Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Fulcanelli]

I joined this site to discuss this case because I find it to be one of the only forums on the matter which has a divided opinion thus making the discussion more balanced and interesting.

I don't understand why you think that joining the site just to discuss this case means that the mentality of the site as a whole is not a factor.

Also, I do think ILE have made some mistakes. That does NOT mean that I believe the entire Italian system is corrupt or defunct. It means that I think the Perugia forces were ill equipped to handle the case as any LE in a smaller town are. They simply do not have the experience and so errors are common.

Also, not everyone here is from the US and therefore are not necessarily even ABLE to be influenced by their press in the way that you suggest. I am from the UK where the press have actually been extremely disparaging of all the suspects and the Knox family have never appeared in our papers that I have seen.

So, when you state that things are not as they may seem, this goes for you as well as anyone else.

Because as you admit, you didn't join the site because you lauded it's ideals but because you wanted somewhere that would suit your needs to discuss this case specifically.

A actually agree with you, that the ILE may have made a mistake or two, that one or two things could have been done better or differently (some of those things though are only revealed in hindsight). That is the case in all complex murder investigations that involve a lot of evidence, multiple crime scenes and require multiple investigative departments working together. However, there is a difference between that and then leaping to say the whole case is invalid.

Do people here have to be from the US to be influenced by their media or their supporters? This is the Web. The links to US media articles (and advocacy sites) are pasted all over the Web, are inserted into discussion boards, come up in Google searches. Peoples location doesn't matter anymore.

The Knox family have appeared in UK papers quite a lot. Indeed, the suit for defamation against them is from an interview with them for an English newspaper. Didn't you know that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The thing that I find odd about that is that surely if they were hanging around there they would just go to AK's flat?

It seems bizarre to hang around outside where they could be seen/overheard in the cold November night when they could just sit in AK's room and wait for a call from Rudy.

Not if they were waiting for Rudy. Or/and they were waiting to see if Meredith was walking home...from somewhere that she wouldn't see them.

They couldn't be heard on the bench, they were in a secluded area of the park which was empty aside from Curatolo. And like I pointed out before, tramps tend to be invisible or/and discounted by people. But in any case, why should they have cared if anyone saw them? Nobody is claiming they were actually planning to murder Meredith. In which case, they had no reason to care about being seen.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, I cannot emphasise enough how unreliable that paper is...

As a rule of thumb, I tend to go by the journalist that writes the article, rather then the publication itself. For example, Nick Pisa articles will appear in the Daily Mail (along with other publications) as he's freelance and his reporting has been quite good. He also speaks Italian and has actually attended the hearings, which also counts for a lot.

 

[Sonata]

Because as you admit, you didn't join the site because you lauded it's ideals but because you wanted somewhere that would suit your needs to discuss this case specifically.

A actually agree with you, that the ILE may have made a mistake or two, that one or two things could have been done better or differently (some of those things though are only revealed in hindsight). That is the case in all complex murder investigations that involve a lot of evidence, multiple crime scenes and require multiple investigative departments working together. However, there is a difference between that and then leaping to say the whole case is invalid.

Do people here have to be from the US to be influenced by their media or their supporters? This is the Web. The links to US media articles (and advocacy sites) are pasted all over the Web, are inserted into discussion boards, come up in Google searches. Peoples location doesn't matter anymore.

The Knox family have appeared in UK papers quite a lot. Indeed, the suit for defamation against them is from an interview with them for an English newspaper. Didn't you know that?

:floorlaugh: You do realise that a site suiting my needs with regards to this case was selected BECAUSE of the ideals and ethos? The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact are inextricably linked in my mind. And since it is my mind you were discussing in that instance, you can take this as a primary resource.

The Knox family have hardly been in the UK press at all. And yes, it makes a vast difference where you are despite the internet. I only came to this case in detail 2 years after the murder, so my initial opinions were heavily influenced by UK press as opposed to international press. Just because we have the internet does not mean that we access international press as easily as our own national press. How many non italian, uk or us articles have you read on the case? You have to know where to look and actively do so whereas the local press is in your face in bulk on a day to day basis.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What did the Carabinieri do to cause the UK tabloid to make up a story to go with the picture?

otto,

How did releasing this picture to the press further the investigation?

 

[Fulcanelli]

So we should dismiss the work of one of the foremost researchers in false confessions just because a link to his work can be found on a pro-innocence site? That, precisely, makes no sense.

Yes, but because it does not apply to Amanda Knox. Simply because the she does not fit the profile, but more importantly, because false confessions are revealed to be so only because the evidence later proves the individual had no part in the crime. In this case, the evidence has proven Knox guilty of the crime and so it is not a false confession, rather it was simply a (partial) lie she told to try and save her backside. So, we can dismiss the false confession claptrap.

 

[Sonata]

As a rule of thumb, I tend to go by the journalist that writes the article, rather then the publication itself. For example, Nick Pisa articles will appear in the Daily Mail (along with other publications) as he's freelance and his reporting has been quite good. He also speaks Italian and has actually attended the hearings, which also counts for a lot.

If you happen to know about the journalist then that's great for you. As a whole, I find the Mail extremely unreliable and I do not like the ethos of a paper that is willing to repeatedly publish unreliable information.

I would still advise people to stay away from it as much as possible.

 

[Sonata]

Not if they were waiting for Rudy. Or/and they were waiting to see if Meredith was walking home...from somewhere that she wouldn't see them.

They couldn't be heard on the bench, they were in a secluded area of the park which was empty aside from Curatolo. And like I pointed out before, tramps tend to be invisible or/and discounted by people. But in any case, why should they have cared if anyone saw them? Nobody is claiming they were actually planning to murder Meredith. In which case, they had no reason to care about being seen.

Well in that case what are you suggesting they were waiting for? You think they were waiting outside for Meredith so that she wouldn't see them for what purpose? Or waiting for Guede for what purpose?

I fail to understand why they would want to wait outside for people that were coming to AK's flat for which she had the keys. Why not just wait in the flat for either MK or RG?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's relevant because it shows a balanced argument - those who argue that the 'Knox family PR machine' has influenced the public's views of Amanda should also note that the release of these pictures without specific and clear explanation does the mirror opposite.

It might not be relevant to the trial process itself, but people do seem to discuss the press in this trial a lot. And yes, it is fascinating and relevant on a human level.

Not really, since your example (the photos) does not point to the guilt or innocence of any specific individual. Whereas, the Knox PR campaign has been very specific, constant and strident and frankly, dwarfs anything that may have been released to the media by the ILE or other sources.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

She didn't bring up a non-existent telephone call, the telephone call happened. Just because she made a general reference to the time of it (midday) instead of saying its exact time, does not mean it can then be argued that she was referring to a non-existent call.

However, you seem to have no problem with Raffaele referring to non-existent computer activity, or Amanda referring to non-existent deep conversations about suicided mothers and school bullying, long showers with ear cleaning. long bouts of love making and the rest of the huge list of things they either claimed they did and never happened, or claimed they did but actually happened many hours earlier.

The call was around 12:45 PM in Perugia, which is 4:45 AM in Seattle. Comodi made it as noon in Perugia and 3 AM in Seattle. Did Comodi have access to Amanda's phone records and Google? If yes, then what is her excuse for pushing the time of the call forward by nearly two hours? Do you have one scintilla of proof that the things you listed in your second paragraph did not happen?

 

[Sonata]

Not really, since your example (the photos) does not point to the guilt or innocence of any specific individual. Whereas, the Knox PR campaign has been very specific, constant and strident and frankly, dwarfs anything that may have been released to the media by the ILE or other sources.

It paints a substantially different view of the crime which would influence people's emotional and contextual paradigm. It is significant.

 

[RoseMontague]

That was because the scratch is only visible under intense light. She had to shine a lamp on it to find it.

Her testimony seems to me to be somewhat evasive on this issue: (Google translation)

Q. - But the argument I heard terms to clarify the contradiction that I caught a small observation of the knife, she begins, but I was very correct, "clearly visible", but then I remember his motion at the preliminary hearing says "this ...", the question is this: when she says "Well see the blade of the knife" - we talk about the knife seizure - because then he added with great accuracy that he could see scratches in the place where ... "Only ..." so she said "Only a corner under the light ...."
ANSWER - Yes.



Q. - But the eye, if I have a knife here I see the scratch?
ANSWER - If not well ...

Q. - Besides finding that, okay, but calmly ask if I have this knife scratch I see here? ANSWER - If it is not well lit, no.
Q. - Why do the experts appointed by the GIP evidence of the incident have said yes, it was packed but the professor was so ... (it seems to say: Umaionti) for all three, then brought her finding someone or ...
ANSWER - Yes, yes, they wanted to acquire it ...

PRESIDENT - (Unintelligible it off microphone).

QUESTION - The question is this: when you say "clearly visible to the naked eye", ie the eye, refers to this system say the angle under a bright light?
ANSWER - Yes.

Q. - And I modestly say here if I have a knife to scratch ... because I see half a meter or a meter scratch I see?
ANSWER - I do not know, depends on the ability to say ... PRESIDENT - (Unintelligible it off microphone).
ANSWER - I do not think you can see, but then you know the view is a very individual.
Q. - I have done a simple question: at a distance of half a meter or a meter you ...
ANSWER - You probably do not see.

You would think that she would look at it under the scope. I don't understand why this was not done.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hmmm. I didn't expect to get a cite for they lied or that they found DNA. Hopefully we will get the transcript soon. Here are a few of the article quotes you provided:



There is no dispute there are samples and traces on the knife, just that if there was DNA found.

Here is one you quoted from Maresca:



That seems pretty clear that even Maresca is not saying they lied or that they found DNA on the blade of the knife.

Here is one from the defense expert you quoted:



Here is one from Comodi you quoted:



All of these seem to indicate not that there was DNA found just that the prosecution is awishin and ahopin something will be found in that starch that might show some DNA. I don't see anything calling C&V liars from the experts or the prosecution either, which is the other cite I asked you for.

Perhaps when we get the transcripts this will become more clear. In the meantime I believe you have failed to support your claims.

I've given you the cite Rose. Simply go to PMF (net) in the main discussion thread there, on the date of last Monday morning and go through the posts over Monday and Tuesday. Skimming will easily and quickly reveal ALL the Italian news bulletins (they are clearly marked out) relayed out straight from the hearings almost as they happened. They are all translated (in one form or another) and include the links to the original article. You will find in doing that, a blow by blow account of what was testified to and argued in each hearing as the day progressed. They are the closest thing you are going to get to actual transcripts.

There is no dispute (now) that DNA was found on the blade as it was revealed in court that it was. C & V didn't bother extracting a profile from it, which they could have done. Therefore, what is in dispute is whether the blade should be examined so a profile can be extracted from that DNA. You need to read more articles. I've told you where they all are.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Daily Mail came to their own conclusion, that's not down to the ILE.

And in fact, it's not really incorrect, since that stuff in the bathroom is a presumptive blood test and turns pink in the presence of blood...so, it is highlighting blood that is actually there.

The Kastle-Meyer test uses the oxidation of phenolthalin (colorless) to phenolthalein (pink), which the pseudoperoxidase activity of hemoglobin can catalyze (with hydrogen peroxide as the oxidant). However, if you leave the Kastle-Meyer reagent in the air too long, oxygen from the atmosphere will bring about the oxidation on its own. If this test and photograph had any value as evidence of blood, it would have been introduced at the trial, being the strongest evidence of a cleanup. The fact that it was not introduced at the trial suggests that ILE knew that the pink color was meaningless.
ETA
More on presumptive versus confirmatory testing here.

 

[Fulcanelli]

At least that genuine photo was not presented in court as being anwhere close to reality. Here is the one Stefanoni presented:

It was in the evidence file that was in the possession of the court and considered by the court. And not being in court yourself, I don't think you you can be certain which specific item was definitely not presented.

 

[Fulcanelli]

According to the appeal documents too low could mean either under 10 picograms or that there is no DNA at all.

I don't think that was the point the poster was trying to make (they were referring to specific peaks, rather then the actual sample). I'm suspecting, that they meant the peaks they were referring to, were below 50 rfu, but I don't want to put words in their mouth...which was why I asked exactly what they meant.

 

[Fulcanelli]

:floorlaugh: You do realise that a site suiting my needs with regards to this case was selected BECAUSE of the ideals and ethos? The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact are inextricably linked in my mind. And since it is my mind you were discussing in that instance, you can take this as a primary resource.

The Knox family have hardly been in the UK press at all. And yes, it makes a vast difference where you are despite the internet. I only came to this case in detail 2 years after the murder, so my initial opinions were heavily influenced by UK press as opposed to international press. Just because we have the internet does not mean that we access international press as easily as our own national press. How many non italian, uk or us articles have you read on the case? You have to know where to look and actively do so whereas the local press is in your face in bulk on a day to day basis.

If you say so.

The Knox family have been in the UK press quite a lot. I know I haven't been seeing things these past four years.

So, you came to the case with opinions that were 'influenced'...then you changed your opinions (I'm assuming) on researching it some. If people are interested in the case they will look into it more deeply. Those who are not interested in the case won't, but it doesn't matter what they think about it because they aren't interested in it. Get my point?

 

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

How did releasing this picture to the press further the investigation?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[Sonata]

If you say so.

The Knox family have been in the UK press quite a lot. I know I haven't been seeing things these past four years.

So, you came to the case with opinions that were 'influenced'...then you changed your opinions (I'm assuming) on researching it some. If people are interested in the case they will look into it more deeply. Those who are not interested in the case won't, but it doesn't matter what they think about it because they aren't interested in it. Get my point?

I get your point but I think it excludes both people who are less than intelligent and people who are stubborn/closed-minded. There are plenty of them about. Some people will only look into things that back up their opinions and tactically avoid or slam those that don't. That is one of the things I like about this thread - there is such a mix of opinion that even if you disagree with someone you are confronted with the opposing view and all of its supporting evidence.

Yes, I was influenced. I had thought it was pretty clear cut that AK and RS were guilty and that it was merely a matter of tying up a few loose ends.

Are you UK based? Would be nice to have a fellow brit here

 

[RoseMontague]

I've given you the cite Rose. Simply go to PMF (net) in the main discussion thread there, on the date of last Monday morning and go through the posts over Monday and Tuesday. Skimming will easily and quickly reveal ALL the Italian news bulletins (they are clearly marked out) relayed out straight from the hearings almost as they happened. They are all translated (in one form or another) and include the links to the original article. You will find in doing that, a blow by blow account of what was testified to and argued in each hearing as the day progressed. They are the closest thing you are going to get to actual transcripts.

There is no dispute (now) that DNA was found on the blade as it was revealed in court that it was. C & V didn't bother extracting a profile from it, which they could have done. Therefore, what is in dispute is whether the blade should be examined so a profile can be extracted from that DNA. You need to read more articles. I've told you where they all are.

I see one article that says genetic traces and another that says traces. I think I'll go with the Wednesday quote from Maresca that says no DNA on the blade. All the quotes I gave you were from your site and on Wednesday which is more current than Monday and Tuesday.

I think you should consider making an edit to your blog posting. When I get the transcripts I will post it.