Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I've heard stuff like that before and I just don't see the reasoning there. Amanda and her former boyfriend were found guilty in the first trial - now it's up to them to prove they are innocent, if they simply do nothing, then the first verdict stands - Guilty.....

I think perhaps you overstate the importance of that first verdict. It is irrelevant now, a dress rehearsal as it were. It is one of the failsafes of the Italian system. The prosecution has to prove its case again, beyond a reasonable doubt. The idea that now the defense must prove its charges innocent has no basis in fact.
 
Just wondering what you guys make of Hellman's statement that the review of the DNA evidence is to 'remove any reasonable doubt'? Does it amount, do you think, to an admission that the ruling of the first court was a mistake as there was room after the prosecution made their case for reasonable doubt?
Also, watching the crime scene vid where the mop is wrapped in wrapping paper already at the crime scene, makes me think that Maresca (with his 'we are teaching the world') should recommend it as a training video to the The Forensic Science Society (or any other international forensics association) and see whether they use it to show exactly what to do, or exactly what not to do!
 
Just wondering what you guys make of Hellman's statement that the review of the DNA evidence is to 'remove any reasonable doubt'? Does it amount, do you think, to an admission that the ruling of the first court was a mistake as there was room after the prosecution made their case for reasonable doubt?
Also, watching the crime scene vid where the mop is wrapped in wrapping paper already at the crime scene, makes me think that Maresca (with his 'we are teaching the world') should recommend it as a training video to the The Forensic Science Society (or any other international forensics association) and see whether they use it to show exactly what to do, or exactly what not to do!

Thanks bri1. Reminds me of this picture from the crime scene. I thought a caption contest might be amusing. How about The Rats Did It on this one?

 
I can't get a handle on it

Want to bet my kitchen knives don't have my DNA on it even thought I use them every day.

vwgub,

If a knife is used to make stab wounds, there is a chance that blood will end up on the handle, as well as the blade. Yet this knife had no blood on the handle or blade. ILE would have us believe that no blood ever splattered onto the handle and that Amanda or Raffaele cleaned the blade assiduously but did not bother with the handle. If blood had ended up on the handle, cleaning it would very likely remove the fingerprints as well. DNA cannot be dated. MOO.
 
Bra Clasp Contamination

I just finished Mark Waterbury's book on the case. He has an interesting analogy about the possibility of contamination of the bra clasp. I'll summarize:

Suppose that you have a piece candy and you drop it on the floor. Then 47 days later, you remember where you dropped it and go back to retrieve it. When you get there, you find that it is missing and continue to search around the floor. Then remarkably you find it under a throw rug that is a part of a stack of trash that has been shoved in the corner. I will add to this that it is known that someone with e coli poisoning had been in the area.

Ask yourself: Would you pickup eat that piece of candy? If not ask yourself why.

PS: I had to chuckle when I read that passage. It adds a little common sense to that discussion.
 
Here is everywhere Massei talks about the box that the knife delivered to Rome in:


Massei - [99] (Google translation)
He then reported that the return to the police station Inspector Finzi handed material seized in the home of Sollecito Raffaele. The first thing was finding the knife that was inside a new envelope that was wrapped well and it appeared so close that had no contact with the outside world (p. 201 and 223). Clear that when the knife was finding new gloves, which he had used on other occasions and that he had taken office. So, with these gloves, removed the knife from the bag and put it inside a box sealed with tape. Stated that the box previously and there were no other agenda items if not "new agenda donated" by a bank (p. 202). This box was then sent, along with other findings, the Scientific Police in Rome (p. 203).

Massei - [224]
Stated again that this knife, exhibit 36, had received in a box and was delivered in the laboratory where he was photographed and analyzed. The container of the knife is not satisfied that it was sterile, but stated that "even the remains are sterile ..

Massei - [272]
What was achieved was considered so due to contamination and this for a number of reasons: how repertoire (knife findings by the forensic team in Perugia and then transferred to Rome within an envelope and a box of cardboard ;

Massei - [282]
Exhibit 36.
That knife was the first object that touched and was above all the dishes. Put it in a paper bag, new, and he was carrying and then in a folder. The envelope with the knife handed in to the superintendent Gubbiotti qundo returned to police headquarters.
In turn, the superintendent Gubbiotti ... received the knife Finzi: the object was inside a well sealed envelope new . Gubbiotti also stated that when the knife was finding new gloves, never used before and had taken office. It was with these new gloves that he took the knife from the bag and put it in a box sealed with scotch and transmitted it to other findings in the Scientific Police in Rome...

Massei - [283]
...when he pulled out the envelope in which to place it was kept in a box that previously contained a new agenda, a gift of ima bank and sealed, conveyed to the Scientific Police in Rome.

She stated that when finding that the knife had new gloves that he had used on other occasions on which, therefore, could not find the DNA that he would be found on the knife. In the box where the knife was placed certainly can not think of that might be contaminating DNA of Amanda and Meredith because it was a box which was kept a diary new box that is sealed, was sent to Science in Rome.


Only the one entry on page [272] talks about the knife being in both the box and an envelope. I would seriously think that Massei would not talk so much about the box if the knife were isolated from the box by being inside an envelope.

Dan O do you have a link to the original Italian Motivations? I no longer have it on my computer.

Finzi says that he put the knife in an envelope and then put the envelope into a folder. What was this folder like?

When Gubbiotti took the knife from the envelope does this mean he took it out of the folder, but it was still inside the envelope?

It is possible some original meaning may have been lost in translation.
 
They could gather this type of evidence against you or I or anybody.

Then why didn't they? Why not go after Filomena and her boyfriend? Why not go after one of the thousands of foreign students studing in Perugia that semester? Why not the men living downstairs? Why not all the creepy drug dealers and homeless people that seem to live in Perugia? Why not some annoying criminals the police probably wanted to get off the street already?

Oh, that's right, the police didn't have any evidence against the above persons. AK had three different alibis and RS had four. You can pretend that there is no evidence against them but AK isn't doing 26 years in the slammer because of a Harry Potter book.
 
alibi

Oh, that's right, the police didn't have any evidence against the above persons. AK had three different alibis and RS had four.

Alt+F4,

Raffaele has never said anything other than that he was at home that night. That is his alibi. Amanda has only ever said on one occasion that she was not at Raf's apartment, and the circumstances around her saying that are strongly in dispute.
 
I think perhaps you overstate the importance of that first verdict. It is irrelevant now, a dress rehearsal as it were. It is one of the failsafes of the Italian system. The prosecution has to prove its case again, beyond a reasonable doubt. The idea that now the defense must prove its charges innocent has no basis in fact.

It's that first verdict that has kept them in prison for the past 14 months so I would think they think it's quite important. In addition, it seems that the appeal is only going to cover a small portion of what brought out in the first trial, meaning most of the original evidence won't be questioned. We will have to see what is covered in the March and April hearings, in addition to the bus/disco people and the forensics of the knife and bra clasp.
 
Alt+F4,

Raffaele has never said anything other than that he was at home that night. That is his alibi. Amanda has only ever said on one occasion that she was not at Raf's apartment, and the circumstances around her saying that are strongly in dispute.

Ah, you're back!

RS:
1. Amanda and I were at a party at my friend's house.
2. Amanda and I were at my place but she went out for awhile.
3. Amanda and I ate, watched a movie, had sex, went to sleep.
4. I was on the computer all night long.

AK:
Just ask her lawyer, even he admits she had multiple stories.

How can two people be so forgetful about what they did if all they used was weed? Hmmmmm......
 
Then why didn't they? Why not go after Filomena and her boyfriend? Why not go after one of the thousands of foreign students studing in Perugia that semester? Why not the men living downstairs? Why not all the creepy drug dealers and homeless people that seem to live in Perugia? Why not some annoying criminals the police probably wanted to get off the street already?

Oh, that's right, the police didn't have any evidence against the above persons. AK had three different alibis and RS had four. You can pretend that there is no evidence against them but AK isn't doing 26 years in the slammer because of a Harry Potter book.

AK is doing 26 years because the chief investigator believes he has the power to determine guilt simply by observing behavior. It's rather easy to prove the chief investigator's claim is basically woo.

The problem for skeptics is that the general public doesn't understand that the chief investigator's claimed power is bogus.
 
AK is doing 26 years because the chief investigator believes he has the power to determine guilt simply by observing behavior.

So he brought about these guilty verdicts all by himself? I think not.
 
Then why didn't they [... gather this type of evidence against you or I or anybody.]? Why not go after Filomena and her boyfriend? Why not go after one of the thousands of foreign students studing in Perugia that semester? Why not the men living downstairs? Why not all the creepy drug dealers and homeless people that seem to live in Perugia? Why not some annoying criminals the police probably wanted to get off the street already?

Oh, that's right, the police didn't have any evidence against the above persons. AK had three different alibis and RS had four. You can pretend that there is no evidence against them but AK isn't doing 26 years in the slammer because of a Harry Potter book.

People that live in a house where a murder victim is found are, in every country on earth, guilty until proven innocent, for all practical purposes. The didn't have lawyers in the beginning, so they were easy marks.

Yes, mark is the word, isn't it? From wikipedia:

A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle or bamboozle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, confidence trickster, grifter, or con artist, and any accomplices are known as plants. Confidence men or women exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as greed, both dishonesty and honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, and the thought of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable. Confidence men or women have victimized individuals from all walks of life.

Amanda and Raffaele were the 'marks'.

Why weren't others the mark? Because Amanda and Raffaele were there and they were naive.
 
Last edited:
However, since Meredith was already dead, no amount of evidence in the world would make Amanda and Raffaele guilty of the murder, since a person can't be murdered twice.

Therefore an elaborate and entirely unproven and ridiculous theory of a conspiracy with Guede was concocted.
 
Ah, you're back!

RS:
1. Amanda and I were at a party at my friend's house.
2. Amanda and I were at my place but she went out for awhile.
3. Amanda and I ate, watched a movie, had sex, went to sleep.
4. I was on the computer all night long.

AK:
Just ask her lawyer, even he admits she had multiple stories.

How can two people be so forgetful about what they did if all they used was weed? Hmmmmm......

Is number 1 an official statement that he made to the cops or a news article supposedly relating an interview with Rafaele that also indicated Amanda said Meredith never locked her door.

Number 2 should read that she may have gone out for awhile. I was asleep so how would I know for sure?

You can probably combine number 4 between had sex and went to sleep in number 3.
 
Is number 1 an official statement that he made to the cops or a news article supposedly relating an interview with Rafaele that also indicated Amanda said Meredith never locked her door.

Number 2 should read that she may have gone out for awhile. I was asleep so how would I know for sure?

You can probably combine number 4 between had sex and went to sleep in number 3.

For number 2 didn't Raffaele say that she did go out (to Le Chic) and later said she may have gone out for a while (I was asleep so how would I know for sure)?
 
Amanda and Raffaele were the 'marks'.

Why weren't others the mark? Because Amanda and Raffaele were there and they were naive.

Oh, so now the theory is that AK and RS were marks in a confidence scheme. Ok, we'll add that to the ever growing list of reasons why these poor, innocent souls were wrongfully convicted. :rolleyes:
 
What you fail to mention is that it had Amanda's DNA on it.

Amanda's DNA on the knife handle could not have possibly been deposited at the time of the murder. The DNA profile was abundant. If the knife had been cleaned thoroughly, Amanda's abundant DNA would have been removed. Common sense tells us that Amanda's DNA must have been deposited on the knife at another time. The knife was used by Amanda in Raffaele's kitchen. This explains Amanda's DNA.

Do you think it would have been possible to thoroughly clean the knife without removing Amanda's abundant DNA from the handle?

The defense knows Raffaele's kitchen knife had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. This is why they are in complete agreement with any and all additional testing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom