Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

This is creepier than ****. If I go to Candace's book signing at the University Book Store, should I wear a bullet-proof vest, a la abortion doctors?

Mary H, perhaps you can tell us why it is so 'creepy' that members of PMF who cover this case attended a public fundraiser that was advertised in the public media in order to garner public attendance? They did not attend to follow Dempsey, they didn't even know she'd be there attending as a family guest...she was caught. Why is her going not not creepy? Why is it creepy if PMF go?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Mark,

Welcome to JREF. I am sure your stay will be a brief one. Thank you for clarifying your credentials. Some posters here need to see the truth.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Then why did it take Guede four months to accuse Amanda and Raffaele?

Because Raffaele's lawyers started to accuse Rudy. The business with the trainers.

Have you had your glasses checked lately? Or are you insisting these reports must be verbatim statements from the horse's mouth? The leaks from the investigators aren't good enough for you?

I see you reproducing plenty of rumour.

This point is as absurd as your claim to RWVBWL that Rudy's DNA was only found in, not on, Meredith's body, as if a rape can be committed without touching the victim. Instead of replying to the intent of the poster's comment, you change the subject and attack minute details and semantics.

In Micheli's sentencing report, he writes about rejecting the prosecution's claims of the murder having a ritualistic aspect. Maybe Micheli was too embarrassed to include the word, "Satanic" in his report, but the meaning is clear.

Hardly Mary, he was emphasising a point, twice, that Rudy's DNA was 'on' Meredith. It wasn't. That's a plain fact. Sorry to bully you with facts, but there we are.

On Day One he was claiming he was not there. It would not have been particularly useful to put himself at the crime scene by accusing the others.

Actually, he conceded he was there later in the very same Skype conversation. It lasted for some 4 hours

I also note the hypocrisy here from you...anything Raffaele said to a reporter (Kate Mansey) in a personal interview isn't of the least importance, but anything Rudy may have said to his pal over skype is of utmost importance.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Everyone on this thread should read Candace's book. You will all learn something about this case.

I never knew you were funny Bruce.

The room was also not ransacked. The photos clearly show that no ransacking took place.

How can photos show that? Are you still claiming Filomena trashed her own room? And this is all 'proven' by the photos?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Before we get to that can we actually clear up what statements were made. It is my understanding that thre is one statement signed at 1:45 and one signed at 5:45. There is a third statement which is often described as a "gift". I have become confused as to when that one was made: I originally thought it was the 5:45 one: but that is wrong. I then understood it was the one she wrote in prison on the 7th. Now it appears there was a third one on the 6th. But I do not know if she wrote it in prison or not. I do not have time now to go through all the sources to find this again. Does anyone know exactly how many statements there are and the times and dates they were made?

Actually, there was 'another' statement handed to the police that was not heard in the trial or reported by the media (for very good reasons), but I can't go into that.

 

[el buscador]

According to "Murder in Italy" it was Sophie Purton, the English friend of Meredith's who walked with her the night of the murder, who "turned a klieg light on Amanda Knox" in a police interview the night of November 3. Sophie basically told police that Meredith said that Amanda would sometimes bring men home. Sophie did add a qualifier, that she thought some of the men were just friends.

In actual fact the men, freely admitted by Amanda, ended up being Juve, her coworker at Le Chic, Spyros Gatsios, her friend from the internet cafe, Daniel de Luna, who she did have sex with, and Raffaele. The police would never find another male who had sex with Amanda in her own bedroom other than Daniel, not even Raffaele.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We are still left with the question of what qualifies someone as a suspect, and it is certainly not "whenever the police decide to formally make you one". So I don't know why we are even pretending to know how to analyze when Amanda was a witness or suspect under Italian law.

Understand law thus...it is a mechanism. Like in a clock...when a cog turns, it turns another cog...but neither can happen independently. In the case of making one a suspect, that cog is quite simply 'evidence'. To make someone a suspect one 'must' have evidence and if there is evidence in turn, they 'must' be made a suspect.

One cannot make someone suspect without evidence and if there is evidence, they have to make them a suspect. I can't put it any clearer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

According to "Murder in Italy" it was Sophie Purton, the English friend of Meredith's who walked with her the night of the murder, who "turned a klieg light on Amanda Knox" in a police interview the night of November 3. Sophie basically told police that Meredith said that Amanda would sometimes bring men home. Sophie did add a qualifier, that she thought some of the men were just friends.

In actual fact the men, freely admitted by Amanda, ended up being Juve, her coworker at Le Chic, Spyros Gatsios, her friend from the internet cafe, Daniel de Luna, who she did have sex with, and Raffaele. The police would never find another male who had sex with Amanda in her own bedroom other than Daniel, not even Raffaele.

Who cares about 'Murder in Italy' or Candace Dempsey? Are you going to keep throwing the Cook at us for page after page?

Use a creditable source instead.

 

[Fiona]

According to "Murder in Italy" it was Sophie Purton, the English friend of Meredith's who walked with her the night of the murder, who "turned a klieg light on Amanda Knox" in a police interview the night of November 3. Sophie basically told police that Meredith said that Amanda would sometimes bring men home. Sophie did add a qualifier, that she thought some of the men were just friends.

In actual fact the men, freely admitted by Amanda, ended up being Juve, her coworker at Le Chic, Spyros Gatsios, her friend from the internet cafe, Daniel de Luna, who she did have sex with, and Raffaele. The police would never find another male who had sex with Amanda in her own bedroom other than Daniel, not even Raffaele.

I think I have missed something. What on earth does this have to do with anything?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I still have not seen anyone offer any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele had any differences between their alibis BEFORE they were interrogated by the police. After the interrogations, all bets are off, because they were then operating from the "information" the police gave them about each other.

This was cited as the reason that police called them back in again for questioning.

If you don't know what alibis they gave the police before their interrogations, then how can anyone claim they changed their stories or their stories were inconsistent?

And that double edged sword goes both ways, you can't claim as a 'fact' that they 'didn't' change their stories as you did here, can you?:

[quote="Mary H']I AM saying that. The question is why the police brought them in for interrogations when they had not lied. A lot of people say the police suspected them because of their lies and their changing stories. There is no evidence to support that argument.[/quote]

That's a statement of fact. How do you know they didn't when even you admit you don't know what they said before? It seems simply that it's a point of faith with you.

 

[tsig]

I think I have missed something. What on earth does this have to do with anything?

It seems that since certain new members have joined, the comments have centered on Amanda's sex life.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Perpetually catching up over here ...

What are the Italian words for "witness" and "suspect" as they are used in Italian jurisprudence with respect to procedure and rights? It might aid in communications if those words were used when the writer wishes to differentiate from the common english usage.

Good question. Not only does it have a different name in Italian, but a different legal meaning. The terms 'witness' and 'suspect' are only used so that those who are Anglos can relate to them, but they actually differ greatly.

For an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

No, many of us believe she carried the knife to the cottage to do something nasty to Meredith. What now?

 

[Fulcanelli]

He does not say anywhere in his diary that Amanda asked him to lie.

No, he said it to the police instead and that carries far more weight. His diary was intended for an audience, so no surprises there.

Here is the information about the Kate Mansey article and her alleged interview with Raffaele. I cite these because, as far as I know, they purport to contain the only written record of anything Raffaele said to anyone before the interrogation by police that led to his arrest.

The interview Raffaele never denied having.

I am sure that when Kate Mansey wrote her sensational pieces for the Daily Mirror, she had no idea that the falsehoods contained in them would be carried through thousands of arguments in the blogs to support the claim that Raffaele lied about where he was the night of the crime. Too bad.

Plenty of falsehoods, you're quite right...and they all came from Raffaele. Glad you're finally getting it.

Sorry, I really can't see the police asking the girls where they had made the phone calls from, although I guess it's possible. If they did ask, it probably would only have been asked once, and at the time of the initial questioning, their answers might have matched and Amanda got mixed up later when she wrote her e-mail. During the initial interviews, the police were not suspicious of Amanda -- she had done nothing but help them out by pointing out the blood stains in the bathroom, giving them a tour of the cottage and answering their questions

let me get this straight. There'd just been a brutal murder and the police would have no concerns about where everybody 'was'? So, peoples' 'movements' are not of the least concern to police in the course of a murder enquiry...do I have you right?

They did ask in some detail. They probably just would have no reason to doubt anything anyone said on the first day. Where did you get this information about the phone calls, anyway? Was it brought up at trial?

Clearly you have no experience with murder investagtions. Police will always primarily suspect and investigate those found at the crime scene and those connected to the victim. Thar's murder investigation 101.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi everyone. I'm Dr. Mark Waterbury. I see my name being bandied about here, and also see my credentials impugned by a few of the usual posters. I rarely spend time in these forums because my main focus is on my upcoming book, but I do want to address some of this.

Get in line!

 

[Fulcanelli]

While I won't get into tit-for-tat debates on any of this:

Stefanoni's knife technique, in a nutshell.

1. Extract a sample that is far too small to ever be tested again or validated in any way.

2. Run it through a profiling system.

3. When the system reports "Too Small" and rejects the sample as meaningless, second guess the designers of the equipment, fiddle with the knobs, and blow up the signal till you get a profile.

4. Declare guilt on the basis of an irreproducible experiment.

Cross contamination in DNA profiling labs is a well known, ongoing issue. I provide references to this in my articles.

There will be additional information about Rudy's work as an informant in both my articles and book, and in work from other sources. Plan on it.

If you have the documentation, then post it up.

 

[quadraginta]

I think I have missed something. What on earth does this have to do with anything?

Thank goodness. I thought it was just me.

 

[odeed]

I need to ask, but is there any actual science on "Science Spheres", all I can find from looking through some of the articles are supposition and hints at conspiracies?

 

[el buscador]

Sorry, I'm not good at the posting tricks so the post (#11225) I was answering didn't show up. Mary H. said: "I AM saying that. The question is why the police brought them in for interrogations when they had not lied. A lot of people say the police suspected them because of their lies and their changing stories. There is no evidence to support that argument."

To which I answered: "According to "Murder in Italy" it was Sophie Purton, the English friend of Meredith's who walked with her the night of the murder, who "turned a klieg light on Amanda Knox" in a police interview the night of November 3. Sophie basically told police that Meredith said that Amanda would sometimes bring men home. Sophie did add a qualifier, that she thought some of the men were just friends.

In actual fact the men, freely admitted by Amanda, ended up being Juve, her coworker at Le Chic, Spyros Gatsios, her friend from the internet cafe, Daniel de Luna, who she did have sex with, and Raffaele. The police would never find another male who had sex with Amanda in her own bedroom other than Daniel, not even Raffaele."

 

[Fiona]

That is bat guano crazy. There is nothing else I can say about it