Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
Funny how that fixation is everything guilters can cling to, while the real evidence crumble down around them.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what that means :) but what is 'funny' is that Fine's recent poe-like 'Fake blood' etc arguments are not out of place here - they are as ridiculous as all the others just shorter.

And as a fan of brevity I can only say, that is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And it's not a black & white picture: it's a colour picture taken using the normal lighting conditions in the bathroom (which had no natural light source, and seemingly weak artificial lighting).
Click to expand...
There's a small roof window there - I believe it's the light source of the 15:30 video - note the blurry shadows indicating indirect ambient light.
 
There are so many colors in the rainbow

LondonJohn said:
But why is it not shared by the prosecution lawyers either? Surely this would be dynamite evidence against Knox (and pretty strong evidence against Sollecito too). Why haven't they used it, platonov?
Click to expand...


So, still no response to my post here I guess :)
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Absolutely nothing.

Its Utterly Irrelevant :)

Actually as regards the appeal its mostly completely ? irrelevant.This Nov 5th fixation is not shared by the defence lawyers for obvious reasons.They have to deal with the real world.
Click to expand...

It matters to me because I'm interested in what really happened here, the appeal is another matter entirely. There's bacon bits to be made here! Or at least 'eternal shame' for the ones who perpetrated this obscenity. I want Hollywood to get this one right... :p
 
Katody Matrass said:
There's a small roof window there - I believe it's the light source of the 15:30 video - note the blurry shadows indicating indirect ambient light.
Click to expand...


Wooops - I'm on a roll of wrongness tonight! There is indeed a small roof window - about 1ft square judging by exterior photos of the cottage. I'd still say that the normal lighting levels in that bathroom were not very intense (as evidenced by most of the photos and the video - although I'd concede that camera exposure timings can sometimes give misleading indications of real light levels).
 
platonov said:
I'm not sure what that means :) but what is 'funny' is that Fine's recent poe-like 'Fake blood' etc arguments are not out of place here - they are as ridiculous as all the others just shorter.
Click to expand...

They are definitely not out of place. In fact they are perfectly consistent with the entirety of ILE's investigation. Could they forget to test the trace for blood in the general rush? They were short of time and in a hurry, after all.
Budgetary pressures could prevent them from testing it, too. Not to mention shortage of qualifications. Mistaking fake blood for real - that's exactly what I'd expect from those cops. And it wouldn't be the biggest blunder among well documented other ones.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
They are definitely nor out of place. In fact they are perfectly consistent with the entirety of ILE's investigation. Could they forget to test the trace for blood in the general rush? They were short of time and in a hurry, after all.
Budgetary pressures could prevent them from testing it, too. Not to mention shortage of qualifications. Mistaking fake blood for real - that's exactly what I'd expect from those cops. And it wouldn't be the biggest blunder among well documented other ones.
Click to expand...


So you agree with me.

Excellent.

The thread can be closed :)
 
platonov said:
So, still no response to my post here I guess :)
Click to expand...


I already responded: my belief is that no testimony in which Sollecito claimed that Knox had left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of the 1st/2nd November was introduced in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito under Presiding Judge Massei. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then please provide it and I will gladly admit my mistake.
 
LJ, it is a sign of honesty and integrity to admit an error. Most who believe in guilt would never admit their mistakes, even after they are clearly proven wrong.
 
LondonJohn said:
I already responded: my belief is that no testimony in which Sollecito claimed that Knox had left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of the 1st/2nd November was introduced in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito under Presiding Judge Massei. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then please provide it and I will gladly admit my mistake.
Click to expand...


Slippery but as I told Kaosium 'no sale here' :)

That doesn't even count as sophistry, much too transparent.

[No you didnt] Quote the post and respond.

TBH I didn't just (brusqely) provide the cite initally, instead putting the correction in the form of a gentle Q as I hoped if you looked for and found it yourself, not alone would it would be less of a climbdown, but also that you would remember it and thus we cold avoid revisiting this issue another 46 times.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I already responded: my belief is that no testimony in which Sollecito claimed that Knox had left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the night of the 1st/2nd November was introduced in the first trial of Knox and Sollecito under Presiding Judge Massei. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then please provide it and I will gladly admit my mistake.
Click to expand...

Please do, Platonov, don't disappoint us, LJ is in a mistake-admitting streak :)
 
Danceme said:
This article contains a couple of pictures of Meredith from Halloween night with the stains from her fake blood visible on her face. They don't look enough to make that stain on the faucet, which incidentally looks like real blood to me, whomever's it is.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm getting opposite impression. It can be the same substance. BTW I'm willing to discuss different sub-topics simultaneously :)
 
Interesting developements. Mignini in his recent ramble that, according to him was recorded treacherously by Graham :D, not only changed his theory another time, but also bad-mouthed perugian cops. Frantic hunt for a scape-goat commences :)
 
Last edited:
is it blood

Katody Matrass said:
It just came to me, what you really mean :jaw-dropp
Very insightful, Fine.

Did they ever test this trace for blood? Or just DNA?
Click to expand...
Katody Matrass,

I have seen no evidence that the forensic police ever did confirmatory tests for blood. I would hazard a guess (based on large number of blood stains listed in the selected DNA samples document that Charlie Wilkes compiled) that they used DNA testing as an alternative to doing so. Although I do not believe that they are alone in using DNA profiling in this manner, this case points up some difficulties in doing so. I am willing to assume provisionally that splotch on the faucet is blood.
 
halides1 said:
Katody Matrass,

I have seen no evidence that the forensic police ever did confirmatory tests for blood. I would hazard a guess (based on large number of blood stains listed in the selected DNA samples document that Charlie Wilkes compiled) that they used DNA testing as an alternative to doing so. Although I do not believe that they are alone in using DNA profiling in this manner, this case points up some difficulties in doing so. I am willing to assume provisionally that splotch on the faucet is blood.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly willing to assume it, too. OTOH knowing what is known about the investigation I cannot exclude that it's not blood. Heck, I can't even exclude it was Meredith's.
 
not sure what Raffaele meant

Danceme said:
Paraphrasing the translations Kaosium posted.
SNIP
Prison diary Nov. 7 - talks of confused memories, doesn't remember how long A was absent but doubts she was. Is sure she slept with him that night though. He muses on how the court said he gave 3 versions and the only difference he finds is that A brought him to say crap in the 2nd version, that she had gone out to le chic. Says agin he doesn't remember how long she was absent.
SNIP
Any comments?
Click to expand...
Danceme,

I am not sure. I seem to recall extensive discussion of the question of whether or not Raffaele meant that Amanda brought him to say crap in a previous thread, possibly with contributions from Katy_did.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Katody Matrass,

I have seen no evidence that the forensic police ever did confirmatory tests for blood. I would hazard a guess (based on large number of blood stains listed in the selected DNA samples document that Charlie Wilkes compiled) that they used DNA testing as an alternative to doing so. Although I do not believe that they are alone in using DNA profiling in this manner, this case points up some difficulties in doing so. I am willing to assume provisionally that splotch on the faucet is blood.
Click to expand...


'provisionally' - that sounds like a weasel word.

It's obviously Fake.

Why do you hate Amanda ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom