Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

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?

stilicho, have you noticed that many of the topics of discussions on these threads are essentially matters of opinion and insight?

As HumanityBlues so aptly pointed out, why is there a thread?

That said, if you have seen no evidence of an issue of physical attraction between the Perugian men and Amanda Knox, then you need a great deal more education in the areas of human nature and cultural attitudes.

 

[Fiona]

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.

I said that at pmf. I said it about a poster here. I also made my view of his contribution perfectly clear in a pm to him. I do not think I have hidden my impression on this board either.

 

[Mary_H]

You are both evading the issue. Anything that was said or written after the interrogations leading to the suspects' arrests is unreliable because it was influenced by the police.

Please tell me what evidence there is of Amanda and Raffaele not having the same alibi in the days immediately following the murder. What was it that raised the police's suspicions enough to take the two in for formal questioning?

 

[Alt+F4]

The judge and jury dismissed certain parts of the prosecution's case in the motivations.

Yes, the jury doesn't have to believe everything that the prosecution said in order to find a defendant guilty. This is what happened in this case.

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.

Discuss whatever you like. Who is stopping you?

That will be the discussion you seem to be a proponent of.

Please provide evidence that I have ever proposed that there be a thread on any topic where no comments should be allowed. That's right, you can't.

 

[Fiona]

So once again the police must not ask any questions? And nobody ever lies when they are first asked questions? And the police are to ignore evidence which suggests that what they have been told is not true? They are not to ask about those things at all? Oookkkaay

 

[Mary_H]

So once again the police must not ask any questions? And nobody ever lies when they are first asked questions? And the police are to ignore evidence which suggests that what they have been told is not true? They are not to ask about those things at all? Oookkkaay

So, no, you can't provide any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied or even disagreed with each other before they were interrogated.

Certainly the police are entitled to ask questions; they asked them for three or four days and Amanda and Raffaele cooperatively answered them.

How about if I ask it this way -- what was wrong with the answers Amanda and Raffaele gave the police in the days before they were formally interrogated? Or in you words, what evidence did the police have that suggested that what they had been told was not true?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Please provide evidence that I have ever proposed that there be a thread on any topic where no comments should be allowed. That's right, you can't.

You infer that is the only important discussion: Whether the jury found it important or not. And if they didn't, it's meaningless.

Of course I didn't mean you said that explicitly, and you know that.

Personally, I find it very interesting that the prosecutor would say something so unsubstantiated 3 different times. And according to Barbie Nadeau, the thought that this must be a woman to cover the body colored the investigation (even though in reality most criminologists do not say anything of the sort).

If you don't find it interesting, I'm not forcing you to engage it. I thew out there if anyone wanted to take a gander. If no one does, fine by me.

 

[Fiona]

Do you accept that Amanda's cell phone record showed she was not at RS's apartment when she got Patrick's text?

Do you accept there was no activity on RS's computer when he said he was using it?

Do you accept that the computer and phone were in use when they said they were asleep?

 

[Mary_H]

Do you accept that Amanda's cell phone record showed she was not at RS's apartment when she got Patrick's text?

Do you accept there was no activity on RS's computer when he said he was using it?

Do you accept that the computer and phone were in use when they said they were asleep?

What evidence did the police have that spurred them to examine the phone records and the computer? Why were they suspicious of the pair in the first place?

 

[Alt+F4]

How about if I ask it this way -- what was wrong with the answers Amanda and Raffaele gave the police in the days before they were formally interrogated?

I'm assuming you mean what would have raised the police's suspicions so that they decided to bring them in for a formal interrogation.

1. Raffaele telling the police that nothing was taken from Filomena's room when he could not have known that.

2. Raffaele's claim that he couldn't break down Meredith's door when Filomeana's male friend did it with only three or four kicks.

3. The fact that both of Meredith's cell phones were taken. How would a stranger/burgler know she was using two cell phones?

4. The fact that after Filomeana's friend broke down Meredith's door Filomena looked in and freaked out at seeing Meredith's foot. Neither Amanda or Raffale were at the door or looked into the room after the door was opened.

5. Amanda's over explaination regarding the mop when the police at the scene didn't seem concerned about it at all.

I'm not saying that any of the above is reason to convict someone of murder, but they are good enough to ask someone to come to the police station to answer questions in a more formal manner.

 

[Fiona]

Because murder is usually committed by people who are family or who live with victim or are close to them, I imagine. That is fairly common knowledge.

ETA: and what Alt+4 said. Lots of things really.

Do you accept the things I listed?

 

[Dan O.]

Capealadin, I will give you $100 if you can legitimately document that Amanda had a mop in her hand when the postal police arrived.

Ooo, Capealadin is going to win this one, it's documented on PMF that..


Oh, wait. You said "legitimate".


BTW, Is this still part of the timeline on PMF?

1235 Police Postale arrive at the cottage in order to arrange the return of the cell phones. Their arrival time was confirmed by the car park CCTV camera and time was also recorded in the log by their supervisor, Battistelli, when they radioed in their arrival. Reported in the press, the Postal Police noted that RS and AK were holding a mop when they arrived​

 

[Fiona]

Dan_O did you miss the discussion about this at PMF? I quoted a response from Michael above, which I think was made in Feb 2009. There was subsequent discussion about the fact that the timeline had to be amended in light of later information. That might have been in July 2009, I dont remember properly. I do remember that it was reported in the press and that it turned out to be rumour. But the mop was at the entrance; RS and AK made it important and we none of us know why. I think we done with this, have we not?

 

[Mary_H]

Ooo, Capealadin is going to win this one, it's documented on PMF that..


Oh, wait. You said "legitimate".


BTW, Is this still part of the timeline on PMF?

1235 Police Postale arrive at the cottage in order to arrange the return of the cell phones. Their arrival time was confirmed by the car park CCTV camera and time was also recorded in the log by their supervisor, Battistelli, when they radioed in their arrival. Reported in the press, the Postal Police noted that RS and AK were holding a mop when they arrived​

LOL, Dan!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What evidence did the police have that spurred them to examine the phone records and the computer? Why were they suspicious of the pair in the first place?

Because Amanda and Raffaele were the only ones of the roommates in town that night and were found at the cottage when the Postal Police arrived.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm assuming you mean what would have raised the police's suspicions so that they decided to bring them in for a formal interrogation..

1. Raffaele telling the police that nothing was taken from Filomena's room when he could not have known that.

Did the police at the scene know he had said that to the dispatcher? Was it a question at his interrogation?

2. Raffaele's claim that he couldn't break down Meredith's door when Filomeana's male friend did it with only three or four kicks.

Raffaele used his shoulder; the other guy used his foot. How do you know Raffaele didn't weaken it for the other guy?

3. The fact that both of Meredith's cell phones were taken. How would a stranger/burgler know she was using two cell phones?

Guede went through Meredith's purse.

4. The fact that after Filomeana's friend broke down Meredith's door Filomena looked in and freaked out at seeing Meredith's foot. Neither Amanda or Raffale were at the door or looked into the room after the door was opened.

Have you seen the floor plan? How many people do you think could fit in the doorway to look at the foot? Do you think the police might have tried to stop anyone from looking at the scene?

5. Amanda's over explaination regarding the mop when the police at the scene didn't seem concerned about it at all.

Did she talk about the mop to the police?

I'm not saying that any of the above is reason to convict someone of murder, but they are good enough to ask someone to come to the police station to answer questions in a more formal manner.

Not really.

 

[Mary_H]

Because Amanda and Raffaele were the only ones of the roommates in town that night and were found at the cottage when the Postal Police arrived.

We know the true story of why Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage. Nothing suspicious about that. They were waiting calmly in the garden for the police, whom they had called to the scene.

The observation of the police initially was that the crime was a typical case of one man assaulting one woman. They never found any evidence at the scene to suggest otherwise.

And around we go again.

 

[Alt+F4]

Did the police at the scene know he had said that to the dispatcher?

They might have but this sums up your entire reply. The police saw things at the crime scene that were suspicious to them. They didn't convict anyone of murder, all they did was ask the two persons who found the body to come in for further questioning? Are you insinuating anything further?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

We know the true story of why Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage. Nothing suspicious about that. They were waiting calmly in the garden for the police, whom they had called to the scene.

The observation of the police initially was that the crime was a typical case of one man assaulting one woman. They never found any evidence at the scene to suggest otherwise.

And around we go again.

Actually, it's incredibly suspicious.


There was an apparent break-in (on subsequent inspection it was found to be suspicious), there was blood in the bathroom, Meredith's door was locked - contrary to usual, and you think it's not suspicious that Amanda went ahead and took a shower with all this going on. It was suspicious enough to cause them to call the police, but not suspicious enough to keep her from taking a shower first.

That's suspicious.

 

[Malkmus]

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.

I agree that PMF can, at times, be a great resource for new discoveries regarding the case. It's just a shame that the not all the revelations are given equal importance. The "fraud" you speak of, for instance, was hailed as rather damning evidence... but of what? All I saw was another statement, which when isolated and take out of context has the allusion of being condemning. "I ****ed up so bad, Madison" can sound bad on its own. But when read in context makes complete sense and is in line with her previous assertion that her statements made in the November 5th interrogation were made falsely under duress.

I’ve been studying to distract myself and in
meantime feeling like an absolute coward for letting
the police confuse me, when they threatened to thrown
me in jail for 30 years for lying to them I should have
held out my arms for the cuffs and told them to have
fun condemning an innocent person for just to be ??
but instead I got confused and scared and I ****ed up…
I ****ed up so bad Madison and I’m so sorry I did it
because I hurt a friend of mine and landed myself in
here.

What was the "fraud" in the documentary exactly?

Now, it was also recently revealed by an Italian translator on PMF that when Sollecito called the police he did not in fact say "There is a lot of blood", but instead said "There is a bloodstain". Quite different, and changes a lot about the earlier presumption regarding that phone call. But it was cast aside and not talked about. Then we have capealadin, a PMF regular who should know better, coming over here with the old "caught holding a mop" adage that was proven false ages ago. Then we also have Fulcanelli, a moderator from PMF who won't openly admit that that's who he is. I can only imagine the hounding Bruce would get if we all knew he was the owner of Injusticeinperugia, but would never admit it. I'm sure several people on here would use that to talk disparagingly about him .