Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

Dan O.

For God's sake, please stop trolling. It really is getting very old and very dull.

 

[stilicho]

Or how about this...

After fooling around with Meredith and leaving with her unharmed he returns to the apartment because he forgot his iPod. He arrives to see AK and RS fleeing the scene and Meredith stabbed. He tries to help her, that's how his bloody handprint gets on the floor. Realizing that she will probably die anyway and the corrupt, racist Italian authorities will want to blame it on a black man he flees the scene.

You're good at this. Ever thought of starting a "Friends Of Rudy" website and advocacy group?

Seriously, this is exactly why FOA and indiscriminate AK/RS supporters are seen as mocking the victim rather merely supporting the accused. Inventing coulda-shoulda-woulda scenarios is shameful.

 

[Fiona]

Did we not go throught this kind of scenario a long time ago when newton trino was posting? I seem to remember it was constructive in those days,

".....the second time as farce..."

 

[Moss]

If you could do nothing to help when you weren't there, why do you deride Amanda and Raffaele for not being able to help Meredith when they weren't there?

Now I suppose you will point to some big authority figure that says they were there.

You may want to read up about argumentum at verecundiam. Especially about why an appeal to an authority that is actually an expert in a given field and gives reasons for her or his hypotheses can not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Dan O.]

No need, the evidence all on its own does that.

Yet you are unable to produce any such evidence without resorting to circular logic. The concept of "presumption of innocence" should preclude such circular reasoning from arriving at a guilty conclusion. Apparently this concept does not apply in Italy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yet you are unable to produce any such evidence without resorting to circular logic. The concept of "presumption of innocence" should preclude such circular reasoning from arriving at a guilty conclusion. Apparently this concept does not apply in Italy.

Shall we presume Rudy innocent then?

Circular logic? The 'evidence' and the 'facts' you mean?

The presumption of innocence lasts only until evidence is produced to demonstrate the opposite and in this case plenty of evidence has been presented to do just that. The evidence is clear...there is no ambiguity. They have been found guilty in a court of law. That means they can now be presumed guilty.

Your concept of presumption of innocence seems to amount to presuming all evidence to the contrary false, at least, only when that evidence is against 'certain' people and that all evidence can be dismissed merely by raising counter arguments to it that have no limits on how far fetched, outlandish or asinine they may be.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hand print

Yes, he and Meredith were fooling around on the floor so his hand prints would have been all over the place. Later, when the real killers murdered Meredith her blood landed on top of his hand print then her body on top of it.

See how easy this is?

In the scenario you present, what reason for the blood to assume the shape of a hand print? Please give an appropriate reference.

 

[Dan O.]

Shall we presume Rudy innocent then?

You can start a thread presuming Rudy's innocence if you wish.

Circular logic? The 'evidence' and the 'facts' you mean?

By circular logic, I refer to things like concluding that their statements proclaiming they are innocent are lies because they are guilty.

The presumption of innocence lasts only until evidence is produced to demonstrate the opposite and in this case plenty of evidence has been presented to do just that. The evidence is clear...there is no ambiguity. They have been found guilty in a court of law. That means they can now be presumed guilty.

Your Italian authority figures hold no weight in this thread. If they have valid justification for their conclusion, present it and let it be argued.

Your concept of presumption of innocence seems to amount to presuming all evidence to the contrary false, at least, only when that evidence is against 'certain' people and that all evidence can be dismissed merely by raising counter arguments to it that have no limits on how far fetched, outlandish or asinine they may be.

That's a BS presumption on your part.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.

For God's sake, please stop trolling. It really is getting very old and very dull.

Who's trolling?

Fulcanelli is the one making claims and not backing them up.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Dan_O, you bring sophistry to whole new levels. It's pointless discussing it with you.

If you actually have any point to make of actual consequence, then bring it to the table. If not, then cut out the nonsense.

 

[Amazer]

By circular logic, I refer to things like concluding that their statements proclaiming they are innocent are lies because they are guilty.

I've not seen anyone make that particular claim (in this thread). Link would be handy to back up your assertion.

Your Italian authority figures hold no weight in this thread. If they have valid justification for their conclusion, present it and let it be argued.

It has been presented, it has been argued and guess what... most of the people who thought she was innocent from the start still think she is innocent. And most of the people who suspected that she was guilty still think that she is guilty. Even if we were to reach a consensus in this thread about her being guilty or innocent, it wouldn't do Amanda a whole lot of good since it's the Italian authority figures that have the final say in this matter.

That's a BS presumption on your part.

Your track record in this thread says otherwise.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan_O, you bring sophistry to whole new levels. It's pointless discussing it with you.

If you actually have any point to make of actual consequence, then bring it to the table. If not, then cut out the nonsense.

You are the one supporting the ridiculous claim that Amanda and Raffaele were in Meredith's room barefoot, both managed to step in Meredith's blood, hopped to the bathroom to wash it off and then left prints in the hall and Amanda's room, all while not leaving a single trace of DNA, footprints or fingerprints in Meredith's room but suddenly, Amanda is shedding DNA in the bathroom.

How do you even begin to accept such a far fetched story without first presuming their guilt and then accepting anything at all (like the cartwheels) as further indication of their guilt.


What do you hope to gain by further attacking Amanda, Raffaele, their families and supporters and anyone that dares question the evidence against them?

 

[Dan O.]

It has been presented, it has been argued and guess what... most of the people who thought she was innocent from the start still think she is innocent. And most of the people who suspected that she was guilty still think that she is guilty. Even if we were to reach a consensus in this thread about her being guilty or innocent, it wouldn't do Amanda a whole lot of good since it's the Italian authority figures that have the final say in this matter.

No, it has not been argued. Whenever the gilters get cornered they run home to their authority daddy and say the judge and jury heard all the evidence and delivered a verdict.

 

[shuttlt]

No, it has not been argued. Whenever the gilters get cornered they run home to their authority daddy and say the judge and jury heard all the evidence and delivered a verdict.

But this is true. It's also true that we don't have anything but a small percentage of the evidence that they, the defence, and the prosecution had access to. We don't even know all the evidence that was presented in court. People slag off Steffanoni, but how much of her two days on the stand defending her work is available to us? Naff all. Only Dr. Waterbury claims to have a similar level of access, but for what ever reason he is unable or unwilling to share.

Unless there is some evidence that is clearly incompatible with guilt, any theory of their innocence can only ever be provisional. Lawyers who have access to ALL the evidence need to take that theory and try to build a case out of it.

If you're not a troll, please explain what the deal was with the 90^o photo thing.

 

[Dan O.]

The Italian authorities have clearly set out early on to discredit Amanda and Raffaele by lying. The bloody bathroom scene and the comparison of Raffaele's shoes stained red to a bloody shoe print are two prime examples.

How do you fight something like that? That bathroom scene led to the cottage being called "the house of horrors". It created an early presumption of gilt in the minds of the Perugians including the jurors. The prosecutor even used the phrase during his closing arguments.

That is one of the reasons that I don't accept the verdict that the jury returned and demand to see actual evidence of the pairs guilt before I will accept that they are guilty.

 

[shuttlt]

The Italian authorities have clearly set out early on to discredit Amanda and Raffaele by lying. The bloody bathroom scene and the comparison of Raffaele's shoes stained red to a bloody shoe print are two prime examples.

How do you fight something like that? That bathroom scene led to the cottage being called "the house of horrors". It created an early presumption of gilt in the minds of the Perugians including the jurors. The prosecutor even used the phrase during his closing arguments.

Did it? The bloody corpse in the bedroom may also have had something to do with it.

I googled '"house of horrors" amanda knox' and came up with Nara saying the following:

Realising that the violence was unstoppable, Kercher gave a desperate scream — a cry that was heard by Nara Capezzali, an elderly neighbour who said it was so chilling she felt as if she was “in a house of horrors”.

The earliest quote I can find is Lumumba's lawyer saying the following on 9th November '07:

Mr Lumumba claimed that he had not even been in the house. His lawyers, Carlo Pacelli and Giuseppe Sereni, said that their client also had an alibi. “He was never in the house of horrors, and he can prove it,” Mr Pacelli said.

What did you base your claim that the "house of horrors" quote is derived from the scene in the bathroom? Do we know when that photographs was released?

 

[shuttlt]

Here's a link to it being called the "house of horrors", or rather "casa degli orrori" an the 8th of November:

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa/non-risponde/non-risponde.html

This page claims to be from the 7th of November, it's talking About Amanda's first night in jail, it mentions "casa degli orrori":
http://www.girlpower.it/news/cronaca/perugia-prima-notte-in-isolamento-per-i-3-arrestati.html

Dan O. I realize this is a small and inconsequential issue, but are you sure casa degli orrori/house of horrors isn't just what people often call a house in which a young woman has been brutally killed, rather than being part of a campaign to slander Knox? I would be very interested to see what evidence you based you claims on.

 

[Moss]

I think Dan O. should support his claim that the prosecution and police put the dramatic spin on the case instead of the local press on its own.

 

[Kestrel]

I think Dan O. should support his claim that the prosecution and police put the dramatic spin on the case instead of the local press on its own.

Who released the "bloody bathroom" photograph to the press and then didn't bother correcting the error?

 

[shuttlt]

Who released the "bloody bathroom" photograph to the press and then didn't bother correcting the error?

I'm trying to track down the release of that at the moment. Do you recall when and/or where it first surfaced? I'm having a bit of difficulty tracking it down.