Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Solange305]

mainly some blood on the bathmat and a little in the sink and I guess she didn't leap to the conclusion her roommate was murdered, she figured it was something mundane like menstrual issues.

I know Im playing "armchair witness" or "armchair potential murderer" here, but I cannot imagine seeing both an open front door, and blood on a bathmat and sink, and NOT being more suspicious and afraid. I don't know a single woman who would leave a mess like that of menstrual blood, especially living with other roommates who bring boyfriends home. I don't know how dark it was in the bathroom, Im not sure if she saw the footprint before she took a shower or what, but again, it makes be suspicious.

 

[Solange305]

The police refused to break the door.

But didnt they also urge the guys there to open it? I could be wrong here, but didn't they say they couldnt break it down themselves, but they still thought someone who lived there should try to open it?

 

[Matthew Best]

Really seriously people, grow the hell up. If you want to have a discussion and someone asks QUESTIONS simply answer the damn question and move on.

Unreal.

Probably people got confused because you asked a question when you didn't already know the answer to it.

That's not the way you're supposed to do things here, apparently.

 

[Solange305]

Thanks Christiana, both for your opinion and the links.

ETA: It saddens me to hear her crying.

In all honesty, it saddens me too

 

[Withnail1969]

Not only that, she tells the cops that Meredith does sometimes lock the door, almost as if persuading them it's normal, nothing wrong here.. Please don't jump on me guys, I know it could be innocent, but again, it;s another small thing added to the list of seemingly suspicious statements...

How would it somehow help Amanda to delay the police finding the body for a few minutes? What would be the benefit?

Since Amanda's Italian at this stage was so poor, I highly doubt she said anything directly to the police. Raffaele's early statements indicate that Amanda was in fact concerned because Meredith didn't normally lock her door.

This is what people don't seem to grasp. None of this helps her anyway, and with Dick and Jane level Italian how on Earth is she supposed to organise a sophisticated cleanup and diversionary operation with a stoner Italian who barely speaks English?

The documented fact is that Amanda told the police Filomena was supplying her with weed. After that point, Filomena was determined to destroy Amanda because that could have wrecked her legal career.

 

[Solange305]

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.

That is exactly what i had said too. I dont care who left the mess, I would flush it and then tell off whomever did it later. It only takes one second to flush, and it's worth the second to not have to share company with a turd;...

 

[christianahannah]

Christianahanna,

I think what Mr. Maresca did was disrespectful to the court, which I hope would admonish him.

Well I don't know that it was the court that Mr. Maresca was being disrespectful to (if that is what he was being).

He explains in this article why he walked out when Amanda began her statement:

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo497975.shtml

Having listened and viewed some of the videos from the first trial attorneys from both sides can express themselves rather passionately. Perhaps he felt it was better to leave than to react to what Amanda would say (and by that, I mean facial expressions, mutterings, etc.). If he was in error to exit the hearing I expect it will be made known to him.

 

[treehorn]

1) I heard that he was self-employed. Why don’t you tell us if you have heard something different?

Have you seen the photo of "Frank Sfarzo" (not his real name) posing with the step dad of the accused (Mellas) over a computer (for a story about the pro-Amanda website they'd set up)?

If so, how can you reasonably construe THAT as "neutral" or objective reporting on par with that of a professional, career journalist at Newsweek?! (If, indeed, his amateur blogging can be called "reporting" in the first place.)

 

[Withnail1969]

That is exactly what i had said too. I dont care who left the mess, I would flush it and then tell off whomever did it later. It only takes one second to flush, and it's worth the second to not have to share company with a turd;...

Mole already whacked. Wrong toilet, wrong bathroom.

 

[Mary_H]

These questions?

This would be one of the more recent examples.

Originally Posted by Mary_H
I believe the bra clasp was collected in the original collection of evidence in the week after the murder. When the shoe print evidence failed, Mignini told the investigative team to come up with some more evidence. They went through the stuff and found the bra clasp, which was ideal because it would link Raffaele to the sexual assault.

They took the bra clasp to the cottage and made the big production of "finding" it (do we have any videotapes of them also picking up and examining the two other items they took into custody that day?). Mignini then had Stefanoni manufacture some paperwork to make it look as if Raffaele's DNA had been found on the bra clasp.

There are plenty more, of course.

If you're not going to differentiate between conjecture and actual allegations of abuse, then yes, many posters here have not literally substantiated every claim. However, I responded to a post in which Alt+4 asked me what I thought, not what I knew (although I assume that what each of us thinks follows from our substantiated knowledge of what has happened so far in the case).

That's why I made my response to your original post a generalized one -- that no innocentisti, as far as I know, came to this case with prejudice against Perugian law enforcement. We collected evidence against them as we went along. On the other hand, many colpevolisti seem to have started out with extensive prejudices against the "type" of people Amanda and Raffaele appear to be.

You asked the question, "What aspects of the evidence against Guede cannot be discounted using allegations of some combination of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and conspiracy?"

To me, this question implies you are accusing innocentisti of having unexamined, knee-jerk reactions -- that we believe the police and prosecutor made mistakes with Amanda and Raffaele because police and prosecutors always make mistakes, and therefore we should believe they made mistakes in processing the evidence against Rudy, too.

If someone wants to argue that the evidence against Guede can be discounted, then they are welcome to do so. The evidence against him, though, seems to have been processed at an earlier date and possibly by a different (unbiased) staff from that against Amanda and Raffaele. Innocentisti are capable of making the distinction.

 

[RWVBWL]

I did answer your clarion call. Maybe it sailed over your head, possibly because you were distracted and didn't notice.

If you were, say, a paramedic in the US and could produce rudimentary testimony supporting the accuracy of your watch, you could testify to time of death.

If the dead body hasn't been alive for, say, 12 hours, plus or minus, if you want the court to give maximum credence to your testimony, you need to be a forensic pathologist. To be a forensic pathologist, you need to have a bachelor's degree, complete medical school (four years), four to five years pathology internship, and a one to two year fellowship in forensic pathology. All that gets you to just the beginning of your career as a forensic pathologist. It isn't a key to the courtroom.

I, personally, have had occasions to hire a forensic pathologist, and neither of the forensic pathologists I retained had less than 35 years experience. I cannot imagine an attorney of any degree of competence hiring a forensic pathologist with less than five years experience post-forensic certification.

The concept that one can observe a conflict in the testimony in a science so inexact as time of death and then resolve it by Googling is, well, bizarre. Medical literature has been online for decades at Medline. I think you need an account to access it. The notion that you can just Google on the public internet and know something that no trained professional has access to, apparently--well... I don't right now know where the error is.

Hi TomM43,
Sorry I missed your reply!
Did your doctor say that it generally takes :
1) 1-2,3, or 4 hours,
2) 2-3,4, or 5 hours,
3) 3-4,5, or 6 hours,
4) 5-6,7, or 8 hours
or some other amount of time for the stomach to start and to finish emptying?
For some reason I missed your answer, I was probably still at the beach...

Awaiting your reply,TomM43
RWVBWL

PS-I would have LUVED to ask the last Doctor "friend" I saw, a guy named Frank about this.
At the time I saw Dr. Pratt, Kevin Lowe, LondonJohn and Halides1 were not yet discussing this topic.
But Dr. Pratt, as busy as he was, did help me in my research of a fatal 1989 Los Angeles Great White Shark attack by answering a few other questions.
Dr. Pratt is the Medical Director of the Los Angeles Fire Department, which also includes the Los Angeles County Lifeguards.
His brother, Nathan, an OG Z-Boy, started the old surfshop that sponsored me, the same 1 that I also ran for many years.

If I see him again in the near future, I will definately ask Frank the same simple question that Halides1 asked,
which I continuously am bring up!
Peace,
RW

 

[truethat]

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.

So you are flipping what you said before?

Thanks.


What I stated before was that her actions show that she DID think something was wrong. And she did not call the police. Why?

 

[Chris C]

That is exactly what i had said too. I dont care who left the mess, I would flush it and then tell off whomever did it later. It only takes one second to flush, and it's worth the second to not have to share company with a turd;...

Depends on a persons personality. Someone with a non confrontational personality would do one of two things.
Flush and say nothing to anyone. Not flush and let them clean up their own bathroom.
A confrontational person would either flush and yell at them, or not flush and yell at them.
Then you have to add in circumstances.
If it was my kids bathroom, I wouldn't have flushed it and yelled at them.
If it was my bathroom, I would have flushed it and yelled at them for using my bathroom.

I do not clean up or pick up after people. I'll wash other peoples dishes if the put them in the sink. Yet my friends have enough courtesy to clean up after themselves and my teenage kids clean up after themselves.

Knowing all that, trying to say Knox is guilty because you would have flushed the toilet is absurd.

 

[truethat]

I'm sorry about that. If you were to search this thread you would see that these same questions you are asking now were asked and answered many times before. Let's not equate this with childish since children actually have a much higher capacity for learning than we give them credit for.

I agree.

Not only that, she tells the cops that Meredith does sometimes lock the door, almost as if persuading them it's normal, nothing wrong here.. Please don't jump on me guys, I know it could be innocent, but again, it;s another small thing added to the list of seemingly suspicious statements...

This is another thing that caused me concern. But at the same time what would she benefit in doing that? Her body was to be found eventually.

Probably people got confused because you asked a question when you didn't already know the answer to it.

That's not the way you're supposed to do things here, apparently.

Seems to be !

 

[Withnail1969]

So you are flipping what you said before?

Thanks.


What I stated before was that her actions show that she DID think something was wrong. And she did not call the police. Why?

One reason might be that she didn't know the number to call the police. In Italy it isn't 911 or 999, it's 112. But for something not so serious, you need a non-emergency number. What that is in Italy, I have no idea.

When you don't really speak Italian, you can't really function very well in Italy and take the actions we might consider normal if we were in our own countries.

 

[Chris C]

So you are flipping what you said before?

Thanks.


What I stated before was that her actions show that she DID think something was wrong. And she did not call the police. Why?

I didn't change anything. I talked about double standard where people that say she didn't notice things fast enough thought she was guilty and those that thought she was guilty because she noticed too much to fast.

FYI the police were called.

 

[truethat]

One reason might be that she didn't know the number to call the police. In Italy it isn't 911 or 999, it's 112. But for something not so serious, you need a non-emergency number. What that is in Italy, I have no idea.

When you don't really speak Italian, you can't really function very well in Italy and take the actions we might consider normal if we were in our own countries.

I would imagine, that if a young girl is moving alone to a foreign city that one of the first things she'd know about is how to call the police in an emergency. Beyond that she was with Raffaelle, who certainly would have known and had spoken to others who would have know.

I take issue with people on this thread making declarative statements about speculative ideas. In my case I've made it clear that I am speculating, your comment reads as if it is authoritative when in fact it is just speculation.

I'm not trying to knock you. Just trying to show you why so many people might be taking issue with your style of debate.

 

[Solange305]

But they're all talking in Italian, right? How much did Amanda really understand and how much of what Amanda said did the others actually understand?

Amanda basically admitted in court that she had said Meredith locked her door, if Im not mistaken. Are you saying that she said something different but was misunderstood?

 

[Chris C]

I would imagine, that if a young girl is moving alone to a foreign city that one of the first things she'd know about is how to call the police in an emergency. Beyond that she was with Raffaelle, who certainly would have known and had spoken to others who would have know.

I take issue with people on this thread making declarative statements about speculative ideas. In my case I've made it clear that I am speculating, your comment reads as if it is authoritative when in fact it is just speculation.

I'm not trying to knock you. Just trying to show you why so many people might be taking issue with your style of debate.

Once again, you are the one confused. Sollecito did call the police. You have been reading tabloid lies, not even guilters will argue that the police were not called

 

[Withnail1969]

You do realise that what you're ridiculing is maxim for lawyers in a court room? And...this was written for your benefit. If you didn't, then your ridicule reflects back on you and as such, people are laughing at you, rather then with you. Although, I acknowledge along with everyone else this is far from a new experience for you.

I think everyone knows that this is a maxim for lawyers in a courtroom. It's proably been mentioned in 'Rumpole of the Bailey' plenty of times.

Luckily, this isn't a courtroom. It's a place where, incredibly enough, some people really do want answers to questions, and others are prepared to answer them.