Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
-

ToD from the autopsy, waiting to take temperature, Rudy's Skype call, Meredith's interrupted call to her mother which she never completed, the turning inside out of the sleeves of her jacket. All that is consistent with a time of death of about 9:20. What's to contest? It is true that fanatics don't want to use critical thinking skills to prove themselves wrong. Self esteem and self worth and all that are more important than true justice it seems.

-
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Like everything else in this thread, this has been covered before, with links explaining why stomach content evidence is not definitive. Excuse me, I can't really be bothered searching for it.
Click to expand...

If you understood it, surely you would be able to explain it without searching for links? If all you've got (or can remember) is "it's contested", well you could say that about absolutely anything (as we can all see in the 9/11 sub-forum). Why not post your explanation for why it's contested, and then we can examine that. This will move the discussion forward instead of stalling it.
 
Hehehe

Matthew Best said:
Ah, the old "truther" gambit. "The NIST Report is contested and analysis of the fall of the Towers is not accepted by all as definitive". Well played!
Click to expand...
-

Matthew Best,

that's funny, and don't forget there are actually some people who still believe the world is flat. Guess that's contested too,

Dave

-
 
I came into this thread when I realised (much to my astonishment) that there was absolutely conclusive evidence that Meredith had died much earlier than the prosecution alleged, which had been hand-waved away by those who obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

There really is no question about this at all. The time of death was soon after her return to the cottage. The theory that she disturbed an intruder who was already there at that time is strongly supported by circumstantial evidence as well as the post mortem findings.

It therefore flows from this that an entirely different sequence of events has to be teased out, accounting for Meredith being killed not long after nine o'clock. Who might then be implicated and why then becomes an open question. However, trying to deny the bleedin' obvious about the time of death is simply perverse.

Rolfe.
 
lionking said:
Okay, I can see that this thread proceeds quite nicely without contrary opinion. Carry on.
Click to expand...


See. Lionking, that's the problem. You just keep stating your opinion, without any attempt to substantiate it beyond facile appeal to authority.

Contrary argument would be good, you know, based on facts and evidence. You should try it some time.

Rolfe.
 
lionking said:
Not according to the court. We'll see, won't we.
Click to expand...

You need the court to tell you that the police lied when they claimed that the book Amanda stated she was reading wasn't in Raffaele's house even though they had pictires of it there?

You need the court to tell you that the police lied when they claimed that the clothes she was wearing on the 1st were missing, even though they had pictures on them on her bed?

You need the court to tell you that they lied to Amanda when they told her that she was HIV positive?

You need the court to tell you that the prosecutor lied in court when she said that Amanda had rung her mother at 12pm before anything happened, when the phone records clearly show the call at 12:47pm?

You need the court to tell you that the police lied about Raffaele ringing them after the postal police arrived, on hang on, the court has already accepted that they lied on that one.

You really need the court to tell you that the postal police lied about entering the murder room? Oh, wait, that one was admited in court too.

How about the fact that different police officers gave conflicting stories on whether Amanda had been summoned on the 5th, one saying she was, and the other that she wasn't. Were they both telling the truth?

No, the police could never tell a lie could they...
 
lionking said:
The Chamberlain case is 25 or so years ago, and there were sloppy forensic practices, but not the conspiracy required in this case.
Click to expand...

Did you actually watch the videos of the forensics teams in this case? Can you tell me which rule of forensic evidence they didn't violate in those videos?
 
lionking said:
Yup, the grand conspiracy again. Things don't hang together without it.
Click to expand...

The independent experts Conti & Vecchiotti have explained in their report why the work of Patrizia Stefanoni is below an acceptable scientific standard and why its results therefore subsequently can be questioned without requiring a conspiracy theory.

The same is true for the rest of this case. There is of course no grand conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
What do you think of a conspiracy of police, prosecutors and forensic scientists which has hung together for years without a whistleblower?
Click to expand...

And yet you are totally willing to accept that three people, two of whom had never meet at that point, two of whom had been together for a whole two days, and two of whom could adequately speak each other's languages, hooked up together for a wild sex game and then conspire to stab a girl to death for no apparent reason without two of them leaving any viable evidence of their presence in the attack.

Not only that, after all these years none of these three who barely knew each other have never turned on the others and spilled the beans despite plenty of opportunity to do so. Even when given the chance, Rudy didn't stand up and point his finger at A and R and shout, it was them, they did it.

Yet you are more willing to believe this than that a handful of the cops, forensics, and prosecutors, based on hunches and confirmation biases, lied and twisted their results to match their beliefs, despite the clear evidence that clearly shows that they did lie, and both hide and distort evidence.

I can't see how you can claim to be a skeptic.
 
Still not going to explain how you think it's possible Knox and Sollecito managed to leave a murdered corpse with all her last meal still in her stomach and none in her duodenum?

It's not hard. You don't need any fancy medical degrees. Just common sense and a willingness to accept that some people with vested interests have been talking a lot of dreck about this.

Rolfe.
 
lionking said:
No I don't believe in this grand conspiracy. And personal attack noted. As I said earlier, it's quite clear why this thread has the reputation it had.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in the grand conspriacy put forward by Mignini?

And serious? Pointing out that you are acting in a non-skeptical manner is a personal attack? That's a really sad deflection.
 
lionking said:
A pretty decent authority.
Click to expand...

Not IMV. A flawed opinion with legal force is still a flawed opinion. IAC, the whole point of this thread is to discuss the validity of the Massei verdict, which from where I'm sitting has been pretty comprehensively discredited in this discussion by reference to the established facts of the crime.

Constantly bringing in the outcome of the original trial, as an argument to shore up a belief in itself, is no more than circular thinking, and a derail of the thread.
But nonetheless, I don't dance to your tune.
Click to expand...

It's not "my tune". It's the accepted view of a sceptic's approach to any issue under debate: we look at the evidence from the bottom up, and don't waste time with appeals to authority, no matter who that authority might be.
 
Rolfe said:
lionking said:
Like everything else in this thread, this has been covered before, with links explaining why stomach content evidence is not definitive. Excuse me, I can't really be bothered searching for it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the stomach and duidenum contents evidence (in combination) is definitive. The fact that you can find links to people who clearly don't understand the evidence saying otherwise doesn't change that.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Rolfe, early on in this discussion, someone posted a link to a statement that stomach contents were "too imprecise to be useful" in determining ToD in the context of quite another murder case. Among the PMF fraternity, this morphed into "too unreliable to be useful", and they have taken this as allowing them to claim that "nothing can be concluded from stomach contents".

AFAIK, this (along with one source which stated that maximum T(lag) is 4 hours rather than 3, and the fact that the median ToD based on T(lag) is a time when Meredith was known to be alive) is the only basis for the claim that the conclusion is in doubt.

You couldn't make it up.
 
lionking said:
As I said earlier, it's quite clear why this thread has the reputation it had.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite clear. It's because some people simply don't want to discuss the evidence, but would rather talk about the thread itself. You'd think that if you were on a thread about the case, you would be interested in explaining why you believe that stomach contents is a bad way of determining the time of death in this case (which has certain fairly unique characteristics in this respect), instead of just mindlessly disagreeing with someone who has expert knowledge of the subject. But apparently not. :rolleyes:
 
Antony said:
Rolfe, early on in this discussion, someone posted a link to a statement that stomach contents were "too imprecise to be useful" in determining ToD in the context of quite another murder case. Among the PMF fraternity, this morphed into "too unreliable to be useful", and they have taken this as allowing them to claim that "nothing can be concluded from stomach contents".
Click to expand...


Of course, it is quite common for stomach contents not to be especially helpful in determining the time of death. That's probably the norm. However, in this case, the particular circumstances of the timing of the meal and the time when the victim was last seen alive make the stomach/duodenal contents absolutely crucial and compelling evidence.

And unlike a lot of the forensic work in this case, the evidence is that the post mortem was meticulously carried out and the results are reliable. Despite various people dishonestly trying to suggest that "maybe" it wasn't done as carefully as all the evidence indicates it was.

Antony said:
AFAIK, this (along with one source which stated that maximum T(lag) is 4 hours rather than 3, and the fact that the median ToD based on T(lag) is a time when Meredith was known to be alive) is the only basis for the claim that the conclusion is in doubt.

You couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...


I think you have to be peculiarly dense (or peculiarly blind and stubborn) to affect to doubt the time of death on these grounds. The four-hour time is the outlier - three hours is pretty much accepted fact. So Meredith was already close to the time when inevitably food would have started to move on when she was killed. It provides an unusually precise time frame.

The idea that maybe we could stretch this to four hours still doesn't help if you're defending a scenario with a ToD at 11.40pm. And to say, well most people would already have started to pass food on by the time Meredith was last known to be alive, so in that case I can justify asserting that this still wouldn't have happened for another two or three hours, is preposterous.

Now we're all going to be accused of googling and having library cards.

Excuse me, I have to go, I have a post mortem examination to perform now.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I came into this thread when I realised (much to my astonishment) that there was absolutely conclusive evidence that Meredith had died much earlier than the prosecution alleged, which had been hand-waved away by those who obviously had no idea what they were talking about.

There really is no question about this at all. The time of death was soon after her return to the cottage. The theory that she disturbed an intruder who was already there at that time is strongly supported by circumstantial evidence as well as the post mortem findings.

It therefore flows from this that an entirely different sequence of events has to be teased out, accounting for Meredith being killed not long after nine o'clock. Who might then be implicated and why then becomes an open question. However, trying to deny the bleedin' obvious about the time of death is simply perverse.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I really don't doubt TOD was shortly after she returned home, definitely time of the attack - which can cause digestion to stop all together or at least slow down, surely you must know this, no? I know no one here wants to discuss this, nor Rudy's footprints leading out the door as well, but there you go.

No, My opinion is that both sides have some really good points on this case, anyone on either side who states he is 95 to 100% they were or were not involved, is not worth discussing this case with. Now look how many that leaves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom