Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[tsig]

Yes. This camera
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444b5dba7130e74.jpg[/qimg]

It's right at the south end of Raffaele's street and would show Amanda walking back to the cottage to take her shower, Amanda returning to Raffaele's place with the mop to clean up the spill in his kitchen and Amanda and Raffaele returning to the cottage shortly before they call the police. It would not show Amanda headed to the cottage with knife in hand on the evening of the 1st and returning soaked in blood afterwards.

Dan that picture looks more like a street light than a camera. Can you show me any other cameras that look like that?

 

[quadraginta]

Dan that picture looks more like a street light than a camera. Can you show me any other cameras that look like that?

I've installed user controlled webcams that looked pretty much like that on job-sites before. I'm willing to accept that it is a picture of a camera. Dan O. is going to need to provide some substance for the rest of his assertions insinuations, though.

 

[Fiona]

Dan that picture looks more like a street light than a camera. Can you show me any other cameras that look like that?

I had never seen one that looked like that either, tsig. But that kind of design does exist

http://www.google.com/products/cata...ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q8wIwAw#ps-sellers

http://www.google.com/products/cata...ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ8wIwBA#ps-sellers

 

[shuttlt]

There are certainly similar looking cameras on the market. I recall seeing similar looking home security cameras in my local Maplin Electronics store. None of this matters though. Who knows whether the camera was functional, where it was pointing, what the quality of the camera is etc..? Presumably the defence and the prosecution do, but they aren't talking. Dan O. seems to have access to more information on this and I look forward to him posting it.

Dan O. said that the defence didn't ask for the footage from the cameras until week two. Allowing for a bit of vagueness on the date, I wonder whether it might have tied in to Amanda changing her story (or correcting her story, or partially recovering from her false memories, or whatever) from admitting being at the scene to claiming she wasn't and all of a sudden needing corroboration. Up until week two might the defence and the prosecution have been operating under the misapprehension that there was no dispute about Amanda being at the scene?

 

[stilicho]

This bit reminds me of the Chandra Levy case (Washington DC, 2001), where the DC police were totally negligent in retrieving security-cam footage from her apartment building that might have cast light on what happened the day she disappeared. They did not retrieve it until after the tapes had been reused.

Very dissimilar cases, of course, since at that point they were looking for a missing person, but there was eventually a huge stink about the police bungling on that & other aspects of the investigation.

It's not always negligence, lector. Here's an example of a CCTV system P&P: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/4495/data protection1/CCTV201004.pdf. I doubt it's much different than those at other institutions around the world.

There are many areas where the intended use of the records is not the same as their actual use. Many of these do not include negligence or fraud. Improper training, improper storage, unaudited disposal schedules or even system security breaches could all cause a breakdown in the intended use of records.

As an anecdote, one of my company's offices recently had a renovation and an HR note went out asking staff to dispose of any documentation unnecessary for daily work or occupying space to be reassigned to other uses. It was about 24 hours later that the same message was sent out with a reference to the corporate documentation retention policy and a reminder to check it before firing up the shredder. I heard second-hand about some wholesale shredding of records (thankfully not in my area) but these are typical of some of the problems with record retention.

Each case has its own problems, of course. If sufficient audit and review of specs and P&P are not performed then there is a greater chance of something going wrong.

All this boils down to in Dan O's scenario is that the records either were not reviewed, were reviewed and not found to contain any relevant information, were unusable for any number of benign reasons, or (cue murder-horror theatre music) were deliberately manipulated or destroyed by the authorities to cover up...well...something!

This is reminiscent of the "missing 80+ videos at the Pentagon" meme on the 9/11 conspiracy threads.

 

[shuttlt]

Anywho, presumably in the case of Chandra Levy there was documentary evidence about the CCTV, the failure to collect it and the subsequent deletion of it. When similar documentation appears in relation to this case then they may perhaps be similar. Perhaps the defence have it and for some reason are keeping quiet about it until the appeal.

 

[stilicho]

Up until week two might the defence and the prosecution have been operating under the misapprehension that there was no dispute about Amanda being at the scene?

There's her own written statement to corroborate this idea, shuttIt. As you've probably noted, I've asked Dan O several times to look at what happened between the time of Meredith's murder and the capture of RG. Although we don't have all the documentation available to both sides, we do have documents showing why the three (RS, AK, and PL) were to be held beyond an initial period, which I think was 24 hours but I'm not completely sure.

We also know that the investigators scoured the area near the cottage for witnesses very shortly after AK's statement of 06 NOV 2007. That's when they were able to locate the lingerie store records and likely both Curatolo and the variety store manager.

I, too, am looking forward to Dan O's exciting new evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

I can't help but think that if there was really something to this FOA would have beaten us over the head with it. They've made more of less.

 

[quadraginta]

I can't help but think that if there was really something to this FOA would have beaten us over the head with it. They've made more of less.

I wish we had an award for understatement. This would have gotten you a winner nomination.

 

[Kestrel]

So no brutality then?

Capanne is one of Italy's grimmest prisons? Well I think that tells us something about the spin on Preston's writing, don't you? Capanne is where Knox was held

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKnox/amanda-knoxs-prison-cell/story?id=9329773

This is interesting too

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-01/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/

So from a claim that 4 people claimed brutality we find that .....er... none did.

I can accept that you feel Amanda should have been hit for not telling the prosecutor what the prosecutor wanted to hear. You also apparently approve of locking up journalists on bogus charges or forcing them to leave the country for public disagreeing with the prosecutor's theories. How could they not accept that a Masonic conspiracy to collect body parts for satanic rituals was behind the Monster of Florence killings? But can you explain your reasons for dismissing Patrick Lumumba's claims?

 

[shuttlt]

I can accept that you feel Amanda should have been hit for not telling the prosecutor what the prosecutor wanted to hear.

This has yet to be proved. If it happened it's clearly a bad thing, shouldn't have happened and something should be done about it, but one clip around the back of the head doesn't turn this into an episode of The Shield.

You also apparently approve of locking up journalists on bogus charges or forcing them to leave the country for public disagreeing with the prosecutor's theories.

Isn't at least one of those jounalists still facing those charges?

How could they not accept that a Masonic conspiracy to collect body parts for satanic rituals was behind the Monster of Florence killings? But can you explain your reasons for dismissing Patrick Lumumba's claims?

Doesn't Patrick also dismiss those claims?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Doesn't Patrick also dismiss those claims?

Obviously part of the conspiracy.

Just more proof of the bottomless Italian perfidy. They sure are diabolical.

 

[tsig]

I had never seen one that looked like that either, tsig. But that kind of design does exist

http://www.google.com/products/cata...ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q8wIwAw#ps-sellers

http://www.google.com/products/cata...ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ8wIwBA#ps-sellers

Thanks for the info both of you. I really wanted to see Dan's answer but you all are too helpful.

 

[Kestrel]

We also know that the investigators scoured the area near the cottage for witnesses very shortly after AK's statement of 06 NOV 2007. That's when they were able to locate the lingerie store records and likely both Curatolo and the variety store manager.

The variety store manager was Marco Quintavalle. The police did contact him shortly after the murder, but he didn't tell his story of seeing Amanda Knox until almost a year later.

Under cross-examination, Quintavalle said that he had not wanted to get involved in the case but finally did so, in August 2008, at the urging of a journalist friend.

As I recall, Antonio Curatolo also showed up as a witness a long time after the murder.

 

[stilicho]

I can accept that you feel Amanda should have been hit for not telling the prosecutor what the prosecutor wanted to hear. You also apparently approve of locking up journalists on bogus charges or forcing them to leave the country for public disagreeing with the prosecutor's theories. How could they not accept that a Masonic conspiracy to collect body parts for satanic rituals was behind the Monster of Florence killings? But can you explain your reasons for dismissing Patrick Lumumba's claims?

Why are you including the Monster of Florence stuff here? Neither AK nor PL substantiated the claims made in those various media reports that you've been using.

We don't know why Mr Lumumba dropped his claims of abuse but we have the evidence that he did so. Fiona provided it above and yet you haven't retracted your assertion.

We know why AK dropped hers through her own testimony and the fact that she could not identify even one of her alleged assailants.

For your reference (again), here is AK's original contention:

http://www.spyingforlying.com/2009/12/amanda-knoxs-trial-is-almost-over-want.html

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.

And here is how she described the police brutality in her own defence:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356199

PM: "They hit me", and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.

AK: Yes.

PM: So that would be what you meant by being hit?

AK: Yes.

And now she is being charged with slander:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...killer-sued-slander-claims-beaten-police.html

During Knox's trial she claimed twice that police had beaten her during questioning - although when asked in court if she could identify them she was unable to do so.

So there is plenty of evidence that AK was not brutalised by the police. Do you have any contrary evidence that she was?

 

[stilicho]

As I recall, Antonio Curatolo also showed up as a witness a long time after the murder.

Curatolo and Kokomani are both named in the Micheli Report so "a long time after the murder" must mean less time to me than it does to you. Quintavalle was not named in the report. He, too, was approached early in the investigation but chose not to act as a witness until a friend told him it would be a good idea. That's no reason to disbelieve him.

I don't think the witnesses are the best ones they could have gotten either, Kestrel, but this isn't an episode of CSI or Perry Mason. None of them recanted their testimony under examination and they were about as believable as any you'd find in a garden-variety murder case.

None of them helped AK and RS nor did Ms Popovitch. They all helped the prosecution establish a timeline to fit the evidence.

 

[Kestrel]

Why are you including the Monster of Florence stuff here? Neither AK nor PL substantiated the claims made in those various media reports that you've been using.

We don't know why Mr Lumumba dropped his claims of abuse but we have the evidence that he did so. Fiona provided it above and yet you haven't retracted your assertion.

We know why AK dropped hers through her own testimony and the fact that she could not identify even one of her alleged assailants.

Actually she did identify one of assailants, but did not know her name.

Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her.
...
I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
This was the same woman with the long hair?
Yes, the same one.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out who was in that room with long chestnut colored hair.

And now she is being charged with slander:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...killer-sued-slander-claims-beaten-police.html

So there is plenty of evidence that AK was not brutalised by the police. Do you have any contrary evidence that she was?

This prosecutor seems to charge just about anyone who disagrees with him with slander and defamation.

 

[Kestrel]

Why are you including the Monster of Florence stuff here?

The behavior of Giuliano Mignini in the Monster of Florence case says a lot about what kind of prosecutor he is. He believes in rather far fetched conspiracy theories, he abuses his office, he files defamation and slander charges against just about anyone who dares disagree with him, he taps phones illegally.

 

[Fiona]

I can accept that you feel Amanda should have been hit for not telling the prosecutor what the prosecutor wanted to hear. You also apparently approve of locking up journalists on bogus charges or forcing them to leave the country for public disagreeing with the prosecutor's theories. How could they not accept that a Masonic conspiracy to collect body parts for satanic rituals was behind the Monster of Florence killings? But can you explain your reasons for dismissing Patrick Lumumba's claims?

I do not accept Knox was hit: no evidence of that at all

I do not accept Spezi was locked up on bogus charges: no evidence of that at all

I do not accept Prston was forced to leave the country: no evidence of that either

I do not accept Preston's account of that case: I do know that the way he tells it makes a lot of money though

I do not accept Lumumba made any such claims: this is because he says he did not

Got any evidence for anything at all?

 

[Kestrel]

I do not accept Knox was hit: no evidence of that at all

I do not accept Spezi was locked up on bogus charges: no evidence of that at all

I do not accept Prston was forced to leave the country: no evidence of that either

I do not accept Preston's account of that case: I do know that the way he tells it makes a lot of money though

I do not accept Lumumba made any such claims: this is because he says he did not

Got any evidence for anything at all?

The letter from the Committee to Protect Journalists asking for the release of Spezi.

Italian court frees journalist held after writing about serial murders.

And you seem to have forgotten the quote I proved earlier from Lumumba.

I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me