Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

What I am saying is that saying "I can't remember what I did last night" amounts to a lie to me. That they consistently told this same lie over and over again is what made the cops suspicious and why they applied pressure.


I could of course be wrong but it seems very unlikely to me that BOTH again I keep emphasizing this and people keep ignoring it, BOTH of them say they couldn't quite remember what happened the night before.

Of course the cops are going to be suspicious, everyone would be.

everyone would be [suspicious]. What do you mean me, white man? [That's what Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when he suggested that they fight to the death when surrounded by hostile Indians.

Having been arrested and charged with a fabricated felony, I know with absolute certainty what it's like to be in Amanda's shoes. The first reaction is "Why are they doing this to me?". You think that over and over and over for days. You have a headache, an upset stomach and can't sleep. Your mind has been blown.

Then you are confused for awhile. You can't differentiate between what happened and what the police say happened. The police prey on this. The police take advantage of your confusion and pain. The police are predators, make no mistake about that. I'd rather be raped.

That's why I say that Amanda should be free and the police should be in jail. [This conclusion is based only on my experience with American police and not on anything said by the Knox family]

 

[pilot padron]

You may have forgotten that I said my opinion was the bathmat boogie was made up. If it were me, I would head to nearest place I knew there was a towel.

Yes, I did forget, and yes, I would do the same.

Hesitate to utilize a tactic that I personally find annoying, but if I may....Why would an innocent person make up this incredibly 'uncredible' story ?

I have not forgotten all the other well used explanations of 'internalised false' and ad nauseam; but they are not really applicable to this figment of her imagination are they.

Per chance just another 'best truth I can remember'?

From my perspective, this also seems very similar to the motivation of a suddenly discovered possibly incriminating fact that Raffie was faced with which resulted in the not quite as 'bizzare', but still incredibly uncredible fabrication of pricking Meredith while cooking.

 

[truethat]

If she was guilty she damn well should have, shouldn't she have? It would be kinda stupid to leave it there.

Not if you know there's no connection with you. Also would anyone clean off blood in this day and age? Cleaning up blood draws suspicion to you because they can always find it later with luminol. People know this. Cleaned up blood can always be found again later.

If I know RG did it, I know that I wasn't there when she was killed, perhaps I left the house when the killing started, I would know there's no way they can tie me to the crime. Of course I would leave it, and I'd also leave the turd in the toilet so the DNA evidence would be there.

 

[Withnail1969]

How does "flushing a toilet" equate to dealing with that mess? I'd have flushed the turd down. Who wouldn't?

Especially if I went back in the bathroom to dry my hair. I'm not going to stand there drying my hair with a turd floating in the toilet.

Also how do people know she doesn't have any cleaning cloths?

How do people know all these things that are used to explain away logic?

It's already been explained to you why. When you live in a shared house, you don't on principle clean up others' mess. Why should you?

and then isn't there a CCTV clip that shows her near her house when she said she was at home with Rafaelle?

No.

But Rudy was their friend,

No he wasn't. Raffaele had never met him.

 

[truethat]

And as you well know, if you suddenly then see a footprint on the mat that just might be yours, while still naked, and towel less, and with the front door still wide open, you would of course, place only one foot on the bathmat and do this self depicted 'surfing similar, skate board boogie maneuver' to get from the bathroom to your room.

Just more perspectives and perceptions, Rose, for 'the rest of the story'

What does this refer to btw?

 

[Withnail1969]

Not if you know there's no connection with you. Also would anyone clean off blood in this day and age? Cleaning up blood draws suspicion to you because they can always find it later with luminol. People know this. Cleaned up blood can always be found again later.

Of course it can't. By what scientific mechanism is blood which has been completely cleaned up, somehow still there? Luminol will only find precisely those traces of blood which have not been cleaned up.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, I did forget, and yes, I would do the same.

Hesitate to utilize a tactic that I personally find annoying, but if I may....Why would an innocent person make this up incredibly 'uncredible' story up ?

I have not forgotten all the other well used explanations of 'internalised false' and ad nauseam; but they are not really applicable to this figment of her imagination are they.

Per chance just another 'best truth I can remember'?

They lied because they were lied to. In Amanda's case I really think she got so emotional that much of her confusion was real. She was told they had strong evidence against her and that Raffaele had dropped her alibi. She was scared and confused and stressed and exhausted. The cops had already planned to arrest her before her mom arrived and before the accusation against Patrick. She should have been provided a lawyer, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

What does this refer to btw?

That would be Rudy's partial footprint in diluted blood on the bathmat.

 

[Justinian2]

Of course it can't. By what scientific mechanism is blood which has been completely cleaned up, somehow still there? Luminol will only find precisely those traces of blood which have not been cleaned up.

Words of wisdom.

 

[truethat]

They lied because they were lied to. In Amanda's case I really think she got so emotional that much of her confusion was real. She was told they had strong evidence against her and that Raffaele had dropped her alibi. She was scared and confused and stressed and exhausted. The cops had already planned to arrest her before her mom arrived and before the accusation against Patrick. She should have been provided a lawyer, in my opinion.

I agree with this. I do not blame them for lying after they had been lied to. I also agree that the entire confession was coerced and not the truth.

However, that takes me back to square one (As it does in the Norfolk Four case)

And I think people should just go back to the parts of her story that she has given now and what was said FIRST, not after the pressure was put on them.


At first they both said they couldn't remember what they had done the night before. She said she was with Rafaelle at his home the entire night. She said this in the beginning before all the crap,

Now isn't it true that a CCTV captured her outside the apartment and near her home. Or do I have this wrong?

 

[truethat]

Words of wisdom.

Apologies, I was under the impression that cleaned up blood can be detected after it has been cleaned up. Am I wrong about that?


If so why do so many cases bring up the fact that even though the blood had been cleaned up it was still able to be detected using luminol?

 

[RoseMontague]

I agree with this. I do not blame them for lying after they had been lied to. I also agree that the entire confession was coerced and not the truth.

However, that takes me back to square one (As it does in the Norfolk Four case)

And I think people should just go back to the parts of her story that she has given now and what was said FIRST, not after the pressure was put on them.


At first they both said they couldn't remember what they had done the night before. She said she was with Rafaelle at his home the entire night. She said this in the beginning before all the crap,

Now isn't it true that a CCTV captured her outside the apartment and near her home. Or do I have this wrong?

Yes, you have this wrong. That was one of the early rumors that was found to be not the case. It is possible that it is Meredith returning home shortly before 9PM but the image is not conclusive.

 

[pilot padron]

How does "flushing a toilet" equate to dealing with that mess? I'd have flushed the turd down. Who wouldn't?

Especially if I went back in the bathroom to dry my hair. I'm not going to stand there drying my hair with a turd floating in the toilet.

Not intended to nitpick, but rather to supplement the significant point you make...

The cottage toilet would *not* have Rudy's urgently deposited, KeBab induced droppings 'floating'.
The particular design would have them 'seasoning' on a shelf so that the resultant unpleasant aroma in her shower area would be unfettered and uninhibited by a covering or floating medium of water.

This, then, as you indicate would even more logically be flushed by any person unconcerned with deliberately implicating and preserving 'items' evidencing the presence of others.

 

[Solange305]

There's also a huge difference between arguing that inaccuracies in your testimony mean you are unreliable, and arguing that inaccuracies in your testimony mean that you are a murderer. Nobody's arguing that because Curatolo got the buses wrong that therefore he must be hiding something and therefore he must have murdered Meredith Kercher.

That argument might work if the only thing tying them to the crime was inaccuracies in their testimony. It's not.

 

[Solange305]

All sorts of reasons. For one, the court system is somewhat archaic and places a ridiculous amount of weight on the verbal testimony of supposed experts. In clear-cut cases there's no real reason why you should need a tenured university professor to front up and say that no, it's just not possible that five and a half hours after eating a small-to-moderate sized meal of pizza and crumble that a normal, healthy young woman would have all of that food still in her stomach in a partially-undigested state.

That said, the court system also very prudently demands the best possible evidence. So rather than allowing lawyers to just cite a paper themselves, they require someone whose job it is to be current on the literature to get up and say it just in case there are some extenuating circumstances or other special considerations that only professionals would know about.

However if you read the Massei report they cited no such circumstances, and nobody has had any luck finding any relevant ones in the literature. It's also evidence that some of the opinions given simply cannot be reconciled with the literature, which should be highly embarrassing for the "experts" so contradicted. It's their job to be consistent with the literature and if they are not up to date they should not be testifying.

Good answer. I just honestly do not understand why if it's so basic that anyone with some knowledge in science could figure out she died earlier, why couldn't the experts? It's just one of the parts that bothers me.

 

[truethat]

Not intended to nitpick, but rather to supplement the significant point you make...

The cottage toilet would *not* have Rudy's urgently deposited, KeBab induced droppings 'floating'.
The particular design would have them on a shelf so that the resultant unpleasant aroma in her shower area would be unfettered and uninhibited by a covering or floating medium of water.

This, then, as you indicate would even more logically be flushed by any person unconcerned with deliberately implicating and preserving 'items' evidencing the presence of others.

Do you have an example of the design of the toilet. I'm not quite understanding what you are saying.


Please tell me that this is not the actual crime scene photo of the bathroom??????????????


http://baldheadgirl.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-amanda-knox-case

 

[Withnail1969]

Apologies, I was under the impression that cleaned up blood can be detected after it has been cleaned up. Am I wrong about that?


If so why do so many cases bring up the fact that even though the blood had been cleaned up it was still able to be detected using luminol?

For the reason I stated. small amounts of blood might remain, perhaps in gaps between floor tiles, for example. A tiny splash such as the one on the sink? Rinse it off with plenty of water, it'll be gone without trace.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov

I'll have a go

So the the maxim A "Evidence collected after a suspect has been identified is worthless" has suddenly been dropped from the canon. That was short lived - Sic transit gloria mundi

Now its a case of 'hold the innocent guy while we decide whether to sell out our own stool pigeon'

Man, this is a very fluid and complicated situation. Is there some sort of 'black book' with all these 'plays'

Will maxim A ever returns to its former status ?
- It is a good question, and the answer should lie in whatever date that fingerprint of Guede's was collected and more importantly, identified.

We're going to find this all out eventually, isn't it kinda fun to speculate how it's all going to turn out? No 'plays' will possibly affect what will happen in this appeal, certainly not here. There will be a new prosecution and when I asked Machiavelli he said they weren't limited at all by the last trial, thus you'd think they'd develop a new theory. How would you do it, and what ToD, witnesses and DNA evidence do you think will be available?

It's out of our hands, put your guns to the ground

No Kaosium.
It appears 'I didn't get my point across with sufficient clarity' yet again

RG's trial and appeal are over - his case is in front of the Supreme Court soon and these facts are known.

What I'm speculating about [or putting forward the choices open to] is Kevin Lowe's conspiracy theories.
The end result, as with all CT's, is always the same, in this instance - bizarre theories about crooked cops & patsies.

Its just a question of which version he (KL) will go with once he is appraised of the date of the identification of RG.
This has nothing to do with the real world [like much of what is discussed on this thread]

 

[Justinian2]

For the reason I stated. small amounts of blood might remain, perhaps in gaps between floor tiles, for example. A tiny splash such as the one on the sink? Rinse it off with plenty of water, it'll be gone without trace.

Don't use hot water, or it'll never come out of your clothes, oh great one.

 

[pilot padron]

Do you have an example of the design of the toilet. I'm not quite understanding what you are saying.

Sure

http://offtrackplanet.com/inspiration/how-to-use-toilets-around-the-world/

Scroll to second picture.

This also may be used as understanding one of the reasons why Meredith criticized Amanda's lack of cleanliness.
Amanda apparently did not, as that design dictates use the brush to keep the toilet clean for others after using

From above URL
Some major flaws exist with this design. Mainly, the lack of a water barrier between your goods and the toilet creates a horrid pre-flush smell and upon flushing is likely to leave behind some nasty streakage.