|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,804
|
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
Great eye-witness testimony RWVBWL. However, I don't think it will help convince the pro guilt people. Scary thing is, I don't know if anything will... The belief of the assassins is that if you kill the leader, the rest will fall. If you shoot the beast in the head, the body will die. Replace the judge and some key pieces of evidence and - who knows - the beast may die and Amanda & Raffaele will be free. |
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Havin' Fun in L.A.
Posts: 2,171
|
Hi Justinian2, and others,
As you wrote above, I agree, maybe, just maybe it will happen... On another note, LMT has posted an interesting couple of new stories. Definately worth a read 1st and then watching that YouTube video. It then becomes very scary... http://alternatetheories-perugiamurder.blogspot.com/ Thank you Some Alibi, for your work too on this case we discuss. Though I might not agree with your belief in guilt, I now do respect your work effort! Peace everyone ![]() RWVBWL |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,253
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,253
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Havin' Fun in L.A.
Posts: 2,171
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,253
|
Did you see that guy also made a song video? Of course, Harry Rag is right there with his comments, as if anyone cares: "Amanda Knox's interrogation was stopped at 1.45am when she became a suspect. She wasn't questioned again that evening. The following day she voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder. She even asked for a pen and paper to write this confession." Harry doesn't seem to realize we have disproven that false claim here. His list of reasons Amanda is guilty gets shorter and shorter every day. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 646
|
Pacelli's interrogation of Amanda about Rudy
Regarding Pacelli's examination of Amanda: I was able to find (thanks to PaulTC at IIP) another copy of the video. Here, for the record, is my transcription and translation of the relevant portion, which begins at 1:13 and ends at 4:23:
CP: Lei conosce Rudy Hermann Guede? CP: Do you know Rudy Hermann Guede? AK: Poco. AK: [Only] a bit. [Note: "only" arguably implied by use of "poco" rather than "un poco".] CP: Dove l'ha conosciuto? In quali circonstanze? CP: Where did you meet him? In what circumstances? AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening where I met the guys that lived in the apartment underneath us. And, while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy. CP: Dunque, in occasione di un party, a casa dei vicini di sotto? CP: So, on the occasion of a party, at the house of the neighbors below? AK: Yes. What we did is they introduced me to him downtown to say "this is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith but we all went back to the house together. CP: E' a casa loro che l'ha conosciuto; non l'aveva visto anche al pub Le Chic, Rudy? CP: So it was at their house that you met him; you hadn't also seen Rudy at the Le Chic pub? AK: I think I saw him there once. CP: Senta: questo party dei vicini, della seconda metà di ottobre -- che periodo, fine ottobre? (di 1997 [!]) CP: Okay: this party at the neighbors', of the second half of October -- what period, the end of October? AK: I think it was more in the middle of October. [at this point Massei interrupts to complain about both Amanda and her translator speaking at the same time] CP: Nell'occasione di questo party, signorina, fumaste hashish? CP: On the occasion of this party, Ms. Knox, did you [plural, referring to the whole group!] smoke hashish? AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes. CP: Lei, all'epoca dei fatti, ottobre 97, faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? 2007 -- chiedo, mi scusi -- faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? CP: During the period in question, October '97 [sic], did you [singular] use [imperfect tense, meaning "habitually use"] mind-altering substances? 2007 -- sorry -- did you [habitually] use mind-altering substances? AK: Every once in a while with friends. CP: Che sostanze [can't make out next word, sounds like "absurva"]? CP: Which substances [...?]? AK: Marijuana. Summary: Rudy and Amanda were not particularly well acquainted, but they met once at a party where there was hashish, and Amanda may have seen Rudy once at Le Chic. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 523
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
There are many more. I have not included the samples taken from Meredith's body in the summary. Nor have I included many of the samples from Raffaele's apt., samples from Raffaele's car, samples from Guede's apt., samples from the downstairs apt., samples from the kitchen of the cottage, and a few others. These results were not relevant to the prosecution's case or to the defense rebuttals.
Earlier in this discussion, however, I noted that a number of samples revealed unidentified DNA. The police should have gotten reference DNA samples from everyone who lived at or frequented the cottage, just as they did collect reference fingerprints, so they could be sure the unidentified DNA belonged to those people and not another suspect. This basic oversight shows they were only interested in evidence that would support their claims with regard to Amanda and Raffaele. The unidentified donors are as follows: Male #1, rep. 11, (non-blood) tissue paper found in front of lower apartment entrance Female #1, rep. 17, (blood) tissue paper found on path from street to cottage Male #3, rep. 18, (blood) tissue paper found on street Female #2, rep. 19, (blood) tissue paper found on street; rep. 20, (blood) tissue paper found on street Male #4, rep. 32, (non-blood) boxer shorts from Sollecito's apt. Male #5, rep. 47, (non-blood) stained white rag from Sollecito's apt. Male #6, rep. 101, (non-blood), stain revealed with luminol on kitchen mat from Sollecito's apt. Male #7, rep. 142, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage; rep. 143, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage; rep. 144, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage Male #8, rep. 227, (non-blood) tee shirt taken from Sollecito Notice there is no Male #2. I don't know if they accidentally skipped a number, or if there were other tests besides the ones for which I have the results. In general, the numbering of samples and organizing of results is erratic and inconsistent, and it spans a number of documents that came to me as e-fax TIF files, very poor quality. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Scholar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 51
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Student
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 38
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,881
|
Yes, don't see a problem with that scenario
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,741
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 523
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
BTW my comments were directed at samba who makes no mention of the details of the assault on Meredith.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,881
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,741
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
You mean a lone wolf scenario where Guede breaks in the house, takes a crap without flushing, beats up meredith, sexually assaults her, kills her with one knife, and flees the country.
Prosecution expert says that all the knife wounds could have been created by one knife. The difference is all the wounds can't be created by the knife from Sollecito's apartment. So if that knife isn't the murder weapon then all the wounds are created by one knife. He also says all the bruising could have been created by one person. No evidence was entered to prove a fake break in. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,741
|
I'm still curious about the fact that you accept multiple bruises and cuts indicates multiple attackers. Are you seriously backing that line of reasoning? Do you think OJ Simpson must have had an accomplice? He did leave multiple cuts and bruises on two people after all.
Edit: You also inferred that sexual assault is indicative of multiple attackers? How? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,741
|
That's not what you were trying to establish. You were trying to establish that all these pieces of evidence lead you to the conclusion that the lone wolf theory "doesn't cut it". Ok, let's say I agree with you there were multiple attackers and that Rudy didn't do it alone. Ok? Many of the things you listed still wouldn't make sense as indicative of multiple attackers.
That there was a sexual assault? That's indicative of multiple attackers? I don't think so, but by all means explain how it is. Multiple bruises and cuts? Indicative of multiple attackers? I don't think so, but by all means explain. A crap without flushing? I admit it's confusing on its face, but I don't see how this indicates multiple attackers. So we're left now with two knives and a fake break in? Ok, I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're right about that and those indicate multiple attackers. That doesn't mean the aforementioned pieces of evidence indicate what you imply they do. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Scholar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 51
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Scholar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 51
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,351
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
|
I think either you are trolling (and quite successfully, kudos) or you are having flashbacks to the first thread which was a very long time ago.
The court decided that there were two knives, but the court decided all sorts of stupid things, including that it was "thus possible and in fact probable... that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-intentioned persons". (Massei p403, or p376 in the PMF PDF). While you may not yet be quite clear on the idea that rational people might think for themselves and fix their own opinions based on the evidence, rather than mindlessly and irrationally agreeing with whatever a court says, I don't think anybody else here is unclear on the idea and hence repeating the arguments that have already been put to you on this point seems unnecessary. The prosecution experts stated that the wounds were compatible with a single knife. The totality of the evidence clearly inclines a rational observer to the belief that the murder was committed by a single attacker with a single knife. I don't think there is anything more to be said. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
Im open to the possibility of someone else involved. Im even open to Knox and Sollecito being involved. I just require more than hearsay, rumor, homeless guy that can't get his story straight, and prosecution theories that have no evidence to support them, to consider them guilty.
Also, I think the 2 knife theory is absurd. I mean seriously. They want you to believe knox is carrying around that machette of a kitchen knife in her purse without leaving a trace of blood in her purse, tearing up her purse or anyone seeing her carrying it. Plus to top it off, the dna results can't be reproduced, there was no blood on the knife, it wasn't even sealed to avoid contamination, it doesn't match the knife wounds, and it wasn't cleaned with bleach or washed off in either Sollecito's sink or Meredith's. Yet its claimed to be the murder weapon. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 704
|
Hi Mary, I'm well informed on the case. For the past 2 years I've been gathering informations about the events that took place back in 2007 and also about the trial, but to date I have found no credible explanation on how did Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp of Meredith Kercher, apart from contamination, of course.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 204
|
Kev: "The totality of the evidence clearly inclines a rational observer to the belief that the murder was committed by a single attacker with a single knife. I don't think there is anything more to be said."
Apart from the fact that the prosecution put forward a convincing argument that this was not the case. This was accepted unanimously by the jury. How many "rational observers" was that? I guess that your definition of "rational observers" is those people who support your theories and speculations. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 169
|
It would seem that everyone here, apart from RWVBWL,could be barking up the wrong tree.
There is a very real possibility that the murderer was someone else as described in the alternate theories link above. I have said this several times before, but no-one wants to even entertain the thought that although Rudy was present at the cottage he was not the murderer. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,572
|
I have no problem entertaining the thought of Rudy not being involved. Just as soon as Rudy himself can explain the following:
Bloody handprint on the wall. The handprint that would require someone that didn't commit the murder to step over the body to leave it on the wall. Plus him going through Meredith's purse. Plus him going clubbing rather than sitting at home in shock over the murder. Why he fingers knox as the person that rang the doorbell to her own apartment. Why he said Knox/sollecito had nothing to do with the murder on skype. How he identified the correct window that was broken when the news reported a different window. Why he said that someone might have raped Meredith. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|