• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fuji said:
Well, if you're certain that the Judge spells his surname "Hellmann", you'd best be on to the Telegraph and have them correct their error. They've apparently been misspelling his name for several months now.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Helmann gets his named misspelled quite often. Its one of those last names like Hoffmann, hoffman, hofman, hofmann
 
Fuji said:
Hi PhantomWolf.

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

If all of that were true, then it would be strong grounds for suspicion, but still nowhere near proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; for that, we need something that ties the 2 of them to the murder room - and no, a speck of DNA on a single item doesn't do that. As it happens, all of it is invented by the Perugia police, in order to build a case where none exists.

Fuji, I'm sorry to say you have been duped.
 
Fuji said:
Hi PhantomWolf.

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

What evidence of the staged break do you feel in is an indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity?

As an example:
1. For them to break the window from the inside and the window open, they would have had to have picked up all the glass from the window off the floor and place it at a new location in the room. Since according to claims by the prosecution the room was ransacked before the window was broken, they would have had to relocate all this glass with the clothes already on the floor. They then picked up the rock and hit the inside of the shudder before tossing it in the paper bag were it was later found. Then they opened the shudders. Can't hit the shudders with the rock from the inside with them open. The rock would fall out of the window.

2. They could have broken the window from the inside and the shudders closed. Thus all the glass landing on the window seal and the rock dent on the shudders. You still run into the glass debris field and the final resting area of the rock problem. Since after all, they are accused of staging a break in to look like an actual break in. They would have to have once again picked up the glass and rock and placed it to look like the rock was thrown from outside.

Which once again begs the question. If they wanted to stage a break in to look like a rock was thrown from outside the apartment. Why wouldn't they just throw the rock from outside. If they are going to be accused of being smart enough to be able to stage a break in, by making it look like a rock thrown inside came from outside, then they are smart enough to know to throw it from outside. After all they went outside to get the rock, surely they would have been smart enough to go ahead and toss it through the window. Plus thats one hell of a location to fake a break in. Smart person would just open the balcony door and then leave the front door open and/or not even bother faking a break in. After all Meredith was raped. So if they were not smart enough to realize all that, then they are not smart enough to do such a good job at faking a break in.
 
Last edited:
There's no evidence of any staging, not to mention staging authored by Knox or Sollecito.

How exactly was the window broken in your opinion, Fuji?
 
Fuji said:
Well, if you're certain that the Judge spells his surname "Hellmann", you'd best be on to the Telegraph and have them correct their error. They've apparently been misspelling his name for several months now.
Click to expand...


Ah yes - just the kind of attention to detail that has made Nick Pisa a titan amongst journalists covering this case. (By the way, Pisa's a freelance hack who'll sell to whichever outlet wants to buy his stuff, and pretty much all UK newspapers - including the once-mighty Telegraph - are struggling hugely to stay afloat and don't have their own correspondent on the ground).
 
Fuji said:
I find the idea of a convicted murderer walking out of prison as a free citizen, having only been incarcerated for a decade or so, to be both unfortunate and nauseating. If Hellman's court acquits the pair, I would find that surprising, rather than nauseating.



No. That said, I can still find it regrettable on a personal level if someone, in my estimation, escapes justice. I hardly think that this is a unique viewpoint.



Sure, the costumes were great. :rolleyes:

Seriously - what kind of a response do you expect to a question like that?



Next time, please spare me the condescending lecture.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that someone being acquitted because charges cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt qualifies as "escaping justice"?

(It seems you might just need the condescending lecture after all...... )
 
Fuji said:
Hi PhantomWolf.

Speaking for myself only, I think that the strongest indicator of Knox's and Sollecito's complicity in Kercher's murder is the staging of the crime scene. I also find the pair's changing/conflicting alibis, their various lies to the investigation, and Knox's accusation against Lumumba to be highly incriminating. Of lesser importance, though still significant, would be the assorted genetic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...


In what way(s) would you say that the crime scene was "staged"?
 
LondonJohn said:
Was that a deliberately ironic slip there, or a mistake?! :)

("Helmann")
Click to expand...

I spelled it that way, because I felt like spelling it that way. Misspelling someones last name shouldn't take away from the message you are trying to send. The hole mesage itself should be judged as a hole, knot ignored because of a mispelled word. I've seen this happen by both sides of the argument. Whenever they don't want to discuss a subject someone picks out a misspelled word and moves on, thinking that by pointing out a misspelled word it takes away from the rest of the message. Of course thats not exclusive to the Kercher murder case. I see it happen all the time on websites. Its the ole, I can spell better than you so my opinion means more stance.
 
Chris C said:
I spelled it that way, because I felt like spelling it that way. Misspelling someones last name shouldn't take away from the message you are trying to send. The hole mesage itself should be judged as a hole, knot ignored because of a mispelled word. I've seen this happen by both sides of the argument. Whenever they don't want to discuss a subject someone picks out a misspelled word and moves on, thinking that by pointing out a misspelled word it takes away from the rest of the message. Of course thats not exclusive to the Kercher murder case. I see it happen all the time on websites. Its the ole, I can spell better than you so my opinion means more stance.
Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't having a go at you in any way, and generally I'm in agreement with you on written and spoken language. It's not set in stone, and is only a means to an end in communicating facts, thoughts, concepts or emotions*. So long as the sender and the recipient both understand what's being communicated, there's no problem.

However, the one area where I do think that spelling is more important is people's names. Names are intensely personal and individual identifiers, by definition. If your full name, for example, was Chris Carlin, and someone wrote to/about you and referred to you as "Chris Carling", I think you might take a little umbrage at that.

I always try to write people's names correctly, and to pronounce them as they themselves pronounce them if I'm talking with/about them. Thus if I'm talking with a Frenchman who's first name is "David", I will take care to refer to him as "da-VEED", rather than "DAY-vid". I can testify strongly as to how effective a tool this is in international business, plus it helps interpersonal relationships immensely. Anyway, totally OT, but just thought I'd add my thoughts since it was brought up.....

* This reminds me of a nice Prefab Sprout lyric from my youth: "Words are trains for moving past what really has no name"
 
Last edited:
Chris C said:
I spelled it that way, because I felt like spelling it that way. Misspelling someones last name shouldn't take away from the message you are trying to send. The hole mesage itself should be judged as a hole, knot ignored because of a mispelled word. I've seen this happen by both sides of the argument. Whenever they don't want to discuss a subject someone picks out a misspelled word and moves on, thinking that by pointing out a misspelled word it takes away from the rest of the message. Of course thats not exclusive to the Kercher murder case. I see it happen all the time on websites. Its the ole, I can spell better than you so my opinion means more stance.
Click to expand...

You have a point there, although I think it's distracting if the person typing the message can't spell or punctuate or parse grammar correctly. Having said that, I'm not above having a little fun pulling someone up on spelling when they are expressing a particularly obtuse POV.

I think if you want to be taken seriously, then it's worth taking a little effort to make sure you type in good English. My bugbears are the use of the Grocer's apostrophe in plurals, "your" instead of "you're", "it's" instead of "its", "loose" instead of "lose". And if it's someone's name, don't you think it's a matter of courtesy to them to get it right?
 
Alt+F4 said:
How about the fact that it's now it's being claimed that Nara Capazielli is "nearly deaf" and "nuts"? I think that's pretty important and this was not reported on when she testified or included in the various judges reports.

Link:
http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Head-of-Rome-Police-in-Amanda-Knox-Case-I-knew-she/2937867

So which is it? Do you know?
Click to expand...

Do you think you missed some important testimony of Nara's? She was on the stand 1 day and it has been reported several places. I don't think the defense had the benefit of the Oggi report 2 years ago and didn't explore these things. I do know they questioned her ability to hear the footsteps/running over leaves and also questioned why she stated the first time she could not tell where the scream came from yet in court said it was from Meredith's flat. They also questioned her statement about reading about the murder in the morning papers which was actually a day later and seeing Amanda and Raffaele standing in a place at a time they were not there.

Thank you for the link and yes after the Oggi report and this one I think she is most likely at least a little crazy. I have not seen an independent confirmation of her hearing troubles.
 
starch from gloves?

If the starch came from gloves, then what I previously wrote about bleach would obviously not apply.
 
Mignini collusion with Guede?

Mark Waterbury gives an interesting theory about Mignini's involvement with Guede.


My idea: It's kind of like the informant role between Connolly and Flemmi. Guede may have been a Mignini informant.

John J. "Zip" Connolly, Jr. is a former FBI agent, currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary for racketeering and obstruction of justice convictions stemming from his relationship with James J. "Whitey" Bulger, Steve Flemmi, and the Winter Hill Gang. He is the brother-in-law of Arthur Gianelli who is married to Mary Ann Moore, the sister of Connolly's wife Elizabeth.

State police and other federal officers had been trying to imprison Whitey Bulger for years, but somehow Bulger always avoided getting caught. As the FBI handler for Bulger and Flemmi, Connolly (who had grown up in the Old Harbor Housing Project with Bulger) had been protecting them from prosecution by feeding him information about possible attempts to catch them.

Connolly was indicted on December 22, 1999 on charges of alerting Bulger and Flemmi to investigations, falsifying FBI reports to cover their crimes, and accepting bribes. In 2000, he was charged with additional racketeering related offenses. He was convicted on the racketeering charges in 2002 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.[1]
Click to expand...
 
Antony said:
If all of that were true, then it would be strong grounds for suspicion, but still nowhere near proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; for that, we need something that ties the 2 of them to the murder room - and no, a speck of DNA on a single item doesn't do that. As it happens, all of it is invented by the Perugia police, in order to build a case where none exists.

Fuji, I'm sorry to say you have been duped.
Click to expand...

Your concern is touching, but unwarranted.

As I previously stated, we will find out in a few weeks' time who are the deluded ones in this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom