Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
More on the Snow White case contrasted to with the Amanda Knox case.

The police seen to be doing everything to avoid getting Snow White in trouble. I took little marble sized packs of powder down to the police station and told that they were found in Snow White's apartments. I'm not trying to get her in trouble, I just don't want to get in trouble myself. I've heard that landlords can lose their house if it is a 'Crack House'.

Two of the officers told me to flush anything I found down the toilet. They told me they were going to do the same with the powder I gave them. They previously disposed of the hundred or so hypodermic syringes I found there. They wouldn't sign the paper I gave them saying that they received the bag of powder.

At my insistance, they filed a police report. This is what it said:
Justinian2 came in to [sic] station [sic] and turned in to [sic] baggies [sic] of a substance that he believes to be drugs.
Click to expand...

Now that report will probably go in the paper and have all the neighbors thinking I'm into drugs!

The point is:

1) Evidence is disappearing.
2) I am getting in trouble for talking too much.
3) The police are once again showing what they are made of.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
WRONG (again)

Did you even read the very link that you provided to Pilot's post about testimony?
Pilot very specifically said that *defendant's* testimony is not under oath.
Got it ?
BIG difference
Click to expand...

Chris C said:
Yet in a bit of Irony, the reason for the law in Italy that makes it wear defendants dont swear under oath is so they are protected from civil action. Also why are you referring to a post made by you as if someone else other than you posted it and you are defending it for them?
Click to expand...

Awkwaaaaaaard :boxedin:
 
Justinian2 said:
More on the Snow White case contrasted to with the Amanda Knox case.

The police seen to be doing everything to avoid getting Snow White in trouble. I took little marble sized packs of powder down to the police station and told that they were found in Snow White's apartments. I'm not trying to get her in trouble, I just don't want to get in trouble myself. I've heard that landlords can lose their house if it is a 'Crack House'.

Two of the officers told me to flush anything I found down the toilet. They told me they were going to do the same with the powder I gave them. They previously disposed of the hundred or so hypodermic syringes I found there. They wouldn't sign the paper I gave them saying that they received the bag of powder.

At my insistance, they filed a police report. This is what it said:

Now that report will probably go in the paper and have all the neighbors thinking I'm into drugs!

The point is:

1) Evidence is disappearing.
2) I am getting in trouble for talking too much.
3) The police are once again showing what they are made of.
Click to expand...

My suggestion would be to contact the DA's office. They might have some interest in this one.
 
Draca said:
I'm not sure what he's saying. He wouldn't bring up budget problems though if they forgot to record the interrogation. So they either couldn't afford to tape the interrogation or transcribe it. Either way it is really pathetic. I lean toward him saying they couldn't afford to tape it; I'm sure if it just needs to be transcribed we'd all pitch in a few bucks! :idea:

If they couldn't afford to tape it, that doesn't explain why notes weren't taken, since they didn't forget. And what is he saying about voice only? Is it possible they have a voice recording?
Click to expand...



See...this is the part where Drew Griffin now asks ...But Mr Mignini how is it possible for the police department to afford 12 special interrogators that were required to work an all night shift but yet somehow you claim not to be able to afford video tape (ahemmm digital recorders)?

Another... Mr Mignini when you say AK was staying at her BF place which was 5 minute walk away...How many minute drive away was Filomena Romanelli staying?

Another...Mr Mignini...Why are your pants on fire?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Ooops! The spell checker missed that one. It should be CMAK, which stands for Convicted Murderer Amanda Knox.


I knew that ...just not sure you knew how to spell Knox.


Intent for what?


For whatever...



Huh?

Huh?


Again, huh?

Again, huh?


I bet they aren't even real police.

I bet they are.


Interviews with the Daily Mail are not evidence, unless admitted to the record.

Yes they are.



No.
Click to expand...


huh?

Well it is easy on this side.
 
Fine said:
_______________________--

Bruce Fisher,

And some people---like you, for instance--- don't appreciate just how cunning Amanda is.
Mignini also mentioned Amanda's famous first phone call to her mother, 12:47 pm Perugia time/ 4:47 am Seattle time, as evidence of Amanda's guilt. On the surface, it looks like what an innocent girl would do......having discovered the cottage door left open, the breakin and chaos in Filomena's room, Meredith's locked door, blood in her bathroom, feces in the toilet.

Yes, on the surface. But knowing Amanda's cunning we can see why she placed that call. She was trying to act innocent, ...doing just what you'd expect an innocent person to do! Not everyone was fooled.

///
Click to expand...

What cunning maneuvers did Knox do? The word you should be using is naive. The cunning one is Mignini. Because if Knox was so cunning, she wouldn't be doing "cartwheels" in the police station, she would have saw through Mignini's facade and realized she was his primary suspect, she would have hired a lawyer or left Italy all together. Your saying look here shes lying see how cunning she is. She can't be to cunning if you can prove she is lying.
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
Raffaele is also very cunning. For although he called the police before they arrived, he also turned the clock back 10 minutes to make the police believe he called them while they were present. He did this for the sole reason to cast doubt on the reliability of the postal police testimony.

Shrewd.
Click to expand...

Dont forget about the life sized card board cutouts of him and Knox he posted in front of Curatolo to place himself somewhere other than the house at the time Meredith was being murdered.
 
Latest guilt speak...ala The Machine

"Dr. Stefanoni is considered to be one of the top DNA experts in Italy, she had to pass a series of stringent tests in order to join the scientific police and she was a member of the Disaster Investigations Team sent to identify victims of the 2004 tsunami."


Thats why General Luciano Garofano of the Carabinieri and Italys top forensic scientist called Stefanonis technique "sloppy and imprecise".
 
its the odd behaviour that's hard for the defence to explain. Cellphones getting switched on at 6am. Being at the scene so long without calling the police. Seeing blood and not checking out the house. Saying she had a shower etc
 
RandyN said:
Latest guilt speak...ala The Machine
"Dr. Stefanoni is considered to be one of the top DNA experts in Italy, she had to pass a series of stringent tests in order to join the scientific police and she was a member of the Disaster Investigations Team sent to identify victims of the 2004 tsunami."


Thats why General Luciano Garofano of the Carabinieri and Italys top forensic scientist called Stefanonis technique "sloppy and imprecise".
Click to expand...

______________________

Since we're sharing ..........this from Stilicho on PMF yesterday:

"The only reason Knox has not acquired the notoriety of a Nightstalker or Green River Killer is because she was apprehended and confined to keep her away from more potential victims."

Thanks to Mignini some of us are still alive. For now.

///
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
A legal case doesn't rest on the law? Oh, that's rich!!!
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't rest on the law, it rests on the evidence. Without the evidence, the law has nothing to support it. You don't just go from charging someone to sentencing them. All the law does it define illegal actions and give a range of appropriate sentances for those actions, it doesn't determine if the defendant actually carried out those actions.

But the evidence is why convicted murderer Amanda Knox is sitting in prison right now. You do understand that, right?
Click to expand...

I understand that the Court bought into the evidence that the Prosecution gave. I also understand that those members of the court were not experts in the fields of those that presented the evidence and so had to choose whether to believe those professing to be experts, or not to. I also understand that the evidence is being challenged, that several of the experts and witnesses creditials are being challanged, and that when I look at the evidence presented, the Prosecution's story makes no sense to me. As such I see no reason to accept the Court's un-expert opinion on that evidence rather then deciding the matter for myself based on the same.

Now if you want to discuss the evidence and why I should accept the Prosecutions versions of that evidence, I'm quite willing and have been asking for someone to stand up and do it. So how about it?
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
_______________________--

Bruce Fisher,

And some people---like you, for instance--- don't appreciate just how cunning Amanda is.

Mignini also mentioned Amanda's famous first phone call to her mother, 12:47 pm Perugia time/ 4:47 am Seattle time, as evidence of Amanda's guilt. On the surface, it looks like what an innocent girl would do......having discovered the cottage door left open, the breakin and chaos in Filomena's room, Meredith's locked door, blood in her bathroom, feces in the toilet.

Yes, on the surface. But knowing Amanda's cunning we can see why she placed that call. She was trying to act innocent, ...doing just what you'd expect an innocent person to do! Not everyone was fooled.

///
Click to expand...

Nice Poe, 3 gotchas, well done.
 
yeti101 said:
its the odd behaviour that's hard for the defence to explain. Cellphones getting switched on at 6am. Being at the scene so long without calling the police. Seeing blood and not checking out the house. Saying she had a shower etc
Click to expand...


Can you provide any proof that this is indeed odd behavior and not normal behavior?

Raffaele's cell phone is easy to explain. It fits with the computer log evidence that shows he stayed up all night using the computer such that the screen saver didn't activate for more than 6 minutes at a time, culminating in the creation of a playlist in iTunes. Then the phone was turned on where it received the "Good night" text message that Raffaele's father had sent at 11 pm. 20 minutes later the screen saver activated for the rest of the night.
 
yeti101 said:
its the odd behaviour that's hard for the defence to explain. Cellphones getting switched on at 6am.
Click to expand...

How is this odd?

Being at the scene so long without calling the police.
Click to expand...

How long were they there before they called the police?

Seeing blood and not checking out the house.
Click to expand...

When did she see the blood and how much was there?

Saying she had a shower etc
Click to expand...

How is having a shower odd?
 
Tabloids smell Mignini's pants on fire

PROSECUTOR Giuliano Mignini has floated at least six theories for Meredith's killing.

They range from a satanic ritual and a drug-fuelled sex orgy to a drug-crazed rage and clumsy attempt to steal Meredith's rent money.

Each time Mignini's claims have focused on Knox and Sollecito. But the 62-year-old prosecutor has failed to support his views with credible evidence.

(...)

THE entire police investigation - directed by Mignini - has been a clumsy affair.

there's more..

Let me join LondonJohn and drop in some tongue wrenching language quote:
"Kto mieczem wojuje ten od miecza ginie" :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom