• 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.
HumanityBlues said:
Don't worry. All the people from PMF know their forum sucks anyways, otherwise they wouldn't all waste so much time posting here, or talking about this thread.
Click to expand...

When one all has left is to attack individuals (such as Barbie Nadeau) or other forums, it's a clear sign they have no actual argument left.

Here's the manual of FOA debate, you'll find it most familiar ;) :


FOA DEBATE INSTRUCTION MANUAL
 
HumanityBlues said:
Don't worry. All the people from PMF know their forum sucks anyways, otherwise they wouldn't all waste so much time posting here, or talking about this thread.
Click to expand...

I particularly like how the moderators are also hugely prolific posters, with their own deeply-rooted views on the case under discussion. I'm looking forward to watching some matches in the football world cup where the referee is also a star player for one of the teams ;)
 
not direct communication but still an apology

BobTheDonkey said:
When/where did this "direct communication" happen?
Click to expand...

Christiana thought that Amanda had never apologized to Patrick on the basis of her answer to a question in June 2009. In my reply I meant that when Amanda was asked that, she may have answered no because she thinking that the question referred to some form of direct communication (face-to-face conversation, letter, etc.). Or she may have simply forgotten about this when she testified in June, some 19 months later. My point was that Amanda apologized on 30 November 2007 in a court appearance. This might not constitute direct communication to some unless Patrick were in court that day, and I do not know whether or not he was.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Injustice in Perugia is now the most read website detailing this case. The Injustice site currently gets more traffic than TJMK and PMF combined in the USA and it has now passed both sites in total traffic worldwide.

Many people have contributed to the site. Charlie Wilkes said it best:

"The Injustice in Perugia website is part of a wave of activism that continues to build in support of Amanda and Raffaele. This wave is spontaneous, it is not under the control of any individual or agency, and it will not subside until Amanda and Raffaele are free and exonerated of all charges."


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org
Click to expand...

"Argumentum ad populum" much?
 
Fulcanelli said:
Right, so just to confirm...you don't think that at any point up until the point the police finally made them suspects and arrested them, they should have done so? Good, great, I'm glad we have that confirmed on record. Finally, something we both agree on.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should ever have been made suspects at all. There was never any evidence against them.

Face value? Who is? Please define 'on face value'? Does it mean, not accusing the police of wrongdoing without any evidence for it? If your definition means accusing the authorities of dishonesty, criminality and abuse without any evidence other then the mere fact one is asserting it, then I'm guilty as charged. Skpeticism does not mean accusing people of all manner of offences without evidence.
Click to expand...

This is accepting something at face value:

"They had every reason. And this we know because it was confirmed and formalised by a court judge (so if you need to blame anyone, it should be Judge Matteini, not the police)."

It doesn't seem to occur to you to look at the reasons yourself instead of relying on the word of the authorities.

And speaking of skepticism, have you ever once been skeptical of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence? Or, is this skepticism only supposed to go one way? How wonderfully convenient. It seems that what you're really upset about, is that people don't want to play your game with your loaded deck.
Click to expand...

I think I addressed this question soon after I joined this thread. I believed what I read in the paper on November 7th, 2007, that is, that Amanda was in the kitchen covering her ears while her employer was in the other room raping and killing her roommate. However, it didn't take me long to wonder whether such a thing could really be true, so I looked into it more deeply and found that many questions could be raised about the information that was in the paper.
 
Completely off-topic, but BLOODY HELL - Bangkok's on fire, and there's gunshots aplenty. Turn on CNN/BBC/whatever. It looks like things are coming to a head :(
 
LondonJohn said:
I particularly like how the moderators are also hugely prolific posters, with their own deeply-rooted views on the case under discussion. I'm looking forward to watching some matches in the football world cup where the referee is also a star player for one of the teams ;)
Click to expand...

I particularly like that 1/6 of the posts on this thread here are from the moderator over there. Sounds like a pretty dull experience over there (unless one is enticed by spying on a little girl's facebook account).
 
LondonJohn said:
Completely off-topic, but BLOODY HELL - Bangkok's on fire, and there's gunshots aplenty. Turn on CNN/BBC/whatever. It looks like things are coming to a head :(
Click to expand...

Doesn't Thaliand have a coup every 8 years? Thanks for the heads up.

P.S. CNN in the US cares more about McJagger. Go figure.
 
Prejudicial police parade in Perugia

Candace Dempsey described the morning of 6 November 2007 in Murder in Italy, p. 159, after Amanda, Patrick, and Raffaele had been arrested,
“Once the doors slammed on the last prisoner, a celebration began. Police wanted to send a message, to the townspeople that they had the killers in custody, detectives had finally solved the Meredith mystery, and Perugia could finally sleep well again. So they lined up the vehicles, switched on the headlights, and honked the horns in jubiliation. Instead of driving directly to prison, they headed uphill into the old town, horns blaring. ’I have seen police behave like this only once before, and that was when they arrested one of the country’s most notorious mafia dons,’ a startled local told the Daily Mail.”
 
Fulcanelli said:
Mary, we don't have the amnesia Amanda and Raffaele claim to have had, neither do you.

You've yet to ask me any straight specific questions Mary, only instead very general questions. And the exceptions to those are questions that have been asked and answered a hundred times already. You may enjoy repeating yourself and spending your time trying to make others do so, but I don't. I ask my questions, get my answers and remember them the first time.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I can find the entire Matteini report, but the parts I have access to don't provide any evidence of why the prosecutors came to the conclusion that three people had tried to engage Meredith into relations she didn't want and then killed her.

Here is my straight question:

What evidence did the chief of police and the interior minister have that led them to describe the crime as they did? You can use Matteini's report to support your answer, since as I said, I don't have access to the whole thing.

Here is another straight question:

What evidence did the police (or prosecution, or judge) have that placed Raffaele at the crime scene?
 
halides1 said:
Christiana thought that Amanda had never apologized to Patrick on the basis of her answer to a question in June 2009. In my reply I meant that when Amanda was asked that, she may have answered no because she thinking that the question referred to some form of direct communication (face-to-face conversation, letter, etc.). Or she may have simply forgotten about this when she testified in June, some 19 months later. My point was that Amanda apologized on 30 November 2007 in a court appearance. This might not constitute direct communication to some unless Patrick were in court that day, and I do not know whether or not he was.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. :)
 
halides1 said:
Christiana thought that Amanda had never apologized to Patrick on the basis of her answer to a question in June 2009. In my reply I meant that when Amanda was asked that, she may have answered no because she thinking that the question referred to some form of direct communication (face-to-face conversation, letter, etc.). Or she may have simply forgotten about this when she testified in June, some 19 months later. My point was that Amanda apologized on 30 November 2007 in a court appearance. This might not constitute direct communication to some unless Patrick were in court that day, and I do not know whether or not he was.
Click to expand...
I understand. You're correct. Amanda did tell the judge on November 30, 2007 she was sorry for the trouble she had caused Patrick. Though not a face-to-face apology I guess it had the benefit of being on record with the court. It is very possible she interpreted the question asked of her June 2009 as a face-to-face apology vs the one given in court.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Doesn't Thaliand have a coup every 8 years? Thanks for the heads up.

P.S. CNN in the US cares more about McJagger. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Not a coup this time, but the culmination of a mass civilian protest against the incumbent Thai government. The protesters ("redshirts") have occupied large swathes of Bangkok's business district. The army and police have hemmed them in and there's been an uneasy standoff over the past few days. It seems that the Thai government has finally decided to storm the protesters. And it appears that both sides are committed to no backing down under any circumstances, so this could all end in another "Tiananmen Square" bloodshed outcome.....

And yeah, even CNN International (which I get here in UK) is covering other US-centric stories presented by Wolf "The Silver Fox" Blitzer. Truly shocking. This is a significant world city (that's also a major tourist destination), and CNN is currently conducting a cosy NASA-friendly interview with space shuttle astronauts......
 
LondonJohn said:
Not a coup this time, but the culmination of a mass civilian protest against the incumbent Thai government. The protesters ("redshirts") have occupied large swathes of Bangkok's business district. The army and police have hemmed them in and there's been an uneasy standoff over the past few days. It seems that the Thai government has finally decided to storm the protesters. And it appears that both sides are committed to no backing down under any circumstances, so this could all end in another "Tiananmen Square" bloodshed outcome.....

And yeah, even CNN International (which I get here in UK) is covering other US-centric stories presented by Wolf "The Silver Fox" Blitzer. Truly shocking. This is a significant world city (that's also a major tourist destination), and CNN is currently conducting a cosy NASA-friendly interview with space shuttle astronauts......
Click to expand...

Our cable news is abysmal. No excuse for it.
 
christianahannah said:
I understand. You're correct. Amanda did tell the judge on November 30, 2007 she was sorry for the trouble she had caused Patrick. Though not a face-to-face apology I guess it had the benefit of being on record with the court. It is very possible she interpreted the question asked of her June 2009 as a face-to-face apology vs the one given in court.
Click to expand...

So then there's no evidence she ever really apologized to Patrick? Just a record of her telling a Judge, who was presiding over the slander suit, that she was sorry...


ETA: The last time I heard someone tell a Judge something like that, I disrupted the courtroom with a laugh. I couldn't help it. "I'm sorry your honor. I won't do it again." "HAH."
 
Last edited:
Mary H said:
I don't think they should ever have been made suspects at all. There was never any evidence against them.
Click to expand...

Great, I've now got you to say it 3 times. We can now finally put to bed all claims they should have been made suspects before the night of the 5th :)

Mary H said:
This is accepting something at face value:

"They had every reason. And this we know because it was confirmed and formalised by a court judge (so if you need to blame anyone, it should be Judge Matteini, not the police)."

It doesn't seem to occur to you to look at the reasons yourself instead of relying on the word of the authorities.
Click to expand...

We have the report. The defence have never denied that this information was put before the court.

Mary H said:
I think I addressed this question soon after I joined this thread. I believed what I read in the paper on November 7th, 2007, that is, that Amanda was in the kitchen covering her ears while her employer was in the other room raping and killing her roommate. However, it didn't take me long to wonder whether such a thing could really be true, so I looked into it more deeply and found that many questions could be raised about the information that was in the paper.
Click to expand...

Only, your questions have only ever gone one way...to question the ILE, never Amanda and Raffaele.

Mary H" said:
I don't know if I can find the entire Matteini report, but the parts I have access to don't provide any evidence of why the prosecutors came to the conclusion that three people had tried to engage Meredith into relations she didn't want and then killed her.

Here is my straight question:

What evidence did the chief of police and the interior minister have that led them to describe the crime as they did? You can use Matteini's report to support your answer, since as I said, I don't have access to the whole thing.

Here is another straight question:

What evidence did the police (or prosecution, or judge) have that placed Raffaele at the crime scene?
Click to expand...

ordinanza_perugia_meredith.pdf

Over two and a half years and you still haven't bothered reading it and it took me to point it out to you. It's about time you actually bothered learning the case.
 
Letter to Ghirga

christianahannah said:
I understand. You're correct. Amanda did tell the judge on November 30, 2007 she was sorry for the trouble she had caused Patrick. Though not a face-to-face apology I guess it had the benefit of being on record with the court. It is very possible she interpreted the question asked of her June 2009 as a face-to-face apology vs the one given in court.
Click to expand...

Ms. Dempsey quoted a letter from Amanda to one of her lawyers from November 9, 2007, which says in part, "I imagined that I'd met Patrick near the basketball courts...and I named Patrick and I totally regret it now because I know that what I said has hurt him." Ms. Dempsey describes the existence of this letter (p. 294, Murder in Italy) as a surprise to some of the reporters as of June, 2009.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
So then there's no evidence she ever really apologized to Patrick? Just a record of her telling a Judge, who was presiding over the slander suit, that she was sorry...


ETA: The last time I heard someone tell a Judge something like that, I disrupted the courtroom with a laugh. I couldn't help it. "I'm sorry your honor. I won't do it again." "HAH."
Click to expand...
The November 30, 2007 hearing was for Amanda and Raffaele to be released on house arrest until trial. It was at that hearing she apologized to a judge.

I believe the June 2009 trial was the slander suit where she was asked the question if she had apologized to Patrick and she answered no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom