• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
Solange305,

He was a handyman, and Laura had been complaining about not having had much sex not too long before. The incident is described by a commenter who claims to be quoting from Amanda's MySpace entry from October 15 that can be found in the comments section of one of Frank's entries. Obviously, the story may be inaccurate. If anyone has an archive with her MySpace information, he or she can verify or challenge its veracity.
Click to expand...

The point was that the way Dan said it, anyone with a brain would assume he was referring to Amanda. Yet you made a somewhat demeaning comment about me assuming it was Amanda. I pointed out to you that anyone with a half a brain would assume it was Amanda based on the comment and reply, so I don't think it's fair to imply that I am biased in any way. But that is neither here nor there, I am not sure who brought whom home either
 
Antony said:
Yes, it is getting ridiculous. All you're doing is repeating yourself without trying to understand the other interpretation. Since Amanda is mentioned immediately beforehand, nobody can be sure who he is referring to.



That's rubbish. Firstly, Amanda and Raffaele are still officially innocent until the appeal process is complete. Secondly, even in the US and certainly in the UK, nobody ever has to prove they're innocent; what they have to do is show that the court reached the wrong verdict in the first trial - on the evidence presented at the time.

The Massei verdict was completely divorced from reality. That is why those who actually want Amanda and Raffaele to be guilty, are only interested in turning unimportant details into something they're not.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, when Raffaele claims to have meant Amanda when he said "her hand", then maybe I will give you a little more leeway. Unless you are a spokesperson for Raffaele, you have way of knowing that he meant Amanda, and to assume he did mean that is completely illogical. Your argument is stretching common sense to fit what you believe. Any logical person who is reading this understands that, I can't help it if you dont.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Do you really think it's going to get you anywhere on this board to attack the speaker, on this of all points?
Click to expand...

You MUST be joking! If we are going to discuss "attacking", you may want to start with LondonJohn, who instead of arguing solely on the posts Fulcanelli made, decided to accuse him of being another poster named Fulcanelli on another unrelated forum about Italy or some nonsense, in an attempt to make him look bad, not to mention his little comment to ColonelHall about his vertically-challenged wife, and his accusation of Michael at PMF for posting copyrighted material. Since he can't attack the message, he attacks the messenger. When you get him to cease and desist, maybe your comment will have a little more merit...
 
Machiavelli said:
Where can you see reasons to dismiss Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali as witnesses? I can't see even the slightest.
I haven't understood what is the "mistake" you are thinking about. I don't understand your idea of how they mistook a scream of something else.
I don't understand your reasons at all.
Click to expand...

I can see from this that you haven't read the appeals. You are not required to do so of course, but it would make it easier to understand where some of the arguments are coming from. The two witnesses describe complete different screams under completely different circumstances both before and after the scream. Nara's first statements indicated she thought it was a road accident and it is only later that this evolves into that horrifying descriptive. In her statements she even indicates she could tell this scream came from Meredith's flat (a true miracle ear with that one). The next morning she says she got up the same time she always got up (around 11am) and saw the police already at Meredith's and Amanda and Raffaele with the police gathered in an area they never gathered in that day. So we know she not only has date problems she has time problems and exaggeration problems as well as a faulty memory. Antonella describes a couple have a loud argument in Italian followed by a very short scream, which is a point I brought up to you in my previous post on this subject. Do you really think that couple included Amanda, Raffaele, or Meredith? Antonella also opened her window immediately after this brief short scream and did not hear the things Nara described (including the sound of leaves that Nara heard with her double glazed windows closed). There are other witnesses in an even better position to hear a scream at the time and they heard no scream.

BTW, you indicated you were going to address a question I asked you when you first posted. have you had a chance to take a look at that one yet?
 
Solange305 said:
You MUST be joking! If we are going to discuss "attacking", you may want to start with LondonJohn, who instead of arguing solely on the posts Fulcanelli made, decided to accuse him of being another poster named Fulcanelli on another unrelated forum about Italy or some nonsense, in an attempt to make him look bad, not to mention his little comment to ColonelHall about his vertically-challenged wife, and his accusation of Michael at PMF for posting copyrighted material. Since he can't attack the message, he attacks the messenger. When you get him to cease and desist, maybe your comment will have a little more merit...
Click to expand...

I don't want to get drawn into a string of posts about posters rather than about the criminal case we are supposed to be discussion on here, but since I've been quite strongly attacked here, I'd quite like a rebuttal.

First, I did not post anything about Fulcanelli being another poster on another forum with the same user name. I vaguely remember that post, but it was not made by me. You might want to check before you make those sorts of accusations.

Second, the reference to Colonel Hall's wife was a reference to the TV show Fawlty Towers, one of whose episodes featured a character called Colonel Hall. I suspected that the poster calling him/herself Colonel Hall might well have taken his/her user name from that character. And the Colonel Hall character in Fawlty Towers had a very below-average height wife (the source of some unintended insults from Basil Fawlty), and he and she had come to the hotel for a gourmet night. It was these things to which I made reference - I'm sorry if it was too obtuse for you, but I suspect that the poster named Colonel Hall may have understood what I meant.

Thirdly, there is no doubt that the photos of the house in Perugia which were posted by Michael on PMF were copyrighted - they even had copyright labels incorporated into them. The question is one of fair use. And if there is a legitimate claim of fair use, then there's no problem.

Apart from that, your post was right on the money. I'm sorry you're so angry though.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Chris may have been unfamiliar with that incident but he at least knew how to do the research and find the source. What he didn't do was jump to the conclusion that it was another piece to attack Amanda's character with and go off echoing it with added florishes.

I await to see when you actually read the blog entry if you will equally criticize Laura for doing what you thought Amanda did.


[and I really have no idea how that smiley got there on the top of my post but I chose to leave it as a warning that there might be something sneaky coming up]
Click to expand...

I am going by what Meredith herself stated. That Amanda brought strange men home. Are we now to assume that she was lying even before the murder, is she also one of the many many many people who hate Amanda so much, they must make her look as horrible as possible at all times? With the upcoming movie "Scott Pilgrim Against The World", I propose we plan the sequel: "Amanda Knox Against The World!"
 
Solange305 said:
The point was that the way Dan said it, anyone with a brain would assume he was referring to Amanda. Yet you made a somewhat demeaning comment about me assuming it was Amanda. I pointed out to you that anyone with a half a brain would assume it was Amanda based on the comment and reply, so I don't think it's fair to imply that I am biased in any way. But that is neither here nor there, I am not sure who brought whom home either
Click to expand...

But I'm sure that in the light of your new knowledge about this incident, you'll have no problem in denouncing Laura's behaviour as shocking and morally repugnant, and that it casts a nasty stain on her character. Right? Because that's the conclusion you came to when you thought that Knox was being referred to.
 
Solange305 said:
I am going by what Meredith herself stated. That Amanda brought strange men home. Are we now to assume that she was lying even before the murder, is she also one of the many many many people who hate Amanda so much, they must make her look as horrible as possible at all times? With the upcoming movie "Scott Pilgrim Against The World", I propose we plan the sequel: "Amanda Knox Against The World!"
Click to expand...

where else was Amanda supposed to take guys she met, given that she was paying rent for her room and was therefore entitled to use it to entertain guests?
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't want to get drawn into a string of posts about posters rather than about the criminal case we are supposed to be discussion on here, but since I've been quite strongly attacked here, I'd quite like a rebuttal.

First, I did not post anything about Fulcanelli being another poster on another forum with the same user name. I vaguely remember that post, but it was not made by me. You might want to check before you make those sorts of accusations.

Second, the reference to Colonel Hall's wife was a reference to the TV show Fawlty Towers, one of whose episodes featured a character called Colonel Hall. I suspected that the poster calling him/herself Colonel Hall might well have taken his/her user name from that character. And the Colonel Hall character in Fawlty Towers had a very below-average height wife (the source of some unintended insults from Basil Fawlty), and he and she had come to the hotel for a gourmet night. It was these things to which I made reference - I'm sorry if it was too obtuse for you, but I suspect that the poster named Colonel Hall may have understood what I meant.

Thirdly, there is no doubt that the photos of the house in Perugia which were posted by Michael on PMF were copyrighted - they even had copyright labels incorporated into them. The question is one of fair use. And if there is a legitimate claim of fair use, then there's no problem.

Apart from that, your post was right on the money. I'm sorry you're so angry though.
Click to expand...


Whomever it was that made that attack, the point still stands. It was someone on your side of the argument. Sorry I attributed it to you. But again, before KevinLowe goes accusing someone of attacking the messenger, maybe he should call out others who did it first.

By the way, I was born in 1980. I had no clue about a show that aired in 1975. Sorry if my being too young to know about it makes me "obtuse". Thanks for proving my point about how you like to attack and insult people who disagree with you, though!

Whether him using the pictures are fair use or not, you still chose to attack him for it. Even though he posted them on another forum, not here. Again, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger....
 
Solange305 said:
Whomever it was that made that attack, the point still stands. It was someone on your side of the argument. Sorry I attributed it to you. But again, before KevinLowe goes accusing someone of attacking the messenger, maybe he should call out others who did it first.

By the way, I was born in 1980. I had no clue about a show that aired in 1975. Sorry if my being too young to know about it makes me "obtuse". Thanks for proving my point about how you like to attack and insult people who disagree with you, though!

Whether him using the pictures are fair use or not, you still chose to attack him for it. Even though he posted them on another forum, not here. Again, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger....
Click to expand...

Classy apology!

In passing, I presume you know nothing about the works of William Shakespeare, or the American Civil War, or Elvis Presley either then, since you weren't yet born?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
But I'm sure that in the light of your new knowledge about this incident, you'll have no problem in denouncing Laura's behaviour as shocking and morally repugnant, and that it casts a nasty stain on her character. Right? Because that's the conclusion you came to when you thought that Knox was being referred to.
Click to expand...

Is this something she did on a regular basis? If so, then I would say that I can understand if the other roommates were bothered by it.

The only thing that I consider shocking and morally repugnant is Amanda's part in the murder of a young innocent woman. When and if Laura does that, then I will call her out for being "shocking and morally repugnant".
 
I noticed that some Anonymous person at the Shock has taken the liberty of copying this post in full and posting it in the comments without saying they were quoting me.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6372520&postcount=7347

Although I am flattered they thought it was worth repeating, maybe next time (this person obviously reads here) it would be better if you indicated who you are quoting and where it came from. The use of quotation marks would be rather quite appreciated as well.

I noticed that nobody here has addressed the questions I put forward in the post, although a few have tried that at the Shock.
 
Withnail1969 said:
where else was Amanda supposed to take guys she met, given that she was paying rent for her room and was therefore entitled to use it to entertain guests?
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "guests", which seems to be strange men whom she hardly knows. Considering a strange man ended up ultimately being one of Meredith's murderers, I think Meredith was somewhat in the right, wouldn't you say? Or are you actually going to defend Amanda over Meredith in regards to her being uncomfortable with Amanda bringing strange men home?
 
Withnail1969 said:
where else was Amanda supposed to take guys she met, given that she was paying rent for her room and was therefore entitled to use it to entertain guests?
Click to expand...

It seems that Amanda, Laura, and Meredith all had male company stay over at some point. I am not sure what is the issue here unless the bed squeaks were keeping Nara up at night.
 
LondonJohn said:
Classy apology!

In passing, I presume you know nothing about the works of William Shakespeare, or the American Civil War, or Elvis Presley either then, since you weren't yet born?
Click to expand...

Oh no, I do! Considering they are a tad more important in American history than some British TV show, I would think that's obvious lol.
 
Solange305 said:
It depends what you mean by "guests", which seems to be strange men whom she hardly knows. Considering a strange man ended up ultimately being one of Meredith's murderers, I think Meredith was somewhat in the right, wouldn't you say? Or are you actually going to defend Amanda over Meredith in regards to her being uncomfortable with Amanda bringing strange men home?
Click to expand...


I just don't see why Amanda's in any way unusual for bringing a few guys back to sleep with, or why it was wrong for her to do so. Surely as students we've all done plenty of this sort of thing?

Rudy and Raffaele weren't technically strange men to Meredith, she had already met both of them.
 
Speaking of posts at other web sites, I would like to quote one here and I hope the modérateur here will allow it as it is the content of the post that I am interested in, not a discussion of the poster or this other website. It gives an explanation for Quintavalle's witness testimony.

thoughtful @ PMF said:
First, Quintavalle saw Amanda a couple of times with Raffaele, whom he knew by sight quite well.

Second, Quintavalle saw the girl outside the shop, but didn't recognise her as Amanda since he had never seen her alone, only in company with Raffaele, so associated her with Raffaele (amazing visual memory notwithstanding - but let it go - people say all kinds of things on TV).

Third, Inspector Volturno came and asked about Raffaele and Amanda, but at that point, the girl in front of the store simply wasn't in his mind. Even though he was shown pictures of Amanda, he didn't even notice or recognise the same girl, because he was focusing on Raffaele, whom he knew, and that girlfriend that he had noticed with him. Later he denied being shown those pictures at all. My contact believes Quintavalle's story absolutely, so perhaps he simply forgot them since he wasn't focusing on the girl at all, but the boy he knew.

Fourth, he saw Raffaele and Amanda together on television, and ONLY THEN recognised the girl in front of the shop, and mentioned this to his cashier, Chiriboga, saying "Oh, but that girl on TV is the girl I saw on that early morning." However, he didn't go to find the police about this, partly because he simply figured that if they had been arrested, then the police had definitive proof, so his two cents worth wasn't relevant.

Fifth, much later, during the trial, he learned that Amanda was claiming innocence and that her defence rested partly on the fact that she had slept until 10am. He learned this through several conversations with a journalist following the case, who told him what was going on in the trial, found out what Quintavalle had seen, and so made him understand why it was important.

Sixth he decided at this point to go to the police.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Speaking of posts at other web sites, I would like to quote one here and I hope the modérateur here will allow it as it is the content of the post that I am interested in, not a discussion of the poster or this other website. It gives an explanation for Quintavalle's witness testimony.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one am convinced by that explanation, and I now believe Quintavalle to be a completely reliable witness :rolleyes:

(I particularly like the part where Quintavalle didn't recognise a woman's facial features, hair or stature when she was alone, because these facets were only recognisable to him when she was standing next to a particular other man.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom