It wasn't you but Dan O (I think) who suggested on this thread that we stop being "idiot-like jurors" and work with some of the information we have at hand.
This incident, the party citation, the Foxy Knoxy moniker, and other issues not specified at her trial, are still instrumental in the perception of Amanda Knox, the individual. (Actually, the party citation was introduced at her trial but no matter).
There are rumours and hearsay that have stalked AK throughout these proceedings. You can ignore them if you wish because they have no bearing on her conviction. But you cannot label people fools should they choose to take them with more than a grain of salt.
The personal items don't stop there, either. Her stepfather publicly called both AK and Deanna "*********" and bragged about drinking with them (or at least with Amanda). That doesn't affect her conviction either. But the picture they paint is more than that of a child from a broken home. If it weren't for her murdering her roommate in Italy, I'd feel very sorry for this individual.
Speaking of rumours, HB, what do you make of this Alessi stuff? Isn't it "amazing" that this "revelation" came out just a day after the report did?
I have no doubt the timing of announcing the Alessi claim is tactical if that what you're asking, just as I think it is obvious that the defamation suits and their timing were tactical as well. Do you not think Mignini's suits were not cleverly timed to coincide with important events in the trial? It seems that this happens on both sides. I don't really feel like listing all the coincidental things, but I think you are probably aware at this point.
I actually don't put much stock in the whole ordeal with Rudy's cellmate unless there are further developments. I'm not going to go back and forth on it because it hasn't gone anywhere yet.
I look at the noise ticket and just laugh. It was in municipal court for one (which only deals with city ordinance violations), which shows how utterly nonimportant the event probably was. You want to take a stupid noise violation with more than a grain of salt, be my guest. Here is the actual text:
" In the city of Seattle
I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.
S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.
I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.
See Cad event 264012 for further.
No further action taken at this time."
If you can read anything into that, then you obviously don't demand much to draw negative inferences. There were "rocks" in the street. OMG, someone call in the national guard, this woman is a danger to society.
Young college kids getting drunk? How depraved. I didn't know young people did this.....
