Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

No one on PMF was able to present a logical argument in response to Thoughtful's posts; there is, simply, little room for argument as to the fact that the carabinieri appear on CCTV at 13:22, and call for directions at 13:29.

And your position appears to be 'it is so because I say it is', which isn't a particularly logical argument either. If you're not familiar with the Bongiorno presentation, perhaps you should look it up? That, too, is on PMF.

You've got to be kidding???

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have a link supporting this, or are you just making assumptions?

Just google the Meredith Kercher murder on Youtube...it will throw up multiple videos of their takung DNA swabs from the scene. Where have you been? Welcome to the case. It's okay, you'll catch up.

 

[Dan O.]

When a suspect's own words conflict with massive incontrovertible forensic and circumstantial evidence, a reasonable individual will properly conclude that the suspect is lying. That's my reality. What's yours?

Lets examine these words that Amanda writes in her note to the police:

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder.

Do you claim that this is a lie? If so, where is the "massive incontrovertible forensic and circumstantial evidence" that proves it is a lie?

 

[stilicho]

No one on PMF was able to present a logical argument in response to Thoughtful's posts; there is, simply, little room for argument as to the fact that the carabinieri appear on CCTV at 13:22, and call for directions at 13:29.

And your position appears to be 'it is so because I say it is', which isn't a particularly logical argument either. If you're not familiar with the Bongiorno presentation, perhaps you should look it up? That, too, is on PMF.

Pay attention.

There is nothing to indicate that the car as displayed was the only police response to a brutal crime. Do you have evidence that no more than one car arrived? Please do present it because that would be new.

It is now clear that you, too, are simply trolling. You would have known this has already been discussed agreeably and your contention tossed into the dustbin.

Let me know once you've read everything here, including the links, and can return with an informed opinion or two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, in fact it came from a presentation Sollecito's lawyer Bongiorno made in court prior to the summer recess, in which she compared the CCTV and cell phone records and proved the postal police arrived at 12:56 at the earliest.

Perhaps it's you who should read up a little on this topic.

I repeat my last statement...'You've got to be kidding?'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you claim that this is a lie? If so, where is the "massive incontrovertible forensic and circumstantial evidence" that proves it is a lie?

I don't know, ask Raffaele...it's he that squealed to the police about Amanda's whereabouts.
Clearly he learned his lesson though, he's been silent ever since, even though it was too late to go 'oops'.

 

[stilicho]

Do you claim that this is a lie? If so, where is the "massive incontrovertible forensic and circumstantial evidence" that proves it is a lie?

Wow. Where have you been, Dan O? These two newbies have been killing your credibility here.

I, too, am fascinated by the contrasts between AK's 04 NOV email (lots of **** in the toilet!) and the one you just picked cherries from.

By the noon of 06 NOV, AK was still stubbornly ignoring her counsel and proceeded to involve "another person", accused her boyfriend of being a liar, and invoking sheer woo in the form of visions. Are you this easy on Sylvia Browne?

----------

I don't have to claim anything is a lie, Dan O. It's up to you to prove that everything she said or wrote was true. I will warn you that it's an uphill battle because she is very inconsistent. But I think you knew that already.

 

[katy_did]

Pay attention.

There is nothing to indicate that the car as displayed was the only police response to a brutal crime. Do you have evidence that no more than one car arrived? Please do present it because that would be new.

It is now clear that you, too, are simply trolling. You would have known this has already been discussed agreeably and your contention tossed into the dustbin.

Let me know once you've read everything here, including the links, and can return with an informed opinion or two.

So you are claiming, then, that another patrol car had already arrived at the cottage ten minutes before their colleagues called to ask for directions? (or let's say 17 minutes, if we go with the prosecution theory that the CCTV clock was 10 minutes fast. Which would, incidentally, mean the carabinieri arrived at 13:12, likely before the door was broken down).

 

[katy_did]

I repeat my last statement...'You've got to be kidding?'.

Ah yes... Assuming you're 'Michael' on PMF, you were asked three times to provide evidence that Bongiorno's presentation comparing the cell phone calls and CCTV footage was presented to Micheli, in that format, and you failed to do so. Perhaps you can do better here?

 

[stilicho]

So you are claiming, then, that another patrol car had already arrived at the cottage ten minutes before their colleagues called to ask for directions? (or let's say 17 minutes, if we go with the prosecution theory that the CCTV clock was 10 minutes fast. Which would, incidentally, mean the carabinieri arrived at 13:12, likely before the door was broken down).

It's your claim. What are you claiming? And how did that go for your friends when they were facing a murder charge in court?

Were they set free?

 

[stilicho]

Ah yes... Assuming you're 'Michael' on PMF, you were asked three times to provide evidence that Bongiorno's presentation comparing the cell phone calls and CCTV footage was presented to Micheli, in that format, and you failed to do so. Perhaps you can do better here?

You certainly seem to make a lot of assumptions. I would have to suggest that you're not some innocent newbie interested in examining the truth about Meredith's murder but a pawn of vested interests.

If I were they I'd ask for my money back because you're incompetent.

 

[katy_did]

It's your claim. What are you claiming? And how did that go for your friends when they were facing a murder charge in court?

Were they set free?

Wow.

No logical argument, then? You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go 'na na I can't hear you'.

 

[katy_did]

You certainly seem to make a lot of assumptions. I would have to suggest that you're not some innocent newbie interested in examining the truth about Meredith's murder but a pawn of vested interests.

If I were they I'd ask for my money back because you're incompetent.

Am I allowed to suggest you're a pawn employed by Mignini to spread his gospel of illogical conspiracy theories across the web? In the interests of fairness?

Of course I have read up on the case extensively, including all the original documents I can get my hands on, prior to looking for forums on which to discuss it. So in that sense, an 'innocent newbie' is perhaps not the most apt description (though 'examining the truth about Meredith's murder would be). Are you suggesting arriving informed is not the done thing here - is that why Fulcanelli keeps making entirely unsupported claims which we are supposed to believe without question?

 

[Fulcanelli]

So you are claiming, then, that another patrol car had already arrived at the cottage ten minutes before their colleagues called to ask for directions? (or let's say 17 minutes, if we go with the prosecution theory that the CCTV clock was 10 minutes fast. Which would, incidentally, mean the carabinieri arrived at 13:12, likely before the door was broken down).

Why not? Multiple cars, from various different places were heading to the scene. Who knows what that car was and who's to say a car wasn't already there when they called in? A call for directions requires only one car to be lost, not all of them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Ah yes... Assuming you're 'Michael' on PMF, you were asked three times to provide evidence that Bongiorno's presentation comparing the cell phone calls and CCTV footage was presented to Micheli, in that format, and you failed to do so. Perhaps you can do better here?

You assume too much.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No logical argument, then? You might as well stick your fingers in your ears and go 'na na I can't hear you'.

He doesn't need to...Dan o and Kestrel already fulfil the required quota for that here.

 

[katy_did]

I suppose you need to read the reports..do you want the links? Those...I have close to hand.

Micheli doesn't mention anything about Amanda 'knowing' Meredith had screamed in his report, so Matteini's report which supports Amanda's claim is all we have to go on as regards what the judges said. Since you say you have the link to the Micheli report, I'll assume you don't need me to provide it so you can go and check.

I didn't. And I'll tell you why, because this was never said. It was stated sometimes the door didn't close properly. But never was it stated that the door needed to be locked from the inside. And certainly never was it stated that had to be done with a key.

It was indeed explicitly stated that the door needed to be locked with keys, so that it didn't blow open in the wind (as it did when Guede closed it and didn't realize about the broken latch).

 

[katy_did]

Why not? Multiple cars, from various different paces were heading to the scene. Who knows what that car was and who's to say a car wasn't already there when they called in? A call for directions requires only one car to be lost, not all of them.

Battistelli would have said if other carabinieri were there already, and he didn't. In fact, he says the officer he was speaking to asked him to go to the room and describe what they'd found; Battistelli claims he did so while standing outside the room. Seems rather unlikely carabinieri were already on the scene in that situation, don't you think?

You also didn't answer my point that if the CCTV were 10 minutes fast, as the prosecution claimed, the carabinieri would have arrived at 13:12 which is likely before the door was broken down.

 

[stilicho]

Battistelli would have said if other carabinieri were there already, and he didn't. In fact, he says the officer he was speaking to asked him to go to the room and describe what they'd found; Battistelli claims he did so while standing outside the room.

Wow. So Amanda is innocent because of this?

Listen, "Katy": Both you and lane99 came into this forum and headed straight to this thread without any hesitation. Fulcanelli has fully explained his interest here because he did the same thing. He came supplied with information that many of us did not have.

You and lane99, however, came in without anything new and immediately asked questions that have already been fully answered. Is it too much to ask for you and him/her to read the resources already supplied?

If you are an honest contributor then you will do so instead of provoking debate over issues already resolved. Let us know once you've accomplished this easy task. Thanks.

 

[odeed]

Micheli doesn't mention anything about Amanda 'knowing' Meredith had screamed in his report, so Matteini's report which supports Amanda's claim is all we have to go on as regards what the judges said. Since you say you have the link to the Micheli report, I'll assume you don't need me to provide it so you can go and check.

It was stated that the door needed to be locked with the keys, so that it didn't blow open in the wind (as it did when Guede closed and didn't realize about the broken latch).

How do you know that Guede closed the door?