Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
christianahannah said:
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?
Click to expand...


The alleged confusion appears to occur in direct proportion to the degree that their stories don't check out.

Odd coincidence, that. :rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...
Good post LondonJohn...
When I read what Fulcanelli wrote, I was thinking to myself, is this guy right? I thought what happened was totally different to what he posted. Do I have to go back and re-read the early stories again? Hmmm...
Fulcanelli has over 2,000 posts here, and is said to even be a moderator at PMF. I would have thought that with sooo much knowledge of this case, in comparison to most who post here, that HE would have known what happened with Mr. Patrick Diya Lumumba.
Maybe I was wrong...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
You're absolutely right about that. The fact that they didn't shows they were working off of emotional hunches instead of evidence.



I would hope you're not insecure enough to file suit against people who criticize you. Are they valid? They seem valid to me -- they're mostly people's opinions. But I live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, so maybe I'm biased.



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



It's not my undying belief that Amanda is an angel (although she IS innocent), it's my undying belief that the prosecution and the lab worked hand in hand to get the results they wanted.

We are allowed to have opinions and beliefs here, aren't we? You guys certainly seem to have enough of them.
Click to expand...

You can have opinions and beliefs but when you start stating them as fact you will be asked to back them up and if you cannot do that and keep repeating them then the conclusion is that you are misrepresenting things.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh...LondonJohn. Tell us more, do. And while you're about it...tell us who you are. So many unknown fine details unsourced. So, who are you?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Thank you Charlie. I see, so it really is simply a point of faith.
The evidence I saw was pretty real. And the prosecutor didn't try and spin anything about the DNA, this was the opinions given by the experts who did the forensic work.



Again, you are pushing this fallacy that forensic evidence is a requirement. And we are not even talking about their convictions for the murder here, but simply about the police feeling that they had the right people.



Only because events ensured it happened that way and it wasn't able to happen any other. If police had found him at the crime scene, he too would no doubt have been arrested before any forensic evidence was assessed. You do have this nasty habit of using Rudy to write your own set of 'laws' (Rudy did 'X' so everyone must do 'X' in the process of a crime, they arrested Rudy under 'X' circumstances so Raffaele and and Amanda should also have been arrested under 'X' circumstances and not 'Y' circumstances). There are many different kinds of evidence and all have validity.
Click to expand...

Mary H. has already said that it's a matter of worldview not facts.

Same as all believers.
 
RWVBWL said:
Good post LondonJohn...
When I read what Fulcanelli wrote, I was thinking to myself, is this guy right? I thought what happened was totally different to he what posted. Do I have to go back and re-read the early stories again? Hmmm...
Fulcanelli has over 2,000 posts here, and is said to even be a moderator at PMF. I would have thought that with sooo much knowledge of this case, in comparison to most who post here, that HE would have known what happened with Mr. Patrick Diya Lumumba.
Maybe I was wrong...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm right. LondonJohn is posting out of left field. None of this information is part of the case, never has been. Therefore, either what he says or false...or it's true and he's not who he says he is (a random poster with a casual interest in the case and is far more deeply involved then he's letting on). Either way...treat with extreme caution.
 
RWVBWL said:
Good post LondonJohn...
When I read what Fulcanelli wrote, I was thinking to myself, is this guy right? I thought what happened was totally different to he what posted. Do I have to go back and re-read the early stories again? Hmmm...
Fulcanelli has over 2,000 posts here, and is said to even be a moderator at PMF. I would have thought that with sooo much knowledge of this case, in comparison to most who post here, that HE would have known what happened with Mr. Patrick Diya Lumumba.
Maybe I was wrong...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Over 2,000 posts in a little over four months of membership - that equates to an average of around 16 posts every single day since December. That certainly signifies a level of...ermm....dedication.

But I think that a key issue here is that a number of people seem to have become rather over-invested in what is, after all, no more than an interesting curiosity in a tragic case to anyone who's not directly involved. On that point, I don't think that any of us on these sorts of forums should have any sense of unease about posting our opinions on this case - any more than people who might post to forums concerning, say, the Jack the Ripper murders. In both instances, people died brutally and unjustly - the only difference is that the offences in one of the cases happened over 100 years ago and in the other case they happened two and a half years ago.

The overriding caveat to that is that anybody who discusses this more recent case should obviously take much more care not to cause gratuitous offence to, or impugn the names of, ANYONE directly involved in this case (including of course, most of all, the family and close friends of Meredith Kercher).
 
Mary_H said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your bias is showing.
 
Jungle Jim said:
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?
Click to expand...

You could start by finding all of the information pertaining to that trip back to the cottage. Like for instance the part where Raffaele says he put the mop inside the door and Amanda took it further into the house (this part is confirmed by the fact that the postal police never saw the mop and the mop was later collected from the cupboard in the hall near Amanda's room). This puts Amanda inside the house before Raffaele. Amanda has already spoken to Filomena so she would be investigating the scene on behalf of Filomena and would therefore feel permitted to open Filomena's door.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Sure would like to know what those strong grounds for suspicion were (the ones that came before any statements were made).



I can always tell the difference when you guys do it. :)
Click to expand...

Being in close proximity to a murder victim tends to arouse suspicion.
 
LondonJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Oh LondonJohn, if you've not noticed the implicit racism in the Knox Camp that's been a theme throughout this case, perhaps you're not as bright as you attempt to project...or perhaps you just think we're not?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
You could start by finding all of the information pertaining to that trip back to the cottage. Like for instance the part where Raffaele says he put the mop inside the door and Amanda took it further into the house (this part is confirmed by the fact that the postal police never saw the mop and the mop was later collected from the cupboard in the hall near Amanda's room). This puts Amanda inside the house before Raffaele. Amanda has already spoken to Filomena so she would be investigating the scene on behalf of Filomena and would therefore feel permitted to open Filomena's door.
Click to expand...

On 'behalf' of Filomena???
 
Fulcanelli said:
Yes, I'm right. LondonJohn is posting out of left field. None of this information is part of the case, never has been. Therefore, either what he says or false...or it's true and he's not who he says he is (a random poster with a casual interest in the case and is far more deeply involved then he's letting on). Either way...treat with extreme caution.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read "Darkness Descending", pp113-121 and pp218-219. You are wrong. Unless, that is, Paul Russell, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano (the credited authors of "Darkness Descending") have decided to egregiously invent, wholesale, quotes from the police and prosecutors and conversations between the professor and his Italian friend and between the professor and the police.

I would somehow imagine that a legally-cleared publication that directly attributes key parts of this affair is somewhat more credible than you. If you want me to quote verbatim from the book to clarify things further, I'd be happy to help. Or maybe you'd like to provide us all with properly-attributed evidence to the contrary? And, while you're at it, maybe you should write to the Perugia prosecutors' office and advise them to pursue the authors of this book for misrepresentation and libel?

And we haven't even started on Lumumba's accusations of gross mistreatment by the police and prosecutors (including - but not limited to - being hit over the head and being called a "dirty black" when he was arrested). Perhaps you'd also like to claim (with evidence) that he was treated with the utmost dignity and professionalism at all times by the crack Perugia police as well?

PS: I hardly call the reading of one of the few published works on this case - freely available on amazon - evidence of some sort of special inside knowledge. Or maybe I'm some sort of "deep undercover" agent working for rogue elements of FOA, issued with a false passport, a gun and an amazon account. Have you not read this book? Your *ahem* dedication to the case leads me to believe that you MUST have read it, but maybe you've *ahem* forgotten parts of it... My advice to others would be to read the book before deciding where to apply "extreme caution".
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Over 2,000 posts in a little over four months of membership - that equates to an average of around 16 posts every single day since December. That certainly signifies a level of...ermm....dedication.

But I think that a key issue here is that a number of people seem to have become rather over-invested in what is, after all, no more than an interesting curiosity in a tragic case to anyone who's not directly involved. On that point, I don't think that any of us on these sorts of forums should have any sense of unease about posting our opinions on this case - any more than people who might post to forums concerning, say, the Jack the Ripper murders. In both instances, people died brutally and unjustly - the only difference is that the offences in one of the cases happened over 100 years ago and in the other case they happened two and a half years ago.

The overriding caveat to that is that anybody who discusses this more recent case should obviously take much more care not to cause gratuitous offence to, or impugn the names of, ANYONE directly involved in this case (including of course, most of all, the family and close friends of Meredith Kercher).
Click to expand...

So you have nothing?
 
LondonJohn said:
And we haven't even started on Lumumba's accusations of gross mistreatment by the police and prosecutors (including - but not limited to - being hit over the head and being called a "dirty black" when he was arrested). Perhaps you'd also like to claim (with evidence) that he was treated with the utmost dignity and professionalism at all times by the crack Perugia police as well?
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't started yet with that particular subject... but it's safe to say that it's been discussed earlier in this thread.

Not that it changed anyone's mind then. Nor do i expect that this time (if you still want to discuss it) anyone will change their minds.
 
LondonJohn said:
I suggest you read "Darkness Descending", pp113-121 and pp218-219. You are wrong. Unless, that is, Paul Russell, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano (the credited authors of "Darkness Descending") have decided to egregiously invent, wholesale, quotes from the police and prosecutors and conversations between the professor and his Italian friend and between the professor and the police.

I would somehow imagine that a legally-cleared publication that directly attributes key parts of this affair is somewhat more credible than you. If you want me to quote verbatim from the book to clarify things further, I'd be happy to help. Or maybe you'd like to provide us all with properly-attributed evidence to the contrary? And, while you're at it, maybe you should write to the Perugia prosecutors' office and advise them to pursue the authors of this book for misrepresentation and libel?

Another PS: I hardly call the reading of one of the few published works on this case - freely available on amazon - evidence of some sort of special inside knowledge. It's all there in black and white. Have you not read this book? Your dedication to the case leads me to believe that you MUST have read it, but maybe you've forgotten parts of it...

And we haven't even started on Lumumba's accusations of gross mistreatment by the police and prosecutors (including - but not limited to - being hit over the head and being called a "dirty black" when he was arrested). Perhaps you'd also like to claim (with evidence) that he was treated with the utmost dignity and professionalism at all times by the crack Perugia police as well?
Click to expand...

Darkness Descending was a reasonable effort and was sincere. It did however fall short. The author did not speak Italian, didn't attend the hearings and relied overly on blogs and news articles rather then primary sources for his information. The narrative and reasoning is good...the actual facts contained need double checking, for they are the Achilles heel of the book. In short, it's an interesting read and an honest work, but I wouldn't use it as a source. That's my advice. You may feel it's spot on....but those involved in the case don't regard it as a valid source.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Oh LondonJohn, if you've not noticed the implicit racism in the Knox Camp that's been a theme throughout this case, perhaps you're not as bright as you attempt to project...or perhaps you just think we're not?
Click to expand...

The latter, since you ask me to make a choice. Regardless of your opinion on the racial attitudes of certain "pro-Knox" posters, it's pretty clear that the satirical use of that phrase in the original MaryH post in question solely implied racial prejudices on behalf of elements with the Perugia police/prosecutors, and did not imply any racial prejudice on behalf of the post's author (quite the reverse in fact).

So you're illogical and wrong to imply otherwise, in this instance. You would however be correct to take issue with her for accusing the Perugia police/prosecutors of racial prejudices - but that's not what you did. I'm not a MaryH fan by any stretch, as I've said before, but your gratuitous twisting of logic in this case deserves a mention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom