Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Bruce, he can't destroy Amanda, and you can't save her. Her fate is beyond both of you.
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Justinian2
- Start date
- Status
Bruce, he can't destroy Amanda, and you can't save her. Her fate is beyond both of you.
Bruce Fischer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,584
Thank you for stating the obvious. It doesn't justify Quennell's actions. Public perception has been tainted by misinformation reported regarding Amanda Knox. This is a fact. Quennell takes the misinformation campaign to new heights.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Let's look into what police could have been relying upon to come to the conclusion Amanda was a compulsive liar. There's a number of times they presented things to the press suggestive of Amanda lying, yet in the final analysis it turned out the police were mistaken or they were lying themselves.
One is the Harry Potter book in German that Amanda said she was reading at Raffaele's the night of the murder. Police said they found it at her cottage, but failed to realize they had the book on their crime scene videos at Raffaele's.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CeaF8-oCk&feature=player_embedded#at=221
Another is the mysterious bleach receipts. They told Richard Owen of the Times they had bleach receipts from Raffaele's indicating someone bought bleach at 8:30 and 9:15 the morning after the murder. Here's the photo of the receipts found at Raffaele's, none of which back that contention, nor for that matter are even close enough to suggest a simple mistake.
Another is Amanda's sweatshirt, which was claimed by police to be missing, suggesting she disposed of it after the murder, very suspicious indeed, is it not? They even presented it to the Court of Freedom and the Supreme Court as 'evidence' against Amanda. Here it is on Amanda's bed, just where she said she left it, I guess no one bothered to check.
That article linked above is mainly about the CCTV video which police made a big deal out of having, and claimed it was 'clear-cut' that it was Amanda. As you can see in that article, months after the crime, while Amanda is in jail the whole time, they're still smacking their lips in anticipation of showing it to her, or so they claim to the press. As you can see there's nothing 'clear cut' about it at all, in fact it's likely Meredith. They obviously lied about the 'clear cut' part, but have you considered if Amanda really was involved in the crime she'd have probably freaked knowing this was hanging over her head, and might well have broken down and really confessed?
I see you cited the 'House of Horrors' article. Don't you think it a trifle ironic that they are branding Amanda Knox a 'compulsive liar' when they released that picture to the reporter who obviously thought it blood and reported it as such? Being as at this point it was known Amanda's story was she'd taken a shower in the morning before the body was discovered and it wouldn't dawn on her until after that shower something was wrong at her home, that picture served to damn her as an obvious liar in the eyes of the English-speaking public. Apparently this picture was not distributed to the Italian press, isn't that extraordinarily interesting? What do you suppose that might suggest?
All these stories served to paint the picture of Amanda Knox as lying, when in fact it turned out the police were lying or mistaken about it. That's the part that interests me most now, were the police just that brutally incompetent, or were they deliberately seeding the press with disinformation to defame Amanda Knox (especially!) in the eyes of the public and potential jurors?
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
perp walks
CoulsdonUK,
I would prefer to finish one thing, and then move on to another. I don't know enough to comment intelligently on the case to which you refer. However, I am categorically opposed to using perp walks to satisfy the public's curiosity or desire to indulge in schadenfreude. That goes for putting a couple of (demonstrably innocent) 19-20 year olds in cuffs in the Duke lacrosse case, for the unnecessary drive the police took through the old town of Perugia, and for the case of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who is accused of a serious offense.
As far as the application of a nation's laws on its own soil, I would say that if Italy's laws have explicitly codified the right of the defense to see electronic data files and other files pertaining to DNA profiling, then those files should have been released a long time ago. If Italy's laws have not yet codified this right, then they need to get with the rest of world, and the entire forensic science community. What are your views?
CoulsdonUK,
I would prefer to finish one thing, and then move on to another. I don't know enough to comment intelligently on the case to which you refer. However, I am categorically opposed to using perp walks to satisfy the public's curiosity or desire to indulge in schadenfreude. That goes for putting a couple of (demonstrably innocent) 19-20 year olds in cuffs in the Duke lacrosse case, for the unnecessary drive the police took through the old town of Perugia, and for the case of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who is accused of a serious offense.
As far as the application of a nation's laws on its own soil, I would say that if Italy's laws have explicitly codified the right of the defense to see electronic data files and other files pertaining to DNA profiling, then those files should have been released a long time ago. If Italy's laws have not yet codified this right, then they need to get with the rest of world, and the entire forensic science community. What are your views?
Last edited:
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
Missed a few replies on my travel day.
I assume you mean when the server and blog are in the same country. I have never seen this happen in the USA. Google and Yahoo usually defend free speech vigorously.
I have seen people try to take down sites for trademark violations and the hosts laughed at them. I have had letters from Scientology lawyers asking me to turn my domain names over to them and I laughed at them. Nothing ever came of it!
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
That wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact. I said, "I am not aware of one person who has come into contact with Amanda who has called her a pathological liar." I was looking for information, and you generously provided some.
You ask, "Fair Enough??" I answer, "No."
I am more than happy to comply with requests 1., 2. and 4. However, to leave the goalposts exactly where you placed them, you must defend your original statement, which was, "Let's not use innuendo, but instead use the 'recorded' words of an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory 'best truths that she can think of', that she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar." That rules out request #3, i.e., that we change the words.
As far as I can tell, none of the cites you provided quote anyone saying Amanda is a "classic pathological liar." Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, if you would like to move the goalposts yourself, and change your claim to, "...people who came into contact with Amanda have called her a [blank] liar," we can do that. You might want to reword your post as, "....she has been called by a few who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as being "a talented and calculating [or calculated] liar," and "a compulsive liar."
Just to keep things simple, I guess we could say you have provided cites to support that claim. Obviously, though, there was more to your original claim than that people have said Amanda was a liar. You said that the reason people have called Amanda a liar was because Amanda is "an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory [truths]..."
Can you provide any citations supporting the claim that some people have called Amanda a liar because she has been caught lying? I myself am not aware of any carefully documented, unequivocal lies on Amanda's part.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
I cant understand why posters so certain as to call someone a "pathological liar" wont come out and play with you.
I know if I truly thought someone was a pathological liar then I would be here jamming it to you. You seem to have offered more than fair terms...in fact you somewhat handicap your position...but still they hide. Or rather jab then hide...
Here is a particularly cruel and certain lie not on your short list (I know you are just getting warmed up though)
1. Oh by the way you tested positive for HIV....goodnight!...
2. Your BF just stopped giving you an alibi
3. We forgot to turn on the recorder
4. PL never sold his story to the Daily Mail
5. The glass was on top
6. The wash machine was running
7. They were bloody footprints
8. The cell tower for AK sms from PL showed she was in town. (via dell Aquila 5)
Well, there I go listing 8 lies (mistakes)...I wonder at what point do the sheer numbers become pathological? A psychiatrist once told me that having more than 2 cats was a clear sign of a disorder. I had zero cats so I’m not sure what he was implying.
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Greetings Mary H!
I just wanted to add a hilite to your well written rebutal to PilotPadron's post today. I'll check in tomorrow to see if PP responds to either your post or Kaosium's post above it.
Have a good evening,
RW
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Zoda
Radell is in the fine guilter tradition of not actually responding to the points made. It's trending as Dan O. would note.
---
Zoda
Sad to hear the Atlanta police:
1. Would conduct a 7 hour overnight interrogation while denying a person a lawyer and cuff them in the head.
2. Would fail to collect primary evidence at the crime scene including clothing the victim was wearing when attacked - jacket, shoes, bra clasp, socks, purse with blood near zipper.
3. Would override DNA testing equipment giving a 'too Low' reading on the one piece of DNA used to convict someone.
4. Would say in an interview that they found the guilty party by observing them and they did not need other evidence.
5. Would hold a defendant in prison for a year before even charging them with a crime.
6. Would withhold the electronic testing files from the defense.
7. Would lie to the court that footprints were not tested for blood when it was later proven they had been and the test was negative.
8. Would change the TOD at the last moment even though it didn't work with the stomach content autopsy results.
9. Would allow proven liars, heroin dealers and professional witnesses to testify.
10. Would burn FOUR computer hard drives while they were in police custody.
Radell is in the fine guilter tradition of not actually responding to the points made. It's trending as Dan O. would note.
---
Zoda
Sad to hear the Atlanta police:
1. Would conduct a 7 hour overnight interrogation while denying a person a lawyer and cuff them in the head.
2. Would fail to collect primary evidence at the crime scene including clothing the victim was wearing when attacked - jacket, shoes, bra clasp, socks, purse with blood near zipper.
3. Would override DNA testing equipment giving a 'too Low' reading on the one piece of DNA used to convict someone.
4. Would say in an interview that they found the guilty party by observing them and they did not need other evidence.
5. Would hold a defendant in prison for a year before even charging them with a crime.
6. Would withhold the electronic testing files from the defense.
7. Would lie to the court that footprints were not tested for blood when it was later proven they had been and the test was negative.
8. Would change the TOD at the last moment even though it didn't work with the stomach content autopsy results.
9. Would allow proven liars, heroin dealers and professional witnesses to testify.
10. Would burn FOUR computer hard drives while they were in police custody.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
I kinda doubt this for the following reasons:
1. Why did it then take three hours to get their first breakthrough? If Amanda came into the 'interview' prepossessed with notions of Patrick's guilt, it shouldn't have taken that long to get her to crack.
2. There are no details in the 'confessions,' they don't even address the 'staged' break-in. Raffaele was barely mentioned, suggesting he wasn't even a part of what she was describing. The best part about a real confession from the cops point of view is the confessor will tell them how to get the evidence against them, so they don't have to go rooting around everywhere for it. This is noticeably missing in these 'confessions.'
3. She claims she held out against the idea that Patrick was the murderer and her statements bear that out. Even having broken down once they don't get much more from the second statement than they did from the first. That suggests to me that she did experience something that made her think she might have witnessed the murder and 'repressed' it like they were suggesting, but she wouldn't extrapolate beyond that very much.
Last edited:
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
At the time of the "confession," it was good enough for the police and prosecutor that Amanda simply woke up the next day in Raffaele's bed without remembering how she got there. They stopped questioning her when they had nothing but a name. Yet the next day, they were able to describe to the press how and why the crime had been committed.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
That's how I'd 'spin' it if I were them too.
Except, of course, they already 'revealed' the reason, and it had something to do with Frank's 'evaluation' of the decision to believe Curatolo's testimony. If Frank is to be charged for something someone else 'wrote' on his site, how come it's not the Times (of London) or John Follain (or however you spell it) coming before the judge on July 4th instead of Amanda's parents?
As for why he allowed those comments to stand, as I recall he said it was as a record of just how nasty people behaved over this issue. I can't help but agree with him, I've never seen an issue discussed on the internet which generated so much antipathy. I've seen Israel/Palestine debates more cordial than this one, as in all of them.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
"Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting..."...for the worms!'
I can't help but wonder why anyone believing in guilt would want to descend to the parody of both positions, being as the worst they can throw at us amounts to being forced to admit (or deny!) that girls are pretty, and the rejoinder amounts to tongue-bathing the jackboots. Pretty girls or licking leather? I know what they can sign me up for!
No song has come to mind regarding Amanda and Raffaele's situation, though I'm sure Capealadin might propose Take the money and run.
I can't think of anything appropriate for Raffaele and Amanda, there has to be something in the immense rock and roll canon, it's just not coming to mind. Another genre to draw from might be classical, being as you've noted that's the type of concert they met at. I don't think Ode to Joy sums it up very well though.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
bri1
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 393
Mary H- I think Pilot has avoided the issue by citing only police and prosecutors in this case. If Amanda was a liar (habitual, pathological, or anything more than a normal white-liar) there would be people from her life before this case who would say so. No one has. Therefore she isn't one. I think anyone looking at this case objectively can see that the police and prosecutors in this case are hopelessly biased and confused and have been caught out on more lies than Amanda or Raff ever were.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
The fact that they would stoop to entering a Daily Mail article into the official record as well as call witnesses regarding her underwear purchases suggests if they could find anyone who would say Amanda was a liar they'd have definitely put them on the stand. They couldn't.
Tangentially, there were other things missing from the Foxy Knoxy smear that are notable in their exclusion. Where's the lists of people(s) that Amanda hated? Where's the anger in this girl that supposedly manifests when accused of stealing/outraged by purity/induced by hash and comic books, or whatever silly-ass theory they came up with that week?
They made a big deal about her sex life, but again, where's the harm done? The tabloids sent their riff-raff slithering all the way to Seattle waving around fistfuls of dollars, yet they couldn't find an old boyfriend whose heart had been broken by her cheating, or a girl outraged by 'Foxy Knoxy' stealing her boyfriend? She was helpless, the whole world hated her, and money was being waved around and they drew a complete blank? That suggests to me that we heard just about all the bad there was to hear about Amanda Knox, and when boiled down it didn't amount to much.
pilot padron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 690
Revisiting Amanda Knox, the 'pathological liar', by popular request
Having read the several rather frantic but unimpressive 'rebuttals' to my original post; my primary reply is a respectful request to just re-read (slowly) the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out as a parameter to my statement.
This, since to the letter, nearly every rebuttal remarkably but expectedly fulfilled my expectations and deliberately directly violated one or more (some 'rebuttals violated *all*) of the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out.
Possibly the only replies that were exceptions to the above violations, are in themselves the best argument that my original statement was correct.
The exception (and usual, expected echo from loyal disciple) to which I direct the remainder of this reply:
Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.
In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)
Live with it.
Having read the several rather frantic but unimpressive 'rebuttals' to my original post; my primary reply is a respectful request to just re-read (slowly) the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out as a parameter to my statement.
This, since to the letter, nearly every rebuttal remarkably but expectedly fulfilled my expectations and deliberately directly violated one or more (some 'rebuttals violated *all*) of the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out.
Possibly the only replies that were exceptions to the above violations, are in themselves the best argument that my original statement was correct.
The exception (and usual, expected echo from loyal disciple) to which I direct the remainder of this reply:
Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.
In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)
Live with it.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
preserving DNA evidence
A couple of posts at gritsforbreakfast.blogspot emphasize the need to preserve DNA evidence properly. The latest person to be exonerated was found not guilty on the basis of retesting DNA evidence that was at least 27 years old. Allowing a major piece of evidence (the bra clasp) to rust and rot is either fecklessness or worse.
A couple of posts at gritsforbreakfast.blogspot emphasize the need to preserve DNA evidence properly. The latest person to be exonerated was found not guilty on the basis of retesting DNA evidence that was at least 27 years old. Allowing a major piece of evidence (the bra clasp) to rust and rot is either fecklessness or worse.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Hi
"Live with it"
As if it's a matter that's keeping any of us awake at night.The fact remains that the only people who accused Knox of being a liar (and I'm having trouble finding the desciptor "pathological" or its equivalent being applied to Knox by anyone) are those who had something to gain by her being found guilty. I don't see anyone with what's nowadays abbreviated to an NPOV calling her a habitual liar, and there's no prior evidence that she was any more or less deceitful than any other person between the ages of 15 and 20. Live with it!
And did you mean "viola", or might you have meant to write "cello"?
- Status