Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[shuttlt]

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.

Presumably whoever gave Dr Waterbury access to his data shares your viewpoint. Someday I hope you feel able to talk about where all this data came from and why it isn't possible to show it to us. It can't be confidential or protected because he says I can go to Perugia and get it myself, for only a few 10's of thousands of pounds in photocopying and translation.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No. You misunderstand. My recollection is that she says that Meredith never visited Raffaele's.

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. I probably wasn't clear in what I said. I meant to say that we all know that Meredith was never at Raffaele's. If you asked Raffaele today if Meredith was ever there, he would say no. Amanda's diary provides no help with this matter. Raffaele was writing different scenarios in his diary. None of them made any sense. If you want to throw him in prison for 25 years for writing nonsense in a private diary, then you and I have different views.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Presumably whoever gave Dr Waterbury access to his data shares your viewpoint. Someday I hope you feel able to talk about where all this data came from and why it isn't possible to show it to us. It can't be confidential or protected because he says I can go to Perugia and get it myself, for only a few 10's of thousands of pounds in photocopying and translation.

After the appeals are exhausted I am sure everyone will be talking freely.

I need to go to sleep. It is 3:20 am here. Find me a PR firm employee that is stupid enough to stay up until 3:20 am.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. I probably wasn't clear in what I said. I meant to say that we all know that Meredith was never at Raffaele's. If you asked Raffaele today if Meredith was ever there, he would say no. Amanda's diary provides no help with this matter. Raffaele was writing different scenarios in his diary. None of them made any sense. If you want to throw him in prison for 25 years for writing nonsense in a private diary, then you and I have different views.

Fair enough. I don't think it is a big thing anyway. It's just an odd little episode where each of them say mutually exclusive things about a single event in their diaries. As you say, what Raffaele writes is nonsense.

 

[shuttlt]

After the appeals are exhausted I am sure everyone will be talking freely.

I need to go to sleep. It is 3:20 am here. Find me a PR firm employee that is stupid enough to stay up until 3:20 am.

Well, Amanda's Facebook page says it is staffed by a professional team working 24/7. I guess they must work shifts, either that or indictable levels of exhaustion aren't limited to the interrogation rooms of Perugia.

Perhaps they are talking figuratively about the 24/7 thing, still there is a professional team running at least one of the web pages, or perhaps they were talking figuratively about that also.

 

[shuttlt]

I thought I'd try and find out where this "no food and water" claim began. The earliest mention I have found is this unsourced claim from June '08:

Amanda's parents are deeply sad and deeply frustrated. After Kercher was found dead Italian police interrogated Amanda all night with no lawyer, no professional interpreter, no food and no sleep.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/19514324.html

 

[shuttlt]

It seems to me that back in mid-2008 the whole denied food thing was, like the 9 hour/14 hour interrogation meant to refer to the entire night up until her breakfast. Somehow this has turned into a claim that her 'confession' was to some degree caused by hunger and thirst.

Looking for the origins of the denied food claim, I came across this quote:

"It was determined by the Supreme Court that the method by which this [changed account] was obtained was inappropriate and illegal," Curt Knox said.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4983351&page=2
Doubtless this is not news to some, but the earliest source then for the claim that the Supreme Court found the interrogation to be illegal is Curt Knox back in mid '08.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As far as PMF goes, you can go back and read the dialog. I said hello and your friend Peggy ask me to stop posting. It was instant. But It's okay. You can ban anyone you like. It's your forum.

As I understand it, there was only one staff member present on the board (the other would not have been back for hours) and the staff member that was present had to also go off for some hours to deal with a home emergency and so the board would be left unsupervised. You were therefore told to stop posting. This was until such time as when the board would be under supervision again. You refused the request and continued to post.

There is a lot of talk about the PR campaign but you never provide any proof of this. We are all thrown into the same group. This is done to simply try to discredit all of us with one swing.

You are kidding, right?

The truth -

Peter Van Sant (48 Hrs A Long Way from Home 2 of 6)
"4 days after the murder no arrests. The students of Perugia organized a memorial service for Meredith Kercher. Noticably absent Amanda and Raffaele. They had been summoned to police headquarters."

Except this is completely false. The memorial service started in Perugia at 8 PM. Amanda and Raffaele didn't even arrive at the police station until 10:15 PM. Up until that time, they had been out eating pizza. They were seen by a police officer out eating pizza instead of being at the memorial which he reported back. So, the order was given to call them in.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

I can't help noticing that you are trying to argue your case by using a diary PMF translated for you, I just though I'd point that out

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

In my case it is less than what I know, perhaps it would be better to state what I believe and what I don't believe.

I believe that the break-in was staged. I don't believe Rudy or anyone else entered by that window. I believe the rock was brought inside the flat and used to break the window after the room was trashed.

I don't believe the various stories about the accidental water spill/busted pipe. Both Amanda and Raffaele put a lot of importance on the movement of the mop and the reasons for that movement.

I don't believe Raffaele would have any problem breaking into Meredith's room. I don't believe that Meredith normally locked her door when she was away or sleeping and I believe Raffaele's statement to a reporter prior to his arrest that she didn't normally lock her door was a truthful one. I believe he got this information from Amanda.

I believe both Amanda and Raffaele knew what they would find when the door was forced (with little trouble) open.

I don't believe Rudy put the duvet over Meredith's body and I believe her body was moved and arranged some time after she was assaulted.

I don't believe the "double DNA" knife is a murder weapon. I believe the DNA evidence is highly questionable on the knife and if I ignore that evidence that knife as a murder weapon makes no sense at all. I don't believe that knife ever left Raffaele's apartment.

I believe Amanda talked Raffaele into participating in a staging/cover-up. I don't believe he took part in the assault.

I don't believe that Amanda and Meredith were very good friends. I believe Amanda was selfish and spoiled and smart but lacked a lot of common sense.

I could go either way with Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp but I do believe that the results are highly questionable and could be the result of other factors.

I don't believe Amanda's claims of memory loss.

I believe the prosecution held back some of the DNA evidence.

I know the murder of Meredith Kercher is a tragedy.

 

[RoseMontague]

And yes, both defenses tried to do something, they explained that without raw data, without knowing the setting of the machine we still don't know how we got to that result. And they filed a claim to the judge. A little claim, simply the annulment of Micheli's decree of trial. Which means to cancel the whole process and send everyone home, free. As a sub-claim they asked to invalidate the sole DNA results.

So, following the request the judges went to deliberate.
It was a particular feeling pretending to believe that everything could just finish today, and in one hour or so we could all go toasting at the bar with tarallucci & vino, together with Amanda and Raffaele.

One thing is dreams, another the reality. It was already amazing that, at the last hearing, Massei had allowed the suspension of the trial and the production of additional data. Maybe the coincidence with the summer break helped in that occasion. The defenses, following that successful move, were confident in another favorable decision for today.

But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni. And that's it. This was, after all, his original position, which he suspended (or pretended to suspend) only for vacations...

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

Frank is the only person to have made this claim. And Frank is FOA (he must be treated with care when using him as a source). No other reporter reported this claim by the defence. In fact, all reports were that the the request for a dismissal of the case was based on the fact that they had only recently been given the extra data they requested. And in fact, the judge ruled that they'd been given all they needed along with enough time to review it.

By the way, I should also point out...numerous Italians have informed us that the 'contamination' claim is a rather standard form of defence in Italy. In nearly all trials where the evidence is strong and the defendants are claiming innocence, the defence claim contamination...this is due to them having nothing else with which to contest the case. The impression being given to the public is that the contamination claims being made in this case case is pretty unique, or at least, not the norm...when in actual fact, it is quite the standard to the point that it's become a cliche.

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank is the only person to have made this claim. And Frank is FOA (he must be treated with care when using him as a source). No other reporter reported this claim by the defence. In fact, all reports were that the the request for a dismissal of the case was based on the fact that they had only recently been given the extra data they requested. And in fact, the judge ruled that they'd been given all they needed along with enough time to review it.

By the way, I should also point out...numerous Italians have informed us that the 'contamination' claim is a rather standard form of defence in Italy. In nearly all trials where the evidence is strong and the defendants are claiming innocence, the defence claim contamination...this is due to them having nothing else with which to contest the case. The impression being given to the public is that the contamination claims being made in this case case is pretty unique, or at least, not the norm...when in actual fact, it is quite the standard to the point that it's become a cliche.

Frank is certainly not unbiased. However, in my opinion he is a very honest person and I believe this is what occurred. Perhaps the least that could be claimed is that the mountain of circumstancial evidence is adding up that the defense was not provided ALL of the information.

I trust him as a source and reject claims of FOA conspiracy or dishonesty on his part.

 

[Amazer]

Frank is certainly not unbiased. However, in my opinion heis a very honest person and I believe this is what occurred. Perhaps the least that could be claimed is that the mountain of circumstancial evidence is adding up that the defense was not provided ALL of the information.

I trust him as a source and reject claims

I also doubt that ALL the information was provided.

I do believe that ALL the relevant information was provided. IOW, all the information that Italian law requires to be provided.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Frank is certainly not unbiased. However, in my opinion he is a very honest person and I believe this is what occurred. Perhaps the least that could be claimed is that the mountain of circumstancial evidence is adding up that the defense was not provided ALL of the information.

I trust him as a source and reject claims of FOA conspiracy or dishonesty on his part.

Clearly, you don't know him that well

 

[Fulcanelli]

I also doubt that ALL the information was provided.

I do believe that ALL the relevant information was provided. IOW, all the information that Italian law requires to be provided.

Indeed. In fact, they were provided with more then that. The data the defence requested in June is not normally given to defence teams...the prosecutions said sure, no problem and the judge said so be it. They have all that Italian law requires.

 

[Alt+F4]

How does belittling the Italian justice system help Amanda? Stirring up American opinion will have no effect on Italian judges and would seem to be counterproductive.

I think it's a fund raising statgedy to get sympathic Americans to contribute to Amanda's defense fund.

Are they trying to get Amanda moved to an American jail?

Unlikey. If Amanda were returned to the U.S. she would be under federal custody and I think a federal prison in the U.S. would be worse than the prison she's in now in Italy.

 

[RoseMontague]

Clearly, you don't know him that well

Do you have examples of his "dishonesty"? Not examples of where he gives his opinion, but something he reported that is not the truth.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

I can't speak for anyone else, and I won't presume to. Speaking strictly for myself, it was the PR campaign which kick-started my interest in the case. I was aware of it in a general, un-detailed sense, but when the sentence was handed down and the media was flooded with what were patently biased diatribes by an obviously coordinated source I became disturbed by the blatant appeals to emotion and incitement of xenophobia.

Until that time I was completely unaware of sites like PMF, or FOA for that matter. Experience in teaching myself the facts about other cases has led me to search for primary sources as much as possible. These sources were most easily discovered at the very sites which you find the most fault with. Why is that? Why is it that all of the very strident defense of Knox invariably traces back to the same small handful of actors which you claim have nothing to do with each other when it is apparent to any but the most gullible that they are working in concert?

Your protestations are much too fervent, and fail with even the most cursory examination.

Why is it that nearly all of their arguments in defense seem ultimately to devolve to the most torturous and implausible of casuistry, like the idea that Sollecito's tale about having Meridith over for dinner was merely some hypothetical musing taken out of context, or that Knox's multiplicity of conflicting stories were just "injected memories"? Why the constant assertions of blockbuster "proof" that never seems to be available just yet?

I cannot stress this enough. If not for the heavy-handed machinations of the PR operation whose very existence you so vehemently deny, I would still be content in the belief that Knox was an innocent victim of circumstances. Judging from the comments I have seen offered in this conversation and others like it I am not the only one.

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?

What possible benefit do you suppose the Kercher family could garner from any involvement with the U.S. media? The slant that has been taken is quite apparent. Should the Kerchers even breathe a hint that they felt Knox might be complicit they would instantly be pilloried and reviled by the same accusations of anti-American prejudice that has been the core of the "defense" offered in this country. Why should they add to their grief by subjecting themselves to that?

They have wisely kept themselves out of the spotlight, and let professionals do their job, and let the evidence speak for their daughter's memory.

I can empathize with the despair that Knox's family must be undergoing, and even with the disbelief they suffer, but that does not mean that I have to be overwhelmed by it as well. They are not the only parents who cannot believe that their darling offspring could be guilty of such a heinous act, and they are not the only ones who may be wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have examples of his "dishonesty"? Not examples of where he gives his opinion, but something he reported that is not the truth.

His name isn't Frank Sfarzo for a start. Just do a search for 'Frank Sfarzo' on PMF and TJMK. You'll find plenty of discussion about Frankie.