Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie Wilkes said:
Kermit, what do you think caused the chipped paint on the shutter? Was the paint chipped intentionally as part of the staging, or was it already present from something else that happened?
Click to expand...


Or even...was it chipped 'unintentionally' as part of the staging? Just thought I'd put that one in since you missed it out.
 
stilicho said:
She did worse than that. She knowingly lied. Her mother knew that she lied. Neither of them did anything to assist Patrick while he sat in prison for two weeks.

If she was involved with the murder then she knew Patrick was not there. Hence she would have been knowingly lying. If she was not involved in the murder then she would not have known who murdered Meredith and would have no reason to persist in her allegations against Patrick. Therefore, either way, she knowingly lied.

Don't try to sugar-coat it. She lied. Admit it.
Click to expand...

Amanda did not persist in her allegations.

Amanda told the police in her written letter that she could no longer be sure she was at the crime scene. At that moment, she became an unreliable witness against Patrick (not that she any more reliable during the interrogation). The police disregarded her admission and continued to hold Patrick, with no evidence against him other than a forced, withdrawn confession from a girl they believed to be a liar.

Do you think there is ANY possibility Amanda's lawyers did not tell the police or the prosecutor that their client adamantly denied being at the crime scene and therefore could not place Patrick there? If they did report to them what Amanda said, which is most likely, then the police disregarded the information and continued to hold Patrick.

In fact, the police continued to hold Patrick for a few days after his alibi was confirmed, and even for a couple of days after Guede was arrested. Will you blame those additional days on Amanda, too?
 
Mary_H said:
I thought the issue was that Charlie said in Italy a life sentence is 30 years and Fulcanelli said it was more. Then it got turned into the issue of how Amanda knew a life sentence was 30 years, Fulcanelli said from her lawyers, and it was shown that she reported that figure before meeting with her lawyers. I think you should just drop it, Fulcanelli, before trying to spin it into yet another issue.
Click to expand...

You failed to point out the 'spin'. My post contained only the factual reality of life in nearly every country that has police. It's okay though, you're free to prove me wrong by posting some sort of evidence that police don't do that in the land where the 'Good 'ole boys' live and if they did, it would be illegal under US law.

So, to make it simple...here's the question..if in America the police were to say to someone during questioning they were in danger of serving life (or any over sentence), would they be breaking US law...Yes or no?
 
Fulcanelli said:
How does the kitchen knife 'not look like a murder weapon'? It looks like a very effective murder weapon to me. If someone stabbed you with that somewhere vital you'd be dead.
Click to expand...
Hi Fulcanelii,
That knife is sooo huge! If I had stabbed a girl in the throat with it, and she started shreiking and screaming, I would have kept stabbing her and probably would have cut her throat to make her shut up! Tha huge knife should have done ALOT more damage I believe...
RWVBWL
 
Fulcanelli said:
You failed to point out the 'spin'. My post contained only the factual reality of life in nearly every country that has police. It's okay though, you're free to prove me wrong by posting some sort of evidence that police don't do that in the land where the 'Good 'ole boys' live and if they did, it would be illegal under US law.

So, to make it simple...here's the question..if in America the police were to say to someone during questioning they were in danger of serving life (or any over sentence), would they be breaking US law...Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Your entire comment is the "spin:" "There is no rule that police can't tell someone they're questioning how serious the matter is and how much trouble they might be in of they don't speak the truth, especially if they believe the person is telling lies or holding back. Police do that everywhere. What's the foul?

Or is this just you insisting again she should have got special treatment in comparisson to everyone else and should have been treated like the Her Royal Majesty the Queen of England?

But you know what, things may go faster (and be incredibly shorter) if you simply list the things that in you book the police 'are' allowed to do. What a short list that will be!"

You changed the subject from the simple issue of the 30-year sentence to an unrelated subject about what the police are and are not able to do and whether the person you were responding to had insisted Amanda should be treated like a queen.
 
Mary_H said:
Amanda did not persist in her allegations.

Amanda told the police in her written letter that she could no longer be sure she was at the crime scene.
Click to expand...

Her letter made no clear statement at all: she said it was intended to clarify: it did nothing of the sort.

At that moment, she became an unreliable witness against Patrick (not that she any more reliable during the interrogation). The police disregarded her admission and continued to hold Patrick, with no evidence against him other than a forced, withdrawn confession from a girl they believed to be a liar.
Click to expand...

There was no forced confession, according to Amanda's testimony: there was no confession of any sort. There was an accusation against an innocent man. The use of the word confession is odd: though I suppose it can be justified if you are suggesting she was confessing to being an accomplice or at least one who took no action to protect an innocent victim.

It is true that the only evidence they had was Amanda's accusation: and it is true that they believed her to be a liar. But they had no way of knowing what she was lying about and she certainly did nothing to help the situation. In those circumstances it is not unreasonable to test Patrick's alibi first.

Do you think there is ANY possibility Amanda's lawyers did not tell the police or the prosecutor that their client adamantly denied being at the crime scene and therefore could not place Patrick there? If they did report to them what Amanda said, which is most likely, then the police disregarded the information and continued to hold Patrick.
Click to expand...

In court Ghirga said that she wrote to him on the 9th: he presumably told the authorities what she said as soon as he got the letter: I cannot remember what day that was. (ETA: he got it on the 12th) Once again, they believed her to be a liar and her story was changing: how could they know what to believe ? The letter was two lines.

In fact, the police continued to hold Patrick for a few days after his alibi was confirmed, and even for a couple of days after Guede was arrested. Will you blame those additional days on Amanda, too?
Click to expand...

I am not aware of that. Can you cite for it please?
 
Last edited:
Sorry for not responding sooner. I managed to have a long, not-so-enjoyable night due to suspected food poisoning.


Most of what I would have had to say in response to Mary and Bruce has been posted already.


I do have one area where I'm a bit confused. Mary has claimed, repeatedly, that there was no cleanup in the apartment. Does anyone know if Guede's footprints were readily visible when the Postal Police arrived, or were they only revealed through the use of luminol?
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Did he climb through the window again that time too? How did he enter the apartment the second time? Did he bring his gloves with him?

Evidence?
Click to expand...
Hi Stilicho,
Since Miss Kercher's apartment keys were never found, I am led to believe that Guede grabbed them, as well as her cell phones and her $$$. If he had the apartment keys, which, once again were never found, don'tcha think that he probably went in thru the door?
Come on Stilicho, what would you have done?
Guede probably FREAKED when Miss Kercher was stabbed, with blood spurting outta her neck and split, FAST. Later, when he went out to the bars/clubs, he probably had a few beers or some hard liquor, and reality sank in on what happened. When he left the bars/clubs, and did not see a huge police investagation going on, he probably threw a rock at Filomena's window to see if anyone was there, and then went in the front door with the keys.
Quite possible, hmmm?
RWVBWL
 
Mary_H said:
Let's not go there, Montmorency.
Click to expand...

Why not? You did.

You seem happy to go into lurid details about this issue of other people's sexuality. Reading your posts you seem somewhat sexually obsessed with Amanda yourself. This is a woman you describe as being so sexually attractive that eight police officers - including a woman - could barely contain themselves from entering her orbit, becoming sexually interested/ aroused and consequently arresting her. You see their sexual attraction to Amanda that the other men on the forum are really struggling to see. What's your issue here?

I don't personally think Amanda Knox's looks and sexuality have anything to do with why the police arrested her. How incredibly insulting. You insult many people Mary H. You insult Mignini, suggesting he has sexual fantasies about a suspect. You insult the man who runs Meredith's site, suggesting he has sexual fantasies about a 'dead girl'. And you insult the intelligence of people on this board. From what I see of the JREF forums the people seem intelligent and good natured. Then I come across your posts. You are fixated on this Amanda Knox woman, and say disgusting things about other people you do not know - calling into question their integrity and professionalism. I think it is an absolute disgrace. Stick to the topic of the thread like others are, and stop gossiping.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Stilicho,
Since Miss Kercher's apartment keys were never found, I am led to believe that Guede grabbed them, as well as her cell phones and her $$$. If he had the apartment keys, which, once again were never found, don'tcha think that he probably went in thru the door?
Come on Stilicho, what would you have done?
Guede probably FREAKED when Miss Kercher was stabbed, with blood spurting outta her neck and split, FAST. Later, when he went out to the bars/clubs, he probably had a few beers or some hard liquor, and reality sank in on what happened. When he left the bars/clubs, and did not see a huge police investagation going on, he probably threw a rock at Filomena's window to see if anyone was there, and then went in the front door with the keys.
Quite possible, hmmm?
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
Aren't you the one who claimed that Rudy didn't take the laptop because he didn't want to be connected to the crime? We've already discussed this and, interestingly, the cards/phones are more traceable back to the crime than the laptop.

More mental gymnastics...
 
Kermit said:
Bruce Fisher was making reference a couple of days ago to a supposed mark on Filomena's inside blackout shutters, supposedly made by the rock found on Filomena's floor as it supposedly flew in through the glass from the outside.

I had mentioned that I was going to make a Powerpoint, and started out to do so. However, I'm getting bogged down again with work, so instead of putting out a smoother presentation, please find below the flow of the main ideas I was going over.

In the end, I believe it is impossible that the rock made that mark on the inside shutter, or at least it certainly didn't make that mark when flying through the window from the outside.

[qimg]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4262/rockdoesnthitmark1.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8017/rockdoesnthitmark2.png[/qimg]

Now let's twist the rock around progressively and see if it's logical to believe that in any one of the scenarios the rock may have been capable of making Bruce's fly-through mark.

[qimg]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8067/rockdoesnthitmark3.png[/qimg]

In none of the scenarios does the rock hit the staging mark. Scenario 4 is where it comes closest, but even there if I got the shape of the rock wrong and it had a sharp point right on top of the staging mark, that scenario "4b" would require the flight of the rock to be perfectly straight, with no wobbling. That is just about impossible for an irregularly shaped rock.
Click to expand...

You can only see one side of the rock on the floor. Your theory is pure speculation. You may believe that the rock didn't cause that damage but your photographs do nothing to support your belief. You are simply guessing what the rock might possibly look like on the other side.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Aren't you the one who claimed that Rudy didn't take the laptop because he didn't want to be connected to the crime? We've already discussed this and, interestingly, the cards/phones are more traceable back to the crime than the laptop.

More mental gymnastics...
Click to expand...
Hi Bob,
Yep, I'm that guy. Your question is simple to answer, bro. If the cops bust you with something stolen, ya don't steal it again. Guede is now a murderer, he must have been freaked a bit, so what can he steal that he can use? Probably just $$$...
RWVBWL
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Bob,
Yep, I'm that guy. Your question is simple to answer, bro. If the cops bust you with something stolen, ya don't steal it again. Guede is now a murderer, he must have been freaked a bit, so what can he steal that he can use? Probably just $$$...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

1st, I'm not your "bro". Cute, but no thanks.

2nd, So your experienced burglar thinks bank cards are less traceable than a laptop?
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Bob,

1) ok, buddy, pal, " thedonkey"...
2) the guy is a murderer, he's gonna want cash, anyway he can get it...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

But I thought he didn't take the laptop because he didn't want anything linking him back to the crime?
 
Hello, Montmorency: I agree with what you have said. Beauty is as beauty does. No matter how attractive someone is, Amanda,s inappropriate behaviour, callousness and complete lack of empathy, is mind boggling. And this toward someone she called Friend. This of course doesn,t make her guilty. That came down to the evidence. There are so many beautiful people, and especially in Italy, I can,t imagine that Amanda stood out, to be honest. She hooked Raffaele, not George Clooney:). This talk of sexual matters , and the way it is being portrayed, is frankly very unsettling. If it pertains to the evidence in this case, then so be it. What is being portrayed her is just mean spirited, and a low blow.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
But I thought he didn't take the laptop because he didn't want anything linking him back to the crime?
Click to expand...
Hi Bob,
If you are gonna steal something, it's because you want it for your own use or you wanna turn it over for quick, cheap cash. If he had stolen the laptop, though valuable, he has a greater chance of being busted with it, as he already was, then just stealing $$$...
RWVBWL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom