Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

No, they were working off of statements and the fact there were strong grounds for suspicion of the pair along with the indications coming from the crime scene and the autopsy of the victim.

Sure would like to know what those strong grounds for suspicion were (the ones that came before any statements were made).

Sure, but you need to start making it clear what is simply your opinion or conjecture and what is fact.

I can always tell the difference when you guys do it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They had no choice but to find Guede -- they had a whole lab full of evidence against him. Patrick, meanwhile, had an ironclad alibi.

Maybe in Italy, prosecutors don't look that foolish when they mistake one African immigrant with another -- who cares about African immigrants, anyway? But that's a far cry from admitting they falsely imprisoned THREE suspects against whom they had no evidence, including one lovely, young American college student. That tends to look pretty bad in the international media.

What do you mean they had no choice. If they are corrupt as you maintain, they could have just thrown the evidence away, destroyed it, whatever. Only they knew they had the evidence and what it was...right?

Do you know why Patrick had an ironclad alibi? Because the Italian police went out of their way to track down the the man who gave it to him, in a foreign country, then fly him all the way to Italy from Switzerland to interview him. They could have just as easily not bothered, if as you maintain they really didn't care if people were innocent or guilty and just wanted to fill the frame and were desperate to get those they had so as not to lose face. In this case, the police and prosecution went to great lengths to prove themselves wrong...and clearly, unlike you, they cared about the African immigrant.

Police arrest and release people after a few days all the time (including in high profile cases). It really is no biggy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Sure would like to know what those strong grounds for suspicion were (the ones that came before any statements were made).

Aside from the statements? Aside from the problems with their stories? The fact it was becoming apparent that the physical injuries to Meredith were suggesting multiple attackers, that the break-in was staged (indicating an inside job), the fact that it was the pair that had discovered the crime scene and they were both found at it and both knew the victim.

I can always tell the difference when you guys do it.

I think we make it clear.

 

[bucketoftea]

Quote:
And as the memo posted by Charlie yesterday explained, DNA has been extracted from single cells in the same way Stefanoni used to extract Meredith's DNA since 2001. Thus, I have no real issue with the procedure. It might not be common - but when the atom was first split, it wasn't a common procedure either
* * * * * *

The fact that the sample from the knife cannot be retested should throw it out of contention.
* * * * * * *

The defense not sending an agent to observe the testing should throw their contentions out. I think it does.

 

[Amazer]

Quote:
And as the memo posted by Charlie yesterday explained, DNA has been extracted from single cells in the same way Stefanoni used to extract Meredith's DNA since 2001. Thus, I have no real issue with the procedure. It might not be common - but when the atom was first split, it wasn't a common procedure either
* * * * * *

The fact that the sample from the knife cannot be retested should throw it out of contention.
* * * * * * *

The defense not sending an agent to observe the testing should throw their contentions out. I think it does.

I don't quite agree there. I do think that the prosecution should show that their testing followed acceptable standards.

I'm assuming that part of the documentation which they have to submit to the defense deals with the protocols they followed while testing. If the defense can prove that proper protocol wasn't followed or if the prosecution held back documentation which should have been submitted; then I too would consider throwing out the evidence of the knife.

The defense has so far failed to make a good case that protocols weren't followed, nor have they provided evidence that documentation that they were entitled to was not provided.

 

[christianahannah]

Quote:
And as the memo posted by Charlie yesterday explained, DNA has been extracted from single cells in the same way Stefanoni used to extract Meredith's DNA since 2001. Thus, I have no real issue with the procedure. It might not be common - but when the atom was first split, it wasn't a common procedure either
* * * * * *

The fact that the sample from the knife cannot be retested should throw it out of contention.
* * * * * * *

The defense not sending an agent to observe the testing should throw their contentions out. I think it does.

I have wondered about the defense sending a representative to observe the testing - what say do they have in how the testing is performed? Can they object to what is being done, ask to see videos of how the samples were collected, see how the samples were stored, etc. or is the defense representative only there to observe and would have to submit questions or objections they have at a later date?

 

[christianahannah]

I would imagine the best place to look for a record of that would be in the papers the attorneys filed with the court, and I wouldn't know where to find those. There are many news reports from many sources, though, during the first week after the crime, that feature Amanda's mother telling news reporters (or someone) that Amanda was not at the crime scene and that she regretted having accused Patrick...

Thanks Mary. There are some documents public so I will peruse those and see if there might be any information in them concerning Amanda's retraction.

 

[Lallante]

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.

I suppose you missed the part where HE NEVER SAID THIS.

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.

Raffaele doesnt remember much of anything. Read his statement.

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.

Your right it makes way more sense for Amanda to deliberately create this incredible false alibi because she was busy a-murdering.

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

See above

1) Raffaelke says Amanda left his apartment shortly before 9 pm. 2)Amanda admitted leaving his apartment that evening. 3) Then she changed her story yet again and claimed she didn't.

Please provide direct quotations (with context) backing these assertions.

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.

Just for fun, stay awake 24 hours watching horror films (for adrenaline) and then write a list in an hour or less of everything you did, in detail and in order and with timings, 3 days ago. Now go do something else for a week or two and then make the same list. Good luck even getting remotely similar.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I suppose you missed the part where HE NEVER SAID THIS.

He said this to police in his statement. He said it in his diary and his defence have claimed it in both the pre-trial and the trial.

Raffaele doesnt remember much of anything. Read his statement.

Strange that, isn't it?

Your right it makes way more sense for Amanda to deliberately create this incredible false alibi because she was busy a-murdering.

I don't think anyone's accusing her of being clever.

Please provide direct quotations (with context) backing these assertions.

I suggest you read this: ordinanza_perugia_meredith.pdf

And were I you, I'd also read through this thread: RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S OWN WORDS

Just for fun, stay awake 24 hours watching horror films (for adrenaline) and then write a list in an hour or less of everything you did, in detail and in order and with timings, 3 days ago. Now go do something else for a week or two and then make the same list. Good luck even getting remotely similar.

Are you suggesting Amanda and Raffaele did the same? It may explain their penchant for murder though...

Your point is asinine. Their stories do not simply differ in small detail...they are poles apart and match on not one single detail post 9 pm. And the details each offer either are not supported by any evidence or are actually disproved by the evidence (such as Raffaele's claim he was on his computer all evening and he spoke to his father on his landline at 11 pm.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have no doubt I could remember what I did the night before if I went to the police station the next morning and gave a statement. Not only that, I would remember what I told the cops of that night a few days or weeks later. I think the police were suspicious and rightly so.

 

[christianahannah]

I have no doubt I could remember what I did the night before if I went to the police station the next morning and gave a statement. Not only that, I would remember what I told the cops of that night a few days or weeks later. I think the police were suspicious and rightly so.

True, most would be able to do so, however, if one is under the influence of drugs or alcohol it might not be so easy to have recall of the events during that time.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Just for fun, stay awake 24 hours watching horror films (for adrenaline) and then write a list in an hour or less of everything you did, in detail and in order and with timings, 3 days ago. Now go do something else for a week or two and then make the same list. Good luck even getting remotely similar.

This sort of analogy keeps cropping up, but it never includes the consideration that the relatively few hours of recall in question occurred during the same time frame as the brutal murder of a roommate, and that detailed questioning about that time period began also only a relative handful of hours after the events.

Don't you imagine that this would tend to provide a somewhat greater degree of focus, and perhaps even a certain impetus to stimulate recall? How about being asked about those same hours on a daily basis? Or even the teensy-weensy chance that those same hours might be some cause for reflection even in the absence of questioning?

Do you really think this is a situation analogous to doing "something else for a week or two"? If you can so casually imagine doing "something else" as if no murder occurred then I don't think you're contemplating the situation very seriously.

 

[quadraginta]

True, most would be able to do so, however, if one is under the influence of drugs or alcohol it might not be so easy to have recall of the events during that time.

Are we back to the marijuana black-outs now. I ain't buyin' it, and without divulging more than the fact that I was a child of the 60s and 70s I can say that I speak from a certain amount of personal experience.

If they'd been partying enough to black out the night before their behavior and rendition of events twelve hours later would have been substantially different, and there would be plenty of supporting evidence.

 

[christianahannah]

Are we back to the marijuana black-outs now. I ain't buyin' it, and without divulging more than the fact that I was a child of the 60s and 70s I can say that I speak from a certain amount of personal experience.

If they'd been partying enough to black out the night before their behavior and rendition of events twelve hours later would have been substantially different, and there would be plenty of supporting evidence.

No, not black-outs but maybe confused memories? I have little personal experience so I'll have to defer to your experience on that matter.

Were Amanda and Raffaele confused about their whereabouts in statements prior to their questioning on November 5-6?

 

[bucketoftea]

No, not black-outs but maybe confused memories? I have little personal experience so I'll have to defer to your experience on that matter.

Were Amanda and Raffaele confused about their whereabouts in statements prior to their questioning on November 5-6?

I'll go farther....I've tried to use weed to forget.....doesn't work

 

[Jungle Jim]

And were I you, I'd also read through this thread: RAFFAELE SOLLECITO'S OWN WORDS

I did read Raffaele's diary and it brought to mind an issue I brought up previously in post #10684. This has to do with Amanda saying Filomenia's door was closed when she went to the cottage to shower in the morning. Raffaele states the door was "wide open" when they arrived at the cottage together. From his diary (page 3):

The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomenia had the door wide open.

If you believe Raffaele's account, Amanda lied about what she saw in the the cottage that morning.

Anyone care to comment?

 

[Alt+F4]

No, not black-outs but maybe confused memories?

Confused memories about events that happened just a few days earlier? I bet almost everyone here could recollect in detail the events surrounding meeting their spouse or significant other...even if it was years ago.

Amanda and Raffaelle had just begun dating, yet just a few days later they get "confused memories" about events.

 

[bucketoftea]

I did read Raffaele's diary and it brought to mind an issue I brought up previously in post #10684. This has to do with Amanda saying Filomenia's door was closed when she went to the cottage to shower in the morning. Raffaele states the door was "wide open" when they arrived at the cottage together. From his diary (page 3):



If you believe Raffaele's account, Amanda lied about what she saw in the the cottage that morning.

Anyone care to comment?

*Obviously*, like, a black man climbed back through the window to, you know, open the door while Raffaele and I, were, like, eating breakfast....

 

[christianahannah]

Confused memories about events that happened just a few days earlier? I bet almost everyone here could recollect in detail the events surrounding meeting their spouse or significant other...even if it was years ago.

Amanda and Raffaelle had just begun dating, yet just a few days later they get "confused memories" about events.

I have pretty good recall of events in my past and guess most people do. I was curious as to whether other factors could inhibit one's short-term memory. It appears, from the answers here, they don't.

I was also curious as to whether Amanda and Raffaele were confused from the beginning or did this confusion occur shortly after they were imprisioned?

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you know why Patrick had an ironclad alibi? Because the Italian police went out of their way to track down the the man who gave it to him, in a foreign country, then fly him all the way to Italy from Switzerland to interview him. They could have just as easily not bothered, if as you maintain they really didn't care if people were innocent or guilty and just wanted to fill the frame and were desperate to get those they had so as not to lose face. In this case, the police and prosecution went to great lengths to prove themselves wrong...and clearly, unlike you, they cared about the African immigrant.

Police arrest and release people after a few days all the time (including in high profile cases). It really is no biggy.

This is an astonishing distortion of what actually happened! The police and prosecutors mistreated Lumumba and told him that he'd made an appointment with AK to go to the cottage to have sex with MK. His remand hearing declared that he'd had violent sexual activity with MK. The police publicly congratulated themselves on solving the case: Lumumba did the dirty deed while AK stood back and covered her ears.

The way in which the alibi-creating Swiss professor was found is utterly at odds with your fallacy that the police "went out of their way" to track him down. In fact, Lumumba himself pleaded repeatedly that a Swiss professor (whose name he couldn't remember) was there at the bar that night and could provide him with an alibi. This information got out to the media, and an Italian friend of the professor's saw it on TV. The friend then phoned the professor in Zurich to tell him that he might be of some importance in the case. The professor Googled the Perugia police number and phoned them, only to be told that he'd have to call back the following day when the relevant detectives were around. Instead, he called back the same day to tell them that he was coming to Perugia of his own volition - which he did.

So to say that Lumumba's alibi establishment was the result of dogged and "over and above" police work is arrant nonsense. If anything, the police tried to obfuscate and delay in this regard, but one can at best take the line that they certainly weren't "going out of their way".

And that such a self-professed student of the case can make such a clearly incorrect and misleading assertion is simply breathtaking. As is the blithe assertion that police arrest and release people after a few days all the time. Astonishing, simply astonishing, and indicative of a certain mindset I think (for balance, and to mitigate against a knee-jerk "FOA" name-calling, I'm also opposed to some of the more extreme opinions expressed by posters holding diametrically opposing views to that of the eminent Mr Fulcanelli).

PS: I'm assuming that you can actually determine the satire/sarcasm in the original phrase "who cares about African immigrants anyway", but that you then still choose to twist that phrase round to rather nastily imply a degree of casual racism on behalf of the author (who I'm not a flag-waver for on the whole, by the way). Or maybe you really don't spot the satire/sarcasm?