whatever

Karma: −24

whatever 17 Dec 2009 16:11 UTC
−5 points
on: The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
Bold intellectuals!

Tell me how much YOU would or wouldn’t increase the chance of guilt of someone who: 1.Claims to have not realized that her roommate is dead because the roommate “locks her door all the time”. Apparently felt no need to talk to roommate about the burglary. What chances do you give that an innocent person would upon discovering her apartment has been broken into, fail to even TALK TO her roommate who is also in the house?

2.A person who “calls the police” AFTER the police have already arrived. Then, see above, proceeds to obstruct the police’s attempts to find the body.

Don’t tell me that’s standard behavior. Give me your reasoned arguments.

Or hide behind snarky down-rates.

whatever 16 Dec 2009 3:41 UTC
−12 points
on: The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
This page:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/

basically contains proof that establishes near 90% certainty that Amanda Knox was involved in the killing. The reason it isn’t discussed is because, really, it’s just damning. The timing of the police call, the ‘locked door’, the deliberate post-death removal of the bra. She and her psycho boyfriend were involved.

So I agree, drop the CSI nonsense, and focus on their behavior.

“a priori” anyone who failed to call the police about an apparent burglary until the police show up.… haven’t realized their room-mate has been dead for hours “because she locks her door all the time” …. failing to check on her or talk to her about the burglary through the door....

I’d say, for that case, no other factors, “a priori” guilt is +90%.

Oh, and pretend intellectuals, the man she accused FIRED HER.

ALSO: Despite the “cuff them now” evidence available, the police noticed that Amanda was a pretty girl, so they still tossed the black club-owner in jail, until it became obvious he couldn’t have done it.

They did everything in their power to let her walk.

whatever 15 Dec 2009 16:50 UTC
−7 points
on: The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom
komponisto is wise to ignore the CSI nonsense. The desire of the public to have a CSI show play out in front of them has corrupted a simple case of stone-cold killers caught by ill-fate.

His use of Occam’s Razor is also correct.

What he misses, is to look at what really tells who is guilty, and who isn’t.

And that is the actual actions and words of the people involved.. That is how real murders are solved in the real world. With a little bit of basic logic thrown in.

And here is the guilt of stone cold killers only caught by the most improbable ill-luck:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/

They are recorded in the log and filmed on the car park camera as arriving at 12:35pm. They were not in possession of Filomena’s phone, which remained at the police station, nor of Meredith’s which at this time was being taken from Via Sperandio to the police station for examination as part of the bomb hoax enquiry.

Judge Micheli said that some confusion was created by the evidence of Luca Altieri (Filomena’s boyfriend) who said he saw two mobile phones on the table at the cottage. But, Micheli said, these two phones either belonged to the others who arrived, the postal police themselves or Amanda and Raffaele. They were NOT the phones of Filomena or Meredith.

On their arrival at the cottage, the agents of the postal police found Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox standing outside the front door.

The two seemed surprised to see them (the postal police had come to talk to Filomena about a bomb hoax which potentially involved her phone, plus they had recently been informed of the discovery of second phone in the same garden), but then they explained they had discovered suspicious circumstances inside the cottage.

Raffaele said he had already phoned the police and they were awaiting their arrival in connection with that. Elsewhere in his report Micheli points out that Raffaele did, in fact, make a call to his sister at 12:50pm, followed by two calls to “112” reporting a possible burglary at 12:51 and 12:54pm, 15 minutes after the arrival of the postal agents.

Judge Micheli said the postal police were shown into the cottage by Raffaele and Amanda. They pointed out the traces of blood around the apartment, the state of the toilet and the disturbance to Filomena’s room. They said they didn’t think anything had been taken. They pointed out that Meredith’s door appeared to be locked, Raffaele said he had tried to open it, but Amanda said Meredith used to lock the door even when she was going to the bathroom to shower.

Had “bomb-threat” lady not gotten the police interested in the house, the killers could have finished sterilizing things. An authentic whack job, acting on a prank call, is what caught these killers. And really, that’s the only way they are ever caught.

She did it. Her boyfriend did it. The black is terrified of them.

The real question is, has she killed before?

Also, can you ‘stone cold rationalists’ find the truly damning part of the killers little fairy-tale?