Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

If this was 'neutral',just what does it take to be bad?

All in all, a neutral day for the defence at worst. .

Oh Dear

Is there any kind of an award for the most outrageous observation of the day?.

Practically each and every one of the scores of all those horrid reporters and their editors must have *all* been so terribly misinformed and/or possibly misinterpreted with their practically unanimous detailing of the disaster and debacle for the defense today.

Even the networks who previously prostituted their integrity to Marriott's extortion like 'tit for tat' demands about only positive 'Amanda forever' cheers or you will never be 'scheduled' to interview any of the family members, joined in the overwhelming descriptions of disaster.

How could this be if we are now told by a distant, detached source that it was "neutral at worst"

Oh, OK, maybe:
1) this is all also just part of the vast global omnipresent conspiracy

2) this large group of almost every significant media outlet *in the world* have not seen/cared about the 'bombshell' Googled ToD that is incessantly heralded here.

3) this defense debacle does not warrant electron use, because the really BIG story we need to direct (divert) all our attention to Sky's translation error, and the fact that Sky News is or is not one in the same with Sky Corporation

 

[Alt+F4]

Thanks, again.

I'm a little confused on these Skype conversations.

So, he didn't mention Knox and Sollecito in the Skype conversation. Why is that? If he was sure, they were there, why he didn't say anything to Giacomo? Wouldn't it be good for him to claim from the start that these two were involved? For me it's highly suspicious that he changed his mind only after he saw what's goin on in the media. That's what always bugged me about his story.

At the time of the Skype conversation his story was that MK was murdered by a "bushy-hair man" (obviously not RS) while he was on the toilet. No mention at that time of a woman being involved. It's pretty obvious that almost everything that comes out of RG's mouth is a lie.

 

[yeti101]

hi all, can someone give me their opinion of how things went overall today? good for defence or prosecution? thanks

 

[Alt+F4]

Practically each and every one of the scores of all those horrid reporters and their editors must have *all* been so terribly misinformed and/or possibly misinterpreted with their practically unanimous detailing of the disaster and debacle for the defense today.

Indeed. Here's another one I just came across:

The appeal trial to a case that gripped Italy opened Monday, with crushing testimony against Amanda Knox. Knox, the American college student convicted of murdering her roommate while studying abroad in Italy, is appealing her 26-year sentence handed down in 2009. After a series of small victories for her defense team, including the reexamination of crucial DNA evidence, the testimony of Rudy Geude, a man also convicted in the death of Meredith Kercher, left Knox “shocked and anguished” in court Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-appeals-trial/2011/06/27/AG5cLjnH_blog.html

 

[snook1]

At the time of the Skype conversation his story was that MK was murdered by a "bushy-hair man" (obviously not RS) while he was on the toilet. No mention at that time of a woman being involved. It's pretty obvious that almost everything that comes out of RG's mouth is a lie.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Dear

Is there any kind of an award for the most outrageous observation of the day?.

Practically each and every one of the scores of all those horrid reporters and their editors must have *all* been so terribly misinformed and/or possibly misinterpreted with their practically unanimous detailing of the disaster and debacle for the defense today.

Even the networks who previously prostituted their integrity to Marriott's extortion like tit for tat demands about only positive 'Amanda forever' cheers or you will never be 'scheduled' to interview any of the family members, joined in the overwhelming descriptions of disaster.

How could this be if we are now told by a distant, detached source that it was "neutral at worst"

Oh, OK, maybe:
1) this is all also just part of the vast global omnipresent conspiracy

2) this large group of almost every significant media outlet *in the world* have not seen/cared about the 'bombshell' Googled ToD that is incessantly heralded here.

3) this defense debacle does not warrant electron use, because the really BIG story we need to direct (divert) all our attention to Sky's translation error, and the fact that Sky News is or is not one in the same with Sky Corporation

1) So which major media outlets described the day as a "disaster" or "debacle" for the defence?

2) Even if they did, is there any chance that their appraisal of the situation was incorrect?

3) Who's talking about a "vast global conspiracy", or even implying one? Only you, and others of your ilk, it would appear.

4) The reason why the main media outlets have not yet focussed on ToD is that it hasn't come up in the appeal trial yet. When it is argued in the appeal trial (or earlier, if Hellmann allows new expert testimony on ToD), I'd imagine that the media will give it quite a bit of space. The media are event-driven, and there hasn't yet been a defined "event" concerning ToD.

5) Who is claiming that the big story is Sky's cock-up on the translation? Cos it's not me, that's for sure.

6) I found it amusing that someone who claimed to be "on the inside" with Sky referred to "Sky Corporation". Imagine if you referred to "USFarmer.com" as "USFarming.com" - you get the picture.....

7) Have you yet apologised to Kevinfay, by the way, for calling him a "clueless cheerleader"? After all, he's "on your side", innit?

Have a lovely evening!

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. Here's another one I just came across:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-appeals-trial/2011/06/27/AG5cLjnH_blog.html

I'm having trouble finding the part in that article where today was described as a disaster for the defence, or even a debacle. Could you point out the relevant parts to me please? Thanks in advance!

 

[snook1]

@LondonJohn - I admire you. Talking to Stint is like talking to a wall, nothing comes through.

 

[Onofarar]

Yup, that's why this trial is such a disgrace. Both side decide which convict they are going to believe because they think it advances their side of the case. I don't think any of these slimy criminals has any credibility.

Alt - your comments remind me of a joke making the rounds a few years ago.
Seems there were a lot of surplus lawyers around after the great recession of 2008 - many of them found work in science labs. Why? Researchers found there were many things you could get a lawyer to do that you could not get a rat to do.

 

[Kevinfay]

That really is a significant error, appalling, really appalling! Is the Italian even close in sound to what the translation suggested? was it deliberate?



Is there any need to go on and on about this LJ? You sure do like to goad.

OK, the video is still there if you go to the Tweet above the article. It is being investigated, not in London, but in Rome.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm having trouble finding the part in that article where today was described as a disaster for the defence, or even a debacle. Could you point out the relevant parts to me please? Thanks in advance!

"...crushing testimony against Amanda Knox." Sorry if you don't think that's a description of a disaster and a debacle. But hey, that's what the defense gets when their super witnesses are convicted felons. You know your case is doomed when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks, again.

I'm a little confused on these Skype conversations.

So, he didn't mention Knox and Sollecito in the Skype conversation. Why is that? If he was sure, they were there, why he didn't say anything to Giacomo? Wouldn't it be good for him to claim from the start that these two were involved? For me it's highly suspicious that he changed his mind only after he saw what's goin on in the media. That's what always bugged me about his story.

This is a point I've been highlighting, and it's why I think that the defence might have gained ammunition for the argument phase from today's proceedings. There is now evidence on the record that Guede's Skype call from mid-November contained nothing more than a vague reference to the "bushy-haired man" rushing past him (a description which clearly doesn't match Sollecito's appearance at the time of the murder) and only some sort of nebulous (and ridiculous) inference that the person ringing the doorbell might have been Knox (errrr....why?).

But within months, Guede apparently can remember things far more clearly. All of a sudden, the "bushy-haired man" morphs into Sollecito, and Guede also suddenly "remembers" that Knox was also definitely there. This is the version which is now in evidence in the form of the letter and Guede's testimony.

The other important thing is that Guede would not only almost certainly have been well aware of Knox's and Sollecito's arrests at the time he made the Skype calls, but he would also almost certainly have been aware of both Knox's and Sollecito's physical appearance. We know for sure that he knew who Knox was and what she looked like, and it's virtually inconceivable that he wouldn't also have seen newspaper/internet pictures of Sollecito while he was on the run in Germany. So this makes his failure to associate Knox or Sollecito with the murder in his Skype call all the more mysterious.

I think therefore that the defence can make a strong argument that Guede would have clearly identified Knox and Sollecito has being present in his Skype call, if indeed they had been present. There's simply no reason for him not to have done so, if his later version of events (that Knox/Sollecito were the true culprits, while he just stumbled in on the aftermath) were to be correct. And of course they can question just how his memory seemed to improve so remarkably between a time 3 weeks after the crime and a time 6 months after the crime. For most normal people, memory diminishes with time - not for Guede though apparently. Unless he's lying......

 

[LondonJohn]

"...crushing testimony against Amanda Knox." Sorry if you don't think that's a description of a disaster and a debacle. But hey, that's what the defense gets when their super witnesses are convicted felons. You know your case is doomed when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel.

What? The man who has been convicted of Meredith's murder - who has claimed throughout his trial (and since his trial) that it wasn't he who killed Meredith, but Knox and Sollecito, and that all he tried to do was help the poor dying Meredith - shows up in court and repeats the same claim? And that claim isn't entirely self-serving against the man who made the claim (i.e. Guede)?

 

[snook1]

@LondonJohn - I couldn't have said it better. That's exactly what's going on. There's nothing more to add, other than that I hope the defense will point that out numerous times. Rudy Guede didn't mention Knox and Sollecito being on the murder scene when he first spoke about the murder and the reason behind why he changed his mind and the timing of it, isn't a rocket science.

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, the video is still there if you go to the Tweet above the article. It is being investigated, not in London, but in Rome.

I wonder who was responsible for conducting and approving the dreadful mistranslation?

How did Tony and his pals take it when you called him up to take him to task over it?

 

[snook1]

"...crushing testimony against Amanda Knox." Sorry if you don't think that's a description of a disaster and a debacle. But hey, that's what the defense gets when their super witnesses are convicted felons. You know your case is doomed when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel.

But what's so crushing and bad for Amanda Knox? Have we learned something new? Did Rudy Guede reveal anything that we didn't know? He only *repeated* his lies. The judge and the jury already heard the story months ago, Amanda's and Raffaele's lawyers heard the story, the prosecutor heard the story and the general public also heard the story. Nothing new, really.

 

[Alt+F4]

What? The man who has been convicted of Meredith's murder - who has claimed throughout his trial (and since his trial) that it wasn't he who killed Meredith, but Knox and Sollecito, and that all he tried to do was help the poor dying Meredith - shows up in court and repeats the same claim? And that claim isn't entirely self-serving against the man who made the claim (i.e. Guede)?

RG never claimed during his trial that AK and RS murdered MK.

 

[Kevinfay]

I wonder who was responsible for conducting and approving the dreadful mistranslation?

How did Tony and his pals take it when you called him up to take him to task over it?

I thought you were calling Sky London to ask? .... then you wouldn't need to waste so many useless keystrokes?

 

[pilot padron]

As a matter of fact....

1) So which major media outlets described the day as a "disaster" or "debacle" for the defence?

2) Even if they did, is there any chance that their appraisal of the situation was incorrect?

3) Who's talking about a "vast global conspiracy", or even implying one? Only you, and others of your ilk, it would appear.

4) The reason why the main media outlets have not yet focussed on ToD is that it hasn't come up in the appeal trial yet. When it is argued in the appeal trial (or earlier, if Hellmann allows new expert testimony on ToD), I'd imagine that the media will give it quite a bit of space. The media are event-driven, and there hasn't yet been a defined "event" concerning ToD.

5) Who is claiming that the big story is Sky's cock-up on the translation? Cos it's not me, that's for sure.

6) I found it amusing that someone who claimed to be "on the inside" with Sky referred to "Sky Corporation". Imagine if you referred to "USFarmer.com" as "USFarming.com" - you get the picture.....

7) Have you yet apologised to Kevinfay, by the way, for calling him a "clueless cheerleader"? After all, he's "on your side", innit?

Have a lovely evening!

1) If you have to ask .......Please re read my previous oft cited description detailed in several past arguments of my understanding of the thinly concealed underlying motivations for such deliberately diversionary requests , and my repeatedly explained decision in past arguments not to acquiesce to same

2) Oh dear yes; the distant detached observer made exactly that outrageous claim.

3) is using 'ilk' to argue a term of endearment or another borderline....?

4) IF Jugdge Hellmann allows it ??? Oh dear, has not he read anything here ??How on earth could he not allow that 'game changer' of Google documented ToD??

5) OK; must be another distant detached pontificator

6) Not at all do I get that 'picture', but some tag team member of the majority here probably does and will momentarily fawningly high five your argument and or pile on mine as per past custom

7) As a matter of fact, since this apparently is important enough for you to bring it up in multiple later arguments, I actually did explain via PM how my original argument was diverted and distorted by the poster it was aimed at and who had nothing better to use to in the feeble attempt rebut what I argued apparently very successfully.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But what's so crushing and bad for Amanda Knox? Have we learned something new? Did Rudy Guede reveal anything that we didn't know? He only *repeated* his lies. The judge and the jury already heard the story months ago, Amanda's and Raffaele's lawyers heard the story, the prosecutor heard the story and the general public also heard the story. Nothing new, really.

I don't think Rudy appeared believable to anyone. And according to guilters the court is bound by the cassation verdict, which says that Rudy's story is a bunch of lies.

E.g. their motivation specifically points out that they don't believe his story about Amanda ringing the doorbell to enter because she had a key.