Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Nobody broke in through the window. It was staged.

You are also assuming the front door was shut, or that the keys weren't in the door.

Nobody staged a break in, it was simply a break in.

 

[treehorn]

Have you read Raffaele's prison diary? I don't think you have. You said he never claimed duress, and yet he writes of not being allowed to contact his father or a lawyer, of being made to strip naked and being locked in a cold cell.

Days later, he writes, "Now I can say that I understand what it means to take a walk in hell and I pray to God that nothing more happens to me."

Read the whole thing from beginning to end and then get back to me on this.

i will look at it again

meantime, some thoughts:

firstly, this is a self-serving diary written by a man that is a proven liar

secondly, a 24 year old male isn't allowed to call his daddy?! please

thirdly, where do you get "naked"?! are you sure? i read they just took his shoes (presumably for a preliminary comparison to crime scene shoe prints)

finally, i'm not inclined to believe anything RS says, including the claim he was denied the right to counsel

his word is worth nothing/ he is a liar/ he admits it, then blames it on AK

might the police have done it? sure

but consider this: all a lawyer does is tell you to stfu/ sign nothing/ write nothing/ talk to no one but me

the very existence of the 'diary' militates in favor of surmising that there's a very good chance RS would not have stopped talking or writing even if his lawyer had showed up the instant he requested a phone call

it looks like he thought he was smart enough to talk his way out of the inculpatory evidence (before, during and after his arrest/ access to counsel)

no lawyer in the world would advise a client to blow away his only real advantage over the state (the right to remain silent/ to force the state to make its case without aid of the accused) by writing a diary subject to confiscation and use in evidence against him in a court of law

 

[Withnail1969]

Did Stefanoni conduct DNA tests on all the knives from the girls' apartment?

 

[RoseMontague]

Because she proffered the please to believe that she was still in bed at Raffaele's, so to give herself an alibi. She didn't want to have to explain what she was doing at the cottage for all that time. That's why she didn't admit to going to the shop.

She did not go to the shop. Quintavalle's testimony has been completely discredited. The only slightly decent argument that is worthy of discussion regarding the remote possibility that Quitavalle is telling the truth is the one put forward by thoughtful at PMF.

 

[Mary_H]

Because at that point they weren't certain. The investigation was still ongoing.

It certainly was. Odd, then, that Finzi would say that one of the reasons he chose the kitchen knife was because it fit the wound as it had been described to him. Do you think that by the 6th, Lalli told the investigators that the autopsy showed that they needed a great, big, gigantic knife in addition to the smaller knife that Matteini would write about in her report of the 9th?

 

[LiamG.]

This is surprising to me. Is it really the position of those that believe that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty that Rudy "aided" Meredith? Those that believe in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele are quite often accused of a lack of respect for Meredith's memory. I find the concept of stating Rudy helped Meredith a horrible thing to say in light of the fact that he sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith.

Actually I don`t want to post anymore on this, but I just stopped by and read your post.
Can you give me a plausible explanation on how the towel, which was found beside the "seriously bleeding" Meredith became so thouroughly blood-soaked?
I come to the conclusion, that this towel came in contact with MK`s serious neck wound. And why does someone bring it in contact with that wound? To try to stop the bleeding. And that is, what I would call helping, though totally useless for poor MK. Furthermore, RG`s bloody shoeprints, that lead straight out of the cottage, are evidence, that he was near the victim, before making his infamous decison to flee the scene.
Then there`s another thing: The pillow, that was found under MK`s body. As shown through the evidence, RG`s bloody fingerprint was found on it. So, why is he placing a pillow under the victim? In comparison to the brutal stabbing, that MK had just suffered, this is some kind of a "gentle action".
This again leads me to the conclusion, which is consistent with his purpose of using the towel, that this was some sort of helping by RG.

By the way all these gestures, along with his panicing (bloody hand smears on the wall), of RG are somehow inconsistent with his intent, if he were the lone-attacker, to try to do everything to torture and brutally stab MK.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is it illegal to carry a knife for protection daily? Is that why she would need a reason to have the knife with her? Why would she ever use a cloth purse if she decided to carry the kitchen knife for protection!

Yes, it's illegal to carry a knife for the purpose of protection.

It is legal to carry a knife below a certain length (I think it's 5 or 6 cm's, but you'll have to ask an Italian like Machiaveli for the exact specs), however, again, not for the purpose of protection.

One can carry a larger knife, but not on their person (as in in their pocket where it can be whipped out quickly), as in, instead in a bag or the boot of your car. However, it can only be carried for a legitimate reason...for example, you are taking it/them somewhere to use to cook, or transporting it to work as you use it as part of your job. Without a legitimate reason, it is illegal and is under the crime of "The illegal transportation of a knife".

Massei reasons that Amanda would have easily been able to offer a legitimate explanation had she been found with it, like...she was taking it somewhere to cook a meal...that's what I think he has in mind.

 

[treehorn]

Why would you commit an unplanned murder with a butcher knife when you have a smaller, sharper knife in your pocket?

i don't think there was a plan to commit murder

i'm leaning toward the "rape prank" theory

AK gets a couple of men, as props, a couple of knives, as props (she goes with the big knife, for the visual impact, and RS, the collector, sticks to his fave)

drugs and alcohol drive the prank out of control/ too far

 

[Fulcanelli]

Was Rudy Guede's blood from the cut on his hand identified at the crime scene?

No.

 

[Mary_H]

i will look at it again

meantime, some thoughts:

firstly, this is a self-serving diary written by a man that is a proven liar

How is it proven that he is a liar?

secondly, a 24 year old male isn't allowed to call his daddy?! please

You need to read about how most Italian men live with their parents into their 30's. I'll find the cites for you.

thirdly, where do you get "naked"?! are you sure? i read they just took his shoes (presumably for a preliminary comparison to crime scene shoe prints)

Yup, I'm sure. He wasn't thrown into the cell naked, but he was forced to remove his clothing at one point.

finally, i'm not inclined to believe anything RS says, including the claim he was denied the right to counsel

his word is worth nothing/ he is a liar/ he admits it, then blames it on AK

False again, my friend. So far, I see no reason to perceive Raffaele as less credible than the police.

might the police have done it? sure

but consider this: all a lawyer does is tell you to stfu/ sign nothing/ write nothing/ talk to no one but me

the very existence of the 'diary' militates in favor of surmising that there's a very good chance RS would not have stopped talking or writing even if his lawyer had showed up the instant he requested a phone call

it looks like he thought he was smart enough to talk his way out of the inculpatory evidence (before, during and after his arrest/ access to counsel)

no lawyer in the world would advise a client to blow away his only real advantage over the state (the right to remain silent/ to force the state to make its case without aid of the accused) by writing a diary subject to confiscation and use in evidence against him in a court of law

All three of the defendants kept prison diaries, well past the dates when they first met with their lawyers.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually I don`t want to post anymore on this, but I just stopped by and read your post.
Can you give me a plausible explanation on how the towel, which was found beside the "seriously bleeding" Meredith became so thouroughly blood-soaked?
I come to the conclusion, that this towel came in contact with MK`s serious neck wound. And why does someone bring it in contact with that wound? To try to stop the bleeding. And that is, what I would call helping, though totally useless for poor MK. Furthermore, RG`s bloody shoeprints, that lead straight out of the cottage, are evidence, that he was near the victim, before making his infamous decison to flee the scene.
Then there`s another thing: The pillow, that was found under MK`s body. As shown through the evidence, RG`s bloody fingerprint was found on it. So, why is he placing a pillow under the victim? In comparison to the brutal stabbing, that MK had just suffered, this is some kind of a "gentle action".
This again leads me to the conclusion, which is consistent with his purpose of using the towel, that this was some sort of helping by RG.

By the way all these gestures, along with his panicing (bloody hand smears on the wall), of RG are somehow inconsistent with his intent, if he were the lone-attacker, to try to do everything to torture and brutally stab MK.

My opinion is that the pillow was under her for the purpose of the sexual assault (might help if that pesky semen stain was tested), the towels were used because he did not want to get any more blood on himself during the assault.

 

[LiamG.]

How is it proven that he is a liar?

Just one example: He stated to have surfed on the internet after having finished to watch "Amelie".

 

[treehorn]

If you find too much bluster in this part of the thread, you are welcome to review past, less blustery exchanges. I have a feeling, though, that wherever you see posters on the pro-innocence side of the argument, you are going to see what you perceive to be bluster.

seems a tad unfair to presume that about me, no?

FWIW i don't believe I'm seeing any "bluster" in, say, the posts of London John

i think he (she?) is very articulate and, from time to time, manages to make a point that gives me food for thought

i think Halides is, as far as i've seen, bluster-free and can be thought-provoking in respect of the DNA debate

i have found Kevin_Lowe's idea about lag time interesting, too (definitely not bluster-free, but interesting nevertheless)

i'm not persuaded to change my opinion based on what i've seen thus far, but some very good questions are being asked IMHO

 

[Alt+F4]

My opinion is that the pillow was under her for the purpose of the sexual assault (might help if that pesky semen stain was tested), the towels were used because he did not want to get any more blood on himself during the assault.

Where did he get the towels from?

 

[odeed]

He makes it clear it is a theory, like your "supposition" regarding Amanda's short stories. As theories go, I have seen worse and he supports his theories with pretty convincing arguments.

A theory which he said he was going to back up with sources, I seem to remember him saying a while ago. Has he provided anything more than a single news article from a freelance journalist?

He was also bandying about the conspiracy theory the (DNA) evidence was planted without a single shred of evidence to support it, a theory which seems to be getting more popular on this thread.

 

[treehorn]

All three of the defendants kept prison diaries, well past the dates when they first met with their lawyers.

this is the big puzzle for me vis-a-vis the defense teams

i honestly can't imagine a 'prison diary' being approved by a competent lawyer

it HAD to have been done in defiance of their (expensive) counsel

it just obliterates the advantage afforded by the right to remain silent

 

[Fulcanelli]

The definitions for duress describe it as forcible restraint, confinement or imprisonment. You're talking about physical torture. I can't imagine that anyone who is locked up against his will is not suffering from duress, and Raffaele expresses his emotional distress quite clearly in his diary.

If that's your definition, that covers every single person under arrest and has ever been in every country in the world doesn't it?

So...what set Raffaele's situation apart from every other person under arrest in the world?

 

[RoseMontague]

seems a tad unfair to presume that about me, no?

FWIW i don't believe I'm seeing any "bluster" in, say, the posts of London John

i think he (she?) is very articulate and, from time to time, manages to make a point that gives me food for thought

i think Halides is, as far as i've seen, bluster-free and can be thought-provoking in respect of the DNA debate

i have found Kevin_Lowe's idea about lag time interesting, too (definitely not bluster-free, but interesting nevertheless)

i'm not persuaded to change my opinion based on what i've seen thus far, but some very good questions are being asked IMHO

I agree. Nice post. We have some very good posters here on both sides of the debate. Having at least a somewhat open mind is helpful and showing a respect for other posters and their opinions is just the right thing to do.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What you wrote doesn't follow at all from what I wrote. It comes across as a gratuitous attempt to slander Amanda. What is your point?

But if we're slandering the judges, the police, the witnesses, the prosecution, the defence experts, the prosecutors or Rudy Guede then it's all good, is that it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Her answer did not prompt any more questions from them.

Really...and there was me under the impression that they questioned her for 43 hours.....or was it 53 hours?...or was it 63 hours? (it changes with the week). That's an awful lot of questions for someone whose answers didn't prompt any more questions!