Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

What did they actually do? Blaming them for angry words at such a bizarre charge strikes me as the height of absurdity itself. Filing charges on them is yet another cruelty inflicted upon innocents in this bungled 'investigation.' How many charges have actually been filed so far 'investigating' this crime? I've lost count, it's well over a dozen extra people at this point. Is there nothing that will shame the lynch mob screaming for vengeance? Is there no charge petty enough, even invading the home of the girl's parents to charge them with defamation for repeating to a British reporter what their daughter said on the stand?

I guess we’ll find out later this month when the trial starts, it does appear that the authorities are taking legal action on any form of wrong doing and leaving it to the courts to decide, again I doubt that this is unusual in Italy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The spot where the rock landed is not a spot where a rock would have landed were it thrown through the window.

I have read others that claim it was, can you please provide evidence of you claim, thanks.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What do you think happened?

Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza I think, Raffaele got a call from the police asking him to come in to clear up a few points from his statement, Amanda decided to go with him. During Raffaele’s interview he changed his previous statement; in the mean time the police took advantage of the situation presented to them and started speaking to Amanda.

 

[Antony]

I have never been swayed by the the Media's accounts of Amanda. I don't feel she had that many lovers, or was seriously into drugs. My impressions have been from her words, her behaviours that I have seen, her lack of empathy..this she has shown in many instances.

In other words, "swayed by Media accounts of Amanda".

It would have been nice, for once, if someone on the Innocent side, would just admit, when given reputable cites, to have acknowledged being wrong. Not happening, I see. Well, it merely cements for me, what I've seen so far. Deny deny deny. Waffle waffle waffle. Twist twist twist. Credibility gets lost though...

That's a pretty accurate description of the typical guilter's response to the facts and science of the case.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have read others that claim it was, can you please provide evidence of you claim, thanks.

Actually, the video demonstration put on by the defense has it landing pretty close to the same spot.

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

 

[Antony]

The spot where the rock landed is not a spot where a rock would have landed were it thrown through the window.

You are making things up. It makes much more sense to say that the spot where the rock fetched up is not a spot that would be chosen by someone faking the break-in. Indeed, one of the characteristics of the traces left by a real break-in is a high degree of randomness, compared with a staged break-in; and randomness is a notably difficult feature to simulate.

It's a recurring part of the guilter argument, to settle on an essentially random aspect of the crime, and make an unsupported assertion that it's a problem for the innocent case (compare the frequent cry of "innocent people don't do that!" on some blogs). In fact, it's usually a bigger problem for any scenario in which AK and RS could be guilty - but of course guilters aren't noted for wanting to be too specific about such scenarios.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unreliable

No.

Your questions have nothing to do with what was said in the article. And, once again....that was the i.s.s.u.e. Jeeze......

capealadin,

My questions are germane, and if you cannot understand why, I have to wonder what you are thinking. Nara's testimony suggests that she is not a reliable witness. I would like to know why you think she made erroneous statements.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Chris C

Yet even as we speak, the Kerchers lawyer that Mignini helped them get, still attacks Knox/Sollecito. There actually has been some debate in the past on what the Kerchers will do if Knox/Sollecito get set free. Will they continue to believe they did it or will they confront Mignini and company over they lies that have been fed them.

He is representing the Kercher family in the civil action against anyone who is eventually convicted of Meredith’s murder. I prefer to wait and see what the outcome of the appeal will be.

You have to remember the Kerchers got their lawyer at the height of the propaganda campaign the prosecution was spreading in the press. Yet when you look back at what was said in the press during the early hours of the smear campaign and compare it to the evidence known now, you will see all the lies that the Kerchers were fed by the prosecution and the press.

I certainly accept the tabloid sensationalism in the case. Bad news sells newspapers and is generally the first item on TV news, a sad indictment of the 24/7 news media.

I don't blame them for getting Maresca, I would have done the same thing. However, when its all said and done and if Knox/Sollecito are found innocent, do you think the Kerchers will appologize or continue to believe Knox/Sollecito had something to do with it? If found innocent do you think they should appologize?

What if their convictions are confirmed, do you think Raffaele and Amanda’s parents will apologies to the Kercher family?, do you think they will accept such a verdict?

In Italy its considered a hostile act to hire a lawyer like the Kerchers did. So though I do agree that people should not attack the Kerchers for their actions, because most of us would have done the same thing in their shoes, at some point you have to realize the Kerchers did make a hostile act by the hiring of Maresca.

If one of my daughters had been brutally murdered I would use any and every legal means to ensure those responsible were punished to the upmost of the law, I would certainly have done exactly the same as the Kercher family but with far less dignity.

 

[Matthew Best]

The spot where the rock landed is not a spot where a rock would have landed were it thrown through the window.

Ah the old argument from incredulity. We see that a lot with 9/11 truthers, too ("the towers wouldn't have fallen like that" "the plane wouldn't have made that hole in the building", etc etc), usually with about as much evidence to back it up as you have provided, i.e. none.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If the Judges were never asked to rule on the legality then how could you say that they wouldn't have regarded the actions as illegal if they had have been asked to. Judges rarely make independent rulings on what can and can't be allowed in as evidence, thet make rulings on things the lawyers ask them too.



If the only people that had access to the recording were the police and the prosecution....

I would expect Italian judges to know whether wiretapping is legal or not!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

48 hours

Cite. Who else spoke to Nara?

The point about the money..OY.......is that Amanda deposited, over the weekend, more money that was with drawn. Including, still having her rent money on her.

capealadin,

One can see Paul speaking to her through an interpreter on YouTube in a 48 Hours documentary, IIRC. Paul discusses Nara's relatives at his presentation at Seattle University. What makes you certain that Amanda had no salary money to deposit?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Giobbi's math

Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza I think, Raffaele got a call from the police asking him to come in to clear up a few points from his statement, Amanda decided to go with him. During Raffaele’s interview he changed his previous statement; in the mean time the police took advantage of the situation presented to them and started speaking to Amanda.

CoulsdonUK,

What about Dr. Giobbi's testimony? He said that he was mathematically certain that he gave the order to bring them both in.

 

[Amazer]

Ah the old argument from incredulity. We see that a lot with 9/11 truthers, too ("the towers wouldn't have fallen like that" "the plane wouldn't have made that hole in the building", etc etc), usually with about as much evidence to back it up as you have provided, i.e. none.

Much as you would like to believe the above... my reasoning is actually based on working with stone for the past 15 years. So I think I have a fair idea of what rocks can and cannot do.

 

[Dan O.]

A question someone might know the answer to...

I noticed a commenter on one of Frank's bloggs mention that in I think it was Oct 2008 (date uncertain?) that Frank had written about the testimony of "Maori"? I'm not sure who that is, I really only noted the name as it's the same as our native peiople, and that he had said that they had found glass under the window. The particular commenter was noting this because Frank had been writting about the window and had said that there no glass under the window and the commenter was noting the difference. Does anyone else know about this and what they were discussing? I can't recall the exact blogg that it was in and may have to go back through the links in both threads to see if I can find it again.

Your memory is accurate but is your google-fu failing? http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/10/raffaele-was-watching-cartoons.html

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

What about Dr. Giobbi's testimony? He said that he was mathematically certain that he gave the order to bring them both in.

Halides1

I have only read about Dr Gobbi’s statement in Perugia-shock do you have any other shall I say independent sources?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza I think, Raffaele got a call from the police asking him to come in to clear up a few points from his statement, Amanda decided to go with him. During Raffaele’s interview he changed his previous statement; in the mean time the police took advantage of the situation presented to them and started speaking to Amanda.

I was more interested in what you believe happened after that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I was more interested in what you believe happened after that.

Well I have provided an answer, I am curious to know what you think happened?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would expect Italian judges to know whether wiretapping is legal or not!

I suspect that they would too, but I also suspect that they would have no reason to rule on such unless the defence objected to the wiretapping as evidence, if there was no reason for the defence to object, do you think that the Judge would have ruled out any evidence they felt eas gathered illegally on their own?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well I have provided an answer, I am curious to know what you think happened?

I have no idea, I'm trying to find out, hence why your answer which deliberately avoided the time period I was interested in was not actually answering my question.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Much as you would like to believe the above... my reasoning is actually based on working with stone for the past 15 years. So I think I have a fair idea of what rocks can and cannot do.

How much of that 15 years has been spent throwing them through windows and measuring where they land?