Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
The Vogt article is interesting for a few reasons.

It's her first article in the PI in well over 2 months. It's dateline is COULSDON, England hmmmm. She refers to the knife as a butcher knife (perhaps it can be called that but really it's clear why she didn't call it a kitchen knife).

Vogt hasn't written for anybody because she's doing a TV special in Italy - any guess the slant if she's in Coulsdon?

She says they got Rudy by fingerprints. I thought it was a palm print.

She says Hellman is a civil judge but then reports that he freed a man convicted of murder.

She tries to make the independent experts' report about paper or plastic instead of totally bad procedures that don't follow protocol.

Vogt is really a bad a reporter.



Picky but I don't think one can see downtown Seattle from any pizza place on Alki not sure anyplace on Alki Beach affords such a view.
Click to expand...

This is about the best article I have seen from Vogt in a long time. My overall impression is that she makes an attempt at fairness. Perhaps her opinion is changing.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
There is absolutely no proof to suggest that Amanda or Raffaele were under the influence of any drug other than cannabis.

It was the pot and comic books that caused them to become sex crazed killers.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know that. I was trying to find out for sure if there was a negative drug test for cannabis cocaine that would refute the speculations, but nobody seems to have a citation.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
js202 said:
- They claim that AK and RS have no alibi for the night of Kercher's murder, and yet the Perugian authorities damaged hard drives that could have provided exculpatory evidence.
Click to expand...


The hard drive from Raffaele's MacBook Pro was never damaged and it does contain exculpatory evidence. It proves the playing of Amelie. It shows the opening of Naruto at 21:26. Activation of a web connection shortly before 1am. And through the screensaver logs, it confirms Raffaele's story that he was home all night using his computer till he went to bed AFTER 6AM the next morning.
 
Rolfe said:
Yes, I know that. I was trying to find out for sure if there was a negative drug test for cannabis that would refute the speculations, but nobody seems to have a citation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I have seen 8 November mentioned in relation to this but I don't remember the source, will try to find it.
 
Dan O. said:
The hard drive from Raffaele's MacBook Pro was never damaged and it does contain exculpatory evidence. It proves the playing of Amelie. It shows the opening of Naruto at 21:26. Activation of a web connection shortly before 1am. And through the screensaver logs, it confirms Raffaele's story that he was home all night using his computer till he went to bed AFTER 6AM the next morning.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I had obviously read about this information in RS's appeal documents, but understood that this evidence had been culled post hoc, despite the futzing up of the hard drive.

Why wasn't this evidence presented in such a cogent and compelling fashion in the first trial?
 
RoseMontague said:
I have seen 8 November mentioned in relation to this but I don't remember the source, will try to find it.
Click to expand...


Dan O. said:
That would mean that they were lying about being pot heads. Can not smoking dope do that to you? :confused:
Click to expand...


Sorry, see my correction. I thought I had read that a drugs test was done and showed only a small amount of cannabis. No cocaine. PMF.net is currently running a line that Amanda killed Meredith because she was high on cocaine.

Rolfe.
 
js202 said:
Interesting. I had obviously read about this information in RS's appeal documents, but understood that this evidence had been culled post hoc, despite the futzing up of the hard drive.

Why wasn't this evidence presented in such a cogent and compelling fashion in the first trial?
Click to expand...


Well, it's sort of complicated to answer this question. The crux of the matter is that the defence teams simply didn't appear to realise the significance of ToD at the time of the first trial. In my opinion, they made two separate (but connected) mistakes: 1) they didn't seem to realise that there was ample evidence/testimony available to make a very persuasive argument for a ToD definitely before 10pm, and almost certainly before 9.30pm; and 2) they didn't therefore realise that existing computer log evidence on Sollecito's laptop would allow them to make a persuasive argument that at least one of Sollecito and Knox (and probably both of them) must have been at Sollecito's apartment at the time of the murder.

I know I've said it many times before, and I know that some pro-acquittal commentators here disagree with it, but I think the defence teams did a poor job in the first trial. I think they slipped up in many areas, of which this was perhaps one of the most crucial. Yes, I also agree that the odds were stacked against Knox and Sollecito in the first trial, owing to the mendacity and cunning of the prosecutors, the credulous and illogical nature of Massei's court, and the prevailing public opinion at the time. But even notwithstanding all that, I truly believe that a better defence performance might well have resulted in Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals in the first trial.

It's also true to say that the defence were stymied on the ToD issue somewhat, when Mignini moved the prosecution ToD back by over an hour in his closing argument. I think it was improper judicially for Massei to have allowed this change, since it gave the defence teams scant opportunity for rebuttal. But even before this Mignini stunt, i think that the defence teams should have realised - long before the Massei trial started in fact - that they had a very strong ToD-and-computer-evidence-related argument for their clients' non-involvement in the murder. They should in my opinion have employed this argument strongly in Massei's court. That they didn't do so was, in my view, a significant failing on behalf of the two defence teams - especially Sollecito's.

I think that the introduction to the Knox/Sollecito teams of US-based specialist defence consultants, who are able to devote sufficient time, expertise and experience to putting together the best possible defence strategy, has had a very significant effect on the quality of Knox's/Sollecito's defence. You won't see or hear these consultants in public: it's a good strategy to keep them behind the scenes, plus they are not qualified to practice courtroom law in Italy. but I believe they've made a very large difference. And I think that Knox and Sollecito will owe their forthcoming acquittals in large part to the work of these consultants. I only hope that their fees won't have long-term adverse financial impact upon the families.
 
Rolfe said:
Sorry, see my correction. I thought I had read that a drugs test was done and showed only a small amount of cannabis. No cocaine. PMF.net is currently running a line that Amanda killed Meredith because she was high on cocaine.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

They just made up the cocaine use.

ETA: Angel Face page 56 makes reference to the fact that they were not tested for drug use at the time they were witnesses.

I can't find anything other than comments that they were tested for drugs at all.
 
Last edited:
js202 said:
Interesting. I had obviously read about this information in RS's appeal documents, but understood that this evidence had been culled post hoc, despite the futzing up of the hard drive.

Why wasn't this evidence presented in such a cogent and compelling fashion in the first trial?
Click to expand...


It was:
Perugia Shock MONDAY said:
What claimed by Bongiorno, that there was an interaction with Naruto at 21:26 simply it wasn't true according to the postal police, otherwise they would have found it.
Click to expand...


The screen saver evidence was first presented in Raffaele's appeal. It wasn't even relevant until the prosecution shifted the time of death to 11:30 in their closing arguments.
 
RoseMontague said:
They just made up the cocaine use.

ETA: Angel Face page 56 makes reference to the fact that they were not tested for drug use at the time they were witnesses.

I can't find anything other than comments that they were tested for drugs at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, to the extent that they hypothesize that RS and AK were cocaine *dealers* on the streets of Perugia. Complete, unfounded BS, as is much of what passes for reasoned commentary on PMF and TJMK.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, it's sort of complicated to answer this question. The crux of the matter is that the defence teams simply didn't appear to realise the significance of ToD at the time of the first trial. In my opinion, they made two separate (but connected) mistakes: 1) they didn't seem to realise that there was ample evidence/testimony available to make a very persuasive argument for a ToD definitely before 10pm, and almost certainly before 9.30pm; and 2) they didn't therefore realise that existing computer log evidence on Sollecito's laptop would allow them to make a persuasive argument that at least one of Sollecito and Knox (and probably both of them) must have been at Sollecito's apartment at the time of the murder.

I know I've said it many times before, and I know that some pro-acquittal commentators here disagree with it, but I think the defence teams did a poor job in the first trial. I think they slipped up in many areas, of which this was perhaps one of the most crucial. Yes, I also agree that the odds were stacked against Knox and Sollecito in the first trial, owing to the mendacity and cunning of the prosecutors, the credulous and illogical nature of Massei's court, and the prevailing public opinion at the time. But even notwithstanding all that, I truly believe that a better defence performance might well have resulted in Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals in the first trial.

It's also true to say that the defence were stymied on the ToD issue somewhat, when Mignini moved the prosecution ToD back by over an hour in his closing argument. I think it was improper judicially for Massei to have allowed this change, since it gave the defence teams scant opportunity for rebuttal. But even before this Mignini stunt, i think that the defence teams should have realised - long before the Massei trial started in fact - that they had a very strong ToD-and-computer-evidence-related argument for their clients' non-involvement in the murder. They should in my opinion have employed this argument strongly in Massei's court. That they didn't do so was, in my view, a significant failing on behalf of the two defence teams - especially Sollecito's.

I think that the introduction to the Knox/Sollecito teams of US-based specialist defence consultants, who are able to devote sufficient time, expertise and experience to putting together the best possible defence strategy, has had a very significant effect on the quality of Knox's/Sollecito's defence. You won't see or hear these consultants in public: it's a good strategy to keep them behind the scenes, plus they are not qualified to practice courtroom law in Italy. but I believe they've made a very large difference. And I think that Knox and Sollecito will owe their forthcoming acquittals in large part to the work of these consultants. I only hope that their fees won't have long-term adverse financial impact upon the families.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I think that the incredible manipulation of the time of death by Mignini stymied a reasoned or rational response from RS's team.

But I do agree with you that neither defense team was especially forward leaning in the first trial.
 
Dan O. said:
It was:



The screen saver evidence was first presented in Raffaele's appeal. It wasn't even relevant until the prosecution shifted the time of death to 11:30 in their closing arguments.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That makes perfect sense.
 
Rolfe said:
Sorry, see my correction. I thought I had read that a drugs test was done and showed only a small amount of cannabis. No cocaine. PMF.net is currently running a line that Amanda killed Meredith because she was high on cocaine.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the cocaine story is nonsense: it's unsupported by any proper evidence, and it's almost certainly just plain wrong. It's inconceivable that the police didn't conduct a hair drug test after the arrests of Knox and Sollecito: even back then the prosecutors were claiming that this was some sort of drink-and-drug-fuelled sex game gone wrong (or even, in Mignini's eyes, some sort of satanic ritual). It's therefore clear that the police would have wanted to look for evidence of drug use (particularly of heavy and habitual drug use) at the time of the murder. The fact that we have heard nothing about such drug use can only therefore lead to one possible rational conclusion: the police tested for "harder" drugs such as cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy etc, and found no trace of such drugs. Otherwise you can be sure that this evidence would feature very highly in the prosecution case.

In addition to the hair test issue, it's also abundantly clear that the police searches of Knox's room and Sollecito's apartment after their arrests found no trace of either hard drugs or hard-drug paraphernalia. And I strongly suspect that the police also made inquiries amongst Perugia's hard-drug-dealing community: if that's the case, then they must have not been able to find anyone who had dealt harder drugs to either of the pair, since we'd certainly have heard about it if police had found their dealer.

Lastly, some pro-guilt commentators have leaped onto two other issues to try to prove Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in harder drugs: the phone number of a man subsequently convicted of dealing cocaine, which was allegedly stored in Knox's phone memory and which she allegedly called both before and after the murder; and the possibility of Guede supplying Knox/Sollecito of cocaine (or other hard drugs) on the night of the murder.

But those people trying to make these connection are clutching at straws, in my opinion. Most people who deal drugs are not "full-time professional drug dealers": many of the street-level foot soldiers in this trade have jobs that bring them into contact with people who are potential customers. That's why it's not uncommon to find a significant level of drug dealing among nightclub/bar bouncers, nightclub/bar workers/managers, or anyone whose job entails high levels of contact with students and young people. And therefore it's just as likely that Knox was acquainted this particular individual through a perfectly anodyne and innocent connection, rather than a desire to buy cocaine from him. And regarding Guede, there's little evidence that he dealt cocaine, only that he had used it. It's most certainly stretching credulity - particularly in a legal sense - to be claiming that there's any indication whatsoever that Guede supplied cocaine (or some other hard drug) to Knox and/or Sollecito on the night of November 1st 2007.

In short: there's zero evidence that Knox or Sollecito were using any drugs other than alcohol and marijuana/cannabis around the time of Meredith's murder, and nor is there any evidence whatsoever that they were anything other than mildly stoned on grass on the night of the murder itself. It's time to put this insulting, inaccurate and partisan myth to bed once and for all.
 
Randy posted earlier:


[Post 2770]
Author : RWVBWL
Date : 20th August 2011 09:34 PM
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?
Click to expand...


It's like Whack-a-Mole the way these issues keep popping up.
 
RoseMontague said:
Nope. Not exactly a glowing review, but I believe her approach has changed in this new article. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


If her approach has changed at all, in my opinion it's only because she's now fully aware that virtually the entire media corps in Perugia (Italian and non-Italian alike) is now agreeing that Knox and Sollecito are about to be acquitted in Hellmann's court. I think therefore that she knows she's going to look even more stupid, ill-informed and isolated than usual (if that's possible....) if she carries on with her presumption of guilt.

My opinion on Vogt is that she is a) hopelessly compromised and partisan, and b) either unwilling to change her mind in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or too unintelligent to assimilate the evidence properly. In my view, therefore, she has no chance of ever writing a truly objective piece on the murder or the trials of Knox and Sollecito. While I think that the reporting of Pisa and Clouseau has been low-grade, irrational and ill-informed, I think that neither of these two other reporters was ever invested in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt to anywhere near the same extent as Vogt was and is. I strongly suspect that after the acquittals Vogt will be trying to (very subtly) peddle the line that they "probably did it" but that the police/prosecutors messed up the case, allowing them to walk free. I guess we'll see how right I am about that quite soon.
 
Why not assume that Rudy was high on cocaine?

Rolfe said:
Sorry, see my correction. I thought I had read that a drugs test was done and showed only a small amount of cannabis. No cocaine. PMF.net is currently running a line that Amanda killed Meredith because she was high on cocaine.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Rolfe,

It would make more sense to posit that Rudy killed Meredith because he was high on cocaine, IMHO. There is a (tabloid?) news report that suggested that Rudy had a coke habit, FWIW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom