Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Sory but I don't get what's funny about conjuring having sex with a strange man on a train.
Do you?
And who "seriously" or "tragically" misunderstood her story??

As for not mentioning the stranger on the train's name on her list of possible HIV carrying sex partners, well how would you know whose names were on that list?

As for drugs it is very much conjectured that there were hard drugs involved that night; her boyfriend was an avid drug taker and she was known to be just that kind of gal who liked to try everything (in her sister Deanna's words).

Whitewashing the sainted martyr is what this game is called.

I dont understand why someone would make the leap from having sex with a stranger to being a cold blooded murderer involved in a 3 way sex crime. I have had sex with plenty of women I met the first time. Knox had no reason to lie to the fake doctor the prosecution sent to ask her questions. She gave up names. Maybe the guy was just so terrible in bed he wasn't worth mentioning. Maybe their type of sex didn't involved the kind that easily passes HIV. Maybe just maybe she didn't have sex with him. However, what does her having sex with a guy on a train have to do with her murdering Meredith. Heck she had sex with a friend of Meredith's boyfriend. How many times did they meet before they had sex. The fact that people try to call her a murderer because she left off a name they claim she had sex with is absurd. Its just an attempt to get away from the lack of evidence of knox killing Meredith.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you need to do some reading outside the PMF echo chamber.

Here are some links for you, originally from LondonJohn:

http://www.ijp-online.com/article.a...e=4;spage=238;epage=240;aulast=Awasthi;type=0

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x/abstract

The take-home message is that t(lag), the time until food starts leaving the stomach after a meal, does cover a range but it's usually a range of one hour to two hours, and times outside that range are increasingly unlikely the further outside those times you go.

?

As London John would say, it's time to put this fallacy to bed once and for all.

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court.

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensic...omach_Contents_and_the_Time_of_Death_.10.aspx

You can find anything saying pretty much anything you want on the web, but if your going to quote, use reliable sites at least. Your first site links to Indian journal of Pharmacology, why? Because it says what you want to hear. Now, end of story... Do not use stomach contents to estimate time of death.....

 

[katy_did]

I don't know. It could my reading is wrong, but starting at page 380 through 387 of the motivations I come away with Massei reasoning that there was an attempt at cleaning the footprints. On at least three separate occasions (there may be more) Massei states:

I am unclear whether Massei is including all footprints highlighted by luminol in the attempted cleaning or only a few.

Hmmm, thanks for that. I have a feeling "resisted" here may mean simply "withstood" or "outlasted" (in the sense that they remained after a clean up had been carried out, not that they were cleaned but traces remained). The English meaning of 'resisted' doesn't make a lot of sense in that last quote in particular - they "had resisted being cleaned, and in fact they were not visible, and could only be seen when the chemical reagent was sprayed"? That sort of implies that the reason they were not cleaned is that they were invisible. The translation is also misleading in that the Italian version reads "they resisted the cleaning", not "they resisted being cleaned". In other words, they outlasted the clean-up, not that they were cleaned but remained. If you re-read that sentence as they "outlasted the cleaning, and in fact were not visible, and could only be seen when the chemical reagent was sprayed", to me at least that makes a bit more sense.

The second quote also seems to suggest that if the luminol prints were not cleaned, it's because the clean-up was "not particular[ly] careful" - not because the prints "resisted" the cleaning. Combined with Massei's words elsewhere, in which (as I recall, though I read the report ages ago so need to go back and check) he suggests that the prints were made invisibly, I think what he's saying here is simply that the prints remained after the cleaning had been carried out, not that they were cleaned but remained afterwards (and if he were saying that, his logic would be erroneous since if they'd been cleaned they wouldn't have been there at all. But I don't think that's what he's saying).

 

[RWVBWL]

No, sorry it was quite clear he was washing up AFTER eating dinner.

Nice try though...

Hi loverofzion,
Can you please post a link to your information that Raffaele Sollecito was washing dishes AFTER dinner?

As I am a bachelor also, I thought it strange most everyone assumes that a young guy, with his new girlfriend in the house with him, (whom actually was supposed to work that evening but had the boss give her a night off), would even want to wash his dishes AFTER dinner.

My thoughts on this have always been as Kestrel writes:
Originally Posted by Kestrel
"That Raffaele was washing dishes is not proof they had already had dinner.
Bachelors sometimes have to wash dishes before a meal because they didn't do it after the previous meal."
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[katy_did]

As London John would say, it's time to put this fallacy to bed once and for all.

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court.

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensic...omach_Contents_and_the_Time_of_Death_.10.aspx

You can find anything saying pretty much anything you want on the web, but if your going to quote, use reliable sites at least. Your first site links to Indian journal of Pharmacology, why? Because it says what you want to hear. Now, end of story... Do not use stomach contents to estimate time of death.....

But what's the "unacceptable degree of imprecision" we're talking about here? Michael on PMF stated that you can only tell time of death to within 3-4 hours using stomach contents, hence it's very imprecise. But in this case, as has been pointed out, we can immediately rule out the first three of those possible hours, since we know Meredith was alive until 9. Hence, this imprecise method becomes much more precise in this particular case.

So, what's the "unacceptable degree of imprecision" being referred to here, in terms of hours?

 

[RWVBWL]

There was no semen evidence of Rudy Guede in that cottage.
There was a possible semen stain which was impossible to date; it was not Rudy's.
And yes cutting off the bra would make it look as if it had been a sex crime by the selfsame intruder who "burgled" Filomena's possessions.

What part don't you understand?

(Boldness mine, RWVBWL)
_________________________________________________________________

The semen stain MIGHT have been Rudy's; the point is semen stains cannot be dated, so waht would that prove for the case?
My sources are the Motivations Report.
You may want to try reading it.

(Boldness mine, RWVBWL)
_________________________________________________________________

Hi loverofzion,
Can you please expand on what you are trying to say in these 2 different posts? For I was offline over the weekend, and I wondered how you knew that this stain we write of, if it is indeed semen, was not Rudy Guede's.

So when I checked in today here on JREF and read the past few days of posts, I was dumbfounded to see that you, "loverofzion", are now saying something unexpectedly different than what I had anticipated would be your response.

"NOT Rudy's" and "MIGHT HAVE BEEN Rudy's"?

Please give me more detaills!
Thanks,
RWVBWL

 

[Antony]

(msg #5726)
There is nothing in that statement that indicates if the "story" was fed to Amanda. That is something you want to read from it.

You haven't answered my question as to how you can come to a different conclusion; you have simply said, in effect, "oh no, it doesn't!"

There are 4 elements to this quote:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct."

Amanda is saying that she spent the night at Raffaele's apartment. When Felici says "we knew was not correct", he means of course that he would not allow her to say this.

"She buckled ..."

Enough said.

"... and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct ..."

This means that the police had already decided on the statement that Amanda would make: the one where she was in the kitchen covering her ears while Patrick committed the murder. It's no good saying you don't agree; please explain exactly how a different interpretation is possible.

"... and from that we were able to bring them all in."

Final point: I have highlighted the crucial words here. The overnight questioning of Amanda was part of a process planned by the police which would allow them to continue with the next stage: the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick.

Also the coercion part depends on how you define coercion. If you mean physical coercion (slap on the back of her head) then I disagree with you.

Of course you disagree. You get an extra 6 years in jail for saying that!

Amanda is being further persecuted merely for complaining that she was slapped on the back of the head "when I couldn't remember a fact correctly". Interesting echoing of words: Felici - "facts we knew to be correct"; Amanda - "couldn't remember a fact correctly".

If you mean mental coercion in the form of the police stating that the story Amanda told didn't match the facts as they knew them at the time, then yes.

Except the police didn't have any facts (or even pseudo-facts) at that time; this was November 6, and as far as I know they have presented no evidence at all that was collected before then. Of course, within 2 weeks, the police were forced to change the "facts they knew to be correct". Felici's claim to have "facts we knew to be correct" is a demonstrable lie (unlike any of Amanda's and Raffaele's alleged "lies").

As for this being "coercion", this depends on the circumstances. When you are in a police station in a foreign country surrounded by hostile officers, and a police chief says your story is "not correct", your choices start to become limited.

But then, such "coercion" is fairly common during any interrogation.

There is more in your words than you know.

 

[loverofzion]

I dont understand why someone would make the leap from having sex with a stranger to being a cold blooded murderer involved in a 3 way sex crime. I have had sex with plenty of women I met the first time. Knox had no reason to lie to the fake doctor the prosecution sent to ask her questions. She gave up names. Maybe the guy was just so terrible in bed he wasn't worth mentioning. Maybe their type of sex didn't involved the kind that easily passes HIV. Maybe just maybe she didn't have sex with him. However, what does her having sex with a guy on a train have to do with her murdering Meredith. Heck she had sex with a friend of Meredith's boyfriend. How many times did they meet before they had sex. The fact that people try to call her a murderer because she left off a name they claim she had sex with is absurd. Its just an attempt to get away from the lack of evidence of knox killing Meredith.

Nobody called her a murderer because she had sex with a strange man on a train; this is you being disingenuous..
But this coupled wih other examples of Ms. Knox's high jinks lead the inquiring mind to wonder about her risk taking behaviors, or perhaps her irresponsible thrill seeking.

It's just one more factor in figuring out how the chick operated.

 

[loverofzion]

(Boldness mine, RWVBWL)
_________________________________________________________________


(Boldness mine, RWVBWL)
_________________________________________________________________

Hi loverofzion,
Can you please expand on what you are trying to say in these 2 different posts? For I was offline over the weekend, and I wondered how you knew that this stain we write of, if it is indeed semen, was not Rudy Guede's.

So when I checked in today here on JREF and read the past few days of posts, I was dumbfounded to see that you, "loverofzion", are now saying something unexpectedly different than what I had anticipated would be your response.

"NOT Rudy's" and "MIGHT HAVE BEEN Rudy's"?

Please give me more detaills!
Thanks,
RWVBWL

Might have been Rudy's, but is irrelevent to the murder.
We know Rudy was there and participated in the assault; yet I fail to see how this possibly lets your favorite convict off the hook?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As London John would say, it's time to put this fallacy to bed once and for all.

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court.

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensic...omach_Contents_and_the_Time_of_Death_.10.aspx

You can find anything saying pretty much anything you want on the web

Hang on, I have to stop you right there.

This is not about what is "on the web", it's about what is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

, but if your going to quote, use reliable sites at least. Your first site links to Indian journal of Pharmacology, why? Because it says what you want to hear.

What's your beef with the IJP? Is your thinking that because it is Indian it is second rate by definition, or what? India's a nuclear power with a population of over a billion, they're not exactly a scientific backwater. The average Indian doesn't have much science education but that's not remotely indicative of the abilities of their best.

Now, end of story... Do not use stomach contents to estimate time of death.....

Be honest here Sherlock... have you actually read the article?

I'm thinking you didn't, because paragraphs seven to twelve of the discussion section concern themselves with "unusually well-defined circumstances" under which stomach contents can eliminate some possible times of death, and cites a case of a woman whose claimed TOD for her children was falsified because their stomachs were full of (undigested) food when she claimed they died eight hours after their last meal.

Since we are talking about unusually well-defined circumstances, where someone's stomach was full of (mostly digested) food, and this is being used to falsify the claim of a much later time of death, your article includes a caveat specifically addressing cases like this one. So if you had read the article then you would be guilty of deliberately misrepresenting its contents, but I'm going to be charitable and assume that you never bothered to look beyond the abstract.

Be honest here Sherlock... have you actually followed up the citations for Table One ("Some agents and conditions of potential forensic importance and gastric emptying")?

I checked the most relevant ones and they turned out to be rat studies, unreplicated studies with eight subjects done in 1970 which contradict other studies done on the same topic and which involve the subject slamming five whiskies and so on.

The fundamental problem here is a lack of scientific literacy. You seem to think that the scientific literature is a collection of random opinions, each as good as any other, with no necessary connection to reality. Much like the world wide web, in other words. That's not how science works. You can't just find an abstract that seems to say what you want it to say and declare victory (although if you lack scientific literacy, it might seem to you that this is what other people are doing). You need to find out what the collected, relevant literature actually says.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5733)
That claim is not supported by the evidence, which in fact revealed via Luminol application the "missing" footprints that one would logically expect to exist.

Really? No doubt in due course you will provide evidence for this remarkable claim.

I do not know. Knox and Sollecito have not been forthcoming on this or many other details of this crime.

Why should they? They were not there.

This is breathtaking arrogance. An accusation is made against 2 people with no evidence whatsoever - and when it's pointed out that it doesn't make sense, they are the ones who have to give an explanation of it. This says all we need to know about the pro-guilt faction.

No. What doesn't make sense is arguing that because a clean-up attempt was not perfectly executed that consitutes demonstrable proof that it was not attempted.

Who's arguing that it was "not perfectly executed"? If it was "not perfectly executed" then it would not be possible to argue about it - the traces would be plain for all to see. It is because it would have to have been perfectly executed that we can be quite sure it didn't happen.

Massei has an entire subsection devoted to a discussion of the Luminol evidence, starting on p. 344.

There is nothing in this section that shows that there was a clean-up of any kind. In any case, Massei is not impartial, as is all too obvious from his conduct of the case and other "reasoning" in the motivation document.

Of course it is possible, and in this case, logical. AK & RS selectively removed evidence which they believed pointed to their guilt, while leaving (and fabricating, in the case of the staged break-in) evidence that they believed would tend to incriminate RG.

It's difficult to know how to respond to someone stating this kind of article of faith. How would Amanda and Raffaele have known that entry through a broken window was Guede's MO? Why would Amanda take steps to incriminate him, and then supposedly point the finger at an entirely innocent other person? Why would they leave evidence leading investigators to a supposed accomplice, who would obviously blow the gaffe on them if he was ever caught?

No doubt Fuji will say that Amanda and Raffaele can answer all of these questions; here's one they can't answer: why would Guede say nothing about their supposed part in the crime until he was prompted by police?

The context of the alleged "clean-up" and alleged "staging" of the break-in is this:

The police have arrested the 2 people who raised the alarm, immediately before the crime was discovered. Unfortunately for them, there is a complete lack of evidence connecting the "culprits" to the crime, while there is evidence of a break-in and the presence in the murder room of somebody else.

No matter, we'll just say that the 2 perpetrators fixed the crime scene to remove evidence against themselves, and made it look like the killer had broken in through the window. Simples!

This is akin to a biblical fundamentalist's explanation of dinosaur fossils: they were put there by the devil to undermine our faith in Creation. It's not forensics; it's quasi-religion.

 

[LondonJohn]

As London John would say, it's time to put this fallacy to bed once and for all.

The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
The inspection of the contents of the stomach must be part of every postmortem examination because it may provide qualitative information concerning the nature of the last meal and the presence of abnormal constituents. Using it as a guide to the time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances. Generally, using stomach contents as a guide to time of death involves an unacceptable degree of imprecision and is thus liable to mislead the investigator and the court.

http://journals.lww.com/amjforensic...omach_Contents_and_the_Time_of_Death_.10.aspx

You can find anything saying pretty much anything you want on the web, but if your going to quote, use reliable sites at least. Your first site links to Indian journal of Pharmacology, why? Because it says what you want to hear. Now, end of story... Do not use stomach contents to estimate time of death.....

Is this seriously the best thing you can find? I am supposing that you have been searching reasonably hard for some solid academic evidence, but is this nebulous abstract really the best you can present?

If you can show us an academic study based on controlled experiments with bell curves for T(lag) and T(1/2) times for stomach emptying, that would be very helpful. I suspect, however, that you can search for a month of Sundays and you still won't find any decent studies which indicate no food leaving the stomach beyond 3.5 hours after eating. Good luck though!

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi loverofzion,
Can you please post a link to your information that Raffaele Sollecito was washing dishes AFTER dinner?

As I am a bachelor also, I thought it strange most everyone assumes that a young guy, with his new girlfriend in the house with him, (whom actually was supposed to work that evening but had the boss give her a night off), would even want to wash his dishes AFTER dinner.

My thoughts on this have always been as Kestrel writes:
Originally Posted by Kestrel
"That Raffaele was washing dishes is not proof they had already had dinner.
Bachelors sometimes have to wash dishes before a meal because they didn't do it after the previous meal."
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

The other important part of the equation is this:

Sollecito has said that he and Knox went out between around 8.00 and 8.30pm to buy ingredients for a meal. Knox received the text message from Lumumba at around 8.15pm (via a cell base station which didn't cover the interior of Sollecito's apartment) telling her not to come into work that evening. It can only have been after that time that Knox and Sollecito could have made plans to eat together that night - provided that they hadn't already eaten.

To me, it seems reasonable to suggest that they made an instant decision to have a meal together, and to spend a quiet night getting high and watching movies in Sollecito's apartment. If they got back to Sollecito's apartment by 8.30pm, it would be logical for one or both of them to immediately start by cleaning enough dishes, utensils and worktop space to enable the meal preparation. This could then have caused the water leakage which Sollecito reported to his father in the 8.42pm phone call. From this, it's then entirely plausible that the meal was prepared and cooked after the Amelie movie and the Naruto anime had finished - i.e. after around 9.45pm.

Of course, it has to be said that it's also possible that Knox and Sollecito in fact ate far earlier on that evening - thinking that Knox was going to have to go into work by 9.00pm. It could be that they never went out between 8.00 and 8.30pm - although it seems likely that at least Knox was outside the apartment at around 8.15 pm when she received Lumumba's text message. And it's therefore possible that the spillage reported by Sollecito was in fact from washing up after the meal.

The point is, I can't see how it's possible to state with certainty which version of events is closer to the truth.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5734)
Why are no inaccuracies or minor discrepancies by Amanda or Raffaele taken as indication of lies?

No attempt to answer my question, but instead one of your own. The answer is an easy one:

Amanda's and Raffaele's inaccuracies and minor discrepancies are just that. They don't show any intention to deceive - just tiredness, stress and likely confusion in the face of 40 hours of police questioning in 3-and-a-half days.

Unlike Amanda and Raffaele, the Perugia police and prosecutors have put out numerous independently demonstrable falsehoods (such as the claim by Arturo de Felici to have facts "we knew to be true") - without the excuse of stress, personal grief and powerlessness. Nothing they say in this case can be taken at face value.

By contrast, all of Amanda and Raffaele's alleged "lies" and changed stories were either attributed to them by police or prosecutors, or were the result of them being pressured or manipulated by police, or are distortions of quite innocent statements. They did not lie.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
As for drugs it is very much conjectured that there were hard drugs involved that night; her boyfriend was an avid drug taker and she was known to be just that kind of gal who liked to try everything (in her sister Deanna's words).

LoZ, do you remember what I told you yesterday about TJMK? I said everything Peter Quennell writes is veiled in deceptive language intended to mislead. I should have said "deceive," as well.

The phrase, "It is very much conjectured" means nothing. Neither do any of the following:

It's said...
It has been suggested...
It seems...
Rumor has it...
We have heard...
There are those who think....
The word on the street is....

These are all example of hearsay. Expressions of speculation like this are intended to lend credibility to the speaker's claim, but they are easy to make up and don't provide real evidence, which is why they usually are not allowed in courts of law.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testing the stain tells us quite a bit

Might have been Rudy's, but is irrelevent to the murder.
We know Rudy was there and participated in the assault; yet I fail to see how this possibly lets your favorite convict off the hook?

I answered the question of why the stain should be tested previously. I would be grateful if you would respond to the many comments directed toward you.

 

[Amazer]

You haven't answered my question as to how you can come to a different conclusion; you have simply said, in effect, "oh no, it doesn't!"

There are 4 elements to this quote:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct."

Amanda is saying that she spent the night at Raffaele's apartment. When Felici says "we knew was not correct", he means of course that he would not allow her to say this.

Does he now? Please explain. Because I don't see it.

"She buckled ..."

Enough said.

This could just mean that Amanda, after becoming aware that the investigators did not believe her first story, gave up/caved in/buckled. I would have thought 'buckled' is a fairly obvious way to describe what happens when someone realizes that their lie isn't working and then come out with the truth.

"... and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct ..."

This means that the police had already decided on the statement that Amanda would make: the one where she was in the kitchen covering her ears while Patrick committed the murder. It's no good saying you don't agree; please explain exactly how a different interpretation is possible.

or you could read it as "Amanda now provided a statement which was better aligned with the facts that the police were already aware of"

"... and from that we were able to bring them all in."

Final point: I have highlighted the crucial words here. The overnight questioning of Amanda was part of a process planned by the police which would allow them to continue with the next stage: the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick.

Possible.

Of course you disagree. You get an extra 6 years in jail for saying that!

You are mistaken if you believe that's the only thing that prevents me from believing that Amanda was physically coerced.

Amanda is being further persecuted merely for complaining that she was slapped on the back of the head "when I couldn't remember a fact correctly". Interesting echoing of words: Felici - "facts we knew to be correct"; Amanda - "couldn't remember a fact correctly".

Amanda didn't complain... she accused a number of officers of violating the law. She did without having any evidence with which to back up her accusations. There is a slight difference there (between complaining and accusing) even if you don't realize it.

Except the police didn't have any facts (or even pseudo-facts) at that time; this was November 6, and as far as I know they have presented no evidence at all that was collected before then. Of course, within 2 weeks, the police were forced to change the "facts they knew to be correct". Felici's claim to have "facts we knew to be correct" is a demonstrable lie (unlike any of Amanda's and Raffaele's alleged "lies").

What do you think those investigators were doing from the time the body of Meredith was discovered and the night of November 6? Drinking espresso and eating the Italian equivalent of donuts, while they were waiting for facts/evidence to magically present themsevles?

As for this being "coercion", this depends on the circumstances. When you are in a police station in a foreign country surrounded by hostile officers, and a police chief says your story is "not correct", your choices start to become limited.

As someone who has lived most of his life in foreign countries, I can assure you that you are wrong.

There is more in your words than you know.

Right...

 

[Kestrel]

Unlike Amanda and Raffaele, the Perugia police and prosecutors have put out numerous independently demonstrable falsehoods (such as the claim by Arturo de Felici to have facts "we knew to be true") - without the excuse of stress, personal grief and powerlessness. Nothing they say in this case can be taken at face value.

An example of the authorities lying about Knox.

Investigators say Mr Guede left Perugia on the morning after the murder and went to Milan, where he was stopped by police but not detained. Detectives locked on to his mobile phone signal in Milan as recently as this weekend, but it then went dead. Amanda Knox made at least two calls to his number, one of them at 11am on 2 November, around the time police discovered Kercher's body.

Amanda Knox's phone records prove there was no such call.

Other nasty lies include the police claim to have a "clear-cut image" of Amanda Knox entering the cottage driveway on the night of the murder. The false claim to have found receipts for bleach dated the morning after the murder. And the misleading bathroom photograph.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

An example of the authorities lying about Knox.



Amanda Knox's phone records prove there was no such call.

Other nasty lies include the police claim to have a "clear-cut image" of Amanda Knox entering the cottage driveway on the night of the murder. The false claim to have found receipts for bleach dated the morning after the murder. And the misleading bathroom photograph.

To be fair to the guilters, even they don't cite those claims as evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt much any more.

Then again to be fair to the guilters, they also seem to have selective amnesia about those claims when it comes to proclaiming their faith in the honesty and infallibility of other unsupported claims from the Perugia constabulary, like "there's no way it wasn't a staged break-in" and "nobody ever slapped Amanda around, told her she had repressed memories, told her to accuse Patrick or otherwise drove her to make a false witness statement, and we'd prove it too if the dog hadn't eaten our recording of the vital interview".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be fair to the guilters, even they don't cite those claims as evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt much any more.

Then again to be fair to the guilters, they also seem to have selective amnesia about those claims when it comes to proclaiming their faith in the honesty and infallibility of other unsupported claims from the Perugia constabulary, like "there's no way it wasn't a staged break-in" and "nobody ever slapped Amanda around, told her she had repressed memories, told her to accuse Patrick or otherwise drove her to make a false witness statement, and we'd prove it too if the dog hadn't eaten our recording of the vital interview".

Pretty soon that too will be something the guilters and the FOAKer's will not be able to argue about, we'll let the courts decide this very issue for us, next month I believe. Then again, I suppose the courts didn't really deciede the last issue for us either, they did, just one side fails to go along with it.