Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
Once again, I see no evidence.... it is looking more and more like the police arrested Amanda and Raffaele before they had any evidence against them.
Click to expand...


No. They didn't

What happens now is

MH "Oh yes they did"

Audience "Oh no they didn't"

MH "OOOOH YES THEY DID"

Audience "OOOOH NO THEY DIDN'T"

and it goes on like that until the dame falls into the duckpond
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
You are really difficult to talk to. It is kind of like trying to train a cat.

Amanda saw a broken window and had it in her mind that there was a break-in. She saw a messy room and made an observation.

Why won't you look at the photos and tell me what looks ransacked? Tell me where the clothes on the floor were pulled from. Tell me if the table and the night stand look cluttered or ransacked. Look for yourself.
Click to expand...

Well, Bruce, that's exactly what struck the Police as being odd and why they agreed, and Massei agreed, that the burglary looked staged.

Argument from incredulity (I can't imagine where those clothes could have come from) is not a valid argument. Especially not when Filomena and Amanda both express similar stories regarding the general tidiness of Filomena's room.

Could the clothing have been on Filomena's bed, waiting to be put away after she finished the laundry? Ah hah! Another scenario you didn't suspect as possible because then it wouldn't fit into your plans.

Of course, I'm not sure exactly why we're arguing over whether Filomena's room was messy or not. Is the argument that her room normally messy supposed to convince us that there was a burglary, but he didn't ransack the room looking for jewelry/valuables? That's hardly a point in your favor, friend. One might do well to look at the big picture before arguing himself into a corner with the details...
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Really? Can you prove that accusation?

I cannot prove there was no evidence. I have been asking if anyone can prove there is. Until then, I am going to assume there isn't. That is my point.

[Quote/]Because, so far, you've continued to make this claim in the face of evidence that Amanda and Raffaele's stories didn't match what the Police were finding.
Click to expand...

WHAT evidence?

You've also been shown where Raffaele admits that he lied for Amanda and that he believes Amanda is a liar. In fact, Raffaele even blurts out that he believed Amanda had lied to him about her whereabouts that night so that she could go cheat on him. That's not exactly a rousing belief in Amanda's truthiness to be expressing in his prison diary, is it?
Click to expand...

WHERE? Did he say any of this before the interrogation? Why can't you guys get organized and answer the question?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
You are really difficult to talk to. It is kind of like trying to train a cat.

Amanda saw a broken window and had it in her mind that there was a break-in. She saw a messy room and made an observation.

Why won't you look at the photos and tell me what looks ransacked? Tell me where the clothes on the floor were pulled from. Tell me if the table and the night stand look cluttered or ransacked. Look for yourself.
Click to expand...

Amanda didn't say it was 'messy', she said it had been 'ransacked'[. Filomena didn't say it was messy, she said it was 'ransacked'.

And you have nothing other to suggest otherwise then then a weak hypothesis built on a few photographs.

I looked for myself. Your photos support none of your far fetched claims and they certainly don't justify calling a witness and victim a liar.
 
Fulcanelli said:
If a tree falls down in the forest in Siberia and you're not there to see it...has the tree not fallen down?

The police have all the statements...the prosecution have all the statements....all the courts have all the statements...the defence (all teams) has all the statements.

All the people that 'need' to have them, have them. The only person complaining about not having them is you, from which, by their mere absence from your hands, you are making all sorts of statements of absolute fact about them (they never changed their story...gave conflicting statements...had discrepancies...blah blah).

If you have a case, with evidence, make it. If it's just more of your opinions, go bore somebody else would you love?
Click to expand...

See answer above, to Bill. Going out to dinner. More later.
 
Mary H said:
OH, to report for PMF, the gossip column! I get it now. PMF is a "member of the media."
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. PMF covers this case. What other site has specialised in covering this case in every detail from the beginning?
 
Massei on Rudy entering window

slow lurker said:
So Bruce Fisher, please post those measurements and the photo of the lock type. Kermit may have measured, but most of the rest of us just don't have the information you do.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli posted a rough translation of the Massei report regarding the staged break-in many pages back.

Massei did not list Rudy's inability to enter through the window as one of the reasons they determined it was a staged break in. This is consistent with what Bruce indicated awhile back regarding that part of the staged break-in debate being an online debate issue only.

An area of difference on that same topic is the Massei report indicated Rudy would have had to be standing or kneeling on the windowsill in order to reach the latch whereas Bruce has indicated the latch could be reached by Rudy by standing on the window grating/ledge below.
 
Juror said:
Fulcanelli posted a rough translation of the Massei report regarding the staged break-in many pages back.
Click to expand...

It wasn't 'rough', it simply hadn't been proofread.

Juror said:
Massei did not list Rudy's inability to enter through the window as one of the reasons they determined it was a staged break in. This is consistent with what Bruce indicated awhile back regarding that part of the staged break-in debate being an online debate issue only.
Click to expand...

Actually, the part I posted consisted only of the larger amount of Massei's deconstruction of the break-in, not the total.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, the part I posted consisted only of the larger amount of Massei's deconstruction of the break-in, not the total.
Click to expand...

And the deconstruction of the break-in you posted (#7036) did not include the inability of Rudy to enter through the window as a reason for their conclusion.
 
Juror said:
Fulcanelli posted a rough translation of the Massei report regarding the staged break-in many pages back.

Massei did not list Rudy's inability to enter through the window as one of the reasons they determined it was a staged break in. This is consistent with what Bruce indicated awhile back regarding that part of the staged break-in debate being an online debate issue only.

An area of difference on that same topic is the Massei report indicated Rudy would have had to be standing or kneeling on the windowsill in order to reach the latch whereas Bruce has indicated the latch could be reached by Rudy by standing on the window grating/ledge below.
Click to expand...

It's not simply a matter of reaching the latch. It's a matter of reaching the latch, while balancing on the downstairs window-grill, through a hole in the window, while hanging onto the windowsill by his fingertips - all without cutting himself and/or disturbing the glass on the windowsill. This is what makes the "Rudy entered through the window" argument asinine. Sure. Rudy could reach the latch. I'm short and I could probably reach the latch. That's not the only issue here, there is far more to unlatching that window than just being able to reach the latch.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Well, Bruce, that's exactly what struck the Police as being odd and why they agreed, and Massei agreed, that the burglary looked staged.

Argument from incredulity (I can't imagine where those clothes could have come from) is not a valid argument. Especially not when Filomena and Amanda both express similar stories regarding the general tidiness of Filomena's room.

Could the clothing have been on Filomena's bed, waiting to be put away after she finished the laundry? Ah hah! Another scenario you didn't suspect as possible because then it wouldn't fit into your plans.

Of course, I'm not sure exactly why we're arguing over whether Filomena's room was messy or not. Is the argument that her room normally messy supposed to convince us that there was a burglary, but he didn't ransack the room looking for jewelry/valuables? That's hardly a point in your favor, friend. One might do well to look at the big picture before arguing himself into a corner with the details...
Click to expand...

Believe me, I have looked at the big picture. It is posters on this board like yourself that are unable to step back and see the truth.

If those clothes came off the bed, then the person "ransacking the room" took them one by one and shook them and threw them in a pile. Those clothes were certainly not recently folded.

It doesn't surprise me that you cannot see how Amanda's observation of Filomena's room would have been influenced by the broken window. Your mind was made up on this case long ago. Rudy could call you on the phone and tell you that he acted alone and you would still want Amanda and Raffaele to rot in hell. You have been drinking the PMF kool-aid for too long to have an open mind.

Everyone stopped talking about the difficult wall climb. I guess you all came to realize that the climb wasn't that difficult after all.

How about the fact that Raffael called the police to investigate the scene. Why would he have done that if he wasn't finished cleaning the bathroom like you have often stated?

How about Fulcanneli's claims that Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up blood all over the bathroom with buckets?

Who is it that is arguing themselves into a corner?

Have a good rest of the weekend.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
It's not simply a matter of reaching the latch. It's a matter of reaching the latch, while balancing on the downstairs window-grill, through a hole in the window, while hanging onto the windowsill by his fingertips - all without cutting himself and/or disturbing the glass on the windowsill. This is what makes the "Rudy entered through the window" argument asinine. Sure. Rudy could reach the latch. I'm short and I could probably reach the latch. That's not the only issue here, there is far more to unlatching that window than just being able to reach the latch.
Click to expand...

Why would he have to balance? He wasn't on a high wire. Why would he have to hang on the sill? He was standing in the bars. No hanging took place. He easily reached under the broken glass and opened the window. When both widows were opened, he easily pulled himself through. A slight majority of the sill had no glass on it at all. Why do you keep claiming that there was glass all over the sill. Keep in mind, the glass was laying flat on the sill, not sticking up with jagged edges.

The only thing that is asinine is your description of the window.
 
Fiona said:
This is what I am remembering



You are correct. It does not say that she was interviewed by Mignini on that day: that was an inference I drew and drew wrongly.
Click to expand...

I did the same. And see now where I was wrong.

I didn't realize until I made the list that Amanda had been interviewed that many times (if not more) and wrote at least two memorandums.

When there is so much information given during several interviews of one witness there is the possibility that the police found many discrepancies between what Amanda and Raffaele answered when questioned (along with the answers of others who were questioned).
 
The Massei report is not evidence. It is Massei's interpretation of the evidence. If the judge's reports were always correct, there would never be any need for the appeals process.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The Massei report is not evidence. It is Massei's interpretation of the evidence. If the judge's reports were always correct, there would never be any need for the appeals process.
Click to expand...

The Massei Report 'contains' all the evidence. It also contains a logical narrative built on all the evidence, which includes that offered both by the prosecution and the defence.

But, if your spin is really true and his report really doesn't matter...why the effort to say it's bunk?

Most often, the judges are correct which is why their verdicts stand throughout the appeals. The appeal process is simply a safety precaution and to emphasise that those involved got fair process. If there are gaping holes in either hos evidence or reasoning, let's hear them. But we won't, until the defence put their arguments forth when the appeal gets under way. Do the defence have anything new to offer by the way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom