Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
JihadJane said:
Where have I claimed she can be trusted?

What criteria do you use to judge when she was telling the truth and when she wasn't?



Pure speculation.
Click to expand...

How is that speculation?

Sollecito claimed that Kercher pricked her finger on his knife while at his apartment. We also know that Kercher never actually went to Sollecito's apartment. Why, oh why, would Sollecito lie about Kercher visiting his apartment and pricking her finger on the knife?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
How is that speculation?

Sollecito claimed that Kercher pricked her finger on his knife while at his apartment. We also know that Kercher never actually went to Sollecito's apartment. Why, oh why, would Sollecito lie about Kercher visiting his apartment and pricking her finger on the knife?
Click to expand...

I don't know and nor do you.



What criteria do you use to judge when Knox was telling the truth and when she wasn't?
 
No. As far as I can see it seems a bit of a lost cause to pursue "She said that", "She said this" arguments.
 
Matthew Best said:
What details about the disposition of the corpse did she know? What does Butterworth say?

Do you really think that the notion of somebody screaming while they're being stabbed to death falls under the rubric of "something only the killer could possibly know"? It seems like a reasonable guess on the part of the police that such a scream might have been made.
Click to expand...

Hi MB: This is now going off into conspiracy woo territory and I'm not sure either of us want to go there. I've now spent over 40 hours on the PMF site including a very rough translation of Micheli's 106-page sentencing of Mr Guede. How long have you spent?

I am only reiterating Ms Knox' testimony, the case set out at the trial, and the facts left undisputed by Ms Knox' own legal team. I agree with you that, indeed, a different interpretation could be made for each and every individual piece or statement. So why wasn't a big deal made out of them at her trial? Are we all smarter than her own lawyers are?

Just as an example, I've always wondered why Sollecito's defenders worried so much about putting Kercher in his apartment to get "pricked" by the murder weapon. If the DNA evidence (for one) is so weak then why should this matter?

I don't think it's up to me to re-read and bookmark each detail used in the prosecution's case. The case against the three is compelling even if you want to go over each individual detail.

As asked of anyone who holds "faith": What piece(s) of evidence would convince you that you were wrong? For me, the evidence as presented overturned my "faith" in the story as presented to me by the PR publicity machine stalking the Seattle media.
 
JihadJane said:
No. As far as I can see it seems a bit of a lost cause to pursue "She said that", "She said this" arguments.
Click to expand...

And that comes out very very clearly in her own testimony. All the questions (arguably even her own lawyers'!!) focussed on the distinctions among what Ms Knox said, what she 'dreamed', what she wrote, whether any of it was voluntary or coerced, and even what the distinctions among reality, imagination and this other 'dream state' were.

So what comes out of all this? Why, that Ms Knox lies and enters a 'dream state' when her version of the facts differs from the other evidence. That she changes her stories when presented with new evidence.

And that's also why this case is put together with more than just Ms Knox' own words.
 
A test is faulty or it isn't

BobTheDonkey said:
Then why, Chris, if the DNA evidence was so insufficient, did the Defense not use that in court? Why did the Defense not argue the veracity of the DNA evidence?

Rather than state "Hey, look, there's not enough valid DNA evidence because the sample was too small and the girls share a bathroom, etc" the Defense, in fact, verified the DNA evidence on the knife with Sollecito's testimony that it got there when Kercher used the knife. In other words Sollecito admitted that Kercher had come into contact with that particular knife, thus, the DNA evidence is valid. Further, we know that Kerver never went to Sollecito's apartment to leave traces of her DNA on the knife.


ETA: In other words, Sollecito had every reason to believe that Kercher's DNA was on the blade. If the DNA evidence was corrupt, it wouldn't matter. Sollecito's testimony puts the knife in play because we know that he admits it had been in contact with her and we know that she never went to his apartment to make that contact.
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey,

First, the reports I have read of the trial indicate that the defense did dispute the DNA evidence. I would have liked more details to indicate how the DNA evidence was discussed, but I think your first point is not entirely correct. Second, I believe you have made an error of logic in your second point. If a knife has no DNA but is subjected to a test that generates a false positive (for example, doing a LCN test in an improperly equipped lab), then the result is wrong whether or not the individual in had previous contact.

Chris
 
JihadJane said:
No. As far as I can see it seems a bit of a lost cause to pursue "She said that", "She said this" arguments.
Click to expand...


I must be misunderstanding you.

I think you just said that Knox's various statements and their inconsistencies, along with any evidence that the statements themselves could be disproved by contradictory fact is irrelevant to establishing the case against her.

No wonder you're so convinced she's innocent. Apparently the only statements you find reliable are the ones made by her parents and their PR army.
 
bathroom

Fiona,

IIRC Guede left a bowel movement in the toilet from which DNA was extracted.

Chris
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

First, the reports I have read of the trial indicate that the defense did dispute the DNA evidence. I would have liked more details to indicate how the DNA evidence was discussed, but I think your first point is not entirely correct. Second, I believe you have made an error of logic in your second point. If a knife has no DNA but is subjected to a test that generates a false positive (for example, doing a LCN test in an improperly equipped lab), then the result is wrong whether or not the individual in had previous contact.

Chris
Click to expand...

My point is that regardless of the quality of the DNA evidence, Sollecito had no reason to believe it wasn't Kercher's DNA. Regardless of the DNA evidence (there didn't even need to be any, really), Sollecito claimed that Kercher pricked herself with the knife. Sollecito's testimony, therefore, puts the knife into play because he admits she had contact with it and further testimony shows she never was at his apartment/house. Due to his testimony, the DNA evidence on the knife is superfluous.
 
bra clasp

Fiona,

Photos from a video camera show that the bra was moved at least once in those forty-odd days and that it ended up lying next to a disheveled rug.

Chris
 
stilicho said:
<snip>

As asked of anyone who holds "faith": What piece(s) of evidence would convince you that you were wrong? For me, the evidence as presented overturned my "faith" in the story as presented to me by the PR publicity machine stalking the Seattle media.
Click to expand...


I mentioned this at the onset of this thread, but what started me on a journey of investigation was the clear, vehement bias of the presentation about the case in our national media.

If they hadn't tried so hard to warp nearly every word and phrase in such an obvious fashion I never would have thought twice about the idea that there were some problems with the trial which would be revealed in appeal.

It was the sheer, over-the-top desperation of the media blitz which set off my bullpucky alarm.

Even then I didn't begin with any sort of bias. Extensive review of multiple sources has framed my current opinion.

I must confess that my selection of sources has not gone through a filter which eliminates any that might contemplate the idea Knox is not entirely blameless in all regards. This prerequisite seems to be the technique required to arrive at the appropriate conclusion in the minds of some.
 
halides1 said:
Bob,

Can you explain what you mean by "puts the knife into play?"

Chris
Click to expand...

As in, the knife is tied to Kercher. Which, really, is all the DNA evidence does. Since Sollecito's testimony does the same thing, there's no need for the DNA evidence.
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey,

First, the reports I have read of the trial indicate that the defense did dispute the DNA evidence. I would have liked more details to indicate how the DNA evidence was discussed, but I think your first point is not entirely correct. Second, I believe you have made an error of logic in your second point. If a knife has no DNA but is subjected to a test that generates a false positive (for example, doing a LCN test in an improperly equipped lab), then the result is wrong whether or not the individual in had previous contact.

Chris
Click to expand...


I believe you miss the point.

Two points, actually.

One is that the quality of the DNA evidence on the knife is being held up by Knox advocates as one of the stellar, irrefutable examples of the incompetence and bias of the Italian courts, even though Knox/Sollecito's own defense made no effort at all to refute it. Quite the opposite. They tried to explain it away, which suggests that they, at least, did not recognize the incompetence or bias regarding this piece of evidence.

The other is that this very defense which contradicts the position of the Knox advocates is contradicted itself. It cannot be proven that Kercher ever was in Sollecito's apartment as he claims as his response to that DNA evidence. To the contrary, there is testimony that she was not, and support of the testimony demonstrating that it was unlikely that she would have been.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom