Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a photograph of Amanda being questioned alone by a group of men in the yard of the cottage. Do you have any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele "did what they could do to not be questioned alone?
Well, Raffaele was certainly there. That was November 3, and both of them were at the cottage with the police.

The facial expression of the detectives on the left says alot, as they speak with Amanda. Mary, I don't see lust in their eyes, as you seem to intimate in your posts. Instead, I see confusion as they listen to her.
 
So how does Monica Napoleoni fit into this scenario? Do Italian women approve of and encourage the physical manifestations of these fantasies? Do Italian men need foreigners to satisfy these urges? Why wouldn't they have arrested Meredith's British friends?
.
Charlie described Meredith as a "prissy".

Maybe all FOA and Entourage types take the same view, and therefore feel that macho Italian police wouldn't be interested in prudish English girls.
 
I am saying that it is something to bear in mind. You can read my original post (#1159) if you like. I think it has to be treated with caution: but I do not think it unimportant given the partisan tone of the "open letter".

Maybe you could have also posted the article where she won money for being a whistleblower and being wrongfully fired from her job. I posted that article a month ago. No one said anything. The woman's had a career for probably decades and we know one little snippet from casual googling of someone's name. And even that little info we have, for all we know it was a complete misunderstanding. Either way, you've just posted a segment from google that probably represents about 1/1000th of Dr. Johnson's time and career.

You're really not going to learn much about her by just googling.
 
Maybe you could have also posted the article where she won money for being a whistleblower and being wrongfully fired from her job. I posted that article a month ago. No one said anything. The woman's had a career for probably decades and we know one little snippet from casual googling of someone's name. And even that little info we have, for all we know it was a complete misunderstanding. Either way, you've just posted a segment from google that probably represents about 1/1000th of Dr. Johnson's time and career.

You're really not going to learn much about her by just googling.

Did you read my original post?
 
.
If your accusations and insinuations have little bearing on the big picture (especially when they're falsehoods), then why make them?

Are you telling us you believe your arguments have any bearing on the big picture?

Your reply to Fiona reminds me of Bruce Fisher's replies to the inaccuracies pointed out on his website (like saying that Preston was hauled in to police headquarters in the middle of the night, or that Raffaele washes his dishes with Dixan, or that Mignini took on the Monster of Florence case). He first of all didn't agree with the exception taken to the errors, then he was loathe to admit and correct his errors (upon realizing his was wrong), then he said that it's foolish to be concerned about these errors because they aren't part of the bigger picture.

BRUCE, did you get the name of the detergent wrong????!!!! For shame.

Paul "Private Eye" Ciolini, supposedly a hot shot detective, makes up stories about Preston being taken in by police at night, or Amanda "never setting eyes" on Rudy (this, a week after she testifies in court that she went to a party with him and other friends).

Anne Bremner, hot shot lawyer and media pundit, by her own account one of the smartest persons in Washington State (yeah, read her website), points out terrible police actions thinking she's referring to the girls' flat, when in fact the images are of the boys' flat.

"Libby" Johnson (perhaps related to FOA members through her participation in the Innocence Project), a DNA expert witness in many US trials, prepares a totally unscientific preamble to her limited scope letter, a preamble which is almost as long as her scientific opinion, and where she spews out the pro-Amanda script of events. She has never explained her relationship to FOA or FOA individual members, nor who engaged her or commissioned her to do her "pro bono" work.

Judge Michael Heavey (investigated sometime back for irregularities ... nothing came of it from a strictly legal perspective, although the report underlined that his supposed favouritism did not look good and he was forced to publish an apology in a Seattle newspaper), made unsubstantiated accusations of illegalities allegedly committed in the Perugia murder case investigation, in a letter he sent on Washington State official letterhead to Italian authorities.

Are you telling us that if you had any intellectual authorities backing up your arguments they would be perfect people without any faults or skeletons in the closet? Good luck with that.
 
Maybe you could have also posted the article where she won money for being a whistleblower and being wrongfully fired from her job. I posted that article a month ago. No one said anything. The woman's had a career for probably decades and we know one little snippet from casual googling of someone's name. And even that little info we have, for all we know it was a complete misunderstanding. Either way, you've just posted a segment from google that probably represents about 1/1000th of Dr. Johnson's time and career.

You're really not going to learn much about her by just googling.
.
HumanityBlues, are you aware of what "Libby" Johnson's relationship with FOA or with individual FOA members may be?.

Mary made some interesting comments above about how "experts" relations with either the defence or the prosecution could put into question the value of their testimony.

Actually, in this case it wasn't really testimony, as it seems the final destination of Johnson's limited scope review was the interview shows of American television and the FOA website; it never seems to have been considered as a true legal support, but rather as a tool to shape American public opinion.
 
Originally Posted by Mary_H: "There is a photograph of Amanda being questioned alone by a group of men in the yard of the cottage. Do you have any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele "did what they could do to not be questioned alone?"

Kermit, why did you crop the photo so it looks like Amanda is talking to three officers instead of eight?
 
Are you telling us you believe your arguments have any bearing on the big picture?
Are you telling us that all the "little" inaccuracies, errors, and falsehoods on FOA approved sites don't mean anything? (If so, why publish all those pages?)


BRUCE, did you get the name of the detergent wrong????!!!! For shame.
Incorrect. He got the name of the detergent right. But for some reason he asserted that it was dish washing detergent, and in addition for some reason he asserted that it contains bleach.

Those were elements he needed to weave a tale of Raffaele's daily routine including dishwashing with bleach.


Are you telling us that if you had any intellectual authorities backing up your arguments they would be perfect people without any faults or skeletons in the closet? Good luck with that.
Mary, I have not been boasting about my "intellectual authorities" (whomever you seem to think they may be or not be).

You made a boastful comment about the hot shots on your team. I took a look at a few of them, and came back unimpressed.
 
Malkmus wonders about the following quote from a letter Amanda wrote to Madison Paxton, which appeared in a UK documentary but was blurred out for US airing:

I’ve been studying to distract myself and in
meantime feeling like an absolute coward for letting
the police confuse me, when they threatened to thrown
me in jail for 30 years for lying to them I should have
held out my arms for the cuffs and told them to have
fun condemning an innocent person for just to be ??
but instead I got confused and scared and I ****ed up…
I ****ed up so bad Madison and I’m so sorry I did it
because I hurt a friend of mine and landed myself in
here.


What was the "fraud" in the documentary exactly?

I suspect (and I am guessing) that this may have been blurred because of FCC regs. If it was done at the request of the Knox/Mellas media juggernaut, no one told me. But, no one tells me lots of things.

In any case, there is nothing in this text that Amanda's supporters would want to conceal from the public. Amanda made a big mistake when she signed a statement accusing Lumumba. She created a problem for him, she made her own situation worse, and everyone admits that.

Christopher Ochoa would tell you that he made a big mistake when he confessed to a murder he did not commit and named his friend as an imaginery accomplice. Ochoa is an intelligent guy. He is a lawyer in Wisconsin. Why did he do it? Answer: because the cops scared the crap out of him and made him believe his situation would be even worse if he continued to deny his involvement in the murder, even though he was telling the truth when he said he was innocent.

Ochoa was 22 years old. Amanda was 20. Neither had been in any kind of serious trouble with the law. They had no clue how to deal with an aggressive interrogation.
 
Originally Posted by Mary_H: "There is a photograph of Amanda being questioned alone by a group of men in the yard of the cottage. Do you have any evidence that Amanda and Raffaele "did what they could do to not be questioned alone?"

Kermit, why did you crop the photo so it looks like Amanda is talking to three officers instead of eight?
.
Mary:

1) sit down
2) pour yourself a coffee or a nightcap
3) type into the Google search field in the Google Images screen:
Amanda Knox <enter>
4) your results may vary slighty, but about the 5th result could be:
http://www.hitsusa.com/1-good-ones/amanda-knox-detectives.jpg

I did no cropping or photoshopping (FOA are the pros at that).

NOW, Mary, having tried to brutally humiliate me before my peers, you have indicated that you have a similar (uncropped?) photo, with a gang of eight lustful Italian cops waiting to corner Amanda.

Please post it.

Come on. You got yourself into this. No If's And's or But's.

(You can use the "Quick Upload" button)
 
Did you read my original post?

I did. And I appreciate that fact that you took the extra steps to look it up. I also found a more recent article on it a while ago and posted it here and everyone ignored it. Regardless, nothing I read made me think Johnson was somehow unqualified to examine evidence, nor do I have any reason to think she's dishonest.
 
I did. And I appreciate that fact that you took the extra steps to look it up. I also found a more recent article on it a while ago and posted it here and everyone ignored it. Regardless, nothing I read made me think Johnson was somehow unqualified to examine evidence, nor do I have any reason to think she's dishonest.
.
So then there should be no problem in publicly revealing her relationship to FOA or to individual FOA members.
 
Read the blog entries that she said she enjoys reading. They are difficult to follow but it appears she is saying the opposite. I don't know why the Perugian authorities would go to the trouble of prosecuting RG and RS if all they wanted to do was find a foreign woman to put into prison.

This is easily the most unusual thing I've ever seen posted regarding this case.

Really? It's pretty much been included in the discussion since Day One. Have you never noticed in the blogs how many hundreds of times Amanda has been called a whore, a tramp, a skank, a bitch, a slut, a nympho, a bimbo? Does this not suggest to you that there is a sexual aspect to the case that attracts the kind of people who would use that terminology?

Have you never noticed how often in the past 2 1/2 years the video of Amanda and Raffaele kissing in the yard outside the cottage has been shown on TV, over and over and over, many more times than any other video related to the crime? Have you never reflected on why that might be?

Do you think the police in Perugia never saw the video or that they were not influenced by it?

Someone in another blog asked me to prove that the members of the jury panel were influenced by what they saw about the crime in the media. I replied that there was no way to measure it -- even if we asked them, they would deny they were influenced at all -- but that we can use what we know about socialization, learning and human nature to conclude their minds had been affected by the media exposure.

In the same way, we can't measure the hormone levels in the men who dealt with Amanda over the course of the days leading up to her arrest, and we can't get an accurate report of what feelings rose in Mignini when he watched a young Italian boy kissing a young American girl on his TV twenty, thirty or fifty times in those days, but we can put all the pieces together -- like Fiona -- to hazard a pretty good guess.

The picture Kermit posted comes in another version, which actually may be a cropped version of the original version. It shows Amanda surrounded by eight men, like moths to a flame. That's how hormones work, guys, and it happens whether you're aware of it or not. Why do you think, out of all the pictures they have of Amanda, they chose that one to frame and hang and hang on the wall in Rome?

Can you say "trophy?"
 
.
Mary:

1) sit down
2) pour yourself a coffee or a nightcap
3) type into the Google search field in the Google Images screen:
Amanda Knox <enter>
4) your results may vary slighty, but about the 5th result could be:
http://www.hitsusa.com/1-good-ones/amanda-knox-detectives.jpg

I did no cropping or photoshopping (FOA are the pros at that).

NOW, Mary, having tried to brutally humiliate me before my peers, you have indicated that you have a similar (uncropped?) photo, with a gang of eight lustful Italian cops waiting to corner Amanda.

Please post it.

Come on. You got yourself into this. No If's And's or But's.

(You can use the "Quick Upload" button)

Here's the link, darling. I bet there's even a bigger one out there, too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html
 
Are you telling us that all the "little" inaccuracies, errors, and falsehoods on FOA approved sites don't mean anything? (If so, why publish all those pages?)

I thought we were talking about blog arguments, not websites.

Incorrect. He got the name of the detergent right. But for some reason he asserted that it was dish washing detergent, and in addition for some reason he asserted that it contains bleach.

Those were elements he needed to weave a tale of Raffaele's daily routine including dishwashing with bleach.

That is unbelievable -- not. I bet you guys were pleased as punch to find a few things you could correct.

Mary, I have not been boasting about my "intellectual authorities" (whomever you seem to think they may be or not be).

You made a boastful comment about the hot shots on your team. I took a look at a few of them, and came back unimpressed.

I didn't say you were boasting. I implied that if you guys had any scientists or lawyers weighing for your side, they would be just as flawed as the ones on Amanda's side.

I'm sure the fact that you are unimpressed will weigh heavily on their hearts. You might try reading about their research instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom