Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bolint said:
He lied about it.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see..

I'm not so sure he lied about it. I rather doubt it. To me it looks more like he got confused then deliberately lied. Didn't they make him sign that he called the Carabinieri after the postals arrived? All we know for sure is that they refused him a lawyer and a phone call. Oh, and they forgot to tape it again.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
If you have a counter argument you are welcome to post it. I am still waiting for your cite on the claim you made that Raffaele called his statement of 2 November "crap".
Click to expand...

Rose, I find it hard to take your request to Bolint seriously.

1) In your oft envied well catalogued and quickly accessed store of facts about the case, surely you must be aware of the 'crap creep' that was widely evidenced and often reported from the various initial translations of Raffie's statement into English.

2) Additionally, with all due respect, your request seems to be uncharacteristically somewhat 'nit picky', pedantic and picayunish.
Is it really significant to us whether Raffie declared his earlier contradictory versions to be 'rubbish' or to be 'crap' ?
Do you here claim incremental credibility from either translation ??

This particularly since we all have been admonished to conserve cyberspace in our arguments:cool:
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that those alleged multiple lies are all in the realm of hypothesis, conjecture and sometimes pure fantasy (as the pathetic "list of lies" pilot provided when pressed shows). It strongly contrasts with the well documented and proven lies of the involved cops.

I think obsessing about those "lies" and "suspicious" behavior is a way to escape from the painful truth that guilt proponents cannot put together a sensible theory of the crime and cannot defend any of their shaky witnesses or other evidence.
 
bolint said:
Ahh, I fell on my sword.
But with my last energy I'll copy some paragraphs from Eberspächer et al. - GSM – Architecture, Protocols and Services, Wiley, to be placed on my tomb.
Click to expand...


This is why bolint belongs here. I'll be reviewing the documentation he provided. (was there a link?)

A map of the location areas would also be helpful if it's possible to extract such information from the providers. From my previous readings I believe these are overlapping sets of cells but I can't say if the whole town would be one area.

There are three events where cell phones appear to connect with towers that that are not optimum for the phone. These are: Amanda's receipt of Patrick's text, Patrick's sending of the text and Meredith's phone receiving the MMS message. These need to be explored.
 
pilot padron said:
Rose, I find it hard to take your request to Bolint seriously.

1) In your oft envied well catalogued and quickly accessed store of facts about the case, surely you must be aware of the 'crap creep' that was widely evidenced and often reported from the various initial translations of Raffie's statement into English.

2) Additionally, with all due respect, your request seems to be uncharacteristically somewhat 'nit picky', pedantic and picayunish.
Is it really significant to us whether Raffie declared his earlier contradictory versions to be 'rubbish' or to be 'crap' ?
Do you here claim incremental credibility from either translation ??

This particularly since we all have been admonished to conserve cyberspace in our arguments:cool:
Click to expand...

I know the sack of crap quote was widely reported in the papers, however it is curious that it is not included in Matteini and Raffael's statement of the 5th was not discussed in court. I did not dispute it in my post, I did point out that he called his statement of the 5th "crap".

The following two paragraphs from Matteini:

During the course of the same declarations, he added, on the contrary, that he could not remember whether Knox had left or not. He re-asserted, however, not having left the house, having remained in front of the computer, as well as having received a phone call from his father at the time of 23.00. A telephone call that shortly afterward he specified he could not remember whether he had actuality received, or whether he had referred to having received it to corroborate the circumstances surrounding his permanence in the house.

Raffaele Sollecito furnished yet another version with respect to that given earlier, related to the conduct carried out by Knox on the night of 1st and 2nd November. He attributed the cause of such behavior to the influence exercised on him by Amanda in the wake of the declarations by her rendered in the presence of the Polizia Postale, declarations that, contrariwise, Amanda had never made to the Polizia Postale agents arriving on the spot, due to her difficulty in speaking and understanding Italian, as, on the other side, was likewise specified by the same Sollecito.
Click to expand...

It seems to me the first paragraph deals with the I don't know if she left when I was asleep issue and the second relates to both Amanda's difficulty understanding Italian and Raffaeles difficulty understanding her as well as what the cops were asking. The crap is missing from Matteini's version. I would think that if he said his original alibi was crap, Matteini would have used that.
 
Agree

RoseMontague said:
I know the sack of crap quote was widely reported in the papers, however it is curious that it is not included in Matteini and Raffael's statement of the 5th was not discussed in court. I did not dispute it in my post, I did point out that he called his statement of the 5th "crap".
SNIP
The crap is missing from Matteini's version. I would think that if he said his original alibi was crap, Matteini would have used that.
Click to expand...

My argument was to point out that these widely reported translation errors were the precise reason for Bolint to very understandably cite the 'crap' terminology.
I further *surmised* that you really knew why Bolint had done so.

This not to imply as you accurately point out that Raffie actually *had said* crap, but simply that it was widely *reported by others at the time* that he had said crap.
For some reason I feel that this distinction is one that Matthew often argues, relishes endlessly engaging in, and is more at home with same than I

Therefore, I conclude by fully agreeing with your conclusion about Matteini's omission and additionally note that citation as another kudo for your factual acuity
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Therefore, I conclude by fully agreeing with your conclusion about Matteini's omission and additionally note that citation as another kudo for your factual acuity
Click to expand...

It is one document that we don't have, unlike Amanda's official statements. I just have to wonder if would have signed something that said his earlier statements were crap. The information leaked to the press is interesting, some of it is completely unreliable, in my opinion.
 
Dan O. said:
This is why bolint belongs here. I'll be reviewing the documentation he provided. (was there a link?)

A map of the location areas would also be helpful if it's possible to extract such information from the providers. From my previous readings I believe these are overlapping sets of cells but I can't say if the whole town would be one area.

There are three events where cell phones appear to connect with towers that that are not optimum for the phone. These are: Amanda's receipt of Patrick's text, Patrick's sending of the text and Meredith's phone receiving the MMS message. These need to be explored.
Click to expand...


This would be an area in which I have some academic expertise (hi, pilot!). The ETSI standards for GSM in Europe (to which network operators, service providers and handset manufacturers all work) specify far less rigorous protocols for selecting base stations for SMS or MMS transmission than for voice calls. Bolint had indeed posted some of the selection protocols, but those are the ones that apply to voice calls.

There are two main reasons why SMS and MMS can and should be dealt with differently: these communications are simplex (i.e. they are only one-way communications, from the base station to the handset, with no need for simultaneous transmission from the handset to the base station as would be the case with a normal voice call); and they are asynchronous (i.e. the information does not have to be delivered at a strictly-timed and synchronised basis - unlike voice calls which have to be transmitted and received in real time, in exactly the right order, and with minimal time delay).

Because of these two important differences, base station selection protocols are far less rigorous with SMS/MMS than with voice. When an SMS/MMS is sent or received, it's actually fairly common for the signal path to involve a more "distant" base station - leaving the base station with the strongest signal path free for more complex, duplex, synchronous voice calls. It's therefore far from unlikely for Knox's handset to have been situated in Sollecito's apartment, but to have received Lumumba's SMS from a base station which was not the optimal one for that location. The appeals documents allude to this, and I would hope that Hellmann would allow expert witnesses to appear before the court and explain all this properly.
 
bolint said:
Well, I heard of a Seattle girl who did not find it so unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, posting little throw-away remarks such as the one above does not tend to speak highly to your willingness to debate in good faith, with an open and inquiring mind.

But since you wrote it, can we take it from this witticism of yours that you believe Knox accused Lumumba out of thin air, without any police coercion (or maybe without the police even previously mentioning Lumumba's name, as some seem to think)?
 
Amazer said:
I'm confused.... Did they go to sleep together or was RS the whole night behind his computer.
Click to expand...


You're listing a false dichotomy here. I presume that by your loaded use of the phrase "behind his computer", you're intending to convey an impression of Sollecito sitting behind a desk (or something similar). You seem to be missing the possibility - either through accident or design - that Knox and Sollecito were both in Sollecito's bed, but that Sollecito was intermittently dozing and messing around on his laptop as he lay in bed next to a sleeping Knox.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Just a couple of points, obviously Filomena's actions are irrelevant in the context of Raffaele and Amanda’s current appeal. In addition, which one is it Meredith and Amanda got on really well and were good friends as many of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters’ state or to quote you “How many times do you call someone that you barely know to ask them where they are at?”

If I were concerned for a friend and had seen what Amanda had described that morning, I would continue to call and each time my friend didn’t respond I would become more concerned, but that’s how I am, different strokes for different folks I guess!
Click to expand...


But I think you have succumbed to the mistake of having the ex post facto knowledge that in this particular (and astonishingly out-of-the-ordinary) case, you know that Meredith was lying dead behind her bedroom door.

If one assumes that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder (which one has to do for the purposes of this issue), then even if they thought there had been a break-in, there's virtually nothing that could have led them to believe that Meredith might have been the victim of foul play. Yes, there were a few drops of blood in the small bathroom, and Meredith's door was locked. But it's not as if there were pools of blood or signs of a struggle/commotion in any of the parts of the cottage that they could access.

Also bear in mind that Knox probably knew that Meredith had gone to her English friends' house to spend the afternoon and evening on the 1st, and that she knew that the 2nd was a public holiday and a day off from university. Therefore, unless Meredith had mentioned specifically that she planned to return to the cottage on the night of the 1st, I'd have thought that it would be perfectly reasonable for Knox to suppose that Meredith might either have crashed over at her friends' house, or even that she might have ended up going out and subsequently spending the night at some other location.

In addition, as others have pointed out, if Knox and Sollecito had been involved in the murder, there's a decent argument to be made that Knox would have made repeated attempts to reach Meredith on her phones (even to the point of near parody). After all, this would give Knox far more ammunition to subsequently claim that she was deeply concerned about Meredith's whereabouts and condition.
 
komponisto said:
Translation of Mignini's letter to Oggi regarding the Graham interview, and the editor's comments.



Also, contrary to Kevinfay, Oggi is comparable to People, not the National Enquirer.
Click to expand...


So, we have a complete, 100%, retraction from the Director of Oggi. Looks like Italian law worked here?.

The Director then goes on to make four completely irrelevant observations about the 2 1/2 hour secret recording .... he won't be in line for the Pulitzer Prize this year?

Gutter press is the same the world over?
 
brer rabbit and the tar baby

Amazer said:
Even if this is true (your suspicion), I hardly think that a (counter-)threat against someones life is an appropriate response.
Click to expand...
Amazer and pilot padron,

My friend's comment referred to defensive action. He may have made it because he realized that the original threat had rattled me. As far as Michelle and Steve Moore are concerned, it is incumbent upon the person who brought it up in the first place to set the context.
 
RoseMontague said:
I guess I don't understand the logic. Is the fact that someone who is has been threatened choses to take no action make the threatening behavior somehow OK?
Click to expand...

If someone threatened to murder you, you wouldn't take action against that? Really? :confused:
 
halides1 said:
Alt+F4,

Are you saying it did not happen?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! What kind of sick mind would say they were threatened with murder if they hadn't been? I think it's important to have the details of this prosecution made public for anyone else who might be going through the same situation.

This happened at PMF, yes? I'm sure it will be shut down very soon, don't you think?
 
Raffaele in his own words

bolint said:
Not bad, after almost four years.
I'm sure Raffaele explained clearly why he had thougt it otherwise and why it took such a long time to come out with it.

Could you paste that part in?
Click to expand...
Bolint,

Raffaele explained it to Judge Matteini. “’Precisely because on that night I was very, very agitated because I was under so much pressure,’ he told her [Judge Matteini], adding that police had interrogated him very forcefully, saying repeatedly, ‘don’t give us ****’ and ‘be careful what you say.’ Later, they’d written down that he said ‘sack of ****.’ It had all been a nightmare.” (Murder in Italy, p. 199) I am not sure why you consider two and a half days to be a long time.

With respect to Raffaele’s interview in Oggi, he described Amanda thusly: “Amanda is just a very sweet girl; she is beautiful, sensitive, nice, cheerful and a bit 'weird'. (She is) definitely special. Light years away from an egoic queen bee (depicted in the media)” (human translation).
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
No, it means it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Ahh - you see, what you've done here is you've failed to understand that some death threats are real and constitute a genuine risk, and others are not and don't. The latter category might include threats made over internet message boards or forums, and/or made by people with likely personality disorders but neither the means nor the opportunity to carry out the threat.

If the person being threatened judged that there was even a small risk that the threat was real, then of course the only possible action would be to call in the authorities and investigate the person making the threat. But if the person being threatened judged that the threat was baseless, hollow and presented no real risk, the best remedy would probably be to ignore the threat, and hope that the person making the threat recognised (or was told by someone close to him/her) that (s)he needed some professional help.

Note also that this is a completely different situation to someone writing potentially libellous allegations. In this case, the motivation or state of mind of the person writing the allegedly defamatory material is of no importance. Libel is libel is libel - no matter who writes it or where they write it. And the person who is allegedly being libelled has only two options: 1) to disregard it and either hope (or assume) that others will perceive the material to be false anyhow, or accept the injurious nature of the allegations; 2) to pursue a legal case against the person making the statements, and resolve the situation in a court of law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom