Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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:



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.

I'll explain the laptop in detail later. I'm busy right now.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

Whatever happened to burden of proof...innocent until proven guilty? It doesn't apply to them then?

I guess my comments to you in an earlier post regarding your selectivity just went right over your head.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Have you got evidence to support that claim?

What, you mean something like a government issued certificate stating 'This department has been certified as not a rogue operation hellbent on conviction',

Something like that?

What would be the criteria for such a certificate, the examination standards...would the exam for officers be oral or written and if written, would it be multiple choice or essay based? Is it a pass or fail or are there degrees?

What's the certificate/standard/yardstick in America? Do they need such a certificate? If not, what 'do' they need to certify that they are A okay? Or, do they just need an American passport?

Just askin'

 

[piktor]

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

2- 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.

3- 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.

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

1-Was Guede incarcerated and tried for that burglary? Why was that heinous crime ignored by police? Did Guede lunge at the burglary victim, stab and kill her? Does the ABC report portray a peaceful encounter, waiting for police to arrive- or was blood spilled?

2-The police concluded the crime scene was cleaned up. I Agree. The Sentenza on Knox/Sollecito probably will have a comment on the subject.

3-The glass atop Filomena's clothing is documented. How much is "a lot" how much is "not much" is pointless. There was broken glass on top of the clothing. It is important only to the judges. I am sure the defence will say it was to be expected. The prosecution will say it is evidence of staging the scene.

4-Maybe what Guede says is part true and part not true. I am sure there is evidence that it is true- or it is not true because investigators found no evidence of a bloody towel used to "help" the victim.

In my book none of the defendants have any credibility. I would believe about the towel if the investigation presents evidence of this as a fact.

I believe the prosecutors because they represent the victim,

they have produced a credible narrative,

there is a thorough investigation to back up the narrative,

the investigation produced credible evidence,

the prosecution's expert witnesses corroborate the investigation,

the accused have not helped the defence but they have helped the prosecution,

the accused were found responsible for the death of the victim in a fair trial,

the defence has no better theory to exonerate the accused.

 

[lane99]

///Originally Posted by lane99
PMF is pretty much as waste of time for anyone interested in an honest examination of this case. It's essentially a cult website run by people with an ax to grind who shamelessly pollute the internet with misinformation. ///

This post is a prime example of FUD. Nice example of poisoning the well.
I'm getting fed up with the loaded statements about how evidence that seems to be rather ordinary is dubious and how the whole Italian system conspired to get a poor American and her Italian boyfriend into prison when it was just that bad black guy.
You can try to pick apart details as much as you like (and it does not seem to work convincingly, possibilities for manipulation and contamination are always there, it is still up to you to offer evidence about it and not just to insinuate it) but as in Holocaust denial, that does not make the whole case go away, no matter how hard you insist it does.
Let's see what the appeal court does with it. Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty? Or is there never a possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of the murder of poor Meredith?

That website and many of those who frequent it are demonstrably a source of lies, misinformation, and half-truths. And I certainly believe that, in the course of any fuller examination of it, this conclusion would tend to be accepted by most rational and objective readers.

If you happen to disagree with that, that's fine.

But equating blowing the whistle on PMF's agenda with Holocaust denial. And then hamfistedly accusing OTHERS of poisoning the well and FUD? Are you really that hysterical and deluded? Or were those just rather pathetic jokes that perhaps lost something in translation to the written word?

Keep it civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[piktor]

Have you got evidence to support that claim?

I'm sorry, Dan O, but I do not take this death lightly. It infuriates me that anyone could be so pathetically callous as to have had time to save the victim and did exactly nothing.

I am rooting for Meredith here. I am rooting for the truth because in this crime it is as low as humanity can go and me pretend it's no big fuss.

Meredith did not have to die and she is no longer here. This is an outrage.

I am equally alert so the accused are truly responsible for this crime and not three more victims of stupidity. It is no joy to see the young accused having to go through this. They owe it to themselves to come clean and they owe it to Meredith's family.

Things are as they are. The three accused have put themselves where they are. I have no problem with their problems- nor pity for their pain.

I applaud the prosecution's efforts.

My heart is with the Kerchers.

 

[lane99]

1-Was Guede incarcerated and tried for that burglary? Why was that heinous crime ignored by police? Did Guede lunge at the burglary victim, stab and kill her? Does the ABC report portray a peaceful encounter, waiting for police to arrive- or was blood spilled?
...

What heinous crime? You're not talking about the time Rudy Guilty broke into the school, are you?

Firstly, that wasn't a "heinous" crime. Just more evidence of his criminal and sociopathic behaviour.

Secondly, the police didn't ignore it.

 

[piktor]

What heinous crime? You're not talking about the time Rudy Guilty broke into the school, are you?

Firstly, that wasn't a "heinous" crime. Just more evidence of his criminal and sociopathic behaviour.

Secondly, the police didn't ignore it.

I am not an authority on sociopathic behaviour. Coline Covington is:

"Signs that suggest Amanda Knox is a psychopath"

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043...on-the-signs-that-amanda-knox-is-a-psychopath

 

[piktor]

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.

From thefirtspost.co.uk:

"Unlike in Britain, magistrates are brought in at every stage, and they have to record in writing their thoughts and conclusions in the case. The system is similar to that which operates in France: just remember all those cases in which Georges Simenon's hero, Inspector Maigret, had to rush off to the investigating magistrate within 24 hours of being put onto a case.

The investigating magistrate directs and coordinates the investigating team drawn from either the state police or, in some cases, officers of the corps of Carabinieri. The team of investigating magistrates, often referred to as ‘il pool', then draws up a prosecution case which has to be sent to the instructing judge - il Giudice Istruttore - who then draws up the formal case to be presented in court by the prosecution, il Pubblico Ministero (literally, Public Ministry)."- Robert Fox

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57166...-italian-justice-amanda-knox-meredith-kercher

 

[Moss]

///Originally Posted by lane99
PMF is pretty much as waste of time for anyone interested in an honest examination of this case. It's essentially a cult website run by people with an ax to grind who shamelessly pollute the internet with misinformation. ///






That website and many of those who frequent it are demonstrably a source of lies, misinformation, and half-truths. And I certainly believe that, in the course of any fuller examination of it, this conclusion would tend to be accepted by most rational and objective readers.

If you happen to disagree with that, that's fine.

But equating blowing the whistle on PMF's agenda with Holocaust denial. And then hamfistedly accusing OTHERS of poisoning the well and FUD? Are you really that hysterical and deluded? Or were those just rather pathetic jokes that perhaps lost something in translation to the written word?

You repeat those statements about PMF and still fail to provide one single shred of evidence for it. Thanks for another example. And yet you still call it "whistleblowing". I call that a smear.
I spoke about the similarity of tactics employed. You may can feign moral outrage all you want. But nitpicking about the same details for the n-th time until the disagreeing party gives up from exhaustion and not because it is convinced is pretty standard practice. You may also take a look at the conspiracy theory section here.

 

[Kestrel]

1-Was Guede incarcerated and tried for that burglary? Why was that heinous crime ignored by police? Did Guede lunge at the burglary victim, stab and kill her? Does the ABC report portray a peaceful encounter, waiting for police to arrive- or was blood spilled?

In the incident involving Christian Tramontano, Rudy pulled his knife and escaped.

2-The police concluded the crime scene was cleaned up. I Agree. The Sentenza on Knox/Sollecito probably will have a comment on the subject.

Did you come to that conclusion based on evidence, or simply by believing in the authority figures?

3-The glass atop Filomena's clothing is documented. How much is "a lot" how much is "not much" is pointless. There was broken glass on top of the clothing. It is important only to the judges. I am sure the defence will say it was to be expected. The prosecution will say it is evidence of staging the scene.

The Mignini report concedes that the photographs of the crime scene do not show the glass. Knowing what we do about human memory, why would you accept the memories of a witness when the photographs tell a different story?

I am also awaiting a scientific explanation of how a rock thrown from inside the room generated the scattered glass we do see in the photographs.

 

[Matthew Best]

NM

 

[tsig]

You repeat those statements about PMF and still fail to provide one single shred of evidence for it. Thanks for another example. And yet you still call it "whistleblowing". I call that a smear.
I spoke about the similarity of tactics employed. You may can feign moral outrage all you want. But nitpicking about the same details for the n-th time until the disagreeing party gives up from exhaustion and not because it is convinced is pretty standard practice. You may also take a look at the conspiracy theory section here.

I'm sure that if Amanda confessed her friends would just cluck their tongues and say "poor Amanda, they broke her down" and then carry on as usual.

 

[stilicho]

I am also awaiting a scientific explanation of how a rock thrown from inside the room generated the scattered glass we do see in the photographs.

I am awaiting a scientific explanation of how a rock thrown from outside the cottage managed to penetrate the shutters without damaging them.

-----

@halides: Regarding the location of the laptop and FR's testimony, I will defer to the court, firstly, and Fulcanelli's anticipated explanation, next.

-----

Another aspect of Filomena's laptop that bears remembering is that it's yet another instance of AK's selective memory. She remembers it and specifies it in her testimony yet forgets utterly the 12:47 call on 02 NOV 2007.

-----

@piktor: I applaud not only Mignini but also Micheli, Comodi, Stefanoni, Bastitelli, Massei, the police investigator whose name I forget but who not only questioned the pair but helped escort Arline from the courthouse, Biondo, Lalli, and countless people whose names we will never know. We have to include the German authorities who detained and extradited RG for his part in the murder. Patrick's lawyer Pacelli and the Kercher family's lawyer Maresca. And I'd also include those who aren't authorities--Filomena, Laura, Luca, Sophie, Robyn, and Meredith's other friends. Finally, ordinary people like Kokomani, Curatolo, Monacchia, Quantaville, and Capezzali.

All these people have names; they are real. I haven't even listed all of them and that's probably a shame. Each and every one of these individuals were affected by Meredith's death and helped bring those responsible to justice.

 

[Mr.D]

Real life issues have prevented me from keeping up with this thread until today, so just a couple of quick notes for the moment in no particular order or importance.


1) It continues to amaze me how utterly impossible it seems to get any consensus on even the most trivial of things. Particularly vexing appears to be the differences in court systems, languages and what constitutes legal vs. scientific evidence/proof/truth.


2) Alt+F4: Regarding the mop - does the english word "mop" (as both verb and noun) correspond to what Sollecito's cleaning woman said (presumably in Italian)? If not, she might have regularly "mopped" his place without a literal mop and the whole mop thing doesn't really mean much at all.


3) katy_did: When there is testimony contradicting Battistelli, your conclusion is that he "lied." When Sollecito wrote the Kercher-in-his-kitchen story in his diary, which seems to contradict reality, you essentially throw that out as irrelevant. What's the difference?


4) halides1 and Fiona: How strong (or not) do you each think the case against Knox and Sollecito is without the LCN DNA results? Strong enough to suspect them? Charge them? Bring to trial? Convict?


5) Dan O. is the Red Ibis of this thread.


6) There is no number six (private joke, never mind)


7) The "competing timelines" were probably the most promising thing to come along in this thread in thirty or forty pages. Personally I think it'd be illuminating to see them again along with the provenance of each timestamp.


8) Fulcanelli: Side topic; You've noted that the Italian justice system has no plea bargaining system. Does it have any compensating features for cases wherein the only admissible/credible/significant evidence against a suspect would be the testimony of a co-conspirator?

 

[JihadJane]

I am not an authority on sociopathic behaviour. Coline Covington is:

"Signs that suggest Amanda Knox is a psychopath"

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043...on-the-signs-that-amanda-knox-is-a-psychopath

Coline Covington is a Jungian psychoanalyst. The article you linked to is also junk science; little more than gossip, in fact.

 

[stilicho]

7) The "competing timelines" were probably the most promising thing to come along in this thread in thirty or forty pages. Personally I think it'd be illuminating to see them again along with the provenance of each timestamp.

It's actually a red herring, Mr D. The defence teams (specifically Sollecito's) used real data (CCTV timestamps and cell phone records) to attempt to create an alternate scenario. Same thing with trying to move Meredith's murder back in time.

There's a method to their madness. They're trying to make the "known knowns" such as the visit by Popovic, the switching off of the cell phones, and the business in AK's room appear to help their clients.

If you just isolate those specifics then you can cast some doubt on the prosecution's case. The problem arrives when you try to fit them into other undisputed facets of the case. AK's mother almost single-handedly ruined the illusion during her testimony about the 12:47 call, as an example.

I have no doubts that RS and AK both had excellent lawyers and they did the best they could do with what they had to work with.

Regarding your question to halides1 and Fiona, I hope you don't mind if I interject. The prosecution case is strong even without any of the DNA or print evidence. AK placed herself at the scene of the crime and RS admitted that he expected that his knife had cut Meredith. Amateur criminals out there should take note. Don't implicate yourself like that. Just "lawyer up" and stfu.

I'm not sure whether you're familiar with other murder cases that have advocates who deny self-implicating actions or words like this one does. They are not that uncommon. One of which I know is that of Colin Thatcher. He still has supporters although he clearly admits to having met with the man he almost surely paid to kill his ex-wife and also admits to have left the money that was picked up for the job.

Judges and jurors take that type of actions and words very seriously. (I think we ought to as well, since we are apparently all sceptics and critical thinkers.)

I still maintain that the appeals will focus only on the DNA because that's really all they have. It won't fool the appeals court any more than it fooled those at their first trial.

There's a famous quotation from one of AK's "diaries" that I think sums up the case: "I ****ed up so bad."

 

[stilicho]

Coline Covington is a Jungian psychoanalyst. The article you linked to is also junk science; little more than gossip, in fact.

I likewise deny the possibility that AK is mentally ill. She is, much to her chagrin, a garden variety convicted murderer. Nothing special at all.

 

[piktor]

1- In the incident involving Christian Tramontano, Rudy pulled his knife and escaped.

2- Did you come to that conclusion based on evidence, or simply by believing in the authority figures?

3- The Mignini report concedes that the photographs of the crime scene do not show the glass. Knowing what we do about human memory, why would you accept the memories of a witness when the photographs tell a different story?

4- I am also awaiting a scientific explanation of how a rock thrown from inside the room generated the scattered glass we do see in the photographs.

1- Again, was blood spilled. Did Guede lunge at Tramontano, choke him until his hyoid bone fractured, and finally push his knife through Tramontano's throat and left him to bleed in agony? Did he ever go to prison for his unspectacular transgressions?

2- My conclusions are based on my own narrative, after researching as much as possible from the prosecution's arguments and the defence's. I have no access to any clues, evidence or direct testimony. I do not even speak or read Italian. I have never visited Perugia, I do not have friends in Italy, I have no contacts that can give me the inside scoop. With all probability, Kestrel, you and I have the same third-rate information on which to discuss this case. You answer some simple questions that are presented to you and some questions you do not answer. You provide some links to back your arguments and some of your arguments have no proof other than your belief to be correct and truthful.

I believe in your good faith and that your comments are an honest search for the truth. I very much like your questions because they are simple and go to the heart of the matter and they are difficult to answer sometimes because simple questions need chrystal clear answers and rightly challenge assumptions.

As to the matter of me agreeing with the prosecution's arguments but me not providing proof the arguments are indeed fact-based, well, some arguments are just that. Some arguments are fact-based. If I repeat some of the prosecution's arguments verbatim, it is so because the defence's counter-arguments sound weak and improbable.

I am not forming a "Friends of Kercher Prosecutors" fan club. The prosecutors and judges in this case have stood for truth and fairness. The Kercher family has been extraordinarily graceful, discrete and honest. They would not allow a travesty of justice and are not seeking revenge. They seek the truth and agree with the investigation and with the verdict. That is good enough for me. I stand with the Kerchers on this and offer no apologies.

3- Are you saying the on-site investigation was not written down on paper and the shattered glass at Filomena's is anecdotal? The crime scene is one big story with no first hand observation and no written report? I suggest you read the Micheli Sentenza. The level of detail is excruciating:

http://translate.google.com/transla...1&IDPag=750&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com

4- You can analyse these photos to your heart's content, Sherlock, most of the evidence, we will never see first-hand, anyway.

http://tinypic.com/userstuff.php?u=xS3u1gtNIHZXduyexYLKDA==&page=5

Most sincerely yours,

Dr. piktor Watson

 

[piktor]

Coline Covington is a Jungian psychoanalyst. The article you linked to is also junk science; little more than gossip, in fact.

Jungian, Freudian, schmolodian, does it really matter what Dr. Covington's pecadilloes and proclivities might be?

She presents her view from afar. It is one more element to consider in the discussion, nothing more than her professional opinion. Each makes their own conclusions.

On the other hand, I am not a psychologist, so, I couldn't know how to refute Dr. Covington or agree with her based on anything other than my own common sense and life experience. Dr. Covington's arguments ring true to me.