Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Beats me if they are translating it or not. I believe he told me he would be happy to give me a translated (not by google) report if he had one. I think I remember asking you the same question.

PMF has been promising the translation for some time now. I suspect they are having trouble with it. The report is written in a fashion that is very hard to follow. I believe this to be intentional.

Fulcanelli would like to think that everything in the report is correct. If judges reports were always correct, there would be no reason for appeals.

 

[Mary_H]

Prove it's semen first.

And an accomplice...after all this energy and effort you people have been putting in to argue to prove it was one man alone? So, if you are acknowledging that Rudy may have had an accomplice/s...why do they have to be a mystery person/people and Amanda and Raffaele?

I don't think there was an accomplice. I was respoding to Bob's argument:

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey
There are fewer unanswered questions if we allow that maybe, just maybe, Guede wasn't alone. And that leads us to Amanda and Raffaele - amazingly enough, all those unanswered questions are answered when those two are included. Whodathunkit...

The thought that Guede wasn't alone does not necessarily lead us to Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[LondonJohn]

Which is the key phrase here and also is the title of your whole post. They weren't under arrest.

Firstly, I never claimed that the passages I quoted all had direct read-across relevance to the Kercher case. I did argue, instead, that they illustrated the, ummm, "refreshing" attitudes of the Italian police and prosecutors towards defence lawyers and their access to clients (at least according to the European Criminal Bar Association). And I'd argue that this definitely has some relevance for the case under discussion here.

BUT....... there is one part here that might well have direct relevance to Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito). I'll reprint it below, in case you've forgotten it:

If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.
Could the Perugia police possibly have deliberately kept Amanda Knox under "witness" status between 1am and 1.45am on 6th November, in spite of actually considering her as a suspect (after Raffaele's change of alibi and what they thought they knew about the text message to Lumumba)? Could they have decided not to change her status - which would have required reading her her rights and allowing her access to a lawyer - since they preferred to try to break Amanda without a pesky lawyer being around?

Since I've been arguing for a long time that AK's status should have changed by 1am on the 6th at the latest, this makes more than a little sense to me. Hmmmmmm................

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Massei lists a good many partials...in excess of 30 if I recall right (I mught be wrong on the figure, but the number's high).

Would you like to show those to me?

I believe that you are talking about Meredith's room, not the hall.

There is not one print anywhere in Meredith's room that can be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele. Not one.

You said yourself that no clean up was done close to Meredith's body.

How is that possible? Were Amanda and Raffaele flying when they participated in the attack?

There are 5 prints attributed to Rudy on the pillow alone. There are more on the floor.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

PMF has been promising the translation for some time now. I suspect they are having trouble with it. The report is written in a fashion that is very hard to follow. I believe this to be intentional.

Fulcanelli would like to think that everything in the report is correct. If judges reports were always correct, there would be no reason for appeals.

It would appear, Bruce, that your side is having as much, if not more, difficulty with the translation, so there is no need to throw thinly veiled insults the way of PMF regarding the time it's taking to translate the document.

That this is a highly technical/legalese document makes this delay understandable.


Regardless, you've already stated that you disagree with the Massei report. I ask again: Have you read the report?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Great. So you acknowledge that one foot can step in blood and the other be clean of it? No more 'claims' of Amanda and Raffaele needing to levitate out of the room then? Fantastic...glad we got that sorted.

So you think they hopped? They both participated in a brutal murder and the first thought they thought was to hop around the cottage. Not very logical.

I know, you have already said it a few times that they could have hopped. I just like to hear you repeat it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Beats me if they are translating it or not. I believe he told me he would be happy to give me a translated (not by google) report if he had one. I think I remember asking you the same question.

Yes, but Bruce never stated he was translating it with anything other then Google...and has never denied it since. But for sure, he's gone silent about it, both with the translation claim and even referring to it's content in his posts. But, as a central figure to the case...don't you think he would, by now, at least have a vague idea of its content? Why the avoidance?

And yes, you will get a translated copy, but professionally done, not by Google. You'll get it from PMF, as soon as it's done. And you'll get more...the whole process of the translation and editing will be made visible to the public after. That's a promise

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think there was an accomplice. I was respoding to Bob's argument:

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey
There are fewer unanswered questions if we allow that maybe, just maybe, Guede wasn't alone. And that leads us to Amanda and Raffaele - amazingly enough, all those unanswered questions are answered when those two are included. Whodathunkit...

The thought that Guede wasn't alone does not necessarily lead us to Amanda and Raffaele.

This is true. However, once the evidence has pointed toward multiple assailants (it did), the next step is to determine who those assailants were. It is this which, tied with the rest of the evidence that you so casually handwave away that implicated Amanda/Raffaele.

So, you're correct. The thought alone is not enough. However, the evidence is.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It would appear, Bruce, that your side is having as much, if not more, difficulty with the translation, so there is no need to throw thinly veiled insults the way of PMF regarding the time it's taking to translate the document.

That this is a highly technical/legalese document makes this delay understandable.


Regardless, you've already stated that you disagree with the Massei report. I ask again: Have you read the report?

I was actually directing my comment to Massei. I believe it was intentionally written to be hard to follow.

 

[Mary_H]

I've never said anything about a kitchen knife being carried for protection, neither has anyone else here. That's something 'you' like to keep harping on about, so it's a straw man.

How are we to reconcile this statement with your adherence in general to the contents of the judges' report? For example, about someone else's theory, you wrote, "The court thought differently."

You're going to have to keep us informed about when the court's report is accurate and when your version is accurate.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So you think they hopped? They both participated in a brutal murder and the first thought they thought was to hop around the cottage. Not very logical.

I know, you have already said it a few times that they could have hopped. I just like to hear you repeat it.

I didn't say I think they hopped...rather I'm open to the idea that they may have hopped. Massei doesn't think they did...he thinks they walked and cleaned their prints afterwards.

Both work.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So you think they hopped? They both participated in a brutal murder and the first thought they thought was to hop around the cottage. Not very logical.

I know, you have already said it a few times that they could have hopped. I just like to hear you repeat it.

And how did Rudy get his blood soaked shoe to the bathroom without leaving a mark? And how did he get his bloody/wet shoe back to the bedroom without leaving a mark? And what was he doing that his whole foot was covered with blood/water mixture (and not his sock)?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I was actually directing my comment to Massei. I believe it was intentionally written to be hard to follow.

Have you read the report?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Yes, but Bruce never stated he was translating it with anything other then Google...and has never denied it since. But for sure, he's gone silent about it, both with the translation claim and even referring to it's content in his posts. But, as a central figure to the case...don't you think he would, by now, at least have a vague idea of its content? Why the avoidance?

And yes, you will get a translated copy, but professionally done, not by Google. You'll get it from PMF, as soon as it's done. And you'll get more...the whole process of the translation and editing will be made visible to the public after. That's a promise

I have not gone silent about this at all. I have said many times that I eagerly await your translation.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Have you read the report?

Have you read the report Bob? Were you at the crime scene? Were you in court?

Any more "Bob" questions for me?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was actually directing my comment to Massei. I believe it was intentionally written to be hard to follow.

No. He just writes in an old fashioned Italian style. That's part of the reason his report has been so difficult to translate and proofread. The Italians on our team are all like 'Wow, do people still talk like that anymore?' One Italian, read part of the report to his father and he said 'What's wrong with that?' Old fashioned versus the modern...it's caused a lot of problems.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have not gone silent about this at all. I have said many times that I eagerly await your translation.

You've given up on your attempt then (this is not a criticism)?

 

[Fulcanelli]

How are we to reconcile this statement with your adherence in general to the contents of the judges' report? For example, about someone else's theory, you wrote, "The court thought differently."

You're going to have to keep us informed about when the court's report is accurate and when your version is accurate.

There is a difference between the assessment of validity of evidence and scenario. The latter can only ever be subjective, a best guess, since only the victim and murderers were actually there. The former is more solid.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Was that argument presented in court by the prosecutors?

Actually, according to the fool who made the comment, he stated that this had always been the prosecution's theory.

 

[Fulcanelli]

errr....come on what?

It's a near-certainty that if he had put his hands in the air when challenged by the police in that tube carriage, he would not have been essentially executed by SO19 police officers who were looking for action in a city that was in mild panic, and who had been led to believe that de Menezes had definitely been ID'd as a potential suicide bomber.....

Come on, as in you describe a rare event that happened as a result of an extreme event...and then present it as some 'norm'. Accidents happen and I can understand why they happen. But the fact is, these kinds of accidents are extremely rare in the UK...as evidenced by how many years you had to go back to provide an example.