Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I find it less ironic that you appear to have misinterpreted the initial point of my post which dealt with Katody Matrass's 'understanding of the Daly Mail demographics'.

You may view all media outlets thru the prism of how they* report the MK case (Is this what the 'strategists' call a hot button issue ??)
But rest assured I wouldn't use such a narrow spectrum - such a 'black & white' analysis I find simplistic & naive.

* Itself a misunderstanding - more accurately a journo or columnist in their employ, even the rags are not necessarily homogenous or consistent in their reportage on many issues.

As for 'a primary tenet of guilterism' ; What can I say - Is it the new 'yellow peril' or 'red menace'





They hate freedom - this is 'a primary tenet of guilterism' .

.

I'm assuming you're aware that Nick Pisa, Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are not technically employed by any media organisation. They are freelance "stringers", who'll sell their stories to any outlet that wants to pay them for it. Therefore they have a vested interest in producing provocative and eye-catching copy.

While I'm here, I wonder if you would give an answer to a question I asked earlier: at what time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith Kercher died?

PS You wouldn't also happen to know what felony Anne Bremner was convicted of again? It's slipped my mind...

 

[LondonJohn]

It may seem hard to believe, but so is murder. Maybe, as discussed, Amanda and Raffaele were getting intimate, they heard Rudy trying to get Meredith to get with him, and decided to join in or pressure her. It seems strange to us, but then so does murdering a woman. Yet it happened.

Also, if we want to talk about scenarios that are "possible" yet seem ridiculous, do I really need to point out your theory of Amanda and Raffaele walking through coffee grounds, rusty pipes, or some other yet to be found substance through the hall? Or Rudy swinging like a gymnast from one landing to the window? It may be possible, but with the other ways to get into the cottage, it sounds as ridiculous to me as the assertions we make seem to sound to you. If you can't comprehend the similarities, I don't know what to tell you. It would be nice to see a little less hypocrisy in this thread, you can still argue your case without the hypocritical snide statements. The fact that you need to make them, one after the other, makes me wonder....

A bit defensive are we? Worried about the upcoming appeals? (your words, not mine, but they seem fitting.)

My theory? Really?

Rudy swinging like a gymnast from window to window? Me? Really?

So, outline to me again the hypocrisy I'm showing please.

And no, I'm not worried about the upcoming appeals. I'm not worried about whether Knox and Sollecito win or lose their appeal. The only people who should be worried about that are Knox and Sollecito, their families and friends, the people directly involved in the case, and the Kercher family (although one hopes that they are interested in the correct justice being properly applied). I am merely interested in the outcome. It seems that you and many others are more personally invested though. And for someone who (I assume) has never met the victim, the suspects or any of the direct participants, I find that strange, to be perfectly honest.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's been insinuated. If they are prints that are Raffaele's (unless im mistaken and misunderstood), they have to have been in the 6 days before the murder. What a coincidence that he stepped in something within a period of 6 days, that reacted to luminol, right in the hallway next to Meredith's room. Due to those circumstances, I would as a juror want to know what they could have been made of. Although the burden of proof is to prove guilt, that doesn't apply to every single piece of evidence by itself. It applies to the whole picture. If the jurors hear other testimony that makes them side towards guilt, and then they are presented with the footprints, I can understand why they would be more inclined to believe they are blood if those footprints cannot reasonably be something else (I say reasonably, not impossible)

Which of the luminol footprints are Sollecito's?

By the way, at what time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith died?

 

[billyryan]

oh god sherlock holmes:I read the article you linked three times,if you can not see that it is a pro innocence article,there is not much point in attempting to have an honest debate with you

when the forensic results came back with no trace of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room.Absence of proof should have being proof of absence

But by then Mignini had organised a doctor to tell Amanda erronously that she had aids,he was already under indicment for abuse of power and he was past the point of no return

that he has being able with the help of his close associates the judges to prolong this debacle thus far is a scandel that will shame Italy for a long time.But the game is up as far as the international media is concerned,and it has being for a long time for all independant forensic experts and criminologists

 

[platonov]

taking the blindingly obvious 'as read'

I'm assuming you're aware that Nick Pisa, Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are not technically employed by any media organisation. They are freelance "stringers", who'll sell their stories to any outlet that wants to pay them for it. Therefore they have a vested interest in producing provocative and eye-catching copy.

While I'm here, I wonder if you would give an answer to a question I asked earlier: at what time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith Kercher died?

PS You wouldn't also happen to know what felony Anne Bremner was convicted of again? It's slipped my mind...

You assumptions are unnecessary - most are aware that papers use stringers or just take stories off the wire or shamelessly lift from other papers or publish puff pieces or just make stuff up etc etc etc
I was taking the blindingly obvious 'as read' - it helps keep the posts shorter but I see it can lead to derails on this thread.

Brevity [never mind pith] is not to everybody's taste it seems.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

You assumptions are unnecessary - most are aware that papers use stringers or just take stories off the wire or shamelessly lift from other papers or publish puff pieces or just make stuff up etc etc etc
I was taking the blindingly obvious 'as read' - it helps keep the posts shorter but I see it can lead to derails on this thread.

Brevity [never mind pith] is not to everybody's taste it seems.

.

And the answers to the questions? I don't mind of course if you'd rather not answer

.
xxx
..
.
3.14159265358979
.
///
.
.
.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

So, outline to me again the hypocrisy I'm showing please.

(..)

Solange explicitly referred to this forum, not to you alone.
In your comments for example - it is just a random example from the latest posts - you addressed Kermit and the guilters saying they just devolved energy to an irrelevant issue (the police "parade") and it would be better to deal deal with "real" more fruitful topics.
And everybody here knows that the mentioned topics about the police alleged "unprofessional" behaviour - like the press conference, the "parade" etc - had just been brought up by innocentisti like you, Katody Matrass, for the umpeteenth time. They are always thrown in and "used", and higlhlighted, and called important, by the innocentisti like you and not others. These details that you want to abandon as irrelevant are always brought in by the innocentisti and not by the guilters, repeatedly, and on the repeated claim they are important (like your most recent one).

 

[christianahannah]

The print ascribed to Raffaele was measured by Rinaldi as 245 mm long. Vinci measured it 215 mm (closer to woman's size). I'd rather bet on Vinci as he corrected ILE's errors multiple times. All the prints are rather blurry from overapplying of luminol and some photos are badly shaken (camera blur). No footprints of other tenants or Meredith's boyfriend were taken for comparison and there is no way to tell with any certainty to whom they really belong.

The motivations believes the footprint to be compatible with Rinaldi's measurements rather than Vinci's.

Pages 355-356:

Finally, one more aspect of the report is not shared by the Court.

This concerns the moment in which Professor Vinci, although he noted that the consultancy of Dr Rinaldi performed the correct perspective adjustments on the tiles, illustrated during the hearing of May 9, 2009 and yielding a larger length for the Luminol-positive print (calculated as 245 mm with Sollecito's footprint measuring 246mm), concluded as though the uncorrected data from the previous report remained valid and unmodified.

This led the technical consultant to consider the print only 215mm long (which it is not), and consequently to judge that it came from a foot of that length, a good 3cm less than the foot of the accused, with a shoe size between 36 and 37.

While the morphological appearance alone supports the comparison between the Luminol-positive footprint and Sollecito's right footprint, the Court cannot share the conclusion that the print revealed by Luminol was made by a foot much smaller than Raffaele Sollecito's.

 

[platonov]

Sarcastic ?

LJ

My response was to platonov's sarcastic suggestions.

Sarcastic ? - I was going for exemplary

You are aware, I hope, that the initial cartwheel title was not sarcastic & while it may sound ridiculous to you [does it ??] it's on a par with what has followed.

.

 

[TomCH]

by the way, at what time on 1st november 2007 do you think meredith died?

23:34

 

[platonov]

And the answers to the questions? I don't mind of course if you'd rather not answer

.

Answers, no problem - straight answers are to my taste.

But first you have a few answers to some of my posts still outstanding.

Lets not have another derail.

So, to kick off, at what time on the 1st November do you think Meredith died?

I find the use of the term 'kick off' strange, after 31,000 odd posts.
Hence my earlier ref to Groundhog Day.
If you are coming new to the subject every day then your earlier self description as neutral is more understandable

.

 

[TomCH]

And I've said many, many times (and have been consistent in my view) that I believe that there were failings in both Knox's and Sollecito's defence in the first trial - for many reasons. And, coupled with that, I believe that the court in the first trial made an erroneous judgment in law - a point which is amply argued in the defence's appeal submissions.

So hire yourself out as their defense attorney.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The motivations believes the footprint to be compatible with Rinaldi's measurements rather than Vinci's.

Pages 355-356:

Indeed, exactly as I wrote.

Vinci stands by his conclusion and the defense included it in the appeal.
I believe my reasons to trust Vinci more are quite good.
I've seen the relevant print and I'd say assigning it to Raffaele is questionable.

 

[Katody Matrass]

23:34

Hi, TomCH, with that strong foundation, could you help Solange with constructing the crime theory according to Massei^*)?



*) Only if you agree with Massei of course

 

[Machiavelli]

The print ascribed to Raffaele was measured by Rinaldi as 245 mm long. Vinci measured it 215 mm (closer to woman's size). I'd rather bet on Vinci as he corrected ILE's errors multiple times. (..)

Oh yes multiple times sure. He got his measurements identical to those done by Rinaldi, but he's better than him on this measurement for sure.
I suppose, the fact that Vinci is payed by the defendant is a detail not worth of interfering with your faith.

 

[Fine]

Around 21 they were relaxing at Raffaele's place, they had weed, food, a bed, a PC with movies and music and comfort of undisturbed intimacy and of a bathroom not shared with flatmates. So why did they decide to switch their phones off, take a 30cm kitchen knife and go outside into the chilly evening?
At 21:28 Toto saw them for the first time on the piazza. Rudy was not with them. Where and when did they meet him?
In the meantime Meredith broke the phone call to her mother before connecting, and didn't try to call again. She is at home for half an hour already. She made no calls, send no texts, didn't even change her street clothes or take off her shoes.



The print ascribed to Raffaele was measured by Rinaldi as 245 mm long. Vinci measured it 215 mm (closer to woman's size). I'd rather bet on Vinci as he corrected ILE's errors multiple times. All the prints are rather blurry from overapplying of luminol and some photos are badly shaken (camera blur). No footprints of other tenants or Meredith's boyfriend were taken for comparison and there is no way to tell with any certainty to whom they really belong.


Ask him. Maybe he doesn't know you can easily reach to the latch and open the window while standing safely on the grating.

___________________________

Hmmmm. Pretty strong words, Katody Matrass. And crisply spoken. Do you know that your position flatly contradicts Massei's position on this matter? Here's what Massei said (page 49):

"He [a burglar] would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside...."

Since Massei had some familiarity with that window, he must have had some grounds for saying this. And yet, I suppose, you have some grounds for your remarkable comment, too. Do you happen to know the distance between the grating and the latch that held the window casements together? If you can provide us with that distance, each of us can conduct our our private experiment at home.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

So hire yourself out as their defense attorney.

How facile. I believe that Robert Green had a bad game in goal for England in the World Cup finals against the USA. But I'm not about to put myself forward as the England goalkeeper.

Or do you believe that only professional goalkeepers are qualified to judge the performance of other professional goalkeepers?

 

[LondonJohn]

23:34

Very precise! I'm impressed! And you think that this time is consistent with the contents of Meredith's stomach, duodenum and small intestine as determined in her autopsy, I'm guessing?

 

[LondonJohn]

___________________________

Hmmmm. Pretty strong words, Katody Matrass. And crisply spoken. Do you know that your position flatly contradicts Massei's position on this matter? Here's what Massei said (page 49):

"He [a burglar] would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside...."

Since Massei had some familiarity with that window, he must have had some grounds for saying this. And yet, I suppose, you have some grounds for your remarkable comment, too. Do you happen to know the distance between the grating and the latch that held the window casements together? If you can provide us with that distance, each of us can conduct our our private experiment at home.

///

Have you read what the judge in Guede's own trial, Micheli, had to say on the feasibility of someone entering via that window? It makes interesting reading.

///
.
.
£££££
.
1.4142136
.
.
42
ffff
.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh yes multiple times sure. He got his measurements identical to those done by Rinaldi, but he's better than him on this measurement for sure.
I suppose, the fact that Vinci is payed by the defendant is a detail not worth of interfering with your faith.

It will be interesting to see whom the appeal court prefers as an expert witness.