• 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.
halides1 said:
Bill,

Ms. Know fully withdrew her false statement with respect to Lumumba in the second memoriale of 7 November. I take it that this was not soon enough for you.
Click to expand...
We're going to have a dandy debate on the meaning of the word "fully".

On Nov 6 in her own hand she writes, "I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

I would not call that "fully" withdrawing anything. If anything it adds to the confusion.

I repeat, though, this is not entirely of her making. The police bear responsibility, as does her marijuana use on the night of Nov 1.

I'll give her points for honesty, she adds in the Nov 6 handwritten note something that actually describes the situation as it existed then, "I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."
 
Bill Williams said:
We're going to have a dandy debate on the meaning of the word "fully".

On Nov 6 in her own hand she writes, "I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

I would not call that "fully" withdrawing anything. If anything it adds to the confusion.

I repeat, though, this is not entirely of her making. The police bear responsibility, as does her marijuana use on the night of Nov 1.

I'll give her points for honesty, she adds in the Nov 6 handwritten note something that actually describes the situation as it existed then, "I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."
Click to expand...


He's talking about her Nov 7 (not Nov 6) handwritten statement that very few people know about. In it, she fully retracts her accusation against Lumumba and maintains that she was at Raff's house that night.
 
smkovalinksy said:
Just noting: The fact that pmf finds these youtube comedy sketches on Amanda Knox to be worthy of note, is indicative of how flat a winding up this really is for guilters. When satire falls flat, and has no sharp edge to it, the topic is not valid or of import. Even I was disappointed, but what did I expect?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUk5mDNLaj0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scuKd4X3hCw&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

This video came up alongside those. I actually find it hilarious.
 
on second thought

Ammonitida said:
He's talking about her Nov 7 (not Nov 6) handwritten statement that very few people know about. In it, she fully retracts her accusation against Lumumba and maintains that she was at Raff's house that night.
Click to expand...
Ammonitida,

Exactly. I did not know about much about the second memoriale until Katody Matrass brought it to our attention here. One can find the quote in a portion of Amanda's testimony at PMF.
 
Ammonitida said:
He's talking about her Nov 7 (not Nov 6) handwritten statement that very few people know about. In it, she fully retracts her accusation against Lumumba and maintains that she was at Raff's house that night.
Click to expand...
To the court, though, the Nov 6 note does not magically disappear because of the Nov 7 note.

The Nov 7 note just adds to the confusion, that AK admits she is making.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Ammonitida,

Exactly. I did not know about much about the second memoriale until Katody Matrass brought it to our attention here. One can find the quote in a portion of Amanda's testimony at PMF.
Click to expand...

I first learned of its existence from that Katody post you linked to. It's amazing how such an important piece of exculpatory evidence is virtually unknown to the pro-innocence crowd.

A full recantation just a short while after totally undermines any claims that her accusation was made out of malice or an attempt to throw off the investigation. It's more evidence to support that her false accusation was made under extreme duress .
 
Katody Matrass said:
The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.
Click to expand...

___________________

Katody,

As Machiavelli mentioned, the lawyer would have needed the exterior shutters open and the hinged windows swung open into Filomena's room for him to have "jumped in." Otherwise, with the windows still closed, the window sill would have been too shallow to climb onto.

Ever wonder why Rudy used such a GIANT rock to break the window? To create a lotta noise? Nope. They have only GIANT rocks in Perugia? Nope. To create a GIANT HOLE in the window. Why would he want that? To permit him to reach through the broken window, unlatch the windows, and swing them open, while he was still standing on the bars covering the lower window. A little hole in the window---properly positioned---would have been fine if Rudy could have gotten onto the window sill while the windows were still hatched closed. Rudy saw that wasn't feasible.........so he chose a GIANT rock.

If this demonstration had been properly conducted, and the lawyer had scaled the wall and "jumped in"---and all of this had been recorded on video---would the lovebirds have been convicted in the first trial? I wonder.

///
 
Last edited:
monotonic

Bill Williams said:
To the court, though, the Nov 6 note does not magically disappear because of the Nov 7 note.

The Nov 7 note just adds to the confusion, that AK admits she is making.
Click to expand...
Bill,

I respectfully disagree. The statements on the night of November 5th to the first memoriale then the second form a monotonic progression toward the truth: Knox was never at her flat on the night of the murder.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Bill,

I respectfully disagree. The progression from the statements on the night of November 5th to the first memoriale then the second is a monotonic progression toward the truth: Knox was never at her flat on the night of the murder.
Click to expand...
I agree, Knox was never at her flat on the 1st, until 10:30 am on the 2nd.

The point is, that now there are four documents, two in Amanda's hand. Only one says something non-confusing. However, even in the Nov 7 note, she said she did not lie when she accused Lumumba. She says the reason why she should not be regarded as lying was because she was stressed. "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home."

To the courts, this is a muddle that Knox is being held accountable for - two notes in her hand, and it is anything but something that (to a third party) rests the matter. On what basis would a court accept this as a "progression"?

In my view, this is what Hellmann will say in his motivation report. It is anything but clear. In theory, it can be seen by the court as no different than Guede "progressing" into a statement that RS and SK were there.

All the same, the important thing is that AK is home.
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
If this demonstration had been properly conducted, and the lawyer had scaled the wall and "jumped in"---and all of this had been recorded on video---would the lovebirds have been convicted in the first trial? I wonder.
Click to expand...

I wonder also.

I could easily get in that window.
I bet RWVBWL could easily get in.
Pilot probably could too.
Machi I'm not so sure.
 
Fine said:
___________________

Katody,

As Machiavelli mentioned, the lawyer would have needed the exterior shutters open and the hinged windows swung open into Filomena's room for him to have "jumped in." Otherwise, with the windows still closed, the window sill would have been too shallow to climb onto.

Ever wonder why Rudy used such a GIANT rock to break the window? To create a lotta noise? Nope. They have only GIANT rocks in Perugia? Nope. To create a GIANT HOLE in the window. Why would he want that? To permit him to reach through the broken window, unlatch the windows, and swing them open, while he was still standing on the bars covering the lower window. A little hole in the window---properly positioned---would have been fine if Rudy could have gotten onto the window sill while the windows were still hatched closed. Rudy saw that wasn't feasible.........so he chose a GIANT rock.

If this demonstration had been properly conducted, and the lawyer had scaled the wall and "jumped in"---and all of this had been recorded on video---would the lovebirds have been convicted in the first trial? I wonder.

///
Click to expand...

I agree, sounding like a backseat driver, but a better mockup of someone climbing in , using a young male in NIke Tennis shoes, going all the way into Filomenas room would have been more powerful.

I dont know on the theory, I am aware of burglars to toss a rock through a window to ensure no one is home, no lights get turned on too, no dogs bark etc..etc... part of casing the place out.

Its so unknown, if it was a entry point. If Rudy truly didnt come in the cottage with Meredith as he said, the window is obviously the point of entry. Obviously, Rudy would need a large hole if he came in the window, to unlatch the fixture as you mention.

Rudy says he came in the front door. There is Alessi version of them, Rudy and the others, being allowed in and then harrassing Merdith too. In this scenario Rudy exchanged his accomplice with Amanda and Raffaele, making Migninni and Maresca happy.

Rudy tells the tale of how he arrived, uninvited, no one home. He is aware of the locals who often leave to see family. Its likely he returned in the evening, and being an opportunistic criminal as Jack Douglas profiled him, Rudy realized then the coast was clear, that everyone was most likely not coming home through this holiday.

The one thing Rudy did say that always grabbed my attention was he supposedly looked through the window to see the silhouettes, but Filomena recalled at least one set of shutters were closed, as tight as possible.

So its Rudy versus Filomena on the ability to see out the window. It would have been interesting if Rudy was questioned on this one contradiction.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Bill,

I respectfully disagree. The statements on the night of November 5th to the first memoriale then the second form a monotonic progression toward the truth: Knox was never at her flat on the night of the murder.
Click to expand...
I've located the best version of the Nov 7 memorandum I can find. It is from direct examination from Lumumba's lawyer at trial. Perhaps someone else has a more full copy of the memorandum in question:

"CP Carlo Pacelli (Lumumbas' lawyer): On the 7th you wrote "I didn't lie when I said the murderer might be Patrick." Why did you write that in your memorandum of the 7th?

AK: Honestly, I thought, like the police had told me -- the police had told me they had already found the guilty person. And they had suggested Patrick so much that I thought maybe it really was him. But apart from that, in that memorandum that I wrote in prison, the important thing for me was to tell what I knew, and what I knew was where I was on that evening.

CP: Patrick was in prison because of YOU! You didn't even say it to the PM on the 8th."

However, a fuller text of the memorandum of the 7th, says more fully:

(Pacelli?) : "All right, now let's talk about your memorial from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer might have been Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I thought that maybe it was really Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.""
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom