but....but....Amelie was harmless, the movie uplifting, and most of all, Amelie did not become a convicted sex murder.....:waitasec:
The character is a lonely woman with a compelte disconnect from normal social interaction.
but....but....Amelie was harmless, the movie uplifting, and most of all, Amelie did not become a convicted sex murder.....:waitasec:
Well, we do not know if he was treated coldly as a child---and a military person has to be objective, cold, i can almost see that helping a certain type to kill---Amanda was a flower child type....
I just can't believe Italian law is so unjust.
If AK let RG in knowing he planned to commit a crime, that's one thing. She would be guilty of murder under "felony murder" concepts in the U.S.
But I can't believe Italian law holds everyone who opens a door criminally liable for everything a person at the door later does.
Right, when I have said Amanda may have felt responsible, I meant she may have told Guede no one would be home, and he might find some $$$. Not that he ought to go kill her. But you are right, we cannot be responsible for all the actions of anyone we allow in.I just can't believe Italian law is so unjust.
If AK let RG in knowing he planned to commit a crime, that's one thing. She would be guilty of murder under "felony murder" concepts in the U.S.
But I can't believe Italian law holds everyone who opens a door criminally liable for everything a person at the door later does.
The report is full of very narrow-minded conclusions. Such as the one I pointed out which said that the father, knowing what time RS got up everyday called him and since AK never mentioned the call, that means she wasn't there to hear it. OR it could mean she was tired and knocked out-sleep.
They said that AK had no reason to go home and take a shower at the cottage since she'd taken one and washed her hair the night before.
OR--if she showered and then she and RS had sed afterward, then I can understand why she'd want a shower. To jump to the conclusion of why she'd need a shower, rather than looking at what RS and AK told them is insane. They stated that they'd had sex, so isn't it logical that she might WANT another shower? Maybe she ran out of clothes and needed to get a change from home, but they say she should have brought her clothes with her because she and RS had plans to go to a nearby city.
What time were these plans? maybe she thought she had time to go home and shower. I don't get it. Because she didn't bring a change of clothes with her to RS's, she's a lying murderer.
Isn't that interesting. That's looks like a Freudian slip ... Amanda explaining how Rudy got into the house without mentioning the broken window.
Right, when I have said Amanda may have felt responsible, I meant she may have told Guede no one would be home, and he might find some $$$. Not that he ought to go kill her. But you are right, we cannot be responsible for all the actions of anyone we allow in.
I absolutely agree about the repeated leaps of illogic in MR.
...but I doubt you use bars to get high along with weed and alcohol.I've seen some kids that can't remember a thing....total black outs.
who harms no one....Amanda had college classes, family, friends, jobs, and a boyfriend.....I was more of an Amelie than she....The character is a lonely woman with a compelte disconnect from normal social interaction.
By that time, ILE had told AK there was "proof" the broken window was staging.
Since AK wasn't there and had nothing to do with the murder, she believed the police and assumed MK opened the door for RG.
No slip and nothing Freudian about it.
If one thinks about it, that conversation is actually exculpatory to AK.
As always, swift and brilliant. I give ye 5 big stars. :blowkiss:By that time, ILE had told AK there was "proof" the broken window was staging.
Since AK wasn't there and had nothing to do with the murder, she believed the police and assumed MK opened the door for RG.
No slip and nothing Freudian about it.
If one thinks about it, that conversation is actually exculpatory to AK.
who harms no one....Amanda had college classes, family, friends, jobs, and a boyfriend.....I was more of an Amelie than she....
Is throat slashing a prank, though?:waitasec:Pranks harm others ... they are jokes at the expense of others and for the amusement of the prankster.
As always, swift and brilliant. I give ye 5 big stars. :blowkiss:
Is throat slashing a prank, though?:waitasec:
It seems like we're theorizing that all bad people look and act a certain way that makes them identifiable and if we don't see them look and act that way, they cannot be criminals. People with no history of childhood problems, and those with perfectly upstanding lives, have been known to commit horrible crimes. Appearance and personal history is not a factor in determining whether someone does evil things to other people. It is a point that lawyer raise to attempt to get clients with childhood problems out of taking full responsibility for their actions.
What makes them different? Criminals come from all walks of life. Why should we expect that these three criminals have some blatant history of problems?
Furthermore, if we want to look at problems in them, we can find them ... but there is no correlation between bad childhood and criminal behavior, so what is the point?
Additionally, I think I can probably predict the direction the discussion would take if we started dissecting Knox, Sollecito and Guede for problems ... someone would mention that Meredith smoked pot too ... and so on. It would become some sort of comparison between the murderer and the victim. Why go there ... again?
Amanda is just the sort of person that you would want in the next room during a murder?