Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Supernaut]

Shuttit said;

"We really only have her word on how well she knew him, don't we?"

We have her word - And ZERO evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Could you deal with the list I gave of, what I believe to be, some of the more important inaccuracies in your Illegal Interrogations article? I would be particularly interested in your take on why the interrogations were illegal as I haven't seen you make a defence of this.

In your article you say:

I've asked this quite a few times on your blog. Are you sure your claim that the interrogation was illegal isn't based on equivocating on the different meanings of the word 'suspect', i.e. meaning 1: someone who individual police officers on the enquiry, or even all the officers on the enquiry, suspect. Meaning 2: someone who has been formally declared to be a 'suspect' (as I understand it this involves, amongst other things, a time limit within which the status has to be confirmed before a judge, minimal standards of evidence, and some sort of public declaration of the persons change of status within the case.)

I can give other facts from your site that I think are worth looking at, but a complete list will be timeconsuming to produce and any serious discussion must necessarily come down to arguing over specific facts individually.

You are a nice guy and I have tried to have discussions with you in regard to this case but you are someone that will never be convinced of anything. With your line of thinking, no one would ever be convicted and no one would ever be innocent.

I believe that Amanda Knox was a suspect at the time of her questioning. She should have had an attorney. The police knew exactly what they were doing. They had a young woman that did not have a firm grasp on the language and they scared the hell out of her.

We can argue back and forth about the witness/suspect argument but I am afraid we will never agree.

They arrested Patrick with nothing more than the the information they received from the interrogation. They had not other evidence at all on Patrick but they held him for 2 weeks anyway. This is Amanda's fault? No, it's bad police work. We can disagree on that too.

Now I will have to hear the garbage about Amanda's mom knowing that Patrick was innocent again. That is completely untrue of course. Amanda had no reason to believe that Patrick wasn't involved. The police told her that he was. This is a never ending circle.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is well known that most of the people on this board that believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, use PMF as their primary source of information. When I point out inaccurate information on PMF it is completely ignored. When you make a fancy presentation about how I forgot to cross a T or dot an i, the loyal PMF crowd rises up to make a big deal out of it.

What is this 'inaccurate' information on PMF you've 'pointed' out?

I will send an email to Mr. Preston and clear up the details.

Oh, do post up the reply...won't you. Although, we already have Preston's OWN WORDS stating he was invited to Mignini's office during the daytime, so whichever answer Preston gives will be bad news for you, since he will either contradict himself, or he will contradict you and the claim on your site. So yes, I'd very much like to see the reply to your enquiry, but somehow..I don't think I ever will.

Do you think the investigators handled the bra clasp properly?

Yes. What now?

Do you believe that there is a shoe print belonging to Amanda Knox on the pillow?

Actually I'm pretty open to that one and have no strong opinion either way. Although, I don't know why you think it's so important, since it's not one of the elements cited in the report as contributing to the guilty verdict.

PMF lied for 2 years about Amanda being arrested in Seattle. It was finally corrected by a new reader on PMF recently. The moderators of that board knew the truth but never corrected it. I mentioned it here and it was completely ignored.

Do you have a cite to where PMF 'declared' two years ago that Amanda was arrested in Seattle? Or even to one where PMF has ever declared that? Also, is this one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?

PMF stating that Amanda's shoe print is on the pillow was ignored on this board.

But all we have is nothing more then an assertion by you and a defence expert that it wasn't. It's not good enough to merely assert...you have to prove your argument.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Could you possibly deal with my list? Also, I think you are setting up a straw man if you insist that for an innaccuracy to be important it must, on it's own, change the overall conclusion on something.

I have tried to deal with your list but you are never satisfied with any answer from any side. You will never draw a conclusion about anything. You would make a horrible judge. Trials would never end.

 

[Kermit]

I asked for evidence or testimony, not your opinion.

.
And I quoted Amanda's testimony in court where she describes meeting Rudy, and going with him (and others) to a party in the small boys' flat downstairs , where marijuana was smoked.

My opinion that they were acquaintances at that point is at least as valid as Bruce's opinion that they only "knew of" each other, as if they had never exchanged words, which was not the case, as we see from her testimony.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Quite - my question was largely rhetorical, of course.

But I would like to hear from those who *have*, apparently, convinced themselves that she knew him and had even (gag) slept with him.

She had partied with him. She had spoken with him. She knew him. Although, I've never seen anyone claim she knew him in the Biblical sense.

 

[Supernaut]

Is this being argued [that Knox slept with guede]? I haven't seen it. Why "gag"?

Why "gag"?

Because it was one of the more disgusting insinuations made at the outset, in v.1.0 of the prosecutions' "narratives".

As you would be well aware if you have any real familiarity with the case. But you "haven't seen it"? Yeh, right.

Disingenousness noted.

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttit said;

"We really only have her word on how well she knew him, don't we?"

We have her word - And ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Sure, but she said that while on trial for a murder that she was accused of committing with him. I hardly think I’m being overly suspicious if I don’t unequivocally accept her uncorroborated word for it. If you'd killed somebody, wouldn't you seek to downplay your relationship with your alleged accomplice? Not that this matters, because as for as I'm aware nobody is claiming them being close friends as an essential element of the murder. Let them be passing aquaintences who shared some friends in common, had exchanged a few words, and knew one another from sight.

 

[Kermit]

I know you refuse to read through my site so I do not expect a list from you anytime soon.

.
How do you think we all identified the Dixan inaccuracy? The Preston-middle-of-the-night inaccuracy? The Mignini-was-the-prosecutor-of-Monster-of-Florence inaccuracy?

 

[Kermit]

[/i]

Why "gag"?

Because it was one of the more disgusting insinuations made at the outset, in v.1.0 of the prosecutions' "narratives".

As you would be well aware if you have any real familiarity with the case. But you "haven't seen it"? Yeh, right.

Disingenousness noted.

.
Where are you going?

Please provide a link or reference to this "disgusting insinuation" which you say emanated from the prosecution.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Shuttit said;

"We really only have her word on how well she knew him, don't we?"

We have her word - And ZERO evidence to the contrary.

We have a mountain of evidence that shows Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher with Rudy Guede. I'd say that that is evidence that she knew him quite well.

 

[Fulcanelli]

no, we can not settle on "was an acquaintance of"

She couldn't even remember his name.

She 'claimed' she couldn't. We all know about Amanda's claims. If you have 'met' and been introduced, then you are an acquaintance.

 

[Kermit]

It is well known that most of the people on this board that believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, use PMF as their primary source of information.

.
It's amusing that you say that, when the thread name was established as: "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel", and the key words established are "Amanda Knox, "Douglas Preston" and "Giuliano Mignini".

Maybe what has happened is that many of the posters here (most of whom were not posters or even readers of PMF previously) aren't convinced by tales of Meredith and Amanda swapping bras, of legions of air-borne DNA riding flying steeds of household dust, or of alpine thieves.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually Kermit has not mentioned one inaccuracy that changed the overall conclusion of any subject matter. Go ahead and make a list. I think you might surprise yourself. I know you refuse to read through my site so I do not expect a list from you anytime soon.

Actually, I have read your site. Although, it did take me a rather long time. I could never get past a few lines at a time without having the sudden need to go and take a shower. But don't worry, I got it read eventually.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It is well known that most of the people on this board that believe that Amanda Knox is guilty, use PMF as their primary source of information. When I point out inaccurate information on PMF it is completely ignored. When you make a fancy presentation about how I forgot to cross a T or dot an i, the loyal PMF crowd rises up to make a big deal out of it.

What is this 'inaccurate' information on PMF you've 'pointed' out?




Oh, do post up the reply...won't you. Although, we already have Preston's OWN WORDS stating he was invited to Mignini's office during the daytime, so whichever answer Preston gives will be bad news for you, since he will either contradict himself, or he will contradict you and the claim on your site. So yes, I'd very much like to see the reply to your enquiry, but somehow..I don't think I ever will.



Yes. What now?



Actually I'm pretty open to that one and have no strong opinion either way. Although, I don't know why you think it's so important, since it's not one of the elements cited in the report as contributing to the guilty verdict.



Do you have a cite to where PMF 'declared' two years ago that Amanda was arrested in Seattle? Or even to one where PMF has ever declared that? Also, is this one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?






But all we have is nothing more then an assertion by you and a defence expert that it wasn't. It's not good enough to merely assert...you have to prove your argument.

Your response has just completely proven my point. Thank you for that.

Kermit is the one that keeps bringing up the shoe prints on the pillow to try and discredit me. I have proven him wrong repeatedly. If you look that the presentation given by the defense in regard to those shoe prints and you are still unable to draw a conclusion then this shows your extreme bias and complete inability to see the truth. The photographic evidence is very clear.

If you honestly believe that the bra clasp was handled properly then the same extreme bias applies. You have completely lost the ability to see clearly.

Once again, you cloud the truth about PMF. It has been mentioned numerous times on PMF that Amanda was arrested in Seattle. Peggy or yourself made no attempt to correct this. Please do not tell me that the site isn't monitored at all times. I singed in to PMF and Peggy banned me in 10 minutes. You never corrected the error. Why? Because it looked bad for Amanda and you like that.

I will now apply your logic to everything that you say about me.

Please tell if the time that Douglas Preston went to Mignini's office is one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?

Please tell me if the soap under Raffaele's sink is one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?

Your words: "I don't know why you think it's so important, since it's not one of the elements cited in the report as contributing to the guilty verdict."

 

[Kermit]

BRUCE! Thanks for modifying your site and taking out the part about Preston getting interrogated in the middle of the night.

While we're at it, you could also adjust the wording on your site which implies that Mignini was the prosecutor in the Monster of Florence case:

"There was a series of murders that occurred in Italy during the 1970s and 80s. The perpetrator of the murders was given the name "Monster of Florence" by the press. Young couples who were parked in remote areas presumably to have sex, were shot and the bodies of the female victims were mutilated. Crime experts believed that the perpetrator was a Jack the Ripper type killer. Mignini took the case. He was far from an expert in these types of murders. He was a conspiracy theorist that liked to dream up wild fantasies."

In fact, the main investigation of The Monster of Florence case took place in Florence (a different jurisdiction from Mignini's Perugia) and over the years a number of police and prosecution names were involved (not Mignini's).

Mignini's indirect association with the Monster of Florence case begins a number of years later, where, on the basis of gangland wiretapping in Perugia, the police/prosecution become aware of violent references to the death many years before of a certain Dr. Francesco Narducci, in the Trasimeno Lake near Perugia. He apparently could have had some relationship to persons supposedly involved in the MoF case.

 

[shuttlt]

You are a nice guy and I have tried to have discussions with you in regard to this case but you are someone that will never be convinced of anything. With your line of thinking, no one would ever be convicted and no one would ever be innocent.

Sure. If you're on a jury, at some point you have to stop thinking and analysing and ask yourself, "OK, am I confortable enough that this person is guilty to send them to prison for X years". I've done that. But that's not what I'm doing here. I don't want to argue with you about whether she is guilty or innocent. It's too big and complicated a question.

I believe that Amanda Knox was a suspect at the time of her questioning.

You believe the police had formally made her a suspect, or they informally suspected her?

She should have had an attorney.

Because they had formally made her a suspect, or because they informally suspected her?

The police knew exactly what they were doing.

Doubtless.

They had a young woman that did not have a firm grasp on the language and they scared the hell out of her.

I'm sure she was scared.

We can argue back and forth about the witness/suspect argument but I am afraid we will never agree.

Could you at least tell me whether, in relation to the questions I've bolded, you are meaning suspect in the formal sense, or that she was informally a suspect?

They arrested Patrick with nothing more than the the information they received from the interrogation. They had not other evidence at all on Patrick but they held him for 2 weeks anyway. This is Amanda's fault? No, it's bad police work. We can disagree on that too.

Yes, we do disagree, but it is a more complicated question. Perhaps when other questions have been dealt with....

Now I will have to hear the garbage about Amanda's mom knowing that Patrick was innocent again. That is completely untrue of course. Amanda had no reason to believe that Patrick wasn't involved. The police told her that he was. This is a never ending circle.

Bruce, nobody is asking for Amanda, or her mum to assert that she knew for a fact that Patrick was involved. What Amanda and her mother didn't do is assert for a fact that any statements she made about witnessing him murder Meredith were false and had no basis in fact. That may well not have released Patrick immediately as the police already thought she was a liar, but that Patricks involvement had been partially corroborated by the text.

 

[Kermit]

Please tell if the time that Douglas Preston went to Mignini's office is one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?

Please tell me if the soap under Raffaele's sink is one of the reasons Massei found Amanda guilty?

.
If issues such as these are unrelated to Amanda's trial, then why do you include them on your site (especially when the information you provided was erroneous?).

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe that Amanda Knox was a suspect at the time of her questioning. She should have had an attorney. The police knew exactly what they were doing. They had a young woman that did not have a firm grasp on the language and they scared the hell out of her.

You have zero understanding of Italian law. Suspects are not made so because of police mind set, they CANNOT be. Under Italian law, EVIDENCE must be offered to make someone a suspect. If they had made her a suspect, no matter what they 'thought', without evidence that would have been ILLEGAL. Italian Law - Evidence makes a Suspect, not suspicion!

 

[shuttlt]

[/i]

Why "gag"?

Because it was one of the more disgusting insinuations made at the outset, in v.1.0 of the prosecutions' "narratives".

As you would be well aware if you have any real familiarity with the case. But you "haven't seen it"? Yeh, right.

Disingenousness noted.

It may be that it was suggested in the back end of 2007. So was a lot of stuff. I've been following the case on PMF and here sence December last year and I don't recall anybody making this claim since, or in any of the old postings I've slogged through. If it was ever an issue, it is a dead one that has been gathering dust for long some time.