Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

No, i understand that in your world criminals fess up the moment they come into contact with police. It must be a blessing to live in Utopia.

What? This is the opposite of what I've been saying.

What were the investigators interviewing all those people besides Amanda and Raffaele for, if there was no investigation? Why were they visiting the cottage where Meredith was murdered if not for an investigation? Just passing time?

Alright, where is the evidence that they gathered between Nov 2 and Nov 5 that allowed Felici to describe Amanda's original story as "a version that we knew was incorrect"? How was he able to say that her later statement was an "admission of facts we knew were correct"? Where does it occur in the prosecution case?

Of course it can be denied because till date you haven't presented any evidence to support your allegations.

I'm not going to go through it again. The evidence is Felici's statements. The conclusion follows logically and inevitably, given that he was talking about Amanda's statement that led to her arrest, and that of Raffaele and Patrick. Other people can see this without having it spelled out - if you choose not to, then clearly we are not going to agree.

Uhm... i do believe that the translator who was present during the interview/interrogation was not part of the Perugian police force. There for his/her word can be considered independent confirmation of the events that took place.

Source for this information? You can't even say whether this person was a man or a woman, yet we're supposed to think s/he was independent!

And it seems that you are okay that anyone can just accuse officers of inappropriate behavior, without any evidence to back up the accusations, and expect that them to get away with that without consequences, even if the subsequent investigation has not revealed any wrong doing by the police officers involved.

What "investigation"? It's a simple matter of unverifiable conflicting statements on the 2 sides, yet one party is threatened with a 6-year jail sentence for holding to her story. Your take on this is deeply sinister.

Amanda and Raffaele, as people who had been spending time in the cottage before the body of Meredith was discovered were quite naturally the greatest persons of interest during the early days.

Only for a police force out to "solve" the crime the easy way.

Add dissimilar and shifting alibis for the night the murder took place and the pair puts themselves firmly in the spotlight.

... attributed to them by the Perugia police, and then distorted for public consumption. Kindly explain why we should accept that the alibis were "dissimilar and shifting".

Not arrested but interrogated/interviewed when I was 19. Anything else you would like to know?

You have my respect for that experience, at least. It doesn't mean that you have any insight into the situation Amanda found herself in.

 

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
My opinion is that she was attacked almost immediately when she got home. The tiny bit of alcohol in her system was probably due to partying until 4am that morning. I mentioned the wine because Massei's mention of it means it was probably in the flat thus showing that perhaps there was something else in the house that could cause a Luminol reaction other than fruit juice.

My other point is that even if Laura and Filomena testified to the fact that they did not use bleach, some of these things that contain bleach are not generally known and some of the things that don't contain bleach but still cause a positive luminol reaction are not commonly known either. I would love to see that inventory list and research every product listed, if such a list exists, which I have been unable to find to this point.
__________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by LondonJohn
It's possible that the autopsy blood alcohol reading was measuring residual alcohol in Meredith's blood from the previous night's partying. However, for this to be the case (IIRC), it would imply that Meredith's blood alcohol at around 4.30am on the early morning of the 1st was around 2.6g/l, which is exceedingly high (anything over around 3g/l is considered potentially lethal). It could have been that Meredith was absolutely steaming drunk the previous night - did the police ever gather evidence about the Halloween parties and Meredith's state of intoxication throughout the night?
__________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for your replies RoseMontague and LondonJohn,

As I read some of the intricacies of this brutal murder,
I had wondered how come Miss Kercher had a 0.43 BAC many, many hours after coming home from partying all night on Halloween. From what I had read, she came home after 5:00am, went to sleep and awoke as Amanda and Raffaele were making lunch, with fake blood still on her chin. She then took a shower and afterwards split, later hanging out with her English gal pals. They had pizza for dinner, but from what I recall, Miss Kercher did not eat much, and the English gals said they did not drink alcohol.

With an all night out on the town night before, that makes sense, they might have been a little burnt out.

As I have aged, I have developed a sensitve stomach and I recall reading that Miss Kercher did also, and so was carefull with what she ate. So this has stuck in my memory.

If she did not eat much at dinner, did she even eat desert then?
Or did she come home, eat part of a mushroom and pour herself some wine too (as she prepared to study with the history book she borrowed) and then she was attacked, with some of that wine then spilled onto the floor a possible cause of a positive luminol reaction, as RoseMontague has wrote of?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Malkmus]

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.

Breathtaking. Have you any experience of being arrested and interrogated? Did it happen to you at the age of 20?

Not arrested but interrogated/interviewed when I was 19. Anything else you would like to know?

Amazer, what's your point? Can you expand on your "I've lived in foreign countries... therefore I can assure you that Amanda wasn't coerced" thought process here? You started and ended with two unrelated statements.

 

[Malkmus]

Uhm... i do believe that the translator who was present during the interview/interrogation was not part of the Perugian police force. There for his/her word can be considered independent confirmation of the events that took place.

According to Amanda's testimony the translator overstepped her boundaries by suggesting to her things to say and calling her stupid as well. The article I posted yesterday also aids this notion, particularly the quote:

The head of the cabinet has repeatedly thanked the interpreters suggesting that it is the Zairean.

The above shows that the interpreter did more than just translate phrases.

And it seems that you are okay that anyone can just accuse officers of inappropriate behavior, without any evidence to back up the accusations, and expect that them to get away with that without consequences, even if the subsequent investigation has not revealed any wrong doing by the police officers involved.

These accusations happen all the time, everywhere. That's why most police cars have dash-cams.

EATF: Also, since so many are in agreement that Amanda is such a vigorous liar, and it was her word against theirs, wouldn't you think she'd just have pointed the finger at any of the female officers there?

 

[lane99]

Was the DNA on the bra clasp "kofoed"?

Anyone who saw the recent 20/20 show about a vicious double murder in Nebraska will recognize a case that echoes many of the circumstances that seem like they might be in play in the Knox case.

In the investigation into the murder of Wayne and Sharmon Stock, so determined were the police to take the path of least resistance, that they orchestrated a false confession and (in the hopes of sealing the deal) planted a well-chosen piece of incriminating evidence against the accused.

What happened next; how the flawed investigation began to unravel, and how the police tried to salvage it by coercing additional false confessions (which, surprise, surprise, they *were* able to induce); makes for a fascinating study, indeed.

Fortunately, in the Nebraska case, the situation was finally sorted out. And the real murderers (in addition to the cop who tried to frame the original patsies) are currently in prison.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalala' will only get you so far for so long.

Words of wisdom! Ignoring other people's arguments and hoping they go away is not persuasive.

Speaking of which, you really should reply to THIS POST OF MINE which you seem to have forgotten about.

Time to face up to the elephant in the room. If Meredith died at 21:05 or close to it, and Raffaele and Amanda were at home at that time, it's game over. The whole guilter house of cards comes crashing down.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

antiloxidant capacity in wine

It seems that luminol is used to measure the antioxidant capacity in red wine. LOL.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713615612

I just had time for a quick scan of this paper. It appears as if the wine is not interacting directly with luminol in this assay. What is curious is that the assay uses the enzyme peroxidase (usually sold commercially as purified from horse radish) and hydrogen peroxide.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree. How can we have a discussion unless the source that's being referred to is actually quoted? Just saying "It's there and that's that" leads to a "was not/was too" type discussion, whereas if something is sourced and quoted we can discuss how valid or otherwise the argument might be. I think the standard of discussion on the thread for quite a while now has been way higher than the kind of point scoring slanging match that was quite common at one point. It'd be a shame if it degenerated again.

You've not read the report then? Have you read it or not...it's a simple question?

Because here's what I'll do...I'll tell you the plan exactly...I'll draw this out as long as I possibly can and have as many of you as possible declaring on record no such reference to the clean-up exists in the report (we have a good list of people here so far) and then,...I will quote Massei on here...

So, who's next...who else wants to put themselves on public record declaring there was no references to a clean-up in the report or to feign ignorance of it by demanding cites?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You've not read the report then? Have you read it or not...it's a simple question?

Because here's what I'll do...I'll tell you the plan exactly...I'll draw this out as long as I possibly can and have as many of you as possible declaring on record no such reference to the clean-up exists in the report (we have a good list of people here so far) and then,...I will quote Massei on here...

So, who's next...who else wants to put themselves on public record declaring there was no references to a clean-up in the report or to feign ignorance of it by demanding cites?

That seems like an entirely pointless game of "gotcha", and in fact it goes beyond mere pointlessness into the realm of the totally counterproductive, assuming that your goal here is intelligent discussion.

In any case I hope that this game of yours does not prevent you from responding to THIS POST OF MINE which you still have not replied to.

Time to face up to the elephant in the room. If Meredith died at 21:05 or close to it, and Raffaele and Amanda were at home at that time, it's game over. The whole guilter house of cards comes crashing down.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That seems like an entirely pointless game of "gotcha", and in fact it goes beyond mere pointlessness into the realm of the totally counterproductive, assuming that your goal here is intelligent discussion.

In any case I hope that this game of yours does not prevent you from responding to THIS POST OF MINE which you still have not replied to.

Time to face up to the elephant in the room. If Meredith died at 21:05 or close to it, and Raffaele and Amanda were at home at that time, it's game over. The whole guilter house of cards comes crashing down.

This isn't about 'Gotcha'...it's about what's in the report and people actively denying it's there, when it's in black and white...

It's about whether people are here to engage in 'honest' debate. Do you not hold that as a value? Is the truth a concern to you...or not?

Let me be clear, I don't give a stuff about points, or winning or losing, all I care about is the TRUTH. Why do I feel I'm in a lonely and isolated place in that view?

 

[Matthew Best]

That seems like an entirely pointless game of "gotcha", and in fact it goes beyond mere pointlessness into the realm of the totally counterproductive, assuming that your goal here is intelligent discussion.

As just demonstrated, that was an assumption that was just too big, I'm afraid, Kevin.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Frankly my dear, I can't be arsed.

This isn't about 'being arsed'...it's about scientific fact and people actively denying it's there, when it's in black and white...

It's about whether people are here to engage in 'honest' debate. Do you not hold that as a value? Is the truth a concern to you...or not?

Let me be clear, I don't give a stuff about points, or winning or losing, all I care about is the TRUTH. Why do I feel I'm in a lonely and isolated place in that view?

If the mighty moderator of PMF runs away from my list of questions, unable to answer them, where does that leave TRUTH? Should we assume that we have found the TRUTH at last, that Meredith died at 21:05 or close to it, that Amanda and Raffaele were at home at that moment, and that the Massei case lies in ruins?

 

[Mary_H]

Once I get a-hold of one of those home luminol testing kits I'm going to do some experiments with red wine. Who knows, I may even get around to using the luminol testing kit too. Glowy.

!!!!!

 

[Amazer]

Amazer, what's your point? Can you expand on your "I've lived in foreign countries... therefore I can assure you that Amanda wasn't coerced" thought process here? You started and ended with two unrelated statements.

The point is that being abroad, with a police chief who thinks your story is not correct doesn't limit your choices anymore then it would have as if you were in your home country.

 

[lionking]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Nothing the court does will change my opinion. I have followed too many cases where innocent people languish in prison for years while the courts rule against them.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Mary H:
Oh, really? I have seen it suggested many, many times. I thought the guilters' argument has always been that Raffaele and Amanda cleaned up the crime scene after themselves.

So, the partial cleaning of a crime scene equates to 'cleaning up DNA' in your mind? Not cleaning blood and footprints and things like that, it can only 'possibly' be DNA?

Like I said, straw man.

Straw-man me or straw-man you? Are you arguing against my claim that the colpevolisti have always insisted Raffaele and Amanda cleaned up the crime scene (and, incidentally, their DNA along with it)?

Originally Posted by Mary H
Can you cite any forensic experts who will certify that a young man can hold a struggling murder victim and participate in the knifing and sexual assault of the victim without leaving any evidence of his presence?

He did, his DNA is on her bra clasp. His bloody footprints are on the bath mat and in the corridor. It sounds like a non-argument to me.

So no, you can't cite any forensic experts who will certify that.

And you're quite willing to accept that a man can climb a sheer wall, hall himself through a whole in the window, ransack the room and leave not a trace, but that's convenient. Swings and roundabouts.

Good luck finding a cite for that claim, Fulc.

Hey, weren't we talking about some other stuff on the previous page? Like lies, sophistry, the overly-touched, overheated bra clasp, the stretched-out hooks, the dirty gloves and all the good stuff that's shown in the video? Did you watch the video again? Your only response is, "His DNA is on her bra clasp?"

 

[Malkmus]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Interesting that you only pose the question to one side. What about if it's successful, will those who think she's guilty change their minds? Belief in innocence is based on the perception of the evidence. Not what someone else's (a jury for example) perception of the evidence is. That's why I think it's difficult for either side to change their minds. What we do know is that much of the evidence in the first trial was either false or dubious, and will not be a factor the second time around.

 

[Mary_H]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

Many of our debates have been aimed at questioning the legitimacy of the investigations, prosecution and court.

 

[tsig]

I've been lurking here for most of this thread. If Amanda's appeal fails will those who believe her innocent change their minds, or will she always be innocent in your eyes?

I wonder why anyone would think she will win on appeal. If, as Amanda's supporters think, the Perugia police and justice system are completely corrupt, plant evidence, and lie for each other then why do they think she could possibly win an appeal? On the other hand if she's guilty then she should not win her appeal.