• 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.
About "changing stories" multiple times, as well as "lies"......

These are two separate issues, obviously closely-related but separate.

As for "changing stories", is there ANYONE in this case who, on the face if it, did NOT change their story? I mean that - is there? Sure, for AK people on this website who rush to her defence as to why her narrative changed at certain times, and those could even be seen as compelling reasons.... etc., etc. Sure, she "imagined" a changed narrative, but she certainly did not stubbornly stick to one narrative and damn the torpoedos!

But who did NOT change their story? The narrative the police constructed by Nov 6, 2007, was definitely NOT the narrative they took into court. Lumumba was not a suspect by the time of trial, and by the time of trial it was not the Police/Prosecution alleging that AK was in the kitchen holding her ears, while the only other assailant was in MK's room horribly murdering someone. The police/prosecution narrative had changed, almost unrecognizably - in short, they changed their story.

Who didn't?

Can anyone here name any of the characters in this unfortunate saga who did not change the narrative at some point, even if they changed it back? Even Lumumba - he at first claimed to be roughed up by police, then had nothing but good to say about them.

Or is this just the nature of HAVING to change the narrative once new information is collected? The worrisome thing is when one (including me, and perhaps all on this website) gets stuck in a narrative despite new evidence.

Perhaps the thing to worry about is if one's story DOESN'T change. Why do we get all tied in knots at an accusation that, "You changed your story, you weasel!?"

Lying - that's another thing. I might have to do it myself, but I spent WAYYYYYYY too much time on this as it is..... but can ANYONE make a list of AK's lies? Even statements that have been mistaken for "lies"? For instance, she claims in trial testimony not to remember responding to the infamous Lumumba, "Don't come into work," text-message, and is accused of lying when she said she could not remember replying. I am NOT asking for the basis for calling THAT a lie - I am asking for a list of things which are seen as lies by someone. I truly do not want to challenge people's opinions, I just want to see a list.

I think the reason people do not attempt a list like this, is that some schmuck like me is going to tear it apart, and use it as a reason to doubt the sanity of the list maker.... it is somewhat intimidating to do something like that, only to have lurkers from the weeds come in and savage the work.

So my promise - give me the list, and I promise not to tear it apart. I truly want to know what it is AK lied about. I've spent WAYYYYY too much time doing this in the last 5 weeks and truly, cannot see much (if anything) that can be called a "lie" as I understand the term (a willful, and knowledgable misstatement designed to obscure the truth).
 
Last edited:
But this is really beside the point. While I am surprised at how much more decent Italian jails are as compared to those in the US, it really does not matter. Who would want to be held in even a luxury prison for a crime one did not commit? Once again, facts and relevance would appear to be slipping over there.
I won't say I was "convinced" of AK's and RS's guilt last summer - ie. before reading in the press of the DNA-debunking. I had not followed it that closely.... but if you'd asked, I probably would have said, "Sure, some spoiled American college kid goes over to Italy for college, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's not much of a stretch to think that party-time had gone sour with horrible results." That was the extent to which I thought about it last summer.

Then hearing about the DNA-debunking.... then first going on the TJMK page. That bit about how Italian prisons are really luxury hotels really irked me. It seemed they were trying to make an ad hominem case against AK - and RS and RG were only footnotes.... gee, is there a subtext of hate here!?!?!?

Peter Quennell does not seem to realize that his campaign of ad hominemism against AK does more to drive people away from assessing guilt than promoting it. I can speak personally to this. I am a "if-you-do-the-crime-you-do-the-time" sort of guy.

But I also know that the worse skid-row housing unit is better than the most luxurious of jails. Trust me on that one.
 
I won't say I was "convinced" of AK's and RS's guilt last summer - ie. before reading in the press of the DNA-debunking. I had not followed it that closely.... but if you'd asked, I probably would have said, "Sure, some spoiled American college kid goes over to Italy for college, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's not much of a stretch to think that party-time had gone sour with horrible results." That was the extent to which I thought about it last summer.

Then hearing about the DNA-debunking.... then first going on the TJMK page. That bit about how Italian prisons are really luxury hotels really irked me. It seemed they were trying to make an ad hominem case against AK - and RS and RG were only footnotes.... gee, is there a subtext of hate here!?!?!?

Peter Quennell does not seem to realize that his campaign of ad hominemism against AK does more to drive people away from assessing guilt than promoting it. I can speak personally to this. I am a "if-you-do-the-crime-you-do-the-time" sort of guy.

But I also know that the worse skid-row housing unit is better than the most luxurious of jails. Trust me on that one.
Yes, PQ et al have an extreme propensity for alienating logical and objective people; above all, for generally missing the point of any argument.

And yes, whether a luxury prison or not: One's freedom, I would think, would take precedence over a gilded cage. I am sure Amanda is happier in what the Daily Mail called her "shabby" Chinatown apartment, than with all the dancing and concerts over at the Perugian jail. I had a family member who spent some time in the late 1970s at the famous Austin Riggs Psychiatric Institute in New England. Believe me, that is a luxury place , affordable to only the very few. He ran away, and one of the other patients hung himself in a nearby woods. Luxury in confinement and under depressing circumstances would only content a swine.

ETA:
I won't say I was "convinced" of AK's and RS's guilt last summer - ie. before reading in the press of the DNA-debunking. I had not followed it that closely.... but if you'd asked, I probably would have said, "Sure, some spoiled American college kid goes over to Italy for college, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's not much of a stretch to think that party-time had gone sour with horrible results." That was the extent to which I thought about it last summer.
Yes, this is the way most people began, until they investigated the actual evidence and empirical facts about the case, outside of the fantastic imaginings of the media pieces, spurred on by Mignini et al. Then, comes the inevitable awakening. Only at PMF and TJMK do things not change. They are like a bewitched forest, where time freezes, and everything stops moving.
 
Last edited:
@Bill Williams:
OK, this post which just appeared a few minutes ago on PMF lets you know what a skeptical forum such as JREF is really up against with the PG people:

But that was what my brain told me. The emotions were deeper. I knew she was guilty. And unlike most people nowdays, I trust my gut even more than my brain. I almost always go with my first impression, which serves me well. I still examine that impression for mistakes, but confess, this case got me from the beginning.

Meredith Kercher was a Capricorn, like me. But then, so was Rudy Guede. Rafaele Sollecito was an Aries, and, Amanda Knox was a Cancer, with the same birthday as OJ Simpson, July 09. :jaw-droppThe similarities between that case and this was interesting. The day of the murder, November 01, 2007, had many astrological significators which showed the power to capture the public imagination. My blog articles, What Might Have Been, The Criminal Mind, and The Psycho-Astrological Perspective on the Relationship of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were a reflection of my own perspective.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=428&sid=6723295c66129fddce61869f6f751660&start=2400
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't trust that brain, either... :nope:

-
Osterwelle
This business of trusting one's gut over one's brain...... all well and good, but this is a murder case, a horrifying one. What is astounding is that if there is to be True Justice for Meredith Kercher, some third party at a computer somewhere posting to a website cannot make it all about themselves!

"Look at me, look at me! I trust my gut instincts!"

It may be straying, but I come from the era where there was no TV challenge for a play in a football game. Something happened, a referee made a call, you can argue all you want but the referee always wins.

Then instant replay was supposed to solve everything. Mostly it does. What is astounding is the small number of instances where a referee's decision looks good from one angle, but not from another. I thought that TV replay was supposed to solve this?

Sorry for the straying. Before Oct 3 it was the guilters with DNA on their side, and innocenters were complaining about the need for instant reply review. After, innocenters have DNA on their side, and guilters are complaining for yet another instant replay review.

Maybe this is what Hellmann meant when he said, "But of course the truth could be otherwise." All you can do is make a decision from the evidence you have. But woe-betide the person who only has a Ouiji board or their own instinct after reading one of AK's emails. Sheesh.
 
Johnny Carson used to do a skit where he would hold an envelop to his head and predict what was inside. He would predict the answer to the question that was inside.

Too obscure - my bad
Ah, I see now! Well, I am not trying to be catty; I was sincerely struck by the "I knew she was guilty" and the astrological references. It reminds me of a crazy family member of mine who has said she just "knows" I hate her, and that I have bad karma. Who needs this, bah!:mad:
 
Johnny Carson used to do a skit where he would hold an envelop to his head and predict what was inside. He would predict the answer to the question that was inside.

Too obscure - my bad
Answer: Catch-22.
Question: What do the Los Angeles Dodgers do with 100 pop flies.

Answer: Dippity-do.
Question: What collects on your dippity in the morning?
 
This business of trusting one's gut over one's brain...... all well and good, but this is a murder case, a horrifying one. What is astounding is that if there is to be True Justice for Meredith Kercher, some third party at a computer somewhere posting to a website cannot make it all about themselves!

"Look at me, look at me! I trust my gut instincts!"

It may be straying, but I come from the era where there was no TV challenge for a play in a football game. Something happened, a referee made a call, you can argue all you want but the referee always wins.

Then instant replay was supposed to solve everything. Mostly it does. What is astounding is the small number of instances where a referee's decision looks good from one angle, but not from another. I thought that TV replay was supposed to solve this?

Sorry for the straying. Before Oct 3 it was the guilters with DNA on their side, and innocenters were complaining about the need for instant reply review. After, innocenters have DNA on their side, and guilters are complaining for yet another instant replay review.

Maybe this is what Hellmann meant when he said, "But of course the truth could be otherwise." All you can do is make a decision from the evidence you have. But woe-betide the person who only has a Ouiji board or their own instinct after reading one of AK's emails. Sheesh.
Yes, all agreed to. I have a certain amount of respect and sympathy for those who trust their guts in their personal lives, etc.

But if one is to publicly proclaim things about a high-profile legal case, this is bad form, and pmf would certainly scorn any such postings by skeptics here in that vein.

Some of the Duke professors continued to "just know in their guts" that the lacrosse players were guilty, even when the case against them had collapsed. We must limit our public discourse to the empirical, and leave the intuitive realm to more personal ramblings. Of course I do not have a perfect record in this area myself, I will be the first to admit. :(
 
Last edited:

"Speaking of her mouth, with Chinese medicine her tongue tells us she definitely abuses alcohol and/or drugs. Kidney deficiency, swollen tongue, shiny, no coating, water retention around the tongue. It stays for a while until her body detoxifies, which may not be possible since she also appears to have digestive problems. This would be another indice of a learning disorder."

This all from a picture of Amanda with her tongue out. You seriously can't make this up.
 
Ugh.... :(

When you begin to post things on JREF as if it is a message board to those on PMF, things are bad. This is the last time I will address him: I cannot believe the mud-slinging in the form of name calling, insults, and other cheap shots that are resorted to by those who have lost their standpoint and have no solid footing and zero valid ammunition left.

For the record, I am neither a "weak intellect" nor fragile. The words of a disgruntled poster do not preclude what I experienced in my years of academia, with professors and mentors whose guidance and praise I will always cherish. As far as revealing I have a "crazy family member": I am wise enough to keep hidden the actual extent of pathology and criminality within my extended family. It is no reflection on myself, except to bigots and persons abiding by outmoded and antiquated doctrines - and I consider it a point of pride to have withstood such.

Maybe PMF really has become something far too low to even remark on now. My bad, for having shared that inferior and ludicrous post. If they have sunk this low with the acquittals, they will be certifiable by the time the Supreme Court upholds Hellmann. Why did I not understand that they would be understandably different once their illegitimacy was exposed? There is not even a pretense of maturity there now. The mask of sanity has slipped, and there is no concealment of the features anymore. ugh....horrid....
 
Yes, all agreed to. I have a certain amount of respect and sympathy for those who trust their guts in their personal lives, etc.

But if one is to publicly proclaim things about a high-profile legal case, this is bad form, and pmf would certainly scorn any such postings by skeptics here in that vein.

Some of the Duke professors continued to "just know in their guts" that the lacrosse players were guilty, even when the case against them had collapsed. We must limit our public discourse to the empirical, and leave the intuitive realm to more personal ramblings. Of course I do not have a perfect record in this area myself, I will be the first to admit. :(

There's a lot to be said for gut instincts, but they can never be a substitute for an objective look at the facts. When I heard about this case on the day the Massei verdict came out, my reaction was "this doesn't sound right" - which of course is a gut instinct. I had the same "gut" reaction when I heard about the Barry George conviction (the Jill Dando murder case), and the Camp Zeist verdict condemning Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.

So what did I do? Did I start shouting "they're innocent! I don't care about any evidence!" No, I took the trouble to find out about the evidence to see whether my initial reaction might have been wrong. And what did I find? There was no credible evidence to support the verdict in any of these cases, and a lot of reason (in addition to my instinctive distrust) to regard the prosecution of them as completely implausible. In the Barry George and Amanda Knox cases, of course what I knew straight off is now officially endorsed. In the Megrahi case, the establishment continues to cling to its unsupportable version of events.

It's time for the guilter brigade in the Amanda Knox case to admit to themselves that their gut instincts were wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom