Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[tsig]

Shuttit, you and I have the same sources, just different conclusions.

Same evidence/different wordview?

 

[Mary_H]

What utter nonsense.

Is that an incisive argument on your planet?

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?

His friend wired him money for a train ticket to Perugia, he said he would come. Instead, he headed north.

"Mr Guede was arrested yesterday for travelling without a ticket on a train between Mainz and Wiesbaden. German police were already on the alert for him, after being tipped off by Italian police, who had tracked his movements through his internet messages and Skype conversations conducted from Dusseldorf.

"Mr Guede, 20, was at one point unaware that the friend he was talking to in Perugia through Skype was in fact inside the Perugia police station and collaborating in the manhunt for him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2913150.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

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.

I provided some of the various versions on page 276; I would think you would have read them before responding to this subject matter. No wonder you thought we were talking about "a couple little details."

Can you really not tell the difference between getting dinnertime wrong and saying you were not at a house where you left mass quantities of DNA and fingerprint evidence?

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?

I put this challenge in the same category with the BS about Mignini never having said anything about a Satanic ritual. Mignini told his stories to Matteini and Micheli; we don't know exactly what he said. However, the judges describe accusations that can be, and were, interpreted as concerning a ritualistic orgy.

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.

Rudy had no fear of retaliation by Amanda and Raffaele because he committed the crime alone.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

I chose Candace's blog not to document the cold sore but to show the similarity between your tentative title, "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cold sore" and the title she used, "Amanda Knox: Cold Sores Instead of Evidence." For some reason, I thought you would find that an intriguing coincidence.

Also, if you were interested in becoming further educated about the case and the public reaction to it, you might have found in that particular piece some perspective on the enormous swell of ridicule that erupted in the blogs because of Amanda's cold sore, especially since you, Alt+4 and quadraginta do not seem to have been following the case at the time of Amanda's first day of testimony.

Well, if you ever do get the time or energy to look into the obscure Candace Dempsey, may I recommended the perugiamurderfile website? They are absolutely obsessed with her over there -- I would guess she has been mentioned on practically every page since the website was constructed. Just recently there were several pages devoted to the topic of whether or not she has had a face lift. I know -- can you imagine how much time people must have on their hands to make that a topic of discussion for DAYS on end?

If you choose to comment on that site, though, you're going to have change your name. Someone over there is already using it.

 

[RWVBWL]

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

Hi Fulcanelli,
Sorry for the, ah, misunderstanding. Let me re-phrase it:

"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 Miss Kercher's slain body, inside her v***na, that was found..."

Is that better, sir?
Does it help me convey to you the fact that Guede's DNA was "on" her body any better? Esh...

Speaking of sex lives,
why do people always harp on the fact that Amanda Knox had 7 lovers in her life?

Most youth nowadays, at least from the beach communities I have ever known, are sexually active by age 18. So lets see, there's 52 potential weekends for most normal working adults to go out. If single and a "player" that's a lot of luvers in 2 years, you're in the hundreds. Funny, but I know a bunch of guys like that, some young, some older.100's+100's of notches, you could say.
Luvers yes, but not a murderer amongst 'em.
The guys I know who are evil, they're a different story though...

Let's slow it down some, for maybe studies and homework might get in the dating way. Say someone was to date at least 1 different person a month, and like them enough to decide to be intimate with them, gosh, thats 24 potential different partners by the time that person was 20. One of my 3 gorgeous younger sisters likes to go dancing+clubbing often, and she dates, alot. Yikes, she is probably intimate too. "Y'que!"

Amanda Knox, with 7 intimate encounters is not much, in my opinion.
Your opinion might be different, so be it.
Gosh, Amanda even met her last guy, Raffaele, at a classical music concert.
Sounds pretty "hard", as someone recently posted, to me.
Not!
RWVBWL

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Also, if you were interested in becoming further educated about the case and the public reaction to it, you might have found in that particular piece some perspective on the enormous swell of ridicule that erupted in the blogs because of Amanda's cold sore, especially since you, Alt+4 and quadraginta do not seem to have been following the case at the time of Amanda's first day of testimony.

I think I see the crux of the problem here. Blogs are often not a fruitful source of facts when researching a case such as this. More like small, irrelevant tempests in remarkably obscure teapots.

Even the newspapers are not primary sources, but at least they occasionally make some reference to them. The search for facts would be less complicated if the primary sources were in English, but we have what we have.

Was Knox's cold sore an evidentiary element of the case presented against her during the trial? Is that in the trial testimony?

Blog wars and the petty personalities who feel compelled to pursue them are of no help at all. Their appearance in this thread has not contributed noticeably to the level of useful content (already at a low ebb) or the pertinence of the discussion.

Well, if you ever do get the time or energy to look into the obscure Candace Dempsey, may I recommended the perugiamurderfile website? They are absolutely obsessed with her over there -- I would guess she has been mentioned on practically every page since the website was constructed. Just recently there were several pages devoted to the topic of whether or not she has had a face lift. I know -- can you imagine how much time people must have on their hands to make that a topic of discussion for DAYS on end?

<snip>

See above. Why would anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of the case want to delve into an extended discussion of some reporter's self-esteem issues? Why would you suggest that they do so?

When sites like that have legitimate links to be found then mining them for references is quite appropriate, but I can see no reason to bother with the cat fights.

 

[Mary_H]

I think I see the crux of the problem here. Blogs are often not a fruitful source of facts when researching a case such as this. More like small, irrelevant tempests in remarkably obscure teapots.

Even the newspapers are not primary sources, but at least they occasionally make some reference to them. The search for facts would be less complicated if the primary sources were in English, but we have what we have.

Was Knox's cold sore an evidentiary element of the case presented against her during the trial? Is that in the trial testimony?

Blog wars and the petty personalities who feel compelled to pursue them are of no help at all. Their appearance in this thread has not contributed noticeably to the level of useful content (already at a low ebb) or the pertinence of the discussion.

You're barking up the wrong tree, quadraginta. There is no problem. When I mentioned Amanda's cold sore, I connected it directly to what you had written about what happens on the Nancy Grace Show with regard to Casey Anthony:

"Each court appearance is good for a second-by-second commentary of her hairstyle, weight, and couture, with occasional brief references to the proceedings themselves."

Why would anyone who is seriously interested in the facts of the case want to delve into an extended discussion of some reporter's self-esteem issues?

Ya got me.

Why would you suggest that they do so?

As someone who is relatively new to the case, quadraginta, you missed the irony in my suggestion to stilicho. By calling Candace Dempsey "obscure" and saying that news readers don't have the time and energy to follow her work, he suggested he knew little about her.

In truth, stilico is in the vanguard of the "guilters" on PMF who follow and write about every word and deed of Candace Dempsey, who everyone knows is a key player in the "cast of characters" of this case.

 

[quadraginta]

You're barking up the wrong tree, quadraginta. There is no problem. When I mentioned Amanda's cold sore, I connected it directly to what you had written about what happens on the Nancy Grace Show with regard to Casey Anthony:

"Each court appearance is good for a second-by-second commentary of her hairstyle, weight, and couture, with occasional brief references to the proceedings themselves."

The thing is, if you search the web for references to "Amanda Knox cold sore" you'll find a small handful of mainstream media references, mostly from the same stringer articles, and half of which mention it as a sign of the stress she must be under in spite of her outwardly calm demeanor. All clustered around the first trial day.

The vast bulk of the hits are childish innuendo in obscure blogs and comment sections, like the blog article you cited.

If the Grace creature had had her teeth in this you'd have seen that cold sore on an international cable TV program with hundreds of thousands of viewers every single night for months. With orange highlights and strobe effects. At least five or ten times per show. The average TV viewer probably wouldn't recognize her without it.

As someone who is relatively new to the case, quadraginta, you missed the irony in my suggestion to stilicho. By calling Candace Dempsey "obscure" and saying that news readers don't have the time and energy to follow her work, he suggested he knew little about her.

Oh, I got the irony. I just ignored it. It was a very sad effort. He suggested nothing of the sort. He suggested that Dempsey is unimportant except for the weird little unabashedly partisan platform she has carved out among vituperative bloggers concerning this one case, and the people who follow that sort of thing.

I can't take issue with that POV, since all I can unearth about her on the web seems to relate to blogs and a book she is hawking about the case, and a handful of travel essays.

In truth, stilico is in the vanguard of the "guilters" on PMF who follow and write about every word and deed of Candace Dempsey, who everyone knows is a key player in the "cast of characters" of this case.

Somehow I have a feeling that "key player" means something different to you than it does to me.

What part of the crime, the investigation, or the trial is she "key" to.

 

[Mary_H]

The thing is, if you search the web for references to "Amanda Knox cold sore" you'll find a small handful of mainstream media references, mostly from the same stringer articles, and half of which mention it as a sign of the stress she must be under in spite of her outwardly calm demeanor. All clustered around the first trial day.

The vast bulk of the hits are childish innuendo in obscure blogs and comment sections, like the blog article you cited.

Oh, I got the irony. I just ignored it. It was a very sad effort. He suggested nothing of the sort. He suggested that Dempsey is unimportant except for the weird little unabashedly partisan platform she has carved out among vituperative bloggers concerning this one case, and the people who follow that sort of thing.

I can't take issue with that POV, since all I can unearth about her on the web seems to relate to blogs and a book she is hawking about the case, and a handful of travel essays.

Somehow I have a feeling that "key player" means something different to you than it does to me.

What part of the crime, the investigation, or the trial is she "key" to.

If stilicho thought Candace Dempsey were unimportant, he wouldn't contribute to the millions of words of disparagement that have been written about her.

Your comments seem to suggest that you think the blogs are insignificant in the story of this case. Interesting point of view, considering not only that you are here spending energy on one, but also in light of the number of hits this thread has taken.

The innocentisti believe Amanda's release can be obtained by ensuring that the facts -- and the injustices -- of the case are disseminated. This dissemination takes place in the media, in books like Candace Dempsey's, by word of mouth and in the blogs. The more people become aware of the truth about the case, the louder the outcry will be against Amanda's continued incarceration.

This position, of course, rests upon the presumptions that the jury panel in the first trial was heavily influenced by media coverage, and that the judges in the case will act in the best interests of their country's reputation.

The colpevolisiti, on the other hand, deny that the jury panel in the first trial was prejudiced, and that the judges can be influenced by views from the outside. Their claim is that the vedict was and will be based exclusively on evidence.

From that point of view, it's difficult to understand what they are doing in the blogs in the first place, except running their mouths (or their fingers). If they convince anyone of their beliefs, what good does it do, if the jury panel and judges are oblivious to public opinion?

Because of expanded coverage about the case, people who were not aware of it have become interested, done research and spoken out in favor of Amanda's innocence. Her defense at appeal will be supported by stronger presentations of the science behind forensics than occurred at the first trial. The colpevolisiti can write their little fingers to the bone but there isn't much they can do about that.

What, exactly, is the point of you being here?

 

[shuttlt]

If stilicho thought Candace Dempsey were unimportant, he wouldn't contribute to the millions of words of disparagement that have been written about her.

There are surely many more reasons for writing than a belief that the topic is significant and important, or that the poster can make a meaningful difference.

Your comments seem to suggest that you think the blogs are insignificant in the story of this case. Interesting point of view, considering not only that you are here spending energy on one, but also in light of the number of hits this thread has taken.

We'd have to look at the impact of all these English blogs have in Italy. Even looking at the incredible number of hits this thread has had, it is most unlikely that any potential juror (or lay judge to be pedantic) will have read a single post. The blogs, in my opinion, probably are important in the history of the case outside of the courtroom.

The innocentisti believe Amanda's release can be obtained by ensuring that the facts -- and the injustices -- of the case are disseminated.

Which facts? Most of the primary sources from the trial are in the posession of the innocentisti who won't release them because of, bandwidth (which has been offered), because it would be used to harm Amanda, and because all the information is already available to us if we go to Perugia, pay for the photocopying, and pay for the translation. Or, are you making a distinction between facts, and the evidence of the case? The facts as the innocentisti know them should be gotten out there and evidence that undermines the facts should be surpressed?

This dissemination takes place in the media, in books like Candace Dempsey's, by word of mouth and in the blogs. The more people become aware of the truth about the case, the louder the outcry will be against Amanda's continued incarceration.

This position, of course, rests upon the presumptions that the jury panel in the first trial was heavily influenced by media coverage, and that the judges in the case will act in the best interests of their country's reputation.

The colpevolisiti, on the other hand, deny that the jury panel in the first trial was prejudiced, and that the judges can be influenced by views from the outside. Their claim is that the vedict was and will be based exclusively in evidence.

From that point of view, it's difficult to understand what they are doing in the blogs in the first place, except running their mouths (or their fingers). If they convince anyone of their beliefs, what good does it do, if the jury panel and judges are oblivious to public opinion?

Because of expanded coverage about the case, people who were not aware of it have become interested, done research and spoken out in favor of Amanda's innocence. Her defense at appeal will be supported by stronger presentations of the science behind forensics than occurred at the first trial. The colpevolisiti can write their little fingers to the bone but there isn't much they can do about that.

The only time I am aware of anything posted in the community of blogs and forums to which the JREF belongs having any effect is with Chiropractic. That was because it moved out into the real world and people wrote letters of complaint to regulatory bodies, not because of what was actually said, clever though it might have been.

What, exactly, is the point of you being here?

Surely most blogs and forums have no importance in the real world, yet people continue to post. Have a look around the JREF. There are threads on evidence for the existence of the Christian God. Any of the posters on that thread who have any expectation of winning the day and posting a sound argument that demonstrates the existence of the Christian God is a very great fool, yet people post and post. If there was an argument that clearly and unequivocally could demonstrate that the cause was right it would be made in the real world, not on an obscure website. Amanda's family can make extended arguments on Oprah, CBS, and all sorts of other newspapers and TV stations, why is it important what is said here? Will the Italian judges be less embarrased about the case because a couple of obscure web forums think she's guilty?

 

[shuttlt]

Just to underline the importance of this thread, we are currently being beaten by this one:

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
12,665 posts, 281,775 views

That isn't even the only active thread on essentially the same topic with significant posts. If you added up all the current threads trying to demonstrate that the Christian God exists, you'd certainly exceed 25,000 posts and 500,000 views.

 

[Amazer]

If stilicho thought Candace Dempsey were unimportant, he wouldn't contribute to the millions of words of disparagement that have been written about her.

Can't speak for Stilicho obviously, but unimportant does not equal not interesting.

Your comments seem to suggest that you think the blogs are insignificant in the story of this case. Interesting point of view, considering not only that you are here spending energy on one, but also in light of the number of hits this thread has taken.

For one, this is not a blog. Second, the blogs are a side-show. Whatever is said here isn't going to influence the trial. So yes, the blogs are insignificant in the story of this case.

The innocentisti believe Amanda's release can be obtained by ensuring that the facts -- and the injustices -- of the case are disseminated. This dissemination takes place in the media, in books like Candace Dempsey's, by word of mouth and in the blogs. The more people become aware of the truth about the case, the louder the outcry will be against Amanda's continued incarceration.

Me thinks you engage in wishful thinking.

This position, of course, rests upon the presumptions that the jury panel in the first trial was heavily influenced by media coverage, and that the judges in the case will act in the best interests of their country's reputation.

I'd rather hope that the judges would act in the best interest of justice. And justice being the determination if the prosecution sufficiently proven their case against Amanda en Raffaele. That determination should only rest on the evidence and testimony presented during the case. Not on external factors like the opinion of people complete disconnected from the case on what is good for Italy and it's reputation.

The colpevolisiti, on the other hand, deny that the jury panel in the first trial was prejudiced, and that the judges can be influenced by views from the outside. Their claim is that the vedict was and will be based exclusively in evidence.

Correct i guess

From that point of view, it's difficult to understand what they are doing in the blogs in the first place, except running their mouths (or their fingers). If they convince anyone of their beliefs, what good does it do, if the jury panel and judges are oblivious to public opinion?

It's difficult to resist correcting people when you suspect they are wrong? Or it could be that they think if it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt either.

Because of expanded coverage about the case, people who were not aware of it have become interested, done research and spoken out in favor of Amanda's innocence. Her defense at appeal will be supported by stronger presentations of the science behind forensics than occurred at the first trial. The colpevolisiti can write their little fingers to the bone but there isn't much they can do about that.

I have no problem with them providing better researched science. I would in fact welcome that. And if the science proves that Amanda is innocent... that would be great. And if it doesn't, that's fine too. Science would have profited and a murderer is in jail.

What, exactly, is the point of you being here?

There is a whole forum here, dealing with a variety of topics. Some of them interesting, some not. I post in some of those topics that interest me, others I only read. What are you doing here besides this single thread?

 

[shuttlt]

This seems relevant:

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Moss]

This seems relevant:

http://xkcd.com/386/

QFT.

And as a maybe snide comment: If you are able to pay for PR, you should be able to pay for bandwidth to provide documents. It's not that expensive anymore. There are a lot of packages with unmetered traffic that cost less per month than one hour of consulting does. And then there are such nice things as Bittorrent where others can help you offload parts of the traffic via their connections.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is that an incisive argument on your planet?

Why, does a nonsense claim require an incisive argument to dispel it? Better it is treated as it deserves and is called the nonsense that it is. But anyway, here you are...your claim is nothing more then an asserted statement of opinion for which you offer no evidence making it nothing more then paranoid mud slinging.

His friend wired him money for a train ticket to Perugia, he said he would come. Instead, he headed north.

False. Rudy's train on which he was found was heading for Italy.

I provided some of the various versions on page 276; I would think you would have read them before responding to this subject matter. No wonder you thought we were talking about "a couple little details."

I can't seem to see the 'quotes'.

I put this challenge in the same category with the BS about Mignini never having said anything about a Satanic ritual. Mignini told his stories to Matteini and Micheli; we don't know exactly what he said. However, the judges describe accusations that can be, and were, interpreted as concerning a ritualistic orgy

What, the category of 'I can't actually find any quote, but I'll simply therefore assert it for it suits my mud slinging'? Mignini never said the term 'Satanic', he never used the term 'orgy', those were words made up by the press and Raffaele's lawyers in the case of the former. Neither Mignini nor Comodi have argued a sexual attack carried out by a group. The normal term for which in the Anglo world is GANG RAPE/MURDER.

Rudy had no fear of retaliation by Amanda and Raffaele because he committed the crime alone.

In which case he would have accused them from day one.

 

[Fulcanelli]

QFT.

And as a maybe snide comment: If you are able to pay for PR, you should be able to pay for bandwidth to provide documents. It's not that expensive anymore. There are a lot of packages with unmetered traffic that cost less per month than one hour of consulting does. And then there are such nice things as Bittorrent where others can help you offload parts of the traffic via their connections.

And they can send them over to us at PMF. We have plenty of bandwidth

 

[Fulcanelli]

I chose Candace's blog not to document the cold sore but to show the similarity between your tentative title, "Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cold sore" and the title she used, "Amanda Knox: Cold Sores Instead of Evidence." For some reason, I thought you would find that an intriguing coincidence.

Hardly. Candace Dempsey is FOA and from the very beginning she has been trying to make out that the prosecution is concerned about irrelevancies rather then actual evidence for they have none. Therefore, I find it no coincidence that apologists for Amanda like yourself are regurgitating Candace's pap.

 

[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 Miss Kercher's slain body, inside her v***na, that was found..."

Is that better, sir?

No, for you are repeating the same non-truth that I pointed out before, that Rudy's DNA was found ON Meredith's body. None of his DNA was found ON her body. It was found 'in' but NOT 'on'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think I see the crux of the problem here. Blogs are often not a fruitful source of facts when researching a case such as this. More like small, irrelevant tempests in remarkably obscure teapots.

Blogs CAN be valid sources, but only if they are neutral or/and support their claims. Candace's blog is neither. Candace Dempsey, food blogger who saw an opportunity to get into true crime, has been FOA from the beginning but tried to mislead her readership by claiming to be a neutral party. In addition to her obvious slant (a slant which at least she admits to having) she was caught attending the Knox fundraiser at Saltys Restaurant in January 2009 and not as a reporter or blogger, but as a guest. She then lied on her blog by claiming she never went, despite the fact her arrival and entry was witnessed by at least five PMF members and a couple of other parties doing so. I'm not quite sure where that fits in the journalistic code of ethics.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The innocentisti believe Amanda's release can be obtained by ensuring that the facts -- and the injustices -- of the case are disseminated. This dissemination takes place in the media, in books like Candace Dempsey's, by word of mouth and in the blogs. The more people become aware of the truth about the case, the louder the outcry will be against Amanda's continued incarceration.

Propaganda, spin, lies and smear you mean.

 

[Kestrel]

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).

To Edda, the phone call was traumatic. Her daughter was in a crisis halfway around the world. To Amanda, the phone call to Mom was a minor incident compared to the discovery a few minutes later that her flatmate had been murdered. I am rather amazed that you don't understand the difference in perspective.