Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheDonkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I think halides1 is actually correct in that the photo of Provenzano went up after he was convicted. As he had been convicted in absentia before his capture.
I have an idle question though: Did the picture of Amanda go up that wall before or after the Scientific Police analysed the evidence? Because it could only have been prejudice if they hung that picture on the wall before they actually knew what they had... ;)
 
BobTheDonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once the most wanted are found, their pictures usually come down. This was not a wanted poster, it was a trophy.
 
Kestrel said:
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...

The way Amanda answered questions on this subject was rather dishonest. In her December 17th questioning she stated that she turned off the phone to save the battery for the next day's trip to Gubbio, indicating that she didn't have the charger with her and wasn't going home to get it. She would have people believe that she would leave for that trip wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.
 
Bob, my word was "wrong". You used the word "unprofessional", and that is appropriate for the action of hanging that picture up. It does not make Amanda "innocent", but it obviously has (at the very least) an appearance of bias. I don't know if there is a "conspiracy" here but it was not a smart move, in my opinion.
 
Moss said:
No, I think halides1 is actually correct in that the photo of Provenzano went up after he was convicted. As he had been convicted in absentia before his capture.
I have an idle question though: Did the picture of Amanda go up that wall before or after the Scientific Police analysed the evidence? Because it could only have been prejudice if they hung that picture on the wall before they actually knew what they had... ;)
Click to expand...

Giobbi and his department was not responsible analysing the forensic evidence. That was down to Dr Stefanoni and her lab, which is not run by Giobbi.
 
Alt+F4 said:
The way Amanda answered questions on this subject was rather dishonest. In her December 17th questioning she stated that she turned off the phone to save the battery for the next day's trip to Gubbio, indicating that she didn't have the charger with her and wasn't going home to get it. She would have people believe that she would leave for that trip wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.
Click to expand...

Lets try using a bit of logic.

Amanda decided not to go back to the cottage the night of Nov. 1, so she didn't have her charger that night.

Amanda did go back to the cottage the next morning to shower and change clothes. Assume she had grabbed her cell phone charger, returned to Raffaele's flat and the two of them then head for Gubbio. When does Amanda get a chance to charge her cell phone?

Isn't it simpler for her to just turn it off for a night when she doesn't want to get calls?
 
RoseMontague said:
Bob, my word was "wrong". You used the word "unprofessional", and that is appropriate for the action of hanging that picture up. It does not make Amanda "innocent", but it obviously has (at the very least) an appearance of bias. I don't know if there is a "conspiracy" here but it was not a smart move, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, there was sufficient reason to suspect Amanda as being at least a party to the murder. Can you expect the Lab to not be biased?

Does that somehow invalidate all of the DNA data that points toward Amanda and Raffaele's involvement? After all, the Defense knew about this picture - if this is such an important point, why was it not mentioned in the courtroom when interviewing Stefanoni about her lab's practices? They did have, after all, 2 days of Stefanoni on the stand to ask about this "obvious" sign of bias...
 
Kestrel said:
Lets try using a bit of logic.

Amanda decided not to go back to the cottage the night of Nov. 1, so she didn't have her charger that night.

Amanda did go back to the cottage the next morning to shower and change clothes. Assume she had grabbed her cell phone charger, returned to Raffaele's flat and the two of them then head for Gubbio. When does Amanda get a chance to charge her cell phone?

Isn't it simpler for her to just turn it off for a night when she doesn't want to get calls?
Click to expand...

They could have picked up the charger when they went back to the cottage that night. Although, with Meredith screaming while being raped and murdered by Patrick, I'm guessing remembering the charger went out the window (or was it a rock, I get lost).
 
RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you will struggle to make a case for Amanda being innocent that does not involve some people on the prosecution side being out and out dishonest, likewise I struggle to see that you can make a case for Amanda being innocent without having Amanda, her family, and her PR agency being somewhat economical with the truth. Whether Michael/Falcanelli and Bruce are honest or dishonest is something else. It is perfectly possible that one or other or both of them could be mistaken.
 
RoseMontague said:
Bob, my word was "wrong". You used the word "unprofessional", and that is appropriate for the action of hanging that picture up. It does not make Amanda "innocent", but it obviously has (at the very least) an appearance of bias. I don't know if there is a "conspiracy" here but it was not a smart move, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The police are allowed to have bias. They are the ones who 'suspect' you. They are the ones who make the arrests and they arrest you because they think you're guilty of something, another word for which is 'bias'.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how bias they are, because they actually have to build a case against you. If the case is weak and is built on little more the bias, then it won't pass muster in court. And it must be remembered that Amanda and Raffaele had the best lawyers and experts in the country defending them. They should be able to expose a weak case if that's what it was. The verdict was unanimous.
 
Kestrel said:
Lets try using a bit of logic.

Amanda decided not to go back to the cottage the night of Nov. 1, so she didn't have her charger that night.

Amanda did go back to the cottage the next morning to shower and change clothes. Assume she had grabbed her cell phone charger, returned to Raffaele's flat and the two of them then head for Gubbio. When does Amanda get a chance to charge her cell phone?

Isn't it simpler for her to just turn it off for a night when she doesn't want to get calls?
Click to expand...

But she'd been at the cottage just that afternoon. If a charger was really needed, why did she not get it then?
 
Fulcanelli said:
And it must be remembered that Amanda and Raffaele had the best lawyers and experts in the country defending them.
Click to expand...
These are the same lawyers who didn't ask the court for the FSA files, or for independent testing until after all the forensic evidence had been heard and when the case was winding down?
 
Fulcanelli said:
But she'd been at the cottage just that afternoon. If a charger was really needed, why did she not get it then?
Click to expand...
Perhaps she forgot. I've done that. That's why I've got a charger at work and at home and another in my bag.
 
Fulcanelli said:
It's in the phone and computer records. You can find these in the Massei Report.
Click to expand...

From the Judges report, page 331:
It was explained, is positive to see that on the afternoon of 1:11:07 was completed downloading multimedia files, "Stardust" that the user had requested to the network with a P2P system.
Click to expand...

You claimed that Stardust was downloaded a couple days before the murder. It was in fact downloaded on Nov. 1, 2007 the day of the murder.

You made a claim and when asked for a cite pointed to a document thad didn't support your claim.

We don't know when Raffaele watched this movie because the last access to the file was on Nov. 6, 2007.

From page 332:
But the file remained in the Stardust PC Raffaele Sollecito in a share folder with the Web world, so much so that, for them, was made a "last access" even the night of 6:11:07, at 02.47 hours during prime time Raffaele and Amanda when they were being held at police headquarters.
Click to expand...
 
Kestrel said:
From the Judges report, page 331:


You claimed that Stardust was downloaded a couple days before the murder. It was in fact downloaded on Nov. 1, 2007 the day of the murder.

You made a claim and when asked for a cite pointed to a document thad didn't support your claim.

We don't know when Raffaele watched this movie because the last access to the file was on Nov. 6, 2007.

From page 332:
Click to expand...
And yet, it's still irrelevant to where Amanda and Raffaele were that night.
 
Fulcanelli said:
The police are allowed to have bias. They are the ones who 'suspect' you. They are the ones who make the arrests and they arrest you because they think you're guilty of something, another word for which is 'bias'.

The thing is, it doesn't matter how bias they are, because they actually have to build a case against you. If the case is weak and is built on little more the bias, then it won't pass muster in court. And it must be remembered that Amanda and Raffaele had the best lawyers and experts in the country defending them. They should be able to expose a weak case if that's what it was. The verdict was unanimous.
Click to expand...

The problem you get in many cases is where LE becomes so convinced and focused on the "target" that they ignore other possibilities and other leads. I think the discussion here is questioning the relative strength or weakness of the case evidence. I have not hidden my opinion on other websites that I think Amanda and Rafaelle are hiding something and have not been truthful. However, I think putting this picture up was (to use Bob's word), unprofessional. The police and investigators need to have an open mind while they are building their case. From a PR standpoint it is also counter productive. The questions now coming up seem to be hinting that the police may have made the evidence fit their target. This picture doesn't help disprove that picture, if you get the picture.
 
RoseMontague said:
The problem you get in many cases is where LE becomes so convinced and focused on the "target" that they ignore other possibilities and other leads. I think the discussion here is questioning the relative strength or weakness of the case evidence. I have not hidden my opinion on other websites that I think Amanda and Rafaelle are hiding something and have not been truthful. However, I think putting this picture up was (to use Bob's word), unprofessional. The police and investigators need to have an open mind while they are building their case. From a PR standpoint it is also counter productive. The questions now coming up seem to be hinting that the police may have made the evidence fit their target. This picture doesn't help disprove that picture, if you get the picture.
Click to expand...

So the Police are responsible for the staged break-in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom