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

[AmyStrange]

-

The funny thing about the prank is even though PG people were aware of the rumor it was always just that with them. Yes Peggy contacted Joh who made the post a month after the murder , but it went no further. It was one of those make of it what you will it can't be verified. Very little was made of the prank rumor it was off the radar hence the surprise to learn there was truth to it. Forget even the unverified assualt portion of the prank , staged robbery is enough.

I like many others was surprised to learn that a robbery prank was confirmed by Amanda. I can only guess that she was fully aware denial on her public blog might cause others to come forward. There was an angry response by several people to the poster who asked for the rumor to be verified or put to rest .

-

That's not very good behavior in my opinion, but I'm glad Amanda answered.

Even if no one believes her, you can never say that she avoided the question.

I personally can't wait until Rudy gets his blog going after he gets out. Hopefully he'll be as forthcoming, but I'm not really going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but maybe he'll surprise me. I think TJMK should give him his own page. Give him some money too so he doesn't need to kill anyone again to get it,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Those who "speak" - as you say to "defend" her - have a duty to speak about everything, if they want to be believed, or shut up about everything, without complaining about alleged incorrect reporting, without claiming any credibility when they point out alleged 'lies'. Even less if they should have the chutzpa to jump out to accuse other people (witnesses etc.) or other communities. If they think others have no right to know, they better shut up. About everything.

Do you understand that all what you said, just confirms, just means nothing else but the people from that community are in fact cheaters and have zero credibility?

What are you talking about? This makes no sense.

 

[Briars]

-


-

That's not very good behavior in my opinion, but I'm glad Amanda answered.

Even if no one believes her, you can never say that she avoided the question.

I personally can't wait until Rudy gets his blog going after he gets out. Hopefully he'll be as forthcoming, but I'm not really going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but maybe he'll surprise me. I think TJMK should give him his own page. Give him some money too so he doesn't need to kill anyone again to get it,

d

-

The thing about writing or blogging is bits of truth slip in ,inconsistencies are a give away.. Sollecito and Amanda have not been immune, Rudy would be no different. The unusual group dynamic that caused the murder will not be repeated thankfully.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The thing about writing or blogging is bits of truth slip in ,inconsistencies are a give away.. Sollecito and Amanda have not been immune, Rudy would be no different. The unusual group dynamic that caused the murder will not be repeated thankfully.

-

Nice! I honestly like the way you slipped that in there, ha ha,

d

-

 

[Skind]

Those who "speak" - as you say to "defend" her - have a duty to speak about everything, if they want to be believed, or shut up about everything, without complaining about alleged incorrect reporting, without claiming any credibility when they point out alleged 'lies'. Even less if they should have the chutzpa to jump out to accuse other people (witnesses etc.) or other communities. If they think others have no right to know, they better shut up. About everything.

Do you understand that all what you said, just confirms, just means nothing else but the people from that community are in fact cheaters and have zero credibility?

Stop making stuff up.

No one has a duty to talk about 'everything'. Her community can easily defend her against attack without mentioning unrelated events she is not being attacked for.

No one has a duty to talk about her nicknames for her teddybears she had when she was six.
No one has a duty to talk about each and every goal she ever scored in every soccer game she ever played.
No one has a duty to talk about every CD in her DC colelction, or every favourite band she has ever had ever.

No one has any duty to talk about an unrelated event when discussing any event.

Do you have a duty to talk about the very first car you owned if you were stopped for speeding? No, no you don't. That would be stupid and onerous.

Stop being maliciously obtuse.

If Joh had made up a story that was actually precise, like "April 1st 2007, when she lived with Tom, Dick and Billy-Bob in Slitherin Street", then Knox's community would rightfully talk about the actual real world event AS IT WOULD THEN BE RELEVANT!

That's all you are morally entitled to. PERIOD.

Your 'obligation' you wish to place upon the community doesn't exist outside your own head.

 

[Briars]

The idea that it was a rape prank probably came from what Joh said. Joh who heard it from one of the roommates . Prank involving roommates ski masks and an assault. The staged robbery on a flatmate (s) is surprising enough.

 

[Bill Williams]

The thing about writing or blogging is bits of truth slip in ,inconsistencies are a give away.. Sollecito and Amanda have not been immune, Rudy would be no different. The unusual group dynamic that caused the murder will not be repeated thankfully.

It wasn't even peated.....

 

[Bill Williams]

The idea that it was a rape prank probably came from what Joh said. Joh who heard it from one of the roommates . Prank involving roommates ski masks and an assault. The staged robbery on a flatmate (s) is surprising enough.

Why? Have you never pranked anyone? I would tell you some of the pranks I've pulled, or have had pulled on me.... but then the whole guilter/hater world will be accusing me of murder....

 

[AmyStrange]

De Nile

-

Why? Have you never pranked anyone? I would tell you some of the pranks I've pulled, or have had pulled on me.... but then the whole guilter/hater world will be accusing me of murder....

-

I guess maybe pranking is only an American thing, or maybe everyone else in the world does pranking except Italy, or maybe Italy is like that river in Egypt. You know, the Nile?

Someone needs to go somewhere and take a poll,

d

-

 

[RandyN]

That's a good point from a great post, and not something I've ever seen brought up in this discussion, which at this juncture must be nearly impossible!

I would be very interested in what Giocomo Benedetti had to say, he obviously suspected Rudy for some reason, it may be he had good reason outside what was said in the Skype calls to be suspicious.

OK I have no clue what just happened there....my post was removed and I was infracted. But it was a perfect post...on topic without attacks on any poster...none the less ...ugh. No wonder Anglo left.... Lets see if I can get it back into this discussion.

Remember Guede's 'friend' went to the police and said he suspected Guede was guilty. This is how the police knew who to look for when identifying the palm print. He subsequently co-operated with them allowing them to record the Skype call from Germany. Because of the short version trial I suspect he never gave evidence, but he must have good reason to have thought RG was guilty. He did not think it was RG and others.

The really strange thing about Giacomo Benedetti is not that he knew so much about his good friend Rudy Guede, and IMHO without him the Perugia police would never have discovered Guedes identity since I think the palm print ID by Perugia police is a false story they made up to make themselves look less incompetent. But...

The interesting thing is that he... Giacomo played such a minor role in either trial.

Sure Guede had a fast track minimum evidence trial, whatever the heck that is suppose to be ...but why did the defense fail to compel Giacomo to testify in RS, AK trial? For that matter why did the prosecution leave him out? Ahhhh... trick question since the prosecution did not want to hear from Giacomo since he could be asked if Guede stated that AK and RS were not involved without the burden of having to call Guede which also should have been possible but ....what am I missing here....he also was not called???

The whole dirty stinking affair reeks of prosecutor corruption and extreme efforts at keeping the truth hidden. Not hearing detailed information from Guedes friend who actually turned him in to police seems illogical and dishonest and yet comes as no surprise to anyone who understands anything about this case. Plus

Why does the defense fail so miserably to go after this truth and facts provider? Why ignore Giacomo? Can they not subpoena witnesses in Italy?

Wait...it is illogical and reeks of corruption and is occurring in the Italian judicial system...certainly Yummi/Mach will now quote ten Italian laws against why we can not hear from Giacomo Benedetti. And he will call that logical.

Yikes...what a corrupt little country.

Speaking of corrupt...How did Mignini make out at his scheduled hearing yesterday? It was on the 15th correct?

 

[Dan O.]

I guess maybe pranking is only an American thing, or maybe everyone else in the world does pranking except Italy, or maybe Italy is like that river in Egypt. You know, the Nile?

Someone needs to go somewhere and take a poll

How about a review of the April Fools pranks that the administrators of this board have pulled on the members every year?

ETA: (sample)

 

[AmyStrange]

Some legal questions about Rudy...

-

once Rudy gets out of jail, can he be forced to go back if he tells the truth about Amanda and Raffaele not doing it or changing his story in any way? And, can he make money from the crime? In other words, can he profit from it by writing a tell-all book? Would he owe the Kerchers money if he did? Would he owe anyone money?

Just curious,

d

Just had a thought, I would not be surprised if he was offered a job at the Perugia Police Dept in some kind of capacity, a paid snitch? The LPE literally knows where the bodies are buried and they would own his ass? Just sayin.
-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

How about a review of the April Fools pranks that the administrators of this board have pulled on the members every year?

-

Can we do that? That would be soooo cool!

d

ETA: What are the odds that they're all murderers...or even just one? muwahahahaha [sp?]
-

 

[kwill]

The idea that it was a rape prank probably came from what Joh said. Joh who heard it from one of the roommates . Prank involving roommates ski masks and an assault. The staged robbery on a flatmate (s) is surprising enough.

So . . . an anonymous someone calling him/herself Joh who refused to be named or even to verify the rumor (and who was in any case not even present) is the source of a story that turns out to be distantly related to an actual event that bears little relation to the rumor.

No ski masks. No threatened rape. No terrorizing. Nothing but a garden variety April fool's joke among housemates, and yet it has become a keystone piece in the fictional version of Amanda Knox.

Remarkable. I would just point out that not a single person has ever claimed that the actual Amanda Knox ever did anything hurtful, deceitful, cruel, violent, or malicious to them. On the contrary, many have stated on the record that she is a kind and generous human being.

The gap between the fictional version and the actual one is bigger than the Atlantic. Nothing can be done about this, and I'm fairly sure that even were Guede to admit that he was alone with Meredith on the night she died, there would still be a lot of people clinging to their belief in the creature they've created out of thin air and rumors like the one I just mentioned.

Sad to be them.

ETA . . . I should have said, with the exception of Patrick Lumumba, of course. And yet she isn't responsible for what happened to him. The police did that, just as they convinced her that she really could "remember" if she just tried hard enough.

 

[RandyN]

The thing about writing or blogging is bits of truth slip in ,inconsistencies are a give away.. Sollecito and Amanda have not been immune, Rudy would be no different. The unusual group dynamic that caused the murder will not be repeated thankfully.[/QUOTE]


Please if you would be so kind as to lay out the facts about this group dynamic?

How about lets start at 8:30 PM on 1 Nov 2007. What was going on and how did that play out to where you have conclusive proof about this group dynamic. For example at 8:56 PM MK dialed her mother but the call never went through...that would be an example of a fact. With that in mind where is the evidence and facts about how and when this "group" formed up that night? Any cell data? Witnesses who saw this group... beside Kokomaniac the olive throwing Albanian...or are you going with him as a witness?

And so on and so on... minute by minute, until this group dynamic if formed and acts... beyond all doubt, came together and killed poor Miss Kercher. Can you please be the first one in the whole wide world to do that please?

Because I don't think you can. You want to talk about AK sexual habits and your "side" brought those up first and your prosecutor used that salacious material in court and yet you want Miss Kercher who for all intents and purposes was at least as sexually active ....maybe more so. For example I don't hear anything about any Knox wax jobs....maybe Barbie missed that though....anyhoo...so Kercher was more sensitive about a poorly designed European toilet that left skid marks than Knox was perhaps ??? And so from that we can conclude what? Murder? Really?

Stop protecting and making excuses for those evil persons who are attempting to convict and jail two obviously innocent persons. This case could not be any more clear given the lack of evidence and witnesses and motive plus the highly irregular and suspect evidences of corruption by police and prosecutor ....the missing interrogation tapes, burned up computers, missing scientific data and controls, prosecutor expert witnesses provably going into court and lying about evidence...Stefanoni the biggest offender certainly but a host of other witness liars...the phone police who lied about entering the murder room, Quintinvale who either lied in court or lied to the police who interviewed him in the days following the murder...cant have it both ways sorry... Nara who cant figure out the time or even the day. Toto who can get the time down to the minute after a year but who can never get the day correct and in any case who provides (if we have to believe him) a perfect alibi for RS and AK since he claims that they were in the plaza from 9:30 until Midnight...his testimony. Live with it...or drop it....but you don't get to cherry pick it.

Did you know that MK had on her BF (from England) jeans when she was murdered? Perhaps that is why RG could pull them off so easily? That plus he had already sliced her throat...so it was a little difficult for her to put up much of a defense...karate or otherwise...

Poor Miss Kercher is murdered and then a group and a prosecutor and police want to let the murderer go with a slap and a comment... poor Rudy. That is sickening and a disgrace to Miss Kerchers memory...

 

[LBR]

It leaves it vague (not genreal, vague) as to wheter Knox commisioned the prank or was pragmatically involved. Knox makes it clear she participated at the physical level.

It leaves it vague what is meant by assault. Knox makes it clear that no one was harmed.

Everytime you make a claim about what Knox did/did not say, it's really easy to go to the source and see - quite, quite clearly - that you claim she did not say is there front and centre, and what you claim she definetly did say if conspicious by its absence.

Hi.

Yes, it is easy to go to the source and read Amanda's blog about the prank.

What isn't so easy, is to make an opinion about the credibility of that source. If you believe in her innocence, then you have already established the credibility of her story without question. However, she is on trial for murder, so the credibility of everything she says, is up for question.

While she has no obligation to anyone to tell the details of this April Fool's prank, if the other 5 co-perpetrators of this prank stepped forward and corroborated her innocent version of the event, her credibility with regards to that particular incident would increase.

However, none of the 5 have stepped forward to describe their version of the event. Perhaps their version would be much different than the one she writes about in her blog, and thus would further undermine her credibility.

We can't know, because there is not enough information.

 

[LBR]

I was wondering what some of you think about the large differences in translation regarding the Guede-Beneditti Skype conversation by AMK (would that be Amanda Marie Knox?), and the one on the Meredith wiki?

Amanda writes: “Rudy Hermann says: (7:11:19PM) I was in the bathroom when it happened. I tried to stop it but I couldn't do anything. Amanda had nothing to do with it.”

On the wiki site, it says: “RG: It could have been Amanda, it could have been . . . anyone.”

Very different perspectives.

 

[LBR]

One more question. Other than Machiavelli and Briars, all who post here believe without doubt, that AK and RS are innocent. How is it reasonable that you could all come to that conclusion when,

a) you have not read all of the primary source documents for all of the trials for yourself, even those that have not been translated into English (I'm assuming that most of you cannot read Italian)

b) you have not attended court proceedings to understand what has been said by all people, as a jury would have the opportunity to do

What I find amazing, is the level of certainty that people have about this case and who do not fall into one or both of the above categories . . . . just saying . . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

One more question. Other than Machiavelli and Briars, all who post here believe without doubt, that AK and RS are innocent. How is it reasonable that you could all come to that conclusion when,

a) you have not read all of the primary source documents for all of the trials for yourself, even those that have not been translated into English (I'm assuming that most of you cannot read Italian)

b) you have not attended court proceedings to understand what has been said by all people, as a jury would have the opportunity to do

What I find amazing, is the level of certainty that people have about this case and who do not fall into one or both of the above categories . . . . just saying . . . .

Assuming you are asking in good faith....

... for me it is that I have not seen any evidence in anything I have read that they are guilty. Most of the stuff is personality-based smears; which I strongly doubt is true, but even if it were, there's nothing which places them at the cottage that night.

The burden belongs to those who believe they WERE there participating in a murder.

Other than that it's hard to know where to start. My own very, very first "argument" with a guilter was over the doability of the climb into Filomena's window and the break-in itself. That was well before the Channel 5 documentary settled the matter.

Setting the bar at "reading all the source documents" for me is reminiscent that I should assume they are guilty unless I've read everything and can then somehow "prove" they are not.

For me, the way your questions are phrased is part of the problem. But that's just me.

It's also good to have someone else other than Briars and Machiavelli play devil's advocate here... it would be boring without you!

 

[Bill Williams]

I was wondering what some of you think about the large differences in translation regarding the Guede-Beneditti Skype conversation by AMK (would that be Amanda Marie Knox?), and the one on the Meredith wiki?

Amanda writes: “Rudy Hermann says: (7:11:19PM) I was in the bathroom when it happened. I tried to stop it but I couldn't do anything. Amanda had nothing to do with it.”

On the wiki site, it says: “RG: It could have been Amanda, it could have been . . . anyone.”

Very different perspectives.

The main problem with the wiki site is that no one knows Edward McCall's credentials. There's an element of "peer review" missing from that wiki. On the otherside, there is all sorts of peer review available for Steve Moore, John Douglas, Hampkinian, Hendry, etc. Their background is verifiable and almost universally respected.

Who's Edward McCall?