Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
My overall impression is:

It is totally irrelevant what anyone of us thinks about the case, for the simple reason that none of us has the onerous duty of making that decision.

If one was to believe otherwise would indicate a preference for a court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

Now that would be a travesty of justice.

I am sure that all the parents grieve for their children.

It is indeed a sad case.
 
OK, thanks.

I remain a bit confused I am afraid. How did Guede identify Knox and Sollecito? As individuals that he didn't know that were in the apartment at the time of the crime or as people he knew by name?

Doesn't the prosecution's theory of the crime involve all three individuals working together? Does the prosecution's theory require that they had known each other at least long enough to have agreed to act together?

I am trying to understand how Guede's testimony and the prosecution's theory of the case relate to each other and how it is that Guede could construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime if they weren't there.

Guede cannot construct a credible claim against Knox and Sollecito. Guede's latest story does not support any of the Prosecution's theories. I am amazed that anyone could find Guede's testimony damaging to Knox and Sollecito no matter what side of this debate you are on.

Knox and Sollecito's alibi works just fine. They were not there. All the credible evidence points right at Guede. Guede said early on that Knox was not there. He changed his story several times to try and benefit himself which he successfully did. Guede has many years of freedom in his future.

Two innocent people wrongfully convicted and the actual killer negotiates a lenient sentence. Hence the title - Injustice in Perugia.
 
OK, thanks.

I remain a bit confused I am afraid. How did Guede identify Knox and Sollecito? As individuals that he didn't know that were in the apartment at the time of the crime or as people he knew by name?

Doesn't the prosecution's theory of the crime involve all three individuals working together? Does the prosecution's theory require that they had known each other at least long enough to have agreed to act together?

I am trying to understand how Guede's testimony and the prosecution's theory of the case relate to each other and how it is that Guede could construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime if they weren't there.
Guede was introduced to Amanda and Meredith when they were visiting the 4 italian guys who lived downstairs. From what I understand they all smoked a joint together and chatted. Amanda worked at Patrick's bar and saw rudy there once but wasn't the one who served him. There was no other contact between Amanda and rudy. Raffaele and rudy didn't know each other at all.

The prosecution's case is rubbish.
 
Bucketoftea,

I believe you, and that is one of the biggest problems in this case. There is more to this case than their conduct, such as one mendacity after another courtesy of ILE. And the unprofessional forensics, etc.

Here is the bugged conversation that you were unwilling to produce. E is Edda Mellas, and C is Curt Knox.
“E: That's what they're doing now. They are simply lying.

C: It's all a fabrication...

E: Yes, to make someone break down.

A: It’s stupid. I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it.

C: Yeah, yeah, so what you have to do is not to talk about anything with anyone. Don’t write anything. You may receive letters. Have you received letters or anything else?”

So your interpretation of Amanda’s words (that she was about to tell what really happened) is just one more variation on the “I was there” fallacy. “There” is ambiguous; it could refer either to her flat or to Sollecito’s flat. However, the ambiguity is relieved by the following statement that there is no reason to lie. There is indeed no reason to lie about being at Sollecito’s flat, but there would be a reason to lie if she were really at her flat.

Her parents gave her good advice in this conversation, as evinced by the fact that it was bugged, as well as on general principles. MOO.

I don't agree that the "there" is ambiguous.
 
O, Dan.

"Everything Amanda has said has been 100% compatible with her telling the truth."

Are you saying she told the truth 100%? or do you mean something else?

I don't believe that "He's bad! I'm scared of him!" followed by a detailed story of how Patrick killed Meredith resulted from "confusion". It resulted from panic when Raffaele withdrew her alibi.

Not at all. It is clear they had their omerta of 3. They began by taking pains not to implicate one another.

Naming him would not have saved her own skin.
Hi BoT,
So you believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were already covering Rudy Guede on the day of Nov. 2nd, 2007?And that they continued to do so again and again.
Do you think that they might have known that Rudy Guede split town and bolted to Germany?
You believe that even on the night of the last interrogation they were covering for Rudy Guede still? Surely you know that interrogation that had to happen on the night of Nov. 5th/6th was because Amanda's Mom was arriving in town the next day, and this was the interrogation where Amanda "'buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct, and from that we were able to bring them all in"...

Have you ever been asked a lot of questions by police?,
-(If so, did they speak your own native language, by the way?),
Where you young, naive or were you a street wisend guy or gal who could hold their own with the cops as they asked questions? Ever been questioned by the police while stoned or heck, even under the influence of a few beers or hard alcohol? What about while under the influence of coke, LSD or any other hard drug? I have, it ain't fun. I have dealt with a few cops while under the influence of, ahummm, party-ables. I learned a long time ago to act as normal as possble and just tell 'em the truth, and continue to do so again and again and get the heck away from them ASAP. Split, Leave, Vaminos.

Many, many years ago, in days of youth long past, I've even had a squad car pull up, with guns drawn, on a coupla friends and I, who were doin' lines in the back of my old Plymouth Valiant while parked at a Chevron gas station where another buddy worked the graveyard shift. And I didn't go to jail nor my friends, for the cops were lookin' for someone who had just robbed a grocery store and my hispanic buddy just happened to look like 1 of the suspects descriptions, even wearin' the same red color sweatshirt. Yikes, that was nerve racking, to say the least! The last thing a person high on anything, especially stoned, as Amanda and Raffaele was the night of Nov. 5th/6th, wants to do is deal with the cops. Especially if that person senses the cops are getting aggitated, suspicious and impatient with the persons responses. Wouldn't you agree?

So let me ask you another question, since you seem to believe the un-taped statement that the cops later reported-(you know, these were the same cops who couldn't correctly count that there were only 7 shoe rings on Raffaele's Nike Airforce 1 sneakers that he was wearing that night of interrogation, but instead mistakenly thought they were the 11 shoe rings that were found from the bloody shoeprint near Meredith after her murder was discovered, etc) -
that Amanda Knox said "He's bad! I'm scared of him!".
You actually believe that Amanda was still covering for Rudy Guede when she said Patrick did it? Why? What are the deep ties that bind these 2, opps, I mean 3 young people together?

There is no common tie between these 2, nor heck, even 3.
Amanda and Rudy were not in some gang, such as what I've associated with nor my 1st girlfriend was in.
As far as I can tell, Amanda and Rudy were not sleeping together, nor was Raffaele sleeping with Rudy, you know "to experience extreme sensations, intense sexual relations" etc.
Nor were they life long buddy - buddies, who grew up next to each other. Nor did they live next door and hang out often together like the 2 guys who finally, were correctly arrested by the L.A.P.D.for recently beating that guy to near death in the Dodgers/Giants baseball game here in L.A. that has been in the news lately.

So why did Amanda cover for a guy that she barely knew?
It would have been sooo easy to say that "It was Rudy Guede who did it! I saw him, he killed Meredith and then masturbated as he watched her die.
I am afraid of him, that what he did to Meredith, he might do to me too." Help me, please!"

Why blame Patrick,
a guy who gave her, a newbie in town, a job and who paid her wages?

I'm a guy, with a bit of streetwise experience, much, much more so than Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito and probably you too. And I gotta tell you something. If I was there that night, I would have been very,very afraid of a guy who could actually take a knife and shove it again and again into a young womans neck with blood spurting everywhere. Wouldn't you? And I say this even with more than a few bloody fist fights under my belt and seeing a few knife fights happen. You ever been out partyin' withh the boyz and another car pulls up, they get out and people start brawlin'? A knife get's pulled out and your buddy "Block" got stabbed? Real life is a lot gnarlier than sittin' at a keyboard typing your thoughts, especially if you aren't experienced. So I'll tell ya this, if the crap was hitting the fan, so to say, and the cops were houndin' me and questioning me, again, and again, and again, I would turn on this person, 1 who could stab a young woman in the neck again and again, in a heartbeat. Especially if I were stoned. Wouldnt you?

If Amanda truly was afraid, I would think that she would have been extremely fearfull of what Rudy had done, and that she too might be next, because she was a witness.

So why again was she afraid of Patrick, but not Rudy?:confused:
Hmmm, I wonder...
RW
 
Last edited:
My overall impression is:

It is totally irrelevant what anyone of us thinks about the case, for the simple reason that none of us has the onerous duty of making that decision.

If one was to believe otherwise would indicate a preference for a court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

Now that would be a travesty of justice.

I am sure that all the parents grieve for their children.

It is indeed a sad case.

I totally agree.
 
O, Dan.

"Everything Amanda has said has been 100% compatible with her telling the truth."

Are you saying she told the truth 100%? or do you mean something else?

I don't believe that "He's bad! I'm scared of him!" followed by a detailed story of how Patrick killed Meredith resulted from "confusion". It resulted from panic when Raffaele withdrew her alibi.


According to Amanda, she was led to believe that Patrick was the person that murdered Meredith so of course she is going to think that he is bad and she is going to be afraid of him. So yes, that statement is 100% compatible with Amanda telling the truth and thanks to the prosecutions neglect in preserving a recording of that interrogation, you have no proof that it isn't.
 
OK, thanks.

I remain a bit confused I am afraid. How did Guede identify Knox and Sollecito? As individuals that he didn't know that were in the apartment at the time of the crime or as people he knew by name?

When Rudy first talked about the case, over a Skype call, Amanda and Raffaele had already been arrested. He said Amanda wasn't involved, he started saying something like Raffaele wasn't either, but then allowed that he might have been. The story was he took a dump listening to music after excusing himself from foreplay with Meredith and then hearing a doorbell and later a scream and finally coming out of the bathroom with pants down and stumbling into a guy he said was left-handed and said something like 'black man found, black man guilty.' A couple months later he added Amanda to the mix, saying he might have heard her while she was running away, and the guy might have been Raffaele.

Later on after they were convicted, after Amanda and Raffele's lawyers pushed the idea the murder was he alone, he wrote a letter that amounted to them being guilty but he was still just an innocent bystander who just didn't do enough to save Meredith and went out dancing instead.

Doesn't the prosecution's theory of the crime involve all three individuals working together? Does the prosecution's theory require that they had known each other at least long enough to have agreed to act together?

They kinda skipped that part. Amanda had been introduced to Rudy once and seen him a couple times, Raffaele had never met him.

I am trying to understand how Guede's testimony and the prosecution's theory of the case relate to each other and how it is that Guede could construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime if they weren't there.

They were separate trials, and Rudy never made a credible claim of them being there, he stuck to his (eventual) story after the trial, and recently that letter was read in court which amounted to his 'testimony.' I don't know if the letter is available, I recall references to it but can't recall if I ever actually read it. I got the impression he was just kinda crowing that they took some of the blame after their lawyers blamed him.
 
My overall impression is:

It is totally irrelevant what anyone of us thinks about the case, for the simple reason that none of us has the onerous duty of making that decision.

If one was to believe otherwise would indicate a preference for a court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

Now that would be a travesty of justice.

I am sure that all the parents grieve for their children.

It is indeed a sad case.
I totally agree.
Hi Skwinty and BoT,
I concurr.

Peace,
RW
 
the bugged conversation on 10 November effectively withdrew the accusation

The police also bugged Edda and Amanda's conversation on November 10, 2007, and some of it got into the press. From page 209 in Murder in Italy:
"'I said a lot of stupidity,' Amanda supposedly told her mother. 'I was not home than night. I do not know who killed Meredith, the truth is what I said when I was questioned the first time.'" Therefore, the police knew that Amanda had effectively withdrawn her false statement no later this. Yet Lumumba remained in jail for about another ten days and his bar remained closed for months, absurdly labeled a crime scene. Yeah, the cops treated him very well. Sure.
ETA
Moreover, why would Amanda say this to Edda on 10 November and then turn around and (according to Bucketoftea) start to say something different a week or so later? She started to retract her false statements of 1:45 and 5:45 as early as the next day and has been consistent ever since in maintaining that she was at Sollecito's flat.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree that the "there" is ambiguous.

Neither do I! :)

I suspect that's why the Italian courts didn't find it damning either, as how could she be referring to the cottage if she says she has 'no reason to lie?'

Doesn't the whole trial now amount to saying that she's now 'lying' about not being at the cottage that night? In fact isn't that what you think she's doing by saying that meant Raffaele's?
 
OK, thanks.

I remain a bit confused I am afraid. How did Guede identify Knox and Sollecito? As individuals that he didn't know that were in the apartment at the time of the crime or as people he knew by name?

Doesn't the prosecution's theory of the crime involve all three individuals working together? Does the prosecution's theory require that they had known each other at least long enough to have agreed to act together?

I am trying to understand how Guede's testimony and the prosecution's theory of the case relate to each other and how it is that Guede could construct a credible claim that Knox and Sollecito were in the apartment at the time of the crime if they weren't there.

:shocked: Great non sequitur!

The prosecution's theory required that they knew each other and agreed to act together and yet Guede didn't even know they were in the apartment! He saw a shadow!
 
According to Amanda, she was led to believe that Patrick was the person that murdered Meredith so of course she is going to think that he is bad and she is going to be afraid of him. So yes, that statement is 100% compatible with Amanda telling the truth and thanks to the prosecutions neglect in preserving a recording of that interrogation, you have no proof that it isn't.

So she didn't tell 100% of the truth.
 
Last edited:
What? The kind of parents that support their daughter in every way they can in the face of lies, deceit and travesty? If ever faced with such a situation, hope I would do the same.


Ahh, but you see bucketoftea has formed that "argument" based on circular reasoning (which manages to be both illogical and non-sceptical). You see, bucket is working on two presumptions: 1) Knox participated in the murder; 2) Knox's parents know this (or at the very least, they suspect it). Logically, there's no reason to suspect that (2) is true, and there's also increasingly diminishing reason to suspect that (1) is true either.

I'm not surprised at this warped thinking though. It's what we've come to expect from emissaries from the haven of poor reasoning and borderline hatred.
 
Hi Skwinty and BoT,
I concurr.

Peace,
RW

None of us likes the feeling of helplessness. We prefer to fight rather than succumb. If I were someone with wealth and power, I would rather help someone that was fighting rather than someone that was giving up!

Great fight guys! Write a little. Donate a little. Rattle the sabers (a menacing show of armed force) as much as possible.
 
:shocked: Great non sequitur!

The prosecution's theory required that they knew each other and agreed to act together and yet Guede didn't even know they were in the apartment! He saw a shadow!

I don't believe the case against them depends upon the previous acquaintance between Sollecito and Guede.

Guede said he heard an exchange between the 2 women.
 
That is to laugh. Really. I hope you didn't hurt yourself thinking that.

That does not constitute an argument.

I would like to know what your actual, reasoned, reply is to the claim that the police believed Lumumba was involved because of the text message and pressured Amanda to confirm this.
 
The police also bugged Edda and Amanda's conversation on November 10, 2007, and some of it got into the press. From page 209 in Murder in Italy:
"'I said a lot of stupidity,' Amanda supposedly told her mother. 'I was not home than night. I do not know who killed Meredith, the truth is what I said when I was questioned the first time.'" Therefore, the police knew that Amanda had effectively withdrawn her false statement no later this. Yet Lumumba remained in jail for about another ten days and his bar remained closed for months, absurdly labeled a crime scene. Yeah, the cops treated him very well. Sure.

I'm good with the idea that she was lying to her mother and/or saying this for the benefit of the listeners.

You see how much more doubt and confusion arises when people lie? IIRC there were complicating factors, eg. his new mobile phone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom