Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ampulla of Vater]

On the other hand, the Y chromosomal evidence might be enough for them to decide that it is Raffaele's DNA. Then it would come down to whether the errors in collecting and handling the clasp and the presence of other DNA is enough to make them want to toss this evidence. It is enough for me.

I believe the DNA was present, although I do not believe Raffaele was involved in the murder. What I was questioning was the accuracy of Candace's statement. It troubles me when a seemingly factually incorrect statement is made, especially by a high-profile person. It lessens the person's overall credibility.

Of course we all hope Hellmann will throw out the DNA evidence but the possibility remains he is simply putting on a show of due diligence and will confirm all or part of the findings. The point is at this juncture we are just not certain.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because I'm amazed that such a subject has been going on for so long. Longer, it seems, than Christophera's "realistice" thread.

You are aware, aren't you, that the criminal trial process for Knox and Sollecito is still ongoing? Or didn't you realise that? And anyhow, do you think that one year and five months is a particularly long time to be discussing and debating an issue such as this? People have been debating the Kennedy assassination pretty much every day since November 22nd 1963, and they've been debating the authenticity of Jesus Christ for...oooh about 2,000 years now.......

But at least in that thread, you could easily tell which side of the debate had the BS, and which had the evidence.

Here, it seems no one has a clue what really transpired, but everybody's convinced that they do.

Here, it seems that you've either not read the thread properly, or you've seen what you want to see. Most people debating on here don't claim to know "what really transpired". But many do claim to know that certain parts of the case don't add up.

Why should it matter to you what matters to me ? Why did YOU click the "submit reply" button ?

It doesn't matter to me what matters to you. I just find it strange that you should choose to post such a worthless and meaningless sentence, which adds nothing to the debate on this thread and which is just a pain to have to scroll past.

At least in those threads, there is definitive evidence to present and a final conclusion to reach.

As there is here. Some people (including me) think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito of the crime of murder. Others believe they were justly convicted. We have the judicial panel's reasoning from the first trial, and media accounts of the first trial in progress. We don't have ALL the evidence, but we have enough to form a cogent argument.

Ah, you're one of those. If the number of posts I've made intimidates you, that isn't my problem. I was making a comment on the endlessness and futility of this debate. No one is going to crack this case on this forum, no one is going to change their minds, and we don't have access to all the evidence we'd need to achieve those goals anyway. So why continue ?

"Intimidates" That wasn't quite the word I'd choose.....

This debate isn't endless, and it isn't futile - at least not any more or less than every other thread on this essentially worthless forum. JREF is nothing more than a bunch of people talking about stuff with no ramifications in the real world. And I'm fine with that. Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams can "crack the case" all by themselves, I'd hope. Just like prominent economists can crack the economic problems that are discussed at length on JREF.

And finally, I'd reiterate: If you don't like this thread, or think that what we're talking about is "futile" or "worthless", then there's a simple remedy: stay away from it. Thanks for stopping by!

 

[quadraginta]

I believe I'm right to say before the murder, the situation for the windows on that level was as follows:

Filomena's window: not barred, and old-style wooden single-pane window

Knox's window: not barred, but modern UPVC (and possibly double-glazed) window)

Meredith's window: barred

Laura's window: barred

Large bathroom window: barred

Double french doors to balcony: not barred, but modern UPVC (and prob double-glazed to meet building regs)

Small side window to kitchen: not barred (this window was the one through which the cottage was subsequently broken into)

In addition, all the windows and doors to the lower level were barred or gated.

So in fact the only feasible points of ingress to the whole house (other than kicking in the door, which was of modern substantial design) were via Filomena's window, Knox's window, the balcony french doors or the small kitchen window. But the french doors and Knox's window were modern (and likely double-glazed), and probably therefore a) far harder to break, and b) lockable. So that leaves Filomena's window or the small kitchen window.

There are decent reasons why an opportunist burglar might choose Filomena's window - the chief one being that it offered a very easy means of escape (either into the shadows or up onto the road and away) if there was wither someone inside the house or if someone saw the B&E in progress. By contrast, the area below the balcony was far harder to "escape" from - given that there was only a narrow exit passageway along the side of the house.

Doesn't this assume that a burglar would be constrained to escaping up to the street? I'm not sure that the patch of woods surrounding all but the street side of the house is impassable.

Even if this were to be a consideration I can't understand why the cul de sac below Filomena's window would be any more attractive, not least because, aside from those woods, it leads only to the very same "narrow exit passageway".

It seems disingenuous to me to gloss over the fact that the burglars who broke in after the murder chose to do so through the kitchen window from the balcony. If I were to look at the photos I have seen of that house without any knowledge of the events which took place there and was asked to pick the likeliest point of entry for a B & E thief, that kitchen window would be on the top of my list as well.

 

[Justinian2]

Just got back from a burglary of my own home. I know who did it. The local police found no evidence. They only looked for typical evidence from outside. I found where a knife was used on the door latch to push it back. It was an inside job.

The town cops didn't want to think that Snow White or one of her seven dwarfs could have done it, so they didn't try to get her in trouble. Maybe it's my Karma, but I didn't want to get Snow White in trouble either.

No direct evidence, so the Snow White gang goes free. So far. American cops look the other way when a pretty woman is implicated.

Mignini would have manufactured evidence.

 

[Belz...]

News Alert for you. The case was actually 'cracked' ages ago. It is a simple case of a burglar surprised in a girls house and rape and murder resulting. He took her money, credit cards, phones and skipped the country. The timeline is narrowed down to the 8:51-53 p.m. arrival home of the girl and suspicious activity on her cell phones at 9:58 pm.

We additionally know several details of the attack itself. Her throat was first slit and then her clothes were removed and she was raped after being stabbed. The killer grabbed towels from the bathroom to stem the blood flow and left DNA on her purse. A time of death between 9:00 - 9:30 pm is consistent with the victim's stomach contents.


The who, how and why they convicted the wrong people for the murder is another matter .......

Judging by the heated arguments, that doesn't seem too settled.

Several people have changed their minds about the case including me and another poster very recently. There is plenty of evidence out there and certainly enough to form an opinion. Most people are here discussing the case because they are interested in it, not because they think they are going to crack the case. Feel free to join in and give cracking the case a shot if that is what you think this discussion is all about. Who knows what might happen?

Very well, I'll retract that part of my opinion piece.

 

[Belz...]

You are aware, aren't you, that the criminal trial process for Knox and Sollecito is still ongoing? Or didn't you realise that?

And what does that have to do with what I said ?

And anyhow, do you think that one year and five months is a particularly long time to be discussing and debating an issue such as this? People have been debating the Kennedy assassination pretty much every day since November 22nd 1963, and they've been debating the authenticity of Jesus Christ for...oooh about 2,000 years now.......

Not in the same continuous thread, they haven't. And we need not emulate nutjobs.

But many do claim to know that certain parts of the case don't add up.

If the case isn't over, I suspect we, as I said earlier, do not have all the evidence we'd need to tell that.

I just find it strange that you should choose to post such a worthless and meaningless sentence, which adds nothing to the debate on this thread and which is just a pain to have to scroll past.

I post similar sentences in the bigfoot thread for the same reason: no apparent progress.

As there is here.

Maybe you should present yourself as an expert witness at the trial, then, if it's so definitive.

"Intimidates" That wasn't quite the word I'd choose.....

I don't recall myself mentioning another poster's post count as some sort of an argument against the poster. Well, maybe Southwind once. But somehow I get "hey, 20,000 posts you must think you're a bigshot" or some other worthless crap. I think people see post counts as some sort of achievement. It ain't.

This debate isn't endless

I kinda hope it is. That way, I can log in in 2067 and post another useless sentence to annoy you.

JREF is nothing more than a bunch of people talking about stuff with no ramifications in the real world.

I disagree. Much of the subjects being discussed can have much impact in people's lives. But this one ? Unless you plan on affecting the outcome of the trial, it's just academic, if even that.

And finally, I'd reiterate: If you don't like this thread, or think that what we're talking about is "futile" or "worthless", then there's a simple remedy: stay away from it. Thanks for stopping by!

I followed the thread and its predecessors for quite a bit, until I realised no one had a clue what had really transpired. It's one person's theory against another's. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to summarize at least the major hypotheses being put forth and how they are supported by the evidence.

 

[Justinian2]

Really In what sense Justinian ?


Yea, My people once admired a pig (from a distance - they may have been hungry) associated with a guy who sold grain to a guy who stole a donkey belonging to guy who knew a guy who claimed to have heard of a guy who saw Shirley McClaine's ass just before her granddaughter became a hardworking peasant who never heard of Cleopatra**

Lest you think I am ************ we have the papers [papyrus] to prove it.


** Or someone whose name sounded similar -another relation of a jaundiced disposition claimed it was actually a guy called Gunter

The only argument I see on behalf of government and their 'justice' is that might makes right.

Might put Amanda in jail. Might does not make right. Might only renders being right useless.

I don't consider that the "Might makes right" argument is a valid 'winning' argument.

 

[theRealBob]

I followed the thread and its predecessors for quite a bit, until I realised no one had a clue what had really transpired. It's one person's theory against another's. If I'm wrong, I'd like someone to summarize at least the major hypotheses being put forth and how they are supported by the evidence.

Here's one post from earlier on this same page. Seven posts above yours.

News Alert for you. The case was actually 'cracked' ages ago. It is a simple case of a burglar surprised in a girls house and rape and murder resulting. He took her money, credit cards, phones and skipped the country. The timeline is narrowed down to the 8:51-53 p.m. arrival home of the girl and suspicious activity on her cell phones at 9:58 pm.

We additionally know several details of the attack itself. Her throat was first slit and then her clothes were removed and she was raped after being stabbed. The killer grabbed towels from the bathroom to stem the blood flow and left DNA on her purse. A time of death between 9:00 - 9:30 pm is consistent with the victim's stomach contents.


The who, how and why they convicted the wrong people for the murder is another matter .......

That's exactly what the evidence (or lack of it) indicates...

 

[theRealBob]

Also glad that you are back. This is interesting. My guess is that this has to do with LCN DNA.

On the subject of LCN DNA, our new experts, Conti and Vecchiotti may need the extra time because they've discovered that the scurrilous techniques used deserve a more demanding scrutinity.

There's probably far more falsehoods in the paperwork than what we've seen revealed up to now.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Judging by the heated arguments, that doesn't seem too settled.

The mere existence of idiots doesn't mean that a given case (anthropogenic global warming, the JFK murder, 9/11 twoof, moon hoax theories etc.) is not settled to the satisfaction on the rational and well-informed participants in a debate.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a large part of the point of this forum is to tackle such problems... homeopathy, crystal healing, talking to the dead, reading psychic signs in objects, foretelling the future and so on are not the subject of controversies between rational participants.

Neither is the Knox case. It just takes a bit more digging to figure out who the woowoos are. In this case, it turns out it's the guilters who lack a falsifiable hypothesis which conforms to the available scientific facts.

 

[Maya C]

So Amanda Knox is now in the realm of JFK and Christ? Really?

O, Great Spaghetti Monster. I truly believed there was more intelligent life out there.

 

[Maya C]

Just a note to the non-skeptics here. CSI. You know, the show you watch on your television? It. Isn't. Reality. Murders are not solved in 30 minutes. Google is not the answer to your questions.

Jesus/Buddha/I wept. Seriously, absolutely done here. I thought this was a board demonstrating skepticism. All I see, particularly on this thread, is advocacy to the nth degree. If the convicted female murderer were even halfway attractive, I might understand the fascination, and yet we have a woman who walks like a football player, sports a visible herpes sore on her lip and has been shown to tell lies more than the truth. Forgive me if I ask, where is the charm and who the hell cares what happens to her? What about the young woman, who by all accounts had something going for her and wasn't an obnoxious pain in the ass? Her name was Meredith Kercher.

I bid you all Goodbye. This is not a place for skeptics. It is a place for zealots. Please cancel my membership, though I leave this post to find out how to remove myself from this facade.

My best to all who aren't thinking with the little head. Most know that head has very poor eyesight, which explains the popularity of Ms. Knox.

 

[LondonJohn]

So Amanda Knox is now in the realm of JFK and Christ? Really?

O, Great Spaghetti Monster. I truly believed there was more intelligent life out there.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196814


No, Amanda Knox is not in the realm of JFK and Christ (and are you implicitly suggesting here that JFK and Christ are in the same realm...?). That's what's known as a straw man argument. I brought up the JFK assassination and "Jesus Christ as son of God" as examples of debates that have been going for an awful lot longer than the debate over the Knox/Sollecito convictions. And I did so in response to the assertion that 1.5 years is too long to be having a debate about any subject.

I refer you back to your last sentence

 

[LondonJohn]

Just a note to the non-skeptics here. CSI. You know, the show you watch on your television? It. Isn't. Reality. Murders are not solved in 30 minutes. Google is not the answer to your questions.

Jesus/Buddha/I wept. Seriously, absolutely done here. I thought this was a board demonstrating skepticism. All I see, particularly on this thread, is advocacy to the nth degree. If the convicted female murderer were even halfway attractive, I might understand the fascination, and yet we have a woman who walks like a football player, sports a visible herpes sore on her lip and has been shown to tell lies more than the truth. Forgive me if I ask, where is the charm and who the hell cares what happens to her? What about the young woman, who by all accounts had something going for her and wasn't an obnoxious pain in the ass? Her name was Meredith Kercher.

I bid you all Goodbye. This is not a place for skeptics. It is a place for zealots. Please cancel my membership, though I leave this post to find out how to remove myself from this facade.

My best to all who aren't thinking with the little head. Most know that head has very poor eyesight, which explains the popularity of Ms. Knox.

Now where else have I heard people talking about the "CSI effect", Google and "thinking with little heads" recently...?

Of course, you're entitled to your view. But your choice of words - particularly about Knox - belies your position, and shows to which camp you are most firmly (and unwaveringly) wedded.

BTW, did you mean "charade" rather than "facade"?

 

[bri1]

Now where else have I heard people talking about the "CSI effect", Google and "thinking with little heads" recently...?

Of course, you're entitled to your view. But your choice of words - particularly about Knox - belies your position, and shows to which camp you are most firmly (and unwaveringly) wedded.

BTW, did you mean "charade" rather than "facade"?

LJ-
Probably best not to respond to 'contributors' who make disgusting remarks like Maya C's, isn't it?
Having said that, I'm always taken aback by how anyone can make an argument as stupid as this one.
IMO people like Maya C shouldn't even be allowed to use the word 'skeptic'!

 

[uk_dave]

I bid you all Goodbye. This is not a place for skeptics. It is a place for zealots. Please cancel my membership, though I leave this post to find out how to remove myself from this facade.

Trust me, there is more to life than this interminable thread.....

...there's also Politics....oh ummmm.... Conspiracy Theo......ahem..... Science and.....oh christ.....ummmmm Forum Community is relatively sane....sort of.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is your position

Trust me, there is more to life than this interminable thread.....

...there's also Politics....oh ummmm.... Conspiracy Theo......ahem..... Science and.....oh christ.....ummmmm Forum Community is relatively sane....sort of.

uk_dave,

Is it your position (along with Maya C's) that Knox supporters are thinking with their little head? That is the impression one of your coments gave.

 

[uk_dave]

uk_dave,

Is it your position (along with Maya C's) that Knox supporters are thinking with their little head? That is the impression one of your coments gave.

No. In just the same way that I don't think the police were thinking with their 'little head' either. (though this was suggested by an advocate of Knox's innocence in A N Other thread)

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Antony

That's not in contention. Why do think that posting platitudes is of any purpose?

Is this why the discussion of the evidence in this forum means nothing to you? Is it because you "choose" to accept the official version without examination of the evidence?

You do us an injustice. The evidence-based view in this forum is exactly that, so we form our views because that is what the evidence tells us - it's not a matter of "choosing" not to accept the official version.

Interesting, well like everyone else I was expressing an opinion in the manner of my choosing and as I have said to you before it is not necessary from my point of view that we agree.

Exchanging views is of interest I fully acknowledge there are those on both sides of this case who have dedicated a great deal of time researching the case via the internet and have immersed themselves in the minutia of the evidence that is available. However, I am not aware that you have seen “all” evidence, court transcripts etc or have spoken to anyone directly connected with the case such as Raffaele or Amanda’s defence teams.
In addition, I fully admit that I am not ready for justice via internet blogs, Meredith was murdered in Italy and in my opinion it is absolutely correct that their judicial process and not others should be applied; this process may or not end in their release.

As I have said on a number of posts previously I will accept the verdict of the appeal whether it be innocent or confirmation of the verdict from the 2009 trial, not sure why my position appears unreasonable to you.

 

[Antony]

Interesting, well like everyone else I was expressing an opinion in the manner of my choosing

Are you really expressing an opinion? As far as I can see you are simply making excuses for not having one of your own.

and as I have said to you before it is not necessary from my point of view that we agree.

See above. It's not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing; it's one of having anything of substance to discuss with you.

Exchanging views is of interest I fully acknowledge there are those on both sides of this case who have dedicated a great deal of time researching the case via the internet and have immersed themselves in the minutia of the evidence that is available. However, I am not aware that you have seen “all” evidence, court transcripts etc or have spoken to anyone directly connected with the case such as Raffaele or Amanda’s defence teams.

Are you suggesting that there is evidence not known to this forum that changes the balance of proof in this case? That is not a sustainable proposition; we don't need to see "all" the evidence to be able to form an accurate view of this case. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain to show clearly that Meredith died at a time when Amanda and Raffaele were both at his flat, and so couldn't have been involved.

We also know enough to conclude definitively that the evidence used by the prosecution to obtain the convictions was neither conclusive nor scientifically sound. This was a prosecution that did everything to poison the defendants' reputations in the public mind by leaking falsehoods and misleading information in the media throughout the time leading up to the trial and verdict. The idea that they have any other facts not presented to the trial which will change the facts of the crime is ridiculous.

In addition, I fully admit that I am not ready for justice via internet blogs, Meredith was murdered in Italy and in my opinion it is absolutely correct that their judicial process and not others should be applied; this process may or not end in their release.

Endlessly repeating variations of this theme, which is one that is not in dispute, just takes up time for no purpose. You appear to be doing it so as to give an exaggerated impression that you have something to say.

As I have said on a number of posts previously I will accept the verdict of the appeal whether it be innocent or confirmation of the verdict from the 2009 trial, not sure why my position appears unreasonable to you.

It's not unreasonable, it's just vacuous.