• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
loverofzion said:
Nice try.
We're not talking "imprecision of language".
Raf said 'NOTHING WAS TAKEN".
No room for wiggle there.

How did Raffaello know this?
Click to expand...

Witness against Knox claims her and Sollecito where in the park up until midnight. No room for wiggle there.
 
loverofzion said:
Yes but nothing had been taken from Filomena's room.
Amanda did not do a "run through " of the room; they had staged this burglary so knew NOTHING was removed.
Two different scenarios; the keys, phones and cash were taken from Meredith at the murder scene; the other scenario, Filomena's clothes was rifled through in her room to make it look as if there had been an intruder.
Don't confuse the two.
Click to expand...

Filomena's testimony and the crime scene photo's prove staged burlary? You really need to investigate what an actual burglary is. Here maybe this definition will help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary Be sure to read the whole thing before you grab a snip and post.

Just because Rudy didn't take anything from filomena's room, doesn't mean the burlgary was staged.
 
Last edited:
I have still been looking into the issue of Filomena and the shutters closed or open. I would like to add to my previous posts on this. Here are three quotes from 3 different documents each with a different version.

From the Massei report (shutters closed but not tight, refers to a 3 Dec '07 different statement)-PMF translation

Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).
Click to expand...

From Raffaele's appeal (one shutter open referring to that 3 December '07 statement) Google translation:

The sentence, in fact, started from a false certainty that that the Romanelli, 1 November, when leaving his home, while not closed the shutters, but had put together.
In this connection, the same Romanelli hearing on February 7, 2009, has confirmed the statements made to investigators on December 3, 2007 (p. 115 transcripts) that would leave open one of the two shutters.
Click to expand...

Micheli report (shutters probably open but not sure) Google translation:

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open: the shutters, but can not be hundred percent sure, without thought of them still closed both since left the tax met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. His memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but with your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. who was celebrating his birthday), but was then removed in a hurry because he was already late.
Click to expand...


The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Filomena is not sure at all about the shutters. Any conclusions leading from the assumptions that the shutters were open or closed should not be considered reliable.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Maybe the fight started over Amanda losing her job while Meridith kept hers. Getting fired could be the motivation to accuse Patrick later.
Click to expand...

Yes, and another reason for giving Patrick's name is that Amanda was really scared of Rudy, and he was still on the loose. When she said she was afraid of Patrick, and that he was really bad, she wasn't refering to Patrick at all.
 
Dan O. said:
Sherlock, the police interrogation is fatally flawed and produced zero useable information. Everything Amanda said in that "confession" had been first suggested by the police. Nothing they got that night could be independently verified to sort out fact from fiction. The interrogation was also legally flawed because it violated the rights of suspects under Italian law.

You are doing the same thing that the prosecution did by coming up with a theory and then cherry picking the circumstantial evidence that fits your theory and discarding the rest. There is no validity to your theory.


Theories are fine as a hypothesis but then they need to be validated by testing. Use the theory as a guide for where to look for additional evidence that may support or refute the theory.


eta: As a theoretical example, suppose that the police had a theory that a thief broke in through the window. Consistent with such a theory would be an expectation that there would be evidence such as tracks outside the window. To test the theory, an investigator would be sent outside to document if any such tracks existed. In this case, the prosecution claims that someone did go out to look for tracks but no documentation of the results exists. The investigators were not looking for evidence that refuted their theory but only documenting the evidence that supported it. Of course, Mignini had a different theory that ignored the break-in entirely.
Click to expand...


"the police interrogation is fatally flawed ", yes. to anyone who wants Amanda to be 100% innocent, but there also is a long list of other things that have to be fatally flawed as well. I don't buy that for one minute. Just take a look at how many parts of this investigation, have to be flawed, have to have someone lying or mistaken for your senerio to be correct. Sorry, but not a chance, their involved somehow and to some extent, we just need to find out how much involved they were, 0 percent, is not an option.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Yes, and another reason for giving Patrick's name is that Amanda was really scared of Rudy, and he was still on the loose. When she said she was afraid of Patrick, and that he was really bad, she wasn't refering to Patrick at all.
Click to expand...

Fiona said:
Anna Donnino, another interpreter, testified that she was called at her home around 11:00-11:30pm 4th/5th and asked to come in to the police station as her expertise were needed. She lives about 1/2 hour away and testified that after she arrived she spent the entire night in the same room as AK and acted as the interpreter. It was shortly after she arrived and started working with AK and the police that AK was shown the text messag by Lumumba, she was simply asked "did you see this sms? did you respond?" and Donnino testified that she will NEVER forget the reaction.. AK broke down, shocked, and put her hands on her head and said "its him, its him, he did it" etc etc. The interpreter testified that the statement came spontaneously by AK
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This shows exactly where Amanda came up with Patrick's name in the interrogation that night. The police put it in her face.

Of course it's very convenient for the prosecution that Anna cannot be questioned about what was happening in the interrogation before she arrived. The police had been telling Amanda that they already knew what happened. That they had proof. The tinder had been carefully laid out with a good dousing of petrol. All they needed to do was strike the match that gave gave Amanda the name of the perpetrator they were talking about. The interpreter didn't see any of the setup. All she saw was Amanda burst into flames when shown an innocent text message.

Spontaneous human combustion. Happens all the time. Natural causes.
 
Dan O. said:
This shows exactly where Amanda came up with Patrick's name in the interrogation that night. The police put it in her face.

Of course it's very convenient for the prosecution that Anna cannot be questioned about what was happening in the interrogation before she arrived. The police had been telling Amanda that they already knew what happened. That they had proof. The tinder had been carefully laid out with a good dousing of petrol. All they needed to do was strike the match that gave gave Amanda the name of the perpetrator they were talking about. The interpreter didn't see any of the setup. All she saw was Amanda burst into flames when shown an innocent text message.

Spontaneous human combustion. Happens all the time. Natural causes.
Click to expand...
That quote's interesting, Dan. Anna Donnino says she was called at 23.00-23.30, and that it took her 30 minutes to get there. Then shortly after that Amanda is supposed to have accused Patrick. Let's assume she arrived at about 00:15-00:30 (giving her 15-30 minutes to get changed): that means that (a) for the first 2 hours, Amanda was interrogated without an interpreter (assuming a start time of the end of her phone call to Filomena, when three police officers came to talk to her in the corridor); and (b) they carried on interrogating her for over an hour after she accused Patrick. Hmmm...
 
Fine said:
________________________

Amanda did state, in her court testimony, that Rudy had come into the club, La Chic, while she worked:

"GB [Giulia Bongiorno]: Can you tell me if you frequented each other, if you went out together?
Because you said that once you saw him at a party.

AK [Amanda Knox]: Yes, he came into my bar once, for example, but there was always this fact
that I had to work there, he came in, I don't think I even gave him a drink,
because -- I don't remember the situation that well, but I think he came in
and then went out. I don't remember. But really, I didn't know him at all."

///
Click to expand...

So, what? Amanda wasn't even able to remember his name during police questioning (before he was a suspect, and well before her testimony in court), although she included a description of him when asked to list everyone she could remember visiting the cottage, which included the downstairs flat.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
"the police interrogation is fatally flawed ", yes. to anyone who wants Amanda to be 100% innocent, but there also is a long list of other things that have to be fatally flawed as well. I don't buy that for one minute. Just take a look at how many parts of this investigation, have to be flawed, have to have someone lying or mistaken for your senerio to be correct. Sorry, but not a chance, their involved somehow and to some extent, we just need to find out how much involved they were, 0 percent, is not an option.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a question of all parts of the investigation having to be flawed in order to assume Amanda and Raffaele's innocence (although, using that argument you would surely have to rule out the possibility that anyone could be wrongfully convicted, since you would need to assume that all parts of the investigation in those cases were also flawed). Instead, I think it's a case of looking at the evidence in perspective. On the one hand, you have the possibility that they were involved in the murder to explain the DNA in the bathroom, the luminol prints, etc. On the other, you have the fact that Amanda lived in the apartment, and that Raffaele had been a frequent visitor in the week before the murder. Two different narratives which could each account for the evidence. So the real question is whether those pieces of evidence that are more difficult to account for using the second narrative - mainly the knife and the bra clasp - are solid, or whether there could be another explanation for them. In the end, it's only that type of evidence that has to be flawed for the case to fall apart, not all of it.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I analyzed the images in Rinaldi's presentation with a caliper tool. Sollecito's foot might be longer than his footprint because the reference print doesn't show his second toe (usually the longest) at all.

You can find Rinaldi's presentations here:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi1.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi2.pdf
Click to expand...
Ah OK; yeah I did something similar using the method on the IIP site (using Rinaldi's measurements proportionately to estimate the overall length of Guede's foot). I kept getting measurements of below 25cm, and thought I must be doing something wrong!

I think, though, that Massei must have a full version of Rinaldi's diagram (with all the measurements on it, including foot length), since he mentions that Rudy and Raffaele's feet are 247 and 244mms (at least, I would hope he was basing that on fact, rather than just guessing!).
 
katy_did said:
I don't think it's a question of all parts of the investigation having to be flawed in order to assume Amanda and Raffaele's innocence (although, using that argument you would surely have to rule out the possibility that anyone could be wrongfully convicted, since you would need to assume that all parts of the investigation in those cases were also flawed). Instead, I think it's a case of looking at the evidence in perspective. On the one hand, you have the possibility that they were involved in the murder to explain the DNA in the bathroom, the luminol prints, etc. On the other, you have the fact that Amanda lived in the apartment, and that Raffaele had been a frequent visitor in the week before the murder. Two different narratives which could each account for the evidence. So the real question is whether those pieces of evidence that are more difficult to account for using the second narrative - mainly the knife and the bra clasp - are solid, or whether there could be another explanation for them. In the end, it's only that type of evidence that has to be flawed for the case to fall apart, not all of it.
Click to expand...


No where did I say 'all parts', but what you need to look at is just how many parts have to be flawed, people lying or giving false or incorect information for Amanda not to be involved, you can't just look at one instance, you need to look at the whole picture.
 
Scorpion NITE said:
Apologies in advance as I really ought to know the answer but as I don't fancy traipsing through this giant thread (again...lol) or searching elsewhere, please could someone kindly clarify the following for me?

Were bare footprints of Raffaele found in the hallway?
Click to expand...

From my reading of the Massei Motivations I do not think that one can conclusively say that any of the luminol prints can belong specifically to any person, only that they may have compatible characteristics. Print finding 2 had a probable identity to Sollecito by Rinaldi.

Following is the summary of finding 2 (I am not sure if this summary is a mix of both Rinaldi's and the Court's opinion or only one or the other):

From pages 348-349 of the PMF English translated Massei Motivations:

The general characteristics referred to above may undoubtedly refer to any number of people, requiring in each case the identification, among the various quisque de populo (24), those persons who present the same combination of values [measurements] and who have, therefore, at the same time, with respect to finding 2, a 99mm-wide metatarsus, a big toe with a width of 30mm and a heel of 57-58mm.

Such metric values [measurements], as has been said, are present in Raffaele Sollecito's right sole-print, but are on the contrary lacking in the right feet of both Rudy Hermann Guede and of Amanda Knox.

Lastly, the evidence available (width of the big toe, shape of the bumps, the outer profile much more defined with respect to the heel) constitute measurement and morphological pointers which are widely used in scientific literature, which declares that they [these pointers] have, in themselves, a very great value in differentiating.

In this particular case, they lead to an opinion of probable identity with one subject (Sollecito with respect to trace 2, Amanda Knox with respect to traces 1 and 7) and to the demonstrated exclusion of the other two (25).

Footnotes:
(24) general masses/man-on-the-street
(25) in terms of each print matching only one person's feet, and not the feet of the other two
Click to expand...

The defense's consultant, Professor Vinci, presentation follows on page 349 with comments from the Court pages 354-356.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
No where did I say 'all parts', but what you need to look at is just how many parts have to be flawed, people lying or giving false or incorect information for Amanda not to be involved, you can't just look at one instance, you need to look at the whole picture.
Click to expand...
So I guess what you're mostly talking about here is the witnesses on the one hand, and Amanda and Raffaele's statements on the other. Addressing the latter, then: which are the statements you find particularly incriminating? The problem for me is that the vast majority of the 'lies' that are normally cited can equally plausibly be put down to normal variations or lapses in memory, of the sort that many of the other witnesses were prone to as well (I posted a list of the inconsistencies and errors in Filomena's testimony a while back, not to attack her - as it was interpreted in some quarters - but to show that by subjecting anyone's words and behaviour to the sort of minute analysis to which Amanda's in particular were subject you can make anyone look suspicious).

And then, of course, there's the false 'confession' from Amanda, which I think falls into a different category from the other alleged 'lies' and needs to be treated separately, because of the particular conditions under which it was given, and because it aligns so closely with all the characteristics of a typical 'coerced-internalized' false confession.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
So I guess what you're mostly talking about here is the witnesses on the one hand, and Amanda and Raffaele's statements on the other.
Click to expand...


Not at all, I'm talking about everything, the Judge's interpretation of the evidence, the coroner’s, the police, the witnesses, how the DNA was collected and tested, every aspect of this trial and yes, even that cartwheel which is how this thread originally got started, everything. Both sides in this debate have some very good points, the Guilter's and the FOAKer's, and both side have some very weak points as well, this is why I'm saying, the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
 
katy_did said:
That quote's interesting, Dan. Anna Donnino says she was called at 23.00-23.30, and that it took her 30 minutes to get there. Then shortly after that Amanda is supposed to have accused Patrick. Let's assume she arrived at about 00:15-00:30 (giving her 15-30 minutes to get changed): that means that (a) for the first 2 hours, Amanda was interrogated without an interpreter (assuming a start time of the end of her phone call to Filomena, when three police officers came to talk to her in the corridor); and (b) they carried on interrogating her for over an hour after she accused Patrick. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

D'oh Katy! Don't you know that they barely had time to "set up the chairs" in the interrogation room before Amanda "blurted out" her accusation of Patrick?!! :rolleyes:
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Absolutely nothing, unless it can somehow be proved that Amanda was that human.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued though as to why Sollecito would not have told everything long ago, if your theory were correct. Why do you think that he and his legal advisers would not have come totally clean and explained exactly what happened, when it became clear that Sollecito was being charged with full participation in the murder?
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm intrigued though as to why Sollecito would not have told everything long ago, if your theory were correct. Why do you think that he and his legal advisers would not have come totally clean and explained exactly what happened, when it became clear that Sollecito was being charged with full participation in the murder?
Click to expand...


Same with Amanda, my guess is that they thought they could get off completely, in fact, I honestly believe they believed they would in fact be found 'Not Guilty'.

Now a question for you - you've said you believe Amanda to be guilty, just not proven. What do you think her involvement in this murder was? Did she deliver one of the fatel blows, or something more along my line?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom