Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
On this page, stilicho is still casting the spin that that lamp would be necessary for illumination during the day such as on the morning that Amanda stepped into her room to check if a thief had been there the previous night.
Click to expand...

We don't know, do we? We do know that AK claimed to have stripped naked and wandered or hopped around the cottage. Maybe she typically did this with the windows wide open; maybe not.

We also know that AK provided details about several things inside the cottage but not about the lamp. Her selective memory is revealing to anyone with an iota of objectivity.

Dan O. said:
Why do you try to shut down the search for the truth of what really happened that night?
Click to expand...

We aren't. Unless you can provide evidence of malfeasance by each of those at each step of the process then you cannot credibly claim that the Italian authorities (along with Kercher's and Lumumba's lawyers) were not interested in the truth.

Dan O. said:
Do you like the thought that a young girl could be sitting out a major portion of her life in a foreign prison for a crime she didn't commit?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But this imaginary young girl of yours is in reality a woman aged 20 at the time she committed murder.

Dan O. said:
Or is this your way of denying that their could be such evil in the police and prosecution that they could railroad a conviction against anybody, including you, that happens to be near by when a crime is committed.
Click to expand...

I would expect that if I was found by police, standing at the doorway of a house I was renting, and containing the corpse of a young woman, that I might have to explain what I was doing there. I would be especially concerned after some of my DNA was discovered mixed with that of the victim. To top it off, I would be really really pissed off if my only alibi for the estimated time of death had just told the cops that everything I'd told them to say was "rubbish".

All these things happened to your "young girl" and yet her unwavering supporters still resort to blaming the authorities. What was the "young girl's" response to all of this? Accuse a man she knew was innocent and leave him rotting in prison for two full weeks.

I think you really ought to redefine "evil", Dan O.
 
Dan O. said:
[Note: the photo is hot linked from the PMF site and unless that site has given explicit permission to allow hot linking it is in violation of JREF rules.]
Click to expand...

Wow. You're really desperate. Did you report the post?
 
Kestrel said:
No.

If you look few lines down in the transcript of Amanda's testimony, you should notice it's pointed out, probably by Amanda's lawyer, that she gave both reasons during the interrogation:
Click to expand...

I'll give you that one, Kestrel. But at least we're not debating whether they switched off their cell phones like we were here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5525543&postcount=2085

I know that wasn't you but as long as you agree they did switch them off around the same time we can move on.

Any insights into how they switched them on again in the morning when they claimed they were asleep?
 
stilicho said:
Accuse a man she knew was innocent and leave him rotting in prison for two full weeks.
Click to expand...

That is ********. sorry about the language but repeated lies **** me off

Amanda was in police custody being assaulted both physically and verbally. The police already knew of the SMS messages that Amanda had sent and orchestrated the interrogation to get Amanda to provide them with something they could use to get a conviction.

How many times did Amanda say she was not there, that she could not have seen what happened? The Italian police didn't want to hear that but kept pounding on her, asking her to imagine what could have happened, repeating the scenario over and over until Amanda herself was not sure what was reality.

The prosecution tainted every piece of evidence in this case including the memories of Amanda Knox. They were only listening for what they wanted to hear and ignored everything else. They blocked Amanda from getting legal assistance at least twice. The judge should have thrown the book at the prosecutor and every member of his interrogation squad for this abuse and not simply barred the statement that this inquisition produced.

It was the prosecutor that put Patrick in jail and left him there for 2 weeks with no evidence. Amanda did nothing but send the text message "see you later, good evening".


Here are a few pictures that remind me of an old movie cliché...
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/lumumba-scarcerato/1.html
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
That is ********. sorry about the language but repeated lies **** me off

Amanda was in police custody being assaulted both physically and verbally. The police already knew of the SMS messages that Amanda had sent and orchestrated the interrogation to get Amanda to provide them with something they could use to get a conviction.

How many times did Amanda say she was not there, that she could not have seen what happened? The Italian police didn't want to hear that but kept pounding on her, asking her to imagine what could have happened, repeating the scenario over and over until Amanda herself was not sure what was reality.

The prosecution tainted every piece of evidence in this case including the memories of Amanda Knox. They were only listening for what they wanted to hear and ignored everything else. They blocked Amanda from getting legal assistance at least twice. The judge should have thrown the book at the prosecutor and every member of his interrogation squad for this abuse and not simply barred the statement that this inquisition produced.

It was the prosecutor that put Patrick in jail and left him there for 2 weeks with no evidence. Amanda did nothing but send the text message "see you later, good evening".


Here are a few pictures that remind me of an old movie cliché...
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/lumumba-scarcerato/1.html
Click to expand...

You're only allowed to convince yourself of this because most of what AK really said about Patrick was not allowed in court. The same corrupt and evil Italian authorities who railroaded this young girl didn't allow the prosecutors to divulge what she said about him and how she characterised him.

Nothing of what happened between Meredith's murder and Guede's capture really seems to bother you much. It bothers others a great deal because even if AK were innocent she still had Patrick's fate in her own hands (or words). She alone was entirely capable of securing his release in the face of relentless evil.

What does your young girl do? Nothing. Nothing at all.

You should assess your innocent heroines better.

----------

Latched onto that but no comment on what you would consider about being found at the doorway of the cottage you'd rented with a corpse inside a locked room? Silence says volumes.
 
What proof could Amanda possibly have to defend herself? She was denied a lawyer, she was denied a phone call. Do you think they would have agreed to videotape the interrogation?

ETA: Right now I only blame the Monster of Perugia persecutor Giuliano Mignini and his little band of henchmen. I expect there to be an inquest and for the Italian justice system and the Italian people to clear themselves by putting that evil in prison where he belongs.
 
Last edited:
We are just going round in circles. You have the information that is available, as do we all. If you are determined to believe that AK and RS are innocent no matter what, then that is what you will do, Dan_O,. To me the facts do not seem to matter to you very much, and I am not sure why: but you presumably think the same of me. We cannot agree on what is important and we cannot agree on what is real. Those who are interested in formng their own conclusion can get a whole lot of information from this thread, and if they have questions of fact they can ask and I am sure people will try to help (including you). Most who are interested have probably already done so, I imagine

That is not what is happening here and now. You are running a conspiracy theory so far as I can see. Fair enough: but I avoid that part of the board because I have no interest in those. So I am done here
 
Dan O. said:
Do you like the thought that a young girl could be sitting out a major portion of her life in a foreign prison for a crime she didn't commit?
Click to expand...

Young girl? Amanda Knox was 20 when she was arrested and 22 when convicted. Why do you refer to her as a "young girl"?
 
[Dan o said:
We have no attribution for the photo posted above so we don't know who the photographer is or when the photo was taken. [Note: the photo is hot linked from the PMF site and unless that site has given explicit permission to allow hot linking it is in violation of JREF rules.
Click to expand...

I put it up here. I give permission for it to be up here, relax :)

And for the record, PMF has an open source policy. Anyone is free to distribute or use PMF data without restriction.

Thanks for caring about PMF though ;)
 
Dan o said:
We have no attribution for the photo posted above so we don't know who the photographer is or when the photo was taken. [Note: the photo is hot linked from the PMF site and unless that site has given explicit permission to allow hot linking it is in violation of JREF rules.
Click to expand...

Just wondering Dan o, since you've suddenly developed a concern about hot linking from sites without permission, did you have permission to post up that phone record? Or, does that concern only apply when data that is inconvenient is posted up? Just curious...
 
You're damn right that this is a conspiracy theory. Giuliano Mignini saw in a simple text message that there was a conspiracy between Amanda and Patrick and built the whole case from that and a bunch of circumstantial evidence, eye witnesses that had to be coached to even have a half believable story and forensics that is invalid in every civilized nation (including Italy though I'm not ready to call them civilized).

What happened to the hard evidence that should exist like the tapes from the surveillance and traffic cameras in Perugia that got erased after a week even though they would have recorded if the assailants had traveled through the streets of the city that night?

Why are there no recordings of the police interrogations? Is it that expensive to create an audio or video tape that would prove there was no mistreatment of any kind?

What happened to the hard drive in Amanda's computer? She used it all the time and was playing music just the previous night yet it's completely toast as soon as the prosecution gets their dirty little fingers on it and they won't let the defense send it to a professional recovery service to try and get the data off.

Of course, some data deemed to stick around for an inordinate amount of time like the surveillance tape of Amanda buying underwear. What was the shop owner doing with that tape before deciding to take it to the police?


ETA: And if trumping up the murder charge and throwing her in prison wasn't bad enough, The went and boggered up a medical test and told he she had AIDS just so she would write about her past lovers in her diary that the prosecution then confiscated. They really are bastards and so is anyone that thinks what they did is permissible.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
I put it up here. I give permission for it to be up here, relax :)

And for the record, PMF has an open source policy. Anyone is free to distribute or use PMF data without restriction.

Thanks for caring about PMF though ;)
Click to expand...


Fulcanelli said:
Just wondering Dan o, since you've suddenly developed a concern about hot linking from sites without permission, did you have permission to post up that phone record? Or, does that concern only apply when data that is inconvenient is posted up? Just curious...
Click to expand...


Hot-Linking and Copyrights are both covered under Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement. Though a site owner could give permission to hot-link to their site (You are claiming to be the owner of the PMF site are you not?), Copyright issues are a bit trickier, especially for unsourced images (unless you also claim to be the original author of all the PMF documents or have secured distribution rights to them).
 
Dan O. said:
ETA: And if trumping up the murder charge and throwing her in prison wasn't bad enough, The went and boggered up a medical test and told he she had AIDS just so she would write about her past lovers in her diary that the prosecution then confiscated. They really are bastards and so is anyone that thinks what they did is permissible.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder why you edited so late to add this.

I have to suspect you don't know much about interrogation techniques. You seem to object to the way that police will create an atmosphere in which a suspect will freely supply them with information.

I think you should really use the Perugia case as a very good example about how suspects react when confronted. You have two contrasts in RS and AK. While RS clammed up and refused to offer anything further from his confession that AK had told him to say "rubbish", this is not the case for AK.

AK supplied vast amounts of information and continued to do so long after she understood her rights as a suspect completely.

AK is a police interrogator's and prosecutor's dream suspect. They were able to use plenty of her own voluntary words against her during the trial and continued to do so during her testimony. Her mother was no different and she wasn't even interrogated by the police.

My question to you is this: Why do you think the authorities were able to get such a bounty of incriminating evidence from AK after she became a suspect and a defendant and yet nothing whatsoever from RS? Were the Sollecitos in on your grand conspiracy too? They did nothing at all to help poor AK as she bobbed and weaved her way into a sure-fire murder conviction.
 
Fulcanelli said:
His lawyers sold it to the media, under family instruction.
Click to expand...

Interesting. His defense team must have been very expensive, so I can understand why they did this. Am I curious as why they didn't edit out the part about RS lying about pricking MK with the knife at the non-existent dinner party.
 
I imagine it is all or nothing, really. Media people would notice if they did not get an original document and they would notice if it was edited. That could well be counterproductive because people would then speculate about what was missing, would they not?
 
stilicho said:
I have to suspect you don't know much about interrogation techniques. You seem to object to the way that police will create an atmosphere in which a suspect will freely supply them with information.
Click to expand...

I suspect that particular action would earn the prosecutor a quick dismissal and a jail term in any civilized country. Do you really agree with what they did?


I think you should really use the Perugia case as a very good example about how suspects react when confronted. You have two contrasts in RS and AK. While RS clammed up and refused to offer anything further from his confession that AK had told him to say "rubbish", this is not the case for AK.
Click to expand...

People react differently yet this doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. I also suspect the little we've heard from Raffaele is also tainted by the police interrogation techniques. Raffaele told the police what he could remember given the "facts" that the police were providing him. But the facts the police were providing to help his memory were lies so Raffaele's memories based on those facts are contaminated by those lies. Without a recording of the complete interrogation sessions it is impossible to separate the truth from the lies that were injected by the interrogators. That these "confessions" were at all allowed in court shows just how backwards the Italian justice system is.
 
Dan_O, we get it. You do not think the police should ask any witnesses any questions at all except in America. That is what it comes down to.

Are there any of the elements I listed which you do accept as pointing to guilt? Any at all?
 
Dan O. said:
People react differently yet this doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. I also suspect the little we've heard from Raffaele is also tainted by the police interrogation techniques. Raffaele told the police what he could remember given the "facts" that the police were providing him. But the facts the police were providing to help his memory were lies so Raffaele's memories based on those facts are contaminated by those lies. Without a recording of the complete interrogation sessions it is impossible to separate the truth from the lies that were injected by the interrogators. That these "confessions" were at all allowed in court shows just how backwards the Italian justice system is.
Click to expand...

Oh for Pete's sake, Dan O. He told the police he was at a party! What a dumb thing to do. Really dumb. That's not acting differently. It's lying and once you start lying to the police they are not going to simply let it go.

Apart from the many things Fiona wrote, and which you've been conspicuously avoiding, can you at the very least acknowledge that RS's original alibi (the party) was a clear and unmitigated lie? And that it was not a lie "injected by the interrogators". It was his original alibi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom