Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RoseMontague]

If you believe that Amanda and Raffaele lied or changed their stories before talking to the police, you are taking that on faith, because no one has provided any supporting evidence.

Their very first story was to the police, so no, I don't believe they changed a story they didn't give to anybody before talking to police.

 

[stilicho]

I'm not going to put your entire quote because it is so long, but suffice it to say, both you and Stilicho have the wrong idea about what I am arguing I think. Fulcanelli has put us all under the misapprehension that when someone is technically a suspect only depends on when authorities "formally" do this. He offers no citation of law by treatise, statute, or discussion from a legal expert in Italian law, no explanation of why if this is so simple Amanda's attorneys are arguing otherwise in her appeal, etc. etc. etc.

That isn't what Fiona's information states. It states clearly that it is the individual under suspicion who creates the distinction and points to a clear mark in the interview process at which it must be terminated.

I agree with both you and Fiona. It is not the police who make the determination but the law and the words of the interviewee.

Now, which things are you arguing?

1] Fiona's cites are mistaken.
2] Amanda legally became a suspect before she told the police that Patrick murdered Meredith.
3] You see something in Fiona's cites that indicate Amanda was a suspect before she did "X" or "Y".
4] Something else.

Tell us what you think happened and why you think Amanda's lawyers have a legitimate case. When I read the timeline (Fulcanelli) I cannot discern a "break". When I read about the inadmissibility ruled by the court I can discern a rough "break" around 01:45. When I read Fiona's supporting items I see a similarity with what was ruled by the court.

Are you arguing any or none of these?

 

[RoseMontague]

You point out what Amanda wrote that is not consistent with what Raffaele said BEFORE his interrogation, and I will point out the problems with the alleged interview between the reporter and Raffaele. It will have to be later, though; I don't have time right now.

I am interested in the phrase "alleged interview". Guess I will have to wait or do you care to give a brief teaser?

 

[HumanityBlues]

That isn't what Fiona's information states. It states clearly that it is the individual under suspicion who creates the distinction and points to a clear mark in the interview process at which it must be terminated.

I agree with both you and Fiona. It is not the police who make the determination but the law and the words of the interviewee.

Now, which things are you arguing?

1] Fiona's cites are mistaken.
2] Amanda legally became a suspect before she told the police that Patrick murdered Meredith.
3] You see something in Fiona's cites that indicate Amanda was a suspect before she did "X" or "Y".
4] Something else.

Tell us what you think happened and why you think Amanda's lawyers have a legitimate case. When I read the timeline (Fulcanelli) I cannot discern a "break". When I read about the inadmissibility ruled by the court I can discern a rough "break" around 01:45. When I read Fiona's supporting items I see a similarity with what was ruled by the court.

Are you arguing any or none of these?

(4). I don't agree or disagree with anything Fiona said concerning the matter. My point is, all posters to this thread, including myself, fail to have a real understanding of the law on suspects, witnesses, and admissibility in Italy in particular. Even if we are given the actual relevant section of the code, we are still left with the conundrum with how it is applied across the board. It's very hard for us here because we don't have the letter of the law, or how the courts have applied it in other cases where they included or excluded evidence.

Are there cases in Italy where the police said someone was not a suspect, but the defendant was treated as such, so the court declared a witness really was a suspect (I'm not arguing for against that case here)? That would be one of the questions any lawyer I think would attempt to research involved in this case. Honestly, I would hazard to make an unsubstantiated guess that there are cases like this in Italy since Amanda's attorneys are planning to argue in her appeal that she was treated like a suspect, not a witness)

We would also need more than just the written letter of the law. Again, what I am saying is that I don't know, and in that I am saying, no one here yet has been qualified to answer some of these questions to fully understand this aspect of Italian criminal procedure, and I include myself in that.

 

[christianahannah]

Their very first story was to the police, so no, I don't believe they changed a story they didn't give to anybody before talking to police.

Is there a place where the calls, emails, media interviews, statements to police, etc. from Amanda and Raffaele, prior to their being questioned the night of November 5, are located? It would be interesting to compare what each said or wrote in chronological order.

As an example, Raffaele's phone call to the police on November 2; Amanda's email blast on November 4, etc.

Also, is there a figure for how many times Amanda and Raffaele were called to the police station before their last time the evening of November 5?

Maybe the motivations will contain this information?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Behavior is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words on my part. Too easily misconstrued. I am not referring to demeanor. I think I made my feelings about that perfectly clear in the very first pages of this thread. I am referring to the pattern of lies and evasion exhibited by Knox and Sollecito, and the desperately transparent efforts to regroup as their various deceptions were exposed.



I know you want to believe that. I don't share that belief. Even Sollecito didn't believe that. That's why he made up a lie about cutting Meredith while he was cooking for her.

You really twisted that around on Raphael. He couldn't imagine any way possible for Meredith's DNA to be on the knife. We was coming up with different scenarios for several different things.

The large kitchen knife had nothing to do with the murder. The knife that made the bloody imprint on the bed made all of the wounds on Meredith. Rudy Guede sat the knife on the bed when he went through Meredith's purse.

Do you really think that Amanda carried that big kitchen knife around for protection? Honestly?

 

[theprestige]

All I know is, the world obviously needs a better criminal justice system. Based on the last few pages of this thread, I believe that such a system should have the following characteristics:

• Instead of police investigating the crime and questioning the suspects, bloggers should do so.
• Instead of being presented to judges and juries for review and deliberation, evidence should be published on YouTube, for anyone to comment on.
• Instead of a Court of Appeals, convictions should be submitted to Internet discussion forums: Any thread that reaches more than 200 pages without being locked by the moderators indicates a miscarriage of justice, and the conviction is overturned.

What say you all?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Consistency ought to regard all those arrested equally. Evidence was collected against each of them--and you have to include Patrick among the four. Nobody is arguing here that RG is innocent or that Patrick is guilty but we don't all agree with the evidence and the processes by which they were convicted or set free.

You maintain the fantasy that the authorities and/or the courts simply batted .500 even though they worked by the same rules. On what basis do you claim that any of the Italian courts will throw out the evidence against AK and RS? What do you know that the rest of us don't? Include cites.

Additionally, was leaving the country included in the court's verdict and sentencing of RG?

@HB: I don't cling limpet-like to the NY decision largely because it has no bearing on the case in Italy. It doesn't also automatically follow that the Rome crime lab techniques would be admitted in the US. What I object to is the certainty in which it is declared that this would/wouldn't happen here/there. How do these people know?

Actually, they batted .250

They arrested 4 people. They got one right.

 

[Amazer]

You really twisted that around on Raphael. He couldn't imagine any way possible for Meredith's DNA to be on the knife. We was coming up with different scenarios for several different things.

He clearly did imagine ways that would allow him to explain away Meredith's DNA on the knife. For some reason you find that hard to accept, but it is what it is.

The large kitchen knife had nothing to do with the murder. The knife that made the bloody imprint on the bed made all of the wounds on Meredith. Rudy Guede sat the knife on the bed when he went through Meredith's purse.

Quite clearly both the prosecution and the judges disagree with your statement. Why do you think that the Judges will think differently next time around? What evidence do you have that proves all the wounds are caused by this one knife. What evidence do you have that this particular knife was used by Rudy?

Do you really think that Amanda carried that big kitchen knife around for protection? Honestly?

Honestly, i don't give a rats ass as to why she carried that big kitchen knife around. Could be for protection, could be because they had other plans and she carried it just this once. In the larger scheme of things it's not terribly important. The important thing is that Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, and that besides contamination, there is no other way for her DNA to be there unless it was used during the assault and murder of Meredith. You have so far failed to provide evidence for contamination.

 

[RWVBWL]

You really twisted that around on Raphael. He couldn't imagine any way possible for Meredith's DNA to be on the knife. We was coming up with different scenarios for several different things.

The large kitchen knife had nothing to do with the murder. The knife that made the bloody imprint on the bed made all of the wounds on Meredith. Rudy Guede sat the knife on the bed when he went through Meredith's purse.

Do you really think that Amanda carried that big kitchen knife around for protection? Honestly?

Hi Bruce,
Re:
"Do you really think that Amanda carried that big kitchen knife around for protection? Honestly?"

Wasn't that knife from Raffaele's place? Well then, since Amanda Knox had only just started dating Raffaele Sollecito after meeting him at a classical music concert, what knife did she carry around for "protection" before meeting him? Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[quadraginta]

He clearly did imagine ways that would allow him to explain away Meredith's DNA on the knife. For some reason you find that hard to accept, but it is what it is.


Quite clearly both the prosecution and the judges disagree with your statement. Why do you think that the Judges will think differently next time around? What evidence do you have that proves all the wounds are caused by this one knife. What evidence do you have that this particular knife was used by Rudy?


Honestly, i don't give a rats ass as to why she carried that big kitchen knife around. Could be for protection, could be because they had other plans and she carried it just this once. In the larger scheme of things it's not terribly important. The important thing is that Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, and that besides contamination, there is no other way for her DNA to be there unless it was used during the assault and murder of Meredith. You have so far failed to provide evidence for contamination.

Proof of contamination would be interesting, especially with all the assertions that it is the explanation, but Sollecito's apparently visceral belief that the DNA presence was legitimate, combined with a clumsy attempt to explain it away is certainly one of the more damning aspects of the knife saga.

I am unimpressed with pseudo-psychology efforts to excuse that panic inspired fabrication. The boy wasn't being abused by brutal interrogators when he dreamed up that story. He wasn't experimenting with hypotheticals. It was pure CYA, and could only have been prompted by a dread certainty that they had found that DNA because he had reason to know that it could be found there. If he had had a good explanation he would have given it. If he couldn't explain it an innocent person would not have trumped up a fairy tale from whole cloth with no provocation. An innocent person would have said that something wasn't right, and they had no idea what the explanation was.

Then the contamination theory would have a lot more traction.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Bruce,
Re:
"Do you really think that Amanda carried that big kitchen knife around for protection? Honestly?"

Wasn't that knife from Raffaele's place? Well then, since Amanda Knox had only just started dating Raffaele Sollecito after meeting him at a classical music concert, what knife did she carry around for "protection" before meeting him? Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Oh wait a second, I got it!
The knife Amanda must have carried around for "protection" before meeting Raffaele Sollecito is the other "missing" knife that caused some of the other wounds to Miss Kercher's neck! Amanda must have carried both knives to help kill her room mate!

Yikes!, I gotta run, I'm starting to think like a "Guilter" today.
Peace out, all...
RWVBWL

 

[Debunker]

Guess if we will ever arrive to post #20000.
I bet we will....

 

[Amazer]

Proof of contamination would be interesting, especially with all the assertions that it is the explanation, but Sollecito's apparently visceral belief that the DNA presence was legitimate, combined with a clumsy attempt to explain it away is certainly one of the more damning aspects of the knife saga.

I am unimpressed with pseudo-psychology efforts to excuse that panic inspired fabrication. The boy wasn't being abused by brutal interrogators when he dreamed up that story. He wasn't experimenting with hypotheticals. It was pure CYA, and could only have been prompted by a dread certainty that they had found that DNA because he had reason to know that it could be found there. If he had had a good explanation he would have given it. If he couldn't explain it an innocent person would not have trumped up a fairy tale from whole cloth with no provocation. An innocent person would have said that something wasn't right, and they had no idea what the explanation was.

Then the contamination theory would have a lot more traction.

I agree with you that this is what should have happened under normal circumstances.

But I also try to keep in mind that some people do and say stupid things when they are under pressure, things that make no sense in hindsight. That means for me, that I'm willing to consider the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele are indeed caught up in something they didn't do. I can however only consider that possibility likely or proven if evidence is provided that this is actually the case. So far the defenders of Amanda and Raffaele have been failing big time.

 

[Juror]

Proof of contamination would be interesting, especially with all the assertions that it is the explanation

In reading this thread, I keep seeing this desire for "proof of contamination". What exactly would be sufficient for "proof of contamination" and is this really the appropriate standard?

To bookend this issue, on one end you have "contamination is always possible therefore any DNA evidence is unreliable". The other end is "any DNA result needs to be accepted unless the defence can prove contamination". Both seem to be unreasonable positions.

Given it is the prosecution's case to prove, I would think the standard should be the prosecution needs to demonstrate that the evidence was handled and procedures executed with sufficient care such that the risk of contamination was at an insignificant level. The defence does not need to "prove contamination" but rather show that the evidence handling or processes were performed in such a manner as to raise the risk of contamination above an acceptable level.

I would appreciate feedback as always.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you believe that Amanda and Raffaele lied or changed their stories before talking to the police, you are taking that on faith, because no one has provided any supporting evidence.

You, madam, are wrong.

Flat out, wrong.


I provided quotes directly from Raffaele's diary wherein he states, very clearly, that he lied about Amanda's whereabouts at her bequest.



ETA: This is not the first time I have reminded you of this. Please cease with this line of arguing, it only shows just how disingenuous you are.








Supernaut: I swapped two words in that 1st post - suspect and witness. And, ironically enough, that post I made was not incorrect. I was mistaken in regards to how many interviews/statements occurred on the 6th - and moreso after having read Amanda's testimony on PMF. However, that confusion not withstanding - the 1:45 statement was indeed not allowed (except as evidence of slander) and the 5:45 statement was allowed because the defendant insisted she be allowed to make it without waiting for the proper procedures.

I may have made mistakes - but at least they're honest ones that I'm not afraid to admit to having made. Not much of the same can be said for many others who insist on ignoring evidence presented to them regarding Amanda's lack-of-innocence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In reading this thread, I keep seeing this desire for "proof of contamination". What exactly would be sufficient for "proof of contamination" and is this really the appropriate standard?

To bookend this issue, on one end you have "contamination is always possible therefore any DNA evidence is unreliable". The other end is "any DNA result needs to be accepted unless the defence can prove contamination". Both seem to be unreasonable positions.

Given it is the prosecution's case to prove, I would think the standard should be the prosecution needs to demonstrate that the evidence was handled and procedures executed with sufficient care such that the risk of contamination was at an insignificant level. The defence does not need to "prove contamination" but rather show that the evidence handling or processes were performed in such a manner as to raise the risk of contamination above an acceptable level.

I would appreciate feedback as always.

It's really not that simple, however. Sure, the bra clasp handling was less than proper. HOWEVER, that in and of itself does not provide a means for contamination of a level we see on the clasp. That is paramount to the contamination discussion.

What the one side would have us believe is that if handling is improper, contamination has happened without providing a plausible contamination scenario.

If we accept that contamination did happen to the clasp DNA, then why is Sollecito's DNA in a higher concentration than that of anyone who had much more access to the room than Raffaele? Why is it Raffaele's DNA and not any of the investigators/forensics teams/roommates of Meredith who either had reason to be in Meredith's room or directly had contact (albeit, wearing gloves, etc) with the clasp.


And we have the same issue with the knife. Ok, so we accept that it could be contamination. How did the contamination occur? And if it was from contamination, why did Raffaele feel the need to write a completely bogus story (read: lie) about how the DNA arrived on the knife - it leads one to believe he expected Meredith's DNA to be there (speculation).


It's not that we're arguing the extremes, at least, I'm not. I'm arguing that we don't have a logical, plausible scenario to believe this is contamination.

The Prosecution has presented that the DNA is not contaminated, Dr Stefanoni was questioned for 2 days regarding her labwork. If the Defense chooses to claim contamination occurred, then they need to provide a plausible contamination scenario. Simply screaming "See, contamination can happen and the bra clasp had "dirt" on it" is insufficient to explain the DNA found on the clasp.

 

[stilicho]

We would also need more than just the written letter of the law. Again, what I am saying is that I don't know, and in that I am saying, no one here yet has been qualified to answer some of these questions to fully understand this aspect of Italian criminal procedure, and I include myself in that.

OK, that's fair enough. Let's let the lawyers figure out when she became a suspect.

Do we agree that the statements where she implicated herself, including any of the signed declarations prior to the "memorial" were not admissible? That much has been established at any rate.

There's another reason that I think that Amanda might have been a "real" suspect before 05 NOV 2007. It's because of her 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. I find it remarkable that she already has an alibi in place for bathmat hopping and mixed sources of DNA in the bathroom when she couldn't possibly know about that unless someone had suggested it to her. I think they did ask her about her activities in the cottage and were trying to find out whether the blood had dried when she first noticed it.

Again, I will put this under the category of "hunch" but that might be one of the reasons her lawyers are trumpetting the suspect angle. To be truthful, I believe she made self-incriminating statements even before 04 NOV 2007 but they have never been produced to my knowledge.

Actually, they batted .250

They arrested 4 people. They got one right.

They batted .500. Patrick was arrested because a witness declared him to be the murderer.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why didn't Raf just say that on that morning (Nov 1st) when he was at the cottage, Meredith's bra was on the close rack, he picked it up by the clasp and swung it around above his head. Meredith woke up after he arrived, took a shower and then got ready for her dinner date, she put on new cloths including the bra in question.

 

[stilicho]

[The] 5:45 statement was allowed because the defendant insisted she be allowed to make it without waiting for the proper procedures.

Do we have the full text of this statement? I keep getting this one mixed up with the "memorial". The latter is the one reprinted in the Telegraph.

Where is the 05:45 declaration?