Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

Incidentally, I just finished reading Rudy's translated diary again. Does it seem to anyone else that he made a huge deal of thanking everyone in his life on the last page, almost as if he were contemplating suicide, or resigned to thinking his life was definitely over in some way. It's almost as if the gravity of what he had done (if it was being the lone murderer) had made him realize he is lost from this point on.

ETA: meaning he isn't thinking he will be charged with something less than murder.

 

[Chris C]

Incidentally, I just finished reading Rudy's translated diary again. Does it seem to anyone else that he made a huge deal of thanking everyone in his life on the last page, almost as if he were contemplating suicide, or resigned to thinking his life was definitely over in some way. It's almost as if the gravity of what he had done (if it was being the lone murderer) had made him realize he is lost from this point on.

Yeah, if I remember correctly it started off pleading innocence and ended with thanking everyone, with a whole lot of BS in between. Almost all believe him to be involved with the murder, unlike Knox/Sollecito. So i'm sure both sides can agree when reading that diary you get sucked into a quagmire of lies and half-truths. What makes things ever worse is trying to figure out the half-truths.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Antony if the shoe was on the other foot would you be prepared to sit down and put together an exhaustive narrative or timeline, such as the one DanO did for the innocence side? It's a rather time consuming venture and I'm not surprised only a couple of people have ever done one.

Of course we would.

I've never been that interested in convincing others of guilt, which would have to be the prime motivation for doing either one.

Have you at any stage been interested in being right? That's the usual reason to engage in these sorts of analytical activities.

In fact I've never described myself as a confirmed guilter. I have seen both sides and can say I am still somewhat on the fence.

So has the view of yours quoted below changed then?

There is no quest for truth among the Amanda groupies. I honestly think they hate the police more than they believe in Amanda's innocence. They begin with an unshakeable belief in a conspiracy and utter police incompetance and then explain everything away with all kinds of far fetched what ifs. They acknowledge none, none, of the evidence and ignore all arguments that might indicate any degree of involvement or guilt at all. They won't even acknowledge she lied about her alibi.

I dunno, that doesn't sound like someone who was on the fence as of July 30 last year. It does sound like the sort of thing I'd expect to read from a person I would describe as a confirmed guilter, although of course all you stated is that you wouldn't call yourself a confirmed guilter.

 

[Chris C]

I dunno, that doesn't sound like someone who was on the fence as of July 30 last year. It does sound like the sort of thing I'd expect to read from a person I would describe as a confirmed guilter, although of course all you stated is that you wouldn't call yourself a confirmed guilter.

I once believed Knox/Sollecito were guilty. Its those statements being made today and not last year that count. If someone wants to say they are on the fence, then maybe they are changing their stance. Just because nearly every statement someone says seems to be what most would consider a guilter doesn't make said person a guilter. Its those few statements that don't speak to guilt but innocence that allow someone to claim to be on the fence. Besides, maybe something recently has changed said persons belief stance from guilty to maybe. Most pro-innocence want people to look closely and see the truth behind this injustice. It doesn't help to belittle someone for claiming to be on the fence. You give them no reason to change sides if your just going to rub it in their face that last year they was taking a different stance. Now with that being said, I'm not saying Danceme is on the fence or pro innocence, I'm just saying it really serves no purpose to go down the route of dragging up past posts if someone claims to be on the fence. It would deter others from openly admitting they are changing their mind about guilt.

 

[Danceme]

Of course we would.

Yes you would if you were motivated to change everyone else's minds. I'm not. I like to analyze certain parts of the equation as we all do but that's about it.

Have you at any stage been interested in being right? That's the usual reason to engage in these sorts of analytical activities.

Of course. There have been many times I've been compelled to argue for the way I see something.

So has the view of yours quoted below changed then?

Not a bit. I don't believe in a police conspiracy to get two people they knew were innocent just to save face and I do see the prosecution's logic in certain pieces of the evidence that haven't been too convincing to me when explained from the other side.

I dunno, that doesn't sound like someone who was on the fence as of July 30 last year. It does sound like the sort of thing I'd expect to read from a person I would describe as a confirmed guilter, although of course all you stated is that you wouldn't call yourself a confirmed guilter.

You know what's really pathetic Kevin and makes me roll my eyes? it's when you go racing off to frantically search the forum to see what you can get on someone.

I've gone back and forth on this case since the beginning. I have the right to remain on the fence, leaning this way and that as I please. If you're trying to drive me away as you have so many others then just continue in this vein why don't you.

 

[Danceme]

Thank you Chris. That was very noble of you, and very respectfully said. I think I will stay, despite being p****d at kevin

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I once believed Knox/Sollecito were guilty. Its those statements being made today and not last year that count. If someone wants to say they are on the fence, then maybe they are changing their stance. Just because nearly every statement someone says seems to be what most would consider a guilter doesn't make said person a guilter. Its those few statements that don't speak to guilt but innocence that allow someone to claim to be on the fence. Besides, maybe something recently has changed said persons belief stance from guilty to maybe. Most pro-innocence want people to look closely and see the truth behind this injustice. It doesn't help to belittle someone for claiming to be on the fence. You give them no reason to change sides if your just going to rub it in their face that last year they was taking a different stance. Now with that being said, I'm not saying Danceme is on the fence or pro innocence, I'm just saying it really serves no purpose to go down the route of dragging up past posts if someone claims to be on the fence. It would deter others from openly admitting they are changing their mind about guilt.

My beef is specifically with people who try to rewrite history. Danceme's claim was not that they were currently on the fence - I would in fact applaud them if that had been what they had said, and if I had believed it to be true.

Danceme's claim was that "In fact I've never described myself as a confirmed guilter. I have seen both sides and can say I am still somewhat on the fence". As the dragged-up text illustrates Danceme's statement is misleading at best. Saying one is "still X" implies that one has always been "X", and saying that one has never described oneself as "X" implies that one has never been "X".

I think truth has value. That's why I got involved in the debate about this case in the first place.

 

[Danceme]

For Chris and anyone else who cares to know, I have changed my mind about certain pieces of evidence over these many long months of discussions but I'll leave it at that for tonight.

 

[RoseMontague]

For Chris and anyone else who cares to know, I have changed my mind about certain pieces of evidence over these many long months of discussions but I'll leave it at that for tonight.

Thanks for that and I am glad to hear it. Having experienced something similar I appreciate your honesty. I look forward to your new perspective.

 

[Danceme]

Ok, back to kevin.

Yes, I was very convinced by certain pieces of evidence, but not all of it. I saw Amanda's point of view in various parts of the story, but not all of it. I did not believe in the framing, not being able to reconcile the opinions of so many people as being lies and coverups to save face.

I've never had a coherent version of the crime that fits everything we know and I still don't.

If I am judged to be a confirmed guilter on the basis of that post, or any others I've made, so be it, believe what you will despite what I tell you. Just tell me this, how am I different from LJ who claims to not be on one side or the other but only ever argues the innocent interpretation?

 

[Dan O.]

Antony if the shoe was on the other foot would you be prepared to sit down and put together an exhaustive narrative or timeline, such as the one DanO did for the innocence side?

I did not put together a timeline for the innocence side. I put together a timeline of all events that were documented to some source. It's not my doing that when all the evidence is objectively analyzed a conclusion of innocence is invariably reached.

Something I have done that might appear to be one sided is put together some narratives to fill in the gaps. Parts of these narratives are necessarily speculation but the goal is not to describe exactly what happened but to show a sequence of events that could have happened that is not contradicted by any evidence.

The only possible events are the ones that can form a complete sequence. We have constructed such sequences that involve Rudy Guede acting alone to murder Meredith so we can say that Rudy being the lone assailant is possible. We are still waiting for any such sequence invloving Amanda and Raffaele to be put forward.

 

[Mary_H]

Incidentally, I just finished reading Rudy's translated diary again. Does it seem to anyone else that he made a huge deal of thanking everyone in his life on the last page, almost as if he were contemplating suicide, or resigned to thinking his life was definitely over in some way. It's almost as if the gravity of what he had done (if it was being the lone murderer) had made him realize he is lost from this point on.

ETA: meaning he isn't thinking he will be charged with something less than murder.

I agree. He definitely sounds like someone who knows his goose is cooked. Very reminiscent of this occurrence:

Fugitive O.J. Simpson and his devoted childhood friend, A.C. Cowlings, led a caravan of twenty-five or more police squad cars on the slow-speed, five-lane car chase through Orange County, just south of Los Angeles. Seated in the back seat of Cowling’s white Ford Bronco, O.J. was holding a magnum pistol to his head. As Cowlings drove up the freeway, cameramen in helicopters provided a live television feed while commentators filled in the missing details. Television audiences were reminded of the circumstantial blood evidence linking O.J. to the Bundy Drive crime scene, and provided tantalizing details of his rocky marriage to Nicole and his presumed history of spousal abuse. Then there was Robert Shapiro, O.J.’s attorney, describing his client as emotionally “frail” and “fragile.” And Robert Kardashian, O.J.’s long-time friend from USC, then publicly pleaded with police and the press to help save O.J.’s life. Kardashian read from what was described as a suicide letter that Simpson had left behind. In O.J.’s letter, the sports star proclaimed his innocence. Yet, he ended by saying, “Don’t feel sorry for me, I’ve had a great life, great friends. Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person.”

 

[Mary_H]

<snip?So has the view of yours quoted below changed then?

Originally Posted by Danceme
There is no quest for truth among the Amanda groupies. I honestly think they hate the police more than they believe in Amanda's innocence. They begin with an unshakeable belief in a conspiracy and utter police incompetance and then explain everything away with all kinds of far fetched what ifs. They acknowledge none, none, of the evidence and ignore all arguments that might indicate any degree of involvement or guilt at all. They won't even acknowledge she lied about her alibi.

I dunno, that doesn't sound like someone who was on the fence as of July 30 last year. It does sound like the sort of thing I'd expect to read from a person I would describe as a confirmed guilter, although of course all you stated is that you wouldn't call yourself a confirmed guilter.

To me this sounds more like Danceme is saying s/he is not an innocenter than s/he is saying s/he is a guilter.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1) I can't remember ever seeing a cellular coverage map of that area of Perugia, showing the base stations / node Bs and their sectors/ranges of coverage. It would be very interesting to see one, but I suspect that only the mobile operators' network engineering departments actually accurate maps of this information. If I were one of the defence lawyers, I'd be requesting those maps from the network operators.

I have to say I am surprised that no-one has done this as it could answer a lot of questions about the phones that night.

2) About 5-7 minutes, at a moderately-brisk walk.

Thanks.

Now wherever did I say that

Admittedly nowhere, the reason I asked was that the whole buying of underwear seems to me to be totally irrelevant to the case. To much of case for guilt that I can actually get out of people believing guilt seems to be around the idea that she did things they think they wouldn't if in the same situation, but none of those things actually proves guilt, they just prove that different people react differently in situations, something well known already.

Antony if the shoe was on the other foot would you be prepared to sit down and put together an exhaustive narrative or timeline, such as the one DanO did for the innocence side? It's a rather time consuming venture and I'm not surprised only a couple of people have ever done one. I've never been that interested in convincing others of guilt, which would have to be the prime motivation for doing either one. In fact I've never described myself as a confirmed guilter. I have seen both sides and can say I am still somewhat on the fence.

I don't want people to spend time making one for me, I'm happy to do that bit, but it's hard to do without someone helping. I have no idea when Amanda and Raffaele were supposed to have left his place, arrived at the cottage, when the attack started, etc, and I can't get that information because no-one in the side of guilt will tell me what they believe and why.

Yes you would if you were motivated to change everyone else's minds. I'm not. I like to analyze certain parts of the equation as we all do but that's about it.

Have you never wanted to look at the overall picture to see if all those parts actually add up to what the prosecution claims?

Not a bit. I don't believe in a police conspiracy to get two people they knew were innocent just to save face

Personally I think the "Police Conspriacy" is a strawman fabrication of those claiming guilt. I don't think I have seen anyone on the innocence side pushing that there was apolice conspriacy, though I certainly haven't seen everyone's arguments.

I do see the prosecution's logic in certain pieces of the evidence that haven't been too convincing to me when explained from the other side.

Could I ask which peices of evidence those are?

I have changed my mind about certain pieces of evidence over these many long months of discussions but I'll leave it at that for tonight.

Could I ask which peices of evidence those are?

Yes, I was very convinced by certain pieces of evidence, but not all of it.

Can I ask what parts you find most convincing?

I've never had a coherent version of the crime that fits everything we know and I still don't.

Isn't that a worry for you?

 

[Draca]

I dunno, that doesn't sound like someone who was on the fence as of July 30 last year. It does sound like the sort of thing I'd expect to read from a person I would describe as a confirmed guilter, although of course all you stated is that you wouldn't call yourself a confirmed guilter.

Danceme has been IMO the most thought provoking poster on the guilt side for a long time now. They consistently see the weaknesses in others arguments. I often have to do more research after they point things out. A 'guilter' from the original IIP definition is someone who believes in guilt "regardless of any evidence that is presented proving otherwise". So, if Danceme leans toward guilt, I don't see them as not caring what the evidence shows.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I am hoping that Pilot or anyone else here that also posts on PMF can relay a message. As everyone knows, I am not welcome at PMF. SomeAlibi has called out his detractors as cowards. I would like to set up a discussion thread on the IIP forum so I can have a one on one discussion with him. I am hopeful that we can discuss issues as adults. If SomeAlibi is interested in having this discussion please ask him to send me an email injusticeinperugia@yahoo.com. The discussion would be available online for all to read. He is asking questions and I would like the opportunity to provide answers. If SomeAlibi would like to have a discussion on another forum I would be happy to do that also.

 

[babycondor]

I've never had a coherent version of the crime that fits everything we know and I still don't.

You have just described a position of reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case is unproven. Therefore, you would vote innocent.

Assuming they are reasonably familiar with the evidence available to the general public, anyone claiming to be "on the fence" at this juncture by definition has reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

Am I wrong? Is anyone here still clinging to a rusty bra clasp, a flaky knife, an impossible scream, a foggy disco bus memory? (Sounds like a Salvador Dali-inspired dream ballet in an Alfred Hitchcock film!)

Speaking of which, does this clock seem to be showing a TOD of 11:30???

​

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Threesome

SomeAlibi wrote at TJfMK, “Steve suggests that what the prosecution alleged in the trial was that Amanda and Raffaele ‘Decided for the first time that they are going to do a threesome’ with Rudy Guede. Again, anyone with the slightest knowledge of this case knows the prosecution never alleged this ‘threesome’. They alleged a sexually aggravated murder of Meredith Kercher. A threesome? Where does Moore get this stuff from?”

I am not entirely sure to what SomeAlibi objected, but his use of the word “never” is on shaky ground. Although the prosecution’s summation was based on the prissy roommate theory, the prosecution changed its motive almost as often as Elizabeth Taylor changed husbands, and one of their explanations was that it was a “sex game gone awry,” as discussed by ABC news reporter Ann Wise. Some observers of the case have also thought that a threesome or foursome was involved. A sampling follows:

Olga Craig of the Telegraph wrote, “But police refused to drop their threesome sex-orgy theory and decided they had been right all along – the only mistake they had made was that it was Guede, not Mr Lumumba, who was the third murderer.” Commenter Greggy at True Justice for Meredith Kercher wrote, “So when Knox suggested a three-way with Guede as an extreme experience, he went along. Not as a puppy, but as a way to degrade his high image of her and get some sort of control back of himself and the relationship.” Nick Squires wrote, “Prosecutors said it was the result of a four-way sex game in which Knox, Sollecito and Guede forced Kercher to submit to sex, threatening and then killing her with a knife.” Nick Squires is a reporter for the Telegraph.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok, back to kevin.

Yes, I was very convinced by certain pieces of evidence, but not all of it. I saw Amanda's point of view in various parts of the story, but not all of it. I did not believe in the framing, not being able to reconcile the opinions of so many people as being lies and coverups to save face.

I've never had a coherent version of the crime that fits everything we know and I still don't.

If I am judged to be a confirmed guilter on the basis of that post, or any others I've made, so be it, believe what you will despite what I tell you. Just tell me this, how am I different from LJ who claims to not be on one side or the other but only ever argues the innocent interpretation?

I'm not sure you're getting the nuance of my position, and it's an important issue. If you have this metaphorical fence, with "innocent" on one side and "guilty" on the other, you have to have both feet firmly planted on the "guilt" side in order to believe that Knox and Sollecito were justly convicted. If you have even one foot on the fence (even with the other foot on the "guilt" side), let alone if you're sitting on it, then what you have is reasonable doubt. And therefore you ought to believe that the convictions are unsafe.

And that's what I believe, and have done so for a very long time. For the first few weeks that I followed this case in any detail (in March/April 2010), I did have two feet on the "guilty" side - based predominantly on information that I subsequently found to be erroneous from the book "Darkness Descending". Once I learned more about the case, I started to climb the fence, and therefore by definition I got became more and more convinced that the convictions were unsafe.

If I were to describe my metaphorical position right now, I'd say that I was standing with one foot on the fence and the other on the "innocent" side. But the moment I started climbing the fence from the "guilty" side, I changed my mind about the safety of the convictions. And I've become ever more confident in my viewpoint since then, as I've climbed up and over the fence, even though I still don't have two feet firmly planted on the "innocent" side.

I think it's very important that people understand the asymmetry in the situation: that one has to be convinced of guilt before agreeing with a conviction, while one only has to have a very small amount of doubt before agreeing with an acquittal.

 

[lionking]

I think it's very important that people understand the asymmetry in the situation: that one has to be convinced of guilt before agreeing with a conviction, while one only has to have a very small amount of doubt before agreeing with an acquittal.

That's in a court of law, not an Internet forum. You can still have a small amount of doubt and believe in guilt. Prove me wrong.