Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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).

With 'keys', where was this stated? Please, this whole thing about keys is a new frontier...I've never seen a thing stated about keys, aside from the missing ones to Amanda's rtoom and the flat downstairs, so if you have any links to this brand new information, that would be handy.

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?

Would have, could have, should have...why would he? His job was singular...to answer the questions put to him on the stand, not to make a speech. So, what did the prosecution ask him? What did the defence ask him? what were his answers? Did he answer to anything inaccurately? Did he refuse to answer anything? Why are you demanding he provide answers to questions that were never asked? And...why weren't they asked? Conclusion: the questions/answers weren't deemed important by the defence or prosecution.

Anyway Thoughtful...how are things? Aside from the obsession with the morning of the 2nd that is of course.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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's on record, multiple times Thoughtfu...oops, I mean katy_did.

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).

'Where'..show somewhere this is stated...,anywhere will do...as long as it's a statement from somewhere. And I'm not talking about the door not closing properly, or a briken latch, but an explicit statement from anywhere that keys were required to exit the house.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just to add...it's okay, it should only take you 5 minutes

 

[Fulcanelli]

Busted

 

[Kestrel]

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).

Guede had visited the guys downstairs, but he hadn't been in the girl's apartment before the night of the murder. So he would not know about the bad latch on the front door.

 

[Fiona]

I find it rather strange that those who have been in this thread from the start, and have put a lot of work into finding out the facts and discussing them reasonably, should now be expected to repeat the evidence and the conversations we have already had at the behest of people who are already very familiar with the case and the sources. I cannot think of one good reason why anyone should spend time on that.

We have already had experience of being asked to produce the same explanations and evidence over and over again: and since that never produces any agreement about the minutest fact I do not see the point.

It is clear to me that we have all done our best to evaluate the evidence: we have come to conclusions: these conclusions are not going to change until new evidence emerges. There is none here. Not for the last few pages.

I have not entered into the CT arena because I cannot be bothered to argue for the sake of arguing. I do not propose to do so here

So I propose that those who are interested enough now make a list of those facts which are agreed (quite short I think) and a list of those things which are in dispute together with their own understanding of what is correct and the evidence why they think what they do.

In order to do that each will have to read this thread: because the conclusions of each person here are based on what they have brought to this thread. Much has come from elsewhere, but I think that there is no point which has been argued where the reasons have not been brought to this board.

Once we have agreed lists it might be possible to have a sensible discussion about them: but at present there seems to be a nasty tone and not much else.

I think that for most of the time this thread has been relatively calm and the discussion has proceeded fairly rationally. I do not see that this is the case now and I do not think that is the fault of those who have been posting here from the start. We have had our moments, but they have been few. I would like to get back to that or alternatively wait until the reasons for conviction are issued. Then we may have fresh evidence to discuss

For now I would be in bad faith if I pretended that a rehash of what has been fully covered before is going to change my mind. I doubt I am alone.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Fiona: Amen

 

[HumanityBlues]

Hey. What is "CT arena"?

 

[stilicho]

It's on record, multiple times Thoughtfu...oops, I mean katy_did.



'Where'..show somewhere this is stated...,anywhere will do...as long as it's a statement from somewhere. And I'm not talking about the door not closing properly, or a briken latch, but an explicit statement from anywhere that keys were required to exit the house.

Oh noes!!! You mean, when I mentioned thoughtful here I might have been a little more right then I guessed?:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5589087&postcount=2953

I am actually terrible at these cross-forum sock puppet guessing games but I seem to have caught this one flat-footed.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hey. What is "CT arena"?

Conspiracy Theory

 

[stilicho]

Hey. What is "CT arena"?

Conspiracy Theories.

This one qualifies when it's argued, for example, that Lalli the medical examiner was in on it with the Polizia (state police), the Carabinieri, the pubblico ministero, the local gaoler, the business owners focusing their CCTVs the wrong way, the crime lab in Rome, a homeless man, six lay judges, an Albanian immigrant, and the bra designers.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ah ya. I was surprised coming into this forum. One of the first things some veteran told me on the welcome thread was how people were arguing over 911 conspiracies....bigfoot seems to be controversial here too for some reason.

It might be an interesting thread to start about what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what doesn't actually. Maybe I'll do that.....

 

[HumanityBlues]

Conspiracy Theories.

This one qualifies when it's argued, for example, that Lalli the medical examiner was in on it with the Polizia (state police), the Carabinieri, the pubblico ministero, the local gaoler, the business owners focusing their CCTVs the wrong way, the crime lab in Rome, a homeless man, six lay judges, an Albanian immigrant, and the bra designers.

Well from a legal standpoint, all conspiracy means is an agreement between two or more people to do an act (usually a crime depending on the context). Obviously though people think "conspiracy" and put their own definition on it.

I haven't seen anyone here directly say any conspiracy took place, but maybe someone did. Are you saying its implicit in their arguments?

 

[stilicho]

Well from a legal standpoint, all conspiracy means is an agreement between two or more people to do an act (usually a crime depending on the context). Obviously though people think "conspiracy" and put their own definition on it.

I haven't seen anyone here directly say any conspiracy took place, but maybe someone did. Are you saying its implicit in their arguments?

Indeed it is implied. For an example, AK suggested multiple attackers before the medical examiner's report was complete. The medical examiner (Lalli) was the first of the authorities to posit multiple attackers. Mignini, the favourite bugbear of the FOA crowd, included the multiple attacker scenario from the evidence provided by the ME.

The AK supporters presuppose multiple attackers as an integral part of their conspiracy theory. The PM didn't.

That's just one example. I've got a million of them.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Indeed it is implied. For an example, AK suggested multiple attackers before the medical examiner's report was complete. The medical examiner (Lalli) was the first of the authorities to posit multiple attackers. Mignini, the favourite bugbear of the FOA crowd, included the multiple attacker scenario from the evidence provided by the ME..

Ok. Not being argumentative here, just trying to see what you mean with this specific example. Are you saying that the other side would be implying that Mignini came up with the multiple attacker scenario theory on his own, but really it was because of what the medical examiner said?

 

[Kestrel]

Well from a legal standpoint, all conspiracy means is an agreement between two or more people to do an act (usually a crime depending on the context). Obviously though people think "conspiracy" and put their own definition on it.

I haven't seen anyone here directly any conspiracy took place, but maybe someone did. Are you saying its implicit in their arguments?

There was one rather weird conspiracy theory discussed in this thread.

It involved a Masonic lodge, body parts collected for Satanic rituals and a cover up by the Italian Secret Service. As an added bonus, there was a body swapped to make a murder look like a suicide. When the grave was opened and DNA proved the right body was inside, a second body swap was added to explain why the right body was in the grave.

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor in the Knox case, was convicted of abuse of office for some of his actions while trying to prove this conspiracy theory.

 

[stilicho]

Ok. Not being argumentative here, just trying to see what you mean with this specific example. Are you saying that the other side would be implying that Mignini came up with the multiple attacker scenario theory on his own, but really it was because of what the medical examiner said?

Yes.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

There was one rather weird conspiracy theory discussed in this thread.

It involved a Masonic lodge, body parts collected for Satanic rituals and a cover up by the Italian Secret Service. As an added bonus, there was a body swapped to make a murder look like a suicide. When the grave was opened and DNA proved the right body was inside, a second body swap was added to explain why the right body was in the grave.

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor in the Knox case, was convicted of abuse of office for some of his actions while trying to prove this conspiracy theory.

Now, Kestrel, you're being extremely dishonest in that little bit.

Mignini's conviction had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the bodies/masonic lodge bit/etc. The truth is Mignini was convicted for illegally wire-tapping one of the reporters who was interfering in the investigation.

 

[Kestrel]

Now, Kestrel, you're being extremely dishonest in that little bit.

Mignini's conviction had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the bodies/masonic lodge bit/etc. The truth is Mignini was convicted for illegally wire-tapping one of the reporters who was interfering in the investigation.

The reporter was "interfering" with Mignini's investigation into the conspiracy theory I just described by calling it silly.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The reporter was "interfering" with Mignini's investigation into the conspiracy theory I just described by calling it silly.

You're being dishonest again. Fiona posted up a good summary of that case a few pages back and you're distorting the facts to fit your pre-determined mindset/the FOA talking points.