Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Jeez, the lay-up and Wilt Chamberlain theory of rock throwing.

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

Enjoy talking amongst yourselves at PMF too. The difference is that I was banned for life for five quotes from an author the PMF moderators don't like.
.

 

[nopoirot]

Are you talking about what actually happened, or about what should or will happen in Court? With respect to the latter, I think that certainly if Amanda's two statements had been deemed admissible, her lawyers should have called an expert to testify on her behalf (it's unfortunate, in some respects, that they weren't admissible against her, since it would've allowed them to be addressed more directly). This has no bearing on whether the statements actually were coerced though, obviously.

Obviously.

Much more interesting to contemplate what an august tribunal of our choosing would do, with its eyes fixed on Platonic ideals and its heart beating as one with the Kantian "imperative."

 

[Katody Matrass]

No. I'd like to see that.

Unfortunately I don't have it at hand, it was posted here a few times, though.

It was your idea that he probably used basketball techniques.

That's not exactly what I meant. I think he threw it more or less level and in a straight line, his basketball player's hand-eye coordination allowed him to easily hit the target directly from that 2-3 meters distance.

At the apogee of a shot from below the window, the rock will have lost all vertical motion. The only momentum left will be the horizontal motion. So if Guede was standing 3 feet from the wall, the rock will hit the window as if thrown from three feet away. It will hit very gently and stop shortly after the window even without hitting a blind and cause less noise.

There is no doubt that the rock hit the inner blind quite hard and fast, leaving deep marks and embedded pieces of glass. From that follows that the blind took a lot of forward momentum from the rock.

 

[Malkmus]

Random question, but were the police even allowed to search Amanda's cell phone without a warrant? I say that because there was a law recently passed in the U.S. that now allows police to search your phone without one. Looking at an article from 2008 regarding European standards it appears that police there would need a warrant to search her phone.

 

[Justinian2]

From our friends at PMF:

I want to thank you Justinian I've never read 'Murder in Italy', precisely because my experience of Candace Dempsey in my years following this case has educated me that she's thoroughly dishonest, is agenda driven and is not very bright. This single reference to a factoid from her book proves me right that her book is worthless and she can never be taken as a source for anything, other then recipes for meatballs (if one is brave). The witness she is referring to is the one that was videoed negotiating payment with journalists to testify against Rudy. He was sensationally exposed when the video was shown in court by Rudy's lawyers. Judge Micheli ordered his removal from the court room, his testimony was thrown out and he was put under criminal investigation. However, it is strange that even though Candace was well aware of all of this, she deliberately chose not mention it in her book, instead portraying this perjurer as a credible witness.

This is an excellent example of why Candace Dempsey, her blog and her book can NEVER be used as a positive source. The woman is a proven liar and deceiver. Since you paid for her book, that makes you a sucker. But don't insult the rest of us by quoting from it to support your ignorant arguments.

I am glad to see that I've struck a nerve at PMF.
I'd been off their topic list for a month

 

[Chris_Halkides]

rock video

No. I'd like to see that.

It was your idea that he probably used basketball techniques.

At the apogee of a shot from below the window, the rock will have lost all vertical motion. The only momentum left will be the horizontal motion. So if Guede was standing 3 feet from the wall, the rock will hit the window as if thrown from three feet away. It will hit very gently and stop shortly after the window even without hitting a blind and cause less noise.

I think this is it, but only a few seconds are devoted to the rock itself.

 

[RoseMontague]

No. I'd like to see that.

It was your idea that he probably used basketball techniques.

At the apogee of a shot from below the window, the rock will have lost all vertical motion. The only momentum left will be the horizontal motion. So if Guede was standing 3 feet from the wall, the rock will hit the window as if thrown from three feet away. It will hit very gently and stop shortly after the window even without hitting a blind and cause less noise.

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

ETA...LOL...seahawk swoops

 

[bobc]

I'm curious about what CD said above and wonder if his point is valid but I lack the technical knowledge. Anyone here know more than I do?

It's basically true, on Windows and other systems file times can be set to anything you want. I have written code to alter file times, it is basic stuff. It would be easy to write some code to make it look like no file had been accessed in a certain time period to hide activity, or alternatively to set file times to make it look like a person was present during a time period. It's also easy to inject mouse or keyboard messages to fake human activity, if one wished.

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
Hi, Fine it's nice to see you leaning on the innocence side

According to your theory Raffaele is innocent because he wasn't there and Amanda is innocent because she was with a married man and she'd rather spend 3 years in prison then give his personals to the police. Do I understand it correctly?

I read not long ago about a woman who falsely confessed to a murder because she didn't want to admit she'd been cheating on her husband. People will falsely confess for all sorts of weird reasons... Not that I think it's all that likely to have happened in this case!

___________________________________-

Well, what if that other man was married to Monica Napoleoni, Rita Ficarra, or any other gal in Perugia who owned a gun?

And, without wishing to sound cruel, having sex with Raffaele three or four times a day---if true--- may have been exactly what drove Amanda into the arms of another man.

///

 

[RoseMontague]

Jeez, the lay-up and Wilt Chamberlain theory of rock throwing.

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

An yet the prosecution examination of this witness that did the rock breaking window reconstruction developed into many questions as to why he threw the rock overhand rather than underhand.

I never really got a solid opinion from you on the case. Hopefully I'll see it soon elsewhere.

 

[Justinian2]

I think this is it, but only a few seconds are devoted to the rock itself.

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

ETA...LOL...seahawk swoops

Thanks! I think that shows that the defensive team is right on top of things.

I also think that rock throw was from underneath as it seemed to be going too slow to be thrown from ten feet away at the same level.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kinda meta that you're leaving this thread for one that discusses... this thread.

And one where many posters seem to be willing this JREF thread to wither and die, and where people are being "advised" to stop posting on this thread. Very interesting. And if they tell themselves enough times that this JREF thread is going "round in circles", I'm sure they can convince themselves that it's true....

Still, thanks for stopping by, y'all

 

[LondonJohn]

Random question, but were the police even allowed to search Amanda's cell phone without a warrant? I say that because there was a law recently passed in the U.S. that now allows police to search your phone without one. Looking at an article from 2008 regarding European standards it appears that police there would need a warrant to search her phone.

I believe the police need court warrants to tap telephones in Italy as well (Knox's and Sollecito's mobiles were tapped on around 3rd/4th November 2007, while they were still "witnesses" ). But it appears that there might be ways around that.... inconvenience.....in Italy as well. Sig. Mignini might be able to give you an insight into what those methods might be......

 

[Chris_Halkides]

tamper-proof fiiles?

It's basically true, on Windows and other systems file times can be set to anything you want. I have written code to alter file times, it is basic stuff. It would be easy to write some code to make it look like no file had been accessed in a certain time period to hide activity, or alternatively to set file times to make it look like a person was present during a time period. It's also easy to inject mouse or keyboard messages to fake human activity, if one wished.

bobc,

Is there any tamper-proof (or nearly so) file on the mac? I am wondering about Raffaele's appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, it seems that some people are under the mistaken impression that Knox and Sollecito are currently sitting in prison in Italy because they are serving the sentence for which they've been convicted in the first trial. However, they are not judged guilty until the final Supreme Court ruling, and only then will be serving a prison term as convicted criminals (if things get that far, of course...).

Until that time, Knox and Sollecito are only in prison in a "remand" capacity - they are adjudged to be flight risks and/or potential repeat offenders, and the serious nature of the charges means that a court has decided that they should remain incarcerated pending the appeals process. I would imagine though that (as in the UK) the time that they spent in prison up to the final Supreme Court ruling would be offset against the length of the sentence (again, only if the conviction and sentence get confirmed all the way through the Supreme Court stage, of course).

 

[Katody Matrass]

Random question, but were the police even allowed to search Amanda's cell phone without a warrant? I say that because there was a law recently passed in the U.S. that now allows police to search your phone without one. Looking at an article from 2008 regarding European standards it appears that police there would need a warrant to search her phone.

If they asked and she consented they didn't need any warrant. Amanda was extremely cooperative:

They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing. That's when they started being very hard with me. <AK, trial transcript>


IIRC when they seized her diary in prison they just asked, too. If she disagreed they'd need a warrant.

 

[bobc]

Kinda meta that you're leaving this thread for one that discusses... this thread.

But no different to the pro-Knox supporters who inhabit sites that discuss this thread, as well as PMF, TJMK. By discuss, I mean "throw mud" at their opponents

 

[LondonJohn]

bobc,

Is there any tamper-proof (or nearly so) file on the mac? I am wondering about Raffaele's appeal.

I'd have thought that if Sollecito were devious and cunning enough to have altered system files on his Mac to make it look like there had been human interaction for most of the night, then he'd have been pretty vocal about this issue once he was accused of involvement.

In contrast, his slightly confused demeanour regarding his whereabouts on the night of 1st/2nd November would suggest that either a) Sollecito is a mastermind, who changed the system files but then "played dumb" about evidence which he knew might exculpate him; or b) Sollecito never altered the files, and may indeed not even have known about the existence of those files which may now prove crucial to his defence.

 

[bobc]

bobc,

Is there any tamper-proof (or nearly so) file on the mac? I am wondering about Raffaele's appeal.

I'm not an expert on Macs, but typically the Operating System does not prevent file modification in this way for files a user has legitimate access to. Even with system files, the user could log on as root and be able to modify them. A home PC is not designed to keep a forensic record of its activity, so its more of an accidental record. This is problematic for the prosecution as well as the defence, imo.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ooh, this thread is "dying" now!

"If you will it, it is no dream" (treehorn would have appreciated this quote)