Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

But that cell is also compatible with Rudy's place.

I can't get past this automatic ping at midnight thing.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't expect much facts in it. It will decompose Massei's and will conclude that the proof is missing.

Beautiful choice of a word, decompose. Love it.

 

[bolint]

Doc Solllecito's opinion

"Dr Sollecito apparently spoke privately of wanting to get his son 'home and away from the influence of Amanda and the Americans'."

I was quite sure that Raffaele will not visit Amanda in Seattle in a few years.
Doc Solllecito never seemed to believe in Amanda's innocence.

 

[pilot padron]

Your surprise is a non sequitur

I am surprised that there is no Pilot Padron registered at PMF. I would think that someone like yourself that follows the group so closely would want to be a member.

May I just add to that borderline off topic observation of yours.
Even a cursory review of almost any page on this Forum would show to the degree desired by any non agenda biased observers that many, many of the posters here follow PMF much more closely that I ever have.

In fact, if it were not for cut n pasted 'carry backs' from PMF, and subsequent bashes and 'pile-ons', many pages here would be totally blank.
Often I read here what is on PMF before even seeing it there myself.

A cursory perusal of the PMF area showing of how many "guests" are reading (following closely) every line of PMF at any one day is further proof of what I am saying.

Therefore, forgive me, but I cannot accept your 'argument' about reading priorities and preferences.

 

[bri1]

I do not think the term false confession with regards to this case should ever be used without quotes. Without an explanation the obvious meaning of that phrase is that Knox confessed to killing Mercher. She did not in any way obviously and as such the use of the phrase is just a continuation of the initial libels against her that were instituted by a media more interested in selling stories than facts. It is, perhaps, more accurate to call it a false accusation, but I also object to that phrase. What she said was equivocal enough when taken in totality that I don't believe it rose to the level of an actual accusation. Certainly, tried on its own in an objective court she would never be found guilty of making a false statement to the police or to falsely implicating another individual. And given the circumstances that the statement was made under any charges stemming from it are a travesty of justice.

Dave, I agree. I think 'false statement' is most accurate, but even that is misleading.
With regard to 'false confession', (and looking at the statement where the statement makes reference to her cowering in the kitchen with her hands over her ears whilst Patrick hurts Meredith) according to Italian law (I think, so please correct me if I'm wrong) it is illegal to not help in a situation where someone is being harmed, but presumably there is some kind of clause which frees someone from this legal obligation if they have reasonable fears of being harmed themselves. If this is an accurate understanding of Italian law, then nowhere in the statements did she incriminate herself, except indirectly (relating to her actions after the fact, when she was out of immediate danger).
With regard to 'false accusation' I agree that the statements were not clear enough or unequivocal enough to count as an accusation.

 

[bolint]

I can't get past this automatic ping at midnight thing.

Was it an automatic ping?
Wasn't it a call at 00:10? (Her father, IIRC)

 

[Osterwelle]

I was quite sure that Raffaele will not visit Amanda in Seattle in a few years.
Doc Solllecito never seemed to believe in Amanda's innocence.

I'm pretty sure he believes in her innocence. It rather seems he just doesn't like his son to hook up with an easy american chick again...

-
Osterwelle

 

[RoseMontague]

Was it an automatic ping?
Wasn't it a call at 00:10? (Her father, IIRC)

Machiavelli also says:

also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier,

How would we know, cell towers don't record this unless there are incoming or outgoing messages or calls? He implies there is some record of automatic pings giving the location of the cell (by tower) all the way up to a midnight automatic ping. There was a call at 00:10 as described in Massei as the first call to her English phone on 2 November, nothing about an automatic ping.

 

[bolint]

Machiavelli also says:

How would we know, cell towers don't record this unless there are incoming or outgoing messages or calls? He implies there is some record of automatic pings giving the location of the cell (by tower) all the way up to a midnight automatic ping. There was a call at 00:10 as described in Massei as the first call to her English phone on 2 November, nothing about an automatic ping.

We don't know. We only know that at 00:10 it was accessed in the cell covering the garden (but it was not necessarily in the garden yet).
And at 22:13 it was in a cell covering the cottage (but it was not necessarily still in the cottage).
So we only know that at 22:13 it was not in the garden and at 00:10 it was not in the cottage.

 

[bolint]

I'm pretty sure he believes in her innocence.

Just like Biscotti in Rudy's innocence.

 

[RoseMontague]

We don't know. We only know that at 00:10 it was accessed in the cell covering the garden (but it was not necessarily in the garden yet).
And at 22:13 it was in a cell covering the cottage (but it was not necessarily still in the cottage).
So we only know that at 22:13 it was not in the garden and at 00:10 it was not in the cottage.

I agree. It appears Machiavelli is under a mistaken impression about the cell phone records. Or it could simply be one of those Lost In Translation deals. Another possibility is he has information that we don't have, maybe contained in the missing Massei half pages or just something he knows that we don't. Maybe this information is in somebody's diary or it is in one of the other Motivation documents or possibly we just missed this information somehow.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

May I just add to that borderline off topic observation of yours.
Even a cursory review of almost any page on this Forum would show to the degree desired by any non agenda biased observers that many, many of the posters here follow PMF much more closely that I ever have.

In fact, if it were not for cut n pasted 'carry backs' from PMF, and subsequent bashes and 'pile-ons', many pages here would be totally blank.
Often I read here what is on PMF before even seeing it there myself.

A cursory perusal of the PMF area showing of how many "guests" are reading (following closely) every line of PMF at any one day is further proof of what I am saying.

Therefore, forgive me, but I cannot accept your 'argument' about reading priorities and preferences.

Thank you for your response. I just wanted to see you deny once again that <SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 12.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[bolint]

Curatolo testified he witnessed Knox and Sollecito from 9:30pm to just before midnight. Stomach content analysis is the most accurate means to determine TOD after the police bungled it and didn't take a core body temperature reading. If we assume Curatolo to be a credible witness then he provides an alibi for Knox and Sollecito.

In that case, however, you have to explain why they claim to be at Raffaele's place.
They can't have two different alibis.
Clearly, either Curatolo or the pair are lying. It can't be a mistake or confusion.

 

[Matthew Best]

What would you say to the Kerchers if they were here?
RS: What happened to their child is terrible, inexplicable, almost impossible. I don’t know what I’d do in their place. I would do anything to get to the truth, to get to the heart of this case. I pray for them every day. I’ve always prayed, even before. I pray that the truth comes out that gives justice for Meredith, and that also gives peace to Amanda and I.

Grrrr. That should be "Amanda and me". Lock him back up again!

 

[Kaosium]

In that case, however, you have to explain why they claim to be at Raffaele's place.
They can't have two different alibis.
Clearly, either Curatolo or the pair are lying. It can't be a mistake or confusion.

We know Bolint, it's just fun to point out even if the 'Superwitness' Curatolo's testimony is accurate, that means Raffaele and Amanda couldn't be murderers anyway because the prosecution was scientifically illiterate or dishonest and didn't realize what the stomach contents meant.

BTW, good to see you back.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just flinging this up because it is nice to see a pic or 2 on occasion:

Amanda out walking with her Mom:

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/fp/Amanda+Knox+Amanda+Knox+Family+Enjoying+Walk+Xw3hqEvSBiBl.jpg

 

[lane99]

...The "The Experiments" shows, including the one about false confessions that I referenced yesterday, are straight studies in human psychology...There's no deception involved in the way the programmes are presented to the viewer...

I do know Derren Brown takes in a lot of people. But I confess I'm surprised to see it happening here on this thread. I guess you think he actually did come up with the correct lottery numbers by harnessing the "wisdom of crowds".

However, his shows are entirely based on deception. That's what he does. For instance, the participant who supposedly believed he was actually murdering Stephen Fry, didn't ACTUALLY believe he was murdering Stephen Fry. He was aware the gun was only a prop.

 

[Bob001]

... Amanda out walking with her Mom:...

The terrible thing is that somebody was there to take a picture of Amanda and her mom doing something so completely ordinary. For many years, maybe the rest of her life, when she raises her hand in a class, shops at Target, has a coffee at Starbucks, holds hands with a boyfriend, she'll be in pictures on the internet. And God help her if she ever gets into an argument with a taxi driver or forgets to pay a parking ticket or gets dressed up and goes dancing at a trendy club. If we ever see her laughing the guilters will say "She's gloating that she got away with it!" She'll be living under a glass dome for decades. It will undoubtedly affect her career choices and employment options. In some ways that might be worse than going to prison for something you didn't do. She's out of prison now, but she'll never be out of the spotlight.

 

[bolint]

it's just fun to point out even if the 'Superwitness' Curatolo's testimony is accurate, that means Raffaele and Amanda couldn't be murderers anyway because the prosecution was scientifically illiterate or dishonest and didn't realize what the stomach contents meant.

Why? Curatolo is compatible with the early TOD, too, even if the prosecution does not like it. I find it much less credible that they spent two hours at the basketball court before the murder.

 

[bri1]

I do know Derren Brown takes in a lot of people. But I confess I'm surprised to see it happening here on this thread. I guess you think he actually did come up with the correct lottery numbers by harnessing the "wisdom of crowds".

However, his shows are entirely based on deception. That's what he does. For instance, the participant who supposedly believed he was actually murdering Stephen Fry, didn't ACTUALLY believe he was murdering Stephen Fry. He was aware the gun was only a prop.

Lane, this is interesting, because when I saw the lottery episode, I could see that was rubbish.
With the false confession episode, I thought that he was, in a fairly subtle way, implanting the notion that the set-up was fake. Professor Plum in the library with a candle-stick, anyone?