• 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.
How would RS & AK know the staging of the crime would implicate Guede? How would they of had any knowledge of Guede's past brushes with the law? The reasoning for staging a break-in would be to make it appear that the murder was committed by someone who did not live in the residence. Obviously Guede did not live in the residence, but the same could be said about all males in Perugia.

DNA and fingerprinting are common procedures. It wouldn't take but a glance inside the murder room to see that fingerprints were left. A look in the toilet would reveal DNA. If AK and RS were in the mythical collusion with Guede, then they would have assumed that he would be found and that he would rat on them if they staged a crime that would lead to him.

There might be more to this than meets the eye. AK and RS could have stumbled on the body, locked the door and called the police. However, I think this would have come out by now. People talk to their cellmates.
 
Last edited:
This is a dense tangle of sophistic nonsense.

1) I did not make an argument. I was examining the validity or cogency* of your own argument, which you did indeed advance:

"That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt."

*It is unclear from your statement whether "should" is being used in a strict determinative sense (in which case, validity would be the appropriate test), or it is being used in a more probabilistic sense (in this case, cogency is the appropriate test).

2) Though, as previously stated, I did not actually put forth a counter-argument, your statement "your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects," appears to assert that I have made multiple errors in my construction. What would those be?

3) What do you see as the implied argument that you advanced? I was quite explicit in my description of your implied argument, and directed my analysis at it. In what way was I "arguing against assertions [lane99] never made"?

4) I am most curious to know how my analysis "unwittingly supports the implications of what [lane99] actually had written," given that I believe I clearly demonstrated the opposite.


I can see the potential for an increase in confusion about this subject, so I want to have a go at trying to clarify it.

Somebody has made the argument that there is no precedent for what Amanda and Raffaele are accused of doing, ergo, it is unlikely they did it.

Fuji's response is that that is an illogical argument. Fuji holds that the fact that something has never happened in the past is not necessarily a predictor of whether it will ever happen. From the standpoint of logical debate, Fuji is correct.

We might want to take the argument out of the realm of rhetoric and into the realm of statistical probability. For example, it is statistically unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele participated in the crime. That is a true statement and it provides food for thought; people can choose to allow it to influence their thinking or not.
 
Fun with statistics

Statistically likely (many precedents):

Police misbehavior
Falsified forensic lab evidence
Groupthink
Obedience to authority
Prosecutors who have abused the power of their office doing it more than once

Statistically unlikely (few precedents):

Young people with no criminal background committing murder
New lovers committing murder together
Finding only an iota of DNA in the most strategic location at a crime scene
Finding only an iota of DNA on a murder weapon
Finding a murder weapon without having to search for it

Who can think of more (from both sides of the argument)?
 
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.

Well before Nov 22, 1963 there was no precedent of a person named Lee Harvey Oswald, shooting a President of the United States, named John F. Kennedy, while he was riding in the back of the limousine driving down Elm Street in Dallas, Texas. If you get specific enough nothing has ever happened twice.
 
Last edited:
The innatural thing appers to me being that Amanda doesn't remember at all of the call, and doesn't give weight to her calling her mother, nor puts weight (neither memory) to the reason of it.
This is why Amanda's answer is not natural and not credible, when crossed with the objective data of the timing of this call.
Of course you are entitled to such a subjective view. I believe I have good reasons to conclude otherwise - the fact that Amanda doesn't remember is perfectly natural and she is perfectly credible when answering questions about the call.



But my paraphrase is not of this particular Amanda's answer. It is a way to summarize Amanda's position on this topic expressed by Amanda's whole testimony.
OK, I have no problem with that, especially that there was not so much of her testimony on that topic apart from answers to Comodi's and Maresca's questions.

You want to focus you attention on one answer, in a restrict relation to a line of dialogue with Comodi. I don't.
Heavens forbid no! I don't want to restrict you in any way. My only humble request is to stick to the facts.

My summary/paraphrase is intended to consider the implication of the other Amanda's statements through the process, like this:
I again humbly ask which of those statements and their implications compelled you to include in your paraphrase words "and Meredith didn't answer the phone"?



You want to interpret what Amanda says by using Comodi's wording. I interpret what Amanda says using the rest of Amanda's tesimony. Do you understand why I use summary conclusions an paraphrases now?
Again, I don't dare to question your right to use summaries and paraphrases, as long as they are factual.


The points "a" and "c" are "your" points - those that you attribute to me - not my points.

OK, the a) is not so important. Point c) was:
c) Amanda is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried.
In this point I tried to paraphrase what you wrote, and you wrote:
This answer is inantural, and moreover by this answer Amanda herself is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried, and Edda is placing the same content decribed by Amanda in the 12:47 call, exactlt the content Amanda guesses but doesn't remember.​

I'm not sure if you stand by it or not, because now you write:
Amanda is not placing the call "when she is getting worried" because of the timing, but because Amanda has no better memory of the 12:47 call, and here she is simply not putting weight on - nor matching with a mamory - any different reason at all: she doesn't thinky to any reason and circumstance different from the one she already claimed to have forgotten.

It is also not factual. In the answer I quoted before Amanda clearly places the time of the call when she's back at Raffaele. And she says about that moment
"I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think."
Which also confirms that time.
BTW Contrary to what you wrote this is different from Edda's account of that call, as it doesn't include a break-in nor missing Meredith. It clearly indicates that Amanda is trying to hypothesize (by Comodi's request) a call that would have happened at 12:00 (again by Comodi's suggestion). She doesn't remember that call so she has no reason to not believe the time that Comodi pushed and Massei confirmed.
It's quite obvious that if Comodi stated the time precisely, Amanda would have guessed the reason of the call immediately. But also Comodi would look like a fool asking a question like "why did you call your mother at 12:47 when you discovered the break-in, blood and missing friend? Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions?" :rolleyes:



Finally one of the reasonable explanations why Amanda don't remember the first phone call to her mother goes like this:
When calling her mother Amanda was relating the same findings she reported moments earlier to Filomena, and moments later to the police and various people arriving at the scene. Because of that the call she made were not an outstanding event. She admited she remembers calling her mother, and she don't remember how many times. She made multiple calls to her. It is reasonable that they somewhat fused together in her memory. And the call with the strongest emotional impact was the one after the shocking discovery. That's why it's reasonable it was remembered as "the call" to her mother.

There is nothing in her testimony that would indicate she is insincere about it. That's why Comodi pushes her insinuations, interrupts Amanda constantly then loses interest and changes topic as soon as she is done with her dirty trick.


Good night :)
 
<snip>Finally one of the reasonable explanations why Amanda don't remember the first phone call to her mother goes like this:
When calling her mother Amanda was relating the same findings she reported moments earlier to Filomena, and moments later to the police and various people arriving at the scene. Because of that the call she made were not an outstanding event. She admited she remembers calling her mother, and she don't remember how many times. She made multiple calls to her. It is reasonable that they somewhat fused together in her memory. And the call with the strongest emotional impact was the one after the shocking discovery. That's why it's reasonable it was remembered as "the call" to her mother.<snip>

Good night :)


A most likely analysis. Good night. :)
 
Have we ever gone five hours without any comments before?

ETA: 6 hours.


Oh, now I understand:

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:13 am

Administrator Note:

THE JREF

PMF is removing it's endorsement and encouragement of PMF members posting on the 'Meredith Kercher' thread on the JREF. This is not a ban, since PMF has no say on where members choose to post off board, nor would we make such a ban if we could and neither will any members be held in disregard should they choose to continue to post there. It is simply that we implore you not to.....


Read the rest at:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271&sid=593e28b817c472bb4495fcf3a6af3144&start=7000
 
You seem to want to gloss right over the very reason the Seattle conviction is raised viz., that it stands as a public record of an instance in which Knox exhibited antisocial behavior - worthy of police action and the expenditure of court resources - in Seattle, and before the murder.

It seems to me that hosting a loud and rowdy party in college is not exactly the definition of anti-social behavior. Sounds pretty social to me. Maybe some psychologist can explain it to me.
 

Goodness. It's like 'This is your Commander speaking, come back to your home planet', isn't it? Extraordinary.

Interesting. They had some really bad things to say about us. I hope Fulcanelli decides to ignore this warning and return when his recent 30 day exile is up.

Ahhhhhhhhh... Now I see.
 
Have we ever gone five hours without any comments before?

ETA: 6 hours.

I didn't realize that five hours (oops, six hours) had gone by without comments, however, after reading your post I thought I had bored everyone away with my comments about the phone call.
 
Interesting. They had some really bad things to say about us. I hope Fulcanelli decides to ignore this warning and return when his recent 30 day exile is up.


Ah, I didn't realize he had been suspended again already. That certainly explains the timing of the dictum.

They did have some bad things to say about us. I think Katody is going to get her feelings hurt when she gets up in the morning. ;)
 
Goodness. It's like 'This is your Commander speaking, come back to your home planet', isn't it? Extraordinary.


LOL. My interest is in the penalties for disobedience, although it is made clear there won't be any.......
 
This brings to mind my post not long ago about cult mentality... but anyway, not too sure how effective Michael's new ordinance will be as there is no "Meredith Kercher" thread over here. I wonder if no longer posting here will also mean an end to their expletive-laden personal attacks on JREF members. I doubt it.


No, if you read the whole thing, it makes it clear that if they want to correct anything that is said over here, they are to do it over there instead. Expletives not deleted.
 
FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

I suspect that the police were going out of their way to go easy on Knox (probably precisely because they were faced with a nice-looking, female college kid).

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).


Tell me, John, if your daughter had started to smoke dope in her 2nd year, and then came home with a police-issued citation on a promise to appear in court, would you turn a blind eye and send her overseas, unsupervised, or would you sit her down for a chat and maybe send her to a doctor/ rehab?

Its also illegal to eat Ice Cream on Sundays in Oregon. Wonder how many days in jail they can get for that?
My favorite one is the ban on animals for having sex in the city limits.

Also the 180 is for a 2nd offense. Not first. Just like if you get to many driving violations they can suspend your license.
 
Last edited:
the court found Knox to have committed the offense and imposed a penalty by way of fine rather than imprisonment

There was no hearing or finding of fact by a court. The cops handed her a ticket, and she mailed it in with a check - for which she was reimbursed by her friends, because although she was the tenant of record at that address, she played no part in the disturbance.
 

Here's the thing about that site. I rarely go read it because it is 95% mud-slinging with very little substance. While this site sometimes degrades into some of the same, for the most part there are good opposing viewpoints. There is much more content here than there, whether you agree with said content or not.

As you all know, I tend to lean more towards guilt than innocence but I could never belong to that site as I think it is beyond ridiculous what is posted there and misrepresented as debate.

Lately I've been thinking about a compromise situation which would explain many of the troubling aspects (for me) of the case. Like perhaps Amanda knew about something but not that it would end in murder. Perhaps she set Rudy up to run into MK, telling him he might be able to have his way with her because MK liked him. In a sense, she egged Rudy on. Perhaps she didn't know until the next morning what had really happened to MK but she lied about things because she was remotely involved.

It is all conjecture but it seems as though there are only 2 well-defined, separate sides to the debate and I have never seen anyone consider any possiblity in between.
 
Here's the thing about that site. I rarely go read it because it is 95% mud-slinging with very little substance. While this site sometimes degrades into some of the same, for the most part there are good opposing viewpoints. There is much more content here than there, whether you agree with said content or not.

As you all know, I tend to lean more towards guilt than innocence but I could never belong to that site as I think it is beyond ridiculous what is posted there and misrepresented as debate.

Lately I've been thinking about a compromise situation which would explain many of the troubling aspects (for me) of the case. Like perhaps Amanda knew about something but not that it would end in murder. Perhaps she set Rudy up to run into MK, telling him he might be able to have his way with her because MK liked him. In a sense, she egged Rudy on. Perhaps she didn't know until the next morning what had really happened to MK but she lied about things because she was remotely involved.

It is all conjecture but it seems as though there are only 2 well-defined, separate sides to the debate and I have never seen anyone consider any possiblity in between.


Well, actually, I have seen many people in other blogs post that they think Amanda didn't commit murder, but that she was somehow involved or knew something. They're usually people who just have superficial knowledge of the case, though, and don't realize how much in-depth research has been done that shows there is no evidence of Amanda's involvement. (I am not trying to say anything about you in particular.)

ETA: Some people word it as "she got herself into a bad situation" or "she hung around with the wrong people," things like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom