Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you aware that Rudy standing on his toes on the top row of the bars on the lower level window, Rudy can reach about 8 inches above that latch? .... If you research this window, you will see why this was not a big argument in the courtroom.
.
We are all waiting expectantly for your measurements and analysis, Bruce.

You seem to repeat alot that Rudy could stand on his toes, but keep in mind that that is quite a balancing act, given that he wouldn't be standing on his toes on a flat surface, but rather on the horizontal iron bar of the metal grate across the window of the lower boys' flat.
 
Did you read your links?

Did you read what I said? "These citations are only to give you the dates; they are not intended to promote any of the information in the articles."

Can you cite the evidence which should lead me to abandon my stance: which is that RS destroyed AK's alibi and this led her to make up a lie on the spot. A lie which accused an innocent man of murder.

Actually, I was referring to the general stance the guilters seem to have about interrogations in general. However, in response to your comment, what Amanda said about Patrick was hardly a lie and it was hardly on the spot. It was guided imagery that took almost two hours to produce.

What do you think led Raffaele to change his alibi and destroy Amanda's?

I do not think that what they did was either unreasonable or unexpected. Clearly things are different where you are.

I would hope so. The Perugian police were aware of the text messages between Amanda and Patrick before her interrogation. An alternate scenario would have been for them to have gone into the hall where Amanda was waiting and ask her if she could remember what the text messages were about. She would probably have been surprised to know they had records of her calls, but with their help, she would have remembered the messages were from Patrick.

The police could then have calmly gone to Patrick's house, knocked on the door and asked him if they could ask him a few questions. If they were not satisfied with the answers, they could have asked him to come down to the station with them, after of course, having informed Patrick that he could call a lawyer if wished.

It is extremely unusual for police to make an arrest of this sort without doing a lot of investigation beforehand. Their failure is why Patrick was able to sue them for wrongful arrest.

I ask again, did you read it? It seems perfectly clear to me that the police had not established Patrick's alibi at that stage: and equally clear that they were working hard to do so in a confused situation

No, I didn't read it (see above); I was looking for dates. I used to have a record that Patrick's alibi was confirmed on the 15th, but I was not able to find that one.

Yes, it does. And what is your point? Do you suppose that there was no possibility that Guede and Patrick were both involved? Some here are arguing that Guede acted with a pal. So how is that plausible now but not then, when the full picture had not yet emerged? The article makes mention of the fact that it is likely that Patrick will be released through lack of evidence: and so it proved

I don't think Rudy acted with a pal, and neither did the police who discovered the body.

I do not see any real problem with this timeline. Perhaps you do because you cannot understand why Patrick was under suspicion just because he was accused of murder by someone who said she was there; and cannot see why the confusion about his movements that night would lead to a longer period in custody while that was sorted out. Ok

The point of the original discussion was to dispute some claims that Amanda never did anything about getting Patrick out of prison. I wanted to point out that the police kept Patrick in prison of their own accord regardless of evidence showing he was innocent, in order to demonstrate that it was not Amanda's fault Patrick was in prison.
 
Did you read what I said? "These citations are only to give you the dates; they are not intended to promote any of the information in the articles."



Actually, I was referring to the general stance the guilters seem to have about interrogations in general. However, in response to your comment, what Amanda said about Patrick was hardly a lie and it was hardly on the spot. It was guided imagery that took almost two hours to produce.

What do you think led Raffaele to change his alibi and destroy Amanda's?



I would hope so. The Perugian police were aware of the text messages between Amanda and Patrick before her interrogation. An alternate scenario would have been for them to have gone into the hall where Amanda was waiting and ask her if she could remember what the text messages were about. She would probably have been surprised to know they had records of her calls, but with their help, she would have remembered the messages were from Patrick.

The police could then have calmly gone to Patrick's house, knocked on the door and asked him if they could ask him a few questions. If they were not satisfied with the answers, they could have asked him to come down to the station with them, after of course, having informed Patrick that he could call a lawyer if wished.

It is extremely unusual for police to make an arrest of this sort without doing a lot of investigation beforehand. Their failure is why Patrick was able to sue them for wrongful arrest.



No, I didn't read it (see above); I was looking for dates. I used to have a record that Patrick's alibi was confirmed on the 15th, but I was not able to find that one.



I don't think Rudy acted with a pal, and neither did the police who discovered the body.



The point of the original discussion was to dispute some claims that Amanda never did anything about getting Patrick out of prison. I wanted to point out that the police kept Patrick in prison of their own accord regardless of evidence showing he was innocent, in order to demonstrate that it was not Amanda's fault Patrick was in prison.


You have not shown anything to suggest that Amanda did anything about getting Patrick out of prison. Do you actually have any evidence that she did?
 
I have no doubt it happens: any idea how common it is?

Any idea how how he would have achieved this assault without leaving blood?
Hello Fiona,
I had read before that the DNA of Guede was inside Miss Kercher, and that was similiar to DNA that might have been from fingers. I don't know the scientific description for it.
If so, that to me says that Guede had Miss Kercher's scent on his hands, leading me to believe that he might have masturbated to climax after undressing Miss Kercher's body.These photographs on Perugia Shock sure look like semen to me, being a guy.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

I can't believe that the stains were never tested in a murder trial!
RWVBWL
 
You have not shown anything to suggest that Amanda did anything about getting Patrick out of prison. Do you actually have any evidence that she did?

Your question suggests Amanda SHOULD have done something about getting Patrick out of prison, which implies she had anything to do with getting him in. This again, is a question about which the guilters have shown themselves to be intransigent. If you continue to believe that Amanda had more power and more responsibility than the police, then it is not worth discussing.
 
Your question suggests Amanda SHOULD have done something about getting Patrick out of prison, which implies she had anything to do with getting him in. This again, is a question about which the guilters have shown themselves to be intransigent. If you continue to believe that Amanda had more power and more responsibility than the police, then it is not worth discussing.

She did have a lot to do with getting him in: in fact she was entirely responsible for that. She also could have done a great deal more about getting him out: it might not have worked but we will never know because she did not try. It really is as simple as that: if you cannot see it after all this time here and elsewhere; and you are not prepared to provide evidence which might support your belief; then you are right: there is no point in further discussion.
 
Re: "Some here are arguing that Guede acted with a pal." +
"I don't think Rudy acted with a pal, and neither did the police who discovered the body."

I believe that the defense for Raffaele Sollecito plans to bring up that Rudy Guede had an accomplice with him during appeal.

Reading something about Alessandra Formica beofre that stuck in my mind, I dug this up:
Date: 3/26/2009 Title: "He was not Rudy" on Perugia Shock

"It was an instant for Alessandra Formica and her boyfriend.
At about 22:30 of November 1, they are descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car is parked and where the cottage is. Suddenly a guy who walks in the rush, coming up, bumps into them and runs away. They wouldn't know in that moment but that man could be a murderer.
A few days later Alessandra will hear of what happened in that cottage and will go to the police. That's how people become witnesses, real witnesses, not buffoons seduced by unscrupulous provincial scribblers.

But one thing is a deposition in front of the Pm and another thing is releasing it in a trial.
If previously from Formica's deposition it looked like that running guy could be Rudy today she's positive: I can rule out that that guy could be Rudy Guede. Another unexpected element. That's what trials are for.
So, if that guy wasn't Rudy, if he was not someone who was late for the bus, we finally start to understand what happened while Amanda and Raffaele were on bed."
 
Hello Fiona,
I had read before that the DNA of Guede was inside Miss Kercher, and that was similiar to DNA that might have been from fingers. I don't know the scientific description for it.
If so, that to me says that Guede had Miss Kercher's scent on his hands, leading me to believe that he might have masturbated to climax after undressing Miss Kercher's body.These photographs on Perugia Shock sure look like semen to me, being a guy.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

I can't believe that the stains were never tested in a murder trial!
RWVBWL

I am sorry, but to be honest I would need a really strong reason to believe that Guede was necrophiliac before I would entertain this possibility. I do not know the incidence but I have no reason to believe it is not quite rare. I am fairly used to unsupported accusations being made against Guede: but this is really beyond the pale. Your whole scenario seems to me to be strange and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, as we are so often told. I think this is an extraordinary claim :)
 
Re: "Some here are arguing that Guede acted with a pal." +
"I don't think Rudy acted with a pal, and neither did the police who discovered the body."

I believe that the defense for Raffaele Sollecito plans to bring up that Rudy Guede had an accomplice with him during appeal.

Reading something about Alessandra Formica beofre that stuck in my mind, I dug this up:
Date: 3/26/2009 Title: "He was not Rudy" on Perugia Shock

"It was an instant for Alessandra Formica and her boyfriend.
At about 22:30 of November 1, they are descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car is parked and where the cottage is. Suddenly a guy who walks in the rush, coming up, bumps into them and runs away. They wouldn't know in that moment but that man could be a murderer.
A few days later Alessandra will hear of what happened in that cottage and will go to the police. That's how people become witnesses, real witnesses, not buffoons seduced by unscrupulous provincial scribblers.

But one thing is a deposition in front of the Pm and another thing is releasing it in a trial.
If previously from Formica's deposition it looked like that running guy could be Rudy today she's positive: I can rule out that that guy could be Rudy Guede. Another unexpected element. That's what trials are for.
So, if that guy wasn't Rudy, if he was not someone who was late for the bus, we finally start to understand what happened while Amanda and Raffaele were on bed."
Here's a little more:
Date: 6/28/2009 Title: The Boy with the Ball in his Hands" on Perugia Shock

"The woman director of the Milan kindergarten was heard. She said she arrived in the morning at the school together with a worker and she saw Rudi in her office. She asked him for explanations in a harsh way, even screaming. But Rudi didn't attack the woman and the worker, didn't run away. He was quiet, serene and available to chat. He justified himself telling her that he had payed 50 € to a guy who showed him that place, where he could sleep. The woman called the police and when the officers arrived they found in Rudi's bag a big knife he had taken from the kitchen of the kindergarten. Also a few coins that were in a closet were missing. In Rudi's bag, as we know, they found as well computer and cellphone stolen from the lawyers office. He tried to justify himself telling to have bought the devices at the Milan train station. Maybe he still didn't have realized the cellphone wasn't working but he was quick in setting his picture with Giorgio Armani as a screen-saver of the laptop. The officers sued him for entering the kindergarten, theft, receiving stolen goods, and detention and transportation of weapon.

Certainly this is a very heavy episode for Rudi. We recognize his creative lies but we don't really see a violent person. He didn't attack the woman, the worker and another person who arrived in the meantime. He didn't try to run away and he waited for the arrival of the police. He wasn't carrying a weapon if is true that he had just stolen one.
When back in Perugia, he will show up in shorts, singlet and with a ball in his hands at the lawyers office to explain that he wasn't the author of the theft (at least, for what those lawyers have told us. Strange lawyers, actually, terrified of journalists...).

Can this coins thief, can this naif boy with a ball in his hand turn, in a few days, into the ruthless butcher of Meredith?
Hard to believe, but he was there. He was in Meredith's room and his story of the murderer arriving while he was in toilet doesn't stand.

On the other hand clues of a murder committed by more than one person still stand.
As we know a witness heard two people running after a scream. Another witness met, at 22:30, a black person, who wasn't Rudi, having the typical way of walking of someone who absolutely didn't have to be seen in his face and didn't have his voice to be heard.
Introna's reconstruction, then, as we have seen, doesn't really work and didn't prove why Meredith didn't have defense wounds.
Analyzing the B & A at the lawyers' office, then, in which Rudi is almost certainly involved, we have noticed the presence of a quasi professional thief able to disable the antitheft. The burglar located the antitheft and disabled the automatic phone calls it does, something like that. A circumstance that makes one think that the basketball player may have gone to steal there together with a more experienced thief. And the mini gang may have done the same at Meredith's place."
 
A poster called McJustice was kind enough to share these links on one of the West Seattle Herald blogs:

False confessions - how they happen

The tabloid and prosecution-leaked versions of the case seem firmly embedded in too many minds. There is little logic or factual basis to the case against Amanda and Raffaele... two innocent people caught up in a defective local criminal justice system. A catalog of errors and biases set in motion by a small number of investigators using flawed behavior observation. This is not an isolated problem... it happens in very similar ways in every country in the world coerced confessions driven by mistaken hunches are much more common than people might think and especially in high profile cases like murder.

Read how this happens...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e16/4193532.0.pdf

The Psychology and Power of False Confessions
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2590

From False Confession to Wrongful Conviction: Seven Psychological Processes
http://works.bepress.com/richardleo/2/

Why do people confess to crimes they didn’t commit?
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/why-do-people-confess-to-crimes-...

False Confessions: What Would It Take to Make You Confess?
http://wrongful-convictions.blogspot.com/2009/08/false-confessions-what-...

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm
http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation3.htm

Dominance and Submission: How the Police Use Psychological Manipulation to Interrogate Citizens By Dylan Kurz
http://people.howstuffworks.comframed.htm?parent=police-interrogation.ht...

The common threads in all miscarriages of justice [are] where an induced "confession" then drives all subsequent evidence gathering and interpretation even in the face of obvious exculpatory evidence or lack of evidence. The Harry Rags and Migninis of the world become too wedded to their preconceptions to realize their error.
 
Are you aware that Rudy standing on his toes on the top row of the bars on the lower level window, Rudy can reach about 8 inches above that latch?

That is with the palm of his hand facing him.

Put your palm of your hand in front of your face then reach up as high as you can. You will notice if you move your hand forward to account for the thickness of the wall and reaching up and under the glass, your natural arm movement would be very favorable for this task.

If you research this window, you will see why this was not a big argument in the courtroom. This is an online argument only.

Bruce you have stated this more than once in your posts. It appears from the statement that you have access to the court transcripts concerning the break-in. Would it be possible to share the arguments and evidence presented on both sides (prosecution and defense) concerning the break-in?
 
I am sorry, but to be honest I would need a really strong reason to believe that Guede was necrophiliac before I would entertain this possibility. I do not know the incidence but I have no reason to believe it is not quite rare. I am fairly used to unsupported accusations being made against Guede: but this is really beyond the pale. Your whole scenario seems to me to be strange and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, as we are so often told. I think this is an extraordinary claim :)
Hi Fiona,
I too find necrophilia hard to believe and especially revolting, but it does happen.
If Miss Kercher was alive and bleeding when the assault happened, would not the blood patterns that were found have been different, for she was found lying on her back. I believe the prosecution states it is their opinion that Miss Kercher's body was moved.

The only way to really tell if the stains on that pillow are indeed semen, and they come from Guede, is to test them. If the authorities still have the pillow case, they can do that, if they want...

I don't wish to talk ◊◊◊◊ about Guede, but if it is DNA from his fingers that was what was found inside Miss Kercher, it stands to reason his genitals did not put it there. And those photographs:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

-sure look like semen residue to me. Seen it before, as most guys have, I'm sure.
Interesting, Mr. Walter Biscotti, his lawyer, said this of Guede, "who just touched Meredith"...
When? As she lay dying or later if/when he returned?
RWVBWL
 
You don't like my calling you to judgment. Fine. I can see you would be uncomfortable with that. You say you do not want to bully, but your words are bullying to others who are not able to defend themselves. That is both bullying and cowardly.

Montmorency, I noticed that except for a quick post addressed to Dan_O, five of your six posts are addressed to me and they are all about the same subject matter. I recognized your words of pity for Mignini and his four kids as coming from PMF, so I went over there to have a look.

What do you know. Some of what I had written about the same subject matter was cited and held up for ridicule by one of the PMF administrators last night -- even though I wasn't there to defend myself!

You joined JREF last night.

Montmorency, did you join JREF just so you could come over here and reprimand me for what I had written, based on what you had read about it on PMF?

Try to keep the insults about others lives out of this serious debate and I will never bother you again.

Tell me, are you going to go back to PMF and give them the same warning? Or are you going to rejoin the discussion about Candace's possible facelift?
 
It is the job of the prosecution to show that controls were done.

And if the prosecution didn't show that? Wouldn't it then be the job of the defense to point this out to the judge and get a ruling against that evidence?

So, why don't you show us where the defense brought up this topic and how the judge ruled on it?
 
Perhaps you can educate me on why the guilters remain resistant to it.

Well for me it is mainly because it is only relevant when someone confesses: Knox didn't.

Did you read the links, btw? two of them don't work for me for some reason
 
Bruce you have stated this more than once in your posts. It appears from the statement that you have access to the court transcripts concerning the break-in. Would it be possible to share the arguments and evidence presented on both sides (prosecution and defense) concerning the break-in?

Bruce Fisher has already addressed this point, christianhannah: in posts 9216 and 9222 and 9236
 
Montmorency, I noticed that except for a quick post addressed to Dan_O, five of your six posts are addressed to me and they are all about the same subject matter. I recognized your words of pity for Mignini and his four kids as coming from PMF, so I went over there to have a look.

What do you know. Some of what I had written about the same subject matter was cited and held up for ridicule by one of the PMF administrators last night -- even though I wasn't there to defend myself!

You joined JREF last night.

Montmorency, did you join JREF just so you could come over here and reprimand me for what I had written, based on what you had read about it

Tell me, are you going to go back to PMF and give them the same warning? Or are you going to rejoin the discussion about Candace's possible facelift?

dear Mary H you do not know me, but my words have angered you. I have read this site for a long time, but I joined last night to read about the case of the Scottish murder where a bereaved mother is asking for support in getting the apparent suicide of her daughter investigated as being suspicious. I have read this thread before - and you joined very recently yourself I think too? Was it just to write about this case? Are you one of those ones that is paid money to write that I hear of??? No my dear, I just joined for the other case to see if I could help. But dropped by to see this thread again and there you were! Talking over and over on your theory of terrible men who all want to sleep with poor Amanda Knox. I have read the PMF site recently but I have not seen you discussed. I stopped reading because of the unkind comments being made about the journalists on there - very personal and rude - and I did not like that at all either. So they complain about you too! You upset many people it seems dear Mary H!!! You need to be more 'soft' and less 'rough', like your Amanda Knox! Less rude! And yes Pmf should be less rude too. I agree. But they are very funny too I think, at other times, and are kind in general.

Does that help? You should look at the story of the girl who died in Scotland. It is very sad. There are some very good people trying to help this poor lady. Perhaps you could help too? There is a petition to sign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom