Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[LondonJohn]

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.

Did they invent directly-attributed conversations and quotes then?

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

At least you're honest. Wrong, but honest.

I was pointing out a home truth. Perhaps once you've been around a little longer, if you last, you'll recognise those.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did they invent directly-attributed conversations and quotes then?

I think they wrote a book.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

I missed this one - you're on fine patronising form! I am who I say I am, even though I am well aware that you think I'm some sort of agent or plant or stooge or something. Please desist with all that. I'm not.

And I didn't notice your sources for your assertions that the Perugia police went out of their way to find and confirm Lumumba's alibi. Or do the "quote sources at all times" rules only apply selectively?

 

[LondonJohn]

At least you're honest. Wrong, but honest.

I was pointing out a home truth. Perhaps once you've been around a little longer, if you last, you'll recognise those.

I'm really not interested in getting into a war of words with you. I'll keep my feelings about you to myself, in spite of the continued condescending insults. I think that many people who've read the past couple of pages of the blog can see for themselves what's going on here. I'm merely interested in discussing aspects of this fascinating case, and have only ever responded to direct attacks and insults. Please stop doing it, or stick to doing it on your own forum. Tell me I'm wrong if you disagree with me, and tell me why I'm wrong by all means, but cut out the rest.

 

[Jungle Jim]

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.

Or possibly Amanda unlocks the door. Raffaele steps in the entrance and puts the mop down. Amanda follows him in, picks up the mop to return it to the cupboard. In any case, two steps in the cottage and you can see Filomenia's door. Raffaele says it was wide open. He did not say Amanda opened Filomenia's door.

 

[Dan O.]

"The ones Amanda told."
"We have all looked at it: oddly at least some of us do not see what you see"
"I predict that Amanda et al will spend a lot of time in jail. Randi can email me when my check is ready."
"The ever increasing demand for more and more minutiae is a sure sign that you have already decided the case and are seeking confirmation rather than evidence."
"*or use Jehdi mind tricks, not to sure on that."
"Dan that picture looks more like a street light than a camera. Can you show me any other cameras that look like that?"
"Thanks for the info both of you. I really wanted to see Dan's answer but you all are too helpful."
"The only thing AK's defenders seem to be able to do is try to poke holes in small inconsequential details or just accuse the whole Italian justice system of corruption, neither approach seems likely to do Amanda any good."
"Except in those cases where they don't."
"Why would it have to predate it?"
"How many dead bodies have you been found with?"
"I always hang around in houses with dead friends in locked doors and blood everywhere."
"Yep. Nitwits will nitpick."
"Testing emoticons?"
"Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
"Katy did, I started reading this thread just because of the title and I have no problem with saying that Amanda is guilty."
"She's guilty. The preponderance of evidence leaves no reasonable doubt."
"Now you're trying to define facts out of existence."
"How can we believe anything they are saying if their memories are as flexible as you say?"
"At this point it seems the FOA don't care about facts or statements or anything else just "Poor little American girl caught in the throes of Italian incompetence and evil"."
"The only thing that counts is Amanda's innocence. Facts and Amanda's own statements can be ignored or twisted as long as we hold to the first principle."
"And did you come to this conclusion as you ran the tests on the knife or did you figure it out later?"
"The guilty verdict?"
"Mainly that a court found her guilty."
"Of course none of this would have happened in America or the UK where the justice system is perfect."
"And if it did happen Amanda didn't do it."
"I'm sure that if Amanda confessed her friends would just cluck their tongues and say "poor Amanda, they broke her down" and then carry on as usual."
"ETA: New evidence can be produced but it has to be very persuasive to overturn what has already been decided."
"Another case of getting caught in your own web of lies."
"Raf your bus is waiting, let us help you under it\FOA mode"
"Some money to the judges and Amanda walks. Unless..Italy hates Amanda."
"Since he's making assertions it's up to him to back them up with something more than pointing at his degree or his "non purely technical argument" or his access to hidden knowledge."
"The only one that counts is."
"One of those statements is wrong."
"I see you're Just Asking Questions."
"She'll be speaking real good Italian by the time her sentence is done."
"Nice strawman you have there."
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem"
"It's really odd that everyone gets it wrong but Amanda. But wait what was her story again? Take your pick she has many of them."
"Why don't we listen to the recording of her interrogation by the police and confirm what she actually said in the context of how the questions were asked?"
"Another liar! Will the list never end? Obviously they should lock up everyone but Amanda."
"Why yes I do since I don't live in Italy."
"And She's being punished for someone else's sin."
"So far the FOA crowd looks every bit as deluded as any other true believer bunch. Same tactics; focus on irrelevant details, ignore facts, quote mining and argument by innuendo."
"The trust of the Italian people in their system of justice is not the issue."
"The FOA couldn't pay for a lawyer?"
"Please won't someone think of the strawmen?"
"You're putting your conclusions before the evidence."
"Well, so am I. Now prove it happened to Amanda."
"Wrong. Don't give up your day job your mind reading skills are nil."
"Well they were in Italy and it looks like they'll stay in Italy."
"Looks like the defense lawyers raked the coals and sifted the ashes and still couldn't find anything to stand up in court."
"In your world DNA from murdered girls randomly waft through labs."
"I see you've given up any pretense to rational argument and are falling back on the "soapbox strategy", yell accusations loud and long."
"My opinions, same as you. Are you claiming some authority for your posts that mine don't have?"
"Careful, you don't want to be attacking other members."
"Yes, if you're planning on some kind of a coherent argument."
"I think you're supposed to close your eyes and look at the photos chanting "Amanda is innocent"."
"BTW did I miss where Dan O explained what the pictures and rotating 900 was supposed to mean?"
"Link?"
"Link for your explanation of the import of the 900 rotation?"
"What purpose did the 900 rotation serve?"
"Putting me on ignore will be an admission to all that you did not and cannot explain what you meant."
"Careful or you'll be on Dans' ignore list. It would be funny if he put us all on ignore and wound up talking to himself although he seems to be doing that anyway."
"I turned her 900."
"Throw misleading questions and out of context quotes at your opponent til he drowns in a sea of stupidity."
"Works equally well against Amanda."
"Are they trying to get Amanda moved to an American jail?"
"I didn't even know of this case til I saw it here on JREF. The constant refrain of "evil satanic prosecutors" and "torture loving brute policemen" coupled with "corrupt and incompetent judges" tainted the defense case and seemed to be more important to them than the facts of the case."
"What color was the underwear she bought. If red then she's guilty. blue maybe and white innocent because we know guilty people never wear white."
"ETA: I see Kestrel has a theory."
"It would take a long stick to open the shutters so what happened to it?"
"Or did he climb up and open the shutters then climb back down and throw the rock then climb back up and open the window?"
"Dan we know what our position is, the question was "what is your position"?"
"So your position is that Amanda is innocent but you don't know who is guilty?"
"That tells me everything that I need to know about your sources."
"According to sources that you cannot reveal."
"It's a real shame then that judges will be trying the case and not the media."
"Apparently just revealing his sources could compromise the appeal."
"And of course you can't reveal how you know that."
"The judges were part of the media?"
"It the IJS is so corrupt then Amanda's family could have spent their money to much better effect."
"So no pictures or it didn't happen. Right."
"I didn't know there were rules about planting a rock."
"How are your postings here helping Amanda?"
"Ok I'm telling you."
"If you don't want to be taken seriously you're going about it in the right way."
"Or unreasonable idiocy."
"I think we're going to see another 900 turn soon."
"We're just ravenous for facts."
"No. I don't see any reason to do that."
"If you have anything besides insinuations please post it."
"So he threw away the stick so the burglary won't be noticed? Shame he didn't have time to get rid of the rock and replace the window pane."
"Oops, sorry wrong movie."
"Thanks for the link."
"Turn it 900 and see."
"Your dig about my "true character" is rude and completely uncalled for."
"As far as I know there's no Italian judges registered at JREF and I doubt that they go to the internet for evidence."
"You need better sources."
"Welcome to JREF."
"I really wish you'd get over this PMF obsession. You're here and if you have something to say, say it here."
"Deletes"
"Is there any evidence of the truth of that statement?"
"FOA has stated on their website that your own website "is part of a wave of activism that continues to build in support of Amanda and Raffaele. This wave is spontaneous, it is not under the control of any individual or agency ..." Yet the wave of supposed spontaneous activism is somewhat lacking in solid facts."
"How much more convincing will the mans' own words be than the man's own words?"
"Let's leave PMF matters and comments on PMF."
"You jumped on two of my posts that weren't responding to you so you really have no grounds to complain."
"That's how i see it."
"Since the police didn't know Patrick's name before Amanda accused him it would be hard for them to bring it up."
"Look down and to the left of the post and you will see a triangle with a ! in it."
"It's better than your anonymous one."
"ETA: Looks like you've never posted anywhere but this thread."
"If you can't handle people disagreeing with you then maybe you should retreat to friendly territory."
"I think he was buck naked."
"When you're making it up as you go along why not make it colorful?"
"There was this dead body."
"That would be a monologue."
"Looks like it."
"How about accusing innocent people of murder?"
"Then no one is qualified to say she didn't."
"I believe him because he has established credibility by backing up his statements whereas you have provided nothing but soap opera speculations about some sexual frisson that renders men blind in the presence of young women."
"I see you moved from slandering the Italian police to slandering fellow members."
"It's a ! in a triangle on bottom left."
"You'll want to take this to Forum Management."
"Nice how "can" became "did"."
"To save herself?"
"We know he was innocent therefore we know that Amanda lied."
"Her boyfriend had just thrown her under the bus."
"It was covered upthread."
"Cite hilited?"
"Poison the well much?"
"I know, if you ran the Italian Justice System it would be perfect."
"Amanda lied an innocent man into jail. Dance, divert and distract that fact is damming."
"Cite? There were no recordings, remember."
"Amanda lied an innocent man into jail. Dance, divert and distract that fact is damming."
"I'm sure that if you ran the Italian Justice System they would record the crimes before they happened."
"Why would you think that?"
"Foreign nationals should get special treatment?"
"Amanda lied an innocent man into jail. You can spin it you can ignore it but it's the elephant in the room."
"Why were the police out to get Patrick?"
"Same evidence/different wordview?"
"Do you have any proof that the lab has a problem with contamination?"
"Do you have any proof she falsified her report or is this one of those "buy my book" deals."
"It seems that since certain new members have joined, the comments have centered on Amanda's sex life."
"How many degrees do I have to have to know that Amanda lied Patrick into jail?"
"I don't intend to get into the debates here,"
"He was able to stand up to men in suits but a few questions from posters here offended him so that he couldn't continue."
"I put a lot of weight on Amanda's lie that Patrick did it. So far the only explanation has been that the cops browbeat her to give his name then suddenly changed their minds and decided to charge her."
"You must not be reading the same thread I am."
"Is there an argument in there somewhere?"
"Why did Amanda lie Patrick into jail?"
"Did they have something against her?"
"It's odd then that the police accepted her story about Patrick."
"How about recalling events that never happened?"
"It seems like the Italian police are a cross between the Keystone Cops and the Gestapo."
"Same as all believers."
"Your bias is showing."
"Being in close proximity to a murder victim tends to arouse suspicion."
"So you have nothing?"

Your contributions are not.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Your contributions are not.

Good afternoon, Pot

 

[Fulcanelli]

How do you believe it worked? He didn't fly to Italy on his own money, the Italians flew him there and they had to work around his schedule (hence the delay, or part of it). He messed up with his statement a little (the time he had pizza that night) which delayed things further) but eventually, it was all worked out. This wouldn't have happened were the Italians not open to it. And this is the point...in the same way, they've always been open to Amanda and Raffaele proving their story. These last two years, the pair have done only the opposite.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have not taken the opportunity to welcome you, London John. I did read your initial post stating your position on the case. I will tell you that I also feel that AK and RS are not completely innocent yet I do have doubts about direct participation in the murder. Unlike you, however, I am not as much concerned with arguing if there was sufficient reasonable doubt, but rather am interested in finding out what the truth is, regardless of the legal outcome in the case.

I also have more doubt about RS's involvement than AK's. Look forward to discussing the case with you. Fulcannelli is a really nice person and on occasion can become almost as insightful as Mary H. It must be like a hazing thing that they give new folks such a hard time.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm really not interested in getting into a war of words with you. I'll keep my feelings about you to myself, in spite of the continued condescending insults. I think that many people who've read the past couple of pages of the blog can see for themselves what's going on here. I'm merely interested in discussing aspects of this fascinating case, and have only ever responded to direct attacks and insults. Please stop doing it, or stick to doing it on your own forum. Tell me I'm wrong if you disagree with me, and tell me why I'm wrong by all means, but cut out the rest.

I don't care what you think about me

I care only about the case and only that insofar as a vehicle to the truth. It's as simple as that, if a caveat is required.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I also have more doubt about RS's involvement than AK's. Look forward to discussing the case with you. Fulcannelli is a really nice person and on occasion can become almost as insightful as Mary H. It must be like a hazing thing that they give new folks such a hard time.

LondonJohn isn't new

 

[Fulcanelli]

your contributions are not.

tldr

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn isn't new

I did ask you to stop with the personal attacks and insinuations. What do you mean by saying I'm "not new"? Are you alleging that I've registered undercover, and that I'm someone else who has a prior history of posting on this forum? If so, you're not only wrong, you're way out of order. I won't ask you again. I'll simply start referring you to the moderators. For the last time, stop it please.

 

[Mary_H]

How do you believe it worked?

Why do you ask that question when he already explained it?

He didn't fly to Italy on his own money, the Italians flew him there and they had to work around his schedule (hence the delay, or part of it). He messed up with his statement a little (the time he had pizza that night) which delayed things further) but eventually, it was all worked out. This wouldn't have happened were the Italians not open to it.

Now that is the spin to beat all spins.

 

[Mary_H]

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?

This is a good argument for the claim that the police did not at first question what Amanda and Raffaele did the night before. If they had been asked about it right away and had to repeat it several times, they would have been able to remember. But it appears they were asked about it only after a couple of days.

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.

The very fact that the murder occurred and they had to focus on it so attentively could explain why their recall of events before the body was found was hazier than their recall of what happened afterward.

 

[Mary_H]

Your bias is showing.

See what LondonJohn correctly wrote about my phrase concerning African immigrants. My description here of Amanda implied the point of view of the international media.

 

[RWVBWL]

I LUV "New Blood",
for it helps to challenge the "establishment" and the "status quo", you know, those who are firmly established in their theories and positions, especially on a forum meant to discuss skepticism and critical thinking. "New Blood" brings fresh ideas to a table of elders who usually just try to brush them off, like scram kid, beat it. Go the "New Blood", whether I agree with your opinions or not!
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

And I didn't notice your sources for your assertions that the Perugia police went out of their way to find and confirm Lumumba's alibi.

You might want to start using the search function here to locate all the discussion about Patrick. The inescapable facts are that he was only detained because AK gave his name to the police. He was only released after it was determined there was no evidence to hold him. Charges were formally dropped somewhat later.

The Perugia police did their jobs. If your only objection is to the phrase "went out of their way" then that's really your problem.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I did ask you to stop with the personal attacks and insinuations. What do you mean by saying I'm "not new"? Are you alleging that I've registered undercover, and that I'm someone else who has a prior history of posting on this forum? If so, you're not only wrong, you're way out of order. I won't ask you again. I'll simply start referring you to the moderators. For the last time, stop it please.

Weren't you a poster on PMF? Or is this a case of mistaken identity?