special muppet's Comments (994)

“Word.”

“"He also remembered that it was raining, which it wasn't the night of the murder. Do we need a primer on how unreliable witness testimony that comes out months later can be?"

No that was a different witness, Hekuran Kokomani.

This guy Curatolo was also able to accurately describe the CSIs arriving the next day.”

“Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man, identified Knox and Sollecito as being in Piazza Grimana, visible from the crime scene, from between 9:30-11pm and again at midnight on the night of the murder.”

“Knox: "We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house."

The Prosecution say that the hard drive showed the movie Amelie had been watched at 6:30pm. Which is consistent with the statement given by Knox. The movie would therefore have finished long before the murder.

Knox: "I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email."

This email supposed email activity could have been easily proved by logs from the ISP or email provider without the need for the hard drive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html”

“"So far only Mr Sollecito's computer has been subjected to tests, following his claim that he spent the evening and night of the murder at his flat surfing the net and downloading films."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182307.stm”

“The prosecution presented their own evidence that the computers had not been used for about a 12 hour period on the night of the murder.

Those who believe Knox to be innocent cite damage to the computers as something that could have proved her innocence, and some have even suggested that it was a case of police deliberately destroying evidence.

When most people use the internet, they do the things they habitually do. So if I were in Knox's position, claiming to have been so stoned that I couldn't accurately remember anything I had done the night before, I'd have told them to check the logs on the sites I regularly visit, my email account and Messenger.

Her legal team, consisting of some of the best lawyers in Italy who have represented ex-prime ministers and top politicians, did not pursue this. Therefore, one can only assume that the claimed internet activity, and therefore the alibi, was just another one of Knox's lies.”

“I'd tell the truth.”

“It's all very relevant. It would take a pretty unusual pathology to have committed the crime as put forward by the prosecution. It is highly relevant, therefore, that Knox had demonstrated some very strange behavior, consistent with the nature of the crime.

In itself, it is of course not proof of guilt, but it's an important piece of the puzzle.”

“Someone mentioned that if the Italian police hadn't destroyed the hard drives on their computers, it could have exonerate them. The Italian police deny it, but let's say it's true.

Why not simply mention some web sites they had visited during that time? Their IP address would have been logged on most web sites for statistical purposes. If they had logged into a webmail service like Hotmail, it would have been recorded. If they had sent or read mail, it would have been been logged.

It's pretty difficult to spend an evening on the internet, which was what Knox said she did at Sollecito's apartment that night, without leaving a trace.”

“This kind of nonsense really annoys me.”

“We should distinguish between witness statements, physical and forensic evidence, actual testimony etc and hypothesis... I agree.

We should also distinguish between actual evidence presented in court and allegations made in the media. Obviously that means knowing the source of the information. Translated transcripts from the courtroom are not the same as gossip and anonymously sourced allegations.

Knox did not testify that she had been mistreated by the police. These allegations were made by Knox's parents, for which they are now being sued. Likewise there have appeared various allegations in the European media which were again, nothing more than allegations. They were not presented as evidence.

When Knox finally took the stand, she reverted to her original witness statement, and testified that she was at Sollecito's house on the night of the murder. Sollecito did not take the stand, but his official statement was that she had left that night at 9:00pm. Those are facts, not gossip, but actual testimony to the court. Therefore, neither person had an alibi.

You tell me, how this trial could have gone any other way?”

“It is totally consistent with the facts, unlike the case for the defense.

Are you even aware that Knox's defense was that he was with her boyfriend, and his defense was that she wasn't???

Of course it is a hypothesis, because none of the defendants have told the truth about what happened.

In lieu of any truth from the defendants, the prosecution presented what he believed to have happened. There is nothing unusual about this. It happens all the time in US courtrooms.

What makes it compelling, is that the defense was unable to provide evidence to contradict ANYTHING that he said.”

“That sounds like absolute rubbish to me. I'm no forensic scientist, but I've done my fair share of tiling. It's not easy to remove a floor tile without breaking it.

What the Italians did sounds totally reasonable. Take a photo with a ruler next to it, then mop up the evidence and put it in a bag for DNA testing. I see absolutely no advantage in lifting the tile, especially as the footprints most likely spanned more than one tile.

Those footprints were all Meredith's blood. All the ones with bare feet belonged to Knox and her boyfriend.”

“"Mignini proceded to descibe a blow-by-blow recreation of the murder."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/amanda-knox-summations-focus-break/story?id=9136104&page=2”

“Either there was a lawyer present the whole time as the police say, or there wasn't. It should be pretty easy to prove either way. If there was a lawyer present, then there could have been no slap, no coercion, no threats.

The police are pursuing it through the courts, so that would indicate that they are pretty confident about what the truth of the situation is.”

“How can you deny it? It boggles my mind. The case for the prosecution was watertight. The case for the defense was gibberish. She did it.”

“"The point is that everyone piles on Amanda for inconsistencies in her story, but no criticizes Guede for changing his..."

That's because Knox is the one who actually stabbed Meredith to death. Knox was the one who organized Meredith being raped. She was the one who covered it up. She was the one who accused an innocent man.

She deserve some especially hard criticism.”

“Completely irrelevant. There has been probably more nonsense written in the press about this trial case than any since OJ Simpson. Any "news" that comes from anonymous sources should be considered as nothing more than gossip.

None of this was presented as evidence during the trial. None of what you mention was used to present a case against Knox or convict her. However, the evidence that was presented was absolutely compelling.”

“Yes. Previously they could not accuse each other of the crime, because all three were party to the murder. However, now they have all been convicted, it is quite possible that Guede may tell the truth about what happened in return for a lighter sentence.

Should be interesting to see what happens.”

“The source of the stories about Knox's mistreatment at the hands of the Italian police came from her parents. The police maintain that none of these stories are true and are suing the Knox family for libel.

You can't blame the Knox family for trying to protect their daughter by claiming that Knox's wildly conflicting statements were a result of mistreatment by the police. The problem is that most European countries have very tough defamation laws. If you accuse someone of doing something then you better have proof. The truth will come out in the libel trial.

Even then I'm sure that there will be people who STILL refuse to believe that Knox is guilty. Oh well.”

“Utter nonsense.”

“One of the biggest lies being perpetuated by those who believe Knox to be innocent is that she was interrogated for many hours (40 or more) continuously and without at lawyer being present. This is completely untrue. The only time Knox was interviewed without a lawyer was a two hour interview as a material witness, not a suspect. After that, a lawyer was always present.

The Italian police are suing Knox's family for libel over this.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/143042/Police-sue-Foxy-s-parents-for-libel-over-abuse-claims-”

“I don't know what you mean by that. I'm glad Knox is serving her time in an Italian prison and not an American one. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.”

“The police were contacted by a woman who found 2 of Meredith's cell phones in her garden. They traced the phones Meredith's house. When the police arrived at Meredith's house standing outside it were Knox and her boyfriend holding a mop and bucket. Under interrogation with lawyers present, both had different explanations for the mop. A burst pipe or spilled pasta.

The police entered the building, finding a broken window that had fallen onto what appeared to them to be a staged break-in.

Meredith's door was locked. Knox told the police that this was usual because Meredith always locked her door. Then Meredith's other room mate arrived and told the police that something was wrong because Meredith NEVER locked her door. Her boyfriend broke the door down to discover Meredith's body.

All of Meredith's friends and associates were questioned. All of them could account for their movements on the night of the murder. None of them complained of harassment by the police. Knox said she was with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend made various claims that he was surfing the net, that computer experts proved to be false. Confronted with the evidence he denied that Knox had been with him that night. Told that her alibi had changed his story, Knox pointed the finger at an innocent man. She said she did it because of police harassment. When a witness came forward with an alibi for this man, Knox changed her story again.... etc etc”

“Or why not read the judge's summing up... in Italian... obviously...

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750”