• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
There is no "Law" on JREF. There are rules. And you can find the rules in the Membership Agreement and further explained in the Membership Agreement FAQ, both of which you can find under the "help" menu in the top right corner.

The rules on JREF are to protect JREF, the forum's image and the posters. The rules permit insulting other groups nations and people that are not members. The rules do not permit insults against members of JREF. JREF moderators enforce the JREF rules. They are not here to enforce the laws of countries where neither they or the sites servers are located.


What Mary posted: "Are you drunk?" was not the accusation "You are drunk." (same words, different order).
Click to expand...

Dan O what you say I find incredible! So I can post an anti-Semitic comment, or a comment about people of any colour and insult and decry them and call them animals, say, and the moderators will say, 'yes fine, go ahead Montmorency'. This is allowed on this site? So...how does this protect the image of JREF forums if it is seen as a racist site? An anti-Semitic site. So can I deny the holocaust and say anything at all as long as it does not insult a member of the board?

Wowee. I thought this was a respectable place to be. I am very shocked to hear this. JREF allows a voice for the denial of the holocaust and other vile racism. Racism to me is one of the worst crimes.

I am really shocked to hear this. Would the Yaffle Bird comment on this? How do I ask him?
 
All this but they intervene to put **** instead of a swear word? I am really not in agreement that racism is ok, but swearing is not.
 
Mary_H said:
you speak out for a victim who had absolutely no connection to your life
Click to expand...
Kermit said:
Do you speak out for a convict (pending appeal) who DOES HAVE a connection to your life?
Click to expand...
Mary_H said:
There's a difference between working to get someone free versus working to get someone into jail. I would have no stomach for the latter in any case; that's why I'm not a cop or a prosecutor.
Click to expand...
.
Mary, you didn't reply to my question: does Amanda or her family have a connection to you?

Does that somehow differentiate (for the better) your stance in this debate compared to those of us who just happened to stumble on this case, and have continued our interest in it, with no particular stake in the outcome?

(BTW, I should say that I'm not working to get anyone into or out of jail. I would simply have liked all three murder convicts - pending appeal - to have offered complete participation and collaboration in the investigation and trial).
 
Montmorency said:
So I can post an anti-Semitic comment, or a comment about people of any colour and insult and decry them and call them animals, say, and the moderators will say, 'yes fine, go ahead Montmorency'. This is allowed on this site? So...how does this protect the image of JREF forums if it is seen as a racist site? An anti-Semitic site. So can I deny the holocaust and say anything at all as long as it does not insult a member of the board?
Click to expand...

Check out some of the other threads and you certainly will find folks making anti-Semitic comments. You will find that those people usually crawl back under the rock from which they came when confronted with their racist nonsense.

Personally, I think anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and other forms of racism are best defeated by facing them head on with facts and logic, rather than just attempting to silence them.
 
Isn't it pretty obvious the mark on Amanda's neck is a hickey? There's no reasonable basis to think that is a wound. Come on. You can't hold that one against Amanda. This is starting to get ridiculous.
 
HumanityBlues said:
The problem is, the credit cards, cash, and keys, did not just get up and walk away by themselves. Again this isn't rocket science. Where do women keep their keys, credit cards, and cash? Their purse. What was missing from the purse? Credit cards, keys, and cash. Whose DNA was on the purse? It was Rudy's. Come on, all the evidence points to him being the one to take those things. It's pretty simple. Fine, no one got convicted for theft. Whatever. Common sense says of the three, he's the one who took the stuff out of the purse.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your logic here. Why do you suppose there was no theft conviction? It is because cash is untraceable, the credit cards were not used, the cell phones were discovered discarded in someone's yard, and the keys were missing.

From what we've been told by AK, those in the house did not customarily store their rent money in their handbags. They stored it in a drawer in their rooms which could then be locked if necessary:

AK: So, we were four girls in the apartment, I and Meredith on one corridor with
our bathroom, and Filomena and Laura on the other side of the living room.
Together, to pay the rent, for example, we would give our money-- for example,
I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because
I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I
would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay
the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she
would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar.

That's from AK's court testimony.

I have no trouble believing that RG might have searched for something in Meredith's bag. But it almost certainly wasn't the items that were missing.

(I apologise in advance if you've already had this pointed out but the thread is going a little nuts lately).
 
stilicho said:
I don't understand your logic here. Why do you suppose there was no theft conviction? It is because cash is untraceable, the credit cards were not used, the cell phones were discovered discarded in someone's yard, and the keys were missing.

From what we've been told by AK, those in the house did not customarily store their rent money in their handbags. They stored it in a drawer in their rooms which could then be locked if necessary:

AK: So, we were four girls in the apartment, I and Meredith on one corridor with
our bathroom, and Filomena and Laura on the other side of the living room.
Together, to pay the rent, for example, we would give our money-- for example,
I would go to the bank machine and withdraw as much as I could at once, because
I had to pay a fee for every withdrawal because I have an American bank, and I
would take the money and put it aside in my room. Then when it was time to pay
the rent, I would take the money a bit early and give it to Filomena, and she
would pay by post. I think also Meredith did something similar.

That's from AK's court testimony.

I have no trouble believing that RG might have searched for something in Meredith's bag. But it almost certainly wasn't the items that were missing.

(I apologise in advance if you've already had this pointed out but the thread is going a little nuts lately).
Click to expand...

Ya, we've kind of gone over and over it previously in the thread. I'm just going to let dead dogs lie on this one.
 
Matthew Best said:
That link is dead. Try again.
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the original phone call in Italian. Thirty-five seconds into the call Raffaele says:

"c'e un mucchio di sangue"

Which I believe translates into, "heaps of blood" or "there is a lot of blood".

http://it.truveo.com/Sollecito-chiama-il-112-telefonata-sottotitolata/id/2792222671

So why didn't Amanda, the Postal Police, Filomena or her friends say anything about a lot of blood? No one reported anything except very small amounts of blood anywhere in the apartment before the bedroom door was opened.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Here's the link to the original phone call in Italian. Thirty-five seconds into the call Raffaele says:

"c'e un mucchio di sangue"

Which I believe translates into, "heaps of blood" or "there is a lot of blood".

http://it.truveo.com/Sollecito-chiama-il-112-telefonata-sottotitolata/id/2792222671
Click to expand...

Clander, at the PMF, is a native Italian speaker who has claimed that the translation might not be correct. I know Kermit was referring to another portion of the same call but it's not evident that this is different than Clander's.

One of the odd features of Sollecito's speaking and writing is that he is quite difficult to understand--even by native Italians. He speaks in soft tones, his pronunciations are not commonly understood by others, and his style is that kind of "art-chic" where he substitutes words that convey a different meaning than what he might have intended.

I know I've been perplexed by what I thought were Google translations of his writing but they weren't. He simply writes in a confusing manner.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Isn't it pretty obvious the mark on Amanda's neck is a hickey? There's no reasonable basis to think that is a wound. Come on. You can't hold that one against Amanda. This is starting to get ridiculous.
Click to expand...

How can it possibly be 'obvious' when two eye witnesses testified it wasn't? I don't know, fill me in on the 'obvious' part.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Here's the link to the original phone call in Italian. Thirty-five seconds into the call Raffaele says:

"c'e un mucchio di sangue"

Which I believe translates into, "heaps of blood" or "there is a lot of blood".

http://it.truveo.com/Sollecito-chiama-il-112-telefonata-sottotitolata/id/2792222671

So why didn't Amanda, the Postal Police, Filomena or her friends say anything about a lot of blood? No one reported anything except very small amounts of blood anywhere in the apartment before the bedroom door was opened.
Click to expand...

False 'contrived' tones.
 
Kermit said:
.
Mary, you didn't reply to my question: does Amanda or her family have a connection to you?

Does that somehow differentiate (for the better) your stance in this debate compared to those of us who just happened to stumble on this case, and have continued our interest in it, with no particular stake in the outcome?

(BTW, I should say that I'm not working to get anyone into or out of jail. I would simply have liked all three murder convicts - pending appeal - to have offered complete participation and collaboration in the investigation and trial).
Click to expand...

Mary H is Candace Dempsey's sister. Didn't you know that?

Make us all a powerpoint showing us that Mary H is Candace's sister. That would be fun.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the confusion with the love bite comes from considering both the guilty Amanda and innocent Amanda cases simultaneously? Innocent Amanda almost certainly has a love bit. Guilty Amanda was involved in a violent murder only hours before, the mark could be associated with that, or be a love bite. HumanityBlues, if you take it as a given that she was involved in a violent murder 12 hours or so before the photograph, do you still say it is obvious that it is just a love bite.

The value of the mark in so far as evidence of guilt goes is close to nil. Perhaps it has some minor importance in countering a hypothetical argument that Amanda can't have been involved in a violent murder because she didn't have so much as a graze on her. I'm only putting effort into this because I don't think it's necessarily fair to take from this that Laura, or the interpreter are making things up/unreliable, or that people who mention this are repeating things that have been proven false.
 
shuttlt said:
Perhaps the confusion with the love bite comes from considering both the guilty Amanda and innocent Amanda cases simultaneously? Innocent Amanda almost certainly has a love bit. Guilty Amanda was involved in a violent murder only hours before, the mark could be associated with that, or be a love bite. HumanityBlues, if you take it as a given that she was involved in a violent murder 12 hours or so before the photograph, do you still say it is obvious that it is just a love bite.

The value of the mark in so far as evidence of guilt goes is close to nil. Perhaps it has some minor importance in countering a hypothetical argument that Amanda can't have been involved in a violent murder because she didn't have so much as a graze on her. I'm only putting effort into this because I don't think it's necessarily fair to take from this that Laura, or the interpreter are making things up/unreliable, or that people who mention this are repeating things that have been proven false.
Click to expand...

I would still say that's what it looked like, because that's what it looks like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom