Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

Kestrel consistently misses the forest for the trees.

Because a particular detail is not oh so perfectly right, the accused should be set free.

Circumstantial cases are ugly, need a lot of inferencing by jurors and judges alike and are won by the best narrative presented.

Kestrel wants mathematical certainty and is not getting it in this trial.

The three accused are in jail, despite the ugly inferencing by jurors and judges and the less than sterling evidence pointing to culpability.

It is the big mess of tawdry coincidences and false testimony proffered by the accused that has them at the jam they're in. It is the three in prison with their pervasive obfuscations that put themselves there, Kestrel's skepticism notwithstanding.

American "experts" say this is a weak case for the prosecution. Why have the competent lawyers for the defence failed to demolish this weak tapestry of falsehoods presented by the prosecution? Why has the defence failed, because of a cartwheel, maybe?

 

[Matthew Best]

Why so desperate? And what's the name of your dog...the one you have in this fight?

 

[tsig]

Edited. NM it is not worth it.

Yep. Nitwits will nitpick.

 

[tsig]

Testing emoticons?

 

[tsig]

Kestrel consistently misses the forest for the trees.

Because a particular detail is not oh so perfectly right, the accused should be set free.

Circumstantial cases are ugly, need a lot of inferencing by jurors and judges alike and are won by the best narrative presented.

Kestrel wants mathematical certainty and is not getting it in this trial.

The three accused are in jail, despite the ugly inferencing by jurors and judges and the less than sterling evidence pointing to culpability.

It is the big mess of tawdry coincidences and false testimony proffered by the accused that has them at the jam they're in. It is the three in prison with their pervasive obfuscations that put themselves there, Kestrel's skepticism notwithstanding.

American "experts" say this is a weak case for the prosecution. Why have the competent lawyers for the defence failed to demolish this weak tapestry of falsehoods presented by the prosecution? Why has the defence failed, because of a cartwheel, maybe?

Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[lane99]

////Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
It might also be worthwhile to remind you, yet again, nobody made Amanda give that second statement...she DEMANDED to give it. As far as the police were concerned, they were done with her for the night at 1:45 am when the first statement was concluded. It was 'she' that insisted on giving the second statement, because she had something to tell them and and couldn't wait until the morning.///

You keep repeating this claim but somehow never get around to proving it.

At this point, it's rather clear that it's a lie.

Indeed that poster likes to present the picture of Amanda Knox "DEMANDING", over the vociferous objections of the authorities, that she must be heard until she finally broke down their resistance and they accepted her statement in spite of their objections and reluctance.

I wondered if that was true or not, but never would have taken the time to check into it since it's not crucial to the issues at stake even if it is.

But having run across these posts, it's at least somewhat interesting to see it's apparently *not* true. And certainly to have painted the picture he does based on, it would seem, little other than the statement having been classified as "voluntary" for court purposes, shows an eagerness on his part to stretch the truth that people looking for an unbiased source of information should be warned about.

 

[lane99]

...

-see the case of "The Norfolk Four"
-see the case described in the Dateline show: "And Justice for All. Crime Lab"

In both of these cases innocent people accused not only themselves, but also other innocent people, of heinous rape/sexual assault/murder.

In the Norfolk case, you had SEVERAL people falsely confessing and accusing other innocent people.

NOTE: I tried to post links to the cases I refered to above. But the system here apparently doesn't allow it.

I'm told you need a certain number of posts- which I know have- before you can post links.


1. http://www.norfolkfour.com

The Norfolk case had the police accusing up to SEVEN people of participating in a gang rape and murder. Four of them, yes, four of them, gave false confessions and made false accusations.

It is now been generally accepted the crime was committed by a single perpetrator. An eigth person who had little or no connection with the other seven.


2. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/dnabook/IL-4 TEENS EXON AFTER 15YRS MUR.1st

This is a transcript of the above referenced Dateline episode. An excerpt:

"17-year-old Marsellius Bradford had indeed given this signed confession to a Cook County prosecutor and a court reporter. In it, he implicated 14-year-old Calvin Ollins, Calvin's 16-year-old cousin, Larry Ollins, another friend of Omar's. The police were still looking for a fourth suspect. Jim Maurer announced the motive for the crime at a press conference in 1987."

Notes:
-the confessions led to convictions, and several years in prison.

-eventually they were proven to be innocent and the real perpetrators- to whom they had no connection whatsoever- were identified

-interesting also to note that, reminiscent of the fallacious "scream" argument presented in this thread against Amanda Knox, the authorities in this case made the bogus claim that the confessions contained information only the murderer(s) could have known.

 

[Fiona]

////Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
It might also be worthwhile to remind you, yet again, nobody made Amanda give that second statement...she DEMANDED to give it. As far as the police were concerned, they were done with her for the night at 1:45 am when the first statement was concluded. It was 'she' that insisted on giving the second statement, because she had something to tell them and and couldn't wait until the morning.///






Indeed that poster likes to present the picture of Amanda Knox "DEMANDING", over the vociferous objections of the authorities, that she must be heard until she finally broke down their resistance and they accepted her statement in spite of their objections and reluctance.

I wondered if that was true or not, but never would have taken the time to check into it since it's not crucial to the issues at stake even if it is.

But having run across these posts, it's at least somewhat interesting to see it's apparently *not* true. And certainly to have painted the picture he does based on, it would seem, little other than the statement having been classified as "voluntary" for court purposes, shows an eagerness on his part to stretch the truth that people looking for an unbiased source of information should be warned about.

Evidence?

 

[katy_did]

What do you think is the significance of it?

You've been following the argument about the difference between the carabinieri's arrival time and the phone call they made asking for directions, I take it?

 

[katy_did]

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.

I answered your earlier point, and you replied with 'That's ridiculous'. I can only assume you don't have a further argument, which is the same thing I assume when you type 'Are you kidding?!' Fair enough.

 

[katy_did]

You don't think Robyn and Sophie et all would have mentioned it? And are you suggesting that Meredith was 'not' wearing the dark jeans and cardigan top found next to her body and that they were perhaps 'planted' by the murderers with the clothes she had 'actually' been wearing removed from her room?

It is also well known Meredith didn't get home until much before 9:15. It simply is not possible for it to be her in the video.

Did Sophie not revise her statement to say she arrived home around 20:55?

And this is just Sophie's word - we have no idea whether her watch was 5 or 10 minutes fast or slow, and it almost certainly wouldn't have lined up with the exact time shown on the CCTV's (corrected) time. You only have to look at Filomena's wildly inaccurate estimates of the timing of Amanda's calls to know witness statements as to timing are often not reliable, and certainly not to the minute. It's well within the bounds of possibility that the figure shown on the CCTV footage is Meredith. The lighting may account for the light appearance of the figure, in the same way that one of the figures in the postal police footage appears white at one point. Meredith's sweatshirt was also fairly light-coloured, or could certainly have appeared that way in the footage.

Where does your 9:15 time come from? I've seen it on TJMK's timeline, but I can't recall seeing it anywhere else. You also seem to be suggesting the figure was Amanda. But this was never suggested in court, was it?

 

[tsig]

I answered your earlier point, and you replied with 'That's ridiculous'. I can only assume you don't have a further argument, which is the same thing I assume when you type 'Are you kidding?!' Fair enough.

Katy did, I started reading this thread just because of the title and I have no problem with saying that Amanda is guilty.

 

[katy_did]

Katy did, I started reading this thread just because of the title and I have no problem with saying that Amanda is guilty.

I was just replying to an earlier post of Fulcanelli's, where he said he didn't need to put forward any argument other than 'That's ridiculous'. I'm not sure what your comment means...?

 

[katy_did]

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

Not at all. I don't think it proves anything, one way or another. But you (and others, based on how much it's cited) clearly see it as evidence of their guilt, which is why I think it's a point worth clarifying.

 

[Fiona]

It is hardly "clarification". katy_did.

You have presented what you think happened. You believe it to be plausible. I do not and I have said why I do not. Once again it is for each to make up their own minds on the basis of what we can know and what we make of those facts.

And that is just what the court did in reaching its verdict on the basis of more evidence than we have access to. As you said, we do not know what they accepted nor what they thought important.

I have no problem in going over points which are in dispute if the evidence we have has not been fully discussed or if there are interpretations of that evidence which are new and are supported by the facts. But if you believe it does not shed light on the question of guilt then why do you bother to address it?

I think it is one of the small pieces which make up the case and so I looked into it and presented what seems to be supported by the facts we have. You have given your own account and I do not find it so persuasive: but it is there for those who want it and we will have to agree to disagree unless you have something new and substantive to say

For the rest it is bickering, so far as I can see. Do you think it is moving this thread forward in any way? If so, how?

 

[katy_did]

It is hardly "clarification". katy_did.

You have presented what you think happened. You believe it to be plausible. I do not and I have said why I do not. Once again it is for each to make up their own minds on the basis of what we can know and what we make of those facts.

And that is just what the court did in reaching its verdict on the basis of more evidence than we have access to. As you said, we do not know what they accepted nor what they thought important.

I have no problem in going over points which are in dispute if the evidence we have has not been fully discussed or if there are interpretations of that evidence which are new and are supported by the facts. But if you believe it does not shed light on the question of guilt then why do you bother to address it?

I think it is one of the small pieces which make up the case and so I looked into it and presented what seems to be supported by the facts we have. You have given your own account and I do not find it so persuasive: but it is there for those who want it and we will have to agree to disagree unless you have something new and substantive to say

For the rest it is bickering, so far as I can see. Do you think it is moving this thread forward in any way? If so, how?

You've presented no logical argument in support of the theory the 112 call was made after the police's arrival, beyond the entirely implausible claim that the figures shown were not the postal police. You've disregarded all evidence apart from Battistelli's very unreliable word. But as you said, you've presented your argument, and it's for others to decide whether or not what you say is plausible.

I've stated twice now why I think it's worth discussing: because it is used as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. If it were not, it would not be worth discussing at all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I answered your earlier point, and you replied with 'That's ridiculous'. I can only assume you don't have a further argument, which is the same thing I assume when you type 'Are you kidding?!' Fair enough.

No, you rehashed the same argument. Earlier you implied that Micheli was unable to do his job properly, ir simply didn't do his job properly because of the size of the case file and therefore not comparing all the raw data in regard to the key points, such as the phone and video records. You simply rephrased it in a different way in your later post. And the fact remains your point is nonsense.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not at all. I don't think it proves anything, one way or another. But you (and others, based on how much it's cited) clearly see it as evidence of their guilt, which is why I think it's a point worth clarifying.

It is one point among a great many. Therefore, it is still a mystery how putting so much effort in attempting to remove one pirahna fish from the shoal improves the situation for your little angels.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You've presented no logical argument in support of the theory the 112 call was made after the police's arrival, beyond the entirely implausible claim that the figures shown were not the postal police. You've disregarded all evidence apart from Battistelli's very unreliable word. But as you said, you've presented your argument, and it's for others to decide whether or not what you say is plausible.

I've stated twice now why I think it's worth discussing: because it is used as evidence of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. If it were not, it would not be worth discussing at all.

Battistelli's word is unreliable only in 'your' opinion. And it is not only 'his' word, but that of his colleague and that of his controller and that of Filomena and her friends.. And it is even the word of Raffaele who admitted to police and and un his diary that he called the police after the postal police arrived.

 

[katy_did]

Battistelli's word is unreliable only in 'your' opinion. And it is not only 'his' word, but that of his colleague and that of his controller and that of Filomena and her friends.. And it is even the word of Raffaele who admitted to police and and un his diary that he called the police after the postal police arrived.

No, Battistelli's word is unreliable in point of fact because he was shown to have lied in court. No wonder he didn't want to admit it took him so long to find the house - makes him look a bit incompetent.

Filomena and her friends support the timeline I described; they don't contradict it. They contradict any earlier arrival time for the postal police, though (her friends must have arrived at 12:46 at the latest under your theory, and they stated Filomena and friend arrived a few minutes afterward, so...). As you know, Raffaele admitted no such thing.