Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
pilot padron said:
To me , it always really reveals a lot about irrational thought processes when an argument must resort to constantly claiming conspiracy in every Italian person and their second cousins as the main reason a young American female has been unanimously convicted of a horrific murder in Perugia.

However, now we get the ultimate territorial stretch of this omnipresent conspiracy cockroach.

It has according to the latest bit of wisdom quoted above, imbedded itself so deeply in one's psychological make up that now this invisible evil veil of all encompassing voo doo conspiracy is even ridiculously prolongated to proclaim a preposterous novel prediction.

Soon, even the dreaded, derided, yet constantly carefully digested and quoted voices of reason at PMF will also eventually embrace this revered (but ever so irrational) conspiracy crutch to explain the unlikely appearance of a statistically highly improbable future outcome.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree, but it is a truly beautiful post.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Today in court Monica Naponobdy didn't even show up to court, Hellman embarrassed the prosecution's star witness, and the report from the independent experts is not going to endorse Stefanoni.
Click to expand...

Who in court said that the independent experts are not going to endorse Stefanoni? Who testified to that?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
According to this one reporter is claiming to have leaked documents showing that the independent DNA analysis experts are going to recommend chucking out the knife evidence completely.
Click to expand...

Ok, so once again you are pretending that rumors, hearsay and gossip are acutal evidence.

In post #5793 you wrote:

Kevin_Lowe said:
I swear, it's almost as if you guys want to talk about something other than the new evidence: the facts that the DNA results cannot be replicated
Click to expand...

If this is such an open and shut case of innocence, why the need to make up evidence?
 
Draca said:
This information was from talking to people who were in court today. They said Toto said several times firmly that he was sure it was a DISCO bus. There was no point for the officers to try and say he may have seen a regular bus because of this.
Click to expand...

So we have a person who:
1. Contradicted their own previous testimony.
2. Lied to the police.
3. Is an admitted drug user.
4. Is confused about what actually happened the night of the murder.

This description fits Amanda Knox just as much as it does Curatolo. But when Amanda lies and changes her story it's only because the poor girl "misremembered" and was pressured by those mean, mean Italian cops. But when Curatolo does the same thing he's just a drugged up looser.
 
Alt+F4 said:
So we have a person who:
1. Contradicted their own previous testimony.
2. Lied to the police.
3. Is an admitted drug user.
4. Is confused about what actually happened the night of the murder.

This description fits Amanda Knox just as much as it does Curatolo. But when Amanda lies and changes her story it's only because the poor girl "misremembered" and was pressured by those mean, mean Italian cops. But when Curatolo does the same thing he's just a drugged up looser.
Click to expand...

There are lots of drugged up losers that don't commit murder. So even if Knox was a drugged up loser that doesn't mean she killed Meredith. Nice try though. We can turn it around and ask why is Knox being considered a lieing satanic murderer and bench bunny, olive guy, and the store owner aren't considered murderers.
 
Last edited:
Chris C said:
There are lots of drugged up losers that don't commit murder. So even if Knox was a drugged up loser that doesn't mean she killed Meredith. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Why should we believe one drugged up loser over another? Oh that's right, some folks think one of them is cute.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why should we believe one drugged up loser over another? Oh that's right, some folks think one of them is cute.
Click to expand...

So now jealousy of anothers looks is why you believe she is guilty of murder? Thats such a bitter statement to make. Little close to home?
 
RoseMontague said:
Are you accusing anyone here of believing Amanda is innocent because she is cute? Do you have a cite for this?
Click to expand...

That's my opinon. I don't pretend my opinion is actual evidence, as some other posters do (I'm not referring to you).
 
Chris C said:
You made the accusation not I. So you are right. Thats a weak strawman statement you made.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why there has been 45,000 posts at the JREF forum about Lori Berenson. :rolleyes:

But again, can someone please explain the NEW EVIDENCE regarding the DNA that was revealed in court the other day?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Yeah, that's why there has been 45,000 posts at the JREF forum about Lori Berenson. :rolleyes:

But again, can someone please explain the NEW EVIDENCE regarding the DNA that was revealed in court the other day?
Click to expand...

Has someone said there was New Evidence presented in court, or is this your strawman attempt to fight the reports being leaked from the lab?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why should we believe one drugged up loser over another? Oh that's right, some folks think one of them is cute.
Click to expand...

Really, Alt+F4? Really? This is your argument?:rolleyes:
Don't insult us. The majority of pro-innocence people who post here are intelligent, professional people, more than capable of being objective. We are not murder groupies, but people who care about injustice in the world.
Is this the kind of tactic you're going to be resorting to on JREF from now on?:D

There's absolutely no distinction to be made between a 54 year old habitual heroin user who's homeless, and an intelligent young woman who smokes the odd spliff? You know as well as I do that is patently untrue. If you tested the sight, hearing, and cognitive abilities of AK and Toto, AK scores higher every time. Even with Toto at his sharpest would score lower than AK smoked out of her tree! Let alone AK having smoked one spliff compared to Toto out of his mind on heroin (or Toto out of his mind jonesing for heroin).

The fact is that Amanda got confused (or was made confused) on the night of the 5th, because she was probably the most psychologically vulnerable she'd ever been in her life- suffering nightmares about the horrific, violent murder of her housemate and friend. Just as Toto was probably confused by the police about what he 'remembers', when he was in his (slightly more permanent) vulnerable state. There is a pattern here, the police using vulnerable people to get what they want in this investigation.

Many of the pro-innocence posters here view Toto as another victim in this whole sorry affair, and had his vulnerabilities exploited by the police / prosecution.
 
Draca said:
Another officer, Isabella Lucarelli, was suppose to testify that Toto Curatolo meant a regular bus and not a Disco bus. In court today Toto apparently said firmly numerous times that he was SURE it was a DISCO bus. It was pointless for the officer to even testify that he was simply mistaken at that point and she never testified. The same may have happened with Monica Napoleoni if she had shown up.
Click to expand...

Curatolo probably couldn't pick two random people out of a crowd the following day. It's difficult for the average person to do.

There are millions of pictures of Amanda in the news and on the internet so picking her out now would be no problem. However, I have a tough time picking out actresses who have changed their hair color & style and are wearing different makeup. (Re: JLo - although it's a stretch to call her an actress)

I've seen tests were people are shown a 'perp' who runs right past the video lens, stops and then runs on. They are later asked to pick the actor (the 'perp') out of a lineup. Everybody gets it wrong since the actor is NOT in the lineup at all. It's the fallacy of too few choices.

Now you take a drug user and ask him to be very perceptive. Ha! He didn't even know what night it was.

Mignini belongs in jail for allowing stuff like this.
 
bri1 said:
The majority of pro-innocence people who post here are intelligent, professional people, more than capable of being objective.
Click to expand...

Then why are we being told there was new DNA evidence introduced in court the other day when it's an outright lie?

We are not murder groupies, but people who care about injustice in the world.

There's absolutely no distinction to be made between a 54 year old habitual heroin user who's homeless, and an intelligent young woman who smokes the odd spliff?
Click to expand...

How do YOU know she's intelligent?

If you tested the sight, hearing, and cognitive abilities of AK and Toto, AK scores higher every time. Even with Toto at his sharpest would score lower than AK smoked out of her tree!
Click to expand...

Haha, now you're just making stuff up.

Let alone AK having smoked one spliff compared to Toto out of his mind on heroin (or Toto out of his mind jonesing for heroin).
Click to expand...

Is this a medical or legal term? Oh, that's right, you're just making stuff up again.

The fact is that Amanda got confused (or was made confused) on the night of the 5th, because she was probably the most psychologically vulnerable she'd ever been in her life- suffering nightmares about the horrific, violent murder of her housemate and friend.
Click to expand...

Again, quite funny. Read Amanda's email alibi, she wasn't having nightmares she was putting "first things first", attempting to get her stuff from the apartment and find a new place to live. And getting pizza....because as she said, she deserved it!

Many of the pro-innocence posters here view Toto as another victim in this whole sorry affair, and had his vulnerabilities exploited by the police / prosecution.
Click to expand...

Oh really, then what's with all the vagrant, bum, etc. references?
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
So we have a person who:
1. Contradicted their own previous testimony.
2. Lied to the police.
3. Is an admitted drug user.
4. Is confused about what actually happened the night of the murder.

This description fits Amanda Knox just as much as it does Curatolo. But when Amanda lies and changes her story it's only because the poor girl "misremembered" and was pressured by those mean, mean Italian cops.
Click to expand...

There is very clear evidence that that is exactly what happened with Amanda's statements of 5-6 November, which is why they were ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court. Apart from those statements, she has told the same story throughout - so she is not, in fact, confused about what she was doing on the night of the murder.

But when Curatolo does the same thing he's just a drugged up looser.
Click to expand...

So you admit that Curatolo's testimony was lies?

As to whether it's because he was a drugged-up loser (not "looser", btw), that's doubtful, but it doesn't add to his credibility. What ought to be clear is that he, too, was under pressure from the police to give statements that suited their agenda.

Having said that, you can't equate a student's casual use of cannabis with a street-dweller's use of heroin. You can't equate a statement made during an irregular all-night interrogation session with no safeguards for your rights, with a perjured statement in court, made against 2 people facing half a lifetime in prison as a result. Your comment is just sick.
 
Antony said:
Your comment is just sick.
Click to expand...

Your argument is weak when you have to resort to such a weak strawman. Gosh, why are people getting so nervous that they have to resort to making up evidence and personal insults? Don't worry, you'll still be able to send Amanda fan mail over the next 23 years she's gonna spend in prison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom