• 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.
RoseMontague said:
What needs to be "tested" is Massei's reasoning. That will be "tested" in the appeal. Until then I think his reasoning on Quintavalle is in error, and obviously in error. I don't agree with any argument that basically says because "Massei said so", which seems to be very common coming from you. The point of our discussion recently has been the debate on this reasoning so it is a long way from being tested and proven at JREF.
Click to expand...

I think Massei got a lot of things wrong (Quintavalle, the time of death) and AK and RS are still guilty. However, as I understand it, the jurors reasoning is taken into consideration in the Italian system.

This is a better deal than AK would have gotten in the U.S. Here the jury doesn't have to give a reason for their verdict. They can sit in the deliberation room for a hour eating cookies then come out and say guilty (or not guilty) and that's the end of it. Their reasoning is not taken into consideration in the appeal.
 
moodstream said:
It's the same point. If Raffaele was involved, he would leave the door unlocked when he left. But Meredith's keys were missing. They would not be missing if the intruder did not need to use them to get out of the door.

It could have been that the key was left in the door, but this does not seem to be the habit, and also, why then take the keys? It had to be a stranger, or Guede, based on Guede's version (fanciful claims of clean up and break in aside). If it was a stranger, he would have needed to come back for the key. Guede does not account for this.
Click to expand...


They were needed to lock Meredith's door.
 
Fulcanelli said:
He'd only just opened the door, the til probably wasn't set up. The assistant was trying to remember events that had happened over a year before (that's when she made her statement to say she couldn't remember) on a normal day. I'm not surprised she doesn't remember.

In contrast, Quintavalle had reason to remember.
Click to expand...

wasn't Quintavalle questioned shortly after the murder?
 
Fulcanelli said:
He'd only just opened the door, the til probably wasn't set up. The assistant was trying to remember events that had happened over a year before (that's when she made her statement to say she couldn't remember) on a normal day. I'm not surprised she doesn't remember.

In contrast, Quintavalle had reason to remember.
Click to expand...

She remembered fine. You should read the cites I provided.
 
Withnail1969 said:
But somebody was.

So:-

1) She bought something (till receipts and a witness working on the till would prove it).

2) She stole something. Surely Amanda would know that it's better to buy something if you want to steal another item. If Quintavalle wasn't at the counter, it's inevitable he would have been watching this suspicious looking foreigner. How incredibly risky, and what on earth would she need to steal? They already had 2 bottles of bleach.

3) She came in, looked at cleaning supplies for a while, but couldn't find her preferred brand of Murder2Go cleaner and just left.


Each possibility more brain-dead than the last.
Click to expand...

1) I refer you to my recent post on that.

2) She may not have wanted it recorded or witnessed what she'd taken from the store. There is a logic to that. If she's going to clean up a murder scene the last thing she'd want is shopkeepers coming forward later saying "Yeah, she was in here buying cleaning supplies!"

3) I often go into a shop and don't see what I want/need and leave. Don't you?
 
Alt+F4 said:
I think Massei got a lot of things wrong (Quintavalle, the time of death) and AK and RS are still guilty. However, as I understand it, the jurors reasoning is taken into consideration in the Italian system.

This is a better deal than AK would have gotten in the U.S. Here the jury doesn't have to give a reason for their verdict. They can sit in the deliberation room for a hour eating cookies then come out and say guilty (or not guilty) and that's the end of it. Their reasoning is not taken into consideration in the appeal.
Click to expand...

The judges are the jurors and vice versa. There is no jury as such.
 
A year after the fact, he remembers, not just that Amanda was in his store on a particular day, but also what direction she walked after leaving his store!!!!!!!

Are you trying to make me laugh?
 
RoseMontague said:
She remembered fine. You should read the cites I provided.
Click to expand...

No, she remembered certain things. However, she can't possibly be expected to remember things that at the time did not strike her as important or interesting. The mundane is what we tend to forget.
 
Fulcanelli said:
1) I refer you to my recent post on that.

2) She may not have wanted it recorded or witnessed what she'd taken from the store. There is a logic to that. If she's going to clean up a murder scene the last thing she'd want is shopkeepers coming forward later saying "Yeah, she was in here buying cleaning supplies!"

3) I often go into a shop and don't see what I want/need and leave. Don't you?
Click to expand...

2) This point does not hold water. If she is the only person in the shop at stupid o clock in the morning, then whatever she does is going to be noticed. As it was, she was allegedly spotted in the cleaning products section. Nice job ignoring the points i made. Only a deranged maniac would walk in, steal something and walk out without buying something at least. What did she need so desperately? They had gallons of bleach.

3) i never leave a shop without buying anything because i always know what i want before i go in.
 
Fulcanelli said:
1) I refer you to my recent post on that.

2) She may not have wanted it recorded or witnessed what she'd taken from the store. There is a logic to that. If she's going to clean up a murder scene the last thing she'd want is shopkeepers coming forward later saying "Yeah, she was in here buying cleaning supplies!"

3) I often go into a shop and don't see what I want/need and leave. Don't you?
Click to expand...

I often sleep in and don't go to a shop at all. The inspector came around shortly after the murder with pictures of Amanda and Raffaele. Quintavalle told the inspector that he did not see either one of them that morning and a year later contradicted his testimony. In court, he had a hard time remembering he gave a TV interview, one that I posted here recently.
 
Fulcanelli said:
No, she remembered certain things. However, she can't possibly be expected to remember things that at the time did not strike her as important or interesting. The mundane is what we tend to forget.
Click to expand...

Her memory is backed up by the inspector, Quintavalle's is not.
 
moodstream said:
A year after the fact, he remembers, not just that Amanda was in his store on a particular day, but also what direction she walked after leaving his store!!!!!!!

Are you trying to make me laugh?
Click to expand...

He had reason to. He recognised her. She also very much stood out by her demeanour and behaviour (she was trying not to be seen).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom