Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[funk de fino]

You are presenting the claim that what Raffaele wrote in his diary is a lie. Do you have evidence to back that up?

Only two days before the murder, the three of them - Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith went to the Chocolate Festival together. They could have stopped at Raffaele's place for lunch or a snack before of after the festival or on one of the preceding days as friends often do.

Could have, would have, should have.................

 

[Dan O.]

Could have, would have, should have.................

To support the claim that the statement was a lie requires showing that he couldn't or didn't which is going to be tough given that he could have and even would have given the circumstances.

 

[quadraginta]

Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith and on her clothing. Rudy left a handprint in the blood of the victim in the room where the victims body was found. Footprints from Rudy's shoes in the victim's blood were found in the same room. From these facts, we can logically conclude that Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith.

Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?

Maybe the right question for you to ask is "... why do you persist in believing that a sexual assault was staged hours later?"

Are you willing to concede that something was staged? What is your alternative conjecture for the post-mortem rearrangement of the corpse and clothing?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are presenting the claim that what Raffaele wrote in his diary is a lie. Do you have evidence to back that up?

Only two days before the murder, the three of them - Raffaele, Amanda and Meredith went to the Chocolate Festival together. They could have stopped at Raffaele's place for lunch or a snack before of after the festival or on one of the preceding days as friends often do.

Except they didn't. It has been long established Meredith never stepped foot in Raffaele's apartment.

Had that not been the case, don't you think it would have formed the core of the defence case, in order to explain Meredith's DNA on the knife?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith and on her clothing. Rudy left a handprint in the blood of the victim in the room where the victims body was found. Footprints from Rudy's shoes in the victim's blood were found in the same room. From these facts, we can logically conclude that Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith.

Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?

Because the sexual assault may not have been noticed, since it was limited to digital assault. Therefore, Meredith was deliberately rearranged at a later time after Rudy was long gone in order to emphasise a sexual attack, or even rape, in a way that couldn't be missed.

As it turned out, the victims genitals 'suggest' an assault. However, our stagers weren't to know that would be the case so they made certain.

 

[Fulcanelli]

To support the claim that the statement was a lie requires showing that he couldn't or didn't which is going to be tough given that he could have and even would have given the circumstances.

Except Knox stated flatly Meredith never visited Raffaele's apartment and neither defence team has ever attempted to claim she did. Neither have they ever challenged the prosecution assertion she never did and and neither have Raffaele's team ever challenged Amanda's claim she never did. Therefore, I think we can accept...she never did.

 

[quadraginta]

Except Knox stated flatly Meredith never visited Raffaele's apartment and neither defence team has ever attempted to claim she did. Neither have they ever challenged the prosecution assertion she never did and and neither have Raffaele's team ever challenged Amanda's claim she never did. Therefore, I think we can accept...she never did.

Maybe Knox had an induced false memory of not remembering.

 

[piktor]

Too clever by half

"Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?"- Kestrel #3680

Evidence gathered by police proves:

1- The victim died leaning on her right side

2- The bra was cut off post mortem and placed at the victim's feet

3- The victim was dragged towards the bed, also after death

4- The victim's right leg was pushed upwards and away, simulating the victim had died in the middle of a forced sexual assault.

5- The victim's left leg was left straight and protruding from underneath the duvet.

6- The victim's pants were pulled off from the victim post mortem and placed in front of the victim, next to the bra

7- The victim was not found leaning on her right side but face up

I ask, what murdering rapist waits one hour for the victim to die (forensics prove it took one hour for the victim's lungs to be filled with her own blood and slowly choke to death) and then stages this contrived tableaux, to prove once again, as if rape had not already happened, that, yes, indeed this was a rape attempt- ergo the over staging of the already obvious.

The final piece of post mortem staging is the placing of the duvet over the dead victim. Evidence tells us the duvet was not soaked in blood. This means the blood was already dry when the duvet was placed over the victim. Blood, and in this case it was abundant blood, does not dry that quickly, particularily on a cold November night. People that cover a dead victim are two types: female or someone that knew the victim. This is a well known fact by police.

 

[Kestrel]

"Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?"- Kestrel #3680

Evidence gathered by police proves:

1- The victim died leaning on her right side

2- The bra was cut off post mortem and placed at the victim's feet

3- The victim was dragged towards the bed, also after death

4- The victim's right leg was pushed upwards and away, simulating the victim had died in the middle of a forced sexual assault.

5- The victim's left leg was left straight and protruding from underneath the duvet.

6- The victim's pants were pulled off from the victim post mortem and placed in front of the victim, next to the bra

7- The victim was not found leaning on her right side but face up

I ask, what murdering rapist waits one hour for the victim to die (forensics prove it took one hour for the victim's lungs to be filled with her own blood and slowly choke to death) and then stages this contrived tableaux, to prove once again, as if rape had not already happened, that, yes, indeed this was a rape attempt- ergo the over staging of the already obvious.

The final piece of post mortem staging is the placing of the duvet over the dead victim. Evidence tells us the duvet was not soaked in blood. This means the blood was already dry when the duvet was placed over the victim. Blood, and in this case it was abundant blood, does not dry that quickly, particularily on a cold November night. People that cover a dead victim are two types: female or someone that knew the victim. This is a well known fact by police.

It's clear at this point that you don't understand the difference between a prosecution claim and proof. For example, what is the specific evidence that proves the victim was already dead when her bra was removed? Is it merely the lack of blood beneath where the blood would have covered? Could this lack be caused by some other factor, such as the position of the victim while she was bleeding?

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's clear at this point that you don't understand the difference between a prosecution claim and proof. For example, what is the specific evidence that proves the victim was already dead when her bra was removed? Is it merely the lack of blood beneath where the blood would have covered? Could this lack be caused by some other factor, such as the position of the victim while she was bleeding?

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

It's not a 'prosecution' claim, but rather the expert findings by numerous scientists and police experts.

What's the counter offering? As I recall, the defence didn't even bother offering one...sort of in the hope that it would just go away and everyone would forget about it, if nobody mentioned it anymore.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

It's not so much the position of her legs. It's the fact that neither her legs or feet had any blood on them. That (along with many other things) indicates she was stripped after she was murdered.

 

[stilicho]

It's clear at this point that you don't understand the difference between a prosecution claim and proof. For example, what is the specific evidence that proves the victim was already dead when her bra was removed? Is it merely the lack of blood beneath where the blood would have covered? Could this lack be caused by some other factor, such as the position of the victim while she was bleeding?

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

I think we're going to go with the trained and impartial medical examiner on this one. He's a professional at assessing the meaning of the position of a body, marks on it, and other things we can only guess at.

Why would you insist on sheer speculation when the coroner has laid out the evidence and arrived at a science-based conclusion?

 

[quadraginta]

It's clear at this point that you don't understand the difference between a prosecution claim and proof. For example, what is the specific evidence that proves the victim was already dead when her bra was removed? Is it merely the lack of blood beneath where the blood would have covered? Could this lack be caused by some other factor, such as the position of the victim while she was bleeding?

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

Are you saying that you do not believe that Meredith's body was moved post-mortem and before it was discovered by the police?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why would you insist on sheer speculation when the coroner has laid out the evidence and arrived at a science-based conclusion?

Because speculation's all they've got, mixed with a fair dose of sophistry...

 

[katy_did]

It's clear at this point that you don't understand the difference between a prosecution claim and proof. For example, what is the specific evidence that proves the victim was already dead when her bra was removed? Is it merely the lack of blood beneath where the blood would have covered? Could this lack be caused by some other factor, such as the position of the victim while she was bleeding?

I also wonder why you think the position of the victims legs proved much of anything. Do you have a secret decoder ring for leg positions?

The interesting thing about the spots of blood on Meredith's bra (which it was argued by the prosecution showed she was still wearing it when she was killed) is that there were also similar spots of blood underneath the bra too. I think it's Micheli who concludes that this just meant her bra was moving around during the attack. I'd argue this is also a pretty good argument that it was cut during the attack, but that it only came off after (maybe when Guede moved her onto her back). Fastened bras wouldn't normally move about as much as this one evidently did. We know that the attacker was trying to remove her bra - since her shirt was pulled up above her bra when she was stabbed - so it makes sense he would also have cut it at that time too.

Micheli's evidence for the body having been moved is very vague, and mostly relies on the blood having begun to dry when the quilt was thrown over Meredith and when she was moved onto her back (there was an indentation from her bra strap in the blood on the floor, and on her shoulder). But how long does blood take to clot, really? For small spots, such as those on her chest, probably within seconds. So it's not really surprising those weren't smudged when the quilt was thrown over her. The only time estimate Micheli gives is "quite some time", which doesn't really help when looking for specifics!

I'd be interested if any of the supposedly solid evidence for the body having been moved a long time after death (as opposed to, say, a few minutes) can be backed up by any supporting evidence. It was discussed during the closed session at trial, as far as I can make out, so beyond the Micheli report I'm not sure where the source for this evidence is...

 

[katy_did]

You should have added a smilie to this post. True believers often take subtile satire at face value when it doesn't have a smilie.

Ah yes, good point. I'll remember for next time.

 

[katy_did]

Bit of a quibble, but it's not really grasping for an innocent explanation, so much as making up an untrue innocent explanation. The way you put it, I read it as if he's truthfully trying to reconcile the facts as he knows them with the story of the DNA.

Fair point, shuttit. Yes, your description is probably more accurate.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you saying that you do not believe that Meredith's body was moved post-mortem and before it was discovered by the police?

That has been established beyond all doubt.

Of course...some will try and throw dust, almost as if the trial never happened and the evidence was never presented and the facts never established. For them, the trial is a non-event to pretend never happened. The only exception, is those things they feel help their position and suddenly the trial is, briefly, remembered. Only to then be forgotten all over again five minutes later.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Micheli's evidence for the body having been moved is very vague, and mostly relies on the blood having begun to dry when the quilt was thrown over Meredith and when she was moved onto her back. But how long does blood take to clot, really? For small spots, such as those on her chest, probably within seconds. So it's not really surprising those weren't smudged when the quilt was thrown over her.

Vague? Now, you're just trying to be funny.

 

[stilicho]

"Given this, why do you persist in believing that the sexual assault was staged hours later?"- Kestrel #3680

Evidence gathered by police proves:

.....

People that cover a dead victim are two types: female or someone that knew the victim. This is a well known fact by police.

It's clear, piktor, that AK's and RS's virulent supporters are unable and unwilling to grasp the enormity of this crime. The authorities, the Kercher family, and Mr Lumumba certainly did.

The attack was brutal and personal. Meredith was left bleeding to death (just as AK described) and her only means of calling for help was taken from her. Indignities were performed on her body after she was dead. Two of the assailants conspired to frustrate the investigation. They staged a burglary and deliberately left RG's feces in the toilet--AK mentioned this detail over and over again in the days up to her arrest. Then she accused an innocent man of sexual assault and murder.

Possibly the worst facets of human behaviour were exhibited by the pair in the commission of the act and it continued long after Meredith died.

@Alt+F4: I agree entirely that the PR consultants did a horrible job of portraying AK as an 'innocent abroad'. But I think everyone involved in her defence decided to seize upon the 'third world justice' and 'railroading' gambit early on, as the evidence mounted and was clearly irrefutable by any ordinary means. In doing this, it was important to show that AK was smitten and in love with RS and their fates were intertwined as a love story assailed on all sides by dastardly villains.