That is kind of a cop out Coulsdon. "The courts said they were guilty so the must be guilty?" Surely you can do better than that.
That is hardly evidence of their guilt. The same things could be said about Dreyfus, Ryan Ferguson, Debra Milke, Randall Adams...etc...etc..etc.
This a skeptics website where we don't just accept things at face value but discuss the evidence and the logic. As they say on the basketball courts, "Don't bring that weak ass game to my house"
Yes this a sceptic site, not a court. That being said, I suppose you believe Raffaele should have refused to hand over his travel documents to the police stating he doesn’t recognise theirs or the courts authority, tell me where do you think he would be right now?
Indeed, if federal judge issues an arrest warrant for Amanda, you would advise her to do the same, what do you think would happen? It’s all well and good being a member of a sceptic site quite another to ignore an officer of your government.
Like it or not these are the realities facing Raffaele and Amanda.
Actually, in practice, if one is travelling from mainland UK to Ireland, one usually needs identification documents because of the mode of transport (airline or ferry). And crossing the border from Northern Ireland (part of the UK) to Ireland has always been strange owing to the "troubles", and also because of the amount of smuggling that (still) goes on across the border.
Well the troubles have been going on in Ireland for a few hundred years. Personally, I wouldn't let the Brits in to Ireland considering the history. Hell, I' surprised they let you guys into Scotland or Wales as well.
Yes this a sceptic site, not a court. That being said, I suppose you believe Raffaele should have refused to hand over his travel documents to the police stating he doesn’t recognise theirs or the courts authority, tell me where do you think he would be right now?
Indeed, if federal judge issues an arrest warrant for Amanda, you would advise her to do the same, what do you think would happen? It’s all well and good being a member of a sceptic site quite another to ignore an officer of your government.
Like it or not these are the realities facing Raffaele and Amanda.
Of course not. Raffaele didn't exactly have much choice and neither would Amanda. My point was the refutation of relying on ad hominem attacks or conclusions based on tabloid trash and weird theories with scant evidence.
That the Italian courts are willing to rely on that is their business. That's not enough for a skeptic's site. Granted that doesn't make a difference in a court of law, but that's the way it goes.
Yes this a sceptic site, not a court. That being said, I suppose you believe Raffaele should have refused to hand over his travel documents to the police stating he doesn’t recognise theirs or the courts authority, tell me where do you think he would be right now?
Indeed, if federal judge issues an arrest warrant for Amanda, you would advise her to do the same, what do you think would happen? It’s all well and good being a member of a sceptic site quite another to ignore an officer of your government.
Like it or not these are the realities facing Raffaele and Amanda.
There is a difference between not believing authority is right and believing they no right. Of course, the court had the right to convict, but most of us here believe they made the wrong decision. Most of us fully recognize that our opinion on the case and all it's detail have very little to no impact on anything to do with the real case.
If a judge federal or otherwise issues an arrest warrant for Amanda of course she would be arrested.
Perhaps there are people here that think Amanda and family should refuse to surrender her and fight the authorities Waco style but I doubt it.
The court in Italy has authority but that doesn't make their decisions correct. As I understand it many in Italy think the court system needs massive reform.
Btw, I was given a ticket a few years ago and I fought it in court. The system sided with me, not the authority figure, the cop.
There is a difference between not believing authority is right and believing they no right. Of course, the court had the right to convict, but most of us here believe they made the wrong decision. Most of us fully recognize that our opinion on the case and all it's detail have very little to no impact on anything to do with the real case.
If a judge federal or otherwise issues an arrest warrant for Amanda of course she would be arrested.
Perhaps there are people here that think Amanda and family should refuse to surrender her and fight the authorities Waco style but I doubt it.
The court in Italy has authority but that doesn't make their decisions correct. As I understand it many in Italy think the court system needs massive reform.
Btw, I was given a ticket a few years ago and I fought it in court. The system sided with me, not the authority figure, the cop.
Many Italians may well believe that their courts should be reformed but I doubt those same Italians would appreciate some the observations which have been made on sceptic sites about all things Italian through the myopic lens of this one case. From Raffaele’s point of view he needed a groundswell of public opinion against this case, it has never happened; it remains to be seen what will happen in America; for me though the largest constituent isn’t PIP or PGP, it is the “don’t cares”.
It is late here, I need my ugly sleep, good night.
I'd have to be shown how all three of these items, the duodenum, Meredith's try to her mother, and Rudy's Skype, don't all collaborate together to prove the probabilities are greater that the TOD was around 9:30 pm and not much later, which I believe is less probable. You'd have to show how it was more probable.
The confession/ accusation is a joke. The word murder is said, but no where else is anyone accused or confesses to an actual murder. It's like that movie "Psycho" where there are some people who still believe that Hitch actually shows a woman in the shower getting stabbed by a knife. The film is an illusion and so is the confession/ accusation.
The break-in could have been staged or not, but the Channel 5 video proves someone could have gotten in that way. Rudy's confession that someone else killed Meredith would probably need someone to break-in to be believable, so the question of staging becomes moot if either could logically have staged the break-in or needed to do it in order to make their story more believable.
The luminol and mixed blood evidence doesn't prove anything. I've followed both arguements here and they both make sense which to me means it doesn't prove nor disprove guilt, it all depends on your perspective whether it proves guilt or not.
The 40 wounds as a whole don't prove more than one were involved, and even if it did, it doesn't prove Amanda and Raffaele were the ones involved.
The actual knife wounds look to me like they were inflicted by a right handed person from behind. The rest of the wounds and bruising are consistent with someone being knocked about the room and even being hit in the nose area, maybe even being dazed by the nose hit enough so she could have been subdued long enough to be stabbed from behind and killed by one person.
The fact that there is no bruising on or around the wrist area is telling to me.
It would be interesting to see someone filming two people trying to hold a third person and NOT instinctively going for the wrist as a way to subdue that person. You'd go for the elbow area first, but then the wrist is the next logical target, which I think filming 300 different people doing this would prove, and thus makes me believe for more than one or two people to be involved, the wrist have to be bruised.
Yes, Amanda does look creepy, like an ice princess, but that don't make her one. I look creepy and I KNOW I'm a nice guy. A little weird yes, but a nice guy.
The rest of it are just interesting factoids or speculative psychological crap that don't prove (even all together as a whole) Amanda or Raffaele are murderers or even wannabe murderers, no more than any other college student from America (or even Italy) would be considered a murderer or wannabe murderer also.
Oh and Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, that WOULD be extremely significant if the bra clasp hadn't been laying around and then moved and then picked up and then tested and so badly preserved that it had even rusted and the other DNA on the bra clasp which has never been revealed to have been tested, as far as I know; Add to that, that they never found Raffaele's DNA anywhere else in the room or on the bra and that makes it more probable it's contamination then not.
And even then, you still have to, in my opinion, get past the TOD being more probably around 9:30 and not much after that; to make it more probable Raffaele's DNA isn't from contamination.
Many Italians may well believe that their courts should be reformed but I doubt those same Italians would appreciate some the observations which have been made on sceptic sites about all things Italian through the myopic lens of this one case. From Raffaele’s point of view he needed a groundswell of public opinion against this case, it has never happened; it remains to be seen what will happen in America; for me though the largest constituent isn’t PIP or PGP, it is the “don’t cares”.
It is late here, I need my ugly sleep, good night.
Couldson, As much as I bad mouth the Italians for this decision and their courts, i really don't think that all things Italian are bad. I've criticized American judges and courts as well. In fact, I just posted about the Randall Dale Adams case where they wrongfully convicted him of killing a Police officer based on malfeasance by the prosecution.
My favorite food on the planet is Italian. They have contributed fast cars, sexy women and some great directors among other things to the world. But, I'll criticize them when I think it is appropriate. This is nothing compared to the way I criticize my own government over the years.
Isn't this a bit similar to the Hellmann court announcing the only thing certain is that Meredith was murdered. Hellmann also did an after verdict interview saying something like he didn't know if they were guilty or not but it wasn't proven in court.
If it can be shown that Nencini held Raf's not testifying against him, that would present an interesting problem as to whether or not both Raf and Amanda would have been the victims of prejudice.
Not really. Hellmann was waxing philosophical - indeed, even if the paper quoted him properly. Whose rights did Hellmann offend?
Yet the issue Nencini is being investigated on is with regards to rights which accrue to one of the defendants. Whose rights did Hellmann offend....
However, and here's a bit of a non sequitor... in Canada, a prosecution successfully had an acquittal quashed at a higher court because the "prosecution did not receive a fair trial."
And no, I won't go looking for the citation.... such things are rare in Canada. I have no clue, really, if such a thing would apply in Italy.
Back to Nencini.... the sanction seems to usually be a reassignment of the offending judge to some remote Arctic radar base... what is unclear is that if this would result in the quashing of the conviction - either immediately, or during the routine Cassazione assessment of the law behind the conviction.
I guess Cassazione would need to judge whether this was enough of a rights violation to quash the conviction. But it's just a guess.
Yes this a sceptic site, not a court. That being said, I suppose you believe Raffaele should have refused to hand over his travel documents to the police stating he doesn’t recognise theirs or the courts authority, tell me where do you think he would be right now?
Indeed, if federal judge issues an arrest warrant for Amanda, you would advise her to do the same, what do you think would happen? It’s all well and good being a member of a sceptic site quite another to ignore an officer of your government.
Like it or not these are the realities facing Raffaele and Amanda.
I still would not give up without fighting extradition if I was Ms Knox.
Even if a long shot, there is hope and there is "let us make a deal" as well with the US government.
I am undecided still having gone back and forth and this is the reason I am on this forum. However, I do think the Italians have it wrong. They focused on Amanda's suspicious behaviour but I think they assumed suspicious behaviour equated to being involved in the actual murder. I don't think she or RS could have been involved in the actual killing, they had no scratches or injuries whatsoever. The knife evidence seems completely bogus - the police just pick and test one random knife and that's the one that happens to have MK's DNA on it? Shouldn't they have tested every single knife? Not sure why the Italians even believe that. I agree the Italians were trying to find evidence just to fit the 2 kids. But a few things are questionable to me - Amanda's behaviour, which even Raffaele agrees as odd and inappropriate. By most universal standards, it is unusual to an extreme, Amanda struggles to reason it away.
A lot has been made of Amanda's behavior, what specifically do you find "extreme" about it? Giobbi listed the reasons he thought suspicious in court and in an interview. They amounted to her going out to pizza with Raffaele as opposed to staying in her bed crying all week, wiggling her hips as she put on her booties and breaking down crying when being shown knives after her roommate had been butchered with one. The English girls were distraught because she cuddled with Raffaele and kissed him on occasion in the police station. I suspect instead that while it may have brought attention to her, there's nothing incriminating about acting oddly after someone she knew had just been killed yards away from where she usually slept and Raffaele comforting her is a pretty natural reaction for a new boyfriend. Is there some reason you'd expect her to behave normally in unusual circumstances such as this? That first day of the discovery she was up at around 10:30 AM and would be with police until dawn of the next morning and would never really get a chance to catch up on sleep the rest of the week as she would end up being with police 53 of 89 hours from 1 PM on the second to 6 AM on the 6th. She was stressed, sleep deprived and dealing with the greatest tragedy of her young life, why would anyone expect entirely normal behavior?
2 - Raffaele tells the police in his phone call that nothing was stolen. Why would he make this claim when there is a break-in and the reason he is calling the police is to report a break-in and he does not live there and still has not discovered MK? The correct answer for most people would have been just "I don't know" or even "how the F do I know, I don't live here and haven't taken inventory".
I'll put the transcript of the calls in a spoiler box and then just quote the requisite parts as the entirety of the calls is long for this medium and the spelling of names, the address and telephone number is irrelevant.
First call
POLICE:
Carabinieri Perugia
RS:
Hello good morning, listen ... someone has entered our house breaking the window and he made a big mess...there is a locked door. The street is…
AK:
[Background] Via della Pergola.
RS:
Via della pergola 7.
POLICE:
Via..
RS:
Della Pergola 7, in Perugia.
POLICE:
Residence of mister...?
RS:
Ehmm... .. Amanda ..
POLICE:
Eh??
RS:
The...people...who live in ..ehmm .. they are a group of students.
POLICE:
Give me name and mobile number of one of the tenants.
RS:
Amanda.
POLICE:
Yes..
RS:
The last name K, N...
POLICE:
Yes...
RS:
O, X.
POLICE:
Yes
RS:
The mobile number ... ehhh.
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes, yes. I'm taking the number.
[Long pause]
RS:
348
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
46
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
73
POLICE:
Yes.
RS:
590
POLICE:
590?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.
POLICE:
Just a moment please.
[Music plays for 5 seconds]
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
So listen, they entered .. they broke the window .. and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by signs... that there are drops .... that there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered. .. because the window's broken ... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm...this ...
[The call is cut off.]
POLICE:
Hello??
Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.
POLICE:
Someone's been in the house and broke the window?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Then they went into the bathroom.
RS:
I don't know, if you come here perhaps ...
POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is one of the doors is closed, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
A door's closed? Which door's closed?
RS:
The door of one of the flatmates who isn't here. We don't know where she is.
POLICE:
Were these blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?
RS:
The blood stains are in the bathroom.
POLICE:
Oh in the bathroom. And there's this closed door. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?
RS:
Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.
POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
OK?
RS:
OK.
POLICE:
Goodbye.
RS:
Goodbye.
POLICE:
Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.
POLICE:
Carabinieri Perugia
RS:
Hello good morning, listen ... someone has entered our house breaking the window and he made a big mess...there is a locked door. The street is
(skip name, address, telephone number and 'long pause')
POLICE: Theft [burglary] in the house eh?
RS:
No, there's no theft.. they broke the window ... there is a mess ... there is also a closed door ... a mess.POLICE:
Just a moment please.
[Music plays for 5 seconds]
POLICE:
Hello?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
So listen, they entered .. they broke the window .. and how do you know they entered?
RS:
It can be seen by signs... that there are drops .... that there are blood stains in the bathroom.
POLICE:
So they entered. .. because the window's broken ... did they cut themselves breaking the window?
RS:
Ehmm...this ...
[The call is cut off.]
POLICE:
Hello??
Second call
POLICE:
Carabinieri, Perugia.
RS:
Yes hello, I called two seconds ago.
POLICE:
Someone's been in the house and broke the window?
RS:
Yes.
POLICE:
Then they went into the bathroom.
RS:
I don't know, if you come here perhaps ... POLICE:
What did they take?
RS:
They didn't take anything, the problem is one of the doors is closed, there are bloodstains.
POLICE:
A door's closed? Which door's closed?
RS:
The door of one of the flatmates who isn't here. We don't know where she is.
POLICE:
Were these blood stains outside the door of this flatmate who's not there?
RS:
The blood stains are in the bathroom.
POLICE:
Oh in the bathroom. And there's this closed door. And this girl, do you have her mobile number, her ...?
RS:
Yes, yes, we tried to call her but she's not answering.
POLICE:
OK, I'll send you a patrol car now and we'll check the situation out.
(snip OKs and goodbyes)
Raffaele is not calling to report a theft, as far as he knows nothing has been taken and there's things sitting out that most would imagine a thief might take. He's calling to report a broken window, a mess, blood in the bathroom and a missing roommate who's not responding to calls whose door is locked. Both times he says anything about a theft it's to correct the Carabinieri officer about the nature of his call. Perhaps 'I don't know' would have been a better answer, but at this moment Raffaele has no reason to believe this is a burglary due to evidence he's looking at suggesting that didn't happen. So he says so and directs the Carabinieri officer back to the reason he's making the call.
Raffaele is also wrong, but doesn't know at the time that Meredith's purse was gone through, her credit cards and cellphones taken and her rent money was missing. If you think his choice of words on the spur of the moment is somehow suspicious and suggesting they were somehow involved, what possible purpose could Raffaele have for saying something that would turn out to be wrong which would cast doubt on the idea it was a burglary? He doesn't introduce this into the conversation either, he responds to queries from the Carabinieri officer whom he couldn't control. If he supposedly called to report a break-in and burglary he staged to what end would he pretend he doesn't think anything was stolen?
Battistelli would remark the same thing, it didn't look like a burglary; that Raffaele noticed the same thing does not strike me as suspicious. I suspect most people when confronted with evidence of someone breaking in but seeing things out that a burglar might want but indications something else might have happened may well assume whoever broke in didn't do it with burglary as their motive.
3 - Amanda's confession - yes, I understand she was allegedly hit, coerced, etc.. still very hard to swallow; 25% of innocent people make false confessions apparently. What about the other 75%? Amanda is smarter than your average bear, still find it hard to believe she can write a confession in such detail for an extremely intelligent person.
What 'details?' These were supposedly witness statements, have you ever readthem? I linked them there so you can see the totality of them if you wish, while I'll snip out all the officialese and just post what Amanda supposedly 'witnessed:'
Amanda's 1:45 Statement said:
"Last Thursday, November 1, a day on which I normally work, while I was at the house of my boyfriend Raffaele, at around 8:30 pm, I received a message on my cellular phone from Patrik, who told me that the premises would remain closed that evening, because there were no customers, and thus I would not need to go to work.
"I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.
"I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her."
"I wish to spontaneously report what happened because this case has deeply disturbed me and I am very afraid of Patrick, the African owner if the pub called 'Le Chic' on Via Alessi where I occasionally work. I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"].
"We met immediately afterward around 9:00 pm at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana. We went to my house at Via Della Pergola no. 7. I do not recall exactly whether my friend Meredith was already home or if she arrived later, [but] what I can say is that Patrik and Meredith went off to Meredith's room, while it seems to me that I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot recall how much time they stayed together in the room but can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I, frightened, covered my ears. Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.
"I met Patrik this morning, in front of the University for Foreigners, and he asked me some questions, specifically he wanted to know what questions I had been asked by the Police. I think that he also asked if I wanted to meet with journalists perhaps in order to find out if I knew anything about Meredith's death. [I am] not sure whether Raffaele was present that evening but I do remember waking up at my boyfriend's house in his bed, and that I returned in the morning to my residence, where I found the door to the apartment open. When I woke up, the morning of November 2, I was in bed with my boyfriend."
Amanda did not write these statements, she had all of a semester of Italian and two months in Italy. These were generated after hours of interrogation in which the police refused to believe what she'd told them all week and insisted the text message which she'd not told them about was important to the murder. All parties, police, translator and Amanda agree it was police who were interested in the contents of the text messages, which as we all know now were not relevant to the case any more than Patrick was.
What is stunning is the lack of detail provided and the constant refrain of how confused she is. What good are either of these 'witness' statements? What detail do they provide that doesn't come from the text messages themselves? What's remarkable is how much of the details are omitted or say she doesn't know, such as: why did they go to the cottage? Was Meredith there or not? Had Patrick threatened her? Roughly how much time passed? Was she 'involved' or imagining what had happened? Was Raffaele there? How did the window get broken? What did Patrick do afterward? How did she get home?
What happened was police confronted her regarding the text messages and told her Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi. They told her they had 'hard evidence' she'd been at the cottage the night of the murder. She'd been questioned again and again and they wouldn't believe her. So in the middle of the night on little sleep since the murder, having been told her mind must have blocked it due to trauma like Donnino had when she fell off a horse, with the police not letting up, she believed they must be right and her memory wrong. So she thought of Patrick and summoned mental images of him and they confabulated a story around them as best they could, which is why there's so little detail and she keeps repeating how confused all this is. They managed to convince her they think Patrick is the murderer when she had no such inkling before that as her meeting Patrick earlier and and her unwillingness (at first) to say anything about him or the text message indicates. Then she signs them without a lawyer and without really knowing what they say, or imply for sure, being as she can barely read the language.
Now, as for how we know who was the impetus of the arrest of Patrick, that's pretty easy to divine. First of all, who in their right mind would read those statements and think they have a definite witness to the murder? Who would race out in the early morning hours and haul him out of his home, question him all day refusing to believe a word he said just off that gibberish? Then parade around town with sirens blaring and lights flashing throwing them all into solitary confinement? The same day after getting a chance to sleep while in solitary Amanda cast severe doubt any of it ever happened while writing to them that she couldn't be used as testimony, (the note of the 6th) then the following day retracting it completely telling them she'd never left the cottage.
On the other hand the authorities would go before a judge (Matteini) and use these statements and the text message as definite evidence Patrick was involved in the murder. They'd also say to the press, as Perugian police chief Arturo di Felice put it:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."
"The police chief, Arturo De Felice, said Knox had "crumbled and confessed" under intense questioning. "There were holes in her alibi and her mobile phone records were crucial," he said. Police also found text messages from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on November 1, the night Miss Kercher died."
The first one shows the police chief admitting that the 'facts' generated by that all-night interrogation session were the ones they believed correct, and Amanda was made to buckle until she 'admitted' to them. This is the same day they took those text messages and a lot of mistaken, bogus or irrelevant information before a judge, so they definitely still believed them even though they'd already been informed by Amanda it didn't happen. The second quote indicates what they were talking about, the text messages and phone records which they'd gotten when they wiretapped Amanda before she even came in that day: they knew she and Patrick had exchanged text messages and Amanda hadn't told them that. None of these 'facts' they 'knew to be correct' actually were. Amanda did not leave Raffaele's in response to Patrick's texts, the computer records as well as eyewitness Joanna Popovic prove that. Patrick had nothing to do with the murder, though the authorities would advance mistaken or irrelevant information suggesting he did before Matteini, including a 'witness' to his bar being closed and the implication he had no one to alibi him.
It was the police who insisted all this happened and in the middle of the night on little sleep since the murder they got a girl barely out of her teens to believe it must have, and refused to consider the possibility it might not have even when she recanted it completely the next day. The fact that their behavior, actions, statements and submissions before a judge indicate they thought all this happened even though we all know it didn't and Amanda's statements were highly confused and worthless as witness statements suggests just who was running the show in the Questura and who should be held responsible for them. How they ever got people to believe the foreign exchange student barely out of her teens managed to convince them to arrest Patrick (and not let him go!) off those statements is one of the continuing mysteries of this case.
Incidentally, as of the 11th of November the police admitted to the press that Amanda Knox had recanted her statements. They'd continue to hold Patrick for another nine days and years later their supporters would pretend that Amanda never recanted while Patrick languished in jail, despite the fact the same day she signed the statements she told them she couldn't be used as testimony, the next day that she never left Raffaele's and it didn't happen, and the whole world knew as of the 11th that she'd recanted completely.
As for her 'confessing,' what exactly did she confess to? Leaving Raffaele's in response to Patrick's text (which never happened) and not actually witnessing the murder except 'confusedly' and being in the kitchen trying to imagine it. The whole thing was confused confabulation off of mental images summoned when she'd become convinced the cops must be correct and her memory 'repressed.'
4 - confusion about what they did that night and this constant blame on marijuana smoking as the cause. Heavy drinking and marijuana can cause memory loss for sure but perhaps only if they were about to pass out from it. They were not high enough that they were not able to read, watch a movie, eat, etc. For regulars smokers like AK and RS, highly doubt smoking a joint or 2 "impaired" their memory. If anything, they probably had a very high tolerance to it, almost like cigarette smoking for them. It "sounds" like another blame game to explain their confusion. They also blame alot of this on police coercion. How many different answers can there be for "we stayed at home all night" especially when your life is on the line. 2 smart kids with no straight answers. Raff has no excuse - he is a native Italian speaker.
They confused Raffaele as to which day was which and they got a statement with October 31st and November 1st mushed together. What is Raffaele supposed to think when he's not sure which day was which and they're insistent Amanda was out the night of the murder? Something like that had happened the day before the murder and it's just natural for people to assume when they're not sure that confident police officers are right about that sort of thing. Was he supposed to argue with them?
They gave an account of watching movies, smoking up and cuddling, along with dinner and a broken pipe consistently outside that night in the Questura, although Raffaele did wonder in his diary for a while about details he wasn't certain of.
I don't think they were involved in the killing. But they do seem to know something or are trying to hide something for sure, Amanda much more than Rafaelle. Rafalle I think is innocent for the most part, he may have just gotten involved as an innocent bystander. Amanda I think just got trapped, she panicked and just made whatever bad situation she was in worse by the second and eventually couldn't go back.
What do you mean by this? As John Douglas of the FBI has pointed out, if Amanda knew anything about the murder it would have come out the night of the interrogation when she was broken into a puddle of warm goo and gave them that gibberish. Instead of what you suspect, that actually indicates Amanda had no idea what had happened during the murder or who was there. There's no details of the murder outside the scream which one could pretty guess happened but wasn't even necessary as her statement about the scream was generated by them asking her why she didn't hear the scream and her offering as a confabulation suggestion that maybe her ears were covered. 'Fine. We'll write that down. Fine.' is what they said.
At any rate they reported the odd things they saw and invited the postal police inside to see the traces Rudy left. Why would Amanda protect Rudy after reporting what they found given they could have just left town like they planned and Rudy had not yet fled to Germany? If she'd put herself in a prison cell by 'admitting' to witnessing the murder, why not give them the right person instead of someone she'd know would likely have an alibi either from the bar or his girlfriend? She'd barely met Rudy, he just hung out with Meredith's boyfriend occassionally, the only known true interaction between them is an introduction when he stopped by for an after-bar. No letters, texts, calls or anything one would expect from two people who actually knew each other enough to do anything like that.
What actually happened? I have no idea and that is the reason I am on this forum!! I am not sure why the Italians are trying to literally make Raff and Amanda break with these jail sentences. They should really have tried to make Rudy break when they had the chance.
That's the crux of it, they made this big arrest of three people and took a total load of crap before Matteini on the 8th of November. Some of it mistakes, some of it irrelevant, and some of it brutal incompetence. Nothing of the reasons they arrested those three remains, it was all a big mistake.
Then two weeks later the caught the guy who left his traces all over the murder room, it just so happened to be an athletic burglar. If everything they arrested them on was false and they caught the actual killer what do you suppose the odds are that any of the three they originally arrested were involved?
The fact they couldn't admit they were totally wrong from the beginning about the arrest that made international headlines is why Rudy will be walking the streets soon.
I just do not see why the police on Nov. 6 or whatever day they "found" the knife would be looking to frame these kids. It screams incompetence to me. Why didn't they at least pick a knife that came close to fitting the wounds. Why not put it on one Raf's flip knives?
Why didn't the cop pick a knife that matched the wounds? One would presume if there was a conspiracy there would have been a match. If it was just a cop showing some initiative by "finding" a potential murder weapon for a murder that involved a lot of blood and a cut throat, he might just pick a big knife because it looked to him like it could have done the job. It really could be that simple. It is their job to make a case against whomever the PM chooses as his target, not to follow the evidence to a suspect.
Oh and Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, that WOULD be extremely significant if the bra clasp hadn't been laying around and then moved and then picked up and then tested and so badly preserved that it had even rusted and the other DNA on the bra clasp which has never been revealed to have been tested, as far as I know; Add to that, that they never found Raffaele's DNA anywhere else in the room or on the bra and that makes it more probable it's contamination then not.
And even then, you still have to get past the TOD being more probably around 9:30 and not much after that; to make it more probable Raffaele's DNA isn't from contamination.
Actually everything about the clasp ...the 6 weeks etc is not as troublesome as the fact that it is singular. Nothing else exists...No fingerprints, no semen, no footprints... oh and it just so happens that the clasp sample is destroyed in what has to be the dumbest storage error in scientific history. I find the Italians unconcerned nature about the numerous troublesome details in this case to be notable and suspicious.
If the clasp did not contain at least three other male traces on it it would still not be enough evidence to bring a case to trial in civilized countries. And yet in spite of expert and more highly qualified analysis that found this sample and the knife sample to be impossible to determine scientifically, the Italian courts simply ignore this scientific conclusion and go with a lab techs highly questionable abilities and they ignore her suspicious activities in this case since the beginning...lying in court and being found out is not important for witnesses in Italy why? ( I do realize the defense failed to bother mentioning the troublesome issues concerning cetain authorities in this case which they did at the peril of their clients.) Now they want howl at the moon...too late dummies.
One has to be either stupid or corrupt or perhaps both ...there is simply too many irregularities to simply ignore and yet..... look at them go.
Apparently skepticism is a rare phenomenon in Italy. That is why I judge them as sheeple. The weak minded are often easily swayed. YMMV.
I have been reading through the various arguments from the pro guilt side on this forum.
There seems to be nothing solid to any of their arguments.
Has anybody seen any arguments that are actually good?
Some of them are quite clever if that's what you mean. They can easily fool someone not very familiar with the case, especially in wiki form. Everything there which sounds like a slam dunk case for guilt has been repeatedly (as in endlessly!) debunked on these boards over the past four years.
I still would not give up without fighting extradition if I was Ms Knox.
Even if a long shot, there is hope and there is "let us make a deal" as well with the US government.
In fact it presents one of the rare chances to get this case in front of a real court. I wouldn't even waste much time on the double jeopardy thing...instead go straight after the several human rights violations that Italy is so famous for inflicting on its defendants.
Their record is clear, indefensible and it is quite obvious that no matter how many violations they accumulate with the ECOHR that they continue carelessly acting like a brutal dictatorship. Only the dictator is a power mad conglomeration of back slapping corrupt judiciary.
Like Hellmann asked ....who will stand up and explain how they convict and jail with no evidence or facts at all? Apparently they fail to realize that the dance is soon over and the fiddle player is getting anxious for payment.
While yours is a popular view around here, I'd say that the statement as made to the police would legitimately have been suspicious. It is unfortunate that he didn't say "not that we can see" or "it doesn't appear so" but his absolute would make anyone investigating wonder. According to accounts Amanda didn't even look to see if her money was gone, which would be something most people would check.
It would be elucidating to find out exactly how the PLE used that response and how Raf explained it early on.
Experienced police dispatchers often get calls reporting accidents and crimes. They deal hourly with issues where they are required to decide if they need to dispatch an ambulance, a police officer, or a police response team. Dispatchers know that initial callers don't always know the extent of the incident - can't possibly know in the case of just uncovering a burglary in someone else's house. That is why experienced / competent dispatchers follow up with a question or two or three. "Are you sure nothing is stolen?". "Is the occupant of the room there? Has he/she checked to see if anything is stolen?".
In this case the dispatcher didn't ask Raffaele more details. That shows me the police didn't think Raffaele's statement was lacking - it did not warrant more attention. Raffaele's statement of what he knew at the time to be correct (later proved to be incorrect) is only significant if you want it to be. Suspect him of being guilty, then you can assign guilty motivations where none previously existed.
Some of them are quite clever if that's what you mean. They can easily fool someone not very familiar with the case, especially in wiki form. Everything there which sounds like a slam dunk case for guilt has been repeatedly (as in endlessly!) debunked on these boards over the past four years.
Not all skeptics are in the camp of innocence
On the SGU board, there is substantial resistance to the arguments
Often they hang of her stories being confused.
Trouble is that I know that Steve and the SGU crew have talked about just how fallible memory is repeatedly.
In fact it presents one of the rare chances to get this case in front of a real court. I wouldn't even waste much time on the double jeopardy thing...instead go straight after the several human rights violations that Italy is so famous for inflicting on its defendants.
Like Hellmann asked ....who will stand up and explain how they convict and jail with no evidence or facts at all? Apparently they fail to realize that the dance is soon over and the fiddle player is getting anxious for payment.
Heard people in other parts of Europe argue that the US has the death penalty, therefore they cannot ever argue against human rights. I have to also argue that many southern prisons are nothing but horrid and maybe even worse that Italy. We also pretty much know that Texas has put innocent people to death.
I am wondering if it might not just simply be argued that they did not receive a fair trial.
Not all skeptics are in the camp of innocence
On the SGU board, there is substantial resistance to the arguments
Often they hang of her stories being confused.
Trouble is that I know that Steve and the SGU crew have talked about just how fallible memory is repeatedly.
I'm not familiar with the SGU board, what does that stand for?
ETA:
Ah, Skeptical Guide to the Universe? I looked and could only find one short 15 post thread from 2009. Is there another I missed in my cursory search?
Raffaele hasn't been in Italy since his release after the first appeal. Why has nobody questioned that the person seen with Raf's father and sitting at the defense table doesn't look like the Harry Potter character we all knew from the first chapter? Of course, somebody has to be there to occupy the seat. Why not give an exchange student studying international law or a budding journalist a front row seat to the circus?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
