• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Here the point is technical. Defensive alternative must not be a series of unlikely and weak alternative explanations. The defensive points must also be strong, not systematically weaker compared to the guilty scenario. In fact we are not speaking about my arguments. What I am saying is that I reject the scenario of Guede-rinses-his-trousers because the whole series of explanations is made of weak elements not tightened together. It is a series of unlikely events not supported by a strong logical backbone. This is my final judgement on them, if I have to say why I reject them, I have to give this judgement. It is full of holes, it is not consistent and not consequent.



Neither do I but that’s what I think.



I have to point out here that “my” list of what I consider evidence is very different from yours. Everything rests on this.
I gave a summary of its main points in my answer to LashL. But it is just a summary of the areas. The physical details that I consider evidence of staging/break in are many and organized o each point. And the logical assessment of things - like a cleanup took place - are also different from yours, as for example I explain why I conclude that any evidence of cleanup would be automatically evidence against Knox:



So, you can understand from the above point, for example, what my logical - and neutral - conclusion on the evidence is, if I come to the conclusion that there is evidence of a cleanup.
Evidence of a cleanup means evidence of Knox's guilt. It is not totally undisputable, but it is evidence. There is a logical, independent consequentiality that determines this point.




The sentence that you quote was not a question, thus it does not deserve an answer. It is just your opinion. I don’t want to argue your opinion, but I disagree, and I don’t use for my assessments the photo published on the IIP page, which is a low quality picture scanned from a copy of the image I have (albeit Jim Lovering claimed for long his was a “special” picture taken under a crimescope controlled- spectrum light).
I think my “credibility” – better to assess the footprint anyway - should be assessed on true quality pictures set in a correct scale, and on some numbers which represent correct measurements.
But I understand that as long as you don’t see the pictures you won’t be convinced.



There is nothing personal but I like to clear things. Rush to conclusion is not good, and I don't like exortations to show the cards. I don't feel like following other's pace and requirements.
Click to expand...

Another long post from you with no substance.
 
Antony said:
You mean, of course, "there was no evidence of a staged break-in". Hellmann's judgement implies that the break-in was a real one.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'd like to pretend I said it that way just to see if anybody read it, but alas, I just misspoke.
 
Skind said:
I very clearly was not referencing the poll, but that response that indicated that the second part of a two part answer was redundant.

Answer that observation please, not one you chose to make up.

...
Click to expand...

But I am not going to follow your points at all. I am not going to pick up arguments that are not pertinent: I speak about the topic of discussion, and answer about points made about the topic. I do not set a discussion focused about myself, about my choice of words: your attempt is specious I am not under your scrutiny; you have to shift focus on something external if you want me to discuss on something.

The second part of the sentence in the poll is certainly redundant. Not in the strict logical sense that it is just the exact repetition, but in a wider sense that it is a repetition of a concept and it is unnecessary on the logical level of communication, in the limited scope of its purpose as communicative act. Semantically the agreement of acquittal is implied by a thought they were innocent, there is a wide overlap in content. In other words the second part of the statement is not there for logical reasons, to add logical content to the sentence, but it is there because otherwise the statement may be too short, compared to the others, and thus less effective as an act of communication: the reader won't spend enough seconds reading it. On the point of vew of communication, the function of the second part is to add redundancy so to make the sentence round and easilly marked, distinguishable from the others.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, friend. Whereas what AK signed her name to was false, I would be hard pressed to say that she bore willful false witness. I have been criticized by innocenters by expressing the opinion that AK is convictable on the caluunia charge, but not sentencable.

I do not call what she signed to "lies". Sue me. But I do hold her accountable for not clarifying the record in relation to Lumumba as soon as possible.

But I see her as not sentencable because of the conduct of the police, which created the situation in relation to Lumumba. The police were not neutral parties to this....

Failing to put the mistruths about Lumumba into their proper perspective is misleading. No, not lying, misleading.
Click to expand...

The legal picture you describe is not possible in the law (not by the Italian law); the definition of person not sentencable is strictly codified and cannot fit this case.
But I am talking about lies she told days before she signed accusations against Lumumba.
 
Funny how if Knox says something that turns out not to be true, it's a LIE. No matter what justification there might be.

And then if Stefanoni says something that quite obviously is a big fat lie, when she's under oath no less, all the justifications start to be trotted out....

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
No staged break-in, no magical selective clean-up, no bleach, and Meredith died soon after nine o'clock. These are simple facts, and must be taken into account in any theory of what happened. Even if you really, really can't stand Amanda Knox. Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Rolfe, I brought this up a while back with, I think, halides1 being the only poster to react, but the Massei reports has Meredith with a .43g/l alcohol IIRC at the time of death (page 112 pdf) as reported by Lalli.

If in fact she didn't drink with the friends on the movie date that would mean she had been unbelievably drunk the night before or she drank after arriving home. Of course, it could be that the girls lied or didn't notice her drinking or she could have had drink before going to their flat.

My question is: How would that have affected her digestion?
 
Sfarzo agrees with you

Bill Williams said:
In 20-20 hindsight, and there's no way she could have known, AK made mistakes of behaviour which cost her. You are correct, they should not have cost her, but in the cold tabloid world they did. She could not catch a break.
Click to expand...
Bill,

Frank Sfarzo wrote, "If she smiles it's wrong, if she cries it's wrong, if she moves it's wrong, if she's still it's wrong, if she watches it's wrong, if she doesn't watch it's wrong."
 
Katody Matrass said:
The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.
Click to expand...

It's true the lawyer touched the sill with his hand, but "would have jumped in", well I have never seen this happening or likely to happen with that lawyer.... I would like to see that, maybe on another similar window at the same height. And don't forget the climber also has to unlatch and open the window frame.
I'm not saying for certain that's impossible, but nobody has seen this performance by a lawyer yet. By a pakour trainee I may accept it as possible. But for a common burglar, that's not usual.
 
Grinder said:
Rolfe, I brought this up a while back with, I think, halides1 being the only poster to react, but the Massei reports has Meredith with a .43g/l alcohol IIRC at the time of death (page 112 pdf) as reported by Lalli.

If in fact she didn't drink with the friends on the movie date that would mean she had been unbelievably drunk the night before or she drank after arriving home. Of course, it could be that the girls lied or didn't notice her drinking or she could have had drink before going to their flat.

My question is: How would that have affected her digestion?
Click to expand...


In my opinion, it could be the explanation why the pizza hadn't already moved into her duodenum before she got home. Several people have noted that she was at the long end of normal already, at nine o'clock.

I don't see it causing things to drag on much more than that. And when you add in the other evidence like not phoning her Mum and still having her outdoor clothes on and Rudy estimating the time of her scream at not long after nine, it's a no-brainer.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Funny how if Knox says something that turns out not to be true, it's a LIE. No matter what justification there might be.
Click to expand...

What justification did she gave or do you see for inventing a false story?
And above all, redemption: when did she gave the true story?

And then if Stefanoni says something that quite obviously is a big fat lie, when she's under oath no less, all the justifications start to be trotted out....
Click to expand...

Well her reason is obvious, and it was not because she is a murderer.
And all the true and correct data Stefanoni released about the same point?
 
second memoriale and Lumumba

Bill Williams said:
I do not call what she signed to "lies". Sue me. But I do hold her accountable for not clarifying the record in relation to Lumumba as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Bill,

Ms. Know fully withdrew her false statement with respect to Lumumba in the second memoriale of 7 November. I take it that this was not soon enough for you.
 
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,

From the link you provided and with the help of Google translate: "Let's say another truth: Perugia was now filled with American and Italian intelligence services." Even if one believed that America interfered, why would American intelligence personnel need to be there?
Click to expand...

It's a case that got a lot of attention on an international level and also a case that still brings out strong emotions in people. It would not surprise me if there were threats of violence against her if she walked. I am sure Italy would want to avoid something like that happening as she was leaving court and it is possible though not likely that American personnel assisted (my opinion). Look at the way they rushed her out of the room. They were acting like bodyguards.

This is one possible explanation that seems a bit more likely than the conspiracy proposed in the editorial. If they were even there at all, of course.
 
RoseMontague said:
It's a case that got a lot of attention on an international level and also a case that still brings out strong emotions in people. It would not surprise me if there were threats of violence against her if she walked. I am sure Italy would want to avoid something like that happening as she was leaving court and it is possible though not likely that American personnel assisted (my opinion). Look at the way they rushed her out of the room. They were acting like bodyguards.

This is one possible explanation that seems a bit more likely than the conspiracy proposed in the editorial. If they were even there at all, of course.
Click to expand...

Secret service to protect her from violence? Dozens of police were not good?
But I don't want to propose a conspiracy theory about the US. The disturbing point, to me, is the declaration of satisfaction by the US secretary of state. Expressing satisfaction and thanking Italy for the careful consideration given to the Knox case.
I found this declaration disturbing and offensive.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
It's why the lady with the scales is blindfolded. It is completely irrelevant whether or not AK is a true innocent in the psychological sense, or is a wiley, conniving schemer....

She could be either by character. But none of that makes her innocent or guilty in this case. It is not about mythologizing her character as either a vestil virgin or as the embodiment of Hades-on-earth.....

Truth is, she's not much different than ANY of her flatmates as they existed in the early morning of Nov 1, 2007. AK was a bit of a slob to live with, did socially unacceptable things like sang outloud, but each and every one of the flatmates had their own peculiarities.

On the morning of Nov 1 there was nothing particularly remarkable or mythological about any of them.

The lady with the scales is blindfolded - how's that for mythologizing the law! Fact is, I agree smkovalinksy, no matter the character assessment of ANYONE in that cottage as of Nov 1st, the evidence just isn't there which says that AK or RS did anything at the cottage until 10:30 on Nov 2nd, when AK admits to taking a shower - and being a tad gormless about the condition of the cottage.

All of that is in full character. And what she did do was seek the advice of others as to what to do. Rather than keep the condition of the cottage a secret, to be discovered by others (giving her a better alibi), she blabbed to all who would listen, all of whom said, "Call the police, you gormless git!" Or variations on this.

She even called MK's cell to see if MK had an explanation of why the cottage was the way it was. It would have been merciful for all to have had MK answer that call.

AK's actions in that critical period reveal nothing other than a person who's a bit of a fish out of water and about to reap a whirlwind not of her making.
Click to expand...
Very well stated. Could not have put it better myself.:p
 
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,

From the link you provided and with the help of Google translate: "Let's say another truth: Perugia was now filled with American and Italian intelligence services." Even if one believed that America interfered, why would American intelligence personnel need to be there?
Click to expand...


They are likely talking about Steve Moore. Don't you think?
 
Machiavelli said:
Secret service to protect her from violence? Dozens of police were not good?
But I don't want to propose a conspiracy theory about the US. The disturbing point, to me, is the declaration of satisfaction by the US secretary of state. Expressing satisfaction and thanking Italy for the careful consideration given to the Knox case.
I found this declaration disturbing and offensive.
Click to expand...

One conspiracy theory you don't need to worry about is US Secret Service agents hanging around Perugia doing anything remotely connected with this case. I'm assuming you don't literally mean the "Secret Service". Let's not get too paranoid here.

You can cling to Mignini's laughable conspiracy theory though, as a nonscientific poll of about 200 people seems to have validated that you are at least not alone in your opinion. Congrats on that victory.

Hugs and kisses dah-ling.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom