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

[anglolawyer]

Deleted

 

[RWVBWL]

It's funny -- a lot of us, like Nara Capezzali, assume that it is common for people to scream really loudly when they are scared or attacked. I wonder if it is really true. Women get killed all the time, but you never read about any of them screaming. Usually, they just don't show up at work and then somebody goes looking for them. Sometimes neighbors hear shouts or the sounds of people arguing in the house or apartment next door. But they never report hearing any blood-curdling screams, except, of course, in movies.

To scream takes both energy and air in the lungs. My guess is that at the point Meredith still had both energy and air in her lungs, she didn't feel compelled to scream. If she saw Rudy before he attacked her, she would have been startled, but not terrified, because she knew him. If he came up behind her and grabbed her or flung her down, she would have had the adrenaline to scream but no longer have the lung power. Even if she started to scream, he would have put a stop to it quickly.

Hi Mary H,
I'm still bothered abit by The House from where Screams can be heard from.

Ya know, the place that a neighbor, hundreds of feet away,
could hear a loud sound from a bedroom with it's windows closed, the bedroom door closed, the front door closed.

While her own window+door was closed too...


Wierd how an old lady,
whose hearing surely musta been much better when in her youthful days of years long past, can hear soooo well...


Wasn't Meredith's boyfriend in a band?
Surely, like every band member I've ever known,
the dude practiced at home, right?

I mean, come on,
there was no houses, apartment or flats next door to his own pad,
the dude musta practiced playin' or beltin' out the tunes at some point, no?

Did Nara ever call the cops to report that loud ruckus comin' from the flat down the road which housin' those young rock+roll college kids?
Hmmmm...

 

[RWVBWL]

Another scream...

I've heard that Edgardo Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda’s screams during the interrogation.

Raff did too.


Did anyone 200 to 500 feet away also hear these screams?
It's funny, I've never read of anyone outside the building hearin' Amanda Knox scream,
but we know she did, a detective from Rome admitted in court.

Old Nara Capazzali hears A Very Scary, Loud Scream,
from a room+house with closed windows+closed doors,
from hundreds of feet away.
Right...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy's sentence

OK - have another go.

I don’t see what double jeopardy has got to do with anything – RG is currently convicted and incarcerated.

You posted that RG should be ‘retried’ for the murder of MK at the same time that the SC quashed the 2 white ‘kids’ acquittals on the charge of murder for which they had received 24 yrs each.

You now claim it was a response to the length (we shall come to that in a moment) of RG’s sentence which was imposed 3 years ago that just struck you at that moment?? And furthermore that you are not proposing to lynch the black guy but you want him tried for burglary or calunnia or something.

SNIP

Now as to the length of RGs sentence.
It’s all very complicated much more so than Italian Law or DNA analysis and as it has only been explained 379 times I shall go slowly.

1/3 off for fast track
RG gets 24yrs at his appeal – in line with the sentences handed down at the ‘kids’ trial.
24-8 = 16.
SNIP

What I originally said was, "Rudy is the person who should be retried and given a proper sentence for his crime. I am not speaking from a legal perspective, obviously." What that statement meant was that Rudy cannot be retried and sentenced again without its being double jeopardy, from my "legal perspective." I have said several times and on more than one discussion board that his sentence is too light for someone who is solely responsible for rape and murder, and the reason to say it again when the SC behaved as it did is obvious: Rudy may be out of prison by the time this case reaches its conclusion. However, I see no impediment to his being tried and sentenced for his other crimes, and that would keep him separated from society longer.

Now let us again consider the two reductions in Rudy's sentence. I see a great advantage to Rudy in his taking the fast track trial, but I see no advantage to the state in offering it. Rudy was given a reduction based upon mitigation at his appeal, whereas the two were given it at their trial of first instance. The prosecution appealed for longer sentences for Amanda and Raffaele, but the prosecution did not appeal for a longer sentence for Rudy. I have read some explanations offered for the lack of appeal of Rudy's sentence, but the explanations I have encountered have never been buttressed by citations. Rudy may be out in even less than sixteen years, which strikes me as unjust, but you are free to differ, of course.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

thanks

I've heard that Edgardo Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda’s screams during the interrogation.

Raff did too.


Did anyone 200 to 500 feet away also hear these screams?
It's funny, I've never read of anyone outside the building hearin' Amanda Knox scream,
but we know she did, a detective from Rome admitted in court.

Old Nara Capazzali hears A Very Scary, Loud Scream,
from a room+house with closed windows+closed doors,
from hundreds of feet away.
Right...

Good point. BTW, I have always wondered what made Amanda scream.

 

[RWVBWL]

Software says Amanda Knox's DNA wasn't at crime scene

Interesting...

Link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23790-software-says-amanda-knoxs-dna-wasnt-at-crime-scene.html

 

[RWVBWL]

What I really find interesting is that the above article is another 1 pointing out that Amanda's DNA is not there!

Why are there not more pro-prosecution stories being written?


I recently link an old article that Perugia Shock posted almost 5 years ago, back in 2008.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html
It shows some of the photographs from Meredith Kercher's bedroom,
where she was raped+murderd.

The scene is very bloody, very disturbing.

How could Amanda Knox not get any blood on herself?
Nor leave her DNA anywhere inside Meredith's bedroom,
in or on her body, on her purse?

Nor heck,
not even a fingerprint on that glass of water...

 

[anglolawyer]

What I really find interesting is that the above article is another 1 pointing out that Amanda's DNA is not there!

Why are there not more pro-prosecution stories being written?


I recently link an old article that Perugia Shock posted almost 5 years ago, back in 2008.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html
It shows some of the photographs from Meredith Kercher's bedroom,
where she was raped+murderd.

The scene is very bloody, very disturbing.

How could Amanda Knox not get any blood on herself?
Nor leave her DNA anywhere inside Meredith's bedroom,
in or on her body, on her purse?

Nor heck,
not even a fingerprint on that glass of water...

I asked Machiavelli a little while back to name one expert who backed the prosecution on DNA and he came up with the author of the article you linked.

 

[RandyN]

"THE OSMOTIC EVALUATION OF A SEXUAL FANTASY " title of CD latest article on GR. But I am getting that Deja vu feeling all over again.

She takes the title from the fact that the SC uses the term osmotic or osmosis at least three times in the translated motivation document.

I know somewhere we discussed this very term and we did so before the SC ruled IIRC. Does anyone remember the details? Yummi/Mach perhaps?

Maybe I'm just dreaming. Osmotic is odd and not all that dreamy though. Anyone?

 

[RandyN]

I argue with you, because you rerfain from bringing and discussin your evidence. Pieces of evidence must be complete. You need to be cross questioned about them.
Statements and "questions" be devoid of assumptions, assumptions must be disputed an acknowledged before.
Remember this word, complete. Or you ar cheating.

Please what is complete about the luminol revealed "evidence"?

Or where you just cheating when you want to use that as something meaningful?

 

[RandyN]

Grinder said...

"Did the SC say anything about them not transcribing or recording the interrogations."

Thats an interesting question. I suppose one could say that it was beyond their mandate since it was not a procedure of the trial. But then that didn't even give them pause... even a millisecond when it came to parroting the Galati appeal.

Funny how that works huh? OTOH AK is sustained as guilty for accusing a man she had no way of knowing the status of. In fact the police tell her they know she is hiding him. He was there. I wonder if they mentioned his cell ping in the cottage area around the TOD?

And the next day they declare victory in breaking her and finding what they already knew to be true. If I was Amanda how in the world could I possibly know Lumumba was innocent?

And if I cant know if Lumumba is innocent then how can I be charged with accusing an innocent man? How convenient they forgot to push record...but did every detective also forget to fill out a report? And yes...why does this seem irrelevant to the Italian Judiciary?

Perhaps I am slightly biased ;-) but I think the Italians are trying to cover for somebody or several somebodies.

And the politicians go doot ta doot ta doot doot doot......

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder said...

"Did the SC say anything about them not transcribing or recording the interrogations."

Thats an interesting question. I suppose one could say that it was beyond their mandate since it was not a procedure of the trial. But then that didn't even give them pause... even a millisecond when it came to parroting the Galati appeal.

Funny how that works huh? OTOH AK is sustained as guilty for accusing a man she had no way of knowing the status of. In fact the police tell her they know she is hiding him. He was there. I wonder if they mentioned his cell ping in the cottage area around the TOD?

And the next day they declare victory in breaking her and finding what they already knew to be true. If I was Amanda how in the world could I possibly know Lumumba was innocent?

And if I cant know if Lumumba is innocent then how can I be charged with accusing an innocent man? How convenient they forgot to push record...but did every detective also forget to fill out a report? And yes...why does this seem irrelevant to the Italian Judiciary?

Perhaps I am slightly biased ;-) but I think the Italians are trying to cover for somebody or several somebodies.

And the politicians go doot ta doot ta doot doot doot......

No.

 

[anglolawyer]

Precisely CW, I have always been amused by the borg like reaction (tag teaming) to posts addressing a particular posters argument by all and sundry while the poster in Q refuses to defend his own position.

Indeed your advice could have a broader application to this thread

“Say nothing once 648 times – why say it again”

Amused or intimidated? What's wrong with your posts being addressed by others? This is a forum, not a private conversation between you and Halides.

I see the poster has not 'refused to defend his own position'. He has pointed out that you misunderstood it. How about you explain your mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous insinuation of racism?

 

[anglolawyer]

"THE OSMOTIC EVALUATION OF A SEXUAL FANTASY " title of CD latest article on GR. But I am getting that Deja vu feeling all over again.

She takes the title from the fact that the SC uses the term osmotic or osmosis at least three times in the translated motivation document.

I know somewhere we discussed this very term and we did so before the SC ruled IIRC. Does anyone remember the details? Yummi/Mach perhaps?

Maybe I'm just dreaming. Osmotic is odd and not all that dreamy though. Anyone?

Is that article by CD?

 

[GreyFox]

Tag team

Precisely CW, I have always been amused by the borg like reaction (tag teaming) to posts addressing a particular posters argument by all and sundry while the poster in Q refuses to defend his own position.

Indeed your advice could have a broader application to this thread

“Say nothing once 648 times – why say it again”

I believe you came over from the dark side to Chris's neighborhood and called him out as a biggot.When he was clearly responding to your statement that Rudy was gonna walk in a year or so.Seems like you set the trap, and when he responded to adding other charges to keep the real killer locked up ...you...played the race card.
Similar to Mignini or Maresca ,whenever someone can add value or wisdom to the defense you want to come back with ways to slap the opposition into submission.Never dealing with facts of the case (because they all favor Knox) you went after Halides1 because you see value in what he contributes to the case AND WANT HIM TO BE QUITE...shhh.
Besides it wasn't Halides that swapped out one black man for another here.It was the P (atrik) L (umumba) E (mbarrasment) commitee !!!

 

[Bill Williams]

Precisely CW, I have always been amused by the borg like reaction (tag teaming) to posts addressing a particular posters argument by all and sundry while the poster in Q refuses to defend his own position.

Indeed your advice could have a broader application to this thread

“Say nothing once 648 times – why say it again”

Amused or intimidated? What's wrong with your posts being addressed by others? This is a forum, not a private conversation between you and Halides.

I see the poster has not 'refused to defend his own position'. He has pointed out that you misunderstood it. How about you explain your mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous insinuation of racism?

Why is it that folks like platonov do anything but offer a comprehensive theory of the crime which involves the two students? They'll pick around the edges, things like (as you say) play the edges of foruym rules to call halides1 a ravist... which of course was a theme that pulled this whole issue off the rails in the first two weeks of Nov 2007. The PLE called Patrick a "dirty black" when they beat him at at his arrest, and did not videotape his interrogation or provide him with a lawyer.

And when Rudy Guede came on to the scene some days later the PLE (and now platonov) take the one commonality between the two to try to smear Knox. (particularly Knox. and ignore Sollecito.)

Divert, divert, diver, divert and it's been like that for almost 6 years.

For me it proves they have nothing of substance, really, against the two former students. But the insinuations will continue. Why? well, for one thing,.....

....... it's easier to come up with racial taunts than it is to come up with a theory of the crime. C'mon people, it's been almost 6 years, and the Florence prosecution is going to have to have SOMETHING other than people taunting from the gallery!

 

[platonov]

I know I shouldn't

I notice Creationists rather like calling Darwin a racist as well. They deduce that in part from the subtitle of his "Origins of the Species". Apart from also knocking Darwin I think they like to deflect attention from the Bible's attitude to slavery. I think in both cases they want to throw dirt there is (or may be seen to be) and see what sticks.

I could point out that the creationist jibe is misapplied here as you will find that the folks who believe jesus was a white Texan or rose from the dead or whatever are fans of the white kids - on this thread and no doubt further afield.
We have had the trial of AMANDA compared to the trial of JESUS CHRIST in one notable case and there are other examples. You might even find christian or creationist types posting in her defence on these very pages. But no matter.

I will restrict myself to pointing out that, like many creationists no doubt, you have got the title of Darwin’s seminal work wrong.
Its ….. (On) the origin of species …… in both the long and short version – rookie mistake.
So if you wish to insult me or my arguments it might be wiser to pick a different field for your analogies, one outside of my area of interest - say xbox or (googles furiously) nascar.
That way it will fly right by me.

that’s all

Now why are we even talking about racists?
Oh right – halides1’s argument.

 

[platonov]

New Foaker campaign

What I originally said was, "Rudy is the person who should be retried and given a proper sentence for his crime. I am not speaking from a legal perspective, obviously." What that statement meant was that Rudy cannot be retried and sentenced again without its being double jeopardy, from my "legal perspective." I have said several times and on more than one discussion board that his sentence is too light for someone who is solely responsible for rape and murder, and the reason to say it again when the SC behaved as it did is obvious: Rudy may be out of prison by the time this case reaches its conclusion. However, I see no impediment to his being tried and sentenced for his other crimes, and that would keep him separated from society longer.

Now let us again consider the two reductions in Rudy's sentence. I see a great advantage to Rudy in his taking the fast track trial, but I see no advantage to the state in offering it. Rudy was given a reduction based upon mitigation at his appeal, whereas the two were given it at their trial of first instance. The prosecution appealed for longer sentences for Amanda and Raffaele, but the prosecution did not appeal for a longer sentence for Rudy. I have read some explanations offered for the lack of appeal of Rudy's sentence, but the explanations I have encountered have never been buttressed by citations. Rudy may be out in even less than sixteen years, which strikes me as unjust, but you are free to differ, of course.

OK lets give you (your argument) the benefit of the doubt and take it that you think 16 yrs is too short a sentence for a rape/murder. I probably agree with you – in certain jurisdictions (the US I am told ) it would be much longer.
However this was arrived at, as we all know, as 1/3 off 24 yrs.

Now you can’t rewrite the Italian penal code (whether wearing a wig or a sheet) to retrospectively alter the fast track reduction. So the only option is stiffer sentences for crimes of this nature.

So if you think that RG should have got say 20 yrs then non fast tracked will get 30. etc etc. Note that this stiffer sentencing will apply to Manders & Raffy when/if they are finally signed off on.

So can we expect to see the ‘Friends of Manders & Raffy‘ campaigning for longer terms for sex killers in Italy generally? That’s the rational progression of your argument.
You could utilize that parliamentarian who visited AK in prison to spearhead the campaign.
Perhaps get Frank S involved – would he be keen to push for a hard-line on crimes against women do you think. ? Perhaps not. (Where is he these days ?? – you used to put great store by his utterances).

If this natural progression is not followed & I see no sign of it yet then the suspicion of special treatment for the ‘black boy’ remains.

So best get cracking – you will probably find that the pro victim advocates would readily support you guys in such a noble cause.

 

[anglolawyer]

Why is it that folks like platonov do anything but offer a comprehensive theory of the crime which involves the two students?

snip

It's because they don't have one, and it's both easier and evidently a bigger thrill to come and grab some attention here, and always with the giveaway pedantry (On the origin of species - short form and long - who knew?) -before sidling off again.

 

[GreyFox]

I could point out that the creationist jibe is misapplied here as you will find that the folks who believe jesus was a white Texan or rose from the dead or whatever are fans of the white kids - on this thread and no doubt further afield.
We have had the trial of AMANDA compared to the trial of JESUS CHRIST in one notable case and there are other examples. You might even find christian or creationist types posting in her defence on these very pages. But no matter.


Grey:Referencing those who are looking for truth. Gotchya! So truthfuly...TOD please.

I will restrict myself to pointing out that, like many creationists no doubt, you have got the title of Darwin’s seminal work wrong.
Its ….. (On) the origin of species …… in both the long and short version – rookie mistake.
So if you wish to insult me or my arguments it might be wiser to pick a different field for your analogies, one outside of my area of interest - say xbox or (googles furiously) nascar.
That way it will fly right by me.


Grey: I knew it !!! Called that one.

that’s all

Now why are we even talking about racists?
Oh right – halides1’s argument.

We didn't come here to argue about racism.You accused Halides of it ??? Were discussing facts about the case . Like why do you suppose the police were so interested in Lumumba in the begining when they kept asking AK about him? What made them so interested in him that they kept Knox "a witness" on an all nighter.