Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

Lensman,

From your link: "Today, everyone entering a crime scene has to don a new, clean paper over-suit and overshoes as well as gloves since DNA retrieval techniques are now so sensitive that simply lightly touching an object - such as a door knob or knife handle - can leave enough of a trace to carry out a successful DNA analysis."

 

[Desert Fox]

Lensman,

From your link: "Today, everyone entering a crime scene has to don a new, clean paper over-suit and overshoes as well as gloves since DNA retrieval techniques are now so sensitive that simply lightly touching an object - such as a door knob or knife handle - can leave enough of a trace to carry out a successful DNA analysis."

Why do those who argue for guilt have so much trouble with secondary transfer. . . .Seems like a no brainer?

 

[Dan O.]

Ok, do you have a source for this thing that they had lunch earlier in the day? Did anybody testify to that or is that based on Sollicito and Knox's own account only? I don't believe Knox and MK were that chummy by that point. Raffaele also said he cooked with MK at one point and pricked her with his knife and that turned out to be a lie.

The only lie here is the guilter talking points that you are repeating.

"Might have" doesn't fly in court. Everything must be "This did happen and here's why and how".

Haha! I guess it's possible and therefore probable that you haven't read Massie?!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nah I think you guys have an ideology about justice systems. You want to believe there are a lot of wrongful convictions and then it becomes confirmation bias thing. SOmething about Knox or the factt she was in a foreign country which has kind of a movie plot aspect to it, the young "innocent" being railroaded by a horrible foreign governmen, has an appeal to you and you were able to convince yourself this had to be a wrongful conviction.

It is much more boring to believe she did it. Her motive is simply she's crazy as heck and drugs made it worse. If that kid in California was crazy, why can't Knox be. He had no prior bad behavior that we know of.

I guess if that's what you want to think I can't stop you. I think we take each case on its merits and in the Kercher case the prosecution case has very serious problems.

I do disagree about what would be boring though. Just another miscarriage of justice like the Norfolk Four case or the Molseed case is reasonably interesting, but what would be really interesting would be a once-in history crime.

For example if three people who barely knew each other, two of whom had no criminal history, conspired to murder a housemate that would be really interesting and weird, because it's never happened before or since. Add the language barrier and the fact that computer evidence puts Knox and Sollecito elsewhere at the most probable time of death and you would have a genuine once-in-history murder story to rival the scenarios dreamed up by Agatha Christie.

I don't think there's any decent evidence Amanda Knox is crazy in the sense of criminally insane. Your typical sex killer works their way up to it with crimes of increasing seriousness, like robbing people's houses and taking a dump in them, or threatening people with knives, before they actually sexually assault and murder anyone. Nothing like that has been established in Knox's case, and while we don't know Guede's full criminal history from what we do know he's a substantially better fit than any other potential suspect. A relatively boring story where a lone attacker with an alleged history of harassing women, violating people's houses and going armed escalates to sex murder seems much more plausible than any alternative theory.

 

[Poppy1016]

Independent corroboration of their alibi is really all I would need. If they weren't at the cottage, they didn't do it. Although it would be strange all that other evidence of them was at the cottage.

Amanda herself admitted her blood sprinkled with MK's in the bathroom occured that night because she said it was not there when she left and it was there when she got back. The blood is what supposedly made her worried, even though she claims to have taken a shower in there anyway. If her blood wasn't there that would have been decent evidence of her innocence. If she hadn't told that incredible bath mat story, that would have helped. That wasn't believable in any way. It did not look like she had taken a shower that day in photos and the police said that she smelled like BO that day. She also told one of the roommates that she had not taken a shower. There is a lot of evidence of her lying and making stuff up like this and I can only see one reason why she would be lying about this kind of stuff. She's guilty.

Aiken, you seem like a pretty bright fellow to me. But why do you come here repeating the PGP crap word for word? Use your own mind and your own common sense. I believed in guilt at first, but soon found it to be impossible to continue on that path. I used common sense , coupled with knowledge gained from reading from both sides.
I have a question for you. Do you believe Curatolos testimony, and if so , what time do you believe Meredith was killed? Thanks for you response in advance.

 

[Dan O.]

An unknown person without any other evidence that another person was there that night would not have done any good. How would they know who to compare the profile to and get that person's DNA to test? That DNA would not have been timestamped so you would have no way of knowing when this mysterious was at the house.

Do your friends at PMF know that you think Meredith is a slut that sleeps on a semen soiled pillow?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't believe she was interrogated very long and she seems like a confident tough girl. If she was innocent she wouldn't be breaking down like that and making wild accusations. Her wearing a All You Need Is Love t-shirt in court indicates she is confident and a rebels. Rebels don't give into authority that quickly. She would have to been tortured essentially and nobody believes that happened.

She's been fighting this murder charge for 7 years. She has perservance. Yet we are to believe she cracked after a few hours of interrogation and started to believe things that were not true? That isn't believable unless she has a serious mental disorder of some sort. She's a lot more mentally tough than you give her credit for. There is no quit in her.

You are showing your absolute ignorance of this case. Try showing you have a clue by listing the timeline for Amanda's week since the murder. Then we can discuss the facts instead of your beliefs.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do your friends at PMF know that you think Meredith is a slut that sleeps on a semen soiled pillow?

Maybe if it is the president's semen
Aiken is probably too young to know what I am referring to

 

[Dan O.]

No, she was asked why she DIDN'T hear anything.... and she responded by saying, "I don't know, maybe I had my hands over my ears." Please read her book.

It's also in the transcripts from the trial. Or even better, go straight to the source and listen to the tapes from the interrogation.

 

[acbytesla]

It's also in the transcripts from the trial. Or even better, go straight to the source and listen to the tapes from the interrogation.

I forgot the link for the interrogation recordings Dan. Could you please provide me with the link? Is it on the Wiki?

 

[Dan O.]

Ok, let's put aside the mixed blood part.

How did Knox's blood get there if she wasn't there and it wasn't there when she left the day before? Clearly it was deposited that night when she claims she wasn't there. Don't you see she boxed herslef in with her own statement there was blood there and it wasn't there before? Those are real constraints.

Why would she be afraid of her own blood?

Have you looked at the photos? What color and finish is the faucet? What colors would you see if it were clean? I don't think you have ever given this any thought. You just blindly repeat the guilter talking points and jump from one to the next without looking where you are going.

 

[anglolawyer]

The Lindy Chamberlain case did not have a false confession. However, it did have plenty of evidence that fell apart upon close examination. From what I have casually read, my understanding is that the police seized upon minor inconsistencies between Michael's and Lindy's accounts. This is another similarity to the present case. One difference is that the Perugian authorities threw linguini, as opposed to sphaghetti.

EDT
From the Morling report: "I have referred elsewhere to the unsatisfactory features in Mrs. Chamberlain's account of having seen a dingo at the tent and I do not underestimate their importance. It can fairly be said that there are inconsistencies and improbabilities in her story and in the various versions she has given of it. However, as I point out in Chapter 15, there are possible explanations for many of the apparently unsatisfactory features of her evidence.

On the other hand the obstacles to the acceptance of the Crown's case are both numerous and formidable. Almost every facet of its case is beset by serious difficulties. Some of these must now be mentioned.

The Crown is unable to suggest a motive or explanation for the alleged murder. The undisputed evidence is that Mrs. Chamberlain was an exemplary mother and was delighted at Azaria's birth. She did not suffer from any form of mental illness nor had she ever been violent to any of her children. She had spent the day with her family on 17 August and had not: exhibited any sign of abnormal behavior or of irritation with Azaria. She was not stressed when she took Azaria to the tent for her expressed purpose of putting her to bed."

Gee, someone else who thought motive was important.

Incidentally, anyone getting the sense that this is yet another return of "DrTesla"? Shouldn't that IP address be on the books, by now?

I arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[RandyN]

I think you are over analyzing the police guy's statement. It was just bravado at worse. It could have looked like he was the guy who did it based on the text message about seeing him later so when she said he was, they felt like it had to be true. You are basically faulting them for believing Knox, who you claim to be innocent of the crimes. I find that amusing.

I think it is a huge understament to say Knox can be blamed for Patrick's jailing. She's the only reason. You use Knox's false accusation to blame the police for his jailing. That is a mixed up logic I think.

So if I tell the police that Aiken77 did it although I am unsure of the veracity of my statement then you should be automatically locked away then? That is... after you are beaten, illegally interrogated and then strangely your business is closed as a crime scene for months after you are cleared of any wrongdoing.

But sure its all my fault right? I find your argument lacking.

I wish you could show me proof that Knox is guilty. I have advocated for her for years and not once did I get a thank you from her...the best she did was ask me to un-friend her on FB since we never met...so I would love to see her hang! What did she do to you? Look, I think the sink story is very weak...but I cant make her into the killer because of that. The mop was tested and found remarkably clean ...and well wrapped I might add.

I agree that the Italians have gone to outer space to make this case...cept they did it in the Flintstonemobile! I find that too hard to believe...they didn't even mention that little green guy...I forget his name now...was it Kazoo?

 

[kwill]

All my source material comes from somebody who writes at Daily Beast,

Well, that explains a lot.

Your source's name is Andrea Vogt. She's been pounding this narrative about a psycho hippy killer chick for almost 7 years now, and made a pretty good living at it. The problem is that she prints lies, half-truths, and smears -- basically whatever will get people to click and turn the page. It's not Amanda Knox's fault that Vogt decided to help turn her into some kind of devious murdering slut. The actual person named Amanda Knox, who lives in Seattle, Washington, is unrelated to the fantasy version created by the Italian prosecutors and the tabloid press.

Saying that all your source material comes from Vogt is like saying that you got all your information from the National Enquirer comments section. She's really that bad.

Do yourself a favor and read Candace Dempsey's book about this case. It's called Murder in Italy.

 

[Planigale]

She did give specifics of action. She said Patrick wanted to have sex with MK, that she covered her ears while he was raping her. That seems like more detail than the police needed if all they wanted was for her to place herself at the crime scene or accuse Patrick.

Wearing that t-shirt at the trial indicates she wasn't scared of Italian justice. This was after them supposed hitting her in the head and using mental mindgames to get her to say what they wanted. You'd think she'd show up in her most professional looking attire.

That you are ignorant of the extensive research documenting the phenomenon of false confession and false allegation does not mean it does not exist.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/17/law.ukcrime

http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/White Paper - LHB (2010).pdf

 

[Dan O.]

wiki?

All my source material comes from somebody who writes at Daily Beast, I think. I don't know who Quennel is. I'm not a big fan of Grace.

If you are reffering to Barbie Nadeau, why don't you ask her about the open door photo she took on the morning of November 14 when the cottage was suposed to be locked and sealed?

 

[bri1]

Aiken, you seem like a pretty bright fellow to me.

Really Poppy? You can't debate on scientific issues with someone who fundamentally fails to grasp what science actually is, how it's done, why it's done that way, and then dismisses scientific fact for no discernable reason (other than the above failures in comprehension).

 

[Dan O.]

She wasn't a suspect. Witnesses don't have to be recorded. I know somebody has told you this on here by now.

You probably have. But not recently.

Again, her statement in the room was not used against her in court. So this is a moot debate diversion of a point.

And you just said that you hadn't read Nencini. So how could you know what has or has not been used.

The reality is she must have accused Patrick or they would no have arrested him, and that was the biggest thing to come out of her statement. She can't deny she accused him and she didn't in court. So why do you need a recording. SHe said in court after questioning that they did not tell her he was the killer. I can get the transcript of this.

The phrase ”She buckled and told us what we knew to be true" comes to mind.

 

[NancyS]

Independent corroboration of their alibi is really all I would need. If they weren't at the cottage, they didn't do it. Although it would be strange all that other evidence of them was at the cottage.

Amanda herself admitted her blood sprinkled with MK's in the bathroom occured that night because she said it was not there when she left and it was there when she got back. The blood is what supposedly made her worried, even though she claims to have taken a shower in there anyway. If her blood wasn't there that would have been decent evidence of her innocence. If she hadn't told that incredible bath mat story, that would have helped. That wasn't believable in any way. It did not look like she had taken a shower that day in photos and the police said that she smelled like BO that day. She also told one of the roommates that she had not taken a shower. There is a lot of evidence of her lying and making stuff up like this and I can only see one reason why she would be lying about this kind of stuff. She's guilty.

You have Amanda involved in a violent and bloody murder and then you claim she didn't shower afterwards? That comment is beyond bizarre.

 

[Dan O.]

I'd be a chump if I talked to you after you call me a "drive by" and imply I'm a hack and talking points robot.

Have you no decency sir? I demand an apology.

You'll get that apology when you show that you are actually here to discuss the case and not just to spout talking points. Pick one point and stick with it, show your research, back up your claim with facts and references. Show that you are willing to learn a thing or two from a group that has been actively debating this case for several years.

So far you are no different than many other drive by posters that come here with cotton stuffed in their ears so as not to be tempted by the songs of logic backed by facts.