Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kevin_Lowe]

most of my quoting comes from the deathofmeredithkertcher.com website

Well there's your problem then.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Is all the preceding blather supposed to sound "philosophical", or something?

If the truth ever be known (you're a poet and you don't know it).

...some of it right and some of it wrong...

Listen, buddy; the truth isn't a "matter of opinion".

Least of all some idiot's.

Really, YOU are calling me the idiot? Wow.....

 

[DrTesla]

Name-drop, name-drop, name-drop, name-drop - ad nauseum.

We've all got teh interwebs, matey.

didn't you ask me to name drop? I can't win with you bro.

I need to take the wife out to dinner. this woman never stops eating. LOL

 

[Supernaut]

No evidence you want to admit to... [etc']

Suited, booted, recruited.

 

[Supernaut]

didn't you ask me to name drop? I can't win with you bro.

I need to take the wife out to dinner. this woman never stops eating. LOL

I'd be very surprised if there were any women in your life, laughing-boy.

 

[Supernaut]

Really, YOU are calling me the idiot? Wow.....

Show me where I called YOU an idiot.

 

[Supernaut]

Whew. That feedback at the end of the album!

Anyway - isn't it about about time this thread was put back on "moderated"?

 

[tsig]

I think if we polled the Silent Majority on here, the lurkers who rarely comment, you would find that about 9 out of 10 of them strongly now understand that Knox and Raffe are guilty as charged. there's been a lot of movement toward the prosecution's side in recent days, I can feel it.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

I think the last poll here at JREF showed 70% guilt.

 

[tsig]

No, I meant what I said. There are no informed and intelligent pro-guilt people. It's due to lack of one or other quality (or both) that they got this one wrong. It's like an exam. They didn't bone up the night before or pay attention in class so they failed.

So if someone is informed of the facts and don't agree with you they're unintelligent?

 

[tsig]

The cops lied in court, Mignini lied in court and on the street, Stefanoni is NOT A DOCTOR. But she is a certain liar...starting at the prelim all the way thru to the appeal trial. Liar or the dumbest person pf earth.

The proof is in the irregularities of the prosecutions case. Why so dependent on crazy witnesses, withholding discovery items, sub-cases filed against anyone Mignini decides is harmful to his theory, lies about recordings, lies about acting as a notary...on and on and on...................

Are the Supreme Court justices also liars?

 

[Bill Williams]

No evidence you want to admit to, there is an eye witness account, there is no alibi, there is Knox's own statement she was there, there is Raff saying she left from 9 to 1, the worse time to be missing, there is also the fact she smoke a joint an loses all memory and her boyfriend too, it goes on and on.

Once again, this reply is not for SH, but for the casual reader here. Go and get a copy of John Douglas's, "Law and Disorder", where he goes through the Knox/Sollecito prosecution point by point.

Who is John Douglas? From Wikipedia:

Douglas joined the FBI in 1970 and (profiled and interviewed people) including David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Lynette Fromme, Arthur Bremer, Sara Jane Moore, Edmund Kemper, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Dennis Rader, Richard Speck, Monte Rissell, Donald Harvey, Joseph Kondro and Joseph Paul Franklin. He used the information gleaned from these interviews in the book Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, followed by the Crime Classification Manual (CCM). Douglas later received two Thomas Jefferson Awards for academic excellence from the University of Virginia for his work on the study.

Douglas examined crime scenes and created profiles of the perpetrators, describing their habits and attempting to predict their next moves. In cases that his work helped to snare the criminals, he built strategies for interrogating and prosecuting them, as well. Douglas was instrumental in the capture of numerous violent offenders and for years he assisted police relative to identifying and apprehending the Green River Killer in the Seattle, Washington metro area.

John Douglas is the one who says that there is no evidence at all linking either Knox or Sollecito to this crime. Like I say, SH and DT will find something to argue with about this... great for them. Go get the book and read it yourself. THEN compare with what other authors have written including Knox and Sollecito.

A summary of his findings for the Knox/Sollecito case is: "Douglas shows what happens when the system breaks down and bias, media coverage, and other influences get in the way of a dispassionate pursuit of the evidence. Here also are Douglas' personal reflections on his ongoing search for the truth."

Some seem to get great delight in simply rehashing what the prosecution leaked in the 2008/9 year and recycling it here as if it were current or relevant.

The reality is that there is no evidence connecting Knox or Sollecito to this crime. You can have your opinions about your pet theories.....

..... or you can read people who do this for a living and have an impeccable reputation.

 

[cigo]

lurker speaks at last

I think the last poll here at JREF showed 70% guilt.

Well I'm a lurker . . . been lurking here for a long time, and I believe AK and RS are innocent. And I also live nowhere near Seattle, in a state that has tended to vote Republican (not like liberal Seattle), and many folks I know here are quite aware of the case. And quite convinced of innocence as well.

 

[tsig]

it's my understanding the rock is a good 10 lbs, and given the window was at least 10 feet from the release point of somebody throwing it, it doesn't make much sense that the rock was thrown from the outside.

there was also no glass in the yard below which you would expect if a rock was thrown at the window. you'd also expect the intruder to knock some of the glass off the windowsill by accident, or on purpose, b/c he was going to have to rest his knee on that windowsill to reach the latch to open the window.

it appears the window was smashed from the inside because none of the glass on the windowsill moved outside of where the external shutters would be when closed or partially closed.

First he has to climb up and open the outer shutters, then throw a 10 pound rock thru the window that not only breaks the window but also forces the inner shutters open, after that he climbs up and while balancing on the sill manages to open the window by reaching thru a broken pane of glass all without leaving any finger prints , DNA or disturbing the glass, but then we know he's a basketball player and apparently they have superpowers.

 

[GWCarver]

Are the Supreme Court justices also liars?

Why don't we see what they have to say before making that decision?

 

[Kaosium]

No, I meant what I said. There are no informed and intelligent pro-guilt people. It's due to lack of one or other quality (or both) that they got this one wrong. It's like an exam. They didn't bone up the night before or pay attention in class so they failed.

Worse yet, they were studying the wrong material. That's what's frightening, how all of a sudden it's perfectly OK in some quarters to chuck the assumption of innocence and 'learn' entirely bogus forensics and logic and think they're now equipped to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mignini could have gone in the bathroom wiped his bottom and brought the stinky stuff into the courtroom and claimed:

'We have this evidence we just discovered! It's presumed blood and didn't test negative, therefore we hypothesize it's what Raffaele and Amanda used to wipe away their traces during the 'taunting and holding' phase due to the pattern being not inconsistent with the wiping of bodily substances, as Raffaele and Amanda needed to as they tortured Meredith for hours. Genetic tests were inconclusive but what else could it be?'

That would be enough for some people, and no matter what the defense said the fact Mignini 'hypothesized' it would give it inherent validity and the defense contentions would be scrutinized and mocked instead of his slimy stains on the toilet paper.

 

[GWCarver]

Worse yet, they were studying the wrong material. That's what's frightening, how all of a sudden it's perfectly OK in some quarters to chuck the assumption of innocence and 'learn' entirely bogus forensics and logic and think they're now equipped to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mignini could have gone in the bathroom wiped his bottom and brought the stinky stuff into the courtroom and claimed:

'We have this evidence we just discovered! It's presumed blood and didn't test negative, therefore we hypothesize it's what Raffaele and Amanda used to wipe away their traces during the 'taunting and holding' phase due to the pattern being not inconsistent with the wiping of bodily substances, as Raffaele and Amanda needed to as they tortured Meredith for hours. Genetic tests were inconclusive but what else could it be?'

That would be enough for some people, and no matter what the defense said the fact Mignini 'hypothesized' it would give it inherent validity and the defense contentions would be scrutinized and mocked instead of his slimy stains on the toilet paper.

I would say it is possible, indeed probable, that this was very funny.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well I'm a lurker . . . been lurking here for a long time, and I believe AK and RS are innocent. And I also live nowhere near Seattle, in a state that has tended to vote Republican (not like liberal Seattle), and many folks I know here are quite aware of the case. And quite convinced of innocence as well.

Don't take ANYONE's word for ANYTHING here. Get John Douglas's book.

Welcome.

 

[Diocletus]

it's my understanding the rock is a good 10 lbs, and given the window was at least 10 feet from the release point of somebody throwing it, it doesn't make much sense that the rock was thrown from the outside.

What's so hard about throwing a 10lb rock 10 feet?

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini could have gone in the bathroom wiped his bottom and brought the stinky stuff into the courtroom and claimed:

I thought the stinky stuff came out of his mouth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

empirical evidence versus speculation

First he has to climb up and open the outer shutters, then throw a 10 pound rock thru the window that not only breaks the window but also forces the inner shutters open, after that he climbs up and while balancing on the sill manages to open the window by reaching thru a broken pane of glass all without leaving any finger prints , DNA or disturbing the glass, but then we know he's a basketball player and apparently they have superpowers.

Maybe he had to climb once to open the shutters, but maybe they had blown open by then. Filomena's original statement was that she was not sure that she had closed them. Big deal, either way. A retired ballistics guy does an actual experiment to show how the rock was thrown, whereas Massei just speculated without citing any trials. Either the glass was broken from a rock thrown from the outside, or it was broken as Massei suggested. They are not going to give identical distributions of glass (different momentum, different position of the window relative to the room). Which is more likely?