Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Mary_H]

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.

LOL, Amazer! Very amusing.

To be precise, my argument was that if I don't cite something, that is a reflection of my laziness, not that I'm lazy in general.

You do realize I referred to the rule because he called me a liar, which both JREF and I find to be an invalid argument to fall back on.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Ah, a delicious dose of Sunday shame. Good to the last drop!

I examined the first few pages of this blog and did not find the discussion to be particularly ethereal. I didn't realize that if I had read the whole thing I would have found it to be substantially different from EVERY OTHER BLOG about the case over the past 2 1/2 years.

As for the vicious personal attacks, I refer you and the cherry tree to the same rule I suggested for stilicho.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Yes, I believe that RG entered the cottage through the door and not through the window. I believe that he was allowed inside by AK on the evening of 01 NOV 2007. Reasoning: There is no evidence to support the claim that anyone entered the cottage through Filomena's window.

As for taking and keeping the keys:

Of all the things allegedly taken from the cottage on that night, only the keys, the cash, and the credit cards remain unaccounted for. The cell phones were found. If we assume that the same person or persons were responsible for all the missing items, then we can safely assume that all of them were discarded. We know the phones were. As for cash, that's fairly easy to dispose of. The credit cards? Who knows? Nobody has shown they were used after the murder so they were likely disposed of too. A real thief would have at least tried to use them; otherwise there's no reason to steal them.

That leaves us with the keys.

If the keys were to be retained for later use, that would mean the burglar (if there was one) intended to return to steal more things. In your scenario, the burglar (RG) instead went dancing after discarding Meredith's cell phones. When he returned (in your scenario) he took nothing further. Mighty odd behaviour for a burglar. He also left all the obvious clues to his presence, including his stool in the toilet and his DNA in the room where the victim lay dead.

So the evidence suggests that the keys were not retained for later use but discarded or disposed of like all the other things said to be taken.

By the way, in your scenario, RG took the cell phones but left no blood on them. How do you account for that? We know that AK must have washed up in the bathroom because her mixed DNA was found there. RG didn't wash up there.

 

[stilicho]

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.

Who is John Winters and what is his area of expertise? I see you are standing by your claim that the entire case against Amanda was propelled by sexual fantasies. How do Monica Napoleoni, Manuela Comodi, and Beatrice Cristiani fit into this allegation?

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

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

Indeed.

 

[stilicho]

At over 400 pages, one would hope so. But among the details will be the conclusion that Amanda was walking around town with a 31cm kitchen knife in her handbag, which she carried for personal protection. I would treat such received wisdom with caution and, dare I say, skepticism.

There is a simpler explanation for AK carrying a large knife with her on the evening of 01 NOV 2007 and it has nothing to do with personal protection.

 

[stilicho]

I didn't realize that if I had read the whole thing I would have found it to be substantially different from EVERY OTHER BLOG about the case over the past 2 1/2 years.

It's substantially different and I think you are slowly coming to that awareness. Here we demand sources and evidence. If you claim, for example, that the Perugian authorities were motivated by sexual arousal, or that the Daily Mail issued a retraction for Kate Mansey's interview, you are required to support those claims.

If you don't, then you may explain that you simply invented them, or that they're rumours you heard from a 'comedian'. That's OK. You do get a pass once you explain that you have no evidence to support your claims.

 

[Alt+F4]

I see you are standing by your claim that the entire case against Amanda was propelled by sexual fantasies. How do Monica Napoleoni, Manuela Comodi, and Beatrice Cristiani fit into this allegation?

I know the conspiracy subforum is that-a-way ----> but it's hard for me to believe that someone advancing sexual fantasies as a reason for Amanda Knox's conviction is someone trying to help her cause.

Depending on who you listen to the reasons for Amanda's wrongful conviction are:
1. media influence on the jury
2. anti-Americanism
3. incompetent law enforcement
4. corrupt politicians
5. public opinion
6. shoddy lab work

But now sexual fantasies too! Whoever is the mastermind behind Amanda's PR campaign should really try to reign in some of this nonsense and get everyone behind a rational theory before the appeal begins.

 

[Mary_H]

It's substantially different and I think you are slowly coming to that awareness. Here we demand sources and evidence. If you claim, for example, that the Perugian authorities were motivated by sexual arousal, or that the Daily Mail issued a retraction for Kate Mansey's interview, you are required to support those claims.

If you don't, then you may explain that you simply invented them, or that they're rumours you heard from a 'comedian'. That's OK. You do get a pass once you explain that you have no evidence to support your claims.

The only difference I have noticed so far is an air of exclusion on the part of the guilters. No one on other blogs has tried as hard to drive other people away as you and your gang have here (except when you bullied Bruce off PMF).

As for citations, I don't see any on this page, except for the links to injusticeinperugia and friendsofamanda. I know there are citations on those sites, but I know it without having the link provided, as do you.

I don't believe I said anything about Kate Mansey's articles being retracted. I said the interview with Patrick Lumumba was, but after some research I realized it was Patrick or his representatives who retracted it, not the Mail.

 

[Mary_H]

Who is John Winters and what is his area of expertise? I see you are standing by your claim that the entire case against Amanda was propelled by sexual fantasies. How do Monica Napoleoni, Manuela Comodi, and Beatrice Cristiani fit into this allegation?

John Wintes is one of Amanda's most prolific supporters in the blogs. I don't know that he claims to have an areas of expertise, but he seems to be very knowledgeable about the English language.

You sure talk a lot about this subject for somebody who doesn't think we should be talking about this subject.

 

[Mary_H]

I know the conspiracy subforum is that-a-way ----> but it's hard for me to believe that someone advancing sexual fantasies as a reason for Amanda Knox's conviction is someone trying to help her cause.

Depending on who you listen to the reasons for Amanda's wrongful conviction are:
1. media influence on the jury
2. anti-Americanism
3. incompetent law enforcement
4. corrupt politicians
5. public opinion
6. shoddy lab work

But now sexual fantasies too! Whoever is the mastermind behind Amanda's PR campaign should really try to reign in some of this nonsense and get everyone behind a rational theory before the appeal begins.

You, stilicho and the rest of your gang have misconstrued my meaning. It has become like a game of telephone, where each message is more embellished and contorted than the one before it, until no trace of the original message is left.

If you want to continue to dwell on this subject, go back and read John Winters' original post from CBS and leave it at that. It is one man's opinion, no more ridiculous -- in fact, much less -- than the opinion that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty of the crime.

 

[Danceme]

This is simply not true. In fact, the photos of Meredith's body show small round droplets of blood on her bare breasts. She was on her back, with her bra pushed above her breasts. She had an aspirating wound in her neck causing her blood to spray into the air and fall back down onto her body. The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died.

The evidence doesn't show that Meredith's body was moved hours after her death. I believe she was moved a few feet immediately after she was no longer able to fight. Guede moved her out of the pool of blood so he could sexually assault her. When she was still breathing, her bra was pulled up exposing her breasts. At this time blood was spraying into the air from the wound in her neck and falling back down onto the bra and her bare skin as Guede cut her bra off of her body and sexually assaulted her. Meredith's sexual assault was not staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body. That evidence would be impossible to stage.

Bruce, in your scenario Meredith is on her back, her bra is all bunched up along ,with her t-shirt and pushed up toward her neck. Why then would Rudy not cut the bra from the front, by just running the blade through the narrow section between the cups? He would have had to roll her over to cut the clasp from the back.
Also, you said above, "The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died." I don't see how this proves it was removed before she died. If there are drops on both the bra and breasts then she still had it on whilst bleeding out ie while dying, that coupled with the mark of the strap in dried blood on the floor should lead you to believe the bra was removed long after the assault and likely after she had died.

That is odd but you have the wrong picture. The toilets in the cottage were not setup properly so there was little water in the basin. Remember that Amanda was criticized for not cleaning the toilet properly and had to use the brush when flushing. The girls (or previous tenants) had probably removed the hose between the valve and the overflow pipe in a misguided belief that they were saving water. Rudy's feces was on the upper part of the basin and slid down later (as Raffaele said).

There are of course pictures but I won't inflict them on this forum.

There was a picture of Rudy's feces in the toilet, posted one time on PMF, which looked real as the floor tiles were a match for Filomena's bathroom I think. I have no idea if it was real because googling this shows the image but the actual link is broken. It was a shelf toilet and the feces were still there, not sunk or even fallen lower down. I can't post links yet but maybe someone can confirm if this picture is real or not because if it is how could anyone think they had sunk and were no longer visible.

 

[Mary_H]

If you don't, then you may explain that you simply invented them, or that they're rumours you heard from a 'comedian'.

I meant to address this in a previous post.

I explained that the passages I shared were from Billy Ryan, a writer who is also a dedicated supporter of Amanda in several blogs. The fact that we were writing in a thread sponsored by a comedy website does not make him a comedian.

Please see my comment to Alt+F4, above, about attributing claims to me that I have not made.

 

[Danceme]

Can someone please tell me how to jump to a particular post number, or how to search by post #, thank you.

 

[Alt+F4]

Can someone please tell me how to jump to a particular post number, or how to search by post #, thank you.

I don't think you can search by post number. There are 40 posts per page so if you know the post number you should be able to find it fairly easily.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

Sorry Fiona, but you are simply wrong.

LG: After all that, that whole conversation, that you told us about, and you had a crying crisis, did they bring you some tea, coffee, some cakes, something? When was that exactly?

AK: They brought me things only after I had made some declarations. So, I was there, they were all screaming at me, I only wanted to leave because I was thinking that my mother was arriving, and I said look, can I have my telephone, because I want to call my mom. They said no, and there was this big mess with them shouting at me, threatening me, and it was only after I made declarations that they started saying "No, no, don't worry, we'll protect you," and that's how it happened.

Just to point out the context, "some declarations" are the ones Amanda signed at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM. Amanda's mother was arriving in the morning, not in the middle of the night.

 

[shuttlt]

The only difference I have noticed so far is an air of exclusion on the part of the guilters. No one on other blogs has tried as hard to drive other people away as you and your gang have here (except when you bullied Bruce off PMF).

Mary, this may because you are on message on other blogs. I have met a heck of a lot of hostility on Perugia-Shock and, to a somewhat lesser degree, on InjusticeInPerugia. As for the JREF, there are strong opinions on both sides. The mods are neutral. This isn't the case on any of the other main Amanda discussions. Have you seen any anonymous posters calling people "fools" here over and over as has happened to me on Perugia-Shock?

As for citations, I don't see any on this page, except for the links to injusticeinperugia and friendsofamanda. I know there are citations on those sites, but I know it without having the link provided, as do you.

This discussion is more than 9000 posts long. Many things have been discussed and cited before. When something new is claimed, we like to see a cite. If there is some fact in particular that you don't think can be substantiated, perhaps you would like to ask for a reference, and we'll see what we can do. I can't imagine any other sensible way to run this discussion. New claims have to be cited.

I don't believe I said anything about Kate Mansey's articles being retracted. I said the interview with Patrick Lumumba was, but after some research I realized it was Patrick or his representatives who retracted it, not the Mail.

OK. In case you haven't seen it, there are a bunch of YouTube clips of him saying that he never said the stuff about police brutality.

 

[Alt+F4]

Please see my comment to Alt+F4, above, about attributing claims to me that I have not made.

I must have missed the post where you retracted your allegation that the police decided to interrogate Amanda based on an intuition "between their legs."

 

[shuttlt]

Just to point out the context, "some declarations" are the ones Amanda signed at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM. Amanda's mother was arriving in the morning, not in the middle of the night.

There is more than one way to read that Amanda quote. Normally the 1:45am document is referred to as a statement, the second as a declaration. In that sense she made only one statement. Equally, she declared many things to be the case in the 1:45am statement, so she could be referring to that, after all, I've heard no suggestion of anyone screaming at her for her 5:45am, declaration, but perhaps they did, though I can't see why since they had her statement already. Or she could be referring to only allowing her to eat after the 5:45am declaration. I should imagine if we are going to conclude that they wouldn't let her eat until the 5:45am declaration one would have to conclude that this declaration wasn't at her request, I haven't seen her claim this anywhere.

None of this matters of course, because everything important had been said and signed by her by 1:45am. She already had false memories by then of Patrick killing Meredith. I can't see how another 4 hours of feeling pecking, or even quite hungry would change anything. Access to food and water have nothing to do with he false memories of the murder.

 

[stilicho]

The only difference I have noticed so far is an air of exclusion on the part of the guilters. No one on other blogs has tried as hard to drive other people away as you and your gang have here (except when you bullied Bruce off PMF).

None of the JREF posters registered prior to the sentencing in DEC 2009 have anything to do with the administration of PMF. I can only speak for myself but I have deliberately tried to facilitate a dialogue here between two advocacy groups. You can verify this by looking at any poster here, who also posts at the PMF, and note that the join dates at the PMF are considerably later than those same posters here.

As for citations, I don't see any on this page, except for the links to injusticeinperugia and friendsofamanda. I know there are citations on those sites, but I know it without having the link provided, as do you.

You have some catching up to do, then. Most of the retread arguments you're supplying were cited and refuted through and through weeks or months ago. If you are unable to find the time to read 10,000 posts then you may employ the handy search function to locate them.

I don't believe I said anything about Kate Mansey's articles being retracted. I said the interview with Patrick Lumumba was, but after some research I realized it was Patrick or his representatives who retracted it, not the Mail.

You said this: "The Kate Mansey articles are laughably fake..." Your apology is accepted.

John Wintes is one of Amanda's most prolific supporters in the blogs. I don't know that he claims to have an areas of expertise, but he seems to be very knowledgeable about the English language.

So his insights may be safely ignored. Thanks for clearing that up.

I meant to address this in a previous post.

I explained that the passages I shared were from Billy Ryan, a writer who is also a dedicated supporter of Amanda in several blogs. The fact that we were writing in a thread sponsored by a comedy website does not make him a comedian.

Please see my comment to Alt+F4, above, about attributing claims to me that I have not made.

So are you retracting this claim?:

Originally Posted by Mary_H
They have admitted that they interrogated her based on their "intuition."

That, I believe, would be the "intuition" between their legs.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, this may because you are on message on other blogs. I have met a heck of a lot of hostility on Perugia-Shock and, to a somewhat lesser degree, on InjusticeInPerugia. As for the JREF, there are strong opinions on both sides. The mods are neutral. This isn't the case on any of the other main Amanda discussions. Have you seen any anonymous posters calling people "fools" here over and over as has happened to me on Perugia-Shock?

This discussion is more than 9000 posts long. Many things have been discussed and cited before. When something new is claimed, we like to see a cite. If there is some fact in particular that you don't think can be substantiated, perhaps you would like to ask for a reference, and we'll see what we can do. I can't imagine any other sensible way to run this discussion. New claims have to be cited.

OK. In case you haven't seen it, there are a bunch of YouTube clips of him saying that he never said the stuff about police brutality.

Have I been off message in this blog? I notice more than one conversation going on here; I thought people could talk about what they wanted to talk about. I think I began by talking about the subject of Amanda's interrogations and Patrick's arrest, for which I offered a documented source.

I have never posted on perugiashock but I don't doubt your experience there -- when I have looked at it I have noticed the threads are somewhat chaotic. I have been called many things and told to go many places on many blogs, so I know the feeling.

However, I had not yet known the feeling generated by the long, vicious, vaguely obscene personal attacks I woke up to this morning on this board, nor have I have ever been harassed and badgered as much as I have here -- in a matter of a couple of days. You can trust my judgment on those observations. I am very experienced.

I have no objection whatsoever to citing. If you were to review my more than 700 pro-Amanda posts on the Seattle Times you would find that I am a habitual citer.

My objection is to people telling me I have to support my claims or retract them. This seems to me to be an authoritarian stance and an expression of weak personal boundaries. I don't respond to demands that don't deserve respect.