Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
I don't believe she stated if she took the phone with her when she went back to her apartment. She does state however that she returned to Rafaelle's with a mop, no mention of a cell phone charger or anything to take on the day trip.
Click to expand...

She does seem to give excruciating details regarding the movements of that pesky mop, as does Rafaelle.
 
Fulcanelli said:
They were given every piece of data the crime lad had. This was confirmed by the prosecution. When asked Commodi said with a shrug 'There is nothing else'.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is nothing else that Commodi believes is relevant, but if there is none the less data that the defence wants, asking the court for it before they need it, rather than months after would be a good approach to take.
 
shuttlt said:
Perhaps you are already taking this into account, but one of the few thing both sides agree on is that one side is dishonest, or at least is relying on sources of authority and information that are not honest.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but that is not how I look at it. There is certainly the possibility that some on both sides are not being completely honest. I prefer to think of as one or the other (or possibly both) may not be entirely correct in their opinions. I would be less than honest if I said I was not certain that my opinions are correct as well.
 
halides1 said:
BobTheDonkey and Moss,

Come, let us reason together. My claim was that Mr. Provenzano was convicted (not merely a suspect, as you said in message #7029) when his photo was framed and put on the wall but that Ms. Knox was not convicted when her photo was framed and put on the wall. The photo in the documentary shows Provenzano being arrested, which happened on 11 April 2006. The documentary Sex, Lies, and the Murder of Meredith Kercher was first aired on 17 April 2008 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1248478/). Therefore the photo was hung between April of 2006 and April of 2008. From the previously linked BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4899512.stm) dated 11 April 2006 “Provenzano has been convicted in absentia of a string of murders, including the 1992 killings of two judges, Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, for which he was sentenced to life in jail.” Therefore his conviction happened before 11 April 2006, and the photo was hung after this date.

Amanda was arrested in November of 2007 and not even charged, let alone convicted, as of April of 2008. Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is flawed.

We do not know when the picture went up. All we know is that it was up 2 years after the man was convicted.

Anything else is bare assertion at this point. But nice try to (again) wrap your bare assertion in the guise of solid reasoning.




Chris, you wouldn't be being disingenious again, now would you?
 
What difference does it make if they posted a picture of someone else before they were convicted? Does that make them double bad. If they did it 100 times, the fact that they put Amanda's picture on that wall of fame/shame before her case was decided is still wrong in terms of Amanda's case and does give an indication that they were not giving her a full presumption of innocence. If they did that with others then they are just habitually wrong.
 
shuttlt said:
What does it matter why Amanda says she switched off her phone? She is just as capable of thinking of reasons to turn off a phone as I am. I should think I can think of a list of 5 or 6 half way plausible reasons if I needed to. Her explanation of why she turned off the phone is not the least bit helpful in telling us why she turned off her phone unless we have already decided that she isn't the killer and has nothing to hide. I for one don't know why she turned off her phone.
Click to expand...

The prosecution started with a theory of the crime before the forensic evidence had been evaluated. Whenever the evidence doesn't support their theory, they propose a cover up or clean up. Amanda's and Raffaele's phone records don't prove they were at the cottage the night of the murder, therefore the only reason for them to turn off their phones was to cover up the crime.

Both Amanda and Raffaele had valid reasons for turning off their phones. They unexpectedly had a night to spend together. Amanda didn't want to be called back to work and Raffaele didn't want to be interrupted by his father.

The way the prosecutor questioned Amanda on this subject was rather dishonest. The prosecutor claimed that she had changed her story when in fact she hadn't.
 
RoseMontague said:
She does seem to give excruciating details regarding the movements of that pesky mop, as does Rafaelle.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Why carry a dirty mop around Perugia when you can just continue to clean up the spill with towels as they said they were doing the night before? Amanda stated that the spill wasn't large and didn't smell bad so why bother with bringing a mop over?
 
RoseMontague said:
What difference does it make if they posted a picture of someone else before they were convicted? Does that make them double bad. If they did it 100 times, the fact that they put Amanda's picture on that wall of fame/shame before her case was decided is still wrong in terms of Amanda's case and does give an indication that they were not giving her a full presumption of innocence. If they did that with others then they are just habitually wrong.
Click to expand...

Not true. This is common practice for suspects. I urge you to walk into (nearly) any Police Dept or Post Office in the U.S. On the wall are the pictures of the "Top Ten Most Wanted". Many of whom have never been charged beforehand - many are merely "suspects" the Police are looking for. Does that mean any evidence obtained against these criminals should be brushed aside due to "bias by the Officers"?

Amanda was suspected of being party to a brutal murder - and in some respects, to being the leader. Again, I don't find it unusual for her picture to be on the wall, nor do I find it likely to have prejudiced the DNA results against Amanda. Unless you're accusing Stefanoni and her lab team of being unprofessional and in on the conspiracy to convict Amanda?

Remember, the Defense experts had full access to the DNA results as well as the Court.
 
Kestrel said:
The prosecution started with a theory of the crime before the forensic evidence had been evaluated. Whenever the evidence doesn't support their theory, they propose a cover up or clean up. Amanda's and Raffaele's phone records don't prove they were at the cottage the night of the murder, therefore the only reason for them to turn off their phones was to cover up the crime.

Both Amanda and Raffaele had valid reasons for turning off their phones. They unexpectedly had a night to spend together. Amanda didn't want to be called back to work and Raffaele didn't want to be interrupted by his father.

The way the prosecutor questioned Amanda on this subject was rather dishonest. The prosecutor claimed that she had changed her story when in fact she hadn't.
Click to expand...
So where were Amanda and Raffaele the night of the murder?
 
RoseMontague said:
What difference does it make if they posted a picture of someone else before they were convicted? Does that make them double bad. If they did it 100 times, the fact that they put Amanda's picture on that wall of fame/shame before her case was decided is still wrong in terms of Amanda's case and does give an indication that they were not giving her a full presumption of innocence. If they did that with others then they are just habitually wrong.
Click to expand...

A court in a trial has to presume you innocent. The police do not. This is why only a court and not the police, can declare someone guilty. I don't see the issue.
 
RoseMontague said:
That makes the fact that her reasons changed (if they did change)for turning it off suspicious. Did they ask her if she normally took her battery charger with her went she spent the night elsewhere?
Click to expand...

On the night of the murder, Amanda expected to be working at Patrick's bar. She didn't decide to spend the night with Raffaele until after Patrick sent her a text message saying she wasn't needed at work.
 
Kestrel said:
The prosecution started with a theory of the crime before the forensic evidence had been evaluated. Whenever the evidence doesn't support their theory, they propose a cover up or clean up. Amanda's and Raffaele's phone records don't prove they were at the cottage the night of the murder, therefore the only reason for them to turn off their phones was to cover up the crime.

Both Amanda and Raffaele had valid reasons for turning off their phones. They unexpectedly had a night to spend together. Amanda didn't want to be called back to work and Raffaele didn't want to be interrupted by his father.

The way the prosecutor questioned Amanda on this subject was rather dishonest. The prosecutor claimed that she had changed her story when in fact she hadn't.
Click to expand...

If course they did. Police always do. Then as more evidence comes in they adjust their theory accordingly, if warranted by the evidence. And it doesn't matter what theory they may have, they still have to get it to court and prove their evidence and theory in court and this they did. And remember, it was not the police that handed down a verdict but the judges.

And I see you are as usual, offering excuses on behalf of Raffaele (as asserted as fact) that he hasn't offered himself. Indeed, his own defence team tried to argue he didn't turn off his phone at all and that there was a 'black spot' in his apartment. So Kestrel, the excuse you offer is just plain wrong.
 
Kestrel said:
On the night of the murder, Amanda expected to be working at Patrick's bar. She didn't decide to spend the night with Raffaele until after Patrick sent her a text message saying she wasn't needed at work.
Click to expand...

Yes she did...they were both expecting to go to Gubbio for the day together early the next morning.
 
Gordian knot untied

RoseMontague said:
, the fact that they put Amanda's picture on that wall of fame/shame before her case was decided is still wrong in terms of Amanda's case and does give an indication that they were not giving her a full presumption of innocence. If they did that with others then they are just habitually wrong.
Click to expand...

RoseMontangue,

Thank you for cutting the Gordian knot.

Chris
 
halides1 said:
When did Raffaele download Stardust?
Click to expand...

That's all you have?

I can set my computer to start downloading a movie right now. If I throttle the speed down, it'll take days to download. Does that mean I'm at home for those 3 days it took to download the movie?

Likewise, I could start a Netflix video streaming to my computer right now. Does that mean for the next 4 hours while Gods and Generals is playing that I'm at home?

Didn't think so.



So, where were Amanda and Raffaele that night?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom