Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Empress]

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.

It is posts like this that make me wish this forum had a "Thanks" button. As it stands, I shall instead quote Fiona's post in full with the addition: Hear, Hear!! That, and a reiteration of my thanks to those who have spent tireless hours researching this case and posting their results for the edification of the rest of us. Thank you.

 

[katy_did]

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.

You really haven't seen anything stating that the door needed to be locked with a key? Nothing at all, anywhere, not one mention of it? I'm surprised. Well, it's on PMF: try using the search engine and a few key words.

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

LOL.

I'm not Thoughtful.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Your suggestion that this makes Amanda innocent is clearly a strawman.

Stilicho, you were not even aware that Bongiorno had presented a comparison of the cell phone records and CCTV times in court, but rather were going on some blogger's post for your sources as to the arrival time of the postal police. Therefore, I have clearly presented information which is new to you, and thus (I have to assume, since you have read JREF's discussion on this issue?) to the thread.

The problem seems to be that this information challenges your already established beliefs, which I would have thought was entirely in the spirit of critical thinking.

 

[katy_did]

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.

If your argument is correct, Fulcanelli, you're suggesting that the first carabinieri car to arrive did so at 13:12 (per the prosecution's 10 minute fast theory), before the door was broken down. Further, you're suggesting that another patrol car spent 17 minutes driving around looking for the cottage, before calling the residents of the cottage to ask for directions, rather than speaking to their carabinieri colleagues who had already arrived by radio. You then suggest that rather than hand over the phone to the carabinieri, Sollecito gave it to the postal police officer Battistelli, who spent nearly five minutes on the phone describing to the carabinieri latecomers what he had seen in the cottage. To complete this series of improbable happenings, you then argue that when he testified about the phone call in court, Battistelli neglected to mention the fact that another patrol car had arrived at the cottage nearly 20 minutes previously.

This is simply not credible.

 

[katy_did]

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

No, it is not. It is mentioned nowhere in the Micheli report, as I suspect you already know.

 

[katy_did]

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.

Thanks Kestrel. Yes, the cottage door having been left wide open would certainly suggest someone who wasn't familiar with the broken lock.

 

[lionking]

It is posts like this that make me wish this forum had a "Thanks" button. As it stands, I shall instead quote Fiona's post in full with the addition: Hear, Hear!! That, and a reiteration of my thanks to those who have spent tireless hours researching this case and posting their results for the edification of the rest of us. Thank you.

You probably already know this, but the "nominate" button does the trick.

And to stilicho, Fiona, Fulcanelli, BobTheDonkey and others, there are lurkers like me who have followed this thread from the start and have appreciated your efforts and your forebearance in the face of "Amanda is innocent no mattter what" ignorance.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Thanks Kestrel. Yes, the cottage door having been left wide open would certainly suggest someone who wasn't familiar with the broken lock.

...if we are to believe Amanda's story about how she found the cottage.

Let me ask you this:

If you had come home from spending the night at your bf's to find your house how she claims she found hers, would you:

A) call your bf and/or the police right away

or

B) Take a shower and put off calling the Police till later in the day (most likely even later than the actual call went out)?

 

[katy_did]

...if we are to believe Amanda's story about how she found the cottage.

Let me ask you this:

If you had come home from spending the night at your bf's to find your house how she claims she found hers, would you:

A) call your bf and/or the police right away

or

B) Take a shower and put off calling the Police till later in the day (most likely even later than the actual call went out)?

If she'd noticed the broken window and the mess in Filomena's room, I'd agree with you. However, I'd suggest the other things in the cottage were more 'odd' than alarming, as Knox herself states (as you say, this is of course presuming her story to be true). I can't say I would have been alarmed enough to call the police purely on the evidence Knox claims she noticed on her first arrival in the cottage, at least not without further investigation. After all, even as regards the blood - which judging from footage of the bathroom, was not particularly noticeable - there could easily have been an innocent explanation, as of course there was for the cat's blood found in the downstairs flat.

I dare say we all have our own tolerance thresholds for these things, though, and to some extent it's a personal reaction. From what we know of Knox, she does seem rather like the oblivious to her surroundings, living in her own world type, so perhaps it's not over-surprising she didn't immediately act on the odd things she noticed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You really haven't seen anything stating that the door needed to be locked with a key? Nothing at all, anywhere, not one mention of it? I'm surprised. Well, it's on PMF: try using the search engine and a few key words.

And you're are dodging. I am saying there is no evidence to support your claim that from the inside the door needed to be locked with a key and in order to get out of the cottage, one needed a key.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stilicho, you were not even aware that Bongiorno had presented a comparison of the cell phone records and CCTV times in court

She indeed did and lost, because her argument was complete pish.

If your argument is correct, Fulcanelli, you're suggesting that the first carabinieri car to arrive did so at 13:12 (per the prosecution's 10 minute fast theory), before the door was broken down.

No. I'm saying 'we don't know' what time the first carabinieri police car arrived and that this certainly cannot be ascertained from a car park cctv camera that is only active when someone actually in the garage moves.

Further, you're suggesting that another patrol car spent 17 minutes driving around looking for the cottage, before calling the residents of the cottage to ask for directions,

In typical style you assume too much. I didn't say any car spent 17 minutes driving around looking for the cottage. We and you, have no idea what time it left its last job. We also don't know where that specific car came from, whether it's usual rounds was somewhere out of town or in a town nearby.

before calling the residents of the cottage to ask for directions, rather than speaking to their carabinieri colleagues who had already arrived by radio.

The car didn't call residents directly, they called back to base. It was base that called the residents.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, it is not. It is mentioned nowhere in the Micheli report, as I suspect you already know.

While I applaud your reading the Micheli report (many FOAKers don't bother) Perhaps you need to broaden your reading base. It wouldn't 'be' in the Micheli report because by that time the statements had been ruled inadmissible and it was in those statements Amanda had made the claim.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thanks Kestrel. Yes, the cottage door having been left wide open would certainly suggest someone who wasn't familiar with the broken lock.

Who says it was left wide open?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If she'd noticed the broken window and the mess in Filomena's room, I'd agree with you.

How would it have been possible for her to miss it?

After all, even as regards the blood - which judging from footage of the bathroom, was not particularly noticeable

That's not what Raffaele said in his phone call to police.

there could easily have been an innocent explanation, as of course there was for the cat's blood found in the downstairs flat.

Like what? No cat lived in the upstairs cottage. The blood could only have been left by a person, a person that had since vanished leaving all the blood behind...what can be 'innocent' about that?

I dare say we all have our own tolerance thresholds for these things, though, and to some extent it's a personal reaction. From what we know of Knox, she does seem rather like the oblivious to her surroundings, living in her own world type, so perhaps it's not over-surprising she didn't immediately act on the odd things she noticed.

Let's add that to the myriad of excuses made on her behalf by Amanda's supporters. I'm just wondering when the excuses stop and the responsibility begins. I somehow suspect that by the time that happens Hell will have icebergs floating across it.

 

[mbp]

And to stilicho, Fiona, Fulcanelli, BobTheDonkey and others, there are lurkers like me who have followed this thread from the start and have appreciated your efforts and your forebearance

Indeed. I'm amazed by how incredibly patient and calm they've remained in spite of all the nonsense and provocation they've had to face.

 

[Kestrel]

And you're are dodging. I am saying there is no evidence to support your claim that from the inside the door needed to be locked with a key and in order to get out of the cottage, one needed a key.

katy_did never made that specific argument, it's simply a straw man on your part.

She simply pointed out that the latch didn't work properly and the front door needed to be locked from the outside when leaving. Otherwise it could simply blow open.

 

[Kestrel]

I dare say we all have our own tolerance thresholds for these things, though, and to some extent it's a personal reaction. From what we know of Knox, she does seem rather like the oblivious to her surroundings, living in her own world type, so perhaps it's not over-surprising she didn't immediately act on the odd things she noticed.

The clue here is that even after seeing the apartment, the Postal Police were unwilling to break down the door to Meredith's room. They were worried about being sued for damaging the property. Would that even be a consideration if they were sure the missing girl was dead or dying behind that door?

 

[Fulcanelli]

katy_did never made that specific argument, it's simply a straw man on your part.

She simply pointed out that the latch didn't work properly and the front door needed to be locked from the outside when leaving. Otherwise it could simply blow open.

Clearly then you missed this post by katy_did:

There is, of course, a perfectly rational explanation as to why Guede would have locked the door - to delay the discovery of the body as long as possible, to give himself time to get the money together to leave the country. To hide what he'd done from Meredith's housemates. No need to put it down to illogical reasoning in his case.

Guede would also have needed to take Meredith's keys to get out of the house anyway, since she would have locked the door behind her. And Guede, unlike Knox, would not have been aware that the front door latch was broken, so he didn't lock it behind him and the door blew open overnight (the first thing to arouse Knox's suspicion, of course).

Post 2891 here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5587300&postcount=2891

 

[Fulcanelli]

The clue here is that even after seeing the apartment, the Postal Police were unwilling to break down the door to Meredith's room. They were worried about being sued for damaging the property. Would that even be a consideration if they were sure the missing girl was dead or dying behind that door?

If the residents of the home were present, legally it was their responsibility to break the door down. The police didn't do so because they didn't need to...the householders were there to do it. And clearly, the police were concerned because despite their having other duties they waited right by the door to observe it being broken in. If instead they were in their car heading off up the drive at the time, you might have had a point.

 

[Kestrel]

Clearly then you missed this post by katy_did:

Post 2891 here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5587300&postcount=2891

I may have read that post before katy_did edited it.

BTW - Do you know where we can find good photos of that door?