Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has it ever occured to you that those are the lies Raffaele told her, not "mistakes" she made?

I think Raffaele is a habitual liar and used that interview to overly dramatize his role long before he would become a suspect.


There is the root of the problem. You have no evidence to back up your claim therefore you must have allowed some kind of personal bias to distort your thinking. Let's try to keep this discussion factually based so the arguments themselves can be attacked and then we will see what is the strongest argument.
 
Has it ever occured to you that those are the lies Raffaele told her, not "mistakes" she made?

I think Raffaele is a habitual liar and used that interview to overly dramatize his role long before he would become a suspect.

I don't think she really interviewed anybody for this article. I think she picked this stuff up as hearsay and made the article sound like it was an actual interview.
 
There is the root of the problem. You have no evidence to back up your claim therefore you must have allowed some kind of personal bias to distort your thinking. Let's try to keep this discussion factually based so the arguments themselves can be attacked and then we will see what is the strongest argument.

It looks to me that the myth of Raffaele's multiple stories is a red herring. I was looking in the Massei speculation recently to see if the verdict was based on any of this, but I couldn't find any references there. Massei speculates about the "nothing was stolen" meme, the drain pipe, but apparently nothing about Raffaele's "many alibis".

Anyway, I can't see how any "pop psych" speculating about Raffaele could dispel the serious problems of the case - the ToD, botched investigation, unlawful interrogations, fake witnesses, magically emerging evidence, ILE's multiple lies and "mistakes", and the mountain of clues and physical traces pointing to the single unquestionable perpetrator which is Rudy Guede.
 
Has it ever occured to you that those are the lies Raffaele told her, not "mistakes" she made?

I think Raffaele is a habitual liar and used that interview to overly dramatize his role long before he would become a suspect.

I think that if you went by tabloid articles Raffaele and Amanda are monsters, if you went by every other sort of source they seem pretty much to be college kids. This article makes you search for the evidence of monsterhood, but you found it! Things in this story are wrong! Raffaele must be a liar! After all the tabloids outdid themselves in their meticulous accuracy this case, didn't they? :p

As for 'habitual liar' what other evidence of there is that? He tells his diary how an impossible thing happened with one of his kitchen knives, and as far as we know his explanation didn't happen. Neither did the knife leaving that drawer, (after they ate with it) so who cares? As far as Raffaele was concerned when he wrote that, it had to happen somehow, he comes up with a reason how. Not much of a 'lie,' an improbable answer for an impossible question, and never even told to anyone! Raffaele is going to have to work on his prevaricating before he turns pro.

If you're looking for lies and changing stories, why don't you turn that penetrating gaze upon the police in Perugia? Instead of having to parse preliminary tabloid accounts and assign blame for all inaccuracies upon Raffaele, you could instead rely on actual court testimony of Monica Napoleoni and her two friends, as well as Dr. Stefanoni and that postal policeman? They're the pros.
 
It looks to me that the myth of Raffaele's multiple stories is a red herring. I was looking in the Massei speculation recently to see if the verdict was based on any of this, but I couldn't find any references there. Massei speculates about the "nothing was stolen" meme, the drain pipe, but apparently nothing about Raffaele's "many alibis".

Anyway, I can't see how any "pop psych" speculating about Raffaele could dispel the serious problems of the case - the ToD, botched investigation, unlawful interrogations, fake witnesses, magically emerging evidence, ILE's multiple lies and "mistakes", and the mountain of clues and physical traces pointing to the single unquestionable perpetrator which is Rudy Guede.

I thought, but am not sure (I will have to re-look) that Raffaele's written statement (interrogation statement - I am not sure if he actually had a written, signed statement) was ruled that it could not be used (as was Amanda's written statements except with regard to the calunnia charge). So Massei could not use those statements to base a decision for or against Raffaele or Amanda in the motivations.

I think some of the other points you write of came into the trial record by other means (Amanda's testimony or writings, 112 phone call, etc.) so this is why they are included in the motivations.
 
I would only hope you could make the font smaller in this excerpt because the words are taking up too much space. :)

I have found the order. What were the question/s being asked concerning it?

Sorry,
Someone has shown me there exists a transcription (not an OCR) that makes it easier to view, copy, and search. Trying to get a reduction of the image that you can actually host here made the ones I posted almost unreadable.

The question was if the 5 November statements made by Raffaele as quoted in this report match those quoted in the article you posted. The Google translation (Matteini)is not clear at all on this.
 
Oh, so now the theory is that AK and RS were marks in a confidence scheme. Ok, we'll add that to the ever growing list of reasons why these poor, innocent souls were wrongfully convicted. :rolleyes:

That's guilter humor, I suppose.
Ha, Ha, good one! :rolleyes:

Parable:
a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.
 
Charles Mudede.

A while back on JREF I missed a cogent post on a topic I raised (somewhat coyly), perhaps because it was the last one on the page (that said, I've never bothered with the 'ignore' function, which at that time often necessitated scrolling over large numbers of sequential posts by imbecilic trolls - one of them was sometimes making hundreds a day in a blatant effort to 'flood' the thread into oblivion).

Kevin correctly surmised that I was referring to Charles Mudede's article, published in Feb 2008, "The Education Of Amanda Knox", in which Mudede recounts what he claims is a conversation with a former colleague of AK's

"You know," Matthew said, leaning toward me, "a lot of people are saying she is a sweet girl and they can't believe she could have done such a thing. But, to be honest, I'm not surprised she is a suspect. Really. The first time I met her, when I got the job here, she asked me if I was Jewish. I told her I was. She then screamed: 'My people killed your people,' and began laughing hysterically. I didn't know what to say. She just kept laughing about her Germans killing my Jews. After that, I did not like her. She really freaked me out."​
But when Kevin says; "This quote, despite the fact that it's anonymous and second-hand, gets frequently cited amongst the guilter community as evidence that Amanda was the sort of person likely to commit murder", he is understating - it's not just that it's "frequently cited amongst the guilter community", it was used in countless press articles thoughout Knox's remand, idictment and conviction, but almost never with its source (which must piss off Charles Mudede - or does it?). The hacks in question were, as usual, simply quoting each other.

This is a subject that is very difficult to broach without bringing down a ****-storm of accusatory hypocrisy from PC zealots hiding behind the doctrine of "tolerance" (yes, it is ironic).

Which is problematic, because I firmly believe that this "anecdote" Mudede included in his article is the key to explaining the (otherwise inexplicable) hate-campaign against Amanda Knox, which subsequently seems to have been stoked up via connections in the press and media (particularly British and Italian), and the establishing of the quite bizarre PMF and TJMK websites. It would seem that AK is seen as an exemplar of anglo-Saxon or 'Nordic' ethnicity and mores (her antecents are predominantly German), and is thus viewed in certain quarters as being (quite literally) a latent, congenital "racist" and "antisemite".

This is never explicitly stated, but often revealed in not particularly subtle ways - for instance, one of those arm-chair "analysts" made the sinister observation that in AK's highlighter drawings her hair was in "typical German plaits" (!!!). Then a certain moderator on The Guilter Forum, when she was being harangued in a radio interview about the case, blurted out that "holocaust denial should be punished with life imprisonment", a somewhat revealing brain-fart given the context.

I'm pretty certain that Mudede's "interview" with his pseudonymous "old friend" is lent authenticity in the minds of some people by the Youtube clip of Amanda and some buddys from some years back, in which one (crassly) says to another " ....you dirty jew!". AK hangs out with antisemites! She wasn't outraged by the remark! She IS an antisemite! (Worth noting is that the recepient of this witticism, who IS Jewish, remains a friend of AK's and staunch advocate of her innocence (I could be wrong, but it might be he who travelled to Italy as character witness for her).

It's actually quite possible that the youtube clip gave Mudede the idea for his article in the first place. Having convinced himself in the first months after her arrest that AK had "accused" an innocent Patrik Lumumba out of innate "racism" (if you refer to your PC lexicon, the definition of a "racist" is a white European/caucasian), he may have decided that he was playing his "race card" a little too often (which he certainly does) and he needed some other means of persuading people that AK is a typical "blue-eyed devil". How better than some none-too-subtle innuendo to the effect that she is also an "antisemite"?

Quite bluntly, it seems to me that once you're perceived by a hysteria-prone section of the jewish population as an "antisemite", even by the most tenuous inference, you will NEVER be seen as anything else - it's like a switch gets thrown in their minds which can never be reset. No apology or explanation, and no punishment of the offender will ever placate them. "Antisemites are everywhere, hiding their true nature, and deep in their hearts they're wishing for another holocaust!" So we need to get them first.

Whether Mudede was aware of, and intended the scale of the antagonism he was going to mobilise against her I don't know, but I wonder if Amanda is aware of him and what he's written, and what she would have to say about it.

In an email exchange he made this thoroughly disingenuous (if not obtuse) statement;

“sorry, the person who told me that, and I named where he worked, and so he and his co-workers knew who i was talking about, never came out and challenged my reporting of his words.

my source is as good as gold.

sorry to tell you this.”​

What he’s saying is; "just take my word for it" and that witnesses to this exchange between Amanda and "Mr. X", which took place at some unknown date at the World Cafe would instantly know who and what he's talking about, and are endorsing Mudede with their silence. Yeh, right.

However, one could equally well deduce that no-one who was present remembers it. Or that no-one else was present. Or that Mudede distorted actual words and events beyond recognition. Or that "Mr. X" made it up. Or that Mudede did. Etc'.

On Mudede's form, I see no reason to simply take his word for anything, and I'd like to see the matter clarified once and for all.
 
Last edited:
Grist to the conspiracy theorists' mill......

In the post I referred to previously, KL noted that (bolding mine);

It may sound a bit far-fetched - why would Zionists be worried about an Italian court case? Aren't they more concerned about affairs in the Middle East? However it turns out that debate about the Middle East gets just as vitriolic over there as it does over here. Heck, the Italian wikipedia has banned several sock puppets of a guy called "Fulcanelli" [sic] who keeps trying to use his sock puppet army to make sneaky edits to pages about Israel. I cite this purely as evidence that the Italian-speaking Zionist community has an active internet presence.

More recently I noticed this on the Church Discipline (CD-Host's) blog - comment dated December 23, 2010 6:27 PM, about 1/3rd the way down the page - Bolding mine.)

“I don't know who these so called Kercher supporters are or what their motivations are. They appear to have ties to a publication known as The Daily Beast. This Harry Rag character was promoting a book wrote by Barbie Nadeau who was employed by the Daily Beast, book title: Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox, Beast Books, 15 May 2010, ISBN 0984295135, 978-0984295135.

It appears members of the anti-Amanda group have control of the wikipedia article: "Murder of Meredith Kercher". The article currently contains the following statement:

"Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher


I tried to get the information included in the article, about the the fact that there were no bloody footprints and that Dr. Stefanoni gave false testimony in court. My efforts to get the truth included and protesting them blocking other editors that tried to get the truth into the article resulted in me being blocked from editing on wikipedia. We were not blocked by an employee of wikipedia. We were blocked by amateur administrator editors that made enough edits to articles to qualify as an administrator. They qualified as administrators by making many minute edits to many articles.


Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
In the post I referred to previously, KL noted that (bolding mine);


More recently I noticed this on the Church Discipline (CD-Host's) blog - comment dated December 23, 2010 6:27 PM, about 1/3rd the way down the page - Bolding mine.)


Hmmm.

The poster you quoted misunderstood a key point about Wikipedia. There are no professional editors, only volunteers. Administrators are trusted users who have been nominated, vetted and accepted by other administrators. The social problem is that Wikipedia Admins deal with a lot of CTs. Without a deep understanding of this case they are likely to treat Knox supporters the way they do global warming deniers. (The smearing of Amanda in early media reports was rather effective).

Another problem with the Murder of Meredith KercherWP Wikipedia article is the policy of verifiability. We know the footprints tested negative for blood, but that can't be put in the article without referencing a newspaper article or book that qualifies as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia's rules.
 
Which is problematic, because I firmly believe that this "anecdote" Mudede included in his article is the key to explaining the (otherwise inexplicable) hate-campaign against Amanda Knox...

There is no "hate-campaign" against Amanda Knox. Many people I'm sure dislike her because they believe she is a murderer. Do you have any evidence that this anonymous quote has influenced a great number of people's opinions regarding this case?

Want a reason to dislike Amanda Knox, just read her "first things first" alibi email back home. Most dead dogs gets more respect than what Meredith did in that self-serving dose of narcissism.
 
Want a reason to dislike Amanda Knox, just read her "first things first" alibi email back home. Most dead dogs gets more respect than what Meredith did in that self-serving dose of narcissism.

Are you referring to this bit (I am quoting from memory):

"Was Meredith sexually active? Sure, she borrowed some of my condoms. Does she like anal? WTF? I don't know ..."

This was Amanda reporting some of the questions that the Perugia police had been asking her about Meredith. In what way was this disrespectful by Amanda? The disrespect was from the police IMO.
 
There is no "hate-campaign" against Amanda Knox. Many people I'm sure dislike her because they believe she is a murderer. Do you have any evidence that this anonymous quote has influenced a great number of people's opinions regarding this case?

Want a reason to dislike Amanda Knox, just read her "first things first" alibi email back home. Most dead dogs gets more respect than what Meredith did in that self-serving dose of narcissism.

Perhaps her previous e-mails dealt with her sympathy for Meredith's family and the pain and sadness of losing a friend. If we are to judge every poster based on one post, without the ability to see the ones before and after we could easily get a mistaken impression about posters. This e-mail of Amanda's concerned me for a long time and for similar reasons but I have come to the understanding that I may have made a judgment based on incomplete information.
 
Are you referring to this bit (I am quoting from memory):

No. I'm referring to this bit:

First things first though, my roommates both work for lawyers, and they are going to try to send a request through on monday to retrieve important documents of ours that are still in the house. Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection within the contract.

Was Amanda's priority reaching out to Meredith's family? No. Was Amanda's priority helping the police with the investigation? No. Was Amanda's priority being fearful that there was a sex-crazy murderer running loose in the city? No.

Amanda priority...her first priority in her own words....was getting her important documents out of the house.

Again, most dead dogs would have been given more consideration.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps her previous e-mails dealt with her sympathy for Meredith's family and the pain and sadness of losing a friend. If we are to judge every poster based on one post, without the ability to see the ones before and after we could easily get a mistaken impression about posters. This e-mail of Amanda's concerned me for a long time and for similar reasons but I have come to the understanding that I may have made a judgment based on incomplete information.

If such emails existed Rose I'm sure Amanda's supporters would have made them public long ago. Same goes with photos of these two supposed "friends". Why nothing on Facebook or MySpace by either woman?
 
No. I'm referring to this bit:



Was Amanda's priority reaching out to Meredith's family? No. Was Amanda's priority helping the police with the investigation? No. Was Amanda's priority being fearful that there was a sex-crazy murderer running loose in the city? No.

Amanda priority...her first priority in her own words....was getting her important documents out of the house.

Again, most dead dogs would have been given more consideration.

It sounds like Laura and Filomena had the same concerns as Amanda on this one. Are they "monsters" as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom