Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I was the one who tried to chase this down and got an earful from Frank for my troubles, not to mention being on the receiving end of his wit the whole rest of the page. He's still on me for suggesting it might have been Paul Ciolino as the ultimate source, so I paid my dues!

I really appreciate your posts and I didn't mean to make fun of you, but it was pretty funny. Don't worry about me bringing it up too often (at least after the first year or two).

 

[Chris C]

Odd my eyes were drawn to the post above the letter.

Yet even as we speak, the Kerchers lawyer that Mignini helped them get, still attacks Knox/Sollecito. There actually has been some debate in the past on what the Kerchers will do if Knox/Sollecito get set free. Will they continue to believe they did it or will they confront Mignini and company over they lies that have been fed them. You have to remember the Kerchers got their lawyer at the height of the propaganda campaign the prosecution was spreading in the press. Yet when you look back at what was said in the press during the early hours of the smear campaign and compare it to the evidence known now, you will see all the lies that the Kerchers were fed by the prosecution and the press. I don't blame them for getting Maresca, I would have done the same thing. However, when its all said and done and if Knox/Sollecito are found innocent, do you think the Kerchers will appologize or continue to believe Knox/Sollecito had something to do with it? If found innocent do you think they should appologize? In Italy its considered a hostile act to hire a lawyer like the Kerchers did. So though I do agree that people should not attack the Kerchers for their actions, because most of us would have done the same thing in their shoes, at some point you have to realize the Kerchers did make a hostile act by the hiring of Maresca.

 

[Chris C]

In my opinion, nobody did the staging. I believe that it was more likely either a genuine B&E, or (a lesser possibility) that Guede threw the rock through the window to check whether anyone in the cottage would respond.
But my point is that if it were proven to be a staging (which, as I say, I can't find to be a credible position), it's not in itself directly incriminating towards Knox and/or Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher. As I explained in an earlier post, there is a feasible reason why Guede, as a lone assailant, might have had both motive and opportunity to stage a break-in, if he had in fact been let into the cottage by Meredith.

In order to convict Knox and/or Sollecito of the murder, the prosecution/court will need to show evidence which is far more closely correlated to the actual murder itself. Evidence which - it seems - is currently in the process of evaporating into the ether...

I've always slightly favored the toss the rock through the window to check if anyones home theory. Mainly because it doesn't take but a minute to pick a lock on the front door. Plus the way the traffic goes down the road, cars wouldn't even see someone entering through that door. Though there are some strong elements to suggest he actually climbed through the window. Which means he could still toss the rock through the window to check if anyones home and then climb through the window.

 

[Chris C]

I expect nothing less from you Halides.

It's too bad that you see no reason to reject Oggi's claim. That goes to your mind set, and the inability to admit you're wrong.

I'm sure many people need some kind of care (caring) when a loved one dies. I didn't know that that equalled being called a mental case.

I really don't know HOW MUCH MORE information you could possibly need. One of your own has had numerous conversations with Nara. And said she's absolutely fine.

I suppose, in your world, everyone you know, family and friends, need to be assessed by a health professional, to know FOR SURE that they're sane.

Is Frank, do you think, not capable of understanding, when someone is not deaf? appears normal? Should he be tested, to see what's wrong with his cognitive skills?

You do yourself a disservice, imo, continuing this stance.

The way I understand his stance is basicly this. One person says one thing, Frank says another. Thus he will wait and see whose correct. Yet regardless of which one is right, Nara's testimony is still shrouded in mystery. I don't understand whats wrong with him being skeptical and waiting to pass judgement since there are two versions of Nara's health being talked about. Even now guilters still talk about Knox's mental state and how she shows signs of mental illness in her past. Yet have never offered proof. So if someone wants to sit on the fence to wait and see which story is correct I see nothing wrong with that. I'm willing to do the same, wait and see. Now if you asked me if I had to make a choice right now, I'd side with Frank's version.

 

[Danceme]

Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes. 'I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.'"

Fuji,

It is possible that Filomena's computer had glass on it which ended up on her clothes after she retrieved it. I am not certain about which room Guede was in, but he might have been in the bathroom.

Filomena's computer could not have had glass on it because Amanda told everyone the laptop was safe on the desk. Surely everyone knows the content of Amanda's email by now or is it ignored when such glaring inconsistencies are displayed. Who to believe, who to believe?

"filomenas room was closed, but when i opned the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always was and this confused me."

 

[Kaosium]

I really appreciate your posts and I didn't mean to make fun of you, but it was pretty funny. Don't worry about me bringing it up too often (at least after the first year or two).

LOL!

I dish it out, I can take it. I plan on giving Platonov some grief over 'retrocausality' from time to time when the opportunity presents itself.

It's just ironic that by trying to ferret out the whole story I got 'blamed' for being the one 'hating on' Nara, when in truth I could care less about her for the most part. Full disclosure though, maybe a week or two previous I happened to ask him about something I'd read in his archives when searching for something else, mainly that I thought in an old post he'd said something about Nara initially saying she heard the scream about 9 PM. I checked back a few days later and he hadn't answered, and then he put up a new post so odds are he'll never answer--but it sounds like he might have remembered! He probably now thinks I'm obsessed with Nara!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

safe

Filomena's computer could not have had glass on it because Amanda told everyone the laptop was safe on the desk. Surely everyone knows the content of Amanda's email by now or is it ignored when such glaring inconsistencies are displayed. Who to believe, who to believe?

"filomenas room was closed, but when i opned the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always was and this confused me."

Danceme,

Could "safe" simply mean that the computer was there? I am not sure that what Amanda said precludes the presence of glass on her computer, although I don't know the layout of her room. Also, my point is more general, that Filomena disturbed her room twice, IIRC. I was perhaps unnecessarily specific before in naming the computer as a possible source of broken glass bits. Finally, I do not reject the hypothesis that some of Filomena's clothes were on her floor before the rock came through. Is this not Ron Hendry's position?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

neither exculpatory nor inculpatory

I expect nothing less from you Halides.

It's too bad that you see no reason to reject Oggi's claim. That goes to your mind set, and the inability to admit you're wrong.

I'm sure many people need some kind of care (caring) when a loved one dies. I didn't know that that equalled being called a mental case.

I really don't know HOW MUCH MORE information you could possibly need. One of your own has had numerous conversations with Nara. And said she's absolutely fine.

I suppose, in your world, everyone you know, family and friends, need to be assessed by a health professional, to know FOR SURE that they're sane.

Is Frank, do you think, not capable of understanding, when someone is not deaf? appears normal? Should he be tested, to see what's wrong with his cognitive skills?

You do yourself a disservice, imo, continuing this stance.

capealadin,

I see that you continue to ignore the problems in Nara's testimony, some of which I previously mentioned. However, you have also misunderstood or chosen to disregard the rest of what I said. Let's assume that Nara really heard a scream at 11:30 on the night of the murder. Frank thinks it is exculpatory; I happen to think that it is neither exculpatory nor inculpatory. The combination of cell phone records and stomach contents leaves me virtually certain that Meredith was dead before 10 PM. Nara's testimony is simply not relevant. MOO.

 

[capealadin]

It's appreciated, Chris C, that although not wishing to ruffle anyone's feathers, you have at least acknowledged...what to me and others...is the correct version. It shows an ability to see and understand common sense.

There are still two appeals. I'm not sure how important Nara's testimony will be. However, she did nothing wrong, as I see it. She shouldn't be maligned, just because some people CHOOSE to believe a wrong version. Because of their own agenda. That's slanted, biased, and makes an unworthy opponent.

 

[capealadin]

Halides. You are NOT choosing to understand THE ISSUE. For the last time, it is NOT about the testimony. It is about a false article, in a magazine. And, the fact, that even in direct rebuttal, some have chosen to run with the untrue version.

THAT was the point. Please stop this rigmarole. It's boring and annoying. The topic is and was an article that has been refuted. Stop. Done.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no dog in the fight

Halides. You are NOT choosing to understand THE ISSUE. For the last time, it is NOT about the testimony. It is about a false article, in a magazine. And, the fact, that even in direct rebuttal, some have chosen to run with the untrue version.

THAT was the point. Please stop this rigmarole. It's boring and annoying. The topic is and was an article that has been refuted. Stop. Done.

capealadin,

Your thinking is confused, and I suspect that the reason is that you want to believe Frank because it is convenient for you to do so in this instance. I have absolutely no reason to be more comfortable with the view that Nara is not mentally healthy to the view that she is, or vice versa. Nara's testimony is at best a minor portion of the case; therefore, it is illogical to believe that my fence-sitting is driven by anything other than lack of facts.

 

[Mary_H]

The open letter is hilarious! I don't think I'd seen that before.

Apart from the laughable content of the letter, I'm also rather amused by the valediction: "Yours sincerely, Kermit"

At the time, LJ, someone else questioned the effectiveness of signing the letter "Kermit." There ensued a discussion about whether "Kermit" was or was not a funny name, and how dare anyone make fun of someone else's name, and so on. Those posts seem to have been removed since then.

 

[capealadin]

You are the confused one, Halides. So confused, you don't seem able to follow the topic.

I 'm left with the belief, that you want to uphold paul's and Candace's version, no matter where the evidence has led you.

Read up, Man.

 

[Chris C]

Filomena's computer could not have had glass on it because Amanda told everyone the laptop was safe on the desk. Surely everyone knows the content of Amanda's email by now or is it ignored when such glaring inconsistencies are displayed. Who to believe, who to believe?

"filomenas room was closed, but when i opned the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always was and this confused me."

1. If the room was ransacked and then the window open when broken, why is there No glass in the wall closet?

2. If the room was a staged ransacking, where did they import the stuff from to make the room look like it was ransacked? Where did all the stuff on Filomena's bed come from? Did the ransackers decide to pick it up off the floor? The bedside stand hadn't been touched and the desk was full of organized clutter. Filomena herself noted that her computer was on the floor. Where do you suppose she kept it at when it wasn't on the floor? Since from the pictures there was just a little bit of room for it to be sitting on the desk and none on the bedside stand, where do you suppose Filomena had it sitting at when she left? You pointed out that knox got where the computer was sitting at wrong because Filomena said it was on the floor. Wouldn't the person that ransacked the room know where it was at? Yet if Filomena's computer wasn't on her desk, where was it sitting at? If it was the only other place would be the bed or floor. Filomena went to such great lengths to talk about how nothing was taken, and apparently left right where she left it.

Also attached will be a photo looking into the wall closet. You will see everything neatly folded up top and using hangers in lower half. I didn't notice any room up top for all those clothes scattered on the floor and bed. Also I didn't notice any of them with hangers in them either. So not all of those clothes came out of that closet. There is just not enough room for all that stuff to fit in there. So atleast a portion of the clothes had to already be on the floor when filomena left. Basicly that room was exactly like Filomena left it, minus the broken window and possibly a few items falling out of the closet. However, nothing had been pulled out of the lower half because everything was still in the lower half.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please answer my questions

You are the confused one, Halides. So confused, you don't seem able to follow the topic.

I 'm left with the belief, that you want to uphold paul's and Candace's version, no matter where the evidence has led you.

Read up, Man.

capealadin,

How about answering my questions?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no sense

You are the confused one, Halides. So confused, you don't seem able to follow the topic.

I 'm left with the belief, that you want to uphold paul's and Candace's version, no matter where the evidence has led you.

Read up, Man.

capealadin,

I suggest that you reread what I said without preconceptions. I am not upholding or discounting anyone's version. Please explain why someone who talked to Nara is more credible than someone else who talked with Nara. Your argument makes no sense, and not for the first time have I concluded this about one of your arguments. Aren't you the same capealadin who argued that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, despite having $4500 in her bank account and $9000 more in Seattle? What sense does that make?

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

How about answering my questions?

No.

Your questions have nothing to do with what was said in the article. And, once again....that was the i.s.s.u.e. Jeeze......

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

I suggest that you reread what I said without preconceptions. I am not upholding or discounting anyone's version. Please explain why someone who talked to Nara is more credible than someone else who talked with Nara. Your argument makes no sense, and not for the first time have I concluded this about one of your arguments. Aren't you the same capealadin who argued that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, despite having $4500 in her bank account and $9000 more in Seattle? What sense does that make?

Cite. Who else spoke to Nara?

The point about the money..OY.......is that Amanda deposited, over the weekend, more money that was with drawn. Including, still having her rent money on her.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

I suggest that you reread what I said without preconceptions. I am not upholding or discounting anyone's version. Please explain why someone who talked to Nara is more credible than someone else who talked with Nara. Your argument makes no sense, and not for the first time have I concluded this about one of your arguments. Aren't you the same capealadin who argued that Amanda stole Meredith's rent money, despite having $4500 in her bank account and $9000 more in Seattle? What sense does that make?

Btw, I'm completely unimpresssed with your failure to conclude anything from my arguments. I consider the source..and find it wanting.

I believe you mean this to anyone who doesn't follow your blind reasoning. Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Good luck.

 

[platonov]

LOL!

I dish it out, I can take it. I plan on giving Platonov some grief over 'retrocausality' from time to time when the opportunity presents itself.

<snip>

Well, I will eat humble pie should the occasion ever arise.

But be warned; unlike some Foakers I am pretty au fait with 'times arrow' - 2007 precedes 2009 and all that.

And 'impudent lies' wont do - we will need to see links.

Note - I am to be found (from time to time) in the natural of home of conspiracy theories - the CT forum.
But mention of retrocausality is frowned upon in that thread - its upsetting to some posters