Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
I already responded to that question.

If you require an answer that conforms to your belief system, may I suggest looking for it on the TJMK site instead of on a skeptics forum like JREF.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I missed that response...either that or you didn't actually make one. Do you have a link to that response of yours? Alternatively, copy and paste it into your next reply. Thank you.
 
Kestrel said:
If you require an answer that conforms to your belief system, may I suggest looking for it on the TJMK site instead of on a skeptics forum like JREF.
Click to expand...

Touchy.

Do not be lecturing me about belief systems. You've operated one since your first post here on the subject. However, unlike you, I got to my conclusions by following the chain of evidence, rather then starting off with the belief and as such, also unlike you, I do not have to operate a program of intellectual gymnastics to support it..neither do I need to dodge questions....I'm still waiting for the answer you claim to have given to my question but didn't.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
An attack on the person instead of the argument, loaded language, appeal to authority. It still needs a lot of work to match the JREF record for logical fallacies in a two paragraph post.
Click to expand...

It's not an attack on the person as outlined in my second para. To rephrase, if you didn't get it the first time round, my second para said Torre's explanation was pants.

My first para which stated that Torre has a totally naff record in previous trials he has taken on is true. Unless that is, you have a list of his successes?

I also recall, only recently, some of you here slating Curatolo as being an unreliable witness due to the fact he was between homes. I do not recall you rushing to post how out of order it was to attack the person. If you did and I somehow missed it, then post the link and accept my apologies. I wait with baited breath.
 
Last edited:
And still I wait for Kestrel to respond to a link to the post, or a copy and paste of it, where he answered my question (looks at his watch).
 
Kestrel said:
I already responded to that question.
Click to expand...

I'll bite. Wasn't she seen near the basketball court when you claim she was at her boyfriend's apartment juggling bleeding fish or whatever her alibi-of-the-hour was?
 
Agatha said:
BobTheDonkey, I wonder how many more times you will have to ask that question before one of Knox's defenders answers it?
Click to expand...

Far far too many, I'm afraid.

No one can answer it properly because, as we all know (whether we admit it or not), Amanda herself cannot (or will not) answer this simple question adequately.
 
Fulcanelli said:
In regard to the fsa files. You demand a solid position on them from myself. This I cannot give. This is for several reasons. First of all, I do not know if under Italian law they are entitled to them (can you demonstrate this is so?). I do not know if they've been denied them (can you offer any evidence this is the case, specifically from the actual defence rather then from the FOA?). Finally, I do not know what these records 'IF' they are not in the hands of the defence, could prove what other computer records do not. Perhaps you could explain. What would the fsa. files show that the other records, such as the cache and more specifically, the I/O record do not?
Click to expand...
I don't understand. I had thought that the fsa files were some kind of standard save, or dump from the DNA sequencing software. How does cache and I/O fit into that?
 
Kermit wrote:

I thought I did, Charlie. I said that there's a scenario where she didn't necessarily get her feet or shoes wet with blood at the moment of the murder for which she has been convicted (pending appeal), because of the relative physical location and distance between her feet and the victim's mortal wounds.

At a slightly later moment, she was in her bare feet (or socks), got them wet with blood (FOA itself says there were blood soaked towels around), and then made the prints.

What you are describing does not explain the evidence. Rinaldi attributed two luminol prints to Amanda - one between the bathroom and Meredith's door, with the toes facing Meredith's door, and a second in Amanda's own room. Where was the bloody towel when Amanda stepped on it? Why are the two footprints in random, different locations?

Given the fact that Raffaele's alibi places Amanda outside of his apartment during the course of the evening, I don't think this scenario is too far fetched to contemplate.

Raffaele retracted that statement as soon as he had a lawyer at his side. When he was questioned by Matteini, he reverted to his original account that he and Amanda spent the whole night at his apartment. That's what he meant when he said "I told a lot of rubbish before."

In any case, that's my speculation.

Exactly. No one has shown that these luminol traces have any relevance to the crime. Their positioning suggests they are not relevant. But the authorities needed evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so they arbitrarily described these artifacts as "bloody footprints in the corridor," and the media ran with it.

It's clear that Judge Massei, the co-judge, and the jury also found sufficient and convincing evidence to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. Judge Micheli, in Rudy's sentencing report also made reference to incriminating evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Several review judges also found the same during the investigative stage.

Yes. The sages of Perugian justice are united. Believe them if you wish.
 
halides1 said:
#5122 looks like it to me.
Click to expand...


How can post #5122 be an answer to my post #5128 which came after his post and was a response to Ketsrel's post with a direct question?

Let's refresh. Kestrel said:

Kestrel said:
Amanda left Raffaele to go to work, got a text message from Patrick telling her she didn't need to come in that night and returned to Raffaele's flat. Jovana Popovic testified that Amanda was at Raffaele's flat at 8:40 PM. Meredith left Robyn Butterworth's home five minutes later.

ETA: Amanda spent the remainder of the night doing things like watching a movie, reading Harry Potter, making love with her boyfriend and sleeping.
Click to expand...

#5122


To which, in response, I said:

Fulcanelli said:
No. Witness testimony had Meredith leaving her friend's at 9 pm.

Amanda spent her time doing that, did she really? Funny, since Raffaele can remember none of those things. The first time he can actually remember even seeing her that night after 9 pm was at 1 am.;

And he certainly can't remember the supposed suicided mother/lesbian school angst deep conversation Amanda claimed they had.

There's only two things they can remember during the murder period that they both agree with each other happened..they ate dinner which was followed by the leak in the kitchen.

No, wait...those things didn't even happen during the murder period as they both had claimed because daddy called Raffaele at 8:42 that evening and Raffaele told him in that conversation that he'd just had a leak under his sink. That means the latest they had dinner was 8:30 and the leak had already happened by 8:40.

So, that leaves not one single occurrence that occurred during the murder period (post 9 pm let's say), that both Amanda and Raffaele between them agree happened. So...run it by us again Kestrel, what WERE they both doing post 9 pm that night?
Click to expand...

#5128

So, I still await an answer. Or, would you like to continue your role of answering for him halides1?
 
shuttlt said:
I don't understand. I had thought that the fsa files were some kind of standard save, or dump from the DNA sequencing software. How does cache and I/O fit into that?
Click to expand...


I assumed that too. But, it can also refer to certain registry files on the PC. But then, those that keep going on about the fsa. files have not specified what they mean by them so I don't think even they know what the fsa. files actually are, rather they are parroting something second hand.

If they are referring to the fsa. files from the DNA test then the argument is the same. The prosecution gave them a shed load of files. During the trial the defence asked for more files. The judge and the prosecution said "fine" and they were duly given them along with due time to examine them. Since that time, the defence made no complaint that they were denied anything they were entitled to. Can anyone provide evidence to contradict that...and I'm talking about from the actual defence, not the FOA spin merchants?

The fact is, this is all a BS diversion from the real issues, which is the evidence against the accused and the verdict. If the defence have a serious alternative case that has now come to light that wasn't a part of the trial, then they need to put it up or shut up and save the innuendo and unsupported assertions. But right now, all I'm seeing is a whole lot of crying and absolutely no substance.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Why are the two footprints in random, different locations?
Click to expand...

The answer, for a change, is simple..because they put their feet on the floor in random, different locations.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Raffaele retracted that statement as soon as he had a lawyer at his side. When he was questioned by Matteini, he reverted to his original account that he and Amanda spent the whole night at his apartment. That's what he meant when he said "I told a lot of rubbish before."
Click to expand...

I missed the part where you explained how that supposed reversion is credible. I also missed your cite for that reversion even taking place in the first place. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
 
I struggle to believe it's the registry files they're talking about, but who knows.
 
Katy did wrote:

Guede's print has a pronounced curved crease which is most likely the start of the arch. In a 'perfect' print, like the one he gave at the police station, this area would be visible, but it would very likely not show up if he had stepped more lightly,

Exactly. The instep is a rising arch, and the bones in the foot spread under weight, so the size of the footprint made by a given individual will vary depending on how much weight he puts on the step and where that weight is centered. Your illustration presents the situation as I have understood it for a long time, but I never came up with such a clear graphical representation.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Raffaele retracted that statement as soon as he had a lawyer at his side. When he was questioned by Matteini, he reverted to his original account that he and Amanda spent the whole night at his apartment. That's what he meant when he said "I told a lot of rubbish before."
Click to expand...

WAIT..wait...wait, you almost slipped that one by me. WHAT??? His "I told you a load of rubbish before" was to the judge??? No it wasn't Wilkes, that was to the police on the night of the 5th in regard to his earlier statement that he'd spent the whole evening with Amanda. Nice try. I can't believe you even tried to pull that.
 
Stupid question that possibly has been asked and answered time and time again but I couldn't find it with the search function: Where does the knife in the lone wolf burglary scenario come from?
 
Fulcanelli wrote:

WAIT..wait...wait, you almost slipped that one by me. WHAT??? His "I told you a load of rubbish before" was to the judge??? No it wasn't Wilkes, that was to the police on the night of the 5th in regard to his earlier statement that he'd spent the whole evening with Amanda. Nice try. I can't believe you even tried to pull that.

I'm pretty sure I've got that right. Raffaele was interviewed by Matteini, with his lawyer by his side, and he reverted to his original story that he and Amanda spent the night at his apartment. I'm basing this on court documents in Italian, however, so if I'm wrong, point me to a source that explains it differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom