Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

decomposition of bleach

I beg to differ with Chris and a few others - leaving artificial flowers is just unbelievably crass and tasteless.

Imagine them gradually accumulating dirt and grime over the following days and weeks.

The entire point of leaving blooms is to underline the transience of our lives - their beauty, then their wilting and decay is intended as a metaphor, is it not?

Supernaut,

I like your ideas about transience. However, I have not taken part in the discussion about flowers at all, nor do I intend to.

Here is a site about bleach and its decomposition rate. It depends on temperature and pH (which is a measure of acidity or alkalinity). Here is another site that gives more information on decomposition. Again, the reason I am interested in this topic is how it relates to the dissipation rate of the effect of bleach on luminol.

 

[Justinian2]

I beg to differ with Chris and a few others - leaving artificial flowers is just unbelievably crass and tasteless.

Imagine them gradually accumulating dirt and grime over the following days and weeks.

The entire point of leaving blooms is to underline the transience of our lives - their beauty, then their wilting and decay is intended as a metaphor, is it not?

Good point. I missed the metaphor, but you are absolutely right.

A second metaphor is that artificial flowers are as fake as the compassion of the person who left the flowers.

As for the tod, I think that using digestive rates gives a range of times, a window of times, when the murder could have happened. Used in conjunction with cell phone activity and testimony, a more accurate tod can be established. However, what's the point of determining a more accurate tod anyway?

Digestive analysis isn't sufficiently accurate to pinpoint the tod to within a 90 minute window, is it? The location of the tod within that 90 minute window can't make or break the alibi can it? Used in conjunction with the cell phone movement and activity, it may suggest that the cell phone movement was after the tod. Others have long ago suggested that.

One thing that I haven't heard discussed is bum dialing. Sometimes a cell phone will dial numbers when it's in your pocket due to various pressures on the phone. Could the last calls made on the phone have been made during the attack or while Meredith was in her death throes (or being raped by Guede)?

If the calls - the bum dialing - were made during the struggle, that would pinpoint the tod.

 

[quadraginta]

I beg to differ with Chris and a few others - leaving artificial flowers is just unbelievably crass and tasteless.

Imagine them gradually accumulating dirt and grime over the following days and weeks.

The entire point of leaving blooms is to underline the transience of our lives - their beauty, then their wilting and decay is intended as a metaphor, is it not?

 

[Dan O.]

If the calls - the bum dialing - were made during the struggle, that would pinpoint the tod.

Supposing that a specific button was pressed causing the phone to dial is valid. We believe that voicemail can be called on this phone by pressing and holding the number "1". But for the 21:58 Attempt to call voice mail (recorded only in phone memory - Massei Report pg 350), there needs to be a second specific button pressed that cancels the call, the "end" button, within a very short time window before the cell picks it up. The probability that this sequence of events could happen by accidental button presses while the phone is in Meredith's pocket is extremely small.

On the other hand, any cell phone user randomly pressing buttons on the phone in an attempt to turn it off would be able to recognize that the phone has initiated a call and would know exactly which button to press to abort that call.

 

[Justinian2]

Supposing that a specific button was pressed causing the phone to dial is valid. We believe that voicemail can be called on this phone by pressing and holding the number "1". But for the 21:58 Attempt to call voice mail (recorded only in phone memory - Massei Report pg 350), there needs to be a second specific button pressed that cancels the call, the "end" button, within a very short time window before the cell picks it up. The probability that this sequence of events could happen by accidental button presses while the phone is in Meredith's pocket is extremely small.

On the other hand, any cell phone user randomly pressing buttons on the phone in an attempt to turn it off would be able to recognize that the phone has initiated a call and would know exactly which button to press to abort that call.

Perhaps it's just my phone, but I'm managed many calls and random sequences of buttons while it's in my pocket - any pocket. I've turned on the internet, made calls to many people and even changed phone options. While any particular two button sequence might seem implausible, there are a lot of two button sequences. I know two button sequences are possible due to random bum dialing.

There is also the possibility that Meredith tried to call for help, but was extremely confused due to shock. At any rate, the calls might mark the tod to within ten minutes.

It could be likely that the tod was between the calls and the ping from the last location of the phone.

 

[Kaosium]

Supernaut,

I like your ideas about transience. However, I have not taken part in the discussion about flowers at all, nor do I intend to.

Here is a site about bleach and its decomposition rate. It depends on temperature and pH (which is a measure of acidity or alkalinity). Here is another site that gives more information on decomposition. Again, the reason I am interested in this topic is how it relates to the dissipation rate of the effect of bleach on luminol.

That's what it is! The bleach decomposes into sodium chlorate which is a strong oxidant which lights up luminol too. The pure lab-used sodium hypochlorate of those papers fades a few days after being applied, the sodium chlorate doesn't.

 

[JREF2010]

Bucketoftea,

Welcome to Ignore.
ETA
For those who are new here, one can put members on his or her Ignore List just by clicking on the member's avatar and choosing it from the menu.

And one can remove the ignore too.

For example, when the SA flower topic is no more, the ignore function can be reversed.

 

[pilot padron]

Some reasons to consider guilt

Couple thoughts for Davefoc and others who rely 100% on this Forum for information.

Part I...From the Perpetrators' own mouths:

1) Knox's infamous "I was there" self incrimination to her parents.
I have read and carefully considered each and every of the literally hundreds of agenda driven explanations, interpretations, representations, etccccc ad nauseam advanced here. I humbly remain absolutely underwhelmed.
If in fact any of this FOA, Marriott damage control spin has any scintilla of resemblance to reality, why was Curt, mindful of the momentous statement being monitored, then so strangely anxious and obsessed to tell her to say no more about that??.
If "I was there" meant at Sollecito's as the damage control spin goes, why was Curt so concerned that she immediately say no more?

2) Sollecito's ill advised rather stupid and completely incredulous story about "pricking" Meredith to explain away the announced finding of her traces on the knife.
The timing of and motivation for this spontaneous simpleton 'excuse' tells me much more than Dr Stefanoni's test and or the C and V Report about what *was* IMHO definitely on that knife blade

3) Sollecito's and Knox's concerns about "What Guede might say about them" coupled with the Cassation's statements that Rudy was assisted by "two others", and the sheer impossibility of correlating existing evidence with a 'Lone Wolf', most naturally also has influenced my strong belief in guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

Again, I do not need to hear yet again any of the hundreds of innocence driven excuses/rebuttals for these somewhat staggering examples of why *I* believe in guilt.
I recount them only because of the rather startling statement that some people use this Forum as their only source of information.
Few could credibly contest that this Forum is without an iota of reasonable doubt, dramatically....one sided.

The above are just 3 quick reasons *of many* why I am convinced of guilt.
This in response to the agenda driven din and dull drumbeat that guilters present no 'reasons' here, as well as the aforementioned dependence on this, a very one sided venue

With that objective in mind, and the fact that I have probably seen all possible rebuttals thereof, and then some, I do not intend to re-argue these points.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Brucie, you misunderstand. Some Alibi shared the photo of his lovely silk flowers because he generously dedicated it as from TJMK and PMF, and we're all glad he did.

Did the convicts or their families leave any tribute to Meredith? Ever?

The more important question is what has your group done for Meredith's family. Your group claims to exist to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher yet you have done absolutely nothing to accomplish that goal. Your leader recently said that your avatars are a good way to show respect for Meredith. She also said that personal information (accuracy is not important) of those who disagree with your group should be posted online as a way to show respect for Meredith. I will let everyone decide if those are good choices.

If I created a group to preserve the memory of a murder victim I would work to set up a college fund or start a charity organization in the victim's name to help families that have fallen victim to violence. I certainly would not post photos of the victim all over my website as a front while spewing hatred.

I never met Meredith and don't pretend (like some in your group do) to know what she would think about certain topics or where she would travel or what she would be doing today if she was still alive but I highly doubt that she would approve of a website that uses her name to promote hate.

I misunderstand nothing about your group and will be delighted to see it fade away when Amanda and Raffaele are exonerated. Of course the group should live on forever because you claim it gathers for Meredith but we all know by now what the true intentions were all along.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Couple thoughts for Davefoc and others who rely 100% on this Forum for information.

Part I...From the Perpetrators' own mouths:

1) Knox's infamous "I was there" self incrimination to her parents.
I have read and carefully considered each and every of the literally hundreds of agenda driven explanations, interpretations, representations, etccccc ad nauseam advanced here. I humbly remain absolutely underwhelmed.
If in fact any of this FOA, Marriott damage control spin has any scintilla of resemblance to reality, why was Curt, mindful of the momentous statement being monitored, then so strangely anxious and obsessed to tell her to say no more about that??.
If "I was there" meant at Sollecito's as the damage control spin goes, why was Curt so concerned that she immediately say no more?

2) Sollecito's ill advised rather stupid and completely incredulous story about "pricking" Meredith to explain away the announced finding of her traces on the knife.
The timing of and motivation for this spontaneous simpleton 'excuse' tells me much more than Dr Stefanoni's test and or the C and V Report about what *was* IMHO definitely on that knife blade

3) Sollecito's and Knox's concerns about "What Guede might say about them" coupled with the Cassation's statements that Rudy was assisted by "two others", and the sheer impossibility of correlating existing evidence with a 'Lone Wolf', most naturally also has influenced my strong belief in guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

Again, I do not need to hear yet again any of the hundreds of innocence driven excuses/rebuttals for these somewhat staggering examples of why *I* believe in guilt.I recount them only because of the rather startling statement that some people use this Forum as their only source of information.
Few could credibly contest that this Forum is without an iota of reasonable doubt, dramatically....one sided.

The above are just 3 quick reasons *of many* why I am convinced of guilt.
This in response to the agenda driven din and dull drumbeat that guilters present no 'reasons' here, as well as the aforementioned dependence on this, a very one sided venue

With that objective in mind, and the fact that I have probably seen all possible rebuttals thereof, and then some, I do not intend to re-argue these points.

In other words you would like to repeat the reasons you feel Amanda and Raffaele are guilty but you don't want anyone else to repeat why they are innocent.

This might not be the best forum for you. Sounds like you should start a blog where you can voice your opinion. Just make sure you turn off the comment section.

 

[Grinder]

For my first post I'd like to ask the PG (pro-guilt) people a couple of questions.

1. Since the accusation/confession is the basis for so much of the assumption of guilt (the lies, the onerous premeditated act of naming Patrick etc. ), please explain of what the police chief meant when he said that they questioned Amanda until she buckled and told them what they knew to be the truth. Please include what they knew and how they knew it at that time. Please explain how that statement and the fact that it wasn't the truth doesn't make the interrogation questionable. I have never heard anything of the chief retracting that statement.

2. The gift statement included a reference to Amanda being hit or slapped. Do any of the PG group believe that she knew at that time that the police hadn't recorded the interrogation? If she didn't know that, wouldn't she assume that it had at least been audio recorded and wouldn't that mean if she were lying about the middle of the night events, that the police would just play it back and prove she was lying?

Whether she is guilty or innocent the result of the interrogation was clearly a forced statement that wasn't true. The police clearly led her to give it. That doesn't make her innocent but it does take "all those lies" associated with that statement out of the mix.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Parkour, free running, and Filomena's window

Charlie Wilkes originally provided a link to this parkour video, but it was not working the last time I checked. Filomena's window looks like it would be no challenge at all to one of these two guys (Phil Doyle and Kie Willis).
EDT
Welcome, Grinder. Those are good questions.

 

[Grinder]

If the window was impossible for someone to climb into why did Filomena make a point to close the shutters for security?

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear. Your argument sounds "confused"

In other words you would like to repeat the reasons you feel Amanda and Raffaele are guilty but you don't want anyone else to repeat why they are innocent.

This might not be the best forum for you. Sounds like you should start a blog where you can voice your opinion. Just make sure you turn off the comment section.

For sure if one reads what I have written, one can clearly see that in no way do I wish to inhibit anyone else from repeating why they *feel* Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

Did you:
1) not see that without any consequential "confusion"?
2) not omit the modifier *feel* for innocence since you say I *feel* guilt?
Surely you did not intend to spin more certainty for innocence...Did you?

My clearly stated choice is simply that I do not intend to argue any more about what they "feel".
Repeat any and all you so desire. Such is your privilege here.
What is another 60,000 or so such 'repeats'?

Again, as clearly stated, my reason for posting this is in direct reply to boringly repeated requests/challenges/gauntlets for my "whys" about guilt, including more than one from yourself.
In retrospect, my repeated reticence would indicate to anyone not similarly confused that indeed I do not "like" to "repeat the reasons" for guilt

Your argument's unsolicited and undesired counsel about the best Forum for me and comment section is of course....errrr.... given all the....errr.... consideration, to which it is due.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for the welcome.

Obviously, I've been saving up some questions.

The call from Raffaele's dad was at 8:45 or so and people have said that indicated they must have eaten before that time because Raffaele said he was doing dishes. When I was in college and I must admit even to this date I often wash dishes before or as I'm cooking. After dinner is a time for entertainment not chores. Unless there is other confirming evidence of what doing the dishes meant in terms of the time of dinner, I don't believe that that evidence means anything.

 

[Paninaro]

Again, I do not need to hear yet again any of the hundreds of innocence driven excuses/rebuttals for these somewhat staggering examples of why *I* believe in guilt.
I recount them only because of the rather startling statement that some people use this Forum as their only source of information.
Few could credibly contest that this Forum is without an iota of reasonable doubt, dramatically....one sided.

With that objective in mind, and the fact that I have probably seen all possible rebuttals thereof, and then some, I do not intend to re-argue these points.

Maybe there is a connection there? But the same things are also re-argued at PMF, so what's the difference, beside that on this board your allowed to hold different a opinion?

I do read PMF, but I won't join, because I don't like being thrown out, called a troll and not be able to defend myself. I have never been banned from a board in my life and I'm a nice guy. I'm sure there are nice people on PMF, but how they can accept this kind of rude behaviour from the management is puzzling.

It's really an absurd situation with two groups arguing about each other but almost never with each other. One group thinks the other believe in some bastard God and are guilty of everything from ill-reasoning to child molestation. It's really quite over the top, don't you think.

But my main point is that I think your wrong and that most people finding it worth discussing this case in depth really have read both the arguments and the counterarguments.

 

[Rhea]

1) Knox's infamous "I was there" self incrimination to her parents.
I have read and carefully considered each and every of the literally hundreds of agenda driven explanations, interpretations, representations, etccccc ad nauseam advanced here. I humbly remain absolutely underwhelmed.
If in fact any of this FOA, Marriott damage control spin has any scintilla of resemblance to reality, why was Curt, mindful of the momentous statement being monitored, then so strangely anxious and obsessed to tell her to say no more about that??.
If "I was there" meant at Sollecito's as the damage control spin goes, why was Curt so concerned that she immediately say no more?

2) Sollecito's ill advised rather stupid and completely incredulous story about "pricking" Meredith to explain away the announced finding of her traces on the knife.
The timing of and motivation for this spontaneous simpleton 'excuse' tells me much more than Dr Stefanoni's test and or the C and V Report about what *was* IMHO definitely on that knife blade

3) Sollecito's and Knox's concerns about "What Guede might say about them" coupled with the Cassation's statements that Rudy was assisted by "two others", and the sheer impossibility of correlating existing evidence with a 'Lone Wolf', most naturally also has influenced my strong belief in guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

Again, I do not need to hear yet again any of the hundreds of innocence driven excuses/rebuttals for these somewhat staggering examples of why *I* believe in guilt.

… the fact that you would call these points staggering examples of why you believe them to be guilty is the perfect example why the guilt-side is so far away from reality in my opinion, because you do actually believe this is damning evidence, "I was there"? Even the court agreed that Amanda meant at Raffaele's, even the court …

The knife pricking story? Innocent people get scared and panicked just the way guilty people do, innocent people sometimes create false alibis because they are so afraid … it happens frequently, so there is an innocent explanation to this behaviour that you just fend off, just as there is an innocent explanation for the accusing of Lumumba.

The same goes for the anxiousness about "what Guede might say about them", these examples that you bring and other guilters like Machiavelli, it shows me that we live on different planets, a world where these things are damning pieces of guilt is diametrically opposed to the world I live in.

Only point three would carry some real weight if there actually was unequivocal evidence of multiple attackers, only there is none, the man who conducted the autopsy (Dr. Lalli I think) couldn't exclude a lone attacker.

"The sheer impossiblity to reconcile the existing evidence with a lone wolf theory"? This is merely your opinion, not a fact, there were experts like Carlo Torre who were convinced of a lone wolf scenario …

 

[Antony]

For my first post I'd like to ask the PG (pro-guilt) people a couple of questions.

1. Since the accusation/confession is the basis for so much of the assumption of guilt (the lies, the onerous premeditated act of naming Patrick etc. ), please explain of what the police chief meant when he said that they questioned Amanda until she buckled and told them what they knew to be the truth. Please include what they knew and how they knew it at that time. Please explain how that statement and the fact that it wasn't the truth doesn't make the interrogation questionable. I have never heard anything of the chief retracting that statement.

2. The gift statement included a reference to Amanda being hit or slapped. Do any of the PG group believe that she knew at that time that the police hadn't recorded the interrogation? If she didn't know that, wouldn't she assume that it had at least been audio recorded and wouldn't that mean if she were lying about the middle of the night events, that the police would just play it back and prove she was lying?

Whether she is guilty or innocent the result of the interrogation was clearly a forced statement that wasn't true. The police clearly led her to give it. That doesn't make her innocent but it does take "all those lies" associated with that statement out of the mix.

Grinder, welcome to the forum and a highly perceptive first post.

I wouldn't hold out much confidence in getting a reply though - the same questions have been posed to pro-guilt posters here before, without any meaningful response. I believe I asked the something similar to your question 1: the Arturo di Felice statement on Nov 6 means that the police fed the details of Amanda's "accusation" against Patrick to her - I think the answer was simply a bald denial. Try asking your question at PMF and see how quickly you get banned from posting.

And of course no pro-guilt poster will give a specific account of what they believe the events of the evening of Nov 1 were - not even to the extent of saying what time they believe the murder occurred.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If the window was impossible for someone to climb into why did Filomena make a point to close the shutters for security?

It is also interesting to note that security bars have now been installed on that window so apparently the owners of the cottage felt it was accessible also.

 

[Rhea]

2. The gift statement included a reference to Amanda being hit or slapped. Do any of the PG group believe that she knew at that time that the police hadn't recorded the interrogation? If she didn't know that, wouldn't she assume that it had at least been audio recorded and wouldn't that mean if she were lying about the middle of the night events, that the police would just play it back and prove she was lying?

Very astute, never thought about that, Amanda would naturally assume it was most likely recorded and that lying about the interrogation might not be the best idea …