• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to me that wherever you are and wherever you’re from, a cartwheel in the middle of a police interview means you don’t give a @#$%.


I think it's clear that SG was actually trying to suggest that the reaction to the cartwheel would be different in the US than these other places. The implication she was making that we, here, would be enlightened enough to realize it was not a sure indication of guilt, or hang our hats on it as much as the Italian police did.

For right or for wrong, it's clear this is what she meant, not so much about a cultural difference... She was saying they were not as enlightened or professional.

And she has not answered that question again despite the numerous times it's been asked. She has, however, in her own mind, answered the charge long ago in the earlier part of the thread.

That's all you guys are going to get from her. She's not going to turn around and address it again. That should be obvious by now. She misspoke, or made a bad mistake. Whatever it is, she thinks she has answered to it. And yet people keep brow beating her about it... when it's clear what she was really intending. Why? At least beat her up over what she was actually implying. That was actually pretty bad. But this ongoing harping on the "cultural" thing is getting ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps references could be included only in the section where there is disagreement. Would that be a workable compromise?

Chris


I expect that that was the idea to begin with. It certainly would be the proper method to employ.

Matthew seemed to feel that disdainful dismissal even in the absence of disagreement was a better alternative.

I like your way better.
 
Last edited:
Stilicho,

You wrote in separate comments...

Thanks for the detailed answer. But I asked where Hampikian's analysis differed from that of Tagliabracci's. The DNA evidence was challenged in court but if Tagliabracci got it wrong then we all would like to know where he did. It makes it easier to accept that Sollecito's own defence team bungled then.
 
What do you mean by working together, and what sort of "cognizant theory" do you have in mind?

Preferably something that could be proved beyond a reasonably doubt instead of just speculation about how it could have went down. Something that explains the physical proof we have better than coincidence.

Of course, but "beyond reasonable doubt" in no way means "beyond all doubt" it's left deliberately poorly defined and one of the jobs of the jury is to define it.


I agree. I think my standard of required proof are probably higher than what I would expect from the average juror as well.
 
How can I agree with it - you've given no references for anything.

Hi again MB: Thanks for addressing my concerns. To make this a lot easier than it has been (for both of us) could you list on one hand the pieces of evidence against AK and RS that you have found to be acceptable in pointing towards those conviction (List "A") and those pieces of evidence that you find unacceptable (List "B")?

This is similar to my request of halides1.

This would also cut out the months of reading available on PMF.

----------

Regarding the crimescene, MB, the entire cottage was sealed off after the body was discovered. That would include both bathrooms. Yet clearly the video of the bathroom isn't in the same condition as the picture. I thought your intention in posting each of them was to demonstrate to us that one was the actual crimescene and the other one wasn't. I was therefore hoping that you'd have an explanation for this because you presented them to back up your claims.
 
I agree. I think my standard of required proof are probably higher than what I would expect from the average juror as well.

This, too, is disingenuous unless you explain which pieces of evidence presented against AK and RS you find acceptable and which ones you do not. Could I ask you to do the same exercise as I asked MB? It would make it much clearer to me why you would have found them not guilty.
 
Ok I will make a start: I will try to distinguish clearly between facts and not-facts: but if I make errors in this please jump in because there is a lot of confusion.

So far as I can figure we know this:
31st October
The victim spent Halloween with friends, first at the Merlin pub and then at a club called the Domus. They were up most of the night. That seems to be a fact, and is attested by a number of her friends

On the same evening Knox sent messages ( not sure how many) to the victim trying to suggest they meet up. Kercher already had arrangements made and declined

Guede said that he met the victim at a party that evening and made an date with her for 8:30 the following evening
When it was established this was not true Guede said that he met her at the Domus and made a date with her for 8:30 the following evening

None of the friends she was with remember seeing her with Guede at the Domus. None of them remember her making a date. She did not mention it the following afternoon nor did she leave in time to keep it.

Nov 1st

On Nov 1st Kercher and Knox and Sollecito were in the cottage together in the afternoon. She left between 4 and 5 and spent the evening with some of the same friends she had been with on Halloween, at the home of one of them.

The next bit is very confusing because it relates to what Knox and Sollecito say they were doing on the evening of Nov 1st. I do not think any of it can be taken as fact

Sollecito first said they were at a party with friends

Knox says that she and Sollecito left the cottage at about 5 pm and went straight to his flat where they spent the whole evening together. She says she expected to work that evening but she got a text from Lumumba saying the bar would not be open and she did not need to work. She says she told Socellito this. She says she did not reply to that text. She says that they did not do very much but that they took a shower together and had sex. Maybe she checked her e-mail. She says they ate at about 11 pm. She later says that they ate about 9: 30 pm. She says that pasta was cooked and that the water was spilled and left till the following morning. She says that there was a leak under the sink and left till the following morning. She says that they went to bed and woke about 10 am the following day


Sollecito says that they left the cottage about 6 pm and went for a walk before going back to his flat and spending the whole evening together

Sollecito says that they were out (not sure if they had gone to the flat and then gone out again or whether this was part of the walk they took) and that he returned to his flat alone at about 9 pm. He says Knox told him she was going to the bar Le Chic to meet friends. He says he went home and rolled a spliff and made some dinner. He says he spoke to his father on the phone at about 11pm. He says he was on his computer from 11pm till 1 am. He says Knox returned about 1 am. He says he cooked fish not pasta. He says that there was a leak from the sink which soaked the floor and it was still very wet the following day. He says they went to bed and did not wake until 10 am or so

From telephone records we know that Knox and Sollecito switched their phones off at about 8:45. Records also show that neither of them normally did this, so the idea they did so because they were having a romantic evening does not seem to be supported

We also know that they both switched their phones back on at around 6 am the following morning.

We know that Sollecito's father did not phone at 11 pm. He did phone at about 8:40 and the phone went straight to ansaphone.

The computer shows no activity after 9:10 that evening. Sollecito says he was downloading Amelie, but the computer records show that film was watched at 6:30 pm

The computer was used at 5.32 the following morning.

A witness says that Knox was at shop early on the morning of the 2nd. I cannot remember what time that was said to be: nor is there a till receipt in support of this.

Kercher and her friend, Sophie Purton, left their friend's house and walked part of the way together before parting when their ways diverged. The victim got home a little after 9pm

Around 9.30 she phoned her mother.

Various witnesses report seeing or hearing things around 10:15 that night; two claim to have heard a very loud and disturbing scream; one claims to have heard more than one set of feet running away from the cottage in different directions; one claims to have encountered a black man leaving the cottage at speed. There are other witness testimonies about this and we may need to fill in more details but I am not certain enough of the times to put them in here as yet.

The time of death has been placed at some time between 9pm and 11 pm on the 1st of November.

2nd Nov.
Knox says that she woke about 10 am and she went to her own house by herself. She says that when she got there the door was open and this was unusual. She says she went to her room and changed for a shower. She took the shower and she noticed some blood. She says she went to the other bathroom in the house to use the hairdryer and she noticed the **** in the toilet. She says this was unusual.

She says she then took the mop to Sollecitos's flat because of the water on the floor: he did not have a mop. She says that they had breakfast (I think) and she told him of the things she had noticed at her home.

Knox said that she then decided to telephone her house mates and she spoke to Filomena and told her about what she had found at the house: this was at 12:08. She said she did that from Sollecito's house. She also said that she phoned Kerchner's phones and they just kept ringing.


Sollecito substantially concurs with this account but he says that they returned to the cottage and Knox's 12:08 phone call to Filomena was made from there.

Filomana says that she asked her b/f to go to the house as he could get there quicker than she could

It is not clear where they were when they phoned Filomena the first time.

The phone record shows that Knox did phone the victim but that the call lasted 3 seconds: Kercher's phone service has voice mail: no message was left

According to Knox they noticed the broken window when they arrived. They looked around the house. She says Filomena's door was closed when they arrived ( the room with the broken window) and that Kerchner's door was also closed. She says Kerchner always closed her door even if she was just going to the shower or whatever so she did not find that unusual and took it that Kerchner was sleeping or something.

Sollecito says that when they arrived Filomena's door was wide open. He says the toilet was clean of the ****. As noted he says that Knox now phoned Filomena and had not done so from his flat. Otherwise I think he substantially concurs with Knox

As noted the postal police arrived at 12:30 (according to their records) and were seen on CCTV arriving in their car at 12:25.

Sollecito told the police that he had already phoned the Carabinieri. His phone record shows he did not do so until 12:51.

Knox and Sollecito say the police did not arrive until 13:00.

At 12:34 Knox again called Filomena. Filomena says this was the third phone call but I am not clear about another one in between. In this phone call Filomana says that Knox told her about the window in her room being broken and the mess in there: Filomena asked her to call the police and she said she had already done so. She did not say the police were already there.

The presence of the police was a bizarre coincidence which could not have been predicted to happen. A woman who lived nearby went to the police station with a mobile phone found in her garden. She took it to the police because she had received a telephone bomb threat, subsequently shown to be a hoax.

After that the woman's daughter found a second phone in the garden One of those phones was registered to Kerchner and one to her house mate Filomena Romanelli. I cannot remember which one came first.

The postal police decided to visit the cottage about the first of the phones found but they did not take it with them: and the second phone had not yet reached the police station.

When they arrived they found Sollecito and Knox at the door with a mop.

Sollecito told them that they were worried because of the things Knox had discovered during her earlier visit.They said they had already called the Carabinieri.

Anything to change or add or any omissions you would like to fill in?
 
Last edited:
The time of death has been placed at some time between 9pm and 11 pm on the 1st of November.

2nd Nov.
Knox says that she woke about 10 am and she went to her own house by herself. She says that when she got there the door was open and this was unusual. She says she went to her room and changed for a shower. She took the shower and she noticed some blood. She says she went to the other bathroom in the house to use the hairdryer and she noticed the **** in the toilet. She says this was unusual.

She says she then took the mop to Sollecitos's flat because of the water on the floor: he did not have a mop. She says that they had breakfast (I think) and she told him of the things she had noticed at her home.

Knox said that she then decided to telephone her house mates and she spoke to Filomena and told her about what she had found at the house: this was at 12:08. She said she did that from Sollecito's house. She also said that she phoned Kerchner's phones and they just kept ringing.


Sollecito substantially concurs with this account but he says that they returned to the cottage and Knox's 12:08 phone call to Filomena was made from there.

Filomana says that she asked her b/f to go to the house as he could get there quicker than she could

It is not clear where they were when they phoned Filomena the first time.

The phone record shows that Knox did phone the victim but that the call lasted 3 seconds: Kercher's phone service has voice mail: no message was left

According to Knox they noticed the broken window when they arrived. They looked around the house. She says Filomena's door was closed when they arrived ( the room with the broken window) and that Kerchner's door was also closed. She says Kerchner always closed her door even if she was just going to the shower or whatever so she did not find that unusual and took it that Kerchner was sleeping or something.

Sollecito says that when they arrived Filomena's door was wide open. He says the toilet was clean of the ****. As noted he says that Knox now phoned Filomena and had not done so from his flat. Otherwise I think he substantially concurs with Knox

As noted the postal police arrived at 12:30 (according to their records) and were seen on CCTV arriving in their car at 12:25.

Sollecito told the police that he had already phoned the Carabinieri. His phone record shows he did not do so until 12:51.

Knox and Sollecito say the police did not arrive until 13:00.

At 12:34 Knox again called Filomena. Filomena says this was the third phone call but I am not clear about another one in between. In this phone call Filomana says that Knox told her about the window in her room being broken and the mess in there: Filomena asked her to call the police and she said she had already done so. She did not say the police were already there.

The presence of the police was a bizarre coincidence which could not have been predicted to happen. A woman who lived nearby went to the police station with a mobile phone found in her garden. She took it to the police because she had received a telephone bomb threat, subsequently shown to be a hoax.

After that the woman's daughter found a second phone in the garden One of those phones was registered to Kerchner and one to her house mate Filomena Romanelli. I cannot remember which one came first.

The postal police decided to visit the cottage about the first of the phones found but they did not take it with them: and the second phone had not yet reached the police station.

When they arrived they found Sollecito and Knox at the door with a mop.

Sollecito told them that they were worried because of the things Knox had discovered during her earlier visit.They said they had already called the Carabinieri.

Anything to change or add or any omissions you would like to fill in?


FWIW I'm pretty sure the first phone discovered was the one which Filomena had loaned to Kerchner. I'd have to do a lot of digging to recover my source, but it doesn't really make any difference to the substance of the narrative.
 
Ok thanks,quadraginta. Anything else from anyone?

I also omitted to mention the numerous calls from Knox to Kercher on Halloween. I have edited to include that
 
Last edited:
2nd November cont'd

At 2 am Guerde was seen at the Domus nightclub, dancing. He is last confirmed as being there at 4:30 am. For clarity this was after the victim was dead but before the events of the morning proper: in a way it should be seen as part of the events of the night of the murder.


Knox and Sollecito say that while they were there, and before the police arrived, Sollecito had tried to open Kercher's door but found it locked. They say they tried to break it down but did not succeed

When the police arrived Knox and Sollecito told them about the state of the house and showed the police what they had found. Knox also supplied telephone numbers ( I think for her house mates). They told the police it was Kercher's habit to lock her door

At 12:47 on 2nd November Knox called her mother. The call lasted 88 seconds.

Knox denies remembering anything about this call. Her mother says that Knox told her a bit about the concerning things in the house and her mother then told her to call the police. Knox said that Sollecito was on the phone to his sister and she would call the police when he was done.

At 12:50 Sollecito called his sister who is a police officer. She also advises they call the police. At 12:51 he does call the police and apparently he does not get through: he called again at 12:54. This is from the phone record

At a little before 13:00 Filomena Romanelli arrived with her friends Paola Grande and Luca Altieri. Her boyfriend, Marco, and another friend were already there. Romanelli said that Knox and Sollecito emerged from Knox's bedroom after she arrived.

Filomena told the police that it was very unusual for Kercher to lock her door. Filomena also told the police about Kercher's phones (that they were both the victim's phones and Filomena had given her a sim card registered to Filomena)
After this discussion the police asked Luca Altieri to break down the door because they were not authorised to do so. Luca did so at about 1:15 pm. Neither Knox nor Sollecito were at the door at that point, having retired to the kitchen.

As soon as the door was open the police took charge of the scene and ordered everyone out of the house. So far as I am aware Sollecito did not enter it again. Neither he nor Knox saw anything of the room though I understand that they heard Romanelli exclaiming about a foot

I think that everyone who was there waited around for a while before the went to the police station but I do not have a time line for that, and if anyone else can help that would be good
 
Fiona, here's the timeline from the Perugia Murder File site. Note this:

0745 Marc Quinto Valle, store owner. His two cashiers and helpers (two women) get there at 7:30am and begin to get ready for customers before opening time. He said as he was opening the security gate on the store, a girl was standing at the door with him waiting for the store to open. He remembers that she had a hat on, jeans, a scarf and a grey-white jacket. But most of all he remembers that she had blue, really blue eyes. He noticed because her skin was very pale. He opened the door said “buon giorno” she did not say anything and headed to the part of the store where they sell cleaning products, soap, towels, but also cups, coffee, misc. household items. He paid her no mind, but did see here eventually leave and head down the street in the direction of the piazza that leads to Via della Pergola. Since he was not at the cash register he did not serve her and could not say what she bought, and did not think to ask the cashier at the time
 
I'm curious if the police were able to confirm whether Sollecito actually had a leak at his place that they used the mop to clean up. I'm also curious if the mop had any blood on it.
 
0745 Marc Quinto Valle, store owner. His two cashiers and helpers (two women) get there at 7:30am and begin to get ready for customers before opening time. He said as he was opening the security gate on the store, a girl was standing at the door with him waiting for the store to open. He remembers that she had a hat on, jeans, a scarf and a grey-white jacket. But most of all he remembers that she had blue, really blue eyes. He noticed because her skin was very pale. He opened the door said “buon giorno” she did not say anything and headed to the part of the store where they sell cleaning products, soap, towels, but also cups, coffee, misc. household items. He paid her no mind, but did see here eventually leave and head down the street in the direction of the piazza that leads to Via della Pergola. Since he was not at the cash register he did not serve her and could not say what she bought, and did not think to ask the cashier at the time

Did the cashier corroborate? Did she pay cash? Did he positively identify the person as Amanda?
 
This, too, is disingenuous unless you explain which pieces of evidence presented against AK and RS you find acceptable and which ones you do not. Could I ask you to do the same exercise as I asked MB? It would make it much clearer to me why you would have found them not guilty.

All I'm saying is that I'm more skeptical than the average juror. This isn't a particularly high bar from what I've learned and I certainly know I'm more of a skeptic than 95% of the population.

Anyway I don't find statements from the perps or the DNA evidence particular convincing. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and I think needs to be looked at in more detail. The lynchpin for me is the relationship between Rudy and the others. Generally speaking I'm not a huge fan of circumstantial cases and given the unusual setup with multiple killers I think that the prosecution has to really explain a plausible story that fits the facts.
The DNA evidence would help a lot more if it had been handled better and if it was more clear cut.
 
I've followed this closely and it has all the markings of being a wrongful conviction. There just isn't much in the way of evidence to point to her. There isn't really even a decent motive. Add to that the completely whack prosecutor and the painfully broken italian legal system and you have the makings of a mistake.

On the basis of your first post here (above), NewtonTrino, I am afraid that I do not see you have shown yourself particularly sceptical. You say you have followed the case closely, but you do not seem to have taken the most elementary steps to check out what happened. I had not followed it closely but it was not hard to find another side to the story.

Is it not the essence of scepticism that you would have done that before making such a strong conclusion?
 
“In the US media, Knox was largely portrayed as the innocent American abroad being railroaded in a corrupt foreign system,” said Andrea Vogt, who has covered the story for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“In Europe, she was the sex-crazed diabolical vixen trying to get away with murder. Those covering this story in Perugia for the last two years recognise that neither portrayal is accurate. The case is more complex, with the truth buried beneath all those stereotypes.”

She may well have been portrayed that way in Italy, but that has not been the case in the UK (where Meredith Kercher came from). Some newspapers here have portrayed Knox as a saint, some as a cold-hearted killer, some in between.

Europe is not a monolithic entity.
 
Regarding the crimescene, MB, the entire cottage was sealed off after the body was discovered. That would include both bathrooms. Yet clearly the video of the bathroom isn't in the same condition as the picture. I thought your intention in posting each of them was to demonstrate to us that one was the actual crimescene and the other one wasn't. I was therefore hoping that you'd have an explanation for this because you presented them to back up your claims.

It's obvious you're being deliberately obtuse about this. Perhaps I deserve it! I think my posts on the video and the photo have been reasonably clear.
 
Ok thanks,quadraginta. Anything else from anyone?

I also omitted to mention the numerous calls from Knox to Kercher on Halloween. I have edited to include that

You said that Knox says she did not reply to the text from Lumumba telling her that she doesn't have to work that night. But she did reply to that text with a text of her own - "Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata". I don't suppose it makes any difference in the scheme of things but you asked.
 
Last edited:
Yes Matthew.She did say she did not reply to that text. Her reply was put to her in the police station on the 5th right after the police told her Sollecito was not supporting her alibi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom