• 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.
Fulcanelli said:
It's a small area of blood, which is either not a footprint (and was therefore dropped on the floor or smeared there with something), or it's a footprint that's simply too damaged or faint to be recognisable as a footprint.
Click to expand...

Was there also a small area blood in Amanda's room (which contains both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA) or was that a footprint?
 
Dan O. said:
Have you forgotten already that the postal police saw the same scene that Amanda saw. Did they jump into action and call for backup? No, they were worried about who would pay for the damage if they broke down the door to Meredith's room.

PS: Your use of the terms "alibi" and "spam" are totally inappropriate for the context in which they were used.
Click to expand...

The Polizia appear to have followed procedures--including not damaging the property. They did not disrobe and take a shower or phone in the call with bits and pieces of information. At least two of the Postal Police officers testified at length during the trial about their arrival, the taking of information, and finally the decision to allow one of the boys to break down Meredith's door.

They accomplished all this in a relatively short time.

The term "alibi email of 04 NOV 2007" is in common usage here for describing the email Amanda sent to two dozen people and which included musings about Meredith's sexual practices and worries about the rent being paid for a room Amanda couldn't use. Everyone knows exactly which one is being referenced by using those terms rather than less precise ones.
 
Mary_H said:
Why would the police need a statement from Patrick as evidence of his involvement in the crime?

Amanda's supporters have skeptically analyzed till the cows came home. You might believe your partner lacks indepth knowledge, but most of the guilters believe that about the innocentisti as a general rule. What you are interpreting as pat answers may very well be the truth.
Click to expand...

Mary, I meant that in case Patrick said anything incriminating during questioning the police would have wanted to be able to use it, therefore they chose to arrest him rather than simply bring him in for questioning. If he incriminated himself while not under arrest it would not be able to be used against him at a trial.

As an Amanda supporter have you ever tried to look at the evidence from any other starting point other than 'she's innocent therefore this is all contamination, planted, or made up'? If my partner did do his own research and skeptical analysis on this and then arrived at his conclusions I would be very inclined to believe he is right. However he hasn't, it's pure gut instinct with him.

Incidentally, I also asked him about the timing of Patrick's arrest, just to get a lawyer's perspective, and he did say he felt the police should definitely and without question have gone immediately to arrest Patrick based on an eyewitness testimony and not wait until morning as LondonJohn had suggested. I definitely agree with him on that.

katy_did said:
Either/or. With it being in the bathroom (and apparently only there) I might've thought menstrual blood more likely. Especially since it being on the faucet would imply someone with blood on their hands using the running water to wash it off, rather than someone with a bloody nose. In fact yes, I think my first impulse would be to think menstrual blood.
Click to expand...

I know this has been discussed quite a bit already but I just wanted to chime in. Menstrual blood would not be first on my list for blood on a faucet. I would first assume a cut from shaving, many girls think nothing of shaving their legs in the sink if all they have is a shower and no bathtub or if they happen to be in a hurry.
 
Mary_H said:
As for the cottage not showing up shoeprints all over the place, well, we know some areas of the floor were washed, some areas of the floor were not tested, and all areas of the floor were not sprayed with luminol until six weeks after the crime. I don't know why they even bothered, except that they didn't have any other evidence.
Click to expand...

If what you claim about luminol is true then it would never be used in police investigations. Not just "rarely" or "possibly" but "never". Just as DNA would never be used if it typically floated through the air or acted as some people have claimed.

We've now successfully ruled out DNA, luminol, witness statements, self-incriminating statements, medical examiners' reports, until nothing is left. There can be only one conclusion: No crime may ever be solved.

And yet...crimes are solved. Verdicts are reached. And people do go to prison based on the evidence. Either we live in a completely irrational world or you're wrong.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Great, your major victory is to establish what we've all been saying from the very beginning: Amanda and Raffaele were arrested once there was evidence against them. Well done.
Click to expand...


Oh, everyone has been saying this? I hadn't noticed. Walk with me, if you will, back to page 240, where I wrote: "I would like to see a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with each other."

This request was followed by a good page and half of vehement resistance by the usual suspects -- BobTheDonkey, stilicho, Fiona, Alt+F4 -- in their efforts to find some reason the cops took Raffaele in and lied to him about Amanda, then went to Amanda and lied to her about Raffaele.

Any trained police force can take young people in and get them to incriminate themselves in forced interrogations. The Perugian police had no evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so they created it, then arrested them.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Would you like to reaffirm your belief that the investigators did not walk from room to room without changing shoe covers?

Do I need to remind you that I believe that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted? I obviously disagree with Massei.
Click to expand...

But Bruce, you aren't qualified to disagree with Massei. What makes you think that with only limited access to case material, little to no experience with Italian law that you are in any position to make such a judgement.
 
Mary H said:
Oh, everyone has been saying this? I hadn't noticed. Walk with me, if you will, back to page 240, where I wrote: "I would like to see a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with each other."
Click to expand...

Mary...you are moving the goalposts. 'Evidence' is evidence...conflicting or contradictory statements alone of themselves is not evidence. The police needed more then contradictory statements to make an arrest. As soon as the police had actual evidence against them, they arrested them. I therefore stand by all I've said.

Mary H said:
Any trained police force can take young people in and get them to incriminate themselves in forced interrogations. The Perugian police had no evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so they created it, then arrested them.
Click to expand...

The police didn't create it. Amanda and Raffaele created it, they made the statements, not the police.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, 'I' was talking about the cottage. But I don't see why my argument wouldn't also apply to Raffaele's. One would expect to see luminol revealed shoe prints walking in through Raffaele's front door if the substance that reacted with the luminol had been tracked in on someone's shoes...no?
Click to expand...

No, 'you' were talking about Raffaele's place:

Charlie: "Also, no blood was found in Sollecito's apartment, other than luminol reactions which were not confirmed to be blood,"

Fulcanelli: "It can safely stated to be blood, since bleach can be ruled out...since Raffaele's cleaner never used bleach."
 
Fulcanelli said:
Mary...you are moving the goalposts. 'Evidence' is evidence...conflicting or contradictory statements alone of themselves is not evidence. The police needed more then contradictory statements to make an arrest. As soon as the police had actual evidence against them, they arrested them. I therefore stand by all I've said.
Click to expand...

What do the police need before bringing particular witnesses in for formal interrogations?
 
Fulcanelli said:
That's it Bruce...when asked to offer an example of any other 'plausible' substance it could be, completely dodge it and go back to playing the old worn out record again.
Click to expand...

If you are going to state that a substance is blood then you need to prove it. There is no proof that those undated stains were blood. You know that as well as I do.

I am about to post the videos showing the investigators walking from room to room contaminating the crime scene. Do you want to make any corrections to your earlier comments on this topic before I post them?
 
stilicho said:
If what you claim about luminol is true then it would never be used in police investigations. Not just "rarely" or "possibly" but "never". Just as DNA would never be used if it typically floated through the air or acted as some people have claimed.

We've now successfully ruled out DNA, luminol, witness statements, self-incriminating statements, medical examiners' reports, until nothing is left. There can be only one conclusion: No crime may ever be solved.

And yet...crimes are solved. Verdicts are reached. And people do go to prison based on the evidence. Either we live in a completely irrational world or you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Here is an interesting bit of information: Apparently, luminol works by reacting with the iron in hemoglobin. The truth is, luminol has no special affinity for blood, just any sort of iron. I guess forensics experts don't actually use the stuff much because of the large potential for false positives. To facilitate the hemoglobin and luminol mixing you have to destroy the blood cell walls, which is another reason the forensic folks don't use luminol much—destroying cell walls tends to destroy DNA evidence, too.

http://ian-albert.com/misc/luminol.php

I gather from my reading that luminol generally is used on crime scenes where large amounts of blood have been cleaned up, but tiny traces are left -- between the floor boards, for example.

You are right, Bob -- crimes are solved, verdicts are reached, it is not a completely irrational world. Many aspects of this particular case, though, were handled irrationally. The scientists turned out to be not-so-sciency, the police turned out to be ruled by forces other than facts, and the prosecutor and judges are in bed together. It's a challenge, but we can set it right.
 
Mary_H said:
Oh, everyone has been saying this? I hadn't noticed. Walk with me, if you will, back to page 240, where I wrote: "I would like to see a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with each other."

This request was followed by a good page and half of vehement resistance by the usual suspects -- BobTheDonkey, stilicho, Fiona, Alt+F4 -- in their efforts to find some reason the cops took Raffaele in and lied to him about Amanda, then went to Amanda and lied to her about Raffaele.

Any trained police force can take young people in and get them to incriminate themselves in forced interrogations. The Perugian police had no evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so they created it, then arrested them.
Click to expand...
Personally, I can not imagine a naive 20 year old gal, who had just been told that her boyfriend was not backing up her alibi anymore, calling the police LIARS! So what the heck do you do if the police do not believe your story, calling you a liar time and time again?
What a nightmare that interrogation must have been for Miss Knox.
Too bad the police did not record it.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
We are all waiting for PMF. You know that. PMF is the source of everything good.
Click to expand...

You claim to disagree with Massei's report. So you either read Italian, have a translated copy, or you haven't read the Massei report to know what you disagree with.

Which is it?
 
stilicho said:
The term "alibi email of 04 NOV 2007" is in common usage here for describing the email Amanda sent to two dozen people and which included musings about Meredith's sexual practices and worries about the rent being paid for a room Amanda couldn't use. Everyone knows exactly which one is being referenced by using those terms rather than less precise ones.
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to try to get away with this, stilicho? There is no musing (except on the part of the police) about Meredith's sexual practices in Amanda's e-mail. Here is the quote (AGAIN):

"at the house they asked me very personal questions about meredith's life and also about the personalities of our neighbors. how well did i know them? pretty well, we are friends. was meredith sexually active? yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms. does she like anal? wtf? i dont know. does she use vaseline? for her lips? what kind of person is stefano? nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend. hmmm...very interesting..."

Incidentally, I, for one, did not know what you were referring to when you mentioned Amanda's "spam list." For a minute there, I thought you were claiming there were two e-mails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom