Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

And how are you going to reconcile your belief when the fact that Raffaele could not have been there because he was on his computer continuously until 6:02 the next morning is proven through the computer records? And Raffaele has maintained that Amanda was there with him (except that she could have slipped out after he went to sleep after 6:02 in the morning!).

Of course, I predict that your first response will be to deny that such proof exists.

It seems that you have yourself denied that such proof exists by noting that its validation has not yet occurred.

If it can established that what you assert is correct, then I would naturally have to modify my perception of the case. It hasn't happened yet, though.

 

[Fuji]

It's also clear that you believe that roughing up people gets them to tell the truth. Slap them around and Jesus will make them admit to their sins. It's a deeply ingrained tradition in human culture.

Clear to you, perhaps. But then again, you don't know me. Your assertions above are pathetic.

Or perhaps you still believe that the all night interrogation was noting but kind words, tea and cakes. After all, police never lie. They always tell the truth.

Perhaps you believe that suspects never lie. They always tell the truth. No?

 

[Fuji]

In what way(s) would you say that the crime scene was "staged"?

Primarily through the attempted simulation of a forced entry by an intruder.

 

[Fuji]

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

Broadly speaking, Western judicial systems have safeguards and procedures that, in acknowledgment of essential human fallibility, establish the preferability of letting a guilty man go free vis-a-vis mistakenly punishing the innocent.

A person guilty of a crime who avoids legal punishment has "escaped justice". I fail to see how this is a controversial position to hold.

(It seems you might just need the condescending lecture after all...... )

Nah, you keep it. It suits you.

 

[Fuji]

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).

It's not just Pisa.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful in your "corrections"?

 

[Fuji]

My point exactly.

I take it back. Palillo's not this much of a hack.

 

[Fuji]

There's no evidence of any staging, not to mention staging authored by Knox or Sollecito.

Well then, I'm sure Knox and Sollecito will be home in time for Thanksgiving. Their attorneys must be biding their time, waiting until just the right moment to unleash their demolition of the prosecution's established theory of crime scene staging. Masters of suspense, they truly are. Any day now. I can't wait.

How exactly was the window broken in your opinion, Fuji?

I don't have an "exact" opinion, other than it wasn't done in the course of a genuine forced entry attempt through Filomena's window.

 

[Fuji]

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

The fact that there was any crime scene staging at all points squarely at only one person - Knox. By using Knox as (one of) his alibi(s), Sollecito consequently implicates himself.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I take it back. Palillo's not this much of a hack.

My point exactly for the second time.

 

[Draca]

Bathroom Photo

Dan O. or anyone else who knows,

What chemical was the bathroom sprayed with again?

Thanks, Draca

 

[LondonJohn]

Broadly speaking, Western judicial systems have safeguards and procedures that, in acknowledgment of essential human fallibility, establish the preferability of letting a guilty man go free vis-a-vis mistakenly punishing the innocent.

A person guilty of a crime who avoids legal punishment has "escaped justice". I fail to see how this is a controversial position to hold.



Nah, you keep it. It suits you.

Are you equating "guilty of a crime" with "actually committed the crime"? If so, you're entering a philosophical minefield. In a civilised criminal justice system, a person is only "guilty" of a crime if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.

I'll revisit an analogy I used earlier. Suppose I shared a house with three other men - say one was my brother, one was a good friend, and one was merely a passing acquaintance. Suppose that one night, I left my wallet on the communal kitchen table, and the following morning £200 had been taken from the wallet. The only possible culprits were the thee housemates.

I might ask all three if they'd taken the money, and all three might deny it. I might suppose that by far the most likely thief was the guy I knew the least, and this guy might have bought himself an expensive new pair of jeans the very morning after the theft. But I (or the police) would have no right to "convict" him of the theft, unless we could find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had actually committed the crime (e.g. his prints on specific known banknotes, or him telling someone else that he'd taken the money). If we couldn't prove that it was he who had done it, then it was still possible that my friend or my brother was the culprit. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. It's a good system: you should read about it a bit.

 

[LondonJohn]

Dan O. or anyone else who knows,

What chemical was the bathroom sprayed with again?

Thanks, Draca

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664d9f82cc547e5.jpg[/qimg]

My guess is that it was phenolphthalein - a presumptive blood test which turns pink quickly when applied to blood, but which oxidises to the same pink colour in air within a couple of minutes. If it was phth, then the "crack" forensics team didn't know what they were doing applying it over such a broad area - phth tests are usually carried out on small swabbed samples or very small patches, owing to their time sensitivity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well then, I'm sure Knox and Sollecito will be home in time for Thanksgiving. Their attorneys must be biding their time, waiting until just the right moment to unleash their demolition of the prosecution's established theory of crime scene staging. Masters of suspense, they truly are. Any day now. I can't wait.



I don't have an "exact" opinion, other than it wasn't done in the course of a genuine forced entry attempt through Filomena's window.

Be a sport and give us some options then - there can't be that many, can there? At the same time, maybe you might explain why the scene in and outside Filomena's room is actively inconsistent with a real break-in.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not just Pisa.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful in your "corrections"?

And I think they're all wrong - his name is spelled "Hellmann". There's a lesson here somewhere about trusting journalists.

 

[Draca]

My guess is that it was phenolphthalein - a presumptive blood test which turns pink quickly when applied to blood, but which oxidises to the same pink colour in air within a couple of minutes. If it was phth, then the "crack" forensics team didn't know what they were doing applying it over such a broad area - phth tests are usually carried out on small swabbed samples or very small patches, owing to their time sensitivity.

Thank you LJ, I appreciate it.

 

[Antony]

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.

"Deluded" is your word, not mine. And it's been clear for a long time which side of the argument is in error. The fact that despite flooding the latest page of the forum with posts, you haven't provided the slightest evidence of the fictitious "staging" other than further assertions, rather shows which side that might be.

As for "finding out in a few weeks' time", you place too much credence in the statements of Italian courts. The ruling of the Hellmann court won't change the facts of the case any more than the original verdict did - although after the reports of the latest hearing it's looking more hopeful that he will base his findings on facts rather than the media hysteria that guided the first trial.

 

[Dan O.]

It seems that you have yourself denied that such proof exists by noting that its validation has not yet occurred.

Is that really your argument? I stated truthfully what can be said about the computer evidence and you turned that into a denial that the proof exists.

What we have all heard about this bit of evidence is quite specific. Since the prosecution has their own forensic copy of Raffaele's hard drive, the defense cannot have simply manufactured new evidence on the disk. If the defense tried to make this whole thing up, I can see no benefit to such a ploy since the prosecution can quickly look for themselves to see if the data is there.

The only proof that we are waiting for is the independent technical review that can tell the court that the conclusions that the defense reached are accurate.

If it can established that what you assert is correct, then I would naturally have to modify my perception of the case. It hasn't happened yet, though.

I choose to believe the defense. If you choose to side with the proven liars, that is your choice.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the big pink

Dan O. or anyone else who knows,

What chemical was the bathroom sprayed with again?

Thanks, Draca

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664d9f82cc547e5.jpg[/qimg]

Frank reported that it was essentially crazy glue (cyanoacrylate) fumes plus a dye to look for fingerprints. Dan O. has suggested phenolphthalin (Kastle Meyer test), which has oxidized to phenolphthalein. I am not certain, although I lean slightly toward the latter.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not just Pisa.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful in your "corrections"?

Well now, here's a pdf with an official Italian Republic letterhead.

http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/norme/varie/sentribperugia_281004.pdf

Guess whose name is on page one of the document?

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann.

What was that again about me being more careful with my "corrections"? A short, simple apology would be fine. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and don't believe everything you read in the papers

 

[Kaosium]

Personally, I don't think "good enough" cuts it when we are talking about people doing decades in prison. Did you know that there were at least five different words reported to describe Nara's description of the scream she said she heard? I think it's important to know exactly what she said, not what other said she said.

Is she "nuts" and "nearly deaf"? None of the "mundane testimony" mentioned this, yet this is what the defense in now claiming. So either she is "nuts" and "nearly deaf" which wasn't reported on anywhere, or the defense is making up lies.

My view is that there's a fair amount about this case that's simply irrelevant to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, and Nara's testimony is a prime example. She claims she heard a scream and people running but wasn't sure of the time, which was 'hypothesized' by Mignini to have been any damn time that was convenient for him after the Curatolo debacle. The latter part, hearing people running, strikes me as impossible, and the fact no one else corroborated that account of the scream, considering the time and geography, it becomes even more dubious in my opinion. All she seems to represent to me is an indictment of the Massei Court which accepted her 'testimony' and offered an undocumented estimate of her bladder capacity in an attempt to 'refute' the better science presented regarding Meredith's stomach contents to 'support' a nigh-impossible time of death.

Who has seen all the crime scene photos and videos? How do you know which of them were submitted into evidence?

Does it matter? I'm not sure what you mean, other than it's possible we have access to information the jury didn't? Or are you suggesting some of them were faked?