Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

a hypothetical

Huh!

You said "If someone gets up, putters around on the computer, goes back to sleep, and gets up again at 10, I would say that they got up at 10."

I said "Is this what Solecitto says that he did, or is it just your version?"

I may have missed something, but I don't remember Solecitto saying that this is what he did. That is why I asked.

Colonelhall,

I think you missed the entire point of my comment. It was SomeAlibi who pushed the idea that Raffaele’s computer activity at this time was somehow inculpatory. My point is that if everything that SomeAlibi said were true about what Raffaele did, it would be more exculpatory than inculpatory. As far as I know, the fact of the computer activity around 5:30 AM is not disputed. I find your use of terms such as “somewhat deluded” to be amusing, rather than insulting. MOO.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am sorry to see that you could find my post rude, particularly as I try to avoid the kind of arrogant insulting language that is rife on this forum.

If you had read my post, you would have found that I did elaborate. I only picked a few statements upon which to comment.

I quoted your post in entirety, I see no attempt of discussion there.

I could have gone on, but really there is not much point. The Knox supporters on this site will believe that which they want to believe. I merely try to make the point that, to me, they seem somewhat deluded.

I am sorry if you should find this offensive, but I can think of no other reason why they should believe this nonsense.

colonelhall, I too am perplexed by guilters' beliefs and hold strong opinion about origins of those beliefs. But stating opinions about the disputants instead of tackling their arguments is counterproductive. When you have nothing to say about the argument why attack the arguer? It then appears that you're not here for the discussion but to inflame and disrupt.

 

[Justinian2]

Hey everyone,

I've been reading these forums for some time, but have only been posting on the Eliza Vargas forum on facebook, reason being I get more of a kick out of arguing with the guilters than discussing with those of us who support Knox. One idiot keeps posting this list over and over again and asking me to address the "points". I really don't know why I bother, I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle much more of this illogical idiocy...


* the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;
* the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

[...]

I couldn't do justice to the answers to these questions because my answers would be too glib. The major books beat those questions out of existence. Try Murder in Italy by Candice Dempsey, The Monster of Perugia by Mark Waterbury, and Injustice in Perugia by Bruce Fisher. A lot of good sites answer those points to perfection.

You can purchase the electronic versions of the books on Amazon or Barnes & Nobel. The advantage of an electronic book is that it is searchable.

 

[Justinian2]

http://www.westseattleherald.com/20...x-book-reading-near-uw-campus-sparks-emotions

On June 1 Amanda Knox was scheduled to reappear in court to face slander charges for accusing the police of hitting her in the head while first being questioned.

"One daughter gets very angry and another just talks a lot about it," added Cassandra. "They have different ways of handling it. Curt's home now so it keeps everything good at home."

The French wouldn't have put up with this. They would have rolled out their famous invention circa 1792 - made for wayward government officials. I'm of English-Irish descent, but I've lately taken a shine to the French - and their love of freedom.

 

[Kaosium]

I am sorry to see that you could find my post rude, particularly as I try to avoid the kind of arrogant insulting language that is rife on this forum.

If you had read my post, you would have found that I did elaborate. I only picked a few statements upon which to comment. I could have gone on, but really there is not much point. The Knox supporters on this site will believe that which they want to believe. I merely try to make the point that, to me, they seem somewhat deluded.

I am sorry if you should find this offensive, but I can think of no other reason why they should believe this nonsense.

Fair enough, Colonel, but on the subject of nonsense....

What do you find compelling about the official story of the police regarding the interrogation and the subsequent arrest of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele? You didn't appear to like my suggestion that his being stoned when he walked in, as per his diary entry earlier this page, was partially responsible for his difficulties, but what exactly is it up against?

You've followed this debate for a while, what is the official police explanation for how the interrogation was conducted and why they arrested the three? I've pieced it together and have asked several long time commenters partial to their guilt to illustrate it for us all to no avail. How can you ridicule portions of my explanation without being able to articulate the official version? If you leave it to me, I will ridicule the official version as quite frankly it sounds like something from an Onion article, not because it's my hometown 'tabloid' but because that's how bad their story actually is. It invites satire. I can see the headlines:


Teen Girl Takes Out Twelve Police in Backroom Confession Carnage!


Bold Admissions! 'It never occurred to us a subject could lie!'
--Arturo di Felice dodging the question of what 'facts we knew to be correct' she'd corroborated.

'She just wiggled her hips and we were mesmerized, we did as she commanded and arrested the evildoer!'
--Edgardo Giobbi, dodging the question of how he could know she was guilty by her hip-wiggling but not able to tell that she was 'lying' about Patrick.

'There are no tapes to this event, I forgot to turn the cameras on'
--Monica Napoleoni, lying about the tapes.

--Police insist 'She'd turned twenty, no teen no longer!'

 

[Dan O.]

Hey everyone,

I've been reading these forums for some time, but have only been posting on the Eliza Vargas forum on facebook, reason being I get more of a kick out of arguing with the guilters than discussing with those of us who support Knox. One idiot keeps posting this list over and over again and asking me to address the "points". I really don't know why I bother, I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle much more of this illogical idiocy...

Welcome to JREF where we don't simply answer idiotic posts, we pulverize them into the ground so thoroughly that the posters retreat to the far corners of the internet before popping their little mole heads up again.

It looks like someone has put all their little moles in one big colony thinking that nobody will have a mallet big enough to whack them all and the attempts will just be sloughed off as "that's your opinion". What we need here is a proper individual pranging for each of these guilter points and to collect them somewhere convenient for travelers like misteratunta to take home and whack the moles properly.

* the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;​

We went over this one many times here. I posted a theory of how Rudy could have created the footprint after using the shower to rinse blood off his trousers thus explaining the existence of the print and the lack of other prints leading to or away from it. Even an examination of Rudy's shoe prints in the bedroom and hall reveal that they were made with diluted blood and not whole blood thus I postulate that blood in the shoe tracks could be from the same source, namely watery blood dripping from Rudy's pant leg. In fact, there is even confirmation of the dripping in some of the shoe tracks. Also, Rudy himself provides confirmation that his pants were wet when he left.

As for the fit of the print, see what an unbiased group of skeptics thought: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189522

 

[Antony]

The Knox supporters on this site will believe that which they want to believe.

Completely brazen. The belief in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito is based on sound reasoning and verified facts. The opposite belief is based on ... what? An implicit faith in a perverse court decision, in the good faith of a discredited police force, and in media reports that turn out to be misinformation.

If we are "Knox supporters", then you are Mignini supporter.

I merely try to make the point that, to me, they seem somewhat deluded.

Because we don't endorse your articles of faith? The list of reasons for believing guilt, which you describe as "impressive", contains numerous assertions unsupported by evidence, or even shown to have been outright falsehoods. The fact that guilters continue repeating them, and you describe them as "impressive", shows to me which side of this argument is somewhat deluded.

 

[colonelhall]

They were impressive enough to get them convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

A jury that was there, every day, listening to every bit of evidence and able to listen to and watch the defendants.

I go with them.

 

[Kaosium]

They were impressive enough to get them convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

A jury that was there, every day, listening to every bit of evidence and able to listen to and watch the defendants.

I go with them.

What if the police in Perugia said they saw a ghost, and the Court agreed and issued a 'unanimous verdict' they had?

 

[misteratunta]

They were impressive enough to get them convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

A jury that was there, every day, listening to every bit of evidence and able to listen to and watch the defendants.

I go with them.

Oh my God. If I didn't know better, I would say you are Nick "Slick" Kitto posting under a different name. He uses this exact hackneyed, illogical line all the time.

The jurors in the following cases had all the advantages of which you speak

The M25 Three
The Birmingham Six
The Guildford 4
Barry George
Judith Ward
The Maguire Seven
The Bridgewater 4
Winston Silcott
Sally Clark
Donna Anthony
etc
etc
etc

So what exactly is your point?

 

[PhantomWolf]

They were impressive enough to get them convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury.

A jury that was there, every day, listening to every bit of evidence and able to listen to and watch the defendants.

I go with them.

So you believe that Juries always get it right?

 

[Fuji]

So you mean, there may have actually been no DNA left on the knife at all?

At that stage you would have a murder weapon which was

a) never seen outside the flat it belonged in
b) which didn't fit two out of three of the wounds
c) that didn't match the outline of a bloody knife left at the scene

At that point, would you still think it was the murder weapon? WHY?

If there was none of Meredith's DNA on the knife in question, then I would be disinclined to posit that it was used in her murder.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

If I were cleaning a knife that had been a murder weapon, I would clean it six ways from Sunday, with a variety of cleaning agents and prolonged soaking.

As would I. According to the prosecution's theory of the crime, this is essentially what was done.

How can one clean the blade extremely thoroughly yet still leave one's own DNA on the handle?

I am not going down the DNA minutiae rabbit hole with you. I am not an expert or even particularly well-informed with regards to DNA forensics. I will defer to the opinion of the independent experts appointed by Judge Hellman. If they conclude that it cannot be scientifically established that the knife in question was used in the crime, then I personally have no problem in discarding it as an item of incriminatory evidence.

 

[misteratunta]

I've just been reading PMF boards and have practically had to scrape my jaw off the desk...

They are in a heated discussion about how the fact that it's come out that there is no DNA or blood on the knife removed from RS's kitchen is proof it was cleaned with bleach.

That there are humans able to operate computers with such faulty logic chills me to my core.

Do they not understand that if there is no DNA on the knife then there is literally NOTHING to tie it to the crime except that a cop thought it looked unusually clean????

 

[misteratunta]

Oh, and between me last reading this board and my last post, I see the same breakdown in logic has also infected this place too.

 

[quadraginta]

Why keep it? I've lived in a lot of rental apartments, and even if this detailed an inventory exists, the idea that before you move in you (and a representative of the landlord) go through it to check the inventory against actual contents this closely is unrealistic.If the police got a copy of the inventory from RS' landlord, to check for 'missing' knives, RS could have very easily, and believably, argued that there was no such knife when he moved in. The fact that he signed an inventory document means almost nothing.

This has not been my experience.

I've had occasion to rent apartments a number of times when working on out-of-town projects, usually near large college campuses. Since they were only temporary (less than a year) I would get them "furnished", and this included an option for a "kitchen set" which consisted of place settings for four and a minimal amount of cooking gear ... frying pan, sauce pans, baking sheet, etc., ... as well as a few inexpensive kitchen knives of various sizes. There are major chain stores in the U.S. which specialize in exactly this sort of business. They often work in concert with the property owners, who offer the service as part of their leasing packages.

The fact that I signed an inventory document meant that I was responsible for each and every item, whether I confirmed it was there when I signed or not. As a rule the leasing agent made a point of ensuring that I at least glanced at everything. Not only was this inventory checked after I moved out, but generally checked quite thoroughly. Once I was charged for a chipped plate. On another occasion I had a paring knife mailed back to me because I usually brought my own kitchen cutlery and I had inadvertently left one of mine mixed in with their stuff.

The companies I have dealt with who offer this sort of service have for the most part been quite professional, competent, and meticulous. I suspect they need to be to remain successful at it.

 

[Supernaut]

Fair enough, Colonel, but on the subject of nonsense....

What do you find compelling about the official story of the police regarding the interrogation and the subsequent arrest of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele? You didn't appear to like my suggestion that his being stoned when he walked in, as per his diary entry earlier this page, was partially responsible for his difficulties, but what exactly is it up against?

You've followed this debate for a while, what is the official police explanation for how the interrogation was conducted and why they arrested the three? I've pieced it together and have asked several long time commenters partial to their guilt to illustrate it for us all to no avail. How can you ridicule portions of my explanation without being able to articulate the official version? If you leave it to me, I will ridicule the official version as quite frankly it sounds like something from an Onion article, not because it's my hometown 'tabloid' but because that's how bad their story actually is. It invites satire. I can see the headlines:


Teen Girl Takes Out Twelve Police in Backroom Confession Carnage!


Bold Admissions! 'It never occurred to us a subject could lie!'
--Arturo di Felice dodging the question of what 'facts we knew to be correct' she'd corroborated.

'She just wiggled her hips and we were mesmerized, we did as she commanded and arrested the evildoer!'
--Edgardo Giobbi, dodging the question of how he could know she was guilty by her hip-wiggling but not able to tell that she was 'lying' about Patrick.

'There are no tapes to this event, I forgot to turn the cameras on'
--Monica Napoleoni, lying about the tapes.

--Police insist 'She'd turned twenty, no teen no longer!'

Several people just turned to look at me (in my local library) when I guffawed out loud reading this.

Thank you Kaosium.

 

[Kaosium]

I've just been reading PMF boards and have practically had to scrape my jaw off the desk...

They are in a heated discussion about how the fact that it's come out that there is no DNA or blood on the knife removed from RS's kitchen is proof it was cleaned with bleach.

That there are humans able to operate computers with such faulty logic chills me to my core.

Do they not understand that if there is no DNA on the knife then there is literally NOTHING to tie it to the crime except that a cop thought it looked unusually clean????

What's even more amazing is if you go through all the unlikely permutations of how that knife could have been actually involved in the murder, it becomes apparent that it is easier to argue Amanda was involved in the murder without the 'murder knife.'

Then you realize that the only thing that ever suggested Amanda was in that room is something that lowers the probability she actually was.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I've just been reading PMF boards and have practically had to scrape my jaw off the desk...

They are in a heated discussion about how the fact that it's come out that there is no DNA or blood on the knife removed from RS's kitchen is proof it was cleaned with bleach.

That there are humans able to operate computers with such faulty logic chills me to my core.

Do they not understand that if there is no DNA on the knife then there is literally NOTHING to tie it to the crime except that a cop thought it looked unusually clean????

and Raffaele himself, writing that he accidently pricked Meredith with this knife while cooking together

Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano

 

[Supernaut]

<snip>
That there are humans able to operate computers with such faulty logic chills me to my core.
<snip>

I know it's not really funny, but I just LOL'ed again!