Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary

Again, it seems to me that certain posters (not you) are falling back on underhand "tactics" to try to attack other posters' arguments. I cannot be bothered responding to them, and nor do I think there's anything to be gained (for ANYONE) by engaging with them. And, in passing, it seems that they think that if they repeat phrases such as "spam list" enough times (without ANY qualification that this is only their opinion, I might add), then the wider community will somehow accept them as fact via some sort of osmosis. Sad and strange, in my view.

However, in response to you, I can understand why AK felt the need to send the "round robin" email. But I still think that she was wrong to actually send it - at least with some of the contents it included. I'd mitigate my belief by saying that she most likely didn't feel that she herself was under suspicion at the time of writing the email, and therefore might have felt free to say anything she liked. But, then again, she must have realised the general "heat" that was going down around that time, and that many people were probably under the broad umbrella of suspicion (in that they might not have been completely exonerated by that time).

So I'd argue, on balance, that she should have been more careful about writing down details related to the investigation - especially since she'd apparently been asked by the police not to discuss her interviews with anyone (apart from, presumably, a lawyer at her discretion). In my view, she could instead have written an email discussing in non-specific terms what was going on, and about how she felt (again, in non-specific terms) about things. I believe she made a mistake in referring directly to her police questioning.

Do you mean you think she made a mistake that was not in her best interest?

 

[RWVBWL]

Everyone they phoned seemed to think there had been a serious crime committed. Excepting the woman they murdered, of course, who obviously could not answer her phone. Edda Mellas testified that she told Amanda to call the police and she wasn't there. Vanessa Sollecito told Raffaele to call the police. Filomena Romanelli told Amanda to phone them. They weren't there either.

The only people who were there and didn't think it was important to call the police were honours student Amanda and computer science major Raffaele.

Your last paragraph is revealing because it's exactly what most people would find acceptable. If Amanda and Raffaele were the murderers then they would not call the police. They would call other people first to involve them in the discovery of their crime.

Hi stilicho,
I can understand how you might see things your way.
Amanda's Mother would obviously be concerned about many things, since her eldest daughter was living in a far away town without her "Motherly" protection and would say to call the police.
As time passed and more strange occurrances were discovered, Filomena Romanelli was called and since she was the "head of the household", so to speak, from what I have read, she would be especially concerned and it makes sense that she would say to call the police.
As time passed and more strange occurrances were discovered, Vanessa Sollecito was called and since she worked for the police, she too would say to call the police.

In further reply, I have 2 things to consider, if you feel like reading of my opinion.

If Amanda and her boyfriend had gotten stoned that morning, that would be a HUGE factor in her just trying to figure things out that might have happened at the girls apartment AND since she did not know that a brutal murder had taken place, why would she call the police?

When I first saw the photographs of it, the bathroom that Amanda Knox showered in that morning did not give me any impression that a brutal, bloody murder had occurred in the apartment overnight, and that a young womans dead body was in the room right next door.

The 2nd opinion I have is that since it was daylight, and since there where some odd happenings that Miss Knox noticed at their communal apartment, well maybe she just tried to figure things out first. Wouldn't you?
She being the eldest child, as I am too, would I bet, probably just wanna figure it out.

Let's see, after sleeping overnight at your new boyfriends place, you come home to your communal living place of residence and see your door open at 10:30am.
1) Do you call the police immediately?
2) Or see if anyone is home and go about your business since you probably have plans?

You go to take a shower quickly to get ready for a daytime date with your new boyfriend, and then notice a little blood around the place.
1) Do you then call the police immediately?
2) Or assume your housemate cut herself and went to get help?
3) Or, being all women who lived there, believe that a housemate had menstral issues?
3A) If so do you clean it up?
3B) Or leave it for the person who left it there to clean up?

When you see that someone left a pile of poo in the other toilet,
1) Do you call the police?
2) Or flush the toilet?
3) Or leave it for the person who left it to flush it themselves?

In my opinion stilicho, it is simply human nature to try a figure things out, as I did the last time someone broke into the back of my truck and stole a surfboard, my skateboard, and my wetsuit overnight awhile back. I knew a crime against me had been committed, but I did not call the police for an hour or so, instead calling my buddy, who's surfboard was snagged, and we discussed the crime. Only later, did I drive to the police station after calling them first. And I wasn't stoned.
Yet still I knew that this was going to disrupt my morning plans, which it did by taking over an hour for the fingerprint police officer to finish her work.

I'm glad that you, stilicho, did not examine that crime scene, you might have even thought that I did it, probably for insurance reasons! My alibi wouldn't have helped, for I had slept alone. Kidding aside, I will say, once more that it sometimes appears that some folks here find many, many things very sinister as they examine the motives, alibi's and evidence in the murder of Miss Kercher. But that's my opinion only...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

But I thought that the Italian police forensic experts were INCAPABLE of making mistakes

Hi LondonJohn,
As I wrote of this earlier:
"I had read this on Perugia Shock a while back and it does appear that there was a mistake, (another 1 of many done, I feel, in this murder case), that shows the results of Miss Kerchers BAC to be incorrect:

"Alcohol level: As I thought, there was a mistake. Nobody said "I made that mistake," but it seems that the blood sample was kept in a container with some residual alcohol, which is why the second analysis was abnormal. So, the rate of 0.43 found by the University of Perugia is confirmed. Meredith was not drunk."

this part that Frank Sfarzo wrote stuck out like a sore thumb:
"Nobody said "I made that mistake," but it seems that the blood sample was kept in a container with some residual alcohol," etc...

Another simple mistake, one of many, but no one admits they made a mistake. Face saving, perhaps?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

Wouldn't those prints at least be from after the time the floor was last cleaned by the females in the cottage? If so, does anyone have any idea when the women in the cottage last swabbed the floor?

No, because the girls never used cleaning products that contained bleach. This testimony was given in the trial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli does not know what the defense strategy will be. He read a couple of articles on the subject. I honestly do not know what Raffael's lawyers will do. They fought very strongly for Amanda during the trial so I would ignore any rumors of separation. Other than that. it is a wait and see situation.

I do know the basic strategy of Amanda's defense. She is innocent and that will become even more clear on appeal. Her defense team will present a very strong argument. We are currently working on the break down of Amanda's appeal. I will post the relevant points on the Injustice site this week.

What, as opposed to not presenting a very strong argument during the main trial?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Originally Posted by Fiona
Stewart Home, posting at PMF, does not agree with LondonJohn's assertion. It is possible to read his post in a way which denies his claim, so it is not definitive, but for what it is worth this is what he says (writing in response to somethink on Perugia Shock, I gather)
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtop...lo+masks#p7517

To me this states quite clearly that Stewart Home was in Perugia on Nov 1st, 2007 and that there were "tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes, still"
__________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
Is the key word here not the word "still"? Does that word not imply that these masks and costumes were a hangover in some way from the night before? And if so, why would people still be wearing masks and costumes from the previous might's festivities, and/or why would they have put them on again?

And where were all these kids in masks and costumes going on the night of the 1st November? After all, we know that on the 31st October the kids in masks/costumes were mostly going to Halloween parties in the local bars (or perhaps in people's houses). Were there also Halloween parties on 1st November? I don't think so. And they almost certainly wouldn't have been going to "All Saints' Day" parties.

Maybe the PMF "man on the ground" COULD be coloured in some way in his recollection......? However, if there's truly independent (and reliable) verification that significant numbers of people were indeed walking round Perugia on the evening of 1st November wearing masks and costumes, then I will happily apologise, correct and retract.......
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi LondonJohn,
With regards to this debate between Fiona and yourself, I wonder why I have not found any mention by Miss Allesandra Formica of masked kids in costume on the night of the murder of Miss Kercher.
Miss Formica, who went to the police soon ater the murders of her own free will, without the "help" of newspaper journalists, is pretty credible, in my opinion.
She simply states that her guyfriend was bumped by a person of colour who did not want to be seen.
I would have thought that Miss Formica, during her court testimony would have also made mention of the many kids in masks and costumes still out and about if that was the case that night.

Lastly, I would think that if it still a night of masks and costumes, that this person whom Miss Formica testified in trial that she saw, who might be someone involved in this murder, would have been in a mask too, to better conceal his identity...
Hmmm?
RWVBWL

Why should she have? She knew exactly what the date was. The only reason Curatolo mentioned it was because he didn't know the actual date, so had to provide the context to show which day it actually was (eg. the night after everyone was going around in costume and the night before the police showed up and were going around asking questions and were at the cottage...Nara had to do the same thing as she didn't know the exact date either).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Personally, I find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE that Mr. Curatolo can "remember" that he did arrive at 9:27 or 9:28pm and that he saw Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox that particular night. I also find it very hard to believe that Mr. Curatolo did not "remember" that eyewitness accounts are very important and that he should go and tell that information to the police when he saw them doing their investigation into Miss Kercher's murder later on that day. This is from a former witness in a murder trial back in 2001? Come on!

Why? He's homeless, not brain dead.

 

[snook1]

Its sick that DailyMail still calls Amanda "Foxy". Disgrace.

 

[Fulcanelli]

However I find it hard to believe that a guy who has testified before in another murder trial would not even approach them as they worked and give them the info that he saw 2 people loitering near the apartment last night, who were not wearing masks and costumes, and that he even knew what time it was, since he wore his watch...

Why? People are meant to loiter in parks, that's what they're for. That's why people put benches there...so people can sit down while they loiter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Its sick that DailyMail still calls Amanda "Foxy". Disgrace.

Why? The Daily Mail didn't give her the name...Amanda did.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks RWVBWL- This quote is interesting too -

A second surprise we had today was that the blood alcohol count of Meredith went from 0.43 grams/liter to 2.3 grams/liter. Which means from having half a glass of wine or one glass of beer to potentially being in an alcohol-induced coma.
The new results were revealed by a Panorama blog, which obtained them from the consultants of Gip Matteini --Professor Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, Dr Anna Aprile, and Dr Mariano Cingolani-- who repeated the toxicology tests.
We await confirmation because someone here has made a mistake: was it the first lab, the Gip's consultants or the journalist for Panorama?

It was a mistake. We can drop it now.

 

[Fulcanelli]

All of Amanda's memories of what happened after Meredith's body was discovered are clearer than her memories from before. As she wrote at the end of her e-mail, "...I'm trying to remember what I was doing before all this happened." Having your roommate murdered would tend to focus your attention much more strongly on the present than on the past.

I don't agree that it was wrong for Amanda to send the e-mail. As I wrote before, it's a good thing she did, so we have at least a little bit of a record of what was going on in the days before the interrogation. What she wrote about was certainly important, interesting and harmless enough to share with the people in her life who are important to her.

Important or not, she shouldn't have written it. She was specifically told to keep it confidential. Clearly, you have a problem grasping that concept.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you mean you think she made a mistake that was not in her best interest?

Yes. Absolutely and exclusively that. I didn't mean, for example, that I thought she made a factual or interpretational mistake.

 

[christianahannah]

Important or not, she shouldn't have written it. She was specifically told to keep it confidential. Clearly, you have a problem grasping that concept.

Was the email entered into evidence at Amanda's trial and was its content compared with her prior statements to police?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Was the email entered into evidence at Amanda's trial and was its content compared with her prior statements to police?

Yes, it was.

 

[RoseMontague]

I like the new "look".

http://media.komonews.com/images/100601_Amanda_Knox.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/95312009.html

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I like the new "look".

http://media.komonews.com/images/100601_Amanda_Knox.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/95312009.html

I agree, hair wise, but she appears to be putting on wieght, no? TJMK has a fuller shot, maybe thats the one you hotlinked to.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am in Perugia picking up some fascinating information. I have confirmed that lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele requested DNA testing on the semen stain found on the pillow underneath Meredith's body. The court denied the request on the grounds that the test is not necessary because Meredith had an active sex life and so the stain is not relevant to the case. I'd be interested to hear what the group thinks about this decision.

 

[Fine]

"Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques."
Wow. For a guy who earned his Ph.D just three years ago he sure has a lot of specialties in very diverse fields. Or did he become expert in all those fields during his former lives? One thing we can all conclude.........in his present life he doesn't suffer from low self-esteem.

///

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am in Perugia picking up some fascinating information. I have confirmed that lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele requested DNA testing on the semen stain found on the pillow underneath Meredith's body. The court denied the request on the grounds that the test is not necessary because Meredith had an active sex life and so the stain is not relevant to the case. I'd be interested to hear what the group thinks about this decision.

Not much, I have to agree with the court...it's not really relevant.

However, you've been rather naughty there...referring to it as a 'semen stain' like a fact. Nobody knows 'what' it is. It could 'possibly' be a semen stain (but I very much doubt it). It's more likely to be Meredith's Vaseline lip balm.

How's Chris?