Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Thanks for this list; I'm interested in understanding the reasons people believe what they believe, even if the reasons aren't very good.




Quote:
b) He told the police “there is a lot of blood” when everyone at the scene agreed there was very little visible blood. He knew there was a lot of blood behind the locked door.


If you don't see this kind of "disagreement" among people every single day, you're not paying attention.

_________________________

In this case you're both wrong. There was never any disagreement on the amount of blood found by the lovebirds. Raffaele never said to the cops that there was a lot of blood. Poor quality audio tape of that call to the cops lead to this misunderstanding, which was corrected on PMF months ago.

///

 

[Kaosium]

At the risk of being handed another infraction, I suggest you Google "Alt F4" for a clue as to what kind of game Alt F4 is playing.

No, she's not. At least I don't think so, it appears to me she's just trying to re-initiate debate on this thread with a post germane to the only thing it appears we can discuss on the thread anymore: the evidence.

Since Alt is the only poster outside Fine that I can recall in the past few months that believes in guilt and has produced a list of reasons why, it would be churlish to suspect her motivations in my opinion.

 

[Mary_H]

A comment from John Kercher about the Lifetime movie, as quoted in The Sun:

"But John Kercher added: "I didn't realise they were going to go so far with it.

"'It just seems ridiculous - I don't see how they can go that far when nobody has ever known exactly what happened.'"

Or is he talking about the trials?

 

[RoseMontague]

From Frank's report of the court testimony:

Other fact
Luca and Paola join Amanda and Raffaele who are waiting in the car. Raffaele: is she dead? Luca: yes. Amanda cries. Luca and Paola also tell them what they heard about how she died.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/amanda-diabolic-or-lost-in-translation.html

 

[Kaosium]

A comment from John Kercher about the Lifetime movie, as quoted in The Sun:

"But John Kercher added: "I didn't realise they were going to go so far with it.

"'It just seems ridiculous - I don't see how they can go that far when nobody has ever known exactly what happened.'"

Or is he talking about the trials?

I imagine that is in reference to the actual murder, being as I recall initial reports that the actual event would remain a mystery. Now it appears we'll get a graphic representation of various possibilities of what may have occurred, which frankly I could have done without.

I don't blame him for being pissed. I'm still going to watch it of course, but I sure wish they could have shown some discretion there.

I can't help but note Comodi had to talk Mignini out of showing the rape portion of the computer representation shown to the jury, so I'm betting he'll be watching. One hand for the popcorn...

 

[Alt+F4]

Since Alt is the only poster outside Fine that I can recall in the past few months that believes in guilt and has produced a list of reasons why, it would be churlish to suspect her motivations in my opinion.

Indeed. I have no dog in this fight. Unlike many of the posters on this thread that have only joined in the last year, and only post on this thread, I've been all over James Randi for years (yikes, not like that ).

Despite all the pop psychology being thrown about, I have no personal interest in Amanda or her freakish boy toy. Some seem to forget that this is a forum about critical thinking and skepticism, it's not the Amanda Knox love-fest.

I post because I find the case interesting and because it's always wrong when someone posts, "I'm 100% certain of.....".

 

[Alt+F4]

I imagine that is in reference to the actual murder, being as I recall initial reports that the actual event would remain a mystery. Now it appears we'll get a graphic representation of various possibilities of what may have occurred, which frankly I could have done without.

I don't blame him for being pissed. I'm still going to watch it of course, but I sure wish they could have shown some discretion there.

The quotes under the photos are silly beyond belief.

Jailed....Amanda Knox.

We did however learn from this "story" that Hayden Panettiere is dating Ukrainian heavyweight boxing champ Wladimir Klitschko.

 

[Alt+F4]

The facts you can read in Massei that Amanda had made 3 calls to Meredith's phones. The last two received responses that the phone was not accessible on the network and redirected straight to voice mail. Knowing that all cell phones have caller ID and notification of missed calls, what would be the purpose of calling those phones again? Or as Alt+F4 says: "I would have called non-stop".

So Dan, when you call someone in an emergency and the call goes straight to voice mail you simply stop calling them?

You would throw in the towel after 3 calls? You seem to be under the assumption that if someone's phone is off that they won't ever turn it on again.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm not really familiar with the Peterson case, so all I can say is that if the evidence against him is really of the same level of strength as the evidence against Knox and Sollecito, then he should have been acquitted too.

The Scott Peterson case is interesting because he was convicted of murder despite the fact that was no physical evidence against him. There were no witnesses that saw him commit the crime yet almost everyone (except his family) believes in his guilt.

If a lamp belonging to, say, Filomena had been found in Meredith's room, but otherwise everything else remained the same, how would your view of the case change?

But it wasn't Filomena's lamp, it was Amanda's.

This kind of argument depends on an assumption that guilty people are significantly more likely to change their stories under police pressure than innocent people subject to similar pressure

At least two of Raffaele's alibis had nothing to do with police interrogation and where is the evidence that he was subjected to police interrogation that produced the other two?

Before getting into the nitty-gritty of these kinds of details, I'd like to make sure it's worthwhile.

Often cases are judged on the nitty-gritty details. Those who believe in this pairs innocence seem to think that if the knife and bra clasp are thrown out by the court the prison doors will just open so the lovebirds can run out and do an interview with Oprah. Not gonna happen. Despite how constantly we are told that the two were just "confused" or "misremembered" it doesn't make this other evidence go away.

Have you considered the possibility that he just looked around, and it didn't look to him like anything had been taken? If not, why not? If so, why did you reject it?

There is a HUGE difference between not thinking anything was taken and knowing nothing was taken. He knew nothing was taken because he knew there was no break-in.

The consequence of his believing the knife DNA result. He should have admitted confusion and defied the data, but most people don't know how to do this.

No he lied. It's that simple.

In my opinion, this is the best evidence of guilt there is; I'd put it at 5 to 10 decibels' worth. Still overwhelmingly likely to be the result of contamination, given the unbelievably sloppy handling that has been amply documented, plus the fact that it would so strongly imply guilt if legitimate.

Until someone involved in this case aquires Superman's vision you still can't see DNA with the human eye. You want to say sloppy police work, ok, but I'm not qualified to say contamination....are you?

Why is this incompatible with Moore's theory -- shared by virtually all innocentisti -- that Guede was the sole killer?

Moore said it was impossible for someone to leave Meredith's room without blood on the bottom of their shoes. Then how did someone leave that room, go to the bathroom, leave the footprint on the bathmat without leaving bloody footprints between the bedroom and bathroom - because there was none. Either Steve Moore doesn't know what he's talking about or there was a clean up. Which is it?

 

[RoseMontague]

Moore said it was impossible for someone to leave Meredith's room without blood on the bottom of their shoes. Then how did someone leave that room, go to the bathroom, leave the footprint on the bathmat without leaving bloody footprints between the bedroom and bathroom - because there was none. Either Steve Moore doesn't know what he's talking about or there was a clean up. Which is it?

Moore is not entirely correct on this one. We have discussed this before and one of the theories is that he sat on the foot of the bed (making the knife imprint on the sheet as well as the two Luminol revealed footprints on the floor at the end of the bed) and removed his shoes prior to going to get some towels.

 

[RoseMontague]

1. Amanda’s lamp being found in Meredith’s room.

I had 2 long posts here and continued with two more at the member's forum of IIP on the question of the lamp. There is one post remaining that amounts to what some might say is a conspiracy theory on my part. If you are interested I will try to put those 4 together and wrap up my fifth post at the same time. I didn't get much interest here originally on my first two posts.

 

[Alt+F4]

Moore is not entirely correct on this one. We have discussed this before and one of the theories is that he sat on the foot of the bed (making the knife imprint on the sheet as well as the two Luminol revealed footprints on the floor at the end of the bed) and removed his shoes prior to going to get some towels.

If he was so worried about leaving bloody footprints why did he put those bloody shoes back on, leaving footprints from the bedroom to the front door? It's makes no sense for him to take his shoes off.

 

[Alt+F4]

I had 2 long posts here and continued with two more at the member's forum of IIP on the question of the lamp. There is one post remaining that amounts to what some might say is a conspiracy theory on my part. If you are interested I will try to put those 4 together and wrap up my fifth post at the same time. I didn't get much interest here originally on my first two posts.

I must have missed the posts you had here. I am interested.

 

[bobc]

If he was so worried about leaving bloody footprints why did he put those bloody shoes back on, leaving footprints from the bedroom to the front door? It's makes no sense for him to take his shoes off.

Yes, I can't see how to reconcile this with reasonable doubt. It's a possible but contrived scenario whereby Rudy manages to leave one bloody bare footprint on the bathmat but nowhere else.

Another item which I find very difficult to reconcile with a break-in scenario is the staging of the crime scene, i.e. that Meredith's body was moved after death. While it is possible for someone to do that, it makes no sense.

 

[Alt+F4]

Unfortunetely no, that's not how it works. As you've put it - it is in public domain, therefore they can do it. Many movies were made that way, using the real names etc.

Yeah, but then on what basis is Amanda's lawyers threatening Lifetime with legal action?

Attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luca Maori said Saturday they had sent letters to Lifetime warning they would go to U.S. court to try to sequester the film if it isn't canceled and a trailer removed from Lifetime's website.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/05/world/main7321624.shtml?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah, but then on what basis is Amanda's lawyers threatening Lifetime with legal action?



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/05/world/main7321624.shtml?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

Perhaps it's my purely cynical view of lawyers, but so they can have it both ways. They make a challenge for cover as there's elements of the previews of that film that I too find unpalatable, and probably they will as well from a legal standpoint. However they know they can't win, but can say they were outraged by it. That might even be true, who knows what's in the film at this point?

I think this quaint Italian Court custom of thinking they rule the world needs a reality check posthaste. Yeah, I know they say they'd file suit in an American court, but that's because it might affect a court case in almighty Italy thus the world must dance to their tune.

 

[Dan O.]

So Dan, when you call someone in an emergency and the call goes straight to voice mail you simply stop calling them?

You would throw in the towel after 3 calls? You seem to be under the assumption that if someone's phone is off that they won't ever turn it on again.

You're first problem is that you are escalating the level of the emergency because you know that Meredith was dead at the time. An innocent Amanda knew only that Meredith couldn't be reached because her phones had possibly been turned off, the battery died or she was out of range of the network.

You're second problem appears to be a severe lack of knowledge about how the technology works. You need to try it for yourself to find out because you haven't learned anything from my several attempts to explain it.

Try this experiment: Have your daughter go into another room and turn off her cell phone. Call that phone and see if you can hear it ringing through the wall like you suggested Amanda should. Then have her turn on the phone and guess if anybody had tried to call while the phone was off.

 

[Alt+F4]

Try this experiment: Have your daughter go into another room and turn off her cell phone. Call that phone and see if you can hear it ringing through the wall like you suggested Amanda should. Then have her turn on the phone and guess if anybody had tried to call while the phone was off.

If I knew her phone was off I wouldn't keep calling. Amanda stopped calling because she knew the phone would not be answered.

If I had no idea why my daughter's phone was not being answered I would keep calling her because eventually she would turn on her phone or charge it.

In the 48 minutes between 12:07 and 12:55 why would Amanda think that the phones were off for that entire time?

 

[babycondor]

No, she's not. At least I don't think so, it appears to me she's just trying to re-initiate debate on this thread with a post germane to the only thing it appears we can discuss on the thread anymore: the evidence.

Since Alt is the only poster outside Fine that I can recall in the past few months that believes in guilt and has produced a list of reasons why, it would be churlish to suspect her motivations in my opinion.

I did appreciate and respond to the points in Alt F4's post.

Apologies to all if my suggestion of ulterior motives appeared churlish.

 

[Dan O.]

If I knew her phone was off I wouldn't keep calling. Amanda stopped calling because she knew the phone would not be answered.

Ananda knew that between the first call and the third call that the status of one of the phones changed. As evidenced in the phone records, the english phone rang through the first time she called it but was unreachable on the third call. If one were guilty and knew that the phones had been tossed over the side of the road outside the city, that would be a clear indication that the phones had been found. Of course, this fact directly contradicts the theory Massei's writes that Amanda called the phones to verify that they had not been found so it was safe to return to the cottage.