Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Dan_O, we get it. You do not think the police should ask any witnesses any questions at all except in America. That is what it comes down to.

Are there any of the elements I listed which you do accept as pointing to guilt? Any at all?

I am going to say this again in the hope that you will stop assuming that other people are doing what your pet theory predicts.

I do not know if this crime was premeditated. I do not know if any crime was in contemplation.

I do not know why they switched their phones off. I think only they know why they did that.

Evidence has not even been presented that the phones were turned off. We know that Amanda gave statements why she would have turned her phone off but that was in response to the police contending that the phone was turned off.

I do not know if Knox noticed that her lamp was missing. She knows.
And on and on.

Does Amanda know if her lamp was there that morning?? If she thinks about her room she may be able to picture the lamp in the bed table. She may also be able to picture the lamp on her desk. Meredith was fortunate enough to have two lamps in her room but Amanda only had the one lamp and would have had to move it between the bed table and the desk. The lamp may have even been in her room the morning she returned to the cottage and before Meredith's door was kicked open.

What I do know is that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered.

I know that Guede was at the cottage and in Meredith's room

I know that the forensics state he could not have killed her alone

Here we have two elements. There is the forensic evidence which has been documented and some of which we have seen. Then there is the forensic analyses. For Rudy to have killed Meredith alone and fit with the forensic evidence we would need to make some assumptions such as Rudy was a quadruped.

I know that there are eyewitnesses that AK and RS were in the area

The reliability of these witnesses is in question.

I know that her body was moved after Guede had left

What we know is that the body had lain in one position and then was moved some time later. Forensics should be able to put bounds on the times of these events. But the forensics in this case kept changing to support the prosecutions theory.

I know that Guede has an alibi for the time when Meredith's body was moved

You don't know that because you don't know when the body was moved.

I know that RS did not tell the truth about where he was that night

You'll have to be more explicit. Raffaele said he was at home. Evidence on his computer says he was at home for at least part of the night.

I know that AK did not tell the truth about where she was that night

Amanda said she was with Raffaele in his apartment. She may have left in the early evening to go to work and then returned. She left in the morning to take a shower at home because she didn't like Raffaele's shower. She made some statements in regards to the prosecutions fantasy of meeting Patrick for a sexcapade but since when is imagining oneself in a fantasy at the prosecutions request called a lie.

I know that someone faked a break in

You would need to see detailed photos of the scene to distinguish between a real break-in and a fake. I have asked if such photo's exist and nobody has yet produced them. Your knowledge does not come from examining the evidence.

I know that someone cleaned up

There was no clean up.

I know that RS and AK did not tell the truth about the time they woke up the next morning

If you are saying that they did not provide the exact time, that may be so. Neither were concerned with the time that morning.

I know that AK did not tell the truth about what she did that morning

She told what she knew. At one point the police convinced her that there was an alternate reality and for a time she accepted that.

I know that AK lied to Romanelli

I am not familiar with this one. Could you provide the details?

I know that RS did not tell the truth about when he phoned the police

I've already covered how the police were incompetent at establishing that timeline. Do we need to go over it agian?

I know that AK did not tell the truth about when she phoned her mother

Amanda did not remember making the first phone call. That is all.

I know that AK misled the police in to thinking it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked

Amanda corrected a statement that Filomena made about the door never being locked. Of course, Filomena may have been confused because Amanda never locked her door (and hardly ever closed it). Since Filomena would have no business coming down that corridor that Amanda and Meredith shared (except perhaps to search for rent money that the girls had stashed), Amanda would be the only one that would know the facts. Of course, Meredith implicitly trusted Amanda and the other house mates so she would never have locked her door when she was out of the room with a sizable sum of cash stashed in a drawer.

I know that it was only after hearing from Romanelli that the police were truly concerned

Are you talking about the postal police that couldn't understand what Amanda was saying and thought there was nothing so unusual about the "House of Horrors" bloody bathroom that they didn't want to break the door down themselves?

I know that it is impossible to say where AK was when she phoned Meredith but on the account she gave in court she did not do so after she returned to the cottage with RS: though they did try to break down the door, it seems

We know exactly when the phone calls were made. I suggest you review that phone log with respect to how you are placing events on the time line.

I know that both AK and RS made calls after the police arrived which did not mention them being there

I suppose if they had mentioned that the police were there you would call it a code to be careful of what they said. Or are you implying that the police had not actually arrived by that time?

I know that AK seemed to know more than she should have about how Meredith was killed.

Yes, Amanda knew that Meredith was stuffed into the closet and only her foot was sticking out. There was a lot of talk just outside the cottage about what was seen in the room. Amanda was only partially sheltered from that discussion by the language barrier.

I know that RS changed his second account of where they were

Raffaele provided an account of his activities as best as he could. When the police helped him remember by producing facts that Raffaele hadn't remembered, he adjusted his account to fit those facts. This is all a process directed at finding the truth not to trap the witness in a lie. Right?! The problem is that the police were injecting manufactured facts that were incorrect and so the account became a confabrication. After that there was no way to recover the truth.

I know that shortly after he did this AK changed her own account and accused Patrick Lumumba

Another confabrication built on the imagination of the police.

I know that when she did so she placed herself at the scene

Still part of the confabrication.

I know that she reiterated this when not under pressure

If you know that you have lied to yourself. Read the statement, She said "I was not there".

I know that both she and her mother knew Patrick was innocent, but did nothing about it

The police tapped that phone conversation. The police knew what Amanda and her mother knew and were in a position to do something about it but they did not! Amanda already said she wasn't there. If she wasn't there she could not know if Patrick was there or not. She could not say she knew that Patrick was not at the cottage because that would have been a lie.

I know that forensic evidence places RS at the scene

All you can know is that Raffaele's DNA profile was consistent with what was found on the bra clasp since there was a mix of several profiles. The individual profiles cannot be de deconvolved from the mixture. Have we got a number for the probability of a false match? It's probably not as small as you would think. Then there is the crucial question of why they didn't find evidence of Raffaele's presence in any of the other hundreds of dna samples taken but had to go back and collect that one piece specially. Have you watched the video of the collection of the bra clasp? The did it with all the flair of knowing they were finding the one piece that would nail the lid on this case. How did they know?

I know that forensic evidence shows AK's DNA was mixed with Kercher's blood in several locations, which places her at the scene

This was Amanda's house. she lived there. Her DNA was expected to be there. Do you keep track of where you leave you DNA?

I know that the knife had Meredith's DNA on it and also Knox's

That evidence would not be accepted in the civilized world. Because of the quantity involved, you can't know that the knife was the source of the DNA.

I know that AK lied to her friends and family in her e-mail iin several ways

You'll have to be more explicit in what you are calling lies in this personal communication.

I know that the "interrogation" lasted no more than 3 hours at the very maximum, and that she was offered food, water and toilet breaks

So you were told. Do you have a transcript or recording.

I know that her lawyer denies that the police assaulted her

A smart lawyer given what they do to people that make such allegations.

I know that there is no evidence whatsoever that any one other than these three were there that night

Have you forgotten the other DNA profiles on the bra clasp? What evidence would Rudy's drug dealing friends that were know to be in the area have left? Have you looked to see if such evidence was there?
​

Nope, I guess not.

 

[Dan O.]

Oh for Pete's sake, Dan O. He told the police he was at a party! What a dumb thing to do. Really dumb. That's not acting differently. It's lying and once you start lying to the police they are not going to simply let it go.

Apart from the many things Fiona wrote, and which you've been conspicuously avoiding, can you at the very least acknowledge that RS's original alibi (the party) was a clear and unmitigated lie? And that it was not a lie "injected by the interrogators". It was his original alibi.

Was that the party where they were all dressed up?

ETA: This must me the party you are talking about (notice the reference to the original source):

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirr...lood-all-over-it-was-horrific-98487-20058122/
ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith's American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

"The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

 

[stilicho]

Was that the party where they were all dressed up?

What are you talking about? It was the party that he told them he attended while Meredith was being murdered. When that alibi was proved false he then said he was at home all night on his computer. When that one was also proved false he eventually told them that everything he'd said was "rubbish". Then he said that he and AK were not together on the night of the murder.

All of this is prior to AK telling the police that Patrick Lumumba had murdered Meredith.

Please at least make a small attempt to understand the case. Try to understand what transpired between the night of Meredith's murder and the capture of RG that cemented the prosecution's case against RS and AK. Try reading their own accounts, links of which I have provided to you several times. Read AK's email to her 25 friends. Read her "memorial". Read RS's prison diary. Read, read, read.

Then your questions might just be answered before you type them up and you'll save yourself a lot of time.

 

[stilicho]

Nope, I guess not.

Wow, just wow. The poster who doesn't even know what party RS was referring to in his original alibi has hand-waved away all the evidence. You even managed to implicate Filomena. Bravo!

As we ask all conspiracy theorists and religious nuts: Is there anything at all that would convince you that your blind faith in AK's innocence is misplaced? Just one thing. What would falsify your belief?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Eh, Stilicho, give it up. Dan's last few posts have explicitly stated his disingenuous intentions with this thread. He throws accusations out without any evidence of their being factual, and ignores factual evidence. Can't win against someone that refuses to acknowledge any bit of evidence that goes against his preconceived notions.

Prime example: In an effort to explain away the lamp issue, he presents the argument that perhaps Knox's lamp was in her room earlier in the morning, before the door was kicked in. That doesn't even make sense. How could the lamp have shifted from Knox's room to Meredith's room while Meredith's dead, bloody body lay on the floor and the room was locked...

Disingenuous. Arguing for the sake of argument without regard to any factual evidence presented.

 

[Dan O.]

Prime example: In an effort to explain away the lamp issue, he presents the argument that perhaps Knox's lamp was in her room earlier in the morning, before the door was kicked in. That doesn't even make sense. How could the lamp have shifted from Knox's room to Meredith's room while Meredith's dead, bloody body lay on the floor and the room was locked...

Did I say that? Review the evidence, establish the time constraints.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Did I say that? Review the evidence, establish the time constraints.

You mean this bit:

The lamp may have even been in her room the morning she returned to the cottage and before Meredith's door was kicked open.

Well, being as the murder had occurred the night before, and in this bit you're discussing the morning after the murder. Yes, I would say that my point still is valid. For Knox's lamp to make it to Meredith's room the morning of the murder, someone would have had to see Meredith's body and either unlock the door and lock it back, or the door wasn't locked by the murderers but was locked after the lamp was, for whatever reason, moved.

Apparently you don't even accept the time of death? Meredith maybe borrowed the lamp from Amanda that morning and was brutally murdered while Knox was in the shower?


And a bit of correction: Amanda was there when the Postal Police arrived. She informed them that Meredith kept the door locked all the time. It was Filomena that countered that when she arrived, informing the Postal Police that it was unusual for Meredith's door to be locked.


Your ignorance on this case is showing.

 

[Oliebol]

8.42 call

He and Raffaele never SPOKE Kestrel The call was never answered!

Kestrel is right!

I am surprised you don't know about the 8.42pm call. Sollecito's father even testified about it in court (Friday, June 19, 2009)

Here is what Frank had to say about it:
"Franco Sollecito had to explain today his odd telephonic behavior of the evening of November 1st. Why did he send Raffaele a goodnight message when he usually called him all the time? Franco explained that during the previous call of 8:42 Raffaele told him he was at home with Amanda and so, later, he discreetly avoided calling him and opted for the sms.

And, in that call of 8:42 he enjoyed narrating him all The Pursuit of Happiness, "a very interesting movie", he had just watched together with Marisa. No surprise that Amanda and Raffaele, after having been interrupted in the vision of another movie, Amelie, by Jovanna, by Patrick and then by daddy, opted to turn their cellphones off.
But, a very heavy discrepancy emerged from that call. Franco, indeed, explained that at 8:42 Raffaele already told him of the leaking pipe, while according to Amanda the pipe started to leak at about 11. Those are some of the heavy clues the accusers can still hope in..."

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel is right!

I am surprised you don't know about the 8.42pm call. Sollecito's father even testified about it in court (Friday, June 19, 2009)

Here is what Frank had to say about it:
"Franco Sollecito had to explain today his odd telephonic behavior of the evening of November 1st. Why did he send Raffaele a goodnight message when he usually called him all the time? Franco explained that during the previous call of 8:42 Raffaele told him he was at home with Amanda and so, later, he discreetly avoided calling him and opted for the sms.

And, in that call of 8:42 he enjoyed narrating him all The Pursuit of Happiness, "a very interesting movie", he had just watched together with Marisa. No surprise that Amanda and Raffaele, after having been interrupted in the vision of another movie, Amelie, by Jovanna, by Patrick and then by daddy, opted to turn their cellphones off.
But, a very heavy discrepancy emerged from that call. Franco, indeed, explained that at 8:42 Raffaele already told him of the leaking pipe, while according to Amanda the pipe started to leak at about 11. Those are some of the heavy clues the accusers can still hope in..."

Thanks for the information on what Frank Sollecito said. Can you also provide a link for the source?

Also, welcome to JREF.

 

[Oliebol]

link

thank you for the welcome!

I am not allowed to post links.


ok...you'll have to add the www:

perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Friday, June 19, 2009

 

[Fiona]

Evidence has not even been presented that the phones were turned off. We know that Amanda gave statements why she would have turned her phone off but that was in response to the police contending that the phone was turned off.​

No? In court, this exchange:

LG: Passing to another topic, but still in the evening of the 1st, there is a clarification about your cell phone. Did you turn off your cell phone on that evening?

AK: Yes.

And

GM: Very well. It follows that your cell phone [gives number] and Sollecito's [gives number] stopped their activity respectively, yours at 8:35 and his at 8:42. Why?

AK: I turned mine off,

and

.....the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but
I didn't have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don't want to
get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me
in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That's why I turned it off.

I think there is ample evidence her phone was turned off.

Does Amanda know if her lamp was there that morning?? If she thinks about her room she may be able to picture the lamp in the bed table. She may also be able to picture the lamp on her desk. Meredith was fortunate enough to have two lamps in her room but Amanda only had the one lamp and would have had to move it between the bed table and the desk. The lamp may have even been in her room the morning she returned to the cottage and before Meredith's door was kicked open.

I said she knows whether she noticed or not. If she did not notice, she does not know if her lamp was there or not. Nothing very hard about that, is there?

Here we have two elements. There is the forensic evidence which has been documented and some of which we have seen. Then there is the forensic analyses. For Rudy to have killed Meredith alone and fit with the forensic evidence we would need to make some assumptions such as Rudy was a quadruped.

Believe the foresic scientists who testified under oath? Or believe Dan_O's assertion?
Tough call

The reliability of these witnesses is in question.

Everything is in question according to you. Do you have any reason to question it or is it just because it is always possible to deny anything?

What we know is that the body had lain in one position and then was moved some time later. Forensics should be able to put bounds on the times of these events. But the forensics in this case kept changing to support the prosecutions theory.

What are your qualifications in forensics Dan_O? What are the factors which allow one to pinpoint how long after death a body is moved? How long does it take for lividity to set in and how does that change over time? How long does it take for blood to dry on various surfaces? What were the bounds they put on when the body was moved? When did that change and by how much ? How precises are such judgements normally? within a couple of hours? 20 minutes? What?

I said that the body was moved after Guede left the cottage. That is what you are disputing. So what was the time of death and how long after that was the body moved?

You don't know that because you don't know when the body was moved.

No I don't. I know that Guede left the cottage and I know that he changed and I know that he was in the Domus at 2 am, at the latest. I now that he was last seen there at 4:30 am. I know that the body was moved after lividity set in and at least some of the blood was dry. So what is it you are suggesting happened?

You'll have to be more explicit. Raffaele said he was at home. Evidence on his computer says he was at home for at least part of the night.

No, tell you what: you be more explicit. If RS did not say he was at home the whole night then show me where he says it (apart from when he said he was at a party) What evidence on his computer shows he was at home after, say, 9:00 which is the earliest Meredith could have got home? The last activity on his computer is 9:10 so far as I know. What have you got that shows otherwise?

Amanda said she was with Raffaele in his apartment.

Except when she said she was in the cottage listening to Patrick Lumumba assault and kill MK.

She may have left in the early evening to go to work and then returned.

No. She was out at about 6 pm, according to the cell record, but it was not to go to work: it was too early for that. She was also out when she received Lumumba's text at 20:18 teling her not to go to work. There is no indication she went home in between (and none that she did not). She returned to RS's flat before she responded to Lumumba's text at 20:38. Then they both switched their phones off

RS say she went out around 6 as well, though she was as much his alibi as he was hers?

She left in the morning to take a shower at home because she didn't like Raffaele's shower. She made some statements in regards to the prosecutions fantasy of meeting Patrick for a sexcapade but since when is imagining oneself in a fantasy at the prosecutions request called a lie.

The police did not know who the text was to. They asked her. She told them. She told them she met Patrick and went to the cottage with him and she told them she was in the kitchen covering her ears while Patrick assaulted MK. It was not the police's fantasy. It was a lie which accused an innocent man. It was a lie she repeated when she was not under any pressure. She asked for pen and paper so she could write a statement spontaneously and it included:

"I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick."

"In the flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrick as the murderer."

Then on the 7th, in prison, she wrote

"I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick. But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.

She told no-one and she allowed Patrick to remain in prison in a very difficult position, until he could establish his alibi. Nor did her mother let the authorities know that Patrick had nothing to do with it.

Knox is not a toddler.

You would need to see detailed photos of the scene to distinguish between a real break-in and a fake. I have asked if such photo's exist and nobody has yet produced them. Your knowledge does not come from examining the evidence.

No. My knowledge comes from what was testified in court. The police testified to this and so did Filomena. I have no reason to presume a conspiracy. But I do have reason to be wholly unsurprised that I have not seen all the evidence, because I was not on the jury nor a party to the trial. I have seen enough to lead me to believe there was a fair trial and a fair verdict

Oddly enough the case does not have to be reported to my complete satisfaction, nor yours. Is it the case that you reject every verdict in all cases in your own country if you do not see every piece of evidence the jury sees? Do most of your compatriots demand this too? It must make your trial reports very lengthy indeed, but I suppose the media understands what a very long attention span their readership has. It is odd that we saw at the beginning of this thread that there have been miscarriages of justice in the US: it hardly seems possible when every aspect of every case is in the public domain from the very beginning. I am quite surprised to hear this really

There was no clean up.

Believe the evidence attested in court or believe Dan_O. Another tough call

If you are saying that they did not provide the exact time, that may be so. Neither were concerned with the time that morning.

No that is not what I am saying

She told what she knew. At one point the police convinced her that there was an alternate reality and for a time she accepted that.

Nonsense

I am not familiar with this one. Could you provide the details?

I have already done so. See what she said in her e-mail compared to Romanelli's testimony

I've already covered how the police were incompetent at establishing that timeline. Do we need to go over it agian?

You have? I seem to have missed that.

Amanda did not remember making the first phone call. That is all.

Riiiight

Amanda corrected a statement that Filomena made about the door never being locked.

No.

Since Filomena would have no business coming down that corridor that Amanda and Meredith shared (except perhaps to search for rent money that the girls had stashed),

Lovely smear and innuendo. Shame you have provided nothing to justify it.

Are you talking about the postal police that couldn't understand what Amanda was saying and thought there was nothing so unusual about the "House of Horrors" bloody bathroom that they didn't want to break the door down themselves?

No I am talkng about the police who came on another matter entirely and who were then told about some strange circumstances. Who saw a faked break in and some unexplained blood; and whose understanding of the situation was informed by what Knox and Sollecito (who could speak Italian) told them.olice who, on the basis of what those people told them were not very concerned about Meredith until Romanelli said she never locked her door. I don't know where you get the "house of horrors" from.

We know exactly when the phone calls were made. I suggest you review that phone log with respect to how you are placing events on the time line.

Yes we know when they were made. We do not know where she was when she made them. This is because she tells lies

I suppose if they had mentioned that the police were there you would call it a code to be careful of what they said. Or are you implying that the police had not actually arrived by that time?

You can suppose anything you like: it is a talent of yours

Yes, Amanda knew that Meredith was stuffed into the closet and only her foot was sticking out. There was a lot of talk just outside the cottage about what was seen in the room. Amanda was only partially sheltered from that discussion by the language barrier.

No that is not really what troubles me: what troubles me is her use of the word "they" before anyone suggested more than one killer; what troubles me is her assertion of the nature of MK's death. I am bothered that RS said there was a lot of blood when he phoned the police too: because that was before the door was open and it is not a natural description of the rest of the house, as you seem to agree

Raffaele provided an account of his activities as best as he could. When the police helped him remember by producing facts that Raffaele hadn't remembered, he adjusted his account to fit those facts. This is all a process directed at finding the truth not to trap the witness in a lie. Right?! The problem is that the police were injecting manufactured facts that were incorrect and so the account became a confabrication. After that there was no way to recover the truth.

This is total fantasy so far as I can tell. What are you basing it on?

Another confabrication built on the imagination of the police.

Still part of the confabrication.

If you know that you have lied to yourself. Read the statement, She said "I was not there".

Nothing to address here

The police tapped that phone conversation. The police knew what Amanda and her mother knew and were in a position to do something about it but they did not! Amanda already said she wasn't there. If she wasn't there she could not know if Patrick was there or not. She could not say she knew that Patrick was not at the cottage because that would have been a lie.

Yes it was a lie. What do you think the police should have done? Maybe they should have looked for evidence of which statement was a lie? I think they did

All you can know is that Raffaele's DNA profile was consistent with what was found on the bra clasp since there was a mix of several profiles. The individual profiles cannot be de deconvolved from the mixture. Have we got a number for the probability of a false match? It's probably not as small as you would think. Then there is the crucial question of why they didn't find evidence of Raffaele's presence in any of the other hundreds of dna samples taken but had to go back and collect that one piece specially. Have you watched the video of the collection of the bra clasp? The did it with all the flair of knowing they were finding the one piece that would nail the lid on this case. How did they know?

This is nonsense but since it is nonsense we have discussed in this thread in depth we will leave it I think

This was Amanda's house. she lived there. Her DNA was expected to be there. Do you keep track of where you leave you DNA?

See above

That evidence would not be accepted in the civilized world. Because of the quantity involved, you can't know that the knife was the source of the DNA.

I am inclined to think that Italy is very much a part of the civilised world. Your insults are not impressive though they may play in Seattle. The DNA evidence has been extensively discussed. You have your conclusion: the forensic scientists who have seen the evidence and witnessed the tests have another. I will accept their view

You'll have to be more explicit in what you are calling lies in this personal communication.

The things I am calling lies are the lies.

So you were told. Do you have a transcript or recording.

No I have Knox's testimony. What have you got?

A smart lawyer given what they do to people that make such allegations.

O rly?

Have you forgotten the other DNA profiles on the bra clasp? What evidence would Rudy's drug dealing friends that were know to be in the area have left? Have you looked to see if such evidence was there?

Ah I see: there were other people in the house were there? Do you have any evidence at all for that? Well maybe you do: were you there yourself by any chance? That is about as likely

 

[stilicho]

No surprise that Amanda and Raffaele...opted to turn their cellphones off.

Better show that one to Dan O. He says there's no evidence that they switched their phones off.

I am not well-read on the 20:42 call, which is why I've avoided it. It appears to be as damaging to the defendants as most of their own words are.

The broken pipe story appears to be the one they concocted to explain the mop.

----

@ Dan O: Congratulations. You found an article explaining their original alibi to you. It turned out that it was a lie. Do you agree that RS lied to the police about that without any so-called "injected memories"?

ETA: There are a few inaccuracies in that article but that's to be expected. The police did not break down Meredith's door. Luca did it for them.

 

[stilicho]

The police did not know who the text was to. They asked her. She told them. She told them she met Patrick and went to the cottage with him and she told them she was in the kitchen covering her ears while Patrick assaulted MK. It was not the police's fantasy. It was a lie which accused an innocent man. It was a lie she repeated when she was not under any pressure.

Let's also not forget that, even though the statements of AK at 01:45 and 05:45 on 02 NOV 2007 were not declared admissible, they were referenced in court by the prosecution and AK herself during the trial. Just because they weren't admitted doesn't mean they weren't provided. This is one of those grey areas in a case like this. If she had not written the voluntary memorial (the "gift"), then the prosecution would have had a much harder time convincing the court that AK had deliberately accused Mr Lumumba.

This is why FOA types and Dan O have to go through such extraordinary lengths to explain "injected memories" and other such psychobabblical¹ woo and why AK herself invents a brand new psychological affliction to describe this very disturbing thing she did.

At some point, a neutral observer has to sit back and ask themselves: Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that AK lied? I am absolutely certain that's what the judges and lay judges did. The defense team didn't provide an expert in psychology to explain this affliction so I'd have to assume they knew there was no way to defend it.

-----

1. For other uses of this word:

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/movies/movies-symposium112201.shtml:

Decades before "post-traumatic stress disorder" and other argle-bargle terms became all the psychobabblical rage, The Best Years of Our Lives provided a peerless portrait of the difficulties experienced by three American servicemen who return to civilian life in an unnamed midwestern city after the conclusion of World War II.

http://coding.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/C_CPP/comp.lang.c/2005-05/msg02065.pdf

In this case, perhaps. Howsoever, I'd advise getting into the habit of parenthesisising anyway, for psychobabblical reasons.

 

[Dan O.]

I think there is ample evidence her phone was turned off.

I should have said "Tangible Evidence". At this point, Amanda may actually believe that she turned her phone off even if she didn't.

Notice the words used by the prosecutor when he says the phones "stopped their activity" and the times he gives of 8:35 and 8:42. He carefully avoids saying in court that the phones were turned off which would be an assertion that he cannot prove. The times are simply the last recorded calls to those phones. But Raffaele's phone could not have been turned off at 8:42 because Raffaele took a call from his dad at 8:42:56 PM that lasted for 221 seconds which puts the end time at 8:46:37. If the prosecutor actually had evidence that the phones were turned off, he would have been able to provide the real times that they were off instead of the presumed times based on the call activity.

 

[Fiona]

You really are desperate. I dont know why I bothered with your last post but I am certainly not going any further with you: that way lies madness

 

[quadraginta]

You really are desperate. I dont know why I bothered with your last post but I am certainly not going any further with you: that way lies madness

Please do not become discouraged, dear Lady.

It's unimportant whether you change the minds of such as Dan o. As you point out that is less than likely. Please do not deprive us of the entertainment in reading the businesslike and professional way you expose the silliness being dumped in this thread. I can never do it with your equanimity and civility.

Remember also the value you offer to the many new readers of this thread, who may not have the patience to slog through the past 2K posts.

The FOA strategy is in many ways akin to homeopathy, in that they quite intently and intentionally flood any discussion of the topic with their ridiculous and ill-presented tripe in an effort to dilute any factual discussion to the point of non-existence by sheer volume. This is why they doggedly recycle the same tired old distortions, digressions, and falsehoods over and over again. Leaving them unanswered could leave the passing reader with the mistaken belief that they are unchallenged. By way of example I think we can expect a resurgence of the "bad DNA science" rigmarole any time now. We're way overdue.

I have come to enjoy this thread as a lesson in comparative language skills. Yours are very edifying. Theirs are as well, but not for the same reasons.

 

[stilicho]

He carefully avoids saying in court that the phones were turned off which would be an assertion that he cannot prove.

Dan O, LG is Luciano Ghirga, AK's own lawyer. Is he in on it too? Because he asks AK directly if she turned off her phone, in court, and she answers in the affirmative. Did the Knox family inadvertently hire yet another of these Italian svengalis who inject false memories? Or, on the other hand, is it even remotely possible that you're wrong?

The fact that you hand-wave the switched off cell phones is a solid guarantee that you still haven't read AK's testimony.

So far, Dan O, you've not only managed to alienate Fiona, who's provided you ample reading material, but you haven't convinced a single one of the casual passersby to this thread that you're right about any of your claims. None of the regular JREF sceptics have gone from knowing nothing about the case to agreeing that AK and RS must be innocent. That ought to tell you something because this is a pretty tough crowd for the most part.

Worse yet, you've invented an "injected false memories" meme into the discussion without any support whatsoever. AK's own defence team never used this unusual claim. They produced no expert to testify that it happened. I am not sure of Ghirga's credentials but Carlo dalla Vedova was educated at Harvard and yet somehow a guy on the internet knows more about the validity of "injected memories" than they do.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't understand all this stuff about the phones. Surely logs exist of the mobile phone access to the network cell towers. Is the claim that the defence have been so convinced by the false memories planted by the prosecution that they have never checked? Is the claim that the defence have checked and discovered that the phones were in fact on, but have chosen to conceal it? What is being claimed about the phones?

I take it we aren't just quibbling about the difference between off and without reception are we?

As for the false memories. If the police managed to induce all these false memories into Amanda's mind in less than two hours and have them persist for two years, as an average member of the public, I wonder about the fragility of her grasp of reality. Who knows what such an impressionable person might not become convinced of and do as a consequence? Did she also develop Stockholm Syndrome as well that she requested another couple of hours in the interview room and then provided her written gift? If these things are what happened then the defence should make some effort to overcome my, and presumably the court's, naive preconception.

 

[Alt+F4]

The FOA strategy is in many ways akin to homeopathy, in that they quite intently and intentionally flood any discussion of the topic with their ridiculous and ill-presented tripe in an effort to dilute any factual discussion to the point of non-existence by sheer volume.

Very good analogy. I have a question for those who are insistent on Amanda Knox's innocence. Why tie her fate to that of Raffaele Sollecito? Why keep saying he was her boyfriend (he wasn't)? The evidence against him is overwhelming yet Amanda supporters continue to insist that Meredith was murdered by Rudy Guede alone.

I think it's totally reasonable that Amanda turned her phone off on the night of the murder to avoid being called back to work, I'm sure many people have done that. There was no reason for Raffaele to have turned off his phone. There is that, Raffaele's many many lies and the forensic evidence against him, yet the FOA still insist he is innocent too.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Sorry to interrupt - having been aware of this case through the UK media, but not looked in to it in any detail, I was surprised when I heard that a US senator had asked Clinton to investigate. When I found a JREF thread I figured it would be a gold mine of information, and I'm glad to say this was the case. Having read through all of it, I'd like to thank those involved (esp. Fiona and Fulcanelli, but all the others as well - you know who you are!) for remarkable perserverence in providing considerable detail despite it being quite hard to come by, and often in a foreign language.

This thread has also been quite an eye-opener in terms of the views of some who term themselves sceptics. Some who seem to have no knowledge of the case at all beyond that reported in tabloids (e.g. the thread title!) and others whose argument require a conspiracy not only between the prosecutors, the judges, the scientists and witnesses, but also between the defence and perhaps even Amanda Knox herself (unintentionally, of course). When your hypotheses requires the whole world to be evil except for Amanda before it makes any sense, it's probably time to find a different tack.