• 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.
colonelhall said:
I think that Treehorn has made his point and that Kev once again pops up and attempts to cloud the issue. Not at all convincing, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


It can be confusing. Charlie makes a good argument, though, when he points out that treehorn's choice of language shows his purpose here is to smear Amanda and Raffaele.

Kevin, komponisto and I, on this very page, have shown in detail that treehorn was not able to support most of the claims he made in the original post we have been discussing, and that he has not supported them in the past. Yet treehorn declines to counter our arguments with actual citations, and he continues to post as if nothing happened.

If treehorn were sincerely interested in a serious discussion of the facts of the case, he would not remain so completely unmoved by other poster's valid arguments.
 
treehorn said:
You've forgotten another citation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html

It's been over 3 years. Still no retraction.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since you also cited Mignini's closing argument (!) as a source earlier.

Retraction or not, that story is complete, utter rubbish. I had a hard time finding a single true statement in the whole piece. Even Amanda's birth date was incorrect.
 
treehorn said:
You've forgotten another citation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html

It's been over 3 years. Still no retraction.
Click to expand...


No retraction by whom? The Daily Mail? Good luck with that. As for Amanda, it was addressed in court. As you can see, Massei has about as much patience with Mignini as we have with you for bringing up this ridiculous issue:

GM: I have another question. You had a 250 dollar fine from the court in Seattle.
AK: What? Oh, yes, yes.
GM: Can you explain this event? What was the motive?
AK: In Seattle, I lived with four friends of mine in a house. When our lease ended, we wanted to have a party to celebrate the end of our time living together and also just the end of the year. So, we had a party. At the party there was a band, one of my friends played in it. So there was a band, and they made such a tremendous racket that the neighbors called the police to come and stop the noise. Since I was the person in the best state to talk to the police right then, I went out of the house and took responsibility for the noise. So I got the fine, and everybody helped me pay it.
GM: Do you know about the article that appeared on "Mail Online"
on Dec 3 2007, which refers to the event -- I ask for the acquisition of this article -- in which the episode is described with many details. There is also a translation into Italian. I would like to ask for the translation of this article. [Intervention: "This will be made available to all parties." A fairly long pause.]
GCM: Excuse me. Is there actually a question?
GM: It talks about incredibly loud music, drugs, alcohol and throwing rocks into the street.
GCM: Could you please ask actual questions?
GM: Yes. Do you remember this episode?
GCM: Excuse me. The pubblico ministero is asking-- you described this episode in the terms we just heard. But the pubblico ministero is asking whether there was use of alcohol and drugs on that occasion, or whether it was just a question of too much noise making a disturbance?"
AK: So in fact--
GM: And other things. In the article there's also--
GCM: The Court doesn't know anything about this. Excuse me, please. All right, let's say "And other things?"
GM: There is a report by police officer Bender.
GCM: Oh, all right. Okay, okay. Let's just make specific and precise questions. [Noise] Excuse me, excuse me. Please, please. You just briefly sketched the episode. The pubblico ministero is asking for details. For instance, about the use of drugs and the alcohol.
AK: So, there was alcohol at this party; we had beer. I didn't know anything about drugs because I was inside the house.
GM: So you don't know about drugs.
AK: Right. I don't know about drugs at the party, but there was beer for sure.
GCM: Anything else? Beer, and anything else?
AK: And noise.
GM: I can ask other questions on this point. It's been mentioned that there were naked people around. And rocks getting thrown at windows and into the street, so much that it was blocking the traffic--
CDV? Excuse me, excuse me! That was the article, but it could say things that aren't true.
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please! It has been requested that this document be produced and placed at the disposal of all parties. Then the Court will see. If there are other questions--
GM: Is it true what this article says?
AK: [Laughing] No. No.
GCM: But do you have specific questions?
GM: What is the significance of this sum of 269 dollars?
GCM: She said it, it's a ticket. A fine. Payment of a sum.
GM: But penal?
AK: It's like when you park your car in a forbidden place and you have to pay a fine. It's the same thing.
GCM: All right, all right. She represented the facts and she represented their consequences. We don't have to give the administrative or penal analysis now.
Click to expand...
 
treehorn said:
You don't know the rationale for the 'right to silence'?
Click to expand...

I was interested in you expanding on your views, being as you brought it up. I already know what I think.

treehorn said:
Look it up, and ask yourself why Knox tossed it away (despite the advice of her expensive counsel) by writing her 'prison diary'.
Click to expand...

Because she was innocent, and as such perhaps didn't really believe anyone would be silly enough to think she did it, after all the idea itself is really absurdly unlikely. A girl at a cottage is assaulted and murdered, with signs of a break in, and the police arrest three people with no traces at the scene, alleging a three-way plot to rape and murder her and stage a break-in with no legitimate evidence to suggest that.

She probably figured people would come to their senses.
 
treehorn said:
I object to your accusation.
Click to expand...

Objection overruled. Your assessment of Amanda relies on a handful of data points, some of which are uncorroborated and have no basis in fact. You have used loaded terminology, like describing weed as an "illicit narcotic," and you have summarily dismissed the opinions of those who know Amanda best. What is your objective if not to smear her?
 
I wrote:

3) per the Court's judgment: Amanda knew Rudy, and Rudy knew Amanda

- Looking at Knox's 6 weeks in Perugia, she knew Rudy longer than she knew Raffaele (just 8 days or so)

- Rudy let everyone in the cottage know he was interested in Amanda/ he was infatuated

- Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions

- Indeed, ab initio Amanda began downplaying these facts using measures that included an expensive PR campaign that represented to CBS News that she'd "never laid eyes on Rudy"

- to dismiss Rudy as nothing more than a "crook" elides the fact that he moved in the same Perugian milieu as Knox did: he was a friend/ basketball pal of the boys that shared the downstairs of Knox's cottage; a repeat visitor to the cottage; and a regular in the basketball court next to the cottage

------------------------

Kevin_Lowe then replied:

You have already been challenged for citations to support these claims. I do not expect to see that challenge met. I don't expect you to actually do any actual research or make any real effort to make sure that the things you post here as fact have any resemblance to the truth.

I just want to flag for readers that claims like "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions" are frequently made by the more deranged guilters and never backed up, because as far as anyone can tell they are lies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Retort: Citations in support of my posts above.

BTW, It would be nice if you retracted your claim that I am attempting to misrepresent the evidence, Kevin. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From the English Translation of the Court's judgment:

Page 42: "Guede...frequented the basketball court located...just a few steps from the house...acquainted with all the young men living in that house...also knew the girls, Meredith and Amanda...Although he chatted with both...he displayed a particular interest in Amanda, whom he "liked" and about whom he had requested information as to whether she was already going out with someone..The house was, thus, for..Guede, a friendly house...inhbited by friends and girls with whom he could socialize...find easy hospitality...could spend a lot of time having...spent all night...received by friends as a friend."

Page 361:

"Amanda, moreover, knew Rudy Guede and he knew Amanda; he was attracted to her..."


From Knox's Trial Testimony June 12, 2009

Re: Smoking Dope with Rudy

CP = Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba's lawyer)
AK= Amanda Knox


CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

..

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
Address the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot
Click to expand...

I apologize. My problem is that I have gotten close to the people in this case, the real live human beings. These people have become my friends, and I am proud to have them as friends. They invited me to their Thanksgiving dinner, their low-key New Years Eve party where we all sat around the kitchen and had a warm, friendly discussion while a small tribe of children ran circles through the house and played themselves to exhaustion. Then I get on the Internet and I see not just Amanda but her entire family pilloried, day in and day out, by people who have not the first clue what or who they are talking about. It makes me seethe with anger. It is so utterly contemptible and unfair.
 
treehorn said:
I wrote:

3) per the Court's judgment: Amanda knew Rudy, and Rudy knew Amanda

- Looking at Knox's 6 weeks in Perugia, she knew Rudy longer than she knew Raffaele (just 8 days or so)

- Rudy let everyone in the cottage know he was interested in Amanda/ he was infatuated

- Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions

- Indeed, ab initio Amanda began downplaying these facts using measures that included an expensive PR campaign that represented to CBS News that she'd "never laid eyes on Rudy"

- to dismiss Rudy as nothing more than a "crook" elides the fact that he moved in the same Perugian milieu as Knox did: he was a friend/ basketball pal of the boys that shared the downstairs of Knox's cottage; a repeat visitor to the cottage; and a regular in the basketball court next to the cottage

------------------------

Kevin_Lowe then replied:

You have already been challenged for citations to support these claims. I do not expect to see that challenge met. I don't expect you to actually do any actual research or make any real effort to make sure that the things you post here as fact have any resemblance to the truth.

I just want to flag for readers that claims like "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions" are frequently made by the more deranged guilters and never backed up, because as far as anyone can tell they are lies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice if you retracted your claim that I am attempting to misrepresent the evidence, Kevin.

From the English Translation of the Court's judgment:

Page 42: "Guede...frequented the basketball court located...just a few steps from the house...acquainted with all the young men living in that house...also knew the girls, Meredith and Amanda...Although he chatted with both...he displayed a particular interest in Amanda, whom he "liked" and about whom he had requested information ads to whether she was already going out with someone..THe house was, thus, for..Guede, a friendly house...inhbited by friends and girls with whom he could socialize...find easy hospitality...could spend a lot of time having...spent all night...received by friends as a friend."

Page 361:

"Amanda, moreover, knew Rudy Guede and he knew Amanda; he was attracted to her..."


From Knox's Trial Testimony June 12, 2009

Re: Smoking Dope with Rudy

CP = Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba's lawyer)
AK= Amanda Knox


CP: You know Rudy Hermann Guede?

AK: Not much.

CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?

AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met
the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I
was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors
downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say
"This is Rudy, this is Amanda", and then I spent most of my time with Meredith,
but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub "Le Chic", Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of
October? What period, end of October? 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

..

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165
Click to expand...

So now we know the creepy killer thought of their cottage as practically 'home' and mighta had a crush on Amanda too?

Poor Amanda!

She once had a joint at a party Rudy was also at, this is only other connection anyone could find. He sometimes hung around the neighborhood, like any good creepy killer would. This does not indicate a romance.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Objection overruled. Your assessment of Amanda relies on a handful of data points, some of which are uncorroborated and have no basis in fact. You have used loaded terminology, like describing weed as an "illicit narcotic," and you have summarily dismissed the opinions of those who know Amanda best. What is your objective if not to smear her?
Click to expand...

Who are you to "overrule" anyone on this board?

What you are calling "loaded terminology" is merely legal terminology for the drugs Knox has admitted to using. (As I have already explained to you.)

Further, I have made it very clear to you that I do not seek to "smear" the accused and/or misrepresent any of the evidence adduced at trial.

If you think I am in error in respect of Knox's admission to the use of narcotics, by all means, enlighten me.

If, on the other hand, all you have to offer in support of your personal attack is an unsupported and unexplained claim about 'data points' and corroboration problems, you owe me an apology.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I apologize. My problem is that I have gotten close to the people in this case, the real live human beings. These people have become my friends, and I am proud to have them as friends. They invited me to their Thanksgiving dinner, their low-key New Years Eve party where we all sat around the kitchen and had a warm, friendly discussion while a small tribe of children ran circles through the house and played themselves to exhaustion. Then I get on the Internet and I see not just Amanda but her entire family pilloried, day in and day out, by people who have not the first clue what or who they are talking about. It makes me seethe with anger. It is so utterly contemptible and unfair.
Click to expand...

Pilloring a convicted murderer?

If the appeal is upheld I'll be the first to pass on my apologies to Amanda and her family. Until then, she is what she is. A murderer.
 
Kaosium said:
So now we know the creepy killer thought of their cottage as practically 'home' and mighta had a crush on Amanda too?

Poor Amanda!

She once had a joint at a party Rudy was also at, this is only other connection anyone could find. He sometimes hung around the neighborhood, like any good creepy killer would. This does not indicate a romance.
Click to expand...

Actually, the point is that that Amanda not only "knew" Rudy but socialized/ smoked dope with him.

Ergo, we have evidence that directly contradicts Kevin_Lowe's assertion that 'Amanda did not know Rudy'.

To wit, we have established that Kevin_Lowe is not being "rational" in his analysis of the fact pattern. Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
Actually, the point is that that Amanda not only "knew" Rudy but socialized/ smoked dope with him.

Ergo, we have evidence that directly contradicts Kevin_Lowe's assertion that 'Amanda did not know Rudy'.

To wit, we have established that Kevin_Lowe is not being "rational" in his analysis of the fact pattern. Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

She went to a party he was at, that hardly constitutes 'knowing.' We do not know if Amanda smoked the spinello with him, merely that he was at the party. He might have left by the time it happened, he might have been hitting on someone else at the time. You know what it's like at a college party, there's lots of things going on. :)
 
lionking said:
If the appeal is upheld I'll be the first to pass on my apologies to Amanda and her family.
Click to expand...

I hope you're prepared to be held to this.

Until then, she is what she is. A murderer.
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of being convinced that a court decision is incorrect by any means other than another court decision?
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
I was interested in you expanding on your views, being as you brought it up. I already know what I think.



Because she was innocent, and as such perhaps didn't really believe anyone would be silly enough to think she did it, after all the idea itself is really absurdly unlikely. A girl at a cottage is assaulted and murdered, with signs of a break in, and the police arrest three people with no traces at the scene, alleging a three-way plot to rape and murder her and stage a break-in with no legitimate evidence to suggest that.

She probably figured people would come to their senses.
Click to expand...
After having placed herself at the cottage with Patrick as the murderer?
Why would anyone believe she was making that part up?
What makes that ridiculous in your mind.
 
komponisto said:
I hope you're prepared to be held to this.



Are you incapable of being convinced that a court decision is incorrect by any means other than another court decision?
Click to expand...
What , like based on the opinions of posters on this site and others like it?

I think most thinking people would choose to go with the court decision.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Objection overruled. Your assessment of Amanda relies on a handful of data points, some of which are uncorroborated and have no basis in fact. You have used loaded terminology, like describing weed as an "illicit narcotic," and you have summarily dismissed the opinions of those who know Amanda best. What is your objective if not to smear her?
Click to expand...
Well last I checked weed IS an illicit narcotic, and those people who knew amanda best were mostly her family whose whitewashing their darling angel makes her a quiet, studious great friend to all around her.
We heard from nary a friend of hers from her past, except Madison.
 
loverofzion said:
After having placed herself at the cottage with Patrick as the murderer?
Why would anyone believe she was making that part up?What makes that ridiculous in your mind.
Click to expand...

I'd bet because she was there and knows she didn't 'make it up,' she agreed to what they insisted must have happened, tepidly, and confusedly. She didn't think she was accusing anyone, nor that her 'flashes' could be used as testimony.

She didn't place herself at the scene, the police did, and for a short while it looks like they got Amanda to believe it was possible. Then she came to her senses, now she's waiting for everyone else to. :)
 
Kaosium said:
She went to a party he was at, that hardly constitutes 'knowing.' We do not know if Amanda smoked the spinello with him, merely that he was at the party. He might have left by the time it happened, he might have been hitting on someone else at the time. You know what it's like at a college party, there's lots of things going on. :)
Click to expand...
Rudy and amanda supposedly had smoked together on the boys' apartment downstairs. Hardly a party, and plenty of room for getting to know each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom