• 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 Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
What a crock. This is so typical of a guilter. It matters little what she does, it is read as some sign of guilt. Every single point you just made can easily be read entirely different.

What's really sad is the prosecution doesn't have a shred of actual evidence of her guilt, just innuendo and tea leaves.

So sad the police and prosecution feel the need to lie and lie and lie and lie. So corrupt, so shameful.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Most of it is just silliness, a lot of words saying nothing and only proving how desperate the pro-guilt contingent is on some how justifying their own fantasy. It is not one that can convince anyone other than somebody already on the pro-guilt side. They must need a lot of convincing. Perhaps there have been signs of doubt and these efforts are trying to shore up those on the side of guilt that are having serious doubts about the reliability of the evidence that they think means guilt.
 
Machiavelli said:
It makes no sense, a 112 call is free of charge. You don't even need a SIM card.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to what I actually said and what Sollecito actually did.

"Call around". That is not free, and does need a sim.

"Looking for Meredith" is not free and does need a sim. You just criticised him for not doing it, when the very thing he was doing (that you criticise him for) was required in order for him to do it!

Do you even know how cell phones work?
 
Last edited:
Strozzi said:
From various reports, it seems that Nencini has been startled by a number of things of which he was unaware. He may realize there is a lot to learn to get right before he pronounces judgement in this important case. Maybe he will read in and do his homework.
Click to expand...

Does it count as a "trial" if the jury that convicts you hadn't actually heard any real evidence and doesn't have a clue what anyone is talking about?

I mean, how is this asinine proceeding a "trial"?
 
For me it's quite telling that the judge seems surprised when he learns something about the defense viewpoint. It's almost like he only read the supreme court decision and nothing else.
 
Machiavelli said:
It makes no sense, a 112 call is free of charge. You don't even need a SIM card.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli, do you know if Raffaele was aware he could call 112 and not have to worry about having sufficient time left to complete the call? Maybe he got a message on his screen indicating that his phone was about to shut down (for lack of minutes left).
 
The entire "trial" process in Italy is designed to ensure that the court that imposes the final judgment has the least amount if information about the case and has heard the least testimony. What kind of justice system is this?
 
It's just the continuation of the same trend of obfuscation and occultation seen since the beggining of the investigation: hiding of DNA results, hiding of blood confirmatory tests, failure to record the interrogations, failure to measure the body temperature, failure to do fibre analysis, failure to test the semen stain, failure to preserve the CCTV footage, destruction of the hard drives, and so on.
 
Machiavelli said:
Sollecito called her "missing" in his call to the Carabinieri.
Click to expand...

Honor Bound, P. 30: "One of the tenants', and we don't know where she is. We've tried to call, but she's not picking up."

In that sense, then Laura was also "missing". Nice try anyway.
 
Machiavelli - Please read pages 393 and 394 and quote the psychopathology that Massei, say you, found. Guilters make copious reference to (particularly) Knox's megalomania or other such pathology....

Perhaps it would be wise to quote Massei if you think he found this.
 
Machiavelli said:
The prosecution actually has a lot of actual evidence.
But you need to understand that arguments this argument (like others that I brought up) are meant to be a rebuttal of defensive arguments.
This point about the defence analysis based on the CCTV video is a defensive point. These arguments may be about things that could be read differently, but they are not intended to be evidence themselves, they are intended to show that the defensive disproval doesn't have solid foundations.

The defence video analysys is not able to disprove the Battistelli testimony about arrival at 12.35, nor the police testimony about the CCT clock being fast. These testimonies are pieces of evidence.
Here were are not talking about the piece of evidence. We are instead talkig about the validity of its defensive disproval.
The disproval is not sufficiently foundedd, not consistent. There are problems. There is this lack of urgency, this delay, there are other elements in the witnesses testimonies.
Click to expand...


I seem to recall Battshitelli testifying about stopping off for lunch with his partner around this time....12:30. Perhaps you have confused that with his time of arrival. Where can we find this report he wrote? Would that be in the case file or in that garage with Stefanonis control data sheets?

How do you feel about Philomenas order for Amanda... a non Italian speaker to call the police? That tells me that Filomenia has something to hide and delay about for certain. Did she need time to contact her lawyer? Did anyone check her phone calls? I think they should. Did she think she might have time to beat the police there if she forced Knox to confusedly report a crime in her non native language?

You know maybe the sloppy Italian wanted time to straighten up the mess in her room a bit before the cops moved in...she is clearly not a neat person. In fact the untouched areas around her room would indicate that she is a slob. Or do you suppose the burglar (was there a burglar?) went under her desk and arranged things to appear disorganized?

I bet she left the most skid marks of all the roommates...a zebra cant easily hide the stripes.
 
This is something you will not find guilters tweeting from the courtroom. It is with regard to the Channel 5 video showing the ease in which a reasonably fit burglar could enter in through Filomena's window, using the supports of the grill on the window-below, as well as Filomena's predominant window ledge.

"Maori chose not to show the video (he then explained to us that he preferred describing it), but invited the judges to go see it on youtube."

So the video DID make it into the courtroom.
 
Bill Williams said:
Honor Bound, P. 30: "One of the tenants', and we don't know where she is. We've tried to call, but she's not picking up."

In that sense, then Laura was also "missing". Nice try anyway.
Click to expand...

But he didn't mention Laura. He mentioned only one person missing.
 


Machiavelli, why don't you take your point of view to AmandaKnox.com. You know every detail of this case. Maybe you can trip her up? Or maybe she will convince you of the truth.
 
Grinder said:
This isn't good Bill. He missed an entire call. He had the sister call a minute late and missed the first call to the police.



Bill had just said Massei matched Mach's. These are the same times as the pro guilt sites and the pro innocence people as well as Massei.

Maybe they called at 1:15 pm? Would you like that time better.

How would you know an error of fact in Massei? The times are to the second which means they came from phone records. Would you like to bet on who is getting the times correctly? I can meet you in the tunnel as nothing else is going on there :p
Click to expand...


The error of fact in Massei is just like pornography...I cant define it, but I know it when I see it.

Does anyone have a list of the calls in time-line form? Not just RS calls but AK, FR, and the return calls of Carbine police who cant seem to find a simple address? I suppose they don't have GPS in Italy in 2007? Probably still using magnetic compass or something...that seems odd.
 
Bill Williams said:
This is something you will not find guilters tweeting from the courtroom. It is with regard to the Channel 5 video showing the ease in which a reasonably fit burglar could enter in through Filomena's window, using the supports of the grill on the window-below, as well as Filomena's predominant window ledge.

"Maori chose not to show the video (he then explained to us that he preferred describing it), but invited the judges to go see it on youtube."

So the video DID make it into the courtroom.
Click to expand...

How about a link to that video...got one?
 
Machiavelli said:
Maybe. But this means Sollecito thought re-charging his phone was more urgent than looking for Meredith or calling police, while Knox still thought that calling her mom in the USA was more important than trying to call the phone number of the missing roommate in Italy (to which she only made 16- 4-5 seconds calls; on one number she did not even try again).
We may also mention that Sollecito spoke with his dad, at that time he had all possible adive a 5 yo boy should need, then he waited another 12 minutes. Nefarious or not, it's late.
Click to expand...

Like so many things, the timing could be argued as nefarious - or not.

Recall that a long stretch of two people's lives is at stake. Something more robust than nefarious (or not) is required in a legal system where innocence must be assumed until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution word of the trial is 'compatible'. To me, that's a variation on nefarious (or not).

I am going with 'not' in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence until I see compelling evidence of guilt that doesn't come with an (or not).
 
MDDVS said:
It's just the continuation of the same trend of obfuscation and occultation seen since the beggining of the investigation: hiding of DNA results, hiding of blood confirmatory tests, failure to record the interrogations, failure to measure the body temperature, failure to do fibre analysis, failure to test the semen stain, failure to preserve the CCTV footage, destruction of the hard drives, and so on.
Click to expand...

I remind you that hard drives were not destroyed. The control board were damaged, and the content of the drives was recovered - except Knox's (which is theoretically recoverable, but worthless).

Nobody hid DNA results - it is instead documented that the defence were not interested in having any information during the investigation. And later, it was the judges who decided the defence had already obtained all meaningful data.

Nobody hid TMB tests - they were actually revealed by Stefanoni herself (pro-Knoxes like to assert that she was "caught" lying, but it's made up and absolutely false) - and the anyway TMB tests are not "blood confirmatory tests".

The police interrogations of witnesses are not expected to be recorded; normally they are not, for budgtary reasons and also because they are not usable (despite the pro-Knox like to falsely assert that this is a violation, that the justification is not credible etc.).

Failure to measure body temperature was (in my opinion) a totally justified choice. Mignini had late doubts about the choice but I disagree with his doubts: it was a correct choice, the body temperature would have been an imprecise and useless datum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom