Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

The blood did get carried into the bathroom to leave the print on the mat yet there is no trail of bloody footprints from Meredith's room into the bathroom.

Indeed, a naked footprint far too small to be Rudy's and is a match for Raffaele Sollecito. He hopped to the bathroom.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Or as I posted earlier, Rudy took his shoes off so he could rape Meredith and wasn't wearing them when he visited the small bathroom to clean up.

So who was holding Meredith down and holding the knife to her while he was standing there taking off his shoes and clothes. Did she just wait politely?

 

[tsig]

Why?

Why not get that stuff thrown out during the trial?

It makes little strategic sense to have your clients pronounced guilty and hope to get them off during an appeal (at least, that's my interpretation of the Italian justice system).

Appeals are hard in any jurisdiction because you have to convince a judge that the verdict was wrong by examining the same evidence the verdict was based on to begin with.

ETA: New evidence can be produced but it has to be very persuasive to overturn what has already been decided.

 

[tsig]

Eh...not so much.

It's like a little extra mortar to the wall of evidence - but it isn't really needed.

The problem for Raf is that regardless of the DNA results, Raf expected the DNA results to test positive for Meredith and as such, made up a story in an attempt to explain the results away.

It wasn't a simple: "Well, she came over, and maybe she pricked her finger" or "Well, Amanda carried the knife in her purse, so maybe Meredith used it at the cottage".

He was direct in claiming that he, himself, pricked Meredith's finger while at his apartment. There was no doubt in the statement - that leads one to believe he lied as he was expecting the DNA to be Meredith's.

It was a lie he didn't have to tell. He could have just denied it. Consider how much easier the FOA's argument would be if they didn't have to ignore that statement.

Another case of getting caught in your own web of lies.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think he explicitly says it where the finger pricking thing happened.

 

[tsig]

He has given an explanation in his own words and without any police interrogation as to why Meredith's DNA would be found on the big knife. Do you think he is lying?

Raf your bus is waiting, let us help you under it\FOA mode

 

[Kestrel]

So who was holding Meredith down and holding the knife to her while he was standing there taking off his shoes and clothes. Did she just wait politely?

If Rudy attempted the rape after stabbing Meredith, blood loss and shock would have rendered her too weak to resist.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think he explicitly says it where the finger pricking thing happened.

Raffaele's apartment.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Rudy attempted the rape after stabbing Meredith, blood loss and shock would have rendered her too weak to resist.

He tried raping her after he'd stabbed her. I see. Why didn't he then, she could hardly resist?

So, he takes his trainers off and some of his clothes after stabbing her, tries to rape her and fails for some reason. How come his bloody trainer prints in her room then?

 

[shuttlt]

Raffaele's apartment.

I stand corrected. the last time I read the diary entry I must have missed it.

 

[tsig]

In the actual real-life soon-to-be-doomed appeal? Well, you're right. David Marriott will have no effect on their sentences. If anything, they're actually doing irreversible damage to their case.

Ghirga suggested as much as long ago as January of 2009.

If the Italian system is as corrupt as they think it is then the smartest move would be to keep as quiet as possible and bribe your way free.

Some money to the judges and Amanda walks. Unless..Italy hates Amanda.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Both of these are appeals to authority and arguments from incredulity.

I don't accept Waterbury as a reliable source for exactly the reasons you've both suggested above. You don't know where he got his information or what he has withheld from his "study". Or you do know where he got his information and haven't confirmed that it's complete.

"Anonymous expert" doesn't fly either here, or in court, or anywhere in the real world. Scientists subject their findings to peer review. Conspiracy loons don't.

Waterbury doesn't have to be refuted. It's up to him to provide his sources and his proof of peer review as any garden variety scientist would.

If each of you are on such good terms with this charlatan then demand the same level of scientific honesty you would of anyone else. Until he provides complete documentation then he is just what I said--a charlatan.

Actually they are not appeals to authority. Here is the thing... it answers according to the science it presents. It is good science. The information holds. If you want peer review, I am all for it. His work stands on its own - as far as it able to go. He is not a charlatan. What you are doing is shutting down finding out what his claims have to say by attempting to discredit him. The science presented is sound. As Shuttit said in a previous comment, he makes a good argument. That argument speaks for itself, and is examinable.

Mostly that blog raises a question - a question you seem unwilling to pursue. The entire point of debating this case for those who see a problem with it is EXACTLY to question the court, with regards to this case. But it will follow its own path. The light of logic will illuminate things for what they are. Questioning the court is not a crime and it is not improprietous. It is what free human beings do. The court answers to the people it serves.

To censor - and to try to control - that line of questioning is not justice. It is not respect for truth. It is not respect for the victim of this crime - Meredith Kercher.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Authorities likewise refused Sophie Purton permission to leave Italy in the early days, OI.



(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7080400.stm )

Perugia authorities interviewed Meredith's English friends, the boys downstairs, her other uninvolved roommates, and others, while the medical examiner produced his results. They scoured the neighbourhood for witnesses. RS and AK weren't jailed until 06 NOV and only after preliminary investigations were complete--not a "sweep", whatever that is.

What source are you using to suggest that AK and RS were considered to be suspects and not witnesses before 06 NOV?

By sweep, I meant a forensic investigation of the cottage. Rudy's name came up because of evidence left at the crime scene. If Amanda and Raffaele had been at the beach for the week, their names would not have come up, in other words.

 

[Open Inquiry]

By sweep, I meant a forensic investigation of the cottage. Rudy's name came up because of evidence left at the crime scene. If Amanda and Raffaele had been at the beach for the week, their names would not have come up, in other words.

In other words, material evidence by itself would not have indicated Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Just wanted to say... I'm here to find out what people here have to say since many of you have a different opinion than I do. I can talk to people I agree with but that doesn't challenge the position I hold that I came to based on what I have read.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Just wanted to say... I'm here to find out what people here have to say since many of you have a different opinion than I do. I can talk to people I agree with but that doesn't challenge the position I hold that I came to based on what I have read.

The only thing is that I feel weird because this is an educational forum, but we are discussing a real live event that is currently underway. So I am a little hesitant to discuss it. I like to have my position challenged but not if presenting my position makes people upset, since this is not an academic issue, but real life. ...If that makes sense. ?

 

[shuttlt]

Open Inquiry,

FOA have the complete transcripts, case file etc. the whole works. I'm on the point of bowing out, but my suggestion would be to persue them to share it, publish it even. They can tell you, if they choose, exactly what Stefanoni said during her testimony, what questions the defence asked and what she said in reply. They have copies of all of their requests to the lab and the court for forensic information, lists of what was and was not contained in the hundreds of pages of material that was handed over, and copies of their complaints to the court when that information was not forthcoming.

They can provide you with certainties. Here we are forced to make judgements based on who we think is reliable, and who we think is telling the truth.

If you have a few tens of thousands of euro you could get all this information from the court yourself.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Open Inquiry,

FOA have the complete transcripts, case file etc. the whole works. I'm on the point of bowing out, but my suggestion would be to persue them to share it, publish it even. They can tell you, if they choose, exactly what Stefanoni said during her testimony, what questions the defence asked and what she said in reply. They have copies of all of their requests to the lab and the court for forensic information, lists of what was and was not contained in the hundreds of pages of material that was handed over, and copies of their complaints to the court when that information was not forthcoming.

They can provide you with certainties. Here we are forced to make judgements based on who we think is reliable, and who we think is telling the truth.

If you have a few tens of thousands of euro you could get all this information from the court yourself.

They don't have the complete transcript of the trial.

They don't even have the complete case file.

 

[shuttlt]

They don't have the complete transcript of the trial.

They don't even have the complete case file.

Really? Dr Waterbury assurred me he had access to everything the prosecution had given to the defence. Perhaps he's misinformed. Anyway, they have access to a lot of dead trees more than we do.

 

[stilicho]

Raffaele's apartment.

This is the quote:

"The fact that there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen is because
once while cooking together, I shifted myself in the house handling
the knife, I had the point on her hand, and immediately after I
apologized but she had nothing done to her."

I am not sure he explicitly states it was in his apartment but it could be due to the translation.