It wasn't a confession. Confessions follow the form "I did it" Amanda said "He did it" there's a difference.
Once again this is merely a semantic quibble. The psychological processes are the same whatever false statement the police are attempting to elicit.
First you state that Amanda internalised a false confession then you ask "How could she do that?" You would have to prove that she did in fact internalise false confession before you can ask the question.
Better yet prove how "I did It" = "He did it"
Once again you have not answered the question. I asked how her false witness statement could have all the characteristics I listed of an internalised false confession, given that Amanda did not know those characteristics well enough to fake them?
You haven't considered the possibility that Amanda was lying and not internalizing a false confession.
Her accusation has all the characteristics of a lie in that it was contrary to fact.
It was indeed contrary to fact. That's one of the characteristics of an internalised false confession. But how do you explain the other characteristics of an internalised false confession it has?
Kevin, I thought we wacked this mole already? If it was Amanda he touched with the knife then why the heck isn't her DNA on it? How can touching one person with a knife deposit another person's DNA on it?
It is getting a bit repetitious, isn't it? Like I said last time, you have failed to show that Raffaele knew enough about DNA forensics not to make such a mistake. All this argument proves is that Raffaele at the time didn't know very much about DNA forensics, and thought that it was possible that such an event could leave Meredith's DNA on the blade but not Amanda's.
You're creating a false dichotomy here where either Raffaele is either both innocent and an infallible DNA expert, or guilty. Why can't he be innocent and ignorant of DNA forensics?
Putting the time of death before 10pm doesn't do anything to prove that AK and RS are innocent.
Just for starters it completely destroy's Mignini's case, which as far as I can tell the bulk of the guilters still subscribe to word for word.
It also goes a very long way towards clearing them of guilt entirely, since their alibi for the 21:00-22:00 period is currently much better supported than their alibi for the 23:00-24:00 period.
You are saying that the entire murder, sexual assault and everything else that occured for which there is evidence for occurred between 9:05 and 10:00. Ok, considering how short that amount of time is, it's more likely that more than one person was involved.
Perhaps, but firstly this is neither here nor there if the "other people" besides Rudy were not Raffaele and Amanda. Secondly this theory still has the problem of the total lack of forensic evidence for such "other people" being present. Thirdly it strikes me personally as very much a zebra hypothesis: When I see a crime scene that a single murderer would have to have been fairly busy to have accomplished in an hour, I think that the most likely explanation is that the murderer had a fairly busy hour.
Ok, throw out her police interrrogtions. You still have a bunch of inconsistent and contradictory statement from them in regard to her email back home, her trial testimony and his prison diary (none of which were coerced).
I simply do not understand this line of argument. If Raffaele and Amanda could not have been present at the time Meredith died, they couldn't have done it, and what they did or did not write in some diary long after the fact has no power to change that.
You can pile up these supposed "gotchas" as high as you like, but none of them have any bearing on the important facts of this case.
There has been no evidence presented that RS watched an episode of Naruto the night of the crime. It was not brought up by the prosecution or the defense at trial. It is noting more than something RS's defense team wants examined on appeal.
I thought we already went over this. The evidence that Naruto was watched comes from the hard drive images supplied by the police. It's a hard fact recorded in ones and zeroes.
I struggle to see why you think that the fact it was not raised at the trial changes this.
By picking it up and using as a knife, some time after hypothetical evildoer(s) killed Meredith with it, cleaned it and returned it to Raffaele's drawer.
No, it doesn't make much sense. Then again neither does the prosecution theory that they cleaned the blade thoroughly with bleach -
magical bleach that wipes away all blood cells leaving only a tiny minority of non-blood cells intact but with detectable DNA - but didn't clean the handle at all.
Amanda said she came home that morning took a shower, changed and dryed her hair in the other bathroom, and guess what? Only one fingerprint of her's was found in the entire apartment! If fingerprint can go "missing" why not DNA too?
Is it correct to take this as an acknowledgement that no other forensic evidence links Amanda to the crime?
Since both Filomena and the police went through her stuff we can't be certain of the position of the glass when the window was broken.
No. We cannot be certain. That eliminates all the persuasive evidence that the break-in was faked.
So Rudy magically leaves no fingerprints while ransacking Filomena's room but then equally magically leaves them all over the rest of the apartment. Was Rudy wearing gloves when he broke into the kindergarten?
If you check you will find that Rudy left one identifiable fingerprint, total, and I believe that one was in blood.
How could Amanda's hard drive possible confirm her alibi? Her alibi was that she was at his apartment and her computer was at her apartment. As for his computer, good gosh, what didn't he supposedly watch that evening?
As for Amanda's computer it depends how it was set up and what Amanda did with it, and what her computing habits were. It could well prove nothing.
As for his computer, you seem to think it incredible that a couple of twentysomethings might spend the evening at home watching movies they downloaded. I find absolutely nothing incredible about that at all.
Mignini got a lot of it wrong but it still doesn't mean they are not guilty. You conveniently left a lot out of your list, such as:
1. Why was Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room?
2. On Nov. 2, why, in the 48 minutes between 12:07 – 12:55 did Amanda spend only a total of 23 seconds trying to phone Meredith though she stated she was “panicked” as to her whereabouts.
3. The pair were back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?
4.Both Amanda’s mother and Filomena told Amanda to call the police based on what she told them, why she didn’t.
5. Why did Raffaelle tell the police that nothing was taken from Filomena's room when there was no way he could have known that?
6. Why didn't Amanda flush the toilet?
7. Why were their no bloody shoeprints leading from the bedroom to the bloody bathmat? FBI guy Steve Moore said no one could have left that room without blood on their shoes, yet there were no bloody prints, why?
8. If it was Rudy that was cleaning up in the bathroom why would he go back into Meredith's room after he had just cleaned up?
9. Why would Rudy bother to lock Meredith's door when he made no attempt to cover up evidence of his being there?
The short answer is, people do weird things, especially in unusual situations. It doesn't make them guilty or innocent.
Guilters engage in the most amazing mental contortions to find some way that absolutely any oddity can possibly be construed as evidence that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Then once they have found this interpretation, they boldly assert it to be the
obvious conclusion and try to push the burden of proof on to everyone else to prove that their interpretation is incorrect.
So Amanda didn't flush. So what? To a rational person it indicates nothing either way. Maybe she was lazy, maybe she wanted to put off dealing with it, maybe she wanted to make whoever left it there deal with it, maybe it was all part of a master plan to frame Rudy, we don't know. If it was a master plan to frame Rudy that's the weirdest hypothesis of the bunch by far, because if they were in on it then they surely knew he'd left bloody evidence all over the murder room so leaving his poop in the toilet would be totally redundant.
To the guilters, the interpretation that makes Amanda Knox guiltiest is the one and only possible interpretation, and this is so obvious that you don't even need to explain your reasoning, you can just raise it as a rhetorical question. To everybody else, this kind of argument just looks silly.
The long answer is we've already whacked these moles and you know it. We've discussed in detail phone calls, footprints, Rudy's likely itinerary, the poop and so forth and none of it raises any difficulties for the hypothesis that Rudy killed Meredith by himself and that Amanda and Raffaele were two convenient patsies who didn't do anything but bumble around for a bit before they called the police, and then cooperated with them as best they could.
