Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

Good for you. Not my fault you haven't read my 500+ posts in this thread.

Isn't it? Five hundred plus posts? If you had had anything of merit to say then I maybe I would have read them. Unfortunately, much of your contribution has been along the lines of demanding that others back up random details with references, while conspicuously failing to provide references for your own assertions.

Now I've given you the chance to substantiate what you say, about your "guarantee" that AK and RS will lose their appeal. You've chosen not to do so.

I've given my answers, not my fault you're to lazy to find them.

That's a personal attack. I have better things to do than search through your evasive ramblings for answers that I doubt exist.

Yes, we know all your points, over, and over again. When Judge Hellmann excepts them as "facts" get back to me.

It's "accepts", not "excepts". As for the facts supporting innocence, which of them do you dispute, and why? Here are a few:

• Meredith's intestinal contents show a time-of-death of 10pm or earlier, when the prosecution alleges that Amanda and Raffaele killed her at around 11:45pm;
• there is none of Meredith's DNA after all on Raffaele's kitchen knife, so there is no justification to claim it to be the murder weapon;
• the bra clasp cannot be re-tested for DNA because of police mishandling;
• without the knife and the bra clasp, there is no evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the murder scene.

An equivalent list of facts supporting your position would at least answer my long-standing question. The reason you do not post one is because you have no facts, not because you have posted them previously.

 

[platonov]

"Get out of my garden"

I'll look for it if you can show me a video where Massei's theory of how the window was broken was tested.

What video is this ?

None was required, AFAIK, as the good people of Italy along with most of humanity had no difficulty with the concept of Inward Opening Windows which so perplexed many on this thread over countless posts.

You obviously argue ? it was required to counteract the expert who astonished the court by showing that windows could also be broken by hoofing large rocks through them from the outside.
Indeed one wonders what the court made of this - it beggars belief that the case wasn't dismissed on the spot Is he being called on again in the appeal ? - that kind of stuff deserves more exposure.


Actually if nothing else this issue has achieved one thing - a possible source for the origin of the Pasquale "Get out of my garden" joke - no doubt he heard this phrase during the course of his research

So how about that link - please don't tell me its no longer available.
If so, I fear for the appeal - its the best thing the Foakers have come up with.

 

[lane99]

...As hypotheses go it's marginally better than homeopathy but not much better than Bigfoot. It doesn't break any known laws of physics but it's incredibly implausible.

So you've got a hypothesis that rational observers should think was incredibly unlikely from the outset, and no theory of the crime to go with it that is even remotely coherent.

By comparison to the official prosecution hypothesis, which is overwhelmingly improbable, the hypothesis that a lone burglar raped and murdered Meredith and then ..police made a complete dog's breakfast of the investigation is not particularly implausible at all.

Well said. And I believe an excellent summary of how any skeptic worth his salt would approach this case.

Roughly speaking, I'd say the probability that the couple WERE involved in the crime is about the same as the probability that the two-bit burglar WASN'T.

Incidentally, if it was just Knox and the boyfriend being accused, as unlikely as it would be under the specific circumstances of this case, I wouldn't agree with the claim that nothing even remotely similar has ever been known to happen.

So I think it's important to remember- when accessing the relative plausibilities here- exactly what is being alleged. Namely, a three way conspiracy involving not just an otherwise well-liked and respected couple; but such a couple in cahoots with a virtual stranger. It is this which makes it not unreasonable for people to argue that what is alleged is something virtually (or maybe even literally) unprecedented in criminal history.

 

[Mary_H]

Not sure what you argue by reminding us again "what we all know".

However, may I just expand to what some may not know:

1) A Volunteer Moderator's. opinions and ability to form judgements have been deemed sufficiently well founded that s/he is allowed to determine when and if other posters here have violated the Membership Agreement.
May I suggest that *to me* this demonstrated ability in itself puts his/her *opinion* well above the much less qualified run of the mill very vocal 'Amanda forever cheer leading' opinions so prevalent here.
(Disclaimer by Mod's last sentence understood and appreciated)<snip>

pilot, you might find some disagreement with that opinion among your colleagues on PMF, who commented on the participation in this thread of another Moderator:

Stilicho (Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:30 am) “I was appalled at LashL's abrogation of neutrality.”

Stilicho (Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:33 am) “I usually respect Kevin Lowe for his differences of opinion even if I think they're misguided. In this case, though--and with LashL too--they have clearly not read sufficiently to form an opinion.”

Fiona (Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:12 am) “LashL has so little sense of the job of moderation that she did not realise, of herself, that she should not mod a thread in which she was so clearly partisan: she had to be told. That tells us all we need to know about her sense of what is right, never mind what is proper in terms of the values she should have learned at law school.”

Michael (Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:16 pm) “Since the Admins/Mods there have a clear bias to a particular side that posts in that thread I can't see them closing it any time soon…..And that's before we even get to individual Admins such as LashL being personally invested and moderating accordingly.”

Fiona (Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:16 am) “I am appalled to learn that LashL still mods that thread.”

 

[Alt+F4]

A group of Italian legislators led by Rocco Girlanda has filed a petition with the president of Italy and the Italian justice ministry requesting an investigation into the conduct of Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and others in Amanda’s trial. This important request for an investigation was read aloud before the Italian parliament.

Mignini is not mentioned at all and Girlanda is quite vague as to what he is actually asking for:

I would make an appeal, Mr. President, because your authoritative intervention will help to reconcile and mitigate the many controversies that this incident has generated on both sides of the Atlantic.

If he is asking for an investigation, that's pretty hypocritical coming from a Berluscioni supporter (Girlanda).

http://www.amandaknox.it/

 

[Diocletus]

What video is this ?

If you are a 30-50 year old American, then you will immediately recognize the Triple Lindy as about as likely as the Massei rock theory.

If you're not . . . fuhgetaboutit.

 

[Rolfe]

Well said. And I believe an excellent summary of how any skeptic worth his salt would approach this case.

Roughly speaking, I'd say the probability that the couple WERE involved in the crime is about the same as the probability that the two-bit burglar WASN'T.

Incidentally, if it was just Knox and the boyfriend being accused, as unlikely as it would be under the specific circumstances of this case, I wouldn't agree with the claim that nothing even remotely similar has ever been known to happen.

So I think it's important to remember- when accessing the relative plausibilities here- exactly what is being alleged. Namely, a three way conspiracy involving not just an otherwise well-liked and respected couple; but such a couple in cahoots with a virtual stranger. It is this which makes it not unreasonable for people to argue that what is alleged is something virtually (or maybe even literally) unprecedented in criminal history.

That's a good summary of the way I see the affair. The basic premise is an extraordinary event. I keep waiting for the "gotcha" moment where the extraordinary (or at least compelling) evidence shows up to explain why anyone even began to suspect such a thing had happened.

It doesn't happen, and it goes right on not happening.

Amanda Knox seems to be a fruitloop of the first water, and in many ways he own worst enemy. And a good reason to think twice before smoking pot, I suspect. But Amanda being weird, and maybe not entirely mentally/emotionally stable, isn't any sort of evidence she murdered Meredith.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bad timing

Amanda Knox seems to be a fruitloop of the first water, and in many ways he own worst enemy. And a good reason to think twice before smoking pot, I suspect. But Amanda being weird, and maybe not entirely mentally/emotionally stable, isn't any sort of evidence she murdered Meredith.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

I respectfully, but strongly disagree with your assessment of Amanda Knox. I don't think the whole cartwheel thing came up before 2009, about the same time as the English students gave their impressions of Amanda's actions. Particularly with respect to Meredith's friends, I think we are looking at witnesses who have allowed their later thoughts to color their recollections of Amanda's behavior. Amanda kissed in public and cried in private. If she had reversed these two actions with respect to who could and could not observe them, I have to wonder whether any of this would have happened. MOO.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Amanda Knox seems to be a fruitloop of the first water, and in many ways he own worst enemy. And a good reason to think twice before smoking pot, I suspect. But Amanda being weird, and maybe not entirely mentally/emotionally stable, isn't any sort of evidence she murdered Meredith.

Rolfe.

I have to go along with halides1 and state that there is no reason whatsoever to find fault with Amanda. She had nothing to do with being in this situation -- it was instigated by people and circumstances well outside of her control. In that sense, there was nothing she could have done to prevent it, nor was there anything she could do to improve it, although she certainly tried. Her behavior was completely immaterial.

Amanda and Raffaele's exemplary lives before their arrests and the fact that they are holding up so well after almost four years in prison are evidence enough of their mental and emotional stability.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, it was only an impression. No need to quarrel about it.

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

Here is the list you posted on February fifth, perhaps to stimulate discussion as all of us massacred groundhogs returned to the fray. You may have updated it subsequently but I can't recall any off the top of my head.

Thanks for posting the link - you have to wonder why Alt+F4 declined to post it herself. All of her reasons are either fallacies or completely inconsequential (which is no surprise to me) - so maybe she was too embarrassed to link to it.

 

[Kaosium]

What video is this ?

None was required, AFAIK, as the good people of Italy along with most of humanity had no difficulty with the concept of Inward Opening Windows which so perplexed many on this thread over countless posts.

It's not just the inward-opening windows, that was just what caused me to have difficulty comprehending what on earth he was getting at. Incidentally do you actually believe it happened this way? That these two college kids, supposedly stoned out of their minds, really decided to close the outer shutters, open the window inward, angle the inner shutters just so, and that the glass that didn't end up dumped in front of the window as per their 'cunning plan' somehow flew at almost a 90 degree angle all the way out to the rug and the bed?

It's not only impossible but it's utterly bizarre to believe that these kids would think of or do such a thing, when all they had to do was throw the rock through the window from the outside as they left and make sure the window opened! Do you actually believe even Massei thinks it happened that way? I don't, he's just 'hypothesizing' a scenario that suggests guilt trying to account for all the 'evidence' of a 'staged' break-in. Anyone whose actually tried to piece together a scenario for guilt may on some level have sympathy for him as every piece of 'evidence' has to be twisted idiotically like this to support a theory of guilt.

You obviously argue ? it was required to counteract the expert who astonished the court by showing that windows could also be broken by hoofing large rocks through them from the outside.
Indeed one wonders what the court made of this - it beggars belief that the case wasn't dismissed on the spot Is he being called on again in the appeal ? - that kind of stuff deserves more exposure.

I believe the point is the defense can show their reconstruction is possible in the real world, the prosecution can't because it's just a silly theory constructed to imply guilt that could only be possible in the 'logic' of the Italian Courts. You just don't get that, do you?

Let me put it this way: entertain for simply a moment the possibility that the theories and 'science' in the Massei Report are so absurd that numerous people with rational minds and/or knowledge and expertise in certain areas can just read it and realize it's not possible, or at least so improbable that reasonable doubt is obtained. Kinda like Judge Hellmann implied at the outset of the appeal...

Platonov, the only thing Massei is really useful for is the accumulation of the data, the theories are for entertainment purposes only. Unfortunately for guilt, no one has been able to come up with anything since that actually employs evidence in the endeavor and is better. Incidentally, did you see that CNN interview? Did you realize you probably know the case better than Mignini does? Is that even possible in your mental universe?

 

[jhunter1163]

I apologize for the delay in replying; had to go to work, you know.

By "guilty knowledge" I mean that AK knows what happened that night but is not telling, for whatever reason. She may not have been involved in the murder but is what we in the States would call an accessory, possibly after the fact.

As far as why I believe that, the primary reason is the change in her story, and secondarily her naming of Lumumba. As the proverb says, the truth will set you free. If she were truly innocent, there would be no reason for her story to change at all, and no reason to drag a demonstrably innocent man into it.

Again, I don't claim any special expertise or insight; the above is my opinion only.

ETA: And again, thank you for the kind words about my dog. She sends you all tail wags.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, it was only an impression. No need to quarrel about it.

Rolfe.

It's easy to come to your conclusions about Amanda if you have drawn your conclusions based on what the media has told you over the past 3+ years. Many in the media have done a masterful job of destroying her image with a relentless campaign of misinformation.

Thank you for posting the information regarding digestion. No matter how many times it's explained some refuse to accept it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda and Raffaele's exemplary lives before their arrests...

What a joke Mary, but I'll play along. Please give us examples of their "exemplary lives", before their arrests with the regular definition of exemplary being, "deserving imitation because of excellence".

 

[RandyN]

Not sure what you argue by reminding us again "what we all know".

However, may I just expand to what some may not know:

1) A Volunteer Moderator's. opinions and ability to form judgements have been deemed sufficiently well founded that s/he is allowed to determine when and if other posters here have violated the Membership Agreement.
May I suggest that *to me* this demonstrated ability in itself puts his/her *opinion* well above the much less qualified run of the mill very vocal 'Amanda forever cheer leading' opinions so prevalent here.
(Disclaimer by Mod's last sentence understood and appreciated)

2) Charlie Wilkes also has expressed an identical belief that the Appeals will fail.
Most here realize that if nothing else, he probably has access to and a storehouse of more information about the case than anyone else posting here.(Much of which was provided to Family only)
May I suggest similar superiority be alluded to that opinion.

Just my refinement of the above well worn derogatory argument about universality and omnipresence of opinions, intended to diminish the significance of the latest proffered.
(possibly solely because it runs counter to preferred)

Or it may just be that opinions are like a**holes ...everybody has one.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, it was only an impression. No need to quarrel about it.

Rolfe.

Rolfe, if you continue to post on this thread you'll soon learn that you will be attacked if you dare post anything even the slightest bit negative regarding Saint Amanda of Perugia.

EDIT: For an example, just read the post above this one.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Thanks for posting the link - you have to wonder why Alt+F4 declined to post it herself. All of her reasons are either fallacies or completely inconsequential (which is no surprise to me) - so maybe she was too embarrassed to link to it.

I find it interesting that Alt+F4 posted that in February of this year. It's a list I would have expected to see back in 2008. Everything on the list has now been refuted. How times have changed.

 

[Alt+F4]

By "guilty knowledge" I mean that AK knows what happened that night but is not telling, for whatever reason. She may not have been involved in the murder but is what we in the States would call an accessory, possibly after the fact.

As far as why I believe that, the primary reason is the change in her story, and secondarily her naming of Lumumba. As the proverb says, the truth will set you free. If she were truly innocent, there would be no reason for her story to change at all, and no reason to drag a demonstrably innocent man into it.

I agree, this is what I have been saying all along. Too bad for her, if she had just told the truth she would have probably been charged with accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence. With good behavior she would probably be home by now. But instead, she's facing a potential life sentence. I don't think she lied when she fingered Patrick. I think she was so high that night she only remembered a black man, when the police suggested Patrick it made just as much sense to her as if they suggested Rudy..

 

[pilot padron]

pilot, you might find some disagreement with that opinion among your colleagues on PMF, who commented on the participation in this thread of another Moderator:

Stilicho (Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:30 am) “I was appalled at LashL's abrogation of neutrality.”

Stilicho (Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:33 am) “I usually respect Kevin Lowe for his differences of opinion even if I think they're misguided. In this case, though--and with LashL too--they have clearly not read sufficiently to form an opinion.”

Fiona (Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:12 am) “LashL has so little sense of the job of moderation that she did not realise, of herself, that she should not mod a thread in which she was so clearly partisan: she had to be told. That tells us all we need to know about her sense of what is right, never mind what is proper in terms of the values she should have learned at law school.”

Michael (Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:16 pm) “Since the Admins/Mods there have a clear bias to a particular side that posts in that thread I can't see them closing it any time soon…..And that's before we even get to individual Admins such as LashL being personally invested and moderating accordingly.”

Fiona (Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:16 am) “I am appalled to learn that LashL still mods that thread.”

Mary, my friend your exhaustive research and recounting on the comings and goings at PMF leave me in awe again, as had your previous lengthy documentation of each and every poster ever disciplined there.

However, your argument has documented little other than I indeed do not agree with what all whom you deem appropriate to call 'my colleagues' have previously said about Moderators' opinions about the Kercher murder on this thread.
(If that needed documentation for some reason that I fail to connect with)

I have to go along with halides1 and state that there is no reason whatsoever to find fault with Amanda. ........
Amanda and Raffaele's exemplary lives before their arrests and the fact that they are holding up so well after almost four years in prison are evidence enough of their mental and emotional stability.

Well, it was only an impression. No need to quarrel about it.Rolfe.

Mary, The above opinion of yours however is *much* more difficult for me to find any agreement with whatsoever.

Mary, forgive me I quarrel not, but but beg to emphatically disagree

Even if we no longer 'parse' so as to humor communications engineering fetishes, we must now simply ask *your* definition of exemplary in light of:

1) Raffaele's self incriminating statement that he was under the influence of drugs 80% of his waking hours, and the fact that his father was in fact a sobriety coach by calling him several times a day to try and help him stay off drugs.

2) Various and sundry descriptions of Amanda that make even her Mother's "quirky" seem tame, yet certainly far from 'exemplary'.

3) Since what convicted murderers heard others say is apparently now revered and respected Defense Team sources (even one who used a shovel to kill a child), you surely recall one such convicted cretin that helped to kill Meredith Kercher said that Meredith told him Amanda was a drugged up tart. (exemplary indeed)

3) Various judges who looked at mountains of evidence about them have said either or both were:
a) Danger to the public completely without inhibitions
b) Disposed to follow any impulse even leading to violent conduct
c) Histrionic, restless, and do not disdain multiple frequentations
d) Sleeps around

Let's put it mildly and conclude that your rose colored glasses concept of 'exemplary' is excusable, being probably agenda driven.
But it is definitely dramatically different than mine, and hardly widely accepted anywhere save from like minded cheerleaders, or self published authors that even Frank Sfarzo called 'confused'

Additionally, by definition, (not parsing), 'arrest' of itself somewhat inhibits opportunities to have any *subsequent* behavior after arrest, that you allude to, be in fact anything less than 'exemplary'.
(Does it not ?)
Forgive me if I remain underwhelmed that you find what a jailbird does with his time behind bars as 'exemplary' much less extraordinary.