Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Continued from here (which was a continuation from here), with the last page of posts transferred over to the new thread. All the many warnings made in that thread still apply. Please - everyone - ensure that your posts remain civil, on topic, and in accordance with the terms of your Membership Agreement.

Posted By:Darat

Originally Posted by RWVBWL

Greetings Mary H, and others,
I had to give this 3 + 1 story some thought before I decided to even post it,

[...]

Don't many victims know the rapist?
Hmmm, I wonder...

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.

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

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.

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

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL

<snip>PSS-Guys sometimes talk of their conquests, for I hear it a lot from the bro's.
Some guys I know are pretty legendary around my neck of the woods.
With that in mind, I wonder if Rudy knew of this too? Maybe he heard Giacomo tell of this recent conquest, and he went over there with the intent to rape instead of rob. Maybe that's why he did not take much. For all anyone knows, Rudy could have had a nylon stocking mask on which covered his face when he entered the gals apartment that night, with the intent to commit a rape. Don't many victims know the rapist?
Hmmm, I wonder...

WOW. That is actually possible.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

This is a great summary of the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsXp9...ayer_embedded#!

Here it is. My link was wrong the first two times.

That is very well written. Do we know who that guy is?

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by Justinian2

This is a great summary of the case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsXp9...ayer_embedded#!

Here it is. My link was wrong the first two times.

Thanks for the link Justinian2!
That was a nice video to watch.
I believe the only way that Raffaele and Amanda might see freedom is if people speak up,
as many, many, many have been doing lately!
Take it easy,
RWVBWL

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Poppy1016

Great video Justinian!

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.

[komponisto]

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.

[loverofzion]

Originally Posted by Danceme

Charlie, thanks for the spheron images.

The whole story about the feces in the large bathroom and why she didn't flush makes more sense to me now. She didn't dry her hair in the bathroom itself but in the ante-room to the bathroom where there is a large vanity, sink and mirror, with the washer tucked under the counter. There is even a hairbrush on the counter.

She may have noticed the smell at some point after drying her hair, entered the bathroom itself, briefly glanced in the toilet and left. The toilet is quite far into the bathroom itself and unless you are standing close to it, perhaps you will not see the contents, accounting for her visually missing it the second time.

This was one of her strange behaviors for me, but I see now how it could have happened.

Do you always go through such contortions when trying to figure out simple, straightforward events?

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Draca

I see. The number of reps that exist. IDK if there are more - this could be it. We'll have to ask Charlie.

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.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL

Thanks for the link Justinian2!
That was a nice video to watch.
I believe the only way that Raffaele and Amanda might see freedom is if people speak up,
as many, many, many have been doing lately!
Take it easy,
RWVBWL

Yep...

“We’ve GOT to make noises in greater amounts!
So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!”
- Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who

[samba]

Originally Posted by loverofzion

Do you always go through such contortions when trying to figure out simple, straightforward events?

How about this straightforward event...

Man with criminal past breaks into a cottage and murders someone while in the midst of a robbery....then flees the country. There's been lots of contortions trying to figure out this simple one.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by samba

How about this straightforward event...

Man with criminal past breaks into a cottage and murders someone while in the midst of a robbery....then flees the country. There's been lots of contortions trying to figure out this simple one.

And sexually assaults her. And kills her with two knives. And has a crap without flushing. And fakes a break in. And causes multiple bruises and cuts. And......And.....

Sorry, the lone wolf killer doesn't cut it.

[TomM43]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Well Treehorn, I think it's time to round up a few disparate threads and bring them all together.

Firstly the issue of whether or not (in your words) "Amanda and Rudy smoked dope together several times". I think we've been over the relevant part of Amanda's cross-examination and the relevant parts of the Massei report often enough now to see that there was never any factual basis for this claim whatsoever. There is in fact no evidence that Amanda and Rudy ever used drugs together. Do you now acknowledge this?

Secondly, you seemed to think that it was a huge problem both for myself personally and for the pro-innocence argument as a whole that you thought I had got the number of times Amanda and Rudy had met wrong. It turned out, of course, that I was perfectly correct (Amanda was at one party where Rudy was present, and spoke to him at that party according to one of Rudy's friends, and Amanda saw Rudy present at her place of work on one occasion. That's it).

Is this error on your part as devastating for the pro-guilt case and yourself personally, as the error you thought I had made was supposed to be for me personally? Or are there two sets of rules here, where you get to declare victory if you get one fact right that I get wrong, but you are allowed to make wildly mistaken claims and defend them with misleading citations and then skate away from it?

This error about Amanda's drug use led us on to the cross-examination technique issue. So thirdly Treehorn, do you accept that the cross-examination that so confused yourself and TomM43, which you two thought was Carlo Pacelli being outmanoeuvred by Knox, was in fact Carlo Pacelli carefully framing his questions to get the incriminating facts he wanted into court without asking Knox directly if she ever shared drugs with Rudy Guede, or used drugs at the one party where she and Rudy Guede were present?

(There's a curious symmetry here... earlier you seemed to think that the maxim that one should never ask a question that you did not know the answer to was a rule for discussion in general, not a specific rule for risk-averse cross-examination. Then when you came across an example of a lawyer doing exactly this, it slipped past you completely and you and TomM43 thought Amanda was outwitting Pacelli and the court).

Moving swiftly on from the question of how two people who say they are lawyers have no idea how cross-examination actually works, almost like two bad students cribbing from each other in an exam, I think what well want to know is:

Do you have a coherent theory of the crime?

What do you think the most compelling pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito are? How strongly does each influence your final view of the likelihood of their guilt? Can you give us a (not necessarily unique) set of incriminating evidence sufficient to get you personally to >50% belief in their guilt?

Your post is a prime example of why teachers don't let their pupils grade their own papers.

Bye!

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by lionking

And sexually assaults her.

Yes, don't see a problem with that scenario

Quote:

And kills her with two knives.

Not demonstrated.

Quote:

And has a crap without flushing.

Well, I can see how an extra person would be necessary for this to happen. Oh wait, no I can't.

Quote:

And fakes a break in.

Not demonstrated.

Quote:

And causes multiple bruises and cuts.

Yes, seems feasible also.

Quote:

And......And.....

That all you got?

Quote:

Sorry, the lone wolf killer doesn't cut it.

Seems like it does!

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Yes, don't see a problem with that scenario



Not demonstrated.



Well, I can see how an extra person would be necessary for this to happen. Oh wait, no I can't.



Not demonstrated.




Yes, seems feasible also.



That all you got?


Seems like it does!

So you believe Rudy did it alone?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Yes, don't see a problem with that scenario



Not demonstrated.



Well, I can see how an extra person would be necessary for this to happen. Oh wait, no I can't.



Not demonstrated.



Yes, seems feasible also.



That all you got?



Seems like it does!

Lone wolves always leave only one bruise and one cut Matthew....

[loverofzion]

Originally Posted by samba

How about this straightforward event...

Man with criminal past breaks into a cottage and murders someone while in the midst of a robbery....then flees the country. There's been lots of contortions trying to figure out this simple one.

You forget there was evidence attesting to more than one murderer; plus the DNA of your darlings was found; plus they were caught flat out lying and contradicting themselves.

Not so simple after all.

[lionking]

BTW my comments were directed at samba who makes no mention of the details of the assault on Meredith.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

Lone wolves always leave only one bruise and one cut Matthew....

Oh. I wish someone would have explained that to me earlier.

Now I must look quite the fool....

[lionking]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

Lone wolves always leave only one bruise and one cut Matthew....

So you believe it was Rudy alone despite the evidence to the contrary?

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

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

Don't these 3 kinda stick out when you consider Guede's claims, that Meredith was killed by someone else. Bloody tissue near the crime scene and one in the yard.

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by lionking

So you believe it was Rudy alone despite the evidence to the contrary?

You actually believe that multiple wounds is evidence to the contrary? I'd love to see the treatise that says a single assailant can't inflict multiple wounds and bruises. And then I would burn it.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

You actually believe that multiple wounds is evidence to the contrary? I'd love to see the treatise that says a single assailant can't inflict multiple wounds and bruises. And then I would burn it.

With two different knives?

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by lionking

And sexually assaults her. And kills her with two knives. And has a crap without flushing. And fakes a break in. And causes multiple bruises and cuts. And......And.....

Sorry, the lone wolf killer doesn't cut it.

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.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Chris C

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, also says all the bruising could have been created by one person. No evidence was entered to prove a fake break in.

So Rudy alone then? Nobody else involved?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by lionking

With two different knives?

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?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by HumanityBlues

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.

I'm trying to establish if you think Rudy used two knives. Is that a rational belief?

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by lionking

I'm trying to establish if you think Rudy used two knives. Is that a rational belief?

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.

[samba]

Originally Posted by lionking

I'm trying to establish if you think Rudy used two knives. Is that a rational belief?

What two knives?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by samba

What two knives?

That's what the court decided. Do you contest this?

[samba]

Originally Posted by lionking

That's what the court decided. Do you contest this?

The court had to decide that. It didn't fit with the size of the wounds (which easily could have been made by one smaller knife) and the bloody print.

see what I mean by contortions?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by samba

The court had to decide that. It didn't fit with the size of the wounds (which easily could have been made by one smaller knife) and the bloody print.

see what I mean by contortions?

Oh a conspiracy then. Good to know.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by loverofzion

You forget there was evidence attesting to more than one murderer; plus the DNA of your darlings was found; plus they were caught flat out lying and contradicting themselves.

Not so simple after all.

What evidence? Yep they found Knox dna in her apartment, Wow thats a huge discovery. The prosecution experts, police and witnesses were caught lying and the prosecution's own witnesses were contradicting the prosecutions theory.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by lionking

That's what the court decided. Do you contest this?

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.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by lionking

So Rudy alone then? Nobody else involved?

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.

[snook1]

Originally Posted by Mary_H

Justinian, the link takes us to a page with a number of videos. Which one in particular did you have in mind?

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.

[colonelhall]

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.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL

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/

RWVBWL

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.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by colonelhall

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.

Well that goes both ways. Apparently the new judge has serious concerns about the conviction of Sollecito and Knox.

[Chris C]

Originally Posted by Magister

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.

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.