Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[tsig]

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

Poor innocent Amanda that started out lying continued to lie and was proved to lie.

How many dead bodies have you been found with?

 

[stilicho]

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

Learned something about crime lab accreditation in the EU in the past week. Other than that, you're right about the diminishing returns.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
Also, Introna said Meredith was murdered from the front while Torre argued she was murdered from the front.

Isn't this the same argument?

Fulcanelli meant to say Introna said Meredith was murdered from behind. Just as the prosecution did. Kestrel wouldn't say that means he was working for the prosecution or that his testimony as a whole agreed with theirs.

But, although they diverge on several points, he has decided that Introna and Torre agree. They don't. And we are just looking at the news reports of the testimony. We haven't seen it in full.

I would really like to have seen the looks on the jurors' faces when Torre said he couldn't rule out the double DNA knife.

 

[Kestrel]

"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).

Just to bring you up to speed.

Amanda signed two statements during one night. The first at 1:45 AM and the second at 5:45 AM. Her interrogations were not recorded and Amanda did not have a lawyer present. Later that same day, she wrote a letter disclaiming the second statement.

It's that second statement Fiona is so fond of quoting. The one made at 5:45 AM on a night where Amanda got little if any sleep.

 

[Fiona]

Er ...no: she never disclaimed any of those statements. In fact she confirmed them. You have a strange memory, Kestrel.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli meant to say Introna said Meredith was murdered from behind.

Thanks for correcting the typo Yes, that's what I meant.

But, although they diverge on several points, he has decided that Introna and Torre agree. They don't.

No, exactly, they don't agree on anything...aside from the fact that the defendants didn't do it and really, what else is a defence expert going to say? But the fact that they differ wildly on how the murder actually occurred says it all on the strength of their testimony. I can imagine there was much swearing by t6he defence lawyers in their chambers after.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Later that same day, she wrote a letter disclaiming the second statement.

She did NOT disclaim it, she reinforced it! "I stand by what I said about Patrick last night".

It's that second statement Fiona is so fond of quoting. The one made at 5:45 AM on a night where Amanda got little if any sleep.

She was tired? And what's that meant to suggest? Sleep deprivation enhances imaginative talent rather then diminishes it?

It might also be worthwhile to remind you, yet again, nobody made Amanda give that second statement...she DEMANDED to give it. As far as the police were concerned, they were done with her for the night at 1:45 am when the first statement was concluded. It was 'she' that insisted on giving the second statement, because she had something to tell them and and couldn't wait until the morning.

 

[Fiona]

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

I can only agree. There has been little new in recent days and I have the impression that we are just going round a rather short circuit without managing to agree on the smallest fact: nor establish the substance of the disagreement. In a lot of areas all points of view have been done to death and I think those who are interested can read the thread and come to their own conclusions

I think from now it might be wise to just stop going over old ground and wait for the reasons for decision? I know I have said this before but what think others?

 

[Kestrel]

Er ...no: she never disclaimed any of those statements. In fact she confirmed them. You have a strange memory, Kestrel.

Reading her statement, this part makes it quite clear that her statements were made under duress. She doesn't believe it is real. You conveniently leave that out when quoting her.

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

 

[Kestrel]

It might also be worthwhile to remind you, yet again, nobody made Amanda give that second statement...she DEMANDED to give it. As far as the police were concerned, they were done with her for the night at 1:45 am when the first statement was concluded. It was 'she' that insisted on giving the second statement, because she had something to tell them and and couldn't wait until the morning.

You keep repeating this claim but somehow never get around to proving it.

At this point, it's rather clear that it's a lie.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You keep repeating this claim but somehow never get around to proving it.

At this point, it's rather clear that it's a lie.

Now you've become so defensive you've constructed a mot and bailey, complete with moat.

This is a matter of record Kestrel. Her second statement, concluded at 5:45 was a voluntary statement and to translate from the legalise, that means made at her own request. This fact was verified by the prosecutor, by the GIP, by the GUP, by the Court of Cassation (Italian High Court), in the pre-trial and in the main trial. Do you have any evidence to counter that established fact, a fact even Amanda and her lawyers don't contest?

 

[Kestrel]

Now you've become so defensive you've constricted a mot and bailey, complete with moat.

This is a matter of record Kestrel. Her second statement, concluded at 5:45 was a voluntary statement and to translate from the legalise, that means made at her own request. This fact was verified by the prosecutor, by the GIP, by the GUP, by the Court of Cassation (Italian High Court), in the pre-trial and in the main trial. Do you have any evidence to counter that established fact, a fact even Amanda and her lawyers don't contest?

Reversal of the burden of proof.

You made the claim, it's up to you to proved the evidence.

 

[Fiona]

I think we have certainly said all we can say on this part at least

You believe she was coerced because she says she was: I believe she was not because the time line does not confirm her claims and the police; the translator; and Knox herself say she was not. In court. Under oath.

We are neither of us going to change our minds. Those who are reading this thread have seen it all before. Let each come to their own conclusion on the basis of the evidence we have discussed. And let us return to any outstanding points when the reasons for decision come out.

For myself I will respond to anything new which comes up: and I will help clarify for anyone new to the thread as best I can.

But I am not prepared to go over the same ground with the same people any more

ETA: the last exchange between kestrel and fulcanelli above serves to reinforce my decision. Knox testified in court that she volunteered that statement and her testimony has been presented in this thread. It is there for all to see. There is no point to this at all

 

[Fulcanelli]

=Reading her statement, this part makes it quite clear that her statements were made under duress. She doesn't believe it is real. You conveniently leave that out when quoting her.

NO...it makes nothing clear, quite the opposite...as was it's intent. She was trying to dig herself out of a hole, one she'd put herself in, with mealy mouthed waffle. And it makes no difference WHAT she said, since she then promptly undid it all with the line "I stand by what I said about Patrick last night"...there's nothing vague about that, it's an absolute. It cannot be spun, it cannot be undone.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Reversal of the burden of proof.

You made the claim, it's up to you to proved the evidence.

Burden of proof? Quite right. Since it is YOU making the assertion that it's a lie, shouldn't it then be YOU running off wasting their evening trying to find a statement either from Amanda or her lawyers that the Voluntary Statement was in fact not voluntary? It is YOU that is trying to overturn an established fact and YOU that is asserting people are telling lies, after all.

 

[Kestrel]

You believe she was coerced because she says she was: I believe she was not because the time line does not confirm her claims and the police; the translator; and Knox herself say she was not. In court. Under oath.

Actually, Knox did say she was hit by a policewoman with long chestnut brown hair. I quoted what Knox said in in this post.

 

[Fiona]

Yes, I know what she said

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually, Knox did say she was hit by a policewoman with long chestnut brown hair. I quoted what Knox said in in this post.

Perhaps you need to reread what Fiona wrote. It began with that according to Amanda, she was coerced because "she says she was". Your response in order to prove she was, was to post up a link where Amanda says she was...


?????

 

[Kestrel]

Perhaps you need to reread what Fiona wrote. It began with that according to Amanda, she was coerced because "she says she was". Your response in order to prove she was, was to post up a link where Amanda says she was...


?????

I was simply responding to this statement by Fiona.

Knox herself say she was not. In court. Under oath.

Knox said she was hit, in court, under oath.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I was simply responding to this statement by Fiona.


Knox said she was hit, in court, under oath.

...and then after demonstrating the hits, continued her testimony, unfazed, in court, under oath.

Your point is?