• 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.
Dan O : Exactly!! Amanda had said she was at Raffaele. So, telling Edda, that she couldn't lie, she was there, the inference is obvious that she was at the cottage
 
I've looked at the evidence and am sure Amanda is innocent.

Why then, is she in jail?

I believe there is a parallel with her treatment and the way a black man would have been treated in a murder trial in the deep South during the 1950's.

Or a Muslim who believes in Jihad.

Or Heretics during the Inquisition.

Or Slaves of any era.

Or Witches in Salem during the 1600's.

The Italian newspapers fanned the fire and anti American bias with stories of the evil American drug use, evil American Sex and non-orthodox religion.

I no longer think the facts of the case are relevant. The only relevant facts relate to bias against AK and RS.

Perhaps we should start another thread on facts relating to discrimination and anti-Americanism. 911 taught us that anti-Americanism is out there. Maybe it is important to discuss.

I believe Amanda has a powerful appeal and I hope it wins because anti-Americanism is all that is left to discuss if the appeal fails.

You've done well. I'm convinced. I've just assembled all of the facts of this case for a few pages on a police brutality site. The appeal papers really convinced me. I've been close to the facts today and I see no alternative to bias, discrimination and anti-Americanism.
 
Last edited:
the trial testimony is best

capealadin said:
Halides, could you please show me where Patrick DENIED demoting Amanda? Thanks..
Click to expand...

Patrick testified that he did not fire Amanda, as I have previously documented. If you are claiming that he testified that he demoted Amanda, would you please cite something or quote his testimony. Thanks.
 
And as I have previously stated, Halides, Patrick Lumumba gave interviews, stating that he had fired Amanda, and had hired Meredith. He had fired her from the bar job, and given her a lesser job, of handing out fliers. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and he has never denied firing/demoting her.
 
PDiGirolamo said:
Perhaps this has been discussed before but I do not recall it being discussed, at least not in the last several months. If she did, in fact, stay at Raffaele's all night as she claimed, why did she not know about the call from his father in the morning?
Click to expand...


Why should she have know about a call Raffaele answered at 9:30 if she didn't wake up till 10:30.

ETA: This phone call was brought up back in March and the time Amanda says she woke up that morning was discussed last December. Why do these questions keep popping up?
 
Last edited:
capealadin said:
And as I have previously stated, Halides, Patrick Lumumba gave interviews, stating that he had fired Amanda, and had hired Meredith. He had fired her from the bar job, and given her a lesser job, of handing out fliers. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and he has never denied firing/demoting her.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't heard about the text message telling Amanda she didn't need to come to work that evening. When was Patrick planning to tell Amanda that she had been fired?

Have a good evening, see you later!


PS: This mole was whacked back in July. You might save yourself some grief if you reviewed the history of your subjects before posting them yet again.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
I've looked at the evidence and am sure Amanda is innocent.

Why then, is she in jail?

I believe there is a parallel with her treatment and the way a black man would have been treated in a murder trial in the deep South during the 1950's.

Or a Muslim who believes in Jihad.

Or Heretics during the Inquisition.

Or Slaves of any era.

Or Witches in Salem during the 1600's.

The Italian newspapers fanned the fire and anti American bias with stories of the evil American drug use, evil American Sex and non-orthodox religion.

I no longer think the facts of the case are relevant. The only relevant facts relate to bias against AK and RS.

Perhaps we should start another thread on facts relating to discrimination and anti-Americanism. 911 taught us that anti-Americanism is out there. Maybe it is important to discuss.

I believe Amanda has a powerful appeal and I hope it wins because anti-Americanism is all that is left to discuss if the appeal fails.

You've done well. I'm convinced. I've just assembled all of the facts of this case for a few pages on a police brutality site. The appeal papers really convinced me. I've been close to the facts today and I see no alternative to bias, discrimination and anti-Americanism.
Click to expand...

Its not anti-americanism in the Knox case. Its anti-foreigner. All countries suffer from this when a crime is believed to have been committed from someone thats a foreigner in their country. Sollecito was just collateral damage. I'm not saying knox was convicted by the jury because she is a foreigner. I'm just saying americans tend to think they are targeted because they are american. Americans outside their country get targeted because they are foreign. When I lived in Germany. As an example, the west germans didn't care for either/or american, turks, or east germans. The didn't care for them because they where foreign. Doesn't mean they hated them. Just didn't like them being in their country. Of course not everyone in west germany felt this way. My german girlfriend didn't hate americans or turks. She disliked east germans though.
 
He had already told Amanda. In fact, Patrick believed Amanda felt revenge towards Meredith, because she wanted to be the queen bee. Meredith was supposed to leave for London in a few days, so it stands to reason, Meredith would have started her job when she returned.
 
capealadin said:
He had already told Amanda. In fact, Patrick believed Amanda felt revenge towards Meredith, because she wanted to be the queen bee. Meredith was supposed to leave for London in a few days, so it stands to reason, Meredith would have started her job when she returned.
Click to expand...

Wow, and the prosecution presented this in court?
I mean if I'm the prosecution that would be a reason to kill someone. Much better than Knox was stoned on the sofa with Raff and suddenly decided to help guede rape and kill Meredith.
 
capealadin said:
Yes, I do think the Court cut Amanda quite a bit of slack. So much so, that the prosecutor is appealing to add on more time. Even so, that comment logically means the cottage. We can agree to disagree, and let people decide for themselves. If I believed that Amanda was innocent, I would be trouble by a lot of things, IMHO.
Click to expand...


This isn't one of the points on which we can agree to disagree. Unless the prosecutors in the appeals trial defy the previous court's ruling about it, the subject is moot.

If we still wanted to examine Amanda's original comment, "This is so stupid, because I can't say anything else. I was there, I can't lie about that," then we should have the entire context in which it occurred. I don't know where it is, though.
 
Mary_H said:
This isn't one of the points on which we can agree to disagree. Unless the prosecutors in the appeals trial defy the previous court's ruling about it, the subject is moot.

If we still wanted to examine Amanda's original comment, "This is so stupid, because I can't say anything else. I was there, I can't lie about that," then we should have the entire context in which it occurred. I don't know where it is, though.
Click to expand...

According to the motivations (page 20) there are transcripts of tapped phone conversations and the prison conversations between Amanda and her parents. I don't know if this particular conversation is included, perhaps Charlie Wilkes would have that information.

In the meantime the Court had initiated, at the request of the Sollecito defence and in agreement with the Prosecutor, the expert task of a joint nature for the transcription of the tapped telephone conversations and voice recordings arranged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Perugia in the course of the preliminary investigations, the transcription of which had been requested.

(These voice recordings were made at Police Headquarters in Perugia, appropriately prepared, where the co-tenants of Meredith Kercher, the boys of the apartment below that one occupied by the murdered girl, and the English girlfriends of the English student involved in the Erasmus Programme, had gathered on the afternoon of November 2, 2007. Other voice recordings were made during meetings in prison between Amanda and her parents. Finally, phone tappings had been made of the fixed and mobile phone services of the family of Raffaele Sollecito.)
Click to expand...
 
Obviously the whole conversation would help, but this is the entire sentence Amanda uttered to her mother:

"This is so stupid, because I can't say anything else. I was there, I can't lie about that, there's no reason I should."

Notice that when you don't cherry-pick the good parts it's more apparent that she is not admitting to her mother that she was at the cottage. Taking out-of-context quotes is probably the most disingenuous action that has been used against Amanda, but the fact that some on here actually expect us to put stock in it is rather ridiculous. They know it's disingenuous or they would at least have included the entire sentence. "there's no reason" says it all. But if any guilters want to argue that this in any way implies she was at the cottage then they need to produce the entire conversation. End of story.

And from the trial:

CDV: Then right after, your mother says: "Here, here are the facts: we talked
yesterday with the lawyer, and we asked him about the knife" -- maybe I'll
skip this, because this part isn't relevant. Then you say: "It's
crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's
what they're doing now. They're just lying." And later, page 8 of the
transcript of the conversation, you say "It's all an invention." And you
say: "It's stupid. I can't say anything other than the truth, because I know
I was there. I can't lie about that. There's no reason to do it." When you
said "I was there", what did you mean?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
christianahannah said:
According to the motivations (page 20) there are transcripts of tapped phone conversations and the prison conversations between Amanda and her parents. I don't know if this particular conversation is included, perhaps Charlie Wilkes would have that information.
Click to expand...


During her testimony, Amanda's lawyer read from the transcript of the recording of Amanda and her mother on November 17. Unfortunately, we only get served the same snippet (though often with different wording due to the double translation). The most context I've seen is from the Supreme court hearing of 2008-04-01 where it is stated: While talking to your mother in jail you said "This is so stupid, because I can't say anything else. I was there, I can't lie about that, there's no reason I should."
 
So basically to clarify, the conversation went roughly like this:

Edda Mellis: "Here, here are the facts: we talked
yesterday with the lawyer, and we asked him about the knife"

Amanda: "It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying."

Amanda: "It's all an invention. It's stupid. I can't say anything other than the truth, because I know I was there. I can't lie about that. There's no reason to do it."

So, capealadin, you are obviously wrong on this matter.
 
Malkmus said:
So basically to clarify, the conversation went roughly like this:
Click to expand...

Except that roughly 7 pages of transcripts were left out of the middle of those statements. That's probably as close as we can get at this time.
 
Malkmus said:
So basically to clarify, the conversation went roughly like this:

Edda Mellis: "Here, here are the facts: we talked
yesterday with the lawyer, and we asked him about the knife"

Amanda: "It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying."

Amanda: "It's all an invention. It's stupid. I can't say anything other than the truth, because I know I was there. I can't lie about that. There's no reason to do it."

So, capealadin, you are obviously wrong on this matter.
Click to expand...

The real question you need to ask yourself is whats the Invention the police are doing? What are they inventing? Is she referring to being present when the police are inventing something? Obviously shes calling them liars, Saying they are inventing something and Knows they are inventing it because she was present during the invention.
Since the police believe she was in the apartment and helped kill meredith. If thats the invention and she calls them a liar because of it. Then how does taking, "i know i was there" to mean she was at the apartment and helped kill meredith. When she is stating that the police are lying about it.

So in other words. She is saying the police are lying, because she was there. If the police are saying she was in the apartment, then how can they be lying if she was there. She must be talking about something totally different.

Now if your saying Knox is referring to the knife and claiming the police are lying, because she knows she was there at the murder. If you believe she was present for the murder because of that statement, then you must believe the knife isn't the murder weapon.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
I've looked at the evidence and am sure Amanda is innocent.

Why then, is she in jail?

I believe there is a parallel with her treatment and the way a black man would have been treated in a murder trial in the deep South during the 1950's.

Or a Muslim who believes in Jihad.

Or Heretics during the Inquisition.

Or Slaves of any era.

Or Witches in Salem during the 1600's.

The Italian newspapers fanned the fire and anti American bias with stories of the evil American drug use, evil American Sex and non-orthodox religion.

I no longer think the facts of the case are relevant. The only relevant facts relate to bias against AK and RS.

Perhaps we should start another thread on facts relating to discrimination and anti-Americanism. 911 taught us that anti-Americanism is out there. Maybe it is important to discuss.

I believe Amanda has a powerful appeal and I hope it wins because anti-Americanism is all that is left to discuss if the appeal fails.

You've done well. I'm convinced. I've just assembled all of the facts of this case for a few pages on a police brutality site. The appeal papers really convinced me. I've been close to the facts today and I see no alternative to bias, discrimination and anti-Americanism.
Click to expand...


Justinian2, someone wrote a post on the Seattle P-I that relates to what you have written here. Some of it is kind of nutty, but it's thought-provoking.

Posted by jumpoffab at 9/29/2010 11:45 a.m.

I sure hope some day the Italians get those agents in the CIA for their crimes of kidnapping and throw away the key! It would be fun to debate with the conservitive nose picking souless sociopaths about the agents guilt using their own crap against them over and over: they were convicted by the authorities.. so: they are guilty as charged!
Not that that will happen because these creeps are hidding out somewhere in their southern trailtrash land where all the scum go to hid after they have commited some crime overseas be it child killing or kidnapping. If it had not been for the holly MF pentigon/CIA waisting our tax dollers this girl would not have been convictied. SO they are not making us safe- they are a cult, one that is burning tax dollars faster then the fed can print them.

The ski lift: dozen people
The Iraq firing range: two agents.
The Kidnapping

Someone should have paid for the life lost and it should not be some college student.

http://www.seattlepi.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=427522&page=2
Click to expand...
 
Dan O. said:
Why should she have know about a call Raffaele answered at 9:30 if she didn't wake up till 10:30.

ETA: This phone call was brought up back in March and the time Amanda says she woke up that morning was discussed last December. Why do these questions keep popping up?
Click to expand...

As I said, I didn't remember it being discussed, and certainly not in the last several months. The whole discussion about her quote of "being there" made me think about that phone call as one of the unresolved issues in my mind. So sorry to have bothered you over something that was apparently discussed 8 or 10 months ago. Please have a little patience for an occasional repeat question; some of us are not as versed as others in the case. It should not always be assumed that a previously asked and answered question is an attack of some sort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom