Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

So why do you think she didn't flush?

Gee, I don't know...because she wanted it to stay there?

 

[Chris C]

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?

So what your saying is they dont keep evidence logs and are allowing people that are not authorized to work on the case to touch evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

I think Judges Micheli and Massei list many of them in their reports...those a are a good place to start

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Yeah...he does.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Still no cite? Alrighty then, I did find the transcripts as it happens, and in fact they say nothing at all similar to what you claim. In fact they back up the phone records, stating that Amanda's interrogation began at 10:29 after she came off the phone to Filomena. Then the interpreter was called after they took Amanda into the interrogation room, between 11 and 11.30 as the interpreter herself said, and as all the other police officers confirmed. The cartwheels, according to the police, took place at 11 in the morning.

How about that?

 

[katy_did]

Yeah...he does.

Cite?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

The police don't require a sound recording to make an arrest. As for the rest, I answered you earlier.

 

[Chris C]

The police don't require a sound recording to make an arrest. As for the rest, I answered you earlier.

Still if they have no evidence what are they arresting her for. Hows asking for a lawyer make things worse, when they have no evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Oh, I thought he was standing on the planter. Okay, he's standing on the bars. What's his next move?

Defending Rudy? The ultimate FOA straw man.

If cuts haven't healed over two weeks later then trust me, they bled when they were made. You don't need to cut your hand off to bleed...I'm not asking for evidence of arterial spray by the way....just a SINGLE drop or smudge will do. In other words...evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

I could, but you wouldn't get it.

Try me.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I told you exactly where she said it.

Which I've read.

 

[katy_did]

Which I've read.

Well done.

 

[Fulcanelli]

*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.

I never said it was legally incorrect either. I said, his interpretation of what they meant is not an argument one would make to the Italian High Court.

 

[Mary_H]

Gee, I don't know...because she wanted it to stay there?

To frame Rudy?

 

[Solange305]

Yes, I do see that, which is why I say that when you become familiar with the details of the case, you will see that very little is as it seems. People don't want to believe that the police and courts can't be trusted, and it's a lot of effort to read up and understand the detail of the evidence, so they take police reports and court rulings at face value as a ready-made personal judgement..

Would you believe me if I told you that i have been the victim if police abuse? Not physical, but emotional and verbal, and they put my life in danger (long and personal story, i wont get into it here). But the reason I mentioned it is that for me personally, I have no problem believing the cops are wrong, or even the judicial system. I was talking to my coworkers, and was surprised to find that everyone had an abusive police officer story. I am just their assistant, but these are successful people who make a lot of money, not thugs that you would think would have a problem being harassed by cops. (my boss, a Vice President, despises them all, he can't stand them because of his experience)..

So I know this all doesn't make a difference, but I just want to really get the point across that I am not naive to the way police sometimes abuse their power and protect there own, believe me. Im just not convinced that it happened in this case, and if it did, I'm not convinced it proves Amanda and Raffaele innocent...

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

They were doing their jobs...they were busy investigating a murder. How is investigating a vigil investigating a murder? You yourself admit they questioned over 80 people, that's a lot of people...there was a ton of evidence...don't you think they had enough to do?

I don't know what Amanda 'possibly' said...it's 'possible' she said her mother was a Smurf...what did Amanda say in her written statements and on the stand during the trial? I believe those are the actual records.

 

[katy_did]

I never said it was legally incorrect either. I said, his interpretation of what they meant is not an argument one would make to the Italian High Court.

Sophistry. As you very well know, the original discussion was over the legality of the court arbitrarily transferring evidence from Knox to Sollecito, which is a perfectly legitimate argument for the defence to make to the Supreme Court. You're trying to lose the original point by repeatedly bringing up irrelevant points.

You're employing sophistry rather than addressing the actual argument.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Exactly. Listening to Bruce one would imagine the window sill was as wide as the Mississippi. It's actually a very small window..with an equally small sill.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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...

Ah, so you have certainty on the case and you're NOT an expert on it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

That's for a court to test and judge. As was done.