• 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 Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skind said:
Yes, the one thing people seem to forget is that there was no sign that anyone had cut themselves or otherwise had an accident that could account for the bleeding.

No chopping board and knife left out with blood on them, no broken glass with blood on it, no broken bottles, no package and knife with blood on from cutting yourself when opening, no bloody towels left around, no first aid kit out, no phone call, no ambulance outside, no neighbour waiting inside.....

The only rational explanation left for an innocent Knox is that it must be menstrual blood.

A guilty Knox can make up any one of a half dozen scenarios and explain them away as "didn't make sense" - which is exactly the state of mind she's supposed to be pretending to be in under a guilty scenario!
Click to expand...

As Amanda said (to paraphrase), "I certainly didn't think someone had been murdered."
 
Machiavelli said:
But anyway the point is, Knox knew it wouldn’t be considered normal by Meredith. She knew that that would be not normal for Meredith but doesn’t say that, in her e-mail and police account; she does not say Meredith was extremely clean,
Click to expand...

Well, no, no she wouldn't know that, having not known Meredith for more than a few 'cycles'. A heavy cycle can produce a lot more blood than a normal one.

Also, Merediths complaints about Knox's habits do not preclude having dirty habits of her own.

Also- so what if Knox knew it wasn't "normal for Meredith"?

That doesn't allow for the dismissal of the idea that it could have been Merediths menstrual blood - absent of all other reasonable assumptions. Under the innocence scenario, Knox does not have any information that makes any other assumption more reasonable than the assumption she claims to have made.

Knox simply has to make the assumption that Meredith was going to clean it up later - which would be entirely compatible with what you claim she is supposed to have assumed about Merediths norms and habituation.

There is simply no reason for an innocent Knox to assume an indeterminate patch of blood on a mat is indication of anything untoward - especially given the complete and total absence of any preceeding indication of any other reasonable option.
 
Machiavelli said:
You seem to simply ignore what we are talking about, and you slip into being offensive to Meredith yourself. We are talking about something that Meredith herself complained for. Something that she, herself described as unnerving. We also know that Amanda was well aware that Meredith was very clean and we know that she had pointed out (also with friends and roommates) Amanda’s not being clean.
Amanda Knox knew that Meredith would found such behaviour unacceptable.
And you say not that uncommon: we are talking about a 20 centimetre blood stain, actually a bathmat splotched with ten stains, and blood in the bathroom other three or four places. Maybe for some people that’s common, but Knox knew very well that for Meredith it was not, she knew it did not look common nor acceptable to her because she was told about how annoying this was to Meredith.



Not just menstrual blood, the toilet cleaning habits and poor toilet hygiene of Knox that were unnerving to Meredith. Not because it’s me finding them unnerving myself, but because Meredith is reported by testimonies of finding them unnerving. And about shame and blame, again it’s not me projecting: the topic of Knox habits and the peculiar relation with the crime scene includes other things, is not limited to menstrual blood: she was also blamed for leaving feces in the toilet, and for leaving around dirty toilet paper. Again it is not me thinking “may be something to be blamed for”: there is no “may be”, Knox was blamed for this and the topic was reportedly embarrassing in the opinions of Meredith and her friends.
The fact that Knox projects these things on others (leaves the toilet unflushed – despite she dries her hair there – decides to leave it there and highlights the presence of the feces repeatedly, pointing out the responsibility of someone else; then projects the “normality” of leaving patches of menstrual blood on someone else too ) it’s an obvious indication that she wants to put distance between these things an her, share them with others, reduce the degree of her “blame”. She was the one who was accused of leaving feces, and she is the one pointing out that it’s not her, it’s someone else: it’s an obvious defensive behaviour, an attempt to straighten the scale.



Sorry, I’ve never seen a footprint in blood in my life. I’ve never seen a 20 centimetre blood patch in a bathroom. You need to step in a blood pool to produce something like that. I wouldn’t consider that “normal” if I saw that, I’m not saying it’s impossible blood patches like that, I’m saying it’s not normal. But anyway the point is, Knox knew it wouldn’t be considered normal by Meredith. She knew that that would be not normal for Meredith but doesn’t say that, in her e-mail and police account; she does not say Meredith was extremely clean, and does not talk about Paola Grande putting a 5 euros fine whenever Knox would fail to comply with a cleaning shift. Knox describes possible menstrual blood around attributed to Meredith suggesting that could be something normal, something that could be related to Meredith as a normal occurrence. When in fact it could had been attributed to her out of a complaint, as a behaviour that belonged specifically to “her”, attributed to her by some people who manifested some kind of disgust or repulsion for her habits and considered her “not clean”.
Click to expand...

Yada yada. Knox dirty; Meredith so clean. Yada yada.
 
Mary_H said:
As Amanda said (to paraphrase), "I certainly didn't think someone had been murdered."
Click to expand...

Nor would any other reasonable person in the same situation. At worst you'd imagine a nose bleed or a cut, and assume the person had popped next door to get something for it.

Mach might stupidly argue that it's not normal - but Knox didn't think it was either! That's why she came up with the menstruation assumption!

Essentially people like Mach are arguing against a thought pattern that was never exhibited by Knox, was never claimed by Knox, is not required under an innocence scenario and which - this is where they get really dumb - was expressly NOT what Knox was thinking/acting on!
 
Machiavelli said:
You seem to simply ignore what we are talking about, and you slip into being offensive to Meredith yourself. We are talking about something that Meredith herself complained for. Something that she, herself described as unnerving. We also know that Amanda was well aware that Meredith was very clean and we know that she had pointed out (also with friends and roommates) Amanda’s not being clean.
Amanda Knox knew that Meredith would found such behaviour unacceptable.
And you say not that uncommon: we are talking about a 20 centimetre blood stain, actually a bathmat splotched with ten stains, and blood in the bathroom other three or four places. Maybe for some people that’s common, but Knox knew very well that for Meredith it was not, she knew it did not look common nor acceptable to her because she was told about how annoying this was to Meredith.



Not just menstrual blood, the toilet cleaning habits and poor toilet hygiene of Knox that were unnerving to Meredith. Not because it’s me finding them unnerving myself, but because Meredith is reported by testimonies of finding them unnerving. And about shame and blame, again it’s not me projecting: the topic of Knox habits and the peculiar relation with the crime scene includes other things, is not limited to menstrual blood: she was also blamed for leaving feces in the toilet, and for leaving around dirty toilet paper. Again it is not me thinking “may be something to be blamed for”: there is no “may be”, Knox was blamed for this and the topic was reportedly embarrassing in the opinions of Meredith and her friends.
The fact that Knox projects these things on others (leaves the toilet unflushed – despite she dries her hair there – decides to leave it there and highlights the presence of the feces repeatedly, pointing out the responsibility of someone else; then projects the “normality” of leaving patches of menstrual blood on someone else too ) it’s an obvious indication that she wants to put distance between these things an her, share them with others, reduce the degree of her “blame”. She was the one who was accused of leaving feces, and she is the one pointing out that it’s not her, it’s someone else: it’s an obvious defensive behaviour, an attempt to straighten the scale.



Sorry, I’ve never seen a footprint in blood in my life. I’ve never seen a 20 centimetre blood patch in a bathroom. You need to step in a blood pool to produce something like that. I wouldn’t consider that “normal” if I saw that, I’m not saying it’s impossible blood patches like that, I’m saying it’s not normal. But anyway the point is, Knox knew it wouldn’t be considered normal by Meredith. She knew that that would be not normal for Meredith but doesn’t say that, in her e-mail and police account; she does not say Meredith was extremely clean, and does not talk about Paola Grande putting a 5 euros fine whenever Knox would fail to comply with a cleaning shift. Knox describes possible menstrual blood around attributed to Meredith suggesting that could be something normal, something that could be related to Meredith as a normal occurrence. When in fact it could had been attributed to her out of a complaint, as a behaviour that belonged specifically to “her”, attributed to her by some people who manifested some kind of disgust or repulsion for her habits and considered her “not clean”.
Click to expand...

The trouble with this, Machiavelli, is that you are painting Meredith as a very petty vindictive person... NO ONE believes that....

At source here is a completely new motive - Crini's motive, which you have latched on to because, well, because none of the other ones advanced in the last 6 years work. And you know it. And you've advanced a few of them before ditching them so as to look like you now agree with Crini!

There is also the possibility that there is no motive. Yet, prosecutors, haters, and people from Bologna seem to be trying to find one - they produce them by the sack full. Mignini had 4 different ones - one that was so outrageous that Comodi herself (acc. to Nadeau, the approximate reporter) refused to go to court with him if he advanced it. By the time Mignini was done, he had Amanda out in the hall directing the boys in Meredith's room, which was Mignini's concession that there simply are no forensics of Amanda at the scene.

But here we are in 2014, just 15 days from a verdict, and you're still advancing a brand new motive, this one barely 6 weeks old - this one which bears NO relation at all to the one which formed part of the reason, last March, the ISC overturned the acquittals.

Even you, Machiavelli, must see something wrong with this?

But at base, it paints Meredith as a vindictive sort. If truth be told, neither Meredith nor Amanda had it within them to take a completely common household tension, and bicker about it to the point of murder. Neither of them.

The real tragedy and the offence to Meredith which ranks second only to the murder itself, is that there are people, six years later, using her to vilify her friend.

You are the fellow who says there is zero evidence of Guede "sexually abusing a corpse", which is your typical strawman argument.... you say that burglars don't murder, and offer no citations to back up a completely absurd comment - for heaven's sake, the man's DNA was found inside Meredith!

Why are you defending him.....? Why are you only now picking up on Crini - you have changed horses numerous times, and effectively now disbelieve all the various theories and motives Migini advanced, and you are ignoring the motive Massei found at trial...

.. which was Rudy's alone. Have you not read the Massei motivations report?
 
Last edited:
Questions for Machiavelli

Hey Machiavelli,
Quick questions:
If Alessandra Formica saw Rudy Guede running up those steps between 10:00 to 10:30pm, what was he doing so for?

What was Meredith Kercher doing at that same time when Rudy ran up those steps? Studying? If so, then she would not have been in a frightened state of mind, terrifed of what was happening, correct?

So her digestion at about 10:00 to 10:30pm should have been in no way whatsoever impaired, impeded nor slowed down due to fear, even if that home baked pizzas crust was not fully cooked, right?

Weren't Amanda and Raffaele already outside too at 9:30pm? Why?
Do you think Meredith got mad at Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda and told them all to leave just because of cleanliness issues? And then all 3 came back inside after the tow truck driver, and the folks with the broken down car, split and they then murdered and Rudy raped Meredith?

Come on Mach, you've been debating this case for years now.
Can you give me a great timeline that fits all the evidence?
Thanks, RW in Venice Beach, California...
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
You seem to simply ignore what we are talking about, and you slip into being offensive to Meredith yourself. We are talking about something that Meredith herself complained for. Something that she, herself described as unnerving. We also know that Amanda was well aware that Meredith was very clean and we know that she had pointed out (also with friends and roommates) Amanda’s not being clean.
Amanda Knox knew that Meredith would found such behaviour unacceptable.
And you say not that uncommon: we are talking about a 20 centimetre blood stain, actually a bathmat splotched with ten stains, and blood in the bathroom other three or four places. Maybe for some people that’s common, but Knox knew very well that for Meredith it was not, she knew it did not look common nor acceptable to her because she was told about how annoying this was to Meredith.

Not just menstrual blood, the toilet cleaning habits and poor toilet hygiene of Knox that were unnerving to Meredith. Not because it’s me finding them unnerving myself, but because Meredith is reported by testimonies of finding them unnerving. And about shame and blame, again it’s not me projecting: the topic of Knox habits and the peculiar relation with the crime scene includes other things, is not limited to menstrual blood: she was also blamed for leaving feces in the toilet, and for leaving around dirty toilet paper. Again it is not me thinking “may be something to be blamed for”: there is no “may be”, Knox was blamed for this and the topic was reportedly embarrassing in the opinions of Meredith and her friends.
The fact that Knox projects these things on others (leaves the toilet unflushed – despite she dries her hair there – decides to leave it there and highlights the presence of the feces repeatedly, pointing out the responsibility of someone else; then projects the “normality” of leaving patches of menstrual blood on someone else too ) it’s an obvious indication that she wants to put distance between these things an her, share them with others, reduce the degree of her “blame”. She was the one who was accused of leaving feces, and she is the one pointing out that it’s not her, it’s someone else: it’s an obvious defensive behaviour, an attempt to straighten the scale.

Sorry, I’ve never seen a footprint in blood in my life. I’ve never seen a 20 centimetre blood patch in a bathroom. You need to step in a blood pool to produce something like that. I wouldn’t consider that “normal” if I saw that, I’m not saying it’s impossible blood patches like that, I’m saying it’s not normal. But anyway the point is, Knox knew it wouldn’t be considered normal by Meredith. She knew that that would be not normal for Meredith but doesn’t say that, in her e-mail and police account; she does not say Meredith was extremely clean, and does not talk about Paola Grande putting a 5 euros fine whenever Knox would fail to comply with a cleaning shift. Knox describes possible menstrual blood around attributed to Meredith suggesting that could be something normal, something that could be related to Meredith as a normal occurrence. When in fact it could had been attributed to her out of a complaint, as a behaviour that belonged specifically to “her”, attributed to her by some people who manifested some kind of disgust or repulsion for her habits and considered her “not clean”.
Click to expand...

Can you document any of these tales-stranger-than-fiction coming from whoever it was you think told them? If anyone actually said any of these things, do you think it possibly could have been in response to prosecutor questions like, "Can you think of any time when Meredith and Amanda may have had a difference with one another?" as opposed to questions like, "Can you give us any examples of how Meredith and Amanda had fun together?"

Amanda was not upset about the feces because they were unflushed and her mind immediately sped to the epic saga of her and Meredith's ongoing power struggle over the toilet brush. She was upset about them because they were in Laura and Filomena's bathroom and both women were gone for the weekend.

You are the one who is ignoring other people's arguments. Several of us just gave you empirical explanations of the phenomena related to blood stains in women's bathrooms and you want to disregard them out of hand. You haven't seen a bloody footprint and we have, so who are you to tell us we're wrong in our deductions about women's attitudes?

I recall a lot of PGP pointing out how detestable it was that Amanda described Meredith's putative menstrual blood as, "Ew," in her e-mail home. Yet here you are proclaiming that Meredith's reaction to Amanda's menstrual habits was ten times worse than "Ew." I am willing to bet it wasn't.

By the way, there is no reason for anyone to have found Amanda dirty, unwashed, disorderly or disorganized. I don't know why these characterizations are considered so disgusting as to be compatible with being a murderer, anyway. In my experience, people who drink a lot [like the English girls] usually become slobs more quickly than people who drink less. And then there are those of us who don't drink much at all, and never kill, but are still slobs. :o There is no correlation.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Once again, men's minds are going where no woman's mind has gone before. In the span of time they had lived together, very few menstrual periods would have occurred per housemate -- no more than three and as few as one or none -- certainly not enough for anyone to get familiar with the other's habits, if, by some strange fluke of social anomaly, one had chosen to be public with hers.

When it occurred to Amanda that the blood she saw might have been Meredith's menstrual blood, the only thing that was going through her mind was that if you see blood in a woman's bathroom, it is very possible -- even probable -- that it is menstrual in origin. It's not that uncommon.

You think that Amanda is projecting shame, shifting blame and accusing Meredith of doing something "unnerving," because you find the appearance of menstrual blood shameful, unnerving and something to be blamed for. Some of us are more like, "Meh."

ETA: And it is possible for a young, menstruating woman to take a shower without a tampon and to step out onto a bathmat with menstrual fluid running down her leg and form a footprint. It can take many women several years to get familiar with and gain the kind of control they want over their bodily functions.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mary H, for answering that. As a guy who grew up with 4 sisters, I second what Mary said.

When Amanda noticed the soiled bathmat she was not overly concerned by it and readily saw it to be a minor personal matter. Everything else is Mignini's or Yummi's hostile projection.
 
My journey from PGPer to (Pied) PIPer...

Bill Williams said:
This is the whole thing, isn't it... Knox participates with others in an April Fools prank, and Machiavelli sees that as the Rosetta Stone for understanding a staged break-in...

But Rudy actually DOES these sorts of break-ins before, there's no evidence, really, of staging at the cottage and Channel 5 (UK) shows that the break-in was very much possible and probable, but Machiavelli would still let Rudy off.

And instead of proving anyone wrong, Machiavelli dusts off that, "it's compatible with" language.



It may be common, but this represents the fifth or sixth totally new motive for this case. And "may just be"? What ever happened to proof?

How many times does Italy get to prosecute someone before it's call quintuple jeopardy?
Click to expand...
-

You know Bill, I live in Seattle and when the crime was first reported here, the video of Amanda and Raffaele kissing and hugging was very creepy and Amanda looked even more creepy, like she could have done it. She looked like the original Ice Queen, and I thought that way for over a year, seeing the story on TV on and off here in Seattle.

Then, when they found her (them) guilty (it was all about her to me), I thought good. I actually did, and I even cheered on HarryRag. But then people started rebutting him/ her and made me think. I thought to myself, that I had to read both sides of the case. Bought the Demsey book while at the same time reading the TJMK site, a whole lot of the TJMK site.

Then I saw other pictures of Amanda, while reading both sides of the story about the confession, what happened immediately after, then I did a search and came here and heard about the duodenum, the phone call to her mother that was never returned, the skype call where Rudy said it happened around 9:30, all the lies leaked to the press before the trial and I knew enough about forensics (I research serial killers for my website), psychology and false confessions to see the obvious.

These kids were being railroaded and I had been wrong with my first snap decision. The difference between me and other PGPers was I am willing to admit when I was wrong.

When you can say that something with LESSER probability is more probable to happen than something MORE probable, and not just once, but over and over, and no one from the PGP camp even considers Amanda's innocence for even a second, and most of them go out of their way to speculate and say that she's psychologically capable of murder, and so is Raffaele, but Rudy isn't?

And what's all this crap about only attacking Amanda and not Raffaele and making a hero out of Rudy? What the hell is wrong with these people, I thought, then I figured it out,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
It was in fact a thoroughly malicious lie. It was presented as a prank in which mock intruders wearing ski masks pretended they were going to rape someone. That is the story your cult has been spreading for years, and it is not at all what happened.
Click to expand...

The first witness who brought information about the prank gave precise information, described an assault wearing ski masks. He/she did not talk about a "rape" prank. But information about date location and context were precise, not made up, so why should I assume the detail about ski masks should be false?
You that are sure what the witness said was not what happened? Why not the sky masks?
Amanda Knox didn't even answr abou the ski mask disguise in her first answer. That was an admission, but it was oily, evasive, a mention offering vague indications, saying what was not rather than what it was, and adding re-framing with judgemental statement - so not a clear answer to the things said by poster Celeste, not a description but half a description, half an admission of something.
Then in a following comment a couple of days later she offered the tiny additional bit of info that the prank "did not include" a dressing up.
But should we believe her?

Yet, she admitted to "shock" and "distress".
And the Daily Mail might get everyghint wrong, but it did not get wrong the stone throwing on the road, the administrative fine, the police report and the name of the officer.

At this point, maybe you fail to understand what the problem is.
I am talking from the point of view of an Italian, and I am talking to the Knox supporters. Those who were claiming that the story was a lie, that what trully happened is different.

How do you know that what happened was different? If you actually knew something happened and it was something "totally different", how did it happen that you didn't talk about it before?

Do you know what's the real problem with all this, in my view?
What is more meaningful to me, what is more striking and infurating, but above all more revealing, is that a group Knox's Seattle acquaintances knew everything about robbery prank, they well knew the story was true. At least 5-10 people knew everything about it from the beginning which means everyone knew something happened.
You say that what happened is not what was told by the "guilters".

But what the Seattle community around Knox told was SILENCE!

The truth might have been story different from a "rape prank" or different from "ski masks".
But the group of Seattellite acquaintances, they did not come out saying "this is what happened, it was something different, this is the truth".
The truth might have been a story that hase differences from the rumors.
But SILENCE WAS NOT THE TRUTH! Neither!

Ski masks may be false, may be "lie" (maybe), "rape" might be wrong, might be "lie".

But .... SILENCE WAS A LIE TOO

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rules 0 and 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GET THAT FREAKIN' W[b]ITCH AMANADA!!!

Machiavelli said:
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...
-

Thanks for stopping by buddy.

HOW DARE MARESCA PROJECT THAT DEATH PHOTO OF MEREDITH IN COURT

What the hell is wrong with that freakin' IDIOT and none of you PGPers SAID A THING AGAINST IT!!! How about if that was your FREAKIN' MOTHER, Sister, Daughter or wife up there!!!

Like I said, thanx for stopping by and don't let the damn door hit you on your way out and on the way back to your biased group for HIGH FIVES and whoops and cheers about how SPOT ON you were in your campaign to GET THAT FREAKIN' WITCH AMANDA

Meredith? Oh yeah that's who we're suppose to be finding true justice for... forgot about her for a second (six years)...
YAY! for Meredith and too bad about Rudy, huh?

d

-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RWVBWL said:
Hey Machiavelli,
Quick questions:
If Alessandra Formica saw Rudy Guede running up those steps between 10:00 to 10:30pm, what was he doing so for?

What was Meredith Kercher doing at that same time when Rudy ran up those steps? Studying? If so, then she would not have been in a frightened state of mind, terrifed of what was happening, correct?

So her digestion at about 10:00 to 10:30pm should have been in no way whatsoever impaired, impeded nor slowed down due to fear, even if that home baked pizzas crust was not fully cooked, right?

Weren't Amanda and Raffaele already outside too at 9:30pm? Why?
Do you think Meredith got mad at Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda and told them all to leave just because of cleanliness issues? And then all 3 came back inside after the tow truck driver, and the folks with the broken down car, split and they then murdered and Rudy raped Meredith?

Come on Mach, you've been debating this case for years now.
Can you give me a great timeline that fits all the evidence?
Thanks, RW in Venice Beach, California...
Click to expand...

Mach already explained that the undercooked pizza might have something to do with slowing down Meredith's digestion. I actually heard about this on the radio from a company promoting colon-cleansing products. Unleaven pizza "sticks to the walls of your stomach like spackle or paste"!

Meredith could have cured it if Rudy would have just shared his kabob with her!
 
Last edited:
Fill in the blanks please

Hey Guilters,
Can you please fill in some of the blanks?
About 9:00pm Meredith arrives home.

Curatolo tells Judge Massei that he saw Raff and Amanda outside at 9:27-9:28pm.

What happened at the house between when Meredith got home and Toto saw R+A?

Do you believe that Raff, Amanda and Rudy were already inside the gals flat when Meredith arrived home?

Or did they come in after she was already home?

What are A+R doing outside where Toto then sees them?
Did a verbal argument already happen and so they have left Meredith alone?

How come Toto never sees Rudy Guede that night?
Not even hanging out with Amanda and Raff over the space of a coupla hours? What time did Rudy Guede meet up with Amanda and Raff? Where? Did Guede come by later and meet up with them after Toto already saw A+R? Or do you think that he was doing something else before Formica saw him running up the stairs next to where Toto was hangin' out, which was between 10:00 to 10:30pm, right?

The occupants of the broken down car driven by Pasqualino Coletta, a tourist visiting Perugia, saw no commotion, heard no loud noises, nor screams nor even, IIRC, lights on in Meredith's flat, correct? He waited for what, 1/2 an hour for the tow truck to arrive. This was from 10:30 to 11:00pm, right?

Were Amanda, Raff and Rudy partying outside?
It sounds like Amanda liked to party, the cops even showed up to her flat in Seattle and issued her a citation. I wonder why she kept the party so quiet that night? Not even Coletta nor the tow truck operator heard these 3 partying that night...

What was Meredith doing at home from 9:27pm, when Toto says that he 1st saw Amanda and Raff, until after the tow truck finished helping Pasqualino and family, shortly after 11:00pm?



Can you please fill in some blanks so that I might gain more insight into a Pro-Guilt point of view?
Thanks, RW
 
Last edited:
-

Strozzi said:
Mach already explained that the undercooked pizza might have something to do with slowing down Meredith's digestion. I actually heard about this on the radio from a company promoting colon-cleansing products. Unleaven pizza sticks to the walls of your stomach like spackle or paste!
Click to expand...
-

With all due respect Strozzi, what kind of pizza do they make in Italy that is only dough without toppings? Wouldn't that just be bread?

Next,

d

(ooops, replied before your final edit)

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
The first witness who brought information about the prank gave precise information, described an assault wearing ski masks. He/she did not talk about a "rape" prank. But information about date location and context were precise, not made up, so why should I assume the detail about ski masks should be false?
You that are sure what the witness said was not what happened? Why not the sky masks?
Amanda Knox didn't even answr abou the ski mask disguise in her first answer. That was an admission, but it was oily, evasive, a mention offering vague indications, saying what was not rather than what it was, and adding re-framing with judgemental statement - so not a clear answer to the things said by poster Celeste, not a description but half a description, half an admission of something.
Then in a following comment a couple of days later she offered the tiny additional bit of info that the prank "did not include" a dressing up.
But should we believe her?

Yet, she admitted to "shock" and "distress".
And the Daily Mail might get everyghint wrong, but it did not get wrong the stone throwing on the road, the administrative fine, the police report and the name of the officer.

At this point, maybe you fail to understand what the problem is.
I am talking from the point of view of an Italian, and I am talking to the Knox supporters. Those who were claiming that the story was a lie, that what trully happened is different.

How do you know that what happened was different? If you actually knew something happened and it was something "totally different", how did it happen that you didn't talk about it before?

Do you know what's the real problem with all this, in my view?
What is more meaningful to me, what is more striking and infurating, but above all more revealing, is that a group Knox's Seattle acquaintances knew everything about robbery prank, they well knew the story was true. At least 5-10 people knew everything about it from the beginning which means everyone knew something happened.
You say that what happened is not what was told by the "guilters".

But what the Seattle community around Knox told was SILENCE!

The truth might have been story different from a "rape prank" or different from "ski masks".
But the group of Seattellite acquaintances, they did not come out saying "this is what happened, it was something different, this is the truth".
The truth might have been a story that hase differences from the rumors.
But SILENCE WAS NOT THE TRUTH! Neither!

Ski masks may be false, may be "lie" (maybe), "rape" might be wrong, might be "lie".

But .... SILENCE WAS A LIE TOO
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

These constant comparisons of Seattle to the more unsavory aspects of your country's culture and history let on far more about you and your worldview than you seem ready or able to process. Ted Bundy and the Green River killer notwithstanding, please do let us know when Seattle begins to compete with Sicily in terms of exporting organized crime and criminality.

But again, what on earth does this have to do with the price of tea in China, aside, apparently for its usefulness to you as a point of departure to vent spleen? In six years of nauseating repetition - and, now, amusingly, variation, as you transmogrify from a supporter of Massei and Mignini, to the substantially divergent Crini - you have yet to produce a single cogent post that might convince a skeptic of your thesis. Let me repeat and augment that for clarity: not one single, solitary convincing *point*, much less a convincing post. You are at the tip of the spear amongst your ilk in the business of your argumentation being an object lesson as to why *Amanda Knox is not guilty*.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rules 0 and 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AmyStrange said:
With all due respect Strozzi, what kind of pizza do they make in Italy that is only dough without toppings? Wouldn't that just be bread?

Next,

d -
Click to expand...

Mach might be able to answer that. The last time I was in Perugia I was too afraid to eat a pizza. I was worried that Giobbi might arrest me for murder. :p
 
-

Strozzi said:
Mach might be able to answer that. The last time I was in Perugia I was too afraid to eat a pizza. I was worried that Giobbi might arrest me for murder. :p
Click to expand...
-

that's what set the wheels in motion for Amanda to get slapped down by the law, so I can certainly understand your worry, ha ha

d

PS Giobbi sounds just like something you'd find dripping off a topping-free uncooked pizza

-
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
The first witness who brought information about the prank gave precise information, described an assault wearing ski masks. He/she did not talk about a "rape" prank. But information about date location and context were precise, not made up, so why should I assume the detail about ski masks should be false?
You that are sure what the witness said was not what happened? Why not the sky masks?
Amanda Knox didn't even answr abou the ski mask disguise in her first answer. That was an admission, but it was oily, evasive, a mention offering vague indications, saying what was not rather than what it was, and adding re-framing with judgemental statement - so not a clear answer to the things said by poster Celeste, not a description but half a description, half an admission of something.
Then in a following comment a couple of days later she offered the tiny additional bit of info that the prank "did not include" a dressing up.
But should we believe her?

Yet, she admitted to "shock" and "distress".
And the Daily Mail might get everyghint wrong, but it did not get wrong the stone throwing on the road, the administrative fine, the police report and the name of the officer.

At this point, maybe you fail to understand what the problem is.
I am talking from the point of view of an Italian, and I am talking to the Knox supporters. Those who were claiming that the story was a lie, that what trully happened is different.

How do you know that what happened was different? If you actually knew something happened and it was something "totally different", how did it happen that you didn't talk about it before?

Do you know what's the real problem with all this, in my view?
What is more meaningful to me, what is more striking and infurating, but above all more revealing, is that a group Knox's Seattle acquaintances knew everything about robbery prank, they well knew the story was true. At least 5-10 people knew everything about it from the beginning which means everyone knew something happened.
You say that what happened is not what was told by the "guilters".

But what the Seattle community around Knox told was SILENCE!

The truth might have been story different from a "rape prank" or different from "ski masks".
But the group of Seattellite acquaintances, they did not come out saying "this is what happened, it was something different, this is the truth".
The truth might have been a story that hase differences from the rumors.
But SILENCE WAS NOT THE TRUTH! Neither!

Ski masks may be false, may be "lie" (maybe), "rape" might be wrong, might be "lie".

But .... SILENCE WAS A LIE TOO
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

Seriously, dude. Get some help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom