Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
In regard to the 'appendicitis' suffered by Bongiorno, Jools on PMF offered this valid little note:

Jools said:
To those who post in JREF forum.

Just seen the post at JREF forum about Ms Bongiorno's suddenly becoming too ill (apendicitis) to be in court...

You might like to remind the posters there that she was actually not that ill to attend a conference in San Marino on the day that she was not in court. :lol:
Ms Bongiorno away day from court
Click to expand...

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=47232#p47232


Here's a quick Google Trans of Jools' linked article:

EDIT: Scratching the Google Trans...may as well have it translated by the bloody Inland Revenue, for all the sense it makes. Oh well, the good intent was there.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
LJ,

Amanda asked whether she needed a lawyer but was told that it would only make things worse. Raffaele asked for a lawyer and also asked to speak with his father but was refused. This is described in Ms. Dempsey's book.
Click to expand...


And what they told her was true. Had she demanded a lawyer, they'd have had to make her a suspect...that's worse then being a witness.
 
LondonJohn said:
But, to me, the more important point is this: why was Knox still being treated as a "witness" after around 00.30-01.00 on the 6th (i.e. in the hour or so leading up to the "confession/accusation")? After all, there's a fair amount of evidence that the police had bugged her phone since about the 4th November, and they'd also apparently listened in on a number of private conversations of hers. In addition, by 00.30 (or so) on the 6th, they had Sollecito's alibi modification to add to their suspicion of Knox, and they also had what they believed to be an incriminating text message from Knox to Lumumba arranging a meeting on the murder night.
Click to expand...


She wasn't. They ended the questioning and made her a suspect at 1:45, because it was at that point she met the requirement to be made a suspect.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Why would Giobbi have been shouting orders and direction (let alone at the same volume as a woman screaming and sobbing as she "remembered" a bloody murder)? IS there any evidence at all that Giobbi shouted orders and directions that night? To use a well-worn phrase: cite?
Click to expand...


Quite right. Maybe he just used telepathy instead.
 
LondonJohn said:
RS's change of alibi support, and the text message which the police assumed (incorrectly) showed AK planning to meet Lumumba on the night of the murder (something which AK had already "suspiciously" denied).

And, in addition, the very fact that the police were (apparently) tapping her phone and monitoring her conversations are in and of themselves the acts of a police force who view a person as much more than a mere "witness", wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

And again, you miss the point.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah but I might add here that the argument is more nuanced than that. I think that many people might agree that it would be unnecessary (and not required in law) to record Amanda Knox's interrogations if she were purely regarded as a witness at that time. Although, even here, the fact that this was a very high-profile case with international dimensions, and the fact that Knox was being questioned in a police station with recording equipment right at hand, could lead one to ask why the police wouldn't record the interrogations anyhow (after all, what did they have to lose by doing so, if they were behaving properly - and on the other hand, I'd argue that they had a potentially significant amount to gain, owing to increased transparency and accuracy).
Click to expand...

Do you still believe that the police should have known that Amanda was going to incriminate herself? How could they have known this?
 
Fiona said:
How is that evidence that Knox committed a crime?
Click to expand...

And not just 'a' crime, but more importantly 'the' crime the police were actually investigating. And for that, it wasn't evidence. That evidence didn't come until the last moment, at which time they ended the interview and made her a suspect, in line with Italian law.
 
LondonJohn said:
nd the fact that Knox was being questioned in a police station with recording equipment right at hand, could lead one to ask why the police wouldn't record the interrogations anyhow
Click to expand...

And yet this is still an argument to incredulity. The absence of a recording is still not evidence of premeditated intent or a coverup.

LondonJohn said:
I've already previously shown that the European Criminal Bar Association believes that it's far from uncommon for Italian police to deliberately keep a person under "witness" status
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that at all by the way. In fact I would argue my opinion that the police were well into the grey area on this one.


Side note: In many places in the US, the recording equipment is out in the open and the person being interviewed knows (and sometimes acknowledges in the recording) that they are being recorded. Can anyone provide any evidence of the Perugia police's standard recording practices in this regard?
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Do you still believe that the police should have known that Amanda was going to incriminate herself? How could they have known this?
Click to expand...


LondonJohn believes any argument that says the ILE are bad and that Amanda is totally innocent :)

Irritations such as the actual facts, evidence and truth are simply an inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
For the last time..........there is nothing magical or new to be revealed in the Massei report.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed Massei was a magician.

The reason people should want to read the report is to help understand why the pair was sent to prison. The reasoning itself is new unless you're capable of reading minds. It will also supply you with a better context for the mountain of evidence stacked up against Knox and Sollecito.
 
Fucanelli, your explination of the mixed DNA is not credible.

Fulcanelli wrote: "Amanda's DNA 'was' mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom (and Filomena's room. However, nobody's DNA was found mixed in with Meredith's blood on the inside door handle of Meredith's room. At least two people were going around leaving blood from Meredith containing DNA from themselves mixed in...at least one person was leaving blood mixed with none of their DNA."


For starters Meredith's blood was not found in Filomena's room.

You honestly think that two people were walking around depositing blood throughout the cottage and one person was mixing their DNA with the blood and the other one was not?

Why would their DNA be guaranteed to be in all of the samples and the other person would be guaranteed to not be in the samples?

A lack of DNA does not lead to the conclusion that 2 people were involved.

Meredith's blood made contact to the surfaces of Amanda's bathroom. The blood mixed with residual DNA.
 
stilicho said:
Nobody claimed Massei was a magician.

The reason people should want to read the report is to help understand why the pair was sent to prison. The reasoning itself is new unless you're capable of reading minds. It will also supply you with a better context for the mountain of evidence stacked up against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. It makes you look foolish. Even credible people that think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty will say the prosecution had a weak case.
 
Mr.D said:
And yet this is still an argument to incredulity. The absence of the recording is still not evidence of premeditated intent or a coverup.



I don't doubt that at all by the way. In fact I would argue my opinion that the police were well into the grey area on this one.


Side note: In many places in the US, the recording equipment is out in the open and the person being interviewed knows (and sometimes acknowledges in the recording) that they are being recorded. Can anyone provide any evidence of the Perugia police's standard recording practices in this regard?
Click to expand...

E-sabbath showed me this in chat: it has something to say about the recording and equipment being out in the open, starting at about 12 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&NR=1

ETA: it is not about Italy: I should have made that plain
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
LondonJohn believes any argument that says the ILE are bad and that Amanda is totally innocent :)

Irritations such as the actual facts, evidence and truth are simply an inconvenience.
Click to expand...

I would find the argument more believable if they had taken Amanda and Raffaele into the station on 02 NOV 2007 and released them only after they both had signed confessions (along with at least a couple of bruises). Instead, these nefarious policemen waited four days and didn't even get to use their sand-filled confession hoses.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. It makes you look foolish. Even credible people that think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty will say the prosecution had a weak case.
Click to expand...

Several thousand pages of evidence heard over an 11-month trial is about as close to a mountain as you can get.

Who are these 'credible people' who think the case was weak? Cites?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fucanelli, your explination of the mixed DNA is not credible.

Fulcanelli wrote: "Amanda's DNA 'was' mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom (and Filomena's room. However, nobody's DNA was found mixed in with Meredith's blood on the inside door handle of Meredith's room. At least two people were going around leaving blood from Meredith containing DNA from themselves mixed in...at least one person was leaving blood mixed with none of their DNA."


For starters Meredith's blood was not found in Filomena's room.

You honestly think that two people were walking around depositing blood throughout the cottage and one person was mixing their DNA with the blood and the other one was not?

Why would their DNA be guaranteed to be in all of the samples and the other person would be guaranteed to not be in the samples?

A lack of DNA does not lead to the conclusion that 2 people were involved.

Meredith's blood made contact to the surfaces of Amanda's bathroom. The blood mixed with residual DNA.
Click to expand...

Where is this posted in this thread? Link please, for I missed it. I know it was posted at PMF, though
 
Fulcanelli, You claim that Rudy didn't go into Meredith's purse because there was no DNA inside the purse to prove it.

The purse was opened and some of the contents were taken. If everything is based on the DNA, who opened the purse? They must have found DNA to prove this. Who did it?

Was Rudy unhappy with the location of the purse? He felt the need to simply move it?

So Rudy felt the need to move a purse but he would have never turned off a light.

You see, all of these little things that you have cherry picked mean nothing at all.

Maybe it was a habit for him to turn of a lights. Who cares? The fact that there is blood on a light switch doesn't mean that Amanda or Raffaele were involved.

You have a way of making that leap. Anything that can't be answered about Rudy must lead to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. It doesn't work that way.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fiona, stop with your nonsense. I will talk to Michael about anything I want.
Click to expand...

Do I take it it was not posted in this thread? If that is correct then I think the suggestion that someone else is cherrypicking is quite ironic: a link to where it was posted would have given a full context.....

I also think the two halves of your sentence are very, very funny placed side by side like that. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom