Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

My point, which I stand by, is that your behaviour is symptomatic of irrational partisanship. You find reasons to attack everything stated by Amanda-is-innocent people, even if your attacks make no sense and are irrelevant to Amanda's innocence or guilt. You take everything to be obvious evidence of Amanda's guilt, even if the matter is manifestly irrelevant as we can see with the bathmat business.

It's very much like the moon landing conspiracy theorists who think that everything about the moon videos is evidence that it's all faked.

Wait a second. You were the one who claimed that you could explain the bathmat business. You just didn't know it wasn't the kind of bathmat that you thought it was. After you could no longer explain it then it becomes irrelevant.

Well guess what?

The bathmat wasn't irrelevant. It was a part of the 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. It was a part of the prosecution's case against Amanda and Raffaele. It was also a part of the testimony Amanda herself provided in her defence.

So this isn't moon landing hoax stuff. It's stuff that the police thought was important enough to investigate, that Amanda thought was important enough to write home about, that you thought (originally) was simple enough to handwave away, and stuff composing one small part of the case as a whole.

And it goes right down the list, Kevin. There are some pieces where you might waver one way or the other while evaluating them. That's all right. It's fine. But when you challenge them head on, are corrected, and afterwards claim "moon landing hoax" then that's not even fair to your own arguments.

Don't sell yourself short.

 

[stilicho]

Do you have evidence to contest any of the claims made in mainstream media sources that I quoted and cited for you? Your word is no good at this stage.

When were the arrests made again?

 

[Amazer]

Or Ghirga finally managed to convince them to keep quiet.

If so, it's only a partial success.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If Amanda and Raffaele were not convicted for their checkered pasts or knife- and manga-collecting, then why were these aspects of their lives brought into the prosecutors' arguments? You do it again yourself when you imply we shouldn't act as if Amanda's and Raffaele's "issues" don't count. You and the prosecution think these extenuating circumstances should be measured and added to a formula that equates to guilt. You consider these aspects part of the evidence, but in the same breath say the defendants were not convicted on account of them.

Take away all the histories, all the myspace pages, all the family lore, even all of Rudy's prior crimnal behavior and just look strictly at the evidence from the crime scene. Forget about Amanda's supporters having to prove she is innocent; just look at the prosecutors' responsibility for proving she is guilty.

Without any of those considerations, can her guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Except the difference is, those things are all known established facts, they are not hearsay and rumour like the type we see getting thrown at Rudy.

And you don't think knife collecting is a relevant topic of discussion in a case where the victim was stabbed to death?

 

[stilicho]

Everyone here, as far as I know, agrees that he raped and murdered Meredith Kercher, we just differ on whether or not he had accomplices when he did so. We all should therefore agree that he's an evil piece of garbage who should rot in jail for the rest of his life. Yet you vigorously defend him to the point of accusing mainstream news sources of lying (or in Bob's words spewing twisted hearsay)... just because rehabilitating Rudy's reputation makes Amanda look a little bit worse in your eyes. I find that really weird and frankly disturbing.

You know what, Kevin? The crime was weird and frankly disturbing. Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda were all there and they all participated. The evidence is on the side of the "weird and disturbing".

You've inadvertently stumbled upon yet another FOA talking point: Rudy is already in prison. That's plenty!

Yet the evidence indicated multiple attackers. There was no way around it unless they suppressed it. Imagine it this way: What if they had only arrested and convicted Amanda? Would you argue similarly that she was evil and garbage and that enough justice had been pursued for one murder? Or would you demand full justice for Meredith's death?

 

[Fulcanelli]

He just had a past involving harassing women, theft, housebreaking using a rock to gain entry, and carrying knives while housebreaking, according to multiple witnesses whose statements were reported in the mainstream press.

False.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wait a second. You were the one who claimed that you could explain the bathmat business. You just didn't know it wasn't the kind of bathmat that you thought it was. After you could no longer explain it then it becomes irrelevant.

No, actually, I ignored your response because I thought it was obviously stupid. You ducked the question of whether the mat actually had a rubber bottom, you've got no idea whether that particular mat could be scooted around on that particular floor, and even if for some bizarre reason Amanda was lying or misremembering on that point it makes no damned difference to the fact that there is no evidence tying her to the actual murder.

Well guess what?

The bathmat wasn't irrelevant. It was a part of the 04 NOV 2007 alibi email. It was a part of the prosecution's case against Amanda and Raffaele. It was also a part of the testimony Amanda herself provided in her defence.

So this isn't moon landing hoax stuff. It's stuff that the police thought was important enough to investigate, that Amanda thought was important enough to write home about,

Bully for all of you. It's not relevant to fact that there is no evidence tying her to the actual murder.

And it goes right down the list, Kevin. There are some pieces where you might waver one way or the other while evaluating them. That's all right. It's fine. But when you challenge them head on, are corrected, and afterwards claim "moon landing hoax" then that's not even fair to your own arguments.

Don't sell yourself short.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and I think it's probably due to the less-rigorous standards over at PGF where you Amanda-is-guilty people hang out.

From what I saw of that place, it's not nearly as rigorous as the JREF forums when it comes to fact-checking. As Fulcanelli has found out this is a fairly hostile environment for false factual claims and they tend to get shot down fairly quickly. Over there I can easily see nonsense like "Rudy had no criminal history" or "there wasn't that much evidence of Rudy's guilt" getting echoed around and taking root.

So when you come here from there you discover something many people over the years have discovered here at the JREF forums, which is that your beliefs aren't as well-founded as you thought they were.

You haven't "corrected" anyone on the bathmat issue, you've just contradicted us without providing evidence. You're also ignoring the major points which I have made, probably because they are too hard to argue with, in favour of trivia about bathmats.

The major points:

1. There is no convincing explanation for how Rudy could have left so much evidence at the murder scene, that incontrovertibly ties him to the murder, yet Amanda and Raffaele left nothing or almost nothing.

2. There is no convincing explanation for why Amanda or Raffaele would commit this rape and murder in the first place, nor any explanation of how they teamed up with a near-total stranger (Rudy) to commit this rape and murder. So we've got a ludicrous prosecution narrative combined with a total lack of relevant evidence to support it.

3. The competing narrative where Rudy just committed a robbery which fitted his known M.O., then committed an impulsive rape and murder, then fled covers all the murder room evidence just fine, plus the wound on his hand which makes no sense at all if Amanda and Raffaele were doing all the stabbing.

4. The prosecutor is known to be prone to irrational conspiracy theories and the police definitely forced a false confession out of Amanda. There can be no question about that as far as I can see. (Charging her with defaming the police for saying this is the cherry on the cake of police misconduct). That doesn't prove they also falsified the forensic evidence, but clearly ethical conduct and competent investigative methodology were not the strong points of the investigating team. I find it perfectly plausible that someone on the team falsified the DNA evidence on the clasp and the "second murder weapon", given that they had already coerced a false confession, the DNA evidence could not be double-checked, and the DNA evidence miraculously saved a seemingly doomed pet theory. Not certain, of course, but plausible. More plausible than the competing claim that Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime leaving no trace except the bra clasp and knife DNA, at the very least.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's like you're trying to argue a case for reverse discrimination. You lump Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy into a homogenous group -- "She's right there in the same league of irresponsible young adults along with Rudy and Raffaele" -- as if everything in their lives has been equal up to this point. That is a one-dimensional view, not an analytical one.

As Bob has pointed out, carrying a knife has a different meaning depending on who is carrying the knife. Amanda's noise citation does not have the same meaning as Rudy stealing a computer from a law firm. It is not useful to compare the suspects from such a shallow point of view.

Oh I see. If Rudy has a knife, then it is clear evidence of criminality. If Raffaele has a knife (s) it's not a problem because he's a sterling young man...carrying knives isn't an issue, only who is carrying them...what a convenient world you fabricate for yourself.

I've got news for you Mary...one of Raffaele's pocket knives has been found to be the knife responsible for Meredith's shallower knife wounds. I don't think you're going to enjoy reading the Massei Report very much.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

When were the arrests made again?

We've been over this. Engage with the arguments honestly or get under the bridge with Fulcanelli.

You know what, Kevin? The crime was weird and frankly disturbing. Rudy, Raffaele, and Amanda were all there and they all participated. The evidence is on the side of the "weird and disturbing".

You've inadvertently stumbled upon yet another FOA talking point: Rudy is already in prison. That's plenty!

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

Yet the evidence indicated multiple attackers. There was no way around it unless they suppressed it. Imagine it this way: What if they had only arrested and convicted Amanda? Would you argue similarly that she was evil and garbage and that enough justice had been pursued for one murder? Or would you demand full justice for Meredith's death?

How about you try sticking to the actual facts, instead of haring off on these hypotheticals you seem to keep wanting to pursue?

The evidence could be consistent with multiple attackers if you ignore large chunks of it, like the total lack of DNA evidence of multiple attackers in the murder room. However competent analysts have said that it's equally compatible with a single attacker and a single knife, despite the prosecution's attempt to shove the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of their conspiracy theory.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Property crimes are devastating to anyone who has suffered from one. What was stolen from the nursery again? And didn't it turn out that Rudy had goods that were stolen from an office but was only identified upon returning them? I haven't really paid much attention to these incidents because they weren't entered as evidence.

Well, the police confiscated them when they checked them and found they'd been stolen. The next day back in Perugia, after basketball practice, he went to the lawyer's office and apologised for having their computer and told them he had bought it with no idea that it had been stolen.

In regard to the nursery, which he thought was not in use and was being used as a squat, he took a knife from the kitchen and put it in his bag for protection while he slept. He also took some small change out of an open locker and had the nursery keys on him (I presume he wanted to lock the doors while he slept). When the nursery worker found him in the morning, he was apologetic and docilely waited while she called the police and stood around and waited for them to arrive.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've got news for you Mary...one of Raffaele's pocket knives has been found to be the knife responsible for Meredith's shallower knife wounds. I don't think you're going to enjoy reading the Massei Report very much.

This should be good. Citation?

Or is this from the same "source" that said that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp, that Rudy had no history of criminal behaviour, and that one of the luminol footprints was Raffaele's?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Appeal to authority, failure to engage with the actual arguments. If we believed that courts were infallible we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't believe the Italian court system to be infallible. Get over it.

And they were convicted. Get over that.

I (incorrectly) assumed that you were familiar with Rudy's documented background, and that of Amanda and Raffaele. Mea culpa. You acted like you knew something about the case, so I guess I was fooled.

I am familiar with the FACTS. I suggest that you also start getting acquainted with them.

I already posted the citations and quotations for Bob, who tried this line on us. Sorry, but the evidence is there in black and white.

I do wonder what drives you people to defend Rudy though. Everyone here, as far as I know, agrees that he raped and murdered Meredith Kercher, we just differ on whether or not he had accomplices when he did so. We all should therefore agree that he's an evil piece of garbage who should rot in jail for the rest of his life. Yet you vigorously defend him to the point of accusing mainstream news sources of lying (or in Bob's words spewing twisted hearsay)... just because rehabilitating Rudy's reputation makes Amanda look a little bit worse in your eyes. I find that really weird and frankly disturbing.

All of which contained no quotes from any sources. I also trumped your references to newspapers with the ruling of the court. Unless of course, you are arguing all the papers know Rudy Guede had a criminal record, but the judges, prosecution and lawyers for the victim in his trial didn't know this? The ultimate judge of whether Rudy had a criminal record is the ILE, since they are in the position to know. Therefore, cite as many newspapers as you like, none of them come evn close to the authority of the court.

Defending Rudy? Straw man.

I do wonder though what drives 'you' people to defend Amanda and Raffaele.

One more time: The evidence outside the bedroom doesn't prove that Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith. The evidence inside the bedroom should prove that they killed Meredith, if they did so, but there's not a skerrick of good evidence to be had.

Yes it does. And as for 'good' evidence...no evidence found against the pair would be classed as 'good' by you. For in reality, it's not the evidence you don't like, but what it indicates.

That's the prosecution's story, however other credible sources maintain that one knife of the type shown by the bloodstain on the sheet could perfectly well have inflicted all three wounds, thus there is no need for a second knife to explain the wounds. Similarly the claim that her bruises show multiple attackers is as far as I can tell perfectly consistent with one attacker attempting to restrain her from behind.

No it couldn't and no, that's the 'Judge's' story. Get over the prosecution, we are way past them now...what matters is the Judge's judgement and that is not the prosecution. And that judgements is based on the contributions from all parties and all the evidence. What you don't seem to realise, is one of the knives that stabbed Meredith was only about 4 cm long, it went in hilt deep and the reason that is known is because the impression from the handle was left around the wound. The fatal wound was inflicted by a blade far longer then 4 cm.

Oh please... I've already responded to this knife business, you clearly aren't even reading the thread.

Yeah, you hand waved it away, just like everything that makes Amanda and Raffaele look bad.

Stick to the facts and the arguments. I know you'd love to derail the thread into a discussion of whether I personally am irrational or not, but I decline to play your game. The question of what hypothetical evidence I would accept as proof of Knox's (and Raffaele's) guilt is irrelevant and I am not interested in discussing it. I'm interested in discussing the evidence that does exist. If you don't like it, too bad.

It might be easier for Stilicho if you actually provided him with some facts.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This should be good. Citation?

Or is this from the same "source" that said that Amanda's DNA was on the bra clasp, that Rudy had no history of criminal behaviour, and that one of the luminol footprints was Raffaele's?

My reference is the Massei Report. Read it. Once you have, we may get considerably less of the pompous assertions.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and I think it's probably due to the less-rigorous standards over at PGF where you Amanda-is-guilty people hang out.

From what I saw of that place, it's not nearly as rigorous as the JREF forums when it comes to fact-checking. As Fulcanelli has found out this is a fairly hostile environment for false factual claims and they tend to get shot down fairly quickly. Over there I can easily see nonsense like "Rudy had no criminal history" or "there wasn't that much evidence of Rudy's guilt" getting echoed around and taking root.

So when you come here from there you discover something many people over the years have discovered here at the JREF forums, which is that your beliefs aren't as well-founded as you thought they were.

You haven't "corrected" anyone on the bathmat issue, you've just contradicted us without providing evidence. You're also ignoring the major points which I have made, probably because they are too hard to argue with, in favour of trivia about bathmats.

Well, we're still waiting for you to tell us 'which' crimes it was that Rudy was convicted for before Meredith's murder. By your own definition, you seem to be letting the JREF standards down.

And I'd also like you to tell me, what reasonable person would use a bath mat covered in someone else's blood to dry their feet and scoot around on? While you're at it, you can also tell us what Raffaele's bare bloody footprint is doing on it. Then you can finish off by telling us why the bath mat is irrelevant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My reference is the Massei Report. Read it. Once you have, we may get considerably less of the pompous assertions.

What a surprise. Once again you make a dubious, misleading or outright false claim and then try to skate away when you get called on it. Your constant, convenient "mistakes" about the facts and "mistakes" about other people's arguments have reached the point where I think engaging with you further is counterproductive.

ETA: We posted past each other. Your claims that the bath mat was "covered in someone else's blood", and that it had Raffaele's bare bloody footprint on it both further illustrate my point above about your misrepresentations of the facts. Maybe you can get away with this on PGF, but not here. Shoo, troll. We're done.

 

[LiamG.]

double post.

 

[LiamG.]

Hello,
I simply don`t get it, why the bathroom should be irrelevant in the crime, in regard to AK. I mean, there`s no doubt that the murderer/s went to the bathroom and the probability is extremely high, that the one/s who went in the bathroom used it to wash away blood from their hands, or more likely their foot/feet as shown by the blood in the bidet. So, if you find mixed-DNA evidence from a person,who has no credible alibi, along with her boyfriend lied several times to the police etc, etc; how could anybody be 100% sure, that this is irrelevant, because she lived in the cottage.
Moreover I don`t understand, why all "Rudy`s the only guilty one" claimers isnsist on, if the prosecution scenario is true, that AK stabbed MK, while she was being restrained by two and AK had all the night to clean the scene, she nevertheless must have left evidence in the room, whereas (in the lone-wolf scenario)it is quite possible that RG, didn`t leave any DNA traces when he washed his feet and hands in the bathroom.
I`m not a DNA expert, but its somehow logical to me, that it is more likely to leave DNA evidence if you wash your bloody hands/feet, by rubbing them together, than to leave DNA evidence if you don`t do anything except stabbing someone and moreover have the time to wash away possible bloody footprints.
Last thing I want to add:
In the german tv-show "Aktenzeichen XY" (the german equivalent to "America`s Most Wanted") there are often cases, where a person gets killed after a violent fight through stabbing and where the police doesn`t have any traces of the murderer found (be it DNA, hair, fingerprints etc.), so why isn`t it possible, that in this case the stabber would have left no evidence in the room, although he even was in "a better position" as the holding done wasn`t done by him and he had all night to clean up?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The evidence could be consistent with multiple attackers if you ignore large chunks of it, like the total lack of DNA evidence of multiple attackers in the murder room. However competent analysts have said that it's equally compatible with a single attacker and a single knife, despite the prosecution's attempt to shove the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of their conspiracy theory.

It is not a requirement that DNA be left. It is quite common for violent murders and yes, including ones with a struggle, don't yield DNA. The absence of DNA is not proof of innocence, certainly not the cast iron proof you seem to think it is.

'Competent analysts'... for the 'defence' you mean? Well, they're going to say that, aren't they?

 

[katy_did]

My reference is the Massei Report. Read it. Once you have, we may get considerably less of the pompous assertions.

Cite? Or are you talking about something that was never argued by anyone in court, but then introduced as pure speculation by Massei since Raffaele carried folding knives so hey, let's say it might have been one of those that caused the smaller wounds even though we have no evidence whatsoever that was the case, and not even the prosecution suggested it might be?

 

[Amazer]

The major points:

1. There is no convincing explanation for how Rudy could have left so much evidence at the murder scene, that incontrovertibly ties him to the murder, yet Amanda and Raffaele left nothing or almost nothing.

Amanda and Raffaele only left nothing or almost nothing in the way of evidence if you choose to ignore some evidence.

2. There is no convincing explanation for why Amanda or Raffaele would commit this rape and murder in the first place, nor any explanation of how they teamed up with a near-total stranger (Rudy) to commit this rape and murder. So we've got a ludicrous prosecution narrative combined with a total lack of relevant evidence to support it.

That you don't find the explanation convincing has been duly noted... I on the other hand I have no trouble accepting the explanation. I've seen close-up and personal how quickly situations can escalate, both sexual situations and situations involving physical violence. And teaming up with a near total stranger is really not quit as uncommon as you might imagine.

3. The competing narrative where Rudy just committed a robbery which fitted his known M.O., then committed an impulsive rape and murder, then fled covers all the murder room evidence just fine, plus the wound on his hand which makes no sense at all if Amanda and Raffaele were doing all the stabbing.

IMO, this narrative only works if you disregard some of the evidence.

4. The prosecutor is known to be prone to irrational conspiracy theories and the police definitely forced a false confession out of Amanda. There can be no question about that as far as I can see. (Charging her with defaming the police for saying this is the cherry on the cake of police misconduct).

We disagree on the certainty of the forced false confession. I agree that it there was a level of pressure involved, i also agree that it was a false confession. The only difference is that I believe it is because Amanda was involved in the murder which caused her to have a weak alibi that broke the moment some hard questions were asked.

That doesn't prove they also falsified the forensic evidence, but clearly ethical conduct and competent investigative methodology were not the strong points of the investigating team. I find it perfectly plausible that someone on the team falsified the DNA evidence on the clasp and the "second murder weapon", given that they had already coerced a false confession, the DNA evidence could not be double-checked, and the DNA evidence miraculously saved a seemingly doomed pet theory.

Right... only one thing left then... evidence that all this occurred.

Not certain, of course, but plausible. More plausible than the competing claim that Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime leaving no trace except the bra clasp and knife DNA, at the very least.

But Amanda did leave trace besides the bra clasp and the knife DNA. Have you forgotten the mixed DNA samples that had both Meredith's and Amanda's DNA?