Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
misteratunta said:
Mignini for a start.

I've also seen guilters expressly defending him, saying Amanda put him up to it etc. etc.

It's also implicit in the words of every guilter who screams for Amanda's blood but who has never expressed the remotest issue with the fact that Rudy Guede could be free in under a decade.
Click to expand...

Unlike others here, I am not obsessed with what is said on other forums. I really can't understand arguing with people who aren't here to counter.
 
lionking said:
Unlike others here, I am not obsessed with what is said on other forums. I really can't understand arguing with people who aren't here to counter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I added this bit

"It's also implicit in the words of every guilter who screams for Amanda's blood but who has never expressed the remotest issue with the fact that Rudy Guede could be free in under a decade."
Click to expand...

just for you.

And I wasn't aware Mignini was posting on other notice boards. Wait! You don't suppose he's tweeting as somealibi?
 
Last edited:
icerat said:
Anyway, this conversation has certainly addressed my only major question over the crime. He clearly could have climbed in via the window in question.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm dumbfounded by the levels of mental contortion necessary for pro-guilt people to demonstrate that Rudy did not and could not have gone through that window. It is the simplist and most logical explanation, but like everything in this case, the interpretation of the evidence is twisted to fit the prior conclusion. What are burglers good at? They are good at entering buildings, and in the case of people like Rudy, by using their athletic abilities. I have abolutely no doubt that I, in my forties, would be able to get through that window - it's possible that yes, I'd leave scuff marks on the chalky walls, but in my youth I could have simply used the grate of the lower window to leap frog up without even doing that. I'm sure many of us have had their house burgled and been surprised at the abilities of our intruders. I lived in a flat once where the kitchen doors were protected by shutters that rolled up via a lever inside the kitchen. Somebody was able to lift up the noisy shutters from the outside without waking us up in the adjacent room, pry open the kitchen windows, and take our money. We were just grateful that we didn't wake up or that the intruder enter our daughter's bedroom. This is what burglers do, and it's what they are good at. But no, pro-guilt people cannot accept that a burgler with a previous history of break-ins (with knife) could have done it in this situation. It beggars belief, it really does. :gasp:
 
Originally Posted by lionking
What don't you buy? I've said many times that I have seen no evidence of the conspiracy of evil Italian authorities so many here consider to be clear as day.

Hi LionKing,
I have a few friends who surf that happen to work in law enforcement, they do a good job in a tough environment. I've read that you too were in law enforcement, so I've noted your doubtful conspiracy posts.

With that said, I am interested in your opinion of something that previously happened in Italy that Frank Sfarzo reported the other day. I was unaware of this case, it was suprising to read of it.

I am posting it again, since with so much going on, I figured that you might not have even seen it.

I had hoped for a sincere reply from you, just because I was very suprised to read of so many police officers getting arrested in this particular case. Thoughts?
RW

Quote:
A Conspiracy of 48 Cops

For the Genoa G8 affair a bunch of cops entered the school where the protesters were staying, and found (reminds you something?) some molotov bottles…

When it became clear those molotovs couldn’t have been in that school the prosecutor certainly wans’t afraid of a couple of cops, and accused them of having planted that evidence and produced false statements.
This time other cops came in help of the accused cops, up to the chief of the police.

Not a problem for the prosecutors who managed to condemn all of them. In the appellate trial 48 cops were convicted: the low ranks who planted the evidence and the superiors who didn’t arrest them, chief of the police included.

So, we are not talking a single one this time, but the variety of cops, the naturalness with which they were making crimes, falsifying evidence and statements, lying in court, shows that such behavior is not an exception at all.

‘They think they are covered by immunity’, Genoa judges explained. In truth they can be covered by immunity, in case of a dishonest chief, or prosecutor, or judge, who act as their accomplices. But then another court comes, Italian or European, and it may even happen that it sends all of them to jail without any problem….
I hope to read your opinion on this LionKing.
Take it easy,
RW

I didn't correctly quote this, I just italicised some of it and boldened the replies to get it all in.

Potentially a 'Hall Of Fame' post this one.

One of the best ever. But even so. It's so obvious. It's all so simple to work out too.

The Peruggian police force, and Mignini, Maresca, Commodi and even the lovely Steff are offal.

They just turn your stomach inside out on a daily basis.
They're filth.
 
Last edited:
Amanda Knox appeal: How she changed Raffaele Sollecito's life


You meet a girl at a concert, she lives with friends and from that day you go out more and more, you spend untroubled days together... You can't ask for any more from life.

"Then one morning you return to her house and find a big mess.

"The problems begin: the police arrive, break down the locked door of a bedroom and discover the lifeless body of one of her friends.

"From then on they suspect everyone and everything, including you.

"And you, thinking you are helping them, fall into a trap you have made with your own hands."
Click to expand...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...llecito-s-life-115875-23452085/#ixzz1ZFhFipjD
 
Final input from me on the spiderman.

icerat said:
So there was a freakin' ladder on the wall below the window and people claim he couldn't have climbed up there? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Not in any way as a put down.
I appreciate your view.
I just hesitate to continue on a topic that has been discussed so extensively.


1)The glass that was incredibly left undisturbed when the supposed climber slithered over it was on the inside sill.(many pictures available)
2) Even when on the top rung of your ladder (grate) it would not be nearly as commonplace for a person to haul himself up the remaining distance as you (and many others) suggest.
3) The undisturbed nail directly in his path while pulling himself up is significant to many
4) Many arguing innocence acknowledge de facto the improbability of that grate method when they instead propound a planter to window via hanging from roof eaves 'stretch'.
5) Hammerite's picture aptly captioned climber wondering 'what's next' from the defense's own video is conveniently never shown by the defense.
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=402&p=95051&hilit=lawyer+window#p95051
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
And Hammerite from PMF showed "the rest of the story" with a final slide that is usually conveniently omitted showing the nattily attired climber crouched, almost falling, and holding on for dear life.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link to this? I'm not a member of PMF and cannot use the search function. I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.

ETA Ah, I see you already done so. Thank you.

But do you really consider such a fall inevitable?
 
Last edited:
Please spare us a blue dictionary page

misteratunta said:
It's so strange that the landlord would waste their money securing a window which is "impossible" to access.
Click to expand...

Lets play that favorite parlor game here of pedantic parsing.

Few said "impossible"
Most said "improbable".

'Improbable' especially when compared with ease of other readily available means of 'breaking in'.

Even though 'improbable', what landlord in today's 'tenants' sue everybody' environment would not put up more grating in a rental unit ?

Even the much heralded authors of the C&V Report under some simple cross examination justified their most difficult to swallow conclusions by saying "anything is possible".

This gaffe in the opinion of many, pretty much undercut their entire academic, Missouri Highway Patrol documented thesis of contamination as a credible reason to discredit evidence.
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
A word about the "false accusation". Some of the facts that Kaosium wrote about are very clear now.

On 2nd of November the body is discovered.

On the 3rd Amanda's and Raffaele's phones are already wiretapped by the cops. They go through the phone records and discover that on the night of murder Amanda exchanges text messages with Lumumba, right after then her and Raffaele's phones go silent for the night. She set up a meeting.

They look through Lumumba's phone record and see that his phone pinged in the vicinity of Via Della Pergola on the night of the murder. The next day his IMEI number changed. He swapped his phone to cover his movements. They know he's an immigrant and he's black. They got their murderer.
They start putting screws to Amanda, interrogating her night and day. She is sleep deprived and feels "they treat her like a criminal".

From the wiretaps they know Amanda's mother is coming to Perugia on November 6 to take her away. They have to act quick.

On November 5 They organize a special night. Everybody is there at the police station. Mignini waiting, Giobbi comes from Rome to overseer, all of the squadra mobile cop heroes. After a few hours they break her, she "buckles and admits what they knew to be true". They arrest Lumumba before dawn and organize a triumphant press conference. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Why didn't they find Kokomani's phone pings?

The idea she wasn't a suspect is so laughable.
 
bolint,

I will not have time to look into Stardust until this evening at the earliest. But if you search the various threads under my username and Stardust (or just Stardust), you will find at least some of the information that what you seek.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I have no idea where you got this from.

I have seen police corruption and conspiracies. There has been clear evidence, and yes whistleblowers often provide it. Where's the evidence in this case?
Click to expand...

Sorry I have a habit of coming in late, reading a few old pages, wanting to reply to the posts I see and getting pinged for not replying to the current page which usually has seven posts on it that I couldn't think of a reply to if my life depended on it.

If you're from Melbourne you should know that ALL of the very top people in the elite drug squad were recently put away for selling the drugs they confiscated through the informers they get to know, become matey with and use.

What was more interesting was a newspaper article about a former cop who was convicted a while ago for some really serious crime (major drug supply I think) where it was pointed out that he should have gone inside a few years beforehand for a murder he was the obvious suspect in, before he joined the force.
And they finally worked out that he did that too.
His comments on his crimes, cop's crimes and all crimes were interesting reading.

He said the manipulation of evidence by cops was just a daily routine.

So did Zara Guarde Wilson, the lawyer girlfriend of Carl Williams. She said the routine manipulation of evidence (read framing) was what sickened her about them the most...
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Let me get this clear, are you accusing me of defending or excusing Rudy? Anyone else posting on this forum?
Click to expand...

Nope, I am accusing GUILTERS of defending or excusing Rudy, in general, and by implication.

I have no idea whether or not you are a guilter as I have read very few of your posts.

You believe Knox is guilty, but, to steal a concept from Chris Rock, there are those who think she is guilty and those who are guilters. There is a difference.
 
Katody Matrass said:
In Massei and in the appeals, for starters.
Click to expand...

No sign of it.

"Where did you get that idea? They filed a summary of their experts finding."
Click to expand...

And do you think that it will be accepted in court without debate?

Surely you're joking. Any sensible media player disables screensaver during playback.
Click to expand...

An yet, I have Win XP Pro and Windows Media Player does not disable the screensaver.
Neither does FLVPlayer.
I tested it.



Common sense. You're not seriously claiming they left movies playing to get alibi for the murder? Why then didn't they browse the web a bit, too?
Click to expand...

"They" referred not to the pair, but to the defence, who argue now with the screensaver.

But it is easy to see, that the screensaver argument and the film watching argument are incompatible. (At least) one of them is complete baloney.
(And the internet browsing and all night sex arguments are in reserve.)

Which finger do you want to bite? :D



He was confused.
Click to expand...

Ah, the eternal excuse. He may have internalised it, too. And forgot it, just to make sure.


The defence didn't claim browsing activity.
Click to expand...

When they confronted the ISP records. It was a wise decision. :D
But Raffaele had claimed it at least twice.


Do you think he lied? It makes zero sense to lie about something so easily verifiable.
Click to expand...

It is not easy to create an alibi out of nothing. He tried.
 
Last edited:
theRealBob,

As well as being irrelevant, there's so much wrong in your post I really don't know where to start, so i'll let it pass.
 
pilot padron said:
Not in any way as a put down.
1)The glass that was incredibly left undisturbed when the supposed climber slithered over it was on the inside sill.(many pictures available)
Click to expand...
So? You think the Athletic Guede would have wanted to get his legs/knees caught up in glass?
pilot padron said:
2) Even when on the top rung of your ladder (grate) it would not be nearly as commonplace for a person to haul himself up the remaining distance as you (and many others) suggest.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen what some athletic people are capable of doing?
pilot padron said:
3) The undisturbed nail directly in his path while pulling himself up is significant to many
Click to expand...
It's insignificant to me and many
pilot padron said:
4) Many arguing innocence acknowledge de facto the improbability of that grate method when they instead propound a planter to window via hanging from roof eaves 'stretch'.
Click to expand...
I haven't ready many such claims. I think most pro-innocence people accept Ron Hendry's analysis: http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry------2.html
pilot padron said:
5) Hammerite's picture aptly captioned climber wondering 'what's next' from the defense's own video is conveniently never shown by the defense.
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=402&p=95051&hilit=lawyer+window#p95051
Click to expand...
That's a photo, not a movie - we don't know what happened next, and that person is not the athletic Rudy Guede.
 
pilot padron said:
Lets play that favorite parlor game here of pedantic parsing.

Few said "impossible"
Most said "improbable".

'Improbable' especially when compared with ease of other readily available means of 'breaking in'.
Click to expand...

Fine, improbable. So why would Knox and Solicetto be any more likely to choose it that Rudy Guede? They could choose any window they wanted. In fact, even easier, no window at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom