• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
odeed said:
A discussion about screensaver logs that you accepted as gospel from the start with little or no debate, and it was pointed out that the later that the 12 hour time period in question (6pm to 6am, not the 9pm-1am you state) of alleged human activity on the laptop did not correspond to the alibi/testimony of Knox, then the discussion ended.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I sure called it. I said the guilters would try this line, and you're the third to have done so.

If they weren't there when Meredith died, they didn't do it.

It gets you nowhere to argue "Yes they were at home throughout the entire period when Meredith could possibly have been murdered, just as they said they were. However they said they spent their time in harmless and totally inconsequential activity A... and I think they really spent their time in harmless and totally inconsequential activity B! This proves they are liars!".

Now personally I haven't seen any evidence of these "lies" about their activity on the night of the murder that can't be perfectly well explained by fallible human memory, nor have I seen any story that makes a lick of sense about why they would tell the claimed "lies" if they were guilty. As far as guilters are concerned there doesn't seem to be any such things as innocent mistakes or irrelevant issues - any contradiction, real or imagined, immediately becomes evidence that Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murder. However I'll give you a free kick and say they lied their arses off... what now? They still couldn't have murdered Meredith because they weren't there.

I don't care if they were celebrating a Black Mass and reading Mein Kampf all night. If they weren't in the murder room they didn't kill Meredith. Rudy did it all by himself while they were a long way away and they were totally uninvolved.
 
Matthew Best said:
Cite, please. :D
Click to expand...


Does this mean you have been skipping over RVWBLW's posts :eye-poppi

Although perhaps you are to be excused, entertaining :drool: as his anecdotes are I'm not sure they are especially relevant, After all ....

Charlie Carlo don't surf

.
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
<snip>

I don't care if they were celebrating a Black Mass and reading Mein Kampf all night. If they weren't in the murder room they didn't kill Meredith. Rudy did it all by himself while they were a long way away and they were totally uninvolved.
Click to expand...


Please don't mention this here either, its already been the cause of an OT conspiracy theory, and much more if the arguments proposed by some posters are to be believed.

As before OT = Off Topic.

PS The snipped portion has been dealt with previously - see Macavity

.
 
Confusion over confessions

halides1 said:
platonov,

With a heavy heart, I accept that there has been mendacity on the pro-guilt side.
Click to expand...

haldes1

With a light heart I must point out that's an accusation not a confession.

Where have we seen those mixed up before :) ?

.
 
A lie is a lie is a lie

As one who appreciates the beauty of the English language and an admirer of those proficient in its use, I am enjoying some of the synonyms applied here in arguments advocating that the unanimously convicted murderers were really not telling unadulterated, unmitigated, bald faced lies.

No, rather these obviously intentional, deliberate easily identified falsehoods become here (in the interest of advancing a particular agenda) :
1) innocent mistakes
2) irrelevant issues
3) products of:
3A) confusion
3B) fallible human memory
3C) mistaken dates
3D) internalised false statements
3E) misremembering
3F) inadvertent inaccuracies
3G) ad nauseam and with more similarly simplistic synonyms probably to come
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Per chance *both* of the 'pro-guilt advocates' who are still left here decided that point was not worth addressing..... "in an intelligent way".

Or per chance maybe the two remaining pro-guilt advocates did not want to interrupt the ever so meaningful "arguments and skepticism" that the large remaining cabal of pro-innocent advocates engage in among themselves, complete with ever so relevant autobiographical essays.
Click to expand...

Watching the gang spin in ever decreasing circles claiming that all of Italy conspired to put their darling in jail is enough for me.
 
pilot padron said:
<snip>

3G) ad nauseam and with more synonyms probably to come
Click to expand...


3H) The lies of Comodi (thru the medium of tachyons)
3J) Comodi Police induced perplexity
3K) MindWipes (Police induced)
3L) All black guys look alike
3K) Marijuana (1? joint)

.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
I wonder if they were checked as thoroughly as the kitchen knife - with all the pseudo-LCN and too lows. I have a feeling that with the kitchen knife they gave Stefanono a clear suggestion - "we're out of knives and nothing so far. Do something, crank up that machine of yours! This time it MUST be positive or we're busted".
Click to expand...


I recall reading somewhere that they found visible bloody footprints in Rudy's apartment. Were these even tested to confirm that they were in fact blood and that the blood came from the crime scene?

My impression is that ILE was only searching for evidence to convict and not looking to solve the case. The footprints alone imply that they are Meredith's blood (what else could they be). Testing these footprints for blood or for DNA cannot add anything against Rudy but a negative result for blood or finding the wrong DNA would confuse the case against him.
 
satanic ritual in Mignini's thoughts

Kermit said:
As for Satanism and esoteric rites, if you read the Massei report, you'll see that it was not mentioned once in the trial, nor in the formulation of the judicial opinion. That's good news, as that means that FOAKers and The Entourage can stop talking about Satan.



Again, please review the facts. If the police "zeroed in" on Patrick, it was because Amanda had (falsely) accused him.

The "several" people was the Swiss professor who had to be flown in for his testimony. In the meantime Amanda did not lift a finger to write yet another spontaneous declaration in order to deny what she had earlier stated to the police concerning Patrick murdering (according to her) Meredith.
Click to expand...

Kermit,

Amanda happened to meet Patrick on the 5th. Perhaps the police zeroed in on Patrick because they might have known of this meeting. The police, having helpfully listened in to Edda’s conversation with Amanda, knew that Amanda did not stand by her false accusation/confession. Perhaps you can explain why you called her accusation as “unsolicited,” as you do in message 15182. Nothing in her testimony suggests it was unsolicited to me. Are you sure the Swiss professor was flown in? I had heard he traveled after the police told him to call back the next day. As for the motive being occult, Ms. Nadeau reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this.
 
halides1 said:
Kermit,

Amanda happened to meet Patrick on the 5th. Perhaps the police zeroed in on Patrick because they might have known of this meeting. The police, having helpfully listened in to Edda’s conversation with Amanda, knew that Amanda did not stand by her false accusation/confession. Perhaps you can explain why you called her accusation as “unsolicited,” as you do in message 15182. Nothing in her testimony suggests it was unsolicited to me. Are you sure the Swiss professor was flown in? I had heard he traveled after the police told him to call back the next day. As for the motive being occult, Ms. Nadeau reported (Angel Face, p. 158) that Mignini wanted to reintroduce the Satanic ritual, but Comodi blocked this.
Click to expand...


This solicitation issue has already been dealt with on this thread - the Dec 17 interrogation produced the same confusion and her lawyer was present.

No coercion or solicitation was reported on that occasion - the interview was terminated by AK.

.
 
Dan O. said:
I recall reading somewhere that they found visible bloody footprints in Rudy's apartment. Were these even tested to confirm that they were in fact blood and that the blood came from the crime scene?

My impression is that ILE was only searching for evidence to convict and not looking to solve the case. The footprints alone imply that they are Meredith's blood (what else could they be). Testing these footprints for blood or for DNA cannot add anything against Rudy but a negative result for blood or finding the wrong DNA would confuse the case against him.
Click to expand...

I had not read that. Interesting if it is so.

The motivations does give reference to shoeprints found in Rudy's bathroom but they were composed of dirt, grease and dust.

Stefanoni also testified to the results of samples taken from Rudy's apartment and while they did not give significant results they did yield the genetic profile of Guede.
 
halides1 said:
Kermit,

Now that you are back, would you mind responding to these comments?
3035
and
3352
Click to expand...
.
Okay, first of all 3035. This goes back to your suggestion that Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp could have been transferred there by dust. I suppose your chain of events is:

- Raffaele tries to force door and DNA from his hands or clothing sticks to door, transported on dust.
- At some point the dust floats around or gets kicked around and ends up on the bra clasp

You linked this summary of a scientific article to support your argument:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826584.200-telltale-dna-sucked-out-of-household-dust.html

I pointed out that a reading of the New Scientist summary you linked us to indicates that "With further research it might be possible to find ways of recreating someone's profile or even working out how recently they'd visited a crime scene from the decay of their DNA."

I found some other links which seemed to support the idea that DNA through dust testing was not yet a standard forensic technique nor practise (if you want, I'll find them again).

You now say "Your argument that this technique is in its initial stages is wrong; people have been studying touch DNA for over ten years."

I think that you are criticising inappropriately my observation of the article's text. Of course human DNA has been observed in dust, and that has been the object of academic study. However, when you take into account the date of this article (from 2008) and the date of Meredith's murder (2007) it seems to me that as a forensic analysis technique at that time, that you wouldn't detect Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp (which was detected with 2007 DNA testing techniques) through a dust based transfer.

You said in the earlier discussion: "With respect to DNA and dust, a little history is in order. I first brought up the DNA-in-dust paper to show that Stefanoni was wrong in her assertion that skin cells do not contain DNA."

If Stefanoni asserted that skin cells don't contain DNA (citation? exactly what did she say?), she was surely referring this same issue: that the positive for RS's DNA, obtained through forensic testing carried out in this case (or in any case in Italy and most or all parts of the world at that time and perhaps even now), precluded the transfer of Raffaele's DNA through dust.
 
Kermit said:
Ummm, you have the chain of events backwards. Raffaele invented the "I pricked Meredith with the knife while we were cooking together, then I apologised to her" (my paraphrase) only after police had seized the Double DNA Knife. It was his reaction to realising that the police had the evidence.

As for a "random grab", if you look a images of Raffaele's kitchen cutlery drawer, you'll see that the Double DNA knife was the only one which could have been a useful weapon. Otherwise there was a bread knife and unthreatening normal table knives.
Click to expand...

Well, he had a bunch of knives a whole lot more useful for cutting people than chopping onions, those would have been the obvious ones to check. However when did they get the forensics back? When did they 'know' Meredith's DNA was 'on' that knife? It's a minor point at any rate, I'm just speculating how they might have chosen that one which turned out to be so embarrassing to them.

Because, it wasn't the murder weapon, it didn't match the outline left, it didn't match most the wounds and the other could have been done by anything from a box-cutter to a broadsword--including the actual murder weapon. All that knife amounts to is evidence against the prosecution's rush to judgment. If by some unlikely transfer or contamination it actually bore Meredith's DNA, despite the prosecutions' unwillingness to prove that, it still couldn't have been used by Amanda or Raffaele in that room, as the absence of any other sign of them speaks volumes. Unlike logic, in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

What the bra clasp and 'murder knife' actually prove is that the prosecution was so desperate to tie them into that room they had to bring items from outside the room or those obviously contaminated. They also eliminate the possibility that there was Amanda and Raffaele's DNA in that room, the forensics team just missed it, statistically highly unlikely with all they found of Rudy Guede's but barely possible--until the bra clasp and 'murder knife' show what lengths they went to in the attempt to find something of Amanda's or Raffaele's in that room.

At any rate whatever was on that knife and bra clasp the one thing you know for sure it wasn't is evidence of murder. That would require evidence of Raffaele and Amanda at the scene, and the handful of picograms of whatever on the knife and clasp certainly doesn't qualify as anything but a desperate attempt to fool credulous people.

Kermit said:
Your "obvious" description seems only obvious to FOAKers. Not even Amanda's lawyer Ghirga dabbled in speculation as to what the state of Filomena's room represented.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're getting at. If there's a break-in and a girl killed, it takes a special kind of mind to come to the conclusion it had to be staged and when the 'evidence' of that is ridiculous assumptions like a burglar couldn't break in to a second story building they've failed in their quest to prove the counter-intuitive.

Kermit said:
As for Satanism and esoteric rites, if you read the Massei report, you'll see that it was not mentioned once in the trial, nor in the formulation of the judicial opinion. That's good news, as that means that FOAKers and The Entourage can stop talking about Satan.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the initial 'theory' that Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were arrested under. The one broadcast to the press.

Kermit said:
Again, please review the facts. If the police "zeroed in" on Patrick, it was because Amanda had (falsely) accused him.
Click to expand...

No, she didn't. She had the screws put to her for hours and finally succumbed to suggestion. They already had her phone wire-tapped, they already suspected Patrick. If they asked her about the SMS message and she replied who it was, then perhaps she spoke his name first, but that they claimed they had a kinky black hair, (which apparently never showed up in evidence) and were interested in that SMS and lied to her telling her they had video evidence of him going into the building shows who they were interested in.

Kermit said:
The "several" people was the Swiss professor who had to be flown in for his testimony. In the meantime Amanda did not lift a finger to write yet another spontaneous declaration in order to deny what she had earlier stated to the police concerning Patrick murdering (according to her) Meredith.
Click to expand...

Actually she did, and there's not much more she could have done all locked up like that. At any rate the idea that a professional police force moves on the 'repressed memory' of a traumatized girl heavily interrogated and lied to regarding 'evidence' of Patrick at the scene and her boyfriend claiming she wasn't with him is ludicrous. That they tried to 'blame' it on the twenty-year old girl is simply more evidence of CYA on the part of the Perugia police, and invites further inquiries on what else they tried to hide in the course of botching this investigation.
 
platonov said:
Does this mean you have been skipping over RVWBLW's posts :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

No, generally I skip over yours as they rarely have anything of value or interest in them, merely pointless sniping. However, they do tend to have the advantage of brevity, for which I thank you.

Please stay on topic and do not personalize the argument. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pilot padron said:
As one who appreciates the beauty of the English language and an admirer of those proficient in its use, I am enjoying some of the synonyms applied here in arguments advocating that the unanimously convicted murderers were really not telling unadulterated, unmitigated, bald faced lies.

No, rather these obviously intentional, deliberate easily identified falsehoods become here (in the interest of advancing a particular agenda) :
1) innocent mistakes
2) irrelevant issues
3) products of:
3A) confusion
3B) fallible human memory
3C) mistaken dates
3D) internalised false statements
3E) misremembering
3F) inadvertent inaccuracies
3G) ad nauseam and with more similarly simplistic synonyms probably to come
Click to expand...

But for some reason you don't mention the bald faced lies of the prosecution and police. Perhaps you define whatever the authorities say as the truth regardless of other evidence?
 
Katody Matrass said:
Interesting, but couldn't it be that they already had phone records showing their text exchange of Nov 1? Maybe "Lumumba did it" was the "fact" that ILE already knew to be correct. After all Perugia police chief said
"she buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in".​
How did they know those facts were correct? What evidence did they have to check her confession against apart from the phone billings and possible black hairs at that time?
Click to expand...

Yes, Perugia Police Chief De Felice inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he couldn't resist bragging about how the "crack" police had solved the crime, in his press conference on 6th November (the same day as the disgraceful "perp walk" and procession through the old town of Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba).

His ill-chosen words make it readily apparent that the police had this theory of the crime in advance of interrogating Knox on the 5th/6th. This throws up two interesting implications: firstly, it implies that Knox therefore should have been questioned as a suspect, not a witness (since De Felice admitted that the police already "knew" that she was involved prior to her interrogation). And secondly, it clearly implies that the police "knew" Lumumba was involved prior to Knox's interrogation. It is therefore highly possible (and indeed probable) that the police themselves "suggested" Lumumba's involvement to Knox during that interrogation, and that Knox was simply saying what the police wanted her to say.

Unless, of course, De Felice - the Chief of Police of Perugia - was lying when he said that "she (Knox) buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in". Surely that couldn't be the case though, could it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom