10/14 thru 11/11 [Archive] - Page 2 - In Session Message Boards

KnoxCase

11-02-2009, 11:42 PM

Everybody has their own perceptions of Amanda's actions.

I believe Amanda was not at RS's home all night. She left looking for a party.

Several times, RS mentioned AK's propensity for going out to have some boisterous fun which included bars and drinking. He preferred the quiet life. These are my words. Not adirect quote.

I don't believe for a single second AK slept throughout the night, leaving @ 1000 the next morning. Not even noticing the floorwater had evaporated over night. Something about that story doesn't gel for me.

JMO

While I think little of Migninis fictional threesome, I agree with the words "doesn't gel for me" on the Lone Wolf theory at times.

The Lone Wolf might answer the murder scene in the bedroom of being only Rudy, imo, his huge pile of old fashioned police work sealing the case. Footprints, fingerprints, clear standard DNA tests, bloody pants, bloody shoes, and his own admissions somewhat...good old fashioned police work, solid and clear.

.....but so many other things don't "gel" with this LoneWolf theory either.

for me its mainly Raffaele's responses that seem so freaky and weird...like the infamous "I pricked Merediths hand one time with that knife...", and this wasn't during interrogation either. Raffaele saying his was on the internet and then no one could verify this.

While there is no motive, and there is no connection of Rudy and the others....something seems to be missing due to Raffaeles odd behavior.

but maybe thats all it is, Raffaele's odd behavior.
I don't see Amandas behavior as odd in any of this! maybe I been around odd women in the the US? But this behavior of acting childish and self centered is normal imo...cartwheels, smiling, kissing, being self absorbed is very normal to me. Washing their hair several times a day is not abnormal either, not paying attention to clocks is not abnormal either...

behavioral judgements seem very speculative and unfair really, but I admit Raffaeles repsonses sure do him no favors!

Emerald

11-02-2009, 11:45 PM

Where do you think she was when this happened?

Look, Amanda did not offer perhaps Patrick did something. She said she witnessed something.

In that statement, Amanda included details only a witness could know.

Also, in that statement, if you change the name of what AK says she witnessed from Patrick to Rudy, the story begins to correspond with proved facts. How could AK know unless she was there?

JMO

KnoxCase

11-02-2009, 11:58 PM

The police station. So?

so...she was being questioned at the police station when the Patrick issue came up.

questioned without legal representation and /or family. surrounded by police co-workers trained in interrogations.

Amanda says they brought up the Patrick issue, they say they didn't.

Unfortunately there was no video/film to determine who was telling the truth.

They say, she says....stalemate. Choose your side based on what evidence?

So I would side with the accused on this one issue because her story of pressured and coerced was substantiated with Raffaele and Patrick saying the same thing, that they were pressured and scared.

To convince me personally, there are other cases of this coerced claim associated to interrogations in general.

Also. being the police have full control of the interrogation, the burden would lie at their feet to decide if the accused has legal representation and the interrogation filmed. Whats right is right.
Not whether its some law or "thats the way they do it in Italy"... yes, maybe the law allows them to not be transparent, it doesn't mean its right to question and interrogate and threaten people to get to a confession quickly as Edgardo believes.

If I was a judge, I'd have to deny the "gift" too, and would probably look at the "gift" Amanda wrote, as something that was written under duress.

JMO.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 12:02 AM

Look, Amanda did not offer perhaps Patrick did something. She said she witnessed something.

In that statement, Amanda included details only a witness could know.

Also, in that statement, if you change the name of what AK says she witnessed from Patrick to Rudy, the story begins to correspond with proved facts. How could AK know unless she was there?

JMO

it was derived from the Patrick cell phone call! I just thought of that...

yes, before it seems like why did she get lucky and choose a black man...but it was because they brought up the "whose call was this!"and she said Patrick or something...

so the police dived into the Patrick thing....that might answer why, she mentioned Patrick. and probably is why.

Emerald

11-03-2009, 12:21 AM

it was derived from the Patrick cell phone call! I just thought of that...

yes, before it seems like why did she get lucky and choose a black man...but it was because they brought up the "whose call was this!"and she said Patrick or something...

so the police dived into the Patrick thing....that might answer why, she mentioned Patrick. and probably is why.

If I described to my drug dealer..... uh, er psychiatrist.....the psychotic episodes attributed to Amanda, he would have committed me as a danger to myself or society. How often does Amanda 'witness' murders and not report them?

I'm not a mental health professional, just a certified NUT!

BTW, I don't take the drugs anymore. The board of directors in my head are just fine without them.

Investigators would have been remiss had they NOT mentioned Patrick. The phone directory is a good place for them to start.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 12:43 AM

Emerald

11-03-2009, 05:55 AM

Here's a different link to the earlier post. It has abit more detail and a photo of the Kercher parents. It took my breath away to see it. ABC editors have asked for other info to be sent to them. Scroll down to the area where the comment is entered.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/anniversary-amanda-knoxs-alleged-victims-death-meredith-kercher/story?id=8975821

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 08:34 AM

KnoxCase, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rudy's WORD. It is clearly displayed in the features of the crime scene itself. Meredith lay, in her clothes for a long period of time aftter she had been murdered, long enough for the blood containing the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap had dried and set and her shoulder to develop lividity from being in that position. Rudy was long gone by this point. The victim was then stripped, moved, covered and the items were placed on her bed.

And yes, you are right, Rudy could have called the police/ambulance and didn't, which was deplorable.

Not true. The prosecution in the trial showed a female footprint on the pillow that matched Amanda's size exactly. Moreover, there are many partial prints in the room that are too poor to be matched to anybody. Potentially, any of those could have been left by Raffaele/Amanda. Moreover, I don't really see why Amanda/Raffaele would have 'had' to have left bloody footprints if they were in the room. There's a really simple way not to leave bloody footprints...don't step in the blood. It's not that difficult is it? Do you normally step in puddles when you go out and it's been raining or do you walk round them? Personally, I walk around or step over them. There was plenty enough blood-free floorspace in the room. Finally, there may well have been the odd print from them that was cleaned. The evidence indicates there was some partial cleaning in there.

41 hours? 14 hours? I'm sorry, where did you get these figures from?

You claimed Edgardo believes in 'threatening' when this was blatantly untrue. Witnesses are not provided a lawyer, that's the same in EVERY first world country. Most police departments in America do not film the interrogation of suspects and NONE film the questioning of witnesses as SOP. You are complaining about the police in Italy not doing what the police in your own country don't do. It seems you think Princess Amanda should have been afforded priviliges afforded to nobody else anywhere and you write your own rules for how you think she should have been treated. This is the real world.

No your wrong.

What I'm saying is the interrogation procedure in itself, is suspicious and should be changed. It is totally unbelievable to me and many others.

People like Edgardo, and his comments, make it even look more corrupt than initially thought.

Here I'll print his comments for the fourth time...maybe you haven't seen them.

Head investigator Edgardo Giobbi, as quoted: “We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method has enabled us to get to the guilty parties in a very quick time."

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 09:02 AM

Not true. The prosecution in the trial showed a female footprint on the pillow that matched Amanda's size exactly. Moreover, there are many partial prints in the room that are too poor to be matched to anybody. Potentially, any of those could have been left by Raffaele/Amanda. Moreover, I don't really see why Amanda/Raffaele would have 'had' to have left bloody footprints if they were in the room. There's a really simple way not to leave bloody footprints...don't step in the blood. It's not that difficult is it? Do you normally step in puddles when you go out and it's been raining or do you walk round them? Personally, I walk around or step over them. There was plenty enough blood-free floorspace in the room. Finally, there may well have been the odd print from them that was cleaned. The evidence indicates there was some partial cleaning in there.

41 hours? 14 hours? I'm sorry, where did you get these figures from?

You know the timeline. The questioning from Nov 2 on...you know the 14hr position. this is an old old topic.

the prosecution fan club want to believe the "clock resets" when they go to have lunch or home for a few hours...

the defense fan club presents it more realistically as the "scene" form start to finish, from questioning to being placed in prison was accumulative.

the problem with the prosecutions timeline is that when humans are in a situation that involves continuing events, it is accumulative.
a person carrys the days events around with them for sometime, in thought and stress. they also eat and smile and perform normalcy best one can.

the prosecution pretends people are robot like and can leave a police questioning event and then sleep like it never happened, resetting the clock.

Days of questioning, hours and hours of interrogations.

but again, the real topic is the murder in the bedroom, but some choose to play "gotcha" games...."gotcha" you said 3hrs it was 4hrs!!
"gotcha"...you said a 3minute cellphone call it was 4 minutes!! your a liar!! "gotcha" games. aka Trip-up, Good-Cop/Bad-Cop....games.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 09:33 AM

[QUOTE=Michael;13608577]KnoxCase, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rudy's WORD. It is clearly displayed in the features of the crime scene itself. Meredith lay, in her clothes for a long period of time aftter she had been murdered, long enough for the blood containing the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap had dried and set and her shoulder to develop lividity from being in that position. Rudy was long gone by this point. The victim was then stripped, moved, covered and the items were placed on her bed.

And yes, you are right, Rudy could have called the police/ambulance and didn't, which was deplorable.

Not true. The prosecution in the trial showed a female footprint on the pillow that matched Amanda's size exactly. Moreover, there are many partial prints in the room that are too poor to be matched to anybody. Potentially, any of those could have been left by Raffaele/Amanda. Moreover, I don't really see why Amanda/Raffaele would have 'had' to have left bloody footprints if they were in the room. There's a really simple way not to leave bloody footprints...don't step in the blood. It's not that difficult is it? Do you normally step in puddles when you go out and it's been raining or do you walk round them? Personally, I walk around or step over them. There was plenty enough blood-free floorspace in the room. Finally, there may well have been the odd print from them that was cleaned. The evidence indicates there was some partial cleaning in there.

[QUOTE]

While we're assuming, creating theorys....

Maybe Rudy came back to the cottage after dancing...its very likely he couldn't sleep. a drugged amateur like him- who knows how a murderer is to think?
What proof is there Rudy didn't return?
What proof do you have Rudy didn't roll over Meredith and lay the duvet on her. What proof do they have this blood wasn't begun to dry in 15 to 30minutes?

Here's some more fiction, not only did Rudy roll Meredith over, go thru her purse, and rape, possibly after she was wounded. Rudy had all the time in the world after he left the dancing bars to do anything. or even , as many believe, the towels were used for his abandoned cleanup, not to save her.

The faint pillow prints is greatly disputed, and you know this and is more likely to be Rudys edge/partial print and you know that too.

partial "faint" print-

option 1) its another unusable faint pattern like, the bloody knife in the bedsheet pattern and unusable in court. It requires far too much speculation and artistic imagination to be usable. It is a stalemate, not for or usable against.

2) the fact all the footprints in the room are Rudys....it seems logical this partial edge of a shoe print, is Rudys too, as the defense expert stated very confidently.

3) Amanda floated thru air and stepped once lightly on the pillow, as she stabbed Meredith and perfomred sex orgy rituals, then floated out of the room on a broom stick, or pure levitation...
not leaving any other evidence. nor getting even a speck of blood on a shoestring, pant leg, or shoe...not even one pico-gram on any of her clothing...not one pico gram of anything on the clothing was found.

option 4) ask Edgardo to interrogate Amandas shoes.

pixiejoolz

11-03-2009, 10:28 AM

Knoxcase, I have a serious question for you:

If you really believe that Rudy is the only perpetrator here, then how do you explain Amanda's outright lies? Her accusations against Patrick are outright, horrific lies, no way around that fact. And even in the weeks following, when she had plenty of time to reflect, change her story and TELL THE TRUTH, she did nothing to reverse the injustice SHE created, just sat back and watched. It certainly appears that she would have been perfectly fine with knowingly sending an innocent man to prison. I would really like your take on her very conscious lies - without the specious (imo) coercion or "she's just a confused child like Michael Crowe" arguments. thx

Jester

11-03-2009, 10:55 AM

Well, just to give you an idea into the mindset of Amanda Knox. She slept with one of the friends of the boys downstairs. She saw he had herpes on his lip, which in her view meant that he was experienced with sex and therefore good in bed. So, she slept with him. In quite a few of the court appearance photos of Amanda, you'll see the herpes sore on her lip, a little keepsake she got from the friend of the boys downstairs.

Are you serious? That's a really dumb thing to do. I have seen Amanda with her herpes mouth sores, but assumed it was something she had as a child. If that is true, then she's not very sensible.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:02 AM

words like this make Mignini sound like a corrupt human playing with the case as if its something to boost his ego and career.

why would anyone in his position withold evidence for the truth?

does Mignini think this is a legal game, just another case to "win or lose"?

He doesn't care for the Kerchers, he is playing games, hiding the truth, hiding evidence....

no wonder he's on trial for Abuse of Power...

You know what? People often file complaints and lawsuits against prosecutors. It's comes with the job. Rarely does the complaint hold water.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:04 AM

The Amanda Knox case is just like the Michael Crowe case. Analogous to the Crowe case, when Sollecito heard from the investigators innuendo that Amanda, the strange new American girl was implicating him, he thought about it and realized he really couldn't vouch for her every minute of the previous night. (He slept some of the time)

In the Crowe case some of the boys seemed to try to outdo each other in contriving stories to implicate each other. The police were acting like little gossippy school girls saying to each boy in turn "guess whats the latest..... Now he's saying this and that about you. Are you going to let it stand?" And then the retalliation stories would grow ever larger than life.

It's not just children who are manipulated into making up stories. In the Los Angeles Rampart Scandal, more and more police got dragged in as they willingly did what Amanda did, and made up or embelished stories to "stay on the winning team" (i.e. the side of the interrogators) One after another like dominos, these cops wove big stories of beating and bribes and frameups and extortion and drugs. I think the higher ups let the momentum of these cases fizzle out because there would be no more police force left if they all accused each other. (or perhaps because the stories were really true and they couldn't let the public confidence be more shaken)

I think Amanda was a low-life (like most people) who would do anything to stay on the side of power and popularity. I think she was trying to help the police by embelishing the first story about the innocent black guy, and then through psychological trickery the cops got her to feel accepted if she accused Herself. (If indeed she did, since I don't believe serial liars in law enforcement any more than serial liars who are defendants)

This is not a far out scenario. There are hundreds of cases now of people who have falsely confessed or falsely accused others of rapes and murders where DNA has eventually proven them to be liars and forced the exoneration and release of these innocent victoms of police narcissism.

You are comparing circumstances in two completely different legal systems. It doesn't work. It's more than comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing cars and chimpanzees.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:14 AM

so...she was being questioned at the police station when the Patrick issue came up.

questioned without legal representation and /or family. surrounded by police co-workers trained in interrogations.

Amanda says they brought up the Patrick issue, they say they didn't.

Unfortunately there was no video/film to determine who was telling the truth.

They say, she says....stalemate. Choose your side based on what evidence?

So I would side with the accused on this one issue because her story of pressured and coerced was substantiated with Raffaele and Patrick saying the same thing, that they were pressured and scared.

To convince me personally, there are other cases of this coerced claim associated to interrogations in general.

Also. being the police have full control of the interrogation, the burden would lie at their feet to decide if the accused has legal representation and the interrogation filmed. Whats right is right.
Not whether its some law or "thats the way they do it in Italy"... yes, maybe the law allows them to not be transparent, it doesn't mean its right to question and interrogate and threaten people to get to a confession quickly as Edgardo believes.

If I was a judge, I'd have to deny the "gift" too, and would probably look at the "gift" Amanda wrote, as something that was written under duress.

JMO.

The problems for Patrick and Amanda began when Amanda voluntarily wrote a statement implicating Patrick. If she could implicate Patrick, then she too was present, so ... by her accusations, she also implicated herself. The fact that Patrick was not there did not exonerate Amanda, it merely gave the appearance that she was present at the murder and was covering for someone ... like Rudy. Amanda knew, in advance, that more than one person was involved in the murder ... and that is pretty fishy in itself.

Amanda was pretty mad that her gift was not omitted from proceedings. She must have had one of those "duh" moments when she realized that she couldn't have known Patrick was involved without being involved herself. Why should it be omitted from proceedings? There was no "waterboarding torture" and coercion during her gifted statement. Where was the duress?

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:16 AM

NO, the police STOPPED questioning Amanda as soon as she said "Patrick did it, it was him!". She was then formally a suspect and therefore could not be questioned further without the presence of a lawyer. None were available, so the police were done with her for the night. It was at some point AFTER this Amanda DEMANDED to be heard again because she wanted to make a statement. It was in the giving of that statement, in the presence of PM MIgnini himself, that she gave the detailed story of being at the cottage and Patrick raping and murdering Meredith. This was a 'statement', there was no questioning. She talked, they listened and wrote it down. She then signed it. I repeat, Amanda was NOT being questioned when she gave the Patrick story.

Perhaps, if I repeat it again it might get through. Amanda did not have a lawyer because she did not need one as she was being questioned as a WITNESS. Witnesses are not given lawyers, that is the case in Italy, it's the case in your country and in mine. A family member was not required either, Amanda wasn't a minor she was an adult.

The police aren't on trial.

I believe the police. Simply because Amanda doesn't deny saying any of the things she said. Moreover, not even Amanda alleges there was any form of coercion during her voluntary statement which she made in the presence of PM Mignini. She alleges that happened in the earlier questioning session, but that session isn't the important one because she gave no 'story' in that session, it was halted the moment she said Patrick did it, but she gave no details. It was in her later voluntary statement, when there was not even a hint of coercion, that Amanda gave her detailed story against Patrick. The actual facts simply don't support your argument.

Neither Raffaele or Patrick allege coercion. But pressured and scared? Name me one person in the world questioned in regard to ANY murder enquiry that doesn't feel that way.

Wait, you are arguing that the police should have broken the law? As for Edgardo, he never said a thing about 'threatening' people. You're just making things up now and your argument is getting rather silly.

Who was putting Amanda under 'duress' while she was ALONE in her cell writing her two page note? The cell ghost maybe?

Do you ever tire of re-stating this information?

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:22 AM

Rudy very easily could have rolled Merediths body over. Just because a habitual liar says the body wasn't that way when he left her there to die, doesn't mean he's telling the truth. He also could have called the police anonymously after leaving but he didn't, he went dancing.
Rudys footprints are very likely there during his rolling over Merediths body.

No one elses footprints are in the murder scene in the bedroom.

****
And for the duress...yes, 41hrs was logged of questioning, 14hrs within a short period surrounded by intense questioning and unimaginable circumstances for a 20yr old.

******
and I know you already read and/or watched Edgardo make the statement about interrogations is "all he needs", etc,.. no other evidence is needed and he gets to the guilty verdict quickly!
It's very telling of a mentality and mindset. Quick to blame guilt!
Why have a court system, Edgardo can do it alone in secrecy with no films and no lawyers present....Guilty!

Who is the habitual liar? The coroner? There was lividity or blood pooling by Meredith's shoulder, indicating that she died while lying on that shoulder. When she was found, she was lying prone, meaning she was no longer lying on that shoulder. She didn't move herself after she died, so someone moved her.

Lividity doesn't happen in minutes ... it's something that happens over the several hours after death ... after Rudy was long gone. We know that Rudy did not move the body in the morning. Amanda was the only person in the cottage in the morning ... therefore ... she moved the body. That was most likely when she left her DNA on Meredith's bra.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:28 AM

No your wrong.

What I'm saying is the interrogation procedure in itself, is suspicious and should be changed. It is totally unbelievable to me and many others.

People like Edgardo, and his comments, make it even look more corrupt than initially thought.

Here I'll print his comments for the fourth time...maybe you haven't seen them.

Head investigator Edgardo Giobbi, as quoted: “We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method has enabled us to get to the guilty parties in a very quick time."

What behavioral reactions do you think caused suspicion? The lies? Sticking her tongue out at Raffaele in the police station after the murder was discovered? Making crude statements about the manner in which Meredith died? Showing no remorse? Being more interested in kissing and seducing Raffaele than straightening up and acting responsibly? Lingerie shopping the day after the murder? Raffaele and Amanda hiding in the bedroom while the Postal Police were deciding what to do? Claiming that Meredith always locked her bedroom door? The list goes on ... their behavior was so suspicious that Filomina's friends searched their own car for planted evidence after driving Amanda and Raffaele to the police station.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:32 AM

Let me get this strait. You believe it's completely illogical that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. Yet, you think it's perfectly logical that hours after the murder, Rudy returned to the scene, despite having just recently carried out a murder there and the place could have been swarming with police, or any of the housemates or their friends could arrive at the cottage at any moment. He does this for the purpose of changing the scene from appearing like a bungled burglary into a bungled rape, stripping Meredith of her clothing, cutting her bra from her body (and you're quite happy to accept that he left none of his DNA on the bra clasp despite vigorous manhandling, while beliving mere contamination was enough to to put Raffaele's DNA on the clasp). He then ignores his bloody fingerprints, footprints and crap in the loo (despite going to such efforts to manipulate the crime scene in other ways) and then leaves satisfied that he's just made his situation ten times worse. He does all this without any direct evidence of 'his' manipulating of the scene and no witnesses saw him going to or leaving the cottage. Have I got it about right? That sounds like a logical theory to you?

That pretty much seems to sum up that theory. That's for putting it so succinctly.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:39 AM

You know the timeline. The questioning from Nov 2 on...you know the 14hr position. this is an old old topic.

the prosecution fan club want to believe the "clock resets" when they go to have lunch or home for a few hours...

the defense fan club presents it more realistically as the "scene" form start to finish, from questioning to being placed in prison was accumulative.

the problem with the prosecutions timeline is that when humans are in a situation that involves continuing events, it is accumulative.
a person carrys the days events around with them for sometime, in thought and stress. they also eat and smile and perform normalcy best one can.

the prosecution pretends people are robot like and can leave a police questioning event and then sleep like it never happened, resetting the clock.

Days of questioning, hours and hours of interrogations.

but again, the real topic is the murder in the bedroom, but some choose to play "gotcha" games...."gotcha" you said 3hrs it was 4hrs!!
"gotcha"...you said a 3minute cellphone call it was 4 minutes!! your a liar!! "gotcha" games. aka Trip-up, Good-Cop/Bad-Cop....games.

Essentially, what you appear to be saying, is that any time someone is questioned by police, regardless of the circumstances, it results with "a person carrys the days events around with them for sometime, in thought and stress. they also eat and smile and perform normalcy best one can."

That strikes me as odd. Innocent people are questioned as witnesses all the time, and it's not a traumatic event. Only when a guilty person is questioned and wants to hide the truth would there be any residual stress.

Jester

11-03-2009, 11:44 AM

Absloutely. I'll put a link up for you later if you'd like to read all about it.

I would. If Amanda is so stupid as to expose herself to herpes, then she is most likely stupid enough to think she can clean up a crime scene, and lie her way out of a murder conviction.

I often marvel at the fact that really dumb people have no clue about how dumb they really are. They seem to assume the rest of the world is as mentally limited as they are ... seemingly unaware of their transparency.

The more I know, the more I know I don't know.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 11:56 AM

The timeline is old old banter and disagreements on how one chooses to perceive things. Its past this stage of debates.
Prosecution says this, Defense says that. yadadyadayada

Everyone knows the perspective the defense has. It isn't hard to understand the defenses term 40hrs is based off arrival Nov 2, questioning and police of Nov 2 to Nov 6...etc..

Its a tired old "gotcha" game. You said 14hrs, it was only 8hrs...or 1.34hrs according to my reset clock.

potatoe, potato...

more interesting would be to read Michaels timeline format laid out, for Migninis theory of the Nov 1 murder, instead of someones recollection of the week after.

I've never seen this... Mignini is working on it now I assume, readying for his closing statement.

I don't think I've even seen a detailed timeline starting from 8:42pm Nov 1...in Mignini's theory. who did what at 9pm, what happened at 9:10pm, 9:31pm.....

I'm really curious what he will use for his closing statement.

or will it be vague accusations with little evidence?

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 12:18 PM

Have you 'see' the video stills of the great time Amanda was having when shopping with Raffaele for underwear the next day, laughing and grinning just like her 'friend' hadn't just been brutally murdered? Do you think Amanda spontaneously beating herself around the head on occasions is normal? Do you think not attending the vigil of her 'friend' to instead go and eat pizza is normal? Walking about naked in front of her housemates' visitors is normal?

So your applying the same thoughts as has been mentioned since 2007, someone didn't mourn the way some think they should so their guilty of murder?

You don't include a counterbalance, that Amanda did cry early on, Amanda was shaken and terrified too. This is not included in your statements. There are many pictures showing of friendship too.
Does a person take on the role of virtual-prosecutor, a virtual-defense or a virtual juror, or a virtual Judge?

lets apply this reasoning you mention to other people...

Massei smiles and has been seen laughing so does this mean he disrespects Meredith?

Mignini was sleeping in court....does this mean he disrespects Meredith?

Filomena ate dinner too, does this mean she's evil?

Several people were laughing at the juror walk thru of the cottage, so I guess they all disrespected Meredith too.

Behavioral science might help tell a story in hindsight, and it might lead to some clues, but its not "evidence".

JMO

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 12:43 PM

We know that Rudy did not move the body in the morning. Amanda was the only person in the cottage in the morning ... therefore ... she moved the body. That was most likely when she left her DNA on Meredith's bra.

We don't know Rudy never came back in the AM? He could have slept on the toilet for all we know.
No one knows anything really. We only can believe he was there and left and finally met up with some friend, but in the early morning again he has no alibi.

Process of elimination...she moved the body.

Because a person walks into a cottage does not mean they staged a murder. this makes no sense at all?

There are no shoe prints anyone but Rudy was in the murder scene of the bedroom.. Not a pico gram of blood was found on Amandas shoes.
Again nothing to substantiate this idea.

lets apply this theory...

she staged this murder/burglary and most believe the Postals surprised them upon their arrival....

so lets think about this, illusion is they were in the cottage cleaning that morning, the bloody mess was being cleaned up, scrubbed, mopped, what articles do you think they used?

was there blood on the persons, on Amanda and Rafafele? No

any blood on their clothes from hours of cleaning? NO not a picogram on not even a shoestring.

any evidence of cleanup articles found? NO
nothing. no rubber gloves, no rags of blood in the garbage, nothing. the mop was tested again nothing. no bottles of empty bleach nothing.

Its just hard to believe without evidence. JMO.

So what scenario makes all the bloody articles of a cleanup disappear?

This is a guessing game, like there is no evidence who broke the window. It was broken, yes... but there's no evidence "who" broke it.

only a bunch of "I think they did it".....process of elimination and personal ideas. interesting. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle?

moving on....
I still want to know how Mignini is going to pull it all together for a closing statement. The conclusion. And explain all the defense perspectives away. Rudy too....

4 people, 4 different stories...

I'm still a lone wolf, with Raffaele leaving a very bad gut feeling....did some bizarre thing happen, he would bring Amanda in to.

His responses really bother me too, but without proof its only words from a stoner.

the case is the Knife and Bra Clasp, I think its all coming down to these items.
the court will accept these items=guilty
the court will not accept beyond reasonable doubt= not guilty

jmo

Jester

11-03-2009, 02:32 PM

Frank talks about it in this article:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/out-of-control.html

If I dig up more I'll post it up for you.

Wow. Thank you. That's also a very nice description of Amanda's behavior immediately after the murder.

That is shockingly revealing about how Amanda's mind works. To kiss someone that she hardly knew even though there was a visible cold sore suggests that she believes herself to be invincible, or that she is completely ignorant about sexually transmitted diseases. Schools teach about STDs, so it must be that she thinks she is invincible.

Connecting STDs with being good at sex is even more bizarre. I hope she doesn't run out and get AIDs because she erroneously believes the more dangerous the STD, the better the guy is at sex.

Jester

11-03-2009, 02:37 PM

We don't know Rudy never came back in the AM? He could have slept on the toilet for all we know.
No one knows anything really. We only can believe he was there and left and finally met up with some friend, but in the early morning again he has no alibi.

jmo

You lost me. Rudy was seen fleeing the scene, so he definitely left the cottage.

Let me quote Michael here, as it has already been posted, and it answers your question as to whether you can know that Rudy did not return to the cottage:

"Let me get this strait. You believe it's completely illogical that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. Yet, you think it's perfectly logical that hours after the murder, Rudy returned to the scene, despite having just recently carried out a murder there and the place could have been swarming with police, or any of the housemates or their friends could arrive at the cottage at any moment. He does this for the purpose of changing the scene from appearing like a bungled burglary into a bungled rape, stripping Meredith of her clothing, cutting her bra from her body (and you're quite happy to accept that he left none of his DNA on the bra clasp despite vigorous manhandling, while beliving mere contamination was enough to to put Raffaele's DNA on the clasp). He then ignores his bloody fingerprints, footprints and crap in the loo (despite going to such efforts to manipulate the crime scene in other ways) and then leaves satisfied that he's just made his situation ten times worse. He does all this without any direct evidence of 'his' manipulating of the scene and no witnesses saw him going to or leaving the cottage. Have I got it about right? That sounds like a logical theory to you?"

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 02:50 PM

I very much reccommend those interest in the case view the following blog by Miss Represented. Her in depth articles on the case are truly insightful on the dynamics if the case and the psycology of those involved:

LIES OUR MOTHERS TOLD US (http://missrepresented.net/blog/)

that was pretty interesting. I disagree with a lot of it, but there is a perspective thats different there. Much like Alternate Theories-Perugia Murders has a different perspective but a fresh specific look into a science.
http://alternatetheories-perugiamurder.blogspot.com/

CONS-
The issue I see with the LIES articles are she begins building a case around her own thoughts. I think she partitions the case well, but then starts adding thoughts and not evidence , which is fine and refreshingly interesting...a different perspective of psychology.

... its all theory as she states in herself in the first paragraphs.

*********
I don’t believe Amanda is our sadist but I do believe she murdered Meredith Kercher. The crime reconstruction has placed Rudy Guede in the role of sexual assailant, Raffaele to the side restraining the victim (and possibly strangling her) with Amanda as the knife wielder.

******
I believe Raffaele was to a certain extent an instigator. I believe most if not all of the planning, organization and preparation was made by him.
**********

Again the threesome in the bedroom. So I have problems and the same reservations. (I won't keep posting those over and over.)

the theory she portrays is very ugly, a very "sadistic" murder, in contrast to some others who might think it was accidental, chaos induced.

planned or unplanned.....the disorganized scene leans to the unplanned, with the common cleanup afterwards, but the charge of bringing the knife would insinuate planned.

who knows?

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 03:18 PM

You lost me. Rudy was seen fleeing the scene, so he definitely left the cottage.

Let me quote Michael here, as it has already been posted, and it answers your question as to whether you can know that Rudy did not return to the cottage:

"Let me get this strait. You believe it's completely illogical that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. Yet, you think it's perfectly logical that hours after the murder, Rudy returned to the scene, despite having just recently carried out a murder there and the place could have been swarming with police, or any of the housemates or their friends could arrive at the cottage at any moment. He does this for the purpose of changing the scene from appearing like a bungled burglary into a bungled rape, stripping Meredith of her clothing, cutting her bra from her body (and you're quite happy to accept that he left none of his DNA on the bra clasp despite vigorous manhandling, while beliving mere contamination was enough to to put Raffaele's DNA on the clasp). He then ignores his bloody fingerprints, footprints and crap in the loo (despite going to such efforts to manipulate the crime scene in other ways) and then leaves satisfied that he's just made his situation ten times worse. He does all this without any direct evidence of 'his' manipulating of the scene and no witnesses saw him going to or leaving the cottage. Have I got it about right? That sounds like a logical theory to you?"

For one reason, I don't really buy the clean-up.
I'm not convinced it was as you state at all.
No, I don't really align to the threesome-drug sex orgy murder rape- theory.

So my theory might appear out of sync to your scenario. But its a Lone Wolf so not that bizarre. I don't have the unknown left handed Italian man as the murderer...its Rudy alone.

there are many theorys to choose from mines only one.

I'll try to be clear, you mention the bra clasp as something different than I see it.

I see it as a piece of faulty evidence with numerous peoples dna on it, and nothing like Stefani states as being "flawless", matter of fact its almost an opposite of flawless.

1) laying around sliding on a floor being horribly rubbed and handled as seen in the video and let alone having so many other peoples dna on it, only proves it not some clean-precise 100% piece.

2) Furthermore there's nothing in the room to substantiate the bra clasp.

In short, I don't in general, buy the "solo" piece of evidence, backed up by nothing.

I prefer the solid pile of evidence like against Rudy, the numerous peices of the puzzle all substantiating each other that he was there, its his dna, in and on Meredith. footprints, fingerprints, dna, motive of theft, rape, history of theft, etc..

the clean-up? nah...if it was anything it was probably Rudy started one in a panic, and then abandoned the idea. He gave up as there was just too much.

He was disorganized, a disorganized murder scene, as the LIES lady put it. I think he rolled her over, like Alternate Theories said.

Only Rudy was in that room with Meredith, is my opinion.

Jester

11-03-2009, 03:25 PM

Only Rudy was in that room with Meredith, is my opinion.

Sure, let's assume that only Rudy was in Meredith's bedroom. For starters ...

Then, how did Amanda's DNA get onto Meredith's bra?

How did bloody footprints, much smaller than Rudy's, end up in the hallway?

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 06:08 PM

that was pretty interesting. I disagree with a lot of it, but there is a perspective thats different there.

*********
I don’t believe Amanda is our sadist but I do believe she murdered Meredith Kercher. The crime reconstruction has placed Rudy Guede in the role of sexual assailant, Raffaele to the side restraining the victim (and possibly strangling her) with Amanda as the knife wielder.

******
I believe Raffaele was to a certain extent an instigator. I believe most if not all of the planning, organization and preparation was made by him.
**********

the theory she portrays is very ugly, a very "sadistic" murder, in contrast to some others who might think it was accidental, chaos induced.

***
I am still unsure of his actual role in the murder of Meredith and believe he may have been to a certain extent a pawn and, due to the evidence of the clean-up frame-up job, a fall guy.
Rudy is not our sadist.
****

Reading more from the LIES OUR MOTHERS TOLD US...

She obviously has Raffaele as the sadist. The attacker that went too far. The silent one who is playing "control" games by supporting or disassociating with Amanda's alibi.

I'm still reading. Very interesting articles and science, and well written.

A different theory, I'm not 100% sold on that, but her explanation of things.
She wrote
My conclusions and ideas are based on current forensic psychology theory and should be taken for exactly what they are: Theory.

Candace/Seattle PI posted Rudys current alibi to be is nothing new... Raffaele was the knife wielder and Amanda was OUTSIDE.

So this disagree's with Mignini's "threesome sex orgy murder" theory.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 06:22 PM

But it is completely 'illogical'. Your theory simply states that Rudy 'did' these things. It makes no attempt whatsoever to explain 'why' Rudy would have done those things. People simply don't do things for no reason. I can't see any reason 'why', Rudy Guede would have gone to the hassle of going all the way back to the cottage hours later, not to mention taken all that risk, simply to rearrange the crime scene to make it look even worse then it was (a bungled rape as opposed to a bungled burglary), risk leaving even more evidence of himself at the scene and at the same time, see all the evidence he had left of his presence (his bloody fingerprints, bloody footprints, crap in the toilet etc,) and make no attempt to remove it and then just leave it. To take Meredith's credit cards, but make no attempt to use them. Steal both her phones only to throw them both away just down the road, yet not take valuable jewellery, laptops or Meredith's I-pod (and we know Rudy liked I-pods). Then there's the lamps. There's no reason, logic or purpose to this.

We have clear forensic evidence of multiple people at the crime scene. Meredith was attacked by multiple people...she was being 'restrained' at the same time she was being attacked with the knife (one of whom puts Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele together and Amanda wielding a knife). Rudy didn't have eight arms. We have 3 eye witnesses that Place Raffaele in the vicinity/in the cottage and two ear witnesses that heard multiple people at the cottage.

yes, there's no "why"....just a thought. no motive, no evidence.
just a nothing idea that it "could have happened".
He supposedly knew the door was open, he had access.
One can think fiction and theorys all day....

And it wasn't all the way back, it was a few minutes to the cottage.

you mention only the prosecutions witnesses and you forget the defense presented a convincing theory too, that it is Rudy alone.

I don't buy the multiple people restraining her, as you know.
If they were all equal to Rudy in participation, then why isn't there a mountain of evidence as it is with Rudy in that bedroom?

We don't know if Rudy came back or not...
No one knows how long his "poop" was in the toilet.
Why did it supposedly drop, in the short time Amanda went to bring raffaele back Nov 2?
Was it fresh poop?
Maybe Rudy was lying all along, maybe he recently dropped his poop that morning Nov 2 ....4am, 5am...7am....Maybe Amanda woke him up Nov 2? how can we believe Rudy of anything?

A lot of "what if's" ....

thats why the court needs to rely on evidence. which at this point is mainly the Knife and Bra Clasp, imo. All roads lead back to these two items.

KnoxCase

11-03-2009, 06:27 PM

This doesn't work either, since the only things that were cleaned was evidence that didn't belong to him. Those things that were cleaned, for the most part, belonged to Raffaele and Amanda. You clean your 'own' mess, not other peoples. And the 'giving up because there was just too much' doesn't wash either, no pun intended. It would hardly have taken Rudy 'hours' simply to clean his clearly visible footprints running down the corridor, or to flush his poo down the toilet, how long does that take?

yes its a weak thought. nothing to prove it, like so many other thoughts in this case.

Emerald

11-03-2009, 08:33 PM

Just another example of the circular logic you are want to indulge in to further your apparent devotion to deflecting attention away from Rudy's culpability.

Inverterate liars often add extraneous elements to their stories precisely in the hopes that gullible people will make the leap of faith that you've just made. Would've thought you knew that.

At any rate, the plot thickens. I seem to remember a John Cleese sketch where he was wanding the streets with a big kitchen knife and wearing a red swimming cap. Maybe it was Python, and not the manga comics, that suddenly turned these otherwise rather unexceptional young people into bloodthirsty gang rapists and thrill killers.

So now Rudy is is an inveterate liar who adds completely unrelated DNA, blood evidence, footprints, etc. to the crime scene?

The segue from Michael Crowe to a Monty Python comedy skit featuring John Cleese is fascinating. Not for it's value in ajudicating the crimes against Meredith Kercher, but for the ever more bizarre attempts at diversion.

JMO

Emerald

11-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Michael, do you know if in the UK the victim has an attorney as in Italy?

Is the one in Italy chosen by the victim's Family or assigned by the courts?

Franklin

11-03-2009, 10:08 PM

In my mind this is what I see happened right after the murder:

Amanda is like an eager puppy who is also quite full of herself for the attention that the police were giving her. Like in a childrens game of "You're getting Hotter and and You're getting Colder", she thought she was "helping" the investigators by making up stories to embelish upon the little hints that they fed her.

She thought she was being quite heroic in "helping" them nail the bad killer. It is interesting that she named a black man (Patrick). I wonder if the police had hinted her towards that direction with their inside information of the string of crimes Rudy (also a black man) had done. I'd bet that they knew they were looking for a black man.

Could Amanda have been so stupid as to not realize that when she jumped on the vigilante bandwagon, and claimed TO KNOW "Patrick did it" that she was also implicating herself? I think YES, she is obviously that stupid. She tried to jump on what she thought was a vigilante bandwagon. She may have thought Patrick was guilty because the police were hinting at a black man. She may have thought she was being an exempilary citizen by fabricating a story to help the police and to definitively nail Patrick, to put "a killer" away, and to get browny points with the handsome men in uniforms, to be in on their team.

It is so sad. Had Patrick not had an airtight alibi, Rudy would have gotten away with murder and Patrick would have been unjustly convicted.

I do think that Ms. Knox is a sociopath for her callous recklessness in almost disposing of Patricks life the way she did, (framing him) but NOT for harming Meredith. I think Rudy did it all by himself. He may have even stopped by the apartment looking for Amanda, having heard of her promiscuous reputation. Only to find Meredith.

And I see that the police in Perugia, with their instant bizarre scenarios ever changing to match their predispositions, are as wacky as Amanda, which is awful wacky.

Franklin

11-03-2009, 10:11 PM

If anyone is interested, below is an interesting link about internet trolls, in case there are any on this board.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll.htm/printable

Emerald

11-03-2009, 11:26 PM

Are the verdicts of AK and RS separate? Is length of sentencing mandatory or can they be found to have different degrees of culpability?

Emerald

11-04-2009, 08:49 AM

John Grisham was a guest on Morning Joe (MSNBC) this morning. He was talking about the current book he has coming out. Something about a man returning home as he is dying of aids.

He already had his next work in progress, information gathered to begin writing in January, releasing in November 2010. Didn't say the subject of this book.

I've read John Grisham will author a book about this case. Maybe this is it?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 12:51 PM

I was just thinking, the knife the prosecution holds they claim made the large wounds. They claim it was the murder weapon.

But this doesn't work for many reasons, and the fact the DNA found on it is Non-Blood makes it even harder to believe.

The more I think about it, the less sense this already "weaK" knife concept is. It already is said to NOT be the knife that was the murder weapon by many experts including Super Experts assigned by the court.

Then to try to imagine some amateur could clean off a severely bloody murder weapon is not really believable either.

To imagine a weapon used in a bloody attack and only held non-blood DNA doesn't work easily. Not even a picogram of blood dna?

The knife was supposedly cleaned but left massive amounts of Amandas DNA? this doesn't sound like a clean up job either?

but I digress....the point was its Non-Blood LCN DNA on this knife, how can there be zero blood dna, if it was the main murder weapon as the prosecution accuses?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 01:07 PM

Michael, I understand you are not used to being challenged on your opinions and your points of view. But I'm afraid that's allowed here.

And please remove all sarcastic comments from your own posts before you accuse others of instigating personal attacks. Some people might regard that as hypocritical.

I think some are very pro-Mignini, others here seem to be Anti-Amanda and yet disagree with Mignini's theory, its really a case of many theorys, many stories.

but the openness to post a theory or thought on this forum, is one of the best I've seen. I like this forum for its different perspectives...if everyone agreed it'd be a boring drag...

I don't agree with a lot of them, but its getting very interesting the collage of theories...the different perspectives.

Who knows? Maybe one will snap and explain the entire truth of what happened? I will not be surprised if more is to come....maybe a interrogator comes out with another story aligning to Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick.....maybe Rudy will explain a cohesive believable story someday, maybe after he's been convicted again?

I think everyone agrees Rudy was there. Thats a starting point.
Maybe once he's lost his appeal he will no longer feel the need to
hide the truth?
I don't know the court system that well, maybe it benefits Rudy to never admit to the murder.....the people in prison don't take kindly to some of their own so he may try to keep to his innocent theory for safety in prison?

pixiejoolz

11-04-2009, 01:28 PM

I think some are very pro-Mignini, others here seem to be Anti-Amanda and yet disagree with Mignini's theory, its really a case of many theorys, many stories.

but the openness to post a theory or thought on this forum, is one of the best I've seen. I like this forum for its different perspectives...if everyone agreed it'd be a boring drag...

I don't agree with a lot of them, but its getting very interesting the collage of theories...the different perspectives.

Who knows? Maybe one will snap and explain the entire truth of what happened? I will not be surprised if more is to come....maybe a interrogator comes out with another story aligning to Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick.....maybe Rudy will explain a cohesive believable story someday, maybe after he's been convicted again?

I think everyone agrees Rudy was there. Thats a starting point.
Maybe once he's lost his appeal he will no longer feel the need to
hide the truth?
I don't know the court system that well, maybe it benefits Rudy to never admit to the murder.....the people in prison don't take kindly to some of their own so he may try to keep to his innocent theory for safety in prison?

KnoxCase, I posted this question to you yesterday, but perhaps you didn't see it. I'd really appreciate an answer because this part of the case puzzles me greatly and, imo, makes AK appear to be hiding something:

If you really believe that Rudy is the only perpetrator here, then how do you explain Amanda's outright lies? Her accusations against Patrick are outright, horrific lies, no way around that fact. And even in the weeks following, when she had plenty of time to reflect, change her story and TELL THE TRUTH, she did nothing to reverse the injustice SHE created, just sat back and watched. It certainly appears that she would have been perfectly fine with knowingly sending an innocent man to prison. I would really like your take on her very conscious lies - without the specious (imo) coercion or "she's just a confused child like Michael Crowe" arguments. thx

Emerald

11-04-2009, 07:34 PM

KnoxCase, I posted this question to you yesterday, but perhaps you didn't see it. I'd really appreciate an answer because this part of the case puzzles me greatly and, imo, makes AK appear to be hiding something:

If you really believe that Rudy is the only perpetrator here, then how do you explain Amanda's outright lies? Her accusations against Patrick are outright, horrific lies, no way around that fact. And even in the weeks following, when she had plenty of time to reflect, change her story and TELL THE TRUTH, she did nothing to reverse the injustice SHE created, just sat back and watched. It certainly appears that she would have been perfectly fine with knowingly sending an innocent man to prison. I would really like your take on her very conscious lies - without the specious (imo) coercion or "she's just a confused child like Michael Crowe" arguments. thx

Pixiejoolz, I've asked the same questions many times with no reply. Amanda has details of the crimes against Meredith Kercher when she gives her false confessions. It's details the investigators didn't even know because the intense investigation had just begun.

In each of the accounts, Amanda places herself at the scene of the crime as it was happening. Hands over the ears, seeing the perp run away. To name only a few.

I don't believe Amanda spent the entire night at Raffaele's apartment.

jMO

pixiejoolz

11-04-2009, 08:12 PM

Pixiejoolz, I've asked the same questions many times with no reply. Amanda has details of the crimes against Meredith Kercher when she gives her false confessions. It's details the investigators didn't even know because the intense investigation had just begun.

In each of the accounts, Amanda places herself at the scene of the crime as it was happening. Hands over the ears, seeing the perp run away. To name only a few.

I don't believe Amanda spent the entire night at Raffaele's apartment.

jMO

Thanks Emerald. I'm really not trying to start any quibbling, I just really want to understand the poster's reasons for his/her opinion. I don't even know if I believe that AK had anything to do with the murder directly, but from everything I've read, I cannot believe that she is uninvolved, either. And those lies incriminating an innocent person point to - at the very least - a serious character flaw or mental disturbance, and at most, serious involvement. jmo

Jester

11-04-2009, 08:48 PM

For one reason, I don't really buy the clean-up.
I'm not convinced it was as you state at all.
No, I don't really align to the threesome-drug sex orgy murder rape- theory.

So my theory might appear out of sync to your scenario. But its a Lone Wolf so not that bizarre. I don't have the unknown left handed Italian man as the murderer...its Rudy alone.

there are many theorys to choose from mines only one.

I'll try to be clear, you mention the bra clasp as something different than I see it.

I see it as a piece of faulty evidence with numerous peoples dna on it, and nothing like Stefani states as being "flawless", matter of fact its almost an opposite of flawless.

1) laying around sliding on a floor being horribly rubbed and handled as seen in the video and let alone having so many other peoples dna on it, only proves it not some clean-precise 100% piece.

2) Furthermore there's nothing in the room to substantiate the bra clasp.

In short, I don't in general, buy the "solo" piece of evidence, backed up by nothing.

I prefer the solid pile of evidence like against Rudy, the numerous peices of the puzzle all substantiating each other that he was there, its his dna, in and on Meredith. footprints, fingerprints, dna, motive of theft, rape, history of theft, etc..

the clean-up? nah...if it was anything it was probably Rudy started one in a panic, and then abandoned the idea. He gave up as there was just too much.

He was disorganized, a disorganized murder scene, as the LIES lady put it. I think he rolled her over, like Alternate Theories said.

Only Rudy was in that room with Meredith, is my opinion.

I mentioned Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra, not Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. I'll accept that there was some possible transfer of DNA on the bra clasp, but I can't accept that all the evidence was contaminated. Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra was collected at the time of the murder. You insist that there is no evidence of anyone but Rudy in the bedroom. I ask ... how do you explain Amanda's DNA in Meredith's bedroom? Do you ignore it?

Jester

11-04-2009, 09:10 PM

yes, there's no "why"....just a thought. no motive, no evidence.
just a nothing idea that it "could have happened".
He supposedly knew the door was open, he had access.
One can think fiction and theorys all day....

And it wasn't all the way back, it was a few minutes to the cottage.

you mention only the prosecutions witnesses and you forget the defense presented a convincing theory too, that it is Rudy alone.

I don't buy the multiple people restraining her, as you know.
If they were all equal to Rudy in participation, then why isn't there a mountain of evidence as it is with Rudy in that bedroom?

We don't know if Rudy came back or not...
No one knows how long his "poop" was in the toilet.
Why did it supposedly drop, in the short time Amanda went to bring raffaele back Nov 2?
Was it fresh poop?
Maybe Rudy was lying all along, maybe he recently dropped his poop that morning Nov 2 ....4am, 5am...7am....Maybe Amanda woke him up Nov 2? how can we believe Rudy of anything?

A lot of "what if's" ....

thats why the court needs to rely on evidence. which at this point is mainly the Knife and Bra Clasp, imo. All roads lead back to these two items.

You have argued that we don't know how long Rudy stayed in the house, that he may have stayed there for hours. Yet, we also know that the phones were disposed of shortly after 10 PM. If Rudy was in the house tending to bodily functions and cleaning up the mess that was revealed using luminol, who disposed of the cell phones shortly after 10? Is that something Amanda and Raffaele did, or do you have Rudy running in and out of the murder scene all night long ... and then arriving at the dance club shortly after midnight, having changed an showered?

Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said: ‘’This is clearly in line with Raffaele’s alibi as he was at home the whole time.

‘’It’s clear that if Meredith’s phone had a message at 22.13 via a cell no where near her house then the accusation against Raffaele is crumbling.’’

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C344/

Jester

11-04-2009, 09:14 PM

Emerald

11-04-2009, 09:15 PM

Thanks Emerald. I'm really not trying to start any quibbling, I just really want to understand the poster's reasons for his/her opinion. I don't even know if I believe that AK had anything to do with the murder directly, but from everything I've read, I cannot believe that she is uninvolved, either. And those lies incriminating an innocent person point to - at the very least - a serious character flaw or mental disturbance, and at most, serious involvement. jmo

I'm not sure I can believe Amanda was involved in the actual murder, either. The physical evidence and her own words convince me she was involved in some way.

In US, we have people on death row with absolutely no physical evidence they committed a crime. Scott Peterson sits there, because of circumstantial evidence. Not one scintilla of physical evidence available to convict him. My point in bring this up is not to discuss the murder of Laci Peterson.

I believe Amanda was not at Rafaele's all night. Amanda is allowing to happen to him what she tried to sit back and watch happen to Patrick Lumumba. Bringing someone else down with her will not lessen her own sentence. What it will do is create more problems for herself when the truth is told.

JMO

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 09:22 PM

Jester

11-04-2009, 09:28 PM

clean-up theory?

so we are to think they threw away the cleanup tools, in some dumpster...

but yet they brought home this cheap kitchen knife used in a murder and left in the drawer, and Amanda didn't even wipe her own prints off it?

its not making much sense for this cleanup theory.

Knives belonging to a knife collector are usually not cheap - they can be upwards of a few hundred dollars each for the good ones. I think Raffaele couldn't part with his knife (not a cheap kitchen knife). It's easy to understand that the knife was cleaned and put back in the drawer ... and yes, it was cleaned. Amanda and Raffaele were most likely of the opinion that they were free and clear, and that Raffaele's residence would never be searched. They also assumed there was nothing wrong with Amanda's prints on the handle ... and there wouldn't be if Meredith's DNA wasn't on the other end of the knife.

We also have that extremely odd and untrue statement from Raffaele where he actually claimed that Meredith had dinner at his apartment ... he said this to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife ... but she was never at his apartment. Isn't it important to consider the big picture, including all the information about the knife?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 10:19 PM

JenniferB

11-04-2009, 10:23 PM

Hello everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster.

One thing that has been stumping me is what KnoxCase brought up about the lack of blood on anything related to Amanda and Rafaelle. How can you not have one iota of blood on AK or RS's stuff, other than that tiny bit on the alleged murder weapon? How were they able to clean up so well? Because really, if they did clean up, they did a heck of a job.

But your response has me curious, so I am going to ask some questions about your post if you do not mind.

A witness saw Rudy fleeing the scene. Nara heard the protagonists fleeing the scene. Another ear witness heard people leaving the scene. Rudy was witnessed up the night club.

Didn't the woman who heard fleeing the scene state she could not remember the exact date of this and was not certain if it was the night in question? I thought that was part of her testimony. Doesn't mean it wasn't the night, but it doesn't mean it was either. It has been a couple months since I read that, I could be mistaken.

Showers are amazing things, aren't they?

Were there traces of Meredith's blood in the shower drain? This is a serious question, not sarcasm. From everything I have read, even the trial transcripts that have been translated, I did not see any mention of this. But maybe there was? If so, do you have a link? Or is this just guessing? If there was, that is very damning. Surely they checked the shower drain because Amanda herself said she was there that morning and took a shower. It is possible to get trace amounts of blood in the shower drain.

Or are you just speculating? Personally, I don't like to speculate. There is either proof or not. But if I am missing it, may I please have a link? It is brutal out there trying to sort through it all and just when you think you have read it all....you haven't. It is also very hard to find objective reporting. I have yet to find a site with enough information that isn't Pro-AK or Anti-AK. It is rather frustrating.

You really don't think she'd keep them afterwards do you?

There's large public bins all over Perugia. You really don't think she'd throw them away in her own bin do you? As for bleech, it isn't required to clean.

Considering the alleged cleanup was done that morning, (i am assuming this because of witness at the market saying she bought bleach the morning they discovered Meredith.) I would assume that they couldn't have gone very far with those bloody clothes. They would have to be in close proximity, I would imagine. Surely, the police searched all the nearby trash bins. It is impossible to not get any blood on their clothes while cleaning up. Unless they wrapped themselves in seran wrap and tossed it. But again, surely they searched trash bins.

OOOH, just thought of another question. Did Rafaelle have a car? That is something I have no idea about. If he didn't, it would mean they really WOULD have to find somewhere within close proximity to dispose of their bloody clothese. Anyone know for sure, does Rafaelle have a car?

Since you say bleach isn't required..then what? water? Or did you just mean wiping up with the towels and tossing them?

No disrespect intended.... have you ever tried to clean up blood? I unfortunately have. My cat broke open some stiches and got blood all over a wall and window in my bedroom. It was terrible. Like a horror movie, I will never forget that day...a little blood goes a long way...let me tell ya. Sorry, I digress, it was just so horrible. ANYWAY, It was one of the hardest things to clean up. Only two things will get up blood without leaving something behind and that is hydrogen peroxide or bleach...not even Windex or Mr. Clean got rid of it. Yep, i tried both of those products....the vet told me the only way I would really get rid of the stains was to use peroxide. Have they shown those items to have been used for clean up? Again, serious question.

I know there is this constant mention of cleanup. I am assuming it is what the Pros. is using since there is no blood on AK or RS belongings. But an alternate theory to clean up would be, there wasn't any to begin with. See, this is where I start thinking they were not involved. If they did clean up, prove it. You know you don't have any of meredith's blood on their belongings, so if you are sure they cleaned up, get the evidence to prove it. It would remove all this speculation. "yes, we tested for bleach in the hallway and we found bleach was used." Done. But they didn't test for it? Why not? Did they forget? Did they test and not find anything, therefore say they didn't test for it. They were able to determine bleach was used in Scott Peterson's kitchen after Lacey disappeared, why couldn't they here? This stumps me. Unless I am missing the testimony and yes, I would love to get a link. :)

KnoxCase made another valid point. Why didn't they throw the knife away too? If they are going to be that thorough, then they would have disposed of that knife too. It was a kitchen knife, not some rare collectors piece or anything. Easily replaced.

Now, there could very well be evidence to clean up and I have just missed it. I know they did the luminol, but wasn't it stated by the pros.' forensic person that other substances can show up with luminol, like juice or whatever other substances they said. But again, test for bleach to eliminate all doubt. Put the nail in the coffin and drive in nice and good to ensure conviction.

The towels in the room, kitchen towels, toilet roll. Perhaps even some rags that were thrown away. What was that bag that Amanda took to the cottage for anyway?

I am going to revert back to my cat's accident. No way just towels are going to clean that up. But lets take into account that they used paper towels to clean it up and disposed of them. What is this about a bag? Seriously, must be something I haven't read. Was she seen with a full bag, or was she seen with an empty one after the fact? What kind of bag? Do you have a link? Please tell me more about this bag.

Well, there's Meredith's blood that had been cleaned that also contained Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room. That's rather suggestive to me.

Another thing I must have missed. Do you have a link? Was there proof of cleanup in Filomena room? I read through the transcripts of the forensics person for the prosecution and from what I understood, there was no testing to prove that cleaning products were used. But I will be glad to see what there is on this, as it is obviously something I have missed.

Clearly, you still have no idea how the Italian system works.

I know this wasn't directed at me but....Yeah, I have no clue how the Italian system works. :)

Thank you for your time. I am not intending to argue, I am just looking for some clarification, because I, too, am confused by the lack of blood on their belongings.

pixiejoolz

11-04-2009, 10:30 PM

Emerald

11-04-2009, 10:39 PM

Amanda's lies about Patrick's culpability are a large reason they are in this mess too. jmo

**crickets**

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 10:43 PM

I mentioned Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra, not Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. I'll accept that there was some possible transfer of DNA on the bra clasp, but I can't accept that all the evidence was contaminated. Amanda's DNA on Meredith's bra was collected at the time of the murder. You insist that there is no evidence of anyone but Rudy in the bedroom. I ask ... how do you explain Amanda's DNA in Meredith's bedroom? Do you ignore it?

I don't think Amandas DNA is on the bra clasp.

I think for the most part.
The one time it was mentioned, was Vinci.
Francesco Vinci, a forensic science expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra. Sollecito's lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for weeks before testing it. "There is a mix of DNA due to contamination and it is not usable as proof," said Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, before entering court yesterday.
Vinci said the DNA taken from Kercher's bra would not be admissible as evidence in a British or US court. Reacting to the claim, Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox, said: "This works in the favour of Knox and Sollecito."

I think about 99% of the articles states its only Raffaels DNA on the bra clasp, and a few other people. Some say women DNA, some say Male DNA. I don't think Micheli's report really clarifys this either.
I know the FOA site states its
"Tests also revealed the DNA of at least three other unidentified people on the bra fastener." and state its only Raffaeles. Micheal mentioned something on this a few posts back.

I guess we'll get some clarification in the closing arguments?

Jester

11-04-2009, 10:44 PM

this was a cheap kitchen knife. its too hard to imagine, imo,
too far fetched for me, to create a scene where they do all this meticulous cleanup work of the entire cottage and then leave the murder weapon in plain view in their apartment drawer, without wiping their own off the handle?
....after walking thru the entire city of Perugia at night... carrying what should be a severely bloody knife?

to think of this "big picture" it doesn't sound a bit logical at all.

illogical, like the Raffaele responses you mention. so bizarre. Raffaeles responses are a large reason their in this mess.

jmo.

I'm confused. Why do you say "cheap" kitchen knife? Do you know the brand? Many kitchen knives, as I've said, are over a hundred dollars for the smaller ones, and a few hundred for larger ones. Knife collectors generally don't have cheap knives.

Why would Amanda wipe her fingerprints off the handle of a knife that is in Raffaele's drawer. The oversight, on the part of the accused, is that they did not realize that Meredith's DNA was still on the knife, and they did not realize that a search would take place in Raffaele's apartment. You're assuming that Amanda and Raffaele thought they would be caught, and thought that the police would search Raffaele's apartment. They had no reason to think the investigation would get that far.

I agree. It is illogical for two people to commit murder at one residence, clean up evidence of their involvement in the murder, leave evidence of the third murderer, and then anticipate that police would also search the roommate's boyfriends' apartment. They had no reason to think of that in the "getting away with murder" scenario.

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 10:48 PM

Were there traces of Meredith's blood in the shower drain? This is a serious question, not sarcasm. From everything I have read, even the trial transcripts that have been translated, I did not see any mention of this. But maybe there was? If so, do you have a link? Or is this just guessing? If there was, that is very damning. Surely they checked the shower drain because Amanda herself said she was there that morning and took a shower. It is possible to get trace amounts of blood in the shower drain.

Thats an interesting point, I haven't ever heard mention of testing the drains.

Rudy was the only one who acknowledged he was covered in blood and went home and cleaned up.

So surely the Forensic team tested the Cottage drain and swabbed Raffaeles drain in the shower.

It does seem obvious a bloody murder like this would require a long shower.

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 10:54 PM

I'm confused. Why do you say "cheap" kitchen knife? Do you know the brand? Many kitchen knives, as I've said, are over a hundred dollars for the smaller ones, and a few hundred for larger ones. Knife collectors generally don't have cheap knives.

Why would Amanda wipe her fingerprints off the handle of a knife that is in Raffaele's drawer. The oversight, on the part of the accused, is that they did not realize that Meredith's DNA was still on the knife, and they did not realize that a search would take place in Raffaele's apartment. You're assuming that Amanda and Raffaele thought they would be caught, and thought that the police would search Raffaele's apartment. They had no reason to think the investigation would get that far.

I agree. It is illogical for two people to commit murder at one residence, clean up evidence of their involvement in the murder, leave evidence of the third murderer, and then anticipate that police would also search the roommate's boyfriends' apartment. They had no reason to think of that in the "getting away with murder" scenario.

It was only mentioned in some article it was a very common knife you can buy anywhere. Around the time the "knife " made its appearance in the courtroom.

I assume, we all assume.

Yes, I assume its illogical to create a fictional scenario, where the murderers are so intent on cleaning up the murder scene and then
not dispose of the knife, and not only that, they are to not even wipe their own handle of the knife, the murder weapon?!

So lets review this "cleanup theory"...they spend all night and morning cleaning up their traces so as not to get caught, then they take the murder weapon home with them, don't wipe off the handle and place it back in the kitchen drawer.

the "cleanup theory" just doesn't fit. jmo

Jester

11-04-2009, 10:59 PM

I don't think Amandas DNA is on the bra clasp.

I think for the most part.
The one time it was mentioned, was Vinci.
Francesco Vinci, a forensic science expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra. Sollecito's lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for weeks before testing it. "There is a mix of DNA due to contamination and it is not usable as proof," said Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, before entering court yesterday.
Vinci said the DNA taken from Kercher's bra would not be admissible as evidence in a British or US court. Reacting to the claim, Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox, said: "This works in the favour of Knox and Sollecito."

I think about 99% of the articles states its only Raffaels DNA on the bra clasp, and a few other people. Some say women DNA, some say Male DNA. I don't think Micheli's report really clarifys this either.
I know the FOA site states its
"Tests also revealed the DNA of at least three other unidentified people on the bra fastener." and state its only Raffaeles. Micheal mentioned something on this a few posts back.

I guess we'll get some clarification in the closing arguments?

I'm pretty sure I've been asking, for several days, why you claim that there is only evidence of Rudy in the bedroom when there is DNA evidence of Amanda on Meredith's bra ... which was in the bedroom. That means that there is evidence of Amanda and Rudy in the bedroom.

To be clear, there is evidence of Amanda on Meredith's bra in the bedroom. End of sentence. There is no "clasp" in this sentence.

To be clear, the statement is not that there might be evidence, but that there is evidence of Amanda on the bra and in the bedroom.

"Murder suspect Amanda Knox's DNA was found on a piece of bloody bra belonging to Meredith Kercher, lawyers for her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito sensationally claimed today."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1080859/Foxy-Knoxys-DNA-Meredith-Kerchers-bloody-bra-claim-ex-boyfriends-lawyers.html#ixzz0VxCIY6Nh

Emerald

11-04-2009, 11:03 PM

Thats an interesting point, I haven't ever heard mention of testing the drains.

Rudy was the only one who acknowledged he was covered in blood and went home and cleaned up.

So surely the Forensic team tested the Cottage drain and swabbed Raffaeles drain in the shower.

It does seem obvious a bloody murder like this would require a long shower.

Nor did they test the inside door knob of the bedroom. Was there blood on it? Whoever staged the scene after the murder would have touched the inside door knob to lock it on the way out.

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:05 PM

It was only mentioned in some article it was a very common knife you can buy anywhere. Around the time the "knife " made its appearance in the courtroom.

I assume, we all assume.

Yes, I assume its illogical to create a fictional scenario, where the murderers are so intent on cleaning up the murder scene and then
not dispose of the knife, and not only that, they are to not even wipe their own handle of the knife, the murder weapon?!

So lets review this "cleanup theory"...they spend all night and morning cleaning up their traces so as not to get caught, then they take the murder weapon home with them, don't wipe off the handle and place it back in the kitchen drawer.

the "cleanup theory" just doesn't fit. jmo

What doesn't fit is the assumption that the murder scene should be cleaned up and then, after the murderers leave the scene, there is no evidence in any other location tying them to the murder. Amanda and Raffaele are not very sophisticated. There's nothing surprising about them bringing evidence of the murder to a second location.

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 11:06 PM

You have argued that we don't know how long Rudy stayed in the house, that he may have stayed there for hours. Yet, we also know that the phones were disposed of shortly after 10 PM. If Rudy was in the house tending to bodily functions and cleaning up the mess that was revealed using luminol, who disposed of the cell phones shortly after 10? Is that something Amanda and Raffaele did, or do you have Rudy running in and out of the murder scene all night long ... and then arriving at the dance club shortly after midnight, having changed an showered?

Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno said: ‘’This is clearly in line with Raffaele’s alibi as he was at home the whole time.

‘’It’s clear that if Meredith’s phone had a message at 22.13 via a cell no where near her house then the accusation against Raffaele is crumbling.’’

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C344/

well as I see it...with Rudy. (remind we are using the words of a liar...but its the best we have in this case)

he mentions the 9pm arrival and goes in with Meredith. He states this several times.
he mentioned the "date" and sex lasted 10-15 minutes, he mentioned the scream was half way into the 3rd Ipod song (7-10minutes)....he stated he was home around 10:30pm...and at his friends by 11:30, and his alibi is with them thru the night of dancing,...but theres been no talk of after hours, the wee-wee hours of the sunrise.

does a man, a arrested thief burglar, probably rapist/first time murderer, just go home and sleep? maybe he returned?

if you see the google map, and do a google of distance/time, the time to walk form the cottage to his place the back route where the cellphones were found was around 10minutes...putting the time around 10:13pm..22:13pm...at the bushes of the cellphones....and to his home at 10:30pm, fits very easily.

if he went into his place from the back door of the wall, as many suspected he did (so as not to be seen with blood all over himself as he admitted himself to having blood all over himself and not wanting to be seen).

the Rudy alibi is the two arrived , ran in murdered Meredith and fled in a matter of about 7 minutes. At 9:30pm....is the scream according to Rudy.

According to Nara its 11pm approx.

This case just goes around and around. For every pro there seems to be a con?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 11:15 PM

What doesn't fit is the assumption that the murder scene should be cleaned up and then, after the murderers leave the scene, there is no evidence in any other location tying them to the murder. Amanda and Raffaele are not very sophisticated. There's nothing surprising about them bringing evidence of the murder to a second location.

but on one hand people can say they are meticulous cleaners, precision of removing themself and not Rudy....and in the same theory, they are sloppy and forgetful and take home a bloody knife and leave it out in the open of their apartment?

can a person, or two people be meticulous and sloppy?

it doesn't seem logical. its too hard to believe.
Lets not forget all the other factors, the entire picture of this kitchen knife..there's a wealth of evidence including Court appointed Experts saying its NOT the murder weapon.

so were they meticulous clean-up stoners, who threw away all the evidence of the cottage cleanup and yet, took the cooking knife/murder knife home and it was such a collectible they leave it in the kitchen drawer with the many other kitchen ware?

Emerald

11-04-2009, 11:20 PM

When Amanda was testifying in court, she was not being interrogated.

Why the contradictory testimony in an uninterrupted reply?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 11:26 PM

Amanda's lies about Patrick's culpability are a large reason they are in this mess too. jmo

yes, your right...

this case is ripe with everyone mentioning bizarre things! Mignini and his Halloween ritual drug rape orgy was dreamt up long before any evidence was found too!

its hard to imagine, with all these differing theorys, the jurors and others falling asleep in court isn't it?

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:32 PM

well as I see it...with Rudy. (remind we are using the words of a liar...but its the best we have in this case)

he mentions the 9pm arrival and goes in with Meredith. He states this several times.
he mentioned the "date" and sex lasted 10-15 minutes, he mentioned the scream was half way into the 3rd Ipod song (7-10minutes)....he stated he was home around 10:30pm...and at his friends by 11:30, and his alibi is with them thru the night of dancing,...but theres been no talk of after hours, the wee-wee hours of the sunrise.

does a man, a arrested thief burglar, probably rapist/first time murderer, just go home and sleep? maybe he returned?

if you see the google map, and do a google of distance/time, the time to walk form the cottage to his place the back route where the cellphones were found was around 10minutes...putting the time around 10:13pm..22:13pm...at the bushes of the cellphones....and to his home at 10:30pm, fits very easily.

if he went into his place from the back door of the wall, as many suspected he did (so as not to be seen with blood all over himself as he admitted himself to having blood all over himself and not wanting to be seen).

the Rudy alibi is the two arrived , ran in murdered Meredith and fled in a matter of about 7 minutes. At 9:30pm....is the scream according to Rudy.

According to Nara its 11pm approx.

This case just goes around and around. For every pro there seems to be a con?

We have Amanda the liar (false accusations against Patrick), Raffaele the liar (the lie about Meredith having dinner at his house), and Rudy the liar. Three liars, all accused of murder. Hmmm ... what are the chances that with three liars telling lies about the same few hours one night, any of them are innocent? In any estimation ... by any law abiding citizen ... none.

What I find interesting is how it happened, how all the pieces fit together, not whether we should believe that there really is DNA from Amanda on Meredith's bra in Meredith's bedroom. That has been established. The question is how it got there. Did it happen in mixed laundry? Did it fly, like Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp? Is the DNA on the surface of the blood?

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 11:42 PM

I'm pretty sure I've been asking, for several days, why you claim that there is only evidence of Rudy in the bedroom when there is DNA evidence of Amanda on Meredith's bra ... which was in the bedroom. That means that there is evidence of Amanda and Rudy in the bedroom.

To be clear, there is evidence of Amanda on Meredith's bra in the bedroom. End of sentence. There is no "clasp" in this sentence.

To be clear, the statement is not that there might be evidence, but that there is evidence of Amanda on the bra and in the bedroom.

"Murder suspect Amanda Knox's DNA was found on a piece of bloody bra belonging to Meredith Kercher, lawyers for her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito sensationally claimed today."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1080859/Foxy-Knoxys-DNA-Meredith-Kerchers-bloody-bra-claim-ex-boyfriends-lawyers.html#ixzz0VxCIY6Nh

I think you'll find even from the "Mignini-voters" that this isn't the case.
They would surely be waving this evidence around proudly if it were real. IDK? was it a erratic statment, an incorrect article leak they meant to say Amnadas DNA was found on the knife?

Its interesting in that this news, just disappeared from the case.

I doubt it will resurface in the closing arguments either.

Oct 2008...Vinci.

quote: sensationally claimed.

possibly Stefani didn't back this up?

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:45 PM

but on one hand people can say they are meticulous cleaners, precision of removing themself and not Rudy....and in the same theory, they are sloppy and forgetful and take home a bloody knife and leave it out in the open of their apartment?

can a person, or two people be meticulous and sloppy?

it doesn't seem logical. its too hard to believe.
Lets not forget all the other factors, the entire picture of this kitchen knife..there's a wealth of evidence including Court appointed Experts saying its NOT the murder weapon.

so were they meticulous clean-up stoners, who threw away all the evidence of the cottage cleanup and yet, took the cooking knife/murder knife home and it was such a collectible they leave it in the kitchen drawer with the many other kitchen ware?

Maybe they were halfway through the cleanup when the police unexpectedly arrived ... standing by the front door with the mop ... maybe Rudy's evidence was accidentally left behind.

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:51 PM

Nor did they test the inside door knob of the bedroom. Was there blood on it? Whoever staged the scene after the murder would have touched the inside door knob to lock it on the way out.

Raffaele's prints were on the outside handle of the door. Why would it matter whose fingerprints are on the inside door handle? The door may have been open the whole time. In fact, it probably was because Amanda's lamp was just inside the room by the door (plugged in the hallway).

Maybe only Meredith's prints were on the inside door handle, and it wouldn't make any difference to the investigation.

Emerald

11-04-2009, 11:53 PM

yes, your right...

this case is ripe with everyone mentioning bizarre things! Mignini and his Halloween ritual drug rape orgy was dreamt up long before any evidence was found too!

its hard to imagine, with all these differing theorys, the jurors and others falling asleep in court isn't it?

Amanda made bizarre statements and accusations weaving fantasy with details only someone who was there could have known. Within a day of the brutal crimes suffered by Meredith Kercher.

As of yet, Amanda has yet to be sentenced for the crime she committed against Patrick Lumumba.

She won't be home for a while.

jMO

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:53 PM

I think you'll find even from the "Mignini-voters" that this isn't the case.
They would surely be waving this evidence around proudly if it were real. IDK? was it a erratic statment, an incorrect article leak they meant to say Amnadas DNA was found on the knife?

Its interesting in that this news, just disappeared from the case.

I doubt it will resurface in the closing arguments either.

Oct 2008...Vinci.

quote: sensationally claimed.

possibly Stefani didn't back this up?

If there is no evidence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene, then they will be found not guilty and released before Christmas.

KnoxCase

11-04-2009, 11:55 PM

Here's the counter perspective for this Oct 2008 Vinci statement..

Sollecito's lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated with outside DNA after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for weeks before testing it. "There is a mix of DNA due to contamination and it is not usable as proof," said Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, before entering court today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/27/meredith-kercher-murder-trial-bra

I know one thing, it definitely wasn't a flawless piece of work, as Stefani stated her forensic team did. their own video blew sunk that ship on the bra clasp.

Emerald

11-04-2009, 11:55 PM

Raffaele's prints were on the outside handle of the door. Why would it matter whose fingerprints are on the inside door handle? The door may have been open the whole time. In fact, it probably was because Amanda's lamp was just inside the room by the door (plugged in the hallway).

Maybe only Meredith's prints were on the inside door handle, and it wouldn't make any difference to the investigation.

Unless the door was locked from the outside with a key, whoever left after staging the crime scene had to lock it from the inside door knob.

Jester

11-04-2009, 11:58 PM

Jester

11-05-2009, 12:02 AM

Unless the door was locked from the outside with a key, whoever left after staging the crime scene had to lock it from the inside door knob.

With the door braced by a foot, put their hand under the front of their t-shirt, push and turn?

Emerald

11-05-2009, 12:05 AM

With the door braced by a foot, put their hand under the front of their t-shirt, push and turn?

Wasn't the bedroom door locked?

Jester

11-05-2009, 12:13 AM

I understand how it is known that someone moved her body hours after Meredith died. There was lividity that pooled on her shoulder. She was found lying flat. Lividity could not form in that area of the shoulder if she had been lying flat the entire time. The only explanations are: people move by themselves after they die, or she was moved several hours after she died.

Who moved her? The only person that was in the cottage that day, and after the murder, was Amanda. Therefore, if the body was moved, Amanda did it.

Why was Meredith's body moved? Was some evidence removed, or was the body repositioning intended to give the impression of a sex attack? Why would anyone want to give the added appearance of a sex attack when that was a much more serious crime in Italy. Surely Raffaele knew that much.

What else could have happened? Do we say there is no lividity on the shoulder? Do photographs support the report that she was lying flat?

Jester

11-05-2009, 12:14 AM

Wasn't the bedroom door locked?

I believe it was locked. Isn't the lock a "push and turn" lock? Did the room require a key from the inside? I thought it was keyed outside, push and turn inside.

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 12:16 AM

If there is no evidence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene, then they will be found not guilty and released before Christmas.

well the jurors have to decide that, you know.
the Knife and Bra Clasp are the main items. imo.

jmo...but I think these two items are so important because if a juror doesn't accept the contamination theory, it's heading for Appeal for the two of them.

without these two items holding up, its hard to place the two in the murder/rape room.
And if a person can't convincingly place them in the room of the murder, nothing else would make any sense at all, for their involvement.

I'm like others on this forum though...

Mignini's theory is too far out...

and the Lone Wolf theory doesn't seem to answer everything either...

but if I have to vote, between the two, it'd be Lone Wolf. The standard evidence is piled upon Rudy in the bedroom.

but maybe there's something in the middle?
I've known many stoned people and they don't forget having sex? or what they did for an entire evening the next day? so many weird things said.

Sad thing is..Rudy knows the truth, but he's a liar....

Emerald

11-05-2009, 12:20 AM

I believe it was locked. Isn't the lock a "push and turn" lock? Did the room require a key from the inside? I thought it was keyed outside, push and turn inside.

That's my point, too.

Whoever staged the scene would have left the last DNA on the inside door knob. Locking it on the way out.

Was Meredith's bedroom door key found in her room?

Jester

11-05-2009, 12:27 AM

well the jurors have to decide that, you know.
the Knife and Bra Clasp are the main items. imo.

jmo...but I think these two items are so important because if a juror doesn't accept the contamination theory, it's heading for Appeal for the two of them.

without these two items holding up, its hard to place the two in the murder/rape room.
And if a person can't convincingly place them in the room of the murder, nothing else would make any sense at all, for their involvement.

I'm like others on this forum though...

Mignini's theory is too far out...

and the Lone Wolf theory doesn't seem to answer everything either...

but if I have to vote, between the two, it'd be Lone Wolf. The standard evidence is piled upon Rudy in the bedroom.

but maybe there's something in the middle?
I've known many stoned people and they don't forget having sex? or what they did for an entire evening the next day? so many weird things said.

Sad thing is..Rudy knows the truth, but he's a liar....

The jury is not going to buy the contamination theory. It was used too often. There's also the lies about the time line ... the desperate failed attempt to skew the time line in favour of innocence.

They're all liars, so we can't believe anything any of them say anymore. They are all lying about the same couple of hours on the same night about 2 years ago when Meredith Kercher, a remarkable young lady who had appeared in a music video, amongst many other talents, was murdered.

Jester

11-05-2009, 12:30 AM

That's my point, too.

Whoever staged the scene would have left the last DNA on the inside door knob. Locking it on the way out.

Was Meredith's bedroom door key found in her room?

Couldn't someone do the "push and turn" thing holding the inside doorknob through their t-shirt, and holding the other side of the door with a foot? If Raffaele then pulled the door closed from the outside, his prints could also be explained by the claim that they tried to open the door in the morning before police arrived.

Emerald

11-05-2009, 01:05 AM

Couldn't someone do the "push and turn" thing holding the inside doorknob through their t-shirt, and holding the other side of the door with a foot? If Raffaele then pulled the door closed from the outside, his prints could also be explained by the claim that they tried to open the door in the morning before police arrived.

The outside door wouldn't be very useful for DNA evidence. Too many was it was contaminated. The door inside the bedroom could be very useful. The bedroom was a pristine crime scene until the door was opened.

Whose DNA was on the lamp? The end of the cord?

Jester

11-05-2009, 01:30 AM

The outside door wouldn't be very useful for DNA evidence. Too many was it was contaminated. The door inside the bedroom could be very useful. The bedroom was a pristine crime scene until the door was opened.

Whose DNA was on the lamp? The end of the cord?

I read that Raffaele's DNA was on the outside of the doorknob, the part that needed a key. I didn't read anything about DNA testing on the inside of the doorknob. I also read that there were no other fingerprints in the cottage, but there must have been fingerprints of the other people that tried to open Meredith's door since they used the handle after Raffaele. Even if there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence of Amanda, Raffaele or Rudy on the inside "push and turn" doorknob, I don't think it means much. Any of them could "push and turn" without leaving evidence ... especially since the room was locked after Meredith's body was moved. That means the room was locked in the morning. Whoever locked the door had time to think about leaving evidence.

Haven't read anything about the lamp. Perhaps it was inconclusive. Amanda's DNA may have been all over the lamp, but it wouldn't mean anything.

Jester

11-05-2009, 02:10 AM

This link is interesting, as it identifies the websites that focus on this particular crime, including the fact that some have been translated in their entirety from English to Italian. That's something. I wonder who paid for it.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/409964_knox10.html

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 02:18 AM

Emerald

11-05-2009, 02:43 AM

I don't believe Amanda did all those things you say, KnoxCase.

What I DO believe is Amanda witnessed a whole lot more than admitted. So much perhaps Meredith could have been saved if Amanda had considered more of what she could give instead of just take.

Every one of Amanda's "false" statements has included her being at the scene of hte crime as it was happening. Every time, she includes a few more details which only someone who witnessed the active crime arena could know.

JMO

Jester

11-05-2009, 03:08 AM

Every one of Amanda's statements is conceivably false, from claimed coercion to claims of innocence.

There's also the false statement that she was not there?

Amanda has made several statements, all of them contradictory and dishonest. There is no reason to assume that her claims of innocence are not as false as any other claim.

She could make another 100 claims on top of the last 5, and it would not aid her desire for innocence.

Jester

11-05-2009, 03:31 AM

Another clean-up question or thought...

I get confused I start over in the bedroom, and there's no footprints or anything for a clean-up in there either.

So again, it seems even more impossible...magical almost they didn't leave traces.

We're to believe Amanda and Raffaele were in this bedroom, not just during the physical violence of this amateur murder, with massive blood on the floor...

but that they also return into the room hours later, physically move Meredith, stage this murder, perform a cleanup / cover-up, physically walk around in this bloody bedroom, changing Merdiths clothes placements....and again don't leave even one footprint?
not one fingerprint, not a hair, not a spec of anything? Not a spec on their shoestring, or shoes?

magically, not leave a picogram of anything, now the second time they were in the bedroom. how do they do this and Rudy couldn't?

If we start in the bedroom, Meredith is lying prone on the floor, covered by a comforter except for her lower left foot. Her left shoulder shows signs of lividity that contradict the position of the body. Pooled blood is beside the left shoulder suggesting that the body was moved several hours after death.

Moving the body, in itself, suggests a clean up. Why does anyone move a dead body except to get something from underneath (excluding maniacs). Evidence in Meredith's bedroom includes Amanda and Raffaele's DNA, especially on Meredith's bra. That's pretty sad. Sure, we can argue that everything in this investigation was contaminated, coerced, and otherwise manipulated, but that's not likely.

Maybe they were wearing Raffaele's knife chopping outfit from his facebook site ... with booties. Maybe they stripped down - there is evidence that a couple of people were barefoot. Maybe, if they'd had another couple of hours before the police came knocking, they'd have had the cottage in tip top shape, spic and span, clean as a whistle, meticulous. Instead, they were found standing at the front door with a mop and a kiss.

There was excessive and violent mental cruelty during this murder ... strangulation, letting her live, bruising, nicking her neck with a knife, then cutting her neck ... and then letting her bleed out, knowing she could live for 20 minutes, and taking both of her cellphones so she couldn't call for help.

How does blood pools on the floor equate to amateurish? Everyone that bleeds out leaves a pool of blood on the floor. Anyone that is cut in a major artery bleeds out. Almost seems like an expert would cut an artery ... not an amateur.

Emerald

11-05-2009, 04:16 AM

The perpetrator knew Meredith Kercher well enough to know she had 2 cell phones. Why/how would Rudy know that?

Whoever took those phones did not want known their presence at the crime scene. Rudy left evidence everywhere.

JMO

Emerald

11-05-2009, 06:02 AM

Yes, there was blood on the door handle, but not in the form of a print that could be used against anyone. However, I should point out that it was a lock that didn't have a catch. One needed a key to lock it either from the inside, or the outside. The keys have never been found.

Wow! Just one more little detail to surmise the presence of someone who knew Meredith Kercher well. The keys, the phones. Hmmmmm.....

Amanda sure did not expect to be the one to 'discover' the crime scene.

JMO

pixiejoolz

11-05-2009, 08:19 AM

Actually, Italians tell us that in Italian murder cases it is the well known 'standard' of defence teams to claim contamination, that items were poorly collected, that the police were incompitent during collection, etc,. It's the claim defence teams make in every murder trial where there is forensic evidence against the suspect.

That chain-of-custody and contamination argument makes an appearance in many, many American murder trials as well. It worked on OJ's jury, but I don't think it has a high success rate usually. jmo

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 10:51 AM

If we start in the bedroom, Meredith is lying prone on the floor, covered by a comforter except for her lower left foot. Her left shoulder shows signs of lividity that contradict the position of the body. Pooled blood is beside the left shoulder suggesting that the body was moved several hours after death.

Moving the body, in itself, suggests a clean up. Why does anyone move a dead body except to get something from underneath (excluding maniacs). Evidence in Meredith's bedroom includes Amanda and Raffaele's DNA, especially on Meredith's bra. That's pretty sad. Sure, we can argue that everything in this investigation was contaminated, coerced, and otherwise manipulated, but that's not likely.

Maybe they were wearing Raffaele's knife chopping outfit from his facebook site ... with booties. Maybe they stripped down - there is evidence that a couple of people were barefoot. Maybe, if they'd had another couple of hours before the police came knocking, they'd have had the cottage in tip top shape, spic and span, clean as a whistle, meticulous. Instead, they were found standing at the front door with a mop and a kiss.

There was excessive and violent mental cruelty during this murder ... strangulation, letting her live, bruising, nicking her neck with a knife, then cutting her neck ... and then letting her bleed out, knowing she could live for 20 minutes, and taking both of her cellphones so she couldn't call for help.

How does blood pools on the floor equate to amateurish? Everyone that bleeds out leaves a pool of blood on the floor. Anyone that is cut in a major artery bleeds out. Almost seems like an expert would cut an artery ... not an amateur.

amateurish is referring, as is in comparison to a professional crime scene, the accused are not Professional Killers....Mignini never claimed this, nor did Matteini. Amateur- to be sloppy, not be considered professional killers. example amateur- Rudys prints left everywhere, in the purse, on the pillow, in and on Meredith.

why can you not believe Rudy moved her? you leave out Rudy probably rolled her over, as said in Alternate Theories. His footprints are all over.
Its more logical and there is evidence to substantiate this theory at least. someone stated people move themself sometimes after death, some muscle spasm.

to imagine Raffaele and Amanda did this staging, we have to be blind, and somehow create, imagine a scene were people moved Merdiths body around in this bloody, slightly dried blood but left no evidence in the room and took no evidence out on their shoes, pant legs, etc...

one must use fiction and speculations with the other two, to being in the bedroom... Rudy doesn't require all this insinuating and speculation and fiction. why is that?

The Facebook picture is just another media attention grabber....the truth was proven it was Raffaeles girlfriend that dressed him up for this picture....the prosecution didn't bring this to court either.

The truth will stand on its own. The cleanup/staging doesn't stand up.
imo...not in the bedroom anyway.

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 10:55 AM

KoxCase -

You claim Rudy is a 'burglar' (what, as in a career?) and this is simply not true. You are muddying the waters when you create false profiles of the suspects.

He was arrested as a burglar in Milan.
He was unemployed and had someone elses laptop...

why do you care about Rudy being called a burglar?
you make assumptions Amanda and Raffaele are guilty of murder and they have no record.

I guess its all assumptions. If their found innocent, will you agree with the courts?

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 11:01 AM

KnoxCase -

Blood isn't difficult to clean off knives at all. This is why knives are made of stainless steal. Otherwise, we'd all have to throw our knives out after say, eating a bloody steak or cutting up bloody meat/fish wouldn't we? Blood on something absorbant, like material or wall paint or porous items of that nature isn't so easy to clean, but off of non-stick/stain surfaces it's a piece of cake.

Any blood on the knife is the most vulnerable to cleaning. The DNA on the knife blade is likely to have come from the victims body tissue, a tiny piece of flesh (or a few cells of it at least) that got caught in a scratch on the blade).

you miss the point again.

the bloody knife to have been taken home and left in plain sight, doesn't align with the other accusations of someone who meticulously and intentionally was cleaning up a murder scene.

I'm not going to discuss the LCN DNA you already know where that stands, and where the defense stands on this "weak piece" per the defense.

LCN...without controls ran, no blanks, etc..etc..

Wasn't the right size by numerous experts, including Court Appointed experts...

but it is one of the two main pieces, this is just the defense theory.

Stefani claims it is flawlessly ran and credible, and we have to take her word for it, because she destroyed the minuscule sample and there are not others left to test...she got the only pico gram sample that was found on the entire knife used in this bloody crime.

and Amanda forgot to wipe the handle off in their all night long meticulous clean-up, leaving her dna and prints on it.

ok.

bugout

11-05-2009, 11:12 AM

He was arrested as a burglar in Milan.
He was unemployed and had someone elses laptop...

why do you care about Rudy being called a burglar?
you make assumptions Amanda and Raffaele are guilty of murder and they have no record.

I guess its all assumptions. If their found innocent, will you agree with the courts?

They have no record? This doesn't mean squat AFAIC! I'm shocked.

It does not mean a thing if a violent killer, has a prior record or not.

It's the fact that we ALL are capable of crossing that fine line.

And, I think Amanda Knox, Did.
i VOTE GUILTY AS CHARGED.

BUG

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 11:19 AM

the footprint guessing game. TJMK is a known pro-Mignini site, actually very good if one wants to study up on Mignini's theory, pro-prosecution view point.

Prosecution-
“When the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

The significance of the woman’s bloody shoeprint in Meredith’s room is considerable. By itself it debunks the myth that some had propagated for a while, that Rudy Guede acted alone. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Defense-
Vinci also testified about two vague traces of bloody shoe-prints that were found on a pillow under the victim's body. While the police believe that one is a partial print of the bottom of Guede's right sneaker – a Nike Outbreak2 - and the other the heel of a smaller shoe, probably a woman's, Vinci testified today that his analysis showed both prints were from a left shoe, a Nike Outbreak2.

In addition to foot and shoeprints, Vinci presented his interpretation of some blood stains found on the mattress cover of Kercher's bed. He said that he believes those stains were made by a bloody knife – two prints by the same knife – that is a much smaller knife than the one police claim is the murder weapon.

So we have two differeing claims.

Whats easier to believe?
a) one person left a solo print and none other? (prosecution)

Or

b) the print is a partial of the same person who left many prints in the room? (defense)

Also we note, that they took her shoe and found nothing, this is important. Nothing on a shoestring, nothing on the sole or even in a tread.....surely the forensic team went over Amandas shoes with great care and attention.
Nothing was found.

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 11:34 AM

They have no record? This doesn't mean squat AFAIC! I'm shocked.

It does not mean a thing if a violent killer, has a prior record or not.

It's the fact that we ALL are capable of crossing that fine line.

And, I think Amanda Knox, Did.
i VOTE GUILTY AS CHARGED.

BUG

you missed the point, of answering Michaels claim we cannot say Rudy was a burglar because he was not convicted....

we can use assumptions and slander against Amanda and Raffaele and not Rudy. was the point.

Rudy cannot be called a burglar, but its ok to call Amanda and Rafaele murders. as I understand his post.

I assume, from what I read, Rudy has burglarized homes and offices.
He had no job and yet has a laptop that was stolen from someone else.
The police arrested him in Milan and he was released, but he was in someone elses building without their permission, which to some, apparently doesn't mean he is a burglar.

Rudy also had a witness state Rudy broke into his home and pulled a knife on them, as the man confronted Rudy, a chair was thrown and Rudy fled...but again Rudy was not convicted of this, so therefore he cannot be called a burglar.

so if we apply this same pattern, as Michael applied to Rudy, to Amanda and Raffaele, they are innocent. They have not been convicted.

conviction, convicted is understandable....until convicted one is only accused.

I think he was correcting my legal grammar, technicalities....but this is just a forum of virtual votes, an interesting confusing case..

4 people, 4 different stories it seems...assuming Rafaele has not 100% supported Amanda. Mignini and Rudy's storys disagreeing too..

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 11:41 AM

Rudy's prints were not 'in' the purse, they were on the 'outside', in a position that suggests he gripped it to move it. These prints were in the victim's blood. Had he have gone into the purse, blood would have been inside, since blood was on his hands. Hence why, Judge Micheli ruled that Rudy had not gone into Meredith's purse and aquitted him of the charge of theft.

drop the agenda

Amanda and Raffaeles prints were not there either so I guess we just answered the theft charge against them too.

KnoxCase

11-05-2009, 12:05 PM

"I assume", there's your mistake right there. And what reading material do you choose, the FOA website? Broader reading is the key.

You will not have read anywhere, even on the FOA site, that Rudy burgled any 'homes', if you have, let us know 'whose' they were, for they are news to me. And where did you read of Rudy's conviction for robbing an office? You are aware Rudy, aside from Meredith's murder, has no previous convictions right?

is it any different "assuming" the two were in the murder room staging a cleanup?

this whole case includes theorys, assumptions...especially on forums where legal rules are not required.

for the other post, I call it common sense.......
being unemployed gives a bit more reason to steal money, than say someone who has $4,557 in their account.

someone who does not own a cellphone might have more interest in stealing a couple cellphones than say someone who has a perfectly working cellphone already.

I'm only stating the past couple days, that all this evidence points to Rudy in this murder room, and there is little to nothing of Raffaele and Amanda in there. (witholding the Knife and Bra Clasp= the case, imo).

So then if this isn't odd enough, the two go back and move a body around and stage this event, and again leave nothing.

and as as posted on TJMK, in your link... they had Amandas shoes...and not a spec was found on them? hard to believe is all.

for the websites, not being Pro-Mignini...well...lets use common sense here too. Its definitely not a FOA site, is it?

dgfred

11-05-2009, 12:24 PM

The problem is all the lies by RS and AK. No reason for them if innocent, and almost every one is self-serving and made when knowledge of evidence showed their earlier 'lies' would not hold up.
If their alibis (for each other) don't mesh then they had to be involved in some way.
The damage to Filomena's room and the evidence in there cannot be explained by Rudy acting alone.

Emerald

11-05-2009, 03:56 PM

They have no record? This doesn't mean squat AFAIC! I'm shocked.

It does not mean a thing if a violent killer, has a prior record or not.

It's the fact that we ALL are capable of crossing that fine line.

And, I think Amanda Knox, Did.
i VOTE GUILTY AS CHARGED.

BUG

There have been pictures and stories of Amanda's 'dark side'. As a slasher/murderer, dark descriptive passages of brutal crimes against women.

I've read Amanda Knox has 'acted out' from her cell. Jumping on bars, loudly screaming and chattering like a monkey.

Amanda wrote in her jailhouse diary the disdain she had for those she lived with in Italy. Exhibiting a very imperious and condescending attitude to everyone. Very soon after the murder, Amanda wrote how funny it was she'd "kill for a pizza".

Yes, I agree. From the actions Amanda has exhibited, it is not hard to believe she would have acted out her fantasies that night in committing a crime against Meredith.

I have not been able to make the leap to Amanda actually committing the murder. There is no doubt in my mind Amanda was there. Amanda did not do everything in her power to save Meredith.

JMO

Jester

11-05-2009, 04:55 PM

why can you not believe Rudy moved her? you leave out Rudy probably rolled her over, as said in Alternate Theories. His footprints are all over.
Its more logical and there is evidence to substantiate this theory at least. someone stated people move themself sometimes after death, some muscle spasm.

In order for Rudy to have moved Meredith, he had to return to the home in the morning, after lividity had occurred. There is no evidence or information that Rudy returned to the scene several hours after the murder.

After death, people's skin twitches and muscles contract ... which is vastly different than a dead person rolling themselves over.

Jester

11-05-2009, 05:06 PM

you missed the point, of answering Michaels claim we cannot say Rudy was a burglar because he was not convicted....

we can use assumptions and slander against Amanda and Raffaele and not Rudy. was the point.

Rudy cannot be called a burglar, but its ok to call Amanda and Rafaele murders. as I understand his post.

I assume, from what I read, Rudy has burglarized homes and offices.
He had no job and yet has a laptop that was stolen from someone else.
The police arrested him in Milan and he was released, but he was in someone elses building without their permission, which to some, apparently doesn't mean he is a burglar.

Rudy also had a witness state Rudy broke into his home and pulled a knife on them, as the man confronted Rudy, a chair was thrown and Rudy fled...but again Rudy was not convicted of this, so therefore he cannot be called a burglar.

so if we apply this same pattern, as Michael applied to Rudy, to Amanda and Raffaele, they are innocent. They have not been convicted.

conviction, convicted is understandable....until convicted one is only accused.

I think he was correcting my legal grammar, technicalities....but this is just a forum of virtual votes, an interesting confusing case..

4 people, 4 different stories it seems...assuming Rafaele has not 100% supported Amanda. Mignini and Rudy's storys disagreeing too..

There are three liars involved in this case. There is no fourth. The three liars have consistently lied about the events on the night that Meredith was murdered.

The prosecutor is doing his job - he does not have a "story". He is presenting evidence to the court.

Jester

11-05-2009, 05:43 PM

Article posted yesterday about the case: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/04/italy.amanda.knox.evidence/index.html

Franklin

11-05-2009, 09:53 PM

By pixiejools: "That chain-of-custody and contamination argument makes an appearance in many, many American murder trials as well. It worked on OJ's jury, but I don't think it has a high success rate usually. jmo"

The chain of custody argument worked well for the defense in the OJ trial because the defense was able to cast doubt on the police testimony. With a fair minded, mostly black jury, the testifying police had to be virtuous and beyond reproach in their findings and in their testimony. Police were not beyond reproach, and the jury did not feel obliged to consider their testimony. (i.e. the bloody glove etc.)

Mark Fuhrman had lied about not being a racist (his constant use of the "N" word in refering to blacks his whole life), The jury was no longer morally compelled to consider his testimony. (after all, he was a serial perjuror) It then to a certain degree became Mark Fuhrman and the system on trial. Was he another framer of black men? (like Amanda).

In the Knox trial, if the "experts" from one side or the other cannot demonstrate how they concluded an exacto-razer makes a serrated steak-knife wound (or the other way around) it will demonstrate a deceptive waste of the judges time, that the "experts" are just payed for hire liars trying to sway the jury with phony science. (as the judge has hinted at with his alluding to getting his own, third set of experts to break the tie.) I can imagine the jury feeling compelled to aquit Amanda.

Jester

11-06-2009, 02:48 AM

Emerald, you were quite right in wanting more information about the doorknob. I researched it a few months ago and all I could find was one news article stating that Raffaele's prints were on the outside of the doorknob. I'm not sure why I thought that the doorknob was "push and turn" inside" and keyed outside, whether I read it or I made it up, or whether that made more sense to me. From a safety issue, I would never have a double keyed interior room ... simply because of things like fire, etc. where people panic and it can interfere with remembering where they left the key.

dgfred

11-06-2009, 12:15 PM

Hey Michael,
Where is the best place to see actual crime scene pics of this case?

dgfred

11-06-2009, 01:09 PM

Thanks Michael. :thumbup:

Franklin

11-06-2009, 11:27 PM

If I suppose for the sake of argument that Amanda is innocent, then I would have a very difficult time in also explaining away the evidence that points to her guilt. Unless I assume police misconduct.

Unless I consider for a moment that there is a very ambitious police officer who wanted a "slam dunk" and wasn't going to let the spoiled American girl "get away with murder."

In many examples of false convictions (later proven innocent by DNA testing) it has been found to be the case that, instead of the evidence leading to a perpetrator, they decide who the perpetrator is using their prejudices (as in the Knox case) and then they go back and find the evidence that points to their suspected perpetrator.

In other words, they go back and manufacture evidence to grease the wheels of their version of justice.

It doesn't reassure me that the police claim to have found "the bra clasp with Raffaels DNA on it" a full six weeks after the murder.

Much of the dust we see floating past the rays of sun through the window as the sun sets in the evening, are actually flakes of skin that constantly sluff off of ones body. I'ts everywhere. I don't take too seriously a cells worth of DNA found anywhere. (if I even believed there was any, or that it wasn't planted)

Franklin

11-06-2009, 11:55 PM

Amanda states in some of her jailhouse writings how her DNA could have gotten onto the knife.

She says: "Perhaps Raphael went out and murdered Kerchner while I slept, and then came back and pressed my hands onto the knife as I slept to plant my DNA onto the knife."

It is sad and pathetic how trusting she was of the Italian police officers. She seems like one of those typical middle class kids who is taught to always trust law enforcement officials. She was TAKING ON FAITH that her knife really was at Raphaels house, and she was TAKING ON FAITH that her DNA really was on that knife.

Rather than discount that there really was even a knife with DNA, she took it on faith to be an absolute fact, and then tried to contrive a story that would fit the two things that she knew without a doubt. 1) That she hadn't hurt Meredith, and 2) That THE POLICE COULD NEVER LIE.

So she developed the far out theory of how her DNA could have possibly gotten onto the knife. Needless to say, I don't think that Raphael wil be taking her back after this is all over. Unfortunate for Raphael, his guilt wasn't as impossible for her to imagine as to imagine that the police could be framing her.

The defence will promote the theory of tainted evidence. It is too touchy to suggest a frameup by police. The evidence mishandling theory will give a juror a way to aquit without having to allign themselves with the taboo and unproveable theory of police frameup.

Emerald

11-07-2009, 01:11 AM

Jester

11-07-2009, 10:18 AM

Emerald

11-07-2009, 10:47 AM

Amanda has given several version of her activities on the night of the murder. One version has her at Raffaele's apt, and the rest place her at the cottage. Because there are so many conflicting versions of her activites, the only conclusion one can make is that all of them are lies. One lie places her at Raffaele's for the the night, and the other lies place her at the cottage. It can never be known what the truth is anymore.

Even in the one with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment, she puts her DNA at the murder scene when she said Raffaele put her prints/DNA on the knife while she was sleeping. Amanda is making an excuse why her prints/DNA would be at the crime scene.

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 11:34 AM

Franklin

11-07-2009, 11:48 AM

Here is an interesting news story link for ABC News Primetime about a study demonstrating how to get college students to falsely confess to something.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1783918&page=1

And here is another interesting link to a Primetime story of a 20y/o falsely confessing to murder after being subjected to the same tactics. Just the print story. Its too bad they don't have the video up any more. If anyone can find a link to it I would like to see it again.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1&page=1

Like with the Steven Crowe case, if they can convince a person that everyone knows they did it, or saw them do it, the "confessor" will often say to himself "Police don't lie, so if my DNA is on the knife, then I must have done it". Then the false confessor fabricates a false memory of doing the crime to conform what they percieve as societies expectations.

pixiejoolz

11-07-2009, 11:58 AM

"I was questioned by five men and women,some of whom punched and kicked me," he<Patrick> claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that still handcuffed and unfed he was shown the evidence against him...
the (14) days in prison were my darkest. Aleksandra visited me four times and I received cards of support from friends, but they wouldn't let me have a picture of Davide or even allow me to change my clothes...
...Patrick says he is scarred by the ordeal.

That is terrible, and I hope Patrick can at least be recompensed for some of his physical and emotional suffering. And just think, none of that would ever have occurred if AK hadn't lied and lied and lied, if she hadn't insisted that she SAW Patrick on the scene. A lie that she kept telling until it was proven that he had an alibi and that she was lying. A fact about which you've been asked repeatedly - as in, "why do you think she lied and kept lying, knowing she was potentially sending an innocent man to prison?" - but have never answered.

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 02:01 PM

In every one of the lies she tells, Amanda places herself physically at the scene of the crimes against Meredith.

Now, we have DNA was placed on the knife as she slept at Rafaele's. Well, were they together all night or not?

Amanda's own words have cased me to believe she was not at Rafaele's all night. Leaving after he fell asleep.

interesting question...were they together or not!??? whats the truth?

I was taking a trip back into the pile of ignorant and incorrect media articles of Nov 2 to Nov ...2007. Incorrect reports plastered on the internet, then later retractions etc..
I was looking up Patricks stories today...and of course came across other early supposed quotes plastered in the internet media.

Accepting their story in public as their final statement, imo. Innocent until proven Guilty, I accept their story in court.

And the the evidence will be applied to their final story's. And one has to make a decision to believe it or not.

But which story will they publicly state? Amanda talked...Rudy maybe soon? will Raffaele?

As we see here with Raffaele' media quotes only...not as good as a public court statement but at least something.

He is proven incorrect in some of his tales.
If we apply a real-witness Popvic, who saw them physically and applying this timeline, then Raffele is incorrect. Popvic saw them at the Apartment at 5:30pm and again saw Amanda at 8:42pm.

This timeline doesn't align to Raffaele's stories below.

Raffaele spoke Nov 4 to Kate Mansey.
This is where he so strangely states :
He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends. "The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

***
Then Nov 7 The Interrogators release yet a totally different version.
"I met Amanda at her house again at around one or 2.00pm. Meredith was there too, but she left in a hurry at around 4.00pm without saying where she was going. "Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."
He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn't remember if they had sex.
He said she got up the next morning and went home for a shower at around 10.30am.

****************

Neither of his story's align to Popovic seeing them at Raffaeles apartment at 5:30pm and 8:40pm.
There was also Internet activity on his pc that was proven to be Amandas (unless Raffaele was searching for Amandas boyfirend David...which the internet was connecting to).

I'm not sure what Raffaele's next stories were in his diaries from prison?
When I say lies and ignorant reporting, its referring to only the time frame. People making judgments without knowledge of evidence, evidence not yet presented or found.
So yes, in all fairness Judge Matteini looked like a caveman making mathematical decisions of a space ship...the data she judged from was incorrect.

Nov 9-2007
In a 19-page document, Judge Claudia Matteini decided that there is enough evidence to keep Amanda Knox, 20, Raffaele Sollecito, 23, and Patrick Lumumba, 37, in prison, pending formal charges and a trial.

Lumumba told the judge at a hearing yesterday that 16 people could place him in his bar at the time of the murder, which is now thought to be between 10pm and 12am on the night of Thursday, November 1.

Matteini- verdict...wow?:huh:

while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

case closed....?

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 02:28 PM

That is terrible, and I hope Patrick can at least be recompensed for some of his physical and emotional suffering. And just think, none of that would ever have occurred if AK hadn't lied and lied and lied, if she hadn't insisted that she SAW Patrick on the scene. A lie that she kept telling until it was proven that he had an alibi and that she was lying. A fact about which you've been asked repeatedly - as in, "why do you think she lied and kept lying, knowing she was potentially sending an innocent man to prison?" - but have never answered.

Why lie?

Amanda claims she was being treated about the same way as Patrick, by the Interrogators police.

If we are to believe Patrick how can we then say the police never did this to Amanda?

jmo.

Jester

11-07-2009, 02:49 PM

Even in the one with Amanda at Raffaele's apartment, she puts her DNA at the murder scene when she said Raffaele put her prints/DNA on the knife while she was sleeping. Amanda is making an excuse why her prints/DNA would be at the crime scene.

Good point. I think Amanda's claim that Raffaele pressed her prints into the knife while she was sleeping, and Raffaele's claim that Meredith had dinner at his apartment, are probably amongst the dumbest things they said. Both are so far fetched they scream "I'm saying anything I can to distance myself from the murder."

Jester

11-07-2009, 02:53 PM

"I was questioned by five men and women,some of whom punched and kicked me," he<Patrick> claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that still handcuffed and unfed he was shown the evidence against him...
the (14) days in prison were my darkest. Aleksandra visited me four times and I received cards of support from friends, but they wouldn't let me have a picture of Davide or even allow me to change my clothes...
...Patrick says he is scarred by the ordeal.

There was a lying eye witness that placed Patrick at the murder. It's truly horrible that Amanda accused Patrick, and then affirmed that accusation in a voluntary written statement to police. It's even worse that she kept her mouth shut until Patrick was released, and only then publicly stated that she was relieved as she had known all along that he was not a participant in the murder. If Amanda had not repeatedly accused Patrick of murdering Meredith, none of the above would have happened.

In spite of what happened, and in spite of the treatment Patrick received; which was significantly worse than what Amanda received, not once did he confess to a murder he did not commit. Neither did he falsely accuse anyone else.

Jester

11-07-2009, 03:01 PM

That is terrible, and I hope Patrick can at least be recompensed for some of his physical and emotional suffering. And just think, none of that would ever have occurred if AK hadn't lied and lied and lied, if she hadn't insisted that she SAW Patrick on the scene. A lie that she kept telling until it was proven that he had an alibi and that she was lying. A fact about which you've been asked repeatedly - as in, "why do you think she lied and kept lying, knowing she was potentially sending an innocent man to prison?" - but have never answered.

Patrick has been awarded 8000 Euros just over $12,000US for his time in jail, about $800 a day.

His lawsuit against Amanda is still pending. She will have to write and sing for the rest of her life to compensate Patrick for what she did.

Jester

11-07-2009, 03:04 PM

Why lie?

Amanda claims she was being treated about the same way as Patrick, by the Interrogators police.

If we are to believe Patrick how can we then say the police never did this to Amanda?

jmo.

Amanda is a US citizen ... I think we can be sure that Amanda was treated quite differently than Patrick, and Italian accused by a nice American woman of murdering her roommate.

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 05:20 PM

Jester

11-07-2009, 05:33 PM

I disagree , I think the Interrogation links, absolutely have to do with this case.

The point is its a post about Interrogations.

Did this case have Interrogations?

Yes.

Its no different than bringing in Eyes Lies, or Misrepresented comparing other topics of a crime scene, which can shed light into this case.

What is Eyes Lies and Misrepresented?

The issue of police questioning Amanda, and her voluntary statement, has been raised, discussed, answered, referenced, linked, and otherwise satisfied ad nauseum ... but here you are raising the point that Amanda was questioned about the murder of her roommate as though this is a completely new discovery?

What is it about the admissibility of statements do you not understand?

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 05:36 PM

Bit the point is, when Amanda came out with her story about Patrick, it wasn't in an 'interrogation', it was a 'statement'. These are two completely different unrelated things.

And it's a huge difference with Miss Represented and Eyes for Lies. They don't turn around and say "Well, there's 'X' case in 'this' country over here and that case therefore proves the suspects 'innocent/guilty in 'this' case". On the contrary, they analyse the specificic facts and elements of the case and certain behaviour and what scientific studies of that kind of behaviour have found. What they certainly don't do, is 'ignore' the facts and bend the sory to fit a pre-conceived agenda.

If you're going to use precedent from other cases, they only have any value in 'this' case, if they don't actually contradict the facts of 'this' case and actually have similarity of substance and within reality.

It was all the same day, all the same case, all the same people.
Amanda was in the same building.
They had been tapping their phones, they were already "
suspecting her".

I don't care what word you put on it.

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 05:42 PM

What is Eyes Lies and Misrepresented?

People and forums, who try to apply a different science to this case, and others. Michael posted about Misrepresented- forum. Its posted a couple pages back. She thinks Raffaeles is a sadist, etc..etc.,. has her own theory different than others, and interesting.

in short, a study of Behavioral Science. imo.

Totally unproven, like profiling. But its very interesting, imo.

I was just watching how the government is researching mental brain waves and mediums, and also basics like trying to create technology's that can help humans absorb information faster.

maybe someday they will have a tool that can be as acceptable as DNA science but catch people lying?

or stoned?

Jester

11-07-2009, 05:44 PM

It was all the same day, all the same case, all the same people.
Amanda was in the same building.
They had been tapping their phones, they were already "
suspecting her".

I don't care what word you put on it.

Wiretaps are often used to gather more evidence. Amanda, through her bizarre behavior and lies around the time of the murder, caused the police, and Filomina's friends, to become suspicious.

Do you object to the use of wiretaps as an investigative tool?

Jester

11-07-2009, 05:49 PM

People and forums, who try to apply a different science to this case, and others. Michael posted about Misrepresented- forum. Its posted a couple pages back. She thinks Raffaeles is a sadist, etc..etc.,. has her own theory different than others, and interesting.

in short, a study of Behavioral Science. imo.

Totally unproven, like profiling. But its very interesting, imo.

I was just watching how the government is researching mental brain waves and mediums, and also basics like trying to create technology's that can help humans absorb information faster.

maybe someday they will have a tool that can be as acceptable as DNA science but catch people lying?

or stoned?

Behaviorism is a well known and long studied area of psychology. You are welcome to state that it is your opinion the study of psychology and behaviorism is totally unproven, but many would ask on what you base that opinion. Psychology is typically an inductive argument, not deductive. Both are provable, albeit with different arguments.

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 05:54 PM

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 06:06 PM

Bit the point is, when Amanda came out with her story about Patrick, it wasn't in an 'interrogation', it was a 'statement'. These are two completely different unrelated things.

But this perspective leaves out the reality, the human effect of being interrogated, stressed out, exhausted, saying anything to be let out to go home.

You speak of this interrogation/questioning/statement timeframe as a walk in the park.

You know it is not, you know the police do things in their interrogations that most any common average joe would have the police thrown in prison for.
Its very common, the police questioning approaches would totally shock an average person.

Its why they do it in private and without legal people and film cameras.

If someone has you in a prison/police jail and question you, threaten you with 30yrs or else...maybe hold a gun to your head, maybe threaten in many ways....you'll sign the papers, you'll do whatever you can to survive and escape to get home.

Thats what I think she did.

I also think someday one of the interrogators will come clean, and align to her, patrick and Raffaeles stories.....there will be a police that was there and saw this and isn't living in fear of losing their job.

Raffaele DIARY- Nov 7

In police headquarters they tortured me psychologically, put to me
in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific, I was even
barefoot. I'm not even able to offer guilt, given my deep fu**ing
stupidity for the fact that I smoke cannabis, I even forget what I have
eaten and also, for that, I carry behind a knife to nock the tables and
the trees and I carry it so often that I brought it also to the police
headquarters.

Jester

11-07-2009, 06:11 PM

I think some here look at this from only a legal perspective.

Others, like myself, are just curious how the system works and what the truth is and which story is logical.

So yes, from a legal only perspective many things can't be used.

The interrogation is a good example of things being allowed or not allowed, even though the fact is everyone read about it in the media whether the court allowed it or not.

I find it odd, some call it "Amandas Confession"....

it was not Amandas, if we want to play with words, it was the "Interrogators Words that Amanda confessed"....it was only the Interrogators that said Raffaele changed his story again.....

thats why its great we have courts these days, so accused people can be able to speak in public.

if it was up to old Edgardo they'd all been done with all this, probably would have thrown Patrick in prison for life too...all he needed was his interrogation to ghet to the truth quickly. he doesn't need anything else but his interrogations.

First of all, it is an established fact that Amanda is a liar. After placing herself at the murder, she apparently had second thoughts and tried to change her statement. She said that police made her say what she said, she claims she was beaten about the head ... what next? What does a liar say next? She apparently decided to accuse Patrick of murdering Meredith. Where do the lies end and the truth begin?

It doesn't matter what Amanda says to explain her false accusations against an innocent man, and her two week silence even though she knew he was innocent. It doesn't matter what she says she was doing on the night of the murder as she has told too many lies about her activities that night. Nothing she says is worth anything. She can keep throwing statements around, hoping something will stick, but nothing she has said after falsely accusing Patrick is worth anything, and it never will be. It cannot be believed that she was hit in the head or that police forced her to say anything. She is incapable of telling the truth.

Jester

11-07-2009, 06:16 PM

Raffaele DIARY- Nov 7

In police headquarters they tortured me psychologically, put to me
in shackles and made me strip in front of the scientific, I was even
barefoot. I'm not even able to offer guilt, given my deep fu**ing
stupidity for the fact that I smoke cannabis, I even forget what I have
eaten and also, for that, I carry behind a knife to nock the tables and
the trees and I carry it so often that I brought it also to the police
headquarters.

The poor child. He was lying to police during questioning regarding the murder of his new friend's roommate, a foreigner. He was being arrested. He was claiming that pot caused amnesia :rolleyes: .

What did he expect? Did he really think that he could lie to police and that they would feed him and then send him home?

KnoxCase

11-07-2009, 07:15 PM

KC, we heard your 'logical' scenario ideas of what happened that night earlier and believe me, logic was not a feature. On the contrary, it seems that you are so determined to nail the crime in its entirety on Rudy Guede, that when you approach him you throw all logic out the window. At the same time, you ignore the truth, in terms of the actual 'facts' to hammer a 'square coercion peg' into a round hole when the facts are clear, there was no interrogation involving the detailed story of Patrick, only a voluntary statement. Coercion, if it happenes anywhere, happens in interrogations, not statements. You know this as well as I do, so your solution is to ignore the fact, the 'truth', and keep referring to the statement as an inetrrogation. My advice is if 'truth' is 'really' your concern, rather then your own pre-defined end, then I would suggest that you actually pay attention to the truth and facts, rather then simply pay lip service to them with claimed aspirations to them.

you say "we" as if you arrogantly speak for other people, little follwoers of your sheep herd?

actually as I see it hear on this site most people don't buy your Mignini Fan Club Fiction theory.

they don't buy the Lone Wolf either...

Do you ever have anythign nmew to offer other than attacking anyone who doesn't agree to your Mignini Fable Fan Club?

You say "we".....who do you refer to as your followers specifically?

Are you a self appointed leader of all forums you troll to?

Why don't you offer something new other than the same old attacks, you do on PMF?

Offer your theory? All you do is attack others posts who don't align to your Mignini Religion.

Post your specific theory....timeline?

I don't think I've ever seen you have the courage to post it?

Or do you prefer to just antagonize?

Anyway, I'll stop responding to your posts as your obviously going to puke your Miginini religion endlessly until everyone with a different thought leaves.

Jester

11-07-2009, 08:12 PM

I usually ignore the names of people that are in the news for no particular reason other than the fact that they are doing their jobs. I pay attention to the names of people that are accused of crimes.

Knox, Guede, Sollicito ... these are the people accused and prosecuted for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Is Mignini the prosecutor? If so, he is a man that is doing his job; a difficult one at that. He is a gov't employee whose job it is to receive information and evidence gathered by police and analysts. It is his job to string that evidence together like a puzzle and present it in court such that an impartial judge and jury can determine guilt or innocence of the accused. There can be no reason to attack a prosecutor or judge for doing their jobs. Sometimes prosecutors get it wrong, but more often than not they get it right. Understandably some people don't like the evidence that is presented in court, but that is not a justification for attacking the prosecution. The prosecution did not manufacture the evidence, but rather received the information from police and analysts, and is presenting the information.

Being angry with the prosecutor is nothing more than that old saying of "shooting the messenger".

Franklin

11-07-2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Michael: It's not interesting at all. That's because it has absolutely 'nothing' to do with 'this' case. It was not a 'false confession', it was a FALSE ACCUSATION. The police didn't want Amanda to accuse Patrick, they didn't even know who he was. A conspiracy against 'someone' requires the conspirers know who they are, unlike Patrick who was a complete stranger to them.

I don't see how completely unrelated cases in a country 3000 miles away with a completely different legal system and police culture has to do with this case, much less how they can be wielded as some sort of 'hard evidence' for the innocence (and victimhood) of Amanda Knox. It's a red herring and a distraction. This case must be judged on it's own merits and the actual facts.

Psychological tests are only officially recognized as valid if they are repeatable by anyone anywhere in the world, including in Europe. But now that you mention it, Amanda is actually American. I think she would likely be included in the eight out of ten who tended to falsely confess in this study. I don't think that somehow moving to Italy immunizes her from these tendancies.

ABC News Primetime about a study demonstrating how to get college students to falsely confess to something.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1783918&page=1

In the McMartin molestation witch-hunts of the 1980's it was eventually found to be the case that children will generate false memories to reconsile all the lies that the police/therapists were dishing out.

For instance the "thereapists" would say something to the child like "Billy and Debby and Nancy all saw you play that game with the teacher, are they all lying? It's bad to call others a liar. Are you a good boy?" The kids didn't wish to call their friends a liar, and were scared of the interogators and wanted to be considered a "Good Boy" by them, so they generated detailed false memories. The same techniques have been used experimentally so see if kids would generate false memories of space aliens etc., and they do.

(by the way, I am already aware that California isn't Italy, and that preschoolers aren't college aged, so I will save you the time)

Franklin

11-07-2009, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jester: It doesn't matter what Amanda says to explain her false accusations against an innocent man, and her two week silence even though she knew he was innocent. It doesn't matter what she says she was doing on the night of the murder as she has told too many lies about her activities that night. Nothing she says is worth anything. She can keep throwing statements around, hoping something will stick, but nothing she has said after falsely accusing Patrick is worth anything, and it never will be. It cannot be believed that she was hit in the head or that police forced her to say anything. She is incapable of telling the truth.
"her two week silence even though she knew he (Patrick) was innocent"

I don't think that Amanda knew all along that Patrick was innocent. I think that she thought he must be guilty, and that the police were hinting at her to help them nail the murderer of Meredith. Rudy had a history of robbery, and he is black. Somehow the police conveyed this knowlege to this eager to help American girl. She has claimed that she "was trying to help the police", but in doing so she stupidly placed herself at the crime scene with her stories. She then found herself in the same boat as she had placed Patrick, locked up for murder. Now she identified with Patrick, and felt bad for him. Later, when she realized that Patrick hadn't done it after all, she was glad he had alibis and could go free.

Emerald

11-07-2009, 09:30 PM

interesting question...were they together or not!??? whats the truth?

I was taking a trip back into the pile of ignorant and incorrect media articles of Nov 2 to Nov ...2007. Incorrect reports plastered on the internet, then later retractions etc..
I was looking up Patricks stories today...and of course came across other early supposed quotes plastered in the internet media.

Accepting their story in public as their final statement, imo. Innocent until proven Guilty, I accept their story in court.

And the the evidence will be applied to their final story's. And one has to make a decision to believe it or not.

But which story will they publicly state? Amanda talked...Rudy maybe soon? will Raffaele?

As we see here with Raffaele' media quotes only...not as good as a public court statement but at least something.

He is proven incorrect in some of his tales.
If we apply a real-witness Popvic, who saw them physically and applying this timeline, then Raffele is incorrect. Popvic saw them at the Apartment at 5:30pm and again saw Amanda at 8:42pm.

This timeline doesn't align to Raffaele's stories below.

Raffaele spoke Nov 4 to Kate Mansey.
This is where he so strangely states :
He said: "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends. "The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower."

***
Then Nov 7 The Interrogators release yet a totally different version.
"I met Amanda at her house again at around one or 2.00pm. Meredith was there too, but she left in a hurry at around 4.00pm without saying where she was going. "Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.

"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."
He goes on to say that Amanda returned to his house at around 1am and the couple went to bed, although he couldn't remember if they had sex.
He said she got up the next morning and went home for a shower at around 10.30am.

****************

Neither of his story's align to Popovic seeing them at Raffaeles apartment at 5:30pm and 8:40pm.
There was also Internet activity on his pc that was proven to be Amandas (unless Raffaele was searching for Amandas boyfirend David...which the internet was connecting to).

I'm not sure what Raffaele's next stories were in his diaries from prison?
When I say lies and ignorant reporting, its referring to only the time frame. People making judgments without knowledge of evidence, evidence not yet presented or found.
So yes, in all fairness Judge Matteini looked like a caveman making mathematical decisions of a space ship...the data she judged from was incorrect.

Nov 9-2007
In a 19-page document, Judge Claudia Matteini decided that there is enough evidence to keep Amanda Knox, 20, Raffaele Sollecito, 23, and Patrick Lumumba, 37, in prison, pending formal charges and a trial.

Lumumba told the judge at a hearing yesterday that 16 people could place him in his bar at the time of the murder, which is now thought to be between 10pm and 12am on the night of Thursday, November 1.

Matteini- verdict...wow?:huh:

while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

case closed....?

Interesting research, KnoxCase. However, it was Amanda's testimony, in court, under oath which convinced me she was not with Raffaele all night.

Jester

11-07-2009, 09:40 PM

"her two week silence even though she knew he (Patrick) was innocent"

I don't think that Amanda knew all along that Patrick was innocent. I think that she thought he must be guilty, and that the police were hinting at her to help them nail the murderer of Meredith. Rudy had a history of robbery, and he is black. Somehow the police conveyed this knowlege to this eager to help American girl. She has claimed that she "was trying to help the police", but in doing so she stupidly placed herself at the crime scene with her stories. She then found herself in the same boat as she had placed Patrick, locked up for murder. Now she identified with Patrick, and felt bad for him. Later, when she realized that Patrick hadn't done it after all, she was glad he had alibis and could go free.

Sure she did.

"Indeed, when Lumumba's airtight alibi got him released from jail, after a couple of weeks, Knox wrote ecstatically about it in her prison journal ("Patrick got out today! Finally! Something is going right!") and later wrote of her remorse at ever having implicated him, saying it was under extreme duress and a result of police "brainwashing."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904571,00.html#ixzz0WEPlIXPh

There is nothing helpful about lying to police during a murder investigation. Are you suggesting that Amanda thought that she was going to help police solve the crime by telling lies? How could she at one moment think that Patrick murdered Meredith and later think that he hadn't murdered Meredith. She was a witness and was expected to be truthful.

Franklin

11-07-2009, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Michael: Amanda is a US citizen ... I think we can be sure that Amanda was treated quite differently than Patrick, and Italian accused by a nice American woman of murdering her roommate.
I doubt if Amanda was put under undue duress, or that her false accusations and false confessions were obtained under much duress.

But if we stipulate that Patrick was mistreated (wherever he was from originally) Then I would suppose that Amanda may have been treated similarly. Although we don't know. Flip a coin as far as I'm concerned unless you have it on videotape.

Jester

11-07-2009, 09:43 PM

[/I]

Psychological tests are only officially recognized as valid if they are repeatable by anyone anywhere in the world, including in Europe. But now that you mention it, Amanda is actually American. I think she would likely be included in the eight out of ten who tended to falsely confess in this study. I don't think that somehow moving to Italy immunizes her from these tendancies.

ABC News Primetime about a study demonstrating how to get college students to falsely confess to something.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1783918&page=1

In the McMartin molestation witch-hunts of the 1980's it was eventually found to be the case that children will generate false memories to reconsile all the lies that the police/therapists were dishing out.

For instance the "thereapists" would say something to the child like "Billy and Debby and Nancy all saw you play that game with the teacher, are they all lying? It's bad to call others a liar. Are you a good boy?" The kids didn't wish to call their friends a liar, and were scared of the interogators and wanted to be considered a "Good Boy" by them, so they generated detailed false memories. The same techniques have been used experimentally so see if kids would generate false memories of space aliens etc., and they do.

(by the way, I am already aware that California isn't Italy, and that preschoolers aren't college aged, so I will save you the time)

Amanda is an adult.

How is information about manipulating children relevant to this case?

Jester

11-07-2009, 09:46 PM

I doubt if Amanda was put under undue duress, or that her false accusations and false confessions were obtained under much duress.

But if we stipulate that Patrick was mistreated (wherever he was from originally) Then I would suppose that Amanda may have been treated similarly. Although we don't know. Flip a coin as far as I'm concerned unless you have it on videotape.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I wrote that:

"Amanda is a US citizen ... I think we can be sure that Amanda was treated quite differently than Patrick, an Italian accused by a nice American woman of murdering her roommate."

Amanda claims she was slapped in the head twice. Police are so sure that this didn't happen that she has been charged for making these false statements.

Men and women are treated quite differently by police.

Emerald

11-07-2009, 10:19 PM

There was a lying eye witness that placed Patrick at the murder. It's truly horrible that Amanda accused Patrick, and then affirmed that accusation in a voluntary written statement to police. It's even worse that she kept her mouth shut until Patrick was released, and only then publicly stated that she was relieved as she had known all along that he was not a participant in the murder. If Amanda had not repeatedly accused Patrick of murdering Meredith, none of the above would have happened.

In spite of what happened, and in spite of the treatment Patrick received; which was significantly worse than what Amanda received, not once did he confess to a murder he did not commit. Neither did he falsely accuse anyone else.

Amanda placed herself at the scene of the crime when she falsely accused Patrick. It was not until the Investigators found there was no possible way he was there Amanda recanted Patricks presence at the crime.

That still places Amanda, by her own words, at the crime scene.

In order for her to make that false confession against Patrick stick, AMANDA HAD TO PLACE HERSELF AT THE CRIME SCENE.

It was Patrick's presence she recanted. Not her own.

JMO

Emerald

11-07-2009, 10:47 PM

Emerald

11-07-2009, 11:23 PM

KC, we heard your 'logical' scenario ideas of what happened that night earlier and believe me, logic was not a feature. On the contrary, it seems that you are so determined to nail the crime in its entirety on Rudy Guede, that when you approach him you throw all logic out the window. At the same time, you ignore the truth, in terms of the actual 'facts' to hammer a 'square coercion peg' into a round hole when the facts are clear, there was no interrogation involving the detailed story of Patrick, only a voluntary statement. Coercion, if it happenes anywhere, happens in interrogations, not statements. You know this as well as I do, so your solution is to ignore the fact, the 'truth', and keep referring to the statement as an inetrrogation. My advice is if 'truth' is 'really' your concern, rather then your own pre-defined end, then I would suggest that you actually pay attention to the truth and facts, rather then simply pay lip service to them with claimed aspirations to them.

I don't read/speak Italian, but I'd bet the coerced confession is not a talking point in Europe. The only thing which could be accomplished is to gain support in the US. Nothing else has worked. The Mother going on tv saying how she wanted Amanda to flee the country was a H*U*G*E mistake. That lost a lot of potential public support.

If the Amanda Knox Family still has a PR team, they aren't doing a very good job.

Ultimately doesn't matter what the US public thinks. As a matter of fact, any US public interference would probably irritate the process in Italian Courts.

JMO

Franklin

11-08-2009, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Jester: "Indeed, when Lumumba's airtight alibi got him released from jail, after a couple of weeks, Knox wrote ecstatically about it in her prison journal ("Patrick got out today! Finally! Something is going right!") and later wrote of her remorse at ever having implicated him, saying it was under extreme duress and a result of police "brainwashing."

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz0WEPlIXPh

There is nothing helpful about lying to police during a murder investigation. Are you suggesting that Amanda thought that she was going to help police solve the crime by telling lies? How could she at one moment think that Patrick murdered Meredith and later think that he hadn't murdered Meredith. She was a witness and was expected to be truthful.

You say "Amanda wrote ecstatically about Patricks rease" saying "Finally, something is going right".

Yes this shows that she finally realized that Patrick was innocent. He's Free! Something is fianally going Right!! she says.
She didn't say "Oh Damnit, he's getting released, my scheme isn't working"

And yes, I am saying that Amanda at one moment thought he was guilty, and then at the next moment thought he was innocent.

We all know that there is nothing helpfull about lying to police. "So stipulated" as Perry Mason would say.

And Yes, I am suggesting that Amanda thought she was helping the police solve the crime. That is what she has been claiming was her motive all along.

In the U.S. (3000 miles away with a different legal system) many of the ex-prisoners who have been exonerated with the advent of DNA testing were falsely picked out from lineups because the rape victim or whoever didn't want to dissapoint the police by not picking out anyone. So they just picked the one who had the closest resemblance to the culprit. The Republican Governor of Illinois a while back just went ahead and gave leniency to everyone on death row after so many DNA tests proved many things that most people refuse to believe about their trusted men in blue. Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas are the most notorious for police shenanigans.

Emerald

11-08-2009, 12:28 AM

I understand what you are saying, Franklin. Don't agree.

Amanda was glad Patrick was exonerated, but it does not explain Amanda placing herself at the scene of the crime.

Maybe her elation was in knowing that the innocent person she accused was set free. Only makes me believe Amanda knew he was innocent, because she knows the truth.

JMO

Franklin

11-08-2009, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jester: "Amanda is an adult.

How is information about manipulating children relevant to this case? "

You are being deliberately obtuse in your communications. The first half of my post explained the studies on college aged young people, yet you parse the post apart and ask about the second half of the post. I have already answered the question, as you already know. And mine and other peoples previous posts have listed historical cases and techniques for manipulating adults. (Roberto Rocha, for instance) http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1&page=1 Or you can look on youtube if you want to know more about the topic.

Agreed, these posts have nothing to do with the Knox case if these things (brainwashings) haven't happened.

And if unscrupulous things have actually occured, then obviously these postings are relevent to anyone who wishes to better understand the mechanisms in action for these types of cases.

Emerald

11-08-2009, 12:51 AM

Franklin

11-08-2009, 01:28 AM

Emerald

11-08-2009, 01:57 AM

Conform?

Bringing strangers to the apartment, walking around in front of the room mates guests, frequently interrupting others in the apartment with guitar and singing, cartwheels in the police station, essentially moving in with Raffaele moments after they met, etc.

Doesn't sound like conforming to me.

Is she a child with an unbalanced social moral compass? In which case everyone is completely wrong who put their professional reputations on the line with recommendations for Amanda's abroad studies.

~~OR~~

Is she the mature, intelligent adult?

Can't be both ways. The police interview was stressful, no doubt. It just does not meet the criteria as the brutal interrogation and forced confession of Michael Crowe.

JMO

Franklin

11-08-2009, 11:19 AM

Amanda initially may not have been conforming to the interrogators. She may have thought she was in charge, leading them, or "helping them. I think there are many ways to interpret her "confessions" after that.

When Amanda graduates from College, she will likely be overqualified to be accepted for employment as a Law Enforcement proffessional. Many of the people in law enforcement are even less balanced and much less educated than Amanda. If she (college girl) would help frame Patrick, they (police) could just as readily plant evidence to make their jobs easier. (or in this case make their jobs harder as it turns out)

Their immaturity is evident in the wild theories that they propose. That parents who mortgage their home to pay for her defense after paying to send her to Italy wouldn't send her a few hundred bucks in allowance (which I am sure they did regularly) thus forcing her to kill her roommate for a few hundred dollars. That a college girl, who budgets her study time to pass finals, and who plans for a future wouldn't know how to sell her computer or work a little to get the rent. (although she would have just had her parents wire the money) While Rudy Guede had the history of poor planning and quick money snatching fixes.

Or the one about the vampires in Raphaels comic books. Meridith is the one who actually dressed as a vampire for holloween. One might just as well theorize that Meredith payed Rudy to act out the Vampire fantacy. It is obvious that she had a deep rooted and unquentiable lust for vampire role playing. (I am thinking like a boorish prosecutor now)

Franklin

11-08-2009, 11:30 AM

Emerald, In the Michael Crowe case not all the boys were as brutally interrogated as Michael Crowe. One of them jumped in quite willingly and wove fantastic and intricately detailed stories, as if he were playing a role playing fantacy game of Dungeons and Dragons with the interrogators. It was, by the way the kid with all the knife collection and comic books.

I saw the video of 20y/o Roberto Rocha's false confession, and although the interrogators were primative and stupid, they weren't particularly brutal. I guess some people just aren't as deeply rooted in reality as others.

Emerald

11-08-2009, 12:46 PM

Franklin, your theories are interesting, but I'm not buying for this case against Amanda.

It is her testimony, under oath in court which convinced me. Her very own attorney was asking the questions. He let Amanda ramble on and on, contradicting herself from paragraph to paragraph. Why an attorney would allow this from his own client is a mystery.

JMO

Jester

11-08-2009, 03:25 PM

You say "Amanda wrote ecstatically about Patricks rease" saying "Finally, something is going right".

Yes this shows that she finally realized that Patrick was innocent. He's Free! Something is fianally going Right!! she says.
She didn't say "Oh Damnit, he's getting released, my scheme isn't working"

And yes, I am saying that Amanda at one moment thought he was guilty, and then at the next moment thought he was innocent.

We all know that there is nothing helpfull about lying to police. "So stipulated" as Perry Mason would say.

And Yes, I am suggesting that Amanda thought she was helping the police solve the crime. That is what she has been claiming was her motive all along.

In the U.S. (3000 miles away with a different legal system) many of the ex-prisoners who have been exonerated with the advent of DNA testing were falsely picked out from lineups because the rape victim or whoever didn't want to dissapoint the police by not picking out anyone. So they just picked the one who had the closest resemblance to the culprit. The Republican Governor of Illinois a while back just went ahead and gave leniency to everyone on death row after so many DNA tests proved many things that most people refuse to believe about their trusted men in blue. Illinois, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas are the most notorious for police shenanigans.

Amanda's reasons for staying in Italy have been that:
1. she wanted to help police solve the crime (not sure why a language student thinks she is a crime solver);
2. she wanted to tell Meredith's father what she knew; and
3. she was completely unaffected by Meredith's murder (diary notes) and wanted to complete her studies.

It is impossible for Amanda to believe that Patrick was involved in the murder and then to radically change her beliefs to the opposite. Only one can be true, and the truth of an eye witness statement cannot contradict itself. Either, according to Amanda, she knew Patrick was there or he wasn't. She cannot in good standing claim both to be true.

The only possible conclusion is that
1. Amanda is a liar;
2. Amanda hoped to deflect attention away from herself and buy herself some time by accusing Patrick (her mom was due to arrive any day);
3. Amanda was caught in a lie when Patrick produced an alibi;
4. Amanda had to revise her statement to sound as innocent as possible without admitting that she deliberately accused an innocent man of murder; and
5. Amanda inadvertently placed herself at the murder by initially stating that there was more than one person present at the murder, and that she knew one of the murderers was black.

As for American lab technicians that falsified tests, or police that perceived themselves above the law, that is not relevant to a murder trial in Italy in 2009.

Jester

11-08-2009, 03:38 PM

You are being deliberately obtuse in your communications. The first half of my post explained the studies on college aged young people, yet you parse the post apart and ask about the second half of the post. I have already answered the question, as you already know. And mine and other peoples previous posts have listed historical cases and techniques for manipulating adults. (Roberto Rocha, for instance) http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LegalCenter/story?id=1779251&page=1&page=1 Or you can look on youtube if you want to know more about the topic.

Agreed, these posts have nothing to do with the Knox case if these things (brainwashings) haven't happened.

And if unscrupulous things have actually occured, then obviously these postings are relevent to anyone who wishes to better understand the mechanisms in action for these types of cases.

As I've said before, this is a case involving a British student, an American student, an Italian student, and an immigrant from the Ivory Coast. There is no question that, from the outset, this case would draw international interest. There is no way that the Italian police decided to use illegal, or unethical, methods to solve the murder knowing full well that people from all over the world would scrutinize every aspect of the case.

You are welcome to believe, based on American studies and illegal practices, that the Italians are corrupt, but there is absolutely no factual basis for the belief. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated. When Raffaele lied about the timeline of police arriving at the cottage, the police were able to demonstrate that they were honest, and that Raffaele was the liar.

If you want to criticize the current investigation based on historical illegal practices, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian police had used illegal and unethical practices when investigating an international murder in recent years. It would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian DNA labs had a history of falsifying DNA tests, that Italian police isolated 14 year old children for days and forced a false confession, or that Italian police put words in the mouths of young children in order to convict adults. There is no history of these problems in Italy.

Jester

11-08-2009, 03:47 PM

JMO

If I believe the relatively brief interrogation caused the mental incapacity of Amanda, then the picture painted of the smart, independent woman sent alone to a foreign country for study is a complete fabrication.

Somebody is not telling the truth.

JMO

According to reports, Knox was stoned quite a bit of the time while attending class. Her mind was intact enough to be stoned and learn, or be stoned and read Harry Potter in German, but when it came to being stoned and remembering the events of the evening when her roommate was murdered ... her memory was a sieve.

Amanda is full of contradiction. As you point out, we have the bright, independent, world traveler who makes a mockery of the people that helped arranged a government job and apartment in Germany for her, but who cannot hold her own when asked what she did the night her roommate was murdered. When she completely screwed up and couldn't keep her story straight, she resorted to complaining about the people that asked the questions. She chose to lie rather than tell the truth. She claimed pot wiped her memory - a lie. She claimed Patrick was a murderer - a lie. When asked difficult questions that she could not answer, just like in court, she chose to avoid the answers. Why would an innocent person do that.

Jester

11-08-2009, 03:55 PM

Emerald... I don't think that Amandas intelligence and her story telling are mutually exclusive. I think that her instinct to conform to her immediate environment (the interrogation room) is an instinct that would serve her well in the corporate world. And in all of our primevil tribal pasts, there was also the tendancy for the witch-hunt mob to say "If she confesses to witchcraft she can repent, but if she denies it, we burn her at the stake". Better off to go with the flow then.

She would be a "real team player" on the corporate team as they say. Putting her finger to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon. (or so she thought as she accused Patrick, only to find that SHE was to be the target as much as Patrick after that.)

I wonder what her major was to be in college? I have been to college, and there are some pretty crazy people there who manage to get good grades. I think that her crazy tendancies are completely unrelated to her focus on learning classroom material.

I don't think so. She thought she was smart enough to lie to the police and manipulate the situation, but she wasn't. People that cannot stand on their own two feet do not succeed in the corporate world ... it is people that have solid, well considered ideas and who are able to clearly articulate that information that are successful in business, not wishy washy people that crumble and feign amnesia when asked to further explain their ideas. Furthermore, when Amanda is asked a question, she wants to tell stories rather than address the point and move on.

Her studies were focused on learning language and creative writing. You should read her short story about rape ... it's wordy, unfocused, difficult to read, difficult to understand, and basically boring.

Jester

11-08-2009, 03:59 PM

Franklin

11-08-2009, 07:54 PM

Replies to Jesters CommentsAmanda's reasons for staying in Italy have been that:
1. she wanted to help police solve the crime (not sure why a language student thinks she is a crime solver);.....................
...............It is impossible for Amanda to believe that Patrick was involved in the murder and then to radically change her beliefs to the opposite. No, it's not impossible for her to believe that Patrick was involved and then to later believe that he was innocent.
She was being a good vigilante. There is no way that the Italian police decided to use illegal, or unethical, methods to solve the murder knowing full well that people from all over the world would scrutinize every aspect of the case. Yes there is a way. That's just your opinion. In New York a policeman raped a male Haitian immigrant in the police department restroom. Is there no way that could happen either? The Haitian was international after all. (I am aware N.Y. is not Italy)
But that's all beside the point because I am not claiming, as you already know, that unusual interrogations tactics were necessary for this crazy girl to make up all this stuff.
If you want to criticize the current investigation based on historical illegal practices, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian police had used illegal and unethical practices when investigating an international murder in recent years. No it wouldn't be necessary. Utter nonsense. I am only going to criticise the current investigation based on their (the police) recent and present stupidity. I am using history as a guideline though to see what people are capable of in general. If I was trying to entertain you specifically, I could do a doctoral thesis on the subject, But I think you are just playing games. (Paper, Rock, Scissors to be precise) It would be necessary to demonstrate that Italian DNA labs had a history of falsifying DNA tests, Who's claiming any labs falsified DNA samples? Not me. I tend to think more that either the DNA is not relevent, or that an ambitious or lazy policeman created the DNA evidence weeks after the murder, to make the conviction easier. (Another vigilante like Amanda). If he falsified the evidence properly, the honest Lab would get the matches they are looking for. You are welcome to believe, based on American studies and illegal practices, that the Italians are corrupt, but there is absolutely no factual basis for the belief. In fact, the opposite has been demonstrated. Straw-man, No Lo Follow, convoluted logic. Possible INTERNET TROLL with many screen names. But so what. that Italian police isolated 14 year old children for days and forced a false confession, or that Italian police put words in the mouths of young children in order to convict adults. There is no history of these problems in Italy You say: "There is no history of these problems in Italy." You are claiming an educated knowlege of a fact which you haven't bothered to verify. Just type in a few key words on any of these subjects and you will allways find that people are the same everywhere. It only takes a couple of seconds. You are showing an unusual prejudice sometimes to think that people of different countries have such different psychological tendancies and profiles.
The Dimitri trial in Italy:
"a notorious court case which took place in Bologna, the Dimitri trial (more or less the Italian version of the infamous 1980's McMartin trial in California)." How can you say that Amanda thought she was helping the police by lying to them? As you already know, I am citing Amandas claim that she thought she was helping the police by framing Patrick. The same way a policeman sometimes thinks he is promoting and upholding justice by framing someone. Liars make rather poor law enforcement officers. Have a look at your own links regarding illegal practices by law enforcement officers. I agree, that's why I posted those links.

Jester

11-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Replies to Jesters Comments No, it's not impossible for her to believe that Patrick was involved and then to later believe that he was innocent.
She was being a good vigilante. Yes there is a way. That's just your opinion. In New York a policeman raped a male Haitian immigrant in the police department restroom. Is there no way that could happen either? The Haitian was international after all. (I am aware N.Y. is not Italy)
But that's all beside the point because I am not claiming, as you already know, that unusual interrogations tactics were necessary for this crazy girl to make up all this stuff.
No it wouldn't be necessary. Utter nonsense. I am only going to criticise the current investigation based on their (the police) recent and present stupidity. I am using history as a guideline though to see what people are capable of in general. If I was trying to entertain you specifically, I could do a doctoral thesis on the subject, But I think you are just playing games. (Paper, Rock, Scissors to be precise) Who's claiming any labs falsified DNA samples? Not me. I tend to think more that either the DNA is not relevent, or that an ambitious or lazy policeman created the DNA evidence weeks after the murder, to make the conviction easier. (Another vigilante like Amanda). If he falsified the evidence properly, the honest Lab would get the matches they are looking for. Straw-man, No Lo Follow, convoluted logic. Possible INTERNET TROLL with many screen names. But so what. You say: "There is no history of these problems in Italy." You are claiming an educated knowlege of a fact which you haven't bothered to verify. Just type in a few key words on any of these subjects and you will allways find that people are the same everywhere. It only takes a couple of seconds. You are showing an unusual prejudice sometimes to think that people of different countries have such different psychological tendancies and profiles.
The Dimitri trial in Italy:
"a notorious court case which took place in Bologna, the Dimitri trial (more or less the Italian version of the infamous 1980's McMartin trial in California)." As you already know, I am citing Amandas claim that she thought she was helping the police by framing Patrick. The same way a policeman sometimes thinks he is promoting and upholding justice by framing someone. I agree, that's why I posted those links.

Now Amanda is a vigilante? A dope smokin' vigilante? That's a new one.

Doctoral thesis? Really???

What is the difference between police falsifing evidence and police creating DNA evidence? None.

Let me assure you that I am no troll and I am not playing games. I find the suggestion offensive. Let the post count speak for itself.

If Amanda believes that she is helping police by lying, or framing an innocent man, then she deserves to be in jail. Furthermore, your suggestion that this makes her a suitable candidate for the corporate world or law enforcement is baffling.

Franklin

11-08-2009, 09:41 PM

Jester Posted: Furthermore, your suggestion that this makes her a suitable candidate for the corporate world or law enforcement is baffling.
Kids will descend into the state described in the movie "Lord of the Flies" if left to there own devices. I know of an elementary school where the kids drove one of the kids to suicide. When a teacher put up a big sympathy card banner in the cafeteria for the kids to sign and express their condolences for the parents, most of the kids tried to out-do each other by writing comments on the card like "I will see you in hell" and "I'm glad you're dead". They were just normal kids but they were under emotional pressure to fit in to the cult by continuing to outdo each other to fit into what was this school society. And to avoid being the next in line for persecution. (the principal was criminally inept but was never fired)

Adults often will descend into a "Lord of the Flies" society too, but a high enough percentage of adults have usually progressed enough in emotional developement to prevent all hell from breaking loose. (except for in Pol Pots Cambodia and other exceptions)

These are the types of environments that Amanda would fit well into. Cambodia, Lord of the Flies, and many corporate pecking orders that I have seen. She has no scruples, and to Jester- Yes, you are right, she does deserve to be in jail anyway. I think Amandas Patrick accusation was just a reflexive instinct to "fit in" to what she thought they wanted. Her type is not so rare that another of her kind wouldn't eventually come together with her in a bizarre twist of fate. The other one (or ones) like her I am referring to are the ones who are throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery of justice such that no amount of speculating can shed light onto what really happened to poor Meredith.

Not all sociopaths are serial killers. There are also the types who "Just Don't Give a Damn" to quote from the movie "HUD" with Paul Newman. They seem to be well meaning enough, but they will drag you down all the same.

Emerald

11-09-2009, 03:12 AM

Amanda made choices. She needs to be accountable for them. Good ones and bad ones.

Psycho babble does not undo the crime against Meredith Kercher. Amanda is not the victim here.

JMO

Emerald

11-09-2009, 03:15 PM

In Italy, what percentage of verdicts are overturned in 2nd level trials?

Franklin

11-09-2009, 05:56 PM

Pat

11-10-2009, 12:25 AM

Amanda made choices. She needs to be accountable for them. Good ones and bad ones.

Psycho babble does not undo the crime against Meredith Kercher. Amanda is not the victim here.

JMO

Great post. Short and to the point. :sneaky:

Jester

11-10-2009, 05:33 AM

Historically, there have been countless cases of people either falsely accusing, or falsely confessing to crimes WITHOUT coersion. So to repeat, History has demonstrated, YOU DON'T NEED COERSION for someone to lie. It is NOT necessary to convince most people that there was no coersion, although there may have been.

There are a plethora of other motives which I have already listed to motivate Amanda to lie. (Even excluding lying to hide guilt) They are crazy motives that only a crazy person would have, bu they are motives all the same.

College educated women have been caught on camera poisining there own child to promote the continuatiuon of a doctor/mother medical relationship. (called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, usually afflicts higher status women) It is much more common than people wish to believe. This is just an example of a crazy motive. Amanda might have found the policeman to be attractive, and wanted him to find her to be fascinating. American woman have been accusing black men for centuries for this motive. (Although I cannot cite a list of American woman doing this in Italy in the 21st century, so it is absolutely irrelevent I am sure)

Now make a rule and bring on the reprimand for citing History as a basis for analysis.

So what. Sure, people converted religions during the Spanish Inquisition when faced with torture instruments from the middle ages, but that was not the case with Amanda Knox. She claims she was knocked about the head twice, but there is no one to corroborate her claims, and she has been charged with some form of slander as a result of her claims. So what.

Any statements that were questionable have not been admitted in court. It seems unusual for anyone to continually bring up statements not admissible in court, only to remind everyone that those statements contain extremely damning accusations and implications.

The only statement from Amanda that is relevant, in the context of the trial, is the one that was voluntary. That's damning too, but not nearly as serious as what Amanda said to police prior to her re-designation from witness to suspect.

History, as a factor in trial, is completely irrelevant in the murder of Meredith Kercher. There was no history, class, or creative writing in the murder. Neither is there any negative historical reference in connection with how the trial has been led.

Maybe the murder was a selfish act between Amanda and two of her admirers, maybe Amanda was pulling the splits between cartwheels & conversations ... only to realize that she's not seducing the nice police man, or Amanda, in her socially inept manner (see her mother's remarks), blurted out stuff about the murder because she was traumatized ... there is the corroborating incident of Amanda bursting into tears when she was first returned to the cottage to explain the scene. I think it was the knife drawer that brought her to a shaking fit.

There could be a lot of things going on, but coercion, dishonesty, and torture ... no.

Jester

11-10-2009, 05:53 AM

Why has Rudy remained silent, in spite of the fact that he has been legitimately convicted of murder. Why would he protect Amanda? Amanda early on (too early) admitted knowledge of more than one assailant? Why doesn't Rudy spill the beans on whomever else was there and buy himself a deal? Deals aren't available in Italy?

Evidence indicates that Rudy is guilty, and that more than one person was involved (evidence). He knows if anyone else was present ... and if so, who it was.

If there is no deal to be made, then implicating others would only seal his own guilt, like it did with Amanda. She implicated someone in the murder; indicated early on that she knew that more than one person was at the murder. By knowing anything about the scene, she implicated herself. No reason for Rudy to make the same mistake.

She knew too much about the murder scene. In addition to knowing that there was more than one assailant, she also knew that Meredith's throat had been cut and that she bled to death, even though that was not revealed in the glimpse and gossip about the short time that Meredith's bedroom door was open. Amanda went from the murder scene to the police station, along with Meredith's England friends, and began using derogatory terms to describe how Meredith died. The English friends reported Amanda's remarks to police. Amanda should not have known what she knew at that time.

Amanda knows more than an innocent person should

Jester

11-10-2009, 06:11 AM

How do we explain the fact that Amanda blurted out that Meredith slowly bled to death before cause of death was released?

How do we explain the fact that Amanda described a scene with one black man and herself at the cottage on the night of the murder? Forensic evidence confirming two unexplained footprints was not available until much later. How did Amanda know it was not a single assailant rape?

How could Amanda describe a scream (flashback or otherwise), and another woman from the neighbourhood describe a similar scream at about the same time, if it is not true?

There is nothing odd about police noticing guilty behaviors (see Psychology: behaviorism)? It's a combination of body language and verbal responses. Filomina's friends noticed the same guilty behaviors. So did Meredith's friends. Even Amanda's mom noticed that Amanda had guilty behavior and demanded to know why she would not remember their phone conversation.

Emerald

11-10-2009, 06:52 AM

Amanda immediately knew Meredith died from loss of blood. Not stab wounds, blunt force, strangulation, etc.

Emerald

11-10-2009, 08:06 AM

If Amanda is found guilty, her sentence will be 30 years to life?

Is there early release for anything?

Emerald

11-10-2009, 08:50 AM

If Amanda is found guilty of murder, it will be 'life', no 30 years about it. Rudy only got 30 years as a reward for opting for the abbreviated rite. Amanda and Raffaele have opted for the full first degree trial so the sentence will be life.

As for realy release...well, the way the Italian system works, around the point of 15 - 18 years served, they'll be allowed out on day release, which will be extended to releases of a number of weeks a year and will probably be fully released after serving 19 - 25 years.

Just to add, Mignini has also requested that if they are found guilty, they serve their first two years in solitary.

Wow! :scared: Why?

In an interview, Edda Mellas stated the 2nd degree is where all the real evidence comes out. Now, I know she is just making excuses for the probable guilty verdict, but what happens in a 2nd degree trial? Is it any more intense than this one has been?

I have a lot of sympathy for Edda Mellas as a parent. But, there comes a time when it's necessary to admit your children are adults. Making choices for which they alone must be responsible.

JMO

Jester

11-10-2009, 06:44 PM

If Amanda is found guilty of murder, it will be 'life', no 30 years about it. Rudy only got 30 years as a reward for opting for the abbreviated rite. Amanda and Raffaele have opted for the full first degree trial so the sentence will be life.

As for realy release...well, the way the Italian system works, around the point of 15 - 18 years served, they'll be allowed out on day release, which will be extended to releases of a number of weeks a year and will probably be fully released after serving 19 - 25 years.

Just to add, Mignini has also requested that if they are found guilty, they serve their first two years in solitary.

If Amanda is in solitary confinement for 2 years, she'll be mentally ill at the end. I suspect that Raffaele has a more sound psychological foundation and will fare better.

Jester

11-11-2009, 02:23 AM

I wonder if this is true

"The Ivory Coast immigrant convicted in the slaying of Meredith Kercher will tell a court that Seattle college student Amanda Knox was in the apartment that the night Kercher was killed, his lawyer has told seattlepi.com"

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411618_knox28.html?source=mypi

Jester

11-11-2009, 02:37 AM

Some interesting video footage here ... even if it is in Italian

http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/2009/11/01/due_anni_fa_moriva_meredith.html

Jester

11-11-2009, 03:18 AM

Short clip about the evidence (dateline)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28054799#28075850

Jester

11-11-2009, 03:46 AM

Just reading Amanda's prison diary ... first 7 pages.

Amanda is writing about meeting with the priest ...

"I told him I was very happy, because I was able to give what I knew, finally, to the police". This is when she was first imprisoned after telling police that Patrick was a murderer and she implicated herself.

She was with a priest. There was no coercion. There was no coercion when she wrote this diary in prison.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/italymurder.pdf

Emerald

11-11-2009, 04:13 AM

Thanks Jester.

I could not get the diary pdf file to open.

Amanda had more than enough time and opportunities to retract the accusation against Patrick. He wasn't crime scene, but obviously she was.

JMO

Emerald

11-11-2009, 11:40 AM

Thanks Michael.

I really got the impression Edda Mellas' statement had a tone of finality.

It reminded me of the parents pleading with the judge for a light sentence for their child who had committed a heinous crime. "He's such a good son. Please be lenient."

I do not believe in judicially mandated death penalty under ANY circumstances. Imprisonment for life is different.

Emerald

11-11-2009, 03:40 PM

Amanda has the very real possibility of being found not guilty. I remember that from time to time.

Emerald

11-11-2009, 04:46 PM

In Italy, is the prison population divided by type of crime committed? Is it all general population like in the US?

For instance violent murderers/rapists housed with non-violent offenders.

Is Amanda housed now where she will be if found guilty?

Emerald

11-11-2009, 04:56 PM

Sometimes prisoners are released through diplomatic channels to serve sentence in the US.

Would that ever happen in this case?

Jester

11-12-2009, 12:18 AM

Sometimes prisoners are released through diplomatic channels to serve sentence in the US.

Would that ever happen in this case?

Here are a couple of links about prisoner transfer:

http://www.traslados.org/treaties/strasbourg-eng.htm

http://www.traslados.org/

From briefly skimming those links, it looks like the sentence could be changed if a prisoner is transferred from one country to another, although the expectation would be that a prisoner serve the same sentence as originally imposed. However, that appears to depend somewhat on the type of sentence applied in each country. If there were any chance that the sentence would be changed, the Kerchers may have an opportunity to voice an opinion ... and they could be worried that once Amanda is on US soil her sentence will be reduced. If the Kerchers objected to a transfer, it could also interfere with Italy agreeing to release Amanda to the US. It would be interesting to see how it plays out ... after a verdict, if and when all the appeals are complete. If Amanda is convicted, and if the Kerchers believe she is guilty, I would expect them to prefer that Amanda serve her sentence in Italy rather than take the risk that she will be released after a couple of years in the US.

Jester

11-12-2009, 12:22 AM

I think also I should qualify the situation as it presently stands.

To be completely honest, everyone is expecting a guilty verdict, even the FOA and lawyers representing the accused. As such, the accused have been warned to expect a guilty verdict and the FOA are already thinking about the appeal.

Some essential diferences between the civil law and common law systems need to be outlined.

In the civil law system, while we naturally think of the prosecutor in the same terms as a 'prosecutor' in our system, they are in fact under the Italian system regarded as 'judges'. So, in order for an Italian prosecutor to proceed against suspects, they have already gone through a process of being judged. But that isn't enough. A judge in the Italian system requires their judgement validating by a court and then, by another court and then by the High Court and after that, a pre-trial court. In other words, an Italian prosecutor has to jump through multiple legal hoops before they can even get a case to trial and must do so via 'evidence', not simply by saying 'I want to try these people'. In contrast, in the common law system, all that's required is for the police to charge a suspect and the prosecutor to then accept the case based solely on his/her informed opinion on their chances of winning it in court. The prosecutor in the common law system does not depend on the approval of any third party. The decision on what goes to trial lies with them and them alone and the arraignment is no more then an official rubber stamping of the 'prosecutor's' decison. It then goes to trial with the actual evidence having had scrutiny from nobody other then the police and prosecution. In the civil law system, a case is already many steps ahead of that by the time it gets to trial, since a large degree of the actual 'evidence' will have already been examined by multiple courts and deemed to be worthy to be moved onto the next step.

In short, in the common law system, in trial the accused are starting effectively from 'point zero'. In the civil law system, by the time they get to trial they've already been half way judged to be guilty. And this is all without the totallity of evidence produced against them in the actual trial itself. This is why the situation for the accused is looking so grave.

Anyone that followed the Joran v.d.Sloot questioning became somewhat familiar with this same system. Several times Joran was detained for questioning, and several times he appeared before the judge where a decision was made as to whether there was enough evidence to further detain him. Each time a decision was made to further detain him, the length of detention was longer. In the end, the judge determined that the evidence was insufficient to bring charges, and Joran remains free. Essentially, it was determined that he was not guilty, although there was no trial.

Jester

11-12-2009, 12:36 AM

Given a choice between an Italian or an American prison, I know where I'd rather be.

Funny you should say that. In her prison diary, Amanda wrote about the bowl of coffee with milk in the morning, food that she could prepare in her cell, and cakes. I remember reading that Joran v.d.Sloot also received many things that are part of European culture like coffee at 10, and tea at 3, after dinner coffee. It seems like European prisons continue with habits that are part of normal, or traditional, daily life, whereas US culture doesn't have that same daily structure, so prison life doesn't include those practices.

I suspect that a European prison would probably be kinder to Amanda, but it would be difficult for her to be isolated from her culture and family for 30+ years. As I've said before ... if I had a child in that situation, I would pack up and move to Italy. As a teacher, Amanda's mom is in a good position to find work in an International school where she can be closer to Amanda during this trial process. The younger children could attend an International school without cost if mom is teaching, and Chris could find something to do. There are International American schools all over Europe. The mom could take a leave from her current position for a limited amount of time without losing her current position. In a way, I'm surprised that Amanda's mom, or someone in the family, hasn't done more to have at least one family member close living close by. I know that different people are flying back and forth on donated funds ... but there are other options available to them.