Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

How on earth do you know the name of the 'stranger on the train'?

(A prerequisite to knowing whether he is on 'the list')

PS Are you saying Nadeau is wrong about Daniel paying Knox a visit in the middle of her 6 days with Sollecito?

If so, on what basis?

Amanda's account of the train trip is here:

http://patrishka.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/amanda-knox/

And the explanation of the sex on a train story is here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece

Deanna makes short shrift of what the family sees as one of many slurs on Knox, an e-mail she sent to a friend in which she said she had sex with an Italian on a train during that journey. “That is so untrue. I was everywhere with her. It’s true we met a guy called Federico and we had dinner with him. But nothing happened. I think Amanda was just making fun of Italian men. They stare at you a lot more than men do here. ”

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unanswered questions

How on earth do you know the name of the 'stranger on the train'?

(A prerequisite to knowing whether he is on 'the list')

PS Are you saying Nadeau is wrong about Daniel paying Knox a visit in the middle of her 6 days with Sollecito?

If so, on what basis?

Treehorn,

My questions to LiamG were also directed toward you, and I asked first.

By way of explanation, I would be interested in hearing your reasons for your choice of topics. Specifically, I would like to know why a discussion of Ms. Knox's personal life is more central to this case than some of the examples I gave in the comment to which I llinked (and there are plenty of other examples I could have given)

 

[LondonJohn]

Why would I POSSIBLY be interested in finding out what happened at a Knox benefit in Columbus or Seattle? Why would anyone who is purporting to be interested in the criminal case and its outcome be interested in that? Why would anyone be so strange as to trawl the internet to try to find the BANDS that played at these events?? This is weird stalking, and has nothing at all to do with discussing the guilt or non-guilt or innocence of Knox or Sollecito. It's just weird. Majorly weird.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn, are you are saying this is why you believe Knox murdered Kercher, such that if it is proven to be untrue or inapplicable then you will no longer believe Knox is guilty, or that you will have doubts?

Otherwise, are you just pretending to believe your own argument? Is there evidence of a personality disorder that you actually do believe that this argument is supplementing?

The way you are framing it, is it correct for me to believe that if your assertion proves false, you agree that there is no indicator that Knox would commit this crime and it is highly improbable that she did? Is that what you're saying?

That's a good question.

If it were proven that Knox did not instigate or participate in the rock throwing incident, that fact would definitely weaken my belief in the notion that she was exhibiting signs and symptoms of antisocial PD before the murder.

But where does that leave me?

I'm still shocked by her behavior ex post (which, in the eyes of professional psychologists, appears to be consistent with antisocial PD), and I'm still with faced all of the evidence inculpating (and linking) Knox, Sollecito and Guede.

It's also important to remember the fact that Knox was 20 (give or take) during the time period in question (2007) - about the age that someone suffering from antisocial PD will start to exhibit signs and symptoms for the first time.

Evidence of the kind you're suggesting would merely move the onset from mid 2007 to late 2007.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is a portion I have saved:


I was hoping to get your opinion after listening to the audio of this. It does seem to indicate some communication problems. If I remember correctly Amanda is speaking Italian at some point and forgets the Italian word for phone so just says the English word instead. This is important in relation to the conversation they had about phone calls to Meredith, as well as the always/never closed door issue and other things that don't come to mind right at the present time.

The fact is, if I try to explain how I see the topic, it is something that must be contextualized and linked to the cross questioning of Filomena Romanelli. I didn't remember this Filomena's voice in the intercepted call, but the misunderstanding in a voice conversation can happen also between people both native of the same mother tongue. Think for example at the sound of words like "I called" and "I'll call". Is it possible to mistake one for another while you speak on the cell phone? It is certainly possible. The point is that you can never exclude a possible misunderstanding of words, if you base your judgement solely on an assessmnt the understanding of language. The level of comprehension and speaking of language actually is not the main factor in determining if the people understand each other in conversation. The understanding in a conversation, in this case dealing with basic language functions, is not something directly linked to the command of language but in the cases at the extreme ends, when the speakers both lack even of the very basic rudiments of the second language, certaily not the case of Amanda and Filomena. When people have a base or intermediate level of understanding they have the resources to understand each other properly on a topics that require the use of basic functions and basic grammar distinctions.
Whether they misunderstood each other, it is not something that we can speculate about based on their language skills, because they both have command of basic levels and they have resources to understand each other.
It is more important to examine their testimonies and recollections, their contextual actions and conversation, and their phone records.
Amanda had called just one of the Meredith's phones, that was ringing for only 16 seconds. Then after she called again Meredith for 3 and 4 seconds. Filomena recalled several things, not only about previous or future calls to Meredith, abut also about Amanda's locations and movements in that moment. Amanda gave a recollection in her e-mail and witness reports. This is the material to be used for an assessment.

 

[Kaosium]

You just looked at the COURT record, but claim there was "no court."

What's the deal?

According to this you pay Municipal Court Citations online, like with parking tickets.

http://find.seattle.gov/search?q=pa...e=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=default_collection

 

[RWVBWL]

Line is translated into "Zeile" (german, my mother language.). The said passage, which I wrote in qutotation marks consists of "drei(three) Zeilen". Maybe row would be a better translation, but, well I`m not sure, I`m not a native English speaker, sorry.
As for your other advices, thanks, you are really smart.

Hi LiamG,
Now knowing that English is NOT your 1st language and then watching you seemingly have a little difficulty with the translation of a little bit of written correspondance from another JREF member has me wondering something:

How the heck did the Italian speaking police truly understand ALL of their conversations with native English speaker Amanda Knox whenever she was asked questions and/or interviewed?
How do they know what she had really said, not what they thought she said?
Without the assistance of an audio tape recorder to record and then replay these conversations, I can see there being lots of room for translation error.
You yourself LiamG seemed to have had the same translation problems, with even 1 word possibly changing the sentence meaning as you noted in your recent posting.

I really find it strange that in ALL of the tape recordings or secrectly recorded phone calls that were done, there was NEVER any smoking gun, so to say,
that incriminated Amanda Knox for the murder of her housemate Meredith Kercher.

But the 1 time that she was "broken", her questioning and/or interview was not recorded.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

All of those supermarkets, if they were in Italy, would still be closed to the public as they are crime scenes.

I would hate to live somewhere like Naples, because i bet all the shops and bars in some areas are constantly closed for years on end, on account of them being crime scenes.

Yeah, exactly...

And the whole point of processing a crimes scene quickly and thoroughly is to preserve as much evidence as possible and to minimise the possibility of contamination. Clearly, the longer a crime scene is left, the more evidence might be compromised and the more contamination might occur. And if the crime scene is left with important evidence not only overlooked but also dumped in piles and wiped over the floor, then the chance of contamination and/or evidence destruction gets higher still.

It goes without saying that if a well-organised scene-of-crime team assesses, analyses and collects evidence from a crime scene in a relatively unbroken fashion, observing strict collection protocols and bagging everything of possible evidential value, then the chances of missing evidence or contaminating evidence are minimised.

What a shame that this demonstrably didn't happen in this particular case. Even on day one of the crime scene analysis, they were botching things up by walking all over footprints and crowding themselves into every room. And then to leave not only the incredibly important cut-off bra strap in the room, but also important items of clothing, footwear and accessories, is shockingly bad practice - no matter what anyone tries to say to the contrary.

 

[RoseMontague]

The fact is, if I try to explain how I see the topic, it is something that must be contextualized and linked to the cross questioning of Filomena Romanelli. I didn't remember this Filomena's voice in the intercepted call, but the misunderstanding in a voice conversation can happen also between people both native of the same mother tongue. Think for example at the sound of words like "I called" and "I'll call". Is it possible to mistake one for another while you speak on the cell phone? It is certainly possible. The point is that you can never exclude a possible misunderstanding of words, if you base your judgement solely on an assessmnt the understanding of language. The level of comprehension and speaking of language actually is not the main factor in determining if the people understand each other in conversation. The understanding in a conversation, in this case dealing with basic language functions, is not something directly linked to the command of language but in the cases at the extreme ends, when the speakers both lack even of the very basic rudiments of the second language, certaily not the case of Amanda and Filomena. When people have a base or intermediate level of understanding they have the resources to understand each other properly on a topics that require the use of basic functions and basic grammar distinctions.
Whether they misunderstood each other, it is not something that we can speculate about based on their language skills, because they both have command of basic levels and they have resources to understand each other.
It is more important to examine their testimonies and recollections, their contextual actions and conversation, and their phone records.
Amanda had called just one of the Meredith's phones, that was ringing for only 16 seconds. Then after she called again Meredith for 3 and 4 seconds. Filomena recalled several things, not only about previous or future calls to Meredith, abut also about Amanda's locations and movements in that moment. Amanda gave a recollection in her e-mail and witness reports. This is the material to be used for an assessment.

It was a yes or no question.

Amanda: Filomena was worried. She asked me if I had called Meredith, and I said I had already called but she wasn't answering. I told her what I had seen, and she said "OK, when you've finished, go to the house and check everything that happened and call me back."

Massei: It is strange that Amanda did not say a word to Filomena about the phone call to their flatmate, when the call, not having been answered, would normally have caused anxiety and posed some questions as to why Meredith did not answer the phone at such an advanced hour of the day.

To her (Filomena’s) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.

 

[treehorn]

LiamG,

I am not sugarcoating anything; I am disputing it. As for people who wish to diagnose someone's being a sociopath at long distance, please see my answer to treehorn, since it applies to your argument as well.

More generally, the problem with this case has been that more people seem to know and care about the cartwheel issue than who know about the fact that Knox and Sollecito spent a year in custody before being formally charged, to pick out one of many possible examples. That decision has been questioned by at student at a well-regarded American law school. What do you think of his reasoning?

Here's another example that came up recently. The American Bar Association has standards for DNA evidence that include release of the electronic data files to the defense. Yet, they have not been released to the defense, despite the prosecution's having nearly three years in which to do so. I am at a loss for why the logic of releasing them should stop at the border of any one particular country. Maybe you can explain it to me.

The fact that you and treehorn want to discuss issues of marginal importance in favor of significant ones makes me pause long enough to ask why. So tell us why. Make your case for why a noise citation or a cartwheel are more important than a DNA test that can never be repeated or a bra clasp recovered from a room that looks as if a whirlwind went through, to give two more examples.

What law student?

What law school?

What does s/he have to say about the fact that Casey Anthony has been incarcerated since her arrest in 2008, and won't stand trial until mid 2011, notwithstanding the fact the Florida SAO doesn't have half the evidence on Anthony that Mignini & Comodi had on Knox?

And, for the record, I NEVER said the citation for residential disturbance was "more important" that the DNA testing.

I also don't care for some of the personal remarks you've been making lately (suggesting that I am a "mole" - for whom I have NO idea - or intimating that MY psychological state is revealed simply because I dared to ponder the psychological state of the accused/ convicted).

I was under the impression that you, like some of the other more gifted posters (London John, for example) were above that sort of thing.

I'd like to discuss the evidence, not take shots at JREF members.

As for your claims about the "electronic data files", I have no way of know whether that is, in fact the case, so what can I say?

If such a thing: a) has occurred; and b) is found to have run afoul of disclosure rules in the Italian system, I have no doubt I'll be hearing more about this (alleged) aspect of the case, in the legitimate press, during the appellate process.

 

[Trigood]

On rereading his comment, apparently the police in the UK only have a short time to do all this because they have no right to seal a crimescene for more than a day or two, and if they weren't finished in time the owner could hustle the murder squad off the premises and unseal them.

Where on Earth does he get this stuff?

Hmm, I wonder? Maybe here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6480042&postcount=12423
Post #12423

I understand that in the UK, there is a system for these things. Everything is photographed, filmed, prints taken, Luminol sprayed, DNA taken, then the remaining clothing and items will be retained by police, returned to the family or disposed of.

After that, the crimescene can be cleaned by professional cleaners and returned to normal. The whole process takes about 48 hours and nothing is missed because every inch of the crimescene is covered.

Or perhaps here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6480363&postcount=12456
Post #12456

I am sorry but I do not understand what you are talking about. The entire crime scene should have been done, dusted, tagged, bagged, filmed, Luminoled, whatever, in 48 hours as per UK (i.e. professional) police standards.

So by 03/11/07 the cleaners would have been in and the cottage would have been back to normal. By 3rd November there was no 'defence' as yet. What are you even talking about?

I believe one of the reasons for the late collection of the bra clasp, the purse, and I believe some of MK's clothing was because ILE had to coordinate with the defense team, who dragged their feet (we agree that a defense team, actually two, did exist by November 6th?). By the way, much of the evidence against Guede was also not collected until that same time. But of course, none of those who believe the bra strap is thereby 'bad evidence' would exculpate Rudy by those same standards.

Michael made several good points on PMF that no one system is preferable. It really comes down to the quality of the forensic team. A good job can be done either quickly or slowly. A lot of the points being made on this thread therefore bewilder me. It seems like it's a scattershot approach to call into question the evidence, by any means whatsoever. If going slowly is seen as bad, they went too slowly. If going too quickly is seen as bad, they went too quickly.

By the way, Withnail1969, Michael on PMF acknowledged full well that the UK police did have to right to keep a crime scene sealed as long as necessary. Straw man.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact is, if I try to explain how I see the topic, it is something that must be contextualized and linked to the cross questioning of Filomena Romanelli. I didn't remember this Filomena's voice in the intercepted call, but the misunderstanding in a voice conversation can happen also between people both native of the same mother tongue. Think for example at the sound of words like "I called" and "I'll call". Is it possible to mistake one for another while you speak on the cell phone? It is certainly possible. The point is that you can never exclude a possible misunderstanding of words, if you base your judgement solely on an assessmnt the understanding of language. The level of comprehension and speaking of language actually is not the main factor in determining if the people understand each other in conversation. The understanding in a conversation, in this case dealing with basic language functions, is not something directly linked to the command of language but in the cases at the extreme ends, when the speakers both lack even of the very basic rudiments of the second language, certaily not the case of Amanda and Filomena. When people have a base or intermediate level of understanding they have the resources to understand each other properly on a topics that require the use of basic functions and basic grammar distinctions.
Whether they misunderstood each other, it is not something that we can speculate about based on their language skills, because they both have command of basic levels and they have resources to understand each other.
It is more important to examine their testimonies and recollections, their contextual actions and conversation, and their phone records.
Amanda had called just one of the Meredith's phones, that was ringing for only 16 seconds. Then after she called again Meredith for 3 and 4 seconds. Filomena recalled several things, not only about previous or future calls to Meredith, abut also about Amanda's locations and movements in that moment. Amanda gave a recollection in her e-mail and witness reports. This is the material to be used for an assessment.

I think this whole issue of phone call lengths may be another area of misapprehension. I believe that call records only record the length of time after the connection of the call. In other words, any "ring tone" time is not included. Thus, I think the "only 16 seconds" call would have been 16 seconds of connection - presumably Meredith's voicemail message. That's actually quite a long time.

Likewise, the "3 and 4 seconds" calls were likely not what you imagine them to be - calling the phone, letting it ring really briefly, then hanging up - but instead they were the first 3 and 4 seconds of Meredith's voicemail or "out of service" messages.

When I see people writing things like "only 16 seconds" or "3 and 4 seconds" in a clear attempt to suggest that Knox was only "going through the motions" of calling the phones of someone she already knew to be dead, my "confirmation bias" sensor starts going off the scale.

 

[el buscador]

Hi LondonJohn, I'm thinking gossip girls on steroids. But I quit taking it all seriously when I read upthread (pg. 39, 1521 by fulcanelli):

"Why? take a mixing bowl...add cake mix...and then some wine. Stir it up. Put some of that cake mix on various places and test it. My guess is, the test will reveal each time, cake mix and wine.

That's what we got from Rudy when he touched the handbag...yet, with the light switch and door handle we not so much got a different set of ingredients, but also a cake mix with ingredients absent. That clearly indicates they came from a different bowl...and a different cake."

 

[RWVBWL]

Disturbing. This author seems to view the case as a manifestation of American foreign policy and an affront to Italy's national honor. I am reminded of Egyptair Flight 990.

This is why it is important for American supporters to stress two things:

1. Raffaele Sollecito is every bit as innocent as Amanda, and what has happened to him is every bit as egregious and unjust.

2. We are aware that similar miscarriages of justice occur in the US and throughout the world. Our focus is not on Italy, but on the facts and evidence in this particular case.

I agree with you 100% Charlie Wilkes...
Have a great day,
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmm, I wonder? Maybe here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6480042&postcount=12423
Post #12423



Or perhaps here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6480363&postcount=12456
Post #12456



I believe one of the reasons for the late collection of the bra clasp, the purse, and I believe some of MK's clothing was because ILE had to coordinate with the defense team, who dragged their feet (we agree that a defense team, actually two, did exist by November 6th?). By the way, much of the evidence against Guede was also not collected until that same time. But of course, none of those who believe the bra strap is thereby 'bad evidence' would exculpate Rudy by those same standards.

Michael made several good points on PMF that no one system is preferable. It really comes down to the quality of the forensic team. A good job can be done either quickly or slowly. A lot of the points being made on this thread therefore bewilder me. It seems like it's a scattershot approach to call into question the evidence, by any means whatsoever. If going slowly is seen as bad, they went too slowly. If going too quickly is seen as bad, they went too quickly.

By the way, Withnail1969, Michael on PMF acknowledged full well that the UK police did have to right to keep a crime scene sealed as long as necessary. Straw man.

No, the Italian system is quite clearly not preferable, when a) the crime scene becomes unmistakeably contaminated and altered over the length of time the scene is kept "sealed", and b) people's homes and businesses are unnecessarily sequestered.

And I believe that it would be correct to say that in a case of this sort - a single murder in a domestic residence, with a broken window - in the UK the scene would be totally analysed and all evidence collected within a couple of days. Only in very complex cases such as multiple murders or complex robbery/terrorist scenes would the SOCOs need to be there any longer than a week. I doubt whether there is a residential or business premises crime scene in recent UK police history that has remained sealed for longer than three weeks - and the vast majority are unsealed within two or three days.

And I've already said that I think the evidence against Guede gathered in December is just as tainted as that against Knox or Sollecito. Unfortunately for Guede, however, his DNA was found inside the victim at autopsy, and his bloody prints were discovered in the murder room within the first couple of days.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe one of the reasons for the late collection of the bra clasp, the purse, and I believe some of MK's clothing was because ILE had to coordinate with the defense team, who dragged their feet (we agree that a defense team, actually two, did exist by November 6th?). bad, they went too slowly. If going too quickly is seen as bad, they went too quickly.

Fulcanelli never provided a source for this claim and it was repeated yesterday by Alt+4 who was unable to provide a source. I looked for it and couldn't find it either. As it comes up quite often I would hope that maybe you are the one that has a source for this assertion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi LondonJohn, I'm thinking gossip girls on steroids. But I quit taking it all seriously when I read upthread (pg. 39, 1521 by fulcanelli):

"Why? take a mixing bowl...add cake mix...and then some wine. Stir it up. Put some of that cake mix on various places and test it. My guess is, the test will reveal each time, cake mix and wine.

That's what we got from Rudy when he touched the handbag...yet, with the light switch and door handle we not so much got a different set of ingredients, but also a cake mix with ingredients absent. That clearly indicates they came from a different bowl...and a different cake."

Ah yes, I'd forgotten this absolute gem of critical reasoning

 

[Machiavelli]

It was a yes or no question.

Based on the knowledge I have till now, if your question was: "do you feel that Amanda and Filomena had trouble communicating with each other?", my answer is no, I don't feel Amanda and Filomena misunderstood each other because of language problems.
I also don't feel Amanda and Filomena had real communication problems in their everyday life, they were not exactly like foreign people.

And I think if having already called Meredith - who didn't answer - was an important piece of communication in Amanda's view, she would have managed to have this information understood by recipient immediately.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Hi LiamG,
Now knowing that English is NOT your 1st language and then watching you seemingly have a little difficulty with the translation of a little bit of written correspondance from another JREF member has me wondering something:

How the heck did the Italian speaking police truly understand ALL of their conversations with native English speaker Amanda Knox whenever she was asked questions and/or interviewed? How do they know what she had really said, not what they thought she said? Without the assistance of an audio tape recorder to record and then replay these conversations, I can see there being lots of room for translation error. You yourself LiamG seemed to have had the same translation problems, with even 1 word possibly changing the sentence meaning as you noted in your recent posting.

I really find it strange that in ALL of the tape recordings or secretly recorded phone calls that were done, there was NEVER any smoking gun, so to say, that incriminated Amanda Knox for the murder of her housemate Meredith Kercher.

But the 1 time that she was "broken", her questioning and/or interview was not recorded.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Hmmmm indeed!

Great insight, RWVBWL.

The 'lack of recording' is actually one of the major reasons I have grave doubts over the convictions of Amanda and Raffaele. Coupled with the T.O.D. and the shoddy, questionable police work (not to mention Mignini and Stefanoni), I honestly believe that the verdict in the 1st trial simply cannot be correct. There are FAR too many factors giving rise to reasonable doubt IMHO.

 

[RWVBWL]

Perugia Shock:
"Last Friday there was a get-together at the house of horrors.
All of the sudden the lawyers got a call from the police and had to go there. Some things had to be seized, which is why the presence of the parties was necessary.

Among the items seized: Meredith's purse, Meredith's guitar, Amanda's guitar, the 2 Harry Potter books, a hair-dryer, a little pot of vaseline, a sweatshirt, etc. It seems that all of this seized stuff will be tested in light of some clues provided by a witness.

The purse was not the leather one we see on the bed but a cloth purse with Meredith's i-pod and make-up kit still inside. It seems that it was blood stained. Everything will be analyzed. Blood, fingerprints, more hair, etc."


In MARCH the Cloth bag that Meredith was wearing that night was still at the cottage according to Frank Sfarzo.

What is disturbing about this is we do not know where Meredith would have put the keys that were needed to leave the cottage. If the keys were in the cloth bag she wore that night Rudy would have had to have touched this bag to find the keys. He could have left DNA. It is not likely she put them in the leather purse she didn't use that night.

Searching the cloth bag is also possibly when he stepped in the blood that he trailed out of the cottage. Proper and timely testing could have perhaps provided a more complete scenario.

Greetings Draca,
I am curious if anyone can shed any light on where Miss Kercher usually put her house keys.
Reading in Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face" on page 13 it says:
"The house was L-shaped, with a covered portico at the front that opened into a tiny foyer where the girls hung keys, parked umbrellas, and kept a bulletin board with messages to each other." Etc...

If so, did Meredith also hang her keys there too?
I wonder if this area was ever tested for fingerprints?

I'm also curious if Meredith had left any mean messages for Amanda on the bulletin board?
Maybe something such as "Don't forget to flush Amanda", "Please clean the toilet Amanda", "Don't bring home too many guys Amanda"...
You know, the kind of things that author B. Nadeau likes to point out that, I guess, seem to reflect on Amanda Knox's character and then stick out to me as I re-read her book and its particular view of this brutal murder.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL