Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Bruce Fischer]

When you're making it up as you go along why not make it colorful?

I am not making anything up. If you actually read what I write, you will see that I state a very plausible argument.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

We've seen about a half a percent of the information presented in court and none of it isn't tainted in at least one theory of the case.

Do you honestly believe that 99.5% of the information about the case is a big secret?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I found the original attribution:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5537365.ece

The prosecutor singled out the placing of a duvet over Kercher’s body as “extremely important from a psychological point of view”. He argued it indicated pity and respect for the victim: “Amanda, especially as a woman, couldn’t bear that naked, torn female cadaver.”

That story is from 18 JAN 2009, which is before the trial even began. However, as we know, the case revolved around forensics and witnesses rather than any psychological profile. Looks like the quote is a non-starter although you've featured it on your site.


------------

EDIT: Bruce, I have an idea to help your site's presentation. Instead of boldly making claims that may or may not be sourced, why not produce the source? In the case of a newspaper article, this should be simple, and you can include the actual quote instead of a deceptive quip. It makes a difference when the quote is attributable to trial evidence or to someone intending to write a book.

Apparently you haven't researched this properly. Read Mignini's ridiculous closing argument and you will see that this was noted in court.

Mignini spent 7 months trying to destroy Amanda's character in court. The case was not simply about forensics and witnesses.

If Mignini simply presented the forensics and witnesses without his ridiculous theatrics, that included a cartoon style depiction of the murder, we would not be here talking about this today.

 

[shuttlt]

Do you honestly believe that 99.5% of the information about the case is a big secret?

Steffanoni testified for two days. How much of what she said do we have? The case file is 10's of thousands of pages, how many pages of the case file do we have?

 

[Kestrel]

Do you honestly believe that 99.5% of the information about the case is a big secret?

The other 99.5% of the evidence is so secret that it was never mentioned in the judgement report.

 

[shuttlt]

The other 99.5% of the evidence is so secret that it was never mentioned in the judgement report.

Surely, the claim of the pro-Amanda camp is that the Motivations Report either falsely summarized the evidence, or draws false conclusions from it. Similar claims are directed at Franks blog and all the other sources of information that we have. In order to asses those claims we need access to the data set that the Report was based on. We don't have access. All we have is tiny slivers of information that people connected with the case in one way or another have chosen to share. Is that information representative? Who can say? People have slagged off Steffanoni, yet we have no idea what questions she was asked and answered on the stand. Pages here have been dedicated to her claim that discarded skin cells do not contain DNA. Do we have a transcript of what she said, and the questioning it was in context to? No. The same is true for almost everything else on the case. We have fragments and must take it on trust that they are both true and representative.

 

[Alt+F4]

The rest is fantasy. There was no sex game, no staging, no cleanup except Guede cleaning himself in the bathroom. This was a sexual homicide which, like the overwhelming majority of similar crimes, was committed by a disturbed young man acting alone.

Why is it, do you think, that while AK and RS's innocence is so clear to you, the jury rejected this and found them guilty?

 

[Alt+F4]

The bizarre aspect is the number of people who continue to believe Amanda is guilty no matter how many times you offer them scientific proof that she is not.

Might I ask, what is the scientific proof that she is not guilty?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Shuttit writes:

If it was Rudy who did most of the restraining then might it not be quite difficult to find any trace of them regardless of whether there was a cleanup?

They'd would almost certainly have left some kind of evidence given the violence of the struggle. But lack of physical evidence against Knox and Sollecito is only one of several reasons why the case against them does not hold up. The victim's injuries, coupled with the bloodstain patterns in the room, tell a clear story of how she was attacked and killed by one man holding a knife in his right hand. It was a sudden, vicious attack in the corner, in front of the wardrobe, after which the dead or unconscious victim was dragged to a different spot a couple of feet away.

Following is an excerpt from the Google translation of the Motivation document. It is crude but servicable. The emphasis is mine, and I have broken every sentence into its own paragraph and broken a serial clause into separate lines to make the whole thing easier to follow.

The medico-legal consultants and experts have said that from the standpoint of science coroner could not be ruled out that the author of the injury was a single assailant and that's because the bruises and wounds from gunshot cutting tip and not in itself incompatible with the action of one person.

It should be noted however that the contribution of each discipline relates to the specific responsibilities of each and in fact the medical-legal consultants and experts have pinned their attention to specific aspects of forensic medicine:

time of death,
cause of death,
indication of the sexual violence,
injuries on the victim's body
and causes and nature and description of themselves.

In relation to those specific tasks and questions, its just science coroner, was given the answer above mentioned with regard to the action of one or more, and the answer was in the sense that there is no scientific evidence, such as forensic medicine can offer, excluding the action of one.

But to answer the question at issue, namely whether the criminal act that caused the death of Meredith is derived from the action of one person or several persons acting together, must be taken into account, together with the contribution provided by Science coroner, although other factors may have arisen and the relevant points, then doing an assessment that takes into account the overall situation.

It's not hard to see that this writer has a big problem on his hands. He knows what the evidence is, and he understands what it means, which is that Guede did this crime all by himself. But his court found Knox and Sollecito guilty, so he must write a document in which he acknowledges the facts while rejecting their implication. His artful solution is to assert that the forensic experts were focused on narrow specialties, whereas the court must consider the "overall situation."

The "overall situation" is that a lot of important people in Perugia are going to look bad if the court admits that the case against Knox and Sollecito is a bad joke.

As for Guede, sure, he could have taken measures to avoid leaving evidence and to clean up evidence. But he was not that kind of criminal. He was a mentally unstable man who had poor control over his impulses and did not consider the consequences of his actions. He didn't plan to go out and kill someone. He broke into a place and when a young woman came home alone, he acted on impulse and then he ran off. Later - when it was too late - he realized he had screwed up big-time, and he got scared and left the country.

 

[Alt+F4]

I never said that I knew everything about this case. I was also speaking about someone else. I give absolutely no credibility to Mario Alessi. Please do not assume otherwise.

Do you mean a new witness who has not come forward before?

 

[Alt+F4]

The "overall situation" is that a lot of important people in Perugia are going to look bad if the court admits that the case against Knox and Sollecito is a bad joke.

Who are these "important people"? What is your evidence of the "overall situation"?

 

[Dan O.]

I also thought it odd that Amanda said the feces of Guede that she saw were at first floating.

That is odd but you have the wrong picture. The toilets in the cottage were not setup properly so there was little water in the basin. Remember that Amanda was criticized for not cleaning the toilet properly and had to use the brush when flushing. The girls (or previous tenants) had probably removed the hose between the valve and the overflow pipe in a misguided belief that they were saving water. Rudy's feces was on the upper part of the basin and slid down later (as Raffaele said).

There are of course pictures but I won't inflict them on this forum.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Alt+F4 writes:

Why is it, do you think, that while AK and RS's innocence is so clear to you, the jury rejected this and found them guilty?

There was too much publicity. Acquitting Knox and Sollecito would have been tantamount to an admission that the criminal justice system in Perugia screwed up on this case. It's not just Mignini who would have looked bad. The police would have looked bad, and Micheli and Matteini would have looked bad. Massei works with those people. They're all part of a local system.

Look at what is going on in the Catholic church. We are finding out how bishops and church officials dealt with pedophile priests... they covered up for them, they kept the police at bay, and when victims got to be too much trouble, they quietly paid them off. Why didn't they just call the cops and say, "this colleague of mine is a serial child molester"?

 

[shuttlt]

Do you mean a new witness who has not come forward before?

Raffaele, perhaps?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is your finger print information;

Prosecutor Mignini made the claim that Amanda attempted to clean up her finger prints from the crime scene. Mignini stated: "It is reasonable to hypothesize that she herself felt the need to eliminate the traces of her presence from an apartment in which she lived."

At the trial, the prosecutor's own fingerprint expert, Giuseppe Privitera, flatly refuted this hypothesis. He said fingerprints tend to get smudged, often it is hard to find good ones even of someone who lives at the scene of an investigation, and nothing he found at the cottage suggested that any effort had been made to remove fingerprints intentionally.

But it doesn't change the fact that her lack of prints is ALSO consistent with a clean-up right? After all, were her fingerprints found all over the cottage, you'd be touting that as some sort of proof that there was no clean-up, right?

Rudy was a burglar. He entered the cottage through Filomena's window. I know you think that is impossible but it was rather easy. Rudy could easily reach the latch and open the window while standing on the top row of bars on the first floor window.

He plans changed when he encountered Meredith.

I know it is really far fetched that a burglar would wear gloves. I have never heard of that before. How could anyone even think something so ridiculous?

It is not necessary to talk about the obvious reasons that Rudy would remove his gloves to assault Meredith.

Meredith was murdered by a single attacker. She was murdered by Rudy Guede. There were 2 experts that testified at trial that Meredith was killed by one person.

FBI veteran Steve Moore agrees that Meredith was murdered by one attacker.

Go ahead and make jokes about her murder. That is a really intelligent thing to do.

Rudy was not a burglar. Why do you make these ridiculous statements? Rudy had always studied or worked until one month before the murder.

Right so you are saying, Rudy in his apartment said 'Right, I'm going to go over and burgle that cottage tonight.'? Why??? If he was going to burgle somewhere, why of all the hundreds of buildings in Perugia would he pre-target that one, one that had 8 people living it, 4 of them males, had security bars all over the ground floor and contained little of real value in the scheme of places one 'can' burgle? This makes absolutely no sense.

He bothered to pick his gloves up when he ran from the cottage did he? These gloves of yours are your equivalent of Dan O's stick.

Why is he going out of his way to wear gloves so as not to leave fingerprints and then...proceeds to take them off and leave fingerprints anywhere? This was a guy who couldn't give a damn about leaving evidence. Gloves my foot.

FBI veteran Steve Moore agrees that Meredith was murdered by one attacker.

All from an examination of nothing but photos of the inside of Filomena's room and a whole lot of assumptions and speculation.

 

[capealadin]

How did Raffaele know nothing was missing?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You will recall that the police also relied on their investigative experience and intuition to recognize that Amanda was guilty of the murder, before they had collected ANY evidence. Steve Moore's discussion on injusticeinperugia provides a good description of the massive quantity of evidence the police "decided" NOT to analyze.

What are you talking about, the police had already examined the crime scene on the sand and 3r3, plus the autopsy had already taken place before Amanda's arrest, And Amanda's own statements were also evidence, enough alone to formally arrest her.

In Italy, police investigations normally last one year (and can be extended to two). In this case, they finished the investigation early after eight months. Are you suggesting they should have waited 8 months before arresting any of the three?

 

[Fulcanelli]

stilicho wrote: Nobody entered through Filomena's window on the night of 01 NOV 2007.

I agree with this. Access to the cottage was too easy to have required a break-in. Rudy could easily have gotten in through the front door by force, by accompanying Meredith or by asking Meredith if he could come in.

It is most likely Rudy was there to burglarize, not to kill. Once the wounds had been inflicted, though, it is likely that in a guilt-stricken panic he fell back on some of his burglarizing experience. In that bag of tricks, there may have been a couple of reasons it occurred to Rudy to stage a burglary, but there is absolutely no reason it would have occurred to Amanda and Raffaele

Why then did Rudy simulate a burglary then? Why make the crime scene look it it had been done by someone who came from outside the cottage, when he came from outside the cottage? Also, why strip Meredith off afterwards, how would that have improved his situation?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am simply trying to save you some embarrassment in the future with regard to Guede. Why? Because I care.

Don't worry about our embarrassment, just stick to the facts.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

But it doesn't change the fact that her lack of prints is ALSO consistent with a clean-up right? After all, were her fingerprints found all over the cottage, you'd be touting that as some sort of proof that there was no clean-up, right?



Rudy was not a burglar. Why do you make these ridiculous statements? Rudy had always studied or worked until one month before the murder.

Right so you are saying, Rudy in his apartment said 'Right, I'm going to go over and burgle that cottage tonight.'? Why??? If he was going to burgle somewhere, why of all the hundreds of buildings in Perugia would he pre-target that one, one that had 8 people living it, 4 of them males, had security bars all over the ground floor and contained little of real value in the scheme of places one 'can' burgle? This makes absolutely no sense.

He bothered to pick his gloves up when he ran from the cottage did he? These gloves of yours are your equivalent of Dan O's stick.

Why is he going out of his way to wear gloves so as not to leave fingerprints and then...proceeds to take them off and leave fingerprints anywhere? This was a guy who couldn't give a damn about leaving evidence. Gloves my foot.



All from an examination of nothing but photos of the inside of Filomena's room and a whole lot of assumptions and speculation.

I love how you jump on one item. Everyone has gone insane because I mentioned that a burglar might wear gloves.

Rudy was a burglar. Rudy was a thief. Rudy fit the profile. We can disagree on that point for now. You will be proven wrong in the near future.

If Rudy happened to be wearing gloves, it would be quite obvious why he would take them off to assault Meredith. I don't think we need to go into those details out of respect for Meredith. I am sure you will demand these details just like you wanted me to put all of Barbies disgusting comments about Meredith on the thread but I simply will not do that.

If Rudy cased the cottage like many burglars do, he would have known that certain people were not going to be home that night.

Don't complicate things. This was a burglary that turned into a horrible murder.