• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Look at ALL the discrepencies, look at the WHOLE picture. Doesn't anything seem out of sinc, here guys? ANYTHING??

Yes. The way the police handled the case. Plenty mistakes were made by them. Mistakes that are not negligible. And questionable tactics that have severely muddied the waters. The question goes both ways. Do you not see these issues?
 
Yes. The way the police handled the case. Plenty mistakes were made by them. Mistakes that are not negligible. And questionable tactics that have severely muddied the waters. The question goes both ways. Do you not see these issues?

I see an awful lot of baseless accusations, PR driven news stories, and confirmation bias (along with White-Knight syndrome)...I don't see the glaring issues with the Police actions.

But, then, I'm not one to claim Amanda and Raffaele were the only two people in this whole mess who are completely honest and never lied (except under duress). YMMV
 
Good day LondonJohn,
I noticed with suprise, dismay, and finally disgust yesterday that a few members of PMF,
who even sometimes post here, were trashing your identity moniker,
and even digging up a persons identity, claiming it to be you and supposedly 'outing' you.

Rude, and very lame, on a forum where Meredith Kercher,
who was brutally murdered, is supposed to be the focus of discussion...
RWVBWL

Um, and EXTREMELY HYPOCRITICAL. SkepticalBystander, one of the moderators of that site took police action when someone did that to her. Maybe John should inform the authorities as well?

According to the P-I story, Peggy Ganong, a West Seattle-based translator who moderates the forum Perugia Murder File and who is avowedly a skeptic over the question of Knox's guilt, has filed a harassment report with Seattle police. According to Ganong, some aggressive supporters of Knox have used pro-Knox blogs like Perugia Shock to make public information about Ganong. Amanda Knox's step-father Chris Mellas was named in the report, though he denies any involvement. The Mellases apparently live near Ganong.

According to the article, Ganong finally went to the police "after posters published her husband's first and last name, the approximate location of their home, information about their family life, as well as shopping and personal habits, much of which had been gleaned from public-records searches, Facebook and other online portals."

http://seattlest.com/2009/05/28/amanda_knox_blog_wars_cross_the_lin.php
 
Last edited:
______________________

Not a perfect stranger. Rudy was an acquaintance of Amanda.

Amanda had socially interacted with Rudy, in person---in one way or another---on several occasions prior to the murder. In her court testimony she places the number of times at "three or four."
(See court testimony transcripts on PMF website.)

///

Please stop this nonsense. We all know that Amanda saw Rudy in passing. She certainly did not know Rudy. She knew of him. Somehow we are supposed to believe that they hooked up to murder Meredith.

Stop exaggerating the relationship between Amanda and Rudy. This is the same tactic that is used with every aspect of this case.
 
Please stop this nonsense. We all know that Amanda saw Rudy in passing. She certainly did not know Rudy. She knew of him. Somehow we are supposed to believe that they hooked up to murder Meredith.

Stop exaggerating the relationship between Amanda and Rudy. This is the same tactic that is used with every aspect of this case.

So Amanda and Rudy were not best chums. Does that mean the rest of the body of evidence against Amanda is invalid?
 
What I find perplexing is that there seems to be an excuse for absolutely everything that Amanda and Raffaele said or did. From a reasonable point of view, there is a lot to be concerned about. I can accept a few things being out of sinc, but everything? Being mixed up about phone calls can perhaps be explained away, but forgetting the phone call to mom is *surprising*. It was made at the time that Amanda was not confused, Meredith 's murder had not being discovered, so no trauma.

Not everything in Amanda and Raffaele's behavior is out of sync. The things that are out of sync are minor, and normal under the circumstances; that is, we can't be sure anyone else in the same anomalous situation would have acted any differently, if not worse. We excuse Amanda and Raffaele primarily because they were young and naive, and because they were fish out of water.

The Perugian authorities, on the other hand, were not young and naive, and were fully in their own element. In terms of what we have a right to expect from police, the inconsistencies in their behavior are ten times as egregious as the defendants'.

We know the police's version of the time of their arrival on the morning of November 2nd is highly suspect. We know the police officer who stepped into the room to lift the duvet from Meredith later lied when he denied doing it. We know the police would not allow Raffaele to contact his father at the time of his interrogation.

We know the Perugian chief of police, the Italian Minister of the Interior, the prosecutors and at least one judge declared the case solved before the forensic evidence from the crime scene had been analyzed. We know they acted to take Amanda into custody before her mother could arrive from the United States to protect her.

We know the ways the kitchen knife and bra clasp were retrieved are statistically unlikely, to say the very least. We know the methods used to test them have raised the eyebrows of scientists worldwide.

We know prison officials lied to Amanda when they told her - twice - that she had tested positively for HIV. We know this was a form of psychological torture.

Shall I go on? All of these behaviors are extraordinary, in most cases unethical, and in some cases illegal. Yet all of them have been excused by the guilters time and time again.

The likelihood that the police were familiar with Patrick, directed Amanda's interrogation in the direction of focusing on Patrick, and had ample time to interview Patrick before the dramatic dawn raid and car parade through Perugia, have all been rationally demonstrated numerous times, but the facts seem to fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes, in this case). There is always an excuse for the police and the prosecutors, who, incidentally, don't need anybody to make excuses for them. They are the ones with all the power.

To me, focusing on a phone call to Mom instead of on a pattern of systemic incompetence or even corruption does not represent a "reasonable point of view."
 
Haven't we discussed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? It's not the defence's job to explain exactly how every bullet ended up in that precise spot on the wall of the barn, nor if they cannot immediately do so does it follow that the Texas Sharpshooter aimed that bullet there.

If you cross-examined any group of people on exactly what happened when during a stressful event days ago I'm sure you'd find a host of errors in their recollections. The more irrelevant minutiae you scrutinise, the more errors you'll find. Of course there's an "excuse for everything", because it's the same damned "excuse" in every case. These supposed gotchas are meaningless and prove nothing except that human memory is fallible. In no case are they evidence Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith. That's the "excuse", and it pretty much ends the discussion.

So how exactly did Amanda know that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the police did? That's not a "gotcha". That's knowledge, secured behind a locked door, that Amanda had and the cops didn't have until she told them. They got the medical examiner's report later.

I have never had any kind of contact or affiliation with Doug Preston, David Marriott, nor anyone connected in any way with the Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito camps.

:confused:

@Bruce Fisher: We all know that Amanda saw Rudy in passing.

In passing? Where was that? Did they pass each other joints in the boys' downstairs suites? Is that what you mean by passing?

It's interesting that when we similarly indicate that Amanda only knew Raffaele in passing--as her ****buddy rather than her boyfriend--there is a hue and cry about close super-sweet lovebirds. Her boyfriend was pretty quick to throw his lovebird under the bus.

I think he's a keeper! :D
 
@Bruce Fisher: We all know that Amanda saw Rudy in passing.

In passing? Where was that? Did they pass each other joints in the boys' downstairs suites? Is that what you mean by passing?

It's interesting that when we similarly indicate that Amanda only knew Raffaele in passing--as her ****buddy rather than her boyfriend--there is a hue and cry about close super-sweet lovebirds. Her boyfriend was pretty quick to throw his lovebird under the bus.

I think he's a keeper! :D

There is another exaggeration made by you. Raffaele did not throw Amanda under the bus. He agreed that he could not possibly know what Amanda was doing when he was asleep.

Amanda and Raffaele have always supported each other and will continue to do so on appeal.
 
So how exactly did Amanda know that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the police did? That's not a "gotcha". That's knowledge, secured behind a locked door, that Amanda had and the cops didn't have until she told them. They got the medical examiner's report later.

Bull, bull, bull. Since when did waiting for the medical examiner's report prevent the police from blabbing to the press? It was in the papers the very first day that Meredith may have been sexually assaulted. Besides, even if Amanda said Meredith had been sexually assaulted (when are you claiming she said it, anyway?), she would not necessarily have been correct. The medical examiner would not confirm Meredith had been raped, and I presume rape is what Amanda had in mind if she was talking about sexual assault.
 
Last edited:
So Amanda and Rudy were not best chums. Does that mean the rest of the body of evidence against Amanda is invalid?

You are bringing two completely different topics into one sentence that has no relevance.

The fact that Amanda and Rudy hardly knew each other makes it highly unlikely that that they got together to Kill Meredith in the fashion that was presented by the prosecution. Of course the judge didn't agree with Mignini so he just made up his own version of the crime.
 
So how exactly did Amanda know that Meredith was sexually assaulted before the police did? That's not a "gotcha". That's knowledge, secured behind a locked door, that Amanda had and the cops didn't have until she told them. They got the medical examiner's report later.

Yes, Stilicho, could you please cite specifically what you are referring to here? Date and quotation would help.
 
Did you look over the paper on simulated strangulation?

G.N. Rutty, Int J Legal Med (2002) 116 :170–173

No, I can't say I did, however, the words "simulated strangulation" capture my interest. I wonder how that was achieved?

I will give it a look over and see if the paper answers my questions.
 
Bull, bull, bull. Since when did waiting for the medical examiner's report prevent the police from blabbing to the press? It was in the papers the very first day that Meredith may have been sexually assaulted. Besides, even if Amanda said Meredith had been sexually assaulted (when are you claiming she said it, anyway?), she would not necessarily have been correct. The medical examiner would not confirm Meredith had been raped, and I presume rape is what Amanda had in mind if she was talking about sexual assault.

One of the earliest Italian news reports 11/2/07 (Google translated) link to follow. Reading this, I think it is very plausible that someone would assume she was sexually assaulted.

http://translate.google.com/transla...ugia-uccisa/perugia-uccisa.html&sl=auto&tl=en

Thanks for the article. Everyone that followed this case knows that talk of a sexual assault was mentioned very early on. The description of Meredith's body at the crime scene would lead most people to believe that a sexual assault took place.

It is really a stretch for Stilicho (guided by PMF) to try and incriminate Amanda for this line of thinking.
 
Here's an interesting newspaper article published online at 21.27 UK time (22.27 Italy time) on 2nd November 2007 - i.e. within around nine hours of the discovery of Meredith's body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568106/British-student-murdered-in-Italy.html

Not only does it follow the Italian media lead of mentioning the partially-clothed state of the body, but it also suggests another astonishing (and incorrect) piece of police briefing:

"The door to her ground floor room was locked from the inside and police believe her attacker left by a window into a small rear garden."

So it would appear that literally within hours of the discovery of the body, the police were not only briefing the media about the state of the body, but they were also promoting the clearly unsubstantiated belief (clearly unsubstantiated because it was wrong) that Meredith's door was locked from the inside and that the killer left via a window. Furthermore, the implication here is clearly that the window through which the killer left was Meredith's (viz the "door locked from the inside"). So it would further appear that whoever within the police was briefing the media had put 2 and 2 together and assumed that the broken window was in Meredith's room rather than Filomena's*. Incompetence and/or false briefing?

* If I remember correctly (but I'm admittedly not 100% sure), Meredith's window had security bars over it as well, making it impossible from the outset that the killer left the house through her window after locking her bedroom door from the inside.

PS Here's another interesting bit from the same article, this time in direct quotation marks from a police spokesman:

"The girl was semi naked, with signs of a cut to the neck," a police official said. "The door was shut, and the agents had to force their way in."

Again, the "semi-naked" reference. But perhaps more interesting is the quote that "agents had to force their way in". Who knew that Luca (Filomena's boyfriend, who was actually the one who broke down the door after the Postal Police stated that they didn't want to take the responsibility) was now an "agent"? While it's not so important in the grand scheme of things, it's certainly indicative of the levels of police misinformation and police theorising/revisionism that were flying round Perugia within hours of the discovery of the murder.
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting newspaper article published online at 21.27 UK time (22.27 Italy time) on 2nd November 2007 - i.e. within around nine hours of the discovery of Meredith's body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568106/British-student-murdered-in-Italy.html

Not only does it follow the Italian media lead of mentioning the partially-clothed state of the body, but it also suggests another astonishing (and incorrect) piece of police briefing:

"The door to her ground floor room was locked from the inside and police believe her attacker left by a window into a small rear garden."

So it would appear that literally within hours of the discovery of the body, the police were not only briefing the media about the state of the body, but they were also promoting the clearly unsubstantiated belief (clearly unsubstantiated because it was wrong) that Meredith's door was locked from the inside and that the killer left via a window. Furthermore, the implication here is clearly that the window through which the killer left was Meredith's (viz the "door locked from the inside"). So it would further appear that whoever within the police was briefing the media had put 2 and 2 together and assumed that the broken window was in Meredith's room rather than Filomena's*. Incompetence and/or false briefing?

* If I remember correctly (but I'm admittedly not 100% sure), Meredith's window had security bars over it as well, making it impossible from the outset that the killer left the house through her window after locking her bedroom door from the inside.

And yet, even though the initial theories were discovered to be incorrect based on further investigation, the Police and Prosecutors were all about saving face - and that's why Amanda and Raffaele are in prison.

While you, LJ, might not have argued that specifically, it has surely been a recurring them in this, and the prior, thread.
 
And yet, even though the initial theories were discovered to be incorrect based on further investigation, the Police and Prosecutors were all about saving face - and that's why Amanda and Raffaele are in prison.

While you, LJ, might not have argued that specifically, it has surely been a recurring them in this, and the prior, thread.

The police shouldn't have been theorising in any way, shape or form to the media at this point so incredibly early in the case. And, if anything, it tends (in my opinion) to lend weight to any views that the police/prosecutors were determined not to "get things wrong" again with their next theory. It certainly can't be used as a tick-in-the-box for the integrity of the police in this matter.

Regardless, the most favourable picture of the Perugia police that this illustrates is that their press liaison department was incompetent. At worst, the investigating officers themselves (and/or their superiors) were promoting these bogus theories and authorising the release of important crime scene details via their press officers.
 
The police shouldn't have been theorising in any way, shape or form to the media at this point so incredibly early in the case. And, if anything, it tends (in my opinion) to lend weight to any views that the police/prosecutors were determined not to "get things wrong" again with their next theory. It certainly can't be used as a tick-in-the-box for the integrity of the police in this matter.

Regardless, the most favourable picture of the Perugia police that this illustrates is that their press liaison department was incompetent. At worst, the investigating officers themselves (and/or their superiors) were promoting these bogus theories and authorising the release of important crime scene details via their press officers.

So, no True Scotsman fallacy, eh?

No matter what the Police did, it was wrong.


The Police identified a possible scenario given the first look at the crimescene. They were incompetent then. But, they went ahead and continued the investigation. That they changed their theories based on further investigation and evidence is further sign of their incompetence. If they weren't incompetent, they would have gotten it right the first time. Of course, because they didnt' get it right the first (or second, or third, etc) time, they wound up planting/falsifying evidence to implicate Amanda and Raffaele.

Meanwhile, The Police hunted down Rudy after the evidence indicated he was there. The Police also cleared an innocent man. Those are hardly the actions of Police looking to just save face. If saving face was their sole goal - they would have found a way to ignore Rudy's guilt and keep Patrick imprisoned. Instead, the Police followed through on the investigation and got the right people.
 
One of the earliest Italian news reports 11/2/07 (Google translated) link to follow. Reading this, I think it is very plausible that someone would assume she was sexually assaulted.

http://translate.google.com/transla...ugia-uccisa/perugia-uccisa.html&sl=auto&tl=en

Yes, that is plausible.

Amanda's 1:45 statement (translated English version) conveys that Patrick had sex with Meredith. Perhaps Amanda had the idea from prior news reports.

I met Patrick soon after at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana and we went home. I do not remember if Meredith was already there or if she came later. I find it difficult to remember those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith with whom he was infatuated but I do not remember well if Meredith had been threatened before. I vaguely remember that he killed her.

I think the 1:45 statement could not be admissible against Amanda because she was made from a witness into a suspect with the above paragraph.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom