• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi LondonJohn,
I'm kinda new at posting here too at JREF,
hence I like to see "New Blood" challenge some of the "establishment". I have followed this case quite a bit from back when it started in Nov. 2007, and stayed abreast by weekly readings at Perugia Shock and PMF, plus the odd online news article. I only started to post on a few forums after the guilty verdict that has kept Raffaele Sollecito and Amanada Knox imprisoned still, as I type this.
The earliest writings at Perugia Shock are full of lots of interesting points to ponder. I also found it interesting to read and watch Frank Sfarzo, who started PS, go from believing that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were guilty, as the prosecution believes, to feeling that they were both innocent.
I too was that way. From what I know, Mr. Sfarzo went to almost every court hearing, and is a local Italian. His postings, in my opinion, are well worth a reading also. His forum is interesting too. Fulcanelli would probably beg to differ though...
Have a good one,
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Don't bother reading the catalogue of discourse. All the exact same topics keep coming up again and again and again........
Click to expand...

John, always listen to the one talking on the 'other' shoulder...the one dressed in white with the halo.
 
LondonJohn said:
Woah: "what we would ask of you" - is there a committee in operation here?! Has every other newbie had to produce a list of what they agree with and what they disagree with?! This is sounding vaguely Orwellian.....
Click to expand...

Actually, true newbies don't tend to jump in head first here.
 
Fulcanelli said:
John...that's your fault. You've come to the table armed with a reading of Darkness Descending. It's not enough, truly. My advice would be to go back and read the catalogue of discourse as much as you can. I know it's a lot, too much...but as much as you can manage. 'A' book, even a good one, or even two, isn't enough. This is not a put down, rather a reflection of the reality of the complex nature of this case.
Click to expand...

You see, your high-handed and patrician approach is totally out of order, as before. And disingenuously saying "this is not a put down" is extraordinarily rich, given those first two sentences of yours above. Have a look again at what you've written, and how your attitude has coloured your writing.

I said that my interest STARTED when I read that book. Since then, I've read a fair bit more, in print and online, and consider myself fairly well-briefed on many of the main issues of the case. You've chosen to selectively interpret what I wrote, and turn it round as a term of abuse. I'll be starting to report you from now on. I've read back a reasonable amount on these forums, in order to a) learn new information and opinions, and b) suss out where various people stand. I have no intention of reading all 300 pages of this forum however. Don't patronise me again.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Mary, this was all in the early days of the case...we were following it live as it happened. I mean, I understand you're a newbie...but this is old lore.
Click to expand...

In other words, LondonJohn can provide documentation for his information about the Swiss professor, based on the extensive research done by the authors of Darkness Descending, and you cannot provide any documentation for yours. Maybe you shouldn't have challenged him so boldly on that topic.
 
LondonJohn said:
You see, your high-handed and patrician approach is totally out of order, as before. And disingenuously saying "this is not a put down" is extraordinarily rich, given those first two sentences of yours above. Have a look again at what you've written, and how your attitude has coloured your writing.

I said that my interest STARTED when I read that book. Since then, I've read a fair bit more, in print and online, and consider myself fairly well-briefed on many of the main issues of the case. You've chosen to selectively interpret what I wrote, and turn it round as a term of abuse. I'll be starting to report you from now on. I've read back a reasonable amount on these forums, in order to a) learn new information and opinions, and b) suss out where various people stand. I have no intention of reading all 300 pages of this forum however. Don't patronise me again.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't make this about 'me'.

'Reasonable' is a concept. But there is no such thing as 'too much', not in this case.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi LondonJohn,
I'm kinda new at posting here too at JREF,
hence I like to see "New Blood" challenge some of the "establishment". I have followed this case quite a bit from back when it started in Nov. 2007, and stayed abreast by weekly readings at Perugia Shock and PMF, plus the odd online news article. I only started to post on a few forums after the guilty verdict that has kept Raffaele Sollecito and Amanada Knox imprisoned still, as I type this.
The earliest writings at Perugia Shock are full of lots of interesting points to ponder. I also found it interesting to read and watch Frank Sfarzo, who started PS, go from believing that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were guilty, as the prosecution believes, to feeling that they were both innocent.
I too was that way. From what I know, Mr. Sfarzo went to almost every court hearing, and is a local Italian. His postings, in my opinion, are well worth a reading also. His forum is interesting too. Fulcanelli would probably beg to differ though...
Have a good one,
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Hey RWVBWL. Thanks for the welcoming words! I share your open-minded interest in the case. Who knows, I may be totally wrong in some of my views, and I may be proven totally wrong. That's fine by me - I'm not wedded in any way to my current views. I have read some of Perugia Shock, and find it to be an interesting point of view - although I probably at this moment err more on the side of AK/RS involvement at some level.

The point is, it should be perfectly possible for people to engage in civilised debate on forums like these, even where they disagree strongly with each other. In a court of law, for example, opposing lawyers routinely accuse each other of misrepresenting situations or having invalid opinions - that's at the heart of an adversarial legal system. But as soon as lawyers start personally insulting each other or questioning each others' competence or intelligence, they quickly get thrown out of court. It seems that some forum posters feel it necessary to engage in personal insults in order to get their points across, which is regrettable. I hope (and believe) there are many more people like you on here, with whom I'll probably disagree from time to time, but where things remain amicable and mature. See you around!
 
Fiona said:
Well I think that Fulcanelli's account is supported by one of your own links, MaryH. At least I believe you linked this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2851266.ece
Click to expand...

"Police have traced" is a bit ambiguous, don't you think? If you read the rest of the articles around that time, you will also see that the police took their sweet time verifying the Swiss professor's contribution, stalling him for a couple of days and keeping Lumumba in jail even after his alibi was verified.

I haven't even read Darkness Descending and I was aware of the aspect of the professor's friend calling him with the news, and then the professor contacting the police in Perugia. I think Fulcanelli's version might have been started on tjmk.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, true newbies don't tend to jump in head first here.
Click to expand...

Montmorency (a/k/a The Bard) might beg to differ with you on that one.

(Although, she actually jumped in with both clodhoppers, not using her head at all.)
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Well I think that Fulcanelli's account is supported by one of your own links, MaryH. At least I believe you linked this one:
Click to expand...

This is interesting, but it pretty much glosses over the actual mechanism whereby the professor actually came to be sitting in front of the Perugia police.

My point still stands, surely. In "Darkness Descending", the authors explicitly state that the "Swiss professor alibi" link got into the Italian media somehow; that an Italian friend of the professor telephoned him in Zurich to tell him that he was probably the professor in question (and they include a number of direct quotes from this telephone conversation in the book); that the professor googled the number for Perugia police and telephoned them immediately; that he was told to call back the following day; that instead he called back the same day and informed them that he was on his way to Perugia to explain in person.

So, unless all of this information is either a large distortion of the truth, or - worse still - a complete fabrication by the authors including an invented verbatim telephone conversation, then I'm inclined to believe that this is pretty much what happened. Given that this book was published in the UK, it would have been extensively "legalled" for potential mis-reporting, since the UK has notoriously draconian libel laws. And since this version of events isn't entirely favourable to Mignini and the police, I imagine it would have been checked carefully.

Incidentally, it's entirely probable that the Italian authorities paid for the professor's air fare, accommodation etc, since he was coming to testify in a criminal case (it could very possibly have been a re-imbursement of expenses, since the book implies that the professor decided unilaterally to put himself on a flight). I imagine that they'd have had no choice in that matter though. It certainly doesn't lend any weight at all to the opinion that they went out of their way to help Lumumba with his alibi.
 
I do not think "police have traced" is ambiguous, no. I think that it is likely that Patrick told them there was someone who could provide him with an alibi, and may well have known that person's nationality or at least his country of residence, because they talked together for some time. I think it is reasonable to suppose that he told the police that, and with limited information (and limited resources) they made some enquiries. I also have read that the man in question read about the case (or saw it on the news) and that he realised he was an important witness. Whether what he saw in the news in Switzerland included mention that a swiss national was being sought, I have no idea. It hardly matters. I have read that he contacted the police and I think that is very likely: at least I think it is more likely than that the police tracked him down, unless Patrick had learned enough about him to give specific information about where he was to be found: that might have happened, of course. But that does not mean the police were not making enquiries and did not ask for help from their swiss counterparts. No idea what steps they took or what would be normal police practice. Either way they did find this man and they did establish Patrick's alibi. It did take time but the reasons for that are obvious: other things such as the cell phone ping which placed him out of the bar;and the lack of any receipts in the bar before about 10 pm made it essential to test his account properly. That is what the police did and once it became clear they released him. It is what I would expect the police to do (though I am no expert). It is exactly the same as they seem to have done with RS and AK: the difference being that Patrick's story, which initially looked much weaker than theirs, was true. He stuck to it and it held together. He started out in a very difficult position but ordinary police work showed that what he said was true. Unlike the experience with the others

ETA (because of cross posting): I do not think it is at all mysterious that Patrick's swiss alibi got into the Italian press: I think that the police would wish to disseminate that precisely because they were seeking to test that alibi: they may have published it in switzerland as well: or it may have been Patrick's lawyer who made the information available: I do not know. But the person did not testify in court: there was no need for that and no need at all for the Italians to fly him to Italy: they could quite easily have asked the swiss police to take his statement. I do not know if police routinely cooperate in that way across national borders but I assume that they do. Certainly they do across county boundaries in england I see no difference in principle: if more is required after such an initial interview they can go to the witness or ask him to come to them.

I see no reason for a big argument about this because I do not see why it matters whether he saw a report and made contact: or they put out the information and "traced" him. The problem is that in order to portray the police as incompetent or corrupt one must assume that they did nothing at all and were actively resistant to getting this evidence: there is no reason to believe that and no evidence to suggest it
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
I do not think "police have traced" is ambiguous, no. I think that it is likely that Patrick told them there was someone who could provide him with an alibi, and may well have known that person's nationality or at least his country of residence, because they talked together for some time. I think it is reasobable to suppose that he told the police that and with limited information the made some enquiries. I also have read that the man in question read about the case (or saw it on the news) and that he realised he was an important witness. Whether what he saw in the news in Switzerland included mention that a swiss national was being sought, I have no idea. It hardly matters. I have read that he contacted the police and I think that is very likely: at least I think it is more likely than that the police tracked him down, unless Patrick had learned enough about him to give specific information about where he was to be found: that might have happened, of course. But that does not mean the police were not making enquiries and did not ask for help from their swiss counterparts. No idea what steps they took or what would be normal police practice. Either way they did find this man and they did establish Patrick's alibi. It did take time but the reasons for that are obvious: other things such as the cell phone ping which placed him out of the bar;and the lack of any receipts in the bar before about 10 pm made it essential to test his account properly. That is what the police did and once it became clear they released him. It is what I would expect the police to do (though I am no expert). It is exactly the same as they seem to have done with RS and AK: the difference being that Patrick's story, which initially looked much weaker than theirs, was true. He stuck to it and it held together. He started out in a very difficult position but ordinary police work showed that what he said was true. Unlike the experience with the others
Click to expand...

Yes, and thank god for him that he "stuck to it". He's on record as saying that he was scared stiff during his interrogation, and was repeatedly told that whatever he "chose" to tell the police, the "truth" was that he'd arranged to meet AK that night, in order to go to the cottage to sexually assault MK. As I understand it, he's eased off on allegations of physical and psychological abuse during his interrogation, since a) he hopes to continue living and working in Perugia, and b) it might have affected his civil case against AK.

That "Times" link is very interesting in other ways. It was filed on November 11, while Lumumba was in custody. Yet it's full of damaging leaks against Lumumba - and it doesn't take a great leap to imagine where those leaks might have come from. These include not only the phone ping, but also a "sweat-soaked t-shirt" and "medium-length hair mixed with his own hair". I know there's no real rule of sub-judice in Italy, but these sorts of leaks seem astonishing and potentially deeply prejudicial in all sorts of ways. It's pretty much on record that the police and prosecutors were metaphorically "high-fiving" at having solved the case at around this time - very prematurely, as it turned out...
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, and thank god for him that he "stuck to it". He's on record as saying that he was scared stiff during his interrogation, and was repeatedly told that whatever he "chose" to tell the police, the "truth" was that he'd arranged to meet AK that night, in order to go to the cottage to sexually assault MK. As I understand it, he's eased off on allegations of physical and psychological abuse during his interrogation, since a) he hopes to continue living and working in Perugia, and b) it might have affected his civil case against AK.
Click to expand...

He has not "eased off" on his allegations of physical and psychological abuse. He has stated quite explicitly that he never made any such allegations. And your attribution of reasons for the withdrawal which never happened are hardly "open minded". Do you have any reason at all to suppose that his own statements about his interrogation are lies? Do you have any evidence at all as to his motivation for doing that even assuming he did?

That "Times" link is very interesting in other ways. It was filed on November 11, while Lumumba was in custody. Yet it's full of damaging leaks against Lumumba - and it doesn't take a great leap to imagine where those leaks might have come from. These include not only the phone ping, but also a "sweat-soaked t-shirt" and "medium-length hair mixed with his own hair". I know there's no real rule of sub-judice in Italy, but these sorts of leaks seem astonishing and potentially deeply prejudicial in all sorts of ways. It's pretty much on record that the police and prosecutors were metaphorically "high-fiving" at having solved the case at around this time - very prematurely, as it turned out...
Click to expand...

I do not see anything damaging about the information in that report actually: it looks pretty factual to me. As to where those leaks might have come from:you don't know and I don't know. Assuming the information is factual I do not see how it would prejudice any case agains Lumumba. If there was a cell phone ping then there was a cell phone ping: that is in the report and it would be in the court testimony. It is directly relevant and it does not speak to character or to any irrelevant matter nor does it draw any inference: it is true or it is not. As you say: the italian system does not deal with the tension between press freedom and fair trial in the same way as the uk does; and the uk does not do it in the same way as the USA. You clearly know that: and knowing it, I do not see why you expect that difference not to lead to differences nor why you are astonished or even surprised when you find those differences in practice.

The police were "flying high"? I do not know what you mean by that. They gave a press conference saying they had solved the crime and had people in custody: I seem to have seen such things in the UK. They also continued investigating and that is also what I would expect. Those investigations led to the release of Lumumba and the arrest of Guede and ultimately to three convictions. What part of that is not in line with police work anywhere?
 
Fiona said:
I see no reason for a big argument about this because I do not see why it matters whether he saw a report and made contact: or they put out the information and "traced" him.
Click to expand...

There is no big argument. There is simply an attempt to ascertain the facts, as we do in many cases. It only seems big because Fulcanelli can never go down without a fight. He originally wrote:

"Do you know why Patrick had an ironclad alibi? Because the Italian police went out of their way to track down the the man who gave it to him, in a foreign country, then fly him all the way to Italy from Switzerland to interview him."

LondonJohn corrected him. That could have been the end of the story.
 
Fiona said:
I see no reason for a big argument about this because I do not see why it matters whether he saw a report and made contact: or they put out the information and "traced" him. The problem is that in order to portray the police as incompetent or corrupt one must assume that they did nothing at all and were actively resistant to getting this evidence: there is no reason to believe that and no evidence to suggest it
Click to expand...

This area of discussion really started out in response to a bald assertion by Fulcanelli that the only reason that Lumumba had an alibi at all was that police "went out of their way" to seek out and confirm the alibi. I and others have argued that this was not in fact the case. Whilst I agree that at the end of the day the way his alibi came to the attention of the police is of limited importance, the way it seems to have happened certainly doesn't appear to offer the police any plus points. In addition, my clarification was somewhat egregiously attacked - leading us to where we are now.
 
Mary_H said:
There is no big argument. There is simply an attempt to ascertain the facts, as we do in many cases. It only seems big because Fulcanelli can never go down without a fight. He originally wrote:

"Do you know why Patrick had an ironclad alibi? Because the Italian police went out of their way to track down the the man who gave it to him, in a foreign country, then fly him all the way to Italy from Switzerland to interview him."

LondonJohn corrected him. That could have been the end of the story.
Click to expand...

What she said...
 
I do not think LondonJohn "corrected" Fulcanelli: it has yet to be shown that Fulcanelli is wrong. It is certainly true that is good if we can get the facts. We don't have them: some of us have some bits of information and we can share those: but all our sources are partial. There is certainly no evidence in support of the implication that the police did not make efforts to check Patrick's alibi. Not a shred
 
Fulcanelli posted part of the Massei report dealing with the staged break-in back in post 7036 and this section does not make sense.

Fulcanelli said:
Firstly, it should be observed that Mshl. Pasquali has declared that he has never studied stone throwing apart from this case; he also supported the possibility of "making a parallel with investigations of ballistics and firearms"; the same consultant did however admit that, whereas ballistics is a science of precise data (p. 39 hearing July 3, 2009), "here we have an infinity of possible variations" (p. 40). Precisely in relation to these variations and to what has been observed above, the asertion and the explanation he offers for the stone having been thrown from outside cannot be adopted by the Court. Indeed, if one supposes that the stone was thrown from the inside with the shutters pulled closed (as they must have been according to statements cited above), but with the casement holding the pane somewhat open, with the inner shutter behind it, then here is a situation analogous to that of throwing the stone from the outside (the rock would hit the window in the same place as if it came from the outside), and under the shock of the large stone, because of the resistance of the inner shutter behind the window-pane (the shield effect as one might say), the pieces of glass would necessarily fall down on the windowsill both inside and outside (considering the casement as having being only slightly open, and thus the smashed pane positioned near to the windowsill). The presence of the shutters pulled inwards, as described by Romanelli, would have prevented the pieces of glass from falling to the ground below, as indeed they did not, but as they surely would have had the stone been thrown from the outside. As for the presence of glass in Romanelli's room, the violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (which was rather thin as indicated by Romanelli and Pasquali), the large rock used, and finally the shield effect caused by the inner shutter hanging half-open behind the glass pane (a position of the inner shutter which corresponds to the scratch on it visible in the photos) give an adequate explanation of the distribution of the glass.
Click to expand...

Pasquali is the defense expert that set up a replica of the Romanelli's bedroom and showed that the distribution of the glass fragments in the room was consistent with a rock being thrown from the outside. Massei dismisses the rock from the outside theory due to no glass found on the ground outside (some broken glass would bounce back). In order to address the distribution of glass in the room, Massei indicates that an adequate explanation is given by violence of the blow, the characteristics of the glass (thin), the large rock used, and the shield effect caused by the inner shutter. It is not clear to me if his theory that such would provide adequate explanation was just his theory or did someone demonstrate to the Court that the glass distribution under either breakage scenario would be similar.

It seems to me that if the window was half open and broken from the inside as the court assumes, then the glass would have ended up in a different place than if the rock was thrown from the outside.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom