Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[billyryan]

Why would Rudy kill Meredith and how is Knox involved with him?

Dont think I'm 100 percent sure Rudy did it either.

There is also the more plausible scenario. Where he drives up to the place with a friend to see the guys downstairs and try and score some pot. After realizing no one is home, decides to break into the upstairs apartment to steal something or even look for drugs. Meredith returns home while he is sitting on the toilet and the friend he is with enters the house behind Meredith, then rapes and kills her. Rudy gets in an argument with his friend over this. He leaves the scene and Rudy stays and tries to help Meredith. or It could be vice versa where Rudy rapes and kills her and his friend stays to try and help Meredith. This scenario is more plausible the the sex fueled drug induced girl gone satanicly wrong scenario that Mignini's force fed Perugia. It also puts guilt on Rudy's shoulder and he is forced to not give up the friend. Though I honestly believe in the lone wolf scenario, there is still the possibility that the car in the driveway belonged to an accomplice/killer.

Unlike most people I'm willing to consider Knox committed the crime. I just want proof and the proof presented is absurd. The cops keep saying this crime required multiple people that is why Knox/Sollecito helped Rudy. Yet they refuse to accept that the car could have belonged to the killer. They also refuse to accept that Rudy had friends other than Knox that was capable of killing. I honestly dont feel Knox is capable of killing someone, but if you feel she is, you also have to consider that Rudy had friends that hung out with him that could have done the crime also. Knox wasn't running around Italy on a crime spree. Apparently robbing places and having stolen merchandise in his possession was the norm for Rudy. How did he afford those shoes btw. Did they find a receipt for them?

The great unanswered question in this case who drove the car that was in the drive way.Until the driver of that car is identified major questions will always remain
Frank Sfarzo believes that Rudy had an accomplice,if so surely he came and left in this car.Its three years since the murder now and it is now doubtful if the owner/driver will ever be identified
What are the other possible reasons the owner/driver of the car parked trere and what was he doing.

 

[Antony]

What makes you think Amanda would have known Rudy well? The most I've heard is he hung around sometimes with the boys downstairs and was once present at a party where she smoked some hash.

As to your question, I think of anyone in Perugia that night the last who could have been involved were Amanda and Raffaele. Otherwise the Perugian police would have been able to compile some real evidence of them being involved, and it wouldn't look so much like they put the screws to a girl barely out of her teens, blew it entirely, and then arrested three people, none of whom fit the evidence. I think that's also why the 'evidence' produced against Amanda and Raffaele is suspect on so many levels, and the 'witnesses' laughable: they were trying to gather evidence of entirely innocent people. Contrast that to the damning case against Rudy Guede.

Excellent, concise, summing-up of the flashing red lights all over the prosecution case. The hard evidence of police misconduct, ranging from negligence to manipulation of the facts, needs to be the starting point in understanding this case - not the tenuous innuendos directed against the 2 accused of assisting the real killer.

 

[RoseMontague]

'A gross misinterpretation of the blood evidence by the Scientific Police'
By Ron Hendry




Documented proof from Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry that a mistake the Flying Squad made through complete disrespect for the crime scene was presented to the jury as evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It was claimed to show the crime scene was staged. If this information was used as part of the reason to convict them it gives very strong reason that all the evidence in the case should be reviewed.


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry11.html

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=171828869508259&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

Thank you Draca. Hendry has several new posts up and all of them are worth reading.

 

[Mary_H]

Firstly ....See the earlier Lipstadt reference.

Before I waste time looking thru Massei I need to see the Defence doc with a link to a reputable source to ascertain if haildes1 misrepresented the claim*, or if its as weak as it sounds or if there is a good argument.

* which related to the AK appeal ..."Amanda's appeal noted that Massei's report did not constrain itself to the evidencewith respect to the putative second knife"

I concede nothing.

.

OH... You haven't read Massei. That explains a lot.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The sequence of events was,

1. Patrick arrested, Amanda arrested, Raffaele arrested.
2. Perp walk for all 3, captured on film. One sees them taken one-by-one and put into their own personal patrol cars. That means 3 cars.
3. All 3 cars begin the parade, loudly honking their horns, while reporters chase after them. You can hear the horns on the press videos.
4. Press conference led by DeFelice. "The motive is sexual," he says.5. Mignini, Giobbi and all the other big shots etc. seen leaving the Questura together.

Can't argue with DeFelice on that one.

 

[Chris C]

They must have done because then they watched an episode of Naruto until 21:26.

They watched an episode of naruto or it started playing at 21:26?

 

[Chris C]

Where did you get that idea?

Ask them how they feel about the tea party.

 

[Watson]

The great unanswered question in this case who drove the car that was in the drive way.Until the driver of that car is identified major questions will always remain
Frank Sfarzo believes that Rudy had an accomplice,if so surely he came and left in this car.Its three years since the murder now and it is now doubtful if the owner/driver will ever be identified
What are the other possible reasons the owner/driver of the car parked trere and what was he doing.

.....Yes, this is the great unanswered question ! Who was driving the black car that was parked in the driveway. I hardly can imagine that this has been neclected by the police. But apparently they did not pay attention !

 

[Chris C]

1. Patrick arrested, Amanda arrested, Raffaele arrested.
2. Perp walk for all 3, captured on film. One sees them taken one-by-one and put into their own personal patrol cars. That means 3 cars.
3. All 3 cars begin the parade, loudly honking their horns, while reporters chase after them. You can hear the horns on the press videos.
4. Press conference led by DeFelice. "The motive is sexual," he says.
5. Mignini, Giobbi and all the other big shots etc. seen leaving the Questura together.

Few days later.....
6. Sir we can't prove sexual assault.
7. No problem, we dont have to prove it.

 

[Chris C]

.....Yes, this is the great unanswered question ! Who was driving the black car that was parked in the driveway. I hardly can imagine that this has been neclected by the police. But apparently they did not pay attention !

Oh dont fool yourself there. They where paying attention, right up till the moment they realised it wasn't Sollecito's car.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a reporter and a cameraman were sources

No but, what I only care about is the author style and accuracy. The fact is Dempsey is obviously making up a colourful detail. She is inventing a story. Something that didn't happen, for which there is no source, and this reveals in fact a narrative mechanism of putting a fictional line in her report of facts.
Remind, innocentisti are regarding Candace Dempsey as a source. They place far more weight and importance in a source, their knowledge of facts depends on the accuray of this kind information, while my opinion instead doesn't depend on the professional style of Perugia police officers. To me the police didn't do anything that was unexpected professionally, meaning thy did nothing different and nothing more than what they were expected to do with the suspects. They did not parade them through the old city as an "extra" tour. Given there were 39 police cars out in the convoy in that moment, it is absolutely possible that officers on patrols made triumphant signs. Maybe those officers didn't even know who the suspects were, some just learnt it on the patrol radio.
SNIP

Her sources were Bertoldi and a cameraman for the AP who took some footage of the three suspects that day. If you don't believe it, I suggest you contact them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

perp walk

How many errors of fact not considering the parade have been found in Dempsey's book. What are the most glaring. Surely there must be more than the parade.

moodstream,

I am unaware of anything she got wrong about the parade (BTW I may have been the first person to call it that, but it is a handy tag). See my previous post and my next one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

AP footage and shot list

odeed,

The text below is the shotlist from the AP archives footage. You will need to register with this site to see it. This link also has footage of all of them on foot and the three cars pulling away.

"SHOTLIST
SKY - No access UK, RTE, CNNi
November 6, 2007
1. Pull out of Raffaele Sollecito, Italian citizen (covered face with jacket) leaving the police station
2. Amanda Marie Knox, US citizen and girlfriend of Sollecito (face covered with hat) leaving the police station
3. Lumumba "Patrick" Diya, Congolese citizen leaving the police station
4. Police vehicles driving suspects away in the murder of British student Meredith Kercher"

Knox and Sollecito went to the station on their own, unlike Lumumba. When could they possibly have been taken to the station?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Can you prove they finished watching it?

I don't have to and it's not the point. Alt+F4 and you are completely free as to any assumptions you want to make in creating the scenario.

I just wanted to help, as it would be easier to explain e.g. Raffaele's call that took place from his flat and ended 20:43 if you assume they left that flat after 20:43, not before. Moving that time even further beyond Alt+F4's boundary of 21:00 removes the need to explain why they left the film playing on the computer. They also need some time to get "high as kites" because around 20:40 they were apparently still normal and sober.
And as the walk to Piazza Grimana is 5 minutes at most, you don't want them to leave too early. After all, they showed up at 21:28 there.

 

[Withnail1969]

They watched an episode of naruto or it started playing at 21:26?

the episode finished at 21:26, leaving them 1 minute to get to the basketball court for 21:27 assuming they watched the episode.

 

[Mary_H]

The following are the reasons why I think they are guilty. I think everything else can be disregarded. Yes, most of these are circumstantial but then Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence and I don’t think anyone here is going to argue that he is not guilty.

1. The timeline - I think it was very short (9:05 to 10:00) so it’s much more likely that there was multiple attackers considering the extensive wounds on Meredith’s body and everything else we know that happened.

It's harder to fit a 4-person sex game and an attack into 55 minutes than it is to fit a 2-person attack and a burglary into 55 minutes.

2. Amanda’s lamp in Meredith’s room.

Amanda and Raffaele had ample time and opportunity to remove the lamp from the room if they were worried about it.

3. Inconsistent and contradictory statements in regard to her email back home, her trial testimony and his prison diary (none of which were coerced).

For example?

4. No alibi.

No alibis required. It is up to the prosecution to prove they committed the crime.

5. Amanda's phone calls on November 2:
- In the 48 minutes between 12:07 – 12:55 she spent a total of only 23 seconds trying to phone Meredith though she stated she was “panicked” as to her whereabouts.

Amanda has already shown she can't remember the details of the phone calls.

- Amanda was back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?

Do we know that she didn't? Do we know that she would not have heard the rings from anywhere in the cottage? As Amanda has stated, she didn't think "the worst" -- that Meredith was lying murdered in her room.

- Both Amanda’s mother and Filomena told Amanda to call the police based on what she told them, she didn’t.

Raffaele was a native; Amanda wasn't. It makes much more sense that he would call.

6. Raffaelle’s call to the police: He told them that nothing taken from Filomena’s room, there was no way he could know that.

Filomena's computer was there. What else would he think would have been stolen?

- He told the police “there is a lot of blood” when everyone at the scene agreed there was very little blood.
- why would he mention a closed door?

Why wouldn't he?

7. Raffaele’s lie in his prison diary regarding the knife.

Not a lie, a guess.

8. Amanda’s behavior:
- not flushing the toilet with the crap in it

Flushing it would have required cleaning it with a brush.

- not looking in the murder room

She was not standing nearby when the door was broken in, and everyone who was standing near the door ran out of the cottage.

- overexplaination regarding the mop

In some people's opinion, not in mine.

9. bra clasp – sorry it is Rafaelle’s DNA on it.

Planted.

10. evidence of a cleanup:

Such as?

- the bathmat – FBI guy Steve Moore said no one could have left that room without blood on their shoes yet there are no bloody footprints leading to the bathroom. Moore said he has seen all the crime scene photos from the bedroom so who is anyone to question his analysis?

Several posters have offered the explanation that Rudy got blood on the bathmat when he washed his pants. It is also possible Amanda tracked blood onto the bathmat, then wiped up the wet bathroom floor when she scooted the bathmat across it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Her sources were Bertoldi and a cameraman for the AP who took some footage of the three suspects that day. If you don't believe it, I suggest you contact them.

No, I don't believe Candace Dempsey. Just quote Elio Bertoldi and link the AP video, then we will see if what they report is the same what Candace says.
The point is Dempsey reports something different, because the "parade" she reports doesn't appear in any source.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

see my message upthread

No, I don't believe Candace Dempsey. Just quote Elio Bertoldi and link the AP video, then we will see if what they report is the same what Candace says.
The point is Dempsey reports something different, because the "parade" she reports doesn't appear in any source.

The video is already linked (see above), but you will need to register at the site.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, this is exactly what Vinci did. he took the same picture and performed measurements correctly.

Reading Massei, what in your understanding was his reason for rejecting Vinci's measurement?


(..)

I didn't understand where Vinci applied his measurements on the same picture, and I didn't understand his method to correct the perspective on that picture.
The court rejected Vinci's measurement because - if he took a measurement on the same picture - apparently he did so just in the picture as it is, without taking in account perspective, he didn't do any perspective correction in order to havethe points of reference shifted to a corrected position before taking his measurements.
This is why his measurement was rejected. The method was considered deceptive.

 

[Machiavelli]

The video is already linked (see above), but you will need to register at the site.

Above where, and where is this article by Elio Clero Bertoldi?