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

[acbytesla]

Altieri testified that he observed Battistelli step into the room and lift a portion of the duvet to see the body. Battistelli, who had probably been trained not to disturb a crime scene, denies that he stepped into the room. But Altieri is adament that he saw him do so and lift the duvet.

If Battistelli is telling the truth, he failed to see if the victim might still be alive and in need of critical aid. Would Battistelli been in trouble for disturbing evidence if he had checked to see if Meredith was alive and needed aid?

Can you trust Battistelli to state the truth if it embarrases him personally? Battistelli noted when he arrived at the house. It that the time he actually went to the cottage's front porch to meet Raffaele and Amanda, or the time he got out of the police car and started walked around the intersection trying to figure out where the house is while his colleague drove around the neighborhood? Is Battistelli's testimony about when he arrived at the cottage correct or false? It is the basis for claiming that Raffaele called the Carbaineri after Battistelli arrived.

So different than the US. The moment a police officer arrives on scene, he reports to the dispatcher and the time is recorded in the log. Most of the cars have GPS radios now and the dispatchers know exactly where the cars are at every given moment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don’t know, seems like cherry picking to me; the climb proves one thing but let’s ignore the shows other ridiculous tests and conclusions. The show lacked credibility in my opinion.

This is why critical thinkers concern themselves whenever possible with the argument, not the source.

Attacking or defending an argument based on the source when you could instead address the argument is the fallacy of ad hominem or the Appeal to Authority, respectively.

The argument is that because you can see very clearly on video that the climb is not terribly difficult, that therefore the climb is not terribly difficult. If you have watched it and you are trying to disbelieve it because some other show said something silly then I don't follow your thought process at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don’t know, seems like cherry picking to me; the climb proves one thing but let’s ignore the shows other ridiculous tests and conclusions. The show lacked credibility in my opinion.

Fair enough.... but there's also a genetic fallacy lurking somewhere in that reasoning....

I don't believe for a second that Kennedy was killed by an errant shot from a Secret Service agent.

But when one actually sees a young man scale to a window ledge - after being told for 6 years that it was so impossible that they were going to throw two (essentially) random people into jail for life.....

Doesn't that at least give you pause? It is possible to consider them guilty, but acquit on the basis of reasonable doubt.

Doesn't seeing the climb at least raise doubt?

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, I remember posts by pro-guilt posters, years ago claiming that Guede would have to fly and/or be a super-hero in order to climb through that window. Those claims have always been ridiculous but now, given that video, I think you would have to be lunatic to repeat them.

 

[RandyN]

I think from the defence perspective all that needs to be shown is that the climb is not impossibly difficult. They don't need to show that Rudy could not possibly have botched the climb, or show exactly how he placed each hand and foot, they just need to show that there's nothing terribly improbable about postulating that he did it.

I agree 100%. I just wish the defense would have actually done the test and then showed that in court. The pic of the guy in dress cloths hanging from the lower grate meant nothing to me or the court I suspect.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is why critical thinkers concern themselves whenever possible with the argument, not the source.

Attacking or defending an argument based on the source when you could instead address the argument is the fallacy of ad hominem or the Appeal to Authority, respectively.

The argument is that because you can see very clearly on video that the climb is not terribly difficult, that therefore the climb is not terribly difficult. If you have watched it and you are trying to disbelieve it because some other show said something silly then I don't follow your thought process at all.

Have you seen the entire show? Please point out where I am comparing it to another TV show or have ever said the climb was impossible.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree 100%. I just wish the defense would have actually done the test and then showed that in court. The pic of the guy in dress cloths hanging from the lower grate meant nothing to me or the court I suspect.

I wish the prosecution was required to show their theory of the glass being broken from the inside by hitting the outside of the window by pulling the window inward was even possible given the glass distribution. Notably the piled-up glass shards on the ledge which require all that glass to go flying backwards at just the precise angle.

I'd also like to see just how many times in 100 trials all those glass shards from the bottom of the frame become dislodged completely by the throwing of the rock as opposed to being plucked out of there and placed on the sill by Rudy to facilitate his reaching in and unlocking the window without cutting himself.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli can't admit that that is correct because it would be acknowledgement that the prosecution is persecuting innocent people. That is why he has offered an unsupportable extreme interpretation of unleaven pizza crust to extensively delay the start of the transit of food from the victim's stomach to the duedenum.

I have posted an array of reasons actually - not just one.

And there are more.

I already explained several times why it makes no sense to try deduce the defendants are innocents based on this: it makes no sense to try deduce TOD with any useful accuracy based stomach content, and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

 

[RandyN]

Check it out.

There are 10,000 different CT about JFK...same amount of books written on the subject IIRC. Nothing new here at all.

This wont play for me but is it the CT where the driver turns around and shoots him? The driver is also blamed for slamming on the brakes so that whomever could get a clear second shot. These are old, old stories drug out for the 50th anniversary...

I agree this show is rather poorly done. In fact the defense armed with facts could have done a good job of presenting these same points.

Anyone who thinks an average size younger athletic man could not easily overwhelm a rather smallish young woman with long hair (what you expect he fought fair?) is simply making a foolish argument. Don't even need a knife. Grab a hand full of hair and start jerking her around until she is off her feet...hint...who still cant understand the bruised scalp and clumps of hair???ahemmm.

 

[Dan O.]

Have Curatolo or Quintavalle even been brought up? Certainly Quintavalle is still alive and available to the court. Was he the guy with the Samsung phone in the gallery?

Quintavalle would not be attending the trial. After all, he has a business to run. The cub reporter however, he would be pretty much living in this story. What do we know about this reporter?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have posted an array of reasons actually - not just one.

And there are more.

I already explained several times why it makes no sense to try deduce the defendants are innocents based on this: it makes no sense to try deduce TOD with any useful accuracy based stomach content, and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

Makes no sense? What, because of bread baking experience?

If the stomach contents had not moved from the stomach, then the TOD is no later than 9:30 pm. Sollecito still had computer activity at that time back at the apartment, right where he'd always said he was.

The explanations provided did not explain anything, other than confirmation bias.

 

[MDDVS]

I have posted an array of reasons actually - not just one.

And there are more.

I already explained several times why it makes no sense to try deduce the defendants are innocents based on this: it makes no sense to try deduce TOD with any useful accuracy based stomach content, and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

Yes, it's much better to prossecute people for crimes commited at unspessified times and places. Then it will be impossible to present an alibi.

 

[AmyStrange]

The attack video

-

Has anyone seen or have a link to the video Mignini showed in court showing how Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy attacked Meredith?

One question, how are they restraining Meredith? By the wrist or the elbows? If it's the wrist, that attack theory is bogus, because there were no wounds or bruising around or near Meredith's wrist, which means it's highly improbable that any force at all was used to restrain her at the wrist.

She would have had to have been restrained at the elbows and/ or the upper right forearm, because that's the only bruising that was found on her arms; and although not impossible or improbable, it's a little awkward to restrain someone by the elbows. If someone fights back, inevitably the wrist is where the restraining ends up. In my opinion,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Have Curatolo or Quintavalle even been brought up? Certainly Quintavalle is still alive and available to the court. Was he the guy with the Samsung phone in the gallery?

Quintavalle would not be attending the trial. After all, he has a business to run. The cub reporter however, he would be pretty much living in this story. What do we know about this reporter?

Given that some posters regard an 18 minute delay in calling 112 suspicious, and regard a one-year delay in reporting information about a crime to be rock solid evidence....

...... maybe Quintavalle will be giving his iron-clad evidence in 2015!

 

[Kaosium]

Not to mention it would have been a huge risk.


Of course, but when you gotta go, you gotta go.




Yes, it has always been one of my favourite topic.
I still remember the first trial when Barbadori and Battistelli was heard. I was disappointed by the scarce news because I expected a simple proof of the timing of the camera as I had concluded that the only time the postals could have arrived into the yard before the carabinieri call was at around 12:40 (otherwise the various phone calls could not have been made unnoticed).

But nothing came out of it. Battistelli said that he looked at his watch, it was half past noon. That means that they had spent about half an hour with the pair before Luca and Marco arrived. If however they arrived after the carabinieri call it would have been only a few minutes. Huge difference which must have been remembered without any exact clocks.

A good point, if the postals had gotten there at 12:30 to 12:45 that begs the question what were they doing all that time? In reality they showed up, Amanda and Raffaele showed them the bathroom and the door, then one of Filomena's boys showed up followed quickly by Filomena and the other one, there wasn't much time before the door got broken down. However if it becomes on the order of a half hour, why were they sticking around so long and what were they doing while they did? Contaminating the scene? Ogling Amanda? Hanging around so they could score some weed?

 

[Diocletus]

and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

Um. Really?

See, if you're somewhere else--say watching a cartoon--when the person is killed then you're . . . wait for it . . . Innocent.

 

[AmyStrange]

The new forensics, pizza factoids

-

I have posted an array of reasons actually - not just one.

And there are more.

I already explained several times why it makes no sense to try deduce the defendants are innocents based on this: it makes no sense to try deduce TOD with any useful accuracy based stomach content, and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

-

yes it's way more logical to deduce this while someone is eating a pizza.

The new forensics, the science of pizza eating (and cooking)...

True Justice for Meredith is all about the pizza. Hail the pizza.

LE should be immediately advised to stop going to coffee and donut shops and instead spend all their time at pizza shops. That's where the real criminal's are.

How stupid can people get? That's a rhetorical question, because this forum thread has already proven how stupid that is,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

I have posted an array of reasons actually - not just one.

And there are more.

I already explained several times why it makes no sense to try deduce the defendants are innocents based on this: it makes no sense to try deduce TOD with any useful accuracy based stomach content, and makes no sense to deduce innocence even based on TOD in general.

Machiavelli is relying on a rule of thumb somebody pulled from their ass saying that time of death based on digestion is unreliable except in extraordinary circumstances. The part he fails to accept is that this case is exactly one of those extraordinary circumstances because the time of the last meal was well known, there is a minimum time of death established by witnesses and the CCTV footage at the outer limit of T_lag for a healthy young adult and the entire contents of that meal were still in the stomach as recognizable components.

This is a case of the prosecution and some posters intentionally donning blinders and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone still trying to judge this case. The facts have been laid out for all to see. Until the guilters open their eyes they will remain in perpetual darkness.


ETA: I see from our instruments that we have a couple of visitors aboard. Hello, whoever you are. I just want to make it totally clear that you are all welcome. We worked hard to get where we are today and we become champions of injustice victims simply to provide a service for a lot of deserving fellow humans.

 

[RandyN]

I think they said that it would be impossible to restrain somebody with a knife because that never happens. That's why knifepoint rapes are unknown in the history of humanity.

Also, Meredith, having been taught kung fu, could easily have kicked ass. She would have spun Guede around over her head and thrown him right out of the broken window (well, unless he bounced off the shutter).

Too bad she hadn't been taught not to date a dirtbag who hangs around with criminals. Now that would have been some good self defense.

u crack me up!!! I love the smell of dripping sarcasm in the morning!

 

[Kaosium]

-

Has anyone seen or have a link to the video Mignini showed in court showing how Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy attacked Meredith?

One question, how are they restraining Meredith? By the wrist or the elbows? If it's the wrist, that attack theory is bogus, because there were no wounds or bruising around or near Meredith's wrist, which means it's highly improbable that any force at all was used to restrain her at the wrist.

She would have had to have been restrained at the elbows and/ or the upper right forearm, because that's the only bruising that was found on her arms; and although not impossible or improbable, it's a little awkward to restrain someone by the elbows. If someone fights back, inevitably the wrist is where the restraining ends up. In my opinion,

d

-

Rudy was behind her, holding the knife to her throat. That can be divined by the uninterupted blood splatter which shows there was no one in front of her when the big cut was made. She also does have defensive wounds, just not as many as she wasn't in a fight, she was stabbed and and then the cuts to her hands probably happened as she instinctively put her hands there and encountered the knife.

The bunnies like to believe there was no defensive wounds and the cuts to her hands were from the 'taunting and torture period.' Perhaps they figure if they say it enough times it must be true.