Yes, plural. Because, maybe it's wrong in English, but in Italian we use plural in sentences when a single case is taken as sample case.
We're conversing in English. Don't lean on Italian grammar to pretend there was ever anything in Amanda's record but a single noise ticket for a single party.
When you go to study at university.
But if you are not studying a university course, you can't be a honor student. Elementary.
This makes no sense, sorry. Amanda was enrolled at a university in Perugia, and she was earning credits toward her degree while there.
I don’t suggest, I talk plainly
Ah, but that's false. See below.
: Knox left a job at the Bundestag after one day of work, which left her uncle dismayed. That was a very prestigious post for a 20 year old, a job he had struggled to manage to get her. She drifted away after one day, and she admitted she staged with her uncle (crying etc.) basically she manipulated his feelings so that he wouldn’t create further problems. It’s not a suggestion, is a fact; something she wrote herself.
This is a strange interpretation of what she wrote. She
staged things? She
manipulated his feelings? She was concerned that he would create "further problems"? You are suggesting things about her character and motivations that you can't possibly know, while ignoring the many people who have described her as honest and hardworking. This is not talking plainly, at least as I understand the phrase. It's assuming defamatory knowledge and applying it after the fact.
Yes I am suggesting she went to Peruga because she knew it was a party town (somethinh is widely known in Europe, and that we can reasonably infer she knew about from exchange students accounts, since Perugia was twinned with Seattle , and she chose Perugia also because there was a ‘university’ (the University of Foreigneers) which she could attend without any academic arrangement. Something she could not easily do elsewhere.
Again with the defamatory assumptions. Everyone in Seattle doesn't know everything about all the sister cities our government has made arrangements to "twin" with. I never heard of Perugia before this case, for example, and I have a couple of degrees from the University of Washington, have sent two daughters to study abroad, and have lived here for 25 years. Why do you keep accusing Amanda of not being interested in pursuing her studies? She clearly was enrolled, going to her classes, and doing her homework. What is it that she should have done differently to prove herself a student to your satisfaction?
But he changed her tasks, he sent her outside his pub to give leaflets. I am in fact correctly reporting sources: Lumumba himself made such declarations about Amanda, and the fact that he didn’t fire her (yet) does not make these facts go away. So they are facts not propaganda. Moreover, a bit of a context: this is Italy, here you don’t fire people from job in one day. Bosses operate much more cuatiously here.
I'm sorry, but you're only correctly reporting what Lumumba said as opposed to what Amanda said. You believe him, though he has changed his story about events much more drastically than she ever did. This is not logical.
The fact is that she had his number and he had hers. They also had telephone contacts. Whatever you like to make up about it, these are the facts. If you are saying they got each other’s number through their agents…
Is this an example of plain speech? You're clearly implying that Amanda was buying drugs, but you don't actually say so. I call that defamatory.
I think it’s quite the other way round: she called first, then he called back. But it doesn’t matter anyway. Everybody has the right to think whatever they want about those phone contacts. Fact is she had phone numbers of drug dealers (indefinite Italian plural, which can well refer to one single case), a drug dealer had her phone number , she had contacts with a drug dealer. I don’t have phone numbers of drug dealers so it’s not me the person who may be asked to give explanations about it. Those are factual elements, and everybody is allowed to take these element in account when they draw scenarios about Amanda Knox.
Sorry, but I still don't understand what it is you're claiming to know. Was it one drug dealer or many? Was it one instance of contact or many? Your much renowned ability to think clearly is failing you, sir. When you begin with a false impression ("party girl") you're bound to end up in many
cul de sacs, which is what's happened in this conversation. You start with "party girl", and then try to interpret all sorts of facts as if they're evidence that led you there. This is not clear thinking.
PS: you may also not forget that she recalls about this "beautiful" black men that she met in Perugia, at a bar in Via Garibaldi. To whom she promised they would meet again when she would be back from Germany. And, that she never revealed the name of this black man, whose identity was never discovered.
And you believe this was Guede, the murderer? Why?
You may also take in account that Rudy Guede would spend his afternoons at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, the centre of which is 60 meters distant from the University of Foreigneers' gate, and 96 meters distant from the apartment house-door where Knox lived. And it located exactly between the two places, on the way Amanda walked every day back and forth several times to attend classes.
And from this you conclude that . . . ? The party girl, non-student, drifter, drug-using flirt of your fantasy must have known Guede much better than she has admitted? Is that what you're implying? Maybe that fantasy girl did. But shouldn't there be evidence that the actual Amanda did, beyond that they were in proximity?
And don't forget Rudy explained he was sexually attracted by Knox, as all testimonies confirmed, and Amanda admitted she knew him for time before she knew Guede.
What? Rudy
is Guede. Also, so what? Has anyone said that she was attracted to him? Wouldn't these same testimonies be likely to include that detail, if Amanda was the sort of woman you keep insinuating she is? Logic, please.
Let's say it's a number a coincidences. But don't forget about them.
Your coincidences are not convincing. So many of them flow from your imaginings about this young woman that it's hard to take you seriously. I'd stick with the tack of obfuscating DNA evidence if I were you.
