Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

Let's see who can follow the ins and outs of a criminal trial. Read up and let me know whether that trial found her innocent or guilty.

That may be your way of indicating that you've followed the ins and outs of the case, but it's a rather poor one. So no surprise there!

 

[Matthew Best]

Why don't you try to debate with arguments instead of using insults?

I know the answer to that one!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lothian please prove your point with real facts that AK and RS killed Meredith.
At my last post there was nothing to point AK and RS had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith.
My last post was to point out, "that the police force broke every rule in good policeman work", which has tar the hole POLICE FORCE in Italy.
I am sure that there are very good policemen/women in Italy, Would I go back to visit Italy, Yes.
If you cannot prove your point please phone ET, I am sure he tell you to ring home

A court of law thought there was something to point that AK "had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith".

 

[RoseMontague]

My inexcusable error.
Sincerely sorry

Just as way of explanation and not excuse, I saw this that you posted earlier and mis-read

Originally Posted by halides1 View Post
RoseMontague,
Anonymous commenter Zorba wrote,

As I type, reading Rose's last post may I strongly agree that sometimes use of an 'anonymous' style name can indeed be detrimental.
The most recent I can think of is that I feel the criticism here of Kermit for not using a real person signature to his lengthy letter on TJMK was very valid.

*Per chance* had Kermit added authenticity to his well chosen words and heartfelt feelings, he may have received more than the 'standard bug letter' insult s/he got as a 'reply'

Good point. Perhaps I can say that sometimes the choice of what pen name to use can make a difference in how that post is viewed, similar to the choice of what clothes to wear in court as an analogy.

 

[Dan O.]

i thought they recorded knox & her mom talking about this phone call and knox saying to her mom she couldnt remember it. Her mom then offered her excuses like stress etc?

be interesting to see the computer evidence but i'm not buying someone cant remember what they were doing.

If your memory is so perfect, why can't you remember the details of this case?


Way back in an earlier thread, I questioned why was Amanda's mother asking Amanda about "a phone call at noon, before anything happened". The phone records show definitively that Amanda's first call to her mother was at 12:47 , minutes before the police were called. Anybody with two neurons to rub together would know that Amanda's mother was either confused or had been fed inaccurate information and that this question of the phone call at noon was irrelevant. So why did Comodi bring it up in the trial?!

That you still believe in the phone call at noon being indicative of guilt even after being able to research the facts shows how powerful this kind of insinuation is.

 

[yeti101]

If your memory is so perfect, why can't you remember the details of this case?


Way back in an earlier thread, I questioned why was Amanda's mother asking Amanda about "a phone call at noon, before anything happened". The phone records show definitively that Amanda's first call to her mother was at 12:47 , minutes before the police were called. Anybody with two neurons to rub together would know that Amanda's mother was either confused or had been fed inaccurate information and that this question of the phone call at noon was irrelevant. So why did Comodi bring it up in the trial?!

That you still believe in the phone call at noon being indicative of guilt even after being able to research the facts shows how powerful this kind of insinuation is.

but the police/prosecuter never said there were 2 phone calls to her mom did they?

 

[Fuji]

The completely inadequate police testimony and evidence listed in Massei, and the total absence in either Massei or any court reports of any evidence of a proper police search of the ground, any detailed photos of the ground, or any sifting of the earth. Other than that, pure conjecture

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Fuji]

Interesting you should ask this because just last night I was going through hundreds of pictures and I came across one of ILE kneeling down inspecting what looks like the front patio of the cottage. There were about 4 people looking at an evidence marker and one of them had a big camera.

This made me realize that they did look closely at certain parts of the outside area and obviously photographed specific areas.

Indeed. I could also refer you to page 50 of the translated Massei report to corroborate your understanding:

"On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci [police photographer] mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall... underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci)."

Why are there no photos of the area under Filomena's window?

This is an excellent question.

In fact the only photo I have ever seen is one of several officials standing around on the area in question... smoking.

This fact is also telling you something.

Do you have any photos of the outside area under Filomena's window?

No, why would I? Or, more pointedly, how would I?

It truly seems to me if one of the main aspects of the case of proving a staged break-in was the lack of glass in this particular area there should certainly be 1) photos to support this assertion and 2) no photos of ILE mulling around and flicking ashes onto such a highly evidential area.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

[Fuji]

Yes...what he said...

I have been admonished by this site for some links I have used in the past and am therefore gun shy...or link shy as it were...


But I will add this from Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry...

"The early posturing of the break-in as a staged situation without a rigorous investigation and sound factual evidence to back it up resulted in the murder investigation being turned upside down from the beginning. The threshold for proving it was other than a burglary break-in as it outwardly appeared should have been very high. Instead the threshold for proving it was a burglary break-in was set very high and seriously handicapped by the failure of the police to perform due diligence in promptly investigating and fully documenting the inside and outside areas as a break-in."

Which comes from Ron Hendry's professional analysis of all available evidence which is comprehensively explained here...

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

I am familiar with Hendry's musings. He also states:



"3. Lack of physical evidence of the intruder on the ground or wall considering that it had recently rained...

It is not known how rigorous the effort was to find evidence of an intruder on the ground below Filomena’s window or climbing the wall...

What is noticeable missing from the police crime scene documentation evidence are closeup photos of the wall and grounds documenting their condition before alteration by non police persons such as Filomena Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli who reportedly walked around under the window to perform their own inspection."




If accuracy were a major consideration for Hendry, he would have stipulated in the second sentence quoted above, "It is not known to me...", and in the third sentence he would have said, "... missing from the police crime scene documentation evidence which I have received...".

If Hendry had been retained by the defense and had then raised these concerns, they would indeed be troubling. But he wasn't, so they aren't.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Er, what did Pilot just say?

He's gracelessly backing out from what he wrote before:

Let's not use innuendo, but instead use the 'recorded' words of an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory 'best truths that she can think of'​

pilot realized too late that by mentioning recorded words he just proposed discussing actual facts of the case, which as we know are not on his side
Kaosium proposed him a fair exchange but pilot knows he already lost. Guys he chosen to side with gave just too many cold blooded and calculated erroneous and contradictory claims in this case. So he quickly ran back to his last refuge - useless sophistry and semantics, where he can pretend he's scoring points.

 

[spartacus]

Precisely what do you mean by unsubstantiated?

Not trying to pick a fight it just would be good to have a scan of the original rather than a translation and also to know where it came from - but I guess the source doesn't want to be revealed - I also want to know e.g. Are the quotes fro Drew Griffin direct?

 

[babycondor]

Kudzu

For me that is an important question. There is constant talk about lies, but if I have to presume her guilt for the lies to work as lies, it doesn't count as evidence in my eyes, because it is circular reasoning …

You have put your finger on the very root of the problem for those who cling to their belief in Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. They begin from a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. Like the invasive kudzu vine, this erroneous starting point is almost impossible to eradicate once it takes hold in the mind of the True Believer.

 

[zeb]

And just for Lothian just to make your day.



Now prove your point, that Amanda was at the place of the time of the murder.

If not, ring home, ET waiting.

I say again Prove your point.

 

[bri1]

A court of law thought there was something to point that AK "had killed, or had anything to do with the Murder of Meredith".

This is a ridiculous argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

You must be

 

[DrDave]

This is a ridiculous argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

You must be

This is a ridiculous argument - you know why that page is significant? Because all the other cases not on the page can be assumed to be fine and therefore it's unusual for the court system to get it wrong

 

[Kestrel]

This is a ridiculous argument - you know why that page is significant? Because all the other cases not on the page can be assumed to be fine and therefore it's unusual for the court system to get it wrong

Why don't we look at similar cases? Can you dig up a list of rape and murder cases instigated by a woman with no history of violence due to the influence of marijuana and comic books?

 

[DrDave]

Why don't we look at similar cases? Can you dig up a list of rape and murder cases instigated by a woman with no history of violence due to the influence of marijuana and comic books?

Why don't we look at the percentage of court cases which turned out to be a mistrial - the claim seemed to be that since some vanishingly small percentage of cases turn out to be a miscarriage of justice that Amanda Knox is therefore innocent.

 

[yeti101]

i think the final nail in knoxs hopes of getting away with it came from her performances in court. Have you watched any of that? Its terrible. Probably the most unconvincing testimony ive seen. On trial for murder with 8+ months to think about her side of the story and she comes out with a performance like that?

seriously nobody watching that can tell me they think thats an innocent person. Its just not possible.

I'll be shocked if they get off.

 

[Rhea]

Circular Logic

You have put your finger on the very root of the problem for those who cling to their belief in Amanda and Raffaele's guilt. They begin from a presumption of guilt, not a presumption of innocence. Like the invasive kudzu vine, this erroneous starting point is almost impossible to eradicate once it takes hold in the mind of the True Believer.

Exactly, and it is very dangerous this sort of circular logic where you prove your proposition (Amanda killed Meredith) with "the lies", when these "lies" themselves already necessarily presuppose guilt.

You prove your thesis (guilt) with your assumption (guilt).

So that is very interesting I think, because in the end it really is the reason why most people believe in guilt; the lies

But I'm not aware of one so called "lie" of Amanda that would work without presuming her guilt. (And interestingly, those "lies" don't even appear logical if she was guilty in my eyes).

There is only one possible lie that I'm aware of by Raffaele; "the knife pricking story" (which I can completely understand from an innocent perspective though), but even in his case I'm not sure if he really made that up or was just completely confused …

 

[daydreamer]

I am familiar with Hendry's musings. He also states:

What is noticeable missing from the police crime scene documentation evidence are closeup photos of the wall and grounds documenting their condition before alteration by non police persons such as Filomena Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli who reportedly walked around under the window to perform their own inspection."[/i]

Why do people keep saying there were no marks on the wall. Here's a photo showing smudges and possibly a missing nail just about were someone's left foot would be if they gotten to the window with their hands on the sill just prior to entering the window. This pic been shown on this forum a number of times.
Note: the original photo has much better resolution and is available from the Hendry article on IIP (I think)