Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

Her own testimony on the stand?

Quote where she says "hard evidence".

I told you exactly where she said it.

 

[Dan O.]

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

Didn't you get the memo from Fulcanelli who was posting in the original thread? He got trounced on this point (here).

 

[Fulcanelli]

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 saying...that it's not comparable to Amanda's claims in her own words of when she (Amanda) had dinner. There is a clear difference between first and third person.

 

[katy_did]

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

*sigh*

Halides is saying that the Court did not say the defence's argument was legally incorrect. You're again shifting the argument, from which I assume you've accepted that your original position was wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

No, it wasn't...the defence had no legal right to the data they were requesting. That data is not normally given to defence teams as it's not a legal requirement. You may have an argument if you were basing it on 'ethical' grounds, but you don't have one on 'legal' grounds.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Because they may not have arrested her had she gone on to to give them an answer that didn't place her at the crime and was believable?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

No, I don't accept that. And allow me to educate you further about the case...Bongiorno wasn't on Raffaele's defence team when they went to the High Court, she didn't come onto the team until later...I'd have thought you'd have known this

 

[Mary_H]

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.

If the police did not know who Patrick was and they were not watching the vigil, then they weren't doing their jobs. I have more faith in them than that. Everyone in Perugia knew who Patrick was, and the police make it their business to know more than "everyone."

Many people are of the opinion that Amanda raised the suspicions of the police during the many interviews she had with them in the three days before she was interrogated. Do you think it's possible that in all those conversations, she never mentioned that she had been planning to go to work that night, but her boss texted and let her know she didn't need to come in? And if she did mention that, do you think it's possible the police didn't ask her where she worked and who was her boss?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

They are witnesses to evidence that serves to construct a reliable TOD.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

They scrubbed their feet with fruit pulp or metal ions?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

No I don't. Not when you claim to be an expert on the case and what we are talking about is testimony in the trial and you are wilfully ignoring half the trial. This is basic stuff.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Personally, that glass at the other side of the room is one of the things which makes me question the break-in. I don't think that any glass would have made it that far if the rock had been thrown from the outside and the interior shutter was closed.

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.

Why? I see no reason that the one side of the window could not have been held partially open and struck with a rock while standing at the other side with the exterior shutters closed. In fact, from the photos I've seen that is a much more plausible scenario.

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.

<snip>

How wide do you suppose that window is, overall? In inches or centimeters.

I think that it is around 32 inches wide, approximately. Certainly not more than 36 inches. Do you really believe you could easily crawl over 16 or 18 inches of windowsill 10 ft. in the air without touching the other half? I don't. I think that anyone attempting to do so would brush the sill clean of glass as much as possible before they even started through.

 

[katy_did]

No, I don't accept that. And allow me to educate you further about the case...Bongiorno wasn't on Raffaele's defence team when they went to the High Court, she didn't come onto the team until later...I'd have thought you'd have known this

Changing the argument again? Hmmm...

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Because IF it was leaked, it's not known who leaked it? And whoever leaked it, may not have been someone actually working on the case?

 

[katy_did]

No I don't. Not when you claim to be an expert on the case and what we are talking about is testimony in the trial and you are wilfully ignoring half the trial. This is basic stuff.

What are you even talking about? I "claim to be an expert on the case"? LOL.

I've told you where Amanda made the statement several times that she was told there was 'hard evidence' against her. I'm not sure why you so consistently fail to address the points put to you. Seems kinda like "sophistry" to me...

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

No.

 

[Chris C]

They are witnesses to evidence that serves to construct a reliable TOD.

Reliable how. I heard a noise, I saw someone.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Oh yes, I'd forgotten that (glad you found the trial testimony by the way...perhaps you could stretch it to finding the police testimony too )

They may play an excerpt....but generally proceedings work from transcripts, for which all parties have a copy. The playing of recordings is the exception rather then the rule.

 

[RoseMontague]

1) I don't need to provide an inventory list. The court had one. I don't need to have one also to prove it was so.

2) Or maybe You could get off your backside and go read Laura's and Filomena's testimony for yourself, being on record, instead of demanding I go get it for you. If you've not even bothered reading their testimony, which is available and has been for over a year, that's not my problem.

3) Massei cites Filomena's testimony on this matter, a report which you claim to have read. Perhaps you need to read it a few times more yet.

You're a big girl now. You should know this stuff already. If you don't, then perhaps you were rather too hasty in coming down firmly on one side. Just sayin'.

No I was not hasty and no I see nothing from Filomena saying they had no products containing bleach in the flat. Are you exempt from having to prove your claims with relevant cites and quotes? Everyone else on this board has no issues with showing where their information is coming from. You are also saying the court had an inventory list of cleaning products, did they provide a list of the lists they have because I could not find that either? Are you privy to what the court had on this inventory list as far as what cleaning products were in the flat?

Maybe you need to stop treating other posters with rudeness by telling them to get off their backside and start participating in the same way the rest of us are and provide some cites.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

I could, but you wouldn't get it.