Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amanda : Found guilty of murder. Amanda: Found guilty of falsely accusing Patrick. Amanda : Facing slander charges. Amanda: Called a stupid liar. TRUE. She is.Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.
 
Fiona said:
Ah. Back to the idea that the police should not ask anybody any questions, or should not rely on any of the answers. We have been here before. We will need to abandon the whole idea of criminal justice: but as I said the last time this was mooted: it will save a lot of money on police forces and jails and so that is a plus :)
Click to expand...

That's quite a leap from what I said, Fiona; so much so that it seems to be a completely different topic. My objection was to the people who claim that Amanda gave her second statement of her own free will.

As far as the police "relying on answers," Charlie Wilkes says it well: "If she told them for four days straight that she spent the night at Raffaele's apartment and they thought she was lying, then why would they believe her when she implicates Lumumba?"
 
Interesting that with all the money spent on PR, all the interviews, Oprah, etc, people overwhelmingly believe the right people are in prison.
 
I am curious where the the poll was taken that concluded;

"people overwhelmingly believe the right people are in prison."
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Ah. Back to the idea that the police should not ask anybody any questions, or should not rely on any of the answers. We have been here before. We will need to abandon the whole idea of criminal justice: but as I said the last time this was mooted: it will save a lot of money on police forces and jails and so that is a plus :)
Click to expand...

I see you are still an absolutist. Have you ever considered that there could be a middle ground? If the police throw garbage into an interrogation they are most likely going to get garbage out. If the result cannot be independently verified it cannot be treated any more valid than noise.
 
Mary_H said:
That's quite a leap from what I said, Fiona; so much so that it seems to be a completely different topic. My objection was to the people who claim that Amanda gave her second statement of her own free will.

As far as the police "relying on answers," Charlie Wilkes says it well: "If she told them for four days straight that she spent the night at Raffaele's apartment and they thought she was lying, then why would they believe her when she implicates Lumumba?"
Click to expand...

Did she not ask for the paper and pen on her own? Did she not insist on making the statement then and there, rather than waiting till later in the morning? Did she not allow Lumumba to sit in jail for 2 weeks, all the while knowing full well that Lumumba had nothing to do with Meredith's murder?

At what point in time was she no longer under duress following the start of this particular interview/interrogation?
 
Fiona writes:

The rush was that they had reason to believe he was a murderous sexual predator. Do you think that the public/press etc would have been balanced if he had happened to kill again while they were being "fair"? I think the proposition is fairly silly

It is useful to know something about how police operate in general. Competent detectives who had nothing except a murky accusation from someone they didn't trust would have brought Lumumba in for questioning, to find out if he had an alibi. If they were concerned about public safety, they could have put him under surveillance while they investigated. For example, once the police suspected that John Wayne Gacy was a sex killer, they watched him 24/7 to make sure he didn't so much as jaywalk. But they didn't arrest him until they had a good case. That is how it is supposed to be done.

The cops who ran this investigation were utterly incompetent. That is clear from the way they handled evidence in the crime scene video, it is clear from Giobbi's comments in the UK documentary, and it is clear from the way they jumped to a ridiculous conclusion before they knew what evidence they had or what it meant.
 
Bob wrote: "Did she not allow Lumumba to sit in jail for 2 weeks, all the while knowing full well that Lumumba had nothing to do with Meredith's murder?"

How would Amanda know that Patrick was innocent? She wasn't there at the time of the murder. She had no idea who killed Meredith. The police told her that Patrick was the killer. Why would she know that the police had lied to her?
 
Not every article requires or needs comments. People can read it and make up their own minds. It mentions your website 'justice in perugia' a lot, so people may want to check out this excellent article. No such thing as bad advertising, right?
 
I don't mind at all. I was just curious why she chose to turn the comments off on an article that highlighted my website. She makes some pretty insane comparisons. Good entertainment value, no substance.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Do you believe that a shoe print on the pillow belongs to Amanda Knox?
Click to expand...
.
Well, if as of 24 hours ago you want to take the conversation along this road (instead of your allegations of multiple "perfect matches" with Rudy's Nike), that's fine with me.

I assume that you concede that they weren't all so "perfect".

Now, then, you have asked me several times in the last 24 hours something which you have also said we have been talking about for some time (UNTRUE, but par for your course).

And I have already told you: I don't know.

Not even the prosecution expert said "that partial shoeprint belongs to Amanda", but rather he limited himself to saying that it was compatible with her size 37 foot.

Why are you asking me to go beyond the prosecution expert's own words?
 
Dan O. said:
I see you are still an absolutist. Have you ever considered that there could be a middle ground? If the police throw garbage into an interrogation they are most likely going to get garbage out. If the result cannot be independently verified it cannot be treated any more valid than noise.
Click to expand...

It has been independently verified... by the Courts.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Bob wrote: "Did she not allow Lumumba to sit in jail for 2 weeks, all the while knowing full well that Lumumba had nothing to do with Meredith's murder?"

How would Amanda know that Patrick was innocent? She wasn't there at the time of the murder. She had no idea who killed Meredith. The police told her that Patrick was the killer. Why would she know that the police had lied to her?
Click to expand...

That particular line has been debunked many pages ago... don't you get tired of recycling the same garbage time and time again?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It is useful to know something about how police operate in general. Competent detectives who had nothing except a murky accusation from someone they didn't trust would have brought Lumumba in for questioning, to find out if he had an alibi. If they were concerned about public safety, they could have put him under surveillance while they investigated. For example, once the police suspected that John Wayne Gacy was a sex killer, they watched him 24/7 to make sure he didn't so much as jaywalk. But they didn't arrest him until they had a good case. That is how it is supposed to be done.
Click to expand...
Surely the circumstances are somewhat different. Assuming Amanda's story had been true, Patrick would have very quickly found out on the 6th that somebody who had been present during the murder and who could identify was in police custody. I am less familiar with Gacy, but did he have reason to believe the net was closing in and he only had another few hours before he was arrested while the police were watching him?
 
Everything in this case becomes contentious at some point under the argument "this case is/was special!". I think the problem is partially due to the fact that most of us have no clue what the standard Italian police procedures are. (And yes, for the record that includes me.) So the best thing to look for is how similar cases in Italy, or even better in Perugia, have been handled and are to be handled instead of looking for unrelated and not equivalent cases in the United States.
 
"Guilters".

Every time I read discussions about this case I begin to feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

I’ve spent more time than probably is healthy reading about it over the last 12 months +. Which includes following this monumental thread from the beginning (although revisiting some of the earlier pages I’ve found a few eye-openers I missed, such as Fulcanelli’s jaw-dropping reply to Halides1’s post about the defamation of Knox with lies published about her sex-life - as if extracting information from her by telling her was HIV+ and simply publicising the actuality of her sex-life wouldn’t be despicable enough).

It’s just not credible that anyone who has taken the time to inform themselves of the facts (NOT the endless, asinine speculation, opinionation and tabloid-propagated lies) can continue to genuinely believe that Knox and Sollicito are guilty of anything except being young and dumb.

It is *perfectly* understandable that people who recognise that a grotesque injustice has been perpetrated are outraged, and continue to argue passionately for the reversal of their conviction.

But how to account for the effort expended by those who continue the remorseless and often shrill advocacy of their guilt (meaning Knox’s, of course, with Sollicito joining her on her hayride to Hell as matter of expediency)? Normal people, even if they believed K and S to be guilty - which would be through a less-than-thorough familiarity with the case, and hence imply indifference - just wouldn’t evince such …. obsessiveness.

Who are they, these “guilters”?

(The temptation to name some of the following is almost irresistible).

- Some are sock-puppets and shills for the corrupt Italian judiciary.

- Some are sock-puppets and shills for the venal low-lifes who are hoping for book-publishing deals whose sales will depend on the perpetuation of the sick fantasies about Knox.

- Some are just ugly, cruel and envious individuals. The kind who take pleasure in seeing their betters humiliated and even destroyed, believing that the context and their faux-righteousness disguises their malice. I’ve never witnessed so many of them outing themselves at once - ever.

- Finally, there are the self-styled, so-called "Skeptics". Their only motivation is to use the “discussion” as a game in which to flatter themselves that they are demonstrating their “intellectualism” with endless sophistry and hair-splitting, this from safely behind the skirts of the “authority” they pathologically side with, oblivious to the harm being done, and their complicity in it.

They know who they are (or maybe not?). A bunch of moral imbeciles, basically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom