Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Really? They were telling the press this on or before the 5th were they? Link?

They told the lie to the press a bit later.

The American student accused of murdering Meredith Kercher in an "extreme" sexual game was captured on security cameras entering their shared house on the night her throat was slit.

A camera in the carpark opposite Miss Kercher’s house has a "clear-cut image" of 20-year-old Amanda Knox, from Seattle, on the premises, according to police.

Got a link to anywhere, either in Amanda's/Raffaele's diary/letters/bugged conversations with family/spontaneous statements/testimony on the stand of Amanda or Raffaele ever stating that during their questioning they were ever told by the police that the ILE had film of Amanda going to the cottage?

From Amanda's handwritten note of Nov. 6:

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

they told the lie to the press a bit later.





From amanda's handwritten note of nov. 6:

1+1 = 3?

 

[stilicho]

Hey I said that would be a great idea. And I really do think that. I think it would be an excellent opportunity to get information into the light. Let's do it!

The forum is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5.

I dare you as I did halides1. Produce your data and your claim and make it stick. You have nothing to lose.

 

[Fulcanelli]

1+1 = 3?

Yep. As I said, simply another assertion made as fact that he can't prove or evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks for the other site recommendations. I will check them out.

Fulcanelli doesn't provide links to other sites. He has all the "facts" he wants on PMF.

The problem with Kermits powerpoint presentations is that he doesn't just present the facts but starts with a conclusion and plays with the evidence to make it work. That bath mat print for instance, he doesn't just trace the visible extent of the stain and then go through the suspect prints to exclude those that are not compatible. He instead has already decided that this stain will be Raffaele's footprint and traces an imaginary boundary to be compatible.

But if you look at the comparison of the stain on the mat and the example of Raffaele's footprint, you will see that there are places where the foot would have touched the mat but left no stain and places where the foot would not have touched the mat yet there is a stain.

 

[Moss]

Interesting that you automatically assume a lie Kestrel. How about the alternative explanation that they were just wrong on the identification?

And I repeat my question again: why would Raffaele or Amanda cave in to evidence that clearly couldn't exist if they didn't go to the apartment on the night of the murder?

 

[Kestrel]

Interesting that you automatically assume a lie Kestrel. How about the alternative explanation that they were just wrong on the identification?

The police claimed they had a clearly identifiable image. The photo at the top of this article is the image they were talking about. Can explain how calling this a clearly identifiable image is anything but a lie?

ETA: Here is a link that includes the video.

And I repeat my question again: why would Raffaele or Amanda cave in to evidence that clearly couldn't exist if they didn't go to the apartment on the night of the murder?

You must have missed the earlier discussion in this thread about interrogation techniques.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The police claimed they had a clearly identifiable image. The photo at the top of this article is the image they were talking about. Can explain how calling this a clearly identifiable image is anything but a lie?



You must have missed the earlier discussion in this thread about interrogation techniques.

Evidence? Or just another unfounded accusation used to discredit the Polizia?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fulcanelli doesn't provide links to other sites. He has all the "facts" he wants on PMF.

The problem with Kermits powerpoint presentations is that he doesn't just present the facts but starts with a conclusion and plays with the evidence to make it work. That bath mat print for instance, he doesn't just trace the visible extent of the stain and then go through the suspect prints to exclude those that are not compatible. He instead has already decided that this stain will be Raffaele's footprint and traces an imaginary boundary to be compatible.

But if you look at the comparison of the stain on the mat and the example of Raffaele's footprint, you will see that there are places where the foot would have touched the mat but left no stain and places where the foot would not have touched the mat yet there is a stain.

So you're claiming the FoA site did not doctor their data to support their claims regarding who left the footprint?

 

[Moss]

The police claimed they had a clearly identifiable image. The photo at the top of this article is the image they were talking about. Can explain how calling this a clearly identifiable image is anything but a lie?

ETA: Here is a link that includes the video.



You must have missed the earlier discussion in this thread about interrogation techniques.

Sure, that isn't clear-cut. I agree with you on that point. Sounds a lot like hyperbole. Not sure if I would call that a lie, but it is manipulative. I don't like it when the police leaks information to the press.

And I did indeed read the whole cycle of interrogation technique discussions. Every one of them. It's not convincing. "The police forced them to confess but we have no evidence of that."
Has it not occurred to you that Amanda and Raffaele might actually have believed that there was evidence because they were there?

 

[lector]

Why do you find a single perpetrator to be unlikely?

Unlikely but not impossible. It's a discussion I've had several times before. I don't wish to get into it again till I've read & digested the Sentenza.

 

[tsig]

An underlying theme I sense is trusting what the court has done. I find that very questionable things were done. I want to trust the court, but there are certain problems. You most likely know the problems I have and you most likely do not regard them as problems. That is fine. But I thought I would just point it out. I also feel very strange writing about these things in a way but it's all in the spirit of debate.

Still look into it. Sorry. I don't rush to conclusions. It's not my style.

One of those statements is wrong.

 

[quadraginta]

Sure, that isn't clear-cut. I agree with you on that point. Sounds a lot like hyperbole. Not sure if I would call that a lie, but it is manipulative. I don't like it when the police leaks information to the press.

And I did indeed read the whole cycle of interrogation technique discussions. Every one of them. It's not convincing. "The police forced them to confess but we have no evidence of that."

Has it not occurred to you that Amanda and Raffaele might actually have believed that there was evidence because they were there?

What a preposterous suggestion.

Why do you hate Amanda?

 

[tsig]

Well now I've heard your side, for one. I've wanted to talk to people from PMF for a while.

And I'll see what people think by getting more opinions, asking around, thinking it through, about the problem of images on screens and how that affects matching prints to photographs.

I see you're Just Asking Questions.

 

[Moss]

What a preposterous suggestion.

Why do you hate Amanda?

Because I'm a facetious German jerk. Next question?

 

[quadraginta]

Because I'm a facetious German jerk. Next question?

Ah hah! More evidence of Eurocentric anti-American bias.

It's all so sadly obvious.

 

[Open Inquiry]

The forum is thataway: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5.

I dare you as I did halides1. Produce your data and your claim and make it stick. You have nothing to lose.

Thank you. I am actually quite excited about this. Open examination is great.

I am only committed to objective assessment and analysis, not one outcome or another.

 

[Open Inquiry]

One of those statements is wrong.

Why?

 

[Open Inquiry]

I see you're Just Asking Questions.

What do you mean?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Fulcanelli doesn't provide links to other sites. He has all the "facts" he wants on PMF.

The problem with Kermits powerpoint presentations is that he doesn't just present the facts but starts with a conclusion and plays with the evidence to make it work. That bath mat print for instance, he doesn't just trace the visible extent of the stain and then go through the suspect prints to exclude those that are not compatible. He instead has already decided that this stain will be Raffaele's footprint and traces an imaginary boundary to be compatible.

But if you look at the comparison of the stain on the mat and the example of Raffaele's footprint, you will see that there are places where the foot would have touched the mat but left no stain and places where the foot would not have touched the mat yet there is a stain.

Frank's account at Perugia Shock seems accurate. In those photos it looks like Rudy's footprint. It is too thin to be Raffaele's footprint. I also think the footprint on the bath mat is slightly smeared on the ball of the foot to the left, as it would if the foot shifted into the tufts of the bathmat.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/sollecitos-expert-questions-all.html