Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fuji said:
Why don't you just supply the reference and your own interpretation instead of making yet another pointless ad hominem?
Click to expand...

I already did, days ago, and Katody did it in the last page. Don't make others do your leg work.
 
halides1 said:
christianahannah,

Charlie Wilkes may have been referring to mixed DNA elsewhere (Filomena's room?), but I would have to find it in the first continuation thread to be certain. I have not heard that any raw data files were turned over. Some, such as negative controls, might not correspond to any single piece of evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you know what documentation Tagliabracci was speaking of when he answered a question of the defense concerning the relevance of the documentation he had just received and whether if he had it earlier would he have been able to make a more complete analysis (this was the documentation asked for by the defense in July 2009 and ordered by the court for the prosecution to turn over)?
 
Fuji said:
I'm beginning to wonder if English is a second language for you.

Pro-tip: Anglos call "killing yourself" a "suicide", not a "murder".
Click to expand...


Does striking yourself on the nose hard enough to cause a nose bleed usually result in death then? Is is it worth reminding you that the murder victim in this case had considerably worse injuries than a bloody nose, and that the person who's the subject of this risible "bloody nose" conjecture is a) very much still alive, and b) an alleged perpetrator of the murder?

Given that I assume you're trying to recreate something similar to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and given that I assume that you might be playing the role of murderer rather than murder victim, then I expect you'll be stabbing someone in the neck then striking yourself on the nose to precipitate a flow of your blood, some of which you will leave in your bathroom sink mixed with your unfortunate victim's blood. Do have fun!
 
theRealBob said:
I would rarely be tempted to err on the side of true with anything from the prosecution in this case.

With Mignini you could usually just substitute mad for true or false most of the time and come to a reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
It seems like a pretty plain statement of facts and is an explanation I remember discussing during the Fiona era.

If you aren't able to demonstrate that anything he says there is false, what was it about what Mignini says that you wanted to highlight?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Both a defendent and a witness has the right to protect themselves aganist self-incrimination. What don't you understand about this?
Click to expand...


Yes, they both do. But their silence can be interpreted in different ways. Witnesses are not the ones charged with an offence and on trial. Defendants are. Courts are instructed that a defendant's refusal to testify should in no way be given an adverse inference. Witness testimony is not subject to the same instruction. What don't you understand about this?
 
Alright Fuji, I know you don't like me. That's fine. But let's call a truce here and start from square one for the **** in the toilet dilemma. I think we can all admit it is sure a lot more interesting than the causes of nose bleeds and other insipid discussions about door locks. Fair enough? Let's iron out the terms.
 
Fuji said:
How many views per page in your resolution?
Click to expand...

Never mind - I took a look at your "citation". Page 436 of a book (not reproduced, even in extract), and several Google cites of burglars crapping on rugs or tables, or what have you, and one or two cases of turds found in toilet bowls.

Truly, this is compelling stuff.
 
I was wondering, and this may not be something which can be answered definitively, but when was it that the broken window/robbery was first theorized to be staged by the police and then known publicly through the media?
 
Fuji said:
Never mind - I took a look at your "citation". Page 436 of a book (not reproduced, even in extract), and several Google cites of burglars crapping on rugs or tables, or what have you, and one or two cases of turds found in toilet bowls.

Truly, this is compelling stuff.
Click to expand...

See above. This was in a criminology 101 textbook. I can research some place better than google but it wont' be instantaneous, but I went to know your terms and that you won't just move goalposts. Are you game?
 
HumanityBlues said:
Alright Fuji, I know you don't like me. That's fine. But let's call a truce here and start from square one for the **** in the toilet dilemma. I think we can all admit it is sure a lot more interesting than the causes of nose bleeds and other insipid discussions about door locks. Fair enough? Let's iron out the terms.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was sincere (and still am), that I was distressed by your choice of avatar over a year ago, given that I am in opposite opinion to you on the case.

That said, I am wary but curious as to your ironing out of terms...
 
conjecture

Fuji said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fuji,

Thank you. I see it differently. The police have frittered away their credibility, as far as I am concerned. Therefore, documentation is even more important than it would be otherwise, and I have seen none. In addition, glass moving backwards would spread out during the fall to the ground and may not be so obvious as it would be if it spread out less. On the other hand, Massei's conjecture would result in a different glass distribution from the one resulting from the rock's being thrown from the parapet. And the simple fact that the defense was willing to reconstruct it counts for a great deal with me.
 
HumanityBlues said:
See above. This was in a criminology 101 textbook. I can research some place better than google but it wont' be instantaneous, but I went to know your terms and that you won't just move goalposts. Are you game?
Click to expand...

Sure. I am game. Bear in mind, it's past 1AM where I am, and I'm shortly heading to bed. I'll honestly respond tomorrow, if not tonight.
 
Tagliabraccia and documentation

christianahannah said:
Do you know what documentation Tagliabracci was speaking of when he answered a question of the defense concerning the relevance of the documentation he had just received and whether if he had it earlier would he have been able to make a more complete analysis (this was the documentation asked for by the defense in July 2009 and ordered by the court for the prosecution to turn over)?
Click to expand...

No, I am afraid I am not certain. I do recall looking into this at one point but seem to have forgotten.
 
Fuji said:
Actually, I was sincere (and still am), that I was distressed by your choice of avatar over a year ago, given that I am in opposite opinion to you on the case.

That said, I am wary but curious as to your ironing out of terms...
Click to expand...

Ok, let's talk it out. First, what is the claim that you feel is unsupported?

That it is common for burglars to use the toilets during a burglary and not flush?

It obviously happens, but you seem to dispute whether it is "common" or not. Do I have that right?

And yes, Dirty Work is a fantastic movie isn't it? I hope that's something we can all agree on.
 
halides1 said:
Fuji,

Thank you. I see it differently. The police have frittered away their credibility, as far as I am concerned. Therefore, documentation is even more important than it would be otherwise, and I have seen none.
Click to expand...

I can see that this is a valid concern for you.

In addition, glass moving backwards would spread out during the fall to the ground and may not be so obvious as it would be if it spread out less. On the other hand, Massei's conjecture would result in a different glass distribution from the one resulting from the rock's being thrown from the parapet. And the simple fact that the defense was willing to reconstruct it counts for a great deal with me.
Click to expand...

I don't think the reconstruction counts for as much as you think it does. In essence, when considering its putative probative value to the case at hand, it is unfalsifiable. If the recreation fails, it is not held as incriminatory against the defendant.
 
Fuji said:
Sure. I am game. Bear in mind, it's past 1AM where I am, and I'm shortly heading to bed. I'll honestly respond tomorrow, if not tonight.
Click to expand...

I won't have anything for a while. I'm going to have to go to the library for this one it looks like, which I won't have time for until this weekend when I'll be going anyways.
 
LondonJohn said:
Where does it say in Massei that Guede was not attracted to Meredith? He was known (and there's testimony to support it IIRC) to lust after caucasian girls*, so I think there's every possibility that he was sexually attracted to her. Add in the adrenaline rush of the situation, and the fact that Meredith was demonstrably alone in the cottage (and let's not forget Massei's track record of woeful reasoning in other areas), and I think this is an entirely reasonable possibility.

* Yes, I know that Meredith was of mixed race, but I would consider her ethnicity to be caucasian enough to appeal to Guede's sensibilities.
Click to expand...


Well, you could also use Guede testamony in his own trial where he claims he made a date and stole a kiss on 31 Oct2007. That might indicate he had a desire for Meredith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom