Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Must you always resort to personal attacks?

Is your evidence in regards to the topic so weak that this is your only recourse?

As an aside/follow-up:
Note that this is not an attack, just what I think every time I see your posts that are personal attacks on the "other side" and/or are bare assertions that the verdict will be overturned because you just know these two are innocent. For what it's worth, I feel the same in regards to Fulcanelli's personal digs at you.

It does not help your case that you continue to bring PMF into this thread as though the behavior of the posters on that site has any bearing, whatsoever, on the wealth of information that site presents in the form of court transcripts, etc.

Let's try arguing the evidence, not the people presenting it.

I was simply having a little fun with HumanityBlues.

The behavior on PMF has everything to do with the credibility of that site.


I have tried many times to discuss the evidence with you. You simply refuse to read it. If you look back on this discussion, I have provided a lot of information. I do not just come here and say that "I just know these two are innocent"

The truth is, I will never change your mind and you will never change mine.

I can show you that the prosecution actually tested the luminol stains and the tests were negative.

You won't believe me.

I can show you the photographic proof that Amanda did not leave any shoe prints in Meredith's room.

You won't believe me.

I can show you that Raffaele called the police before they arrived.

You won't believe me.

I can show you that the door could have easily been locked by Rudy. PMF had the shoe prints wrong. It was a left foot, not a right foot.

You won't believe me.

I can show you that Meredith's body wasn't moved after her death.

You won't believe me.

I can show you that Quintavalle will be taken apart on appeal.

You won't believe me.

The court accepted what Dr. Stefanoni considered the requirements for reliability instead of what the international scientific community standards demand. Given her overall testimony, this is a huge problem for the prosecution, and I fully expect that knife will be thrown out of this case.

You will disagree.

We can go on and on, point by point. I have gone over all of this. You don't believe me. You believe Fulcanelli. I cannot help you.

So when HumanityBlues and I have a little fun on the board because we know the discussion is getting us nowhere, don't take it all so seriously.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Reported

You should report it. Yoko butchered that song!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

BobtheDonkey,

I have a hard time talking to people that actually think it is okay for Amanda's parents to be facing charges for simply repeating their daughter's court testimony.

You all know it's completely ridiculous but none of you will admit it because you feel that you must win all battles. Never give in when it's something against Amanda's family. That's your motto. I'm sorry, I cannot respect that position.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobtheDonkey,

I have a hard time talking to people that actually think it is okay for Amanda's parents to be facing charges for simply repeating their daughter's court testimony.

You all know it's completely ridiculous but none of you will admit it because you feel that you must win all battles. Never give in when it's something against Amanda's family. That's your motto. I'm sorry, I cannot respect that position.

At question, for myself, is how it was repeated. If the Parents used that accusation as a stepping stone to further attacks on the Police, then I would be more inclined to allow the lawsuit to continue. As it stands, I haven't seen the interview, nor the actual lawsuit filed - so I cannot state whether I believe it's fair or not.

Coming from you, Bruce, the claim that they were "simply repeating their Daughter's testimony" could very well be more spin. And I say that not as a dig, just that I can barely stand to read your site due to the excessive spin. I just want the facts, not your (or anyone else's) layman interpretation thereof (this, coincidentally, is why I am interested in the Massei report - because I'd like to see what the experts had to say in regards to the evidence).

 

[Mary_H]

I think the police initially more suspected Amanda and Rafaelle of covering for someone else, and not so much thinking that they were themselves the murderers. The early reports of Amanda's behavior and the inconsistent stories of how they had spent their night, coupled with the constant refrains of "I don't know" and "I can't remember" would spark suspicion in anyone, let alone police investigators. They were probably suspected of having knowledge of the crime that they weren't coming clean about and their phones were tapped to search for clues as to what this was. It seems from the articles posted earlier it is commonplace in Italy to tap phones so I wouldn't read too much into the fact that theirs were. It was par for the course once things did not seem to add up.
Putting aside any knowledge one may have now and going back to those early days when Amanda and Rafaelle were strangers to the police, I can certainly see how the police would want to delve further into their whereabouts but I can't for a moment believe those two were their natural first choice as suspects.

That's right, Amanda and Raffaele were not the police's first choice. Amanda testified at trial:

AK: Okay, um, I thought of him because the police asked me repeatedly who I thought could be a dangerous person, someone who could be...who frequented the house, a man, they only wanted to know about males who visited the house, who were strange or seemed so to us for some reason, and the only person who for me, during the little time I had been in Perugia who had made a negative impression on me was this boy that also Meredith knew, whose nickname, not his real name, was Shaki, or "Shaky"....

This testimony is in keeping with the early news reports that police suspected a single male had committed the crime.

Incidentally, here is the question Amanda was answering in the above testimony:

LG: ....Still on the day of Nov 4, you spent a lot of time in the Questura, you and Raffaele had a long conversation that was recorded. First you were in the Questura, then you went home, then you came back, and you were talking, it's all in the dossier. At a certain point, you were talking about someone called either "Shaki" or "Icam". Do you remember that circumstance and what you were talking about with reference to this person?

More evidence that police were routinely recording Amanda and Raffaele before taking them into the interrogations.

 

[stilicho]

Coming from you, Bruce, the claim that they were "simply repeating their Daughter's testimony" could very well be more spin.

It's quite apparent that the charges are not stemming from the 'flicks on the head' comment (which AK didn't back up in her court testimony although asked directly with nothing to lose) but the 'beatings'. Part of the issue for all of us is the translation since the Italian news media report AK's claims as literally 'punching' or 'beating' and not 'flicking' or 'slapping'.

It's probably wisest to wait until the actual trial takes place. It appears, though, that AK will persist in the 'I-was-confused/stoned/scared' defence. I don't know how her parents can claim the same but I would assume it will be some variation on that theme.

I believe that part of the 'calumny' charge includes AK's direct accusation that her appointed interpreter assisted the police by telling her to name Patrick. That part is frequently overlooked.

 

[Darat]

Despite warnings galore many participants in this thread continue to breach their Membership Agreement therefore the thread is being placed on [Moderated thread] status, see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81399 for details about the moderation of moderated threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[stilicho]

I can show you that the prosecution actually tested the luminol stains and the tests were negative.

I can show you the photographic proof that Amanda did not leave any shoe prints in Meredith's room.

I can show you that Raffaele called the police before they arrived.

I can show you that the door could have easily been locked by Rudy. PMF had the shoe prints wrong. It was a left foot, not a right foot.

I can show you that Meredith's body wasn't moved after her death.

I can show you that Quintavalle will be taken apart on appeal.

The court accepted what Dr. Stefanoni considered the requirements for reliability instead of what the international scientific community standards demand. Given her overall testimony, this is a huge problem for the prosecution, and I fully expect that knife will be thrown out of this case.

Even if you were right about all of those elements, it's the tip of iceberg. There are several unexplained inconsistencies between the pair's claims and the records supplied by cell phone and computer records. The defence won't be able to dance the hokey-pokey around these things:

1] The phone call to Meredith's cell.
2] The fact that Amanda did not mention this call to Filomena.
3] The activity on Raffaele's computer when he said he was asleep.
4] The claim to have received a call from his father at 11 pm.
5] Raffaele's calls on the morning of 02 NOV 2007 that Amanda did not know about.
6] The details in Amanda's selective memory (eg the mop) inconsistent with the confusion or stoned claims.
7] The contradictions in the statements of Filomena and Amanda regarding the state of the cottage, her room, the locked door, etc.
8] Raffaele's claim that Amanda was not with him after 21:00 on 01 NOV 2007.

It goes on and on. Each time we explain to you that this is a routine murder case with a mountain of evidence against the three accused, you return with vague assertions about why you should be believed over the trained professionals.

Even if the double DNA knife is declared inadmissible and the store-keeper is refuted, their lies and inconsistencies, coupled with irrefutable evidence that they lied, is sufficient to keep them behind bars.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It's quite apparent that the charges are not stemming from the 'flicks on the head' comment (which AK didn't back up in her court testimony although asked directly with nothing to lose) but the 'beatings'. Part of the issue for all of us is the translation since the Italian news media report AK's claims as literally 'punching' or 'beating' and not 'flicking' or 'slapping'.

It's probably wisest to wait until the actual trial takes place. It appears, though, that AK will persist in the 'I-was-confused/stoned/scared' defence. I don't know how her parents can claim the same but I would assume it will be some variation on that theme.

I believe that part of the 'calumny' charge includes AK's direct accusation that her appointed interpreter assisted the police by telling her to name Patrick. That part is frequently overlooked.

So do you agree that Amanda's parents should be charged?

 

[Fiona]

Laura recalled that Amanda said that she felt tired. She was getting a bunch of repetitive questions from the police who were becoming belligerant and shouting.

paraphrased from page 107, Murder in Italy.

This is at odds with Knox's testimony

LG: I see. So, in all these days, following the discovery of the body, did
you ever think about turning to the American Embassy, or to a lawyer?

AK: No.

LG: Because they were calling you every day to the Questura.

AK: No, no. More than anything, I thought they wanted to talk to me so much because
I was the closest person to Meredith in the house. And then, I was the person
who went back to the house and found the mess. I never thought I needed
a lawyer or to talk to the Ambassador, because I thought, okay, I'll just
answer a couple of questions, and then I can get on with my life, I
don't know. And I still had to orient myself in the world around me; I never
even thought of contacting someone like a lawyer.
LG: And the fact that you were being called every day to the Questura, didn't
that worry you and your family?

AK: [Sigh] For me, I didn't understand why, but I really never, never thought
that they suspected me. Never.

FM: You underwent pressure, as you said, from the police who were asking you for
information. Was that also true in your interrogations of the 2nd, the 3rd
and the 4th, or only for the one from the 6th?

AK: The police repeated their questions and wanted, above all, for me to tell
them who could have done this, but I didn't know how to respond. I told them
about all the people that I knew. The most intense pressure was in the Questura between Nov 5 and 6, because I never lived through anything like that.
Before that, they would ask me and then say "Okay, fine." They wouldn't say,
for example, "Maybe you don't remember well" or "Maybe you're a liar",
for example. The didn't say those things.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

 

[HumanityBlues]

I think criminalizing slander and having a 6 year possible sentence on the books is ludicrous. I don't care what country it is. No matter what the outcome here, the fact is someone can get years in the slammer simply for saying the police hit them. That is an indefensible law on its face.

I like cookies.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the police initially more suspected Amanda and Rafaelle of covering for someone else, and not so much thinking that they were themselves the murderers. The early reports of Amanda's behavior and the inconsistent stories of how they had spent their night, coupled with the constant refrains of "I don't know" and "I can't remember" would spark suspicion in anyone, let alone police investigators. They were probably suspected of having knowledge of the crime that they weren't coming clean about and their phones were tapped to search for clues as to what this was. It seems from the articles posted earlier it is commonplace in Italy to tap phones so I wouldn't read too much into the fact that theirs were. It was par for the course once things did not seem to add up.
Putting aside any knowledge one may have now and going back to those early days when Amanda and Rafaelle were strangers to the police, I can certainly see how the police would want to delve further into their whereabouts but I can't for a moment believe those two were their natural first choice as suspects.

But even if you're right, harbouring a murderer is a criminal offence in itself. So AK and/or RS would have been suspects in that offence instead. Either way, the police must logically have had to have suspicions that either AK/RS were involved in the murder (a criminal offence), or they knew who was involved in the murder and had not told the police in prior interviews (also a criminal offence), in order to warrant a phone tap.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just for the record, my beliefs about this case have changed over the past month or so. As I've said before, I only started reading about this case in April or so, and all I knew at the start were what I'd learned from contemporaneous media reports (which I hadn't paid much attention to at the time). I then speed-read the book "Darkness Descending", which sparked my interest in the case.

It's absolutely true to say that consequently I believed in late April/early May that the convictions were safe, and that this therefore proved the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. However, as I started to find out more and more about the case during May and June, my prior beliefs were eroded - I seemed to find a number of areas of the case that "didn't look quite right" to me. And the more such areas I came across (novel LCN testing, dubious witness testimony, questionable police practices....), the more I began to feel that the convictions might be unsafe.

And I therefore arrive at my current set of beliefs. I believe that the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito might be unsafe (not are unsafe, but might be), and that therefore they might have success in their appeals. I do not say (and never have said) that I think either of them are necessarily innocent. Nor do I have to say or believe that in order to believe that the convictions might be unsafe.

I know some people might find it difficult to understand that a person's beliefs can change over the period of a short but steep learning curve. I also know that many people on here have been devoted followers of this case since 2009 or earlier, so it's more natural that their beliefs wouldn't have changed much between April/May 2010 and June 2010. But I'm on a completely different timescale of discovering information about this case. I'm also guessing that if my beliefs had changed in the other direction (i.e. from doubts over the convictions to certainty), certain people might have found that easier to believe - or even welcomed such a conversion with open arms....

 

[Amazer]

I think criminalizing slander and having a 6 year possible sentence on the books is ludicrous. I don't care what country it is. No matter what the outcome here, the fact is someone can get years in the slammer simply for saying the police hit them. That is an indefensible law on its face.

I like cookies.

It's clear that Italy doesn't share you opinion. And that is something that Amanda and her parents should have taken into consideration. That they didn't is hardly the fault of Italy.

I've traveled around the world, lived in a number of different countries and each and everyone of those countries have their own set of 'weird/silly' laws. You ignore those at your own peril though.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is completely ludicrous. His DNA wasn't mixed with Meredith's blood in a blender and then spread on his hands.

Your analogy is not very well thought out. You logic is laughable.

It's not ridiculous at all. We 'know' that Meredith's blood on Rudy's hands was mixed with his DNA, as shown by the blood on Meredith's handbag. Yet, his DNA is suddenly miraculously missing from the (supposedly) same blood from the same hands deposited in the bathroom (sink, light switch, etc). Therefore, that blood must have been put there by somebody 'else'.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS As an addendum to the "Bongiorno/appendicitis" issue, a little decent research throws up some interesting facts.

The San Marino Conference 2009, at which Bongiorno spoke (viz the newspaper report linked previously) was on 20 November 2009.

http://www.centrocongressisanmarino...vents/calendario.20.11.2009.html?tipoevento=-

The day when Bongiorno was reported in the Italian media to have contracted appendicitis was 22 November 2009:

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/GdM_dallapuglia_NOTIZIA_01.php?IDNotizia=286709&IDCategoria=1

This report says that she was admitted to hospital with the illness. If true, that would imply that she was admitted to hospital on 21st November (or possibly even late on the evening of 20th November). The pain of appendicitis can come on fairly rapidly (from nothing to intense pain within a matter of hours). So this is all entirely consistent with Bongiorno feeling relatively well at the time she addressed the San Marino Forum on the 20th, then being admitted to hospital on either the late evening of the 20th or any time on the 21st.

It sure doesn't sound to me like she was putting on an act for any reason. And it also doesn't sound to me like she was simultaneously claiming to be ill while nonchalantly finding the energy to attend a conference in San Marino. It's amazing what a little good research can uncover.....

 

[Fulcanelli]

So do you agree that Amanda's parents should be charged?

Yes. Because they've accused the police publicly not just once, but many times in many publications. The suit is not just about that one interview in that one paper (simply the police have to name one example when filing their suit), it's about the constant stream of accusations the parents have made.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think criminalizing slander and having a 6 year possible sentence on the books is ludicrous. I don't care what country it is. No matter what the outcome here, the fact is someone can get years in the slammer simply for saying the police hit them. That is an indefensible law on its face.

I like cookies.

Then sleep well, they haven't criminalised slander, Amanda doesn't face slander charges and never has.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Giobbi and the swiveling hips

I think the police initially more suspected Amanda and Rafaelle of covering for someone else, and not so much thinking that they were themselves the murderers. The early reports of Amanda's behavior and the inconsistent stories of how they had spent their night, coupled with the constant refrains of "I don't know" and "I can't remember" would spark suspicion in anyone, let alone police investigators. They were probably suspected of having knowledge of the crime that they weren't coming clean about and their phones were tapped to search for clues as to what this was. It seems from the articles posted earlier it is commonplace in Italy to tap phones so I wouldn't read too much into the fact that theirs were. It was par for the course once things did not seem to add up.
Putting aside any knowledge one may have now and going back to those early days when Amanda and Rafaelle were strangers to the police, I can certainly see how the police would want to delve further into their whereabouts but I can't for a moment believe those two were their natural first choice as suspects.

Danceme,

You ignore the fact that Amanda has basically had two stories: what she said on the night of November 5th and what she has said at all other times. You also ignore what Dr. Giobbi and others said made them suspicious, things like her alleged hip-swivel and her reacting so strongly to the knives.

Stiliicho,

Your 8th point ignores the fact that Raffaele backed up Amanda's testimony on November 8th, his last word on what he did that evening. Raffaele's times were wrong, but not about what happened.

 

[christianahannah]

Upon reading Amanda's testimony concerning the "hitting" incident, it narrows down who she claims gave her at least one blow.

AK: Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but
the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long
hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her. Then in the circle of
people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example
there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally
shoving the telephone into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone!
Who is this? Who did you want to meet?" Then there were others, for instance
this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was
standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding
me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting
on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see
who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I
turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.

GCM: This was the same woman with the long hair?

AK: Yes, the same one.

Amanda gives quite a bit of information about this policewoman, physical description, where she was in proximity to Amanda and her job during the interrogation. Wouldn't there be a document available with names of the police who took part in the interrogation of November 5 and 6 and from the transcripts of the interrogation be able to determine who Amanda was speaking of (if things did happen the way that Amanda said they did)?