• 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.
LBR said:
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.
Click to expand...


Get your facts straight. One comment came from the Skype chat and the other from the Skype call that followed. These are both in the court documents. Rudy is beginning to spin his alibi using the news reports since Amanda's arrest. He has to stay vague about the involvement of others because he knows that there were no others.

BTW: Welcome to JLOL. We are currently operating under a mod warning so keep the comments on topic and discuss the case, not each other.
 
Last edited:
-

LBR said:
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 . . . .
Click to expand...
-

I use to be in the PGP camp, and three of the many things that switched me was the duodenum, Meredith's last try to reach her mother with her cell phone, and Rudy in his skype call estimating that Meredith screamed at around 9:20. The probability that all three of these are wrong is just too improbable. Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi for that time.

There's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

And oh yeah, I really think Amanda is creepy lookin and Rudy, he's kinda got that nice guy look going for him, but that's just my opinion,

d

-
 
Last edited:
LBR said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still, even though you've ended with, "there is not enough information," you've said so much that suggests there's something sinister going on here.

For me, and this may only be for me, the fact that guilters are making such a big deal about this is... well, simply amazing.

Shall we all list the April Fools pranks we've all done, or been victim of? The zero'ing in on this as some sort of Rosetta Stone of understanding the Kercher murder is the real problem that has plagued the wrongful prosecution since the beginning....

It's an April Fools prank, for pete's sake. There's "credibility" on the line? DO you know how silly that sounds?

You ask why I am so certain of her innocence..... it's basically that in 2 1/2 years of following this, this kind of thing is all the guilters seem to have.

Machiavelli gives a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the reason why he thinks Seattle is organized around a Mafiosi concept of omertà, and this is the reason why he thinks some Seattleites are liars and cheats....

Yet ask him to do a detailed description of the crime which befell the victim, and he can't. He calls on his culinary skills as a chef/baker to give an opinon on time-of-death...

It's been this sort of tomfoolery from the guilter side... since the beginning.
 
LBR said:
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
Click to expand...

I can answer that. They're innocent because there is no physical evidence against them, because they had no motive to commit murder, because they had no connection to the person who did leave physical evidence at the crime scene, because they have an alibi for the most likely time of death, because the victim's wounds and the crime scene indicate that a single person killed her, and because their personal history contains nothing remotely suggestive of a tendency toward violence.

By the way, there were members of the jury who slept through the proceedings, so I'm not sure what qualifies them to make judgments better than anybody else.
 
LBR said:
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.
Click to expand...


I am curious, where does the number 5 come from? The first I had seen of that number was when Machiavelli introduced it in this thread a short while ago.

On the other side of those co-perpetrators, there are all of the victims of the prank. Why haven't any of them spoken up? Do you think any of them are still alive??
 
LBR said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dan O. said:
I am curious, where does the number 5 come from? The first I had seen of that number was when Machiavelli introduced it in this thread a short while ago.

On the other side of those co-perpetrators, there are all of the victims of the prank. Why haven't any of them spoken up? Do you think any of them are still alive??
Click to expand...

I have it on the highest authority - the Omertà, "Privately explained a few things to them!"

Of course, now that I've squealed, I have to go into hiding. It's been nice knowing you.
 
kwill said:
I can answer that. They're innocent because there is no physical evidence against them, because they had no motive to commit murder, because they had no connection to the person who did leave physical evidence at the crime scene, because they have an alibi for the most likely time of death, because the victim's wounds and the crime scene indicate that a single person killed her, and because their personal history contains nothing remotely suggestive of a tendency toward violence.
By the way, there were members of the jury who slept through the proceedings, so I'm not sure what qualifies them to make judgments better than anybody else.
Click to expand...

Strangely, the top FBI profiler, the man who literally invented the genre, says much the same thing, as does the now retired top FBI DNA expert.

Of course, the come back to this is that they're simply pulling for the home team, and/or being paid off by the same media sources, via the Masons, that paid off Hellmann.....

Who's Edward McCall?
 
Last edited:
LBR said:
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 . . . .
Click to expand...


"just saying".....

How is it that (insert all of your questions) the guilters can be so sure that AK and RS are guilty?

For me, your questions are not instructive or illuminating.
 
-

Bill Williams said:
I have it on the highest authority - the Omertà, "Privately explained a few things to them!"

Of course, now that I've squealed, I have to go into hiding. It's been nice knowing you.
Click to expand...
-

just pull a prank on them, and that'll put the fear of God into them, wondering when they'll be "Amanda-ized".

The Omerta's WILL BE DEFEATED!!!

d

ETA: maybe "Knox-ized" would have a better ring to it?
-
 
Last edited:
LBR said:
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 . . . .
Click to expand...

For me, it is a personal interest and I have done a lot of reading about cases like this. The best known include Lindy Chamberlain, Hernandez and Cruz, the West Memphis Three, the Norfolk Four, the Central Park Five, the Birmingham Six, and of course the Dreyfus Affair.

More recent examples include Michael Morton in Texas and David Camm in Indiana.

These cases follow a pattern. The cops play a hunch and make a public accusation. Then they go on a frantic quest for evidence rather than admit they were wrong, and the evidence they come up with is not credible. This is one of those cases. I didn't recognize it immediately, but I was suspicious from the start, and it soon became obvious.

The fact that a cult of haters is dwelling on an April Fool's joke shows how flimsy the case is.
 
Last edited:
LBR - I'm sure you trust McCall as someone who claims to have read ALL the court source documents.

I know four people who have as well, so I assume.

Mignini, Massei, Hellmann and Crini. Let's be a little wild and crazy and assume Hellmann is not a criminal paid off by Masons.

Those four have read it all and have been all over the map as to how this crime happened. Massei agreed with Mignini in convicting, but it pretty much stops there. Mignini advanced three different motives, before Massei ruled that AK and RS had no motive at all, this was Rudy's lust at play here.

Then just to reinvent everything from scratch, Crini completely ignores the ISC marching orders to go off on his own. I bet McCall did not include in the Wiki a match between the kitchen knife and the bedsheet outline, until the RIS Carabinieri pretty much debunked the DNA. Crini had to scramble to make that previously unknown equivalency, one that Mignini didn't even dare try.

So it isn't a question as to how PIP can be so sure without reading everything - it's that why is it that the judges who do come up with such a wide array of motives and theories, one of whom acquitted them all together? I forgot.. he was paid off, but it still leaves two prosecutors and one judge who look at it all and still come up with such divergent views?

Don't get me wrong. I'm wavering in cynicism. There's a real chance Nencini will convict. But what will be telling is if his eventual motivations report is as divergent from Crini's theories as Massei's was from Mignini's fantasies.
 
LBR - I'm sure you trust McCall as someone who claims to have read ALL the court source documents.

I know four people who have a well, so I assume.

Mignini, Massei, Hellmann and Crini. Let's be a little wild and crazy and assume Hellmann is not a criminal paid off by Masons.

Those four have read it all and have been all over the map as to how this crime happened. Massei agreed with Mignini in convicting, but it pretty much stops there. Mignini advanced three different motives, before Massei ruled that AK and RS had no motive at all, this was Rudy's lust at play here.

Then just to reinvent everything from scratch, Crini completely ignores the ISC marching orders to go off on his own. I bet McCall did not include in the Wiki a match between the kitchen knife and the bedsheet outline, until the RIS Carabinieri pretty much debunked the DNA. Crini had to scramble to make that previously unknown equivalency, one that Mignini didn't even dare try.

So it isn't a question as to how PIP can be so sure without reading everything - it's that why is it that the judges who do come up with such a wide array of motives and theories, one of whom acquitted them all together? I forgot.. he was paid off, but it still leaves two prosecutors and one judge who look at it all and still come up with such divergent views?

Don't get me wrong. I'm wavering in cynicism. There's a real chance Nencini will convict. But what will be telling is if his eventual motivations report is as divergent from Crini's theories as Massei's was from Mignini's fantasies.
 
Why is the stupid prank such a hot topic lately? Did it come up in the trial?

I missed the whole trial and plain old news isn't very illuminating. Did anything out of the ordinary happen?

I've read enough to catch a whiff of the prosecutor, but what about the judge? Has he given any indication of which way he leans? Is there hope of acquittal?
 
Amanda talked about the prank on her blog

Wildhorses said:
Why is the stupid prank such a hot topic lately? Did it come up in the trial?

I missed the whole trial and plain old news isn't very illuminating. Did anything out of the ordinary happen?

I've read enough to catch a whiff of the prosecutor, but what about the judge? Has he given any indication of which way he leans? Is there hope of acquittal?
Click to expand...
-

Amanda talked about the prank on her blog.

I don't have a good feeling about a not guilty verdict, but nothing I can point to specifically

d

-
 
Wildhorses said:
Why is the stupid prank such a hot topic lately? Did it come up in the trial?

I missed the whole trial and plain old news isn't very illuminating. Did anything out of the ordinary happen?

I've read enough to catch a whiff of the prosecutor, but what about the judge? Has he given any indication of which way he leans? Is there hope of acquittal?
Click to expand...

This is a big deal in the guilter cult because it and the noise ticket are the best they've got to prop up their fantasy of Amanda The Killer. Machiavelli is here to tell us that everyone who knew about this gag was bound by Omerta, like mobsters in Sicily, so it was never confirmed. Recently, however, someone asked Amanda about it on her blog, and the jig was up:

"I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there."

Thus it's a hot topic.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
This is a big deal in the guilter cult because it and the noise ticket are the best they've got to prop up their fantasy of Amanda The Killer. Machiavelli is here to tell us that everyone who knew about this gag was bound by Omerta, like mobsters in Sicily, so it was never confirmed. Recently, however, someone asked Amanda about it on her blog, and the jig was up:

"I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there."

Thus it's a hot topic.
Click to expand...
-

the Cult of Hard Knox

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-

Amanda talked about the prank on her blog.

I don't have a good feeling about a not guilty verdict, but nothing I can point to specifically

d

-
Click to expand...

I looked at her blog and didn't see it. I didn't look at her Facebook page -- it must be there.

I don't care about the prank. Did she talk about it because it came up in court? People (mach) seem quite emotional about it. I've logged in here several times in the last few days: prank, prank, prank, Koko, prank, prank, prank, brazilian.

Did the defense make strong closing arguments?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
This is a big deal in the guilter cult because it and the noise ticket are the best they've got to prop up their fantasy of Amanda The Killer. Machiavelli is here to tell us that everyone who knew about this gag was bound by Omerta, like mobsters in Sicily, so it was never confirmed. Recently, however, someone asked Amanda about it on her blog, and the jig was up:

"I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there."

Thus it's a hot topic.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Thanks to Amy too.

Is there hope of acquittal, Charlie? Did the defense do a good job? (Not that the latter is necessarily related to the former.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom