Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I am going to respect your convictions .ary, even though we disagree.

However, I will say this. I have three sons. Amanda would NOT be the daughter-in-law I would be thrilled to have.

Let's forget about murderess. I would want a woman, who showed empathy, maturity, intelligence,

Could I ask, you, Mary, as an intelligent woman...what is it about Amanda that would make you welcome her into your household? I will listen, and be open.

For me,I don't care about looks, or colour, or degrees. i do care, however, about a caring, loving, empathetic,sympathetic person.

If you have a son, or daughter, who meets this criteria..well, and Amanda is it, i must re-think. I can only say, if any of my children showed such a lack of sensitivity, i would be DISMAYED, to say the least.

Heartbroken, really. These are kids who gave their pocket money to save Whales.

I wonder what Meredith's family think, when they see the crusade to free Amanda? The almost nun? It surely must rankle. Would you feel differently if Meredith was your daughter?

Yes, I probably would feel differently if Meredith were my daughter. I would feel jaded and cynical about the people who were accused of killing her; anyone would. That's part of the tragedy of this wrongful conviction of Amanda and Raffaele, though -- that truth has been withheld from them and they carry hard feelings toward three people instead of just one.

I would welcome Amanda into my household because she strikes me as warm, happy, outgoing, artistic, creative and compassionate. I have seen pictures of her with her little sisters and her nieces and nephews that indicate she loves and respects them. I just don't see anything objectionable about her.

If we can believe reports that she seemed insensitive in the aftermath of the murder, I would say that was because of her young age and the fact that she didn't know what was going on. She showed a lot of generosity by wanting to contribute to the investigation into Meredith's death. I don't have any objections to how she expressed herself, but to someone who did I might suggest that Amanda was channeling her emotions about the situation into practice.

 

[Chris C]

Fine Mary. Let's deal with what we do know. Shopping for lingerie, not going to the Memorial. Saying eh* F****ing bled to death* Kissing and giving tongue at the police station. Saying in Court * I only knew her for a short while, I need yo get on with my life.

SINGING IN COURT, Mary, a la Diana Downs.

SINGING, Mary. I honestly get shivers. That is so macabre. how is that explained? HOW????????

Was she suppose to wear the same lingerie everyday?

 

[Mary_H]

Fine Mary. Let's deal with what we do know. Shopping for lingerie, not going to the Memorial. Saying eh* F****ing bled to death* Kissing and giving tongue at the police station. Saying in Court * I only knew her for a short while, I need yo get on with my life.

SINGING IN COURT, Mary, a la Diana Downs.

SINGING, Mary. I honestly get shivers. That is so macabre. how is that explained? HOW????????

Again, these are only reports and hearsay. I could counter them all, but they have been countered before and that doesn't seem to solve the discomfort for some people.

Let's say, hypothetically, that all of these distasteful activities took place. To deal with that possible reality, there are only two guidelines we need:

1.) None of those actions make a murderer.
2.) It is not our place to judge.

Why doesn't anybody on JREF [ETA: any guilters, that is] ever make similar lists of the horrible things Rudy did?

 

[Chris C]

Again, these are only reports and hearsay. I could counter them all, but they have been countered before and that doesn't seem to solve the discomfort for some people.

Let's say, hypothetically, that all of these distasteful activities took place. To deal with that possible reality, there are only two guidelines we need:

1.) None of those actions make a murderer.
2.) It is not our place to judge.

Why doesn't anybody on JREF ever make similar lists of the horrible things Rudy did?

According to PMF, Apostle Rudy was sitting on the crapper on the other side of the apartment and noticed Knox leave. Out of curiousity how did he see knox leave from that crapper he was sitting on? Its not like the other bathroom where you can see the front door. He couldn't see the front door from his throne in the that bathroom. He would have had to been in a different room to see knox leave. Which means he wouldn't have seen the back of her walking out the door. Because to see Knox from that bathroom, he would have had to got up off toilet, walked to the ajoining room to the bathroom and then they would have been facing each other as she walked towards the door.

 

[Mary_H]

According to PMF, Apostle Rudy was sitting on the crapper on the other side of the apartment and noticed Knox leave. Out of curiousity how did he see knox leave from that crapper he was sitting on? Its not like the other bathroom where you can see the front door. He couldn't see the front door from his throne in the other bathroom. He would have had to been in a different room to see knox leave.

Now that you mention it, Chris, you can't see anything if you're sitting on that terlit.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

 

[Chris C]

Now that you mention it, Chris, you can't see anything if you're sitting on that terlit.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

Yep thats a really bad angle to see Meredith's room also or Amanda's room. Plus why would he sit on the toilet furthest away from meredith's room if he was there with meredith. Why would the prosecution and judge allow testimony that was clearly a line of BS.

Plus he took that crap before meredith was murdered. That everyone can be positive of. Anyone that was there with Knox/Sollecito would obviously have the manners to flush the toilet in someones house that they where invited in. Which means either an assault occured while he was sitting on the toilet and he got up without flushing or he was the one that did the assault.
Clearly Knox/Sollecito didn't invite him in.

Edited

 

[Mary_H]

Yep thats a really bad angle to see Meredith's room also or Amanda's room. Plus why would he sit on the toilet furthest away from meredith's room if he was there with meredith. Why would the prosecution and judge allow testimony that was clearly a line of BS.<snip>

That would have been a good question to ask him in court.

You keep coming up with all these original points of view, Chris.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Plus he took that crap before meredith was murdered. That everyone can be positive of. Anyone that was there with Knox/Sollecito would obviously have the manners to flush the toilet in someones house that they where invited in. Which means either an assault occured while he was sitting on the toilet and he got up without flushing or he was the one that did the assault. There was no mention of him wiping his butt when he got off the toilet or him cleaning himself. Which means if Knox/Sollecito invited him in, he got off that toilet without evening cleaning his rearend.

That brings up another interesting point. He actually did wipe his butt -- they got his DNA from the toilet paper, not from the poop. Who takes the time to wipe himself when he is jumping up to interrupt an assault on his date?

 

[Chris C]

That brings up another interesting point. He actually did wipe his butt -- they got his DNA from the toilet paper, not from the poop. Who takes the time to wipe himself when he is jumping up to interrupt an assault on his date?

Oh, didn't realize he wiped his butt. LOL.
Yep thats even worse. He wiped his butt before interrupting someone being killed.

 

[Chris C]

That would have been a good question to ask him in court.

You keep coming up with all these original points of view, Chris.

I wonder if they can file slander charges against him on those grounds and force him to testify in court?

 

[Mary_H]

I wonder if they can file slander charges against him on those grounds and force him to testify in court?

Wow, another good question -- if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, what does that do to Rudy for his testimony against them?

I must be off to bed. Current temperature in Seattle: 16 degrees F. Wanh!

 

[capealadin]

Mary, There is a VIDEO of Amanda singing in Court. I refuse to believe, an intelligent person as yourself, would be hoodwinked into believing that this lack of empathy is due to youth.

That would put me into as much denial as you believing that Amanda is a GOOD person.

No, Mary. The fact that you belive, against all odds, in a person's goodness ( albeit all the evidence) I sit in the same boat as you.

What I WANT to belive, Mary, as to what IS, ahh, therein lies the conundrum.

Brava for you, Hon. People need UNCONDITIONAL support. It's kind of like * Who are you going to believe, ME OR YOU LYING EYES!!!!!!!!!!,

For me, i kind of like undying love. It's very romantic. But, it's a fantasy.

People are capable of making mistakes. I don't believe Amanda is inherently evil. However, something happened that night, and Amanda is involved. Just because one doesn't, CANNOT belive it, it is what it is. Tragic? YES>

A pretty face? An honour student? An angelic face? Pigtails? Hands folded in prayer? On and on. COMMON SENSE, Hon. COMMON SENSE. If nothing else, use your intelligence.\\

If if doesn't sound true, or right, it's a lie. We believe what we are invested in. I understand the parents ( G-d. who want's to belive their child could do such a thing).....I understand guys thinking with their,emm, well), but Mary, c'mon)

Anyway, I wish people here would give some credence to the arguments put forth by Machiavelli, Platanov, Treehorn, Quadraginta, Fine, Alt et al. Nobody gives them an inch.

NOT HERE<

so, much as I would love to stay, and have reasonable discourse, I leave, once again........ Not able to make a dent, as to the next Mother Theresa. Good luck,,,to everyone...on the appeals. Remembering, a legal decision doesn't mean innocent.

Too many unanswered questions for that. I hate what happened to Meredith. What she suffered. The heartbreak of her parents.

And, the unanswerable *confusion*, broken alibis, lies, and forensics, which COULD have given closure. Karma , everyone, will come around. Until then, I wish you all well...differences aside.......may no-one ever feel the pain of a a loved one dying a tortuous death......................

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Daniel was not in Perugia again, according to his witness statement

Ah, Chris C: I must apologize: here I was, thinking you sounded a little apologetic.

No, of course, you don't have to be Italian speaking to post here.

Just a LITTLE common sense is helpful, however. Treehorn, Platanov, Michiavelli et al, will help pave the way.

Put on your listening ears, TRY and follow the general gist of things, and all will be well.

Keeping the faith, fingers crossed, a couple of Hail Mary's ( Hi, Hon) and, never giving up hope

capealadin,

treehorn was wrong about Daniel DeLuna, just as you were wrong in your assertion that Patrick fired Amanda. However, you have had the good sense and manners to acknowledge your error. Perhaps you could PM treehorn and help him or her do the same. Nice to see you commenting again.

 

[Chris C]

At Rudy's appeal, he claimed that someone buzzed the door. Why does Knox need someone to let her in?
Rudy also says that Meredith let him in. How would he know what the buzzing sounded like unless he actually heard that door buzz before? Since this was his first time to the apartment he must have rang the buzzer earlier that night. Yet he claims to have entered with meredith and the prosecution claims he entered with knox and sollecito. When did rudy have time to ring the door buzzer?

He also goes on to say that he heard a loud scream and went to see what happened. He saw Meredith's body and a male intruder left the room. He was then attacked and fell in the living room. How could he see in Meredith's door from where he was and see her body? Thats a terrible angle for seeing in rooms. Plus he sees her body and doesn't see the intruder until after he leaves the room.

He says he looks out the window and sees someone thats the shape of Amanda. Notice he says he looks out the window. He didn't say he looked out the door. Which means he looked out of Filomena's window. Which also happens to be the same window that a rock was thrown through. Which also is the same window he claims was broken before that information was released to the public.

After all that he goes and sees if Meredith was ok.
So did Rudy actually finger Sollecito and Knox? In theory he described someone that was male and a woman shaped like knox.
He said the intruder told the woman, "Let's go, there's a black one in the house." How well does Rudy speak English? Is this what an Italian man would say in English?

Maybe someone can come up with more information on what exactly was said at Rudy's appeals. From what I have read it clearly shows he was trying to avoid directly fingering Knox or Sollecito.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well it doesn't seem like it was a very romantic evening considering how often RS went on the computer, from what I'm being told. A sexy woman in your bed and you want to watch teenage Japanese animation?

As for her bathroom, Amanda had no problem using Raffaele's shower and as for her cosmetics, yes, they went to her apartment to get them and her clothes for the next mornings trip.

The Naruto watching is something only mentioned in the appeal. Why wasn't it brought up in the trial? Why wasn't Amanda ever asked about Naruto (ok, maybe she wouldn't have known the name of the cartoon, but she definitely would have recognized animation).

Hi again Alt+F4, I don't want to impose on you any restrictions while reconstructing the crime. My question about Naruto was to narrow down the hypothetic timeline of events. I'm not sure what that timeline is and if you consider Curatolo's testimony to be truthful. Thus my questions.

So far we have AK and RS leaving the flat to get the things and prepare for the trip, so they won't have to go back to the cottage to grab things in the morning. I'm interested at what time would you place them leaving Raffaele's flat?
Do you agree with Fine, that the kitchen knife was already at the cottage, or shall we assume they did carry it?
What would you make out of their phone inactivity during the night?

That's the thing about drug users/addicts/sellers....they don't usually make that information and their activities public.

I understand we should assume Raffaele and Guede known each other because Guede was Raffaele's supplier? So it was kind of a "business relationship"?

What is your point here?

Nothing important really, just suggesting that their friendship was unlikely.

Do you believe that he committed multiple burglaries in Perugia? If so, what was his motive for these burglaries?

It is quite probable, although he was not a very professional or successful in those activities. The motive could be financial, for some time he had no income, yet he had to pay his rent.

Personally, I think Meredith let him in. She had seen him with the men downstairs. There was no reason why she would fear him if he knocked on the door and said he desperately needed to use the bathroom as his friends downstairs were not home. While in the bathroom he realized that the other roommates were not home and here was his opportunity to make his move. She resists as the other two morons come home, high as kites.

This is an interesting scenario, so Rudy proceeded with sexual assault just a few minutes after Meredith let him in. What time would it be in your reconstruction?

You think AK and RS were under influence of marijuana or was it some stronger substance, when they showed up and found Rudy sexually assaulting Meredith? You think their walked directly to the cottage - about 5 minutes or did they take a detour and it was longer then that?


Thanks!

 

[RoseMontague]

NOT HERE<

so, much as I would love to stay, and have reasonable discourse, I leave, once again........ Not able to make a dent, as to the next Mother Theresa. Good luck,,,to everyone...on the appeals. Remembering, a legal decision doesn't mean innocent.

I was hoping you would stick around to discuss the appeals. You have had such nice things to say about me recently.

I agree with you on the video of the singing in court. I hope the prosecution introduces this as well as the Lady Macbeth artwork and in-depth analysis that was done. They should consider adding the statement analysis dude's work as well.

 

[Katody Matrass]

http://www.oggi.it/in_edicola/

Seems the newspapers and magazines are getting ready for, Trial of the Century 2.0!

"Innocente!"

There's something about the nonexistent buses in that article. Curatolo was a very important witness for Mignini, so it's quite a blow.

Today's an important milestone of the case, and a change of tide in public reception could be sensed. I would say some of the journalists sensed it already and adjusted themselves a bit.

Photographers managed to capture some impressive, almost Boschesque moments today:

http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/0fBz62u2jX08J/610x.jpg

http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/0gLu21Y30p0Y8/610x.jpg

http://daylife.sky.com/imageserve/07ASeSkc5L2Fc/610x.jpg

 

[Katody Matrass]

I was hoping you would stick around to discuss the appeals. You have had such nice things to say about me recently.

I agree with you on the video of the singing in court. I hope the prosecution introduces this as well as the Lady Macbeth artwork and in-depth analysis that was done. They should consider adding the statement analysis dude's work as well.

Can't agree more, it could form a new cornerstone of the guilty verdict, after Curatolo was thrown under the bus

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well when someones response to attacking your statement was to ask if you was in the courtroom. What other response are you suppose to give.

How am i suppose to give evidence of something that didn't happen?
I was under the impression that the prosecutions KEY witness that supposedly debunked Dr. Lalli's autopsy didn't even bother to watch the video recording of it.

Treehorn has rediscovered the great old "But how do you know for sure that there isn't SECRET evidence that makes Amanda and Raffaele look guilty?" argument.

It used to be "How do you know there isn't something in the Massei report?", back before they translated it and everyone discovered how appallingly shoddy the reasoning in that report was, and how completely lacking in damning new evidence it was to boot.

Now it's "Well, how do you know that there isn't secret evidence Massei knew about but never mentioned in the report which is supposed to be a summary of the reasons for the conviction?".

I dunno, I think if there was slam-dunk evidence of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt that it wouldn't be hidden, unremarked and undocumented. I think Mignini, Giobbi and every other prosecution speaker would have been waving that evidence high in the air in front of every news camera in Perugia the moment they had it. The idea that there is miracle evidence that's going to save the guilter ship from going down with all hands and that it has been hidden all this time is the most desperate kind of wishful thinking.

We've seen the prosecution's best already, I think, and they got away with a lot more than they should because the original defence team didn't do the best possible job. Whereas the appeals team have already launched a huge salvo with the computer log evidence, and the unidentified-but-possibly-semen stain could be a second, equally devastating hit.

Sadly for them, I don't think there is any more good news to be had for the guilters. Whereas the bad news is heading their way with a whistling sound and a swiftly expanding shadow. Their favourite reporters seem to be jumping ship with admirable manoeuvrability even before the appeal proper begins, and I think it's because they've seen the writing on the wall.

 

[Alt+F4]

The hearing lasted about 15 minutes before the judge adjourned it until Dec. 11.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/24/italy.knox.appeal/

What happened at the hearing? The CNN story doesn't say.