Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Could happen, Fulcanelli. I find it odd if she was actually looking for signs of theft and disturbance. But it could.

It is just that we are back to near the start of the thread and quadraginta's bricks. So I don't see the point of what we are doing at present

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you are taking the prosecutions side and supporting the claim that Amanda left Raffaele's apartment, it is your burden to prove that claim.

Proven already. Raffaele stated she left his apartment. Amanda said she left his apartment. Multiple witnesses say she left his apartment. Forensic evidence at the scene shows she left the apartment. What more 'proof' is required? And is that same burden of proof required to show Rudy Guede left his apartment? If not, why not?

 

[Dan O.]

I think you ask too much Dan O. If research exists it is clearly helpful, but much of the evidence comes down to what we individually find reasonable and plausible. Much of the time that is surely what the lawyers will be appealing to? Where you really need the research is if you want to claim something people might not find reasonable, or plausible.

Lawyers make their living off of appealing to peoples emotions and unfounded beliefs. The courtroom is a game of playing off the way people process information, presenting evidence in an order to build confirmation bias where people build incorrect opinions that are then difficult to correct. I have no respect for lawyers.

Personally, if she really didn't notice her lamp was missing, it would raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't be stunned, or conclude she was lying off the back of this, but it's not what I'd expect.

Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.

If you think this is actually your belief, have you ever tested yourself to measure the rate that you personally would recognize that something was missing from a room? Or did you simply build this belief because at times you have noticed that things were missing or moved; and with no memory of having not discovered something was missing you have built the belief that you would notice something is missing 100% of the time.

As for her evasion in answering questions about it, about all I conclude is that she's being excessively careful about what she says and wishes to avoid committing herself to anything in case she later comes to regret this. Given that she's on trial for murder and has put her foot in it quite a few times already I'm not sure that I blame her.

How are you reading evasion into her answer? I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question: Do I have a lamp on my disk right now. Please answer "yes" or "no" and don't lie or try to evade the question.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could happen, Fulcanelli. I find it odd if she was actually looking for signs of theft and disturbance. But it could.

Yes it 'could' Fiona. The problem is, it would require giving her the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem doing that on one singular issue in isolation. But when the requirement for the benefit of the doubt starts gearing up into multiples, for a whole range of evidence, again and again, I start to have a problem.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But even if she did step out, that is no indication that any criminal activity was planned.

There is no requirement to prove any 'criminal activity' was 'planned', only that it happened and who was responsible for it. You keep throwing out the straw man that Amanda was accused of planning to murder Meredith. That was never part of the prosecution case and few on the boards are mooting it.

 

[Fiona]

Lawyers make their living off of appealing to peoples emotions and unfounded beliefs. The courtroom is a game of playing off the way people process information, presenting evidence in an order to build confirmation bias where people build incorrect opinions that are then difficult to correct. I have no respect for lawyers.

You dont' seem to have respect for a whole lot of people: that is your problem , not any one else's

Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.

We all have life experience Dan_O. Knox was not just going into her room without any idea anything was wrong. She was looking to see if anything was missing. We all have selective attention and we have all seen demonstrations of how that affects what we see: but we mostly do see what we are actively paying attention to and for. Or do you have reason to disagree?

If you think this is actually your belief, have you ever tested yourself to measure the rate that you personally would recognize that something was missing from a room? Or did you simply build this belief because at times you have noticed that things were missing or moved; and with no memory of having not discovered something was missing you have built the belief that you would notice something is missing 100% of the time.

Nobody has said that they would notice something missing 100% of the time. So do you have evidence that you would NOT notice something was missing from your room if you were checking to see if anything was?

But the main point is that this does not stand alone. It has a context which you are determinedly avoiding. And we have seen this before

How are you reading evasion into her answer? I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question: Do I have a lamp on my disk right now. Please answer "yes" or "no" and don't lie or try to evade the question.

 

[Kestrel]

I thought I'd read somewhere that an examination of their cell records for a month prior to the murder showed that they'd never turned off either phone for hours at a time over that stretch.

When I first read the detail about turning the phones off I didn't understand what the big deal was. My cell phone is off more than it's on. I guess the kids today use theirs differently. In any event the point is that it was unusual, though we're still speculating on what it means.

Cell phone records showed Sollecito had turned his phone off during the prior month. I haven't seen anything about Knox.

As for why, consider this.

Amanda thought she had to work that night. Her boss tells her that she doesn't need to come in. Turning her phone off prevents her boss from changing his mind. She would rather spend the evening and perhaps the night with Raffaele.

About 15 minutes later, Raffaele gets a phone call from his father, who has already called a couple times that day. He turns his phone off so Dad doesn't interrupt him again. Not unreasonable for a young man who is alone with a hot babe.

A rational explanation for the behavior that doesn't involve two people deciding on the spur of the moment to commit murder.

 

[Dan O.]

Proven already. Raffaele stated she left his apartment. Amanda said she left his apartment. Multiple witnesses say she left his apartment. Forensic evidence at the scene shows she left the apartment.

If everybody is in agreement that Amanda left Raffaele's apartment and then returned, why is there any argument about it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.

She wasn't specifically looking to see if anything of high value was missing, but if her room had been in any way disturbed like Filomena's room had. Nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room either, yet it didn't stop Amanda and Raffaele noting and reporting various details about it. In Amanda's room, a tiny sparse room, a missing lamp would have been pretty damn hard to miss. Especially when we take into account she not only looked in her room to assess and see if anything was missing, she also went in there to get dressed, she and Raffaele also went in there together for a time after the postal police arrived. And...Amanda's bedside lamp was the only light source in her room, there was no main light. And still...she didn't notice? Wake up.

 

[Fiona]

If everybody is in agreement that Amanda left Raffaele's apartment and then returned, why is there any argument about it?

You tell me

 

[Fulcanelli]

About 15 minutes later, Raffaele gets a phone call from his father, who has already called a couple times that day. He turns his phone off so Dad doesn't interrupt him again. Not unreasonable for a young man who is alone with a hot babe.

Except Raffaele never received the call to induce him to turn off the phone so he wouldn't receive more. His father's call never got through. And why would that day be different to any other? His father called him every day. That was the first day in a month he'd ever turned off his phone, including the week or so he'd already been with Amanda.

 

[Kestrel]

Except Raffaele never received the call to induce him to turn off the phone so he wouldn't receive more. His father's call never got through. And why would that day be different to any other? His father called him every day. That was the first day in a month he'd ever turned off his phone, including the week or so he'd already been with Amanda.

The phone log proves you are wrong. The call from his father was received at 8:42 PM the evening of Nov. 1 and lasted for 221 seconds.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it was the first day in a month that his phone had been turned off, or are you simply repeating a rumor?

 

[Dan O.]

You keep throwing out the straw man that Amanda was accused of planning to murder Meredith. That was never part of the prosecution case and few on the boards are mooting it.

Have you already forgotten your accusation in post 1532 of this thread:

Indeed, but premeditation of 'what' exactly? Murder is only 'one' of the things that they may have intended when they went to the cottage that night. For example, it may have been a desire for revenge (that required something short of murder), it may have been an intended prank, or it may have been a desire to force Meredith to their will (perhaps sexually). I agree that 'something' was premeditated that night, but as to exactly what that was we can never know unless one of them starts talking and that doesn't look very likely to ever happen.

What is the point of bringing up that the cell phones were turned off except to show a case of premeditation that a crime was going to be committed for which they didn't want to be traced? What's the point of turning off the cell phones if they are going to leave witnesses alive to identify them? The prosecutor is building on circumstantial evidence that has an obvious and devistating interpretation once you accept that Amanda and Raffaele went to the cottage. He doesn't state this interpretation because he cannot prove it; Instead he lets it form in the minds of the judges to build the bias against Amanda and Raffaele.

There is no motive, there is no evidence of intent, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night. It's all just common everyday circumstantial trivia that the prosecutor twisted into a fanciful story to get a conviction.

 

[Fiona]

What counts as evidence for you Dan_O?

 

[Fiona]

I had not time last night to check the source of your phone record, Dan_O. And I have not time now to read the PMF discussion which may shed light

But a quick question on it. It comes from the thing Jihad Jane found earlier, does it not? The thing with no provenance and which does not show what it purports to show?

If so then can you say now where it comes from?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Lawyers make their living off of appealing to peoples emotions and unfounded beliefs. The courtroom is a game of playing off the way people process information, presenting evidence in an order to build confirmation bias where people build incorrect opinions that are then difficult to correct. I have no respect for lawyers.




Why would you even have an expectation that a person would notice a reading lamp was missing if they had no reason to explicitly look for it. Is your expectation something you had before or were you given that expectation earlier in the thread and have incorporated it into your own belief structure.

If you think this is actually your belief, have you ever tested yourself to measure the rate that you personally would recognize that something was missing from a room? Or did you simply build this belief because at times you have noticed that things were missing or moved; and with no memory of having not discovered something was missing you have built the belief that you would notice something is missing 100% of the time.




How are you reading evasion into her answer? I'll ask you a simple "yes or no" question: Do I have a lamp on my disk right now. Please answer "yes" or "no" and don't lie or try to evade the question.

The more appropriate question would be:

Is there a lamp in your bedroom right now, yes or no?


Which is, actually, essentially what AK was asked and she was unable to answer. No psychic powers required for that one, as opposed to asking a question regarding a room and a lamp which I've never even seen...

 

[bennet]

Have you already forgotten your accusation in post 1532 of this thread:

There is no motive, there is no evidence of intent, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night. It's all just common everyday circumstantial trivia that the prosecutor twisted into a fanciful story to get a conviction.

What about RS footprint on the bathmat? What about AK blood on the qtip box? Is´t that simple clear evidence?

 

[scissorhands]

The main interest in Amandas lamp as far as I can see, isnt so much that it was in Merediths room, more where it was plugged in.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The phone log proves you are wrong. The call from his father was received at 8:42 PM the evening of Nov. 1 and lasted for 221 seconds.

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it was the first day in a month that his phone had been turned off, or are you simply repeating a rumor?

Kestrel, this is BASIC case knowledge. Raffaele never spoke to his father that night. Feel free to prove me incorrect, what with the 11 months of the trial and the defence never claiming any such call and the telephonic experts on the stand making it clear NO SUCH TELEPHONE CALL TOOK PLACE. Really, either learn about the case or keep quiet until you do.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Have you already forgotten your accusation in post 1532 of this thread:

I don't understand what you are accusing me of. The post you are quoting is a question, not a claim.