Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[43degreesNorth]

Don't know much about Rudy's history. He doesn't seem to write so much about his love life.

 

[Mary_H]

We've already established that Rudy is a mostly unreliable witness. What exactly are we still debating here? Are you still attempting to prove that Rudy's statements were influenced by the Media/Police? We've already agreed that is a possibility. So what, exactly, are you trying to argue?

EDIT: To clarify, I understand why you're responding to Fulcanelli. However, what is the point of this discourse? This question goes to both Fulcanelli and Mary. Why are we still fighting over even this minor bit? Yes - Rudy pinned it on Amanda. Yes, that could have been influenced by the Media/Police. No, he is not a reliable witness. Even if we allow that his latest statements were due to suggestions from Media/Police sources, that does not mean Amanda's claims of suggestion are valid - there are various differences, most notably: time (1:45 vs 4 months).

Originally, I wasn't debating anything related to this subject matter. This started two pages ago when I commented to RWVBWL that Rudy changed his story a number of times, and you asked me for citations. Then it went from being a "minor bit" to being a lot of research for me. If you already knew everything you just claimed above, why did you ask for citations?

You ask me for citations and then denigrate me for providing them. This is more support for my previous arguments against providing citations to those of you who are familiar with the case but enjoy harassment and bullying.

Yes, I did respond when Fulcanelli claimed that the differences in Rudy's original statement and his final statement amounted to "a couple of little details." I am sure that you, with your razor-sharp intellect and all-encompassing knowledge of the case, will agree that that was a claim worth refuting. Odd that he couldn't glean the correct information from the citations I provided.

Could it be that he didn't read them?

 

[43degreesNorth]

Hi 43degreesNorth,
How's the weather up North? It's sunny and bitchin' down here in Los Angeles right now.
Anyways, at my job, I have watched young adults walk of the job before, they just didn't want to do the work anymore. Not everyone give a **** about giving "2 weeks notice". In a way, it's always kinda amusing for me to see, since you can tell the person is fed up and thinks "take this job and shuvit!" as they split., hahaha...

As far as Amanda Knox's sex life goes, let us just disagree about it, OK? I know a little bit of how you feel about her lustfull luv life, so there is nothing more to say.

But on the flip side of the coin, can you tell me about Rudy Guede's sexual history?
I am only curious because it was poor ol' Rudy Guede's DNA that was found inside Miss Kercher's dead body...
Thanks, RWVBWL

The issue here was Mary H said Amanda was not unreliable. If i hired her for a job she didn't like and she walked off, my reference for her would read 'unreliable'

 

[RWVBWL]

Don't know much about Rudy's history. He doesn't seem to write so much about his love life.

Hi 43degreesNorth,
I wonder, IF Rudy Guede had decided to keep a diary and was told that he too was positive for HIV, would he have also listed Meredith Kercher as a partner? Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

The issue here was Mary H said Amanda was not unreliable. If i hired her for a job she didn't like and she walked off, my reference for her would read 'unreliable'

Hi once more, 43degreesNorth,
Well, when you put it in that context, I can totally agree, for I have said the same about employees that have walked off the job at a place I have worked at also, when a potential new employer was asking questions about that old employee months later.
Have a good rest of the day,
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

You ask me for citations and then denigrate me for providing them. This is more support for my previous arguments against providing citations to those of you who are familiar with the case but enjoy harassment and bullying.

Yes, I did respond when Fulcanelli claimed that the differences in Rudy's original statement and his final statement amounted to "a couple of little details." I am sure that you, with your razor-sharp intellect and all-encompassing knowledge of the case, will agree that that was a claim worth refuting. Odd that he couldn't glean the correct information from the citations I provided.

I see no issue with your cites at all. I haven't spent as much time looking at what Rudy said because I don't think any of us ever thought he was innocent.

In particular, though, I was interested in where and when he had named Amanda. From what I can gather--and it's only from media reports and not from his court testimony--he did not name her but simply didn't rule out that she was there. I agree with you that he supplied his own version of the bushy-haired stranger.

Colin Thatcher used his own version of the bushy-haired stranger after having someone murder his ex-wife. I think the BHS goes into the same bin as the DNA contamination meme. They're straws clutched by desperate defendants. Each of them requires a level of evidence that juries (in our systems, anyhow) typically don't get from defence lawyers.

On an associated topic, I have no problems with the media portrayal of Rudy as a drifter--ie someone with no real apparent goals--as long as Raffaele and Amanda are provided the same moniker. None of them were living in permanent residences on 01 NOV 2007. None of them had a regular income. Each of them portrayed personal habits that most of us would not find acceptable in our own sons, daughters, nieces and nephews. They all were drifting.

Maybe they all ought to be called high maintenance too. It appears that each of them had a summary of needs far outweighing their sense of responsibility.

 

[Malkmus]

They vary. Some come from Amanda's own statements, many come from trial transcripts, or newspaper articles. Does it matter if I don't agree with your source? Surely it's better to state the source, even if I disagree with it, rather than just turning this into a debate where you assert stuff out of the ether? I am happy to tell you my sources, even though I suspect you won't wholely accept them. If we need two timelines to understand the official chain of events, and the Amanda chain of events, then I personally am happy for that to be the case.

Nadeau's book offers up these details. Perhaps they can be compared against the other timelines:

Raffaele and Amanda showed up at the station at 10:40 PM. Raf was the one called in, but Amanda tagged along, not wanting to be alone.

In the interrogation, Raf stated that Amanda was not with him that night. Then LE compared his shoe to a print found in Meredith's room, which appeared to match, so they booked him then and there and threw him in a jail cell.

Then after 1 AM Napoleoni started questioning Amanda in the waiting room(at this point Raf is already in his cell), then migrated to an interrogation room. At 1:45 AM a translator was brought in and Napoleoni wrote in her notebook that Amanda was being questioned.

"At that point she was an official suspect in Napoleoni's eyes and the police should have started taping the interrogation and allowed Amanda to call a lawyer, but they didn't."

At 3:30 AM Mignini was "called", following her story about being at the cottage. He arrived sometime later, and she repeated her story to him.

At 5:45 Amanda signed a written statement and was arrested.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The Supreme Court ruling made that clear. Amanda was interrogated twice during the night, signing statements at 1:45 and 5:45. The letter she wrote in english was created later in the day.

The claim that the 5:45 statement was at Amanda's request is simply a lie. The timeline posted by Fulcanelli is also mostly fiction. The times for indicated for when the interviews started are not supported by any evidence.

No she wasn't Kestrel. The 5:45 signing was of a 'statement', a voluntary statement, it was not an interrogation. And this statement was given at her own insistence. Mignini was called in because only he can receive a statement from a suspect. This is what we also heard in court and this is also supported by Massei. If you have evidence otherwise and that Mignini is a liar, provide it.

The times given in the section of the Timeline have all been carefully verified and are indeed supported by the evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

What cold sore?

I'm confused too. Who had a cold sore at the time of the murder and what evidence does it/did it provide?

 

[Fulcanelli]

What little coverage I have seen of the Casey Anthony case includes video of shrieking bigots holding signs of protest on the sidewalk in front of Casey Anthony's parents' home, sticking their noses into a case that does not concern them.

How is this significantly different from the guilters calling for justice for Meredith?

While you guys are standing outside Rudy's home with signs you mean? The difference with us love, is our campaign is against...in reaction 'to' another campaign, the Knox propaganda supertanker that puts out lies, ignorance, misinformation and spin and also has been engaging in a dirty smear campaign against the Italians.

Were it not for that, PMF would be very low profile, as it was in its True Crime on Haloscan days, or indeed, may not even exist at all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I completely agree. It took them four months to train Rudy to stick firmly to the details of the story he was to present to the court.

What utter nonsense.

Huh? Caught off guard and arrested, he first said he wasn't even there, then, over time, offered various versions of the activities at the crime scene, then finally settled on Amanda and Raffaele. Might as well, since they were already sitting in jail for the crime (how they could retaliate against him there, I don't know).

Rudy's first thoughts were about saving his own skin; at that time he wasn't thinking about the possibilities of implicating himself.

If you want to believe Rudy's story that Amanda and Raffaele were at the crime scene, then why don't you demand that his story matches Mignini's? He has never once referred to anything like a sex orgy gone wrong, or being talked into the project by Amanda.

You are incorrect. He admitted to being there as early as his second skype conversation. Caught off guard? How could he be caught off guard...according to you people he went to Germany to escape the murder. He knew from the media that the police were looking for him. How could he be off guard?

What are these 'various versions'? Can you support that? Raffaele and Amanda however, certainly offered various versions. I lost count of the number of times the time they had dinner changed for example.

Mignini has never said there was a sex orgy that went wrong. The press have said that, Mignini hasn't. Are you able to provide a quote from Mignini saying that?

As for how Raffaele and Amanda could retaliate against Rudy...with WHAT THEY TELL THE ILE. If Rudy provides information that can be evidenced putting Amanda and raffaele in a corner, they would retaliate by relating Rudy's involvement in the crime. Rudy wanted to get away with it, he needed to try and get his story accepted. If he implicated them, they could ruin that for him.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Big deal. What time did you have dinner four nights ago? She spent the night at Raffaele's, as she has always held.

I see. So when elements of Raffaele's story change it's no big deal. But if elements in Rudy's syoty change, that 'is' a big deal. Please explain why that is.

Raffaele first said Amanda was with him all night. He told Kate Mansey they went to a party with a 'friend' that night. Then he told the police he was home alone all night and Amanda actually went out until 1 am. THAT'S a big deal. And I can't give you the exact time I had dinner 4 nights ago, but I damn well wouldn't misremember actually having had dinner well before 8:40 for 11 o'clock at night, which also conveniently was also the believed rime of death at that time.

I printed those excerpts from the Times (and the links) so you could see that it was not just "a couple of little details." It went from a complete denial and saying Amanda was not there, to witnessing an unknown stranger whom he could not identify, to claiming that maybe he could identify the stranger after all, to full out claiming Raffaele and Amanda were the ones who committed the murder. I doubt the defendants would call those "a couple little details."

He admitted to being at the cottage in the same skype conversation. He said from the start he'd recognise the attacker if he saw him again and I've already explained why he didn't blame Amanda and Raffaele from the beginning. Were Amanda and Raffaele truly innocent and not at the cottage he had EVERY reason to say it was them he saw from day one and none to not name them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As far as sex lives go in this murder case, I would much rather know about Rudy Guede's sex life than Amanda Knox's or Raffaele Sollecito's sex life, for it is Guede's DNA that is on and inside Miss Kercher's slain body that was found...

None of Rudy's DNA was found 'on' Meredith's body.

 

[Mary_H]

On an associated topic, I have no problems with the media portrayal of Rudy as a drifter--ie someone with no real apparent goals--as long as Raffaele and Amanda are provided the same moniker. None of them were living in permanent residences on 01 NOV 2007. None of them had a regular income. Each of them portrayed personal habits that most of us would not find acceptable in our own sons, daughters, nieces and nephews. They all were drifting.

By that logic, you would have to call most college students drifters, which I think they might object to. No, actually, you couldn't even do that, because going to college implies one has goals, if only the goal of graduating.

You may have objections to some of the risk-taking behaviors they all engaged in, but the only one who engaged in behaviors that were illegal was Guede. Drug use is probably technically illegal in Perugia but the laws do not appear to be enforced.

 

[stilicho]

I'm confused too. Who had a cold sore at the time of the murder and what evidence does it/did it provide?

I am equally baffled. Maybe it ought to be:

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cold sore.

 

[Mary_H]

While you guys are standing outside Rudy's home with signs you mean? The difference with us love, is our campaign is against...in reaction 'to' another campaign, the Knox propaganda supertanker that puts out lies, ignorance, misinformation and spin and also has been engaging in a dirty smear campaign against the Italians.

I am not aware of any group trying to do worse to Rudy than he has done to himself; at least, I am not a part of any group concerned with penalizing Rudy in any way.

I still have not heard anyone offer a good explanation of how Amanda's PR campaign is harming anyone in any way.

 

[Mary_H]

I am equally baffled. Maybe it ought to be:

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cold sore.

You guys have got to be kidding.

Amanda Knox: Cold Sores Instead of Evidence

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/171178.asp

 

[stilicho]

By that logic, you would have to call most college students drifters, which I think they might object to. No, actually, you couldn't even do that, because going to college implies one has goals, if only the goal of graduating.

You may have objections to some of the risk-taking behaviors they all engaged in, but the only one who engaged in behaviors that were illegal was Guede. Drug use is probably technically illegal in Perugia but the laws do not appear to be enforced.

A lot of people of college age are drifters. Some college attendees don't have a permanent residence and they don't have any real sense of what they want to do with their lives.

Attending a college doesn't imply having goals. Not going to college equally doesn't imply not having goals. You sound like some people I've met who say you aren't really a good citizen unless you've served your country in the military. There are a number of drifters in the military, too, and yet a number of people who serve their nation as a part of a larger career and personal goal.

We must live in different worlds. Perhaps you've never had one of those 03:00 phone calls from a relative telling you they're in some kind of trouble. The thing is, Edda remembers the one she got, while her drifter daughter doesn't. Edda testified about it on the stand, under oath. The drifter unblinkingly denied it a few days later (not under oath).

 

[Fulcanelli]

You may have objections to some of the risk-taking behaviors they all engaged in, but the only one who engaged in behaviors that were illegal was Guede. Drug use is probably technically illegal in Perugia but the laws do not appear to be enforced.

If you believe drug use to be illegal, then Raffaele and Amanda engaged in illegal activity.

I am not aware of any group trying to do worse to Rudy than he has done to himself; at least, I am not a part of any group concerned with penalizing Rudy in any way.

The FOA publicly announce that Rudy murdered Meredith and did so alone at every opportunity and their supporters do the same in various comments sections.

I still have not heard anyone offer a good explanation of how Amanda's PR campaign is harming anyone in any way

Spreading lies and bigotry and smearing people isn't harmful? Perhaps you have a different idea of what 'harm' is to that of normal people.

You guys have got to be kidding.

Amanda Knox: Cold Sores Instead of Evidence

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/171178.asp

Using Candace Dempsey as a source. Oh dear.

 

[stilicho]

You guys have got to be kidding.

Amanda Knox: Cold Sores Instead of Evidence

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/171178.asp

You might find this hard to believe but the vast majority of those who read the news don't have the time or the energy to delve into the meanderings of obscure Seattle bloggers.

We prefer properly researched media articles and evidence.

Thanks anyhow.