• 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.
acbytesla said:
Here is the real question that makes this crime absurd.

Would Amanda or anyone really commit a murder with two people that they barely knew?
Would Amanda or anyone really commit a murder with two people she/they could barely communicate with?
Click to expand...

And while we are weighing likelihoods...

Would Rudy Guede break into a building by throwing a rock through the window?
Would Rudy Guede threaten a homeowner with a knife when discovered during an attempted burglary?
 
andreajo said:
And while we are weighing likelihoods...

Would Rudy Guede break into a building by throwing a rock through the window?
Would Rudy Guede threaten a homeowner with a knife when discovered during an attempted burglary?
Click to expand...

hmmmmm....let me think. hmmmmmm.
 
LondonJohn said:
People who make extreme claims (especially when those claims are an attempt at contradiction) should perhaps take more care to verify their claims:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/4023752a19de7822e2.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752a19e1fdc2d0.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4023752a19e6a2e321.jpg[/qimg]


All taken from the road. All with seemingly regular focal length. All clearly showing the entire balcony.

Now, back to that "You seem to have no clue what you are talking about" part........
Click to expand...

The balcony and railing would make it too difficult to throw a large rock through the window from outside.

Filomena's window, on the other hand, was just right for throwing a rock through, and then climbing up.
 
Acc to an Andrea Vogt tweet, Manuela Comodi was acquitted of any wrongdoing in relation to the expenses for the cartoon presented in court.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli is tweeting that Frank Sfarzo's defamation charge brought by Mignini has been set to Feb 2015 for trial.
 
LondonJohn said:
All taken from the road. All with seemingly regular focal length. All clearly showing the entire balcony.

Now, back to that "You seem to have no clue what you are talking about" part........
Click to expand...

All pictures showing that I am right.

Btw, what do you think a "regular focal lenght" is?
(my clue: the human eye has a main scope equivalent to a 35mm normally, up to 50mm equivalent when focuses attantion on a detail).
Do you think the first picture was taken with 50mm equivalent lenses?
And do you think a person on that balcony wpould be visible at night, from cars passing by? Compered with the front Filomena's window?

I'd say you have no clue what you are talking about but you already know it.

All pictures you bring just prove the obvious, the selfe evident: that the rear balcony is the logical point of entry. Not even the defence seriously attempted to dispute such an obvious point: recall the Massei court walked on the place and assessed it with their own eyes.
 
Machiavelli said:
All pictures showing that I am right.

Btw, what do you think a "regular focal lenght" is?
(my clue: the human eye has a main scope equivalent to a 35mm normally, up to 50mm equivalent when focuses attantion on a detail).
Do you think the first picture was taken with 50mm equivalent lenses?
And do you think a person on that balcony wpould be visible at night, from cars passing by? Compered with the front Filomena's window?

I'd say you have no clue what you are talking about but you already know it.

All pictures you bring just prove the obvious, the selfe evident: that the rear balcony is the logical point of entry. Not even the defence seriously attempted to dispute such an obvious point: recall the Massei court walked on the place and assessed it with their own eyes.
Click to expand...

You really are clueless. People have proven with photographs that you wrong. You're like the Black Knight on Monty Python.
 
andreajo said:
And, of course, they revisited this perception that the break-in was staged when they learned that the man whose DNA and prints were found on the scene was an athletic burglar who had a history of breaking in by throwing rocks through windows.

Oh wait. They didn't.
Click to expand...

They had evidence that the break-in was staged, as I said, not a 'perception'.

Nobody ever seriously considered that the break could be an authentic one, it just doesn't look so, and nobody ever will.
 
Diocletus said:
He had the vaginal swab and feces samples that both showed the same profile of a male who was not lumumba (or Sollecito). Mignini his those results from Matteini.
Click to expand...

Typo: I meant to say "Mignini hid those results from Matteini"

Can you imagine such a scenario? A prosecutor goes to trial asking to put a man in jail for a year for committing a rape/murder, and at the time of the request, the prosecutor is actually in possession of DNA tests that show that some other man, and not the accused man, committed the crime? And the prosecutor hides those results from the court and obtains an order committing the man to prison.

A disgusting ethical and/or criminal violation, and a clear human rights abuse.
 
acbytesla said:
You really are clueless. People have proven with photographs that you wrong. You're like the Black Knight on Monty Python.
Click to expand...

I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!

You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.
That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.
 
Machiavelli said:
I could say the same about you.
You think LJ proved 'something' with 'his' photos!

You know, there is no articulation in you thought someone could argue with. Your lack of argumentation just speaks by itself.

Reall, I do consider that the real balcony is the logical point of entry as something self-evident. That it is not exposed, far from view, not illuminated, not suspicious, the best way in.
That was self evident to the Massei court.

But from people who don't have theintellectual honesty even to acknowledge that Knox's lack of urgency before Meredith's locked door is a point of inconsistency in her account, I do not really expect anything in terms of acknowledging reality.
You will always find a photos from which you can 'see' the balcony and you will claim that this is 'proof' of something. But this 'argument' is idiotic and will remain such.
Click to expand...

Heh. Machiavelli said intellectual honesty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom