Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Malkmus]

Apparently you still haven't bothered to read this thread, nor even the past few hundred posts I've made herein where I've stated my theory regarding the murder/how it went down.

Your points would be salient, if I believed what you erroneously have me pegged as believing.

I do not believe Amanda carried the knife for protection. I do not believe this was a cold-blooded murder. I do believe it was a sexual game/rape gone horribly wrong. I do believe Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy were involved - and what's more, there's plenty of evidence backing this belief.

Raffaele was not simply attempting to posit plausible scenarios. "Amanda gave the knife to the killer" is a plausible scenario, and one that very well fits what you claim he was attempting to do - reconcile the evidence. However, making up a complete lie that could never have happened is not something most people would do when faced with incontrovertible evidence.

Think of it like this: You find the last cookie missing from the cookie jar. You mention to this child that you have noticed the last cookie missing from the jar and found a trail of crumbs. The child then says "well, some aliens came and took the cookie". Is there any reason to suspect the child was merely speculating how the cookie disappeared from the jar? No. Because it's not a plausible scenario. It becomes even more suspicious when the child then offers another speculative means for the disappearance of said cookie: "sibling-x might have taken it while I was napping."

Edit: We cannot accept the first excuse, and in fact, it tends to point toward the child being the guilty culprit. If he/she was not guilty, why would he/she feel the need to push the blame off/explain away the evidence?

Bob, I don't doubt that Rafaelle was making an excuse when he wrote what he did. At the same time I don't think he was imagining what he wrote would eventually be mulled over by internet detectives for years to come. I think comparing his cooking scenario to an alien abduction is an extreme exaggeration that doesn't help prove your point.

To argue that Raffaele was doing nothing more than speculating is absolutely disingenuous. For being such a self-acclaimed astute observer of human behavior, you should know this.

Bob, I don't see how can call me disingenuous and give me a hard time for not remembering a part of one of your arguments from several pages back when you can't even get my last response to you correct. I clearly said in my second to last post that what Raf said was an excuse, not a speculation. And since I'm such a "self-proclaimed astute observer of human behavior", please point to my post where I "proclaim" this. Everyone on here is proclaiming their point of view on the behavior elicited in this case. I disagree with your opinions on the behavior, but you're not better or worse than I am at it.. it is all just personal opinion after all.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bob, I don't doubt that Rafaelle was making an excuse when he wrote what he did. At the same time I don't think he was imagining what he wrote would eventually be mulled over by internet detectives for years to come. I think comparing his cooking scenario to an alien abduction is an extreme exaggeration that doesn't help prove your point.




Bob, I don't see how can call me disingenuous and give me a hard time for not remembering a part of one of your arguments from several pages back when you can't even get my last response to you correct. I clearly said in my second to last post that what Raf said was an excuse, not a speculation. And since I'm such a "self-proclaimed astute observer of human behavior", please point to my post where I "proclaim" this. Everyone on here is proclaiming their point of view on the behavior elicited in this case. I disagree with your opinions on the behavior, but you're not better or worse than I am at it.. it is all just personal opinion after all.

I apologize, Malk. I thought I was responding to Mary, thus the last bit.

Edit: I believe the alien story is absolutely spot on. There is no reason to believe Raffaele ever believed the story he wrote regarding the cooking. There is no exaggeration when I say that Raffaele's "excuse" was a bald-faced lie. Raffaele and Meredith never cooked together. In fact, they probably never even ate together. So for him to make up a story in an attempt to explain away a piece of evidence is no different from your child making up a story about aliens.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whoever was in the room with her when she was killed. Does this point to Rudy, Amanda, or Rafaelle specifically? No. Inconclusive.

They're not inconclusive. They are quite conclusive...they conclusively rule Rudy out as being the one who locked the door and that means the door was locked by someone 'else'. And since the only evidence for someone 'else' points to Raffaele and Amanda, it can only have been them.

Is this a fact? We have no photographic evidence of this right? So, this point can't be taken with the same grain of salt as Raf's shoe print matching footprints in Meredith's bedroom... something that was taken as fact until it was later proven wrong by Raf's sister, not law enforcement.

The court did plus the results of a full forensic examination of outside. Hence why the defence never challenged the fact there was no glass outside.

It's widely believed that the DNA found on the knife was too low to be credible.

Only by apologosts for Amanda and Raffaele.Yet you thrust forward what her supporters 'believe' as some kind of evidence in and of itself that the knife is weak or invalid.

But the fact is LCN DNA is not accepted everywhere, and rarely in the United States.

That's because the USA has yet to catch up...they lag behind. The UK for that uses LCN for example is the world leader and not only first developed the use of DNA for criminal investigation but the LCN technique and in the years since has greatly refined and advanced the technique. Therefore, your argument is akin to arguing that Etheopia doesn't fire men into space on rockets, therefore the United States by doing so is using an unsound and unproven technique by sending men up on rockets. The problem with the 'USA doesn't do it' argument assumes they are the world leader on all things and know best' and this is utterly false. The Italians are actually very technologically advanced in the field of forensics. For example, they are the first (currently only) forensics nation to adopt and use the spheron, the latest tech on the market, for photographing and recording crime scenes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you talking about the very weak sample that was found on the floor in the undated luminol stain?

That doesn't account for much. Amanda lived in the cottage. The rest of that floor wasn't tested. No controls were done

Oh and so we go back in a circle...it was only a 'little' amount of DNA (like that's supposed to mean anything)...she lived there (only she didn't live in Filomena's room)....and the great old chestnut, there were 'no controls'....what 'controls' are you on about?

 

[Mary_H]

To argue that Raffaele was doing nothing more than speculating is absolutely disingenuous. For being such a self-acclaimed astute observer of human behavior, you should know this.

Oh, this was directed at me? Heh, heh. I don't think I'm going to reply to any more posts that include the word "disingenuous." It has been WAY overused.

Speaking of observers of human behavior, there is an interesting passage in Raffaele's diary that reads:

"Quindi bisogna avere pazienza. Mi fa molto piacere parlare con le dottoresse o le assistenti sociali o il parroco o la psicologa, sono molto gentili e disponibili a parlare, tutto ciò mi conforta molto."

Translated as:

"So we must have patience. It gives me great pleasure to speak with doctors or social workers or the pastor or a psychologist, are very friendly and willing to talk, all comforts me a lot."

Does anyone know whether any of these professionals were invited to testify at the trail? I would think both the prosecution and the defense would have been very interested in what they had to say about the defendant.

 

[Mary_H]

They're not inconclusive. They are quite conclusive...they conclusively rule Rudy out as being the one who locked the door....

How'd they manage that?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think he said it out loud to the police; he wrote it in a letter to his father, which the police seized. The fact that he felt he needed to find an explanation for it suggests only that it did not occur to him that the police could be lying. He tried to find a way to rationalize what they had found. If you read the rest of the letters you can see that he was in an extremely confused and emotionally upset state.

He wrote it in his diary, not a letter. And that diary was published by his family. It was always intended to be published and was written for an audience.

Being 'confused and emotionally upset' does not excuse lies. And what number excuse are we on now? Never have I known such innocent people to require so many excuses to be made on their behalf!

 

[Fulcanelli]

Does anyone know whether any of these professionals were invited to testify at the trail? I would think both the prosecution and the defense would have been very interested in what they had to say about the defendant.

No...they weren't.

How'd they manage that?

Forensics 101. You see, by the way a foortprint is pointing we can see what way someone is walking or which way they are standing facing. Rudy's footprints go straight out of Meredith's room and down the corridor and out of the cottage, without pause to turn or look back. To lock the door, one would have had to have stopped, turned to lock it and then turned back again...Rudy's prints don't do that...they go in a straight line with always his back to the door.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As an aside, since Katy_did was recently enquiring about Candace Dempsey's new book and whether she should buy it or not. There's an excellent review here and I thought of her when I saw it

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spo...x-author--cites-Senator-Cantwell-in-book-tour

 

[stilicho]

Edit: I believe the alien story is absolutely spot on. There is no reason to believe Raffaele ever believed the story he wrote regarding the cooking. There is no exaggeration when I say that Raffaele's "excuse" was a bald-faced lie. Raffaele and Meredith never cooked together. In fact, they probably never even ate together. So for him to make up a story in an attempt to explain away a piece of evidence is no different from your child making up a story about aliens.

They don't get it and they never will get it.

If I saw a TV news show that said Mohammed Atta's flight plans were discovered on my computer, I wouldn't immediately write a letter to the police telling them I'd had Atta over to my place and allowed him to send some emails from my account. It wouldn't matter how "confused" I was.

I don't know whether Sollecito's diary even figures in the Massei Report. It could very well be that, legally, it doesn't make an iota of difference among the mountain of evidence against him.

 

[Mary_H]

No...they weren't.




Forensics 101. You see, by the way a foortprint is pointing we can see what way someone is walking or which way they are standing facing. Rudy's footprints go straight out of Meredith's room and down the corridor and out of the cottage, without pause to turn or look back. To lock the door, one would have had to have stopped, turned to lock it and then turned back again...Rudy's prints don't do that...they go in a straight line with always his back to the door.

What kind of a lock does it have on it?

 

[Mary_H]

He wrote it in his diary, not a letter. And that diary was published by his family. It was always intended to be published and was written for an audience.

Being 'confused and emotionally upset' does not excuse lies. And what number excuse are we on now? Never have I known such innocent people to require so many excuses to be made on their behalf!

It's not a matter of excuses. It's a matter of differentiating normal human behavior from aberrant human behavior. Amanda and Raffaele did not do anything out of the realm of possibility for innocent people.

You guys take one-tenth of 1% of the evidence out of context and say it proves guilt, ignoring the 99.99% that point toward innocence.

I suppose you, like Fiona, don't have a passion or an axe to grind, either?

 

[stilicho]

As an aside, since Katy_did was recently enquiring about Candace Dempsey's new book and whether she should buy it or not. There's an excellent review here and I thought of her when I saw it

http://www.examiner.com/x-32288-Spo...x-author--cites-Senator-Cantwell-in-book-tour

Why is Ms Dempsey babbling away about AK's makeup? I thought it was supposed to be the PMF that was engrossed in details about her looks.

And whatever did happen to Sen. Cantwell?

 

[Fulcanelli]

What kind of a lock does it have on it?

A mortice lock:

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's not a matter of excuses. It's a matter of differentiating normal human behavior from aberrant human behavior. Amanda and Raffaele did not do anything out of the realm of possibility for innocent people.

You guys take one-tenth of 1% of the evidence out of context and say it proves guilt, ignoring the 99.99% that point toward innocence.

I suppose you, like Fiona, don't have a passion or an axe to grind, either?

Yes it is and that's what it comes down to...making endless excuses for the pair and for the evidence.

I have a passion for truth.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why is Ms Dempsey babbling away about AK's makeup? I thought it was supposed to be the PMF that was engrossed in details about her looks.

And whatever did happen to Sen. Cantwell?

I'm glad you noticed the hypocrisy. If someone were to argue that a girl was capable of murder because she did wear make-up, Candace would be the first screaming from her feminist pulpit. But she's quite happy to argue the lack of make-up on a woman is a sign of innocence and evidence that she was neither sexually aware, predatory or murderous (I presume this then must mean wearing make-up implies all these things). And this well sums up the quality of her book in terms of the arguments and 'evidence' you're going to get. After all, she only went to Italy to cover the case for 3 - 4 hearings and has no contacts in the prosecution, defence or victims teams and has had no access to the Kerchers. It comprises of syrupy smaltz fed to her by Amanda's family all superimposed with her own world view.

As for Cantwell, she disappeared into the sunset long ago. I suppose she doesn't need to write a book.

 

[Mary_H]

A mortice lock:

[qimg]http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=1189[/qimg]

What happened to the key? Why would Amanda and Raffaele lock a door they knew would soon be opened?

If Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, they would know she was dead. Did they take the cellphones and throw them in a garden in another part of town to further stage the burglary? Why not then also take other valuable items?

Rudy didn't know she was dead -- that's why he took her cell phones and locked the door.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes it is and that's what it comes down to...making endless excuses for the pair and for the evidence.

I have a passion for truth.

You and Fiona are both deluded. You wouldn't recognize truth if it came up and bit you in the butt. Your hostility is apparent to everyone but yourselves.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm glad you noticed the hypocrisy. If someone were to argue that a girl was capable of murder because she did wear make-up, Candace would be the first screaming from her feminist pulpit. But she's quite happy to argue the lack of make-up on a woman is a sign of innocence and evidence that she was neither sexually aware, predatory or murderous (I presume this then must mean wearing make-up implies all these things). And this well sums up the quality of her book in terms of the arguments and 'evidence' you're going to get. After all, she only went to Italy to cover the case for 3 - 4 hearings and has no contacts in the prosecution, defence or victims teams and has had no access to the Kerchers. It comprises of syrupy smaltz fed to her by Amanda's family all superimposed with her own world view.

As for Cantwell, she disappeared into the sunset long ago. I suppose she doesn't need to write a book.

You two ought to do a little research before you start taking Bill Edelblute's word for anything. He notoriously leaves out a great many of the details when he writes his slanted opinion pieces.

 

[Mary_H]

And judging from the quality of his photo, I am guessing he took it from a very long distance away, without a flash. More stalking?