• 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.

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
"Unfortunate, but understandable?".

Let me get this right. Amanda was elsewhere when Mez' door was kicked down.

How would Amanda know Mez had her [insert foulmouthed word] throat cut?

Please don't say that suddenly she spoke fluent Italian and heard the cop say it.

It was a vulgar brag and foreknowledge of the crime.

Most burglars or others, acting in self-defence will simply make a thrust to the chest, so it is not even rational to consider it.
Click to expand...

Never mind all this unconnected errant nonsense. You're hopping again.

The question before you is with regard to what the lamp can prove. You haven't made an argument.

Are you clear and do you accept that there was no cleanup, Kercher was not attacked in the hall and there was no large quantity of blood there?

If not, make an argument, with evidence.
 
Dan O. said:
What super shiny knife? That knife was filthy. It had not been properly cleaned for some time. I pointed this out when the first images of that knife surfaces on the Internet. I commented in this very thread prior to the Hellmann verdict that there was visible food debris at the junction where the blade meets the handle which is where there would be the greatest concern for blood to remain on the knife simply because it is the hardest spot to clean. Several months later, subsequent testing revealed the presence of starch particles at that location on the knife and no blood. This was not the murder weapon. It was just a kitchen knife.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Furthermore it was too wide for the small wound and too long for the large wound.
 
Kauffer said:
What? If the CSIs took the lamp into Kercher's room on the afternoon of the 2nd, which is the most probable explanation, then it was never actually missing from Amanda's room the last time she was in there. If Kercher had borrowed it, then it really cannot be suspicious that she failed to notice it when she was briefly in her room on the morning of the 2nd, when she would have had no possible reason to want to turn it on and thus notice it's absence.

Why should she have noticed it in Kercher's room through the keyhole? Apart from anything else, it is very unlikely to have been in the room, as I have discussed.

You haven't explained what you think the lamp can possibly prove.
Click to expand...

Don't blame Vixen for making something out of nothing.

No less than Barbie Latza Nadeau closes the update of her book, with an anecdote about the lamp.

This update is to prepare for the coming release of "The Face of an Angel" in North American Theatres in June. It only has a few changes, and is mainly meant as an excuse to monetize this tragedy just a little further.

The book still ends with the Hellmann acquittals, as does the film. But in the book, Barbie has this tantalizing bit of dialogue as the various journalists go to the bar to do a post mortem of the days' events, which led to (in 2011) acquittal.

The reporters are talking about how AK and RS probably were innocent afterall.

But then Barbie sneaks in this tidbit: an unnamed reporter who'd always believed in their innocence, was now suddenly (with their acquittal!!!) not sure sure. "The lamp remains an issue."

Barbie just leaves it at that.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
It's also true, have you seen what they told the tabloids and testified to in court? Not Albion's finest I'm afraid.



Yes, that's reality, it's not always funny though,



Battistelli is a liar, even Massei doubted his 'memory' about this. He saw a foot and blood, what kind of idiot wouldn't see if the foot was attached to a person who needed assistance? How could he know there was a murder unless he looked underneath the duvet?



That's because the prosecution didn't have any real evidence of their bizarre conspiracy and threw every piece of nonsense they could at them, requiring explanations. When the prosecution pretends that someone who was at the discovery of a murder has 'foreknowledge' when others were talking about it at the scene and what they said didn't show foreknowledge, a rational being looks askance at the prosecution, not the defense for providing a realistic and evidence-backed explanation.



How would you know?
Click to expand...

Because almost all newspaper articles cite that Mez "had her throat slashed".
 
Dan O. said:
You are striking out on everything. You should take up bowling.

AK: Yes, it was really really cold. First, Raffaele gave me his jacket, but then the others saw that I was cold, really in shock, so they said come, come, let's get in the car and get warm. And inside that car, we talked more about... we kept on saying "But what did you see? Who was there?" So in the car, heh, still using Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking, that she...

LG: Meredith

AK: ...that Meredith had had her throat slit, and at that point I became a bit...uh ...I closed myself off a bit inside...I cried a bit because I kept thinking but...how is it possible? No..., it was too much, so, and then, we went to the Questura.​
Click to expand...

Luca also complained that Raf and Amanda kept trying to tap him for information.
 
Kauffer said:
What? If the CSIs took the lamp into Kercher's room on the afternoon of the 2nd, which is the most probable explanation, then it was never actually missing from Amanda's room the last time she was in there. If Kercher had borrowed it, then it really cannot be suspicious that she failed to notice it when she was briefly in her room on the morning of the 2nd, when she would have had no possible reason to want to turn it on and thus notice it's absence.

Why should she have noticed it in Kercher's room through the keyhole? Apart from anything else, it is very unlikely to have been in the room, as I have discussed.

You haven't explained what you think the lamp can possibly prove.
Click to expand...


It was in the murder room. Amanda took it there. Amanda's presence is in the murder room.
 
Vixen said:
It doesn't really matter, as whether outside or in, the police, forensics and prosecutors determined in their highly qualified expertise - teams of the best science graduates of their generation - the "burglary" was faked; a mise en scene; put on, bogus, dodgy, dubious, Dutch, rotten, scammed, suspicious, dud, fraudulent, forged, theatrical.

Only Raf has the noticeable hammer toe.
Click to expand...

You're so full of it. I would bet you a hundred thousand dollars that I could take prints from 5 different men with feet the same size as Raffaele or Rudy and you couldn't pick out which of the 7 prints matched the bat mat print
 
Vixen said:
It was in the murder room. Amanda took it there. Amanda's presence is in the murder room.
Click to expand...

Vixen:
Please answer a couple of questions, because on the face of it, you've just advanced yet another random factoid, from your random factoid generator.

1) When did Amanda take it into Meredith's room?

2) For what purpose did Amanda take it into that room?

3) name the forensics which demonstrate that Amanda took it into Meredith's room. (Hint: that the lamp belonged to Amanda is not proof she took it into the room.)​
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen:
Please answer a couple of questions, because on the face of it, you've just advanced yet another random factoid, from your random factoid generator.

1) When did Amanda take it into Meredith's room?

2) For what purpose did Amanda take it into that room?

3) name the forensics which demonstrate that Amanda took it into Meredith's room. (Hint: that the lamp belonged to Amanda is not proof she took it into the room.)​
Click to expand...


Bill, your gung-ho jingoistic patriotism is commendable. Sadly, if Amanda was not American, you wouldn't go to such extraordinary lengths to deny the obvious.
 
Undercover operative

Now that vixen's cover is blown, there's really not a lot of point in him staying on.

We have a barrel full of fish and they've all been shot.
 
Vixen said:
Mez' grief stricken friends at the police station were "dingbats"? That is sick.

Funny how everything is explained by (a) Amanda didn't speak Italian (b) Raf translated her English wrongly (c) she overheard the cop, Filomena or Luca.

To explain her sudden fluent Italian, it's because Luca was miming a cut throat in the car. Even though only Inspt Battistelli saw the body beneath the quilt (supposedly, as Battistelli denies it).

Amanda and Raf have more "explanations" than the Encyclopedia of Astrophysics.

It is common for people to confuse cut throat with stabbed throat.

Rudy "missed the chest"? IMV it was always going to be the throat, as premeditated.
Click to expand...
Mez' friends are dingbats to a woman. If they were not dingbats they would have researched the case themselves before assisting with the kidnapping.
 
Vixen said:
US$100,000? You're on!
Click to expand...

What a crock. I really wish you lived in Sesttle.

A couple of years ago, I took blown up photos of the prints and asked more than twenty people to pick which one of just the two matched the bath mat print and most picked Rudy But it was not definitive, some did pick Raffaele. And this was totally blind. I just numbered the back of the photos. I then asked them if they were certain enough in their choice to send the person to prison. None felt they were that sure. And I had a few people look at them again later and they didn't even repeat their first choice.
 
Last edited:
There is a term for someone who consistently misrepresents the facts. Can anyone help me with this?
 
acbytesla said:
What a crock. I really wish you lived in Sesttle.
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for.

A couple of years ago, I took blown up photos of the prints and asked more than twenty people to pick which one of just the two matched the bath mat print and while most picked Rudy. And this was totally blind. I just numbered the back of the photos. I then asked them if they were certain enough in their choice to send the person to prison. None felt they were that sure. And I had a few people look at them again later and they didn't even repeat their first choice.
Click to expand...

The only way it could be identified as either of the two is if it's just between the two. If there were 20 to choose from that would only provide a 95% Bayesian probability :p if it were picked. How many points are needed for a fingerprint? How many allele must match?

Footprints can pretty much only be compatible and not a match.

Speaking matches and police reliability, how about those FBI hair matching "experts"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom