Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
AmyStrange said:
But let me once again reiterate that pro-guilters aren't the only ones who exhibit this behavior,
Click to expand...

That's true of some individuals posting on the news media comment sections, but not, I would say, of the serious pro-innocence websites.

I disagree with the item on your website which appears to accuse Injustice in Perugia of the equivalent failings as TJMK (IIP at least presents the evidence in an organised and objective way, while TJMK employs astrology and statement analysis). You go on to advise people to read both websites and make up their own minds (in which case the contrasting styles will be obvious), but I'm afraid many will not do this and will form the opinion that both sides are as bad as the other.
 
snook1 said:
Are you saying that ms Peggy, Peter, Harry, SA, Kermit and many many others didn't offend Amanda Knox?

Go to .org, read the threads carefully, all of them. You'll find not only comments that are enough to launch a civil case, but you'll also find some big time name calling. "Witch, B.tch, W.ore, Slut.." are just examples. Also, during the reading you'll find out that they like to stalk. They're stalking the Knox/Mellas family via Facebook fake accounts, they're stalking their kids, they're stalking other members of the .org whenever someone raises their doubt. And so on.

It's not a fantasy, it is reality.
Click to expand...

The fantasy is that legal action is even remotely possibly. Amanda is a bitch. Off you go.
 
Obviously it's not about suing every pathetic anonymous jerk throwing insults on the internet from another side of the world. Legal action against identified USA residents who are known for leading a campaign of hate with their dedicated websites is something I wouldn't discount.
 
As pointed out by others previously, I doubt that there would be much of a case for the statements made previously, but if they continue after the aquital, then there certainly could be a case.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Obviously it's not about suing every pathetic anonymous jerk throwing insults on the internet from another side of the world. Legal action against identified USA residents who are known for leading a campaign of hate with their dedicated websites is something I wouldn't discount.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous fantasy. Laughable.

Now, of course, you wouldn't have the courage to call me an pathetic anonymous jerk would you?

Didn't think so.
 
That hyena from "Lion King" was a whiny bitch! That's for sure.:D

Ooops. I meant jerk.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Ridiculous fantasy. Laughable.
Click to expand...
It's your opinion and not a one that raises respect. I think there's a good chance the individuals that lead the campaign of hate won't be able to restrain themselves when all is over and will become culpable if they're not already. The documented history of their writings and actions is not something that is going to mitigate them, unless they'll try to claim mental instability. Speaking of which, since some of the most vocal ones are Seattle residents, I think the local authorities are going to discretely keep an eye on them once the trial is over. Judging by the current state of agitation and some of the posts at their sites, mental instability leading to some direct harmful actions might become a problem.


lionking said:
Now, of course, you wouldn't have the courage to call me an pathetic anonymous jerk would you?

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...
Of course not. JREF members are off limits. I note the pathetic personal attack, though.
 
Guys, the thread is about the Amanda Knox case, not the motives of other posters.

Please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Thanks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
bri1 said:
Doug, she certainly does seem normal to those who started off with the presumption of innocence and then looked at the evidence from that starting point, or those (like me) who assumed she must be guilty because of media coverage and ILE lies, but who were responsive to the evidence. However, you can see that once someone 'knows' she is guilty and her behaviour is interpreted through the lens of this 'knowledge' then her smiles in court, her dress, her 'lies' etc etc, would be highly indicative of a sociopathic personality.
I think there's an underlying misogyny which explains why RS and RG are not the main focus of guilter hate. Amanda is seen as 'one of those' girls who trades on her looks, using them to manipulate those (especially men) around her to get what she wants. (That's why they accuse us pro-innocence/ pro acquittal folk of being attracted to Amanda. They view us as being easily manipulated by her 'type'). The 'staged' break-in and the clean-up are examples of us being duped by the cunning fox, and they see us as weak for thinking with our trousers (even those of us who have girl-parts in our trousers).
Click to expand...

It's certainly a puzzle as to what motivates the anti-Amanda campaign. I think it's safe to say that there must be a number of factors, and it's not necessarily the same combination of factors that influences individual members of the pro-guilt faction. I think a large part of it is "good guy/bad guy" thinking: the cops are, of course, the good guys - so when they accuse someone and take them through the courts, they naturally have to be supported.

But that doesn't answer the question: why this case, in particular, among all the others? I would say that, for reasons of chance, the Kercher/Knox/Sollecito case has become symbolic, for both the pro-guilt and the innocence factions. On the pro-guilt side, there may be some resentment of the perceived "liberal anti-police bleeding hearts" who seem always to cast doubt on honest cops doing their jobs - so when a case like this comes up, and the "evidence" put about at the time seemed so damning, it's a chance to put one over on the soft-on-crime brigade. Once the battle-lines became as polarised as they have done, the fact that the so-called "damning evidence" was complete tosh never gains any significance.
...

On a more simplified level, the more that they see Amanda as trying to 'get away with it', the more determined they'll become to try and ensure that she doesn't. That's what worries me about Amanda's release from jail....
Click to expand...

I would imagine that Amanda will go to a secret address once she is released, while the lawyers get to work on putting the record straight. Whether she will ever be safe from nutcases is an open question - but at least it should no longer be possible for them openly to incite each other online.

The above should have gone in the "Please explain the Amanda Knox threads" topic, but that has been closed.
 
Last edited:
The reason I've asked about the Chief's comments on more than one post is that I believe the night of questioning is foundation of the house of cards. Without that night so little of the pro-guilt arguments hold water. Her accounting of the night and morning of the crime remain consistent. There is no false accusation. There would be no notes repeating the visions.

Since the pro guilt people refuse to respond perhaps somebody in the middle or on the pro not guilty side could come up with a logic that leads to the conclusion that the police didn't put the Patrick statement into her head.

Another "major" reason to hate her is that she never recanted the accusation. My reading of the notes was at the time and remains that she did recant as strongly as possible considering that she being held by the people that had told what would happen to her if she didn't cooperate. I've always thought that she couldn't say for certain that he didn't participate in the murder unless she was at the cottage during the murder. It must be remembered that police lied about the evidence they had and they "knew the truth".
 
This was a very interesting video.
Dateline, including a table chat with Nick,Barbie,Andrea and another.
Amandas friend interviewed a lot too.

Seems from the table vote a split almost, but more like an undecided response.

Depending on the "scale" used to measure this case, the person decides innocent or guilty.

Does the person use the Interrogation as a truth, then Amanda is a liar.

If they use the absence of forensic evidence in the bedroom, then Amanda is innocent.

on and on....each piece.

The results of the Interrogation was very damning for Amanda, and the Prosecution/Police not recording or allowing Legal help for Amanda is severely suspicious, the failure to record the interrogation makes the prosecution/police as liars.

I believe most people cannot conceive that interrogations by local authority goes on.
I never did, until it happened to a family member. Very similar to Amanda and Raffaeles description of the interrogation.
But for most, the majority, this type an interrogation, could never happen in a police station.

With the power of Mignini and the Authorities in Perugia, I doubt any lower level squad member will talk, lest they go to prison or something with calunnia/defamation charges. But I always wondered if the Judge could interview all the police there that evening, in private, if he would find the answer to Amanda and Raffaeles interrogation.

I believe out of a large group like that, the quantity of police squad at the interrogation, one would get a better description of what happened by talking to each privately, anonymously and without fear of being reprimanded and imprisoned for stating their opinion.

anyway, I thought this was a very balanced and thought provoking video.
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial


just to add, I meant the discussion with the reporters is thought provoking.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure...

Antony said:
That's true of some individuals posting on the news media comment sections, but not, I would say, of the serious pro-innocence websites.

I disagree with the item on your website which appears to accuse Injustice in Perugia of the equivalent failings as TJMK (IIP at least presents the evidence in an organised and objective way, while TJMK employs astrology and statement analysis). You go on to advise people to read both websites and make up their own minds (in which case the contrasting styles will be obvious), but I'm afraid many will not do this and will form the opinion that both sides are as bad as the other.
Click to expand...
-

Antony,

you are probably correct in your analysis and criticism of what we said on our website, but being biased in favor of innocence means to us that we can't really trust our judgement that IIP isn't (even as close to) as bad as TJMK.

In other words, we honestly do believe that TJMK is not as fair as IIP in presenting evidence and opinion of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt (especially if it is true that they ban or moderate voices of dissent in their forum), but this belief may be colored by our bias in innocence, so we made the judgement to tell our readers to go and read both sides of the case, specifically TJMK (using critical thinking skills) so they can make up their own minds.

You may be right that many folks may not go read both sites and assume that both sides are as bad as the other, but with your permission, I would like to add your second paragraph above (word for word, no editing) to our blog as "a comment from a reader - Antony:". Is this the BLG-2011-06 blog or the BLG-2011-07 blog. We would be happy to attach it to both.

And by the way, thank you so much for reading our blog and for presenting us with your critical analysis of what we said. It is deeply appreciated,

Dave
 
Antony said:
That means you think the break-in was staged, and Rudy got in some other way. My position is the reverse of yours: extraordinary claims - like the "staged" break-in - require extraordinary evidence, and what we see from those making this claim is an extraordinary lack of evidence.

Just one question, though: the unflushed toilet is evidence that Meredith came in while Rudy was on the john (he didn't flush so he had a chance of sneaking out of the house without making a noise); how is it accounted for in the case where the break-in was staged, after he was let in either by Amanda or Meredith?
Click to expand...

No, wrong, just wrong! You have no idea obviously of what my position is. I suggest you stick to facts instead of making up things about people and trying to ask "gotcha" questions. In fact, reading my posts more carefully may enlighten you to my current beliefs.
 
Don't forget...

Grinder said:
The reason I've asked about the Chief's comments on more than one post is that I believe the night of questioning is foundation of the house of cards.
Click to expand...

Grinder,

the "staged" break-in and the psychological guilt underlying the eating of pizza (should we all just stay away from pizza places after someone dies just in case), especially the "staged" break-in. It really gets my grinders (pun intended) grinding when I think about the fact that they never video recorded a search under Filomena's window for glass. They just said they searched. And pro-guilters never even question this? Oh the police are just bastions of honesty and subjectivity and you weren't there in court so you don't know blah blah blah.

And since I'm on the subject of video recording (with due respect to the non-recording of the interrogations), what in 'ell were the police thinking when they recorded the gift wrapping of the mop and the collection of the bra clasp as evidence? Did they really think their techniques wouldn't be seriously questioned when it was all on video for everyone to see? Were they really THAT stupid?

The video is so damning (the people in court actually GASPED when they saw it) that I find it simply astounding that the pro-guilters aren't at least questioning the competence of the police because of that and I haven't even mentioned the rusting of the clasp.

It ALL just simply boggles the mind,

Dave
 
lionking said:
Yeah? Really? Do you want my real name to add to this imaginary list? Come on, take me on.

Emotionally invested fantasy.
Click to expand...

No one is interested in your comments on JREF. I have no interest in taking you on. My comments were related to actions far more serious than a anonymous Disney character calling Amanda names on a skeptics blog.
 
it's a sad but true fact...

JREF2010 said:
This was a very interesting video.
Dateline, including a table chat with Nick,Barbie,Andrea and another.
Amandas friend interviewed a lot too.

[...]

I believe most people cannot conceive that interrogations by local authority goes on.
I never did, until it happened to a family member. Very similar to Amanda and Raffaeles description of the interrogation.
But for most, the majority, this type an interrogation, could never happen in a police station.

With the power of Mignini and the Authorities in Perugia, I doubt any lower level squad member will talk, lest they go to prison or something with calunnia/defamation charges. But I always wondered if the Judge could interview all the police there that evening, in private, if he would find the answer to Amanda and Raffaeles interrogation.

I believe out of a large group like that, the quantity of police squad at the interrogation, one would get a better description of what happened by talking to each privately, anonymously and without fear of being reprimanded and imprisoned for stating their opinion.

anyway, I thought this was a very balanced and thought provoking video.
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601316/n/Justice-on-Trial

just to add, I meant the discussion with the reporters is thought provoking.
Click to expand...

thank you for sharing JREF,

false confessions happen. It's a fact, but what makes it equally sad is that juries sometimes will use them as a basis for guilt no matter how much evidence comes up to disprove them. The Norfolk Four case is a perfect example.

The innocent confess (can't blame them sometimes for it, I'll say whatever you want, please just make it stop please) thinking that in court the truth will come out, but ironically their confession becomes the truth that over shadows everything else.

I personally wish there were some way to force everyone in the world to study false confession cases so at least they are aware that no matter how bad things get in an interrogation room, and no matter how innocent you may be, confessing is the WORSE thing you can do,

Dave
 
AmyStrange said:
Rhea,

they do seem to throw everything (everything they think everyone else hates anyway) into their own bag of hate except the kitchen sink. I agree with you wholehearted here. It's like they are equating their hate for Amanda by including her with all of "them" together on their own "wall of shame". See, we hate all the same people you do, so our hate for Amanda must be legit also.

The other thing that is interesting also is how they don't see the critical mistakes in their logic (or even attempt to question their logic, but they must be aware of it, because they throw the same logical inferences at supporters of Amanda that they should be asking themselves).

I don't think most of them are evil people so much as they (like LE) are afraid to admit they are wrong, because of the crash to their psyche that would occur if they admit their belief system isn't credible --with LE it's a blow to their ability to prosecute if they aren't seen as credible.

They also think it would be a disaster to their self worth and self esteem, and in many ways they might be right, because they subconsciously know their psychological make-up couldn't handle it, which is why saying that there is a higher probability they are innocent (or guilty) is better than investing in total innocence (or guilt), but that's just my opinion,

Dave
Click to expand...

If Amanda had one flaw, it was to assume that people were all the same. She assumed the police would be understanding.

Raising my children, I almost got the feeling that if you treat them too good and understand them too much, that they will project the characteristics of the parents on others. I think Amanda projected her parents onto the police and thought the police only had good intentions for her. The result was that she talked too much.

Perhaps the police would have had more respect for Amanda had she spoken perfect Italian with no accent. We are all prejudiced against people that don't speak our language perfectly. I instinctively think of blacks and people from India as white if their accent is perfect. I always surprise myself by not thinking of the colored as colored if they speak perfect English.

I am troubled that some of the guilters try to find bad characteristics in Amanda to explain Guede's murder and justify their belief that Amanda is guilty. If the instinct of the guilters is no better than to think normal characteristics as evil, then that means they will see you and I as evil. They will see evil in everybody. Perhaps they are more paranoid as indicated by their seeing evil in normal or superior behavior. If they see more evil in the world, are they likely to lash out at others more frequently? Are guilters as a group more likely to engage in anti social behavior?

Perhaps it isn't good for a society coddle the idea that there are good people and bad people. It is a dangerous belief if people don't know what they are looking for. The villians on TV are always angry and always hurt everybody else. It's usually not that simple.
 
Last edited:
Since the pro-guilters are not willing to step up and discuss I'd like to make a point for them. The reason nothing or almost nothing tying A and R to the murder room was found is that the police weren't competent. They left major, significant evidence behind only to be picked up 6 weeks later. Proof that they aren't competent. In those six weeks DNA might, I mean did, move from some of the items to the floor or never to be tested items.

BTW the video of the bra clasp was done in the art de clown style because the lawyers were watching from a nearby van.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom