Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Do I understand you to imply here that a coroner opined that the victim screamed? How would a coroner know that? A coroner wouldn't be able to determine this- directly- by a medical exam- would s/he?

Probably not.

You do realize this is a silly police investigator game?

Very early in the case it was claimed that Amanda must have been on the scene when Meredith was murdered because she knew the body found in the room was Meredith. Considering that Amanda knew Meredith was missing and that a dead body was found in Meredith's room, it wasn't rocket science for her to figure out the dead person was Meredith.

So when Amanda was asked to imagine Meredith being murdered, she imagined the victim screaming. Many of us would do the same.

For that matter, Nara Capezzali may also have imagined hearing a scream.


BTW - Welcome to JREF

 

[Fulcanelli]

You really are confused. Torre said there was room in the bedroom for spectators, not participants in the murder. Neither one of these two experts accepted the prosecutions theory that three people were directly participating in Meredith's murder in that cramped little space.

What a marvel it must have been that at least 8 judges and court officials were able to enter Meredith's room together and all fit in there quite comfortably!

It was a room, not a cupboard.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Very early in the case it was claimed that Amanda must have been on the scene when Meredith was murdered because she knew the body found in the room was Meredith. Considering that Amanda knew Meredith was missing and that a dead body was found in Meredith's room, it wasn't rocket science for her to figure out the dead person was Meredith.

Not because she knew that it was Meredith, but because she knew the position of the body 'before' it had been moved and knew what her injuries were, what they were caused by and that it took her a long time to die, by bleeding to death.

 

[Fulcanelli]

For that matter, Nara Capezzali may also have imagined hearing a scream.

Sure, she must imagine hearing screams all the time. That's what people normally do, they imagine hearing screams every night...it's perfectly normal. Indeed, I'm sure I'll hear my nightly imagined scream any moment now...I seem to be imagining it a bit later then last night's though tonight.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So when Amanda was asked to imagine Meredith being murdered, she imagined the victim screaming. Many of us would do the same.

She wasn't asked to 'imagine' anything. And no, 'most' of us wouldn't imagine the same...a whole elaborate detailed story of your boss murdering someone. Your excuses on her behalf are lame.

 

[stilicho]

You really are confused. Torre said there was room in the bedroom for spectators, not participants in the murder. Neither one of these two experts accepted the prosecutions theory that three people were directly participating in Meredith's murder in that cramped little space.

Nice dodge.

But that's only one part of his theory that refutes Introna's. Introna said there was not enough room; Torre says there was. So which is it?

 

[stilicho]

So when Amanda was asked to imagine Meredith being murdered, she imagined the victim screaming. Many of us would do the same.

Cite?

OK, just kidding. I know you're just making that up.

AK told police that she was in the cottage, covering her ears, while Patrick Lumumba was sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith. She wasn't asked to imagine any of this. She was told that her boyfriend no longer supported her alibi.

Why do we have to repeat this to you over and over again? Which part of it do you not understand?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Nice dodge.

But that's only one part of his theory that refutes Introna's. Introna said there was not enough room; Torre says there was. So which is it?

Also, Introna said Meredith was murdered from the front while Torre argued she was murdered from the front. When the defence experts undermine each other by giving completely different expert opinions, I'd call that a serious own goal, nullifying the credibility of the defence expert testimony.

In contrast, all of the prosecution experts and the experts representing Meredith were in full agreement.

 

[Alt+F4]

Also, Introna said Meredith was murdered from the front while Torre argued she was murdered from the front.

Isn't this the same argument?

 

[Jungle Jim]

I look forward to the court's report. Lately this thread is providing diminishing returns.

 

[Kestrel]

Cite?

OK, just kidding. I know you're just making that up.

AK told police that she was in the cottage, covering her ears, while Patrick Lumumba was sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith. She wasn't asked to imagine any of this. She was told that her boyfriend no longer supported her alibi.

Why do we have to repeat this to you over and over again? Which part of it do you not understand?

Since Amanda can't have been imagining anything, then Lumumba has to be guilty?

If not, please explain how you decide what was imagination and what was real.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since Amanda can't have been imagining anything, then Lumumba has to be guilty?

If not, please explain how you decide what was imagination and what was real.

Imagination? Nice euphamism for 'lying'. And in terms of lying, most liars will often mix lies with the truth. This is due to the fact that they don't actually have the imagination to build a lie that covers all the bases. It also makes their lie more believable. Some may describe lies as imaginative. Others will describe them as anti-imagination. In any case, the mixture of lies and truth is a commonality among liars. In this case, Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy are no exceptions.

 

[Fiona]

None of Lumumba's involvement was imagination and none of it was real. She was telling lies. I wonder how you managed to overlook this rather obvious third possibility

 

[Fulcanelli]

None of Lumumba's involvement was imagination and none of it was real. She was telling lies. I wonder how you managed to overlook this rather obvious third possibility

Kestrel didn't 'overlook' it. He avoided it. Just like anything that doesn't serve the agenda

 

[lane99]

...So when Amanda was asked to imagine Meredith being murdered, she imagined the victim screaming. Many of us would do the same...

BTW - Welcome to JREF

"Many of us", to say the least. I imagine that virtually everyone would, wouldn't they? Difficult to imagine someone NOT screaming at a time like that.

So if people are claiming that Amanda Knox mentioning a scream in her false confession is some sort of "aha" moment that incriminates her, that doesn't add up at all, imo. And I have to wonder why someone would present such an argument.

(And thanks for the welcome, Kestrel. Have known about JREF for many years and have always been interested in the same sort of things it is interested in).

 

[Kestrel]

None of Lumumba's involvement was imagination and none of it was real. She was telling lies. I wonder how you managed to overlook this rather obvious third possibility

So given a set of statements, some true, some false, you claim the psychic ability to know immediately which are true and which are false?

That is the game you are playing. You know that Amanda was there because she said she could hear the screams. (Never mind that we don't have any context for this statement). Yet when she said she wasn't in the room, you call that statement a lie. Picking and choosing what is true and what is false based on your preconceived notions of what happened. And somehow believing that the choices you made for "truth" have actual value as evidence.

 

[Fiona]

"Many of us", to say the least. I imagine that virtually everyone would, wouldn't they? Difficult to imagine someone NOT screaming at a time like that.

So if people are claiming that Amanda Knox mentioning a scream in her false confession is some sort of "aha" moment that incriminates her, that doesn't add up at all, imo. And I have to wonder why someone would present such an argument.

(And thanks for the welcome, Kestrel. Have known about JREF for many years and have always been interested in the same sort of things it is interested in).

Oh I don't think so

Anna Donnino, another interpreter, testified that she was called at her home around 11:00-11:30pm 4th/5th and asked to come in to the police station as her expertise were needed. She lives about 1/2 hour away and testified that after she arrived she spent the entire night in the same room as AK and acted as the interpreter. It was shortly after she arrived and started working with AK and the police that AK was shown the text messag by Lumumba, she was simply asked "did you see this sms? did you respond?" and Donnino testified that she will NEVER forget the reaction.. AK broke down, shocked, and put her hands on her head and said "its him, its him, he did it" etc etc. The interpreter testified that the statement came spontaneously by AK

No need to encourage her to "imagine" anything really. Just lies

 

[Fiona]

So given a set of statements, some true, some false, you claim the psychic ability to know immediately which are true and which are false?

Nope. I claim the ability to understand that a cast iron alibi that Lumumba was not there proves he was not there. Therefore she was lying about him being there. Accusing an innocent man of a horrible crime is pretty serious in my book

That is the game you are playing.

I am not playing any game. She was lying.

You know that Amanda was there because she said she could hear the screams.

Nope. I know she was there because she described the scream; and the position of the body; and the kind of death Meredith died; and used the word "they" rather then "him" when talking about the perpetrator; and has told lies about where she was that night. To mention but a few things.

Like the court I am founding on the totality of the evidence. Unlike you

 

[Fulcanelli]

"Many of us", to say the least. I imagine that virtually everyone would, wouldn't they? Difficult to imagine someone NOT screaming at a time like that.

So if people are claiming that Amanda Knox mentioning a scream in her false confession is some sort of "aha" moment that incriminates her, that doesn't add up at all, imo. And I have to wonder why someone would present such an argument.

(And thanks for the welcome, Kestrel. Have known about JREF for many years and have always been interested in the same sort of things it is interested in).

Except, you completely overlooked my point that Amanda 'imagined' a damn sight more then simply Meredith screaming. She 'imagined' a 'whole' story, one that in detail described Meredith's murder and blamed it all on an innocent man and placed herself at the cottage during the murder. It is disingenuous to isolate a single element of her 'imagination' so it can be palmed off with excuses. The whole cannot be excused, rationalised or dismissed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So given a set of statements, some true, some false, you claim the psychic ability to know immediately which are true and which are false?

That is the game you are playing. You know that Amanda was there because she said she could hear the screams. (Never mind that we don't have any context for this statement). Yet when she said she wasn't in the room, you call that statement a lie. Picking and choosing what is true and what is false based on your preconceived notions of what happened. And somehow believing that the choices you made for "truth" have actual value as evidence.

This reply of yours sounds somewhat sulky, not to mention defensive. A crystal ball is not required to divine that which are outright lies...for example, it is a proven fact Patrick was not there and had nothing whatsoever to do with Meredith's murder, aside from being unfortunate enough to know Amanda Knox. The actual evidence disproves other elements. At the same time, the evidence supports other elements of Amanda's story.

The truth is obtainable...that's what courts and trials are meant for, to sort the lies from the truth. For the layman, a requirement for finding the truth is a genuine desire for it. What is for sure, is one will never find it on the back of agendas and denial.