Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Your argument is weak when you have to resort to such a weak strawman. Gosh, why are people getting so nervous that they have to resort to making up evidence and personal insults? Don't worry, you'll still be able to send Amanda fan mail over the next 23 years she's gonna spend in prison.

Yall probably shouldn't respond to this person. Occassionly this person comes on here and says a bunch of strawman remarks or makes remarks about Knox/Sollecito in an attempt to get someone to insult them so the person can report them.

That being said what do feel is weak about the argument?

 

[Alt+F4]

Yall probably shouldn't respond to this person.

Yes, the cult must stick together...

 

[bri1]

Then why are we being told there was new DNA evidence introduced in court the other day when it's an outright lie?

I hadn't heard that stated.

How do YOU know she's intelligent?

Because she attended a good university. She could've cheated her way in suppose, but there's no reason to assume she did. I can't prove she's intelligent, but it seems likely.

Haha, now you're just making stuff up.

Um, am I? You think the effects of heroin and marijuana on cognitive abilities are comparable? Really? Especially as Amanda's drug use literally can't have been going on that long, whereas Toto's could have lasted 30 years (I don't claim to know one way or another). I can't imagine cannabis having more degenerative effects than heroin.

Is this a medical or legal term? Oh, that's right, you're just making stuff up again.

No, never claimed it was!

Again, quite funny. Read Amanda's email alibi, she wasn't having nightmares she was putting "first things first", attempting to get her stuff from the apartment and find a new place to live. And getting pizza....because as she said, she deserved it!

Yes, it's quite impossible to be going through any kind of inner turmoil whilst presenting a brave face to those outside your immediate circle of loved ones and attending to the mundanities of life and existence. Anyone who's ever undergone a loss or a trauma will be able to relate to that.



Oh really, then what's with all the vagrant, bum, etc. references?

Yep, agreed, that's not the most charitable langauge in the world. But it can be difficult to maintain charity towards someone acting on behalf of such a pernicious, vicous cause, even if you know on an intellectual level that their participation is the result of exploitation and some element of coercion, (or, in the case of maintaining a charitable attitude towards guilters, ignorance).

 

[RWVBWL]

Tis brings up a major point in Curatolo's story that has not been explored. According to Frank:

Curatolo, for the accusers, remains totally reliable. Because he said to have been questioned by the Carabinieri next day, at about 1:30 pm, and to have then seen the scientific police in white suit at the cottage, at about 2 pm.

A quote from LMT in the comments seems to indicate that under questioning by Mignini, Curatolo confirmed having been asked questions from the cops the day after the murder and then having seen the "bunnies" shortly thereafter. Is this a repeat of Quintavalle, questioned and saw nothing until brought forward by a journalist?

Hi RoseMontague and others,
I too noticed what you have commented on and in my opinion that brings up an interesting twist to the police investigation.

Surely at least 1 cop must have asked Antonio Curatolo if he saw anything suspicious last night.
Antonio, -(contrary to what Fulcanelli argued with me about while previously discussing this topic), must have told the police that he saw a guy and girl hangin' out on the cold night when Meredith Kercher lost her life. He surely must have gave the cops a drescription of the Harry Potter look-alike and the cute white woman he was with who kept checkin' out the apartrment. He surely must have gave the cops a descriptionof what these 2 people were dressed like. Surely the cops must have relayed that info to the other police officers to be on the lookout for this Harry Potter wanna-be, I mean, how hard was it to ID Raffaele from afar?

Have you ever had to drive around your neighborhood a police squad car looking for a suspect in a crime? I have.

If Antonio gave the police the info that he testified about, surely the cops would have placed Antonio Curatolo in a squad car and drove him around the 'hood just to see, on the slightest of chances, if he can spot the people he saw.

Better yet, surely the cops, with the information he gave them, would have placed Antonio in the back of a squad car and had Raffaele and Amanda, who were still at the apartemnt, brought closer so he could positvely ID them that yes, officer, those are the 2 people I saw last night...

Surely this happened, right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the kitchen and the knife

Yes, the cult must stick together...

Alt+F4,

You have said that the knife never left Sollecito's kitchen. Why?

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

You have said that the knife never left Sollecito's kitchen. Why?

It doesn't make sense to return it to the draw. The knife is still an important piece of evidence because even though it probably never left the apartment Sollecito still felt the need to lie about it.

 

[Kaosium]

Greetings all!

I've taken a break from posting, but have been reading from time to time. A combination of other commitments and a wish to step back from the petty squabbling and over-invested opinionating (mostly, of course. on one particular side of the debate...) led me to step back for a while and - in the immortal words of General Melchett in Blackadder 4 - "watch the results as they come in".

So, the knife evidence is bogus, and the police destroyed the bra clasp. Shocking, but hardly unsurprising I suppose. When Curatolo is destroyed on the stand today (and yes, the disco bus issue DOES matter, it matters an awful lot), the prosecution's case will take another huge battering.

I've found it utterly pathetic how some people have tried to position the situation re Curatolo and the DNA retests as either unimportant or - even more incredibly - as some sort of win for the prosecution. It convinces me more than ever that some people on that side of the debate are either stupid, deluded, stubborn, personally vested, or a combination of some/all of the above.

Meredith Kercher died some time between 9pm and 10pm on 1st November 2007 - probably between 9 and 9.30. She most assuredly did not die at 11.40pm. The condition of her stomach and small intestine at autopsy utterly confirms this to be a fact supported by every piece of medical literature and opinion publicly available. I believe that she died at the hands of Rudy Guede after she surprised him by returning home at 9pm, shortly after he'd broken into her then-empty house through Filomena's bedroom window. I don't believe that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder or the aftermath, although I can't be totally sure of that. What I AM sure of though is that there was never enough evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito of murder, regardless of whether or not they were involved. I believe they will be freed on appeal.

The people who think that the supreme court ruling on Guede has actively negative connotations for Knox's/Sollecito's appeals are either ignorant of the process of law, or they are willfully choosing to misrepresent the situation. It has no connotations either way regarding Knox's/Sollecito's judgement. Full stop.

So, I'll be carrying on reading and following the appeal. I'm pretty confident that by the end of the summer both Knox and Sollecito will have been found not guilty on appeal.

Oh and by the way a big welcome to all-new JREF poster "Branded". Interestingly, the film "The Big Lebowski" features references to a TV show called "Branded" (The Dude thinks his car has been stolen by the son of one of "Branded's" fictional scriptwriters). There's also a character in "The Big Lebowski" named Jackie Treehorn. And if I remember correctly, the poster with the name "Treehorn" was.... ahem....disinvited from JREF. Small world, eh?!

LJ! Good to see you're around, I'd been wondering about you. I hope you don't recede too much into the woodwork, I truly missed your analysis and humor.

 

[babycondor]

It doesn't make sense to return it to the draw.

Agreed.

The knife is still an important piece of evidence because even though it probably never left the apartment Sollecito still felt the need to lie about it.

Your reasoning process is seriously flawed.

 

[Rhea]

It doesn't make sense to return it to the draw. The knife is still an important piece of evidence because even though it probably never left the apartment Sollecito still felt the need to lie about it.

Why should a guilty Raffaele feel the need to lie about an unrelated kitchen knife any more than an innnocent Raffaele?

The claim that this isn't the murder weapon but still evidence of guilt leaves me speachless …

If that is the reasoning, there is no reason.

 

[Dan O.]

Surely this happened, right?

Curatolo, for the accusers, remains totally reliable. Because he said to have been questioned by the Carabinieri next day, at about 1:30 pm​

Would being asked for directions to the cottage by a lost Carabinieri that recognizes their favorite drug dealer on a park bench count as questioning?

 

[Alt+F4]

The claim that this isn't the murder weapon but still evidence of guilt leaves me speachless …

It's just another example of RS's repeated lies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vogt's article

To all,

Andrea Vogt's article does not mention the decayed bra clasp, but it does discuss Curatolo's testimony. She wrote, "This week, Italian media reported that independent forensic experts determined that not enough of Kercher's genetic material was left on the blade of the knife alleged to be the murder weapon to do a repeat DNA test, a fact that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni herself admitted in the 2009 trial." This is misleading, as noted by a commenter at that site. If there is not enough DNA to test, there is no way to know to whom it belongs.

 

[Malkmus]

To all,

Andrea Vogt's article does not mention the decayed bra clasp, but it does discuss Curatolo's testimony. She wrote, "This week, Italian media reported that independent forensic experts determined that not enough of Kercher's genetic material was left on the blade of the knife alleged to be the murder weapon to do a repeat DNA test, a fact that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni herself admitted in the 2009 trial." This is misleading, as noted by a commenter at that site. If there is not enough DNA to test, there is no way to know to whom it belongs.

I saw that too and found it odd she would leave that part out.

 

[Rhea]

It's just another example of RS's repeated lies.

An innocent Raffaele had just as much reason to make up a lie in this situation.

Innocent people sometimes do lie when scared and panicked, it's not that they're just sitting in prison, confident that everything is going to turn out fine …

There weren't really repeated lies of his in my eyes, what people say when they're interrogated as a suspect without an attorney, screamed at and threatened, I don't really hold against them, people say all kinds of stuff in those situations …

 

[Alt+F4]

There weren't really repeated lies of his in my eyes, what people say when they're interrogated as a suspect without an attorney, screamed at and threatened, I don't really hold against them, people say all kinds of stuff in those situations …

He wasn't being screamed at or threatened or even being nicely spoken to by the police when he told this lie. He saw a story on television about the knife and he decided to make up a lie to explain MK's DNA on it. No one forced this lie from him, he gave it freely.

No wonder his father and his lawyers have had him on permanent shut up since then.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

declarations

No wonder his father and his lawyers have had him on permanent shut up since then.

He made several spontaneous declarations.

 

[Malkmus]

He wasn't being screamed at or threatened or even being nicely spoken to by the police when he told this lie. He saw a story on television about the knife and he decided to make up a lie to explain MK's DNA on it. No one forced this lie from him, he gave it freely.

No wonder his father and his lawyers have had him on permanent shut up since then.

I still don't think his diary entry was ever proven to be a lie.

 

[Poppy1016]

I wanted to take a moment to thank all of the intelligent and thoughtful posters here. It is very annoying to see mindless posts that are made just for the sake of arguing. Reading and improving my thought process has helped me tremendously in the way I view this case now as opposed to two years ago. I have learned how careful evaluation of information is critical to finding truth. Again many thanks to everyone at JREF.

 

[RoseMontague]

To all,

Andrea Vogt's article does not mention the decayed bra clasp, but it does discuss Curatolo's testimony. She wrote, "This week, Italian media reported that independent forensic experts determined that not enough of Kercher's genetic material was left on the blade of the knife alleged to be the murder weapon to do a repeat DNA test, a fact that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni herself admitted in the 2009 trial." This is misleading, as noted by a commenter at that site. If there is not enough DNA to test, there is no way to know to whom it belongs.

There is an additional point of dispute that I have been discussing with Michael at PMF(net). None of the reports are clear if the minute amount of DNA found was on the handle or the blade. Most of the reports I have seen imply that they could not confirm from this small amount that it was Amanda's DNA on the handle, not Meredith's DNA on the blade. I don't think they found anything on the blade. I don't believe Vogt is correct on this and she did not give a link to the Italian media source she got this from.

 

[Amazer]

There is very clear evidence that that is exactly what happened with Amanda's statements of 5-6 November, which is why they were ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court. Apart from those statements, she has told the same story throughout - so she is not, in fact, confused about what she was doing on the night of the murder.

Are you certain that Amanda's statement was ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court because Amanda "misremembered" and was pressured by those mean, mean Italian cops.? I was under the impression that it was because no lawyer was present.

As to whether it's because he was a drugged-up loser (not "looser", btw), that's doubtful, but it doesn't add to his credibility. What ought to be clear is that he, too, was under pressure from the police to give statements that suited their agenda.

I know this is probably difficult for you to comprehend... but could you provide some evidence that this is what happened?