• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
SomeAlibi said:
Ad hominem, unproven and incorrect as he didn't fold under questioning in the trial. When do the mods ban you is a reasonable question.
Click to expand...


Making ad hominem attacks against third parties is allowed. ;)
 
Last edited:
SomeAlibi said:
I am interested in your comments on the gross exaggerations put about local and national media by Steve Moore which I posted above. Do you not find him slightly embarrassing to have on "your" side? Do you not find Amanda's own lawyers publicly admonishing him not to be a rather clear indication of the fact that he is actively damaging Amanda's chances?
Click to expand...


If you have the mindset that Steve Moore is some kind of leader of the evil 'FOAK' group which you imagine inhabits this forum, then I can understand that 'taking him down' might be important to you, and that 'our side' should be embarrassed by him.

But in reality, there's no conspiracy, there's no group, there are no leaders. There's just a bunch of disparate people posting on JREF, most of whom probably neither know nor care about Steve Moore. If Steve Moore wants to discuss the case, nobody can stop him, just as nobody can stop you or me discussing it. That's all there is to it.
 
Hi Folks, I’m new to this forum, so hallo to everyone.

I’ve been reading up on this case recently and have become fascinated by it, because it’s either very straightforward or very complex, and I think most people can’t decide which.

Now I know you all take exception to people asking questions when they’ve been discussed before so I’ve had a shot at going over previous posts in both this and the original thread but I confess I didn’t go over every post; because it’s just too time consuming. Basically I want to clear a few things up in my own head that have occurred to me but don’t seem to have been discussed in detail, and are a bit vague in the Massei report. From what I can see there are people on this forum that have been posting for a long time and seem to have an in depth knowledge of the case. So I hope you’ll all indulge me and maybe provide some answers to some of my unresolved musings; even if they’ve been asked before.

I have to say at this point that having read a great deal of the conflicting evidence on this case I was leaning toward the lone wolf theory until I came across the following.

Okay firstly, am I right in interpreting the Massei report on Meredith’s phone activity at 22.13 as indicating that the phone was either in the cottage, in the vicinity of the cottage, or somewhere between the cottage and the phones final location, but definitely not actually at the final location, at this time?

If so does this mean that we are supposed to infer that the attempted voicemail and bank calls at around 22.00 were carried out by Meredith herself?

Because, if the lone wolf burglary theory stands up, Guede would either have to be in the cottage and murdering Meredith at shortly after 21.00 in which case she can’t make those calls, or, he hangs around in the toilet for an hour and then kills her, which is highly unlikely.

There is the third scenario where he breaks in after 21.00 and she catches him in the act and so because the front door is deadlocked she runs for her room where he catches and kills her (I do think this theory has some substance, given the physical evidence). But it is unlikely that he would hang around in the cottage and casually go to the toilet afterwards (although it occurred to me that it could be to do with the effects of adrenaline in the body; could someone confirm whether medically/biologically this is feasible?); and If I have my facts correct his footprints lead straight out of the cottage don’t they?

Therefore, am I right in concluding that this is one of the key pieces of evidence against the lone wolf theory, because Meredith’s calls at 22.00 mean that it is impossible for her to have been killed before 22.00 and therefore also highly unlikely that Guede’s faeces would have been deposited before that time; and so, if she was killed afterwards someone must have let Guede into the property and staged the break-in?

Apologies if some of the above questions are obvious, as I stated previously, I’m just trying to get the facts straight in my head.

Just to add, it’s difficult to see past the partisan nature of this case and the websites and forums dedicated to discussing it. I just wanted to say for my part that although I’m English I’m completely unbiased, it’s what makes this case so interesting; I just can’t make my mind up either way.
 
colonelhall said:
My information is as follows:

12:00 Knox begins witness interview.

1:45 Accuses Lamumba and signs a statement. Interview ends.

3:30 At Knox's request, she makes a "spontaneous statement" and is now an official suspect.

5:45 Interrogation ends.

I make this four hours in total.

Steve Moore makes this 14 hours of "waterboarding"

I understand that Knox offers a written account of her involvement in the murder some time later that day. If this came about at 2:00pm then we now have the 14 hour figure. However, at no time has the defence claimed that Knox was being interrogated during this entire period.

The reason that I am trying to get to the bottom of this, is that it pertains as to the reliability of Moore's input.

I am curious as to why the likes of Chris C and others seem to be intent on obscuring the issue.
Click to expand...

That's out of context with the total interrogation which took place over several days. Steve Moore provided the information that the total interrogation took 43 hours over a period of five days. Steve also provided a extract from a CIA document that advised doing brainwashing in eight hour sessions with 'tag teams' of fresh interrogators repeatedly asking the same questions. Others have said that Amanda had only 2 hours sleep one night and went to school the next day.

I don't know where the information you came up with came from. It would be useful to know the source. Knowing the source, I would try to find the entire context, not just the final hours.
 
Kestrel said:
Do you have a source for your claim that the interview begin at 12:00 and the event you claim happened at 3:30 AM? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm confused on that as well.
How many statements did Knox sign that morning? What was the purpose of each statment and at what time did she sign them. I was under the impression the spontaneous statement didn't happen until Mignini arrived. Not that it matters. None of the information in the statements was correct. Accept for maybe Knox's signature.
 
selective concern

colonelhall said:
Chris C "perhaps you could link the post where I was talking about the length of the interview?"

The question was about the length of the interview. Yu never answered it, but chose to talk about cartwheeling.

If you don't know the answer, fine.

It seems that the defenders of Knox, find it easy to put forward Moore as an expert on the case, yet completely ignore the fact that he either knows little or chooses to distort the facts bltantly. They also appear to have developed a tactic of evading simple questions about the case by going off on tangents or pretending to misunderstand.

As I said earlier, I have not checked out JREF for some time, but it seems that nothing changes.
Click to expand...

colonelhall,

In an earlier message you wrote, "Knox offered a written statement, but it has been claimed that this only came about as a result of 'waterboarding' and non-stop questioning for 14 hours. This claim continues to be made."

Since you have so many men under your command, maybe you could order them to help you explain a few things. Where does your figure of 12:00 come from (I was under the impression it was around 11 PM)? Do you claim that Steve Moore maintains it was waterboarding and that it was for fourteen hours? If so, could you cite something? Maybe you can explain to me why you never said anything when Stilicho claimed that ILE barely had time to set up the chairs in the interrogation room before Amanda named Patrick. Is that not a distortion? You are being selective in your criticism. Why the double standard?
 
SomeAlibi said:
In your opinion. Draca's idea that the blog was taken down once people started to "poke" at it only for it to be put up hours later again once the screenshots showed it had been capped is just pure comedy.

I have a lot more time for the posters on your side who are willing to acknowledge the weaknesses in the defence case, as I acknowledge the weaknesses in the prosecution case. Your wholesale denial of even blindingly obvious points - literally everything on the prosecution side and anything to do with the pro-prosecution side - badly undermines the credibility of your arguments.

I am interested in your comments on the gross exaggerations put about local and national media by Steve Moore which I posted above. Do you not find him slightly embarrassing to have on "your" side? Do you not find Amanda's own lawyers publicly admonishing him not to be a rather clear indication of the fact that he is actively damaging Amanda's chances?
Click to expand...

You must have missed my post where I compared your claims with those of Steve Moore. You both tend to exaggerate and overstate your case and yes you both make claims that are not correct in my opinion. I am interested in the truth. You make some valid points and so does Steve Moore. However you both lose credibility in my opinion when you overstate your case.

My very first post regarding Steve Moore's claims is a matter of record and this is the area of my main point of disagreement with him. Please do not ascribe the innocent position as my position when my opinion differs from that. It is blindingly obvious to me that you have trashed Mr. Moore on the subject at hand. If you are in disagreement with some of his statements regarding the facts, you might find that I agree with you on some of those.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Transcript. As in, typed up statement. In Italy the police (usually...although on come occasions it can be written) type up your statement while you're making it.
Click to expand...


Do you think they typed this statement up while Amanda made it?

“In order to complete what has been retailed before by means of precedent declarations made at this Office, I wish to clarify that I know and see other people who have also come to my house sometimes and who have also met Meredith and of whom I will provide the relevant mobile numbers ----------------------------------------------------
One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi and I know that he lives in the area near the roundabout of Porta Pesa. Tel. 393387195723, pub where I work twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, from 22.00 until about 2.00."
 
mirror

loverofzion said:
Bruce Fisher claims he first became aware of Moore at an unspecified "public event".

Michelle Moore sounds like an ignorant born again Christian nutter.

And if his "actual job" was "to get Bin Laden", well then whyever has he been hired by Marriot.
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

You made an ad hominem attack on Mrs. Moore. You made an unsubstantiated and untrue claim about Mr. Moore being hired by Marriot. In an earlier post you talked about my sliding toward mendacity. I suggest you look in the mirror and take appropriate corrective action, starting with an apology to Mrs. Moore.
 
RoseMontague said:
You must have missed my post where I compared your claims with those of Steve Moore. You both tend to exaggerate and overstate your case and yes you both make claims that are not correct in my opinion. I am interested in the truth. You make some valid points and so does Steve Moore. However you both lose credibility in my opinion when you overstate your case.

My very first post regarding Steve Moore's claims is a matter of record and this is the area of my main point of disagreement with him. Please do not ascribe the innocent position as my position when my opinion differs from that. It is blindingly obvious to me that you have trashed Mr. Moore on the subject at hand. If you are in disagreement with some of his statements regarding the facts, you might find that I agree with you on some of those.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on SomeAlibi to explain how Rudy was getting wasted with Knox/Sollecito from 8:30pm till 11:30pm. A time period where the Prosecution's super witness gives them a solid alibi and doesn't spot Knox/Sollecito getting wasted or spot Rudy with them.
 
Fulcanelli said:
I chose unsolicited because it was unsolicited. Knox asked to be heard again, the ILE didn't demand she be interviewed again.

I do find it really odd why you are so determined to contest this when Amanda's defence never have.
Click to expand...


Amanda's defense contested it rather noticeably when they took it to the Supreme Court. Once Amanda's statements were ruled inadmissible, the defense no longer had a need to contest them. They did, however, object strongly to references to the two statements, which were made during Amanda's trial testimony.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Do you think they typed this statement up while Amanda made it?

“In order to complete what has been retailed before by means of precedent declarations made at this Office, I wish to clarify that I know and see other people who have also come to my house sometimes and who have also met Meredith and of whom I will provide the relevant mobile numbers ----------------------------------------------------
One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi and I know that he lives in the area near the roundabout of Porta Pesa. Tel. 393387195723, pub where I work twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, from 22.00 until about 2.00."
Click to expand...

Colored? Thats a term to describe african americans from a different generation. Knox isn't part of that Generation, why would she use colored?
 
Chris C said:
I'm still waiting on SomeAlibi to explain how Rudy was getting wasted with Knox/Sollecito from 8:30pm till 11:30pm. A time period where the Prosecution's super witness gives them a solid alibi and doesn't spot Knox/Sollecito getting wasted or spot Rudy with them.
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli explained that. Curatolo claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele roughly every 25 minutes during their 2 hours at the basketball court when he looked up from his magazine and smoked a cigarette.

They were running away and getting high somewhere then running back to the basketball court in time for his next cigarette break.
 
The Third Man said:
Hi Folks, I’m new to this forum, so hallo to everyone.

I’ve been reading up on this case recently and have become fascinated by it, because it’s either very straightforward or very complex, and I think most people can’t decide which.

Now I know you all take exception to people asking questions when they’ve been discussed before so I’ve had a shot at going over previous posts in both this and the original thread but I confess I didn’t go over every post; because it’s just too time consuming. Basically I want to clear a few things up in my own head that have occurred to me but don’t seem to have been discussed in detail, and are a bit vague in the Massei report. From what I can see there are people on this forum that have been posting for a long time and seem to have an in depth knowledge of the case. So I hope you’ll all indulge me and maybe provide some answers to some of my unresolved musings; even if they’ve been asked before.

I have to say at this point that having read a great deal of the conflicting evidence on this case I was leaning toward the lone wolf theory until I came across the following.

Okay firstly, am I right in interpreting the Massei report on Meredith’s phone activity at 22.13 as indicating that the phone was either in the cottage, in the vicinity of the cottage, or somewhere between the cottage and the phones final location, but definitely not actually at the final location, at this time?

If so does this mean that we are supposed to infer that the attempted voicemail and bank calls at around 22.00 were carried out by Meredith herself?

Because, if the lone wolf burglary theory stands up, Guede would either have to be in the cottage and murdering Meredith at shortly after 21.00 in which case she can’t make those calls, or, he hangs around in the toilet for an hour and then kills her, which is highly unlikely.

There is the third scenario where he breaks in after 21.00 and she catches him in the act and so because the front door is deadlocked she runs for her room where he catches and kills her (I do think this theory has some substance, given the physical evidence). But it is unlikely that he would hang around in the cottage and casually go to the toilet afterwards (although it occurred to me that it could be to do with the effects of adrenaline in the body; could someone confirm whether medically/biologically this is feasible?); and If I have my facts correct his footprints lead straight out of the cottage don’t they?

Therefore, am I right in concluding that this is one of the key pieces of evidence against the lone wolf theory, because Meredith’s calls at 22.00 mean that it is impossible for her to have been killed before 22.00 and therefore also highly unlikely that Guede’s faeces would have been deposited before that time; and so, if she was killed afterwards someone must have let Guede into the property and staged the break-in?

Apologies if some of the above questions are obvious, as I stated previously, I’m just trying to get the facts straight in my head.

Just to add, it’s difficult to see past the partisan nature of this case and the websites and forums dedicated to discussing it. I just wanted to say for my part that although I’m English I’m completely unbiased, it’s what makes this case so interesting; I just can’t make my mind up either way.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board.

The opinion on the cell phone activity as stated by the defense team in Raffaele's appeal differs drastically from that of the one stated by Massei. Here is a summary of that topic discussed in the appeal provided by thoughtful (translator from PMF):

1. At 20:56 she attempted to call home. The attempt failed because either no one answered, or she wasn't in a good zone, or the network was congested. What is surprising is that she didn't try to call home again, although she usually spoke to her family before going to bed, and even several times a day. This fact together with the absence of her usual text messages seem to indicate that the events leading to the murder started around this time.

2. There are three other actions registered on Meredith's phone which lead them to believe that the phone was not in her possession at this time. (Before describing them I note that Massei attributes all of them to Meredith's having been lying on her bed, playing around or fiddling with her phone.)

3. The first was an unsuccessful call to her voicemail 901. This appeal states that this activity is totally anomalous in respect to Meredith's usual phone habits and do not believe the call was initiated by her. In particular, if she were home alone with her phone in working order, why would she have interrupted that call before the end of the voice message? (I recall Massei as guessing that she changed her mind because it would be expensive and mentions this as being typical of her frugal habits, whereas the appeal says that Massei says that the phone buttons may have simply been pressed by accident.)
In any case, they say that if Meredith had really connected with the voicemail message even partially, the call would have appeared on the cellphone registers (and cost something), whereas in fact it appears nowhere except within the phone itself, so that it was made and shut off almost instantaneously. They attribute this to a movement on the part of someone else holding or touching the phone.

4. Just two minutes later, at 22:00, a similar unsuccessful attempt to call a contact, the bank “Abbey”. The appeal quotes Massei as erroneously writing that this call appeared in the cell phone records but not in the phone, whereas in fact the contrary is true, indicating that the call, like the previous one, was really just the almost instant pressing of a button. Furthermore, the call was made without the international prefix 0044 and they add that Meredith knew perfectly well that you have to do 0044 before a call to England and also that you cannot call a bank at night. Massei's explanation for this, again, is that she was playing around with her phone. The appeal suggests that someone else was handling an unfamiliar phone “in a convulsive way”. They suggest that at 22:00 the murder had already been done and the two calls indicate impulsive and frenetic movements.

5. The third call was the 22:13 “GPRS” connection (reception of mms or connection to internet or involuntary movement). This one lasted 9 seconds and was detected by a cell tower which can actually cover via della Pergola and also the place where the cell phones were found. The appeal quotes Massei as stating in one place (p. 337) that this tower does not cover the garden in via Sperandio and in another place (p. 352) that it does; they confirm that the tower covers via Sperandio very well. Their interpretation is that the murderer was rushing along holding the phones when suddenly one of them rang because of the reception of this mms message, to which the murderer reacted by flinging the phones away. They furthermore note that the only other calls Meredith ever made which were caught by that particular cell tower were at 12:11 (Amanda's) and 16:22 (?), no other calls that she ever made from home. Massei explains the absence of this incoming mms message in Meredith's phone by the fact that she deleted it without opening it, confirming the fact that she was at home with her phone at 22:13. But the appeal raises the interesting point that in fact Meredith's phone received an mms message the following day, Nov. 2 at 20:30 and that message itself did not remain in the phone even though no one actually deleted it and the police looked for it. So, there is no proof that Meredith was handling the phone at 22:13. They quote Massei as saying that if the murderer had been holding the phone at 22:13, he would have had no reason to throw the phone away, just turn it off or remove the SIM card, even less reason to throw the other phone away. The appeal responds that this behavior might be normal for a thief but that after a murder in a panic situation one is not thinking like that.
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of discussion on these various points in the last 6 months or so here at JREF with some additional information and many opinions on the subject. I hope this is helpful as a start, in any case.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
SomeAlibi said:
Ad hominem, unproven and incorrect as he didn't fold under questioning in the trial. When do the mods ban you is a reasonable question.
Click to expand...


Ad hominem attacks against third parties is allowed. :wink:
Click to expand...


Well, sort of. Incivility and insult directed towards non-members of the JREF message board will generally not be actionable by the moderators according to the MA. I suspect this is what you meant, and if so you are correct.

OTOH, an ad hominem argument is usually a fallacious one, which means that whether it merits censure by the mods or not it it is still probably poor reasoning.

If Withnail can offer evidence that Curatolo suffered some impairment which of itself caused his testimony to be impeachable then the argument is a fair one. If he is predicating that impeachment simply on the fact that the man was homeless then it is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom