Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I must say that I've waffled back and forth but I'm very convinced at this point that Amanda and Raf are innocent. Interesting thread though.
 
Fine said:
________________

Amanda does mention it in her testimony. She said she saw in on the floor.

In her email Amanda was confusing the laptop computer with the camera. Both owned by Filomena.

///
Click to expand...


Fine,

Can you please post the passage for me? Does she say it was on the floor in the laptop bag or out of it?
 
Draca said:
Fine,

Can you please post the passage for me? Does she say it was on the floor in the laptop bag or out of it?
Click to expand...

______________

Draca,

I'm going on my recollection. As I recall, even in her testimony she briefly confuses the camera with the computer. I'll look.

///
 
Here's Amanda's statement...

AK: I didn't see the rock. I saw that there was the computer on the tab-- No!
The camera was on the table. I saw that the things were still there. I
didn't see the rock.

///
 
Fine said:
Here's Amanda's statement...

AK: I didn't see the rock. I saw that there was the computer on the tab-- No!
The camera was on the table. I saw that the things were still there. I
didn't see the rock.

///
Click to expand...


Thanks Fine, that clarifies her email. She meant the camera was on the desk as always instead of the laptop.

And the laptop?
 
Last edited:
cumulative

NewtonTrino said:
I must say that I've waffled back and forth but I'm very convinced at this point that Amanda and Raf are innocent. Interesting thread though.
Click to expand...
NewtonTrino,

Good to hear from you. I think that you, lionking, and Matthew Best are the only three people from the first page* of the original thread who are still commenting. May I ask whether or not there was a particular piece of evidence that had an especially strong impression or more of a cumulative effect?
*kestrel commented on page 2, however.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
Thanks Fine, that clarifies her email. She meant the camera was on the desk as always instead of the laptop.

And the laptop?
Click to expand...
__________________

I apologize. Amanda didn't say explicitly that she saw the laptop on the floor. I interpreted her self-correction as implying that if it wasn't on the table it was on the floor. In principle she could have seen the computer somewhere else.

///
 
Fine said:
__________________

I apologize. Amanda didn't say explicitly that she saw the laptop on the floor. I interpreted her self-correction as implying that if it wasn't on the table it was on the floor. In principle she could have seen the computer somewhere else.

///
Click to expand...


Thanks Fine,

Filomena said the laptop was on the floor inside the laptop bag. I see no reason not to believe that. Camera uncovered on desk; laptop inside laptop bag on floor.


I found this Amanda Knox court testimony also:

AK: I was perplexed, because... First I thought "Oh, a robbery", but then
I didn't understand, because nothing had been taken from the house, at
least--there was a mess in the room, but the computer was there, all the
things, the things of value, and Laura's room was perfectly clean, and mine
was as if no one had touched anything, so for me I didn't understand these
things.
 
Last edited:
Chris C said:
Did anyone ask Filomena if she always left her computer on her desk?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but wouldn't think so since she said she remembered leaving the laptop standing upright in the laptop bag on the floor.
 
I have not read the thread and Ive only read a few articles on this case but I simply cannot understand how AN can be convicted in this case - unless the western justice system is fundamentally flawed. To be guilty she has to be 97-98% certain of being deeply involved in the murder. Theres no way you can be that sure that she was involved to that extant and I would say that you cant even be sure on the balance of probability that she was involved on the periphery. My guess is that she did have some involvement on the periphery but its just a guess and if she did I dont think she thought it would end up with a murder.
 
christianahannah said:
Would this be the computer bag (looks like it is Burberry - not sure though) in this photo rather than the Gucci bag located next to the wall? I'm not sure of the dimensions of either bag since perspective can be deceiving in photos.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=3172
Click to expand...


It could be. It is in the middle of the room; perhaps Filomena left it there after taking the laptop out of it. I thought the one by the window looked more like a laptop bag, but it could be either of them.




 
Last edited:
When I just looked at how clean Laura's desk was when compared to Filomena's and also the photograph that Christianahannah posted thru the PMF link, well it sure looks like Filomena was messy. Her desk is very cluttered and unorganised and it looks as if she has too much personal stuff, she doesn't even have room to place her laptop, unlike Laura. No wonder Rudy didn't steal her camera, the guy probably didn't even see it with all of the mess on her desk. Lucky her. Anyone know if the cops fried Filomena's camera or her CF/ SDHC card like they did with the computers?
 
simper said:
I have not read the thread and Ive only read a few articles on this case but I simply cannot understand how AN can be convicted in this case
Click to expand...

From the initial evidence I can see how it would be quite easy to convict.

  • Confession of being in the house at the time of the murder, despite initial claims of being at Rafaelle's home.
  • Witness saw her and Rafaelle outside the cottage when they claimed they were at Rafaelle's home.
  • Claiming they ate dinner late, about 11pm, then having Rafaelle's father say that they ate about 8pm.
  • Claiming that they were alseep when the computer shows activity on it.
  • Her DNA on the handle of a knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade.
  • Her blood mixed with Meredith's in the Bathroom.
  • Her footprints made in blood leading from Meredith's bedroom.
  • Meredith's blood in Filomena's room
  • Faked entry meaning the offender had to have access to cottage.
  • Filomena's room being trashed before the window was broken.
  • Rafaelle's DNA on the bra clip.
  • AK accusing an innocent man of the crime to try and throw police off.

Pretty close to an open and shut case, if the evidence had stood up under pressure. Problem is that it doesn't seem to do so, and there is blatently obvious evidence that completely disagrees with the prosecution's case and timeline.

unless the western justice system is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

There is no such things as "the western justice system" as each western country has a system of their own with its own issues. The Italian system does seem to have more serious problems than most if not all other western systems.

To be guilty she has to be 97-98% certain of being deeply involved in the murder.
Click to expand...

No, she has to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Theres no way you can be that sure that she was involved to that extant and I would say that you cant even be sure on the balance of probability that she was involved on the periphery. My guess is that she did have some involvement on the periphery but its just a guess and if she did I dont think she thought it would end up with a murder.
Click to expand...

Really there are only two senarios, either she was majorily involved by letting the killer in and then at least cleaning up afterwards and staging the break in, or she wasn't involved at all and wasn't even there at the time. Trying to concoct a theory where she was involved only on the periphery leads to major issues and twisting oneself into more knots than the Prosecution's theory requires.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
It could be. It is in the middle of the room; perhaps Filomena left it there after taking the laptop out of it. I thought the one by the window looked more like a laptop bag, but it could be either of them.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664dc8c2872d9ee.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664dc8c33c70f0c.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I don't think either of those bags looks like a laptop bag. The one with the Burberry pattern is definitely far too small to hold a laptop, and the one with the Gucci pattern looks like a general large handbag (purse). Of course, it's possible that Filomena used this Gucci bag to carry her laptop, but it would (in my view) be strange to describe this bag as a "laptop case". Normally, this would mean a specific bag designed to contain the laptop - often, but not always, with the laptop manufacturer's logo on it. Otherwise, I'd have though that the most logical way to describe the Gucci bag (if it did indeed contain the computer) would be along the lines of "the bag that I used to carry the laptop" or something similar, rather than "the laptop case".
 
katy_did said:
+1, and I'm glad I'm not the only one on this 'side of the fence' to feel that way about it.
Click to expand...


As it happens, I'm also not keen on this sort of exposition of people's characters when the allegations are totally unconnected to the case. My original comment was intended to be a general one about what constitutes libel, as many aspects of this case (and the commentary about it) have had the word "libel" bandied around. I specifically didn't want to repeat the allegations that were made by Bruce Fisher, nor those made by others against Knox, Sollecito or Mignini, which were the subject of the libel discussions. My point was that if people feel they have been libelled (on any matter), there is a good legal recourse. If action is taken, it's incumbent on those who made the allegations to prove them, and it's incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the allegations were injurious to his/her reputation. By-the-by, I also highly recommend bringing any action in the UK - our libel laws are easily the most beneficial to the plaintiff, even if damages might be less.
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't think either of those bags looks like a laptop bag. The one with the Burberry pattern is definitely far too small to hold a laptop, and the one with the Gucci pattern looks like a general large handbag (purse). Of course, it's possible that Filomena used this Gucci bag to carry her laptop, but it would (in my view) be strange to describe this bag as a "laptop case". Normally, this would mean a specific bag designed to contain the laptop - often, but not always, with the laptop manufacturer's logo on it. Otherwise, I'd have though that the most logical way to describe the Gucci bag (if it did indeed contain the computer) would be along the lines of "the bag that I used to carry the laptop" or something similar, rather than "the laptop case".
Click to expand...

Exactly. Filomena kept her computer in a laptop case that she left upright on the floor and found it toppled IIRC. When she retrieved it from the scene it was still in it. She took it together with the case and all the accessories.
 
Chris C said:
I have wondered whether or not Knox didn't get confused when writing that email and meant Laura's computer. Afterall she did check the house and Laura's computer was sitting on her desk.
Click to expand...

Naah, it was clearly a preplanned lie with an obvious purpose to throw the brave detectives off the track.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom