Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Interesting event including Paul Ciolino, Candace Dempsey, Mark Waterbury, Steve Moore, and Michael Heavey.

A forum of forensic and scientific experts, and authors gathered at the James C. Pigott Pavilion on the Seattle University campus Monday afternoon, April 4 and spoke to an audience of about 120 about the innocence, in their view, of West Seattle-raised Amanda Knox, convicted of killing her roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy.

Here's the video (1h 51m)

It's a bit long, so I watched only Steve Moore's speach so far. He's a good speaker and had some informative slides. I think it's a good introduction to the forensic aspects of the case.

Thank you for the link. I really wanted to see that. Moore and Waterbury were great.

This is a case where the only questions that remain are why the three Stooges decided to frame Amanda and Raffaele, how the three Stooges did it and why the public is so eager to stone the innocent.

 

[Kaosium]

HiHo HiHo

It’s off to work we go
We’re the Perugia cop farce
And we’re a pain in the a**

HiHo HiHo

HiHo HiHo

It’s off to work we go
We’re the boys, we’re on the beat
We lie, and steal, and frame, and cheat

HiHO HiHO

HiHoooo HiHoooo

It’s off to work we goooo
We fiddled around with a bra-clasp
And no there’s hope those tests can pass
So we just filed it in a wet glass

HiHo HiHo

HiHo HiHo

It’s off to work we go
We’re bullies, and rulers, we’re super-kings
Cos we’ve got Massei’s snakey court-like thing

HiHo HiHo

Hi Ho Hi Ho

It’s off to court we go
But we’re scared to show
Now Massei’s out and Hellmans in
It’s putting our heads in a spin.

HiHo

HiHo

Bob! Did you get banned for posting this innocuous filk at In Sessions? I notice it's not there anymore and I got an 'infraction' for my post laughing at it! It was a 'language' violation, and all I said was something to the effect of 'The Flying Pig Squad Anthem.' You don't have any bad words in yours either, what did they say was the reason for your ban?

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

________________________

Will Savive:

"Police then turned their investigation to Raffaele Sollecito’s flat on Corso Garibaldi. Police entered the premises looking for a pair of shoes that matched any of the bloody prints left at the crime scene, and a possible murder weapon.
....During the search, police also found a pair of Sollecito’s sneakers (Nike size 42½) that they announced was a perfect match with the footprint left at the crime scene."

___________________

Them shoes weren't found in Raffaele's flat. They were found at the police station, on the night of November 5th, on Raffaele's feet.

///

That was some of their best police work. Finding Sollecito’s sneakers. On his feet. Someone must have tipped them off.

 

[Antony]

________________________

Will Savive:

"Police then turned their investigation to Raffaele Sollecito’s flat on Corso Garibaldi. Police entered the premises looking for a pair of shoes that matched any of the bloody prints left at the crime scene, and a possible murder weapon.
....During the search, police also found a pair of Sollecito’s sneakers (Nike size 42½) that they announced was a perfect match with the footprint left at the crime scene."

___________________

Them shoes weren't found in Raffaele's flat. They were found at the police station, on the night of November 5th, on Raffaele's feet.

///

If that's the case, then it's yet another in the succession of conjuring tricks that provided the so-called evidence against the pair (including the knife taken at random from RS's flat). We take a perfectly ordinary pair of shoes - abracadabra! They match the murder prints! Never mind the implausibility of the actual murderer wearing the same shoes to the police station that he had on when he committed the crime.

Of course, it took Raff's family to prove that the prints didn't match his shoes at all, but no matter - abracadabra! Another conjuring trick performed with the bra clasp the next day.

 

[bri1]

Lol , GrouchoMarxist
Someone must have tipped them off! I think the combined intelligence of the police (including forensic scientists) in this matter is less than 100 picograms.
If Italy is anything like the UK, then unfortunately the police force does not attract the best and brightest. I worked with the police (in an IT capacity), in the facility that trains up Met Officers (The Metropolitan Police- London police officers) and they weren't the sharpest tools in the box. A friend of my ex-partner is a police officer (quite high up now) who joined in the graduate fast-track programme- but even he wasn't really that clever!

 

[Antony]

________________________

Will Savive:

"Police then turned their investigation to Raffaele Sollecito’s flat on Corso Garibaldi. Police entered the premises looking for a pair of shoes that matched any of the bloody prints left at the crime scene, and a possible murder weapon.
....During the search, police also found a pair of Sollecito’s sneakers (Nike size 42½) that they announced was a perfect match with the footprint left at the crime scene."

___________________

Them shoes weren't found in Raffaele's flat. They were found at the police station, on the night of November 5th, on Raffaele's feet.

///

Further thoughts on this: it seems to be another clear indication of police incompetence and tunnel vision - their expectation that crucial evidence will literally walk in the door is quite staggering. At least if they had gone to Raffaele's flat and found the shoes, they would be seen to have been doing their job (sort of).

Also, Fine is one of the commentators here who has most strongly argued for Raffaele's and Amanda's guilt - so why does he draw attention to the habitual short-cutting in all aspects of the investigation? Either he has had some kind of road-to-Damascus experience, or else he genuinely believes that Raff's shoes being wrongly identified with the murder prints in some way counts against him.

I can just hear the jibe: "4 days later, Raffaele was wearing shoes that almost matched the murder prints - what have you FOAKers got to say about that?"

 

[Kaosium]

Further thoughts on this: it seems to be another clear indication of police incompetence and tunnel vision - their expectation that crucial evidence will literally walk in the door is quite staggering. At least if they had gone to Raffaele's flat and found the shoes, they would be seen to have been doing their job (sort of).

Also, Fine is one of the commentators here who has most strongly argued for Raffaele's and Amanda's guilt - so why does he draw attention to the habitual short-cutting in all aspects of the investigation? Either he has had some kind of road-to-Damascus experience, or else he genuinely believes that Raff's shoes being wrongly identified with the murder prints in some way counts against him.

I can just hear the jibe: "4 days later, Raffaele was wearing shoes that almost matched the murder prints - what have you FOAKers got to say about that?"

I would disagree with that assessment, I wonder if perhaps you have Fine mixed up with someone else? Fine has said he contributed to Amanda Knox's defense, as she deserved a fair hearing on the charges against her. That might sound unbelievable to you, but the posts I've seen from Fine would suggest it not improbable. Whenever that Charles Muede article comes up I'm pretty sure it's Fine that won't pay it any mind, and has also stated that if the bra clasp and murder knife are thrown out would reevaluate his opinion. If there's anyone who believes in guilt and posts in their palace that would more fit the description of 'arguing in good faith' I can't think of who it might be other than Fine.

He seems to spend most of his posts interested in the myriad details of the case and coming up with interesting speculations about them. The only post I actually regret writing on this board--including the two that got me suspended due to the fiat clause of the MA--I wrote to Fine and felt bad because I intended it to be funny but it came off as mean-spirited upon re-reading.

At any rate, would it be so awful if someone who strongly had argued in favor of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt were to change their mind? I'd think that would be something those who've determined she's innocent would be most open to.

 

[RWVBWL]

Interesting event including Paul Ciolino, Candace Dempsey, Mark Waterbury, Steve Moore, and Michael Heavey.

A forum of forensic and scientific experts, and authors gathered at the James C. Pigott Pavilion on the Seattle University campus Monday afternoon, April 4 and spoke to an audience of about 120 about the innocence, in their view, of West Seattle-raised Amanda Knox, convicted of killing her roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy.

Here's the video (1h 51m)

It's a bit long, so I watched only Steve Moore's speach so far. He's a good speaker and had some informative slides. I think it's a good introduction to the forensic aspects of the case.

Thank you for providing the link.

Hi CoulsdonUK,
I just watched the link that Katody Mattrass posted above. I hope that you did too.

Do you now understand why some of us who believe in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox have to speak up about what we percieve to be an unjust, wrongful conviction in Perugia, Italy?

Most of us who post about about their innocence also feel for the immense suffering that the Kercher family has undergone with the loss of their beloved daughter and sister, Meredith Kercher...

Cordially, RW

 

[Antony]

I would disagree with that assessment, I wonder if perhaps you have Fine mixed up with someone else? Fine has said he contributed to Amanda Knox's defense, as she deserved a fair hearing on the charges against her. That might sound unbelievable to you, but the posts I've seen from Fine would suggest it not improbable.

I actually remember the post, but I didn't remember that it was Fine who made it.

Whenever that Charles Muede article comes up I'm pretty sure it's Fine that won't pay it any mind, and has also stated that if the bra clasp and murder knife are thrown out would reevaluate his opinion. If there's anyone who believes in guilt and posts in their palace that would more fit the description of 'arguing in good faith' I can't think of who it might be other than Fine.

He seems to spend most of his posts interested in the myriad details of the case and coming up with interesting speculations about them.

That's to be applauded, at least in comparison with the guilter posters who gloat over the unanimous jury verdict, or who urge us to "remember who the real victim of this crime was", but this was a curious detail to speculate about. Since we know that the shoes were not the ones that made the prints, it makes no difference that Raff was wearing them when he was arrested - apart from once again demonstrating the utterly superficial nature of the police investigation. Maybe Fine could post again and explain what point he was making.

The only post I actually regret writing on this board--including the two that got me suspended due to the fiat clause of the MA--I wrote to Fine and felt bad because I intended it to be funny but it came off as mean-spirited upon re-reading.

At any rate, would it be so awful if someone who strongly had argued in favor of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt were to change their mind? I'd think that would be something those who've determined she's innocent would be most open to.

Quite so, but I don't hold my breath. It's been abundantly clear from the beginning that the so-called evidence was not credible - so if someone thought Amanda and Raff were guilty at the time of the verdict, why should they change their minds now?

 

[Justinian2]

Hi CoulsdonUK,
I just watched the link that Katody Mattrass posted above. I hope that you did too.

Do you now understand why some of us who believe in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox have to speak up about what we percieve to be an unjust, wrongful conviction in Perugia, Italy?

Most of us who post about about their innocence also feel for the immense suffering that the Kercher family has undergone with the loss of their beloved daughter and sister, Meredith Kercher...

Cordially, RW

Amanda was framed for the death of Meredith Kercher. The death wasn't caused by Amanda or Raffaele. The problems of the families of Raffaele and Amanda are, however, slightly linked to John Kercher.

To juxtaposition the discussion of the death of Meredith to the discussion about Amanda is to Associate the death with Amanda. It is guilt by association, in lesser minds. Amanda had nothing to do with the death of Meredith.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I actually remember the post, but I didn't remember that it was Fine who made it.



That's to be applauded, at least in comparison with the guilter posters who gloat over the unanimous jury verdict, or who urge us to "remember who the real victim of this crime was", but this was a curious detail to speculate about. Since we know that the shoes were not the ones that made the prints, it makes no difference that Raff was wearing them when he was arrested - apart from once again demonstrating the utterly superficial nature of the police investigation. Maybe Fine could post again and explain what point he was making.



Quite so, but I don't hold my breath. It's been abundantly clear from the beginning that the so-called evidence was not credible - so if someone thought Amanda and Raff were guilty at the time of the verdict, why should they change their minds now?

Actually Antony, I'm pretty sure that Fine was simply pointing out another inaccuracy in Will Savive's book(ah, Will Savive).

At least, that's the way I took it.

 

[theRealBob]

Bob! Did you get banned for posting this innocuous filk at In Sessions? I notice it's not there anymore and I got an 'infraction' for my post laughing at it! It was a 'language' violation, and all I said was something to the effect of 'The Flying Pig Squad Anthem.' You don't have any bad words in yours either, what did they say was the reason for your ban?

Nice to see you again.

The administrator is and always has been a guilter over there.

I've been banned twice and signed in under a different username this time.

I must say though I genuinely am beginning to find this posting stuff increasingly boring. When I started doing it a long time ago, I wondered about their guilt but you could really slug it out with the nonsense Guilters come up with for the one or two posts you're allwed on something like PMF before they ban you.

Now it's all just trivial tripe because the truth is way too obvious.

They'll be out next month. Hellman had better destroy any hope the prosecution has of a third appeal by going after the bathmat footprint, early morning shopkeeper witness and the bleach, interrogation tapes, Raff's apartment smelling of bleach FIVE days later (when Amanda'a doesn't) Amanda smelling, Nara, hard drives, staged breakin, Filomena's testimony etc etc etc

The prosecution drivel that doesn't go anywhere should be slaughtered right her. Right now.

And most of the prosecution stars should get non-suspended jail terms.

Why do cops like framing people ?????????????????

 

[Kestrel]

Further thoughts on this: it seems to be another clear indication of police incompetence and tunnel vision - their expectation that crucial evidence will literally walk in the door is quite staggering. At least if they had gone to Raffaele's flat and found the shoes, they would be seen to have been doing their job (sort of).

Also, Fine is one of the commentators here who has most strongly argued for Raffaele's and Amanda's guilt - so why does he draw attention to the habitual short-cutting in all aspects of the investigation? Either he has had some kind of road-to-Damascus experience, or else he genuinely believes that Raff's shoes being wrongly identified with the murder prints in some way counts against him.

I can just hear the jibe: "4 days later, Raffaele was wearing shoes that almost matched the murder prints - what have you FOAKers got to say about that?"

The shoe prints show the Perugia investigators are simply dishonest. The mismatch between the crime scene footprints and Raffaele's shoes was bad enough to be obvious to a layperson. The so called expert was simply saying what the prosecutor wanted. Doing his part to assure a conviction regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

 

[Fine]

There is a number 6) at the top right corner of that page.

It could be that it is page six of the Knox declaration that was thrown out by the Supreme Court.

_______________

Piktor,

Nope. Page 5 (top right corner) contains Amanda's Declaration of 1:45 am.

See: HERE

///

 

[tsig]

delete

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Hi CoulsdonUK,
I just watched the link that Katody Mattrass posted above. I hope that you did too.

Do you now understand why some of us who believe in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox have to speak up about what we percieve to be an unjust, wrongful conviction in Perugia, Italy?

Most of us who post about about their innocence also feel for the immense suffering that the Kercher family has undergone with the loss of their beloved daughter and sister, Meredith Kercher...

Cordially, RW

I have watched about an hour or so. I would have found the event (forum?) far more interesting if it had been structured as a debate with speakers presenting their opinions from either side of the case with a Q & A, I guess given just how polarised this case has become that would have been difficult to arrange. I have read most of the comments of the speakers over the years so I wouldn’t say I learnt anything new.

I believe Meredith Kercher and her family’s suffering don’t sell newspapers nor make for interesting lead items on TV news either, so they are largely forgotten in the public minds; I am not suggesting that this is unique just an aspect of our 24/7 global media.

I have no idea what the verdict of the appeal will be; no doubt people will retain their strong beliefs of culpability or innocence regardless.

 

[Dan O.]

I believe Meredith Kercher and her family’s suffering don’t sell newspapers nor make for interesting lead items on TV news either, so they are largely forgotten in the public minds; I am not suggesting that this is unique just an aspect of our 24/7 global media.

So are you saying that we should try and get the cameras in the face of Meredith's family and expose how they are suffering 24/7? Doesn't their come a time that the family should be left alone?

 

[Fuji]

They'll be out next month.

No, they won't. Knox and Sollecito will remain in prison for many years to come.

 

[Kestrel]

No, they won't. Knox and Sollecito will remain in prison for many years to come.

That certainly could happen. Tim Masters was in prison for years for a crime he did not commit, the same could happen to AK and RS.

 

[Fuji]

That certainly could happen. Tim Masters was in prison for years for a crime he did not commit, the same could happen to AK and RS.

Well, sure it could, but first they have to complete the prison sentences for the crimes they did commit.