Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Candace Dempsey described the morning of 6 November 2007 in Murder in Italy, p. 159, after Amanda, Patrick, and Raffaele had been arrested,
“Once the doors slammed on the last prisoner, a celebration began. Police wanted to send a message, to the townspeople that they had the killers in custody, detectives had finally solved the Meredith mystery, and Perugia could finally sleep well again. So they lined up the vehicles, switched on the headlights, and honked the horns in jubiliation. Instead of driving directly to prison, they headed uphill into the old town, horns blaring. ’I have seen police behave like this only once before, and that was when they arrested one of the country’s most notorious mafia dons,’ a startled local told the Daily Mail.”

Candace Dempsey is 'not' a source. Do you have anything better then a bored housewife who joined the FOA because she though it would finally make people take her seriously and think she's important?

 

[LondonJohn]

Prejudicial Police Parade in Perugia

Alliteration of the highest order!!

This, if true, inevitably raises more doubts about the conduct of the Perugia police.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Nice diatribe...and you certainly put some effort into writing it. Yet, all you provide to show she's wrong about anything in it is assertion and opinion, rather then any actual sources. In short, unsupported accusations...as usual.

That is actually Mark Waterbury's article. If you read the article you will see that Barbie's book is tabloid trash.

You know the book is bad but you built it up for so long that you have to continue to support it. Why don't you just admit that Barbie wrote a bad book and let's move on.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Candace Dempsey is 'not' a source. Do you have anything better then a bored housewife who joined the FOA because she though it would finally make people take her seriously and think she's important?

Evidence?


(to be fair, I'm not a fan of any of the books written about this case.)

 

[christianahannah]

Ms. Dempsey quoted a letter from Amanda to one of her lawyers from November 9, 2007, which says in part, "I imagined that I'd met Patrick near the basketball courts...and I named Patrick and I totally regret it now because I know that what I said has hurt him." Ms. Dempsey describes the existence of this letter (p. 294, Murder in Italy) as a surprise to some of the reporters as of June, 2009.

I believe this letter might have been submitted during the June 2009 trial by the defense (a letter and envelope was submitted by the defense and there was a bit of discussion on both sides concerning it but I can't recall exactly what was discussed).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure what you are talking about

So then there's no evidence she ever really apologized to Patrick? Just a record of her telling a Judge, who was presiding over the slander suit, that she was sorry...


ETA: The last time I heard someone tell a Judge something like that, I disrupted the courtroom with a laugh. I couldn't help it. "I'm sorry your honor. I won't do it again." "HAH."

The hearing on 30 November 2007 was to decide whether or not to free Amanda and Raffaele. I do not believe that it had anything to do with slander.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The November 30, 2007 hearing was for Amanda and Raffaele to be released on house arrest until trial. It was at that hearing she apologized to a judge.

I believe the June 2009 trial was the slander suit where she was asked the question if she had apologized to Patrick and she answered no.

No...'all' the hearings included a judgement on the matter of whether Amanda and Raffaele be retained in custody or not. The only hearing that happened that dealt exclusively with the matter of custody v house arrest was for Amanda alone and that was held in June 2008 (and didn't cover the slander):

AMANDA'S FAILED BID FOR HOUSE ARREST, JUNE 2008, JUDGE CLAUDIA MATTEINI PRESIDING

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That is actually Mark Waterbury's article. If you read the article you will see that Barbie's book is tabloid trash.

You know the book is bad but you built it up for so long that you have to continue to support it. Why don't you just admit that Barbie wrote a bad book and let's move on.

Sorry, but I don't take Mark Waterbury as a terribly reliable source... but maybe that's just me...

(of course, I really try not to rely on any lay persons interpretation of the evidence (Lay person referring to anyone other than those with direct access to the evidence, a.k.a. attorneys, judges, forensics teams involved in the case))

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Candace Dempsey is 'not' a source. Do you have anything better then a bored housewife who joined the FOA because she though it would finally make people take her seriously and think she's important?

Fulcanelli, your description of Candace actually suits you better. You run and moderate a cult like website so that you can feel important. You come here for the same reason.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The hearing on 30 November 2007 was to decide whether or not to free Amanda and Raffaele. I do not believe that it had anything to do with slander.

I apologize. Clearly I was mistaken in my previous post.

Still, to me, it's not a real apology, just a CMA move on Amanda's part. An attempt to gain a bit of leniency from the Judge.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That is actually Mark Waterbury's article. If you read the article you will see that Barbie's book is tabloid trash.

You know the book is bad but you built it up for so long that you have to continue to support it. Why don't you just admit that Barbie wrote a bad book and let's move on.

Is that supposed to be an improvement?

Barbie Nadeau wrote the best book on this case that has been written so far. It's for that exact same reason you're so desperate to smear her and her book. If it's a threat, attack it...right Bruce?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Candace wrote a good book. She doesn't attack anyone. She just tells it like it is. Candace is also a wonderful person to talk to.

Candace is attacked because she is feared by the guilter crowd.

Barbie is attacked because she wrote a bad book full of lies and disturbing information about Meredith.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Is that supposed to be an improvement?

I was just giving proper credit to the article.

 

[Mary_H]

Great, I've now got you to say it 3 times. We can now finally put to bed all claims they should have been made suspects before the night of the 5th

I don't know why you consider this a score for your side, but whatever turns you on. If you are suggesting that I am saying they should not have had lawyers before their interrogations, then you are misrepresenting my position.

We have the report. The defence have never denied that this information was put before the court.

Huh? It's not a question of whether it was put before the court. It's a question of whether there is any evidence in there to support the description of the crime. I presume the defense denied the content when they agreed to represent the defendants.

Only, your questions have only ever gone one way...to question the ILE, never Amanda and Raffaele.

I have not yet seen any reason to give less credibility to Amanda and Raffaele than to their captors.

ordinanza_perugia_meredith.pdf

Over two and a half years and you still haven't bothered reading it and it took me to point it out to you. It's about time you actually bothered learning the case.

If you don't have it in English, why don't you just share the relevant parts as they pertain to my question?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Fulcanelli, your description of Candace actually suits you better. You run and moderate a cult like website so that you can feel important. You come here for the same reason.

He also thinks the "FOA" pays people to comment in articles and pays frank for his blogspot blog (and never offers any proof). Is Fulcanelli a source or insider? I don't think so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Candace wrote a good book. She doesn't attack anyone. She just tells it like it is. Candace is also a wonderful person to talk to.

I hear she's great to talk to if you want a good recipe for meatballs.

It sounds like you've talked to her a lot Bruce. How often have you met?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Is that supposed to be an improvement?

Barbie Nadeau wrote the best book on this case that has been written so far. It's for that exact same reason you're so desperate to smear her and her book. If it's a threat, attack it...right Bruce?

I bought and read Barbie's book. Which part of it did you think was less offensive: the part where she described Meredith's sex habits, her privates, and her bust line, or where she talked about how her and her reporter friends snickered at Meredith's British friends calling them the "7 virgins"?

And let's not even get started on her theory of the crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't know why you consider this a score for your side, but whatever turns you on. If you are suggesting that I am saying they should not have had lawyers before their interrogations, then you are misrepresenting my position.

Many FOAK'ers here (and elsewhere) have been whinging on and on about how Amanda and Raffaele should have been made suspects before the night of the 5th.

Huh? It's not a question of whether it was put before the court. It's a question of whether there is any evidence in there to support the description of the crime. I presume the defense denied the content when they agreed to represent the defendants.

Of course. It was verified not only by one court, but three courts including the Italian High Court (that same court you seem to think is going to toss out the knife, all the DNA evidence and aquit Amanda).

If you don't have it in English, why don't you just share the relevant parts as they pertain to my question?

Ahh, you know jack...first of all you'd never seen it...then you didn't have it. Now you have it you can't read it. Don't you think you should have read all this crap before getting on your high horse with all your accusations and assertions???

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Every picture tells a story

Alliteration of the highest order!!

This, if true, inevitably raises more doubts about the conduct of the Perugia police.

Darkness Descending, p. 218, describing events of mid November, 2007,
“[senior detective Dr.] Edgardo Giobbi...was convinced Lumumba was the right man. He even put a picture of Amanda being arrested on his vaunted 'Hall of Fame’ outside of his office…alongside a snap of notorious mafia boss Bernardo Provenzano.” The photo in question showed Amanda talking to police, not being arrested. However the fact of its existence is confirmed by at least two other sources and has been discussed here previously. It is worth keeping in mind that this photo was put up long before Amanda had been formally charged.

 

[Amazer]

I have not argued that the police should have made Amanda and Raffaele suspects as soon as they became suspicious of them. I believe the police did make them suspects soon after they became suspicious of them. My questions have been about what it was that made the police suspicious in the first place. I don't believe they had any reason to be suspicious of them, except that they were getting desperate for some results.

According to Claudia Matteini (and I have blamed her plenty of times), the primary evidence they had against Raffaele was that he wanted extreme experiences -- something they took off his myspace page.

In a murder investigation you will find (just about anywhere in the world) that the police is suspicious of virtually anybody who is in someway connected to the case till such a time that an alibi is provided AND that said alibi checks out.