• 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.
But not new to the case, which is the claim. The case is the case, whether that be on PMF or anywhere. So, even the term 'new' needs to be redefined.
 
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.
Click to expand...


This mop was inside, then Raf's apt, then home and then inside then out for this photo? If only mops could talk...
 

Attachments

  • image-1.jpg
    image-1.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 81
Fulcanelli said:
But not new to the case, which is the claim. The case is the case, whether that be on PMF or anywhere. So, even the term 'new' needs to be redefined.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. He's new, here. Clean slate and all that stuff. I'm not going to evaluate his contributions to this discussion on the basis of hearsay about some other one I didn't participate in. So far they have been reasoned, succinct, and as on topic as possible barring certain ... sidetracks. Time will tell if they stand up to scrutiny.

Leave the baggage at the door. It's not any prettier when you do it than when other people do.
 
Mary_H said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's a terrible argument. For anything. You have some of the strangest ideas. Tell me what you expect professional homicide investigators are going to ask the two people they find hanging around a recently murdered young girl. Other than what they were doing recently while the young girl was being murdered, that is.

[/quote]


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.[/quote]


Your desperation is showing.
 
quadraginta said:
No it doesn't. He's new, here. Clean slate and all that stuff. I'm not going to evaluate his contributions to this discussion on the basis of hearsay about some other one I didn't participate in. So far they have been reasoned, succinct, and as on topic as possible barring certain ... sidetracks. Time will tell if they stand up to scrutiny.

Leave the baggage at the door. It's not any prettier when you do it than when other people do.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. But if people claim they're new to the 'case' and they're not, I will point that out. The 'clean slate' concept can hide or excuse too many evils.
 
Fulcanelli said:
He quoted from a book. That's rather different to an answer.
Click to expand...

No, first he wrote a long narrative in his own words explaining his understanding of how it happened. Two posts later, after your challenges, he referred to the book.
 
Mary_H said:
No, first he wrote a long narrative in his own words explaining his understanding of how it happened. Two posts later, after your challenges, he referred to the book.
Click to expand...

You're right and I'm wrong. It wasn't a quote from the book. It was a long narrative of his understanding of the book...as you say.
 
Fulcanelli said:
You're right and I'm wrong. It wasn't a quote from the book. It was a long narrative of his understanding of the book...as you say.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, you haven't told us the source of your understanding of how it happened.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Fair enough. But if people claim they're new to the 'case' and they're not, I will point that out. The 'clean slate' concept can hide or excuse too many evils.
Click to expand...

"Evils" - now there's an interesting and presumably carefully-chosen word.

And, indeed, I did post for a short while on PMF, and anyone who is interested in what I wrote there and how I was graciously received can browse there at their leisure. I've only developed an interest in this case since reading "Darkness Descending" in March. I admit that I've not read back through the various blogs on this case - it would probably take a good year or so to do so at this point - so I apologise if I bring up issues that have previously been discussed to some sort of consensus. I'm merely making observations as I see them, and I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm either wrong or uneducated in certain areas. I look forward to following the case here with some passionate but civilised debate.
 
LondonJohn said:
I apologise if I bring up issues that have previously been discussed to some sort of consensus.
Click to expand...

That's the problem.

This case is the strangest thing I've ever seen. There is no consensus on anything. That's not hyperbole.

What we would ask of you, as of any newbie to the JREF, is to put down in writing those parts of the "official story" that you agree with. That gives us some inkling of how this "open debate" is going to progress.
 
LondonJohn said:
"Evils" - now there's an interesting and presumably carefully-chosen word.

And, indeed, I did post for a short while on PMF, and anyone who is interested in what I wrote there and how I was graciously received can browse there at their leisure. I've only developed an interest in this case since reading "Darkness Descending" in March. I admit that I've not read back through the various blogs on this case - it would probably take a good year or so to do so at this point - so I apologise if I bring up issues that have previously been discussed to some sort of consensus. I'm merely making observations as I see them, and I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm either wrong or uneducated in certain areas. I look forward to following the case here with some passionate but civilised debate.
Click to expand...

John...that's your fault. You've come to the table armed with a reading of Darkness Descending. It's not enough, truly. My advice would be to go back and read the catalogue of discourse as much as you can. I know it's a lot, too much...but as much as you can manage. 'A' book, even a good one, or even two, isn't enough. This is not a put down, rather a reflection of the reality of the complex nature of this case.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
"Evils" - now there's an interesting and presumably carefully-chosen word.

And, indeed, I did post for a short while on PMF, and anyone who is interested in what I wrote there and how I was graciously received can browse there at their leisure. I've only developed an interest in this case since reading "Darkness Descending" in March. I admit that I've not read back through the various blogs on this case - it would probably take a good year or so to do so at this point - so I apologise if I bring up issues that have previously been discussed to some sort of consensus. I'm merely making observations as I see them, and I'm perfectly prepared to be told I'm either wrong or uneducated in certain areas. I look forward to following the case here with some passionate but civilised debate.
Click to expand...

You're not alone LondonJohn in very recently following this case.

Share your observations and ask questions. I won't tell you that you're uneducated - I ask too many questions to make that claim against someone.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Understanding of how 'what' happened? The questioning...the accusations...the murder...which?
Click to expand...

Keep stalling, Fulcanelli.

Wow, you criticize Amanda for not being able to remember four nights ago and now you can't even remember what happened a couple of posts ago.

Where did you learn the following information:

"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."
 
Fulcanelli said:
John...that's your fault. You've come to the table armed with a reading of Darkness Descending. It's not enough, truly. My advice would be to go back and read the catalogue of discourse as much as you can. I know it's a lot, too much...but as much as you can manage. 'A' book, even a good one, or even two, isn't enough. This is not a put down, rather a reflection of the reality of the complex nature of this case.
Click to expand...

Don't bother reading the catalogue of discourse. All the exact same topics keep coming up again and again and again........
 
stilicho said:
That's the problem.

This case is the strangest thing I've ever seen. There is no consensus on anything. That's not hyperbole.

What we would ask of you, as of any newbie to the JREF, is to put down in writing those parts of the "official story" that you agree with. That gives us some inkling of how this "open debate" is going to progress.
Click to expand...

Woah: "what we would ask of you" - is there a committee in operation here?! Has every other newbie had to produce a list of what they agree with and what they disagree with?! This is sounding vaguely Orwellian.....

I'm not going to go through my views on a point-by-point basis. And, as Ive said many, many times before, I have no agenda and no pre-conceptions. However, my overarching view (which I in fact expressed in my first post on here) is that I have concerns regarding the ways in which AK and RS were convicted. This DOESN'T however mean that I necessarily think they had nothing to do with the offence.

I believe there may well have been irregularities in the way the police treated RS and - particularly - AK during the interrogations up to and including the first AK "confession". I believe this might come back to bite the prosecution in appellate courts. I believe that the way in which the police and prosecutors aparently treated Lumumba might tend to support any appellate arguments about state propriety - although I think AK's camp have muddied the waters considerably with over-exaggerations of police brutality.

I also believe that there may be trouble ahead regarding the DNA on the knife, and that the new super-sensitive "flavour" of LCN analysis may not stand up to further legal scrutiny (regardless of the defence's failure to sent representatives to the testing). And if the prosecution no longer has the knife DNA (which was presented with a fair degree of certitude in court, and which was basically impossible for AK/RS to explain away), holes start to appear.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't many other strands to the prosecution's case, but I suggest that the burden of proof might get harder on appeal. As I say, I argue from a purely legalistic perspective, and NOT from the perspective of "did they do it or didn't they?" Others of course will argue that the case is watertight, even over and above these specific issues. But I'm not so sure...
 
Mary_H said:
Keep stalling, Fulcanelli.

Wow, you criticize Amanda for not being able to remember four nights ago and now you can't even remember what happened a couple of posts ago.

Where did you learn the following information:

"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."
Click to expand...

Mary, this was all in the early days of the case...we were following it live as it happened. I mean, I understand you're a newbie...but this is old lore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom