PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Malkmus
04-09-2011, 05:40 PM
I just happened to be reading this article about the DNA collection and the review of such process within the appeal, and it makes it seem that the convictions standing are already a done deal. Has anyone else read it (link below).
IMO, the appeal ought to have been based on all which led to the arrest of AK and RS being questioned. That would have been a real appeal. This seems just a further way to make the convictions even more solid. http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/the_limited_dna_reviews_-_why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/

That article was posted in December and made the false presumption that the appeals would be unsuccessful if Meredith's blood was found on the knife or if Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Fast forward three months later and we already have those results. No blood, and the clasp is destroyed. There has been no favorable news for the prosecution as of yet.

SMK
04-09-2011, 06:14 PM
That article was posted in December and made the false presumption that the appeals would be unsuccessful if Meredith's blood was found on the knife or if Amanda's DNA was found on the clasp. Fast forward three months later and we already have those results. No blood, and the clasp is destroyed. There has been no favorable news for the prosecution as of yet.Yes, I knew it was old---yet tell me this, why are they still gloating "on a certain site", saying that this is "nothing new", and that since the evidence is too scant to retest, it is good for the prosecution, as now the review will only be of the original methods, which were found to be sound, may times, even by impartial reviewers???:waitasec::sick: Please, Malkmus, this is exactly what they are saying: No surprise, and it is excellent for the prosecution, as now only the original records will be reviewed which led to conviction. :( :(

otto
04-09-2011, 08:31 PM
Yes, I knew it was old---yet tell me this, why are they still gloating "on a certain site", saying that this is "nothing new", and that since the evidence is too scant to retest, it is good for the prosecution, as now the review will only be of the original methods, which were found to be sound, may times, even by impartial reviewers???:waitasec::sick: Please, Malkmus, this is exactly what they are saying: No surprise, and it is excellent for the prosecution, as now only the original records will be reviewed which led to conviction. :( :(

The fact that there is no more DNA on the blade of the knife is old news, isn't it? Isn't that what Dr Stefanoni has been saying consistently throughout her testimony? When the Rome team announced this, many people seemed to think this meant that Amanda would be free. The prosecutors simply said that it was to be expected.

My understanding is that some DNA was found on the handle, but not enough to perform another test. The clasp was corroded and cannot be retested.

If people are looking at this evidence and expecting that the convictions will be upheld, I think it means that they have confidence in Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence.

There seems to be a lot of misleading statements coming out about the retesting of the DNA. That is, it has been said by some rather confused people that no new DNA means there never was any DNA. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this, as it simply isn't true. One does not imply the other. As an analogy, suppose you have a roll of lifesavers. Each day you eat one until they are gone. Is it then reasonable to say that there never were any lifesavers? That is exactly what has been said regarding the absence of additional DNA for testing ... but it's a rather dumb thing to say.

"In reality, the two experts rejected the work of the police, saying “on that knife there was never enough to get biological material to get DNA profiles.”

link (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/)

wasnt_me
04-09-2011, 10:14 PM
I found this, of course it's old, but it's RG's cellmate [prisonmate as I've just been advised.] claiming RG told him what happened that night. The story is VERY similiar to what he first told the police, except in this story, he goes ahead and places himself in the room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFBg_PI76NI&feature=fvst


I wonder if all three of them weren't telling the truth on their very first statements all along. Wasn't there other unknown DNA that wasn't tested in MK's room? I just don't know because sperm wasn't tested and I don't know where the other guy's footprints went. I also don't know where MK's footprints went. I haven't read anywhere that says MK stepped in her own blood.

Doing a ton of guessing here, but if this were true, the OTHER guy could have come back to stage a breakin since he knew MK had let them in the house. It all sounds unlikely, except they could have broken in, hoisted one of them to the window to get in, then that person let the second person in through the door.

It's possible that RG could be the agressor and just describing his friend that way to relieve guilt. Maybe his friend saw him fighting with MK and then ran out, therefore no DNA. Or maybe MK surprised the friend in her room, he shoved her and ran the hell out, leaving RG in the bathroom coming out of the bathroom to confront MK alone. That would account for the crazy lady hearing a scream and then running. And didn't RG say somewhere that he met a friend in a white car in that parking garage?

OR, this guy could be making it up. RG chimed in on this to adamantly deny he said anything, with a lot of malicous toward the cellmate, too. In that denial statement he squarely called the crime AK and RS's.

wasnt_me
04-09-2011, 10:29 PM
I watched a video of that innocence symposium, too. That FBI agent came out with some really good info. He also had a few pictures I hadn't seen before. One was of an investigator in his white suit, plainly stepping in crime scene blood.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcGYrufLupA

Some of this was tedious, so you might want to skip to his part at time stamp: 40:15.

The picture I'm talking about is at about 59:59.

The next interesting guy is at: 1:28:00.

Some of the stuff in the overall video, I found compelling, some of it boring, and some of it a waste of the time in the conference. So let me know your thoughts.

This guy states that the investigators didn't even canvas the neighborhood to ask questions of the residences. He does bring up the woman who heard the scream.

New things the video brought to my attention:

1. There was a purse on FR's bed that had been gone through. The only thing about this one is, FR was said to have looked through her things to see if soemthing was missing, so pictures in her room might not be how the room was initially found, since pictures were taken 2-3 hours later.


2. They believed RG tried to call MK's bank from her phone.
3. Cleaners with bleach in them get on your feet in the shower and that's how AK's footprints barefoot could have shown up on the floor.
5. Bleach is used in place of blood to train investigators on how to use luminol.

6. No crime scene evidence had been transferred to RS's house. I guess that includes the shower, where they would have needed to get cleaned because they were bloody. Wonder if it was found at RG's house or not, or if RG's house was tested.


There was more, but I can't think of it right now.

sherlockh
04-09-2011, 10:36 PM
I found this, of course it's old, but it's RG's cellmate claiming RG told him what happened that night. The story is VERY similiar to what he first told the police, except in this story, he goes ahead and places himself in the room.
*Snipped*. It is not RG's cellmate, it is his prison mate.

wasnt_me
04-09-2011, 10:50 PM
This is RG denying the "confession" for those who don't remember what he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000287-504083.html

Guede denies clearing Knox and her boyfriend, calling Alessi's statements "the pure invention of a wicked mind," and asserts that Kercher's murder was committed by Knox and Sollecito.

I wonder if this will be brought up in the appeal anyways? Or has it already been?

Here's some murder investigative comic relief for you about the shutter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jFWq_frHdw

Not a very scientific experiment, but funny nonetheless.

jjenny
04-10-2011, 02:48 AM
When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 03:01 AM
When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?
I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then :)

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:00 AM
The fact that there is no more DNA on the blade of the knife is old news, isn't it? Isn't that what Dr Stefanoni has been saying consistently throughout her testimony? When the Rome team announced this, many people seemed to think this meant that Amanda would be free. The prosecutors simply said that it was to be expected.

My understanding is that some DNA was found on the handle, but not enough to perform another test. The clasp was corroded and cannot be retested.

If people are looking at this evidence and expecting that the convictions will be upheld, I think it means that they have confidence in Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence.

There seems to be a lot of misleading statements coming out about the retesting of the DNA. That is, it has been said by some rather confused people that no new DNA means there never was any DNA. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this, as it simply isn't true. One does not imply the other. As an analogy, suppose you have a roll of lifesavers. Each day you eat one until they are gone. Is it then reasonable to say that there never were any lifesavers? That is exactly what has been said regarding the absence of additional DNA for testing ... but it's a rather dumb thing to say.

"In reality, the two experts rejected the work of the police, saying “on that knife there was never enough to get biological material to get DNA profiles.”

link (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/)
Yes, this is my point. The major media outlets keep saying what great news this has been for Amanda Knox, and for the defense---that there is not enough DNA to retest, as if this will lead to the convictions being overturned. In reality, it merely means that the original collection of the samples, which has already been upheld in numerous independent reviews, and which led to conviction, will be reviewed. This seems to me to be VERY BAD news for Knox, Sollecito, and the defense. :(

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:02 AM
I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then :)Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:04 AM
I watched a video of that innocence symposium, too. That FBI agent came out with some really good info. He also had a few pictures I hadn't seen before. One was of an investigator in his white suit, plainly stepping in crime scene blood.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcGYrufLupA

Some of this was tedious, so you might want to skip to his part at time stamp: 40:15.

The picture I'm talking about is at about 59:59.

The next interesting guy is at: 1:28:00.

Some of the stuff in the overall video, I found compelling, some of it boring, and some of it a waste of the time in the conference. So let me know your thoughts.

This guy states that the investigators didn't even canvas the neighborhood to ask questions of the residences. He does bring up the woman who heard the scream.

New things the video brought to my attention:

1. There was a purse on FR's bed that had been gone through. The only thing about this one is, FR was said to have looked through her things to see if soemthing was missing, so pictures in her room might not be how the room was initially found, since pictures were taken 2-3 hours later.


2. They believed RG tried to call MK's bank from her phone.
3. Cleaners with bleach in them get on your feet in the shower and that's how AK's footprints barefoot could have shown up on the floor.
5. Bleach is used in place of blood to train investigators on how to use luminol.

6. No crime scene evidence had been transferred to RS's house. I guess that includes the shower, where they would have needed to get cleaned because they were bloody. Wonder if it was found at RG's house or not, or if RG's house was tested.


There was more, but I can't think of it right now.Yes, a lot of the written material is better than the symposium. But #s 2 and 6 IMO point very strongly to a lone wolf burglar and murderer, as in Guede.

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:18 AM
And seriously, if there was some sex game or some big 3 on 1 fight, why then take the time to call MK's bank??? Points MUCH more to a robbery gone murder. I think there is a strong likelihood that RG acted alone or with another, and that AK and RS had nothing to do with this. A pity they did not go to Rome for the weekend, and Filomina would have discovered the crime scene and called 112 alone. Or it is too bad that something did not detain Kercher, and cause her to stay out until 1 a.m. It would have been a simple robbery reported to the police.

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:16 AM
Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.
I don't think his brother did it.Of course the defense contradict themselves. At the one hand no evidence of AK in the murder room means she wasn't there, but on the other hand no evidence of Aviello's brother is no problem? So which one is it?

SMK
04-10-2011, 09:22 AM
I don't think his brother did it.Of course the defense contradict themselves. At the one hand no evidence of AK in the murder room means she wasn't there, but on the other hand no evidence of Aviello's brother is no problem? So which one is it?
I thought they are saying check the samples for the brother.:waitasec:

SMK
04-10-2011, 10:25 AM
Well, I am assuming this will not be part of the appeal anyway, so it is a moot point at this juncture?

iluvmua
04-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Why I think Amanda Knox is Guilty:

1. She accused her boss (Mr. Lumumba) of killing Meredith
2. She has changed her story numerous times
3. Her former BF, RS would not even give her an alibi
4. Her confession(s) stating she WAS there


That's all I can think of right now, if anybody else wants to add to the list feel free.

Also for the people who think she's innocent, you can make a list as well stating why you think she's innocent.

SMK
04-10-2011, 02:10 PM
Why I think Amanda Knox is Guilty:

1. She accused her boss (Mr. Lumumba) of killing Meredith
2. She has changed her story numerous times
3. Her former BF, RS would not even give her an alibi
4. Her confession(s) stating she WAS there


That's all I can think of right now, if anybody else wants to add to the list feel free.

Also for the people who think she's innocent, you can make a list as well stating why you think she's innocent.
Well, I have many, many reasons why I think she is innocent. I would love to believe she is guilty, so I would not need to feel anything or care in any way about her appeal. As for your reasons, they are too easily refuted (I wish they were NOT):
1. The police suggested Patrick to her. She was under duress. She did not know Patrick well enough to know he was innocent.
2. Only after her original story was not accepted, and police made her believe "I cannot trust my mind, and my dreams are real".
3. RS only changed his story when police scared him, said they had proof she was there.
4. False confessions happen daily. See the 1974 case of Peter Reilly, who confessed to the rape and murder of his alcoholic mother. He gave details of just how he did it. Then they realized he had an airtight alibi, and could not have been at the scene. He later said police harassed him into believing he could not trust his own mind. Knox said exactly this also.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 03:05 PM
When one inmate starts claiming that the other inmate told him something, I wouldn't exactly take these claims at face value.
We know police found Rudy because he left evidence at the scene. If his "friend" was there, where is physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA?

It is my understanding that there is unknown DNA in the house. It is also my understanding that no DNA was taken from the other roommates. It's also my understanding that it's possible to find smudged, thereby unidentifiable fingerprints. I do not know if they said they found smudged prints, however.

It is also possible to commit a crime without leaving any fingerprints or DNA. We've all seen cases like these, right? Someone being convicted without DNA or fingerprint evidence or someone never being found because was there was none?

I was lending credibility to the statement, but because it has been made and it relates to the case, it's fair to take it into consideration, so that it may or may not be dismissed. The reason I give it any weight is because it is very close to the first story RG told.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 03:11 PM
I believe they found about 19 unidentifiable fingerprints in the murder room, and some say areas on the floor are wiped. They also could claim the bathmat footprint (or a luminol footprint) belongs to this unknown friend. But it is silly since the defense are the ones that claim a lack of evidence in the murder room is a basic reason why AK+RS should not have been involved. So now they refute their own logic. The other prison witness is even sillier. He says his own brother did it. Ok then :)

Okay, the one that said the brother did it, is a different prison inmate. I dn't even know if he ever talked to RG or supposedly talked to RG. the guy talking about his brother is supposed to have been int he mafia. The other dude we're discussing was a child killer.

This mafia guy you mean said that his brother must have gotten an address to go to for stolen paintings confused with the cottage. under that confusion, the brother and a friend broke in there. This guy claims that his brother gave him the knife and some keys, which this guy says he hid on his own property.

They can solve that quick by getting a search warrant and digging up the man's property. Probably not simply or easy, but I believe we've dug up plenty of people's property here in the USA when we want to find answers.


Well, first off, many a brother has turned his own brother in (as in the Capano case). And secondly, they do not refute their own logic by saying there was not enough of AK and RS's evidence. That the court upheld RG did not act alone could still leave AK and RS out and add others in.

Right, and also I saw a case where the mother, who was a police officer, turned in her own son for rape and murder. It was heartbreaking.


Well, I am assuming this will not be part of the appeal anyway, so it is a moot point at this juncture?

I brought it up, but I wasn't talking about the brother. i was talking about the other inmate. I had already dismissed the mafia brother in my own mind, but we don't know if they'll bring either jail house statements up. I was asking if anyone thought they would. Your guess is that they won't, so thanks for answering.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 03:21 PM
And seriously, if there was some sex game or some big 3 on 1 fight, why then take the time to call MK's bank??? Points MUCH more to a robbery gone murder. I think there is a strong likelihood that RG acted alone or with another, and that AK and RS had nothing to do with this. A pity they did not go to Rome for the weekend, and Filomina would have discovered the crime scene and called 112 alone. Or it is too bad that something did not detain Kercher, and cause her to stay out until 1 a.m. It would have been a simple robbery reported to the police.

Also, if the bank call went out around 10pm or so (I can't remember the exact time they said) it might to safe to assume MK was dead or dying at that point. So we can pinpoint a murder time better.

Next, Some have asked why choose FR's window and I have discovered a possible reason.

I read that FR was the collector of rent for everyone in her house. Since her boyfriend was an associate of Rudy's, I don't think it's a stretch for RG to somehow know this. Whether he heard someone say "FR's got to get the rent from the girls, and then we're gonna..." Or whatever. Some casual mention is what I'm getting at. I don't even think it's a stretch for MK to have possibly told RG this at the club.

Now, I AM TOTALLY GUESSING, but say he said hello to her in the club and just commented, "First of the month. It'll be all about rent tomorrow, right?" Or "Geez, I'm out here drinking and ain't paid my rent yet." You know what I mean? Just an offhand comment. Then she might have said, "I know, right? I've still got to take all our rent to the landlord." And they keep claiming this was some sort of holiday, so maybe the landlord wasn't accepting the rent until Monday or something. I don't know, but would like more information on whether FR had the rent, had paid the rent or not, or was waiting for the apporpriate day after the holiday.

So if RG has knowledge of FR as the rent collector, then I believe it makes sense to break into FR's room. That's where the money should be. Even if he didn't talk to her the night before, I think he somehow knew this. So he breaks directly into the room where the money should be at. That's the room that seems to have been ransacked.

And let me tell you, this happened to me. Remember I told y'all that my rental property was broken into?

Well, my idiot renter, he's 30, insists on giving me cash. STILL insists on giving it to me after this happened. After new year's this year, I called him so I could go over to the house to get the rent. He'd live there since October, and was putting the rent in cash in an envelope and putting right on the table in front of the TV.

So I call him and he tells me someone broke in the place and of course the rent money was gone. This was the second break in at the place in 2 or 3 years. We've had the place since 1992 which no incidence until these two. So anyways, He started bringing the rent--in cash--to me at my house. I just collected April's rent from him, right? Since I was going over there to cut the grass and he wouldn't be home, guess where he left the rent? In an envelope in cash on the table right in front of where there is NOW no longer at TV (because it was stolen in the burglary.)

I was thinking man, I should tell him not to do that, but I was on the way over there, so it only sat there for maybe an hour. But see how nonsensical people can be? three months since the incident and he already feels safe about repeating this habit. I have asked for a check or MO to be mailed, but he just keeps doing cash. I don't get that, because it costs about the same to drive it to me. I just don't like this habit of leaving the cash, and or bringing it to me, then I have the cash sitting around until I go to the bank. I odn't like that.

Now how many of you think some of his friends know of this habit? Who can in turn tell other friends? Heck, I might be in the house when something like this happens, so I have to tell him to stop this behavior, for real.
But now that I've told you, don't fly here and throw rocks in my windows! LOL

Nova
04-10-2011, 03:42 PM
This is RG denying the "confession" for those who don't remember what he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000287-504083.html

Guede denies clearing Knox and her boyfriend, calling Alessi's statements "the pure invention of a wicked mind," and asserts that Kercher's murder was committed by Knox and Sollecito.

I wonder if this will be brought up in the appeal anyways? Or has it already been?

Here's some murder investigative comic relief for you about the shutter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jFWq_frHdw

Not a very scientific experiment, but funny nonetheless.

It's more scientific than merely glancing at the ground outside or asking Filomena how she remembers leaving the room.

But I agree, that is hysterical! Particularly the comments from the man holding the camera: he so clearly thinks the whole subject is a waste of time.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 04:13 PM
Why I think Amanda Knox is Guilty:

1. She accused her boss (Mr. Lumumba) of killing Meredith
2. She has changed her story numerous times
3. Her former BF, RS would not even give her an alibi
4. Her confession(s) stating she WAS there


That's all I can think of right now, if anybody else wants to add to the list feel free.

Also for the people who think she's innocent, you can make a list as well stating why you think she's innocent.

These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

SMK
04-10-2011, 04:48 PM
Also, if the bank call went out around 10pm or so (I can't remember the exact time they said) it might to safe to assume MK was dead or dying at that point. So we can pinpoint a murder time better.

Next, Some have asked why choose FR's window and I have discovered a possible reason.

I read that FR was the collector of rent for everyone in her house. Since her boyfriend was an associate of Rudy's, I don't think it's a stretch for RG to somehow know this. Whether he heard someone say "FR's got to get the rent from the girls, and then we're gonna..." Or whatever. Some casual mention is what I'm getting at. I don't even think it's a stretch for MK to have possibly told RG this at the club.

Now, I AM TOTALLY GUESSING, but say he said hello to her in the club and just commented, "First of the month. It'll be all about rent tomorrow, right?" Or "Geez, I'm out here drinking and ain't paid my rent yet." You know what I mean? Just an offhand comment. Then she might have said, "I know, right? I've still got to take all our rent to the landlord." And they keep claiming this was some sort of holiday, so maybe the landlord wasn't accepting the rent until Monday or something. I don't know, but would like more information on whether FR had the rent, had paid the rent or not, or was waiting for the apporpriate day after the holiday.

So if RG has knowledge of FR as the rent collector, then I believe it makes sense to break into FR's room. That's where the money should be. Even if he didn't talk to her the night before, I think he somehow knew this. So he breaks directly into the room where the money should be at. That's the room that seems to have been ransacked.

And let me tell you, this happened to me. Remember I told y'all that my rental property was broken into?

Well, my idiot renter, he's 30, insists on giving me cash. STILL insists on giving it to me after this happened. After new year's this year, I called him so I could go over to the house to get the rent. He'd live there since October, and was putting the rent in cash in an envelope and putting right on the table in front of the TV.

So I call him and he tells me someone broke in the place and of course the rent money was gone. This was the second break in at the place in 2 or 3 years. We've had the place since 1992 which no incidence until these two. So anyways, He started bringing the rent--in cash--to me at my house. I just collected April's rent from him, right? Since I was going over there to cut the grass and he wouldn't be home, guess where he left the rent? In an envelope in cash on the table right in front of where there is NOW no longer at TV (because it was stolen in the burglary.)

I was thinking man, I should tell him not to do that, but I was on the way over there, so it only sat there for maybe an hour. But see how nonsensical people can be? three months since the incident and he already feels safe about repeating this habit. I have asked for a check or MO to be mailed, but he just keeps doing cash. I don't get that, because it costs about the same to drive it to me. I just don't like this habit of leaving the cash, and or bringing it to me, then I have the cash sitting around until I go to the bank. I odn't like that.

Now how many of you think some of his friends know of this habit? Who can in turn tell other friends? Heck, I might be in the house when something like this happens, so I have to tell him to stop this behavior, for real.
But now that I've told you, don't fly here and throw rocks in my windows! LOL
I think your theory is 100% correct. It makes more sense than any other, and flies with my own experience (I have known people who were robbed because they stupidly made an offhand remark in front of people of dubious character about having a large amount of cash at home that they would have to take to the bank- and YES, you had better be careful, and make some changes in your own situation, for obvious reasons. :panic:)

SMK
04-10-2011, 04:50 PM
These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.:goodpost::goodpost:

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:11 PM
The fact that there is no more DNA on the blade of the knife is old news, isn't it? Isn't that what Dr Stefanoni has been saying consistently throughout her testimony? When the Rome team announced this, many people seemed to think this meant that Amanda would be free. The prosecutors simply said that it was to be expected.

My understanding is that some DNA was found on the handle, but not enough to perform another test. The clasp was corroded and cannot be retested.

If people are looking at this evidence and expecting that the convictions will be upheld, I think it means that they have confidence in Dr Stefanoni's analysis of the evidence.

There seems to be a lot of misleading statements coming out about the retesting of the DNA. That is, it has been said by some rather confused people that no new DNA means there never was any DNA. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would say this, as it simply isn't true. One does not imply the other. As an analogy, suppose you have a roll of lifesavers. Each day you eat one until they are gone. Is it then reasonable to say that there never were any lifesavers? That is exactly what has been said regarding the absence of additional DNA for testing ... but it's a rather dumb thing to say.

"In reality, the two experts rejected the work of the police, saying “on that knife there was never enough to get biological material to get DNA profiles.”

link (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/)

Stephanoni received special permission to lead the forensic team in the collection of the forensics. This is simply unheard of. The person that is to analyze the DNA is never suppose to be involved in the collection to eliminate testing bias

Stephanoni also perjured herself on the stand with a number of statements such as stating that there was sufficient biological material on both the bra and knife handle, stating that various things were never tested for blood just to name a few. You have stated that her work was reviewed. If you consider that her boss looked over her reports as a review of the testing you are very mistaken with what a review of the DNA entails.

They tossed all accepted protocols/procedures out the window with the collection and testing methods they used and had the audacity of putting the collection on video.

To start they removed bloody footprints from the floor tiles, then by using pictures tried to replace them back on the tiles the following day when in fact the entire tile should of been lifted.

It is stated here that this is "old news" when in fact some of it is not.
There was no DNA on the knife. If there had of been the machine would not of returned a too low reading 12 times before Stephanoni overrode the machine values so many times in order to get what is called "noise". There simply was not enough material to even consider testing but did this stop Stephanoni? No it did not. Instead she used methods never used before and ones never documented in any scientific literature

The amount of alleged DNA on the blade was LCN DNA. She performed an LCN DNA test in an ordinary DNA lab environment using methods never heard of before. She stated that the handle had sufficient DNA for additional testing and it has now been proven that in fact there was never enough to test the first time by the independent analysts.

So to use your lifesaver analogy if one lifesaver equals 5 picograms the blade and handle both had one lifesaver or less on each. The appointed experts have stated that there was no way to get a valid profile from the knife and the test results should never of been admitted in the first trial.

It was also stated during trial the knife had been cleaned and in fact now tests the independent analysts have done prove that this knife had never been cleaned with bleach.In no way to date have they in fact confirmed Stephanoni's work and in fact to date the results are quite the opposite to which is being claimed in this post.

Often you posted that the bra clasp had "abundant" DNA. Guess what? That as well appears to have been LCN DNA according to the experts. As well, the forensics team videotaped the collection of this item and by doing this proved that there had been introduced far too many errors for the results to of been produced in the first trial. Those errors can never be corrected. Thus the testing introduced during the first trial were invalid and have been found to be so during this review to date.

To use your lifesaver analogy on the bra clasp there should of been according to the documentation presented 1000 lifesavers on that bra clasp. Since it is being classified as LCN DNA, and low amounts reported I will be generous in the number of lifesavers I give you on this one. I will state 10 lifesavers which would be equal to 50 picograms in this particular lifesaver analogy

Any respected forensic expert knows that items which are wet must be dried and stored properly. Instead they took this bra clasp and stored it in a jar of liquid. To again use your lifesaver analogy have you ever heard of anyone storing a lifesaver to eat later in a jar of liquid? No. The reason being is that it would melt thus you would not have a lifesaver to eat.

The other area of interest had been the defense continued requests for the .fsa files which were continually refused to be released by the prosecution. The prosecution stated these files were not required by the defense to conduct a review but they are and surprise the experts are now indeed requesting these .fsa files be released to them so they can further evaluate how she arrived at her findings.

I will now be curious if they even exist or were these tests results simply made up?

To sum this up there was no abundance of DNA on the handle of the knife or the bra clasp. The errors introduced during the collections cannot be fixed. Any previous results reported could not be reported because of this contamination and what appears to be insufficient quantities to be tested period let alone tested in a regular DNA laboratory.

I will again point out that in LCN DNA the readings that you have continually posted in this forum were bogus and here is why. LCN DNA readings are the OPPOSITE of regular DNA readings. In other words they should not be identical as you would get in regular DNA readings.

If the .fsa files are not given to the independent analysts it not only destroys the DNA findings against AK and RS but could impact the defense of RG. Technically, not only could all the DNA results against AK and RS be tossed but all the DNA against all 3 could conceivable be tossed.

The only misleading statements are the ones that are in the article and in your post. If you think I am being harsh I am. I am totally sick and tired of the erroneous, false and misleading information posted with respect to the DNA

As well, in reality the experts to date not only rejected the work of the police, but also Stephanoni and the prosecution presenting this information during a trial. These are very serious violations of which the ramifications I do not believe I have seen the likes of ever.

To use your analogy again so far the independent experts have ZERO LIFESAVERS against AK and RS. The original DNA tests should never of been presented in a court of law. Good science has no international boundaries!!!!

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:13 PM
These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

sorry quoted wrong one will try this again

otto
04-10-2011, 05:19 PM
<snip>

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. .

"Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood."

Ref: Rachael Bell
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

I think you forgot to put quotes and source some of your remarks.

otto
04-10-2011, 05:21 PM
Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

It doesn't matter how much DNA was on the clasp since it's too corroded to be retested. I'm not sure how you get to the conclusion that there was not abundant DNA on that clasp.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:23 PM
Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

I am stating that the amount was TOO LOW to get a VALID PROFILE

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:26 PM
These things cited are weak circumstantial evidence, which another poster detailed why they don't weigh heavily against the other evidence that Rudy acted alone or possibily with an unknown partner. I don't believe she changed her story numerous times. Just once and then reverted back to being at RS's house. She did conjecture that RS placed a knife in her hand while she was sleeping, but it was still at his house where she dreams that could have happened. Let me know if I'm wrong, and there's another story besides being at RS's and then PL did it, and then back to being at RS's.

RS gave her an ailibi the first time. Under pressure, he now says he doesn't know where the girl was, but I just read something that said he is back to saying she was with him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for stating she was there, as the other poster cited, there are many false confession cases. Check the innocence project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

here are a few recorded false confessions/or confessions from people who obviously do not know what they are talking about:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession

Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood. The man, Richard Raymond Tuite, was seen wandering through the neighborhood and acting suspiciously on the day of the murder.

Another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCyKnc1BVV8

This guy now says his friend had nothing to do it and he acted alone, but the story isn't over, because the defense team is investigating the person who last saw the victim alive. There are some very good reasons to suspect this coworker, but it's too long to detail in a thread that isn't about that case. Still hopefully, you can see from this video, that the suspect doesn't know the details of the crime scene. Apparently, chuck and Ryan went to a bar and went home. Chuck says a couple years later, he dreamed that they did this crime. Friends told on him, which led to this interrogation. Ryan contends they went home and has never changed his story.

this is Ryan's interrogation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5McAuB6zhH0

Important to note, these interrogations went on for hours, not just these small clips shown. With these two suspects, I'd say Chuck is like AK and Ryan is like RS in the sense that AK went ahead and caved and made up something. RS has not done that.

Check out these:

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-incarcerated

http://www.falseconfessions.org/cases-the-exonerated

I'm leery right now of giving my reasons for their innocence because I feel I haven't thoroughly studied the case. But I do have some reasons. I can get them together for you.

This is the case of Ryan Ferguson which I have followed for some time and am amazed that the prosecutor which is now a judge took this to trial

otto
04-10-2011, 05:29 PM
<snip>
The only misleading statements are the ones that are in the article and in your post. If you think I am being harsh I am. I am totally sick and tired of the erroneous, false and misleading information posted with respect to the DNA

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

otto
04-10-2011, 05:31 PM
I am stating that the amount was TOO LOW to get a VALID PROFILE

Doesn't it seem awfully coincidental that the results are a match to Meredith, with the only difference being that the graphed results have lower numbers than Meredith's DNA ... which is to be expected since it's LNC DNA?

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:33 PM
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

yes that is what i am saying. If contamination occurs in the collection process you must toss that piece and the list goes on

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

A forensic expert does not scrape off bloody footprints then try and replace them the next day. The tile should be lifted or the print cut out etc etc etc

otto
04-10-2011, 05:36 PM
yes that is what i am saying. If contamination occurs in the collection process you must toss that piece and the list goes on

Contamination hasn't been demonstrated yet, but maybe the experts in Rome will come up with something. The only DNA from Raffaele in the cottage, other than the clasp, was on the cigarette in the kitchen. That was collected early on. If the clasp was contaminated while it was on the floor of the bedroom, where did the DNA come from?

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 05:37 PM
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that it is "erroneous, false and misleading" to believe that the DNA tests completed by Dr Stefanoni are valid?

A forensic expert does not state on the stand that there was suffiecient DNA to test when you have a piece of paper in your hand that states

Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low

That is perjury

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 05:46 PM
This is not a complete list because I have not studied the case thoroughly, and because I'm typing this up on the fly.

I. There was a real break-in.

I'm contending that there was a real break-in based on the evidence. Part of my reasoning comes from independent study I did at studying pictures of broken windows, reading about how glass falls when they are broken, Hendry's analysis of the breakage of the window in question, a report that concluded it was staged, and my own observations of the window in question (from pictures)

A. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that RG was a burglar.
B. There is sufficient evidence that Rudy burgled with rocks before and that he has somehow gotten into a high window before after using a rock.
C. There is sufficient evidence that RG carried knives and threatened a homeowner with a knife, so it's reasonable that he'd make another knife threat on MK.
D. RG had a need to burgle because he was in threat of eviction.
E. There is sufficient evidence that RG didn't seem to regard whether anyone was in the place he burgled. He came in on a homeowner and threatened him with a knife to get him to open the front door. He encountered the woman at the nursery after he'd broken in there, and the boys downstairs at the cottage (I think and correct me if I'm wrong) said they discovered him sleeping on their sofa.

F. It was a good weekend to burgle. If he needed money to pay his rent or whatever, then the timing is right. He'd been burgling all month, so it really doesn't matter, but if this was a hoilday weekend when a lot of students were vacating the area, it's a good time for it. Even better if he happened to know from the residents of the cottage that 8 people would not be around, or at least not 4 men he'd have to fight, for sure.

G. Totally my conjecture, and I don't know if it's fact, but I'm going along with the assumption that he knew RF collected all the ladies' rent monies and therefore believed that it would be in RF's room somewhere. This is the same room that he used as a point of entry to the house. This is the only ransacked room (besides murder room).

H. we cannot say for certain the condition RF left her room in, what her idea of clean means, whether she locked all three layers of the window, or if she did or did not significantly (though accidentally) alter the crime scene as she checked around to see if anything was missing. We also don't know anything about the rent money to my knowledge (wonder if the landlord got paid at all that month? I didn't after my break in at my rental.) I don't believe FR is lying about anything, but I do believe we have a lot of room here to guess on what she thinks clean is, because I don't believe all the stuff lining the walls got that way by ransacking.

I. Glass landed in large shards clear across the room, as seen in pictures notably on the blue rug. I also think it's very dumb for AK and RS to go outside and get a rock to do it inside when they could have just thrown it from the outside in. I will say it's possible they were dumb enough to go out there to do it that way, but then realized the green shutters were closed and went back into the house to open them, and then when back inside got lazy and just did it from inside, but that's a stretch for me. There is also a mark on the inner shutters and glass imbedded in the inner shutters on the side that faces the outdoors. This means that something HAD to hit those white shutters from the outdoors, OR the white shutters were open into the room already when something hit them from inside. If that's the case, I expect to see a collection of glass on FR's floor under that white shutter, because that would indicate that the inner shutter had blocked the glass from behind it. I'd also expect to see more glass on FR's clothes and the dresser located right there next to that open inner shutter.

J. For me, the rock's path looks logical. It hit the corner of that inner shutter on it's way in, caused its path to curve. It hit the black bag on the floor and tore the bag on the way to the floor. It landed and tiny bits of it fell to mark it's landing. I do not believe a simulator would purposely place that rock off to the side half in and half out of a bag, but I believe it would naturally land there after the inner shutter modified the direction in which it was travelling, which might have also slown the rock's speed down.

K. RG carried glass breaking tools. Was caught with a glass breaker from a bus. Once he climbed the lower window, he is at least shoulder height to the window sill. If he had an accomplice, this person could have helped him get higher without scuffing the wall, but there is one scuff mark on this wall. We cannot say definitively that RG put the scuff mark there, of course, but if he's at least shoulder height to the sill, getting in is just a matter of doing a pull-up.

L. There is evidence that RG manually broke out the glass along the bottom pane of the window, set it on the sill, reached up to unlatch the window and then pulled himself inside.There are pings in the glass which indicate a new break in the glass from a different direction, and that direction is from the inside of the room out. It was made by Rudy bending the glass toward him from outside the room. Hope that makes sense. When windows break, a lot of times, you will see spikes or shards around the hole. It is not usually a clean break across the bottom as we see in the pictures. RG broke those shards off so he could pull himself up without getting cut.

M. There is evidence of some grainy sand or something on top of some clothes by the window. theorists assert that it is dirt or pieces of the wall from the scuff mark RG made with his shoes. They theorize he stepped on the clothes while climbing in the room. There is also a cord right beneath the window that goes to the TV. They contend that he tripped on it, causing the cord to tighten and pull the TV backward against some boxes on the dresser. These mishaps could have caused FR's clothes to fall out of that cabinet. The rock flying into the room, busting back the white inner shutter, which in turns hits that dresser, also could have caused all those clothes to fall out of the dresser. All these vibrations also could have reasonably caused FR's laptop to become unbalanced and fall, getting glass on it. Or RG could have contemplated taking her laptop and got glass on it from his own clothes.

N. Glass outside. We'd expect some no matter how the window was broken from inside or out. but we have no proof either way.

O. RG might have had an accomplice other than the other suspects. Other Websleuther's need to help me here if I'm wrong, but I read RG saying something about meeting someone in a white car in that area that day. We also know that other unknown fingerprints were around and unknown DNA on the bra clasp, too. Another person involved will explain RG story that he heard something going on when he went to the bathroom. It's logical that his friend could have helped him into the window, RG then opened the front door for his friend, RG got juice and went to the bathroom, MK arrived home, screamed to find this other person in her room. RG heard it, and saw his friend fighting with her. His friend could have said that RG was the black dude, so he'll get blamed and then left. I don't know about that, since it makes no sense for G to rape her in that scenerio. "Oh, might as well since she's dying," just doesn't ring true to me. So I don't know about this accomplice thing, please don't debate me on it. I'm still thinking about that one.



Okay, I thought I was going to get this all in one post, but I gotta take a break and move onto the next things that cause me to believe innocence.

The reason the break-in is essential to me is that I believe it's essential to guilt or innocence. A real break-in means a real burglar.

otto
04-10-2011, 05:46 PM
A forensic expert does not scrape off bloody footprints then try and replace them the next day. The tile should be lifted or the print cut out etc etc etc

I understand that Bremner thinks the tile should have been removed from the bathroom floor (which would very likely result in the destruction of the tile). I also know that during the investigation into the murder of Michelle Young, the linoleum was not lifted from the bathroom floor. Why would Bremner think that the floor has to be taken for analysis in Italy, but not in North Carolina, or anywhere else, for that matter?

otto
04-10-2011, 05:49 PM
A forensic expert does not state on the stand that there was suffiecient DNA to test when you have a piece of paper in your hand that states

Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low

That is pergury

Actually, it's not "pergury" (interesting ... I knew I'd seen that spelling somewhere before). Isn't it a spectacular coincidence that the DNA was a match?

Here are the actual results. It's a match. The blue lines are from the knife. Coincidence or science?

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

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 05:50 PM
"Court TVs Harriet Ryan reported that on the eve of the trial, DNA tests conducted on a 28-year-old mentally ill homeless mans clothes revealed Stephanies blood."

Ref: Rachael Bell
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/6.html

I think you forgot to put quotes and source some of your remarks.

Oh, I'm supposed to be doing that each time? Please let me know. Don't want to violate TOS.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 05:51 PM
This is the case of Ryan Ferguson which I have followed for some time and am amazed that the prosecutor which is now a judge took this to trial

We'd have to go to the other thread to talk about these two, but i believe that coworker did it, for real.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 05:56 PM
Doesn't it seem awfully coincidental that the results are a match to Meredith, with the only difference being that the graphed results have lower numbers than Meredith's DNA ... which is to be expected since it's LNC DNA?

It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

otto
04-10-2011, 06:08 PM
It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

Are you suggesting that the knife or the clasp evidence was a result of a dirty lab?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:16 PM
Are you suggesting that the knife or the clasp evidence was a result of a dirty lab?

I'm not suggesting a thing.

I said the defense is suggesting that the machine used still had MK's DNA traces on it. I do not know about a dirty lab overall.

I looked it up for reference and found there is/or was a contamination claim like this on the clasp as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255101/DNA-on-Meredith-Kerchers-bloodied-bra-was-due-to-lab-contamination-claims-Sollecito.html

This is one pro AK RS agrument about the knife:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

I'll try to find a "more objective" one, if possible.

I don't know if this site is pro AK:


Specifically, he took Stefanoni to task for incomplete documentation of her scientific process and even produced a daily registry from the machine that detected Knox's and the victim's DNA on the knife and showed where Stefanoni had handwritten "too low" four times.

"It could be contamination of the laboratory. It could have been anything," Tagliabracci said. "''Too low' means it should not have been used for analysis."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Amanda-Knox-s-defense-knocks-DNA-evidence-895012.php#ixzz1JA6D8DiV

I am wondering what this is about, though:


He also pointed out contradictions between the results and what Stefanoni actually wrote in her technical report. Specifially, Stefanoni wrote that a mattress cover from the downstairs apartment had tested positive for cat blood and negative for human DNA, when the actual results showed a positive result for human DNA.

Maybe it's nothing, since we haven't heard much about it. anybody know?

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Amanda-Knox-s-defense-knocks-DNA-evidence-895012.php#ixzz1JA6fcjrg

otto
04-10-2011, 06:21 PM
I'm not suggesting a thing.

I said the defense is suggesting it, and it is in regards to the knife.

The defense is alleging contamination, but I haven't read anywhere that they went so far as to suggest that the lab was dirty. There's certainly no evidence of that, and we know that there were no problems in testing Rudy's DNA in the same lab.

Nova
04-10-2011, 06:23 PM
Contamination hasn't been demonstrated yet, but maybe the experts in Rome will come up with something. The only DNA from Raffaele in the cottage, other than the clasp, was on the cigarette in the kitchen. That was collected early on. If the clasp was contaminated while it was on the floor of the bedroom, where did the DNA come from?

If the kitchen knife had been the murder weapon, it should have been coated thickly with blood. There is no evidence that bleach or some other special agent was used to clean it.

So the fact that so few particles remained is strongly suggestive of contamination. That those few matched the victim, whose DNA was already in the lab from other items, only makes contamination MORE probable.

I.e., if the knife contained NO DNA, one could at least argue that it had been thoroughly cleaned.

Nova
04-10-2011, 06:26 PM
Oh, I'm supposed to be doing that each time? Please let me know. Don't want to violate TOS.

In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:31 PM
In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

I only said that I was sure I'd seen that spelling of perjury before ... but couldn't place it until today. As for taking statements written by others, yes, it is necessary to reference all of them. If they're not referenced, people like me will see them jump off the page as being out of place.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:32 PM
If the kitchen knife had been the murder weapon, it should have been coated thickly with blood. There is no evidence that bleach or some other special agent was used to clean it.

So the fact that so few particles remained is strongly suggestive of contamination. That those few matched the victim, whose DNA was already in the lab from other items, only makes contamination MORE probable.

I.e., if the knife contained NO DNA, one could at least argue that it had been thoroughly cleaned.

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:32 PM
The defense is alleging contamination, but I haven't read anywhere that they went so far as to suggest that the lab was dirty. There's certainly no evidence of that, and we know that there were no problems in testing Rudy's DNA in the same lab.

Okay, who in the world said the lab was dirty? I didn't. These assumptions get us off track.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 06:33 PM
Allusonz, are you saying that the DNA results from the knife do not match Meredith?

It doesn't matter how much DNA was on the clasp since it's too corroded to be retested. I'm not sure how you get to the conclusion that there was not abundant DNA on that clasp.

You mean that you would hire someone in your defense that allowed a lifesaver you wanted to eat melt? :giggle:

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:40 PM
How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

Nova did not come to any conclusion. She speculated a theory that if there was nothing on the knife, then there was a case for it being thoroughly cleaned as they have claimed. She is merely citing that it was not thoroughly cleaned if they found something on it, starch stuck in it even after all these years, for example.

Nova, are you a "she," because if not, I apologize.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:42 PM
Okay, who in the world said the lab was dirty? I didn't. These assumptions get us off track.



It isn't co-incidental. The defense contends lab contamination because the machine had been used to test other things with MK's DNA. Also the lad wasn't even certified to carryout that DNA technique.

I don't know anything about a cigarette. where did that info come from?

I must have misunderstood. Alleging that the machine was contaminated with Meredith's DNA and that was the cause of DNA results from the knife ... sounds like a dirty lab problem to me.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 06:42 PM
How do you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the knife was cleaned?

The appointed analysts tested it for bleach and found starch

otto
04-10-2011, 06:43 PM
You mean that you would hire someone in your defense that allowed a lifesaver you wanted to eat melt? :giggle:

The corroded clasp is unfortunate, but the original results still exist.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:47 PM
The appointed analysts tested it for bleach and found starch

I wonder where that came from? Could it be lab contamination?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:49 PM
I must have misunderstood. Alleging that the machine was contaminated with Meredith's DNA and that was the cause of DNA results from the knife ... sounds like a dirty lab problem to me.

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. They could have mopped, dusted, waxed, and cleaned the toilets in there, but didn't get all MK's DNA traces off the machine before starting again.

It's funny because I was reading an article about this case that said false assumptions on the premise (ie, the breakin being staged) led to more false assumptions (ie only AK could have done it) which led to more false assumptions (AK is the murder) which led to a false conclusion.

Same thing for PL. False assumption on what "See you later" meant for Americans led to false assumption that PL was involved. That led to a rigorous interrogation, where AK was hammered because the police "just knew" her and PL did this with RS. If they are under that belief because of the false premise, they will accept nothing from AK but agreement with it. Thus, she finally starts agreeing with it, which leads to his arrest.

I'm just saying these things because we have to be careful in our assumptions, make it known they're assumptions, be willing to be corrected if we're wrong, and basically stick with the facts and whether the facts bear out these assumptions.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:50 PM
I wonder where that came from? Could it be lab contamination?

It is a possibility; however, more probable that it came from cooking something with strach using the knife in question, since it is a kitchen knife. If it did come from the lab, it is further proof of a "possibly dirty lab," but I am not stating that it is indeed dirty.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:52 PM
One doesn't necessarily mean the other. They could have mopped, dusted, waxed, and cleaned the toilets in there, but didn't get all MK's DNA traces off the machine before starting again.

It's funny because I was reading an article about this case that said false assumptions on the premise (ie, the breakin being staged) led to more false assumptions (ie only AK could have done it) which led to more false assumptions (AK is the murder) which led to a false conclusion.

Same thing for PL. False assumption on what "See you later" meant for Americans led to false assumption that PL was involved. That led to a rigorous interrogation, where AK was hammered because the police "just knew" her and PL did this with RS. If they are under that belief because of the false premise, they will accept nothing from AK but agreement with it. Thus, she finally starts agreeing with it, which leads to his arrest.

I'm just saying these things because we have to be careful in our assumptions, make it known they're assumptions, be willing to be corrected if we're wrong, and basically stick with the facts and whether the facts bear out these assumptions.

Assumption: Amanda Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of murder after two hours of questioning because she was deprived of the necessities of life.

That's funny.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 06:52 PM
The corroded clasp is unfortunate, but the original results still exist.

Nope they do not. Once contamination is introduced that piece of evidence should never be used in trial.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:54 PM
It is a possibility; however, more probable that it came from cooking something with strach using the knife in question, since it is a kitchen knife. If it did come from the lab, it is further proof of a "possibly dirty lab," but I am not stating that it is indeed dirty.

I don't know. If the DNA was a result of contamination, but the starch is legit, that sounds like selective reasoning. Maybe the DNA is legit and the starch is a result of contamination ... maybe there was some starch on the inside of the gloves to make them easier to put on and remove and that starch was transferred to the knife handle.

SMK
04-10-2011, 06:54 PM
One doesn't necessarily mean the other. They could have mopped, dusted, waxed, and cleaned the toilets in there, but didn't get all MK's DNA traces off the machine before starting again.

It's funny because I was reading an article about this case that said false assumptions on the premise (ie, the breakin being staged) led to more false assumptions (ie only AK could have done it) which led to more false assumptions (AK is the murder) which led to a false conclusion.

Same thing for PL. False assumption on what "See you later" meant for Americans led to false assumption that PL was involved. That led to a rigorous interrogation, where AK was hammered because the police "just knew" her and PL did this with RS. If they are under that belief because of the false premise, they will accept nothing from AK but agreement with it. Thus, she finally starts agreeing with it, which leads to his arrest.

I'm just saying these things because we have to be careful in our assumptions, make it known they're assumptions, be willing to be corrected if we're wrong, and basically stick with the facts and whether the facts bear out these assumptions.Absolutely true!!

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 06:54 PM
Assumption: Amanda Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of murder after two hours of questioning because she was deprived of the necessities of life.

That's funny.

I believe that your information with respect to this is incorrect and the water is trying to be muddied. Those are not what she claimed.

The only thing I find amusing is that her character is the only thing that some continue to fall back on in their arguments

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 06:57 PM
Assumption: Amanda Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of murder after two hours of questioning because she was deprived of the necessities of life.

That's funny.

Is it not my understanding that it took two hours. Where is the documentation on that? I honestly haven't even gotten to that part of my indepth studies, because I have still be studying this window. I have read over articles etc, but I have not looked at this incident in detail, so please let me know.

otto
04-10-2011, 06:57 PM
Nope they do not. Once contamination is introduced that piece of evidence should never be used in trial.

What happened to the original test results? Have they disappeared?

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 06:58 PM
What happened to the original test results? Have they disappeared?

They are contaminated would you like me to post my favorite video for you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA

otto
04-10-2011, 06:59 PM
I believe that your information with respect to this is incorrect and the water is trying to be muddied. Those are not what she claimed.

The only thing I find amusing is that her character is the only thing that some continue to fall back on in their arguments

Claims were that Amanda was deprived of food and water, bopped on the head, and then she accused Patrick. This accusation came 2 hours after the start of the questioning on Nov 5 (shortly after she ate pizza with Raffaele).

There's nothing muddy about that.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:00 PM
I don't know. If the DNA was a result of contamination, but the starch is legit, that sounds like selective reasoning. Maybe the DNA is legit and the starch is a result of contamination ... maybe there was some starch on the inside of the gloves to make them easier to put on and remove and that starch was transferred to the knife handle.

I think that all I did was make a theory about where the starch came from and in that theory I admitted that it could have come from the lab. I am not sure where I am using selective reasoning.

You make a reasonable case about starch coming out of the glove, if that's what's inside those gloves to make them easier to put on. I do not know. It is my understanding that the starch was located between the handle and the blade, where gunk normally builds on a knife. I looked at my "so called" clean knifes in my knife block and they have gunk like that where I have indicated.

There is another theory about how this test yielded this result. It's one that I don't ascribe to, and frankly, didn't quite understand. I'd have to find that article to see if you can make sense of it. But it was saying something about a LCN test eventually coming up with those results on its own. Like I said, I dont understand it, might not be explaining it right, and from what I did understand of it, I don't agree. But let me try to find it.

otto
04-10-2011, 07:01 PM
Is it not my understanding that it took two hours. Where is the documentation on that? I honestly haven't even gotten to that part of my indepth studies, because I have still be studying this window. I have read over articles etc, but I have not looked at this incident in detail, so please let me know.

Read the book by Candace Dempsey ... it's laid out in black and white. Two hours after the questioning began, out popped the accusation.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 07:03 PM
Read the book by Candace Dempsey ... it's laid out in black and white. Two hours after the questioning began, out popped the accusation.

Man I am still having problems with my math

11:00 - 5:45 just does not add up to 2 hours no matter how I look at it

otto
04-10-2011, 07:05 PM
Man I am still having problems with my math

11:00 - 5:45 just does not add up to 2 hours no matter how I look at it

She was questioned from 11:30 -1:45. At 1:45 she signed her statement ... meaning the accusation came out at about 1:30.

I thought you liked Dempsey as a reference. Are you thinking that she's lying about this point?

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 07:05 PM
Claims were that Amanda was deprived of food and water, bopped on the head, and then she accused Patrick. This accusation came 2 hours after the start of the questioning on Nov 5 (shortly after she ate pizza with Raffaele).

There's nothing muddy about that.

In her testimony she stated she had been hit on the head. IIRC she was not allowed to go to the washroom. Yes they called them in just as they ordered their pizza hhhhhmmmmmmmm

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 07:06 PM
She was questioned from 11:30 -1:45. At 1:45 she signed her statement ... meaning the accusation came out at about 1:30.

I thought you liked Dempsey as a reference. Are you thinking that she's lying about this point?

And of course you have audio/video of this fact?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:06 PM
Claims were that Amanda was deprived of food and water, bopped on the head, and then she accused Patrick. This accusation came 2 hours after the start of the questioning on Nov 5 (shortly after she ate pizza with Raffaele).

There's nothing muddy about that.

I think the muddied part is "claims were..."


Read the book by Candace Dempsey ... it's laid out in black and white. Two hours after the questioning began, out popped the accusation.

An article or quote from the motivation or some other statement link would be good, so I can look it right now.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:08 PM
Man I am still having problems with my math

11:00 - 5:45 just does not add up to 2 hours no matter how I look at it

Pizza at 545am, seriously?


Nevermind, y'all are saying pizza either right before interrogation or right after if 145am is correct.

otto
04-10-2011, 07:11 PM
The interpreter arrived at 12:30 (pg 143; Dempsey), so nothing could be accomplished before that.

"At 1:45 AM on November 6, Amanda Knox accused her boss, Patrick Lmumba, of murder" (pg 146; Dempsey)

otto
04-10-2011, 07:12 PM
And of course you have audio/video of this fact?

Am I mistaken again? I thought you liked Dempsey as a reference. Is that not true? She's certainly one of the family's best allies. Would she have any reason to lie about the times in her book?

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 07:14 PM
Pizza at 545am, seriously?

No they had ordered pizza and were called in for the interrogation. Many try to state that this was not planned except they had 12 detectives ready for them which as most know rarely are these done overnight as that requires overtime for the detectives involved. Detectives normally work during the day so again something does not add up here. 12 of the 30 ILE that signed her statement at 5:45 were detectives. As well they forgot to videotape or use audio for any of these. These statements were typed in Italian and truly none of us knows what happened during this time or even if the times are accurate as it seems ILE cannot produce any type of recording

otto
04-10-2011, 07:14 PM
Pizza at 545am, seriously?


Nevermind, y'all are saying pizza either right before interrogation or right after if 145am is correct.

Raffaele and Amanda were having pizza when Raffaele was asked to come to the station to answer some questions. Amanda went along for fun ... or some other unknown reason.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 07:16 PM
Am I mistaken again? I thought you liked Dempsey as a reference. Is that not true? She's certainly one of the family's best allies. Would she have any reason to lie about the times in her book?

Interesting. I have read alot of books and articles. I know that Dempsey believes in their innocence but to state that she is one of the families best allies I would have to have proof of that which I dont have. Do you?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:17 PM
No they had ordered pizza and were called in for the interrogation. Many try to state that this was not planned except they had 12 detectives ready for them which as most know rarely are these done overnight as that requires overtime for the detectives involved. Detectives normally work during the day so again something does not add up here. 12 of the 30 ILE that signed her statement at 5:45 were detectives. As well they forgot to videotape or use audio for any of these. These statements were typed in Italian and truly none of knows what happened during this time or even if the times are accurate as it seems ILE cannot produce any type of recording

Transcript, nothing? Just the statement at the end? Where then does this dempsey get 145am? I don't know who demsey is or if she's right. That's why I want to see some kind of official documentation. Might not get any, but still...

otto
04-10-2011, 07:17 PM
I think the muddied part is "claims were..."



An article or quote from the motivation or some other statement link would be good, so I can look it right now.

It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:20 PM
It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

I did not say anyone was confused in the first place. I said I hadn't studied this indepthly. As for it being referenced in other threads, I'm certain that 99% of what's being posted and referenced for you, for me, and everyone else is probably already posted in these 9 threads regarding Amanda and Meredith.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:24 PM
I wish they'd just demantle the knife. I can't remember why they said they won't. But they have 7 testmarks on the knife according to that video that was just posted about the knife. A, b, c, d, E, F, g.

The video zoomed in on A and B, as if those were the ones with AK and MK traces. What are all the other letters on the knife signifying? You can see the picture at 3:11 on the video.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:28 PM
It was referenced in earlier threads too.

Try this link (pg 4): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

Are the Friends of Amanda also confused?

I have read this, and actually I think I've read it before. I was looking for something more detailed. However, I'm interested in this statement:

Knox signed two statements on the morning of November 6, one at 1:45 am and a second at
5:45 am. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled the second statement cannot be used as
evidence because at the time she signed it, Knox was a suspect rather than a witness.6

What is the difference between the one signed at 145am and the one signed at 545am?

Please remember I am not contending anything about these statements. I did state that she'd been pressured to make her statements, which is what the defense contends. I do not know for a fact if she was or wasn't because I haven't looked into it in detail.

otto
04-10-2011, 07:33 PM
I have read this, and actually I think I've read it before. I was looking for something more detailed. However, I'm interested in this statement:

Knox signed two statements on the morning of November 6, one at 1:45 am and a second at
5:45 am. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled the second statement cannot be used as
evidence because at the time she signed it, Knox was a suspect rather than a witness.6

What is the difference between the one signed at 145am and the one signed at 545am?

Please remember I am not contending anything about these statements. I did state that she'd been pressured to make her statements, which is what the defense contends. I do not know for a fact if she was or wasn't because I haven't looked into it in detail.

There's some difference between making statements as a witness (1:45) and as a suspect (5:45). In any case, neither of these statements could be used against her in court ... and neither were. The only statement used against her was the "gift" statement from Nov 7. The point is that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, and during one of those hours she was unable to communicate with police. It's funny that anyone would suggest that this was a result of coercion.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:36 PM
This might mean nothing, or it might be significant.

I am watching the video put up a few pages ago, and the guy says that RS's DNA is only on the metal hook of the bra clasp.

Okay, it appears in the video that the invesitgators pick it up and touch that very piece of the bra clasp with the gloves that they'd been using to rummage the room to search for the clasp.

Look at 6:22 on in the video and tell me if I'm correct in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vEFPZgW9HA&feature=player_embedded#at=98

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:44 PM
There's some difference between making statements as a witness (1:45) and as a suspect (5:45). In any case, neither of these statements could be used against her in court ... and neither were. The only statement used against her was the "gift" statement from Nov 7. The point is that Amanda accused Patrick after 2 hours of questioning as a witness, and during one of those hours she was unable to communicate with police. It's funny that anyone would suggest that this was a result of coercion.

I'm not clear that this is the point, because I don't know the difference between the two statements she had to sign. which one, the one at 145am or the one at 545am implicated PL? When I ask for the difference before, I meant difference in content. If they were the exact same, why would it matter to the court that one was unusable over the witness/suspect technicality? I assume it matters because they had different content.

It's not funny to me, because AK's idea of coercion can only be hers, just as RF's idea of clean can only be hers. Being physically struck, if that indeed happen, is scary. I have no opinion on it yet to say she was or wasn't, and from what evidence is available, I don't think I will have it.

I'm confused. You're talking now about a third statement made on Nov 7th. I thought the premise was that one of these statements, either made at 145am or 545am implicated PL.

What is the Nov 7th "gift" statement?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:48 PM
Off topic,

You know, I do want to know why AK didn't flush the toilet when she saw RG's crap in it.

She stated that she saw it while doing her hair, right? Isn't it the automatic instinct to grimace and flush it?

Glad she didn't. Maybe she got mad because I heard rumors that she was accused of leaving her crap in the toilet, so maybe she thought she'd show it to MK and say, "See, I'm not the only one!" and then found the door locked.

TOTALLY guessing....

otto
04-10-2011, 07:55 PM
I'm not clear that this is the point, because I don't know the difference between the two statements she had to sign. which one, the one at 145am or the one at 545am implicated PL? When I ask for the difference before, I meant difference in content. If they were the exact same, why would it matter to the court that one was unusable over the witness/suspect technicality? I assume it matters because they had different content.

It's not funny to me, because AK's idea of coercion can only be hers, just as RF's idea of clean can only be hers. Being physically struck, if that indeed happen, is scary. I have no opinion on it yet to say she was or wasn't, and from what evidence is available, I don't think I will have it.

I'm confused. You're talking now about a third statement made on Nov 7th. I thought the premise was that one of these statements, either made at 145am or 545am implicated PL.

What is the Nov 7th "gift" statement?

You would have to research Italian law to understand the difference. It's something about having to tell the truth as a witness or a suspect, but I don't have the details. The 1:45 statement was enough to arrest Patrick. Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement accusing Patrick on Nov 7. That statement could be used against her.

otto
04-10-2011, 07:57 PM
Off topic,

You know, I do want to know why AK didn't flush the toilet when she saw RG's crap in it.

She stated that she saw it while doing her hair, right? Isn't it the automatic instinct to grimace and flush it?

Glad she didn't. Maybe she got mad because I heard rumors that she was accused of leaving her crap in the toilet, so maybe she thought she'd show it to MK and say, "See, I'm not the only one!" and then found the door locked.

TOTALLY guessing....

There were two bathroom in the cottage. Rudy used the bathroom that was shared by Filomina and Laura. Yes, Meredith's friends said that she was not happy with Amanda because she wasn't keeping up her end of the shared cleaning responsibilities.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 07:58 PM
Forgive me, but I really don't know why I'd have to research Italian law to find out what CONTENT was different in Amanda's two statements. Are you saying they were the EXACT same statement, one signed as a witness, one signed as a suspect?

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:00 PM
Just to recall exactly what Amanda was up against: To me, it would be terrifying to be called a liar, in relation to a murder---to be told I was covering up for someone, (@ the time, they thought Patrick as they had found a hair of an African , and had seen the "see you later" text-they did not yet know about Guede), that I had met my boss ; to be hit on the back of the head (she is not lying about this, and why was the interrogation not videotaped?); to be told I would go away for 30 years; to be told that having a lawyer "will only make it worse for you"----I could go on and on:

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--

After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me-- for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was-- it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I-- we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I-- so I--


They kept asking me the same questions, time periods-- exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.

At a certain point-- excuse me. At a certain point, the-- they began-- the police began to be more aggressive with me.

They called me a liar and--

They told me that I was-- of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that--

They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I-- but I felt-- I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. I didn't know what I-- I didn't know what to do.

Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized.[. . . ]

I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to-- I received-- okay-- okay--

See - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - SMS. I was confused.

So, what ended up happening was the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was-- I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers and--

Who said she was trying to make me-- help me remember the truth.

I was terrified, because I didn't know-- I-- I didn't know what to do anymore.

And so what ended up happening was they said they-- they went-- take me to jail, and I'm - and because of all this SMS, because-- because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were…

After that - at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.

So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:00 PM
There were two bathroom in the cottage. Rudy used the bathroom that was shared by Filomina and Laura. Yes, Meredith's friends said that she was not happy with Amanda because she wasn't keeping up her end of the shared cleaning responsibilities.

Right. I realize his crap was in the other bathroom, not the one with the bare footprint in it, but she went over there to the other one to do her hair, so I have read. I don't know what the difference in the bathrooms were to make her do that, but she did and I read she saw the crap in the toilet when she did that.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:05 PM
Forgive me, but I really don't know why I'd have to research Italian law to find out what CONTENT was different in Amanda's two statements. Are you saying they were the EXACT same statement, one signed as a witness, one signed as a suspect?

The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:07 PM
While reading Sciencespheres.com I found this quote interesting:

As in many places, the polizia’s forensics people acted as agents of the prosecution, rather than as neutral discoverers of facts. This fundamental conflict of interest was discussed in Chapter Five – Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of Forensic Science. It is a problem in many justice systems, not just in Italy. The conflicts that this advocacy role creates in Italy are more serious, however, because of the presumption of authority that is afforded to the Polizia by the courts.

http://www.sciencespheres.com/


You find the quote under "motivations questions part 3" (or something similiar in title)

I find it interesting because they are suing for slander, right? The police suing the Knox family? I was just thinking how I don't know if that's EVER happened in America. I mean, an individual officer might have cause to sue someone, but the whole department? Let me know if I have it correctly, but if I do, that does really demonstrate the high regard for the officers in Italy.

This statement has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or any wrong-doing off the police. I'm just getting an idea for the atomosphere. whether the implications this author is making are true or not, still the police seem to hold a lot of power in the courts.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:08 PM
The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

Thanks. I didn't realize there were 3 statements total. I'll look into this nov 7th one.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Just to recall exactly what Amanda was up against: To me, it would be terrifying to be called a liar, in relation to a murder---to be told I was covering up for someone, (@ the time, they thought Patrick as they had found a hair of an African American, and had seen the "see you later" text-they did not yet know about Guede), that I had met my boss ; to be hit on the back of the head (she is not lying about this, and why was the interrogation not videotaped?); to be told I would go away for 30 years; to be told that having a lawyer "will only make it worse for you"----I could go on and on:

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--

After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me-- for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was-- it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I-- we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I-- so I--


They kept asking me the same questions, time periods-- exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.

At a certain point-- excuse me. At a certain point, the-- they began-- the police began to be more aggressive with me.

They called me a liar and--

They told me that I was-- of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that--

They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I-- but I felt-- I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. I didn't know what I-- I didn't know what to do.

Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized.[. . . ]

I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to-- I received-- okay-- okay--

See - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - SMS. I was confused.

So, what ended up happening was the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was-- I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers and--

Who said she was trying to make me-- help me remember the truth.

I was terrified, because I didn't know-- I-- I didn't know what to do anymore.

And so what ended up happening was they said they-- they went-- take me to jail, and I'm - and because of all this SMS, because-- because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were…

After that - at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.

So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this.


So there was an African American in the cottage? That clears Rudy and Patrick.

Witness statements were not video taped. Should they be?

What difference does it make what Amanda said in statements that were excluded from the murder trial? Amanda had one year added to her sentence for falsely accusing Patrick.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:11 PM
Right. I realize his crap was in the other bathroom, not the one with the bare footprint in it, but she went over there to the other one to do her hair, so I have read. I don't know what the difference in the bathrooms were to make her do that, but she did and I read she saw the crap in the toilet when she did that.

She was using the blow dryer that belonged to Laura or Filomina. That's why she was in their bathroom. I think it's quite reasonable to ask why she didn't flush ... that is probably what most people would do. Perhaps she wanted evidence of Rudy to remain at the cottage.

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:12 PM
So there was an African American in the cottage? That clears Rudy and Patrick.

Witness statements were not video taped. Should they be?

What difference does it make what Amanda said in statements that were excluded from the murder trial? Amanda had one year added to her sentence for falsely accusing Patrick.I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:14 PM
Thanks. I didn't realize there were 3 statements total. I'll look into this nov 7th one.

Here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

That article has the date of Nov 6. I've also seen Nov 7 as the date of the statement.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:15 PM
Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:21 PM
Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.(wasnt_me)
__________________

@WASNT_METhey broke down her door and found her body under a duvet in the whitewashed property at Viale Sant?Antonio, close to the centre of Perugia.


Perugia ... popular with international students
Bloodstained pieces of paper were beside her – but her computer and other items were untouched.
Police believe the maniac escaped through a window, as the door to Meredith?s room was locked from the inside.

A bloodstained tissue was found close to wire fence backing on to the house.

Police also said there were blood stains on the window

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:26 PM
She was using the blow dryer that belonged to Laura or Filomina. That's why she was in their bathroom. I think it's quite reasonable to ask why she didn't flush ... that is probably what most people would do. Perhaps she wanted evidence of Rudy to remain at the cottage.

I can't come to that last conclusion, but I can mark it in my "strange for AK to do" file. That's the file I'm tagging things against her in, but so far, the things I tag are coming up circumstantial or something I'm taggin her for based on what regular people do.

It could be that she wanted to leave it for FR or laura to clean up their own crap, so to speak, because she'd been accused of being a slob. I'm leaping to a conclusion and you're leaping to a conclusion, so really it's not hard evidence of a conclusion for guilty or innocence. your conclusion is based on guilt and a conspiracy to blame RG. Mine is based on witness accounts of her being a slob.

As far as setting up RG, I repeat that if it were her intention to leave crap, footprints, and the like to frame him, his name should have been the first one was was saying at 145am, at 545am and on November 7th in her statements.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:31 PM
I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

Amanda only had to step up at some time during the 2 weeks that Patrick was in jail and admit that she lied ... failing to do so is a big problem. She's lucky she got off with only 1 year in jail.

Are all witness statements recorded in the US? I think her statement as a suspect should have been taped ... perhaps it was. The defense has not mentioned it, so perhaps they would prefer that information deemed not admissable in court not be released. After all ... whatever Amanda said was pretty damning for Patrick.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:34 PM
I can't come to that last conclusion, but I can mark it in my "strange for AK to do" file. That's the file I'm tagging things against her in, but so far, the things I tag are coming up circumstantial or something I'm taggin her for based on what regular people do.

It could be that she wanted to leave it for FR or laura to clean up their own crap, so to speak, because she'd been accused of being a slob. I'm leaping to a conclusion and you're leaping to a conclusion, so really it's not hard evidence of a conclusion for guilty or innocence. your conclusion is based on guilt and a conspiracy to blame RG. Mine is based on witness accounts of her being a slob.

As far as setting up RG, I repeat that if it were her intention to leave crap, footprints, and the like to frame him, his name should have been the first one was was saying at 145am, at 545am and on November 7th in her statements.

She provided Rudy's name shortly before she accused Patrick ... that was when police asked her for the names of anyone that had been at the cottage. Dempsey discusses this in her book.

Amanda had a lot to risk by accusing Rudy ... because Rudy would have accused Amanda. As it stands, Rudy has been back and forth in accusing Amanda.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:35 PM
Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.

SMK
04-10-2011, 08:37 PM
Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.
I agree and hope otto does...did you see i found the piece for you about the bloody tissues?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:38 PM
I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

This is understandable. Just say black man to avoid this later. That sounds better than "a black" as RG said. I'm a so-called African American, but I don't too much like to be called such because we are 100's of years removed from Africa, and I'm not 100% AA, but white and indian as well, so it's not accurate and it makes me feel as if i'm some American immigrant transplant, rather than an American. We don't hear white people being call Italian-American, European-American and what have you. So anyways, I'm off topic.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.(wasnt_me)
__________________

@WASNT_METhey broke down her door and found her body under a duvet in the whitewashed property at Viale Sant?Antonio, close to the centre of Perugia.

Perugia ... popular with international students
Bloodstained pieces of paper were beside her – but her computer and other items were untouched.
Police believe the maniac escaped through a window, as the door to Meredith?s room was locked from the inside.

A bloodstained tissue was found close to wire fence backing on to the house.

Police also said there were blood stains on the window

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece


Ah-ha! What's all that about? Could it be RG's unknown accomplice that I so desperately want him to have had? Mark my words, I'm gonna find a way to get him another accomplice!

:waitasec:

otto
04-10-2011, 08:43 PM
Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.

Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:44 PM
She provided Rudy's name shortly before she accused Patrick ... that was when police asked her for the names of anyone that had been at the cottage. Dempsey discusses this in her book.

Amanda had a lot to risk by accusing Rudy ... because Rudy would have accused Amanda. As it stands, Rudy has been back and forth in accusing Amanda.

But, Otto, that doesn't go with intentionally leaving his crap in the toilet with the hopes of implicating him. And her giving his name as a cottage visitor, along with any others, to say that is implicating him, says that's implicating all the others, too.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:44 PM
I agree and hope otto does...did you see i found the piece for you about the bloody tissues?

Heck, yeah! That's what I want. This is my "bloody glove!"

:great:

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:48 PM
Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.

What is your theory for them only cleaning up some of it but not all of it? How could that have happened? If there is a smear mark on the wall, it's potentially from any of the 4 of them, RG, MK, AK, or RS, why would they not clean it immediately? If there is a big blood print on the bathmat, why not clean it immediately? These things are obvious, not invisible. If they cleaned their foot prints out of the hallway, why are RG's still there? Seriously. You said she could have left the crap to implicate RG. So seriously, if they're implicating a stranger, why leave the crap?

If it's so dangerous to accuse RG, why not clean up his evidence, too? Why clean around his evidence? Please explain. For me, there is no evidence of a clean up of the crime scene, just a clean up of the criminal himself, so please help me to logically understand this clean up attempt. Please.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:50 PM
But, Otto, that doesn't go with intentionally leaving his crap in the toilet with the hopes of implicating him. And her giving his name as a cottage visitor, along with any others, to say that is implicating him, says that's implicating all the others, too.

There is no reason for Amanda to want Raffaele or Rudy caught. Instead, she mentioned names of people that were at the cottage, but accused Patrick of murder.

Amanda had no reason to suspect that Rudy would be connected to the murder. He had no criminal record and since he was in Germany, he couldn't be connected ... except through the finger prints that police had on file.

The scene was staged to suggest a break in, robbery and murder.

otto
04-10-2011, 08:51 PM
What is your theory for them only cleaning up some of it but not all of it? How could that have happened? If there is a smear mark on the wall, it's potentially from any of the 4 of them, RG, MK, AK, or RS, why would they not clean it immediately? If there is a big blood print on the bathmat, why not clean it immediately? These things are obvious, not invisible. If they cleaned their foot prints out of the hallway, why are RG's still there? Seriously. You said she could have left the crap to implicate RG. So seriously, if they're implicating a stranger, why leave the crap?

If it's so dangerous to accuse RG, why not clean up his evidence, too? Why clean around his evidence? Please explain. For me, there is no evidence of a clean up of the crime scene, just a clean up of the criminal himself, so please help me to logically understand this clean up attempt. Please.

They cleaned up some of the evidence because they wanted to implicate a stranger. They couldn't clean it all up ... that wouldn't look good.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 08:57 PM
Police also said there were blood stains on the window frame and broken glass of Meredith?s bedroom.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece


What of this? Are they saying 2 windows were broken out in the house? I haven't hardly read a thing about this. Is it true? Front door wide open and a second broken window does sound like another person involved, IF one went out the window and one went out the front door.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:02 PM
They cleaned up some of the evidence because they wanted to implicate a stranger. They couldn't clean it all up ... that wouldn't look good.

But it can't be both ways. One can't say they left crap in the toilet to implicate RG, but then say they didn't want to implicate RG. One can't say they couldn't clean it all up because it wouldn't look good because that's no reason at all. Even if they didn't clean it all up, it doesn't explain cleaning up every trace of theirs in that room, but not RG's. So either they did that to implicate RG or they were not in that room at all. Just as they could not see all of RG's evidence, they wouldn't have been able to see all of their own, either, so it is impossible that they didn't leave a single trace in that room but a contaminated bra clasp. If that's true, it means they are some hella cleaners, and left RG's stuff in that murder room on purpose.

Still, it has been contended that they cleaned their foot prints in the hallway, but not RG's. How is that possible and why unless to implicate him. Set him up.

If you don't know a theory, that's fine, I'm just saying.

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:12 PM
Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.
IMO they didn't even find that one fingerprint and leave it on purpose. There was only one after all. I think they simply missed it. Leaving crap and shoe prints doesn't directly indicate RG. I guess they watched a few episodes of CSI :)

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:18 PM
Police also said there were blood stains on the window frame and broken glass of Meredith?s bedroom.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece


What of this? Are they saying 2 windows were broken out in the house? I haven't hardly read a thing about this. Is it true? Front door wide open and a second broken window does sound like another person involved, IF one went out the window and one went out the front door.
Early media reports were very confusing. Lot of errors and rumors that were simply not true. Even today you still see some inaccuracies. I would say, stay close to the source (the judges report). A few things I remember from earlier reports:
- MK had black hairs in her hand
- Blood on Filomena's broken window
- Loud voices heard from cottage around 2am
- AK seen in a laundromat with some guy
- A text message saying 'Meredith will die tonight'

None of these were true or not related to the murder. I am probably forgetting a few :)

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:19 PM
I fail to understand the CSI tv show comment. Do you mean those contending that AK and RS cleaned up their evidence but purposely left RG's are watching too many?

One fingerprint left in blood is not hard to see if you are intending to purposely clean a crime scene.

I really do challenge those who believe in this half-baked clean up to tell me how it is possible to clean every ounce of themselves, but leave RG's crap, leave a bloody footprint on a mat, leave RG's bloody footprints in the hallway, but clean their own, etc. Then, knowing they left only his evidence, not implicate him when grilled by police.

If you are of the mindset of cleaning up a murder scene, I doubt you will discriminate on what you clean up. If you are doing it to implicate a third party other than your accomplice, I doubt you'll leave his evidence, but wipe out all traces of your own. If you are trying to implicate that accomplice, I dn't understand why PL got implicated. If you are afraid to implicate RG, I'm not understanding why you didn't try harder to clean up his "crap" along with your own.

I further don't understand why anyone, even if they believe AK and RS did it, would hold onto this half-bake cleanup theory. There doesn't necessarily have to be an attempt to clean up to implicate AK and RS, does it?

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:22 PM
Early media reports were very confusing. Lot of errors and rumors that were simply not true. Even today you still see some inaccuracies. I would say, stay close to the source (the judges report). A few things I remember from earlier reports:
- MK had black hairs in her hand
- Blood on Filomena's broken window
- Loud voices heard from cottage around 2am
- AK seen in a laundromat with some guy
- A text message saying 'Meredith will die tonight'

None of these were true or not related to the murder. I am probably forgetting a few :)

This is interesting because I saw something that indeed looked like blood in pictures on FR's windowsill, but I never brought that up because I saw no real mention of it anywhere.

I understand they said they found African hair at the scene. Is this not true?

I also understand that the meredith will die text was indeed real, but referred to Gray's anatomy TV show or something like that.

As for loud voices and witness accounts of seeing things, I carry less weight to those anyways than I do something that can be proved.

Whether MK's window is also broken can be proved. Whether they found tissues or not can be proved.

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:28 PM
I fail to understand the CSI tv show comment. Do you mean those contending that AK and RS cleaned up their evidence but purposely left RG's are watching too many?

One fingerprint left in blood is not hard to see if you are intending to purposely clean a crime scene.

I really do challenge those who believe in this half-baked clean up to tell me how it is possible to clean every ounce of themselves, but leave RG's crap, leave a bloody footprint on a mat, leave RG's bloody footprints in the hallway, but clean their own, etc. Then, knowing they left only his evidence, not implicate him when grilled by police.

If you are of the mindset of cleaning up a murder scene, I doubt you will discriminate on what you clean up. If you are doing it to implicate a third party other than your accomplice, I doubt you'll leave his evidence, but wipe out all traces of your own. If you are trying to implicate that accomplice, I dn't understand why PL got implicated. If you are afraid to implicate RG, I'm not understanding why you didn't try harder to clean up his "crap" along with your own.

I further don't understand why anyone, even if they believe AK and RS did it, would hold onto this half-bake cleanup theory.
You are trying to complicate things. There is no telling what they were thinking. IMO they left RG's shoe prints and crap because they thought that would go well with the staged break in. Implicate a stranger. It is easy to say from your chair behind the computer that you would have flushed the toilet (so would I). But these kids couldn't have been thinking all that clearly. I don't agree with assumptions that they cleaned all their evidence. They probably cleaned a few shoe or foot prints, and they forgot a few things. That is all there is to it.

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:31 PM
This is interesting because I saw something that indeed looked like blood in pictures on FR's windowsill, but I never brought that up because I saw no real mention of it anywhere.

I understand they said they found African hair at the scene. Is this not true?

I also understand that the meredith will die text was indeed real, but referred to Gray's anatomy TV show or something like that.

As for loud voices and witness accounts of seeing things, I carry less weight to those anyways than I do something that can be proved.

Whether MK's window is also broken can be proved. Whether they found tissues or not can be proved.
There was no African hair. There was MK's hair in blood. MK's window was not broken and there indeed was a text message and bloody tissues outside but not related to the crime. I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong :)

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:39 PM
From this picture, it appears that the balcony in the back might have been more viewable from the road than FR's window. Of course I do not know how the road behind there slopes.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week3/15225470.jpg

I say "appears" so if there's other pictures to dispute that, let me know, but we were once discussing that the balcony was more secluded. This picture doesn't bear that out.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:43 PM
You are trying to complicate things. There is no telling what they were thinking. IMO they left RG's shoe prints and crap because they thought that would go well with the staged break in. Implicate a stranger. It is easy to say from your chair behind the computer that you would have flushed the toilet (so would I). But these kids couldn't have been thinking all that clearly. I don't agree with assumptions that they cleaned all their evidence. They probably cleaned a few shoe or foot prints, and they forgot a few things. That is all there is to it.

Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:47 PM
There was no African hair. There was MK's hair in blood. MK's window was not broken and there indeed was a text message and bloody tissues outside but not related to the crime. I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong :)

I have yet to come across independent information about the african hair or about MK's broken window, so that was a complete shock to me to read in that article. As well as the bloody tissues. I'd love to know where they came from.

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 09:49 PM
Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.
Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal. When I say 'you' this was meant in general.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.

Very difficult to match DNA if you close the case within a few days and take no others DNA etc

As for the stuff in the toilet I believe it sunk to the bottom

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 09:54 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean anything personal. When I say 'you' this was meant in general.

It's okay. I think the "you're trying to complicate things" got me, but just so you know, I'm in bed on my laptop, not at a chair at a computer. :innocent:

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 09:55 PM
Wow, so now I'm complicating things and it's easy for me to sit back in my chair behind the computer and say something. I wonder how this became about me?

In any event, it's people's lives at stake and one person has lost her life. So I will turn a fingernail over for an hour, discussing just it, if it helps get MK justice and helps convict the right people.

I am not the one who made the half-baked clean up theory. I am not the one who asserted the toilet wasn't flushed in an attempt to implicate RG. I'm merely discussing the verasity of those theories. If you didn't make the assertions, you don't have to defend them. If you don't have the answer for it, just say you don't, but don't attack me personally.

You are not complicating things. You are trying to come to a determination of what your belief is with respect to the information that is available just as all of us have done but maybe some of us forget that we went through the same process. Your advantage is many of us have already had the ability to filter alot of the fiction out. So dont twiddle your nails or I might be forced to get another supply of red wine. Flourish was going to pull her nails off and I thought it might be more soothing to relax with a glass of wine rather than injure herself :giggle:

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 09:58 PM
I have yet to come across independent information about the african hair or about MK's broken window, so that was a complete shock to me to read in that article. As well as the bloody tissues. I'd love to know where they came from.

I have seen alot of theories with respect to the bloody tissues but I dont recall that issue being resolved. I need to think back in my memory a bit on this one

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 10:01 PM
From this picture, it appears that the balcony in the back might have been more viewable from the road than FR's window. Of course I do not know how the road behind there slopes.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week3/15225470.jpg

I say "appears" so if there's other pictures to dispute that, let me know, but we were once discussing that the balcony was more secluded. This picture doesn't bear that out.

That as well was my take on it. I would think those windows would be easily viewed from the road compared to Filomena's window which I would consider to be a big detterent

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 10:05 PM
Ah-ha! What's all that about? Could it be RG's unknown accomplice that I so desperately want him to have had? Mark my words, I'm gonna find a way to get him another accomplice!

:waitasec:

Weird. I have always thought that there was someone else besides RG yet I cant seem to come up with anything to support that idea

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 10:06 PM
You are not complicating things. You are trying to come to a determination of what your belief is with respect to the information that is available just as all of us have done but maybe some of us forget that we went through the same process. Your advantage is many of us have already had the ability to filter alot of the fiction out. So dont twiddle your nails or I might be forced to get another supply of red wine. Flourish was going to pull her nails off and I thought it might be more soothing to relax with a glass of wine rather than injure herself :giggle:

I know I can probably be frustrating because everyone else is more imersed. Going back over the threads occasionally, I see names of some of you who seemed to be posting from the start.

What I do hope, though, is that my newness can bring a fresh eye to old evidence. I see that it did happen once, because Otto hadn't seemed aware or had forgotten that the window in FR's room had that inner white panel.

I don't know if I'm helping the conversation or not. It seems though, that for all 9 threads, boardmembers are still debating and having to cite the same details again and again as if they'd never heard them before.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 10:19 PM
Weird. I have always thought that there was someone else besides RG yet I cant seem to come up with anything to support that idea

I just believe RG's first statement has a little truth to it. I can't help it. I don't know why. I just believe that he, having no reason to protect AK and RS, would have just implicated them, and not some sandy haired man. I believe that AK would have implicated him, not PL. So it's like RG is the spoke of the wheel and the answer to the case. I'm obsessed with everything about what he did that day because of that.

RG, who we definitely know was there, had what, a week , to think up something? And I personally think one makes up stories close to the truth, if they were there. But that's my opinion not proven by anything. If they weren't there and are lying, then of course, they won't know details to say unless it had been somehow fed to them by news or officials.

I'm guessing that RG had to have gotten some reports about the murder beforehand, but I don't know when reports started to implicate AK and RS in the news for him to have seen while in germany.

Unlike others, I don't hold to the "thick as thieves" rule that these people would not have turned on each other right away. I have to try to put myself in that mindset to come up with reasons not to. I completely understand why lovers would not turn on each other, but who is this RG to the couple that they wouldn't flip on him to save themselves, but instead implicate PL? I don't get that.

I guess I understand Otto's argument that they don't want to bring RG up, just in case no one finds him on their own, but that just doesn't ring true in light of the clean up theory. In light of the clean up theory that still leave's RG's evidence, I have to think that was done on purpose, because I can't believe you cleaned up every trace of yourself seen and unseen, but in the process, none of RG's seen evidence unless you want to blame it on him later. I cann't believe you did a rush clean up job, that just happened to get rid of all your own evidence, but then you return later to seperately clean RG's, but are interrupted by Postal police. Doesn't make sense.

If we all can agree there was no clean up, then I can accept what Otto says about the reason they didn't turn on RG. I don't agree with this, but it's plausible.

But if it were me--just me no one else--if they're telling me I'm going 30 years up the river on this, I'm sorry, I'm telling on RG if I know it. But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't tell on PL if I knew about RG. However, there's no telling what I'd really do because I've never been in that situation. It's an extraordinary situation, but what I get from it is first, AK goes with PL with herself hearing the crime. She doesn't involve RS. Why? obviously to me, to protect him. She'd rather implicate herself than RS. Then she comes up with the dream thing about maybe RS put the knife in her hand while asleep. She knows she didn't do the crime, but here she is presented with this DNA on handle and blade, trying to make sense of how it occured. She knows she was asleep with RS in his house. So she can't come up with anything more plausible than what she did, unless she decided she'd been sleepwalking.

Even when RS decides he doesn't know where AK was that night, she doesn't say I was at his house, and he was the one who left. Or something like that. See what I'm saying? she doesn't appear, from my understanding, to hardcore turn on him. I mean, it's hard to second guess them, but I'm just trying to imagine why things went the way they went. In the process, you might see me make some conjectures. Please don't see it as complicating things. Just ignore my conjectures.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 10:40 PM
Oh, I had forgotten what I was talking about.

Off the top of my head, conjecture with no facts, I believe in this accomplice for these reasons:

1. RG's first story where he blames the light haired man.
2. Prison mate story that RG denies, but sounds similiar to RG's first story, but has RG now in the room with the MK.
3. These bloody tissues that we don't know where they came from whose DNA it is, but were found near a murder scene.
4. Unidentified DNA in MK's room.
5. Could help explain how RG got up the wall without scuff marks.
6. Could help explain how the crime escalated. RG's crimes hadn't escalated yet that we know of, but if accomplice was wandering the house when MK got home and RG was in the bathroom, RG had no control over what accomplice was doing with MK. He could have felt the need to rush in and help friend, who was in the middle of a fight, but then friend ran out on him. I don't really buy this theory myself, because then the sexual assault makes no sense. I can't see why a person who is shocked that their friend attacked someone in the house they were about to rob would then get an itch to rape.

I just don't know and we don't have enough, I don't think, to concoct a second unknown accomplice coming along with RG.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 10:41 PM
I just believe RG's first statement has a little truth to it. I can't help it. I don't know why. I just believe that he, having no reason to protect AK and RS, would have just implicated them, and not some sandy haired man. I believe that AK would have implicated him, not PL. So it's like RG is the spoke of the wheel and the answer to the case. I'm obsessed with everything about what he did that day because of that.

RG, who we definitely know was there, had what, a week , to think up something? And I personally think one makes up stories close to the truth, if they were there. But that's my opinion not proven by anything. If they weren't there and are lying, then of course, they won't know details to say unless it had been somehow fed to them by news or officials.

I'm guessing that RG had to have gotten some reports about the murder beforehand, but I don't know when reports started to implicate AK and RS in the news for him to have seen while in germany.

Unlike others, I don't hold to the "thick as thieves" rule that these people would not have turned on each other right away. I have to try to put myself in that mindset to come up with reasons not to. I completely understand why lovers would not turn on each other, but who is this RG to the couple that they wouldn't flip on him to save themselves, but instead implicate PL? I don't get that.

I guess I understand Otto's argument that they don't want to bring RG up, just in case no one finds him on their own, but that just doesn't ring true in light of the clean up theory. In light of the clean up theory that still leave's RG's evidence, I have to think that was done on purpose, because I can't believe you cleaned up every trace of yourself seen and unseen, but in the process, none of RG's seen evidence unless you want to blame it on him later. I cann't believe you did a rush clean up job, that just happened to get rid of all your own evidence, but then you return later to seperately clean RG's, but are interrupted by Postal police. Doesn't make sense.

If we all can agree there was no clean up, then I can accept what Otto says about the reason they didn't turn on RG. I don't agree with this, but it's plausible.

But if it were me--just me no one else--if they're telling me I'm going 30 years up the river on this, I'm sorry, I'm telling on RG if I know it. But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't tell on PL if I knew about RG. However, there's no telling what I'd really do because I've never been in that situation. It's an extraordinary situation, but what I get from it is first, AK goes with PL with herself hearing the crime. She doesn't involve RS. Why? obviously to me, to protect him. She'd rather implicate herself than RS. Then she comes up with the dream thing about maybe RS put the knife in her hand while asleep. She knows she didn't do the crime, but here she is presented with this DNA on handle and blade, trying to make sense of how it occured. She knows she was asleep with RS in his house. So she can't come up with anything more plausible than what she did, unless she decided she'd been sleepwalking.

Even when RS decides he doesn't know where AK was that night, she doesn't say I was at his house, and he was the one who left. Or something like that. See what I'm saying? she doesn't appear, from my understanding, to hardcore turn on him. I mean, it's hard to second guess them, but I'm just trying to imagine why things went the way they went. In the process, you might see me make some conjectures. Please don't see it as complicating things. Just ignore my conjectures.

One other thing to remember is that RS did not know RG at all and RS was not allowed to see a lawyer till his first hearing.

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 10:45 PM
In theory, yes. But as in correcting Allusonz' spelling, calling you on this was petty and unnecessary. I'm afraid ILE's screw ups are so many, those trying to defend the verdicts are left to pick at people's grammar and spelling.

Thanks!!! I would love to say my brain is going faster than my keyboarding but alas my typing speed is probably faster than my brain speed. Must be the blonde in me :giggle:

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 10:51 PM
I have yet to come across independent information about the african hair or about MK's broken window, so that was a complete shock to me to read in that article. As well as the bloody tissues. I'd love to know where they came from.

IIRC there was no African hair, but ILE was fixated or seemed to be on a particular type of person

Maybe Nova or Malkmus may remember more. There was so much reported incorrectly, things leaked to the press etc sometimes certain things tend to become a bit of a blur when talking about items reported or said by ILE at the start

Allusonz
04-10-2011, 11:01 PM
There was no African hair. There was MK's hair in blood. MK's window was not broken and there indeed was a text message and bloody tissues outside but not related to the crime. I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong :)

Remember though as Malkmus confirmed that when you translate see you later in Italian that this means that there will be a definate meeting later

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 11:23 PM
I don't know how any statement made in any language can indicate for a fact that the information in the statement took place. Something has to be taken in account for AK using an American phrase. But I really can't understand how that phrase never became universal after all this time, kind of like "What's up" or "what's happening." hasn't USA slang reached around the world yet? Rhetorical question.

But at the level the investigators are, I have to ask if AK was too frightened enough to tell them it was just something people say? I don't know what her specific response was in explaining it.

I'm looking into buy the Monster of Perugia, the framing of Ak.

Anyone know if it's good. I read everything on the sciencesphere blog, and I like the way the writer breaks things down, even though I don't 100% agree.

wasnt_me
04-10-2011, 11:53 PM
If the convictions are upheld, I wonder if the sentences have a possibility of being lessened as RG's was. I mean 16 years? geez.

They said he got that for apologizing. well, AK apologized, too, so...

sherlockh
04-10-2011, 11:57 PM
It's okay. I think the "you're trying to complicate things" got me, but just so you know, I'm in bed on my laptop, not at a chair at a computer. :innocent:
Oh ok, I didn't realize that. I indeed have no idea in what position you would be behind your computer :) I just meant in general. As for complicating things I referred to the 'ounces' of themselves they would have cleaned up. There is nothing that suggests that. This line of thinking I call reverse reasoning to complicate a cleanup scenario and make it look impossible.

We have discussed this many times already and I don't think anything will come out of it if we go over it again. Personally, I just look at the evidence and draw conclusions from that. Some people think there should have been piles of DNA of them in the murder room, other people don't share this opinion. That is just the way it is :)

wasnt_me
04-11-2011, 01:11 AM
I don't believe any clean up of the scene occured. Just clean up of the perp so he could leave the house. Others believe in this possible clean up and we were debating it. that is why the conversation came about. specifically, it came about when I was talking about why AK would see the crap in the toilet but leave it and not flush it the moment she saw it. Someone else theorized she left it to implicate RG and then I came back asking why then, if she wanted to implicate RG, would she not implicate RG. So the convo went fromt here. We never know if anything new can be discovered by discussing matters again. I assume that's what appeals are about. discussing the same evidence again.

wasnt_me
04-11-2011, 01:13 AM
That as well was my take on it. I would think those windows would be easily viewed from the road compared to Filomena's window which I would consider to be a big detterent

Here's another picture.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=13&image_id=582

I can see the balcony and also what appears to be a street lamp in the foreground. If this is a street lamp, perhaps it shines right down on that balcony at night. Just guessing.

I think I see another streetlamp in this picture, look by the mirror on the red car and trace the black thing upward. But it doesn't appear you'll see the window driving in the direction of the red car. You will see it possibly driving the other way, but I saw a picture that had a tree in the yard in front of the window. I'll try to find it. Most of the time I see the pictures, that tree isn't in bloom. I dno't mean the tree by the road, but another that's actually in the yard closer to the window. Oh, actually, if you look in this pic below, you will see the tree I mean. Look where the "life" imprint is on left corner. Over that is the tree. I've seen it in bloom once or twice in photos. It could have blocked that window had it been in bloom, but I have no idea when that tree blooms or falls. but had both trees been in bloom, they would have shielded the window at least at ground level, given less of a clear line of sight to the window, except by the porch.

But to me, the house seems to sit down in the hill, so I'm not sure what could be seen higher up.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=13&image_id=59

wasnt_me
04-11-2011, 01:52 AM
Meredith's window does NOT appear to be broken:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=2308

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=1674

jjenny
04-11-2011, 01:57 AM
I don't believe any clean up of the scene occured. Just clean up of the perp so he could leave the house. Others believe in this possible clean up and we were debating it. that is why the conversation came about. specifically, it came about when I was talking about why AK would see the crap in the toilet but leave it and not flush it the moment she saw it. Someone else theorized she left it to implicate RG and then I came back asking why then, if she wanted to implicate RG, would she not implicate RG. So the convo went fromt here. We never know if anything new can be discovered by discussing matters again. I assume that's what appeals are about. discussing the same evidence again.

We know that both of them (AK and RS) admit to taking drugs that night.
I wonder how much do they really remember of what they were doing.

jjenny
04-11-2011, 02:12 AM
We also know MK's door was locked-I presume from the outside with a key? Would Rudy lock the door, considering he got out of the apartment without even flashing the toilet?

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:07 AM
This is understandable. Just say black man to avoid this later. That sounds better than "a black" as RG said. I'm a so-called African American, but I don't too much like to be called such because we are 100's of years removed from Africa, and I'm not 100% AA, but white and indian as well, so it's not accurate and it makes me feel as if i'm some American immigrant transplant, rather than an American. We don't hear white people being call Italian-American, European-American and what have you. So anyways, I'm off topic.No problem, and I agree fully---but it was supposed to be the correct thing to say "African American"---but I agree with your reasoning, sorry :(

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:13 AM
PS: It was in Bruce Fisher's book that I read about the black hair and on his Injustice in Perugia site----which I thought I should be able to trust for facts, maybe not. :(

sherlockh
04-11-2011, 07:40 AM
I was able to find a little bit on the 'hair in hand' found in the motivations report.

p110
"Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen."

p190
"As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results."

I guess that solves the 'mystery' of the hairs in hand found :)

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:46 AM
I was able to find a little bit on the 'hair in hand' found in the motivations report.

p110
"Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen."

p190
"As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results."

I guess that solves the 'mystery' of the hairs in hand found :)

:( :( :(

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:52 AM
Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police. If AK and RS wanted to, as you say, implicate a stranger, then why leave the toilet unflushed, knowing it was full of, let us say, DNA which belonged to Guede?:waitasec:

SMK
04-11-2011, 08:07 AM
Getting back to the appeal, if it is all being based on a review of 1. the witness and 2. the evidence on the knife and bra clasp, and it appears the witness is no good, and there is too little evidence to retest ---BUT the prosecution claims this is all OK, and will simply point back to the original indictment which was all above board, and the collection procedures which were all OK too---then what is new in this appeal, and what is the purpose of it??????????:snooty:

iluvmua
04-11-2011, 10:14 AM
Read the book by Candace Dempsey ... it's laid out in black and white. Two hours after the questioning began, out popped the accusation.

I have it and it is a very good book. It would be great reading material this summer.

jjenny
04-11-2011, 10:37 AM
If AK and RS wanted to, as you say, implicate a stranger, then why leave the toilet unflushed, knowing it was full of, let us say, DNA which belonged to Guede?:waitasec:

I am pretty sure not everyone knows DNA can be extracted from feces.
Also, the only way to match DNA if DNA pattern from Guede was kept on file, otherwise it would be DNA from a stranger.

SMK
04-11-2011, 11:07 AM
I am pretty sure not everyone knows DNA can be extracted from feces.
Also, the only way to match DNA if DNA pattern from Guede was kept on file, otherwise it would be DNA from a stranger.Granted, but if Guede were questioned, they could of course ask for a sample. . .

SMK
04-11-2011, 11:21 AM
I wonder if any have ever read this website in which a supposed forensic expert conducts an analysis of Knox's statements? An interesting theory is made by a poster within, that Knox and Sollecito were grossly over-charged. Had they been charged merely with obstruction of justice, tampering with a crime scene, we would likely know the story by now. But Mignini's 3 on 1 sex game scenario put an end to it. I had long wondered if they merely felt responsible for having directed Rudy there, and tried to cover up. http://***************************/2010/08/amanda-knox-email-analysis.html

Statement Analysis
Statement Analysis of famous cases including Casey Anthony, Misty Croslin, OJ, Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods, and others. All parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. All opinions expressed here are personal opinions and represent only the author of these opinions and not any business, government agency, or individual person other than the author.

otto
04-11-2011, 03:23 PM
If the convictions are upheld, I wonder if the sentences have a possibility of being lessened as RG's was. I mean 16 years? geez.

They said he got that for apologizing. well, AK apologized, too, so...

Not sure where you're getting your information, but that is absolutely untrue. Rudy's sentence was not reduced because he apologized.

otto
04-11-2011, 03:28 PM
If AK and RS wanted to, as you say, implicate a stranger, then why leave the toilet unflushed, knowing it was full of, let us say, DNA which belonged to Guede?:waitasec:

Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to believe that Rudy had been detained by police for any reason, and did not know that they had his fingerprints. Knox and Sollecito wanted to stage the scene such that it appeared that a stranger broke in through Filomina's window. In theory, if Rudy had never been detained in the past, and since he was in Germany after the murder, evidence would not have easily led to Rudy.

otto
04-11-2011, 03:41 PM
Getting back to the appeal, if it is all being based on a review of 1. the witness and 2. the evidence on the knife and bra clasp, and it appears the witness is no good, and there is too little evidence to retest ---BUT the prosecution claims this is all OK, and will simply point back to the original indictment which was all above board, and the collection procedures which were all OK too---then what is new in this appeal, and what is the purpose of it??????????:snooty:

Lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele screwed up by not attending the DNA analysis. They were invited, but did not attend. Big mistake on their parts. During the trial, Raffaele's lawyer asked to have the DNA tests evaluated. That was refused, but it was known at that time that it was a major point for appeal. During the appeal, as was expected, it was decided that some of the DNA analysis would be evaluated. This is not to say that the DNA will be re-evaluated, only the testing will be re-evaluated. The judge also said that in the event there is no more DNA to test, only the test methods will be assessed. That's where we are today.

This decision was made because the defense alleged that there was contamination. All that is happening now is an evaluation of the tests to confirm that they were done properly and to exclude the possibility of contamination. It has never been doubted that the DNA from the knife belonged to Meredith, or that the DNA on the handle belonged to Amanda. The only question is whether the tests were done correctly, and whether the DNA really came from, for example, the knife and the handle.

As I mentioned earlier, no one connected with the trial is alleging that there never was any DNA to test ... that's coming from people that want to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy between the prosecutor and all the investigators to falsify evidence. There was DNA to test and those tests are on record. Those tests are being evaluated due to a request made by the defense.

otto
04-11-2011, 03:47 PM
I have it and it is a very good book. It would be great reading material this summer.

It's fairly well written, and it's a quick read. Candace mentions things that reflect poorly on Amanda, like her accusation against Patrick after 2 hours, and then goes on to say that Amanda didn't know the law, didn't understand that she was under arrest, didn't speak Italian ... and a bunch of other things intended to down play Amanda's understanding of the seriousness of the situation. It also belabors points intended to re-inforce Amanda's innocence. I too recommend it for anyone that supports Amanda the Victim theory.

Nova
04-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Nova did not come to any conclusion. She speculated a theory that if there was nothing on the knife, then there was a case for it being thoroughly cleaned as they have claimed. She is merely citing that it was not thoroughly cleaned if they found something on it, starch stuck in it even after all these years, for example.

Nova, are you a "she," because if not, I apologize.

I'm a he, but you needn't apologize. Most posters at WS are female, so it's usually a safe guess (and since there's nothing wrong with being female, how can I take offense?). Thanks for the explanation above.

You are correct. I thought one of the links here said the presence of starch demonstrated that the knife had not been thoroughly cleaned, as the prosecution claimed.

If it wasn't thoroughly cleaned, then there should be massive amounts of MK's DNA on it.

Since DNA does not remain in large quantities, that is in fact suggestive of contamination.

I may be wrong, but I think lab contamination is often proved through such a deductive process. It isn't usually a matter of somebody seeing somebody else deliberately move DNA from one site to another.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:01 PM
The interpreter arrived at 12:30 (pg 143; Dempsey), so nothing could be accomplished before that....

No one I can think of makes this claim except for you. I believe the evidence is that interrogation started at 11:30, but AK was having trouble understanding all the questions. So they brought in an English-speaking interrogator an hour later. That doesn't mean "nothing" was accomplished in the first hour: AK was badgered in a foreign (to her) language for that period.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:10 PM
The statements were essentially the same, as far as I know. I think some information about the contents was published ages ago, but since neither statement was used in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, they don't seem to be all that important. The important statement is the one that Amanda gave when she was by herself ... no coercion. It affirmed her statements against Patrick.

Actually, it recants her statements against Patrick by insisting those "memories" are "more unreal than real" to her. That was the entire reason for the gift statement, to recant her false testimony without openly admitting to perjury.

That interrogators read the "gift" as confirmation rather than recantation is indicative of their tunnel vision.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:23 PM
This is understandable. Just say black man to avoid this later. That sounds better than "a black" as RG said. I'm a so-called African American, but I don't too much like to be called such because we are 100's of years removed from Africa, and I'm not 100% AA, but white and indian as well, so it's not accurate and it makes me feel as if i'm some American immigrant transplant, rather than an American. We don't hear white people being call Italian-American, European-American and what have you. So anyways, I'm off topic.

I know this is OT, but in case it matters to you, I regularly use "European-American" when it's necessary to make a distinction. It's a commonly used term in academia.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:26 PM
There is no reason for Amanda to want Raffaele or Rudy caught. Instead, she mentioned names of people that were at the cottage, but accused Patrick of murder.

Amanda had no reason to suspect that Rudy would be connected to the murder. He had no criminal record and since he was in Germany, he couldn't be connected ... except through the finger prints that police had on file.

The scene was staged to suggest a break in, robbery and murder.

Of course there's no evidence that AK knew any of the above. She'd met RG once and seen him around a couple of times. I seriously doubt she discussed his fingerprinting history.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:33 PM
I know I can probably be frustrating because everyone else is more imersed. Going back over the threads occasionally, I see names of some of you who seemed to be posting from the start.

What I do hope, though, is that my newness can bring a fresh eye to old evidence. I see that it did happen once, because Otto hadn't seemed aware or had forgotten that the window in FR's room had that inner white panel.

I don't know if I'm helping the conversation or not. It seems though, that for all 9 threads, boardmembers are still debating and having to cite the same details again and again as if they'd never heard them before.

I can't speak for the real case experts here, but for somebody like me, who has some knowledge but not encyclopedia-like knowledge, your questioning and thinking aloud helps me go over the known evidence in my mind.

Please don't apologize.

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:40 PM
IIRC there was no African hair, but ILE was fixated or seemed to be on a particular type of person

Maybe Nova or Malkmus may remember more. There was so much reported incorrectly, things leaked to the press etc sometimes certain things tend to become a bit of a blur when talking about items reported or said by ILE at the start

I'm not Malkmus on this case, but I've seen numerous references to ILE finding an African hair at the scene and pushing AK to identify a possible African assailant. HOWEVER, I don't remember any references to such a hair being presented at trial, so unless I'm wrong, I think we can assume they couldn't match any such hair to RG.

Maybe Sherlockh is right and ILE mistook a blood-soaked hair from MK as "African."

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:44 PM
I don't know how any statement made in any language can indicate for a fact that the information in the statement took place. Something has to be taken in account for AK using an American phrase. But I really can't understand how that phrase never became universal after all this time, kind of like "What's up" or "what's happening." hasn't USA slang reached around the world yet? Rhetorical question.

But at the level the investigators are, I have to ask if AK was too frightened enough to tell them it was just something people say? I don't know what her specific response was in explaining it.

I'm looking into buy the Monster of Perugia, the framing of Ak.

Anyone know if it's good. I read everything on the sciencesphere blog, and I like the way the writer breaks things down, even though I don't 100% agree.

I don't know which American idioms are known in central Italy. And I doubt that ILE sat down and decided to frame AK.

Instead, it appears lead investigators decided AK was guilty based on her post-murder demeanor and an assumption that the break-in was staged, and then merely looked at every piece of evidence only in whatever light would prove her guilt. As such, "see you later" suddenly became an agreement to commit murder. If AK insisted she wasn't at the cottage, then ipso facto she must have blocked out the memory, etc.

SMK
04-11-2011, 04:49 PM
Lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele screwed up by not attending the DNA analysis. They were invited, but did not attend. Big mistake on their parts. During the trial, Raffaele's lawyer asked to have the DNA tests evaluated. That was refused, but it was known at that time that it was a major point for appeal. During the appeal, as was expected, it was decided that some of the DNA analysis would be evaluated. This is not to say that the DNA will be re-evaluated, only the testing will be re-evaluated. The judge also said that in the event there is no more DNA to test, only the test methods will be assessed. That's where we are today.

This decision was made because the defense alleged that there was contamination. All that is happening now is an evaluation of the tests to confirm that they were done properly and to exclude the possibility of contamination. It has never been doubted that the DNA from the knife belonged to Meredith, or that the DNA on the handle belonged to Amanda. The only question is whether the tests were done correctly, and whether the DNA really came from, for example, the knife and the handle.

As I mentioned earlier, no one connected with the trial is alleging that there never was any DNA to test ... that's coming from people that want to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy between the prosecutor and all the investigators to falsify evidence. There was DNA to test and those tests are on record. Those tests are being evaluated due to a request made by the defense.Right, I get it, but they are really just going in a circle. This appeal, to work, had to be based on broader things. It seems like there will be a big wait until September, and then it will be right back to the drawing board. I really wish I had never become involved in this. :(

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:49 PM
We also know MK's door was locked-I presume from the outside with a key? Would Rudy lock the door, considering he got out of the apartment without even flashing the toilet?

That's an interesting question. Could MK's door be locked and then pulled closed from the outside? I've never heard this discussed before the recent posts on the subject.

If it were relatively simple to accomplish, locking the door might be like covering the body with a duvet: a hurried attempt to cover the horror out of regret, compassion, fear of discovery, whatever...

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:52 PM
We know that both of them (AK and RS) admit to taking drugs that night.
I wonder how much do they really remember of what they were doing.

I don't know. But in my experience, drugs that interfere with one's memory also tend to interfere with one's ability to plan and to respond logically. So I doubt AK and RS could simply "forget" forming a conspiracy to murder with someone they barely knew and then cleaning up after the crime.

SMK
04-11-2011, 04:57 PM
We also know MK's door was locked-I presume from the outside with a key? Would Rudy lock the door, considering he got out of the apartment without even flashing the toilet?
Yes, that is an interesting question. I assume it was the kind of lock where you would turn it from the inside, and then close it behind you (no key). So, it would be simple to do. But it does bring suspicions to mind, and I can see why ILE might have thought this pointed to someone living there, but its hard to say. The duvet and the locked door are suspicious, from my perspective. For instance, there was a woman killed in Cape Cod (Christa Worthington case); also by a black male . She was simply left on the floor, her shirt pushed up to her neck, her pants off, and stabbed. :waitasec:

Nova
04-11-2011, 04:59 PM
No problem, and I agree fully---but it was supposed to be the correct thing to say "African American"---but I agree with your reasoning, sorry :(

Still OT, but in fairness, white people DO use terms like Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Jesse Jackson proposed African-American as an alternative to black in order to get the focus off skin color and instead to acknowledge the very different cultural history of Africans in the New World.

The Reverend Jackson is not king, not even of black people--and wasn't_me doesn't have to agree with him, of course. With her, I will do my best to use "black" and "white" (despite the limitations of those terms).

What's interesting about these threads, I find, is that although the case principals refer to Africans rather readily, posters here have not found it necessary to make such distinctions EXCEPT with regard to whether an African hair was found that pointed ILE in a certain direction. Otherwise, few references to PL or RG mention race.

So maybe we're making a little progress...

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:01 PM
I was able to find a little bit on the 'hair in hand' found in the motivations report.

p110
"Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen."

p190
"As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results."

I guess that solves the 'mystery' of the hairs in hand found :)

It solves the mystery of what was found. But the more important question is what ILE was thinking while they interrogated AK. Since they didn't wait for forensic results, perhaps they assumed a strand of dark wool was an African hair.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:02 PM
No one I can think of makes this claim except for you. I believe the evidence is that interrogation started at 11:30, but AK was having trouble understanding all the questions. So they brought in an English-speaking interrogator an hour later. That doesn't mean "nothing" was accomplished in the first hour: AK was badgered in a foreign (to her) language for that period.

"No one I can think of makes this claim except for you."

That sounds like an attempt to discredit anything I have to contribute to this discussion ... not nice.

I seem to recall Malkmus posted information about the 11:30 start time, 12:30 interpreter time, and 1:45 accusation time (accompanied by copies of the statements 1:45 and 5:45) a long time ago. Perhaps Malkmus can comment.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:03 PM
Granted, but if Guede were questioned, they could of course ask for a sample. . .

True. And if they intended to hide RG's involvement, I think flushing the toilet would be an instinctive reaction. They wouldn't wait to think about whether RG's feces could be matched to him.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:04 PM
Not sure where you're getting your information, but that is absolutely untrue. Rudy's sentence was not reduced because he apologized.

I believe you are right, otto, but there have been numerous media reports that referred to the "apology."

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:06 PM
Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to believe that Rudy had been detained by police for any reason, and did not know that they had his fingerprints. Knox and Sollecito wanted to stage the scene such that it appeared that a stranger broke in through Filomina's window. In theory, if Rudy had never been detained in the past, and since he was in Germany after the murder, evidence would not have easily led to Rudy.

Ah, yes, the "Master Criminal" theory. I don't see the evidence that AK or RS had the experience (or mental wherewithal that night) for that sort of reasoning.

ETA, otto, yesterday you made much of how AK supposedly spoke no English and RS spoke no Italian and therefore their relationship was based only in sex and violence. Yet somehow you also have AK learning countless details about RG's past and his relationship with LE--or you have RS learning this and somehow communicating it to AK as part of their conspiracy.

Surely you can see the inconsistency.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:07 PM
That's an interesting question. Could MK's door be locked and then pulled closed from the outside? I've never heard this discussed before the recent posts on the subject.

If it were relatively simple to accomplish, locking the door might be like covering the body with a duvet: a hurried attempt to cover the horror out of regret, compassion, fear of discovery, whatever...

Meredith's bedroom door is a double key lock ... needs a key to lock it from the hallway.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:08 PM
Still OT, but in fairness, white people DO use terms like Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, etc. Jesse Jackson proposed African-American as an alternative to black in order to get the focus off skin color and instead to acknowledge the very different cultural history of Africans in the New World.

The Reverend Jackson is not king, not even of black people--and wasn't_me doesn't not have to agree with him, of course. With her, I will do my best to use "black" and "white" (despite the limitations of those terms).

What's interesting about these threads, I find, is that although the case principals refer to Africans rather readily, posters here have not found it necessary to make such distinctions EXCEPT with regard to whether an African hair was found that pointed ILE in a certain direction. Otherwise, few references to PL or RG mention race.

So maybe we're making a little progress...Yes, it would seem so. Yes, I always have referred to myself proudly as an "Italian-American" but perhaps it is time to put such things behind us. :seeya:

otto
04-11-2011, 05:08 PM
I don't know. But in my experience, drugs that interfere with one's memory also tend to interfere with one's ability to plan and to respond logically. So I doubt AK and RS could simply "forget" forming a conspiracy to murder with someone they barely knew and then cleaning up after the crime.

According to Dempsey, Raffaele's drug experience included acid and cocaine. It's possible that the pair were experimenting with either of these drugs on the night of the murder. All they have admitted to is drinking and using drugs (hashish) on the night of the murder.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:13 PM
Meredith's bedroom door is a double key lock ... needs a key to lock it from the hallway.
Are you saying that Meredith's bedroom door is NOT the kind which can be locked from the inside, and then you shut the door behind you? Where is a link to show it must be locked from outside with a key. And then how, pray, did they think Meredith had locked it from within? :waitasec:

otto
04-11-2011, 05:16 PM
Ah, yes, the "Master Criminal" theory. I don't see the evidence that AK or RS had the experience (or mental wherewithal that night) for that sort of reasoning.

ETA, otto, yesterday you made much of how AK supposedly spoke no English and RS spoke no Italian and therefore their relationship was based only in sex and violence. Yet somehow you also have AK learning countless details about RG's past and his relationship with LE--or you have RS learning this and somehow communicating it to AK as part of their conspiracy.

Surely you can see the inconsistency.

Not true. I have said that Amanda did not know that Rudy's finger prints were taken by police ... I have not said that Amanda knew "countless details about Rudy's past".

Surely you can see that what you are saying is not based on what I have written.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:17 PM
Are you saying that Meredith's bedroom door is NOT the kind which can be locked from the inside, and then you shut the door behind you? Where is a link to show it must be locked from outside with a key. And then how, pray, did they think Meredith had locked it from within? :waitasec:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1280

OldSteve
04-11-2011, 05:23 PM
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1280
I cannot tell how the lock works from the picture you linked to...

otto
04-11-2011, 05:24 PM
I believe you are right, otto, but there have been numerous media reports that referred to the "apology."

Ample information was discussed and posted on this forum citing Italian law and the difference between a fast track trial and a full trial. Rudy opted for the fast track because he was afraid that AK and RS would blame him entirely for the murder. AK and RS took their chances with the jury.

Conspiracy theorists believe that Rudy was given a reduced sentence because he apologized as it helps paint Amanda as a poor little victim of the mean Italians. The fact is that AK, RS, and RG had legal options ... RG was the only defendant that acknowledge participation in the murder, opted for the fast track, and received the required 1/3 reduction of sentence at the end of all appeals.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:26 PM
I cannot tell how the lock works from the picture you linked to...

Keep scrolling through the images on that link ... there are several photos showing the both sides of the door handle. Here's the hallway side of the door where you can see a key is required to lock the door.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1268

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:26 PM
"No one I can think of makes this claim except for you."

That sounds like an attempt to discredit anything I have to contribute to this discussion ... not nice.

I seem to recall Malkmus posted information about the 11:30 start time, 12:30 interpreter time, and 1:45 accusation time (accompanied by copies of the statements 1:45 and 5:45) a long time ago. Perhaps Malkmus can comment.

I said nothing that was intended to discredit everything you contribute. On the contrary, I regularly cite you along with Allusonz and Malkmus as the posters most knowledgeable about this case.

What I was referring to was your repeated insistence that "nothing happened" between 11:30 when AK's interrogation began and 12:30 when the English-speaking interrogator was brought it.

Once again, AK spoke some Italian but wasn't fluent. She tried to participate in an Italian-language interrogation for an hour, a period that must have been incredibly stressful and confusing for her. But it isn't true she understood nothing she was asked; she herself says she tried to explain the message she got from PL and eventually gave up and handed her phone to the interrogators.

At that point, the interrogators misinterpreted her reply to PL and got very excited. Whether because they thought they had a breakthrough or because everyone began speaking faster, it was decided an English translator was needed. Unfortunately for AK, what she got was not an English translator but an English-speaking interrogator.

But back to you: you prefer to claim that no communication was possible between 11:30 and 12:30 because that means AK caved to pressure in only one hour instead of two. You may look back at previous threads and see where you invented this distinction.

NOBODY ELSE says AK understood nothing in that first hour, just that her understanding was insufficient to keep up with a mass interrogation.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:27 PM
I cannot tell how the lock works from the picture you linked to...
nor can I...

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:31 PM
Keep scrolling through the images on that link ... there are several photos showing the both sides of the door handle. Here's the hallway side of the door where you can see a key is required to lock the door.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=1268
Well, from what I can see, with that kind of handle, it is not a simple door where you could turn the lock, and close it behind you, locked. But I don't see evidence of a keyhole. You mean Meredith would have to use a key from inside if she wanted to close it? And whoever locked it from the outside, needed a key as well? and where was/is this key???

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:33 PM
Meredith's bedroom door is a double key lock ... needs a key to lock it from the hallway.

But it can be locked from the outside, yes? We don't have to assume anybody crawled out through her window.

Do you know if that key was ever found? I'm just curious whether you know off the top of your head. Please don't feel you need to make a research project out of the subject.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:35 PM
Yes, it would seem so. Yes, I always have referred to myself proudly as an "Italian-American" but perhaps it is time to put such things behind us. :seeya:

I think it depends on context. Most of the time it isn't necessary to qualify "American." But if one is discussing differing ethnic traditions, then the "hyphenated" terms become useful.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:40 PM
According to Dempsey, Raffaele's drug experience included acid and cocaine. It's possible that the pair were experimenting with either of these drugs on the night of the murder. All they have admitted to is drinking and using drugs (hashish) on the night of the murder.

I've never heard of acid making one homicidal, at least not since the Manson Family (and that was a unique group dynamic).

Cocaine can increase aggression, of course, but usually in habitual users, not during casual experimentation.

(For the record, I have no personal experience with the former and only brief experience with the latter--30 years ago.)

otto
04-11-2011, 05:42 PM
I said nothing that was intended to discredit everything you contribute. On the contrary, I regularly cite you along with Allusonz and Malkmus as the posters most knowledgeable about this case.

What I was referring to was your repeated insistence that "nothing happened" between 11:30 when AK's interrogation began and 12:30 when the English-speaking interrogator was brought it.

Once again, AK spoke some Italian but wasn't fluent. She tried to participate in an Italian-language interrogation for an hour, a period that must have been incredibly stressful and confusing for her. But it isn't true she understood nothing she was asked; she herself says she tried to explain the message she got from PL and eventually gave up and handed her phone to the interrogators.

At that point, the interrogators misinterpreted her reply to PL and got very excited. Whether because they thought they had a breakthrough or because everyone began speaking faster, it was decided an English translator was needed. Unfortunately for AK, what she got was not an English translator but an English-speaking interrogator.

But back to you: you prefer to claim that no communication was possible between 11:30 and 12:30 because that means AK caved to pressure in only one hour instead of two. You may look back at previous threads and see where you invented this distinction.

NOBODY ELSE says AK understood nothing in that first hour, just that her understanding was insufficient to keep up with a mass interrogation.

Dempsey's book costs $7.99, and it's a quick read. It will help with understanding the family's perspective of the facts. Dempsey may be playing a bit with "Amanda the victim" when she claims that Amanda did not know enough Italian to do anything more than order pizza, but that is her position on Amanda's knowledge of Italian. I decided that since there is automatic skepticism of information coming out of the court, perhaps information coming from people that believe Amanda is a victim would be taken seriously. It seems that is also viewed with skepticism if the facts are unfavorable to Knox. The bottom line is that there are many facts that are unfavorable to Knox. Some people seem to have a bottomless pit of explanations for everything she did ... others look at is as problematic for the innocence argument.

The interpreter that arrived at 12:30 was not an interrogator. She was hauled out of bed to interpret, and the family's position is that she was not a proper interpreter. Regardless, Amanda signed two statements confirming what she said during her questioning as a witness, and as a suspect. She then reiterated her statement a day later.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:43 PM
nor can I...

Is there any reason for not scrolling through the 10 or 12 photos of the door handle depicting both the inside and outside of the door?

Yes, a key was needed to lock it from the inside and the outside of the room ... the photos of the actual door demonstrate this.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Not true. I have said that Amanda did not know that Rudy's finger prints were taken by police ... I have not said that Amanda knew "countless details about Rudy's past".

Surely you can see that what you are saying is not based on what I have written.

Perhaps I went overboard with the word "countless". My bad. But you have mentioned several details about RG that AK "might have" known, yet at other times you claim she was unable to understand any Italian.

In what language do you imagine she was grilling RG on his criminal history?

otto
04-11-2011, 05:46 PM
But it can be locked from the outside, yes? We don't have to assume anybody crawled out through her window.

Do you know if that key was ever found? I'm just curious whether you know off the top of your head. Please don't feel you need to make a research project out of the subject.

Meredith's keys were missing.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:47 PM
Ample information was discussed and posted on this forum citing Italian law and the difference between a fast track trial and a full trial. Rudy opted for the fast track because he was afraid that AK and RS would blame him entirely for the murder. AK and RS took their chances with the jury.

Conspiracy theorists believe that Rudy was given a reduced sentence because he apologized as it helps paint Amanda as a poor little victim of the mean Italians. The fact is that AK, RS, and RG had legal options ... RG was the only defendant that acknowledge participation in the murder, opted for the fast track, and received the required 1/3 reduction of sentence at the end of all appeals.

Uh, dude, I AGREED with you. I was merely pointing out the numerous media accounts that mention an apology. It's understandable if some posters are confused as to the reason for the reduction of RG's sentence.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Meredith's keys were missing.But they did not find them on Knox or Sollecito, or among their things? Maybe Rudy disposed of them in Germany.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Perhaps I went overboard with the word "countless". My bad. But you have mentioned several details about RG that AK "might have" known, yet at other times you claim she was unable to understand any Italian.

In what language do you imagine she was grilling RG on his criminal history?

I disagree. I have not, at any time, suggested that Amanda knew personal details about Rudy's life.

I have no idea what Amanda and Rudy knew about each other's personal lives. They met three times prior to the murder, including partying with pot.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Yes, it would seem so. Yes, I always have referred to myself proudly as an "Italian-American" but perhaps it is time to put such things behind us. :seeya:

Not quite. I need to refer to myself as a "Scottish-American" when I am explaining why I don't have red hair, that I am not Catholic, and that I do not wear green or get drunk on March 17.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:51 PM
But they did not find them on Knox or Sollecito, or among their things? Maybe Rudy disposed of them in Germany.

Maybe Amanda and Raffaele threw them into the ravine around the same time they tossed the phones.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Not quite. I need to refer to myself as a "Scottish-American" when I am explaining why I don't have red hair, that I am not Catholic, and that I do not wear green or get drunk on March 17.Yes, I need such, too, to explain why as an Italian, I am not Catholic, do not have many characteristics of an Italian. ;)

OldSteve
04-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Is there any reason for not scrolling through the 10 or 12 photos of the door handle depicting both the inside and outside of the door?

Yes, a key was needed to lock it from the inside and the outside of the room ... the photos of the actual door demonstrate this.

I scrolled through the Photos - cannot tell how or if the lock works the way it looks... I know from personal experience of installing locks... we need someone who actually worked the lock to tell us if it is working, and if it could be set from the inside to lock when you left the room.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Dempsey's book costs $7.99, and it's a quick read. It will help with understanding the family's perspective of the facts. Dempsey may be playing a bit with "Amanda the victim" when she claims that Amanda did not know enough Italian to do anything more than order pizza, but that is her position on Amanda's knowledge of Italian. I decided that since there is automatic skepticism of information coming out of the court, perhaps information coming from people that believe Amanda is a victim would be taken seriously. It seems that is also viewed with skepticism if the facts are unfavorable to Knox. The bottom line is that there are many facts that are unfavorable to Knox. Some people seem to have a bottomless pit of explanations for everything she did ... others look at is as problematic for the innocence argument.

The interpreter that arrived at 12:30 was not an interrogator. She was hauled out of bed to interpret, and the family's position is that she was not a proper interpreter. Regardless, Amanda signed two statements confirming what she said during her questioning as a witness, and as a suspect. She then reiterated her statement a day later.

I disagree. Whatever her title may have been (and I don't believe it was "Interpreter"), I'm satisfied that she acted as an additional interrogator, albeit one who could speak English.

SMK
04-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Maybe Amanda and Raffaele threw them into the ravine around the same time they tossed the phones.Well, it was not the ravine they thought it was, at night, in the dark. It led to Mrs. What's-Her-Name's garden. Did they not do a thorough search of that area, with metal detectors???:waitasec:

otto
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
I scrolled through the Photos - cannot tell how or if the lock works the way it looks... I know from personal experience of installing locks... we need someone who actually worked the lock to tell us if it is working, and if it could be set from the inside to lock when you left the room.

The photos illustrate the inside of the door; where it can be seen that the deadbolt lock requires a key, and the outside of the door; where it can also be seen that the deadbolt requires a key.

Nova
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
I disagree. I have not, at any time, suggested that Amanda knew personal details about Rudy's life.

I have no idea what Amanda and Rudy knew about each other's personal lives. They met three times prior to the murder, including partying with pot.

I don't know what you consider "personal." But you claim that AK could not have known that RG's fingerprints were on file at the police station. This implies that she would somehow have accumulated some knowledge of him.

otto
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
I disagree. Whatever her title may have been (and I don't believe it was "Interpreter"), I'm satisfied that she acted as an additional interrogator, albeit one who could speak English.

Why do you think that interpreters are interrogators?

SMK
04-11-2011, 06:04 PM
Otto; In your opinion, why did the investigators not find the MK's keys in the area where the phones were thrown? It was stated that at night, this may have looked like an empty area of wilderness, but it actually was someone's yard and garden. Where did those keys go?

otto
04-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Well, it was not the ravine they thought it was, at night, in the dark. It led to Mrs. What's-Her-Name's garden. Did they not do a thorough search of that area, with metal detectors???:waitasec:

Should police have used metal detectors all along the road between the cottage and the location where the phones were found on the offhand chance the keys were there? Sounds like a potential huge waste of money.

SMK
04-11-2011, 06:08 PM
Should police have used metal detectors all along the road between the cottage and the location where the phones were found on the offhand chance the keys were there? Sounds like a potential huge waste of money.why would they have left them on the road? :(

OldSteve
04-11-2011, 06:13 PM
The photos illustrate the inside of the door; where it can be seen that the deadbolt lock requires a key, and the outside of the door; where it can also be seen that the deadbolt requires a key.

I see what you are referring to, and you are correct - thanks for your patience!

I was thinking that maybe the top clasp was also locking - but if it were, there would be something on the inside of the door to set it, and I do not see anything like that.

So who had the key to lock MK's door from the outside?

SMK
04-11-2011, 06:17 PM
I see what you are referring to, and you are correct - thanks for your patience!

I was thinking that maybe the top clasp was also locking - but if it were, there would be something on the inside of the door to set it, and I do not see anything like that.

So who had the key to lock MK's door from the outside?Well, many would say Amanda. :(

OldSteve
04-11-2011, 06:22 PM
Well, many would say Amanda. :(

Could be Filomena or anyone else who lived in the cottage, no? Locking the door doesn't mean whomever locked it murdered MK... though upon locking it they should have contacted LE.
Would RG have locked it to give himself some get-away time?

SMK
04-11-2011, 06:28 PM
Could be Filomena or anyone else who lived in the cottage, no? Locking the door doesn't mean whomever locked it murdered MK... though upon locking it they should have contacted LE.
Would RG have locked it to give himself some get-away time?Yes, that is true, but then they would also have had to have been suspected of having motive to lock Meredith's door....:waitasec: The only ones LE suspected were AK and RS (and RG). . . because whoever locked the door, did so upon a dead and bloody MK. :(

SMK
04-11-2011, 06:42 PM
@OldSteve---sorry, I somehow did not see the rest of what you posted----yes, it does not mean they killed her, but it means they knew she was dead. I had always thought that perhaps AK and RS were involved with the staging but not with the murder. That the piercing scream heard was Amanda , realizing they had touched things and now would be implicated

otto
04-11-2011, 07:05 PM
I don't know what you consider "personal." But you claim that AK could not have known that RG's fingerprints were on file at the police station. This implies that she would somehow have accumulated some knowledge of him.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I say that Knox didn't know info about Rudy, and you say that implies she did know info about Rudy.

Nova
04-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Why do you think that interpreters are interrogators?

I don't as a rule. But this particular woman took on the role of interrogator, based on reports of the questions she asked AK, her telling AK she must have blacked out the memory, and her urging AK to "imagine" what might have happened.

None of these actions are the work of a mere "interpreter." I suppose it is possible that she was merely translating the questions and commands of others, but that isn't my impression of what transpired.

It's not my fault we don't have a recording to show us for sure.

otto
04-11-2011, 07:06 PM
Otto; In your opinion, why did the investigators not find the MK's keys in the area where the phones were thrown? It was stated that at night, this may have looked like an empty area of wilderness, but it actually was someone's yard and garden. Where did those keys go?

I have no opinion about where the keys went, and neither do police. If they knew, they would have retrieved them.

Nova
04-11-2011, 07:07 PM
Should police have used metal detectors all along the road between the cottage and the location where the phones were found on the offhand chance the keys were there? Sounds like a potential huge waste of money.

Actually, yes, they should have.

Nova
04-11-2011, 07:08 PM
I see what you are referring to, and you are correct - thanks for your patience!

I was thinking that maybe the top clasp was also locking - but if it were, there would be something on the inside of the door to set it, and I do not see anything like that.

So who had the key to lock MK's door from the outside?

Whoever took all of MK's keys, probably including the key that opened the front door so that s/he could escape.

otto
04-11-2011, 07:09 PM
I see what you are referring to, and you are correct - thanks for your patience!

I was thinking that maybe the top clasp was also locking - but if it were, there would be something on the inside of the door to set it, and I do not see anything like that.

So who had the key to lock MK's door from the outside?

Meredith had the keys for that particular bedroom. Whoever murdered her took her keys and locked the door after the murder. Rudy's footprints go straight out the door ... no footprints pointing to the door for locking the door. There is a Knox footprint at the door pointing towards the door.

otto
04-11-2011, 07:11 PM
Could be Filomena or anyone else who lived in the cottage, no? Locking the door doesn't mean whomever locked it murdered MK... though upon locking it they should have contacted LE.
Would RG have locked it to give himself some get-away time?

If Filomina had keys to the room, she would have unlocked it when the postal police were present ... as it is, the door had to be broken because only Meredith had the keys.

otto
04-11-2011, 07:13 PM
I don't as a rule. But this particular woman took on the role of interrogator, based on reports of the questions she asked AK, her telling AK she must have blacked out the memory, and her urging AK to "imagine" what might have happened.

None of these actions are the work of a mere "interpreter." I suppose it is possible that she was merely translating the questions and commands of others, but that isn't my impression of what transpired.

It's not my fault we don't have a recording to show us for sure.

If the interpreter asked questions ... clearly she was translating what the police wanted to ask Amanda. Do you actually think that an interpreter was brought in to translate for the police and she went off on some tangent saying whatever popped into her head?

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:13 PM
I have no opinion about where the keys went, and neither do police. If they knew, they would have retrieved them.:mad::mad::mad:

otto
04-11-2011, 07:15 PM
Actually, yes, they should have.

Sure ... and then they should have searched all of Perugia with a metal detector, then all of Italy ... anything less might be perceived as incompetence by police.

Nova
04-11-2011, 07:17 PM
That doesn't make any sense to me. I say that Knox didn't know info about Rudy, and you say that implies she did know info about Rudy.

You're playing word games.

You suggested that AK based an entire murder conspiracy on the assumption that ILE would not be able to match RG's DNA and fingerprint, and would thus blame the crime on some unnamed intruder.

That's a lot to count on if AK knows nothing of RG's criminal history or prior encounters with police.

Yet elsewhere you claim AK spoke so little Italian she couldn't even carry on the simplest of conversations with the boys who spoke no English.

So without sharing one word in common, AK somehow conspired with RG to commit rape and murder, and then decided to leave RG's artifacts at the scene, confident that ILE wouldn't be able to trace RG's artifacts back to him (and then ultimately to her and RS).

I don't suppose you'll ever admit you understand why some of us find this preposterous.

Nova
04-11-2011, 07:21 PM
If the interpreter asked questions ... clearly she was translating what the police wanted to ask Amanda. Do you actually think that an interpreter was brought in to translate for the police and she went off on some tangent saying whatever popped into her head?

We've been through this. She wasn't a professional interpreter, she was a policewoman who happened to speak English. So while I don't know about tangents, I don't find it hard to believe she contributed to the questioning. Even if you don't believe AK was struck (and, frankly, I don't know whether that actually happened or that's just how she felt at the time), her account of the behavior of the "translator" is consistent and credible.

otto
04-11-2011, 07:27 PM
You're playing word games.

You suggested that AK based an entire murder conspiracy on the assumption that ILE would not be able to match RG's DNA and fingerprint, and would thus blame the crime on some unnamed intruder.

That's a lot to count on if AK knows nothing of RG's criminal history or prior encounters with police.

Yet elsewhere you claim AK spoke so little Italian she couldn't even carry on the simplest of conversations with the boys who spoke no English.

So without sharing one word in common, AK somehow conspired with RG to commit rape and murder, and then decided to leave RG's artifacts at the scene, confident that ILE wouldn't be able to trace RG's artifacts back to him (and then ultimately to her and RS).

I don't suppose you'll ever admit you understand why some of us find this preposterous.

I said that Amanda would not have known that Rudy had been detained or that his finger prints had been taken by police.

Any playing with words to imply the opposite has nothing to do with me.

SMK
04-11-2011, 07:58 PM
I said that Amanda would not have known that Rudy had been detained or that his finger prints had been taken by police.

Any playing with words to imply the opposite has nothing to do with me.I'm not being sarcastic, I am asking in earnest: So in your scenario, if I have it straight, Otto, AK and RS had the hope that the police would investigate, run into dead ends, AK, RS, and RG would go about their business, and in time, the case would grow cold? (this has actually happened in cases, where the killers were right in town, knew the grieving family, and were only caught some years down the line). . .

Salem
04-11-2011, 08:11 PM
I'm going to start a new thread guys. I am so glad May is almost here :)

Salem