Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
You mean, what you subjectively assigned to the police as being lies.
All that talks about is what the newspapers said, not what the police said.
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
You mean, what you subjectively assigned to the police as being lies.
All that talks about is what the newspapers said, not what the police said.
Solange305
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 219
Ok. What do you mean by outnumbered? Do you mean that if the interpreter had backed up Amanda's claim, the courts would have believed the police because more cops said it didnt happen as opposed to two separate people saying it did? That doesn't make sense to me.
Also, if the interpreter says, yes, this girl is telling the truth, she was hit. Are you claiming that they would charge her for lying too? So the whole system is set up to protect the police, and let them run rampant? You find that to be more believable than maybe Amanda made that up? I don't buy that explanation, I'm sorry. It sounds like you are reaching in that regard, considering that they made a valid point when pointing out that a third party was there, the interpreter.
Also, one thing, probably not that important, but I felt I should mention it:
LondonJohn, if Im not mistaken, one or two people who post at PMF mentioned "what would people at another site" think?. It was not the people who ran the site. They stated afterward that they were concerned with the pictures in general, not with what anyone else thinks. I think the whole situation was overblown, but I wanted to point that out. I think the people in charge of the site did the right thing, and for the right reasons...
Also, if the interpreter says, yes, this girl is telling the truth, she was hit. Are you claiming that they would charge her for lying too? So the whole system is set up to protect the police, and let them run rampant? You find that to be more believable than maybe Amanda made that up? I don't buy that explanation, I'm sorry. It sounds like you are reaching in that regard, considering that they made a valid point when pointing out that a third party was there, the interpreter.
Also, one thing, probably not that important, but I felt I should mention it:
LondonJohn, if Im not mistaken, one or two people who post at PMF mentioned "what would people at another site" think?. It was not the people who ran the site. They stated afterward that they were concerned with the pictures in general, not with what anyone else thinks. I think the whole situation was overblown, but I wanted to point that out. I think the people in charge of the site did the right thing, and for the right reasons...
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
And moving on from the magic word "If",
I find your argument of "If it came from Rudy Guede" (perhaps an idea for a book title?) rather nonsensical. The court accepts Rudy's guilt...it accepts he was there...it accepts he sexually assaulted Meredith. What of import would the presence of semen from Rudy add to that and how would that exculpate Amanda and Raffaele?
As for sentencing, it would make no difference.
What "IF" it is Raffaele's semen...what then?
Last edited:
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
Somewhat in Amanda's favor is that she wrote of the hit in her November 6, 2007 memorandum. It would be interesting to know what fact she is referring to that she didn't remember correctly (thus her reason for being hit).
Barbie Nadeau, in an on-line chat, gave her opinion on Amanda being hit (scroll down to 1:23):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ast-hosts-barbie-nadeau-author-of-angel-face/
Was the suit brought against Amanda (by the police) a result of her June 2009 court testimony or was it brought about because of the June 2008 Sunday Times interview of Amanda's family? Is the translator also included in those bringing suit against Amanda?
Well the defense must obviously be 100% confident it wouldn't be Raffaele's to test it. They obviously believe their client who knows he's innocent.
It is possible it is not semen, but given the location, it is likely. It will give a more complete picture of the crime if it turns out to be Rudy's semen. If it turns out to be Meredith's boyfriend... that's indifferent. If it turns out to be a 3rd party... that may get very interesting... who? Yes - it risks going contrary to the lone-wolf theory, but in the end, the actual truth of who (singular/plural) is responsible for Meredith's death is the most important thing.
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
That seems to be the way it is working in the calunnia case. Amanda said it happened, the police said it didn't; there is no other evidence one way or another. If the court sides with the police, I presume it will be because a larger number of people say it didn't happen than say it did.
It is very possible, even likely, that if the interpreter agrees Amanda was hit, they would charge her or sue her. They are suing Amanda's parents just for repeating that Amanda reported she was hit.
Police systems are set up to protect the police, yes, if need be. It's not necessarily to let them run rampant.
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
I don't know if the translator is included in the group of police bringing suit.
Mignini is suing Amanda for her testimony and her parents for their interview.
Solange305
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 219
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. At all. If a second independent person (not a parent) corroborates her story, why would they sue them? Isn't the point of the lawsuit because the claims are untrue, therefore it is akin to slander? So they would sue an interpreter for lying, and claim they are lying just for the hell of it? And they would expect to win that lawsuit? Think about what you are suggesting.
Basically you are claiming that you believe that the police, justice system, pretty much everything in Italy is out to get Amanda Knox. I dont buy that. Obviously you have bought into your beliefs, nothing I say to try to rationalize my argument is going to change what you think.
According to you, that is basically the same thing. Police lying, falsifying evidence, coercing confessions out of innocent people, if that isn't police "running rampant", I dont know what is....
Basically you are claiming that you believe that the police, justice system, pretty much everything in Italy is out to get Amanda Knox. I dont buy that. Obviously you have bought into your beliefs, nothing I say to try to rationalize my argument is going to change what you think.
According to you, that is basically the same thing. Police lying, falsifying evidence, coercing confessions out of innocent people, if that isn't police "running rampant", I dont know what is....
Last edited:
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
Lucky for Amanda she was dealt with by the Italian police. This is how they deal with people in Seattle http://www.giornalettismo.com/archives/68008/seattle-poliziotto-picchia-ragazzina/
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Well, you're right about it not making sense, but that is what we are up against with Giuliano Mignini. He is suing Amanda because she said she was hit. There is no way to know if the claims are untrue, because there is no recording of the interrogation.
The point of the lawsuit is to let people know they are not allowed to say the police hit them. If they are suing Amanda for that purpose, then it is likely they would sue anyone else who said the same thing.
I assume they are expecting to win the lawsuit against Amanda. Pretty unbelievable, huh?
What, leaving so soon?
Police are often charged with lying, falsifying evidence, coercing confessions; that doesn't mean they always do those things. They do have, built into their systems, lawyers like Anne Bremner on retainer, to defend them in case of this type of allegation.
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
We have had several incidents of police brutality in the Seattle area in the past year, including some shootings just in the last month. Personally, I think this one is even worse than the one you shared, Fulcanelli:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401779_schene28.html
The trials against the deputy in that case ended in hung juries, which goes to show that even when the police are recorded, they can still get away with brutality.
Fulcanelli
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,576
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Actually, my comment was intended to be a continuation of my conversation with Solange, who said, "So the whole system is set up to protect the police, and let them run rampant?" I was trying to make the point that most systems have built-in self-protection measures, but not, as she seemed to want to claim, that those protection measures allow chaos.
ETA: This is not an argument one way or another about the Perugian system or the case. It was just kind of an aside.
Last edited:
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,274
An attorney’s job is to provide the best possible representation for their client. No matter how strongly a defense attorney believes in a client’s innocence he/she would not try to introduce into evidence something that (a) would not help their client; but (b) could prove the client’s participation in the crime (no matter how unlikely they believe that to be).
Im not talking about cleaning materials. I'm talking about towels or rags. 4 people living together should know how many towels they have. If no towels are missing then they would have also had to bring in items other than chemicals to help soak up the cleaning chemicals.
We already know the mop wasn't used in this process. So the mop bucket and mop are out of the clean up theory. Remember the prosecution lays claim that Knox purchased bleach to help clean the apartment. However, did they present into evidence anything that was missing that could have been used to help clean with the bleach.
For instance. There is no way she cleaned the floor with pure bleach. The smell would have been to obvious to everyone that entered that apartment. So it would have had to been a very week solution of bleach. I mean an extremely weak solution. Next she would have had to use a bucket to poor a cap full of bleach in and then fill up with water. The mop and mop bucket in the apartment was ruled out by the lab. Sollecito didn't own a mop or mop bucket, his cleaning ladies where questioned about that. So she would have had to find a bucket from someplace other than the apartment to use with her bleach.
Next she would need to acquire something to use with the bleach and bucket. Rags, towels or another mop. Since the towels from her and Meredith's bathroom where with Meredith. Then she would have had to acquire them from somewhere else. Of course none where reported missing that I'm aware of. So where did she get a mop or towels from, to use with the bucket that she didn't have, to use with the bleach which is the only thing the store owner said she was looking at in his store. Of course where did she get the bleach also. You might be able to claim that she got a cap full of bleach from Sollecito's house. Of course there where no fingerprints of knox on those bottles.
So where did she get all this stuff from? These are the things she is going to need to miraculously remove the traces of her and sollecito without disturbing Rudy's traces. Thats not counting the gloves and additional cleaning stuff to help remove her and sollecito fingerprints while not disturbing anything else. Plus there was no evidence where the bucket was set down at. Luminol would have picked up the traces of leftover bleach that was used in the cleaning. So where did the bucket get set down at. Surely there would have been splash marks or a ring outline from the bucket that had bleach in it.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Kevin_Lowe said:
"What comes four hours after 18:30? That being the time Meredith ate the meal of pizza which was still entirely in her stomach when she died? That would be 22:30."
Fulcanelli said, by way of "response":
"Indeed, let's stick with the baby steps. These are for you and your reading comprehension. I'll highlight your steps:
Quote:
However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.
There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours.
You latched onto the "3 or 4 hours" as some sort of absolute, yet completely ignored the qualifier of "at best".
Baby steps indeed."
From Fulcanelli's inclusion of the particular quote in his response above, it seems that he erroneously believes that Kevin_Lowe is referring to that particular mention of "3 to 4 hours" in Pounder's lecture notes.
However,
What Kevin_Lowe is clearly referring to is this passage from the same lecture notes, which somehow seems to have escaped Fulcanelli's attention (I wonder why?):
"In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred within 3 to 4 hours of eating."
And, as Kevin also points out, this is a generous estimation in itself. All the academic literature tends to support the premise that it is extremely rare for an ingested meal to still be fully contained withing the stomach any longer than 3 hours after ingestion in a healthy adult. The statistical and experimental data have been posted and discussed on this thread over the past couple of months.
Therefore, since Meredith's pizza meal had not yet started to pass to her duodenum (and, in addition, there were still recognisable pieces of cheese matter and vegetable fibres in her stomach contents), this indicates that her gastro-intestinal system stopped working almost certainly within three hours of the start of her pizza meal. Given the nature of her injuries, it's likely that her gastro-intestinal function would have slowed down within 5 minutes of her fatal neck injuries being sustained, and would likely have stopped completely within 10-15 minutes. This in turn implies that Meredith was stabbed between 9.00 and 9.30pm, with an extremely outside possibility that the stabbing took place by 10.00pm.
But nowhere near 11.30pm.
"What comes four hours after 18:30? That being the time Meredith ate the meal of pizza which was still entirely in her stomach when she died? That would be 22:30."
Fulcanelli said, by way of "response":
"Indeed, let's stick with the baby steps. These are for you and your reading comprehension. I'll highlight your steps:
Quote:
However, there is a substantial variation in gastric emptying
rates in normal people. Individuals who suffer severe injuries
resulting in coma and survive several days in hospital may still
have their last meal within the stomach at autopsy. These are
extreme examples of delayed gastric emptying but serve to
illustrate the point that the stomach is a poor forensic timekeeper.
There have been several cases of alleged miscarriages of
justice in which medical experts have wrongly used the
stomach contents at autopsy to provide estimates of time of
death to an accuracy of half an hour whereas the degree of
accuracy possible is at best within a range of 3 or 4 hours.
You latched onto the "3 or 4 hours" as some sort of absolute, yet completely ignored the qualifier of "at best".
Baby steps indeed."
From Fulcanelli's inclusion of the particular quote in his response above, it seems that he erroneously believes that Kevin_Lowe is referring to that particular mention of "3 to 4 hours" in Pounder's lecture notes.
However,
What Kevin_Lowe is clearly referring to is this passage from the same lecture notes, which somehow seems to have escaped Fulcanelli's attention (I wonder why?):
"In general if all or almost all of the last meal is present
within the stomach then, in the absence of any unusual factors,
there is a reasonable medical certainty that death occurred within 3 to 4 hours of eating."
And, as Kevin also points out, this is a generous estimation in itself. All the academic literature tends to support the premise that it is extremely rare for an ingested meal to still be fully contained withing the stomach any longer than 3 hours after ingestion in a healthy adult. The statistical and experimental data have been posted and discussed on this thread over the past couple of months.
Therefore, since Meredith's pizza meal had not yet started to pass to her duodenum (and, in addition, there were still recognisable pieces of cheese matter and vegetable fibres in her stomach contents), this indicates that her gastro-intestinal system stopped working almost certainly within three hours of the start of her pizza meal. Given the nature of her injuries, it's likely that her gastro-intestinal function would have slowed down within 5 minutes of her fatal neck injuries being sustained, and would likely have stopped completely within 10-15 minutes. This in turn implies that Meredith was stabbed between 9.00 and 9.30pm, with an extremely outside possibility that the stabbing took place by 10.00pm.
But nowhere near 11.30pm.
Ahh, Amanda 'wrote it'...it MUST be true
Mignini said it didn't happen so it must be true.
Of course Knox wasn't under investigation and convicted of abuse of office either. So if everything knox says is a lie, then so should everything Mignini says.
Actually the supreme court orderd them to be investigate and Mignini refused.
The police are filing slander charges against Knox for saying someone hit her. Where are the slander charges for all the other things she accused them of? Those things are just as bad as the slap in the back of the head.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Oh really?
SB: (shortly after the photos were posted) "I for one am grateful that she took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself and that she shared the findings with us."
SB (a little later): "Nell is actually mistaken to claim that the posting of these photos did not cause any discussion between the moderators about the legality, the FOA reaction, etc. Just for the record, Michael was concerned about what the FOA would think."
Like others have said, this was an unfortunate incident, which is not worth dwelling on, but I thought it was worth correcting an inaccuracy in your post. That's all, and it's increasingly off-topic so I won't post about it again.
- Status