• 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.
RWVBWL said:
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
Click to expand...


Did they also happen to tell you what time Amanda put the white skirt 'on'?
 
christianahannah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Read this post, and each of the posts following it down to the end of the thread. It will give you an insight into the High Court's ruling on the statements (and other things): RAFAELLE: Q & A WITH THE SUPREME COURT

Also read: PROSECUTOR GIULIANO MIGNINI E-MAIL
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
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[/QUOTE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Originally posted by Fulcanelli:
Did they also happen to tell you what time Amanda put the white skirt 'on'?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi there Fulcanelli,
Actually, the poster did not say what time it was that Amanda Knox put her white skirt on...
Might it have been after she took her shower, before she went out on her planned day trip with her new boyfriend Raffaele?
Ya know, maybe she wanted to look "cute" for him?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I bet it wasn't when Miss Kercher was being discovered found dead,
but who knows, maybe I am wrong, maybe Amanda did a quick change to throw everyone "off the trail"...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

I am not sure that's what the case study explains, though. It explains that the use of moral certainty in instructions to the jury is questionable because of the change in our perceptions of what that means. The opinion recommends using abiding conviction of the truth of the charge without any qualifier.

Yet:

"Accordingly, we reject Sandoval's contention that the moral certainty element of the California instruction invited the jury to convict him on proof below that required by the Due Process Clause."

And this:

"We do not think it reasonably likely that the jury understood the words moral certainty either as suggesting a standard of proof lower than due process requires or as allowing conviction on factors other than the government's proof. At the same time, however, we do not condone the use of the phrase."

Nowhere do they recommend substituting reasonable doubt, moral certainty, or an abiding conviction (with or without moral certainty) with your phrase:

"You cannot vote to convict unless you are sure of the defendant's guilt."

----------

EDIT: Better find the original study of the UK case because it's quite different than the O'Connor opinion.
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL said:
Hi there Fulcanelli,
Actually, the poster did not say what time it was that Amanda Knox put her white skirt on...
Might it have been after she took her shower, before she went out on her planned day trip with her new boyfriend Raffaele?
Ya know, maybe she wanted to look "cute" for him?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I bet it wasn't when Miss Kercher was being discovered found dead,
but who knows, maybe I am wrong, maybe Amanda did a quick change to throw everyone "off the trail"...
Click to expand...

Or, just when she'd done cleaning up ;)
 
LondonJohn said:
This judge clearly had a "difficult time" conveying his instructions to the jury because of the term "reasonable doubt", I'd argue.
Click to expand...

I found the UK example:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

From there:

"Judges are advised by the Judicial Studies Board, as they have been for many years, to direct the jury that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they must be sure that the defendant is guilty."

So the judge in the UK case incorrectly advised the jury when he stated:

"You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt."

The jury returned to ask what that meant and the judge provided this explanation, which the Court of Appeal rejected:

"[J]uries can then become confused and think that 'sure' is the same as 'certain'."

The trial judge made a mistake in this distinction and not because of the use of the term reasonable doubt. If you read the entire appeal then it's clear that the trial judge acted inappropriately more than once during the course of events.
 
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Fulcanelli. The back story on question 1 is very interesting. As to questions 3 through 6, this article is full of holes and raises many more questions than it gives satisfactory answers to. Is there nobody on the innocent side of this case that resides in the UK? Even Mr. London John denies having that status. Still it is interesting the lack of support for this article from the innocent side of things. Do they think it is a load of rubbish and are afraid to say so?
 
mixed samples

odeed said:
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.
Click to expand...

Odeed,

You may be mistaking the chemical treatment to reveal latent fingerprints with a putative special DNA treatment. Fingerprints do not require anything special in the way of pretreatment to yield DNA.

Two samples from Sollecito's flat showed mixed DNA traces from Amanda and Raffaele. What is your interpretation of this result?

halides1
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Odeed,

You may be mistaking the chemical treatment to reveal latent fingerprints with a putative special DNA treatment. Fingerprints do not require anything special in the way of pretreatment to yield DNA.

Two samples from Sollecito's flat showed mixed traces from Amanda and Raffaele. What is your interpretation of this result?

halides1
Click to expand...


Going out on a limb here....their DNA was there?
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Odeed,

You may be mistaking the chemical treatment to reveal latent fingerprints with a putative special DNA treatment. Fingerprints do not require anything special in the way of pretreatment to yield DNA.

Two samples from Sollecito's flat showed mixed DNA traces from Amanda and Raffaele. What is your interpretation of this result?

halides1
Click to expand...

Actually their mixed DNA was in three samples: one on the bedroom floor and one on the bathroom floor, both being spots that reacted with luminol, and a pair of rubber gloves in the kitchen.
 
DNA deposits

Fulcanelli said:
Going out on a limb here....their DNA was there?
Click to expand...

Right, but Odeed seemed to doubt that such DNA deposits happened from simply living in a particular area. I suspect that no one knows exactly how the DNA got there, from hair, skin, or other tissue, but the fact is that the DNA is there. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that Raffaele's DNA and Amanda's DNA arrived there at the same time.
 
Mary_H said:
If Amanda's weak alibi broke the minute some hard questions were asked, why has it never broken again since then?
Click to expand...
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not only is the assertion that she refused to answer completely false, you have tried to obfuscate the details of that particular interrogation to make it seem as though Amanda somehow broke her alibi, which she did not do. Yes, Amanda started to cry, but that is not tantamount to breaking her alibi. You say that she refused to answer Mignini when he asked her why she accused Patrick and this is false. Luckily that interrogation was recorded and broadcast on Italian TV. In it we hear her being asked why she accused Patrick, her explanation, and her starting to cry as she recounts the ordeal that the interrogation on the night of the 5th was. IT IS CLEAR that she starts to cry, not because she can't explain why she accused Patrick, but because of her bewilderment at LE's treatment of her during the November 5th interrogation.

Here is a transcription of that interrogation from the television program that aired it, particularly the part where she is asked about Patrick. There may be a question or answer missing in between the part where she talks about Patrick and the part where she cries since those parts were aired out of sequence, but what's obvious either way is that SHE DID NOT BREAK HER ALIBI OR REFUSE TO ANSWER WHY SHE ACCUSED PATRICK.


Amanda Knox Interrogation December 17th

AK: The reason I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick. They told me about - they kept saying, “His message , you sent a message to Patrick”.

GM: [Perche lei si e lanciata in un accusa di questo tipo?”] Google translation: Because you launched in to an accusation of this type?

AK: Because I thought it might be true.

GM: How could it be true?

AK: I said that because I had imagined him. Police were telling me that “We know you were at your house. We know you left the house.” Someone was showing me the message that I was sent on the phone. I couldn’t understand why they were telling me that I was lying”...

..."I was stressed. I was scared. It was after long hours. It was the middle of the night. (starts to cry) I was innocent and they were telling me I was guilty.

GM: We acknowledge that the suspect is crying.


Anyone can watch the video and see for themselves.

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/.../71545/rewind---delitto-di-perugia---iii.html
 
RoseMontague said:
Thanks for the info, Fulcanelli. The back story on question 1 is very interesting. As to questions 3 through 6, this article is full of holes and raises many more questions than it gives satisfactory answers to. Is there nobody on the innocent side of this case that resides in the UK? Even Mr. London John denies having that status. Still it is interesting the lack of support for this article from the innocent side of things. Do they think it is a load of rubbish and are afraid to say so?
Click to expand...

They're politically astute enough to know to distance themselves from that which could be as dangerous as that article. They're walking a tightrope there. Of course, they've always blamed Guede from the very beginning. That article ups the anti. Look upon Graham's article as a toe in the water...a test to see what the feedback is, positive or negative. He's nothing to lose anyway, he just wants that jailhouse interview and Marriott will let him have it if he plays ball. Whether the judge will allow it is a different matter. Either way, the upside (for Marriott) is it will have thrown some dirt on Rudy and that's the name of the game.
 
Malkmus said:
Not only is the assertion that she refused to answer completely false, you have tried to obfuscate the details of that particular interrogation to make it seem as though Amanda somehow broke her alibi, which she did not do. Yes, Amanda started to cry, but that is not tantamount to breaking her alibi. You say that she refused to answer Mignini when he asked her why she accused Patrick and this is false. Luckily that interrogation was recorded and broadcast on Italian TV. In it we hear her being asked why she accused Patrick, her explanation, and her starting to cry as she recounts the ordeal that the interrogation on the night of the 5th was. IT IS CLEAR that she starts to cry, not because she can't explain why she accused Patrick, but because of her bewilderment at LE's treatment of her during the November 5th interrogation.

Here is a transcription of that interrogation from the television program that aired it, particularly the part where she is asked about Patrick. There may be a question or answer missing in between the part where she talks about Patrick and the part where she cries since those parts were aired out of sequence, but what's obvious either way is that SHE DID NOT BREAK HER ALIBI OR REFUSE TO ANSWER WHY SHE ACCUSED PATRICK.
Click to expand...

Thanks for giving the facts to correct another one of Fulcanelli's misstatements, Malkmus. With a reference too - good work.

I'm sure he will just pretend this never happened, like every other time he has been caught misstating the facts, but that doesn't matter if it's all recorded here.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Right, but Odeed seemed to doubt that such DNA deposits happened from simply living in a particular area. I suspect that no one knows exactly how the DNA got there, from hair, skin, or other tissue, but the fact is that the DNA is there. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that Raffaele's DNA and Amanda's DNA arrived there at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well it's not from hair or skin (at least, not from shed skin). It's either from abrasive physical contact...or bodily fluids.
 
Fulcanelli said:
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
Click to expand...


Thank you for the citations. I'm not sure it is accurate to say Guede's lawyers sued The Seattle Times. I haven't been able to open the first link because there is a problem with the security certifcate, but the title of its article seems to be, "Kercher suspect's lawyer may sue." The second article quotes Biscotti as saying, "We have already initiated contacts with U.S. firm to file a complaint against the newspaper that published the article..."

Maybe the threat of the lawsuit was enough to get media outlets to change their ways, but so far I don't see any evidence of Guede's lawyers actually "filing suit in Italy for alander against the Seattle Times," as you wrote in Post #14454.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom