Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
Quick question:

I'm puzzled about the whole area of Knox's table lamp in Meredith's room. Two things interest me: why was it in Meredith's room in the first place, and why was it (allegedly) plugged in outside the room into a socket in the hallway?

Did the postal police "first responders" (or Filomena or the two boyfriends) testify that they saw the flex extending under the door when they were debating whether to break it down? I feel pretty confident that a mains flex plugged into a hallway socket and leading into Meredith's room would have been both noticeable and notable to the police and the housemates, particularly when they were growing worried about Meredith's welfare and whereabouts.

And what (if anything) did Knox say about why her lamp might have been in Meredith's room? Had Meredith ever borrowed the lamp previously? I personally find it plausible that Knox might not have noticed that her table lamp was in her room while she was showering etc that morning, since there was ample natural light.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lamp is part of the recreation of the crime. I could imagine they shared things, hair dryers, lamps, etc.. but why would it be on the floor and why plugged into the hallway? Were the lamps on when the police kicked the door in?

Only comment I have read on the lighting of the cottage is:
- The tow truck driver mentions the cottage was dark, no lights.
- Rudy mentions a length of time where the lights would be assumed on, talking in the doorway, going through looking for her money etc..
- Rudy also mentioned the kitchen light was on when he went into the toilet by Lauras room, and kitchen light was off when he came out. (as I understood the Micheli report)
- Rudy mentioned the cottage was completely dark, except for the lamp in Merediths room when he arose from the toilet after hearing the scream.
- Rudy went to the bathroom twice to get towels and there's blood on the bathroom light switch (he kind of puts himself as likely candidate to have left this)
- Also the lights would have had to been "on" for Rudy to see this man with the knife.
- Rudy mentions seeing the blood on the wall in Merediths room, which would insinuate lights were "on" in her room.

Interesting, so the Driver says the lights were all off when he looked, and Rudy states the lights were "on" when he was there.

What if Amandas lamp was found "on" the next morning, would that insinuate the perp had turned the lamps on, after 23:40pm at least?

What If- the lamps were found "off" the next morning, is it highly likely, per Rudys own testimony he turned the lights off?

LJ, do you know if the table lamps were "on" or 'off" on Nov 2, 1pm?
 
On another subject: it's quite proper and correct that the US State Department has not injected itself into this case. The USA has no right to intervene in the judicial affairs of another sovereign state*, even when one of its citizens is involved. It has a right to ensure that the basic human rights of its citizens are observed, and that there are no totally egregious judicial failings such as kangaroo courts or indefinite detention without trial**.

And neither the Italian Executive (Berlusconi and pals), the US Executive (Obama, Clinton) nor the US Judiciary (Heaney, US Supreme Court) has a right or necessity to meddle in the rulings of the Italian Judiciary. That is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy and international law.

So both sides of the "US intervention" argument - to argue that the US State Department should intervene, or to argue that their non-intervention is indicative that the convictions are safe - are moot and wrong. This case belongs 100% within the confines of the Italian judicial system. It is totally up to their higher courts to decide whether justice has been properly applied in this case, and it's incumbent upon the defendants and all interested parties to accept the decisions of the courts at each available stage.

Of course, I personally believe that the higher courts might reverse (or set aside) the convictions of Knox and Sollecito on appeal, based on my (incomplete) knowledge of the case. But if all the appeals processes become exhausted, and the convictions stand, then the only remedy will be to find further (new) grounds for appeal. Otherwise, the verdicts must be accepted by all parties.

*If only the USA had followed these rules over Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's another matter for another day.....

** Viz Camp X-Ray :rolleyes:
 
Kestrel said:
Knox stated in court that she didn't notice the lamp was missing from her room or that her lamp was in Meredith's room.

The only other mention of the lamp in the Massei Report states that it was present when the scientific staff started to examine the room hours later.

Has anyone seen any witness statement indicating the a lamp cord going under the door was seen before Meredith's door was opened?
Click to expand...

How curious. One would have thought that this might be quite an important piece of evidence: a lamp belonging to one of the suspects in a room with a locked door which contained the murder victim, with the flex of the lamp leading out under the door to the hallway. Did the police conduct a forensic examination of the lamp for DNA and/or fingerprints?

And I'd re-iterate once again, if the lamp was in that position before the door was broken down, I can't believe that none of the multiple concerned people looking at Meredith's bedroom door (and deciding whether to break it down or not) would notice it and find it unusual. Surely they would have testified to it in witness statements and/or in the trial?
 
The lamb has been a topic of online debate but I have not seen anything to indicate that it had any significant importance at trial.

As far as I know, the lamp cord was not mentioned at all by any of the people present when the door was forced open. I could be wrong.

When there isn't enough to build that "mountain" of evidence that you are advertising, you have to start throwing everything into the pile whether it has any significance or not. That is what we have seen here. Filomena forgets a phone call, who cares? Amanda forgets a phone call, she must be a murderer. Look at the long lists that are complied on JREF by posters such as Stilicho. Those lists quickly fall apart with very little effort.

If someone can show me that the lamp has any significance, I will help Stilicho throw it back up on his "mountain"
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
OH, I don't know, how about accusing an innocent man of the crime, for one.
Click to expand...

Sherlock, you're not doing yourself any favors with your out-of-context quoting. Everyone can see it, and it only makes your points weaker. You cite my above statement as if I made no mention of the accusation against Patrick. But I clearly did and you clearly chose to ignore it because it didn't benefit your snarky reply. But here it is again, so that it is in context:

All three of these high profile cases demonstrate undeniably strong circumstantial evidence that the accused acted with guilty behavior. IMO, the only piece of evidence in the Meredith Kercher case that comes close to any of the above examples is if you believe that Amanda's story to police accusing Patrick wasn't coerced. Personally, when I read Amanda's testimony of how she was led to believe she was there that night, plus the police's mistranslation of her text to Patrick, and how it integrates with their interrogation with Raf where they (incorrectly) thought they had matched his shoeprint to a bloody one, it simply makes sense to me and fits all the pieces of that night... as opposed to the other way of thinking that Amanda broke down out of the blue as soon as the interrogation started and accused Patrick.
Click to expand...

And what I'll add to that notion so that it's clearer, is that the three points I listed regarding the other three defendants (Peterson, Van Der Sloot, and Anthony) are indisputable, whereas the accusation against Patrick is disputable because we have two different versions of what happened during the interrogation. Van Der Sloot can't deny what's on that videotape, Peterson's phone calls to his mistress were recorded as well, and Anthony can't deny not reporting her daughter missing. The same can't be said of Amanda's unrecorded interrogation where she alleges she was asked to imagine going to the cottage that night and was told she was there but didn't remember because of trauma.
 
Dan O. said:
This was posted a few pages back...

And you should compare that to the multipoint lockset code "PS350 03 50" on page 124/125 of the Corbin catalog also posted a few pages back...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links!

As far as an amateur like me can discern it's the right brand, the right colour and has the right function all right. I can't quite make the inset image map on to the FOA pictures, but I've got no experience dealing with these things, and if it's an older model in the photographs there's no reason it should look exactly like a modern model anyway.
 
JREF2010 said:
Yes, the lamp is part of the recreation of the crime. I could imagine they shared things, hair dryers, lamps, etc.. but why would it be on the floor and why plugged into the hallway? Were the lamps on when the police kicked the door in?
Click to expand...

Who is saying that the lamp was plugged into the hall? The outlet in the hall is past the door to Amanda's room. It is questionable that the cord would have reached that far and there is no reason to even try to reach it that far. There is a very convenient outlet right inside the door to Meredith's room. Right under that outlet is the plug from Meredith's laptop which had evidently been unplugged so that something else could be plugged into that outlet.

I don't think that anyone has questioned that the room was dark when the door was kicked in. [-]
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The lamb has been a topic of online debate but I have not seen anything to indicate that it had any significant importance at trial.

As far as I know, the lamp cord was not mentioned at all by any of the people present when the door was forced open. I could be wrong.

When there isn't enough to build that "mountain" of evidence that you are advertising, you have to start throwing everything into the pile whether it has any significance or not. That is what we have seen here. Filomena forgets a phone call, who cares? Amanda forgets a phone call, she must be a murderer. Look at the long lists that are complied on JREF by posters such as Stilicho. Those lists quickly fall apart with very little effort.

If someone can show me that the lamp has any significance, I will help Stilicho throw it back up on his "mountain"
Click to expand...

The moderated status eliminates the ability to correct errors like the one that I made above with regard to "lamb"

I guess I need to look over my posts a little more closely before I hit submit.
 
I apologize in advance if this violates a rule, but I am posting it in the interests of accurate information about this case. I noticed that somebody on another forum posted an old version of a pdf on the FOA website, which contains a major error. Sample 177 was from Filomena's room, not Amanda's room.

Please see the correct version at:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf
 
LondonJohn said:
On another subject: it's quite proper and correct that the US State Department has not injected itself into this case. The USA has no right to intervene in the judicial affairs of another sovereign state*, even when one of its citizens is involved. It has a right to ensure that the basic human rights of its citizens are observed, and that there are no totally egregious judicial failings such as kangaroo courts or indefinite detention without trial**.

And neither the Italian Executive (Berlusconi and pals), the US Executive (Obama, Clinton) nor the US Judiciary (Heaney, US Supreme Court) has a right or necessity to meddle in the rulings of the Italian Judiciary. That is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy and international law.

So both sides of the "US intervention" argument - to argue that the US State Department should intervene, or to argue that their non-intervention is indicative that the convictions are safe - are moot and wrong. This case belongs 100% within the confines of the Italian judicial system. It is totally up to their higher courts to decide whether justice has been properly applied in this case, and it's incumbent upon the defendants and all interested parties to accept the decisions of the courts at each available stage.

Of course, I personally believe that the higher courts might reverse (or set aside) the convictions of Knox and Sollecito on appeal, based on my (incomplete) knowledge of the case. But if all the appeals processes become exhausted, and the convictions stand, then the only remedy will be to find further (new) grounds for appeal. Otherwise, the verdicts must be accepted by all parties.

*If only the USA had followed these rules over Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's another matter for another day.....

** Viz Camp X-Ray :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Do they allow further appeals after the second one? If not, what do you suggest as a solution if Amanda is convicted on both her first and second appeals? We're not going to leave her in prison.
 
quadraginta said:
<snip>
Personally, I find the pair's sustained pattern of evasion, inconsistency, and willful deception quite damning. This even without the staged break-in, which, in spite of mental gymnastics far more impressive than any of Knox's cartwheels remains un-impeached to me.<snip>
Click to expand...


There is little to no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. There is even less evidence that they sustained a pattern of evasion, inconsistency and willful deception. You are welcome to provide citations to support your argument, but I doubt you'll find anything convincing, much less damning.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that the police lied many times, and that the consequences of their lies were seriously harmful to the defendants. Is it the lying that bothers you or is this about who does it?
 
Note on the Italian justice system:

I, for one, have never contended that the Italian justice system is riddled with endemic corruption and/or incompetence. I have faith that the checks and balances built into the Italian system will result in the correct application of justice, even if it takes time and multiple stages to do so. I think that most of the balanced posters who share my belief that the Knox/Sollecito convictions might be unsafe also share this view of the Italian justice system.

What I do believe is that the first trial was held in an atmosphere of retribution, with incredibly powerful media reports hanging in the air. And I believe that a lot of what was presented at the first trial as unimpeachable fact (particularly with regard to the prosecution's interpretation of much of the physical evidence) has subsequently been shown to be open to challenge. And I also believe that much of the witness evidence that was accepted by the court in the first trial is also open to challenge. And I believe that the time of death, and by extension a substantial supporting point of the prosecution's case, is open to challenge.

With all this in mind, I truly believe that mistakes and omissions were made by Sollecito's and Knox's criminal defence teams in the first trial. I believe that these mistakes/omissions may have been due to a lack of criminal defence experience (Dalla Vedova, for Knox), coupled with a lack of dedication to the case (Bongiorno, for Sollecito). I think that both Knox's and Sollecito's representation in the first trial passed the threshold for "adequate" defence, but that nonetheless a better job could and should have been done. I believe that the respective defence teams have solved these issues in time for the appeal (as evidenced by the depth and strength of the appeals documents), and that therefore the first appeal may lead to a different outcome than the first trial.

Incidentally, it's interesting to see some people lionising a man who was convicted of assault upon a 14-year-old boy, who was cautioned for offensive behaviour towards his wife, and who assaulted and issued death threats against members of his profession. And some of these same people can't even spell this man's name correctly......
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I apologize in advance if this violates a rule, but I am posting it in the interests of accurate information about this case. I noticed that somebody on another forum posted an old version of a pdf on the FOA website, which contains a major error. Sample 177 was from Filomena's room, not Amanda's room.

Please see the correct version at:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks Charlie. I noticed you didn't include a footnote about samples 176 to 183 being tested for blood and those tests were negative. Do you have a separate document for these?
 
Mary_H said:
Do they allow further appeals after the second one? If not, what do you suggest as a solution if Amanda is convicted on both her first and second appeals? We're not going to leave her in prison.
Click to expand...

I think the only remedy would be to find new exculpatory evidence, and to then petition the Italian judiciary for a further appeal.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The moderated status eliminates the ability to correct errors like the one that I made above with regard to "lamb"

I guess I need to look over my posts a little more closely before I hit submit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should change your name from Fisher to Shepherd :p
 
Just for quick clarification: Is it true that neither Filomena nor Laura attended the vigil for Meredith on November 5th?
 
RoseMontague said:
Thanks Charlie. I noticed you didn't include a footnote about samples 176 to 183 being tested for blood and those tests were negative. Do you have a separate document for these?
Click to expand...

I didn't know about the TMB tests when I prepared this summary. I could add a footnote, but I'm not sure it is necessary. The facts regarding these footprints have been presented in this thread. If people wish to cite research showing that false negatives are possible with TMB, so they can cling to a belief that the evidence means what the prosecution says it means, there's not much anyone can say that will convince them.
 
Dan O. said:
Who is saying that the lamp was plugged into the hall? The outlet in the hall is past the door to Amanda's room. It is questionable that the cord would have reached that far and there is no reason to even try to reach it that far. There is a very convenient outlet right inside the door to Meredith's room. Right under that outlet is the plug from Meredith's laptop which had evidently been unplugged so that something else could be plugged into that outlet.

I don't think that anyone has questioned that the room was dark when the door was kicked in. [-]
Click to expand...

I was probably incorrect, its possible I'm wrong twice, because this picture I referred from may not be a Nov 2 picture,but one after the cottage was totally demolished.
(its the one with the drying rack in it, #3 tag by the bedroom door to Merediths room. plug laying in the hallway, not plugged in)

The lamp's status of being on or off, Nov 2, made me curious after reading the Knox Appeal.

If we believe Rudy when he said the lamp was on and if we believe the tow truck driver stating lights were off, and possibly the police confirmed the lamp was off on Nov 2. Someone turned off the lamp light, it seems? who?


- Rudys says himself only Merediths lamp lit the entire cottage.

- Rudy is also the only one alive who was in Merediths purse where the keys were; in other words, there is no evidence Raffaele or Amanda searched Merediths purse where the keys were.

- Rudy also claims he was the last one to leave Meredith, in his own words, giving him the best opportunity to lock the door and leave because he had the keys.

maybe.. we have Rudy with access to Merediths keys, he turns off the lamp and leaves locking the door on his way out. He fled by 10pm-ish(before the Tow Truck driver views the cottage). Rudy does all this to simply buy time before anyone finds his victim. No one can open Meredith's door because Rudy took the keys buying him more time to run away, as he did to Germany.

I agree the lamp probably isn't important from a legal standpoint because it can't be fully understood.
 
It has been posted many times that Rudy ran right out the front door so there was no way that he could have stopped in the bathroom to cleanup, leaving the footprint on the bathmat.

If this was indeed the case, how did Rudy get the towels?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom