Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
That was Vixen. She is still struggling with the basic facts of the case.
ETA: Not that Mach isn't.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Bill Williams
- Start date
- Status
That was Vixen. She is still struggling with the basic facts of the case.
ETA: Not that Mach isn't.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,161
You are definitely right about that. But it is still much more densely populated than it would be if it was your average neighborhood of similar single family residences. That is still less than 5 blocks from the frats and 7 blocks from a major university where 50 thousand students attend.
Last edited:
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
Your original point was that it was a rowdy neighborhood where the occasional rock throwing would be normal. It's not. I grew up on the south end of the U Bridge. I hung out in the U District and The Ave in junior high school and high school. I joined the Y on 12th a few years ago. I know the area and it's not wild. Yes it more dense than a distant place like West Seattle.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,161
No, my original point was that it was heavily populated and people can be found walking on those streets day and night. I agree that it wouldn't be nearly as busy or rowdy if it was a few blocks South of there as I originally thought. These are my stomping grounds too Grinder, I use to live on 42nd and 11th, 63rd and Roosevelt and 47th and Latona.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Hugo on PMF
"Well, no evidence places Guede in the room at the time of the murder either, if Bruno wants to be like that about it. The DNA on the bra strap and the vaginal swab? That could be before the murder, and Bruno now allows the possibility of consensual sexual contact, and that's res iudicata. As for Guede's bloody handprints and shoeprints, those are self-evidently from after the fatal attack, so, like Knox washing the blood off her hands, they don't implicate Guede at all, no sirree. The only thing that ties Guede to the attack is his DNA on the sleeve of the blue top, suggesting he restrained the victim for the killers -- but that sample was only taken after the 46-day interval which Bruno regards as invalidating all evidence, so Guede's in the clear. Totally. I mean, where is Guede's murder weapon? Where? Quite. "
With stuff like this, there was never any hope that the idiots could ever properly evaluate the evidence.
How difficult, really is it to understand that having no evidence in the room of Amanda at all, must exonerate her. Has anyone of them ever attempted to explain the dynamics of the attack and slaughter in a manner that would permit the implication of an individual who left nothing behind and took nothing away?
"Well, no evidence places Guede in the room at the time of the murder either, if Bruno wants to be like that about it. The DNA on the bra strap and the vaginal swab? That could be before the murder, and Bruno now allows the possibility of consensual sexual contact, and that's res iudicata. As for Guede's bloody handprints and shoeprints, those are self-evidently from after the fatal attack, so, like Knox washing the blood off her hands, they don't implicate Guede at all, no sirree. The only thing that ties Guede to the attack is his DNA on the sleeve of the blue top, suggesting he restrained the victim for the killers -- but that sample was only taken after the 46-day interval which Bruno regards as invalidating all evidence, so Guede's in the clear. Totally. I mean, where is Guede's murder weapon? Where? Quite. "
With stuff like this, there was never any hope that the idiots could ever properly evaluate the evidence.
How difficult, really is it to understand that having no evidence in the room of Amanda at all, must exonerate her. Has anyone of them ever attempted to explain the dynamics of the attack and slaughter in a manner that would permit the implication of an individual who left nothing behind and took nothing away?
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
Edited by Agatha:
Edited breach of rule 12. Do not make personal remarks about members of ISF
Naseer Ahmad (Ergon) an editor of The Murder of Meredith Kercher Wiki and Perugia Murder File, discusses the activities of a group called the Friends Of Amanda Knox who were behind her PR campaign.
Q: Ergon, when did you first become aware of the Friends of Amanda Knox or FOA?
Ergon: I wasn’t the first of course, but I investigated them at length after I became aware of them in 2010. There’s a lot of dirt on all of them.
Cover ups, intimidation of people in Seattle, threats of legal action, stalking, harassment.
Q: Who are the FOA and why should people care?
Ergon: Some are wealthy people who got behind the campaign, helped with Gogerty Marriott. Some have capitalized on the publicity surrounding this case in order to raise funds for personal gain. There are also some scientists whose false reports got them publicity, and reinforce their side careers as defense consultants. And more. . . .
Q: Have these people affected the legal case of the murder of Meredith Kercher? If so how?
Ergon: Yes they have. By manipulation of the media, causing political interference. I will go in detail how they affected the murder trial and also how the tide turned. I spoke to CNN reporters, producers. Faxed information to Katie Couric’s producer so in her closing she made it clear she didn’t believe Raffaele Sollecito. Knox wasn’t happy with Chris Cuomo’s questions either.
Q: Who are the FOA? Young or old? All Americans?
Ergon: Young, old, some professional PR people using sock puppets. Not all American. Quite a few British and other countries, Russia, Poland.
Find out more on Sunday’s 9/13/15 Podcast with Naseer below!
http://truecrimespodcasts.com/2015/...ox-pr-campaign-and-friends-of-amandaknox-foa/
Last edited by a moderator:
Two hours, I am listening, and it is interesting to hear the man I have debated with on all the various threads, disqus, here, dot net and so on. Definitely this adds context. Ergon does seem to believe his story, but he will not be able to answer the impossible questions. Nobody can.
Last edited by a moderator:
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
Are there pictures of the rocks? Or are we to make up rock visions in our mind and then apply it to our imaginary vision.
Small pebble rocks, large huge stones, baseball sized rocks, football sized rocks, boulder rocks in the road?
Which rocks were supposedly attributed, by the neighbor who didnt want to be identified, the the throwing scenario and did anyone confirm.
Was it hundreds of rocks or one rock?
Im trying to create an image in my mind of all this rock throwing (= murderer) scenario.
And the noise level, I'm thinking up like a super loud Compton gang-bad bad people scenario where there were like hundreds of out of control people, maybe add a darkness sky in my image and older people running away to hide in fear of the party bloods & crypts loud party, rock throwing dangerous huge crowd...maybe AManda was controlling with her mind, forcing them to go out of control... and big rocks being thrown! huge rocks that could kill someone!
I guess I dont have the skills of Migninni and Edgardo Giobbi at creating visions and scenarios with ease. I struggle to have their creativity.
I wonder if Rudy ever through a rock? He'll be out soon, maybe he will go over rock throwing in his million dollar book deal (sarcasm...i dont think he has a book deal yet.)
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Sometimes one cannot help but spew coffee at the computer screen with an involuntary guffaw!
Naseer accuses the FOA of media manipulation, then in the very next breath discusses how he contacted Couric and implies some sort of contact with Cuomo?
You cannot make up this sort of stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
"Se ce l'ho fatta"
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,161
You really have to wonder if they actually give any of this any "deep thought"?
There is no doubt that the FOA acted in concert together to achieve a common goal. But that is in fact no different from what they are doing. But nothing the FOA did could be described as a conspiracy. There was nothing secret about it and nothing illegal.
Manipulate is a strange word. Yes, there was a goal to get the press to take a different approach but there were no attempts at deception. The FOA was peddling a different, less sexy and trashy story than the lurid stories that had dominated the press for so long. This was a much harder story to sell,but it did have one thing going for it. It was the truth.
And over time it became clearer and clearer that in the end the people preferred the truth to lies, no matter how much sex the lies offered.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
I'm sorry when you said
A party goer may have thrown rocks but so could just about anyone. One could hardly hold Amanda accountable for all these people
I thought you were characterizing the people in the neighborhood as rowdy since for my experience very few normal people throw rocks at cars or at all. Now if her place had been next door to old Dantes, that would be a different story.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
It is clear to me and Locard that there must have been evidence of her in Meredith's room that the ICSI missed. Nothing more than they found in any common area or in Filomena's room but something. They had lived in the same house for over a month and were by all accounts close at the beginning. No hairs or prints or DNA - Locard would need to reevaluate his theory.
As the ISC said - the system so screwed this up we will never know what happened. Maybe they missed Rudi's real accomplices' leave behinds.
Dictionary definition of disgust:-
"1. a feeling of revulsion or strong disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive. "the sight filled her with disgust"
synonyms: revulsion, repugnance, aversion, distaste, abhorrence, loathing, detestation, odium, execration, horror;..."
Last word in the definition is "horror"....
Ok that's sorted that one out, but in fairness as a non-English speaking person you are forgiven.
Next:-
So AK made a few correct interpretations and a few misinterpretations of the frenetic situation after the discovery of the murdered MK....including stating the body was INSIDE a cupboard and that a "foot" was discovered. ....and you want to read anything into this other than frenetic babble.
I rest my case.
bagels
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2015
- Messages
- 2,275
But the ISC also said Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands as evident by the fact that her DNA was found in her own sink in her own bathroom. I think we have enough to know what happened to a reasonable standard.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,161
Agreed. I just thought it was interesting that the neighbor complained about party goers throwing rocks. How could they know for sure that they were party goers? I actually think your post suggesting that the neighbor embellished so the police might respond more quickly has merit.
Lastly, I thought the officers comments that he saw some rocks as amusing. As if he could tell by that they may have been thrown.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street.
He saw rocks in the street. Normally we don't have a number of rocks on our residental streets. Rocks don't walk into the street. They don't bike either because they don't have thumbs. Why can't you just accept that someone from the party threw rocks for some drunken reason?
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
If the rocks the officer observed we're in the street, that's not an unfounded conclusion that the complaint of rocks being thrown by partygoers, was accurate. Not necessarily proven, especially without a witness repeating the sighting, nor a positive ID of the actual thrower. But it would provide a basis for further confirmation, IUAM.
(ninj'd by Grinder, drats)
Having said that, raising that info in the context of a murder prosecution is recklessly prejudicial, and would merit disbarment in a normal society.
That the UK tabloids would be prohibited from running it in a case in the UK, but ran with it in this case based in Italy, shows the UK tabloids are no more than base slandering criminals masquerading as "journalists".
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Ok Mach, let's try to handle your misinterpretation of the Marasca report one at a time.
Marasca did not hold that Amanda and/or Raf were in the house at the time of the crime.
------------------
Quote (Mach):
"And yet, as I said, the report also states that Knox's presence at the murder is a proven fact and that it's certain. It states that both before and after the statement about "tranquillizing certainty"; it even explains at length in support of their certainty.
I realize this is crazy and inconsistent. But so is the verdict."
CJ72: Well Mach, I believe you have misread the Marasca report on this point. Let's look at the actual quote on the bottom of page 46:
From Marasca, p.46 -
"Elements of strong suspicion reconnect even, dry inconsistencies and to falsehood in which the accused and incurred in the various statements made, especially in so far as his story appeared contradicted by phone records showing a different origin of SMS; by witness statements by Antonio Curatolo, regarding the presence of the same in the square Grimana Knox, Sollecito in the company of, and Mario Quintavalle, related alia its presence in the supermarket in the morning the day after the murder, perhaps to purchase detergents . Nevertheless, the profiles of intrinsic contradictions and poor reliability of the witnesses, several times as exceptions in the process of merit, not attributing unconditional credit to its versions, is to prove, with certainty tranquilizer, it failed, and then the falsehood, of 'alibi offered by the accused, who claimed to have been in the home of her boyfriend in the late afternoon of 1 November until the morning of the next day. Curatolo (enigmatic character: homeless, drug addict and drug dealer)
47..."
Marasca wrote that while there may be "strong suspicion" that Amanda and Raf were at the house, strong suspicions are not enough to overcome the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Marasca , in the paragraph above, expressly states that the alibi of Amanda and Raf, that they never left Raf's apartment that entire night, may well be entirely true. Their alibi has not been proven to be false. The statements you are pointing to, is the Marasca court making the best argument available in favor of guilt, before showing those arguments to be insufficient on the merits. This is another example of your selective reading, or should we say misreading, of plain straightforward language.
Marasca has said strong suspicions are not enough. Perhaps that's what you really disagree with?
Ok Mach, did you see it there? The prosecution did NOT PROVE the defendants alibi was false, as they must do. That's what Marasca wrote, not your biased misrepresentation.
Do we agree on this point?
Marasca did not hold that Amanda and/or Raf were in the house at the time of the crime.
------------------
Quote (Mach):
"And yet, as I said, the report also states that Knox's presence at the murder is a proven fact and that it's certain. It states that both before and after the statement about "tranquillizing certainty"; it even explains at length in support of their certainty.
I realize this is crazy and inconsistent. But so is the verdict."
CJ72: Well Mach, I believe you have misread the Marasca report on this point. Let's look at the actual quote on the bottom of page 46:
From Marasca, p.46 -
"Elements of strong suspicion reconnect even, dry inconsistencies and to falsehood in which the accused and incurred in the various statements made, especially in so far as his story appeared contradicted by phone records showing a different origin of SMS; by witness statements by Antonio Curatolo, regarding the presence of the same in the square Grimana Knox, Sollecito in the company of, and Mario Quintavalle, related alia its presence in the supermarket in the morning the day after the murder, perhaps to purchase detergents . Nevertheless, the profiles of intrinsic contradictions and poor reliability of the witnesses, several times as exceptions in the process of merit, not attributing unconditional credit to its versions, is to prove, with certainty tranquilizer, it failed, and then the falsehood, of 'alibi offered by the accused, who claimed to have been in the home of her boyfriend in the late afternoon of 1 November until the morning of the next day. Curatolo (enigmatic character: homeless, drug addict and drug dealer)
47..."
Marasca wrote that while there may be "strong suspicion" that Amanda and Raf were at the house, strong suspicions are not enough to overcome the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Marasca , in the paragraph above, expressly states that the alibi of Amanda and Raf, that they never left Raf's apartment that entire night, may well be entirely true. Their alibi has not been proven to be false. The statements you are pointing to, is the Marasca court making the best argument available in favor of guilt, before showing those arguments to be insufficient on the merits. This is another example of your selective reading, or should we say misreading, of plain straightforward language.
Marasca has said strong suspicions are not enough. Perhaps that's what you really disagree with?
Ok Mach, did you see it there? The prosecution did NOT PROVE the defendants alibi was false, as they must do. That's what Marasca wrote, not your biased misrepresentation.
Do we agree on this point?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,161
No, I can. In fact I do. But that doesn't mean that Amanda should be accountable.
I shared a house not far from there where we held at least a half a dozen parties that were epic. Where as many as a hundred people showed up and many left intoxicated. The greatest party we held was a Jim Jones party with Kool aid spiked not with cyanide but pure grain alcohol.
The idea that Mignini and the crazies would use that party to suggest that Amanda was violent is absurd.
- Status