Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Do they also turn cartwheels down police stations during murder investigations? Is that a norm in America?

I tell you one thing they dont do in america and get away with it.
1. Withholding evidence.
2. Refusal to test evidence.
3. Lieing on the witness stand.
4. Not being able to prove your DNA results.
5. Convicting different suspects for the same crime with 2 different ToD's. Only 1 can be the correct ToD.
6. Changing motives multiple times without the judge declaring a Mistrial. Especially when there is evidence admitted in trial by the prosecution that supports a motive but not the next motive.
7. Using evidence in trial that was ruled not admissible by the supreme court.

I'm sure others can add more things that have been done that is not the "norm in America".

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a popular if blatantly incorrect move in guilter circles to claim it as a fact that he did so.

What he actually wrote was ambiguous: He wrote that he had touched "her" hand with a knife. If he was writing precisely grammatically correctly he meant Meredith, but that interpretation makes little or no sense because neither he nor anyone else has ever claimed before or since that Meredith ever visited his house. If he had his grammar screwed up (and we know that he does that all the time) he meant Amanda, and was speculating about the possibility of secondary DNA transfer from Meredith to Amanda to the knife.

Claiming as a fact that he claimed to have pricked Meredith is not accurate, nor is it honest in the case of the posters here who have been participating long enough to have had this discussion already.

Read the diary! And save the sophistry for the tourists...

This business of arguing that it was a "false accusation" as opposed to a "false confession" is pure semantics.

It's a fact! Or are you now trying to say she didn't accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith?

 

[LondonJohn]

When the window was broken from the inside the glass fell onto the sill. The closed shutters prevented it from falling to the ground below. The space on the sill is on completely the opposite side to the broken window...he needed to get his arm right in that broken window, hence he'd have needed to clamber over the glass. The window is also very narrow...the whole sill would have been only slightly wider then Rudy.

Regarding the cuts on Rudy's hands which you assert took place during the crime, either via window or knife while attacking Meredith...again, where is his blood?

I don't think so.

If the window had been broken in this fashion (with the exterior shutters closed), then splinters of glass would almost certainly have become embedded into the inner surface of the left exterior shutter (as viewed from the inside). But, as far as I know, no such glass splinters were found.

Conversely, I believe that numerous glass splinters were found on the outer surface of the left interior shutter, together with a fresh abrasion to the white paint. This is entirely consistent with the window being broken from the outside, with the exterior shutters open and the interior shutters closed (but likely not latched shut). It further suggests that a blunt object used to break the glass collided with the interior shutter after going through the window, causing the abrasion to the paint.

Curious, huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a fact! Or are you now trying to say she didn't accuse Patrick of raping and murdering Meredith?

It's a fact that she was also confessing to criminal acts of her own - namely failing to assist a victim and being an accessory to murder. Both are quite serious offences. So yes, it was also a confession. End of story.

 

[Fulcanelli]

According to Knox, during the interrogation they asked to look at her phone and she gave it to them. They then read her text messages and started questioning her on the text exchange between Patrick and her. The police have always said they knew she was the murderer the first time they saw her. Which would be on nov. 2. Which would make her a suspect on Nov. 2. However, if she was there just to help with the investigation, why where they asking her questions unrelated to what she saw in the apartment. Thats why I say the moment this interrogation started she was officially a suspect. Because now they are asking her for an alibi. They are now calling her a liar for answers they dont like.

First of all, the police never said that. You could prove me wtong and provide a cite from the police. Secondly, under Italian law one does not become a suspect because they are merely 'suspected'. Legal criteria have to be met before someone can become a suspect...in short, there must be evidence against them. Once there is evidence against them, they must be made a suspect. The police had no evidence against Amanda until the night of the 5th, when in line with Italian law, she was duly made a suspect.

They asked everyone for an alibi. It's called standard police work.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, of course; the judge obviously thought he was lying. My point was that people have claimed that since he was a local, Rudy would have known there was a garden just in that spot and so he wouldn't have thrown the phones there, when according to Rudy himself he doesn't even know where the road is. If - as is almost certain - he's lying about it, then we have to ask why he's lying about it. Either way, saying Rudy knew the road so well that he would've been able to pinpoint the exact location of that particular garden (in the dark) is contradicted by his own words, whatever his reasons for saying them.

Actually, as I recall, Matteini got the name of the road wrong.

 

[Chris C]

First of all, the police never said that. You could prove me wtong and provide a cite from the police. Secondly, under Italian law one does not become a suspect because they are merely 'suspected'. Legal criteria have to be met before someone can become a suspect...in short, there must be evidence against them. Once there is evidence against them, they must be made a suspect. The police had no evidence against Amanda until the night of the 5th, when in line with Italian law, she was duly made a suspect.

They asked everyone for an alibi. It's called standard police work.

Right, so during her interrogation when they told her they knew she was lieing, that Sollecito was no longer giving her an alibi, they have proof she was at the cottage, and that a lawyer would only make matters worse for her. That must be standard police work and not make her a suspect. However, the Supreme Court in Italy disagrees with you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That much is obvious, but it doesn't seem to give you much pause, does it?


Why don't you ask the same of any number of people, not least many others who knew her, who also didn't attend it?

Not very subtle, are you?

There were no press cameras in court during the proceedings. ALL the images you are referring to were captured during Amanda's and Raff's arrival and departure form the court, and during recesses. The ONLY footage of the trila itself was grainy "cam" footage glommed off the monitors outside the court room.

And frankly, I have a tough time believing you didn't know that.

Amanda was "smiling all the time, laughing while testifying, revelling in the attention, blah blah"? B*llsh*t - this and all the other hateful spin used to prop up your malign guilter agenda is just getting SO OLD.

Amanda smiled whenever she arrived in court because each and every time she was happy to find herself in the presence of friends and family, and her supportive legal team after x hours or days locked up in a cell.

Clearly you are forgetting that the reporters were also filming the CCTV screen that was relaying video of the proceedings for each day to the press room.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I find it amusing all the complaints that Amanda can't get the time she had dinner correctly and the three judges I quoted seem to be having the same issue with Meredith's dinner.

Unlike Amanda, Meredith wasn't alive to say when she had dinner. Perhaps you forgot.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The content? As LJ indicates, you're basically saying: "He believes Amanda Knox to be innocent, therefore his opinion is of no value!" [subtext: only people who believe Amanda Knox to be guilty have opinions of value].

He is a regular poster on forums supporting Amanda. He is not staff for the the paper....his opinion piece has no more validity therefore, then any post of yours or mine.


That and the fact that his opinion piece is factually wrong on many levels and full of hyperbole.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, do you know if we have any documentation of this anywhere -- that investigators had the phone records by the second?

Of course he doesn't because they didn't.

I posted my evidence. Where is yours?

 

[Fulcanelli]

They probably stepped in something and then walked away. Blood has been ruled out so it would have had to be something else that was spilled or possibly used to clean the shower or mop the floor with.

Stepped in "something". What "something"? How could they not know they had stepped in "something"? Why did nobody else step in this "something"?What was this "something" doing on the floor? Where is the evidence for this "something" in the cottage? When dod Raffaele take a shower at the cottage? What is this cleaning product used to clean the shower? Why did this cleaning product effect only Amanda and Raffaele?

Blood has not been ruled out. The exact opposite in fact.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If bleach is ruled out, then why does the prosecution claim the place was cleaned with bleach?

The prosecution don't claim the cottage was cleaned with bleach, that was never their argument during the trial. They claim only that it was (partially) cleaned. Bleach isn't required to clean.

 

[Chris C]

Unlike Amanda, Meredith wasn't alive to say when she had dinner. Perhaps you forgot.

Meredith didn't eat alone either. Perhaps you forgot.

 

[Chris C]

The prosecution don't claim the cottage was cleaned with bleach, that was never their argument during the trial. They claim only that it was (partially) cleaned. Bleach isn't required to clean.

The prosecution put the shop owner on stand to say Knox was at his store that morning looking at bleach.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thats easy. The prosecution seized knox's diary. So they had the diary in their possession.

Huh?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Using that same quote. Until the prosecution can prove that Luminol reacted with blood it is not. Since they performed 2 additional tests on the luminol footprints and both came back negative then its not blood.

They adequately ruled everything else out. That constitutes as acceptable proof.

The additional test (singular) can only be used to confirm the presence of something, not rule something out. Even the defence expert agreed with this fact.

 

[Chris C]

Stepped in "something". What "something"? How could they not know they had stepped in "something"? Why did nobody else step in this "something"?What was this "something" doing on the floor? Where is the evidence for this "something" in the cottage? When dod Raffaele take a shower at the cottage? What is this cleaning product used to clean the shower? Why did this cleaning product effect only Amanda and Raffaele?

Blood has not been ruled out. The exact opposite in fact.

It hasn't been ruled in either. However, the evidence supports the luminol prints where not made from blood.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Witnesses can be bugged by the police or security services can they? I'm sure that the DPP and Liberty would be very interested to hear this new development.

I think you'll find that in the UK people can only be wiretapped or eavesdropped upon with the written consent of a judge or a chief constable, and there must be substantial prima facie evidence that they are involved in serious crime for that to happen.

It's the same in Italy.

 

[Dan O.]

Unlike Amanda, Meredith wasn't alive to say when she had dinner. Perhaps you forgot.

Ah, the conspiracy deepens... so that wasn't Meredith that ate pizza with Sophie Purton and friends between 1800 and 1830 the night of the 1st?

ETA: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2864713.ece

Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth, two friends of Ms Kercher, have told police that all three had had an early supper of pizza, ice cream and coffee at Robyn's flat "at about 6pm", drinking only water and no alcohol (forensic tests on Merediths body have confirmed this).​