Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Continued from previous post

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."

Now lets take a look at the portion of knox's email you quoted. I think I have the correct version.

i was checking for signs of our things missing, should there have been a burglar in our house the night before. 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. convinced that we had been robbed i went to lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room for things missing, which there werent.

Now this statement shows Knox sending an email where she states the computer was on the desk and this confused and made her think they were robbed? Are we sure she just didn't make a simple typo? Now i'm not sure whether she ever repeated that statement or not, but seeing the computer where it is suppose to be at shouldn't both confuse her and make her think they where robbed. Now if it wasn't, then she might get confused and think they where robbed.

 

[Kaosium]

Thank you for your reasoning, Kaosium. I shall leave it that at the least, it was very mean spirited, to assert and promote these false statements. It would have been a good things all round, for Paul and Candace to simply disavow them. The fact that at this stage they still have not done so, speaks volumes.

Being called a nut case, and insulted, is quite unnecessary, for someone who reported hearing a scream..at a certain time. If this is disproved, then all to the good. However, to further an attack on a defenceless old woman, just because one doesn't like what she reported, and because one sees her against Raf and Amanda, is beneath contempt.

We will send you into battle the next time the Packers play Duh Behrs to teach those in Chicagoland a lesson they won't forget!

However, does this little spat mean the accusations of Frank being paid by Friends of Amanda have finally been proven untrue? I was just going through some of those old posts in the original 'Cartwheels' thread, and it was a regular feature of that thread, the idea that Frank was paid for his efforts by the sinister Gogherty-Marriott FOA cabal.

There is no cabal!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, it is.

No, there isn't. Maybe you should pay a little attention to what Draca said recently:

"Once a burglar is caught in the act, or if he decides that the opportunity of rape has presented itself, the burglary is really over for all intents and purposes. He either flees, or commits the rape and flees. Burglars know that the longer they spend in a location, the greater their chance of being caught."

Hang on, are you allowing that sort of argument now? I don't know if you've thought this through.

If that's a legal move, then so is this: The Massei/Mignini theory postulates and entirely new and previously totally unknown kind of crime, where a women leads two men one of whom is a near-total stranger to rape and murder a friend of hers. That has never happened before or since, ever. Whereas the defence theory that a lone creep with an alleged history of harassing women and an alleged history of armed robbery surprised, murdered and violated a women when caught in the act of robbery is comparatively everyday. Thus we should demand extraordinary evidence before we entertain the Massei/Mignini theory, and reject it unless such evidence is forthcoming.

I mean, once you allow basic criminological facts and common sense into the argument your whole position is sunk, isn't it? You really would be better off pretending that criminology doesn't exist or has nothing to say about the crime, which is the usual guilter tactic.

If you employ this kind of common sense with regard to the possibility that Guede staged a break-in, it's really hard to get out of applying the same common sense to the possibility that Raffaele and Amanda murdered Meredith, and then where will you be?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

I haven't read what Frank wrote, so I probably shouldn't get into this, but I am curious. Why do you care more about how Nara is portrayed in the media than about how Amanda was portrayed in the media?

 

[capealadin]

We will send you into battle the next time the Packers play Duh Behrs to teach those in Chicagoland a lesson they won't forget!

However, does this little spat mean the accusations of Frank being paid by Friends of Amanda have finally been proven untrue? I was just going through some of those old posts in the original 'Cartwheels' thread, and it was a regular feature of that thread, the idea that Frank was paid for his efforts by the sinister Gogherty-Marriott FOA cabal.

There is no cabal!

Send me, send me !! I'm good in the trenches

Personally, Kaosium, I don't believe anyone has been paid to post. I believe people are convinced of the guilt, innocence of Amanda And Raf. It has become rather a war zone at times. Socially, I NEVER get into discussions on Politics or Religion.

So, you are the ONE to blame Shame on you..Frank's fans must be quite upset. I saw one post today..that asked Frank if he was still upset with them. Ahh...to be so adored

You were very civil, and I enjoyed reading your posts. In other circumstances, I'm sure many of us, on either side, would find common ground.

In any event, I enjoy debating with honesty. When I've been wrong about something, I have admitted it. No-one's right all the time. It takes a secure person to realize that, I believe. Cheers.

 

[capealadin]

I haven't read what Frank wrote, so I probably shouldn't get into this, but I am curious. Why do you care more about how Nara is portrayed in the media than about how Amanda was portrayed in the media?

I take issue with something that is in black and white..and is credible because it is from someone on the other side. No reason, therefore, to twist anything around.

It's simply frustrating, to see time and time again, an honest account of something, being squirrelled out of. When something is what it is, man up about it. Play straight and fair..

I have never been swayed by the the Media's accounts of Amanda. I don't feel she had that many lovers, or was seriously into drugs. My impressions have been from her words, her behaviours that I have seen, her lack of empathy..this she has shown in many instances.

For what ever reason, Nara has done nothing wrong. She simply reported what she heard. And a time. That may prove to be incorrect, down the road.

It would have been nice, for once, if someone on the Innocent side, would just admit, when given reputable cites, to have acknowledged being wrong. Not happening, I see. Well, it merely cements for me, what I've seen so far. Deny deny deny. Waffle waffle waffle. Twist twist twist. Credibility gets lost though...

 

[capealadin]

Also, Mary, to be clear. The Media often get things wrong. I take issue, with it eing taken as true, when it has been refuted by one who knows what's true. Oggi is not to blame here. The people, who have been shown that it is false, and continue to spread it, are to blame.

 

[Chris C]

Also, Mary, to be clear. The Media often get things wrong. I take issue, with it eing taken as true, when it has been refuted by one who knows what's true. Oggi is not to blame here. The people, who have been shown that it is false, and continue to spread it, are to blame.

I'm gonna play devils advocate here. Who has shown what to be false?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think this is a fair characterization, either.

PhantomWolf, in our brief exchanges both in this thread and the CT one, I have responded to you on each occasion; in fact, the last two posts in those respective exchanges were made by me, to which neither has received to date a response from you.

Please be a bit more careful when casting your aspersions in the future.

Admittedly you have acted better then other is this thread, and did attempt to provide some information, however you just dropped a number of statements as if they were fact and didn't prove any supporting evidence for your claims. One of the reasons I didn't reply directly to them is because the thread moves pretty fast and before I had even managed to read your replies, others had replied to them in ways I felt were at least challenging to your claims and I wanted to see your responses to those challenges, those haven't actually occured though.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A question someone might know the answer to...

I noticed a commenter on one of Frank's bloggs mention that in I think it was Oct 2008 (date uncertain?) that Frank had written about the testimony of "Maori"? I'm not sure who that is, I really only noted the name as it's the same as our native peiople, and that he had said that they had found glass under the window. The particular commenter was noting this because Frank had been writting about the window and had said that there no glass under the window and the commenter was noting the difference. Does anyone else know about this and what they were discussing? I can't recall the exact blogg that it was in and may have to go back through the links in both threads to see if I can find it again.

 

[capealadin]

I'm gonna play devils advocate here. Who has shown what to be false?

Frank, from Perugia Shock. He has said that Oggi's article, saying Nara is almost deaf, and a nut case is wrong. Therefore, anyone treating this to be true, when advised, from personal experience, to be untrue..is spreading false rumours.

It's not that hard to prove someone's hard of hearing..unless that person is the one listening. We must go on the assumption here, that Frank's hearing is fine. There should also be proof if someone is labelled crazy. Frank found none. And, he's spoken to Nara, in person, on a number of occasions. It's a bit like: Who are ya gonna believe......me, or your lying eyes

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, those studies do, at least in abstracts. Which is interesting in itself since your assertion was that nothing of the sort could happen at all. As I mentioned, there are plenty of other studies. I will not continue to do your homework for you, especially since this topic was so thoroughly covered so long ago in these threads, and the position you are trying to fabricate was so thoroughly disproved.

First it's impossible. Now it's a matter of size.

The wheels on your goalposts are getting squeaky.

Perhaps you should invest in some lubricating oil.

Perhaps you need to remember that we are talking about whether or not the break-in was staged, in the context of frequent guilter claims that the lack of glass on the ground below the window is evidence of a staged break-in.

I'm quite happy to admit that out of that context, it is false that zero glass fragments will go backwards when a slow-moving projectile hits a thin glass window. A tiny but non-zero amount of glass will go backwards a few feet (at most).

I find it quite curious that you have had an amnesia attack about the context of this discussion, because in this post right here you yourself argued that if had Rudy come in through the window he would have swept lots of glass from the sill on to the ground. Did you forget all about that already?

That's the guilter claim under discussion here and you ought to remember it seeing as you argued for exactly that talking point yourself at some length. Oh well. Human memory is a funny thing.

In your opinion. An opinion that has been formed, it appears, largely by discounting out-of-hand anything you find inconvenient to it.

All sorts of things can appear to be the case with sufficient personal bias and amnesia. It doesn't mean they are the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but it really does seem like you have given up entirely on arguing the case that the verdict against Amanda and Raffaele was correct. It looks to me like you have admitted to yourself on some level that we were absolutely right all along, and you are now trying to find solace in relatively feeble attempts to prove that we were right for the wrong reasons, or that we aren't entitled to quite as much certainty in our rightness as we think we are.

 

[Mary_H]

A question someone might know the answer to...

I noticed a commenter on one of Frank's bloggs mention that in I think it was Oct 2008 (date uncertain?) that Frank had written about the testimony of "Maori"? I'm not sure who that is, I really only noted the name as it's the same as our native peiople, and that he had said that they had found glass under the window. The particular commenter was noting this because Frank had been writting about the window and had said that there no glass under the window and the commenter was noting the difference. Does anyone else know about this and what they were discussing? I can't recall the exact blogg that it was in and may have to go back through the links in both threads to see if I can find it again.

Luca Maori is one of Raffaele's lawyers. I don't know what he said about glass, though.

 

[Chris C]

Frank, from Perugia Shock. He has said that Oggi's article, saying Nara is almost deaf, and a nut case is wrong. Therefore, anyone treating this to be true, when advised, from personal experience, to be untrue..is spreading false rumours.

It's not that hard to prove someone's hard of hearing..unless that person is the one listening. We must go on the assumption here, that Frank's hearing is fine. There should also be proof if someone is labelled crazy. Frank found none. And, he's spoken to Nara, in person, on a number of occasions. It's a bit like: Who are ya gonna believe......me, or your lying eyes

And Oggi got their source from who?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not sure, but it could be from Maori's summing up. Can anyone confirm or refute these points?

• the call that started from Meredith's english cellphone at 10.13 pm detected the presence of the mobile phone in the garden where it will be found the day after.
  
• the picture of the footprint which contains a little Y-shaped blank area. The blank area could be a piece of the glass of the window, which stuck under Rudy's shoe.

Frank also has this:

The signs on the window were described as totally compatible with a real break-in. The damage on the blind, the spot on the floor where the rock was found, the glass in the room and on the window. At this point it was compulsory to ask: how is it possible that there was not a piece of glass outside the house, as UACV wrote? And Maori's simple answer was: it's not true, there were glasses outside too.

any comments on these points?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Chris C

Why would the defense want them inadmissible? There was nothing incriminating in the wiretaps.

My point was a simple one, none of the judges regarded the police actions as illegal.

Of course the prosecution did leak to the press how they heard a wiretap conversation where she was trying to find a new home after the murder.(something to that effect) When actually it was filomena asking her about getting a new place and something about a deposit.

Can you provide independent facts to support your claim that the prosecution leaked the conversation between Filomena and Amanda to the press?

Yet as you can see my point, within 3 or 4 days of the Murder the police are already wiretapping Knox's phone. So its obvious before they ever brought her into the interrogation room they already deemed her a suspect.

I can only repeat my post “Clearly Raffaele and Amanda were under suspicion fairly early after Meredith was discovered”.

Though by Italys standard of suspects, it wasn't one that deemed her worthy of a lawyer.

There is a legal difference between suspicion and being a formal suspect.

So do you think Monica Napoleoni just wanted to have a friendly chat with her again on the night in question that she gave her statement or do you think they needed her 10th witness statement? Though I do find it odd that they would confront Knox with her hash use and that she had been lying to police about her involvement in Meredith's murder and still not consider her an actual suspect until after they beat her into saying Patrick did it.

I have read a number of versions covering this particular evening. However, maybe we can agree on this one point, Raffaele was asked to come to the police station, Amanda decided accompanying him!

 

[PhantomWolf]

My point was a simple one, none of the judges regarded the police actions as illegal.

If the Judges were never asked to rule on the legality then how could you say that they wouldn't have regarded the actions as illegal if they had have been asked to. Judges rarely make independent rulings on what can and can't be allowed in as evidence, thet make rulings on things the lawyers ask them too.

Can you provide independent facts to support your claim that the prosecution leaked the conversation between Filomena and Amanda to the press?

If the only people that had access to the recording were the police and the prosecution....

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have read a number of versions covering this particular evening.

What do you think happened?

 

[Amazer]

Not sure, but it could be from Maori's summing up. Can anyone confirm or refute these points?

• the call that started from Meredith's english cellphone at 10.13 pm detected the presence of the mobile phone in the garden where it will be found the day after.
  
• the picture of the footprint which contains a little Y-shaped blank area. The blank area could be a piece of the glass of the window, which stuck under Rudy's shoe.

Frank also has this:



any comments on these points?

The spot where the rock landed is not a spot where a rock would have landed were it thrown through the window.

 

[billyryan]

Also, Mary, to be clear. The Media often get things wrong. I take issue, with it eing taken as true, when it has been refuted by one who knows what's true. Oggi is not to blame here. The people, who have been shown that it is false, and continue to spread it, are to blame.

Can I take it that you also believe that Frank is right in all his other beliefs about this case

Namely!Amanda and Raffaele were framed by a pack of thugs,the Perugian police

Or are you claiming even though he is wrong about everything else,his word that as far as he knows Nara's hearing is perfect and he has no knowledge of her needing psychiatric treatment,in this one instance his word is infallible