Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.



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.



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



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



So are you retracting this claim?:

Edited. Breach of Rule 12. Please re-read the Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One correction -- I did experience a similarly strong movement toward trying to shame other writers on the Daily Beast threads. Interestingly, it was expressed by some of the same people who are doing it here.
 
Interesting. Is this woman going to be called as a witness in the appeal? Why wasn't she called as a witness during the original trial?
Hi Alt+F4,
I believe that this Frank Sfarzo wrote of this from Miss Formica's trial testimony, but I guess it did not have much weight. Please corect me if I am wrong. In case you did not read the post on Perugia Shock, here it is:

Date: 3/26/2009 Title: "He wasn't Rudy."
See lynk:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-scenario-for-murder-of-meredith.html


I quote:
"I left behind a story, from last hearing, since before reporting it I wanted to know how it affected the opinion of those who are in charge. Let's see it before the trial starts again with new witnesses.
In the meanwhile Raffaele went to Verona (not just by himself...) to take his first two exams of computer science. He returned in time for celebrating, today, his 25th birthday, the second in jail, where he received a greeting card from Amanda: 'Buon Compleanno Raffaele'. His lawyer's firm brought him a pen and his father send him a little statue of Padre Pio, a saint venerated in Puglia. Amen."

_______________________


"It was an instant for Alessandra Formica and her boyfriend.
At about 22:30 of November 1, they are descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car is parked and where the cottage is. Suddenly a guy who walks in the rush, coming up, bumps into them and runs away. They wouldn't know in that moment but that man could be a murderer.
A few days later Alessandra will hear of what happened in that cottage and will go to the police. That's how people become witnesses, real witnesses, not buffoons seduced by unscrupulous provincial scribblers.

But one thing is a deposition in front of the Pm and another thing is releasing it in a trial.
If previously from Formica's deposition it looked like that running guy could be Rudy today she's positive: I can rule out that that guy could be Rudy Guede. Another unexpected element. That's what trials are for.
So, if that guy wasn't Rudy, if he was not someone who was late for the bus, we finally start to understand what happened while Amanda and Raffaele were on bed.

According to the UACV analysis more people committed the crime. Theirs is just an opinion, a probabilistic reconstruction, but I've never seen them getting it wrong. There's always a first time, true, but, as a matter of fact, we start to have more than one clue for a crime committed by more people. Nara could have really heard well, at least two people running away. I always pointed at the legion of criminals who surround the house and if that running guy was not Rudy, we finally have a confirmation that other people played a role, probably the main role, a role perfectly fit for that kind of gentlemen.

Rudy is certainly not an angel but he doesn't really look like someone who could kill a girl. Everything is possible, thought. But now that we have indications for a changed scenario we have the duty, in homage to the presumption of innocence, to try imagine that he may have had a minor role in the event, at least that he took part in it but he didn't stab Meredith.

We may imagine, for instance, that that evening Rudy went to visit the boys downstairs, uninvited, as he used to do. There was nobody there and he noticed that in the girls' apartment there was no one as well. So he returned towards the town. By the basketball court he maybe met two delinquents, those who are dangerous, those who have a knife in their jacket ready to use.
Maybe these people wanted him to return some money, and wanted them immediately. He wouldn't have them and to save himself he maybe proposed to go look in that isolated cottage, a place easy to break-in unseen, a place where he knew there was no one and certainly there had to be something of value.
In the meanwhile probably Meredith came back home.
Maybe they went to the house and Rudy buzzed, just to be sure there was no one in.
But Meredith was in (a little piece of mushroom was found in her esophagus so maybe she was in the kitchen where she had tasted something that was in the fridge). Maybe she went to the door and asked who was. Rudy made recognize himself, I'm Rudy the friend of Giacomo and Stefano, remember?
Maybe Meredith opened the door to that gentle voice and the two junkies entered together with Rudy.

At that point we can't know what happened, we would need more information, that information which wasn't really searched since they would only focus on the presence of Amanda and Raffaele, there.
Maybe at one point Rudy went to the bathroom, maybe Meredith, left alone with those junkies was scared and tried to call someone with her cellphone, tried to lock herself in her room but they would assail her. Maybe she gave them the money she had in the drawer.
From Meredith's cellphone a call to her bank started at 22:00, and at 22:13 an attempt to an internet connection with her bank account.
Maybe they weren't happy with the money she gave them and she wanted to show them she could get more. But how to get those money? Maybe they became angrier, maybe they took her cellphones but they wanted more and started putting the knife at her throat. She would scream and one of them would push the knife inside. They would run away immediately, as Nara heard. Maybe Rudy, coming out of the bathroom would aid Meredith with the towels. But Meredith died.
Maybe when he realized she was dead he would cancel the fingerprints from the kitchen, then he would stage the sexual violence, he would lock the room and take the key, he would go to Filomena's room, make a mess and open the shutters. Outside the house he would pick a rock and throw it to the window. And he would also runaway.

Just a fantasy, but this is the direction we should look into.
Rudy accused Raffaele and Amanda because they were already accused by the prosecutor. He caught the occasion. Believing to that false accusation had the power of misleading the investigation, addressing it to the wrong way.
Mignini has been great. A great lawyer, able to convince Gip, Gup, Court of Freedom, General Prosecutor, Supreme Court, another Pm and some lawyers. And even Massei seems to believe him. For not to speak of the public opinion, which actually is always easy to be convinced of someone's guilt.
But now is the time for him to show to be also a great Pm, a great judge. There's always a second chance. Even a third if you are lucky. And he has luck. Thanks to the intrusion into the house the investigation was reopened and he may now look in the right way.
Now is the time to have the truth from Rudy and to put under pressure the environment of immigrants and of the drug dealers of the town.
As long as Amanda and Raffaele are under accusation Rudy is going to use their position.
Rudy has to see Amanda and Raffaele in freedom. Only at that point he may finally say who was in that house with him. If he really had a minor role he will speak."
__________________________________________________________________________

Now, to me this testimony of Alessandra Formica was another significent clue that was not examined better. The same goes with the apartment keys, another clue. As was the time of the sexual assault. As was the possibility that it is a semen stain on the pillowcase. If Miss Kercher was alive when the sexual assault happened, wouldn't the blood around her throat have been different? Her body position suggests that she was dead when she had the pilllow placed under her buttocks. Due to the bloodstains, it is a lot easier to believe that the sexual assault happened later, than when she was first stabbed.
For me at least, it is a lot easier to visualise Guede, with or without this unknown person, panicking as Miss Kercher must have screamed/squealed in pain and fright when her throat was stabbed, and the guys left must have pretty FAST. It is pretty easy to visualize that Guede came back after leaving the bars/clubs, probably drunk, and when he did not see a huge police investigation going on, he broke the window in the early morning darkness, and then entered the apartment thru the front door with the never found keys apartment to see if Miss Kercher was dead.

RWVBWL

PS-Congrats Mary H on graduating to becoming a "Scholar" and having the 10,000th post here!
 
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.

You have only been asked to support claims where no cites have been found. These include, but are not limited to, claims that the Perugian authorities became sexually excited instead of investigating a murder, and that Kate Mansey's articles are fake.

None of this is personal. You're simply unused to accepting challenges for your baseless assertions. You have a choice: (1) Back up your claims with the evidence. (2) Retract them. Anything less than that is dishonest.
 
Have I been off message in this blog?
I wondered about changing that. :-) The JREF as a whole certainly doesn't have a position on Amanda Knox. For myself, you are perfectly welcome to believe as you please.

I notice more than one conversation going on here; I thought people could talk about what they wanted to talk about.
We can indeed, of course people are equally free to break into these conversations and criticise people thinking. There is certainly no verboten opinions, or at least you will have to work quite hard to find one.

I think I began by talking about the subject of Amanda's interrogations and Patrick's arrest, for which I offered a documented source.
Fine.

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.
Unlike many of the other blogs, you have some protection here. If people are insulting, rude, or agressive to the point you feel inclined to do something about it, report them to the mods. The venue is neutal even if the posters aren't.

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 think you just have to accept you have walked into a fight that has been going on for two years. No matter how innocent your intentions you are bound to get a few black eyes. Have a read of the "blog wars" article if you haven't already.

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.
Fair enough.

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.
People can certainly be abrupt and forceful in this respect. That is a feature of the JREF. Being insulting isn't acceptable, but challenging people in a forthright way to defend their statements certainly is. I take it your aren't saying that it would be sensible to have a discussion where you made claims but neither defended, justified, or retracted them?
 
Bruce Fisher has already addressed this point, christianhannah: in posts 9216 and 9222 and 9236

Thank you Fiona. I see in reading the posts you cite, I missed this. Still, I would hope Bruce could give us more information other than the prosecution agreed the window could be entered from the outside.

Bruce are you able to share more information from your source concerning evidence of a staged break-in by the prosecution? Surely the Massei motivations didn't create this scenario out of whole cloth. I would think evidence presented in court by the prosecution led them to this conclusion.
 
One correction -- I did experience a similarly strong movement toward trying to shame other writers on the Daily Beast threads. Interestingly, it was expressed by some of the same people who are doing it here.

If you feel shame then that is entirely your own problem.

You need to back up your claims or withdraw them.
 
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 don't respond to demands that don't deserve respect.

Mary, you are finding out about the real world my little bird! You play nasty and people are nasty back to you. Run home to Mamma. Try to be LESS RACIST and STOP TELLING LIES and you will find people will not badger and harass you. You are out of your depth little baby. You mess with real men and they will mess with you back. Police in Italy are real men, but I don't know if you come across such types in the circles you mix in. You are in for a big shock dear Mary; you insult real people in Italy with real wives and girlfriends. For your fun and entertainment. They don't like it little bird.Fly away and play somewhere else. Please Mary. Go now.

Please re-read your Membership Agreement and stop the name calling and personalization.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have only been asked to support claims where no cites have been found. These include, but are not limited to, claims that the Perugian authorities became sexually excited instead of investigating a murder, and that Kate Mansey's articles are fake.

The first "claim" is an opinion -- a theory, if you will. I have already explained at length why I cannot efficiently document an opinion. Why you feel the need to defend the Perugian police might be a more interesting question.

If I thought you were really interested in my views on the Kate Mansey article, I would have provided them. I did mention that I discussed it on the P-I with Finn MacCool, and on another website as well. Given that so many of your requests for documentation have a demanding and punitive tone, I came to the conclusion that you were more interested in pulling my strings than in actually gaining knowledge.

None of this is personal. You're simply unused to accepting challenges for your baseless assertions. You have a choice: (1) Back up your claims with the evidence. (2) Retract them. Anything less than that is dishonest.

If you want to call me dishonest, that is your problem, not mine. As I mentioned to Fiona yesterday, the word "liar" is thrown around very casually in the discussions about this case. I don't see the need for it myself, as any fact I am interested in is available online without relying on the words of other people. BAsically, how other people conduct themselves on the blogs is none of my business, and it sure ain't none of yours.

If this were not personal, you would be asking Montmorency to back up his/her claims as well.
 
Last edited:
Mary H: Just because you don,t like the verdict, handed down in an Italian Court , is no reason to demean the well respected Prosecutor, the police et al. Italy is a country with so many world famous people, in so many areas, it is impossible to count. Do you have ANY idea, how rude and abrasive you have come across? This thread was manageable and had some worthwhile issues going on. And then along came Mary, quite contrary. I am sure Amanda is thankful for all the support, but I can,t see her liking how you are conducting yourself. Even Amanda said the trial was fair, and thanked the prosecutor.
 
Mary, you are finding out about the real world my little bird! You play nasty and people are nasty back to you. Run home to Mamma. Try to be LESS RACIST and STOP TELLING LIES and you will find people will not badger and harass you. You are out of your depth little baby. You mess with real men and they will mess with you back. Police in Italy are real men, but I don't know if you come across such types in the circles you mix in. You are in for a big shock dear Mary; you insult real people in Italy with real wives and girlfriends. For your fun and entertainment. They don't like it little bird.Fly away and play somewhere else. Please Mary. Go now.

Montmorency, enough with the shouting please. You are starting to weird people out.
 
PS-Congrats Mary H on graduating to becoming a "Scholar" and having the 10,000th post here!

Thank you, RWVBWL! I hadn't even noticed.

I did notice that Stilicho is asking you to document that Rudy accused Amanda and Raffaele.

But I'm sure it's nothing personal.:)

You at the beach = :cool:
 
The first "claim" is an opinion -- a theory, if you will. I have already explained at length why I cannot efficiently document an opinion. Why you feel the need to defend the Perugian police might be a more interesting question.

False dichotomy fallacy.

If you make a claim that the Perugian authorities (including the women I provided names for) were motivated by sexual fantasies then anyone is allowed to challenge that. It does not follow that challenging the truthfulness of your statement requires defence of the Perugian police.

You can read more about this logical error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma.

What we've gained from this is your tacit withdrawal of both claims. This is acceptable.
 
By the way Mary, as you say, you were talking about the "confession" earlier.

I thought in the spirit of welcoming a newcomer I would attempt to pick up where Fiona had left off.

You said:
If she didn't confess, then what did the Supreme Court rule as inadmissible?
He "confessing", or not has nothing to do with the admissability. The issue is using the statement taken from her as a witness in court against her. Had she not told the story about Lumumba it's status would not have changed. The Supreme Court judge explains the rules on admissability that apply to the statement. I'm sure you've read it already on Franks blog. To the best of my recollection, he does not say that it isn't admissable because it is a confession, or that only the parts that are a confession are inadmissable.

I would agree that it is a confession of a sort, not to the murder, or direct involvement of course, but to being present for it. If I had to speculate, I would say that it was an inadvertent confession because, in the heat of the moment, she didn't see the consequences for her of saying that she had witnessed Lumumba killing Meredith and thought she was only confessing to something relatively minor.

Earlier on you posted a bunch of links about false confessions. Speaking purely for myself, I'm not particularly focused on the distincting between false confessions and accusations. What seems more important to me is the distincting between somebody being pressured into saying something they know to be false, and somebody being pressured into having false memories. Amanda has always claimed to be in the latter category. I'd have a lot more time for the links if Amanda said something along the lines of "look, I was afraid and I told them a lot of ********", or "look, they told me a lot of ******** and I said yes because I was afraid". That isn't what she says though. She says she said what she said based on real, false, memories. Where I really struggle is believing that in a couple of hours she developed false memories.
 
If this were not personal, you would be asking Montmorency to back up his/her claims as well.

But Mary dear. I do not make claims! I have nothing other than your own words to go on. You stand by what you said, then I will stand by my comment that you seem to have a racist attitude towards Italian men, who you seem to be saying arrested Amanda because they want to have sex with her were sexually aroused by questioning her. This is outrageous thing to state! This insults real people in Italy! Please retract it or provide testimony by all eight police men (oh and one woman sorry) under oath that they were sexually aroused and that is why they arrested Amanda! Otherwise take it back. It is nonsense. And you know it. You said it for fun. Racism is a very serious matter madam. Spreading these lies is a very serious matter. You cannot prove it, it is a lie.
 
Mary H: Just because you don,t like the verdict, handed down in an Italian Court , is no reason to demean the well respected Prosecutor, the police et al. Italy is a country with so many world famous people, in so many areas, it is impossible to count. Do you have ANY idea, how rude and abrasive you have come across? This thread was manageable and had some worthwhile issues going on. And then along came Mary, quite contrary. I am sure Amanda is thankful for all the support, but I can,t see her liking how you are conducting yourself. Even Amanda said the trial was fair, and thanked the prosecutor.

Amanda did not say the trial was fair. I believe this myth is discussed on injusticeinperugia and several other sites.

I'm sorry you view me as rude and abrasive, capealadin. I do respond with force at times when people are rude and abrasive to me, but I am never an aggressor. I really don't understand why people don't just ignore posts they don't like.
 
If this were not personal, you would be asking Montmorency to back up his/her claims as well.

Mary, I can't see where Montmorency has made any claims other than personal attacks (and it appears at least one of those has been removed). I hope you don't equate your claims with Montmorency.

I am fairly new here, and have seen that posters are more than willing to engage those with opinions opposite of theirs in a respectful manner, however, one needs to give respect to get it.

I'm not sure what motivates you to this forum (or Montmorency, for that matter), but be prepared to have an answer for what you post and don't consider it a personal attack.

Sometimes it is best to respond slowly until one catches the mood of the forum they are visiting. Obviously, I move very slowly.
 
Montmorency, enough with the shouting please. You are starting to weird people out.

I am not shouting Humanity, I am trying to stop this woman from her racist claims. She is 'weirding' me out. Why don't you tell her to stop? If she plays nicely there is no problem. Why should there be? I will go away if she stops with her racist nonsense. I never wanted to join in but she was so insulting and disrupted the thread so much with her posts that I had to speak out. You think the men all wanted to have sex with Amanda too, and this is why they arrested her? What a view people in America have of Italy. So many insults to the nation.

You see this is all a game to her - or maybe a job, I don't know. But I don't think you should make these claims and say them and no-one challenge you. It is wrong. Discussion before this was nice and intelligent. Now it is in the gutter. If someone said the same about another nation, or someone of colour then they would be jumped on and hounded I suspect. But Italy? no, it is fine. I see how this goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom