Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

WHAT evidence?

TMB tests and DNA tests.

 

[katy_did]

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.

And how do you know that? Amanda says repeatedly in her handwritten statement which she handed over to the police a few hours after the interrogation ended that she was told there was 'hard evidence' placing her at the cottage when Meredith was murdered. Let me guess: was that a detail she added to better align her confession with the coerced-internalized model so that she could argue coercion during a subsequent court appearance?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am not disagreeing with the court

Yet the Italian High Court seems to disagree with you. Who's right on the application of Italian law...the Italian High Court, or halides1...hmm, that's a toughy, let me think...

Fulcanelli,

The legal strength or weakness of the argument is not the same thing as its meaning, the latter of which is what Katy_did, LondonJohn, and I have been trying to explain to you. The Supreme Court did not say that the lawyers' argument was wrong. Instead, the court implied that they had strong enough clues to put Raffaele there independently of putting Amanda there. One of those clues was a shoe print that everyone with a functioning brain now agrees came from Rudy, but that is another matter.

When I quote something that Frank Sfarzo wrote, it means that I am treating him as the reporter, not an expert in knife wounds (someone at PMF made that mistake) or as a legal expert.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What are you argueing here?

The witnesses say Meredith had pizza around 6pm to 630pm. The coroner says Meredith died 2 to 3 hours after eating. The judges agreed that meredith died 2 to 3 hours after eating. Except the judges say she ate at 8pm. So thats where they say the 2 to 3 hours start. So do you agree with the coroner, the judges or neither?

I'm talking about Curatolo, Nara and the others...forgotten them already?

 

[Chris C]

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.

So now your saying that because Meredith wasn't alive to testify on her own behalf that she ate between 6pm and 630pm, its only approximate. So therefore its not reliable, that more than 1 person says they had pizza at this time? Is this some kinda argument to get out of the 2 to 3 hours after eating pizza that she died?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I guess Rape and Murder isn't a valid excuse?

Only if it can provide answers required for a verdict or mitigation.

 

[katy_did]

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

It looks that way... (well either that or she was already a suspect!). You make a good point: obviously they must've been recording their phone calls for some time before that evening. It would be very interesting to know whether they recorded phone calls from any of the other 'witnesses'.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The fsa files were never released

4. the DNA results were proven in court

The defense was denied its right of discovery when the prosecution withheld the electronic data files (.fsa files). Dr. Hampikian noted the lack of release of the files in the open letter he coauthored. If you do not know who he is, there are a couple of photos of him and Chris Mellas together at PMF.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, they were arguing against the precautionary custody order keeping the pair in prison, for which there are supposed to be 'serious indications of guilt' (never mind that all these 'serious indications of guilt' turned out to be false). Raffaele's defence was arguing that the Court could not arbitrarily transfer circumstantial evidence against Knox to Sollecito on the assumption they were together; they had to provide evidence that that was the case, not just assume it.

Whether you're correct in saying those "serious indications of guilt" are met if one suspect says they are with the other is not the issue, though I suspect you have no clue whether that is the case or not. The defence were arguing there were not sufficient indications of guilt against Raffaele. That's not 'procedural', it's the heart of the case.

Which they could because Raffaele was Amanda's alibi and Raffaele had been caught lying and because he was the owner of the knife and because it came from his kitchen and because he had no alibi.

Needless to say, the defence lost the argument, rightly.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Trial testimony by multiple police officers. Didn't you read their testimony?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Huh?

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.

And how would being arrested be worse than what actually did happen?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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"

No, I wasn't contesting the fact the police took her diary...I meant: so, what's your point?

 

[katy_did]

Which they could because Raffaele was Amanda's alibi and Raffaele had been caught lying and because he was the owner of the knife and because it came from his kitchen and because he had no alibi.

Needless to say, the defence lost the argument, rightly.

As halides has just told you, the legal strength or weakness of an argument is separate from its meaning. You're trying to shift the discussion onto something else. Does that mean you now accept that Bongiorno was not saying Raffaele and Amanda were apart that night?

 

[Chris C]

Actually the experts agree on the defenses ToD.

No, they do not.

Really, show proof. The coroner says she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. The judges agree she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. Except the judges seem to think she finished eating around 8pm rather than between 6pm and 7pm. The literature posted by numerous people confirm the Coroner's 2 to 3 hour range. The prosecution attacked the coroner's credibility and procedures rather than attack the 2 to 3 hour ToD. Why, because if the Prosecution attacks the coroners findings on stomach contents then it raises questions in every case in Italy that has a ToD determined by last meal and stomach contents. Do you really think Meredith is the only person in Italy thats ToD was determined by Last Meal? The prosecution raised questions about whether the coroner performed the autopsy correctly and gave an alternitive finding if the coroner performed it wrong. However, evidence has been shown that Dr. Lalli tied off the digestive track correctly.

The witnesses and other contextual evidence might also have something to do with it.

So now your saying that because Meredith wasn't alive to testify on her own behalf that she ate between 6pm and 630pm, its only approximate. So therefore its not reliable, that more than 1 person says they had pizza at this time? Is this some kinda argument to get out of the 2 to 3 hours after eating pizza that she died?

I'm talking about Curatolo, Nara and the others...forgotten them already?

Curatolo, Nara, and the others? They witnessed Meredith's death? They saw Knox cut Meredith's throat while Rudy and Sollecito held her arms? They witnessed her eating her food? Maybe they saw her walk home. That the kinda evidence you are using to argue against the Coroner?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a presumptive test is exactly what it sounds like

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,

There is no reason to believe that drying out metal ions or fruit pulp harms their ability to react with luminol. In fact I turned up a citation from the forensic literature which indicates that fruit pulp reacts just fine when dried out. What has the prosecution done to rule out other substances? Which substances did they rule out? Which tests did they use?

 

[katy_did]

Trial testimony by multiple police officers. Didn't you read their testimony?

Sorry Fulcanelli, here on JREF you have to provide a cite to back up your arguments; you might find the standard of proof here is somewhat higher than you're used to on other forums. You can't just make unsubstantiated claims and expect to be believed. If you don't provide a cite, I'm going to have to assume it's because you don't have one, and that you can't provide anything to contradict the documented time of Amanda's phone call nor the words of the interpreter.

By the way, are you still claiming the informal interrogation started at midnight, bearing in mind the interpreter said she was called between 11 and 11.30?

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Whatever you choose to call it, it beats the pants off the nothing that you've provided.

 

[Chris C]

Dr Lalli was fired from the case because he leaked information to the press and the journalists recorded him doing so and played it on TV! That would have got him thrown off the case no matter what case he was on.

Kinda like all the negative information the prosecution gave the press against Knox. Was the person that leaked Knox's diary fired?

Where's your evidence this came from the prosecution?

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"

No, I wasn't contesting the fact the police took her diary...I meant: so, what's your point?

Why wasn't the person that leaked her diary to the press fired?

 

[Fulcanelli]

"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.

1. Too low means only that there were less then 10 cells. One can extract DNA with as little as one cell.
2. They didn't have three years to test it, the defence only mentioned it in the last gasp of the trial. The police and prosecution didn't know about it before then.
3. I don't understand this argument.
4. They asked for them, That doesn't mean they were withheld. The term "withheld" implies the retaining of evidence the defence had a legal right to and the prosecution were legally obliged to provide. This is not the case.
5. No he doesn't. He claims she was still alive when he left. But if you mean he admits he was "there", yes he admits he was there.
6. Like I said, motive isn't important neither is it required. It's nice yo have, but that's as far as it goes.
7. It was not only Lumumba's civil suit that brought it in (but note his civil suit was filed after the High Court ruling, so that fact in itself effects their ruling). It was, more importantly, brought in because it was judged that her accusation of Patrick was also part of the murder charge. If you read the Massei report and the charges therein, you'll see it has "in continuation" attached to the charge. That's what it means...it's part of the murder charge and that makes the statement admissible and by default, over rules the High Court. I say again, this is all perfectly in line with Italian law.

 

[katy_did]

2. They didn't have three years to test it, the defence only mentioned it in the last gasp of the trial. The police and prosecution didn't know about it before then.

I see...