Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[js202]

On the other hand, had the chaplain reported that he thought Knox acted like she was bearing the burden of an enormous guilt, would the guilters have jumped all over it, claiming that it should be considered as proof that she should be convicted again? Based on the entirely character-assassination-driven strategy of the prosecutors and their allies (including those at PMF and TJMK) I have a hard time thinking that they'd judge the hypothetical words of such a chaplain as being irrelevant to the case.

In situations involving fair and rational humans, your point is well taken. Except, the individuals in question have proven time and time again that they obsessively throw away any data that is recalcitrant to their pet theories. After all this time, no mere, misguided priest -- surely misled by the "convicted sex murderer's" diabolical ways -- is worth heeding.

 

[js202]

Tell me, when did John Douglas testify?

What on earth does this have to do with the price of eggs?

 

[js202]

Added to that, it's the prosecution side (and their blogger supporters) who have gone to extraordinary lengths to blacken the characters of the 2 defendants (Amanda in particular), to the exclusion of genuine evidence. So they are obviously counting on the idea that a case based on character alone has some validity.

The irony is that it is LionKing who is criticising the defence for focussing on Amanda's verifiable good character, when he has never once discussed anything that could be described as genuine evidence. Needless to say, the defence has the forensic evidence on their side as well.

Great post, cogently expressed.

 

[bolint]

Sure, but why not just agree on all of your assumptions and see what follows from them.

The "computer evidence" argument keeps coming back, for some reason it is even mentioned as an exculpatory evidence.
As you see, even with Dan O. we are back to square one.
After these years and two trials it is perhaps about time to discover it.

You claim that Raffaele deliberately lied about his web browsing during the night. Yet it something easily verifiable both by his net provider logs and his browser history.
What sense do you make from it?

Not much.That's what came to his mind.

But:

Fact 1 - He claimed it.
Fact 2 - It is not true.

It could be a lie or the evergreen "confusion".

How does it add up with the fact that he gave his keys to the cops to go retrieve his computer and check his browser history?

What else could he have done?

(There are of course more such discrepancies in his version that you claim to be deliberate lies. There is the father's phone call, and the "going out" contradicted by Popovic)

So, what about those "lies"? What do you think was the plan?

No plan. A makeshift alibi that collapsed.

Or, in your case, never

It is without doubt faster to start with the conclusion.
But it's hardly in my line.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Not much.That's what came to his mind.

Oh, come on, you made it look like it's a major evidence of guilt.

But:

Fact 1 - He claimed it.
Fact 2 - It is not true.

It could be a lie or the evergreen "confusion".

So, what makes you think it was a lie and not confusion?

What else could he have done?

Well, let's think critically then...
What about telling them he was not browsing the web but watched some movies and listened to some music? What's wrong with it?

No plan. A makeshift alibi that collapsed.

Let's see. A guy pulled out a genius, brilliant job of removing all of his traces from the crime scene and it didn't occurred to him to not base his alibi on easily provable lies? I don't think I'll buy it.
Why wouldn't he include true verifiable facts in his alibi, that he had plenty at hand? Where is Popovic in his story? What about that phone call from his father? What about that cartoons and movies he watched? No mention of Naruto in his story, no mention of Amelie. Why would he lie in such a way?

Can you piece it together somehow? It's not the first thing that doesn't add up in your version.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I would never offer the cops the keys to my place

What else could he have done?

Not offered them his keys. Then the last access time to Stardust might have survived a few more hours.

 

[theRealBob]

There are a lot of comments that the prosecution have no real evidence against those two in relation to the murder.

What is truer is that the dodgy prosecution offerred tons of what they told us was evidence. Loads and loads of the stuff. But it was very simple to go chew through it item by item and disprove all of it as crazy fantasies, lies, and disgusting and illegal tactics (bar Raff's weak tendencies to tell the odd silly lie like kids do these days)

Without the benefit of a hanging judge who portrayed unstinting loyalty to the evil local cops and crooked court oficials, they in turn just lied openly and also consistently in court.
Even though Massei told us often it was impossible for them to have any interest in doing so.

But they just went on with it in the public eye anyway, and turned the appeal, which was proved to have an entire lack of prosecution evidence into a farce where we all tuned in to watch them lie on oath, and lie and lie.
Like silly little kids.

 

[bolint]

Oh, come on, you made it look like it's a major evidence of guilt.

A lie should not be a good lie in order to be a lie.

So, what makes you think it was a lie and not confusion?

The other "confusions". There is too much of them to believe that they are all randomly produced confusions which happen in the critical period.

Well, let's think critically then...
What about telling them he was not browsing the web but watched some
movies and listened to some music? What's wrong with it?

He could have said less defeatable versions but he underestimated the interrogation.
Just think of his reply to his father about walking around with the penknives: "Those idiots can't find it". And he went in the police station with the knife. You probably say that it is a sign of innocence, but it is only a sign that it was not a murder weapon. Otherwise it is a sign of stupidity even from a fully innocent man, there was a reason that his father had warned him.

Anyway, neither he, nor Amanda could name the film they allegedly watched that night.

Amanda could name Amelie but that was in the evening, not in the period of interest and Stardust was at that time light years away

Let's see. A guy pulled out a genius, brilliant job of removing all of his traces from the crime scene and it didn't occurred to him to not base his alibi on easily provable lies? I don't think I'll buy it.

Why wouldn't he include true verifiable facts in his alibi, that he had plenty at hand? Where is Popovic in his story? What about that phone call from his father?

But not at the right time. And he did not personally meet Popovic at around 20:40.
If you mean the call around 20:42 then it is out of the time of interest.
The other call, which would have been at the right time around 23:14 and would have provided a very good alibi, however, miraculously could not make it to his phones.

What about that cartoons and movies he watched?

There is only Naruto. He could not name any of those famous cartoons and movies he allegedly had watched and none were found, either.

No mention of Naruto in his story, no mention of Amelie. Why would he lie in such a way?

Amélie is of no use.
Naruto would have been good but we don't even know if it was watched at all or only started and quitted for a moment.

Can you piece it together somehow? It's not the first thing that doesn't add up in your version.

I don't see it that way.

 

[pilot padron]

Again, your own words are my best argument

I wonder if Randy Jackson's (FlyByNight) employer would approve of him trying to convince people that he is a stalker. I don't play their games so I will never know the answer to that.

The truth is never important. SomeAlibi missquoted me today. I want to be clear about what I said to him.
Some Alibi: "Bruce Fisher PM to me "I have no need for you!" (oh *really*?)"
This is what I actually said: "You are a vindictice human being. I have no more use for you."
Wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about my feelings for Mr Alibi.
The behavior witnessed on PMF as the trial comes to a close reinforces everything I have said about that hate group for the past 2 years. They can't even pretend to gather for Meredith no matter how hard they try. The hatred flows out uncontrollably. Pretty sad.

If anyone has any doubt about the claim that many of the 70,000+ (thanks K) arguments here about the Murder of Meredith are little other than nit picky, pedantic parsing with endless re-defining and reinterpreting thrown in to no useful purpose, read the above alleged misquote.

Is there really a difference ? Really ?
Additionally, maybe Somealibi was not familiar with your choice of words, i.e vindictice and missquoted (sp).
Or maybe he was waiting for your ever so helpful poster here to copy n paste a dictionary page, and then post it in blue

Finally, your expressed "feelings" for Mr Alibi are a pretty nice subject to parse and re-define with the hate you again find necessary to attribute solely to PMF

I rest my case.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[bolint]

Not offered them his keys. Then the last access time to Stardust might have survived a few more hours.

There is no proof that Stardust was touched by anyone from his house.

On the one hand it was in the peer-to-peer shared folder so any download would have modified its Last Access timestamp.

More importantly, on the other hand, if it had been started by a player than the opening record would have been added to the same Spotlight database where the Naruto opening record was found.

It is a simple task for the defence to check in their copy if there is such record or not.

If there is not ...

 

[Grinder]

Yes, but here the claim is that Knox lacks an impeccable character. She killed because she has borderline personality disorder, she is a she-devil, a witch, etc, etc. The prosecution is not claiming that Knox has impeccable character and is also the killer. They are claiming that her character is not impeccable.

Or, you are saying the testimonials are not credible and accurate, in which case I would ask, why not? Who says anything else? What is your source?

It's more than that. It's that they convicted her on behavior much less extreme than she devil. They made hay over the cartwheels, kissing, buying sexy underwear, eating pizza, and other "odd" behaviors.

The PG sites have spread stories of pranks, insensitive remarks made to co-workers, diving into a mud puddle and more. They have argued whether she was a psychotic or just a sociopath Mignini even used a british tab report on the noise ticket that was totally bull.

A priest saying she shows none of the bad behaviors does have value even if not in court.

 

[ForTruth]

We are now witness to a change of messaging from those who believe in guilt:
No longer are Amanda and Raffaele acquitted (or convicted) of the crime until the Supreme Court confirms the ruling of the appeal court.

Weren't they the ones using the circular logic after the Massei ruling that they are guilty because they were convicted by Massei?

Just asking...

 

[smkovalinksy]

We are now witness to a change of messaging from those who believe in guilt:
No longer are Amanda and Raffaele acquitted (or convicted) of the crime until the Supreme Court confirms the ruling of the appeal court.

Weren't they the ones using the circular logic after the Massei ruling that they are guilty because they were convicted by Massei?

Just asking...

You said it. Yes, they went on and on , "Knox was found guilty by the court; she is a convicted murderer." But now if acquittal comes, the same court will simply not count. "We don't know if she is truly acquitted; we must wait for the high court ruling" will be their new mantra, but of course those of us who questioned Massei and awaited the appeals ruling were idiots. Sigh.........

 

[Kaosium]

Anyway, neither he, nor Amanda could name the film they allegedly watched that night.

Amanda could name Amelie but that was in the evening, not in the period of interest and Stardust was at that time light years away


There is only Naruto. He could not name any of those famous cartoons and movies he allegedly had watched and none were found, either.

I don't understand what you're talking about here, were Raffaele and Amanda ever questioned on this and the statements made public? The exact names of the films I mean, I'm just drawing a blank when I read the above regarding what you're referring to.

Doesn't it bother you on some level that the only reason an open 'window' even exists is because the data was destroyed in police hands? Police that had just arrested them on entirely mistaken or coincidental evidence?

 

[Grinder]

I wonder therefore whether the verdict will be announced such that it can be covered live on the US breakfast (morning) shows (Today, Good Morning America, etc)? After all, the NBC has Today show anchor Matt Lauer in Perugia, and the other networks also have prominent representation. I therefore think it's a distinct possibility that we are looking at a verdict at around 1pm-3pm Italy time (12pm-2pm UK time, 7am-9am EST). Just a thought......

For those familiar with ads running in the US where a bartender controls various on field devices that send games into overtime for the benefit of his customers, Marriott has similar controls in Perugia. He will be able to stop Hellman in mid sentence, if need be, to accommodate any live TV situations he has contracted.

 

[Grinder]

Actually this is not a jury.
It is 8 judges, two of them professional judges and 6 are "popular judges" selected much like a jury, but having almost the same rights as the professional judges during the trial. They can ask the witnesses, they can view the documents, etc.
In the end they all decide the case with majority, each of the eight having one vote.

Honest questions, no agenda, just curious.

Does anybody know if the "popular judges" have asked questions in open court or in some way directed actions? Do we know who they are? How are they kept from being lobbied outside of court?

 

[pilot padron]

Does not follow

Which abject moron posted this? Go ahead, name names, SMK. I refuse to go over to that cesspit of mentally retrograde vipers.

An IQ over 70. What piffle. It would be excessive praise, indeed, to blame PMF's or TJMK's most erudite poster -- Kermit, Harry Rag, Zorba... any other idiotic monikers spring to mind? -- of possessing the intellectual talent to operate an espresso machine without risk to life or limb.

That is a pretty obvious non sequitur in your argument

Or to avoid any "inabilities to understand" what I write.
When you say initially that: "I refuse to go over to that cesspit of mentally retrograde vipers."
Then contradict yourself by saying something that does not follow (non sequitur).
This when you continue by acclaiming others as "most erudite posters' from the PMF/TJMK sites you never go to.
That makes no sense.

 

[theRealBob]

There is no proof that Stardust was touched by anyone from his house.

On the one hand it was in the peer-to-peer shared folder so any download would have modified its Last Access timestamp.

More importantly, on the other hand, if it had been started by a player than the opening record would have been added to the same Spotlight database where the Naruto opening record was found.

It is a simple task for the defence to check in their copy if there is such record or not.

If there is not ...

The argument about the cops playing around with Raff's computer while he was incarerated revolves specifically around the last access records.

The last access record for Stardust is the one where the cops opened it at the station (hopefully not a deliberate overwrite)

 

[bolint]

Does anybody know if the "popular judges" have asked questions in open court or in some way directed actions? Do we know who they are? How are they kept from being lobbied outside of court?

I haven't heard such actions in either trial.
It will be written in the Motivations who they are.
They are not isolated outside of court just as professional judges are not.

They take an oath and will be punished if they are caught tampered.

 

[pilot padron]

There's a better picture under bright lights that shows it better, but I can't seem to find it. Perhaps Pilot can help me out.

Think this is the one you refer to.