Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

I'm afraid I can't find you a linky, but I'm sure others will remember them saying this on television. Edda more than once.

That's all right, I was just curious.

Please note that for me to write, "Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke" is not a mistake. It is true.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

pilot, my friend, you are not citing Chris Halkides, you are citing The Machine, as quoted on Chris's blog.

My argument was about whether or not Amanda ever denied knowing Rudy. I said nothing about Edda and Janet; they were a diversion brought up by BOT.

 

[bucketoftea]

That's all right, I was just curious.

Please note that for me to write, "Amanda never denied having met Rudy. I believe it was Paul Ciolino who told CBS news that Amanda had never met Rudy, but he misspoke" is not a mistake. It is true.

If you must, but why did Edda say so and Ms Huff? Mystifying.

 

[bucketoftea]

pilot, my friend, you are not citing Chris Halkides, you are citing The Machine, as quoted on Chris's blog.

My argument was about whether or not Amanda ever denied knowing Rudy. I said nothing about Edda and Janet; they were a diversion brought up by BOT.

Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

 

[Malkmus]

Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

I believe the difference between knowing and meeting someone has been discussed before. In the video that the claim originates from Edda states at one point that it was ridiculous that Amanda and Raffaele would join someone they didn't know in murdering Meredith. Later in the same video, Edda references Rudy's Skype call in which he states he knows who Amanda is and that she wasn't there that night. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxU7xY6qgzg

 

[bucketoftea]

I believe the difference between knowing and meeting someone has been discussed before. In the video that the claim originates from Edda states at one point that it was ridiculous that Amanda and Raffaele would join someone they didn't know in murdering Meredith. Later in the same video, Edda references Rudy's Skype call in which he states he knows who Amanda is and that she wasn't there that night. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxU7xY6qgzg

No, that's not either one of the appearances. Never even met not "doesn't know"

 

[Mary_H]

Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

It diverted from what I was talking about.

If Edda or Janet ever actually did say that Amanda had never even met Rudy, then I am sure they said it because they believed it at the time. As we all know, there has been a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and misinterpretation about the case floating around from Day One. I doubt Edda and Janet still hold to that position.

If you are interested in people misleading other people by conveying information they are not 100% sure about, look no further than the day Perugian authorites announced, "Caso chiuso!"

 

[Kaosium]

Mary, my friend, far be it from me to cynically suspect that you might here be arguing tongue in cheek, primarily to send an opposition poster on a long homework assignment.

Just a quick cite from Dr Halkides's own blog to satisfy you that BOT is absolutely correct.
(You do trust this source, do you not ??)

"Unbelievably, Edda Mellas claimed that Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede despite the fact that Amanda Knox testified IN COURT that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions."

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/08/eighteen-false-or-misleading-claims.html

Please excuse me for not piling more easily obtained cites on you, but quite frankly, Edda and Auntie Janet are hardly the type of personalities that I deem even remotely authoritative about anything.
I respectfully prefer more productive use of time than detailing the myriad of occasions and topics that Edda and Auntie Janet, two of Marriott's anointed media spokespersons, have 'misspoke' about.

Amanda testified that she was introduced to Rudy, she saw him maybe once at Le Chic and might have seen him around the neighborhood a few times. This in the space of three months.

Thus she interacted with him all of once for a few seconds and saw him around about as often as you do your garbageman in a month. So saying she didn't know him is perfectly correct. She didn't even remember his name.

How well do you know your garbageman?

 

[Kaosium]

If you must, but why did Edda say so and Ms Huff? Mystifying.

Come, come, come now, Mary.

It is not a diversion. Why would they say such a thing? Is this what AK told her family initially? So. If Ciolino was misspoken, why Edda and Janet too? What is up with that?

Because it's absolutely ridiculous to assume Amanda chose to participate in a sex game gone wrong, or ritualistic murder, or whatever came out of Mignini's ass that month with someone she knew as well as most people know their garbageman. Especially as she didn't speak Italian outside the basics which was better than his English. Raffaele didn't know him at all, and Mignini has him murdering and raping with him, which would have been the first time they met.

That's the point, not how many times he might have come in her field of vision for a few seconds after that initial introduction where she didn't recall his name afterward anyway.

 

[RWVBWL]

Acquaintances...

<snip>
Does anyone know any more about the cocaine dealer whose number was in Knox's phone? (in the form of contact both before and after the murder) I haven't seen anything other than just the one news report published with the detail I refer to.

Hey BucketofTea,
Howz it goin? Good I hope...

Anyways, when I read this the other day, I had wondered a bit about what you were insinuating by this? How do you know that the person was not just a friend or an acquaintance?

I have plenty of acquaintances in my large group of friends, as I bet that you do too. In my case, these are people who surf. Some have even dealt drugs before, and you know what? That doesn't mean I am using drugs if I call the person. Similarly speaking, just because I talk with another surfer friend, who happens to be a pastor at a Christian Foursquare church, doesn't mean that I go to his church.
Ya gotta like my comparison, no?

BucketofTea,
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?

So without knowing anything more on your posting, I would simply say that this news report you mention of just leads me to believe that Amanda Knox was acquainted with someone who, possibly, might have been dealing drugs. Big deal...

Would you therefore conclude Amanda Knox was guilty of some crime by association with this individual?

If you believe so, what do you make of this post that PMF.org member Thoughtful wrote earlier today:

<snip>
On a more cheerful note, we are about to sit down to celebrate my eldest daughter's engagement to a lovely British Alex, none other than the "A." who was in Perugia in the fall of 2007. Isn't that a strange twist of fate, that my first son-in-law would be someone who was personally acquainted with both Patrick and Rudy? Of all things. Anyway, you're all invited to break open the champagne with our family!

(Hilite mine)

Now I too would like to wish Thoughtful's family best wishes, and do so here.

But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

Or is it no big deal, as is probably true in Amanda's case also?
Thanks for any reply,
RW

 

[AmyStrange]

Devil's advocate

Actually, I think that it's very reasonable to suggest that Guede might have initially confronted and attacked Meredith after he found himself cornered and unable to open the front door without keys, but that in the heightened adrenaline and fear after the murder, he forgot this when he came to leave. I therefore think that it's entirely possible that Guede left Meredith's room and headed to the front door without having located her keys (leaving the shoe prints on his way to the door); he then realised that he needed the key to open the door, and returned once again to Meredith's room to retrieve her keys from her bag. It would have been at this point that he decided to lock Meredith's room on his final exit with the keys in his hand.

LJ,

makes sense, but let me play devil's advocate here. In your scenario above, why wouldn't he then just leave the way he came in --Filomena's window?

Dave

-

 

[Fine]

So Amanda was a close friend to Meredith? Fine. Top scientists are now learning that affection ain't always a deterrent to violence. At times even a catalyst?..........


Isakin Jonsson was arrested last November after calling police from his apartment in Skara in central Sweden and explaining that he had killed his 40-year-old girlfriend.

He had also cut off her head and other parts of her body, some of which he then ate.

He was also unable to explain the gruesome killing when asked by prosecutors why he did it.

"That's something I also wonder about. ...There was no motive whatsoever. We were a couple with a future together. I've never felt this way with a girl before," he said.


See: Hungry For You

///

 

[AmyStrange]

My roommate's opinion?

-

Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?

Well first off, I rarely ever do quote her, and second, her opinion is very important to me and part of how I arrive at the conclusions that I do. I just don't feel right about pretending to take credit for her critical thinking skills.

But more importantly (if you really think about it and no disrespect is intended), why are you questioning my including her opinions, but not questioning why anyone else who uses other people's opinions does so also? How is what they do any different than what I do?

But don't worry, I won't ever reference her again in the future (after this post),

Dave

P.S. she also told me that she doesn't want to belong to this group. Our website takes up a lot of our time, and she just doesn't like that thinking that the possibility that anything is possible is not encouraged here.

She references the UFO threads here as an example of what she means. She's very skeptical about aliens piloting spaceships, but she doesn't discount that it's a possibility, she just wants to see better evidence of it. Myself, I believe in them.

Besides, she says she'd rather spend her off time doing other things. Myself, I like the discussion that goes on here about the Kercher case.

But, if you want to read some of her thoughts about the evidence from this case (which I helped write) go here and see for yourself what she thinks:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-06.html

 

[Dan O.]

LJ,

makes sense, but let me play devil's advocate here. In your scenario above, why wouldn't he just leave the way he came in --Filomena's window?

Dave

-

It's a lot more difficult going down than it is climbing up. Have you tried anything similar? It's a little over 3 meters to the uneven ground below which you can't even see because of the darkness and shadows. You probably don't want to jump down in this condition. One of the tricky bits will be finding the toe hold on the lower window casement. After lowering yourself to about the lever of your armpits, you have to hope your right foot can find that 1 cm wide ledge and get a grip on it. I guess if you miss and end up hanging from your fingertips, you'll have no difficulty putting a foot on one of the bars of the lower window grate (just hope that nail doesn't catch on anything important). On the way up you have the benefit of being able to scout the terrain with your eyes and fingers. On the way down it's just your feet trying to feel the wall through the shoes.

Then there is the question of drawing attention to yourself leaving the scene. Before entering you were watching and listening so you knew if anyone was wandering by that might see you. It also isn't such a big deal as the crime at that point is only B&E. On the way out you don't have this benefit of prior surveillance and now that the crime has escalated to murder, the penalty of getting caught is greater. Much better would be to step out the door and walk away as if nothing had happened. You know Meredith has the keys and there are not many places where they would be: sitting on her desk of night table, in her pants pockets or in her purse.

You may pause for a moment when you discover there are 2 sets of keys But a simple test of one of the keys in Meredith's bedroom door lock will confirm which set is hers.

 

[AmyStrange]

Thank you...

It's a lot more difficult going down than it is climbing up. Have you tried anything similar? It's a little over 3 meters to the uneven ground below which you can't even see because of the darkness and shadows. You probably don't want to jump down in this condition. One of the tricky bits will be finding the toe hold on the lower window casement. After lowering yourself to about the lever of your armpits, you have to hope your right foot can find that 1 cm wide ledge and get a grip on it. I guess if you miss and end up hanging from your fingertips, you'll have no difficulty putting a foot on one of the bars of the lower window grate. On the way up you have the benefit of being able to scout the terrain with your eyes and fingers.

Dan O,

that actually makes sense. I remember when I was a kid and climbed trees, climbing down was always harder, because I could not remember exactly how I got the heck up there. Hehehe.

I was just wondering about that as I read LJ's scenario. His arguements are usually pretty lucid and persuasive to me and I had to ask,

Dave

 

[Mary_H]

Hey BucketofTea,
Howz it goin? Good I hope...

Anyways, when I read this the other day, I had wondered a bit about what you were insinuating by this? How do you know that the person was not just a friend or an acquaintance?

I have plenty of acquaintances in my large group of friends, as I bet that you do too. In my case, these are people who surf. Some have even dealt drugs before, and you know what? That doesn't mean I am using drugs if I call the person. Similarly speaking, just because I talk with another surfer friend, who happens to be a pastor at a Christian Foursquare church, doesn't mean that I go to his church.
Ya gotta like my comparison, no?

BucketofTea,
Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox used cocaine prior to or on the night of Miss Kercher's brutal murder? If so, please elaborate, for from what I know, this from reading Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face", Amanda Knox was drug tested right after her arrest and did not show any trace of cocaine in her system. Do you have proof otherwise?

So without knowing anything more on your posting, I would simply say that this news report you mention of just leads me to believe that Amanda Knox was acquainted with someone who, possibly, might have been dealing drugs. Big deal...

Would you therefore conclude Amanda Knox was guilty of some crime by association with this individual?

If you believe so, what do you make of this post that PMF.org member Thoughtful wrote earlier today:


(Hilite mine)

Now I too would like to wish Thoughtful's family best wishes, and do so here.

But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

Or is it no big deal, as is probably true in Amanda's case also?
Thanks for any reply,
RW

Absolutely terrific, Randy.

 

[Draca]

Dan O,

that actually makes sense. I remember when I was a kid and climbed trees, climbing down was always harder, because I could not remember exactly how I got the heck up there. Hehehe.

I was just wondering about that as I read LJ's scenario. His arguments are usually pretty lucid and persuasive to me and I had to ask,

Dave

Rudy Guede also had nasty cuts in his hand on the way out. It would have made using his hand for leverage and balance really difficult. Keys would be much easier.

I have wondered where Meredith kept her keys. She had the beige tote bag with her that night. Did she put them in there? Was there a special zipped dept in the tote bag? Did she put her brown leather purse inside of the tote bag? Maybe she just set them on top of her desk or bedside table. I wonder if any of the roommates knew where she normally kept them.

 

[AmyStrange]

Agree with Mary H also...

But with that said, I do wonder of something:
Hasn't it been mentioned in newpaper articles before that Rudy Guede was a small time drug dealer? If so, what does this signify about the relationship between Rudy and Alex? Does Alex's acquaintance with Rudy Guede make him also guilty of some crime, as you insinuate it does with Amanda?

-

Well said RW,

can't remember if anyone else mentioned this, but many people from the pro-guilter's side have postulated that Amanda met Guede to buy drugs.

Like you RW, I think they only smoked pot and since Mez's boyfriend downstairs grew it, why in hell would they go to Guede to buy it? Guede was probably buying it from Mez's boyfriend, which is maybe how Guede knew the guys downstairs.

Which also brings up the idea that Amanda and Raffaele would probably be very cautious about calling the police for any old reason, which quite possibly also might explain why Amanda (although she might have seen some off kilter things when she was there to take a shower) didn't just call the police right off and maybe bring unwanted attention to the guys downstairs, but instead first went to consult with Raffaele as to what to do next.

Just thinking out loud here,

Dave

 

[Draca]

-
Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?

There is nothing wrong with your roommate quotes. They add a he said/she said dynamic to your posts that I enjoy. Continue on.

 

[Mary_H]

-

Someone asked why I even bother to include quotes from my roommate. What's the point of my doing this?

Well first off, I rarely ever do quote her, and second, her opinion is very important to me and part of how I arrive at the conclusions that I do. I just don't feel right about pretending to take credit for her critical thinking skills.

But more importantly (if you really think about it and no disrespect is intended), why are you questioning my including her opinions, but not questioning why anyone else who uses other people's opinions does so also? How is what they do any different than what I do?

But don't worry, I won't ever reference her again in the future (after this post),

Dave

Thanks for the explanation, Dave. There's no reason to change your behavior just because a couple of us asked about it.

I will tell you why I asked about it. You say you rarely quote your roommate, but my (possibly mistaken) impression has been that you have mentioned her in the majority of your posts. Other posters do mention other sources, but they don't make a habit of mentioning personal influences and/or their families.

To be honest, my problem is that it makes me doubt your sincerity. I have wondered whether you are just running a schtick -- in other words, are you trying to work your partner into your act, the way Phyllis Diller worked Fang into hers and Joan Rivers worked Edgar into hers? Until I looked at your website, I had no way of knowing whether this partner is actually a real person, or if she is just your alter ego or your invisible friend -- something created for your own amusement when writing. I would not want any thread about this very serious case to be used by someone who is not serious. (If you have linked us to your blog before, I apologize for not having looked at it sooner.)

I guess the point is, while I admire you for not wanting to take credit for her input, I don't see why we should care about her opinion if she doesn't participate on the board.

P.S. she also told me that she doesn't want to belong to this group. Our website takes up a lot of our time, and she just doesn't like that thinking that the possibility that anything is possible is not encouraged here.

She references the UFO threads here as an example of what she means. She's very skeptical about aliens piloting spaceships, but she doesn't discount that it's a possibility, she just wants to see better evidence of it. Myself, I believe in them.

Besides, she says she'd rather spend her off time doing other things. Myself, I like the discussion that goes on here about the Kercher case.

But, if you want to read some of her thoughts about the evidence from this case (which I helped write) go here and see for yourself what she thinks:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2011-06.html

I'm glad you joined the discussion; you've had a lot of good things to say.

Personally, I ignore any thread that doesn't interest me. I even believe in telepathy.