Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
party versus a party

colonelhall said:
I know that it should be forgotten, but I've just seen Matthew Best's posts. Anyone new to this site would most probably be staggered by the nerve of the guy and quickly be forming a pretty negative opinion of the FOA crowd already.

I get the difference between "going to a party" and "going to party" The point that was being discussed is the conflicting alibis of the two. If they went "to party" with a friend, where did they go? The statement would certainly imply that they went somewhere other than Sollecito's flat.

If, in fact, they decided to party at home, who was this friend and why has he never been mentioned in the context of activities that nigh? Also, why is he not available to back up their alibis?

The statement to the reporter is just another of a series of stories that the two have made up. That is the point.
Click to expand...

"Went to a party" indicates a social event. "Went to party" suggests recreational drug or alcohol use, possibly with as little as one other person.
 
halides1 said:
<snip>

More generally, the problem with Stefanoni is that her superior Biondo was consulting with the prosecution, according to Frank Sfarzo (http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/lab-of-wonders.html), and that Biondo was then called as an independent witness. This is not my idea of independence, nor I hope is it yours.

<snip>
Click to expand...


It would be helpful if you could clarify exactly what you mean by "independent" since it appears that you are somehow insinuating that the senior lab personnel are purposely distorting their testimony to the prosecution's advantage.

In the U.S it is quite common for LE to use the services of FBI forensics facilities to do analysis that they do not have the resources to do themselves. Consultation back and forth during an ongoing investigation is routine, and probably even beneficial to the accurate analysis and disposition of the evidence involved. Occasionally there are time-critical discoveries which prompt one or the other agency to communicate with the other in aid of the investigation. FBI lab personnel may then be subsequently called to testify in the relevant trials by either the prosecution or the defense, or both. How does this practice fit in with your "idea of independence"? How does it differ from the situation you are criticizing in the Knox trial?
 
halides1 said:
"Went to a party" indicates a social event. "Went to party" suggests recreational drug or alcohol use, possibly with as little as one other person.
Click to expand...


Thank you Mr. English Language Person. We shall all take a moment to contemplate our wonder at your command of elementary school grammar.

...

...

...

Now. Explain how either alternative interpretation has any significant differential effect on the point being discussed, which is that Knox and Sollecito claimed to go somewhere with the goal of some sort of recreation.

Beyond mind-numbingly petty nitpicking there is no such distinction, is there?
 
quadraginta said:
Now. Explain how either alternative interpretation has any significant differential effect on the point being discussed, which is that Knox and Sollecito claimed to go somewhere with the goal of some sort of recreation.
Click to expand...

They both claimed to go somewhere? Please quote their words - you should presumably provide one quote from Sollecito and one from Knox.
 
Matthew Best said:
That story does not say that he went to a party.
Click to expand...

That story isn't even proof that Raffaele made the claim that he went partying on the 1st. It might simply be a reporter getting her notes crossed and attributing to the 1st what Raffaele said he was doing a night earlier. He had already told the police in multiple interviews where he was that night so why would he be changing his story, especially if there is no evidence to back up the new version?
 
Another interesting quote by Raffaele from the same Sunday Mirror article (Nov. 4, 2007):

Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar."

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots."

I noticed that he makes no mention of Amanda taking a shower.
 
In the spirit of competitive pedantry:

Could Raffaele have perhaps been using the French verb "partir" meaning to leave? Thus he is in fact saying that he and Amanda were going to leave/part company from one of his friends that evening.
 
Dan O. said:
That story isn't even proof that Raffaele made the claim that he went partying on the 1st. It might simply be a reporter getting her notes crossed and attributing to the 1st what Raffaele said he was doing a night earlier. He had already told the police in multiple interviews where he was that night so why would he be changing his story, especially if there is no evidence to back up the new version?
Click to expand...


Oh right, we're back to 'it's everyone else's fault again'...it was the reporter who got her notes crossed, she was a liar, she was incompetent...

Change the record.

And as for you, you don't know WHAT Raffaele had told police before in previous questionings.
 
shuttlt said:
In the spirit of competitive pedantry:

Could Raffaele have perhaps been using the French verb "partir" meaning to leave? Thus he is in fact saying that he and Amanda were going to leave/part company from one of his friends that evening.
Click to expand...

Or maybe, it's just a typo and she missed out the word 'a'.
 
Another interesting quote from the same Sunday Mirror article (Nov 4, 2007):

Senior detective Marco Chiacchiera said: "Her T-shirt was pulled up over her breasts and she was naked but apart from the cut to her neck, there were no scratches or other wounds on her body".

I am beginning to wonder how much store we should put in newspaper stories written in haste over two years ago.
 
Shuttit said:
I haven't seen the knife, nor have I seen any photograph good enough to pick up a scratch holding 5-20 skin cells (I vaguely remember reading that 25-50 cells are around the minimum visible to the naked eye). In any case, Frank claims that there was, according to Stefanoni, material visible in the scratch. It seems to me illustrative of how poor our information is that a single sentence from Frank Sfazo is the only mention of this anywhere on the internet. I've asked Frank for clarification without response.
Click to expand...

Actually, Dr Stefanoni put it under a magnifier. So, it wasn't with the 'naked eye'.
 
Matthew Best said:
Another interesting quote from the same Sunday Mirror article (Nov 4, 2007):

Senior detective Marco Chiacchiera said: "Her T-shirt was pulled up over her breasts and she was naked but apart from the cut to her neck, there were no scratches or other wounds on her body".

I am beginning to wonder how much store we should put in newspaper stories written in haste over two years ago.
Click to expand...

Various things were coming from different police, it was a time of confusion.

The interview with Sollecito however, was face to face and about 'himself'...where he was, what he done, what he had seen. Therefore, it's perfectly valid.
 
Matthew Best said:
I'll take that as an admission that you can't back up your claim.
Click to expand...

I backed it up earlier. Raffaele himself said so. But if you want to keep insisting the sky is in fact green and black is actually white, knock yourself out. But I think you'll find, for very good reason, nobody here has much respect for your efforts. Nobody appreciates sophistry, double speak and weasel words.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Actually, Dr Stefanoni put it under a magnifier. So, it wasn't with the 'naked eye'.
Click to expand...
Yes and, according to Frank, shone a powerful light on it such that, at the right angle, you could see material in the scratch. There's so pitifully little information available on this aspect of the case I don't see any way of forming an independent opinion on it one way or the other.
 
Matthew Best said:
I'm not questioning your claim, Fulcanelli, which you would know if you would actually follow the thread. I'm questioning quadraginta's claim - please do try to keep up.
Click to expand...


Yawn.

I meant Sollecito, and you know perfectly well that is what I meant. Your childish attempts at schoolyard one-upmanship are sad, and boring.

Sadder still, you don't even seem to realize that such puerile tactics reflect badly not only on you, but on the entire side of this discussion you mistakenly imagine that you are supporting.

Knox would be better off without such "Friends".
 
halides1 said:
My acceptance of the DNA evidence against Guede is provisional. If the results are as ephemeral in his case as in this one, then his lawyers were sleeping on the job.
Click to expand...

Hold the phone!

RG might be innocent because of DNA contamination too? Have you taken your suspicions to Chris Mellas? I think you're really on to something here. If your argument is that there was all kinds of contamination going on, then it applies equally to RG and therefore all three must be argued to be innocent.
 
Matthew Best said:
I'm not questioning your claim, Fulcanelli, which you would know if you would actually follow the thread. I'm questioning quadraginta's claim - please do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

My comment was actually in regard to what you had said to Quadraginta. I was well aware you weren't saying it to me. Keep spinning...you're the only one that'll get dizzy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom