Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

There has been discussion that the shoe prints on the pillow have never been released. Charlie has posted this information on JREF in the past. Every shoe print in Meredith's room matched Rudy Guede.

Raffaele Sollecito's forensics expert Francesco Vinci showed in great detail, in court, that all of the shoe prints belong to Rudy Guede.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Vinci.pdf

 

[LondonJohn]

It's very amusing to watch the current goings on elsewhere. Various posters are claiming that they can't put their fingers on a photograph of Guede's shoeprint. They are seemingly reluctant to find the photo (which is well-documented, even on their own site) because it appears that Guede's "Outbreak 2" trainer sole perfectly matches the partial shoeprint discovered on the pillow. You know, the shoeprint that the prosecution attributed to Amanda Knox.......

 

[RoseMontague]

Next 5 Questions. As before, feel free to jump in.

Why do you think Sollecito lied on two separate occasions about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand whilst cooking?

He lied because he was presented with a fact that was not true. He was facing jail for something he did not do. He was presented with a load of rubbish and responded in the same manner.

Rudy Guede's visible bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the cottage. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena's room and who do you think left the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat?

I believe after he killed Meredith he took his shoes off leaving those 2 shoeprints at the foot of the bed (making that knife imprint when he leaned on it for support) and went to the bathroom where he proceeded to wash up. The blood ran off and on to the mat where he stepped in it. He washed the blood off his feet with a towel which he took back to Meredith's room and took with him when he left. While he was in the bathroom he neglected to flush. He used the same towel to clean up the bathroom floor. He put his bloody shoes back on and walked out the door.

How did Raffaele Sollecito know that nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room?

Amanda probably told him she could not see that anything was missing, which was in fact, correct.

Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

I believe he did on many occasions until the police finally convinced him to admit he did not know if Amanda left and then came back when he was sleeping. See also answer to question 1.

Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily accuse an innocent man of Meredith's murder?

I believe she was coerced, threatened, tag-teamed, and lied to just as Raffaele was in question 1. She should have asked for a lawyer and it is clear to me that even if she did not ask for one she should have been provided one well before the coerced accusation.

 

[HumanityBlues]

As should have been her fingerprints, all over the house in fact, yet they're not. Why is that?

You obviously don't know what the prosecution's own experts said about this. Thanks anyways.

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone know where (in Massei's report or elsewhere) Filomena testified that her room was 'tidy' when she left it? I just saw this on PMF:

Well, I'd probably explain it with the broken window and the glass everywhere. But I'm curious as to whether Filomena did say anything more specific about its state of tidiness.

(And also a bit suspicious about possible distortions ever since it turned out that the statement 'Filomena said Amanda never told her she phoned Meredith' should actually have read 'Filomena never said Amanda told her she phoned Meredith'!)

Thanks for that correction Katy_did (that makes a huge difference). The appeals do mention that in previous testimony Filomena said that the glass was not only on top of the clothes but also in the middle and underneath. The Massei report ignores this testimony in favor of the testimony pointing more towards guilt. Just as it ignores testimony from the police investigator and the employee regarding Quintavalle. Just as it ignores evidence by the mobile phone records of a Time Of Death between 9pm and 10pm. Just as it ignores evidence of a third female DNA profile on that sample in the sink that Mignini considered one of the three key pieces of evidence in his recent interview (along with the knife and bra clasp).

There is a pattern here. It looks like the much awaited for PMF translation should be done by the end of the year, I think it will reveal this pattern very clearly.

 

[Dan O.]

As should have been her fingerprints, all over the house in fact, yet they're not. Why is that?

Danceme, you are making two claims of fact:

1. Amanda's fingerprints should have been all over the house.
2. Amana's fingerprints were not all over the house.

Where is your evidence to support these claims?

[hint: there exists photographic evidence of where in the house the forensic examiners dusted for fingerprints and this evidence clearly shows that there are vast areas of the house that were not tested.]

 

[tronic]

Dan-O : Here you go again, claiming facts without any supporting evidence. If Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment the whole time as they have always maintained then their claim that they were not at the crime scene would not be a lie.

RS stated he was 'at a party' - that was found to be untrue - RS stated that AK left his apartment late that evening - this he has not refuted. As far as he is concerned AK was not with him that night. There is no evidence that AK and RS were at the apartment together all that night.

Dan-O : What evidence are you using to place Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene? What cleanup are you claiming occurred at the crime scene? And who is protecting Rudy? The whole thing sounds like circular reasoning on your part... If they are guilty then they lied about not being there and if they lied about not being there then they must be guilty.

The evidence of a cleanup has been proved - blood traces smeared by the cleanup (highlighted by Luminol) were all over the place. RS and AK were caught in the process of cleaning up. The lamp of AK which was the only source of light in her room was found within the room of Meredith Kercher (why?). AK was photographed the next morning with a missing ear-ring. This was clawed off AK when Meredith Kercher fought for her life. The lamp (which was found at the bottom of the bed of Meredith Kercher was being used by AK to scan the floor closely, looking for her missing ear-ring. There is evidence that Meredith Kercher tried to fight off the attacker AK in the scratch which was photographed the next morning, on AK's throat. AK was aware of the scratch. A second lamp was also found at the other end of the bed within the room of Meredith Kercher, also aside on the floor. This was also being used to scan the floor for the missing ear-ring. AK brought her lamp into the room because the flex of the small student lamp already within the room didn't allow her to scan the entire floor. The plug of the lamp was found outside the door of the room. AK/RS were in such a state they either couldn't find a place within the room to plug in the lamp or they didn't want to leave traces within the room to touch anythin (by removing an existing plug). AK/RS were in such a state due to their level of intoxication the lamp was inadvertantly left within the room. This makes me think the room was locked in the early morning of the night of the murder. AK stated to the postal police that nothing was missing from the cottage (how did she know?) this was an obvious lie - one of her first - because the student light - the only light source in the room was missing from her room. She must have checked her own room. AK/RS chose to trash and stage the burglary within the room of Filomena. The panicking AK when she realised that her ear-ring was missing was remonstrating with RS that her lamp was still in the room at some point the next morning. RS related in his diary that she was trying to get into the room from the outside (very probably to retrieve it). The room was locked - the keys were disposed of. AK and RS had left Meredith Kercher to die in the room. RS had bolted long before. According to Barbara Nadeau it is possible that AK/RS stayed in the house until daylight after the murder to finish the drugs.


Dan-O : Are you simply accepting the prosecutions claim of what transpired in those interrogations that went on late into the night and early morning hours?

There is no requirement under italian law to record interviews. A great deal of interviews were made with AK as a witness before she incriminated herself.
There was no motivation of the police to "frame" AK. walked to the police station finally of her own volition. How can you be sure that no recording of the interview takes place? Here we go again with the assumption that everything looks like american law.

Dan-O : Amanda's account written immediately afterwards is totally consistent with her being led by the prosecutors to believe a fantasy.

AK spontaneously accused Lumumba after hearing that RS wasn't supporting her alibi. RS was in separate interview and had stated that AK had left his apartment that night. This statement he hasn't revoked. At the point AK made this accusation she wasn't even under caution or arrest. This is why there was no requirement for recording. AK was being interviewed 'informally'. AK after being arrested requested pen and paper and independently confirmed her accusation. There is no evidence that AK was "forced" to accuse Patrick Lumumba. Her accusation was purely a diverting strategy to relieve immediate suspicion from herself. What would motivate the police to force AK to accuse Patrick Lumumba?

Dan-O : This interrogation took place at the request of the police in a facility designed for interrogations and by a team that was recording everything surrounding the suspects from phone calls to private conversations in the waiting room yet we are let to believe that the interrogations were not recorded.

There was no requirement under italian law to use recorded interrogations as far as I know. Nothing has been breached in italian police procedural protocol. Read more about the italian system.

Dan-O : Have you seen the hickey photo in my last post? Are you calling that a scratch?

It is a scratch - it is not a 'hickey' - it is in the wrong place - a hickey would be displaced to the side of the neck - on either side -- a hickey would be 'O' shaped rather than the photographed nail [] scrape in the on one side of the adams apple of AK. This scratch is in exactly the place it would be in warding off an attacker (AK).

Dan-O : Where is your evidence of the preferred bite location for a vampire? Isn't their intent to draw blood by biting into a vein or artery? I've never heard of vampires going for the esophagus before. And where is your evidence of the distribution of hickeys?

Rubbish -- it's obvious it's not a hickey. Erstwhile friends of AK in the morning were pointing out to her 'a scratch'. They thought she may have been involved - but at that point not to the extent she was. Picture someone giving a 'hickey' into that position on the neck. It would look stupid. It's not a hickey it's a scratch. Multiple witnesses noticed the scratch.

Dan-O : I'd venture that you haven't done any research to support your claim but simply formed a belief to match your desired conclusion. Can you show us any photos of what kind of mark a knife held against the throat makes? Knives tend to be sharp and leave cuts and not the sort of discoloration that comes from negative surface pressure drawing blood from the capillaries.[/QUOTE]

The mark and the angle of the recovered knife that AK used to murder have been shown by forensic analysis in the trial. The knife was recovered. It has the DNA of AK on the handle and the DNA of Meredith Kercher in an indentation some way up the blade. RS had cleaned the knife - he arrogantly thought he could get away with anything. He flooded his sink waste pipe in his drugged paranoia to get rid of the blood that had been washed off it. AK was sighted by a credible witness the night of the murder (Kokomani) as she was threatening him with the knife "come here i'll show you!" RS was also carrying a knife which was probably the secondary knife used in the murder. Kokomani knew that there was a break-down truck outside the house before this was publically known. He was there. AK killed Meredith Kercher with that 30cm long kitchen knife - the knife that belonged to her 'acquaintance' RS. The knife was carried from the apartment of RS by AK in her 'large green bag' around 8pm that night accompanied by RS. They were out to threaten, 'haze' or just scare Meredith Kercher that night. They both turned their mobile phones off before they went out then (which according to their mobile phone records they hadn't done before) because they didn't want their movements traced. Quite possibly when they effectively kidnapped Meredith Kercher they were wearing a disguise. RG and Kokomani both reported RS as wearing a 'strange bathing cap' which was recovered from the house of RS. The 'hazing' scenario fits in with reports of AK effectively doing the same thing in Washington University - she was said to have enjoyed 'effectively kidnapping' and scaring people there by an independent witness. That story is too unique to be incredible.

AK is in the right place now.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Originally Posted by LiamG. View Post
Just one example:
In the Micheli it is written, that
Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck.

So, this bra was obviously removed after the bleeding ended.

But hey, why not spin this around again as it is one of the main conventions in this thread.
_________________________________________________________________

But this "one" example that you've given is no evidence whatsoever of a separate clean-up long after the event. The bra clearly was moved after Meredith stopped breathing with any effort - the mist of blood drops came from aspiration. But this therefore implies that the bra could have been moved very shortly after the attack took place. It's entirely consistent with the killer waiting for Meredith to stop breathing (or only breath very shallowly) before moving her bra. It's also of course consistent with the bra being moved much later on that night or the following morning, but it by no means proves that this is the time when the bra movement took place.

This is simply not true. In fact, the photos of Meredith's body show small round droplets of blood on her body. She was on her back, with her bra pushed above her breasts. She had an aspirating wound in her neck causing her blood to spray into the air and fall back down onto her body. The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died.

Micheli got this wrong. There is photographic evidence to prove it. This debate will never end because this evidence will never be shown to the public.


The evidence doesn't show that Meredith's body was moved hours after her death. I believe she was moved a few feet immediately after she was no longer able to fight. Guede moved her out of the pool of blood so he could sexually assault her. When she was still breathing, her bra was pulled up exposing her body. At this time blood was spraying into the air from the wound in her neck and falling back down onto the bra and her bare skin as Guede cut her bra off of her body and sexually assaulted her. Meredith's sexual assault was not staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body. That evidence would be impossible to stage.

Rudy Guede attacked and murdered Meredith Kercher. He acted alone. This wasn't a staged crime scene. The evidence clearly proves this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fingerprints

As should have been her fingerprints, all over the house in fact, yet they're not. Why is that?

It is meretricious to compare DNA and fingerprints, which are created and detected by different mechanisms. But additionally the forensic scientists were not particularly interested in finding Amanda's fingerprints throughout the cottage, which would not have been a very meaningful result. IIRC, Charlie Wilkes made this point some time ago.

 

[Dan O.]

As if this hadn't been discussed before... There are many possible explanations for the DNA being found on Raffaele's kitchen knife.

• The knife was used in the murder of Meredith and somehow after being cleaned with bleach, still held Meredith's DNA.
• Someone who had lived at or visited Meredith cottage picked up shed skin cells of Meredith on a rag or their clothing and transfered it to the knife back at Raffaele's apartment.
• An officer who had previously been to the murder scene discovered the knife in Raffaele's apartment and inadvertently (or otherwise) transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife before collecting it as evidence.
• A detective at the Perugia police station who had previously been to the murder scene, transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while repackaging it for shipment to Rome.
• A lab technician in Rome who had previous been to the murder scene transfered Meredith's DNA to the knife while unpacking it.
• The swab used to sample the knife had previously been contaminated with Meredith's DNA from testing other evidence also processed at the lab.
• A few cells worth of Meredith's DNA from PCR amplification of one of the many samples tested at that lab had become airborne and due to the lack of positive airflow containment that is required in all accredited labs that do LCN DNA work, managed to contaminate the swab taken from the knife.

As an expert in crime scene DNA analysis, how are you going to rule out all of these potential sources of contamination to save your conclusion that the DNA was the direct result of the crime?

An example of the same speculation not based in any fact whatsoever. Show us the evidence the same detectives handled evidence from both Rafaelle's flat and Meredith's cottage when the court testimony said they did not.

Danceme, I have highlighted some parts of my post that you apparently missed. I also detect an attempt to shift the goal posts in your reply; where I say "visited the murder scene", you changed to "handled evidence from ... Meredith's cottage". Is it your belief that DNA is only shed in the commission of a crime and therefore would only be found on the evidence?

I believe the testimony you are referring to is correct. The forensic team that handled the cottage was from Rome while Finzi and his partner that went to Raffaele's place were locals. However, at least one of that pair made a statement that indicated they had been inside the cottage.

I don't believe you will find testimony that Amanda and Raffaele were never in the cottage or that they didn't have an opportunity to handle the knife.

Maybe you prefer to rely on the claim that "Dead skin cells floating around the room do not contain DNA" (Try passing that one on anyone that has more that a BA in Biological Sciences).

Then there is the "I put on a new pair of gloves" testimony of captain Gubbiotti who repackaged the knife in his office before sending it on to Rome. Whether he was wearing gloves or not, What possible explanation is there for him to remove the knife from the sealed envelope and risk contamination? Some may draw the conclusion from his testimony that he had an agenda and the knife fit in it's place. (that's a joke for anyone that has actually reviewed the evidence)

 

[Kevinfay]

Kevin, this shows what Amanda and Raffaele are up against, when the trial judge produces a work of fiction like this. There is absolutely no evidence to support this sequence of events.

The evidence is that Meredith was murdered around 9pm on 1st November (a time when Raffaele was active on his computer); that a knife was used that has not been retrieved; and that Guede was in the room and had sexual contact with her, having entered the flat by a broken window. He had also been arrested a number of times before the murder for breaking and entering, and carrying a weapon - and was then released by the Perugia police.

Amanda and Raffaele left no trace that they had ever been in this room - Raffaele's DNA on a bra clasp contaminated with the DNA of 4 other unknown people is not sufficient to show that he was in the room. There is also no evidence to connect the kitchen knife from Raffaele's flat to the murder - the positive reading for Meredith's DNA was obtained in an improperly conducted test.

It is also clear that the Perugia police conducted an improper "investigation": all of the alleged statements by Amanda implicating herself, came from an oppressive series of interviews in which her rights were not safeguarded; they handled evidence improperly; and they negligently ignored potential evidence that might not have suited their conclusion of Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt.

Their accusations against Amanda and Raffaele of conducting a clean-up and staging the break-in are again not supported by evidence, and indeed cannot be fitted into the timescale of the crime and its discovery. Not only that, but in the weeks previous to the case (between 12-14 October), there was the unexplained death of a non-violent alleged drugs offender in the custody of the same Perugia police force (google "Aldo Bianzino").

This is a rogue police force; and it is when you recognise that the case against Raffaele and Amanda rests entirely on their assertions, the case is put in context. Those clinging to the belief that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder (including the trial judge) are doing so because of a completely uncritical acceptance of the police story.

Antony,

It was the prosecution who brought the case, not the police. Have you read the motivations? the judges, lay and professional, rejected large parts of the prosecution case.

Do you really believe that the whole Italian state was out to get AK and RS?. If anything, RS's family were too close to the Italian State, attempting to get the then Minister of Justice to intervene on their behalf ... they were unsucessful because the system worked?.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why does it not work the other way around? There is evidence presented in court that the DNA on the knife is real yet there are those here who say it is contaminated or fabricated with nothing to back that up but pure speculation based on a belief in a conspiracy against an Amaerican woman and an Italian man. The assertions that the DNA results are not real with regards to the crime are merely opinion with no basis in fact. They are beliefs only and not an argument.

There might or might not "be those here who say that".

However the good reasons to doubt the DNA evidence come through facts and relevant expert opinions. The DNA was not collected in a rigorous way (we have video of the collector wearing grubby gloves, not changing gloves between samples, rubbing swabs around liberally and so forth), the lab procedures for proper LCN testing were not carried out, the lab refused to show their logs or their raw data, the tests give conflicting data (the more sensitive blood test contradicting the DNA test) and so on.

Engaging only with the bad arguments for AK and RS's innocence is a form of cherry picking or straw man argumentation. With enough people arguing a given case, someone on the other side is bound to say something dumb eventually. What people really should do is address the best arguments on the other side.

As should have been her fingerprints, all over the house in fact, yet they're not. Why is that?

That's a very fast change of subject. Are you acknowledging that your previous arguments have been suitably answered now and moving on, or are you trying to get out of doing that by bringing up an entirely new topic?

We talked about this earlier in the thread, and people just don't always leave clear fingerprints all over everything. A fingerprint is excellent evidence someone handled something, but lack of a fingerprint proves little or nothing (unfortunately for forensics).

An example of the same speculation not based in any fact whatsoever. Show us the evidence the same detectives handled evidence from both Rafaelle's flat and Meredith's cottage when the court testimony said they did not.

The defence's job is to show that things are possible, and the prosecution's job to show that they are impossible.

Given the known behaviour of the Perugia police, I don't think it's known beyond reasonable doubt that they would not lie to cover up an error in their handling of the case. (A large part of modern police procedure is designed around developing evidence which does not come down in the end to the word of the police against the word of the accused).

 

[Kevinfay]

Dan O,

There is a photo of the scatch on PMF, it seemed clearer and probably the photo was taken earlier. The clincher is really that AK's housemate noticed it immediately on the 2 Nov and testified that she was absolutely convinced that it could not possibly be a lovebite.

If you hold a knife against someone's throat, I don't see why it couldn't leave a scratch?

 

[Fine]

Next 5 Questions. As before, feel free to jump in.

I believe after he killed Meredith he took his shoes off leaving those 2 shoeprints at the foot of the bed (making that knife imprint when he leaned on it for support) and went to the bathroom where he proceeded to wash up. The blood ran off and on to the mat where he stepped in it. He washed the blood off his feet with a towel which he took back to Meredith's room and took with him when he left. While he was in the bathroom he neglected to flush. He used the same towel to clean up the bathroom floor. He put his bloody shoes back on and walked out the door.



Why won't Raffaele Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?

I believe he did on many occasions until the police finally convinced him to admit he did not know if Amanda left and then came back when he was sleeping. See also answer to question 1.

______________________

Hi Rose.

You are confusing the two bathrooms in the upstairs of the cottage. The unflushed toilet was on the other side of the cottage, in the bathroom shared by Laura and Filomena.

And Raffaele wasn't "convinced" by the cops to admit that he did not know whether Amanda had left. Raffaele said, instead, that Amanda had left him. Period. (See his Prison Diary)

///

 

[Kevinfay]

Kevinfay, what you will find in this board is posters who in the true skeptic fashion won't simply accept what others say (even if they say it three times) but insist on seeing the evidence that backs up the claims. So far you have made many claims and stated that you accept the judgment of authorities but you have not produced any evidence to back up your claims.





This says you are starting out biased. You knew people in Italy that you feel could have committed this murder and then made the association that Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith, Rudy etc. must be like the group you knew. You have provided no evidence to support this association.





If you are really interested in knowing what happened, you need to drop the pretense that you already know until you have the evidence. If you want to get off your soapbox and actually discuss the evidence that exists, you will find on this board much more knowledge of the actual facts in the case than perhaps any other public forum on the net.





This would be much easier to accept if the jury actually stayed awake through all the proceedings and not just the prosecutions presentation.





Here you go again, claiming facts without any supporting evidence. If Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's apartment the whole time as they have always maintained then their claim that they were not at the crime scene would not be a lie. What evidence are you using to place Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene? What cleanup are you claiming occurred at the crime scene? And who is protecting Rudy? The whole thing sounds like circular reasoning on your part... If they are guilty then they lied about not being there and if they lied about not being there then they must be guilty.





Are you simply accepting the prosecutions claim of what transpired in those interrogations that went on late into the night and early morning hours? Amanda's account written immediately afterwards is totally consistent with her being led by the prosecutors to believe a fantasy. The prosecutors documentation of those sessions was written from the point of view of the prosecutors belief of what happened and is known to be factually incorrect in parts. This interrogation took place at the request of the police in a facility designed for interrogations and by a team that was recording everything surrounding the suspects from phone calls to private conversations in the waiting room yet we are let to believe that the interrogations were not recorded.

Have you seen the hickey photo in my last post? Are you calling that a scratch? Where is your evidence of the preferred bite location for a vampire? Isn't their intent to draw blood by biting into a vein or artery? I've never heard of vampires going for the esophagus before. And where is your evidence of the distribution of hickeys? I'd venture that you haven't done any research to support your claim but simply formed a belief to match your desired conclusion. Can you show us any photos of what kind of mark a knife held against the throat makes? Knives tend to be sharp and leave cuts and not the sort of discoloration that comes from negative surface pressure drawing blood from the capillaries.

Dan O,

1. The evidence is in the Motivations report. The defense have challenged this in the appeals documentation and you are also at liberty to explain why you think the Report is at fault. Do you think that the defense is also incompetent? .

2. Living in Italy for 10yrs (and the Italian part of Switzerland for another 10), having seen many similar situations, which thankfully didn't end so tragically, but could easily have, allowed me to predict that the court would find that Guede triggered the attack. I've seen the same 'toxic mix' of characters many times.

I was shouted down as a 'racist' on PMF, but it seems the court are as racist as me?

I heard the tapes of Knox's first 2 days of testimony, where the proscution tried to prove that there was some bad feeling beween AK and MK .... I said that for sure the court would believe Knox, I did .. again got shouted down, again the court saw it as I did.

I think I deserve a bit of credit for local knowledge?

3. Again you need to read the report and appeals

4. Were you in court when these people 'fell asleep'?

5. Again the Report and Appeals documentation set the stage for the Appeals hearings, you are entitles to disagree with both, are you saying both are worthless?

6. You'd better ask Laura about the scratch on Knox's neck, she testified that it was definately not a love bite.

 

[Kevinfay]

Kevin, if the Italian police are facing repeated accusations of brutality by defendants in unconnected cases, then it might just be because they're true. They can easily avoid them by following basic procedure like recording interviews and conducting them in the presence of independent lawyers representing defendants.

Another simple remedy would be to avoid practices like "interviewing" defendants for many hours at a stretch, and overnight, and then getting them to sign statements at 5.30 in the morning. This is what Amanda Knox was subjected to.

There are different ways in which they can respond to complaints like this. In democracies, we would expect an impartial investigation to be conducted into the complaint. The other way is to threaten legal action against the complainants, and thereby to convince them to withdraw the complaint - and of course, actually to take legal action if they won't withdraw.

This is the sort of thing that used to happen in Stalinist Russia. It creates a situation where making a complaint against the police is, in effect, prohibited in law. What does it achieve? Well, the main effect is to give the police carte blanche
to abuse suspects, knowing that any complaint will result in action being taken against the suspect, and not against them.

This factor makes Amanda's claims far more convincing than the police's denials.



If my daughter was murdered, the last thing I would want is for the police to focus their investigation exclusively on her flatmate and her boyfriend, which is what has happened here. Meanwhile, it was only because of the diligence of th German police that the real killer was even caught.

Antony,

Where do you get all this Police Brutality stuff from? Knox claimed in court that she was cuffed twice around the head, it didn't hurt but it schocked her. All the officers from the interview were in court, she just needed to point out the guilty one.

Have you ever lived in Italy? Do you know that the prison Knox is in is like a holiday camp compared with the brutal US prison system.

Who compared the Italian Police to those Stalinist Russia? Could you please point me to the Amnesty International Report that describes these things you are telling me about .... God, the Italian border is only 12 miles from here, I'd better watch out when I go for a pint of Guinness on Saturday?

 

[Kevinfay]

You are repeating a classic myth about this case. Amanda Knox did not know the name of the policewoman who hit her, but did describe this woman in court. Claiming that she did not or could not identify this woman is simply false.

To put this in perspective, if a woman claimed to have been raped by a bald man with a tattoo of a skunk on his arm, would you be claiming she was a liar because she didn't know her attackers name?

Kestrel,

The officers who interviewed Knox were all in court, all she had to do was to point out the guilty one?. Before the trial, with the description, her lawyer could have identified the guilty one in about 10 mins ?

If any of the convicted are to get anything out of the appeals, then it will be the Motivations Report and the challenges the defense make to it that will decide?.

I think it is more productive to concentrate on those?

 

[LiamG.]

But this "one" example that you've given is no evidence whatsoever of a separate clean-up long after the event. The bra clearly was moved after Meredith stopped breathing with any effort - the mist of blood drops came from aspiration. But this therefore implies that the bra could have been moved very shortly after the attack took place. It's entirely consistent with the killer waiting for Meredith to stop breathing (or only breath very shallowly) before moving her bra. It's also of course consistent with the bra being moved much later on that night or the following morning, but it by no means proves that this is the time when the bra movement took place.

Ehm, the relevant part of my quote of the Micheli report isn`t about mist of blood drops, it`s rather about a huge amount of blood in the area of MK`s right shoulder, which came from her neck wound. But I can quote for you again:
"Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck."

I think you were mistaken from the quite unfortunate translation "...prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body.." and concluded, that all these areas had just mist of blood drops on it !?!

If you take a look at the pictures of the blood-soaked bra (there are some on the internet), trust Micheli`s ability to disntinguish between some mist of blood drops and an area overflown with blood, which originated from a large wound, then it`s obvious, that this blood came from the neck injury.

The other thing is, that poor MK, suffered an agonizing death and (sorry, I feel terrible to say that) drowned in her own blood.
So I think there`s no doubt, that the bleeding didn`t stop for several minutes, and maybe continued after MK lost her life. And now I shall believe, that RG, who definetely panicked (see the bloody hand smears on the wall and on the rack for example) waited this long time, for which reason ever, to cut off the bra? Not to mention the fact, that he knew, that someone might return home to the cottage and discover him at the crime scene during that time.

Sorry, but I don`t buy this.

And by the way, the fact, that the blood had to be dried to some degree, so that these white areas could occur, even make the time-gap between the stabbing and removing of the bra bigger.
But yeah RG surely stayed at the cottage during this time and maybe drank some coffee, before deciding to remove the bra.

 

[Kestrel]

Kestrel,

The officers who interviewed Knox were all in court, all she had to do was to point out the guilty one?. Before the trial, with the description, her lawyer could have identified the guilty one in about 10 mins ?

Here on JREF we don't simply accept claims like this without proof.

It does however seem to be acceptable on PMF, which may be where you read this claim.

I notice something else about this issue. The defenders of the Perugia authorities can't decide between simply denying that Amanda was abused and minimizing the abuse that did happen.

 

[Kevinfay]

Bruce, I think you are right about there being a difference between the Micheli report and the AK/RS motivations report on the blood on the bra.

I'm pretty sure that the first report had the white area (protected by the bra) on Meredith's body ... therefore it was removed after the blood had dried, which tends to support a staging?.

The second report suggests that the bra was cut off during the attack. Can't be sure, need to check that .. seemed odd when I read it.

We are at a disadvantage compared with the jurors and lawyers, in that the really gory evidence was shown only to them, out of respect for the victim and her family?.

The defense lawyers certainly saw the evidence, so I think we must check whether this has been raised in the appeals?.

We are at a similar disadvantage when speculating whether there were one, two or three attackers?. However, we can hardly complain that this evidence wasn't shown in open court?.