Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

You have been freely offering your many impressions of me, e.g., "You see professionalism as perversion." This statement belongs to you and I am happy to leave it that way. I am not going to act like stilicho and say, "Duuuuhhhh, I don't get it.....can you fill me in a little more?"

I don't remember saying "duuuuhhhh" but I did ask you for your sources explaining that the police officers depicted were doing anything other than their jobs. You are still welcome to produce them or simply retract your claim and we'll be on to the next claim.

You still have an impressive backlog for a newcomer to the JREF.

 

[Mary_H]

Well for me it is mainly because it is only relevant when someone confesses: Knox didn't.

If she didn't confess, then what did the Supreme Court rule as inadmissible?

Don't you think you're unnecessarily splitting hairs? The same processes were at work whether she was persuaded to say she was at the crime scene or that Patrick was there with her. Neither statement turned out to be true.

Again, this is mere resistance. You have a great deal of data suggesting the police put Amanda in an untenable situation from which no good could come, yet you insist on disregarding it and focusing on the slim possibility that they did not.

You WANT Amanda to be guilty.

Did you read the links, btw? two of them don't work for me for some reason

I will check and delete the problematic ones.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't remember saying "duuuuhhhh" but I did ask you for your sources explaining that the police officers depicted were doing anything other than their jobs. You are still welcome to produce them or simply retract your claim and we'll be on to the next claim.

You still have an impressive backlog for a newcomer to the JREF.

Sorry, stilicho, I didn't see the rule about not being allowed to ignore superfluous, boring or ridiculous questions and posts. I myself have made a great many points and asked a few questions here that no one has responded to. I usually just forget about them and move on, instead of hoarding them to use against people later.

It's not like anybody is here to get their mind changed.

 

[Fiona]

If she didn't confess, then what did the Supreme Court rule as inadmissible?

I am sure you can find out if you read through this thread: we have discussed it often enough

Don't you think you're unnecessarily splitting hairs? The same processes were at work whether she was persuaded to say she was at the crime scene or that Patrick was there with her. Neither statement turned out to be true.

I don't, no. I agree that she is a liar, though

Again, this is mere resistance. You have a great deal of data suggesting the police put Amanda in an untenable situation from which no good could come, yet you insist on disregarding it and focusing on the slim possibility that they did not.

No doubt you will cite all this data? I don't have it. I have the evidence of the length of the questioning, and her testimony that she was indeed offered food and drink and toilet breaks. It does not sound any different from questioning in any police station anywhere in the world.

You WANT Amanda to be guilty.

Bless

I will check and delete the problematic ones.

Does that mean you didn't read them?

 

[stilicho]

Sorry, stilicho, I didn't see the rule about not being allowed to ignore superfluous, boring or ridiculous questions and posts. I myself have made a great many points and asked a few questions here that no one has responded to. I usually just forget about them and move on, instead of hoarding them to use against people later.

It's not like anybody is here to get their mind changed.

No.

You made a claim about some sort of sexual hanky-panky going on. I had originally thought you were claiming there was a romantic liaison between AK and one of the members of the Perugia police. This claim transformed into a lurid fantasy about eight men (actually seven men and a woman) all being attracted to AK as "moths to a flame". Those are your words. That is your claim.

You're being called on it now. So you have to back it up or retract it. It will continue to haunt you here until you perform either of those simple tasks.

There is still a backlog of more unsubstantiated assertions you've made. You can simply issue a blanket disclaimer now if you wish. Then the topics will be dropped until you make another baseless claim.

 

[Debunker]

#9925 and counting!!
Wow!!
I would have never expected that this thread would reach 10000 posts!!
What has happened to that American girl has to be more interesting than an Agatha Christie book

 

[stilicho]

#9925 and counting!!
Wow!!
I would have never expected that this thread would reach 10000 posts!!
What has happened to that American girl has to be more interesting than an Agatha Christie book

There is more to it than that or the topic would have closed ages ago. Now it's about the challenges of various advocacy groups, the sources and documentation to support the claims, a sprinkling of xenophobia, and now a theatre (with full orchestra) pondering deep questions about the ability of police officers to function properly while controlling their sexual impulses.

Strangest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Mary_H]

I am sure you can find out if you read through this thread: we have discussed it often enough

So you would rather not answer that question.

I don't, no. I agree that she is a liar, though

The concept of lying is thrown around quite casually in the blogs. I personally try never to accuse anyone of lying. I think that for all the information and misinformation that is conveyed, those who convey it actually believe it when they say it. And it is patently absurd to claim that Amanda and Raffaele lied when they were trying to reconcile the police's story with their own.

I would say the closest I have come to seeing anyone lie in all the blogs is when Peter Quennell and his cohorts deliberately edit reports to leave out information. Then we get all these misinformed readers spreading their mistaken beliefs in the other blogs, where they find themselves shocked and hurt when they discover there's a lot more to the story than what they were told on tjmk.

No doubt you will cite all this data? I don't have it. I have the evidence of the length of the questioning, and her testimony that she was indeed offered food and drink and toilet breaks. It does not sound any different from questioning in any police station anywhere in the world.

The data I was referring to were contained in the information about coercive interrogations.

Bless

Yeah, you and Montmorency -- my spiritual advisers for the day.

Does that mean you didn't read them?

Gosh, I didn't read them today; I read them a while back. Is that okay?

 

[Fiona]

Don't forget necrophilia

 

[Debunker]

There is more to it than that or the topic would have closed ages ago. Now it's about the challenges of various advocacy groups, the sources and documentation to support the claims, a sprinkling of xenophobia, and now a theatre (with full orchestra) pondering deep questions about the ability of police officers to function properly while controlling their sexual impulses.

Strangest thing I've ever seen.

Are you suggesting that the thread went off-topic?
Then it should have been closed long ago as from Rule 10 11 12, err., whatever..
OK. I will stop it here.
If not, I will be considered off-topic

 

[Fiona]

So you would rather not answer that question.

I would rather not answer that question again

The concept of lying is thrown around quite casually in the blogs. I personally try never to accuse anyone of lying. I think that for all the information and misinformation that is conveyed, those who convey it actually believe it when they say it. And it is patently absurd to claim that Amanda and Raffaele lied when they were trying to reconcile the police's story with their own.

Sometimes people believe what they are saying: most of the time, IMO. Sometimes they tell lies. Knox told lies.

I would say the closest I have come to seeing anyone lie in all the blogs is when Peter Quennell and his cohorts deliberately edit reports to leave out information. Then we get all these misinformed readers spreading their mistaken beliefs in the other blogs, where they find themselves shocked and hurt when they discover there's a lot more to the story than what they were told on tjmk.

Examples?

The data I was referring to were contained in the information about coercive interrogations.

I don't think the word "data" means what you think it means

Gosh, I didn't read them today; I read them a while back. Is that okay?

Course it is

 

[Mary_H]

You made a claim about some sort of sexual hanky-panky going on. I had originally thought you were claiming there was a romantic liaison between AK and one of the members of the Perugia police. This claim transformed into a lurid fantasy about eight men (actually seven men and a woman) all being attracted to AK as "moths to a flame". Those are your words. That is your claim.

Don't blame me for the "lurid" picture you cooked up in your own head. I didn't come anywhere near suggesting a romantic liaison between Amanda and an individual police officer. You seem to have missed the word "undercurrent" in one of my posts.

You're under the impression that because I talked about sexual attraction I must have been talking about something bad, but I was talking about it as something normal -- a given. That's why I don't understand this seemingly playing-dumb demand for substantiation. Do you really not know that men are sexually attracted to women?

It isn't wrong for the Italian men to be attracted to Amanda. It is wrong, however, to be influenced by emotions when you prosecute someone against whom you have no evidence. The police and the prosecutor essentially admitted this was what was behind their behavior by attributing their suspicions to intuition and by formulating images in their mind of what happened at the crime scene.

You're being called on it now. So you have to back it up or retract it. It will continue to haunt you here until you perform either of those simple tasks.

Haunt away, my friend.

There is still a backlog of more unsubstantiated assertions you've made. You can simply issue a blanket disclaimer now if you wish. Then the topics will be dropped until you make another baseless claim.

As I said, I must have missed the rule about not being able to ignore posts. Relax -- if I don't substantiate my claims, it is a reflection on my laziness, not a reflection on your ability to get people to do what you want them to do. You'll live.

Gotta go out for a while. More later.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Don't blame me for the "lurid" picture you cooked up in your own head. I didn't come anywhere near suggesting a romantic liaison between Amanda and an individual police officer. You seem to have missed the word "undercurrent" in one of my posts.

You're under the impression that because I talked about sexual attraction I must have been talking about something bad, but I was talking about it as something normal -- a given. That's why I don't understand this seemingly playing-dumb demand for substantiation. Do you really not know that men are sexually attracted to women?

It isn't wrong for the Italian men to be attracted to Amanda. It is wrong, however, to be influenced by emotions when you prosecute someone against whom you have no evidence. The police and the prosecutor essentially admitted this was what was behind their behavior by attributing their suspicions to intuition and by formulating images in their mind of what happened at the crime scene.

Evidence?

Or are you going to try to play it off on "human nature"? Of course, you'll still need evidence that this is what happened. A single picture of 8 detectives questioning one of the two people at the scene hardly displays a sexual tension.

Smear the Polizia much?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bruce:

My inquiry regarding Guede's footprints was a simple question:

Where Guede's footprints visible when the Postal Police arrived, or were they only revealed with luminol?

 

[Amazer]

Evidence?

Or are you going to try to play it off on "human nature"? Of course, you'll still need evidence that this is what happened. A single picture of 8 detectives questioning one of the two people at the scene hardly displays a sexual tension.

Smear the Polizia much?

Bob,

You should know by now that evidence is not her strong suit. This seems to be a fairly common trait among Amanda supporters. There are only 2 Amanda supporters here that buck the trend to an extend, Halides1 and Bruce.

Amazer

 

[RWVBWL]

Hello, RWVBWL, I can see guys having a crush on Meredith and Amanda. Having a crush is rather sweet. Both very attractive young women. But I,m talking about how it has come across here. And other sites to be sure. Amanda should not be called a whore etc, and Meredith shouldn,t be maligned in any way. Because the sad truth is she can never defend herself. What are Tito,s, btw?

Hello Capealadin,
I agree with your post.
In my opinion, Rudy Guede is the 1 person whose sex life should be discussed, but it always seems to be ignored, as is his dating life. Did Guede even have a girlfriend or even a recently broken-up-with girlfriend at the time?
RWVBWL

By the way, Tito's Tacos rule! Even my sister in Las Veags drives(!) a box of taco's home for her husband every time she visits L.A. And that's a 4 1/2 hour drive!

 

[Mary_H]

Smear the Polizia much?

Awwww, gwate big Mawy is picking on da widdo tiny Pewugian powice again. Sniff, sniff.

 

[RWVBWL]

Awwww, gwate big Mawy is picking on da widdo tiny Pewugian powice again. Sniff, sniff.

hahaha, to funny Mary H!
You know, on a site that is supposed to be discuss "skepticism", many who post here tow the authorities line...At least the court's have appeal, in case they do get it wrong.
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Bob,

You should know by now that evidence is not her strong suit. This seems to be a fairly common trait among Amanda supporters. There are only 2 Amanda supporters here that buck the trend to an extend, Halides1 and Bruce.

Amazer

I explained to someone here yesterday several reasons why I no longer feel compelled to cite everything. Among other reasons, it has all been cited a million times before and it never makes any difference if the person who asks for the citation is unmoved by it. If you guys are so unfamiliar with the documentation about this case then maybe you should be swimming in the kiddie pool.

I cite sources when it is helpful to my claims, but this particular discussion is not about information. It is about subjective observations based on life experience. Given that we cannot "document" our opinions, I think it is safe to say that this incessant demand for substantiation on this subject matter is merely harassment.

 

[Mary_H]

hahaha, to funny Mary H!
You know, on a site that is supposed to be discuss "skepticism", many who post here tow the authorities line...At least the court's have appeal, in case they do get it wrong.
RWVBWL

Thanks, Bro!

Yup, it has always been a mystery to me.