• 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.
colonelhall said:
LondonJohn: "Neither alcohol nor THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) is a stimulant."

Does it matter? They were either out of their minds, judging by their own accounts, or lying.

I think that it has been agreed that we don't know what they were on.
Click to expand...

Then we can agree, for the purposes of assessing their guilt, that they were using nothing more than cannabis and alcohol (to which they readily admitted), since exactly zero evidence was ever uncovered of their use of other narcotic, psychotropic or stimulant substances on or around the night of the murder. Enough said?
 
LondonJohn said:
Yeah, Computer Science postgraduate student Sollecito had no clue about computer logs or phone network records. Riiiiiiiiight..........
Click to expand...

Post-graduate? Please present evidence that Sollecito was a post-graduate student in November 2007. When did he earn his bachelor's degree?
 
christianahannah said:
Wasn't it Ippolito-Mainieri and not Rinaldi who concluded that the shoeprint was compatible with Raffaele's shoe?

Rinaldi-Boemia was in charge of analyzing of the footprints/shoeprints (January 2008) and it was determined during legal debate and in the April 2008 report that the shoeprint was not compatible with Raffaele's (pages 332-335 Massei Motivations).
Click to expand...

The Massei report appears to be being....kind to Rinaldi on this issue. It's my understanding that Rinaldi originally concurred with Ippolito-Manieri that Sollecito's AirForce1 shoe made those prints. It was only when the defence pointed out the glaring inconsistencies in the comparison, together with the actual match of the shoe print to Nike Outbreak 2 shoes (whose empty box was discovered at Guede's apartment) that Rinaldi had a somewhat Damascene conversion, allowing Massei to write that Rinaldi's report dismissed Ippolito-Manieri's view.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Post-graduate? Please present evidence that Sollecito was a post-graduate student in November 2007. When did he earn his bachelor's degree?
Click to expand...

Sorry, slip of the keyboard. I meant undergraduate.

So....by way of correction:

Yeah, Computer Science undergraduate student Sollecito had no clue about computer logs or phone network records. Riiiiiiiiight..........
 
christianahannah said:
I am not sure whose lies you are referring to.
Click to expand...

Nice evasive maneuver.

I'm refering to this creative imprecision of Comodi
Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened.​


as katy_did summarized it much better then I:

It's very obvious she was intending to imply that Amanda had called her mother before there was any reason to do so, and emphasizing that it was "three or four o'clock at night" to suggest the inappropriateness of Amanda calling her at that time to "tell her nothing had happened". That she then 'clarifies' with "in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet" only shows she knew precisely what she was doing - she knew that a lot had happened by that stage, just not the breaking down of the door.

The 112 call happened almost immediately after Amanda's call to her mother, yet strangely Comodi never asks Amanda why she called the police despite the fact that "nothing had happened".
 
London John

I think you (and others) are not getting the 'credibility ' issue - defendants statements, alibis and testimony are considered as evidence by the court - in fact if I may hazard a guess perhaps some jurors apply more weight to them than to minutiae of forensics which have so exercised this forum.
 
platonov said:
London John

I think you (and others) are not getting the 'credibility ' issue - defendants statements, alibis and testimony are considered as evidence by the court - in fact if I may hazard a guess perhaps some jurors apply more weight to them than to minutiae of forensics which have so exercised this forum.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand that lies should only be relevant where they are of direct probative relevance to the case.

A classic case in point is from the OJ Simpson case, where Detective Mark Fuhrman was asked on the stand if he'd ever used the "n" word in the previous ten years. He replied that he had not, but Simpson's defence lawyers introduced evidence that he in fact had conclusively used that word a few years previously. Thereafter, his important testimony about the discovery of the glove and the entry to Simpson's property were entirely discredited in the eyes of the predominantly-black jury, aided and abetted by not only the defence, but also - astonishingly - the prosecution.

Most legal commentators subsequently agreed that this line of questioning should never have been allowed by Judge Ito, since it was of minimal probative value (and, at the same time, far more inflammatory value). Clearly, the defence was trying to plant the seed that Fuhrman was an avowed racist, who therefore deliberately planted evidence to frame Simpson. But not only is it an incredibly long shot to jump from using the "n" word to wanting to frame black people for murder, there was also evidence that Fuhrman had been unnecessarily lenient with Simpson when called to previous domestic disputes between Simpson and his white wife.

So, as applied here, I'd argue that it's of relatively little probative value if Knox/Sollecito's version of events between 05.30 and 09.30 on the 2nd November 2007 doesn't tally with the computer logs and phone records, since the contested areas don't even place them at the murder scene.
 
Katody Matrass said:
The 112 call happened almost immediately after Amanda's call to her mother, yet strangely Comodi never asks Amanda why she called the police despite the fact that "nothing had happened".
Click to expand...

Amanda never called the police. Her mother and Filomena both told her to but she didn't.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Amanda never called the police. Her mother and Filomena both told her to but she didn't.
Click to expand...

She was standing right next to her boyfriend, Sollecito, who was not only a native Italian speaker but who also had a sister serving in the Carabinieri. Who was better placed to make the call and explain the situation to the police? And how soon after Knox's 12.47 call to her mother did that process start? Sollecito. And virtually immediately.
 
minutiae of forensics

platonov said:
London John

I think you (and others) are not getting the 'credibility ' issue - defendants statements, alibis and testimony are considered as evidence by the court - in fact if I may hazard a guess perhaps some jurors apply more weight to them than to minutiae of forensics which have so exercised this forum.
Click to expand...

Minutiae of forensics is a nice turn of phrase, but in an interview, Mignini said that the three strongest pieces of biological evidence were all DNA-related:

"Male interviewer: In the biological evidence, is there any one item which is the one which you consider, especially in terms of the trial, to have had the most value?

Giuliano Mignini: I think that, in terms of the trial, the most important were the knife, the bra hook and also the biological traces in the bathroom. From the point of view of the trial, the knife certainly links the two defendants and the victim. Therefore it was (interrupted).

That is why I have pointed out that Dr. Stefanoni's "theories" of how DNA contamination work are inconsistent with the facts of, for example, the Gregory Turner case.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Minutiae of forensics is a nice turn of phrase, but in an interview, Mignini said that the three strongest pieces of evidence were all DNA-related:

"Male interviewer: In the biological evidence, is there any one item which is the one which you consider, especially in terms of the trial, to have had the most value?

Giuliano Mignini: I think that, in terms of the trial, the most important were the knife, the bra hook and also the biological traces in the bathroom. From the point of view of the trial, the knife certainly links the two defendants and the victim. Therefore it was (interrupted).

That is why I have pointed out that Dr. Stefanoni's "theories" of how DNA contamination work are inconsistent with the facts of, for example, the Gregory Turner case.
Click to expand...

Ah but he was seemingly asked specifically about the "biological evidence", so the answer is a bit self-serving.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Ok, so you don't know his course work, you don't know his GPA and you don't anything about the program at the Univeristy.
Click to expand...

Please stop this nonsense. You and I can both be certain that an undergraduate Computer Science student nearing the very end of his degree course would at the very least be aware that computers log hard drive activity, and that mobile phone calls are logged by the network operators. Heck, everyone who even just owns a mobile phone almost certainly knows that the mobile companies produce itemised bills upon request which list every phone call (and therefore by definition they kept detailed logs of calls).

Are you seriously trying to pursue this as an argument? Really?
 
LondonJohn said:
She was standing right next to her boyfriend, Sollecito, who was not only a native Italian speaker but who also had a sister serving in the Carabinieri. Who was better placed to make the call and explain the situation to the police? And how soon after Knox's 12.47 call to her mother did that process start? Sollecito. And virtually immediately.
Click to expand...

Both Amanda's mother and Filomena knew how much Italian she spoke and both still told her to call the police. She didn't.

Where's the evidence that "she was standing right next to her boyfriend"?

Why did they need to speak to three different people (Amanda's mother, Filomena and Raffaele's sister) before deciding to call the police? Amanda voiced her concern to Raffaele at about 11:30 yet no call was made to the police until 12:51.
 
LondonJohn said:
Please stop this nonsense. You and I can both be certain that an undergraduate Computer Science student nearing the very end of his degree course would at the very least be aware that computers log hard drive activity, and that mobile phone calls are logged by the network operators. Heck, everyone who even just owns a mobile phone almost certainly knows that the mobile companies produce itemised bills upon request which list every phone call (and therefore by definition they kept detailed logs of calls).

Are you seriously trying to pursue this as an argument? Really?
Click to expand...

Evidence? If it's that obvious why can't you produce it?
 
biological evidence versus other evidence

LondonJohn said:
Ah but he was seemingly asked specifically about the "biological evidence", so the answer is a bit self-serving.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn,

You are correct, and I have already amended my previous comment accordingly. His answer does not directly compare the biological evidence with other evidence. He also claims elsewhere in the interview that Ms. Knox's putative "numerous contradictions" are important. Yet his statement about linking the two defendants to the victim, which no other evidence does, suggests that it is a key portion of the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom