• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lallante said:
If you have a perfect memory of the events of each day, congratulations. I for one could barely tell you a single detail of my journey to work this morning let alone my evening several nights ago.
Click to expand...

They weren't required to have perfect memories. They weren't even required to say anything at all to the police. They chose each other as alibis and when that fell apart they were only left with their lies exposed.

The problem is that they did not originally tell the police that they had no idea what they were doing that evening. They each told their stories and they didn't match. The evidence didn't match. This was all discussed at length in court.
 
This was posted on Bill Edelblute's comments section and I had to comment;

John Winters says:
Harry Rag
Let me ask you a question.
If I wore a white coat and instructed you to push a button which would send 6000 volts streaking through a complete stranger's body, would you happily do it?
Actually I don't know why I'm bothering. We all know the answer to this one.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony! Well, Halkides and Waterbury would certainly expect us to if they were the ones wearing the white coats!!! :) :) :)
 
stilicho said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between remembering something anomalous and remembering something normal. Most of us don't go around deliberately remembering things; we tend to remember things that are interesting, that will be useful to remember or that we know we will need to remember. Also, by the time Amanda wrote her e-mail, she had already repeated the story several times to the police.

If the police had questioned her about the night before the crime as often and as thoroughly as they questioned her about the day the body was found, she would have been able to remember that better, too. Unfortunately, they didn't question her about that until a few days had passed and they decided they wanted some suspects NOW.
 
Mary H said:
If the police had questioned her about the night before the crime as often and as thoroughly as they questioned her about the day the body was found, she would have been able to remember that better, too. Unfortunately, they didn't question her about that until a few days had passed and they decided they wanted some suspects NOW.
Click to expand...

You just love to make these unsupported assertions don't you? Cite?

Mary H said:
=There is a big difference between remembering something anomalous and remembering something normal. Most of us don't go around deliberately remembering things; we tend to remember things that are interesting, that will be useful to remember or that we know we will need to remember. Also, by the time Amanda wrote her e-mail, she had already repeated the story several times to the police.
Click to expand...

Umm, what was 'mundane' about any of the things Amanda claimed she and Raffaele did on the night of the murder? Did you see the list I posted further above?

As for her email, that reads like a rehearsal in and of itself.
 
Mary_H said:
There is a big difference between remembering something anomalous and remembering something normal. Most of us don't go around deliberately remembering things; we tend to remember things that are interesting, that will be useful to remember or that we know we will need to remember. Also, by the time Amanda wrote her e-mail, she had already repeated the story several times to the police.

If the police had questioned her about the night before the crime as often and as thoroughly as they questioned her about the day the body was found, she would have been able to remember that better, too. Unfortunately, they didn't question her about that until a few days had passed and they decided they wanted some suspects NOW.
Click to expand...

We have no idea what she was questioned about and when but I'm pretty sure they asked what she was doing the night before (because, oddly, that is when the murder took place). You reasoning is amusing. It's the police's fault she "can't remember"because they didn't question her enough?
 
bucketoftea said:
We have no idea what she was questioned about and when but I'm pretty sure they asked what she was doing the night before (because, oddly, that is when the murder took place). You reasoning is amusing. It's the police's fault she "can't remember"because they didn't question her enough?
Click to expand...

Let's face it, it's a losing proposition for the police either way.

Or they question Amanda too much and that confused her and as a result she's making up stuff. Or they question her too little and as a result she cannot remember exactly what happened and feels the need to make up stuff.
 
Amazer said:
Let's face it, it's a losing proposition for the police either way.

Or they question Amanda too much and that confused her and as a result she's making up stuff. Or they question her too little and as a result she cannot remember exactly what happened and feels the need to make up stuff.
Click to expand...

First the police know she's guilty so they browbeat her but when she accuses Patrick they believe her.

It seems like the Italian police are a cross between the Keystone Cops and the Gestapo.
 
bucketoftea said:
We have no idea what she was questioned about and when but I'm pretty sure they asked what she was doing the night before (because, oddly, that is when the murder took place). You reasoning is amusing. It's the police's fault she "can't remember"because they didn't question her enough?
Click to expand...

I believe the suspicions of the police against Amanda were raised the very first day they questioned her (November 2) when she told them her account of entering her flat that morning.

According to her November 6 memorandum, Amanda writes:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.

If Amanda's story of what she did when entering her flat raised suspicions I would imagine the police questioned her also that first day as to her activities the day before and night of the murder.
 
christianahannah said:
If Amanda's story of what she did when entering her flat raised suspicions I would imagine the police questioned her also that first day as to her activities the day before and night of the murder.
Click to expand...

It's inconceivable that they wouldn't have done.

And we know they did, because Raffaele was called in on the evening of the 5th regarding 'inconsistencies' (which implies with 'details') in his earlier statements and those inconsistencies must have been in regard to the evening of the 1st Nov, otherwise he wouldn't have suddenly changed his story about 'that' evening. Therefore, we can conclude that he'd already previously given at least one 'detailed' statement about his activities and movements on the night of the 1st Nov before his questioning on the 5th. If he had previously given a detailed statement about the night of the 1st, then so would have Amanda, as the police wouldn't have taken a detailed statement from one and not the other.
 
Last edited:
Lallante said:
You are either hopelessly naive or being outright intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely no way I could give an hour by hour summary of what I did last night, let alone several days ago with a traumatic event in between. My answer would be just like theres - a hodge podge of all the individual incidents I could remember over the course of an evening, getting times wrong and listing lots of different things.

If you have a perfect memory of the events of each day, congratulations. I for one could barely tell you a single detail of my journey to work this morning let alone my evening several nights ago.
Click to expand...

Did you not say you were an attorney? Pity your clients if your memory is that poor. This past Sunday night this is what I did:

18:00 - I watched the television show 60 Minutes. My son was on the computer.
19:00 - I began fixing dinner. Salmon with lemon juice, garlic, ground pepper and capers. Rice pilaf.
19:40 - We ate dinner. I drank a glass of Australian Pinot Noir. My son had water.
20:15 - My son took his shower. I washed the dishes.
20:40 - We watched the movie Beetlejuice.
22:30 - We went to bed.

Not that difficult. I can do Saturday, Friday and Thursday night too if you like. If you were to ask my son (he's 12 yrs. old) he would say: computer, salmon & rice for dinner, shower, Beetlejuice, bed, in that order although he might not get the time exact.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of lawyers...I think Dr Mark really has missed his true calling. He should consider practicing law in northern Illinois.
 
Mary_H said:
There is a big difference between remembering something anomalous and remembering something normal. Most of us don't go around deliberately remembering things; we tend to remember things that are interesting, that will be useful to remember or that we know we will need to remember. Also, by the time Amanda wrote her e-mail, she had already repeated the story several times to the police.

If the police had questioned her about the night before the crime as often and as thoroughly as they questioned her about the day the body was found, she would have been able to remember that better, too. Unfortunately, they didn't question her about that until a few days had passed and they decided they wanted some suspects NOW.
Click to expand...

Sheer unmitigated claptrap.

First you suggest they were making love together all night. Now you claim that people remember only things that are interesting. I suppose making love for four or five hours with your partner isn't interesting.

You're confusing memory recall with making up stories. It is hard to make up a story and get all the facts straight--in the correct order, at the correct times, in the correct places, etc--and especially hard to do so when you're depending on corroboration. That was part of the purpose of the alibi email of 04 NOV 2007. It was a story, as honours student Amanda was fond of writing, with a precision missing from her eventual court testimony.

It's not surprising that most of Amanda's apologists, including those claiming to be professionals or academics, also claim to be completely unaware of details of their own lives including what they had for dinner last night. But do they also make up stories about those details? Change them? Include people they know weren't there?

No. They just say "I-can't-remember". That's what Amanda said on the stand but not to the police.
 
Mary H
No boyz alowd

Thats excellent -

I'ld love someone who supports Amanda to explain to me why and how Grudy locked Meredith's door - keeping in mind about his footprints found with luninal leading out the front door and not pointing towards Meredith's door.

And if it was so important to lock her door, why didn't he lock the front door as well, he had her keys in his hand 3 seconds earlier.

If I have your story right, he took her keys, went out the front door, removed his shoes, came back and locked her door and then shut the other door so anyone entering the cottage wouldn't see the break-in, or the dead body, but he left the front door unlocked because an open door would not draw suspicion..... Put his shoes back on and ran away.
 
rudy claims he went to the small bathroom 2 times for towels and no one that I know of has disputed his claims. If he went to the bathroom 2 times, where are his bloody footprints on those ocassions?
 
It doesn't matter how many times he left the room, if he had stepped in the blood before, he would have left the footprints, but if he locked the door, he must have left and already steeped in the blood because he left the marks, but they don't point to Meredith's door, so how could he have locked it, and why?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
And if it was so important to lock her door, why didn't he lock the front door as well, he had her keys in his hand 3 seconds earlier.
Click to expand...

I don't think not locking the front door has much bearing on the scenario. Rudy didn't necessarily know that by not locking the front door it would be opened later by the wind. I'm sure his main concern was keeping people out of Meredith's room. Locking the front door wouldn't stop anyone from entering the cottage, but locking Meredith's door would certainly keep people from entering her room.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Mary H
No boyz alowd

Thats excellent -
Click to expand...

Thank you. :)

I'ld love someone who supports Amanda to explain to me why and how Grudy locked Meredith's door - keeping in mind about his footprints found with luninal leading out the front door and not pointing towards Meredith's door.

And if it was so important to lock her door, why didn't he lock the front door as well, he had her keys in his hand 3 seconds earlier.

If I have your story right, he took her keys, went out the front door, removed his shoes, came back and locked her door and then shut the other door so anyone entering the cottage wouldn't see the break-in, or the dead body, but he left the front door unlocked because an open door would not draw suspicion..... Put his shoes back on and ran away.
Click to expand...

There is no point to using the footprints as evidence Rudy didn't lock the door. I can easily start my way out the door, remember it needs locking, and reach around and lock it without moving my feet; I do it all the time. No, I don't use a key, but if I were practiced enough, I would be able to do that, too.

I don't think the point of locking Meredith's door was to keep other people out; it was to keep Meredith in. He took her cell phones so she wouldn't call for help; he locked her door so she wouldn't go for help. He was hoping she was not dead.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom