• 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.
uk_dave said:
No **** sherlock.

If there is one thing apparent from this thread and those of the 'truthers' over in the conspiracy section, it is that the media is piss poor at reporting things accurately, or at least as accurately as their reports need to be if they are then dissected by earnest little Internet sleuths for any confirmation of their preconceived position.

Interestingly, those who believe in the innocence of AK and RS appear to depend alot on the news reporting for their 'facts' and ignore where this is contradicted by the court transcripts if it fails to conform to their narrative.
Click to expand...

Considering the court transcripts are not available, how do you know that anyone's claim is contradicted by the court transcripts?
 
Jungle Jim said:
Oh, this thread has plenty of "obsessional emotionalism" going on.

Welcome to the JREF.
Click to expand...

Haha fair enough, and thanks for the welcome.

However extreme posters' views get (and civilised people can agree to disagree, even vehemently), at least personal insults seem to get pulled up on this forum (regardless of who does the insulting), and it also appears to be generally moderated in a calm, objective and dispassionate manner. You don't want to know what I got called in private by the moderator of another forum - and in public by various members of that forum - since it's off-topic and a descent to their levels of nastiness. I look forward to a robust exchange of views on here, without all the catty name-calling and self-righteous certitude.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hi all. Glad to see some interesting debate going on here, with less of the - shall we say - obsessional emotionalism that seems to be the norm for other forums dedicated to this case...

I have a somewhat nuanced view of this case: I believe that AK, RS and RG all most likely DID have something to do with the murder, but I think that AK and RS in particular may have been wrongly convicted based on the evidence. It's perfectly possible, both in law and in ethics, to argue simultaneously that "on balance" a certain person committed a certain crime, but that they cannot and should not be convicted since sufficient reasonable doubt remains. Such a position is an unfortunate outcome in many ways (and certainly distressing to the victim's family), but that's the way that a good criminal justice system should work.

I'm reminded very much of the case here in the UK of Barry George, who was accused, then convicted in the Old Bailey, of the gunshot murder of popular TV personality Jill Dando on her own doorstep in 1999. Here's a short precis for anyone who's unfamilar with this case:

In some interesting parallels, the Dando case was all over the media here from the very beginning, putting the police and prosecutors under a lot of pressure to arrest and convict....
Click to expand...

Other than the media parallel what other parallels do you see between the George and Knox/Sollecito cases?
 
stilicho said:
Wrong. They were playing a game of "oh-my-memory-might-just-come-back-any-time-now" and not deliberately implicating one another. There's a pretty big distinction.

The analysis made a lot of sense since RG had not been captured and, not being able to read minds, neither the accused nor their lawyers could possibly have known if or when that was ever going to happen.

In the meantime, as the author indicates, either one of them could have gone ahead and explained exactly what happened to therefore win the opportunity of getting the least amount of jail time. In a way, that's precisely what RG did by opting for the fast track with a not guilty plea.

You're also mistaken about the sources of information. Very little of that came from the police; it came from their families and the lawyers after their arrests. Just as the contents of the 'diaries' came through those routes.
Click to expand...

I thought we were supposed to be skeptical here. You guys seem to take anything that appears on an anti-Amanda website at face value instead of looking at it from a variety of angles.

He wasn't writing about Amanda and Raffaele exclusively implicating one another. The author puts Amanda, Raffaele and Guede in the same boat -- as shown by the title of the article:

"How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire"

He even starts his argument with discussing Guede's place in it, and talks about "concentric circles," not a straight line.

The problem is both you and the author start with the assumption that the verdicts were correct, and then go from there to analyze what the suspects did wrong. That is called begging the question and it is a fallacy.

You wrote: "In the meantime, as the author indicates, either one of them could have gone ahead and explained exactly what happened to therefore win the opportunity of getting the least amount of jail time."

Well, that couldn't do that if they didn't commit the crime, could they?

What the author leaves out of his "article" is that he is basing his brilliant analysis on a belief that very well could be erroneous. What is the point of that? Might as well go to MissRepresented if that's what you're into.
 
Mary H said:
The problem is both you and the author start with the assumption that the verdicts were correct, and then go from there to analyze what the suspects did wrong. That is called begging the question and it is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the piece wasn't to examine the verdict. But as you mention it, the writer does accept the verdict as correct. He doesn't 'assume' it is, rather it's his informed conclusion that it is after studying the case.

You however, 'assume' they are innocent and 'believe' they are innocent (although I question whether you really do deep down) without a single shred of evidence to show they are innocent. There is however, plenty of evidence indicating their guilt.
 
Mary_H said:
I thought we were supposed to be skeptical here. You guys seem to take anything that appears on an anti-Amanda website at face value instead of looking at it from a variety of angles.

He wasn't writing about Amanda and Raffaele exclusively implicating one another. The author puts Amanda, Raffaele and Guede in the same boat -- as shown by the title of the article:

"How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire"

He even starts his argument with discussing Guede's place in it, and talks about "concentric circles," not a straight line.

The problem is both you and the author start with the assumption that the verdicts were correct, and then go from there to analyze what the suspects did wrong. That is called begging the question and it is a fallacy.

You wrote: "In the meantime, as the author indicates, either one of them could have gone ahead and explained exactly what happened to therefore win the opportunity of getting the least amount of jail time."

Well, that couldn't do that if they didn't commit the crime, could they?

What the author leaves out of his "article" is that he is basing his brilliant analysis on a belief that very well could be erroneous. What is the point of that? Might as well go to MissRepresented if that's what you're into.
Click to expand...

Let's imagine instead that all three were innocent and that an unknown party murdered Meredith. What would be the composition of their 'diaries'? Say you, me, and Fulcanelli were all jailed for the murder of someone else.

How would you write about it?

Mine would be something like: "This is a totally ****ed situation. I barely know these people and there's just no *********** way I would be involved with them in murder."

But all three of the accused were instead coyly stating things like: "From what I know of Fulcanelli, he could have easily committed the murder, blamed it on me, and even involved someone else, although I doubt that really happened."

We're talking about what each of the three said and did after they were in custody. They each had representation.

Regardless of their guilt or the correctness of the verdicts, RG, RS and AK all behaved as if the others had more to say about their own involvement. That's what the article discusses.

They were all in the same boat and they'll continue being in the same boat until their release.
 
stilicho said:
Let's imagine instead that all three were innocent and that an unknown party murdered Meredith. What would be the composition of their 'diaries'? Say you, me, and Fulcanelli were all jailed for the murder of someone else.

How would you write about it?

Mine would be something like: "This is a totally ****ed situation. I barely know these people and there's just no *********** way I would be involved with them in murder."

But all three of the accused were instead coyly stating things like: "From what I know of Fulcanelli, he could have easily committed the murder, blamed it on me, and even involved someone else, although I doubt that really happened."

We're talking about what each of the three said and did after they were in custody. They each had representation.

Regardless of their guilt or the correctness of the verdicts, RG, RS and AK all behaved as if the others had more to say about their own involvement. That's what the article discusses.

They were all in the same boat and they'll continue being in the same boat until their release.
Click to expand...

Again, I doubt the attorneys had had time to formulate strategies by November 7th, but if they did, their first advice to their clients would have been to shut up and stay quiet. I am sure Amanda's attorneys already realized what they were up against with her so-called "spontaneous" statement to the police; they certainly weren't going to allow any more revelations to come out.

Claudia Matteini's decision to keep the suspects imprisoned for a year came out on the 9th. Up to that point, the attorneys should have been working their butts off in the intervening three days trying to keep the suspects out of prison in the first place, not planning the elaborate mental gymnastics the author suggests in this article.

If they were already thinking about strategy at that point, then they would probably have had an inkling that the two suspects would be tried and defended together as a pair. Having them accuse each other would only weaken their mutual position.

If the attorneys wanted them to accuse each other, they would have instructed them to outright state the other one was lying, instead of writing, "I have been told..." and asking questions like, "Why would he lie?"

The author of this article is simply reading way too much into those writings, just as Mignini read way too much into the nature of the crime. They are using other people to make their own lives more interesting.

As for what you or anyone would have written instead, well, what we need to look at is what Amanda and Raffaele would have written, which, coincidentally, is what they did write. The last time they had seen each other, they were on the same page. By the time they were writing in prison, they had been told by very credible sources that they had given each other up. They had no reason not to believe what the police told them, and that is what shows in their writing, not mutual accusations of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Again, I doubt the attorneys had had time to formulate strategies by November 7th, but if they did, their first advice to their clients would have been to shut up and stay quiet. I am sure Amanda's attorneys already realized what they were up against with her so-called "spontaneous" statement to the police; they certainly weren't going to allow any more revelations to come out.

.....

The author of this article is simply reading way too much into those writings, just as Mignini read way too much into the nature of the crime. They are using other people to make their own lives more interesting.

....

By the time they were writing in prison, they had been told by very credible sources that they had given each other up. They had no reason not to believe what the police told them, and that is what shows in their writing, not mutual accusations of guilt.
Click to expand...

1] They did have representation by the time they were taken to their cells. The author reconciles this with the statements and he's a lawyer. Your assertion that Amanda's lawyers (and she's only one of the three who was doing this) did not want any further of her statements publicly available is contrary to the fact Ghirga released at least two parts of her 'diaries'.

2] The lawyer in question is explaining why the 'diaries' were employed by each legal team instead of copping a plea. Each time there was a chance the other could do so they were 'reminded' by coy statements from one or both of the others.

3] This is where you are mistaken. They were well aware the other(s) could turn them in. Their sources of information were their parents and their lawyers. We know this from the snippets of information about Edda's conversations with AK in prison and from Papa Sollecito's efforts to secure any advantage possible for RS.

The clincher is that the lawyer reveals how each of the three pursued the same cat-and-mouse game. It wasn't only AK or RS who was doing it. So was RG. It was seeing it all in one place (albeit in abbreviated form) that this becomes the strongest possible explanation for the 'veiled accusations'.

You have not provided any reasonable alternate explanation.
 
stilicho said:
1] They did have representation by the time they were taken to their cells. The author reconciles this with the statements and he's a lawyer. Your assertion that Amanda's lawyers (and she's only one of the three who was doing this) did not want any further of her statements publicly available is contrary to the fact Ghirga released at least two parts of her 'diaries'.

2] The lawyer in question is explaining why the 'diaries' were employed by each legal team instead of copping a plea. Each time there was a chance the other could do so they were 'reminded' by coy statements from one or both of the others.

3] This is where you are mistaken. They were well aware the other(s) could turn them in. Their sources of information were their parents and their lawyers. We know this from the snippets of information about Edda's conversations with AK in prison and from Papa Sollecito's efforts to secure any advantage possible for RS.

The clincher is that the lawyer reveals how each of the three pursued the same cat-and-mouse game. It wasn't only AK or RS who was doing it. So was RG. It was seeing it all in one place (albeit in abbreviated form) that this becomes the strongest possible explanation for the 'veiled accusations'.

You have not provided any reasonable alternate explanation.
Click to expand...

Is the writing of diaries by those who are imprisoned and awaiting trial common in Italy? It seems rather foolish for any attorney to prompt their client to record their thoughts down on paper where they could be taken by police and used perhaps, to show inconsistencies in a suspect's prior statements.
 
Danceme said:
Bruce or Charlie,
In the diagram of the cottage with red and blue dots indicating foot/shoe prints found, can you tell me which are right feet and which are left feet as they pertain to Rudy. Did he have blood on the bottoms of both shoes or just the one? I find it hard to see how the prints in the small corridor by Meredith's room could be so far apart while those closer to the front door are so close together.
Also, if these prints were in dried blood I also can't see how people walking over them in dry shoes the next day would be able to cancel them out.
Click to expand...

The consensus, which as far as I know is not challenged by anyone, is that Guede made the prints in the hallway with his left shoe.

I think investigators missed one in the corridor, just inside the doorway, right where the gap in Bruce's diagram suggests it should be:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/unmarked_shoe_print.jpg

I have wondered why there are so many prints in the kitchen area, and the best theory I can come up with is that Guede paused there to put things in his pocket, zip up his coat, maybe put on a hat, and while was doing that, he adjusted his stance a number of times.
 
One strange part is: once they are in the police station and RS no longer is giving Amanda an alibi, and all hell brakes loose, Amanda points finger at Patrick and they're booked and put in jail, they break up they seem to suspect one another and so on, but then they get tried together, why? This doesn't seem to help RS in any way, who decided to do this, and when?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
The consensus, which as far as I know is not challenged by anyone, is that Guede made the prints in the hallway with his left shoe.

I think investigators missed one in the corridor, just inside the doorway, right where the gap in Bruce's diagram suggests it should be:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/unmarked_shoe_print.jpg

I have wondered why there are so many prints in the kitchen area, and the best theory I can come up with is that Guede paused there to put things in his pocket, zip up his coat, maybe put on a hat, and while was doing that, he adjusted his stance a number of times.
Click to expand...

I plan on adding this to the diagram with an explanation.

Everyone should keep in mind, I make this statement on the site.

"I show the basic layout of the apartment. This picture is not to scale and the footprints are shown in their general locations."
 
stilicho said:
1] They did have representation by the time they were taken to their cells. The author reconciles this with the statements and he's a lawyer. Your assertion that Amanda's lawyers (and she's only one of the three who was doing this) did not want any further of her statements publicly available is contrary to the fact Ghirga released at least two parts of her 'diaries'.

2] The lawyer in question is explaining why the 'diaries' were employed by each legal team instead of copping a plea. Each time there was a chance the other could do so they were 'reminded' by coy statements from one or both of the others.

3] This is where you are mistaken. They were well aware the other(s) could turn them in. Their sources of information were their parents and their lawyers. We know this from the snippets of information about Edda's conversations with AK in prison and from Papa Sollecito's efforts to secure any advantage possible for RS.

The clincher is that the lawyer reveals how each of the three pursued the same cat-and-mouse game. It wasn't only AK or RS who was doing it. So was RG. It was seeing it all in one place (albeit in abbreviated form) that this becomes the strongest possible explanation for the 'veiled accusations'.

You have not provided any reasonable alternate explanation.
Click to expand...

You and the lawyer/author are going to have to watch where you're going with this argument. In fact, I will gladly trade everything I have written today for this statement from you:

"They did have representation by the time they were taken to their cells. The author reconciles this with the statements and he's a lawyer."

Did Amanda tell this representation that she could not be sure she was at the scene of the crime?

Absolutely.

Did this representation tell the police, the prosecutor and the judge what Amanda said?

Absolutely.

Should people stop accusing Amanda of not doing what she could to correct and clarify her accusations against Patrick?

Absolutely.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
One strange part is: once they are in the police station and RS no longer is giving Amanda an alibi, and all hell brakes loose, Amanda points finger at Patrick and they're booked and put in jail, they break up they seem to suspect one another and so on, but then they get tried together, why? This doesn't seem to help RS in any way, who decided to do this, and when?
Click to expand...

They chose this course because they are factually innocent. They could have admitted to being there and covering for Rudy when he went berzerk, and gotten a more lenient sentence. Or they could have blamed each other. But the simple fact of the matter is they were not involved at all. They were together at Raffaele's apartment all night long.

That's why Barbie and Andrea went on record after the verdict saying they had no idea what really happened that night. That is why the court and the prosecutor have tried on so many different theories, ending with the ridiculous "choice of evil" facilitated by cannabis. If you are determined to come up with something that explains why Amanda and Raffaele suddenly take a left turn, hook up with a shifty guy they barely know, and help him kill someone they had no reason to harm or even dislike... you'll never solve the puzzle. But if you look at the real evidence (as opposed to mixed DNA in the bathroom and random luminol tracks) you'll see that it tells a clear story.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
They chose this course because they are factually innocent. They could have admitted to being there and covering for Rudy when he went berzerk, and gotten a more lenient sentence. Or they could have blamed each other. But the simple fact of the matter is they were not involved at all. They were together at Raffaele's apartment all night long.

That's why Barbie and Andrea went on record after the verdict saying they had no idea what really happened that night. That is why the court and the prosecutor have tried on so many different theories, ending with the ridiculous "choice of evil" facilitated by cannabis. If you are determined to come up with something that explains why Amanda and Raffaele suddenly take a left turn, hook up with a shifty guy they barely know, and help him kill someone they had no reason to harm or even dislike... you'll never solve the puzzle. But if you look at the real evidence (as opposed to mixed DNA in the bathroom and random luminol tracks) you'll see that it tells a clear story.
Click to expand...

By "real evidence" I can only assume you mean "ignore any evidence to the contrary" because that is exactly what is required.
 
Mary_H said:
You and the lawyer/author are going to have to watch where you're going with this argument. In fact, I will gladly trade everything I have written today for this statement from you:

"They did have representation by the time they were taken to their cells. The author reconciles this with the statements and he's a lawyer."

Did Amanda tell this representation that she could not be sure she was at the scene of the crime?

Absolutely.

Did this representation tell the police, the prosecutor and the judge what Amanda said?

Absolutely.

Should people stop accusing Amanda of not doing what she could to correct and clarify her accusations against Patrick?

Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Mary could you point me in the proper direction where Amanda shared this with her attorney who then gave that information to the proper authorities? Was it during her trial testimony?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom