Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Machiavelli » Sat May 04, 2013 7:19 pm

Bill Williams wrote:Machiavelli - you are amazing. What was the "clear, compelling, emergency reason"? Twenty-twenty hindsight makes all the difference in this case.

How the heck is the difference between what Knox said and Filomena said, "contradictory" in the measuring of an emergency situation? Is it true that Meredith "never" locked her door? Have you read Knox's own words on this subject? The postal police did not quote a law, the postal police thought Filomena was overreacting. Sheesh. No one saw this as an emergency situation but Filomena, and she had to fight everyone - Knox and the postal police - to get the door open.
....


I underlined the statement, because that statement says exactly what Massei said, it makes the same argument: Amanda basically said it was not an emergency situation.
When you say "no one saw" you need to consider that the number of "ones" is just two people, Amanda and Filomena.
Filomena did see an emergency situation; Amanda did not. This is exactly equivalent to saying Amanda trivialized, downplayed the worries of Filomena (or the situation that would cause the worries of Filomena, given that probably she was not there yet).

The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".
The Postal Police already had got contradicting information, they don't know whom they should believe, therefore they are reluctant (and they did quote a law, they said they needed a mandate). But Luca Altieri knows who is the one to believe, therefore he breaks down the door.
User avatar
Machiavelli
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:27 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Machiavelli » Sat May 04, 2013 7:21 pm

acbytesla wrote:
That's only because your judicial system is capricious in it's approach. NEVER MIND the lies that Machiavelli told. NEVER MIND the lies your police spread to journalists smearing her. Of course not, they are not prosecuted....they are protected. It was your system that lied to a young woman in prison telling her she was HIV POSITIVE just to get her to name her sexual partners...and VOILA!!! all that became public. It is in the Italian prison where they stole her diary and then had it published.



P.r.o.v.e.
I.t.

YOU have the burden to prove these delusional xenophobic allegations. Or you are a liar.
User avatar
Machiavelli
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:27 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Bill Williams » Sat May 04, 2013 7:27 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Machiavelli - you are amazing. What was the "clear, compelling, emergency reason"? Twenty-twenty hindsight makes all the difference in this case.

How the heck is the difference between what Knox said and Filomena said, "contradictory" in the measuring of an emergency situation? Is it true that Meredith "never" locked her door? Have you read Knox's own words on this subject? The postal police did not quote a law, the postal police thought Filomena was overreacting. Sheesh. No one saw this as an emergency situation but Filomena, and she had to fight everyone - Knox and the postal police - to get the door open.
....


I underlined the statement, because that statement says exactly what Massei said, it makes the same argument: Amanda basically said it was not an emergency situation.
When you say "no one saw" you need to consider that the number of "ones" is just two people, Amanda and Filomena.
Filomena did see an emergency situation; Amanda did not. This is exactly equivalent to saying Amanda trivialized, downplayed the worries of Filomena (or the situation that would cause the worries of Filomena, given that probably she was not there yet).

The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".
The Postal Police already had got contradicting information, they don't know whom they should believe, therefore they are reluctant (and they did quote a law, they said they needed a mandate). But Luca Altieri knows who is the one to believe, therefore he breaks down the door.

You are amazing.

The postal police - if the cottage had resembled the leaked photo of all the red stuff plastering the walls and sink - would have been facing an emergency situation. Everyone, including Filomena before putting 2 + 2 together about the phones, did not think this was an emergency. This included any dispute (if there even was one) about door locking habits. The compelling issue was the phones, not the locked door.

You can say what you want - but you just admitted that the cops did not think it was an emergency situation. You've just admitted, amongst other things, that Amanda herself should not have worried, really, when she took her shower at 10:30 am that morning, and went back to Raffaele's.... telling everyone that she'd been creeped out by the condition of the cottage.

Amanda was the one who brought Filomena back to the cottage to begin with. Are you now trying to say that Amanda after telling the whole world (ncl. people in Seattle) that there was something wrong at the cottage - when Amanda invivted the postal police inside (rather than just take Meredith's phones and send the postal police on their way...)

.... that Amanda was not raising an alarm? Amanda was not raising an alarm about a murder - the ONLY person who suspected something along that lines was Filomena - but who brought Filomena there?

You see, I am beginning to see why you strenuously resist putting together a comprehensive narrative & timeline of this case. You are content to sit back and take potshots at isolated things....

No wonder you do not think a comprehensive theory of this crime is needed. If you tried one you'd fail. I still, though, wish a meeting face to face. Outside of Italy. Your call.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 7:29 pm

There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 7:36 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Machiavelli - you are amazing. What was the "clear, compelling, emergency reason"? Twenty-twenty hindsight makes all the difference in this case.

How the heck is the difference between what Knox said and Filomena said, "contradictory" in the measuring of an emergency situation? Is it true that Meredith "never" locked her door? Have you read Knox's own words on this subject? The postal police did not quote a law, the postal police thought Filomena was overreacting. Sheesh. No one saw this as an emergency situation but Filomena, and she had to fight everyone - Knox and the postal police - to get the door open.
....


I underlined the statement, because that statement says exactly what Massei said, it makes the same argument: Amanda basically said it was not an emergency situation.
When you say "no one saw" you need to consider that the number of "ones" is just two people, Amanda and Filomena.
Filomena did see an emergency situation; Amanda did not. This is exactly equivalent to saying Amanda trivialized, downplayed the worries of Filomena (or the situation that would cause the worries of Filomena, given that probably she was not there yet).

The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".
The Postal Police already had got contradicting information, they don't know whom they should believe, therefore they are reluctant (and they did quote a law, they said they needed a mandate). But Luca Altieri knows who is the one to believe, therefore he breaks down the door.


Blah...Blah...Blah... This all means NOTHING...it is proof of NOTHING. it is evidence of NOTHING. It is boring bullshit that you pile on innuendo and conjecture.

What have you got Machiavelli?

A statement made under duress which your police failed to record.
You have NO DNA left on the knife and records and methodology that is suspect.
You have no DNA left on the bra...because your scientific police screwed that up.
You have a knife that doesn't match the stain on the sheet.
You have a knife with rye bread stuck to the blade.
You have no electronic footprint at all
You have no fingerprints of Raffaele in the murder room.
You have no fingerprints of Amanda in the murder room. (not that this would matter, since she lived there)
You have no witnesses that saw Rudy with either Amanda or Raffaele except on one occasion with the boys downstairs.
You have no records of any texts to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of e-mails to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of phone calls to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of any texts to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any emails to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any phone calls to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You don't even have the homeless heroin addict who is now dead.
The shoe prints match Rudy...not Raffaele.
The bloody footprint cannot be positively linked to any suspect.
You have bare footprints that reacted to Luminol but tested negative to another presumptive test and no confirmatory test was ever performed.
There is no proof of a staged break in. In fact ballistic evidence suggests otherwise.
You have no motive for Amanda and Raffaele.
You have no history of violence with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have no history of psychological problems with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have an incredibly tight timeline.

All you have left is absurd conjecture and innuendo. Desperate and absurd.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 7:44 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
acbytesla wrote:
That's only because your judicial system is capricious in it's approach. NEVER MIND the lies that Machiavelli told. NEVER MIND the lies your police spread to journalists smearing her. Of course not, they are not prosecuted....they are protected. It was your system that lied to a young woman in prison telling her she was HIV POSITIVE just to get her to name her sexual partners...and VOILA!!! all that became public. It is in the Italian prison where they stole her diary and then had it published.



P.r.o.v.e.
I.t.

YOU have the burden to prove these delusional xenophobic allegations. Or you are a liar.


I am not Xenophobic in the least bit. But you amuse me. So you're arguing that Prison officials DID NOT tell Amanda that she was HIV positive? That her diary was not stolen while she was in prison? That all this information didn't make it's way into the tabloids? That your police didn't release that picture of the bathroom all pinked out to make it look like the room was a bloody mess?

That Mignini didn't wage a a war in the press slurring Amanda through his favorite journalists.

It is the results that speaks volumes Machiavelli. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Dedj » Sat May 04, 2013 7:50 pm

Machiavelli wrote:The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".


I don't believe Knox said anything remotely close to "don't worry". This would be in direct contradiction to her earlier actions where she elicited worry in other people who would otherwise have been oblivious - as the other people wouldn't have been on scene at all.

Knox's statement on "Meredith is always locking her door" has multiple explanations:

Frequency: as an answer to whether it was normal or not (perfectly rational as there was still a chance Meredith could be in bed hungover or sick)
Congruency: as an answer to why she wasn't originally worried that it appeared locked (perfectly rational as Meredith could have wanted to not be disturbed)
Repetition: as an answer to whether Meredith locked her door for any reason before

on the face of it Knox is significantly more likely than Filomena to know what Merediths habits were. As Filomena put two and two together about the phones, she could have been lying about Merediths habits in order to accelerate the knocking down of the door.

At this point, it is Filomena who is acting consistent with someone trying to control the discovery. Knox , on the other hand has only acted consistent with a guilt scenario up to this point, get people alarmed, get them to the house, get them alarmed about the door, knock down door, discover body. The discovery hypothesis falls down on the main point - the actual discovery. It is Filomena who - at this point - is acting to control discovery.
Dedj
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Bill Williams » Sat May 04, 2013 7:56 pm

Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we know she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we know she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.

Polysemic!!!! That's a word befitting Machiavelli!

Except, unlike Machiavelli, its use actually explains something.

You see if Amanda had, conversely, told the police to break down the door (as Filomena did with her friend later), then Machiavelli could have used THAT to accuse Knox of knowing what was behind the door.

Gee.... this is the same reasoning Monica Napoleoni used with the pooh in the toilet. Both Raffaele and Amanda were TOO insistent on Napoleoni seeing the pooh in the toilet - Amanda herself was freaked out that upon her own return she couldn't see it. She'd assumed some unsub had flushed the toilet! (Was he still in the house? Had he been in the house when Amanda had been showering?) Knox can't win. Point something out - she's guilty. Fudge on pointing something out - she's guilty. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

You see, on the list of what was strange about the house - broken window, no burglary (nothing obviously taken), pooh in the toilet, locked door, trace droplets of blood on the faucet.... sheesh. Machiavelli wants it both ways.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 8:06 pm

I agree... POLYSEMIC.. I love it.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 04, 2013 8:25 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:If Mach was not such a fricking coward and would be willing to go before the public along with Amanda and Raffaele, we could ask the public which one is the psychpath and social deviant after a long interview of the three. (...)


Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.


To Machiavelli

When will you learn Machiavelli, she an innocent person of wrong convicted and your jeasouly because you can't handle the heat of shame, shame, shame and you need to grow up once again your going to learn the respect. Beside let face it, your afraid of me one more time. Oh wait a min it. When will Machiavelli reply to TMJ???

It will be never because he afraid and I know and everyone else knows it too!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 04, 2013 8:29 pm

acbytesla wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Machiavelli - you are amazing. What was the "clear, compelling, emergency reason"? Twenty-twenty hindsight makes all the difference in this case.

How the heck is the difference between what Knox said and Filomena said, "contradictory" in the measuring of an emergency situation? Is it true that Meredith "never" locked her door? Have you read Knox's own words on this subject? The postal police did not quote a law, the postal police thought Filomena was overreacting. Sheesh. No one saw this as an emergency situation but Filomena, and she had to fight everyone - Knox and the postal police - to get the door open.
....


I underlined the statement, because that statement says exactly what Massei said, it makes the same argument: Amanda basically said it was not an emergency situation.
When you say "no one saw" you need to consider that the number of "ones" is just two people, Amanda and Filomena.
Filomena did see an emergency situation; Amanda did not. This is exactly equivalent to saying Amanda trivialized, downplayed the worries of Filomena (or the situation that would cause the worries of Filomena, given that probably she was not there yet).

The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".
The Postal Police already had got contradicting information, they don't know whom they should believe, therefore they are reluctant (and they did quote a law, they said they needed a mandate). But Luca Altieri knows who is the one to believe, therefore he breaks down the door.


Blah...Blah...Blah... This all means NOTHING...it is proof of NOTHING. it is evidence of NOTHING. It is boring bullshit that you pile on innuendo and conjecture.

What have you got Machiavelli?

A statement made under duress which your police failed to record.
You have NO DNA left on the knife and records and methodology that is suspect.
You have no DNA left on the bra...because your scientific police screwed that up.
You have a knife that doesn't match the stain on the sheet.
You have a knife with rye bread stuck to the blade.
You have no electronic footprint at all
You have no fingerprints of Raffaele in the murder room.
You have no fingerprints of Amanda in the murder room. (not that this would matter, since she lived there)
You have no witnesses that saw Rudy with either Amanda or Raffaele except on one occasion with the boys downstairs.
You have no records of any texts to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of e-mails to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of phone calls to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of any texts to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any emails to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any phone calls to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You don't even have the homeless heroin addict who is now dead.
The shoe prints match Rudy...not Raffaele.
The bloody footprint cannot be positively linked to any suspect.
You have bare footprints that reacted to Luminol but tested negative to another presumptive test and no confirmatory test was ever performed.
There is no proof of a staged break in. In fact ballistic evidence suggests otherwise.
You have no motive for Amanda and Raffaele.
You have no history of violence with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have no history of psychological problems with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have an incredibly tight timeline.

All you have left is absurd conjecture and innuendo. Desperate and absurd.


To Acby

:clap: :clap: :clap: Lol Acby, you had just ace it!!! :worthy: :worthy: :worthy: Well done Acby!!! And Machiavelli you just have to say I am sorry Acby and you were right and I fail my job. Then we know all the evidence was made of rye bread of sloppy joe style!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Machiavelli » Sat May 04, 2013 8:29 pm

Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.
The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.
User avatar
Machiavelli
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:27 am

Machaveilli is afraid of TMJ

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 04, 2013 8:36 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.
The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.


To Mach

No it does not point to Knox or Sollecito. It all point to Rudy Guede, even his finger prints, is a crystal clear match and yes Mach. I am waiting and are you chicken out!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby bmf1950 » Sat May 04, 2013 8:37 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.
The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.

Over 40 years since I started law school and I am always learning -- "polysemy." Interesting. The principle you state happens to be correct. As one who has actually tried cases in court, I will respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 04, 2013 8:45 pm

To everyone

Ok everyone I am still reading the book, even no I am not done yet. But I will be done soon enough. I am enjoying this book because Amanda book does tell the truth and it prove her innocent even the whole case was made by sloppy joe style. So now please excuse me right now. I got to read another chapter of another great mystery and I am off to bed and goodnight everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Machiavelli » Sat May 04, 2013 8:46 pm

acbytesla wrote:I am not Xenophobic in the least bit. But you amuse me. So you're arguing that Prison officials DID NOT tell Amanda that she was HIV positive?


Prison officials?
A DOCTOR - an employee of the ASL Umbria, the Health Care Agency - 'told' her; but actually he did not tell her, he gave her the piece of paper with written, confidential outprint of the test. And he told her not to worry, because it could have been probably a false positive. (In fact, some viral infections like herpex simplex can interfer with the test).

That her diary was not stolen while she was in prison?


Stolen? STOLEN? You do not steal documents from someone who is under custody in isolation regime. You steal things when you unlawfully take things belong to someone else. A person sitting in isolation custody does not own any private document/communication, not even correspondance. You don't steal when you lawfully seize things to people who don't have any right to secrecy or privacy.

That all this information didn't make it's way into the tabloids?


But everything is leaked in Italy, always, on all cases, unless there is a secrecy order. The system does not grant privacy. Too many people can access documents and too many copies are made (for lawyers secretaires etc.).

That your police didn't release that picture of the bathroom all pinked out to make it look like the room was a bloody mess?


But obviously not! That picture was not published in Italy. Some lawyers sold an entire photo set to a British press agency, and a tabloid picked up that one to make their page. Police has nothing to do with it.

That Mignini didn't wage a a war in the press slurring Amanda through his favorite journalists.


Delusion. It's your friends who waged a war on Mignini.
Bring up the Italian newspapers who "waged a war" against Knox, their article. But please. Try to check a speck of what you are talking about.
User avatar
Machiavelli
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:27 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Bill Williams » Sat May 04, 2013 8:49 pm

Machiavelli wrote:You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.
The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.

No reasonable doubt? How do you explain no presence of Knox in the murder room? How do you explain a clean up to remove two DNA profiles and not another? What exactly IS this evidence of a staged break-in? Two fact finding trials failed to receive ANY evidence at all of a staged-break-in. I mean, please point to the forensics if that is true.

Multiple assailants is obvious? Why did Massei receive evidence as credible (even as he disagreed with it at the end) that a single assailant was a viable alternative?

And as Judge Massei said - you know, the judge unlike Hellmann was NOT part of the Masonic conspiracy - there was NO relationship between Raffaele and Guede, and only one or two chance meetings between Amanda and Rudy.

No reasonable doubt... to cut and paste...

A statement made under duress which your police failed to record.
You have NO DNA left on the knife and records and methodology that is suspect.
You have no DNA left on the bra...because your scientific police screwed that up.
You have a knife that doesn't match the stain on the sheet.
You have a knife with rye bread stuck to the blade.
You have no electronic footprint at all
You have no fingerprints of Raffaele in the murder room.
You have no fingerprints of Amanda in the murder room. (not that this would matter, since she lived there)
You have no witnesses that saw Rudy with either Amanda or Raffaele except on one occasion with the boys downstairs.
You have no records of any texts to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of e-mails to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of phone calls to or from Amanda to Rudy.
You have no records of any texts to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any emails to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You have no records of any phone calls to or from Raffaele to Rudy.
You don't even have the homeless heroin addict who is now dead.
The shoe prints match Rudy...not Raffaele.
The bloody footprint cannot be positively linked to any suspect.
You have bare footprints that reacted to Luminol but tested negative to another presumptive test and no confirmatory test was ever performed.
There is no proof of a staged break in. In fact ballistic evidence suggests otherwise.
You have no motive for Amanda and Raffaele.
You have no history of violence with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have no history of psychological problems with Amanda or Raffaele.
You have an incredibly tight timeline.

As acbytesla wrote in conclusion: "All you have left is absurd conjecture and innuendo. Desperate and absurd." And you talk about beyond reasonable doubt?

What you have on your side, Machiavelli, is assertion, not proof, that you are correct. Are we going to meet or are we not? Mach 2.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Delusion. It's your friends who waged a war on Mignini.
Bring up the Italian newspapers who "waged a war" against Knox, their article. But please. Try to check a speck of what you are talking about.


To Mach

No Mach, it not a war on Mignini, it a case of sloppy joe of dna mix tangle into dirt of what the police did was dirt of rye bread and you keep think this is war. Well let me tell you something pal. It might be war even sure is war a game for you to play battle ship, because that is what you want even you reply to: Bill, Acby. Canto, BMF & everyone expect me??? It like you're a coward, even RandyN is not here and you won't do it, because you think I am going to contact my friend RandyN. No I am not going to contact and beside I can take care of myself even someone think he like to check the newspaper. Well let me tell you something when a piece of news or paper is written it not always true of newspaper. Sure we see them out of adversited through the media even it not real. They publish them and people read them, even put in there own words, of works even we can't tell who, what, were and why? Because it different in each catorgey and we can't just say oh she guilty because you got to show proof of dna and they didn't show proof. The only proof they did show was Rudy Guede dna and he it prove he was capaititle of murder and AK & RS were not capititle of this crime!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 9:22 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
acbytesla wrote:I am not Xenophobic in the least bit. But you amuse me. So you're arguing that Prison officials DID NOT tell Amanda that she was HIV positive?


Prison officials?
A DOCTOR - an employee of the ASL Umbria, the Health Care Agency - 'told' her; but actually he did not tell her, he gave her the piece of paper with written, confidential outprint of the test. And he told her not to worry, because it could have been probably a false positive. (In fact, some viral infections like herpex simplex can interfer with the test).

That her diary was not stolen while she was in prison?


Stolen? STOLEN? You do not steal documents from someone who is under custody in isolation regime. You steal things when you unlawfully take things belong to someone else. A person sitting in isolation custody does not own any private document/communication, not even correspondance. You don't steal when you lawfully seize things to people who don't have any right to secrecy or privacy.

That all this information didn't make it's way into the tabloids?


But everything is leaked in Italy, always, on all cases, unless there is a secrecy order. The system does not grant privacy. Too many people can access documents and too many copies are made (for lawyers secretaires etc.).

That your police didn't release that picture of the bathroom all pinked out to make it look like the room was a bloody mess?


But obviously not! That picture was not published in Italy. Some lawyers sold an entire photo set to a British press agency, and a tabloid picked up that one to make their page. Police has nothing to do with it.



You're so full of shit Machiavelli. Yes, a prisoner has no expectation of privacy FROM PRISON OFFICIALS. But prison officials or their employees have no right to publish or sell that information the press. Doctors and lawyers in the US can be kept from ever practicing their professions again for violating attorney client or doctor patient privilege. Prison officials and guards would be fired and could face jail time themselves.

Your argument that everything gets leaked in Italy is exactly the reason your system needs reform. Haven't you ever heard the expression "poisoning the well". By releasing all of this subjective information to the press you have effectively "poisoned the well". You argued your case in the press for a year before Amanda and Raffaele ever went to trial. How do you expect your defendants to get a fair trial when your system is always "poisoning the well"?

It is one thing to release evidence to the public BEFORE the trial and another releasing it during the trial. One is proper, the other sleazy and morally corrupt.

Over and over again you have argued about the need for privacy...you even used that as an explanation why court records and transcripts haven't been published. Which is it? Everything gets leaked or privacy rules?
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 9:38 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.
The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.



Here's a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements. According to you they should lead to only one meaning.

I climbed into my car today, drove to my bank, walked up to the teller and asked the teller to give me $2000.00.

My bank was robbed today by a man, who got into his car, drove to his bank, and asked the teller to give him $2000.00.

Did I rob my bank today?
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 9:40 pm

Canto wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.

The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.



Here's a chain of polysemic / ambiguous events all leading logically to a conclusion. According to you they allow for only one interpretation.

I climbed into my car today, drove to my bank, dithered for a minute in front of the entrance, walked up to the teller and asked him to give me $2000.00.

My bank was robbed today by a man, who got into his car, drove to his bank, dithered for a minute in front of the entrance, walked up to the teller and asked the teller to give him $2000.00. He was arrested later today based on a photograph taken of him while he was robbing the bank.

My behavior, as the robber's, represent a chain of events leading logically to the withdrawal of $2000. Did I rob my bank today? What difference does it make to our interpretation of the chain of events that no photograph was taken of me today while robbing a bank?

According to your frankly idiotic logic, it makes no difference. Based on the chain of actions I took, I robbed the bank and that conclusion is beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA: Rest assured, this is only thought experiment ;-)
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 9:40 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Canto wrote:There is no evidence that Amanda was in the murder room. This is a real problem for Machiavelli and the prosecution. I'm guessing this why he's struggling so desperately to argue that her behavior in front of the locked door indicates that she knew what would be found on the other side. That "knowledge", supposedly indicated by her actions, places her in the room at the time of the murder.

Unfortunately for him, there is nothing in her behavior that isn't open to multiple interpretations. Her behavior is, in the linguistic sense, polysemic. If we were certain for some other reasons that she is guilty of murder, we'd be justified in judging her actions as indicative of guilt, but if we suspect she is innocent of murder, her actions could just as easily be interpreted as indicative of innocence and ignorance of what lay behind the door; not knowing whether she is guilty or innocent, we can't conclusively say one way or the other what knowledge her behavior indicates. In any event, that behavior is congruent with innocence.

This irreducible polysemy is different from the singular meaning attached to the bloody DNA evidence we find on the other side of that door. That evidence points to only one person, Rudy Guede. That evidence allows for only one interpretation: that he, alone, murdered Meredith Kercher.


You can't have polisemy on a chain of independent elements. One polysemic / ambiguous element has more than one meaning. But a chain of polysemic / ambiguous elements has only one meaning. It allows for only one interpretation.

The pieces of circumstatioan eveidence point all in the direction of a multiple murderers scenario, and a staged break in. And they point to the guilt of Sollecito, Knox and Guede. The multiple assailats scenario is actually something that stands out as very obvious even from a first rough look at the crime scene. The evidence set leaves no reasonable alternative, no reasonable doubt.


WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
No they do not. COUNTLESS EXPERTS have looked at the crime scene photos and almost to a man they have said that it is consistent with a single attacker or multiple attackers. Essentially none of them knows. There is not one piece of forensic evidence presented that points to a staged break in. This is all fanciful nonsense.

POLISEMY means open to multiple interpretations. Just because someone with a guilty mind can think of a guilty interpretation for every event does not allow any just observer to come to a guilty conclusion. The simple fact that all of these events are polysemic means there is no conclusive interpretation to any of them. And considering the multiple pieces of evidence that point away from Amanda and Raffaele...means that you are selective in your choice of events.

For example, what does it mean that there is no fingerprints of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room?
What does it mean that your police were able to find Rudy's prints...in the murder room..but not Amanda and Raffaele?
What does it mean that you can find no connection of Raffaele or Amanda to Rudy ?
What does it mean that overwhelming amount of the scientific and circumstantial evidence points to a 9:00 TOD a time within minutes of Amanda and Raffaele being seen at his flat at 8:45?
What does it mean that neither Amanda or Raffaele had a motive?
What does it mean that there is not one piece of evidence pointing to any disagreement ever in the 5 weeks that they lived together?
What does it mean that you can find no one in Seattle who knows Amanda to say one negative thing about her?
What does it mean that you can find no one in Italy who knows Raffaele to say one negative thing about him?

If you use your chain of polysemic events argument about the using the most likely conclusions based on the most obvious interpretations, you don't arrive at anything but a NOT GUILTY verdict.

REALLY...This kind of analysis on your part is the ultimate in moronic sophistry.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby geebee2 » Sat May 04, 2013 9:50 pm

Does Mach still claim it's "too early" to come up with a prosecution narrative?
Until you have a clear idea of that, consistent with the evidence, I don't think you can even get started.
And then you have to consider if there is a defence narrative also consistent with the evidence.
And then finally you need to consider relative likelihood of these narratives, based on the evidence.
( I'm simplifying, because there can sometimes be alternative narratives, but the principle is the same )
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 9:52 pm

What kind of moronic police force records every word that they can of two suspects, but doesn't record the interrogations?
What kind of moronic police force doesn't poll the neighbors as to what they saw or heard?
What kind of moronic police force destroys 4 of the suspects computer hard drives.
What kind of moronic police force doesn't get the DNA or all of the people that live in the house?
What kind of moronic police force doesn't test a semen stain in a murder room where the female body is found stripped?
What kind of moronic police force holds a press conference declaring case closed before any of the physical evidence is analyzed?
What kind of moronic police force doesn't take the temperature of a body as soon as possible?
What kind of moronic police force doesn't keep records of how they perform laboratory tests
What kind of moronic police force refuses to turn over the electronic data files of their DNA testing?
What kind of moronic police force focuses all their attention on two kids with no history of violence or psychological problems?
What kind of moronic police force doesn't collect all the evidence in one continuous session but goes back after 46 days?

Can you say the Perugian Police Force?
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby bmf1950 » Sat May 04, 2013 10:04 pm

To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 10:12 pm

bmf1950 wrote:To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].


I would argue that the "polysemy" of the secondary, circumstantial evidence permits a conclusion of innocence. Absent compelling, unambiguous evidence (such as DNA, credible witnesses, a motive), this is sufficient for reasonable doubt.

As to Amanda being a convicted liar, she has addressed the circumstances in which she named Lumumba and confessed that--notwithstanding the circumstances--she is ashamed she did so.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 10:16 pm

bmf1950 wrote:To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].


It's fine to think like a lawyer bmf. But this idea of a chain of polysemic events must take into the account real probable causes. For example, how do you arrive at a probable cause of a broken window as "being staged" when there is no forensic evidence presented that points to that?

How do arrive at the idea of there being multiple attackers by looking at the crime scene and finding footprints of only one assailant? How do you arrive at the idea of multiple attackers when only fingerprint matches a single defendant?
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 10:31 pm

acbytesla wrote:
bmf1950 wrote:To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].


It's fine to think like a lawyer bmf. But this idea of a chain of polysemic events must take into the account real probable causes. For example, how do you arrive at a probable cause of a broken window as "being staged" when there is no forensic evidence presented that points to that?

How do arrive at the idea of there being multiple attackers by looking at the crime scene and finding footprints of only one assailant? How do you arrive at the idea of multiple attackers when only fingerprint matches a single defendant?


If there were forensic evidence pointing to the broken window being staged it would no longer be open to multiple interpretations. That there is not, makes this evidence debatable. The fact that the fingerprint evidence matches only a single defendant assailant is a fact that is NOT polysemic. That evidence points to only one attacker and weakens the case for multiple attackers.

The prosecution, and Machiavelli, who is arguing the prosecution case on this board, want to have it both ways.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sat May 04, 2013 10:46 pm

Canto wrote:
acbytesla wrote:
bmf1950 wrote:To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].


It's fine to think like a lawyer bmf. But this idea of a chain of polysemic events must take into the account real probable causes. For example, how do you arrive at a probable cause of a broken window as "being staged" when there is no forensic evidence presented that points to that?

How do arrive at the idea of there being multiple attackers by looking at the crime scene and finding footprints of only one assailant? How do you arrive at the idea of multiple attackers when only fingerprint matches a single defendant?


If there were forensic evidence pointing to the broken window being staged it would no longer be open to multiple interpretations. That there is not, makes this evidence debatable. The fact that the fingerprint evidence matches only a single defendant is a fact that is NOT polysemic. That evidence points to only one attacker and weakens the case for multiple attackers.

The prosecution, and Machiavelli, who is arguing the prosecution case on this board, want to have it both ways.


I bow to you..that of course is the real answer.... I'm not worthy... I'm not worthy!!! lol.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Canto » Sat May 04, 2013 11:25 pm

acbytesla wrote:
Canto wrote:
acbytesla wrote:
bmf1950 wrote:To be fair to Mach, "polysemy" is another word describing the normal circumstantial case which leads to a conviction. I don't think the polysemy here leads invariably to the conclusion that Amanda murdered Meredith Kercher.

Also, it should be remembered that no case is a neat story without holes. As our friend Bill Williams liked to say, "connect the dots."

I am of the opinion that "polysemy" leads to a conclusion of innocence in this case.

BTW, I am puzzled by the shouts of the PGP crowd that Amanda is a convicted "liar" -- after reading her book, I think she might very well agree with that in a sense, albeit with extreme circumstances of mitigation.

[Please forgive me, but after four decades, I see things like a lawyer].


It's fine to think like a lawyer bmf. But this idea of a chain of polysemic events must take into the account real probable causes. For example, how do you arrive at a probable cause of a broken window as "being staged" when there is no forensic evidence presented that points to that?

How do arrive at the idea of there being multiple attackers by looking at the crime scene and finding footprints of only one assailant? How do you arrive at the idea of multiple attackers when only fingerprint matches a single defendant?


If there were forensic evidence pointing to the broken window being staged it would no longer be open to multiple interpretations. That there is not, makes this evidence debatable. The fact that the fingerprint evidence matches only a single defendant is a fact that is NOT polysemic. That evidence points to only one attacker and weakens the case for multiple attackers.

The prosecution, and Machiavelli, who is arguing the prosecution case on this board, want to have it both ways.


I bow to you..that of course is the real answer.... I'm not worthy... I'm not worthy!!! lol.


I should have said, "the prosecution, and Machiavelli, who is arguing the prosecution case on this board, want the converse". :)
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Teddy » Sun May 05, 2013 12:47 am

Machiavelli wrote:Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.

You need to stop this bullcrap that "convicted" anything means anything in Italy, Machiavelli. I suppose Giuseppe Gulotta was a convicted terrorist too, seeing as he spent 22 years in prison for "La Strage di Alcamo Marina". Oh but no, he was released when it was found out that the Carabinieri tortured him and the other 3 suspects into confessing. Fortunately for him an honest Carabinieri came forward many years later - maybe somebody will come forward in 22 years for Amanda Knox too. It's a pity that one of Gulotta's co-accused hung himself in prison and didn't get a chance for vindication. I think the other two co-accused did the right thing, fleeing to Brazil. They knew what was going down. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_di_Alcamo_Marina

Yeah, convicted. Bullshit.

This thread is meant to be about Amanda's book. As usual it's another thread that has been contaminated by the Mignini/Maresca mouth-piece. Shouldn't this be in the main thread?
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Katody » Sun May 05, 2013 3:02 am

Machiavelli wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:If Mach was not such a fricking coward and would be willing to go before the public along with Amanda and Raffaele, we could ask the public which one is the psychpath and social deviant after a long interview of the three. (...)


Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.


I tend to disagree. Italian kangaroo court's decision is yet to be scrutinized by ECHR. We'll see if it will side with the superstitious psychopath Mignini and his thugs in uniforms.
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby B_Real » Sun May 05, 2013 3:07 am

Machiavelli wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:If Mach was not such a fricking coward and would be willing to go before the public along with Amanda and Raffaele, we could ask the public which one is the psychpath and social deviant after a long interview of the three. (...)


Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.


The ECHR obviously doesn't think Italian courts are legitimate a lot of the time.

Personally I consider the whole Italian system illegitimate because it fails to meet basic standards of justice, not least those in the treaties on human rights which Italy itself has signed.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby pmop57 » Sun May 05, 2013 3:21 am

The most difficult for me to understand is how it was possible that a judicial system was allowing a prosecutor under investigation to be the leading and responsable investigator in a high profile case and even any other case without being dismissed from ALL HIS FUNCTIONS until the end of the investigation or trials against him. I think this is in itself a clear sign of disfunction and failing of the system itself. I think such decisions (or non decisions) are dooropeners for miscarriage because they can do prevail personal interests over public interests.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Katody » Sun May 05, 2013 3:35 am

Machiavelli wrote:I already answered youy question in the previous post: how it fits in the scenario of controlling the discovery. I explained how it fits. She doesn't want to take the lead on the last step. She wants to do the controlling the discovery thing, but she is reluctant to do the specific step of discovering the body herself in that moment. Certainly not without Filomena and Paola.

It's is unclear to me why was Filomena or Paola required. Why were the Italian guys and the postal police insufficient?
The "downplaying" doesn't support your theory of "controlling the discovery". You shoehorn it, admitting it was an inconsistency, an error against this point of your own definition:
2) to act, to play a part before the police, appear as a the charachter you want them to see you as and be believed



Machiavelli wrote:The cracked door indeed conflicts with the downplaying, but in fact Knox is inconsistent. The conflict is due to the fact that the anxiety and urgency were false, its a fictional story; the door was in fact cracked for other reasons. She makes up a story of anxiety in order to set some details streight, but fails to be actually consistent on that story, just as all stagers do. This is what happens all the time because if the story is false, people won't have the skills and time to build a consistent script about it.

So we have another contradiction, another piece that doesn't support your 'controlling the discovery' theory. The stagers 'controlling the discovery' would have kept expressing urgency to break the door, not only to be consistent but just to explain the cracked door. It was not a complicated ploy. Even a guilty child would lie more consistently.

I listed many other elements that outright contradict 'controlling the discovery' as defined by you, you failed to address any of them so far. You didn't even attempt to address them. It seems nothing substantial supports your theory and everything disproves it.
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Katody » Sun May 05, 2013 3:44 am

Machiavelli wrote:
Katody wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Katody wrote:In other words, he didn't. Massei didn't say Filomena wasn't there when the conversation happened because it would be outright false. That he made an argument entirely different from yours (but as false) doesn't help your 'deduction'. End of story.


In other words, Massei draws a scenario which is only compatible with my scenario and not with Knox's and Sollecito's. His argument is not at all entirely different. I share 100% his argument, whe share the same argument completely.
The argument itself doesn't hinge around the fact Filomena did not arrive, it does not require it, but it points in that direction and assumes so.

Where does it assume so? Don't bother with your 'deductions'. If it does assume it, it is written there. You cannot quote it, can you?


It implies it. Do you understand the meaning of "imply"? It means it states some facts (A and B) which require a third fact (C) to be entirely consistent or true.

No it doesn't require it to be true. And if it implies it instead of stating it explicitly, it only proves the opposite is true. There are many other instances in Massei where he omits the important facts or cherry picks testimony to 'imply' the opposite of truth.
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Katody » Sun May 05, 2013 3:50 am

Machiavelli wrote:But you said nothing to refute the argumentation above. I'm showing that it's against common sense, it's obviously unrealistic, to believe an error due to minstranslation. We are talking about a kind of communication that can't get misunderstood even by a mute and a deaf. Not even if it said by a dog or a cat.
"Break down the door it's an emergency" is not a message that would get misunderstood. "It's not normal" doesn't get misunderstood. An English speaking person doesn't get misunderstood by five European people on a simple statement. It's just unrealistic, surreal. You only need to realize it and accept it. Just like realizing that the point of entry would be illogical for a burglar.
.

What are you talking about? It was not "break down the door" that got misconstrued in translation. Why are you making things up again?
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby roteoctober » Sun May 05, 2013 3:55 am

Teddy wrote:This thread is meant to be about Amanda's book. As usual it's another thread that has been contaminated by the Mignini/Maresca mouth-piece. Shouldn't this be in the main thread?


I agree, this thread should be devoted to the book in itself and to its literary merits, not a stage for Machiavelli's already well known opinions about the case.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Katody » Sun May 05, 2013 4:02 am

roteoctober wrote:
Teddy wrote:This thread is meant to be about Amanda's book. As usual it's another thread that has been contaminated by the Mignini/Maresca mouth-piece. Shouldn't this be in the main thread?


I agree, this thread should be devoted to the book in itself and to its literary merits, not a stage for Machiavelli's already well known opinions about the case.


I agree and I'm sorry for taking part in the derailing. It would be great to have a separate thread for dealing with Mach's bullshit.
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sun May 05, 2013 7:14 am

Teddy wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.

You need to stop this bullcrap that "convicted" anything means anything in Italy, Machiavelli.

This thread is meant to be about Amanda's book. As usual it's another thread that has been contaminated by the Mignini/Maresca mouth-piece. Shouldn't this be in the main thread?


To Teddy

I agree with you Teddy and yes the book is great and no I had not finish it yet. But I am reading it. Right now I am on page 228 Chapter 24, October-December 2008. So right now let talk about the past of Amanda meeting her cell make even there one name Willma, and another cell mate name Cera and let talk about them right now, of a good conversation and talk to you soon Teddy!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Teddy » Sun May 05, 2013 8:38 am

ScifiTom wrote:To Teddy

I agree with you Teddy and yes the book is great and no I had not finish it yet. But I am reading it. Right now I am on page 228 Chapter 24, October-December 2008. So right now let talk about the past of Amanda meeting her cell make even there one name Willma, and another cell mate name Cera and let talk about them right now, of a good conversation and talk to you soon Teddy!!!

Hi Tom, I'm at September 1 to October 9, 2009. Amanda's innocence is beaming brightly through every chapter. Her bewilderment at why these prosecutors would keep going with a ridiculous theory is like our own bewilderment. I'm getting angrier as every page passes. And Mach is actually starting to appear evil as I read each of his ridiculous and pathetic excuses for defending his buddy Mignini.
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Jstanz » Sun May 05, 2013 9:41 am

Teddy wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.

You need to stop this bullcrap that "convicted" anything means anything in Italy, Machiavelli. I suppose Giuseppe Gulotta was a convicted terrorist too, seeing as he spent 22 years in prison for "La Strage di Alcamo Marina". Oh but no, he was released when it was found out that the Carabinieri tortured him and the other 3 suspects into confessing. Fortunately for him an honest Carabinieri came forward many years later - maybe somebody will come forward in 22 years for Amanda Knox too. It's a pity that one of Gulotta's co-accused hung himself in prison and didn't get a chance for vindication. I think the other two co-accused did the right thing, fleeing to Brazil. They knew what was going down. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_di_Alcamo_Marina

Yeah, convicted. Bullshit.

This thread is meant to be about Amanda's book. As usual it's another thread that has been contaminated by the Mignini/Maresca mouth-piece. Shouldn't this be in the main thread?


I agree, I don't understand why Mach is continually permitted to contaminate threads with off topic discussions of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt.
All my grammar and spelling mistakes are the result of auto-correct. If auto-correct is not used here, I still blame it.
Jstanz
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Sun May 05, 2013 11:46 am

Teddy wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To Teddy

I agree with you Teddy and yes the book is great and no I had not finish it yet. But I am reading it. Right now I am on page 228 Chapter 24, October-December 2008. So right now let talk about the past of Amanda meeting her cell make even there one name Willma, and another cell mate name Cera and let talk about them right now, of a good conversation and talk to you soon Teddy!!!

Hi Tom, I'm at September 1 to October 9, 2009. Amanda's innocence is beaming brightly through every chapter. Her bewilderment at why these prosecutors would keep going with a ridiculous theory is like our own bewilderment. I'm getting angrier as every page passes. And Mach is actually starting to appear evil as I read each of his ridiculous and pathetic excuses for defending his buddy Mignini.


To Teddy

Lol Teddy, even I haven't read anything yet today. But I did in fact went food shopping at my grocery store, and I saw the Amanda Knox book, and it showing best novel, and it number 1. Right now??? Wow did my grocery store just did that on the book shovels. I don't know why? But I am enjoying it, even today I am going to read more and like you said: I was too angry of reading through the pages of being angry through the guards in the prison cell. Golly I wanted to SCREAM. So I am going to read all day today, and I already TiVo Black Orphan & Good luck Charlie, so that I can watch both of them on Sunday night at 8pm. So I am going to read for 2hours, even you might already finish before me Teddy, even you are way ahead. But I want to finish this book by this Tuesday or Monday!!!

Then after I finish the book. This Wednesday or Thursday I am going to keep limit off to Nancy Drew, for a while. Until I read this new novel called: Running Blind, and it by: Shirlee McCoy!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby B_Real » Sun May 05, 2013 2:01 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Your shitty government was recently in Jerusalem bowing to apartheid ideologies, lying and offending half of the world, and you dare to call other countries morally corrupt...? Do you know what, if I had to chose, instead of getting Amanda, I would really prefer to get rid of those arrogant vicious idiots like you. Go and insult your family, your mother, sisters, brothers and go shovel the shit in your home, and use your mouth to speak about what you know. How do you dare to call another conutry a system of liars? Prove about an atom of the bullshit you spew from your rotten brain....



Your empire fell 1600 years ago Machiavelli.

The uncouth barbarians such as the English and Germans took it over and we have been in charge since then.

We call the shots now. Be as upset as you want.

English is the world language now. Why? Because we are stronger. Better warriors, as it stood in 400 AD. We conquered your ancestors, and then colonised the world.

And we are better warriors now too, unless you Italians fancy your chances against the US Marines or the British Paras or SAS.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Sun May 05, 2013 3:21 pm

B_Real wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Your shitty government was recently in Jerusalem bowing to apartheid ideologies, lying and offending half of the world, and you dare to call other countries morally corrupt...? Do you know what, if I had to chose, instead of getting Amanda, I would really prefer to get rid of those arrogant vicious idiots like you. Go and insult your family, your mother, sisters, brothers and go shovel the shit in your home, and use your mouth to speak about what you know. How do you dare to call another conutry a system of liars? Prove about an atom of the bullshit you spew from your rotten brain....



Your empire fell 1600 years ago Machiavelli.

The uncouth barbarians such as the English and Germans took it over and we have been in charge since then.

We call the shots now. Be as upset as you want.

English is the world language now. Why? Because we are stronger. Better warriors, as it stood in 400 AD. We conquered your ancestors, and then colonised the world.

And we are better warriors now too, unless you Italians fancy your chances against the US Marines or the British Paras or SAS.


Yea!!! And my dad can beat your dad up!!!! So there!!! LOL!!! :lol:
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby B_Real » Sun May 05, 2013 3:27 pm

acbytesla wrote:
B_Real wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Your shitty government was recently in Jerusalem bowing to apartheid ideologies, lying and offending half of the world, and you dare to call other countries morally corrupt...? Do you know what, if I had to chose, instead of getting Amanda, I would really prefer to get rid of those arrogant vicious idiots like you. Go and insult your family, your mother, sisters, brothers and go shovel the shit in your home, and use your mouth to speak about what you know. How do you dare to call another conutry a system of liars? Prove about an atom of the bullshit you spew from your rotten brain....



Your empire fell 1600 years ago Machiavelli.

The uncouth barbarians such as the English and Germans took it over and we have been in charge since then.

We call the shots now. Be as upset as you want.

English is the world language now. Why? Because we are stronger. Better warriors, as it stood in 400 AD. We conquered your ancestors, and then colonised the world.

And we are better warriors now too, unless you Italians fancy your chances against the US Marines or the British Paras or SAS.


Yea!!! And my dad can beat your dad up!!!! So there!!! LOL!!! :lol:


Totally. My dad can beat your dad any day. Unless an Italian turns up. Then they both have to beat him up first, just on principle.
User avatar
B_Real
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:12 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby welshman » Sun May 05, 2013 4:07 pm

If Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy murdered Meredith, these are the questions Machiavelli will not answer:-

* It has been over five years since the murder of Meredith. In all this time no evidence of a relationship between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy has been established. Amanda had only met Rudy once and Raffale had never met him. If Amanda and Raffaele did not know Rudy, had no relationship with him and there was no communication between Amanda and Raffaele with Rudy, how exactly did Amanda and Raffaele arrange to meet up with Rudy on the night of the murder?

* For more than one person to commit murder or any other serious crime together, two crucial conditions need to be met :-

1) An awareness that your accomplices are willing to commit murder with you.
2) A very high level of trust becuase there is a danger your accomplices will kill you to silence you or get a guilty conscience and go to the police.

How can these conditions be established in strangers? Logic says these conditions can not be established in strangers. For instance, a man wants to murder his wife. He goes to a stranger in the street and asks him if he would like to help him murder his wife. The scenario is not credible for two reasons. Firstly the man does not know if the stranger is willing to commit murder as he does not know him. Secondly, he does not know if he can trust the man and the man will be horrifed at being asked to help in commiting murder and will go to the police.

* When did Amanda and Raffaele commit the murder with Rudy? Amanda and Raffaele would have had to met up with Rudy at short notice as both had commitments that night. Amanda did not know she did not go into work until 8.18 pm and Raffaele did not know he did not have to pick up the serbian lady from the station until 8.42 pm. The evidence suggests that Meredith was killed at around 9.00 pm. Raffaele was using his computer at 9.10 pm and 9.26 pm. A vehicle broke down outside the cottage at 10.30 pm and the occupants of the vehicle and the repair truck were there until 11.30 pm. They saw nothing suspcious at the cottage. This leaves just one hour for Amanda and Raffaele to have committed the murder with Rudy. In addition, if Machiavelli still believes Curalto, he provides Amanda and Raffaele with an alibi between 9.30 and 10.30 pm.

* The evidence suggests that Amanda and Meredith had a good relationship. Is it credible that a woman would help a virtual stranger to sexually assault and murder her friend.

* Amanda spoke only basic Italian and Rudy barely spoke English. In view of this, how exactly did Amanda and Guede communicate with each other when they were commiting a brutal murder and sexual assault together?

* Why did Amanda make no mention of Guede during her interrogation?

* In the period between the discovery of the body and their arrests, the phones of Amanda and Raffaele were bugged. If they had commited murder with Guede, why is it that in 3 days they made no mention of Guede.

* Why did Rudy say in his Skype converstation that Amanda and Raffaele were not there and did not say Amanda and Raffaele were not there until months later and was vague about their involvement.
welshman
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 8:58 pm

I agree with someone's comment above that Machiavelli is a troll seeking to make himself the topic of the thread, rather than Amanda's book.

Again, I got the book on April 30 and am reading it in a deliberate fashion; in part because I am pretty busy; in part to have a distinctive perspective to various comments being made in real time; in part, significantly,because I find it intense and moving and need to pause (perhaps somewhat in the way Amanda says she had to stop and 'walk around the block' in order to calm down. See the radionz interview, if you had not heard it. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/ ... rs-retrial)
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Grayhawker » Sun May 05, 2013 9:05 pm

B_Real wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:If Mach was not such a fricking coward and would be willing to go before the public along with Amanda and Raffaele, we could ask the public which one is the psychpath and social deviant after a long interview of the three. (...)


Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.


The ECHR obviously doesn't think Italian courts are legitimate a lot of the time.

Personally I consider the whole Italian system illegitimate because it fails to meet basic standards of justice, not least those in the treaties on human rights which Italy itself has signed.


And again, cowardly Mach dances around the issue. His personality shines forth through his postings. Come forth, go on public TV and spout your dribble and let the public decide which one of you is more believable and which one more closely emulates a psychotic, social deviant.

Besides, bring the calumnia conviction to the US and experience getting laughed out of court.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Grayhawker » Sun May 05, 2013 9:08 pm

Grayhawker wrote:
B_Real wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
Grayhawker wrote:If Mach was not such a fricking coward and would be willing to go before the public along with Amanda and Raffaele, we could ask the public which one is the psychpath and social deviant after a long interview of the three. (...)


Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calunnia, she was already judged by legitimate courts. There is nothing to scrutinize.


The ECHR obviously doesn't think Italian courts are legitimate a lot of the time.

Personally I consider the whole Italian system illegitimate because it fails to meet basic standards of justice, not least those in the treaties on human rights which Italy itself has signed.


And again, cowardly Mach dances around the issue. His personality shines forth through his postings. Come forth, go on public TV and spout your dribble and let the public decide which one of you is more believable and which one more closely emulates a psychotic, social deviant.

Besides, bring the calumnia conviction to the US and experience getting laughed out of court.

Correction -- it would NEVER get a sniff at a US court it is such a moronic idea that anything in Amanda's statements even remotely would stand up in any US court -- especially after she repeatedly wrote that the coerced statement by the Perugian police was their creation and not hers and that she not only could NOT know if he was there but highly doubted it was even possible. **snicker** (stupid Perugian police shill thinking the world doesn't see the absurdity of the charge and conviction)
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 9:14 pm

'Waiting to be Heard' reached number 5 this week on Amazon's Top 100 book list. How many aspiring writers achieve that with their first effort?

Amanda, Good for you! Well done! Your voice IS being heard.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 9:39 pm

Okay, I'm thowing the forum a curve ball, but today I was listening to the Pod Cast from Rob has a Podcast on the reality TV show Survivor (stick with me). Rob has Richard Hatch as his guest, the openly gay guy who won in the first season. Mostly they talked about the current season, but near the end there was a discussion about what happened to this gay guy in his life. It is complicated, but Richard Hatch experienced some very serious shit. He says it was all bullshit; fabricated in large part because he was gay. He was quite bitter. He further explains that he has never been able to tell his side of the story. (I never followed this story and have nothing to add.)

But. It sounded so much like what they did to Amanda that I could not help but notice.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby struoc » Sun May 05, 2013 9:41 pm

The more i read the more frustrated it is to watch the Italian idiots allow the ignorant and bullying prosecution and his mindless minions go on and on with the face saving insanity.

And Rudy Guede, the real murderer, gets a sentence reduction because he "fooled the fools" of the Italian courts. Migninni calling him "poor Rudy", what an imbecile Migninni is. wow?
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 10:01 pm

Okay, the discussion is not about Amanda's book (that I really like), fair enough.

Mach loves to write "Amanda Knox is a convicted criminal liar sentenced for calumnia".

Mach, please explain; how is it legally valid in Italy to force a person to make a statement and then contend that they commited a crime by submitting to such coercion?

More generally Mach, how is it 'a lie' for a young girl to break under intense stress and appease her tormentors?

"A lie", really? Not "coersion"? Not "abuse" Mach, please explain your reasoning.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 11:06 pm

Just one more, did you watch Game of Throne last night?

Check out http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ca4366 ... rones-ep-4

Imagine Amanda being Daenerys Targaryen, facing Mignini. But this time Amanda has some dragons on her side.

(the I'm every woman part)
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 11:13 pm

Can anyone out there take this video and do Amanda vs Mignini, where Amanda has the dragons? That could have You Tube Viral potential.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby schmidt53 » Sun May 05, 2013 11:30 pm

I was trying to remember what Amanda had said she did on the morning of Nov 2, 2007 that might make a difference with what Quintavalle claims he when he saw Amanda that day at his store at around 8 am. On page 132 of Waiting to be heard she states besides the fact that she was leaving Raffaele's apartment at around 10 am. She was also carrying a plastic bag with dirty clothes. If this is true had she enter Quintavalle store with a plastic bag in her hand would a store owner not be watching her more closely in case she might shoplift something. Yet he claims she went to the cleaning area in his store then saw her leave without buying anything and she had nothing in her hands. :huh?:
schmidt53
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:10 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby TomZ53 » Sun May 05, 2013 11:44 pm

I do think that doing a video such as I suggested above would be most poductive. But, just a notion on my part.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Sarah » Mon May 06, 2013 5:54 am

I'm going to be going through this thread and moving off topic posts.

In the mean time, please only add posts discussing the book to this thread.

Thanks.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Graeme » Mon May 06, 2013 6:34 am

Hi guys,

Haven't been around these parts in quite a while! Arevthere issues with the availability of the book on amazon.co.uk? Can't find it anywhere

Cheers

Graeme
Graeme
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:05 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Bill Williams » Mon May 06, 2013 8:06 am

Graeme wrote:Hi guys,

Haven't been around these parts in quite a while! Arevthere issues with the availability of the book on amazon.co.uk? Can't find it anywhere

Cheers

Graeme

One Irishman here ordered the book from a US source and got it two days later....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby pmop57 » Mon May 06, 2013 8:59 am

[quote="struoc"]The more i read the more frustrated it is to watch the Italian idiots allow the ignorant and bullying prosecution and his mindless minions go on and on with the face saving insanity.

And Rudy Guede, the real murderer, gets a sentence reduction because he "fooled the fools" of the Italian courts. Migninni calling him "poor Rudy", what an imbecile Migninni is. wow .[quote]
Mignini is not an imbecile, don't underestimate him, that man is dangerous, he is a cold calculator only serving himself, he had to spare Rudy to attain his target and his target always was and still is Amanda. Without sparing Rudy a case against Amanda and Raffaele was impossible, Mignini knew that and was acting in consequence. Rudy was a crucial part in his constructing of the case against Amanda.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Grayhawker » Mon May 06, 2013 10:03 am

I really appreciate the thread consolidating Amanda's interviews. The German ones seem to be the toughest, really delving deeply into the aspects of the case, but, by all apperances, Amanda handle it well. She does not come across as someone with a pathological disorder or someone that has a propensity for violence or non-chalant about Meredith's death. She also does not come across as "plastic" or practiced in her responses. I really appreciate the impression of her being very thoughtful in her responses.

The German interviewer surprised her with a couple of "great" questions, at least that was Amanda's response to them before delving into her answer.

I think the end result of the book interviews and the book is that public sentiment will be wholey behind her now and the Perugian officials are coming across more and more as calculating and motivated for a sensational conviction rather than justice.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby theaudioengine » Mon May 06, 2013 1:04 pm

Grayhawker wrote:I really appreciate the thread consolidating Amanda's interviews.


Can you post a link to this thread? I can't seem to find it.

EDIT: never mind. I found it. viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2552
theaudioengine
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby ScifiTom » Mon May 06, 2013 5:15 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone I will watch wrestling on mute while reading the Amanda Knox book. So I am not done yet. But I will be done soon enough. I could finish it tonight or tomorrow. So I am out of here and I will go to bed at 10pm eastern time. So the time is 7:15pm. I am going to read at 8pm to 10pm then I am going to bed and goodnight everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby bmf1950 » Mon May 06, 2013 6:51 pm

An idle thought in reflecting on the book -- although a professed non-believer, it was people with religious faith who were quite helpful to her: Don Saulo for one. And second, and to my surprise, Madison Paxton's actions were rooted in her LDS upbringing. I think a word to describe it: righteousness.
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby Bill Williams » Mon May 06, 2013 7:02 pm

bmf1950 wrote:An idle thought in reflecting on the book -- although a professed non-believer, it was people with religious faith who were quite helpful to her: Don Saulo for one. And second, and to my surprise, Madison Paxton's actions were rooted in her LDS upbringing. I think a word to describe it: righteousness.

Amen.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby geebee2 » Tue May 07, 2013 3:31 am

My book arrived in the post this morning. I haven't yet decided how or when I will read it.
I have Machiavelli in my foe list.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue May 07, 2013 3:35 pm

Nearly finished. Much more hard-hitting than Raffaele's book, for the obvious reason, presumably, that she is out of harm's way, reatively, in the US. She defames Napoleone, Ficarra, Stefanoni and Mignini. Go girl! The sparks will fly if she ever goes back.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby acbytesla » Tue May 07, 2013 3:59 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
bmf1950 wrote:An idle thought in reflecting on the book -- although a professed non-believer, it was people with religious faith who were quite helpful to her: Don Saulo for one. And second, and to my surprise, Madison Paxton's actions were rooted in her LDS upbringing. I think a word to describe it: righteousness.

Amen.


I'm like Amanda. I'm an atheist. That said, I have always thought that "faith" is a good thing, one of my closest friends on the planet is a priest at Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. So it is not surprising to me in the least bit.
acbytesla
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 2:46 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Bill Williams » Tue May 07, 2013 5:56 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Nearly finished. Much more hard-hitting than Raffaele's book, for the obvious reason, presumably, that she is out of harm's way, relatively, in the US. She defames Napoleone, Ficarra, Stefanoni and Mignini. Go girl! The sparks will fly if she ever goes back.

So THAT'S where you've been..... I was about to tell David Marriott that he should confiscate your PR handbook; Peter Quennell apparently needs one. (Pete's pretty much guessed what's in it anyways. Man oh man is he sharp and on his game! Di you see him prove that it was the defence team which caused the 46 day delay in finding the bra-clasp? Stunning bit of deduction that was.)

Re: Sollecito's book - it was not until someone from the Questura hands him a business card and says, "You'd better get a lawyer", that Sollecito even has an item within the pre-interrogation narrative to parse. What Sollecito has is his experience of his own interrogation (he does not name the officer who threatened him with harm) - and his experience of wrongly spending 4 years in the jug. He's frightfully honest about how he survived that, including some incidents he is not terribly proud of.

In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby ScifiTom » Tue May 07, 2013 6:55 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I got some good news and bad news. So I will tell you this right now, and here I go anyway!!!

Good News: I just finish the book and I am loving it, even I finish it at 8:40pm, and I am now going to see what should I read next. So I am thinking on it, even I want to read something good into mystery or maybe ghost novel or horror. Something good to read, anyway. But I really enjoy this book even I am still looking forward to buy the book so that I can get an autograph for Amanda Knox to sign anyway of why I belive in her innocent. So I enjoy the book and yes it does show the truth of true meaning!!!

Bad News: I just got some bad news that my blog is not working again, even it going down again of bad error even there something wrong, even it not my blog. It the company of blog.com and I am not going back to Wordpresss.com because I don't trust it. So right now I am thinking of what to do even trying to think of how am I going to write??? I might need something to write, of getting attention to the world for the world of entertainment or not entertainment. Who knows I support my Anne Hathaway to many times, even I am insane for her in a way, of being crazy. So I am looking for a help of help in a good way and let hope this help out of goodness news and that all I got to say and thanks for reading this and talk to you soon everyone!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue May 07, 2013 7:23 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Nearly finished. Much more hard-hitting than Raffaele's book, for the obvious reason, presumably, that she is out of harm's way, relatively, in the US. She defames Napoleone, Ficarra, Stefanoni and Mignini. Go girl! The sparks will fly if she ever goes back.

So THAT'S where you've been..... I was about to tell David Marriott that he should confiscate your PR handbook; Peter Quennell apparently needs one. (Pete's pretty much guessed what's in it anyways. Man oh man is he sharp and on his game! Di you see him prove that it was the defence team which caused the 46 day delay in finding the bra-clasp? Stunning bit of deduction that was.)

Re: Sollecito's book - it was not until someone from the Questura hands him a business card and says, "You'd better get a lawyer", that Sollecito even has an item within the pre-interrogation narrative to parse. What Sollecito has is his experience of his own interrogation (he does not name the officer who threatened him with harm) - and his experience of wrongly spending 4 years in the jug. He's frightfully honest about how he survived that, including some incidents he is not terribly proud of.

In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Bill Williams » Tue May 07, 2013 10:29 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Nearly finished. Much more hard-hitting than Raffaele's book, for the obvious reason, presumably, that she is out of harm's way, relatively, in the US. She defames Napoleone, Ficarra, Stefanoni and Mignini. Go girl! The sparks will fly if she ever goes back.

So THAT'S where you've been..... I was about to tell David Marriott that he should confiscate your PR handbook; Peter Quennell apparently needs one. (Pete's pretty much guessed what's in it anyways. Man oh man is he sharp and on his game! Di you see him prove that it was the defence team which caused the 46 day delay in finding the bra-clasp? Stunning bit of deduction that was.)

Re: Sollecito's book - it was not until someone from the Questura hands him a business card and says, "You'd better get a lawyer", that Sollecito even has an item within the pre-interrogation narrative to parse. What Sollecito has is his experience of his own interrogation (he does not name the officer who threatened him with harm) - and his experience of wrongly spending 4 years in the jug. He's frightfully honest about how he survived that, including some incidents he is not terribly proud of.

In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.

I'm forever stunned you regard yourself as "small fry". C'mon Mr. Wismayer, you've got a copy of the PR Handbook Peter Quennell is squealing to the world about!!! Not everyone has one of those!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed May 08, 2013 4:40 am

Bill Williams wrote:I'm forever stunned you regard yourself as "small fry". C'mon Mr. Wismayer, you've got a copy of the PR Handbook Peter Quennell is squealing to the world about!!! Not everyone has one of those!

I hope I don't get sued (what for?) but it sure would be interesting. Do you think the court would adjourn for three eight years so I could learn Italian first? I would have to translate an awful lot of stuff into English.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby garlex » Wed May 08, 2013 7:24 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.


I'm sure that Clive Wismayer is correct in saying that giving someone a copy of the book would be a publication of the libel. But I don't think there is any case that proves the point, as nobody has ever been sued in those circumstances.
User avatar
garlex
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: London UK

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed May 08, 2013 7:57 am

garlex wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.


I'm sure that Clive Wismayer is correct in saying that giving someone a copy of the book would be a publication of the libel. But I don't think there is any case that proves the point, as nobody has ever been sued in those circumstances.

I accept the challenge! In Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer (1849) QB 185 a newspaper was published 17 years before the action was brought but the defendant supplied a copy to a person within the limitation period (6 years back then) and an action lay. OK, it was a newspaper, not a book, but there is surely no difference. In Lawrence -v- Newberry (1891) 64 LT it was enough to found a claim for libel that the defendant merely told someone where to find a defamatory reference to the claimant. So, saying you can read what Amanda thinks about Napoleone in her book is by itself capable of being defamatory. A fortiori where giving someone a copy of the book itself.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby ScifiTom » Wed May 08, 2013 8:43 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:I'm forever stunned you regard yourself as "small fry". C'mon Mr. Wismayer, you've got a copy of the PR Handbook Peter Quennell is squealing to the world about!!! Not everyone has one of those!

I hope I don't get sued (what for?) but it sure would be interesting. Do you think the court would adjourn for three eight years so I could learn Italian first? I would have to translate an awful lot of stuff into English.


To Clive

No Clive, I should be the one who should get sue even be punish of fame or fame for the media even enough of Peter Quennell he can't handle the truth. It like he think to push to shovel and I am not afraid of him, and I will take the challenge you can join me. We both can challenge. I want this challenge even I am a deaf man and yes I am on a misson of crime or no crime. I will take it to extreme rules!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book

Postby carlofab » Wed May 08, 2013 2:22 pm

Machiavelli wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Machiavelli - you are amazing. What was the "clear, compelling, emergency reason"? Twenty-twenty hindsight makes all the difference in this case.

How the heck is the difference between what Knox said and Filomena said, "contradictory" in the measuring of an emergency situation? Is it true that Meredith "never" locked her door? Have you read Knox's own words on this subject? The postal police did not quote a law, the postal police thought Filomena was overreacting. Sheesh. No one saw this as an emergency situation but Filomena, and she had to fight everyone - Knox and the postal police - to get the door open.
....


I underlined the statement, because that statement says exactly what Massei said, it makes the same argument: Amanda basically said it was not an emergency situation.
When you say "no one saw" you need to consider that the number of "ones" is just two people, Amanda and Filomena.
Filomena did see an emergency situation; Amanda did not. This is exactly equivalent to saying Amanda trivialized, downplayed the worries of Filomena (or the situation that would cause the worries of Filomena, given that probably she was not there yet).

Raffael says in his book that the fault was his. He was translating for Amanda, and in the excitement of the moment did not translate her correctly. He says the girls were not in disagreement.



The two women were the ones living in the house, they were the only ones there who could tell if the locked door was normal or not; if there was really to worry about or not.
One says "let's worry", the other says "don't worry".
The Postal Police already had got contradicting information, they don't know whom they should believe, therefore they are reluctant (and they did quote a law, they said they needed a mandate). But Luca Altieri knows who is the one to believe, therefore he breaks down the door.
User avatar
carlofab
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:40 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Hans » Fri May 10, 2013 9:17 am

Just for the record:
Publishers Weekly - Bestseller List
:clap:

Top Hardcover Nonfiction
1. Waiting to Be Heard Amanda Knox, Author
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 10, 2013 9:32 am

Hans wrote:Just for the record:
Publishers Weekly - Bestseller List
:clap:

Top hardcover! It seems people are suckers for the truth. :::thumbs up:::
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby bmf1950 » Fri May 10, 2013 9:50 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
garlex wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.


I'm sure that Clive Wismayer is correct in saying that giving someone a copy of the book would be a publication of the libel. But I don't think there is any case that proves the point, as nobody has ever been sued in those circumstances.

I accept the challenge! In Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer (1849) QB 185 a newspaper was published 17 years before the action was brought but the defendant supplied a copy to a person within the limitation period (6 years back then) and an action lay. OK, it was a newspaper, not a book, but there is surely no difference. In Lawrence -v- Newberry (1891) 64 LT it was enough to found a claim for libel that the defendant merely told someone where to find a defamatory reference to the claimant. So, saying you can read what Amanda thinks about Napoleone in her book is by itself capable of being defamatory. A fortiori where giving someone a copy of the book itself.


In the 1964 Sullivan v NY Times case from the US Supreme Court, the NAACP ran a paid advertisement in the New York Times which then, if memory serves me correct, mailed a copy to a subscriber in Alabama. That was the hook to get jurisdiction. I would have to read the case again, but the "publication" in Alabama was sufficient for the Supremes to address the constitutional issues rather than dismiss on procedural grounds.
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby bmf1950 » Fri May 10, 2013 9:53 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:Just for the record:
Publishers Weekly - Bestseller List
:clap:

Top hardcover! It seems people are suckers for the truth. :::thumbs up:::


Top "non-fiction" -- #9 overall. Curious that it is behind "The Great Gatsby."

I wonder if we will see comments on PMF that it should have been under the "fiction" category? There is a political saying to the effect that one who owns the label wins the issue.
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby ClintNine » Fri May 10, 2013 2:14 pm

Did anyone else notice in her book that Maresca was the attorney representing the police and/or prosecutor for the calunnia charge against Amanda? And that the civil penalty the Kerchers sought was 5 Million Pounds? How much would Maresca personally have received? The whole thing stinks.
ClintNine
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby pmop57 » Fri May 10, 2013 2:22 pm

bmf1950 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
garlex wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:In your opinion, is the defaming noted above reason not to print the book in the U.K.? Could you be charged for letting someone other than yourself read your copy?

Yes and yes. Although 'charged' is the wrong word since defamation is not a crime. Replace with 'sued'. Giving someone a copy of the book would be an actionable 'publication' of the libel. However, it is extremely unlikely that small fry would be sued. Harper Collins would be lined up alongside Amanda as the principal defendant in any claim.


I'm sure that Clive Wismayer is correct in saying that giving someone a copy of the book would be a publication of the libel. But I don't think there is any case that proves the point, as nobody has ever been sued in those circumstances.

I accept the challenge! In Duke of Brunswick -v- Harmer (1849) QB 185 a newspaper was published 17 years before the action was brought but the defendant supplied a copy to a person within the limitation period (6 years back then) and an action lay. OK, it was a newspaper, not a book, but there is surely no difference. In Lawrence -v- Newberry (1891) 64 LT it was enough to found a claim for libel that the defendant merely told someone where to find a defamatory reference to the claimant. So, saying you can read what Amanda thinks about Napoleone in her book is by itself capable of being defamatory. A fortiori where giving someone a copy of the book itself.


In the 1964 Sullivan v NY Times case from the US Supreme Court, the NAACP ran a paid advertisement in the New York Times which then, if memory serves me correct, mailed a copy to a subscriber in Alabama. That was the hook to get jurisdiction. I would have to read the case again, but the "publication" in Alabama was sufficient for the Supremes to address the constitutional issues rather than dismiss on procedural grounds.


Private to private person for no financial purpose would never have any consequence in my country.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Katody » Fri May 10, 2013 3:06 pm

Hans wrote:Just for the record:
Publishers Weekly - Bestseller List
:clap:


Congratulations, Amanda!
Katody
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:31 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Sarah » Fri May 10, 2013 6:14 pm

Congratulations to Amanda Knox - New York Times Best Selling Author!
Number 2. spot in Non-Fiction

COMBINED PRINT & E-BOOK NONFICTION
2.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

HARDCOVER NONFICTION
3.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

E-BOOK NONFICTION
1.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox


http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby ScifiTom » Fri May 10, 2013 6:25 pm

Hans wrote:Just for the record:
Publishers Weekly - Bestseller List
:clap:

Top Hardcover Nonfiction
1. Waiting to Be Heard Amanda Knox, Author


To Hans

Thanks Hans for the information and course Amanda is going to win even why not? Her book is number 1 all the way and now she won the award of best novel!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 10, 2013 6:31 pm

Sarah wrote:Congratulations to Amanda Knox - New York Times Best Selling Author!
Number 2. spot in Non-Fiction

COMBINED PRINT & E-BOOK NONFICTION
2.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

HARDCOVER NONFICTION
3.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

E-BOOK NONFICTION
1.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox


http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/

Rats - you beat me to it. However, these numbers are terribly inflated because they include all the copies I bought and distributed to friends. Take those out and it may not have cracked the top ten. Just trying to be fair....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Supernaut » Fri May 10, 2013 7:05 pm

Sarah wrote:Congratulations to Amanda Knox - New York Times Best Selling Author!
Number 2. spot in Non-Fiction

COMBINED PRINT & E-BOOK NONFICTION
2.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

HARDCOVER NONFICTION
3.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox

E-BOOK NONFICTION
1.WAITING TO BE HEARD, by Amanda Knox


http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/


Hoo-Haa!

But.....

I KNOW this is torture for her. Will she ever get her life back, find happiness again?

Like thousands of others, I've seen the video footage that Deanna shot of Amanda in Italy, mere weeks before the nightmare began.

These were meant to have been PRIVATE memories for the sisters and their family.

The change in Amanda's visage is shocking; from pretty, rosy-cheeked 20-year-old, to the the almost-gaunt, care-worn face we see now.

That amazing, broad smile now appears like a break in the clouds.
Truth is truth though never so old and time cannot make that false which once was true - Edward de Vere

For truth is truth to the end of reckoning - Will Shake-speare
User avatar
Supernaut
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:57 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Sarah » Fri May 10, 2013 9:06 pm

A (semi) literary review of “Waiting to Be Heard” by Amanda Knox.

by Luca Cheli
May 10, 2013

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/A-semi-literary-review-of-Waiting-to-Be-Heard-by-A/2953147
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby TomZ53 » Fri May 10, 2013 9:33 pm

Sarah wrote:A (semi) literary review of “Waiting to Be Heard” by Amanda Knox.

by Luca Cheli
May 10, 2013

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/A-semi-literary-review-of-Waiting-to-Be-Heard-by-A/2953147


Sarah,

Thanks for the link. This is the most intelligent and insightful review of Amanda's book I have seen.

To comment further, it is the most honest and meaningful analysis that I have seen. I suggest that people read the whole thing. Finally somebody gets it. And they articulate it too.
TomZ53
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby komponisto » Fri May 10, 2013 10:15 pm

This is interesting: http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/ama ... o-be-heard

Quotes:

By the end it basically feels like Schopenhauer or something.


I can easily imagine a future where Amanda Knox uses personal tragedy to propel herself to cable news stardom a la Nancy Grace. But she could also probably do something significantly better because she's extremely smart and is now essentially unfuckwithable (a legal term meaning "invulnerable to all aggressors due to absolute comprehension of the futility of human endeavor in all its forms").
komponisto
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby KayPea » Sat May 11, 2013 12:42 am

Sarah wrote:A (semi) literary review of “Waiting to Be Heard” by Amanda Knox.

by Luca Cheli
May 10, 2013

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/A-semi-literary-review-of-Waiting-to-Be-Heard-by-A/2953147


Wonderful and beautiful and poignant!
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”-- Marcus Aurelius
User avatar
KayPea
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Mary_H » Sat May 11, 2013 12:46 am

komponisto wrote:This is interesting: http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/ama ... o-be-heard

Quotes:
By the end it basically feels like Schopenhauer or something.

I can easily imagine a future where Amanda Knox uses personal tragedy to propel herself to cable news stardom a la Nancy Grace. But she could also probably do something significantly better because she's extremely smart and is now essentially unfuckwithable (a legal term meaning "invulnerable to all aggressors due to absolute comprehension of the futility of human endeavor in all its forms").

Pretty good review and recommendation, except for the part about autism.
Mary_H
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:41 am

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby bmf1950 » Sat May 11, 2013 1:33 am

komponisto wrote:This is interesting: http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/ama ... o-be-heard

Quotes:

By the end it basically feels like Schopenhauer or something.


I can easily imagine a future where Amanda Knox uses personal tragedy to propel herself to cable news stardom a la Nancy Grace. But she could also probably do something significantly better because she's extremely smart and is now essentially unfuckwithable (a legal term meaning "invulnerable to all aggressors due to absolute comprehension of the futility of human endeavor in all its forms").

Some idle comments as a lawyer.

For years, I have felt that "shit happens" is a fine legal precept.

I know of one attorney stating in response to why prosecutors were acting in a certain way: "they are assholes." I also thought that was a fine piece of succinct legal exposition.

I will now add "unfuckwithable" to the list.
bmf1950
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby pmop57 » Sat May 11, 2013 6:03 am

"The one who does not know the truth is only a jackass. But the one who knows and calls it a lie is a criminal!"
Bertolt Brecht
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Hans » Sat May 11, 2013 7:22 am

While TJMK speculates that
"For Multiple False Accusations Against Court Officials Knox Book Is Expected To Be Ordered Withdrawn"
I just came across this:
Image
Availabe as Softback and epub and it is "Beschikbaar".
:D
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby ScifiTom » Sat May 11, 2013 7:31 am

To everyone

Hey everyone, I just found this article and it talk about the book of Amanda Knox even it was a Ct article and I did enjoy it very much, even yes HarryRag did in fact leave another stupid comment again of his nonsense even he never understand anything into a court of law. So here the link of the site and enjoy reading it and talk to you soon everyone!!!

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleC ... 0411092228
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Amanda Knox Book - Waiting to be heard

Postby Bill Williams » Sat May 11, 2013 9:39 am

bmf1950 wrote:
komponisto wrote:This is interesting: http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/ama ... o-be-heard

Quotes:

By the end it basically feels like Schopenhauer or something.


I can easily imagine a future where Amanda Knox uses personal tragedy to propel herself to cable news stardom a la Nancy Grace. But she could also probably do something significantly better because she's extremely smart and is now essentially unfuckwithable (a legal term meaning "invulnerable to all aggressors due to absolute comprehension of the futility of human endeavor in all its forms").

Some idle comments as a lawyer.

For years, I have felt that "shit happens" is a fine legal precept.

I know of one attorney stating in response to why prosecutors were acting in a certain way: "they are assholes." I also thought that was a fine piece of succinct legal exposition.

I will now add "unfuckwithable" to the list.

I have a psychiatrist friend who I've talked with about the various people involved in this, particularly the on-line barrage and the tabloid frenzy aimed at vilifying Knox.

He has followed the case from a distance, it really doesn't interest him.

But in diagnosing some of the people who have gone off the deep end with stuff, he said (drawing from 35 years of practise): "Some people are just plumb crazy."

Works for me! I now have to figure out if he was including me in that!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests