Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was sitting in prison writing in a diary. He wasn't on the stand. He was trying to figure out how it could be possible. At that point he had absolutely no idea what happened. He wrote many things. He wrote the possibility that Amanda gave the knife to the killer or even that Amanda helped Kill Meredith. He was writing in a diary. He is thinking very random thoughts. So his theory that he pricked Meredith's finger would actually be an attempt to protect Amanda and then his next to statements would incriminate her. Are you seeing the randomness? I can't say it enough, it was a diary.

Raffaele wrote: "When I saw the knife on TV that was in my kitchen and on which they found traces of Amanda and Meredith, my heart jumped into my throat.

"I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her."

"But Tiziano (his lawyer) told me to keep calm and that there was no way it could be the murder weapon. This is like living in some sort of nightmare reality show."

"I am getting continual panic attacks and heart flutters... I pray that Jesus will give me strength to face this situation."

"The police are making me out to be some sort of criminal genius but a criminal genius does not go to the police station wearing the shoes he committed the crime in and carrying a knife."

It's not random speculation to write a story that never happened. What you refer to as random is speculation about how it could have happened with stories that are true.
 
Last edited:
1. Please tell me what Raffaele said in regard to the bra clasp. I have heard a few different scenarios. I am interested in hearing what you have heard. As far as the statement made about the knife, he was actually trying to figure out how Meredith's DNA could have gotten on the blade, not his own DNA as you stated. He was told that the DNA was on the blade. This seamed impossible to him but he was trying to think of any possible way that could have happened. Keep in mind, he made no mention of taking the knife over to Meredith's cottage. He was trying to think of any possibility that this could have happened in his apartment. His entire mindset had the knife in his own kitchen. It was a normal thought process to go through. There is nothing incriminating about this at all.

I agree that he probably thought it was impossible for Merediths DNA to be on the knife; however I tend to favor the idea that has more to do with the fact that they cleaned the knife.

I also agree that he was thinking up scenarios how Merediths DNA did end up on the knife once her DNA was found, and how that could have happened in his house. The problem here is that by all accounts Meredith never did visit Raffaele's house. It's kind of hard to prick someone with a knife in your own house if that person never visited the house to begin with.

And thinking up lies during a police investigation in and by itself is incriminating, not withstanding that you would prefer it not to be.
 
I've got nothing other than an open mind. Neither one of you is "winning me over" with your rhetoric.

I believe you've been following this case for some time, Rose. The rhetoric might fly a little fast and loose on an internet forum but quotes from the testimony, judicial reports, their own written words, and other verifiable facts are the basis for forming an opinion about it--or any element contained in it.

Nobody has to be won over. It's your responsibility to educate yourself just as it's my responsibility to educate myself. At the outset of this thread, it was clear that most of us were fairly surprised at the conviction. This is because there are those in the media who are trying to win us over without reference to the actual evidence.

If it weren't for sites like PMF and TJMK, we still wouldn't have access to that evidence and would continue to be perplexed at a medieval Italian justice system infiltrated by corrupt prosecutors steeped in mystical hypotheses about Satanic rituals. I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, but in the Pacific Northwest there is still a lot of certainty that Amanda was railroaded and that justice was not served in her conviction.

Why not create a list such as Fiona's where you state what you consider to be 'known knowns' and the items you feel are unresolved in spite of their examination, cross-examination, and subsequent judgement?
 
He was sitting in prison writing in a diary. He wasn't on the stand. He was trying to figure out how it could be possible. At that point he had absolutely no idea what happened. He wrote many things. He wrote the possibility that Amanda gave the knife to the killer or even that Amanda helped Kill Meredith. He was writing in a diary. He is thinking very random thoughts. So his theory that he pricked Meredith's finger would actually be an attempt to protect Amanda and then his next to statements would incriminate her. Are you seeing the randomness? I can't say it enough, it was a diary.

I don't see any randomness at all. I see a clearly stated and rational statement in which Meredith's DNA ought to be found on the knife.

Speaking of randomness, how can you argue that Sollecito suggested that Knox may have been a participant in murder while also arguing that he was protecting her?

"Bruce Fisher helped murder the victim but I'm only saying this to protect him."

Makes sense to me! :boggled:
 
I agree that he probably thought it was impossible for Merediths DNA to be on the knife; however I tend to favor the idea that has more to do with the fact that they cleaned the knife.

Don't take Bruce Fisher's word over Raffaele's. Raffaele, unlike Bruce Fisher, did not think it was impossible that Meredith's DNA would be found on the knife.

Raffaele uses the word "impossible" in his diary but not regarding Meredith's DNA. Here's one example:

"...it is impossible to change the minds of everyone..."

Isn't that the truth?
 
I believe you've been following this case for some time, Rose. The rhetoric might fly a little fast and loose on an internet forum but quotes from the testimony, judicial reports, their own written words, and other verifiable facts are the basis for forming an opinion about it--or any element contained in it.

Nobody has to be won over. It's your responsibility to educate yourself just as it's my responsibility to educate myself. At the outset of this thread, it was clear that most of us were fairly surprised at the conviction. This is because there are those in the media who are trying to win us over without reference to the actual evidence.

If it weren't for sites like PMF and TJMK, we still wouldn't have access to that evidence and would continue to be perplexed at a medieval Italian justice system infiltrated by corrupt prosecutors steeped in mystical hypotheses about Satanic rituals. I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, but in the Pacific Northwest there is still a lot of certainty that Amanda was railroaded and that justice was not served in her conviction.

Why not create a list such as Fiona's where you state what you consider to be 'known knowns' and the items you feel are unresolved in spite of their examination, cross-examination, and subsequent judgement?

Were most of you honestly surprised by the conviction? I live in the US and I wasn't surprised at all. I knew they were going to convict long before December 4. I saw this wrongful conviction in the works far in advance. I am surprised by your statement. I see why you hold your views though. You get your information from PMF and True Justice.

This is where there will simply never be an agreement on this forum. I trust my sources and you trust yours.
 
Were most of you honestly surprised by the conviction? I live in the US and I wasn't surprised at all. I knew they were going to convict long before December 4. I saw this wrongful conviction in the works far in advance. I am surprised by your statement. I see why you hold your views though. You get your information from PMF and True Justice.

This is where there will simply never be an agreement on this forum. I trust my sources and you trust yours.

Well, as of right now, you've given us no reason to trust your source over ours.

Not to mention all the gaping holes in the sources/arguments you've provided.


Am I on ignore, or are you just choosing not to respond to my posts?
 
I don't see any randomness at all. I see a clearly stated and rational statement in which Meredith's DNA ought to be found on the knife.

Speaking of randomness, how can you argue that Sollecito suggested that Knox may have been a participant in murder while also arguing that he was protecting her?

"Bruce Fisher helped murder the victim but I'm only saying this to protect him."

Makes sense to me! :boggled:

I can't even make out what you are trying to say. I posted Raffaele's diary statements in an earlier thread. Please read them again.
 
It's not random speculation to write a story that never happened. What you refer to as random is speculation about how it could have happened with stories that are true.

Raffaele wrote at least 3 different scenarios in his diary. all of them are completely different. None of his scenarios were true. None of them were based on anything even close to what actually occurred or what you think occurred.

Raffaele had no idea what happened at the cottage because he wasn't there. His diary gives no indication whatsoever that he knew what happened at the cottage. He was just writing possibilities for what he was told and what he saw on TV. If you were in his situation and you were sitting in prison, would you not sit there trying to figure out what had happened?
 
Well, as of right now, you've given us no reason to trust your source over ours.

Not to mention all the gaping holes in the sources/arguments you've provided.


Am I on ignore, or are you just choosing not to respond to my posts?

Why would I ignore your bright and cheerful posts?
 
Raffaele wrote at least 3 different scenarios in his diary. all of them are completely different. None of his scenarios were true. None of them were based on anything even close to what actually occurred or what you think occurred.

Raffaele had no idea what happened at the cottage because he wasn't there. His diary gives no indication whatsoever that he knew what happened at the cottage. He was just writing possibilities for what he was told and what he saw on TV. If you were in his situation and you were sitting in prison, would you not sit there trying to figure out what had happened?

Sure, but I wouldn't speculate that I'd pricked the dead girl's finger with a knife when it never happened. And we're not talking "Oh, well, he never pricked her finger." We're talking "Oh, well, we never had dinner together, she was never at my apartment, etc".

Big difference.
 
Sure, but I wouldn't speculate that I'd pricked the dead girl's finger with a knife when it never happened. And we're not talking "Oh, well, he never pricked her finger." We're talking "Oh, well, we never had dinner together, she was never at my apartment, etc".

Big difference.
QFT
 
Why would I ignore your bright and cheerful posts?

I'm not sure, but you most certainly have.


Do you have evidence to back up your claim that Rudy was definitely the one to break the window? Or even evidence that Rudy was ever in Filomena's room?
 
Sure, but I wouldn't speculate that I'd pricked the dead girl's finger with a knife when it never happened. And we're not talking "Oh, well, he never pricked her finger." We're talking "Oh, well, we never had dinner together, she was never at my apartment, etc".

Big difference.

The problem is, it has been made out that Raffaele made this bold statement that he pricked Meredith's finger and that explains everything.

He wasn't on the stand, he wasn't in a police station, he wasn't talking to anyone.

He wrote this scenario along with other scenarios that had nothing at all to do with the crime. He was writing random thoughts.

It sounds a little different when you put it all together.

When writing in his diary, Raffaele speculates that he may have pricked Meredith's finger when they were cooking. He told her sorry and she was ok, he then speculates that maybe Amanda gave the knife to the killer and let that person kill Meredith and then he speculates that maybe Amanda killed Meredith on her own.

It sounds more like a guy rambling in a diary when you actually take a step back and look at it.

You see it is easy to look at this and pull the information you want out of it to show guilt. It is also easy to pull the information out of this story to show innocence. The truth is, the diary does neither one of these things.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but you most certainly have.


Do you have evidence to back up your claim that Rudy was definitely the one to break the window? Or even evidence that Rudy was ever in Filomena's room?

I haven't ignored all that window talk. I just haven't had time to write it all out for you and Michael.

I don't know why you think I need to prove Rudy had anything to do with that window to prove that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

There is no credible proof that they were in the cottage that night. Nothing at all. But I will answer the questions about the break in. I hoped to get to it tonight but I got side tracked.

when the new judge throws out the bra clasp because it wasn't properly handled, we can come back here and discuss it all over again.

I will think they are innocent and you will think they got off on a technicality.

I don't think we will ever agree on the case.
 
Raffaele wrote at least 3 different scenarios in his diary. all of them are completely different. None of his scenarios were true. None of them were based on anything even close to what actually occurred or what you think occurred.

Raffaele had no idea what happened at the cottage because he wasn't there. His diary gives no indication whatsoever that he knew what happened at the cottage. He was just writing possibilities for what he was told and what he saw on TV. If you were in his situation and you were sitting in prison, would you not sit there trying to figure out what had happened?

If I were innocent... yeah i'd try to figure out how it would be possible for the victims DNA to be present on my knife. I wouldn't think of scenarios that I know didn't happen, like Raffaele did here.
 
If I were innocent... yeah i'd try to figure out how it would be possible for the victims DNA to be present on my knife. I wouldn't think of scenarios that I know didn't happen, like Raffaele did here.

I don't think I would have come up with his scenarios either. That doesn't mean that I think his diary ramblings are incriminating.
 
I don't think I would have come up with his scenarios either. That doesn't mean that I think his diary ramblings are incriminating.

I understand that you don't think that it's incriminating. I think differently though. Perhaps it's a failure of my imagination.... but cooking up scenarios that a person knows didn't happen in order to explain how DNA got on the knife does nothing to reduce my suspicions. It in effect reinforces my suspicion that he is guilty.
 
The problem is, it has been made out that Raffaele made this bold statement that he pricked Meredith's finger and that explains everything.

He wasn't on the stand, he wasn't in a police station, he wasn't talking to anyone.

He wrote this scenario along with other scenarios that had nothing at all to do with the crime. He was writing random thoughts.

It sounds a little different when you put it all together.

When writing in his diary, Raffaele speculates that he may have pricked Meredith's finger when they were cooking. He told her sorry and she was ok, he then speculates that maybe Amanda gave the knife to the killer and let that person kill Meredith and then he speculates that maybe Amanda killed Meredith on her own.

It sounds more like a guy rambling in a diary when you actually take a step back and look at it.

You see it is easy to look at this and pull the information you want out of it to show guilt. It is also easy to pull the information out of this story to show innocence. The truth is, the diary does neither one of these things.

I am astounded that you can dismiss this point so cavalierly. Raffaele is not merely "speculating," he is writing pure fiction. There is no credible evidence that he & Meredith ever cooked together, to my knowledge; if you have any, please bring it forth.

One might question why he would write something so easly countered, and I don't have a good explanation for that, beyond the general point that people trying to cover up their complicity in criminal acts frequently do inexplicably stupid things.

I am one of those who still has serious questions about certain aspects of this case & whether there was enough evidence to warrant a conviction. Raffaele's lie about cooking with Meredith is not one of those aspects. I find your interpretation of this point to be seriously detached from reality as I understand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom