Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

underwear

Again: WHAT DAY?

And: What is the SOURCE here?

What is this a translation of? Who did the translation? Where can I find it?

As for the rest:

1) WHAT error about Knox's underwear purchase?

2) Are you seriously alleging that Sollecito's step mom could not possibly have sworn within earshot of Nadeau on the ground that another reporter did not also hear it?!

treehorn,

My source is anonymous for now. If you think that either the original Italian is wrong or the translation is wrong, I suggest you quote them here, and we can discuss them. If you have looked carefully at the information I gave you, you would have answered the question about Ms. Knox's purchase for yourself. Ms. Nadeau wrote, “Just days after Kercher's body was found last November in the villa Knox shared with the victim, security camera footage showed the couple buying lingerie in a local store, with Knox giggling and telling Sollecito, ‘Afterwards I'm going to take you home so we can have wild sex together.’” This passage might mislead the unwary; the security camera did not have sound, and the shop is loud. Moreover, Ms. Nadeau leaves out the critical information that Ms. Knox had no clothes except what she was wearing or could borrow at that time.

However, Ms. Nadeau also wrote, “And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she'd been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest.” This is false. Amanda’s statement refers to her whole life. But Ms. Nadeau’s choice of the word escapade is indefensible. It might apply to Karen Owen’s extremely ill-judged powerpoint, but not to Ms. Knox’s statement. Ms. Knox was in fear of a possibly life-threatening disease, thanks to ILE’s mishandling of this incident.

For these reasons and others I have previously outlined, I do not think that Ms. Nadeau is an infallible source. Your attempt to use her credentials with Newsweek is an argument from intimidation, and it is nonsensical.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forte

2) Are you seriously alleging that Sollecito's step mom could not possibly have sworn within earshot of Nadeau on the ground that another reporter did not also hear it?!

Ms. Nadeau asserted that Sollecito's stepmother yelled, "F*** you." Others heard the words "forte." Do you still find Ms. Nadeau's account credible?

 

[TomCH]

Didn't Guede leave bloody shoeprints in the murder room?
Didn't Guede leave DNA on/in the body?
Didn't Guede leave DNA in the toilet?
Didn't Guede legally confess to being there at the time of the murder?


A lot of people have been convicted of a murder just by being being proved present at the scene of the murder.

These are questions, not statements. I am trying to authenticate them in Massei's report but having difficulty searching for the term fingerprints. I had thought that Guede left a bloody fingerprint in the murder room. I can't find the mention of it in the Massei translation.

Yes, (though he said he was on the toilet when the murder was being committed).

But as I said, all of that is evidence he was there after the murder, it is NOT evidence he committed the murder (or even was in the room while it was being committed)!

 

[daydreamer]

This case is possible.
In this scenario, the miracle consists in not leaving any shoeprint on the soil below. Not bringing any soil inside. Not bringing any trace of grass inside.

I am not able to step in my garden without carrying soil back inside. The soild below that window was very soft, required a slight climbing on a slope. Stepping there without leaving traces is not what I would expect.

From the photos that I have seen, the sloped area between the cottage and the parking area is rather rocky with sparse vegetation. It’s not a garden or grassy area. It was probably created when they created the parking area above and consists of rock fill.

 

[Justinian2]

I have three burning thoughts:

1.) Why would a couple that had only been together a week leave an apartment at nine at night to go elsewhere? If they were at Raffaeles’ at eight or nine and again in the morning, the burden of proof – not theory or conjecture - belongs to the prosecution to provide proof to explain why they would leave.

2.) Amanda, Raffaele and Guede know what they individually did that night. Nobody has said that Amanda was there and Amanda hasn’t given a legal confession or any other innuendo that she was there by my reasoning or the reasoning of most innocenters. Guede has admitted he was there and has confessed to other prisoners that Amanda is innocent. The most valid facts regarding individual innocence are the memories of each of those three.

3.) Where are the fingerprints? I haven’t found much mention of them in either the Massei report or Murder in Italy.

 

[shuttlt]

1.) Why would a couple that had only been together a week leave an apartment at nine at night to go elsewhere? If they were at Raffaeles’ at eight or nine and again in the morning, it the burden of proof – not theory or conjecture - should be the prosecution’s to provide proof to explain why they would leave.

Why does the prosecution have to "provide proof to explain why they would leave"? Maybe they decided to go for a walk, maybe they decided to go play a nasty prank, maybe they decided to go for pizza.... it surely doesn't stretch the imagination to breaking point that the might go out for one reason or another, trivial or otherwise. If they did go out, Amanda and Raffaele are hardly likely to give us a reason any time soon. That being the case, how will we ever know?

If the prosecutor is able to prove that they committed the murder, then it doesn't matter. If he isn't able to prove they were involved in the murder, why does it matter whether he can prove why the went out, if indeed they did.

 

[Justinian2]

Why does the prosecution have to "provide proof to explain why they would leave"? Maybe they decided to go for a walk, maybe they decided to go play a nasty prank, maybe they decided to go for pizza.... it surely doesn't stretch the imagination to breaking point that the might go out for one reason or another, trivial or otherwise. If they did go out, Amanda and Raffaele are hardly likely to give us a reason any time soon. That being the case, how will we ever know?

If the prosecutor is able to prove that they committed the murder, then it doesn't matter. If he isn't able to prove they were involved in the murder, why does it matter whether he can prove why the went out, if indeed they did.

The first time I was in love with a beautiful woman, we just did what came naturally from nine until the morning.

In fact, that's what happened with the second and forth relationship too. My ex was my third relationlship. She asked me to take her home in the middle of the night so that I wouldn't hear her snore.

Of course this isn't proof, but I believe that it is natural for people newly living together to stay together at night and do the one thing that interests both. It is unnatural to break from the natural to do the unnatural. That's why the burden of proof should be totally on the prosecution to provide more than a lame theory as to why they departed from the natural and the believable.

Yes, they could have gone out for a walk or food. I don't believe that an angry murder and love making are compatible. The prosecution should have to prove the motive beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TomM43]

I see, so the TOD discovery occurred after the Guede trial? They had not established the TOD by that time? The issue isn't justice, the issue is facts on trial. One crime, one set of facts.

As to your first two sentences, no. ToD was not a issue in RG's trial. I.e. RG was not trying to establish an alibi based on his being able to show he was somewhere else at the time death occurred, so the exact time of death was not a significant issue in his trial.

I am sure that forensic pathologists for the state and for AK and RS had formulated their conclusions before RG's trial.

As to the last sentence--"One crime, one set of facts."--that was the way the events unfolded, but that is not the way we know it. The people involved are either not not talking, or to the extent they are, they are not telling the truth. So reconstruction is necessary. We like to think it is like the little plastic things on Star Trek that would be inserted into a viewing machine to take us back to past events to observe as if we were actually there. But it's really more like Rashomon.

 

[truethat]

Much is made about the fact that the girl was spinning cartwheels or being too romantic. I doubt very much that a normal person who had gotten involved in something like that even in a drug fueled stupor, would be so calm about it the next day. The fact that she and her boyfriend were both pretty blase about what happened suggests to me that either they are psychopaths or that they didn't really know the reality of what happened.

The guy who was there was caught and he got a plea deal to say they were involved.

Its pretty suspect to me.

 

[shuttlt]

The first time I was in love with a beautiful woman, we just did what came naturally from nine until the morning.

In fact, that's what happened with the second and forth relationship too. My ex was my third relationlship. She asked me to take her home in the middle of the night so that I wouldn't hear her snore.

Of course this isn't proof, but I believe that it is natural for people newly living together to stay together at night and do the one thing that interests both. It is unnatural to break from the natural to do the unnatural. That's why the burden of proof should be totally on the prosecution to provide more than a lame theory as to why they departed from the natural and the believable.

But surely the prosecution doesn't have to offer specific proof for whatever reason they have, or may in the future, come up with? It's nice if they do, but they don't have to. It can hardly be a necessary condition on being able to agree that they are guilty? To repeat an example, if a video came to light of them killing Meredith, you're not going to say.... "unless there is proof of why they left the house that evening I think the whole thing is implausible", are you?

If there is proof that they were involved in the murder, what does it matter that we don't know which of all the reasons that there might be for them to leave the house was the one the applied in this case? They were going on a trip early the next morning, weren't they? Maybe Amanda wanted some item of clothing from her apartment to take on the trip, they wanted to leave early, so she didn't want to leave it until the morning. If that's no good, I can think of other reasons.

 

[Justinian2]

But surely the prosecution doesn't have to offer specific proof for whatever reason they have, or may in the future, come up with? It's nice if they do, but they don't have to. It can hardly be a necessary condition on being able to agree that they are guilty? To repeat an example, if a video came to light of them killing Meredith, you're not going to say.... "unless there is proof of why they left the house that evening I think the whole thing is implausible", are you?
If there is proof that they were involved in the murder, what does it matter that we don't know which of all the reasons that there might be for them to leave the house was the one the applied in this case? They were going on a trip early the next morning, weren't they? Maybe Amanda wanted some item of clothing from her apartment to take on the trip, they wanted to leave early, so she didn't want to leave it until the morning. If that's no good, I can think of other reasons.

The prosecution should have to break the alibi AND prove the murder. A video is strong evidence, but if they had an alibi that put them out of the country, that would be even stronger.

I've seen a university experiment that showed the perpetrator of a crime running up to a video camera, looking at the camera and then running off. In the next part of the experiment you were required to pick the perpetrator out of a line-up. One man was emphasized by the police. Who was the culprit?

None of the above was the correct answer. The perpetrator wasn't included in the lineup. Most fail the test.

 

[shuttlt]

Much is made about the fact that the girl was spinning cartwheels or being too romantic. I doubt very much that a normal person who had gotten involved in something like that even in a drug fueled stupor, would be so calm about it the next day. The fact that she and her boyfriend were both pretty blase about what happened suggests to me that either they are psychopaths or that they didn't really know the reality of what happened.

Isn't this just an inverted version of the polices claim they initially thought she was involved because of the way she acted. You think she is innocent because of the way she acted.

The guy who was there was caught and he got a plea deal to say they were involved.

What source of misinformation did you get this from? I think Dr Waterbury has claimed this. If you can find any proof I'll examine it with interest.

 

[Justinian2]

...

We have been making simultaneous posts. My answer to your last and next post is in my previous post which I just edited.

 

[shuttlt]

The prosecution should have to break the alibi AND prove the murder.

If they prove they were involved in the murder, they have by definition broken any alibi there may have been. For some of the night there is no alibi at all... unless you count them saying they were at home. But the claim was about proving a reason rather than proving they left. Proving why they left is a lot harder.

 

[shuttlt]

The prosecution should have to break the alibi AND prove the murder. A video is strong evidence, but if they had an alibi that put them out of the country, that would be even stronger.

I've seen a university experiment that showed the perpetrator of a crime running up to a video camera, looking at the camera and then running off. In the next part of the experiment you were required to pick the perpetrator out of a line-up. One man was emphasized by the police. Who was the culprit?

None of the above was the correct answer. The perpetrator wasn't included in the lineup. Most fail the test.

What is the hypothetical proof of their alibi? In my hypothetical video things are very clear. You can see their faces, they talk about the murder admit their guilt, you see the murder take place.... somehow they got their hands on several HD-3D cameras to film the whole thing on and used professional lighting.

 

[Justinian2]

What is the hypothetical proof of their alibi? In my hypothetical video things are very clear. You can see their faces, they talk about the murder admit their guilt, you see the murder take place.... somehow they got their hands on several HD-3D cameras to film the whole thing on and used professional lighting.

Ha, that's funny!

In my hypothetical alibi things are also very clear. You can see their faces, they take a plane to another country. They visit their friends. Somehow they got their hands on several HD-3D cameras to film the whole thing on and used professional lighting

 

[platonov]

There Back ! Cartwheels VII

Much is made about the fact that the girl was spinning cartwheels or being too romantic. I doubt very much that a normal person who had gotten involved in something like that even in a drug fueled stupor, would be so calm about it the next day. The fact that she and her boyfriend were both pretty blase about what happened suggests to me that either they are psychopaths or that they didn't really know the reality of what happened.

The guy who was there was caught and he got a plea deal to say they were involved.

Its pretty suspect to me.

There back
I think you have the wrong end of the 'spoke' on this. Check out the original thread title - for some reason this continuation thread was given a new title. Never understood why ?? - the original seemed to sum up the basis for the 'She was railroaded' arguments perfectly.

Who started this ? It seems a widespread 'talking point' and like all the others, is complete nonsense & has already been covered at some length in this thread .

Your sources on this may be suspect.

 

[shuttlt]

One of Dr Waterbury's proofs that Rudy was a police informant:

Rudy has been treated with a degree of lenience that is amazing. He has already had his sentence reduced to 16 years, and it will likely be further reduced. He could walk in less than 10 years, while he is still a young man. He has even had his reputation somewhat restored for showing “remorse” and apologizing to the Kerchers for not having “fought hard enough to save Meredith.” Rudy has been shown great lenience by PPB.

http://www.sciencespheres.com/2010/04/inevitable-unexpected-and-theory-of.html

Can anybody do that maths and explain how Rudy's sentence is different to Amanda and Raffaele's except for the standard reduction for a fast track trial?

 

[moodstream]

Hold the rock in your hand, leave the window closed (the rock can break only one of them) as well as the internal shutter, and smash it.

The glass pattern will be the same is if it had been tossed from outside.

So, the glass distribution is appropriate for a rock that has been thrown from the outside.

The room, based only on evidence from the broken window and the distribution of glass, appears to have been broken into by throwing a rock from the outside. However, this cannot be said conclusively to be true, because it is impossible to distinguish from a well constructed simulation.

Therefore, the window, and the distribution of glass, are useless in an attempt to demonstrate the break in was faked.

Is that your position?

 

[shuttlt]

I see Dr Waterbury and Bruce of InjusticeInPerugia both have books on the way. That's a new development.