Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
treehorn said:
Where did Rudy throw his bloody clothes?
Click to expand...

He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.
 
RoseMontague said:
LOL,
You are being generous regarding guilter Rose, Katody.
Click to expand...

:D

I too had a lot of misconceptions about the case, as some of them were repeated over and over so much (like the one LoZ just repeated about AK surprised by the police with a mop in hand) it was hard to sift through all of it.
 
treehorn said:
Yes.

So when are you going to show us how you arrived at your claim that Amanda met Rudy "once at most" notwithstanding Amanda's own testimony and the testimony referred to in the Court's judgment (as posted above)?


PS It's now painfully clear to all of us that you haven't bothered to read the Court's judgment.

Is that your idea of 'trained thinking' and rational analysis?
Click to expand...

I believe katy_did pointed out an error on the part of the PMF translators twice now. Did you read her posts on this?
 
komponisto said:
As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith./QUOTE]

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
He probably disposed of them (and his knife) somewhere on his journey to Germany. You know - when he fled Perugia on the 3rd or 4th November.
IIRC, he positively admitted to disposing of his Nike Outbreak trainers (the ones he wore during the murder) while he was either on the way to Germany, or while he was in Germany.

On the other hand, unless Knox and Sollecito drove out of Perugia some time in the early hours or morning of 2nd November, they would have had virtually no option but to dispose of any bloody clothes etc. within Perugia.
Click to expand...

So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.
 
treehorn said:
So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.
Click to expand...

Apparently not, since they [ETA: Amanda and Raffaele, that is...] had to wipe off the knife and put it back in the kitchen drawer...
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
So the dumpsters in Italy just weren't functional at the relevant time. Right. Next.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible he used a dumpster in Perugia. Or some ravine overgrown with bushes. As far as we know ILE didn't search for the disposed items.
 
RoseMontague said:
I believe katy_did pointed out an error on the part of the PMF translators twice now. Did you read her posts on this?
Click to expand...

I think not. I don't think he realises either that he compounded the problem by erroneously stating that Marco Marzan had been quoted in Massei as having seen Guede in the boys' cottage at the same time as Meredith and Amanda - whereas in fact this testimony was provided by Giorgio Cocciaretto (who didn't live in the boys' cottage).
 
treehorn said:
A crook she didn't know...
Click to expand...

A crook she barely knew. Does that satisfy you?

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.
Click to expand...

You're changing the subject, evidently because you're incapable of usefully replying.
 
treehorn said:
komponisto said:
As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith.
Click to expand...

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing anyone here of racism? I suggest you support your words or retract them immediately and apologise.

What problem do you have with the term "drifter"?
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
komponisto said:
As far as I know, Kevin's theory requires only the assumption that Amanda would be very unlikely to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith./QUOTE]

You mean, 'team up with a crook she didn't know'

That better captures the flavor.

A crook she didn't know...

Echos of a nasty (if not racist) PR campaign that ab initio misrepresented the facts ("Amanda never laid eyes on Rudy"/ the "black drifter" motif/ etc.).

Shameful.
Click to expand...

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina - wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
 
Katody Matrass said:
It's entirely possible he used a dumpster in Perugia. Or some ravine overgrown with bushes. As far as we know ILE didn't search for the disposed items.
Click to expand...

The important point here (in my belief) is this: Guede had ample time and opportunity to dispose of bloody clothing/shoes/knife/other, either in Perugia or anywhere along the route of his train journeys to Germany. Therefore, if the Perugia police had done a proper investigation and had searched all the public rubbish grounds, skips and landfills in the city (as well as searching the ravine between the girls' cottage and Sig.ra Lana's house), and they hadn't found anything related to Guede, this wouldn't have much probative value - since Guede could be considered as likely (and possibly more likely) to have disposed of incriminating evidence during his journey to Germany.

On the other hand, if the police had searched properly, and had failed to find any such evidence relating to Knox or Sollecito, this would be useful evidence in their favour (albeit far from conclusive), since they (Knox and Sollecito) had virtually no opportunity to dispose of evidence outside of Perugia. And of course if the police HAD found Knox's and/or Sollecito's bloody clothing/footwear/knives/other, then this would have been extremely strong evidence of their guilt.
 
LondonJohn said:
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina - wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Ha. I totally guessed what that meant and got it right (we didn't study fancy subjects like Latin at my school. Ad astra per alia porci. I kinda wish we did. ETA: learn Latin, I mean, as well as the other).
 
Last edited:
komponisto said:
No, that isn't the definition. A murderer is someone who murders, not someone who is believed to murder.
Click to expand...

This leads to semantics. I would concede the point. One may fairly describe someone who has been convicted of murder as a "convicted murderer." Similarly, Treehorn is right when he says the law regards cannabis as an "illicit narcotic" and so he may fairly use the term.

But, by accepting all of that, we only acknowledge a social context, rather than the underlying realities of what Amanda is like and what she did. Calling marijuana an "illicit narcotic" will not turn Amanda into a desperate addict. Calling Amanda a "convicted murderer" does not strengthen the forensic evidence.

Really what it comes down to is this proposition: society has sanctioned hatred for Amanda Knox as a legitimate pastime, and certain people have chosen to indulge accordingly. This is a universal aspect of human society. In Puritan colonies, offenders were manacled in the town center, and the public was invited to spit on them. Whenever someone is executed in the US, a group forms outside the prison walls to celebrate. Villagers with pitchforks are never in short supply. A subset of the population needs a group-sanctioned target for their hostility.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Thanks Rose (LOL, a ferry? I'd forgotten how many annoyingly good points you made as a guilter [ETA: -ish sort of type] :D).

I'd thought the e-mail was odd too, at first, till it occurred to me that it probably just reflected the questions she was being asked at the police station (which does suggest the police were zeroing in on Amanda and Raffaele and the mop even then, now I think about it).

I can understand the need for a mop after a leaking pipe spill, because even if most of the water had been cleaned up, you'd still be left with a residue on the floor. We had a water pipe burst at work last week, and even after the water had dried there were still those dirty 'tidemarks' (for want of a better term...) that it's easiest to clean with a mop. So it does make some kind of sense to me that they'd need a mop to clean it, especially if it was an ongoing leak every time the sink was used, as it sounds like it was.

What makes less sense to me is why they'd make up the mop story if they were guilty. Why bother, really, especially since (barring the bizarre mop-switching theory) there's no sign a mop was used to clean the crime scene? I'm hoping LoZ can enlighten me on that one, though.
Click to expand...


I don't think there was a water pipe "burst". I think there was a leaky drain trap. (Allegedly, that is.) Maybe I'm mistaken.

There are some fundamental differences between the two, not least being an absence of any water pressure in the latter case. The leak, at its largest, cannot be any larger than the amount of water intentionally run into the sink. Normally it would be much less, unless the drain trap fell off altogether. This is an unlikely occurrence due to the fitting configuration of most sink traps. In general, leaky traps are often unnoticed entirely when in an enclosure such as a kitchen counter until someone opens the cabinet below and sees that it is wet. Worst case would be pulling the plug on a full sink of water after the trap had been removed altogether. This is an old fraternity prank, but is exceedingly rare in day-to-day usage.

It isn't very often that a mop would be required for clean up. Most of the time that would be a much bigger PITA than a sponge and a handful of paper towels.

I'm a bit puzzled by the entire mop element of this saga myself. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful to either party, yet it looms so large in the early parts of the story. It seems like Knox is more fixated on it than any of the other players, but maybe that is just the way the data has been presented.

I've filed it away in the 'not enough information' bin until something more comes along.
 
loverofzion said:
What is your point? It has been established that amanda was acquainted with Rudy, had smoked with him on at least one occasion , met him at the pub and most likely saw him on the basketball court on her way to school regularly.

What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...

Preventing creepage.

It's been established that Amanda was once introduced to Rudy at a party where at sometime a spinello was smoked, and thinks she might have seen him once at Le Chic. Perhaps Rudy was on the basketball court sometimes when she went by.
 
Kaosium said:
Preventing creepage.

It's been established that Amanda was once introduced to Rudy at a party where at sometime a spinello was smoked, and thinks she might have seen him once at Le Chic. Perhaps Rudy was on the basketball court sometimes when she went by.
Click to expand...

Yep, apparently the prosecution proved that Rudy was currently staying in the same city as Knox.
 
loverofzion said:
Patted her on the back or put his hand on her back to gently motion her??!
Are you for real.
He would have had to put his hand on her BRA in order for his DNA to stick.
That, at least has never been presented as plausible by any of the defense team.
Click to expand...

Raffaele sneezes twice. Ah choo a a Ah choo! Covers mouth as he sneezes to be polite. Rubs nose. Passes by Meredith at a Halloween party. Places hand on her back and says excuse me in Italian.

As I have said, find one plausible theory and the prosecution crashes and burns. There are many possible scenarios. Not all of them are probable, but all I have submitted are possibe. Possible. Possible.

Just one exception, and our psychic-wanna-be prosecutor is again proven wrong.

Raffaele's LCN DNA on the bra clasp is NOT as incriminating as Guede's bloody palm print on the wall. Guess why?
 
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive and incomplete answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.


PS Given that Knox was only in Perugia for 6 weeks, who were her 'friends' in mid-October if not the 3 girls and 4 boys living in the cottage, and in attendance at the small gathering (where dope was smoked, and where Rudy was in attendance)?
 
Last edited:
let's just call it marijuana or cannabis

quadraginta said:
Your medical definition seems to suggest that it no longer has a medical definition acceptable as a technical term, but rather has become a generic term for illegal drugs.

"The term is now often used to refer to any illicit drug, and its use is therefore discouraged in medical settings."

​
Other sources are even more explicit.

"From a pharmacological standpoint it is not a useful term."

​
So it seems that when discussing legal applications it is perfectly appropriate even when applied to marijuana, and when discussing medical applications it is no longer clinically appropriate for anything at all.

Thank you for the clarification.
Click to expand...

Quadraginta,

I wasn't the person who started using the word "narcotic," and I think it is a poor choice medically or legally. Italy has changed its laws with respect to marijuana more than once in the last few years, but if my citation is up to date, then marijuana falls into a class of its own. Why should be impose American legal definitions on an Italian case? Why should we use the word narcotic to mean illicit drug, when we already have the phrase illicit drug and narcotic can also mean opiod? Why should we not be more specific, and just say that Amanda (like Laura, Filomena, and Meredith) used marijuana?
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Apparently not, since they [ETA: Amanda and Raffaele, that is...] had to wipe off the knife and put it back in the kitchen drawer...
Click to expand...

For lack of a dumpster?
No, the real reason was more likely that if it had gone missing, his landlord would have noted it.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think there was a water pipe "burst". I think there was a leaky drain trap. (Allegedly, that is.) Maybe I'm mistaken.

There are some fundamental differences between the two, not least being an absence of any water pressure in the latter case. The leak, at its largest, cannot be any larger than the amount of water intentionally run into the sink. Normally it would be much less, unless the drain trap fell off altogether. This is an unlikely occurrence due to the fitting configuration of most sink traps. In general, leaky traps are often unnoticed entirely when in an enclosure such as a kitchen counter until someone opens the cabinet below and sees that it is wet. Worst case would be pulling the plug on a full sink of water after the trap had been removed altogether. This is an old fraternity prank, but is exceedingly rare in day-to-day usage.

It isn't very often that a mop would be required for clean up. Most of the time that would be a much bigger PITA than a sponge and a handful of paper towels.

I'm a bit puzzled by the entire mop element of this saga myself. It doesn't seem to be particularly useful to either party, yet it looms so large in the early parts of the story. It seems like Knox is more fixated on it than any of the other players, but maybe that is just the way the data has been presented.

I've filed it away in the 'not enough information' bin until something more comes along.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I know little about the subject, but after Rose's post I had wondered if emptying a bowl of washing up water down the sink could have triggered the leak. I guess it's difficult to say without knowing exactly how the pipes were broken (as Katody says, I think the police dismantled the pipes, so it may be that the picture Rose posted isn't necessarily an indication of that).

One additional point is that (IIRC) there was a bucket of dirty water and rags in Sollecito's kitchen that had apparently been used to mop up water from the floor, presumably pre-mopping (or as and when it leaked, I guess). The main problem I have in seeing the treacherous mop as evidence of guilt is that, as you say, it serves no particular purpose. It would obviously have been suspicious if, for example, it turned out the pipe wasn't leaking at all, but as it is, the facts we do know seem generally to support what Knox and Sollecito said (leaking pipe, water on floor, etc). And after all, the only reason the police even knew about the mop is that they mentioned it to them.

Interesting that Massei doesn't really mention the mop either, so far as I can recall anyway. I guess he didn't know what to do with it either...
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, equivocal on the crux of the issue: did you smoke drugs at that party with Rudy.

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.
Click to expand...

It seems that the pro Knox supporters and Knox herself share the same propensity for twisting, evading and obfuscating the truth.
 
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, equivocal on the crux of the issue: did you smoke drugs at that party with Rudy.

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. She answers precisely and straight. It's Pacelli that deliberately expresses himself in a deceptive manner. If he asked straight she could simply deny. He asks in a way to create an illusion that she confirmed.
That tactic worked on you :)
 
katy_did said:
Thanks for the info. I know little about the subject, but after Rose's post I had wondered if emptying a bowl of washing up water down the sink could have triggered the leak. I guess it's difficult to say without knowing exactly how the pipes were broken (as Katody says, I think the police dismantled the pipes, so it may be that the picture Rose posted isn't necessarily an indication of that).

One additional point is that (IIRC) there was a bucket of dirty water and rags in Sollecito's kitchen that had apparently been used to mop up water from the floor, presumably pre-mopping (or as and when it leaked, I guess). The main problem I have in seeing the treacherous mop as evidence of guilt is that, as you say, it serves no particular purpose. It would obviously have been suspicious if, for example, it turned out the pipe wasn't leaking at all, but as it is, the facts we do know seem generally to support what Knox and Sollecito said (leaking pipe, water on floor, etc). And after all, the only reason the police even knew about the mop is that they mentioned it to them.

Interesting that Massei doesn't really mention the mop either, so far as I can recall anyway. I guess he didn't know what to do with it either...
Click to expand...

The burst pipe/water spilled at dinner was just a smokesdcreen for amanda to have been transporting a mop through Perugia to her cottage.
Read her own words on the subject and you will se that it apparently was an important part in the next day's clean up.
 
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did you smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.
Click to expand...

Treehorn, is this your way of saying:

'I just re-read it, it doesn't say what I thought it said, but I'm going blame Amanda anyway!'

:p
 
Katody Matrass said:
Nonsense. She answers precisely and straight. It's Pacelli that deliberately expresses himself in a deceptive manner. If he asked straight she could simply deny. He asks in a way to create an illusion that she confirmed.
That tactic worked on you :)
Click to expand...

"At that time was hashish smoked" deserves a one wordanswer. It's either yes or no.
amanda instead chooses to say |once in a while with friends".
That is not answering straight.

Not to mention all the myriad questions besides this which she answered evasively and deceptively.

Apparently this was her style in life unto that point. She was obviously used to lying her way out of situations.
 
Justinian2 said:
Raffaele sneezes twice. Ah choo a a Ah choo! Covers mouth as he sneezes to be polite. Rubs nose. Passes by Meredith at a Halloween party. Places hand on her back and says excuse me in Italian.

As I have said, find one plausible theory and the prosecution crashes and burns. There are many possible scenarios. Not all of them are probable, but all I have submitted are possibe. Possible. Possible.

Just one exception, and our psychic-wanna-be prosecutor is again proven wrong.

Raffaele's LCN DNA on the bra clasp is NOT as incriminating as Guede's bloody palm print on the wall. Guess why?
Click to expand...

Do you ever listen?
It would have had to be raf's hand on her BRA not on her back for the DNA to possilby appear. As far as we know it doesn't travel through her clohtes by his touch.

As for Rudy's print being a far more sure thing than raf's DNA, pray tell us why that is.
 
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, equivocal on the crux of the issue: did you smoke drugs at that party with Rudy.

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

In your excerpt, Knox answered the questions she was asked perfectly directly and properly. She answered the questions posed to her by Carlo Pacelli.

She was asked: "Was hashish smoked at a certain party". She replied: "Yes".

She was then asked "Did you yourself use drugs during this period (October 2007)?" She replied: "Occasionally I did, yes".

If you're seeking to "blame" anyone for the lack of precision in this exchange, then it's abundantly clear that you need to blame Carlo Pacelli. Had he posed a question such as.....oooh....let's think: "Were you one of the people who were smoking hashish at this party?", then Knox would have had to answer yes or no to this specific question - if she'd given a nebulous and imprecise answer to THIS question, then you might have a point. As the questions stand, you have no point whatsoever.

Oh and if you are seeking out inequities in the Italian criminal trial procedure, how about the one where the court allows the lead prosecutor to shift the time of death by around an hour in his closing argument? And also allows him, in the same argument, to "imagine" the words in the mouth of Knox (whom he described as a "luciferina" - a little she-devil) as she geared up to attack Meredith (in his fantasy scenario): "You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex."?
 
Katody Matrass said:
Are you accusing anyone here of racism? I suggest you support your words or retract them immediately and apologise.

What problem do you have with the term "drifter"?
Click to expand...

It has negative connotations, especially when paired with issues of race.
If one means by that term that the person is unemployed, well then I believe Curt Knox and Chris Mellas would then also be drifters.
 
Kaosium said:
Preventing creepage.

It's been established that Amanda was once introduced to Rudy at a party where at sometime a spinello was smoked, and thinks she might have seen him once at Le Chic. Perhaps Rudy was on the basketball court sometimes when she went by.
Click to expand...

And your point is--?
 
RoseMontague said:
Oh, yes. Loverofzion is quite rather correct on that detail of Amanda's story and her emphasis on that pesky mop which gets top billing in her email to everyone. It was the first thing to make me suspicious and had me leaning towards guilt.

Amanda has a habit of trying to explain herself, endlessly and with embellishments and unnecessary explanations. I have come to believe the police had questioned her a lot about the mop story and she was eager to put it to rest. As in the case when she tries to do this with other things, she sometimes makes things worse.
Click to expand...

Eager to put things to rest?
Actually , the only times she got into trouble was when she LIED.
 
loverofzion said:
The burst pipe/water spilled at dinner was just a smokesdcreen for amanda to have been transporting a mop through Perugia to her cottage.
Read her own words on the subject and you will se that it apparently was an important part in the next day's clean up.
Click to expand...

Why did she need "to have been transporting a mop through Perugia to her cottage"? The mop was already at her cottage. There was no mop at Sollecito's house. There was therefore no need to transport a mop anywhere, if Knox and Sollecito had wanted to conduct this (non-existent) clean-up using a mop.

Are you still under the impression that there was a mop at Sollecito's apartment, and that it was about this mop that Knox and Sollecito needed to create a cover story (in order for its transportation between Sollecito's apartment and the cottage not to seem suspicious)? Because if that's what you still think, then you're still wrong.

No mop at Sollecito's apartment.

Mop at Knox's cottage.
 
RoseMontague said:
The thing about the broken pipe that bothers me is the fact that it is the drain pipe, not the water intake pipe.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/383964d2394a7d43c1.jpg[/qimg]

I am assuming that the removed piece of the drain pipe is the broken piece? This means that the leak would only occur when the water is running so to stop the spill you simply turn the water off. Now I could possibly see if they were really stoned on pot how they could like stare at that water coming out from under the sink and over their shoes for a few minutes before it occurred to them to turn a knob, but really, how likely is that?
Click to expand...

The pipe wasn't missing completely as it is in the picture above. It came loose at the joint. What happened is that they plugged the sink drain and filled the sink with water to wash dishes. When they finished washing dishes, they drained the sink, and that is when the pipe came loose so water poured out on the kitchen floor. Various people, including the landlady's plumber, testified about this at the trial, and they all concurred with this explanation of what happened.

If the mop played a role in this saga, one must ask what was that role? There is no evidence that any floor in the cottage was mopped between the time of the murder and the time the body was discovered, and the trail of faint but undisturbed bloody shoe prints leading down the corridor is a clear indication that the corridor wasn't mopped. Plus, they tested the mop for blood and the result was negative.

The reasoning here seems to be that it is too far-fetched to believe Amanda would take a mop from the cottage to Raffaele's and back again to mop up a floor, so it must be a cover story for some cleaning activity related to the murder. But without a coherent explanation of what that activity involved, or evidence pointing to such activity, this is mere speculation.
 
RoseMontague said:
Oh, yes. Loverofzion is quite rather correct on that detail of Amanda's story and her emphasis on that pesky mop which gets top billing in her email to everyone. It was the first thing to make me suspicious and had me leaning towards guilt.

Amanda has a habit of trying to explain herself, endlessly and with embellishments and unnecessary explanations. I have come to believe the police had questioned her a lot about the mop story and she was eager to put it to rest. As in the case when she tries to do this with other things, she sometimes makes things worse.
Click to expand...

P.S.-How did you "come to believe" that the police had questioned her lots about this "mop story"?
She seems to spill things out, ;embellishments and all without any prodding at all.
 
LondonJohn said:
Is it?

("Darkness Descending", p164)

Given that there are some directly quoted text messages (or portions of messages) quoted in that passage, I'd suggest that Meredith did indeed reply to both of Knox's texts that evening, and in civil (and certainly not unfriendly) tones. What's your source for your assertion that Meredith "chose not to respond"?

* Interesting description by the authors of their supposition of Knox's state of mind. Others might suppose that the second text sent by Knox was a fairly natural follow-up from the first text, to which Meredith had replied giving only her plans for the early evening (dinner with a friend), and that it in no way exhibits any signs of "desperation" on Knox's part.
Click to expand...

Well by Merdith's reply and the fact that she did not invite amanda nor respond in the affirmative to her invitation, it would appear Merdith preferred spending her time with her other friends.
Who all agreed with this assessment of the relations between the two girls.
 
loverofzion said:
It has negative connotations, especially when paired with issues of race.
If one means by that term that the person is unemployed, well then I believe Curt Knox and Chris Mellas would then also be drifters.
Click to expand...

I don't think drifter means the same as unemployed, native speakers please correct me if I'm wrong :)

Do you mean it's unjust, inappropriate or racist to call Rudy Guede a drifter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom