Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Also, believe me we do read seriously here, and we have already done so.

No Kevin. I don't believe you.

And for sure, you don't listen to people, like when they talk about what they are interested in and what they are not.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No Kevin. I don't believe you

You can believe as you see fit. I can only post things on internet forums, I cannot make you question your faith in Knox and Sollecito's guilt. However as Friedrich Nietzsche said, "a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing".

And for sure, you don't listen to people, like when they talk about what they are interested in and what they are not.

I always listen. I don't always agree, especially if the arguments people make are fallacious or their factual claims provably wrong. People who have more faith in their arguments than is warranted have often in the past had great difficulty understanding this distinction.

 

[HumanityBlues]

LOL, HB!

A perfect Peter Quennellism: "We have heard from someone in Congress...." Again I laugh aloud -- he's always "hearing" from "someone."

"...hate speech against Italy has gone up 4-5 times since this case began, and Italy has become one of the most reviled of countries."

How does that fit with the guilter view that hardly anybody in the world thinks Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

Hate speech against Italy is a very serious matter. It's gone up 4-5 times in the last 3 years. That fact is undisputed. But that can mostly be linked to MTV's show "The Jersey Shore". Nothing to do with this case.

 

[Solange305]

Not to mention that if I published something with my full name and details your lovely friends at the PMF would be in a much better position to harass me as they have bragged about doing to Moore, and I don't need any of that.

Who ever bragged about harassing anyone? Everyone there unequivocally stated that it was wrong, and would not do that. Please show proof, that is a pretty harsh claim to make on someone...

 

[Mary_H]

The "evening" in Italy starts at 21:00, maybe when Meredith cam home and found Amanda and Rudy Guede petting on the outside terrace, a scene that, united with the tension she could feel in the aprtment and the subsequent quarrel, understandably would block her digestion. A relaxed atmosphere. The meal was "described" (lol). Pizza bread made with Italian wheat cooked in a kitchen oven. And you establish things. Lalli declared she drank alcohol, so obviously I think she did at some time. And all the rest...

Amanda and Rudy petting on the terrace? That's a new one, isn't it?

Machiavelli, in one of your posts below, you say the staging is evidence for the staging, and the alterations in the room are evidence for the alterations in the room.

Further down, you say you proved something about the narcissistic personality style. What was it again that you proved about that?

 

[Mary_H]

Hate speech against Italy is a very serious matter. It's gone up 4-5 times in the last 3 years. That fact is undisputed. But that can mostly be linked to MTV's show "The Jersey Shore". Nothing to do with this case.

!!! I have never managed to get through more than five minutes.

 

[colonelhall]

"I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda."
I thought that he refused to testify.

"Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself"
So he continued to give an alibi, but in secret?

"If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent."

It has clearly been established that they were telling lies, hence no alibi has been established and they are guilty.

I was beginning to feel that Knox had a good chance, what with all the new evidence, provided by Philosopher Ken, and that. However, with statements like this, my advice would be to follow Ralph's example and shut up!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who ever bragged about harassing anyone? Everyone there unequivocally stated that it was wrong, and would not do that. Please show proof, that is a pretty harsh claim to make on someone...

See the post by "Fly By Night", made on Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:47 am. Post subject: Re: It's M-E-R-E-D-I-T-H. Currently on page 18 of their main thread just over half way down.

I'm sure it's just a joke, of course. I'm sure that and the other forms of harassment that Moore claims have been directed at himself and his family have nothing whatsoever to do with that particular creepy community with its habit of Google-stalking anti-guilt speakers, making threatening remarks about them, posting their pictures, discussing their backgrounds and speculating about their secret, evil motivations and "obvious" psychological problems.

Put it this way: I'm not posting any more personally identifying information that I have to while the PMF crowd are actively engaged with the case, and I would not recommend anyone else do either if they value their peace and privacy.

You'll notice that the JREF forum community has no need or inclination to engage in that sort of behaviour. It's not normal or healthy.

 

[Solange305]

Mary, when you say this, you have to admit it's your opinion, not fact:

It's hardly unheard of to think you remember something that didn't actually happen. Most of the prosecution's witnesses ended up in that boat. In fact, there's a whole lot of people in this case who speak about things that don't exist. I don't know why the judge thought Nara would be any different

It was not proven in court that the witnesses spoke of things that didn't exist. I know you believe they didn't, but there is no way to prove that at this time. What kind of bothers me is how some are so quick to discredit anything negative about Amanda (like calling her a liar, insensitive, etc) as not valid since they can't be proved, but have no problem calling many witnesses liars or basically stupid enough to think they saw or heard something they didnt, or stupid enough to be coached, etc.. Shouldn't these witnesses be accorded the same courtesy you give Amanda, when it comes to needing proof before attacking their character?

There is such outrage when someone points out Amanda's supposed personality flaws, but yet no one has a problem calling Nara a lying wacky old nut (in so many words), and Curratelo (sp?) a bum. I understand why you guys think they are unreliable, and have no problem with you stating the reasons why, but I guess I just think it's a little hypocritical to label anything said about Amanda as character assassination, and at the same time doing just that to witnesses in a trial...

 

[Solange305]

I'm sure it's just a joke, of course. I'm sure that and the other forms of harassment that Moore claims have been directed at himself and his family have nothing whatsoever to do with that particular creepy community with its habit of Google-stalking anti-guilt speakers, making threatening remarks about them, posting their pictures, discussing their backgrounds and speculating about their secret, evil motivations and "obvious" psychological problems.

That was obviously a joke, and a pretty poor example. Did you seriously just pull that one out of your a@@ lol?

Are you going to tell me that you, critical thinker extraordinaire that you are, actually think that someone at PMF is threatening an exfbi agent, yet he feels no need to advise the authorities or call this person out by name or retaliate in any way? And if someone is threatening him, you know it's someone from PMF, how exactly? Please dont tell me that you think they sent him a threatening email from the site itself, which isnt even possible by the way....

I dont blame you for giving Mary the advice, it is never smart to put personal info on the internet, and I would advise Mary of the same even though I dont agree with her. But my problem is your claim that people who post at PMF are the ones she should be worried about.

 

[Solange305]

Another thing came to mind, and Ill admit I may be mistaken on this, but I thought i read an interview that Raffaele did the day after the murder where he told the reporter that he and Amanda were out at a party when Meredith died... Is this true? If so, what is his excuse now for saying that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That was obviously a joke, and a pretty poor example. Did you seriously just pull that one out of your a@@ lol?

The mods don't like people bypassing the profanity filter - I'd avoid doing that in future. As for whether "Fly by Night" was joking, well, let's just say I wouldn't be surprised to see that post vanish one dark night.

Are you going to tell me that you, critical thinker extraordinaire that you are, actually think that someone at PMF is threatening an exfbi agent, yet he feels no need to advise the authorities or call this person out by name or retaliate in any way? And if someone is threatening him, you know it's someone from PMF, how exactly? Please dont tell me that you think they sent him a threatening email from the site itself, which isnt even possible by the way....

I can't speak for him, or say what steps he has or has not taken to have the alleged harassment of his family investigated. Investigations take time so even if some form of justice-seeking is in progress we would not necessarily have heard of any results by now. However the pool of suspects isn't exactly a huge one, now is it?

I dont blame you for giving Mary the advice, it is never smart to put personal info on the internet, and I would advise Mary of the same even though I dont agree with her. But my problem is your claim that people who post at PMF are the ones she should be worried about.

I've never been worried about my peace or privacy before this particular issue came up and this particular community started reading and posting here.

Seeing as you are one of the people who has been active in reposting content discussing the details of the life of the person who you think I am, you are at best complicit in this, so I do feel the need to take into account the source of the arguments that the PMF community are not involved in the harassment directed at anti-guilt speakers.

 

[capealadin]

I hope to remind you, that Amanda , HERSELF, told her mother, that *she cannot tell a lie* that SHE WAS THERE!! At what point do we cherry pick what is the truth? Let's do a count : How many people have to be involved in this subterfuge? THE POLICE, RAFFAELE< THE PROSECTION< THE LAB< THE WITNESSES<.......Everyone, in fact, EXCEPT THE ACCUSED.....oh, and the JURY...Amanda is GUILTY.. move on..and find a way to help her get out in a couple of years...... so many people trying so hard to find a reason for her being innocent..are falling by the wayside...

 

[Solange305]

Thanks for the warning, and as a gesture of good will, I would like to offer you one in return. If you don't want people questioning (or joking) about your qualifications (as they did in the post you mention), you may want to refrain from trying to appear as if you are an expert in certain matters. In particular, quotes such as these:

Sorry, but who do you think you are talking to? I am the one who has access to the full text of these articles and actually reads them.

tend to make people want to question if you have the expertise you oh-so-subtly claim to have. Which is what they did in that post; which did not contain your email, phone number, address, or any other information that anyone could use to harass you. If it embarrassed you, I can understand, but I don't think it falls under the level of harassment that you are referring to. So feel free to make baseless claims against me and people at PMF all you like, but they won't go unchallenged.

 

[Chris C]

See the post by "Fly By Night", made on Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:47 am. Post subject: Re: It's M-E-R-E-D-I-T-H. Currently on page 18 of their main thread just over half way down.

I'm sure it's just a joke, of course. I'm sure that and the other forms of harassment that Moore claims have been directed at himself and his family have nothing whatsoever to do with that particular creepy community with its habit of Google-stalking anti-guilt speakers, making threatening remarks about them, posting their pictures, discussing their backgrounds and speculating about their secret, evil motivations and "obvious" psychological problems.

Put it this way: I'm not posting any more personally identifying information that I have to while the PMF crowd are actively engaged with the case, and I would not recommend anyone else do either if they value their peace and privacy.

You'll notice that the JREF forum community has no need or inclination to engage in that sort of behaviour. It's not normal or healthy.

Well I live in Mississippi, so pretty much the only thing you can do is google stalk us. Everything else has consequences.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks for the warning, and as a gesture of good will, I would like to offer you one in return. If you don't want people questioning (or joking) about your qualifications (as they did in the post you mention), you may want to refrain from trying to appear as if you are an expert in certain matters. In particular, quotes such as these:

tend to make people want to question if you have the expertise you oh-so-subtly claim to have.

My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Whether I am a world-renowned expert on those particular issues or a park bench bum posting from a free terminal in a library should not matter, to you or anyone else, unless and until I start making specific claims to professional expertise or relevant tertiary qualifications.

Which is what they did in that post; which did not contain your email, phone number, address, or any other information that anyone could use to harass you. If it embarrassed you, I can understand, but I don't think it falls under the level of harassment that you are referring to. So feel free to make baseless claims against me and people at PMF all you like, but they won't go unchallenged.

No, however it clearly contained enough identifying material that if someone wanted to harass or further stalk the person in question they could very easily do so. As for whether it embarassed me, obviously I am not going to comment either way on whether you have correctly identified me - but nice try anyway.

 

[Dan O.]

Even as I try to withhold a stance on AK/RS guilt, RS claims (above) appear solidly bogus. Shoe prints (in room + hallway + out the front door), hand print, dna, etc evidence in MKs room pretty much make his assertions nonsense. Case for me turns on "others", and evidence for same.

I don't think Rudy's statements are accepted as wholly truthful by anyone. So if they aren't a factual reconstruction of what happened that night, what are they? My take is that Rudy is trying to create a narrative that shows an innocent explanation for the evidence he left behind. From that basis, it is possible to pull out of Rudy's statements those pieces of evidence that Rudy thought needed explaining.

Rudy explains that he went into the small bathroom (twice) to fetch the towels. Apart from the obvious fact that the towels were subsequently found in Meredith's room, this would also cover for any fingerprint or other trace evidence that might be found in the small bath.

We therefore have Rudy moving back and forth between Meredith's room and the small bath yet there are no footprints recording this journey. The simplest answer is that he didn't step in any blood yet. He would have had to step in the blood only before making his final exit of Meredith's room and the cottage.

What could explain the bloody footprint then? Rudy talks about his trousers being soaked. He probably would not be walking home with blood soaked pants so he either took them off to wash the blood off or rinsed them off while wearing them. In either case, Rudy would remove his shoe(s) and this would leave his bare or sock covered foot exposed where it could step in or contact bloody water and then step on the rug. After drying off and putting his shoe(s) back on, Rudy can return to Meredith's room without leaving tracks.


BTW, welcome to JREF.

 

[Mary_H]

"I am confused. The pro-guilt people generally assert that Raffaele stopped covering for Amanda."
I thought that he refused to testify.

"Although I do not believe that he stopped giving her an alibi myself"
So he continued to give an alibi, but in secret?

"If he is not covering for her, and he has an alibi, then he is innocent."

It has clearly been established that they were telling lies, hence no alibi has been established and they are guilty.

I was beginning to feel that Knox had a good chance, what with all the new evidence, provided by Philosopher Ken, and that. However, with statements like this, my advice would be to follow Ralph's example and shut up!

Oh, colonelhall. Name them.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, when you say this, you have to admit it's your opinion, not fact:

It was not proven in court that the witnesses spoke of things that didn't exist. I know you believe they didn't, but there is no way to prove that at this time. What kind of bothers me is how some are so quick to discredit anything negative about Amanda (like calling her a liar, insensitive, etc) as not valid since they can't be proved, but have no problem calling many witnesses liars or basically stupid enough to think they saw or heard something they didnt, or stupid enough to be coached, etc.. Shouldn't these witnesses be accorded the same courtesy you give Amanda, when it comes to needing proof before attacking their character?

There is such outrage when someone points out Amanda's supposed personality flaws, but yet no one has a problem calling Nara a lying wacky old nut (in so many words), and Curratelo (sp?) a bum. I understand why you guys think they are unreliable, and have no problem with you stating the reasons why, but I guess I just think it's a little hypocritical to label anything said about Amanda as character assassination, and at the same time doing just that to witnesses in a trial...

Hi Solange. Finding fault with Amanda has a different meaning from finding fault with the witnesses. Amanda is on trial and stands to spend years in jail based on falsehoods and manipulated evidence, whereas the witnesses have nothing to lose regardless of how much criticism we subject them to. Amanda is in danger; the witnesses are not.

The prosecutor has to prove Amanda is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and as her supporters, we have taken it upon ourselves to create doubt. Showing how unreliable the witnesses are is one way of doing that. Mignini's witnesses were a motley crew to begin with, and many were discredited during the trial. You have to wonder about his case, if that's the best he could come up with.

When I said there's a lot of people in this case who speak of things that don't exist, I actually wasn't thinking about the witnesses, I was thinking about the prosecutors and the judges. As I wrote earlier today, their theories are not based on evidence, they're based on their imaginations. The possible scenarios they described are what never existed.

ETA: I admit a lot of what I write is my opinion.

 

[Mary_H]

Another thing came to mind, and Ill admit I may be mistaken on this, but I thought i read an interview that Raffaele did the day after the murder where he told the reporter that he and Amanda were out at a party when Meredith died... Is this true? If so, what is his excuse now for saying that?

On November 4, 2007, Kate Mansey, a British journalist, wrote an article that she claimed was based on an interview with Raffaele.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/11/04/italy-murder-details-emerge-98487-20058122/

However, all the quotes she attributed to Raffaele actually were more likely to have been spoken by Filomena's friend, Luca Altieri, because they referred to breaking down the door to Meredith's room and finding her body. Luca was the one who did that, not Raffaele.

The article was used in an "analysis" by "The Machine," of TJMK fame, to show that Raffaele was a liar -- not because of the statements about breaking down the door, but because Raffaele had supposedly said, "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends."

However, if you read the article carefully, you can tell from the context that that remark, regardless of who made it, was in reference to Halloween night, which was the night before the murder, not the night of the murder. There are several other references to Halloween in the article, including one friend who said, about the party Meredith herself had gone to, "I know a lot of people who were at the party that night and it seemed they all had a good time."

ETA: Personally, I don't think Raffaele would have consented to sit down for an interview with a British journalist. The police probably warned everyone against doing that, as Amanda implied in her e-mail home. Also, Raffaele was known for being quiet.