Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps. Filomena's window however is actually on the other side of the building. This position would really weaken the source in respect to Nara's apartment. Somebody in Piazza Grimana and other apartments could have more chances to hear it in this case. But I cannot assert Nara's hearing is impossible.

I want to make clear I am not in principle against performing physical sound tests, but I am afraid an experiment would be inconclusive. Wind, temperature, humidity, background noise, and even uncertain location of Meredith in that moment, are variants that could take us back to the same obligated choice to belive or not to believe Nara. I am against an audiometric test on Nara since this would be irrelevant, Nara is obviously not deaf.

So the staging of the burglary took place before the murder, did it....?

 

[platonov]

Maybe you can point out to me how and why my theories are simplistic nonsense? A cite from an accredited medical journal, or a quote from a suitably-qualified medical/scientific professional, would suffice. Or you can even just point out how and why I (and others) have misinterpreted the literature that we've discovered. Because just saying they are simplistic nonsense isn't really sufficient, is it?

In this case it is !

And if you cant give a straight answer to the bolded Q above for starters - I see no point in playing doctors (sorry, forensic gastric analysis specialists) with you

Nor have you responded on what the defence docs contain - I am more interested in that than your 'internet expert' credentials - the MK case is what this thread is about after all. No ??

.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

So the staging of the burglary took place before the murder, did it....?

That was the intended implication. I guess Machiavelli did not pick up on that.

 

[LondonJohn]

In this case it is !

And if you cant give a straight answer to the bolded Q above for starters - I see no point in playing doctors (sorry, forensic gastric analysis specialists) with you

Nor have you responded on what the defence docs contain - I am more interested in that than your 'internet expert' credentials - the MK case is what this thread is about after all. No ??

.

Why is it sufficient in this case?

See my edit for a request for clarification about the question you're asking.

I don't know what the defence documents contain in any kind of detail. I don't have any communication links to any of the direct participants in this process. Nor do I want to have any links. Nor am I part of any homogeneous group - I'm an unaffiliated individual with a purely intellectual interest in this case. I don't pretend to be an expert in either the legal aspects of this case, or the sub-specialities relevant to the case. But I have a sufficient education to be able to interpret relevant information with reasonable clarity.

As I've pointed out before, I'm not an international-class football (soccer) goalkeeper, yet I can say with certainty that Robert Green made a major mistake in goal for England against the USA in the World Cup. And I'm not a member of the European Central Bank or a prize-winning economist, but I can be pretty sure that Portugal is going to be the next European country to require a financial rescue.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The line of sight is not the path of an elastic wave.


If you lean you ear on a railway and you miht hear the sound of the incoming train several kilometres away if the train is in a straight line. If the rails go along a bend around a mountain you will hear the same sound as if it was in a straight line.

Sorry, but you cannot use the example of sound in a solid rail (which constitutes an acoustic waveguide) to prove that sound breaks the basic rules of wave propagation. I assure you that sound waves reflect, diffract, refract, disperse and attenuate as good as always. Numerous auditoriums, concert halls, recording studios and even highway noise barriers prove it every day

Each point of elastic mean (air) is a source of propagation of the wave with no directional preference. The elastic wave is not inertial. When it follows a straight line, this is only because of the geometrical properties of the volume of propagation mean, not because it has any preference for straight lines. Sound is not light, it does not propagate in relation to space, but only in relation to matter.

Yes but we're discussing sound propagation of centimeter length waves in open space (yes, filled with air), not in shaped waveguides. So I don't see what is your point beside from mudding the water.

I don't know why your door has to be "half open", and I don't see the parking lot as a linear obstacle (it is lower than the line to Nara apartment).

The door could be also open or closed, half open would be a good compromise isn't it ? The parking lot is an obstacle. Look again. Even from the point where the camera sees the upper part of the window, it is obstructed by what? The parking lot structure. From Nara's POV it is completely in the way.

Not only but I also see there is a large stairwell right below Nara's window, opened on the void of the lower store of the parking lot, a space which is open on the side of the cottage. And I imagine this could be a good path and maybe even work as an echo box.

I highly doubt it. Yet your theories are more and more complicated and interesting. Can't wait for that audiometric test

 

[platonov]

<snip>

Later edit

Oh, and by the way, I still don't know what you're driving at with this "Macavity" reference. Macavity was simply a criminal cat in the TS Eliot poem who was adept at evading capture. I don't know why you think his name should apply to some situation that you're trying to describe. Maybe you're misremembering the poem? Or maybe the venerable Lord Lloyd Webber ascribed further properties to Macavity in his awful musical - I wouldn't know since I've never seen it.

Maybe you can explain to me in uncoded language exactly what point you're referring to about the alibis, and then I'll be able to answer you.

So you are pleading incomprehension again - OK, But as before it doesn't speak highly of your ability to interpret medical literature

The links are in the posts just upthread - I cant force you to click on them, just as I cant force you to answer the bolded Q - but your refusal to give a straight answer is an answer in itself.

As to Macavity, like RVWBLW you seem to be confusing the musical with the original work. If you look online, as you are obviously not familiar with the verse from memory - unusual* for an English gent - you should be easily able to locate the line.....
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare

* cue OT wiki links pointing out he was born in the states
.

 

[odeed]

I suppose I could do without the ongoing insults to my intelligence, to be honest. I have more than a sufficient scientific education to be able to interpret academic literature correctly. I am also extremely well-versed in the physiology of the gastro-intestinal system, having suffered from quite a severe GI inflammatory disease since my early 20s.

You see, if you claim that I (or Kevin or others) are misinterpreting the academic literature from which we've constructed our arguments, it's sort of incumbent upon you (sorry to break it to you) to demonstrate how and why we are misinterpreting the literature, in order to make your case. To simply say "you've misinterpreted it" is not generally regarded as sufficient. So if you do a quick search on this thread, you'll find the papers (there's three main ones, I think), from which we drew most of the research data. Here, I'll give you a link to one of them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x/abstract

I welcome (seriously) your corrections.

I have question, how does the quantity of food, the constituent parts (carbohydrates, starch,sugar etc) of the food, the number of calories of the food, and how much liquid was consumed by Meredith Kercher prior to her death, relate to the scientific experiment described in your link?

 

[LondonJohn]

So you are pleading incomprehension again - OK, But it doesn't speak highly of your ability to interpret medical literature

The links are in the posts just upthread - I cant force you to click on them, just as I cant force you to answer the bolded Q - but your refusal to give a straight answer is an answer in itself.

As to Macavity, like RVWBLW you seem to be confusing the musical with the original work. If you look online, as you are obviously not familiar with the verse from memory - unusual for an English gent ! - you should be easily able to locate the line.....
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare

.

No, I'm pointing out that instead of making cryptic references to things which were discussed several dozen posts previously, you could have simply summarised the issue.

But I now think I know what you're driving at. Basically, you're saying that since Knox and Sollecito claim they were in Sollecito's apartment all evening, then if Curatolo's testimony is accepted as reliable, he contradicts their position. And you're pointing out that this is the case regardless of what time the murder occurred.

If I've interpreted this correctly, then on one hand you're right, inasmuch as a reliable Curatolo "breaks" Knox's and Sollecito's alibi. But on another level, you're quite wrong. If it were (say) to be established that the murder occurred at 9.30pm, then almost by definition Curatolo would be deemed an unreliable witness if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder - since he places them at the basketball court between just before 9.30pm and some time after 11pm (depending on which version of "the truth" you use).

In other words, that sort-of-matrix of possibilities with early/late ToD and Curatolo reliable y/n was incorrect. If there's an early time of death, then there can be no "y" in the column for Curatolo's reliability. The possibilities therefore should be:

1) Late ToD, Curatolo reliable
2) Late ToD, Curatolo unreliable
3) Early ToD, Curatolo unreliable

There is no fourth possibility of "Early ToD, Curatolo reliable".

I still don't understand why you think I've had some sort of "volte face" on this point. I believe that Curatolo is intrinsically unreliable as a witness, and I think that his testimony may therefore very well be thrown out in the appeal. So - as I said before - it's moot (in my opinion) as to whether an earlier ToD would mean that Curatolo "inadvertently" supplied Knox and Sollecito with an alibi by placing them in the basketball court.

By the way, you are certainly ascribing mystical powers to me if you think I could quote the 37th line (out of 45) from Eliot's poem from memory. But if I were to memorise any of Eliot's work, it would undoubtedly be from The Wasteland, and assuredly not Macavity the Mystery Cat. Strangely, though, I've memorised the last five minutes of the BBC Radio 2 (as was) commentary of the 1979 FA Cup final - I'd just received a portable tape recorder for my birthday as a young boy, and replayed the last 5 minutes of the match so many times (it was an exciting last five minutes in which the score went from 2-0 to 2-2 to 3-2) that it burned its way into my memory. I can remember it all to this day....

Right, lunch in the cricket and therefore time for bed.

 

[platonov]

No, I'm pointing out that instead of making cryptic references to things which were discussed several dozen posts previously, you could have simply summarised the issue.

But I now think I know what you're driving at. Basically, you're saying that since Knox and Sollecito claim they were in Sollecito's apartment all evening, then if Curatolo's testimony is accepted as reliable, he contradicts their position. And you're pointing out that this is the case regardless of what time the murder occurred.

If I've interpreted this correctly, then on one hand you're right, inasmuch as a reliable Curatolo "breaks" Knox's and Sollecito's alibi. But on another level, you're quite wrong. If it were (say) to be established that the murder occurred at 9.30pm, then almost by definition Curatolo would be deemed an unreliable witness if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder - since he places them at the basketball court between just before 9.30pm and some time after 11pm (depending on which version of "the truth" you use).

In other words, that sort-of-matrix of possibilities with early/late ToD and Curatolo reliable y/n was incorrect. If there's an early time of death, then there can be no "y" in the column for Curatolo's reliability. The possibilities therefore should be:

1) Late ToD, Curatolo reliable
2) Late ToD, Curatolo unreliable
3) Early ToD, Curatolo unreliable

There is no fourth possibility of "Early ToD, Curatolo reliable".

I still don't understand why you think I've had some sort of "volte face" on this point. I believe that Curatolo is intrinsically unreliable as a witness, and I think that his testimony may therefore very well be thrown out in the appeal. So - as I said before - it's moot (in my opinion) as to whether an earlier ToD would mean that Curatolo "inadvertently" supplied Knox and Sollecito with an alibi by placing them in the basketball court.

By the way, you are certainly ascribing mystical powers to me if you think I could quote the 37th line (out of 45) from Eliot's poem from memory. But if I were to memorise any of Eliot's work, it would undoubtedly be from The Wasteland, and assuredly not Macavity the Mystery Cat. Strangely, though, I've memorised the last five minutes of the BBC Radio 2 (as was) commentary of the 1979 FA Cup final - I'd just received a portable tape recorder for my birthday as a young boy, and replayed the last 5 minutes of the match so many times (it was an exciting last five minutes in which the score went from 2-0 to 2-2 to 3-2) that it burned its way into my memory. I can remember it all to this day....

Right, lunch in the cricket and therefore time for bed.

Summarised ??? - you were given links [to posts of your own !] in the posts of mine you were responding to. If you don't wish to click on them or answer straight questions [and then a few posts later claim incomprehension] - that's your call.

The only 'mystical' ability I ascribe to you is your seeming belief that such transparent obfuscation is not immediately apparent

As to the thrust of your (now modified) argument - its (still) nonsense as I pointed out weeks ago and as the defence docs make clear.

Indeed contrary to Homer Simpson's claims, its possible to retain more that 1 work (or idea) at a time. In any case (leaving aside the fact that it was already explained) I'm surprised you didn't try google first on the Macavity ref.
If its good enough to reach expert level at forensics with a few clicks, then the text of a short poem should be no problem

.

 

[Fine]

Another Trick

shuttit,

Raffaele essentially backed up Amanda when he appeared before Judge Matteini, his last words on the subject. His lawyers' arguments before the Supreme Court did not indicate that the two were not together on the night of the murder, contrary to some misinterpretations here and elsewhere.

____________________________

Halides,

Well, that depends on just what the subject is. If it's just a matter of Amanda's whereabouts the night of the murder, then, yes, Raffaele told Judge Matteini on November 9, 2007 that Amanda had spent the night with him. But broadening the subject.... there is this delicate issue of why Raffaele told the cops on November 5 that Amanda had left him. Raffaele told Judge Matteini on November 9 that Amanda had persuaded (or induced) him to say that. In accusing her had he "backed up" Amanda???

So what were Raffaele's "final words" on this delicate subject? A very interesting way of phrasing the question because Raffaele apparently edited his Diary to make it look like his "final words" date from November 7, when he is supposed to have written the following, in his first Diary entry:
__________________________________________________
"Meanwhile, she had spoken to me about the fact that she had found something strange at
her house. That is, she had found the front door open, faeces in the Italian girls’ bathroom
and blood in their bathroom [translator’s note: in the bathroom Amanda shared with
Meredith]. While we were going down Corso Garibaldi, she specifically demanded that I
go see what was happening in her house. The investigators asked me if she had told me to
say anything but (unfortunately, I now say) itʹs not like that: all I have said, I have said
[fatto] of my own free will. "
_____________________________________________________

Hmmm. The last sentence looks like an interpolation, added to his Diary after November 7. Not only is it irrelevant to the subject he's discussing at that point in his Diary, but it flatly contradicts statements he made later to Judge Matteini on November 9, when he told the judge that Amanda had persuaded him to lie:

"He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events." Matteini

So, why another deceit, doctoring his Diary to make it appear that he'd retracted his charge against Amanda as early as November 7?


///

 

[Dan O.]

Fine, hasn't that point been specifically answered numerous times? It keeps popping up like the head of a mole in an arcade game. What you are talking about doesn't make any sense for either the case where they are innocent or guilty so obviously you have made a mistake in your interpretation of the statements or you are relying on bad information.
Why don't you do your own research, look at the words that were actually spoken or written, look at the context and look at who is reporting those words. Maybe then you will find the truth.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, I don't read it that way. I think he points out that they have no doubt that Amanda is guilty as sin, and then complains about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family. I have already agreed he also complains about the media attention on Amanda and the celebrity status give her as well as the lack of focus on his own daughter.

I wonder if the Kerchers will extend their apologies and condolences to the Knoxes, Mellases and Sollecitos if Amanda and Raffaele are fully acquitted.

 

[Onofarar]

I apologize for the lack of a reply yesterday, Justian2. I was out much of the day.

The way I see this article is that Mr. Kercher is whining about a lack of sympathy from the Knox family and then goes on to say that the Knox girl is guilty, guilty, guilty. This is also after the Kercher's through their lawyer took an adversarial position in court against the Knox girl and fought along with the prosecution to keep the Knox girl in jail.

My opinion on this is that the Knox family has shown remarkable restraint on this subject. If it were my daughter I would be telling Mr. Kercher exactly where he could stick his sympathy.

Agreed in spades!

 

[moodstream]

Let me repeat myself:

a scream through the balcony window would be perfectly audible.

And the floor of the balcony itself would reflect the sound towards Nara. The ceiling of the corridoor could contribute. The roof of the small hut facing the balcony could contribute. The balcony is a secondary source, and the only occlusive element on a straight line could be the old wing of the house, which opposes a minuscle profile (two meters?). You cannot reasonably claim a sound wave can't be heared because the source is behind the corner of a house.

Sounds to me like you are just itching to prove that through impartial empirical testing. Do you believe the appeals court should require it?

 

[Dan O.]

Isn't the Kercher's lawyer just fighting for what is in the best interest of the Kercher family?

I wonder though what is the most important interest in the lawyer's view. Is it the search for the truth of what happened to Meredith on that November night? Or is the lawyer more interested in taking the path that has the highest payoff for her grieving family?!

 

[moodstream]

Isn't the Kercher's lawyer just fighting for what is in the best interest of the Kercher family?

I wonder though what is the most important interest in the lawyer's view. Is it the search for the truth of what happened to Meredith on that November night? Or is the lawyer more interested in taking the path that has the highest payoff for her grieving family?!

In addition to the unending sorrow of the loss of his daughter, Mr. Kercher must by now have quite a whopping legal bill. I wonder what Francesco Maresca charges each hour he and his assistants spend on the case. I keep thinking Maresca is going to try to find some way to make Knox's parents liable for that cost.

 

[lionking]

The level of compassion displayed from some here for the major victims of this whole case (Meredith's family) is a sight to behold.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Can they both be excellent reasons if we know that at least one of them is false?

I don't see where you are going with this question. If A is true, they have an alibi. If A is not true, they also have an alibi.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but for the alibi to be sound, don't they need evidence to support it rather than an absence of evidence proving that it is false? Without getting into an argument about their validity, surely the the bra clasp and the knife are evidence that their alibi is false? If those bits of evidence hold, and again I'm not seeking to start an argument that they do, then it doesn't really matter if they were seen out and about when they claimed to be at home or not.

There is evidence, in the form of the computer logs, that someone was at Sollecito's house using the computer all night. Knox and Sollecito claim it was them, and if Curatolo is discounted there is absolutely no time-sensitive evidence putting them outside Sollecito's house on the night of the murder.

DNA does not come with a time stamp. If they were at home at the night of the murder, then that just means that the bra clasp DNA and knife DNA must have gotten there by some other means and at some other time than the prosecution supposed, meaning contamination or falsification are responsible for those results.

This is, I think, why Massei and the prosecution had to concoct a reason to have absolute faith in Curatolo and a story to fit with Curatolo's testimony. Without Curatolo to magic them out of Raffaele's house and on to the streets of Perugia there's no real case at all.

 

[billyryan]

Does anybody really believe,even if you believe the two defendants are guilty,Curatolo's evidence that Amanda and Raffaele gave from 9.27 to 11.30 or midnight on November 1 2007 in the carpark watching the cottage. Curatolo is simply "A LIAR FOR HIRE" If kevin is right and I believe he is there is proof of computer activity during between 8.30 and 01.00 on the night of the murder.Should the court not immediatly stop the trial ,release the two defendants and instigate an investigation as to who framed Amanda knox and Raffaele Sollecito

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the favor of a reply...

The level of compassion displayed from some here for the major victims of this whole case (Meredith's family) is a sight to behold.

lionking,

I would be grateful if you would answer the questions that were put to you.