Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
bucketoftea said:
Excuse me?

Try 48 Hours for Ciolino and most early interviews with Edda and Janet. They said it. I heard it and so did everyone else.

http://willsavive.blogspot.com/2011/02/hdhdhd.html

Bonus lies, too!

I'm sorry I have misquoted Ciolino..he actually said "never clapped eyes on"
Click to expand...
Yes you misquote all the time. Where is Edda saying "never met"?
Sorry I don't buy it. Until you put up the source.

Edited by Loss Leader: 
Incivility edited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Katody Matrass said:
Yes you misquote all the time. Where is Edda saying "never met"?
Sorry I don't buy it. Until you put up the source
Edited by Loss Leader: 
Incivility edited
Click to expand...

Sorry,absolutely not worth my time looking through all of their unwatchable interviews. I recall her saying it on at least 2 occasions.

I'm certainly not lying, and even if I were it's not necessary!

Edited by Loss Leader: 
Repeat of incivility edited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rolfe said:
PS. I wonder if any of the guilter parties have wondered, if GI tract contents are of no evidential use in determining the time of death, why is there such a strict protocol as regards tying off the tract in sections before it's disturbed or opened, to ensure valid information about degree of fill of the different segments can be obtained? I mean, it's useless, right?
Click to expand...


very good point!
 
bucketoftea said:
Sorry,absolutely not worth my time looking through all of their unwatchable interviews. I recall her saying it on at least 2 occasions.
Click to expand...

So, you're either made it up or you can't tell your recollections from fantasies. You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?

bucketoftea said:
I'm certainly not lying, and even if I were it's not necessary!
Edited by Loss Leader: 
response to personal attack editted.
Click to expand...
It interesting that you say it, because a pattern displayed by guilters coming regularly here suggest that they indeed find it necessary to prop up their case with lies and manipulations. We had SomeAlibi with his poorly manipulated photos and his fantasies about hard street drug use, there was another guy pushing nonsense about Amanda's arrest and conviction in Seattle. There was the lie about mixed dna in footprints etc., etc.

Sorry but until you put up a source I assume that what you say is not factual. Whether it is a deliberate lie or confusion or delusion is not that interesting to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meanwhile, a beautiful young woman is having her best years squandered by a callous government. It used to be thought that a woman was most desirable from 12 to 26*. Amanda will have spent the best years of her life in school or prison.
*The Chinese and other societies that used to give their daughters away in marriage. When Christ walked the earth, parents were eager to engage their daughters in marriage before they lost their virginity. Woman of that era used to get married at 12. I'm no historian, so feel free to call me on this.

Hurry up Italy, hurry up. This isn't a joke!
 
BTW, thanks for providing the link to that Savive guy blog. It's funny and exemplifies the delusions that are prevalent among guilter circles.

the genius writes:
No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.
Click to expand...
That good boy, sympathetic, nice Guede. How could it suggest in any way that he stole from the girl that he just killed and raped? No, that he had to fumble with her purse got nothing to do with the missing things and money. Nor does the facts that he is known to break into places and carry stolen items. How could anyone think Guede may be the thief? No proof whatsoever!
 
Oh Dear. Finally a reasonable admission that says so much

Katody Matrass said:
So, you're either made it up or you can't tell your recollections from fantasies. You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?
Click to expand...

(all bolding is mine as a result of abject shock after reading above)

HUH ???

REALLY ????

Do I read that argument as it is ever so clearly and unmistakably unequivocally written ??:eek::eek:


Please with all possible haste inform nearly all those verbose innocent arguers here that about ten thousand or so of their excuses for Knox's six versions of an alibi, and her gift of oral and written confessions, and her disgraceful accusation of Patrick is now finally admitted as absolutely "the same as lying".
Maybe even Mary will not quibble now about her distinction of Knox as only a classic liar versus the oft used more accurate pathological liar

Also include Sollecito's many varied version bollocks stories that he says he made up to protect Amanda as well as his simpleton knife pricking Meredith asininity as also now finally recognized and admitted to be "same as lying"

Gee, thanks again.

But where was that excellent observation and admission argument about 50,000 circular posts ago ??
It would have eliminated the endless ad nauseam repetitive arguing of the Marriott talking point that all Knox's problems were from her "false memories", that now you finally clarify as being indeed the same as blatant lies , liket all those 'horrids' and hater idiots at the premier PMF site have said from day one
 
Last edited:
Amanda's false memory lies for Google aficionados here

Cognizant about what a cornerstone Google is to the ever so important ToD arguers here, try this:

Put "Amanda Knox false memories" in your exalted favorite research device.

Read the pages and pages of links detailing what are now finally correctly admitted to be little other than blatant lies by Knox.

Even I was somewhat shocked at just how much of her alibi is associated with "false memories" which are now correctly admitted to be even more lies
 
Oh Dear, What is there to "misrepresent" ??

Katody Matrass said:
I'm afraid you need to overcome some problems with reading comprehension, pilot. Either this or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Either way doesn't look good.
Click to expand...

Not sure what or how my argument could possibly "misrepresent" what you clearly argued, repeated here for clarity and comprehension

You said:
"You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?"

Pretty straightforward, eh ??
I agree it "does not look good" in light of a couple of ten thousand arguments here that mostly everything Amanda ever lied about was "false memories" or other similar spinmeister specialty euphemisms
 
Last edited:
BTW the idea that Raffaele wrote about "pricking" because he is guilty doesn't compute.
If the knife wasn't the weapon then he as guilty would certainly know it and laugh about cops inept attempts of psychological pressure.
OTOH To maintain that the knife was the weapon - now that opens a lot of questions:

Why doesn't Raffaele shut up about it or simply say that it's impossible?
Why no blood and no human cells anywhere on the blade?
Why doesn't it fit the wounds or the imprint?
How did it get to the cottage? Why no scenario with the knife that doesn't fall apart immediately?
Why two cops independently took credit for finding and bagging it? Why no single version of how it got from the drawer to the lab?
What's with the missing documentation of the tests and Steffi's lies about it?
Where is any trace of the testing done in November?
Why did she went with the tests despite the too low results? Etc.

To be short, it makes the whole guilters' story beyond implausible.
 
pilot padron said:
(all bolding is mine as a result of abject shock after reading above)

HUH ???

REALLY ????

Do I read that argument as it is ever so clearly and unmistakably unequivocally written ??:eek::eek:


Please with all possible haste inform nearly all those verbose innocent arguers here that about ten thousand or so of their excuses for Knox's six versions of an alibi, and her gift of oral and written confessions, and her disgraceful accusation of Patrick is now finally admitted as absolutely "the same as lying".
Maybe even Mary will not quibble now about her distinction of Knox as only a classic liar versus the oft used more accurate pathological liar

Also include Sollecito's many varied version bollocks stories that he says he made up to protect Amanda as well as his simpleton knife pricking Meredith asininity as also now finally recognized and admitted to be "same as lying"

Gee, thanks again.

But where was that excellent observation and admission argument about 50,000 circular posts ago ??
It would have eliminated the endless ad nauseam repetitive arguing of the Marriott talking point that all Knox's problems were from her "false memories", that now you finally clarify as being indeed the same as blatant lies , liket all those 'horrids' and hater idiots at the premier PMF site have said from day one
Click to expand...

Search for tag interrogations. It's a wonderful technique for getting false confessions.

During my arrest for a improperly dismissed "failure to stop for a cop during an illegal u turn" I pushed back the pepper spray and was charged with A & B on a police officer as a result. (I hurt his wrist when I grabbed it - HaHa)

During that incident, I have a false memory or an incident that I can't remember which of two memories was correct. I wasn't even interrogated, except by my lawyer! I was also confused by the police report! I have never had that happen before! I was totally astonished that I had two different memories of that moment in time. Two equally probable recollections!

A person telling the truth has moments when he tries to recall details and gets confused. A person telling a lie has it well rehearsed and will stick to the same rehearsed detail-less story all the time - unless it starts to seem implausible, then he will generate a new story. That's why a lawyer will only allow their client to tell a story once.

Amanda is a perfect example of someone telling the truth.
Guede is a perfect example of someone lying.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Cognizant about what a cornerstone Google is to the ever so important ToD arguers here, try this:

Put "Amanda Knox false memories" in your exalted favorite research device.

Read the pages and pages of links detailing what are now finally correctly admitted to be little other than blatant lies by Knox.

Even I was somewhat shocked at just how much of her alibi is associated with "false memories" which are now correctly admitted to be even more lies
Click to expand...

Fascinating. The very first article that pops up in Google, far from confirming PP's point, is one that confirms what the pro-innocent side have always said about the coerced "confession/accusation" of 5-6 November: Amanda Knox and the Coercive Interrogation Tactics of the Polizia di Stato in Perugia.

There are indeed pages and pages of links, but they do not bear out PP's claims. On balance, the scientific ones confirm that false memories are a known phenomenon in exactly the situation she found herself in. The ones that support his position are essentially gossip. Try again, Pilot.
 
Another set of posts have been sent to AAH for personal attacks and arguing about each other, rather than the subject. Please avoid insults. Please don't respond to them or quote them in your posts.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
the little '?' sign

pilot padron said:
Not sure what or how my argument could possibly "misrepresent" what you clearly argued, repeated here for clarity and comprehension

You said:
"You think that being unable to tell false memories from real is not the same as lying?"
Click to expand...

Fine, let's try again then. What you quoted was not intended as statement but as a question directed to bucketoftea. It baffles me that it can be read as me "clearly arguing" anything, but anyway I hope it is clearer now.
 
pilot padron said:
Why, or what is ever so different and/or unique so that every obvious lie, mis-statement, inconsistent contradiction, quirky, very suspicious, self incriminating actions and statements from Knox and Sollecito makes them only innocent confused, 153+++ hour water boarded, stupid "kids"?

Yet every single act of those horrible Italian Law Enforcers including judges and jurors makes them vengeful guilty conspirators who have this overpowering need to lie, cheat, steal, and deliberately manipulate and/or 'manufacture' evidence.
All this *alleged* incredibly unlawful behavior by individuals with a sworn duty to enforce laws..... all this just to convict "innocent kids" ??<snip>
Click to expand...

I've highlighted the answer to your questions. Different roles carry different responsibilities. That is the basis for all the laws against intimate relationships between teachers and students, doctors and patients, lawyers and clients, etc. It is legitimate to have higher expectations for ethical behavior from trained professionals than for those they are appointed to serve.
 
A poster at another site has listed some negative credentials on Frank and one of these is quite "shocking".

Disqualifying factors (negative credentials):

1. Has lied frequently in connection to this case (to me, but to others as well); in fact, has written the he enjoys "telling ********s" to people.
2. No credentials as a journalist and no training, so far as we know.
3. Blogs under a pseudonym and thus has zero accountability.
4. Arrives consistently late to hearings, perhaps has trouble staying focused.
5. Has a personal vendetta against the prosecutor and police of Perugia.
6. Has heralded the baby killer and mafia snitch as veritable heroes.
7. Has never indicated under what circumstances he was arrested; there is no proof as of yet that his story (police brutality) is the right one and the police story (resisting arrest) is not. Where is the neighbor Frank alludes to who was so worried about the commotion he came to Frank's rescue?
8. Tried to sell nude photos of Amanda Knox to the tabloids.
9. Is associated with Chris Mellas, the FOA and other partisan forces.
Click to expand...
 
I see hard times acoming for the prosecution.

After the DNA is discredited, and there is no question about that, they will have to continue arguing the case using the rest of the evidence. The problem is that Steffi with her delaying and obstruction tactics not only antagonized the judge, but made him particularly touchy about ******** evidence. He saw the video and received a commentary and explanation from his experts about it. It's really of a kind that cannot be unseen once you've seen it. Hellmann's reaction to Comodi's hoopla with the papers that she tried to introduce is telling - the testing doesn't matter, I've already seen what the cops did at the scene.
There is no doubt Hellmann's approach is going to be critical and his ********meter tuned. The problem is that the rest of the evidence that mignini et al have to reintroduce and defend is incredibly poor.
We have the blurry luminol blobs that tested all negative for blood and were photographed at an angle without a fluorescent measuring tape that Rinaldi ascribed to Raffaele and Amanda using incomprehensible mix of image transformations and leaps of faith.
We have the bathmat print that at first look is Guede's and requires mental backflips to fit it to Raffaele's foot.
There's Quintavalle's story that's contradicted by written cops' report and will get laughed out of court just like Curatolo's.
The mixed dna in bathroom is not worth mentioning. C&V shot down already all the scientifica's work, simply playing the video of the geniuses at work will do.

To summarise, I don't see how the prosecution is going to wring out of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom