Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

If, if, if,.... The man says he never said those things. The newspaper hasn't produced or claimed to have any contemporaneous notes. At the very least it is wrong to state with certainty that he made the claims of abuse. If we are talking about evidence that may be worth considering at the appeal he doesn't look like a very helpful witness for Knox and Co. regarding police brutality.

The Sunday Mail had actually paid Patrick for that interview (the only 'paid' interview he did). They paid him 70,000 euros for it. They could write whatever they pleased, including taking whatever license they pleased.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did Fulcanelli back up this claim by posting evidence or by posting insults?

I posted it from the PMF Timeline. Go look it up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I understand that under the Italian judicial system the first appeal is in effect a re-trial and that the evidence can be re-examined and new evidence can be presented.

Does this mean she'll have to appeal along with RS or can she have a solo appeal?

Yes..though less detailed then before. For example, many witnesses wouldn't have to be recalled since their testimony has already been given and recorded. So, witnesses will only be recalled if it's to give 'new' evidence, or because a party wishes to subject them to a line of cross examination they weren't in the first trial.

They were tried together, their appeal must run together. Their fates are entwined.

 

[shuttlt]

Incidentally, if newspapers learned from this kind of thing then we wouldn't have the wonderful self-regulated tabloid press that we have in the UK. Tabloids take the occasional fine as an occupasional risk of scooping their rivals. The only time there are serious consequences is when the public mood is against them and they risk losing readers, like when Piers Morgan got sacked for the fake prisoner abuse photo's or when the Sun claimed Liverpool fans had pissed on the dying at Hilsborough.

 

[Dan O.]

Welcome to the JREF forum nicole.

I too remember reading somewhere that Amanda talked about needing to remember to lock the door since it had a funny latch. Unfortunately there is so much noise on the internet that it is nearly impossible to find the original sources.

From the best photo of the door frame that I've seen, it appears that there are two strike plates which would be consistent with having a separate deadbolt. A deadbolt would need to be locked with a key from the outside. On the inside, there can either be another key slot or a knob to activate the deadbolt. The best lock sets link the deadbolt to the door knob to make emergency egress easier.

Personally, I would never be in a house that required a key to get out. But some highly insecure people think they need that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sollecito’s DNA was almost certainly in Knox’s flat for the same reason that Knox’s DNA was found in Sollecito’s flat, people shed skin and hair pretty regularly. Filomena’s DNA is likely to be in several rooms in their flat, but we cannot say that it was or was not found there: We have no evidence on Filomena’s DNA, one way or another

DNA is not so easy to leave as you imagine.

eg, clearly nobody else shed skin in the way you describe for it to be found mixed in Meredith's blood in the bathroom and Filomena's bedroom. Ir, is this splattering DNA everywhere from shedding a feat limited to Raffaele and Amanda alone?

 

[Fulcanelli]

ETA: Meredith's keys have never been found. Could they have been discarded where the cell phones were tossed, or somewhere the along path to that place?

NO, hence why they were never found. And this is the whole point...if Guede took the keys (aside from the question of 'why' which makes no sense), why were they not discarded with the phones?!

 

[quadraginta]

The Daily Mail is not above publishing corrections where they make a mistake. If Patrick indeed was misquoted he could have simply asked them to correct the article. Of course, if the reporter has detailed contemporaneous notes or a recording of the interview they won't need to back down. Your bringing up the recent case where the tabloids did get in trouble lends weight to the publishers being more careful to have documentation of the interviews to protect themselves from subsequent adverse actions.

You are suggesting that the Daily Mail's well known, extensive history of sensationalism, distortion, if not outright fabrication of the news (libel suits going back to the nineteenth century) is evidence that they should be considered a reputable authority in this instance? A paper known to have published allegations as fact and then challenged it's victims to sue them?

This is a stunning pinnacle of ill-logic even by the standards you have managed to set here so far.

 

[lector]

Originally Posted by nicole
Could this be it?...

From TJ site, Understanding Micheli #1:

"Micheli was also mystified as to why Amanda (named in Rudy’s March version) would ring the doorbell. Why wouldn’t she let herself in using her own key? He supposed it was possible Meredith had left her own key in the door which prevented Amanda from using hers, but the girls all knew the lock was broken and they were careful not to leave their own key in the door. Perhaps, Meredith wanted some extra security/privacy against someone returning and had left her key in the lock on purpose. Maybe Amanda was carrying something heavy and her hands weren’t free. Or, maybe, Rudy was just trapped by his December story of the doorbell when he didn’t name anybody and an anonymous ring on the doorbell was plausible."

Not really. I sometimes leave my key in my door. The catch isn't broken and it doesn't require a key to lock it from the inside.

Welcome to the JREF forum nicole.

I too remember reading somewhere that Amanda talked about needing to remember to lock the door since it had a funny latch. Unfortunately there is so much noise on the internet that it is nearly impossible to find the original sources.

From the best photo of the door frame that I've seen, it appears that there are two strike plates which would be consistent with having a separate deadbolt. A deadbolt would need to be locked with a key from the outside. On the inside, there can either be another key slot or a knob to activate the deadbolt. The best lock sets link the deadbolt to the door knob to make emergency egress easier.

Personally, I would never be in a house that required a key to get out. But some highly insecure people think they need that.

Well, I guess I'm one of those "highly insecure people." Where I live it's a sensible precaution against breaking & entering, as I know from personal experience. Perhaps you are more fortunate in life.

Anyway: yes, we have deadbolt locks on our doors that require operation by a key on both sides. (And I always know where my keys are.) Such locks are not uncommon.

However, leaving a key in the lock on one side does not disable the lock on the other. Perhaps some Italian locks are different, or the fact that the cottage lock was broken made it operate differently.

 

[Fiona]

Not true.

Amanda testified she was at Solliecito's at 11:30 AM:

Yes she did. Filomena testified about Knox's first phone call to her as well.

We have had this conversation Kestrel.

There is a contradiction between the two testimonies. You choose to believe Filomena is lying: I choose to believe Knox is lying. That is fine: it is a judgement based on the whole case and the evaluation of how the evidence bears on credibility etc.

What is not ok is for you to pretend that we are having this conversation for the first time: or that the facts have not been presented properly.

 

[Fiona]

I never used the word "formal;" therefore, you are distorting what I sad. My point is that Sollecito's call to his sister is little different from an informal conversation with any member of the caribinieri would have been.


Chris

So we can take it that we are agreed that the phone call to his sister does not constitute "calling the police" as that phrase is normally understood

Good. At last a point of agreement about the facts: however small

 

[Fiona]

You claimed that Amanda said she was at the cottage at 11:30 and I just proved your claim was false. You made a false statement with the intent proving she lied about where she was and didn't expect anyone to check.

She did say she was at the cottage at 12:08. And, as I said, this has been discussed before. She was lying or Filolmena was lying. Clearly you choose to believe Knox: that is your privilege. But please stop with the pretence that that is not the choice you have made. You are entitled to your view: you are not entitled to imply that it is not a decision you have made between two contradictory accounts.

 

[Kestrel]

She did say she was at the cottage at 12:08. And, as I said, this has been discussed before. She was lying or Filolmena was lying. Clearly you choose to believe Knox: that is your privilege. But please stop with the pretence that that is the choice you have made. You are entitled to your view: you are not entitled to imply that it is not a decision you have made between two contradictory accounts.

I was discussing where Amanda was at 11:30, not where she was at some later time.

 

[Fiona]

Tell that to Fiona. She is the one that posted the quote and has refused to back it up or retract. Of course, the piece she posted came verbatim from PMF so maybe it isn't Fiona's fault.

You are right, Dan_O. In view of the fact that I have said several times that Knox testified she had deleted the text from Lumumba: and explicitly that there was no extant text I did not take the trouble to back it up or retract it: because it was an error and nothing whatsoever hangs on it: nothing at all.

This is an example of you getting all excited when a mistake is made which quite clearly is an error in light of all that has been said. You demand a level of precision which is frankly superhuman: but you do not meet that standard yourself, as has also been pointed out

This is just a daft game and I am not playing.

 

[Fiona]

I was discussing where Amanda was at 11:30, not where she was at some later time.

Oh?

So now she went to the cottage at 10:30: back to Sollecito's at 11:30: returned to the cottage by herself at some time between then and 12:08, having omitted to tell RS about what she had found at the cottage? and then went back to RS's to get him and come back to the cottage with him after 12:08?

I wonder why she never mentioned that? Have you any idea?

 

[Fiona]

Really? I've never seen then do so. Provide us with an example or two...ones that haven't been ordered by a court.

To be fair it is perhaps unreasonable to expect an american to know that the mail is a comic. This has been explained in this thread before: and in looking at american newspaper sources I have been careful to note that I have no way of knowing if they are respectable because I don't. Dan_O is not skilled at evaluating sources IMO: but none of us are in talking about single articles in the foreign press

As to Lumumba seeking a retraction from the Mail: why on earth would he do that: it would cost and he does not speak english: he made his position plain in interviews on italian tv and I doubt much else matters to him. Why would it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are right, Dan_O. In view of the fact that I have said several times that Knox testified she had deleted the text from Lumumba: and explicitly that there was no extant text I did not take the trouble to back it up or retract it: because it was an error and nothing whatsoever hangs on it: nothing at all.

This is an example of you getting all excited when a mistake is made which quite clearly is an error in light of all that has been said. You demand a level of precision which is frankly superhuman: but you do not meet that standard yourself, as has also been pointed out

This is just a daft game and I am not playing.

And I'm left wondering how all this tiresome pedantic hair splitting by some demonstrates Amanda Knox's innocence. It seems the aim for some is to go in constant ever decreasing circles either to make everyone completely dizzy, or to bore them to death to the point where they concede the debate.

Of course, no matter what happens here...Amanda Knox will still be serving 26 years.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh?

So now she went to the cottage at 10:30: back to Sollecito's at 11:30: returned to the cottage by herself at some time between then and 12:08, having omitted to tell RS about what she had found at the cottage? and then went back to RS's to get him and come back to the cottage with him after 12:08?

I wonder why she never mentioned that? Have you any idea?

I never made that claim Fiona. All I said was that Amanda testified that she went back to RS's apartment at 11:30.

 

[Fiona]

Nobody disagrees that that is what she said in her testimony. It does not make it so.

If you will, please tell me what you intended me to take from the post I was responding to? What I just outlined is the only way both her statement in court and her statement to Filomena can be true. But you are not arguing that, I find. So what is the significance of what you said ? I am really interested

 

[Fulcanelli]

To be fair it is perhaps unreasonable to expect an american to know that the mail is a comic.

Oh don't worry, Knox supporters know exactly what the Daily Mail is and are very quick ro scream it on other sites whenever the Mail says something about Amanda they don't like.

However, in this case, I've found it best to trust specific journalists rather then specific papers...for example, Nick Pisa is very reliable no matter which paper his stories are run (uncluding the Daily Mail). He has followed the case from the beginning, speaks Italian and has attended all the hearings. The others that are good are Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau and Ann wise. And while they haven't covered the case so broadly or often, also worth reading are Richard Owen, John Follain and Charles Mudede. Of course, I've only included the Anglo reporters in that list, not the Italians. There are some good Italian reporters also.