Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

inconvenient

Halides1

Thank you for the unsolicited advice.

CoulsdonUK,

When you return, how about finding a citation for Judge Matteini's telling Amanda her arrest was made prior to her mother's arrival in Perugia to prevent Edda from taking Amanda away. This is another inconvenient fact that stands in opposition to your version of events.

 

[Chris C]

Agreed. This exchange is reminiscent of Sarah Palin claiming a knowledge of international politics because she could "see Russia from her window".

Moreover, even if Amazer had a long career in ballistics, we would still be entitled to know her evidence and reasoning in declaring that the rock allegedly wouldn't have landed where did.

Funny instead we got Obama who knows international politics because he grew up in Asia. Yet there is some certainty that if the inside shutters open towards the wall closet, then the rock will generally head away from the closet. Its path of least resistance will be to go the other way when it makes contact with the shutter after going through the glass.

 

[Chris C]

Well, a good test would be whether or not anyone brings a libel action against Bruce's Injustice in Perugia website. The full article is still up on there. AFAIK, there's been no legal action as yet....

Depends on where Bruce lives. If he lives in America, they will just be blowing smoke up their own butts, because Bruce would have the 1st Amendment sitting at his table in the courtroom.

 

[Chris C]

How much does 'access' to the family cost again? Wasn't there a bowling fundraiser recently, I presume some family members were there?

Yeah knox's must have made a fortune off the bowling fundraiser. Did trump show and donate? Seriously though, if there are bowling fundraisers being held then the Knox's are hurting for money.

 

[Chris C]

I think they wanted to break the 'weakest link' and guessed that the foreign exchange girl would be easier than the more worldly business owner who probably knew better how to deal with the police.

Agreed! They already had Knox's phone tapped and her phone records. They would have easily known that someone she messaged on the night of the murder had their card register near the home. Thus they would have also known the name of the person who it belonged too. As soon as they brought Patrick in they started questioning him about the location of his phone on the night of the murder. Which means that had his phone records prior to Knox's statement.

 

[Supernaut]

If you must know... hands-on involvement in the making of monumental stones. Supervising the production of garden materials made of either granite, sandstone or limestone (benches, fountains, garden tiles, etc.). Selecting rough blocks from quaries. That specific enough for you?

All this, for all those years, but you never learnt to spell 'quarries' correctly?

 

[Supernaut]

You are making a lot of noise in this forum with no real basis of fact. On the one hand, you keep claiming that those supporting innocence can't say anything for certain because there might be evidence that we don't know about. On the other hand, you have made some very specific allegations of your own about what really happened, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The difference is that I would change my opinion if the evidence was there to support a change. What I find most interesting is that many posters here have stated that they will never change their belief in innocence no matter what. The end.

Clumsy and dishonest,as ever. No-one here (or anywhere else, that I know of) has said or implied any such thing - or can you can finally get your planet-sized brain around the forum 'search' function and find the posts you mean? No? I thought not.

What "many posters" have stated that they will never change their belief in AK's and RS's innocence no matter what the verdict of court.

Evidence - the facts - is an entirely different matter, and anyone of modest intelligence who has read up will be familiar with considerably more of it than the ridiculous "10%" figure that you pulled out of your you-know-where.

Whatever, pretending for a moment that this availalble "10% of the facts" means no-one can be certain of AK and RS's innocence (how many times do you need it explained where the burdern of proof lies, anyway?) then equally on-one is in a position to know they are guilty. Yet you parade around this forum referring to AK and RS as "freaks" and suchlike (see, the forum search function works just fine).

BTW, I'm sure many here would be only too happy to put you on 'ignore', as you so helpfully suggested they do, but if they feel the same way I do they will not be inclined to simply give you carte-blanche to post this kind of venomous crap , unchallenged, on an otherwise respectable forum anyone can read.

 

[capealadin]

Okay, I finally got around to reading the comments page focusing on Nara on Perugia Shock. I recommend it; a lot of people make a lot of good arguments.

You're right, Frank does stand up for Nara and Patrizia Stefanoni. However, his more important, underlying message is his anger that some innocence supporters are allowing themselves to be distracted by criticism of the "little people," when there is much bigger evil at work -- namely, the police and the judges. Frank labels the police as criminals more than once, and describes them as "...people extremely rough and uncultured, and trained to aggression, and reunited in a pack..." Do you also agree with his take on that?

And you're right; several times, Frank does call the innocenters on the carpet for having a double standard: "It's impressive how they are working in exactly the same way as pack, mediocre judges and stupid media have been doing towards the girl."

Yes, sometimes innocenters have a double standard; we're only human. Personally, I think Frank goes a little overboard here with his defense of Nara and Stefanoni, but maybe he just wants to make sure he doesn't lose any friends or contacts in Perugia because of what is written on his blog.

Frank is known to write emotionally, ironically, sarcastically, even very irritably at times. A few months ago he was ragging on the innocenters for attacking the police and the judges -- the very thing he is urging us to do now! Several of us "took him on" then. Everything blows over.

By the way, it was not Frank who said innocence supporters should STFU, it was Tufa:

You are correct. And, Tufa is a Frank supporter, and Frank has not said " No, No, that's not what I want, I don't agree".

If Frank does that, then I'll be the first one to step up and say that's not what Frank agrees with.

Wow. Working as a pack. Sounds right.

However, let me commend you, Mary, for your stand up attitude. For checking the site, and coming back, with links, and acknowledging what I have said. You go, girl.

As to the other poster. Bruce can do what he likes on his blog. That's the first amendment. Articles in the newspaper is a whole other ballgame. Hence Bruce's articles being taken down. Peggy made her point...and was successful.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are correct. And, Tufa is a Frank supporter, and Frank has not said " No, No, that's not what I want, I don't agree".

If Frank does that, then I'll be the first one to step up and say that's not what Frank agrees with.

Wow. Working as a pack. Sounds right.

However, let me commend you, Mary, for your stand up attitude. For checking the site, and coming back, with links, and acknowledging what I have said. You go, girl.

As to the other poster. Bruce can do what he likes on his blog. That's the first amendment. Articles in the newspaper is a whole other ballgame. Hence Bruce's articles being taken down. Peggy made her point...and was successful.

Errr... the first amendment isn't a defence against libel. Surely you know that.

Let's see if those legal actions against IIP materialise, eh?

 

[pilot padron]

So capealadin got it wrong again, eh? I'm starting to understand why people who fail to evaluate evidence properly end up on the wrong side of this argument.

Help me make sure I got this correct

Mary spent a good deal of time to be as factually correct as possible in her post (as is her custom) researching exactly what Frank said, i.e., what supported what Cape said, and what did not.

With over 3 full paragraphs, Mary graciously (as also is her custom) argued that what Cape said was in essence *mostly* correct.

She then courteously with one line (sixteen solitary words) pointed out where she thought Cape was not correct.

Matthew, we all know of your affinity for , affection of, and pretty much are the acknowledged master here of arguing thru the quick one line repartee.

But really now....
from thatone line from Mary's whole post you take the gargantuan giant step and declare an earth shattering personal vision and illuminating intellectual insight; a tremendously important personal transformation toward, your understanding of "how guilters fail to evaluate evidence properly (and therefore) end up on the wrong side of this argument."

May I personally in light of above reasons, respectfully reject this particular repartee

 

[Chris C]

Help me make sure I got this correct

Mary spent a good deal of time to be as factually correct as possible in her post (as is her custom) researching exactly what Frank said, i.e., what supported what Cape said, and what did not.

With over 3 full paragraphs, Mary graciously (as also is her custom) argued that what Cape said was in essence *mostly* correct.

She then courteously with [/b] one line[/b] (sixteen solitary words) pointed out where she thought Cape was not correct.

Matthew, we all know of your affinity for , affection of, and pretty much are the acknowledged master here of arguing thru the quick one line repartee.

But really now....
from thatone line from Mary's whole post you take the gargantuan giant step and declare an earth shattering personal vision and illuminating intellectual insight; a tremendously important personal transformation toward, your understanding of "how guilters fail to evaluate evidence properly (and therefore) end up on the wrong side of this argument."

May I personally respectfully reject this particular repartee

So would you agree that what Knox wrote in her Email is mostly correct?

 

[babycondor]

BTW, I'm sure many here would be only too happy to put you on 'ignore', as you so helpfully suggested they do, but if they feel the same way I do they will not be inclined to simply give you carte-blanche to post this kind of venomous crap , unchallenged, on an otherwise respectable forum anyone can read.

Exactly. Alt+F4 fools you into (metaphorically) closing your browser window. Mission accomplished.

A number of pro-guilt posters seem to adopt the tactic of trying (sometimes successfully) to get the opposition to simply "STFU."

 

[pilot padron]

Huh?????

So would you agree that what Knox wrote in her Email is mostly correct?

Huh ???.......Knox E-Mail ????
While enjoying your position waaaay out there in left field, please take your own advice

Here maybe you should go back ...... and catch up.

We are discussing Mary and Cape's posts about Frank Sfarzo and Nara Capezzali.

 

[Amazer]

I did say I couldn't work it out, I said that my 15 years of experience with computers was no use to working it out.

Exactly what part of your experience makes you an expert in how rocks behave when thrown through a window?



Perhaps you need to read the posts in this thread. Rose posted this, watch the first 20 secs.

Supposedly the rock landed in a paper bag which then toppled over a handbag. The paper bag was against the wall. So while this is a nice video... it fails to follow the scenario. But this was discussed to death in the first thread, the second thread and now possibly again in this one.

 

[Morse]

Now lets take a look at the portion of knox's email you quoted. I think I have the correct version.

i was checking for signs of our things missing, should there have been a burglar in our house the night before. filomenas room was closed, but when i opned the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always was and this confused me. convinced that we had been robbed i went to lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room for things missing, which there werent.

Now this statement shows Knox sending an email where she states the computer was on the desk and this confused and made her think they were robbed? Are we sure she just didn't make a simple typo? Now i'm not sure whether she ever repeated that statement or not, but seeing the computer where it is suppose to be at shouldn't both confuse her and make her think they where robbed. Now if it wasn't, then she might get confused and think they where robbed.

You're not comprehending that portion of the email correctly. Amanda is convinced they have been robbed because she found the door open and there's a broken window and a mess in Filomena's room. This is why she's confused that Filomena's laptop has not been taken and that Laura's room is undisturbed. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. The break-in makes her thinks a burglar has been in the house, but she keeps seeing contradictory evidence that nothing has been stolen.

I have some advice that applies to both this passage and the whole case in general. If your assumptions and interpretations lead you to a seemingly illogical end, you should go back and re-evaluate everything to see if there is a much more sensible interpretation.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Supposedly the rock landed in a paper bag which then toppled over a handbag. The paper bag was against the wall. So while this is a nice video... it fails to follow the scenario. But this was discussed to death in the first thread, the second thread and now possibly again in this one.

Unfortunately the video doesn't show the floor so we really can't see the exact action of the rock. The test is good to show a general pattern of glass but it does little to show what the rock would actually have done. The rock was an odd shape so it would take a different angle depending on what part of the rock's surface made contact with the shudder.

We don't know exactly where the paper bag was sitting but we do know the rock hit the bag knocking it over coming to rest on the edge of the bag opening. The evidence on the floor around the rock is important because it goes a long way to refute a staged break in. The rock crumbled as it made contact with the floor. You can view photos here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

 

[Draca]

Time of image was - 20:41 / 8:41 p.m.

Mar 13, 2009 - Court date - News on Nov 1st image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...V-footage-night-British-student-murdered.html

timed at 20.41 on the night Meredith was last seen alive and minutes after she had left a friend's house to return home.

Police inspector Mauro Barbadori told the court that the footage had been recovered in the hope that it would provide key information. He said: 'From the time on the film and the fact it is a female figure - the belief is that it is Meredith but it is very poor quality and we cannot say for definite. 'Hypothetically speaking it is very possible that the figure seen is Meredith returning home after spending the evening at a friend's house.'

http://www.unionesarda.it/Articoli/Articolo/110492

The assistant then described the pictures taken at 20:41 of the first of November, with a person "who allegedly could correspond to Meredith." Barbadori explained that the cameras in the area of the house of the crime and the route followed by Kercher up the house of English friends dined before she was killed

--------------

Police Arrival talk

Mar 13, 2009 - Court date


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/knoxed-down.html

A little step back. Today the video was projected of the arrival of the postal police car at 12:36. But the clock was then minutes ahead so it was 12:26. For the police.

Sollecito's defence doesn't think the same. They think the clock was behind of 10 minutes, so it was 12:46.


Oct 18, 2009 - Court date

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/10/defensive-strategy-for-knox-and.html

In the request day, as we have seen, Sollecito's defense intended to prove that the call to 112 was made before the arrival of Postal Police.
The strategic reason for which the argument was presented in that hearing can only be that they wanted to leave it as last, since the jury is naturally more influenced by recent facts rather than old ones.

13:22 The carabinieri found the house as we can see from their car stopped in front of the gate. It can't really be 13:22 since they asked for directions at 13:29. That means that the camera clock must be be at least 8 minutes behind. By consequence the real time in the previous picture must be 12:56, when Raffaele's call to 112 was just finished.

--------

The Mar 13, 2009 court date seems to give conflicting information. Police officer Mauro Barbadori shows the CCTV image stamped 20:41 on Nov 1st and says it is possibly Meredith Kercher arriving home.

On the same day, the prosecution also discusses the police arrival time and say the CCTV is 10 minutes FAST. If that was true the Nov 1st image would actually be at 20:31. Why does Maruo Barbadori say it could possibly be MK then? The English Friends testified on Feb 14, 2009, so it would be known that the earliest departure time was Sophie Purton's at 8:45 p.m. It would not be possible for MK to be arriving home at 8:31 p.m since she hadn't even left for home yet. For that matter, the same can be said of 8:41 p.m.

Frank mentions on Mar 13th that the Sollecito's defense thinks the camera is actually 10 minutes slow. However, the defense's big presentation on the issue isn't made until the Oct 18th court date.

The actual stamp of 8:41 p.m. from the Mar 13, 2009 court date is very close to the 8:43 p.m. from Nov 12, 2007 press leaks that say - Foxy Knoxy caught by CCTV arriving home. - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...t-murder-flat-on-night-meredith-was-killed.do

On Mar 13, 2009 in court the clock being slow is not established although mentioned. The police are still trying to say it is fast.

In the end, the 8:41 p.m. time stamp would actually be an image made at 8:51 - 8:53 p.m., using the defense estimate of the clock being 10 -12 minutes slow.

8:51 - 8:53 p.m would be the perfect direction and time for Meredith Kercher to be arriving home. If that image is Meredith Kercher she was home before the 8:56 p.m. call to her mother.

 

[Amazer]

Unfortunately the video doesn't show the floor so we really can't see the exact action of the rock. The test is good to show a general pattern of glass but it does little to show what the rock would actually have done. The rock was an odd shape so it would take a different angle depending on what part of the rock's surface made contact with the shudder.

I agree that the location of the rock is not the primary focus of this video.

We don't know exactly where the paper bag was sitting but we do know the rock hit the bag knocking it over coming to rest on the edge of the bag opening. The evidence on the floor around the rock is important because it goes a long way to refute a staged break in. The rock crumbled as it made contact with the floor. You can view photos here: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

You will need to explain why you think that the crumbled rock refutes a staged break-in.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

post conviction detention

s_pepys,

Let me quote from The Machine, “I'm not sure Knox and Sollecito will ever be released from prison. I think there's a very strong possibility that they will both become even more mentally unstable and be certified as insane. The Italian authorities have a responsibility to protect the public.” Now let us juxtapose this with Popper’s comment (also at PMF), “I have argued in the past that if she [Knox] does not eventually admit we may really start to think she is mentally ill as she would be going strongly against her interest. In the past only very disturbed people have not eventually admitted some guilt.”

Do you know whether or not Italy allows for incarceration after a sentence is completed (on the basis of insanity)? Do you think that Knox and Sollecito might be incarcerated for this reason?

 

[Chris C]

Mar 13, 2009 - Court date - News on Nov 1st image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...V-footage-night-British-student-murdered.html

timed at 20.41 on the night Meredith was last seen alive and minutes after she had left a friend's house to return home.

Thanks I have been wondering about this timestamp for some time. The key things about this 20:41 timestamp IMO are quite obvious.

1st. The person approaching probably arrived by foot and not car.
2nd. Its not Knox, she has an alibi before 9pm.
3rd. The prosecution claims Meredith arrived home at 9pm. So if thats Meredith then by default they are admiting the clock is slow. Any arguement otherwise is purposely misleading the court. Any arguement against the clock being slow then by default that can't be Meredith unless you claim her friends are lying about the time she left and the time they split up at 9:55.
4th. If its not Meredith, then you have video footage of a figure arriving at the crime scene prior to Meredith's death that isn't Knox/Sollecito. I think this argument is key. By default you have to accept this as being Meredith, to do otherwise would open the arguement up that you have video footage of the killer arriving at Meredith's home at a time Knox/Sollecito has an alibi.
5th. No matter how you view the timestamp, If thats Meredith her friend most likely got the time wrong to some degree when the split up. Though it could be a combination of both her watch and the camera. Unless the camera is 19 minutes slow. A 19 minute slow clock could put the police on borderline calumnia since I dont know how they would get their arrival time off by over 30 minutes.