Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
snook1 said:
Well, yeah, after all they're all human. And the every Judge bit is funny, it's not like there have been thousands of them you know. Let's just wait for the appeal. :)
Click to expand...


How many judges are enough?

If a few dozen judges were to have found Knox and Sollecito innocent I somehow doubt you would be waiting with the same hopeful anticipation for one who would instead find them guilty.

It seems that the appropriate number of judges in your opinion is that number sufficient to unearth one who agrees with you.

That's called "judge shopping". It has little to do with the fair resolution of a trial.
 
snook1 said:
Yeah, drug addict and old woman who heard some screams and running.
Kermit's efforts are great, though he's more sure of his results than the police investigators and print experts will ever be and he's never been to that bathroom. He only got few pictures.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that age and gender are credible grounds to impeach a witness's testimony?
 
quadraginta said:
Are you suggesting that age and gender are credible grounds to impeach a witness's testimony?
Click to expand...

No, i'm suggesting that advanced age is not helping when you're trying to remember details of "something". Being old is sad, boring, you're lonely and miserable and whenever there is a chance to be a part of the action, old people never miss it.
 
snook1 said:
No, i'm suggesting that advanced age is not helping when you're trying to remember details of "something". Being old is sad, boring, you're lonely and miserable and whenever there is a chance to be a part of the action, old people never miss it.
Click to expand...

:newlol
 
quadraginta said:
How many judges are enough?

If a few dozen judges were to have found Knox and Sollecito innocent I somehow doubt you would be waiting with the same hopeful anticipation for one who would instead find them guilty.

It seems that the appropriate number of judges in your opinion is that number sufficient to unearth one who agrees with you.

That's called "judge shopping". It has little to do with the fair resolution of a trial.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I;m just saying, let's wait for the appeal. Different judges, different prosecutor, different state of mind. Yeah, one can say - but the same evidence - fair enough. That;s why i'm saying, let's just wait and see.
 
snook1 said:
Yeah, drug addict and old woman who heard some screams and running.
Kermit's efforts are great, though he's more sure of his results than the police investigators and print experts will ever be and he's never been to that bathroom. He only got few pictures.
Click to expand...


What drug addict? Curatolo isn't a drug addict. Quintavalle isn't a drug addict.

And the 'old woman' is a key witness, her testimony is important.

But while you sneer at the veracity of witnesses, I hear l luttle complaint from you about the defence using a convicted kidnapping lying baby murderer as a witness. I suppose that's all good?
 
snook1 said:
No, i'm suggesting that advanced age is not helping when you're trying to remember details of "something". Being old is sad, boring, you're lonely and miserable and whenever there is a chance to be a part of the action, old people never miss it.
Click to expand...


You start your reply with the word "No", but then follow with sentences which seem to be saying "yes". Are you sure you know what you mean?

Exactly how "advanced" was the age of this particular witness? What cause do you have to suggest that her testimony was flawed due to boredom? How have you determined her state of mind? Is there something in the testimony suggesting she was "sad" or "miserable"?

Do you believe that evaluating credibility by stereotype is a valid method of judgment? I thought that the whole "guilty - because of a cartwheel" beef was dependent upon complaints about just that sort of presumption.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
No, i'm suggesting that advanced age is not helping when you're trying to remember details of "something". Being old is sad, boring, you're lonely and miserable and whenever there is a chance to be a part of the action, old people never miss it.
Click to expand...


Advanced age??? She's only in her 60's! We're not talking about Methuselah here.
 
snook1 said:
No, not at all. I;m just saying, let's wait for the appeal. Different judges, different prosecutor, different state of mind. Yeah, one can say - but the same evidence - fair enough. That;s why i'm saying, let's just wait and see.
Click to expand...


Oh I see, let's just pretend the trial never happened, right?
 
snook1 said:
No, not at all. I;m just saying, let's wait for the appeal. Different judges, different prosecutor, different state of mind. Yeah, one can say - but the same evidence - fair enough. That;s why i'm saying, let's just wait and see.
Click to expand...


So if the appeal upholds the original conviction then at that point you will change your mind about Knox's culpability? Or will you say that yet another set of judges must be approached?
 
No point in challenging that kind of stuff people: whatever snook is about it is not reason nor respect. Ignore
 
Fulcanelli writes:

Oh, like a bad penny....I thought you were off helping dig the escape tunnel under Capanne Wilkes? We miss you over on PMF...we haven't heard about Pitted Windshield Syndrome in such a long time.

If you miss me, why did you tell me to stop posting?

You are kidding right? the footprint in the corridor is IDENTICAL to the print on the bath mat, they are the same print made by the same person! Raffaele Sollecito. If anyone doubts, just superimpose them.

OK, so what exactly happened? It's not like the police found a trail of footprints. They found three in the corridor - two right footprints outside Amanda's door, with the toes facing toward the kitchen, and one footprint outside Meredith's door with the toes facing toward that door.

Kermit writes:

I don't understand why the luminol footprints don't fit any scenario. In fact, they fit the scenario that Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage.

See above. What sequence of events created these footprints? Did Amanda step in Meredith's blood and then hop backwards into the hallway?

All of these bare footprints were tested for DNA, but Meredith's DNA was not found in any of them. How do you explain that, if you think they were made with Meredith's blood? And why weren't any bare footprints found in the murder room, the source of all this blood supposedly tracked into the corridor?
 
snook1 said:
No, i'm suggesting that advanced age is not helping when you're trying to remember details of "something". Being old is sad, boring, you're lonely and miserable and whenever there is a chance to be a part of the action, old people never miss it.
Click to expand...

No, I am suggesting that extreme youth is not helping when you are trying to evaluate "evidence". Being young is sad, ignorant, you're lonely and sexually frustrated and whenever there is a chance to feel like a grown up, young people never miss it. Arse!
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
No, I am suggesting that extreme youth is not helping when you are trying to evauluate "evidence". Being young is sad, ignorant, you're lonely and sexually frustrated and whenever there is a chance to feel like a grown up, young people never miss it. Arse!
Click to expand...

Fiona, I believe I just developed a girl crush.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
If you miss me, why did you tell me to stop posting?
Click to expand...

It was only a suspension Charlie. But...you never came back. It was never lifted because you didn't request it.


Charlie Wilkes said:
OK, so what exactly happened? It's not like the police found a trail of footprints. They found three in the corridor - two right footprints outside Amanda's door, with the toes facing toward the kitchen, and one footprint outside Meredith's door with the toes facing toward that door.
Click to expand...

Right, but remember these prints belonged to, or at least have been assigned to have belonged to more then one person. So, two luminol prints in the corridor, one assigned to Knox, the other Sollecito. I can tell you from the Judge's Report that he reasons that at some point, in the room, they each stepped in blood and made their way to the bathroom to wash their feet (I presume hopping), not necessarily both at the same time, and one washed their foot in the shower while the other washed their foot in the bidet (hence, the bloody print on the mat and the blood in the bidet). They then went back into the corridor, at some point putting their wet foot on the floor and the blood residue that remained on the feet, even after washing, resulted in a faint invisible to the eye print that could be revealed by luminol.

In short, the judges deducted that the luminol prints were left not as a result of raw bloody footprints deposited and then cleaned, but rather that the prints were as a result of what they (Raffaele and Amanda) thought to be clean feet but were not, being stood down on the floor. It is puzzling, since at the same time the report maintains there was cleaning, but if not of the prints...then what? Hopefully, I'll be able to answer these questions more effectively once the report translations have progressed further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom