• 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.
Mary_H said:
I know -- right? Why would Amanda carry a butcher knife with her if she wasn't even afraid?
Click to expand...

if the door to rank speculation is now open, the "UW rape prank" rumor, if true, would support the contention that AK was planning a Halloween/ Day of the Dead/ All Souls Day "rape prank" for MK

AK's (and "Marie Pace's") penchant for writing short stories that turn on drugs, rape, stalking & violence against women, also militate in favor of this supposition
 
treehorn said:
"...based on ONE...," i made no such assertion

are you trying to put words in my mouth?

if you want a complete list of my reasons to suspect that RS is guilty (I have more than ONE), it would include, inter alia:

o the fact that his DNA trace was found in the private bedroom of MK, where she was murdered, on her bra clasp

o the fact that his alibi shifted at least 3 times; &

o the fact that his alibi (pick anyone you like) is not supported by cell tower pings, phone records and computer logs.
Click to expand...


Thank you, I did want a complete list of your reasons to suspect Raffaele is guilty, because one is just not enough.

You should look for citations to support those last two, because as far as I know, they're both false. As for the first one, if you have been following the discussion about that, then you probably know that I am going to disagree with you. I don't accept that the investigation found any DNA trace of Raffaele on the bra clasp, based on this evidence:
  • the clasp was retrieved under suspicious circumstabces
  • a video shows it being mishandled and contaminated
  • physically, it is more likely DNA trace would be retained on cloth, not metal
  • there is no other trace of Raffaello at the crime scene

thank you, Mary

are you speaking of "internalized false confessions"?

i have started to look into that area already, and guess what i discovered:

only 2 types of subjects are at risk:

1) those with very low IQ scores; &

2) "extreme introverts"

does AK fit either category, in your opinion?
Click to expand...


This is another claim that needs some support to be believed.

"extreme"? RS?
punches? kicks?
water-boarding?
electric shock?
pliers?
power drill?
loaded gun?
do tell!
i've read nothing of the sort in his diary
Click to expand...


The definitions for duress describe it as forcible restraint, confinement or imprisonment. You're talking about physical torture. I can't imagine that anyone who is locked up against his will is not suffering from duress, and Raffaele expresses his emotional distress quite clearly in his diary.
 
treehorn said:
if the door to rank speculation is now open, the "UW rape prank" rumor, if true, would support the contention that AK was planning a Halloween/ Day of the Dead/ All Souls Day "rape prank" for MK

AK's (and "Marie Pace's") penchant for writing short stories that turn on drugs, rape, stalking & violence against women, also militate in favor of this supposition
Click to expand...


What you wrote doesn't follow at all from what I wrote. It comes across as a gratuitous attempt to slander Amanda. What is your point?
 
Mary_H said:
Arguments stemming from that basis of information should be judged on whether they accurately reflect that information (i.e., are factual) and on whether the arguments are logical. Logic can be supported by referring to information and knowledge that is extraneous to the case, e.g., the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

in this regard, i agree with you, of course

for the record, i'm not foolish enough to believe that i know, with certainty, what the truth simpliciter is in this case (I wasn't "there" on Nov. 1/07)

i am definitely not holding myself out as some kind of 'expert' on the case (i'm far from that)

many of the posters here have mastered more of the fact pattern than i have

so, i'm interested to hear ANY intelligent argument that can be advanced in defense of the accused/ convicted

at this point, i am inclined to suspect, very strongly, that RG, AK & RS are, all three, guilty, but if someone can give me a good reason to think otherwise, i'd change my tune in a heart beat

who'd want to see a wrongful conviction?!

but by the same token, who'd want to see the killer(s) escape justice?!

no one of any intelligence is going to be persuaded by bluster, so i'm looking forward to some good faith discussion/ debate
 
loverofzion said:
Guesss they also got "lucky" when Meredith's genetic profile was found on the blade then- something which the defense has NEVER argued was not present on the knife.

So now we have "evidence tampering" when discussing RS's abundant DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.
You guys should really dedcde- contamination? conspiracy? or just plain ol' evidence tampering.
Using all three indiscrimanately rather dilutes your case.
Click to expand...

loverofzion,

Raffaele's presumed DNA on the clasp was borderline LCN (as noted in his appeal), not "abundant." If you started quoting sources, you would not make so many errors. PM me if you don't understand how to use Google. I can help.
 
halides1 said:
loverofzion,

Raffaele's presumed DNA on the clasp was borderline LCN (as noted in his appeal), not "abundant." If you started quoting sources, you would not make so many errors. PM me if you don't understand how to use Google. I can help.
Click to expand...
That alone is hardly proof that they were not suspicous.
They knew they had a liar on their hands; they are cleverer than to batter a dead corpse with questions.
 
Mary_H said:
What you wrote doesn't follow at all from what I wrote. It comes across as a gratuitous attempt to slander Amanda. What is your point?
Click to expand...

i took it that you were asking people to speculate on scenarios that might have given AK cause/reason to be carrying a big knife in her bag

PS "slander" is something you say, "libel" something you publish (post)

i've done neither because i am only offering an opinion

(i'm not representing an opinion, or lie, as though it were an objective fact)
 
Mary_H said:
What you wrote doesn't follow at all from what I wrote. It comes across as a gratuitous attempt to slander Amanda. What is your point?
Click to expand...
A gratutious attempt to slander amanda?
Why is writing about her factual history- her writings, her "pranks" gratuitous?
Because they don't fit the image you are trying to create of a wholesome honors student?
 
Farah Jama

lionking said:
"Spamming"?. He's responding to different posts. And "no content" is your view and perhaps not shared by all.
Click to expand...

lionking,

To the best of my recollection, you never answered the question of what evidence it would take to make you change your mind about this case. What would? Thanks for the citation that let to information about Farah Jama, a nice example of DNA contamination.
 
Mary_H said:
treehorn, do you have anything to offer about Raffaele other than that you think he should be convicted based on one statement that looks to you like a lie? Last night you wrote:




You're new to this board, so you may not be familiar with the literature that has been referred to several times about what innocent people are capable of doing during interrogations. A search of the topic will be helpful to you if you would like to become more educated about the topic.




I suggested that you might want to read Raffaele's prison diary. When you do get around to reading it, you will find that Raffaele made the statement in the context of some legal advice from his attorney, and that he was under extreme duress at the time.
Click to expand...
Why would a lawyer of Rafi's- interested in excupating his client- advise him to write blatant falsehoods which are easily disproved and make him look that much more guilty?
Really it makes no sense.
 
treehorn said:
in this regard, i agree with you, of course

for the record, i'm not foolish enough to believe that i know, with certainty, what the truth simpliciter is in this case (I wasn't "there" on Nov. 1/07)

i am definitely not holding myself out as some kind of 'expert' on the case (i'm far from that)

many of the posters here have mastered more of the fact pattern than i have

so, i'm interested to hear ANY intelligent argument that can be advanced in defense of the accused/ convicted

at this point, i am inclined to suspect, very strongly, that RG, AK & RS are, all three, guilty, but if someone can give me a good reason to think otherwise, i'd change my tune in a heart beat

who'd want to see a wrongful conviction?!

but by the same token, who'd want to see the killer(s) escape justice?!

no one of any intelligence is going to be persuaded by bluster, so i'm looking forward to some good faith discussion/ debate
Click to expand...


If you find too much bluster in this part of the thread, you are welcome to review past, less blustery exchanges. I have a feeling, though, that wherever you see posters on the pro-innocence side of the argument, you are going to see what you perceive to be bluster.

Have you compared the pro-innocence websites and the sources they are linked to with the pro-guilt websites and the sources they are linked to? If so, to borrow some of your phraseology, why do you so resolutely, authoritatively, and confidently claim that the opinions expressed by the learned scientists, jurists and authors on the pro-innocence websites are only so much bluster?
 
loverofzion said:
From her history apparently she found pranks involving knives quite amusing.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have already indicated you disagree with Judge Massei's approach to Amanda carrying the knife. No need to trash Amanda any more in the process.
 
halides1 said:
lionking,

To the best of my recollection, you never answered the question of what evidence it would take to make you change your mind about this case. What would? Thanks for the citation that let to information about Farah Jama, a nice example of DNA contamination.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the post of mine you quoted?

But I must admit, you are pretty good because you have somehow concluded that I have made up my mind one way or other. Oh, and your last sentence mystifies me.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I remember it was all disputed and discredited repeatedly. I remember also that it is usual for some defenders of that very weak pieces of evidence to quickly run out of arguments and resort to insults followed by an inevitable suspension :)
Click to expand...

I know you imagine disputed equates to discredited but they are two completely different things. The evidence certainly wasn't discredited, hence the guilty verdict.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom