Juicy quotes? Rightly embittered? Again, pretty ambiguous. There's been so much spin about Amanda in either direction that I honestly don't give two tucks on... wait, I shouldn't quote Transmetropolitan here.
Suffice to say that I found it pretty interesting that the victim received remarkably less attention either way. I mean: she isn't mentioned in the title of this thread nor in the tags. But well, I said that way back and even then the case seems to fall and hang with Amanda Knox for good or ill.
It was a phenomena, altogether unexpected I think, a bizarre fusion of police 'leaks,' tabloid imagination, and the naivety of kinda an uninhibited hippy chick. I imagine she would rather have done with much less of that attention, and now perhaps the police might have preferred they hadn't helped fuel it by giving her that fake aids test and then 'leaking' her diary to the tabloids as that attention will likely lead to her freedom eventually.
I heard the kinky black hair story a few times. I wonder where it actually originates. What I find slightly curious: why would that embarrass the police? If it had been found it might have been another piece of evidence against Rudy.
They hardly needed it. They left things like his DNA on the purse at the scene originally because they thought they had all they needed. As for where the story came from, they told the press, and why would they want to remind anyone at court they originally thought it had been Patrick's and arrested him on that score, when they wanted to scapegoat Amanda completely?
Maybe he is indeed still pissed. It happens. I'm not sure if your notion that the whole manner in which his name came into play (which I as indicated in my post before find ambiguous) excuses her in his eyes. I suppose that really depends on the individual.
It could have occurred to him that regardless of what she said under any circumstances the police might just have checked his alibi before arresting him, or for that matter released him long before when oodles and scads of people came forward to proffer an alibi within days of his arrest. If not, he's being irrational, and mindless vengeance is subject to scrutiny, and perhaps someone should tell him he might be subject to humiliation in the end. He's done all he could to damn a girl publicly with an non-sequestered jury for what the police did when that girl is facing 'life' in prison now.
I for one am not sure if I would ever stop being angry with someone that implicated me in a crime I had nothing to do with. I know it's hard to resist authorities (Milgram experiment et al pretty much show how hard it is), but then again I do hold my acquaintances and myself to the standard to do the right thing. Even if it gets me into trouble.
Heh, I was going to post a page the other day on the Milgram experiment, but demurred as I was going to apply it to the police following orders and thought it might be over-the-top and I didn't want to run into accusations of Goodwin's law.
I think there's studies more relevant to Amanda's situation that have been posted the past few days. I posted one to Treehorn about two days ago, and I noticed Halides1 and Katy_Did posted a couple too.
I am as of yet undecided whether or not they have been involved.
There are some things that might imply they were and some that imply they weren't.
I tend to enjoy the notion that they may be innocent but acted in such a manner that led the police to suspect them. (Or to put it bluntly: They were young, stupid and knackered. And accidentally managed to push all the wrong buttons when it comes to the instincts of policemen.)
Therefore I'm trying to neither condemn nor champion them. I just can't make up my mind either way.
I did quite a lot of reading on it from including the
Massei Report and being...unimpressed I decided to try to piece together an argument for guilt--and couldn't do it. Thus I finally registered to see if anyone else could, and no one wanted to try. Then I found out what the 'rest of' the evidence entailed when SomeAlibi first registered and my final questions were answered.
I found the biggest hurdle to overcome for me mentally was the idea that the police could botch something this badly, get it through a court, and any of them think they'd ever get away with it. Your mileage may vary.
There are still things that I think are quite counterproductive, for example allegations of a police conspiracy that even involves Patrick. There just does not seem to be enough evidence of that either that does not need a lot of speculation on the motives of the police. I think I have repeatedly asked: how much of this is playing it by the standard procedure? I've yet to see the baseline from which this case supposedly deviates.
I kinda know what you mean, when I first read the whole sordid stories of the bra clasp and the 'murder weapon' my thought was 'That's
impossible! Why would anyone try to pretend that they'd ever even
try to bring that into court, let alone get the court to accept it! What a bizarre exaggeration that must be!
Except it wasn't. I didn't believe a top policeman would ever say on TV that they didn't need evidence to tell guilt, that they could just study behavior and that they tacked up a picture of Amanda Knox next to convicted mafioso--a year before they even charged her with a crime. I'd seen a short youtube clip but I figured it had to be out of context, and thus a detriment to making an argument for innocence. I was kinda flabbergasted to find out that really happened.
I guess I finally figured: what would you expect to get if gathering evidence of innocent people, and then somehow it got through court because the media had basically convinced everyone she had to be guilty for reasons that turned out to be entirely untrue, and 'evidence' that didn't actually exist?
I think the 'conspiracy' here is pretending that three people who barely knew each other raped and murdered a girl for no reason, then one flees the country while the other two discover it the next day and call the police. There's no evidence of the two of them and forensics indicates there could have been no clean up in the murder room.
Keep in mind the police arrested three people before they even knew the results of the forensics. They arrested them on the basis of information that turned to be untrue and putting the screws to a girl for about fifteen hours in four days before getting her to 'vaguely remember' something that 'matched what they knew happened'---but turned out to be entirely untrue.
See above for part of the answer for this. You view it as an attempt at slander. His motive may be that he still feels wronged by her. We can only guess. I'm not sure which guess could be remotely correct.
The "confession" was relevant to his case. Should it have been left out? Why? I can understand that the timing worked against her, but it was her own writing that made her look bad, not something arbitrary.
I dunno, what's the point of having things 'inadmissible' then? The idea is you stop the police from taking the liberties they did with Amanda Knox, then pretending they 'never taped' the big interrogation session when they taped just about everything else. That way the police aren't supposed to be able to intimidate someone into saying what they want to hear, even getting them to believe it for a while, then convicting them on that basis.
I have tried to follow the arguments about them as time permits and read up on some points. But I still get the feeling that I lack the general knowledge to put what I read in context. That's why I'm glad that there are more experts weighing in on them. My hope is that this clarifies some points. But I suspect it will end up as it has ended here. Diametrically opposite opinions on the validity which for my lay understanding are hard to judge.
Yeah, I know, especially when the debate between them is generally less cordial than the Israel/PLO 'discussion.' It is just a
bizarre phenomena, which is why it fascinates me so!
