Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Factual and evidence based only, please

Fair enough, Colonel, but on the subject of nonsense....

What do you find compelling about the official story of the police regarding the interrogation and the subsequent arrest of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele? You didn't appear to like my suggestion that his being stoned when he walked in, as per his diary entry earlier this page, was partially responsible for his difficulties, but what exactly is it up against?

You've followed this debate for a while, what is the official police explanation for how the interrogation was conducted and why they arrested the three? I've pieced it together and have asked several long time commenters partial to their guilt to illustrate it for us all to no avail. How can you ridicule portions of my explanation without being able to articulate the official version? If you leave it to me, I will ridicule the official version as quite frankly it sounds like something from an Onion article, not because it's my hometown 'tabloid' but because that's how bad their story actually is. It invites satire. I can see the headlines:


Teen Girl Takes Out Twelve Police in Backroom Confession Carnage!


Bold Admissions! 'It never occurred to us a subject could lie!'
--Arturo di Felice dodging the question of what 'facts we knew to be correct' she'd corroborated.

'She just wiggled her hips and we were mesmerized, we did as she commanded and arrested the evildoer!'
--Edgardo Giobbi, dodging the question of how he could know she was guilty by her hip-wiggling but not able to tell that she was 'lying' about Patrick.

'There are no tapes to this event, I forgot to turn the cameras on'
--Monica Napoleoni, lying about the tapes.

--Police insist 'She'd turned twenty, no teen no longer!'

Your satire is indeed clever, very funny and enjoyed by me.

But in the midst of all these factually fetish evidence based scientific afficanados here, may I politely point out that it is fallacious and factually very incorrect.

Additionally, when you use it as part of your substantive argument to yet again criticize Italians in general, and Dr Stefanoni in particular, that you implore readers to accept; incorrectly founded satire dramatically dilutes your desired effect.

FWIW, the readily agreed outlandishly inappropriate, subject of satire, the jaw dropping hip swivel (yes Edda talking point, just "quirky Amanda being Amanda") took place when Amanda was asked to put on paper slippers before entering through cottage doorway to come face to face and view the ghastly scene of her horrific crime.

It had absolutely nothing to do with her *alleged* 53 or 153 hour waterboard third world torture tactic Interrogation session leading to her *very* significant completely voluntary confession *later*.

May I add that there is some but common sense justification for Inspector Gobbi's admittedly somewhat stretched conclusion.

A blood spattered breath taking room of horrors might be just another occasion to jest with swivels if the person already knew not only exactly all the gore that was in the room, but in fact had a major murderous role in constructing it.

Also, the Inspector Gobbi quote you cite was in itself aquick witted attempt satirical humor to answer a question, and was completely void of any of the tenets you use to argue from it

In conclusion, as I am sure you well know, the inappropriate behavior at the Questura Confession session was the equally jaw dropping and very significant, and also very telling to many,... cartwheel

Oh yes, I forgot; OK...PR cartwheel talking points spun by Chris, Edda, and others to become:
1) never happened
2) happened but was been requested by a Polizia Officer
3) was just a stress relieving stretch
4) was yoga not cartwheel
5) etccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Yawn, Sigh

ETA
Your use of BOLD type for the BOLD headline is also clever and appreciated

 

[snook1]

Has anyone ever wondered why Rudy didn't implicate Amanda to the maximum? I mean, if what he says is true (which is not) then why he didn't say : I saw both Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith's room when I left the bathroom? What was holding him back? Apart from, of course, the fact that he didn't see anyone.

But let's assume he in fact didn't kill Meredith and was in the bathroom when the murdered occured. Wouldn't it be better for him to actually say that both of them were in the room? Why say he saw the silhouette of Amanda? I guess, what I'm trying to say, is what held him back in saying he clearly saw Amanda Knox in the murder room? At what time in the investigation he said that? Was it after the discovery of the bra clasp and the outcome of the police's work and the conclusion that there is no sign of Amanda in that room? Was he fitting in the existing theory?

Also, can anyone provide the Skype chat between Rudy and his friend? The Machine lately said that Guede never said that Amanda wasn't involved. However, from what I remember, he said she wasn't.

 

[Chris C]

In conclusion, as I am sure you well know, the inappropriate behavior at the Questura Confession session was the equally jaw dropping and very significant, and also very telling to many,... cartwheel

Oh yes, I forgot; OK...PR cartwheel talking points spun by Chris, Edda, and others to become:
1) never happened
2) happened but was been requested by a Polizia Officer
3) was just a stress relieving stretch
4) was yoga not cartwheel
5) etccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Yawn, Sigh

ETA
Your use of BOLD type for the BOLD headline is also clever and appreciated

Whats more inappropriate? Knox's supposed cartwheel or:
1. Telling her she tested positive for HiV.
2. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to beat a confession out of her.
3. Accusing two innocent people of murder
4. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to try and beat a confession out of Patrick.
5. Leaking false information to the press to damage Knox/Sollecito's chances at a fair trial.
6. Violating an order by the Supreme court.
7. Putting a heroin using drug dealer on the stand that don't even know what day the crime happened on and have him finger Knox/Sollecito.
8. Losing the interrogation tapes.
9. Accidentally destroying/damaging 4 computers.
10. Stefanoni lying on the witness stand.
11. Contaminating the evidence.
12. Consulting a Medium for advice on the case and then declaring it a satanic ritual.
13. Parading the suspects around the city in police cars.
14. Should I keep adding?

 

[Supernaut]

Hey everyone,

I've been reading these forums for some time, but have only been posting on the Eliza Vargas forum on facebook, reason being I get more of a kick out of arguing with the guilters than discussing with those of us who support Knox. One idiot keeps posting this list over and over again and asking me to address the "points". I really don't know why I bother, I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle much more of this illogical idiocy...

<snip>

* the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;
<snip>

If you'd spent as long as some have reading and arguing on this thead and its two predecessors, you'd know why some have likened it to "Groundhog Day" - a guilter will turn up and set the discussion on any given topic back to 'year-zero' every few months.

Here are some graphics I knocked up a while back - it is a lie to state that the print "in no way" can be attributed to Guede.

I've not manipulated anything except to scale the outline of Guede's reference print over the bathmat print in the first image, and in the second marked the outline of the forefoot.

BTW, many people have assumed the area I marked in green is part of the print, which it manifestly isn't - it's an area soaked by contact with a bloody trouser hem, which obscures the actual arch/instep.

 

[Chris C]

Has anyone ever wondered why Rudy didn't implicate Amanda to the maximum? I mean, if what he says is true (which is not) then why he didn't say : I saw both Amanda and Raffaele in Meredith's room when I left the bathroom? What was holding him back? Apart from, of course, the fact that he didn't see anyone.

But let's assume he in fact didn't kill Meredith and was in the bathroom when the murdered occured. Wouldn't it be better for him to actually say that both of them were in the room? Why say he saw the silhouette of Amanda? I guess, what I'm trying to say, is what held him back in saying he clearly saw Amanda Knox in the murder room? At what time in the investigation he said that? Was it after the discovery of the bra clasp and the outcome of the police's work and the conclusion that there is no sign of Amanda in that room? Was he fitting in the existing theory?

He didn't even say he saw Sollecito. I think he worded it something along the lines of he saw someone that looked like Sollecito.

 

[misteratunta]

I know it's not really funny, but I just LOL'ed again!

Glad to be of lolvice.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

once more into the bleach

I've just been reading PMF boards and have practically had to scrape my jaw off the desk...

They are in a heated discussion about how the fact that it's come out that there is no DNA or blood on the knife removed from RS's kitchen is proof it was cleaned with bleach.

That there are humans able to operate computers with such faulty logic chills me to my core.

Do they not understand that if there is no DNA on the knife then there is literally NOTHING to tie it to the crime except that a cop thought it looked unusually clean????

One of the first discussions we had on the first Knox/Sollecito thread was over bleach, which is quite effective at removing DNA. There is an article in Biotechniques from 1998 on this subject, IIRC. However, I don't know of any direct evidence to the effect that this knife was cleaned with bleach, nor would that be an easy thing to ascertain.

 

[pilot padron]

Whats more inappropriate? Knox's supposed cartwheel or:
1. Telling her she tested positive for HiV.
2. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to beat a confession out of her.
3. Accusing two innocent people of murder
4. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to try and beat a confession out of Patrick.
5. Leaking false information to the press to damage Knox/Sollecito's chances at a fair trial.
6. Violating an order by the Supreme court.
7. Putting a heroin using drug dealer on the stand that don't even know what day the crime happened on and have him finger Knox/Sollecito.
8. Losing the interrogation tapes.
9. Accidentally destroying/damaging 4 computers.
10. Stefanoni lying on the witness stand.
11. Contaminating the evidence.
12. Consulting a Medium for advice on the case and then declaring it a satanic ritual.
13. Parading the suspects around the city in police cars.
14. Should I keep adding?

Sure, please do not allow us to infringe.
Please do keep adding still more *spins* on those some old unsubstantiated parsed and inaccurate tired talking point topics if you desire.

However, after about 50,000+ of such similar efforts here, and despite your copied use of the recent in vogue popularity of numerical presentations, one might easily understand why most reasonable readers are not particularly swayed by your argument using that repeatedly regurgitated line of 'talking point' FOAKer Groupie PR produced reasoning' to try and exonerate a unanimously convicted murderess.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

We are amused

Sure, please do not allow us to infringe.
Please do keep adding still more *spins* on those some old unsubstantiated parsed and inaccurate tired talking point topics if you desire.

However, after about 50,000+ of such similar efforts here, and despite your copied use of the recent in vogue popularity of numerical presentations, one might easily understand why most reasonable readers are not particularly swayed by your argument using that repeatedly regurgitated line of 'talking point' FOAKer Groupie PR produced reasoning' to try and exonerate a unanimously convicted murderess.

pilot padron,

Your comments remind me of colonelhall's amusing words. Can you refute the points Chris C addressed?

 

[Dan O.]

Fuji,

If I were cleaning a knife that had been a murder weapon, I would clean it six ways from Sunday, with a variety of cleaning agents and prolonged soaking.

As would I. According to the prosecution's theory of the crime, this is essentially what was done.

Have you ever tried to get anything really clean?

Nobody paid much care in cleaning this knife. There is an accumulation of scum on the blade in the corner where it attaches to the handle. This area could have been cleaned quite easily by using the corner of a sponge or a folded rag. But nobody cared that much when they cleaned it. You'd think they didn't know that the knife was just used in a brutal murder.

You should try opening your own eyes sometime instead of relying on supposed experts to decide everything for you.

 

[Kaosium]

Your satire is indeed clever, very funny and enjoyed by me.

But in the midst of all these factually fetish evidence based scientific afficanados here, may I politely point out that it is fallacious and factually very incorrect.

Additionally, when you use it as part of your substantive argument to yet again criticize Italians in general, and Dr Stefanoni in particular, that you implore readers to accept; incorrectly founded satire dramatically dilutes your desired effect.

Okay, I wrote it, I read it, and now I just re-read it: I don't understand these two objections. I don't see how it has anything to do with Italians in general or Stefanoni in the specific--or at all. That was about the interrogation, she had nothing to do with that nor can I see how anything I wrote could be construed as referring to her. Color me completely puzzled!

FWIW, the readily agreed outlandishly inappropriate, subject of satire, the jaw dropping hip swivel (yes Edda talking point, just "quirky Amanda being Amanda") took place when Amanda was asked to put on paper slippers before entering through cottage doorway to come face to face and view the ghastly scene of her horrific crime.

It had absolutely nothing to do with her *alleged* 53 or 153 hour waterboard third world torture tactic Interrogation session leading to her *very* significant completely voluntary confession *later*.

I call it 'comedic license.'

Yes, I'm aware her little 'ta-da' move wasn't regarding the interrogation, however it does appear it might have helped her 'into' that unfortunate situation.

May I add that there is some but common sense justification for Inspector Gobbi's admittedly somewhat stretched conclusion.

A blood spattered breath taking room of horrors might be just another occasion to jest with swivels if the person already knew not only exactly all the gore that was in the room, but in fact had a major murderous role in constructing it.

I'd think the exact opposite actually. Perhaps I read "The Telltale Heart" a few too many times, but I would think the dread of facing their handiwork would inhibit someone who'd actually committed such a heinous crime. Even Rudy Guede covered the body, and no one I've come across who believes him the 'lone wolf' begrudges him that or thinks him incapable of such an act.

Also, the Inspector Gobbi quote you cite was in itself aquick witted attempt satirical humor to answer a question, and was completely void of any of the tenets you use to argue from it

I was satirizing not arguing. I was channeling my hometown 'tabloid' which I linked above, a humor paper started at the UW-Madison that I can still get a hardcopy of at my local pizza place, ten miles away from campus. It's since gone bigtime and moved to New York City and hooked up with Comedy Central, but we still get our own version here.

I'm interested in what you suggest, that Giobbi's statements of suspecting her for these behavioral reasons was just intended humorously, but being as I've not heard that and it doesn't follow from what else I've read about it I'm kinda skeptical. As I recall the three items he claimed cued him in on Amanda were the hip-wiggling, the pizza eating and her breaking down and crying unexpectedly. How that can be construed as an attempt at a witticism is not entirely clear to me. Incidentally, there are no 'quotes' in that headline part outside my paraphrasing part of di Felice's statement of November 6, that was 'comedic license' too.

In conclusion, as I am sure you well know, the inappropriate behavior at the Questura Confession session was the equally jaw dropping and very significant, and also very telling to many,... cartwheel

Oh yes, I forgot; OK...PR cartwheel talking points spun by Chris, Edda, and others to become:
1) never happened
2) happened but was been requested by a Polizia Officer
3) was just a stress relieving stretch
4) was yoga not cartwheel
5) etccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc Yawn, Sigh

Well, you don't have to worry about me. You have found perhaps the only one interested in the travesty inflicted upon Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who doesn't give a damn about the legendary 'cartwheels.' In fact I was admonished not long ago by Quadringita for not knowing enough of the sordid details of the 'cartwheel' and the alleged 'cover-up' of the same.

However, I cannot help but notice that the cartwheel seems to take on almost a mythic quality with some of her detractors...especially when the interrogation comes up. Did you know when the world first heard about the Stupendous Cartwheel Performance in the Perugian police station? Oddly enough it was when ILE went and told the world about the interrogation!

If I didn't know better, I'd say your bringing it up in response to my query about the ILE's story on the interrogation was simply a 'talking point' your 'handlers' told you to bring up whenever that ugly subject rises. Like the flashcards they give you have 'Interrogation!' on the front, and the back says: 'Yikes! The Interrogation, your only hope is...Cartwheels! Talk about nothing but cartwheels and maybe they'll go away!'

Seriously though, you referred to Amanda's "completely voluntary confession." Am I to assume you're the only one who believes in guilt who will regale us all with the proper 'official story' of the interrogation which lead to the arrests of Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick? That is a huge indictment of guilt as the 'established' argument, being as those who believe in guilt cannot offer a coherent theory of the crime employing the 'evidence' assembled against Raffaele and Amanda, nor for that matter can they even explain why they were arrested without segueing into tangents about girls doing inappropriate cartwheels in police stations.

It doesn't usually work that way, which suggests to me that the idea of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty is headed towards oblivion. Usually the established argument is coherent and whole but offers subtle openings where 'alternative explanations' can thrive. In this case the 'alternative explanation' is coherent and whole, and like the piece by SomeAlibi that initiated this particular discussion, the currently 'established' argument cannot do more than try to raise suspicion and doubt at the margins. Established arguments can survive scrutiny, 'alternative' arguments cannot, and must waylay all forays into them lest they be exposed. Kinda like how anyone can go where innocentisti 'fester' and make a guilt argument, but the opposite cannot be tolerated long in the Halls of Guilt.

I laid down the gauntlet, tell us the police (no cheating and using the PMF version--it's better!) story of the interrogation and the arrest of Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele in a way that makes sense and accounts for the evidence. Special kudos if you can do it just making them look like incompetent buffoons. Just kudos if all you can manage is corrupt lying incompetent buffoons. You get the kudos in the latter just for making sense of what they said and did.

I am willing to be schooled, Pilot. Show me the magnificent wisdom of the ILE and their brilliant capture of the three two diabolical murderers arrested the Glorious Sixth of Novembre as a result of their fiendishly clever interrogation.

 

[Chris C]

Sure, please do not allow us to infringe.
Please do keep adding still more *spins* on those some old unsubstantiated parsed and inaccurate tired talking point topics if you desire.

However, after about 50,000+ of such similar efforts here, and despite your copied use of the recent in vogue popularity of numerical presentations, one might easily understand why most reasonable readers are not particularly swayed by your argument using that repeatedly regurgitated line of 'talking point' FOAKer Groupie PR produced reasoning' to try and exonerate a unanimously convicted murderess.

Your the one that said the cartwheel was inappropriate.

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,

Your comments remind me of colonelhall's amusing words. Can you refute the points Chris C addressed?

As I am sure a very well informed poster such as yourself is perfectly *well aware*.... each and every of those tired talking points has been refuted adequately and in fact endlessly here there and everywhere.

So, if I may also flatter through imitation and use the response that you frequently employ; I will just 'leave that to others'

 

[pilot padron]

Okay, I wrote it, I read it, and now I just re-read it: I don't understand these two objections. I don't see how it has anything to do with Italians in general or Stefanoni in the specific--or at all. That was about the interrogation, she had nothing to do with that nor can I see how anything I wrote could be construed as referring to her. Color me completely puzzled!



I call it 'comedic license.'

Yes, I'm aware her little 'ta-da' move wasn't regarding the interrogation, however it does appear it might have helped her 'into' that unfortunate situation.



I'd think the exact opposite actually. Perhaps I read "The Telltale Heart" a few too many times, but I would think the dread of facing their handiwork would inhibit someone who'd actually committed such a heinous crime. Even Rudy Guede covered the body, and no one I've come across who believes him the 'lone wolf' begrudges him that or thinks him incapable of such an act.




I was satirizing not arguing. I was channeling my hometown 'tabloid' which I linked above, a humor paper started at the UW-Madison that I can still get a hardcopy of at my local pizza place, ten miles away from campus. It's since gone bigtime and moved to New York City and hooked up with Comedy Central, but we still get our own version here.

I'm interested in what you suggest, that Giobbi's statements of suspecting her for these behavioral reasons was just intended humorously, but being as I've not heard that and it doesn't follow from what else I've read about it I'm kinda skeptical. As I recall the three items he claimed cued him in on Amanda were the hip-wiggling, the pizza eating and her breaking down and crying unexpectedly. How that can be construed as an attempt at a witticism is not entirely clear to me. Incidentally, there are no 'quotes' in that headline part outside my paraphrasing part of di Felice's statement of November 6, that was 'comedic license' too.



Well, you don't have to worry about me. You have found perhaps the only one interested in the travesty inflicted upon Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito who doesn't give a damn about the legendary 'cartwheels.' In fact I was admonished not long ago by Quadringita for not knowing enough of the sordid details of the 'cartwheel' and the alleged 'cover-up' of the same.

However, I cannot help but notice that the cartwheel seems to take on almost a mythic quality with some of her detractors...especially when the interrogation comes up. Did you know when the world first heard about the Stupendous Cartwheel Performance in the Perugian police station? Oddly enough it was when ILE went and told the world about the interrogation!

If I didn't know better, I'd say your bringing it up in response to my query about the ILE's story on the interrogation was simply a 'talking point' your 'handlers' told you to bring up whenever that ugly subject rises. Like the flashcards they give you have 'Interrogation!' on the front, and the back says: 'Yikes! The Interrogation, your only hope is...Cartwheels! Talk about nothing but cartwheels and maybe they'll go away!'

Seriously though, you referred to Amanda's "completely voluntary confession." Am I to assume you're the only one who believes in guilt who will regale us all with the proper 'official story' of the interrogation which lead to the arrests of Raffaele, Amanda and Patrick? That is a huge indictment of guilt as the 'established' argument, being as those who believe in guilt cannot offer a coherent theory of the crime employing the 'evidence' assembled against Raffaele and Amanda, nor for that matter can they even explain why they were arrested without segueing into tangents about girls doing inappropriate cartwheels in police stations.

It doesn't usually work that way, which suggests to me that the idea of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty is headed towards oblivion. Usually the established argument is coherent and whole but offers subtle openings where 'alternative explanations' can thrive. In this case the 'alternative explanation' is coherent and whole, and like the piece by SomeAlibi that initiated this particular discussion, the currently 'established' argument cannot do more than try to raise suspicion and doubt at the margins. Established arguments can survive scrutiny, 'alternative' arguments cannot, and must waylay all forays into them lest they be exposed. Kinda like how anyone can go where innocentisti 'fester' and make a guilt argument, but the opposite cannot be tolerated long in the Halls of Guilt.

I laid down the gauntlet, tell us the police (no cheating and using the PMF version--it's better!) story of the interrogation and the arrest of Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele in a way that makes sense and accounts for the evidence. Special kudos if you can do it just making them look like incompetent buffoons. Just kudos if all you can manage is corrupt lying incompetent buffoons. You get the kudos in the latter just for making sense of what they said and did.

I am willing to be schooled, Pilot. Show me the magnificent wisdom of the ILE and their brilliant capture of the three two diabolical murderers arrested the Glorious Sixth of Novembre as a result of their fiendishly clever interrogation.

For starters; just read what over two dozen independent judges wrote, the last of which consumed 427 pages explaining a unanimous guilty verdict.

OK; being brief and concise, but in no way dismissive........

1) I know what your *opinion* is of the above 'starters' to be, so spare me that.

2 )I also know enough not to waste mine nor any reader's time with the required Epistle length rebuttal which is then greeted here with little more than a chorus of confirmation bias cheers or argument from authority absurdities.

3) With that in mind, may I again a la Mr Halides "leave it to others"?

 

[Chris C]

As I am sure a very well informed poster such as yourself is perfectly *well aware*.... each and every of those tired talking points has been refuted adequately and in fact endlessly here there and everywhere.

So, if I may also flatter through imitation and use the response that you frequently employ; I will just 'leave that to others'

I must have missed those posts that refuted them. Could you show me the evidence that proves them false? Because surely you realize that number 7 happened just a few days ago. Here I'll show you them again. Now you want to claim that Knox's cartwheel is inappropriate. So whats more inappropriate. The cartwheel or the list of things below that the prosecution has done.

Whats more inappropriate? Knox's supposed cartwheel or:
1. Telling her she tested positive for HiV.
2. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to beat a confession out of her.
3. Accusing two innocent people of murder
4. Bringing in the interrogation hit squad to try and beat a confession out of Patrick.
5. Leaking false information to the press to damage Knox/Sollecito's chances at a fair trial.
6. Violating an order by the Supreme court.
7. Putting a heroin using drug dealer on the stand that don't even know what day the crime happened on and have him finger Knox/Sollecito.
8. Losing the interrogation tapes.
9. Accidentally destroying/damaging 4 computers.
10. Stefanoni lying on the witness stand.
11. Contaminating the evidence.
12. Consulting a Medium for advice on the case and then declaring it a satanic ritual.
13. Parading the suspects around the city in police cars.
14. Should I keep adding?

1. She was told that she was HIV positive. That has never been refuted.
2. Hasn't been proven one way or the other. No interrogation tapes. Amanda claims to have been cuffed.
3. They are innocent and have been accused of murder.
4. Patrick said they beat him.
5. There is a mountain of false evidence leaked by the prosecution. I dont know how you can come close to claiming this one is refuted.
6. Using slander charges to bring in documents into a trial in which the Supreme court said couldn't be used against them. This one hasn't been refuted.
8. Police claim to not have taped the interrogations of 3 people even though they were taping their phone calls prior to interrogation.
9. This has never been refuted. Its the prosecutions claim that they were accidentally damaged.
10. Stefanoni is caught in a lie. She did testify to not have tested the luminol prints after the reaction but later gives the defense paperwork that shows she did test them after the luminol reaction.
11. Have you heard the news from Rome? Yep the bra clasp is contaminated. They were not smart enough to properly store it. Perhaps evidence disintigrating isn't considered contamination in your book.
12. Never been refuted.
13. Both sides have given a decent argument. Neither side has proven one way or the other.

 

[pilot padron]

I must have missed those posts that refuted them. Could you show me the evidence that proves them false? Because surely you realize that number 7 happened just a few days ago. Here I'll show you them again. Now you want to claim that Knox's cartwheel is inappropriate. So whats more inappropriate. The cartwheel or the list of things below that the prosecution has done.




1. She was told that she was HIV positive. That has never been refuted.
2. Hasn't been proven one way or the other. No interrogation tapes. Amanda claims to have been cuffed.
3. They are innocent and have been accused of murder.
4. Patrick said they beat him.
5. There is a mountain of false evidence leaked by the prosecution. I dont know how you can come close to claiming this one is refuted.
6. Using slander charges to bring in documents into a trial in which the Supreme court said couldn't be used against them. This one hasn't been refuted.
8. Police claim to not have taped the interrogations of 3 people even though they were taping their phone calls prior to interrogation.
9. This has never been refuted. Its the prosecutions claim that they were accidentally damaged.
10. Stefanoni is caught in a lie. She did testify to not have tested the luminol prints after the reaction but later gives the defense paperwork that shows she did test them after the luminol reaction.
11. Have you heard the news from Rome? Yep the bra clasp is contaminated. They were not smart enough to properly store it. Perhaps evidence disintigrating isn't considered contamination in your book.
12. Never been refuted.
13. Both sides have given a decent argument. Neither side has proven one way or the other.

"Surely I realize" no such thing

If you sincerely believe, and your level of familiarity with facts of this case is indicated by your dogmatic admission that you are blissfully unaware of the *myriad* of declarations, discussions expositions and exemplifications, points and counterpoints about Mr Curatolo as a witness.... which started when he was first announced as part of the Appeal...*months ago*, I use this as strong justification for the validity of my above point, and not to uselessly engage further here.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

A blood spattered breath taking room of horrors might be just another occasion to jest with swivels if the person already knew not only exactly all the gore that was in the room, but in fact had a major murderous role in constructing it.

But really pilot, when you think about it, the horror of which you write was mostly limited to Meredith's room. Even the police walked all over the bloody shoeprints in the hallway because they were so faint. Amanda had been in the flat prior to the police being called. She had not been in Meredith's room subsequent to the door being broken down. Isn't the 'hip swivel' just as indicative of a person who was completely unaware of the horror that existed in that room? In fact, I would argue the 'hip swivel' is not something she would have done had she been guilty of creating that horror.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Kaosium, great form!
pilot, apart from the satirical parts ( sweet ) Kaosium raises valid questions. There's no need to get all grumpy about it. It's really interesting what's your idea of the interrogation night.

 

[pilot padron]

But really pilot, when you think about it, the horror of which you write was mostly limited to Meredith's room. Even the police walked all over the bloody shoeprints in the hallway because they were so faint. Amanda had been in the flat prior to the police being called. She had not been in Meredith's room subsequent to the door being broken down. Isn't the 'hip swivel' just as indicative of a person who was completely unaware of the horror that existed in that room? In fact, I would argue the 'hip swivel' is not something she would have done had she been guilty of creating that horror.

Valid observations, well reasoned and appreciated.

My only justification for *trying* to see things through Inspector Gobbi's eyes is that *taken as a whole* Amanda's what to her supporters is Seattle quirkiness, is to Foreign law enforcement quite unusual and thus suspect.
(*suspect* and not stand alone all incriminating)

Admittedly, and also to your point, Inspector Gobbi's IMHO premature statements about "all he needed to know" is a 'spontaneous one that those of my persuasion would rather he not have uttered.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I thought that she swiveled her hips to fit her foot into the plastic boot that she was wearing to avoid contamination.