Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not like that.

It's not that I'm looking at it and selectively quoting what I need to support a guilty verdict. I look at it and see a young man who was offering scenarios that could explain how the DNA arrived on the knife (note he did not write a scenario mentioning contamination - rather, every scenario he penned involved the knife coming into contact with Meredith - i.e. Raffaele had no reason to believe the DNA was anyone other than Meredith's, nor that Meredith's DNA arrived on the knife via contamination) - and, ultimately, there were two scenarios:

1) Amanda took the knife with her to the cottage where she helped someone commit the murder (how does that help Amanda?)

or

2) Raffaele pricked Meredith's finger with the tip while they were cooking together at his apartment.


Now, we have very little reason to believe Meredith was ever at his apartment. That scenario is therefore a fabrication.

When we look at scenario 1, we find that this isn't the only time he's mentioned Amanda was not at his apartment the entire night of the murder, so that little scenario actually does have the potential to be the truth.

Movies can play with no one there, rather than just no alibi - Amanda and Raffaele have conflicting alibis, the break-in was staged, the bra clasp has Raffaele's DNA in a much higher concentration than anyone other than Meredith, the mop and bucket, the phone calls, the lie about Patrick, the fact that Rudy was startled enough to leave his feces in the toilet, et al.

We tie all these little factoids together into a little scenario - and we have Amanda as culpable as Rudy in what happened that night. Despite your claims to the contrary, Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night. Despite your claims to the contrary, Amanda and Raffaele are not innocent little angels - at the very least, they are guilty of accessory to 1st degree murder. At the worst, they are more guilty than Rudy.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must not live in the Pacific Northwest. Most of us, like the OP, thought an innocent American woman had been seized by corrupt officials, tortured for hours, and finally declared to be guilty because she was doing cartwheels in the police station.

That is what the media had portrayed.

It hasn't diminished in its intensity. No less a media luminary than Oprah Winfrey provided Amanda's parents an arena to publicly state their case.

No US media outlet that I know of has ever provided the Kercher family with a forum to explain their feelings about their daughter being sexually assaulted and then murdered by the three now in jail.

What has happened in the interim is that sceptics here have discovered that the common perception in the US media was based only on a vigorous PR campaign led by David Marriott and paid for by the culprit's family.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
He wrote this scenario along with other scenarios that had nothing at all to do with the crime. He was writing random thoughts.
Click to expand...

How do you know Raffaele's written statements about the knife were random? Are you Raffaele Sollecito?

I think you better read his diary again. It is focused primarily on the reasons he was in prison, his explanations for the events that landed him there, and occasional comments addressed to his family.

His lawyers wisely didn't put him on the stand because his so-called random thoughts are incredibly self-incriminating. They wisely had him STFU in court and in all regards from his arrest until the present day.

Amanda's lawyers weren't so fortunate. They had the incessant badgering of a massive PR machine and the interlocution of the Knox/Mellas family to deal with. They couldn't deal with it and put her on the stand to blather weakly about doing homework by the elevator when she was provided the opportunity to charge her torturers in full public view.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
No, it's really not like that.

It's not that I'm looking at it and selectively quoting what I need to support a guilty verdict. I look at it and see a young man who was offering scenarios that could explain how the DNA arrived on the knife (note he did not write a scenario mentioning contamination - rather, every scenario he penned involved the knife coming into contact with Meredith - i.e. Raffaele had no reason to believe the DNA was anyone other than Meredith's, nor that Meredith's DNA arrived on the knife via contamination) - and, ultimately, there were two scenarios:

1) Amanda took the knife with her to the cottage where she helped someone commit the murder (how does that help Amanda?)

or

2) Raffaele pricked Meredith's finger with the tip while they were cooking together at his apartment.


Now, we have very little reason to believe Meredith was ever at his apartment. That scenario is therefore a fabrication.

When we look at scenario 1, we find that this isn't the only time he's mentioned Amanda was not at his apartment the entire night of the murder, so that little scenario actually does have the potential to be the truth.

Movies can play with no one there, rather than just no alibi - Amanda and Raffaele have conflicting alibis, the break-in was staged, the bra clasp has Raffaele's DNA in a much higher concentration than anyone other than Meredith, the mop and bucket, the phone calls, the lie about Patrick, the fact that Rudy was startled enough to leave his feces in the toilet, et al.

We tie all these little factoids together into a little scenario - and we have Amanda as culpable as Rudy in what happened that night. Despite your claims to the contrary, Amanda and Raffaele were in the cottage that night. Despite your claims to the contrary, Amanda and Raffaele are not innocent little angels - at the very least, they are guilty of accessory to 1st degree murder. At the worst, they are more guilty than Rudy.
Click to expand...

The more I talk on here the more I realize that most of what you say is based on nothing more than your opinion. That is fine. You are certainly entitled to that. I have no reason to try and change your mind. We can talk again after the appeal.

You and I can look at the same sentence from Raffaele and I see an innocent statement and you see a guilty one. We are reading the same words but from a totally different perspective.
 
stilicho said:
You must not live in the Pacific Northwest. Most of us, like the OP, thought an innocent American woman had been seized by corrupt officials, tortured for hours, and finally declared to be guilty because she was doing cartwheels in the police station.

That is what the media had portrayed.

It hasn't diminished in its intensity. No less a media luminary than Oprah Winfrey provided Amanda's parents an arena to publicly state their case.

No US media outlet that I know of has ever provided the Kercher family with a forum to explain their feelings about their daughter being sexually assaulted and then murdered by the three now in jail.

What has happened in the interim is that sceptics here have discovered that the common perception in the US media was based only on a vigorous PR campaign led by David Marriott and paid for by the culprit's family.
Click to expand...

You give the PR campaign far to much credit and you believe that they controlled far more than they actually did. I understand why you believe this. You have been told this time and time again by Peter Quennell and PMF. It is one of the biggest misconceptions in regard to this case.

The Kerchers have opted to stay silent during this entire ordeal. Their decision should be respected. Do you honestly think that any media outlet in the US would turn down that story?
 
lector said:
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.
Click to expand...

You completely missed my point. You need to read the diary in it's entirety. It is completely detached from reality to think that Raffaele intended this to be some big revelation.

Why aren't you all out looking for the person that Amanda gave the knife to so that they could go and kill Meredith? Raffaele came up with that scenario too.

Why didn't you pick that scenario to single out?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You completely missed my point. You need to read the diary in it's entirety. It is completely detached from reality to think that Raffaele intended this to be some big revelation.

Why aren't you all out looking for the person that Amanda gave the knife to so that they could go and kill Meredith? Raffaele came up with that scenario too.

Why didn't you pick that scenario to single out?
Click to expand...

I thought they did find who she gave the knife to - turns out it was Rudy (or Raffaele)...


This is what I was getting at with my last post.

We know for (fairly) certain that Meredith was never at Raffaele's apartment, so we immediately discount that story from being plausible.

We know that Amanda was not at Raffaele's apartment that entire night (at least, he says she wasn't, eyewitnesses say she wasn't, the DNA evidence says she wasn't...) and thus the scenario where Amanda gives someone else the knife is plausible.


If you want to chalk this up to opinion, so be it. But what's the point of discussing this case if every time your opinion is challenged with evidence, rather than refute said evidence you decide you're going to take your ball and go home? This will convince no one on this forum. You came here to discuss this case, perhaps to dispel some of the falsities you claim PMF has distributed. We have yet to see anything of substance come from you, Bruce. So far, every bit of "evidence" you have posted is either bare assertion or requires amazing feats of mental gymnastics to be believable.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You give the PR campaign far to much credit and you believe that they controlled far more than they actually did. I understand why you believe this. You have been told this time and time again by Peter Quennell and PMF. It is one of the biggest misconceptions in regard to this case.

The Kerchers have opted to stay silent during this entire ordeal. Their decision should be respected. Do you honestly think that any media outlet in the US would turn down that story?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't been told anything by those people. I live on the Canadian side of the border and we get the Seattle stations. KIRO, KOMO, and KING all featured stories about a kind and gentle honors student being steamrolled by a chaotic justice system steeped in medieval traditions.

That's where my interest in the case began. Then I saw the OP here and started looking into it more.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I thought they did find who she gave the knife to - turns out it was Rudy (or Raffaele)...


This is what I was getting at with my last post.

We know for (fairly) certain that Meredith was never at Raffaele's apartment, so we immediately discount that story from being plausible.

We know that Amanda was not at Raffaele's apartment that entire night (at least, he says she wasn't, eyewitnesses say she wasn't, the DNA evidence says she wasn't...) and thus the scenario where Amanda gives someone else the knife is plausible.


If you want to chalk this up to opinion, so be it. But what's the point of discussing this case if every time your opinion is challenged with evidence, rather than refute said evidence you decide you're going to take your ball and go home? This will convince no one on this forum. You came here to discuss this case, perhaps to dispel some of the falsities you claim PMF has distributed. We have yet to see anything of substance come from you, Bruce. So far, every bit of "evidence" you have posted is either bare assertion or requires amazing feats of mental gymnastics to be believable.
Click to expand...

My site is loaded with information that I have simply not brought here. The information that I have provided here certainly doesn't require any amazing feats of mental gymnastics to be believed as you say. I put the info about the garage camera on here. That is solid evidence. The photos of the Duvet are solid evidence. The information that I provided about Meredith's body not being moved is solid evidence. I can bring every single thing that i wrote on my site over to this forum but it would save a lot of time if you would go there and read it.

You wrote: "We know that Amanda was not at Raffaele's apartment that entire night (at least, he says she wasn't, eyewitnesses say she wasn't, the DNA evidence says she wasn't...) and thus the scenario where Amanda gives someone else the knife is plausible."

We certainly do not know that Amanda wasn't at Raffaele's all night. You might believe this but I certainly do not. If you ask Raffaele today where Amanda was, he will tell you that she was at his apartment all night. I believe him.

The witnesses were discredited at trial.

There is no DNA that says that Amanda wasn't at Raffaele's all night. Please try to explain this one to me.

Raffaele was pressured during interrogation to say that Amanda could have possibly left when he was asleep. This is hardly incriminating. Raffaele has defended Amanda repeatedly. I look at the big picture. You cherry pick what you need to prove guilt.

Raffaele could say 1000 times that Amanda was with him all night. He says one time during an interrogation that Amanda may have left when he was sleeping and you run around for the next 2 years shouting "Raffaele said Amanda wasn't at the apartment all night"
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
We certainly do not know that Amanda wasn't at Raffaele's all night. You might believe this but I certainly do not. If you ask Raffaele today where Amanda was, he will tell you that she was at his apartment all night. I believe him.
Click to expand...

Is that what he told the highest court in Italy?
 
stilicho said:
No, I haven't been told anything by those people. I live on the Canadian side of the border and we get the Seattle stations. KIRO, KOMO, and KING all featured stories about a kind and gentle honors student being steamrolled by a chaotic justice system steeped in medieval traditions.

That's where my interest in the case began. Then I saw the OP here and started looking into it more.
Click to expand...

I like news. So for me I was getting my news from a wide range of sources. I certainly expected the guilty verdict. I saw the injustice occurring for quite a while. This will eventually get corrected. Unfortunately it may take the Italian Supreme court to get it done. They will scrutinize the DNA.

Remove the bra clasp and the knife and this case is finished. I know people try to say otherwise but the simple fact is, the entire case relies on those two things. Both of them are extremely weak pieces of evidence.
 
A little while back the subject of Steve Moore the ex-FBI agent came up. I just wanted to draw attention to the first thing that jumped out at me:

Moore said:
I will only say of the interrogation, that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements. Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.
Click to expand...
He is under the impression that her 'confession' came after many hours of interrogation in which she was denied food, sleep, her right to an attourney and consular advice. Does he actually know anything about the case? For me this is another example of, if he's right about the facts then I agree with his conclusions, I just don't think he's right about the facts. Is it really the case that he would think it something worth indicting a colleague over in the US if they did not provide catering during a three hour interrogation, or expected the person being questioned to stay awake for the three hours of the interrogation? As for the whole denied a lawyer thing, that has been covered to death.
 
stilicho said:
Is that what he told the highest court in Italy?
Click to expand...
It's probably truer to say that he equivocated in front of the Supreme Court. I don't think he said she wasn't with him all night, he just raised the possibility that she might not have been.
 
shuttlt said:
A little while back the subject of Steve Moore the ex-FBI agent came up. I just wanted to draw attention to the first thing that jumped out at me:


He is under the impression that her 'confession' came after many hours of interrogation in which she was denied food, sleep, her right to an attourney and consular advice. Does he actually know anything about the case? For me this is another example of, if he's right about the facts then I agree with his conclusions, I just don't think he's right about the facts. Is it really the case that he would think it something worth indicting a colleague over in the US if they did not provide catering during a three hour interrogation, or expected the person being questioned to stay awake for the three hours of the interrogation? As for the whole denied a lawyer thing, that has been covered to death.
Click to expand...

You really know how to stick to a subject! You don't know all of the facts. You see, there is an appeal underway. Anyone who cares about Amanda Knox isn't going to risk jeopardizing the appeal simply to win an argument online. You need to wait for the appeal. Everyone that is online that believes in Amanda's guilt can shout out anything they want. The people that are close to this case that know Amanda is innocent have to be cautious about what they say. The online argument isn't the one they are trying to win.
 
My last statement probably leads you to ask, why are any of us online talking about it then?

Some of us feel that the public should know the truth. It's really that simple.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You really know how to stick to a subject! You don't know all of the facts. You see, there is an appeal underway. Anyone who cares about Amanda Knox isn't going to risk jeopardizing the appeal simply to win an argument online. You need to wait for the appeal. Everyone that is online that believes in Amanda's guilt can shout out anything they want. The people that are close to this case that know Amanda is innocent have to be cautious about what they say. The online argument isn't the one they are trying to win.
Click to expand...
OK. But I still don't get why people like you and Steve Moore assert stuff like this that either you know perfectly well isn't true, or demonstrates that you don't actually know much about the case and are just parroting things other people who don't know very much have said.

On your site you are STILL saying:
Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation,...
Click to expand...
Even though you've now agreed that the interrogation lasted about 3 hours not 14 hours. She was doing her homework, then three hours later she is suffering from such extreme exhaustion that Steve Moore thinks those who inflicted it should be indicted.

As for me going on about it, partly that's just my natural way of arguing. Partly I think otherwise this stuff never gets fixed, the arguments roam around and around from the interrogation, to the DNA, to the footprints, to the phone calls and around again without anybody changing their claims. People road your blog and hear that she had a long and exhausting interrogation in which she was denied food and water and sleep and they might get the impression that this is a claim that you can support. Why did you make this claim in the first place when you've all but admitted (in fact I think you did say this) that saying she was denied food is not a significant part of the argument about the interrogation and is basically just a distraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom