Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
not sure I get it yet

shuttlt said:
A discussion about whether the scream could be heard.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6614572&highlight=decibels#post6614572

How many decibels would the running feet have been?
Click to expand...
shuttlt,

I thought (according to the pro-guilt narrative) Guede alone had shoes on, not Amanda or Raffaele. I thought Guede alone departed the flat, leaving Raffaele and Amanda behind to clean up. If so, how could there be the sound of multiple people running?
 
open and shut

shuttlt said:
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...
Click to expand...
shuttlt,

Frank Sfarzo believes that if Nara heard Meredith scream, then the front door must have been open. However, my own view is in agreement with Matthew_Best's, and I would go further. The whole discussion of Nara's competence is at best a side-issue. Whatever she heard is unrelated to the crime at hand.
 
Last edited:
Washington Post and Liberty Bell

The Washington Post picked up a story about Italian lawmakers becoming involved in this case. "They [a petition and a letter] also maintain that Knox, who has been in jail since before her conviction, should not have been kept behind bars."
 
Supernaut said:
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).
Click to expand...
Actually Guede claims his hand injury is from a knife, that cuts like a scalpel, which was inflicted on him by Meredith's killer.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
The scream is a red herring - by the time it was heard, Kercher was long dead.
Click to expand...


If there ever even was a scream, that is.......

(NB: That's not to suggest that Capezzali was lying, but rather that she might have allowed her mind to play tricks on her at the time, followed by an amplification in her subsequent recall of the event after she heard about the murder)
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

Frank Sfarzo believes that if Nara heard Meredith scream, then the front door must have been open. However, my own view is in agreement with Matthew_Best's, and I would go further. The whole discussion of Nara's competence is at best a side-issue. Whatever she heard is unrelated to the crime at hand.
Click to expand...


True: it's completely moot, because Meredith almost certainly died before 10pm, and most likely before 9.30pm.
 
halides1 said:
The Washington Post picked up a story about Italian lawmakers becoming involved in this case. "They [a petition and a letter] also maintain that Knox, who has been in jail since before her conviction, should not have been kept behind bars."
Click to expand...


Interesting article, with interesting opinions. But remember, Girlanda is only motivated by his disgusting lust for Knox :rolleyes:
 
Proving Contamination

I keep reading that the defense needs to "prove" the knife and clasp were contaminated. I would like to know just does one go about proving contamination.

I worked in the aircraft industry and, if fuel was removed from an aircraft it was by definition "contaminated" and stored in containers indicating so. You didn't have to show that it contained foreign substances.

So, I would consider an evidentiary item contaminated if:
1) the chain of custody was broken
2) a single swab was used in more than one location
3) dirty cloves were used to collect items
4) gloves were not changed frequently
5) items were wrapped in "unclean" paper
6) the crime scene was not secured
7) etc.
 
LondonJohn said:
Interesting article, with interesting opinions. But remember, Girlanda is only motivated by his disgusting lust for Knox :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow. I think this is huge. Mignini's toast. Rocco will hitch his wagon to the Berlusconi "let's reform the judicial system" wagon and he's got a great case for this. The key will be how the minister of justice will respond, whether he will assert his "independence" or will go along.
 
daydreamer said:
I keep reading that the defense needs to "prove" the knife and clasp were contaminated. I would like to know just does one go about proving contamination.

I worked in the aircraft industry and, if fuel was removed from an aircraft it was by definition "contaminated" and stored in containers indicating so. You didn't have to show that it contained foreign substances.

So, I would consider an evidentiary item contaminated if:
1) the chain of custody was broken
2) a single swab was used in more than one location
3) dirty cloves were used to collect items
4) gloves were not changed frequently
5) items were wrapped in "unclean" paper
6) the crime scene was not secured
7) etc.
Click to expand...

7) the piece of evidence was wrapped in wrapping paper found at the site
8) the piece of evidence was kicked across the room
9) the piece of evidence was picked up 47 days after the crime and in response to having a family member publicly prove that a conclusion about the suspect's alleged bloody footprint was wrong
 
Antony said:
Err ... that was most of the prosecution "evidence". What's left?

You're just avoiding my question, and it's obvious to anyone reading this. If all you can say is "the evidence of the original trial", without ever stating what that "evidence" is, then it will be seen that your confidence of a second "guilty" verdict is an article of faith, rather than rationality.
Click to expand...

I've posted many times what I feel the most important evidenc is. You can use the search function to find them.
 
Chris C said:
Actually if I remember correctly some reporters used the apartment below Nara's in a demonstration. Before you respond, yeah I know, take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Hello. New here.

I can't post links until I've made 15 posts, but Paul Ciolinos experiment is of course on Youtube.

He's in an apartment above Nara's, actually.

In the interview with Frank Sfarzo Nara talks about iron stairs. Can anyone tell me exactly where these iron stairs are located?
 
Last edited:
spartacus said:
7) the piece of evidence was wrapped in wrapping paper found at the site
8) the piece of evidence was kicked across the room
9) the piece of evidence was picked up 47 days after the crime and in response to having a family member publicly prove that a conclusion about the suspect's alleged bloody footprint was wrong
Click to expand...

10) an item of underwear had some unknow DNA signatures in addition the victim's and suspect.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I've posted many times what I feel the most important evidenc is. You can use the search function to find them.
Click to expand...

You're not really playing the game properly here. What you're supposed to do is write a post that says "the answers to your question can be found here", which should be a link to a previous post of yours where you said something like "I've already answered this question and the answer I gave that time is here", which should itself be a link to another previous post of yours, and so on ad infinitum.
 
So, Fuji: got any answers yet to the questions you posed in "the other place"?

Any evidence whatsoever (press reports, references in Massei, other) of any detailed photos of the ground below Filomena's window? Any explanation as to why Massei's report would specifically mention verbal testimony in this area, but make no reference whatsoever to any photographic evidence (when detailed photographs would obviously be far stronger evidence than a verbal recollection)?

And any help yet on the reason why any findings of fact in Guede's trials will be irrelevant and inadmissible as "proven facts" in Knox's/Sollecito's trials? Have any lawyers (or paralegals....) been able to enlighten you on this fundamental (and quite easy to understand) point of law?

Looking forward to your update!
 
Last edited:
daydreamer said:
I keep reading that the defense needs to "prove" the knife and clasp were contaminated. I would like to know just does one go about proving contamination. ...
Click to expand...

To me it seems that it is the prosecution's job to show that the evidence was not contaminated. As you pointed out, the prosecution failed in this regard.
 
An interesting point occurred to me around ToD:

1) Guede's presence at the murder will be introduced in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal by the defence teams, via the evidence placing him at the scene either during or directly after the murder (most notably and irrefutably the bloody handprint).

2) Now, ToD is quite important to the prosecution case: it is still, for example, linked in with the testimony of Cappezalli and the other alleged ear witness, and to an extent with the cellphone records.

3) Guede's defence team allegedly found witnesses who had met up with Guede at around 11pm on the night of the murder, and had spent some time with him around that time. But the judges in Guede's trials ruled that it was not necessary to introduce this evidence, since ToD was not a particularly important factor in the case against Guede. The courts subsequently ruled that the ToD was around 10.30 - making the additional witness testimony somewhat moot in Guede's trials.

4) But.... ToD is far more relevant in Knox's and Sollecito's trials. Since the defence teams can argue that the hand print evidence proves that Guede must have been present at (or at worst shortly after) the murder, any evidence of his presence elsewhere at 11pm would be of significant potential value.

5) Add into this the testimony of the people in the broken down car directly opposite the cottage, who were there from around 10.30pm until around 11.30-11.40pm and stated that for the whole duration of their time there they neither saw nor heard any activity in the cottage, and nor did they see anyone enter or leave.

6) Any witnesses who claim to have seen Guede at around 11pm would therefore (if reliable) automatically place the ToD at some time before around 10.25pm. While such witnesses might not have been relevant in Guede's trials, i believe they would be very relevant in Knox's/Sollecito's trials.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom