Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Err ...hmmm - because its not his footprint?
BTW your confirmation bias is showing

But Massei said it was!!! And it's impossible to argue against that sort of authority - I'm sure you'd agree!

 

[JREF2010]

Absolutely, Rose. Had the police caught Rudy quickly, figured out his criminal background, and characterised the crime correctly, it would've made the national news in Italy (and probably the UK too), but no more than that. From the press' point of view, a male burglar raping and stabbing a woman is nothing new. No real story there. And that's sad in itself. Indeed, in my city (and in fact, 2 streets away from me) last year a guys broke into a woman's house, was in the process of robbing her when there was a confrontation, at which point he raped her and stabbed her repeatedly, before setting the house on for and making off with his loot, leaving her for dead. She managed to crawl out of the house, and despite suffering life-changing injuries, survived. It wasn't reported in the national media.

But once you add a twist- a woman involved, a ritualistic element, a luciferina, then the media suddenly has a story that will sell papers. What makes an honours student kill? And a girl, no less? You've added an element of mystery to the story, that will keep people hooked, rather than a grim sociological reality, and the banality of evil.
Ugh.

so pathetic but true.

and you left off your list,

a police squad, with local lawyers and heads from Rome, who dont want to look like fools.

 

[JREF2010]

Is Patrick Lumumba the true evil mastermind!!!?

• Why does he send a text to Amanda shortly before Meredith is to arrive home on the night she is murdered?
• What is in that text that Amanda would erase it immediately?
• What is he doing in the vicinity of the cottage when he should be working at his bar in town?
• Why does he change the SIM in his cell phone before anyone is even supposed to know about Meredith's murder?
• Why when he supposedly has a bar full of patrons does he use a stranger from another country as his only alibi?

Don't look at me, I'm just asking the questions. If you don't like the answers, that's your problem.

Its strange the Squad and Monica and Edgardo and Mignini all agreed to release Patrick so easily.

But this whole case has had a lot of bizarre characters, like Edgardo Giobbi who began hanging pictures of the accused, along side Mafia bosses and Serial killers , before the trial even started...this is a promoted officer? yikes!

 

[Kaosium]

Not at all. I think this is too subtle for you all? Think in terms of how a suspect who collects combat knives and enjoys violent porn might throw up red flags in the investigation of a stabbing murder with sexual assault/rape. Or even someone who posts their own rape fantasy stories on their facebook/myspace page. All pieces of the puzzle. Why wouldn't you expect this questiong in such a case? I believe it happens even in the USA.

That's not what happened though. They arrested both of them after mentally and emotionally abusing Amanda all night long, then lied about having a 'clear cut' CCTV image of her at the scene, took a knife out of Raffaele's drawer that couldn't possibly be the murder weapon but said it was, then claimed Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick raped and murdered Meredith Kercher with absolutely no evidence that would stand scrutiny.

Then the press went through their myspace pages looking for anything that could possibly be damning, and found that innocent story about a boy confronting the fact his brother had done Something Awful, which couldn't possibly be construed as a rape fantasy except to the deluded. That Raffaele had knives and naughty pictures puts him in the company of many boys his age and again isn't something the cops found out until after they arrested him.

I think those methods could be applied to just about anyone their age, in fact as far as 'rape fantasies' go, anyone who likes romance novels could be described as drawn to them from my limited exposure to the genre. Would you like to see a female with a dozen Harlequin romance novels denigrated in court as 'addicted to rape fantasies' if they were sexually assaulted?

Think of other ways this pseudo-psychology could be applied! Can you imagine what kind of implications could be drawn from associations to things like cats or rabbits? Why, isn't the felis catus male known as a rapacious sexual predator, a 'tom cat' as it were? What if there was a correlation between the ownership of cats and romance novels like the stereotype suggests? Think of what that implies! As for oryctolagus cuniculus we know all about bunnies! They breed exponentially! I read an article once that suggested they practically overran the continent of Australia when they were introduced and are considered little more than vermin by some still. They just can't keep it zipped!

Does anyone know any more about the cocaine dealer whose number was in Knox's phone? (in the form of contact both before and after the murder) I haven't seen anything other than just the one news report published with the detail I refer to.

Was that the report from the same paper that produced the likes of Curatolo, Nara and Quintavelle as 'witnesses' and it was found their account didn't match the phone records? Even if it did, going through anyone's phone that age and finding out three or four years later one of the people on it got arrested is virtually meaningless and obviously has nothing to do with the crime we're discussing.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks, RWVBWL
I actually think this case is built on misogyny. I think that Amanda didn't conform to the Italians' view of how a woman should behave, and they punished her for it, and have been punishing her ever since.
Statistics on violent crime towards women all over the world are shocking (even countries like the UK- 1 in 4 women raped, 1 in 4 women subject to 'domestic' violence- British Crime Survey). All perpertrated by men. When you imagine these statistics applied to any other 'minority' group, you can see how appalling they are. Recently, there was a murder of a YWW (young white woman) in the city I live in which was reported in national news extensively, which took about a month to get an arrest on. Women were told that they should not walk alone at night. You can see why- until the police knew who did it, or why, they knew there was the possibility of no connection between the perp and the poor woman who was killed, that it was random, and so they issued a warning. All very sensible and understandable. But imagine if there was a violent criminal who targeted a particular racial group, and the police issued a warning to that part of the community. Don't go out alone at night. Then there would be real discussions about what the police could and should be doing to protect that community. But when it's women, there's an unspoken assumption that we will always be targeted, there's not a lot that can be done. Don't go out alone at night is a permenent state of affairs...
To bring this back to Amanda, I believe that we will see more and more cases of women being accused of sexually motivated or violent crime, such as in the Scazzi case, on flimsy evidence, when there is an obvious male perpertrator, especially in countries like Italy where the culture is so conflicted about women. You've got SB possibly paying for sex with underage sex workers, masses of guilt coming from the strong associations with the Catholic Church, the madonna / whore complex, exterior and interior feminist pressures (including bits and bobs of EU legislation on equality). This is a complex mix of social pressures, and I think that we're seeing one expression of it here and with the Scazzi case, which seem to amount to a insistence by the male-dominated legal system, that 'look, it's not just us, women can be violent and lustful, too'. When in fact, although there's always isolated incidents, this kind of crime is almost always inflicted by men. That's one of the facts the guilters can't get their heads around at all, that for a woman (especially a well-educated woman with no problems with drugs, or involvement in the criminal world or prostitution) to be involved with a crime like this would be an extremely rare occurence - an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. Of course, the usual standard of proof has to exist in the legal setting, but the fact that even this burden has not been met by the prosecution is, in my view, especially egregious given the extraordinarily rare type of crime.

Hi Bri1,
Wow, what an eye-opener of a post!
Being a male, I had never really thought about what much of what you wrote, especially interesting was comparing women to a racially targeted group that was being raped and murdered.

I'm not any good at delving into this type of discussion, but wanted to say that I was impressed once again with 1 of your posts.Keep it up!

I learned a lot more of what you wrote about that I highlighted above by reading Nina Burleigh's book Fatal Gift of Beauty. I highly recommend it, even if a person knows this case history in minute detail already, for she makes note of what you write above quite well, in my humble opinion, along with helping to show what Mignini is made of, his upbringing, his thoughts, his culture, the reasons why he believes Amanda Knox is guilty. And yet after reading this book, I am still convinced of both hers and Raffaele Sollecito's innocence. The evidence found just does not support their involvlement in Miss Meredith Kercher's brutal murder.

Peace, RW

 

[Kaosium]

SA has just posted a lengthy narrative of the crime on .org. I highly recommend it as a prime example of unsupported conjecture, poor thinking, confirmation bias, circular reasoning and factual ignorance. Quite apart from the number of florid, unsupportable contentions within the narrative, the whole thing is blown apart by just one provable fact: Meredith Kercher was not killed at 11.30pm. It is physiologically impossible for the attack and murder to have occurred at that time (or, for that matter, any time later than 10.30pm). In fact, all the evidence* clearly indicates that Meredith was almost certainly attacked and killed at some point between 9pm and 9.30pm - and probably very shortly after arriving home at around 9pm.


* The stomach/intestinal contents; the otherwise-inexplicable failure of Meredith to call her mother again; the shoes and jacket that she was wearing when attacked; the mysterious button pushes on her phone at around 10pm which are entirely inconsistent with Meredith holding the phone at that time; the wet laundry not having been removed from the machine; the position of the UK handset some distance from the cottage by 10.13pm; the cancellation of the incoming MMS message at 10.13pm; the midpoint ToD estimate of the properly-adjusted Henssge Nomogram (based on residual body temperature) using correct body weight and environmental conditions.

That's ummm....delusional. Why would anyone think they'd even attempt a ToD of 11:30? That was only to incorporate Curatolo's testimony and he was discredited and laughed out of court and the prosecution didn't even attempt to rehabilitate him. What other possible indication could they have the murder took place at 11:30? Even Rudy's trial had a ToD of 10:30.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hey BucketofTea!

Hi BucketofTea,
I noticed that you stopped by here for a visit, as I did too today.

As you are a firm believer in the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, can you please try and answer a question for me that I have already posted, of which I will ask again:

How many sexual partners did Rudy Guede have previous to the night when Meredith Kercher was murdered and he left his DNA inside her vagina?
We know that Amanda Knox had 7 total sexual partners, and Raffaele Sollecito had only 1, which had just commenece some 6-67 nights earlier. But how many did Rudy Guede have?

Thanks for any help answering my qestion and allowing me, what you might call a truther, to better understand the evidence, facts, and the courts decision in this case we discuss.

Peace, RW

 

[RWVBWL]

Hair...

So here is the bra clasp very close to Amanda's lamp cord and several inches from the place it is again photographed without the cord. There are also some strands of what looks like hair with the cord, does anybody else see this?

Rose,

Here's a better photograph of the lamp cord and bra clasp, the clasp as re-discovered on December 18.........

[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=48&image_id=3751[/qimg]

///

Hi RoseMontague and Fine,
You bring up an intersting point with the photographs you posted, for that does indeed look like hair to me.

But whose was it? Meredith Kercher's, Amanda Knox's or heck, even Raffaele's?

If Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith's bedroom when she was stabbed to her death and raped, and then they did an incredibly detailed microscopic clean-up to remove all traces of their presence, why didn't they dispose of this obvious strand of hair?

I am tryin' to visualize them discussing it:
"Hey Amanda, is this your hair? Should I pick it up and throw it away too?", might Raff say.

"Na, just leave it honey, I think it's Mez's", might Amanda have replied, not the slightest bit woried that this strand of hair might help convict her.


In my hunble opinion, there is no way, (if Amanda and Raffaele did do an incredible microscopic clean-up that removed all traces of their bloody fingerprints or DNA), that they would have then left a very visible strand of hair next to the bra clasp that Raffale surely must have known that he touched with his bare fingers if they were even there in Mez's bedroom that night. For how would they have known who that strand of hair belonged too?

Hmmm...
RW

 

[LondonJohn]

That's ummm....delusional. Why would anyone think they'd even attempt a ToD of 11:30? That was only to incorporate Curatolo's testimony and he was discredited and laughed out of court and the prosecution didn't even attempt to rehabilitate him. What other possible indication could they have the murder took place at 11:30? Even Rudy's trial had a ToD of 10:30.

Well there's also the "testimony" of ear witness Nara Capezzali, who claimed to have heard a scream at around 11.30pm that was extraordinarily haunting and bloodcurdling, but that she then neither woke her daughter nor called the police/paramedics. And who can forget that Capezzali was the witness about whose reliability and veracity Massei gave the following priceless analysis:

If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it.

And the first court apparently also believed the ear witness testimony of two other women (Monacchia and Dramis), both of whom were "half-asleep" at the time, and neither of whom either took any action at the time or the following day (or days, or weeks). Call me Mr Cynical, but my reasonable assessment of these three individuals' testimony is that they either imagined what they think they heard (influenced by subsequent knowledge of the crime), or they completely fabricated their testimony in order to insert themselves into a sensational and high-profile case. Either way, one thing is clear: their evidence, and the way in which it was obtained, simply cannot be relied upon as accurate, reliable, probative evidence.

BTW, I wonder if SA will address my conundrum: which of his posts regarding communication with Pepperdine University about Steve Moore was true, and which was a lie? Did he communicate with Pepperdine to try to influence Moore's wrongful dismissal case (which turned out rather badly for Pepperdine, incidentally), or did he not? Surely it can't be that hard to set the record straight.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Quennell's latest missive on TJMK is well worth a read for anyone interested in the case surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher and its aftermath. I can certainly see easily how the content of the article - intriguingly titled "Austerity Fever In Europe And The US And The Discreet Fuelling Of Public Anger" - is helping to promote "true justice for Meredith", and I particularly like the way in which the last line of the article "justifies" all the high-school economic theorising that has preceded it. Fascinating stuff!

 

[LondonJohn]

It's somewhat tiresome to have to interact with JREF member SA in an indirect way, but that's his choice so I'll run with it.

Regarding ToD, SA's post on .org, he correlates Knox and Sollecito leaving the cottage shortly after participating in the murder (in his narrative, they remain in the cottage only briefly after the murder, in order to wash blood off themselves and do a very brief clean-up) with the noises allegedly heard by Capezzali and others "around 23.30". So this clearly implies that SA's narrative places the ToD at shortly before 11.30pm (let's say 11.15 to be extremely generous). What's perfectly clear is that SA's narrative does not involve Knox and Sollecito participating in the murder at some time well before 10.30pm. And what does SA make of Capezzali's "scream of death" that she says she hears very shortly before the footsteps? Does he think Capezzali is accurate in her recall of the footsteps, but unreliable and untrue in her recall of the "bloodcurdling" scream? After all, there can be no other candidate for this horrendous, chilling "scream of death" but the victim herself. So if you're going with Capezzali for the footsteps, aren't you implicitly also going with her for the scream, and aren't you therefore placing the ToD just before the footsteps?

Second, SA helpfully "repeats" that he "never wrote to Pepperdine". All fine and dandy. Except that SA wrote the following in October 2010 (my bolding):

I contacted Pepperdine to provide them all of the online content of Steve Moore's interviews etc to save them time. Since Steve stands by them, I believe you couldn't object to that. I also pointed out the factual errors in them. After that I've left it. Pepperdine's lawyers are in house and they are rather bright. They're going to do Steve for breach of contract, not for anything to do with this case.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6672898#post6672898

Perhaps SA can indirectly reply as to how this quote could be construed in any other way than that he had written to Pepperdine, and that in the communication he'd provided them with "all of the online content of Steve Moore's interviews etc", and that he'd "also pointed out the factual errors in them". Seems to me (and every other rational person) that this quote completely contradicts SA's claim that he never wrote to (or communicated with) Pepperdine. So if the truth is that he didn't ever write to Pepperdine, would SA therefore like to confirm that the JREF post referenced above was a lie, and perhaps why he felt the need to write such a lie?

Oh and SA's judgement about Pepperdine's lawyers being "rather bright" also seems to have been found wanting. If they were "rather bright" they would only have terminated his employment with proper cause and due process: if that had happened, Pepperdine wouldn't have had to offer a (presumably) sizeable out-of-court settlement to Moore in order to prevent him from taking the matter to court (where it's clear that Moore would have won the case).

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and by the way, here's two other holes in SA's narrative:

1) SA is suggesting that Guede essentially ran out of the cottage directly after the murder*. But this cannot have been at any time between 10.30pm and 11.30-11.35pm, since the broken-down car was directly opposite the cottage front door during this period, and all three occupants (who were sitting in darkness and silence waiting for the tow truck to arrive) were certain that nobody entered or exited the cottage while they were there - and nor were there any lights or sounds from inside the cottage. So SA's narrative would require either a) that Meredith was murdered before 10.30pm, that Guede left immediately, but that Knox and Sollecito remained inside the cottage for over an hour until after 11.30pm before leaving and being "heard" by the ear witnesses, or b) Meredith was killed at some time after 11.30pm. Neither of these is plausible.

2) There's the small matter of the position of Meredith's UK mobile handset when it received the MMS message at 10.13pm. The totality of the cell site data strongly suggests that at this time the phone was situated somewhere on the route between the cottage and the garden where it was ultimately dumped. This in turn of course implies that Meredith's killer had left the cottage shortly after 10pm, and had been carrying the handset (along with Meredith's Italian phone) when the MMS alert went at 10.13pm.

* SA apparently mistakenly believes that the shoe print evidence indicates this to be the only explanation, whereas in fact it's perfectly possible that Guede went in and out of Meredith's room more than once after the murder, but only tracked the blood out on the sole of his shoe on his final exit.

 

[LondonJohn]

And....... SA now says this about the ToD in his narrative:

We know what the best indication of ToD is: Raffaele Sollecito's attempt to give himself an alibi for being at his flat at 11pm due to the apparent call of his father.

Now I don't want to be accused of misinterpreting SA, but wouldn't I be correct to infer from the above that his suggested ToD was 11pm (or maybe shortly before)?

And if that's the case, I offer the following retort: BZZZZT! WRONG! The presence of the three decent witnesses in the broken-down car opposite the cottage absolutely precludes any attack (or entry/exit from the cottage) between 10.30pm and 11.30-11.35pm. The presence of these important witnesses means that Meredith simply has to have been killed either before 10.30pm or after 11.30pm. And in fact, the window is actually wider than this, because the murder would have had a preamble and an aftermath - none of which could have taken place while the car was outside. So, in fact, the attack has to have taken place before around 10.15pm, or after around 11.45pm. And the stomach/intestine contents prove it wasn't after 11.45pm. So Meredith must have been attacked before 10.15pm.

 

[RandyN]

Well there's also the "testimony" of ear witness Nara Capezzali, who claimed to have heard a scream at around 11.30pm that was extraordinarily haunting and bloodcurdling, but that she then neither woke her daughter nor called the police/paramedics. And who can forget that Capezzali was the witness about whose reliability and veracity Massei gave the following priceless analysis:



And the first court apparently also believed the ear witness testimony of two other women (Monacchia and Dramis), both of whom were "half-asleep" at the time, and neither of whom either took any action at the time or the following day (or days, or weeks). Call me Mr Cynical, but my reasonable assessment of these three individuals' testimony is that they either imagined what they think they heard (influenced by subsequent knowledge of the crime), or they completely fabricated their testimony in order to insert themselves into a sensational and high-profile case. Either way, one thing is clear: their evidence, and the way in which it was obtained, simply cannot be relied upon as accurate, reliable, probative evidence.

BTW, I wonder if SA will address my conundrum: which of his posts regarding communication with Pepperdine University about Steve Moore was true, and which was a lie? Did he communicate with Pepperdine to try to influence Moore's wrongful dismissal case (which turned out rather badly for Pepperdine, incidentally), or did he not? Surely it can't be that hard to set the record straight.....

I read PMF today and he says on there that he never tried to get Moore fired. So one of his posts must certainly be a lie...or maybe two of his posts are a lie...or maybe all of his posts are a lie. One, two, three or all have to be lies.

I’m thinking you may never get an answer from him about this issue. This same person who lays down the gauntlet to debate anyone and yet who remains hidden under Peggys Ganongs dress like a scared puppy. Another conundrum.

 

[RandyN]

It's somewhat tiresome to have to interact with JREF member SA in an indirect way, but that's his choice so I'll run with it.

Regarding ToD, SA's post on .org, he correlates Knox and Sollecito leaving the cottage shortly after participating in the murder (in his narrative, they remain in the cottage only briefly after the murder, in order to wash blood off themselves and do a very brief clean-up) with the noises allegedly heard by Capezzali and others "around 23.30". So this clearly implies that SA's narrative places the ToD at shortly before 11.30pm (let's say 11.15 to be extremely generous). What's perfectly clear is that SA's narrative does not involve Knox and Sollecito participating in the murder at some time well before 10.30pm. And what does SA make of Capezzali's "scream of death" that she says she hears very shortly before the footsteps? Does he think Capezzali is accurate in her recall of the footsteps, but unreliable and untrue in her recall of the "bloodcurdling" scream? After all, there can be no other candidate for this horrendous, chilling "scream of death" but the victim herself. So if you're going with Capezzali for the footsteps, aren't you implicitly also going with her for the scream, and aren't you therefore placing the ToD just before the footsteps?



I wonder what SA does with Toto then? Toto after all claims ...at least 5 out of 6 times that AK and RS are in the plaza from 9 PM until 12 midnight. Nara hears a scream and footsteps but NEVER says a time and NO time can be attributed to her testimony...she knows that she takes pills and that these pills make her pee a few hours later during the night. (which begs the question why not take the pills in the morning then...) So what we know about Nara is that sometime after 9 PM and the next morning she heard a scream and footsteps. That any court would allow such a witness and to further make a conclusion based on this witness defies logic, truth, and fact. A court would have to be dishonest to allow this testimony and even draw a conclusion based on it, other than she heard a scream and footsteps sometime when it was dark out on the evening of the 1st of Nov or early morning of Nov 2nd.

And the above leaves out the broken down car people. But, it now includes Patrick Lumumba because he no longer has an alibi for these times. He also is known to hang out at the steps where students sometimes go to buy drugs. Add all Dan O questions and we begin to have a whole nuther case. Don’t forget that during the time between 2 Nov and 6 Nov AK and RS were being followed by police. AK met Patrick outside the school in this time period. I wonder what police thought about that particular meeting? Hummmmmmm what could they possibly imagine ??? A real puzzler...that. Besides doesn’t he look like a drugie? What with the strange hair style and that silly grin...plus he married a white woman...that must mean something.

So it could be the bro's acting as a team...who knew?

 

[RWVBWL]

Paranoia...

So I'm at the beach right now, kickin' it in my truck's office. Been here since around 5:35am, it's mid afternoon now, the waves are fun today. Sun came out an hour and a half ago, went and set up a buncha camera's to hopefully see a shark breach the ocean surface. No luck.

A few of the boyz, before they just paddled out for a surf session, smoked out. It's hot outside, I'm in shorts, no t-shirt. I was drinkin' a cold brewski. Always on the lookout for cops, heck who needs a drinkin' in public ticket today? The boyz don't gotta wory about smokin' pot here in California any more, for it's legal, everyone can get a doctors prescription. But I recall many a time when the surf crew was smokin' out when it was illegal. No one wants to be arrested for that, or havin' pot on 'em. Always a bit of paranoia if and when the man cruised by. "Oh sheeet, the cops, hide the joint." Today it's hide the beer if he does come by*...


So I get to thinkin' as I throw down my beer, of Amanda and Raffaele, involved in a brutal sex game gone wrong. Or was it a hazing that went tragically wrong. Or was that a cat fight over bringin' to many guys home. Or wait, was it an argument that got outta control because Amanda didn't clean the friggin' toilet?

Whatever theory it was that the cops, or the colpevolisti finally agree upon, Amanda and Raffaele both said they got stoned that night. Gettin' stoned and bein' involved in a bloody stabbing murder would make me paranoid as heck. What am I gonna do? Hmmm. Being stoned is an excellant way to do a serious clean-up, I've re-arranged many of the places I've lived while under the influence of THC. So I;m gonna pretend that Amanda and Raff did do a clean-up.

The clean-up should have been a breeze, in my humble opinion. Wipe this bloody area down, rinse out the washrag, wipe it down again. Throw the bloody clothing away, and the bloody bathmat too, along with the knife/knives. Raff touched Meredith's bra clasp, where is it? Can't find it, it must be under the body. Lift it, move it. gotta find it and throw it away. There's some hair, whoevers it is, pick it up and throw it away outside or flush it down the toilet with the bra clasp too. Put Amanda's lamp back in her room. Lock the door, throw away the keys. Opps, forgot to put the lamp back, and throw the bra casp away. Gotta get it. Gotta break down the door then. Do it, no one will hear if they didn't even come a runnin' when Meredith screamed...

Now I don't know about you, but when I used was a young buck and got stoned, I would worry a lot about the cops if or when I had to go out. I was definately more paranoid of gettin' pulled over and having to converse with the man, since I've been doing something illegal. Yikes!

If Raffaele had not already called the cops when the Postal Police pulled up to return Filomena and Meredith's cell phones, and I was pretending to be Amanda, I would have been extremely paranoid if I was involved in a bloody murder and trying to complete an immaculent clean-up. Who wouldn't? I would have just been very direct in my answering any questions that the police had asked and tried to get outta the situation fast. "No officer, the owner's of the cell phones are not home, but I'll be sure and give them to back to my friends. Thanks for bringin' them over. We are leaving on a trip outta town so I gotta run. Thanks, again, goodbye."

Now in my experience, nobody that does illegal activities, such as drinkin' in public, as I was just doin', or smokin' pot or hash in a country where it is illegal, or much more seriously, stabbing someone in her throat again and again until death, is ever going to invite police officers into the house where this activity took place.

"Hey officer I'm drinkin' a beer outside in public, come on over, wanna chat with me and smell it on my breath?" Right...

"Hey officer, I helped murder my housemate last night, and I was really stoned too. Wanna come inside? Follow me, I'll wanna show you a bloody fooprint, a broken window and some crap in a toilet." Right...


So say you're a stoner. You did do the crime. You tried to hide it, but it just won't go away. What do ya do. Run? Leave Italy for the U.S.A.? or elsewher? Na, you just keep keep on smokin' out, thats what. But you definately have to be at least a lttle bit paraniod by the now. "I wonder when I'm gonna be busted? Everbody is talking about my crime,"you would have to have thought. And then when the cops call your boyfriend on a Monday night where you 2 are smoking out again, what do you do? Answer the phone or let it go to voice mail? Hmmm, let's keep the ruse going. "Honey, answer it, let's go mess with the cops some more." "Ok, officer, sure I'll come on down for further questioning, but let us finish dinner 1st." Right...

Where was the paranoia that any stoner, 1 who smokes out in a country where it is illegal to do so, would surely have exhibted?
Especially stoners who killed another person...


* - Don't worry,
I won't drink and drive, I'll be here at the beach for 5 more hours today, my mild buzz will surely be gone...
L8, RW

 

[LondonJohn]

Hahaha - so now SA is claiming (from behind his firewall) that he actually called Pepperdine and "asked them about their approach". Let me remind SA and everyone else what he posted last October:

I contacted Pepperdine to provide them all of the online content of Steve Moore's interviews etc to save them time. Since Steve stands by them, I believe you couldn't object to that. I also pointed out the factual errors in them. After that I've left it. Pepperdine's lawyers are in house and they are rather bright. They're going to do Steve for breach of contract, not for anything to do with this case.

So he "provided them with all the online content of Steve Moore's interviews" via a phone call, did he? And he "also pointed out the factual errors in them (the online interviews)" by phone, did he? And even if he did do all this by phone (which I don't believe), how does any of this tally with SA's latest claim that he phoned Pepperdine merely to "ask them about their approach"?

Tell you what I think: I think that this latest story is a load of crap. And I think that SA is a liar. Either he wrote (probably by email) to Pepperdine as implied in the above quote, or he merely "phoned to ask them about their approach" - in which case the above quote is a lie in itself. Personally, I don't think he ever even picked up the phone to make a transatlantic phone call to an office eight time zones away. But whether he did or not, he's a liar, simple as that.

And regarding the ToD issue, I wonder why SA's being coy and not putting forth what ToD he assumes in his narrative? I think I know the reason why: it's because no ToD will fit with his narrative and the known evidence, and I think he knows that. And that's why we get ludicrous little games such as "Ah, I didn't actually say what my ToD was", or cryptic little allusions to ToD through the reference to Sollecito and the "11pm" phone call. Interestingly, SA chooses to respond to my demolition (although I say so myself) of his narrative - through this an inability to square away the ToD - with the following charming "riposte":

I note that LoJo has singularly failed to acknowledge his (expletive deleted) up on ToD allegations. People with brains admit when they (expletive deleted) up. He just blusters over. Evidence in spades. Why not have the balls to admit you (expletive deleted) up?

Such charm and style! And yes, I failed to acknowledge my (expletive deleted) up, for the simple reason that I didn't (expletive deleted) up. You did. Sorry about that.

PS: SA aims to unilaterally end this discussion (on his terms, naturally) with the following - also charming and stylish - approach:

More communication from JLOL (his term for JREF, where he is still a member) by proxy. It's going to be the last I'm going to do of this since the level of intelligence clearly doesn't warrant the time spent....

Maybe I should start by reminding SA that this discussion is only taking place by proxy because it's his choice to do so. He is a member of JREF, and could debate this and other issues here if he had the....what was the term....."balls to do so". But he seemingly chooses not to. I'd then add that he and others have quite deliberately employed a tactic of pretending that they don't read here, so that they can claim plausible deniability if there are things posted here that they'd rather not respond to (usually because there's no rational response available). How coincidental it is that "good people" of their home forum always seem to "bring things to their attention" only when they think they can argue against them. the game being played here is completely transparent, and more than a little sad.

 

[tsig]

It's somewhat tiresome to have to interact with JREF member SA in an indirect way, but that's his choice so I'll run with it.

Regarding ToD, SA's post on .org, he correlates Knox and Sollecito leaving the cottage shortly after participating in the murder (in his narrative, they remain in the cottage only briefly after the murder, in order to wash blood off themselves and do a very brief clean-up) with the noises allegedly heard by Capezzali and others "around 23.30". So this clearly implies that SA's narrative places the ToD at shortly before 11.30pm (let's say 11.15 to be extremely generous). What's perfectly clear is that SA's narrative does not involve Knox and Sollecito participating in the murder at some time well before 10.30pm. And what does SA make of Capezzali's "scream of death" that she says she hears very shortly before the footsteps? Does he think Capezzali is accurate in her recall of the footsteps, but unreliable and untrue in her recall of the "bloodcurdling" scream? After all, there can be no other candidate for this horrendous, chilling "scream of death" but the victim herself. So if you're going with Capezzali for the footsteps, aren't you implicitly also going with her for the scream, and aren't you therefore placing the ToD just before the footsteps?

Second, SA helpfully "repeats" that he "never wrote to Pepperdine". All fine and dandy. Except that SA wrote the following in October 2010 (my bolding):



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6672898#post6672898

Perhaps SA can indirectly reply as to how this quote could be construed in any other way than that he had written to Pepperdine, and that in the communication he'd provided them with "all of the online content of Steve Moore's interviews etc", and that he'd "also pointed out the factual errors in them". Seems to me (and every other rational person) that this quote completely contradicts SA's claim that he never wrote to (or communicated with) Pepperdine. So if the truth is that he didn't ever write to Pepperdine, would SA therefore like to confirm that the JREF post referenced above was a lie, and perhaps why he felt the need to write such a lie?

Oh and SA's judgement about Pepperdine's lawyers being "rather bright" also seems to have been found wanting. If they were "rather bright" they would only have terminated his employment with proper cause and due process: if that had happened, Pepperdine wouldn't have had to offer a (presumably) sizeable out-of-court settlement to Moore in order to prevent him from taking the matter to court (where it's clear that Moore would have won the case).

LJ if you want to argue with a poster on another forum then why not go to that forum and do it? I see no point in posting your arguments here where the other person may not see them.

From this forum it looks a lot like you're arguing with an empty chair.

 

[Mary_H]

Why is Sollecito letting Knox take all the flak? Why doesn't he tell the court that Knox was with him all night? Or give the court the innocent explanation for his bloody bathmat footprint?

Judge Claudia Matteini stated in her report of November 9th, 2007, that Raffaele Sollecito had told her (probably through his attorneys) that Amanda Knox was with him all night.

Does anyone here have a copy of the complete report?

 

[Mary_H]

LJ if you want to argue with a poster on another forum then why not go to that forum and do it? I see no point in posting your arguments here where the other person may not see them.

From this forum it looks a lot like you're arguing with an empty chair.

Oh, they see them. If they didn't, then the ones from yesterday about Peggy Ganong's Bruce Fisher post would still be here, instead of in AAH.