Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

What happened to the key? Why would Amanda and Raffaele lock a door they knew would soon be opened?

If Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, they would know she was dead. Did they take the cellphones and throw them in a garden in another part of town to further stage the burglary? Why not then also take other valuable items?

Rudy didn't know she was dead -- that's why he took her cell phones and locked the door.

The key was discarded, possibly thrown far into the course ground in the dark or dropped down a drain. The door was locked for several reasons...to delay discovery so as to give the pair time to think and to take a course of action...to prevent a housemate or house friend suddenly returning home and discovering them there with the body which wouldn't look good (with the door locked, they could at least claim they didn't know it was there), to provide Amanda time to return home the following morning and set the scene without it being considered necessary to immediately raise the alarm (to form an alibi of sorts in short) and also because they really wanted someone else to discover the body instead.

The phones were taken in part to stage a burglary. They were also taken to prevent them ringing in Meredith's room without answer and so perhaps attracting alarm before they were ready for that to happen. We also don'r know exactly 'when' the phones were taken, they may have been taken during the early stages of the attack to prevent Meredith attempting to make a call for help.

They did take other valuable items...Meredith's money and credit cards. I suppose they thought that would be enough to stage the burglary. Plus, they probably didn't want to risk being witnessed walking through Perugia with larger valuables...that would link them directly to the 'burglary' and therefore the murder. I also think they wagered that the police would simply assume the burglar was interrupted.

The evidence proves he didn't take the phones. It also proves he didn't lock the door (perhaps you didn't read my earlier post). He also had no reason to lock the door. He would be home inside 4 minutes and Meredith wasn't going anywhere, still alive or not and was completely unable to speak due to the damage to her throat. Someone who lived there 'did' have good reason to lock the door and delay discovery though.

You and Fiona are both deluded. You wouldn't recognize truth if it came up and bit you in the butt. Your hostility is apparent to everyone but yourselves.

It is not Fiona and I making up endless excuses to explain away the evidence. The truth, which we are interested in, requires none. Truth is uncomplicated.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You two ought to do a little research before you start taking Bill Edelblute's word for anything. He notoriously leaves out a great many of the details when he writes his slanted opinion pieces.

He was at the book reading in person, to report. Why, were you at the book reading?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And judging from the quality of his photo, I am guessing he took it from a very long distance away, without a flash. More stalking?

I think he was in earshot, don't you? Stalking? He's a reporter for the Examiner!

And Mary...you seem to be taking it all rather personally, what do you care what he reports and Candace Dempsey's book reading? It sounds like you have some personal investment. How is Candace by the way?

 

[bucketoftea]

Did Mary just call *other* people hostile?

 

[43degreesNorth]

I say that when someone is confronted with evidence that is at the same time impossible to be real, yet impossible to refute, they would make an excuse up to try and explain it. Like trying to rationalize a paradox. In most people's minds DNA evidence is as irrefutable as being caught on tape. I'm sure Rafaelle was not aware of the phenomenon known as LCN DNA, and took the evidence of Meredith's blood being on his knife as being a fact that was indisputable, and therefore made a juvenile mistake by lying and digging his hole deeper. BTW, are you sure about the "multiple scenarios" part? I only know of the one, in which he pricked Meredith when cooking. The other, the one involving the exchange of bras, I thought was from his father. *[bolded section added by me]

Okay, so Raffele gets news about the knife. He writes in his diary:

"But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls
didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing"

So, it looks like the lawyer tells him it will easily be explained away and Raffaele seems to have an 'excuse'

Then he writes in his diary (after the knife stays in the news)

"I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return home. The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real explanation of the kitchen knife is this."

How about if you are innocent saying/writing instead:

"I have no idea how this evidence appeared on the knife. It is my kitchen knife, and Meredith has never been in my apartment, I have only met her on occasion at Amanda's, and am innocent of this murder. There is no way her DNA could be on this knife"

How about that for a more likely response, especially if your lawyer told you not to panic about it. How about that for a response if you really are innocent?

 

[Lallante]

Believing the prosecutor's version of events in this trial runs in to the same problem as most conspiricy theories - it requires a little too much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning, and there is just too little motive.

If you have just accidentally murdered your (/girlfriends') roommate in a sex and drug fuelled madness, do you really then have the clarity of mind to -utterly- clean yourself and the room of DNA evidence, dispose of the murder weapon, stage a burglary and concoct an alibi?

Its the same kind of thinking that spots tiny supposed 'inconsistancies' in the 9/11 official account and concludes from that that the FBI did it.

There has definitely been a miscarriage of justice in the sense that the procedures used (evidence collection, analysis, interviews etc) were wrong. I am pretty confident from all I have read that Knox, though pretty odd, was not involved in the killing.

 

[Amazer]

Believing the prosecutor's version of events in this trial runs in to the same problem as most conspiricy theories - it requires a little too much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning, and there is just too little motive.

Motive, as discussed earlier in this thread, is a nice bonus but not required for a conviction. As for your claim that there's too much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning, I disagree there too. There's been an amateurish attempt to stage the break-in; AK and RS have a barebones alibi (they are in his apartment) but the individual accounts of what they did vary to such a degree that the only logical conclusion is that they did not spent that time in RS apartment. I really don't see all that much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning.

If you have just accidentally murdered your (/girlfriends') roommate in a sex and drug fuelled madness, do you really then have the clarity of mind to -utterly- clean yourself and the room of DNA evidence, dispose of the murder weapon, stage a burglary and concoct an alibi?

They didn't clean the room of DNA evidence. They concocted an alibi that held only till someone started asking questions. And the questions weren't even that difficult. Disposing the murder weapon would be pretty SOP i imagine.

Its the same kind of thinking that spots tiny supposed 'inconsistancies' in the 9/11 official account and concludes from that that the FBI did it.

Right

There has definitely been a miscarriage of justice in the sense that the procedures used (evidence collection, analysis, interviews etc) were wrong. I am pretty confident from all I have read that Knox, though pretty odd, was not involved in the killing.

All the procedures used were wrong? That's a pretty tall claim you're making there. Don't you think that the defense would have brought that up during trial? And if they did, don't you think the Judges would have ruled in Amanda's favor?

Having said that, i do agree that some of the procedures could have been better. That bra clasp should have been collected during those first few days for example.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you have just accidentally murdered your (/girlfriends') roommate in a sex and drug fuelled madness, do you really then have the clarity of mind to -utterly- clean yourself and the room of DNA evidence, dispose of the murder weapon, stage a burglary and concoct an alibi?

Well, firstly your concern assumes they left DNA in the room TO clean and secondly, they didn't clean DNA away that effectively anyway, since there is DNA on the bra clasp, in several of the luminol prints, in numerous of the blood stains and in the luminol blood stain in Filomena's room. As for the cleaning of the 'self', when one gets covered in something unpleasant (and not to mention something that can get you in trouble) it's second nature to clean yourself isn't it? I mean, we'd would hardly expect them to walk around with blood on them the whole night and all the next day, would we?

There has definitely been a miscarriage of justice in the sense that the procedures used (evidence collection, analysis, interviews etc) were wrong. I am pretty confident from all I have read that Knox, though pretty odd, was not involved in the killing.

'Wrong' according to 'whose' laws, rules and protocols...that of the Italians? Or do you mean, different to how the American's would have done it?

 

[christianahannah]

Then he writes in his diary (after the knife stays in the news)

"I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return home. The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I apologized but she had nothing done to her. So the only real explanation of the kitchen knife is this."

Is this a proper translation of what Raffaele wrote in his diary concerning the knife or a Google translation? Or did he write this passage in English rather than Italian and that is why the paragraph reads rather confusing?

 

[Lallante]

Motive, as discussed earlier in this thread, is a nice bonus but not required for a conviction. As for your claim that there's too much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning, I disagree there too. There's been an amateurish attempt to stage the break-in; AK and RS have a barebones alibi (they are in his apartment) but the individual accounts of what they did vary to such a degree that the only logical conclusion is that they did not spent that time in RS apartment. I really don't see all that much forethought, prescience and quick-witted planning.

In what sense was the breakin amateurish? Forgetting your alternate (or rather the official) version of events for a moment, what is odd about the breakin? The door is wide open, the valuables are missing, the body is locked into a room (to delay discovery, or just out of guilt and panic).

I may be the exception, but I would struggle to give you a chronological account of what I did between breakfast and lunch this morning, let alone last night. Inconsistencies really aren't all that surprising, especially given the intensive interrogation techniques employed (which would NOT be allowed or admissable as evidence in the UK).

They didn't clean the room of DNA evidence. They concocted an alibi that held only till someone started asking questions. And the questions weren't even that difficult. Disposing the murder weapon would be pretty SOP i imagine.

This smells of confirmation bias. Its simply not acceptable, in my opinion, to come up with your own (or rather, the Prosecutor's) version of events and then cherry pick and shoehorn the facts in order to back it up. Not only that, but you seem to accept that the knife recovered and identified in the trial as the supposed murder weapon was not in fact the weapon. Given that much of the weight of conviction of Knox lay on that double-dna kitchen knife, this concession alone is enough for a wrongful conviction.

All the procedures used were wrong? That's a pretty tall claim you're making there. Don't you think that the defense would have brought that up during trial? And if they did, don't you think the Judges would have ruled in Amanda's favor?

I am a lawyer, and have had direct interaction with Italy's legal system. I have limited faith in the Judge's ability to separate fact from fiction when under intense media and political pressure.

Having said that, i do agree that some of the procedures could have been better. That bra clasp should have been collected during those first few days for example.

The fact that it wasnt should (and in the UK, would) have ruled it out as evidence. the knife would also never have been admitted in the UK.


Simply put,had the case been tried in the UK both would have been aquitted and, quite possible, the prosecuter and police would be under scrutiny.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Is this a proper translation of what Raffaele wrote in his diary concerning the knife or a Google translation? Or did he write this passage in English rather than Italian and that is why the paragraph reads rather confusing?

I downloaded the translated diary here, but you can download original as well

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=49

 

[Fulcanelli]

In what sense was the breakin amateurish? Forgetting your alternate (or rather the official) version of events for a moment, what is odd about the breakin? The door is wide open, the valuables are missing, the body is locked into a room (to delay discovery, or just out of guilt and panic).

It's not the break-in that's amateurish, there was no break-in. It's the staging that's amateurish. That's why it's obvious the break-in was staged.

Except the valuable's aren't missing. All Filomena's, Amanda's and Laura's valuables were still there.

Who 'said' the door was wide open...Amanda?

I agree with you the body is locked in the room to delay discovery. But Rudy didn't need to delay the discovery. He could be home inside 4 minutes and once home it wouldn't have mattered to him 'when' the body was discovered.

Given that much of the weight of conviction of Knox lay on that double-dna kitchen knife, this concession alone is enough for a wrongful conviction.

Only it isn't. This is simply what the FOA seem to think, which is why they argue about it day and night like it's the most important thing on Earth. Not so. Were there no knife, Amanda and Raffaele would still have been convicted.There's too much circumstantial evidence against them, too much forensic and they told too many lies.

I am a lawyer, and have had direct interaction with Italy's legal system. I have limited faith in the Judge's ability to separate fact from fiction when under intense media and political pressure.

You're welcome to your opinion. I don't agree, for I see no evidence for it. And were it an issue I don't see how any capital case can be tried since no trial occurs in a vacuum. And despite your claimed contact with the Italian system you are clearly no expert on it or you would understand how fiercely independent the Italian judiciary is. That combined with the fact that they have to write up every piece of evidence and step of their reasoning in a motivations report which must be published. If you're convinced on the basis of what the newspapers might say, I don't see how you can hide that when you write your report. Finally, why would judges turn to newspapers for their case information when they have the full case file in front of them, all the experts in front of them and all the witnesses in front of them? It's like suggesting a brain surgeon would pick up a tabloid newspaper article to work out how to perform brain surgery that day. It's nonsense.

[quote="Lellante]The fact that it wasnt should (and in the UK, would) have ruled it out as evidence.[/quote]

But in the UK it's a completely different system with different conventions (apples and pears). We retain crime scenes for only a very short time so everything must be removed quickly. The Italians will retain a crime scene sealed for over a year, primarily so they can keep evidence is situe and return to collect more as required.

And yes, the knife would have been admitted in the UK. LCN DNA is perfectly acceptable as evidence in UK courts.

 

[Fulcanelli]

[quote="ChristianaHannah"[/quote]Is this a proper translation of what Raffaele wrote in his diary concerning the knife or a Google translation?[/quote]

If you got the diary extract from PMF, then it's a properly translated version, not google. That's how Raffaele writes.

 

[odeed]

...

The fact that it wasnt should (and in the UK, would) have ruled it out as evidence. the knife would also never have been admitted in the UK.

Regarding the bra clasp, then you would have to rule out all evidence that was not collected immediately, and what would be the cut off period for allowing evidence found after the crime. As regards to the knife and the use of LCN, Peter Hackett from FSS:

"It's been used now for nearly 10 years by the Forensic Science Service in over 20,000 cases, so we're extremely confident in the results that we provide to courts."

Simply put,had the case been tried in the UK both would have been aquitted and, quite possible, the prosecuter and police would be under scrutiny.

People have been convicted of murder/manslaughter with less evidence than has been presented in this trial.

 

[tsig]

You and Fiona are both deluded. You wouldn't recognize truth if it came up and bit you in the butt. Your hostility is apparent to everyone but yourselves.

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

 

[christianahannah]

If you got the diary extract from PMF, then it's a properly translated version, not google. That's how Raffaele writes.

I didn't' get if from PMF but quoted what 43degreesNorth had posted. I now see he/she has included a link to Raffaele's diary.

 

[tsig]

In what sense was the breakin amateurish? Forgetting your alternate (or rather the official) version of events for a moment, what is odd about the breakin? The door is wide open, the valuables are missing, the body is locked into a room (to delay discovery, or just out of guilt and panic).

I may be the exception, but I would struggle to give you a chronological account of what I did between breakfast and lunch this morning, let alone last night. Inconsistencies really aren't all that surprising, especially given the intensive interrogation techniques employed (which would NOT be allowed or admissable as evidence in the UK).



This smells of confirmation bias. Its simply not acceptable, in my opinion, to come up with your own (or rather, the Prosecutor's) version of events and then cherry pick and shoehorn the facts in order to back it up. Not only that, but you seem to accept that the knife recovered and identified in the trial as the supposed murder weapon was not in fact the weapon. Given that much of the weight of conviction of Knox lay on that double-dna kitchen knife, this concession alone is enough for a wrongful conviction.




I am a lawyer, and have had direct interaction with Italy's legal system. I have limited faith in the Judge's ability to separate fact from fiction when under intense media and political pressure.



The fact that it wasnt should (and in the UK, would) have ruled it out as evidence. the knife would also never have been admitted in the UK.


Simply put,had the case been tried in the UK both would have been aquitted and, quite possible, the prosecuter and police would be under scrutiny.

For a lawyer you seem remarkably certain about the outcome of a case you never tried.

Here in this thread the opinion seems to be against you.

Why did Amanda lie Patrick into jail?

 

[RWVBWL]

They did steal something... remember Meredith's credit cards, cash and phones?

Whoever stole her credit cards, cash and cell phones, also stole her apartment keys, for some reason...

 

[Kestrel]

For a lawyer you seem remarkably certain about the outcome of a case you never tried.

Here in this thread the opinion seems to be against you.

Why did Amanda lie Patrick into jail?

Coerced interrogation.

It is however clear that you don't believe it's possible. You reject science in favor of the old ideas that putting people under stress is the proper way to deal with a suspect. Lack of sleep, yelling, screaming and hitting are all reasonable tools for sweating a confession out of a suspect.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whoever stole her credit cards, cash and cell phones, also stole her apartment keys, for some reason...

But left everything else of value, unlike what real robbers would do. They were taken in a half arsed attempt to make it look like a robbery and that's one of reasons the staging was amateurish.