Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have a copy of the hand written statement? I'd like to see that.


Here's a link to one I found, let me know if it is wrong

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html


Wow, I just read it. I was expecting some immature babble. This girls statement is written in a clear and organized way. For those of you who are saying she didn't "lie" right off the bat, well I can not understand why you would say that. Why didn't she remember what happened the night before? Why offer to go to a police station and offer whata help you can if you can't remember what happened? To me that is the lie, you don't remember. You don't remember if you had sex with Raffael? How can you not remember if you had sex with someone. The only explanation would be that she was on some sort of drug that is a lot stronger than pot.

Also she mentions that Raffael had blood on his hands etc. I'm sorry but this whole "I can't remember anything" to me sounds like a lie, that is what I'm sure it looked like to the police.

Raffaele couldn't remember if they had sex either. And this was the girl he lost his virginity to and had only been going with for six days. Priceless, isn't it?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Please see my answer to Fulcanelli, above, about this subject matter. We have no evidence of any memory problems until the police introduced alternate scenarios during the interrogations.

The only evidence we have of why the police were suspicious about Amanda and Raffaele are the comments of Giobbi about the hip swiveling, crying and pizza-eating. The police said nothing about Amanda and Raffaele's memories or alibis before they were brought in for questioning the night of the 5th.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm confused. She said she couldn't remember things you would be likely to remember, like if you had sex with someone or not. I can undertand why this would look suspicious to the cops. Seems like a lot of people on here don't care to much about Meredith Kercher. How would you respond if your daughter was murdered and the person who lived with her kept telling you they couldn't really remember what they did the night prior?


Also I'm not seeing the vicious interrorgation right off the bat but I am seeing a sketchy story and lies right off the bat.

Finally I keep saying that it's strange to me that she was worried about Merredith. Something about her reaction to the state of the apartment doesn't seem to make sense..

You nailed that one! And boy, doesn't that really stand out?

They care about Amanda. It's all Amanda and it's only Amanda.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Meredith was killed the night of the 1st, Amanda was broken early on the 6th, about 1:45. Rudy Guede, the guy who broke in and killed Meredith leaving his physical evidence all over the crime scene including inside her has been convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in jail. That's about half the sentence meted out to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, whose families have also been charged for protesting the injustice overmuch in the eyes of PM Mignini, a rather curious fellow himself. That is a very strange way for the Perugian court to show justice to Meredith, and to her grieving family, and outside rectifying that injustice not much more can be done

Rudy got 24 years for the murder just like Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

I think Amanda did today what needed to have been done earlier - apologize to Patrick and give sympathy for the fate of Meredith and to the Kerchers. While some may say too late it still needed to occur whatever the reason behind doing so. I don't know if it is too little too late, I will leave that for others to judge. I imagine, depending on which side one is on, will be one's opinion of her statement today.

I know that there were some who didn't agree with my posting earlier that this apology and sympathy is what should have been done during the first trial and when the family of Amanda first started speaking out on her behalf. If done in the beginning, I don't think it would have hurt Amanda. In fact, I think it would possibly have helped her in both the public's opinion and maybe, even in the court's opinion.

I think it is unfortunate that Amanda is expected to say anything. It implies she did something to get herself into this, and now there is something she should do, or should have done, to get herself out of it.

No one would be looking to Amanda to apologize to Patrick or sympathize with the Kerchers if not for the police falsely arresting her, the prosecutor arbitrarily pursuing charges against her, and the judges wrongly convicting her. She is paying their debts.

To say that it is helpful for her to make this statement now, or preferably earlier, is basically to say that Amanda has finally accepted her place. Her spontaneous joy and innocence have been beaten out of her, and she is now behaving in the way she should have been behaving all along. What a relief.

 

[Fulcanelli]

truethat,

I do not concur with your evaluation. Prior to 5 November, their stories were consistent, AFAIK. The police clearly stepped up the pressure on both of them on that night. It appears to have taken several days for each of them to regain his or her equilibrium, but after that, their stories matched again.

No, they weren't. This is why Raffaele was called into the Questura on the night of the 5th, because of inconsistencies in his previous statements.

 

[Fulcanelli]

She sees the blood, becomes slightly uncomfortable and doesn't have any cleaning cloths to hand to remove it. She sees the unflushed toilet, feels a bit more uncomfortable, and decides to head back to Raff's rather than deal with the mess.

'rather then Deal with the mess'? Pull the chain you mean? Yeah...I can see why that would be a really tough job.

 

[Fulcanelli]

truethat,

Both Amanda and Raffaele remember the broken pipe underneath Raffaele's sink that night, for example. To the best of my knowledge, both remember watching Amelie. It is not as if they are claiming that they have no memory of that night whatsoeve. Ms. Dempsey's summary of Raffaele's testimony before Judge Matteini is that they remember similar things but at different times of the evening.

Would you care to revisit your comments about the Norfolk Four?

Yeah...the pipe they claimed broke during the time of the murder when it had actually broken long before the murder. I remember that too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

The purpose of luminol is to detect blood that has been cleaned. It reacts with the trace iron left by the blood. It's relatively easy to wash blood away but not the trace iron, which is also invisible.

Why would someone require luminol to detect blood they can see?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Raffaele HAD dropped her alibi and that WAS strong evidence against her. So, how was she lied to?

People do tend to be stressed and confused when they get caught for murder. They are quite common symptoms among murderers.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Raffaele's version #1) Amanda and I went to a party with a friend the night of the murder

Raffaele's version #2) Amanda and I were at my flat the night of the murder

Raffaele version #3) On the night of the murder Amanda left me in town a little before 9 pm to go to Patrick's bar Le Chic to see friends. Meanwhile I went home alone, smoked a spliff, cooked some dinner and spent the evening alone on my computer until going to bed at about 1 am. Amanda arrived back shortly after that.

Raffaele version #4) I'm now almost certain Amanda was at my flat the evening of the murder but I can't be sure if she didn't go out or how long for.

Raffaele version #5) To the Italian High Court: It is wrong to use the knife found at my flat as evidence against me as that would erroneously assume Amanda and I were together on the night of the murder

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Raffaele never claimed he was psychologically tortured DURING his interrogation, this took place afterwards. The 'torture' by the way was his having to remove his clothes so they could be sent off for forensic testing. SOP. Precious boy.

 

[Mary_H]

No, they weren't. This is why Raffaele was called into the Questura on the night of the 5th, because of inconsistencies in his previous statements.

Cite?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

It's phenolphthalein. It turns pink on contact with blood.

Nothing to do with fingerprint testing...the super glue technique was used in the bathroom to detect fingerprints and that doesn't turn stuff pink..it turns white and only on contact with fingerprints.

 

[Withnail1969]

It's phenolphthalein. It turns pink on contact with blood.

You missed out the part where it automatically turns pink after 30 seconds exposure to air.

 

[Withnail1969]

The purpose of luminol is to detect blood that has been cleaned. It reacts with the trace iron left by the blood. It's relatively easy to wash blood away but not the trace iron, which is also invisible.

Why would someone require luminol to detect blood they can see?

The Luminol is not reacting with 'trace' iron. The concentration would need to be considerably more than 'trace', or Luminol would be useless.

 

[Withnail1969]

'rather then Deal with the mess'? Pull the chain you mean? Yeah...I can see why that would be a really tough job.

In a shared house where there had already allegedly been some friction about bathroom hygiene, Amanda may have wanted to make a point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Somebody most likely washed their blood covered hands in the sink. And if the knife actually was the murder weapon and had only been given a quick rinse, the forensic genius Stefanoni would have been able to find DNA in Amanda's bag.

If you rinse a knife and dry it it's not going to leave DNA on surrounding objects.

Who's says Amanda put it in her bag afterwards anyway?

If she DID put it in her bag, she was unlikely was going to put it in the bag as it was...it was sharp and would hole the bag. If put in the bag it was most likely wrapped in something which was thrown away later (a cloth...a magazine...a newspaper).

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Since she was with Raffaele who is Italian and whose sister is in the Carrabinieri they knew the number. Some of these excuses are getting a tad ridiculous.

 

[Withnail1969]

If you rinse a knife and dry it it's not going to leave DNA on surrounding objects.

Who's says Amanda put it in her bag afterwards anyway?

If she DID put it in her bag, she was unlikely was going to put it in the bag as it was...it was sharp and would hole the bag. If put in the bag it was most likely wrapped in something which was thrown away later (a cloth...a magazine...a newspaper).

Amanda's bag is understood to be the means of knife transport in Massei. None of the things you mention would form an effective sheath for the knife as they are all vulnerable to holing themselves.

I'm guessing Amanda's bag wasn't tested for Meredith's DNA or blood at all. If Stefanoni can detect DNA on a thoroughly scrubbed knife at the molecular level, she would have found it on Amanda's bag.