• 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.
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,

Aldrovandi was not alleged to have any weapon, to the best of my knowledge. I doubt the others had weapons, either. If a police force cannot or will not take unarmed suspects into custody without harming them, something is terribly wrong. Amnesty International probably is on the right track to note the lack of an accountability mechanism.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the cops got 3 to 4 year sentences, pardoned, and they kept their jobs as cops, and never spent a day in jail.
 
In comparison, Raffaele's sister gets fired for a stupid comment caught on a wiretap, while these killer cops, despite being found guilty and sentenced to several years in prison, keep their jobs.

Something doesn't sound right about this.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
In other words....Lets play Dr Phil (again) and try to spin this to show innocence (again)
Click to expand...
So to your own thinking, the attorney's movement reveals that he thinks she is guilty? Do you see body language as a precise science? Really just wondering. I am not up on body language.
 
You missed it (again)

HumanityBlues said:
A fine assessment Pilot. You really help add clarity as well with your helpful underlining. Much appreciated.

And the Casa Blanca reference? Priceless. You are a peach Pilot. A real peach.
Click to expand...

Original Poster Bill Williams submitted the quote in bolded and underlined form.
I changed nothing.
As I ever so clearly, clearly, clearly stated in my post.

But as you have so often argued, my posts are ever so "hard to understand".
So I accept your glaring attribution error (again).

Therefore your...uhhh... complimentary... "peach" stuff belongs clearly to Bill Williams or his source, not to me as you charge.

Is that part of my argument 'understandable' ?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
[/HILITE]
And the full quote is the key here. To me, it's abundantly clear that Knox was explicitly stating that she could have no personal knowledge of the identity of the murderer. This, in every way, is a recantation of her previous statements.

But at this point, I think it's vitally important to remember one thing: Knox had almost certainly been led to believe by the police that Lumumba was indeed the murderer. Therefore she was unwilling and unable to make an assertion along the lines of "Patrick did not kill Meredith",

...sinister deletia....

All of this makes me highly confident that Knox has a strong case to appeal the Lumumba slander charge: everything taken as a whole indicates that a) Knox did not have the requisite mens rea for the crime, and b) she retracted and corrected the statements at the earliest reasonable opportunity (in a way that is also wholly consistent with the lack of mens rea in the original act).
Click to expand...
Yet, strangely, this was the one conviction upheld at appeal. What is it that not one, but two judges and panels are seeing here that those vigourously arguing the other way are not seeing?
 
smkovalinksy said:
So to your own thinking, the attorney's movement reveals that he thinks she is guilty? Do you see body language as a precise science? Really just wondering. I am not up on body language.
Click to expand...

Personally, I consider body language as an entertaining, interesting, art.
Not even a science, much less a precise science.

It apparently is also interesting enough to others that the top rated cable news show donates a segment every week to just that.

None of the Attorney's 'movements' revealed anything more scientific to me than maybe the Attorney had an itch or had just passed gas.
 
Last edited:
And, yes, I should have put in a note that it was me who underlined the phrase:

"Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."

That was neither an underlining in the original transcript or by the pther poster here on the thread. 'Twas me.
 
pilot padron said:
Personally, I consider body language as an entertaining, interesting, art.
Not even a science, much less a precise science.

It apparently is also interesting enough to others that the top rated cable news show donates a segment every week to just that.

None of the Attorney's 'movements' revealed anything more scientific to me than maybe the Attorney had an itch or had just passed gas.
Click to expand...
This is why it seems an act of desperation on the part of some who are pro-guilt to make so much of the video. I guess others are not making much of it.
 
I have not even watched the video

smkovalinksy said:
This is why it seems an act of desperation on the part of some who are pro-guilt to make so much of the video. I guess others are not making much of it.
Click to expand...

But I accept your undocumented assertion about "some who are pro-guilt .. make so much of the video."

One might also assert with the same level of significance:..."some who are pro innocence make so much about what some who are pro guilt make of the video".

The innocence arguers even expand the guilter reaction to declare it "an act of desperation".

But that may be a bit more difficult for some to understand.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
To the court, though, the Nov 6 note does not magically disappear because of the Nov 7 note.

The Nov 7 note just adds to the confusion, that AK admits she is making.
Click to expand...

Since she wasn't there, by the 7th note, she can't say more than that. She can't say, to this day can't, that Patrick didn't do it.

Those that expected her to say that Patrick was innocent have always missed the point that she had been told by the police that they had evidence of his involvement and since she wasn't there how could she know he wasn't?

How would you have worded it?
 
pilot padron said:
But I accept your undocumented assertion about "some who are pro-guilt .. make so much of the video."

One might also assert with the same level of significance:..."some who are pro innocence make so much about what some who are pro guilt make of the video".

The innocence arguers even expand the guilter reaction to declare it "an act of desperation".

But that may be a bit more difficult for some to understand.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Given that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free citizens, couldn't one say that *all* pro-guilt reactions are now "acts of desperation?" Admittedly a mere technicality, this freedom from prison business, but perhaps one to consider as one expends the effort to formulate one's posts....
 
pilot padron said:
Original Poster Bill Williams submitted the quote in bolded and underlined form.
I changed nothing.
As I ever so clearly, clearly, clearly stated in my post.

But as you have so often argued, my posts are ever so "hard to understand".
So I accept your glaring attribution error (again).

Therefore your...uhhh... complimentary... "peach" stuff belongs clearly to Bill Williams or his source, not to me as you charge.

Is that part of my argument 'understandable' ?
Click to expand...

That's mighty swell of you to respond. Spot on commentary as usual.
 
pilot padron said:
But I accept your undocumented assertion about "some who are pro-guilt .. make so much of the video."

One might also assert with the same level of significance:..."some who are pro innocence make so much about what some who are pro guilt make of the video".

The innocence arguers even expand the guilter reaction to declare it "an act of desperation".

But that may be a bit more difficult for some to understand.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Right, I am the only one who said it seemed an act of desperation, and of course I may be all wrong on that. How is my assertion undocumented? I put it right here. I was referring to things I have read online. Let's not make more of this than it is. For all we know, the attorney really hates press conferences. I think he would in that case for obvious reasons: He knew many of his fellow Italians would perhaps think ill of him, if they believe Knox is guilty.
 
HumanityBlues, who's the new avatar? You're really messing with my mental picture of you, switching from a blue-shirted cutout character to a monotone black-shirted.... well lets just say charming.... lady. Yet when I audition your posts, it is still in a male voice. Creepy.
 
Glad you understood and appreciate the argument I made.

HumanityBlues said:
That's mighty swell of you to respond. Spot on commentary as usual.
Click to expand...

I also usually admit when I make a glaring error in reading/arguing something.
Just so that everyone "understands" the correct facts in future arguments on the topic.
 
It's Catherine Deneuve. I remember reading that a lot of statues of "Marianne," symbol of the French Republic found in city halls, etc. are based on her likeness. Almost a goddess you might say.
 
pilot padron said:
I also usually admit when I make a glaring error in reading/arguing something.
Just so that everyone "understands" the correct facts in future arguments on the topic.
Click to expand...

Duly noted darling. A commendable lad you are for exhibiting such humility in the face of adversity. Truly exemplary dear Pilot.
 
pilot padron said:
Just so that everyone "understands" the correct facts in future arguments on the topic.
Click to expand...

Pilot, I think it's great that you feel the "need" to put "quotes" around so many "words" in your "statements" and "arguments" so that "everyone" can "understand" the "correct" "facts" in "future" arguments on the "topic."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom