Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

How about some good faith from you?

...

I also note that you haven't joined any other threads on JREF. As if you were here with an agenda instead of a polite discussion of the facts.

Fulcanelli definitely belongs here. Both Fiona and I had asked for some assistance from regulars at PMF (the people who have been following the case right from the date of the arrests) to help with some of the mistakes being offered up here as factual (my own included). It really helps to have someone familiar with the details of the case, and who has been following it through all kinds of media--both FOA-inspired and otherwise.

You may not recognise it, Kestrel, but almost every single thing you've brought up has been debated endlessly at PMF. The Marriott PR machine has done a beautiful job of seeding doubt in what otherwise would be a fairly ordinary murder conviction.

Finally, as the defence teams have discovered, you seem to have stumbled at presenting a believable alternate narrative to the prosecution theory. By ignoring everything except for what may support your opinion, you've fallen into the same chasm that they have. And this is why all three of the convicted are going to remain in an Italian prison for a very long time.

 

[Oliebol]

Yes, the bra was on and removed after death. There is forensic crime scene evidence that corroborates the fact.

The victim died leaning on her right soulder. Blood pooled under her soulder and dried. More importantly, the bra's right shoulder strap was completely impregnated with blood. The left shoulder strap had little blood evidence.Yet, the bra was found removed from her, at the feet of the victim.

'They did it' to simulate a rape scene.

Did the prosecution say how long after death the body was moved? I'd like to know if it was hours later or if it could have been something like ten minutes later as well.

 

[Dan O.]

The Marriott PR machine has done a beautiful job of seeding doubt in what otherwise would be a fairly ordinary murder conviction.

Was it the Marriott PR machine that released the "house of horrors" bloody bathroom scene showing what Amanda must have seen when she took her shower the morning after the murder? Was it the Marriott PR machine that released a side by side comparison of the red stained bottom of Raffaele's shoe and one of the bloody shoe prints? What effect on the trial outcome would Marriott's PR campaign have compared to the prosecutions PR campaign in the home town of the jury? After 2 years of one sided PR I'd be surprised if you could find anyone from that area that still believed in Amanda's innocence.

Finally, as the defence teams have discovered, you seem to have stumbled at presenting a believable alternate narrative to the prosecution theory. By ignoring everything except for what may support your opinion, you've fallen into the same chasm that they have. And this is why all three of the convicted are going to remain in an Italian prison for a very long time.

In the US, it's not the defense's job to solve the case, that's the prosecutions job and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently they have a different legal system in Italy.

Would you even be willing to explore any narrative of Rudy working alone?

 

[lector]

Would you even be willing to explore any narrative of Rudy working alone?

It's been explored in depth.

This was one of my first questions when I first came to this case a day after the AK/RS verdict. What clinched it for me, after several weeks of reading on the case, was the analysis in the Micheli Report, which made it pretty definitive that the forensics & autopsy showed that at least two people were involved in the final attack on Meredith.

(My reading of the Micheli Report also indicates that it's more likely that two, rather than three, people committed the final attack, but that's just a personal opinion. It jibes with some of Rudy's stories. There may have been further evidence presented in the AK/RS trial indicating three; I am waiting for the judge's report on that trial for more information on that point.)

There is endless fodder for discussion & speculation of who did what when, but I haven't seen a single convincing argument that Rudy acted alone. If you have any, please link or spell them out.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the US, it's not the defense's job to solve the case, that's the prosecutions job and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently they have a different legal system in Italy.

Quite right. You'll be pleased to hear then that the prosecution have done their job and solved the case. 3 people have been convicted for the murder and in the trial for two of them the jury was unanimous. So, I suppose that means they believe the case to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did the prosecution say how long after death the body was moved? I'd like to know if it was hours later or if it could have been something like ten minutes later as well.

It isn't possible to put an exact time on it. But it was in the region of 'hours'. The blood on the floor had dried, leaving the imprint of the victim's shoulder on the floor where she lay before being moved. Moreover, she had been on that shoulder for so long lividity had set in. That doesn't happen in minutes, but hours.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Has the OP abandoned this thread?

 

[lionking]

Has the OP abandoned this thread?

Wouldn't you? Convicted because of a cartwheel??????

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wouldn't you? Convicted because of a cartwheel??????

Yeah, I guess the laughter grew too loud.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Has the OP abandoned this thread?

She has made an appearance in Dan O's Could Rudy Guede have acted alone? thread.

 

[stilicho]

In the US, it's not the defense's job to solve the case, that's the prosecutions job and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently they have a different legal system in Italy.

Would you even be willing to explore any narrative of Rudy working alone?

The Italian system presumes innocence too.

At issue was the overwhelming evidence pointing to all three convicted murderers, Dan O. I hate to repeat the same thing over and over again but I was originally surprised that AK was convicted on the basis of the Seattle media reports. They kept reporting "weak case", "circumstantial evidence", "medieval justice", and so on.

I wondered, after reading a considerable amount about the case, whether AK wouldn't have had a needle in her arm by now in some American states. From your entries on this thread, and the other identical one that you started, it's apparent that almost all your sources are media reports. Some of them contain factual errors and you have to be careful about those.

I was tricked once and you might be being deceived as well.

Insofar as the defence teams' quandary right now, Dan O, they're faced with the same problem they would in the US (or Canada or the UK), which is to produce a sufficiently coherent alternative narrative to establish their clients' innocence. For Lumumba (one of the original accused) this was fairly easy. He had a rock solid alibi and there was no physical or circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime or even to the crime scene. The same cannot be said for RG, RS, or AK and that's why they will be in jail for a long time for murdering Meredith.

 

[Oliebol]

It isn't possible to put an exact time on it. But it was in the region of 'hours'. The blood on the floor had dried, leaving the imprint of the victim's shoulder on the floor where she lay before being moved. Moreover, she had been on that shoulder for so long lividity had set in. That doesn't happen in minutes, but hours.

Thank you, very interesting! And it was then, that the body was covered with the blanket?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you, very interesting! And it was then, that the body was covered with the blanket?

Yes, the body was covered with the quilt after being stripped and moved. Items were then 'posed' on the uncovered bed. The door was locked and the keys were discarded in a manner which they couldn't be retrieved. After, they had a real 'oops' moment when they suddenly remembered they'd forgotten to take Amanda's lamp out of Meredith's room. That's when they tried to force the door. I think that was half hearted though, because it was more important to their plan that the door remain locked.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Cartwheel?

Wouldn't you? Convicted because of a cartwheel??????

Lionking,

Amanda Knox disputes even doing a cartwheel (http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/03/01/news/knox-says-cop-misread-yoga-move). What is typical of this case that such information gets buried underneath the innuendo. What is typical of this thread is the argument from intimidation, as exemplified by Lector’s insubstantial response (#1724) to Dan O.

I left this thread because I was tired of being called disingenuous and being warned that I was messing with a dog with very big teeth. In my absence I see the same falsehoods being trotted out over and over again. I assumed people came here with open minds to debate and to learn, but that has not been my experience.

Chris

 

[stilicho]

Lionking,

Amanda Knox disputes even doing a cartwheel...

I assumed people came here with open minds to debate and to learn, but that has not been my experience.

It's been a running gag here, halides1, that AK was convicted because of a cartwheel. But, remember, that was the impression supplied by the Seattle media, courtesy the Marriott PR machine. It caught me by surprise--just as it caught skeptigirl by surprise--to discover that it was simply untrue that she was convicted for that reason.

I am still waiting for you or Kestrel to supply an example of a similar DNA contamination case as the one you're supporting. There should be some examples somewhere.

I think you're missing the point about debate and learning, too. I have learned plenty about the Italian justice system, for one, by discussing the case here. And plenty of those who had thought AK was railroaded are now fully convinced of her guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

PCR contamination

It's been a running gag here, halides1, that AK was convicted because of a cartwheel. But, remember, that was the impression supplied by the Seattle media, courtesy the Marriott PR machine. It caught me by surprise--just as it caught skeptigirl by surprise--to discover that it was simply untrue that she was convicted for that reason.

I am still waiting for you or Kestrel to supply an example of a similar DNA contamination case as the one you're supporting. There should be some examples somewhere.

I think you're missing the point about debate and learning, too. I have learned plenty about the Italian justice system, for one, by discussing the case here. And plenty of those who had thought AK was railroaded are now fully convinced of her guilt.

Stilicho,

The people joking about the cartwheel were the ones missing the point.

I had DNA contamination in mind when I wrote my previous comment about recurring falsehoods. Most of the comments I have read on this thread betray a misunderstanding of how (and how often) DNA contamination occurs and how one guards against it. I have posted the first of these links before, but the second one is possibly even better.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Dr. Riley’s parallel between PCR technique and sterile technique is fruitful: One does not see a breach in sterile technique; instead, one infers it from subsequent events.

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Lionking,

Amanda Knox disputes even doing a cartwheel (http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/03/01/news/knox-says-cop-misread-yoga-move). What is typical of this case that such information gets buried underneath the innuendo. What is typical of this thread is the argument from intimidation, as exemplified by Lector’s insubstantial response (#1724) to Dan O.

I left this thread because I was tired of being called disingenuous and being warned that I was messing with a dog with very big teeth. In my absence I see the same falsehoods being trotted out over and over again. I assumed people came here with open minds to debate and to learn, but that has not been my experience.

Chris

The assertion that Knox was convicted "because of a cartwheel" was discussed in depth, debated, and discarded in the first pages of this thread, except for derisive mentions such as the post which you quoted. It is misdirection such as that embodied by the claim that a cartwheel was responsible for her conviction which constitutes the main body of "falsehoods" surrounding the publicity about her case here in the U.S.

I expect that this is not the "innuendo" to which you refer, but it seems to be what everyone who takes the time to pursue unbiased study of the case ultimately perceives.

What is disingenuous is to focus solely on those minor bits of information which can be interpreted with any degree of contention as if they were major errors of fact while intentionally disregarding (discarding?) any facts which inconveniently point to guilt.

Until someone can present some new information which was not included in the trial or revealed to the public at large yet I have to think that Knox should be grateful that she was not tried in the U.S., where, with the data currently available to us, the major bone of contention would likely have been whether she deserved LWOP or the DP. The kind of minds that have espoused the sort of jingoistic xenophobia which has been the major "innuendo" of the FOA would probably have been most in support of the latter.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And yet, Halides, you've made the argument that the data wasn't properly released while maintaining that proper procedures weren't followed. How would you know that if the data hasn't been released?

Can you explain how the contamination of the knife could have occurred? We're still waiting for a realistic scenario on that one.

Also, explain how Knox, who lived in the cottage for 2 months prior, left very little DNA evidence throughout the cottage, yet we're supposed to believe that Sollecito who'd been dating Knox for only a few weeks prior somehow left such an abundance of his DNA in Meredith's room that it was able to "saturate" the clasp?


This, Chris, is why you're being called disingenuous. You're so concerned with making your point about contamination that you're ignoring any observations that eliminate this as a possibility. It's contaminated because these guys say it's contaminated. And these guys say it's contaminated because it's contaminated. Ok...but where did the contamination come from?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

muddy waters

And yet, Halides, you've made the argument that the data wasn't properly released while maintaining that proper procedures weren't followed. How would you know that if the data hasn't been released?

Can you explain how the contamination of the knife could have occurred? We're still waiting for a realistic scenario on that one.

Also, explain how Knox, who lived in the cottage for 2 months prior, left very little DNA evidence throughout the cottage, yet we're supposed to believe that Sollecito who'd been dating Knox for only a few weeks prior somehow left such an abundance of his DNA in Meredith's room that it was able to "saturate" the clasp?


This, Chris, is why you're being called disingenuous. You're so concerned with making your point about contamination that you're ignoring any observations that eliminate this as a possibility. It's contaminated because these guys say it's contaminated. And these guys say it's contaminated because it's contaminated. Ok...but where did the contamination come from?

BobTheDonkey,

Several of the videos that have been linked here document bad collection technique. Thus, there is no contradiction in pointing this out, while also asking for files that have yet to be turned over. You are trying to muddy the waters, but you are not doing so very effectively.

The speed of your reply indicates that you did not bother to read the link I went to so much trouble to provide. Some might charitably describe your attitude as feckless. Sollecito's DNA was not saturating; it was pretty weak. And you are still deliberately asking the wrong question. How can you explain all of the DNA on the clasp without invoking contamination?

Chris

 

[stilicho]

Sollecito's DNA was not saturating; it was pretty weak.

And this is where I have to point out that it was not weak at all. When the "abundance" was quantified, Sollecito's defence team asked for a nearly two month postponement and even asked for a mistrial after court was convened. Why? Because they said they hadn't had enough time to examine the DNA evidence.

Why is it that you claim the DNA evidence was weak while Sollecito's defence team clearly disagrees with you?