Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

Your splitting hairs. Whether they actually filed suit or not isn't the point, the fact is Rudy's lawyers were incensed because the description wasn't true and the story they were going to sue was covered by several different outlets and as a result the media got the message, for a time referring to Guede as a former gardener' or similar, rather then petty criminal or drug dealer.

No, whether or not they filed suit isn't the point, The point was whether you were posting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or dressing it up a bit.

 

[Mary_H]

I see, some people should just know their place and not testify against their betters, right?

Typical Fulcanelli straw man.

I'll take the honour and decency of a homeless man over that of a pair of entitled and over privileged murdering liars any day.

What makes you think all homeless men are honorable and decent?

Correction: What makes you think this particular homeless man was honorable and decent?

 

[HumanityBlues]

No, whether or not they filed suit isn't the point, The point was whether you were posting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or dressing it up a bit.

They didn't file suit. I just checked the public record. Good night.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No, whether or not they filed suit isn't the point, The point was whether you were posting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or dressing it up a bit.

...says the girl who interests herself in posting bare assertions more than not...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They didn't file suit. I just checked the public record. Good night.

In all fairness, a strongly worded letter from an Attorney could be why. I agree that Fulcanelli originally overstated the position, however, the point remains that a libel suit was threatened and this caused the media to change their descriptions of Guede.

 

[Mary_H]

...says the girl who interests herself in posting bare assertions more than not...

How dare you mention my bare assertions, you cad!

 

[HumanityBlues]

In all fairness, a strongly worded letter from an Attorney could be why. I agree that Fulcanelli originally overstated the position, however, the point remains that a libel suit was threatened and this caused the media to change their descriptions of Guede.

The logistics would be a nightmare anyways. It would never happen. Not to mention I don't think Guede could really afford to pay a civil attorney in the U.S.

 

[LondonJohn]

Re: the two AK statements/confessions/accusations (call them what you will...) from 6th Nov which were ruled inadmissible.

I wonder whether AK's defence team actually debated whether THEY THEMSELVES should introduce these statements in trial. In my opinion, it's not as stupid an idea as it might first appear. I'd argue this with the following train of thought:

1) AK's lawyers knew two things up front: the statements were already in the public domain; and they were likely to be heard by the judicial panel in court anyway by virtue of the concurrent slander trial.

2) Therefore, trying to ignore them was futile and - more importantly - would probably indicate to the judicial panel that the statements were regarded by AK's defence as damaging to their client.

3) As a result of (1) and (2) above, AK's defence team might have seriously considered "coming out strong" about these statements.

4) While - on the face of it - the confessions/accusations are damaging (or even, arguably, damning) to AK, I think the defence could have argued that they were extremely odd statements, made under potential extreme duress.

5) This could then have opened the door for a stronger defence argument about coercion/suggestion/other police misconduct. They could also have argued to the court that AK's accusation against Lumumba had no compelling logical explanation (and could also, of course, have noted AK's subsequent retraction and apology, for what it was worth).

My personal belief is that - despite the obvious and inherent risks - AK's lawyers SHOULD have "gone on the offensive" over these statements. To try to minimise their existence and/or relevance, given that they were ALREADY out there, could (in my view) ONLY be seen by the judicial panel as attempted suppression of damaging anti-AK evidence. And from there, the judicial panel could reasonably conclude that these confessions/accusations WERE ONLY of a damaging nature to AK.

 

[Mary_H]

In all fairness, a strongly worded letter from an Attorney could be why. I agree that Fulcanelli originally overstated the position, however, the point remains that a libel suit was threatened and this caused the media to change their descriptions of Guede.

I could be argumentative and suggest that we have no evidence that the media actually changed their behavior based on the threat of a lawsuit from Mr. Biscuits (as Google calls him), but the hour grows late. I am going to put my bare assertions into their pajamas and hit the hay.

I do want to thank stilicho for yesterday's Word of the Day: "Scootable." Filed away for future use.

 

[LondonJohn]

They didn't file suit. I just checked the public record. Good night.

Interesting. But of course this doesn't change the situation where one poster was arguing that a suit had been filed - when in fact the evidence to hand showed merely that a suit was "considering" being filed - which is a TOTALLY different ball game.

After all, I could issue a press release today (which nobody would bother to read, it's true...) which stated that I was investigating the issuance of a libel suit against The Madagascar Tribune newspaper for astonishing allegations that they had made about my business ethics and sexual preferences. But until and unless I actually formally issued these proceedings, my press release would carry no legal weight or import whatsoever. Same in the "RG drug dealer" case.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, may I suggest that the next legal term for discussion in our short series (following "straw man" and "circular reasoning") might be "Ad hominem arguments". It's a very interesting area - and one about which I'm sure many people here have plenty of knowledge and experience....

 

[Fulcanelli]

This post is for Stilicho. He made comments about this list that was compiled to try and discredit my website. I had some time so I broke down the list. This is an extremely weak attempt to discredit me. I am actually surprised that a list this weak would even be posted.

From The Machine (Harry Rag) Here are some Bruce Fisher's factual inaccuracies:

1. "Mignini sold this ridiculous story to a jury and they bought it."

Bruce: If I remember correctly, Amanda and Raffaele were convicted. This is a true statement.

Michael: Then why not simply state it that way on your site? Why the hyperbole?

2. Mignini already had a history of dreaming up "satanic ritualistic murder fantasies".

Bruce: This is a true statement. Read The Monster of Florence.

Michael: This is a lie. Peddled by the FOA (that's who wrote the book). Mignini never had Satanic theories. The Monster of Florence case was evidenced to have been carried out by individuals involved in a cult. However, Mignini did not investigate the MOF case. He investigated the Narducci case and he claimed no Satanic theories for it.

3. Mignini already had a "past history of corruption".

Bruce: This is a true statement. Read The Monster of Florence.

Michael: This is a lie, see my response above to #2.

4. "The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal."

Bruce: The Italian supreme court ruled that portions of Amanda's interrogation were illegal because she did not have an attorney present. Italy may not use the term "Illegal" as we do in the US.

Michael: Yet another blatant lie. The statements were never ruled 'illegal' by the High Court, they only ruled how they could or could not be used. No law was broken. Both of Amanda's statements were perfectly legal under Italian law.

5. Amanda Knox was questioned for 14 hours.

Bruce: Amanda was questioned for many hours in the days leading up to her arrest. This statement is not on the site however.

Michael: Then change your site to state that and remove the '14 hours' crap. That has been put there for no other reason then to mislead readers into thinking Amanda was interrogated for 14 hours straight on the night of her interrogation. That is a flat out lie.

6. "Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation, twenty year old college student Amanda Knox gave in to the interrogators demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda stated that she described a vision.

Michael: This is false. On the stand Amanda admitted she had simply 'omagined' it (that means lied). She was also given food and drinks.

7. "Amanda consistently told the same story over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda repeatedly told the police the same story leading up to the 5th.

Michael: False. Simply read Massei to see all the parts of her story she constantly changed.

8. "Physical force was also used on Amanda and she was lied to intentionally to make her believe the police had evidence against her."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Amanda was hit. I know we disagree. I believe Amanda.

Michael: Then it is false to state it as fact. You should make it clear it is simply Amanda's claim and it is your 'opinion' that it is true. To state it as having been a fact is false.

9. "One technique is to ask the suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. The interrogators feed the information that they want the suspect to imagine. Over long a long drawn out interrogation, the suspect gets confused and starts trying to comply with the request being made to imagine the scenarios. This is exactly what they did to Amanda Knox."

Bruce: This is a true statement. This is a very common interrogation tactic.

Michael: Common, it may or may not be (that's a separate debate). But to state it as fact as being what happened in this case is to mislead. It is no more then an assertion from you.

10. "It's possible the investigators were also targeting Lumumba because of the African hair that may have been found at the scene. Lumumba, of course, was African."

Bruce: This was taken out of context. The Machine (Harry Rag) likes to do this. PMF applauds him for it. Here is what the site says:

It was reported that Investigators found hair at the crime seen believed to belong to an African male. This was mentioned in early reporting but was never mentioned at trial. As it turns out, the hair could have belonged to Meredith.
It's possible the investigators were also targeting Lumumba because of the African hair that may have been found at the scene. Lumumba, of course, was African.

Michael: Prove it and provide the report. This is merely yet another false assertion from you.


11. "The finger prints pointed to a known criminal. This criminal was an African male named Rudy Guede."

Bruce: This is a true statement. Rudy Guede was then and still is a criminal and he is African.

Michael: it has already been made clear to you Rudy had no criminal record. Therefore, to call him a known criminal is to lie.

12. “A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife.”

Bruce: This is a true statement. The knife tested negative for blood.

Michael: The sample on the knife was all used up in the testing foir DNA, leaving nothing to be tested for blood. To twist this into a statement of fact that there was no blood on the knife is deceitful.

13. "There was no DNA on the blade."

Bruce: This sentence was pulled out of a paragraph discussing the testing done on the knife before the low copy DNA testing was done. PMF should be embarrased to be using these tactics to try and discredit me. Here is what I actually said:

Italian forensic police expert Patrizia Stefanoni performed the DNA testing on the knife. When the knife was tested, Amanda's DNA was found on the handle. This was expected because Amanda often prepared meals at Raffaele's apartment. She used the knife for cooking.

A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife. This needs to be repeated,

THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE KNIFE.

What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA.. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade.

Michael: Wrong way round. The sample was tested for DNA first and was sacrified for that test. This left nothing on the blade to test for blood and this is why it was negative. Yo state emphatically that there was no blood on the knife is false, since it cannot be known one way or another.

14. "The DNA found on the knife came from the lab."

Bruce: This is my opinion. Here is another sentence that The Machine (Harry Rag) plucked out of a paragraph. This is a really poor attempt to discredit a website.

Michael: Then you need to make it clear it is only your 'opinion', rather then deceiving your readers that it is a fact.

15. "No other knives were taken from Raffaele's apartment."

Bruce: No other knives were taken from the kitchen. There was one more knife in the drawer. Neither of the knives looked like murder weapons so why not test them both? I looked at the video repeatedly and it is impossible to tell if the second knife had a tip or if it was rounded. It doesn't matter anyway. Other items should have been tested from that drawer as a control.

Michael: Then you need to make that clear on your site. And while you're about it, you can also inform your readership that there were actually no other knives to take .

16. "The outside shutters were open."

Bruce: The Machine (Harry Rag) likes to pull sentences out of paragraphs. Why not post the entire paragraph? Anyway, The shutters did not close properly and Filomena did not rmemebr if she had closed them. Either way, it would have taken Guede seconds to hop up and open the shutters and than jump back down to the ground and throw the rock.

Michael: Why do you misrepresent Filomena? To do so is to lie. Filomena mad absolutely clear, with certainty, that she closed the shutters. This was in the section of the Massei Report I posted. To continue to ignore that is evidence that yoi have no intention of being honest.

17. "They never photographed any glass on top of the clothes."

Bruce: I have not seen any photographs of glass on top of the clothes. This is not an important statement because the clothes were on the floor before the window was broken. The clothes were not there from a staged break in. They were there because Filomena left them there. Filomena's room was not clean. She left clothes on the floor.

Michael: This is pure misinformation. To continue to accuse Filomena of messing up her own room is not only false, but low and dishonourable.

18. "There was absolutely no proof presented in court showing any clean up."

Bruce: This is a true statement. It was insinuated that the luminol testing proved there was a clean up. This is completely false. There was no evidence pointing to Amanda and Raffaele so they must have cleaned it up. That is the prosecution's position. There was no proof of any clean up presented in court.

Michael: How can you state this as an absolute truth when you were never yourself in court? As it happens, it's completely false. Evidence of a clean-up WAS presented in court and that is a FACT.

19. "The clasp was not discovered until 47 days had passed."

Bruce: The Machine (Harry Rag) is insinuating that I worded this improperly. He will say that the clasp was discovered along with the bra but the investigators decided to leave it on the floor. Either way, my point is very clear. The clasp was not handled properly by the investigators.

Michael: Then you should reword your statement so it reflects accuracy. As for the calsp not being handled properly by investigators this has not been evidenced and is no more then opinion.

20. "In the 47 days that the clasp was on the floor it was moved around the room and ended up in a pile of garbage."

Bruce: This is a true statement. I have the video showing the clasp in different locations. I also have the video showing the investigators retrieving it from a pile of garbage.

Michael: This is a FALSE statement. It wasn't in a pile of 'garbage', it was under Meredith's things. Her things are not garbage! And to say 'garbage' is misleading since it leads the reader to think the clasp was in the contents from a dust bin and that is outright false!

21. "There is no evidence whatsoever placing Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in the room at the time of Meredith's murder."

Bruce: This is a true statement. The Machine(Harry Rag) is still spreading lies about the shoe prints in the murder room. It has been proven that all shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, in the murder room, belong to Rudy Guede. The clasp is not credible evidence. So, like I said, There is no evidence whatsoever placing Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito in the room at the time of Meredith's murder.

Michael. Yet another lie. The clasp, the footprints, and the lamp along with evidence of the presence of multiple persons (via Meredith's injuries) has all been presented. Whether you agree with the evidence is a completely different matter, but that is opinion and should be made clear as such.

22. "So in conclusion, the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and many other people that visited the apartment."

Bruce: This is what my site actually says: So in conclusion, the bra clasp tested positive for the DNA of Raffaele and most likely several other people that visited the cottage. In other words, the bra clasp proves nothing.

Michael: Yet again this is false. It tested positive only for Meredith and Raffaele. A positive is a viable profile., there were no other viable profiles on the clasp. If you wanted to say there were partial profiles of three other people, that would be correct as would, to say several other people. But to state 'many other people' is deliberately misleading.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, whether or not they filed suit isn't the point, The point was whether you were posting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or dressing it up a bit.

I really don't see the point you're trying to make. It seems you are simply trying to score points, points for the sake of it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Typical Fulcanelli straw man.

Is that not then your attitude?

What makes you think all homeless men are honorable and decent?

Correction: What makes you think this particular homeless man was honorable and decent?

What makes you think Curatolo isn't?

He was examined in court. The court found him reliable. If you have any direct evidence that he isn't, aside from generalisations about homeless people, then provide it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Interesting. But of course this doesn't change the situation where one poster was arguing that a suit had been filed - when in fact the evidence to hand showed merely that a suit was "considering" being filed - which is a TOTALLY different ball game.

After all, I could issue a press release today (which nobody would bother to read, it's true...) which stated that I was investigating the issuance of a libel suit against The Madagascar Tribune newspaper for astonishing allegations that they had made about my business ethics and sexual preferences. But until and unless I actually formally issued these proceedings, my press release would carry no legal weight or import whatsoever. Same in the "RG drug dealer" case.

You are splitting hairs. Whether a suit was actually filed or threatened was never my point. My point was simply that Guede's lawyers took action and this action, albeit temporarily, had an effect on the media and caused them to actually be honest for a while.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amazer wrote: "I believe people take issue with your statement because it gives the impression that there were more knives in that drawer that could have been murder weapons."

It is very possible that there was. We do not have a completed picture of the knife that was left in the drawer. It could be a round edge bread knife or it could have a pointed tip. We don't know because it wasn't taken out and tested.

So because you don't know, you assume the police also didn't, then assert it as fact. Why should that knife have been taken out and tested? It has a serated edge, bread knife or not. Meredith was not murdered with a serated blade. The police knew this.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Odd that Curatolo didn't hear the scream or the running that Cappezzali heard, or see any sign of Rudy that night. Sounds like the prosecutors were trying to cover all their bases.

Why would Curatolo have heard it? He wasn't in an apartment overlooking the cottage or in the road outside, he was right over in Piaza Grimana!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why should Mignini regret what he did and want to do things differently? Everything turned out just fine for him -- he knew the system and he knew he couldn't lose. Just get Amanda's statements into the press before (or if) the Supreme Court had time to disallow them.

It's odd to say Mignini believed Amanda, "for she'd given him no reason at that point not to." In fact, about 90% of what she said and wrote that morning pointed to her not being at the crime scene, not being able to remember things clearly, and not being sure of anything she had said during the interrogation. That 90% was a LOT of reasons not to believe the other 10%.

If he ended up knowing he couldn't lose, it was because of the strong evidence he had amassed, not because of the system.

What Amanda wrote the next morning was a transparent attempt to cover her arse, because she knew she'd told a load of lies!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi stilicho,
That was a pretty cool story you have linked. Thanks for the read.
However, the one thing I wonder about it would be the timing of when John went and gave this information to the police.
It sounds like he did it right away, and the police used that info to track down "Matt Ford".
Informing the police right away is what I would think that a "true" witness would do, homeless or not...

And I do not believe that Mr. Curatolo did this with regards to the murder of Miss Kercher.
Please correct me if I am wrong,
RWVBWL

Completely false. It is very common for witnesses to come forward a long time after the crime, for a variety of reasons. There is no time limit in law on witnesses.

The fact is, he was examined by the court and was found to be reliable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Small footnote in the whole area of sub-judice:

In the UK right now, a man has just been charged (last night, I think) with the murders of three women ("street workers" in the euphemistic parlance). Somehow, the media had got wind of his name and background following his arrest but pre-charges being brought. The tabloid media loved the fact that it's seemingly been established that the suspect is a mature PhD student in criminology - with a possible extrapolation that he "specialises" in serial killers.

Anyway, the man was charged last night (or around then). Following the issuance of criminal charges, the media are only supposed to report his name, address and details of the charges - and even then only within the following day. After that, there should be total media silence about the suspect, save for unemotional reporting of pre-trial hearings in court (e.g. further remand hearings, case & general management hearings, plea hearings).

But....the Sun newspaper has this morning run with a number of potentially very pejorative stories about this man. They quote a "friend" who allegedly watched him eat a live rat, and also report how the suspect was dubbed "lizard man" by neighbours. I would argue that this reporting is directly in breach of sub-judice laws, and might very well land The Sun in hot water. The Sun has a significant recent history of trying to push back against sub-judice laws, since its stock-in-trade is salacious stories, rumour-mongering, and celebrity gossip. I will personally be interested in what might or might not happen in this instance....