• 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.
It's ludicrous to even suggest that the murderer would bring a cheap blunt knife from Rafaelle's apartment when there were at least 20 big sharp knives in Amanda's place.
 
Withnail1969 said:
It's ludicrous to even suggest that the murderer would bring a cheap blunt knife from Rafaelle's apartment when there were at least 20 big sharp knives in Amanda's place.
Click to expand...

But she had a rather large bag and wanted to get some use out of it. And I recall it also being suggested that Raffaele presented her with this rather blunt kitchen utensil for protection. It is possible she did not want to insult him by not carrying around such a fine gift.
 
physicians and stomach contents

Fine said:
__________________________________



According to the physician, we should never find all consumed food stuffs still in the stomach five hours after what exactly? Five hours after beginning the eating---about 6:00 PM---or five hours after the eating stopped, about 8:00 PM? In the former case five hours later would be 11:00 PM, in the latter case 1:00 AM.

It appears from the physician's directive, "Not to eat six hours before surgery"---and that means one is to eat nothing during this interval--- that the physician is referring to the latter state-of-affairs. In which case, the conclusion seems irrelevant. No one has argued that Meredith died---or her "terror" began---at 1:00 AM. Maybe you could clarify this matter Halides.

///
Click to expand...

Fine,

RoseMontague caught my drift. I am suggesting that all of us with physicians in our personal acquaintance, especially surgeons and anethesiologists, should ask them, because they are good sources for information on this topic. In other words we can draw upon other experts and other literature, not just pathologists.
 
Clean up in Meredith's room

loverofzion said:
Let us not forget the evidence of a clean up.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the portion where the Motivation report describes the proof of a clean up in Meredith's room. Do you know what page that is on?
 
RoseMontague said:
But she had a rather large bag and wanted to get some use out of it. And I recall it also being suggested that Raffaele presented her with this rather blunt kitchen utensil for protection. It is possible she did not want to insult him by not carrying around such a fine gift.
Click to expand...

That's true. I forgot that Perugia had become so dangerous that while Amanda previously had never needed to carry around any weapon, in the week she met Raffaele she suddenly needed to carry a large kitchen knife, while mentioning no concern about any danger to her family.
 
RoseMontague said:
You shrugged off an error of Massei regarding a different connection, stating it was a harmless mistake. Seeing three different people that are evidently fluent in the Italian to English genre give somewhat different interpretations of the defense argument is confusing to me, and I am fairly certain I can honestly state that it is not clear what the defense is saying here based on these interpretations.
Click to expand...

Well it is quite certain what the defence doucment doesn't say: they don't say there where no connection to cell 30064 prior to the 22:13. Maybe they were not, but the defence document certainly doesn't make this argument.

I don't see how Al-Fakh translation contradicts my reading of the original Italian.

About thoughtful, sha says:

"The appeal also notes that that call is the first one ever picked up by 30064 on Meredith's phone (at least I think that's what it says. It mentions two other phone calls at 12:11 and 16:22 picked up by that cell, but doesn't specify the date. If these are on Nov. 2 then this would be in contradiction with the Massei report, which states that all calls from 12:07 onwards were picked up by 25622.)"

The fact is that the court's report doesn't say that. The first connection on 25622 is at 00:10, while connections on nov. 1 were on 25620 betwen 14:00 and 15:00 and on 25621 between 15:00 and 16:00. To be honest the court of Assise doesn't confirm the defence data about cell 30064 (no call happens at 16:22, and the 12:11 is on nov 2, but on a different cell sector), but on the other hand doesn't give any particular contrary datum. However, my conclusion is that the defence proposes different arguments about the cell phones activities - based on the number of sms messages and anomalous use around 22:00 - but does not propose an argument based on a probative value of the 30064 cell usage at 22:13. The defence only wants to dismiss the probative value that the court attributed to the 22:13 call, by saying that this 30064 cell is well reachable also from the area of Parco S.Angelo. In other words, the defence doesn't say that the 22:13 call proves, instead they says it doesn't proove. They say instead that the 21:58 and 22:00 calls could "prove" the time of death.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Well it is quite certain what the defence doucment doesn't say: they don't say there where no connection to cell 30064 prior to the 22:13. Maybe they were not, but the defence document certainly doesn't make this argument.

I don't see how Al-Fakh translation contradicts my reading of the original Italian.

About thoughtful, sha says:

"The appeal also notes that that call is the first one ever picked up by 30064 on Meredith's phone (at least I think that's what it says. It mentions two other phone calls at 12:11 and 16:22 picked up by that cell, but doesn't specify the date. If these are on Nov. 2 then this would be in contradiction with the Massei report, which states that all calls from 12:07 onwards were picked up by 25622.)"

The fact is that the court's report doesn't say that. The first connection on 25622 is at 00:10, while connections on nov. 1 were on 25620 betwen 14:00 and 15:00 and on 25621 between 15:00 and 16:00. To be honest the court of Assise doesn't confirm the defence data about cell 30064 (no call happens at 16:22, and the 12:11 is on nov 2, but on a different cell sector), but on the other hand doesn't give any particular contrary datum. However, my conclusion is that the defence proposes diffeent arguments about the cell phones activities - based on the number of sms messages and anomalous use around 22:00 - but does not propose an argument based on a probative value of the cell used at 22:13. The defence only wants to dismiss the probative value that the court attributed to the 22:13 call, by saying that this 30064 cell is well reachable also from the area of Parco S.Angelo.
Click to expand...

You have convinced me (no sarcasm intended). I think my initial impression was related to thoughtful's interpretation. Have you asked thoughtful about this?
 
loverofzion said:
How do you know this?
This "double DNA' knife was proven to hae been used in the assault and murder.
Click to expand...

'Proven' by extremely dubious evidence which many of us here do not accept, as you well know. You might also wish to work on your spelling.

I can also tell you that I am absolutely certain that this heavily-used $3 knife was nowhere near as sharp as the expensive German knives Amanda had under her bed or possibly in the knife drawer in the murder house.
 
Last edited:
Withnail1969 said:
Would you mind speaking English please; I apologise if English is not your first language. While the individual words may be English, whatever you are speaking now is not English as I understand it.
Click to expand...

My reply to above is inhibited by:

1) Respect for James Randi's principles
2) Admiration for and conservation of Moderator time
3) Most elementary and rudimentary interpretation of and observance for Rules E1 and E8
4) Common courtesy of adults discussing anything, anywhere

Apologies if any of three reasons above are in any way seem "indicative of second language" or are beyond unassisted comprehension level of individual directed to.
 
Withnail1969 said:
It's ludicrous to even suggest that the murderer would bring a cheap blunt knife from Rafaelle's apartment when there were at least 20 big sharp knives in Amanda's place.
Click to expand...

A strong implication is that the state (police and prosectution) were trying to fabricate evidence to involve Rafaelle. Justice is supposed to be a double edged sword; it is supposed to cut both ways.
 
Withnail1969 said:
'Proven' by extremely dubious evidence which many of us here do not accept, as you well know. You might also wish to work on your spelling.

I can also tell you that I am absolutely certain that this heavily-used $3 knife was nowhere near as sharp as the expensive German knives Amanda had under her bed or possibly in the knife drawer in the murder house.
Click to expand...
"Dubious evidence"?
ARe you a forensic scientist?
Do you claim to know more than the experts who tested the evidence?

Where do you get this?
 
pilot padron said:
My reply to above is inhibited by:

1) Respect for James Randi's principles
2) Admiration for and conservation of Moderator time
3) Most elementary and rudimentary interpretation of and observance for Rules E1 and E8
4) Common courtesy of adults discussing anything, anywhere

Apologies if any of three reasons above are in any way seem "indicative of second language" or are beyond unassisted comprehension level of individual directed to.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just asking you to speak normal conventional English. I apologise if English is not your first language, but I'm having a hard time understanding the version of the language that you speak.
 
Dan O.,
Using a recent quote from Mary to illustrate my point,

Mary_H said:
If you don't want to support it, then I won't bother to believe it.
Click to expand...

However,

Dan O. said:
You have an opportunity here to do a little bit of light research and prove me wrong. Are you going to squander it by questioning my existence?
Click to expand...

That's actually funny! So you have a sense of humour after all.
However, I didn't realize you were requesting a questioner of your claim to provide proof for you, not usually how it's done here judging by all the requests for citations.

I could search the thread and find a cite for you faster than I can type this response. But i'm not going to do that. If you cannot do this little bit of research you are useless to me on this thread.
Click to expand...

Ok, I got it, cites not required and try to be useful to Dan O. So we can just post away now and never need to provide cites when requested. Excellent! I think others on this board besides myself must have failed to get the memo on this, maybe it was the result of all the recent complaining about having to provide cites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom