Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

OK... So the footprints are themselves evidence that there were multiple attackers?

In that case you can't use the fact there were multiple attackers to argue that the prints were made by multiple attackers, can you? Since your reason for believing the multiple attacker theory is the footprints themselves. As I said, very circular logic.

Read that first sentence from my post again. I assure you, that's not circular.

A points to C
B points to C
C agrees with A and B
therefore: A, B, and C.


That is hardly circular

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do you have a source showing that Amanda's questioning began past midnight? Kestrel earlier quoted Amanda's phone call to Filomena, at around 10:30pm, which ends with Amanda saying that someone 'wants to talk to me'.

Barbie Nadeau - her book. That's just one source.

And Katy, stop...you know full well Amanda's questioning didn't start at 10:30...she was being told off for doing cartwheels in the waiting room at 11 pm for a start. Unless you're trying to argue Amanda started doing cartwheels 'while' she was being questioned...

 

[Fulcanelli]

I tend to think the argument about whether Rudy could've turned and locked the door is a bit of a red herring. Not that it couldn't have happened that way.

There are shoe prints from Rudy around Meredith's body, and there are some more which begin in the corridor and lead out the front door. There seems to be a gap in continuity in the shoe prints between Meredith's body and the corridor, and there are no shoe prints leading into the bathroom, though we know Rudy went in there several times. Then there's a bare footprint on the bath mat.

So someone wearing shoes walked around near the body and walked down the corridor, while someone in bare feet walked into the bathroom. And we know Rudy was in all those locations. Surely, then, the logical conclusion - given that there are no areas where bare footprints and shoe prints overlap - is that the same person, Rudy, made all these prints. He wasn't wearing shoes when he went into the bathroom (probably because he realized he was leaving shoe prints everywhere, and took them off), but put them back on in the corridor just before he left the house. I certainly can't see how the evidence rules that out. If there were two different sets of *shoe prints*, that would be an entirely different matter

Sure..if he got several foot transplants that evening.

 

[stilicho]

Greggy's position as a scientist on the knife evidence is very clear: he thinks it should never have been admitted, because Stefanoni used a brand new technique and produced absolutely no evidence to show it works. He says himself there is a separation between his belief, as an individual, that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and his professional opinion as a scientist.

It's strange that we can read exactly the same opinion and arrive at such opposite conclusions. He clarifies and qualifies his professional opinion several times. He says the onus is on Stefanoni to publish her results so that others may use it. He qualifies his doubts by explaining he is an ocean away. He even states that Stefanoni "deserves praise and recognition by her scientific peers".

Does Mark say any of these things? He might but you need to locate them and copy the quotes here.

I might add that I interacted with Greggy directly to find out more about his objections including their extent. You are either intentionally or accidentally omitting a large part of what he said about Stefanoni's work to support your hypothesis that he is in agreement with Mark and/or Chris. So the challenge is at your feet now. Show us where they also say those things detailed above.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Greggy's position as a scientist on the knife evidence is very clear: he thinks it should never have been admitted, because Stefanoni used a brand new technique and produced absolutely no evidence to show it works. He says himself there is a separation between his belief, as an individual, that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and his professional opinion as a scientist. I'm interested in the latter, not the former (except in so far as his belief in their guilt should make his doubts about the knife evidence even more striking).

This is disingenuous. You are putting words in Greggy's mouth. Since when did he ever say she'd offered 'absolutely no evidence to show how it works'? You need to stop putting YOUR words in the mouths of others.

I don't think Greggy's professional position is far removed from Chris and Mark's positions at all. In fact, what he said in his posts made Mark's argument much clearer to me. As Mark says, this wasn't LCN - with all its attendant controversies - this was worse. I didn't fully grasp that fact until I read Greggy's posts; up until then, I'd thought the big issue was LCN itself, but there's much more to it than that. Mark and Greggy say exactly the same thing (admittedly coloured in each case by their views as individuals as to Knox/Sollecito's guilt, the use of cute little nicknames like AK47 and so on).

Were I you, I'd wait for the translated report to be published. Then you might actually have some idea of what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Separate argument. I was addressing the valid point made a while ago by a couple of posters, Shuttlt and Fulcanelli from memory, who said that Rudy would not have taken the cards because they could be traced to him. If he swiped the wallet, taking the cards (inadvertently) would be a great deal more understandable.

Why are we now inventing stolen wallets? The stolen/missing items are listed and that list is clear. There's no wallet on that list.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh come now, Fulcanelli. Barbie isn't objective because she makes her opinion clear in her writing. Without going off to read more articles by her, which I have no particular wish to do, one example from memory is in her write-up of Amanda's testimony in court. She begins by telling the reader that suspects in Italian courts are allowed, nay expected, to lie. She introduces that little fact to subtly suggest to the reader that Amanda was lying. It's not rocket science. And it's not objective.

What she wrote is the truth...in Italy suspects are allowed to lie and indeed expected to lie on the stand and they do not testify under oath. That isn't bias, but informing the reader of the facts and that's part of her job as a journalist...to educate the reader about the Italian system. Who else is going to do it?

Her writing is very slanted to her belief that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Nothing wrong with that, or at least nothing wrong with it as long as the facts she uses to support that belief are accurate. Unfortunately, in her book, many of her facts are really speculations presented as facts. You still haven't answered the question as to whether Candace makes any equally grave errors. I'll take that as a no.

Where does she ever express a personal view that they are guilty? And excuse me, they were both found guilty after a trial in a unanimous verdict. It is the standard among the media to declare in accordance with the verdict, to accept it...that happens with all cases.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have already asked about this because I do not know if the word "purse" was used in the british or the american sense. I assume the latter but I do not know. Does anyone?

American. And translations from Italian. There were two purses in Meredith's room examined. I would suggest that one was her handbag (which was on her bed...and we know from the pictures that was actually a handbag and not a purse) and there was a purse in her wardrobe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Everyone should take time and read this article by Cesare Beccari who is an Italian lawyer:

How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 1 of 4)

 

[RWVBWL]

Why are we now inventing stolen wallets? The stolen/missing items are listed and that list is clear. There's no wallet on that list.

Hi Fulcanelli,
How do you know this?
Miss Kercher is dead, so she can't tell us that.
Do the police list her wallet into evidence also?
Or do you have a photograph of it being in her purse, hand bag or whatever you wanna call it?

In my opinion, the police did a somewhat crappy investigation, so here we are, on the JREF forum, discussing our skepticism about a few things, while you continuosly follow the court and prosecutions theories, reports. and verdict. Cool, I guess. But some of us here DO NOT believe it to be true, so what?

Question for ya Fulcanelli:
Have you ever dated a woman, who did not keep her credit cards in her wallet, inside a purse or handbag also if she used one?
ALL of the gals I have ever dated kept their CC's in their wallet, and it was either in a purse or their back pocket.
Well then, did Guede take the wallet or just take the credit cards outta the wallet and leave it in the purse?
Since it took someone else to find out that Guede did wear Nike's also, maybe the cops did not think of this too. Credit to katy_did for bringing the CC's in the wallet to our attention ...
RWVBWL

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Fiona writes:

The evidence of multiple attackers is said to come from the injuries on Meredith's body, so far as I know. The fact that there are footprints of different sizes tends to confirm it. The fact that Guede's footprints go straight out the door without a pause indicates that he did not lock the door. That means someone else did and again supports the idea that more than one person was involved. The fact that those footprints were bloody suggests that he did not wash his shoes and indeed tends to suggest he did not remove them: therefore the presence of bare footprints also indicates more than one person is involved. I do not see anything circular there. You need not accept those things or the interepretation of them, but it is not a flawed argument unless I am missing something

The flaw I perceive is not in the reasoning, but in the underlying premise. The crux of our debate is what the evidence means. What does the luminol data from Raffaele's place mean? The prosecutor has ignored it. But he needs evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so he has attributed a specific meaning to luminol data from the cottage. But the random nature and lack of continuity of this data suggests that the prosecutor's interpretation of it is arbitrary and false.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hi Fulcanelli,
How do you know this?
Miss Kercher is dead, so she can't tell us that.
Do the police list her wallet into evidence also?
Or do you have a photograph of it being in her purse, hand bag or whatever you wanna call it?

In my opinion, the police did a somewhat crappy investigation, so here we are, on the JREF forum, discussing our skepticism about a few things, while you continuosly follow the court and prosecutions theories, reports. and verdict. Cool, I guess. But some of us here DO NOT believe it to be true, so what?

Question for ya Fulcanelli:
Have you ever dated a woman, who did not keep her credit cards in her wallet, inside a purse or handbag also if she used one?
ALL of the gals I have ever dated kept their CC's in their wallet, and it was either in a purse or their back pocket.
Well then, did Guede take the wallet or just take the credit cards outta the wallet and leave it in the purse?
Since it took someone else to find out that Guede did wear Nike's also, maybe the cops did not think of this too. Credit to katy_did for bringing the CC's in the wallet to our attention ...
RWVBWL

The stolen items were listed both in the pre-trial and the trial. A purse wasn't one of them. Her handbag and purse were in her room.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fiona writes:

The evidence of multiple attackers is said to come from the injuries on Meredith's body, so far as I know. The fact that there are footprints of different sizes tends to confirm it. The fact that Guede's footprints go straight out the door without a pause indicates that he did not lock the door. That means someone else did and again supports the idea that more than one person was involved. The fact that those footprints were bloody suggests that he did not wash his shoes and indeed tends to suggest he did not remove them: therefore the presence of bare footprints also indicates more than one person is involved. I do not see anything circular there. You need not accept those things or the interepretation of them, but it is not a flawed argument unless I am missing something

The flaw I perceive is not in the reasoning, but in the underlying premise. The crux of our debate is what the evidence means. What does the luminol data from Raffaele's place mean? The prosecutor has ignored it. But he needs evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, so he has attributed a specific meaning to luminol data from the cottage. But the random nature and lack of continuity of this data suggests that the prosecutor's interpretation of it is arbitrary and false.

So has the defence...so it can't mean much to them either.

 

[Alt+F4]

The stolen items were listed both in the trial and the trial. A purse wasn't one of them. Her handbag and purse were in her room.

This might be an issue of translation. The words handbag and purse can be used interchangeably (in American English).

RWVBWL bring up a good point, who was it that determined what was stolen/missing from Meredith's bedroom?

 

[RWVBWL]

The stolen items were listed both in the pre-trial and the trial. A purse wasn't one of them. Her handbag and purse were in her room.

Hi Fulcanelli,
Thanks for the info, but you only mentioned the handbag and the purse. We are speaking of the wallet.

A wallet is small, and fits cash, coins, credit cards, drivers license, and sometimes photo's. It can also fit in a persons back pocket.

A purse is larger, it closes up and has handles. Inside there is usually a wallet, make-up, a hair brushbrush, and other personal things, etc. You will see a lot of gals out on the town with either their purse with them or their wallet in their back pocket.

A handbag is usually much larger, such as the one I believe that was photographed in Miss Kercher's room. It will usually have a wallet, make-up, personal hygene items, small books, and other items that do not fit into a smaller purse. Capiche?

So with that in mind, did Guede take the credit cards outta the wallet, which should have been inside the handbag, or did he steal the wallet itself? This is what I gather that katy_did was writing about...
RWVBWL

 

[el buscador]

In America a hand bag and purse are the same thing. A wallet is smaller, holds cash, change and credit cards and usually is carried inside a purse or handbag.

 

[Fiona]

Hi Fulcanelli,
Thanks for the info, but you only mentioned the handbag and the purse. We are speaking of the wallet.

Fulcanelli is british, I believe.

A wallet is small, and fits cash, coins, credit cards, drivers license, and sometimes photo's. It can also fit in a persons back pocket.

In uk english a man carries a wallet and a woman carries a purse. They are both what you call a wallet

A purse is larger, it closes up and has handles. Inside there is usually a wallet, make-up, a hair brushbrush, and other personal things, etc. You will see a lot of gals out on the town with either their purse with them or their wallet in their back pocket.

In uk english that is a handbag

A handbag is usually much larger, such as the one I believe that was photographed in Miss Kercher's room. It will usually have a wallet, make-up, personal hygene items, small books, and other items that do not fit into a smaller purse. Capiche?

That is a big handbag in uk english. Capiche?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Amazer writes:

I'm sure you understand that I'm not going to just take your word for it. Please provide a link to this video.

I can do this. But should I do it? I want more input from this group.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's my understanding that Meredith's wallet was stolen out of her purse or handbag (which ever word you choose to use). That would mean there would be blood or DNA found INSIDE the purse/handbag, yes?

 

[Fiona]

We have no idea whether her purse was in her handbag or not, so far as I know