Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Cobalt]

How dare you!! We were doing ok between about pages 10 and 50: is 134 a record....

Fair question. After 60 or so I finally figured it'd become TL;DR.

 

[Fulcanelli]

My name is Bruce. Is your name not Michael? Do we need to use play names? I'm fine with it if that's what you want. I have been told by many people that you and Peggy run PMF. Is this a secret? Are you not proud of your accomplishments?

Giobbi thought Amanda was guilty as soon as she put on the shoe covers at the crime scene. Investigators are supposed to search for the truth. Giobbi simply didn't do this.

Giobbi thought three completely innocent people committed the crime! That's why it's important that he hadn't heard of Rudy Guede.

He assumed guilt before the evidence was collected.

It doesn't matter 'who' you 'think' I am. It is netiquette on forums that you address people by their screen names (unless the introduce themselves by name or signs their posts by name). Perhaps you're not experienced in posting on forums? I remember the last one you were on you weren't on it for very long.

Giobbi did not believe in Amanda's guilt until the night of the 5th. He certainly didn't believe her guilty because of the shoe covers. This really is a nonsense talking point.

When Rudy Guede was arrested the innocent person was immediately released (Patrick). The guilty were retained. Great police work.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I will address 'some' of Bruce Fisher's points from his list, though not nearlly all since most have been discussed here and elsewhere to exhaustion:

Bruce: Amanda was conserving her battery and Raffaele's phone was never proven to be turned off. Either way, the Judge claims that the murder wasn't premeditated so this is not incriminating in any way. I understand that you didn't have this information available when you wrote this.

Where did you get this from, this is nothing Amanda ever said. Amanda claimed to have turned her phone off so that she wasn't contacted again by Patrick that evening. This is what she testified to on the stand. She said nothing about her battery. But then of course this is strange...she got the text from Patrick and was 'overjoyed' at not having to go into work as a result. She sent him a reply, she then turned off her phone. Yet, she had no memory of these texts when police asked her if she'd contacted or anyone had contacted her by phone or text that evening.

In regard to Raffaele's phone, yes it WAS proven to have been turned off. His father sent him a text circa 11 pm the night of the murder but Raffaele's phone didn't receive it until 6:02 am the next morning when he turned his phone back ON.

Bruce: I am still trying to figure out how this lamp is incriminating.

It is incriminating because it was Amanda's and had no business being in Meredith's room, especially 'where' it was found in the room. It is important because Amanda claimed not to notice her lamp missing from her already rather sparce and small room. It is significant because the prosecution beleve Amanda and Raffaele attempted to break down Meredith's door because they'd thrown away the keus and realised they had left Amanda's lamp in the room. The prosecution believe this lamp was used in the clean-up and staging.

Bruce: This depends on what expert you chose to believe. Amanda and Raffaele both had experts testify that one person could have killed Meredith.

And the scenarios and arguments from both of them were weak. Massei demolishes them in the Report.

Bruce: these witnesses were completely discredited during trial. You will not hear from them on appeal.

Quintevalle and Curatolo were FAR from discredited and Massei weighs their evidence as sound and damning.

Meredith's sexual assault was not staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body. That evidence would be impossible to stage.

A sexual assault happened. A sexual assault wasn't staged....it was a 'rape' that was staged.

Bruce: Raffaele made some boneheaded statements. He later admitted this and he has been very consistent ever since. If you feel that this is enough to put someone in prison for life, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

What do you mean 'consistent ever since'? Consistently what...consistently silent? Perhaps you could locate for us any testimony/statements he has given since that time where he says Amanda was with him at the apartment all that evening?

He has consistently claimed he was on the computer all evening. And this has consitently been shown to be completely false.

Bruce: Amanda Knox repeatedly told the truth about where she was that night. Her story only changed after an interrogation under extreme stress.

Just as what happens with many guilty people.

Bruce: There is no evidence of any clean up. It was claimed by the prosecution that Amanda and Raffaele not only staged the crime scene as described above, they also made an effort to clean up the evidence that would point to them.

The prosecution claimed that the footprints detected with luminol proved there was a clean up effort. Luminol does not prove that there was any clean up effort. There was absolutely no proof presented in court showing any clean up. Luminol glows from many different substances other than blood. Luminol reacts with various household cleaners, different types of soil, rust in tap water, and many other substances. Luminol helps to find areas that may be blood. When the luminol glows, the area can then be tested to see if the stain is actually blood. None of the footprints detected with luminol were tested for blood. If they were tested, then the information was withheld by the prosecution because it did not show the result they wanted. Either way, the footprints detected with luminol were never proven to be blood. These footprints had nothing to do with the murder. They certainly do not prove that there was a clean up effort of any kind.

The luminol revealed blood, Meredith's blood that had been cleaned. Luminol doesn't react with various houseold cleaners (your phrasing implies it reacts with a whole variety of ingredients they contain), it reacts with one common ingredient found in some cleaners...'bleach'. Testimony was given in the trial that the girls never used cleaners that contained bleach and there were none in the house. Bleach is also non-pervasive and dissipates after 48 hours...luminol application was the last test performed...when any bleach would have dissipated.

If it was iron in tap water, then the whole cottage should be glowing like a christmas tree, since all the girls used the same tap water, so that can be ruled out. Earth? Only earth with a high iron content and then you need to explain how it was on the soles of both Raffaele and Amanda's feet and how these prints appeared in the 'middle' of the house with nothing showing how it got there (not trail from the front door to where the prints were found. Where did this soil magically appear from and how was it on the soles of both their feet? This is not viable, let alone realistic.

A blood test was not performed because they opted to scrub the prints for DNA instead. DNA is more valuable, since that assigns biological material to an individual. Blood alone does not. There was not enough blood left to test for blood.

Bruce: Amanda Knox stated clearly what she did that morning. There is no proof showing other wise. Unless of course you have found those lost receipts.

There's plenty of evidence.

Bruce: She forgot about the call. I know all of you are so shocked that Amanda forgot about one phone call at a time of unbelievable stress. Are you aware that Filomema forgot the times of 2 of her phone calls? It is very normal during times of stress to forget details. this is not incriminating in any way.

A strange thing to forget, waking your mother up in the middle of the night in a panic. Especially when this phonecall occurred before anything terrible was supposed to have happened. Amanda goofed and that's why she pretended to forget making the call. I'd read Massei on this matter, it's quite interesting...that's if you can make sense of it in your Google Tranlated version

Bruce: This is a disturbing lie that has been spread all over the internet. How did Amanda and Her mom know that Patrick was innocent? Amanda wasn't at the cottage that night. She had no idea what happened. The police told her that Patrick was involved. The police are to blame for Patrick's incarceration, not Amanda or her mom.

Amanda wrote in her diary that she was upset with the police for lying to her about Patrick. She was happy when he was released. She said that finally something was going right.

She knew because Amanda told her so. And as for the police telling her he was involved, can you document this supposed discussion Amanda's mother had with the police? Why would the police have wanted to speak to Amanda's mother?

Bruce: There is no credible evidence whatsoever placing Raffaele at the scene. The bra clasp is a joke. I am supposed to believe that the investigators didn't neglect to collect the the clasp during the first search. They simply decided not to seal it in the standard evidence collection bag.

The investigators decided it would be better to seal the bra clap in the cottage instead of an evidence collection bag. I have been told repeatedly that the cottage was sealed and there is no way the clasp could have been contaminated.

I would say a certain footprint and a certain eue witness testimony combined with some pretty BS lies from Raffaele seals that. As for the clasp, ANYTHING can be contaminated, any piece of evidence. It is not enough to say say it can be, you have to evidence it.

Bruce: The knife was a common kitchen knife. The knife was retrieved from the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito. The knife was chosen from the drawer because it looked clean. No other knives were taken to be tested. Was this an extraordinary case of good luck by the detectives or was this knife not the murder weapon after all?

What OTHER knives were in the draw? Remeber Bruce...we can all see the draw photo now.

What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade. This is when all guidelines for testing DNA were thrown out the window

I'm sorry, 'what' and 'whose' guidelines woild these be? Can you list these guidelines from a source?

Bruce: We will never know the details of the interrogation because it wasn't recorded. I know that I believe Amanda Knox. I do not expect you to do the same. How long do you think it should take for 30 officers to scare the hell out of a 20 year old student visiting a foreign country with a very limited grasp on the language? Even if you are correct with the 3 hours, isn't 3 hours enough to scare the hell out of her?

30 officers???? Oh come on Bruce, if you want anybody to take you seriously pack in the hyperbole. Amanda was questioned by 3 and I believe one of those was the interpreter.

There is simply no evidence connecting Amanda or Raffaele to Meredith's Murder. Meredith and her family deserve justice. Imprisoning two innocent people will bring no justice for Meredith Kercher.

Oh dear, the oft repeated 'there is no evidence claim'. again...repeat it enough, loud enough....

 

[RoseMontague]

That was my Google translated version, I don't know what version Bruce is using. I appreciate the work being done on getting a good translation of this report. Until that time, I go with what I've got.

I also enjoy the fact that people like Bruce Fisher and Chris Halkides are posting here, I think hearing from both sides is important in determining the truth.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That was my Google translated version, I don't know what version Bruce is using. I appreciate the work being done on getting a good translation of this report. Until that time, I go with what I've got.

I also enjoy the fact that people like Bruce Fisher and Chris Halkides are posting here, I think hearing from both sides is important in determining the truth.

I think Bruce's template version is also a Google Translated version.

I might be wrong...it could be Babelfish

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda has launched her appeal. Here's the translation by Jools over on PMF:

From L'Unione Sarda:

Defence lawyers of Amanda Knox this morning filed an appeal against her 26 years imprisonment sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher. An appeal of 200 pages, requesting for new expert (testing), in particular genetic, and therefore the acquittal of the Seattle student who claims to be innocent of this crime.

An acquittal "favorably by now will be of many years," said one of the defenders of the young American, lawyer Maria Del Grosso.

The other lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said that Amanda is "concerned" about the appeal presented by the Perugia prosecution, which contested the granting of extenuating circumstances and the exclusion of aggravating futile motives for her and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, sentenced to 25 years. "She hopes – added Ghirga - that somebody can judge her in a different way than the Assize Court of first instance trial.” In the appeal file --explained the defense-- the arguments which led the judges to "consider proven" the charge of murder committed in via della Pergola by the student from Seattle have been addressed.

The defense however have requested "new tests" because - explained the lawyers – “the whole argument of the ruling revolves around a thin line, the DNA traces found on the knife blade indicated by the prosecution as the murder weapon for us is insufficient" for analysis, as already stated several times during the process. "We already needed an in-depth examination at first instance trial (adding the lawyers) and surely a review of genetic evidence will be essential on appeal."

The lawyers have also requested a new test "on the footsteps that tested positive to luminol" found by forensic police in the apartment. "Which – per Knox defense – could have been affixed with a simple detergent and instead came to be considered blood."
http://unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Arti ... olo/177072

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=42113#p42113

 

[Alt+F4]

Bruce: Amanda was conserving her battery...

You're lying. Amanda herself testified that she turned off her phone so she wouldn't be called back to work.

Bruce: these witnesses were completely discredited during trial. You will not hear from them on appeal.

How do you know that they won't be recalled on appeal?

Bruce: Raffaele made some boneheaded statements. He later admitted this and he has been very consistent ever since.

You consider self-incriminating statements just "boneheaded"? Raffaele himself explained that reason for the finding of Meredith's DNA on the large knife. He made up an eloborate lie about Meredith coming to his apartment and him accidentially pricking her with the big knife while cooking. He made this statement freely, without even being asked by the police. As far as I know he never later admitted this was a lie, in fact, after he was charged didn't he refused to answer any further police questioning? Didn't he also refuse to testify at his trial?

His next lie (or maybe this lie just came from his father) for the reason his DNA was on the bra clasp was that Amanda and Meredith exchanged bras. There is zero evidence for this but again, he knew it was his DNA on the bra clasp and was trying to explain why it was there....not that it couldn't be there.

Read all about the clap here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/TheBraClasp.html

From your link:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"In the 47 days that the clasp was on the floor it was moved around the room and ended up in a pile of garbage. Keep in mind that this clasp also had cloth attached to it from the bra. This cloth collected dust for 47 days. Raffaele was at the apartment on several occasions. Finding his DNA in the apartment would be no surprise. So in conclusion, the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and many other people that visited the apartment." [/FONT]

Bolding mine. This is an absolute lie. The bra clasp did not test positive for "many other people that visited the apartment". It tested positive for Raffaele, Meredith and three other unknown persons. Why didn't Raffaele's defense team have the unknown DNA tested against the other three roommates and other persons who regularly visited the apartment?

If the theory is that the DNA clasp was moved around the room and picked up Raffaele's DNA than logic says that Amanda's DNA should be on it too since there was much more of her DNA in the apartment to begin with. Yet none of Amanda's DNA was found on the bra clasp.

Since it's nonsense that Raffaele's "magical DNA" would land on the bra clasp but not Amanda's the next straw to grasp at is DNA contamination in the lab. First we are asked to believe that there would still be the chance of contamination 47 days later. If Raffaele's defense team really believed there was DNA contamination in the lab why not get the unknown DNA tested against the investigators who obtained the clasp, those who tested it in the lab and against the DNA of any other cases that were being tested at the lab at the time? This would prove without a doubt there was contamination.

Why is Raffaele's defense team so scared to find out who the other three DNA profiles belong to?

 

[RoseMontague]

Let's hope that Amanda's appeal (referenced above) will be available and in English.

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda has launched her appeal. Here's the translation by Jools over on PMF:

An acquittal "favorably by now will be of many years," said one of the defenders of the young American, lawyer Maria Del Grosso

I know things get lost in the translation, but is her lawyer saying that the appeal will take many years?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Bolding mine. This is an absolute lie. The bra clasp did not test positive for "many other people that visited the apartment". It tested positive for Raffaele, Meredith and three other unknown persons. Why didn't Raffaele's defense team have the unknown DNA tested against the other three roommates and other persons who regularly visited the apartment?

One of those other persons was Amanda Knox. So, two unidentified persons (females).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda has launched her appeal. Here's the translation by Jools over on PMF:



I know things get lost in the translation, but is her lawyer saying that the appeal will take many years?

I think that what he means, is that by the end of any appeal and hoped for acquittal, Amanda by that time would have been in jail for many years (in this case 3 years).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Let's hope that Amanda's appeal (referenced above) will be available and in English.

I'm not sure that files files get published.

But we already know what it contains...the crux of all the arguments the defence made in the main trial and that failed. Apart from the testimony of Alessi, I don't think either defence is offering anything new as part of their defence.

 

[Kestrel]

You're lying. Amanda herself testified that she turned off her phone so she wouldn't be called back to work.

Amanda gave two reasons for turning off her phone in her statement and at trail. So she wouldn't be called back to work and to save her battery.

Please drop the claim that Bruce is lying.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda gave two reasons for turning off her phone in her statement and at trail. So she wouldn't be called back to work and to save her battery.

Please drop the claim that Bruce is lying.

Are you going to support that assertion with a quote at all?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda gave two reasons for turning off her phone in her statement and at trail. So she wouldn't be called back to work and to save her battery.

Please drop the claim that Bruce is lying.

She didn't say she turned off her phone so as not to be called into work AND to save her battery. In her questioning after her arrest she claimed she turned it off to save the battery. On the stand in the trial, it suddenly had nothing to do with the battery, she contradicted herself totally by claiming it was so she didn't get called into work. It talk the lawyer questioning on the stand to tell her...hang on, this is not what you said the first time round!

More of Amanda's lies:

[qiote]GM: So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.

AK: Yes.

GM: More or less. What did it say exactly?

AK: I don't remember the exact words...

GM: [Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?

AK: Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn't anyone
at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.

GM: And you saw this message at around what time?

AK: Uh, I don't remember the time.

GM: But was it after a little while or right away?

AK: I was on Raffaele's bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my
phone.

GM: But you don't remember when?

AK: No. I don't look at the clock.

GM: And you answered Patrick -- how did you answer?

AK: Well, I wrote something like "Okay, see you later ["ci vediamo piu -- um --
tardi"], buona serata.

GM: You answered in which language?

AK: In Italian. He didn't speak English.

GM: "Ci vediamo piu tardi", you said.

AK: Yes.

GM: OK --

AK: Which in English means "See you" --

GM: Yes but, excuse me, but you answered in Italian.

AK: Yes.

GM: "Ci vediamo piu tardi."

AK: He doesn't speak English.

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, because I didn't want to get another message from
Patrick, because actually I didn't really want to go to work. For example, he
had told me that I didn't have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed
up, well honestly, he had told me I didn't have to go to work and I wanted
to stay with Raffaele.

GM: Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with
Raffaele.

AK: Yes.

GM: On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your
interrogation of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my
phone to save my battery." Do you remember that?

AK: Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.

GM: Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another.
[Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I'll
read it. "But why did you turn off your phone?" Interrogation of Dec 17. "To
save my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" [He stops, annoyed
at some murmuring.]

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me.

CP? We're not interrupting, we're finding the page.

GCM: Please, please [because of noise]. 39, 40, but anyway, these
were the words. 39 or 40 is the page. Please, go ahead, pubblico ministero.

GM: Knox's answer: "To save my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at
night?" "If I have something to do the next morning." "But the next morning
was the day on which everyone skipped school." "But we were supposed to go
to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele." The next day was the 2nd?[/quote]


http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17371#p17371

To flippantly say...'she turned off her pone so as not to be called into work and to save the battery' is a blatant misrepresentation of what actually went down and how it went down.

 

[Amazer]

I'm not sure that files files get published.

But we already know what it contains...the crux of all the arguments the defence made in the main trial and that failed. Apart from the testimony of Alessi, I don't think either defence is offering anything new as part of their defence.

So they basically bank the whole appeal process on a new judge granting permission to run new tests on the genetic material and blood stains and hoping/expecting different results.

What are the chances that a new judge will allow fresh testing?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

11 April 2006

Which is my point, exactly.

And, Chris, you're the one making the claim - therefore you do the research to prove your claim.

BobTheDonkey and Moss,

Come, let us reason together. My claim was that Mr. Provenzano was convicted (not merely a suspect, as you said in message #7029) when his photo was framed and put on the wall but that Ms. Knox was not convicted when her photo was framed and put on the wall. The photo in the documentary shows Provenzano being arrested, which happened on 11 April 2006. The documentary Sex, Lies, and the Murder of Meredith Kercher was first aired on 17 April 2008 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1248478/). Therefore the photo was hung between April of 2006 and April of 2008. From the previously linked BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4899512.stm) dated 11 April 2006 “Provenzano has been convicted in absentia of a string of murders, including the 1992 killings of two judges, Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, for which he was sentenced to life in jail.” Therefore his conviction happened before 11 April 2006, and the photo was hung after this date.

Amanda was arrested in November of 2007 and not even charged, let alone convicted, as of April of 2008. Q.E.D.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no samples from Laura or Filomena

Why is Raffaele's defense team so scared to find out who the other three DNA profiles belong to?

The forensics team failed to take Laura or Filomena's reference DNA. Why were they so scared to find out to whom the other DNA profiles belonged?

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda gave two reasons for turning off her phone in her statement and at trail. So she wouldn't be called back to work and to save her battery.

Please drop the claim that Bruce is lying.

You're right, Bruce wasn't lying, and I apologize. He was probably just confused by another of Amanda's lies, it's understandable.

Amanda keeps changing her story as to the reason for turning off her cell phone (that night) and would have people believe that she would go at least 48 hours without charging her cell phone and then when she goes back to her apartment in the morning she brings back the mop but not her cell phone charger.

 

[Kestrel]

To flippantly say...'she turned off her pone so as not to be called into work and to save the battery' is a blatant misrepresentation of what actually went down and how it went down.

A few lines down from the testimony you quoted we find this:

GCM: This is an analysis. Indeed, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being... [interruption] Excuse me. But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said that it was both to save battery and also for this reason [interruptions, arguing]. So, I thought I understood that she had two reasons. We're not arguing about that.

?? Also not to be called by Patrick.

GCM: Yes, yes. Both reasons.

Your carefully clipped quote from PMF conveniently left this out.

My point is proven. Amanda gave two reasons in her interrogation and in the courtroom for why she turned her phone off on the night of Nov. 1.