Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Reasonable Doubt

Judgements are proffered on some objective facts and on some "reasonable" conclusions....

I was thinking about this case and what would demonstrate reasonable doubt that may free AK and RS:

1] The Party Alibi:

Once this alibi fell through, RS knew he was on his own since it was the only story they'd agreed upon that put the two lovebirds in the same place, at the same time, far from the crimescene. But what if the party really happened and they were there? Quantaville came forward a little late in the game. Why not the party hosts? Maybe a few "missing" Facebook snaps of AK and RS whooping it up--with appropriate timestamps.

2] The Medical Examiner:

Once Lalli came out with his report, the authorities knew that more than one person was responsible for Meredith's death. What if it could be shown that Lalli was wrong? What if he testified, under oath, that he had falsified the report because he was late for a vacation at Lago di Garda? The judges look at the report again and declare it inadmissible.

3] Amanda's Memory Returns:

Courts like nothing worse than large and vital gaps in memories. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing at all kinds of important times in my life, even years afterwards. AK made a fool of herself in her own testimony trying to explain the gaps in her memory. Note to anyone planning on testifying at your own murder trial: Get your story straight!

I am sure everyone has their own favourites but those are mine. The first one casts doubt on the continued questioning by the police at the Questura. The second one casts doubt on the theory of multiple attackers. The final one casts AK in a credible light instead of as a visionary quack.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, he wasn't. This is fun.

He indeed was.

Nope, Amanda and Raffaele both state that when the postal police first approached them while they were waiting in the garden, they told them they had found two phones. Like Luca, Amanda mistakenly thought the two phones in Battistelli's hand were the two phones they had found. When Luca arrived, he thought the two phones on the table were the two phones the postal police were talking about. If Luca arrived before the 112 call was made, he must have arrived at or before 12:45, a minute before the finding of the second phone was reported.

They were speaking in hindsight. They both new LATER that two phones were discovered.

The postal police knew about the two cell phones before Amanda and Raffaele said anything to them. The reason they were only interested in Filomena is because they were able to tell that the first phone was registered to her. Meredith's second phone was a UK one, which means the police couldn't tell who it was registered to. Along with the CCTV footage, this is just more evidence you are ignoring because it doesn't fit your theory.

Well that's an interesting theory, but one that's completely 'false'.

Presumably this is the same argument you'll use if they win the appeal. 5 courts agreed, 1 court disagreed, so that 1 court is wrong?

Yet, it's that 1 court that will matter, not the other 5.

'What' court would that be that disagreed...not the Assize! Not ANY.

Whilst you continue with your rather silly arguments, these matters have been discussed EXHAUSTIVELY long before and it has been well established that the police went to the cottage with only one phone. Indeed, Luca for example mistook two phones on the table as belonging to Meredith, however it was established that only one of the phones was Filomena's and the other actually belonged to the Postal Police. It is also established that the other phone was handed in while the police were at the cottage.

Yet still, you continue in your desperate attempts to revise history, while ignoring all that which has been discussed before and facts that have long been established and understood.

 

[piktor]

Amanda says that that 'that' that that bad Bongiorno says exists, does not. Really.

I was thinking about this case and what would demonstrate reasonable doubt...

OR, HOW TO MAKE ITALIAN JUDGES -AND OBSERVERS THE WORLD OVER- NONBELIEVERS WITH JUST A FEW ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS AT YOUR OWN MURDER TRIAL

I have also thought about Knox's sheer gall when questioned by prosecutor Manuela Comodi about her call to Mom in Seattle.

It had already been established the call was made, by phone records and by Mom herself during questioning at court. The call was a bell that Amanda could not unring and yet she still pretended to have acquired a lacunae of irretreivable absent memory of that itsy bit of evidence. Her laughable pretension that "that" call and the conversation with her mom had never taken place paints a solid picture of a non credible witness.

It was not the first of Knox's parsing with actual events.

I have absolutely no doubt, I have zero doubt. Amanda Knox is the worst witness for the defense her lawyers could have come up with.

So goes for Sollecito. So goes for Guede.

The cartwheel is the least of Seattle's Eloise problems.

Go to #4 and see if Knox hit an out of the park homerun for the prosecution or not:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...estify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_details/

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CAIN'T BELIEVE THE ACCUSED, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE SOMEBODY, LIKE, ER... THE POLICE'S THEORY OF EVENTS.

 

[katy_did]

Could be but I would think the killers would have to use the phone to try and get that information and no calls were made on that phone after 9pm.

Wasn't there a call to Meredith's bank at around 10 p.m.? It was made without the +44 code (it was a UK bank) so it didn't go through. I think it pinged the cell phone tower near the house where the phones were found, though that doesn't mean the phones were definitely there of course.

 

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by lane99
///QUOTE///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.
///UNQUOTE///

Thanks for clarifying that, lane. I completely agree with you, there are quite a few claims presented as fact which when you look into them, either turn out to be completely false or a total distortion of the truth.

Another claim I've heard thrown about is the idea that the defence were responsible for the 46 day delay in the collection of the bra clasp. This was presented completely unsourced on PMF, and I then saw it repeated on various comments threads and forums, again totally unsourced. I suspect this is another 'fact' which, if we were to look into it, would turn out to be rather less true than the person posting it would like us to believe.

 

[katy_did]

I was thinking about this case and what would demonstrate reasonable doubt that may free AK and RS:

1] The Party Alibi:

Once this alibi fell through, RS knew he was on his own since it was the only story they'd agreed upon that put the two lovebirds in the same place, at the same time, far from the crimescene. But what if the party really happened and they were there? Quantaville came forward a little late in the game. Why not the party hosts? Maybe a few "missing" Facebook snaps of AK and RS whooping it up--with appropriate timestamps.

Out of interest, is this something that Raffaele is reported to have said outside the newspaper interview? I don't consider that to be a particularly reliable source, bearing in mind that (I think?) the journalist was British, and Sollecito's English was hardly fluent. Would he really haved used words like 'eerily' and 'ransacked'? Although they're presented as quotes in a continuous narrative, they would certainly have originated as questions from the interviewer, who at that stage, had no particular reason to pay special attention to every detail. So if it's the case that the party was only mentioned in this particular interview, I wouldn't consider that to be at all reliable, especially as he would have already given his story to the police by that time.

But if there's reliable info he said this somewhere else, that's a different matter, of course.

ETA: Just noticed she also says the police knocked the door down and Raffaele "followed them into the room" - guess it makes for a more dramatic story than saying he was some distance away from the door and didn't see anything...

 

[stilicho]

Out of interest, is this something that Raffaele is reported to have said outside the newspaper interview?

He didn't have an alibi. Did he?

If it wasn't the party then what was it? Nothing? That's even worse.

What are your top three things that would need to be different to provide reasonable doubt?

 

[katy_did]

He didn't have an alibi. Did he?

If it wasn't the party then what was it? Nothing? That's even worse.

What are your top three things that would need to be different to provide reasonable doubt?

I was simply asking whether or not this story had a more reliable origin than a Daily Mirror article. I take it that's the only place it appeared.

In terms of reasonable doubt, I think two main things would help: the forensic evidence needs to be questioned publically by high-profile international experts, and Mignini needs to be found guilty of abuse of office. Those things would make an overturning of the original verdict quite likely, IMO.

 

[Fiona]

The forensic evidence has been questioned by Italian experts and I see no reason whatsoever to dismiss their findings in favour of "international " (read American) scientists. It is of course open to the defence to hire someone of their choosing (as it always has been)


However I personally do not think the forensic evidence is all that crucial to the conviction: we will know when the reasons for decision are realeased.

The case against Mignini is completely irrelevant to this one. Your inclusion of that appears to show that you are not interested in what Stilicho asked you - what would need to be different to provide reasonable doubt- but rather in what might lead to acquittal whether she is guilty or no.

 

[katy_did]

The forensic evidence has been questioned by Italian experts and I see no reason whatsoever to dismiss their findings in favour of "international " (read American) scientists. It is of course open to the defence to hire someone of their choosing (as it always has been)

The case against Mignini is completely irrelevant to this one. Your inclusion of that appears to show that you are not interested in what Stilicho asked you - what would need to be different to provide reasonable doubt- but rather in what might lead to acquittal whether she is guilty or no.

No one knows better than Mignini that court cases impact upon one another - why do you think the announcements of the various slander charges were scheduled for such opportune moments during the trial? He even tried the same thing with his own conviction, announcing slander charges against Amanda a few days beforehand. Mignini himself will most certainly be aware of the possible impact his own conviction will have on Knox's appeal.

A court case doesn't take place in a vacuum, so these things matter. I believe there's already reasonable doubt, so the jury should have acquitted on the first go around; I suspect they'll get it right in appeal. Due, as I said, to the doubt cast on the forensic evidence publicly, and a convenient fall guy in Mignini.

 

[Fiona]

No one knows better than Mignini that court cases impact upon one another - why do you think the announcements of the various slander charges were scheduled for such opportune moments during the trial? He even tried the same thing with his own conviction, announcing slander charges against Amanda a few days beforehand. Mignini himself will most certainly be aware of the possible impact his own conviction will have on Knox's appeal.

A court case doesn't take place in a vacuum, so these things matter. I believe there's already reasonable doubt, so the jury should have acquitted on the first go around; I suspect they'll get it right in appeal. Due, as I said, to the doubt cast on the forensic evidence publicly, and a convenient fall guy in Mignini.

What is the basis for your doubt?

 

[katy_did]

What is the basis for your doubt?

That the two key pieces of evidence (knife and bra clasp) are very dubious, and that there's nothing else placing either Knox or Sollecito in the murder room.

In terms of the appeal, under the Italian system it's essentially a new trial, of course, so no new evidence needs to be presented for them to be acquitted; the court simply needs to come to a different conclusion based on the existing evidence, which given its controversial nature is very possible. The refusal of the judge to allow an independent review of any of the forensic evidence will doubtless help, too.

 

[Fiona]

Ah well: nothing then. Ok

 

[katy_did]

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

You asked about the front door needing to be locked with a key, Fiona. I don't remember ever reading in Knox's statement that it needed to be 'closed carefully', but anyway, here's the info I have on the front door. The first two come from Knox's statements, first from her e-mail:

here's the thing about the door to our house: its broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed. if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wind to blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out or to get something from the neighbors who live below us.

She states the same information again during her questioning in court:

LG: Precisely, did this door have a defect? What was the problem?

AK: It was defective, and if you didn't close it with the key, the door opened by itself. You couldn't just shut it, the wind would open it.

There's also an indication in the Micheli report that it's possible Guede could have been 'locked in' when Meredith arrived home. He considers the reasons Guede may not have immediately fled via the front door if he was already in the house when Meredith got home, and speculates that the door could have been 'locked from the inside'. Micheli had access to testimony about the broken door from Laura and Filomena (he makes reference to it earlier in the report) so it seems likely he would have known whether it was possible for the door to be locked from the inside in such a way that Guede could not have opened it; the only way I can think of that this could happen is with a key. Either Micheli believed that Guede could have been locked in, or his reasoning is sloppy here.

Dan O also found a very clear picture of the front door, presumably taken by the new tenants of the house (there's also a picture on one of the TJMK powerpoint presentations, but it's much less clear). It's a bit of an odd set-up, with the door handle in the middle of the door and the lock to the left. Unfortunately there's no picture of the inside of the door, so it's rather inconclusive.

The significance of this question is, of course, that if Guede were locked in, it would have made his motive for taking Meredith's keys very much stronger than the motives of the other two. He would have needed them in order to leave the cottage.

 

[katy_did]

I could add to the above also that if indeed Meredith's jeans were removed after her death, or at least after the attack (the sexual nature of the attack would indicate this more likely occurred while it was happening, but it is possible it happened afterwards) one strong motive Guede would have had for removing them would have been if her keys were in her jeans pocket. Since she was wearing a sweater but not a coat, this is quite likely where she would have put them. Hence, Guede would have gone through the pockets of her jeans for the keys, probably also pocketing the cell phone(s) she was carrying.

 

[lionking]

I could add to the above also that if indeed Meredith's jeans were removed after her death, or at least after the attack (the sexual nature of the attack would indicate this more likely occurred while it was happening, but it is possible it happened afterwards) one strong motive Guede would have had for removing them would have been if her keys were in her jeans pocket. Since she was wearing a sweater but not a coat, this is quite likely where she would have put them. Hence, Guede would have gone through the pockets of her jeans for the keys, probably also pocketing the cell phone(s) she was carrying.

I have followed this thread from the beginning, but have left posters like Fiona and Fulcanelli to make the running.

I have to say that this is the most ludicrous post in the whole thread.

 

[katy_did]

I have followed this thread from the beginning, but have left posters like Fiona and Fulcanelli to make the running.

I have to say that this is the most ludicrous post in the whole thread.

You're quite right. Knox and Sollecito going back into the room hours later to stage a sexual assault on top of a sexual assault is a far more likely possibility, and not at all ludicrous.

 

[Alt+F4]

That the two key pieces of evidence (knife and bra clasp) are very dubious, and that there's nothing else placing either Knox or Sollecito in the murder room.

Sollecito himself agreed to the fact that it was Meredith's DNA on the big knife. He did not claim contamination or state there was to little material to definitively determine it came from Meredith.

He made this admission in his prison diary, freely and with no police interrogation or even questioning at the time.

 

[katy_did]

Sollecito himself agreed to the fact that it was Meredith's DNA on the big knife. He did not claim contamination or state there was to little material to definitively determine it came from Meredith.

He made this admission in his prison diary, freely and with no police interrogation or even questioning at the time.

Well, that's a little misleading: he was told Meredith's DNA was definitely on the knife, and he didn't have the scientific knowledge to refute that. Since he was presented with this as a fact, he grasped for ways in which it could possibly have happened. You're using his reaction to a lie he was told to support the lie itself, which is somewhat circular logic.

By the way, is this something he said in a statement to police or just in his diary? (genuine question, I'm not sure either way).

ETA: In terms of there being 'too little material' - do you really think Sollecito would have been told how much material was on the knife, and that if he had been, he would have had the scientific knowledge to realize this meant the evidence was questionable...? I'm willing to bet he'd never heard of LCN DNA before in his life...

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, that's a little misleading: he was told Meredith's DNA was definitely on the knife, and he didn't have the scientific knowledge to refute that. Since he was presented with this as a fact, he grasped for ways in which it could possibly have happened. You're using his reaction to a lie he was told to support the lie itself, which is somewhat circular logic.

By the way, is this something he said in a statement to police or just in his diary? (genuine question, I'm not sure either way).

ETA: In terms of there being 'too little material' - do you really think Sollecito would have been told how much material was on the knife, and that if he had been, he would have had the scientific knowledge to realize this meant the evidence was questionable...? I'm willing to bet he'd never heard of LCN DNA before in his life...

As far as I know, he was not told Meredith's DNA was found on the knife, I believe he saw a report about it on the television news. He has not spoken to the police since his arrest, and he had time to think how to respond to this information (if at all).

He wrote about cooking and pricking Meredith with the big knife lie in his prison diary. An innocent person, even if they knew little about DNA, would have said there is no way in hell that Meredith's DNA could be found on that knife. It has to be some sort of mistake.

He didn't.