• 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.
platonov said:
FalseYou don't have her statements from that night or do you ?

Well, if I am mistaken please post them - they are the subject of much debate here and you have been holding out all this time ?
Click to expand...

Charlie posted them a while back. I find it strange that you never noticed. They're on here, you can look for them yourself.
 
Last edited:
Malkmus said:
Charlie posted them a while back. I find it strange that you never noticed. They're on here, you can look for them yourself.
Click to expand...


A link will suffice :)

Its time I got to eat some humble pie.

Also - You seem to have snipped part of my post ?
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
...I have no clue why a girl in this day and age, we're not talking about older cases, we're not talking about someone who has no clue about the world. Her mother is on her way and they are talking about a murder.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It's a common refrain among the innocentisti: "Amanda was just a a child! A wee girl!"

Knox was an adult woman.

She was in 3rd year U.

She was 20 years old! She could contract, vote, marry, go to war and run for office!

She was a fan of street drugs (combined them with alcohol and used them to the point of memory loss).

She was the proud owner of a conviction for Residential Disturbance in Seattle.

This was no babe o' the woods!

Rudy Guede is the SAME age as Amanda.

Is he just a sweet little "boy"/ child/ infant and thereby entitled to ask for his mommy and daddy rather than face the music?
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Yeah, Kestrel makes a good point here (yet again)

If you want to learn about this case you should ignore it completely and read* up on other cases.

* better yet, watch videos about other cases.
Click to expand...

I've seen this. And I'm aware of this phenomenon. But that doesn't completely clear her.
 
truethat said:
I've seen this. And I'm aware of this phenomenon. But that doesn't completely clear her.
Click to expand...


Really ?

If it did there would be a lot of very ****** off (once highly paid) lawyers :)

~ 1000 per day or show the court a video - tough call.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
hm I always heard it was 15. So she goes in for a few hours and points the finger at Patrick. What a messed up thing to do.

What is this throwing Raffaele under a bus thing. I'm new to this.
Click to expand...

For Truethat. There is an OUTSTANDING article on the web. It's called Mis Represented, it's not long, but is a must read. After that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
 
truethat said:
I've seen this. And I'm aware of this phenomenon. But that doesn't completely clear her.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't clear her. What does (for me) is her explanation in court of how she agreed to what the interrogators were demanding of her during that interrogation, the statement the next morning actually written by her, the lack of detail beyond what the police wanted to hear, and the police's questionable actions leading immediately up to and during that interrogation.
 
Malkmus said:
Of course it doesn't clear her. What does (for me) is her explanation in court of how she agreed to what the interrogators were demanding of her during that interrogation, the statement the next morning actually written by her, the lack of detail beyond what the police wanted to hear, and the police's questionable actions leading immediately up to and during that interrogation.
Click to expand...


Lets cease with the speculation - those statements [not the 'gift' next morning] should help clear some of this up.

How are we doing on that ?
 
Last edited:
Well, Truthat. As you can see, there are two sides here. One side believing in guilt. One side in innocence. It's a bumpy ride. :)
 
Are you kidding me? I gave you the link. Which, by the way, I spent the time and effort looking for exactly the same way you could have. I don't know if you're purposely being facetious.
 
truethat said:
This is a very draining post to reply to. I am talking about her interrogation. I have no clue why a girl in this day and age, we're not talking about older cases, we're not talking about someone who has no clue about the world. Her mother is on her way and they are talking about a murder.
Click to expand...

You have no clue?

Okay. I guess you missed the many, many times we have posted links to relevant documents regarding the phenomenon of internalised false statements. If you had read them you would have a clue.

If you browbeat someone for hours, particularly a naive person who trusts authority and doesn't think that innocent people need to shut the hell up and wait for their mother and lawyers to arrive, tell them that they have repressed memories, tell them that they need to recover those memories to help the police catch the bad guy, coach them on exactly what you claim really happened and keep the pressure on all night while they are sleep-deprived you get exactly what we got: A confused, incoherent statement saying exactly what the police told her and no more, fitting with the police theory at the time and incompatible with the facts as we now know them, fingering the person the police told her to say was the killer, and which she expressed grave doubts about the truth of as soon as she had some downtime to get her head together.

As I have said many times before, either Amanda knew exactly what an internalised false statement was meant to look like and faked one perfectly, or she was the victim of an internalised false statement. Her statement makes absolutely no sense either as a deliberate lie or as a real confession.

There has never been a satisfactory answer from any guilter as to this point. They'e tried denying that Amanda's statement has the qualities of an internalised false statement but that is so absurd as to not be worth responding to. They've tried spinning her statement as an evil attempt to throw the police off the scent by fingering Lumumba, but that is an irrelevant response because it does not explain why her statement has the characteristics of an internalised false confession. It's not exactly common knowledge what such a statement should look like - most guilters had no idea until we told them about them that such things even existed.

That's one of the benefits of hanging around the JREF forums. You learn all sorts of interesting things.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Finally found this again! Did you come to any conclusion or at least suspicion of what the defense is claiming they have outside the initial report of 'activity all night with the longest gap 6 minutes' or somesuch?
Click to expand...


There is no need for suspicion since the defense clearly stated what they had and the meaning is also quite clear. Buried in the system error log files there are time stamped entries that indicate the screensaver had activated multiple times over the night of Nov 1 up to just after 6AM. Anybody that uses a screen saver should recognize that the screensaver activation marks the end of a preset period of lack of human interaction on the computer. Thy would also recognize that deactivation of the screensaver occurs only in response to specific human interactions on the computer. Throughout the night, someone was there to touch the trackpad or press a key on the keyboard within 6 minutes of each time the screensaver activated.

The end of this period coincides precisely (after accounting for a 20 minute activation delay of the screensaver) with when Raffaele received the text message on his phone from his father.

Except for the placing exact times on the events (which Raffaele never claims to have been aware of the actual time), The activity on the computer is consistent with what Raffaele has always claimed he was doing that night. which included using his computer, receiving a message from his father which was sent around 11PM and then going to bed.

This altered timeline for Raffaele also alters the alibi that Raffaele gives Amanda. Since Raffaele only accepted that Amanda could have gone out after he went to sleep, Raffaele is giving Amanda an alibi through 6AM.
 
Malkmus said:
Are you kidding me? I gave you the link. Which, by the way, I spent the time and effort looking for exactly the same way you could have. I don't know if you're purposely being facetious.
Click to expand...


No I am stating very directly (again)

You don't have her statements from that night

Now either you were lying or mistaken or I got it wrong.

Which is it ?
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
No I am stating very directly (again)

You don't have her statements from that night

Now either you were lying or mistaken or I got it wrong.

Which is it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to entertain this game with you anymore. You asked for Amanda's statements from the night of the 5th and I searched for and gave you the link to Charlie's post which contains all of the documents he's uploaded. If you're simply refusing to click on the link under his post labeled exactly what you're demanding then you don't deserve anymore help from me. I would go back and post the direct link from his post for you, but since you choose to treat me as your errand boy and post condescending remarks I'm not going to. Everyone else here can and has had the chance to read the statements. It's your loss if you refuse to use your own eyes, or simply be a bit more courteous.
 
platonov said:
Really ?

If it did there would be a lot of very ****** off (once highly paid) lawyers :)

~ 1000 per day or show the court a video - tough call.
Click to expand...



I actually just watched the video of the Norfolk Four, and you guys are going to go nuts on me, I know, but actually I think they were involved.


Now here's the thing, four different people confessed and they named people they thought they knew, like the way Joe Dick got the name wrong but knew the face. And they keep throwing all this sarcastic "can you believe they actually thought four white Navy Guys went into a parking lot and got some black guy to come help them??"

Well yeah I do. I grew up in Baltimore Maryland, and my sister lived in a housing complex almost exactly like that and the one thing that brought everyone together was drug trafficking, or just dealing and buying and sharing drugs with people in the parking lots.

I wouldn't be surpised at all if the four got involved, didn't actually murder or rape her but got so drunk and stoned out of their head they don't quite remember what happened.

Again, similar to the AK case, do I think they raped and murdered the woman, no, but I do think they are involved somehow.

I also found their rebuttals of their confessions to be remarkably similar.

Ford was a bull dog, he pressured us. Well I'm sorry maybe he could have pressured ONE of them to confess but FOUR? Additionally there were other men who were brought in who had alibi's and were released.

Also how about the statement when the guy was throwing the three other friends under the bus that it took 5 months for his head to clear and him to realize that he couldn't "send an innocent man to jail"

Similar to the Knox case the prosecutors have no doubts that they got the right guys.

I just don't immediately think these guys are innocent because some murderer rapist tries to take all the credit for what went down.
 
Malkmus said:
I'm not going to entertain this game with you anymore. You asked for Amanda's statements from the night of the 5th and I searched for and gave you the link to Charlie's post which contains all of the documents he's uploaded. If you're simply refusing to click on the link under his post labeled exactly what you're demanding then you don't deserve anymore help from me. I would go back and post the direct link from his post for you, but since you choose to treat me as your errand boy and post condescending remarks I'm not going to. Everyone else here can and has had the chance to read the statements. It's your loss if you refuse to use your own eyes, or simply be a bit more courteous.
Click to expand...


OK

Post in your next 'post' the actual link - not a link to a list of 50.

If its the zip file, unless you are the guy who can read zip files without opening them [an unusual talent], post the unzipped statements from the night of the 5/6th.

Otherwise, as a mistake has been ruled out by your responses...

You are lying.

ETA If I'm wrong, not alone do I have to eat humble pie, but I probably get a visit from the mods also.
 
Last edited:
truethat, you just lost you skeptic hat on that one. The "murderer rapist that tried to take all the credit for what went down" just happened to be the donor of the only DNA evidence found at the scene. Except for the confessions, there was no evidence that any of the others were involved at all.

Prosecutors are always sure of themselves. How often do you see a prosecutor admit they were wrong after they loose a case? Sometimes justice comes around though. In the Tim Masters case, after the conviction was overturned, the county settled for somewhere around $10 Million and the two prosecutors (who had since become judges) were ousted by a significant majority of the voters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom