Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Commodi's Brother-In-Law did the cartoon, I think

anglolawyer said:
A relatively minor but interesting line of enquiry would be to follow that money and see where it ended up.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I believe this job was given to prosecutor Commodi's brother in law, and that she was actually investigated for it. Thankfully the investigation came to nothing.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I don't know how many places they sampled the jacket. I don't happen to know whether they tested other items of clothing or not, other than some light colored socks, which had Meredith's profile. It would have been worthwhile to swab the shoes, for example.
Click to expand...

Where are the records, Stefanoni? Did you not do the preliminary steps you claim you did? For those that you did do, Stefanoni, where are their records? Still in your garage?

A fair court would require the lab scientist who collected the evidence and tested it to account for all of it. A corrupt court would look the other way and twist to avoid accountability. :mad:
 
Two comments prompted by London John's excellent points in post 6773, above.

First, regarding budget issues - the prosecution spent Euro 189,000 to make an animated cartoon to try to sell their case to the court.

Second, Mignini's ability to mislead and manipulate Amanda in the middle of the night was helped by his willful failure to communicate to Amanda who he is. She thought he was the mayor who had come to sort things out.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Two comments prompted by your excellent points.

First, regarding budget issues - the prosecution spent about $180,000 to make an animated cartoon to try to sell their case to the court.

Second, Mignini's ability to mislead and manipulate Amanda in the middle of the night was helped by his willful failure to communicate to Amanda who he is. She thought he was the mayor who had come to sort things out.
Click to expand...

What Amanda (and Raffaele) needed that night was a lawyer, as guaranteed by the Italian legal system.

Please remember that the excuse for denying Knox a lawyer was that they did not "suspect" her of anything until she "named" Lumumba.

This does not square with the guilter-meme that both Raffaele and Amanda were suspects well before the fateful interrogation because of odd behaviour. Guilters simply cannot have this one both ways, which is why guilters seldom, if ever, try to attempt a theory of the crime and who knew what/when, including the police.
 
Bill Williams said:
What Amanda (and Raffaele) needed that night was a lawyer, as guaranteed by the Italian legal system.

Please remember that the excuse for denying Knox a lawyer was that they did not "suspect" her of anything until she "named" Lumumba.

This does not square with the guilter-meme that both Raffaele and Amanda were suspects well before the fateful interrogation because of odd behaviour. Guilters simply cannot have this one both ways, which is why guilters seldom, if ever, try to attempt a theory of the crime and who knew what/when, including the police.
Click to expand...

According to crack detective Giobbi, sent from Rome to add his expertise to the local team, he knew Amanda was guilty of murder when he learned she was eating pizza. That was when Raffaele was ordered to come to the station for the 10 pm interview (interrogation) and Amanda, afraid to be alone, came along.

Giobbi has since declared emphatically that he gave the order to bring her in as well for interrogation. So the issue that I am looking at is not if she came in on her own initiative to accompany Raffaele, but rather Giobbi at the moment he learned she was eating pizza knew she was the killer and that made her a suspect. That made her off limits for interrogation without a lawyer. Giobbi should have at the moment he knew she was the killer stopped any interrogation of Amanda, as he was monitoring the interrogation from the control room down the hall and knew she did not have a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
A relatively minor but interesting line of enquiry would be to follow that money and see where it ended up.
Click to expand...

The company that Prosecutor Comodi awarded the contract to to make the cartoon is a small firm that had earlier been awarded a contract to install concealed microphones and recording systems in the Perugia police headquarters building. I dug that up earlier - it's here in JREF (just don't ask me to look for it tonight).
 
Last edited:
carbonjam72 said:
I may be wrong, but I believe this job was given to prosecutor Commodi's brother in law, and that she was actually investigated for it. Thankfully the investigation came to nothing.
Click to expand...

carbonjam72, is there evidence to back that up?

Can I add that to my account of the crime which includes Rudy sitting on the toilet, hearing the front door open, pulling out his knife, and hearing the sound of his breathing? :p
 
Last edited:
Solid on Commodi

Strozzi said:
carbonjam72, is there evidence to back that up?

Can I add that to my account of the crime which includes Rudy sitting on the toilet, hearing the front door open, pulling out his knife, and hearing the sound of his breathing? :p
Click to expand...

I'm virtually certain this is true, just can't remember where I saw it, but it stuck in my mind because the video was so outrageous, and even more so that they were bilking the system to do it.

And get this, I think they gave the bill for this cartoon to the Knox's!

Also, I'm suddenly noticing a lot of references to poop and toilets in this case.

Guede falls asleep on toilets and leaves unflushed poop as his signature. And, Commodi? Sounds like the Italian pronouciation of Commode?

Is it just too late here? Will this all seem different in the AM?
 
carbonjam72 said:
I'm virtually certain this is true, just can't remember where I saw it, but it stuck in my mind because the video was so outrageous, and even more so that they were bilking the system to do it.

And get this, I think they gave the bill for this cartoon to the Knox's!
Also, I'm suddenly noticing a lot of references to poop and toilets in this case.

Guede falls asleep on toilets and leaves unflushed poop as his signature. And, Commodi? Sounds like the Italian pronouciation of Commode?

Is it just too late here? Will this all seem different in the AM?
Click to expand...

I had forgotten this. There was a whole list of outrageous charges. I think she was billed for the translation of her diary into Italian? I don't recall the source.
 
andreajo said:
I had forgotten this. There was a whole list of outrageous charges. I think she was billed for the translation of her diary into Italian? I don't recall the source.
Click to expand...

They could all be listed at the start of the movie, to set the tone for the black comedy.
 
Interesting BBC documentary on a false confession case with the result that six people were convicted of murder. One of the detectives peripherally concerned subsequently became a world expert on false confessions. He recently retired as a professor at KCL (Gisli Gudjonsson) see http://issuu.com/thepsychologist/docs/psy0713web/26. Should be available to down load shortly http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ypll4 currently being broadcast on world service. This case was in Iceland which just shows these things are a world wide phenomena. What is also interesting is the prosecutor concerned still thinks the people concerned did the crime.
 
Planigale said:
Interesting BBC documentary on a false confession case with the result that six people were convicted of murder. One of the detectives peripherally concerned subsequently became a world expert on false confessions. He recently retired as a professor at KCL (Gisli Gudjonsson) see http://issuu.com/thepsychologist/docs/psy0713web/26. Should be available to down load shortly http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ypll4 currently being broadcast on world service. This case was in Iceland which just shows these things are a world wide phenomena. What is also interesting is the prosecutor concerned still thinks the people concerned did the crime.
Click to expand...
Or claims to think so. This reminds me of Tony Blair recently warning that the greatest threat to mankind is Islamic fundamentalism. That view conveniently validates his warmongering (if you ignore the fact that Iraq, for example, was not a fundamentalist country). More relevant to this thread is Commode on the BBC3 doc talking about IIRC mixed DNA having no other possible explanation than that Knox was involved in the murder. Does she believe what she says or is she forced to say it because the alternative would be professionally embarrassing?
 
Strozzi said:
The company that Prosecutor Comodi awarded the contract to to make the cartoon is a small firm that had earlier been awarded a contract to install concealed microphones and recording systems in the Perugia police headquarters building. I dug that up earlier - it's here in JREF (just don't ask me to look for it tonight).
Click to expand...
.
Seriously?

Then this company is very likely also responsible for storing, organizing, and archiving offsite everything recorded in the Perugian police headquarters, including the three conveniently missing interrogation recordings of Lumumba, Raffaele, and Amanda?

And they got a cushy 180K Euro video cartoon contract? Sounds like a payoff to me.
.
 
anglolawyer said:
Or claims to think so. This reminds me of Tony Blair recently warning that the greatest threat to mankind is Islamic fundamentalism. That view conveniently validates his warmongering (if you ignore the fact that Iraq, for example, was not a fundamentalist country). More relevant to this thread is Commode on the BBC3 doc talking about IIRC mixed DNA having no other possible explanation than that Knox was involved in the murder. Does she believe what she says or is she forced to say it because the alternative would be professionally embarrassing?
Click to expand...

I am not sure these things are necessarily separate. Confirmation bias, group think, the negative effects of the alternatives all will lock someone into a fixed view. This will not be entirely conscious. In general most people are very reluctant to change views on any topic. In the case of something so bound up with their professional identity especially so. Why was Einstein so resistant to quantum theory? Just plain wrong. It always makes me cringe when people refer to Einstein as some external paragon, when he is in many ways an example of someone who would not accept the facts in front of them.
 
anglolawyer said:
Or claims to think so. This reminds me of Tony Blair recently warning that the greatest threat to mankind is Islamic fundamentalism. That view conveniently validates his warmongering (if you ignore the fact that Iraq, for example, was not a fundamentalist country). More relevant to this thread is Commode on the BBC3 doc talking about IIRC mixed DNA having no other possible explanation than that Knox was involved in the murder. Does she believe what she says or is she forced to say it because the alternative would be professionally embarrassing?
Click to expand...


The prosecutors almost never admit their mistakes. With just a few exceptions of clearly wrongfully convictions the prosecutors remain thoroughly convinced that they had it right and go down swinging. What is unique I think in this case is that judge after judge and prosecutor after prosecutor have taken up the mantle in a wrongful action.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Hey DanO., I did a quick visual check for the link you provided, at this address: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/rudy-guede/

Same video frames as far as I can tell. The rounded road side curb in the lower right hand corner, and the double cement guard rail in the upper left hand corner. It's obviously the same. So, I'm confident there is no visual distortion whatsoever in the frames and images I posted.

But I appreciate your precision. Just to be sure, you really ought to double check for yourself, please don't take my word for it. It won't take you 30 seconds to confirm.
Click to expand...


Ok, I've confirmed it.

I opened the 2 images on my desktop monitor. I identified 2 reference points visible in the images (where the curved rail meets the wall for the upper left and the corner of the pillar supporting the gate arm for the lower right).

In each image I did a screen capture of a selection using those reference points.

I then used the image inspector to see the pixel dimensions of the captured frame.

[imgL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f85ab38f37.png[/imgL][imgL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15144537472e2db384.png[/imgL]For the image of the person walking into the car park, the image was 528 by 265 pixels. For the image of the person presumed to be Rudy Guede walking out the image was 689 by 466 pixels. The first image has a ratio of 1.992 and the second has a ratio of 1.479. The first image has been stretched by almost 35% relative to the second image. Coincidentally, this is almost the same stretch factor you get when displaying a standard resolution (4x3) image on a high def (16x9) display without letter boxing. Here is your obese person and when properly scaled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom