• 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.
There was nothing to gain. She could only lose with that kind of games. Unless she expected grown adults to accept her nonsense as the honest truth.

As I have said before, her pattern of nonsensical, illogical explanations put her where she is today. She is not believable. She earned her prison place.

Wouldn't the "pattern of nonsensical, illogical explanations" put her condemners in even worse straits, starting with Mignini himself?

Wouldn't that even apply to you, looking for evidence of 'suspicion' without being able to address how the murder scene could be bereft of traces of either Knox or Sollecito?
 
It's my understanding that both Laura and Filomena worked for lawyers so this is hardly a wonder, but I'm sure you knew that.

I did know that. And I'd say that it's interesting, in the light of the fact that neither was working that day, and neither called friends or family first.
 
"Kids"? I am reminded of my 5th grade English teacher for some reason. Nice to have you here. Welcome.


Ahhh c'mon Rose, it's just a little light hearted poke at the fact that you guys don't much like me and I don't much like you. No reason to get so po-faced about it sheesh :)
 
Caseosis was not defined in the report. One explanation is as good as the next, absent factual proof of what Massei meant by "caseosis".

And fruit fibre in a stomach bolus is definitely not vegetable fibre? Vegetable fibre was not clarified, by the way.

This must mean Meredith had apple crumble with no apple.

Stomach contents were not described in any detail. What the examiner saw can only be matter for conjecture.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Caseosis cannot mean anything other than "cheese-like matter". And it most certainly does not mean anything pertaining to the protein molecule casein. And why do you think that Lalli appends the suggestion "mozzarella?" to his noting of the caseous material? You are wrong on this matter, plain and simple.

And I don't know the last time you ate an apple, but there is no stringy fibrous matter in an apple. Apples in an apple crumble are almost always peeled, so there are no apple skins to speak of. In contrast, vegetables such as aubergine, onion or spinach have long, stringy fibres.
 
a hypothetical situation

There was nothing to gain. She could only lose with that kind of games. Unless she expected grown adults to accept her nonsense as the honest truth.

As I have said before, her pattern of nonsensical, illogical explanations put her where she is today. She is not believable. She earned her prison place.

Piktor,

Consider the following hypothetical. Two people are shown to have lied about their whereabouts on the night of a murder and the day after. Yet, unimpeachable evidence (let us say a security camera) puts them elsewhere at the time of the murder. According to your statement above, they should be convicted anyway. Can this really be your position? If not, then please explain what your position is.
 
Ahhh c'mon Rose, it's just a little light hearted poke at the fact that you guys don't much like me and I don't much like you. No reason to get so po-faced about it sheesh :)

Errrr...it's not about posters, it's about arguments. The JREF membership rules would be well worth a read.
 
I got a feeling that the awkward silence that commenced is the result of piktor and SomeAlibi frantically yet in vain checking that records.
Still that phone call issue piktor raised is a good starting point to a discussion about dirty and disingenuous prosecution tactics.


C'mon get real Katody. Piktor is in Mexico, I'm based in England and we don't PM so this is pretty silly.

Actually, after a long time of abstinence, I've come in to let you guys have a proper shot at me for the first time ever. You can hit me with whatever you like about any subject and I'll give you my honest response. I've been thinking about it for a long time and then finally I've decided to go for it.

So lets go: give me your best shot and I will answer you as a lawyer on anything you like. If you are wise, you might ask some questions that are actually pertinent to the appeal, not simply rehashing 2.5 yrs of disagreement.
 
Ahhh c'mon Rose, it's just a little light hearted poke at the fact that you guys don't much like me and I don't much like you. No reason to get so po-faced about it sheesh :)

SomeAlibi, buddy, it must be really boring now at the plausible bunch nest. But you're a honest guy, so tell me what you think, did Comodi lie deliberately or was is something else?
 
Comodi's question

Ahhh c'mon Rose, it's just a little light hearted poke at the fact that you guys don't much like me and I don't much like you. No reason to get so po-faced about it sheesh :)

SomeAlibi,

I like you just fine; it is your arguments I don't like. Comodi's question about remembering a phone call but giving the wrong time strikes me as a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" problem. If she answered that she did not, Comodi can give the contents of the call. If she answered that she did, Comodi can come back with the cell phone records that don't show a call at that time. Maybe Comodi did this inadvertently. Maybe the police just made a mistake with the way they applied the phenolphthalin. Maybe the police accidently erased the previous access to Stardust. Maybe Finzi mistook the smell of lysoform for bleach...
 
C'mon get real Katody. Piktor is in Mexico, I'm based in England and we don't PM so this is pretty silly.

Actually, after a long time of abstinence, I've come in to let you guys have a proper shot at me for the first time ever. You can hit me with whatever you like about any subject and I'll give you my honest response. I've been thinking about it for a long time and then finally I've decided to go for it.

So lets go: give me your best shot and I will answer you as a lawyer on anything you like. If you are wise, you might ask some questions that are actually pertinent to the appeal, not simply rehashing 2.5 yrs of disagreement.

It's extremely generous of you to offer us your views "as a lawyer" on this case. First, what do you think convinced the judicial panel in Perugia to find Knox and Sollecito guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder and sexual assault of Meredith Kercher?
 
And nobody has yet coherently explained how it would in any way benefit Knox to deny having made the first phone call (at 12.47pm) to her mother. In other words, why is Knox's failure to remember this first call in any way indicative of her culpability in the crime?

If anything, surely it would have helped her to have remembered this particular call to her mother, since it was made after the discovery of the broken window etc in Filomena's room, and in the midst of a mounting sense of panic. Surely it would "benefit" Knox to recall that she'd called her mother to tell her that she was concerned about the state of the house and the whereabouts of Meredith, and that her mother advised her to call the police.


We can all draw our own value judgements from it. Edda has explained the content of the call on the stand. She has said she doesn't know why Amanda doesn't recall it. You can't get away from the fact that her mother testified about it. You're trying to derive a motive from that non-recollection: we can all imagine one up but the bottom line is Amanda apparently has a very confused recollection of the night of the 1st, the morning of the 2nd and can't even remember about midday of the 2nd. Why?
 
But most people - even criminals - tend to only do or say things that are potentially in their best interest. For example, a criminal in a case with very little evidence will say he didn't commit the crime (even if he did), because he might get acquitted and set free through saying this. Conversely, a criminal in a case where there is a cast-iron case against him will usually plead guilty, because this will generally lead to a lesser sentence.

In other words, people generally make choices based upon the optimum expected outcome to them of making each particular choice. In this particular instance, you're suggesting that Knox consciously chose to pretend not to remember about the first call to her mother (even though she actually did remember it) - a choice which could only have negative implications for her. This runs contrary to human nature - even for Amanda Knox!
That is precisely why this case is a mystery. The defendants have zero credibility, nothing they say makes sense, has logic or helps them in any way.

Guede has made a half-hearted admission and has half-apologized. His sentence is now down to 16 years.

The other two know they did it and are lying through their teeth. It is that obvious.

The reason they have stuck to their incredible explanations is probably pressure from their families. Both Mr. Knox and Dr. Sollecito scoff at the idea their child had anything to do with murder.

The reward has been 25 and 26 year sentences. The young defendants were convicted on all charges. Unanimously.

On appeal the defense is counting on the officious, incredible tales by two convicted criminals, one a child murderer. Good luck with that.
 
I did know that. And I'd say that it's interesting, in the light of the fact that neither was working that day, and neither called friends or family first.

It's not at all surprising to me. These were grown ups, why would they call their family before contacting their place of work and asking for advice given the horrific events at their house, where incidentally they may have been made aware of the importance of that maxim of never talking to the police by their employers(see Kestrel's youtube link) many times before. Personally, I would think anyone in their position with a logical head on their shoulders would ask their legal coworkers or bosses for advice first, then maybe call home.
 
C'mon get real Katody. Piktor is in Mexico, I'm based in England and we don't PM so this is pretty silly.

Actually, after a long time of abstinence, I've come in to let you guys have a proper shot at me for the first time ever. You can hit me with whatever you like about any subject and I'll give you my honest response. I've been thinking about it for a long time and then finally I've decided to go for it.

So lets go: give me your best shot and I will answer you as a lawyer on anything you like. If you are wise, you might ask some questions that are actually pertinent to the appeal, not simply rehashing 2.5 yrs of disagreement.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm guessing a lot of us here are like me and actually have no idea who you are. Maybe you could inform us of why we should all feel privileged to get to ask you questions?
 
SomeAlibi, buddy, it must be really boring now at the plausible bunch nest. But you're a honest guy, so tell me what you think, did Comodi lie deliberately or was is something else?


No, not so Katody, I just thought I'd come in here, probably on a temporary basis before you drown me on volume but so you could ask me any questions you like. I don't care how much you dislike me, but lets dispense with the "buddy" - that's just a high-school inferred insult which is rubbish. Hate me all you like but do it in an adult way huh?

On Commodi - ask me a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer.
 
No, not so Katody, I just thought I'd come in here, probably on a temporary basis before you drown me on volume but so you could ask me any questions you like. I don't care how much you dislike me, but lets dispense with the "buddy" - that's just a high-school inferred insult which is rubbish. Hate me all you like but do it in an adult way huh?

On Commodi - ask me a specific question and I'll give you a specific answer.

Me hating you? Man, I simply love you, back there on PMF you were the most fun.

The question is concrete and specific. Do you think she lied when she said the call was made a) at 12 o'clock b) before anything happened? If you think she didn't lie, then what was it?
 
It's not at all surprising to me. These were grown ups, why would they call their family before contacting their place of work and asking for advice given the horrific events at their house, where incidentally they may have been made aware of the importance of that maxim of never talking to the police by their employers(see Kestrel's youtube link) many times before. Personally, I would think anyone in their position with a logical head on their shoulders would ask their legal coworkers or bosses for advice first, then maybe call home.

I agree that they should have called their lawyers. But I'm not sure it's the very first call I would make if a housemate of mine had been murdered and I knew I had nothing to do with it. Maybe that's just me.....

But you can be certain that if Knox had taken the same course of action (calling a lawyer), that would have been presented as solid evidence that she had something to hide. And the very fact that she sought no advice from either a local lawyer (and she knew of course that both her Italian housemates worked for law firms, so she'd have had no trouble finding a lawyer) or the US Consulate, indicates to me either that she had nothing to hide or that she was extremely, extremely audacious and cunning, and thought she could outwit the police all by herself in a foreign country. I tend to believe the former.

In addition, if Knox were culpable, she could have easily ascertained (and maybe she actually did know) that Filomena and Laura had contacted lawyers immediately, and that therefore there was probably very little downside-risk to her doing the same. Yet she remained blissfully free of legal advice until it was too late.
 
I don't mean to be rude, but I'm guessing a lot of us here are like me and actually have no idea who you are. Maybe you could inform us of why we should all feel privileged to get to ask you questions?


Hi Humanity. I'm a long time poster on PMF about this case and I was addressing many of the posters here who know who I am, as you can tell from their posts. However I have no presence on JREF to date. Apologies if this came across wrong - I have no interest in purveying some sort of impression of "stature" - I absolutely have none in this forum and that is entirely earned.
 
Hi Humanity. I'm a long time poster on PMF about this case and I was addressing many of the posters here who know who I am, as you can tell from their posts. However I have no presence on JREF to date. Apologies if this came across wrong - I have no interest in purveying some sort of impression of "stature" - I absolutely have none in this forum and that is entirely earned.

Ok, no worries. Thanks.
 
Hi again platonov, I stand by my translation. I will of course consider any appeals and make necessary corrections, but I'm afraid that the post you mention doesn't qualify as such, as it (by my standards of plain English) requires translation also :)

Katody Matrass

:):):)

But you understood the initial Q and finally posted a response of sorts - an extract from AK's trial.
(perhaps you should have stuck to asking for cites as others did).

Its too late now to translate it out of existence as you seem to have done with the latter part of my post.;)

That doesn't work here as it didn't work in court.

But we are done on this - unless you wish to try convince Halides1 & Rose Montague (and CD , FS and AK) of you point of view.??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom