Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[katy_did]

So it's meaningless? Really, you guys are working so hard to sweep the trial and the verdict under the rug...'we don't like what it said, so we'll just erase oy from history.

Except, the first trial and it's verdict is the most crucial...88% of first degree verdicts stand. That can't be swept under any rug.

As for your question, the answer depends on several factors.

Sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself the appeal will be unsuccessful again.

And you STILL can't bring yourself to say what your attitude would be if Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty? I answered your question; fair's fair, you should do the same with mine. If you can't, I guess that speaks volumes too...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sounds like you're just trying to convince yourself the appeal will be unsuccessful again.

And you STILL can't bring yourself to say what your attitude would be if Knox and Sollecito were found not guilty? I answered your question; fair's fair, you should do the same with mine. If you can't, I guess that speaks volumes too...

It was a trial..it reached a verdict. The trial lasted 11 months, examined all the evidence, heard hundreds or witnesses and experts and was conducted by the best lawyers in Italy. It reached a unanimous verdict and at the lowest, the verdict has an 88% integrity, in reality it would be higher considering the accused lost even though defended by the best lawyers and experts in the land and the verdict was unanimous. Therefore, any chance of it being overturned in appeal is negligible to completely non-existent. On those grounds (and more) I see the verdict as final, even though not yet finalised. I've seen no arguments offered that are strong enough to change that perspective and really, if the quality of the arguments offered so far in any way reflect what they have going for them in their appeal....then really...reality check, it's a foregone conclusion.

As for your question, as I said, it would depend on certain factors...was the second degree a fair trial or not, not influenced by outside political interference? And so forth...

 

[Moss]

I can only speak for myself: while I don't think it is likely the verdict will be innocent, I have no problem with saying I was wrong if it happens.

 

[nicole]

Oh dear, PMFers are so *easily* satisfied.

What katy_did has been arguing is correct. The cause of death was heart failure, and it happens to be an incontrovertible truth that in such cases lividity has been proven to occur before death. A pretty good springboard for the appeal, I think.

Also, I don't find it *so* inconceivable that Sollecito might have 'fingered' the bra clasp when it was lying on the airer/drier. Maybe he sniffs ladies' underwear as well. So what? Equally, Amanda's DNA might have got there (if indeed it *is* on the clasp) in a similar manner, moving Meredith's bits and bobs to make room for her own? So what? Proves nothing.

 

[stilicho]

As for your second point, that's a cop out as I'm sure you're well aware. I answered your hypothetical scenario about Guede being innocent, and there's more evidence against him than any of them.

This isn't quite true, especially since AK and RS were also charged and convicted of staging the burglary. We know that doesn't apply to RG since he wasn't there when they set it up.

Worse still, some of the evidence produced and assessed pointed only to RS and/or AK.

 

[stilicho]

Also, I don't find it *so* inconceivable that Sollecito might have 'fingered' the bra clasp when it was lying on the airer/drier.

You'd better square this with your comrades-in-arms. They have asserted it's there because of contamination or flying DNA. You say RS played with Meredith's underwear.

Why didn't his lawyers say so in court?

 

[nicole]

Rudy

Rudy's DNA, supposedly from a finger, was found inside the vaginal cavity *and* around the exterior of the anus. Is it really possible to distinguish between 'finger' DNA and 'pubic area' DNA. Does anyone know for sure?

Also Rudy's bloody shoeprints leading 'directly' from Meredith's room to the front door. Were these actually 'in blood' (in which case THE BIG CLEAN UP must have missed them) or detected with luminol? As we know none of the luminol foot/shoeprints were tested for blood, nor identified as being bloody. These were "probably blood" ... according to Stefanoni.

And Rudy's toilet habits... he may well have flushed and not checked to make sure his deposit had disappeared. Perhaps he didn't know about the faeces until he read about it in the press?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh dear, PMFers are so *easily* satisfied.

What katy_did has been arguing is correct. The cause of death was heart failure, and it happens to be an incontrovertible truth that in such cases lividity has been proven to occur before death. A pretty good springboard for the appeal, I think.

Also, I don't find it *so* inconceivable that Sollecito might have 'fingered' the bra clasp when it was lying on the airer/drier. Maybe he sniffs ladies' underwear as well. So what? Equally, Amanda's DNA might have got there (if indeed it *is* on the clasp) in a similar manner, moving Meredith's bits and bobs to make room for her own? So what? Proves nothing.

Best you write to the defence and offer them your ground breaking expert insights then. Especially since it's an insight none of the experts/coroners involved in the case were aware of. If you think anti-mortem lividity arguments will fly, knock yourself out.

Sollecito 'might' have done many things, only he didn't, since none of your suggestions ever formed any part of his defence. 'Might' have. Meredith 'might' have also been murdered by Bigfoot. She wasn't.

 

[katy_did]

It was a trial..it reached a verdict. The trial lasted 11 months, examined all the evidence, heard hundreds or witnesses and experts and was conducted by the best lawyers in Italy. It reached a unanimous verdict and at the lowest, the verdict has an 88% integrity, in reality it would be higher considering the accused lost even though defended by the best lawyers and experts in the land and the verdict was unanimous. Therefore, any chance of it being overturned in appeal is negligible to completely non-existent. On those grounds (and more) I see the verdict as final, even though not yet finalised. I've seen no arguments offered that are strong enough to change that perspective and really, if the quality of the arguments offered so far in any way reflect what they have going for them in their appeal....then really...reality check, it's a foregone conclusion.

As for your question, as I said, it would depend on certain factors...was the second degree a fair trial or not, not influenced by outside political interference? And so forth...

As far as the appeal goes, I don't see the point in continuing to discuss whether it's a 'foregone conclusion': I think an acquittal is likely, you rule it out completely, but either way, we'll find out when it happens. And if you were really that certain there was no chance, I don't think you'd need to argue about it either.

And the answer to my question comes down to whether or not you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you do, you would give Knox and Sollecito the benefit of the doubt, as I would with Guede. If not, I guess you would continue to slander people who have legally been found innocent.

 

[Moss]

Oh dear, PMFers are so *easily* satisfied.

What katy_did has been arguing is correct. The cause of death was heart failure, and it happens to be an incontrovertible truth that in such cases lividity has been proven to occur before death. A pretty good springboard for the appeal, I think.

Also, I don't find it *so* inconceivable that Sollecito might have 'fingered' the bra clasp when it was lying on the airer/drier. Maybe he sniffs ladies' underwear as well. So what? Equally, Amanda's DNA might have got there (if indeed it *is* on the clasp) in a similar manner, moving Meredith's bits and bobs to make room for her own? So what? Proves nothing.

All hail the next messenger from the FoA spintank.
Why exactly didn't Sollecito's defense come up with that? Why didn't he offer that tidbit up? Etc.
Could you please stop making up excuses? It does get boring.

 

[katy_did]

I can only speak for myself: while I don't think it is likely the verdict will be innocent, I have no problem with saying I was wrong if it happens.

I truly hope you're in the majority.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why exactly didn't Sollecito's defense come up with that? Why didn't he offer that tidbit up? Etc.

'cause it's pants

 

[Fulcanelli]

I truly hope you're in the majority.

Yeah, you're a one for 'hope'

 

[katy_did]

All hail the next messenger from the FoA spintank.
Why exactly didn't Sollecito's defense come up with that? Why didn't he offer that tidbit up? Etc.
Could you please stop making up excuses? It does get boring.

The defence did argue contamination, which could have happened before or after the murder. They don't need to list every single way it could have happened to make that argument.

 

[nicole]

You'd better square this with your comrades-in-arms. They have asserted it's there because of contamination or flying DNA. You say RS played with Meredith's underwear.

Why didn't his lawyers say so in court?

No idea ... best to ask them yourself. Maybe Sollecito didn't want to be branded a 'low-level' pervert. I don't know! But it *is* as good an explanation as the prosecution's theory.

p.s. I don't have any comrades-in-arms.

 

[Moss]

The defence did argue contamination, which could have happened before or after the murder. They don't need to list every single way it could have happened to make that argument.

Well, if they argue it, they better have some evidence it occurred. I've repeatedly stated it: could have is not did happen.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No idea ... best to ask them yourself. Maybe Sollecito didn't want to be branded a 'low-level' pervert. I don't know! But it *is* as good an explanation as the prosecution's theory.

p.s. I don't have any comrades-in-arms.

Or, alternatively, since there is no 'evidence' for his doing anything 'else', we can conclude that the only time Raffaele 'played' with Meredith's underwear is when he hacked it off her dead body with a knife. That's also what the court concluded.

 

[nicole]

All hail the next messenger from the FoA spintank.
Why exactly didn't Sollecito's defense come up with that? Why didn't he offer that tidbit up? Etc.
Could you please stop making up excuses? It does get boring.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am no FOA .. nothing whatsoever to do with it. Neither do I believe in any conspiracy against Knox and Sollecito. My take on this business is much more mundane.

p.s. Fulcanelli, I hope you find a publisher for your book soon because after the appeal it will only be bonfire material.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The defence did argue contamination, which could have happened before or after the murder. They don't need to list every single way it could have happened to make that argument.

Simply providing 'one' credible way would have been nice


They offered none.

 

[Moss]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am no FOA .. nothing whatsoever to do with it. Neither do I believe in any conspiracy against Knox and Sollecito. My take on this business is much more mundane.

p.s. Fulcanelli, I hope you find a publisher for your book soon because after the appeal it will only be bonfire material.

What is your take on it?