Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
He can be compelled to appear before Hellmann's court according to the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures, but he can indeed exercise his right to remain silent when on the stand. But if that were to happen, I suspect that the defence might be allowed by the court to argue that Guede's silence carried weight of its own with regard to the testimony of Alessi and the other inmates who allegedly heard this discussion.
Click to expand...

If your interpretation is correct then in the original trial Sollecito's silence against those who testified against him carried weight towards his guilt in the eyes of the court and jury.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Fuji,

I have never said that I think anything about photographer for the Perugian police,. one way or another. Can you explain what you mean? Also, I wish that you would at least clarify one thing for me. You position seems to be that the condition of the ground under the window (lack of glass or lack of trampling or both) proves that it was a staged break-in. My position is that Sgt. Pasquali's work indicates that the Massei conjecture of how the window is broken is wrong, a position that is at least consistent with an unstaged break-in. If so, why?
Click to expand...

Hi halides1. Off-topic, but thank you for at least arguing with what I've actually said. I appreciate your honest attempts at conversation.

In response to your penultimate question: "Is it your position that the evidence under the window is stronger than Pasquali's results?", I would have to say, "Yes".

As to why, I would say that it's pretty unlikely that any putative burglar going through that window on that evening would not leave some evidence of standing on the ground and/or wall underneath.
 
Diocletus said:
I think that the defense was also entitled to be thorough, and this was denied in the first trial. Again, if the raw data can be used to undermine the DNA results then we have a very serious fairness violation.

We will all know fairly soon.
Click to expand...


This would indicate far more than a simple fairness violation. This would be a clear violation of law attributable directly to Mignini. He himself has explained that it is his sworn duty to provide the defendants with every available means and evidence that can help them prove their innocence.

I personally think he is guilty in not protecting the computer hard drives, for not filing charges against the police who used RS computer to surf the web on 5 Nov 2007 and thus overwrote time stamps of the vlc media player. For not investigating the abusive interrogation of AK and RS. For allowing the arrest and detention of PL without checking his alibi...for not allowing the defendants to speak to lawyers in the first few days while being held in jail, not obeying the Supreme Court and allowing the false confession...and on and on...Mignini failed in his duty to the defendants. Withholding the electronic data files is another example of his failure to do his duty. This certainly should result in criminal charges being brought against Mignini.
 
LondonJohn said:
<snip>
On reflection, I think this may have been a mistake by you rather than a straw man - I suspect you meant to write "...requires a key to allow passage out from the interior". I might be wrong though.....
Click to expand...


You are correct. I mistyped that. I shouldn't try to cook and post at the same time.

And I am of course totally aware that many (indeed most) front doors have a double lock arrangement - with a key-operated deadbolt and a spring latch operated with a thumb lever from the inside but a key from the outside. My own front door has just such a configuration. I would suggest that most people use the spring latch on a day-to-day basis for security, and only use the deadbolt when they are going away for an extended period or if they feel particularly insecure for some reason. I would judge that it is unusual for people to deadbolt their front door behind them when they come home at night - unless they live in high-crime areas or are of a very nervous disposition.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we are not sharing a common terminology. "Double deadbolt" is trade shorthand for a "double cylinder deadbolt" lockset, which means it requires a key to operate a lock cylinder on either side of the door, as opposed to having a thumbturn on the inside and a key cylinder on the outside. Home security 'consultants' (and I use the term loosely) will recommend them for doors which are glazed themselves or have sidelites within reach of the lockset to prevent an intruder from smashing the glass and reaching through to open the door.

Overzealous and uninformed home owners are apt to install them even when this functionality is not needed, in the mistaken impression that they are somehow intrinsically more secure.

They might not be common in your personal experience, but this does not mean that they are uncommon.

Like I said, go into a big-box home improvement store and take a gander at their offerings of locksets. You'll find plenty of double cylinder deadbolt locksets being sold for residential entry doors, in a myriad of finishes and designs to satisfy the fashion conscious and well-heeled.

Nervous or insecure people may also be less than common in your own experience, but that doesn't mean they are uncommon either. Thanks in no small part to the vigorous efforts of the broadcast media I think that more people than not are apt to "lock up" for the night as a part of their routine.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Or we can always play it again :cool:
Click to expand...

I can call RS that because I have seen photographs of him (and yes, it's my personal opinion), what's HumanityBlues justification for saying that about me? Oh, yes, a desperate ad hominem when someone no longer has any logical arguments.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
pilot padron,

Raffaele backed up Amanda in front of Judge Matteini, and he has never backed away from that position since then. What you paraphrased above was from his interrogation of November 5th, IIUC. Red Grange would be impressed by some of your moves. You bob and weave so quickly that one might forget: if even one of the two has a verifiable alibi, the prosecution's reconstruction is damaged beyond repair.
Click to expand...

Surely your acknowledged research acumen allowed you to note that in expectation of just such nit picking, I clearly stated "in his several versions"

Aggies might prefer not to emulate Red Grange; Bear Bryant might be preferred by lowly 'men of the earth'
 
Fuji said:
Still waiting on that "almost certainly" citation of nosebleeds = visible bruising. Oh - and that burglar defecation analysis you were promising months ago, if you would. Much obliged.
Click to expand...


You must have missed the numerous links to burglar defecation that I and others provided some weeks ago. Sorry about that. I'm not about to go back to find them for you, but they're all there.

Regarding the nosebleed situation, it's very difficult to find a decent citation because it's just so bleeding obvious (pun intended). If the nose is struck with a blow hard enough to rupture the large blood vessels close to the inner lining of the nose (causing a nosebleed), that blow will also be of sufficient strength to cause the smaller, weaker capillaries or arterioles in the dermis of the skin covering the nose to rupture, causing a contusion (bruise) and some swelling. I don't know how much more simply to put it...
 
HumanityBlues said:
We gave you, literally, a text book explanation of burglar defecation drawn from burglars explaining why they did and why they didn't flush. You disappeared shortly after. Do you not remember this?
Click to expand...

I remember LondonJohn loudly avowing the existence of an analysis of the burglar defecation phenomenon upon which he was such a confident commentator.

You and others replied with half-arsed Google search results of random crimes which bore only the faintest possible resemblance to the matter at hand. At the end of which I'm supposed to - no doubt - confirm the innocence of Knox and Sollecito.

Too bad - I really liked your earlier Dirty Work avatar...
 
Alt+F4 said:
I believe that Curatolo's testimony will be tossed, but everything else will remain.
Click to expand...

What does this "everything else" consist of? As far as I can see, it is 2 items of already compromised DNA, Nara's "scream of death" and Quintavalle's claim to have seen Amanda buying bleach. All of these are in big trouble in the re-trial, they never had any credibility in the first place, and they're nowhere near enough to indicate guilt in any case.

So my question still stands: what is the evidence that you believe will lead to the convictions being confirmed?

What makes you think that the pairs new "super witnesses" will get them off?
Click to expand...

Straw man. For a start, I personally have never cited these "super-witnesses" in the first place; those others on the pro-innocence side who have, have suggested it is a ploy to force the prosecution to call Rudy Guede as a witness; and the defense case is now towering over the prosecution on all other grounds. If Hellmann does his job based on the facts, then Amanda and Raffaele will be out in short order.
 
Fuji said:
I remember LondonJohn loudly avowing the existence of an analysis of the burglar defecation phenomenon upon which he was such a confident commentator.

You and others replied with half-arsed Google search results of random crimes which bore only the faintest possible resemblance to the matter at hand. At the end of which I'm supposed to - no doubt - confirm the innocence of Knox and Sollecito.

Too bad - I really liked your earlier Dirty Work avatar...
Click to expand...

Hey Katody, did I not call it? :)

The textbooks lie now too!
 
halides1 said:
Exactly. Mixed DNA is not that uncommon, even when there is no reason to question the collection technique. The way some of the samples were collected, it is almost as if they were trying to get mixed samples. Charlie Wilkes also pointed out that Dr. Stefanoni swabbing technique could have pulled material from her gloves. And Dr. Stefanoni's views on how often gloves should be changed are not shared by the writers of forensic guidelines and textbooks, as has been documented on this thread several times.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was Stefanoni who swabbed the small bathroom (where the mixed traces were) but rather Brocci.

Concerning the missing/not given/held back raw data, do you know which of the items tested the data was not turned over? There were some items which Tagliabracci said he didn't receive work reports on after the resuming of court in September 2009, however I don't believe the knife or clasp were included in this list.
 
theRealBob said:
And a hilarious defecation in the past, which does seem to be a burglar trait.

This stuff about cocaine and nosebleeds is red herring rubbish.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for Fuji to admit to obvious defeat and then claim either AK and RS **** in the bathroom in order to perfectly stage a burglary.
 
LondonJohn said:
You must have missed the numerous links to burglar defecation that I and others provided some weeks ago. Sorry about that. I'm not about to go back to find them for you, but they're all there.

Regarding the nosebleed situation, it's very difficult to find a decent citation because it's just so bleeding obvious (pun intended). If the nose is struck with a blow hard enough to rupture the large blood vessels close to the inner lining of the nose (causing a nosebleed), that blow will also be of sufficient strength to cause the smaller, weaker capillaries or arterioles in the dermis of the skin covering the nose to rupture, causing a contusion (bruise) and some swelling. I don't know how much more simply to put it...
Click to expand...

I'm trying to stage a murder-rape here tonight. Can you please give me the force necessary, in newtons, dynes, or what have you, to produce a nosebleed (and of course, the concurrent visible bruising)? Thanks in advance. :)
 
Alt+F4 said:
I agree that they are testifying for Knox and Sollecito and not Guede, but how is their testimonies going to be of any benefit to the defense? .
Click to expand...

If the mafioso is to be believed it is unquestionably case closed. He's got the keys and they run a trail through every part of the story.

That's if he's got the keys of course.
 
pilot padron said:
Hello goalpost

Why is it necessary to provide that.

All I said to correct you was:
1) cocaine can cause nosebleeds
2) cocaine use is one of several non impact causal factors of nosebleeds

Understand your defensiveness about touchy subject of your team's heroine who happened to be described by another who knew her as a 'drugged up tart'.*

But my statement did not even mention her, so I need provide nothing.

Your statement that:"It still takes a fair blow to cause a nose bleed." is unequivocally incorrect.

Live with it if retraction or acknowledgement exceeds your modus operandi

*Was that per chance another convicted murderer who may also become a Defense last gasp
wit ness that said that ?? ??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3047497.ece
Click to expand...


Hahaha - sophistry duly noted!

Of course you were slyly implying that Knox's nose might have been bleeding owing to cocaine use by her. Otherwise you might as well have said that noses can bleed due to (for example) high blood pressure, overuse of nasal sprays, or long-term use of ibuprofen. We're all aware that there are plenty of ways in which the nose can bleed which are not caused by blunt force trauma - heck, maybe Knox had just reached in for a particularly aggressive pick, and had nicked a blood vessel in the process...... :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom