Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Haha, that is an argument for consumption by the witchhunters and other simpleminded folk who aren't willing or able to look at this case objectively.

Anyone who believes consideration of motive is simply a theatrical device invented to add dramatic flair to tv shows is not competent to be pontificating about this, or any other, criminal case.

Trying to determine what the motive was, and who may have possessed that motive, is one of the most important aspects of a murder investigation. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, a discussion of motive also invariably plays an essential role in practically all murder prosections.

The culties who need Amanda Knox to be guilty might disagree with that. But certainly that disagreement would paint them as laughingstocks in any "rl" ("real life"?) criminal justice community.

And yet I find nothing missing or extremely unlikely in the presented Prosecution scenario. Perhaps that's just me, but I don't find reason to believe that the scenario presented is not what happened. The honest truth is that murders like this happen more frequently than you, or I, would like to admit.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Guede Groupies will be grateful that you conveniently neglected to mention that his DNA was also found on the victim's purse.

Which many people (though, naturally, not Rudy's fans ) will find rather incriminating.

But not in the purse. Nor on the cell phones.

That aside, no one questions Rudy's guilt. He, in fact, pleaded guilty. Why is it, therefore, surprising to you that no one questions his guilt?

 

[Kestrel]

Haha, that is an argument for consumption by the witchhunters and other simpleminded folk who aren't willing or able to look at this case objectively.

Anyone who believes consideration of motive is simply a theatrical device invented to add dramatic flair to tv shows is not competent to be pontificating about this, or any other, criminal case.

Trying to determine what the motive was, and who may have possessed that motive, is one of the most important aspects of a murder investigation. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, a discussion of motive also invariably plays an essential role in practically all murder prosections.

The culties who need Amanda Knox to be guilty might disagree with that. But certainly that disagreement would paint them as laughingstocks in any "rl" ("real life"?) criminal justice community.

The judges report blamed the murder on Reefer Madness^WP and pornography.

Their choice of evil started even before, with the drug they assumed.

For a porn consumer as Raffaele was, the fact of taking a woman with force could be exciting. So they embraced Rudi's own choice of evil.

 

[stilicho]

The judges report blamed the murder on Reefer Madness^WP and pornography.

Oh? You read the 427-page report, in Italian?

I thought the judges report blamed Meredith's murder on Sollecito, Knox and Guede.

 

[stilicho]

That aside, no one questions Rudy's guilt. He, in fact, pleaded guilty. Why is it, therefore, surprising to you that no one questions his guilt?

Huh? No he didn't. He opted for a fast-track trial.

That's why his sentence was lighter than theirs and why theirs are unlikely to be reduced upon appeal.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The judges report blamed the murder on Reefer Madness^WP and pornography.

Only a bit of hyperbole there...but whatever.

That you choose not to accept the judges ruling does nothing for the case. Would you prefer the Judges not have offered Amanda and Raffaele an excuse (the doped up bit)?

And as you claim as ridiculous the thought of pornography having anything to do with the murder, you forget (or choose to ignore) that there are some very, VERY sick people in the world. Go watch "8mm" with Nick Cage sometime. I'm not anti-pornography, by any means. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to agree that pornography has no negative effect on some people. Just like anything else, it can, and does, influence poor decisions.


Just because you personally choose not to accept that there are people in the world who do the kinds of things Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty of doing does not mean they don't happen.

Oh to live in your world, where the bad guys look like bad guys, and the good boys and girls are always handsome and pretty (respectively).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Huh? No he didn't. He opted for a fast-track trial.

That's why his sentence was lighter than theirs and why theirs are unlikely to be reduced upon appeal.

I thought he pled guilty during the fast track - thus 2 reductions to his term?

I must have misread that somewhere.

 

[stilicho]

Fulcanelli,

You misunderstood what I wrote. One has to see the files to know what is in them; there may (or may not) be a smoking gun. However, as I amply documented, the fsa files are invaluable to an independent investigator and are typically provided to the defense. I cannot think of a good reason why anyone would not want to see independent analysis. Do you support full release of the fsa files in all cases involving DNA forensics, why or why not?

Chris

With all due respect, Chris, the fsa files are therefore and by your own admission a complete red herring. The kicker is that if you found that the defence actually has the things you can simply argue that the data were compromised.

You're getting nowhere, anywhere, with this continued fsa file mantra.

Why not just stick with the DNA contamination and blurry allele tropes instead? At least you can post links to that stuff even though your links are almost always either out-of-date or irrelevant.

 

[stilicho]

I thought he pled guilty during the fast track - thus 2 reductions to his term?

I must have misread that somewhere.

We'd need a cite for that. But, of course, we're letting Kestrel off easy for his continued unsourced claims of godlike knowledge of the medical examiners' reports which he hasn't seen and is just making up **** about.

Everyone who's actually seen the autopsy results has no illusions whatsoever about the severity and brutality of Meredith's wounds inflicted after she had been subdued.

Oh, except for theatre clown Carlo Torre and various other unreliable players.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

We'd need a cite for that. But, of course, we're letting Kestrel off easy for his continued unsourced claims of godlike knowledge of the medical examiners' reports which he hasn't seen and is just making up **** about.

Everyone who's actually seen the autopsy results has no illusions whatsoever about the severity and brutality of Meredith's wounds inflicted after she had been subdued.

Oh, except for theatre clown Carlo Torre and various other unreliable players.

Well, I did look it up, and I found I was incorrect. Thanks for catching me on that Stilicho.

And you are damned right. Kestrel's persistence that no human being could/would act in the manner presented by the Prosecution is a prime example of denial and refusal to accept evidence to the contrary of her cherished beliefs.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You are again being unresponsive and trying to change the subject. I have documented that this is not a US-only expectation in a previous message (title: fsa files, part 4), but rather an almost universal occurrence. I am asking you as a general principle, again, do you support release of the fsa files?

Oh for crying out loud, I already answered your question. You failed to answer mine and prove they are being witheld.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you think Frank Sfarzo's post is in error, I suggest you bring it to his attention, with cites.

It's a waste of time to bring Frank's errors to his attention

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you qualify that with "There is no evidence of..." it would technically be true since the next activity occurred at 00:58 the next day.

I think you have the wrong day. Wasn't that activity what the defence claimed happened on the night of the 5th?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Haha, that is an argument for consumption by the witchhunters and other simpleminded folk who aren't willing or able to look at this case objectively.

Anyone who believes consideration of motive is simply a theatrical device invented to add dramatic flair to tv shows is not competent to be pontificating about this, or any other, criminal case.

Trying to determine what the motive was, and who may have possessed that motive, is one of the most important aspects of a murder investigation. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, a discussion of motive also invariably plays an essential role in practically all murder prosections.

The culties who need Amanda Knox to be guilty might disagree with that. But certainly that disagreement would paint them as laughingstocks in any "rl" ("real life"?) criminal justice community.

Fine. Back it up with evidence that motive is a requirement to convict someone of murder. It will be nice to have some actual evidence rather then assertions from you for a change.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Guede Groupies will be grateful that you conveniently neglected to mention that his DNA was also found on the victim's purse.

Which many people (though, naturally, not Rudy's fans ) will find rather incriminating.

Guede has already admitted to being there. I fail to see what it proves that isn't known already and what he hasn't admitted already.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I thought he pled guilty during the fast track - thus 2 reductions to his term?

I must have misread that somewhere.

No, he's always plead innocent with the 'simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time' defence.

 

[Matthew Best]

And as you claim as ridiculous the thought of pornography having anything to do with the murder, you forget (or choose to ignore) that there are some very, VERY sick people in the world. Go watch "8mm" with Nick Cage sometime.

 

[Moss]

Ahem, argument by Hollywood movie?
There is some sick stuff around and there is an underground for violent (or violent looking) porn, but without further information if that is relevant to the case let's not dwell on that.

 

[funk de fino]

Haha, that is an argument for consumption by the witchhunters and other simpleminded folk who aren't willing or able to look at this case objectively.

Now that is ironic............

 

[shuttlt]

I've been reading the New York Supereme Court ruling on LCN. Lab contamination, fraud and malpractice to one side, it does seem to offer some pretty clear views on the general admissability of LCN results.

While the defendant argues that the LCN DNA form of testing should be excluded under the Frye standard due to concerns such as transference, the increased incidence of allelic drop-out, drop-in, and stutter, as well as other alleged interpretation issues that the defendant claims may or may not arise when LCN DNA testing is performed, the Court finds that while these arguments are relevant as to the weight the trier of fact may wish to afford the proffered DNA evidence at trial, they do not affect the admissibility of the evidence for trial purposes pursuant to Frye.

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Megnath.pdf

For a court documents it's quite short and worth a read.