• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
That's the dirty part of what Mignini told Griffin and CNN.... that he'd stopped the "interview" with Ficarra and quoted the applicable law, which also included a lawyer. And then what did Mignini do......?

.... Mignini, after quoting the law, kept going. Without a lawyer. As a result the ISC ruled the two memorandums, not only one of them, but both of them inadmissible. Because Mignini broke the law.
Click to expand...

It's incredible that we're parsing the diction of a transcript of Raffaele's 30-second conversation with a police dispatcher while having to take Mignini's word that he never asked a single question of Amanda once he'd determined that she was a suspect.

When was that magic moment? Are we to believe -- seriously -- that she was not asked a single question between the first (inadmissable) statement and the second? That she just was so eager to talk that they all just patted her hands, brought her tea, and held their breath?

Incredible. Mignini is a liar.
 
What I really find is interesting is how opinions have changed in the UK. There was a time when most of the US was against Amanda and pretty much all of the UK, Italy and the rest of the world. Then in the US that opinion began to change and say maybe 90 percent of America believes Amanda to be innocent. But the UK used to be solidly against her as was Italy. Now it seems, that even two thirds of the Brits thinks she is innocent.

Now of course the guilters will say it is because of some vaunted PR campaign. Which of course is BS. The reality is that the facts are on Amanda and Raffaele's side and all the PR in the world can't change that.
 
acbytesla said:
What I really find is interesting is how opinions have changed in the UK. There was a time when most of the US was against Amanda and pretty much all of the UK, Italy and the rest of the world. Then in the US that opinion began to change and say maybe 90 percent of America believes Amanda to be innocent. But the UK used to be solidly against her as was Italy. Now it seems, that even two thirds of the Brits thinks she is innocent.

Now of course the guilters will say it is because of some vaunted PR campaign. Which of course is BS. The reality is that the facts are on Amanda and Raffaele's side and all the PR in the world can't change that.
Click to expand...

Evidence of these opinion polls?
 
Briars said:
Bill please cite where a witness is required by law to be taped in Italy. Thanks
Click to expand...
Publications on November the 4th said they suspected the killer was female, and Matteini said they needed to arrest Knox before her mother arrived on the 6th. Therefore she was interviewed as a suspect, backdated to interviewed as a witness so they could destroy the tapes, tapes showing she was beaten, and pretend they didn't exist.
Someone will explain how I have erred in this analysis, hopefully you Briars.
 
Briars said:
Hold on no one has ruled out the DNA of Meredith on the knife. The second sample from Amanda only adds to the probability it was used on the victim
Click to expand...

C'mon. You know this isn't true. Amanda's dna on the knife has literally no probative value without Meredith's dna also being there. .... unless Amanda was being charged with using a knife in the commission of a culinary felony!
The way I understand the RIS tests, they tried to repeat the test that originally 'indicated' Meredith's dna and thus carried out the second part of the process that international standards agree is necessary to provide a positive lcn finding. Thus we can say that it's probable that if Stefanoni had followed this process, then having been unable to repeat the replicate the original finding she would have had to report that there was no positive finding of Meredith's dna on the knife. The probability that Meredith's dna was at that point on the knife has decreased.
Without evidence of Meredith's dna on the knife there simply is no reason at all to think that the knife could be the murder weapon.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course not. Totally anecdotal. I'm just judging by the comments at the end of articles at the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, etc.
Click to expand...

You know the word "anecdotal" when put before the word "evidence" means "nil", don't you?
 
Briars said:
I didn't deny anything, even said the guard should face consequences if he harassed Amanda and possibly did worse to the other inmate. Unfortunately non of this has anything to do with her innocence. I thought the video was great and at least showed the space wasn't too small and she was restrained worth every penny. What I don't like is profiting from a book with obvious self serving lies. RS turns the dispatcher into something he wasn't in an attempt to explain his boo boo. Reminds me of all the complaining he did when they took his shoes on then 5th. Time passed ,the shoe removal took back stage by the time his book appeared. Now we learn it was far worse they actually told him they would leave him in a pool of blood, Makes the shoe whining seem kind of silly. Do you believe his police mistreatment add on ? I don't you can see by the transcript Skind posted he lied , even obvious in English.
Click to expand...

So this means you believe the Perugia police when they said they treated him correctly? And the same with the interrogations of Amanda and Patrick Lumumba?

Let's recall:
  • Amanda claimed they slapped her in the head and told her she'd go to prison for 30 years and never see her family again;
  • Patrick claimed they punched, kicked and racially abused him;
  • Raff said they threatened they'd leave him in a pool of blood.
Now, all the police have to do is release the videotapes which they are obligated to make of the interrogations, to show that they were correct. What do they do instead? I'll tell you:

  • they keep Patrick's bar closed "as a crime scene" for 6 months, thereby depriving him of his livelihood;
  • they charge Amanda with callunia and threaten her with 6 more years in jail, for making a statement in court - which in a proper court would be considered privileged.
They claim there is no videotape because the interrogations were "not recorded". Do you believe them?

What do you have to say about Bill Williams' list of lies by police, posted previously? These are all verifiable, clear-cut lies - not "he said this", "she said that" contradictions. Why do you trust the police, and not Raff?
 
lionking said:
You know the word "anecdotal" when put before the word "evidence" means "nil", don't you?
Click to expand...
You seemed pleased enough with your survey of Italian taxi drivers and professors as worth reporting, why not Tesla's comments sections.
 
lionking said:
You know the word "anecdotal" when put before the word "evidence" means "nil", don't you?
Click to expand...

Sort of like Raffaele saying that nothing was stolen.
Or Amanda's not crying in front of the British girls.
Or the poop in the toilet
Or the glass on Filomena's bed
Or that there was tension between Amanda and Meredith.
Or the bloodstain on the bathmat
Or the Luminol prints that tested negative for blood and weren't actually matched to anyone.
Or Nara's memory of a scream through double glass windows.
etc.
etc.
etc.

But of course unlike them, I never said it was evidence.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
You said this:



I asked you to back it up. I'm willing to believe that this is so, but not on your say so.
Click to expand...

I already admitted there was no evidence and that my conclusion was anecdotal. So?? I grant you, it is meaningless. As is the cooking knife and the prosecution's case.
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
Yes, they both could be stating what they believe to be true. Filomena may believe that Meredith never locked her door. Amada may believe she did lock the door.

Amanda may have seen Meredith lock or unlock her bedroom door a number of times, and heard it more. Fulomina, who presumably works normal office hours at a law firm, presumably left home in the morning to get to her office by normal work time and returned after the workday was over.

I accept Amanda's statement as fact - that she knew Meredith (often or occasionally) locked her bedroom door. I accept Filomena's statement as fact with the caveat that she states what she knows while not being around during the work/school day and located as close to the door in question. I don't believe either are lying. One may be mistaken. I suspect Filomena was mistaken.
Click to expand...

Um - I would have thought that if one lived in a house shared with three others one had known for less than 2 months, and friends and acquaintances of the latter (i.e. complete strangers) coming and going, then locking one's door when one has several 100 Euro stashed would be a no-brainer.
 
Briars said:
Hold on no one has ruled out the DNA of Meredith on the knife. The second sample from Amanda only adds to the probability it was used on the victim
Click to expand...

No, it quite obviously does not, in any way whatsoever.

Jaysus.
 
lionking said:
You know the word "anecdotal" when put before the word "evidence" means "nil", don't you?
Click to expand...

The tone and content of MM reporting has, manifestly, changed in the past 2 years from one of slavishly paraphrasing Mignini's "theories" to a more neutral, if not sceptical one.

No-more Foxy-Knoxy snared by her lust and her lies.

That's what ACBT means by "anecdotal".

But you can try and wish it away if you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom