• 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.
LondonJohn said:
I CLAIM A STRAWMAN!!!!

My post was in direct response to a pretty definitive-sounding statement from you, which said, verbatim:

"If Amanda is innocent of this murder than why was she found guilty in a court of law?"

My response, therefore, provided a list of miscarriages of justice - I.E. THOSE WHO WERE FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW BUT WHO WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUITTED. It had nothing to do with Italy in particular. It was to do with showing you that your statement made (in my opinion) no logical sense whatsoever.

In other words (since I feel I need to explain it again in this instance): one cannot claim that since someone was convicted in a court of law then BY DEFINITION they cannot be innocent (or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for that matter). But thank you all the same for providing an excellent example of a real strawman argument :)
Click to expand...

Are any of those miscarriages of justice similar in any way to this one? You see, if you're going to compare things, the primary requirement is that they must be similar.
 
Fulcanelli said:
By both Amanda and Raffaele? The same who you are great pains to keep telling us were together only a week. The same Raffaele that only visited the cottage two or three times and only then to wait for Amanda to collect her stuff and the other time (so they say) to cook lunch? All without giving us any viable candidate for the prints or a scenario for how it may have gotten on the soles of both their feet? Now, I ask you, is it any wonder both of them were found guilty...is it?

The old, much repeated 'many other things' argument simply doesn't wash, neither in a court room, or here.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that the stains were made in blood and there is also no proof that the stains belong to Amanda or Raffaele.

Are you trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty because they couldn't find a "viable candidate" for the undated stains?

It isn't their job to find a "viable candidate" for those stains.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
My response, therefore, provided a list of miscarriages of justice - I.E. THOSE WHO WERE FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW BUT WHO WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUITTED. It had nothing to do with Italy in particular.
Click to expand...

This is your mistake John, this case only involves Italy.
 
stilicho said:
I still think he's wrong anyhow. I think he's mistaking the issues over the national DNA bank with the rights of the individual to refuse to submit to a test unless many provisions are made and not just the ones LJ thinks are OK.

I can tell he's working from hearsay because he's also jumbled in an anecdote about first responders being swabbed. That's a written condition of their contract in most jurisdictions. You don't become a peace officer or first responder unless you agree to submit to the DNA tests.
Click to expand...

If you're not under arrest, you can refuse to provide a test. Then, they either have to arrest you, or get a warrant.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
What if, and I'm just going out on a limb here, the Police were already sure of all the other's alibis by the 3rd or 4th? Given that everyone else was provably out of town with no conflicting alibis, your argument doesn't stand.

While I may agree that it would have presented a more full picture of the DNA test results, it still fails to do two very important things:

1) Explain Raffaele's DNA in Meredith's bedroom

and

2) Explain Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife


The most further reference samples would have provided is maybe a better understanding of who stepped where...Except that we're talking about footprints in Meredith's blood. Thus, unless you don't believe the other roommates alibis, there is no reason to suspect they had ever tracked Meredith's wet blood around the room/cottage.
Click to expand...

Oh Lordy! No sooner has the inappropriate usage of the term "strawman" come up, than a barrage of actual strawmen turn up - a bit like London buses.....

And here is why this particular post is a corking strawman: I never argued that the voluntary samples (DNA, hair, blood, prints) were solely to identify or eliminate those who provided the samples. In fact I specifically said that they would be to help the police analyse and make sense of the murder scene. For example, if and when the police came across - say - a fingerprint on a light switch in the hallway, they could immediately check it against all the prints from all the people who had regular access to the house. If it matched any of those prints, it would likely be of little or no evidential value (unless the print was made in blood). But if it didn't match any of these prints, the police could immediately and justifiably suspect that it might me linked to any potential stranger-killer.

In other words - to spell it out once again - even if the police had totally verified and accepted Filomena's (say) alibi by midday on the 3rd, there was still enormous value in requesting all the relevant samples from Filomena in order to assist and expedite the ongoing forensic investigation. Does this make sense?
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
Rudy knew Amanda, Amanda knew Rudy. It's okay, we'll correct you when you get the facts wrong ;)
Click to expand...

Frank Sfarzo, in his early writings, speculated that there was a possibility that Rudy and Raffaele knew each other due to the fact that they lived close to each other, drugs, were young, university town, etc.

There was never any evidence presented that Rudy and Raffaele knew each other, correct?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Actually it was, it must have been, since Massei includes the clean-up in his report. He must have got the idea from someone, therefore it must have been raised in the trial.
Click to expand...

Interesting argument, Fulcanelli, especially after putting Kevin down for believing Mignini said something about Satanic rituals.

How about this: Actually it was, it must have been, since Micheli includes the rituals in his report. He must have got the idea from someone, therefore it must have been raised in the trial.

"(un po’ lumeggiate dal P.M., pur non contestandole, nella a dir poco fantasiosa ricostruzione descrittiva di riti, festini di Halloween, pubblicazioni manga ed occasioni da non lasciarsi sfuggire, magari dopo una pantomima di prova generale davanti al malcapitato K.)"

http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

Unfortunately, we don't have records of what Mignini said to the judges outside of the trials, but we can safely assume he said a lot. They must have gotten their ideas from someone.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
There is no proof that the prints were made in blood and there is also no proof that the prints belong to Amanda or Raffaele.

Are you trying to say that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty because they couldn't find a "viable candidate" for the undated prints?

It isn't their job to find a "viable candidate" for those prints.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Provide an alternative, viable, explanation for them then. If it's plausible, how hard can it be?

The prints are a match for Raffaele and Amanda and were proven to be so in the trial. You can assert and assert, but the house of bricks will still stand :)

I'm saying, Amanda and Raffaele have been found guilty because they left footprints in Meredith's blood which forms only a SMALL part of the evidence against them, the WHOLE of which convicted them, in a fair trial. That's what I'm saying. But back to the prints...establishing something as fact isn't just about what you can rule 'in' but also what can can be ruled OUT and since all other candidates for the prints can be ruled out, only blood remains, reinforced by the clear bloody print on the mat, the fact the prints happen to match the two convicted and the fact and the fact that the only viable source...BLOOD, was in rich supply on the night of the murder.

You offer no other candidate or explanation because you have none. That makes your argument invalid...and you know it is. Accept the truth...they murdered Meredith, you may not like it bit that's no excuse, that's life!
 
LondonJohn said:
In other words - to spell it out once again - even if the police had totally verified and accepted Filomena's (say) alibi by midday on the 3rd, there was still enormous value in requesting all the relevant samples from Filomena in order to assist and expedite the ongoing forensic investigation. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...

To assist it 'how'...specifically?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
It made no difference what he said because the print was his. So there is no need for your post.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was never established as fact. The 'fact' is, as soon as he said it could be his it could no longer be argued to be Raffaele's, whether it was or it wasn't.


And here's an interesting question for you Bruce...how did Rudy know it was probably his? There's only one possible answer to that...he was fully aware that he'd stepped in blood and then stepped off without addressing it. That means he knew this at the time, yet he left without addressing it.l It proves therefore, if there was cleaning and anyone cleaned, it certainly wasn't Rudy...since it's clear he left the crime scene in the full knowledge AT THE TIME that he did or at least may, have left evidence. Do we agree on that?
 
Fulcanelli said:
And are you making assertions based on English law? Just askin'.
Click to expand...

No. It happens in many different countries, including (but far from limited to) the UK. I suspect (but admit that I don't know) that it could happen in Italy - and it definitely should (in my view)

Incidentally, stilicho helpfully provided the way in which it happens in New Zealand - which superficially looks very similar indeed to the relevant parts of PACE in the UK, and might well be based on it.
 
christianahannah said:
Frank Sfarzo, in his early writings, speculated that there was a possibility that Rudy and Raffaele knew each other due to the fact that they lived close to each other, drugs, were young, university town, etc.

There was never any evidence presented that Rudy and Raffaele knew each other, correct?
Click to expand...

No. But Amanda knew Rudy and Rudy knew Amanda. Amanda was the link between Rudy and Raffaele, the joining force.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, that was never established as fact. The 'fact' is, as soon as he said it could be his it could no longer be argued to be Raffaele's, whether it was or it wasn't.


And here's an interesting question for you Bruce...how did Rudy know it was probably his? There's only one possible answer to that...he was fully aware that he'd stepped in blood and then stepped off without addressing it. That means he knew this at the time, yet he left without addressing it.l It proves therefore, if there was cleaning and anyone cleaned, it certainly wasn't Rudy...since it's clear he left the crime scene in the full knowledge AT THE TIME that he did or at least may, have left evidence. Do we agree on that?
Click to expand...

I don't know that I agree with that logic, Fulc.

1: Why, once Rudy said it could be his footprint could it no longer be argued that it was Raffaele's?

2: Just because he knowingly left evidence of his presence does not mean he didn't clean other traces up first.

I agree that Rudy didn't bother trying to clean up, his tracks out the front door seem to indicate that while the blood was still wet on his shoes, he simply was attempting to flee the scene. However, the footprint on the bathmat, and whether it's Rudy's or not, has no bearing on whether Rudy attempted to clean or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom