Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antony said:
This was in response to my msg #5045. Does Tsig imagine he is posting in PMF? Is this how PMF works?
Click to expand...

No, I messed up the quotes in the post so I deleted it. I fail to see the problem there.
 
Moved to AAH. Please do not post-by-proxy for non forum members. If you wish to have a discussion with a member from another forum, either post there, or convince them to come here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
halides1 said:
I suppose that since Amanda spent almost every night at Raffaele's place, they were boyfriend and girlfriend. A bit of a whirlwind romance. I don't happen to recall exactly where I heard about the photos, but Charlie may know. Yes, Meredith responded that she was meeting some friends, and Amanda responded to the effect that maybe they would bump into each other. I think Candace Dempsey's book has the actual texts of the messages, but I do not have it in front of me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's issue with translation. Like Amanda, I'm an American and my step-daughter is about her age. It would be more appropriate to call someone you have been "dating" for six days as someone "I'm seeing". What I don't get is why her family threw her fate in with someone none of them knew at all.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
If she was lying, then why did the experienced police believe her? In fact, they not only "believed" her, they approved of what she said: "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct ..."

You would think if she were lying, they would have continued their interrogation until they got the truth.

Looking at what the police accepted versus what they disregarded from all three defendants during that time, we don't see them basing their choices on much more than what fit their preconceived notions, or on what they may have been ordered to look for. All three defendants protested, but their protests fell on deaf ears, while anything incriminating was readily used without any doubt at all (and, of course, without any evidence at all).
Click to expand...

How would the police know she's lying?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Alt +F4, I am quickly becomming a huge fan. Keep up the very good work.

I would love to hear just how you think this whole murder did go down, because I have a feeling, it's simular to what I have been thinking as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sherlock. My theory is that the prosecution got a lot of it wrong but AK and RS are both guilty, to differing degrees. I'm in NYC and as it's getting late, I will give my further reasons why in a post tomorrow.
 
Alt+F4 said:
My gosh, he was a college student. Is he an absolute moron or just failed 5th grade science and every science class after that?
Click to expand...

I can only repeat that there are people right here in this thread with crazier ideas about DNA forensics than that, so it is in no way proof that Raffaele is implausibly stupid if he thought that secondary transfer from Meredith to Amanda to the knife was possible without accompanying DNA from Amanda.

I was not aware of DNA forensics being taught in 5th grade science: We must have come a very long way since I was in primary school.

Again, Kevin, stop pretending that the Naruto story has been proven as either an alibi or evidence. It's neither. Stop with this lie. They have no alibi, deal with it.

Please link to the images supplied by the police.

Because if its not raised at the trial it's NOT EVIDENCE!!!!!! If you want to say it's evidence of his innocence that was not raised at trial, ok, then show it to us.
Click to expand...

We have already been over this. The appeal team have cited this evidence, and it's not a matter of opinion or fuzzy personal interpretation whether or not Spotlight recorded Naruto being opened at 21:26. It's either true or it's false, and lawyers very rarely if ever make blatantly false claims of fact in court documents which it would be trivial for the opposing team to expose.

I do not know what definition of evidence you are using where a fact is not evidence until someone articulates it within the confines of a courtroom. By my definition, evidence is any relevant fact about the case.

I don't know about the blood, but Amanda left only one identifiable fingerprint too, and she lived there. So in regard to fingerprint evidence, Rudy is innocent too, right?
Click to expand...

I cannot follow your reasoning here. I was correcting your false assertion that Rudy left fingerprints everywhere. I do not see how this leads to the conclusion that Rudy was innocent and since absolutely nobody here does think Rudy was innocent I find your conclusion rather strange.

Yet YOU, and I address you as an individual Kevin not as a member of a mind set (though you don't give me the same consideration) dismisses all the oddities that raise suspicion.
Click to expand...

"Oddities" based on guesses about what you think normal people would do in a very abnormal situation are at best a good place to start an investigation. They are not proof or anything like proof of guilt.

You can raise all the suspicion you like, but if the hard evidence says that they were at home when Meredith was murdered your suspicions are immediately proven to be wrong.

Good gosh, it was flushing a toilet, not building an artificial kidney.
Click to expand...

Your guesses about what you think normal people would do in such a situation are not proof or anything like proof of guilt.

Again, so why not flush?
Click to expand...

I have demonstrated that not flushing is in no way evidence of guilt. Hence I see no further relevance in the topic. Perhaps you could explain the further relevance?
 
tsig said:
How could it have all the characteristics of a lie and not be a lie?
Click to expand...

Rather than highlighting one snippet of a wall of text, it would be more considerate to snip out the rest of the text. This would save everyone the trouble of scrolling through a page or so of irrelevant spam when they come to your post.

Amanda's false witness statement could have been an internalised false confession, in which case it was not a lie because at the time she believed, albeit possibly with doubts, that what she was saying was true.

So I would say that you do not know that Amanda's false witness statement did in fact have all the characteristics of a lie, because one characteristic of a lie is knowing intent to deceive.

You have still not answered the question, which is how could Amanda's false witness statement have the characteristics of an internalised false confession that I listed for you, if it was not an internalised false confession and Amanda had no idea what an internalised false confession should sound like? Those characteristics are much more specific and revealing than "the characteristics of a lie".
 
tsig said:
How would the police know she's lying?
Click to expand...


Are you sure you want to go there, tsig? If they can't tell if she's lying, then how can they tell if she is telling the truth?

Police officers would be pretty useless conducting genuine interrogations without any training in determining subjects' honesty. Of course, the purpose of this interrogation was not to hear Amanda's version of events, it was to get her to confirm theirs.
 
Dan O. said:
How do you know that they didn't go back into the cottage much earlier?
Click to expand...

You have evidence the police went back earlier? If not, then we have to assume they didn't and that the evidence they collected that day is sound.
 
RoseMontague said:
Yes, this still makes no sense that the police would not test it then or now. The police know the bra clasp evidence is weak and could even be thrown out on appeal. But they don't want this possible semen stain tested?
Click to expand...


Somewhere along the line I got the impression they declined to test it in deference to Meredith's family. If it turned out to be Meredith's boyfriend's semen, it would show that Meredith had been sexually active. God forbid it would belong to someone who was not her boyfriend and also not a suspect.
 
Amazer said:
Nice pictures... not entirely sure what you think that is evidence for... as far as i can discern it is not evidence for the police returning at an earlier date to the cottage.

But perhaps you are willing to explain why you think it's evidence?
Click to expand...


Why don't you start by using your powers of deduction and tell us when those photographs were taken.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Rather than highlighting one snippet of a wall of text, it would be more considerate to snip out the rest of the text. This would save everyone the trouble of scrolling through a page or so of irrelevant spam when they come to your post.

.
Click to expand...

I've done that then been accused of quoting out of context.

I personally wouldn't call my own posts spam but tastes differ.
 
Mary_H said:
Are you sure you want to go there, tsig? If they can't tell if she's lying, then how can they tell if she is telling the truth?

.
Click to expand...

They can't that's why they arrested Patrick.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Well considering how whiney RS was in his diary regarding his plight it's hard to believe he would leave out an interrogation about this. In addition, did his lawyers ever say he was questioned or interrogated about it?
Click to expand...

If i got accused of a crime and thrown in jail without being charged, I would be whiney also. You can't tell me you wouldn't be crying and complaining.
 
Dan O. said:
Why don't you start by using your powers of deduction and tell us when those photographs were taken.
Click to expand...

As per the date on the papers, 14 November 2007.

How is this evidence for an early return of the police?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I think the test that showed Meredith's DNA on the knife would be thrown out of any reasonable lab as a junk result caused by trace contamination on the equipment. The bra fastener, however, does appear to show Sollecito's profile. How it got there is the relevant question. It showed up on a swab of the metal hook rather than the fabric, which is not consistent with Sollecito cutting the strap of the bra, as the prosecution wants us to believe. The extensive handling of the object in front of the camera gives us a pretty good clue that one of the technicians got some trace of Sollecito's DNA on his/her glove and transferred it to the fastener. That I think is what Steve Moore was alluding to when he raised the possibility that evidence may have been deliberately planted or altered. It is not unreasonable speculation, given the way this evidence came along just when the prosecutor needed something to nail Sollecito. But I think it could just as easily be a fluke, a result of the fact that Sollecito had been on the premises and the investigators were careless in how they handled evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually if you read Sollecito's Appeal their argument is that the DNA profile doesn't match Sollecito's. The DNA profile is only similar to his. Sollecito can't fake his DNA profile either it matches or it doesn't. The profile doesn't match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom