Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

Right. And either Frank is telling the truth..or Oggi is lying.

Well, that's one way of putting it!

(I was going to suggest you put forward a false dichotomy, but I see you didn't! As far as your concerned it's heads you win, tails I lose! Very clever. )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nara's testimony

Very very dodgy, Halides. Let's stick with the facts that I posted. We were talking about claims made by Oggi and Ms. Dempsey, which Frank disputes. My post was referring to that, as you well know.

capealadin,

Please explain why Nara is credible, in "spite of some inaccuracies in the presentation," as Massei wrote on page 96 of the English translation. Draca summarized some of the problems with her testimony on page 153 here. Here is a link to a news story. Why did no one else hear this scream? Why didn't the cops canvass the building in the days following the investigation, before Nara interacted with reporters?

 

[Kaosium]

Right. And either Frank is telling the truth..or Oggi is lying. And anyone choosing Oggi's version, has made the decision who the liar is.

Somebody must be lying! Somebody must be guilty!

I looked into this and it's my considered opinion that Paul Ciolino is probably the ultimate source of this story, and was 'background' for the Oggi story, they probably talked on the phone. I say that because the information is in fact old, it goes back to Paul C's trip to Perugia when he taped his conversation with Nara's neighbors, who by coincidence just happened to be from Chicago.

I think the latter is important to take into account. Paul C is from Chicago, and being from around the area I can tell you they're something of an acquired taste. I'm from 'The Isthmus,' same as the hometown magazine cover currently on Frank's front page, and some of us feel we're a little too close to Chicago. One of their 'charms' is a rather blunt form of hyperbole, they wouldn't want anyone to think they were being subtle in their speech or anything.

So Paul C goes to Perugia, he talks to the neighbors, and the niece and nephew, and he finds out she had a breakdown or whatever it was when her husband died and spent time recovering. He also finds her claim impossible, while he can barely distinguish some sound, (his partner none at all) he cannot see how anyone could pretend they distinctly heard two people running over leaves from that distance. So he sees an impossible claim, time spent recovering in a mental facility, memory errors about the event, and it comes out in that charming Chicagoean parlance 'she's crazy!'

Frank on the other hand sees her regularly and doesn't see her drooling out one side of her mouth, in fact functions fine, and doesn't see 'crazy' at all. As for her hearing, having seen the geography, I think that's a good argument for doing those audio-metric tests, as while she might do fine in close conversation with the camera from Ciolino's crew, or talking to Frank in person, she'd have to have super-hearing to actually have heard all that she said she did.

 

[kmortis]

It doesn't really matter if Alt+F4 received a PM or not. It is not germane to the topic at hand. I've moved that entire derail off to AAH. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate of the Amanda Knox case - all ready in progress

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[babycondor]

Filomena stated that there was glass under her clothes as well as on top of them. That pretty much puts an end to the prosecution story that the break-in must have been faked because all the glass was on top of her clothes.

"Was the room with the broken window disturbed before the police arrived?"

I'm not quite sure what aspect of the story this question refers to so I will leave it to others.

Filomena was in her room before Meredith's body was discovered and before the crime scene was sealed off. "Filomena testified that her first instinct on returning to the apartment had been to go to her room. Her clothes were on the floor and her cupboard was open, but none of her jewellery was missing, nor were her designer sunglasses and handbags.

Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes. 'I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.'"

Ron Hendry's reconstruction of the break in theorizes that the room was messy to begin with, and when the rock smashed through the window, it knocked open the wardrobe door, spilling clothes onto the floor. The rock landed in a paper bag full of clothes and knocked it over. (Aside: what person, when staging a break in, plants the rock in a paper bag???) This theory accounts for the glass on top of the clothes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank on the other hand sees her regularly and doesn't see her drooling out one side of her mouth, in fact functions fine, and doesn't see 'crazy' at all. As for her hearing, having seen the geography, I think that's a good argument for doing those audio-metric tests, as while she might do fine in close conversation with the camera from Ciolino's crew, or talking to Frank in person, she'd have to have super-hearing to actually have heard all that she said she did.

I am sure Nara is probably bedside herself at being recently interred. I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt on near death issue, or something like those.

 

[Kaosium]

Back On Track

I wrote this in reply to a post that was condemned to AAH, thus modified it slightly and post it now, so it can basque in the adulation of all the crickets chirping around it...


Let's try something else then. What part of the testimony of the police officers regarding the interrogation do those who see guilt in everything Amanda and Raffaele communicate find compelling? To summarize, shortly after Raffaele 'dropped' Amanda's alibi, Monica Napoleoni said she came across Amanda doing CARTWHEELS upon which time she upbraided her for that behavior, also informed her that they knew she had done hash the night of the murder and that while once was understandable, further divergences from the truth would discredit her.

She also took the opportunity to scold her for being affectionate with Raffaele, and following him around to places she wasn't invited, like the police station in this instance. According to Monica Napoleoni, Amanda wasn't supposed to accompany Raffaele to the police station, she and Amanda were just having a friendly chat in the hall, or this little room off the hall they invited her so she would be more comfortable of course, while they had this little chick-chat, with the other two female officers who happened to free at that moment and all saw Amanda doing CARTWHEELS.

So Monica just helps herself to Amanda's phone and starts going through it, as a natural part of merely talking it up between girls, of course, and all of a sudden Amanda breaks down when Monica asks her about this sent text to Patrick--who the police have never even heard of!--and says, in words no b-movie hack could write, 'It's him...he's the murderer!!!' or something to that effect. Very dramatic, is it not? Almost as entertaining as a CARTWHEEL So, to ensure the rights of the accused are fully respected, and to make sure everything is in compliance with Italian law, Monica and friends immediately withdraw, summon a translator, and :::hours pass::: at 1:45 formally make Amanda a suspect. Amanda is asked if she wants a lawyer but refuses, it was so nice and proper for her to ask though, wasn't it? Curiously there is no mention whatsoever of the 1:45 AM statement, that simply becomes the time at which Amanda is made a suspect. Everyone who saw that statement must be confused!

So, with the aid of the translator, :::hours pass::: at about 3:30 AM Monica takes time away from serving Amanda the tea and cupcakes that are a part of every friendly little girltalk she has with disturbed girls who blurt out that others are murderers, and Monica takes Amanda's statement, it now being almost five hours since Raffaele 'dropped' Amanda's alibi, and her account of what they were doing during that time taking up maybe fifteen of those minutes. That's a lot of tea and cupcakes I guess, and maybe a few CARTWHEELS. Oh, she was so busy making Amanda feel at home and comfortable and serving her pastries she just 'forgets' to turn on the camera--as required by Italian law for interrogation of suspects--how could we ever blame her for that oversight?

The friendly little chick-chat being over with, and it time to record the signing of the statement so it can be made official, it's now 'too busy' and the taping of that event is forgotten as well. After receiving that confused statement where Amanda sounds barely cogent it's now necessary to race off and arrest Patrick--who they'd never even heard of--solely on that basis, they didn't bother to perform any 'investigation' of the gibberish they have from this girl, they just race out and arrest him postehaste--after all he might murder again! Then it's time to tell the world 'Case Closed' and that Amanda 'buckled and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct'--which of course meant absolutely nothing, the police chief didn't mean that and it has no place in this story which is mostly about CARTWHEELS.

Lucky Amanda though, she now gets taken to the cafeteria so she can eat, and the one who does it (Ficarra I think) admits blushingly she 'risked her job' as she took Amanda out there without handcuffs! What a considerate way she has with this merciless murderess! After all, just moments afterward they're going to throw her in a cage, lock it, and tell the world she was holding Meredith down whilst Patrick and Raffaele raped and murdered her with absolutely no evidence to base that upon, so it sure is nice of them to be so decent about everything. Whilst they're hauling her off to prison Zugarina even gets a kiss from Amanda as she contemplates the meaning of the perp walk she just endured, as a thank you for being such a good friend to her in that hour of need! Perhaps she even performed a CARTWHEEL for her?

On page eight of the Amanda Knox thread in the Conspiracy subforum there is a post to me from Amazer where you can find links about the police (ILE says: ) testimony on the interrogation. You can google around for more information, though I warn you in advance most press accounts center on the CARTWHEELS as that was obviously the most important part of the days proceedings, you can see it in how all three saw this CARTWHEEL even though they don't include the others being there, but it was the feature subject of their testimony. You almost get the impression the police in Perugia would rather talk about CARTWHEELS than their brilliant capture of this merciless 'murderess!'

I wonder why that is?

 

[Kaosium]

I am sure Nara is probably bedside herself at being recently interred. I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt on near death issue, or something like those.

I think so too, we wouldn't want Mignini thinking there'd been another body swap! Maybe he'd finally find proof of a clean-up if he went to where Nara was 'interred!'

 

[RoseMontague]

I wonder why that is?

Yes,
If we could just find a common theme to this we might understand better.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes,
If we could just find a common theme to this we might understand better.

It becomes even more entertaining with the addition of Giobbi's testimony ('mathematically certain' he gave the order for both of them to be brought in--heard scream) and the filing of the calunnia charge on Amanda which revealed there were twelve police officers at the interrogation. What happened to those other eight in the testimony of Monica and Friends? The shrinking wallflowers were never mentioned, how odd that there'd be an interrogation going on with these guys from Rome who break mafioso and she just never noticed them. Or maybe they never deigned to interfere with the cozy chat Amanda was having with Monica, Rita and Zugarini, and the enthralled women never looked up and saw these grizzled veterans who'd worked dozens of interrogations?

They sure got to the bottom of that CARTWHEEL though, didn't they?

 

[quadraginta]

Those studies refer to tiny fragments which travel a very short distance. If Rudy pitched the rock from a couple of meters away, as seems likely, there is absolutely no reason to think either that he would get glass on himself or that there would be easily visible glass below the broken window.

Yes, those studies do, at least in abstracts. Which is interesting in itself since your assertion was that nothing of the sort could happen at all. As I mentioned, there are plenty of other studies. I will not continue to do your homework for you, especially since this topic was so thoroughly covered so long ago in these threads, and the position you are trying to fabricate was so thoroughly disproved.

First it's impossible. Now it's a matter of size.

The wheels on your goalposts are getting squeaky.

Perhaps you should invest in some lubricating oil.

I realise you're aching to finda decent gotcha, but we've been over this ground very thoroughly and you know it. The pattern of broken glass does not support the staged break-in hypothesis as Massei claimed, and it's completely consistent with a real break-in.

In your opinion. An opinion that has been formed, it appears, largely by discounting out-of-hand anything you find inconvenient to it.

 

[quadraginta]

When thin plate glass is struck by a large object moving at relatively low velocity (less than 100mph), the glass will fragment inwards, with chunks of the broken pane falling vertically downwards. Minute (<1mm) particles of glass will indeed fly backwards - these particles are the result of the glass fragmenting at the fracture points, and a trampoline effect (on a very small scale) will send some of these particles backwards.

So while it's incorrect to say that no glass flies backwards, it's correct to say that no large pieces of glass will fly backwards. The articles you cite support the well-known forensic technique of carefully examining the clothing and hair of break-in suspects: if glass was broken with a hand-held implement (e.g. a hammer), then it's likely that tiny fragments of glass will have rebounded back onto the suspect.

I see absolutely no evidence that the "crack" Perugia forensics team got on their hands and knees and minutely examined the grass/mud below Filomena's window for sub-mm particles of glass fragment. I certainly see no evidence that they sifted the ground. Rather, I see evidence that they used that very area to mill around, smoke cigarettes and make phone calls while the cottage was being examined. Heck, I haven't even seen any detailed police photographs of that area of ground (the ground only seems to be visible in wider shots of the outer wall).

Further evidence in support of the police's incompetence in this issue is that the Massei Report only mentions the very basic testimony of one of the forensics team (Gioia Brocci), who merely stated that the grass didn't look like it had been trampled. Further stellar "reasoning" from Massei follows: if there were large pieces of glass lying on the (wide) windowsill, then why hadn't similar size pieces been propelled further backwards onto the ground below?

See my response to Kevin, above.

Perhaps the two of you could split the cost of that lubricating oil between you.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, those studies do, at least in abstracts.

So the studies you presented do not support your contention, got it.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of other studies.

Ah, so there are other studies which do support your contention, I expect you'll be presenting them now.

I will not continue to do your homework for you

I guess I was wrong.

So you have studies supporting your contention, but you chose instead to present studies which don't support your contention. Presumably on Planet X this is a better way of making your case, but it doesn't really fly on JREF.

 

[quadraginta]

...CARTWHEELS...CARTWHEELS.... CARTWHEEL...CARTWHEELS...CARTWHEELS. ...CARTWHEEL...CARTWHEELS...CARTWHEEL...CARTWHEELS...

...CARTWHEEL...

I think it is interesting to note that the inception of this series of threads was an OP titled "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel" and quite unabashedly made that simple claim in the body of the post.

An OP by a Knox advocate.

This premise was quite quickly and easily discounted by the ensuing posts, most of which were offered by people with no 'dog in the fight' at all, and the remainder largely unwilling to accept her innocence as a given.

I find this interesting because as that occurred the various Knox defenders involved backed away from this initial assertion, rather grudgingly distancing themselves from such a patently flawed claim, and now it seems to be popular among them to re-invent it as a mantra deriding those who fail in an unquestioning acceptance of her innocence for no other apparent reason than it sounds so silly. A fascinating case of inversion.

My, my. How times change.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

An article from TJMK about the forth coming trial involving members of Raffaele's family.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/sollecito_family_trial_on_the_component_about_their_alleged_attempt/

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, those studies do, at least in abstracts.

So the studies you presented do not support your contention, got it.

My contention was that Kevin's claim that "Glass doesn't fly backwards and I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it should." was false.

I took a moment to establish that with evidence. Evidence easily uncovered by anyone with even the slightest interest in searching it out. Why do you say that my contention is not supported?

Now you want me to find more evidence for yet another claim. One quite fundamentally different from the one I addressed.

Why do I have this feeling that such progressive demands will have no terminus?

As I mentioned, there are plenty of other studies.

Ah, so there are other studies which do support your contention, I expect you'll be presenting them now.

I will not continue to do your homework for you

I guess I was wrong.

So you have studies supporting your contention, but you chose instead to present studies which don't support your contention. Presumably on Planet X this is a better way of making your case, but it doesn't really fly on JREF.

You mean "... fly again."

As I already pointed out, in the post which appears to have challenged your understanding so thoroughly, this topic has been covered in the past. If you desire to resurrect it go back and re-read for yourself.

Do try to read for comprehension. It makes your efforts to contribute much more convincing.

 

[Kaosium]

I think it is interesting to note that the inception of this series of threads was an OP titled "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel" and quite unabashedly made that simple claim in the body of the post.

An OP by a Knox advocate.

This premise was quite quickly and easily discounted by the ensuing posts, most of which were offered by people with no 'dog in the fight' at all, and the remainder largely unwilling to accept her innocence as a given.

I find this interesting because as that occurred the various Knox defenders involved backed away from this initial assertion, rather grudgingly distancing themselves from such a patently flawed claim, and now it seems to be popular among them to re-invent it as a mantra deriding those who fail in an unquestioning acceptance of her innocence for no other apparent reason than it sounds so silly. A fascinating case of inversion.

My, my. How times change.

Well, maybe that's just proof positive that those supporting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not all part of some 'PR campaign' online, that was another 'patently flawed claim' that those 'people with no dog in the fight' accepted wholesale back in that thread. I bring it up not because of the naming of the first thread, but because if you go looking for information about the police testimony on the interrogation you find out a great deal about the CARTWHEEL and rather little to do with what was really important that day, the ridiculous story the police told on the interrogation.

See, it worked with you again! I write a post about the police 'story' on the interrogation mocking the treasured CARTWHEEL and you respond only to the part regarding my derisive attitude towards the CARTWHEEL. Did you think I hurt its feelings?

 

[Matthew Best]

My contention was that Kevin's claim that "Glass doesn't fly backwards and I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it should." was false.

I took a moment to establish that with evidence. Evidence easily uncovered by anyone with even the slightest interest in searching it out. Why do you say that my contention is not supported?

Oh, sorry, I just assumed you were trying to argue something actually related to the topic of this thread. Not that you were concerned that someone was wrong on the internet about a tiny inconsequential detail. It seems I was mistaken. My apologies.

Now perhaps you'd like to discuss the case of Knox/Sollecito?

 

[Kaosium]

An article from TJMK about the forth coming trial involving members of Raffaele's family.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/sollecito_family_trial_on_the_component_about_their_alleged_attempt/

Very interesting, how do you feel about this? A family says some angry words about their son and brother being arrested on a ludicrous charge, try to do something to help them, and find themselves also under fire--and wiretapped! Doesn't the latter bother you a little bit? They wiretapped the father of a kid arrested on a preposterous charge? Why would they do that? Do you suppose this is common practice in Italy?

 

[quadraginta]

Well, maybe that's just proof positive that those supporting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not all part of some 'PR campaign' online, that was another 'patently flawed claim' that those 'people with no dog in the fight' accepted wholesale back in that thread.
<snip>

Except that they didn't ... as I pointed out.

The rest of your post progresses from that failed assertion, so I won't bother with addressing it.