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

[NancyS]

Nancy

I have not minimized Rudy's actions at all. I said I thought he deserved life. You want to make this a Rudy vs AK/RS scenario which is a false choice

There are numerous examples like the bathroom shuffle story and conflicting statements, she did shower and she did not shower, which indicates she isn't always telling the truth. Determining she lies about things is a good indication that she is also guilty of murder. There was no reason why she would be lying if she is not guilty.

I'm sorry but this makes no sense - everyone lies and gets confused and gives conflicting statements and this has nothing to do with being a murderer, but is to do with most people being terrible witnesses and having incredibly inexact memories. Although I have no idea why you think she lied about the shower or the bathmat shuffle as there is no evidence to support this. The prosecution have been shown to have lied multiple times - and you have told many a big fat porkie in your recent posts, for example bloody footprints. Does this mean we are all conversing with a crazed killer?

 

[xinonix]

Perhaps the local police knew soemthing about Patrick, and how he was a black man who was married to a white woman.
When Mignini found out that there was a chance Patrick was involved, he might have said " Arrest that man! he is exactly the kind of guy I need for my multiple attacker theory."

 

[Anode]

Do you deny Massei discusses this spot of blood in the "break in" room? It has always been a point of emphasis.

Nencini doesn't have to be a DNA expert. All he has be able to do is compare one DNA profile to another and have the DNA experts say it is a match.

I will need to read Nencinin's comment first without any filters before I speak more about this.

How does Knox not notice all this blood in the bathroom prior to leaving if she did notice it when she returned. Hard to miss the red color of blood especially against a light colored bathroom. She had to be at the house to have bled between the time she left when she said there was no blood and when she claimed to have returned. Given MK's blood was also in there, there is only one conclusion one can make. Knox murdered MK and then entered the bathrom to wash off.

Blood tells no lies.

If she bled as a result of an altercation and murder, where are her wounds/cuts. Presumably the police/medical staff did an examination (of at least her hands, arms and head) when they arrested her? Where is the evidence and testimony of visible cuts from which the blood came? I never saw any testimony of this.

If there are no cuts or wounds the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the blood was there and due to something innocent that occurred previous to the murder. (Regardless of what she testified).

 

[Desert Fox]

Knox knows if she blames Rudy she has to explain how she knows Rudy was there. Rudy may be able to prove she was there as well. So she blamed another person as a distraction to buy time so she can learn what the evidence is. I think the fact she blamed another black guy and Rudy is black isnt a coincidence. What is the percentage of black pepole living in Italy? I would think it is is pretty small. She probably only knew a few black people. and maybe only Rudy and Patrick.

First off, I think it interesting that you do not seem willing to look at the totality of the evidence. You want to cherry pick statements under interrogation against there being no physical evidence of either AK or RS being involved.

But I will play your game. First, to be clear, Susan Smith is a very different case. She is a generation older than Amanda. South Carolina is far more racist than Seattle and in the south they tell tales of black males kidnapping and raping white women.

Seems like you are completely ignoring something here. Amanda had received a text message from Patrick. The detectives narrowed on that and the pressure was thrown on her. Could have just as easily been from anybody. Race I don't think played any major part. Note that there has never been a text message or evidence of a phone call between AK and RG uncovered.

If she is going to break down and admit she was there, the gig would be up anyway. Your idea of shifting blame to Patrick makes no sense. Murder suspects when pointing their figures always minimize their involvement. They usually do not add an extra party.

 

[Desert Fox]

Perhaps the local police knew soemthing about Patrick, and how he was a black man who was married to a white woman.
When Mignini found out that there was a chance Patrick was involved, he might have said " Arrest that man! he is exactly the kind of guy I need for my multiple attacker theory."

Not that complex. . . .Had a cell phone text from Patrick and the detectives latched onto it. Pretty simple actually.

 

[Bill Williams]

Please stop referencig Nencinin until the English translation is avaiable for everybody. He found Knox guilty so Rudy's autobiography wasn't seen as relevant anyway. It is another red herring and distraction from the evidence against AK and RS. He was found guilty and has been in jail for years. You do not need to prove his guilty anymore given nobody is denying it.

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that until the Nencini motivations report can be read "in English" it is not to be referenced?

Wow.

 

[Bill Williams]

Where's Grinder?

God I miss Grinder. And I don't even like him.

 

[NancyS]

If she bled as a result of an altercation and murder, where are her wounds/cuts. Presumably the police/medical staff did an examination (of at least her hands, arms and head) when they arrested her? Where is the evidence and testimony of visible cuts from which the blood came? I never saw any testimony of this.

If there are no cuts or wounds the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the blood was there and due to something innocent that occurred previous to the murder. (Regardless of what she testified).

And if she had bled following a violent struggle with Meredith, her blood would have been in Meredith's room - you wouldn't suddenly start bleeding some unknown time later

 

[Desert Fox]

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that until the Nencini motivations report can be read "in English" it is not to be referenced?

It is like the Koran, can only be understood in its original tongue.
As well, infidels are not able to understand it

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you deny Massei discusses this spot of blood in the "break in" room? It has always been a point of emphasis.

Nencini doesn't have to be a DNA expert. All he has be able to do is compare one DNA profile to another and have the DNA experts say it is a match.

I will need to read Nencinin's comment first without any filters before I speak more about this.

How does Knox not notice all this blood in the bathroom prior to leaving if she did notice it when she returned. Hard to miss the red color of blood especially against a light colored bathroom. She had to be at the house to have bled between the time she left when she said there was no blood and when she claimed to have returned. Given MK's blood was also in there, there is only one conclusion one can make. Knox murdered MK and then entered the bathrom to wash off.

Blood tells no lies.

This is the very definition of confirmation bias.

The postal police, as well as Filomena - pre opening of Meredtih's door - saw exactly the same scene. No one suspected murder.

Are they ALL to be suspects? No, you have Knox as the suspect because, well, because she's just so darned guilty.

I for one hope you continue posting this stuff. There are many lurkers who follow this thread, looking for perspective on this case.

Neither you nor Vibio have provided one cite. At one point you said you were only here to air your beliefs. Now you are "drawing conclusions", and these conclusions have been demonstrated to actually go against the evidence.

Please keep on with your confirmation biases, because it affords the opportunity for others to show why what you buttress beliefs with are factoids, when actual evidence is posted here.

For one thing, you now admit that Nencini is not a DNA expert, which imples you actually do appreciate that it is a completely absurd thing for Nencini to base HIS belief in guilt on women having y-genetic material.

You show you understand it, but the confirmation bias continues - you still think they are guilty!

 

[kwill]

If she bled as a result of an altercation and murder, where are her wounds/cuts. Presumably the police/medical staff did an examination (of at least her hands, arms and head) when they arrested her? Where is the evidence and testimony of visible cuts from which the blood came? I never saw any testimony of this.

If there are no cuts or wounds the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the blood was there and due to something innocent that occurred previous to the murder. (Regardless of what she testified).

Reposting this one in the hope that somebody from the PGP world will answer it.

If Amanda Knox was bleeding on the night of the murder, there would have been an identifiable cut somewhere on her body when she was wrongfully arrested five days later.

So, either the police did not do a thorough search, or there were no visible cuts. We know she was stripped and carefully examined from head to foot, or at least we know this if the police can be trusted.

It really does help to focus on the evidence and forget the character assassination. There was no "mixed blood." Anytime you see that phrase, you need to realize the person claiming it doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[acbytesla]

You watch too much CSI. In 2007 still not many jurisdictions in the US had tape recording.

NYC.... please note the date 2012

http://abcnews.go.com/US/csi-inspires-nypd-video-tape-interrogations-commissioner/story?id=17272394
You have to be joking if you think $50 tape recorders would be allowed.

You have to be joking that it wouldn't. In fact, you need to re-read the links etc that you have provided.

more than two-thirds of police departments in New York State, 341 of 509, require officers to tape interrogations, according to the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services. Across the country 18 states and Washington, D.C., require police to record their interviews

But here is an undeniable point. The interrogation rooms in 2007 at the Perugia Questura were wired to record interrogations. Here you have the highest profile murder case maybe ever in Perugia and you are set up to record and you DON'T? Surely ye jest. This is a case which had international attention and a suspect who barely spoke the language and you don't record? Recording that interrogation not only protects the suspect, but the police as well and eliminates this silly back and forth about what happened.

 

[Bill Williams]

There's a poster in this thread who is on record as saying that the Scientific Police in Italy don't do "science" when they collect evidence.

Other than being a backhanded slap at the Science Police, this came from someone who is not a critic of the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito, but it came from someone who supports that prosecution.

Think on that for a second - esp. since this is a skeptics' forum!!!

The basis of posts here from that person is the right for that person to express "beliefs" about this horrible crime. For instance, a belief that someone who tells a tale about a bathmat shuffle (in her own home) is proof that she is:

a) a liar, and
b) a murderer.​

Fair enough. I suppose we all have "beliefs" that taint our view of the facts.

With that in mind, I offer this video, one on a similar duality between belief and fact. It's about climate change, and the 97% of scientists (you know, the scientists who actually DO science unlike the Science Police!) who say that climate change is fact, vs. "24% of the American public who believe that there is no such thing as climate change."

It reminded me of this thread for the last few days. The quote that got me was the obvious one: "You don't need people's opinions on a fact."

Enjoy.

http://sfglobe.com/?id=847&src=share_fb_new_847​

 

[Desert Fox]

But here is an undeniable point. The interrogation rooms in 2007 at the Perugia Questura were wired to record interrogations. Here you have the highest profile murder case maybe ever in Perugia and you are set up to record and you DON'T? Surely ye jest. This is a case which had international attention and a suspect who barely spoke the language and you don't record? Recording that interrogation not only protects the suspect, but the police as well and eliminates this silly back and forth about what happened.

I think that in 90% of cases, recording everything helps the prosecution as much as defense. Allows them to look at nuances, catch major inconsistencies, and even help themselves know how to do better in the future.

People, including the police, don't always like change though.

If you have the equipment, doesn't make sense not to record it.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have to be joking that it wouldn't. In fact, you need to re-read the links etc that you have provided.



But here is an undeniable point. The interrogation rooms in 2007 at the Perugia Questura were wired to record interrogations. Here you have the highest profile murder case maybe ever in Perugia and you are set up to record and you DON'T? Surely ye jest. This is a case which had international attention and a suspect who barely spoke the language and you don't record? Recording that interrogation not only protects the suspect, but the police as well and eliminates this silly back and forth about what happened.

Add to this is Mignini's admission that Italian law required the interrogation to be videotaped, a lawyer present, etc. I don't know why ANYONE in this skeptics' thread would say what they say when even Giuliano Mignini himself acknowledges Italian law in this regard.....

...... as well as acknowledges that they were ready to go, except that they didn't flip on the switch - "for budget reasons."

Mignini is arguing one way, the guilter in this thread is arguing contrary to even Mignini.

That's what makes this so bizarre a conversation.

 

[acbytesla]

Please stop referencig Nencinin until the English translation is avaiable for everybody. He found Knox guilty so Rudy's autobiography wasn't seen as relevant anyway. It is another red herring and distraction from the evidence against AK and RS. He was found guilty and has been in jail for years. You do not need to prove his guilty anymore given nobody is denying it.

You need to stop. Rudy Guede was CONVICTED of possessing stolen property as a result of his arrest at the nursery in Milan. And he was CONVICTED before the Nencini trial took place. The conviction was finalized by the ISC after the Florence verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that in 90% of cases, recording everything helps the prosecution as much as defense. Allows them to look at nuances, catch major inconsistencies, and even help themselves know how to do better in the future.

People, including the police, don't always like change though.

If you have the equipment, doesn't make sense not to record it.

All of the 5 confessions, false confessions, of the Central Park Five were recorded. They are in Sarah Burns' documentary on the subject of the wrongful conviction of the Central Park Five. Four of the five confessions were recorded in the presence of the suspects' parent or guardian.

Very soon after, all of them recanted, claiming intimidation and coercion. Given their eventual exoneration, who doubts that even intimidation or coercion of a minor kind - with trusted family present! - can produce false confessions?

At trial there was no evidence, except for these videotapes. One of the accused said the damnable thing about the case was this - every time the defence showed that, on the evidence, he could not have participated in the crime, they would just play his confession again. They used him as a witness against himself - never acknowledging a couple of things:

1) the intimidation and coercion, even of a minor kind
2) the fact that taken together, the five stories just did not add up.​

There is a reason why coercive interrogation techniques (like the Reid technique) are outlawed on the young. It is because of their high rate of producing false confessions.

This is simply a fact.

Those "confessions" actually would have helped the police and prosecutors solve the case of the Central Park jogger - IF they saw the videos for what they were.

Proof that those five kids were actually innocent and knew nothing of the crime.

It is this that was also missed in the early morning hours of Nov 6, 2007, except this time Giuliano Mignini actually violated Italian law by not flipping the switch to record the interrogations - for Knox, for Sollecito, and for Lumumba.

Put together, their coerced stories just did not add up.

We would have seen first hand how the cops, for instance, actually prohibited Raffaele from distinguishing Wednesday night from Thursday night, on the crucial issue of Knox's whereabouts.

Raffaele has always been clear. The night of the murder, Knox was with him. Unfortunately, the cops violated the very law which Mignini quoted to Ficarra that night - and the most egregious was not taping Lumumba's interrogation.

As Lumumba said on his release, they beat the crap out of him. Beware going into interrogation when the cop says first thing, "Say, Luigi, turn off the video for a few minutes will you? We have a few things to explain to Lumumba."

 

[Vibio]

Add to this is Mignini's admission that Italian law required the interrogation to be videotaped...

(oh boy)

Yes, yes Bill Williams, Mignini admitted that Italian law required the interrogation to be videotaped. Yes, yes, that's right.

Please do continue.

 

[Desert Fox]

All of the 5 confessions, false confessions, of the Central Park Five were recorded. They are in Sarah Burns' documentary on the subject of the wrongful conviction of the Central Park Five. Four of the five confessions were recorded in the presence of the suspects' parent or guardian.

To be clear, I think the whole question needs to be recorded not just the confession. Confessions though, whether false or not, are lead weights at your ankles.

New York was "man" enough to admit the confessions were false, Virginia was not with the Norfolk Four.

 

[Lensman]

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."

Your point is?

This is a leading forensic scientist saying it, I would no sooner question his evidence collection protocols than I would question a leading nuclear physicist about nuclear energy or a leading virologist about virii.