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

Amanda Knox and the State Department

I think Samson's argument is that the State Department did not intervene, even though it should have been aware of the issue and could have intervened if it wanted to.
You might well be right. Yet in the OP Samson specifically says that it is his belief "that there was political interference at a high level." He then posted the transcript of a State Department press briefing, for, well, reasons. Oh, well, I am absolutely certain that all will soon be made clear...
 
I think Samson's argument is that the State Department did not intervene, even though it should have been aware of the issue and could have intervened if it wanted to.

No, Samson believes that the State Department did intervene and not only that but this forum had direct influence on the State Department to cause the intervention.
 
No, Samson believes that the State Department did intervene and not only that but this forum had direct influence on the State Department to cause the intervention.
That's quite the claim!

Samson, do you have any evidence to support this?
 
As a general reply to all the above, I became interested in the Knox case, and then found that in my back yard we are riddled with similar cases, where people I now know with certainty are innocent are stuck in jail, and cannot be released until they confess to crimes committed by others. That is partly why I was so intrigued at the unprecedented ISC acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. I figured there absolutely had to be interference from the State department to achieve this, and I am trying to see a way to interfere with our corrupt little system. I said on IA I was starting a thread here, and soon after this Charlie Wilkes confirmed what I suspected must be true, and posted this.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=571&start=860

The challenge is to prove him wrong. It is hardly going to be me, because it reflects exactly what is mandated when a hideous process is set to continue unchecked.
And for good measure, the sort of witness testimony that the state department would have had to unravel is this that the prosecution relied on, just translated.

Nara Capezzali went to bed at about 9:30pm and doesn’t remember what time she got up. When asked to guess what time it might have been, she says 11 or 11:30pm but she doesn’t know. She says the noise came from the house. For 1 minute she looked out the window and she heard the noise of stones and leaves blowing in the street below her, and then a couple of seconds after the scream she heard two people running, one person on the metal stairs that lead out of the car park, the other running towards via Bulagaio or towards the University for Foreigners. She said she didn’t look at the time because there are always people messing about down there. Later she shows doubt about where the noise actually came from. She couldn’t get back to sleep at first and she thought about whether somebody had been mugged because it happens a lot there in the street below, or perhaps a girl had been attacked. The next morning she didn’t mention the scream to her daughter because she wasn’t sure about it. In the two weeks running up to the event she had been suffering from Labyrinthitis [From Wikipedia: a problem of the inner ear. It results in vertigo and also possible hearing loss or ringing in the ears]. The next day she went out at about 11am to buy bread. When she got back she saw all the police from her window. People who rented a flat from her told her that a girl had been killed in the house in front of her. This all happened, as far as she can remember, at mid-day, a little before lunch! She says she had seen Meredith several times in the past. She would see her pass by with her books under her arm and she made an impression on her because Meredith had had one of her lips done really large! She didn’t report the scream earlier because she had been unwell and she had forgotten about the scream and then later she remembered it. Nara Capezzali went to bed at about 9:30pm and doesn’t remember what time she got up. When asked to guess what time it might have been, she says 11 or 11:30pm but she doesn’t know. She says the noise came from the house. For 1 minute she looked out the window and she heard the noise of stones and leaves blowing in the street below her, and then a couple of seconds after the scream she heard two people running, one person on the metal stairs that lead out of the car park, the other running towards via Bulagaio or towards the University for Foreigners. She said she didn’t look at the time because there are always people messing about down there. Later she shows doubt about where the noise actually came from. She couldn’t get back to sleep at first and she thought about whether somebody had been mugged because it happens a lot there in the street below, or perhaps a girl had been attacked. The next morning she didn’t mention the scream to her daughter because she wasn’t sure about it. In the two weeks running up to the event she had been suffering from Labyrinthitis [From Wikipedia: a problem of the inner ear. It results in vertigo and also possible hearing loss or ringing in the ears]. The next day she went out at about 11am to buy bread. When she got back she saw all the police from her window. People who rented a flat from her told her that a girl had been killed in the house in front of her. This all happened, as far as she can remember, at mid-day, a little before lunch! She says she had seen Meredith several times in the past. She would see her pass by with her books under her arm and she made an impression on her because Meredith had had one of her lips done really large! She didn’t report the scream earlier because she had been unwell and she had forgotten about the scream and then later she remembered it.

The Italian justice system in full flight. This mad woman was a principal witness to help design a false time of death that fell outside the pair's complete alibi. Who would not want their country to sort the mess? Who would rely on the Italians after 7 years had been wasted?
 
Last edited:
As a general reply to all the above, I became interested in the Knox case, and then found that in my back yard we are riddled with similar cases, where people I now know with certainty are innocent are stuck in jail, ajd cannot be released until they confess to crimes committed by others. That is partly why I was so intrigued at the unprecedented ISC acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. I figured there absolutely had to be interference from the State department to achieve this, and I am trying to see a way to interfere with our corrupt little system. I said on IA I was starting a thread here, and soon after this Charlie Wilkes confirmed what I suspected must be true, and posted this.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=571&start=860

The challenge is to prove him wrong. It is hardly going to be me, because it reflects exactly what is mandated when a hideous process is set to continue unchecked.
And for good measure, the sort of witness testimony that the state department would have had to unravel is this that the prosecution relied on, just translated.

Nara Capezzali went to bed at about 9:30pm and doesn’t remember what time she got up. When asked to guess what time it might have been, she says 11 or 11:30pm but she doesn’t know. She says the noise came from the house. For 1 minute she looked out the window and she heard the noise of stones and leaves blowing in the street below her, and then a couple of seconds after the scream she heard two people running, one person on the metal stairs that lead out of the car park, the other running towards via Bulagaio or towards the University for Foreigners. She said she didn’t look at the time because there are always people messing about down there. Later she shows doubt about where the noise actually came from. She couldn’t get back to sleep at first and she thought about whether somebody had been mugged because it happens a lot there in the street below, or perhaps a girl had been attacked. The next morning she didn’t mention the scream to her daughter because she wasn’t sure about it. In the two weeks running up to the event she had been suffering from Labyrinthitis [From Wikipedia: a problem of the inner ear. It results in vertigo and also possible hearing loss or ringing in the ears]. The next day she went out at about 11am to buy bread. When she got back she saw all the police from her window. People who rented a flat from her told her that a girl had been killed in the house in front of her. This all happened, as far as she can remember, at mid-day, a little before lunch! She says she had seen Meredith several times in the past. She would see her pass by with her books under her arm and she made an impression on her because Meredith had had one of her lips done really large! She didn’t report the scream earlier because she had been unwell and she had forgotten about the scream and then later she remembered it. Nara Capezzali went to bed at about 9:30pm and doesn’t remember what time she got up. When asked to guess what time it might have been, she says 11 or 11:30pm but she doesn’t know. She says the noise came from the house. For 1 minute she looked out the window and she heard the noise of stones and leaves blowing in the street below her, and then a couple of seconds after the scream she heard two people running, one person on the metal stairs that lead out of the car park, the other running towards via Bulagaio or towards the University for Foreigners. She said she didn’t look at the time because there are always people messing about down there. Later she shows doubt about where the noise actually came from. She couldn’t get back to sleep at first and she thought about whether somebody had been mugged because it happens a lot there in the street below, or perhaps a girl had been attacked. The next morning she didn’t mention the scream to her daughter because she wasn’t sure about it. In the two weeks running up to the event she had been suffering from Labyrinthitis [From Wikipedia: a problem of the inner ear. It results in vertigo and also possible hearing loss or ringing in the ears]. The next day she went out at about 11am to buy bread. When she got back she saw all the police from her window. People who rented a flat from her told her that a girl had been killed in the house in front of her. This all happened, as far as she can remember, at mid-day, a little before lunch! She says she had seen Meredith several times in the past. She would see her pass by with her books under her arm and she made an impression on her because Meredith had had one of her lips done really large! She didn’t report the scream earlier because she had been unwell and she had forgotten about the scream and then later she remembered it.

The Italian justice system in full flight. This mad woman was a principal witness to help design a false time of death that fell outside the pair's complete alibi. Who would not want their country to sort the mess? Who would rely on the Italians after 7 years had been wasted?

Are you derailing your own thread? What does this have to do with the State Department?
 
Did you read the link?
Can you state your argument in your own words?

ETA: Read the link. So no evidence beyond an internet claim and your admitted bias. Your claim - you prove it.
 
Last edited:
What Charlie writes is now all that I know. It is the argument I proposed confirmed to my satisfaction.
Not even Charlie claims to know that State did anything. He speculates...

So, no substantive evidence.
 
Not even Charlie claims to know that State did anything. He speculates...

So, no substantive evidence.
I started this thread hoping someone would know more. I am in New Zealand not Washington DC. I believe what Charlie writes. He is an outstanding thinker about crime, shown many times over. Why is there a routine pattern of dismissing all claims that an internet forum can make a difference? What are alternative theories for the ISC breaking its own rules? The acquittals are claimed to be illegal by Peter Quennell and his ilk.
 
Last edited:
I said on IA I was starting a thread here, and soon after this Charlie Wilkes confirmed what I suspected must be true, and posted this.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=571&start=860

The challenge is to prove him wrong.
No. That is not the challenge at all. He starts out "wrong" (unsupported, unproven, etc.) by default. The challenge is to prove him right, and that challenge is for him to accept and achieve. If he has not done so, and you have not done so, then what he has posted bears no significance here.
 
I started this thread hoping someone would know more. I am in New Zealand not Washington DC. I believe what Charlie writes. He is an outstanding thinker about crime, shown many times over. Why is there a routine pattern of dismissing all claims that an internet forum can make a difference? What are alternative theories for the ISC breaking its own rules? The acquittals are claimed to be illegal by Peter Quennell and his ilk.

The routine pattern is to dismiss question all claims until they have been proven no matter what the topic. We don't just believe.

ETA: Dismiss was not the right word.
 
Last edited:
I started this thread hoping someone would know more. I am in New Zealand not Washington DC. I believe what Charlie writes. He is an outstanding thinker about crime, shown many times over. Why is there a routine pattern of dismissing all claims that an internet forum can make a difference? What are alternative theories for the ISC breaking its own rules? The acquittals are claimed to be illegal by Peter Quennell and his ilk.
I do not know that there is a pattern of dismissing claims; what I do know is that there is a pattern of not merely accepting claims without evidence. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. For example, you assert as a fact that the ISC broke its own rules. Do you have evidence of this? What rules, specifically, were broken? What evidence do you have, beyond your faith in other posters' infallibility and your own incredulity, that even if the ISC broke its own rules it was because of pressure from the US State Department? I am not dismissing these claims, I am merely asking for evidence that supports your claims and which will allow me to evalute the degree to which I should give them credence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence why should I, or anyone else, give them weight?

Charlie might well be an outstanding thinker about crime, I neither know nor care, but whether he is or is not is irrelevant to your claim. What you seem to have difficulty with is the idea that what is important is not who is speaking, but what it is that they say.
 
Last edited:
The routine pattern is to dismiss question all claims until they have been proven no matter what the topic. We don't just believe.

ETA: Dismiss was not the right word.
There is no law against expressing an opinion. I made mine, Charle his, what is yours? Did the state department intervene, use standover tactics to influence the trial process. I hope they did because the Italians showed themselves to be unsafe with their treatment of an American. The transcript shows that state department does not hesitate with other countries. Italy earned itself the right to be treated like Isis, as an extreme example. Should the Philippine government try to interfere with the Indonesian when planning to shoot a mother who was shown to be an unwitting drug mule, despite Indonesian law allowing it? And so on.
 
There is no law against expressing an opinion. I made mine, Charle his, what is yours? Did the state department intervene, use standover tactics to influence the trial process. I hope they did because the Italians showed themselves to be unsafe with their treatment of an American. The transcript shows that state department does not hesitate with other countries. Italy earned itself the right to be treated like Isis, as an extreme example. Should the Philippine government try to interfere with the Indonesian when planning to shoot a mother who was shown to be an unwitting drug mule, despite Indonesian law allowing it? And so on.

Opinions are like bumholes, everyone has one. I'm more interested in facts than opinions. Charlie doesn't have too many facts so he's not that interesting.
 

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