Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
CoulsdonUK said:
Oh I see I thought I had made a mistake, by all means you respond as you see fit; was I being dismissive?
Click to expand...


Only you know that. I certainly took it that way.

CoulsdonUK said:
That may well be so. However, I have always found it interesting the students waiting in the police station from different countries of similar ages who all knew each other for a similar length of time found Raffaele and Amanda’s behaviour different in the context of her housemate (friend) being brutally murdered, but I would say that wouldn’t I?
Click to expand...


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Once we have decided to interpret events in a certain way, we tend to fine-tune our interpretation of all related matters to conform to that expectation.

I simply fail to find anything especially remarkable in anything Amanda has been said to have said or done. And in particular I fail to find any evidence of a homicidal maniac lurking behind the girl-next-door facade.

If in fact Raffaele the "knife-boy" had been portrayed as the instigator, having had his violent sexual fantasies woken by finally losing his virginity in his final year at university, and having dominated and coerced Amanda into going along with him, I'd find it marginally more plausible. (Only marginally, mind you.)

All this stuff about a vibrator and condoms and whose turn was it to clean the bathroom and not flushing the loo every time is just beyond ridiculous as evidence of a motive to murder. And if it wasn't beyond ludicrous, it would point if anything to Meredith deciding to take a carving knife to Amanda, not the other way round.

CoulsdonUK said:
I posted the Telegraph article just to see what the response would be, not as a statement either way.
Click to expand...


Well, I see it as having no relevance except to show that Natalie is aligned with the Kerchers.

CoulsdonUK said:
Still unlike some folks here I want to hear the defences closing arguments and rebuttals, I guess I am in a camp of on my own, billy no mates!
Click to expand...


Who doesn't want to hear the closing defence arguments etc? People are talking among themselves as a way of managing the suspense of waiting for exactly that, I think.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
js202 said:
Extraordinary photo, and surely a Rorschach test for innocenti vs. guilters.

Those in their right mind see the way the despicable bastard on the left has broken the spirit of the young girl on the right, all in service of his warped spiritual and psychic life (inclusive of religion, culture, country vs. city, Freudian stuff, you name it...). The guilter, on the other hand, will look at the same photo and presumably see a righteous man steeling himself in the conquering of evil itself. Problem is, such simplistic binaries are precious seldom the stuff of real life.

This has been such an unbelievable pageant of actual human characters, cast in service of an incredible human tragedy.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I still don't understand where all the faith in Hellman and the current jury is coming from.

So far the defense seems to not be that aggressive which seems like a mistake.
 
I would have liked one more expert witness

NewtonTrino said:
I still don't understand where all the faith in Hellman and the current jury is coming from.

So far the defense seems to not be that aggressive which seems like a mistake.
Click to expand...
NewtonTrino,

I am cautiously optimistic, but I would have felt better if there had been an additional witness on stomach/duodenum contents and TOD. Yes, there is enough information from the first trial, but I would like to have seen this come to the fore in the second trial.
 
js202 said:
Appreciate it, but I won't be wasting any more of my time or energy over there. Especially in these waning days, I'm obviously distracted by this case; but part of me also realizes that, as a writer, every word I devote to this topic is subtracted from work for which I am being paid. To have sincere contributions lacerated until they are partly unrecognizable is a bridge too far.
Click to expand...
I am a professional writer and I know what you mean. They seem unable to appreciate wit, sardonic remarks, and cannot distinguish between a brilliant jab and a vulgar rant. I keep going back because that is where I began.
 
Here is what I want to know.

So Knox made statements about Lumumba being involved in the murder, saying she had visions of him being the killer, and "vaguely remembering" that.

So today, Lumumba's lawyer said this about Knox:

* She's a diabolical, sex-obsessed she-devil
* She has a double-faced soul
* Called her "Lucifer-like, demonic, satanic, diabolic"
* Said she told "monterous lies"
* Her face is the mask "of a phony"
* "She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and hot, wild sex.”
* AND, accused her of not only committing the murder, but leading the murder plan

Patrick is certainly getting his revenge. When is it enough? Why is this OK?
 
NewtonTrino said:
I still don't understand where all the faith in Hellman and the current jury is coming from.

So far the defense seems to not be that aggressive which seems like a mistake.
Click to expand...

my opinion is there are three sections to a conviction.
the last trial that was a completely biased, by using the prosecutions evidence as fact, has been reversed by the C&V report.

of the three secitons there is Motive, Witnesses , and Science/Forensic's.

Commodi confirmed there is No Motive...they gave up, couldnt find a motive.

The only witness that claims to have seen the two is Curatolo.
He is confused and admitted to being high on Heroin in front of the Judge.


that leaves the science...DNA in this case, as the most critical piece to the prosecutions case.

Hellmans own appointed experts were called in to finish the debate between the two opposing sides. The Knife and Bra Clasp, the two most critical pieces of all the Prosecutions case was destroyed completely.

So I think thats were it comes from.

Add in the prosecutions closing was really a bunch of name calling and trash talking, with disgraceful showing of slides hasnt helped their case either, imo.
 
Rolfe said:
It's an open forum, and anyone can comment on any post they choose.

I don't see why "predictable" is being used in this dismissive manner. What I said was predictable inasmuch as it was a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

There is nothing at all in the accounts of any of the young women on the periphery of the case that offers even the slightest hint that Amanda Knox hid the soul of a homicidal maniac behind her vibrator and condoms.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

As always, your post was eminently reasonable, Rolfe. And extremely well thought through.

To someone who is inclined to "think" with emotion in this case, I can see how your rationalist approach might be off-putting. But, we must never forget, we have reason rather than emotion to thank for less predictable things, such as the theory of relativity and the mapping of the human genome. I'll side with you and the rationalists, every time, thanks.
 
smkovalinksy said:
I am a professional writer and I know what you mean. They seem unable to appreciate wit, sardonic remarks, and cannot distinguish between a brilliant jab and a vulgar rant. I keep going back because that is where I began.
Click to expand...

Well expressed. They seem tone -- and irony -- deaf.
 
Kestrel said:
Before the bra clasp and the kitchen knife, there were the bloody shoe prints found near the victim. The prosecution expert matched one to Amanda, claiming it was a print from a women's shoe in her size. Another print was matched to Raffaele's Adidas. Funny thing is that the number of rings in the sole pattern didn't match the number of rings on Raffaele's shoe. And oddly, the print attributed to Amanda had the same pattern.

Was this error just confirmation bias on the part of the shoe expert, or was it something worse?
Click to expand...


This was exactly my point. All of this was confirmation bias. (Or worse.) The alleged woman's shoeprint wasn't identified from scratch as Amanda's, it was said to be consistent with Amanda in a suspect-centred matching. And the print matched to Raffaele's shoe was simply wrong. The evidence was twisted to fit the suspects already in custody.

Same with the "mixed blood" and so on. It's hardly surprising they found Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom. But hey, she's the suspect so this is incriminating.

It really is as if the Perugian police decide how they want it to be, and then someone makes it so.

Rolfe.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, in regard to the knife, my hypothesis has Guede holding the knife to Meredith's throat. There are no plunging stabs involved in my scenario. I contend that Guede had Meredith on her hands and knees, with him crouched or kneeling behind her, holding his knife against her throat. At this point, Meredith was compliant. At this point, Guede starts to make it very clear that his intention is to sexually assault or rape Meredith. It's only then that she starts to resist, perhaps by flinching and shouting something like "what are you doing?" In my scenario, Guede responds to this partial resistance by inflicting the first, shallower knife wound. At this point, Meredith knows that Guede would have no scruples in committing violent acts on her, and she emits a loud scream and briefly struggles. But this is in turn met with the final, brutal knife wound to the neck, which simultaneously incapacitates and silences Meredith.

And remember, it's not the job of the defence to show that this (or anything similar) is definitively what happened. The defence teams merely need to show that the prosecutors and civil lawyers are incorrect when they argue that a lone attacker couldn't have carried out the murder/assault in the absence of defensive wounds or restraint marks. The alternative narrative that I have suggested is simply one reasonable way in which a lone assailant could have carried out the crime without Meredith showing such defensive wounds or restraint marks.

So the objective of the defence lawyers on this particular issue is to persuade the court that the absence of defensive wounds and restraint marks on Meredith's body is not conclusive of a group attack. It's consistent with it, perhaps, but it's also demonstrably consistent with a lone-assailant attack. that's the important point.
Click to expand...
-

Your theory is as viable as mine LJ,

in my opinion. The defense may not have to do this or that as you say, BUT remember that the lay judges will vote on how they "feel" about evidence and use either the defenses' or prosecution's arguements to justify how they feel.

Regardless of what the defense is "ONLY" minimally required to do.

They should do at least a little more than what is minimally required, and my hypothesis along with yours helps more than hinders, in my opinion.

If you want argue that my hypothesis is not necessary, than fine, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and hope that I am wrong and you are right,

Dave
 
Dougm said:
Here is what I want to know.

So Knox made statements about Lumumba being involved in the murder, saying she had visions of him being the killer, and "vaguely remembering" that.

So today, Lumumba's lawyer said this about Knox:

* She's a diabolical, sex-obsessed she-devil
* She has a double-faced soul
* Called her "Lucifer-like, demonic, satanic, diabolic"
* Said she told "monterous lies"
* Her face is the mask "of a phony"
* "She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and hot, wild sex.”
* AND, accused her of not only committing the murder, but leading the murder plan

Patrick is certainly getting his revenge. When is it enough? Why is this OK?
Click to expand...
It is not OK. A sane attorney would have told him, "We must be dignified and say that she caused you extreme hardship with her lie. For God's sake, do not bring up sex, Lucifer, double soul, witch, or any of that psycho stuff--the court will think you are a schizophrenic. "
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom