• 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.
halides1 said:
capealadin,

Whoa, I thought you had finally conceded that Patrick did not demote Amanda. I hope we do not have to revisit this issue yet again. Are you saying that you find Rudy credible?
Click to expand...

I do find Patrick credible. He did say she had no soul. That she was insanely jealous of Meredith. Fine. He didn;t demote her. Let's say, he made her the Manager. He thinks she HAS NO SOUL. What's worse? Demoting her, or calling her evil? Sheesh!!!!!!!
 
halides1 said:
Rudy calls Amanda and Raff the killers, and the prosecution does not appeal his sentence reduction. Sounds like a good outcome from Rudy's perspective.
Click to expand...

heres the German diary <snip> of Rudys accusing statement I mentioned.


If your hiding something Amanda, please say it. Why have you accused Patrick?
In order for the person who told me “Black man found, guilty man found” to think I was Patrick?
Did you all already know whom to blame? I am sure that Meredith was still alive.
If you say you slept at home, why didn’t you call an ambulance, but instead quietly (NDT without a thought).
Why are they saying she has been raped? Meredith and I only talked and thats all.
What the f*&k happened? Speak the truth. What are you hiding?
If it wasn’t Raffaele, who was there on that night? One of your many druggie lovers you were bringing home?
Was he someone from the Merlin, Domus, was it all of you downstairs?
 
I suppose, Halides, That the pic of Patrick, at the latest hearing, is because he's there for AMANDA? Let me know if you think he's a fan of Amanda? Please cite, and I'll cite differently......
 
Anyone want to add their thoughts about Raff asking for the REAL KILLER confessing? After Rudi was already convicted? Why didn't Raff think it was a just verdict? Who did he think was the REAL KILLER?....This, by the way, at the end of HIS trial? After Rudi's DNA was confirmed? WHO did he think it was then?
 
Justinian2 said:
You are taking all of the claims in parallel; as additive. This is NOT true. The type of evidence gathered requires that all the probabilities be multiplied together which makes the probabliity of guilt something like one in a million even with probabiltities of 30% (.3) for each factor.

Guede has the type of evidence that can be additive. All the DNA samples taken of him make his presence in the murder room certain. His testimony and the footprints also add together to put him at the scene of the murder when it happened. The statistical probability that Guede is guilty is VERY high.

RS and AK don't have any evidence that is additive. All the evidence gathered against them should be calculated in serial. If the break-in was real, they are innocent. If their alibi is true, they are innocent. If the DNA is contamination, they are innocent. If the DNA contamination is deliberate, they are innocent. If they have no evidence in the murder room, they are innocent. The statistical probability that AK and RS are guilty is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Special pleading.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#special
 
truethat said:
Unfortunately when you are getting a Jury of your peers that were not sequestered and have been sold a story that this was some sort of satanic sex game gone wrong, you do have to be careful to watch what you are saying and how you are coming across.
Click to expand...

Very true!.. For example, you may not want to wear tshirts saying "All You Need Is love", or start sing-alongs in court, or prance into the courtroom smiling as if you are about to perform in a cheer-leading competition, or wear daisy dukes to court when your sister is on trial for murder, or take pictures of yourself in court as if you are on a trip to Disney, or say "ew" and "yuck" when discussing the brutal murder of your supposed "friend", etc.
 
Why bother....

"One or more pro-innocence posters has or have asked the pro-guilt posters for a coherent explanation over the last month or so."
*********************
This is an oft tried and even more tired refrain that is pointless; can we give it a rest, and us a break ??

If a highly respected and experienced Jurist who has spent over a year examining evidence in and and additionally out of the courtroom, and has allowed some of the highest paid attorneys in the country to attempt to show him their 'coherent explanations'; yet he and 5 others unanimously reject the best coherent explanations of innocenti arguments that money can buy...who are the non innocenti posters here to be challenged by you over and over for more?
And then only to suffer your repeated lofty holier than thou insinuations of inability if they wisely defer.

If an arguer concurs with anything Judge Massei's 427 page long labored production concludes, you drag out another tired overused questionably appropriate accusation of arguments from authority, which IMHO is little more than arguing by obstructionism, or in legal terminology, abuse of process.

If an arguer argues other points, he is accused of pulling moles out of hibernation or he gets belatedly parsed and nitpicked ad nauseam.

Let's face the inevitable...if you are unsatisfied after over 35,000 attempts and over a year of trial evidence, and the 427 pages of coherent explanation..may I respectfully opt out of any attempts at yet another personal 'coherent explanation' which IMHO is an obviously already rejected 'mole' by the innocenti cabal here .

I and others may certainly chose to defer.
This should in no way inhibit theirs or my liberty to point out any ever so obvious inaccurate or illogical parts or entirety of 'skeptical' others lively evidence based arguments here...does it ??
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
You have not been here for some time, and you changed the subject out of the blue. One or more pro-innocence posters has or have asked the pro-guilt posters for a coherent explanation over the last month or so. Those that have even attempted to do so have distanced themselves from the Massei narrative. I am very eager to get back on topic and hear your response.
Click to expand...
Is a narrative of the crime necessary? There's always going to be loads to chose from, particularly when we can't agree what half the facts of the case are that we are trying to fit the facts around.

I suspect that a prosecution narrative would necessarily seem unlikely. The odds of them getting involved in a murder, prior to the murder, are very low, so necessarily the odds of whatever event caused them to be involved (assuming they were) is many thousands (I'm probably a few orders of magnitude too probable here) to one against. Once the murder has happened the odds increase enormously of course.

If you want me to make up a theory of the crime whose a priori odds are thousands to one against I can, but I don't see it helps any as I won't be the least bit bothered if it gets shot down. I'll just come up with something else.
 
halides1 said:
Rudy calls Amanda and Raff the killers, and the prosecution does not appeal his sentence reduction. Sounds like a good outcome from Rudy's perspective.
Click to expand...

The prosecution are NOT permitted to appeal fast track trials. You knew, that Halides, no?
 
Magister said:
Bear with me...
If all 3 are innocent as is now thought in some quarters,
then none of them could know who was the real killer.
Guede initially said he did not recognise his attacker.
Supposing that attacker was indeed the mafiosi Antonio Aviello who had broken in with the Albanian.
There were unidentified prints and DNA in the cottage.
Perugia is the centre of a large mafia controlled drugs trade.Guede was beaten up in prison.....to stop him talking?
So it was convenient for him having a fast track trial with 1/3rd off, and then later accusing Knox and Sollecito, and possibly being out in around 6 years.
Yet it was Luciano Aviello who wrote to the court accusing his brother who is believed to have fled the country.....
but there have been no reports of any police investigation.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Why did they kill her? Was she involved in the trade somehow?
 
Solange305 said:
Very true!.. For example, you may not want to wear tshirts saying "All You Need Is love", or start sing-alongs in court, or prance into the courtroom smiling as if you are about to perform in a cheer-leading competition, or wear daisy dukes to court when your sister is on trial for murder, or take pictures of yourself in court as if you are on a trip to Disney, or say "ew" and "yuck" when discussing the brutal murder of your supposed "friend", etc.
Click to expand...

Yep. Singing along is not condusive to being sensitive either, never mind crying when you step on a flower..................
 
Justinian2 said:
He was at the scene of the crime, and he had a motive for the murder (money and not wanting to be caught and perhaps even sex). I'm no specialist in the evidence required for conviction, but I have seen enough documentaries and read enough to know that the body, motive and proximity to the murder scene is enough for conviction.
He was known to have broken in to the second story before for the purpose of robbery, he was known to carry a small knife, he confessed to being in the bathroom when she died, his handprint was on the pillow beside her, his shoe footprint in blood was nearby, his DNA was in many places near the body and in the body.

To believe that Rudy didn't stab and kill MK is like believing that flying saucers and advanced technology were necessary for the Incas to build the stone walls that they built.
Click to expand...

By that standard Amanda is plainly guilty.
 
capealadin said:
Well, Halides, For a start, It was a terrible LIE, Blaming Patrick. You were taliking about lies......I'm listening.
Click to expand...

Induced, internalized, false confession. All the police had to do was raise their voices and act mean and Amanda lost her head and babbled anything the cops wanted her to say. She went from cartwheels to copping out in just a few hours.:rolleyes:
 
26 yrs vs Leave 'Amanda' alone.

truethat said:
Why do you keep mentioning X factor? Who has compared it to X factor?

<snip>
Click to expand...


This [your later post] is a further example* of why I mentioned the X factor - I don't wish to be rude but how is your 'perception' of bias in Nadeau's article more relevant to the case or upcoming/ongoing appeal than the actual testimony I linked to a few posts back ?

* also as recent examples ..........
- halides1 ongoing arguments regarding when AK slept with some guy OR whether AK was demoted or fired by PL
- along with your own earlier argument that AK or her defence were constrained in their treatment of RG because they didn't want her to look bad
- multiple earlier posts complaining about sensational or prurient articles in the UK media etc
- Indeed going right back to the cartwheel argument that started this thread, much of the Foaker arguments seem predicated on how AK is 'perceived' ** as opposed to the very real evidence that convicted her.

I really don't get it - It has no bearing on the case, except to emphasize that the arguments for innocence are based on superficialities/feelings [ in some cases defending Amanda's honour - bizarre but explicable ! ] as opposed to substance.

** The behavior of the accused after the murder or in court obviously has some bearing.
 
Last edited:
Solange305 said:
Very true!.. For example, you may not want to wear tshirts saying "All You Need Is love", or start sing-alongs in court, or prance into the courtroom smiling as if you are about to perform in a cheer-leading competition, or wear daisy dukes to court when your sister is on trial for murder, or take pictures of yourself in court as if you are on a trip to Disney, or say "ew" and "yuck" when discussing the brutal murder of your supposed "friend", etc.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have an advanced degree in tabloid psychology. You know exactly how to tell innocent people from guilty people just by watching their behavior. :rolleyes:
 
I'm going out. Halides, could you provide an example, while I;m gone, about a reason why, Patrick would have like to keep Amanda in his employ? One Good word? Just ONE???? Thanks.

Oh, and anyone want to give an explanation as to Raff asking for the real killer confessing? After Rudi was convicted? Seems he didn't think the Court had convicted the REAL KILLER? Damn...With all that evidence??? What was he THINKING????????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom