Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why wasn’t this brought up at trial? It all makes sense when you listen to the pro-guilt experts. Everyone knows that murders are more likely to occur when there is a close conjunction of Pluto to the Milky Way’s Galactic Center!

When all you have is "Foxy Knoxy", slutty, evil, G.W. Bush/drug influenced American seduced weak willed Italian boyfriend to help her slaughter virginal (oh screw it, I'm not going to sully Merideth's memory even for satire)... and send the Seals in to rescue her after a PR Campaign to cover up her Satanic evil, etc. worked or whatever, why wouldn't you resort to making B.S. claims about astrology ex post facto or giving such garbage the thin veneer of legitimacy by publishing it... somewhere?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think if you followed the logic of the arguments, you would understand that this is not the point.
The people may well admit to false things easilly.
But they do not believe to these false things easilly. They do not develop false memories about these things.

Having a memory of something is not the same of admitting things to make the interrogation stop.
It is something totally different.

No, I'm following the "logic" of your "argument" just fine. People don't "develop false memories". They conjure a scenario in their minds that fits the police narrative and admit to them. And as I showed with the "Take the Money and Run" example, people don't actually need to be in jeopardy to succumb to police interrogative pressure - even one that doesn't include beating the suspect as was the case with Amanda Knox. Merely having one's freedom constrained is enough to cause people who would otherwise win $100,000 to tell interrogators exactly what they want to hear.

Your last paragraph is so disconnected from reality, that I can see why you're a guilter.

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher
Why wasn’t this brought up at trial? It all makes sense when you listen to the pro-guilt experts. Everyone knows that murders are more likely to occur when there is a close conjunction of Pluto to the Milky Way’s Galactic Center!
______________________

Bruce,

Does it matter what sort of crackpot science was introduced? Astrology, numerology,...or graphology? Here's Mignini in his closing arguments during the initial trial:

Mignini: "I have had a graphologist look at their handwriting, and that man confirmed that Amanda Knox is aggressive, narcissistic, manipulative, transgressive, and has no empathy...." See: HERE.

(I wonder whether now---on Mignini's advise--- Patrizia Stefanoni is receiving aroma therapy?)

///

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry, Machiavelli says all the lit provided says the opposite. This doesn't do that. Keep trying.

Machiavelli also thinks the cops did a fine job, and that Amanda is a compulsive liar who was involved in the murder of Meredith. From that standpoint I can understand how he puts together a portrait of a scheming murderess in that note. I just don't get the scheming non-murderess theory, as that doesn't seem to have any support at all.

At any rate it looks like I forgot to provide the link to the Ost et al paper.

 

[icerat]

Hit at 1:00 am, while the spontaneous statement is released four hours later after chamonille tee, no hitting, no yelling, no lies, no interrogation and before a magistrate and an interpreter. And the accusation repeated in a hand written note that was written voluntarily and given to the police. And then, no retraction nor explanation given subsequently nor in any other hearing. It seems for some reasons you always miss this bits.

Machiavelli, you've mentioned this note several times and I've asked you to link to a copy of it several times, and you've completely refused.

How do you know of this note and why hasn't it ever been released or submitted as evidence?

Because in the only hand written note we know of given to the police she does exactly what you claim she doesn't do - retracts and explains the earlier signed statements

I suggested perhaps you are referring to the known note and are simply misunderstanding the english, which might be understandable, but you didn't respond to that either - I can therefore only assume that you are somehow aware of some other note that has been kept secret.

Could you please enlighten us as to the nature of this secret hand written Amanda Knox note that you regularly refer to?

 

[Kaosium]

From what I gather the SC has not denied everybody there hating on Sabrina and Cosima, but thinks the judges are fair. Beats me how the defense is supposed to show judges will not give a fair verdict before the verdict is judged. You make a good point. The blogger linked to says we can now count on a 30 year verdict reversed on appeal, has Italy learned nothing?

It seems to me they're so out of touch with reality, they live in their own little world of sophistry and infallibility. In a way it reminds me of the Ancien Régime elsewhere and elsewhen. Frankly I hope the suffer the same fate! Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

I hope Frank continues to blog about this case. There is still the question of detention and remains hope that they will be released pending the trial. The SC has said the evidence on most of the charges including murder is weak and has sent it back to the locals for a better reasoning to keep these two in jail.

I'm sure they'll come up more 'evidence,' it seems the nature of these things. I hope Frank keeps blogging on this too, however I hope he does it from somewhere outside Perugia and The Pack.

 

[Keeper]

You may remember that the BBC published this article a few days ago...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15157384

I queried the BBC about this and particularly point 9. Here is the reply I received in case anyone is interested.



Thank you for your email. I asked Mr Johnson to write the short piece for us - he has followed the case closely. Not being an expert in this area, I relied on his guidance. This is his response. I am however considering that it might be better based on this whether it could have been better to have put that Itlay offers more guarantees than "some" other countries.

The point is fact not opinion.
1. The % population in jail in Italy is much less than for instance USA.
2. The independent review concentrated on the DNA evidence, even though other evidence from other areas was heard at appeal. The appeal did not hear the entirity of evidence. Knox's team focused their attacks on DNA.

3. The appeal system offers more gurantees than for instance the British system.
Best wishes,

 

[Kaosium]

This is one of the funniest things yet. According to Nazione, Lumumba's lawyer Pacelli has written a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her to make sure Knox pays up. http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/10/13/599903-amanda_paghi.shtml Hillary Clinton! LOL.

Here's her response:

Dear Mr. Pacelli:

Thank you for your letter. We have reached out to US Citizen Amanda Knox and asked her about paying you and your client. Unfortunately, it appears that she doesn't have any money and hasn't had a job for the last four years.

We did remind her that she did say something untrue about your client. But she said that you, on behalf of her former boss Lumumba, said these untrue things about her:

"She was a diabolical, Satantic, demonic she-devil, She was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one you see her before you and the other. She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex."

I don't really understand her problem, though. After all, my boss says things like this about me all the time (well, except for the hot, wild sex part). What's the big deal?

Knox also claims that the only reason that she said the untrue thing was because she was getting a beat down by the police. This made me think about something very wise said by another great American who got a beat down by the police: "Can't we all just get along"? And this made me think of a very diplomatic solution.

Since Italy wrongfully imprisoned Knox for at least a year and maybe more, she can get lots of money from the Italian government. This money can be used to pay to help Lumumba get his mojo back, to compensate Knox, and most importantly, to pay you! All you have to do is join with Knox in making the argument that Mignini and Comodi and Massei and the cops illegally locked up Knox. Then, Knox will get lots of money and can share it with you! Perfetto!

Sincerely,

Hillary Clinton

PS: My husband doesn't think you should test the semen stain.

I wish she would have sent a letter like that! Here's Pacelli's letter translated:

Perugia, October 13, 2011 - The lawyer Carlo Pacelli appeals to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is interested in why Amanda Knox assucurare compensate the damage suffered by Patrick Lumumba.



The girl in Seattle, on appeal by the prosecution acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher, was sentenced to three years in prison for slandering the Congolese musician. Lumumba was in fact involved in the investigation based on what Knox told investigators from being recognized, however, completely unrelated to the crime and then acquitted. The Appellate Court of Assizes of Perugia, confirming the sentence for slander, has determined that Knox compensate the musician, in a civil postponing the quantification of the damage. The U.S. will also pay legal fees for more than 60 000 euros.



The lawyer Pacelli, recalling the appreciation expressed by the Secretary of State for the sentence of the second degree, has sent a letter to Clinton through the U.S. embassy in Italy. The satisfaction with the outcome of the process, according to the lawyer Pacelli "must be duly followed by the actual damages suffered by Lumumba. I appeal to you because through his interest in Amanda Knox compensate''Patrick Lumumba.

I wonder why he would do this when the conviction isn't legal until the review by the Supreme Court. Is he low on money? Is he hoping to shame her somehow into paying when she might not have to? I wonder if he's the lawyer in Patrick's case for 500k Euros against the police in Perugia in Strasbourg? Whatever happened to that?

 

[Diocletus]

You may remember that the BBC published this article a few days ago...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15157384

I queried the BBC about this and particularly point 9. Here is the reply I received in case anyone is interested.



Thank you for your email. I asked Mr Johnson to write the short piece for us - he has followed the case closely. Not being an expert in this area, I relied on his guidance. This is his response. I am however considering that it might be better based on this whether it could have been better to have put that Itlay offers more guarantees than "some" other countries.

The point is fact not opinion.
1. The % population in jail in Italy is much less than for instance USA.
2. The independent review concentrated on the DNA evidence, even though other evidence from other areas was heard at appeal. The appeal did not hear the entirity of evidence. Knox's team focused their attacks on DNA.

3. The appeal system offers more gurantees than for instance the British system.
Best wishes,

Um. So if the appeal focused on the weakest evidence, then what does this guy think was the strongest evidence?

And what does he mean by "weakest" evidence. Is it the evidence most likely to be unreliable, or is it the evidence that is least probative of guilt? Because if it's the latter, then the DNA and Curatalo were definitely not the weakest. If its the former, then yeah, of course the appeal focuses on that.

This Johnson guy doesn't seem too smart.

 

[Diocletus]

I wish she would have sent a letter like that! Here's Pacelli's letter translated:



I wonder why he would do this when the conviction isn't legal until the review by the Supreme Court. Is he low on money? Is he hoping to shame her somehow into paying when she might not have to? I wonder if he's the lawyer in Patrick's case for 500k Euros against the police in Perugia in Strasbourg? Whatever happened to that?

It almost sounds like he wants Hillary to ask the US Treasury to cut a check to Lumumba. He must have just figured out that he can't get any money from Knox. What a maroon.

 

[CDHost]

I just don't get the scheming non-murderess theory, as that doesn't seem to have any support at all.

This isn't my theory of the case; nor do I think it is supported by the evidence... but I can see different scenarios people can believe

1) Amanda liked the attention. She was playing games and acting weird and maybe trying to throw the police off. When she gets arrested she continues to play games until a few months have passed and the situation is more serious. From there she was to embarrassed to admit what happened.

2) Amanda knew a great deal about the murder, possibly participated in a clean up and wanted to throw the investigation off. For example if Meredith's murder was part of a conspiracy.

3) Amanda was furious with Patrick and wanted to get him in trouble. Her focus was there, and she can't admit what she did early on.

etc...

I think the greater support comes from the fact that Italian criminal courts look to do what US civil courts do, defuse situations and try and find settlement everyone can live with. There was substantial misconduct by the part of police and prosecutors. If the innocent version is true then people like Mignini need to be investigated for gross misconduct resulting in a murder failing to be solved. On the other hand, if it is Amanda's fault the murder failed to be solved, there is no need for an investigation. So if Amanda Knox were fully exonerated then this would keep the issue alive for years.

On the other hand, if she were convicted of murder then this would keep the issue alive for years, as we had talked about before. They would have taken even more of a big PR hit, and for what? To keep Seattle safe from someone the city desperately wanted back anyway? Italy was not enjoying the fact that when they complained about the treatment of prisoners in America, which is an Italian hobby, everyone just played the Knox trump card. The Italians like to consider the US system barbaric, suddenly they couldn't meaningfully protest about anything. Suddenly it was not the Italian being morally superior but a 2 way issue, where both sides simply were rejected the other's notion of what constitutes a fair trial.

But American indifference to the terms of her release made a conviction, especially one that amounted to time served... And that's really the support. That ultimately, governing is about compromise and the courts found a workable compromise.

I can understand why if you want to go after out of control prosecutors, Amanda Knox, which inspires all sorts of nationalist issues, is not the right case.

 

[Kaosium]

You may remember that the BBC published this article a few days ago...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15157384

I queried the BBC about this and particularly point 9. Here is the reply I received in case anyone is interested.



Thank you for your email. I asked Mr Johnson to write the short piece for us - he has followed the case closely. Not being an expert in this area, I relied on his guidance. This is his response. I am however considering that it might be better based on this whether it could have been better to have put that Itlay offers more guarantees than "some" other countries.

The point is fact not opinion.
1. The % population in jail in Italy is much less than for instance USA.
2. The independent review concentrated on the DNA evidence, even though other evidence from other areas was heard at appeal. The appeal did not hear the entirity of evidence. Knox's team focused their attacks on DNA.

3. The appeal system offers more gurantees than for instance the British system.
Best wishes,

*sigh*

He doesn't understand how it works. All the evidence was considered by the 'jury' from the first trial, they just didn't accept the arguments from Massei, they thought the appeal documents made better arguments--because they did.

For example, the luminol stains were accepted by Massei as being made in blood because the prosecution said so and came up with a way it was possible they might be. He had to, the Massei court voted to convict. However that TMB negative is still far more convincing evidence than the silly theory that they were diluted to be between the sensitivity thresholds of luminol and TMB, because that wasn't possible either due to the chemiluminescent brightness of the stains in the crime scene photos. So the Hellmann Court will decide the far more probable outcome that they weren't blood.

That was a mistake made by many in this case, the only thing Massei was good for was the bare-boned facts, the theories developed because of them were simply required by the nature of a Motivations Report. The DNA 'evidence' had to be reviewed to establish what it actually was.

 

[Keeper]

Um. So if the appeal focused on the weakest evidence, then what does this guy think was the strongest evidence?

And what does he mean by "weakest" evidence. Is it the evidence most likely to be unreliable, or is it the evidence that is least probative of guilt? Because if it's the latter, then the DNA and Curatalo were definitely not the weakest. If its the former, then yeah, of course the appeal focuses on that.

This Johnson guy doesn't seem too smart.

I guess you could argue that the Prosecution's strongest evidence was also their weakest.

What concerned me was the clear inference that strong evidence of guilt from the first trial hasn't been reviewed and is therefore still legitimate.

 

[Diocletus]

*sigh*

He doesn't understand how it works. All the evidence was considered by the 'jury' from the first trial, they just didn't accept the arguments from Massei, they thought the appeal documents made better arguments--because they did.

For example, the luminol stains were accepted by Massei as being made in blood because the prosecution said so and came up with a way it was possible they might be. He had to, the Massei court voted to convict. However that TMB negative is still far more convincing evidence than the silly theory that they were diluted to be between the sensitivity thresholds of luminol and TMB, because that wasn't possible either due to the chemiluminescent brightness of the stains in the crime scene photos. So the Hellmann Court will decide the far more probable outcome that they weren't blood.

That was a mistake made by many in this case, the only thing Massei was good for was the bare-boned facts, the theories developed because of them were simply required by the nature of a Motivations Report. The DNA 'evidence' had to be reviewed to establish what it actually was.

This is a good point that explains a lot of Massei. The jury had already voted to convict, so then some sorry soul had to write an opinion to justify this stupid verdict. This person (Massei's assistant) must have been ripping her hair out when she actually drilled down into the evidence. Thus, we have so many arguments that don't even pass the straight-face test. Personally, I knew the whole case was a big set up as soon as I read the "staged break in" discussion, which I think starts around page 50. It's stupid. The icing on the cake is that they had to write 400+ pages of nonsense to feel like they had made the case for guilt. If they had gotten it right in the first place, they could have written a 50-page opinion, which is what I expect we'll see out of Hellmann.

 

[CDHost]

I guess you could argue that the Prosecution's strongest evidence was also their weakest.

What concerned me was the clear inference that strong evidence of guilt from the first trial hasn't been reviewed and is therefore still legitimate.

There was no strong evidence of guilt in the first trial.

To prove that ask yourself the simple question, based on the evidence:

1) What lethal acts did Amanda Knox provably commit?
2) What lethal acts did Raffaele Sollecito provably commit?
3) What was the motive?
4) How did this conspiracy get organized?
5) If this was a sex thrill murder, why does Amanda Knox contradict most of the criteria one usually finds?

 

[Keeper]

There was no strong evidence of guilt in the first trial.

To prove that ask yourself the simple question, based on the evidence:

1) What lethal acts did Amanda Knox provably commit?
2) What lethal acts did Raffaele Sollecito provably commit?
3) What was the motive?
4) How did this conspiracy get organized?
5) If this was a sex thrill murder, why does Amanda Knox contradict most of the criteria one usually finds?

I think you might be misunderstanding where I'm coming from with this.

The view that not all of the evidence that originally convicted K&S was reviewed on appeal gains credence when stated by the BBC, and adds to the whispering campaign that somehow suggests that they got off on legal technicalities rather than lack of evidence (a view quite common in the UK).

(sorry, that was a long sentence - I expressed it much better just now but somehow deleted it).

 

[Kaosium]

This isn't my theory of the case; nor do I think it is supported by the evidence... but I can see different scenarios people can believe

1) Amanda liked the attention. She was playing games and acting weird and maybe trying to throw the police off. When she gets arrested she continues to play games until a few months have passed and the situation is more serious. From there she was to embarrassed to admit what happened.

2) Amanda knew a great deal about the murder, possibly participated in a clean up and wanted to throw the investigation off. For example if Meredith's murder was part of a conspiracy.

3) Amanda was furious with Patrick and wanted to get him in trouble. Her focus was there, and she can't admit what she did early on.

etc...

Hi CD! Welcome back!

I can see other scenarios as well, I do understand that part. LJ posted another one that is possible that I found plausible, basically that she got pissed off and and fed up with them accusing her of being involved that she just sent them on a wild goose chase. I for a while pondered a similar scenario to try to explain the police and prosecution's intransigence as to her guilt, I simply found more evidence to suggest they were corrupt scumbags lying through their teeth to save their backsides and scapegoat her for their mistake--and provide more evidence of her bad character suggesting she was a murderess.

The thing is though, there's so many elements in my mind that suggest she's telling the truth in this note, and I was hoping to engage people in a discussion on it as most of the other scenarios don't take into account other factors. For example, one suggests that she's trying to recant the Statements but 'keep her options open,' however that doesn't seem to make any sense.

The Statements themselves aren't an accusation, they're too 'vague and confused' to begin with, and the note itself seems to fit more with her trying to explain what she was experiencing rather than 'recant' what doesn't come across as an accusation anyway. She ought to be confused considering the information she has been told, Raffaele said she went out, that they have 'hard evidence' she was there, she remembers something different, but had these mental images come to her which seem to support what the cops are saying but doesn't seem real otherwise.

At this point she doesn't know that they will lock up Patrick for two weeks, she might not even know they arrested him for certain, she might have simply thought they were going to have a talk with him about it, and she's in the unfortunate position of not knowing for sure what happened anymore and figuring she'd better explain better, in written English, so perhaps they will understand. I think the more probable scenario is that Amanda is telling the truth and that alternative scenarios ought to be supported with something that fits with the demonstrated character of Amanda and the situation as it actually was.

I think the greater support comes from the fact that Italian criminal courts look to do what US civil courts do, defuse situations and try and find settlement everyone can live with. There was substantial misconduct by the part of police and prosecutors. If the innocent version is true then people like Mignini need to be investigated for gross misconduct resulting in a murder failing to be solved. On the other hand, if it is Amanda's fault the murder failed to be solved, there is no need for an investigation. So if Amanda Knox were fully exonerated then this would keep the issue alive for years.

Exactly, scapegoat Amanda to save their backsides from the whupping they deserve, they have a motive to lie about what happened that night, I'm not seeing it so much from Amanda. Their web of lies seems too transparent to me, and it starts right here. They use this to 'prove' Amanda is a 'compulsive liar' that she 'changed her story three times' right from the beginning. Then they go on to make it 'she accused an innocent man!' All of this fits with their strategy of the time to distort or outright lie about everything to prejudice everyone against Amanda. They seem to think if they keep saying it, people will believe it--because some will.

On the other hand, if she were convicted of murder then this would keep the issue alive for years, as we had talked about before. They would have taken even more of a big PR hit, and for what? To keep Seattle safe from someone the city desperately wanted back anyway? Italy was not enjoying the fact that when they complained about the treatment of prisoners in America, which is an Italian hobby, everyone just played the Knox trump card. The Italians like to consider the US system barbaric, suddenly they couldn't meaningfully protest about anything. Suddenly it was not the Italian being morally superior but a 2 way issue, where both sides simply were rejected the other's notion of what constitutes a fair trial.

While that might have had an effect, I think it more likely it was local, not national concerns. The average judge or 'juror' might not be as interested in ammunition for complaining about American prisons as they are 'defending' the reputation of their local police for various reasons, notably reports that tourism and foreign students is supposedly down, and of course there's the fact they have to live with them and might not want to believe that of them....

Frankly until the the 'Pack' gets neutered and spayed I don't think anyone should pretend that Perugia is absolved because of the exoneration of Amanda on the murder charge. Until that happens people ought to be awfully wary of sending students to Perugia.

But American indifference to the terms of her release made a conviction, especially one that amounted to time served... And that's really the support. That ultimately, governing is about compromise and the courts found a workable compromise.

I can understand why if you want to go after out of control prosecutors, Amanda Knox, which inspires all sorts of nationalist issues, is not the right case.

I don't think we are in disagreement on either of these issues, I see the same thing.

 

[Kaosium]

This is a good point that explains a lot of Massei. The jury had already voted to convict, so then some sorry soul had to write an opinion to justify this stupid verdict. This person (Massei's assistant) must have been ripping her hair out when she actually drilled down into the evidence. Thus, we have so many arguments that don't even pass the straight-face test. Personally, I knew the whole case was a big set up as soon as I read the "staged break in" discussion, which I think starts around page 50. It's stupid. The icing on the cake is that they had to write 400+ pages of nonsense to feel like they had made the case for guilt. If they had gotten it right in the first place, they could have written a 50-page opinion, which is what I expect we'll see out of Hellmann.

Exactly! The length of it was evidence of its silliness, the amount of confabulating they had to do to try to make it work. Massei lost me the second time he said something to the effect of 'it's possible, indeed probable' and I realized it wasn't just a figure of speech.

Incidentally, they don't even need to point out that the sensitivity threshold argument is disproven by the chemiluminescence of the photos, all they have to do is say that Stefanoni's theory is silly and proves nothing, the TMB negative (and also the lack of a confirmation test) is far better evidence they weren't blood than any theory one could come up with that they were. That's because one could 'hypothosize' that in just about any case, not just this one, making TMB and confirmatory tests irrelevant--Luminol Uber Alles!

It is possible to pity Massei if you ever have tried to put together a cohesive guilt scenario squaring all factors like he tried. I think writing that was penance personally, I hope he learned something from it.

 

[codyjuneau]

I think dr.Lalli - who is not a prosecution expert but the doctor who performed the autopsy - has given his olinion based on the knowledge within the scope of his competence.
For example, he also said there was no evidence of sexual violence (but crossing with findings of other experts, we found there was evidence). He did not analyse the room, the victim's clothes, he did not question witneses.
He could rule out a possibility at the moment just based on his own autopsy. But based on the whole information from the trial files, a different conclusion can be made.

We ?

 

[Grinder]

SB wrote this today:

I hope this is the last time I have to write this but fear it is not. The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on. I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place. He had worked with the guy and gave me his name. I was able to confirm that one of the roommates indeed has the same name I was given, but it is a rather common name and I was not able to find the guy. I won't give the name because I don't have his permission.

No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke.

This is a great example of the PR effort made by PGP. The style here is her pervasive approach of sophistry.

She writes "The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on."

Of course, except for SB and her band of merry followers nobody mentioned this prank except to say that it had no validity.

Then she says "I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place."

She contacts a commenter and gets the lowdown that it was hearsay but manages to call the noise ticket party "the rock throwing party", isn't she clever.

If you'd like to check him out his link still works - just search the link for joh

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

She claims she tried to contact the guy that told the guy but too common a name. The guy had said she got friends to dress up and break into her (Amanda's apartment) and harass her roommate. So the guy didn't actually see the prank but HE also got it from hearsay. But the big and decisive fact is that FOA NEVER DENIED IT. Also, did Amanda ever live in an apartment? I thought she went from dorm to house.

"No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke."

The actual comment said it happened in an apartment, but what the heck. I guess that they not denying it proves she murdered Meredith.

If anybody from the other side is reading this please go to the link and read the actual comment and then go to JOH's link. Reassess what your leader is poisoning you with and figure out who is drinking the Kool-Aid.

And how did she confirm that the second hearsayer had the name of a roommate of Knox?