Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

Just because one explanation doesn't satisfy you doesn't mean the one you choose to believe is true. The laptop not being stolen isn't probative of anything; it's significance goes no further than mere unsubstantiated speculation.

This is a great point.

The prosecution's theory of events does not prove anything. The investigation, the evidence, help prove the theory. The prosecution's theory stops being speculative when it is buttressed by facts, evidence, scientific testimony, cross examination of witnesses and the defence presenting their own opposing narrative.

Fulcanelli writes:

He didn't take the computer because it would link him to the crime? Meredith's credit cards were taken, with her name and signatures on them...what would link him to the crime more then those? Or his calling card in the toilet, or his bloody footprints and fingerprints all over the place? The idea that he didn't take stuff for fear it would link him to the crime doesn't work.

At time of judgement, all facts and narratives and speculations are weighed and studied. This leads to a verdict.

A verdict is never speculative but fact-based. The accused are in fact found innocent and let free or guilty and imprisonned.

A Sentenza is then presented by the head judge, stating the facts and elements that exonerate or convict the accused.

 

[piktor]

If I had to guess why Filomena's laptop was featured so prominently in court, it would be to help in establishing that this was either no ordinary burglary or no burglary at all. Is that probative?

Circumstantial cases need a lot of logical thinking, inferencing, common sense. It is up to the judges to dismiss or not an element of the trial.

Knox/Sollecito were given a lesser sentence than the prosecution asked for because the judges concluded there were mitigating elements.

In the end it is all a human exchange of information that is weighed by people that have to hand down a judgement.

The prosecution's narrative made sense to the sitting judges. The defence narrative did nothing to disprove the prosecution's. They did tell us about Seattle's Amelie and about Perugia's female Flying Squad that 'had it in' for Knox, though.

 

[piktor]

Fair enough, but then why do you put emphasis on the laptop? I don't see it as important or relevant. It's not even a clue because you can easily deduce it anyway you want.

Everything at a crime scene is a clue.

The prosecution will bring up any and all clues they deem relevant. The defence will do likewise.

It is up to the judges to sift from all facts presented conclusions that lead to a verdict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

computer

Filomena Romanelli also mentioned her laptop in her testimony:

"I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass."

As I recall, she was wrong about the location of her laptop. I believe she said it was on her clothes on the floor while it was actually still on the desk.

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox )

Stilicho,

Do you have a cite for the location of the laptop? Thanks.

Chris

 

[Dan O.]

Everything at a crime scene is a clue.

The prosecution will bring up any and all clues they deem relevant. The defence will do likewise.

It is up to the judges to sift from all facts presented conclusions that lead to a verdict.

You are forgetting that only the prosecution has unrestricted access to the evidence. They pick out the clues that fit their narrative and if they don't need it, it may get erased like the surveillance videos before the defense gets their chance.

If the prosecution needs more evidence, they just return the the scene 34 days later and find it. The prosecution gets to bug the phones of all the witnesses, subject the witnesses to all night interrogations then cherry pick the results. The defense gets only the scraps that the prosecution tosses them and has to beg the court for anything else.

 

[piktor]

You are forgetting that only the prosecution has unrestricted access to the evidence. They pick out the clues that fit their narrative and if they don't need it, it may get erased like the surveillance videos before the defense gets their chance.

If the prosecution needs more evidence, they just return the the scene 34 days later and find it. The prosecution gets to bug the phones of all the witnesses, subject the witnesses to all night interrogations then cherry pick the results. The defense gets only the scraps that the prosecution tosses them and has to beg the court for anything else.

The state represents the victim, lest we forget.

The rules of evidence are clear and the accused have all the guarantees provided by law. The prosecution has obligations and is supervised. It is not a rogue operation hellbent on conviction.

Knox has uttered that this trial has been fair. So has her lawyer.

 

[quadraginta]

The state represents the victim, lest we forget.

The rules of evidence are clear and the accused have all the guarantees provided by law. The prosecution has obligations and is supervised. It is not a rogue operation hellbent on conviction.

Knox has uttered that this trial has been fair. So has her lawyer.

Obviously she's part of the conspiracy, too. We already know about her lawyers.

 

[Dan O.]

It is not a rogue operation hellbent on conviction.

Have you got evidence to support that claim?

 

[Moss]

Have you got evidence to support that claim?

 

[Kestrel]

The problem with this scenario is Guede has no history of violent behavior. He has a store of small-time burglaries that police ignored.

When confronted during one of this burglaries, Rudy pulled out a knife.

Perugia resident Christian Tramontano, who will not be testifying in person, made a statement to Perugia police Jan. 1, 2008, two months after Kercher's murder, saying that he had recognized Guede from newspaper photographs as the person who had broken into his house and threatened him with a knife four months earlier.

If he actually did this as you say: he then thoroughly cleaned up the corridor WHERE THERE ARE NO FOOTPRINTS OF HIS and then cleans part of the murder scene but decides to leave his handprint in the victim's blood and his unflushed stool at the toilet and then lifted the broken glass at Filomena's room and lay a jumble of Filomena's clothing on the floor and then put back the broken glass atop the clothing and leaves with Meredith's cash and phones he later discards in Perugia -of all places- and does not take the expensive computers at the apartment.

You seem to have bought into the prosecution's mantra that not finding evidence to support their theory is proof that the evidence was somehow cleaned up.

Photographic evidence proves that Filomena didn't find a lot of glass on top of her clothes. It's easy to understand why she may have seen some glass however. Rudy handled her stuff shortly after climbing through the window. His clothes and gloves would have picked up small fragments of glass while doing so. This also explains why at least one small piece of glass was found in Meredith's room.

He did state that he tried to stop Meredith's hemorrhage with a towel. Strange behavior for a lone thieving rapist murderer.

I don't share your faith that Rudy was telling the truth about the bloody towel.

 

[Dan O.]

You of course have no need for evidence since the only thing that counts is what the authorities say...

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.

 

[Moss]

You of course have no need for evidence since the only thing that counts is what the authorities say...

I like both your mindreading skills and the love you show for extravagant conspiracy stories.

 

[Dan O.]

Is that you mind that you've splattered on these pages?

I showed the post that let to the conclusion I made. Now what extravagant conspiracy stories are you referring to?

 

[Moss]

Is that you mind that you've splattered on these pages?

I showed the post that let to the conclusion I made. Now what extravagant conspiracy stories are you referring to?

I indeed failed to establish that I will of course give consideration to evidence and argumentation of that trial. But I don't think that is proof that I think only what the authorities say counts.

As for the conspiracy theory and the laughing dog you may want to consult your argumentative structure. You challenge a premise of the Italian judiciary system, in this case that the prosecution is not a rogue unsupervised operation hellbent on a conviction without giving evidence and then ask piktor to prove the negative of your assertion. I think you may want to read up on burden of proof.

 

[Dan O.]

Evidence of a prosecution hell bent on getting a conviction

How about the prosecution that was recording all of Amanda's phone calls after the murder but when they bring her in for questioning there is no recording.

They also bring in an interpreter in the middle of the interrogation which gives them a clean witness that can testify to what Amanda says at the end but cannot be questioned about what led up to that statement.

 

[quadraginta]

I indeed failed to establish that I will of course give consideration to evidence and argumentation of that trial. But I don't think that is proof that I think only what the authorities say counts.

As for the conspiracy theory and the laughing dog you may want to consult your argumentative structure. You challenge a premise of the Italian judiciary system, in this case that the prosecution is not a rogue unsupervised operation hellbent on a conviction without giving evidence and then ask piktor to prove the negative of your assertion. I think you may want to read up on burden of proof.

Now, Moss, you are not being reasonable. Everyone knows that the first principle of conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy is presumed, and anyone who dares to challenge that presumption must prove not only that it didn't happen, but also that it couldn't have happened.

Anything less is a priori a concession of defeat.

Piktor has his work cut out for him.

 

[tsig]

Now, Moss, you are not being reasonable. Everyone knows that the first principle of conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy is presumed, and anyone who dares to challenge that presumption must prove not only that it didn't happen, but also that it couldn't have happened.

Anything less is a priori a concession of defeat.

Piktor has his work cut out for him.

And if it did happen Amanda didn't do it.

 

[Moss]

How about the prosecution that was recording all of Amanda's phone calls after the murder but when they bring her in for questioning there is no recording.

They also bring in an interpreter in the middle of the interrogation which gives them a clean witness that can testify to what Amanda says at the end but cannot be questioned about what led up to that statement.

While I have found references to the “I cannot do it any more” call in different newspapers, I haven't found one yet about the recordings being gone or erased. I'd like to read your source on that if possible.

I also have a hard time tracking down the second argument. Again, I wouldn't mind being able to read your source. Context is needed.
A harmless explanation might be that the interpreter either took longer to get there or they thought they'd not need an interpreter and that assumption turned out to be false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When confronted during one of this burglaries, Rudy pulled out a knife.

You are kidding right? Have you not bothered to examine this case at all above the superficial level? Had you have done so, you would know this witness and his testimony was thrown out of court by Judge Micheli because he'd made his story up.

Kestrel, you're totally out of your depth.

You seem to have bought into the prosecution's mantra that not finding evidence to support their theory is proof that the evidence was somehow cleaned up.

The clean-up proof has nothing to do with evidence that 'wasn't found', but to do with evidence that 'was' found via agents especially invented to detect evidence that has been cleaned!

Photographic evidence proves that Filomena didn't find a lot of glass on top of her clothes. It's easy to understand why she may have seen some glass however. Rudy handled her stuff shortly after climbing through the window. His clothes and gloves would have picked up small fragments of glass while doing so. This also explains why at least one small piece of glass was found in Meredith's room.

The photographic evidence proved the opposite. At the same time, we have two witnesses who have testified under oath to seeing the fact first hand.

I don't share your faith that Rudy was telling the truth about the bloody towel.

Great. How else then did Meredith's towels walk into her bedroom and become saturated in blood? AI for towels?

 

[Fulcanelli]

How about the prosecution that was recording all of Amanda's phone calls after the murder but when they bring her in for questioning there is no recording.

They also bring in an interpreter in the middle of the interrogation which gives them a clean witness that can testify to what Amanda says at the end but cannot be questioned about what led up to that statement.

In the middle? What time? (I'm just assuming you can qualify this statement with facts, figures and times).

The interpretors could be questioned on any point in regard to any time.