Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

It isn't semen.

How do you know?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The fundamental problem here is a lack of scientific literacy. 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

And there was me thinking you had that down to a fine art.

My, what are all these coroners thinking, wasting all that time and money on their medical education and gaining all that experience when they could just read a few medical papers they found on Google and voila, become a medical expert like Kevin_Lowe!

In the meantime, I'll leave you to continue teaching the experts their jobs...

 

[Antony]

(msg #6211, p156)
What sets the present case apart from most others is the level of publicity it has received.

Also the fact that the real perpetrator has been convicted alongside 2 innocent scapegoats. The irony of most miscarriages of justice is that when the innocent are convicted, the guilty usually go free. Those who rage against admitting the possibility of a mistake seem oblivious to this.

Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and getting them out from under this nightmare is a worthy goal in and of itself. My hope is that the discussion and debate around this case will also lead to systemic improvements in criminal justice - not in Italy, but throughout the world.

Wholeheartedly agree. Another irony is the occasional contributor to a forum on this subject, who tries to make out that Amanda and Raffaele are somehow less deserving than the victims of "genuine injustice". What is needed is real opposition to all cases like this, and not playing one case off against another.

Also what is needed is reform to bring an end the incentives that police and courts have to rig cases, an end to impunity for doing so and some real accountability for the judicial establishment.

 

[Chris C]

And there was me thinking you had that down to a fine art.

My, what are all these coroners thinking, wasting all that time and money on their medical education and gaining all that experience when they could just read a few medical papers they found on Google and voila, become a medical expert like Kevin_Lowe!

In the meantime, I'll leave you to continue teaching the experts their jobs...

Actually the experts agree on the defenses ToD.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Nor was Amanda taking notes about when she ate that night, yet it is often said that she lied about this.

The girls watched a film whose length is known.

post script
I see that others have already discussed the film. I would also reiterate that if one has doubts about the prosecution's story to ask a surgeon or anesthesiologist. I did, and he found it unlikely.

Sure. After all, she was only two and half hours out with the time and the time she suggested just happened to coincide with the estimated TOD circulating in the Media at the time!

 

[RWVBWL]

Don't get me wrong. I think Rudy did the murder by himself or if not alone was part of a 2 man team. (possibly had a lookout) I'm trying to point out that the guilters have put so much stock on Knox lies because she said it in the interrogation. That they refuse to acknowledge Rudy's original statements and only show where he changed his story in the face of getting a reduced sentence if he did. There is so much factual evidence in his statements its hard to ignore it, yet the prosecution and courts have.
1. He confirms a time of death around 2200 or sooner.
2. He confirms another MAN other than Sollecito killed Meredith.
3. He confirms his time of departure using the presence of the broken down car on the street. (broken down car was gone during prosecution ToD)
4. He confirms his presence underneath Filomena's window. (point of entry)
5. He confirms money was stolen from Kercher. (of course its his DNA on her purse)
6. He confirms that Knox or Sollecito where not there when he arrived.
7. He confirms that Meredith arrived home alone.
8. He confirms sexual contact with Meredith and claims another man may have raped her. (there is a semen stain that supposedly went untested)
9. He confirms a man with black hair attacked Meredith. (Meredith has black hairs under her fingernails.)

Hi Chris C,
Thanks for your reply.
I believe that there is some truth to what Rudy Guede says and writes.
You have to dig thru to find what you believe to be true though.
Since I do not believe that Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are involved whatsoever in Miss Kercher's brutal murder, I discount his statements or writings when he mentions these 2, for he surely is using them in his alibi.

I mentioned the car that Rudy says he saw that night, for it kinda ties into what Mr. Aviello says about his brother, that Miss Kercher came home while his brother was trying to rob the place by mistake.
Why would Rudy mention this car?
Possibly because the person there with the car noticed him too?...

When I went back to the beach yesterday to do shark research observation I wondered a bit more about what I had read on http://alternatetheories-perugiamurder.blogspot.com where the writer believes that the killer is a psycho - not any of the three convicted.

Is Rudy Guede a psycho?
Frank Sfarzo at Perugia Shock didn't seem to believe so, when I recall reading his postings about Rudy.

But if he is, and Rudy Guede did stab Miss Kercher in her neck, why then go and get towels afterwards to try and "save her"? The towels were in her room, possibly supporting his statement...

Jumping back a short time before the murder, it seems Rudy might have been involved with the burglary of the lawyers office, but that place had the burglar alarm turned off by someone. Was Rudy Guede smart enough to do that, or was someone else involved too?

I am starting to really wonder IF there was someone else involved who did indeed stab Miss Kercher, and Rudy entered the house right afterwards and did try to help her afterwards.

At some point though, he decided to sexually assualt her, as she lay dying or maybe he came back later and did that, I don't know. But I do believe that Rudy Guede, at the least, is guilty of sexually assaulting Meredith Kercher.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

I found this quote in Barbie Nadeau’s recent column,
“Various times throughout her yearlong trial in 2009, the prosecutor and members of the jury told NEWSWEEK. They were ‘offended’ by American criticism of the case.”

Nadeau provided a link in the 2010 article to one she wrote in July of 2009 ("Monkey Trial") in which she said, “In fact, while jurors cannot be quoted in the press, they are still allowed to discuss the case and follow the press coverage.” It is difficult to square what she wrote about the jurors talking to the press here with her subsequent comments. BTW, the July 15, 2009 article has a number of misleading or incorrect statements.

It's incorrect. Italian judges are not allowed to read media stories concerning the case or discuss it with others. They take a vow not to do so and should it be found they had, it would result in a re-trial or even acquittal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just back from vacation in FLA. Also I've been visiting a relative on my wife who has been suddenly stricken with Pancreatic cancer.

I think Americans are confident of the belief that AK and RS are innocent not because of our perfect justice system, but because we know that even our system of justice with arguably more protections for the accused, has failed and failed miserably at times. We aren't saying that the Italian system of justice is worse than the American system of justice, although it does seem worse, we are saying the we know the Italian system can fail because the American system has failed so completely at times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist



Over 1,700 cases were reviewed! America has flubbed up royally! Why can't the Italian ego admit that they flubbed up royally in this one case?

Sorry about the bad news on the cancer. I hope the future provides adequate treatment and a recovery.

Actually, the Italian system provides greater protection to the accused then the American.

 

[Malkmus]

Except Patrick said on National television that he never made those comments in the paid human interest article. As you know very well.

Uh, I said in my post that everyone who comes out against the police except Amanda and her family have since retracted their statements. But now that you're on the subject do you mind showing us the source of Patrick on TV doing so? Thanks.

 

[RWVBWL]

Actually, the Italian system provides greater protection to the accused then the American.

_________________________________________________________________
Greetings Fulcanelli,
We agree on something!
Now if we can only get those Italians to start audio and/or video taping ANY and ALL interviews that occur in their police stations,
especially the 1's involving murder that are held late at night and without lawyers present, something good will come of this debate about the Italian criminal system...
RWVBWL

PS-Thanks for answering my post directed to you.

PSS-Hi Justinian2
I wish your family good luck too!

 

[Solange305]

Thanks Fulcanelli, Im glad there is someone on here who can present the other side, because I honestly do not know enough details of this case to do so. What you said makes a lot of sense and I really hope the appeals process will start to clear alot of these misunderstandings up. Let's face it, someone has to be wrong, I hope we all find out who it is. If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, they should go free and the Perugian justice system should make sure they rectify their serious mistakes.

But like I said, I still highly doubtful they are innocent. At the end of the day, I have to wonder why their actions seem to match the evidence (whether it's contested or not, there is evidence).

Why didn't they attend Meredith's vigil?

Why was Amanda doing cartwheels and fooling around in a police station, while they are investigating the death of her *ahem* "dear friend"?

Why did she seem to revel in the attention she received at trial? That seems awfully narcissistic to me, and not consistent with an innocent person in jail for murder. (Examples, smiling all the time, "All You Need is Love Shirt", laughing while testifying, and just a general nonchalant attitude) Although Ill admit, I haven't seen any footage of the whole trial, so I can't say for sure if she acted like this the majority of the time or part of the time or what, so I'll admit my judgement on this may not be correct.

Why did Raffaele lie and say he pricked Meredith with a knife while cooking?

Also, although I know this has been debated to death, why accuse Patrick? Why let it stand even while in the safety of her cell, when no cops were around to pressure her? I know you guys talk a lot about false confessions, but this is a false accusation.

Why can't they remember the simplest of things? She can't remember calling her mom in the middle of the night? Even after being reminded and told the details of the call? I used to use drugs in my young and crazy years, and I tried everything from marijuana to cocaine to "other things". I NEVER forgot as many things as they claim they did. There was one time where I did take so much alcohol and cocaine mixed together that for a period of 6 hours, I remembered nothing of what I did (this included going to different clubs, etc.) But not this nonsense of remembering some parts and not others, etc.

Is it true she sat there and blow dried her hair in the large bathroom, even though the feces was in there? Did she leave it there to keep her company? Even if she saw it when she was finishing up, why leave it there still?

Why did her hair look dirty even though she said she washed it? Is it true police testified that she did not smell as if she had showered?

Why say to suffering friend of Meredith's "**** happens" or "what do you think, she *********** bled to death?"

Why sit there and take a shower in a house where the door is open, and blood is visible? I know the excuses, that she thought someone might have taken out the trash and the door doesn't close properly, and that supposedly she assumed Meredith had menstrual issues, but it still doesn't sound right to me.

I know you guys have good questions too supporting the other side, and a lot of them I can't answer adequately. But I just wish people would stop acting like as if people who have questions like mine are crazy or conspiracy nuts. We're not, there is a lot for us to be suspicious of on this side of the fence as well.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Since I do not believe that Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are involved whatsoever in Miss Kercher's brutal murder, I discount his statements or writings when he mentions these 2, for he surely is using them in his alibi.

<snip>

It is rare to see such a forthright and succinct admission of confirmation bias.

You are to be commended for your honesty at least, if not for your analytical approach.

 

[RWVBWL]

It is rare to see such a forthright and succinct admission of confirmation bias.

You are to be commended for your honesty at least, if not for your analytical approach.

Thanks Quadraginta!
Have a good one,
RWVBWL

 

[Justinian2]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Just back from vacation in FLA. Also I've been visiting a relative on my wife who has been suddenly stricken with Pancreatic cancer.

I think Americans are confident of the belief that AK and RS are innocent not because of our perfect justice system, but because we know that even our system of justice with arguably more protections for the accused, has failed and failed miserably at times. We aren't saying that the Italian system of justice is worse than the American system of justice, although it does seem worse, we are saying the we know the Italian system can fail because the American system has failed so completely at times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist

Over 1,700 cases were reviewed! America has flubbed up royally! Why can't the Italian ego admit that they flubbed up royally in this one case?

Sorry about the bad news on the cancer. I hope the future provides adequate treatment and a recovery.

Actually, the Italian system provides greater protection to the accused then the American.

You're from England and you tell me about the American system?

My wife occasionally works the "murder hot line" here in Boston, Ma. The phone is attended 24-7 (all the time). If someone in the Boston area is accused of murder, an experienced lawyer is IMMEDIATELY appointed. Amanda would have had a lawyer BEFORE she talked to the police. The same for RS.

AK and RS would not have seen the inside of a jail or had to stand trial. Yet the court system in MA still would have easily prosecuted the "Craig's List" killer. He recently committed suicide in jail because the case against him was stronger than the case against Guede.

I think the system here sucks, but it seems to suck infinitely less than the Italian system!

 

[Antony]

(msg #6225, p156)
All these things are red flags that the state has made egregious errors.

Add the fact that the police focussed on the 2 people who called them to the crime scene (after debunking the lie that they made the call after the police arrived). This is what told me straight off that it was a case of "solving" the crime the easy way.

The thinking is the same as with the "double DNA" knife:

"We need some culprits. These guys will do."
"We need a murder weapon. This knife will do."

In both cases they set out to do what was necessary to get the jury to reach the conclusion they needed.

 

[Malkmus]

This is nonsense. Rudy wasn't trying to sell the computer or anything else, where's your evidence for that?

Anyone can do the math here. Obviously, it just doesn't serve your interests if Rudy has even a brief history of b&e or was desperate for money. But lets do the arithmetic here:

1. Computer is stolen from law office in Perugia - the town where Rudy resides.
2. Rudy is caught in Milan with computer as well as other items like a women's gold watch and a hammer used to break windows.
3. Rudy didn't have money for a hotel, so he squats in a nursery where he is caught by police.
4. Rudy is sent back to Perugia to return the stolen items to the lawyers. This is just two days before he breaks in to the cottage, rifles through Meredith's purse and takes the rent money which gets him to Germany, but isn't enough to last so he asks his friend over Skype to send him more.


I'm sure according to you Rudy was just on holiday in Milan, with no money for proper room and board, but happens to spend his last penny on a stolen laptop and gold watch, items that just so happen to originate from his hometown which is 4 hours away. How lucky that he just happened to be going back home and could return those items to their rightful owner. And how coincidental that whoever stole those items used the same method of b&e that Amanda and Raf would later use to frame him just a couple days later.

Great shot of the window, it shows all the undisturbed glass on the exact spot he would have had to clamber over to get his arm through the window and then climb in...yet not a single piece on the ground below.

He could have grabbed the shutter with his right arm and stepped onto the sill with his left leg.

He cut himself climbing in through the window? Genius. Where's his blood?

You know it's possible to cut yourself and not drip blood everywhere, especially if it's a small cut.

 

[Malkmus]

No, they didn't. None of the witnesses were recorded.

We have Mignini on record saying he did record the witness and roommates statements. But you knew that, didn't you.

You didn’t record it?

No. I usually do when for example I am in my office. I recorded the declarations of her roommates and of the witnesses. But that night, we were at the police station, there was agitation, and we had to go and arrest Lumumba, who had just been accused by Amanda. Lumumba was later cleared thanks to me

 

[Malkmus]

Which 'crimes'? What's this plural rubbish?

His last break-in was also his first break-in.

1. Rudy broke in and stole from the law office. Not only was he caught with the items in a city 4 hours away, the method used to break in was the same as at the cottage.

2. Cristian Tramontano testified that Rudy wass the one who broke into his home and threatened him with a knife.

3. Rudy stole money from Meredith's purse which he used to flee to Germany with. This is evidenced by his DNA on her purse, and the fact that two days earlier he had no money for a hotel while in Milan. Method of entry was the same as at the law office.

There is no innocent explanation for any of these actions, and it seals his description as a small-time thief and a drifter.

4. Rudy was squatting in the nursery in Milan. He may not have had to break any windows to get in, but that doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

 

[LondonJohn]

There has been no hesitance here to disparage the conclusions of certain lab experts simply because their results appear to reflect upon the guilt of the defendants ("She sat at the prosecution's table."), even though their position could have as easily had their testimony benefiting the defense if the results had been different.

Why is that okay, but questioning the motives of someone whose chosen, voluntary alignment is with a clearly biased group is somehow not?

The key word here might be "voluntary" - unless you contend that he's deliberately taking a position which he doesn't believe to be true purely in order to make money somehow.

In a trial, the prosecution hire expert witnesses who are... shall we say.... disposed to say things things which are beneficial to the prosecution's case. Of course, exactly the same is true of the defence too - that's why it's the court's job to decide what is more credible and substantial. But be in no doubt that both sides choose experts who will support their position, and pay them accordingly. And that's why expert witnesses from either side can never really be counted upon to give a totally disinterested opinion - which is fine until and unless one presents the arguments of just one side as unimpeachable fact (viz. Rinaldi and the footprint evidence).

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure. After all, she was only two and half hours out with the time and the time she suggested just happened to coincide with the estimated TOD circulating in the Media at the time!

Why was there a ToD circulating in the media at that time? Who told the media what the estimated ToD was, prior to the trial starting in 2009?