Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

Well put.
I would add that they were intoxicated on some stronger combination of drugs and alcohol than just cannibas.
Cannibas doesn't turn one into violent, out of control killers.
Nor does it cause memory lapses of entire evenngs.

If they were so high with drugs, then why only Guede left his obvious traces? People, when high or drunk, don't control their moves, don't think logically, don't act with cautiones. Therefore there should be their traces also, just like there are the ones of Guede. Instead what do we have? A bra clasp collected 40 something days after the murder and a kitchen knife with DNA so low that its retesting is impossible.

 

[moodstream]

Treehorn’s original post (24821) argued Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions[/I. He gave this example: After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party: CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked? AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes. CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs? AK: Every once in a while with friends. To Treehorn, Knox’s answers are evasive and incomplete. He bemoans that Knox is allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions, and allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?". He blames the Italian civil law tradition.

Katody Matrass argued in return: (Knox) answers precisely and straight. It's (Carlos) Pacelli that deliberately expresses himself in a deceptive manner. (Pacelli) asks in a way to create an illusion that (Knox) confirmed.

Loverofzion (24829 ) replies to Katoday Matrass that Knox is not answering straight … "At that time was hashish smoked" deserves a one word answer. It's either yes or no. Amanda instead chooses to say |once in a while with friends". He goes on to assert there are myriad questions (Knox) answered evasively and deceptively.

LondonJohn posts Knox answered the questions posed to her by Carlo Pacell directly and properly: She was asked: "Was hashish smoked at a certain party". She replied: "Yes". She was then asked "Did you yourself use drugs during this period (October 2007)?" She replied: "Occasionally I did, yes". (24831)


Charlie Wilkes points out that Loverofzion’s @24829 seems to mismatch the first question in Treehorn’s example with Knox’s answer to the second question. Treehorn responds at 24851: No she didn't. Per usual, Knox created confusion. This is what liars seek to do. Innocent people have nothing to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.

Katody Matrass (24863) counters Treehorn by pointing out Amanda’s answers are straight:
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.
CP: Which substances were they?
AK: Marijuana.

Komponisto joins in at 24868 with a direct translation of the Italian.

( Treehorn: "Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"
Komponisto: That was not the question she was asked. Pacelli's question, in the original Italian (unfortunately the video seems to have been removed from YouTube, so you'll have to get your PMF friends to verify this) was:
Quote:Lei faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? That's faceva, the imperfect tense, which indicates habitual or continuous action, not the preterite (fece) or perfect (ha fatto), which would more likely have been used had the speaker been asking specifically about a particular occasion. The question, as posed, means roughly, "were you in the habit of using mind-altering substances?")

Kevin Lowe (24878) comments that in cross examinations, attorneys tend not to ask questions of a witness that you don't know the answer to. In the cross-examination process the lawyer uses the witness as a mouthpiece to deliver a carefully-chosen series of statements to the court that paint a picture that the lawyer wants the court to see. The "art of cross-examination" is in part the art of creating illusions by omitting important and relevant information.

And that is all before TomM43’s reply, which began to veer the thread away from the original issue.

Treehorn, a lot of posters have pointed out that Knox is not evasive in her answers, and have done a lot of work to show this.
Call me biased, but you have been shot out of the water on this topic, yet you offer no meaningful defense of your original post. Still in recent posts you don’t seem to concede the point.

What’s going on?

 

[nopoirot]

I'm not clear in mind about the standard of review that will guide the appeals court here. Are we quite sure it will accord no deference to the findings of the trial court, which had the advantage of "eyeballing" the demeanor of the witnesses? That just doesn't sound right.

Isn't Judge Massei simply giving us his opinion as to the conclusions of the jurors in a case where there are clear signs of a "compromise verdict"? I'm sure he was obliged to address all the arguably relevant evidence, but I'm not sure how much this tells us about the thought processes of individual jurors, and what evidence most influenced them.

Sometimes you can get too close to the trees to smell the coffee. I occasionally visit the sites FR and DU, to keep up with the issues currently agitating both left and right. Last night I retrieved Amanda Knox threads on each, and was surprised by the number of long time posters (as distinguished from obvious flacks) who remain resistant to the Knox media blitz. Disputes over forensics do not seem to be the determinative issues in their thinking. The theme aired most often is the changes in the testimony of the defendants. The proposition that they were bullied or "brainwashed" isn't gaining much traction here. "Girl just ain't right in the head" is typical. For others, the wrongful accusation of a "person of color" is the unforgivable sin. The posters of the view that the defendants should be released without further ado seem to be in the minority. For the most part, posters resident in Italy came down of the other side, as did a number of lawyers. I see little reason to suppose that the Italian public, from which juries are drawn, does not support the verdict of the trial court.

I have difficulty imagining how, at this point, a jury might be turned around on these issues. It appears to me that the prosecution managed to get into the record a detailed account of their investigation and interrogations of the defendants. I'm well aware that "anecdotal" recitations drawn from person experience count for very little here, but I can't resist saying that I've seen hundreds of law enforcement officers testify and, judging from appearances, the prosecution here had an impressive group at his disposal.

 

[loverofzion]

The Massei report reminds me of the structure of 'Mein Kampf' in that it starts out with a plausible 'Poor little Hitler' section and proceeds to the later section which finds an entire race unworthy because Adolf remembered that some had body odor.

Whatever plausbile "poor little Hitler" section did you find Mein Kampf started out with?
And the entire race was found unworthy because of clearly more psychopathological hatred than because of body odor.

Or haven't you read it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Personal tests...

First, this is pure speculation based on one anonymous claim that Amanda played a practical joke like that at UW. Against that are many people who know her well, who will swear she never hurt anyone or ever would. But you reject all that in favor of this one anonymous source, whose assessment of Amanda is somehow more perceptive and accurate. Why? What makes this rumor more credible than what Amanda's friends, teachers, and family members say about her - other than the fact it is what you want to believe?

Second, if the purpose was to scare Meredith, they could do that without injuring her, just by brandishing the knives. The idea that they somehow injured her by mistake and then decided to finish her off, and have preserved this shared secret ever since, is not plausible.

Third, your theory doesn't explain the nature of Meredith's injuries or the evidence found at the crime scene. At what point in this prank did Guede use the toilet, without leaving any blood traces in that bathroom? How did Guede's DNA end up inside Meredith's vagina? The evidence doesn't indicate a prank, or a group of people surrounding Meredith and taunting her. It suggests a sudden, violent struggle that ended within moments, when the assailant plunged his knife up to the hilt in Meredith's neck and tore a three-inch gash.

Hi all,
I've done a couple of tests to try and understand some of what we debate here. So have others...

An interesting test would be to take a huuuuge kitchen knife and, with a friend who really, really trusted you, put the tip of this knife at your friend's throat.

And then think for a moment.
Think of the power you wield.

Are you capable of really plunging that knife into your friends throat?
No mattter how high or drunk you got?
Just for a prank?
Or just because the friend might have gotten mad at you for leaving a dirty toilet, bringing guy friends over, or because your friend wouldn't have sex?
Can you actually murder someone in 1 of the most horrible possible ways, feeling the knife enter puncture, penetrate and enter your friends body?

Do you really think that a young gal, 1 who worked 3 jobs to save enough $$$ to follow her dream by studying abroad, 1 who is a big sister to her younger siblings, 1 who had wrapped a birthday present for another friend just a few hours before, would have done this?

Or would she have stopped that knife blade from penetrating her friends neck. At any time? Or just stopped it all? Sorry Meredith, it was just a joke!

Or would she have never even done any of this?

I've always found it very hard to believe that shortly after Patrick Lumumba texted Amanda Knox that she did not have to come to work that night, and right after Jovana Popovic had stopped by to let Raffaele Sollecito know that he did not have to do her that huge favor, that Amanda decided to play a rape prank on Meredith and grabbed that huuuge kitchen knife, told Raffaele to follow and then when she saw Rudy, whom Raffaele didn't even know, she invited him too to join them in a prank...

Speaking of Rudy, I thought that he had already arrived at the gals apartment at 8:30pm for his date. Didn't he mention this to Judge Claudia Matteini?

 

[RWVBWL]

I think it's a reasonable guess, RW. Rudy claimed he had a date with Meredith. I don't believe that, but it's possible he was eager to "get with" her. He might have seen her coming home and figured it was his opportunity to give that a try. He talks his way in when she goes in (to use the bathroom?), then goes in her room hoping she will agree to sex.

Hi Mary H,
I was re-reading some earlier reporting from Frank Sfarzo's excellant website, Perugia Shock,
and saw a passage where Rudy Guede had said that "they didn't do anything, just some oral sex."
I assume that would be oral sex at knifepoint?...

As a guy who at 1 time a few years ago periodically watched the intimate encounter of 3 + 1,
I wonder what Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been doing when this occurred?
Hmmm...

 

[babycondor]

...Last night I retrieved Amanda Knox threads on each, and was surprised by the number of long time posters (as distinguished from obvious flacks) who remain resistant to the Knox media blitz. Disputes over forensics do not seem to be the determinative issues in their thinking.

That doesn't reflect well on the quality of their "thinking," does it? I think it's a good thing (for those of us who believe Amanda and Rafaelle were wrongfully convicted) that the appeal judge specifically focused on reviewing the knife and bra clasp evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

impressive

Sometimes you can get too close to the trees to smell the coffee. I occasionally visit the sites FR and DU, to keep up with the issues currently agitating both left and right. Last night I retrieved Amanda Knox threads on each, and was surprised by the number of long time posters (as distinguished from obvious flacks) who remain resistant to the Knox media blitz. Disputes over forensics do not seem to be the determinative issues in their thinking. The theme aired most often is the changes in the testimony of the defendants. The proposition that they were bullied or "brainwashed" isn't gaining much traction here. "Girl just ain't right in the head" is typical. For others, the wrongful accusation of a "person of color" is the unforgivable sin. The posters of the view that the defendants should be released without further ado seem to be in the minority. For the most part, posters resident in Italy came down of the other side, as did a number of lawyers. I see little reason to suppose that the Italian public, from which juries are drawn, does not support the verdict of the trial court.

I have difficulty imagining how, at this point, a jury might be turned around on these issues. It appears to me that the prosecution managed to get into the record a detailed account of their investigation and interrogations of the defendants. I'm well aware that "anecdotal" recitations drawn from person experience count for very little here, but I can't resist saying that I've seen hundreds of law enforcement officers testify and, judging from appearances, the prosecution here had an impressive group at his disposal.

nopoirot,

Impressive in what sense? A police officer who said that he smelled bleach when he actually smelled a different cleaning product, lysoform (IIRC)? A forensic scientist who misrepresented a DNA quantitation test and the results of TMB tests? The computer science "experts" who should have cloned the hard drives before doing anything to them? A forensics team that tossed Meredith's room around and then misunderstood that some drops of blood were their own handiwork? I think it is impressive also, but perhaps in a different way from the way that you do.

Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito each told two basic stories, one on the night of 5-6 November, and the other at every other appearance. Raffaele appeared in front of a court only once; therefore, there is no other testimony with which this testimony could be in conflict. Amanda has always said in court that she was not at the girls' flat on the night of 1 November. If one accepts that Raffaele and Amanda both asked about a lawyer and that Raffaele asked to stop so that he could talk to his father (yet the interviews went forward), then it is difficult to avoid acknowledging an element of coercion in the interviews.

 

[Justinian2]

Whatever plausbile "poor little Hitler" section did you find Mein Kampf started out with?
And the entire race was found unworthy because of clearly more psychopathological hatred than because of body odor.

Or haven't you read it.

I read Mein Kampf years ago and those were my impressions of the book. As I recall, I actually felt some sympathy for the young Adolf Hitler for the first 50 pages. In subsequent pages the book became a diatribe of reasons for hating the Jews. I don't want to list his complaints here, as I think that to repeat the rantings of a madman is to perpetuate his madness.

I've heard similar rantings about Amanda Knox and illegal non-English speaking Mexicans living in the USA.

Enough said.

 

[Amazer]

Two fundamental reasoning errors here.

Really? Lets see sabout that?

Firstly, people sticking knives into each other does make sense, in the only sense that matters. It's a known and far from uncommon human behaviour. Any rational and informed person is going to expect people to threaten other people with knives thousands of times per day, and to murder other people with knives tens of times per day at least.

Are you just argueing for the sake of argueing? When does something become sensible, simply because it happens frequently?

Secondly, a rational person estimates all of these probabilities in light of the known facts, specifically that Meredith Kercher was found murdered with a knife.

I was going to say something like "Duh.. Captain Obvious", but rather then throw insults around I'll just say that I agree.

Given the known facts, what are the odds someone murdered Meredith Kercher with a knife? 99.9...9%. The only other alternatives are incredibly unlikely.

Never claimed otherwise.

What are the odds that Amanda Knox carried around a kitchen knife in her bag to defend herself? Massei's proposition was that the odds of this were >51% just because Raffaele was into knives, but that doesn't survive even a moment's scrutiny. What percentage of young women whose boyfriends are into knives carry a kitchen knife in their bag? I'd guess <1%.

Guess pulled from your nether regions noted. Besides, to me it's not terribly important how they transported the knife. It would be a bonus if we know, but in the grand scheme of things not very important.

What are the odds that a young woman, her boyfriend of six days, and a local crook she had met once at a party and seen once at her place of work would team up to molest and murder one of the young woman's friends? Well, it's hard to estimate seeing as it has only ever happened once in the history of the world if it ever happened at all, but it's got to be <1% until some more evidence of guilt comes in.

Not really interested in this part of the discussion. Too many variables to which we can never know the answer.

What are the odds that Raffaele could participate in a three-way sexual assault and murder, get his DNA on the metal hook of the bra clasp and on absolutely nothing else, no part of Meredith and nothing in the room? I don't know. Murderers have left no DNA trace in the past, but it's not usual. Say <50% to be really generous.

And not interested in this part of the discussion either. Suffice to say that Raffaeles DNA was found and unless you can come up with sufficient evidence that his DNA come to be there either through contamination/secondary transfer/planting, I will remain convinced that the DNA was deposited there during the murder.

What are the odds Amanda could participate and get her DNA on nothing except the handle of the knife she supposedly carried around with her, and then leave her DNA on the handle while removing all but a picogram trace of Meredith's? I don't know either, but I think this is even more unlikely.

Another discussion point that doesn't really interest me. Suffice to say that Amandas and Merediths DNA was found and unless you can come up with sufficient evidence that their DNA came to be there either through contamination/secondary transfer/planting, I will remain convinced that the DNA was deposited there during the murder.

So we're chaining together a whole bunch of suppositions, none of which make any sense or even rise to the level of being more likely than not... where is the good evidence that's going to make a rational person buy this chain of absurdities?

You are correct that you are chaining together a whole bunch of suppositions. I'll leave it at that.

It's incredibly telling that no pro-guilt poster whatsoever will even try to answer this question. They have no coherent theory of the crime, and they don't even have any coherent idea what evidence convinces them of Knox and Sollecito's guilt!

I don't think that a truly coherent theory of the crime can ever be given with the incomplete data that we have.

How you can believe X to be true yet be able to give no sensible account whatsoever for why you believe X to be true, and still consider oneself a skeptic, baffles me.

It doesn't bother me that you are baffled.

 

[RWVBWL]

Relationships...

The other day I had written that I thought it possible that Giacomo Silenzi had mentioned to the rest of the boyz downstairs and maybe even Body Roga, aka Rudy Guede, if he was there, of his latest conquest.

I mentioned this, for it is a common male trait, and of many of the boyz I've known, especially the younger 1's, to talk about their recent conquests and bedroom activities. Especially males sharing a pad, drinkin' and smokin'. Especially one who had already had anal sex with a new luver of about 10 days. That's a different experience that is always hard to keep from the boyz while drinkin' and smokin'...

I recall reading that Meredith seemingly liked Giacomo a lot, but he was oddly detached, IMHO, for some reason.
And I thought that this might be because he didn't really luv her, in comparison to say, Raffaele Sollecito.
Maybe this was because he was in a band and met a lot of chicks, maybe he was emotionally distant, who knows. But I remember it striking an odd chord in my mind that Giacomo, while away for that holiday weekend did not even even call Meredith while he was at his parents' house.
Meredith texted him just once, just to say hello.
He texted back, but not to say how much he missed her, as I probably would have done.
Instead, Giacomo made a simple request:
"Hey, can you take my sheets of the line?"

Now contrast this with Raffaele Sollecito.
Raffaele meets a pretty, American chick at a classical music concert. They dig each alot, and start sleeping together that same night. Having sex 3 to 4 times a day. They appear to be inseperable. She spends every night at his place, he even meets her at work late at night to walk her safely to his pad and he also cooks for her.

For some reason, I can't imagine this guy NOT calling her if he went away for the weekend. Nor texting to just ask to bring in the sheets...

That is why I wonder if Giacomo might have mentioned to the boyz downstairs of his recent conquest and the type of sex they indulge in.
It is common knowledge that my brutha friends luv the big b**** girls. And so when I think of what happened that night in Meredith Kercher's apartment, I wonder if brutha Rudy Guede went there to rape, not steal.
Because no laptops were stolen, nor a digital camera, I believe, either.
The guy, testosterone probably outta control, wanted sex and whatever $$$ he saw...
L8, RWVBWL

PS-It's interesting how Raffaele Sollecito, in the prosecution and the court's theory,
was so smitten by Amanda Knox that he participated in a brutal murder, helped cover for her, and he willingly recieved 25 years in prison for this.

Why didn't he turn on Amanda?
Might this be because they were not even there?

 

[komponisto]

I'm not clear in mind about the standard of review that will guide the appeals court here. Are we quite sure it will accord no deference to the findings of the trial court, which had the advantage of "eyeballing" the demeanor of the witnesses? That just doesn't sound right.

It's misleading to refer to the original court as the "trial court". In the Italian system, (what Americans, etc. would think of as) the "trial" consists of a three-stage process of which the current proceedings are the second stage. (A defendant is not "convicted" until all three stages are complete.) That's why Italians refer to this as the "appeal trial". At this (second) level, the entire case -- exhibits, testimony, etc. as well as legal rulings and logical inferences from the facts -- can be reviewed. The "standard of review", if you like, is de novo; "the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" is apparently a legitimate ground for appeal in Italy. (Incidentally, a common misconception is that the current court in this case decided to review only the DNA evidence; however, what last month's hearing decided was that they were going to seek expert consultation on the DNA evidence. They can still review the rest of the case themselves, and as far as I know, will.)

At the third level (the "cassation" level), only legal issues (and possibly factual inferences, I'm not clear on this) are reviewed, and hence this stage is closer to what those in English-speaking countries think of as an "appeal" -- although it's still automatic; every defendant gets a hearing, and again, isn't "convicted" until it's done. Some commentators (not usually Italian lawyers) have expressed the opinion that AK/RS have a better chance at the third level than the second, because the third level takes place in Rome as opposed to "provincial" Perugia. This has always puzzled me, because -- though lawyers are skilled in cleverly manufacturing legal issues out of factual ones --the important errors in this case are factual, not legal, and so it would seem that the second level would be the appropriate place to expect them to be addressed if they're going to be addressed at all. I suppose it depends on whether the third-level court can indeed review the factual inferences of the lower courts in addition to the legal rulings (i.e. look at the motivation and say "that reasoning about the knife being the weapon is terrible" in addition to "the decision to deny that request was incorrect according to Italian law").

 

[RWVBWL]

Nobody has presented any evidence that Amanda or Raffaele consumed any alcohol that night, or any intoxicants other than cannabis.

What you are suggesting might take place in the context of a group of people who are partying and get a wild idea. But it's pretty far-fetched to imagine that Amanda and Raffaele would break off a quiet evening to go out and do something like that, and recruit Guede along the way. And even if they did, they wouldn't brandish knives. And even if they brandished knives, they wouldn't end up inflicting several minor stab wounds and cuts by accident.

It's obvious what really did happen. The attacker grabbed Meredith when both were standing next to the bed. He positioned himself behind her with a knife in his right hand, and he jabbed her, enough to draw blood but not a mortal wound. It may be that he was demanding her money. She broke free and moved diagonally across the room. A scuffle ensued next to her window, during which more blood was shed. Then he threw her to the floor and inflicted the mortal wound. He then dragged her a few feet to get her into a more open area where he removed her pants and assaulted her sexually.

Hi Charlie Wilkes,
Rudy Guede has said in a Skype conversation that they had oral sex. I wonder if he means felatio or cunninglingus?
The dynamics of 1 are completey different that the other, so I tend to think that he was speaking of felatio. Or was he?
Why would Rudy mention this. Because there was proof of it happening maybe?
Didn't he mention that he drank from the orange juice container too, because, once again, he knew there was proof of it?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[komponisto]

What are the odds that a young woman, her boyfriend of six days, and a local crook she had met once at a party and seen once at her place of work would team up to molest and murder one of the young woman's friends? Well, it's hard to estimate seeing as it has only ever happened once in the history of the world if it ever happened at all, but it's got to be <1% until some more evidence of guilt comes in.

Not really interested in this part of the discussion. Too many variables to which we can never know the answer.

Considering that this question is the crux of the entire issue, what you're saying here is that you're not interested in justifying your opinion.

Or that's the charitable interpretation, at any rate. The uncharitable interpretation is that your argument is "we can never know the answer, therefore the defendants are guilty".

It is a logical impossibility to have an opinion on how likely the scenario is after seeing the evidence without having an opinion on how likely it is before seeing the evidence.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
I'm done talkin' about sex for a while.
As I have 3 sisters, 1 who had a couple of frightful near-rapes, and I've even had to defend my self against a civil rape charge, I hate rapists! Castrate 'em all!!!

Please carry on about the ToD, stomach contents, contamination possibilities, brainwashing interrogations, Mignini's powerful imagination and all of the other odd happenings in the Perfect Storm that has engulfed and imprisoned Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox...
See ya,
RWVBWL

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am not sure how common the exemption is

Greetings BucketofTea,
I have a question for you:
With a busy laboratory to work in, what the heck was Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni doing collecting the evidence too?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't she do this on more than 1 occasion?

Thanks for any reply, it helps me to formulate my own opinion regarding how Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were convicted.
Take it easy, RWVBWL

PS-Folks, don't you think that what Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni did by collecting and analyzing evidence might be a conflict of interest?

Being a simple kinda guy, I put it this way:
Say that you get pulled over for a moving violation by Police Officer Stefonono. The officer says that you were doing 45 in a 35 zone and writes a ticket. But you had checked your speedometer a moment before the flashing lights caught you attention, you were doing 35. You feel the officer made a mistake. So you show up to court to contest the ticket, and guess who is sitting behind the bench, Judge Stefonono.
Yikes...

RWVBWL,

You probably know that Dr. Stefanoni had to apply for an exemption to the general rule that a one forensics team collects the evidence and a different team does the analysis.

 

[Amazer]

Considering that this question is the crux of the entire issue, what you're saying here is that you're not interested in justifying your opinion.

That must be it.

Or that's the charitable interpretation, at any rate. The uncharitable interpretation is that your argument is "we can never know the answer, therefore the defendants are guilty".

Makes no difference to me how you interpret it.

It is a logical impossibility to have an opinion on how likely the scenario is after seeing the evidence without having an opinion on how likely it is before seeing the evidence.

If you want to know... about this particular scenario my before opinions
The odds of a woman, her boyfriend and a third person hooking up. Quite high.
The odds of these young adults engaging in risque behaviour. Again quite high.
The odds of the behaviour of these young adults going too far. Above average.

 

[loverofzion]

I read Mein Kampf years ago and those were my impressions of the book. As I recall, I actually felt some sympathy for the young Adolf Hitler for the first 50 pages. In subsequent pages the book became a diatribe of reasons for hating the Jews. I don't want to list his complaints here, as I think that to repeat the rantings of a madman is to perpetuate his madness.

I've heard similar rantings about Amanda Knox and illegal non-English speaking Mexicans living in the USA.

Enough said.

Where have you found "similar rantings" about amanda knox and illegal non English speaking Mexicans in the US?

 

[RWVBWL]

RWVBWL,

You probably know that Dr. Stefanoni had to apply for an exemption to the general rule that a one forensics team collects the evidence and a different team does the analysis.

Hello Halides1,
Now that is interesting!
I wonder why Dr. Stefanoni would have gone to the trouble to do that?
Especially if she was working in a busy lab?

Being a surfer, well my simple, clueless clod mind might think that 'the big guns' were called out to deal with the waves of panic that surely were to form from this brutal, bloody murder that occurred in a very popular foreign student college town.

Didn't Robyn Butterworth and Amy Frost, 2 of Meredith Kercher's English friends leave Perugia, never to come back, the day after Meredith was found murdered because they thought someone might be targeting English girls?

Might the cops have very quickly figured that this was going to happen and so pulled out their 'big guns' to solve this horrible crime very, very quickly?
Hmmm, I wonder of many things still.

Did the stabbing death of Meredith Kercher happen from a foreign white female student friend and housemate,
or a seemingly non-violent black, local basketball player,
or a drug dealing person of a different ethnicity, such as what LMT proposes:
http://alternatetheories-perugiamurder.blogspot.com/

Which 1 of the above does the least damage to the city of Perugia's reputation as a safe place for foreign students to come and study at?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

Impressive in what sense? A police officer who said that he smelled bleach when he actually smelled a different cleaning product, lysoform (IIRC)? A forensic scientist who misrepresented a DNA quantitation test and the results of TMB tests? The computer science "experts" who should have cloned the hard drives before doing anything to them? A forensics team that tossed Meredith's room around and then misunderstood that some drops of blood were their own handiwork? I think it is impressive also, but perhaps in a different way from the way that you do.

Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito each told two basic stories, one on the night of 5-6 November, and the other at every other appearance. Raffaele appeared in front of a court only once; therefore, there is no other testimony with which this testimony could be in conflict. Amanda has always said in court that she was not at the girls' flat on the night of 1 November. If one accepts that Raffaele and Amanda both asked about a lawyer and that Raffaele asked to stop so that he could talk to his father (yet the interviews went forward), then it is difficult to avoid acknowledging an element of coercion in the interviews.

I was using the term "law enforcement official" in a more limited sense, having in mind the officers who conducted the initial factual investigation and the questioning of the defendants. In this sense, I don't know that one could realistically hope for a much better witness than, by way of example, Monica Napoleoni. I surmise you've never had to remonstrate with characters who think "Boss Hog" type eyewear represents the last word in courtroom sophistication.

I will cheerfully stand corrected if I have here fallen into error, but I do believe, from various media accounts and other sources, the prosecution did manage to get into evidence, through the police interviewers, the various permutations in what the defendants had told them.

I'm not sure I see, offhand, what the -alleged- denial of permission to contact an attorney has to do, strictly speaking, with "coercion." It's my lay understanding of the cases I've perused on this point that it has more to do with forcing the police to respect the rights of the accused. In any event, it's hardly as though Sollecito didn't have the option of "clamming up." He didn't because he hoped to talk his way home that night.

Come to think of it, I'm not so sure I couldn't mistake unscented Lysol for Clorox myself.