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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
The irony of this, is that now I am speaking with a person who is known for having confortably pushing a Dreyfuss-affair-like conspiracy theory involving tens of people at any levels in Perugia and Rome, basically with zero elements of facts or logic.

Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away. And you are morally and factually wrong in calling me a "greasy, lecherous" originator of "malicious innuendo", because both the element itself, and both the fact that our further information is limited, just does not originate from me.
You are wrong at blaming me for the fact that the element meaning "vague": I have no blame and you know it, if the information is a fragment, it's not my fault. You are so wrong insofar as I if I had specific information I would certainly provide them. Moreover I am not the person involved and I am not the person who has interest in giving explanations. Objectively I have no personal interest in offering explanations for why a telephone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone, since I'm not the owner of the phone number. The owner who may have this interest, if he/she is a public or famous person who has a public reputation to tak care of (a person who is the object of public activism from a support group, such as Amanda Knox, may have an interest about giving explanations).
Click to expand...

You don't know, do you? Period.
 
Perhaps it is time we consider the theory that most of the posts we read that are from guilters are actually the work of 1 person who was hired by the Gogerty Marriot public relations agency.
I got this Idea from Nina Burleigh. Back in the day she had not decided whether Amanda was guilty or innocent. She met a guilter who was quite friendly and helpful. Then he changed when she became a bit suspicious about what he had told her.
 "I emailed him to ask where he had found out that Knox and Sollecito met police standing outside the murder house with a mop and bucket in hand. That damning incident was nowhere in the record, not even the prosecutor would confirm it, nor had Italy’s Polizia Scientifica ever tested such items, which would surely have offered up some useful DNA evidence, had they been used to clean blood.*"
His answer was that Nina must be part of the legal and P.R. team that the Knox family had assembled to create doubt in the minds of the jury and the public.
I would think that if you are a guilter and you are writing to a journalist who writes articles that appear in magazines, you would try to be ever so polite and friendly, hoping she would write something you liked. But he wasn't and he helped Ms. Burleigh change her mind about Amanda. Now Nina thinks that Knox is innocent and her enemies are crazy.
Perhaps the guilter is a phony and is putting posts on the internet that make the guilters and their beliefs seem irrational.
Another process is repeating Mignini's case, without Mignini being there to make his presentation.
I will show you a synopsis of Mignini's case and present it to you without any of the persuasive skills Mignini used when he made his case to the jury.
Foxy Knoxy is a super-slut who can control any man who falls under her spell.
On Halloween Ms. Knoxy wanted to do a human sacrifice during a satanic rite. She had acquired a hatred for Meridith, so she chose her to be the victim. She got together with 2 men and a chef's knife she found in the kitchen drawer, at Meridith's home. Meridith was told to participate in a sex game, or she would be killed. She was stabbed repeatedly with the chef's knife and died.
To confuse the police they made it look like a burgular had broken in, and this anonymous burgular killed Kercher.
Everything above is disinformation. If you have any skepticism when you read this synopsis, you will see that it just doesn't make sense, and seems to be something that would not happen in real life.
The guilter's posts are a very indirect way to make the rumors of Amanda's guilt unacceptable.
Read more: The Amanda Knox Haters Society: How They Learned to Hate Me Too | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/th...ow-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/#ixzz2kUFeIEUC
 
Machiavelli said:
The irony of this, is that now I am speaking with a person who is known for having confortably pushing a Dreyfuss-affair-like conspiracy theory involving tens of people at any levels in Perugia and Rome, basically with zero elements of facts or logic.

Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away. And you are morally and factually wrong in calling me a "greasy, lecherous" originator of "malicious innuendo", because both the element itself, and both the fact that our further information is limited, just does not originate from me.
You are wrong at blaming me for the fact that the element meaning "vague": I have no blame and you know it, if the information is a fragment, it's not my fault. You are so wrong insofar as I if I had specific information I would certainly provide them. Moreover I am not the person involved and I am not the person who has interest in giving explanations. Objectively I have no personal interest in offering explanations for why a telephone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone, since I'm not the owner of the phone number. Imagine if we were talking about the phone number of a politician or a celebrity: you wouldn't say I'm malicious and vague. The owner who may have this interest, if he/she is a public or famous person who has a public reputation to tak care of (a person who is the object of public activism from a support group, such as Amanda Knox, may have an interest about giving explanations).
Click to expand...

YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CITE...NOT JUST RUN YOUR MOUTH.
 
Machiavelli said:
The irony of this, is that now I am speaking with a person who is known for having confortably pushing a Dreyfuss-affair-like conspiracy theory involving tens of people at any levels in Perugia and Rome, basically with zero elements of facts or logic.

Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away. And you are morally and factually wrong in calling me a "greasy, lecherous" originator of "malicious innuendo", because both the element itself, and both the fact that our further information is limited, just does not originate from me.
You are wrong at blaming me for the fact that the element meaning "vague": I have no blame and you know it, if the information is a fragment, it's not my fault. You are so wrong insofar as I if I had specific information I would certainly provide them. Moreover I am not the person involved and I am not the person who has interest in giving explanations. Objectively I have no personal interest in offering explanations for why a telephone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone, since I'm not the owner of the phone number. Imagine if we were talking about the phone number of a politician or a celebrity: you wouldn't say I'm malicious and vague. The owner who may have this interest, if he/she is a public or famous person who has a public reputation to tak care of (a person who is the object of public activism from a support group, such as Amanda Knox, may have an interest about giving explanations).
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you are repeating a rumor.

ETA: I see Rose and acbytesla got here before me.
 
RWVBWL said:
Who cares if Amanda Knox did not like the job that a distant family member found for her in a country far from home
and so she bailed after a day? More power to ya, girl!

Would you,
young + without kids and a mortgage, work a job that you knew was not right for you,
even if some distant family member gotcha that supposedly prestigous job? (...)
Click to expand...


Of course but, the argument goes beyond; the point is: who cares if Knox was a honor student?
And who cares if she was not a honor student?

In fact, I never said that I care about this. I only said - only in response to a claim - that in fact there is no evidence that Knox was even a honor student.
If she decided to live recklessly and for the day with no academic project, who cares? Nobody. Certanly not me. I have no moral judgement about it.
But a person who lives for the day and goers to night party where people high on drugs throw rocks at passing cars, is normally not a honor student. It's just an objective assessment, not a moral judgement.
A honor student usually is a person who earned a title requiring both performance and conduct, indicating a person with a life oriented and structured around an academic project.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
You don't know his name. Why am I not surprised.

But let's pursue this further.

Do you know the circumstances through which this unnamed individual was in contact with Amanda? Do you know if these circumstances had anything to do with drugs? Do you know whether he was selling drugs at the time when he was in contact with her, or whether she would have known if he was?

This information would be necessary to establish any meaningful claim pertaining to her acquaintance with this person, assuming even that much is true. It can be left comfortably vague if the only point is to throw out a drive-by smear. That is what you and your ilk excel in doing. It is the only thing you do well. You are an absolute master of greasy, lecherous, malicious innuendo. Your mother must be so proud.
Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:
The irony of this, is that now I am speaking with a person who is known for having confortably pushing a Dreyfuss-affair-like conspiracy theory involving tens of people at any levels in Perugia and Rome, basically with zero elements of facts or logic.

Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away. And you are morally and factually wrong in calling me a "greasy, lecherous" originator of "malicious innuendo", because both the element itself, and both the fact that our further information is limited, just does not originate from me.
You are wrong at blaming me for the fact that the element meaning "vague": I have no blame and you know it, if the information is a fragment, it's not my fault. You are so wrong insofar as I if I had specific information I would certainly provide them. Moreover I am not the person involved and I am not the person who has interest in giving explanations. Objectively I have no personal interest in offering explanations for why a telephone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone, since I'm not the owner of the phone number. Imagine if we were talking about the phone number of a politician or a celebrity: you wouldn't say I'm malicious and vague. The owner who may have this interest, if he/she is a public or famous person who has a public reputation to tak care of (a person who is the object of public activism from a support group, such as Amanda Knox, may have an interest about giving explanations).
Click to expand...
Machiavelli - I do believe you got so riled up over this you burst a blood vessel.....

What you seem to be claiming was that it wasn't you who passed on this unverified and vague drive-by smear (to quote Charlie.....)

........ except you did.

If it is as tenuous as both you and Charlie seem to agree.... why'd you post it?

It's a factoid Machiavelli. Your protestations don't change that. It's amazing that you post the way you do.
 
Bill Williams said:
If it is as tenuous as both you and Charlie seem to agree.... why'd you post it?

It's a factoid Machiavelli. Your protestations don't change that. It's amazing that you post the way you do.
Click to expand...

Tenuous? A fact is a fact.

I already gave newspaper links about it on this forum.
 
Machiavelli said:
Of course but, the argument goes beyond; the point is: who cares if Knox was a honor student?
And who cares if she was not a honor student?

In fact, I never said that I care about this. I only said - only in response to a claim - that in fact there is no evidence that Knox was even a honor student.
If she decided to live recklessly and for the day with no academic project, who cares? Nobody. Certanly not me. I have no moral judgement about it.
But a person who lives for the day and goers to night party where people high on drugs throw rocks at passing cars, is normally not a honor student. It's just an objective assessment, not a moral judgement.
A honor student usually is a person who earned a title requiring both performance and conduct, indicating a person with a life oriented and structured around an academic project.
Click to expand...

In fact, Massei in his motivations report has nothing but praise for Knox's academic interests, and even in convicting the pai in 2009 says it was basically a brief "choice for evil" completely uncharacteristic of them....

.... for all the reasons listed: incl. honour student.....

Sometimes I think you have not read Massei's motivations report. This is what happens when you continually get your information from Mr. Mignini... oh yes, and Ms. Vogt.
 
Machiavelli said:
Tenuous? A fact is a fact.

I already gave newspaper links about it on this forum.
Click to expand...

This is how you put it, Machiavelli....

Machiavelli said:
Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away.
Click to expand...

Did you read what you said? You said, "we may not access further information about it."

You did say that did you not?

I will leave it up to others to decide if your claim was "tenuous". I think that's the most minimal description of your point. Tenuous.

If I told you what I really though about your point, the moderators would step in.

You admit to it being tenuous.... a tenuous fact suggestive of nothing, really. Even YOU admit that.

Then in true Machiavelli fashion, you say you didn't.

Sheesh. You need to go to confession.
 
Machiavelli said:
Tenuous? A fact is a fact.

I already gave newspaper links about it on this forum.
Click to expand...

RoseMontague said:
And somebody just linked to a newspaper that summarized Mignini's satanic ritual theory.
Click to expand...
Rose - for mercy's sake don't mention the S*t*n*c R*t**l theory. I did a few posts ago, but I think Machiavelli didn't notice.

But as for your post.... LOL!!! Yes, it was in all the papers.
 
Machiavelli said:
No I am recalling information about a fact, which was reported in the news, and that you can track it in the Internet if you like.
Click to expand...

This is why the prosecution has always had so much confidence about their outlandish case. They truly believe their word is good enough. Reminds me of some people who said there were WMD's in Iraq.
 
Machiavelli said:
The irony of this, is that now I am speaking with a person who is known for having confortably pushing a Dreyfuss-affair-like conspiracy theory involving tens of people at any levels in Perugia and Rome, basically with zero elements of facts or logic.

Let's make clear the point insted: the fact that Knox's phone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone memory is a fact, as well as their mutual phone contacts.
This is an element, a factual element. Period. The fact that we may not access further information around it, it does not make the element go away. And you are morally and factually wrong in calling me a "greasy, lecherous" originator of "malicious innuendo", because both the element itself, and both the fact that our further information is limited, just does not originate from me.
You are wrong at blaming me for the fact that the element meaning "vague": I have no blame and you know it, if the information is a fragment, it's not my fault. You are so wrong insofar as I if I had specific information I would certainly provide them. Moreover I am not the person involved and I am not the person who has interest in giving explanations. Objectively I have no personal interest in offering explanations for why a telephone number was in a drug dealer's cell phone, since I'm not the owner of the phone number. Imagine if we were talking about the phone number of a politician or a celebrity: you wouldn't say I'm malicious and vague. The owner who may have this interest, if he/she is a public or famous person who has a public reputation to tak care of (a person who is the object of public activism from a support group, such as Amanda Knox, may have an interest about giving explanations).
Click to expand...

Machiavelli, the fact that some guy and Amanda may have met and exchanged phone numbers or that they exchanged a phone call has no probative value unless Amanda knew he was involved in illegal activities. It can be as innocent as he accompanied a mutual friend who knows Amanda to Le Chic, sat at the table with his friend, chatted with her, and exchanged phone numbers. Perhaps Meredith or Stephanie brought him there. Unless you can tell us more about how they met, whether Amanda knew he was involved in Perugia's most popular business pasttime, and that there is something sinister in a phone call between the two, it has no probative value.

Now, can you tell me Stefanoni made the trip from Rome to Perugia to collect the bra clasp and did so with the chance that she would come up empty - that she would find NO compromising DNA on it? You know she went there to fetch it because Raffaele's father was about to go on TV to prove his son's shoeprint does not match the crime-scene shoeprints, and the PLE needed something to physically tie him to the crime scene. The police and presecutor needed her to find something and she understood that. Since she swears her collection methods are above reproach and that there has never been an instance of DNA contamination in her lab, and since I believe Raffaele was never in Meredith's room and not at her flat the evening/night of the murder, the only way his DNA could be on the clasp hook is if Stefanoni planted it on the hook.

Police and lab techs do plant evidence to help frame/convict people they believe are guilty, whether or not the person is really guilty. It happens everywhere - even in Italy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom