Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

By the way, how could Nera Capezzali have heard a "blood-curdling" scream - which must have originated in Meredith's room which had a closed window facing directly away from the road and Nera's apartment - yet none of the other residents in the entire neighbourhood heard this scream, which apparently happened at around 11.30pm on the evening of a public holiday?

But another resident DID hear the scream. There were two witnesses that heard it. You didn't know this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think a girl being murdered in her own home is 'normal'? We are no longer in the world of 'normal'. One can't be discarding scenarios that fits the fact and evidence on the basis that they don't meet one's arbitrary concept of 'normal'.

Women being murdered in their own home by stabbing is unusual of course, when looked at empirically on an absolute basis. But given that there are billions of people in the world, there are many previous documented examples of just such an event. And it's against these examples that a concept of "normality" can be judged. It's not an arbitrary definition at all.

By the same token, a solar eclipse is not a "normal" event, yet sufficient previous documented examples of solar eclipses make us able to define what is "normal" in the event of a solar eclipse.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Women being murdered in their own home by stabbing is unusual of course, when looked at empirically on an absolute basis. But given that there are billions of people in the world, there are many previous documented examples of just such an event. And it's against these examples that a concept of "normality" can be judged. It's not an arbitrary definition at all.

By the same token, a solar eclipse is not a "normal" event, yet sufficient previous documented examples of solar eclipses make us able to define what is "normal" in the event of a solar eclipse.

And you've read all these have you?

 

[Fulcanelli]

How 'normal' is it for someone to be murdered by a one legged dwarf? I would go out on a limb and hazard - not very. Does that mean it can never happen?

 

[Justinian2]

And your evidence for that assertion made as fact is...where?

Take the responsibility for proving guilt. You always demand that others provide proof of innocence. Give some fact. Prove the quilt, don't just be the mole that has to repeatedly be whacked down.

If your roomate were murdered, how would you prove you were innocent? Remember, you know the truth, but you have to have proof that others understand. So you show your proof to the experts (your computer) and the experts destroy that proof. So what then?

 

[Antony]

How exactly is this proof of what Raffaele meant at the time? This is proof that Dr. Sollecito jumped to the same conclusion you did, assuming this Dexter poster has their facts straight in this case (although not in the Harry Potter talking point immediately following).

If it's stated that Dr. Sollecito got this information directly from Raffaele, I didn't see it.

I agree with this entirely. The confusion over this is because of a careless use of the word "her" in a private diary!

Out of that the guilters have built a whole extra wing to their house of cards: claiming that it shows that Raffaele "lied" (who was he trying to deceive?), and at the same time that it's an admission that the phantom DNA reading on the kitchen knife was supposedly genuine.

None of this means that the knife ever left Raffaele's apartment or came into contact with Meredith.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Take the responsibility for proving guilt. You always demand that others provide proof of innocence. Give some fact. Prove the quilt, don't just be the mole that has to repeatedly be whacked down.

If your roomate were murdered, how would you prove you were innocent? Remember, you know the truth, but you have to have proof that others understand. So you show your proof to the experts (your computer) and the experts destroy that proof. So what then?

A trial already did that. Perhaps you've forgotten?

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not convicted solely on the basis that they lacked/had contradictory alibis. They were convicted on a whole range of evidence. Therefore, your question is rather a straw man.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree with this entirely. The confusion over this is because of a careless use of the word "her" in a private diary!

Out of that the guilters have built a whole extra wing to their house of cards: claiming that it shows that Raffaele "lied" (who was he trying to deceive?), and at the same time that it's an admission that the phantom DNA reading on the kitchen knife was supposedly genuine.

None of this means that the knife ever left Raffaele's apartment or came into contact with Meredith.

Except it wasn't private, it was never intended to be. It was sold to the media by his family and lawyers almost as soon as he completed it. It was written for an audience.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just to say, copying this from PMF, Nara was pretty damn certain about that scream:

 

[LondonJohn]

But another resident DID hear the scream. There were two witnesses that heard it. You didn't know this?

You're referring to Antonella Monaccia, I presume, who testified that she heard loud arguing followed by a scream at some time after 10pm. She then went on to contradict Nera by saying that after the scream there was total silence and everything was dark and quiet. She also went to ask her parents, who lived in the apartment below and who were awake, if they had heard anything, but they had not.

I wonder how many people living within around 100m of the girls' house were awake between 10.30 and 11.45 that evening? I wonder how many of them reported hearing a scream so loud that it penetrated a number of stone walls and doors, as well as double-glazed windows?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You're referring to Antonella Monaccia, I presume, who testified that she heard loud arguing followed by a scream at some time after 10pm. She then went on to contradict Nera by saying that after the scream there was total silence and everything was dark and quiet. She also went to ask her parents, who lived in the apartment below and who were awake, if they had heard anything, but they had not.

I wonder how many people living within around 100m of the girls' house were awake between 10.30 and 11.45 that evening? I wonder how many of them reported hearing a scream so loud that it penetrated a number of stone walls and doors, as well as double-glazed windows?

She didn't contradict Nara. In Nara's actual court testimony (as opposed to the article I posted above) there was some couple of minutes or so between the scream and the footsteps. As for her parents, perhaps they were watching TV? Cooking a meal? Doing something else that drowned out external noise? Nara (not "Nera") and Ms Monaccia in contrast were attempting to sleep.

 

[Katody Matrass]

A woman facing an intruder in her house, or a person attempting a sexual assault or a person armed with a knife, whould scream up the hell so loud to break all the windows in the neighborhod.

This misconception leads to the very ugly practice of blaming the victim. "Why didn't you scream or fight" is the worst thing you can say to a rape victim.

Interesting read I just found about it:

Barriers to Credibility
Understanding and Countering Rape Myths
by Lynn Hecht Schafran Director of National Judicial Education Program
Legal Momentum

Myth 3. A woman who was truly being raped would offer utmost physical resistance. Fact: Many rape victims offer no physical resistance whatsoever. Despite changes in rape law to eliminate the requirement for earnest resistance, the lingering demand for evidence of physical resistance on the part of some judges and jurors reflects a lack of awareness of how rape usually happens.

There are several reasons why many victims do not resist.

The first is women’s lifetime of socialization to be nice. Many victims do not resist at the start of an assault because they are afraid of embarrassing themselves or the assailant. Women and girls are socialized from birth to be polite, to smile, not to offend and not to say “no” because it may hurt someone’s feelings. By the time these women realize how much danger they are in, it is too late to resist.

Second is the fact that men's greater size and strength are in themselves threatening to women and are often enough either to intimidate the victim or to overcome her resistance.
Even when no force is used beyond the intimidation factor of the man's size and/or greater strength, women experience great fear and indeed often fear for their lives. "I thought he was going to kill me" is a common statement from rape victims. In the Rape in America study 49% of rape victims feared serious physical injury or death. This fear causes some women to make a strategic decision not to offer physical resistance. They believe with good reason that submission will increase their chances of surviving the rape, or surviving without major physical injury.

Other women experience one of two terror-induced altered states of consciousness called dissociation and frozen fright which render them totally passive. For some victims of both stranger and nonstranger rape the psychic stress is so extreme that they dissociate during the rape, saying later that they felt it was a terrible dream, or that it was as if the attack were happening to their body and they were watching it from the outside.

Reading at least from page 3 to page 8 will give you a good picture of that problem with real life examples.

 

[LondonJohn]

This misconception leads to the very ugly practice of blaming the victim. "Why didn't you scream or fight" is the worst thing you can say to a rape victim.

Interesting read I just found about it:

Barriers to Credibility
Understanding and Countering Rape Myths
by Lynn Hecht Schafran Director of National Judicial Education Program
Legal Momentum



Reading at least from page 3 to page 8 will give you a good picture of that problem with real life examples.

Thank you for providing the documentary evidence that I was going to search for to back up what I wrote earlier, but which I assumed would be common sense to all logical minds anyhow!

 

[Katody Matrass]

You're referring to Antonella Monaccia, I presume, who testified that she heard loud arguing followed by a scream at some time after 10pm. She then went on to contradict Nera by saying that after the scream there was total silence and everything was dark and quiet. She also went to ask her parents, who lived in the apartment below and who were awake, if they had heard anything, but they had not.

I wonder how many people living within around 100m of the girls' house were awake between 10.30 and 11.45 that evening? I wonder how many of them reported hearing a scream so loud that it penetrated a number of stone walls and doors, as well as double-glazed windows?

Couldn't it have something to do with the broken car ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bruising and DNA

Moreover, Meredith had a hand grabbing her mouth for long minutes before she was stabbed, which suggests a sexual violence was carried out during this time, not after.
Moreover, she had a number of bruises (including hold bruises on her hip) suggestive of an active sexual violence, on a living and fighting person. Moreover, the bra fastener was cut with a clean knife.

Your reconstruction conflicts with an impressive array of findings.

Machiavelli,

Let us assume for a moment that this scenario were true. Then the police should have swabbed her hip and mouth area for DNA. I have turned up citations on this and spoken with a forensic nurse. The nurse told me that in cases of domestic violence including strangulation, that swabbing for DNA is now routinely done where she practices. If they had done so and found Amanda's or Raffaele's DNA, I would reconsider my position on the case. Just out of curiousity, what would make you reconsider yours?

 

[Machiavelli]

Meredith did resist physically and was restraint with overwhelming force.

There is no doubt on this.

The idea that Nara could be mistaking that scream with something else is below any acceptable intellectual level. And would oly shift the question why the other residents didn't hear the same noise.

Nara's window pane is 39 metres from the cottage's nearest window, and 44 metres from the rear balcony window.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just out of curiousity, what would make you reconsider yours?

Given the present state of the evidence, only two airtight alibies from 20:00 to 1:00

 

[Justinian2]

A trial already did that. Perhaps you've forgotten?

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not convicted solely on the basis that they lacked/had contradictory alibis. They were convicted on a whole range of evidence. Therefore, your question is rather a straw man.

Heretics and witches were tried and convicted by the millions. Doesn't mean the trial was right but only that being on the side with the force or the majority is the safest place. It's only the herd instinct of man; not what is right or wrong. Right or wrong is determined ONLY by the Scientific method and the natural rights of man.

My question was NOT a straw man. OK, a little bit. It asks that you put yourself in their place. You are at a friend's house on your computer when your roommate is killed. Your computer is destroyed by the police. The police also don't take the rectal temperature until midnight on the 3rd and thus get a ToD that is too inaccurate to use as your alibi. In a country which demands that you prove your innocence, what do you do?

What do you do when you've shown over and over that ALL the evidence against you is the result of mistakes or gross exaggerations and still the moles keep popping up.

 

[Antony]

(msg #7388)

Except it wasn't private, it was never intended to be. It was sold to the media by his family and lawyers almost as soon as he completed it. It was written for an audience.

This refers to Raffaele's prison diary in which he makes the ambiguous statement about unintentionally touching Meredith or Amanda with a kitchen knife.

Evidence for this bizarre claim, please. Also make it clear why someone in his position would have chosen to follow this ill-considered path rather than passing the information privately to his lawyers.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This misconception leads to the very ugly practice of blaming the victim. "Why didn't you scream or fight" is the worst thing you can say to a rape victim.

But WE aren't saying Meredith didn't, so for us it's moot. It's those on Amanda's side trying to argue she didn't so perhaps your post is better directed at your own side who are clearly the ones that need to feel better about it, rather then at Machiavelli?