Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[PhantomWolf]

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

I didn't have enough to google it, but I went back looking for the link to where I found the initial comment and located the page you have linked to. Thanks.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

"Working with stone". That sounds quite vague. I wonder why.

Anyway, you are still indulging in an argument from incredulity and have still presented no evidence - just like a common or garden 9/11 truther. Pointing to yourself as an "authority" isn't helping.

 

[Dan O.]

Frank, from Perugia Shock. He has said that Oggi's article, saying Nara is almost deaf, and a nut case is wrong. Therefore, anyone treating this to be true, when advised, from personal experience, to be untrue..is spreading false rumours.

It's not that hard to prove someone's hard of hearing..unless that person is the one listening. We must go on the assumption here, that Frank's hearing is fine. There should also be proof if someone is labelled crazy. Frank found none. And, he's spoken to Nara, in person, on a number of occasions. It's a bit like: Who are ya gonna believe......me, or your lying eyes

Why should we believe you? You have one data point and are ignoring everything else. Has CBS insisted that Paul retract his statements about Nara or could it just be possible that Paul happened to have recording equipment on hand when he interviewed Nara's neighbor?

 

[Antony]

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.

In that case you must be able to back up your assertion with evidence and analysis, explaining your exact reasons for believing that the rock wouldn't have ended up where it did.

What I see instead is photographs and explanations on the rock trajectory from the pro-innocent side, and nothing but bald assertions, appeals to authority and conclusion-driven reasoning from the guilters, just as with every other aspect of this case. It's not just me: PhantomWolf said much the same thing, while being rather more generous than me towards the pro-guilt conclusions.

It looks to me like your reasons are: "the police said the break-in was obviously staged, so the culprits must have got everything wrong, so they wouldn't have known where to place the rock." I'm afraid we sceptics aren't impressed by this kind of thinking.

 

[Dan O.]

I have read a number of versions covering this particular evening. However, maybe we can agree on this one point, Raffaele was asked to come to the police station, Amanda decided accompanying him!

Did Amanda have a choice? What was she going to do if she didn't follow Raffaele? Was she to walk home, in he dark, less than a week after her friend was brutally murdered? And where is home? She was staying at Raffaele's place since the murder. Did she even have a key to get in?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

Any further comment from me would be pure speculation, much of the evidence in this case is hotly disputed and as I have said I have read a number of versions. However, for me I prefer to wait and see what unfolds in the appeal, hopefully this and many other points will be cleared up. I believe that you know more than you wish to say of course I could be wrong.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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?

For me it is more a question of whether the behaviour of wiretapping in capital crimes is legally accepted in Italy, admittedly it is an assumption on my part that if such activities are illegal then any evidence would be ruled as inadmissible by a higher court. Why wouldn’t the defence use whatever legal arguments at their disposal, why take the chance of allowing something when it could be thrown out?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Any further comment from me would be pure speculation, much of the evidence in this case is hotly disputed and as I have said I have read a number of versions. However, for me I prefer to wait and see what unfolds in the appeal, hopefully this and many other points will be cleared up. I believe that you know more than you wish to say of course I could be wrong.

Just like you have have read a number of versions, but since the police version doesn't seem to match the facts and they claim they didn't record it, anything I can guess is speculation too. Some of the things I have read make more sense than the official version, hence why I'm interested in what you believe.

 

[PhantomWolf]

For me it is more a question of whether the behaviour of wiretapping in capital crimes is legally accepted in Italy, admittedly it is an assumption on my part that if such activities are illegal then any evidence would be ruled as inadmissible by a higher court.

From my understanding courts only rule in things they have been asked too rule on.

Why wouldn’t the defence use whatever legal arguments at their disposal, why take the chance of allowing something when it could be thrown out?

If it's not going to hurt your case why fight a battle you don't have to?

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Your previous posts on this subject have made it clear that you have no physics background. The basic concepts like action-reaction (aka equal and opposite forces) elude you.

The interior shutter was clearly closed when the the rock came through the glass. What force would be applied to this shutter to swing it open? What effect would this force have on the trajectory of the rock?

 

[Dan O.]

I didn't have enough to google it, but I went back looking for the link to where I found the initial comment and located the page you have linked to. Thanks.

But you did. I took from your post [frank sfarzo Maori glass under the window] and found a reference with the exact date in the first hit. Then it was only a couple of probes in franks blog to find the correct page.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

From my understanding courts only rule in things they have been asked too rule on.



If it's not going to hurt your case why fight a battle you don't have to?

Because of the legal principal would be my response; it’s not about whether the content of a taped conversation is innocuous or harmful, but whether it is legal to tape a conversation in the first place.

 

[theRealBob]

One of TMJK's recent major posts is a guy describing the sex attack lead by Amanda.

How do these people live in the adult world when they know so little about it ?

He also ingeniously described in great detail how the theft of money (that Rudy said) was probably the real motive.

It's a pity the web is no use to inform these people that the first great:theory Mignini dreamt up to conveniently save his career is probably not really kosher.

It was a remarkable effort by this guy to tell us that the rich kid student and his girlfriend with 4000 euros in the bank did this murder for the money, while there is a convenient unemployed burglar with splashes of himself all over the murder scene and inside the victim too who is quite likely to be the real culprit for those crimes.

 

[bri1]

Did Amanda have a choice? What was she going to do if she didn't follow Raffaele? Was she to walk home, in he dark, less than a week after her friend was brutally murdered? And where is home? She was staying at Raffaele's place since the murder. Did she even have a key to get in?

We can't be sure whether the police intended for Amanda to come to the Questura that night, can we? Didn't Napoleoni testify that they didn't and Giobbi testify that they did?

 

[pilot padron]

Your refusal results in disappointment

capealadin,

It seems to me that we really do not know very much about Nara. Neither Frank nor Paul is a mental health specialist; therefore, neither are entirely competent to pass judgment on her mental state.* It is possible that she received some form of care (perhaps after the death of her husband). I see no reason to reject Oggi's claim at this point. Given the incomplete state of our knowledge, I am happy to remain on the fence for a while longer, thank you very much.
*the same goes for Nara's relatives, who are the source of Paul's claim to the best of my knowledge.

Along with Cape:

1) I also am very disappointed that you particularly, cling so stubbornly to such a weak chain, and are so perversely unyielding.
( shades of 50,000+ ??)

2) You state initially that neither Paul nor Frank are mental health specialists (nor audiologists), yet you continue to add you see no reason to reject Oggi's totally unsubstantiated claim.
(Did your usual impeccable research include watching the video where Nara converses to whatever length Ciolino dictates in his pitifully evident completely failed entrapment scheme...without seeing even a single iota of audiological impairment..and nary a single solitary... 'Huh' from the elderly Nara ?

3) Surely you know what Ciolino (he of concentric circling stage act fame) *says that he was told* about Nara is what is commonly known by even anyone only educated and talented enuf to watch TV as *hearsay*.
You know then too, I am certain, where that type of evidence falls on admissiblity and credibility 'chains'

4) As one to whom I usually 'take what he says to the bank', I find as mentioned above, your untenable (but as Cape notes, somewhat generic to JREF) refusal to admit erring or concede anything anywhere, anytime that may weaken the dream of innocence.... as downright disappointing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

May 2009 testimony

Halides1

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

Do you not trust Frank's reporting? If so, why not?

EDT
It is also in Murder in Italy, but I do not have a page number.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

her testimony was not entirely accurate

Along with Cape:

1) I also am very disappointed that you particularly, cling so stubbornly to such a weak chain, and are so perversely unyielding.
( shades of 50,000+ ??)

2) You state initially that neither Paul nor Frank are mental health specialists (nor audiologists), yet you continue to add you see no reason to reject Oggi's totally unsubstantiated claim.
(Did your usual impeccable research include watching the video where Nara converses to whatever length Ciolino dictates in his pitifully evident completely failed entrapment scheme...without seeing even a single iota of audiological impairment..and nary a single solitary... 'Huh' from the elderly Nara ?

3) Surely you know what Ciolino (he of concentric circling stage act fame) *says that he was told* about Nara is what is commonly known by even anyone only educated and talented enuf to watch TV as *hearsay*.
You know then too, I am certain, where that type of evidence falls on admissiblity and credibility 'chains'

4) As one to whom I usually 'take what he says to the bank', I find as mentioned above, your untenable (but as Cape notes, somewhat generic to JREF) refusal to admit erring or concede anything anywhere, anytime that may weaken the dream of innocence.... as downright disappointing.

pilot padron,

I asked capealadin to discuss Nara's inconsistencies in her testimony, but she has refused. Would you care to give it a try?

 

[pilot padron]

Uhhh.. about the 'earned and paid media' boastings

We will send you into battle the next time the Packers play Duh Behrs to teach those in Chicagoland a lesson they won't forget!

However, does this little spat mean the accusations of Frank being paid by Friends of Amanda have finally been proven untrue? I was just going through some of those old posts in the original 'Cartwheels' thread, and it was a regular feature of that thread, the idea that Frank was paid for his efforts by the sinister Gogherty-Marriott FOA cabal.

There is no cabal!

If you went thru all those threads, then you are aware that Gogerty brags on their web page:
"We then develop and implement a plan; usually integrating a range of tactics such as earned and paid media...",

Since Franks blatherings qualify as 'media', and he is one of the loudest and longest saying what precisely Marriott wants said, I find it perfectly understandable (and not sinister nor conspiratorial) that *some* might *suspect* that Frank was paid by Marriott.

Certainly more understandable than clinging to an unsupported drama shock statement in a tabloid, backed up with hearsay from an attention seeking charlatan previously caught in innumerable 'overstatements'... that an elderly citizen who happens to have said things that are injurious to a unanimously convicted murderess....is nuts and deaf.

PS
We can agree that if Cape's skills at moving a football in any way are comparable to her destructive dismemberment of the 'lets make up some sinister stuff about Nara' cabal; Chicagoland beware

 

[Amazer]

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

And yet you are surprised that people fail to respond to you?

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not at all surprised that you failed to respond to this perfectly valid question, no.