Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Guede did his best not to leave any evidence outside the bedroom itself, and then he locked the door on his way out. Why do you think none of his prints go from the body to the bathroom, even though he's admitted he went in there? Because he took off his shoes so as not to leave prints, then put them back on in the corridor before he left. He might have gotten away with it, had he not accidentally stepped in some blood and had to hop to the bathroom to try and wash it off (a footprint which can only have been made shortly after the attack, before the blood had dried). Whoops.

He knew he was going to be skipping the country, and he was hoping to buy himself a few days to get the money together before he did.

Did his best not to leave evidence, you are kidding? Bloody footprints all the way up the corridor through the front room? Poo in the loo?

He took off his shoes so as not to leave prints? Why? Then put them back on again so he could leave stonking great prints all the way down the corridor? And...if he'd taken them off, wouldn't the blood on the soles have dried to the point of their not leaving prints when he ran out the cottage? You make no sense. He took off his shoes so he wouldn't leave prints, then put them on again and left prints right through the house?

Prints didn't leave from the room to the bathroom because he hadn't stepped in blood at that point. It's quite simple.

But the footprint in the bathroom on the mat doesn't match Rudy, it's far too small.

You need to go back to the drawing board with that one. Whoops.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, from the OUTSIDE, in that they couldn't just shut the door behind them when they went out.

As for the police, you can't play those games. It isn't the police who are on trial. You will find the links to the police testimony in various media sources on PMF. They explained exactly how they interrogated Amanda and what questions they asked her. If you can't be bothered to go and read the sources, then too bad. But it sounds ignorant to me, to be making claims about the police testimony when you've not even read it.

No, the door needed to be "locked with a key" in order for it not to blow open. Do you have a picture of the front door? Because that would clear it up one way or another.

If you can't be bothered to search out the source I'm talking about, it sounds ignorant to me that you're commenting on it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I suspect sufficient doubt has been cast on the forensic evidence following the verdict that an acquittal is quite likely, especially in light of Mignini's guilty verdict (anyone know when his appeal is likely to be - before or after Knox and Sollecito's appeal?). It should make no difference of course, but I suspect it will in the sense that it allows the court to make Mignini the fall guy and the Italian legal system itself can escape criticism (somewhat unfairly, actually; Mignini wasn't the one who decided on the guilty verdict). We shall see, anyway.

If there is truly sufficient doubt, why wasn't it cast during the trial? As I recall, it was attempted and failed, because it was pants. Is there some 'new' doubt to be heard in the appeal? If so, what? And if so, why wasn't it presented in the trial? Were Amanda's experts and lawyers deficient?

As for making Mignini the 'fall guy'. clearly despite your 'know it all' stance, you still don't have a clue how the Italian legal system works.

 

[katy_did]

Did his best not to leave evidence, you are kidding? Bloody footprints all the way up the corridor through the front room? Poo in the loo?

He took off his shoes so as not to leave prints? Why? Then put them back on again so he could leave stonking great prints all the way down the corridor? And...if he'd taken them off, wouldn't the blood on the soles have dried to the point of their not leaving prints when he ran out the cottage? You make no sense. He took off his shoes so he wouldn't leave prints, then put them on again and left prints right through the house?

Prints didn't leave from the room to the bathroom because he hadn't stepped in blood at that point. It's quite simple.

But the footprint in the bathroom on the mat doesn't match Rudy, it's far too small.

You need to go back to the drawing board with that one. Whoops.

They were hardly "stonking great prints" now, were they? They were barely visible, so much so that no one noticed them before the door was broken down. They were very faint and partial.

Guede was in the big bathroom when Meredith came home, before the attack (hence lack of blood in there). Understandably, the 'poo in the loo' slipped his mind somewhat after what happened subsequently.

So tell me, why are there no prints from the body to the corridor? And when do you think that print on the bathmat was left, if you think Knox and Sollecito returned later to clean up, after the blood was dry? Hmmm.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, the door needed to be "locked with a key" in order for it not to blow open. Do you have a picture of the front door? Because that would clear it up one way or another.

If you can't be bothered to search out the source I'm talking about, it sounds ignorant to me that you're commenting on it.

Yes, but only from the outside, not the inside.

 

[katy_did]

If there is truly sufficient doubt, why wasn't it cast during the trial? As I recall, it was attempted and failed, because it was pants. Is there some 'new' doubt to be heard in the appeal? If so, what? And if so, why wasn't it presented in the trial? Were Amanda's experts and lawyers deficient?

As for making Mignini the 'fall guy'. clearly despite your 'know it all' stance, you still don't have a clue how the Italian legal system works.

Some might argue it was cast, but they passed the buck to the appeals court.

As you know, the appeal is basically a new trial, so they might well review the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I would say there has been so much discussion of the flaws in the forensic evidence, that it's very likely they will. Depending, of course, on whether the judge's report indicates that the forensic evidence was a key reason for the verdict.

P.S. My 'know it all stance', hey? Ahem.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, but only from the outside, not the inside.

No, from both sides. Do you have a photo of the door? It should be easy to tell whether it was a door that only locked with a key (as my front door is) or one that automatically locks when you close it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's a little different seeing the CCTV records and cell phone records directly compared to prove a point, as opposed to seeing them as entirely separate documents. Why do you think Bongiorno decided to create a presentation based on them in the first place, if what she said was so darn obvious?


You feel it is settled because you aren't prepared to accept simple logic. You can't conclude on the basis of the guilty verdict that this particular aspect of the prosecution case was believed.

Do you think the judge didn't compare? Do you think he doesn't know his job? Judges actually work more with written data, the Italian system being text based, then with people (verbal testimony). Micheli went through all the documentation, the whole 10,000 page case file.

As for 'why' Bongiorno did what she did...that's what lawyers do...they attempt to tell a 'story' and when telling a story, presentation is everything.

 

[katy_did]

Do you think the judge didn't compare? Do you think he doesn't know his job? Judges actually work more with written data, the Italian system being text based, then with people (verbal testimony). Micheli went through all the documentation, the whole 10,000 page case file.

As for 'why' Bongiorno did what she did...that's what lawyers do...they attempt to tell a 'story' and when telling a story, presentation is everything.

The relevance of the carabinieri arrival time to the postal police's arrival is not immediately obvious, unless it's presented in the format Bongiorno presented it. Considering that, as you say, Micheli was going through a 10,000 page case file, it's highly likely he didn't realize the significance of it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Technically, as you say, it should play no part. Similarly, Rudy's reduction in sentence should play no part. But in the same way that I felt Rudy's sentence reduction was bad news for Knox and Sollecito (since it meant that if they were acquitted, the only person convicted for the murder would serve just 12 years or so) Mignini's guilty verdict is good news for them, in that the court can acquit without accepting any responsibility for the first conviction.

These things are political, in any country. But as I said, we shall see.

Question: do we know yet that the verdict was unanimous? I've seen conflicting stories on this, some people stating already that it was unanimous, others saying that will be revealed in the judge's report. Anyone know which of these is true?

Again, you clearly don't understand the Italian system.

Yes, the verdict was unanimous. I thought you knew everything?

 

[Fiona]

Katy did: you have made a number of claims. For example

1. The police agreed with the defence proposition that they arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58).
2. The door was locked with a key from the inside
3. Guede washed his hands
4. Guede took his shoes off and then put them back on
5. The print on the bath mat was Guede's
6. The police did not know about the second cell phone till 12:46

Do you have any evidence in support of any of this? Any at all?

To me you seem to be engaged in creative writing

 

[Fulcanelli]

The relevance of the carabinieri arrival time to the postal police's arrival is not immediately obvious, unless it's presented in the format Bongiorno presented it. Considering that, as you say, Micheli was going through a 10,000 page case file, it's highly likely he didn't realize the significance of it.

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read all day.

 

[katy_did]

Katy did: you have made a number of claims. For example

1. The police agreed with the defence proposition that they arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58).

Do you read my post to you? This is a clear lie - I never claimed what you suggest. The police and prosecution argued the CCTV was ten minutes fast, and that the 12:48 time at which they are seen arriving is actually 12:38. They didn't need to agree with the defence's proposition, they simply interpreted the evidence in a different way.

But I have said this to you already.

2. The door was locked with a key from the inside

The door needed to be "locked with a key" so that it didn't "blow open in the wind", yes. If we had a picture of the front door, this could of course be settled one way or another.

3. Guede washed his hands
4. Guede took his shoes off and then put them back on
5. The print on the bath mat was Guede's

No one has evidence as to these things; these are theories, as is the idea Sollecito made the print. It's kind of like asking the prosecution to prove that Knox, Sollecito and Guede met before the murder.

6. The police did not know about the second cell phone till 12:46

According to the police log, they did not. However, on the basis of the quote from Micheli you presented, I can accept that his assumptions that they may have known about the second phone earlier are reasonable. In other words, when presented with a logical argument (even one which is far less solid than Bongiorno's argument about the CCTV footage) I concede the original point. Would that the pro-guilty crew could be equally persuaded by logic.

Anyway, this is something else I said to you earlier (on the previous page).

Do you have any evidence in support of any of this? Any at all?

To me you seem to be engaged in creative writing

Me and the prosecution both then, eh?

 

[katy_did]

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read all day.

Is this kind of like when you say "Are you kidding?!" and assume this somehow persuades everyone of your point?

 

[Alt+F4]

The relevance of the carabinieri arrival time to the postal police's arrival is not immediately obvious, unless it's presented in the format Bongiorno presented it. Considering that, as you say, Micheli was going through a 10,000 page case file, it's highly likely he didn't realize the significance of it.

What do you think is the significance of it?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Me and the prosecution both then, eh?

Oh, someone's clearly made their mind up

 

[Fulcanelli]

What do you think is the significance of it?

Oh, it proves they're innocent of murdering Meredith of course. Not.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is this kind of like when you say "Are you kidding?!" and assume this somehow persuades everyone of your point?

Well, I did expand on the 'Are you kidding' as you'll see, if you reread that post. But as for the the 'ridiculous' part, that was to something you'd already said in a post just before, only to rehash in a different way. Therefore, there was no need for me to expand since what I'd said earlier still applied. The best way of dealing with sophistry is economy.

 

[Fiona]

Do you read my post to you? This is a clear lie - I never claimed what you suggest.

The police and prosecution argued the CCTV was ten minutes fast, and that the 12:48 time at which they are seen arriving is actually 12:38. They didn't need to agree with the defence's proposition, they simply interpreted the evidence in a different way.

Ok, I have phrased that badly. Let me restate;

1. The police agreed that the footage shows their arrival.

Better?

The door needed to be "locked with a key" so that it didn't "blow open in the wind", yes. If we had a picture of the front door, this could of course be settled one way or another.

The door needed to be closed carefully, is the way I remember Knox's statement. I could be wrong. Do you have the evidence in support of your contention it had to be locked with a key? I realise you do not wish to show it for some reason, but without it all we have is your word

No one has evidence as to these things; these are theories, as is the idea Sollecito made the print. It's kind of like asking the prosecution to prove that Knox, Sollecito and Guede met before the murder.

So it is completely without evidence and is a waste of everybody's time? There is no trace of Guede in the bathroom where the footprint was: the footprint does not fit his foot, it fits Sollecito's. There is no evidence at all that he took his shoes off. Can you see the difference between a theory with at least some evidence in support of it and a made up story. As I keep saying: anything could have happened. Some things are more likely than others and some have at least some evidence in support of them. Stories with absolutely nothing to support them are just stories. And that is why your next part is wrong

Me and the prosecution both then, eh?

 

[stilicho]

All this uncertainty about basic facts. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the only way to decide this kind of rats nest is to set up some kind of formal chaired enquiry, with the power and resources to summon the primary sources to them for examination and where, after due deliberation a final decision is reached or everyone packs up and goes home.

A trial has to be better than what's going on here. This is endless.

Precisely.

When people cannot accept that the Postal Police arrived prior to Raffaele's 112 calls, based on the available evidence, then no progress may be made.

Note, too, that it is vested interests who are arguing against the evidence, the reports, and what ought to be common sense. I have to admit I was intrigued (what--forty pages back?) by the now-famous blogger's pdf. Then we discussed it and realised it didn't show what the blogger said it showed.

This is really the result of very basic reasoning.

Now we have freshly-scrubbed newcomers insisting that what we'd all agreed upon must be brought back onto the table for a new look. Why? I have asked them on several occasions to read what's already been discussed and to analyse it critically. This doesn't include red herrings about which phones Battistelli had in his hands.

This thread is agonisingly close to heading for assignment to CTs or AAH.