• 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.
LondonJohn said:
He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.
Click to expand...

As it happens, they could have disposed of clothing in any local dumpster with impunity, because the dumpsters were not searched. But, Filomena and the Polish girl both saw Amanda on November 1 and described what she was wearing. Clothing that matches their descriptions was found strewn across Amanda's bed, where she left it after showering and changing into clean clothes on the morning of Nov. 2. After saying for months that this clothing was missing, the police finally went back to the cottage in March 2008, recovered it from Amanda's room, where it had been the whole time, and tested it for blood with negative results.

So, if Amanda got blood on her clothes during the murder, it means she changed clothes between the time the Polish girl saw her and the time of the murder, and then disposed of that clothing.
 
katy_did said:
Apparently not, since they [ETA: Amanda and Raffaele, that is...] had to wipe off the knife and put it back in the kitchen drawer...
Click to expand...

Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.
 
loverofzion said:
Do you ever listen?
It would have had to be raf's hand on her BRA not on her back for the DNA to possilby appear. As far as we know it doesn't travel through her clohtes by his touch.

As for Rudy's print being a far more sure thing than raf's DNA, pray tell us why that is.
Click to expand...

1) Because we know where the handprint was left. (In the murder room)
2) Because we know when the handprint was left. (After the blood came out)
3) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
4) Because we know the handprint wasn't process contamination.
5) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there accidentally.
6) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there deliberately.

Bloody handprints convict.
Random LCN DNA almost never convicts by itself.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
1) Because we know where the handprint was left. (In the murder room)
2) Because we know when the handprint was left. (After the blood came out)
3) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
4) Because we know the handprint wasn't lab contamination.
5) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there accidentally.
6) Because we know the handprint wasn't placed there deliberately.

Bloody handprints convict.
Random LCN DNA almost never convicts by itself.
Click to expand...


DNA is the modern equivalent of fingerprints.
 
loverofzion said:
"At that time was hashish smoked" deserves a one wordanswer. It's either yes or no.
amanda instead chooses to say |once in a while with friends".
Click to expand...

Are you really this confused? She did answer "yes." You are quoting her answer to a different question.
 
Kaosium said:
What did she lie about?

What part do you think Amanda Knox played in the murder?
Click to expand...


The lies are too numerous and too convoluted to answer in one post.

For starters though, she lied about where she had been the night of the murder.
She changed her alibi 3x, as did raf.

And that's only for starters.
 
treehorn said:
Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.
Click to expand...

Did the inventory not just say 'two large knives' (or something similarly vague)? If they'd wanted, they could easily have replaced it; if not, Raffaele could have said the knife broke some months back (it was a cheap knife) and he hadn't gotten around to replacing it, especially as I believe he said he used his own knives for cooking anyway.

The police would've been left with a missing kitchen knife which was too large to have made a knife print left at the scene, and too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds. In other words, there would have been nothing whatsoever to link the missing knife with the crime.

The risks associated with keeping the knife were so much higher than the risks associated with getting rid of it that it makes absolutely no sense for them to have kept it just because it was on the landlord's inventory. I think that's a very weak reason to explain their keeping it.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
Raffaele's landlord kept an inventory.

Ergo Raffaele could not simply dispose of the knife and replace it with a new one without running the risk that his landlord would notice the change and alert the police.
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp
This is for real?

What is your source on this?

Was it really established that his landlord used to drop in for unannounced cutlery counting with a list? What a landlord! Maybe he used to schedule such list checks on weekly basis and the next search was coming on Nov 2?

Ergo?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Are you really this confused? She did answer "yes." You are quoting her answer to a different question.
Click to expand...

No she didn't.

Per usual, Knox created confusion.

This is what liars seek to do.

Innocent people have noting to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.

You'd know this if you'd ever spent any time representing clients facing criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
loverofzion said:
Do you ever listen?
It would have had to be raf's hand on her BRA not on her back for the DNA to possilby appear. As far as we know it doesn't travel through her clohtes by his touch.As for Rudy's print being a far more sure thing than raf's DNA, pray tell us why that is.
Click to expand...

Remember that I was just listing possibilites and this was one. I didn't even say that this was the most probable of the possibilities. However, for a theory to be proved ALL the possible exceptions to the theory need to be accounted for. Otherwise the theory hasn't been proved.

Haven't you ever seen a woman with a low back-cut sweater with the bra exposed? A sneeze or similar could deposit DNA on the back of the bra.

Other possibilities are semen in the wash water. There are probably dozens of possible methods LCN DNA could be deposited.

The most likely are lab contamination or contamination while lying on the floor for days.

However, the fact that the DNA was on the clasp sounds like the deliberate act of a subordinate following the instructions of his supervisor.

The fact I want to impress upon you is ALL the possibilities have to be accounted for.
 
cannabis is in a class by itself

loverofzion said:
I am asking why you think describing marijuana by its medical definition and not its legal one is significant in this case.
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?
 
katy_did said:
Did the inventory not just say 'two large knives' (or something similarly vague)? If they'd wanted, they could easily have replaced it; if not, Raffaele could have said the knife broke some months back (it was a cheap knife) and he hadn't gotten around to replacing it, especially as I believe he said he used his own knives for cooking anyway.

The police would've been left with a missing kitchen knife which was too large to have made a knife print left at the scene, and too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds. In other words, there would have been nothing whatsoever to link the missing knife with the crime.

The risks associated with keeping the knife were so much higher than the risks associated with getting rid of it that it makes absolutely no sense for them to have kept it just because it was on the landlord's inventory. I think that's a very weak reason to explain their keeping it.
Click to expand...


"Too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds"?
So that means it still did the job nicely with the other wounds.

And yes, it is possible that in a rented apartment with only a few knives, the landlord would have been up on one missing.
 
halides1 said:
loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?
Click to expand...


Fact is, amanda and raf were getting stoned and sheused this to try to excuse their faulty memories. Narcotic or not, this is total tripe.
Ask anyone who has ever smoked a joint.
You just don't forget everything you ever knew.
 
loverofzion said:
Well by Merdith's reply and the fact that she did not invite amanda nor respond in the affirmative to her invitation, it would appear Merdith preferred spending her time with her other friends.
Who all agreed with this assessment of the relations between the two girls.
Click to expand...

(sigh.....)

Well, first off, this post was in reply to your statement that:

It is known that Merdith (sic) chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.

So, in fact, it's not "known" that Meredith "chose not to respond". Instead (if "Darkness Descending" is to be believed) Meredith's replies were normal and perfectly civil.

Secondly, you're really grasping at straws with your follow-up suggestions (notwithstanding the fact that you've seemingly chosen to forget your initial confidence that Meredith had ignored Knox's texts - by which I presume you meant to imply that Meredith was clearly rebuffing Knox, and that therefore Meredith had somehow "fallen out" with Knox). If Meredith was going to a friend's house for dinner, it wasn't her place to be inviting Meredith to the dinner as well. And she apparently texted that they were going to be in Le Chic later on (which of course would be known to Meredith as Knox's workplace and regular hang-out - don't you think they might have chosen to go somewhere different if Meredith wanted to avoid Knox?), and that "maybe" they would hook up there.

If you choose to interpret all that as Meredith preferring to spend time with her other friends, then I think you're completely wrong. Do you think Meredith should have abandoned her plans with other friends the moment Knox texted her? A friend of mine phoned me on the day before Christmas Eve and asked if I wanted to go out for a few drinks that evening. I already had plans to go out with some work colleagues, and so I told him that I therefore couldn't go out with him. That doesn't mean that I "preferred" to go out with my work colleagues to going out with him - it just means that I'd made other plans which I didn't want to break.

And your last sentence makes little sense. But if it means what I think it means, then it's untrue as well.
 
Justinian2 said:
Remember that I was just listing possibilites and this was one. I didn't even say that this was the most probable of the possibilities. However, for a theory to be proved ALL the possible exceptions to the theory need to be accounted for. Otherwise the theory hasn't been proved.

Haven't you ever seen a woman with a low back-cut sweater with the bra exposed? A sneeze or similar could deposit DNA on the back of the bra.

Other possibilities are semen in the wash water. There are probably dozens of possible methods LCN DNA could be deposited.

The most likely are lab contamination or contamination while lying on the floor for days.

However, the fact that the DNA was on the clasp sounds like the deliberate act of a subordinate following the instructions of his supervisor.

The fact I want to impress upon you is ALL the possibilities have to be accounted for.
Click to expand...



Really Justinian, it sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

So now we have raf rubbing his hands on Meredith's low cut back and transferring his DNA to her bra clasp.

Can you do a little better.
 
loverofzion said:
"Too large to have made at least one of the victim's wounds"?
So that means it still did the job nicely with the other wounds.
Click to expand...
In the sense that any knife with a non-serrated blade could have made the other wound/s, then sure. Doesn't exactly narrow things down to this knife in particular though, does it?

And yes, it is possible that in a rented apartment with only a few knives, the landlord would have been up on one missing.
Click to expand...

I really, highly doubt that. In my experience, if you break something in a rented apartment, you just replace it before you move out and there are no questions asked. Especially if that 'something' is a cheap plastic kitchen knife. I really doubt the landlord came round every month to do a spot check on whether the cutlery was of the same brand as it was the previous month.

As I said before: the argument that they kept the knife because it was on the landlord's inventory (in very vague terms) is extremely weak. In that situation the obvious thing would be to get rid of the knife first, and worry about the landlord later; not replace the knife in the drawer for future vegetable chopping use.

ETA: I mean, can you imagine the conversation?

Amanda: So Raf, I was thinking, once you've finished making that playlist, we're gonna have to get rid of all the evidence. How about you take our bloody clothes and shoes, your pocket knife, the kitchen knife and the detachable mop head and dump it all somewhere?

Raffaele: OK sure, but give me a minute, this is a great song. Oh but wait, I just had a thought - that kitchen knife's on the flat inventory! &*@&$*@#$%^@!!! What are we gonna do?

Amanda: Well obviously we can't get rid of it then. The landlord's coming round to do your monthly spot cutlery inspection on Monday too, remember? How about I just give it a wipe and put it back in the drawer? No one'll ever know.

Raffaele: Yeah, good idea. Plus, we'll need it for cooking tomorrow anyway. I was thinking something with onions.
Click to expand...

I mean, really?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
(sigh.....)

Well, first off, this post was in reply to your statement that:

It is known that Merdith (sic) chose not to respond to amanda's invite to spend Halloween night together.

So, in fact, it's not "known" that Meredith "chose not to respond". Instead (if "Darkness Descending" is to be believed) Meredith's replies were normal and perfectly civil.

Secondly, you're really grasping at straws with your follow-up suggestions (notwithstanding the fact that you've seemingly chosen to forget your initial confidence that Meredith had ignored Knox's texts - by which I presume you meant to imply that Meredith was clearly rebuffing Knox, and that therefore Meredith had somehow "fallen out" with Knox). If Meredith was going to a friend's house for dinner, it wasn't her place to be inviting Meredith to the dinner as well. And she apparently texted that they were going to be in Le Chic later on (which of course would be known to Meredith as Knox's workplace and regular hang-out - don't you think they might have chosen to go somewhere different if Meredith wanted to avoid Knox?), and that "maybe" they would hook up there.

If you choose to interpret all that as Meredith preferring to spend time with her other friends, then I think you're completely wrong. Do you think Meredith should have abandoned her plans with other friends the moment Knox texted her? A friend of mine phoned me on the day before Christmas Eve and asked if I wanted to go out for a few drinks that evening. I already had plans to go out with some work colleagues, and so I told him that I therefore couldn't go out with him. That doesn't mean that I "preferred" to go out with my work colleagues to going out with him - it just means that I'd made other plans which I didn't want to break.

And your last sentence makes little sense. But if it means what I think it means, then it's untrue as well.
Click to expand...


Meredith could easily have invited amanda along with her friends IF indeed she felt friendly toward amanda.
But according to Merdith's friends, she did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom