• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will try again with this question. Is it normal practice to bring officials from Rome late at night and use half of the police force to " interview" someone who is not a suspect? Also, is it normal and legal to refuse legal representation? AK&RS were denied not just that night but long afterwards. Is it normal and legal to tap the phones of people who are not suspects, and also their families?
 
madrigal said:
Why doesnt the defence insist they are taken.

The reason is that there were not enough dna mixes between Meredith/Other yet enough mixes of Knox/Meredith to conclude that she may have been at the scene.
Click to expand...


This is an interesting idea. If the DNA is left randomly around the house, then the DNA of all of the roommates should have been found in the aggregate of all the swabs collected. Since only Knox's DNA was found, it is proof that the luminol spots are evidence of Knox in the house as she spread the blood of Ms Kercher around the cottage. It contains an irreparable flaw.


Either Knox's DNA is Knox's blood or it is not. If Knox's DNA is not blood, how did Knox's DNA get into the spot? There are two possibilities. 1) pressure from stepping on the spot 2) any other way.

If the answer is any other way, then how is that way possibly connected to the crime? But if the answer is from the pressure of stepping, then, so what? Knox stepped all over that cottage in bare feet. Knox stepped around the house she lived in a lot. The DNA would be on the floor if she is guilty or if she is not guilty of the crime. Finding it proves nothing.

On the other hand, if it is Knox's blood, there again are two choices: either she bled in a way that only dripped from the bottom of her foot or she bled in any other way. But no cuts were found on Knox when medically examined. Even a paper cut could not heal that fast. Beyond this, if Knox also bled there would be traces found with just her blood. It is not conceivable that Knox could control her bleeding to be careful to bleed only where Meredith's traces could be found. Nor is it conceivable that she could clean the apartment in such a way that every trace of her bleeding is absent but the mixed traces remain. How could she know?

So, the mixed traces do not contain Knox's blood, and if they do contain Knox's DNA, it is not possible to link the finding to the crime.

The interesting question remains, why did they only find Knox's DNA. The answer however is not in the crime, but in the workings of the Italian authorities.
 
Progress

This was posted today by Greggy on Perugia Murder File. Greggy is considered to be one of their experts so I think this is a sign of progress.

Greggy:

I Try To Learn From My Mistakes

There have been a number of diatribes posted recently about the verdicts issued by Judge Hellman and the Jury. I think it is important to remember that Judge Hellman and the Jury were there every day of the appeal directly hearing and evaluating evidence, sizing up the affect of witnesses, and making informed conclusions. Many of us commentators drank heavily of the prosecution theories (myself included) as if it was a fine Chianti wine and now we have a hangover.

I think we need to face the possibility that maybe we were wrong. Maybe when this murder occurred, Miss Knox was just a flakey, self-centered, truth-challenged American girl who got so scared during her interrogation that she made up a very mean story in an attempt to get out of there. I am especially disappointed in myself and my loss of objectivity. So when you see old Greggy posting in the future on other websites about some new horrible crime – know this:

1. I will not make strong statements about a case and its evidence when a rogue prosecutor is involved because I will have to take into consideration the possibility that some of the interpretations of the evidence may have been enhanced to gain a conviction.

2. I will try to not get scientist goose-bumpy excited when I look at DNA evidence and make strong statements about it until I find out how it was obtained, and whether the results were confirmed at least in duplicate or by a confirmatory set of tests. In my opinion, the reckless presentation of the bologna-flavored double-DNA knife evidence helped taint the credibility of all the DNA evidence.

3. I will not make strong statements about a case when the prosecution has acted unethically very early on with a defendant, as in this case when Miss Knox’s entire sexual history was obtained by a ruse and then the information was mysteriously released to the press. Recall the other prejudicial leaks we have had in this case that are still unconfirmed whether they actually occurred or are true. Ethics and credibility are all-or-none items in a criminal prosecution.

4. I will try my best not to succumb and accept bold sensationalist crime scenarios proposed by the prosecution. I will remember that the role of the prosecution is to gain convictions, as in this case with the prosecution –proposed sex orgy scenario which had all three defendants holding the victim down so that three murder convictions could be more easily obtained.

I sincerely thank the PMF site hosts for allowing me to post on their outstanding forum, and thank each of you that have treated me kindly during our time together on this sad case. I am very glad that RG is rotting in jail for the murder of Miss Kercher.
 
Scorpion NITE said:
Before until you wrote this, the best truth I could think of was that you are a breath of fresh air. The Italian police could certainly do with chosing you for an award and I know that because I undertook a full statement analysis of your posts and found evidence beyond compare. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You are addressing the arguer. What about the topic?
 
Wow!

Bruce Fisher said:
This was posted today by Greggy on Perugia Murder File. Greggy is considered to be one of their experts so I think this is a sign of progress.

Greggy:

I Try To Learn From My Mistakes

There have been a number of diatribes posted recently about the verdicts issued by Judge Hellman and the Jury. I think it is important to remember that Judge Hellman and the Jury were there every day of the appeal directly hearing and evaluating evidence, sizing up the affect of witnesses, and making informed conclusions. Many of us commentators drank heavily of the prosecution theories (myself included) as if it was a fine Chianti wine and now we have a hangover.

I think we need to face the possibility that maybe we were wrong. Maybe when this murder occurred, Miss Knox was just a flakey, self-centered, truth-challenged American girl who got so scared during her interrogation that she made up a very mean story in an attempt to get out of there. I am especially disappointed in myself and my loss of objectivity. So when you see old Greggy posting in the future on other websites about some new horrible crime – know this:

1. I will not make strong statements about a case and its evidence when a rogue prosecutor is involved because I will have to take into consideration the possibility that some of the interpretations of the evidence may have been enhanced to gain a conviction.

2. I will try to not get scientist goose-bumpy excited when I look at DNA evidence and make strong statements about it until I find out how it was obtained, and whether the results were confirmed at least in duplicate or by a confirmatory set of tests. In my opinion, the reckless presentation of the bologna-flavored double-DNA knife evidence helped taint the credibility of all the DNA evidence.

3. I will not make strong statements about a case when the prosecution has acted unethically very early on with a defendant, as in this case when Miss Knox’s entire sexual history was obtained by a ruse and then the information was mysteriously released to the press. Recall the other prejudicial leaks we have had in this case that are still unconfirmed whether they actually occurred or are true. Ethics and credibility are all-or-none items in a criminal prosecution.

4. I will try my best not to succumb and accept bold sensationalist crime scenarios proposed by the prosecution. I will remember that the role of the prosecution is to gain convictions, as in this case with the prosecution –proposed sex orgy scenario which had all three defendants holding the victim down so that three murder convictions could be more easily obtained.

I sincerely thank the PMF site hosts for allowing me to post on their outstanding forum, and thank each of you that have treated me kindly during our time together on this sad case. I am very glad that RG is rotting in jail for the murder of Miss Kercher.
Click to expand...


Wow.

I will take the statement at face value.

Kudos to Greggy.

I hope he does not get the usual retort ''Thanks for stopping by'' :D

It is refreshing to see that Greggy appears humble and intelligent enough to see where he went wrong and I am especially pleased to see his last line about Rudy Guede.

I do get the impression that the post may be his last or one of his last ones on PMF.

Anyway, credit where credit is due.

Good on you, Greggy.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
Interesting that you don't see the positive spin in the NYT editorial though. I certainly do. They called her an 'Innocent Angel for a start'.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. The title was "Innocent Abroad," not "Innocent Angel" -- the reference, since I'm assuming you don't know it, is to "The Innocents Abroad, or The New Pilgrims' Progress," a travel book by Mark Twain, in part about how naive American tourists overseas manage to get into trouble through not appreciating the cultural differences between the U.S. and the places they are visiting.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
This was posted today by Greggy on Perugia Murder File. Greggy is considered to be one of their experts so I think this is a sign of progress.

Greggy:

I Try To Learn From My Mistakes

There have been a number of diatribes posted recently about the verdicts issued by Judge Hellman and the Jury. I think it is important to remember that Judge Hellman and the Jury were there every day of the appeal directly hearing and evaluating evidence, sizing up the affect of witnesses, and making informed conclusions. Many of us commentators drank heavily of the prosecution theories (myself included) as if it was a fine Chianti wine and now we have a hangover.

I think we need to face the possibility that maybe we were wrong. Maybe when this murder occurred, Miss Knox was just a flakey, self-centered, truth-challenged American girl who got so scared during her interrogation that she made up a very mean story in an attempt to get out of there. I am especially disappointed in myself and my loss of objectivity. So when you see old Greggy posting in the future on other websites about some new horrible crime – know this:

1. I will not make strong statements about a case and its evidence when a rogue prosecutor is involved because I will have to take into consideration the possibility that some of the interpretations of the evidence may have been enhanced to gain a conviction.

2. I will try to not get scientist goose-bumpy excited when I look at DNA evidence and make strong statements about it until I find out how it was obtained, and whether the results were confirmed at least in duplicate or by a confirmatory set of tests. In my opinion, the reckless presentation of the bologna-flavored double-DNA knife evidence helped taint the credibility of all the DNA evidence.

3. I will not make strong statements about a case when the prosecution has acted unethically very early on with a defendant, as in this case when Miss Knox’s entire sexual history was obtained by a ruse and then the information was mysteriously released to the press. Recall the other prejudicial leaks we have had in this case that are still unconfirmed whether they actually occurred or are true. Ethics and credibility are all-or-none items in a criminal prosecution.

4. I will try my best not to succumb and accept bold sensationalist crime scenarios proposed by the prosecution. I will remember that the role of the prosecution is to gain convictions, as in this case with the prosecution –proposed sex orgy scenario which had all three defendants holding the victim down so that three murder convictions could be more easily obtained.

I sincerely thank the PMF site hosts for allowing me to post on their outstanding forum, and thank each of you that have treated me kindly during our time together on this sad case. I am very glad that RG is rotting in jail for the murder of Miss Kercher.
Click to expand...
Wow, progress, and much of it. Bravo to him. If the above had been a collective statement, signed by all on the website, I would applaud them and befriend them. But this is a beginning. Separation of the sheep and the goats. Or the men from the boys, as it were. Thanks for posting!:jaw-dropp
 
Wow! Thanks for sharing Bruce.
Congrats to Greggy for turning his errors into lessons learned. All of us humans fail to perceive things properly quite regularly - it is what we learn from those occasions that can help prevent, yet not guarantee making a similar error in the future. Just acknowledging that you could perceive something incorrectly when learning about it is a good start. I know I was wrong in my first perceptions of the case.

"you would not believe to what extent the human brain can malfunction"
 
Machiavelli said:
You are addressing the arguer. What about the topic?
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp


If I could edit my post, I would have added to it and asked Rose whether she felt that the medals which were handed out to the police should have been

I apologise for expressing my admiration for her clever post and succinct writing style - hopefully, it cannot be construed as criticism, so not sure if one could describe it as 'attacking' the arguer, rather than the argument, which is not allowed of course. Although some contributors do still fall into that trap, don't they? :rolleyes:
 
I just read Greggy's post about how maybe they were wrong and I really want to say - good for him.

Obviously, our old pal, The Machine, didn't wait that long until his attack. Then, Yummi aka Machiavelli (?) went on how he/she has no doubt that the case is crystal clear and they're both guilty. Well, surprise surprise, there was an acquittal and they were released due to the lack of evidence. Hopefully Greggy's post will start a new trend on PMF - admitting they indeed were wrong and coming clean. It's never too late.

Machiavelli, I don't really care you were there and got different opinion than the two proffesional judges and 6 lay jurors. It's up to these people, that are trained to do this. They know what they're doing and unlike you, they weren't emotionally attached to the case. They focused on evidence and not only they concluded that there is a reasonable doubt, but they actually said there's not enough evidence to keep them in jail, not to mention the break in charge. I bet there's no need to repeat what Hellmann said - obviously, you're aware.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
This was posted today by Greggy on Perugia Murder File. Greggy is considered to be one of their experts so I think this is a sign of progress.

Greggy:

I Try To Learn From My Mistakes

There have been a number of diatribes posted recently about the verdicts issued by Judge Hellman and the Jury. I think it is important to remember that Judge Hellman and the Jury were there every day of the appeal directly hearing and evaluating evidence, sizing up the affect of witnesses, and making informed conclusions. Many of us commentators drank heavily of the prosecution theories (myself included) as if it was a fine Chianti wine and now we have a hangover.

I think we need to face the possibility that maybe we were wrong. Maybe when this murder occurred, Miss Knox was just a flakey, self-centered, truth-challenged American girl who got so scared during her interrogation that she made up a very mean story in an attempt to get out of there. I am especially disappointed in myself and my loss of objectivity. So when you see old Greggy posting in the future on other websites about some new horrible crime – know this:

1. I will not make strong statements about a case and its evidence when a rogue prosecutor is involved because I will have to take into consideration the possibility that some of the interpretations of the evidence may have been enhanced to gain a conviction.

2. I will try to not get scientist goose-bumpy excited when I look at DNA evidence and make strong statements about it until I find out how it was obtained, and whether the results were confirmed at least in duplicate or by a confirmatory set of tests. In my opinion, the reckless presentation of the bologna-flavored double-DNA knife evidence helped taint the credibility of all the DNA evidence.

3. I will not make strong statements about a case when the prosecution has acted unethically very early on with a defendant, as in this case when Miss Knox’s entire sexual history was obtained by a ruse and then the information was mysteriously released to the press. Recall the other prejudicial leaks we have had in this case that are still unconfirmed whether they actually occurred or are true. Ethics and credibility are all-or-none items in a criminal prosecution.

4. I will try my best not to succumb and accept bold sensationalist crime scenarios proposed by the prosecution. I will remember that the role of the prosecution is to gain convictions, as in this case with the prosecution –proposed sex orgy scenario which had all three defendants holding the victim down so that three murder convictions could be more easily obtained.

I sincerely thank the PMF site hosts for allowing me to post on their outstanding forum, and thank each of you that have treated me kindly during our time together on this sad case. I am very glad that RG is rotting in jail for the murder of Miss Kercher.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is impressive, and deserves some respect. (Even if he still can't stomach the notion the Amanda might actually be a good person who was victimized by the police -- one step at a time, I suppose.)

(But I must say it really seems strange to me that a new court decision was required in order for him to consider the possibility that he might have been wrong. Because in all honesty, he should have considered it after reading the Friends of Amanda website. Yes, of course, that's a partisan source, and he need not have simply accepted what it said without further investigation -- but it should have been enough to raise serious doubts. And --as it seems he now recognizes -- the prosecution is also a partisan source!)

Now the rest of them need to copy down points 1 through 4 a hundred times on a chalkboard.
 
snook1 said:
I just read Greggy's post about how maybe they were wrong and I really want to say - good for him.

Obviously, our old pal, The Machine, didn't wait that long until his attack. Then, Yummi aka Machiavelli (?) went on how he/she has no doubt that the case is crystal clear and they're both guilty. Well, surprise surprise, there was an acquittal and they were released due to the lack of evidence. Hopefully Greggy's post will start a new trend on PMF - admitting they indeed were wrong and coming clean. It's never too late.

Machiavelli, I don't really care you were there and got different opinion than the two proffesional judges and 6 lay jurors. It's up to these people, that are trained to do this. They know what they're doing and unlike you, they weren't emotionally attached to the case. They focused on evidence and not only they concluded that there is a reasonable doubt, but they actually said there's not enough evidence to keep them in jail, not to mention the break in charge. I bet there's no need to repeat what Hellmann said - obviously, you're aware.
Click to expand...


I and the other people who have requested (about 7 or 8 now, not sure...should be a dozen soon) Machiavelli to translate that sentence uttered by Hellman in Italian to English might beg to differ.

As far as I can see, he hasn't had the opportunity to translate it word for word yet.

I'm sure he is a busy man though.

I'm off out to grab a bite to eat - hope to catch up later. :D
 
Scorpion NITE said:
Your OPINION?

Oh, right, it is your opinion !!!

Then, OF COURSE you are entitled to your opinion. I'll defend that right every time.

It's just...just that...well...I...er...I could have sworn that you were adamant that your ''point remains intact''

Ya know...as in...oh well....never mind. :D


P.S. I don't agree with your opinion, by the way. Hope you would also defend my right to say that. :p
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm reminded of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous statement that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts."
 
Scorpion NITE said:
:jaw-dropp


If I could edit my post, I would have added to it and asked Rose whether she felt that the medals which were handed out to the police should have been

I apologise for expressing my admiration for her clever post and succinct writing style - hopefully, it cannot be construed as criticism, so not sure if one could describe it as 'attacking' the arguer, rather than the argument, which is not allowed of course. Although some contributors do still fall into that trap, don't they? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And what was the topic?
 
You know - there are quite a few parallels between this case and between the 1992conviction of Michelle and Lisa Taylor for the 1991 murder of Alison Shaughnessy (quashed on appeal 1993).
 
Machiavelli said:
And what was the topic?
Click to expand...

The innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
Translating judge Hellmann's words.
You're refusal to look at the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. Instead, you're stuck. There was a verdict that was based on something that is the most important thing is this case, evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom