Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

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?

Because he had lied. And Amanda herself later went on to say she wasn't sure if Raffaele was also at the crime scene or not. In other words, at the least he had broken some law (by lying) and at the same time the police could no longer rule out his presence or involvement in the crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

That's why dictionaries exist.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

No. They tapped the phone and presented the transcripts from the recording.

 

[Chris C]

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?

Does soap contain any of these things. I have 3 types of body wash in my bathroom. Not counting my shampoo's and conditioners. One of them even has citric acid and other junk to help it give a natural fruit scent.

 

[Mary_H]

That's why dictionaries exist.

That's why I ask. The dictionary definition doesn't match the way you use it. Perhaps you could give an example.

 

[katy_did]

No. They tapped the phone and presented the transcripts from the recording.

No they didn't, they played the recorded conversation. Haven't you read the transcript of Amanda's testimony on PMF?

LG: At this point I would like to ask the Court to listen to a telephone
call between Knox and Filomena Romanelli from the 5th. There's an audio.

 

[Mary_H]

Because he had lied. And Amanda herself later went on to say she wasn't sure if Raffaele was also at the crime scene or not. In other words, at the least he had broken some law (by lying) and at the same time the police could no longer rule out his presence or involvement in the crime.

He had lied? How so?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

If you read the Massei Report, you'll also read Filomena disturbed the room, picking up stuff and shaking glass off of them. It also can't be excluded that the stagers themselves may have kicked things about.

No marks on the outside shutter from the rock? Maybe you didn't read the Micheli Report. In any case, I never said the rock was thrown. As far as I'm concerned, all they needed to do was strike the window with it. Indeed, they didn't even 'have' to use the rock to break the window, all the rock was essential for was to be dropped on the floor.


Rudy didn't need to make contact with the sill to unlatch the window? Was he levitating?

I don't want proof of blood from Rudy in Filomena's room...I want proof of blood from Rudy ANYWHERE in the cottage period.


Amanda and Raffaele could have been in Filomena's room without evidence since they weren't bleeding, like you claim Rudy must have been (since you assert he was cut). But perhaps you are forgetting there IS evidence of Amanda in Filomena's room in her DNA being found in there mixed with Meredith's blood.

 

[Chris C]

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.

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".

 

[Mary_H]

No she didn't! What you are referring to was her talking about HER OWN poo and why sometimes she didn't flush the toilet after herself when she went to the toilet. Her excuse was, that "sometimes" it's not enough to flush but you also had to use the brush which she sometimes forgot to do.

And nobody has ever suggested she should of attacked Rudy's poo with a brush. All she needed to do was flush. How hard is that?

So why do you think she didn't flush?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Lies

I would really like to see someone post the list of lies made by Amanda and Raffaele. I don't mean a general list that is constantly posted online by The Machine/Harry Rag. I mean a factual list showing proof of each lie.

We hear all the time that Amanda and Raffaele lied repeatedly and changed their alibis 3 dozen times but we never see any proof of this.

When you analyze the words of Amanda and Raffaele you will see that their stories only changed once and that was on the final night of interrogation.

Both Amanda and Raffaele tried to set the record straight regarding those statements. Amanda in her hand written note and Raffaele in front of a judge.

Let me explain how the numbers are added up by some. If you have a story to tell, that is 1. If you change the story, that is 2. If you go back to your original story, that is 3.

This is just silly. In the scenario above, the story wasn't changed 3 times, the story was changed once, that's it.

We need to stop playing games. If you want to insinuate that Amanda and Raffaele repeatedly lied and changed their alibis, post a credible list. I have been waiting for this list for months. I will never see this list because it is impossible to produce a credible list. Amanda and Raffaele did not tell repeated lies and they did not change their alibis multiple times. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

You didn't explain why, just because Patrick helped organise the vigil, that automatically means the police knew who he was. The police weren't investigating the vigil, they were investigating the murder.

No, I don't think the police were watching the vigil. I think they were too busy with more important matters.

 

[katy_did]

No marks on the outside shutter from the rock? Maybe you didn't read the Micheli Report.

Micheli never says there was a mark on the outer shutter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Arrested her for saying she was at the cottage while Patrick raped and murdered Meredith. Keep up

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

They can wiretap persons of interest, provided a judge signs off on it, yes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

TMB tests and DNA tests.

As I said, the TMB test can only be used to rulke in the presence of blood, not rule it out (as agreed to even by the defence expert). The DNA test was LCN, die to the small size of the traces involved...LCN testing will not tell you the origin of the DNA (what type of cell it came from).

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

Her own testimony on the stand?

Quote where she says "hard evidence".

 

[Chris C]

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.

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.

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

Arrested her for saying she was at the cottage while Patrick raped and murdered Meredith. Keep up

Me Keep Up? Arrested for what? Did she ask for a lawyer before she signed the statement about patrick. I thought it was before. I could be wrong. However, there is no recorded interrogation, so they have nothing to arrest without that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

What are you talking about? The High Court rejected the defence argument!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If you read the Massei Report, you'll also read Filomena disturbed the room, picking up stuff and shaking glass off of them. It also can't be excluded that the stagers themselves may have kicked things about.

No marks on the outside shutter from the rock? Maybe you didn't read the Micheli Report. In any case, I never said the rock was thrown. As far as I'm concerned, all they needed to do was strike the window with it. Indeed, they didn't even 'have' to use the rock to break the window, all the rock was essential for was to be dropped on the floor.


Rudy didn't need to make contact with the sill to unlatch the window? Was he levitating?
I don't want proof of blood from Rudy in Filomena's room...I want proof of blood from Rudy ANYWHERE in the cottage period.


Amanda and Raffaele could have been in Filomena's room without evidence since they weren't bleeding, like you claim Rudy must have been (since you assert he was cut). But perhaps you are forgetting there IS evidence of Amanda in Filomena's room in her DNA being found in there mixed with Meredith's blood.

Rudy was standing on the bars of the window below, no need to levitate. His support hand would have been his left hand. He would have reached up and under the broken window. His left hand would have held the sill on the opposite side of the glass.

Your constant need to defend Rudy is disturbing. He didn't cut his hand off. We don't all drip blood from small cuts. Rudy left plenty of evidence in the cottage and he admitted he was there.

The mixed DNA in Filomena's room is not blood. Please stop making that leap. The sample you are referring to is an undated stain.