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

Status
Not open for further replies.
kcoh said:
I ask because the DailyMail is reporting on something she wrote about Sollecito. I now realize that DailyMail commenters are profoundly stupid.
Click to expand...

It has been claimed that, in this most recent round of closing arguments and in interviews since the latest guilty verdict, Raffaele and his defense attorneys have finally betrayed their resentment and started to put distance between him and me legally and personally.

This is not the case. Actually, Attorney Bongiorno’s closing arguments and Raffaele’s latest statements pinpoint and attack a fundamental weakness in the prosecution’s case against both Raffaele and me that has been ignored for far too long: Raffaele is not a slave.
 
Grinder said:
It from a novel, a true crime novel, they just make stuff up.
Click to expand...

If I was to write up a crime novel, I would certainly give some kind of better motivation and create evidence that just cannot be explained away. Just simply appears to be contamination or possibly planting by the police.
 
Last edited:
If you read Filomena's account, she is the one that instigates breaking down Meredith's door. When she found out that Meredith was without her phones she says they have to look in the room. She first asks the postal police who are the only authorities present and they refuse. So she takes charge, states that she is the one responsible for the house, that it is her decision and has one of the boys break down the door. This all takes place quite quickly and the conversation was in fast paced italian that Amanda could not follow. Amanda was simply left behind in the kitchen when the others went to break down that door with the two large boys taking the assault position, Filomena commanding and the two postal police ordered to follow as witnesses.

How is it that the guilters claim that being further from the door is a sign of guilt? Why is Filomena who controlled the discovery not viewed as guilty? Did she come home that night and catch Meredith and Rudy eating her leftover pizza? Does she not command men to follow her orders?

I don't believe any of this has any barring on guilt. If anyone believes otherwise it is their burden to show scientifically valid studies from before this case that show the indicators can be clearly distinguished. Without that, all we have is the guilters fitting the events to their own predisposed belief of guilt.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Thank goodness none of the evidence has to make any sense: Curatolo proves they lied about staying at home and we can ignore the rest of his evidence altogether (source: Mach - which makes me wonder why Galati stressed his 'extraordinary accuracy' and the ISC thought it profoundly significant that Toto was able to pick out the defendants on the two occasions - two! - he came to court) especially because, in Italian law, it is the totality of the logicity of the evidence that matters, not individual scraps of it. This holds true for all the evidence in the case btw. Thus, it is an answer to the overall unreliability and incredibility of Nara's scream evidence that it does not matter (as it turns out) what time (or what day? :jaw-dropp) she heard the scream. The main thing is there was a scream. Fact. And this scream was that of the victim. Fact. And Amanda, independently of any suggestions that may have been made to her, knew about the scream, a fact we derive from her unusable statement, which is only unusable on Tuesday and Thursday. Fact. All else is fungible, as Charlie explained. Likewise, no matter how many stupid, irritating, pettifogging, irrelevant and futile criticisms may be made of Stefanoni's work she did find blood on the blade - fact - and she did find Raf's profile on the clasp. Also fact. And so on.

There! A preview of Nencini.
Click to expand...

I think you missed it by just a **** hair. For example Stefanoni found something that could be compatible with blood on the blade and alleles that are compatible with Raf's DNA therefore we have a match because two compatibles equals a match.
 
Desert Fox said:
If I was to write up a crime novel, I would certainly give some kind of better motivation and create evidence that just cannot be explained away. Just simply appears to be contamination or possibly planting by the police.
Click to expand...

True Crime Novel. :p
 
lane99 said:
And from the other side, expect Knox groupies to declare him to be- by virtue of the good and sufficient reason that he agrees with their opinion- clearly someone with a sterling pedigree and unassailable reputation.
.
.
Click to expand...

The equivalency of response would be to make an ad hominem remark about "groupies" and then post some expert opinion from the guilt side of the fence.

I guess one out of two ain't bad.

It turns out that the guilt side only has ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
lane99 said:
And from the other side, expect Knox groupies to declare him to be- by virtue of the good and sufficient reason that he agrees with their opinion- clearly someone with a sterling pedigree and unassailable reputation.
.
.
Click to expand...

Presumably you are now secure that you have undermined John Douglas' expertise and reliability. You have not.
 
lane99 said:
And from the other side, expect Knox groupies to declare him to be- by virtue of the good and sufficient reason that he agrees with their opinion- clearly someone with a sterling pedigree and unassailable reputation.
.
.
Click to expand...


If you must use term "Knox groupies" in your posts, please be kind enough to make it "Sollecito/Knox groupies", if you could.
 
Are there any respected forensic experts internationally who argue that the physical evidence does point towards guilt of Amanda and Raffaele?
 
Desert Fox said:
Are there any respected forensic experts internationally who argue that the physical evidence does point towards guilt of Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...

Yes there are. There is a forensic scientist in Rome, Dr. Patricia Stefanoni.

There is also a lady in London who is often quoted as a DNA expert on some pro-guilt blogs. I don't remember her name but London John might have her number. She works as a receptionist at a hair salon.
 
Last edited:
lane99 said:
And from the other side, expect Knox groupies to declare him to be- by virtue of the good and sufficient reason that he agrees with their opinion- clearly someone with a sterling pedigree and unassailable reputation.
.
.
Click to expand...

I hate to be a pain about this, lane99, but I am wondering what *KNOWN* expert you would cite from the guilt side?

At least you have the opportunity to test the veracity of the claims made by, "Steven A. Drizin is a Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the former Legal Director of the Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions. He writes frequently on juvenile justice, wrongful convictions, and false confessions."

Those sound like really flakey claims.... probably go his Ph.D. from a mail order company!

Andrea Vogt, soon to be spreading her lies to all of England on Channel 3, trashes an Idaho Innocent Project scientist.... because that particular scientist put his name to his claims and offered himself up to peer review. So far no "peer" has objected to his work, just an obscure journalist from Bologna named Andrea Vogt.

And who does Andrea Vogt cite as an expert on all this? Edward McCall and his fake Wiki.

Why do I call it a fake wiki? For starters, does anyone know who Edward McCall is? Does he put himself out there for peer review, the kind of review Andrea herself is able to attempt against the Idaho Innocence project?

No. So just to even up the playing field a bit... can you post a curriculum vitae about Edward McCall, the way nearly all the innocence experts have? I thought not.

Or is ad hominem the only arrow in your quiver?
 
Last edited:
Are there any respected forensic experts internationally who argue that the physical evidence does point towards guilt of Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...
Strozzi said:
Yes there are. There is a forensic scientist in Rome, Dr. Patricia Stefanoni. :p
Click to expand...

So far the only people to side with Stefanoni are the Italian courts, save for Hellmann's court.

If Italy's courts are bound by "precedent" all Italians are now at risk.
 
Bill Williams said:
I hate to be a pain about this, lane99, but I am wondering what *KNOWN* expert you would cite from the guilt side?

At least you have the opportunity to test the veracity of the claims made by, "Steven A. Drizin is a Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the former Legal Director of the Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions. He writes frequently on juvenile justice, wrongful convictions, and false confessions."

Those sound like really flakey claims.... probably go his Ph.D. from a mail order company!

Andrea Vogt, soon to be spreading her lies to all of England on Channel 3, trashes an Idaho Innocent Project scientist.... because that particular scientist put his name to his claims and offered himself up to peer review. So far no "peer" has objected to his work, just an obscure journalist from Bologna named Andrea Vogt.

And who does Andrea Vogt cite as an expert on all this? Edward McCall and his fake Wiki.

Why do I call it a fake wiki? For starters, does anyone know who Edward McCall is? Does he put himself out there for peer review, the kind of review Andrea herself is able to attempt against the Idaho Innocence project?

No. So just to even up the playing field a bit... can you post a curriculum vitae about Edward McCall, the way nearly all the innocence experts have? I thought not.

Or is ad hominem the only arrow in your quiver?
Click to expand...

This question of expertise on the two sides has actually been addressed in the academic realm. Dr Lieve Gies, senior lecturer at the dept. of media and communication at Leicester university, has a paper called 'Purity and contamination in online popular forensics'. It concerns this case and discusses the results of interviews with various unnamed individuals on either side, among other things.

 
anglolawyer said:
[qimg]http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/cwismayer/ScreenShot2014-02-13at155022_zps2b378d2f.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


That snippet mentions the translators on the pro-guilt sites. Until after the Massei verdict, where there any other sites? From looking at the early online history, there were a few true crime sites following this case in real time. I believe it was the original PMF that spun off from one of these crime watching sites. Italians who know English and had taken an interest in this case would naturally migrate to that site being the only game in town.

This thread started as a result of the verdict. The primary innocence forum IIP spun off from here as a direct result of this thread being closed and placed on extended moderated status. A number of former PMF translators now contribute to the IIP (now IA) and independent translation efforts. The pro-guilt sites have lost their monopoly on translators.
 
yimyammer said:
Is this true about Rudy? I've never heard or seen this, is there a source where I can see what you describe?
Click to expand...

I was not referring to Rudy. I was describing a hypothetical scenario to show lying should not be necessary if the police have a strong case.
 
Dan O. said:
That snippet mentions the translators on the pro-guilt sites. Until after the Massei verdict, where there any other sites? From looking at the early online history, there were a few true crime sites following this case in real time. I believe it was the original PMF that spun off from one of these crime watching sites. Italians who know English and had taken an interest in this case would naturally migrate to that site being the only game in town.

This thread started as a result of the verdict. The primary innocence forum IIP spun off from here as a direct result of this thread being closed and placed on extended moderated status. A number of former PMF translators now contribute to the IIP (now IA) and independent translation efforts. The pro-guilt sites have lost their monopoly on translators.
Click to expand...
While the efforts of all translators are appreciated, the quality of all translations is not the same. The translations of Hellman-Z and Conti-Vechiotti are of excellent quality. Those of Massei (theirs) and the ISC (ours) not so much. I really wish there were more translations. Micheli would be good and all the hearing transcripts, if that's not asking too much :) Given especially the impenetrable jargon and gibberish posturing as legal reasoning, I take my hat off to all who have ventured into these activities without hope of reward.
 
anglolawyer said:
While the efforts of all translators are appreciated, the quality of all translations is not the same. The translations of Hellman-Z and Conti-Vechiotti are of excellent quality. Those of Massei (theirs) and the ISC (ours) not so much. I really wish there were more translations. Micheli would be good and all the hearing transcripts, if that's not asking too much :) Given especially the impenetrable jargon and gibberish posturing as legal reasoning, I take my hat off to all who have ventured into these activities without hope of reward.
Click to expand...

Matteini. A clean copy of the Matteini hearing where all this started, showing how wrong about everything the police and prosecution was when they arrested Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom