Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Look at the reference photo of the new tenant in the doorway and notice the position of the door knob on the door. Then look at the photo taken November 14, 2007 and find the door knob.
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Look at the reference photo of the new tenant in the doorway and notice the position of the door knob on the door. Then look at the photo taken November 14, 2007 and find the door knob.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...urder-house-bizarre-devil-worship-ritual.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ers-break-into-Merediths-flat-in-Perugia.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...1964/Break-in-at-Meredith-Kerchers-house.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/new-breakin-at-meredith-kerchers-house-1650087.html
Ah i was wrong. Apparently atleast 1 of the break ins was through a different window. Which begs the question. If they was gonna fake a break in, wouldn't they fake one with a window they could walk up too.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
We are supposed to believe that they couldn't stage a break in through the kitchen window because it would be immediately obvious if one of the flatmates were to return too soon before they had a chance to clean up the incriminating evidence against them. But somehow being caught when they stay up all night using the mop and bucket to scrub the floor with bleach would not be incriminating.
The whole staged break in story was concocted by the prosecution because the evidence of the actual break in was inconvenient for their conspiracy theory of the crime. All the testimony supporting the staged break in is itself unsupported by any photos or notes taken at the scene by the investigators.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
RS's defense says the Naruto evidence exists. That's a subjective fact, not an objective fact.
I never said they were lying. I said there has been no objective proof that the Naruto evidence exists.
Last edited:
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
There is nothing in that article about some special law being used to hold them without being charged. Is the amount of time they were held significantly longer than other people arrested for murder in Italy?
As for the appeal, I just reread Bruce's summary and there is no mention about him being denied a speedy trial. RS's issues surrounding his rights being violated involve being denied a lawyer and being denied accesss to evidence.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
The Daily Mail? Really? Here's a quote from your link, "Satanists desecrate Meredith Kercher murder house in bizarre devil-worship ritual"
Doesnt mean the house wasn't broken into. I was just posting links about the break in.
http://works.bepress.com/benjamin_sayagh/1/
http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/04/appeal-moves-forward-for-raffaele.html
Sollecito was arrested without evidence. He was held without evidence. He wasn't charged. His arrest was improper because they had NO evidence against him and denied legal council. So in effect his right to a fair and speedy trial is being violated since he is already being held in prison. You can call it oranges and I can call it apples. The truth of the matter is Sollecito got the worse railroading in history. His civil rights where raped by everyone in the Italian justice systems that was involved in this case.
Last edited:
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Thank you...
So we have an open door and plastic tape which could have been better placed to seal the crime scene.
On the other hand the printed page is still in place.
I still fail to see what makes you think that the police were inside the house after they finished their initial investigation and the next visit 46 days later.
Perhaps it would really help if you elaborate a little more.
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Let me get this straight. You want to convince me that the Italian police visited the cottage somewhere between their initial investigation and the reported visit 6 days later. And your evidence for this allegation is the changed position of a doorknob? I so hope you are kidding.... although I have a sinking feeling.
Yeah, he is saying the doorknob is in a different position. The position it is in, is the door is wide open.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Perhaps I missed it, but who the heck is Benjamin M. Sayagh, author of the first link? That link is about Amanda, not Raffaelle. The second link says nothing about being denied a speedy trial, again it's about access to a lawyer.
Bruce has a link to the appeal in Italian. I'm sure you can translate a few key words such as "speedy trial" and see what you get with a search.
As for Sollecito getting, "the worse railroading in history", well I think Alfred Dreyfus would disagree. But let us know when they send Raffaelle to Devil's Island.
You arrest someone. You have up to a year to charge them in Italy. I think, you can hold them for like another year before trial starts. If the first 11 months spent in custody is ruled illegal detention without evidence. Then effect your saying the onlly way you could have legally held them is if they where charged the day they where arrested. If from the time of their initial arrest and the time of the trial starting exceeds the time they are allowed under the right of a speedy trial. Then you are in effect violating their right to a speedy trial. Eventhough you are calling it unlawful detention. They are appealing the outcome of the trial because of the unlawful dentention. However, the only way the unlawful detention effects the trial is if it exceeds the process of speedy trial. Atleast thats the way I understand it. You might understand it a different way.
Last edited:
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Sheer genius.... that proves beyond doubt that the police did visit the house before their reported visit after the 46th day.
Just to make sure.... how does an open door prove that?
How did the door get open if the scene is secured and guarded by police? It was guarded up until January 09 when the trial started.
"I've never seen any discussion from the innocentisti on why Raffaele would say Filomena's door was wide open and he could see straight away there was a big mess in there, while Amanda says the door was closed. This is a pretty significant detail yet they say completely opposite things."
I posted the above several pages back but not one person was willing to offer a plausible explanation for why their stories differed so significantly on this important detail. Don't you think this could be one very valid reason why the police came to suspect them after hearing their stories? The only responses anyone posted to this were sarcastic non-responses from Katody Matrass. I still would like to hear why I should believe them when glaring inconsistencies like this exist.
Definitely not a response that would sway anyone to change sides.
I posted the above several pages back but not one person was willing to offer a plausible explanation for why their stories differed so significantly on this important detail. Don't you think this could be one very valid reason why the police came to suspect them after hearing their stories? The only responses anyone posted to this were sarcastic non-responses from Katody Matrass. I still would like to hear why I should believe them when glaring inconsistencies like this exist.
That's very interesting.
What about: they both are right
One of them saw the door closed. One of them saw it opened. I can't believe you couldn't think of it.
Definitely not a response that would sway anyone to change sides.
Amazer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,711
Guarded as an officer being on the premises 24/7? Or did they occasionally drop by the cottage to check?
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
I believe Amanda and Raffaele were already under arrest before Raffaele made the statement about Filomena's door being open. Hence we can't draw a connection between their inconsistency about the door and why the police came to suspect them of the crime.
Questions about Amanda and Raffaele's credibility are circumstantial, at best. In the big picture, their stories are consistent and reliable.
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
It's interesting that Matteini doesn't mention this in her report. She says the only point on which their accounts varied was the dirty toilet.
In any case, witness testimony varies widely with regard to details. This has been studied extensively and the research has been summarized in this discussion. Google von Liszt experiment, Elizabeth Loftus, Robert Buckout.
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Why do we have to be suspicious? Is the evidence which was presented in court and used as the basis of that Motivation secret? Is it unavailable to the people of either side of the case who are actually working on it?
The Motivations document is a summary. If it were a complete compilation of every item that was part of the case it would be somewhat longer.
Well, let's say we can continue to be curious, if not suspicious, for the sake of our own knowledge. I don't know if the information is available to anyone.
The defense attorneys seem to feel they have enough violations to focus on in this case without bringing in the timing of when the phone records were obtained. However, if they are planning to appeal Patrick's case against Amanda, I hope they would think to study whether or not the police were aware of the text messages before the interrogation, and ue it as proof that police guided Amanda's accusation of Patrick.
- Status