Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
There was DNA on the knife from Meredith, but it was judged to be invalid because of poor handling and testing contamination couldn't be ruled out.
Click to expand...

Read that back to yourself.

You as good as said;

Meredith's DNA was on the knife, but it might not have been.

This is what can happen when you put so much effort into being contrarian that you forget your own argument.
 
Supernaut said:
Read that back to yourself.

You as good as said;

Meredith's DNA was on the knife, but it might not have been.

This is what can happen when you put so much effort into being contrarian that you forget your own argument.
Click to expand...

No, I said that C&V ruled as the defense experts had said, that the handling of the knife was not to protocol and therefore contamination could not be ruled out. They didn't say it wasn't Meredith's DNA nor did they say that it was starch.

If you doubt my consistency on this, go back and read.

Perhaps you are taking too heavy a dose of statins.
 
acbytesla said:
My mistake, I thought the lawyer's job was to win in court?
Click to expand...

Bill Williams said:
I made the same mistake. It is not about being right in court. It's about winning.
Click to expand...

Boy are you guys sharp. First of all public opinion in a non-sequestered jury situation can make a difference on how the ruling will go. Secondly if they are acquitted or if one or both are convicted but not extradited it would be good for them to have public opinion more on their sides.

But I probably am whacked thinking that letting people freely call him knife boy is a good strategy.

Tesla sure you aren't also a Canuck?
 
Grinder said:
While I can understand why mistakenly strong PIP's would exaggerate for the benefit of the kids, I can't grasp why the PGP people feel the need to misrepresent at best and lie at worst about evidence etc.
Click to expand...

The facts do not support their hatred of Amanda and Raffaele, so they dish up imaginary facts.

John Follain rewrote Amanda's short story, so a description of a guy punching his brother became a description of a woman being raped.

Follain also said Amanda attacked someone in a Perugia bar, which is a complete falsehood.

Somebody rewrote Amanda's diary, so "I just highly doubt all of that" became "I think it's possible" with regard to her speculation about Raffaele's involvement in the murder.

Leila the math professor wrote a book in which she claimed that Raffaele told police he went to a party on the night of the murder, and only retracted that story when he couldn't produce witnesses.

When Amanda addressed the court in Italian, saying she had nothing to do with Rudy Guede or the murder, Sky TV ran an English voice-over saying "We all got drunk that night and I don't remember what happened."

This bogus - and pointless - crap about a combat knife is par for the course with these people. They are happy to propagate any lie that serves their malicious agenda. And of course they have the cops in Perugia to set the pace, with lies about bleach receipts, lies about missing clothing, lies about CCTV footage of Amanda at the crime scene, lies about the police arriving before Raffaele called them, etc.
 
Grinder said:
Boy are you guys sharp. First of all public opinion in a non-sequestered jury situation can make a difference on how the ruling will go. Secondly if they are acquitted or if one or both are convicted but not extradited it would be good for them to have public opinion more on their sides.

But I probably am whacked thinking that letting people freely call him knife boy is a good strategy.

Tesla sure you aren't also a Canuck?
Click to expand...

You make that sound like a fault!

I'll have you know that some of the most vociferous haters are Canuckleheads.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
The facts do not support their hatred of Amanda and Raffaele, so they dish up imaginary facts.

John Follain rewrote Amanda's short story, so a description of a guy punching his brother became a description of a woman being raped.

Follain also said Amanda attacked someone in a Perugia bar, which is a complete falsehood.

Somebody rewrote Amanda's diary, so "I just highly doubt all of that" became "I think it's possible" with regard to her speculation about Raffaele's involvement in the murder.

Leila the math professor wrote a book in which she claimed that Raffaele told police he went to a party on the night of the murder, and only retracted that story when he couldn't produce witnesses.

When Amanda addressed the court in Italian, saying she had nothing to do with Rudy Guede or the murder, Sky TV ran an English voice-over saying "We all got drunk that night and I don't remember what happened."

This bogus - and pointless - crap about a combat knife is par for the course with these people. They are happy to propagate any lie that serves their malicious agenda. And of course they have the cops in Perugia to set the pace, with lies about bleach receipts, lies about missing clothing, lies about CCTV footage of Amanda at the crime scene, lies about the police arriving before Raffaele called them, etc.
Click to expand...

Charlie, no worries, Bill, Tesla and Mach say the only thing that counts is what happens in court. :p

If you can get the real knife images out, that would be great.
 
Grinder said:
Boy are you guys sharp. First of all public opinion in a non-sequestered jury situation can make a difference on how the ruling will go. Secondly if they are acquitted or if one or both are convicted but not extradited it would be good for them to have public opinion more on their sides.

But I probably am whacked thinking that letting people freely call him knife boy is a good strategy.

Tesla sure you aren't also a Canuck?
Click to expand...

Nope, born in Iowa and then move to Seattle when I was 6.

As for calling him knife boy, Did they do that in court? Did the lawyers address that in court?

How many articles did this misinformation appear in, out of how many articles? How many other articles with other misinformation was asserted? How many of those were in Italy? The UK, the US. Whose to say that the lawyers didn't address it in Italy but this is info that might have appeared in the Daily Mail or other English tabloids. And those might have been reprinted in other other articles. My point is that when every day countless articles trashing your clients, you are limited to what you can do. That's why I compared it whack a mole. Amanda's lawyers could only do so much.

While I think at the beginning, the innocents got clobbered in the press, I think they made a comeback. That isn't to say they addressed every piece of misinformation in every media market.

I think it is easy to say they did a horrible job dealing with this kind of crap. And maybe they did and someone else more media savvy could have done a much better job. But I really don't know Grinder. I do think they had their work cut out for them.
 
Grinder said:
Charlie, no worries, Bill, Tesla and Mach say the only thing that counts is what happens in court. :p

If you can get the real knife images out, that would be great.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't. I just don't know if that is their attorney's job. Isn't that why they hired a PR firm?
 
acbytesla said:
Actually, I don't. I just don't know if that is their attorney's job. Isn't that why they hired a PR firm?
Click to expand...

I believe I said defense, which to me includes their media efforts.

Bill understood the Canuck question.
 
Grinder said:
He never left. Put you on reverse ignore. :p
Click to expand...

Mach never leaves. He will return like always with the exact same unchanging story (in case you missed that, it follows along quite closely to Prosecutor Migninis story)
 
Grinder said:
It appears I may have missed some of this back and firth on grades.

I ask sincerely why it appears that being literal minded is a negative. When someone writes about something as serious as this case, I think they should not fool around with the facts.

DO NOT WATCH NANCY GRACE, EVER! :p

Part of my focus on this point has been precisely that when an advocate like CD makes a clearly false statement when taken as it was written weakens all arguments by advocates. `In her speech at Seattle U she says Amanda had only one contact with Rudy when most everyone admits it was more. Why does it matter that Rudy came in Le Chic a couple of times and said hello? Why always try to diminish.

I do not believe that anything about this case needs to be exaggerated in the kids' favor to make the case they weren't proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.
Click to expand...

Well, I dont know who "most everyone" is actually. Are you saying these people have direct evidence about the nature of the relationship between Knox and Guede? Because I would love to see the proof of this. But if there is no proof then what CD claims is at least as truthful as what you or most everyone else says.

I think Knox was questioned about this. IIRC she said one meeting in the street that was continued in the boys downstairs place. And possibly Guede may have come into LeChic once where she may or may not have served him.

To this point I think the most valuable evidence is the fact that Knox could not recall Guedes name when listing men who had visited either upstairs or downstairs while being questioned that first or second day. She never did come up with the name...only a description. But then again she is a sly genius idiot savant who smells bad so...????

I have no dog in this fight but I find it distracting to more important details about this case. CD book was one of the first books I read after Marks book and after Barbies...I thought it was good. I couldn't get past Barbies sweeping generalizations regarding college life in 2007 and the title bothered me since it assumed guilt. Marks book was very good as were Bruce Fishers two books. For the PGP side I enjoyed Paul Russell book Darkness Descending. Of course I already understood that I needed to watch that one closely since the author was allegedly fired from the production of a documentary on the Kercher case for a British TV Channel in which he may have failed to submit a balanced story...And yet he was in court often and others have described him as someone who could only parrot Migninis story. To me this helped confirm the suspicion that the TV firing might actually be true. So he wrote a book and he hired Garafano to give him creditably and then he presented Migninis case in book form. It is quite apparent he continues to be blindly obsessed with just the one side of the case.

Finally I think when someone who brings to the various forums information and who contends to be closely involved inside the case should not be coddled and hidden when clear conflicts of interest are discovered. For example a public person was revealed on another site as a moderator on a PGP site and also they revealed his identity along with his real life web page where we could read that this man not only thinks of himself as a GOD but is also someone who claims to treat children with a cure for Autism for X amount of dollars. For me this seems like fraud abusing suffering peoples hopes for whatever the size of their bankroll is. 25 thousand IIRC. At least now posters interacting with this "God" can have an idea of who they are discussing this case with. I think this is fair and in fact it is dishonest to keep such extremely held views and ideas secreted behind an alias.

SO we have Paul Russell a person from a theater background who also produces TV documentaries with a production partner named Andrea Vogt.

The same Paul Russell allegedly fired from the production of a Kercher Murder documentary for presenting unbalanced submissions that were too prosecution friendly but who then certainly went on to author the book about the Kercher murder called Darkness Descending.

On his web site he speaks of professional integrity and the need to present a balanced story like for the Costa Concordia case that he and Vogt are making into a documentary and which he hopes to sell to the likes of The Discovery Channel. He goes on to explain how trust must be earned in order to gain access to the places and people who control the situation...hummm. I wonder who could grant such inner access? And at what cost?

No matter...not my concern. What is my concern is that someone pretending to be someone else... say an Italian legal expert or heck just an Italian (did I mention Russell is a Brit) could visit various sites and pollute the story by pretending to be close to the heart of the case and meanwhile is clearly only a talking head who is making payment on access formally granted perhaps? Or assistance on some access in the future? Who could order these things?

Well as far as Costa Concordia it is irrelevant...this is a clear case of murder and cowardice...no matter who tries to spin it any other way. The AK and RS case OTOH is different. A case where two innocent persons are clearly being railroaded and abused by the judicial system of Italy. Someone pretending to be a key player should reveal his true self and motivations or else stop lying to the newer and more easily influenced...and those who think they are learning new things from this poster are wrong... they are hearing the same record of 5 years now. Not one new thing and not even one fact...forget new.

OT, but today I studied the web to find the perfect never fail pie crust recipe. The trees in my yard are loaded this year after being barren for the previous 3. So apple pies will be made and also made and frozen for winter.
Yummi!!!!
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
<snip>For the PGP side I enjoyed Paul Russell book Darkness Descending. Of course I already understood that I needed to watch that one closely since the author was allegedly fired from the production of a documentary on the Kercher case for a British TV Channel in which he may have failed to submit a balanced story...And yet he was in court often and others have described him as someone who could only parrot Migninis story. To me this helped confirm the suspicion that the TV firing might actually be true. So he wrote a book and he hired Garafano to give him creditably and then he presented Migninis case in book form. It is quite apparent he continues to be blindly obsessed with just the one side of the case.

Finally I think when someone who brings to the various forums information and who contends to be closely involved inside the case should not be coddled and hidden when clear conflicts of interest are discovered.<snip>

SO we have Paul Russell a person from a theater background who also produces TV documentaries with a production partner named Andrea Vogt.

The same Paul Russell allegedly fired from the production of a Kercher Murder documentary for presenting unbalanced submissions that were too prosecution friendly but who then certainly went on to author the book about the Kercher murder called Darkness Descending.

On his web site he speaks of professional integrity and the need to present a balanced story like for the Costa Concordia case that he and Vogt are making into a documentary and which he hopes to sell to the likes of The Discovery Channel. He goes on to explain how trust must be earned in order to gain access to the places and people who control the situation...hummm. I wonder who could grant such inner access? And at what cost?

No matter...not my concern. What is my concern is that someone pretending to be someone else... say an Italian legal expert or heck just an Italian (did I mention Russell is a Brit) could visit various sites and pollute the story by pretending to be close to the heart of the case and meanwhile is clearly only a talking head who is making payment on access formally granted perhaps? Or assistance on some access in the future? Who could order these things?
Click to expand...

Very interesting, Randy. Of course, if someone who is not Italian were to impersonate an Italian, his ability to write in a second-language kind of way might be so inconsistent as to raise suspicions in other people's minds about whether more than one person is writing his posts.

Personally, I would find it hard to believe that a person invested in this kind of scheme would go to the trouble of making up an Italian autobiography, learning Italian law and defending Italian culture to the point of looking like an authentic native.

But then, stranger things have happened. It would make a fun book.
 
But if such a person were to imitate an Italian person, one might expect them to make obvious mistakes, such as declaring Stefanoni to be 'legally' a biologist by referencing a 'legal code' that turned out to be nothing more than the course code of her degree....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom