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

[Briars]

It is my video shot while waiting for our dinner reservation at 9pm . It was cloudy and around 8:20

 

[Skind]

Yes that is it! Thanks. Taken in June around 8:30pm posted also on .net . Someone crosses the street and another couple walks by coming from the car park no doubt. It would be hard to get someone to walk in front in just 3 minutes of filming. However please note the car park is just around the corner with lots of cars and in order to cross safely the area by the side of the gate is the best choice. That wider area across from the car park is a bit cut off in the video but can be seen on google street.

The couple at 0:45 onwards do not cross at all, and instead simply round the corner towards the upper ramp - no crossing of the road at all.

The person at 1:15 crosses straight across the headers for the junction - exactly the point you imply they would not cross.

In the "CCTV outside the Cottage" video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t40UB94-n7c Somealibi walks down the supposedly dangerous upper ramp - on the wrong side. SomeAlibi clearly didn;t think the upper ramp was in anyway dangerous.

The woman at 0:36 walks straight across the carpark ingresso.
The two people at 0:28 appear to be using the recycling bins.


So, given that most of the people appear to be using the corner to get to the ramp, and the only remainder DO NOT cross at the gates, and SomeAlibi did not fear the ramp, and making crossing the road in the wrong direction makes zero sense, and crossing the same road twice to get back to 10 feet from where you started makes negative sense - what exactly is your defence to your claim that people cross the road at the gates (without being able to see around the corner that you claim is dangerious) only to cross back over the same dangerous road to then have to cross the junction slightly further up?

All source so far indicate people either:

not doing what you claimed they would do.
doing what you expressely claimed they would not do.

 

[acbytesla]

What does "ingresso" mean?

Entrance, Entry way

 

[Grinder]

Entrance, Entry way

It was rhetorical.

 

[acbytesla]

It was rhetorical.

Hey, I have problems picking up sarcasm in English...no fair doing it in Italian.

 

[Supernaut]

One EVIL mother ***********r.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

It is my video shot while waiting for our dinner reservation at 9pm . It was cloudy and around 8:20

I call BS on this. The shadows reveal the real time of day. I just watched it frame by frame and that was shot in the middle of the day.

ETA: Sorry Grinder; you already posted along these lines. I should have gone back and read the responses before I jumped in.

 

[moije2]

I think you are right about the aggravating factor for the calunnia still being on the table in the current appeal. I was doing my best to wade through the SC decision ordering the retrial (this is the injustice-anywhere translation) to find out for sure. I think this bit applies:

Quote:
2.1.16 shows contradictory and illogical reasoning as to the non- recognition of aggravating teleological links, considered in relation to the crime of slander. The Court of Second Instance in recognizing the crime of slander on the part of the Knox, excluded any relationship with the murder. It would not be explained how the Court inferred that the young defendant was stressed by the interrogation and therefore had committed slander in order to free herself from the questions of these investigators, since none of the young people who lived in that house, none of the friends of Kercher or others who in the days immediately after the murder were called and subjected to hearings, had the insane idea of committing slander to remove the weight of the same; it had to be considered that it was Knox who went to the police station of her own free will to accompany Sollecito; and those that the Court called interrogations were nothing more than summary information, to which the young woman was subjected without any forcing; the indication of Lumumba was by no means suggested by the police who asked Knox if she had simply responded to the message which he had sent and which resulted from his cell phone and the negative response of the young woman and the opposite appeared to be what she answered.​

1. Wasn't there evidence before the court that AK was heard screaming in the interrogation room? Oops, I mean room of summary information.
2. So none of the others had the "insane idea" of committing slander to get out of the questioning. If number one is met with evidence, then unless they also were screaming and crying this would not be a valid comparison.
3. She went of her own free will. But didn't the evidence show that it was only after getting there that the text from PL was introduced? And at some point therein RS allegedly withdrew his support and alibi. Thus the stressful situation for AK arose only then, and the going of her own free will is no longer relevant.
4. The indication of Lumumba was not suggested by police... This must be where the teleological argument comes in. I.e., she is guilty therefore her pointing to PL was by design intended to cast suspicion elsewhere.

Quote: "shows contradictory and illogical reasoning as to the non- recognition of aggravating teleological links". I am trying to decide what has more of that (the preceding statement) - the motivation issued by the first appellate court, or the SC above as quoted above.

 

[acbytesla]

I call BS on this. The shadows reveal the real time of day. I just watched it frame by frame and that was shot in the middle of the day.

ETA: Sorry Grinder; you already posted along these lines. I should have gone back and read the responses before I jumped in.

What difference does it make? One is in the middle of summer and in daylight and the other is on a dark fall midweek night.

 

[Grinder]

I call BS on this. The shadows reveal the real time of day. I just watched it frame by frame and that was shot in the middle of the day.

ETA: Sorry Grinder; you already posted along these lines. I should have gone back and read the responses before I jumped in.

Hey this Grinder, always happy to have people of like mind!

Seriously better that you saw it a priori.

 

[Grinder]

What difference does it make? One is in the middle of summer and in daylight and the other is on a dark fall midweek night.

Well the middle of the day makes it even less of a point for what traffic is like there at night (after 8).

 

[Strozzi]

Quote:
2.1.16 shows contradictory and illogical reasoning as to the non- recognition of aggravating teleological links, considered in relation to the crime of slander. The Court of Second Instance in recognizing the crime of slander on the part of the Knox, excluded any relationship with the murder. It would not be explained how the Court inferred that the young defendant was stressed by the interrogation and therefore had committed slander in order to free herself from the questions of these investigators, since none of the young people who lived in that house, none of the friends of Kercher or others who in the days immediately after the murder were called and subjected to hearings, had the insane idea of committing slander to remove the weight of the same; it had to be considered that it was Knox who went to the police station of her own free will to accompany Sollecito; and those that the Court called interrogations were nothing more than summary information, to which the young woman was subjected without any forcing; the indication of Lumumba was by no means suggested by the police who asked Knox if she had simply responded to the message which he had sent and which resulted from his cell phone and the negative response of the young woman and the opposite appeared to be what she answered.​

1. Wasn't there evidence before the court that AK was heard screaming in the interrogation room? Oops, I mean room of summary information.
2. So none of the others had the "insane idea" of committing slander to get out of the questioning. If number one is met with evidence, then unless they also were screaming and crying this would not be a valid comparison.
3. She went of her own free will. But didn't the evidence show that it was only after getting there that the text from PL was introduced? And at some point therein RS allegedly withdrew his support and alibi. Thus the stressful situation for AK arose only then, and the going of her own free will is no longer relevant.
4. The indication of Lumumba was not suggested by police... This must be where the teleological argument comes in. I.e., she is guilty therefore her pointing to PL was by design intended to cast suspicion elsewhere.

Quote: "shows contradictory and illogical reasoning as to the non- recognition of aggravating teleological links". I am trying to decide what has more of that (the preceding statement) - the motivation issued by the first appellate court, or the SC above as quoted above.

I will point out here that the reason Amanda accompanied Raffaele to the police station at 10 or 10:30 pm on Nov 5 is because she was afraid for her safety to be alone. She went with him to his destination for safety. Little did she know what lay in store for her.

 

[acbytesla]

Well the middle of the day makes it even less of a point for what traffic is like there at night (after 8).

I think you are right that this video was during mid-day. But frankly, I don't think it's necessary to call Briars a liar about when he took the video.

Every day is a different day, every hour is a different hour. The only real question is what was it like at 9:00 on November 1st 2007. Everything else is BS.

 

[moije2]

What difference does it make? One is in the middle of summer and in daylight and the other is on a dark fall midweek night.

My 2 bits.

Sunset was at about 5 pm on the beginning of November. It would have been a third quarter moon (half moon) brightest in the sky at sunrise IIUC. Thus it would have been very dark except for any lighting which someone else can illuminate on.

That property is clearly in a very recessed position and on the very edge of the concentration of dwellings. This conversation about visibility and thus desirability for a burglar seems fairly clear cut. Seems like an ideal choice for a break in.

 

[Grinder]

I think you are right that this video was during mid-day. But frankly, I don't think it's necessary to call Briars a liar about when he took the video.

Every day is a different day, every hour is a different hour. The only real question is what was it like at 9:00 on November 1st 2007. Everything else is BS.

King of the straw man. I did not call Briars a liar. My analysis of the the time of day preceded her announcing it was hers. I never called her a liar.

I didn't even call it BS, that was someone else.

 

[moije2]

I will point out here that the reason Amanda accompanied Raffaele to the police station at 10 or 10:30 pm on Nov 5 is because she was afraid for her safety to be alone. She went with him to his destination for safety. Little did she know what lay in store for her.

So in their effort to ferret out "contradictory and illogical reasoning as to the non- recognition of aggravating teleological links", they show us that the evidence re AK screaming (ie stress), as well as the testimony by AK that she afraid to be alone (roommate murdered - illogical to be afraid?) are all ignored or disbelieved by the SC.

I think the word illogical is being abused.

 

[acbytesla]

King of the straw man. I did not call Briars a liar. My analysis of the the time of day preceded her announcing it was hers. I never called her a liar.

I didn't even call it BS, that was someone else.

No, you said it was mid day. Briar said he shot in the evening. This is not a strawman argument. You really need to look up what that means.

You didn't call it BS. I call it BS. It is Briar's rhetorical nonsense.

 

[Grinder]

No, you said it was mid day. Briar said he shot in the evening. This is not a strawman argument. You really need to look up what that means.

You don't call it BS. I call it BS. It is Briar's rhetorical nonsense.

Tesla read this real slow. I looked at the video and said that it wasn't shot at 8:30 but rather around noon because of the shadows. At that time she hadn't announced that it was her video and even had she I didn't call her a liar.

When you make up something and put it to someone else as you just did but it's not true that is a straw man. You asserted I shouldn't call her a liar but since I hadn't it is a straw man.

BTW it is two words that's why it shows as misspelled when you type it as one.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1.Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You said I called her a liar and said I shouldn't (2 and 3)

 

[Strozzi]

It is my video shot while waiting for our dinner reservation at 9pm . It was cloudy and around 8:20

Briars, if you started eating around 9 pm what time do you think food begins transiting from your stomach to your duodenum?

Choose several. (Don't make a mistake or we will convict you for a crime you did not commit and sentence you to 26 years in prison.)

• 10:30 pm?
• 11 pm?
• 11:30 pm?
• 12 midnight?
• 12:30 am?
• 1 am?
• 1:30 am?

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla read this real slow. I looked at the video and said that it wasn't shot at 8:30 but rather around noon because of the shadows. At that time she hadn't announced that it was her video and even had she I didn't call her a liar.

When you make up something and put it to someone else as you just did but it's not true that is a straw man. You asserted I shouldn't call her a liar but since I hadn't it is a straw man.

BTW it is two words that's why it shows as misspelled when you type it as one.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1.Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You said I called her a liar and said I shouldn't (2 and 3)

One, I never said that you or anyone called Briars a liar. But the difference in your statement and others that the video was shot at midday and Briar's insistence was at 8:30 PM effectively does just that. There is in fact no exaggeration given that huge difference. I also didn't say that YOU were calling Briars a liar, even though I have my suspicion about the veracity as to the time of day as do you.

You need to stop being paranoid. My comment was of a general nature, it never mentioned any individual calling Briars a liar. My point was and is, that 9:00 November weekday night is dark enough and cold enough that not many people are hanging out outside. ...Well outside of the homeless junky.