Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CDHost]

My response concerning the magnet was a joke. I remember watching a movie when I was younger were a cop tossed a industrial sized magnet through a business window. The purpose was so another cop would take it to the evidence locker and place it beside some tapes of the cop on the take. Whenever I think of how these perugian investigators handled the computer, I think of that movie.

Chris not to worry I was building on your joke that what they did was worse than a magnet would have been.

In all seriousness, getting a modern hard drive open is hard. It quite often involves things like specialized screw drivers. At the same time, just about anyone who works on hardware knows that typical levels of atmospheric dirt would be fatal to a hard drive. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theory but this level of destructiveness seems to pass through unbelievable stupid and right into deliberate.

The tape story is pretty funny.

 

[CDHost]

I do see your point, though -- with a slight twist. I think the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the colpevolisti resent the innocentisti for revealing potentially negative information about Meredith, but they don't resent the police and Guede's lawyers for doing the same thing.

Let me just add here. I had made a comment on IMDB in response to an argument pairing interests of Amanda / Raffaele vs. Meredith. That Meredith is dead, she doesn't have interests anymore. Across the board I tend to see criminal justice as balancing the interests of society with the interests of the suspects. I see the civil system as being between two equal parties.

Michael on PMF flipped out about that. "I just want to say, Skep's banning of CDHost was a very good call. Words fail me when someone has this kind of regard for an innocent murder victim:" I should mention the specific colorful term I used was "wormfood", and he repeated it about a 1/2 dozen posts after that. Now its pretty clear they feel fine using all sorts of hideously derogatory language about Amanda. The situation is not remotely equal in their mind.

I will complement Michael though. Even though he was obviously deeply offended he quoted me in reasonable context and was not deceptive in his criticism.

 

[CDHost]

I just realized today, that this is the first murder case i have heard of that animal porn was brought into. Anyone know of any other cases where the prosecution accused a suspect of watching animal porn?

Aaron Sands, though he is being charged with making child pornography not murder.

 

[Chris C]

Let me just add here. I had made a comment on IMDB in response to an argument pairing interests of Amanda / Raffaele vs. Meredith. That Meredith is dead, she doesn't have interests anymore. Across the board I tend to see criminal justice as balancing the interests of society with the interests of the suspects. I see the civil system as being between two equal parties.

Michael on PMF flipped out about that. "I just want to say, Skep's banning of CDHost was a very good call. Words fail me when someone has this kind of regard for an innocent murder victim:" I should mention the specific colorful term I used was "wormfood", and he repeated it about a 1/2 dozen posts after that. Now its pretty clear they feel fine using all sorts of hideously derogatory language about Amanda. The situation is not remotely equal in their mind.

I will complement Michael though. Even though he was obviously deeply offended he quoted me in reasonable context and was not deceptive in his criticism.

The thing about PMF you have to understand is their name is misleading. You would think with the name Perugian Murder Files they would actually discuss the evidence there. Thats not the case. They discuss their hatred for knox, knox's family, anyone that gave evidence in support of knox, anyone that supports truth and justice for knox, and/or anyone that believes knox is innocent. If you want to discuss the evidence there, dont bother. If you want to discuss knox's sex life, they would love your input. They like discussing her sex life.

 

[Kestrel]

What are you thinking there was something in the box with the Knife?

I just realized today, that this is the first murder case i have heard of that animal porn was brought into. Anyone know of any other cases where the prosecution accused a suspect of watching animal porn?

Has anyone come across a reference to the title of this porn movie?

For all we know, Raffaele could have been caught watching Gene Wilder fall in love with Daisy in this Woody Allan movie.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kiszko and the Independent

Let me just add here. I had made a comment on IMDB in response to an argument pairing interests of Amanda / Raffaele vs. Meredith. That Meredith is dead, she doesn't have interests anymore. Across the board I tend to see criminal justice as balancing the interests of society with the interests of the suspects. I see the civil system as being between two equal parties.

Michael on PMF flipped out about that. "I just want to say, Skep's banning of CDHost was a very good call. Words fail me when someone has this kind of regard for an innocent murder victim:" I should mention the specific colorful term I used was "wormfood", and he repeated it about a 1/2 dozen posts after that. Now its pretty clear they feel fine using all sorts of hideously derogatory language about Amanda. The situation is not remotely equal in their mind.

I will complement Michael though. Even though he was obviously deeply offended he quoted me in reasonable context and was not deceptive in his criticism.

CDHost,

I think that sometimes one's interests extend beyond one's lifetime. That is how I feel about Cameron Todd Willingham, for example. With Meredith, it is an entirely different situation.

Here is a link to an article about Kiszko by his physician.

 

[Chris C]

CDHost,

I think that sometimes one's interests extend beyond one's lifetime. That is how I feel about Cameron Todd Willingham, for example. With Meredith, it is an entirely different situation.

Here is a link to an article about Kiszko by his physician.

I ran across harryrag's twitter when reading that article. The weblink is to truejustice.org. Seems both truejustice and pmf are now tossing Curatolo under those busses he saw that night.

 

[Danceme]

I found the original post to be gratuitous and purposely provocative; that's one reason I ignored it. You talked in your post about the fear of people taking your words out of context, but there was no context -- you brought the subject up out of the blue, and seemed to be spoiling for a fight.

After reading the posts that were removed to AAH, I don't agree that Danceme misinterpreted your meaning; she was commenting on your intent, and I don't think she was wrong.

I do see your point, though -- with a slight twist. I think the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the colpevolisti resent the innocentisti for revealing potentially negative information about Meredith, but they don't resent the police and Guede's lawyers for doing the same thing.

Thank you Mary, you have it spot on. I'm glad at least one person here was able to see why I got all riled up at LJ.
(and I'm usually such a calm person )

 

[CDHost]

CDHost,
I think that sometimes one's interests extend beyond one's lifetime. That is how I feel about Cameron Todd Willingham, for example.

I agree with your example being applicable. I would say the State of Texas and America more broadly have interests in the outcome of this debate. Cameron does not anymore. There are many other people on death row and more broadly people in prison, who will be benefitted by looking into Cameron's case but I don't see how Cameron benefits.

"You will be saved or you will be avenged" seem to be genuine either/or.

 

[katy_did]

Gee, I would think a "good time" would be now....during the appeal! Well maybe he's waiting for his own book deal to close first.

I think Frank has to be very careful what he writes, bearing in mind that other Italian journalists writing from a pro-innocence standpoint are facing slander charges. But it sounds as if he's intending to be more explicit about this at some point:

I'll tell you guys who needed to save face at one point. Stay tuned...

'Frank:

Show me the Truth!

Yes I want to know...'

Give me time...

 

[Chris C]

I agree with your example being applicable. I would say the State of Texas and America more broadly have interests in the outcome of this debate. Cameron does not anymore. There are many other people on death row and more broadly people in prison, who will be benefitted by looking into Cameron's case but I don't see how Cameron benefits.

"You will be saved or you will be avenged" seem to be genuine either/or.

I believe in the Death Penalty, I just think there should be a higher standard when applying it. The Willingham case would obviously fall short of that standard.

 

[babycondor]

My response concerning the magnet was a joke. I remember watching a movie when I was younger were a cop tossed a industrial sized magnet through a business window. The purpose was so another cop would take it to the evidence locker and place it beside some tapes of the cop on the take. Whenever I think of how these perugian investigators handled the computer, I think of that movie.

Haha, I thought so! It was "The Big Easy."

 

[katy_did]

I was just looking at the photo of the lamp trapped behind the door with the cord stretched towards the outlet and remembering a recent theory that the lamp scratched the floor when the door was kicked open. The problem with that theory is that the physics don't work. If the lamp was plugged in when the door was violently kicked in, the whole cord would be jerked in the direction of the lamp and not be left strung across the floor. The lamp could have only gotten in that position with the door slowly opened. We know how violently the door was kicked open because part of the lock hardware landed on the duvet.

I think the theory about the lamp scratching the floor was based on a photo of the crime scene which showed a police marker side on, making it look like a line on the floor. I agree with you that the lamp is unlikely to have been behind the door when it was kicked open (in fact, if you look at photos of the scene, the lamp is seen in front of the bed in one picture and then behind the door in another).

Given that the cord is stretched across the doorway and noting how it got kicked into the hall by the cops "carefully" steping in and out of the crime scene, there is very little chance that the lamp was behind that door at the time the door was kicked open.

PS: The cord isn't long enough to have been plugged in to any outlet outside the room.

The cord isn't long enough with the lamp in the position it's in in the pictures, but it would be long enough if someone were using it while standing at the door to light up a dark room. In that scenario it wouldn't be the cord that was moved outside the room, but the lamp that was moved inside. The problem I have with the lamp being somehow linked to the crime is that it makes no sense for any of the accused to have left it there: not Rudy, since there were two lights in the room already, and not the other two either (even less likely), since they're supposed to have had the door keys and since they'd have known it could link them to the crime. And again, they'd have no reason not to use the main light.

On the other hand, the police had every reason not to use the main light, given that the last person to use it could well have been the killer. I'm inclined to think that Frank is right to be suspicious about just how - and when - the lamp made its way into the room.

 

[Chris C]

Haha, I thought so! It was "The Big Easy."

Thanks, I was thinking it was City Heat. Glad to know which one now.

 

[Chris C]

I think the theory about the lamp scratching the floor was based on a photo of the crime scene which showed a police marker side on, making it look like a line on the floor. I agree with you that the lamp is unlikely to have been behind the door when it was kicked open (in fact, if you look at photos of the scene, the lamp is seen in front of the bed in one picture and then behind the door in another).



The cord isn't long enough with the lamp in the position it's in in the pictures, but it would be long enough if someone were using it while standing at the door to light up a dark room. In that scenario it wouldn't be the cord that was moved outside the room, but the lamp that was moved inside. The problem I have with the lamp being somehow linked to the crime is that it makes no sense for any of the accused to have left it there: not Rudy, since there were two lights in the room already, and not the other two either (even less likely), since they're supposed to have had the door keys and since they'd have known it could link them to the crime. And again, they'd have no reason not to use the main light.

On the other hand, the police had every reason not to use the main light, given that the last person to use it could well have been the killer. I'm inclined to think that Frank is right to be suspicious about just how - and when - the lamp made its way into the room.

Out of curiousity, I've been searching but not found if the prosecution claimed that they brought the lamp in there.

 

[katy_did]

Out of curiousity, I've been searching but not found if the prosecution claimed they brought it in there.

No, they never did - it was only really mentioned during Amanda's testimony, and then only to ask her whether (a) she noticed it missing, and (b) whether they tried to break down the door to get it back. No direct question about whether they took it in there, and it was never used as evidence. The only other time it was referred to was in the prosecution's animated cartoon during the closing arguments.

That the prosecution put so little emphasis on it is another thing that seems a bit suspicious, if we're to assume it was connected to the murder.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think Frank has to be very careful what he writes, bearing in mind that other Italian journalists writing from a pro-innocence standpoint are facing slander charges. But it sounds as if he's intending to be more explicit about this at some point:

If I had evidence that the DNA was planted I'd take my chance with a slander charge.

 

[Chris C]

If I had evidence that the DNA was planted I'd take my chance with a slander charge.

Wouldn't have to take a chance. Take a flight to the US, tell the news there.

 

[Alt+F4]

Wouldn't have to take a chance. Take a flight to the US, tell the news there.

Good point, and it would get a lot of media attening in the U.S. I wonder why this hasn't happened?

 

[katy_did]

If I had evidence that the DNA was planted I'd take my chance with a slander charge.

Extremely easy to say, but a little more difficult when you're the one in that situation, I should imagine. He has been quite explicit about it already; it will be interesting to see what further details he gives in future posts.