Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
Or both reasons. Her charger was probably at home.
Click to expand...

She changed her story. We have the court testimony, Kestrel, in her own words. She changed it from "saving her battery" to "avoiding a call from Patrick". She was called on that by the PM during the trial.

Do you accept that AK changed her story based on the evidence from her own court testimony?
 
stilicho said:
She changed her story. We have the court testimony, Kestrel, in her own words. She changed it from "saving her battery" to "avoiding a call from Patrick". She was called on that by the PM during the trial.

Do you accept that AK changed her story based on the evidence from her own court testimony?
Click to expand...

Or that she had more than one reason for turning it off.

BTW - Do you have a source for that earlier post of court testimony?
 
Kestrel said:
Or that she had more than one reason for turning it off.

BTW - Do you have a source for that earlier post of court testimony?
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for the assertion that the prosecution claimed the phone records, in and of themselves, implied criminal intent?
 
Kestrel said:
According to this Time article, Amanda turned off her cell phone because she didn't want to get called back to work that night.

I haven't come across exactly what Raffaele said in court. If you do, post it here an include a link.
Click to expand...

I think what she actually said in her statements and what she said on the stand should be the primary source, rather then Time magazine, don't you think?
 
Kestrel said:
I haven't come across exactly what Raffaele said in court. If you do, post it here an include a link.
Click to expand...

Raffaele said nothing. He said nothing since the night of Nov 5th and refused to be questioned ever again, including on the stand. If he's innocent, he has a poor way of demonstrating it.
 
Kestrel said:
Or that she had more than one reason for turning it off.

BTW - Do you have a source for that earlier post of court testimony?
Click to expand...

But she didn't say 'I turned off my phone because of 'X' and 'Y' ' Instead, she originally claimed she turned off her phone because of 'X'. Then on the stand, after having two years to think, she said she turned it off because of 'Y'. You are putting excuses into her mouth for her.

And you do acknowledge that she changed her story, as Stilicho has exampled?
 
Kestrel said:
BTW - Do you have a source for that earlier post of court testimony?
Click to expand...

There are two ways to locate it. One is through the PMF site and the other is from the In Sessions site.

I actually copied and pasted almost all of AK's own words into a single document. That's why it's so easy for me to find her changing story/ies and so difficult for Dan O to do the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of every single word she said and wrote from the night she murdered Meredith until her conviction. I wish I did because the woman is very expressive--and not necessarily in a good way.

I would venture to say that AK would make a stellar case study of how not to behave and express one's self after committing a crime, Kestrel. I still cannot figure out why her lawyers allowed her to take the stand. I sure wouldn't have let her.
 
Not their choice, Stilicho. It is her choice. She can refuse her lawyer's advice and accept that of a PR firm if she wishes.
 
Fiona said:
Not their choice, Stilicho. It is her choice. She can refuse her lawyer's advice and accept that of a PR firm if she wishes.
Click to expand...

Or the advice of her step father, Chris Mellas, whose taking advice from the same and telling them what to do at the same time. It is no coincidence that Amanda made the claim in court that she was hit on Chris Mellas' first visit to Italy to perform family unit duty ;)

He was the reason she made the claim.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Raffaele said nothing. He said nothing since the night of Nov 5th and refused to be questioned ever again, including on the stand. If he's innocent, he has a poor way of demonstrating it.
Click to expand...

How did his prison diary become public? Did he allow his lawyers to release it?
 
Well I do not know how his diary became public: but I do know that one of the posters on PMF was offered AK's diary by her family before it was made public. So that might tell you something? Or maybe not
 
Fulcanelli said:
Raffaele said nothing. He said nothing since the night of Nov 5th and refused to be questioned ever again, including on the stand. If he's innocent, he has a poor way of demonstrating it.
Click to expand...

In the US (I don't know about Italian law) defendants are protected by the 5th amendment and are not required to give testimony on their behalf. Since the burden of proof is on the State, most defendants don't take the stand. In many cases it's the smartest tactic regardless of one's guilt or innocence. One could argue whether or not Raffaele should or should not have taken the stand, but your blanket assessment of him not doing so is wrong.
 
It is worth noting that Kestrel is inventing excuses for the turning off of the phones, while completely ignoring the problem in regard to their turning them back on again. One group looks at the issue as a whole, spinmeisters such as Kestrel try and compartmentalise them. What spin does Kestrel have for their claiming to sleep in until at least 10 am and Raffaele's phone being turned on at 6 am and someone going on his computer at 5:30 am?
 
Jungle Jim said:
In the US (I don't know about Italian law) defendants are protected by the 5th amendment and are not required to give testimony on their behalf. Since the burden of proof is on the State, most defendants don't take the stand. In many cases it's the smartest tactic regardless of one's guilt or innocence. One could argue whether or not Raffaele should or should not have taken the stand, but your blanket assessment of him not doing so is wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't only testimony on the stand in Raffaele's case. It's talking to the police full stop.

And it should be emphasised here...unlike in the US, those on trial can stand up and make spontaneous statements at any time in court and cannot be cross examined or challenged in any way on those statements. Raffaele refrained from doing so to either a) support any of Amanda's testimony b) to clarify or change any of his own earlier testimony or c) to shed any further light on any outstanding issues or questions.

Raffaele has never been questioned 'once' as a suspect in this case. From the moment his status changed from the status of witness to suspect, he refused to speak.

Remaining silent may be a right. But when adopting that right without compromise and refusing to budge from it in any way whatsoever...one can hardly complain when they find themselves convicted.
 
Jungle Jim said:
In the US (I don't know about Italian law) defendants are protected by the 5th amendment and are not required to give testimony on their behalf. Since the burden of proof is on the State, most defendants don't take the stand. In many cases it's the smartest tactic regardless of one's guilt or innocence. One could argue whether or not Raffaele should or should not have taken the stand, but your blanket assessment of him not doing so is wrong.
Click to expand...


In the U.S. most people who "plead the Fifth" are generally assumed by others to be hiding something. This common blanket assessment may be wrong, but there it is.
 
It is his right. I do not think we can or should draw any conclusions from it. In this country the right to remain silent has been undermined in recent years and this is something I regret. So I will defend his right to do this and tbh I think it would have been in AK's interest as well
 
Fiona said:
It is his right. I do not think we can or should draw any conclusions from it. In this country the right to remain silent has been undermined in recent years and this is something I regret. So I will defend his right to do this and tbh I think it would have been in AK's interest as well
Click to expand...


I agree. If nothing else it is difficult to be caught out in lies if you keep your mouth shut.

Regarding the right to remain silent, I agree that no prejudice should be attached, but sadly, human nature is not so charitable. I deplore this, but cannot deny the fact of its existence.
 
Fiona said:
Well I do not know how his diary became public: but I do know that one of the posters on PMF was offered AK's diary by her family before it was made public. So that might tell you something? Or maybe not
Click to expand...

The Administrators actually...with strings attached ;)

Because of those strings and because it would involve withholding facts and in effect deceiving their membership, they refused. Certain other blog owners accepted the offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom