Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
Because they screwed up early on and put 3 innocent people in jail and proclaimed the case solved before they found the owner of the bloody handprint under Meredith Kercher's body. If they were to admit their mistake they would suffer a loss of reputation and monetary damages. Best just to press on, run a smear campaign in the press and do whatever is necessary to find the evidence to insure a conviction.
Click to expand...
And everybody cooperated in this... the prosecutor, the police, the interpreters, the lab, the judges? Amanda is screwed!

Of course the whole thing must have begun prior to the identification of the hand print, since they must have already decided to manufacture evidence against Amanda when they forced a false confession out of her after those countless hours of interrogation, which they deliberately didn't record so there would be no evidence of her beating and for which they deliberately didn't provide an interpreter.... so it can't very well have been down to embarrassment in admitting they were wrong at that point, can it?
 
Last edited:
Don't forget they did not care about the loss of reputation and monetary damages when they released Lumumba because the evidence did not support his involvement. I wonder what he had that Knox and Sollecito did not have: oh wait....an alibi; a consistent story; forensics which did not support his presence though Amanda said he was there..... Hmmm
 
It goes beyond whether the files were released or not. Some people believe that the accused should have full access to the evidence against them. Some believe that only the appointed authority should see and interpret the evidence.
 
Dan O. said:
It goes beyond whether the files were released or not. Some people believe that the accused should have full access to the evidence against them. Some believe that only the appointed authority should see and interpret the evidence.
Click to expand...
And some feel, and when I say some, I mean me, that if the family and defence actually had decent evidence to support their claims about the misconduct of the lab, the prosecution, and the court they would make it public. Perhaps they don't care whether the wider public believes them and would rather conduct this in dignified silence? If so, fine and good luck to them. Otherwise I can't understand why they would withhold the evidence of their requests to the prosecution, the lab and the court for all this material along with whatever responses they may have received. Surely they have this information? Surely it proves everything they are claiming rather than leaving it as a case of 'our word against theirs'? They do want us to make our decision on the basis of information, rather than emotion and cultural bias, don't they?

Dr Waterbury has access to ALL the information given to the defence by the prosecution. The amount of work that must have gone into making that intelligible to him must be considerable, not to mention his own time reading the hundreds,...thousands? of pages of material. It's not as if the resources are lacking to get more information out their if anybody wishes to make it happen.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Don't forget they did not care about the loss of reputation and monetary damages when they released Lumumba because the evidence did not support his involvement. I wonder what he had that Knox and Sollecito did not have: oh wait....an alibi; a consistent story; forensics which did not support his presence though Amanda said he was there..... Hmmm
Click to expand...


That's bull Fiona. Did you see the pictures of Patrick when he got out? It looked like a recreation of the photo-op scene from A Clockwork Orange. I thought they went over the top for theatrical effect in the movie. Turns out the movie was actually understated.

Patrick's false arrest is one more reason to destroy the interrogation tapes and blame it on Amanda. She was just one girl in a room full of cops. Who's the judge going to believe if there's no tape?


The world you live in is the one you create for yourself. I hope you enjoy your tea and biscuits.
 
Dan O. said:
That's bull Fiona. Did you see the pictures of Patrick when he got out? It looked like a recreation of the photo-op scene from A Clockwork Orange. I thought they went over the top for theatrical effect in the movie. Turns out the movie was actually understated.

Patrick's false arrest is one more reason to destroy the interrogation tapes and blame it on Amanda. She was just one girl in a room full of cops. Who's the judge going to believe if there's no tape?


The world you live in is the one you create for yourself. I hope you enjoy your tea and biscuits.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Amanda admitted that she implicated Patrick - in court. We've posted the transcripts before.

So, I'm a bit confused how this blaming Amanda for that functions as a cover-up - unless..unless that part of the interview was also just a suggested/implanted false memory! ( I feel like Jon Stewart parodying Glenn Beck here...:D)
 
Moss said:
Did Lumumba say anything about being mis- or harshly treated by the police?
Click to expand...
One UK newspaper, who certainly did interview him, reported him claiming abuse. He has since said numerous times that he never made these claims.
 
Dan O. said:
The Italian supreme court already ruled that the interrogation violated Italian law. I take it that you have no qualms about Italian authorities violating the law when interrogating suspects.
Click to expand...

Kermit said:
If the questioning was against the law, then why were parts of it admissable and discussed openly in court in relation to the false accusation charge against Amanda?

Maybe what you're calling "illegal" has more to do with Amanda's constitutional protection in Italy of not having her own words used against her in the court of law (unless if those words themselves form the basis of the crime, as was of the case of the falsely accusing Patrick of being the killer).

Do your homework on this case.
Click to expand...
Dan O. said:
Did you leave that folded sweater in the hall in Meredith's cottage?
Click to expand...
.
That might be quite a comeback, Dan O., if only we could understand it.

- You falsely accusely Italian authorities of illegalities when questioning Amanda.
- When it's explained to you, you do the "look up in the sky" routine.
 
Dan O. said:
Are you not the same Kermet that produced the powerpoint presentations on PMF?
Click to expand...
.
Um, yeah, I'm Kermit (with an "i").

I guess you're obliging me to try to read your mind ... (I close my eyes, concentrate, repeat a mantra, and suddenly think I may know what you're referring to, although I don't understand why: )

In one powerpoint, there was an ILE photo which could have had a folded sweater in it. My text said: "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater". It was an observation (that could have been correct or not) which wasn't an accusation (like your accusation that Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning), nor was it particularly important, not playing a role in any of my further observations.

BTW, I believe that Judge Heavey apologised to Giuliano Mignini for making unsubstantiated accusations similar to yours. However, FOA didn't make as much noise about that, as what was made with his initial accusations.
 
See Kermit06LuminolEvidence.pps.ppt frame 17 "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater"
Look then at frame 66. Maybe your powers of observation will be enhanced and you'll also be able to then explain the bent fingers on frame 17.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
See Kermit06LuminolEvidence.pps.ppt frame 17 "This looks like a folded, knitted sweater"
Look then at frame 66. Maybe your powers of observation will be enhanced and you'll also be able to then explain the bent fingers on frame 17.
Click to expand...
What do these photos have to do with your accusation that the Italian authorities committed illegalities in Amanda's questioning?
 
wrong again

stilicho said:
I didn't ask you what you'd look for. I asked why they're important if they aren't decisive in establishing the guilt or innocence of a suspect. You agreed that they are helpful but not decisive. These files would be helpful if the data contradicted a strong alibi as in the latest of your examples.
You cannot comment on any of it because you aren't an expert in the field. You can offer your opinions, which are as valuable as mine are, or you can submit your allegations to peer review. That's your responsibility.
Click to expand...

Stilicho,

My words about the Leskie case were not intended to encompass the present case; once again you are misinterpreting what I said. The fsa files might be decisive here, but we cannot say until we see them. My credentials are not the issue; almost all of what I write about DNA forensics cites the literature, textbooks, or quotes the authors of papers. However, I have used the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and limited DNA digestion with restriction endonucleases in my work, and these are two of the techniques also used in DNA forensics. Can you make the same claim?

Chris
 
Fiona wrote:

I wonder what he had that Knox and Sollecito did not have: oh wait....an alibi; a consistent story; forensics which did not support his presence though Amanda said he was there..... Hmmm

The most important of these is the alibi. He had multiple independent witnesses who could vouch for his whereabouts during the entire evening. Would he have been released if he had been alone at home? I doubt it. They would have come up with junk evidence to convict him too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom