Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

Oh right, cause these people don't run to PMF to call us names like "blowhards" and similar low level insults, because they can't make that personal attack here. They are all so adult and polite.

The personal attack level is pretty high at PMF. But that's because it's an advocacy site of a sort, too. I could care less what brand of toothpaste that Candace Dempsey is using this week or what Madison Paxton had for lunch.

But PMF is peerless when it comes to exposing frauds such as the recent "documentary" where the naughty words in one of Amanda's letters were whited out by almost undetectable editing. There are side-by-side comparisons where you can see what you wouldn't even notice otherwise.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

He did that because the police presented him with a different (false) version of events and eventually persuaded him to agree with them. He said he had not thought about the inconsistencies, but that's because there were no inconsistencies until the police provided him with some.

Oh, you have a transcript of Raffaele's interrogations? Could you be so kind as to post those?

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh noes!!1!11! Not that pesky mop again.

The only reason it's featured is because Amanda is the one who keeps talking about it. She writes about it in her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007. She treats us to its importance again--three or four times--in her court testimony. She even adds that she was munching on biscuits with Raffaele (again with the what's-for-supper backdrop that appears to frame all events in her life) while discussing all the 'strange things' back at the cottage.

Apparently the water leak was so bad that it didn't evaporate in over twelve hours. Yet she testified it was no problem to mop up "quickly".

It sounds like the only person who really knows why that mop was so crucial is Amanda. Maybe Charlie Wilkes can use his inside sources to find out just what's so damned important about it.

Yeah, I don't get the mop angle either. It seems the police weren't very interested in the mop and didn't take it into evidence. Amanda seems to use the mop as a reason to go back to her apartment on the morning after the murder. But she also said that she was going back to the apartment to take a shower and change her clothes before the day trip. But wait, she also said that the reason she turned off her phone the night of the murder was that she was saving the battery for the day trip, indicating she wasn't going back to her apartment that morning.

If she decided after the water spill and sex that she intended to go back to her apartment the next morning, why didn't she just turn her phone back on at that point?

 

[Fiona]

He did that because the police presented him with a different (false) version of events and eventually persuaded him to agree with them. He said he had not thought about the inconsistencies, but that's because there were no inconsistencies until the police provided him with some.

How do you know this?

 

[Mary_H]

What? What can this possibly mean?

Are you including Monica Napoleoni in this? Please, tell us all the salacious details. This is new. This is exciting.

Nothing new about it, stilicho, but yes, that big bucket of popcorn is in order because there's plenty to talk about. The comment I posted from John Winters (around page 234) sums it up pretty well. And let me see if I can find some posts by "billyryan," a man who has always seen this situation quite clearly for exactly what it is. More later.

 

[Alt+F4]

What I'm more interested is in what I asked earlier about how covering the body had to be a woman, or that it shows remorse. Care to take a gander? Anyone?

Again, can you tell us what impact this had on the jury's decision to find Amanda guilty?

 

[Mary_H]

How do you know this?

From Raffaele's writings in prison.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

From Raffaele's writings in prison.

Those same writings in which he wrote that he had pricked Meredith's finger with the knife while cooking in Raffaele's kitchen?

The same writings in which he wrote that he couldn't be sure Amanda was with him all night?

The same writings in which he suggested Amanda was responsible for providing the killer with the knife from Raffaele's kitchen?


Those writings? Are you sure you want to use those as evidence for Raffaele's infallibility?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Again, can you tell us what impact this had on the jury's decision to find Amanda guilty?

It's an aspect of the case. If you don't want to talk about it because you don't think it had an impact on the jury's decision about guilt, then you don't have to answer it. As Stilicho has shown, this was brought up 3 times by Mignini, and was brought up by Massei in the motivations. It's also mentioned in Nadeau's book.

(Keep in mind also, the motivation is Massei's baby, not the jury's. There were 6 jurors, and we don't have means to track them down. I highly doubt all of them thought exactly the same way. Maybe that alone was enough to convince a juror that a woman must have done the stabbing, or covered the body, or whatever).

Edit:

From "Angel Face": "Criminologists agree overwhelmingly that covering the body is almost always the mark of a woman, especially if it's done after the murder." WRONG, no they don't. But moving along.

She continues: "That simple detail and the fact that Amanda described Meredith's body in front of the closet, where she was murdered--not by her bed, where she was found--would stick in the mind of prosecutors through out the investigation." (Pg. 46 on the Amazon preview page).

 

[Fiona]

From Raffaele's writings in prison.

Can you quote the passages please? I am not aware of them

 

[Alt+F4]

It's an aspect of the case. If you don't want to talk about it because you don't think it had an impact on the jury's decision about guilt, then you don't have to answer it. As Stilicho has shown, this was brought up 3 times by Mignini, and was brought up by Massei in the motivations. It's also mentioned in Nadeau's book.

(Keep in mind also, the motivation is Massei's baby, not the jury's. There were 6 jurors, and we don't have means to track them down. I highly doubt all of them thought exactly the same way. Maybe that alone was enough to convince a juror that a woman must have done the stabbing, or covered the body, or whatever).

Edit:

From "Angel Face": "Criminologists agree overwhelmingly that covering the body is almost always the mark of a woman, especially if it's done after the murder." WRONG, no they don't. But moving along.

She continues: "That simple detail and the fact that Amanda described Meredith's body in front of the closet, where she was murdered--not by her bed, where she was found--would stick in the mind of prosecutors through out the investigation." (Pg. 46 on the Amazon preview page).

You have presented nothing that proves the jury based their verdict of guilty on a belief that a woman must have committed the murder because the body was covered.

 

[Mary_H]

Can you quote the passages please? I am not aware of them

Why don't we stop wasting our time with this game? Can I conclude that you cannot provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with one another's?

 

[quadraginta]

Oh right, cause these people don't run to PMF to call us names like "blowhards" and similar low level insults, because they can't make that personal attack here. They are all so adult and polite.

Please be more specific. Who are "these people" of whom you speak? For that matter, who are "us"? References to squabbles on other boards or blogs are quite tedious, and unproductive to the discussion here, as has been pointed out, often, by forum regulars. Kermit was addressing a post in the discussion here.

Was the open letter only posted to this forum? I thought Kermit was trying to make a big splash of importance. It's not my only criticism, and in fact it was more advice on how to it would actually be effective. But maybe I didn't understand the context cause I don't waste my time reading every single post here.

Context is helpful. Understanding is helpful. Both are a useful prerequisite to criticism. Try it sometime.

Edit: I'm actually not that interested in a lame open letter to Dave Marriot anyways. I'm done talking about it frankly--it's not interesting at all anymore. What I'm more interested is in what I asked earlier about how covering the body had to be a woman, or that it shows remorse. Care to take a gander? Anyone?

I see no reason to assume that the covering was necessarily done by a woman. I would not be resistant to the idea that it was more likely a woman, but not with any particular vigor. Same thing with the question of remorse. Courtroom theatrics are rife with that sort of thing, and it is important to separate them from the real data.


That is the same reason that I adamantly maintained that demeanor was not a sufficient cause for conviction at the beginning of this thread. Of course it was quickly established that it hadn't been in this case, in spite of fervent protestations to the contrary. I also don't believe that Knox was convicted because Meredith's corpse was covered by someone.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh, you have a transcript of Raffaele's interrogations? Could you be so kind as to post those?

You, too, Bob. Can you provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with each other?

There is ample evidence of the changes the police can induce in an interrogation. If you would like to become more educated about those, I can provide some resources.

 

[stilicho]

Nothing new about it, stilicho, but yes, that big bucket of popcorn is in order because there's plenty to talk about. The comment I posted from John Winters (around page 234) sums it up pretty well. And let me see if I can find some posts by "billyryan," a man who has always seen this situation quite clearly for exactly what it is. More later.

It was on page 235. I must have missed that before. But who is that and what's he trying to say? Is there any evidence that the Perugia investigators were somehow romantically or otherwise linked to Amanda?

I suppose I don't know what "between their legs" intuition means. What does it mean?

 

[Alt+F4]

Why don't we stop wasting our time with this game? Can I conclude that you cannot provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with one another's?

Which interrogations are you referring to?

 

[HumanityBlues]

You have presented nothing that proves the jury based their verdict of guilty on a belief that a woman must have committed the murder because the body was covered.

So? I'm not going to bother to do that either.

The judge and jury dismissed certain parts of the prosecution's case in the motivations. Does that mean we can't discuss them, or say where something proposed was false? Why is there even a thread? Why don't we just put the motivation report as its own thread and have no comments. That will be the discussion you seem to be a proponent of.

 

[Mary_H]

Which interrogations are you referring to?

The ones during which they incriminated themsleves and went from being witnesses to being suspects.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You, too, Bob. Can you provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with each other?

There is ample evidence of the changes the police can induce in an interrogation. If you would like to become more educated about those, I can provide some resources.

Perhaps they were, and this is why they were called in on the 5th?

Remember also that the 5th was the first time the Polizia had been able to separate the two for individual statements.


You are making the accusation against the Polizia. I expect you to, therefore, provide evidence to back your assertions. Evidence from Raffaele's Prison Diary is your choice - just be aware of what that can mean for other aspects of the case.

 

[Fiona]

Why don't we stop wasting our time with this game? Can I conclude that you cannot provide a record of anything Amanda and Raffaele said BEFORE their interrogations that demonstrates their stories were at odds with one another's?

RS said that the story he told was not true. If you have the passages which explain why he did that please post them. A link will do