• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course exonerations don't happen out of the blue, but it takes activism, or a brave documentary, to meaningfully influence that sort I thing. To be clear, I do think public outcry can influence justice (not always in a good way), I just don't think this thread, or bickering on twitter or in comments threads, has much impact.

I also don't think that matters, as the discussions are worthwhile in themselves for those who take an interest.
 
Online discussions are a relatively new phenomenon...

-

Of course exonerations don't happen out of the blue, but it takes activism, or a brave documentary, to meaningfully influence that sort I thing. To be clear, I do think public outcry can influence justice (not always in a good way), I just don't think this thread, or bickering on twitter or in comments threads, has much impact.

I also don't think that matters, as the discussions are worthwhile in themselves for those who take an interest.
-

I agree with that, but I also think that since online discussions are a relatively new phenomenon, they really haven't had a chance to prove just how powerful they can be yet. I still think it's possible, but that doesn't mean the the hilited part above isn't true also, but that's just my opinion,

d

-
ETA: I have found that this thread does come up in many of my "Amanda Knox" google alerts, and when you search "Amanda Knox" with google, at the bottom (Searches related to "amanda knox"), "amanda knox james randi" does show up, so this thread is not something that's difficult to find, and who knows what'll happen in the future.

-
 
Last edited:
No arguments here! There are plenty of Brit republicans, though I have to suppress my views a lot of the time as I work for the brown nosing BBC. Although we're not actually governed by a monarch, we 're also a poorly functioning democracy like all the others. And some might look at the American political dynasties with raised eyebrows...

Anyway, back on topic, are there examples of new evidence or witnesses coming forward during trials? Anglolawyer - can you shed any light?

Well, the UK should dump the House of Lords too. No one elected them. I agree with your point about the US family political dynasties. There is talk about Jeb Bush running. Wasn't two of them bad enough? I feel the same way about Hillary....except, I think she is the smarter Clinton.

Back on topic...I doubt there will be any new witnesses. I wonder if the Supreme court there can just end the whole thing..or do they have to order another trial?
 
Ladbrokes have first favourite a Clinton, and third favourite a Bush for 2016. Assuming two terms, that will mean two families have governed for 28 of 36 years.

I don't think either will be elected or get their party's nomination. I think the fact that they are related to the former President works against them...especially Jeb Bush.
 
Originally Posted by lonepinealex
I was referring to Internet forum chat rather than letter writin campaigns and proper activism. I discuss the case because I find it horrifying and fascinating, but I'm adding nothing. It's all been said and there's clearly only a handful of people discussing it online. Some stick to one or two sites, some take it to twitter and comments below articles as well, but it's all the same people. I don't think any of the general discussion has any material effect on the case at all.

-


-

I can't prove absolutely whether online discussions make any difference, but I think it does to some degree, because exonerations (at least here in the US) don't just happen in a vacuum or out of the blue.

I personally believe that "The Thin Blue Line" resulted in a public discussion (and isn't that what this forum and thread is, a public discussion) that eventually resulted in Randall Adams eventually being released.

I think it's possible, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

I agree that everything matters. For every action, there is a reaction. Sometimes our actions can harmonize, and create change. That' s how revolutions are born.

Thorton Wilder once wrote, ' not even a sparrow loses a feather that is not touched by the finger of god'. Everything everyone does, matters.

We do what we must, and what we can. And on a good day, it's enough to move the ball forward.

I don't believe Amanda and Raf are heading to prison. I just won't. I refuse. No.
 
Back on topic...I doubt there will be any new witnesses. I wonder if the Supreme court there can just end the whole thing..or do they have to order another trial?

I wasn't referring to witnesses or evidence in this case particularly. I was considering coulsdon's question about whether the public can influence ongoing trials and it occurs to me that there must be cases where the publicity of the trial has uncovered new evidence or witnesses. Or not. I don't know - would it even be allowed?

Point is, is he correct to suppose that outside or independent investigation cannot be introduced during an ongoing case (if that even is the best way to describe these years-long gaps between trials in Italy)
 
I wasn't referring to witnesses or evidence in this case particularly. I was considering coulsdon's question about whether the public can influence ongoing trials and it occurs to me that there must be cases where the publicity of the trial has uncovered new evidence or witnesses. Or not. I don't know - would it even be allowed?

Point is, is he correct to suppose that outside or independent investigation cannot be introduced during an ongoing case (if that even is the best way to describe these years-long gaps between trials in Italy)

It seems like anything can be done in Italy if the judge wants to allow it.
 
Me too, like I said. That's what discussion forums are for. I'm just acknowledging that I'm adding nothing to the progress of the case.

I include the guilters in everything I said above btw. They are in the echo chamber too.

Well, but the crucial difference between their sites and this one is that they're welcome to come here and make their case, just as I am.

That they choose not to says a lot about them, as does their refusal to allow dissent in their own forums.
 
I wasn't referring to witnesses or evidence in this case particularly. I was considering coulsdon's question about whether the public can influence ongoing trials and it occurs to me that there must be cases where the publicity of the trial has uncovered new evidence or witnesses. Or not. I don't know - would it even be allowed?

Point is, is he correct to suppose that outside or independent investigation cannot be introduced during an ongoing case (if that even is the best way to describe these years-long gaps between trials in Italy)

Actually, the antecedents of this very case provide just such an example.

In the Monster of Florence crimes, a defendant Pietro Pacciani was convicted at his first level trial in what was a national show trial, as detailed by Preston & Spezi in their book, "The Monster of Florence".

At the Pacciani's appeal, the case began to fall apart. The prosecutor at Pacciani's appeal argued in favor of acquittal because the case against Pacciani was such an obvious sham.

The lead detectives who obtained the initial convictions received high level career promotions, having snared a conviction under the theroy that the Monster of Florence crimes were the work of a satanic sect, and not a lone assassin, as an earlier branch of the investigation had held, and consistent with an FBI profile provided in 1989 to the Italians detailing a lone killer.

A new detective took over the 'Monster squad', Michele Giuitarri, who now was faced with the prospect of losing the one conviction in the MOF crimes, a disaster for the international reputation of Italian law enforcement.

On the day before the expected acquittal of Pacciani, Giuitarri and his squad arrested Mario Vanni, a postman who had been ridiculed ta Pacciano's original trial for claiming the two were merely, "picknicking friends", as Pacciai's accomplice in the MOF crimes.

As per Preston/Spezi/ MOF, (p.149); " The timing was exquisite. On the morning of February 13, the very day the appeals court judges were to announc their verdict, the newspapers were trumpeting the news of Vanni's arrest asPacciani's co-monster.
As a result, the great bunkerlike courtroom was like a volcano waiting to explode. The arrest of Vanni was a direct challenge to the judges, should they dare to acquit Pacciani.
As the proceedings began, a policeman sent by Chief Inspector Giuttari arrived breathlessly in court, carrying a bundle of papers. He demanded the right to speak. Ferri, the president of the court, was annoyed by this last minute move. Nevertheless, he cooly invited the emissary from police headquarters to say his piece.
The man announced that four new witnesses in the Monster case had surfaced. He presented them as greek letters: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta.
For reasons of security, he said, the Tribunale could not render the names. Their testimony was absolutely crucial to the case - because two of these witnesses, the emissary told the stunned court, were actually present at the double homicide of 1985 when the French tourists were killed. They had witnessed Pacciani at the very scene of the crime, committing the murders, and one had actually confessed to helping him. The others could corroborate their testimony."

Snip.

Long story short, the judge said if they gave their names they could testify. Giutarri refused to allow it, and the appeals court proceeded to acquit Pacciani. ISC overturned on the basis that the four algebraic witnesses needed to be heard. Pacciani dies two days before his retrial was set to begin.

Giutarri and Mignini may well have absorbed the lesson that the theory of a satanic sect being responsible for the MOF crimes, was worth pursuing, even though it had no merit whatsoever. Mignini would pursue the same theory on the word of the psychic Gaberiella Carlizzi, from 2002 until it was finally discarded in 2014, July of this year.

The 4 algebraic witnesses included a homeless prostitute who had turned tricks for a glass of red wine that costs 25 cents, a pimp, Lotti - a village idiot who testified against himself, and a serial witness later indisputably proved to be a liar.

Mignini and Giutarri were charged for their abuses in theri later investigations, including locking up Mario Spezi and creating an international embarrassment. But maintaining the fiction of Pacciani's guilt and the existence of a satanic sect being responsible for the MOF crimes is a lie the Italian judiciary is defending to this day.

Mignini seized on Amanda and Raf out of self preservation, and the willingness of the Italian judiciary, IMO, is nothing but an effort to avoid the embarrassment of allowing the MOF conviction to unravel, while at the same time easing Mignini out of a position where he could continue to injure scores of innocent people through his maniacal fabrications.

By the way, Giutarri's replacement at the squad in Rome was Giobbi, a man who can tell guilt by the eating of pizza.

So, I guess that's one example CouldsonUK. Not sure you'll find the analysis credible, but there you have it.
 
Last edited:
crazy abuse?

- From Ms Nadeau's artricle: " Nick Squires, the Rome correspondent for The Daily Telegraph says any time he has written about the murder of British Erasmus student Meredith Kercher and the conviction of American student Amanda Knox in Perugia, Italy, he is harassed by supporters of Knox’s innocence and also those who believe she is guilty. “I always felt I had covered the story objectively and that both sides were wrong,” he told The Daily Beast. “I see it as a badge of honor. As long as I got crazy abuse from both sides, I was happy.”

I hope Mr. Squires doesn't pull a muscle patting himself on the back. Sometimes, however, halfway between the two polls of an issue is not where reason and logic dictate one should be (Mr. Squires wrote an article in 2011 giving 5 reasons to think that Ms. Knox was guilty and five reasons to think that she was innocent). BTW, I'd like to know what sort of crazy abuse he actually received.
 
Last edited:
Nick Squires

-

- From Ms Nadeau's artricle: " Nick Squires, the Rome correspondent for The Daily Telegraph says any time he has written about the murder of British Erasmus student Meredith Kercher and the conviction of American student Amanda Knox in Perugia, Italy, he is harassed by supporters of Knox’s innocence and also those who believe she is guilty. “I always felt I had covered the story objectively and that both sides were wrong,” he told The Daily Beast. “I see it as a badge of honor. As long as I got crazy abuse from both sides, I was happy.”

I hope Mr. Squires doesn't pull a muscle patting himself on the back. Sometimes, however, halfway between the two polls of an issue is not where reason and logic dictate one should be (Mr. Squires wrote an article in 2011 giving 5 reasons to think that Ms. Knox was guilty and five reasons to think that she was innocent). BTW, I'd like to know what sort of crazy abuse he actually received.
-

Here are two I found real quick, but the second one is the only one with a comment section:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Knox-Guilty-or-innocent-five-reasons-why.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...manda-Knox-are-victims-in-Kercher-murder.html
-

d

-
ETA: He must be talking about twitter, e-mail, or facebook abuse, because in the second article with the comments (after a quick read) he isn't the one attacked, not really. It seems to be a war of abuse from both sides at each other (Harry Rag is one of the commenters).

Squires doesn't seem to be writing in favor of either side (at least not in the second article), in my opinion.

-
 
Last edited:
-

-

Thanx m for posting this.

It's a very well written article.

I have my own theories (hypothesis) about anger, mostly written from my own experience of spending many wasted years of my life being angry and trying to find things to blame it on, until I figured out was really going on:

http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-2014-08.html#08031127

It's just a theory (hypothesis) and only really applies to me, but once I figured it out, it changed my life,

d

-
P.S. I also cut and pasted this to the comment section at the bottom of Moore's article

-
 
-

Nothing wrong with being angry just as long as you are not being abusive
-

Agreed, although sometimes my anger was (and still is) a kind of background noise that didn't allow me to enjoy life as much as I do now.

It was like always having a minor headache in my head, that never went away until I blew my gasket and screamed at people or threw things or even worse,

d

-
 
Last edited:
I wasn't referring to witnesses or evidence in this case particularly. I was considering coulsdon's question about whether the public can influence ongoing trials and it occurs to me that there must be cases where the publicity of the trial has uncovered new evidence or witnesses. Or not. I don't know - would it even be allowed?

Point is, is he correct to suppose that outside or independent investigation cannot be introduced during an ongoing case (if that even is the best way to describe these years-long gaps between trials in Italy)

Public opinion matters lonepine. I'm convinced that they can and do influence some ongoing cases, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That said, one would hope that any jury or judge would do the right thing regardless of public opinion. I also believe that there are are times where judges and juries do the wrong thing regardless of public opinion.
 
-

Anyway, I'm still searching for the autopsy report by searching through back post on this thread.
-


How about the testimony of Lalli (2009-04-03):

PROSECUTOR - dr. MIGNINI
QUESTION - Look, she has examined the hyoid bone?
ANSWER - Yes.
QUESTION - How did you find us?
ANSWER - There was a fracture of the bone, a power
This continuity of the hyoid bone, however, shown and described, it seems to me, the left horn, if I understand correctly, the body.
Q. - That's ...
ANSWER - Yes, the body of the hyoid bone.
QUESTION - How has interpreted this fracture?
ANSWER - Well, the hyoid bone is, say, the skeleton of the
language, that is the bone that is at the bottom of the muscle of the tongue and is a bone which may have been damaged, or ... can be in response to a maneuver of grasping the neck, and then compression of the neck, or have damaged, for action of the cutting edge, then the weapon that penetrated considering, behold, the harmfulness as a whole, on the neck, automatically leads to have this, this.
Q. - So these are the two possible causes?
ANSWER - Yes, yes.
​
 
-

How about the testimony of Lalli (2009-04-03):

PROSECUTOR - dr. MIGNINI
QUESTION - Look, she has examined the hyoid bone?
ANSWER - Yes.
QUESTION - How did you find us?
ANSWER - There was a fracture of the bone, a power
This continuity of the hyoid bone, however, shown and described, it seems to me, the left horn, if I understand correctly, the body.
Q. - That's ...
ANSWER - Yes, the body of the hyoid bone.
QUESTION - How has interpreted this fracture?
ANSWER - Well, the hyoid bone is, say, the skeleton of the
language, that is the bone that is at the bottom of the muscle of the tongue and is a bone which may have been damaged, or ... can be in response to a maneuver of grasping the neck, and then compression of the neck, or have damaged, for action of the cutting edge, then the weapon that penetrated considering, behold, the harmfulness as a whole, on the neck, automatically leads to have this, this.
Q. - So these are the two possible causes?
ANSWER - Yes, yes.
​
-

Thanx d. That helps a little, but it was weird reading it, especially the hilited part. It gave me the impression that no one knew if the hyoid bone was broken or not, or they didn't know what damaged it, and what the hell does "skeleton of the language" really suppose to mean?

Just weird. Is that a product of google translate?

d

-
ETA: and that third line, "How did you find us?" Ha ha.

-
 
Last edited:
- From Ms Nadeau's artricle: " Nick Squires, the Rome correspondent for The Daily Telegraph says any time he has written about the murder of British Erasmus student Meredith Kercher and the conviction of American student Amanda Knox in Perugia, Italy, he is harassed by supporters of Knox’s innocence and also those who believe she is guilty. “I always felt I had covered the story objectively and that both sides were wrong,” he told The Daily Beast. “I see it as a badge of honor. As long as I got crazy abuse from both sides, I was happy.”

I hope Mr. Squires doesn't pull a muscle patting himself on the back. Sometimes, however, halfway between the two polls of an issue is not where reason and logic dictate one should be (Mr. Squires wrote an article in 2011 giving 5 reasons to think that Ms. Knox was guilty and five reasons to think that she was innocent). BTW, I'd like to know what sort of crazy abuse he actually received.

Nick Squires and Barbie Nadeau are both professional trolls. They are not aiming to write accurate articles - they don't particularly care about accuracy and they are mainly trying to write controversial articles, that will receive the most hits and comments

There is also a big difference between commenting that a journalist has written a load of inaccurate rubbish - and a sustained campaign to belittle and abuse someone with thousands of messages
 
Red, white and blue & GREEN.

Together we make a difference I think. . . .The Hubble Space Telescope was going to be decommissioned until NASA got letter after letter and kids sending their lunch money to NASA to save it.

As Americans, if they are convicted again (and I think they will be to be blunt), and assuming that there is an extradition request (I am not as sure about that), it is time for a massive letter writing campaign to the president and the secretary of state. Cannot save Raff but maybe Amanda from further incarceration.


Well given the rather poor response to the petition massive may be a problem.
The best that can be hoped for is probably a small number of very ‘intense’ letters in ALL CAPS.

& Green ink is the de rigueur for these kind of missives apparently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom