Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
I'm sure you have proof of those things?
Click to expand...

So what your asking me is if I had proof that Knox retracted her statement? I'm confused. I thought everyone knew that knox retracted it. As for Patrick already being a suspect. The police themselves said she admitted to that what we already knew. Therefore her saying patrick was there was confirming what they already knew.
 
Alt+F4 said:
The bra clasp evidence isn't going away. Even RS's defense team is unsure how to approach it.
Click to expand...

Actually they are quite sure how to approach it. They want it tested using LCN because the prosecution claims it is Sollecito's and they claim the profile isn't.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Please give the names of those people responsible and give the specific details on how they are responsible, exactly what they did, when they did it and why they did it. After all, according to you, it's in the public domain. Thanks.
Click to expand...


We covered this topic on page 100. It's just harassment to ask for names and dates. And why they did it? That's a pretty tall order.

He was charged with murder! Why the heck would he trust the police? They were charging him with a murder that he says he didn't commit. Please provide evidence that he "still trusted the police" at that time.
Click to expand...


The answer to that question was in the rest of the post you're responding to. Antony wrote:

You're not suggesting that the spurious positive reading for Meredith's DNA didn't originate from the police? It never had any credibility other than to those on the pro-guilt side, but Raffaele still trusted the police to provide sound information. That is why he speculated about a transfer of the DNA, apparently via Amanda's hand.
Click to expand...


Alt+4, you discussed the same subject on the previous page, in post 5086:

Charlie Wilkes: "I agree with you here. I think Raffaele came up with this story in the hope that it would explain away the evidence that had been described to him. It was stupid, but it doesn't mean he was involved in the murder."

Alt+4: "Why didn't he just say it was impossible? He had no problem saying it was impossible that he murdered Meredith."

He might have said it was impossible if he had had any inkling that his explanation was going to be used to establish that he was a liar and therefore a murderer. At the time he wrote about the knife, though, I don't think Raffaele believed he or Amanda would ultimately be held for the murder of Meredith Kercher. He hadn't been taking the charges seriously, because he knew they were ridiculous.

On November 7th, he wrote, "They want to paint me as the genius of computer crime ... But, ah ah ah, a certain genius that you find in the police station with the shoes with which he committed the crime and with the knife with which he cut the throat of the victim in his pocket ... A genius! Not to say a true Einstein!"

By the time he had been in jail for a few days, he was reverting back to his knowledge that he and Amanda had spent the night of the murder at his place, so he was really surprised when he heard about the knife.

On November 16th, Raffaele wrote: "Last night I saw on television that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent) ...my heart jumped in my throat and I was in total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or had helped someone in the enterprise....But today I saw Tiziano who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the legal doctor, and has nothing to do with anything as Amanda could take it and and carry it from my house to her house because the girls didn't have knife so, they are making a smokescreen for nothing..."

From this paragraph, incidentally, we actually could conclude that Raffaele's attorney may have led him to believe it was indeed possible that Amanda had taken the knife to her house, and he had cooked with it there, and maybe pricked Meredith.

Still reluctant to take the charges seriously (if he even knew what the specific charges were), he wrote on the 18th, "They should first of all show that the knife is indeed the weapon of the crime: knife, type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc.." He is showing he still has some confidence that this is all a misunderstanding, which forensics will straighten out.

In my opinion, it is safe to say that Raffaele had not spent much energy up to that point denying that he had killed Meredith, or even feeling as if he was being accused of it. Hence, he wasn't prepared to vehemently deny the allegations about the knife, as he didn't realize the weight it would carry against him or Amanda.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I believe RS's appeal is asking for this to be tested. Does anyone know why? If it's Rudy's it doesn't change anything for RS. If it's from unknown male then RS's defense of Rudy as the lone attacker goes out the window.
Click to expand...

I think there are a few reasons.

1st. Being that the judge allowed into evidence in which rudy claims to have not had sex with Meredith and that Knox and Sollecito killed her while he was on the toilet. Atleast I have read that his statement at his appeal was allowed in Knox/Sollecito's trial. If it's Rudy's semen, it proves he was lying and that the prosecution presented false evidence that placed them at the scene.

2nd. The defense claims that the semen was smeared and was left at the scene around the time of the murder. If its not Rudy's and it is not Sollecito's, then it gives credibility to that low life murderer that claims Rudy confessed that him and another man where at the scene.

3rd. If its not Rudy's or Sollecito's semen, then there is a 4th person involved. Remember Knox supposedly helped Rudy after Meredith refused to have sex with him and that Knox killed her while Rudy and Sollecito held her arms. Where does the fourth person fit into this theory? It destroys what Knox, Sollecito, and even what Rudy was convicted of. IF the semen proves there is a 4th persons at the scene or even suggest that another person was present, then their conviction is flawed. At the very least you have to throw out Knox's and Sollecito's conviction, and probably Rudy's as well.
 
Mary_H said:
Well, we shall certainly put this in our file of reasons why the police should not have been allowed to arrest anybody that night.
Click to expand...

When should the police be allowed to arrest someone?
 
Chris C said:
If i got accused of a crime and thrown in jail without being charged, I would be whiney also. You can't tell me you wouldn't be crying and complaining.
Click to expand...

RS was arrested without being charged? Please provide details.
 
tsig said:
"Everyone knew" isn't proof.
Click to expand...

Seriously? So you are saying you want proof that Knox retracted the statement she gave police.
Ok hows this for proof. The same statement that the Supreme Court ruled couldn't be used against knox in the murder trial. Apparently she must have retracted it, her defense was fighting to keep it from being allowed in court.
 
Alt+F4 said:
RS was arrested without being charged? Please provide details.
Click to expand...

I think I'm correct on this point. However, wasn't knox/sollecito both held for nearly a year using some "flight of the country law" before being charged so they could find evidence against them.
 
tsig said:
When should the police be allowed to arrest someone?
Click to expand...


Answer that for yourself; when should the police be allowed to invade your home and arrest YOU!

Is one uncooberated statement from a suspect subjected to harsh interrogation sufficient?

I suspect that you will say it is. You like the police to be tough. Never mind that they might burst into your house and mistake the pepsi can you are holding as a weapon and shoot you dead. These things happen and that's the price you are willing to pay to feel secure.
 
Chris C said:
Seriously? So you are saying you want proof that Knox retracted the statement she gave police.
Ok hows this for proof. The same statement that the Supreme Court ruled couldn't be used against knox in the murder trial. Apparently she must have retracted it, her defense was fighting to keep it from being allowed in court.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm seriously asking you to prove that she retracted her accusation.
 
tsig said:
When should the police be allowed to arrest someone?
Click to expand...


How about when they have evidence against them? And don't talk to me about evidence that was created in coercive, "untaped" interrogations, outside the presence of legally-required counsel. That's evidence against the police, not the defendants.
 
Mary_H said:
How about when they have evidence against them? And don't talk to me about evidence that was created in coercive, "untaped" interrogations, outside the presence of legally-required counsel. That's evidence against the police, not the defendants.
Click to expand...

So Amanda's accusation should have not been taken seriously by the police?

Do you really think that the Perugia police just run wild, beat up witnesses and concoct evidence?

You're saying that they forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they thought she was guilty?
 
tsig said:
So Amanda's accusation should have not been taken seriously by the police?

Do you really think that the Perugia police just run wild, beat up witnesses and concoct evidence?

You're saying that they forced Amanda to accuse Patrick because they thought she was guilty?
Click to expand...


Where's your proof that the interrogation techniques employed by the Italian police produce valid results?
 
tsig said:
Yes I'm seriously asking you to prove that she retracted her accusation.
Click to expand...


Amanda retracted her accusation of Patrick several times, including on the the same day she made it. On November 6th, she wrote in her memorandum to the police:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
5. Who is the REAL murder? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone in this instance."

She later testified in court:

"I had clearly written down in the memorandum that everything in my declarations couldn't be true because I didn't really remember them. And then, whenever police came to talk to give me paper or anything, they treated me like "Oh, so you have another truth now." So this was my way of telling them that nothing I had said in the Questura was usable."

Amanda testified that she wrote to her attorney on the 9th: "I wrote that I felt upset about having said the name of Patrick. Just that. Because at that time, I remembered and I knew that everything I had said was a mistake."

On the 10th, the police tapped Amanda's prison cell, where she was heard telling her mother that she was sorry she had accused Patrick, because she knew she hadn't been at the cottage that night, so could not be trusted as a reliable witness against him. The next day, the news media carried the story of what Amanda had said to her mother, as a result of being informed by the police and by Edda Mellas of the conversation.
 
BTW: you seem to be ignoring the evidence I posted earlier showing that the police had entered the cottage (or allowed the entry) in mid november while it was supposed to be sealed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom