• 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.
platonov said:
I don't believe it - in fact when I joined this debate you acknowledged that this was not the issue.You know I can find the link ?

[In the background a cock crows or mutters about bearing false witness]
Click to expand...


I know; you've already found the link. If I had known you were going to be troublesome, I would have simply quoted myself verbatim:

Often the argument is presented that Amanda must be guilty or she wouldn't have been convicted. A valid response is to ask the claimant to reflect on whether Jesus Christ was crucified because he was guilty.

We use famous people in our analogies because they are examples known to most readers. It doesn't call to mind the same kind of reasoning if we say, "Look at what happened to people you've never heard of and have to go look up."

How different is that from this? "...there actually are some adults who have participated in this debate who have never reflected on the possibility that not everybody who is in jail is guilty."
 
Mary_H said:
Again, you seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief there is someone here who is in charge of this thread and responsible for supplying it with documentation. If you (or whoever it was who brought it up) wanted to discuss these statements, why didn't you (or whoever it was who brought it up) post them?
Click to expand...


I'm not laboring under any beliefs but -
Good point, I didnt bring them up, the poster who did was not keen to post them if he even knew they existed.

Either way - it paid off :)
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
I know; you've already found the link. If I had known you were going to be troublesome, I would have simply quoted myself verbatim:

Often the argument is presented that Amanda must be guilty or she wouldn't have been convicted. A valid response is to ask the claimant to reflect on whether Jesus Christ was crucified because he was guilty.

We use famous people in our analogies because they are examples known to most readers. It doesn't call to mind the same kind of reasoning if we say, "Look at what happened to people you've never heard of and have to go look up."

How different is that from this? "...there actually are some adults who have participated in this debate who have never reflected on the possibility that not everybody who is in jail is guilty."
Click to expand...


Wrong post ( I didn't look for the link - yet)
 
Last edited:
SomeAlibi said:
Dan O - I thought that timeline of yours was well done but why is the computer activity of the morning of Nov 2nd missing? The multiple events are a significant piece of evidence in the case, just like the computer activity of the 1st which you have listed.
Click to expand...


Thanks. But what was just posted was not the most recent version. I added this line a few days ago:
06:22 Screensaver on Raffaele's computer kicks in marking the end of human activity on the computer for the night. (from appeal documents, unverified)
​
 
Dan O. said:
Thanks. But what was just posted was not the most recent version. I added this line a few days ago:
06:22 Screensaver on Raffaele's computer kicks in marking the end of human activity on the computer for the night. (from appeal documents, unverified)
​
Click to expand...


I presume (without having to look - yea, its that obvious ;) ) he is referring to the 5.30 - 6.00 AM activity.

I could be wildly wrong on this and look foolish, but I trust you Dan O.
 
Last edited:
SomeAlibi said:
Even better for Rudy, if he'd been there, had a perfect alibi for ringing the doorbell
Click to expand...


I've raised this point before but nobody seems to have caught on. Could Rudy have rung the doorbell?

What I've seen in photos of the front entrance is that the only doorbell is part of the intercom unit which is mounted behind where the metal gate is stored when it is opened. If the girls didn't regularly lock this gate (and why would they with that solid door with triple deadbolt lock), Rudy could not have rung the bell. The best he could do would be to knock on that heavy door and hope the occupants aren't preoccupied listening to their iPod.

You've been there so you would be the best to know, is there another doorbell that would be accessible with the gate open?
 
Machiavelli said:
Absolutely not.
You are making the laws yourself. It seems you are inventing your meaning for the word "suspect".
The law says Amanda would becoma a formal suspect after she stated incriminating words, not before.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am saying the Italian law is. Did you read my post or just scan it?
 
Machiavelli said:
Filomena's window is exactly on the visual line of a car driver.
It falls exactly in the scope of a driver.
Moreover, it is under the eyes of any passer by who walks out from the parking store, or anyone who happens to be on the parking lot.
Anyone like the arab-looking guy running on the stairs or the couple walking back from the restaurant, or the family that waited for a tow truck in the area facing the cottage gate.
Click to expand...

Ok so you toss a rock through the window and wait to see what happens. No one home. How long would it take to climb and get in the window? 15 to 30 seconds? Look around, no cars coming. Climb in. Can't be anymore exposed than that lawyers office he broke into. Seriously though, do you think a person climbing in a window is going to do it when people are watching. Filomena's window has the least amount of surprises. When on the ground, I dont think you can be seen. You would only be seen when climbing in the window. Where as on the balcony, you would be seen before ever breaking in. Rudy might have been an unlucky criminal but still it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when you break in a house you do it when people aren't looking. Maybe there is more glass to break on the balcony and he was worried about the amount of noise it would make. What kinda glass did the door have. Was it double paned glass on the door?
 
Last edited:
daydreamer said:
There are 3 factors that determine "exposure": 1) shutter speed, 2) aperture, 3) film speed (ISO,ASA). All contribute to the brightness of the picture. So saying an exposure of 1, .5, or .25 is irrelevant unless you know the other 2 parameters. Digital cameras adjust all 3 to determine the best exposure. So, these photos do not necessarily depict what the human eye would see. The video is probably closer to reality.
Click to expand...


No the video is not, it's nothing like reality as I've already explained. This is self-evident as you can't even see the gate as you approach it in the video - you are apparently operating in total 100% pitch darkness which is obviously utterly not the case. I've been there, you have not. Do you think the occupants of that cottage walked around the outside of their property in 100% pitch blackness? Nonsense. I find this need to assert matters without evidence or experience inexplicable.

Here's the statistics for the three photos:

0.5 Second Exposure:

F-Stop: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 1/2 sec.
ISO speed: ISO-800
Exposure basis: 0 Step
Focal Length: 7mm
Max Aperture: 2.96875
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash mode: No flash, compulsory

0.25 Second Exposure

F-Stop: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 1/4 sec.
ISO speed: ISO-800
Exposure basis: 0 Step
Focal Length: 7 mm
Max Aperture: 2.96875
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash mode: No flash, compulsory

Shot of Balcony, 1 second exposure

F-Stop: f/4.5
Exposure Time: 1 sec
ISO speed: ISO-800
Exposure basis: 0 Step
Focal Length: 37 mm
Max Aperture: 4.34375
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash mode: No flash, compulsory



So identical settings for the 0.25 and 0.5 second exposures compared on a like for like basis with the balcony shot. The balcony shot required double and four times the exposure time respectively to the side of cottage shots and an F-Stop / Max Aperture setting set by the camera at 149% of the side of the cottage shots to allow half as much light in again. Comprehensively showing the relative lighting levels of the balcony shot being several times lower than the side on shots. End of conversation.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
But because the substitution would be illogical. If at a certan point you have a description referred to the altra dichiarazione (another one, the other one), it is obvious that this altra cannot be the place of the one where it is related to tea and cakes. The "tea and cakes" episode is defined by a clear sequence of prima and dopo, there is a watershed, before and after. After a declaration, they would treat them in a new totally different manner (and consoaled her as she had just cried). While until before this watershed she did not make any adeclaration.
We cannot locate this watershed after the second declaration. This would be utterly illogical. We cannot say there has been a first previous accusation on Patrick hours before. It would make no sense. Consider also the change of tone of the onversation: "I asked if it would be necessary to call a lawyer", and they answered on a line of logical conversation, then they said "we will protect you".
Click to expand...

But again, you're assuming the lawyer conversation happened shortly before the comment that "we will protect you", when there's no evidence for that. There's no chronological sequence here, as you're assuming. I also disagree that telling her it would be worse for her if she had a lawyer because it would show she didn't want to cooperate is answering "on a line of logical conversation" - in fact, insofar as it suggests anything it indicates they hadn't started being nice to her at that stage, between the two interrogations.

Here's that second quote again:

LG: All right, I've finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.
Click to expand...
When she talks about "further declarations", she's not using the (much) earlier cake and tea conversation as a reference point, but the question Ghirga has just asked her: she made her first declaration, then Mignini came, then they asked her to make further declarations. This quote doesn't have any relation to the earlier part of her testimony, so I'm just not sure how it can be used to support the argument you're making. I think this is obvious if you read the full testimony.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom