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

[Diocletus]

that Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us the current whereabouts of the following Egrams: 600-604, 617, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 762-69, 939, 944, 948, and 952. And, let us know why they are not included in the Bates-stamped collection of Egrams that Stefanoni/Prosecution provided to the court.

 

[MDDVS]

It was Bill then the dishonest, he is the one who brought up the point, attempting to attack Andrea Vogt on a (from his argumentation) non-point.
Bill Williams dared to accuse Vogt - a person who was in the courtroom when the transcript and recording were made available - calling her a liar, and asking her to recant a pice of information, because she said something which happens to be exactly what all courts found.
You simply have no logical basis nor moral right to ask Vogt to not refer to the information, nor to assert that her information is false or that she is unbalanced, given that you admittedly don't have any argument nor information yourself to counter that, you were not in the courtroom, and yout belief is hold wrong in the opinion of all courts, and also in the Kerchers' opinion (native English speakers).
The problem is not me speaking up; the problem is people like Bill who point their fingers on people wo do their job. And I am talking about Bill as an exampe from a group of people who spread a series of lies and proven falsehoods. People who assert idiotic falsehoods like that Mignini described a Satanic ritual, that Knox underwent a fake HIV test, that Guede's letter was fake or that he should have been arrested before, or that Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information. Those liars who spread those falsehood dare to call Vogt a liar and say she should recant something they are just totally unable to show to be "false"...

I still think that you give to much emphasis to the findings and proceedings of Italian courts.

Why should anyone give a **** about what is produced by a bunch of corrupt, incompetent and, sometimes, just straight dumb, justice professionals is beyond me (unless you live in Italy of course). I know personally many characters of the kind so I understnad the abominations that happen in those courtrooms.

There is a reason why Italy is the champion of human rights abuse, in Western Europe, by its courts.

And please, stop pretending torture (yes, beating suspects counts as torture for me) is not common practice by the police. I know you know.

 

[codyjuneau]

You nailed it Antony, Briars's argument is irrational. In fact contrary to his point the shape of the valley would do the opposite of what he is suggesting. The valley walls would direct the the sound away not back at them. You're not going to hear an echo of ANY KIND yelling at the top of your lungs from the back side the cottage. That would break the laws of physics. Sound bounces or it is absorbed depending on the hardness of the materials it encounters

Briars's analogy that he can hear a barking dog across the valley demonstrates the point. The sound is moving toward him with no obstruction. He said he can't hear the sounds from the middle of town. Duh!!!! there are walls obstructing the sound just as the walls of the cottage obstruct the sound from Meredith's bedroom.

This particular argument by the guilters makes me angry as it is easy to disprove yet they argue it repeatedly. There is a real science to sound and acoustics and this prosecution argument violates the science.
Here is another analogy. Ever come up to a car that has their stereo blasting with the windows up? You can't hear the high frequency sounds at all. All you can hear is the muddled low end

Briars talks about hearing a police siren at a distance. If I took a police siren and put in inside as opposed to outside the patrol car all you could hear would be a low rumble from the siren for a couple of blocks.

I'm not doubting that Nara and Monaccia heard something, maybe they did. Who knows? But what they didn't hear was A HIGH PITCHED SCREAM FROM INSIDE THAT COTTAGE. They heard cats fighting or having sex outside or a tire squeal or the tow truck or a fan belt squealing or even a woman OUTSIDE somewhere screaming.

.
I know Massei did not allow any testing to determine if Nara could have heard a scream from inside Meredith's room, but did the defense bring in a sound engineer to testify? If not, they might consider it this time.
.

 

[MDDVS]

And yes, it would have been a good idea to arrest Guede prior to the murder, given his crime spree.

If the law does not allow it then I think you should be focusing your efforts in trying to change the law. It would be more better for all to keep sociopaths locked in jail rather than going after innocents.

 

[MDDVS]

.
I know Massei did not allow any testing to determine if Nara could have heard a scream from inside Meredith's room, but did the defense bring in a sound engineer to testify? If not, they might consider it this time.
.

I agree. Although the testimony is irrelevant anyaway, in my opinion, as the witnesses could not date it or connect it to a specific person. It would put the issue to rest once and for all if they did the test.

 

[Dan O.]

I've never seen such devotion in a droid before.

The apartment is far above the above the cottage in a position where sounds carry upward. The dog barking was not obstructed by the back of the cottage , one small building in an open bowl does not block noise. The picture posted hear up thread doesn't show the surrounding hills, including those at the back which have a rock base. Keeping in mind that an honest discussion about sound and how it amplifies is second to nullifying what witnesses heard , I'll stick with my first hand " she" experiences in Perugia.

We can see how your "she" memories have been falsified over time. You needed there to be a rock base so in your mind you created one.

Are we going to have that honest discussion about sound anytime soon?

 

[MDDVS]

The apartment is far above the above the cottage in a position where sounds carry upward. The dog barking was not obstructed by the back of the cottage , one small building in an open bowl does not block noise. The picture posted hear up thread doesn't show the surrounding hills, including those at the back which have a rock base. Keeping in mind that an honest discussion about sound and how it amplifies is second to nullifying what witnesses heard , I'll stick with my first hand " she" experiences in Perugia.

What did the witnesses hear? Where did it come from? And how do you (they) know?

Note that according to you they heard an echo not the sound emmited from the original source.

 

[Dan O.]

What did the witnesses hear? Where did it come from? And how do you (they) know?

She doesn't know what she heard, describing it as first sounding like an auto accident. She doesn't know where it came from, she said it was from the direction of the cottage but everything out that window is in the direction of the cottage. She doesn't even know when she heard it as she didn't check the time and may even be confused about the date as she claimed to have seen news about the murder in the paper the next morning but that news wasn't printed until the next following day.

 

[MDDVS]

She doesn't know what she heard, describing it as first sounding like an auto accident. She doesn't know where it came from, she said it was from the direction of the cottage but everything out that window is in the direction of the cottage. She doesn't even know when she heard it as she didn't check the time and may even be confused about the date as she claimed to have seen news about the murder in the paper the next morning but that news wasn't printed until the next following day.

If the witnesses couldn't identify the actual source nor the precise date I think their testimony is irrelevant. There's no established connection between waht they heard and the crime. I can't understand why they were called to court. I mean, I'm sure hundreeds of perugians heard something sometime during that night.

 

[Bill Williams]

The apartment is far above the above the cottage in a position where sounds carry upward. The dog barking was not obstructed by the back of the cottage , one small building in an open bowl does not block noise. The picture posted hear up thread doesn't show the surrounding hills, including those at the back which have a rock base. Keeping in mind that an honest discussion about sound and how it amplifies is second to nullifying what witnesses heard , I'll stick with my first hand " she" experiences in Perugia.

Yes, but which one of the "first hand" descriptions? I'm almost positive you're not going to stick with her first hand recollection that places the noises on Oct 31? You are intent to "prove" that they are on Nov 1, just because that's what you're trying to prove - in short, you use your conclusion as the lens to analyse the evidence, so that it ends up supporting the conclusion.

 

[Bill Williams]

It was Bill then the dishonest, he is the one who brought up the point, attempting to attack Andrea Vogt on a (from his argumentation) non-point.
Bill Williams dared to accuse Vogt - a person who was in the courtroom when the transcript and recording were made available - calling her a liar, and asking her to recant a pice of information, because she said something which happens to be exactly what all courts found.
You simply have no logical basis nor moral right to ask Vogt to not refer to the information, nor to assert that her information is false or that she is unbalanced, given that you admittedly don't have any argument nor information yourself to counter that, you were not in the courtroom, and yout belief is hold wrong in the opinion of all courts, and also in the Kerchers' opinion (native English speakers).
The problem is not me speaking up; the problem is people like Bill who point their fingers on people wo do their job. And I am talking about Bill as an exampe from a group of people who spread a series of lies and proven falsehoods. People who assert idiotic falsehoods like that Mignini described a Satanic ritual, that Knox underwent a fake HIV test, that Guede's letter was fake or that he should have been arrested before, or that Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information. Those liars who spread those falsehood dare to call Vogt a liar and say she should recant something they are just totally unable to show to be "false"...

You really need to calm down, Machiavelli. Andrea Vogt reported on something that was entered into court by the prosecution... yes she reported on that. She was not lying. She reported accurately that this was entered into court.

When it was found as not being accurate, she did not recant. That's all I am saying. You really need to calm down.

 

[Diocletus]

Andrea Vogt reported on something that was entered into court by the prosecution... yes she reported on that. She was not lying. She reported accurately that this was entered into court.

What's the difference between on the one hand, Vogt's reporting, and on the other hand, Curt and Edda telling a newspaper reporter that Amanda said that she had been hit?

 

[MDDVS]

What's the difference between on the one hand, Vogt's reporting, and on the other hand, Curt and Edda telling a newspaper reporter that Amanda said that she had been hit?

In Machiaveli's words, the difference is that one party is hostile to the prosecution whereas the other isn't.

 

[Briars]

She doesn't know what she heard, describing it as first sounding like an auto accident. She doesn't know where it came from, she said it was from the direction of the cottage but everything out that window is in the direction of the cottage. She doesn't even know when she heard it as she didn't check the time and may even be confused about the date as she claimed to have seen news about the murder in the paper the next morning but that news wasn't printed until the next following day.

Everything out that window is not in the direction of the cottage, it helps if you see it first hand . Go to Perugia

 

[MDDVS]

Everything out that window is not in the direction of the cottage, it helps if you see it first hand . Go to Perugia

Didn't you say she heard an echo?

 

[Briars]

Didn't you say she heard an echo?

Amplified is a better word. Dan doesn't think there are rocks in hills and shares photos of the cottage with a limited view of trees; there are better ones that show hills on all sides, perhaps I can post a better one. Perugia is surrounded by hills make up of calcareous breccias a type of rock.

 

[Briars]

dupl

 

[moodstream]

From: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox%27s_Testimony

CDV:I'll just quickly give some details, and I will try to be very brief. In relation with the phone call of Nov 17 2007, from a conversation in prison with your mother, I will read exactly the following text (page 6 and page 7), and then I will ask you questions.

AK:Okay.

CDV:I read on page 6 that you said in that conversation: "Yes, when I was in the room with him, I said something," between parentheses 'laughs', "and then when I went back into the room, I was crying. I was very, very worried about this thing with the knife, because there's a knife from Raffaele's..." First question: this was on November 17. What knife were you talking about, and how could you know about this knife at this date?

AK:I heard for the first time about the knife from a police inspector while I was in prison. He showed me an internet article which said that there was blood on a knife that they had found in Raffaele's house. And I said that for me, I was worried because for me, that was just impossible. I didn't understand how such a thing could be.

CDV:So, when you're talking about there being a knife from Raffaele's, you meant this knife that you had heard about in this way, from Raffaele's house.

AK:Yes.


CDV:Then right after, your mother says: "Here, here are the facts: we talked yesterday with the lawyer, and we asked him about the knife" -- maybe I'll skip this, because this part isn't relevant. Then you say: "It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying." And later, page 8 of the transcript of the conversation, you say "It's all an invention." And you say: "It's stupid. I can't say anything other than the truth, because I know I was there. I can't lie about that. There's no reason to do it." When you said "I was there", what did you mean?

AK:Raffaele's apartment.

CDV:Which was the one you meant when you talked about the knife.

AK:Certainly.

 

[moodstream]

I think that clarifies the context pretty darn well. Did Vogt deliberately maintain a false impression about its meaning?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The problem is not me speaking up; the problem is people like Bill who point their fingers on people wo do their job. And I am talking about Bill as an exampe from a group of people who spread a series of lies and proven falsehoods. People who assert idiotic falsehoods like that Mignini described a Satanic ritual, that Knox underwent a fake HIV test, that Guede's letter was fake or that he should have been arrested before, or that Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information.

So you agree that if these claims were not false, then the actions they refer to would be idiotic. Indeed.

Those liars who spread those falsehood dare to call Vogt a liar and say she should recant something they are just totally unable to show to be "false"...

I don't call Vogt a liar, I just say that she does not tell the whole truth, which means her reports are unbalanced. In the 2011 piece I linked to yesterday, Vogt says, "Though not raised during her first trial, the "I was there" prison conversation reference is tucked into a long paragraph detailing the evidence pointing to Knox's involvement."

Why does Andrea act like this is new news, when she knows the quote and the reaction to it are from 2007? Why does she not state anywhere in the 2011 article that Knox and her lawyers had long since clarified the meaning of Knox's statement, and that a judge had agreed that it was not evidence pointing to Knox's involvement?

The title of the 2011 article, Italian judges' report: Amanda Knox says she 'was there,'is not only misleading, but I would go so far as to say it is intended to be misleading. Some people might call that a lie.