Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Not deliberately trying to be obtuse but where did this idea that RS had his fingerprints on the doorknob come from?

I realize there's no cite/evidence...I'm just pointing out that it's a moot point as it does nothing to further the overall argument of contamination of the bra clasp.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The thread title is obsolete. Three incidents that occurred before the cartwheel convinced investigator Giobbi that Amanda was guilty.

1. Amanda broke down and started sobbing when Giobbi told Knox he was going the the house next doer to ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder.

2. Amanda swiveled her hips after putting on protective shoe covers to enter the apartment two days after the crime.

3. When Giobbi called Amanda's boyfriend 3 days after the body was discovered, Raffaele was eating a pizza with Amanda.

The last incident clinched the case against both suspects.

Well, once again you are talking complete and utter rubbish, just as is the article you cite with it's words from FOA high priest Paul Ciolino.

Giobbi NEVER said "I knew they were guilty because (insert one or all of the three reasons you list above)". Of course, you can prove me wrong by providing us with a direct quote from him saying so. This is what REALLY happened and in the proper order:

3. The police had asked Raffaele to come into the station that day to answer some more questions. It was evening and they still hadn't arrived. The assumption by police was that they were attending Meredith's vigil that was being held that evening. A policeman happened to see them out instead eating pizza (instead of either attending the vigil or being down the police station) and called it in. When Giobbi heard this he immediately gave orders that they be called in.

2. The hip swivel business was cited by Giobbi on the stand when asked the question of when he first became suspicious of the pair. 'Suspicious' however, is a far cry from being 'certain of their guilt'.

1. Ditto with #2. This raised his suspicions further. Suspicions does not equate with 'certainty' and we would expect him to be suspicious, he's a policeman, we pay policeman to be suspicious.

But to give you an idea of how this article warps the truth further....Giobbi did indeed say he knew Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, but NOT for any of the reasons given above and he stated he knew they were guilty on the night of the 5th from their questioning. This was said in a documentary filmed for the UK's 'Cutting Edge' on Channel 4, called 'Sex. Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher' - here's the actual clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWkZPWRS3N0&feature=player_embedded

This is the documentary Ciolino refers to. You'll notice...no mention of hip swivels, pizza or screaming in the apartment. Read his words carefully and ignore the cut scenes added in of Amanda and Raffaele kissing...since Giobbi does not mention this at all and is talking exclusively about the interrogation on the night of the 5th.

 

[Fulcanelli]

A more plausible explanation is that the luminol reacted with something other than blood.

It's not remotely plausible. For it to be so there has to be other luminol reacting substances in the cottage (there are none) along with a reasonable explanation of how any of those substances could have gotten on the soles of the feet of both Raffaele and Amanda (there are none). At the same time, the bloody bare footprint on the bath mat, identical to one of the other luminol prints in the corridor, tells us exactly what substance they were in...BLOOD.

Your idea of what constitutes as 'plausible', let alone 'more plausible' is rather warped to save the least. And what's even more unbelievable is that you're outraged that the judges weren't buying this crap.

Sterile gloves at the crime scene:

They were sterile gloves. What is on the finger is dried blood which came off the clasp.

 

[Fiona]

I am not certain we can say there were no other luminol reacting substances at the cottage, Fulcanelli. Open to correction on that: but I do think it unlikely they were paddling in orange juice ...

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am not certain we can say there were no other luminol reacting substances at the cottage, Fulcanelli. Open to correction on that: but I do think it unlikely they were paddling in orange juice ...

Have you seen the list of what those substances are? Over 90% of them have no business being in in a private household. Of the other 10% or less, they stretch all credibility in regard to their being on the soles of people's feet. The most likely candidate is cleaning products containing bleach and we found out in the trial no such cleaning products were in or ever used in the flat. Also, I don't believe orange juice for example would cause that reaction anyway...it's only 'certain' fruits and vegetables that do. The one that causes the highest reaction, believe it or not, are turnips. I really don't think that's a plausible candidate.

But in any case, neither Amanda or Raffaele have attempted to offer a any such excuses for their prints ('Well, a few days before the murder, Raffaele and I did jump into a bath full of turnips - he has a turnip fetish you see - for a bout of erotic fun and then after we got out of the turnip bath and wandered around naked. That may be were the footprints have come from?'). They offered no explanation, no 'account'. Their lawyers saying in court simply 'Well, there are other substances that react with luminol, like fruit juice' isn't good enough and simply won't fly.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm still waiting for Charlie to tell me what his primary source is for what Raffaele's step mother did or did not shout at the judge. He claimed to have one but didn't provide it on his sources list. What is it Charlie?

 

[Fiona]

Dont worry , Fulcanelli. No doubt he is arranging his material so it can be hosted at PMF. That might take some time

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

The topic of Dan O.'s personal life has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand. Do not continue to discuss other poster's lives or personalities.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[shuttlt]

I must have missed it. Why do the number of signatures on the open letter matter. We're not suggesting they have put peoples names on there without permission are we. If not, what do signatures matter?

 

[Fiona]

They don't. It is just another one of the things which ought to be easy to resolve and are not.

It was claimed that 9 experts signed this and names were given which you will remember I did a bit of digging on ages ago: but though this was said the letter was only signed by Dr Johnson and Hampikian, when I saw it. 2 experts is a lot less impressive to the general public than 9 (though it shouldn't be given the actual content). Then there is the curious disappearance of the letter from sites which were hosting it. They said it was "copywright issues" on at least two of them. Rather curious for an open letter, or so it appeared to me. I wondered ....

 

[Kermit]

Dont worry , Fulcanelli. No doubt he is arranging his material so it can be hosted at PMF. That might take some time

Edited by LashL: 

Removed moderated content

.
I'm next in line. Still waiting for Dan-O to come back and explain why he had us turn slide 17 to the left 90 degrees, and slide 66 to the right. Sounds esoteric. I wonder if he went through the initiation ceremony.

 

[shuttlt]

They don't. It is just another one of the things which ought to be easy to resolve and are not.

It was claimed that 9 experts signed this and names were given which you will remember I did a bit of digging on ages ago: but though this was said the letter was only signed by Dr Johnson and Hampikian, when I saw it. 2 experts is a lot less impressive to the general public than 9 (though it shouldn't be given the actual content). Then there is the curious disappearance of the letter from sites which were hosting it. They said it was "copywright issues" on at least two of them. Rather curious for an open letter, or so it appeared to me. I wondered ....

The letter on FOA still only has two signatures on it. I would be amazed if they didn't have some sort of permission from the people they list though. One of the key passages for me is:

While I have not had the opportunity to review all of the case-specific data in this matter, I agree that the scientific evidence that they describe does not convincingly associate the kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The only signatures that matter are the ones of the people who have seen the evidence. Signatures for people reacting the the assertions of the people who've seen the evidence don't add much.

 

[nitram]

Books

I've read both Darkness Descending and Nadeau's book, and one thing that I'm not clear on is that DD says that the DNA testing of the knife was done in full view of several lawyers, excepting a few of Amanda's, and Angle Face says that Stefanoni did her work on the knife alone. Can anyone verify which assertion is correct? Thanks in advance.

 

[Fiona]

@ Shuttit.

Yes: it is not that impressive however you slice it, and that has been discussed before.

Still I find the fact that it is not signed by the others an.... oddity. One of many in this case

 

[Fulcanelli]

I've read both Darkness Descending and Nadeau's book, and one thing that I'm not clear on is that DD says that the DNA testing of the knife was done in full view of several lawyers, excepting a few of Amanda's, and Angle Face says that Stefanoni did her work on the knife alone. Can anyone verify which assertion is correct? Thanks in advance.

The answer to your question is not a simple one. They are both right...and both wrong.

Consultants for the defence were 'legally present' for the testing, a legal technical term. But they weren't physically present, having opted to not attend. What does this mean? By Italian law consultants for the defence have to be invited by the lab to attend testing. Whether they do attend or not is up to them, but regardless, the law considers them to have attended even if they did not, as they were formally notified to do so.

 

[Fiona]

But the representative for the Kerchers was there, was she not?

 

[Fulcanelli]

But the representative for the Kerchers was there, was she not?

Yes, they were.

 

[shuttlt]

I've seen a number of reasons given for this:

1. Insufficient notice was given to attend the test, from memory I think hours was mentioned.

2. The Kerchers experts/lawyers were provided by the state where as the Knox's were paying for theirs and not attending the test was an economy as it didn't seem important.

3. There were so many tests being performed that the experts/lawyers would have had to live at the lab.

I'm probably over simplifying and it would be better for somebody in the pro-Amanda camp to put these arguments forward, but to the best of my memory, those are the reasons.

 

[tsig]

.
I'm next in line. Still waiting for Dan-O to come back and explain why he had us turn slide 17 to the left 90 degrees, and slide 66 to the right. Sounds esoteric. I wonder if he went through the initiation ceremony.

I think you're supposed to close your eyes and look at the photos chanting "Amanda is innocent".

 

[Matthew Best]

Was any evidence produced in court linking RS's fingerprints to the doorknob?

Just to the door, not the doorknob specifically as far as I can tell.

 

[quadraginta]

I've read both Darkness Descending and Nadeau's book, and one thing that I'm not clear on is that DD says that the DNA testing of the knife was done in full view of several lawyers, excepting a few of Amanda's, and Angle Face says that Stefanoni did her work on the knife alone. Can anyone verify which assertion is correct? Thanks in advance.

The answer to your question is not a simple one. They are both right...and both wrong.

Consultants for the defence were 'legally present' for the testing, a legal technical term. But they weren't physically present, having opted to not attend. What does this mean? By Italian law consultants for the defence have to be invited by the lab to attend testing. Whether they do attend or not is up to them, but regardless, the law considers them to have attended even if they did not, as they were formally notified to do so.

Yes, they were.

I've seen a number of reasons given for this:

1. Insufficient notice was given to attend the test, from memory I think hours was mentioned.

2. The Kerchers experts/lawyers were provided by the state where as the Knox's were paying for theirs and not attending the test was an economy as it didn't seem important.

3. There were so many tests being performed that the experts/lawyers would have had to live at the lab.

I'm probably over simplifying and it would be better for somebody in the pro-Amanda camp to put these arguments forward, but to the best of my memory, those are the reasons.

A less charitable explanation, but one which I have seen signs of in other cases, is that the defense may be reluctant to have representatives at forensic efforts because if they choose to cast doubts on those efforts later as a courtroom strategy their own people might find themselves bearing witness detrimental to their trial arguments. They would have a problem arguing that something was not done properly if one of their own experts could be cross-examined and made to testify that it was.