Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Good job treehorn - I've been impressed........

Funny, justice isn't even mentioned as a motivation by these two pro guilt people.

Funny, ending the causation of pain and injury by the courts/government isn't even mentioned as a motivation by these two pro guilt people.

 

[SomeAlibi]

It is not in the Micheli or Matteini reports either. In Raffaele's prison diary he states that he can't even roll his own joint. I looked for a solid cite because I was under the impression that the previous cocaine use was an admitted fact. MY BAD, for now at least.

The quote about not being able to roll a joint is in Rudy's not Raffaele's diary.

If the use of LSD and coke referred to in the trial did not come from Amanda's testimony, and a thin air fabrication, why has Raffaele's counsel not appealed it?

 

[Mary_H]

Of course you would.



No mirrors around here. Just lots of transparent silica walled domiciles.

Where have all the guilters gone, long time passin'?
Where have all the guilters gone, long time ago....?

Have you not noticed all the unanswered questions, quadraginta? Have you not noticed how some flee from that last question they could not find an answer to, and never return?

Must be us, huh? It's certainly not them. "Everybody on JREF is so mean -- I'm not going to play with them anymore!"

 

[quadraginta]

The suspicions against Amanda did not begin as a result of some inconsistencies in her story. Amanda was suspected based on the instincts of a police investigator. Nothing in Amanda's story was inconsistent until she was subjected to a coercive interrogation.

The police didn't have any consistencies in Anthony's story until they began to question her.

Unlike the general public, and the media who like to perpetuate the myth, the cops are under no illusion that it is inconceivable a parent, much less a mother, would kill their own child.

In fact, they are apt to expect it.

Casey appears to have had a motive, while Amanda does not. Casey made up the name of a babysitter who does not exist; Amanda didn't make up any non-existent characters. The trunk of Casey's car smelled like decomp; no comparable evidence exists implicating Amanda.

We have been told by the prosecution that the nanny doesn't exist. As we have learned in these threads, they are not to be trusted. Having fixated on their suspect they obviously would discount any evidence which might exonerate her.

Just ask her lawyers. Or any of the PR people hired by them or by Anthony's parents.

It was Anthony's own mother and father who are the only ones that have claimed the car trunk smelled like "a dead body". Her mother most famously in the 911 call she made. They touted their expertise on the subject as a medical professional and ex-cop, respectively.

Not long afterward they both realized that they must have been mistaken and are now certain the smell was the result of old pizza.

I will look into Casey's background and see if hers is so similar to Amanda's that the suggestion she committed such a serious crime is as unlikely as in Amanda's case..

Check on the statements made by her parents, who ought to be the ones that know her best. Right?

They have attested without exception to her sterling character as an attentive and doting mother who could not possibly be guilty of such a heinous crime.

Why would they make such a claim if it wasn't true?

 

[Mary_H]

The police didn't have any consistencies in Anthony's story until they began to question her.

Amanda was questioned for three days before the police decided to change her story to one they liked better.

Unlike the general public, and the media who like to perpetuate the myth, the cops are under no illusion that it is inconceivable a parent, much less a mother, would kill their own child.

In fact, they are apt to expect it.

We have been told by the prosecution that the nanny doesn't exist. As we have learned in these threads, they are not to be trusted. Having fixated on their suspect they obviously would discount any evidence which might exonerate her.

Just ask her lawyers. Or any of the PR people hired by them or by Anthony's parents.

It was Anthony's own mother and father who are the only ones that have claimed the car trunk smelled like "a dead body". Her mother most famously in the 911 call she made. They touted their expertise on the subject as a medical professional and ex-cop, respectively.

Not long afterward they both realized that they must have been mistaken and are now certain the smell was the result of old pizza.

Check on the statements made by her parents, who ought to be the ones that know her best. Right?

They have attested without exception to her sterling character as an attentive and doting mother who could not possibly be guilty of such a heinous crime.

Why would they make such a claim if it wasn't true?

In the little teeny tiny trip I took to Google to find out more about the case, I saw plenty of evidence that her mother did suspect her, and later changed her story after she realized she might have inculpated Casey (probably on lawyers' advice). Casey's parents are in a very different position from Amanda's, who have never doubted her for one minute.

I am not going to argue that we can believe everything we read in the papers. Casey may very well be innocent, just as Amanda is. There are probably people in Florida who are blogging away for Casey as we write.

 

[RWVBWL]

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

Treehorn,
Among my many, many, many friends and aquaintances,
I have a very pretty, long time gal pal of about 14 years who smokes pot, who likes to surf, who luvs other gals, who owns a lot of real estate, and who has animal/human porn on her cell phone!

I've seen her once in the past year, and after hangin' out for awhile, myself drinkin' Jack Daniels and coke, she smokin' her kronic,
she said check this out and showed me a couple of pretty gnarly animal/woman sex video clips!
The same kind of stuff that I have heard that you can see in some of the seedy places in Tijuana, B.C., Mexico.

She is not a violent person, nor 1 I would ever consider to be capable of commiting a very personal, bloody murder such as what happened to another very pretty gal that we discuss about here.

Your constant reminder that Raffaele Sollecito watched animal porn/beastiality is rather amusing to me.
Maybe you should watch some, it might open your mind up to the fact that people come in all shapes, types and forms, and almost all of them do not murder!
Even the many people I know of who have seen the "Faces of Death" videos or who have watched animal porn...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

And you hate the gal who covered her ears?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Frank Sfarzo' post on Luca's conversation with Raffaele

I was thinking of something more in the nature of at least an actual witness statement, if not trial testimony. I cannot imagine why someone who has an actual witness statement would need to "reconstruct" it.

In any event, if it were the case that that in the car Luca told AK that Meredith's throat had been cut, then I am at a loss to understand why Ghirga, her own attorney, would ask her how she learned about it when he put her on the stand. We do know that Luca did testify at the trial, and a competent lawyer, which Ghirga is said to be, would have established that on cross-examination, making it a non-issue. There would be no reason to ask AK about it. Reading her testimony it is apparent that she was called to do two things--assert her innocence and to contradict witnesses in the prosecution's case.

TomM43,

Your argument seems rather indirect. In any case, here is Frank's post on the subject. Inasmuch as Frank attended the trial, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he has written in this regard.

 

[RWVBWL]

Have you not read the Court's judgment?!
Page 41:
"Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda."

PS Since you haven't read the judgment carefully, a little FYI: Marco is one of "the boys from the cottage below" (as you put it).

PPS How embarrassing.

In my world, you do THAT in front of a jury and you're out of a job, Kevin.

Treehorn,
In your world,
if you tell the court that you did not test something,
BUT it turns out you did actually do test something and those tests were negative,
are you out of a job too?,
Or do you recieve a medal?

 

[capealadin]

Treehorn,
Among my many, many, many friends and aquaintances,
I have a very pretty, long time gal pal of about 14 years who smokes pot, who likes to surf, who luvs other gals, who owns a lot of real estate, and who has animal/human porn on her cell phone!

I've seen her once in the past year, and after hangin' out for awhile, myself drinkin' Jack Daniels and coke, she smokin' her kronic,
she said check this out and showed me a couple of pretty gnarly animal/woman sex video clips!
The same kind of stuff that I have heard that you can see in some of the seedy places in Tijuana, B.C., Mexico.

She is not a violent person, nor 1 I would ever consider to be capable of commiting a very personal, bloody murder such as what happened to another very pretty gal that we discuss about here.

Your constant reminder that Raffaele Sollecito watched animal porn/beastiality is rather amusing to me.
Maybe you should watch some, it might open your mind up to the fact that people come in all shapes, types and forms, and almost all of them do not murder!
Even the many people I know of who have seen the "Faces of Death" videos or who have watched animal porn...
RWVBWL

If nothing else, disgusting as this post is, there's a cruelty to ANIMALS to be considered.

I suppose if you're pretty and own LOTS OF REAL ESTATE, that makes it fine. And, you call these people friends? FACES OF DEATH videos...and you recommend people should watch??? In my mind, if someone watches these kind of things, they're beyond sick.

 

[Justinian2]

Have you not read the Court's judgment?!

Page 41:

"Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda."

PS Since you haven't read the judgment carefully, a little FYI: Marco is one of "the boys from the cottage below" (as you put it).


PPS How embarrassing.

In my world, you do THAT in front of a jury and you're out of a job, Kevin.

Visiting the house...[Marco Marzan]...had seen Rudy there two or three times and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there, Rudy was talking to both of them [the men?] and on one occasion he confided in them [the men?] that he liked Amanda [who wouldn't?]

And what does this tell us, and who does 'them' refer to? (I'm not a psychic like Magnini)

 

[RWVBWL]

If nothing else, disgusting as this post is, there's a cruelty to ANIMALS to be considered.

Doesn't God love everyone, even those who stray? Or murder?

Why do you hate Amanda Knox so much, CapeAladin, but show no public hatred for Rudy Guede?
Hmmm...

 

[capealadin]

Doesn't God love everyone, even those who stray? Or murder?

Why do you hate Amanda Knox so much, CapeAladin, but show no public hatred for Rudy Guede?
Hmmm...

Your post has NOTHING to do with Amanda. It has to do with your post about your friends, and the kind of people you hang with.

None of us are G-D, so if he loves everyone, he can forgive. Do you believe in Hell? Because that's where people like this should be sent to.

I hate what Amanda has DONE!! That includes Rudy, and Raffaele. What does it say about YOU, that you befriend people of this ilk? Disgusting.

 

[capealadin]

In as much as posters here, may disagree with my views, and not even like me, I would be very surprised if anyone here comes out and endorses your post, and finds it ok on any level. If that IS the case, you may be sure I will be long gone.

 

[RoseMontague]

The quote about not being able to roll a joint is in Rudy's not Raffaele's diary.

If the use of LSD and coke referred to in the trial did not come from Amanda's testimony, and a thin air fabrication, why has Raffaele's counsel not appealed it?

You are correct, I knew I had read that in a diary but I was thinking Raffaele.

As far as the appeal, what would they appeal? It is not mentioned in the Massei report as part of the judges Motivation. All the comments I have seen seem to indicate Mignini was engaged in quite a bit of fanciful speculation during his closing and most people understand that to be the case. The other cite you gave turned out not to be a good one. I had thought I had seen this before but it could have indeed also been some posters idle speculation or just a poor article reporting something that was not the case as in the other cite you mentioned. I did look for a cite for the LSD and checked the one on the cocaine as well as I had told Mary I would try to pin that one down. Perhaps you can something find on this.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

narcotic

I get it! Special agent Kenneth Moore can spout as much rubbish as he likes, but can be forgiven for his mistakes. It doesn't stop him from being wheeled out by the Knox P.R. machine and allowed to spout yet more rubbish.

On the other hand Treehorn can attempt a rational discourse on this site and be attacked in a most disgusting manner by the likes of Kevin Turvey and the rest. For instance, they can keep on and on about what they perceive are his intentions in using the term "narcotics", they can totally ignore his explanation and then they have the nerve to suggest that he is banging on and wasting time.

One could conclude that they are a mischievous bunch, if one were not impressed by the impressive credentials that they have produced.

Colonelhall,

Your characterization of the discussion is troubling. From everything I have read smoking marijuana is not considered a big deal in Italy. All four flatmates smoked, and even one of the judges (Matteini, most likely) acknowledged a youthful indiscretion. In other words, there is a difference in social acceptability between marijuana and other drugs. Moreover, I am unable to document that Italy classifies marijuana as a narcotic. Therefore, treehorn’s use of a (U.S.?) legal, rather than a medical definition of narcotic, is open to serious question.

If we take a step back, treehorn’s whole line of enquiry looks pointless. Whether Amanda ever smoked a joint with Rudi at a party sheds virtually no light on this case. There are no records of any communications between Amanda/Raffaele and Rudi on the night of the murder. The prosecution would have us believe that they somehow got together and ended up murdering Meredith. My estimation of the likelihood of this event does not change perceptibly when I add or subtract the possibility of a shared joint at an earlier party.

Finally, you are ignoring treehorn’s previous behavior on this thread. Sorry, but I cannot do that.

 

[quadraginta]

Amanda was questioned for three days before the police decided to change her story to one they liked better.



In the little teeny tiny trip I took to Google to find out more about the case, I saw plenty of evidence that her mother did suspect her, and later changed her story after she realized she might have inculpated Casey (probably on lawyers' advice). Casey's parents are in a very different position from Amanda's, who have never doubted her for one minute.

I am not going to argue that we can believe everything we read in the papers. Casey may very well be innocent, just as Amanda is. There are probably people in Florida who are blogging away for Casey as we write.

I believe you may have missed my point entirely. ("The whooshing sound you hear is ...")

I'm not making any claims about the similarity of the cases, or about the characters involved. I have no interest in advocating Anthony's innocence or guilt.

No claims but one, that is. My point is very simply that the same sort of arguments and appeals which are offered here in Knox's defense could be just as easily be used to argue for Anthony's.

How persuasive those arguments might be would depend largely on the mindset and preconceptions of the listener, as can also be seen here.

As I said before, if the very same approach to the standards of "reasonable doubt" and "safety" of a conviction that are used by some in these debates were as meticulously applied to the Anthony case then it would not be difficult to assemble a case in her favor.

Sadly for her, it is unlikely that those will be the standards of "reasonable doubt" which she will confront when her trial finally comes around.

There are some similarities to be gleaned from that, as well.

 

[RWVBWL]

In as much as posters here, may disagree with my views, and not even like me, I would be very surprised if anyone here comes out and endorses your post, and finds it ok on any level. If that IS the case, you may be sure I will be long gone.

People do as they are, some good, some bad...
I'm friends with homeless bums, hardcore junkies, straight A college graduates, doctors, lawyers, police officers, undercover cops, drug dealers, church pastors, and have known a guy who did commit murder...

Amanda Knox, whose only brush with the law is she had a ticket issued for a noise violation at a party she and her housemates hosted or Raffaele Sollecito, who watched an animal porn clip before and smoked pot or did a little harder partyin' are sooo far away from the type of people who would commit a brutal murder by stabbing a young woman in her throat again and again as blood spurted out of the wound that it boggles my mind to see very intelligent folks, such as yourself, CapeAladin, focus your hatred of this incident on usually only 1 person...

 

[RoseMontague]

In as much as posters here, may disagree with my views, and not even like me, I would be very surprised if anyone here comes out and endorses your post, and finds it ok on any level. If that IS the case, you may be sure I will be long gone.

Rather than being so critical, why don't you try to change his mind about this. I would mention my love of animals and also I consider this type of thing to be an abuse on an innocent being. I think the people in these videos don't consider animals to be thinking, feeling creatures as I do. Perhaps he may change his mind and have a talk with his friend as well.

As a matter of fact RWVBWL, please consider this my answer to your post as well. I would hope that you consider animals to be capable of feelings, emotions, and some type of rational thinking. They know hurt and love and loyalty, in my opinion. Please rethink your position on this and talk to your friend about it as well.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think you've misread the quote from Massei. The person visiting the house isn't Marco Marzan (obviously, since he lived there) but one of Rudy's friends from basketball, Giorgio Cocciaretto.

Also, I think there may be a translation error in the sentence you quoted:





So Giorgio only saw Amanda, Meredith and Rudy at the boys' house once, during the party. This matches both what Amanda said in her testimony, and the testimonies from the boys downstairs.

Thanks katy_did! So apparently we're back from "smoked dope on many occasions" to "talked once"