Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

Your claim was, "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions." While I greatly appreciate you providing citations from the Massei report, they did not substantiate that claim.

You need to read the transcript of Knox's own testimony.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That doesn't mean that evidence was not submitted in respect of RS's past drug use.

Was anything like it submitted? I'd say you made it up.

 

[treehorn]

Were the diaries read in court?

If you believe the diaries were written with the full knowledge that they would be read in the court of public opinion, i.e., the media, then why do you insist their attorneys advised them not to write them? If Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy knew the diaries would be released to the media, why would their lawyers not have known?

What?

One of us needs some coffee.

 

[RoseMontague]

That doesn't mean that evidence was not submitted in respect of RS's past drug use.

This is why I like Dr. Waterbury's use of the quote "Let's Pretend", from Through The Looking Glass.

 

[treehorn]

Was anything like it submitted? I'd say you made it up.

I read an article by Andrea Vogt (Seattle PI) indicating that Mignini referred to Sollecito's past use of LSD and cocaine in his closing argument.

It's easy to find.

PS Why are you accusing me of lying? On what grounds? That (rude) game is getting tiring. I repeat: I have no interest in misrepresenting the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Karl Fontenot

"Worn down" inside of 2 hours?

Treehorn,

Karl Fontenot gave a false confession within two hours of being questioned. You have been given this information before (it can be found Grisham's The Innocent Man).

 

[Mary_H]

You need to read the transcript of Knox's own testimony.

If Amanda's testimony substantiates your claim that Amanda and Rudy smoked pot together on several occasions, then that would have been a more effective citation to use than the Massei report.

 

[treehorn]

This is why I like Dr. Waterbury's use of the quote "Let's Pretend", from Through The Looking Glass.

Are you still trying to define legal terms by taking opinion polls among the board's non-lawyers? (Knox was "convicted" of a quasi-criminal offense/ civil infraction in Seattle)

PS Why do you care what an unemployed 'materials scientist' (Waterbury) has to say about a criminal case?

 

[treehorn]

If Amanda's testimony substantiates your claim that Amanda and Rudy smoked pot together on several occasions, then that would have been a more effective citation to use than the Massei report.

You need to read the Court's judgment as well.

Alas, are you now willing to admit that Lowe has no "rational" basis for his claim that Amanda did not know Rudy?

 

[RoseMontague]

I read an article by Andrea Vogt (Seattle PI) indicating that Mignini referred to Sollecito's past use of LSD and cocaine in his closing argument.

It's easy to find.

PS Why are you accusing me of lying? On what grounds? That (rude) game is getting tiring. I repeat: I have no interest in misrepresenting the evidence.

What evidence? There is evidence that Mignini made things up in his closing argument. This has been posted in reply to you on several occasions.

 

[Katody Matrass]

You need to read the transcript of Knox's own testimony.

LOL, looks like you need to read it. Because there is nothing in there like what you claimed.

LG: Did you know Guede?

AK: I had met Rudy, but I didn't really know him, because actually, I couldn't
even remember his name.​

 

[Mary_H]

"Worn down" inside of 2 hours?

Amanda was persuaded over the course of three hours to agree with the scenario offered in her first statement, signed at 1:45. Then Mignini came in, and over the course of four more hours, he persuaded her to embellish that statement, and sign a more detailed one at 5:45.

There is no reason to believe it would be difficult to persuade Amanda within 3 hours, given her personality and background. To persuade her over the course of 7 hours would be a snap. Especially since she didn't know she was signing a confession, an accusation or any kind of warrants.

 

[Mary_H]

You need to read the Court's judgment as well.

Alas, are you now willing to admit that Lowe has no "rational" basis for his claim that Amanda did not know Rudy?

May I ask for a link to this claim?

 

[quadraginta]

I'm 99.9...9% sure that the Massei narrative and the currently popular pro-guilt attempts at a narrative are pure garbage...

I'm at least 99% sure that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher, and I don't think I can possibly be mistaken that this is the rational view to take.

You didn't see or hear, firsthand, a single witness face cross-examination.

You haven't got complete transcripts or translations of those transcripts.

You haven't seen the autopsy video.

You haven't seen even a small fraction of total number of exhibits, photos, statements, reports and other documents entered into evidence.

And, given those severe limitations, you feel it's "rational" to assign THAT level of certainty?

Maybe it's just me, and I'm being too picky.

I have trouble reconciling the use of "... I don't think I can possibly be mistaken ... " together with "... that this is the rational view to take." in the same phrase. Especially when it is related to a subject like the analysis of what data we think we have regarding this case. Utter certainty and rational thought rarely go together in such circumstances.

Perhaps my understanding of the meaning of "rational" is flawed, but I'm more inclined to suspect a misspelling of the term "rationalized".

 

[Kestrel]

I'm using the word, "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense.

Nothing to be afraid of.

Have a look at the criminal code in your jurisdiction. It will all become clear to you.

Most of us here on JREF also understand that weed was classified as a narcotic for political rather than scientific or medical reasons. Regardless of that, using the term "illicit narcotics" instead of a more precise description such as "marijuana" is deceptive. Your intent was not to inform, but to confuse the issue.

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you still trying to define legal terms by taking opinion polls among the board's non-lawyers? (Knox was "convicted" of a quasi-criminal offense/ civil infraction in Seattle)

PS Why do you care what an unemployed 'materials scientist' (Waterbury) has to say about a criminal case?

I took no opinion poll on this one, treehorn. Would you like me to do a poll on your statement to see if those here believe that what you said with this quote qualifies as a "Let's Pretend" moment?

That doesn't mean that evidence was not submitted in respect of RS's past drug use.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I repeat: I have no interest in misrepresenting the evidence.

Yet that's what you do 24/7 here. Why don't you engage in actual discussion instead - e.g. get all your gotchas together and present us with some hypothesis of a crime. Or you could give some comment about Patrizia's incredible mop walking video. Do you agree that she is one of the most respected in Europe if not the world?

 

[katy_did]

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?

I was just going to comment on this too. Stefanoni took the mop that had been used to clean the floor in Raffaele's flat into Meredith's bedroom...? I'm assuming this must have been after the bra clasp had been collected (surely?) but it certainly suggests they weren't as careful about not moving objects between rooms as we've been led to believe...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mudede's article has several errors

I take your point, Mary, but my point is that the wild statements by likes of Kenneth Moore are often taken as fact by many Knox supporters. The 40 hours of non-stop interrogation, that was close to "waterboardiing'. You know what I am talking about.

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.

colonelhall,

You have mischaracterized a couple of things. Treehorn said that Amanda taunted a Jewish coworker. Even if the incident in question were true, it would constitute making an inappropriate remark, not taunting. However, the article in question has come up several times in the past, such as in comment #8623. Mr. Mudede's credibility is weakened by several errors he made in the article in which he converses with his anonymous source. There is no excuse for Treehorn, or anyone else who has been with this thread for several months, not to know about the errors in Mr. Mudede's article.

When did Mr. Moore say that there were 40 hours of nonstop interrogation? Your earlier comment, to the effect that the pro-innocence commenters asked Treehorn and loverofzion for cites when Mr. Moore was always believed is both false and misleading. I commented about a week ago that when Mr. Moore, or anyone else for that matter, makes a mistake, it is fine to correct him, but I also said that harrassment at one's job was way over the line. The problem with Treehorn's and loverofzion's comments is that they are corrected (usually with citations), but then the same or slightly modified attacks reappear days or weeks later. Then one is left with the unenviable choice of correcting them again or letting misinformation slide by unchallenged.

 

[Mary_H]

You need to read the Court's judgment as well.

Alas, are you now willing to admit that Lowe has no "rational" basis for his claim that Amanda did not know Rudy?

Never mind; I found the post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6703517&postcount=23397

You actually started this whole campaign of accusations against Amanda and Raffaele because of this comment?

If we count up the number of times DNA labs have made a mistake on one hand, and the number of times two university students with absolutely no history of violence or antisocial behaviour team up with a local crook they do not know to brutally sexually assault and murder a friend of theirs for no reason, which count do you think will be higher? Which option should a rational person believe to be more probable?

Do you get that Kevin did not specifically say Amanda and Raffaele did not know Rudy? Kevin knows the case; he knows Amanda had met Rudy and Raffaele had not. I suspect he put it this way in his post for efficiency's sake, never imagining that someone would take it as a literal claim of a fact to be argued.