• 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 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
What gives it value?
Click to expand...

The content? As LJ indicates, you're basically saying: "He believes Amanda Knox to be innocent, therefore his opinion is of no value!" [subtext: only people who believe Amanda Knox to be guilty have opinions of value].
 
Chris C said:
Can't have it both ways. Luminol reacts with many things other than blood. Except the footprints where tested and oh guess what. No blood.
Click to expand...

Most of the things luminol react with you won't find in someone's private home. Most of the rest you would not find on the floor or on the soles of someone's feet. Bleach has been ruled outso what other candidate can it be and can you offer a plausible explanation of how it coated the soles of Raffaele and Amanda's bare feet...without them even knowing about it?
 
LondonJohn said:
But some of the "witnesses" had their private conversations and telephone calls recorded by the police, didn't they?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's an entirely different matter to recording witness interviews.

In the UK, witnesses and persons of interest may be bugged by the police or security services. Witness statements however are not recorded. It's the same in Italy.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Most of the things luminol react with you won't find in someone's private home. Most of the rest you would not find on the floor or on the soles of someone's feet. Bleach has been ruled outso what other candidate can it be and can you offer a plausible explanation of how it coated the soles of Raffaele and Amanda's bare feet...without them even knowing about it?
Click to expand...

They probably stepped in something and then walked away. Blood has been ruled out so it would have had to be something else that was spilled or possibly used to clean the shower or mop the floor with.
 
halides1 said:
Fulcanelli,

Raffaele's lawyers' argument before the Supreme Court was that ILE made an unjustified assumption that the two were together. That is an argument about the act of assuming, not an argument about the fact of where they were. In other words, his lawyers were not dropping Amanda's alibi, though I have often seen their nice legal argument misunderstood to that effect elsewhere. They were saying that a putative clue that puts Amanda elsewhere than his apartment does not also put Raffaele elsewhere.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Your interpretation is that the defence were merely nitpicking (that doesn't help their client). That is not an argument to make to the High Court, indeed it isn't an argument period. Your interpretation is incorrect.

The defence were arguing that Raffaele and Amanda were not together.
 
LondonJohn said:
I wonder why he hasn't sued the Daily Mail & General Trust for libel then? After all, these were direct quotes (i.e. within quotation marks) attributed explicitly to him, Patrick Lumumba, and they contained very serious allegations of physical, verbal and racial abuse against him by the Perugia police and prosecutors. If he hadn't said these things, I suspect that he could make an awful lot of money in a libel action in the UK courts, not to mention helping his reputation. And since his business failed (no thanks to the Perugia police), then I'm sure the money could come in handy.

Or........the alternative is that the Daily Mail has him on tape saying these exact things (papers like the Mail generally record interviews of this nature).
Click to expand...

We've done this argument already.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Most of the things luminol react with you won't find in someone's private home. Most of the rest you would not find on the floor or on the soles of someone's feet. Bleach has been ruled outso what other candidate can it be and can you offer a plausible explanation of how it coated the soles of Raffaele and Amanda's bare feet...without them even knowing about it?
Click to expand...

If bleach is ruled out, then why does the prosecution claim the place was cleaned with bleach?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Unless and until something is proven to be, it is not.
Click to expand...

Using that same quote. Until the prosecution can prove that Luminol reacted with blood it is not. Since they performed 2 additional tests on the luminol footprints and both came back negative then its not blood.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Yes, but that's an entirely different matter to recording witness interviews.

In the UK, witnesses and persons of interest may be bugged by the police or security services. Witness statements however are not recorded. It's the same in Italy.
Click to expand...

Witnesses can be bugged by the police or security services can they? I'm sure that the DPP and Liberty would be very interested to hear this new development.

I think you'll find that in the UK people can only be wiretapped or eavesdropped upon with the written consent of a judge or a chief constable, and there must be substantial prima facie evidence that they are involved in serious crime for that to happen.
 
Fulcanelli said:
We've done this argument already.
Click to expand...

Remind me again of what the argument was then. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks incontrovertibly like Lumumba actually said those things to the Daily Mail reporter. Whether or not he was lying when he said them is a different matter, but I can't see any sort of argument against him saying them.
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, it wasn't. Your interpretation is that the defence were merely nitpicking (that doesn't help their client). That is not an argument to make to the High Court, indeed it isn't an argument period. Your interpretation is incorrect.

The defence were arguing that Raffaele and Amanda were not together.
Click to expand...

No, the defence were not arguing this. I can't believe that you can't understand the legal distinction.

The defence were arguing that the court cannot automatically ASSUME that Knox and Sollecito were together all that evening and night. The defence argued that Sollecito's position was that he was in his apartment all night and that Knox was with him, but that if the police/prosecutors had evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, then the court should not automatically assume that Sollecito was with her and therefore at least an accessory to the crime. Is that too difficult to understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom