Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

You keep asking a useless refuted question. You think it is a smoking gun but it means nothing.

I would say that Raffaele made a quick determination that nothing was stolen because he saw things of value that were still present. Raffaele's statement proves nothing.

That is not a reason to conclude nothing has been stolen and assert it as absolute fact. The correct line in that situation is:

"I don't think anything has been stolen" or "It doesn't look like anything was stolen".

 

[Fulcanelli]

Raffaele was told that he couldn't state for certain that Amanda was there the entire time because he was sleeping.

Do you see how this works? Raffaele agrees that it is possible that Amanda left when we was asleep.

That is NOT what Raffaele said Bruce. He said Amanda left him to go to Le Chic and he went home alone and cooked dinner at 9 pm, had a joint and then spent the night on his computer and then Amanda returned at 1 am. He said absolutely nothing about being asleep.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda's so called "lies" all came about during an all night interrogation session. When the Perugia police set about to force a confession out of a suspect. The tactics used were classic abuse. Keep the suspect up all night, yell and scream at her, feed her false information and deny her the assistance of a lawyer.

May I suggest reading the literature on false confessions?

An 'all night' session that ended at 1:45 am Kestrel, which is not all night, as you well know. Why do you keep spouting these outright lies?

Amanda got up at a normal hour on November 5 to attend classes. She arrived at the station a bit after 10 PM. She signed the first statement at 1:45 AM and a second at 5:45 AM. It should be rather clear that she didn't get a full nights sleep.

I'm sorry, 'not getting a full night's sleep' is not the same as saying 'she was interrogated all night. Her questioning didn't start until midnight and ended at 1:45. The police were done with her. SHE then insisted that she be heard ahain immediately because she had to make a statement and so the judge had to be called out since the police could not hear a suspect. She gave her statement (which was not a questioning) at 3:30 am and signed it at 5:45 am. If she was up all night then it was her own fault because SHE insisted on b eing heard again, HER, nobody else.

The PMF timeline is wrong in a lot of places, including the time when the Postal Police arrived.

The Massei report gives the time as shortly before 1 PM, A few minutes after Raffaele called 112. Filomena and her friends arrived around 1 PM, shortly after the Postal Police.

If you still believe the PMF timeline, please explain what the Postal Police did between the time they were shown the blood and broken window the the time when Filomena showed up. Did the Postal Police nip off for a quick beer between 12:40 and 1 PM?

No Kestrel, the Massei Report does NOT conclude that. The PMF Timeline is correct.

 

[Kermit]

What kind of answer are you expecting?

.
Oh, I don't know ... "Libby" Johnson could gut the whole current Knox-defence-version-of-events preamble to her document, and replace it with something more related to her work undertaken, like:

"On June 10, 2009, I was contacted by (PersonsName) who represents (Organisation). He requested that I do a limited scope review of specific elements of DNA evidence being used in a murder case being tried in Italy.

Mr. (PersonsName) did / did not request me to prepare a document for possible use in the trial by one or more of the Italian defence teams. In this document the accused will be known as Subject A, Subject B and Subject C

Although I do not personally know any of the Subjects or their families, I should underline that I have worked with Mr. (PersonsName) in the past in the following cases (list cases). In addition, Mr. (PersonsName) is a close member of Subject A's American-based media campaign.

I decided to renounce any professional fees for this work, given (the following reasons ...... ). However, Mr. (PersonsName) has recognised my right to receive payment from any media-related appearances which result from this work.

Mr. (PersonsName) did / did not request me to sign over copyright for any products or documents which resulted from my review, for use by (Organisation) in their national and international media campaigns.

Mr. (PersonsName) provided me with the following data to review (list data). I requested additional information, but he replied that that request would take my review out of the scope which he had defined.

Currently, the scope only includes DNA evidence on a knife which the prosecution presents as one of the weapons involved in the murder, as well as a severed bra clasp from the bra that the victim wore on the night of her murder.

My review scope does not include other DNA evidence, including Subject B's DNA found on the victim's body, nor Subject A's DNA found mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in different rooms of the apartment which they shared.

I offered to include in my report the expertise of my forensic colleague (John Doe), a recognized chemical and biological expert in forensic evidence treated with Luminol, but that offer was rejected by (PersonsName) as being out of his desired scope.

I should underline that I was not provided with any data directly from the Italian judicial authorities, but only through Mr. (PersonsName)."

That's a start.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is this a joke? If you ever expected to be taken seriously in an open letter, why would you sign it "Kermit"?

Because Marriott knows very well who 'Kermit' is. Of Kermit had signed it something else, Marriott wouldn't have a clue who he was

I don't quite get your strange humor, but if I signed an open letter and actually thought it was important, I would have put my real name on it--not the name of a muppet.

The name isn't taken from a muppet. The name Kermit existed long before the muppet was created and Jim Henson was even born. There are puppets in Sesame Street called Oscar and Bert...does that mean anyone called Oscar or Bert bert is named after a puppet?

I don't even think "Kermit" is going to pretend it's his real name, which is fine. Everyone posts under fake names. But when you do an open letter that's a little different. (The one power point I saw, you'll notice a little "Kermit the Frog" as the helpful guide).

It's called 'tongue in cheek'.

If judge Massei really agreed with it, he's wrong. He's wrong. I'd like to see you be honest and admit it.

Quite right. I actually don't agree with Massei on that point.

 

[Matthew Best]

Because Marriott knows very well who 'Kermit' is. Of Kermit had signed it something else, Marriott wouldn't have a clue who he was

Well, that makes sense, but it is an "open" letter. So by signing it "Kermit" you're pretty much restricting the number of people who will take you seriously to those who already know who you are. In which case, why not just make a post on a forum?

Oh wait, that's what he did.

I'll get me coat.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Because Marriott knows very well who 'Kermit' is. Of Kermit had signed it something else, Marriott wouldn't have a clue who he was



The name isn't taken from a muppet. The name Kermit existed long before the muppet was created and Jim Henson was even born. There are puppets in Sesame Street called Oscar and Bert...does that mean anyone called Oscar or Bert bert is named after a puppet?

Sure he does. He can also breathe fire.

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
Oh, I don't know ... "Libby" Johnson could gut the whole current Knox-defence-version-of-events preamble to her document, and replace it with something more related to her work undertaken, like:

"On June 10, 2009, I was contacted by (PersonsName) who represents (Organisation). He requested that I do a limited scope review of specific elements of DNA evidence being used in a murder case being tried in Italy.

Mr. (PersonsName) did / did not request me to prepare a document for possible use in the trial by one or more of the Italian defence teams. In this document the accused will be known as Subject A, Subject B and Subject C

Although I do not personally know any of the Subjects or their families, I should underline that I have worked with Mr. (PersonsName) in the past in the following cases (list cases). In addition, Mr. (PersonsName) is a close member of Subject A's American-based media campaign.

I decided to renounce any professional fees for this work, given (the following reasons ...... ). However, Mr. (PersonsName) has recognised my right to receive payment from any media-related appearances which result from this work.

Mr. (PersonsName) did / did not request me to sign over copyright for any products or documents which resulted from my review, for use by (Organisation) in their national and international media campaigns.

Mr. (PersonsName) provided me with the following data to review (list data). I requested additional information, but he replied that that request would take my review out of the scope which he had defined.

Currently, the scope only includes DNA evidence on a knife which the prosecution presents as one of the weapons involved in the murder, as well as a severed bra clasp from the bra that the victim wore on the night of her murder.

My review scope does not include other DNA evidence, including Subject B's DNA found on the victim's body, nor Subject A's DNA found mixed with the victim's DNA/blood in different rooms of the apartment which they shared.

I offered to include in my report the expertise of my forensic colleague (John Doe), a recognized chemical and biological expert in forensic evidence treated with Luminol, but that offer was rejected by (PersonsName) as being out of his desired scope.

I should underline that I was not provided with any data directly from the Italian judicial authorities, but only through Mr. (PersonsName)."

That's a start.

Yawn. The scope of the review is obvious in the letter: the knife and the bra clasp. Where are they wrong in their reasoning about the probative value of the knife?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's great to have your perspective, RWVBWL. You may not be aware that the night in question was at the beginning of a long holiday weekend in Perugia. Since Rudy hung out with the guys who lived downstairs, he may very well have been aware that they and some of their upstairs roommates were going to be away from the cottage with family and friends.

Which would have been emphasised in the trial, were it the case. It wasn't, because it never happened.

It is up to the prosecutor, not the defendant, to prove claims.

From November 2nd to November 5th, there were no differences in Amanda's and Raffaele's claims. You will read (repeatedly) that Amanda lied (repeatedly), but when the police took her into the interrogation, she had not lied to them once. They have admitted that they interrogated her based on their "intuition."

Actually, there was plenty of difference. Raffaele claimed to be on the computer all night. Amanda said nothing about being on the computer all night. Amanda claimed they had sex, Raffaele did not. Amanda claimed they read Harry Potter, Raffaele said they did not. Amanda claimed a deep conversaition about lesbian bullying and Raffaele's mother, that never existed in Raffaele's story. Amanda claimed a long erotic shower with Raffaele. According to Raffaele there was no shower. So, aside from 'We were at Raffaele's apartment', how exasctly did their stories ever match?

He did that because the police presented him with a different (false) version of events and eventually persuaded him to agree with them. He said he had not thought about the inconsistencies, but that's because there were no inconsistencies until the police provided him with some.

Not according to Raffaele the police didn't. He was actually called in because of an indiscrepancy in his previous statements...it had nothing to do with Amanda.

From Raffaele's writings in prison.

Then cite them Mary...give us the quote from him where he says that!

Why don't we stop wasting our time with this game? Can I conclude that you cannot provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with one another's?

Actually I can:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/11/day-i-met-meredith-suspect-raffaele-98487-20092572/

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

What evidence did the police have that spurred them to examine the phone records and the computer? Why were they suspicious of the pair in the first place?

Err, maybe because they were found at a crime scene where a girl had been brutally murdered. Just a wild stab in the dark on my part I know...

2. Raffaele's claim that he couldn't break down Meredith's door when Filomeana's male friend did it with only three or four kicks.

Raffaele used his shoulder; the other guy used his foot. How do you know Raffaele didn't weaken it for the other guy?

Actually, Raffaele used his foot too. Read Massei.

3. The fact that both of Meredith's cell phones were taken. How would a stranger/burgler know she was using two cell phones?

Guede went through Meredith's purse.

Except he didn't...the forensics prove he never went in the purse. He had blood all over his hands. There was no blood in the purse.

4. The fact that after Filomeana's friend broke down Meredith's door Filomena looked in and freaked out at seeing Meredith's foot. Neither Amanda or Raffale were at the door or looked into the room after the door was opened.

Have you seen the floor plan? How many people do you think could fit in the doorway to look at the foot? Do you think the police might have tried to stop anyone from looking at the scene?

They didn't even try, they instead went straight to the kitchen. They had no interest in seeing what was beyond the door because they already knew exactly what was there.

5. Amanda's over explaination regarding the mop when the police at the scene didn't seem concerned about it at all.

Did she talk about the mop to the police?

Yes and the leak.

Well, we can go around and around discussing and documenting issues that have been discussed and documented a million times over, but we will end up back in the same place.

The point is, when Amanda and Raffaele said things the police wanted to hear, the police believed them. When they said things the police did not want to hear, the police refused to believe them. Pretty much the same as the guilters. This is because the idea of Amanda and Raffaele having committed the murder is attractive to them and to you.

Conjecture much? Actually, the police didn't believe them when they came out with lies that not match the known facts.

One things that intrigues me about the guilters is why they want to be in the group they're in. When you look at the pro-Amanda websites, you find all these legitimate, educated experts, professionals and scientists speaking out against the conviction. Then you go to truejustice and you get MissRepresented. Doesn't that embarrass them in any way?

Show us an expert on one of your pro sites and we'll match it and raise you.

Have you even had anyone approach you to offer? Many of the people who have spoken out against the verdict were not even solicited -- they came forward of their own accord and/or built their own websites. So far, everyone who has really evaluated the data from Stefanoni's lab has found it to be invalid.

Really Mary??? I don't believe you

 

[Supernaut]

Classy

How would you know?

 

[Supernaut]

More about "guilters".

It’s noteworthy that so many who are outspoken regarding their belief in Knox’s and Sollicito’s innocence do not feel the need to hide behind anonymity or pseudonymity (Candace Dempsey, Doug Preston, Steve Ciolino, Mark Waterbury to name a few).

And that the reverse is true of the guilters, who seem unwilling to voice their more egregious slanders of Amanda Knox in the open.

I’ve heard that a certain hack, with a book publication pending, regularly haunts various blogs and message boards as a sock-puppet, not least one she (oops) actually administers.

(And it gave me a laugh seeing Kermit’s “open letter” actually signed “Kermit” – priceless.)

“Peter Quennell” is a real individual? I doubt it. He is all but invisible to search-engines, which is rather strange given he claims to be a veteran “New York real estate manager” or whatever, someone who would have presumably been using the internet in his profession for a decade or more. It’s an unusual name - a reasonably well known (deceased) British author, from whom it was probably “borrowed”, constitutes almost all of the search results.

 

[Supernaut]

Well, that makes sense, but it is an "open" letter. So by signing it "Kermit" you're pretty much restricting the number of people who will take you seriously to those who already know who you are. In which case, why not just make a post on a forum?

Oh wait, that's what he did.

I'll get me coat.

I assumed he had put it up on TJMK or PMF.

 

[shuttlt]

"The knife was selected from among several knives in the kitchen drawer of Raffaele’s apartment. It was the only knife collected from the kitchen, although it had no visible stains or notable characteristics." True?

I think it's more complicated than simply being true or false. It is certainly true that it was taken from a draw with several other knives in. Have you seen the draw? There was a bread knife and a bunch of table knives. If you didn't know this, and none of us did until a few weeks back, one might be left with a false impression that there were other knives in the draw that were worth consideration as murder weapons. There weren't. This is misleading without being false. That then makes me wonder whether they looked at a draw full of table knives, and wrote what they wrote, or whether they relied on somebody else's summary of the evidence.

Then there are the stains and notable characteristics. Is the knife being visibly cleaner than the others a notable characteristic? One of the officers who had seen Meredith's neck wounds was also involved in collecting the knife and thought it looked like it could have inflicted them, does that count as a notable characteristic. There has been talk of scratches on the blade, transcripts of that evidence have never surfaced, it has been claimed that when the knife was looked at 18 months later in isolation from the other knives in the draw it didn't look particularly scratched.

The knife wasn't taken at random from a draw full of other equally plausible looking knives as claimed. All the knives that might plausibly have been involved in the murder was taken from Raffaele's flat and analysed.

 

[Mary_H]

Then cite them Mary...give us the quote from him where he says that!/QUOTE]

Have you ever noticed, Fulcanelli, that no matter what citations anyone gives you and no matter how often they give them, you go on believing what you want to believe? It's a waste of time responding to you because you live in a dream-like Groundhog Day, where the same arguments are made over and over and over. Unlike the character in the movie, though, you never change.

Actually I can:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/11/day-i-met-meredith-suspect-raffaele-98487-20092572/

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

The Kate Mansey articles are laughably fake, along the lines of the so-called interview of Patrick Lumumba in the Mail. Finn McCool and I had a good discussion about them on the Seattle P-I; I'll try to dig it up.

If that fake interview is the only record you have of what Raffaele said to the police or anyone else before November 5th, then you have nothing. Again, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele's stories did not match BEFORE they were questioned by the police on the 5th and 6th. Their stories only stopped matching after the police lied to them and confused them. Any "evidence" that was gained in the interrogations was created evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I know this is off topic but I wanted to put it on here when I had the chance. Fulcanelli had stated that I was incorrect about a life sentence in Italy. I was 99% sure I had it right but I checked on it before I posted.

A life sentence in Italy is 30 years.

No Bruce, a life sentence is well above 30 years.

 

[Supernaut]

It was not entered into evidence. It sounds like his unsubstantiated opinion. It has no bearing on the case. Is that more appropriate?

So, then, back to the real question: Why did the killer cover Meredith's body with the duvet?

Guede returned to the flat sometime after 4 AM (when he was last seen), in a calmer state than when he had fled earlier, to check for any money or valuables he might have missed (but even he wasn't moronic enough to take items such as the laptops, which would not be merely stolen property but clues in a murder manhunt).

He felt a little, shall we say, uncomfortable rifling Meredith's room with her body on the floor in full view.

Nahh, that's just too 'out there', isn't it?

 

[Supernaut]

Capealadin, I will give you $100 if you can legitimately document that Amanda had a mop in her hand when the postal police arrived.

The postal police testified in their depositions that when they arrived, Amanda and Raffaele were SITTING CALMLY in the garden.

As for your questions about how Raffaele knew nothing was missing from Filomena's room, I don't know what his exact words were but I presume he was speculating. He and Amanda had looked in Filomena's room and noticed it had been rifled but that her computer was still there. The computer, of course, being the most valuable item that would be noticed by a computer scientist.

Amazing isn’t it? Those who still iterate this “mop and bucket” BS (which was “leaked” a few days after Amanda’s arrest) are referred to as the “mop squad” at Perugia shock.

There’s simply no excuse for it.

If it’s a matter of not having bothered to inform themselves, it reveals their stupidity.

Otherwise it’s outright malice.

 

[Mary_H]

“Peter Quennell” is a real individual? I doubt it. He is all but invisible to search-engines, which is rather strange given he claims to be a veteran “New York real estate manager” or whatever, someone who would have presumably been using the internet in his profession for a decade or more. It’s an unusual name - a reasonably well known (deceased) British author, from whom it was probably “borrowed”, constitutes almost all of the search results.

There is an article out there somewhere, Supernaut, about an incident on an airplane involving Quennell's wife, after which he wrote a letter of complaint to the airline. I guess you could find it with the right key words. I also saw some of his contributions to a blog about luxury yachts or something.

You can see a cameo appearance by Quennell on the TLC documentary about Amanda. I would describe my impression of him, but I tried that on the West Seattle Heals and they deleted my post.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Renato Biondo wants convictions. He was seen sitting at the prosecution's table. I don't remember anyone claiming to see him sitting with Amanda or Raffaele.

Where else is he going to sit???

 

[Mary_H]

Oops -- that's the West Seattle Herald.