Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
One other thing to add. If we are talking about who showed the public nasty pictures of the murder to create the idea that it was a "house of horrors", presumably the people behind leaking the video of Meredith's body have at least as much to answer for as anyone.
Click to expand...
As regards the "release" of parts of Amanda's prison diary, the Telegraph recognises Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirga as the source of at least two "releases".

So, it's clear that not all "leaks" are "leaks". When the defence does it, the "leaks" are "releases".

But the end result is the same.
 
Kestrel said:
At about the same time, the Perugia police were telling another lie. Claiming they had clearly identifiable video proving Amanda was at the cottage near the time of the murder.
Click to expand...

Well if she wasn't there that wouldn't worry her at all. Are you saying it did worry her? Why would that be?
 
Dan O. said:
That bathroom scene led to the cottage being called "the house of horrors".
Click to expand...
I'm a firm believer in having debate, and - as far as possible - coming to a conclusion about an issue before abandoning it and moving on.

Do we all agree that the bathroom scene did not lead to the cottage being called "the house of horrors"?.

In particular, Dan O.? I ask you because you brought up this issue to begin with.
 
Kermit said:
As regards the "release" of parts of Amanda's prison diary, the Telegraph recognises Amanda's lawyer Luciano Ghirga as the source of at least two "releases".

So, it's clear that not all "leaks" are "leaks". When the defence does it, the "leaks" are "releases".

But the end result is the same.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and when it happens at a police press conference or press release, it's a leak.
 
Dan O. said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem with this approach, Dan O, is that it could equally and arbitrarily applied to both Patrick and Rudy. All of them were pinned by the investigation closing in on them and yet somehow justice was done in the cases of Patrick and Rudy but not so in the case of Amanda and Raffaele? How exactly does that work?

Is it even remotely possible in your mind that the same investigators, the same justice system, the same forensics teams, actually got the whole thing right?

-----------

How do you fight something like that?

Very easily. You can tell the truth and help the investigation. Or you can lie to the police and let the justice system sort it all out. Don't forget that in the last version of his alibi, Raffaele insists that Amanda was not with him. How do you fight something like that?
 
Kestrel said:
The photograph was taken by the police and released to the press by the police or prosecutors. Without a technical explanation, it's clearly a piece of propaganda. Intended to discredit Amanda's story that she took a shower in that bathroom on the morning of Nov. 2. To day it more bluntly, it's a lie.

At about the same time, the Perugia police were telling another lie. Claiming they had clearly identifiable video proving Amanda was at the cottage near the time of the murder.
Click to expand...

These were debunked ages ago.

Could you update your talking points to exclude claims like these shown to be unsupportable, irrelevant, or false?
 
stilicho said:
These were debunked ages ago.

Could you update your talking points to exclude claims like these shown to be unsupportable, irrelevant, or false?
Click to expand...

My assertion is that the police made this specific false claim:

A camera in the carpark opposite Miss Kercher’s house has a "clear-cut image" of 20-year-old Amanda Knox, from Seattle, on the premises, according to police.
...
The CCTV footage apparently shows Knox entering the driveway of the house at 8.43pm on the night, wearing a light-coloured skirt. A similar skirt has been confiscated by police from Sollecito’s house for analysis.
Click to expand...

Yes, the police statement has been debunked. In this case, debunking proves the police lied.

If you have evidence that the police issued an explanation for the pink bathroom photo or tried to correct the misleading impression of the "bloody bathroom", feel free to provide it.
 
Did they lie or were they wrong in their analysis?
This is important because:
To actually "lie" they would have to know the person in the CCTV wasn't Amanda.
If they really thought it was Amanda and therefore confronted here with that, they were wrong, not lying.
And for the police correcting the possibly misleading impression by the press: I asked you to consider it before, is that their job or is it the job of the press to get the story straight?
 
Kestrel said:
My assertion is that the police made this specific false claim:

Yes, the police statement has been debunked. In this case, debunking proves the police lied.

If you have evidence that the police issued an explanation for the pink bathroom photo or tried to correct the misleading impression of the "bloody bathroom", feel free to provide it.
Click to expand...

Where and when was this "clear-cut image" entered as evidence against AK? Show us. If it wasn't then it's Type 2 on the list--irrelevant.

An unsourced news story from 12 NOV 2007 is not the same as "the police lied".

The "house of horrors" meme has been amply discussed and dismissed in the posts above and previously on this thread. Get over it.
 
Moss said:
Did they lie or were they wrong in their analysis?
This is important because:
To actually "lie" they would have to know the person in the CCTV wasn't Amanda.
If they really thought it was Amanda and therefore confronted here with that, they were wrong, not lying.
Click to expand...

The video is of such poor quality that no reasonable person could claim it was a "clear cut image" of any specific person.

The police claimed it was a "clear cut image" of Amanda. That was clearly a lie.
 
Kestrel said:
The police claimed it was a "clear cut image" of Amanda. That was clearly a lie.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it isn't the media who got the quote wrong? La Repubblica reported it before the Telegraph did. There were no photo stills accompanying the article. Was the statement made at a press conference or was it from an unreliable source?

You are leaping to an unreasonable conclusion based on few or no facts.
 
lies?

Moss said:
Did they lie or were they wrong in their analysis?
This is important because:
To actually "lie" they would have to know the person in the CCTV wasn't Amanda.
If they really thought it was Amanda and therefore confronted here with that, they were wrong, not lying.
And for the police correcting the possibly misleading impression by the press: I asked you to consider it before, is that their job or is it the job of the press to get the story straight?
Click to expand...

What about claims here that Amanda, Raffaele, and their family lied?
 
halides1 said:
What about claims here that Amanda, Raffaele, and their family lied?
Click to expand...

Most of us would categorise Amanda's statements to the police that she was in the cottage while Patrick was murdering Meredith as a lie, and Raffaele's statement that his father spoke with him on the phone at 23:00 on 01 NOV 2007 as a lie.

Those are just examples of their lies and I believe you know where to find a list for each of them.

The distinction is pretty easy. There is an intent to deceive by making an untrue statement in those by Amanda and Raffaele shown above. The example provided by Kestrel may have been an untrue statement (we know from the evidence that it was not Amanda) but there is no intent to deceive. Amanda and Raffaele were each trying to misinform the police about their complicity in Meredith's murder. The newspaper article, appearing on 12 NOV 2007, could have had no bearing on their arrest, trial, or sentencing. The CCTV clip was not entered as evidence in an attempt to deceive the court. The story appeared after the duo's arrest, even after the term of their custody was extended. The statement is not sourced to an individual.

This is typical of stories appearing quickly on the heels of any newsworthy event. Kate Mansey's Mirror article the day before the arrest contains untrue statements (Amanda is not from Washington DC but from Washington state; Meredith's cell phones were not found in "Parco Saint Angelo" or even Parco di Porte Sant'Angelo but in a garden on someone's property). Inaccurate reporting may be misleading but that is not the intention. Newspapers regularly publish corrections when notified of their mistakes.

Can you tell the difference?
 
stilicho said:
Most of us would categorise Amanda's statements to the police that she was in the cottage while Patrick was murdering Meredith as a lie
Click to expand...

Let's analyze how this gets categorize this as a lie. Start with: how can we even know what Amanda said that night.
 
Dan O. said:
Let's analyze how this gets categorize this as a lie. Start with: how can we even know what Amanda said that night.
Click to expand...

The Police arrested Patrick? And held him for 2 weeks... And she lost the libel lawsuit he brought against her.

Circumstantial - but again, a pretty solid trail of evidence.

Has she ever denied that she said those things?
 
Dan O. said:
You're trying to sell a bridge but won't allow an inspection of the foundation.
Click to expand...

Except you 'inspections of the foundations' never amount to more then unsupported assertions, loaded questions, ungrounded assumptions and innuendo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom