Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Odeed,
A question for you:
Since Amanda Knox had a new boyfriend, and was probably sleeping over at his apartment a lot more, do you think it is possible that maybe Miss Kercher just borrowed Amanda's lamp, without asking, because she needed to use it and Amanda wasn't home?
Seems to me like this could be just a pretty innocent explanation. But correct me if you feel I am wrong.

Interestingly, I feel that most folks seem to wish to find sinister, ulterior motives in most everything that is minutely dissected in this murder...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

No. It was the only light source in Amanda's room. Meredith wasn't Amanda's keeper and didn't know if she'd be home or not each night, she wouldn't simply assume she wouldn't be. Meredith had her own lamp plus main light, both worked perfectly well, so she had no reason to take Amanda's lamp. And Meredith certainly had no reason to place the lamp on the floor at the foot of her bed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If this were a reasonable doubt case I sure wouldn't be involved. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. I've never been more sure of anything in my life.

Sounds like religion to me.

 

[stilicho]

[This] threshold for conviction is more-or-less universally agreed upon. Instead, the issue under debate is how best (and most fairly) to convey this concept to jurors.

Provide examples where a judge has had a difficult time conveying his instructions to the jury because of the term "reasonable doubt". And how does changing the label for the concept lessen any possible communication issue?

You're confusing a term or a concept with poor instructions and making the term a scapegoat for what is the judge's responsibility.

@Kevin_Lowe & Rose: Is it my imagination or did we all actually agree on something?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think the prosecution talked about the lamp much at all, except a few times during Knox's questioning, when the defence wouldn't be able to challenge it.

What are you talking about...they cross examined her about it on the stand?

I wonder whether the lamp was used by one of the first police officers there (Battistelli? He's certainly the least reliable...) to shine light on the crime scene. Who else would have had a motive not to use either of the lights (desk/ceiling) already in the room? None of the three suspects. And Amanda's room right next door would be the obvious place to go if someone needed additional light.

I think Battistelli also went back into the house on his own during the phone call to the Carabinieri (when they called for directions) to describe what he could see in the room. Yet Meredith's room was dark, according to witnesses. So what did he use as a light source?

??????????????????????

If that was the case, what was wrong with Meredith's light switch?

Well, my point in mentioning it originally wasn't so much the glass-breaking potential of the hammer, so much as the fact it was probably another thing Rudy stole. But since you mention it, I do find it a bit difficult to imagine other things one might take a glass-breaking hammer for, if not in order to, well, break glass...

Who knows, perhaps he had some really tiny chairs he needed to fix.

Probably stole? I really do love the the double standard with which Rudy is treated. He doesn't even get a trial for all the things you people are quite happy to accuse him of. Yet come to Amanda and Raffaele and everything must be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, can you provide a citation for your claim that Guede's lawyers filed suit against the Seattle TImes?

Certainly.

https://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/crime/kercher-suspects-lawyers-may-sue


http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/perugia/2008/08/21/112681-difensori_guede_attaccano.shtml

 

[christianahannah]

I see...your evidence that it was amounts to 'Amanda said so!'. And how was her second statement on the night forced, when she insisted on making it, forcing the prosecutor to be dragged out of his bed at 3 in the morning to hear it? Who forced her to demand pen and paper the next day and write that she stood by her statements the previous night? Who forced Raffaele to drop his alibi for Amanda (Raffaele never claimed his questioning was forced)?

Oh and it wasn't a confession, it was an accusation.

Could you help clarify some questions I have?

Were both statements, 1:45 and 5:45, ruled inadmissible because Amanda did not have representation during interrogation and had implicated herself as a suspect? The declarations were not used as evidence against her at trial (the exception being the slander trial of Patrick)?

When Amanda wrote the memorandum/s were they accepted into evidence at trial? If so, was the reason because she wasn't being interrogated and gave them of her own free will?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have several questions for those of you in the UK. Fulcanelli had mentioned how the papers had stopped calling RG such things as a small-time drug dealer after threat of a libel suit. Yet in one of the more recent articles that we were discussing in reference to Mark Waterbury's post about RG as a possible police informant, this paper listed him as a small-time drug dealer in this article of 19 April, 2010.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...s-were-ignored

It also states that RG had six serious crimes in 33 days prior to Meredith's murder and doesn't even use the word alleged. I have several questions about this.

1. What is the reputation of Bob Graham as a journalist in the UK?
2. What is the reputation of the Express in the UK?
3. What 6 crimes are they referring to? I can only see a few possibles mentioned.
4. They say Mignini said Guede should have been in jail at the time of Meredith's murder. Is this a factual statement, and do we know where he is quoted as saying that?
5. Are any of these 6 "crimes" still being investigated and is Rudy considered a suspect?
6. Have they been asked to retract these allegations or face a lawsuit?

1. Bob Graham. He's a Knox family insider favoured by Marriott. It was Bob Graham and Garfield Kennedy who worked close to the Knox family for two years for their documentary 'The Trials of Amanda Knox' for Eye Films, produced for Channel 4 in the UK. The co-Administrator of PMF was also in the documentary after being assured that it would be fair and balanced. However, Graham and Kennedy quickly decided it would be more lucrative in the US market if they were to change the theme to 'US victim of justice abroad'. The third producer on the team was upset about this to such a degree he walked off the project, leaving it to Kennedy and Garfield. Skeptical Bystander was subjected to a very hostile interview and she saw the change in the wind. Kennedy and Graham were also going about lying to people to get interviews, yelling them they were the BBC. It was also clear through contacts via some of our sources that they intended their product to be distinctly pro-Knox As a result, Skeptical Bystander contacted the Editor of Channel Four and had her interview removed from the documentary as she no longer wanted to be a part of it (under much protest from Knox). Also, the recent news that that broke about the behind the scenes negotiations for a jailhouse interview with Knox, with one Italian, one US and on UK media outlet...the UK outlet is Graham and Kennedy. They are Marriott approved. That's why Graham got the story you refer to from Chris Mellas and he's only to happy to run any crap Mellas pushes it because he wants to nail that jailhouse interview


2. The Daily Express is a tabloid. It's right leaning, like the Daily Mail, but is more to the centre right and less extreme then the Daily Mail. It doesn't have a bad rap, but it doesn't have a good one either. It's rather mediocre.

3. The 6 crimes? You tell me

4. No, it's not factual at all. Does the article support it with anything beyond an assertion? Complete nonsense.

5. No and no.

6. If they have, it's been done in private behind the scenes. It's possible, on the Italian side, that they're not even aware of the story.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could you help clarify some questions I have?

Were both statements, 1:45 and 5:45, ruled inadmissible because Amanda did not have representation during interrogation and had implicated herself as a suspect? The declarations were not used as evidence against her at trial (the exception being the slander trial of Patrick)?

When Amanda wrote the memorandum/s were they accepted into evidence at trial? If so, was the reason because she wasn't being interrogated and gave them of her own free will?

The first was ruled inadmissible because she was questioned as a witness and a witness statement cannot be used against the self. The second statement could not be used against her or anyone else in court, because she was a suspect and suspect statements can only be used in court if a lawyer was present. It is however legal, provided it was voluntary and can be used ro further the investigation.

The problem for Amanda, is despite those rulings, Amanda was charged with criminal slander for the accusations she made in those statements and that official charge of slander makes those statements admissible since they form the evidence for that charge. Since that charge is also related to the murder, they can also therefore be considered in terms of the verdict for the murder charge. As you can see, it's complicated.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Odeed,

I think you are ignoring several things. DNA forensic scientist Jason Gilder said, "One of the central axioms of DNA typing is that the presence of a DNA profile says nothing about the time frame or circumstances under which DNA was transferred to that item." It is worth recalling that Amanda’s DNA was found on Sollecito’s flat, and that it not surprising, either.

DNA can be deposited from handprints, footprints, hair, etc. It is known from DNA contamination studies that talking while you work in a DNA lab can contaminate a sample. I surmise that small numbers of epithelial cells are shed by talking or sneezing.

Halides1
.

None of which render complete profiles.

 

[odeed]

Odeed,

You wrote, "All the factors you mentioned are not uncommon, handprints, fingerprints, hair as well as the talking and sneezing, and would be present in the environments in the study, but extracting human DNA from the samples taken is a new technique, or else there would be no need to conduct the study." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5974035&postcount=14634

The study you cited was solely devoted to dust, and you seem to be generalizing from dust to other kinds of samples, including but not limited to fingerprints. DNA from fingerprints was first described in 1997 and 1998 (J.M. Butler, Forensic DNA Typing, p. 168, 2005). There have been some studies since then; the most recent one I found was in 2008, and this one showed that it was possible to recover the DNA, even after the fingerprint had been treated with ninhydrin or other chemicals used to detect latent fingerprints. The other chemicals lessened the amount of DNA recovered, but did not otherwise interfere with the DNA analysis.
Van Oorschot, R.A.H. and Jones M.K. (1997) Nature, 387, 767.
Van Hoofstat, D.E.O., et al., Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Human Identification, pp. 131-137, Madison, WI: Promega Corporation.
Sewell, J. et al., Forensic Science International: Genetics 2 (2008) 281–285

In addition, the dust in the study you cited came from classrooms or hallways. Thus it probably contained DNA from many individuals over a considerable length of time. This is relevant because degraded DNA shows a progressive loss of intensity from short to long alleles. These two factors would have made it more difficult to detect and to deconvolute a full profile from any single contributor, which was not the point of the study, anyway.

Halides1

If I am "generalizing from dust to other kinds of samples", then that is because I am addressing the general statement that Knox DNA was present because she shared the same living area, often repeated without any specifics to how the DNA was deposited or evidence for the claim.

If you want cite studies from fingerprints, these require a separate method to recover DNA from what I read, which I am not aware was performed on the mixed samples from the apartment.

A couple more things from what I read, the amount of DNA recovered from fingerprints is small and does not always reveal positive results, and you have already stated that you are not happy with low level DNA results, and it is a technique not widely used by forensic investigations (only the UK has used it from what I read), which I believe is another thing you were not happy about, so why make these exceptions in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Provide examples where a judge has had a difficult time conveying his instructions to the jury because of the term "reasonable doubt". And how does changing the label for the concept lessen any possible communication issue?

You're confusing a term or a concept with poor instructions and making the term a scapegoat for what is the judge's responsibility.

@Kevin_Lowe & Rose: Is it my imagination or did we all actually agree on something?

Read quadraginta's post to which I was originally replying/commenting. (S)he provides a good example of the very thing you're asking me for - and it was part of what prompted my reply in the first place. Quadraginta cited a UK case where the judge got into trouble on appeal exactly because he used the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in his jury instruction. It was instead ruled that the judge should have instructed something such as: "You cannot vote to convict unless you are sure of the defendant's guilt".

This judge clearly had a "difficult time" conveying his instructions to the jury because of the term "reasonable doubt", I'd argue.

By the way, I only offer this as a point of clarification. And not because I feel like engaging with you on any level

 

[Fulcanelli]

Read quadraginta's post to which I was originally replying/commenting. (S)he provides a good example of the very thing you're asking me for - and it was part of what prompted my reply in the first place. Quadraginta cited a UK case where the judge got into trouble on appeal exactly because he used the term "beyond reasonable doubt" in his jury instruction. It was instead ruled that the judge should have instructed something such as: "You cannot vote to convict unless you are sure of the defendant's guilt".

This judge clearly had a "difficult time" conveying his instructions to the jury because of the term "reasonable doubt", I'd argue.

By the way, I only offer this as a point of clarification. And not because I feel like engaging with you on any level

No, it's because justice systems now realise that the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not fit for purpose. The judge in question was obviously off message, hence why it formed the basis of an appeal.

 

[christianahannah]

The first was ruled inadmissible because she was questioned as a witness and a witness statement cannot be used against the self. The second statement could not be used against her or anyone else in court, because she was a suspect and suspect statements can only be used in court if a lawyer was present. It is however legal, provided it was voluntary and can be used ro further the investigation.

The problem for Amanda, is despite those rulings, Amanda was charged with criminal slander for the accusations she made in those statements and that official charge of slander makes those statements admissible since they form the evidence for that charge. Since that charge is also related to the murder, they can also therefore be considered in terms of the verdict for the murder charge. As you can see, it's complicated.

Yes, complicated, but if I learn the reasons behind the rulings and procedures a little less so.

PM Mignini was with Amanda during the time of the 5:45 statement. Why did he have Amanda speak knowing that without representation her statement would not be admissible? Was there the possibility it might have been admissible but was later ruled against for some reason? Was Amanda questioned by Mignini during the time of the 5:45 statement or did she give a speech without questions being asked?

Also, I noticed that in the 1:45 declaration Amanda vaguely remembers Patrick killing Meredith but doesn't make this same announcement in the 5:45 declaration.

 

[RWVBWL]

I really do love the the double standard with which Rudy is treated.QUOTE]
_________________________________________________________________

Come on Fulcanelli!!!
If your sister or Mother was found dead, with Rudy Guede's DNA inside her, and you knew that after she had died a horrible death, Rudy went out dancing at the clubs, would you defend the ******? Rudy Guede is a friggin' scumbag, in my opinion!

Many of us here on JREF find Rudy Guede's behavior horrible and disgusting, while I guess, maybe you do not...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Thank you, Agatha!
Sorry LashL, I did indeed swear under my breath...
I'll try to not do it again!
RWVBWL

 

[Agatha]

You'll need to completely mask that swearword or your post is likely to be modded, RWVBWL.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I really do love the the double standard with which Rudy is treated.QUOTE]
_________________________________________________________________

Come on Fulcanelli!!!
If your sister or Mother was found dead, with Rudy Guede's DNA inside her, and you knew that after she had died a horrible death, Rudy went out dancing at the clubs, would you defend the f*****? Rudy Guede is a friggin' scumbag, in my opinion!

Many of us here on JREF find Rudy Guede's behavior horrible and disgusting, while I guess, maybe you do not...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

I've no doubt Rudy was directly involved in the murder. That doesn't mean however, that we are then suddenly free to accuse him of any and every other crime on the planet on the basis of assumptions. If you want to convict him of a different crime, the same rigour applies to evidencing it as it does for the former. Just because he has been convicted of murder (and is indeed guilty of it), it doesn't mean all normal rules no longer apply.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, complicated, but if I learn the reasons behind the rulings and procedures a little less so.

PM Mignini was with Amanda during the time of the 5:45 statement. Why did he have Amanda speak knowing that without representation her statement would not be admissible? Was there the possibility it might have been admissible but was later ruled against for some reason? Was Amanda questioned by Mignini during the time of the 5:45 statement or did she give a speech without questions being asked?

Also, I noticed that in the 1:45 declaration Amanda vaguely remembers Patrick killing Meredith but doesn't make this same announcement in the 5:45 declaration.

Because at that point he had no reason to think Amanda was directly responsible for Meredith's murder. He wanted the person who was and wanted Amanda's information so he could apprehend him, get him off the streets and the rest needed to put them away would come when they were investigated. At the time, I suppose he was happy to sacrifice the ability to use Amanda's testimony in court because a) if she gave him what he needed to arrest the right person, subsequent investigation of that person would reveal all the evidence required to convict him and b) at that time, I doubt he suspected that Amanda would then change her statement as well and refuse to co-operate. So, he would have assumed, that he would be able to validate her testimony at a later time in the presence of a lawyer or/and put her on the stand in court as a witness. He believed her, for she'd given him no reason at that point not to. It was a gamble and looking at it logically, at the time, it was a fair one and in most cases would have worked out as intended. In hindsight, no doubt, Mignini would have done things differently.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
The other day I was having a lil' discussion with BobtheDonkey about Amanda Knox calling up Filomina Romanelli to tell her about the strange findings at their apartment, while she was possibly taking a break in the garden before finishing her clean up in the bathroom.

This morning before heading to the beach I read a post on InjusticeinPerugia and the poster said that Amanda Knox was wearing a white skirt when she was seen at the apartment the day that Miss Kercher's body was discovered.
If this is true, who in there right mind would plan to finish cleaning up a murder scene wearing a white skirt!
To clean up blood in a bathroom? You gotta be kidding me!

This is kind of another suprising twist about a supposedly conniving, manipulating young gal who mysteriously can seemingly convince her new boyfriend and a barely known possible drug dealer to help murder her roomate and then, a few days later, mislead the police into arresting an innocent man for that murder!
Sure...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Amanda's weak alibi broke the minute some hard questions were asked, why has it never broken again since then? And why has Raffaele's alibi never broken at all? These are not hardened criminals, they're not even kids with histories of lying or rule-breaking. They work so well under authority and within structures that both had plans to continue their educations beyond the college level. It seems to me that if the Italian police, trained in getting confessions out of lifelong Mafiosi, haven't been able to get these two to confess to the crime in the ensuing 2 1/2 years since their arrests, there is little hope of it ever happening.

It's extremely hard to keep a secret as horrible as having killed someone, especially if you are as tied to your families and communities as Amanda and Raffaele. I'm not sure about Raffaele, but Amanda doesn't seem like the secret-keeping type in the first place, as we can see by the amount of personal information we have about her life. It is unlikely either of them could hold on to such a serious lie for so long without having gone nuts by now.

It did. Are you seriously not aware of Amanda's December 2007 interview, in the presence of two of her lawyers? She was being interrogated by Mignini. He then asked her why she accused Patrick and she then burst into tears (with the shaking) and refused to answer. Mignini persisted with the question and Amanda's state grew worse, resulting in her lawyers halting the interrogation. Since then, Amanda refused to make any more statements or answer anymore questions (until she took the stand in the trial). Mignini said of it afterwards that he believes she was about to break right then and if it hadn't have been for her lawyers intervening, he would have gotten a full confession.


Because it was easy for him (Raffaele) not to break it. His out was to tell the police that Amanda left him while he stayed at home. His 'breaking' was blaming Amanda and dropping her alibi. He never broke again because he was never questioned again. Raffaele has never been questioned since the night of the 5th. He's fallen on his right to silence since that night.

How do you know the history of these kids? You've only got what their family and close friends have to say about them and what are they going to give, aside from a glowing reference?

I would like to get RWVBWL's opinion of Antonio Curatolo.

"Wheeled to the witness stand in an office chair, Curatolo, who has a long, gray beard and wore a coat, hat and scarf in court, said that he had been sleeping on a park bench in Perugia's Piazza Grimana for eight or nine years."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7197242&page=1

How much faith would you put in this guy's testimony, RWVBWL?

What answer are you fishing for...that Curatolo's rubbish because he sleeps on a bench?

This statement may be true, but it doesn't apply to Amanda and Raffaele, because neither of them lied emphatically, deliberately or repeatedly.

It's the way you tell 'em Mary!

 

[Fulcanelli]

you can add:

"and fair and honest people don't interrogate 20yr old foreign college students, for hours into the morning, without bringing in legal support for them, and then, without sleep since the morning before, ask them to sign legal documents concerning murder, that are written in a foreign language."

Oh, please! What are you saying, that no witness on the planet should be immediately assigned a lawyer by police (which actually is the stabdard), but if those witnesses happen to be 'students' and '20 years old' and 'foreign' they are to be given exceptional treatment and assigned lawyers toot sweet? When they start doing that in America, come back and whinge all about it to us then.

Without sleep? Save it. The police were done with Amanda at 1:45 am. She should have gone to sleep then, instead of pestering the police (and then maybe they could have got some sleep too). It's her own fault if she didn't want to wait until morning.