Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Yes, a sleazy hanger-on whom Amanda arranged to let in to give Mez some bother.

This "sleazy hanger on" told a different story. He said Mez let him in, because he and Mez had a date.

 

[Bill Williams]

As has been pointed out, most no post here was ever important. There is no reason for you to be here at all because of March 2015.

This particular item is part of a discussion involving a time you can only have hearsay knowledge on as others that started following late. An early statement made by Amanda's supporters included one that she had never even met Rudi.

I contended that these types of statements ultimately hurt her public image and may have made some reporters more skeptical of statements by her side, read Barbie, Vogt, Pisa et al.

With all due respect, you have not connected any of those dots. You also have a somewhat strange definition of "hearsay". We're all in that boat, dude!

I do note you personalize this, though, claiming some sort of implied superiority. My question was the relevance of this silly semantic issue, post-March 2015. Still, I guess playing the man often works as a strategy in rhetorical struggles!

 

[Ken Dine]

This is the price we pay for a delayed motivations report.

Which, I guess, all depends on your definition of 'delayed'. Or of '.'.

Let's don't forget the most famous one, Bill Clinton's explanation for what the meaning of "Is" is:

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...98/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

 

[Grinder]

Ken the information from Massei was from the testimonies of the boys' downstairs. He didn't interpret it for me.

Here's a bit from Amanda's book describing when she met Guede late at night after she and Meredith had been out with the boys from downstairs.

When we had rejoined the guys they introduced us to a friend who, I'd later learn moved to Italy as a kid, from the Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

As has been pointed out, most no post here was ever important. There is no reason for you to be here at all because of March 2015.

This particular item is part of a discussion involving a time you can only have hearsay knowledge on as others that started following late. An early statement made by Amanda's supporters included one that she had never even met Rudi.

I contended that these types of statements ultimately hurt her public image and may have made some reporters more skeptical of statements by her side, read Barbie, Vogt, Pisa et al.

There are aspects to the early case that are very obviously important points to raise, for you.

Truly, dude, they are noted. But honestly, they are one-off positions you hold. Does that make them less true because they are opinions unique to yourself? Of course not. You very well, could be the only true voice trying to be heard above the cacophony of ignorance which surrounds you. (I do not mean that pejoratively, either. There are many examples of lone-voices which have proven, in the end, correct.)

But, c'mon, this issue of whether or not Rudy and Knox "met" in any meaningful sense of the word is plain silly. To say that the phrase, "Rudy and Amanda never met," somehow fueled the Nadeau's and Pisa's of the world, seriously dude those people were not going to print anything other than juiced-up accounts anyway, and they were going to pounce on any misstep regardless.

It's a counsel of perfection, somewhat akin to blaming the victim. Almost, but not quite. It's the equivalent to the courtroom journalists eagerly waiting for Amanda to be swept into the courtroom, and they were going to parse to the nth-degree her smile to her family..... they sexyed that up, then blamed Amanda for smiling.

If it's not too much trouble, instead of shooting the messenger for asking a relevant question, "What does any of this have to do with post March 2015?", please connect the dots. The bit about Nadeau, Pisa, and Vogt is a good start, but rather unconvincing. (Like Ali saying to Foreman at the beginning of the 8th, "Say, George, is that all you got?")

I bid you, please look down in pity on the humble, meek and disadvantaged hearsayers like me, and give a go at connecting the dots that so far you're a one-off opinionator on. You cannot talk like any idiot would know this stuff, because most of us-idiots don't know why you're making this what you're making of this.

 

[Grinder]

Bill or should I call you R Mr. Dude?

Early on many statements from the FOA came out. Some proved to be false, one of which I provided. While I'm not going name others that agree with me, long deleted comment sections contained them.

What I find hysterical is that when a point is proven such as the fact that Amanda met Rudi, which doesn't mean she conspired with him, that people actually argue they had never met and go off the deep end with comparisons.

You didn't hear the "never met" on cable TV and elsewhere and the subsequent "turns out they did know each other" (whether know is correct or not). When one statement turns out to be false coming from a source it weakens other contentions.

Since Amanda was locked up and had little ability to participate in her defense I'm certainly not blaming the victim any more than blaming a convicted indigent that had a lawyer that fell asleep during the trial.

The idea that since she was found not guilty over 7 years after the event and served 4 years that discussing how it happened is not of interest is your point of view, but only regarding the defenses side. You are happy to discuss every aspect of the prosecution.

I think much can be learned from history and at this time it proper to do revisionist work. This would be in the traditional sense of the word.

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.

Not the recent misuse having the meaning of rewriting history by changing the facts.

How Revisionist History Works
by Cristen Conger

Not long ago, American schoolchildren learned a quaint ta*le in history class about the nation's first president. It had to do with a precocious George Washingto*n cutting down a cherry tree against his parents' wishes. When confronted by his angry father, Washington had to decide whether to lie and avoid punishment or own up to the offense. As the tale goes, young Washington replied that he couldn't tell a lie and confessed to axing the tree.
Today, we know that Washington did no such thing. When archaeologists discovered the site of Washington's boyhood home in 2008, they found no cherry trees on the landscape. The story was fabricated by early Washington biographer Mason Locke Weems to bolster the first president's heroic image. Omitting the cherry tree story from curriculum had no significant impact on our collective memory of George Washington and made him no less important to shaping the early history of the United States.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill or should I call you R Mr. Dude?

You're the only person in the universe (other than me) who cares. "Mister" is an honourific. The other is a "style", and is always proceeded by a "The", please note the capitalization of "The". One does not replace the other. They are often both used in sequence!

When it comes to "dude", though.... get with the program. No need for styles, honourifics, ranks...... it's just you and me, dude, shooting the breeze....

Early on many statements from the FOA came out. Some proved to be false, one of which I provided. While I'm not going name others that agree with me, long deleted comment sections contained them.

It depends on your definition of "false". Truly I mean that. We all can read, Grinder, and some of us have read more than our fair share of early material. What may be seen as false to some, might be seen as evolving information as it became available.

But fair enough. You are now beginning to connect dots. I also appreciate the need not to involve others. Fair enough.

What I find hysterical is that when a point is proven such as the fact that Amanda met Rudi, which doesn't mean she conspired with him, that people actually argue they had never met and go off the deep end with comparisons.

If you can point out these deep ends, that would be a kindness. So far what I see is someone trying to say that the "false" statement that "they never met", was misguided as it only gave fodder to substandard journalists already predisposed to sully the record.

Both you and they need a short course in semantics, IMNSHO. Ok, their sin was worse than yours, they didn't even bother entering the semantic debate - what they were after was that day's pay for journalistic piece work. (As described by the NYT Tim Egan when he finally went to Perugia and found out the calibre of his colleagues on the scene.)

You didn't hear the "never met" on cable TV and elsewhere and the subsequent "turns out they did know each other" (whether know is correct or not). When one statement turns out to be false coming from a source it weakens other contentions.

All I can do is repeat the point. Much like the PLE contenting that Amanda was "always changing her stories", when she in fact was not "always" changing her stories, so much of this is overblown rhetoric - in the media's case, to attract eyeballs to their Cable service.

And then, 7 years later, the "blame" (however defined) is pinned back on those who were doing the best they could with the info they had, somewhat unaware that every syllable would be parsed.

What I wish is that it would be clearer what this "alternate agenda" from the origin was. What would this "alternate agenda" have done? Would it have been any more effective? I think not. That sounds like internal Seattle rivalries, rather than a genuine attempt to jump in, get one's hands dirty, and help.

Since Amanda was locked up and had little ability to participate in her defense I'm certainly not blaming the victim any more than blaming a convicted indigent that had a lawyer that fell asleep during the trial.

The idea that since she was found not guilty over 7 years after the event and served 4 years that discussing how it happened is not of interest is your point of view, but only regarding the defenses side. You are happy to discuss every aspect of the prosecution.

I am happy to discuss the defence side, ONCE the prosecution has made a case. Otherwise out of either laziness or because of best legal practise, the defence needs to say nothing until the prosecution actually presents something! I mean, so far all we have is a dispute over what "the defence" meant by "they never met". Surely the far, far, far, far, far, far more relevant issue is the prosecution first proving they DID meet, and further they DID meet with conspiracy to murder in mind - or at least recklessness which can be held accountible as well.

Why even slag the FOA or the defence until the prosecution has actually demonstrated something?

Absent this, it looks to be some internal Seattle rivalry.

I think much can be learned from history and at this time it proper to do revisionist work. This would be in the traditional sense of the word.

I agree 100% with this view. Still, it remains unanswered, depending on your definition of "unanswered". Why is it relevant post March-2015 that we nail down the meaning of "met" in relation to Rudy and Knox?

They obviously never met - in the only meaning of the term relevant to the forensics. Dude, the early battle for PR control in Seattle is over!!!!!

 

[Bill Williams]

The idea that since she was found not guilty over 7 years after the event and served 4 years that discussing how it happened is not of interest is your point of view, but only regarding the defenses side. You are happy to discuss every aspect of the prosecution.

Where this went of the rails, and why it may not be of interest, really, to parse to the nth-degree "the defence case", is that.....

By Italian law, the defence is not even entitled to view the evidence until the formal charge is laid, which in this case was almost a year after their arrest. So why is it even of interest to parse with fine tooth comb, "the defence case"?

As laid out in these threads, there is ever reason to believe that even after this, full disclosure was not a priority for either the prosecution or even the courts - and Hellmann's court can arguably be included.

So, the "defence case" is, in short, "show us the evidence! Give us the EDFs." That sort of thing.

One of my own earliest memories of this was watching Barbie Nadeau on CNN reporting on the 2009 conviction, she in real-time, me two years later seeing it on YouTube. Her own assessment back to CNN about the Massei convictions was, "The prosecution case was weak, but the defence case was weaker. This could very well be overturned at appeal." (Note, the day of the 2009 conviction!)

At THAT point, why is it even interesting talking about the defence case? Even Nadeau is reading the tea-leaves.

 

[acbytesla]

The core people at IIP were not advocating based on looks, but looks played a major role with the media. Looks caused the media to focus on the case. The attention certainly sparked interest. And we know that there are people online who are supporters just because of looks. We have no control over that, and have no interest in that type of support.

Of course not Bruce. It was a great injustice what happened to Amanda. She deserved all the support she received. All I'm saying which I've found to be universally true is that attractive people are favored by everyone throughout life. I don't think people say, oh, she's pretty so I'll help her, no, it's not that simple. Its never "just the looks" If the evidence was more incriminating, or she was not likable, I guarantee she would have received less support.

I also think because Amanda is attractive that some people, maybe out of envy or jealousy focused a lot of their hate toward Amanda. They relished the idea of taking down the pretty white, rich American.

 

[Ken Dine]

Ken the information from Massei was from the testimonies of the boys' downstairs. He didn't interpret it for me.

Here's a bit from Amanda's book describing when she met Guede late at night after she and Meredith had been out with the boys from downstairs.

When we had rejoined the guys they introduced us to a friend who, I'd later learn moved to Italy as a kid, from the Ivory Coast. His name was Rudy.

Every account that I've read of that encounter says that Amanda & Meredith had merely bumped into the boys on their way home from the clubs, and subsequently they walked back to the cottage together, with Amanda walking next to Meredith and with neither gal ever talking to Guede on the way back to the cottage.

Your claim that Amanda & Meredith had been clubbing with the boys (and presumably w/ Guede) prior to walking home with them, is pure FICTION!

EXACTLY, when did Amanda learn that Guede's name was "Rudy" since even the guys downstairs didn't even know Guede's actual name prior to the murder?

If Amanda did write that in her book, then she wrote it many years after the fact. Indeed, Amanda had even said that she learned later that Guede was from the Ivory Coast, so Amanda obviously did NOT learn that from Guede himself, nor from the boys downstairs since they likewise knew very little about Guede prior to the murder.

BTW - Amanda is a compulsive writer who has written many things she never should have put to paper, and consequently her writings have often been twisted and construed against her, such as you're doing here now.

Do you seriously believe that Italian-speaking Guede ever had any meaningful conversations with Amanda prior to the murder, or that they were friends or acquaintances on the basis of their few casual encounters while Guede was in the company of the boys downstairs?

If you have even one credible witness who can say that they ever saw Amanda chatting with Guede, then I'll concede that they had "MET" prior to the murder.

AGAIN, the only witness who has ever claimed that Amanda and Guede had actually ever spoken to one another prior to the murder, that would be Guede.

 

[acbytesla]

The fascination is that a young woman could behave like that. I don't think she's good looking. The photos for her book are heavily airbrushed. On TV she had to have layers of panstick plastered over her face.

Behave like what? More slut shaming Vixen? Admit it Vixen. You are deeply jealous of Amanda. Is it because she is far prettier than you? Is it because she is young? Or that men are actually interested in her? Is it because she is not frigid and is capable of having an orgasm?

What makes a woman hate other women so much?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course not Bruce. It was a great injustice what happened to Amanda. She deserved all the support she received. All I'm saying which I've found to be universally true is that attractive people are favored by everyone throughout life. I don't think people say, oh, she's pretty so I'll help her, no, it's not that simple. Its never "just the looks" If the evidence was more incriminating, or she was not likable, I guarantee she would have received less support.

I also think because Amanda is attractive that some people, maybe out of envy or jealousy focused a lot of their hate toward Amanda. They relished the idea of taking down the pretty white, rich American.

This is a sad fact of life. We put far too much weight on a person's looks in many aspects. We won't elect a president if they don't look presidential. I don't mean unkempt either. We expect our presidents to be tall, handsome, and physically fit. What we really need is a person who has the intelligence to lead. The president is not the best example because we do want our leader to be in good shape. It gives the impression of a good work ethic. We also don't want the president to die in office. But we take it to far. Never mind policies, democrat, or republican, Joe Lieberman can never be president because he is short. That is a ridiculous reason to eliminate him from contention but it's just the reality of it all.

I know looks played a role in this case but I think the American accused of murder in a foreign country story line was the key to all of it. We had 3 nations involved. That will no doubt cause debate and debate brings attention.

 

[RWVBWL]

Very Illuminating

I knew this Cypriot girl with a bone disorder which made her look monstrous and she managed to bed half the guys in the neighbourhood. I was invited to her eighteenth birthday and was pretty shocked when she went to her bedroom and asked the guys at the party to queue up outside her door as she laid them one by one.

The fact is, Mez was posed by her killers in an exact replication of a manga comic found at Raff's flat. It was her killers who introduced pervy sex into the murder.

The fascination is that a young woman could behave like that. I don't think she's good looking. The photos for her book are heavily airbrushed. On TV she had to have layers of panstick plastered over her face. She's short and stubby, with a hideous cold sore on her lip. Her nose has no bridge. Her eyes "look like p!ss holes in the snow" (quote from Get Carter, film).

Her gaze is mocking and sly. Her voice is like chalk scraping against a board. She is already looking like squared-faced Edda. Who knows what's in Curt's genes. Other notorious female killer, Aileen Wuornos had a dad who passed his criminal genes onto her.

Amanda is ugly, outside and within. She doesn't have the grace to come clean or show remorse. Instead we have to suffer a neverending pity party, whilst natural beauty Mez lies cold in her grave, her life and bright future stolen away from her.

At Mez' funeral, the church reading tactfully left out the next line in the text about how murderers would be damned.

Behave like what? More slut shaming Vixen? Admit it Vixen. You are deeply jealous of Amanda. Is it because she is far prettier than you? Is it because she is young? Or that men are actually interested in her? Is it because she is not frigid and is capable of having an orgasm?

What makes a woman hate other women so much?

Good questions, ACbytesla!
What makes a woman hate a woman she never even met so much?

I had a feeling Vixen wouldn't disappoint me overnight,
she did indeed go off this morning!
Very illuminating!
Wow...

 

[carbonjam72]

This is a sad fact of life. We put far too much weight on a person's looks in many aspects. We won't elect a president if they don't look presidential. I don't mean unkempt either. We expect our presidents to be tall, handsome, and physically fit. What we really need is a person who has the intelligence to lead. The president is not the best example because we do want our leader to be in good shape. It gives the impression of a good work ethic. We also don't want the president to die in office. But we take it to far. Never mind policies, democrat, or republican, Joe Lieberman can never be president because he is short. That is a ridiculous reason to eliminate him from contention but it's just the reality of it all.

I know looks played a role in this case but I think the American accused of murder in a foreign country story line was the key to all of it. We had 3 nations involved. That will no doubt cause debate and debate brings attention.

Don't know that I disagree with either of you. Although I think DougM put it closest to my own sense of it in an above post, that it was the seeming normal-ness of Amanda, in contrast with the utterly bizarre portrait painted by the utterly bizarre prosecutor and the UK tabloids & Italian media, that was so striking.

I'm not sure the reasons this case caught so much interest can be reduced to a formula, before or after the fact. Its easy to think so in hindsight, but many hollywood movies fail to find an audience that many executives were sure would strike a nerve when they gave the green-light to production.

I still think there is much to this case that we really haven't understood, particularly in regard to people's reactions to it. Or at least, I still have many questions in this regard, I am not at all satisfied that I have a handle on the 'public reaction' to the case.

If every miscarriage of justice garnered this much attention though, I think its fair to say there would be far fewer of them.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a sad fact of life. We put far too much weight on a person's looks in many aspects. We won't elect a president if they don't look presidential. I don't mean unkempt either. We expect our presidents to be tall, handsome, and physically fit. What we really need is a person who has the intelligence to lead. The president is not the best example because we do want our leader to be in good shape. It gives the impression of a good work ethic. We also don't want the president to die in office. But we take it to far. Never mind policies, democrat, or republican, Joe Lieberman can never be president because he is short. That is a ridiculous reason to eliminate him from contention but it's just the reality of it all.

I know looks played a role in this case but I think the American accused of murder in a foreign country story line was the key to all of it. We had 3 nations involved. That will no doubt cause debate and debate brings attention.

I agree with all of that except the Joe Lieberman not being electable because of his height. I'm not sure what was key, but there is no doubt the multinationality played a huge role. I also think the prosecution playing up the sex orgy theme was also a huge factor in the worldwide interest. Sex always sells.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

As has been pointed out, most no post here was ever important. There is no reason for you to be here at all because of March 2015.

This particular item is part of a discussion involving a time you can only have hearsay knowledge on as others that started following late. An early statement made by Amanda's supporters included one that she had never even met Rudi.

I contended that these types of statements ultimately hurt her public image and may have made some reporters more skeptical of statements by her side, read Barbie, Vogt, Pisa et al.

If you think Nadeau, Vogt, and Pisa jumped on the Mignini bandwagon because Ciolino blurted out that Amanda had never laid eyes on Rudy, then you are more unhinged than I thought. The thinking here baffles my mind. I was just reminded why I don't post here often. I was hopeful people here could begin to focus on reform so we could work to prevent wrongful convictions like this one in the future. Then I read this utter nonsense (which will no doubt end up in multiple pages of debate about this tired subject) and I quickly realize this forum discussion is a lost cause.

People here could do a lot of good if they would disconnect themselves from these circular arguments. Use the case as a learning tool. Fight for reform. Fight to hold prosecutors accountable for their actions.

But hey, forget about doing something positive. Vixen just said something ridiculous. It must be responded to right now! Hurry, get in your response before she posts again! And then respond to her next post and the one after that. Rinse and repeat. Vixen loves every second of it. She loves all of you. You give her everything she craves.

Hey, I am not immune to the Phil Connors syndrome. I debated these people for years. We won. That phase is over. Look at the bigger picture now. Learn from all of this. After researching this case, there is no doubt that you know wrongful convictions occur. Many other innocent people continue to suffer in prison. Help someone today. Help someone tomorrow.

Or keep riding the merry-go-round.

https://youtu.be/GZfj2Ir3GgQ

 

[acbytesla]

So if you were to exclude all those who are in jail as illegal immigrants (=boat people from Africa) and people traders (=ditto), hardly any are black at all so bang goes your theory, "Blacks are more inclined to crime".

As Mr Tesla says, he's an advocate of Amanda because he fancies her. There will be those who prefer to believe, "the black guy should take the rap".

I never said that at all Vixen. I don't know Amanda. I have never met her. I just prefer to be honest and admit that the defendant's attractiveness is probably was one of the reasons I became interested in this case. That it had a role, on at least a subconscious level.

Bruce says it's a sad fact of life and I agree. But I'll be the first to acknowledge that I am not immune to that. Are you?

 

[acbytesla]

If you think Nadeau, Vogt, and Pisa jumped on the Mignini bandwagon because Ciolino blurted out that Amanda had never laid eyes on Rudy, then you are more unhinged than I thought. The thinking here baffles my mind. I was just reminded why I don't post here often. I was hopeful people here could begin to focus on reform so we could work to prevent wrongful convictions like this one in the future. Then I read this utter nonsense (which will no doubt end up in multiple pages of debate about this tired subject) and I quickly realize this forum discussion is a lost cause.

People here could do a lot of good if they would disconnect themselves from these circular arguments. Use the case as a learning tool. Fight for reform. Fight to hold prosecutors accountable for their actions.

But hey, forget about doing something positive. Vixen just said something ridiculous. It must be responded to right now! Hurry, get in your response before she posts again! And then respond to her next post and the one after that. Rinse and repeat. Vixen loves every second of it. She loves all of you. You give her everything she craves.

Hey, I am not immune to the Phil Connors syndrome. I debated these people for years. We won. That phase is over. Look at the bigger picture now. Learn from all of this. After researching this case, there is no doubt that you know wrongful convictions occur. Many other innocent people continue to suffer in prison. Help someone today. Help someone tomorrow.

Or keep riding the merry-go-round.

https://youtu.be/GZfj2Ir3GgQ

She does suck me in. Admittedly.

 

[Grinder]

Every account that I've read of that encounter says that Amanda & Meredith had merely bumped into the boys on their way home from the clubs, and subsequently they walked back to the cottage together, with Amanda walking next to Meredith and with neither gal ever talking to Guede on the way back to the cottage.

Your claim that Amanda & Meredith had been clubbing with the boys (and presumably w/ Guede) prior to walking home with them, is pure FICTION!

One night when the bar was slow, Patrick decided to close early. I texted Meredith, who said she'd meet me at the fountain by the Duomo, three minutes away. As I made my way through the mass of drunk students in Pizza IV Novembre, I saw two of our downstairs neighbors, Giacomo and Marco. Giacomo handed me a beer and I pushed my way through the crowd to find meredith. When we had rejoined the guys they introduced us to a friend...​

EXACTLY, when did Amanda learn that Guede's name was "Rudy" since even the guys downstairs didn't even know Guede's actual name prior to the murder?

Regardless of whether they introduced him as Baron or Rudi, she had met him. They clearly called him by his nickname at times but are you sure it was always and since he didn't like it, he most likely would have let her know his real name.

 

[Grinder]

Does anyone have proof that the following is true?

Police claimed Knox and Guede called each other on their cellphones before and after the murder. Guede didn’t have a cellphone with him that night, his lawyer revealed.