Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Are you guys going to get back to presenting arguments and evidence pertaining to your belief in the guilt of Amanda Knox?

Because it seems to me that all you are doing at this stage of the discussion is hiding in the undergrowth looking for any semi-relevant mistake or assertion to snipe at, regardless of whether it has any direct bearing at all on the question this thread is actually about, and not advancing out of the scrub to make any positive claims or arguments of your own whatsoever.

For myself ...and others perhaps, most of whom have gotten bored by the repitition ?

The arguments have been presented in court and there is an upcoming appeal.

A discussion of said appeal would be welcome - lets see human translations of all the relevant docs and opinions on chances of success on the various points.

But mostly what we are faced with here are theories, complaints, 'evidence by anecdote', ill informed expert analysis etc.

As with the moon landing threads all we can do is show the irrelevance/'weakness' of these arguments.

Its not up to the skeptics to actually go to the moon again

.

 

[platonov]

OR If the appeal has no chance as its all a conspiracy - what next.

When does the 101st MAM brigade embark on the rescue mission

.

 

[platonov]

Reading this thread is a lot like Chinese water torture so we could all be suffering from induced, internalized false memories.

Hey, the waterboarding was never proven in this case - to mention it is to invoke 'Moore's Law'.

'Moore's Law' is like Godwin's but with 'density' doubling with each repetition.

And according to a recent publication its not even torture.

.

 

[jhunter1163]

I am aware that this is a contentious case; however, the Membership Agreement still applies. Address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

For myself ...and others perhaps, most of whom have gotten bored by the repitition ?

The arguments have been presented in court and there is an upcoming appeal.

A discussion of said appeal would be welcome - lets see human translations of all the relevant docs and opinions on chances of success on the various points.

But mostly what we are faced with here are theories, complaints, 'evidence by anecdote', ill informed expert analysis etc.

As with the moon landing threads all we can do is show the irrelevance/'weakness' of these arguments.

Its not up to the skeptics to actually go to the moon again

.

But hasn't the case for a flawed prosecution already been made?

Nobody has successfully contested the fact (I am comfortable calling it a fact at this stage) that the combination of witness testimony, autopsy evidence and body temperature evidence as backed up by the totality of scientific literature shows that Meredith Kercher died before 22:30 and that at the very minimum there is reasonable doubt about any time of death after 21:30.

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that there is evidence even the prosecution does not contest that Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's house until 21:10 or so, and strong evidence (the opening of a Naruto file) that they were at the same location until at the very earliest 21:26.

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that Rudy's own initial statement has him at Amanda/Meredith's house from 20:30 until some time around 22:00, and witnessing her murder around 21:30 give or take.

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that the evidence in the house is not inconsistent with a solo break-in via the window, that the chain of reasoning used by Massei to conclude that the break-in was staged was utterly specious, and that the chain of reasoning used by Massei to conclude that a clean-up occurred was equally specious.

The totality of verifiable evidence concerning the night of the murder says unequivocally that Amanda and Raffaele were at home when Rudy murdered Meredith all by himself, that there was no staged break-in and that the only clean-up that occurred was Rudy cleaning himself up in the bathroom.

All that's left is a huge collection of irrelevant, armchair-psychological tea leaf reading where people say "I don't care about the scientific evidence or the facts, I think her email sounds guilty" (or whatever) "and that's good enough for me! My gut feelings are far more reliable than stupid science!".

At this stage I think recreating the moon landing would be easier for the guilter community out there than proving Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Pretending the opposite is hard to reconcile with even a tenuous connection to reality on their part.

 

[Danceme]

And if you think people are in the habit of partying until 4am or 5am on Thursday nights/Friday mornings, then working or going to university on Friday at 9-10am, then you come from a very different part of the world to me: a part of the world where productivity rates are appalling.....

How do you know our productivity rates? I'm always astounded by the depth and breadth of your knowledge. It knows no bounds.....

Hi, Machiavelli!

You seem to be among the believing that Amanda persuaded Raffaele to tell lies. Specifically she persuaded him to say that she wasn't with him on the night of the murder, she was at work.

I got a question to you, as I'm sure you've got this sorted out. Why would Amanda persuade Raffaele to contradict her alibi? What's the purpose? I can't make any sense out of it

I can't see the reasoning either. What would it accomplish to have Raffaele say she went to Le Chic if she didn't?

rubbish. it's entirely plausible that you wouldn't necessarily remember exactly what movies or music you watched or played but you would remember if somebody left the flat for an extended period. I watch a lot of films and play a lot of music and games myself and I can barely remember what i watched or played 2 days ago. But i would remember people coming and going.

I agree with this. A little (or a lot) of weed is not going to make you NOT remember if your girlfriend of six days left or not, leaving you home alone, stoned alone, when the plans were for an intimate night together.

 

[Dan O.]

Why no mention from Rafaelle that he at least, was up for multiple hours on the computer?

I seem to remember some big deal about the analysis of Raffaele's computer proving that Raffaele lied about using his computer that night.

And of course through the wonders of modern technology we can look back in time and find...

And what of Raffaele's lies he was on the computer all night, proved wrong by his computer record? What of the lie that they both slept in past 10 am the next morning when the computer and phone shows that they, or at least one of them was up and active at 5:30 am? What of Amanda waking her mother in the middle of the night to supposedly shriek the alarm, then claiming not to remember the call? What about their turning both their phones off the night of the murder, when they'd never done so before?

And the whooper of them all....RS's lie about pricking MK with the big knife the week before . I also think that AK's explaination for the mop is a lie too.

 

[platonov]

But hasn't the case for a flawed prosecution already been made?

In a nutshell NO , not perfect perhaps, but this is the real world.

Nobody has successfully contested the fact (I am comfortable calling it a fact at this stage) that the combination of witness testimony, autopsy evidence and body temperature evidence as backed up by the totality of scientific literature shows that Meredith Kercher died before 22:30 and that at the very minimum there is reasonable doubt about any time of death after 21:30.

A fact, hardly - that's your assertion. I don't believe anybody on this thread has either the expertise or access to the raw case data to make that claim.

But have you dropped your claim that death was definitely before 9.30pm. Yes/No ?
That seemed to be a mainstay of your earlier analysis.

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that there is evidence even the prosecution does not contest that Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's house until 21:10 or so, and strong evidence (the opening of a Naruto file) that they were at the same location until at the very earliest 21:26.

On the first - 1 of the pair was, probably both - no biggie.

On the second - disputed to put it mildly - lets see what the appeal brings ?

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that Rudy's own initial statement has him at Amanda/Meredith's house from 20:30 until some time around 22:00, and witnessing her murder around 21:30 give or take.

In a nutshell - Rudy is a convicted murderer, his obviously self serving claims have to be viewed with a certain skepticism.
[Nor am I convinced that this is an accurate summation of the totality of his/the evidence in any case. Obviously the earlier he is off the scene the better for him.]

Nobody has successfully contested the fact that the evidence in the house is not inconsistent with a solo break-in via the window, that the chain of reasoning used by Massei to conclude that the break-in was staged was utterly specious, and that the chain of reasoning used by Massei to conclude that a clean-up occurred was equally specious.

False on all 3 counts - the first 2 [probably all 3] seem indisputable on the evidence presented.

The totality of verifiable evidence concerning the night of the murder says unequivocally that Amanda and Raffaele were at home when Rudy murdered Meredith all by himself, that there was no staged break-in and that the only clean-up that occurred was Rudy cleaning himself up in the bathroom.

Utterly false on the evidence presented.

All that's left is a huge collection of irrelevant, armchair-psychological tea leaf reading where people say "I don't care about the scientific evidence or the facts, I think her email sounds guilty" (or whatever) "and that's good enough for me! My gut feelings are far more reliable than stupid science!".

At this stage I think recreating the moon landing would be easier for the guilter community out there than proving Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Pretending the opposite is hard to reconcile with even a tenuous connection to reality on their part.

To sum up ........

The above has been gone over and over ad nauseam.

Where are the appeal docs and the arguments on same -
which was the whole point of my post [others have asked this before but to no avail].

The courts will decide - lets address the salient issues.

.

 

[quadraginta]

Are you guys going to get back to presenting arguments and evidence pertaining to your belief in the guilt of Amanda Knox?

Because it seems to me that all you are doing at this stage of the discussion is hiding in the undergrowth looking for any semi-relevant mistake or assertion to snipe at, regardless of whether it has any direct bearing at all on the question this thread is actually about, and not advancing out of the scrub to make any positive claims or arguments of your own whatsoever.

Your failure to object to the posts which prompt the responses you find so offensive is duly noted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Frontline documentary on the Norfolk 4

<iframe frameborder="0" style="overflow: hidden; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0" width="514" height="366" scrollbars="none" type="text/html" src="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/v/?id=frol02s44c3qfba&w=514&h=366"></iframe>

I am not sure the above link will work. But the Frontline documentary on this case was eye-opening and sobering. Previously I have suggested that Perugia should seek out Durham, NC as its sister city. Now I would suggest maybe Norfolk, VA would be at least equally appropriate.

 

[samba]

AK landed PL in jail - and recd time for this crime.

His alibi was sound and there was no other evidence against him - the converse of her situation

.

What "other evidence" is there against Amanda? A lot of posts on here seem to be overly concerned about AK's & RF's alibis...or perceived lack thereof. I find all of the discussions about Curatolo, Quintavalle, etc. to be somewhat meaningless in this case. When there is lots of physical evidence in a case, I think a lack of an alibi really seals the deal for the prosecution. But in this case, everyone wants to talk about alibis and yet there's barely anything else to tie them to the crime. Once again it's..."I can't prove you were at the crime scene, but you can't prove you weren't there". What kind of reasoning is this?

one question....if PL didn't have an alibi, should he be in jail now too? I'm guessing that the reasoning would be...he doesn't have an alibi, so he must have been at the cottage murdering Meredith.

 

[platonov]

'Sauce for the goose' and all that

<iframe frameborder="0" style="overflow: hidden; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0" width="514" height="366" scrollbars="none" type="text/html" src="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/v/?id=frol02s44c3qfba&w=514&h=366"></iframe>

I am not sure the above link will work. But the Frontline documentary on this case was eye-opening and sobering. Previously I have suggested that Perugia should seek out Durham, NC as its sister city. Now I would suggest maybe Norfolk, VA would be at least equally appropriate.

Are the defence using this in the appeal - or is this 'evidence by anecdote' again.

It's not working here & wont even be 'tried' in court [ for obvious reasons ]

PS I believe you haven't responded to my last direct response to you in our exchange.

'Sauce for the goose' and all that

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Norfolk 4

Are the defence using this in the appeal - or is this 'evidence by anecdote' again.

Its not working here & wont even be 'tried' in court [ for obvious reasons ]

.

Did you watch this documentary? Do you think that the four are guilty?

 

[platonov]

What "other evidence" is there against Amanda? A lot of posts on here seem to be overly concerned about AK's & RF's alibis...or perceived lack thereof. I find all of the discussions about Curatolo, Quintavalle, etc. to be somewhat meaningless in this case. When there is lots of physical evidence in a case, I think a lack of an alibi really seals the deal for the prosecution. But in this case, everyone wants to talk about alibis and yet there's barely anything else to tie them to the crime. Once again it's..."I can't prove you were at the crime scene, but you can't prove you weren't there". What kind of reasoning is this?

one question....if PL didn't have an alibi, should he be in jail now too? I'm guessing that the reasoning would be...he doesn't have an alibi, so he must have been at the cottage murdering Meredith.

Read this thread or read Massei or both. [for starters]

'Amanda' ??? 3 were convicted.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thanks

Are the defence using this in the appeal - or is this 'evidence by anecdote' again.

It's not working here & wont even be 'tried' in court [ for obvious reasons ]

PS I believe you haven't responded to my last direct response to you in our exchange.

'Sauce for the goose' and all that

.

Platonov,

In message 14135 you wrote, "But hypothetically, If nothing else changed he is still going down. The alibi is still false and he is an accessory after the fact. As I tried to impress with the issue of C's evidence and my early mention of Maccavity - Having spare alibis doesn't work in court."

When my opponents are determined to score an own-goal, I think it best to let them.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

In message 14135 you wrote, "But hypothetically, If nothing else changed he is still going down. The alibi is still false and he is an accessory after the fact. As I tried to impress with the issue of C's evidence and my early mention of Maccavity - Having spare alibis doesn't work in court."

When my opponents are determined to score an own-goal, I think it best to let them.

Even with the edit it doesn't make sense to me

ETA Even with 2 edits.

My own edit 2 - you didn't respond on the main body of my post regarding nonsensical inferences.

.

 

[samba]

Read this thread or read Massei or both. [for starters]

'Amanda' ??? 3 were convicted.

.

I read Massei. So what physical evidence is there against Amanda? I'm not talking about anything that she said...physical evidence. You didn't answer my theoretical question about PL. If he didn't have an alibi, should he be in jail also?

 

[platonov]

I seem to remember some big deal about the analysis of Raffaele's computer proving that Raffaele lied about using his computer that night.

And of course through the wonders of modern technology we can look back in time and find...

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Originally Posted by Fulcanelli

And what of Raffaele's lies he was on the computer all night, proved wrong by his computer record? What of the lie that they both slept in past 10 am the next morning when the computer and phone shows that they, or at least one of them was up and active at 5:30 am? What of Amanda waking her mother in the middle of the night to supposedly shriek the alarm, then claiming not to remember the call? What about their turning both their phones off the night of the murder, when they'd never done so before?

And the whooper of them all....RS's lie about pricking MK with the big knife the week before . I also think that AK's explaination for the mop is a lie too.

So your interpretation of Alt F4's interpretation of Fulcanelli's post is going to swing the appeal.

This is what I mean .. where is the analysis of how the appeal can succeed.

.

 

[platonov]

I read Massei. So what physical evidence is there against Amanda? I'm not talking about anything that she said...physical evidence. You didn't answer my theoretical question about PL. If he didn't have an alibi, should he be in jail also?

OK, so you accept its not just Amanda. Good. ( really ?)

As to the Physical evidence ? - get onto the defence team ; they are wasting time & money on DNA experts etc.

They should be told its all unnecessary, surely ?

As to PL .. Theoretically I did answer.

 

[Mary_H]

Or without Amanda's encouragement, as he actually claims.

He does not claim that. When the police informed Raffaele that Amanda was being investigated for the murder, he believed them and somehow conveyed to them (we don't know exactly how) that he had believed Amanda's lies and repeated them. He said that because he thought it was true, based on what the police said, that Amanda actually had lied.

Once again, the diary excerpt:

Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was absent. What is all my difficulty?

The "second version" of which he speaks is the version he gave to police during his interrogation, it is not the version that matched Amanda's version. He retracted the second version (the crap) in his diary and before the judge.

I notice the absence of any fact that would describe this encouragement. Do you notice this total lack?
Do you notice the absence of such description and explanation in his diary?

The GIP and the lawyers apparently noticed this lack of explaination and description of the "abuses" in the trial hearing interrogation / statements before the GIP.

Did you notice this lack of clue of any "abuse" in his report also at the GIP interrogation? While in his diary, did you notice the tone of downplay and denial he uses to describe his contradiction, and that he tries to re-formulize his testimony instead of explaning it?
Your inference is based on his "regret"?

Yes, my inference is based on his regret.

In answer to your other questions, I notice that Raffaele said he was psychologically tortured and put in shackles. I also notice the fact that there is no recording available from his interrogation, even though the police had been recording his every move in the days before.

I do notice a presence in Amanda's statements, as well as in her court testimony, of her description and explanation of how she was screamed at and hit on the head by a police officer during her interrogation. I also notice she is going to be tried for slander in May. Raffaele's knowledge of the laws of his own country may have prevented him from reporting similar interrogation experiences.

You seem to be sticking very hard to the position that if it isn't written, it's not worth talking about. In that sense, you hold the suspects to much higher standards than you hold the authorities. Nothing the suspects did suggests they committed a murder that night, but that's okay, they still did it, right?