Saturday, February 19, 2011
February Updates
Eric Volz’s blog has added an interview with Professor Greg Hampikian, one of the two coauthors of the open letter covering the bra clasp and knife. Dr. Hampikian, of Boise State University, is the director of the Idaho Innocence Project. Lifetime is premiering a movie this Monday, “Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy.” Edda Mellas and Curt Knox, Amanda’s parents, have been indicted for libel. Professor Alan Dershowitz mentioned their indictment in an interview in La Stampa. A translation of what he said is “I love Italy, but in recent times you have made the freedom of expression very weak: the Italian government heavily influences the media and they charged the parents of Amanda Knox, guilty only of having made a public expressing opinions on the process of Perugia, however, tainted by legitimate concerns. On the ground of protection of freedom of the press is not giving Italy a great example.” Update: Another tranlsation can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nice to see Eric Volz supporting Amanda's innocence. Thanks for the updates.
I keep trying to post this and getting a response saying it has been posted, yet it fails to materialize - with that having been said, I'll try instead to post it in two parts...
Reply to Chris Halkides (part 1)
Actually, there was nothing vague, carefully or otherwise - it is a lengthy amount of material, and one would surmise that you already know the details, otherwise how could you discuss them - something borne out by the fact that your knowledge allowed you to name one of the witnesses - Curatolo.
There is no premise to assume that Curatolo's addictions (if that's true) means that he didn't see what he saw. The fact that you subjectively feel he has no credibility is simply an opinion. That's something like saying a prostitute witnessed a murder, but we shouldn't believe her because she's a prostitute. The other witness is the gentleman who owns the store where he saw Amanda waiting outside his shop first thing in the morning, (around 7:00 a.m.?), despite her saying neither she nor Rafaelle left the house until mid-morning. Another witness is Rafaelle's father - part of their alibi is that late in the evening around 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. is when they ate dinner and had the water spill after dinner - R's father said he phoned them about 8:30 pm or so, and that his son told him about the water spill having already occurred at that time - his son therefore mentioned it to him about 2 and half hours before it occurred, according to their statements. This contradicts the stories of Amanda and Rafaelle both.
Further to your suggestion about being vague regarding phone and computer records, there is more to these records than just the computer - their cell phones record times and dates when they were active - contradicting their statements about being in Rafaelle's home and asleep - It seems unlikely that one can both activate and use a cell phone while asleep. As for the computer, let's say it is proven to have had human interaction at the time of the murder - that might then correlate with one of Rafaelle's statements that he was surfing the net the night of the murder until Amanda came to his place from hers at about one in the morning - accordingly, that may clear Rafaelle but in turn it removes Amanda's alibi about how she was at Rafaelle's all night. You appear to be avoiding these details. This also contradicts your sentence about Amanda and Rafaelle both being at Rafaelle's place at the time of the murder - now here is one of the accused/convicted persons saying that Amanda was not at home with him while the murder was being committed, and that she did not come home until one in the morning.
You mention Rudy changing his story, but you avoid mentioning how many times Amanda and Rafaelle changed theirs. You have said that Rudy has something to gain, but you avoid saying what that is - what does he have to gain? Unless your following sentences about what people might believe is what you think he will gain, which is not any kind of gain at all.
okay, I guess it was a size thing, they appear to be posting now...
Reply to Chris Halkides (part 2)
Speaking of being vague, I noticed you did not address the conflicting information provided by Amanda and Rafaelle - Rafaelle himself saying that Amanda was not at home with him. Then - as you would say - they changed their story more often than Elizabeth Taylor has been married. Innocent people do not need to make up stories, falsely accuse someone else, or keep changing their stories.
I make no implication about a technicality despite whatever inferences you may subjectively draw - I state clearly that many people seem to believe that excluding the DNA evidence means that all the rest of the evidence is of no probative value, and of course that is not true. As for the DNA, it was hashed out in court and collection and examination procedures were described in detail - of course everyone thinks that the DNA for Rudy was just fine, but for Amanda and Rafaelle suddenly it was done wrong.
In a telephone intercept, even Amanda's own mother questions Amanda about he she knew certain facts and was able to say them to her mother, before the matter was discovered to be a murder. How's that for a witness?
Post a Comment