Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeing how angry you have become in recent months it is no surprise that you believe the appeals will fail. In my opinion you have somehow made yourself believe the argument about Amanda's guilt or innocence is personal. You have stopped looking at facts long ago. Now your mindset is to win the online debate. That is a place far away from reality. If you would stop thinking about how much you hate Bruce FIsher, Chris Mellas, Doug Preston, etc etc. and take a closer look at the facts, you just might come to a different conclusion.

Instead you have taken the position that everyone that supports Amanda is part of a huge complex PR machine that is backed by millions of dollars. The CPJ has been bought by this "supertanker" and this PR firm has managed to take hold of every news outlet in the world.

I know you think I am a horrible person. The truth is I am just an average guy raising a family. I have volunteered my time to help two people that have been wronged. If you stepped back for a moment you might see the truth in it all.

* seeing how angry you have become in recent months*........

Umm, that's called transference. There isn't space here to repeat and link to your rants.

My position is not that everyone who supports Amanda is part of a huge complex PR machine, etc.

It is based on common sense, DNA evidence, behaviour, lack of alibis, lies, etc.

I have stepped back many times, give credit to some good arguments. However, there is too much evidence for me to change my position.

You think Amanda and Raf are innocent. I think they're guilty.

Therein lies the rub.
 
I have no idea what you have. Do you have the verbatim trial transcript?



Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Where can we read the trial transcript (even in Italian)? In regard to secret information, Candace Dempsey reported recently that Nara Capezzali is deaf and crazy. If that's true it's something important that didn't come out in the trial.

Once again, do you honestly think that Massei would leave important information out of the motivation report if it helped to support his case?

Do you believe the people that attended the court hearings have formed a group and swore themselves to secrecy, holding vast amounts of information from the public?

Oggi magazine reported on Nara, not Candace.
 
It has taken me a long time to form my opinion on this case. In the end, I found more convincing evidence pointing to AK an RS being not guilty by Reasonable Doubt. If I were a juror on this case, I could never in good concience, given my vote for guilt. I believe it was the system as a whole in Perugia that failed AK and RS.
 
Once again, do you honestly think that Massei would leave important information out of the motivation report if it helped to support his case?

Do you believe the people that attended the court hearings have formed a group and swore themselves to secrecy, holding vast amounts of information from the public?

Well just let us see the trial transcript and let folks decide for themselves.

Oggi magazine reported on Nara, not Candace.

Ok, thanks for confirming that Candace isn't a reporter but rather just a cut-and-paste blogger.
 
I disagree with you there. If someone other than the intended recipient of the diary reads it, then you can't say that RS was lying to that person.

It appears that the diary was addressed to his father and sister, however if he actually intended for them to read it, I don't know. If so, then the only people you could actually say he lied to were them. He certainly never lied to the police or the court about it.
___________________

PhantomWolf,

After the double DNA knife results were released to the public, Doctor Sollecito, Raffaele's father, explained to the Italian media that Rafffaele had pricked Meredith with the knife while Raffaele was cooking at the cottage.

///
 
Last edited:
Well just let us see the trial transcript and let folks decide for themselves.



Ok, thanks for confirming that Candace isn't a reporter but rather just a cut-and-paste blogger.



See, your true colors come out. You do have a dog in the fight after all. You took the first chance you could to attack Candace. I talked to you for all of 5 posts and I have exposed you for what you are. You aren't merely a skeptic having fun on JREF. You have a clear agenda.


You can ignore my questions about the motivation report and the reporters in the court room if you like but everyone reading here now sees what you are all about.
 
___________________

PhantomWolf,

After the double DNA knife results were released to the public, Doctor Sollecito, Raffaele's father, explained to the Italian media that Rafffaele had pricked Meredith with the knife while Raffaele was cooking at the cottage.

///

At the time that Raf wrote it, did he know that his father was going to tell the media? And did Raf every tell this story to the police or the courts?
 
?? Has she ever claimed she wasn't. Or did she not know what she signed at 1:45am, then sign something at 5:45am saying much the same thing without understanding it. She clearly understood it the following day when she wrote he gift. Her trial testimony is a bit hard to understand if the stuff in the statement didn't get discussed during the interview/interrogation.


When she signed the declarations, she seems to have believed she was providing evidence that would help the cops detain Lumumba, but not that would incriminate her. As Katody pointed out, the declarations are not written in language that Amanda would use, and obviously she did not understood the gravity of signing them, even if she understood the language they contained.

Here was her position the next day:

LG:
Then, at midday, or one o'clock, we don't know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o'clock. Do you remember?

AG: So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can't even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.
 
It has taken me a long time to form my opinion on this case. In the end, I found more convincing evidence pointing to AK an RS being not guilty by Reasonable Doubt. If I were a juror on this case, I could never in good concience, given my vote for guilt. I believe it was the system as a whole in Perugia that failed AK and RS.

My opinion has changed as the prosecutions evidence was reviewed piece by piece and overtime the inability for a motive and setup of the crime was never presented well by the prosecution.
I agree, there's not enough for a guilt vote.

However, I am curious what exactly the Judge Hellman is going to do with the knife? What is he expected to do? Will he instruct the jurors to ignore the knife? How will the results from the new experts be implemented in this trial?

An excellent example of DNA chart reading and basic threshold settings, are presented here at this link. Figure 9

http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html

the knife dna chart- (note the range is set to 0 to 84 , nit 0 to 2000)
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/MKKnifeDNA.jpg
 
Last edited:
<snip>She was where she said she was, in the living room with her ears covered to not hear the screams while RS and RG murdered Meredith.


It's funny to me that you would say you are a skeptic but that you are not skeptical about that. I am a skeptic, too, and that was the very first "fact" I questioned (although it was in the kitchen and the "murderer" was Lumumba).
 
At the time that Raf wrote it, did he know that his father was going to tell the media? And did Raf every tell this story to the police or the courts?


You bring up an excellent point, Phantom Wolf. No, there is no evidence that Raffaele ever told his story to the police or to the courts.

There is some controversy about the purpose of the diaries. All three defendants kept diaries, which is unlikely in itself, in my opinion. All three diaries focus on the situation surrounding the crime, and all provide each defendant's side of the story. To me, it has always looked as if the defendants were instructed by their lawyers to write the diaries, with the knowledge that the contents would be used to support their defense. It is entirely possible the lawyers said, "When you write in your diary, make yourself look innocent."

Sharing the diaries with the press may be a uniquely Italian strategy. There is also argument about whether it was the lawyers or prison personnel who allowed the diaries to go public.
 
Why be like this? I wanted to know whether you would accept any negative characteristic attributed to Amanda or Raffaele. To me, taking a knife to a police station is silly and taking a knife to a police station under the circumstances is stupid. It seems to me that the most you are prepared to admit is that it was a bad idea. Doubtless you were trying to be irritating, congrats.

I think you're being silly. I agreed with you that taking knife to a police station was a stupid thing to do. You said he did a couple of stupid things and I wondered what the other one was. For some reason you don't want to say.
 
Hi Poppy,

I dont think I'm being argumentative. I'm being a skeptic which is why I joined this fourm way before Amanda Knox even went to Italy. What interests me most about this case is that people who appear to be intelligent and well educated so easily accept what is fed to them without evidence or corroboration. For example, I'm constantly told that there is no evidence against AK or RS yet there is no trial transcript available for anyone to read and of the 100+ witnesses that testified at the original trial we have only the verbatim testimony of one....Amanda Knox.

Alt+F4,

You can't have it both ways. It seems as far as you are concerned that those not satisfied with the "guilty" verdict can't say anything because they haven't seen the entire court proceedings, yet you are prepared to make absolute statements about what you think happened, with no factual basis at all. This is arrogant and hypocritical.

We don't need to see the entire court transcripts to make a judgement. There can't be any doubt that all the prosecution facts of any significance will have been in their publicly available case, and in the Massei report. There can be nothing in the unpublished details that influences the overall judgement one way or another. This has been pointed out to you many times.
 
She was where she said she was, in the living room with her ears covered to not hear the screams while RS and RG murdered Meredith.

Hmm ... so this is the reason you believe what you believe. A statement that was not officially admitted in the trial at all, for the good reason that it was obtained by police in irregular circumstances with no safeguards for Amanda's rights. (Of course the jury got to hear it anyway by the back door of Patrick Lumumba's civil action.)

Why is it that you consider this statement more credible than the other statements and evidence, when there is no narrative of the crime that can place the 3 of them together at the house at any time during the evening?

PS - what is your basis for accusing the equally-innocent Raffaele Sollecito of the murder, when Amanda's statement (which you say you "believe") does not mention him at all?
 
Last edited:
I still think you are missing what I am saying. If the Indpendant Experts come back and say "We have investigated these things thoroughly, and in our expert opinion there was no contamination or foul play that we can detect, and that RS's DNA was found on the bra clip, and ML's DNA was on the knife blade and here's the evidence why," would you accept their report or not?

That it was there? In other words that DNA was definitely Meredith's on the knife and Raffaele's on the clasp? Sure.

However I'm certainly not going to allow that they are the Gods themselves and can mystically determine that it's not contamination or secondary transfer, that's just silly. They can issue a report saying they couldn't find evidence of that and therefore it should be allowed in court and the jury should decide, but it hardly precludes the possibility (in this case high probability) that it happened anyway.

As for it 'proving' Raffaele and Amanda were in that room when Meredith died or shortly thereafter, that's about the least likely way it could have gotten there. First off with the knife it wouldn't put Amanda in that room, it puts her in Raffaele's drawer. It was the police who took that knife out of Raffaele's drawer, and 'put' it in the murder room, where theoretically that 10 pg of non-blood DNA is all that's left of Amanda delivering the blow to Meredith's neck which is the only wound it could really have made.

However somehow every last trace of blood was removed, yet it still had plenty of Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade? There's absolutely nothing else in the murder room they found of Amanda's to corroborate that it happened there? DNA doesn't come with a timestamp nor any GPS data, and considering the context the odds that knife was used in the murder approach absolute zero. Take a look at the link Spartacus posted about ten pages back now from that DNA scientist, the idea that if they come back 'confirming' that the DNA is legitimate that it means Amanda was in that room is ludicrous in my opinion. :)

As for the bra clasp, if it means Raffaele was in that room, how about the other profiles evident on the clasp, does that mean they were there too? How come there's no corroborating evidence of Raffaele there either? Boy that worked out strangely, didn't it? Rudy Guede leaves all that mess and Raffaele and Amanda leave two items--both of which are not inherent to either the murder or the room--totaling 40 picograms? That's 4/100,000,000,000ths of a gram, which is pretty damned small to begin with.

As for why it was ever considered 'evidence' to begin with, we must turn back to our good friend, the logic of the Italian Court System. You see, they have no DNA standards, their prosecutors are incorruptible men who must determine whether evidence is actually that of murder or is something else. Other places have 500 page manuals judges must master before they allow DNA evidence, in the Italian Court System the judge trusts that the prosecutor has done due diligence, it's the inquisitorial part of the system--the 'hypothesized' search for the 'truth.'

If you're interested in whether I'm a fanatic or if my position is falsifiable, I'll say what I have for a long time: from the evidence I've seen the least likely people to have been involved in that murder that don't have ironclad alibis are Raffaele and Amanda. They tore that room apart twice looking for evidence against them and everything either has a more likely explanation, makes you wonder why they presented it, or is downright suspicious. They interrogated Amanda to the point of breakdown and got nonsensical silliness, they put them both through the ringer and imprisoned them for three and a half years and neither cracked, when they'd known each other all of two weeks until that fateful fifth of November and might be out of jail now had they turned on each other. Your SAS commandos would appreciate their loyalty! :)

However, of course my position is falsifiable: Show me the tapes of that interrogation. Or show me evidence that couldn't be faked at this juncture that they did it. The police and prosecution are belting signals of corruption out to the cheap seats with the crap they introduced into court, the lies they told, and the seventeen other people they've charged for criticizing the police and prosecution. I don't think 30 pg of uncorroborated 'evidence' in the murder room and 10 pg of 'evidence' in Raffaele's drawer that could both have happened differently should completely change the equation, regardless if the experts pretend they have godlike powers. :)
 
When she signed the declarations, she seems to have believed she was providing evidence that would help the cops detain Lumumba, but not that would incriminate her. As Katody pointed out, the declarations are not written in language that Amanda would use, and obviously she did not understood the gravity of signing them, even if she understood the language they contained.

Here was her position the next day:

LG:
Then, at midday, or one o'clock, we don't know exactly, they brought you a paper called an arrest warrant. When they served you this warrant, it must have been around twelve, one o'clock. Do you remember?

AG: So, all papers they brought me to sign, at that point, they were all the same to me, so I can't even say what I had to sign, arrest warrant, declarations, whatever, because at a certain point, I just wanted to sign and go home.


I think this is an important point. All the available evidence suggests that Knox didn't think she was in any significant trouble with the police. I think that she went along with the police suggestions to "remember" going to the house with Lumumba because she had been either explicitly or implicitly told by the police that it was Lumumba that they were after and not her.

I believe that when Knox "spoke" her verbal declaration, and subsequently signed the written declaration (which was, in my view, clearly written for her by the police), she thought that by doing so she was helping the police catch Lumumba - who the police had convinced her was a dangerous killer. Further evidence to support this view is the apparent reason given by the police to Knox as to why they held her in custody after she'd signed the statement: for her own protection from Lumumba, until the police arrested him.

And if I'm correct, then the psychology behind Knox's "confession/accusation" is even more complex. After all, if there was (in Knox's mind) very little element of "confession" in it, then it's even easier to understand why she would have acted as she did: the police told her that they had solid evidence placing her and Lumumba at the murder scene; Lumumba was a dangerous and unpredictable man who had killed Meredith (and the police had evidence to this effect); Knox must have blocked these memories from her mind owing to trauma, but she could help the police put Lumumba where he belonged if she could manage to remember.
 
Computer hard drive (yet again)

There is evidence, for Raffaele and Amanda, its on the computer hard drives.
You cannot burn out a hard drive, I am no computer expert, I did aske some one who is.
The reply that I got back, the only way you can burn a hard drive, is by melting it.
I belive that Amanda had, photos of Meredith on her computer, showing how well they, got on together.
So I am sure , Meredith would load photos of Amanda, on her computer.
I think that was the reason they burn those two computers.
This would take the heat out of the, They did not on together thing.
Raffaele computer, is the most inportent of the three, this is the one that would give, him and Amanda an alibi, that the reason, that the computers was not allowed to be examine, by the makers.
They where telling the truth all along.
:)
 
I didn't say it was requested. I asked you why:



You answered the first part but I still don't understand why you think that Amanda's case somehow supersedes both United States federal law and international treaties between the EU and the U.S.

You might be right when you state that her conviction will be upheld in the current appeals trial. You might be right when you state the pair has a better chance of exoneration with the Italian Supreme Court. You are totally wrong if you think that Amanda is going to get some sort of backdoor deal between the Americans and the Italians where she gets off a plane in Seattle and just goes home.

Run Bambi Run

If the Canadians could insist on this before releasing her, the United States should be able to make a deal with the Italians. What does Italy have to gain by keeping her?
 
I think this is an important point. All the available evidence suggests that Knox didn't think she was in any significant trouble with the police. I think that she went along with the police suggestions to "remember" going to the house with Lumumba because she had been either explicitly or implicitly told by the police that it was Lumumba that they were after and not her.

I believe that when Knox "spoke" her verbal declaration, and subsequently signed the written declaration (which was, in my view, clearly written for her by the police), she thought that by doing so she was helping the police catch Lumumba - who the police had convinced her was a dangerous killer. Further evidence to support this view is the apparent reason given by the police to Knox as to why they held her in custody after she'd signed the statement: for her own protection from Lumumba, until the police arrested him.

And if I'm correct, then the psychology behind Knox's "confession/accusation" is even more complex. After all, if there was (in Knox's mind) very little element of "confession" in it, then it's even easier to understand why she would have acted as she did: the police told her that they had solid evidence placing her and Lumumba at the murder scene; Lumumba was a dangerous and unpredictable man who had killed Meredith (and the police had evidence to this effect); Knox must have blocked these memories from her mind owing to trauma, but she could help the police put Lumumba where he belonged if she could manage to remember.


I agree completely. Both Amanda and Raffaele were operating on the assumption that they were helping the police solve the crime. That's why it didn't occur to them to hire lawyers or leave town, and why Raffaele thought nothing of going to the police station with his knife in its usual place - his pocket.

As Alt+4 pointed out, above, "Next, look at [Amanda's] behavior and attitude at the first trial, there was no way she thought she would ever be convicted." If she were guilty, wouldn't she be at least a little afraid she would be convicted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom