Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

It was nice to see Harry Rag (the Machine) finally get corrected on PMF today. He has repeated over and over again that Amanda was arrested back in Seattle for a loud party. Of course this is false. She simply received a ticket. I have a copy of her citation.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Kermit. I have posted the two shoe prints from Meredith's room on my site that were disputed during the trial. You can clearly see that both prints belong to Rudy Guede. In fact, Rudy told the court that the print on the tile belonged to him. The prosecution made a weak attempt to prove that one of the prints was a woman's size 37 shoe. Raffaele's expert proved otherwise.

You keep demanding to see the other three. Those three prints were not disputed in court. Both sides were in complete agreement on those prints. Why do you want to see prints that weren't disputed? You have mentioned this several times. I have the entire presentation that was presented by Raffeale's expert. I honestly do not have the software to pull every photo out of this presentation. I do not have acrobat pro. these photos were seen using Crimescope. It was agreed that they belong to Rudy.

You can view the disputed prints here.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Kermit, I cannot tell you my sources at this time. Please stop asking me.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I had made a comment earlier that Fulcanelli was wrong about the day of the memorial. I directed that comment at the wrong person. Barbie was incorrect. Fulcanelli believes Barbie but he is not the one that made the false statements. He believes the false statements but he did not make them. I apologize for my error.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

From the Perugia Shock blog referenced in post #7636:


So how did Edgardo Giobbi know they were in a pizzeria? One explanation is that RS told the police that is where he and AK were when they called him. This is, of course, at odds with Amanda's testimony that they were eating dinner at a friend's place when RS received the call from the police to come in. You would think the prosecutor would make the point at trial that one of them was lying.

It was actually the police that were caught in a lie here. At least three members of the police force had stated that Amanda was not called in. They stated that they only called Raffaele. They said that Amanda tagged along with Raffaele. Giobbi gave a conflicting story.

 

[Dan O.]

There is a pizzeria receipt of Raffaele's photographed by the police with the date of 04-11-2007. The receipt can be viewed at Bruce Fisher's site under the Lies & Misinformation column.

I do not know if this is the same date that Giobbi speaks of concerning Amanda and Raffaele. Obviously, this receipt is dated one day prior to their questioning at the station.

They were questioned at the station every day since the discovery of Meredith's body up to when they were arrested. In Amanda's tapped call to Fillomena from the police station on the 5th, she comments how she finally had a day without questioning.

That receipt helps confirm events. On the 4th, Amanda was questioned till 14:45 (noted in Amanda's testimony that the session was recorded). Raffaele speaks to Amanda then heads off to get pizza (receipt is time stamped 17:something) while the girls are taken to the house to view the knives.


BTW: Welcome to JREF, home of many never ending discussions.

 

[stilicho]

They did not attend the vigil. They were exhausted. They had already been questioned for many hours. they ate a pizza. Laura and Filomena did not attend the vigil either. I know they were not college students but they still chose not to attend. There is nothing incriminating about not attending a vigil.

What's your source?

Are you saying they ate pizza, went the Questura, left the Questura, ate more pizza during the vigil, and then went back to Questura after that?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

What's your source?

Are you saying they ate pizza, went the Questura, left the Questura, ate more pizza during the vigil, and then went back to Questura after that?

I am saying they ate pizza during the vigil.

 

[stilicho]

I am saying they ate pizza during the vigil.

That's what we've been saying here all along.

I though you said you had a source that they were eating pizza before being called to the Questura and before the vigil, then went to the Questura during the vigil, and that's why they therefore (a) weren't at the vigil and (b) were justified in saying they were denied food during the interviews.

 

[shuttlt]

They did not attend the vigil. They were exhausted. They had already been questioned for many hours. they ate a pizza.

Do you mean on that day or in general?

 

[lector]

That's what we've been saying here all along.

I though you said you had a source that they were eating pizza before being called to the Questura and before the vigil, then went to the Questura during the vigil, and that's why they therefore (a) weren't at the vigil and (b) were justified in saying they were denied food during the interviews.

That's what I thought he was saying too. What the hell?

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim
From the Perugia Shock blog referenced in post #7636:


So how did Edgardo Giobbi know they were in a pizzeria? One explanation is that RS told the police that is where he and AK were when they called him. This is, of course, at odds with Amanda's testimony that they were eating dinner at a friend's place when RS received the call from the police to come in. You would think the prosecutor would make the point at trial that one of them was lying.

It was actually the police that were caught in a lie here. At least three members of the police force had stated that Amanda was not called in. They stated that they only called Raffaele. They said that Amanda tagged along with Raffaele. Giobbi gave a conflicting story.

And actually, isn't that what he is saying here again?

Exactly what is the police lie here? Is pizza part of it? Or are you then acknowledging that Amanda lied / was dazed&confused on the stand?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Laura and Filomena did not attend the vigil either. I know they were not college students but they still chose not to attend. There is nothing incriminating about not attending a vigil.

Cite?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That's what I thought he was saying too. What the hell?

Yay for 3 (edit: more) wasted pages!

 

[Fulcanelli]

It was actually the police that were caught in a lie here. At least three members of the police force had stated that Amanda was not called in. They stated that they only called Raffaele. They said that Amanda tagged along with Raffaele. Giobbi gave a conflicting story.

Amanda and Raffaele were joined at the hip and all and sundty knew Amanda would come along too if Raffaele was called in.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They did not attend the vigil. They were exhausted.

So exhausted, that Amanda was doing cartwheels around the police station.

 

[shuttlt]

It was actually the police that were caught in a lie here. At least three members of the police force had stated that Amanda was not called in. They stated that they only called Raffaele. They said that Amanda tagged along with Raffaele. Giobbi gave a conflicting story.

What in the world would be the purpose of such a bold and public lie? Why would they lie, but Giobbi not? If Giobbi wasn't part of the conspiracy why would they tell such a trivial lie that he would clearly not support? If Giobbi isn't part of the conspiracy does that mean we can take anything he says about the questioning on the 5th and 6th as unbiased by the conspiracy and to all intents and purposes true? Is the thought that they were trying to pretend they didn't suspect Amanda and Raffaele before the 6th? If so, why do they state publicly that they were suspicious of them from almost the first moments after the discovery of the body?

 

[RoseMontague]

Amazer and Fiona,

It is not clear to me that the prosecution would have been doing its duty, even if it had turned over everything upon the July, 2009 court order, “Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, addressed the court for 20 minutes arguing that the defense was not provided with crucial details of Sollecito's DNA allegedly found on Kercher's bra hook until July 30. The rights of the defense were damaged, she said, when ‘documents regarding the quantity of biological material on the bra hook and documents regarding the procedure used to attain DNA results were not made available to the defense…’We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being “too low,”’ Dalla Vedova told the court. Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.” http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=2

But they did not release everything even then, as RoseMontague pointed out upthread, citing a Bob Graham article. Frank Sfarzo summed it up, “But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni.” http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html A defendant should have the right to see and to challenge the evidence against him or her, IMHO, and that principle is at risk in this case.

halides1

They don't like Frank as a source, Chris. Unless they agree with what he reported and can't find another one. I asked earlier what evidence exists of his dishonesty and I got the name game and maybe he is getting paid or at least having his expenses covered by some anonymous American source. It seems that Barbie is much more trusted despite the many errors and omissions, after all she is not dishonest, just wrong in many cases, and besides, she is perceived as being on the right team.

Despite the fact that Frank has reported a lot of information that appears to be backed up by other sources as accurate he is not part of the right group. Therefore he is a lying liar. Even the people that are willing to admit that they see it as possible that the defense didn't get all the information will qualify that by saying they got all they needed or all that the court required. The "all they needed" part is an opinion without having the information available to confirm that opinion and it seems the appeal is addressing the courts decisions regarding the DNA evidence (or lack of).

 

[Kermit]

Still waiting patiently ...

Kermit. I have posted the two shoe prints from Meredith's room on my site that were disputed during the trial ... You keep demanding to see the other three ... I have the entire presentation that was presented by Raffeale's expert. I honestly do not have the software to pull every photo out of this presentation. I do not have acrobat pro. these photos were seen using Crimescope.

I keep asking to see the other three because:

1) you said "all five prints match perfectly",
2) you had said on another comments thread (TDB) that you were going to post them

Now you say that you don't have the software to extract the last 3 out of 5 images (how did you extract the first two images?).

If you are unwilling to do it, then please send me the presentation, and I'll be able to get the remaining three images in a jiffy.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to take your word for it, or accept comments of yours like "You and I both know that all of the prints match Rudy Guede's shoes." (1:48 am, Apr 11, 2010, on The Daily Beast)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what they said in court

Halides1,

I'm not really interested what the (prosecution and defense) lawyers said in public, i'm not interested in what some journalist/writer writes in his/her articles. I'm only interested in what was said in Court, how the Judge ruled on it, the reasons the judge gave leading up to his decision.

Go back and look at my comment again; both of the quotes were what was said in court.