Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Cite?

Mary, were you asking that I evidence some obscure or little known I may well go running around after you to provide you with a cite. But since you are asking me something commonly known from THE TRIAL and the fact that Amanda left Patrick rotting in prison for two weeks without lifting a finger to get him out was something that PM Mignini greatly laboured in his speeches to the court.

And here's the other fact for you. Amanda was heard on the night of the 5th twice, by the police and prosecutor respectively. She was not heard again until December and that is the earliest she could have formally withdrawn her accusation of Patrick. She could have requested to have been heard again sooner, any rime before that, but she did not.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How is the evidence that they weren't there any more factual than the evidence they were there? It's just a matter of taking the word of a bunch of kooky eye witnesses whose stories don't agree with one another versus taking the word of Amanda and Raffaele.

How did Raffaele's DNA come to be on Meredith's bra clasp?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You have got to be kidding...

It's that very old game of theirs again that they often play, where periodically they claim they've forgotten all the evidence and demand we list it again. Tiresome isn't it?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, were you asking that I evidence some obscure or little known I may well go running around after you to provide you with a cite. But since you are asking me something commonly known from THE TRIAL and the fact that Amanda left Patrick rotting in prison for two weeks without lifting a finger to get him out was something that PM Mignini greatly laboured in his speeches to the court.

And here's the other fact for you. Amanda was heard on the night of the 5th twice, by the police and prosecutor respectively. She was not heard again until December and that is the earliest she could have formally withdrawn her accusation of Patrick. She could have requested to have been heard again sooner, any rime before that, but she did not.

That's absurd. Why should she have to formally withdraw an accusation she didn't formally submit? I can't believe you would even use that as an argument. What -- Mignini and the police knew Amanda was saying she wasn't at the crime scene and that she made a mistake when she accused Patrick, but they had to ignore that information until she got it notarized? Do you think she should have represented herself at trial, too?

You're mixing up the roles of the powerful parent (Mignini and the police) and the powerless child (Amanda).

 

[Mary_H]

How did Raffaele's DNA come to be on Meredith's bra clasp?

Personally, I think it was planted.

 

[Mary_H]

It's that very old game of theirs again that they often play, where periodically they claim they've forgotten all the evidence and demand we list it again. Tiresome isn't it?

Hey, the last thing I want is another list of (mostly discredited) evidence. I can look up one of Harry Rag's many posts for that.

I just want you to remember that this boils down to a matter of choice. You think one side is more credible, I think the other side is more credible. It's all based on our world views; that's it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How is the evidence that they weren't there any more factual than the evidence they were there? It's just a matter of taking the word of a bunch of kooky eye witnesses whose stories don't agree with one another versus taking the word of Amanda and Raffaele.

Ahhh...your memory blockage has cleared and you've remembered the evidence again.

"than the evidence they were there"? WHAT evidence they were there (at Raffaele's apartment)?

What witness stories is it that don't agree with each other?

Amanda and Raffaele have reason to lie and been found on many occasions to be unreliable. The witnesses don't have any reason to lie. The court finds Curatolo highly credible. How is he 'kooky'...you mean he's homeless? Curatolo should know his place and not testify against his betters, us that what you're saying? I know England used to have feudalism...I always believed Americans had no truck with it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Personally, I think it was planted.

Again, Mary, conspiracy theory forum is thataway ------>


And what makes you believe it was planted? Simply because you don't want to believe that Amanda/Raffaele were involved in the murder?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Personally, I think it was planted.

Oh well, I suppose when you've run out of any arguments, fall back on the 'it was planted' old chestnut. Even if it means outright accusing people of corruption, without any evidence.

If the Italian police were in the business of planting evidence in this case, wouldn't we expect to see a rather more convincing volume of Meredith's DNA on the knife blade? More or Raffaele's and Amanda's DNA in Meredith's room, on her clothing and in other incriminating areas?

By the way, the bra clasp was retrieved under the supervision of Dr Stefanoni...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hey, the last thing I want is another list of (mostly discredited) evidence. I can look up one of Harry Rag's many posts for that.

I just want you to remember that this boils down to a matter of choice. You think one side is more credible, I think the other side is more credible. It's all based on our world views; that's it.

Except it's not discredited...is it? That's why they were convicted of murder in a unanimous verdict and are serving 25 and 26 years respectively.

It has nothing to do with world views, although it may be in your case (it's the only 'excuse' I can think of for you). It is about and SHOULD be about the evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

Ahhh...your memory blockage has cleared and you've remembered the evidence again.

"than the evidence they were there"? WHAT evidence they were there (at Raffaele's apartment)?

They said they were there. Other people with less credibility said otherwise.

Amanda and Raffaele have reason to lie and been found on many occasions to be unreliable.

They have no reason to lie; they were not unreliable until they were interrogated.

The witnesses don't have any reason to lie. The court finds Curatolo highly credible. How is he 'kooky'...you mean he's homeless? Curatolo should know his place and not testify against his betters, us that what you're saying? I know England used to have feudalism...I always believed Americans had no truck with it.

I'm not saying they lied. They could easily have been talked into things or made themselves believe things after the fact. The shopkeeper came forward several months later to say the girl at his store was the girl he had seen in the newspaper every day. Probably would have been a little more believable if he had come forward before seeing her picture in the paper every day for several months.

If Curatolo is so credible, why don't you believe his story that Amanda and Raffaele were in the Piazza from 9:30 to midnight?

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's absurd. Why she should have to formally withdraw an accusation she didn't formally submit? I can't believe you would even use that as an argument. What -- Mignini and the police knew Amanda was saying she wasn't at the crime scene and that she made a mistake when she accused Patrick, but they had to ignore that information until she got it notarized? Do you think she should have represented herself at trial, too?

You're mixing up the roles of the powerful parent (Mignini and the police) and the powerless child (Amanda).

What??? She formally accused Patrick...three times!!!

The police cannot accept hearsay on faith as evidence. It must be made in the form of a formal retraction. Are you suggesting the prosecution should gather their formal evidence from Amanda's mum and from the Anglo newspapers? If this is your world view you have a strange one. You have no clue how the real world works.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They said they were there. Other people with less credibility said otherwise.



They have no reason to lie; they were not unreliable until they were interrogated.



I'm not saying they lied. They could easily have been talked into things or made themselves believe things after the fact. The shopkeeper came forward several months later to say the girl at his store was the girl he had seen in the newspaper every day. Probably would have been a little more believable if he had come forward before seeing her picture in the paper every day for several months.

If Curatolo is so credible, why don't you believe his story that Amanda and Raffaele were in the Piazza from 9:30 to midnight?

Amanda lies, putting an innocent man in jail for 2 weeks...and you have the nerve to call her reliable.

ETA: What about her false/implanted memories...after a mere 1:45 of questioning. How long was she on the stand? Far longer...I would expect that her testimony is likely a false/implanted memory as well

 

[Mary_H]

Again, Mary, conspiracy theory forum is thataway ------>

And what makes you believe it was planted? Simply because you don't want to believe that Amanda/Raffaele were involved in the murder?

I find the way the two pieces of DNA evidence (the knife and the bra clasp) were recovered to be highly suspicious. First, they were found after the arrests, not before. Second, they were both found on special hunting trips, in which virtually nothing else of any importance was also recovered.

Third, Mignini as shown himself to be a man of low character and Stefanoni has shown herself to be incompetent. A lot of things that look like corruption to us might just be the way they do things in their system.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I find the way the two pieces of DNA evidence (the knife and the bra clasp) were recovered to be highly suspicious. First, they were found after the arrests, not before. Second, they were both found on special hunting trips, in which virtually nothing else of any importance was also recovered.

Third, Mignini as shown himself to be a man of low character and Stefanoni has shown herself to be incompetent. A lot of things that look like corruption to us might just be the way they do things in their system.

Excuse me, do you have evidence to back this up...or is this (more) bare assertion based on FoA talking points?

ETA: So now we have another generalization to add to the list:

1) DNA evidence is all invalid as contamination is always possible, thus likely.
2) Police should never interview witnesses or ask the same questions over and over, nor should they ask different questions when new information comes to light - they are very likely to "implant" false memories into innocent people
3) As long as we ignore evidence we don't agree with, we can get the outcome we desire.
4) All evidence must be collected before arrests are made, otherwise it's null and void.
5) Suspects are always more credible than witnesses, regardless of whether the suspects have been shown to lie in the past

 

[Mary_H]

What??? She formally accused Patrick...three times!!!

The police cannot accept hearsay on faith as evidence. It must be made in the form of a formal retraction. Are you suggesting the prosecution should gather their formal evidence from Amanda's mum and from the Anglo newspapers? If this is your world view you have a strange one. You have no clue how the real world works.

If they didn't actually have the information from her lawyer, which they no doubt did have, what was preventing them from going to Amanda's cell and discussing with her what they had heard ? That's what a mature, responsible magistrate would do. And what prevented them from believing her on the 6th when she told them she was confused?

Face it, they believed her when they wanted to and they ignored her when they wanted to -- their choice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They said they were there. Other people with less credibility said otherwise.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that they were. "They said" is not evidence.

They have no reason to lie; they were not unreliable until they were interrogated.

They have every reason to lie, they're accused of murder. Or did you miss that?

I'm not saying they lied. They could easily have been talked into things or made themselves believe things after the fact. The shopkeeper came forward several months later to say the girl at his store was the girl he had seen in the newspaper every day. Probably would have been a little more believable if he had come forward before seeing her picture in the paper every day for several months.

Ahh...so they're deluded. They don't seem to be deluded to me, they are very sure of their facts and they are not contradicted by anybody.

I'm not sure why you're dragging the store owner into this, since he's not relevant to our discussion about the evidence that they weren't at the cottage on the evening of the 1st, but I'll bite. The storekeeper gave very good reasons why he hadn't come forward before and these reasons were accepted by Judge Massei and the court.

If Curatolo is so credible, why don't you believe his story that Amanda and Raffaele were in the Piazza from 9:30 to midnight?

Except that isn't his story. He said he looked up from his magazine just after 9:30 PM and saw them. The next time he looked over at some time before midnight he saw them again. He never claimed they were there the whole time in between...that's your own inference.

 

[Mary_H]

Excuse me, do you have evidence to back this up...or is this (more) bare assertion based on FoA talking points?

The first paragraph can be backed up with evidence you're familiar with. The second paragraph would take a little longer but I could support it.

Or are you impressed with the honorable way in which Mignini has filed suit against about a dozen people who have voiced objections about him? And the way Stefanoni conducted the testing of the DNA evidence on the knife?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I find the way the two pieces of DNA evidence (the knife and the bra clasp) were recovered to be highly suspicious. First, they were found after the arrests, not before. Second, they were both found on special hunting trips, in which virtually nothing else of any importance was also recovered.

Third, Mignini as shown himself to be a man of low character and Stefanoni has shown herself to be incompetent. A lot of things that look like corruption to us might just be the way they do things in their system.

Why would they have found the knife 'before' Raffaele's arrest?

They found the clasp before Amanda and Raffaele's arrest and it was recorded.

Other items were taken from Raffaele's apartment when they collected the knife. Other items were retrieved from the cottage when they retrieved the clasp.

Mignini has been nothing but honourable. One only believes the 'low character' twaddle if they've been reading too much FOA propaganda and too much Douglas Preston.

Dr Stefanoni has shown herself to be an exceptional forensic scientist. And I think you're in for a shock when You read the Massei Report (if you bother that is, you'll probably pick up a Douglas Preston paperback instead).

 

[Mary_H]

I'm still waiting for your evidence that they were. "They said" is not evidence.

But it is when the eyewitnesses say it?

Ahh...so they're deluded. They don't seem to be deluded to me, they are very sure of their facts and they are not contradicted by anybody.

You seem to be denying that people can ever have mistaken impressions, perceptions and beliefs. And I have no clue about the way the real world works?

I'm not sure why you're dragging the store owner into this, since he's not relevant to our discussion about the evidence that they weren't at the cottage on the evening of the 1st, but I'll bite. The storekeeper gave very good reasons why he hadn't come forward before and these reasons were accepted by Judge Massei and the court.

Which goes to show you how willing the court was to accept unreliable testimony, as long as it favored the prosecution's case.