Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

No. That's how things work here at JREF. You make a claim, you had better be able to back it up.

 

[Mary_H]

No. That's how things work here at JREF. You make a claim, you had better be able to back it up.

Okay, then can you please document these claims you made several pages ago?

"Regardless of that (because I'm sure you'll argue that it was under duress - both times that she made the claim, and for the entire 2 weeks after when she didn't acknowledge that Lumumba had had nothing to do with this entire affair - but whatever), Raffaele disagreed. In fact, he clearly stated that their original alibi was untrue (rubbish, etc depending on translation). He even went so far as to suggest that not only could Amanda have disappeared from his apartment for a few hours that night, she also might be responsible for giving his kitchen knife to the killer."

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi Mary H "the Scholar",
I agree with your post. It probably does not make any difference in the opinions of any of the full-time regulars who post here throughout the day.

Have a good evening debating Mary, I'm gonna go read about something else.
You're on your own now, swimmin' with the sharks all about, but you can handle 'em!
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H. wrote: 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?

One that comes to mind is the trend that lasted for a week or two about Mignini never having claimed the sex murder was part of a Satanic ritual. SO many people claimed that, and had to be shown the part of Massei's sentencing report for Guede, where he talked about rejecting the prosecutor's claim of the sex crime having a ritualistic aspect. Sure, Massei didn't use the actual word "Satanic," which allowed the perpetrator of the rumor to spread it, but the meaning was clear.

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

I've worked in research for twenty years.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary H "the Scholar",
I agree with your post. It probably does not make any difference in the opinions of any of the full-time regulars who post here throughout the day.

Have a good evening debating Mary, I'm gonna go read about something else.
You're on your own now, swimmin' with the sharks all about, but you can handle 'em!
RWVBWL

You're a doll, RWVBWL; I miss you when you're gone. I might go watch a movie myself.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Okay, then can you please document these claims you made several pages ago?

"Regardless of that (because I'm sure you'll argue that it was under duress - both times that she made the claim, and for the entire 2 weeks after when she didn't acknowledge that Lumumba had had nothing to do with this entire affair - but whatever), Raffaele disagreed. In fact, he clearly stated that their original alibi was untrue (rubbish, etc depending on translation). He even went so far as to suggest that not only could Amanda have disappeared from his apartment for a few hours that night, she also might be responsible for giving his kitchen knife to the killer."

Well, here's Bruce using Raffaele's prison diary in this thread to defend Raffaele writing that Meredith's DNA was on the knife because he (Raffaele) had pricked her finger while they were cooking together:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841967&postcount=7360

eta: Here's a new article reporting it: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...knife-because-he-pricked-her-while-cooking.do

Now, If you would be so kind as to provide evidence that sexual attraction plays a role in the Police dealings with Amanda, that would be appreciated.

Also, I again am inquiring about Guede's footprints. Were they or were they not visible to the naked eye when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, here's Bruce using Raffaele's prison diary in this thread to defend Raffaele writing that Meredith's DNA was on the knife because he (Raffaele) had pricked her finger while they were cooking together:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841967&postcount=7360

Now, If you would be so kind as to provide evidence that sexual attraction plays a role in the Police dealings with Amanda, that would be appreciated.

Also, I again am inquiring about Guede's footprints. Were they or were they not visible to the naked eye when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage?

The shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, were visible to the human eye in the corridor. They were not big bright red prints going out the front door if that is what you are asking. No one that was at the cottage before Merdith's door was broken noticed the prints. All of these prints were completely scrubbed off the floor by the investigators.

 

[Mary_H]

Now, If you would be so kind as to provide evidence that sexual attraction plays a role in the Police dealings with Amanda, that would be appreciated.

Sorry, no can do. I explained why in my post at 9:10.

Do your worst.

Also, I again am inquiring about Guede's footprints. Were they or were they not visible to the naked eye when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage?

I tend to zone out of the footprint discussions, but no doubt Charlie or Bruce will come along eventually and answer your question. In my undocumented opinion, I would guess there were so many people standing in the hallway in front of Meredith's bedroom door that nobody thought to look at the floor. The print in the bathroom was visible.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, here's Bruce using Raffaele's prison diary in this thread to defend Raffaele writing that Meredith's DNA was on the knife because he (Raffaele) had pricked her finger while they were cooking together:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5841967&postcount=7360

eta: Here's a new article reporting it: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...knife-because-he-pricked-her-while-cooking.do

Now, If you would be so kind as to provide evidence that sexual attraction plays a role in the Police dealings with Amanda, that would be appreciated.

Also, I again am inquiring about Guede's footprints. Were they or were they not visible to the naked eye when the Postal Police arrived at the cottage?

Here is one of the shoe prints.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And from the PMF translation of Raffaele's Prison Diary:

Today the Court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or less to go to the pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was absent.

...slowly I am realizing that...the fact that the first statement made by me saying that Amanda was all the night with me, I must say that 90% I said the fat cavolata [cavolo = cabbage... garbage/crap?] in my second statement. And that is:
1 that Amanda brought me to say something stupid and I have repeated that over and over again in the court of the squadra mobile:

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Here is one of the shoe prints.

[qimg]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8163/dsc0227m.jpg[/qimg]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Thanks Bruce.

You wouldn't happen to have pictures of the rest of the prints, would you?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

If you would like to read about the shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, and the bare footprint in the bathroom I have provided a link.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you would like to read about the shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, and the bare footprint in the bathroom I have provided a link.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

Thanks again.

A few points:

1) Rudy's footprints don't reach all the way to Meredith's room. Did he jump from her door to the front of the hallway?

2) There are very few footprints between Rudy's and the bathroom. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the floor was cleaned between the hallway and bathroom - i.e. in front of Meredith and Amanda's room, but not all the way out the front? The thought being that Amanda and Raffaele could have cleaned the hallway where they remembered they had been - it would explain the bathmat footprint being Raffaele's, the distinct lack of footprints in front of Meredith and Amanda's room, the importance to the duo of the mop...

 

[stilicho]

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.

What undercurrent exactly?

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?

Irrelevant. You charged that the Perugia police officers forgot their duty due to some sort of sexual fantasy. You reprinted the whole thing from a blog entry. Nobody understood it and you refused to explain it.

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 this is what happened. Prove to us that the Perugia authorities forgot their duty to the victim and to the community. Otherwise you are required to retract this unsupported allegation.

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.

Laziness is not what's happening here. You weren't lazy in reprinting a blog entry--one you called one of your favourites--that established as a claim that the Perugia authorities were motivated by sexual excitement and not in producing the evidence required to prosecute the three murderers. Laziness doesn't do that. You were far too quick on the trigger to pretend it was an "innocent" blogger and therefore not your fault.

What you're doing here is weaseling out of your responsibility to source your claims. You aren't lazy. You're a liar.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Stilicho,
Since Miss Kercher's apartment keys were never found, I am led to believe that Guede grabbed them, as well as her cell phones and her $$$. If he had the apartment keys, which, once again were never found, don'tcha think that he probably went in thru the door?
Come on Stilicho, what would you have done?
Guede probably FREAKED when Miss Kercher was stabbed, with blood spurting outta her neck and split, FAST. Later, when he went out to the bars/clubs, he probably had a few beers or some hard liquor, and reality sank in on what happened. When he left the bars/clubs, and did not see a huge police investagation going on, he probably threw a rock at Filomena's window to see if anyone was there, and then went in the front door with the keys.
Quite possible, hmmm?
RWVBWL

Hi Stilicho,
I wrote a response to a post of yours quite a few hours ago, but you have not responded. In case you missed my question, here it is again above. Your a smart guy/gal, please give me your opinion,
Thanks, RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Otherwise you are required to retract this unsupported allegation.

I am? How so?

Laziness is not what's happening here. You weren't lazy in reprinting a blog entry--one you called one of your favourites--that established as a claim that the Perugia authorities were motivated by sexual excitement and not in producing the evidence required to prosecute the three murderers. Laziness doesn't do that. You were far too quick on the trigger to pretend it was an "innocent" blogger and therefore not your fault.

You know, you're right. I actually went to a lot of trouble to collect those excerpts from Billy Ryan's posts on the Punchline blog (the ones I described as some of my favorites).

The one by John Winters was the one that alluded to the Perugian authorities being motivated by sexual excitement and not by producing the evidence required to prosecute the three murderers. That one was very easily available.

What you're doing here is weaseling out of your responsibility to source your claims. You aren't lazy. You're a liar.

Additional Rules for posting in the JREF Topics, General Topics & Forum Topics sections

12. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

 

[Amazer]

Additional Rules for posting in the JREF Topics, General Topics & Forum Topics sections

12. “Address the argument, not the arguer."

It was your claim was that you are lazy.
Stilicho provided evidence that you are not lazy.
And then drew a logical conclusion from the evidence that contradicted your claim.

Now you might not agree with his/her conclusion, but you can hardly claim that Stilicho didn't address the argument.

 

[Montmorency]

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

There you go again Mary. You don't play nice.

Edited. Breach of rules 0 and 12. Please re-read your Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

I have been reading here for a long time. No-one as insulting as you before. Even Bruce will not speak ill of Meredith. He has respect. You have no respect.

I will ask you one more time. Stop insulting the Italian people and the Italian police. It will get you into trouble sooner or later. These are real men, not playing games now.

 

[Alt+F4]

It is my observation, Montmorency, that the men who have addressed this topic with me are struggling only to disagree with me regardless of what I say.

I'm a woman and think this line of your "observation" is down right creepy and says more about you than it does about anyone involved in this case. You sound like Andrea Dworkin back from the dead.

Yeah, I'm really worried about insulting Mignini. It is so odd -- the number of who people are quick to jump to defense of a powerful male who does not need their help, meanwhile disparaging a completely powerless young woman.

Again more creepy, man-hating nonsense that has zero to do with this case.

It would be perfectly all right if its main purpose weren't to destroy Amanda's life.

How is Peter Quenell destroying Amanda's life?

The reason I avoided responding to your first post was because it looked to me as if you were going in the direction of talking about the differences between Meredith's and Amanda's physical appearances, something that many people were preoccupied with in the blogs for a long time. That discussion is irrelevant and inappropriate.

In the thousands and thousands of posts in this thread I've not seen one person make any mention of either Meredith's or Amanda's physical appearance. It's you that's preoccupied with it, no one here.

 

[Montmorency]

Thank you Alt+F4. You are right, the debate levels have not been grubby like this before, or discussing Amanda and Meredith's looks and sexuality. They have been much higher that that. It is Mary's preoccupation. She does not belong here. She is a street fighter not an intellectual, so I meet her on her own level. She speaks about real men, with wives and girlfriends. Professional men. She shows her ignorance of Italy and Italian men, just knowing a stereotype of them. This is racism I think. I could say many things about her country, but I do not. It has no place here.