Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

The establishment of motive is not required to either charge, try or convict someone of murder.

Exactly.

Motive is, in nearly any case, purely speculative. Only in a case where the defendant admits guilt should we expect motive to be anything other than speculation.

The argument that motive doesn't fit, or that the case falls apart due to lack of motive, I think, comes from people who just want to understand how someone could do the horrible things that were done to Meredith.

Unfortunately, that is something we'll maybe never really know and denial of the act due to a "lack of motive" or disagreement with the Prosecution's presented motive does not, in any way, invalidate the mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Exactly.

Motive is, in nearly any case, purely speculative. Only in a case where the defendant admits guilt should we expect motive to be anything other than speculation.

The argument that motive doesn't fit, or that the case falls apart due to lack of motive, I think, comes from people who just want to understand how someone could do the horrible things that were done to Meredith.

Unfortunately, that is something we'll maybe never really know and denial of the act due to a "lack of motive" or disagreement with the Prosecution's presented motive does not, in any way, invalidate the mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Personally, I think it's mainly the fault of fictional TV murder shows. They are always going on about motive. But that's because it's part of the entertainment, working out (or at least watching the police work out) who did it and exactly 'why' they did it in each 45 minute episode, each one being tied with a neat little bow. It's hardly surprising many of the public think that motive is of utmost import. Real life is not so neat, but that wouldn't be so entertaining or fulfilling for TV audiences.

In reality, motive is surplus to requirement, purely secondary. Motive only gains in importance when there is little or no evidence against a suspect and that's not so in this case. Many murderers are sitting in jails for murders that had no apparent motive. Many thousands more are serving murder sentences where the prosecution put forward a motive that was purely speculative, as you pointed out. In fact, those cases where the motive is known for certain are the exception rather then the rule.

And the fact is, there are numerous possible motives for this crime, all of which are common enough motives:

1. Envy
2. Revenge
3. Sex
4. Thrill Kill
5. The victim was in their way or/and needed silencing
6. A highly unwise or malicious prank that went too far
7. An argument that went too far

Any of the above would fit (or indeed, a combination of any of the above), so people can take their pick. But unless those who committed the murder own up and talk, we will never know for certain. That's just life. People need to learn to deal with it.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Except Rudy's print hasn't been shrunk to a size 42, it's been shrunk to a size 36!

The footprint on the bath mat isn't anywhere near 36. I'll check again to be sure.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Let us know when you've done it.

I did it right after that post.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Exactly.

Motive is, in nearly any case, purely speculative. Only in a case where the defendant admits guilt should we expect motive to be anything other than speculation.

The argument that motive doesn't fit, or that the case falls apart due to lack of motive, I think, comes from people who just want to understand how someone could do the horrible things that were done to Meredith.

Unfortunately, that is something we'll maybe never really know and denial of the act due to a "lack of motive" or disagreement with the Prosecution's presented motive does not, in any way, invalidate the mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

Motive is part of a search for cause.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Motive is part of a search for cause.

That may be. But it is, absolutely, nothing more than pure speculation in this case.

Until/unless Amanda and Raffaele come clean and tell why they did it, it will always be speculation.


And as speculation, it has no bearing, whatsoever, on their guilt or the rest of the evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The footprint on the bath mat isn't anywhere near 36. I'll check again to be sure.

He was stating that the picture of Rudy's foot has been shrunk to approximately the size of a 36 so that it would appear to fit the footprint on the bathmat.


At this point I'm seriously doubting you took the time to actually read the PMF powerpoint.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I did it right after that post.

NVM...I found it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169678

 

[Fulcanelli]

The footprint on the bath mat isn't anywhere near 36. I'll check again to be sure.

Sigh. It's in the PowerPoint. It shows you exactly what size they had to shrink Rudy's print to fit, right next to a calibrated ruler...22.5 cm's...that's size 36, smaller even then Amanda's size. Here:

 

[Open Inquiry]

He was stating that the picture of Rudy's foot has been shrunk to approximately the size of a 36 so that it would appear to fit the footprint on the bathmat.


At this point I'm seriously doubting you took the time to actually read the PMF powerpoint.

So if that ruler is correct, are you saying it is a female footprint?

 

[Fulcanelli]

So if that ruler is correct, are you saying it is a female footprint?

I thought you'd gone through the PowerPoint? Kermit shows step by step exactly what size the print is.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I haven't looked at Friends of Amanda very much but I just looked at the photo of the bath mat from a distance. It looks like big footprint, by a guy. I am looking for more pictures of the floor in the bathroom.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint.html

 

[Open Inquiry]

But...you don't have a position?

C'mon man! Make up your mind. Either you have a position or you don't.



You're claiming you have a position on the footprint. Then when challenged, you have no evidentiary reason to back your position so you claim you don't have one. Now you're claiming you have a position that needs to be challenged?

I am challenging your position on the footprint. What makes you believe the FoA site over the PMF site?

No. You misunderstood. My position in general on the case.

I am still coming to an assessment about the PowerPoint. I thought I had done that, but I want to make sure. The 36 size seems unlikely. It sounds like that is what you are saying it is 36 (saying FOA shrunk it fit 36) but the footprint on the bath mat isn't that small. And yet it also sounds like you are saying it is not 36 but 42. Btw, Rudy's shoes were Nike size 11, European size 45, 29cm from the tip of the toe to the back of the heel. I want to see a photograph of the floor behind the bath mat to see how far back the footprint goes. The odds of the print looking like Rudy's but not sized the same are hard to dismiss.

Example:

Fulcanelli said: So footprint length can differ from foot length by a factor of 10 sizes can it?

 

[Open Inquiry]

I haven't looked at Friends of Amanda very much but I just looked at the photo of the bath mat from a distance. It looks like big footprint, by a guy. I am looking for more pictures of the floor in the bathroom.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/footprint.html

I am not as interested in the FOA presentation as I am in whose footprint it is.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No. You misunderstood. My position in general on the case.

I am still coming to an assessment about the PowerPoint. I thought I had done that, but I want to make sure. The 36 size seems unlikely. It sounds like that is what you are saying it is 36 (saying FOA shrunk it fit 36) but the footprint on the bath mat isn't that small. And yet it also sounds like you are saying it is not 36 but 42. Btw, Rudy's shoes were Nike size 11, European size 45, 29cm from the tip of the toe to the back of the heel. I want to see a photograph of the floor behind the bath mat to see how far back the footprint goes. The odds of the print looking like Rudy's but not sized the same are hard to dismiss.

Example:

Ahhh, so, evidence that you still haven't read through the powerpoint.

Let us know when you do.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I was going on the idea that if Kermit was measuring for Raffaele's feet, he forgot to take into account that length of a footprint isn't length as used for shoe sizes. The difference of the two shoe size lengths -- 29cm - 27cm --would account for the heel. Raffaele - Nike size 42.5 = 27cm. Rudy - Nike size 11 US = 45 Euro. = 29cm. So if Kermit was saying 27cm is size 42.5, he didn't take into account the two additional centemeters for the heel, putting it at 29cm, size 45.

What you are saying, it seems, is that the print on the mat might be a partial print, and somehow the photos on FOA refer to it as if it is a full footprint.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Ahhh, so, evidence that you still haven't read through the powerpoint.

Let us know when you do.

I did read through the PowerPoint. The first time, it was not running properly on the computer I was using (but I didn't know that at the time until I tried it on anohter computer the next day or so). The second time, it only showed half of it, not the Raffaele part, for some reason (but I didn't know there was more in it). This time, the full thing showed. (Are there different versions I might have clicked at PMF? I can check... Maybe that's why they seemed different.)

See also my point about the FOA photo presentation in my post prior to this post.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No. You misunderstood. My position in general on the case.

I am still coming to an assessment about the PowerPoint. I thought I had done that, but I want to make sure. The 36 size seems unlikely. It sounds like that is what you are saying it is 36 (saying FOA shrunk it fit 36) but the footprint on the bath mat isn't that small. And yet it also sounds like you are saying it is not 36 but 42. Btw, Rudy's shoes were Nike size 11, European size 45, 29cm from the tip of the toe to the back of the heel. I want to see a photograph of the floor behind the bath mat to see how far back the footprint goes. The odds of the print looking like Rudy's but not sized the same are hard to dismiss.

No. That is not what I'm saying. Where have I said the PRINT ON THE MAT is size 36? It seems Open Inquiry, that there are some very basic principles you struggle to understand. You appear to be under the mistaken belief that should we shrink or enlarge the prints of our feet or hands to the same size then the prints of each will superimpose over each other perfectly, that the ratio of proportions of the features on our appendages (feet or hands) is the same.

Let me try and explain. Some of us have longer toes then each other. Take two of us that have the same shoe size. Do you think that were you to superimpose one foot print over another, one print would perfectly encompass the other? No. You may find one print has longer toes then the other. People's feet also differ in length to breadth ratio...some having very slim feet while others having broader stockier feet. Therefore, to superimpose two people's prints, even though they may be of the same size, you may have to shrink one of the prints to a smaller size then it actually is so that all it's features fit inside the print of the other (so its width isn't wider then the other, so one or more toes isn't longer then the other).

This is the case with Rudy's print. If you shrink it down in scale to the actual size of the bath mat print it's no good, because some of the features will overlap outside of the mat print. Therefore, the only way to fit all those features in one has to shrink it down even further to a size even smaller then the print...to a size 36. Remember, it isn't simply a matter of size, but PROPORTION...even those of us who have the same foot or hand size, our 'proportions' differ. The problem the FOA had with the bath mat print and Rudy's print was not simply a matter of size but proportion. It wasn't enough to shrink the size of Rudy's print to the size of the mat print to get them to fit...they had to shrink it smaller still, right down to a 36 to get the 'proportions' to fit. Do you understand?

The missing heel helped the FOA do this shrinking trick since obviously, Rudy's print shrunk to a 36 would clearly be too short for the heal.

It does take a slight degree of guesswork to match a print perfectly without the heel, but the proportions of Raffaele's foot match the mat print perfectly without having to enlarge or shrink his size. We can remove all room for doubt and judge whether Raffaele's print is a correct match in terms of size for we have a reference point, that being one of the luminol revealed prints in the corridor. It is identical to the print on the bath mat but with a crucial difference...the heel on that print is intact allowing for an accurate measurement. That measurement is a perfect match for Raffaele's print, both in size and proportion.

Needless to say, the FOA completely ignore the luminol print in the corridor. Kermit meanwhile has examined each of the prints using the exact same method and you will find those in the PowerPoints I linked to above.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm just hearing from the translators over on PMF, currently working on the Massei Motivations Report, that Massei has the Postal Police arriving at the cottage just a few minutes after 12:30.

I can also conform Raffaele's call to his sister at time mark 12:50.34, duration 39 seconds.

His call to the the Carabinieri was at 12:51.40, duration 169 seconds.

He then made a second call to the Carabinieri at 12:54, duration 57 seconds.

Massei therefore has the Postal Police arriving at the cottage before Raffaele's call to both his sister and the Carabinieri. I thought I'd put this up as certain posters here were particular interested in these answers


Incidentally, Raffaele who had claimed to have been asleep until about 10:30 am on the 2nd Nov received a call from his father time mark 09:24, duration 248 seconds. Amanda had no knowledge of this call. Massei maintains that this is because she was not at Raffaele's apartment but was instead at the cottage, cleaning/staging the crime scene.

Moreover, his father had sent him a text the previous night at 23:41.11, this was received by Raffaele's cell the following morning (2nd Nov) at 06:02.59. His phone had been off and this was the time his phone was turned back on.

 

[odeed]

I'm just hearing from the translators over on PMF, currently working on the Massei Motivations Report, that Massei has the Postal Police arriving at the cottage just a few minutes after 12:30.

I can also conform Raffaele's call to his sister at time mark 12:50.34, duration 39 seconds.

His call to the the Carabinieri was at 12:51.40, duration 169 seconds.

He then made a second call to the Carabinieri at 12:54, duration 57 seconds.

Massei therefore has the Postal Police arriving at the cottage before Raffaele's call to both his sister and the Carabinieri. I thought I'd put this up as certain posters here were particular interested in these answers


Incidentally, Raffaele who had claimed to have been asleep until about 10:30 am on the 2nd Nov received a call from his father time mark 09:24, duration 248 seconds. Amanda had no knowledge of this call. Massei maintains that this is because she was not at Raffaele's apartment but was instead at the cottage, cleaning/staging the crime scene.

Moreover, his father had sent him a text the previous night at 23:41.11, this was received by Raffaele's cell the following morning (2nd Nov) at 06:02.59. His phone had been off and this was the time his phone was turned back on.

Is there any evidence, apart from the lack of knowledge of the 09:24 phone call on Knox's behalf, that Sollecito was at his apartment on the morning of 2nd?

I thought the story of Knox solo visit to the cottage was suspicious, in my opinion, and might have been used as cover story for why Sollecito was at the cottage when the police arrived.