Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

What is with all this nit picking on trivial nonsense? Why does it matter if the police asked both of them or one of them to come to the police station? We keep churning over these issues that the defence have presumably known about for two years and clearly doesn't regard as being important enough to bring up. Other first hand material has been handed out by the defence yet we are here relying on correctly interpreting single sentences spoken by isolated individuals over a period of two years. This is a waste of time. Perhaps somebody in the investigation says "I think it's about time we bring them both in" before that's done somebody else decides actually they should bring them in one at a time. Who knows? If this is a serious issue then it should be investigated by people who have the resources to investigate it, i.e. the defence.

Why is this important?

 

[Fiona]

It isn't, Shuttit. In fact you raise a question which has been puzzling me for a while now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Cartwheels and credibility

What is with all this nit picking on trivial nonsense? Why does it matter if the police asked both of them or one of them to come to the police station? We keep churning over these issues that the defence have presumably known about for two years and clearly doesn't regard as being important enough to bring up. Other first hand material has been handed out by the defence yet we are here relying on correctly interpreting single sentences spoken by isolated individuals over a period of two years. This is a waste of time. Perhaps somebody in the investigation says "I think it's about time we bring them both in" before that's done somebody else decides actually they should bring them in one at a time. Who knows? If this is a serious issue then it should be investigated by people who have the resources to investigate it, i.e. the defence.

Why is this important?

The incident is important because it shows that the police gave out false or misleading information. The same is true of the cartwheel. They said that Amanda was performing one without explaining it had been done at the behest of an investigator (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/amanda-knox-finally-admits.html
). These and other such actions sap their credibility.

 

[shuttlt]

The incident is important because it shows that the police gave out false or misleading information. The same is true of the cartwheel. They said that Amanda was performing one without explaining it had been done at the behest of an investigator (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/amanda-knox-finally-admits.html
). These and other such actions sap their credibility.

And yet Amanda agrees with the official police story. I don't deny that there is a small chink of potential inconsistency here. Perhaps if it is investigated it will turn out that this chink can be worked up into a hole in the police story that brings the whole of the police department crashing down. Right at the moment though it is just a potential chink that may very well have reasonable explanations.

At the moment Amanda and Co are the ones on trial, not the police. The police don't have to explain themselves to the satisfaction of the Internet. If the defence feel this is an important issue they can doubtless investigate and see where it leads. Perhaps they aready have, perhaps they haven't. Who knows? If they find anything significant I'm sure they'll let us know.

As for the cartwheel, I really don't care. It isn't important to the case. Contrary to the title of the thread the cartwheel is not pivotal to the prosecution case. I really can't see the point in them lying about it. As for your link it sounds like her story is that rather than doing cartwheels at the police station she was doing cartwheels, splits and the bridge while flirting with a young police officer. I don't see it makes it better, and in any case, this is her story. It doesn't make it true. Not that it matters.

 

[Fiona]

It is curious how specific claims are made and then when they are rebutted the point is neither conceded nor challenged: we just move on to something else

Kestrel's last claim was that 4 people alleged police brutality. I have provided some evidence which displaces that claim. I am now waiting for him to either accept he was wrong or to provide something else in support of his allegation.

I am sorry if I seem to be labouring this point but it does seem to me that this keeps on happening and I feel we can make no progress if we never actually resolve any point but just dance about

So, Kestrel, do you concede that the 4 instances of police brutality you cited have been overturned?

 

[shuttlt]

Personally I'm most interesting in where Dan O's information about the traffic cameras came from. At least that's new.

 

[Fiona]

I can understand that Shuttit. Presumably Dan will provide links when he comes back to the thread. But for now I would like to settle even one minor point: any point. It would reassure me that there is some point to this exchange.

 

[brodski]

It isn't, Shuttit. In fact you raise a question which has been puzzling me for a while now.

I guess you haven't spent much time in the CT section? You see the same patterns of behaviour there, it's all about building up huge piles of minor issues which question the "official story", when one minor issue hs been shown to be meaningless it dosen't matter, there are loads of others- and when they all amount to nothing you can go back to the first one and start again.

 

[stilicho]

I guess you haven't spent much time in the CT section? You see the same patterns of behaviour there, it's all about building up huge piles of minor issues which question the "official story", when one minor issue hs been shown to be meaningless it dosen't matter, there are loads of others- and when they all amount to nothing you can go back to the first one and start again.

The m.o. is exactly what you see in the 9/11 sub-forum. It appears that certain posters are only interested in projecting their own beliefs into the discussion and never appearing to learn anything. It's hard to get them to read AK's own words and, if they do, to wave them away as being coerced.

The problem that the AK supporters have, unlike the 9/11 or JFK conspiracists, are neutral parties disagreeing with them (Kercher family lawyers, several keen journalists, Lumumba's lawyer), and even their own counsel acknowledging points (dalla Vedova, Ghirga, Bongiorno, etc). Not only that, but the same system that is so slipshod and malignant in the case of AK and RS is suddenly efficient and admirable in the case of RG.

In the meantime, I suppose we have some time and space to fill until the sentencing report comes out, likely in the first week of MAR 2010. Once that happens, we'll know for sure which items were accepted by the court in their decisions against RS and AK.

One thing I have wondered, and perhaps Fulcanelli knows, is why the defendants didn't have separate trials.

 

[Kestrel]

It isn't, Shuttit. In fact you raise a question which has been puzzling me for a while now.

It's been used as part of the "proof" that Knox's statements to the police were entirely her own idea and she was under absolutely no pressure from the police.

My theory is that it was all part of the plan. The investigators had already decided that Knox and Sollecito were guilty. That is how they seem do business in Perugia. They decide who is guilty and then go find the evidence to convict instead of the other way around.

They worked on Sollecito, falsely claiming the had irrefutable video evidence that Knox was at the cottage on the night of the murder. Sollecito knew she was with him, but threatened with 30 years in jail as an accomplice to murder, he changed his story. He wasn't willing to spend decades in jail for a girl he had known less than two weeks. Too bad he didn't know it was a classic police trick. The police got him to change his story, and therefore he is a proven liar.

And you know in your heart that he is a murderer. Because nobody but a murder ever changes their story under stress, or has inconsistencies. The rest of us have perfect memory, perfect recall and perfect consistency.

Amanda was told the same lie about evidence putting her at the scene. She was also told that her boyfriend had said she left. (He may not have even said this yet.) They hammered her about the text message to Lumumba. The meaning is clear as day, but Mignini sees conspiracies everywhere he looks. After hours of stress and lack of sleep, she cracks up sometime around 5 AM. Falling for another old police trick, "can you imagine what it would have been like if you had been there".

When Lumumba is arrested, he is worked over the same way. But he is older and a lot tougher than these two college students. He knows how the game is played. Patrick is also lucky he was at his bar that night. If he had been home with only his wife to vouch for him, everyone would assume she was just lying to protect her husband.

Lumumba had another problem. Do you remember the cell phone evidence placing his in the vicinity of the cottage? We know it was a false indication, but if he was the suspect it would have been presented as proof. It would have played well with the jury.

 

[lector]

Personally I'm most interesting in where Dan O's information about the traffic cameras came from. At least that's new.

I was under the impression that Dan O had been to Perugia & snapped that photo himself. I dug back to see where I'd gotten that idea & found post #2272 from Jan. 24th (my bolding added). That sentence now seems a bit ambiguous.

Quote:
By the way, you mentioned traffic camera film that wasn't collected earlier. I genuinely don't know the answer to this question. Were there traffic cameras/CCTV that would have told us whether/when Amanda and Raphael left their apartment and where they went?

I haven't driven around the town to spot them all but I have seen where a couple are. Raffaele's lawyers asked for these records about 2 weeks after the event and were told that they had been erased. They were even denied the opportunity to examine the tapes for residual images. If you need the reference I can try to dig it up. My question is: why didn't the police seize all of these records that could establish alibis?

It would be difficult to use camera footage to say someone did not travel from point A to point B when only some of the possible paths are covered by cameras. The defense may have intentionally waited until after they knew the tapes would be erased so they could use their effort of discovery instead of having to prove a case. The prosecution rebuttal that Amanda and Raffaele could have taken an out of the way path to avoid the cameras would only add to their guilt in the minds of a jury that was already prejudiced against them.

 

[Kestrel]

I guess you haven't spent much time in the CT section? You see the same patterns of behaviour there, it's all about building up huge piles of minor issues which question the "official story", when one minor issue hs been shown to be meaningless it dosen't matter, there are loads of others- and when they all amount to nothing you can go back to the first one and start again.

In this case, the evidence points to a simple rape and murder. The prosecution developed it into a three person conspiracy theory with a lot of problems. Here are a few examples:

1. RG, one of the conspirators barely knew AK. He had never met RS, the third conspirator. AK and RS had only known each other for about a week before the murder.

2. There are no phone conversations or email between RS and the other two suspects.

3. There is no motive for AK and RS to kill the victim.

4. Niether AK and RS have a history of violent behavior. Being fined for a loud party in college is the worst either of them had done.

5. After a drawn out struggle with the victim, RS and AK somehow manage to clean up the scene and remove all the trace evidence pointing to them while leaving plenty of blood splatters, fingerprints and DNA from RG.

Prosecutors sometime go off the deep end with conspiracy theories. Remember Jim Garrison's theories about JFK? Or the the McMartin preschool trail? Or for that matter, the prosecutor in this case and his Masonic Satanic cult conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence killings?

 

[lector]

I don't have a reliable media link but it's reported that the trial of obstruction of justice against the Sollecito family is due to begin today. For those unacquainted with the case, there were questionable statements and decisions on the part of RS's father and sister intended to force the Perugia authorities into refraining from investigating. I wish I had more on it but the leading media outlets appear to be silent so far.

I just noticed a post on PMF, from earlier this morn, quoting an Italian news report that the hearing scheduled for today has been postponed till April 21 due to a lawyers' strike that's been called for today.

Mark your calendars.

 

[Fiona]

It's been used as part of the "proof" that Knox's statements to the police were entirely her own idea and she was under absolutely no pressure from the police.

My theory is that it was all part of the plan. The investigators had already decided that Knox and Sollecito were guilty. That is how they seem do business in Perugia. They decide who is guilty and then go find the evidence to convict instead of the other way around.

They worked on Sollecito, falsely claiming the had irrefutable video evidence that Knox was at the cottage on the night of the murder. Sollecito knew she was with him, but threatened with 30 years in jail as an accomplice to murder, he changed his story. He wasn't willing to spend decades in jail for a girl he had known less than two weeks. Too bad he didn't know it was a classic police trick. The police got him to change his story, and therefore he is a proven liar.

And you know in your heart that he is a murderer. Because nobody but a murder ever changes their story under stress, or has inconsistencies. The rest of us have perfect memory, perfect recall and perfect consistency.

Amanda was told the same lie about evidence putting her at the scene. She was also told that her boyfriend had said she left. (He may not have even said this yet.) They hammered her about the text message to Lumumba. The meaning is clear as day, but Mignini sees conspiracies everywhere he looks. After hours of stress and lack of sleep, she cracks up sometime around 5 AM. Falling for another old police trick, "can you imagine what it would have been like if you had been there".

When Lumumba is arrested, he is worked over the same way. But he is older and a lot tougher than these two college students. He knows how the game is played. Patrick is also lucky he was at his bar that night. If he had been home with only his wife to vouch for him, everyone would assume she was just lying to protect her husband.

Lumumba had another problem. Do you remember the cell phone evidence placing his in the vicinity of the cottage? We know it was a false indication, but if he was the suspect it would have been presented as proof. It would have played well with the jury.

This is fantasy

Do you withdraw your claim that 4 people alleged brutality?

 

[shuttlt]

In this case, the evidence points to a simple rape and murder. The prosecution developed it into a three person conspiracy theory with a lot of problems. Here are a few examples:

1. RG, one of the conspirators barely knew AK. He had never met RS, the third conspirator. AK and RS had only known each other for about a week before the murder.

This is a decent argument that they probably didn't form an organized conspiracy before the fact to commit murder. Is that the claim?

2. There are no phone conversations or email between RS and the other two suspects.

Again, this is an argument against an organized conspiracy before the fact to commit murder. Is that what we, or the prosecution are suggesting?

3. There is no motive for AK and RS to kill the victim.

That all depends what happened that night, doesn't it?

4. Niether AK and RS have a history of violent behavior. Being fined for a loud party in college is the worst either of them had done.

There's the other claims about what she got up to in addition to the wild party, but they form no part of the trial. Equally, sometimes murders are committed by people who don't have a history of violence.

5. After a drawn out struggle with the victim, RS and AK somehow manage to clean up the scene and remove all the trace evidence pointing to them while leaving plenty of blood splatters, fingerprints and DNA from RG.

Why would this be hard to imagine. Oh, and it wasn't quite all their trace evidence was it?

Prosecutors sometime go off the deep end with conspiracy theories. Remember Jim Garrison's theories about JFK? Or the the McMartin preschool trail? Or for that matter, the prosecutor in this case and his Masonic Satanic cult conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence killings?

Evidence that it happened in this case?

 

[quadraginta]

I was under the impression that Dan O had been to Perugia & snapped that photo himself. I dug back to see where I'd gotten that idea & found post #2272 from Jan. 24th (my bolding added). That sentence now seems a bit ambiguous.

I had noted that ambiguity when I first read his post, and phrased my questions to him about the camera in a fashion intended to prompt a more straightforward clarification. The absence of such was marked. Other posters' comments should also have encouraged the same. No joy. I'm am left with the sad conclusion that the ambiguity was intentional, and less than honest.

This can only reflect poorly on any other insinuations he has made on the subject. Not that there was much content to reflect upon in the first place.

 

[shuttlt]

Lector,

Dan O. claimed that the defence had asked for the camera footage and been told by the prosecution what they could do with that request. His information must come from somewhere.

 

[quadraginta]

Lector,

Dan O. claimed that the defence had asked for the camera footage and been told by the prosecution what they could do with that request. His information must come from somewhere.

Dan O. and ... um ... Friends have offered a great deal of "information" from "somewhere". The quality of that "information", and the exact nature of the provenance of "somewhere" have constituted the substantial body of this thread. When pressed for detail or challenged for verity they somehow seem to move on instead to new(?) "information" from an equally difficult to credential "somewhere".

If the same standards of evidence and logic were employed by Knox's legal team in her defense it is unsurprising that she was found guilty in a court of law and languishes in prison. One would hope that they weren't.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's clear that you don't recognize psychological woo.

Errr...no. Is there a law against it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why did the interrogation have to happen in the wee hours of the morning?

They happened in the 'wee hours of the morning' because Raffaele was requuested to come in and clear up some issues but told police he couldn't possibly, since he was at college all day and then they had Meredith's memorial to go to. So, the police said to come in after that...hardly unreasonable. Accept of course, they never bothered going to Meredith's memorial and instead went out for pizza. They were seen by a police officer, who reported it back. You therefore understand that this a) doesn't look good and b) explains why they ended up at the police station so late. Of course, the knee kerk reaction by some is to blame the police.