Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

But she was doing cartwheels at 11 pm. Are you arguing she was doing her cartwheels while the police were questioning her? I could do with a laugh.

Cite?

Amanda's phone call has a precise time, and at the end of it she says "someone wants to talk to me", a call that was recorded and was played in Court. The interpreter says she was called between 23:00 and 23:30, meaning the interrogation must have started some time before that. Are you suggesting that she was doing cartwheels while being questioned? I could do with a laugh.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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".

1. evidence that evidence was 'witheld
2. what US courts agree to halt a trial to test evidence on the last day, evidence that has no bearing on whether the two accused did it or not?
3. evidence they lied on the witness stand
4. the DNA results were proven in court
5. Rudy's appeal didn't seem too bothered
6. Motive does not effect the outcome of a trial (it's not even required i trial). No judge in America will declare a mistrial because the prosecution changed the motive. Finally, it's only your opinion that the prosecution changed their motive. As I recall, the prosecution always maintained multiple motives were possible. I agree with them.
7. And here you show your ignorance of Italian law. The High Court ruling was before Amanda was charged. She was charged with calunnia in continuation. In other words, the charge relates that the murder and the calunnia were part of the same crime, not separate crimes. That brings her statements back in as part of the murder charge and under Italian law, overrides the High Court's ruling. You may not understand, but in Italian law, it's all perfectly legal and correct, I promise you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

Why? Depends on the amount of force used doesn't it?

Although, one splinter did actually (read Massei).

 

[Dan O.]

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

Huh?

Don't you remember?
*Nov. 29, 2007 (Thursday): Police confiscate Amanda's writings from her prison cell.
*Nov. 30: Excerpts from the diary translated to Italian are printed in la Repubblica.
*Dec. 1: The Telegraph is reprinting parts of the diary from the Italian press.
*Dec. 2: The Times reprots: "The diary, which Knox began three weeks ago, was seized on Thursday from her cell, which she shares with two other prisoners"

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Did she 'know' those were crimes in Italy? One can be only said to be confessing if you're confessing to what you know to be crimes. I have to conclude she didn't, especially as you people spend so much time and effort telling us she was so vulnerable because she didn't know jack about the system. Are you now saying she did? Which is it?

 

[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".

1. evidence that evidence was 'witheld
2. what US courts agree to halt a trial to test evidence on the last day, evidence that has no bearing on whether the two accused did it or not?
3. evidence they lied on the witness stand
4. the DNA results were proven in court
5. Rudy's appeal didn't seem too bothered
6. Motive does not effect the outcome of a trial (it's not even required i trial). No judge in America will declare a mistrial because the prosecution changed the motive. Finally, it's only your opinion that the prosecution changed their motive. As I recall, the prosecution always maintained multiple motives were possible. I agree with them.
7. And here you show your ignorance of Italian law. The High Court ruling was before Amanda was charged. She was charged with calunnia in continuation. In other words, the charge relates that the murder and the calunnia were part of the same crime, not separate crimes. That brings her statements back in as part of the murder charge and under Italian law, overrides the High Court's ruling. You may not understand, but in Italian law, it's all perfectly legal and correct, I promise you.

"Norm in America."
1. TOO LOW, additional tests that where done on the luminol footprints.
2. They have had a almost 3 years to test it. Its been what 11 months since the defense pointed it out to them. Yet rather than test it and see if there is a rapist/murderer running free in Perugia, they sit there and refuse because its POSSIBLE it might exonerate the convicted.
3.Stefanoni and atleast 2 of the witnesses the prosecution used against Knox/Sollecito.
4. Defense asked for the DNA data files, thats the actual proof. Thats what allows an expert to reproduce the results. In America if the results can't be reproduced then its not valid. I'm pretty sure its the same way in the UK.
5. Rudy admits being there when she died.
6. I'm sure that someone here could give you a more accurate list of motives Mignini has used.
7.This statement was allowed into evidence on June 12, 2009 during Amanda's testimony at trial for the civil suit filed by Patrick Lumumba. This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The civil trial and the murder trial were run concurrently with the same jury. The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement. http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Appeal.html

You can argue that she wasn't a suspect until your face goes blue. The SUPREME COURT disagrees.

 

[Mary_H]

No he didn't say that at all. See my previous post a few posts above.

But there are so many.

Okay, I think I found it. Is it this one? "He didn't say he 'Couldn't be sure she was with him". He told them she left him to go see friends at Le Chic before he went home to eat dunner at about 9 pm. He told them she returned to his apartment after 1 am. They didn't misinterpret the text, Amanda mis-wrote the text because of her crappy Italian. They were convinced Amanda met up with Patrick because she told them she met up with Patrick. In addition, Raffaele had told them she left to go to Le Chic, which also happens to be where Patrick was."

And why did the police arrest Raffaele?

 

[Mary_H]

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

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

You still haven't explained what you mean by sophistry.

 

[Chris C]

Cite?

Amanda's phone call has a precise time, and at the end of it she says "someone wants to talk to me", a call that was recorded and was played in Court. The interpreter says she was called between 23:00 and 23:30, meaning the interrogation must have started some time before that. Are you suggesting that she was doing cartwheels while being questioned? I could do with a laugh.

So what your saying Katy is that Knox's phone was tapped and they presented as evidence in court that her phone was tapped and played the recorded conversation?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

They didn't tell her they had proof she was at the cottage. And when they told her a lawyer would make things worse for her they were telling her the truth. If she had insisted on a lawyer, they would have had to have arrested her...that's the rules. They simply told her the rules.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

How do you account for the glass in the room? Glass nearly reaches the nightstand. There is also a fresh mark on the interior shutter and there are particles of glass stuck in the interior shutter. The interior shutter was not latched. The rock broke the window pushing the interior shutter open.

There are no marks on the outside shutters from the rock. If the rock was thrown as you described, there would be evidence on the outside shutters. The evidence is actually seen on the inside shutter proving the rock came from outside. The evidence in the room clearly shows the window was broken from outside.

Rudy could have easily reached under the broken glass to unlatch the window without making any contact with the sill. The distance isn't nearly as far as you insinuate it is. Once the windows were fully opened, he could have climbed into the room using the part of the sill that was free from glass. The window is not nearly as narrow as you describe. You can see photos of the window here.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendryindex2.html

You are very selective on when you demand evidence. You want proof of blood from Rudy in Filomena's room or else he wasn't there but you assume Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith's room without any need of physical evidence. There was also a violent struggle in Meredith's room. I doubt Rudy fought with the window.

Here are some photos showing the glass on the floor in Filomena's room.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

I posted my evidence. Where is yours?

What evidence was that? The fact the phone records only go up to the night of the 2nd? That's your evidence?

That's conjecture, not evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

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

Yes, Patrick was one of the organisers of the vigil. Why should the police go after him for that...why is that incriminating?

It's not incriminating. You said a few months ago that the police didn't interview Patrick because they didn't know who he was (remember -- the conversation about "the most famous guy in Perugia?"). Do you think the police were not watching the vigil and looking at who was involved in it for connections to Meredith? So now how do you explain why the police did not interview Patrick among the 80+ other people they interviewed?

 

[Chris C]

They didn't tell her they had proof she was at the cottage. And when they told her a lawyer would make things worse for her they were telling her the truth. If she had insisted on a lawyer, they would have had to have arrested her...that's the rules. They simply told her the rules.

Really? Arrested her for what? There was no evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

And?

 

[katy_did]

So what your saying Katy is that Knox's phone was tapped and they presented as evidence in court that her phone was tapped and played the recorded conversation?

I think so, yes - IIRC that was the call she made to Filomena where they talked about the possibility of getting a new house together. Ghirga played it during Amanda's testimony (the full conversation is translated on PMF) and he introduces it with "So, this is the telephone call that was intercepted on Nov 5th 2007, starting at 22:29".

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

No, they didn't. Where does the shop owner ever mention bleach?

They put him on the stand to offer testimony that she entered his shop. She also when down the aisle where the leaning products were. No bleach was mentioned.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

WHAT evidence?

 

[Chris C]

I think so, yes - IIRC that was the call she made to Filomena where they talked about the possibility of getting a new house together. Ghirga played it during Amanda's testimony (the full conversation is translated on PMF) and he introduces it with "So, this is the telephone call that was intercepted on Nov 5th 2007, starting at 22:29".

So they can wiretap people in Italy that are not suspects of a crime?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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).​

Meredith can't say can she? There are witnesses, but they can only give very approximate times. In the case of Amanda and her meal, her OWN words were used.