Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bucketoftea said:
I don't believe the case against them depends upon the previous acquaintance between Sollecito and Guede.

Guede said he heard an exchange between the 2 women.
Click to expand...
Do you believe rudy's story, then? That he had a date with Meredith? That he didn't even participate in the murder?
 
Skwinty said:
My overall impression is:

It is totally irrelevant what anyone of us thinks about the case, for the simple reason that none of us has the onerous duty of making that decision.

If one was to believe otherwise would indicate a preference for a court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

Now that would be a travesty of justice.

I am sure that all the parents grieve for their children.

It is indeed a sad case.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's totally probably irrelevant what any of us thinks about this case, in relation to influencing the actual progression and outcome of the case. Your point is? Being irrelevant in that way doesn't make it irrelevant in and of itself, and nor does it make it invalid.

You could make exactly the same point about every single topic discussed on the JREF forums, for that matter. It's irrelevant in the very same way what anyone on JREF thinks about the global financial crisis, or the Palestine problem, or the creationism-in-schools debate, or, or, or...... Have you visited any of these other threads recently and told them that their discussions are all irrelevant?

The fact (whether you like it or not) is that some people enjoy (or gain insight from) discussing any one of these subjects, one of which is the trials of Knox and Sollecito. Your "point" is meaningless. What I score in my round of golf on Saturday is irrelevant to anyone except me (and perhaps my playing partners if we're playing matchplay) - but does that mean it's pointless for me to pick up a golf club?

Crazy.
 
komponisto said:
That does not constitute an argument.

I would like to know what your actual, reasoned, reply is to the claim that the police believed Lumumba was involved because of the text message and pressured Amanda to confirm this.
Click to expand...

Kompo, maybe it's just me, but the tortuous, pretzel-formed parsing is just, well, absurd.

I don't believe it. I don't believe they primed her for naming Lumumba any more than asking who the text was to. I also don't believe they would have hesitated to bring him in for questioning if they had suspicions before then. I do, however, think that by following A and S they were able to confirm she knew him.
 
bucketoftea said:
I'm good with the idea that she was lying to her mother and/or saying this for the benefit of the listeners.

You see how much more doubt and confusion arises when people lie? IIRC there were complicating factors, eg. his new mobile phone.
Click to expand...


So you're seriously suggesting that she knew she was being bugged during the 10th November conversation with her mother, so therefore she said what she said "for the benefit of the listeners", but that she was not aware that she was being bugged a week later, when she stated (in your blinkered interpretation) that she was at the cottage?

Can't you begin to see how ridiculous your argument is becoming? In addition, you still haven't attempted to reconcile Knox's "I was there" statement with the words that immediately followed: "I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it." As so many others have pointed out, she would most definitely have a "reason to lie" if the "there" was referring to the cottage, whereas the two connected sentences only make sense if "there" refers to Sollecito's apartment.

Please could you elaborate therefore upon why you think Knox might say there was no reason to lie if she was referring to the cottage. And please could you also explain why you think it's reasonable to suppose that Knox knew she was being bugged in the 10th Nov prison conversation with her mother, but (if your interpretation is to believed) she didn't know she was being bugged in the "I was there" conversation which took place a week later. Thanks.
 
bucketoftea said:
Kompo, maybe it's just me, but the tortuous, pretzel-formed parsing is just, well, absurd.

I don't believe it. I don't believe they primed her for naming Lumumba any more than asking who the text was to. I also don't believe they would have hesitated to bring him in for questioning if they had suspicions before then. I do, however, think that by following A and S they were able to confirm she knew him.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by your use of the word "parsing" in this post? I realise it's an incredibly fashionable and cool word to be seen using, but I fail to see how it applies to anything here.

What do you think Perugia Police Chief Arturo De Felice was referring to when he said this in the press conference on the morning of November 6th - the morning after the interrogations and arrests (my bolding):

Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles.
Click to expand...


What do you think the Perugia Police Chief meant when he said the bolded parts? How - and when - did the police "know" the "correct" version of events? His statement clearly implies that this "knowledge" of "the correct version of events" preceded the interrogation of Knox - there's no other possible interpretation.

So, with that in mind, have another crack at explaining why you think that the police didn't "know" Lumumba was involved before they even started questioning Amanda Knox late on the night of the 5th/6th November 2007. I look forward to your carefully-reasoned and intellectually-robust response :)
 
LondonJohn said:
So you're seriously suggesting that she knew she was being bugged during the 10th November conversation with her mother, so therefore she said what she said "for the benefit of the listeners", but that she was not aware that she was being bugged a week later, when she stated (in your blinkered interpretation) that she was at the cottage?
Click to expand...

Well, that's easy.

One wouldn't say "I can't lie", one would say "Why should I/would I lie" .if where one actually was was the innocent place.

The reason she can't lie is likely physical evidence.

It sounds not unlike she was trying to inform her parents that it was a waste of time to deny being there. BTW the reason I feel sure that she is aware of likely physical evidence is the ridiculous tale of hopping (sliding? gliding?) around on the bloodstained bathmat; all the better to explain away the traces of Meredith's blood found there.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Before Rudy puts the pillow under Meredith, he is stepping on that pillow leaving prints of his left shoe. We do not however see a continuation of those shoe prints in the room or hall leading to the bathroom and back. The hall in particular was tested with Luminol so should have detected the weakest prints not even visible. Since we know that Rudy went into the bathroom between placing Meredith on the pillow and when he left the final sequence of tracks out the door, the shoes have to be left in the room for those trips.
Click to expand...
_____________________

Dan,

The bloody shoe prints tell a different story to me. They can be seen in a diagram of the Rinaldi Report, page 15, HERE.

At some point during the assault, after Rudy had brought towels from the bathroom, probably when Meredith became unconscious and was on her back, Rudy stepped in blood and transferred it in the form of (left) shoe prints to the pillow. (He may have even blotted the soles of his shoes on the pillow.) Rudy then drops to his knees, pillow is then placed beneath Meredith, sexual molestation continues. Finally, near the foot of the bed, Rudy gets back on his feet, grabs the duvet and throws it over Meredith, pivots clockwise on his right foot and walks out of Meredith's bedroom toward the cottage exit.

All the bloody shoe prints are explained. No bloody shoe print is "missing."

If---as Rose also suggested---Rudy had sat near the foot of the bed to remove his shoes and then sat there again to put his shoes back on, I'd expect to see more than one bloody shoe print there, the one marked "B" by the cops.

Yeah, my account requires Rudy to return, to clean himself in the bathroom, once the blood on his shoe sole was dry or wore off. But we already have a need for Rudy to return. Meredith's door has to be locked.

///
 
Last edited:
That response just proves that bucket has no interests in discussing the case but only wants to push the guilter view or start a fight. I see no productive result stemming from further interaction with such posters thus my ignore list will continue to grow.


Before these interruptions, we were discussing the condition of the bedding. I don't believe there were any replies to my observation that the fitted bed sheet did not appear to have been slept in. This sheet still shows folds as if it were freshly spread and hasn't had a chance to flatten out yet. I also don't see the typically indentations of conforming to a body overnight. The implication is that the sheet was changed either that noon after Meredith woke up or that evening after returning. If she was in the process of changing the linen, there wouldn't be anything on the bed. If she began changing it earlier before discovering the top sheet wasn't dry yet, only the things she brought home that night would end up on the bed. In either case, the duvet would be off the bed and possibly laying on the floor to the side and the old sheets would be rolled up and tossed to the far side of the room if not into the hamper. One of the earliest news reports indicated that Meredith was partially wrapped in the duvet indicating that it was on the floor under her.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles.

What do you think the Perugia Police Chief meant when he said the bolded parts? How - and when - did the police "know" the "correct" version of events? His statement clearly implies that this "knowledge" of "the correct version of events" preceded the interrogation of Knox - there's no other possible interpretation.

That she was there that evening. You recall RS had just said she didn't come back until 1am, and yes that was before she was questioned anew.
 
bucketoftea said:
Quote:
Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles.

What do you think the Perugia Police Chief meant when he said the bolded parts? How - and when - did the police "know" the "correct" version of events? His statement clearly implies that this "knowledge" of "the correct version of events" preceded the interrogation of Knox - there's no other possible interpretation.

That she was there that evening. You recall RS had just said she didn't come back until 1am, and yes that was before she was questioned anew.
Click to expand...


Nice misdirection!

De Felice's statement explicitly says "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in" - i.e. Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba. There is no other interpretation than that "the admission of facts (the police) knew to be correct" included Lumumba's participation - it's completely obvious in the context of what De Felice said here (unless, of course, he was lying, but that would never happen, would it?).

Or can you still not see/understand this? The clear inference is that the police already "knew" Lumumba was involved - before they started interrogating Knox - and this is what I was referring to. And I was then asking how you would reconcile this obvious inference with your assertion that Knox might have somehow accused Lumumba "out of thin air".
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
OK, thanks.

I remain a bit confused I am afraid. How did Guede identify Knox and Sollecito? As individuals that he didn't know that were in the apartment at the time of the crime or as people he knew by name?

Doesn't the prosecution's theory of the crime involve all three individuals working together? Does the prosecution's theory require that they had known each other at least long enough to have agreed to act together?

I am trying to understand how Guede's testimony and the prosecution's theory of the case relate to each other and how it is that Guede could construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime if they weren't there.
Click to expand...

Dave, here is the link for the motivations report from Guede's trial (in Italian). It offers a narrative of Rudy's alleged actions the night of the murder. Amanda and Raffaele are mentioned very little in the document.

Originally, Rudy said that Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder. He also said he could not identify the alleged strange man. After four or five months of counsel from his legal representation, he finally specifically named Amanda and Raffaele as the perpetrators.

The prosecution's theory did call for the three defendants to be working together. Massei's motivations from Amanda and Raffaele's trial also calls for the three to be working together. Hence, there is no correlation between Rudy's version of events and the versions described by the prosecutor or the judge.

Rudy did not construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime. That didn't matter, though, because Rudy's testimony did not factor into Amanda and Raffaele's trial, as he was already a convicted murderer by then, which presumably made him a liar, as well.

Basically, the prosecutors and judge were convinced that the three defendants worked together, and nothing the three defendants said changed their minds.
 
Kaosium said:
Neither do I! :)

I suspect that's why the Italian courts didn't find it damning either, as how could she be referring to the cottage if she says she has 'no reason to lie?'

Doesn't the whole trial now amount to saying that she's now 'lying' about not being at the cottage that night? In fact isn't that what you think she's doing by saying that meant Raffaele's?
Click to expand...

She said can't. She corrected herself at the end.
 
komponisto said:
The studies he cites are these:


They appear to be for smaller, non-mixed meals. Also, there are some differences in the definition of T_lag (2% vs 10% of contents emptied). Nonetheless, this level of variation is somewhat larger than I would have expected (though it's all on the short end rather than the long end).

Also, if you have any links for other 80-90 minute studies besides the one I've been citing, I would be interested.
Click to expand...


Apologies for overlooking this for a while. I am trying to juggle "real work" and leisure browsing this evening. I've posted a few responses to short issues, but I currently have two financial prospectuses and a long, boring, legalese offer document spread out in front of me, and my brain can't cope with the addition of three medical research papers! I will probably read them tomorrow and get back to you: my ultra-quick scan suggest that these studies suffered from a) sample sizes too small to be statistically significant, and b) imperfect measurement methods. But I'll investigate further and reply properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom