• 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.
christianahannah said:
Was there more included in Nadeau's book concerning that conversation?

I thought it interesting Amanda had bumped into Patrick after her classes on November 5. Perhaps that is why Patrick was on her mind when questioned later that night into early morning on November 6.

I have wondered what the reason was for asking Raffaele to come to the police station for questioning at 10 p.m. on November 5. Is there any information as to why that time was chosen?
Click to expand...

Not much. Something about Amanda wanting it to be over with. The problem with Nadeau's book is that it gives you information that makes you interested, then it skips the details and goes on to another subject.
 
christianahannah said:
Was there more included in Nadeau's book concerning that conversation?

I thought it interesting Amanda had bumped into Patrick after her classes on November 5. Perhaps that is why Patrick was on her mind when questioned later that night into early morning on November 6.

I have wondered what the reason was for asking Raffaele to come to the police station for questioning at 10 p.m. on November 5. Is there any information as to why that time was chosen?
Click to expand...

They had college during the day. Then there was Meredith's vigil. The police called Raffaele in after a police officer reported seeing them out eating pizza instead of attending the vigil.

Also, Italian culture needs understanding. They tend to do things late over there...dinner at 11 pm or even midnight is not uncommon, shops will close during the mid afternoon and be open during the evenings. Italians start going out late (9 or 10 pm) and they tend to go to bed late. Going into a police station at 10:15 over in Italy wouldn't be seen as so late over there as it would say here in the UK or over in the US. The late nights are compensated for by their culture of having long breaks for lunch in the afternoon and an afternoon siesta.
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, it was after the 6th.

And on the night of Amanda's questioning, all they obtained were his name, the fact that he was Amanda's boss and what he did to Meredith according to Amanda's story. His colour wasn't known to them until they arrested him.
Click to expand...
Hi Fulcanelii,
Thanks for that information.
As I have never read anywhere of the date that Miss Formica approached the police to give her eye witness information,
can you please cite your reference for me that it was after the 6th?
I would have thought it was sooner and I am just curious, that's all.

Do that and I'll getcha a surf report from beaches of Los Angeles when I return...
Thanks, RWVBWL
 
Fulcanelli said:
They had college during the day. Then there was Meredith's vigil. The police called Raffaele in after a police officer reported seeing them out eating pizza instead of attending the vigil.

Also, Italian culture needs understanding. They tend to do things late over there...dinner at 11 pm or even midnight is not uncommon, shops will close during the mid afternoon and be open during the evenings. Italians start going out late (9 or 10 pm) and they tend to go to bed late. Going into a police station at 10:15 over in Italy wouldn't be seen as so late over there as it would say here in the UK or over in the US. The late nights are compensated for by their culture of having long breaks for lunch in the afternoon and an afternoon siesta.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about the late evening dinners, however, previous interviews had been conducted earlier in the day so I didn't know if there was any significance in the timing of the November 5-6 interview.

Is there any information as to whether Amanda's or Raffaele's movements were being supervised by police?
 
RWVBWL said:
Good day Fulcanelli,
Before I head to the beach here in L.A., maybe you can answer me this.
When did Miss Formica talk with the police about seeing a black male leaving the area the night of the murder?
Was it before the night of the 5th/6th?

If the police were looking for a black male, due to knowledge of Miss Formica's eye witness account, and then found out that Amanda Knox's boss, Mr. Lumumba who she had sent the "see you later" text message to, was a black male, I can see the police pressuring Miss Knox to better "remember" her/his involvement that night of the 5th/6th. Heck, maybe she even needed a little "help" to remember, as her up-coming slander trial suggests...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

I would suggest that Google is your friend. The date she came to police was never given, but you will find no mention of her giving any testimony or even her existence in any news reports or or case timelines prior to Nov 5th or any of the days immediately following it. I think the earliest mentioning you will find of her is late November. In the early days she is referred to as "a police witness", rather then by name.

As for Patrick, they didn't even know who he was, let alone that he was black. They didn't know that until they arrested him.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I would suggest that Google is your friend. The date she came to police was never given, but you will find no mention of her giving any testimony or even her existence in any news reports or or case timelines prior to Nov 5th or any of the days immediately following it. I think the earliest mentioning you will find of her is late November. In the early days she is referred to as "a police witness", rather then by name.

As for Patrick, they didn't even know who he was, let alone that he was black. They didn't know that until they arrested him.
Click to expand...
_________________________________________________________________

Good day once again Fulcanelli, and thanks for the reply.
Here's a surf report for you: sun is out, gorgeous morning in L.A. but the surf is small, waist high on sets, but building for the weekend. Saturday should be pumping...

Anyways, before you had even suggested, I had already visited my friend Google, your site PMF and Perugia Shock, looking for the answer to this particular question a few days ago. So when you said that it was not before the 6th, well I would like to know your source for that information, for I have not seen it anywhere in the many, many articles, reports or posts that are available online. So how do you know of this and where can I read of it too? Do you think that the police have a record of it?

The earliest that I have come up with Miss Formica speaking with the police about what she saw that night is this, from Perugia Shock:
"It was an instant for Alessandra Formica and her boyfriend.
At about 22:30 of November 1, they are descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car is parked and where the cottage is. Suddenly a guy who walks in the rush, coming up, bumps into them and runs away. They wouldn't know in that moment but that man could be a murderer.
A few days later Alessandra will hear of what happened in that cottage and will go to the police. That's how people become witnesses, real witnesses, not buffoons seduced by unscrupulous provincial scribblers."

The link is here:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-scenario-for-murder-of-meredith.html

Since there had been a brutal murder, and Miss Formica saw something, wouldn't she have gone to the police immediatlely, as PS suggests? It says that she reported it a "few days later".
To me, that is quite possibly before the night of the 5th/6th, not "late November"...
Do you or another other JREF regulars have a specific date she went and talked with the police?
Thanks, RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
RVBWL said:
Anyways, before you had even suggested, I had already visited my friend Google, your site PMF and Perugia Shock, looking for the answer to this particular question a few days ago. So when you said that it was not before the 6th, well I would like to know your source for that information, for I have not seen it anywhere in the many, many articles, reports or posts that are available online. So how do you know of this and where can I read of it too? Do you think that the police have a record of it?
Click to expand...

My source for knowing it wasn't before the 5th is Judge Matteini's Sentencing Report (from the 9th). Formica's testimony doesn't appear, which it would have had it existed at that time, since it would have been rather important to the case against Patrick at that time.
 
Fulcanelli said:
My source for knowing it wasn't before the 5th is Judge Matteini's Sentencing Report (from the 9th). Formica's testimony doesn't appear, which it would have had it existed at that time, since it would have been rather important to the case against Patrick at that time.
Click to expand...
Hi Fulcanelli,
Thanks for that bit of information. But it still does not answer my specific question:
What date and/or time did Miss Formica report to the police that she saw a black male leaving the area on the night of the murder?
Can anyone else help inform me, and Fulcanelli, the answer to this simple question?
Thanks, RWVBWL
 
It is not a simple question, since it is rarely given the exact date any of the witnesses came forward. At best the month can be identified (and on rare occasions the week).

It is possible that precise information is in Judge Ricarelli's Sentencing Report (which nobody has), but even then it is only likely to refer to her statement rather then the precise date it was given.

Her original statement, signed and dated, will be in the case file, but very few possess the complete case file and none wish to share.

There is no such things as 'simple questions' in this case.
 
CSI reform

I would like to edit the above sentence to read, “This study would contradict an assertion that primary transfers are needed to produce full DNA profiles.”

I provided the link to the article “CSI For Real” because several of us have raised the issue that the forensics may not have been done in an objective way. BobTheDonkey used the phrase “confirmation bias” in messages #11928 and #11873 in a different context. This article addresses cognitive bias, which includes confirmation bias, dependency bias, and others. Here is one quote about DNA forensics. Note the sentence about mixed samples:

“Researchers claim DNA tests sometimes entail surprising problems. Certain DNA tests “can
present highly ambiguous results when mixed samples are involved, which require the same kinds of subjective human interpretation as, say, toolmark or bitemark identification.”30 The mixed samples issue holds even for the latest DNA technology. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes that with the latest DNA techniques, evidence can be contaminated if the technician converses while working.31 The shoddy state of the Houston Crime Lab is only one of several similar examples in the United States and Canada today, some of which also involve DNA testing. Problems have been identified in police labs in: Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Manitoba, Missouri, Montana, Fort Worth, Virginia, and Seattle.”

I would hope that readers would come away from this article with a desire to make forensics in the courtroom better, not with a desire to eliminate them from the courtroom.
 
All the experts in the trial, even Raffaele's, agreed that it was Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, mixed or not. It was not ambiguous, since it was high volume. Moreover, the Rome lab is not the Houston lab, neither is it the Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Manitoba, Missouri, Montana, Fort Worth, Virginia, and Seattle lab. It's the Rome lab. No problems have been found there.
 
Thanks Chris.
I get the impression from reading various articles on the subject that as DNA testing becomes "better", more problems seem to arise. The more sensitive the test, the more results are picked up and more mixed samples of DNA are found, especially if you are talking those LCN results. At the same time, prosecution and defense experts get into really technical areas and the jury has a hard time following the arguments. It seems to me that if I were a defense lawyer, I would want somebody with solid credentials but most of all somebody that can relate to the jury and make things understandable and avoids sounding like they are giving a lecture.

In this case the judges/jury decided to go with the prosecution experts. In my opinion, some of that may be the result not of the quality or technical aspects of the testing but the personality and believability of the expert used. It would make sense to me that the defense expert is starting at a disadvantage as most people tend to trust the system of justice to do a proper job and to give honest results. The expert disputing those results had better be a good one.
 
Fulcanelli said:
All the experts in the trial, even Raffaele's, agreed that it was Raffaele's DNA on the clasp, mixed or not. It was not ambiguous, since it was high volume. Moreover, the Rome lab is not the Houston lab, neither is it the Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Manitoba, Missouri, Montana, Fort Worth, Virginia, and Seattle lab. It's the Rome lab. No problems have been found there.
Click to expand...

Nadeau's book gives the impression that the first expert on Raffaele's team quit because he was hinting at finding mixed results, including Amanda's DNA on the bra clasp.
 
RoseMontague said:
Thanks Chris.
I get the impression from reading various articles on the subject that as DNA testing becomes "better", more problems seem to arise. The more sensitive the test, the more results are picked up and more mixed samples of DNA are found, especially if you are talking those LCN results. At the same time, prosecution and defense experts get into really technical areas and the jury has a hard time following the arguments. It seems to me that if I were a defense lawyer, I would want somebody with solid credentials but most of all somebody that can relate to the jury and make things understandable and avoids sounding like they are giving a lecture.

In this case the judges/jury decided to go with the prosecution experts. In my opinion, some of that may be the result not of the quality or technical aspects of the testing but the personality and believability of the expert used. It would make sense to me that the defense expert is starting at a disadvantage as most people tend to trust the system of justice to do a proper job and to give honest results. The expert disputing those results had better be a good one.
Click to expand...

You do an excellent job articulating your impressions, Rose. By the way, what you have posted above complements the article Chris linked earlier in the thread.
 
LondonJohn said:
But that second point (the AK accusation) should emphatically NOT have been seen by the police as a "silver bullet" piece of evidence against Lumumba which warranted his super-urgent arrest by Perugia's finest. It should instead have been seen as an uncorroborated accusation by a potential accomplice, who - objectively - might have been judged as acting under some duress.
Click to expand...

OK. I am going to use HB's tactic and say that, regardless of any legal knowledge, this just doesn't make a whit of sense. It's just plain stupid. You're arguing that, with a violent criminal on the loose, and the information provided by a witness to a sexual assault and murder, the police should not treat it seriously enough even to warrant an urgent arrest.

I call shenanigans.

Just imagine the uproar in your community once the papers found out that a witness was ignored so the cops could leisurely ask permission to interview a violent rapist-murderer. That's stupid. And anyone claiming that the Perugia police did the wrong thing by believing Amanda is either not thinking clearly or just plain lying about their position.
 
Fulcanelli said:
'Possibly'. Only Amanda didn't seem to know his surname anyway (why would she?). In her statements she refers to him only as 'Patrick'.
Click to expand...
She might know his surname because he was her boss and the owner of the bar in which she worked. It is likely she knew his name. Moreover, the police didn't set off to arrest some guy named Patrick. They went after a guy named Patrick Lumumba.
 
RoseMontague said:
The expert disputing those results had better be a good one.
Click to expand...

They're called auditors and every system has them.

There appears to be a single legitimate objection to the DNA analysis used in this case and it is that the double-DNA knife was tested using an uncommon testing method. It's the only part where all those schooled in science that have read into it agree that the testing method should be published and peer-reviewed.

The contamination hypotheses won't work and never will without supporting documentation available through the administration of the labs. The missing files hypotheses won't work because there is no evidence the defence teams don't have all the data requested and required to do their examinations.

These things come down to "trust" not because the prosecution has a smoother delivery but because the defence has done nothing to support their objections.
 
Jungle Jim said:
She might know his surname because he was her boss and the owner of the bar in which she worked. It is likely she knew his name. Moreover, the police didn't set off to arrest some guy named Patrick. They went after a guy named Patrick Lumumba.
Click to expand...

Perhaps she merely stated:

"Patrick, my boss, owner of Le Chic..."

Or something along those lines, not necessarily so explicitly. Anyway, it's not so hard for the Police to get from "Patrick, my boss" to "Patrick Lumumba, owner of Le Chic".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom