Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

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!

But as I posted earlier, it's irrelevant to the facts of this case since clearly Meredith did resist...as evidenced by her restraint and defensive injuries. Where evidence exists, as it does in this case, we should turn to that before...'statistics'.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Meredith did resist physically and was restraint with overwhelming force.

Whether she resisted or not her injuries could very well be inflicted by a single much stronger attacker. Even if she did resist there is no clear implication from it that she tried and had a chance to scream. And even if she did scream, it's questionable if it could be heard up and across the street.
There are many reasons to doubt the factuality of Nara's testimony. That she alone heard that bloodcurdling scream is only one of them.

Biggest problem for Nara's testimony is the stomach contents.
We can base the ToD either on the experts and scientific literature consensus or on the punctuality of Nara's bladder.
We can either assume that lady's memory and/or sense of time is wrong or we can assume a digestive "miracle" falsifying known scientific findings occurred.
I think it's clear which of the assumptions is weaker and more acceptable.

 

[katy_did]

The knife whose print is on the bed sheet cannot have ben used to its full blade and is not 8 cm long. On this there is no doubt.

But you haven't been able to prove this is the case (and I'm open to you doing so, since personally I don't think Rudy intended to kill Meredith and, therefore, the full length of the blade wasn't necessarily used). Simply saying there is no doubt about something doesn't make it so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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 lab mistakes or gross exaggerations and still the moles keep popping up.

Which has no comparison to this case. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

It is a straw man, in that it supposes that they were convicted on a lack of alibi alone, which wasn't the case.

Raffaele's computer wasn't destroyed by the police. The hard drive was fine and cloned. And since that was the computer he claimed to have been using that night...I think that's all that matters. I will also remind you that Raffaele's expert was present in person when this was done.


Temps weren't taken because the police didn't want to let the doctor in until they'd preserved the crime scene. Had they not done so and we had proper temps, you'd still be complaining the case was bunk because the doctor had disturbed the crimes scene.

Anyway, what does rectal temperature matter? I thought, according to you people, stomach content was the the piece de resistance of measuring TOD!

Nobody asked the accused to prove their innocence, only to answer to the evidence that existed against them. That's fair enough isn't it? If they don't answer it, that's fine. But they can hardly then complain when they are found guilty.

Nobody has shown "lab mistakes".

 

[katy_did]

He did not move her right after the stabbing, because the body remained near the closet for some time and was moved only after at least 10-15 minutes as the coddling of the blood stains shows.
Blood stains show the attack did not take place in one corner, but in various places in the room beginning from the entrance door.

Micheli says this, but Massei does not, does he? From memory, there's nothing in the Massei report about Meredith's body having been moved 'quite some time' after death, nor the scene itself having been 'staged' in any way (the clasp having been cut later, etc); he appears to reject this part of the prosecution case wholesale.

 

[Machiavelli]

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that Meredith would have struggled from the very beginning of the assault. However, when confronted with a violent, strong man wielding a sharp knife, most people (male or female)

But anyway the question gets in the end to the same point. Regardless what happened during the previous minute on which you express your belief, a moment has come where Meredith had her mouth grabbed for a long timke and her arms were restrained with force and she was forced to immobility. At that moment, who was pointing the knife at her throught? The same attacker?
Or if you prefer, if the knife bearer was grabbing her hands, who, meanwhile, was covering her mouth for minutes as shown by the autopsy?
Or, when the attacker was stabbing her repeatedly first on one side and then on the other with puncture movements, who was grabbing her arms, body and mouth?

 

[Machiavelli]

Micheli says this, but Massei does not, does he? From memory, there's nothing in the Massei report about Meredith's body having been moved 'quite some time' after death, nor the scene itself having been 'staged' in any way (the clasp having been cut later, etc); he appears to reject this part of the prosecution case wholesale.

The court simply doesn't use the whole evidence!

 

[katy_did]

Your wrong, Amanda carried the large knife in the dark car that was parked in the drive way.

I don't know, Chris. I think with the cavernous available space in the car, their intent can only have been to transport a much larger weapon of some sort. Unless it was a really, really big knife.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Whether she resisted or not her injuries could very well be inflicted by a single much stronger attacker. Even if she did resist there is no clear implication from it that she tried and had a chance to scream. And even if she did scream, it's questionable if it could be heard up and across the street.
There are many reasons to doubt the factuality of Nara's testimony. That she alone heard that bloodcurdling scream is only one of them.

Biggest problem for Nara's testimony is the stomach contents.
We can base the ToD either on the experts and scientific literature consensus or on the punctuality of Nara's bladder.
We can either assume that lady's memory and/or sense of time is wrong or we can assume a digestive "miracle" falsifying known scientific findings occurred.
I think it's clear which of the assumptions is weaker and more acceptable.

Sure, if he were an octopus.

It isn't questionable whether it was possible for the scream to be heard, since it WAS heard. That removes the question.

 

[katy_did]

The court simply doesn't use the whole evidence!

Well, yes - presumably because they rejected it, no? If they had accepted that part of the prosecution's reconstruction, I can't imagine they wouldn't have woven it into the narrative in some way. Look at the crucial part played by Amanda's very large bag, after all.

 

[Machiavelli]

Simply saying there is no doubt about something doesn't make it so.

An operation makes it so

(10 - 8)cm = 2cm

2 cm of blade at least is out.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

There was nothing ambiguous about it at all. He said he pricked Meredith with the knife while she was in his apartment (where she'd never been) and he was cooking dinner. I fail to see the ambiguity.

As for why? Ask Raffaele. How am I to know why people are stupid?

 

[katy_did]

And which hand is he using to grab her arms and to cover her mouth?

Why do you assume these things were all done at the same time? I would guess he grabbed her mouth when she tried to shout or scream, while holding the knife to her throat (I see no evidence that it was 'for long minutes', either, merely that it was hard enough to leave the bruises). At another point during the assault, he grabbed hold of her arm with one hand and held the knife to her throat with the other. We're talking a sequence of actions, a progressive assault; not a manic attack in which everything had to happen simultaneously.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, yes - presumably because they rejected it, no?

What!!??

Nothing is "rejected presumably". The evidence is not rejected at all. It is not used because it is not needed. A large amount of evidence is not used by Massei at all, another amount is not used by Micheli. Judges don't have to use all what thy have in the file. When they are convinced of guilt, they are convinced.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Micheli says this, but Massei does not, does he? From memory, there's nothing in the Massei report about Meredith's body having been moved 'quite some time' after death, nor the scene itself having been 'staged' in any way (the clasp having been cut later, etc); he appears to reject this part of the prosecution case wholesale.

Massei does not because he didn't require it to form his argument. The fact Massei didn't use it, does not therefore mean Micheli was spouting a false fact. For Massei, a moving of the body isn't important, in relation to his final conclusions.

 

[katy_did]

An operation makes it so

(10 - 8)cm = 2cm

2 cm of blade at least is out.

You are assuming both the knife print and the wound can be measured very accurately and to the millimetre; I disagree, and gave my reasons for doing so in a previous post.

Btw, are the figures in the Massei report somewhere? (for the knife print) I had a quick scan through but couldn't find them.

 

[katy_did]

What!!??

Nothing is "rejected presumably". The evidence is not rejected at all. It is not used because it is not needed. A large amount of evidence is not used by Massei at all, another amount is not used by Micheli. Judges don't have to use all what thy have in the file. When they are convinced of guilt, they are convinced.

If it didn't form part of Massei's reconstruction of the facts, on what basis are you presuming it happened? (particularly given it would have been discussed during the closed court sessions).

 

[Katody Matrass]

Sure, if he were an octopus.

Can you elaborate?

It isn't questionable whether it was possible for the scream to be heard, since it WAS heard. That removes the question.

Yes, you just assumed it. It removed the question for you. Now you need to assume a time at which she heard it. Then the only question left will be the miraculous stomach contents.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, yes - presumably because they rejected it, no? If they had accepted that part of the prosecution's reconstruction, I can't imagine they wouldn't have woven it into the narrative in some way. Look at the crucial part played by Amanda's very large bag, after all.

No. They (judges) use only what they need need to form the case that makes the most logical sense to them. 'Rejected' is the incorrect term, as that implies..'invalid'...'wrong'. 'Not included' is more correct.

 

[katy_did]

Unable to sleep on a cold and windy night, Mrs Capezzali had walked from her bedroom to her bathroom when she was disturbed by a long, screeching noise.

I reckon Nara heard that injured cat. They make blood-curdling screeches even when they're not injured.

She said: "I watched everything that happened around the house in the days after the murder, too. I saw Knox and her boyfriend kissing and cuddling.

Nara undoubtedly got this from the press images.

Incidentally, I believe the only time Nara claimed to have seen Knox and Sollecito after the murder is when she said she saw them in the car park looking over at the house on the day the murder was discovered. Except they were never in the car park then, but always in the yard outside the house with the others.