• 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.
Why did Amanda scream?

Moss said:
I make of that that I do lack the context. Would you be so good as to provide me with it? It's hard to make sense of it else wise.
Click to expand...

Moss,

Frank Sfarzo reported on this. He noted that "As we know, indeed, the troubles of Amanda started with the fact that she went to the police station when the call was only for Raffaele. According to Rita, according to Monica, according to Lorena Zugarini." Dr. Giobbi contradicted this testimony by saying that he gave the order to bring them in together.

About the interrogation he wrote, "Giobbi would never take part on the interviews. He was hidden in the director's room, together with the SCO chief Profazio, and he could hear Amanda screaming."

Without a recording, we will not know exactly what happened. But the police officers such as Rita Ficarra and Monica Napoleoni claimed to treat Amanda well. Someone should ask them why she screamed.
 
halides1 said:
Christianahannah,

Patrick said words to the effect that Amanda did not have a soul sometime in mid to late November of 2007. This judgment seems to be predicated on the notion that Amanda named him in her statement in the absence of police pressure. The more one views her statement as not voluntary, the less stock one puts in his comment.
Click to expand...
He has met her though, and we haven't.
 
alternative hypotheses

shuttlt said:
The collection of liquids? OK. It does not say anything about taking other objects if the sample is transportable. If it isn't it says get a sample from the "stain" and one from somwhere unstained. The material was supposed to be in the scratch on the knife. Why not swab the scratch and elsewhere on the knife?

Is this and Steve Moore all injusticeinperugia have managed to find? Surely something comfirming what people keep claiming, that other items not believed to be associated with the crime are routinely taken to act as controls.
Click to expand...

shuttlt,

The general concept of substrate controls carries over very nicely to the knife versus other knives or utensils. "2. Always collect a substrate control for possible subsequent laboratory examination; "

Steve Moore gets it; Mark Waterbury gets it. Yet the forensic police don't get it. It is possible that they were trying to confirm that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved, instead of proposing alternative hypotheses, as Rudin and Inman suggest in a citation I gave long ago.
 
Dan O. said:
I haven't put the complete list together yet but the documents filed with the appeal claim that particular entries in the WindowServer.log file show the times of activation and deactivation of the screensaver thru the night with the last activation around 6:22 AM and no period during the night up to that time in which the screensaver was active for more than 6 minutes. There is also the creation of a playlist sometime after 5 AM.

The details with exact times and references have already been posted in this thread. One of these days I'll retrieve that data to update my own timeline.
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of knowing this if we know also that there are simple, innocent ways of disabling the screensaver?
 
shuttlt said:
Don't argue with me. I'm not claiming conspiracies. You're presumably not denying plenty of posters have claimed that the evidence was manufactured deliberately?
Click to expand...

I know Mary is quite clear on what she thinks happened with the bra clasp. I have seen others quite suspicious of that and I am too as there's so many things that are just so damned odd about the circumstances and its collection. However, considering the way it migrated its way across the floor and was fondled freely by the team that eventually picked it up, contamination seems quite possible.

The murder knife is ridiculous, but something that small could easily be a secondary transfer picked up by screwing the machine down past the lowest setting. Or for that matter contamination is also quite possible.

However things like refusing to produce the EDF files make you wonder again...


shuttlt said:
Could be. Do you mean that the cops and the lab are all doing this independently?
Click to expand...

Bossman doesn't always know the manner in which his wishes are fulfilled. If he needs something, sometimes people go out of their way to produce it, especially if they think it's a 'good' cause.

However a frame would imply to me that they knew they were innocent and just wanted to convict them out of animus or convenience. I don't think that happened, and there's a number of reasons for me to think so. For one if they actually wanted to frame them they'd have just done it. With what looked like incontestable evidence, not embarrassments like the bra clasp and 'murder knife,' the stories of which I found frankly unbelievable.

Until I found out they were true!
 
Last edited:
Moss said:
Huh, curious. I'd have had better things to do with my girlfriends than surfing throughout the night.
Is there any mention of the inactivity interval before the screensaver gets activated?
Does anyone by chance remember which media player was used to play the Naruto episode?
Click to expand...
I think he was using VLC.
 
halides1 said:
Moss,

Frank Sfarzo reported on this. He noted that "As we know, indeed, the troubles of Amanda started with the fact that she went to the police station when the call was only for Raffaele. According to Rita, according to Monica, according to Lorena Zugarini." Dr. Giobbi contradicted this testimony by saying that he gave the order to bring them in together.

About the interrogation he wrote, "Giobbi would never take part on the interviews. He was hidden in the director's room, together with the SCO chief Profazio, and he could hear Amanda screaming."

Without a recording, we will not know exactly what happened. But the police officers such as Rita Ficarra and Monica Napoleoni claimed to treat Amanda well. Someone should ask them why she screamed.
Click to expand...

Umm, maybe I am missing something but you assume screaming means screaming in pain? I'm not entirely sure from the context though. The screaming and breakdown on the couch in the next part seems to indicate more of either distress, anger and/or frustration. Does that in turn indicate rough handling? They might have hit a vulnerable spot by chance. I can only speculate, the article by Frank (who IMO has a horribly florid style btw.) is not particularly precise.
 
the article was flawed

shuttlt said:
He has met her though, and we haven't.
Click to expand...

shuttlt,

Plenty of other people have known her, some for far longer than Patrick. A number of us have produced examples of their testimonials on this thread. However, since I wrote the comment to which you replied, I have learned or been reminded that its source was the Daily Mail article that is questionable in other ways. For example, it reports that Patrick either fired or (arguably) demoted Amanda, and this is not true: Amanda unexpectedly met Patrick on the 5th, and that is when she told him that she could no longer work at night, owing to her fear. LondonJohn thinks otherwise (if I understand his argument correctly), but I do not have 100% confidence in any fact found in this article, including the no-soul comment.

post script
One of the accounts of Amanda's character that I provided came from a former employer. It is difficult to see what his motivation for lying would be.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Moss,

Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda screaming on the night of the interrogation. What do you make of that?
Click to expand...
She could be a screaming overacting murderess, or a screaming suffering innocent, or a screaming suffering murderess, or a whole bunch of other things, who's to know? It's not as if guilty Amanda is necessarily going to act like James Cagney, so because she doesn't we can know she's innocent.
 
control room

Moss said:
Umm, maybe I am missing something but you assume screaming means screaming in pain? I'm not entirely sure from the context though. The screaming and breakdown on the couch in the next part seems to indicate more of either distress, anger and/or frustration. Does that in turn indicate rough handling? They might have hit a vulnerable spot by chance. I can only speculate, the article by Frank (who IMO has a horribly florid style btw.) is not particularly precise.
Click to expand...

Moss,

I agree that more detail would be enormously helpful. However, I find the fact that Amanda screamed more consistent with her account of the interrogation than ILE's account. By the way, I have always wondered how Dr. Giobbi heard the screaming if he were in the control room. Hmm...
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

Perhaps we sometime focus on Ms. Knox more than Mr. Sollecito, but I was wondering about something yesterday. Ms. Knox was pilloried for her alleged promiscuity. In these pages at least, Mr. Sollecito was criticized for his alleged sexual/romantic inexperience. Paradoxical.
Click to expand...
Sure. I guess these things only matter if we are trying to create, or undermine particular images of her. What does them being "honours students" have to do with anything after all? Given their social backgrounds it's not as if going to university is a mark of any greatness of character, is it?
 
Moss said:
Err, was that before the interrogation of Amanda? I admit to sometimes being a bit stumped because I have hard time keeping my mental timeline of what happened when straight.
Click to expand...

This was part of the detention order a few days after Amanda's interrogation and Patrick's arrest.
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

The general concept of substrate controls carries over very nicely to the knife versus other knives or utensils. "2. Always collect a substrate control for possible subsequent laboratory examination; "

Steve Moore gets it; Mark Waterbury gets it. Yet the forensic police don't get it. It is possible that they were trying to confirm that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved, instead of proposing alternative hypotheses, as Rudin and Inman suggest in a citation I gave long ago.
Click to expand...
It's not that I can't understand what scientific purpose such a thing would serve. The question is, is this standard procedure in Italy, the UK, the US, or anywhere? Surely there is some kind of FBI manual that Steve Moore can lay his hands on that says so? The fact that IIP has that thing about collecting liquids makes me think that this is their attempt to address it. To me it looks to say the opposite. If the sample is on something you can transport, pick it up and transport it. Nothing about also take some other similar objects.

We must have been arguing about this for the better part of a year and all we've got is people saying what they think ought to happen. I can make up what I think standard police procedure, or standard lab procesure should be as well.
 
Moss said:
Sounds like a pretty reasonable assumption. Though that might get a bit annoying while watching movies.
Click to expand...

Presently I have my screen saver set to none. Prior to that it was set to 60 minutes. There is no way we can possibly know what interval Raffaele set unless it's stated in the appeals. I have never kept the default 15 or 20 minute settings as it's much too short when doing certain things. The more time I spent in front of my laptop, the longer the interval I preferred.

moodstream said:
That’s unlikely to be true, as you can read in the links to early reports below:

<snip>

-not a ringing endorsement. And an upward motion with great force would be incompatible with the kitchen knife, according to Massei
Click to expand...

If the investigators had seen the body or were shown a picture of the wound, it's perfectly understandable why they were looking for a large knife. I saw the actual photo a short while back, as I wrote in an earlier post, and the wound is horrifically nasty and very large. I'm sure Charlie can show you a photo if you still disbelieve this.

halides1 said:
Moss,

Frank Sfarzo reported on this. He noted that "As we know, indeed, the troubles of Amanda started with the fact that she went to the police station when the call was only for Raffaele. According to Rita, according to Monica, according to Lorena Zugarini." Dr. Giobbi contradicted this testimony by saying that he gave the order to bring them in together.

About the interrogation he wrote, "Giobbi would never take part on the interviews. He was hidden in the director's room, together with the SCO chief Profazio, and he could hear Amanda screaming."

Without a recording, we will not know exactly what happened. But the police officers such as Rita Ficarra and Monica Napoleoni claimed to treat Amanda well. Someone should ask them why she screamed.
Click to expand...

Why didn't her defense lawyers ask this of Amanda herself during her own testimony? Do you have a link to Giobbi's testimony please?
 
Kaosium said:
However things like refusing to produce the EDF files make you wonder again...
Click to expand...
Around and around we go. Isn't it the court that said that everything the defence needed had been produced? In which case, surely it is the court who is, or was witholding the EDF files?
 
halides1 said:
Moss,

I agree that more detail would be enormously helpful. However, I find the fact that Amanda screamed more consistent with her account of the interrogation than ILE's account. By the way, I have always wondered how Dr. Giobbi heard the screaming if he were in the control room. Hmm...
Click to expand...

I'm unwilling to speculate on the cause and volume of screaming when I a) have no knowledge of acoustics in general, b) no idea of the layout of said police station, the building materials and the specific acoustics and c) the accuracy of Frank's reporting.
That hmm... is a nice way of insinuating things. But I have to say I'm not particularly happy about it as I am not sure if it has legs to stand on so to speak.
 
Kaosium said:
However a frame would imply to me that they knew they were innocent and just wanted to convict them out of animus or convenience. I don't think that happened, and there's a number of reasons for me to think so. For one if they actually wanted to frame them they'd have just done it. With what looked like incontestable evidence, not embarrassments like the bra clasp and 'murder knife,' the stories of which I found frankly unbelievable.
Click to expand...
I believe Justinian claimed that indicator of a frame up was that the evidence wasn't incontestable so that it could be denied if it all went bad. He seemed to feel that police never frame people in the obvious way you seem to believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom