• 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.
SomeAlibi said:
The manga found on Raffaele's computer included rape scenes. I am aware that some proponents of Raffaele's believe this doesn't "count" because it's "normal" for manga. Mary_H was a proponent of this theory on the Daily Beast forums. But if you're going to get into disputing the evidence of the director of the school that porn was found, that it included bestiality and that Raffaele was placed under supervision as a result, there really is no point in discussing this case with you. As Katy_Did posts, even the defence appeal doesn't deny that it happened, simply that the college thought it was an abberation:


"The judgment also emphasized the viewing of a porn film which was instead considered irrelevant by Tavernese: “...we saw it as something of a casual character, extemporaneous, that is we connected it more to curiosity than anything else (…) in the male community the viewing of such films happens (…) we found only one copy (…) and we were not, I repeat, in a series of checks then effected in the absence of Raffaele, able to find anything [else], thus we have in some way… have concluded in some way that it was a curiosity of the moment” (declarations Francesco Tavernese, hearing 27.3.2009, pages 130 and 139)."


If you are disputing even such basic evidence which is in his college records and isn't disputed by the defence, this is pointless. Pick your battles sure, but when you are in blanket denial on absolutely everything, you undermine yourself.
Click to expand...

I think that is a direct quote from the same witness and it is in dispute by the defense because it is brought up in the appeal. It is Massei's cherry picking of the things that make Raffaele look bad and overlooking the same witness that downplayed the same evidence. Massei should have presented the full context and gave his reasoning as to which should be the correct view.
 
Antony said:
I read with interest your lengthy response to the question "what convinces you of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt?" and what struck me was that it focusses entirely on their reactions during questioning and in the trial, and not about the substantive evidence at all. It's summed up by your assertion "innocent people don't do that" in the one paragraph I've quoted above.

I have to disagree: innocent people will do and say odd things when faced with false accusations. What we can say with much more confidence is that guilty people don't behave in the way Amanda and Raffaele did - they don't hang around the murder site the next day; they don't call the police; they don't make themselves available to assist the police, so trusting that they hadn't even contacted lawyers!

We can also say that honest police and prosecutors do not conduct investigations in the way we saw in Perugia. Just a few in the list: they lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to make it seem Raffaele hadn't called them first; they interrogated Amanda overnight without safeguards for her rights; they obtained a spurious DNA reading by misusing the testing equipment, and then tried to conceal the notes which showed that the procedure was improperly conducted.

There is absolutely nothing in this case to give any confidence in the guilty verdict against Amanda and Raffaele - least of all the fact that those supporting it focus so much on the allegedly "suspicious" behaviour of the accused, instead of the facts of the crime itself.
Click to expand...


My reply really didn't focus on "entirely on their reactions during questioning and in the trial" Antony. If you read the post I referenced within it, I talk about the DNA, computer and cellphone records as the most vital evidence. *Then* I then go on to talk about other issues.
 
SomeAlibi said:
The manga found on Raffaele's computer included rape scenes. I am aware that some proponents of Raffaele's believe this doesn't "count" because it's "normal" for manga. Mary_H was a proponent of this theory on the Daily Beast forums. But if you're going to get into disputing the evidence of the director of the school that porn was found, that it included bestiality and that Raffaele was placed under supervision as a result, there really is no point in discussing this case with you. As Katy_Did posts, even the defence appeal doesn't deny that it happened, simply that the college thought it was an abberation
Click to expand...

Might I ask, the director of the University knew about this before the murder took place?
 
SomeAlibi said:
However it goes to character that it was bestiality rather than a standard sex film. I think that's the point of mentioning it.
Click to expand...

So someone who watches bestiality porn rather than a 'standard sex film' would be more likely to rape and kill a woman? That doesn't seem logical...
 
Kestrel said:
He is thinking exactly like the Perugia court. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, lets keep this civil and accurate: I placed absolutely no weight on it whatsoever. I personally don't think it's terribly important, just a bit tacky.

An objective comment, not a point scoring exercise: you guys seem to have been slugging it out for so long that when a topic comes up, it's more like you're fighting all the previous discussion on a topic rather than focussing on what the individual is saying. I am spending quite a lot of time having to point these things out.
 
katy_did said:
So someone who watches bestiality porn rather than a 'standard sex film' would be more likely to rape and kill a woman? That doesn't seem logical...
Click to expand...


I didn't say that! You're quite impossible: you keep on haring away to the races and leaping to all sorts of conclusions. It goes to character - I said that quite clearly. I don't consider it terribly important just tacky and rather 'off'.
 
RoseMontague said:
I am not understanding a couple of things in your argument. Are you saying when somebody stepped on that bathmat with a bloody foot the blood would flow inward towards the pressure of the foot rather than outward away from the foot possibly transferring to neighboring fibers in the mat, making it appear somewhat wider that it actually is? I also am not sure what your "compact and wide" description means?
Click to expand...
The bathmat print is smudged. You have to give way for distortion.

Nonetheless it is a footprint without any doubt.

It is one more arrow pointing away from one defendant and up to each individual to give whatever weight to it. If the shape is not Guede's, then whose?

General shapes distinguish individuals. Laurel and Hardy are both male Caucasian of similar age and for argument's sake, similar height. In this pair of individuals, one body type is distinctly elongated and the other is distinctly compact and wide.
 
SomeAlibi said:
No, lets keep this civil and accurate: I placed absolutely no weight on it whatsoever. I personally don't think it's terribly important, just a bit tacky.

An objective comment, not a point scoring exercise: you guys seem to have been slugging it out for so long that when a topic comes up, it's more like you're fighting all the previous discussion on a topic rather than focussing on what the individual is saying. I am spending quite a lot of time having to point these things out.
Click to expand...

Maybe because again you have brought something up which you put absolutely no weight on? The one thing you said was "hugely germane", you don't want to talk about.
 
RoseMontague said:
Maybe because again you have brought something up which you put absolutely no weight on? The one thing you said was "hugely germane", you don't want to talk about.
Click to expand...


Once again, I think for the third or fourth time, what I said was "hugely germane" was the story of being in bed until 10-10.30 on the 2nd against the computer and cell phone records. I have said repeatedly I think it is one of the biggest problems for the defence.
 
RoseMontague said:
I think that is a direct quote from the same witness and it is in dispute by the defense because it is brought up in the appeal. It is Massei's cherry picking of the things that make Raffaele look bad and overlooking the same witness that downplayed the same evidence. Massei should have presented the full context and gave his reasoning as to which should be the correct view.
Click to expand...


That is incorrect because if it was in dispute the appeal would directly challenge Tavernese's version and contend it never happened. Quite clearly, what they are saying is that they acknowledged it happened but they are using Tavernese's own words to say there was no evidence of repetition. This is rather obvious imho.
 
RoseMontague said:
I wonder what the rest of the quote is and why it was cut off. My guess is "broken into and there was blood". Hopefully someone will give is more context on this one with the full quote.
Click to expand...


The best I can do at the moment is the following but unfortunately I haven't yet got the bridging part of the conversation:

Edda (surprised): But you called me three times.

Amanda: Oh, I don’t remember that.

Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.

Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really don’t remember calling anyone else. I just don’t remember having called you.

Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?

Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once.

Edda: Okay, right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom