Well we discussed the status of the various uk press sources way back when ARubberChickenWithA Pulley was active in this thread, so it is not new information even to the americans. We discussed particular journalists at some time after you joined the thread as well. So there is quite a lot of evidence which seems to support your idea that this is a bit disingenuous: but it is not a certainty. No-one's memory is perfect.
Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
Well we discussed the status of the various uk press sources way back when ARubberChickenWithA Pulley was active in this thread, so it is not new information even to the americans. We discussed particular journalists at some time after you joined the thread as well. So there is quite a lot of evidence which seems to support your idea that this is a bit disingenuous: but it is not a certainty. No-one's memory is perfect.
Further to my post earlier about people making lists of agreed facts i have been having a look back and so far as I can tell we have two
1. The dna on the knife blade was Meredith Kercher's
2. A call to your sister is not tantamount to "calling the police".
At this rate we can expect to move to the points of dispute sometime around Guede's release date. Maybe
1. The dna on the knife blade was Meredith Kercher's
2. A call to your sister is not tantamount to "calling the police".
At this rate we can expect to move to the points of dispute sometime around Guede's release date. Maybe
Further to my post earlier about people making lists of agreed facts i have been having a look back and so far as I can tell we have two
1. The dna on the knife blade was Meredith Kercher's
2. A call to your sister is not tantamount to "calling the police".
At this rate we can expect to move to the points of dispute sometime around Guede's release date. Maybe
There does seem to be general agreement that Rudy Guede is guilty.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,574
points of disagreement
Fiona,
Your are overstating both 1 and 2. A call to your sister who is a member of the carabinieri is an informal discussion with a member of the carabinieri. However, this is a minor issue.
I have extensively chronicled the problems with the DNA profile (low S/N, extraneous peaks, imbalance of peak height within one locus) on the knife in an earlier post, and no one has disputed those problems. Affirming that the DNA is Kercher's is pushing the data too far. The electropherogram is a possible partial profile of Kercher's. However, even this is not as important as the question of how the profile has arisen.
Chris
Further to my post earlier about people making lists of agreed facts i have been having a look back and so far as I can tell we have two
1. The dna on the knife blade was Meredith Kercher's
2. A call to your sister is not tantamount to "calling the police".
At this rate we can expect to move to the points of dispute sometime around Guede's release date. Maybe
Fiona,
Your are overstating both 1 and 2. A call to your sister who is a member of the carabinieri is an informal discussion with a member of the carabinieri. However, this is a minor issue.
I have extensively chronicled the problems with the DNA profile (low S/N, extraneous peaks, imbalance of peak height within one locus) on the knife in an earlier post, and no one has disputed those problems. Affirming that the DNA is Kercher's is pushing the data too far. The electropherogram is a possible partial profile of Kercher's. However, even this is not as important as the question of how the profile has arisen.
Chris
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
It is Meredith Kercher's DNA. ALL of the experts for the prosecution, for Raffaele Sollecito, for Amanda Knox, for Rudy Guede and for the Kercher family agree on this FACT.
Ok: strike out both. There is now not one agreed fact after 3000 posts.
Hands up any who feel we have done all we can here
*raises hand*
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
All of which becomes moot when compared to the fact that as soon as Sollecito got wind of the mere possibility that Meredeth's DNA had been found on a knife in his apartment he desperately concocted an easily disproven story in a pitiful, failed attempt to explain it.
All of this smokescreening about contamination, incompetent lab procedure, and wacko conspiracy plots would have only gained in plausibility if he had merely shut up. What could have been the cause of such fear that the DNA would prove unimpeachable that he would take the foolish chance of having yet another of his lies exposed? Perhaps the knowledge that it got there just the way the police thought it had?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Ok: strike out both. There is now not one agreed fact after 3000 posts.
Hands up any who feel we have done all we can here
*raises hand*
I agree with what you are saying in principle, but the demonstrations of sheer effrontery still potential in the thread appear limitless. I would have thought that that was nearly mined out as well, until Dan O. suggested that the Daily Mail's positive credentials for rectitude could be inferred by its past failures of the same.
That nearly cost me a cup of coffee and a keyboard. (The screen needed cleaning anyway.
)I'm tired of the same silly evasions being trotted out repeatedly, as well. But if they can manage new gems of that caliber I'll be willing to watch. The bar has been set pretty high, though.
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
No, this is not a "minor issue," it is at best a semantic nitpick, and it is exactly the kind of thing that tends to go on (and on and ...) far too much over in my "home corner" of the JREF, the Conspiracy Theory forums. But over there at least there's the "excuse" that some of the participants are genuinely out-of-touch with reality, socially disturbed or simply trolling outrageously.
Unless someone here is going to take the position that Kercher faked her own death or was the victim of an alien experiment, surely the level of discourse in this thread can rise above that.
Now Fiona proposed a few pages back for everyone to get onto some common ground and move forward with a few facts that everyone can agree on.
How about a few easy ones:
0) Meredith Kercher was murdered.
1) There is sufficient evidence to charge Rudy Guede with being a participant in the crime and subsequently bring him to trial.
2) There is no credible evidence that Patrick Lumumba was involved in the crime.
Anyone disagree?
How about this one;
3) There was no fourteen hour interrogation of Amanda Knox.
I will go along with that if you reword it slightly and say:
3) Amanda Knox was not interrogated for 14 continuous hours.
How about this.
3.1) Amanda Knox was not interrogated for 14 continuous hours.
3.2) Amanda Knox was interrogated without a lawyer for less than 5 hours.
3.3) Amanda Knox made the statements about Lumumba after 1 hour and 45 minutes.
3.4) Amanda Knox was not made to go for unreasonably long periods without food and water during her interrogation.
Incidentally, do we know what the original source of the claims about the many hours of interogation without food or water was? Presumably in terms of any claims of slander, those are demonstrably false.
I would prefer:
3. Amanda Knox was not interviewed as a witness for longer than three hours continuously, and during those periods she had an interpreter; the opportunity to eat, drink, have toilet breaks; and was free to leave at any time.
4. Amanda Knox specifically asked to make a statement after she became a suspect, and she made that statement to the prosecutor because there was no lawyer available in the middle of the night.
Was Amanda really free to leave at any point? In the US, the police are allowed to detain someone as a witness, I would expect something similar in Italy.
I don't believe that the early morning interview that resulted in the 5:45 statement was voluntary.
She had not even been asked to go to the police station on the 5th. She would certainly not be free to leave once she became a suspect but up until 1.45 she was a witness. I was not aware that the police could detain someone as a witness in the USA: they cannot do so in this country. Are you sure about that? It is at odds with what Humanity Blues said in post #3090
This is very close to what happens in Italy, in fact
Why not?
Last edited:
Why would the police force Amanda to give another interview, this time clearly illegal, in front of Mignini to get her to say basically the same stuff she'd said before under circumstances where the police and Mignini must have known would almost certainly not be admissable.
Was the "gift" not freely given either?
Was the "gift" not freely given either?
From Knox's testimony.
This has been posted before, Kestrel. You clearly do not believe this part of Knox's testimony. Well that is fair enough: she has very little credibility. But can you say why you choose to reject this part of her testimony, which is in line with the evidence of the police and of Mignini: and which is logical from the police perspective,as Shuttit says above?
An answer to this will help me, because one of the things I find frustrating is that each time such points are put to you, you give no account of what leads you to your conclusion, but rather you move on to somethng else: then later we go over the same ground again.
This has been posted before, Kestrel. You clearly do not believe this part of Knox's testimony. Well that is fair enough: she has very little credibility. But can you say why you choose to reject this part of her testimony, which is in line with the evidence of the police and of Mignini: and which is logical from the police perspective,as Shuttit says above?
An answer to this will help me, because one of the things I find frustrating is that each time such points are put to you, you give no account of what leads you to your conclusion, but rather you move on to somethng else: then later we go over the same ground again.
Last edited:
We aren't equivocating on the word "voluntary" are we? Clearly, assuming she wasn't literally forced into it by the police, she requested the second interrogation under tense and pressured circumstances in which she might well have felt there was no option but to insist on talking to the police again rather than waiting for her lawyer.
Didn't we go through all this a few pages back?
In any case, what does that have to do with whether her second interrogation was at her request?
Last edited:
The testimony you quoted was referring to the statement Amanda wrote on the evening of Nov. 6th. Not the one she signed at 5:45 AM.
- Status