Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

The fact that this was presented in court has indeed been known here: I think Stilicho knew this (correct me if I am wrong, Stilicho) but of course we all forget things at some points because of the sheer wealth of information: and occasionally we are not strictly accurate in what we say. In cooperative conversation we do not need to be: confusion can be cleared up with a question. In combative debate that is not the case and that has often been demonstrated here: even where a person's position has been fully elaborated earlier any subsequent slip causes great excitement (as for instance if someone mentions blood when they mean dna). It not the mark of truth seeking to proceed in that way, IMHO

Stilicho claimed that the case for the cell phone/CCTV record comparison was presented by a random blogger, so I had to assume he/she didn't know about Bongiorno's presentation.

However, I entirely agree with you that turning a debate into, if you'll pardon the phrase, a knowledge-based pissing contest is a very unproductive way to proceed. It is simply that the impression I have gotten from posting on here is indeed that this is some sort of competition in which any gap in knowledge is seized on as evidence that that poster's entire argument is invalid. It's a style of discussion unfamiliar to me; personally, if I know something another poster doesn't, I'm happy to share that knowledge rather than yell 'Ha! Gotcha!' as seems to be more the style here. Having read your post, I have renewed hope that your (and my) views are shared by the majority of posters on here.

That footage and the defence interpretation of it was indeed presented in court. We have also seen it here and discussed it at length. As I understand it there are several positions one can take: you can believe that it demonstrates that the police arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58 on some analyses). In that case you prove that RS phoned the police before they arrived (contrary to his own statement, but no matter) but you also undermine what the police, Luca and his friend, and Filomana and her friend, say about when they arrived: and you have to pack an awful lot of events into four (or two) minutes: you can believe, as I do, that the footage is itself worthless. I understand that the police accept that the legs it shows are theirs. I do not know why they accept that: I presume there must be other evidence we have not seen, but on the basis of what I have access to I do not see that it shows any such thing. You can believe that the fact it does not show the period which was originally said to be the time of arrival of the police per the clock camera is a curious omission which might change the interpretation if it was available.

Filomena and her friends all say they arrived at 'around 1', with Filomena and Paola arriving a couple of minutes after the other two. I don't see that the timing is so improbable. If we take 12:56 to have been the time of the postal police's arrival, we then have:

12:47 - Knox's call to mother
12:50 - Sollecito's call to sister
12:51 - S to carabinieri
12:54 - S to carabinieri
12:56-13:01 (let's say) - postal police arrive and talk with K and S
13:00 - Meredith's phone at police station activated, possibly as a result of Battistelli calling the number Amanda had given him
13:01 - Filomena's friends arrive to find K, S and police talking, phones and post-it note on the table
13:03 - Filomena arrives

Is that so improbable? If the times I give for Filomena and friends arriving is inaccurate, this means they must have arrived at 12:46 or earlier in order to give Knox and Sollecito a chance to disappear and make their phone calls (between 12:47 and 12:55, their phone calls are almost constant). A few minutes after 1 seems more likely, given their claims to have arrived 'around 1'.

I believe the only way around this reasoning is if, as you say, the people pictured on CCTV are not the postal police, yet this seems unlikely given the police accepted in court they were the ones pictured. We'd also still be left with the 12:46 arrival time for Filomena's friends, and we'd have to square that with their claims to have arrived at around 1 (it's possible they were 15 minutes out, certainly, but unlikely).

But as you say it was presented in court and presumably the defence made the best case they could as to the implications of this footage for the credibility of the police; the innocence of the defendants; and the case as a whole. I repeat; we have not seen or heard all that the jury saw and heard and this is important. For whatever reason they did not think this conclusive in establisihing reasonable doubt about the conviction. That may change at the appeal.

There is still nothing new here. We have the same (incomplete) facts and we make of them what seems reasonable to us.

I agree that even if the jury accepted Bongiorno's reasoning (which I guess we won't know till the report is published) this would in no way establish Knox and Sollecito's innocence. It may have gotten rid of one of those troubling 'doubts' which may have swayed the jury one way or another, but it is certainly not a decisive issue.

 

[katy_did]

That would, in fact, have sufficed - and have been expected. You make it sound like it would be ridiculous for someone to call the Police to report a suspected burglary when, in fact, that's pretty much what one would expect...

"Hello. My gf found the door to her cottage open, the toilet unflushed, and blood on the mat in the bathroom. We're afraid there was a burglary. Could you please send an Officer by?"

Sorry, but that still sounds kind of ridiculous. I mean, 'my girlfriend found the toilet unflushed'?!

 

[Dan O.]

So you, and Halides, are contending that the call to his sister was, in fact, a formal report leading to the sending of uniformed officers to the cottage to investigate the suspected, at the time, burglary?

It took 3 calls before the officers were dispatched. Are you claiming that the first call to 112 was not a formal report?

That's interesting. Do you have a link showing this?

Do you want mustard and kraut on that link or are you just going to feed it to your dog?

And I'm accused of being disingenuous because I, rightfully so, believe the "Monster of Florence" case/conviction of Mignini has nothing do to with this case?

You can believe that the Giuliano Mignini in this case is not the same Giuliano Mignini that was convicted of abuse of office if you wish. Your beliefs do not control reality.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Sorry, but that still sounds kind of ridiculous. I mean, 'my girlfriend found the toilet unflushed'?!

What would you have done?

They told the first Officers to arrive that they'd already called the Police. Amanda called to tell Filomena that she thought there had been a burglary before the Postal Police arrived.

I'd say that makes it pretty obvious that they (Knox and Sollecito) felt there was something amiss enough to warrant a call to 112 - whether you feel it was ridiculous or not. Sollecito's sister felt it warranted a call to 112. They, Knox and Sollecito, also felt it was evident enough that they lied to the first officers on the scene about whether a 112 call had been made.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It took 3 calls before the officers were dispatched. Are you claiming that the first call to 112 was not a formal report?



Do you want mustard and kraut on that link or are you just going to feed it to your dog?



You can believe that the Giuliano Mignini in this case is not the same Giuliano Mignini that was convicted of abuse of office if you wish. Your beliefs do not control reality.

Interesting. So...the call to Sollecito's sister is as formal a report to the Police as calling 112. Right.

Excuse me, what? YOU are making the claim. YOU provide the evidence. That's how it works here in, ya know, the real world.

I didn't say he wasn't convicted. But that's OK, I suppose. I posted that Kestrel was colluding an abuse of office to mean far more than it does. You are now being as dishonest as he is.

Rather than, ya know, attack me (and everyone that disagrees with you)...how about you guys actually try being honest about the evidence/players involved?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm not dodging, Fulcanelli. There IS evidence that the keys needed to be used to lock the door in order to prevent it from blowing open in the wind. In prior posts I have quoted sources to support my points, yet when I ask the same from you, I'm told this is common knowledge and I should go and search the PMF forum. In other words, when you make a claim, I'm supposed to go and look up the evidence to support it.

Well, fair's fair. I'm telling you there is evidence a key was needed to lock the door, and that the girls always kept the door locked so that it didn't blow open. It's on PMF. If you can't find it, I guess you'll have to take my word for it, as you expect me to do with every claim you make.

Yet zero evidence that the door needed to be locked fro the inside and a key was needed in order to get out of the cottage. It is certainly important enough that had it been the case it would have been raised in court, yet not so much as a mention. Therefore, it's groundless speculation which you are trying to announce as fact.

 

[Dan O.]

So, every time there's a brutal murder in America, the Police allow the prime suspect this time?

In the US, the authorities only get one chance to try the case. If they fail to get a conviction due to lack of evidence, the perpetrator walks free. If they don't have solid evidence and there is no risk to the public they will set up surveillance to see if the suspect will lead them to more evidence.

Of course, if the Italian police were dealing with a serial killer with new victims being discovered every night, there would be good cause to restrain every suspect immediately. But unless they were covering this up, the last female student disappeared a year prior to this murder. I think Mignini just likes seeing how people react to being thrown into solitary confinement.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Nothing like a logical response to an argument.

It is logical Bongiorno made the best argument she could, both to Judge Micheli and and the judges in the main trail, judges who had all of the evidence, including evidence you do not. And Bongiorno failed yo prove her case.

If you are claiming the CCTV clock is ten minutes slow, as the prosecution did, you are indeed claiming the carabinieri got there at 13:12, meaning all of the above must have happened. But perhaps you have in mind an alternate time? Or is this just a case of you dismissing evidence of the CCTV footage entirely because it contradicts your theory of what happened?

If you are claiming the CCTV clock is ten minutes slow, as the prosecution did, you are indeed claiming the carabinieri got there at 13:12, meaning all of the above must have happened. But perhaps you have in mind an alternate time? Or is this just a case of you dismissing evidence of the CCTV footage entirely because it contradicts your theory of what happened?[/quote]

I'm claiming the police got thetre c. 12:34 - 6

[qote="katy_dod"]Well in that case, and assuming you're right, isn't it even more likely base would have known that some patrol cars had already arrived and could contact them for directions by radio, rather than needing to call the cottage residents by phone?[/quote]

Not really, since the police who had arrived would have been busy. Moreover, nobody would have known the location better then the residents.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Per the Micheli report, the police were unwilling to break the door down because they didn't want to do damage to private property without sufficient evidence. You think perhaps they may have been willing to do so had they suspected there was a dead body in the room? Maybe?

The didn't NEED to, the residents were there to do it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I very rarely edit my posts for typos, Fulcanelli (I rarely make them in the first place, and if I do I catch them in the preview). On the other hand, I very often edit my posts to add bits and pieces I thought of after posting. So Kestrel is very likely right that I edited that bit after she read it.

What, you changed the very CORE of your post? Kestrel also missed my quoting of that post a whole couple of pages earlier? Not only do you people have an allergy against ever admitting Amanda was EVER wrong about anything, you have it in admitting yourselves are wrong and even each other. It is truly amazing how in over two years Amanda has never been wrong and none of her supporters have been wrong, ever, about the smallest point. Never have I met such perfect people in the Universe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could he have washed his hands, possibly? There was, of course, blood on the taps in the bathroom.

Yeah...AMANDA's blood! There are also no bloody footprints of Guede heading to the bathroom. They do however show him leaving Amanda's room and heading straight out the front door.

Yes I agree; since none of us were there, these are all simply theories.

I'll be sure to remind you of that.

A sexual motive is, of course, a motive (some might say more of a motive than disagreements over cleaning). However as Mignini has told us, a motive is not necessary.

More that it isn't necessary that we know for sure what it is. The prosecution have supplied several possible motives for why the three carried out this crime. As for Guede, two motives have been suggested by the evidence, deliberately so, and each motive has been likewise cancelled out by the evidence. For example, the 'robbery' that never happened, since Laura and Filomena's rooms were tossed, yet nothing of value was taken, nothing of value was taken from Amanda's room and many things of value were left in Meredith's room and much of what 'was' taken was thrown away two minutes later. The motive wasn't robbery. The other motive, rape, was suggested by the way Meredith was posed but this too, was faked and no rape took place. Instead, a sexual assault took place that was then immediately halted, suggesting rape was not the intent, but rather the assault was merely to achieve something else.

You've seen footage of the 'bloody bathroom', I presume. Would YOU say there was a lot of blood? Personally, at first glance I would say it's barely noticeable (perhaps that's the reason the first photo released by the police was the bathroom covered in pink stuff; makes for a rather more dramatic story than a photo of the actual bathroom as Amanda saw it would have).

Again, I refer you to Raffaele's phone call to police.

Menstrual blood, Fulcanelli. Failing that, a nose bleed.

Menstrual blood??? You are kidding me? As for nose bleed...do you normally bleed all over your floor , step in it and tread it into the mat and then just leave your blood lying around as you vanish?

Perhaps she wasn't in the habit of noseying around in her housemate's rooms when they weren't there? You indicate that perhaps she should have called the police. Given that the things she'd found were just slightly 'odd' rather than alarming, is that what you'd do? It's easy to say these things in hindsight, knowing what had actually happened.

She knew what had happened in Filomena's room. She saw the blood. She claims she found the front door open. How does someone so stupid make it to 20?

 

[Fulcanelli]

In fact, even had she discovered the mess in Filomena's room, calling the emergency number probably wouldn't be the appropriate thing to do, especially if nothing had been taken. Better to notify the local police station of the theft, rather than take up an emergency line for something which is not an emergency. That would be my judgment, anyway.

Also, if her story is so unbelievable, why did she even describe it happening that way in the first place? If they were guilty, far easier just to say she and Raffaelle had arrived at the cottage, noticed these strange things and called the police. The odd thing is, it seems people would in fact have found that story more plausible, even though it's the obvious one someone involved in a murder would come up with.

Then why conversly, was she supposedly concerned, she called Meredith, then Filomena and tried to break down Meredith's door, but much later, after walking home and having a leisurely breakfast? Don't even your toes curl when you utter such lame excuses?

They would be far from the first or last criminals caught because their story was ill judged. They just weren't as clever as they thought they were.

 

[Fulcanelli]

[quote="Fiona!]Filomena and her friends all say they arrived at 'around 1', with Filomena and Paola arriving a couple of minutes after the other two. I don't see that the timing is so improbable. If we take 12:56 to have been the time of the postal police's arrival, we then have:[/quote]

Just before 1 PM actually.

If we take 12:56 to be the time then we take an impossibility. Sorry, but you're talking complete nonsense.

 

[Alt+F4]

That is possible, yes. What would they do in America?

In a recent case here in NYC the police suspected an elevator operator in the murder of a cleaning lady that worked in the same building. They followed him around for about two weeks while they waited for DNA results then:

The city medical examiner's office matched DNA from under Rodriguez's fingernail - left there during the struggle - to Pabon, sources said. In addition, both the victim's and Pabon's DNA was found on a workman's glove recovered at the crime scene, the sources said.

He was then arrested.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/17/2009-07-17_nypd_says_arrest_imminent_in_murder_of_manhattan_cleaning_lady.html#ixzz0eqy8laFA

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In a recent case here in NYC the police suspected an elevator operator in the murder of a cleaning lady that worked in the same building. They followed him around for about two weeks while they waited for DNA results then:



He was then arrested.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/17/2009-07-17_nypd_says_arrest_imminent_in_murder_of_manhattan_cleaning_lady.html#ixzz0eqy8laFA

Again keeping in mind that they had no other solid evidence against the operator.

In this case, there was evidence against Lumumba (which is who's arrest and subsequent jail stay we're still discussing, right?) - a statement from an eye-witness.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the US, the authorities only get one chance to try the case. If they fail to get a conviction due to lack of evidence, the perpetrator walks free. If they don't have solid evidence and there is no risk to the public they will set up surveillance to see if the suspect will lead them to more evidence.

Of course, if the Italian police were dealing with a serial killer with new victims being discovered every night, there would be good cause to restrain every suspect immediately. But unless they were covering this up, the last female student disappeared a year prior to this murder. I think Mignini just likes seeing how people react to being thrown into solitary confinement.

It was a sex murder. Or at the least, made to appear like one. The sexual predator that kills is always considered as likely to re-offend by the Italians. Anything but an arrest was not an option to the Italians period.

 

[Alt+F4]

In the case cited there does not appear to be any evidence tying this man to the murder: he worked at the place the victim worked and he went home early that day, saying he was unwell. He had some minor scratches on his arm. It may be that there is other evidence tying him to the crime, but it is not reported. In addition there is apparently another man who had also worked in the same place and allegedly exposed himself to her. I wonder if they placed him under surveillance too. Or if they had a whole lot of folk under watch?

They worked in a high security building in the finacial district with cameras at every entrance and exit. The flasher was not scene entering the building. In addition, according to other reports the scratches on his arms were more than minor:

And he's got all these marks --- bruises, scratches, cuts. Like if a woman was fighting him off. And he doesn't really have a good explanation for that.

Here's an article about the details of the investigation and arrest:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/skyscraper.murder.arrest.2.1091387.html

 

[Kestrel]

What would you have done?

They told the first Officers to arrive that they'd already called the Police. Amanda called to tell Filomena that she thought there had been a burglary before the Postal Police arrived.

I'd say that makes it pretty obvious that they (Knox and Sollecito) felt there was something amiss enough to warrant a call to 112 - whether you feel it was ridiculous or not. Sollecito's sister felt it warranted a call to 112. They, Knox and Sollecito, also felt it was evident enough that they lied to the first officers on the scene about whether a 112 call had been made.

We know for a fact that Sollecito called 112. Are you claiming he did so in the presence of the Postal Police and they didn't notice?

 

[Kestrel]

Just before 1 PM actually.

If we take 12:56 to be the time then we take an impossibility. Sorry, but you're talking complete nonsense.

The Postal Police arriving at 12:56 is very consistent with the dispatcher log showing they left at 12:46.

 

[Fiona]

In a recent case here in NYC the police suspected an elevator operator in the murder of a cleaning lady that worked in the same building. They followed him around for about two weeks while they waited for DNA results then:



He was then arrested.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/07/17/2009-07-17_nypd_says_arrest_imminent_in_murder_of_manhattan_cleaning_lady.html#ixzz0eqy8laFA

Yes Alt+4 that is the same case which is linked above. I do not think it is comparable for the reasons I gave.

I do think your link gives more details and all of them tend to reinforce my impression that the criticisms made of the Italian police in this thread pale in comparison with police action in that one.