Good point, but I suspect even the Amanda haters will get bored with her after awhile. It's a lot of work to continually make up something bad to say about a party costume, or holding hands with a friend or her mom. It is already getting boring, IMO. Maybe some other girl will come along for them to accuse of something? Hopefully not -- maybe there will be some other interest that comes up.
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
Good point, but I suspect even the Amanda haters will get bored with her after awhile. It's a lot of work to continually make up something bad to say about a party costume, or holding hands with a friend or her mom. It is already getting boring, IMO. Maybe some other girl will come along for them to accuse of something? Hopefully not -- maybe there will be some other interest that comes up.
My problem is that I find it almost completely not credible that they spent any time on the basketball court. Curotolo's testimony was used simply as a way to prove they were lying when they said they spent the whole night indoors at Raff's place, but his story does not fit any theory of the case that I have heard. Even if he did not have contradictory parts of his testimony, or was not taking heroin at the time, how does his story make sense with any scenario?
Supposedly, they met up with Rudy somewhere, and the 3 killed Meredith. So if they spent an hour, or two, or whatever on the court with Curotolo observing them, where was Rudy? Was Meredith dead before or after? If they were there during that time, why? It makes no sense, and does not connect to any of the other facts in the case.
To me, this is another one of the bogus "see, they lied" points that are not credible, connect to nothing, and prove nothing. Add that to Toto having zero credibility, and it means less than zero, if that is possible.
In my opinion, neither Curatolo nor the police have any credibility. Toto was a known dealer who was never arrested, just as RG was a known criminal and never arrested. I believe that both were probably protected as police informants.
Didaktylos
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
- Messages
- 400
Just flinging this up because it is nice to see a pic or 2 on occasion:
Amanda out walking with her Mom:
[qimg]http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/fp/Amanda+Knox+Amanda+Knox+Family+Enjoying+Walk+Xw3hqEvSBiBl.jpg[/qimg]
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/fp/Amanda+Knox+Amanda+Knox+Family+Enjoying+Walk+Xw3hqEvSBiBl.jpg
As I said about the Hallowe'en pics - nice to see her just catching up on life.
Curatolo's story, though having some credibility problems, is not so fantastic, if it is after the murder.
For example a scenario: Raffaele was not there at the time of the murder. She ran to Raffaele, telling him a story similar to the Lumumba story, and they came back because she had to enter the house say for something incriminating thing she had left there. They were watching the house for a while if the "real murderer' was still there.
It is interesting, anyway, that Raffaele's computer activity ceased at about that time.
Last edited:
A story like that would work only if there were some other supporting facts, rather than just a speculative story. Especially a speculative story based on someone with the level of credibilty that Toto has. IMO, like other "guilt" scenarios, it requires that a person believes Amanda guilty first, then try to reconstruct the facts around that belief.
smkovalinksy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,126
Yes , it is. It was nice to see Raffaele looking well on tv, too. After their 4 year ordeal, they deserve some respite, even as many still long to see them re-convicted.
Certainly.
For me the supporting fact is that I don't believe them that they don't know what they were doing that night.
At 8:45pm they were completely all right and from 9:00pm they don't remember anything till 10am next morning.
Both of them.
Even today they avoid this question like plague. See the Raffaele interview.
Osterwelle
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 90
I disagree. While she certainly is in the spotlight rightnow, it will almost 100% depend on what she does in the future if the vultures keep following her around.
If the trials are finally over and if she keeps it down, takes up an ordinary job, doesn't appear in talkshows, etc. then I don't think they will be interested in her for much longer and she will be forgotten by the majority of the public very soon. It will take some extra time but then even the guilter sites will fall into obscurity (not that they're of great significance anyway).
However, if she writes books, appears in talkshows regulary, takes up a job that involves being in the spotlight (some said she might be joining an organisation that's helping unjustly condemned victims) she may of course be under surveillance for much longer.
MOO...
-
Osterwelle
Osterwelle
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 90
According to Amanda's testimony they ate dinner, washed the dishes (that's when they noticed the leak), smoked a joint and had sex from 9:00 on so it's not that they couldn't remember anything.
It is known that cannabinoids cause an alteration of memory functioning in humans, especially short-term episodic and working memory. Therefore it is no wonder they had problems remembering precisely what happened. The memory doesn't return after some time as certain things are just not stored as the THC interferes with these mechanisms.
-
Osterwelle
If I were them I would avoid it like the plague as well. Because the minute they try to remember exactly what they did, at what time, 4 years ago, while stoned, people will jump on it as evidence of guilt. There is nothing for them to gain to try to explain what they did minute by minute. It is the job of the police to prove they were not there, not their job to prove they were there.
I think the truth is, they got really stoned, had sex, and fell asleep. Not sure if there was any computer activity, or not, but I suspect if there was, it wasn't much. In a similar situation, I wouldn't be on the computer, unless the girl wanted to hear a song or something!
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
I think this is an episode highly pertinent to many people who post about this case. This episode is the one I would have every PMF person watch and understand.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
It would be more interesting if Curatolo had given his accounting right away before the press had a chance to feed him all the info he needed to match up times as best he could.
His story is fantastic. Why would they stay there for hours in the chill? Why wouldn't they have used their time there as an alibi? "We were just so in love and wanted to capture the view together so we went to the plaza and never saw anything except the tow truck and there was a black car in the drive but we didn't think a thing of it.
They didn't say they didn't remember anything - they weren't precise about exactly when they ate, exactly what they ate but they said they were at Raf's flat messing around and smoking pot.
So why wouldn't they say they were at the plaza? They would have thought that someone would have seen them there so just keep as close to the truth as possible. They would have been worried that there was a video cam of them hanging there.
This is more of the pro guilt mentality of them proving that they were innocent. Nothing puts them at the cottage at the time of the murder. Currently the PG people are supposing that Rudy was a bud of Amanda's and that she invited him over to share the dope some dealer had given her.
They just can't stop with the fantasies. Dope dealers in phone speed dials. Pranks in Seattle. Wild parties resulting in arrest. Buddies with Rudy. It just keeps rolling around in their brains. They keep repeating things until they actually believe them.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Frank Sfarzo has a new post up.
Antony
Graduate Poster
I don't think it's possible to say, but I take the opposite view - at least as regards how the public perception of her goes. If she quietly tries to return to obscurity, then people will stop talking about her when the controversy has run its course, but she risks eternally being the girl "who got away with murdering her flatmate" in the eyes of the poorly-informed.
If she goes on TV, writes a book (or has one ghost-written), and takes a role in a campaigning organisation, then I think some will still stubbornly cling to their vindictive attitude, but most who see and hear her interviews and read her story will come to the view that nobody should ever have thought her capable of murder.
I am reminded of the Guildford Four in this country (the UK), particularly the combative Gerard Conlon, who didn't stay quiet after being exonerated. Shortly after the scandal broke, some incautious public figure (I think he might have been a judge and a member of the House of Lords, even) expressed the view that if we had had the death penalty then "they would probably have hanged the right people". He was forced into a humiliating public retraction after Conlon's lawyer Gareth Pierce threatened legal action for a "gross libel".
When is something like that going to happen in this case?
Osterwelle
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 90
I believe this will majorly depend on how things continue with the trials to come. What if she gets rid of the slander charges? What happens when Guede actually spills the beans on his next appeal? Maybe we'll all be up for some big suprise, who knows?
But even if nothing new comes out I think the majority will just forget about her which may not be the best thing that could happen to Amanda, but certainly not the worst.
I'm almost sure that this will happen, the question is how long she will stay in the spotlight after the book and a couple of interviews. Will there be another movie? Will she write more books? Will she get involved with an organisation that cares for the unjustly condemned? As a spokesperson even? Time will tell...
I wouldn't be suprised if Amanda's lawyers will start a full scale rebound lawsuit on the British and Italien newspapers and other people. This could be interesting...
-
Osterwelle
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I think Derren Brown is an awful lot more multi-dimensional than you think. You seem to be under the impression that all of his shows are similar in outlook and intent. In fact, his TV material can be categorised under a number of different genres. It's true that a fair deal of his TV output is based heavily on deception and misdirection. The lottery programme was just such a programme. But Brown is always explicit about the nature of any such programme. Typically he begins these sorts of shows with an up-front disclaimer along the following lines: "This programme fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show". It's clear that in these types of programmes, Brown is seeking to mystify and bamboozle the audience into thinking "How did he do that?!". But he is honest about the techniques he is using to achieve his ends.
Interestingly, I believe that in the lottery programme (which gained him enormous publicity in the UK) Brown was looking for a dual response from his audience: he expected the more stupid or credulous viewers (including the actual participants in the show, of course) to believe that he (and they) really had predicted the lottery numbers. But he expected more rational and insightful viewers to realise that it was a trick of some kind, and merely to be baffled as to the method behind the trick. In fact, I think I recall him even saying explicitly at some point during that show (and definitely in the aftermath of the show) that the effect was not achieved through any form of psychic powers of prediction.
However, in the "The Experiments" or "Derren Brown Investigates" shows or some of the other specials, Brown is quite clearly working in a different genre. He's examining certain personality traits, and how those traits can be exploited by him or others to achieve certain effects. These shows are genuine events, which are edited for television transmission but which are totally honest in their endeavours. I know someone who was involved in commissioning a number of these shows for C4, and I can assure you that they are not cheap tricks or deceptions. And bear in mind that apart from everything else, such a deception would be a clear breach of Ofcom rules. That's why crappy "reality" shows such as "Made In Essex" are forced to admit that they are in fact constructed shows with devised storylines, rather than the sheer "fly on the wall" shows they ostensibly purport to be.
I'd be interested as to how you "know" that the Assassin show's participant knew that the gun was merely a prop though. Do you know that for a fact, or is that your guess/gossip? Because if you have firm evidence of that, I can give you Ofcom's and C4's contact details.....
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
As I said in my previous post, I think that programmes such as the lottery "prediction" show were in a totally different mould to those such as "The Experiment" shows. Like you, I am able to draw the distinction between the overt showmanship and - for want of a better word - magic involved in a show such as the lottery one, and the straighter investigative tenor of a show such as "The Guilt Trip". Brown is first and foremost a showman, of course, and that's how he makes most of his money. And good luck to him. But I feel sure that he wants to use his showmanship fame to examine other subjects and areas that he feels strongly about, chiefly in the field of human psychology and suggestibility. That's what programmes like "The Guilt Trip" are seeking to do.
I think the Cluedo references were nothing more than Derren Brown playing a little internal joke on the unfolding scenario: a murder in a country house. He was careful to make it subtle enough not to be immediately obvious (e.g. "Colonel Mustard" became a retired colonel with the surname "Colman"). I don't think that this in any way implied that the underlying programme was fake - I simply think that Brown thought it would be wryly amusing to implant the names into the cast of characters.
And anyone who saw the emotional turmoil of the show's subject Jody, combined with his tears and near-collapse as he "confessed" in the "police station" can surely be in little doubt that this was a real situation as far as he was concerned. If he was faking it, I want that guy to go to Hollywood and make a fortune as a character actor.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
- Status