Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Please re-read my entire post, thanks.

I read your entire post. Apparently you misunderstood what you wrote. You wanted to know if I think Knox's and Sollecito's parents should apologize to the Kercher family if the convictions is affirmed.

My response is simple and is not misleading.

What do the parents have to appologize for? They didn't hire a lawyer and go after Meredith. Regardless of who killed Meredith, the parents didn't do it. Only the killer(s) have something to apologize for.

Here is a googled definition for you of apology.

a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.

If Knox's and Sollecitos family have insulted, failed, injured or wronged them, then they have something to apologize for. Do you think the kerchers fall into that category if Knox and/or Sollecito truely had nothing to do with the crime?

Its quite simple, regardless if the conviction is affirmed or not affirmed. If either family has done something that requires an apology, they should apologize. However, thinking the Knox's parents or Sollecito's parents should apologize for something their kid may or may not have done is absurd, because the parents didn't kill Meredith. You think they should go find Guede's family in Africa and have them apologize? I believe in free will and therefore no action of the parents resulted in Meredith's death. Therefore they have nothing to apologize for.

 

[capealadin]

Capealadin,

You are not the only commenter here, and you do not get to set the terms of debate. The original discussion was over Alt+F4’s statement (#6524) that Candace said something about Nara, “with no evidence to back up this claim.” You did not enter the conversation until message #6588. Therefore, you have mischaracterized the actual question. You should take your own advice.

No one told me that I could only jump in at a certain time. Did you make that a rule when you set up this Foundation?

I have not mischaracterized the actual question. You're wishing I had, I'm sure. I have backed up Alt's position, with cites...from a person who actually has had many conversations with Nara, and has refuted claims that she is almost deaf, and a nut.

I am therefore on point. I can enter and leave, at any point, unless I am banned. I have taken the advice of people here, and provided proof of what I'm claiming. Credible proof, from one of your own.

Oh, any idea, Halides, who gave the info to Maria, from Oggi? I've heard it cheeped that it could have been from someone named * P***L..? I'm not going to cite, I shall follow Journalist's leeway not to name their sources. I don't imagine anyone who fed that rubbish to Oggi, wants to fess up ? Thought not.

 

[capealadin]

I guess I should have said they didn't have the time or the interest. As Bruce has pointed out, though, the article still appears on other websites. If Technorati had left it up, they would have found no letters from attorneys forthcoming.

Hmmm. I take it then that they weren't sufficiently interested in Bruce's article. However, as Bruce took the trouble to have it published there, he obviously thought highly of the paper.

Ahh. Unrequited respect.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes. I do believe I'm becoming a fan of Franks. As you read all his posts, you will have read, I'm sure, that he thinks Stephanoni did an excellent job, has completely debunked the theory that the bra clasp was contaminated.

Err...how to put this delicately. He has also said..and I repeat: That people spreading the lies about Nara should STFU, and only talk when they have something intelligent to say. YIKES!!!! This is from Frank.

Umm..anyone wanting to pop over there and read what Frank has to say about the Foakers..I suggest taking a valium first. It ain't pretty. No Sirreee...

Hey capealadin, I appreciate your comments. Frank can be very cryptic and in my opinion, purposely so. He believes that Stefanoni has been told what evidence to report and what evidence to ignore. He also believes that the bra clasp was contaminated before it got to the lab, in my opinion. He may even be right about that.

I love Frank's style of writing but he is not always correct about everything. He definitely believes that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and I certainly agree with him on that. He doesn't like outsiders claiming to know/guess better than him. He does have a pretty good track record and his reporting of the events of the trial are of great value. He did not believe me when I told him that Curatolo would get thrown under the bus (before he was thrown under the bus). I also told him Stefanoni would follow at the same time I told him about Curatolo. He did not believe that one either. We shall see shortly.

On the issue of Nara and her hearing, I think he is correct about that one. On the issue of the mental issues, I am not sure that Nara would have told Frank about this. Many people seeking such help do not tell others about it, sometimes just family members or a close friend. The source of this claim appears to be a family member, so I do not immediately discount this one. With a loss of a loved one, such help may have been needed. In my opinion, even if she received treatment, that does not necessarily make her testimony invalid. As has been pointed out, there are factual problems with her testimony that bring her memory of times and events in doubt.

 

[Chris C]

IMO, Amanda says the computer on the desk confused her because she would have expected it to be gone were there an actual burglary, as she believed when she saw the mess.

Like I said, did she ever clarify that statement? It could be something as innocent as punctuation or remembering Laura's computer was on her desk like it always was. Though If i had to guess, Filomena's computer hasn't been on top of that desk in a long time.

 

[capealadin]

Hey capealadin, I appreciate your comments. Frank can be very cryptic and in my opinion, purposely so. He believes that Stefanoni has been told what evidence to report and what evidence to ignore. He also believes that the bra clasp was contaminated before it got to the lab, in my opinion. He may even be right about that.

I love Frank's style of writing but he is not always correct about everything. He definitely believes that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and I certainly agree with him on that. He doesn't like outsiders claiming to know/guess better than him. He does have a pretty good track record and his reporting of the events of the trial are of great value. He did not believe me when I told him that Curatolo would get thrown under the bus (before he was thrown under the bus). I also told him Stefanoni would follow at the same time I told him about Curatolo. He did not believe that one either. We shall see shortly.

On the issue of Nara and her hearing, I think he is correct about that one. On the issue of the mental issues, I am not sure that Nara would have told Frank about this. Many people seeking such help do not tell others about it, sometimes just family members or a close friend. The source of this claim appears to be a family member, so I do not immediately discount this one. With a loss of a loved one, such help may have been needed. In my opinion, even if she received treatment, that does not necessarily make her testimony invalid. As has been pointed out, there are factual problems with her testimony that bring her memory of times and events in doubt.

Thank you Rose.

Now, what Frank does say, is that the bra clasp was not contaminated in the lab. That if contamination took place, it could only have been prior to the 46 days. He says Stephanoni did her job correctly.

Maybe Frank doesn't get everything right. Good point. Neither does everyone on this Board. However, Frank is man enough to say when a mistake has been made. Hellooo?

Frank also says that the Foakers have come down heavily on people who have villified Amanda, and yet the foakers are doing the same thing themselves, to Nara.

I'm awaiting the outcome of the Appeals to see what was accepted.

 

[Chris C]

I have had 15 years of experience with computers, working with them, building them, lugging them about, dropping bits of them, not one bit of that knowledge would allow me to predict how a computer would act and land if it was thrown through a window.

I also have a decent physics background, and my understanding of the laws of motion and collisions would help me far more in determining how a computer would act after being thrown through a window.

I fail to see anything in your claims that would make you an expert on how rocks act when they pass through a window, especially considering actual testing and at least one ballistics expert are in disagreement with you.

You claim to me appears to be a false attempt at appeal to authority since you don’t have the knowledge you claim.

Not only that but when considering blowback, there is a huge difference between, glass that shatters and glass that just breaks where the rock hit. In the case of this broken window, the glass just breaks in the general area of where the rock hits, so its hard to even predict if any of the glass did blowback. Especially considering the crack investigators didnt even bother to look on the ground below the window or maybe they where looking on that smoke break.

 

[billyryan]

Yes. I do believe I'm becoming a fan of Franks. As you read all his posts, you will have read, I'm sure, that he thinks Stephanoni did an excellent job, has completely debunked the theory that the bra clasp was contaminated.

Err...how to put this delicately. He has also said..and I repeat: That people spreading the lies about Nara should STFU, and only talk when they have something intelligent to say. YIKES!!!! This is from Frank.

Umm..anyone wanting to pop over there and read what Frank has to say about the Foakers..I suggest taking a valium first. It ain't pretty. No Sirreee...

Ah,Judges are definitely responsible.
They will be out,no problem and I hope they will sue them back.
That would be the trial of the century


couldn't imagine any foaker needing Valium to read that,

Like Martin Luther King I have a dream that those who tortured railroaded and slanderer an innocent young girl,will one day leave the same courtrooms in hand cuffs for prison

The prospect of Mignini Comodi Stefanoni Napoleoni giobbi serving time among prisoners who hate them

Quinell Ganong and Nadeau getting what they have coming in the American courts

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How do you solve a problem like Maria

No one told me that I could only jump in at a certain time. Did you make that a rule when you set up this Foundation?

I have not mischaracterized the actual question. You're wishing I had, I'm sure. I have backed up Alt's position, with cites...from a person who actually has had many conversations with Nara, and has refuted claims that she is almost deaf, and a nut.

I am therefore on point. I can enter and leave, at any point, unless I am banned. I have taken the advice of people here, and provided proof of what I'm claiming. Credible proof, from one of your own.

Oh, any idea, Halides, who gave the info to Maria, from Oggi? I've heard it cheeped that it could have been from someone named * P***L..? I'm not going to cite, I shall follow Journalist's leeway not to name their sources. I don't imagine anyone who fed that rubbish to Oggi, wants to fess up ? Thought not.

capealadin,

In an earlier message you wrote, "The testimony, will be accepted or thrown out, in the apeals process. At the time of the decision, it will be appropriate to discuss it." You are choosing to ignore what I have said at least once and probably twice, that her testimony itself is evidence in the issue you wish to discuss, Nara's mental state. Candace Dempsey wrote, "She also became confused at trial and thought she’d known Amanda."

You did not back up alt's position; alt apparently failed to read carefully and missed two cites (no shame in that; I miss things when I read as well). Your finding a cite saying something in opposition does not change alt's mistake.

I am not sure what you are talking about with respect to Maria. Much of what she wrote compares one aspect of testimony with another, and she also interviewed Nara herself. For example Maria wrote, "If you feel that the story of the woman who claims to have heard noises 'about the same time' is valid, then it denies the court’s reconstruction, which has Amanda and Raffaele lingering in the cottage after Rudy’s exit to complete the simulation. The inconsistency is incurable. From the two, only one."

 

[babycondor]

<snip>
... However, I think that Ms. D’Ella makes a very important point when she writes, “That is to say, there is a conceptual difference between her words and the decision to use them against Amanda and Raffaele. She heard only some noises. Even if the testimony of this woman were reliable, something that would answer open questions, it’s not sufficient to properly accuse Amanda and Raffaele.”

And there, in a lucid and concise nutshell, is why the last several pages of posts on the Nara topic have been a complete waste of intellectual capital and JREF electrons.

It matters not one iota whether Nara's testimony is reliable, whether she can hear, whether she has mental health issues, what her bladder capacity might be....the only thing that matters it that none of her testimony, whether accurate or not, establishes the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Chris C]

capealadin,

In an earlier message you wrote, "The testimony, will be accepted or thrown out, in the apeals process. At the time of the decision, it will be appropriate to discuss it." You are choosing to ignore what I have said at least once and probably twice, that her testimony itself is evidence in the issue you wish to discuss, Nara's mental state. Candace Dempsey wrote, "She also became confused at trial and thought she’d known Amanda."

You did not back up alt's position; alt apparently failed to read carefully and missed two cites (no shame in that; I miss things when I read as well). Your finding a cite saying something in opposition does not change alt's mistake.

I am not sure what you are talking about with respect to Maria. Much of what she wrote compares one aspect of testimony with another, and she also interviewed Nara herself. For example Maria wrote, "If you feel that the story of the woman who claims to have heard noises 'about the same time' is valid, then it denies the court’s reconstruction, which has Amanda and Raffaele lingering in the cottage after Rudy’s exit to complete the simulation. The inconsistency is incurable. From the two, only one."

Actually thats a good point. I'll elaborate my opinion why its a good point. If a scream happened and the footsteps really happened then it actually exonerates them because there is only 1 blood trail leaving the apartment. Which basicly means they couldn't have run out of the bloody room with bloody barefeet, showered off and left a bloody footprint on the mat and out the door in such a short time. First they would have had to wash their feet, then put their shoes on and then flee the scene. Knox and Sollecito could not have done that in the time frame in which Nara heard the scream and footsteps. Especially considering her testimony of the scream and footsteps implicates more than one person was involved because the footsteps went in different directions.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

In an earlier message you wrote, "The testimony, will be accepted or thrown out, in the apeals process. At the time of the decision, it will be appropriate to discuss it." You are choosing to ignore what I have said at least once and probably twice, that her testimony itself is evidence in the issue you wish to discuss, Nara's mental state. Candace Dempsey wrote, "She also became confused at trial and thought she’d known Amanda."

You did not back up alt's position; alt apparently failed to read carefully and missed two cites (no shame in that; I miss things when I read as well). Your finding a cite saying something in opposition does not change alt's mistake.

I am not sure what you are talking about with respect to Maria. Much of what she wrote compares one aspect of testimony with another, and she also interviewed Nara herself. For example Maria wrote, "If you feel that the story of the woman who claims to have heard noises 'about the same time' is valid, then it denies the court’s reconstruction, which has Amanda and Raffaele lingering in the cottage after Rudy’s exit to complete the simulation. The inconsistency is incurable. From the two, only one."

Lord love a duck. I have answered you countless times..on THE TOPIC OF FALSE RUMOURS!!! Why is that so terribly difficult for you to grasp.

Please stay on the topic, which is about a false article, which has been refuted. That's it. Maria saying that Nara is almost deaf, and a mental case.

That's it. I told you, the rest will be decided at the appeals. Mamma Mia!!!!!!!

 

[Chris C]

And there, in a lucid and concise nutshell, is why the last several pages of posts on the Nara topic have been a complete waste of intellectual capital and JREF electrons.

It matters not one iota whether Nara's testimony is reliable, whether she can hear, whether she has mental health issues, what her bladder capacity might be....the only thing that matters it that none of her testimony, whether accurate or not, establishes the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

Actually if you choose to believe her testimony then it estabishes innocence.

Same thing with Curatolo, if you choose to believe his testimony, it established Knox/Sollecito were not at the apartment when Meredith was murdered.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Hmmm. I take it then that they weren't sufficiently interested in Bruce's article. However, as Bruce took the trouble to have it published there, he obviously thought highly of the paper.

Ahh. Unrequited respect.

Technorati provides more a a soapbox environment. They don't usually get into cases this controversial. I signed on to write there because they seemed to get good Google ranking. The article was actually beneficial because Peggy confirmed her own behavior while posting upwards of 100 comments on the article. Driving by the Knox house, counting shrubs, etc. Everything I wrote about PMF is true and backed by proof.

I know Peggy likes to play the victim but she is the instigator in this case. A rough past does not give you a free pass to attack others. I person that is a victim of child abuse doesn't have a free pass to beat their kids. Peggy seems to think that abuse she has received in the past gives her a free pass to attack others. That's not how it works. She currently operates a hate site of which you are a member.

Why don't you defend the actions of your group? Why are you silent when it comes to that topic?

 

[babycondor]

Actually thats a good point. I'll elaborate my opinion why its a good point. If a scream happened and the footsteps really happened then it actually exonerates them because there is only 1 blood trail leaving the apartment. Which basicly means they couldn't have run out of the bloody room with bloody barefeet, showered off and left a bloody footprint on the mat and out the door in such a short time. First they would have had to wash their feet, then put their shoes on and then flee the scene. Knox and Sollecito could not have done that in the time frame in which Nara heard the scream and footsteps. Especially considering her testimony of the scream and footsteps implicates more than one person was involved because the footsteps went in different directions.

Maybe the scream came someone besides Meredith.

Maybe the scream came from an unidentified woman totally unrelated to the murder. Women scream for all kinds of reasons.

Nara testifying that she heard a scream and footsteps tells us nothing except that she heard them (maybe).

 

[Chris C]

Maybe the scream came someone besides Meredith.

Maybe the scream came from an unidentified woman totally unrelated to the murder. Women scream for all kinds of reasons.

Nara testifying that she heard a scream and footsteps tells us nothing except that she heard them (maybe).

I think your missing the whole point. If its impossible for the scream and footsteps to be related to the crime, then why is ToD established using the scream? I think thats the point the others are trying to make. The prosecution and massei's reasoning don't fit with Nara's scream and footsteps. Yet they use her to help establish ToD. If they mention Nara one time in the Massei report(which I haven't read in its entirety) then in effect they are using to help convict them. Yet it has been established that her theory of the scream and footsteps doesn't fit the crime. So if she in fact did actually here the scream and footsteps then they were unrelated to the crime and shouldn't have even been entered into trial. If the scream happened after the Murder by someone else, it can't be related to the crime because in effect Curatolo has Knox/Sollecito in the park for any ToD earlier then the Nara scream. To top all that off, if in fact the scream/footsteps is related to the crime then someone stayed behind and washed their feet, because 2 people fled. Which means, if Guede, Knox, Sollecito murdered meredith together and the scream and footsteps were part of the crime, then 5 people were involved in the Murder. Because Guede at a bare min, has to leave meredith's room and get bathroom towels, search Meredith's belongings, rape Meredith and then flee the scene all with the help of Knox/Sollecito who still have to leave bloody bare footprints, take a shower and clean up the apartment.

In effect Nara's scream and footprints shouldn't even be allowed unless they are willing to claim 5 people was involved in the murder. I always here the claim from guilters that some of the pro innocent comments are nothing more than appeals to emotion. Yet is that not what Nara is. The prosecution used her to appeal to emotion even though her scream and footsteps couldn't possibly even be related to the crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

strength

On the issue of Nara and her hearing, I think he is correct about that one. On the issue of the mental issues, I am not sure that Nara would have told Frank about this. Many people seeking such help do not tell others about it, sometimes just family members or a close friend. The source of this claim appears to be a family member, so I do not immediately discount this one. With a loss of a loved one, such help may have been needed. In my opinion, even if she received treatment, that does not necessarily make her testimony invalid. As has been pointed out, there are factual problems with her testimony that bring her memory of times and events in doubt.

RoseMontague,

I agree on all of your points. I would only add that a person who is sensible enough to seek help when it is needed is showing strength, not weakness. However, the jury should be apprised of any relevant information, and it is their job to weigh it. MOO.

 

[Danceme]

Like I said, did she ever clarify that statement? It could be something as innocent as punctuation or remembering Laura's computer was on her desk like it always was. Though If i had to guess, Filomena's computer hasn't been on top of that desk in a long time.

That statement was written in her email. It is very clear. She opened the closed door to Filomena's room and saw Filomena's laptop on her desk but the rest of the room a mess. I don't know why it's necessary to turn these inconsistent statements of Amanda's into yet again another "misremembering" or "typo". She had already said Laura's door was open, like her own, and therefore was unequivocally referring to Filomena's room.

I think your missing the whole point. If its impossible for the scream and footsteps to be related to the crime, then why is ToD established using the scream? I think thats the point the others are trying to make. The prosecution and massei's reasoning don't fit with Nara's scream and footsteps. Yet they use her to help establish ToD. If they mention Nara one time in the Massei report(which I haven't read in its entirety) then in effect they are using to help convict them. Yet it has been established that her theory of the scream and footsteps doesn't fit the crime. So if she in fact did actually here the scream and footsteps then they were unrelated to the crime and shouldn't have even been entered into trial. If the scream happened after the Murder by someone else, it can't be related to the crime because in effect Curatolo has Knox/Sollecito in the park for any ToD earlier then the Nara scream. To top all that off, if in fact the scream/footsteps is related to the crime then someone stayed behind and washed their feet, because 2 people fled. Which means, if Guede, Knox, Sollecito murdered meredith together and the scream and footsteps were part of the crime, then 5 people were involved in the Murder. Because Guede at a bare min, has to leave meredith's room and get bathroom towels, search Meredith's belongings, rape Meredith and then flee the scene all with the help of Knox/Sollecito who still have to leave bloody bare footprints, take a shower and clean up the apartment.

In effect Nara's scream and footprints shouldn't even be allowed unless they are willing to claim 5 people was involved in the murder. I always here the claim from guilters that some of the pro innocent comments are nothing more than appeals to emotion. Yet is that not what Nara is. The prosecution used her to appeal to emotion even though her scream and footsteps couldn't possibly even be related to the crime.

Bingo! That's exactly it Chris. And yes she helped the prosecution's theory in a convoluted way but the defense had an obligation to argue as you did above. If they had we likely would have nothing to say about Nara now.

 

[capealadin]

Technorati provides more a a soapbox environment. They don't usually get into cases this controversial. I signed on to write there because they seemed to get good Google ranking. The article was actually beneficial because Peggy confirmed her own behavior while posting upwards of 100 comments on the article. Driving by the Knox house, counting shrubs, etc. Everything I wrote about PMF is true and backed by proof.

I know Peggy likes to play the victim but she is the instigator in this case. A rough past does not give you a free pass to attack others. I person that is a victim of child abuse doesn't have a free pass to beat their kids. Peggy seems to think that abuse she has received in the past gives her a free pass to attack others. That's not how it works. She currently operates a hate site of which you are a member.

Why don't you defend the actions of your group? Why are you silent when it comes to that topic?

Umm, Bruce, I don't really care whether you posted there because it has got good ratings.

As for attacking others? just what are you doing then, pray tell?

Peggy doesn't need anyone to defend her. She runs a hugely sucessful, credited site.

It is against the rules to discuss PMF here.

However, may I suggest you take a hike....over to Perugia Shock. Frank says certain Amanda supporters should STFU, unless they have something intelligent to say. ( hint)

 

[Chris C]

That statement was written in her email. It is very clear. She opened the closed door to Filomena's room and saw Filomena's laptop on her desk but the rest of the room a mess. I don't know why it's necessary to turn these inconsistent statements of Amanda's into yet again another "misremembering" or "typo". She had already said Laura's door was open, like her own, and therefore was unequivocally referring to Filomena's room.

And yet what proof was offered that it wasn't on the desk? If they staged the crime scene why would they just throw the laptop on the floor and nothing else from the desk. So that leaves 1 of 3 things.
1. It actually was on the desk.
2. It was left on the floor by filomena, knox is wrong, and therefore couldn't been thrown on the floor as part of staging and neither could any of the clothes beneath it.
3. Knox is misremembering what she saw.

Its seems its ok for prosecution witnesses that help convict if they misremember stuff and are labeled as reliable witnesses. Yet, if Knox statements are not exactly perfect, she must be a natural born killer.