and you completely leave out the part about blood being on Raf's hands. this is why you should be banned.

I am wondering why Pfunk and FatTiny are arguing about Knox's statements again - especially when 239 does not share the same opinion on that topic.

239 does not contend there were any prejudicial procedural errors at trial. Because that is the case, he concedes that all of the statements allowed in from Knox were fine. Of course, those excluded were excluded and should not be subject to further debate (unless someone wants to argue such were improperly excluded) as they are irrelevant.

Again, FatTony and Pfunk are contributing only noise as they raise issues that even 239 does not support.

This is just painful. Why are these people allowed to post ITT?

The importance of the blood detail much like the importance of Raffaele stating Knox was wearing different clothing and her need for garbage bags is that these details are gratuitous and completely unnecessary. The inclusion of them in a narrative about something else only makes sense if their inclusion was intentional. Once you get to the point you have to consider why would someone volunteer unnecessary information and in this case the reason is obvious -- to make the other look guilty.

Reading your reasoning here I can't tell if you are being intentionally stupid or if you've just led a very sheltered life. Either way you can't read human interactions.

Pathological liars don't break down. They create increasingly unlikely and conflicting new lies as they get trapped. I dated one once. When their old worldview breaks down they instantly invent a new one, and lack the intelligence to understand the lack of internal logic. They are usually beautiful young women. Usually they get along fine, but their lies become particularly unhinged when they get tired or stressed, as you can read in that statement, or in her statement about holding her ears while her boss raped Meredith.

Knox is particularly bad as she was a pure hedonist (according to Raf) practiced only on stupid young men with little mental agility. She ran headfirst into experienced police and caved as soon as her co conspirator threw her under the bus, creating a new lie out of thin air about her boss raping Meredith and then trying to cover it with he statement the next morning and failing hilariously.

This is obvious to everyone but you.

Whether she did it because she was guilty, or just because she was a pathological liar and hedonist who wanted it all to go away, I do not know. Either way she is a fruitcake. There is no reading of that statement where she is innocent AND anywhere near normal, regardless of what the police did. This general fact is attested to by many people including Meredith's friend's.
You are an idiot with an opinion. Your mental faculties are fine, even good, but they're not arranged in such a way as to draw basic common sense conclusions from information that even stupid people can do. As such we waste a lot of time on 5th grade thinking when most people here have graduated university. This is what Das Boot is referring to as "painful". You can fix this by getting out more.

Yeah how is this not obvious? I mean everyone except PFUNK see this, right? Regardless of guilt or innocence?

You are still missing the point completely. I'm not talking about the statement's as a whole but the choice to voluntarily include superfluous details that are incriminating. The police never asked Raffaele if Knox borrowed plastic bags. The police never asked if Raffaele had blood on his hands. These are not details that you would normally include in a narrative. The inclusion is intentional by the person telling the story for a specific purpose -- to make the other person look guilty.

Like I said before I don't know if you've just led a sheltered life or if you are just really bad at reading people but this is a very common technique by narcissists when they lie.

You can't see how this all fits together?

1. The very odd and callous behavior after the murder.
2. The proven lie about Meredith always locking her door.
3. The nonsensical pattern of events leading up to the postal police arrival
4. Strange lack of memory of the night before that affected both of them, but clear specific unnecessary volunteered details
5. Significantly changed alibis of both parties, both voluntarily and under pressure
6. The fact that their phones were turned off at the same time and early, and the internet wasn't used all night. Both unusual compared to the last 30 days.
7. The fact that they apparently slept in until 10am (they claimed) despite that being unusual and being up at 6am by their phone & computer activity
8. Sollecito's first strange 112 call that goes so badly he hangs up
9. Knox's fingering of an innocent man, and failure to retract
10. Sollecito's concern about that particular knife of everything taken from his apartment
11. Sollecito's weird lie about a reason for it containing Kercher's DNA in a diary he knew would be read
12. Getting a mop and bucket the morning following a murder?

You don't see a pattern of behavior here? This is just a fraction of the behavioral evidence. On top of the behavioral evidence there are two DNA hits, a set of Knox's luminol footprints leading from the murder room, a bloody bathmath footprint matching Sollecito, substantial mixed Knox/victim DNA in multiple places, including bizarrely in the staged breakin room, strong evidence of a cleanup, and a break in that looks stage.

It's not hard to see why this proceeded to trial and why the judge and jury thought they were guilty and why Hellmann has recently been vacated by the Supreme Court with much criticism.

Does anyone have the actual confession that Amanda Knox signed? All I see are links to her rambling so confused, did I see a murder or didn't I no idea after the fact writing.

I'd really like to see what she signed, but I can't find it.

I don't think you need to have the same opinion, I just want to know why you think your line of "argument" is important and/or relevant even though 239 does not have an issue with that particular evidence.

Assuming there is any validity to your argument, exactly how was Amanda prejudiced by it?

1. Was any part of her testimony improperly allowed into evidence?

2. If so, what was it and how was she prejudiced by it?

3. If not, what point are you trying to make?

4. If this important in some other way, please explain how.

Plus

13) Knowing details of the murder that no one including the police knew at the time Knox knew them.

14) Lying about the existence of a pre-dawn call to her mother despite phone records. Mother lying about the content of that call

15) Intercepted call where Knox says she was there and can't lie about it. Knox-fan boys want to claim there is Raffaele's apartment making the statement really odd.

16) Acting like a teenage couple while at the police station waiting to give statements about roommates murder. Doesn't care at all and seems to be getting off on the suffering of Meredith's friends. Then when asked for fingerprints starts freaking out and hitting herself.

She signed this at 1:45pm

http://i.imgur.com/BxJ9A.jpg

then at 5:45 she signed this.

http://i.imgur.com/OuWaS.jpg

Yes AM.

No idea if she signed them in English or Italian. Not sure how it matters since she doesn't contest saying anything that the statements contained. She admits they are an accurate record of what she said.

It doesn't matter because whatever confusion she may or may not have had when she had time to think of the consequences of what she said had she doesn't deny that she said it. Do you understand the difference?

What exactly is 15? I'm not sure that I'm aware of an intercepted call.

Sorry should read. Intercepted jailhouse conversation.

Knox is talking to her family and basically says I was there so I can't lie. The dad tells her to shut up and not talk about that anymore then changes the conversation to another subject

The pro-Knox camp claims that "there" is Raffaele's apartment but then the statement about not being able to lie makes no sense.

I'll see if I can find the actual text. It is in this topic.

Ok, I remember that being mentioned.

I don't think I've seen the actual text, though.

Knox's confession has her meeting Patrick at Piazza Grimana. A witness saw Knox and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana and another witness saw them within 100 meters of Piazza Grimana.

Knox also says Meredith was raped. The police found out about the sexual assault Nov 7th -- two days after Knox included it in her fake account of what happened.

Neither of these are definitive and especially the sexual assault would have been a pretty good educated guess but putting yourself in a public place in a completely imaginary story where witnesses saw you is a bit stronger.

The importance of it is that it puts Knox further into the category of lying about alibi. There are people in US jails who have been convicted simply because they lied about their alibi. If I claim that I was home alone then I have a unconfirmed and unconfirmable alibi. If I say I was home alone but evidence puts me elsewhere I'm in trouble. If I get confronted with that evidence and change my story based on it I'm ****ed. Once you start changing your story your guilty and your only hope is to get a jury of ******s who don't realize the significance of this.

The confession is not even important compared to the other evidence so not sure why you think they built their case around it. Knox would have been arrested even if she had not confessed.

This if from Knox's prison diary. Must have been contemplating turning on Raffaele. Raffaele has a similar passage in his diary where he contemplates Knox doing it with a local drug dealer. I should compare the dates to see if they wrote this around the same time. Raffaele's lawyers originally wanted to turn on Knox.

maybe don't sign it then

Found it

He is not considered discredited. He is very clear that he saw them the night before the forensic police came. He will be considered a creditable witness at the next trial and his testimony will be accepted. Further, even if you consider him unreliable that doesn't address the second witness that saw her within 100 meters of the the square.

How was she coerced?

How much of it would you like?

Pfunk: again, please tell us which part of the interrogation testimony or any written confession was: 1) illegally obtained, AND 2) was presented to the jury.

I voted "There is reasonable doubt here and should be found not guilty."

It's kind of sick but when I first heard about this trial I wanted her to be guilty, just because it made the case so much more interesting and fascinating than a straight forward -black guy rapes and kills girl case. I believe it's like that for everyone else who wholeheartedly believes she and her ex are guilty, they just want to believe it. There isn't enough evidence to convince me. Rudi 100% killed her in my mind. I think he was in the house making himself at home or whatever, killed Meredith. If there was a break in staged then he staged it because he never came in that way.

Just my 2c, feel free to flame.

P.S Henry and 239, I'm truly in awe of how much you guys have posted in this thread, mother of god.jpg