Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

So if the appeal is dismissed the court is wrong?

Yes. My opinion on this case isn't based on the court decisions; I've learned the case details myself. See Argument Screens Off Authority.

 

[loverofzion]

Very nice argument, Kevin, as was the rest of your post.

Then you should all stop with the sappy Thanksgiving dinner type homilies when describing the "honors student" from the good home who would never hurt a fly.

 

[loverofzion]

Yes. My opinion on this case isn't based on the court decisions; I've learned the case details myself. See Argument Screens Off Authority.

And your legal training was done where?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith smoked, and that Filomena and Laura smoked? Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith's charming new Italian boyfriend actually cultivated in his house? Just asking.

 

[treehorn]

Those were Rudy's fantasies, corroborated by no one else, like the people who lived there. It's kinda creepy if you ask me.

You haven't read the Court's judgment, have you?

Those facts (about the relationship as between Amanda & Rudy) were not based on Rudy's testimony, they were based on the testimony of "the people who lived there" and one Amanda Knox!

You're not even reading these posts accurately. Get some rest.

 

[LondonJohn]

Noone is claiming that amanda and rudy were "close associates".
He was likely a drug connection, a local feature on the basketball court which she passed every day.
There was a combination of circumstances that joined the 3 killers that fateful night; drugs are speculated to have played a part due to the number and viciousness of the stabbings.

So it really is irrelevent whether rudy had smoked alone w/ amanda before, nor if they were good friends.

The prior connection of rg and ak has been established.

What do you mean by this? There were three knife wounds to the neck. Is three a large number? Or in a "drug-fuelled rampage", might one have expected to see dozens of stab wounds all over Meredith's body? And what do you mean by "viciousness"? Did the killer/killers try to decapitate Meredith? Or slit her throat? Grateful in advance for your clarification.

 

[komponisto]

And your legal training was done where?

Wow. I feel like I have a veritable menu of suitable ripostes, and I'm having trouble choosing one:

(1) The same place jurors in murder cases are sent for legal training. Oh, wait...

(2) Try reading the link first, then coming back and asking that question without feeling silly.

(3) So all I need are legal credentials to get you to agree with me?

(4) Harvard. (For all you know, it could be true.)


It seems you may be a little overly enamored of arguments from authority.

 

[treehorn]

Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith smoked, and that Filomena and Laura smoked? Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith's charming new Italian boyfriend actually cultivated in his house? Just asking.

Maybe. Could be. Dunno.

But, so far as I can tell, none of the people you just mentioned have ever been accused of murder in the course of using said controlled substances.

Did any of them have boyfriends that were also into snorting coke, wearing flick knives and watching animal porn?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well, Filomena had called Amanda three times prior to 12:35 so perhaps she had said all that was needed until she arrived at the cottage.

Prior to her last call she didn't know her window and her room was broken into and Maredith's room was locked.

Also, Filomena had probably assumed Amanda would be the best person to call the police since Amanda was at the cottage in person. And lastly, according to the motivations, page 316, Filomena did call Meredith's phone at least one time.

There is no record of any incoming call on Meredith's phones between 12:35 and the discovery of the crime.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

That is exactly right. People get worn down, until finally they tell the cops whatever they want to hear, just to get it over with. They figure that down the road, as the investigation proceeds, the cops will realize what really happened.

Christopher Ochoa, who spent 12 years in prison after confessing to a murder he did not commit, explained it this way:

"At some point you think, 'If I just get out of here, if this will just stop, I can go talk to an attorney,' "

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...N-ochoa_24met.ART.State.Edition2.4657628.html

Barry Beach made a false confession to police in Louisiana so they would extradite him to Montana. He figured once he was back in his home state, the authorities would look into his background and see that there was no way he'd murder someone, and the whole mess would get straightened out. But it didn't get straightened out. He's serving a life sentence with no chance of parole... except for the people who are keeping the porch light on for him and trying to prod the system to give him a new trial:

http://www.montanansforjustice.com/press.html

This site has a link where you can watch or download the entire two-hour Dateline episode about this case. Studying this kind of material is essential for a real understanding of what is going on in Perugia.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Your inquiries were hostile in tone, and it seemed to me you were demanding proof rather than asking for information that genuinely interests you. I therefore decided to ignore you.

Since then, however, others have asked about the Spheron data. It amounts to more than 2 gb, but the images themselves are bitmaps, with meta data and a rendering engine so a viewer can pan around and get a rough sense of what it is visible from the points where the images were shot. I saved the bitmaps as jpegs, packed them into a zip file, and uploaded them to the FOA server:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/spheron_jpegs.zip

You will have to manipulate the images in your viewer, but the material is there.

Thank you Charlie Wilkes!

The image of Meredith's room shortly after the crime is very moving.

Those images also convey very well how small the room is in reality.
The idea of 4 people having a fight in this tight space is beyond ridiculous.

 

[loverofzion]

Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith smoked, and that Filomena and Laura smoked? Is it the same "illicit narcotic" that Meredith's charming new Italian boyfriend actually cultivated in his house? Just asking.

Yes.
The difference is it is not brought up in regards to people innocent of the crime, as well as being irrelevent unless the suspect USED it as an excuse for being hazy on details of where she was/what she saw at the crime scene.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe. Could be. Dunno.

But, so far as I can tell, none of the people you just mentioned have ever been accused of murder in the course of using said controlled substances.

Did any of them have boyfriends that were also into snorting coke, wearing flick knives and watching animal porn?

Poor reasoning skills - I'm surprised.....

The point here is that Knox's use of "illicit narcotics" is being used by some as a contributory indicator of her deviant personality, and even as a harbinger of her transformation into a "murderous monster". Yet every rational person knows that cannabis use is prevalent amongst students and young people, and has been for 40 years. As is evidenced by its widespread use among most of the peripheral players in this particular drama.

Do you know whether or not Sr Silenzi carried a knife? I wonder if he was ever asked? Regarding Sollecito being "into animal porn", there's no suggestion whatsoever that he was amassing any sort of animal porn collection on his computer - merely that he found one video clip of it, showed it around, and got caught doing so. By suggesting that he was "into" it, you're willfully distorting the known facts.

And please desist with this "into snorting coke" nonsense. There's no evidence to support this allegation. As you might be aware, it was only "adduced" into evidence by Mignini in his closing argument - a practice which I suggest you'd agree was highly improper, since it hadn't been mentioned at all during the main body of the trial. And he made the accusation without any semblance of corroboration or supporting evidence. It was a low tactic which should have been thrown out by the court, and the fact that it was said and stands on record tells us more about Mignini and Massei than it tells us about Sollecito.

 

[treehorn]

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.

1) I provided the support (notwithstanding the fact you've already been given the citations in question on many previous occasions - none of the information in Q is 'news' to anyone at this point);

2) I object to your use of the word "smear" - as I explained, I used the term "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense and the word, "illicit" means 'prohibited by law'.

Further, Knox has admitted to using illicit narcotics on the night of the murder. This is now legal fact and referring to that fact does not, therefore, constitute a misrepresentation, or an attempt to smear/ defame the accused in any way, shape or form.

I expect a retraction and an apology.

3) You are concluding that I am not "interested in a serious discussion" because I am not agreeing with the posts/ posters that YOU find 'moving'?!

That's precisely the kind of nonsense that is getting in the way of a 'serious' discussion of the evidence.

Please refrain from personal attacks in future. My patience with you is at an end.

 

[loverofzion]

Wow. I feel like I have a veritable menu of suitable ripostes, and I'm having trouble choosing one:

(1) The same place jurors in murder cases are sent for legal training. Oh, wait...

(2) Try reading the link first, then coming back and asking that question without feeling silly.

(3) So all I need are legal credentials to get you to agree with me?

(4) Harvard. (For all you know, it could be true.)


It seems you may be a little overly enamored of arguments from authority.

Do the same "arguments from authority" of which I am supposedly overly enamored include yours?

 

[loverofzion]

What do you mean by this? There were three knife wounds to the neck. Is three a large number? Or in a "drug-fuelled rampage", might one have expected to see dozens of stab wounds all over Meredith's body? And what do you mean by "viciousness"? Did the killer/killers try to decapitate Meredith? Or slit her throat? Grateful in advance for your clarification.

There were 47 marks and wounds on Meredith's body, in addition to the three large knife wounds to her neck.
Vicious enough for you, or for the daughter of anyone of your acquaintance?

 

[komponisto]

But, so far as I can tell, none of the people you just mentioned have ever been accused of murder in the course of using said controlled substances.

Should they have been, in light of this information?

By the way, it was Giacomo Silenzi. He killed Meredith! While smoking the marijuana she helped him grow!

There. Now poor Giacomo has been accused. What are the implications?

Did any of them have boyfriends that were also into snorting coke, wearing flick knives and watching animal porn?

If it turned out they did, would that alter your theory of the case?

"Snorting coke" is false with regard to Sollecito. Mignini's speculations do not actually constitute legitimate information about the world. (Unless you believe Amanda said "You are always acting like a little saint. Now we will make you have sex!" to Meredith.)

 

[Kaosium]

You haven't read the Court's judgment, have you?

Those facts (about the relationship as between Amanda & Rudy) were not based on Rudy's testimony, they were based on the testimony of "the people who lived there" and one Amanda Knox!

You're not even reading these posts accurately. Get some rest.

Just to clarify, so every one of those outside Rudy's lawyer said there was one introduction to him, and at some point there was a spinello smoked at that party? That was the extent of known contact?

 

[loverofzion]

Her note and her 'statements' make it quite clear she's tepid and confused about it all. She "vaguely remembers?"



What do you believe was true about what she 'saw?' I'd say most everything she 'saw' was wrong. It seemed to have 'matched' what the police thought had happen at the time though....

An African man sexually assaulting Meredith; her screams, amanda covering her ears; thuds, also she knew of the body position upon death.

 

[Katody Matrass]

‎"This video also shows Patrizia Stefanoni wrapping a mop handle in what appears to be gift wrap from the hall cabinet. I am not sure why this was done. I just thought it was interesting. Why did they gift wrap a mop and walk it around the cottage?"

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination3.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySCwcZD5Dk&feature=player_embedded


The quote and youtube link are from injusticeinperugia. Does anyone have an answer?
Why DID they gift wrap a mop and walk it around the cottage?

Wow, just wow!

I somehow missed that clip and it's just incredible. Patrizia really outdid herself. Some say:

the head of forensics in Rome, Patrizia Stefanoni, who conducted the tests, is one of the most respected in Europe, if not the world.​

Now I'm confused.
And why on earth did they took that mop to the murder room?