Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Yours, mine, anyone's.

Are you telling me that no one has approached PMF with the changes you are proposing?!

My input is not welcome there treehorn. My IP address is blocked and I am prevented from even reading there any longer. The last time katy_did entered a quite rather very detailed and circumstantial discussion over a translation question she was told to go home and kick her dog and worse.

 

[treehorn]

My input is not welcome there treehorn. My IP address is blocked and I am prevented from even reading there any longer. The last time katy_did entered a quite rather very detailed and circumstantial discussion over a translation question she was told to go home and kick her dog and worse.

I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble winning friends and influencing people.

Would you like me to draw their attention to the alleged error?

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm sorry to hear that you've been having trouble winning friends and influencing people.

Would you like me to draw their attention to the alleged error?

Yes. Thanks.

 

[Justinian2]

Apart from your first sentence, I'd tend to agree with you here.

I think that trying to pursue a theory based upon bra-sharing or friendly back-rubbing is of little worth. I can't think of a reasonable way in which either of these activities could have ended up with Sollecito's DNA being on the hook of the bra clasp.Personally, if the DNA can be correctly shown to be Sollecito's, then I think the bra clasp was contaminated either at the scene or in the lab. I certainly don't think there's any way in which his DNA could have found its way onto the small metal hook of the bra clasp during the removal of the bra from Meredith's torso - otherwise his DNA would almost certainly also be present on the material surrounding the clasp.

What is your source for the statement that Sollecito's DNA was ONLY on the hook of the bra clasp? Considering that Meredith was wearing the bra, that claim seems incredible - a miracle from the prosecution's point of view.

I wonder what happens to the swabs the police took of Sollecito's DNA? If one of those swabs found its' way into the lab where a technician 'thought' it was a clean swab and used it to swab the hook. Or perhaps it was handed to him by another that was privi to the scheme of planting evidence.

DNA found only on the metal hook incriminates the lab more than Sollecito.

Isn't it strange how the 'investigators' went looking for a murder knife in Sollecito's drawer. Not only was it there, but it had double DNA - exactly what they needed to incriminate Amanda. When the investigators needed DNA evidence against Sollecito, they searched for the bra hook and behold, another miracle! They found the DNA evidence they needed to incriminate Sollecito! And ONLY on the bra hook - nowhere else.

With all these forensic miracles, we need to elevate someone in the crime lab to sainthood.

 

[Justinian2]

My input is not welcome there treehorn. My IP address is blocked and I am prevented from even reading there any longer. The last time katy_did entered a quite rather very detailed and circumstantial discussion over a translation question she was told to go home and kick her dog and worse.

I also had my IP address blocked when I was permanently banned. I unplugged my router for a half hour to reset my IP address and then I was able to read the PMF site. I cannot post there without re-registering. However, I no longer want to post there. I just frequent PMF occasionally to see what they are/were saying about my JREF posts.

Any site that needs to ban members with the opposing viewpoint is too pathetic to waste time with.

 

[loverofzion]

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'hearsay'.

As for having "checked the facts", I assume you mean you read Mudede's article. Did it take long?

I've actually read most of what I could find by him (and about him) on the web, and I noticed his militant anti-white politics, his victim/entitlement mentality quite early on. As many others have.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=504236

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Giobbi versus forensics

There are some on this board who think that human factors, such as demeanor, should play no role in trials, that it should all be science. Well, no legal system in the world complies with that standard. Nor does most of our species.

TomM43,

It is my position (and I suspect that of several pro-innocence posters here) that Dr. Giobbi's dismissal of the need for forensic evidence and reliance on his observations is baloney (or bologna, if you prefer). Kestrel and others have supplied links that indicate how poorly we differentiate between lying and truth-telling. That is not quite the same thing as saying that demeanor should play no role.

Was Mr. Maresca being "disrespectful" when he walked out of the courtroom when Amanda spoke last month?

 

[RoseMontague]

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=504236

I thought his review of Toy Story 3 was a bit strange.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/laughter-and-screams/Content?oid=5718381

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The errors of Mr. Mudede

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=504236

loverofzion,

When a reporter cites anonymous sources, he is asking his readers to trust him in ways that a reporter who cites with attribution does not. In the case of the article by Charles Mudede on the anonymous “Matthew” who recalled Amanda's saying “My people killed your people,” the reporter made several factual errors. One concerns the washing machine, which was not running when the police arrived. Two is that feces are said to be in the wrong bathroom. Three is that a surveillance camera captured Ms. Knox that night. Mr. Mudede also mentioned several witnesses whom he said saw Knox and a darkish man in a laundromat the night of the murder. The laundromat story is not as familiar to me, but I are pretty sure it is nonsense, which makes four. Equally problematic for me is the fact that of all the hypotheticals he considers, the possibility that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent is never mentioned.

Another problem is that Mr. Mudede may have reported what “Matthew” said with absolute accuracy, and he is not on a witness stand. Because of all of these problems, I don’t take “Matthew” all that seriously. Why do you? Does Mr. Mudede possess some truth that must be guarded by a panoply of errors?

 

[nopoirot]

It's my lay understanding that, to prevail in a defamation action against Mudede (who claims to have only repeated something told him by a source he thought reliable), Knox, as a "public figure," would have the burden of proving "actual malice." That would make any such suit most problematic.

Odd that Amanda, being a racist bigot, would have teamed up with Guede for a Charlie Manson type spree.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low priority

It's my lay understanding that, to prevail in a defamation action against Mudede (who claims to have only repeated something told him by a source he thought reliable), Knox, as a "public figure," would have the burden of proving "actual malice." That would make any such suit most problematic.

Odd that Amanda, being a racist bigot, would have teamed up with Guede for a Charlie Manson type spree.

nopoirot,

Good point. Also, it seems to me that the Knox and Mellas families have higher priorities than dealing with Mr. Mudede's article, starting with the appeal itself.

 

[loverofzion]

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'hearsay'.

As for having "checked the facts", I assume you mean you read Mudede's article. Did it take long?

I've actually read most of what I could find by him (and about him) on the web, and I noticed his militant anti-white politics, his victim/entitlement mentality quite early on. As many others have.

Just for the record, Mudede is a professor, filmwriter and leftwing cultural critic. Your slurs on his writings and character are the desperate acts to undermine his faithful rendering of amanda's trash talk to a Jewish coworker about her people killing his people.
And if you think that sounds like 7th grade, well let that be your conclusion.

As for your own credentials for reporting your version of reality, what do they consist of exactly.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I thought his review of Toy Story 3 was a bit strange.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/laughter-and-screams/Content?oid=5718381

Wow. Just wow. That's serious? he wasn't joking?

I wonder why is it that guilters always find someone to support their agenda among complete nutjobs. First the "statement analysis" guy and now this?

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

When a reporter cites anonymous sources, he is asking his readers to trust him in ways that a reporter who cites with attribution does not. In the case of the article by Charles Mudede on the anonymous “Matthew” who recalled Amanda's saying “My people killed your people,” the reporter made several factual errors. One concerns the washing machine, which was not running when the police arrived. Two is that feces are said to be in the wrong bathroom. Three is that a surveillance camera captured Ms. Knox that night. Mr. Mudede also mentioned several witnesses whom he said saw Knox and a darkish man in a laundromat the night of the murder. The laundromat story is not as familiar to me, but I are pretty sure it is nonsense, which makes four. Equally problematic for me is the fact that of all the hypotheticals he considers, the possibility that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent is never mentioned.

Another problem is that Mr. Mudede may have reported what “Matthew” said with absolute accuracy, and he is not on a witness stand. Because of all of these problems, I don’t take “Matthew” all that seriously. Why do you? Does Mr. Mudede possess some truth that must be guarded by a panoply of errors?

Mr. Mudede has as I said a serious academic and literary reputation and it is highly unlilkely he would have mde up that story.
"Matthew" was a friend of his from Seattle, as he has stated.

I find it interesting that you automatically reject any articles that disagree with your view of the pair's innocence.

As for his errors, first of all the washing machine was reported to hae been warm when the police arrived as in after a washing; feces in the wrong bathroom does not seem to be a significant detail; the story of knox and a darkish man had been reported elsewhere before, so we can not assume like you that it is nonsense.

 

[loverofzion]

I also had my IP address blocked when I was permanently banned. I unplugged my router for a half hour to reset my IP address and then I was able to read the PMF site. I cannot post there without re-registering. However, I no longer want to post there. I just frequent PMF occasionally to see what they are/were saying about my JREF posts.

Any site that needs to ban members with the opposing viewpoint is too pathetic to waste time with.

Hmmm...anyone say JREF?

 

[Justinian2]

Just for the record, Mudede is a professor, filmwriter and leftwing cultural critic. Your slurs on his writings and character are the desperate acts to undermine his faithful rendering of amanda's trash talk to a Jewish coworker about her people killing his people.
And if you think that sounds like 7th grade, well let that be your conclusion.

As for your own credentials for reporting your version of reality, what do they consist of exactly.

As a zionist, logically you should hate the government persecution of any individual, zionist or other.

I am supporting Amanda partly out of my lifelong hatred of what happened to the Jewish people in Germany. I don't have to remind you that the holocaust also started out as highly exaggerated blame and punishment by government on a minority of the population.

 

[nopoirot]

In any event, to Amanda's generation, the Holocaust is as remote and unreal as the history of the Minoens.

 

[loverofzion]

In any event, to Amanda's generation, the Holocaust is as remote and unreal as the history of the Minoens.

Let me understand correctly; amanda knew "her people" had killed his people- to the tune of 6 million-; yet because it was an entire 60 years ago, she therefore has no compassion or understanding of human suffering, and finds the whole subject a matter of great hilarity?

 

[loverofzion]

As a zionist, logically you should hate the government persecution of any individual, zionist or other.

I am supporting Amanda partly out of my lifelong hatred of what happened to the Jewish people in Germany. I don't have to remind you that the holocaust also started out as highly exaggerated blame and punishment by government on a minority of the population.

Do you dare to compare Nazi Germany and Hitler to the Perugian judicial system??!
Are you out of your mind.

And I am curious about your noble motives for defending the murderers.
Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews and other minorities is a far, far cry from this one murderer getting convicted in a just court of law in modern, democratic Italy. This is neither "highly exaggerated blame and punishment" , nor has it been carried out, systematically with precise methods of genocide on any minority of the population.

This is a murderer getting what is her due.

Do you dare make that claim with regard to Hitler's victims?

If I were you, I would go back and reread your history.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

asking questions of the story

I find it interesting that you automatically reject any articles that disagree with your view of the pair's innocence.

As for his errors, first of all the washing machine was reported to hae been warm when the police arrived as in after a washing; feces in the wrong bathroom does not seem to be a significant detail; the story of knox and a darkish man had been reported elsewhere before, so we can not assume like you that it is nonsense.

loverofzion,

I tend to take articles with errors less seriously than those without errors. I would take this story more seriously if the source were not anonymous and could confirm it. The story of the witnesses seeing Ms. Knox with darkish man in the laundromat--can you support this with a citation to trial testimony or to the Massei report? What time was she supposed to be there? If a person accepts a story without asking questions, it may mean that they are not approaching it sufficiently critically.

Mr. Mudede wrote his article in February of 2008, so he had plenty of time to double check his facts. Since it was published, he has had almost three years to correct it.