integral part of the crime.

And then I'm suggesting that the police might have put it to Knox that she was lying, and that they had evidence that she'd met Lumumba (or "the person to whom you sent this text message") and perhaps they told her that they had other evidence firmly connecting her to the murder scene.

I'm then suggesting that the police "suggested" to Knox that she was suppressing her menory of these horrific events, and that if she tried harder, she'd remember what "actually happened". The interpreter (Anna Donnino) gave evidence in court that she told Knox that once she'd broken her ankle, and that the trauma of the accident had caused her to forget the actual moment of the fall. This conversation would have made no sense unless the police were suggesting to Knox that she needed to remember the "truth".


I have no idea whether all this is what actually happened. It's just what I think might have happened, and I think it's a credible explanation as to why Knox suddenly placed herself at the murder scene and accused Lumumba.http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6893207#post6893207

ziggy
04-04-2011, 03:46 PM
OMG when I was about 26 living in Portland, OR, I met a guy from Lyon, France who was there on a temporary work visa. We had nothing in common but the love of laughter and fantastic sexual chemistry. Who cared that I could not speak French? We were obsessed with each other and inseperable. It certainly is not uncommon for a girl to fall madly in love with a sensitive guy with a sexy accent.

There is no evidence that Amanda was a hard core drug abuser...sheesh she smoked some pot. BFD. Even if they had taken something to enhance their sex lives (which you don't really need to do when there is intense infatuation and sexual attraction and the relationship is brand new) it's not the type of drug that makes one want to hurt someone to have sex. Otto...do you know anyone who rolls or have you ever? That is THEE drug to take for sexual enhancement and it's not likely to increase violence.

BTW, after separating for 20 years, the Frenchman found me on Google and called me up at my business four years ago...the minute I heard his voice I knew it was him. We are now facebook friends and he's getting married! We will never forget each other. It's a shame that AK and RS had to have their romantic fling tarnished.

I really can't even go much further in this case because the prosecutor's scenario is so outlandish and unbelievable. That is where the doubt begins and ends.

SMK
04-04-2011, 04:13 PM
OMG when I was about 26 living in Portland, OR, I met a guy from Lyon, France who was there on a temporary work visa. We had nothing in common but the love of laughter and fantastic sexual chemistry. Who cared that I could not speak French? We were obsessed with each other and inseperable. It certainly is not uncommon for a girl to fall madly in love with a sensitive guy with a sexy accent.

There is no evidence that Amanda was a hard core drug abuser...sheesh she smoked some pot. BFD. Even if they had taken something to enhance their sex lives (which you don't really need to do when there is intense infatuation and sexual attraction and the relationship is brand new) it's not the type of drug that makes one want to hurt someone to have sex. Otto...do you know anyone who rolls or have you ever? That is THEE drug to take for sexual enhancement and it's not likely to increase violence.

BTW, after separating for 20 years, the Frenchman found me on Google and called me up at my business four years ago...the minute I heard his voice I knew it was him. We are now facebook friends and he's getting married! We will never forget each other. It's a shame that AK and RS had to have their romantic fling tarnished.

I really can't even go much further in this case because the prosecutor's scenario is so outlandish and unbelievable. That is where the doubt begins and ends.
thanks for this great post.....what memories! And your post, in addition to the fact that I was reading Waterbury's analysis today, has made me feel so ill that this whole Knox affair has even occurred. Do you yourself have hope that the conviction will be overturned?

ziggy
04-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.

I just read an update in the Seattle paper online - I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

SMK
04-04-2011, 04:35 PM
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.
Oh, I agree, I thought they looked sweet holding eachother. But I am afraid I must agree with you about the idea that people have gone the route of "the police can't be wrong" and "you don't get arrested unless...." (i.e., "where there's smoke, there's fire")---this is really upsetting, the thought that if the convictions are upheld, many people will be gloating, even though still horribly, horribly in the wrong. I keep thinking there must be something that can be done....:(

Nova
04-04-2011, 04:59 PM
Actually, when I read the references I posted, I think all but the a couple mention the leak without mentioning dinner. The courts clearly conclude that dinner was before the leak.

I gave the page references so you are most welcome to read the context ... a context that clearly places the leak after doing the dinner dishes. Here's the document: http://www.westseattleherald.com/sites/robinsonpapers.com/files/attachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

I know that you don't want to believe this, and have said that you don't put much faith in the Judge's summary ... but that is not a reason to conclude that I am making things up. I am stating documented facts and referencing them. That you do not want to accept or believe those documented, referenced facts is not a reflection of my accuracy, but an indication of your skepticism.

Apparently I wasn't clear, otto. I apologize. I was AGREEING that you had proved your point.

Nova
04-04-2011, 05:18 PM
Dempsey carefully documents the conversations that Amanda initiated with Meredith, and also with Laura and Filomina, about whether she was cheating on DJ. She raised the issue after she was seeing Raffaele (and another guy while she was seeing Raffaele), saying that she felt guilty because of DJ. DJ, on the other hand, said they'd split up. Amanda agreed and knew this ... so why did she repeatedly raise the issue about monogamy in relationships. Meredith did not judge, but was in favor of monogamy ... something that Amanda tried to justify breaking (with reference to DJ). That strikes me as weird. Amanda knew perfectly well that she and DJ were not an item, so why did she talk about feeling guilty with DJ and cheating on her non-boyfriend?

Thinking out loud ...

Meredith disagreed with Amanda's loose and carefree attitude towards men. Amanda was quite comfortable lying to police and accusing an innocent man of murder. She's a bold woman. After scoring hard drugs in the square with Rudy, and the three of them getting loaded while Meredith is settling in for the night ... how do we know that Amanda didn't think it would be a good drugged up idea for Rudy to think that Meredith had the hots for him? How do we know that Rudy didn't wander down the hall to Meredith's bedroom, thinking he would get lucky, while Amanda and Raffaele listened or even snickered in the kitchen. Perhaps, when things went wrong, Amanda and Raffaele went to the bedroom and realized that things were already out of hand with Meredith ... that is, she was not going to let this go.

I don't like Amanda because she is not a very nice person. She's a liar. I don't like people like that ... I find them to be a waste of time and mental energy. She put an innocent man in jail and then remained silent for two weeks, at which time he was freed without a word from her. That makes her a liar of the worst kind. I also don't like her because she takes advantage of people, as we saw with her uncle in Berlin. I see her as an opportunist who thinks she's smarter than everyone else, someone that will exploit people if it suits her.

According to Dempsey, other than ordering pizza, Amanda couldn't speak Italian. Raffaele couldn't speak English.

"How do we know she didn't..." are problematic words when used with reference to someone convicted of murder.

If AK felt guilt about "cheating on an ex-boyfriend," doesn't that indicate a heightened moral sensibility? (Actually, it's probably just a matter of habit and sentimentality, but I'm curious as to your point.)

Despite AK's faults (and Lord knows they've been gone over with a fine-tooth comb since the murder), I just don't see her thinking that MK would be receptive to advances from RG. "Come to my house and we'll do drugs," maybe. "Sure, you can use my bathroom," perhaps. But "Come put the moves on my roommate?" I just don't see it. And I don't see scrubbing the apartment to cover for a relative stranger, not unless one is very, very, VERY involved in the murder.

But assuming that's what happened, I don't understand why neither AK nor RS have ever said so, not even when they were bowing to pressure and saying whatever they thought would get them out of the interrogation room. Even assuming ILE doesn't plea bargain as American cops and DAs do, it's still very odd neither kid ever gave up RG in an attempt to curry favor with ILE or the Court.

As for Dempsey, which language test did she administer to AK? I'm guessing none. I know from personal experience with Spanish that I can communicate and understand far more speaking one-on-one slowly than I can with a group or under pressure. Maybe AK and RS didn't discuss Kierkegaard, but that doesn't mean they didn't communicate at all.

But what's oddest is that those who insist AK spoke NO Italian will also insist that she was somehow able to enter into a conspiracy with two men who spoke NO English!

Nova
04-04-2011, 05:21 PM
You are right. The report deduces that dinner occurred prior to the leak.

8:42, Raffaele told his father that the pipe was leaking.
Amanda told police that they ate dinner and the leak occurred while doing dinner dishes.
Deductively, those two pieces of information mean that they had dinner before 8:42.

Yes, they do. It was AK's testimony I didn't know about, so the Court's logic seemed a leap. I appreciate the clarification.

Nova
04-04-2011, 05:30 PM
Sadly I don't have hope....

I don't have much either, but I think what hope there is lies in the fact that the first appeal in Italy seems to be something very different than an appeal here in the States.

Some posters here and elsewhere claim reversals are more common in Italy, but I haven't seen any hard figures.

SMK
04-04-2011, 05:48 PM
I don't have much either, but I think what hope there is lies in the fact that the first appeal in Italy seems to be something very different than an appeal here in the States.

Some posters here and elsewhere claim reversals are more common in Italy, but I haven't seen any hard figures.Very true. Problem is, this case has garnered so much attention in Europe and US,(even if some argue it is "just internet and media"--well, that DOES constitute public attention these days!) it makes me feel there is too much at stake to completely overturn conviction. Would this not amount to saying that they had been wrong all along about Knox and Sollecito? Plus as the Kercher family has trusted the ruling, they would experience it as Meredith's killers walking free---If they overturn, Knox's and Sollecito's might bring lawsuits against Mignini, etc - - at least, this is the fear. I truly believed they were guilty until I began to read, and am almost sorry I did if it will just end badly. :(

SMK
04-04-2011, 08:29 PM
I guess its going on right now, as they are on Pacific time (I am on New York Eastern ST): I wonder what is the goal of this:
Seattle U Forum to Make Case For Amanda Knox's Innocence
While Amanda Knox's appeals case plods onward in Italy, a Seattle University student group has organized a panel discussion and Q&A on the West Seattle woman's conviction for the murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia Italy in 2007.
The title of the event, Amanda Knox: The Case for Innocence, should give you an idea of the stance these panelists take on Knox's incarceration. The forum will be held on Monday, April 4 at Pigott Auditorium on the Seattle U campus. It's free and open to the public.

The panel includes some names that should be familiar to anyone following Knox's case, including Dr. Mark Waturbury, author of The Monster of Perugia, and local author Candace Dempsey who has also written a book on Knox's arrest, trial and conviction. Also participating are Paul Ciolino who has discussed Knox on the CBS show "48 Hours" and Steve Moore, the retired FBI agent who has spoken out about Knox's case.

The moderator will be Thomas Wright of the group Friends of Amanda Knox.

The event is sponsored by the university's BA Film Studies program.

April 4, 4-5:30 p.m. // Pigott Auditorium // FREEhttp://seattlest.com/2011/03/29/seattle_u_forum_to_make_case_for_am.php

sherlockh
04-04-2011, 09:12 PM
Sadly I don't have hope. I've followed a lot of cases and when the fixation occurs and the police start using their evidence to "fit" their theory instead of truly following the evidence, they actually are so committed to their theory, no matter how crazy and impossible it seems and no matter how little hard evidence there is. that their zeal seems to make them credible - and then there is the "police can't be wrong" feeling that most people have and "the person would not have been arrested if they weren't guilty" etc. Throw in some Barry Bond's size egos and the need to be right, along with a system that abhors the "re-trial" of any facts and give deference to the prosecutors, and you have a recipe for injustice. The Titanic turns ever so slowly and the damage is already done.

I must add that for the knife to have ended up as the murder weapon, one of them would have had to taken it (Amanda the villian of course) across town with the INTENT at that time to use it to kill someone. There were knives in AK and Meredith's house already. The intent had to be formed prior to leaving RS's- this does not fit.

An infatuated girl is so not going to leave her sexy man to engage in something like that - Amanda seemed to just be content to have RS all to herself and immerse herself in her euphoric euro-adventure. I don't find it at all disgusting that they were constantly practically entwined - it's a very rich and exhilerating feeling to have that little snapshot of an experience with someone made even more romantic and surreal knowing that you will eventually have to say goodbye and go home to your home country.

I just read an update in the Seattle paper online - I hope I am pleasantly surprised.
BBM. Not exactly cross town. Her boyfriend was only a few minutes (walking distance) away.

dgfred
04-04-2011, 09:18 PM
I'd have no problem saying I'm pro-guilt when it comes to Joran Van Dersloot, Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson if someone wanted to argue their innocence. I don't find it derogatory. You say no one wants to "advocate guilt" as if that's advocating child abuse or something. Not getting the logic.

Perfect time to say... WHY NOT have a problem?

Tactics can be turned around, that is why I find it so interesting seeing other post by some here and their points of view in other cases. Amazing some of the time.

*OT, but related in a way.

In Joran's 'case' for instance the exact same arguments that are used here could apply. No witnesses, 'false' confession, forced confession, changing stories and behavior used against him regarding guilt, rumors/stories of past behavior used against him regarding guilt, somebody else did it... it's just ALL THESE COINCIDENCES :innocent: . He is just a young boy in a foreign land, he didn't have an interpretor and admitted something he didn't really do. It's was a mistake because he couldn't understand the questions. They were yelling at him to confess so he did. He wouldn't hurt a fly, and his odd and annoying behaviors are just Joran being Joran. Anything he admitted on video is because he was deprived of food, drink and bathroom. When he said he didn't do it they did not tape it, or destroyed/hid those videos.
The police are lying to protect their image... and the prosecutors are all crooked and controled by the 'system' of guilt. The collection of the evidence at the crime scene was not appropriate for the US, and probably contaminated or planted. Any evidence of him in the room is because he lived there and not related to the murder. He was not there when the murder took place... but he can't remember what he was doing. Heck, he went to get her some coffee... why would he kill her? Someone else did it, any evidence that he might have is just another coincidence. His parent says he is a good boy and wouldn't murder anybody, much less two people.

CM didn't have anything to do with the Tate murders... he wasn't there.
The witnesses are mistaken or lying regarding testimony. The 'girls' false confessed about the murders due to police intimidation... we know this because there is no videos of the interrogations. Their strange behaviors and ways of life were used against them regarding guilt. No evidence of CM at the crime scene. He couldn't make others do these unbelievable and terrible things, he is just a small homeless man. Previous bad behavior and criminal background were used against him... every bit of evidence is circumstancial. He was living and having a happy life in the desert community, why would he want to murder anybody? They decided to murder those people on their own. Anything showing or someone saying that he might have is mistaken, misled or outright lying. Evidence showing he 'might' have given them weapons, the car or directions is just another one of those pesky circumstancial coincidences.
He was railroaded. The crooked system had to find someone responsible for this gruesome high profile murders... so everyone in the justice system either contaminated, lied, ignored, were mistaken, were misled, worked around, or were just plain wrong regarding his guilt. Even though he is in jail for committing this murder... he says he is innocent.

How about Scott Peterson... these tactics should have got him off too? No direct evidence, all circumstancial. Lying, bad behavior, cheat, and alot of circumstancial evidence put him away. A hair in a boat, Lacy could have been in the boat at some point. He was a sorry husband and person... so what, didn't mean he murdered anybody. No witnesses, no dna regarding murder, cleaning products were around kitchen because Scott liked to clean or Lacy was doing it while pregnant. A serial cheater but still loved his wife and was excited about the upcoming baby... and change of lifestyle. Only his wife and baby washed up at the precise area he was fishing at... surely just another COINCIDENCE right? Everyone wanted someone to pay for this terrible tragedy so he was the most likely suspect. The prosecutor and the Judges had it out for him, and they convinced the jury to convict. The defence did everything they could to debate the evidence, but the jury was blind, misled and given false information. The Judges at trial and appeals all just 'went with the flow' because they did not want to disrupt the system. His family says he is a super good guy and wouldn't murder his wife and child. He hasn't ever shown violence in the past, why would he start? Poor unlucky, misunderstood fellow... right?

How about OJ, that seems more the direction of the AK group argument? Did he get off on a technicality? Should he have? Was there contamination or mishandling of evidence... sure everyone can make a mistake but does that mean he didn't do it? Can all of his evidence of blood and mixed dna be explained/excused away? Yes. Was alot of the evidence circumstancial and past behavior looked at? Yes

Any of that kind of excuses and twisting seen here??? They didn't even have a PR firm behind their 'cause'. Would they have gotten off if they had? Are there people that believe/hope they are innocent, sure but it doesn't mean they are right.

Based on the evidence both circumstancial and direct AK and RS have been found guilty of being co-responsible and contributing to the murder of Meredith. They have been held since day 1 of their changing story and accusation of that night... IMO the many Judges that have looked over the evidence SINCE that point saw a reason(s) to do so and take them to trial. Since RG's case has already reached it's end by the confirmation of the Supreme Court, it doesn't bode well for the AK/RS defense at appeals IMO.

SMK
04-04-2011, 09:26 PM
Perfect time to say... WHY NOT have a problem?

Tactics can be turned around, that is why I find it so interesting seeing other post by some here and their points of view in other cases. Amazing some of the time.

*OT, but related in a way.

In Joran's 'case' for instance the exact same arguments that are used here could apply. No witnesses, 'false' confession, forced confession, changing stories and behavior used against him regarding guilt, rumors/stories of past behavior used against him regarding guilt, somebody else did it... it's just ALL THESE COINCIDENCES :innocent: . He is just a young boy in a foreign land, he didn't have an interpretor and admitted something he didn't really do. It's was a mistake because he couldn't understand the questions. They were yelling at him to confess so he did. He wouldn't hurt a fly, and his odd and annoying behaviors are just Joran being Joran. Anything he admitted on video is because he was deprived of food, drink and bathroom. When he said he didn't do it they did not tape it, or destroyed/hid those videos.
The police are lying to protect their image... and the prosecutors are all crooked and controled by the 'system' of guilt. The collection of the evidence at the crime scene was not appropriate for the US, and probably contaminated or planted. Any evidence of him in the room is because he lived there and not related to the murder. He was not there when the murder took place... but he can't remember what he was doing. Heck, he went to get her some coffee... why would he kill her? Someone else did it, any evidence that he might have is just another coincidence. His parent says he is a good boy and wouldn't murder anybody, much less two people.

CM didn't have anything to do with the Tate murders... he wasn't there.
The witnesses are mistaken or lying regarding testimony. The 'girls' false confessed about the murders due to police intimidation... we know this because there is no videos of the interrogations. Their strange behaviors and ways of life were used against them regarding guilt. No evidence of CM at the crime scene. He couldn't make others do these unbelievable and terrible things, he is just a small homeless man. Previous bad behavior and criminal background were used against him... every bit of evidence is circumstancial. He was living and having a happy life in the desert community, why would he want to murder anybody? They decided to murder those people on their own. Anything showing or someone saying that he might have is mistaken, misled or outright lying. Evidence showing he 'might' have given them weapons, the car or directions is just another one of those pesky circumstancial coincidences.
He was railroaded. The crooked system had to find someone responsible for this gruesome high profile murders... so everyone in the justice system either contaminated, lied, ignored, were mistaken, were misled, worked around, or were just plain wrong regarding his guilt. Even though he is in jail for committing this murder... he says he is innocent.

How about Scott Peterson... these tactics should have got him off too? No direct evidence, all circumstancial. Lying, bad behavior, cheat, and alot of circumstancial evidence put him away. A hair in a boat, Lacy could have been in the boat at some point. He was a sorry husband and person... so what, didn't mean he murdered anybody. No witnesses, no dna regarding murder, cleaning products were around kitchen because Scott liked to clean or Lacy was doing it while pregnant. A serial cheater but still loved his wife and was excited about the upcoming baby... and change of lifestyle. Only his wife and baby washed up at the precise area he was fishing at... surely just another COINCIDENCE right? Everyone wanted someone to pay for this terrible tragedy so he was the most likely suspect. The prosecutor and the Judges had it out for him, and they convinced the jury to convict. The defence did everything they could to debate the evidence, but the jury was blind, misled and given false information. The Judges at trial and appeals all just 'went with the flow' because they did not want to disrupt the system. His family says he is a super good guy and wouldn't murder his wife and child. He hasn't ever shown violence in the past, why would he start? Poor unlucky, misunderstood fellow... right?

How about OJ, that seems more the direction of the AK group argument? Did he get off on a technicality? Should he have? Was there contamination or mishandling of evidence... sure everyone can make a mistake but does that mean he didn't do it? Can all of his evidence of blood and mixed dna be explained/excused away? Yes. Was alot of the evidence circumstancial and past behavior looked at? Yes

Any of that kind of excuses and twisting seen here??? They didn't even have a PR firm behind their 'cause'. Would they have gotten off if they had? Are there people that believe/hope they are innocent, sure but it doesn't mean they are right.

Based on the evidence both circumstancial and direct AK and RS have been found guilty of being co-responsible and contributing to the murder of Meredith. They have been held since day 1 of their changing story and accusation of that night... IMO the many Judges that have looked over the evidence SINCE that point saw a reason(s) to do so and take them to trial. Since RG's case has already reached it's end by the confirmation of the Supreme Court, it doesn't bode well for the AK/RS defense at appeals IMO.
So it's basically a done deal, not really up for debate, nothing to sleuth, appeals process a formality merely, and all the various and sundry people of high intelligence who are crying 'foul' are deluded. :silenced:

SMK
04-04-2011, 09:31 PM
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(

sherlockh
04-04-2011, 09:46 PM
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.

Suthrnqt
04-04-2011, 10:26 PM
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.


I am not certain who did this crime, however, I am having a hard time believing it was AK. It just doesn't make sense to me.

JMO/MOO & all that stuff!!:twocents:

SMK
04-05-2011, 07:55 AM
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.From all I have read - and at this point I really regret reading so much on this case - I am satisfied with Guede's guilt but not with AK and RS's. And not for any personal or prejudiced reasons, either, but because of the evidence and his history as a brazen police-informer and burglar.

Nova
04-05-2011, 09:48 AM
Manson: True, he was not there. I will grant him that much.
Peterson and OJ: If not them, then, who???? With AK and RS, the answer is Guede. :(

Thank you, SMK. dgfred put in a lot of work comparing not just apples to oranges, but to pears, peaches and mangos.

But as you note, with the exception of Manson, none of the cases fred cites have an actual perp such as RG, whose presence and participation are undeniable.

As for the Tate/LoBianco murders and despite Mignini's wild theories, Amanda Knox is no Charles Manson. Prosecutor Bugliosi spent months in court demonstrating the hold Manson had over his followers; there is no equivalent evidence for Knox, except that she allegedly moved her hips suggestively.

Nova
04-05-2011, 09:50 AM
Are you sure that that is "the answer"?

According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.

I don't understand the reference to RG's friend and brother. Would you like to explain them to me?

SMK
04-05-2011, 09:53 AM
Thank you, SMK. dgfred put in a lot of work comparing not just apples to oranges, but to pears, peaches and mangos.

But as you note, with the exception of Manson, none of the cases fred cites have an actual perp such as RG, whose presence and participation are undeniable.

As for the Tate/LoBianco murders and despite Mignini's wild theories, Amanda Knox is no Charles Manson. Prosecutor Bugliosi spent months in court demonstrating the hold Manson had over his followers; there is no equivalent evidence for Knox, except that she allegedly moved her hips suggestively.Well said.

SMK
04-05-2011, 10:35 AM
According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.

right, this, because the original and reasonable idea that Rudy Guede was doing one of his B&Es and it turned deadly---had been rejected on some very odd evidence.

SMK
04-05-2011, 10:49 AM
Amanda Knox Panel - The Case for Innocence- April 4, 2011 University of WA at Seattle -Pigott Auditorium

sherlockh
04-05-2011, 10:53 AM
I don't understand the reference to RG's friend and brother. Would you like to explain them to me?
In reference to the only alternative to AK+RS being RG by himself as the killer. It is the defense teams themselves that came up with these witnesses that claim alternatives to the RG scenario.

sherlockh
04-05-2011, 10:58 AM
According to RS's defense witness Alessi it was RG's unknown friend.
According to AK's defense witness Aviello it was his brother.

right, this, because the original and reasonable idea that Rudy Guede was doing one of his B&Es and it turned deadly---had been rejected on some very odd evidence.
No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.

SMK
04-05-2011, 11:19 AM
No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.Well, if someone like Mark Waterbury as well as Ron Hendry and others are stating Guede's history of burglary as fact, why is it not being disputed, or why is it not stopped? Each is speaking as "a kind of authority" - forensic engineer, PhD. in the hard sciences, former FBI agent ; including a journalist who reports in a British news paper that Guede has committed 6 serious crimes in 33 days - on the case and one would think they would be truly raked over the coals for this sort of thing:


Rudy Guede was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher. His sentence was reduced to 16 years on appeal.

Rudy Guede was a drug dealer that was well known by the police. He had also been arrested for theft. It was reported that he had a knife in his possession at the time of his arrest. He became a suspect in the Meredith Kercher murder after his bloody fingerprint was discovered at the crime scene. Rudy's finger prints were on file from a previous arrest in Milan.

The owner of a Milan nursery school testified in court that Rudy Guede had broken into her school and stolen a big kitchen knife. Nursery school owner Maria del Prato testified that she had stopped by her school Saturday Oct. 27, when it was closed, and came upon Guede in her office.

"I asked him who he was," she told the court, "and he replied perfectly calmly, even though I had caught him red-handed." Del Prato said he told her he was "a kid from Perugia" who had arrived the night before and had nowhere to sleep.

Del Prato doubted his story, as her locker had been opened, and she said she believed Rudy was looking for something to steal. Some small change was missing, and Del Prato noticed Rudy had a laptop, but he told her it was his.
When police arrived at the school, they searched Rudy's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen.

Rudy was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released. It was this arrest that put his finger prints on file allowing the police to identify him.

When police tried to contact Guede they discovered he had fled to Germany after the murder. He was stopped in Germany trying to board a train without a ticket and was immediately extradited back to Italy. Guede was confronted with overwhelming DNA evidence that put him at the crime scene at the time if the murder. He admitted to being at the house.http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Rudy.html

OR: Rudy Guede, whom the overwhelming evidence points to as the murderer of Meredith Kercher, was a police informant.

In an article in the British newspaper The Daily Express, Bob Graham reveals the stunning news that Rudy Guede committed an entire series of crimes in the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher, crimes that were deliberately ignored by Italian authorities.

“It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing.

But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer.”

It is a well known fact that police often overlook crimes committed by informants, and it is a well known fact that one of the marks of an informant is that they can get away with crimes. From the Wikipedia entry on informants:

“Quite frequently, confidential informants (or criminal informants) will provide information in order to obtain lenient treatment for themselves and provide information, over an extended period of time, in return for money or for police to overlook their own criminal activities. Quite often someone will become an informant following their arrest.”

This information, in addition to previously revealed information (Wikipedia) about Rudy’s breaking and entering activity shows that Rudy Guede, the murderer of Meredith Kercher, in all probability worked for and was protected by someone in Perugia. All of this provides powerful evidence that Rudy was an informant. We don’t yet know what Rudy informed about. We don’t yet know exactly who he informed for, but the evidence points to Perugia. That is where he lived. That is where he committed most of his crimes while under protectionhttp://www.injusticeinperugia.org/MarkWaterbury-7.html

SMK
04-05-2011, 11:23 AM
In reference to the only alternative to AK+RS being RG by himself as the killer. It is the defense teams themselves that came up with these witnesses that claim alternatives to the RG scenario.
What choice did they have, seeing as Guede as lone wolf was being dismissed out of hand?

dgfred
04-05-2011, 11:28 AM
Thank you, SMK. dgfred put in a lot of work comparing not just apples to oranges, but to pears, peaches and mangos.

But as you note, with the exception of Manson, none of the cases fred cites have an actual perp such as RG, whose presence and participation are undeniable.

As for the Tate/LoBianco murders and despite Mignini's wild theories, Amanda Knox is no Charles Manson. Prosecutor Bugliosi spent months in court demonstrating the hold Manson had over his followers; there is no equivalent evidence for Knox, except that she allegedly moved her hips suggestively.

Interesting you see it that way. I see the same weak arguments regarding the participation of AK and RS in Meredith's murder being used by the group of AK supporters both here and in the media.

Could the same arguments used regarding AK/RS innocence be used in defending Joran? Why do you not question his guilt as you do for AK and RS?
Why are there not post questioning every single piece of evidence collected by the Puruvian authorities? Why is the media not chastised for tarnishing his reputation from previous bad/questionable behavior? Isn't he being found guilty in the press without a proper trial? Could his video confessions be the result of no food, drink or bathroom? Could they be the result of not understanding the language? Could they be from police intimidation? Was he coerced into making these statements because he is young and vulnerable?

S.Peterson was convicted to death on far less circumstancial evidence than in AK/RS convictions. Why do you not question his guilty verdict? Is his 'participation undeniable' as you claim for RG??? Why is the prosecution not questioned about the small amount of evidence? Was the press 'fair' in their interpretation of his lying/stories/actions/behavior?

In the case of CM, why is he convicted for something someone else did? Where is the 'evidence' regarding his involvement. Could it just be police intimidation and coercion of witnesses and suspects that caused his conviction? Could it be that the prosecution had it out for him because of pressure to find the killers? Why is that not argued to infinite? Why is the media not blamed for finding him guilty, since it was so high profile? The 'months' prosecutor Bugliosi spent showing the 'hold' Manson had over his 'followers' can be basically put down as a 'theory' of the State... without any hard evidence. Did the media tarnish his reputation before trial? Was the media 'fair' regarding the way it caused the public (and potential jurors) to view him?

*Not so far off in tactics comparison to what is used here on a regular basis.
I look forward to see some of you arguing for Joran's innocence... and to get S.Peterson and C.Manson out of jail because of their 'wrongful convictions. :innocent:

SMK
04-05-2011, 11:32 AM
. . .
*Not so far off in tactics comparison to what is used here on a regular basis.
I look forward to see some of you arguing for Joran's innocence... and to get S.Peterson and C.Manson out of jail because of their 'wrongful convictions. :innocent:
Surely you jest in your last sentence? C Manson and S Peterson convictions are in no way counter-intuitive. AK and RS are indeed counter-intuitive. Don't you think I have better things to do than argue for innocence just to get my kicks?

sherlockh
04-05-2011, 11:35 AM
What choice did they have, seeing as Guede as lone wolf was being dismissed out of hand?
You mean proven to be false? ;) I am just teasing you but these witnesses do seem like rather desperate attempts by the defense. I don't think that is going to work.

jjenny
04-05-2011, 11:38 AM
Exactly. There was very little physical evidence in Scott Peterson's case, as I recall. A hair in the pliers-but we all know Scott Peterson was convicted on totality of circumstantial evidence which included his bizarre behavior after his wife went "missing."
Why is it perfectly fine to use bizarre behavior after the fact to convict someone like Scott Peterson, but apparently not when it comes to Amanda Knox?

dgfred
04-05-2011, 11:43 AM
Surely you jest in your last sentence? C Manson and S Peterson convictions are in no way counter-intuitive. AK and RS are indeed counter-intuitive. Don't you think I have better things to do than argue for innocence just to get my kicks?


Well,
Could the same arguments used here be used in the Manson and Peterson cases? That was the whole point.

How is the conviction of AK/RS 'counter-intuitive' if they are guilty? Why are the same parameters not used in debating this case as in those? Why are the media and prosecution blamed when they were not in those cases mentioned.

I have no idea of your reasoning to argue innocence in AK/RS case... but why not the other cases too, where there is even less evidence for guilt?

SMK
04-05-2011, 11:58 AM
Well,
Could the same arguments used here be used in the Manson and Peterson cases? That was the whole point.

How is the conviction of AK/RS 'counter-intuitive' if they are guilty? Why are the same parameters not used in debating this case as in those? Why are the media and prosecution blamed when they were not in those cases mentioned.

I have no idea of your reasoning to argue innocence in AK/RS case... but why not the other cases too, where there is even less evidence for guilt?I think because the stories made sense. A man who is bored with his wife and having an affair with another has good cause to want life insurance money, to not want to be saddled with a child, etc. Manson, was responsible in the sense that he reportedly gave the address and suggestion to his group. With the Kercher murder, Guede had motive. I fail to see any motive for AK and RS. Sex doesn't resonate for me.

jjenny
04-05-2011, 12:06 PM
Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.

otto
04-05-2011, 12:13 PM
There you have it ... the experts have spoken. It's all lies, like the lie that Amanda had sex with 70 men in 60 days.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119233129.html?tab=video

Huh? Is that what the experts believe? No wonder they're experts ... errr ... pseudo-experts ... well ... maybe just a bunch of people making stuff up to suit their agenda.

otto
04-05-2011, 12:18 PM
No proof of breaking an entrance, no proof of smashing any windows, no proof of carrying knives (except from the school kitchen to the school office..lol..). Just internet gossips IMO. No matter who you think is responsible for the murder it is still an unbelievable scenario to me.

Check out the size of the knife blade! It's like the "I shrunk the black kid" powerpoint by Kermit ... about Rudy's shrinking footprint. Now we have the illusion that the knife was as long as a sword ... rather than 12 inches from end to end.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/knoxblade.jpg

(same link as above)

dgfred
04-05-2011, 12:20 PM
Didn't look like it was too interesting or very crowded either :floorlaugh: .

otto
04-05-2011, 12:22 PM
Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.

I think the three were all drugged up at the cottage, and Amanda put him up to seeing if he could get lucky with Meredith. He fled the scene as soon as Meredith was fatally injured, distancing himself from the lovebirds. He also opted for the fast track trial option because he feared that the lovebirds would try to put it all on him.

SMK
04-05-2011, 12:24 PM
Well if sex doesn't resonate for you, what is Guede's motive that you think he had? As I recall Guede had no history of either rape or murder.No, he had a clear history of break and entry, sometimes with a knife. I am assuming he thought the place would be empty, and was surprised by Kercher's early return. Being trained in karate, she fought back. That was his motive: to get her to stop fighting.

SMK
04-05-2011, 12:25 PM
I think the three were all drugged up at the cottage, and Amanda put him up to seeing if he could get lucky with Meredith. He fled the scene as soon as Meredith was fatally injured, distancing himself from the lovebirds. He also opted for the fast track trial option because he feared that the lovebirds would try to put it all on him. This sounds like fantasy to me. It just doesn't ring true for me. Would you think it if Mignini had not proposed it?:waitasec:

otto
04-05-2011, 12:28 PM
Didn't look like it was too interesting or very crowded either :floorlaugh: .

It didn't appear to be a student crowd ... looked more like a few dozen old guys. Gotta wonder why a bunch of old guys want to hear about a woman that "had sex with 70 men in 60 days."

otto
04-05-2011, 12:31 PM
This sounds like fantasy to me. It just doesn't ring true for me. Would you think it if Mignini had not proposed it?:waitasec:

Knowing that Knox lied about Patrick and then left him to rot in jail for 2 weeks, yes, I believe Knox is capable of anything. She clearly has no empathy or consideration for others, and is not inclined to do the right thing regardless of the consequences to others.

SMK
04-05-2011, 12:38 PM
Knowing that Knox lied about Patrick and then left him to rot in jail for 2 weeks, yes, I believe Knox is capable of anything. She clearly has no empathy or consideration for others, and is not inclined to do the right thing regardless of the consequences to others.Ditto Mignini. If Knox's actions count, so do his. They told a trauma stricken girl that her nightmares were reality. Shame on them.

ChasingMoxie
04-05-2011, 12:43 PM
Go look at the poll thread. There are many people with questions about this case and the group seems split. You can pretend that the obvious answer is your own as much as you want, but that doesn't make it real for everyone else.

I like watching the discussion here; the arguments I've read and the form and intelligence with which they were presented helped to solidify my personal judgement in this case. I care much less for any name calling (either direct or implied) or general tactlessness that crops up.

otto
04-05-2011, 12:45 PM
Ditto Mignini. If Knox's actions count, so do his. They told a trauma stricken girl that her nightmares were reality. Shame on them.

One of the prosecutors illegally wire tapped police and media. I suppose we have to allow for the possibility that this same prosecutor could illegally wire tapped police and media again.

Amanda demonstrated that she does not care about how her actions impact others, and that she is quite comfortable with the knowledge that someone's life was destroyed because of her actions and statements. We know that when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions, she will not do anything to assist. It's quite likely that Amanda's moral compass is permanently skewed and that she acted this way on more occassions than the ones that have been widely publicized.

So ... we have the possibility that the prosecutor will illegally wiretap someone and the possibility that Amanda will continue to selfishly, and without moral conscience, harm others.

Salem
04-05-2011, 12:45 PM
What's really disappointing about this, is that only one side was argued. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119233129.html?tab=video

It would have been much more effective to have the other side say why the evidence is good.

Maybe they did that but in the interest of time, the News just showed the key points from the defense's side?

Salem

otto
04-05-2011, 12:48 PM
It was very definitely not a debate, but rather an opportunity for those that view Amanda as a victim to promote their propaganda.

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:01 PM
One of the prosecutors illegally wire tapped police and media. I suppose we have to allow for the possibility that this same prosecutor could illegally wire tapped police and media again.

Amanda demonstrated that she does not care about how her actions impact others, and that she is quite comfortable with the knowledge that someone's life was destroyed because of her actions and statements. We know that when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions, she will not do anything to assist. It's quite likely that Amanda's moral compass is permanently skewed and that she acted this way on more occassions than the ones that have been widely publicized.

So ... we have the possibility that the prosecutor will illegally wiretap someone and the possibility that Amanda will continue to selfishly, and without moral conscience, harm others.
I just don't see where Knox did this: Patrick was suggested to her by them, under conditions of duress for her. Mignini was under no duress with his 20 indictments which were thrown out.

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:03 PM
It was very definitely not a debate, but rather an opportunity for those that view Amanda as a victim to promote their propaganda.I think they believed the prosecution's case has been set forth in news and reports, for all to see. This was not a debate, but a forum. It was to show their side publicly.

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:05 PM
What's really disappointing about this, is that only one side was argued. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119233129.html?tab=video

It would have been much more effective to have the other side say why the evidence is good.

Maybe they did that but in the interest of time, the News just showed the key points from the defense's side?

SalemI think they wanted a public forum to air their views, as opposed to a debate. It was presupposed that the prosecution's side has been given ample coverage in reports and press articles.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:10 PM
I just don't see where Knox did this: Patrick was suggested to her by them, under conditions of duress for her. Mignini was under no duress with his 20 indictments which were thrown out.

What are you not seeing? Amanda accused Patick of murdering Meredith. She then voluntarily (no duress whatsoever) wrote a statement confirming this accusation and delivered it to police, calling it a "gift". For the two weeks following this "gift", Patrick was in jail. He was arrested as a direct result of her "gift". Even though she knew this was a lie, and should have understood that the arrest would ruin his life, she did nothing to assist Patrick.

That is a particularly nasty thing to do.

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:10 PM
One of the prosecutors illegally wire tapped police and media. I suppose we have to allow for the possibility that this same prosecutor could illegally wire tapped police and media again.

Amanda demonstrated that she does not care about how her actions impact others, and that she is quite comfortable with the knowledge that someone's life was destroyed because of her actions and statements. We know that when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions, she will not do anything to assist. It's quite likely that Amanda's moral compass is permanently skewed and that she acted this way on more occassions than the ones that have been widely publicized.

So ... we have the possibility that the prosecutor will illegally wiretap someone and the possibility that Amanda will continue to selfishly, and without moral conscience, harm others.I have a sister who fits this description, who has made my life hell for decades. It's called malignant narcissism. If I felt Amanda were like her, I would want them to lock her up and throw away the key. I just don't see Knox as this.

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:14 PM
What are you not seeing? Amanda accused Patick of murdering Meredith. She then voluntarily (no duress whatsoever) wrote a statement confirming this accusation and delivered it to police, calling it a "gift". For the two weeks following this "gift", Patrick was in jail. He was arrested as a direct result of her "gift". Even though she knew this was a lie, and should have understood that the arrest would ruin his life, she did nothing to assist Patrick.

That is a particularly nasty thing to do.
IF I come to begin convinced of this version - as I have read numerous ones which show duress, guilt, being unable to retract - then perhaps I will begin to eye Amanda with less compassion. Also, she may have had reason to suspect PL, if they told her they had found a hair belonging to a black man, and if she was not there.

ChasingMoxie
04-05-2011, 01:21 PM
What are you not seeing? Amanda accused Patick of murdering Meredith. She then voluntarily (no duress whatsoever) wrote a statement confirming this accusation and delivered it to police, calling it a "gift". For the two weeks following this "gift", Patrick was in jail. He was arrested as a direct result of her "gift". Even though she knew this was a lie, and should have understood that the arrest would ruin his life, she did nothing to assist Patrick.

That is a particularly nasty thing to do.

In her written statement, didn't AK herself admit that the visions of Patrick at the cottage seemed more like a dream? I think I recall something like this, which in my mind bolsters the argument that her statement was created by the questioner's suggestion.

Or am I getting my instances confused?

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:21 PM
Also: The symposium was entitled, "The Case for Innocence", and in no way claimed to be a debate by both sides.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:23 PM
IF I come to begin convinced of this version - as I have read numerous ones which show duress, guilt, being unable to retract - then perhaps I will begin to eye Amanda with less compassion. Also, she may have had reason to suspect PL, if they told her they had found a hair belonging to a black man, and if she was not there.

It seems that some people are willing to overlook Amanda's horrendous lies, and her complete absence of empathy and compassion when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions. I would not want anyone like Amanda anywhere near me, my family, or anyone I cared about. I feel the very same way about Joran van der Sloot.

You've mention duress a couple of times. How was Amanda under duress when she, sitting alone, asked for paper and pen, and then wrote a statement confirming her accusations against Patrick? How was Amanda under duress a day, or 3 days, or even 14 days later such that she could not tell investigators that she told a big fat lie about Patrick?

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:23 PM
In her written statement, didn't AK herself admit that the visions of Patrick at the cottage seemed more like a dream? I think I recall something like this, which in my mind bolsters the argument that her statement was created by the questioner's suggestion.

Or am I getting my instances confused?
No, you are not confused. Amanda had been having visions and nightmares - very typical after one's home is broken into, and a friend murdered - she wrote that the police had "convinced me that my dreams are real."

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:26 PM
It seems that some people are willing to overlook Amanda's horrendous lies, and her complete absence of empathy and compassion when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions. I would not want anyone like Amanda anywhere near me, my family, or anyone I cared about. I feel the very same way about Joran van der Sloot.

You've mention duress a couple of times. How was Amanda under duress when she, sitting alone, asked for paper and pen, and then wrote a statement confirming her accusations against Patrick? How was Amanda under duress a day, or 3 days, or even 14 days later such that she could not tell investigators that she told a big fat lie about Patrick?As I said elsewhere:
Amanda had been having visions and nightmares - very typical after one's home is broken into, and a friend murdered - she wrote that the police had "convinced me that my dreams are real." I call this duress.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:27 PM
In her written statement, didn't AK herself admit that the visions of Patrick at the cottage seemed more like a dream? I think I recall something like this, which in my mind bolsters the argument that her statement was created by the questioner's suggestion.

Or am I getting my instances confused?

Amanda admitted that she was drugged up on the night of the murder, and she describes her memories as "flashbacks". Drugged up "flashbacks" are usually considered to be incomplete memories of actual events; incomplete because the drugs interfered with laying down a solid memory.

Still ... what prevented Amanda from speaking the truth about Patrick after she told her mother about her horrendous lies? Nothing, as far as I can see. She had 14 days to come forward, to show compassion for a life she was destroying, but she chose to remain silent. That, in my opinion, is completely unforgiveable, and it speaks to very poor moral character.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 01:36 PM
BBM. Not exactly cross town. Her boyfriend was only a few minutes (walking distance) away.

Still, there were knives at the house where Meredith and Amanda lived - why form the intent at RS's? BTW is there something in the background suggesting three ways? AK may have been sexually active but women don't tend to suggest bringing another woman in, men do. And if they decided to try and bring Meredith in, why the knife? This concocted story has too many GINORMOUS gaps that can't be filled with the scant evidence.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:37 PM
As I said elsewhere:
Amanda had been having visions and nightmares - very typical after one's home is broken into, and a friend murdered - she wrote that the police had "convinced me that my dreams are real." I call this duress.

From Trial Transcripts:

Prosecutor: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick." [In Italian: "I confirm..."] Do you know what the word "confirm" means in Italian? "In the flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrick as the murderer." There wasn't any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=8&t=165

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:37 PM
Amanda admitted that she was drugged up on the night of the murder, and she describes her memories as "flashbacks". Drugged up "flashbacks" are usually considered to be incomplete memories of actual events; incomplete because the drugs interfered with laying down a solid memory.

Still ... what prevented Amanda from speaking the truth about Patrick after she told her mother about her horrendous lies? Nothing, as far as I can see. She had 14 days to come forward, to show compassion for a life she was destroying, but she chose to remain silent. That, in my opinion, is completely unforgiveable, and it speaks to very poor moral character.Perhaps she was terrified that if she did so, they would go back to unfairly accusing her?

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:40 PM
From Trial Transcripts:

Prosecutor: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick." [In Italian: "I confirm..."] Do you know what the word "confirm" means in Italian? "In the flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrick as the murderer." There wasn't any policeman with you when you wrote that. No one. You wrote that in complete liberty. Do you know how to explain to me why? And this is even more decisive than what you said some hours earlier. Can you explain this?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?style=1&f=8&t=165Well, I cannot speak for Amanda, but if I were she, I would have said, "Since you lied to me, told me you knew I was there, told me I would be locked up for 30 years, told me the text from Patrick had great meaning, told me Raff was no longer standing up for me, when he really just admitted that while asleep he could not vouch for me also being asleep, I came to think your story about Patrick was reality."

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 01:46 PM
What are you not seeing? Amanda accused Patick of murdering Meredith. She then voluntarily (no duress whatsoever) wrote a statement confirming this accusation and delivered it to police, calling it a "gift". For the two weeks following this "gift", Patrick was in jail. He was arrested as a direct result of her "gift". Even though she knew this was a lie, and should have understood that the arrest would ruin his life, she did nothing to assist Patrick.

That is a particularly nasty thing to do.

Wasn't that statement given the night Amanda was grilled by LE without the interrogation being video/audio taped?
How many times has a person "confessed" or pointed to a person in these types of pressure cooker questionings because they believe they are led to believe it is the right thing to do.... You and I say would never do something like that, but then I've never been subjected to what Amanda went through that night.

What I need is some real evidence that AK was in the room when MK was murdered.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:48 PM
Well, I cannot speak for Amanda, but if I were she, I would have said, "Since you lied to me, told me you knew I was there, told me I would be locked up for 30 years, told me the text from Patrick had great meaning, told me Raff was no longer standing up for me, when he really just admitted that while asleep he could not vouch for me also being asleep, I came to think your story about Patrick was reality."

Why didn't she say that she told them a "load of rubbish"? Instead, she voluntarily, and without duress or coercion, confirmed the lies she told about Patrick. There's no excuse for that ... simply none. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving Patrick in jail for 2 weeks. This alone tells us that she does not care about how her actions and words destroy lives, and that she will not do anything to assist someone that is suffering as a direct result of her actions. Meredith didn't have a chance with Amanda as her "good friend".

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Wasn't that statement given the night Amanda was grilled by LE without the interrogation being video/audio taped?
How many times has a person "confessed" or pointed to a person in these types of pressure cooker questionings because they believe they are led to believe it is the right thing to do.... You and I say would never do something like that, but then I've never been subjected to what Amanda went through that night.

What I need is some real evidence that AK was in the room when MK was murdered.Bravo. Numerous case can be cited where reasonable people confessed to crimes they would never commit, and were later exonnerated by alibis and DNA (as in the case of Peter Reilly in Conn. 1974).

otto
04-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Wasn't that statement given the night Amanda was grilled by LE without the interrogation being video/audio taped?
How many times has a person "confessed" or pointed to a person in these types of pressure cooker questionings because they believe they are led to believe it is the right thing to do.... You and I say would never do something like that, but then I've never been subjected to what Amanda went through that night.

What I need is some real evidence that AK was in the room when MK was murdered.

Statements given as a witness could not be used against Amanda. The only statement that was admitted was the "gift" she voluntarily provided, without coercion or even a request from police, on Nov 7.

Are you viewing the bedroom as the scene of the crime, or the cottage as the scene of the crime? I ask because if we look at the Nancy Cooper trial, evidence is being presented from the car, the bedroom, the front foyer, the location where Nancy was found ... and so on. Should we tell those investigators that they're making a mistake and should narrow the crime scene to only the car, or only the front foyer?

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Why didn't she say that she told them a "load of rubbish"? Instead, she voluntarily, and without duress or coercion, confirmed the lies she told about Patrick. There's no excuse for that ... simply none. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving Patrick in jail for 2 weeks. This alone tells us that she does not care about how her actions and words destroy lives, and that she will not do anything to assist someone that is suffering as a direct result of her actions. Meredith didn't have a chance with Amanda as her "good friend".
From my understanding , ILE suspected Patrick, and coerced Knox to that end. It is clearly they who are responsible for his being jailed (did they not think to check his alibi first? Nope, too busy with their "vision")---and THEY are responsible for the APPALLING treatment this poor man received ( he was beaten, stripped of his clothes---just awful. :( ) I hope the poor man wins his lawsuit....

otto
04-05-2011, 01:53 PM
Bravo. Numerous case can be cited where reasonable people confessed to crimes they would never commit, and were later exonnerated by alibis and DNA (as in the case of Peter Reilly in Conn. 1974).

In this case, the DNA confirms Amanda's participation, not exonnerates.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:55 PM
From my understanding , ILE suspected Patrick, and coerced Knox to that end. They are responsible for his being jailed (did they not think to check his alibi first? Nope, too busy with their "vision")---and THEY are responsible for the APPALLING treatment this poor man received ( he was beaten, stripped of his clothes---just awful. :( )

So Amanda is not responsible for the statement she gave confirming her accusations against Patrick ... it is the fault of the police ... even though all they did was provide Knox with pen, paper, and a quiet place to write her "gift" statement?

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:56 PM
Statements given as a witness could not be used against Amanda. The only statement that was admitted was the "gift" she voluntarily provided, without coercion or even a request from police, on Nov 7.

Are you viewing the bedroom as the scene of the crime, or the cottage as the scene of the crime? I ask because if we look at the Nancy Cooper trial, evidence is being presented from the car, the bedroom, the front foyer, the location where Nancy was found ... and so on. Should we tell those investigators that they're making a mistake and should narrow the crime scene to only the car, or only the front foyer?
Since Knox lived in that cottage for many weeks, her DNA was all over it. Thus, we need really solid evidence - without blunders opening things up to contamination - that she was part of the murder scene and part of the action.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 01:56 PM
I think the three were all drugged up at the cottage, and Amanda put him up to seeing if he could get lucky with Meredith. He fled the scene as soon as Meredith was fatally injured, distancing himself from the lovebirds. He also opted for the fast track trial option because he feared that the lovebirds would try to put it all on him.

So how does the knife you believe is the murder weapon or at least involved, fit in here? If AK decided to put him up to it at that time and it wasn't pre-planned...

SMK
04-05-2011, 01:57 PM
So Amanda is not responsible for the statement she gave confirming her accusations against Patrick ... it is the fault of the police ... even though all they did was provide Knox with pen, paper, and a quiet place to write her "gift" statement?Why did they beat him? Arrogance and an agenda come to mind. They might have taken her "gift" with a grain of salt at that point.

otto
04-05-2011, 01:58 PM
Since Knox lived in that cottage for many weeks, her DNA was all over it. Thus, we need really solid evidence - without blunders opening things up to contamination - that she was part of the murder scene and part of the action.

Nancy Cooper was also most likely murdered at home (don't know yet, trial is ongoing), so should we narrow the crime scene to only one room in her house? Why do we want to reduce the crime scene to the bedroom for a trial in Italy, but trials in the US always include the broader crime scene? I've never heard of a trial in the US where someone was murdered at home and the crime scene was reduced to a few feet on either side of the victim's body.

otto
04-05-2011, 02:01 PM
So how does the knife you believe is the murder weapon or at least involved, fit in here? If AK decided to put him up to it at that time and it wasn't pre-planned...

It isn't my belief that the murder weapon is a couple of knives, that comes from the medical examiner. According the Raffaele, Meredith's DNA got on the blade when he playfully nicked her with they knife while she was having dinner at his apartment. How about that for a fishy explanation of the evidence!

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:03 PM
Nancy Cooper was also most likely murdered at home (don't know yet, trial is ongoing), so should we narrow the crime scene to only one room in her house? Why do we want to reduce the crime scene to the bedroom for a trial in Italy, but trials in the US always include the broader crime scene? I've never heard of a trial in the US where someone was murdered at home and the crime scene was reduced to a few feet on either side of the victim's body.No, you don't narrow the crime scene, but how can you prove when the DNA was deposited? If someone gets killed in my living room tonight, they will find my DNA all over the condo, in every room, where does this leave me?

otto
04-05-2011, 02:05 PM
Why did they beat him? Arrogance and an agenda come to mind. They might have taken her "gift" with a grain of salt at that point.

Personally, I don't believe that ... but ... You must be referring to the Daily Mail article, the one that includes this:

"Now, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Patrick reveals his feelings towards the infamous "Foxy Knoxy", and tells how the seemingly quintessential American turned into a tormented monster eaten up by anger towards both himself and Meredith.

"She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge," he says. "By the end, she hated me. But I don't even think she's evil.

To be evil you have to have a soul. "Amanda doesn't. She's empty; dead inside. She's the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant. I don't believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me for ever."

...

"Meredith was a natural charmer, a beautiful girl who made friends easily, and effortlessly received attention wherever she went," Patrick explains, sitting beside his pretty Polish-born girlfriend of six years Aleksandra Kania, 28, and their 19-month-old son, Davide.

"Amanda tried much harder, but was less popular. I didn't realise it at the time, but now I see that she was jealous. She wanted to be the queen bee, and as the weeks passed, it became clear that she wasn't. She hated anyone stealing her limelight ? and that included Meredith."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1IfnI3Zyt

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 02:09 PM
sniped:

Are you viewing the bedroom as the scene of the crime, or the cottage as the scene of the crime?

The bedroom is the center of crime scene, and that is where I look to see real evidence that AK was there when MK was murdered. Also, I find it amazing that RG did not implicate AK, I'm sure LE would have wanted him to...

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:09 PM
Personally, I don't believe that ... but ... You must be referring to the Daily Mail article, the one that includes this:

"Now, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Patrick reveals his feelings towards the infamous "Foxy Knoxy", and tells how the seemingly quintessential American turned into a tormented monster eaten up by anger towards both himself and Meredith.

"She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge," he says. "By the end, she hated me. But I don't even think she's evil.

To be evil you have to have a soul. "Amanda doesn't. She's empty; dead inside. She's the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant. I don't believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me for ever."

...

"Meredith was a natural charmer, a beautiful girl who made friends easily, and effortlessly received attention wherever she went," Patrick explains, sitting beside his pretty Polish-born girlfriend of six years Aleksandra Kania, 28, and their 19-month-old son, Davide.

"Amanda tried much harder, but was less popular. I didn't realise it at the time, but now I see that she was jealous. She wanted to be the queen bee, and as the weeks passed, it became clear that she wasn't. She hated anyone stealing her limelight ? and that included Meredith."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1IfnI3ZytWell, obviously this man has lost his objectivity, after his ordeal. Of course he is angry. But I am not taking his words as gospel, or proof that Knox murdered.

otto
04-05-2011, 02:09 PM
No, you don't narrow the crime scene, but how can you prove when the DNA was deposited? If someone gets killed in my living room tonight, they will find my DNA all over the condo, in every room, where does this leave me?

Why would Amanda's DNA be in Meredith's bedroom. The roommates had a common area where they socialized, and bedrooms were their private areas. Furthermore, Amanda has not claimed that she hung out in Meredith's bedroom. In fact, we know that as time passed, Meredith was not particularly fond of Amanda. Amanda's DNA should have been all over the kitchen/living room, but it wasn't.

minazoe
04-05-2011, 02:10 PM
It seems that some people are willing to overlook Amanda's horrendous lies, and her complete absence of empathy and compassion when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions. I would not want anyone like Amanda anywhere near me, my family, or anyone I cared about. I feel the very same way about Joran van der Sloot.

You've mention duress a couple of times. How was Amanda under duress when she, sitting alone, asked for paper and pen, and then wrote a statement confirming her accusations against Patrick? How was Amanda under duress a day, or 3 days, or even 14 days later such that she could not tell investigators that she told a big fat lie about Patrick?

Dude...you don't know Amanda or whether or not she has suffered due to the death of her roomate. You do not know the conditions or advice under which these letters or statements were written.

and there is no evidence that Amanda did any of these things she is accused of and no proof that she was not advised or coerced or forced.

none..and they could not prove their case here based on what they went to trial with in Italy...

people need to stop fantasizing and conjuring scenario's where there is no real base in reality.:takeabow:

otto
04-05-2011, 02:10 PM
Well, obviously this man has lost his objectivity, after his ordeal. Of course he is angry. But I am not taking his words as gospel, or proof that Knox murdered.

Maybe the Daily Mail is like the National Enquirer ... more fiction than fact.

otto
04-05-2011, 02:13 PM
Dude...you don't know Amanda or whether or not she has suffered due to the death of her roomate. You do not know the conditions or advice under which these letters or statements were written.

and there is no evidence that Amanda did any of these things she is accused of and no proof that she was not advised or coerced or forced.

none..and they could not prove their case here based on what they went to trial with in Italy...

people need to stop fantasizing and conjuring scenario's where there is no real base in reality.:takeabow:

Help me out ... what coercion was Amanda suffering when she was by herself on Nov 7 writing her "gift" statement? ... or ... is that the pro-conspiracy viewpoint where Amanda was actually forced to write that "gift" statement but she forgot to mention that in court?

sherlockh
04-05-2011, 02:15 PM
Still, there were knives at the house where Meredith and Amanda lived - why form the intent at RS's? BTW is there something in the background suggesting three ways? AK may have been sexually active but women don't tend to suggest bringing another woman in, men do. And if they decided to try and bring Meredith in, why the knife? This concocted story has too many GINORMOUS gaps that can't be filled with the scant evidence.
Why not form the intent at RS's? She wasn't going to attack her roommate on her own. And if that is indeed where they came up with some kind of plan of attack then it is very likely for AK to bring the knife from there. But we can only speculate on that. I agree there are gaps and of course we like to know the whole story, but that is not what the convictions are based on. They are all based on the list of 'scant evidence' :)

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 02:16 PM
Why would Amanda's DNA be in Meredith's bedroom. The roommates had a common area where they socialized, and bedrooms were their private areas. Furthermore, Amanda has not claimed that she hung out in Meredith's bedroom. In fact, we know that as time passed, Meredith was not particularly fond of Amanda. Amanda's DNA should have been all over the kitchen/living room, but it wasn't.
What kind of AK DNA was found and how much? Now if you show me it was in the from of blood, clumps of hair, or sexual fluid of an amount consistent with a crime, that would get my attention... and then there's RG not implicating AK or RS...

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:17 PM
What kind of AK DNA was found and how much? Now if you show me it was in the from of blood, clumps of hair, or sexual fluid of an amount consistent with a crime, that would get my attention... and then there's RG not implicating AK or RS...a fact which has been buried in silence...

ziggy
04-05-2011, 02:31 PM
It isn't my belief that the murder weapon is a couple of knives, that comes from the medical examiner. According the Raffaele, Meredith's DNA got on the blade when he playfully nicked her with they knife while she was having dinner at his apartment. How about that for a fishy explanation of the evidence!

But you maladroitly just avoided the question of how RS's knife got to the apartment to be used as the murder weapon if the intent was formed after they left the apartment.

Malkmus
04-05-2011, 02:33 PM
Lots of discussion over the letter Amanda wrote and the usual out-of-context quoting of it. I think it's best to at least present the entire letter here to see exactly what she said, even though I'm sure many of you have already seen it.

Transcript of Amanda Knox's note:

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).
The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.
3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 02:34 PM
Intersting - the bleach clean up. Under the luminol light test, when someone has performed a bleach clean up it is smeared and does not leave a visible pristine footprint. the cottage does not show a bleach clean up.

I vote for shower cleaner on the feet tracked onto the wood floor. Throw that evidence out!

ziggy
04-05-2011, 02:39 PM
Why not form the intent at RS's? She wasn't going to attack her roommate on her own. And if that is indeed where they came up with some kind of plan of attack then it is very likely for AK to bring the knife from there. But we can only speculate on that. I agree there are gaps and of course we like to know the whole story, but that is not what the convictions are based on. They are all based on the list of 'scant evidence' :)

In order to do that she would have had to decided while with her hot new Italian lover with beautiful lips, to grab a knife to assault her roomate with and leave to do the deed.

Choosing someone to bring into your relationship involves finding a person who would want to - I think she had an inkling that MK was not the person to ask this of. So, this makes no sense. She's in her love nest with RS and with no history of any of this behavior, takes a knife from his apartment, leaves with him to go murder her roomate for complaining about her being untidy? And when exactly did it become a sex orgy need for AK? Too many holes, wholly unbelievable and holy crap - people actually buy this. :(

otto
04-05-2011, 02:43 PM
What kind of AK DNA was found and how much? Now if you show me it was in the from of blood, clumps of hair, or sexual fluid of an amount consistent with a crime, that would get my attention... and then there's RG not implicating AK or RS...

He did implicate them.

What do you mean by how much DNA was found? I don't know what kind of answer you expect. A thimble full??? A bucket full??? I would refer you to the judge's summary where there are pages and pages documenting the DNA evidence.

otto
04-05-2011, 02:44 PM
But you maladroitly just avoided the question of how RS's knife got to the apartment to be used as the murder weapon if the intent was formed after they left the apartment.

Why not ask Amanda ... maybe her version will be more entertaining than Raffaele's version.

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:47 PM
"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

I for one would not be taking this as any clear accusation of Patrick. I would not be using this girl to clear up anything...

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:48 PM
In order to do that she would have had to decided while with her hot new Italian lover with beautiful lips, to grab a knife to assault her roomate with and leave to do the deed.

Choosing someone to bring into your relationship involves finding a person who would want to - I think she had an inkling that MK was not the person to ask this of. So, this makes no sense. She's in her love nest with RS and with no history of any of this behavior, takes a knife from his apartment, leaves with him to go murder her roomate for complaining about her being untidy? And when exactly did it become a sex orgy need for AK? Too many holes, wholly unbelievable and holy crap - people actually buy this. :(EXACTLY RIGHT, all the way...

otto
04-05-2011, 02:52 PM
"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

I for one would not be taking this as any clear accusation of Patrick. I would not be using this girl to clear up anything...

And how does all of this explain Amanda's extremely poor moral character where she left Patrick in jail for 2 weeks even though she knew that an innocent man was in jail because of her words?

SMK
04-05-2011, 02:54 PM
And how does all of this explain Amanda's extremely poor moral character where she left Patrick in jail for 2 weeks even though she knew that an innocent man was in jail because of her words?I think it was up to police to check this man's alibi, to be taking all this Knox kid had to say with a grain of salt, and to not be laying hands on this poor man. Patrick's true anger should be at ILE, and indeed, he is suing them for millions...

dgfred
04-05-2011, 02:55 PM
What kind of AK DNA was found and how much? Now if you show me it was in the from of blood, clumps of hair, or sexual fluid of an amount consistent with a crime, that would get my attention... and then there's RG not implicating AK or RS...

What about S.Peterson, where is the evidence there? There is none really.

What about C.Manson, he wasn't even at the crime scene?

What about Joran, couldn't his confession have been coerced or due to intimidation of Puruvian police? Did he have a lawyer present or was it only because he was a young confused boy in a foreign land?

Why are they seen as completely guilty, but the same views are not used in regards to this case. Why is this one 'special', as we saw with the fundraisers?

It seems that when you compare the cases, it is only because of
AK... and the trial being held in Italy instead of the US. The judges/jurors are no more incompetant as they would be here, and perfectly willing/able to do the job that they were required to do IMO.

SMK
04-05-2011, 03:08 PM
What about S.Peterson, where is the evidence there? There is none really.

What about C.Manson, he wasn't even at the crime scene?

What about Joran, couldn't his confession have been coerced or due to intimidation of Puruvian police? Did he have a lawyer present or was it only because he was a young confused boy in a foreign land?

Why are they seen as completely guilty, but the same views are not used in regards to this case. Why is this one 'special', as we saw with the fundraisers?

It seems that when you compare the cases, it is only because of
AK... and the trial being held in Italy instead of the US. The judges/jurors are no more incompetant as they would be here, and perfectly willing/able to do the job that they were required to do IMO.

I saw Charles Manson interviewed a couple of years ago about the night of the Tate murders, and when he got really agitated, and yelled out, "I never went out that night; I didn't break the goddam law!" I sort of saw his point. Scott Peterson case, it is kind of obvious he is the only one with motive and opportunity. Never heard of this other fellow. I don't know what good fundraisers do. I think Amanda and Raffaele ought never to have spoken to the police without an attorney present, and had they followed that rule, I think Guede would have been the only one arrested and convicted.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 03:11 PM
And how does all of this explain Amanda's extremely poor moral character where she left Patrick in jail for 2 weeks even though she knew that an innocent man was in jail because of her words?

We cannot be convicted on bad moral character nor should we judge a person's character by what they may do when faced with such a shocking situation, coercion and fear - as it is proven that all people deal with crisis differently. Heck - if I knew I were innocent but my only way out was to throw some guy I barely knew under the bus and let the police sort it out and I was in extreme fear, I'd throw said person under the bus. I am going to survive and not be screwed over by the police no matter what. Some people have survival skills that you may judge as immoral, but you can't put yourself in that place honestly and know exactly what YOU would do.

SMK
04-05-2011, 03:13 PM
We cannot be convicted on bad moral character nor should we judge a person's character by what they may do when faced with such a shocking situation, coercion and fear - as it is proven that all people deal with crisis differently. Heck - if I knew I were innocent but my only way out was to throw some guy I barely knew under the bus and let the police sort it out and I was in extreme fear, I'd throw said person under the bus. I am going to survive and not be screwed over by the police no matter what. Some people have survival skills that you may judge as immoral, but you can't put yourself in that place honestly and know exactly what YOU would do.
That had occurred to me , too---better Patrick than me, and under such conditions, who can blame her? Ultimate responsibility belongs to aggressive cops.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 03:20 PM
Yeah, you wanna call that bad moral character? If it's me I wanna call it being coerced to throw them a bone - done - get them off my scent until I can figure out what the hell just happened. It doesn't necessarily go to guilt or innocence or bad moral character. It has to be viewed in the totality of the circumstances.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 03:25 PM
What is the motivation NOT to test the semen on the pillow?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the bra clasp immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect Meredith's purse immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to recklessly move Meredith's sweatshirt/coat around and not collect it immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the rug immediately?

Rudy is all friggin over that crime scene but the investigators have to scrape for evidence of AK and RS.

And it is impossible for two out of three attackers/murderers to clean up ONLY the evidence that implicates them and leave a buttload that implicates the third. Nonsense!

otto
04-05-2011, 03:27 PM
I think it was up to police to check this man's alibi, to be taking all this Knox kid had to say with a grain of salt, and to not be laying hands on this poor man. Patrick's true anger should be at ILE, and indeed, he is suing them for millions...

Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?

ziggy
04-05-2011, 03:29 PM
Personally I'd like to see what's on that prosecutor's computer. What kind of fantasies are recorded there? It's just as easy to speculate that he might be harboring some sexually perverted fantasies of his own, asserted it into his investigation because it caused a stirring and then proceeded to make the evidence fit - as it is to believe that AK suddenly became a nymphomaniac/murderess. All it takes is speculation it seems to convince many of a "story".

SMK
04-05-2011, 03:31 PM
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?Amanda's confused blather is unlike most eye witness reports. Yes, they ought to have checked an alibi to see if he could be eliminated before jumping to conclusions and beating this poor man.

Malkmus
04-05-2011, 03:31 PM
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?

They bring him/her in for questioning- especially if the witness didn't see the murder happen, because, you know, he/she might have an alibi.

otto
04-05-2011, 03:32 PM
We cannot be convicted on bad moral character nor should we judge a person's character by what they may do when faced with such a shocking situation, coercion and fear - as it is proven that all people deal with crisis differently. Heck - if I knew I were innocent but my only way out was to throw some guy I barely knew under the bus and let the police sort it out and I was in extreme fear, I'd throw said person under the bus. I am going to survive and not be screwed over by the police no matter what. Some people have survival skills that you may judge as immoral, but you can't put yourself in that place honestly and know exactly what YOU would do.

I will judge people by their actions, and Amanda's actions speak of poor moral character. Others are free to judge people as they please. If you meet someone and learn that they are a liar, you may well choose to pursue a relationship with that liar. Personally, I would run in the opposite direction.

I honestly know that if I lied and my boss was jailed because of my lie ... I would do everything I could to straighten it out as fast as possible. It's absurd to suggest that people do not honestly know what they would do in that situation ... absolutely absurd.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 03:33 PM
Are you saying that in the states, when an eye witness identifies a murderer, police let the guy do as he wants until police can verify that there are no alibi witnesses?

UH, no but they detain him and IMMEDIATELY check alibis - and release him. They don't keep him jailed for weeks. We actually care about a persons rights.

otto
04-05-2011, 03:36 PM
They bring him/her in for questioning- especially if the witness didn't see the murder happen, because, you know, he/she might have an alibi.

It took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward. If an eyewitness identifies a murderer anywhere, that person is arrested. Numerous rape convictions were obtained using this process in the US ... eye witness, arrest, conviction. End of story. In this case, fortunately that eye-witness testimony was proven to be a lie.

dgfred
04-05-2011, 03:36 PM
What is the motivation NOT to test the semen on the pillow?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the bra clasp immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect Meredith's purse immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to recklessly move Meredith's sweatshirt/coat around and not collect it immediately?
What is the motivation NOT to collect the rug immediately?

Rudy is all friggin over that crime scene but the investigators have to scrape for evidence of AK and RS.

And it is impossible for two out of three attackers/murderers to clean up ONLY the evidence that implicates them and leave a buttload that implicates the third. Nonsense!

OK:
Why are you calling it a semen stain. Do you have transcripts describing this evidence? Wasn't the value of the bloody prints on/near/around it considered more important than a stain they couldn't date?

Why does evidence have to be collected immediately from a SEALED and protected crime scene?

If the item is photographed in its original position does it matter if it is moved?

How much evidence is appropriate? How much would they have had to clean up? The knives, the footprints, get rid of clothes, wash off in bathroom... what else?

*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.

otto
04-05-2011, 03:39 PM
UH, no but they detain him and IMMEDIATELY check alibis - and release him. They don't keep him jailed for weeks. We actually care about a persons rights.

Maybe murderers, in the states, that have been identified by eye witnesses are allowed to run around and do as they please while police verify the eye witness testimony. Under Roman law, people can be detained while that investigation occurs. Joran van der Sloot was detained using the same law ... and he was released, just like Patrick. I don't recall anyone complaining about that particular aspect of Roman law when it was applied in Aruba.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:01 PM
OK:
Why are you calling it a semen stain. Do you have transcripts describing this evidence? Wasn't the value of the bloody prints on/near/around it considered more important than a stain they couldn't date?

Why does evidence have to be collected immediately from a SEALED and protected crime scene?

If the item is photographed in its original position does it matter if it is moved?

How much evidence is appropriate? How much would they have had to clean up? The knives, the footprints, get rid of clothes, wash off in bathroom... what else?

*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.

A stain on a pillow under the hips of a rape and murder victim would be important - if it was Rudy's and more degraded then it would tend to show that they had perhaps been involved before. It could also be additional evidence of Rudy's guilt for that crime...matching semen stain to what is on/in the victim. It is not for LE to make judgments on what value to give evidence at the scene, they should collect it. It's a piece of the puzzle, and every piece is needed to complete the puzzle.

Evidence that is not immediately collected is ripe for additional contamination. As is proven by the videos, the investigators went from room to room without changing booties and they collected evidence without changing gloves each time. Sealing a crime scene is useless when the people who are allowed to go in are inept and proven capable of contaminating the scene and the evidence therein.

Because after the evidence is moved it contaminates the other things it comes in contact with and likewise those things contaminate it. Dude this should be a serious no-brainer.

You photograph it and then collect it - you don't throw it around the room and let it come in contact with other objects because microscopically things will show up that one cannot see in a photograph and may not have originally been there but for the throwing around!!

RG's evidence is the only viable evidence - there is no evidence to suggest a clean up - there is no smearing of a clean up under luminol testing and there was no evidence of bleach or blood on the knife.

RG left bloody footprints! He left fluids and fecal matter. How did AK and RS clean up only their footprints without leaving a clean smear only visible with luminol?

Is there any evidence to suggest MK would have asked Rudy over? Did any of her friends know she was seeing him? Was he even the type she would see - seems she has higher standards than Rudy, given her judgments of AK.

You simply can't make this fit. I know you want to, I know you try hard but it does not fit.

I came into this case after the movie was released and am 99% pro prosecution on this board. Looking into the evidence (what there is of it) more in depth - I can't believe this case. It's a complete sham and would be a hysterical embarrassment for a DA in a modern American court.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
Maybe murderers, in the states, that have been identified by eye witnesses are allowed to run around and do as they please while police verify the eye witness testimony. Under Roman law, people can be detained while that investigation occurs. Joran van der Sloot was detained using the same law ... and he was released, just like Patrick. I don't recall anyone complaining about that particular aspect of Roman law when it was applied in Aruba.

I did not suggest that they do. They are probably detained and if they have an alibi that checks out they are released. This happens quickly - usually we try to have it in the first 48 hours. We don't want the wrong guy in jail while the perp destroys evidence and creates distance. It was the duty of the police to quickly assess P's alibi and possible innocence. If they failed in their duty they have only themselves to blame.

dgfred
04-05-2011, 04:15 PM
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:20 PM
*Why do you continue to post about 'all over the crime scene' and a 'buttload' of evidence of RG when there were only 5 instances of his dna in the room?
After all, he said he was invited in by Meredith. Why not believe him too?
If he is considered a liar, then there is no way IMO not to view AK and RS in the same way as being proven liars.

That is like the joke answer I give people whenever they ask me a question about "how many" of any particular thing...I always answer 2 or 7. Yes that makes no sense.
You are talking simply instances of DNA here without taking the quality and nature of the samples into consideration. That's a bit misleading. I don't think RG's DNA samples were scant molecules that had to be amplified. That a higher volume of DNA of one of a possible three assailants that is found in a better quality for testing tends to prove that they were probably the assailant. And, it fails to explain how bloody foot/hand prints and smears were only left by one of three possible assailants when that ONE allegedly ran off and there is no scientific evidence of a clean up.

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 04:26 PM
A stain on a pillow under the hips of a rape and murder victim would be important - if it was Rudy's and more degraded then it would tend to show that they had perhaps been involved before. It could also be additional evidence of Rudy's guilt for that crime...matching semen stain to what is on/in the victim. It is not for LE to make judgments on what value to give evidence at the scene, they should collect it. It's a piece of the puzzle, and every piece is needed to complete the puzzle.

Evidence that is not immediately collected is ripe for additional contamination. As is proven by the videos, the investigators went from room to room without changing booties and they collected evidence without changing gloves each time. Sealing a crime scene is useless when the people who are allowed to go in are inept and proven capable of contaminating the scene and the evidence therein.

Because after the evidence is moved it contaminates the other things it comes in contact with and likewise those things contaminate it. Dude this should be a serious no-brainer.

You photograph it and then collect it - you don't throw it around the room and let it come in contact with other objects because microscopically things will show up that one cannot see in a photograph and may not have originally been there but for the throwing around!!

RG's evidence is the only viable evidence - there is no evidence to suggest a clean up - there is no smearing of a clean up under luminol testing and there was no evidence of bleach or blood on the knife.

RG left bloody footprints! He left fluids and fecal matter. How did AK and RS clean up only their footprints without leaving a clean smear only visible with luminol?

Is there any evidence to suggest MK would have asked Rudy over? Did any of her friends know she was seeing him? Was he even the type she would see - seems she has higher standards than Rudy, given her judgments of AK.

You simply can't make this fit. I know you want to, I know you try hard but it does not fit.

I came into this case after the movie was released and am 99% pro prosecution on this board. Looking into the evidence (what there is of it) more in depth - I can't believe this case. It's a complete sham and would be a hysterical embarrassment for a DA in a modern American court.

I agree and what you wrote sums up my feelings too - thanks!

otto
04-05-2011, 04:27 PM
I did not suggest that they do. They are probably detained and if they have an alibi that checks out they are released. This happens quickly - usually we try to have it in the first 48 hours. We don't want the wrong guy in jail while the perp destroys evidence and creates distance. It was the duty of the police to quickly assess P's alibi and possible innocence. If they failed in their duty they have only themselves to blame.

First of all, Patrick would not have needed an alibi if Amanda had not accused him of murder, and secondly, unfortunately, it took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward on Patrick's behalf. Nobody wants the wrong guy to spend two weeks in jail ... except Amanda.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:30 PM
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?

Corrections fred: and please read my posts more carefully in the future so as to avoid unecessary replies to correct misinformation. I think it really boggs down the forum flow of information.

1. they got a conviction in Italy not the U.S. I do believe that this would not happen in a U.S. court with today's modern techniques that are required by CSI - the whole MR. FUNG incident was years ago - Italy is obviously way behind.

2. I did not get my feelings of sham from the movie, I got it from my own observation of the evidence when my curiosity was piqued by the movie. Please do not suggest that I have not read many pages and watched numerous videos in a quest for the truth when said quest was entered with NO AGENDA. I don't care about AK or RS or even MK really. The truth has no agenda.

3. This was a reckless and disorganized killer. What evidence do you think shows a clean up? There are plenty of explanations why he left evidence in the toilet - the most obvious is he was interrupted when he heard someone come home. He didn't clean up because he was in a bit of a hurry to exit stage left even, his crime scene! Maybe he attempted to clean off a shoe and then just decided to bolt. He had no idea how long he had to clean up, so why start? It might have been a quick thought and then the realization that his best bet was to jam on out. Still, I don't see solid evidence of clean up.

otto
04-05-2011, 04:30 PM
Well Ziggy,
It fit pretty nicely for the prosecution as both were convicted and are struggling at appeal IMO. If you got your 'feelings' of a sham from that movie... maybe you should consider the 10,000 pages of evidence in the case file instead of a lifetime movie.

One question for you: Why would RG not clean up his footprints and leave his poo in the toilet? After all, somebody cleaned up something in there... the bathmat 'partial' print can not be easily explained away using that logic. Why other stuff cleaned but not evidence of his being present. Why and who?

That mysterious missing half of the footprint ... but perhaps it wasn't a clean up. I eagerly away what sort of explanations pro-conspiracists have for the disappearing 1/2 of a bloody footprint.

dgfred
04-05-2011, 04:32 PM
That mysterious missing half of the footprint ... but perhaps it wasn't a clean up. I eagerly away what sort of explanations pro-conspiracists have for the disappearing 1/2 of a bloody footprint.

Ziggy will get right back to you on that :innocent: .

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 04:35 PM
Thanks so much Malkmus for digging up the Transcript of Amanda Knox's note and posting it-
I find it most interesting to read - especially where AK says, "All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:36 PM
First of all, Patrick would not have needed an alibi if Amanda had not accused him of murder, and secondly, unfortunately, it took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward on Patrick's behalf. Nobody wants the wrong guy to spend two weeks in jail ... except Amanda.

I think that shows the inadequacy of the police department that it took that long. Arrestees point fingers at others all the time. Law enforcement should be equipped to deal with that. Again it is their duty alone to verify they have probable cause to hold a person and to seek evidence of their guilt or innocence...theirs alone. It is irrelevant what type of person lies or squeels or what information may come out of a coersive police interrogation. It is simply irrelevant.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:43 PM
That mysterious missing half of the footprint ... but perhaps it wasn't a clean up. I eagerly away what sort of explanations pro-conspiracists have for the disappearing 1/2 of a bloody footprint.

Are you talking about the half a footprint in the bathroom visibly in blood?

OldSteve
04-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Searching for news, found this:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/Mercer-Islanders-weigh-in-on-Amanda-Knox-case-1322024.php

dgfred
04-05-2011, 04:50 PM
Corrections fred: and please read my posts more carefully in the future so as to avoid unecessary replies to correct misinformation. I think it really boggs down the forum flow of information.

1. they got a conviction in Italy not the U.S. I do believe that this would not happen in a U.S. court with today's modern techniques that are required by CSI - the whole MR. FUNG incident was years ago - Italy is obviously way behind.

2. I did not get my feelings of sham from the movie, I got it from my own observation of the evidence when my curiosity was piqued by the movie. Please do not suggest that I have not read many pages and watched numerous videos in a quest for the truth when said quest was entered with NO AGENDA. I don't care about AK or RS or even MK really. The truth has no agenda.

3. This was a reckless and disorganized killer. What evidence do you think shows a clean up? There are plenty of explanations why he left evidence in the toilet - the most obvious is he was interrupted when he heard someone come home. He didn't clean up because he was in a bit of a hurry to exit stage left even, his crime scene! Maybe he attempted to clean off a shoe and then just decided to bolt. He had no idea how long he had to clean up, so why start? It might have been a quick thought and then the realization that his best bet was to jam on out. Still, I don't see solid evidence of clean up.

Oh I read them completely, just amazed that you feel/see it that way.

1- maybe you should cruise the Cooper and Young murder trials/cases. Every bit of evidence is circumstancial. It would be interesting to see which 'side' of the case you are on there. What about S.Peterson... wasn't that trial held in the US? Where was the actual/direct evidence against him?

2- What would be the 'agenda' for questioning the verdict of a full trial when over 20 judges have looked at the evidence and found both AK and RS of being involved? What about the jurors with judges on the panel too... were they searching for the TRUTH with the entire body of evidence to look over instead of internet searches? They are perfectly capable of finding the truth IMO.

3- Bathroom mat print shows there was some type of cleanup. The luminal prints show there was a cleanup. Why would RG 'bolt' after only cleaning some of the evidence? He wouldn't have, that's why. Obviously, to unbiased observers, the staging of the burglary and the partial cleanup show that someone wanted the crime to look 'different' than what actually occured. Who would have reason to do so... :waitasec: . You know who AGAIN. All those pesky pieces of circumstancial evidence sure do pile up.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Hey bloody footprint people: and so you are saying the RS or AK cleaned up half of his footprint but left the other half after meticulously wiping out all other inculpatory evidence of themselves? Not plausible. If they had taken the time to mop the floors (which by the way there is not scientific evidence indicating this is so) they would have rinsed out or bleached the bathmat. Ask yourselves which half is missing; top half? bottom half? left side? right side?

SMK
04-05-2011, 04:57 PM
Searching for news, found this:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/Mercer-Islanders-weigh-in-on-Amanda-Knox-case-1322024.phpInteresting piece, thanks for posting this! :)

otto
04-05-2011, 04:58 PM
I think that shows the inadequacy of the police department that it took that long. Arrestees point fingers at others all the time. Law enforcement should be equipped to deal with that. Again it is their duty alone to verify they have probable cause to hold a person and to seek evidence of their guilt or innocence...theirs alone. It is irrelevant what type of person lies or squeels or what information may come out of a coersive police interrogation. It is simply irrelevant.

Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.

dgfred
04-05-2011, 04:58 PM
Somebody did, the reasoning will have to be supplied by the guilty party.

Could the 'bathmat shuffle' be an attempt to explain away that evidence on the floors? Did she/they even recognize the print as a footprint?

Could her bloody/cleaning ears statements been to explain away her blood mixed with Meredith's dna in the bathroom?

Could they have been pressed for time, or not thinking properly, or intending to come back and take care of the rest? We might not ever know, but all plausible IMO.

otto
04-05-2011, 05:00 PM
Are you talking about the half a footprint in the bathroom visibly in blood?

Yes I am. Someone made a footprint in blood, half on the mat and half off the mat. Where did the half that was on the floor disappear to?

dgfred
04-05-2011, 05:00 PM
Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.

That is really the main debate tactic regarding ALL the evidence... excuses.

SMK
04-05-2011, 05:02 PM
Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.Otto---We have been over and over this. You know we do not believe Amanda did anything so wrong here, as you are suggesting, but we cannot make you see it---just as I cannot make you see that Signore Mignini, as a prosecutor, should uphold the law, not break it with illegal wiretapping of 20 persons. Some character, and he has lived 3 x as long as Amanda...ugh :(

otto
04-05-2011, 05:06 PM
Hey bloody footprint people: and so you are saying the RS or AK cleaned up half of his footprint but left the other half after meticulously wiping out all other inculpatory evidence of themselves? Not plausible. If they had taken the time to mop the floors (which by the way there is not scientific evidence indicating this is so) they would have rinsed out or bleached the bathmat. Ask yourselves which half is missing; top half? bottom half? left side? right side?

According to Amanda, she did the bathroom boogie on the mat from the bathroom to her bedroom ... oops, there goes half the bloody footprint. I think I like Amanda's explanation ... it's falls into the same category as Raffaele's explanation for Meredith's DNA on his knife.

otto
04-05-2011, 05:10 PM
Otto---We have been over and over this. You know we do not believe Amanda did anything so wrong here, as you are suggesting, but we cannot make you see it---just as I cannot make you see that Signore Mignini, as a prosecutor, should uphold the law, not break it with illegal wiretapping of 20 persons. Some character, and he has lived 3 x as long as Amanda...ugh :(

You're right. I will never see that it is reasonable for Knox to accuse an innocent man of murder after 2 hours of questioning as a witness on Nov 5, and to then let him rot in jail for 2 weeks. If you were the victim of those false allegations, would you see it as reasonable?

We have a woman that prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele. She upheld the law, and successfuly secured convictions in the murder of Meredith. Good for her!!!

SMK
04-05-2011, 05:13 PM
You're right. I will never see that it is reasonable for Knox to accuse an innocent man of murder after 2 hours of questioning as a witness on Nov 5, and to then let him rot in jail for 2 weeks. If you were the victim of those false allegations, would you see it as reasonable?

We have a woman that prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele. She upheld the law, and successfuly secured convictions in the murder of Meredith. Good for her!!!Not so good for her if they are innocent....:(

ziggy
04-05-2011, 05:19 PM
Oh I read them completely, just amazed that you feel/see it that way.

1- maybe you should cruise the Cooper and Young murder trials/cases. Every bit of evidence is circumstancial. It would be interesting to see which 'side' of the case you are on there. What about S.Peterson... wasn't that trial held in the US? Where was the actual/direct evidence against him?

2- What would be the 'agenda' for questioning the verdict of a full trial when over 20 judges have looked at the evidence and found both AK and RS of being involved? What about the jurors with judges on the panel too... were they searching for the TRUTH with the entire body of evidence to look over instead of internet searches? They are perfectly capable of finding the truth IMO.

3- Bathroom mat print shows there was some type of cleanup. The luminal prints show there was a cleanup. Why would RG 'bolt' after only cleaning some of the evidence? He wouldn't have, that's why. Obviously, to unbiased observers, the staging of the burglary and the partial cleanup show that someone wanted the crime to look 'different' than what actually occured. Who would have reason to do so... :waitasec: . You know who AGAIN. All those pesky pieces of circumstancial evidence sure do pile up.

1. might do that. Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, sure, and there was more circumstantial evidence against him in that case than there is here. There was more going to his state of mind that occured before the murder as in: hey Amber, my wife passed away and I'm a pathetic widow. You do realize that direct evidence is less likely to be obtained in prosecutions than circumstantial right? If could be watching too many defense attorney pundits on TV - nearly ALL cases are completely circumstantial.

DIRECT EVIDENCE
Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

Although completely circumstantial, it greatly depends on how those bricks fit in the wall and how complete the wall is when they are done. There was suffidient history of things he said before he killed her, like that his wife had died :0 Here, we have no bricks to put in the wall that paints AK as a sex crazed psycho orgyist. So that wall falls down. Just like Geragos's wall fell down when he asserted the defense that satanists had done it - no bricks, wall down...rejected...not logical Captain Kirk.

2. Easy peasy - there is always an agenda when courts give deference to other officers of the court. It's a basic psychological deference and in some systems it must be given to the trial judge. And people don't like to admit they were wrong. A jury with judges on the jury or panel is like making the foreman a PhD and all the other high school drop outs - herd mentality people. This stuff does happen in our country too, don't get me wrong - a critical mass of thinking can have the effect of the truth even when it isn't.

3. You are mixing the luminol prints and the bath mat print up without defining each and they are different indeed. The luminol prints definitively show there was no clean up because of the clear outline and that they were more likely left by a cleaning substance transfered from the shower area to the floor. If you clean up blood - you smear it around you don't erase it away and leave the unmistakeable print in tact - especially when the clean up immediately follows the crime and the print is not left there for days. I'm going back to look at the bath mat print because there is much there to examine - mostly I've found it to be aggregiously passed off as something it is not...but I'll look more.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 05:22 PM
According to Amanda, she did the bathroom boogie on the mat from the bathroom to her bedroom ... oops, there goes half the bloody footprint. I think I like Amanda's explanation ... it's falls into the same category as Raffaele's explanation for Meredith's DNA on his knife.

Was there luminol smear to corroborate her story? A scoot ain't gonna make it invisible to the luminol. Even when someone in the US confesses to murder, it has to be investigated and corroborated.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 05:25 PM
Yes I am. Someone made a footprint in blood, half on the mat and half off the mat. Where did the half that was on the floor disappear to?

If there is no luminol evidence suggesting that it was there and smeared from the attempt to clean up - then it was never there and someone used these things called calf muscles and ankle ligaments and did not fully put their heel on the floor.

Nova
04-05-2011, 05:27 PM
One of the prosecutors illegally wire tapped police and media. I suppose we have to allow for the possibility that this same prosecutor could illegally wire tapped police and media again.

Amanda demonstrated that she does not care about how her actions impact others, and that she is quite comfortable with the knowledge that someone's life was destroyed because of her actions and statements. We know that when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions, she will not do anything to assist. It's quite likely that Amanda's moral compass is permanently skewed and that she acted this way on more occassions than the ones that have been widely publicized.

So ... we have the possibility that the prosecutor will illegally wiretap someone and the possibility that Amanda will continue to selfishly, and without moral conscience, harm others.

Actually, there is evidence that AK was NOT comfortable with wrongly accusing PL. The evidence is there in black and white in her attempt to recant the accusation without admitting to perjury, in her writing that her memories of PL with MK were "more unreal than real."

Did she go far enough? No. But perhaps she assumed ILE would act competently and not take 2 weeks to check on PL's alibi. Reasonable assumption, but ultimately a wrong one.

Why you hold a frightened 20-year-old in a foreign country to a higher moral standard than you hold Italian police and prosecutors is a wonder to me.

Nova
04-05-2011, 05:29 PM
In her written statement, didn't AK herself admit that the visions of Patrick at the cottage seemed more like a dream? I think I recall something like this, which in my mind bolsters the argument that her statement was created by the questioner's suggestion.

Or am I getting my instances confused?

There were several statements and I can't keep them all straight.

But, yes, in the "gift statement" she said her memories were more "unreal than real", i.e., more like a dream.

SMK
04-05-2011, 05:34 PM
Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, sure, and there was more circumstantial evidence against him in that case than there is here. There was more going to his state of mind that occured before the murder as in: hey Amber, my wife passed away and I'm a pathetic widow.(posted by ziggy)---
Yes, I think this is important to remember, the motive and actions so much more obvious in the SP case, as opposed to AK supposedly upset over bathroom cleaning arguments, and willing to commit a brutal sex murder when she was in the throes of a brand new love affair.

Nova
04-05-2011, 05:38 PM
It seems that some people are willing to overlook Amanda's horrendous lies, and her complete absence of empathy and compassion when someone is suffering as a direct result of her actions. I would not want anyone like Amanda anywhere near me, my family, or anyone I cared about. I feel the very same way about Joran van der Sloot.

You've mention duress a couple of times. How was Amanda under duress when she, sitting alone, asked for paper and pen, and then wrote a statement confirming her accusations against Patrick? How was Amanda under duress a day, or 3 days, or even 14 days later such that she could not tell investigators that she told a big fat lie about Patrick?

Comparing AK to JVDS is absolutely absurd. We know from surveillance tapes that JVDS killed Flores with his bare hands. We also have on tape his account of dumping Holloway's body at sea. Further, there is his extortion of money from NH's parents.

By contrast AK blew off a temp job in Germany (not nice, but not unusual) and may have been a sloppy housekeeper. If you want to accept the trial testimony, then perhaps she obstructed justice by cleaning up after RG murdered MK (though we still don't know how she did so without smearing the blood spots).

And yes, in a night of weakness she agreed with LE's insistence that PL was involved in the murder. This was certainly wrong, but it wasn't AK who kept PL locked up for 2 weeks when they could have checked in his alibi in 2 hours.

Nova
04-05-2011, 05:39 PM
So how does the knife you believe is the murder weapon or at least involved, fit in here? If AK decided to put him up to it at that time and it wasn't pre-planned...

Good question. And that's the problem: NO scenario where AK and RS are among the killers makes any sense whatsoever.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 05:45 PM
And remember, as my law professors who consist of seated judges and working attorneys say, maybe they didn't have very good lawyers. That's a possibility too in addition to the personality, tonal quality of voice etc. of the defense attorneys and whether or not the jury even listened to them, or if they had already made up their minds. MUCH more than evidence goes into a verdict - much more than we would like but it's real life.

I mention this because of the slanted press and the fact that I have no idea what it would take to bring in juror misconduct in Italy.

There is a high probability that these reports tainted the jury pool.

otto
04-05-2011, 06:04 PM
Not so good for her if they are innocent....:(

The prosecution was based on evidence that is available. At this time, they are most definitely guilty.

otto
04-05-2011, 06:05 PM
Was there luminol smear to corroborate her story? A scoot ain't gonna make it invisible to the luminol. Even when someone in the US confesses to murder, it has to be investigated and corroborated.

If the bathroom boogie didn't make half of the footprint disappear, where did it go?

otto
04-05-2011, 06:06 PM
There were several statements and I can't keep them all straight.

But, yes, in the "gift statement" she said her memories were more "unreal than real", i.e., more like a dream.

Amanda actually uses the word "flashback" to justify her statements ... which fits quite nicely with her admission of being all drugged up.

SMK
04-05-2011, 06:12 PM
Amanda actually uses the word "flashback" to justify her statements ... which fits quite nicely with her admission of being all drugged up.She also says at one point, "then I am confused, and my dreams are real."

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:30 PM
If the bathroom boogie didn't make half of the footprint disappear, where did it go?

Maybe they scrubbed them off like they did in these instances


After placing rulers on the sides of a bloody shoeprint, for example, a blue-rubber-gloved hand reaches down with a piece of white cloth and scrubs the bloody mark off the tile floor before putting the cloth into an evidence tube. This happens three times for three separate footprints. In film footage taken at least a day later, another team of investigators attempts, using photographs, to place where the footprints had been. "They should have lifted the tile," Bremner says, shaking her head

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904571,00.html#ixzz1Igrqx3DJ

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:32 PM
Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.

Darn right it is their fault. If they had not of been in the wrong for arresting him, holding him for 2 weeks, then not allowing him to open his business again he would of not sued them. Although only awarded a minimal sum

otto
04-05-2011, 06:34 PM
Maybe they scrubbed them off like they did in these instances


After placing rulers on the sides of a bloody shoeprint, for example, a blue-rubber-gloved hand reaches down with a piece of white cloth and scrubs the bloody mark off the tile floor before putting the cloth into an evidence tube. This happens three times for three separate footprints. In film footage taken at least a day later, another team of investigators attempts, using photographs, to place where the footprints had been. "They should have lifted the tile," Bremner says, shaking her head

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904571,00.html#ixzz1Igrqx3DJ

Taken the tile? Really. Bremner the lawyer is now another crime scene analyst? Wow ... I guess there's nothing to evidence collection and crime scene analysis if lawyers and accident reconstructionist in some other country know better than actual trained experts. When the tile broke into several pieces when lifted from the concrete foundation, what would the next complaint be?

otto
04-05-2011, 06:39 PM
Darn right it is their fault. If they had not of been in the wrong for arresting him, holding him for 2 weeks, then not allowing him to open his business again he would of not sued them. Although only awarded a minimal sum

By that same reasoning ... if Knox had not been in the wrong for accusing Patrick, he would not have sued her.

"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4947793/Amanda-Knox-sued-by-Patrick-Lumumba.html

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:39 PM
So Amanda is not responsible for the statement she gave confirming her accusations against Patrick ... it is the fault of the police ... even though all they did was provide Knox with pen, paper, and a quiet place to write her "gift" statement?

Competent LE do not operate that way. It again shows you they were not following the evidence, they had a list of suspects and made the evidence try and fit they hypothesis

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:40 PM
Taken the tile? Really. Bremner the lawyer is now another crime scene analyst? Wow ... I guess there's nothing to evidence collection and crime scene analysis if lawyers and accident reconstructionist in some other country know better than actual trained experts. When the tile broke into several pieces when lifted from the concrete foundation, what would the next complaint be?

Yes you pick up the tile. You do not wipe it then try and place the bloody footprint back on it

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:40 PM
That is really the main debate tactic regarding ALL the evidence... excuses.

yup that appears to be all you have

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:43 PM
Yes I would consider the Daily Mail to be of the same caliber as the Enquirer.

What is even more alarming to me Otto is that you are still trying to state information which has been proven to be false information even after all this time. AK had not been fired and that article is a injustice in its' finest

I would think after all this time most would know the actual facts which I am becomming very weary of repeating

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:44 PM
The prosecution was based on evidence that is available. At this time, they are most definitely guilty.

That would be a matter of opinion. It might be yours but certainly is not mine especially after the new information that has since come to light

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Amanda actually uses the word "flashback" to justify her statements ... which fits quite nicely with her admission of being all drugged up.

It would not matter what word she used I have come to the conclusion that any word she may/may not of used will be twisted, misquoted, or miscontrued by you

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:48 PM
By that same reasoning ... if Knox had not been in the wrong for accusing Patrick, he would not have sued her.

"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4947793/Amanda-Knox-sued-by-Patrick-Lumumba.html

I again Otto would expect that a 20 year old could not convince true investigators of this. IT is very obvious that either they already had an agenda or were totally inexperienced and lacked the necessary training to be labeled as LE

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:49 PM
If the bathroom boogie didn't make half of the footprint disappear, where did it go?

You must be joking? Now you are saying a partial footprint has disappeared?

It always was a partial footprint and you very well know that as I have pointed that out

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:51 PM
Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.

I am of the personal opinion that they were/are very untrained. There may be some corrupt ones but this crime scene was never treated as the way a crime scene should of been and I have stated that many many times

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:52 PM
By that same reasoning ... if Knox had not been in the wrong for accusing Patrick, he would not have sued her.

"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4947793/Amanda-Knox-sued-by-Patrick-Lumumba.html

Partially because he dropped his suit against ILE to pursue AK.

He was BEATEN etc etc etc

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:54 PM
First of all, Patrick would not have needed an alibi if Amanda had not accused him of murder, and secondly, unfortunately, it took two weeks for an alibi witness to come forward on Patrick's behalf. Nobody wants the wrong guy to spend two weeks in jail ... except Amanda.

At that point in time anyone might of needed an alibi including you

They were not following the evidence. When LE forms a hypothesis and the evidence points away from it as it did in this case then you change the hypothesis. They did not they just switched players

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 06:55 PM
Ziggy will get right back to you on that :innocent: .

Checking back on PMF to find an answer?

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:00 PM
Otto---We have been over and over this. You know we do not believe Amanda did anything so wrong here, as you are suggesting, but we cannot make you see it---just as I cannot make you see that Signore Mignini, as a prosecutor, should uphold the law, not break it with illegal wiretapping of 20 persons. Some character, and he has lived 3 x as long as Amanda...ugh :(

I again have come to the conclusion that he never will. Instead he tries to lay down the paramaters of what can be cited. Facts are taken then twisted by him to suit whatever particular mood at the moment in time

I am also willing to bet that others are being held to a higher standard

I find it odd that the only one making an issue of American vs Italian is Otto

Most of us are more than willing to admit that much of this happens all around the world

I understand that some think they are perfect but alas most of us are not perfect. It takes guts to be able to state that

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:04 PM
Thanks so much Malkmus for digging up the Transcript of Amanda Knox's note and posting it-
I find it most interesting to read - especially where AK says, "All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."

Amazing is it not OldSteve how things are put into perspective when the context is NOT taken out of context? This appears to be happening far too oft of late from the looks of it and people should be ashamed of themselves as by now they should at least know the difference between what is fact and fiction

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Good question. And that's the problem: NO scenario where AK and RS are among the killers makes any sense whatsoever.

So right. So far I have not seen one scenerio for so many things that make any sense whatsoever from those that believe her to be guilty.

Instead they resort to the same pro-guilt lies and personal attacks against her, her family and those that believe in her innocence.

I think they lost sight of what the real issues are here and the more I read the angrier I am becomming

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:09 PM
Blame it all on the corrupt police, right? They were going to detain Patrick for Meredith's murder regardless of what Amanda said ... obviously ... or maybe not. We're not sure why ... but it is not Amanda's fault that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder after two hours of questioning.

Unless you can prove or show me the tapes that something else happened yes IMO she was coerced

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:12 PM
You're right. I will never see that it is reasonable for Knox to accuse an innocent man of murder after 2 hours of questioning as a witness on Nov 5, and to then let him rot in jail for 2 weeks. If you were the victim of those false allegations, would you see it as reasonable?

We have a woman that prosecuted the case against Amanda and Raffaele. She upheld the law, and successfuly secured convictions in the murder of Meredith. Good for her!!!

Maybe the better question would be why ILE believed a 20 year old and arrested him. We have been over this many times and we have all pointed out to you that usually they would bring them in for questioning and check alibis etc. This simply tells me that you have a separate agenda and it is not about justice

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:15 PM
Yeah, you wanna call that bad moral character? If it's me I wanna call it being coerced to throw them a bone - done - get them off my scent until I can figure out what the hell just happened. It doesn't necessarily go to guilt or innocence or bad moral character. It has to be viewed in the totality of the circumstances.

I often wonder how many of anyones moral characters can stand up to the scrutiny that they are put under during any type of investigation. The more I see her morals attacked the more I wonder what those people that attack it may have in their closets

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:19 PM
Nancy Cooper was also most likely murdered at home (don't know yet, trial is ongoing), so should we narrow the crime scene to only one room in her house? Why do we want to reduce the crime scene to the bedroom for a trial in Italy, but trials in the US always include the broader crime scene? I've never heard of a trial in the US where someone was murdered at home and the crime scene was reduced to a few feet on either side of the victim's body.

I have stated over and over this crime scene was never forensically analyzed the way it should of been.

I cannot even say it is a joke as it is simply far to sad to see what I have seen over the course of the supposed investigation.

What bothers me even moreso was the actual perjury by Stephanoni and it is my belief she was NOT the only one

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:21 PM
It isn't my belief that the murder weapon is a couple of knives, that comes from the medical examiner. According the Raffaele, Meredith's DNA got on the blade when he playfully nicked her with they knife while she was having dinner at his apartment. How about that for a fishy explanation of the evidence!

There was no MK DNA

Let me repeat no blood = NO DNA I simply do not understand what is so hard to understand about this

Right the double knife...oooopss they had to explain SOMEHOW why the knife could not of made all the wounds!!!! Rather than admit maybe they were wrong oh no ILE had to come up with 2. If I recall right you even tried to state 3 in one of your posts.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:23 PM
What are you not seeing? Amanda accused Patick of murdering Meredith. She then voluntarily (no duress whatsoever) wrote a statement confirming this accusation and delivered it to police, calling it a "gift". For the two weeks following this "gift", Patrick was in jail. He was arrested as a direct result of her "gift". Even though she knew this was a lie, and should have understood that the arrest would ruin his life, she did nothing to assist Patrick.

That is a particularly nasty thing to do.

The NO DURESS is your opinion only. It is not the opinion of some of the rest of us so kindly at least have the decency to acknowledge it

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:23 PM
If the bathroom boogie didn't make half of the footprint disappear, where did it go?

Sheesh otto asked and answered. It was never there. That is also a possiblity.

otto
04-05-2011, 07:23 PM
Yes I would consider the Daily Mail to be of the same caliber as the Enquirer.

What is even more alarming to me Otto is that you are still trying to state information which has been proven to be false information even after all this time. AK had not been fired and that article is a injustice in its' finest

I would think after all this time most would know the actual facts which I am becomming very weary of repeating

Drives me nuts when I have to explain a comment because it is taken out of context.

Let me do it again. Someone said that Patrick was beaten. The only place where this information can be found is in the Daily Mail article, one that is filled with other incorrect information. I posted excerpts from the article to make my point.

And ... I am becoming weary of having to put my remarks back in context due to them being taken out of context and misconstrued.

otto
04-05-2011, 07:25 PM
I have stated over and over this crime scene was never forensically analyzed the way it should of been.

I cannot even say it is a joke as it is simply far to sad to see what I have seen over the course of the supposed investigation.

What bothers me even moreso was the actual perjury by Stephanoni and it is my belief she was NOT the only one

Are you also an expert in how to analyze a crime scene? Wow ... experts everywhere!

otto
04-05-2011, 07:25 PM
Sheesh otto asked and answered. It was never there. That is also a possiblity.

Of course. The person that made the bloody footprint on the bath mat only had half a foot ... why didn't I think of that.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:26 PM
In her written statement, didn't AK herself admit that the visions of Patrick at the cottage seemed more like a dream? I think I recall something like this, which in my mind bolsters the argument that her statement was created by the questioner's suggestion.

Or am I getting my instances confused?

Correct CM. She was asked to imagine, then it was typed out in Italian of which she was not overly conversant, without a lawyer present and the lower court over ruled the Supreme Court.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:28 PM
Are you also an expert in how to analyze a crime scene? Wow ... experts everywhere!

No as you very well know I am not. It does not take rocket science to understand how it should work. Neither are you though an expert!!!

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:28 PM
Taken the tile? Really. Bremner the lawyer is now another crime scene analyst? Wow ... I guess there's nothing to evidence collection and crime scene analysis if lawyers and accident reconstructionist in some other country know better than actual trained experts. When the tile broke into several pieces when lifted from the concrete foundation, what would the next complaint be?

Otto, defense attorneys are very knowledgable in crime scene collection techniques as it is required to attack evidence against their clients and they above all else know what makes that evidence collection vulnerable and what would have made it air tight. Don't underestimate how smart a defense attorney can be - they are the experts at poking holes in the evidence. She's commenting on what method would have made this evidence less open to controversy. "Experts" under the law are also people who have significant experience in particular areas even though they have no certification.

otto
04-05-2011, 07:31 PM
Maybe the better question would be why ILE believed a 20 year old and arrested him. We have been over this many times and we have all pointed out to you that usually they would bring them in for questioning and check alibis etc. This simply tells me that you have a separate agenda and it is not about justice

Usually according to Roman Law? I think not. Suspects are detained while police investigate. The case is reviewed within specified time intervals and if evidence justifies further detention, then so be it. Joran's detentions are a good example of this. After months of detention, he was released because there was not enough evidence to proceed to trial. The same was true in Patrick's case. With Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, there was enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:32 PM
By that same reasoning ... if Knox had not been in the wrong for accusing Patrick, he would not have sued her.

"Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4947793/Amanda-Knox-sued-by-Patrick-Lumumba.html

As for the person whom will be doing the suing I will assume that AK and RS will have more than enough just cause to start a number of lawsuits and for anyone that thinks this will be limited to just ILE they will be sadly mistaken. I fully anticipate it will include a couple of forums and individuals involved in smear campaigns. Much like the Duke case many will be probably settled out of court

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:34 PM
Usually according to Roman Law? I think not. Suspects are detained while police investigate. The case is reviewed within specified time intervals and if evidence justifies further detention, then so be it. Joran's detentions are a good example of this. After months of detention, he was released because there was not enough evidence to proceed to trial. The same was true in Patrick's case. With Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, there was enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Right that is why they sat in prison for a year before charges were brought against them ............... give me a break!!!!!!!!!!

otto
04-05-2011, 07:35 PM
Otto, defense attorneys are very knowledgable in crime scene collection techniques as it is required to attack evidence against their clients and they above all else know what makes that evidence collection vulnerable and what would have made it air tight. Don't underestimate how smart a defense attorney can be - they are the experts at poking holes in the evidence. She's commenting on what method would have made this evidence less open to controversy. "Experts" under the law are also people who have significant experience in particular areas even though they have no certification.

Sure, let's deem all people that attended law school as crime scene experts ... and throw in a few mechanical engineers and retirees for good measure. I'm an expert and crime scene analyst too because I have taught mechanical engineering classes.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:36 PM
If the bathroom boogie didn't make half of the footprint disappear, where did it go?

Maybe they had a smudge on their eye glasses and thought it was the other half of the footprint

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Of course. The person that made the bloody footprint on the bath mat only had half a foot ... why didn't I think of that.

A better question is why did you suddenly think of that silliness when another more viable alternative is there. I can step with the front half of my foot without putting my heel down. For a dumbed down explanation it's tip toeing. Foot placement and technique IS something I AM and expert in. Maybe someone who just took off their shoe was trying NOT to make prints by tip toeing and only made half a print, and darn it was on the mat and darn now he's run out of time and he's got to get outa there.

If there's no smear from the bathmat,there's no blood on the other side of the bathmat that indicates it was used to clean up blood, or there is no smear from collection, it's possible the other half was never there and therefore not missing - hence no clean up evidence.

otto
04-05-2011, 07:37 PM
No as you very well know I am not. It does not take rocket science to understand how it should work. Neither are you though an expert!!!

But I am. If a mechanical engineer is considered an expert, then someone that teaches mechanical engineering must also be an expert.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:38 PM
Lots of discussion over the letter Amanda wrote and the usual out-of-context quoting of it. I think it's best to at least present the entire letter here to see exactly what she said, even though I'm sure many of you have already seen it.

Transcript of Amanda Knox's note:

Thanks for this Malkmus!!!

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:39 PM
But I am. If a mechanical engineer is considered an expert, then someone that teaches mechanical engineering must also be an expert.

Why since he makes more sense that a drug fueled sex orgy?

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:41 PM
In this case, the DNA confirms Amanda's participation, not exonnerates.

What DNA? Seems the experts will be tossing most if not all of it. You should now be more concerned what RG's defence could now do with this

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:42 PM
Sure, let's deem all people that attended law school as crime scene experts ... and throw in a few mechanical engineers and retirees for good measure. I'm an expert and crime scene analyst too because I have taught mechanical engineering classes.

Facitious as you think you are being, it is true that not all experts must have some sort of certification - but they must have experience. Some criminal defense attorneys have extensive experience in the right and wrong ways evidence is collected. She is at least expert enough to have her educated comment considered.

Again, I did not insinuate Ann is in the league of ALL people who attend law school etc...your twist on the idea is intriguing but it's merely bait and shows a weakened position.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:48 PM
It was improper for the police not to record the entire interview that they said led to a confession. That would probably deem it inadmissible in an American court. Those law enforcement officials are no more trustworty than any, including ours. There are safeguards and protocols to follow when interrogating and they did not follow them. Therefore, their version is subject to disbelief.

ziggy
04-05-2011, 07:51 PM
In this case, the DNA confirms Amanda's participation, not exonnerates.

Let's restate that correctly: In this case, the DNA may confirm Amanda touched the knife. The knife was not found at the crime scene, has not been proven to be the murder weapon and was not found to have blood or bleach on it. So that's about all that DNA says. It's a stretch when you isolate it, to get to absolute participation.

Allusonz
04-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Let's restate that correctly: In this case, the DNA may confirm Amanda touched the knife. The knife was not found at the crime scene, has not been proven to be the murder weapon and was not found to have blood or bleach on it. So that's about all that DNA says. It's a stretch when you isolate it, to get to absolute participation.

So true! It appears the knife that was cleaned was in fact NOT CLEANED...how interesting !!

Nova
04-05-2011, 08:05 PM
Amanda actually uses the word "flashback" to justify her statements ... which fits quite nicely with her admission of being all drugged up.

I know of no professional literature that treats flashbacks as reliable memories, no more than memories recovered through hypnosis.

SMK
04-05-2011, 08:33 PM
I know of no professional literature that treats flashbacks as reliable memories, no more than memories recovered through hypnosis.Right, as in the Eileen Franklin case, flashbacks and recovered memory are not deemed reliable evidence.

flourish
04-05-2011, 08:53 PM
UH, no but they detain him and IMMEDIATELY check alibis - and release him. They don't keep him jailed for weeks. We actually care about a persons rights.

We actually care about a persons rights? :thud: So Italy doesn't?
And people wonder why the word "xenophobia" keeps coming up in this case. Sheesh.

http://www.salem-news.com/gphotos/1291492341.JPG

That's a "tiptoe" mark? Interesting how most people tiptoe on the ball of their foot only, not the arch and/or side of foot...


(link to picture: http://www.salem-news.com/gphotos/1291492341.JPG )

JBean
04-05-2011, 09:19 PM
As I have said before, I give you all a lot of leeway in this thread to post because you all seem to be on the same page in terms of mutual combat, so to speak.
But when the topic and posting becomes about each other more than the topic at hand ,it has to stop.
where this post lands is random because it applies to the whole thread.
Thanks

sherlockh
04-05-2011, 09:52 PM
In order to do that she would have had to decided while with her hot new Italian lover with beautiful lips, to grab a knife to assault her roomate with and leave to do the deed.

Choosing someone to bring into your relationship involves finding a person who would want to - I think she had an inkling that MK was not the person to ask this of. So, this makes no sense. She's in her love nest with RS and with no history of any of this behavior, takes a knife from his apartment, leaves with him to go murder her roomate for complaining about her being untidy? And when exactly did it become a sex orgy need for AK? Too many holes, wholly unbelievable and holy crap - people actually buy this. :(
Beautiful lips?..lol.. It doesn't have to make sense. Murder never makes sense to me anyway. To me it seems that some people have a problem with the murder scenario so all the evidence must be wrong. I reason the other way around. If the evidence shows that an elephant did it then so be it. Better go out and catch that monster :)

otto
04-06-2011, 02:30 AM
Paragraph 2 in link ... approximate translation:
Official Statement regarding DNA Re-Test

Experts announced today, at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, that there is too little material. This is due to the fact that genetic material on the knife block is very low and can not be retested (it would give inaccurate results). The experts had already said this in previous meetings, but the decision has now been made official. The hook, however, was too deteriorated to be retested.

http://www.umbria24.it/mez-nessuna-nuova-analisi-sul-coltello-e-raffaele-si-affida-allavvocato-di-clinton-contro-il-film-usa/33872.html

This means that the test methods will now be reviewed, and the question of contamination will be addressed. Dr Stefanoni's results have already been reviewed by others, and I expect the test results will again be upheld. Even if the bra clasp is omitted due to corrosion and/or contamination, Amanda is not free and clear. I understand that there is material on the handle, but not enough to test with accurate results. The DNA on the blade was completely used during the first DNA testing.

Raffaele still has the problem of the bloody footprint on the mat, lack of alibi, unusual statements/diary remarks. Amanda has bigger problems.

I guess the most crucial DNA is from the blade of the knife, and whether it was a result of contamination. I can't see it being a faulty result ... the results are simply too similar to Meredith's DNA for it to be someone else's DNA. Contamination in the lab looks like the only argument left to be made ... in my opinion.

otto
04-06-2011, 03:10 AM
Since some believe that "there is no evidence", I should probably elaborate on what I mean with Amanda has bigger problems.

Because broken glass was found on top of Filomina's ransacked clothing and laptop, it was concluded that the break-in was staged. Who had a reason to stage a break-in? Who would want to hide the fact that she came in through the front door? Who was the only person that could have unlocked the front door at the cottage during the time that her roommate was murdered? Why would someone else stage a break in after the murder, and why not stage it at an obvious point of entry: the patio doors or kitchen window? Laura and Filomina were away that night, Amanda had no alibi (claims that she was watching a movie, eating ... and so on at Raffaele's were proven untrue). Amanda had a key, and motive to stage a break-in. That's a big problem.

Only someone that had a key and wanted to give the impression that she was not home would stage a break-in ... and her declaration about being at the cottage at the time of the murder doesn't help.

wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 03:34 AM
Thanks Otto.

I'm new to studying the case. I agree that the POE would be strange for a burglar to use when there were better windows to break to gain entry to the house. However, I read somewhere, and who knows where after all I've looked at, that it was RG's MO to use rocks, break windows and carry knives to his crime scenes. I'm exploring all theories, but the one I've started with is RG acting alone or with an unknown accomplice. So my question right now is why is it a problem for the broken glass to be on top of the roommate's clothes? I think I read somewhere that it's because said roommate claims she left nothing on the floor. I don't really take her word on remembering that, and it might be possible that Merideth or even Amanda went into the room and used some of the clothes and left them on the floor. I don't know, so can you bring clarity to me about this? Sorry if you've had to do it before in the other 8 threads.

One article I read also said he'd stolen a flick knife in a crime. Weren't they supposing a flick knife was used with merideth? Same article claims that a recorded jail call picked up him saying that amanda hadn't been there that night. Here's this link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html

sherlockh
04-06-2011, 04:25 AM
Paragraph 2 in link ... approximate translation:
Official Statement regarding DNA Re-Test

Experts announced today, at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, that there is too little material. This is due to the fact that genetic material on the knife block is very low and can not be retested (it would give inaccurate results). The experts had already said this in previous meetings, but the decision has now been made official. The hook, however, was too deteriorated to be retested.

http://www.umbria24.it/mez-nessuna-nuova-analisi-sul-coltello-e-raffaele-si-affida-allavvocato-di-clinton-contro-il-film-usa/33872.html

This means that the test methods will now be reviewed, and the question of contamination will be addressed. Dr Stefanoni's results have already been reviewed by others, and I expect the test results will again be upheld. Even if the bra clasp is omitted due to corrosion and/or contamination, Amanda is not free and clear. I understand that there is material on the handle, but not enough to test with accurate results. The DNA on the blade was completely used during the first DNA testing.

Raffaele still has the problem of the bloody footprint on the mat, lack of alibi, unusual statements/diary remarks. Amanda has bigger problems.

I guess the most crucial DNA is from the blade of the knife, and whether it was a result of contamination. I can't see it being a faulty result ... the results are simply too similar to Meredith's DNA for it to be someone else's DNA. Contamination in the lab looks like the only argument left to be made ... in my opinion.
Thanks. I don't know if you can say one has bigger problems than the other. I always viewed them as having similar problems.

otto
04-06-2011, 04:43 AM
Thanks Otto.

I'm new to studying the case. I agree that the POE would be strange for a burglar to use when there were better windows to break to gain entry to the house. However, I read somewhere, and who knows where after all I've looked at, that it was RG's MO to use rocks, break windows and carry knives to his crime scenes. I'm exploring all theories, but the one I've started with is RG acting alone or with an unknown accomplice. So my question right now is why is it a problem for the broken glass to be on top of the roommate's [Filomina] clothes? I think I read somewhere that it's because said roommate claims she left nothing on the floor. I don't really take her word on remembering that, and it might be possible that Merideth or even Amanda went into the room and used some of the clothes and left them on the floor. I don't know, so can you bring clarity to me about this? Sorry if you've had to do it before in the other 8 threads.

One article I read also said he'd stolen a flick knife in a crime. Weren't they supposing a flick knife was used with merideth? Same article claims that a recorded jail call picked up him saying that amanda hadn't been there that night. Here's this link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081457/Rudy-Guede-Portrait-Merediths-murderer-begins-30-year-sentence.html

bolded by me

Filomina was not a slob that left her clothes on the floor or shared them with her roommates. She was a professional, as was Laura ... no, Filomina is not mistaken. As for Amanda going into Filomina's bedroom and playing with her clothes ... she has not claimed that to explain the clothes on the floor or her DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in Filmina's bedroom.

Rudy does not have a criminal record. I don't know anything about any criminal activites except he was found sleeping in a daycare, and he stole a laptop from a laywers office (think it was a lawyer). He was found with a knife in his pack, one that he stole from the daycare (I believe) but did not use it as a weapon. Instead, he left the building voluntarily.

Raffaele had a knife fetish, and was known to carry a flick knife. In fact, he had one on him when he was arrested.

So four years after the murder of a British woman in Italy, the case has grabbed your attention? ... and yes, Raffaele does not provide Amanda with an alibi.

wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 04:57 AM
Thanks, Otto, all this stuff is So, so convuluted to me because of so much hearsay and different versions of events. It's so hard for me to get the story straight. Earlier today, I was thinking it was Rudy's DNA and stuff in Filomia's room, so you'll have to forgive me in the future if I write conflicting information. I'm just reading too many different things.

Ah, I heard about it when it came out, but I just never got into it. I stumbled into the threads by happenchance while looking for a case to subscribe to since my Jody and travis case is so slow and a couple others I was following kind of whimpered away in the threads and in the press.

I just got through rereading that article and I don't see that RG was arrested, either.

Oh, and I was referring to Rudy when I said a taped phone call in jail recorded him saying Amanda hadnt been at the cottage that night.


Usually with DNA, I'm always thinking blood, but I was wondering if it were possible that Amanda's DNA got in Meredith's blood and got in F's bedroom because Amanda went in there to close the shutters and after taking a shower. I was thinking she could have picked up blood off the floor in the bathroom onto her feet, maybe.

Also, I am thinking the window thing has to be staged. My reasoning is that there were wooden shutters and then glass behind that, correct? So RG climbed up there, somehow unlatched the shutter and then threw the rock and kept going into the window? I guess that's possible, but again, wouldn't he have walked around to find an easier window? Know what I mean? I see no reason for RG to stage a break-in unless there was the unlikely case that Meredith did invite him there and he figured someone knew it. But I don't think she did that.

And what's this I'm reading about a shadowy figure in the garden? This is new within the three days I've been reading, too. I've been up all night each night on on this when I should be sleeping. I got scared tonight, listening to all the sounds in my house. I should put this case on in the daytime.

6angels
04-06-2011, 05:16 AM
Sorry I am sure this has been posted. but how long is the appeal supossed to take? I cant believe she is still in jail ( I dont believe she is guilty)

wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 05:24 AM
Anyone read this?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

If so, what are your ideas?

otto
04-06-2011, 05:35 AM
Thanks, Otto, all this stuff is So, so convuluted to me because of so much hearsay and different versions of events. It's so hard for me to get the story straight. Earlier today, I was thinking it was Rudy's DNA and stuff in Filomia's room, so you'll have to forgive me in the future if I write conflicting information. I'm just reading too many different things.

Ah, I heard about it when it came out, but I just never got into it. I stumbled into the threads by happenchance while looking for a case to subscribe to since my Jody and travis case is so slow and a couple others I was following kind of whimpered away in the threads and in the press.

I just got through rereading that article and I don't see that RG was arrested, either.

Oh, and I was referring to Rudy when I said a taped phone call in jail recorded him saying Amanda hadnt been at the cottage that night.


Usually with DNA, I'm always thinking blood, but I was wondering if it were possible that Amanda's DNA got in Meredith's blood and got in F's bedroom because Amanda went in there [Filomina's bedroom] to close the shutters and after taking a shower. I was thinking she could have picked up blood off the floor in the bathroom onto her feet, maybe.

Also, I am thinking the window thing has to be staged. My reasoning is that there were wooden shutters and then glass behind that, correct? So RG climbed up there, somehow unlatched the shutter and then threw the rock and kept going into the window? I guess that's possible, but again, wouldn't he have walked around to find an easier window? Know what I mean? I see no reason for RG to stage a break-in unless there was the unlikely case that Meredith did invite him there and he figured someone knew it. But I don't think she did that.

And what's this I'm reading about a shadowy figure in the garden? This is new within the three days I've been reading, too. I've been up all night each night on on this when I should be sleeping. I got scared tonight, listening to all the sounds in my house. I should put this case on in the daytime.

BBM

Where did you read that Amanda went into Filomina's room to close shutters?

sherlockh
04-06-2011, 05:36 AM
Sorry I am sure this has been posted. but how long is the appeal supossed to take? I cant believe she is still in jail ( I dont believe she is guilty)
It sure all takes a long time. Final ruling maybe before summer break (July) but probably September.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-28/amanda-knox-appeal-homeless-mans-contradictory-testimony

otto
04-06-2011, 05:37 AM
Sorry I am sure this has been posted. but how long is the appeal supossed to take? I cant believe she is still in jail ( I dont believe she is guilty)

May 21 ... something like that ... for the DNA testing evaluation to be presented to the court.

How long do appeals take in the US? A couple of years?

Why couldn't she be in jail, she was convicted of murder.

otto
04-06-2011, 05:40 AM
Anyone read this?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

If so, what are your ideas?

Is that another discussion board?

What exactly is your point? Ideas about what? Can you put it in your own words ... please.

SMK
04-06-2011, 07:19 AM
Anyone read this?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Meredith_Kercher_murder_reconstruction_graphic_-_Ron_Hendry.pdf

If so, what are your ideas?Yes, we have had a long discussion about Hendry and the other experts on Injustice in Perugia. I and some other believe there is a LOT of weight to the ideas proposed by Hendry ( and Waterbury)---Once you begin to doubt the staged break-in, and once you see that Guede did have an extensive history of break and entries - at least one journalist claims 6 serious crimes in 33 days, covered up by police as he was an informant - the whole thing begins to unravel.
Had I not read these people, I myself would believe Amanda guilty, as I did for a long, long time...

SMK
04-06-2011, 08:14 AM
One thing I wanted to add: IF it were proven that these "counter-experts" were wrong in their assertions, I am not so invested in innocence that I could not go back to admitting probable guilt. I am merely saying that so many questions have now been raised, which are not being answered satisfactorily, that I can no longer feel confident in the guilt of AK and RS. But I am not one of those who believes that ILE HAVE to be wrong in all.
For example, much has been made of the fact that "Giobbi saw Amanda swivel her hips when putting on protective shoe covers, and knew she was guilty". First, he only said he was suspicious, and police do use intuition. Second, there was a case in the late '70s in Long Island, where police were investigating a man's murder. The teenage daughter smiled at the detective, and asked him what brand of cologne he was wearing. He instantly became suspicious, and in the end, it was proved that she had in fact hired someone to shoot her father. So what I am saying is that I have real doubts, but am not totally against ILE in this case. Just a clarification.

SMK
04-06-2011, 12:01 PM
I also think the Case for Innocence panel did very badly by Amanda by not advertising more than 4 days prior to the event, not getting a sponsor for refreshments, not getting groups committed to attendance. I know first hand what goes into planning an event, and I was able to pack a ballroom in New York on a Monday night with 350 people. But 3 months of work went into that. Their poor showing revealed mainly poor planning, and was not good for Ms. Knox.

OldSteve
04-06-2011, 12:24 PM
Good question. And that's the problem: NO scenario where AK and RS are among the killers makes any sense whatsoever.

BBM - that's the crux of my feelings - along with the fact that RG has not implicated AK and RS doing anything with him - before, during, or after the crime.
Now I'm not an expert in DNA, blood splatter, crime scene analysis, etc... so I leave it to experts to explain it to me in terms I can understand as to what's been found in MK's room to place AK in there at the time of the crime - so far, it's not been done... not even a photo showing marks on AK or RS...

I'm left to conclude - when in Italy, don't smooch or do cartwheels near LE - least you'll be convicted of a crime.

SMK
04-06-2011, 12:28 PM
BBM - that's the crux of my feelings - along with the fact that RG has not implicated AK and RS doing anything with him - before, during, or after the crime.
Now I'm not an expert in DNA, blood splatter, crime scene analysis, etc... so I leave it to experts to explain it to me in terms I can understand as to what's been found in MK's room to place AK in there at the time of the crime - so far, it's not been done... not even a photo showing marks on AK or RS...

I'm left to conclude - when in Italy, don't smooch or do cartwheels near LE - least you'll be convicted of a crime.Yes, and it's very telling.

SMK
04-06-2011, 12:32 PM
One thing I wanted to add: IF it were proven that these "counter-experts" were wrong in their assertions, I am not so invested in innocence that I could not go back to admitting probable guilt. I am merely saying that so many questions have now been raised, which are not being answered satisfactorily, that I can no longer feel confident in the guilt of AK and RS. But I am not one of those who believes that ILE HAVE to be wrong in all.
For example, much has been made of the fact that "Giobbi saw Amanda swivel her hips when putting on protective shoe covers, and knew she was guilty". First, he only said he was suspicious, and police do use intuition. Second, there was a case in the late '70s in Long Island, where police were investigating a man's murder. The teenage daughter smiled at the detective, and asked him what brand of cologne he was wearing. He instantly became suspicious, and in the end, it was proved that she had in fact hired someone to shoot her father. So what I am saying is that I have real doubts, but am not totally against ILE in this case. Just a clarification. I wanted to clarify that while LE certainly often work compellingly with intuition, it must be backed up with very solid evidence. In the Long Island case, there was evidence and a final confession which proved this detective's intuition to be true. I do not see it with Knox.

wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 12:49 PM
BBM

Where did you read that Amanda went into Filomina's room to close shutters?

I'm sorry, I didn't read that. I was just inferring from other things I'd read. I thought I'd read that Filomina was certain that she'd closed her shutters before leaving, and so then I assumed that the shudders had to be open when Amanda arrived home. (if Amanda wasn't involved.) So I assumed that after she saw the bathroom and took a shower, she got blood residue on her feet from the bathroom. Then I assumed that she must have noticed Fil's room was a mess. Then I assumed she walked in there, saw the rock and the shutters and then closed the shutters. I'm assuming she closed them. Maybe she just walked in there and looked around to observe it was a mess without closing the shutters, and that's how she got the DNA and stuff in the room.

As for the link I asked about with the theory of the single assailant, I was wondering if you or anyone else had read it and lent it any credibility. someone else answered that they had done both.

wasnt_me
04-06-2011, 01:06 PM
Yes, we have had a long discussion about Hendry and the other experts on Injustice in Perugia. I and some other believe there is a LOT of weight to the ideas proposed by Hendry ( and Waterbury)---Once you begin to doubt the staged break-in, and once you see that Guede did have an extensive history of break and entries - at least one journalist claims 6 serious crimes in 33 days, covered up by police as he was an informant - the whole thing begins to unravel.
Had I not read these people, I myself would believe Amanda guilty, as I did for a long, long time...

With cases like this, I always try to look for ways to prove the person didn't do it. I guess I'm a diehard believer in the US justice system's creed that it's up to the state to prove their case, not the defendent. When I first heard about RG and his insane story about "sitting on the toilet," I figured that he'd acted alone or he had his own accomplice that no one knows about.

If I go with Hendry's story, I'd say that RG broke in, looking for a place to sleep or waiting for Amanda to get home, since we've heard rumors that he was somehow interested in Amanda. Or, he could have known that MK would be alone because he seemed to know her boyfriend from downstairs. Since much wasn't stolen, I'm guessing he was interested in a place to sleep or in the girls.

From what I read, it appears that he staked the house out a little bit. Maybe saw no one coming or going for a while and decided to enter through that window somehow. Then, he riles through Fil's room because that's the first room he entered. Then he goes to that bathroom near Fil's room because he's gotta dump. I think THAT'S when MK might have come home (as Hendry's report theorizes) and he got surprised and didn't flush the toilet. It's possible that he could have exited the bathroom right away or he could have stayed in there for a long time, trying to figure out what to do.

We don't really know if RG has ever done this kind of crime before or sexually assaulted anyone before, do we? I read somewhere that he was a creepy lurker at clubs and bars that made women uncomfortable enough to ask management to throw him out.

Anyways, maybe the night before (again just theorizing) he saw MK at the club, tried to talk to her. Gleened some info about her, which let him know that Amanda was working the next night and MK would be with friends, then go home. She might have clued him in to what her other roommates were doing the next day, too. I'm guessing she might have talked to him a little and felt a little less guarded because her boyfriend knew him. or she could have been creeped out an avoided him at the club, which pisse him off enough to go to her house.

Anyways, I agree with the surprised MK idea. And I agree with how Hendry said it happened on the bed and she got jerked to the other side of the room during the fight. I don't think it took 3 people to do that to meredith.

I read some other hearsay about a shadowy figure that had been lurking in the garden near the cottage for a few days. And I had heard that Amanda had phone calls with RG before and after the murder. Are either of these two things backed by evidence? I read AK phone records on some website but it was never made clear that RG was one of the callers.