Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris C said:
So Amanda is the only female to have sex in that apartment? Also, I thought the strange man was a friend of Meredith's boyfriend. I could be wrong, though I thought Meredith had met him before. Also, if it upset the roommates so badly what makes everyone think that Knox returned to the apartment with Sollecito the night of the murder. After if she was gonna catch grief over having sex in the apartment, wouldn't it make sense to stay at Sollecito's that night.
Click to expand...

I am merely guessing here, but I dont think the problem was her having sex at her apartment. It was her having one night stands with virtual strangers who could have been serial killers, and like Dan said, wandering the apartment the next morning with the girls not knowing who he is or what he is doing there. If Sollecito is her boyfriend, which he was, and the girls had met him already, I dont see them complaining about him spending the night.
 
Katody Matrass said:
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?
Click to expand...


Deny it if you like. I'm not sure how it helps you though.
 
Solange305 said:
I am merely guessing here, but I dont think the problem was her having sex at her apartment. It was her having one night stands with virtual strangers who could have been serial killers, and like Dan said, wandering the apartment the next morning with the girls not knowing who he is or what he is doing there. If Sollecito is her boyfriend, which he was, and the girls had met him already, I dont see them complaining about him spending the night.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the friend of the guys who lived downstairs. She saw him and the herpes on his lip and thought that since he had herpes that meant he was experienced in bed and so a great lay. She wrote this. She then took him back to the cottage and spent the night with him.

Now Amanda also has herpes on her lip...as you'll see in multiple photos of her during her court appearances.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
A couple of further comments on the "you're not a pathologist" mole, in the hope that if we hammer it down hard enough this time it will stay down for a while:

.
Click to expand...

That argument sucked. Badly lol. When "guilters" post their opinions about broken glass and such, it's just that, an opinion, and it's usually to counter all the opinions you guys throw out there. What they don't do is accuse experts of being incorrect and accusing them of doing their job incorrectly and prosecuting innocent people. That is the problem I have. Like I said once at PMF, I have no problem with people looking over the Massei report, looking over the evidence, and studying it. What bothers me is when people think that they can prove experts wrong based on google searches and guesses. So please, don't compare what we do to what you do, it;s not even close to comparable. Its ok to ask questions, but I think it's presumptuous to pretend that you know more than the people who studied many years and have worked many years in a certain field.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Don't forget the friend of the guys who lived downstairs. She saw him and the herpes on his lip and thought that since he had herpes that meant he was experienced in bed and so a great lay. She wrote this. She then took him back to the cottage and spent the night with him.

Now Amanda also has herpes on her lip...as you'll see in multiple photos of her during her court appearances.
Click to expand...

That is disgusting. I saw the lovely herpes lip along with her "All You Need Is Love" shirt, I didn't know he was the one who had given it to her. Someone made a great point to me the other day, about how many people Amanda knew have described her as "quirky". Interpret that as you wish, but people sensed that she was definitely "different". Although that alone doesn't make you a murderer, considering the rest of what we know, it's not a stretch to imagine what they meant when they said quirky.
 
It's a stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and dishonest argument and it should damned well stay in its hole from now on.
Click to expand...

As long as you keep playing pathologist/judge/DNA specialist/everything else, I guarantee you it won't be "staying in it's hole".
 
Chris C said:
Anyone know where a complete translation of Rudy's skype conversation is? In the upcoming appeals, they talk about Rudy's skype conversation and how he knew which window was supposedly broken even though that information had not been released to the press. According to the Prosecutin Rudy was gone during the staging so he couldn't have been there for the staged break in. Therefore he couldn't know which window was staged. Yet he claims that filomena's window was not broken when he left. If he wasn't there for the staging, and the window that was quoted in the media that was broken was meredith's. How did he know it was filomena's window that was broken. I'm kinda hoping someone knows where the complete skype conversation is so i can read it. Also what was Guede using skype on.
Click to expand...

That is a smart observation Chris. Although I would like to know this as well, I cant say for certain it would prove Guede was alone. Amanda and Raff could have discussed their plan to break the window before Rudy fled. But it's still an interesting observation, Ill give you that...

Yes, our culture has lots of folklore on how you can detect liars. But since this is JREF and not the Weekly World News, we have to look to science to see if these techniques are valid.

Quoting from a recent article on this subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, focus on the "eyes turning left" part of it. Dont' focus on the fact that Dr. Sollecito's quote just debunked the whole "ambiguous" argument in regards to the knife pricking, which was the point of linking that article.
 
Solange305 said:
(msg #7450)
That is ridiculous, and not believable. At all. You know what he meant,
Click to expand...

No, I don't know what he meant, and neither do you. I am simply pointing out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to claim it was Meredith when she had never visited his flat. It makes even less sense to "sell it to the media" (as claimed by Fulcanelli) when it was obvious it could be used against him.

I would take your arguments alot more seriously if you would admit that he said it.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, he didn't say it; he wrote it. And he didn't write "Meredith's hand" - he wrote "her hand". It's not ridiculous that he used the word "her" carelessly - he wasn't writing an essay for a language exam.

It doesn't mean you have to admit he's guilty just because of that, it is only one factor.
Click to expand...

It's not a factor at all.
 
And, as you say, it merely serves to show how some people don't understand the principle of scientific research and accumulated/iterated knowledge, and how in the modern world anyone can gain access to this knowledge without having to be a fully paid-up member of that particular community.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming you need a membership to access information. What we are claiming is that it's probably a good idea to rely on experts who know how to apply that knowledge, as well as understanding that it's harder to come to an accurate conclusion without examining the evidence firsthand.
 
Machiavelli said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that she had her mouth covered "for minutes"? I assume you've read the autopsy report as discussed in the Massei report? The report states that Massei found clear signs of asphyxiation, but the other evidence points clearly to the fact that Meredith suffocated in her own blood from the neck wound. She had bruises on her face and neck consistent with having a hand forcibly placed over her mouth at some point, but nothing that points to this hand having been placed there "for minutes".

And while we're on the subject, the Massei report's discussion of the autopsy report indicates that Lalli found only very small wounds and bruises to Meredith's arms, hands and chest:

"There were no noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen.
The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.
On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response." (Massei report translation, page 112)

So much for an extended violent struggle with her assailant(s). It seems that hyperbole in this area suits some people's agendas, even if it's at odds with the scientific evidence.
 
Well, of course, he didn't say it; he wrote it. And he didn't write "Meredith's hand" - he wrote "her hand". It's not ridiculous that he used the word "her" carelessly - he wasn't writing an essay for a language exam.
Click to expand...

He wrote the word "her hand", right after mentioned MEREDITH's DNA being on the knife. Of course her would mean Meredith. This argument is getting ridiculous now, come on!

And yes, it IS a factor. If you are trying to prove that two people are innocent after a court finds them guilty, you better be able to answer for EVERYTHING. The burden of proof is now on you. You haven't met it in regards to that statement. Not even close!
 
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry? The moving of a body of a murder victim, either by the assailant(s) or by accomplices of some sort, is not important in the evaluation of the crime and determination of guilt? That's a risible argument.
 
Fulcanelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. The job of the judges is to evaluate all the evidence, and to weigh each piece of evidence's relative importance. They are not empowered to just forget about evidence presented before them.
 
LondonJohn said:
No. The job of the judges is to evaluate all the evidence, and to weigh each piece of evidence's relative importance. They are not empowered to just forget about evidence presented before them.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would moving the body at all necessarily prove in any way that Amanda and Raff weren't involved? I could be wrong, but I think that is what Fulcanelli meant, not that it was ignored, but just that it wasn't explained in detail because it wouldn't prove their innocence or guilt either way. Im still trying to catch up, I haven't read the whole argument, so I'll let Fulcanelli explain, but that was what I gathered from that...
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
So, if Massei didn't document that you peed yesterday you didn't pee?
Click to expand...

Did you really mean to make this analogy? Do you truly think it's analogous to Massei not commenting - let alone ruling - on significant evidence with was presented to him and debated in front of him in a criminal trial? Really?
 
LondonJohn said:
Sorry? The moving of a body of a murder victim, either by the assailant(s) or by accomplices of some sort, is not important in the evaluation of the crime and determination of guilt? That's a risible argument.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the evaluation of the crime scene, I was talking about the judgement of guilt.
 
Did Nara hear a scream?

She said at first she thought is was an accident. Did she hear the kind of screech that tires make when skidding on concrete? Or maybe a mechanical failure of a car? Have you ever heard the screech made when the power steering or AC pump freezes? What exactly was wrong with the car that was broken down in front of the cottage on the night Meredith was murdered?

A number of people were out that night in the square. If there were such a terrible scream that Nara could hear it behind the double glazed window, the people outside would have easily heard it. They also would have heard a broken car screeching or sounds made by a tow truck picking up a disabled car. They would have heard it much better than Nara and easily identified the actual source. They would have dismissed the car or tow truck noise as just another natural sound of the city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom