Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Sorry, I did not realize that was the reputation. I thought it went without saying that everyone was offering his or her opinion, as on the other blogs.
Click to expand...

You have an impressive backlog of requests for sources or documentation already. The Daily Mail retraction. The sexually aroused police officers. Just from my own requests. You have likely a dozen or more to source already.

Mary_H said:
I do notice that not everyone is documenting everything, or explicitly notifying the others that it is an opinion, for example, in your post about Amanda's accusations against Patrick. But I will address that in my next post.
Click to expand...

I don't need to source a logical exercise. The fact (sourced almost anywhere) is that AK told the police that Patrick murdered Meredith. Her lie persisted until after RG was caught. The logical exercise explains that, regardless of her own complicity, she had to have known that it was a lie.

You cannot sugar-coat it. She lied.
 
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...

I was hoping that you were going to show that the window was too high to climb through. Maybe you tried but realized it was possible. If you do the measurements you will find that Rudy could reach about 8 inches above the window latch. After that latch was open. The climb was easy. I too have been bogged down. I will show the measurements on Monday.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
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.
Click to expand...
To my credit, I developed an analysis of how the rock may have gone through the window on the basis of measurements and angles.

Your analysis is limited to drawing a little red arrow to point out what you consider the point of impact, and stating: "You can clearly see the damage caused by the rock on the wood shutter."

Do you have further information than I do concerning the "other side" of the rock?
 
Last edited:
capealadin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi capealadin,
I agree with you, but I do note the following:
to me, a guys who reads alot, it does seem like the guy on TJ4MK would have had a crush on Miss Kercher if she were still alive. And the folks at PMF still talk about how ugly someone is...
RWVBWL
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi capealadin,
I agree with you, but I do note the following:
to me, a guys who reads alot, it does seem like the guy on TJ4MK would have had a crush on Miss Kercher if she were still alive. And the folks at PMF still talk about how ugly someone is...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...
Hi capealadin,
Opps, this part of your message was what I was responding to:

"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."

I goofed up, sorry.
Trying to eat Tito's for lunch and type is hard.
Later, RWVBWL
 
Mary_H said:
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.
Click to expand...

But she was sure (whether there or not) that she was not a witness to Patrick's sexual assault and murder of her flatmate. Saying that she just wasn't sure if she was there or not is prevarication--a nice way of saying she deliberately lied.

The police took her for her word. Her word was that Patrick slew Meredith. Whether her memories were foggy or not isn't the point. She may have gone on a vision quest at the time of the murder but her words days afterwards were plain and understandable.

Mary_H said:
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...

AK did not adamantly deny being at the crimescene. She wrote that she couldn't remember. Can you detect the difference?

Mary_H said:
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 think that Patrick was incarcerated too long. I think he has a legitimate claim against the authorities for that.

The problem facing the Perugia police was rather obvious. If you release a man whom a witness told you had murdered her roommate, and the new suspect turns out to be innocent, then you have a real problem on your hands. During the entire period of Patrick's incarceration, AK never wavered from her written statement. You will not be able to produce anything from her prison diaries, her phone calls, or her letters that would tell you that she had called in the authorities to tell them that she had lied about Patrick's involvement.

She stood by her statements.
 
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...

Nobody saw him do any of this. But witnesses did see Amanda (twice) and Raffaele (once) in places they shouldn't have been according to their alibis.

One question: Why would RG take the keys and keep them? You have a mighty odd robber there. He breaks into a house, known by him to contain people who aren't from Perugia and therefore unlikely to be gone home to family for All Saints Day, and he steals keys so he can return. Then what? Murder Amanda next and lock her in her room?

Upon his alleged return, why didn't he flush the toilet and clean up?
 
Fiona said:
Her letter made no clear statement at all: she said it was intended to clarify: it did nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why were they holding a man based on an obviously confused statement?

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.
Click to expand...

If the guilters refuse to abandon the stance that the interrogation did not make Amanda say things she would not otherwise have said, then there is no discussing this issue with them.

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.
Click to expand...

If they had no way of knowing what she was lying about then they shouldn't have been acting on her assertions. As I said earlier, they believed what they wanted to believe and discarded the rest. Yet people continue to claim the police were not responsible for the arrest.

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.
Click to expand...

Same as above.

I am not aware of that. Can you cite for it please?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe you are not aware of that time line. Here are some mentions from the London Times. The first one talks about Romano Mero, one of the customers who was with Patrick in his bar the night of the murder.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece
From Times Online
November 13, 2007
Meredith Kercher murder: why the timings are critical

The second one talks about the arrest warrant being issued for Guede, based on the forensic evidence at the crime scene.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2891158.ece
From The Sunday Times
November 18, 2007
Arrest warrant for fourth Meredith Kercher suspect

The third one talks about Patrick's release.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece
From Times Online
November 21, 2007
Fourth Meredith Kercher suspect Rudy Hermann Guede in court in Germany

These citations are only to give you the dates; they are not intended to promote any of the information in the articles.

Yes, I said they held Patrick for a couple of days after Rudy was arrested when it appears from these reports that he was held only for one more day, even though they were looking for him on the 17th. You may have that point, which I have no doubt you were planning to bring up.
 
Originally Posted by Fiona: "Stefanoni testified the controls were done. Biondi said the protocols were adequate. That is the evidence. You claim the controls were not done: the onus is now on you to prove that claim. That is how it works."

Fiona, It is the job of the prosecution to prove that the proper controls were done. They cannot simply say that "protocols were adequate." They must prove it. Telling the court they did it is not evidence. Show the work. Show the evidence.
 
Stilicho writes:

During the entire period of Patrick's incarceration, AK never wavered from her written statement. You will not be able to produce anything from her prison diaries, her phone calls, or her letters that would tell you that she had called in the authorities to tell them that she had lied about Patrick's involvement.

She didn't call in the authorities, but she put the word out through her mother:

Mrs Mellas said her daughter told her that "in accusing Patrick I did something really stupid. I told the truth in my first interrogation. That night Raffaele and I did not move from his flat".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569139/Meredith-murder-suspect-withdraws-confession.html
 
Kermit said:
To my credit, I developed an analysis of how the rock may have gone through the window on the basis of measurements and angles.

Your analysis is limited to drawing a little red arrow to point out what you consider the point of impact, and stating: "You can clearly see the damage caused by the rock on the wood shutter."

Do you have further information than I do concerning the "other side" of the rock?
Click to expand...

You cannot make the assumtions that you have made by looking at one side of the rock.

You are also looking at the shutter as if the rock hit the shutter directly. This is not the case. There was glass between the rock and the wood. The area where the force was the greatest allowed the rock to fully penetrate through the glass and damage the wood. Other areas of the shutter would have had glass in between the rock and the wood. You can see glass stuck in the wood if you zoom in. There does not appear to be damage to the wood but glass is stuck in it. This shows that the rock pushed the glass into the wood in certain areas with out making direct contact with the wood. The glass provided a buffer. Where the force was the greatest, the rock made direct contact and damaged the wood.
 
Montmorency said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is my observation, Montmorency, that the men who have addressed this topic with me are struggling only to disagree with me regardless of what I say.

I don't personally think Amanda Knox's looks and sexuality have anything to do with why the police arrested her.
Click to expand...

A great many people disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.

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'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm really worried about insulting Mignini. It is so odd -- the number of who people are quick to jump to defense of a powerful male who does not need their help, meanwhile disparaging a completely powerless young woman.

Mignini's theory of the crime quite openly announced to the entire world that he was pursuing a case against Amanda based on a sexual fantasy. Without any DNA evidence of Amanda and Raffaele at the crime scene, he described the positions they were in and the actions they took. He even had an animated film made about it. Please explain to me what these images were if not fantasies?

The same goes for Peter Quenell -- on his site he presents a fantasy world purporting to know the kind of person Meredith was, and spends hours writing articles about his idol (quite literally). It would be perfectly all right if its main purpose weren't to destroy Amanda's life.

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.
Click to expand...

"this Amanda Knox woman" -- love it.

The reason I avoided responding to your first post was because it looked to me as if you were going in the direction of talking about the differences between Meredith's and Amanda's physical appearances, something that many people were preoccupied with in the blogs for a long time. That discussion is irrelevant and inappropriate.

Amanda is "rough?" What was that you were saying about insults?
 
stilicho said:
But she was sure (whether there or not) that she was not a witness to Patrick's sexual assault and murder of her flatmate. Saying that she just wasn't sure if she was there or not is prevarication--a nice way of saying she deliberately lied.

The police took her for her word. Her word was that Patrick slew Meredith. Whether her memories were foggy or not isn't the point. She may have gone on a vision quest at the time of the murder but her words days afterwards were plain and understandable.

AK did not adamantly deny being at the crimescene. She wrote that she couldn't remember. Can you detect the difference?

I think that Patrick was incarcerated too long. I think he has a legitimate claim against the authorities for that.

The problem facing the Perugia police was rather obvious. If you release a man whom a witness told you had murdered her roommate, and the new suspect turns out to be innocent, then you have a real problem on your hands. During the entire period of Patrick's incarceration, AK never wavered from her written statement. You will not be able to produce anything from her prison diaries, her phone calls, or her letters that would tell you that she had called in the authorities to tell them that she had lied about Patrick's involvement.

She stood by her statements.
Click to expand...

Well, this issue is why I got on this board in the first place. The police could have questioned Patrick before arresting him.
 
Hello, RWVBWL, I can see guys having a crush on Meredith and Amanda. Having a crush is rather sweet. Both very attractive young women. But I,m talking about how it has come across here. And other sites to be sure. Amanda should not be called a whore etc, and Meredith shouldn,t be maligned in any way. Because the sad truth is she can never defend herself. What are Tito,s, btw?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom