Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Lallante]

I can't believe you are so naive as not to see that evidence for what it is.

Imagine this scenario:
Neither Raf nor Amanda murdered Kercher. Both spent all night together, making love or whatever after 8.40.
The police become utterly convinced Amanda is the killer with Raf the accomplice. There is some evidence of Amanda as killer.
Your lawyer tells you there is enough evidence to convict you both.
You are Raf.

Do you:
a) stick to your story and go to prison for a murder you didnt commit
b) detach your story from that of Amanda's (by being more vague about the details), so any evidence linking her to the crime is less likely to be applied to you, and thus lessen the chances of going to prison for a murder you didnt commit.

Tell me that it isn't perfectly believable that someone would pick option b) (morally rightly or wrongly) in that nightmare scenario.

 

[Mary_H]

And here's the rub...they both seem to have a perfect memory of events leading up to 8:40 pm, yet abrubtly after 8:40 pm they either can't remember what they did, or the events they cite never happened that night as proven by the facts, or the events they claimed happened all happened before 8:40 pm (a combination of those three). You can't have it both ways...where they remember all the facts leading up to 8:40 but not one after that time.

Hardly perfect.


"From this moment (6:00 p.m.) come my problems, ecause I have confused memories. For the first thing Amanda and I had gone downtown from Piazza Grimana to Corso Vannucci passing behind the university for exchange students and ending up in Piazza Morlacchi (we always take that road), then I don't remember but presumably we had to go grocery shopping. We returned to my house around to the 20:00-20:30 and there I made another pipe and saw that as it was a holiday, to take myself with
extreme tranquility, without the smallest intention to go out inasmuch as outside it was cold. I don't remember in reality at what time I ate, but certainly I ate and Amanda ate with me. The questions the agents of the Squadra Mobile me have made me to remember that that day the water pipe under to sink was detached and thing I find very suspicious, I've seen that it is not possible to so detach alone, at any rate, the fact is that it flooded half the house. I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night."

 

[Mary_H]

I can't believe you are so naive as not to see that evidence for what it is.

Imagine this scenario:
Neither Raf nor Amanda murdered Kercher. Both spent all night together, making love or whatever after 8.40.
The police become utterly convinced Amanda is the killer with Raf the accomplice. There is some evidence of Amanda as killer.
Your lawyer tells you there is enough evidence to convict you both.
You are Raf.

Do you:
a) stick to your story and go to prison for a murder you didn't commit
b) detach your story from that of Amanda's (by being more vague about the details), so any evidence linking her to the crime is less likely to be applied to you, and thus lessen the chances of going to prison for a murder you didn't commit.

Tell me that it isn't perfectly believable that someone would pick option b) (morally rightly or wrongly) in that nightmare scenario.

I agree. Raffaele had good lawyers; he had little choice but to follow their advice.

Look at the kind of logic they were up against:


Raffaele: "None of my biological material was found at the crime scene."

Supreme Court: "The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant."

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=1173#p1173

 

[Fulcanelli]

I can't believe you are so naive as not to see that evidence for what it is.

Imagine this scenario:
Neither Raf nor Amanda murdered Kercher. Both spent all night together, making love or whatever after 8.40.
The police become utterly convinced Amanda is the killer with Raf the accomplice. There is some evidence of Amanda as killer.
Your lawyer tells you there is enough evidence to convict you both.
You are Raf.

Do you:
a) stick to your story and go to prison for a murder you didnt commit
b) detach your story from that of Amanda's (by being more vague about the details), so any evidence linking her to the crime is less likely to be applied to you, and thus lessen the chances of going to prison for a murder you didnt commit.

Tell me that it isn't perfectly believable that someone would pick option b) (morally rightly or wrongly) in that nightmare scenario.

I suppose you missed the part where Raffaele claims he was on his computer all night until he went to bed. The computer proved this to be a lie.

He also claims he can't remember if they made love or not that night.

Amanda claims they had a long erotic shower together, Raffaele remembers no such shower.

Amanda claims they sat on his bed and a long and deep conversation about how she was bullied at school because her schoolmates thought she was a lesbian and they spoke at length about Raffaele's suicided mother. Raffaele remembers no such deep conversation and indeed, states his mother didn't even commit suicide.

Amanda claims she read to Raffaele from a German version of a Harry Potter book. Raffaele remembers no such reading.

Raffaelke says Amanda left his apartment shortly before 9 pm. Amanda admitted leaving his apartment that evening. Then she changed her story yet again and claimed she didn't.


There is NOTHING innocent that can be read into any of this, it's all just a bunch of lies and you can weasel their words for them all you like, but they are what they are. A court agreed, in a trial that last 11 months. The verdict was unanimous.

 

[bucketoftea]

I would genuinely enjoy watching you try to keep a clear head and a straight story after many many hours of questioning by angry, overzealous police in a second language after finding out your housemate has been brutally raped and murdered.

I'm sure your story would stay precise, detail your exact movements and never express any doubt despite police pressure.

Answers given after hours of interrogation without the presence of a lawyer are fundamentally suspect in any case.

She wasn't interrogated "many many hours of questioning by angry, overzealous police." According to Amanda herself it didn't turn unpleasant until round midnight before she was arrested, and she falsely accused Lumumba after less than 2 hours.

Just as Lallante asserts that he can't remember things, I assert that it would be normal for someone in these circumstances to be able to remember, because one would be trying to reconstruct for their own understanding...if they were innocent. There's no such thing as marijuana memory blackouts, either.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hardly perfect.

Compared to what they can remember after 8:40...it's perfect. It's as good as we can reasonably expect people without perfect memories to remember.

 

[Mary_H]

That's commitment! Do you know what weasel words are Mary?

No. This was your claim:

"....not a single one of you ever blame or criticise Raffaele for putting Amanda in that situation in the first place by withdrawing her alibi and then after never speaking out to give her one...."

He shows in his diary that he no longer believes Amanda did not spend the night with him.

 

[bucketoftea]

I can't believe you are so naive as not to see that evidence for what it is.

Imagine this scenario:
Neither Raf nor Amanda murdered Kercher. Both spent all night together, making love or whatever after 8.40.
The police become utterly convinced Amanda is the killer with Raf the accomplice. There is some evidence of Amanda as killer.
Your lawyer tells you there is enough evidence to convict you both.
You are Raf.

Do you:
a) stick to your story and go to prison for a murder you didnt commit
b) detach your story from that of Amanda's (by being more vague about the details), so any evidence linking her to the crime is less likely to be applied to you, and thus lessen the chances of going to prison for a murder you didnt commit.

Tell me that it isn't perfectly believable that someone would pick option b) (morally rightly or wrongly) in that nightmare scenario.

e)Tell the truth. End of.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree. Raffaele had good lawyers; he had little choice but to follow their advice.

Look at the kind of logic they were up against:


Raffaele: "None of my biological material was found at the crime scene."

Supreme Court: "The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant."

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=1173#p1173

But it isn't significant when there's a whole heap of other evidence against you (and of course, it must also be remembered the High Court was also only reviewing the evidence amassed before the discovery of Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp and Raffaele's footprints in Meredith's blood...I know that isn't to do with the point you're trying to make, but that should be pointed out for those who aren't aware what evidence the High Court were reviewing).

 

[Mary_H]

Compared to what they can remember after 8:40...it's perfect. It's as good as we can reasonably expect people without perfect memories to remember.

Is this comment what you mean by "weasel words?" Where you kinda try to take back something you said by pretending there is some explanation other than that you were wrong?

 

[bucketoftea]

No. This was your claim:

"....not a single one of you ever blame or criticise Raffaele for putting Amanda in that situation in the first place by withdrawing her alibi and then after never speaking out to give her one...."

He shows in his diary that he no longer believes Amanda did not spend the night with him.

"No longer believes" ROFL

 

[Fulcanelli]

No. This was your claim:

"....not a single one of you ever blame or criticise Raffaele for putting Amanda in that situation in the first place by withdrawing her alibi and then after never speaking out to give her one...."

He shows in his diary that he no longer believes Amanda did not spend the night with him.

He also says in his diary he pricked Meredith in his flat while cooking. Fortunately for him, the diary wasn't admitted into the trial as evidence.

What it is from Raffaele, is what we call 'hedging your bets'...he neither commits to her being there nor does he commit to her leaving. If you regard that as 'honest', then all I can say is sucker!

But regardless, he has never given her an alibi where it counts...in court, despite having numerous opportunities to do so.

 

[Mary_H]

But it isn't significant when there's a whole heap of other evidence against you (and of course, it must also be remembered the High Court was also only reviewing the evidence amassed before the discovery of Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp and Raffaele's footprints in Meredith's blood...I know that isn't to do with the point you're trying to make, but that should be pointed out for those who aren't aware what evidence the High Court were reviewing).

There was no other evidence against him. The fact that this statement was made before the bra clasp materialized makes it even more egregious. A judge who says, "The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant"?

Good lord.

 

[funk de fino]

There is only one thing worse than the lies those pair of clowns told the police. The lies and blatant falsehoods their supporters are telling here.

They do realise that they are only making it look worse for the supposed victims of this miscarriage of justice?

 

[stilicho]

Please show me evidence that they 'dont know' or 'cant remember' anything they did after 8.40?

Have you read the transcripts of AK's testimony? She wasn't even under oath so she could have literally made up anything she wanted without repercussions. Instead, it's an endless litany of "I-don't-know" and "I-can't-remember".

This is at her trial for murder. She's not being asked to name the capital of North Dakota or who played third base for the 1980 Atlanta Braves.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There was no other evidence against him. The fact that this statement was made before the bra clasp materialized makes it even more egregious. A judge who says, "The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant"?

Good lord.

What do you mean there was no other evidence against him? It's the way you tell 'em Mary

And as for biological traces, murderer's will commonly not leave any at a crime scene. There absence is not proof of innocence. So why should the court regard that as 'significant'?

 

[stilicho]

Compared to what they can remember after 8:40...it's perfect. It's as good as we can reasonably expect people without perfect memories to remember.

And don't forget that her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 was a perfectly crafted explanation with meticulous details about everything eventually encountered by the police investigators in the rest of the cottage. This foggy-minded ingenue was precise about the ordering of events, their location, the time, everything.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And I should point out here also, the purpose of the High Court was not to declare Raffaele innocent or guilty, it wasn't a trial. It was merely whether to establish that the ruling made by the previous courts and that his arrest, his detention and the continuing investigation against him was justified.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And don't forget that her alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 was a perfectly crafted explanation with meticulous details about everything eventually encountered by the police investigators in the rest of the cottage. This foggy-minded ingenue was precise about the ordering of events, their location, the time, everything.

Yep, suddenly she had a 'great' memory. She can turn it off and on that girl.

Raffaele's memory of the morning wasn't that bad either.

Although very strangely, both their memories go real hazy again before 10 am that morning

 

[bucketoftea]

There was no other evidence against him. The fact that this statement was made before the bra clasp materialized makes it even more egregious. A judge who says, "The absence of your biological traces at the crime scene is not significant"?

Good lord.

It's that old proving a negative thing. You can't prove she wasn't there, you can only prove she was somewhere else. Except you can't.

Why do so many people assume that criminals always leave their DNA? Think how easily things could be cleared up if this were true.