Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
Where's the evidence as to what time she started eating? It could have been at 4, it could have been at 7. Bottom line....you don't know.
Click to expand...

The evidence has been presented in this thread over and over again ad infinitum.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alt+F4 said:
No it hasn't. You have no idea what time Meredith starting eating, neither does her friends.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's not like they were there or anything. :rolleyes:

As I said you can say "No it hasn't" over and over again until you are blue in the face, if you're not already, but any rational person reading this has already decided that you're not making much sense. Perhaps it's time for bed?
 
Matthew Best said:
As I said you can say "No it hasn't" over and over again until you are blue in the face, if you're not already, but any rational person reading this has already decided that you're not making much sense. Perhaps it's time for bed?
Click to expand...

Ok, got it. You have no idea what time she started eating either.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Ok, got it. You have no idea what time she started eating either.
Click to expand...

Good idea! Unilaterally claim victory - it's probably the only way you're going to win this argument. If you want to really nail things down, you could post a little dancing man and write "I win again" next to him. That would clinch it. :D:D:D
 
Matthew Best said:
Good idea! Unilaterally claim victory - it's probably the only way you're going to win this argument. If you want to really nail things down, you could post a little dancing man and write "I win again" next to him. That would clinch it. :D:D:D
Click to expand...

Again, if you have any evidence as to when Meredith actually started eating, then please post it. None of her friends who were there that day knows what time she did start eating. She arrived around 4pm and left around 8:45pm and all of them ate and watched a movie during that time period.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Again, if you have any evidence as to when Meredith actually started eating, then please post it.
Click to expand...

I don't want to bore the people who have actually already read the evidence with it again, so no. You'll just have to look upthread where it was posted previously.

Or, as machiavelli would say, you're not a baby so I'm not going to spoon feed you. :p
 
Matthew Best said:
I don't want to bore the people who have actually already read the evidence with it again, so no. You'll just have to look upthread where it was posted previously.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no evidence posted as to when Meredith started eating that night.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Wrong. There is no evidence posted as to when Meredith started eating that night.
Click to expand...

Her friends claim that the meal started after 5:30pm and no later than 6:30pm, and no matter how much you wave your hands the evidence is that they are correct.

Here is what we know:

  • The girls ate the pizza before starting the movie, all of them agree on that.
  • The movie has a run time of 123 mins (IMDB)
  • They paused the movie about halfway through and make and eat an apple crumble
  • They finished the crumble about 7:45pm
  • Meredith left right after the movie at 8:45pm

So what it the earliest time they could have finished the Pizza?

It's not that hard to do the math. even if you make the claim that they somehow managed to make and eat the crumble in 5 mins, cut the credits and started the movie instantly after the pizza, it still makes the ending time of the first course around 6:40pm at the latest.

A far more reasonable ending time is 6:20-6:30pm putting the start time at 6:00-6:20pm depending on how fast they ate. This is right in the target zone of the witness statments for the meal.

As to your whole 4pm-6pm must have eaten thing, there is exact zero evidence of that as if she had eaten after 4pm but before the pizza, then that would have just made it all the more likely that she'd have had food in the duodenum, not less likely. Besides, the PM found the remains of the pizza in her stomach, so even eating before hand wouldn't have the pizza digestion down.

Finally, there is exactly zero evidence that Meredith was still alive at 9:15pm. The absolute latest that we can say for certain that she was alive was 8:56pm when she made the aborted phone call home.

Now really, this is getting silly. The evidence for all this is right there in Massei's report and anyone can read it for themselves, even if he does go on to totally ignore it afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Kevin, haven't we whacked this mole many times before? There is no evidence that a Naruto file was opened. It's only something mentioned in RS's appeal. There is no evidence of this and so far, nothing regarding this has been accepted by the appeals court. Why keep up with this lie?
Click to expand...


"What claimed by Bongiorno, that there was an interaction with Naruto at 21:26 simply it wasn't true according to the postal police, otherwise they would have found it."
(Perugia-Shock 2009-03-16)
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Kevin, haven't we whacked this mole many times before? There is no evidence that a Naruto file was opened. It's only something mentioned in RS's appeal.
Click to expand...

You can stop posting now. I think we can extrapolate your responses for the rest of this thread without undue difficulty.

If anyone refers to an established fact, we can just assume you will say "There is no evidence for that! Stop lying!".

If anyone refers to a prosecution claim which is not established, we can just assume you will say "The evidence for that claim is in the 10 000 pages of secret evidence! Don't try to pretend it doesn't exist just because no journalist, lawyer, advocate or judge has ever even hinted at its existence! You don't know it's not there! Stop lying!".

Do you plan to say anything else at any future point, or will that cover it?

There is no evidence of this and so far, nothing regarding this has been accepted by the appeals court. Why keep up with this lie?
Click to expand...

Now you don't need to post the above ever again. I think this will save space in the thread and also save you some typing. Win/win.
 
RoseMontague said:
This one is interesting.

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the inexperience and immaturity of the accused, long distance from their families, and their attachment to each other.

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: inexperience and immaturity: the calunnia against Lumumba, its continuation during his unjust imprisonment and further calunnia against the Flying Squad during the trial, so opening up another case, – speak to a coldness and determination, and not a docile disposition and inexperience. And on the other hand, the intervention of the respective families never addressed themselves to undoing the initial calunnia against Lumumba even when Knox’s mother received her daughter’s confidences about Patrick’s innocence, and, notwithstanding that, there was no advice, from mother to daughter, to retract that accusation. No positive influence would have come from the presence of the families, at least to judge from the behaviour after the murder. The Court would have had to have considered this in conjunction with the staged burglary and the shared desire of both accused to mislead the investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm reading this as the court should deny mitigation based on the fact that Amanda's Mom was not shown to give her the advice she should have. Or not?
Click to expand...


These are a laff riot, Rose. They sound like they were written by internet posters instead of actual lawyers. First they make completely false statements about the families not trying to undo the calunnia against Patrick, then they use their own false statements to support the argument that the families were good for nothing, so the kids' distance from them shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Even better, the prosecution is appealing against the mitigation because Amanda has been ACCUSED of an additional instance of calunnia -- not even found guilty of it yet. There they go again with that whole tossing-out-the-presumption-of-innocence thing.
 
RoseMontague said:
And this gem:

In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: diligent behaviour in study and towards others, e.g. Sollecito offering a lift to Popovič, Amanda working for Lumumba, even though studying and attending lessons

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: these arguments are so facile that they hardly require commenting on: study success is tied to qualities of intelligence and memory, which the two accused certainly possess, but this is neither here nor there at the ethical level – which is where the mitigation operates. The Court emphasized Sollecito’s availability to help Popovič, to give her a lift to the bus station that night. Yet the same Popovič testified that Raffaele was not exactly happy at the prospect, so much so that he replied “in a cold tone”, and in any case not his normal one. And the fact that Amanda was working for Lumumba is also neutral with respect to the mitigation. Obviously, the accused had the economic need to do so, and that job, while not onerous, provided the opportunity for meeting people and avoiding the routine of study.
Click to expand...


Yes, I believe they just accused Amanda of getting a job so she could avoid the routine of study. Am I reading this correctly?<snip>
Click to expand...


It takes a special kind of petty mind to come up with this stuff -- "The fact that Amanda enjoyed her job cancels out the fact that she had one."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom