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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
You think that's a long time to spend in the shower and getting dressed?

You should meet my wife.
Click to expand...

If it were a bath I can be in for hours, a shower maybe half an hour, so I could imagine 40 mins, 30 mins getting ready for shower and dressing after, looking around the flat 10 mins. that would be 80 mins . So an hour and a half may be about right and not "hours later"? Don't want to finess the point into innocence, but want to be fair to the truth.
 
toto said:
If it were a bath I can be in for hours, a shower maybe half an hour, so I could imagine 40 mins, 30 mins getting ready for shower and dressing after, looking around the flat 10 mins. that would be 80 mins . So an hour and a half may be about right and not "hours later"? Don't want to finess the point into innocence, but want to be fair to the truth.
Click to expand...

Of course if she got to the cottage at 11.00 as Massei indicated then that would cut down the time to be there.
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, I am just a nobody posting on an internet forum but I can tell you, not with hindsight, but from knowledge acquired over more than 30 years, if she were my client this would have been nailed down long ago. I don't mean I would have coached her but just that I would have questioned her so closely that she could not still be throwing out improvised guesswork or approximations of what happened.

I got the strong feeling reading Raf's book of a lack of firm guidance and advice from his lawyers at the crucial early stages. There is nothing in her book to suggest she spent adequate time with her lawyers. These things take hours. Many, many hours. What the **** has been going on?
Click to expand...

I think she is swamped. She has a busy life. Take a look at the brainless crap they are pitching at her on her blog. What about the bank deposit she made on the weekend of the murder? What about the lamp? What about her phone calls?

None of this relates to the murder much less incriminates her, so she has never bothered to examine her records carefully and reconstruct the details as thoroughly as possible. She is working from the premise that it doesn't matter. They are working from the premise that if there is any detail she can't completely explain, or anything she doesn't remember with perfect accuracy, it is proof she is a murderer. They have nothing else to do with their lives. She does.
 
Diocletus said:
This is excellent, Mary. Even if Anglo does think that this guy is a little nuts.

BTW, do you have a source for this? I would like to read more of what this Constitutional law genius has to say....
Click to expand...

That's all he wrote, Diocletus. No link because it was personal correspondence.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Charlie Wilkes,

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes
It's unfortunate that Italians are being singled out this way, because the same thing happens all over the world. I could cite countless examples.
Click to expand...

My position is roughly halfway between yours and Mary_H's. On the one hand there are terrible miscarriages of justice all over the world, and some of the them involve the misuse of forensics, willfully, fecklessly, or through simple ignorance. On the other hand some countries have shown a willingness to engage in some self-reflection. I would single out Australia in its handling of DNA contamination in the Jaidyn Leskie and Farah Jama cases for special note. Italy should do what Australia did in the latter instance, which is to appoint a commission headed by a prominent jurist (Frank Vincent) to figure out what went wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris, but Charlie and I are not at opposite ends of a spectrum on this. He just worded his post in such a way that made it look as if he were disagreeing with my approach. Obviously he doesn't, since he has used the same approach scores of times, as has most everyone on this thread. I think JREF2010 helped clarify things when he wrote:

Its a case happening in Italy is all. Sure bad stuff happens everywhere, unfairness, and the face-saving happens in humans in general, but thats another thread isnt it?
Click to expand...


When we talk about "the Italians" in this thread, we all understand it to be code for the particular people in Italy who have brought themselves to our attention through their involvement in this case.
 
Mary_H said:
Thanks, Chris, but Charlie and I are not at opposite ends of a spectrum on this. He just worded his post in such a way that made it look as if he were disagreeing with my approach. Obviously he doesn't, since he has used the same approach scores of times, as has most everyone on this thread. I think JREF2010 helped clarify things when he wrote:




When we talk about "the Italians" in this thread, we all understand it to be code for the particular people in Italy who have brought themselves to our attention through their involvement in this case.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I make two claims that I believe are true and can exist side-by-side without contradiction. The first is that judicial miscarriages occur throughout the world, and the authorities in every jurisdiction tend to dig in their heels and refuse to admit a mistake. The second is that the handling of this particular case very much affects the credibility of the Italian justice system, and criticism is entirely warranted.
 
anglolawyer said:
I got the strong feeling reading Raf's book of a lack of firm guidance and advice from his lawyers at the crucial early stages. There is nothing in her book to suggest she spent adequate time with her lawyers. These things take hours. Many, many hours. What the **** has been going on?
Click to expand...

I noticed that as well. . . .It seems like she was shipped to the court each day and maybe had a few minutes here and there to speak to her lawyers.
 
Grinder said:
I know I'll be pilloried, but how can she be this über smart woman and not know these details. I guess she's really smart but just still trusts authority figures like her attorneys. Not so smart to do that.

I would suggest Charlie that you help Amanda learn the case and have her use her position to acquire more information useful to make her case.

It appeared to me that she had someone help write that last post.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I did call this to her attention. But I try to be sparing with my advice and comments. Look at the big picture here. She probably gets 100 emails a day that she really ought to look at if not read carefully. She has friends, family, a boyfriend... they all want her time. She has to set priorities, and this kind of trivia is not going to be at the top of the list.
 
Criminal defence work, London, 1980s. You see the client as soon as they are available for interview, whether in prison or at the office (if bailed) and you take a statement. That is, you question them in detail, write down what they say, type it up, send it to them and get them to agree or revise it. Then you do it again when you see the prosecution statements. Detailed. Boring. Necessary. Whether in the 80s or now. Did this happen here? I don't believe it. I have read their books and I'm afraid I don't see it.

PGPs should not get excited. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
As a matter of fact, I did call this to her attention. But I try to be sparing with my advice and comments. Look at the big picture here. She probably gets 100 emails a day that she really ought to look at if not read carefully. She has friends, family, a boyfriend... they all want her time. She has to set priorities, and this kind of trivia is not going to be at the top of the list.
Click to expand...

It is not trivia.
 
Bill Williams said:
This is not an answer to CW. Comodi has the records available to her, Amanda is working from memory about something that had happened 18 months previous. "What time did you call your mother?"

And she's called a liar because she does not remember. But as CW points out, Comodi is the one lying when she says "noon" when she knows it is 12:47 pm.

People looking to solve crimes pay attention to this sort of detail. Others simply want to spread confusion.
Click to expand...



Perhaps platonov can explain why he continues to repeat over and over and over this meme of Retrocausality.

Continuation_-_Discussion_of_the_Amanda_Knox_case
[Post 15357]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 03:39 PM
Where are you getting this knife talk - Also there is retrocausality in your theory again.
--
[Post 16040]
Author : platonov
Date : 18th November 2010 06:37 PM
Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid - leaving aside the fact that cops in a murder inquiry are often skeptical types (professional hazard) less inclined than some here to give suspects [even 'hotties'] the benefit of the doubt when they change their stories.
----
[Post 16962]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th November 2010 02:41 PM
So the 9.05 ToD , Wiki links to other cases, the bathroom hokey-cokey, Wiki links to other cases, rambling tales of false rape claims, Wiki links to other cases, she's not the type, Wiki links to other cases, statistical analysis showing more evidence = weaker case, Wiki links to other cases, it was the Sun wot' done it, Wiki links to other cases, Comodi's lies & retrocausality, Wiki links to other cases, Its all a hoax, Wiki links to other cases, Its all a conspiracy, Wiki links to other cases, It sounds to me like a false internalized confession, Wiki links to other cases, Leave Amanda alone, Wiki links to other cases, I don't like those people on PMF, Wiki links to other cases etc etc etc
----
[Post 17183]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th November 2010 09:58 AM
See how others deal with the their 'mistakes' [the p= 0.213 issue, retrocausality, Hutzlike statements , whatever - the list is endless] ....... simply ignore them & move on.
​
Continuation_Part_2_-_Discussion_of_the_Amanda_Knox_case
[Post 6720]
Author : platonov
Date : 13th April 2011 09:57 PM
I dish it out, I can take it. I plan on giving Platonov some grief over 'retrocausality' from time to time when the opportunity presents itself. :cool:
But mention of retrocausality is frowned upon in that thread - its upsetting to some posters ;)
--
[Post 9797]
Author : platonov
Date : 25th May 2011 09:52 PM
Re my argument/retrocausality - its not postdiction unlike 'the temple/pumpkin being destroyed' in the 'Jesus/Santa' ? story if you make the prediction beforehand ;)
--
[Post 11811]
Author : platonov
Date : 12th June 2011 08:01 PM
Cezanne predated Dempsey surely - are you implying she was his inspiration. Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid.
--
[Post 11944]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th June 2011 06:24 PM
Are you sure she didn't - leaving aside all the retrocausality arguments on this forum :)
--
[Post 12019]
Author : platonov
Date : 17th June 2011 01:32 PM
Pity, as that had some very exciting features - conspiracy, mind wipes, retrocausality other stuff.
--
[Post 12035]
Author : platonov
Date : 21st October 2010 11:43 AM
I wouldn't necessarily dispute the distinction but given the retrocausality claims & the broken window perplexity noted earlier, well ........???
--
[Post 12100]
Author : platonov
Date : 21st October 2010 06:46 PM
B Indeed ; You have already explained this due to 'the lies of Comodi ' - via retrocausality. Has your position also moved on this & To where ; Katodys police 'mind wipe' ?
--
[Post 15185]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 02:58 AM
Good theory but it falls foul the retrocausality rule that came up earlier.
--
[Post 15260]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 11:06 AM
How is retrocausality not 'beyond stupid' - had RS mentioned the Knife before the cops announced it had been tested & the result it would have been worse for him - in fact fatal.
--
[Post 15344]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 03:18 PM
In my honest opinion its less reasonable than the earlier retrocausality idea.
--
[Post 15357]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 03:39 PM
Where are you getting this knife talk - Also there is retrocausality in your theory again.
--
[Post 16040]
Author : platonov
Date : 18th November 2010 06:37 PM
Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid
--
[Post 16962]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th November 2010 02:41 PM
Comodi's lies & retrocausality,
--
[Post 17183]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th November 2010 09:58 AM
See how others deal with the their 'mistakes' [the p= 0.213 issue, retrocausality, Hutzlike statements , whatever - the list is endless]
I could give a simple example - a poster on this thread Dan O has claimed (in the past ~3 days) that a Q posed by a prosecutor* in 2009 somehow via retrocausality caused perplexity back in 2007. Despite repeated prompting he has failed to justify or withdraw this claim or even respond.
​
The_Massei-Mignini_Conspiracy_Theory
[Post 155]
Author : platonov
Date : 23rd October 2010 08:34 PM
And the retrocausality / mind wipe I mentioned earlier is a strong contender.
--
[Post 167]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th October 2010 01:04 AM
But surely claims of retrocausality (bad skepticism) and requests to defend this claim (good skepticism)would fall under the purview of this thread.:)
--
[Post 268]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th October 2010 10:53 AM
Any chance on a response on the retrocausality claims.
--
[Post 343]
Author : platonov
Date : 25th October 2010 08:17 AM
No one on either thread brought up retrocausality besides you. No one made claims that imply retrocausality. Therefore, it does not fall under the purview of the present thread.
--
[Post 451]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 07:58 AM
To suggest that this memory failure has anything to do with how the Q about the 12.47 call was later posed by a prosecutor in court in 2009 is to invoke retrocausality.
--
[Post 464]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 12:44 PM
In any case you should have enlightened Dan O, Katody Matrass & others and we wouldn't now be waiting for a response from them on retrocausality and mind wipe conspiracies.
--
[Post 472]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 02:39 PM
But a friendly piece of advice, if you want to use that argument [ assuming all the non-'innocentsi' haven't been LOL'd away] ..........it appears to fall foul of the retrocausality problem.:cool:
--
[Post 376]
Author : platonov
Date : 4th March 2011 04:18 PM
Are you sure you have gone far enough back with this retrocausality?
Will you guys please stop mentioning time travel/retrocausality - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it :blush: - its upsetting to some posters and in danger of becoming a thread meme like cartwheels or 'the death of Simon the Zealot'.
--
[Post 377]
Author : platonov
Date : 4th March 2011 05:25 PM
I try to ignore really stupid arguments that appear to be nothing but trolling for a fight. Nobody claimed retrocausality. It's all in your own inability to read. Now I shall contemplate if this behavior needs to be reported.
--
[Post 496]
Author : platonov
Date : 28th March 2011 06:09 PM
Danial Williams confessed first (http://www.norfolkfour.com/images/uploads/pdf_files/Chronology.pdf). If you are going to claim that Joseph Dick's confession is responsible for this, P platonov will be all over you about retrocausality.
I thought it had been agreed to drop references to retrocausality and time travel. If the Norwegian blue turns out to be a cat don't lay it on me, man ;)
--
[Post 634]
Author : platonov
Date : 3rd April 2011 06:39 AM
In any case you are in no position to throw stones having brought up the issue of retrocausality again in the full knowledge that its upsetting to Dan O :)
--
[Post 704]
Author : platonov
Date : 4th April 2011 04:49 PM
But that would mean Plat would have to commit to an opinion, and last time he did that he fell into the retrocausality trap when he suggested super-psychic Amanda made up the 'bathmat shuffle' to explain the luminol footprints which were in fact discovered the day afterwards.
--
[Post 722]
Author : platonov
Date : 5th April 2011 03:34 PM
It not retrocausality, its reality, as it was on Nov 8 2007. The reality today (post-trial) for the lawyers is even more stark.
--
[Post 929]
Author : platonov
Date : 15th April 2011 06:16 PM
This is not retrocausality - this is time travel into the future and back again to frame AK & RS.
--
[Post 939]
Author : platonov
Date : 15th April 2011 07:10 PM
You have to place your bets before the window closes - otherwise retrocausality :)
​
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
As a matter of fact, I did call this to her attention. But I try to be sparing with my advice and comments. Look at the big picture here. She probably gets 100 emails a day that she really ought to look at if not read carefully. She has friends, family, a boyfriend... they all want her time. She has to set priorities, and this kind of trivia is not going to be at the top of the list.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that someone who knows Amanda Knox also writes and reads on this forum and that therefore she possibly reads it from time to time.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I think she is swamped. She has a busy life. Take a look at the brainless crap they are pitching at her on her blog. What about the bank deposit she made on the weekend of the murder? What about the lamp? What about her phone calls?

None of this relates to the murder much less incriminates her, so she has never bothered to examine her records carefully and reconstruct the details as thoroughly as possible. She is working from the premise that it doesn't matter. They are working from the premise that if there is any detail she can't completely explain, or anything she doesn't remember with perfect accuracy, it is proof she is a murderer. They have nothing else to do with their lives. She does.
Click to expand...

She has lawyers to do this for her. And they should have done it long ago. It does matter. I am not talking about the guilters. They are irrelevant. What on Earth has been going on?

ETA why was she so obviously taken aback by the Nencini verdict? What had she been led to expect and on what basis?
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
As far as I can tell, she is wrong about the phone call, which was indeed made at 12:47. She got this wrong in her book, and again in a recent comment on her blog.

This all started during her testimony in 2009. Comodi asked her why she called her mother at noon, before anything had happened. At that time Amanda was working from memory. Comodi was working from phone records, or she wouldn't have known about the call in the first place, so who is the goddamn liar?
...
Click to expand...

Does that say something about the quality of her representation, both at the trial and subsequently? Shouldn't her lawyers have gone over every possible question with her so there couldn't be any surprises at the trial and she would be able to say "No, that's not correct" with confidence? And for her book, considering how any flaw might be used against her, shouldn't every line have been closely fact-checked against available records? it just sounds so often that Amanda has gotten bad advice, or at least ignored good advice.
 
anglolawyer said:
He says one thing, she says another. And no one should assume they know what I think about that.
Click to expand...

Two people recalling details somewhat differently. Very common. Especially if one was asleep during part of the time and the other doesn't wear a watch or pay close attention to clock time on a a casual Saturday where she doesn't have to be anywhere at a specific time. (it's not like she was clock-watching to get to class by a specific time.)
 
anglolawyer said:
She has lawyers to do this for her. And they should have done it long ago. It does matter. I am not talking about the guilters. They are irrelevant. What on Earth has been going on?

ETA why was she so obviously taken aback by the Nencini verdict? What had she been led to expect and on what basis?
Click to expand...
Yummi on TJMK seems to be saying he is certain the new Italian government will not block the justice department in seeking her extradition. Hopefully he will return here and elucidate further about timelines and so on. At least forewarning can be helpful. It is pretty sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom