• 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:
Look for his post that contains the initials HST. You know, for Richard M. Nixon.
Click to expand...

I did, in fact it sounds very much like something I read from the old gonzo journalist himself, 'digging up Nixon to kick him another time' or somesuch, but google just isn't helping.

I wonder what he would have thought about this? I can just guess...
:cool:
 
Temporal confusion

Mary_H said:
I could quote Amanda's entire testimony, but you know where to find it, and I know how you feel about long quotes, as you so graciously let RWVBWL know on the previous page:


Let's let this suffice for now:


In looking for one of the other occasions I have cited Amanda's lengthy trial testimony on this thread, I came across an example of this very subject matter. I said it to some famous guilters back in June (all of whom have conceded defeat since then), but it fits as aptly today:

"Fulcanelli, BobTheDonkey and Fiona, I've noticed that all of you give Amanda a great deal of credibility. In just the last three pages you have referred to Amanda's "testimony" or "statement" at least fifteen times, and you have quoted her many times more than that. You try to use her words to support your arguments that she is guilty.

Amanda, however, has repeatedly testified and stated that she is innocent. About 95% of her words support her claims of innocence and about 5% are open to question. The theme, thrust and intent of her position and her testimony have been, "I did not have anything to do with this crime." I think if someone who knew nothing about this case were to read her complete testimony and then read your arguments, they would say that your points of view are glaringly biased and personal, and they would wonder why you were trying to make something out of nothing.

If you want your arguments to be consistent and valid, then you should not help yourselves to Amanda's words when their meaning is clearly different from what you are trying to present."
Click to expand...


No Mary H, you are not addressing the Q in italics.

Your above quote relates to an earlier issue - you have to show why everyone was mistaken about the taped conversation of the 10th. That was your claim.

Ironically AK was equally temporally 'confused' when questioned on this ;)

.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Platonov,

I numbered your comments for ease of debate. (1) The police probably knew that Amanda and Patrick met on the afternoon of the 5th, and they surely knew of the text message. To say that Amanda put him there is an overstatement, and whether Amanda felt that she were responsible or not is irrelevant.

Point 2 is not germane to my previous comments, as I have previously noted. Your assertion (2) that her recantation would have helped is in contradiction to 2A. If Amanda said that she was not at the cottage (which is my understanding of her conversation with her mother), then she is necessarily saying that she has no reason to believe that Patrick was there. If the police think that Amanda (suspecting that she is being taped) will lie in saying that she was not there, then they have no reason to change their mind about Patrick. Therefore, Amanda could not help Patrick at this time.

Point 3 is peculiar. If the police won’t believe Amanda, then they won’t believe Edda. Amanda did not have the ability to communicate with her lawyer before the hearing on 8 November, so her choice not to speak is understandable. Once Amanda discussed the matter with her lawyer, attorney-client privilege prevents us from knowing what transpired, and your implicit assertion that she did not ask her lawyer to communicate this is unsupportable. She may have communicated her beliefs to her lawyer, and her lawyer may have particular reasons for choosing the time and the place to communicate the substance of this to ILE. Amanda made her position clear on the 30th of November, and the police still kept Patrick’s bar closed.
Click to expand...

halides1

OK there we must leave it it seems.

Your 1st is mere assertion.

Point 2 you ignore as not being germane. - its highly germane.
On your further comment - you understanding [similar to Mary H's] of the conversation of the 10th is limited indeed - and ignores, indeed contradicts the trial testimony I quoted a few pages back !

Your logic is also confused - there was nothing in the fact that AK's words wouldn't be taken at face value to stop her communicating directly that she withdrew her earlier accusation of PL

Point 3 - Well at least you acknowledge your earlier (not so peculiar) omission of this opportunity with a lawyer present but now seek to rationalise it away. Progress of a sort.
But still its the cops fault that AK falsely accused PL ?

.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
No, you are still not researching the list :) - wishing for tapes or speculating on the first interrogation as if nothing else happened in this case wont progress your understanding or the debate.
.
Click to expand...

I've indeed read your 'list' and others interpretations of what it meant. I don't think we'll ever see any tape, my interest is in why they say they didn't tape it at this point.

However, in the interest of advancing the debate, let us start small and simple. What does this mean to you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
 
Not to be gross but...

Machiavelli said:
So your theory is: Raffaele left a DNA trace on a towel, a towel was used on Mederith and this towel transferred Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp (meanwhile this had been cut and fell was covered by the pillow btw).

I don't know what Katy_did proposed but I don't see any reasonable theory for such a transfer.
I note 1) this theory would rule out forensic contamination; 2) Sollecito's defence didn't propose this theory, and didn't request further DNA tests on the towels; 3) a relation between the towel and the metal hooks of the bra clasp would be obviously weak: for a towel to carry and then deposit one DNA trace right on that point is simply an unlikely dynamic and a remote hypothesiys.
There were many dozens of skin cells dried, presed and adhering to the metal surface. Describe this finding in a realistic dynamic. The obvious and almost the only explanation is somebody touched the item.
Click to expand...

Frankly this whole issue of contamination being almost impossible is ridiculous. AK and RS were having sex quite often. Not to be disgusting but there was Sollecito DNA all over the place. I mean think about it - toilet seats, bathroom floors, dirty clothes, sheets and blankets, for all we know it could have been all over the kitchen table. I could go on but I will spare everyone.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
No Mary H, you are not addressing the Q in italics.

Your above quote relates to an earlier issue - you have to show why everyone was mistaken about the taped conversation of the 10th. That was your claim.

Ironically AK was equally temporally 'confused' when questioned on this ;)

.
Click to expand...


Do you mean this?

* Mary H thinks all parties are wrong on what this tape reveals - whether she can back up this assertion & provide an explanation as to why everyone else in court, including AK and her lawyer, is lying/mistaken on this point remains to be seen.
I predict not.

I didn't know it was a Q. I thought it was a statement.

I don't remember making a claim that everyone in court was mistaken about the tape. I do remember writing this:

"The excerpts you [platonov] provided from Amanda's testimony do not say that Amanda told her mother Patrick was innocent. Do you have any excerpts from the testimony that directly say -- not through someone else's rewording -- that Amanda explicitly told her mother on the 10th that Patrick was innocent of committing the crime?"

I haven't seen a response from you on that yet.
 
An unexpected turn of events - even for this thread.

Mary_H said:
Do you mean this?

* Mary H thinks all parties are wrong on what this tape reveals - whether she can back up this assertion & provide an explanation as to why everyone else in court, including AK and her lawyer, is lying/mistaken on this point remains to be seen.
I predict not.

I didn't know it was a Q. I thought it was a statement.

I don't remember making a claim that everyone in court was mistaken about the tape. I do remember writing this:

"The excerpts you [platonov] provided from Amanda's testimony do not say that Amanda told her mother Patrick was innocent. Do you have any excerpts from the testimony that directly say -- not through someone else's rewording -- that Amanda explicitly told her mother on the 10th that Patrick was innocent of committing the crime?"

I haven't seen a response from you on that yet.
Click to expand...


Mary H

You have had about 6 different goes at this - your last was a cite of testimony concerning the 7th not the 10th, which should tell you something ;) - and several responses from me.

Here is your first post on this [which conveniently includes a quote of my post with some of the relevant testimony] in which you seem to accept the point but limit yourself to ........

First, this citation (which I greatly appreciate, by the way) does not represent the essential thrust of Amanda's testimony.

The second point is that Amanda was mistaken during this testimony.


Now if you want to argue with yourself as well as everyone in the court - be my guest.

That's just what this thread needs :)

.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Sad but not surprising. The authorities in Perugia have established a pattern - they do sloppy, unprofessional work, and when it causes a problem, they lie their way out of it.
Here is clip that shows how the police handled Meredith's belongings:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/packing_suitcase.mp4
Click to expand...

______________________

Ummm. To keep matters in perspective, Charlie, when speaking of an established pattern, it should be noted that "authorities in Perugia" also endowed a scholarship in Meredith's name and paid for the Kercher family hotel accommodations when the family stayed in Perugia. (Or were the "authorities in Perugia" lying about that too?)

///
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
______________________

Ummm. To keep matters in perspective, Charlie, when speaking of an established pattern, it should be noted that "authorities in Perugia" also endowed a scholarship in Meredith's name and paid for the Kercher family hotel accommodations when the family stayed in Perugia. (Or were the "authorities in Perugia" lying about that too?)

///
Click to expand...

Well, pretty soon they are going to be paying for Knox's accommodations also.
 
platonov said:
Mary H

You have had about 6 different goes at this - your last was a cite of testimony concerning the 7th not the 10th, which should tell you something ;) - and several responses from me.

Here is your first post on this [which conveniently includes a quote of my post with some of the relevant testimony] in which you seem to accept the point but limit yourself to ........

First, this citation (which I greatly appreciate, by the way) does not represent the essential thrust of Amanda's testimony.

The second point is that Amanda was mistaken during this testimony.


Now if you want to argue with yourself as well as everyone in the court - be my guest.

That's just what this thread needs :)

.
Click to expand...


I almost wish you were doing this on purpose, but I have a feeling you aren't.

The "cite of testimony concerning the 7th not the 10th" was all part of the same section of testimony -- from the same section YOU provided part of -- and refers to the same discussion you referred to. You really need to go back and read the entire testimony, or at least that section of it, if you want to talk about this. The attorney starts out talking about the 10th, then moves through the 6th, 7th and 8th, and then back to the tenth. You cannot analyze it sentence by sentence any more than you can analyze it word by word, as if the words and passages have no relation to each other or to the full context.

The same goes for the way you have isolated lines from the post I made. First, you have omitted the reasoning I provided for each claim. Second, you seem to be suggesting that there is some dissonance between the first line you quoted and the second one. There is not.

If you really want to support your original claim, then state your claim again clearly (because it has been lost by now), and provide documentation for it. All of this pointing back at other people's posts, telling them no, they're wrong, and that they need to "see this" and "see that," along with cryptic references to hints no one can remember anymore is not doing anything to move the discussion along.

I do commend you for the reduction in the use of arrows, emoticons, hearts, stars and My Pretty Pony stickers in your posts.
 
Fine said:
______________________

Ummm. To keep matters in perspective, Charlie, when speaking of an established pattern, it should be noted that "authorities in Perugia" also endowed a scholarship in Meredith's name and paid for the Kercher family hotel accommodations when the family stayed in Perugia. (Or were the "authorities in Perugia" lying about that too?)

///
Click to expand...

What does endowing a scholarship have to do with Perugia police officers doing sloppy and unprofessional work? In addition, Frank implies that no money has actually been allocated for the scholarship - until that happens it is no more than a gesture.
 
Last edited:
Fine said:
______________________

Ummm. To keep matters in perspective, Charlie, when speaking of an established pattern, it should be noted that "authorities in Perugia" also endowed a scholarship in Meredith's name and paid for the Kercher family hotel accommodations when the family stayed in Perugia. (Or were the "authorities in Perugia" lying about that too?)

///
Click to expand...


Do you have any documentation to support your claim about the scholarship? My presumption is that the scholarship is being endowed by Peter Quennell and/or British expatriates living in the region of Perugia.

Meredith was a student at the university in Perugia for less than two months. If authorities felt compelled to honor her in some way, it would be much more appropriate to keep it between themselves and her family. Do they really want to set their town apart by an annually renewed proclamation of the grisly crime of murder?

What possible honor would it be for a student to receive the Meredith Kercher Memorial Scholarship? What does it even stand for?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Sad but not surprising. The authorities in Perugia have established a pattern - they do sloppy, unprofessional work, and when it causes a problem, they lie their way out of it.

Here is clip that shows how the police handled Meredith's belongings:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/packing_suitcase.mp4
Click to expand...


Ugh. Unbelievable. Not to mention the woman with the long, dark hair, who didn't seem to get the whole idea behind wearing a hood.
 
shuttlt said:
LondonJohn,

By the way, another asymmetry that struck me in this debate is how it could end. It might be my bias coming out, but if they are acquitted, my feeling is that the pro-innocence camp would declare victory and go home. I don't think that a final conviction would cause the pro-guilt camp to pack up. What do you think?

Ultimately I suppose the news stories, leaks, quotes and transcripts will dry up and things will grind to a halt.
Click to expand...
Well, regardless of whether their conviction is confirmed or overturned in this appeal, you can bet that it will go to the final appeal, and so it ain't over, 'till it's over, i.e. if the conviction is confirmed, the defense will appeal, and if it's overturned, the prosecution will appeal.
 
TomCH said:
Well, regardless of whether their conviction is confirmed or overturned in this appeal, you can bet that it will go to the final appeal, and so it ain't over, 'till it's over, i.e. if the conviction is confirmed, the defense will appeal, and if it's overturned, the prosecution will appeal.
Click to expand...

How would the prosecution mount an appeal if all their 'witnesses' and 'evidence' are discredited?

For example, Curatolo - it's not a matter for debate that he wrongly claimed to see disco buses on the night of Nov 1st.
 
TomCH said:
Well, regardless of whether their conviction is confirmed or overturned in this appeal, you can bet that it will go to the final appeal, and so it ain't over, 'till it's over, i.e. if the conviction is confirmed, the defense will appeal, and if it's overturned, the prosecution will appeal.
Click to expand...

If Knox/Sollecito wins, I dont think its up to Mignini to appeal. Also, if they win, it will only happen if the judge allows an independent lab. It would be kinda pointless and look vindictive if the case gets overturned with new lab results and the overturn was appealed by the prosecution. It would also take a huge media backlash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom