Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

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

That's a German design of toilet which I have never seen used in Italy, or even on recent trips to Germany. Very old fashioned, smelly and unpopular. Basically the poo falls onto a shelf rather than into water before flushing. Is this really what the girls had and why would they have one in Italy?

 

[Dan O.]

You have a couple, they BOTH don't remember what they did the night before, they BOTH keep changing their story it's not adding up.

Now it looks like you are wearing a guilter hat and repeating their talking points. Where have they changed their story?

Amanda for a short period believes the story fed to her in the interrogation. She is stressed and sleep deprived and easily susceptible to suggestions at this time. After she gets some sleep (what little she can get curled up in a chair at the police station), she begins to sort out the true memories from the induced false memories.

Raffaele has told a consistent account. However, there was an interview published on the 4th or 5th that gave a different account of Raffaele's activities on the night of the 1st. It was from reading this interview that the police decided that they needed to call Raffaele back on the 5th.

By an amazing coincidence though, the activities attributed to Raffaele in that published interview exactly match what Raffaele was doing on Halloween night. Was Raffaele caught in a time loop repeating the same actions on two successive nights or do you think it far more plausible that the reporter got the nights confused?


Outside of that, their stories have been remarkably consistent with only minor variations of the parts included for each audience. If you are going to continue to forward the guilter claim that their stories were changing, you will need to provide evidence to back up your claim.

 

[Kaosium]

I appreciate your input. Thanks!


I just want to reiterate that the reason that she became as suspect and so did RAFAELLE (sp?) is that both their stories didn't at up from the start.

I think they became suspects because the police couldn't find any leads, and then started looking for anything they could find, like this. If you want to find suspicion anywhere, you can find it. It's almost impossible for two people to give the exact same story, memories differ, people concentrate on different things.

Look at it this way, you're asking questions right now and getting different answers from the people currently posting. Some know more, I know less, and they all vary. You'd have to hardwire people together to get the same exact accounts.

I don't understand why so many people are ignoring Rafaelle in this case? I get what you are saying about AK but Rafaelle also lied and didn't know what \really happened the night before. No one is raging against his "unfair conviction" he's barely even mentioned. Look at the thread title for example.

I like Raffaele, he's got a great sense of humor, read his diary sometime! He also went to the police station stoned on hash! I find that hilarious, but I have a wretched sense of humor sometimes. It also is a pretty good indication he didn't think he had anything to hide, he even forgot to take his knife off before entering the police station. I love his line in the diary about that.

However I cannot read Italian, the vast majority of people posting here can't, so it's tough to find out much about him, and frankly he's kind of peripheral to the one they wanted: Amanda. He wasn't part of their theory, which originally included only Amanda and Patrick, he just got roped in because he reverted to giving Amanda an alibi after they 'psychologically tortured' him as he puts it in his diary.

I was reading from an Italian poster at the forum of the site I linked that in Italy Raffaele is the one they care about, Amanda is kinda forgotten. I suppose that figures if you think on it.

You have a couple, they BOTH don't remember what they did the night before, they BOTH keep changing their story it's not adding up.

Personally I think Raffaele smoked a little too much hash. Amanda got mindspanked by an aggressive interrogation in which they tried to convince her of things that were not true in place of what she thought she remembered in my opinion. So what is she supposed to think, what the police told her she did or her hash-addled memories that she was told didn't happen?

Perhaps we should consider this a case study in the short term memory effects of hashish and angry policemen.

Most people who are gung ho innocent treat AK as if she is the only one who spoke to the police, that she was traumatized, didn't understand the language and in distress. Well how do you explain Rafaelle then?

As far as I know nothing is known of Raffaele's interrogation outside the entry in his diary where he states he was 'psychologically tortured.' There is of course no tape available, which is kind of curious being as they set them up with a 12 man crew and wanted to place Amanda at a crime scene and sign a 'confession' without a lawyer. They apparently taped all but a couple of the other girl's witness statements, but not their crown jewel, Raffaele and Amanda--the ones they charged with murder.

I think they're lying.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2824508.ece


He says this:





Why do people just blow that off?

Because he remembered something Amanda didn't. It looks all sinister in the paper doesn't it? The papers and/or prosecutor made them look ultra guilty from the start, the police even said they had Amanda on camera going into her home right before 9 PM, it turned out that was Meredith. The press convicted them quickly and none of it turned out to be true, but most still thought it was I bet. Wait until you get to the one where the police released a picture of the bathroom treated with a chemical to make everything look blood red: to imply the bathroom was totally bloodsoaked when Amanda took her shower. It wasn't true.

 

[truethat]

This one?

So the stench would be noticeable or not?

Also someone please tell me if that above pix is the bathroom that AK walked into and took a shower in and then left.

Those are not "tiny streaks" or "drops" It's covered in blood? WTBH?

 

[Solange305]

Solange, I totally understand your situation, and am not ashamed to say I avoid the doctor like the plague, despite being insured as well. Good luck in your search for one.

Thanks, I'm not too picky about the doctor themselves, I just hate having to add another thing to my "to-do list", it's mostly mental I think

I've been reading your posts about finding the knife strong evidence against the couple. I understand, though don't share, your assertion that Raffaele would only make up that story if he was guilty. The main thing for me that goes against the knife is how it could possibly come to be involved in the murder in the first place. So, I'm curious which version you ascribe to:

A. That Amanda borrowed the knife from Raffaele for protection, despite already owning mace and having a plethora of knives to choose from at the cottage.

B. That Amanda grabbed the knife spontaneously before going to hang out with Raf at her place, maybe anticipating a fight with Meredith would happen.

C. Some other reason.

I know I've said this to you guys before, I don't know if you remember, but that is one of the things that I have doubts about. I don't know why the knife would have gotten there. I agree a lot of the scenarios presented don't make sense.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[truethat]

I think they became suspects because the police couldn't find any leads, and then started looking for anything they could find, like this. If you want to find suspicion anywhere, you can find it. It's almost impossible for two people to give the exact same story, memories differ, people concentrate on different things.

Look at it this way, you're asking questions right now and getting different answers from the people currently posting. Some know more, I know less, and they all vary. You'd have to hardwire people together to get the same exact accounts.


I like Raffaele, he's got a great sense of humor, read his diary sometime! He also went to the police station stoned on hash! I find that hilarious, but I have a wretched sense of humor sometimes. It also is a pretty good indication he didn't think he had anything to hide, he even forgot to take his knife off before entering the police station. I love his line in the diary about that.

However I cannot read Italian, the vast majority of people posting here can't, so it's tough to find out much about him, and frankly he's kind of peripheral to the one they wanted: Amanda. He wasn't part of their theory, which originally included only Amanda and Patrick, he just got roped in because he reverted to giving Amanda an alibi after they 'psychologically tortured' him as he puts it in his diary.

I was reading from an Italian poster at the forum of the site I linked that in Italy Raffaele is the one they care about, Amanda is kinda forgotten. I suppose that figures if you think on it.



Personally I think Raffaele smoked a little too much hash. Amanda got mindspanked by an aggressive interrogation in which they tried to convince her of things that were not true in place of what she thought she remembered in my opinion. So what is she supposed to think, what the police told her she did or her hash-addled memories that she was told didn't happen?

Perhaps we should consider this a case study in the short term memory effects of hashish and angry policemen.



As far as I know nothing is known of Raffaele's interrogation outside the entry in his diary where he states he was 'psychologically tortured.' There is of course no tape available, which is kind of curious being as they set them up with a 12 man crew and wanted to place Amanda at a crime scene and sign a 'confession' without a lawyer. They apparently taped all but a couple of the other girl's witness statements, but not their crown jewel, Raffaele and Amanda--the ones they charged with murder.

I think they're lying.



Because he remembered something Amanda didn't. It looks all sinister in the paper doesn't it? The papers and/or prosecutor made them look ultra guilty from the start, the police even said they had Amanda on camera going into her home right before 9 PM, it turned out that was Meredith. The press convicted them quickly and none of it turned out to be true, but most still thought it was I bet. Wait until you get to the one where the police released a picture of the bathroom treated with a chemical to make everything look blood red: to imply the bathroom was totally bloodsoaked when Amanda took her shower. It wasn't true.

Ah thanks for answering two of my questions. OK so there's no CCTV. And that photo of the bathroom is not covered with blood. So what do the pink streaks show? Is it blood that was cleaned up and the guy missed a bit?

 

[Withnail1969]

[qimg]http://offtrackplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/german_shelf_toilet.jpg[/qimg]

This one?

So the stench would be noticeable or not?

Also someone please tell me if that above pix is the bathroom that AK walked into and took a shower in and then left.

Those are not "tiny streaks" or "drops" It's covered in blood? WTBH?

If that is in fact the kind of toilet the girls had. I've never seen them in Italy.

The pink substance you can see on your photo is phenolthalein sprayed by the forensics team. The actual visual traces of blood were minimal, but the pink photo was leaked as misinformation to defame Amanda.

For photos of the actual blood traces, go to this page and scroll down.

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

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not blood in the photo, but information

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??????????????


[qimg]http://apture.s3.amazonaws.com/0000012579f01fad27f4ef3a007f000000000001.crime%20scene%20photo1bathroom.jpg[/qimg]



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

truethat,

That photo does not represent the actual appearance of the bathroom, not by a long shot. It was release by the Perugia police without explanation. Dan_O thinks that the bathroom was mistakenly treated with the reduced form of phenolphthalein, as per the Kastle-Meyer test. However, I think it would be more pink in color if it were phenolphthalein. I think it may be something that they sprayed to get latent fingerprints. There are methods using cyanoacrylate ester fumes and certain dyes that I have looked into in a casual way, and these can give a reddish color.

There is an important message in this photo; it just does not have to do with blood.

 

[Kaosium]

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 the 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]

Believe me, I got it Platonov.

Do you know what a conspiracy theory actually is? It's when you string together 'possibles' out of context to make a case. Like your beloved Massei report, which has just reached its expiration date.

So do you want to try and make a new one? Kevin is speculating, that's a good thing, something our friends in the guilt community ought to embrace. You need a new conspiracy theory anyway, might as well start now.

(note: Truehat has the right idea--friendly hint)

 

[Solange305]

The "lies" of Amanda

Lies 1 and 4 -- Hearsay, and simply Filomena's word against Amanda's. There is no reason to believe Filomena was more credible than Amanda.

Lies 2 and 3 -- Debunked; not presented at trial

Lie 5 -- Requires documentation to support that Amanda actually said it. Also, they were interrogated four nights later; no one would be able to remember in exact detail.

Lies 6, 7, 8, 9 -- All products of the coercive interrogation, later withdrawn

Lie 10 -- False. There is no record of Amanda turning on her phone.


The "lies" of Raffaele

Lie 1 -- Debunked; author did not interview Raffaele

Lie 2 -- Not a lie

Lie 3 -- Product of coercion

Lies 4 & 5 -- Debunked; not presented at trial

Lie 6 -- Requires documentation to support that Raffaele claimed it. Also, they were interrogated four nights later; no one would be able to remember in exact detail.

Lie 7, 8 & 9 -- Not lies

Lie 10 -- Speculation, not a lie

Unless I missed it, the one I made in red was not debunked? The last I saw of this was that you made a guess that "maybe the journalist mistook Filomena;s or Laura';s boyfriend for Raffaele"? Was this ever proven? If not, your guess does not count as debunked.

 

[truethat]

Ok that makes a lot more sense because seriously I was like WAAAAAAA?

Ok so there were tiny bits of blood. Now the video shown wouldn't have caused me to think anything was wrong.

So here's part of the discussion that is coming across as entirely illogical to me.

Why do people keep insisting that AK would have no way of knowing a brutal murder occurred in the room next door?

I can't quite put into words what I'm trying to say but it seems like people are not thinking about the realistic way a girl would be thinking not knowing anything was wrong.

To me her actions show that she did know something was wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

The toilet was in a different room from where the hair dryer was. Past the sink, past the bidet, I posted the pictures only a few pages back that showed it was not possible to see the feces in the toilet unless you were practically standing right over it.

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?

We have the benefit of having searched for an found the facts.

Yes they remembered watching a movie, the pipes breaking etc, but Rafaelle said he doesn't remember if she was there or not. That is pretty bizarre and then isn't there a CCTV clip that shows her near her house when she said she was at home with Rafaelle?

Show us that CCTV clip then and we'll all admit how fooled we were. Of course, you can't show us such a clip because the CCTV camera didn't have enough resolution to identify the person crossing the street. The timing however is entirely consistent with when Meredith would have been crossing the street on her way home that night.

 

[Solange305]

And sympathy for Meredith's family:

http://translate.google.com/transla...da_in_lacrime_mi_dispiace_che_mez_non_c_e_piu

It would have been nice to see this side of her years ago, instead of the "ew", "yuck", giggling, smiling, etc.

 

[Solange305]

Blunting the impact of her curious statement was the interspersion of the dear Seamus O'Riley who still puts me in stitches with how seriously he takes his 'Statement Analysis' skills. It just reminds me how much I noticed the pseudo-psychologists freaked over Amanda when I was looking around. They had her hide tacked to the wall over the silliest stuff, it sounded just like the tabloid descriptions--which of course is all it was. Confirmation bias lead them all to the inescapable conclusion she was exactly what they wanted her to be. Funny how that works.

Click on the link above to perhaps get some insight into the mind of...someone other than Amanda Knox.

Trust me, I understand you guys' feelings about the statement analysis and drawing analysis by people who arent experts, it is silly to use that stuff as proof. But please remember, even to the untrained person, just your everyday person, her email home and some of her statements just sound off. There is a reason why so many people state that she sounds like she is lying, and I think it's unfair to call all those people biased. By itself it is not proof of her guilt, but again, it's another thing to add to the list of negative impressions people get of her.

 

[platonov]

Conspiracy theories - 'by the numbers'

Believe me, I got it Platonov.

Do you know what a conspiracy theory actually is? It's when you string together 'possibles' out of context to make a case. Like your beloved Massei report, which has just reached its expiration date.

So do you want to try and make a new one? Kevin is speculating, that's a good thing, something our friends in the guilt community ought to embrace. You need a new conspiracy theory anyway, might as well start now.

(note: Truehat has the right idea--friendly hint)

No Kaosium, I dont believe you actually did (or do ?)

One obvious feature of a conspiracy theory and very noticeable in this case, your own arguments are a perfect example, is this:

Regardless of the variables on the lefthand side of the equation - the righthand side or result is always the same.

In the case of your arguments you have most of the variables wrong - I keep correcting your errors.You complain that I wont give you enough information so you can avoid these mistakes - I respond, as I did in our early exchanges, that it wouldn't make a difference as you already know the answer.

No amount of information to plug into the lefthand side will change that.

ETA To apply this to Kevin Lowe's conspiracy theories [or 'speculating' as you call it ] he doesn't have a variable*, which is actually available, from the LHS. Once he does get it he will apply a 'constant' of his own invention [Maxim A or B, as I termed it earlier] so that the result on the RHS remains the same.

*The date RG was ID'd by the cops (from the print)

 

[pilot padron]

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

Again, Rose you are correct, and your usual very tactful and considerate manner of dispensing that fact is noted and appreciated ...but also again... the rest of the story.

Without the benefit of subsequent labored scientific examinations, my perspective is that Amanda saw *a* footprint when she was there the morning after.
As, I previously carefully included..the footprint *might be hers*
Since my perspective includes her deliberately previously 'cleaning up'; in her mind, the yet unidentified footprint, like the dna on the knife needed a 'cover story' and the unbelievable 'boogie bollocks' resulted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

she may have left for a few minutes

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for reference to modded post.

With respect to the night of 1 November, Amanda expected to have to work that night. It is possible that she started out toward the bar, received the message from Patrick and headed back. Therefore, she would have left Raffaele, but only for a few minutes. She was definitely as his place around 8:45 because she spoke with Ms. Popovic. RoseMontague has a different take on whether Amanda ever left or not, I believe.

I think that the pink stripes are blood mixed with water, but I am not certain.

 

[Kaosium]

Trust me, I understand you guys' feelings about the statement analysis and drawing analysis by people who arent experts, it is silly to use that stuff as proof. But please remember, even to the untrained person, just your everyday person, her email home and some of her statements just sound off. There is a reason why so many people state that she sounds like she is lying, and I think it's unfair to call all those people biased. By itself it is not proof of her guilt, but again, it's another thing to add to the list of negative impressions people get of her.

Actually I found the e-mail home suspicious too, but I still found his statement analysis hilarious. Forgive me, I also loved the line about the blood dripping from Lady McBeth's hands too. Sometimes I just laugh at things with no animus intended.

I found it suspicious because it appeared she wrote it in a state of high agitation, in an attempt to remember a story. Which of course she was, but it was the interrogations weighing on her that caused it, not what I originally suspected when I first came back to looking into this issue and was trying to piece together an argument for guilt.

 

[truethat]

Trust me, I understand you guys' feelings about the statement analysis and drawing analysis by people who arent experts, it is silly to use that stuff as proof. But please remember, even to the untrained person, just your everyday person, her email home and some of her statements just sound off. There is a reason why so many people state that she sounds like she is lying, and I think it's unfair to call all those people biased. By itself it is not proof of her guilt, but again, it's another thing to add to the list of negative impressions people get of her.

I agree with this and I think I can explain what I was saying before about her behavior seeming off when she returned to the house. Now granted I'm sure the detectives were on her case to remember every little detail so I can cut her some slack in that department a little.

I'll give you an example of what seems off to me.


She can't remember exactly what she did the night before. She comes home and she has no suspicion that anything is wrong even though the door is open. Then she goes in the shower and she notices the blood drops etc.

Her details of the incident don't show that she's looking back in her memory trying to recall details. If that was the case we'd see an exposition of "oh this is what I saw, I remember yes, there was blood on the floor and on the sink"

Instead what we get is her memories from noticing so many of these little details and her telling us her THOUGHTS on those memories, "I saw these little drops of blood and thought maybe Meredith was on her period."

So she's showing her attention to detail when she came back into the house. She's showing LOTS of attention to detail.

Yet she didn't think anything was out of the ordinary AND she can barely remember what she did the night before. The two things don't add up. Something is "OFF" as you say.

Does that mean she is guilty? Of course not, but I'd like to consider the situation before she was considered a suspect. She could just be a nut job, that doesn't mean she killed someone.

Does anyone else know what I mean in the above comments?

 

[Justinian2]

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?

I only know how it effects cloth. If you put blood stained clothes in the sink with hot water and detergent, you are left forever with a purple stain that can't be removed. It's visible without luminol.

The only way to remove it, my Canadian landord advised me, was to soak it in COLD water and add a little bleach. THEN wash it normally.

How did I get blood all over? I shaved where I never have before...