Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

No - unless there is a snake, a chicken and a monkey also involved [IIR Tacitus ? correctly]

He probably wrote of it, that was an old Roman penalty as I recall.

And we are hardly short of monkeys or snakes.

We certainly aren't! The monkeys would be the incompetent and the snakes the corrupt, we're going to need a big bag!

What do you think is left of the evidence? Curatolo was laughed out of court, it was demonstrated Nara couldn't have heard the people running, they won't get anything except embarrassment out of the footprints this time, including Rudy's on the bathmat. The 'mixed blood' won't sell...what evidence do you expect them to introduce that isn't an 'own goal?' Are you going to promote the hickey to a wound from the struggle like Mignini might argue?

In any case shouldn't you be reading the posts I referred you to earlier.

I did, I must not have found the ones you were referring to that disputed Raffaele's claim, or even addressed it...cogently.

Is it your position they don't have to prove a motive or premeditation?

 

[platonov]

Cartwheel is spinning ever faster

My position is ....

It sunk in for me within minutes of it being posted - see Link

It appears the appeal court share my opinion [not as hastily arrived at one hopes] as otherwise it would be first up in the appeal as it would provide a possible alibi for at least 1 of the convicted killers.

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.
Be warned - much of the Foaker argument on this issue seems IIRC to be fixated on the sex lives of 2 people convicted of a sexually aggravated murder.

ps Don't mention the last post of mine to humber - we are all members of JREF in good standing and no insult was intended but he may take the comparison amiss

...have another look

 

[zeb]

It takes a "special" type of logic to propose that if this computer evidence wasn't the first item addressed by Hellmann, it therefore stands to reason that he considers it to be unworthy of consideration.

As you've alluded to above, Hellmann knew that his first priority was to set in motion the independent review of the DNA evidence, since he knew this would take quite some time. And that's also one reason why he explicitly reserved the right to allow new evidence and witness testimony on an ongoing basis (viz Curatolo and the five inmates), adding that certain additional evidence and testimony would be ruled on by him after the DNA report had been submitted and digested by the court. And since the report will not be submitted until June 30th - and won't be supplemented by witness testimony until the end of July - it will be a good 9/10 weeks from now until anyone knows definitively what additional testimony/evidence Hellmann will allow.

I think that hellmann, wants to finnish this case, after the DNA report.
The prossecution, witnessnes, have proven to be a waste of time.
If the DNA report shows, that AK and RS was not in the room at the time of the murder.
But which you know full well, that the prossecution, can bring in new edivence, into the case.
They may have some thing up their sleve.

 

[Kaosium]

My position is ....




...have another look

I'm seeing two arguments, one that I already addressed, and the other that there's too much interaction.

Color me unimpressed that the Great Guilt Hope rests on the Italian Courts being timely and relying on the logic of the real world (which they wish to conquer!) and that Raffaele and by extension Amanda might have too much of an alibi.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H

Welcome back - I thought you had been raptured.

If thats not your crowd - apologies, like the Foaker arguments all that nonsense is also indistinguishable to an outsider.

Re my argument/retrocausality - its not postdiction unlike 'the temple/pumpkin being destroyed' in the 'Jesus/Santa' ? story if you make the prediction beforehand

ps I did

I did get raptured. Here I sit at the bosom of The Lord. Maybe now you'll listen.

I have been getting the feeling lately that you want us to believe you are Russian. If that is true, maybe it explains your unusual approach to communicating on an internet forum. Ever since you began posting here, you have referred readers back to your previous posts instead of just quoting them yourself, or repeating your claims when questioned.

I am here to tell you that very few readers are going to take the time to read up on what you said in November in order to understand what you are saying in May. Not gonna happen. I am not even going to look up what you said on Tuesday in an effort to understand what you are saying on Wednesday.

 

[platonov]

'He who controls the past controls the future'

I did get raptured. Here I sit at the bosom of The Lord. Maybe now you'll listen.

I have been getting the feeling lately that you want us to believe you are Russian. If that is true, maybe it explains your unusual approach to communicating on an internet forum. Ever since you began posting here, you have referred readers back to your previous posts instead of just quoting them yourself, or repeating your claims when questioned.

I am here to tell you that very few readers are going to take the time to read up on what you said in November in order to understand what you are saying in May. Not gonna happen. I am not even going to look up what you said on Tuesday in an effort to understand what you are saying on Wednesday.

P.S. As an aside, "sank" is the past tense of "sink;" "sunk" is the past participle. Ergo, it is, "it sank" or "it has sunk."

What !

I zink that ...

If you are not prepared to accept the 'good news' as first established in November
(October in old money ) then further communication is futile.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ever since you began posting here, you have referred readers back to your previous posts instead of just quoting them yourself, or repeating your claims when questioned.

I am here to tell you that very few readers are going to take the time to read up on what you said in November in order to understand what you are saying in May. Not gonna happen. I am not even going to look up what you said on Tuesday in an effort to understand what you are saying on Wednesday.

I always follow the platonov links. I am convinced that one of them will lead to a future post, possibly in the future.

 

[Matthew Best]

Usually they just lead to another platonov post containing further links to other platonov posts. I am convinced that if I could only be bothered to keep following the links, they would eventually lead back to the first post I came from. Admittedly that would be a very clever trick, but I'm afraid it would take so many clicks I'd have forgotten that first post by the time I got to it, so I don't bother clicking the links.

I feel fairly comfortable that I haven't missed anything worth reading twice.

 

[Mary_H]

I always follow the platonov links. I am convinced that one of them will lead to a future post, possibly in the future.

Usually they just lead to another platonov post containing further links to other platonov posts. I am convinced that if I could only be bothered to keep following the links, they would eventually lead back to the first post I came from. Admittedly that would be a very clever trick, but I'm afraid it would take so many clicks I'd have forgotten that first post by the time I got to it, so I don't bother clicking the links.

I feel fairly comfortable that I haven't missed anything worth reading twice.

Both of you - LOL!

 

[Mary_H]

What !

I zink that ...

If you are not prepared to accept the 'good news' as first established in November
(October in old money ) then further communication is futile.

We reached that conclusion last October (September in old money):

platonov: "Mary H. Thats fine but as with the AK thread the evidence posted carries more weight than your (or the various innocentsi's) understanding of it."

Mary H: "Well, I guess that sums up your position right there. Communication is not your thing -- I get it."

platonov: "No. My communication is fine - your (& others) failure/inability/unwillingness to understand is part of the message I'm communicating on this thread; and you are helping greatly in that regard."

Matthew Best: "Mary - I have given up trying to figure out what Platonov is trying to get across in pretty much any of his posts. He seems determined to make gleaning any meaning from them as difficult as possible."

In case you feel like clicking: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6481812&postcount=416 (and subsequent page)

 

[misteratunta]

"I tried to cooperate and answer their questions, however, they became very abusive — yelling and screaming at me that I had killed her.”

"I was told that I did not need to speak to my father or a lawyer.”

“I was kept in a locked area for approximately 14 ½ hours."

"One of the investigators “got 6 inches from my face screaming at me that I was a (expletive) for not talking"

“I was told that I would be in jail for 30 years unless I talked. "

“I have never been under this kind of pressure in my life. I was isolated, alone and terrified."

Are these the words of a guilty person who confessed to involvement in a crime voluntarily?

And if there was any doubt in your mind, the person who uttered them was not Amanda Knox, but Kevin Fox, who stood accused of murdering his own daughter, and who was later proven completely innocent.

mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/who-killed-riley-fox/

and

truecrimediary.com/index.cfm?page=cases&id=129

 

[pilot padron]

platonov,

I made no such claim with respect to Hampikian's testifying. However, he an Dr. Johnson did students of this case a great favor by writing the open letter. It is a shame that it was not read in open court in November of 2009; it might have been sufficient to provoke reasonable doubt. A
You seem to be recycling old arguments today.

1) Are we to still believe your praises (and his own) about Dr Hampikian's *key role* with evidence then and later if the Defense Team either did not wish or was unable, to get permission to introduce even a mere *open letter* from him to the first Court ??
Or did you 'mean to say' that Dr Hampikian had a key role with students and not with the Court

2) Uhhhhh......
After 50,000++ posts are there really any 'new' arguments.
(anxiously await with proverbial baited breath usual parsing of 'new', and usual unsolicited opposition only demeaning epistles on alternate spelling of 'bated' from others here)

 

[Supernaut]

Are the cuts on the hands supposed to be accidentally self-inflicted? I don't see why one would necessarily get cuts stabbing a restrained person, or possibly even an unrestrained person, in the throat.

So you acknowledge that Guede had injuries (when ahe was arrested), but you're saying that they're the 'wrong kind of wounds' to be have been acquired in either climbing through a broken window or a in struggle which culminated in a knife murder, that it's just as likely that he acquired them elsewhere and we should disregard them? Something like that?

Several of you (guilters) have said, here and elsewhere, that it's reasonable to speculate that the mark on AK's neck is an "injury" acquired in the same struggle. Presumably you want others to believe that (like Mignini) you've never seen a 'hicky' or 'love bite' before?

It's ridiculous, and my questions are rhetorical - I'm not really interested in what you might have to add, I'm just flagging it as another example of the skewed perception and self-contradiction (not to mention endless hair-splitting) endemic to your "community" (as Ganong likes to call it).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

perhaps too optimistic

1) Are we to still believe your praises (and his own) about Dr Hampikian's *key role* with evidence then and later if the Defense Team either did not wish or was unable, to get permission to introduce even a mere *open letter* from him to the first Court ??
Or did you 'mean to say' that Dr Hampikian had a key role with students and not with the Court

2) Uhhhhh......
After 50,000++ posts are there really any 'new' arguments.
(anxiously await with proverbial baited breath usual parsing of 'new', and usual unsolicited opposition only demeaning epistles on alternate spelling of 'bated' from others here)

pilot padron,

My admiration for your piloting skills remains intact, yet.... IMO Massei showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the forensics; therefore, perhaps I was overly optimistic about the effect of the open letter on the jury as a whole. On the other hand Dr. Hampikian's role behind the scenes in the appeal is perhaps not fully appreciated in some quarters. Last year Dr. Hampikian spoke to one of Ms. Knox's lawyers explaining the importance of the electronic data files, IIRC. Moreover, just as Colonel Garofano's nonsense has had a negative effect on the public's understanding of the case, Dr. Hampikian's clear discussions have had a positive effect. Not sure what you are saying with respect to "bated."

 

[Supernaut]

Regarding Amanda "neck wound" (as Mignini and co see it) ....

IN the 'cold light of day', an innocent AK might have been rather self-conscious about it, particularly given how vulnerable she was being made to feel, without it ever crossing her mind that the cops were actually wondering if it were something that she acquired during MK's murder.

Have you ever remarked on a hicky to a girl with one? I have (on at least on a couple of occasions - I'm lacking decorum sometimes) - one of them, not that long ago, was a girl I knew quite well who served at a local shop (she would have been about AK's age), and the very fact of being reminded that it was conspicuous turned out to be acutely embarrassing to her - although the only people within earshot were me and a friend, immediately she finshed my shopping she left her position and hurriedly made for (I assume) the 'ladies room', presumably to check it out and maybe put on a little foundation..

 

[shuttlt]

So you acknowledge that Guede had injuries (when ahe was arrested), but you're saying that they're the 'wrong kind of wounds' to be have been acquired in either climbing through a broken window or a in struggle which culminated in a knife murder, that it's just as likely that he acquired them elsewhere and we should disregard them? Something like that?

No. Not at all. I can imagine as well as anyone the killer cutting themself in all manner of ways. I have no idea how likely the killer would have been to cut themself, and if cut how bad it would be likely to be. Perhaps Guede is exceptionally lightly wounded, considering, perhaps he has more wounds than a burgling killer normally receives.

Several of you (guilters) have said, here and elsewhere, that it's reasonable to speculate that the mark on AK's neck is an "injury" acquired in the same struggle. Presumably you want others to believe that (like Mignini) you've never seen a 'hicky' or 'love bite' before?

I think there is every possibility that it is a hicky. I've certianly haven't seen any pictures where it looks terribly sinister. Perhaps that's why the police who noticed it, assuming any of them did, didn't log it? It's odd that Fillomena didn't recognize a hicky if that's all it was. She presumably got a better view than we have had. None the less, I think one would have to work quite hard to base any kind of argument for anything around the mark.

It's ridiculous, and my questions are rhetorical - I'm not really interested in what you might have to add, I'm just flagging it as another example of the skewed perception and self-contradiction (not to mention endless hair-splitting) endemic to your "community" (as Ganong likes to call it).

I think you either have me mistaken for someone else or are reading something into my posts that isn't there.

 

[shuttlt]

IN the 'cold light of day', an innocent AK might have been rather self-conscious about it, particularly given how vulnerable she was being made to feel, without it ever crossing her mind that the cops were actually wondering if it were something that she acquired during MK's murder.

Have you ever remarked on a hicky to a girl with one? I have (on at least on a couple of occasions - I'm lacking decorum sometimes) - one of them, not that long ago, was a girl I knew quite well who served at a local shop (she would have been about AK's age), and the very fact of being reminded that it was conspicuous turned out to be acutely embarrassing to her - although the only people within earshot were me and a friend, immediately she finshed my shopping she left her position and hurriedly made for (I assume) the 'ladies room', presumably to check it out and maybe put on a little foundation..

Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[shuttlt]

"I tried to cooperate and answer their questions, however, they became very abusive — yelling and screaming at me that I had killed her.”

"I was told that I did not need to speak to my father or a lawyer.”

“I was kept in a locked area for approximately 14 ½ hours."

"One of the investigators “got 6 inches from my face screaming at me that I was a (expletive) for not talking"

“I was told that I would be in jail for 30 years unless I talked. "

“I have never been under this kind of pressure in my life. I was isolated, alone and terrified."

Are these the words of a guilty person who confessed to involvement in a crime voluntarily?

People who kill other people sometimes don't tell the truth.

 

[spartacus]

it was demonstrated Nara couldn't have heard the people running,

where was this?

 

[shuttlt]

where was this?

We had a discussion about this ages ago. I don't know about the running, but, as I recall, whether the scream could have been heard depended on variables we don't know - how good were her windows for example.

Also, there are lots of nice ceramic tiles, buildings and so forth to reflect sound. It's really hard to tell what could and could not be heard on the right night with the wind blowing the right way...