Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

You are wasting your time, Kermit. We have been over all of this: but it doesn't suit Kestrel to hear it so he goes deaf

 

[Kermit]

You didn't answer my question about who is your alibi when you spend the night at home with your wife. The answer is you don't have one.

.
If I could remember that I watched a movie, had supper, saw my significant other's hand covered in fish blood, suffered a broken pipe, then read a book, and talked about my significant other's mother's suicide, and at some point had a shower with my significant other, well, I would expect that my significant other would remember those events in more or less the same order and at the appropriate timing in the evening.

If my significant other was to remember a phone call or short message from his father at around 11 p.m., I would likely remember that, if it indeed happened (actually, it couldn't have happened, since the phones were off).

Instead, Raffaele's most official alibi is that Amanda left between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. If you prefer his less official prison diary, she wasn't out of the house 4 hours, but she did leave. This departure does not figure in Amanda's alibi.

Also, Raffaele has described the supposed shower together as happening on a prior night.

Also, in one of his few courtroom declarations (never submitted to cross-examination), he stood up and emotionally denied that his mother had ever committed suicide (didn't they even get the Bari policeman to make reference to that too? I can't remember).

That all leaves quite a lot of space and disparity between the alibis. It's not just a question of: oh, he was in his corner, and I was in mine reading Harry Potter, all night. The problem with alibis, is that as soon as you start adding just a couple of minor details to spice them up a little, you are subject to your statements being contrasted with another person's statements.

 

[stilicho]

Okay. Amanda herself is the one who said that Amanda named Patrick without his name being suggested by the police in the 6/9/14/40/50 hour (I believe that's where it's at now) interrogation on the night of 5 November 2007.

This whole "Patrick was a suspect already" trope is nowhere supported by any evidence whatsoever. The police asked Sollecito into the Questura and Knox simply went along with him. AFAIK, they already had access to the pair's cell phones before 05 NOV 2007. Yet they did not haul Patrick in for questioning.

Where did they get this idea to "suggest" him to Amanda? Either they were all fiendishly uber-clever or she just offered him up to them. And, by fiendishly uber-clever, I really mean conspiratorial maniacs who took the most circuitous possible route to frame Patrick and Amanda at the same time.

There is only one place that Patrick's name could ever have come from and that was from Amanda. None of the others questioned mentioned him and yet all of them knew who he was.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Small children and adults with 24 hour a day custodial care always have alibis. People living as independent adults don't.

So Kestrel, is it not only the norm that adults don't have alibis, is it also the norm that their alibis completely contradict and cancel out the alibi of the other, as is the case with Amanda and Raffaele??? Is that the norm?

How does this rather blinkered view of your explain Raffaele's claim that Amanda wasn't even there as his apartment that evening?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh and on the knife, from Barbie Nadeau's book:

- the knife had 7 traces of human flesh and traces of bleach but only one trace could be tested for dna

Oops!

And on the hair:

- 2 blonde hairs, one long blonde hair in MK's hand

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=38791#p38791

The other blonde hair was found around the area of her vagina!

Double oops!

 

[Kermit]

You are wasting your time, Kermit. We have been over all of this: but it doesn't suit Kestrel to hear it so he goes deaf

.
I guess I'm forever optimistic, Fiona. Just as if you speak long enough with someone who seems distant, you may suddenly find that they become lucid, I'm confident that at some moment of other, the overall body of evidence in this case will provide a common understanding and level of convincement in this case.

 

[Kestrel]

.
Okay. Amanda herself is the one who said that Amanda named Patrick without his name being suggested by the police in the 6/9/14/40/50 hour (I believe that's where it's at now) interrogation on the night of 5 November 2007.

Here's Amanda's courtroom testimony. The asterisks replaces a discussion between lawyers and prosecutor, Judge Massei steps in to direct the testimony.

(GCM= Judge Massei GM= Prosecutor Mignini AK= Amanda Knox)

GM: ..... my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
***********
GCM: .... What was the "suggestion", because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?

AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?

AK: To the person I had written to, precisely .... there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember," and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

GCM: "Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather...

AK: But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him … just remember, remember …

AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."

GCM: So, these were the suggestions.

AK: Yes.

===============================

So, in the trial Amanda admitted that there was no suggestion of Patrick's name on the part of the police, only that they kept asking her to remember.

This testimony has to be read in its entirety to understand how Amanda’s defence claims of undue pressure evaporated. Read the whole translated testimony on PMF

If you want, I think I can dig up the audio of this testimony (in Italian).

Just before what you quoted, Amanda makes it clear the conversation was regarding who sent the message "See you later, Good Evening" the police found in her cell phone.

GCM: So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun "him"? This "him", did they say who it could be?

AK: It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying "Are you sure you don't remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message."

GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."

GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?

AK: Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.

GCM: I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Just before what you quoted, Amanda makes it clear the conversation was regarding who sent the message "See you later, Good Evening" the police found in her cell phone.

So, Amanda tells the Polizia that she received a text from Patrick. That would, in fact, be giving them Patrick's name (just to be as pedantic as the FoA crew is).

 

[Kermit]

Just before what you quoted, Amanda makes it clear the conversation was regarding who sent the message "See you later, Good Evening" the police found in her cell phone.

.
The transcript in question covers the whole of the questioning on 5 November 2007, and including how Patrick's name came up in that questioning. Amanda's posture had been that it had been suggested by police.

FOA has repeated over and over in broadcasts and print across the USA that she didn't bring up Patrick's name but that it had been suggested by police.

You can't cherry pick this or that phrase and say that it's limited to only one issue.

Come on.

 

[Kermit]

Just before what you quoted, Amanda makes it clear the conversation was regarding who sent the message "See you later, Good Evening" the police found in her cell phone.

.
Sorry Kestrel, I should give you a chance.

Following your line of explanation, that the court session in question was only limited to one SMS message, the one that Amanda sent (if that were true, instead of lasting months, the first trial would be lasting years), then please point out the court session and testimony which you were referring to, the one where the police mercilessly suggested Patrick's name to Amanda.

 

[Kestrel]

.
The transcript in question covers the whole of the questioning on 5 November 2007, and including how Patrick's name came up in that questioning. Amanda's posture had been that it had been suggested by police.

FOA has repeated over and over in broadcasts and print across the USA that she didn't bring up Patrick's name but that it had been suggested by police.

You can't cherry pick this or that phrase and say that it's limited to only one issue.

Come on.

The police asked Amanda who she sent the message to. She said it was Patrick, which was the truth.

Spinning this into "Amanda first brought up Patrick's name" is rather dishonest.

 

[Kermit]

Go ahead and prove that is exactly how it happened. Dig up the police recordings of the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele. Prove to us that Amanda named Patrick without his name being suggested by the police.

The police asked Amanda who she sent the message to. She said it was Patrick, which was the truth.

Spinning this into "Amanda first brought up Patrick's name" is rather dishonest.

.
I think you have answered your challenge all by yourself with your more recent post.

You suggest that solving your challenge (as I did, by referring to Amanda's court testimony) is somehow dishonest.

What is dishonest (and I'm not accusing you of this but rather FOA) is turning the revelation of Patrick's name by Amanda (as she herself admitted) through a review of Amanda's cellphone messages into the accusation that the police were the ones who brought Patrick into this case.

If we go from Amanda's court testimony, to the court testimony of the police who were with her on 5 November 2007, when the messages with Patrick were shown to her (presumably only his number, not his name), she broke down, started crying and said something to the effect of "It's him!! It's him!!"

 

[Fulcanelli]

Go ahead and prove that is exactly how it happened. Dig up the police recordings of the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele. Prove to us that Amanda named Patrick without his name being suggested by the police.

Amanda herself proved it with her testimony on the stand. Moreover, all the police officers and interpreters who testified, also testified to the fact they hadn't raised Lumumba's name.

How could they possibly raise his name with Amanda anyway, they had no idea who he was?

The police asked Amanda who she sent the message to. She said it was Patrick, which was the truth.

Spinning this into "Amanda first brought up Patrick's name" is rather dishonest.

How is that dishonest?? She either brought up his name or she did not. They then asked her the meaning of the text and she then broke down claiming "It was him, he did it, he's bad".

But back on the subject of spin Kestrel, you of course would know all about it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

race

Ridicule is not "playing the race card". Your suggestion that it is is one of the better examples of misdirection seen so far in this thread, which is itself quite an accomplishment.

Quadraginta,

Megalodon wrote (#5479), “Black man resistant to police mind rays vs. white kids tortured and brainwashed by the mean officers... The former sheds tampering-proof DNA, also”

It was Megalodon that brought up race in a failed attempt to ridicule opposing arguments. Maybe you can explain how you came to miss this.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

open letter

Kermit,

This is in response to message #5484 of yours. In message #5362 (which I quoted) BobTheDonkey used the phrase “vested interest,” which implies financial gain and which he can explain.

With respect to discussing the door, the signers of the letter were indicating one possible route of DNA transfer from Sollecito.

Sara Gino told ABC news that the prosecution was not forthcoming with the forensic evidence, and this was months after the court order. If the defense can’t get the information, how could a third party?
http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234

Since the letter was published, four months have elapsed. Why hasn’t Dr. Stefanoni released the data in this time?

Chris

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

Megalodon wrote (#5479), “Black man resistant to police mind rays vs. white kids tortured and brainwashed by the mean officers... The former sheds tampering-proof DNA, also”

It was Megalodon that brought up race in a failed attempt to ridicule opposing arguments. Maybe you can explain how you came to miss this.

Chris

I didn't miss it. I pointed it out. Maybe you can explain how you came to miss that.

As to whether or not it was a failed attempt? Well, that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it?

I thought it was worth a chuckle. Of course, those who had been making the bone-headed statements worthy of ridicule might feel differently. They often do.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sollicito and Knox's whereabouts

http://abcnews.go.com/International...nce-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234&page=2
“Sollecito's computer is an important element in his alibi for the night of the murder because he said he was at his house with Knox the night Kercher was killed, watching a movie and using his computer.”

 

[quadraginta]

Kermit,

This is in response to message #5484 of yours. In message #5362 (which I quoted) BobTheDonkey used the phrase “vested interest,” which implies financial gain and which he can explain.

With respect to discussing the door, the signers of the letter were indicating one possible route of DNA transfer from Sollecito.

Sara Gino told ABC news that the prosecution was not forthcoming with the forensic evidence, and this was months after the court order. If the defense can’t get the information, how could a third party?
http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234

Since the letter was published, four months have elapsed. Why hasn’t Dr. Stefanoni released the data in this time?

Chris

I believe we are still waiting for some evidence that the defense has protested the failure of the prosecution to supply them with required information, or even that such a failure occurred. What evidence can you prove was denied to the defense by the prosecution by the time the case was complete?

How are you certain what has been released and to whom? Do you feel that a testing facility is obligated to supply any party at all with any information that is asked for, any time they feel the urge to ask for it? Are you suggesting that this is standard practice somewhere?

*************

One thing caught my attention in the article you cited. You had suggested earlier in this discussion that the defense's failure to be present at the DNA testing was of no consequence, because they would not have been able to observe the subsequent analysis, which was the important aspect.

The article says,

In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing.


These dates are important, Gino said, "because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated."

Would the presence of defense experts at the time of testing not have been helpful in addressing the apparently critical (to Sara Gino) nature of that issue?

 

[Kermit]

http://abcnews.go.com/International...nce-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234&page=2
“Sollecito's computer is an important element in his alibi for the night of the murder because he said he was at his house with Knox the night Kercher was killed, watching a movie and using his computer.”

Well, his computer is an element in his alibi, until his computer stopped having human interaction, which was around 9 p.m.

Raffaele really doesn't have much to cover his activities until 6 a.m. the next morning, when his phone was turned on and he received his father's goodnight message from the prior evening. As part of one of the earlier iterations of his alibi, he had told police that he had received this message when his father sent it, around 11 p.m. the night before. So there goes another part of his alibi, and another part of his credibility with police (and the observing public).

 

[Megalodon]

Feel free to disregard my contributions to this thread. They will probably just be occasional reminders of how deeply irrational your position is. But by all means keep it up. This thread's a doozy

I am presently considering whether to pay attention to or to ignore your contributions to this thread. The difference is infinitesimal.

As I said, please feel free to disregard my comments. The position you're defending has been demolished 100+ pages ago. I'll just keep reminding you of that from time to time.

But I do feel the need to respond to your comment about playing the race card. As so often in this thread, you are wrong.

I was merely trying to remind you of the third defendant of this case, the black man that, apparently, was so much better treated by the police that he wasn't traumatized into creating false memories. The man whose DNA is tamper-proof. The man who can shrink and stretch his feet at will, just to incriminate a poor italian boy.

If only those bad policemen weren't forcing that poor couple to lie time and time again, invalidating each other's alibis...