Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
In the next few days it would be nice to see those, who have been involved in this heated debate, to take a step back and look at what the DNA report actually says. This debate has gone on for so long that it appears the online debate has become the focus rather than the actual people involved. Right now I see a lot of spin regarding the report which is to be expected for those determined to win their online shouting match, but not very realistic for those looking at this case based on the real lives being destroyed.

The knife and the clasp are gone. They will no longer be viewed as credible after the July hearing. The independent experts were appointed by the court and their results will be accepted.

The spin goes like this; "the DNA is only a small part of the 'mountain of evidence' to convict the two 'love birds.' The 'staged' break in is really what convicted them in the first place"

There is no credible evidence to prove a staged break in but Massei (the judge that refused additional testing on the DNA) said it was staged so that's good enough for those in spin mode now. If that's all you have to secure convictions then it's really time to walk away from the debate.
Click to expand...

Talk about "Making Mountains out of Molehills". I guess a molehill is a mountain for a tiny person (Massei).
 
LondonJohn said:
PS: platonov's cunningly-posed "yes/no" question is similar to one that might be asked if (when) Knox/Sollecito are acquitted. I fully expect at least one of the pro-guilt idiots to ask the following question (with the same false logic as the "did the report say that Sollecito's DNA was not on the bra clasp" question) if (when) there's an acquittal in Hellmann's court:

"Did the court rule that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the crime? Yes or no?"

To which the scrupulously-accurate answer will almost certainly be "no" - but it won't be relevant. All that will be relevant will be that the court did not rule that they did commit the crime. And, by the same token, all that's important in the DNA report is that it says that Sollecito's DNA cannot be ruled as being present.
Click to expand...

LJ - do Italian appeal procedures allow for a motion during the appeal to release defendants from remand? Given the bombshell dropped today that shredded the DNA evidence it seems unfair to continue to hold people who are so obviously innocent. Of course AK and RS would not have passports and might have to wear ankle mounted electronic monigtors, but being out of prisons like most defendants during the appeal process seems only fair. A plus would be Hellmann's ruling on such a motion should foreshadow the appeal outcome. Your thoughts?
 
platonov said:
Its a perfectly straightforward Q :)

Obviously of you don't understand it then an answer won't be forthcoming which is fine.






I don't require or didn't request your summaries or homespun analogies.
As I said before with me you can take the obvious as read.


I asked two pertinent and straightforward Q's




The answers to which seem to be NO & NO.





Yes we know that :) and have done so for a couple of months.

For the rest see above. Perhaps you should have gone with Rolfe's answer - it seems I didn't ask the Q / get the point across with sufficient clarity, again the fault is mine no doubt ;)




They don't apparently - if there is no quantitative comparison between the putative RS profile Stefanoni 'found' and the 'noise' / 'contamination' we are none the wiser on this particular issue for the moment.

So we will have to wait and see. It should be interesting when this is argued in court. Stefanoni will certainly have to defend her work on this issue, leaving aside this particular case her professional reputation is at stake.

They [C & V] may may well be correct on this matter - but given the report is what 140 ? pages long I'm surprised (as a layman) that this quantitative aspect isn't addressed in detail.


Perhaps it is ??? I shall keep an eye on the PMF translations.
Click to expand...

The above represents the last sounds of the sinking ship. I think this guy sums it up well.
 
Chickens on a hotplate (and other dance routines)

Wow.

Good old comrade platonov asks a simple one line, 2 part Q and the red shoes start to asplode all over the place.

Perhaps the yellow brick road has been mined :)
 
Last edited:
Komponisto, you are absolutely correct. That is why it is imperative that the right thing is finally done in this case. The actions of officials and police in Perugia are giving people a bad opinion of Italy as a whole. Evey effort must be made to correct this injustice in order to restore the good name of Italy. It's a shame how a few bad apples make the whole bunch look bad.
 
Meredith Kercher's Arrival Home at 9:01 - 9:03 p.m.

I've gotten ahold of a time stamped shot from the likely Meredith Kercher arriving home video.

The timestamp is 20:51. :blush:

All my research had told me 8:41 p.m. was correct. It seems the cops did adjust the time to be 10 minutes fast in the Mar 13, 2009 court date. I was wrong. Taking into account the slow clock from the postal Police demonstration, Meredith Kercher arrived home 9:01 - 9:03 p.m.





Some questions from this:

1. Why did all the times given in media from the Nov 11-12, 2007 press leak say either 8:41 or 8:43 p.m.? Did the cops adjust the time they leaked even that early in the investigation?

2. Why did they think it was 10 minutes fast?

3. Why on Mar 13, 2009 did they adjust it to 8:41 p.m. and still say they thought it was Meredith Kercher? If it WAS that time it could not have been her because she hadn't even left her friends place yet. They knew that because the girlfriends had already testified.

4. The 8:56 p.m. call? Did Meredith attempt to call after parting with Sophie and it didn't connect? Perhaps she decided to wait until she got home to call and never got a chance.


http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/meredith_arriving_home.ppt
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
I've gotten ahold of a time stamped shot from the likely Meredith Kercher arriving home video.

The timestamp is 20:51. :blush:

All my research had told me 8:41 p.m. was correct. It seems the cops did adjust the time to be 10 minutes fast in the Mar 13, 2009 court date. I was wrong. Taking into account the slow clock from the postal Police demonstration, Meredith Kercher arrived home 9:01 - 9:03 p.m.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664e0d40b9bf3de.jpg[/qimg]


Some questions from this:

1. Why did all the times given in media from the Nov 11-12, 2007 press leak say either 8:41 or 8:43 p.m.? Did the cops adjust the time they leaked even that early in the investigation?

2. Why did they think it was 10 minutes fast?

3. Why on Mar 13, 2009 did they adjust it to 8:41 p.m. and still say they thought it was Meredith Kercher? If it WAS that time it could not have been her because she hadn't even left her friends place yet. They knew that because the girlfriends had already been testified.

4. The 8:56 p.m. call? Did Meredith attempt to call after parting with Sophie and it didn't connect? Perhaps she decided to wait until she got home to call and never got a chance.


http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/meredith_arriving_home.ppt
Click to expand...


Excellent research. This is a photo that has been hard to come by and that is a mystery in itself. The evidence regarding Meredith's call home along with the food digestion evidence led me to believe that Meredith was attacked at the time she made the call. This new information goes further to prove that Meredith was attacked in that same time frame but simply a few minutes later.

It changes nothing with regard to the attack. It makes more sense to me because I always thought if the phone call home was interrupted by the attack the call would have gone through and some one would have heard the attack on the other end. This time frame suggests that Meredith may have had a bad signal on the initial call but never had the opportunity to attempt another call because she was attacked.
 
Draca said:
I've gotten ahold of a time stamped shot from the likely Meredith Kercher arriving home video.

The timestamp is 20:51. :blush:

All my research had told me 8:41 p.m. was correct. It seems the cops did adjust the time to be 10 minutes fast in the Mar 13, 2009 court date. I was wrong. Taking into account the slow clock from the postal Police demonstration, Meredith Kercher arrived home 9:01 - 9:03 p.m.
Click to expand...

No big surprise here. :D
But thank you for the CCTV frame.

However, it is not established that it is Meredith.
This frame is somewhat clearer than the earlier ones but what she is wearing did not become jeans from skirt.
Do you have other frames of this video?
 
halides1 said:
Katody Matrass,

I may have been the first person to quote this article, and I contacted the lead author for clarification. Kestrel started a thread on DNA in skin cells that also dealt with the Toothman study. I have sometimes wondered whether or not a little of the DNA on the clasp came from dust.
Click to expand...

I apologize if this question has already been addressed ( and/or if it's a really stupid question):

Relative to 1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item;

I am hoping this means that despite deterioration of the clasp, remnants of cell material should have been found still, if the DNA arrived on the clasp by grabbing or rubbing. Lack of flaking cells means the DNA was not transferred by human touch.

But of course (?) Meredith's DNA is on the clasp due to touch, so maybe it is not a significant item?
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
...

Some questions from this:

1. Why did all the times given in media from the Nov 11-12, 2007 press leak say either 8:41 or 8:43 p.m.? Did the cops adjust the time they leaked even that early in the investigation?
Click to expand...

Yes.

2. Why did they think it was 10 minutes fast?
Click to expand...
I think that at that time someone recorded the time difference and someone else interpreted it erronously the other way around or possibly because they were misled by the assumed arrival time of the postal police.

3. Why on Mar 13, 2009 did they adjust it to 8:41 p.m. and still say they thought it was Meredith Kercher? If it WAS that time it could not have been her because she hadn't even left her friends place yet. They knew that because the girlfriends had already testified.
Click to expand...

As I suggested earlier, they were so much misled by the postals arrival time
paradox that they rejected anything that contradicted it.

4. The 8:56 p.m. call? Did Meredith attempt to call after parting with Sophie and it didn't connect? Perhaps she decided to wait until she got home to call and never got a chance.
Click to expand...

The theory of sudden attack that interrupted that call obviously no longer holds, regardless if the figure is Meredith or Amanda.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
No big surprise here. :D
But thank you for the CCTV frame.

However, it is not established that it is Meredith.
This frame is somewhat clearer than the earlier ones but what she is wearing did not become jeans from skirt.
Do you have other frames of this video?
Click to expand...

If its not Meredith, then its someone arriving at her home alone, minutes before Meredith herself arrives. Because of the time, we know it can't be knox or sollecito. So either its Meredith, or its who killed Meredith.
 
bolint said:
Yes.


I think that at that time someone recorded the time difference and someone else interpreted it erronously the other way around or possibly because they were misled by the assumed arrival time of the postal police.



As I suggested earlier, they were so much misled by the postals arrival time
paradox that they rejected anything that contradicted it.



The theory of sudden attack that interrupted that call obviously no longer holds, regardless if the figure is Meredith or Amanda.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your answers Bolint, I agree with all of them.

This rings very true to me - "As I suggested earlier, they were so much misled by the postals arrival time paradox that they rejected anything that contradicted it."
 
bolint said:
Thank you.
None of these frames show jeans, I think.
Click to expand...

For all I can tell they could show Bigfoot. I don't think anyone can honestly claim they are seeing anything in particular there.

Big thanks to Draca for finally nailing this down. The slightly anomalous time has bugged me for a while, and it's nice to have that particular loose end tightly tucked away into the most obvious narrative.

Chalk up one more act of incompetence from the Perugia police getting this wrong so badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom