Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Indeed , and perhaps even a more accurate description ; But I thought billyryan might prefer Parade - we shall see, if he responds.
I see halides1 had plumped for 'caravan' IIRC ( this is all superfluous nonsense either way).

The ToD ranges in the appeal docs are of more relevance but you didn't favour me with a response on that ?

My reply is contained in a response to another poster covering that issue.

 

[platonov]

My reply is contained in a response to another poster covering that issue.

Link ?? - I didn't see a response dealing with the appeal ToD ranges, as opposed to 'whining' about the bodyweight issue (which they are entitled to do, but at this stage it wont 'prove' anything either way)

 

[Machiavelli]

If you believed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent, how would you make the case without any of the above?

Well, if I believed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent and wanted to communicate the contents above, at least I wouldn't attempt to maintain I am not offensive. Inoffensive is how Mary H. describes the Knoxs behaviour.

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you not see the difference? Really?

How about the fact that Kercher has lost a daughter for good. AK and RS are responsible unless the appeals are successful. His position should attract sympathy not criticism.

He deserves sympathy as a parent who has lost a child. His actions and comments regarding an unjust prosecution and conviction of two innocent kids are fair game as far as I am concerned.

 

[lionking]

He deserves sympathy as a parent who has lost a child. His actions and comments regarding an unjust prosecution and conviction of two innocent kids are fair game as far as I am concerned.

If the appeals are successful he may be called on to withdraw his comments. Until then, he has the right to say what he has said.

And "kids"? Please. A pure appeal to emotion. They were both adults, as you well know.

 

[Kaosium]

Look again

I thought you were referring to my asking you about your views on what happened during the interrogation.


I dont wish to be rude but read the post

It was, but that point is now moot. They don't have the actual weight.ETA - In any case it only gives ranges & with the lack of an alibi after 9.10 ......

Of more relevance perhaps is what the appeal docs are putting forward as the putative ToD - what kind of ranges.

*cues Jefferson Airplane*

OK, I think this is the post you're referring to. However following your links in recent posts I now have about six tabs up (one playing a music file!) and it seems to me that the two in the last post go directly to this post, which I've quoted so it is nice and handy for both of us. It is also possible that I looked at the wrong tabs, but seeing as I'm tired of playing link-tab-bingo I'm just going to respond and take the chance you will sneer at me.

I've highlighted what I believe you are referring to as the 'primary point.' Now, unfortunately I don't know what you mean by that. What does it mean if they can't get the actual weight? It occurs to me that you might be suggesting they can't challenge the time of death, however if that were the case why would they even try?

Do you know what ranges the appeal docs are putting forward as the supposed time of death?

 

[Machiavelli]

It appears to me you are interpreting Mary's post as saying Kercher was saying things that were offensive. Going on the offensive simply means that Kercher is attacking and that is the meaning that she intended with her post.

But the truth is that the Knox family are attacking. They are the ones who have been in the offensive mode for three years, while the Kerchers were silent, absent from media. How do you see someone is attacking, when he comes out and responds direclty years later?
The overlooking of how the Knox have been attacking on the media front is absurd. How can you miss this front they have been opening towards so many people with its follout and collateral damage, oviously including and involving the Kerchers.

 

[platonov]

Do you not see the difference? Really?

How about the fact that Kercher has lost a daughter for good. AK and RS are responsible unless the appeals are successful. His position should attract sympathy not criticism.

I think you are wasting your time on this lionking - If I may be permitted to intrude ?

Kercher Snr and family have said almost nothing publicly in 3 yrs AFAIK, bar satisfaction with the verdict & this latest response to the slew of AK hagiography.

Contrast this with the outpourings of the Foakers & family - Now he [whose daughters body was found naked in a pool of her own blood ] finally replies and He is the bad guy.

Go figure.

ETA 1st & probably last post on this issue because if the point needs making then ......

 

[RoseMontague]

But the truth is that the Knox family are attacking. They are the ones who have been in the offensive mode for three years, while the Kerchers were silent, absent from media. How do you see someone is attacking, when he comes out and responds direclty years later?
The overlooking of how the Knox have been attacking on the media front is absurd. How can you miss this front they have been opening towards so many people with its follout and collateral damage, oviously including and involving the Kerchers.

I agree with you on this one. The Knox family is attacking, sometimes the best defence is a good offence (I am going to use the British c for offence because it does not make sense to me to do defence and offence differently). I have no issue with being critical of any comments the Knox family makes as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

Always a good time to throw a moral outrage tantrum, isn't it?

Mignini is a convicted criminal who falsely accused 20 people of satanic cult murderous conspiracy. The police were repeatedly proven to be incompetent and immoral. Illegal interrogations, destroying evidence, sickening tricks with HIV-tests, releasing lies to the media to smear the defendants. Those are facts, not insinuations. Knowing that, it's only reasonable to be suspicious about anything they do.

And who says experts are idiots Rinaldi just made a mistake when counting the circles on the shoeprint. It's not a secret he made some other mistakes, too. (..).

Rinaldi didn't make any mistake in counting the circles. You are getting things wrong and inventing as usual. The things you say about Mignini are also false. Moreover also accusing 20 people of conspiracy (accusations that we do not call "false") has nothing wrong in it and has nothing to do with his conviction, and his conviction has nothing to do with moral judgement. The rest of what you say is on the same level, and defines itself alone to the reader.

 

[RoseMontague]

If the appeals are successful he may be called on to withdraw his comments. Until then, he has the right to say what he has said.

And "kids"? Please. A pure appeal to emotion. They were both adults, as you well know.

You can call them whatever you want to. To me they are kids, and pretty darn dumb kids when it came to dealing with the cops, in my opinion. To be more specific I would refer to them as college kids in an attempt to be more accurately descriptive rather than an attempt to appeal to any parental instincts out there.

 

[Machiavelli]

Always a good time to throw a moral outrage tantrum, isn't it?

Mignini is a convicted criminal who falsely accused 20 people of satanic cult murderous conspiracy. The police were repeatedly proven to be incompetent and immoral. Illegal interrogations, destroying evidence, sickening tricks with HIV-tests, releasing lies to the media to smear the defendants. Those are facts, not insinuations. Knowing that, it's only reasonable to be suspicious about anything they do.

(..)

I want to add the overall definition that those are not facts. Those are palle, big round lies. A mass of rubbish, crappy lies. All these are false, they are proven lies still usable for people like you to are eager to believe them despite evidence of the contrary.

 

[Kaosium]

I think you are wasting your time on this lionking - If I may be permitted to intrude ?

Kercher Snr and family have said almost nothing publicly in 3 yrs AFAIK, bar satisfaction with the verdict & this latest response to the slew of AK hagiography.

Contrast this with the outpourings of the Foakers & family - Now he [whose daughters body was found naked in a pool of her own blood ] finally replies and He is the bad guy.

Go figure.

You know, it is possible to wait until the alleged are actually considered guilty under Italian Law before proceeding with a civil suit against them which just might have the effect of damning the accused with sentiment to the un-sequestered jury. It is also possible to wait until the accused are considered guilty by law before stating publicly that you believe them unequivocally culpable and to suggest that those who think them not are part of a cult causing them pain.

I would rather not talk about the Kercher family at all. I made a mistake thanking Stilcho for his contribution and then responding rather mildly (I thought!) to the wrong part; what I was actually thanking Stilicho for was the tribute to Meredith which was the vast majority of the Mail piece.

 

[platonov]

You know, it is possible to wait until the alleged are actually considered guilty under Italian Law before proceeding with a civil suit against them which just might have the effect of damning the accused with sentiment to the un-sequestered jury. It is also possible to wait until the accused are considered guilty by law before stating publicly that you believe them unequivocally culpable and to suggest that those who think them not are part of a cult causing them pain.

I would rather not talk about the Kercher family at all. I made a mistake thanking Stilcho for his contribution and then responding rather mildly (I thought!) to the wrong part; what I was actually thanking Stilicho for was the tribute to Meredith which was the vast majority of the Mail piece.

1st & probably last post on this issue because if the point needs making then ......

 

[platonov]

*cues Jefferson Airplane*

OK, I think this is the post you're referring to. However following your links in recent posts I now have about six tabs up (one playing a music file!) and it seems to me that the two in the last post go directly to this post, which I've quoted so it is nice and handy for both of us. It is also possible that I looked at the wrong tabs, but seeing as I'm tired of playing link-tab-bingo I'm just going to respond and take the chance you will sneer at me.

I've highlighted what I believe you are referring to as the 'primary point.' Now, unfortunately I don't know what you mean by that. What does it mean if they can't get the actual weight? It occurs to me that you might be suggesting they can't challenge the time of death, however if that were the case why would they even try?

Do you know what ranges the appeal docs are putting forward as the supposed time of death?

Cant help you any further on this.

You have to be kidding me - this is what I've been asking about* and indeed what Rose Montague claims he has responded to, but I don't see the post or the link ?

* from my post that you just quoted ........
Of more relevance perhaps is what the appeal docs are putting forward as the putative ToD - what kind of ranges.

I'm not sure if you have genuinely misinterpreted the point [which I suspect is the case with Kevin Lowe, Dan O etc] or that you only realise later (when its highlighted) that you have & you then retreat into obfuscation [London John, Rose Montague, Katody Matrass etc]

- or maybe I have that the wrong way around

ETA I guess you found that 1.01 post ; Something tells me Randi wont be paying me the million
- some things aren't that unpredictable after all

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I want to add the overall definition that those are not facts. Those are palle, big round lies. A mass of rubbish, crappy lies. All these are false, they are proven lies still usable for people like you to are eager to believe them despite evidence of the contrary.

Your word alone long ago stopped being worth anything.

Back your claims up with citations.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

erroneous

Do you not see the difference? Really?

How about the fact that Kercher has lost a daughter for good. AK and RS are responsible unless the appeals are successful. His position should attract sympathy not criticism.

lionking,

Do you not see what is erroneous in your position?

 

[platonov]

lionking,

Do you not see what is erroneous in your position?

halides1

Can you point out to me what's erroneous in mine.

I ask you in the hope of an honest answer, as I recently found [by following a link that you provided to me] that you are not just an anonymous internet poster [unlike me, or indeed others here - one of whom seems, IMO, to indulge in (dead victim) rape fantasy, hehehe] but one whose identity is known and thus mindful of the (self imposed) 'responsibilities' that come with that.

Obviously you are no obligation to respond candidly, if at all.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

halides1

Can you point out to me what's erroneous in mine.

I ask you in the hope of an honest answer, as I recently found [by following a link that you provided to me] that you are not just an anonymous internet poster [unlike me, or indeed others here - one of whom seems, IMO, to indulge in (dead victim) rape fantasy, hehehe] but one whose identity is known and thus mindful of the (self imposed) 'responsibilities' that come with that.

Obviously you are no obligation to respond candidly, if at all.

This post is semantically ambiguous, Platonov, and given that you sometimes struggle with your English expression you may be unaware that your words could potentially be read as a threat. I am sure this is in no way what you meant.

However given the history of stalking and harassment associated with the more deeply unsavoury of the internet's pro-guilt personalities and forums, it might be better to err on the side of caution with such statements Platonov, lest onlookers unfairly lump you in with those vile bottom-feeders.

 

[Mary_H]

To insinuate Mignini is corrupt is not offensive? To affirm police planted evidence is not offensive? To convey experts and judges are idiots is not offensive? To tell lies about the case and the evidence and make hypocrite statements on television is not offensive? To feed a media cult of Amanda Knox on the media is not offensive?

As Rose and others have pointed out, to go on the offensive means to take an assertive or aggressive stance, as opposed to a passive or defensive one. The Knox, Mellas and Sollecito families have nothing to accuse the Kercher family of other than siding with the prosecutor and closing their eyes and their minds. For John Kercher to actually ask the other families to come to terms with the "fact" that their children committed murder is a whole different ball game.

John Kercher most definitely has every right to speak of his grief and his loss. I am glad he has; it humanizes Meredith to a greater degree than the idolatry sites ever will. As I suggested before, though, if Amanda and Raffaele turn out to everyone's satisfaction to be innocent, Kercher might have some regrets to deal with about his recent essay.

In my opinion, none of the families ever needs to expect apologies from one another. Mignini is the one responsible for leading everyone into conflicting beliefs and positions.

As an aside, no, it is not offensive to suspect Mignini is corrupt, the police planted evidence and that experts and judges are idiots. We have evidence to support all these suspicions; there is nothing wrong with asserting them.

I don't know anybody on the pro-Amanda/Raffaele side who tells lies or makes hypocritical statements on TV. The media are the ones responsible for the media; both sides of the debate have taken advantage of it.