Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
Excuse me, but Machiavelli hasn't shown anything about Meredith being held in multiple places at the same time.
A lone attacker very well could bruise her in multiple places.

What about the stomach contents then?
Click to expand...

He has alluded to her multiple injuries. These are also contained in both the judges' and the autopsy report. Are you now saying those injuries aren't there? What exactly is it you're trying to argue, are they there or aren't they? Since you are arguing a lone attacker could have left them, then it seems you aren't arguing they are not there...in which case it sounds like you are all about point scoring ("yes they are there, but HE didn't say they were there, so point to me...basket!"), rather then about establishing the actual facts or the truth.

A lone attacker could very well have bruised her in multiple places and left multiple marks...if he had multiple arms. He was not holding a knife, restraining her, sexually assaulting her...all at the same time.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Well, when an authority makes a judgement that puts the ball back in your court. That's my experience of life anyway. Is it different for you?
Click to expand...

For now the ball is in your court. You were shown arguments why the court made a mistake. "They are right because they are the court" will not advance the discussion.
 
Fulcanelli said:
(msg #7388)
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.
Click to expand...

So, no substantiation for the claim that the prison diary was "sold to the media by his family and lawyers", then (msg #7388, p185). It was a private diary after all.

And nowhere does he say, or write, that he "pricked Meredith with the knife" - he only writes "I accidentally pricked her hand". This is where both Meredith and Amanda are mentioned in the same paragraph. Plenty of people use the words "he", "she", "her", etc carelessly, about someone who hasn't just been named.

If this had been formal testimony, then it would have been necessary for the cross-examiner to get him to clarify at this point. But it wasn't; it was a private diary.

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

It was a rhetorical question, for someone to answer who was making your claim. Since he didn't intend it for the media, he doesn't need to answer it.
 
Fulcanelli said:
A lone attacker could very well have bruised her in multiple places and left multiple marks...if he had multiple arms. He was not holding a knife, restraining her, sexually assaulting her...all at the same time.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's not like he had to do all the injuries simultaneously. He made the bruises by restraining her, pushing her around, bringing her down forcefully. There's nothing there requiring help from other assailants.
 
katy_did said:
I ask again: if Massei said nothing about Meredith's body being moved 'quite some time' after the wounds were made, on what basis are you assuming this to be the case? Since he believes Rudy fled straight away, if there had been convincing evidence Meredith was moved some time later - even after her death - would he not have included that as significant evidence against Knox and Sollecito?

We don't know what was proven or disproven during the closed sessions, so the only basis I and presumably you have for evaluating the evidence that emerged from them is what Massei says. And on this particular issue, he says nothing. Why then do you assume he accepted it happened? And do you also accept everything else Matteini and Micheli said unless it's explicitly rejected by Massei?



From memory, Edda Mellas talked about the speculation in the report over one of the knives having been Sollecito's, stating that this was never brought up in Court. This is an issue raised in the appeals: they state that Sollecito had to defend himself during the trial against one charge, only for the Court to arbitrarily decide he was guilty of another. The defence argue there's a lack of correspondence between the charge he was tried for, and that for which he was convicted. So from the defence lawyers' perspective at least, Edda Mellas was right, and there's a section of the appeals dedicated to that particular issue.
Click to expand...


No, he wouldn't have included it if a) an argument against that specific aspect wasn't made by the defence (or prosecution) in court and b) it is not required for his scenario, conclusion and judgement.

Indeed, there can be evidence in the case file that is real evidence, that no party opts to use. For the prosecution and defence, it's strategy...they choose what they opt to use to achieve their agenda. The Judge in turn chooses what he/she opts to use to achieve 'truth'. That truth is then formed as a judgement. But, as this truth is published, the defence and prosecution can then challenge any aspect of that truth in the appeal and they have a ready guideline of exactly what they need to challenge. At the same time, the appeal may consider factors important that Micheli considered important...but Massei did not. However, the defence have both judgements as a point of reference in order to construct their defence.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Nonsense. It's not like he had to do all the injuries simultaneously. He made the bruises by restraining her, pushing her around, bringing her down forcefully. There's nothing there requiring help from other assailants.
Click to expand...


If he was restraining her, what was he doing when he wasn't restraining her? How was she then restrained?
 
Antony said:
So, no substantiation for the claim that the prison diary was "sold to the media by his family and lawyers", then (msg #7388, p185). It was a private diary after all.

And nowhere does he say, or write, that he "pricked Meredith with the knife" - he only writes "I accidentally pricked her hand". This is where both Meredith and Amanda are mentioned in the same paragraph. Plenty of people use the words "he", "she", "her", etc carelessly, about someone who hasn't just been named.

If this had been formal testimony, then it would have been necessary for the cross-examiner to get him to clarify at this point. But it wasn't; it was a private diary.



It was a rhetorical question, for someone to answer who was making your claim. Since he didn't intend it for the media, he doesn't need to answer it.
Click to expand...

The fact it was sold by the family and his lawyers was reported long ago. This is old school. I'm not here to teach second grade.
 
Katody Matrass said:
For now the ball is in your court. You were shown arguments why the court made a mistake. "They are right because they are the court" will not advance the discussion.
Click to expand...


Hardly. The trial verdict set which court the ball is in. In what universe does it work otherwise?
 
And nowhere does he say, or write, that he "pricked Meredith with the knife" - he only writes "I accidentally pricked her hand". This is where both Meredith and Amanda are mentioned in the same paragraph. Plenty of people use the words "he", "she", "her", etc carelessly, about someone who hasn't just been named.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous, and not believable. At all. You know what he meant, I would take your arguments alot more seriously if you would admit that he said it. It doesn't mean you have to admit he's guilty just because of that, it is only one factor.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I'm sure I don't have to mention it. You can get to it by your own reasoning.
Click to expand...

So, while he was doing that and she was NOT being restrained (since he had no hands to do so), what do you suppose she was doing? Lying back and thinking of England?

Katody said:
Then? She wasn't - she was threatened with a knife.
Click to expand...


What, she wasn't being threatened with the knife before? So, she was being threatened with the knife before and that kept her quiet...why the restraint and the bruising from restraint then, if the knife made her as passive as a lamb?
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your certainty on these matters is truly astonishing, and highly impressive.

And don't forget that Meredith's window faced across the ravine, and sound doesn't have a habit of turning corners.
 
Machiavelli said:
Given the present state of the evidence, only two airtight alibies from 20:00 to 1:00
Click to expand...

Why do you consider that defendants need an airtight alibi in order to be not guilty of a crime? Or if you don't consider that as a general rule, why do you consider it in this case?
 
LondonJohn said:
Why do you consider that defendants need an airtight alibi in order to be not guilty of a crime? Or if you don't consider that as a general rule, why do you consider it in this case?
Click to expand...


He considers they need it in the FACE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CONFRONTS THEM. Only an iron clad alibi can disprove all of that evidence.
 
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?
Click to expand...

She wouldnt have to prove anything if there wasnt evidence against her. And if she was innocent, there wouldnt be so much evidence to disprove.
 
Fulcanelli said:
So, while he was doing that and she was NOT being restrained (since he had no hands to do so), what do you suppose she was doing? Lying back and thinking of England?
Click to expand...

How nice. What do you think she should have been doing?

Fulcanelli said:
What, she wasn't being threatened with the knife before? So, she was being threatened with the knife before and that kept her quiet...why the restraint and the bruising from restraint then, if the knife made her as passive as a lamb?
Click to expand...
I don't know how passive she was. Maybe she was so passive that he grabbed her and pushed her around to force her. Maybe he just liked doing it. Or maybe she tried to resist and he overcame her by grabbing, hitting and knife-threats.

I suppose you think she should put up a fight and scream, like any self-respecting young lady would do?
 
LondonJohn said:
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?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they were watching tv, talking to each other, not near a window, whatever...

Edit: Oops, Fulcanneli I just saw your post in response saying what I said, my bad. Maybe I should catch up with the whole thread before posting
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
How nice. What do you think she should have been doing?
Click to expand...

Gee...I don't know, fighting back like the actual evidence showed she was?


Katody said:
I don't know how passive she was. Maybe she was so passive that he grabbed her and pushed her around to force her. Maybe he just liked doing it. Or maybe she tried to resist and he overcame her by grabbing, hitting and knife-threats.

I suppose you think she should put up a fight and scream, like any self-respecting young lady would do?
Click to expand...


So many 'maybes', or more aptly put, so much mental gymnastics. The FOA's beloved Occam would love that! Anything but Oh my God - consider she may actually have done it!
 
Fulcanelli said:
Gee...I don't know, fighting back like the actual evidence showed she was?
So many 'maybes', or more aptly put, so much mental gymnastics. The FOA's beloved Occam would love that! Anything but Oh my God - consider she may actually have done it!
Click to expand...

I would consider it if there was any evidence of her fighting back. There isn't.
Fighting barehanded against knife she would have stab wounds to the abdomen and thighs, deep cuts on hands and forearms etc.

What is the actual evidence then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom