Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

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

The same could be said about Sollecito, Filomena and her boyfriend, plus the police, who all had seen the same things Knox had seen.

If you insist that knox should have known meredith was dead in that room. Then the same should be said about everyone else.

The police didn't feel there was enough evidence to warrant them breaking into Meredith's room. Apparently they where not worried and willing to take a report about the break in.

 

[Withnail1969]

The same could be said about Sollecito, Filomena and her boyfriend, plus the police, who all had seen the same things Knox had seen.

If you insist that knox should have known meredith was dead in that room. Then the same should be said about everyone else.

The police didn't feel there was enough evidence to warrant them breaking into Meredith's room. Apparently they where not worried and willing to take a report about the break in.

There's just something about Italy. It's such a pleasant, non-threatening place to be in these fantastic old towns like Perugia that you just wouldn't assume such a terrible thing had happened, and obviously nobody did. That's sort of the best way I can explain it.

 

[truethat]

The same could be said about Sollecito, Filomena and her boyfriend, plus the police, who all had seen the same things Knox had seen.

If you insist that knox should have known meredith was dead in that room. Then the same should be said about everyone else.

The police didn't feel there was enough evidence to warrant them breaking into Meredith's room. Apparently they where not worried and willing to take a report about the break in.

I did not insist, I stated that she should NOT have known that Meredith was dead in the next room.

That is exactly my point. Why did AK remember so many tiny details about the setting when she had no reason to suspect anything was wrong.

It's a bit tricky to understand what I am saying, I posted it above. So see if that makes more sense.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

No, your inference about the Norfolk Four is incorrect.

As I mentioned previously, I do not think that interacting with someone who thinks that nearly 100% of the content of Pergia-Shock is a productive use of my time. But if you have one or two outstanding questions, I will have a look, just to tie up loose ends. Please link or list the appropriate comment numbers, as I did.

I'll do better than that, I'll re-type them:

1) WHO does "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name) work for?

2) What is the source for, and the context of, your quotation (alleged to have come from Daniel)?

3) When Daniel (allegedly) claims "from THAT day...", WHICH DAY is he referring to?

On the face of it, your quotation is equally supportive of the notion that the DAY he is referring to (as the last day he saw Amanda) was the day Amanda left her 6 days of sex with Sollecito to have another go with Daniel (per Nadeau of Newseek).

4) Why would a man of your intelligence have any interest in what a complete amateur/ wannabe novelist like Waterbury has to say?

 

[Chris C]

There's just something about Italy. It's such a pleasant, non-threatening place to be in these fantastic old towns like Perugia that you just wouldn't assume such a terrible thing had happened, and obviously nobody did. That's sort of the best way I can explain it.

I did not insist, I stated that she should NOT have known that Meredith was dead in the next room.

That is exactly my point. Why did AK remember so many tiny details about the setting when she had no reason to suspect anything was wrong.

It's a bit tricky to understand what I am saying, I posted it above. So see if that makes more sense.

Filomena and her boyfriend thought something was wrong. After all, he is the one that broke down the door.

 

[truethat]

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...

I've ruined quite a few pairs of underwear that way by trying to bleach out the blood stain. You are correct that you should wash it in cold water but I believe you are a little uninformed about the way cops use luminol to detect blood splatters.

Even if you clean it up it can be detected. It has been used in many many crime cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol

 

[truethat]

Filomena and her boyfriend thought something was wrong. After all, he is the one that broke down the door.

That still doesn't explain why AK noticed all these details BEFORE she suspected something was wrong.

You come home you think nothing is wrong and take a shower and leave. Then you come back and start noticing something seems wrong THEN you start noticing all the little details.

Why did she notice them and create thoughts about them if she didn't have any clue that something was wrong. Especially since she couldn't remember what she had done the night before.

Again this doesn't necessarily point to guilt but it does point to why the cops suspected her in the first place.

 

[Withnail1969]

That still doesn't explain why AK noticed all these details BEFORE she suspected something was wrong.

You come home you think nothing is wrong and take a shower and leave. Then you come back and start noticing something seems wrong THEN you start noticing all the little details.

Why did she notice them and create thoughts about them if she didn't have any clue that something was wrong. Especially since she couldn't remember what she had done the night before.

Again this doesn't necessarily point to guilt but it does point to why the cops suspected her in the first place.

To be honest this is a fairly trivial part of the case compared to the great gaping holes in the rest of it. The only way any of this is a problem for Amanda is if she did a cleanup and staged a burglary after murdering Meredith, which I don't believe she did.

 

[Kaosium]

I believe she is referring to when they took her back to the flat and had her explain things at the crime scene. This questioning (not at the police station) is not included in my totals.

Thank you for all your work and the clarification.

Sometimes the choice of a photo is a statement of opinion. Contrast the smiling pic posted at PMF. A picture can be used to make a statement. I do think the picture they posted of her laying her head on the lawyers shoulder is a good one but does not show her face. She does look a lot better than she did last month.

Yes, definitely. Are these Italian photographers?

 

[Chris C]

I'll do better than that, I'll re-type them:
4) Why would a man of your intelligence have any interest in what a complete amateur/ wannabe novelist like Waterbury has to say?

How many crime/murder books had Nadeau wrote before..............

What is your definition of amateur? Would you consider Stefanoni an amateur if you compared her against the 9?

 

[truethat]

To be honest this is a fairly trivial part of the case compared to the great gaping holes in the rest of it. The only way any of this is a problem for Amanda is if she did a cleanup and staged a burglary after murdering Meredith, which I don't believe she did.

Well I'm not sure why you are just dismissing that possibility just because you don't believe she did because it is pretty apparent that the cops believe she did.

See I'm trying to get away from the crazy parts of the debate and just go right back to the part of the case where we can be sure that AK was not traumatized by the police.

Lets go back to the very beginning and look at her actions and the way they add up.


So to me, it would look like she staged the break in. By her own statements she says that she noticed all these details. Why?

And again it's not just her remembering the details it is her describing her reactions and thoughts to the details at the time that she noticed them. Why would a girl who seemingly could not remember what happened the night before and came home to grab a shower and run out, notice all these details?

The robbery WAS staged. I'm pretty sure that has been established.

So I can see why she'd look suspicious to the cops.

 

[Chris C]

That still doesn't explain why AK noticed all these details BEFORE she suspected something was wrong.

You come home you think nothing is wrong and take a shower and leave. Then you come back and start noticing something seems wrong THEN you start noticing all the little details.

Why did she notice them and create thoughts about them if she didn't have any clue that something was wrong. Especially since she couldn't remember what she had done the night before.

Again this doesn't necessarily point to guilt but it does point to why the cops suspected her in the first place.

If one morning I wake up, walk outside to get the newspaper and I noticed a pecan tree or 2 where laying over on the ground. Would I assume that just happened for no reason or would I assume that maybe the wind blew them over. After all I didn't hear the storm while i was sleeping.
Yet what your saying is a person should notice everything the first time. That if they walk through a room and don't notice a door closed that usually isn't, then they are guilty of murder because they should have noticed that the first time through. Even the police didn't notice Guede's bloody shoeprints on the floor. Those paid civil experts that are hired to protect and serve didn't spot it.
Guilters apparently have a double standard with Knox, because they accuse her of murder because she noticed things where wrong and showed the police these things she noticed and then guilters accuse her of murder because she didn't notice them fast enough.

 

[el buscador]

"Most important, however, is the change in Italian public opinion. Unlike in the U.S., where jurors are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, in Italy they are known as "civilian judges," and are free to hold preconceived opinions and to drink deeply from the media well. Indeed, in Knox's first trial, the jury foreman was a criminal lawyer whose firm had briefly participated in the investigation."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2036395,00.html#ixzz17nwjKbls

Is it truly legal in Italy to allow a jury (lay judge) who has taken part in the case before the jury was selected to actually be a part of the jurY? How is that fair?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol has been done to death on this thread already

I've ruined quite a few pairs of underwear that way by trying to bleach out the blood stain. You are correct that you should wash it in cold water but I believe you are a little uninformed about the way cops use luminol to detect blood splatters.

Even if you clean it up it can be detected. It has been used in many many crime cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminol

truethat,

Luminol is a presumptive test for hemoglobin. It would actually be better to describe it as a substrate for peroxidases. Hemoglobin, though not an enzyme, has a pseudo-peroxidase activity. Luminol should be followed by a confirmatory test for blood (there are a couple of crystal tests, for example). However, Stefanoni did not report using a proper confirmatory test but instead failed to report that certain luminol-positive areas were negative in the TMB test.

 

[truethat]

If one morning I wake up, walk outside to get the newspaper and I noticed a pecan tree or 2 where laying over on the ground. Would I assume that just happened for no reason or would I assume that maybe the wind blew them over. After all I didn't hear the storm while i was sleeping.
Yet what your saying is a person should notice everything the first time. That if they walk through a room and don't notice a door closed that usually isn't, then they are guilty of murder because they should have noticed that the first time through. Even the police didn't notice Guede's bloody shoeprints on the floor. Those paid civil experts that are hired to protect and serve didn't spot it.

This is the SECOND Time you have taken my statement to mean the opposite of what it says. Please take a moment to actually read what I wrote.

I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that a person who has no reason to suspect anything was amiss should NOT NOT NOT have noticed so many of these details. Especially given she could barely remember what she did the night before.

And not only does she remember the details, her description of the memory shows that it was not simply recall but that she remembered so many details in the moment that she saw them.

 

[treehorn]

How many crime/murder books had Nadeau wrote before..............

What is your definition of amateur? Would you consider Stefanoni an amateur if you compared her against the 9?

Nadeau, at the time she wrote her book, had spent some 13 years as a paid professional journalist with Newsweek.

She was not an unpaid "amateur" sneaking into the courtroom and news conferences without a press pass, cheap digital camera in hand, hoping to sleaze her way into a book deal.

She was PAID to cover the trial, from the courtroom, for a legitimate news agency.

As for Stephanoni, what can I say? Who, exactly, are "the 9"? Who do they work for? What have they seen? What are their motivations? Are they freelancing/ for hire? Are they seeking to promote their names/ services via the publicity that this case entails? Why are they using language better suited to a tabloid magazine than a scientific report?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

here you go

I'll do better than that, I'll re-type them:

1) WHO does "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name) work for?

2) What is the source for, and the context of, your quotation (alleged to have come from Daniel)?

3) When Daniel (allegedly) claims "from THAT day...", WHICH DAY is he referring to?

On the face of it, your quotation is equally supportive of the notion that the DAY he is referring to (as the last day he saw Amanda) was the day Amanda left her 6 days of sex with Sollecito to have another go with Daniel (per Nadeau of Newseek).

4) Why would a man of your intelligence have any interest in what a complete amateur/ wannabe novelist like Waterbury has to say?

1) I heard that he was self-employed. Why don’t you tell us if you have heard something different?
2) My source is anonymous. Why don’t you ask Ms. Nadeau who her source was?
3)I was given a section of the report by someone who believed that there was only a single encounter between Daniel and Amanda. Therefore, I take the day in question to be the day of that intimate behavior. You are free to believe otherwise if it gives you pleasure.
4) Dr. Waterbury has a Ph.D. in materials science. When he says that one cannot tell whether or not a stainless steel knife has been treated with bleach, I am confident that he knows of what he speaks.

 

[truethat]

I don't find anything suspicious in Amanda's actions the morning after the murder. Who told you it was established that the break-in was staged? I think it's now clear that you're a guilter. Not much more to say as you'll never be convinced.

As I said I am not a guilter. Please put me on your ignore list with the others because I really have had enough of this nonsense.

I have additionally stated several times in this thread that I do not think Amanda Knox murdered MK.

What I do think is she may have been complicit in a cover up or something else. Now if she was there and as I said left when the going got rough, she is not guilty of murder. She's crap human being for doing so but she's not guilty of murder.

I would like to figure out what actually happened that night, not pile up evidence on one side or the other and pick a side. I'm looking at it from a purely analytical perspective. What CAN we figure out, that is what I am interested in at this point.

Perhaps some people will be swayed but the points made but my realistic view is that we will never know the truth to the situation.

I'm just analyzing it.

 

[Withnail1969]

As I said I am not a guilter. Please put me on your ignore list with the others because I really have had enough of this nonsense.

I have additionally stated several times in this thread that I do not think Amanda Knox murdered MK.

What I do think is she may have been complicit in a cover up or something else. Now if she was there and as I said left when the going got rough, she is not guilty of murder. She's crap human being for doing so but she's not guilty of murder.

I would like to figure out what actually happened that night, not pile up evidence on one side or the other and pick a side. I'm looking at it from a purely analytical perspective. What CAN we figure out, that is what I am interested in at this point.

Perhaps some people will be swayed but the points made but my realistic view is that we will never know the truth to the situation.

I'm just analyzing it.

Rudy broke in, was surprised by Meredith, raped her, murdered her, and left the country with her cash. Amanda and Raffaele were subsequently dragged into the frame due to the lunatic Mignini's bizarre theories of group sex, and were jailed due to a combination of lying witnesses, bogus evidence and ludicrous leaps of faith.

That's the 'innocentisti' theory in essence. You won't find any innocentisti who are likely to change their opinions due to your 'analysis' since they know the case extremely well already.

 

[Chris C]

This is the SECOND Time you have taken my statement to mean the opposite of what it says. Please take a moment to actually read what I wrote.

I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that a person who has no reason to suspect anything was amiss should NOT NOT NOT have noticed so many of these details. Especially given she could barely remember what she did the night before.

And not only does she remember the details, her description of the memory shows that it was not simply recall but that she remembered so many details in the moment that she saw them.

If you notice ONE ONE ONE thing wrong or out of place what would you do? Knox noticed the door open. Apparently she wasn't to worried about it and took a shower. Yet when she notices a SECOND SECOND SECOND thing wrong she is guilty of murder in your eyes. Is she suppose to close her eyes and ignore the SECOND SECOND SECOND thing wrong? If you noticed TWO TWO TWO things out of place in your home, would you start looking for a THIRD THIRD THIRD? At that point most people would start to become observant of their surrounds. Ever had your house broken into? What was the first thing you noticed? How many things did you notice afterwards that you might not have noticed if something wouldn't have made you believe something was wrong.