Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I honestly don't know, otto. Perhaps Allusonz will weigh in. She seems to understand these things better than I.
So bottom line: RS and AK DO have alibis, each other. Unfortunately for them, ILE got them both to make contradictory statements on the infamous "Night of a Thousand Statements" and so their alibis will always be doubted by some.
I for one find it very significant that RS returned to his alibi statement in support of AK. Given the paucity of forensic evidence, it might have served him greatly to continue to claim AK was gone for much of the night. And yet he declined to do so. I wonder why?
(It does not appear that AK and RS continue to be infatuated with one another.)
I hope everyone has had a look at the Injustice in Perugia site where the great Steve Moore, retired FBI guy, and expert on all aspects of the Knox case, has said "The tactics used in the documentary were unconscionable. For instance, a statement was made by Barbie Nadeau, a food critic-turned crime-writer for this trial"
Steve should do his homework before he opens his mouth ... and I'll let this stand as my reason for not taken this retired man seriously regarding anything that comes out of his mouth.
The difference is distance. There are some 80+ miles between Modesto and the Berkeley Marina, IIRC.
As you have pointed out to me, all the known events in MK's murder and the lives of the accused took place within a few blocks.
Regardless, Knox was pinpointed between two other towers, and not in Raffaele's apartment.
Neither to both questions, so what's your point?
Do you have a problem with people knowing which facts the movie misrepresented? Or would you rather people watch it and form an opinion based on things that never happened?
Thank you very much, fred.
So the basic trajectory of RS' statements more or less matches that of AK's statements:
1. Rock solid alibi.
2. Bends to pressure of interrogation.
3. Accuses someone else.
4. Returns to alibi.
As with AK, the sequence is entirely consistent with someone dealing poorly with the pressure of interrogation.
Perhaps it's also consistent with a guilty suspect lying badly, but it's harder for me to follow the train of thinking if that was the case.
{mod snip}
Steve Moore has a point. Barbie Nadeau has made several factual errors, as I've already listed. Candace Dempsey has not.
Steve Moore has a point. Barbie Nadeau has made several factual errors, as I've already listed. Candace Dempsey has not.
There was a part in the movie that showed Raffaele secretly calling the Carabinieri after the postal police had arrived. That action and the timeline surrounding it doesnt make much sense.
They want us to believe that the postal police arrived at around 12:30 and were there for a full 30-40 minutes before Filomena and the rest arrive and the decision was made to break down the door. This is an awfully long time for the postal poilice to be standing around a break-in without notifying anyone.
It is makes much more sense that Raffaele calls his sister, then the Caribinieri- like he said. A couple minutes later the postal police arrive to find AK and RS waiting outside. Why else would they just be sitting outside waiting if they had not already called?
They give a tour of the scene for a few minutes til an alarmed Filomena arrives, the situation is reviewed again about the robbery, the phones, and the locked door, and a few minutes after that the body is discovered. So a total of 10-20min from arrival to discovery, not 30-40 as is implied by the prosecution.
Anyone know how this was addressed by the defense? Seems that with the CCTV footage (and proving the time stamps were slow) it should have been relatively easy to debunk.
oh you mean the gps that tells you to take a right and it turns out to be a cliff.....thanks but think i will pass
i have enough foot and mouth disease without help from a gps :floorlaugh:
Isn't it Dempsey that did the article about the inaccuracies you posted earlier? I think it was, but I don't want to go back to check.
I have a question, whoever wrote the article. She said that the police did NOT see any footprints, only a shoe print from Rudy. So what are the pictures we have been looking at in earlier posts? They look like foot prints to me, not shoe prints?
I'll go back and look at the article and post the quote, so maybe someone can explain it to me. BRB,
Salem
ETA: here is the quote:
13. Lifetime police see footprints outlined in luminol immediately at the scene and conclude the break-in was staged. In real life, they found no footprints in the murder room, only Rudy’s bloody shoe prints. Cops do not test or analyze evidence at the scene. They arrested Amanda before the tests even came back.
Here is the link again: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/22/amanda-knox-movie-flunks-truthiness-101/
And yes - it is Dempsey
Isn't it Dempsey that did the article about the inaccuracies you posted earlier? I think it was, but I don't want to go back to check.
I have a question, whoever wrote the article. She said that the police did NOT see any footprints, only a shoe print from Rudy. So what are the pictures we have been looking at in earlier posts? They look like foot prints to me, not shoe prints?
I'll go back and look at the article and post the quote, so maybe someone can explain it to me. BRB,
Salem
ETA: here is the quote:
13. Lifetime police see footprints outlined in luminol immediately at the scene and conclude the break-in was staged. In real life, they found no footprints in the murder room, only Rudy’s bloody shoe prints. Cops do not test or analyze evidence at the scene. They arrested Amanda before the tests even came back.
Here is the link again: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/22/amanda-knox-movie-flunks-truthiness-101/
And yes - it is Dempsey
here is another one Salem there are actually quite a few of them
http://injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html
ETA: Stephanoni stated on the stand that she did not test these for blood and it turned out in fact that they were tested. This was some of the information that the defense of both AK and RG were trying to get from the prosecution
oh i see what the confusion is
some footprints were in blood but none attributed to AK or RS
there were footprints detected with luminol which were tested for blood but were negative (obviously these could not be seen by the naked eye)
Isn't it Dempsey that did the article about the inaccuracies you posted earlier? I think it was, but I don't want to go back to check.
I have a question, whoever wrote the article. She said that the police did NOT see any footprints, only a shoe print from Rudy. So what are the pictures we have been looking at in earlier posts? They look like foot prints to me, not shoe prints?
I'll go back and look at the article and post the quote, so maybe someone can explain it to me. BRB,
Salem
ETA: here is the quote:
13. Lifetime police see footprints outlined in luminol immediately at the scene and conclude the break-in was staged. In real life, they found no footprints in the murder room, only Rudy’s bloody shoe prints. Cops do not test or analyze evidence at the scene. They arrested Amanda before the tests even came back.
Here is the link again: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/02/22/amanda-knox-movie-flunks-truthiness-101/
And yes - it is Dempsey