• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks LondonJohn. I apologize for not reading through the posts more thoroughly. You have it exactly right.

The thing that concerns me with this issue is that the blame for these photo's is now being put on Frank. Somehow the story elsewhere is that Frank was in charge of the sisters and allegedly allowed them to be photographed which is a decision he now supposedly deeply regrets. I am unable to find where these details are mentioned or a comment Frank posted about this.

What brought this on was a comment from SB that was made about Frank that I questioned at Maundy's blog:

“Finally, I got to thinking about Frank’s reply to the poster who expressed dismay over the age of consent in Italy and then dismay over his reply. Let’s not forget that it was Frank who chaperoned the younger Knox sisters the day they were photographed in short shorts and halter tops in front of the cottage where Meredith Kercher was murdered.”
 
What is the washing machine rubbish?

S*** I thought I'd gone for the day.

I can't remember exactly if Filomena said either the washing machine with Meredith's clothes in it was still going and warm, or just warm.

I think she said still running and warm.

Washing machines do not ever get warm.

Anyway that really is it for now and this time I really am going to slip out for a quick cartwheel or two...
 
Last edited:
The thing that concerns me with this issue is that the blame for these photo's is now being put on Frank. Somehow the story elsewhere is that Frank was in charge of the sisters and allegedly allowed them to be photographed which is a decision he now supposedly deeply regrets. I am unable to find where these details are mentioned or a comment Frank posted about this.

What brought this on was a comment from SB that was made about Frank that I questioned at Maundy's blog:

I am surprised that the girl's outfits have caused such a reaction. The girls are dressed in normal clothing for girls of that age in the United States. As far as who authorized the photos, I would have to ask Frank and the family about that.

I still question why a group dedicated to Meredith Kercher would have any reason to post any photos of Amanda's youngest sisters. There are many photos that have been "published" so that simple fact isn't really a sufficient reason.
 
Hi everyone....virgin poster here. I’ve been reading for a while and finally somewhat caught up ...well actually I skipped a lot...but here I am anyway. I'll try to limit my first post to offending only a few countries and I promise to keep my slanders limited to a few prosecutors, judges, and police departments.

With that qualified, I like this site ...well at least this thread...I post on other sites as RandyN which is 1/2 my actual name and even the N is correct so that's like what 1/2 plus a 1/4.

I recently have been banned from PMF but under another, not real at all, name. I wear that banning as a badge of decency and intelligence. I hope there is spell check here somewhere and that I can figure out how to turn it on soon. I am American ...so in other word I am overweight, wear shorts, and spartacus left out the famous socks with sandals stereotype.

I like the arguments here and I mention that because on that PMF site I mentioned; there were a few braggarts ...stillicho, machine, bard, SB...etc always offering to debate anything, anywhere. I said forget debate...lets talk facts...

I see here that they jump in and out of the conversation ...usually with one or two line gems such as ...oh yea? Prove it, no way...etc...

A couple of you guys and girls here belong on the defense team.

As for me...I’m not on any fence here. I think Mignini is a criminal, Massei is an idiot, and Ossama is probably really dead.

halides1 said...

"Didn't the judges ultimately reject the theft but still convict on the charge of faking the burglary? I share your amazement that they were even charged."

Yes, actually this was the lone standout in Massei ...he did reject the theft. But then he added time for bringing a knife to an unpremeditated murder...so go figure.

What I found really interesting is an interview Mignini gave to Oggi where he says he “knows” Rudy had his hand in Meredith’s purse. I just wonder why he felt the need to charge AK,RS with the theft after he knew who’s hand was in the purse??? And I wonder why Rudy was never charged with theft if Mignini "knew" Rudy has his hand inside that purse? I don’t actually wonder....but I’m thinking these are important issues that a real judge might want to know when investigating further abuse of office charges against a already criminal prosecutor....Did I state I was not all that straddled on the "fence"?

It's not that I don’t have lots of questions... Id like to know what the heck RS was doing awake at 6 AM on the 2nd. or why cats blood is on a light switch downstairs or why didn’t Filomena call the police since she was the native speaker...and BTW...she said the washer was hot...as if it had just finished. Her memory about shutters is as obvious as her housekeeping skills.

Personally I’m moving more towards that a 9lb rock was launched from the low wall...thru the window...into the white shutter ...which banged into the open closet door and shook it enough to spill the overstuffed top shelf of a few sweaters. Its possible Rudy was never in Filomena’s room. If its good enough to prosecute that way, it should be good enough to defend that way.

The issue "reported" by Nick Pisa in the British rag about AK sisters is typical of the trash he writes. In retrospect I’m sure everybody except the guilters feels the "photo op" was a mistake....who ya gonna blame? These are teenagers and younger. Frank is taking some heat...maybe he deserves it on this one if he was in charge. But it is from 2009. What about the million other wrong things a reporter could write about. Police corruption for example, or maybe police brutality, or police stupidity...all relevant issues still in this case.

Finally, I wonder why AK,RS lawyers didn’t parade a long list of examples of people free on bail while awaiting and undergoing murder charges? According to Frank this is very common in Italy. Being held w/o bond is almost unheard of. 3 1/2 years now and they need more time to review the DNA???? WTF? Are ya allowed to say WTF on here?

Now I’m going to retreat and do some cartwheels....
 
I have like a lot of people here, why did the police not look for glass under filomena window to prove their case of a stage break in.
Even now all they have got to do is take a spade and dig up the part of the graden under Filomena window and match the glass to the broken window, but they have not.
Or is it thay know from the out start there was no stage break in.
If so Amanda was telling the truth, and this case was full of bull from the start which in my mind should have never gone to court.
I think that judge Massei also thinks that AK and RS has been railroad with out real facts? That why the report is so full of holes so that the lawyers that are defending AK and RS have a lot to work with for the apeal.
Now about the dress of Amanda in court, it seems to me that Mignini wanted at the start to make AK and RS look like a happy free, do not give a dam students, remember that the dress is the first thing that projects a person personality, ask any person who makes big films.
I am sure that both sets of parents would like AK and RS in smart suits for the court, due to the fact that this was a murder trail.
But it was in Mignini favour for this case to make them look like hippys.
I would like to point out like many have done before me that Mignini can break any one and if you are trying to be a lawyer then you dance the beat that Mignini plays, do remember that its Mignini who picks the firms that will work with crime cases in Perugia.
Therefore Filomena was in a catch 22, do has I say not what I do.
 
S*** I thought I'd gone for the day.

I can't remember exactly if Filomena said either the washing machine with Meredith's clothes in it was still going and warm, or just warm.

I think she said still running and warm.

Washing machines do not ever get warm.

Anyway that really is it for now and this time I really am going to slip out for a quick cartwheel or two...

2 things. Washing machines do get warm if you wash with hot water. Washing machines also get warm when the machine is a washer/dryer combo.
 
snook1,

Didn't the judges ultimately reject the theft but still convict on the charge of faking the burglary? I share your amazement that they were even charged.

Guilty on all counts - that's what I've heard, but to be honest, I didn't check it properly. Nonetheless, charging them was incredible, while there are Guede's traces everywhere in the room. It's simply amazing.

They concluded that Knox and Sollecito killed ms. Kercher without leaving their DNA or any other traces in the room and they didn't convict Guede of theft while there's his DNA on her bag...That's at least, weird.

I just can't get over this.

This and so many other things that happend with that investigation and trial.
 
Chirs C
Yes you do make a good point there.
But the body of Meredith was not found untill the morning of the murder date.
The only way for Filomena to say that the washing machine was still warm, was that she let supper crook Rudy in the night before or just after the washing machine had just finnish.
This would place her at the time which the crime took place, in the building.
This would of not helped Mignini with his case to prove the murder of Meredith on AF or RS
Or If she went back to the building after Amanda called her, you can bet your boots or whatever? That washing machine was stone cold.
Just saying
:)
 
@RandyN

It's always better to leave PMF on your own, then to get banned. That way it's easier to play this game, that they started...But it's not that easy, since everyone ends up being banned when he or she don't approve of what the general consensus down there suggests.

They're lost, angry, filled with hate, delusional, mostly old people that don't have anything better to do than to stalk Knox's family, hate Amanda and Raffaele, mock their parents and post pictures of bunny rabbits. They're also spamming all over the internet, they use "copy and paste" all the time. When there's a comments section, they're there.
 
the photographer was at fault also

I am surprised that the girl's outfits have caused such a reaction. The girls are dressed in normal clothing for girls of that age in the United States. As far as who authorized the photos, I would have to ask Frank and the family about that.

I still question why a group dedicated to Meredith Kercher would have any reason to post any photos of Amanda's youngest sisters. There are many photos that have been "published" so that simple fact isn't really a sufficient reason.
Bruce Fisher,

I think that the photographer who asked for the picture and the person who wrote the headline deserve most of the blame. They are professional people, and they either knew exactly how it would look, or they should have known. Even if Frank were their chaperone, he would have not been in an ideal position to prevent the photo's being taken. And as I noted before, the girls are not smiling. If anyone makes a tempest out of this teapot, it says more about him or her than about the family. MOO.
 
Bruce Fisher,

I think that the photographer who asked for the picture and the person who wrote the headline deserve most of the blame. They are professional people, and they either knew exactly how it would look, or they should have known. Even if Frank were their chaperone, he would have not been in an ideal position to prevent the photo's being taken. And as I noted before, the girls are not smiling. If anyone makes a tempest out of this teapot, it says more about him or her than about the family. MOO.

Perusing that article it was pretty clear to me who wanted to see the most tempest in that teapot, a man known as Maresca. I still have not heard a decent thing about the man, outside Rose's damning him with faint praise by saying he's probably the most talented lawyer involved in the case.
 
Finally, I wonder why AK,RS lawyers didn’t parade a long list of examples of people free on bail while awaiting and undergoing murder charges? According to Frank this is very common in Italy. Being held w/o bond is almost unheard of. 3 1/2 years now and they need more time to review the DNA???? WTF? Are ya allowed to say WTF on here?

Now I’m going to retreat and do some cartwheels....

Welcome to JREF, Randy! :)

You can say 'WTF' but don't try bypassing the auto-censor with asterisks. James Randi apparently had a fit about that once and laid down the law. As for their being held, it was because Amanda was deemed a 'flight risk' and Raffaele had a 'network' available to him, the latter according to Machiavelli who was concerned with the number of Freemasons associated with Raffaele's father.

My guess on why they thought Amanda a 'flight risk' is not as much that she'd murder again, but because they could not take the chance of a foreign court reviewing the 'evidence' against her (or Raffaele) in an extradition proceeding. They'd never hand them over, even fellow EU members or NATO allies. Look up 'Run Bambi Run!' for an example of Canada not extraditing (without conditions) a convicted murderess to the US under somewhat similar conditions.
 
snook1,

Didn't the judges ultimately reject the theft but still convict on the charge of faking the burglary? I share your amazement that they were even charged.
______________________


Halides,

The news report you cited is wrong. The lovebirds were convicted of stealing Meredith's two cell phones. They were acquitted on the other theft charges.
See: Massei Report (English Translation), CONCLUSIONS, page 388.

///
 
Lord of the Flies

pilot padron,

I see that the theory that Amanda stole Meredith’s money is a little bit like the beast in the novel “Lord of the Flies,” something that is dead but will not lie down. Let’s start with bank accounts. A commenter elsewhere (and member here) disparages the notion that Edda had a bank account with reserve funds for Amanda, calling it “hearsay” and basically calling Edda a liar. Yet this same commenter is willing to take the figures that show that Amanda deposited more money than she had withdrawn those numbers had to come (via Charlie Wilkes) ultimately from either from Edda or some other member of the family, at least one of whom this supposed skeptic also disparages. In other words this commenter chooses the facts that he or she wishes to believe and ignores the ones he or she does not, even when they might be coming from the same source. This person offers, unsupported, a comment that Amanda was spending her money at a “furious clip,” yet ignores the possibility that Amanda was merely depositing her salary in the days after the murder.

The first commenter said “No word from Amanda that she had more money available [in Seattle].” If Amanda were to say so tomorrow, would this commenter accept it as fact? This person and another commenter thought it would be easier for Amanda to steal from Meredith than to explain to her parents that she needed money. Has no parent in the history of the world heard from their college-age children that they needed money? This line of thinking is risible.

This commenter has decided to accept Patrick’s statement that he was going to fire Amanda. That Patrick was actually thinking this as of the morning of 5 November 2007 does not square with the fact that this is the day on which Amanda said to Patrick that she would have to quit. In other words, Amanda did not have any reason to suspect that she would be fired (even taking Patrick's words at face value). Moreover, the first commenter has decided on the basis of a careful consideration of the job situation in Perugia, that Amanda could not get another job. This despite a strong recommendation from at least one Seattle employer. Nor does this commenter bother to explain why Amanda would quit her job if her money situation were so desparate.

This commenter continues his or her line of analysis with “Mez calling Amanda a drugged up whore? True.” This is pure fiction, and it is reminiscent of PM Mignini’s ignoble closing remarks. Can this person or anyone else explain what evidence there is of Meredith’s saying this? I won’t hold my breath waiting. What this whole episode demonstrates is feckless thinking on the part of the people who wish to conjure up evidence of Amanda’s guilt in a theft, when the facts point straight toward Rudi.
 
Last edited:
What this whole episode demonstrates is feckless and irrational thinking on the part of the people who wish to conjure up evidence of Amanda’s guilt in a theft, when the facts point straight toward Rudi.

Nice analysis, all I can say is at least someone's working on a motive. :p

What evidence is there it might have been Rudy?

Bloody traces on the purse.

He needed money as he was facing eviction

He had a previous history of theft

He murdered the owner of it

He somehow got to Germany and survived for a couple weeks despite being previously destitute

Yet somehow the Italian Courts cleared him on this. I suppose they figure they must leave this open so it's possible Amanda and/or Raffaele did it. I don't think I will ever understand the logic of the Italian Courts. They charged Amanda with 'transporting' a weapon in her purse, and I just read they charged them with 'stealing' Meredith's phones, yet they wouldn't convict Rudy Guede of stealing the cash because Amanda and/or Raffaele might have done it!
 
Last edited:
Doesn't this assume that a burglar would be constrained to escaping up to the street? I'm not sure that the patch of woods surrounding all but the street side of the house is impassable.

Even if this were to be a consideration I can't understand why the cul de sac below Filomena's window would be any more attractive, not least because, aside from those woods, it leads only to the very same "narrow exit passageway".

It seems disingenuous to me to gloss over the fact that the burglars who broke in after the murder chose to do so through the kitchen window from the balcony. If I were to look at the photos I have seen of that house without any knowledge of the events which took place there and was asked to pick the likeliest point of entry for a B & E thief, that kitchen window would be on the top of my list as well.
Hi Quadraginta,
I would think that if someone was to try and stage a break-in, they too would pick what would be the likeliest point of entry for a B & E thief.

So why would someone, trying to think like a thief,
then go and break the much harder to gain entry window in Filomena's bedroom to stage a break-in instead of breaking the kitchen window?
 
Last edited:
Hi Quadraginta,
I would think that if someone was to try and stage a break-in, they too would pick what would be the likeliest point of entry for a B & E thief.

So why would someone, trying to think like a thief,
then go and break the much harder to gain entry window in Filomena's bedroom to stage a break-in instead of breaking the kitchen window?


One hypothesis which has been offered is that Filomena's room, since it was the only one which was, A: remotely accessible from the ground, B: unbarred, and C: the only one which satisfied both A and B and was also not in a common area that would be difficult to plausibly claim went unnoticed the next morning.

Another might be that while perhaps trying to think like a thief, if indeed they actually were, they weren't particularly good at it. Most people aren't. The ones that are are either B & E thieves themselves (who often aren't all that expert themselves), professionals in the construction industry who design or build to discourage such attempts (generally the best at this), and LE officers who get to see the results of such efforts. Along with insurance adjusters they're the ones who have the most experience discerning between real and bogus scenes.
 
Hi Quadraginta,
I would think that if someone was to try and stage a break-in, they too would pick what would be the likeliest point of entry for a B & E thief.

So why would someone, trying to think like a thief,
then go and break the much harder to gain entry window in Filomena's bedroom to stage a break-in instead of breaking the kitchen window?


This raises an interesting point. If Knox and Sollecito had staged the break-in, their choice of window is even more perplexing than it first seems. In their staging, their main concerns would have been, in order, a) to make it look real and convincing; and b) to avoid being observed while they carried out the staging. Now, Filomena's window meets the first criterion, but - when set against the rear kitchen - it definitely doesn't meet the second one.

And before anyone points out something along the lines of "But surely a real burglar would have had the concern about not being seen as well", I'd argue that a real burglar would have had an additional criterion that wasn't important at all to anyone staging the break-in from inside the cottage: it must be easy and quick to escape the scene if anyone inside or outside the cottage hears/sees the break-in.

I'd argue that for a real burglar, this additional criterion might make it well worth sacrificing the additional potential visibility of breaking in through Filomena's window (as opposed to the rear kitchen window), in order to have a quicker, faster escape route if disturbed. And incidentally, in this regard quadraginta was incorrect when he said that the same bottleneck problem applied to the area below Filomena's window as to the rear of the cottage:

Even if this were to be a consideration I can't understand why the cul de sac below Filomena's window would be any more attractive, not least because, aside from those woods, it leads only to the very same "narrow exit passageway".

He is incorrectly assuming that the bottleneck to which I was referring is the driveway from the main road down to the cottage's front door. In fact, I'm referring to the increasingly narrow (down to one person's width) passageway along the side of the house - past the large bathroom window and Laura's room - which has the cottage wall on one side and the retaining wall of the main road on the other. It would be impossible to pass someone on the narrow part of this passageway without coming into physical contact with them, whereas the driveway has enough width for someone fit fast (e.g. Guede....) to evade contact. Plus, of course, an escape from the rear of the house to the main road would take another 10-15 seconds longer to accomplish than an escape from below Filomena's window, owing to the extra distance involved.

In short, Filomena's window seems like a reasonable window for a real burglar to choose, considering a burglar's important criteria. However, it doesn't seem like a reasonable window for someone staging a break-in from inside the cottage to choose, considering the different criteria that apply in this case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom