Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even though I live in Canada, I get a lot of cable coverage from the nearby Pacific Northwest. Needless to say, the case gets a lot more coverage here excepting the arrest and the recent conviction.

But this isn't the only guilty verdict against Ms Knox in this incident. She was also found guilty of defamation against Lumumba, a bartender who used to be her boss.

That's one part of this case that is seriously underreported. What would possess anyone to accuse their former employer of a crime--especially of rape and murder? That isn't just 'confusion'; it's utter irresponsibility. Even kids, when asked who broke the lamp, will simply reply "not me" out of habit. It takes a very special type of person to speculate wildly without any evidence whatsoever.

Her family and friends have sought to characterise Ms Knox as a faultless victim whereas the truth is that she'd already had a criminal conviction for hosting an out-of-control party near the University of Washington the same year she departed for Italy.

The cartwheels don't seem out of character for this woman. In fact, I was a little disturbed at the asides about her playing Sharon Stone earlier in this thread. From her past, it's apparent that's precisely what she was trying to do only it doesn't work in real life like it does in the movies.

The appeal should be interesting since it's been reported here that her broken family will have to mortgage themselves to the hilt.

Do you have any source for your claim Knox was accused of a crime before departing for Italy? This is the first I have heard such an accusation.

As for incriminating an innocent person in the murder, that has been addressed.

 

[Fiona]

No skeptigirl: it is not because I know little that I assume you know little as well: it is because you are apparently closing your eyes to a great deal of what is known: and you do not seem to realise that hearing the evidence which is actually presented at a trial is crucial to deciding whether there is a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

I linked a site above: it covers the trial and it examines much of what is said. It confirms that Agatha's link of the blog post which you dismiss is based on credible sources and summarises the actual evidence which is in play here.

You have now shown twice that you cannot understand the points which I and others are putting to you. But no matter.

The site I have linked is very interesting. In particular the account it gives of the judge's reasons for committing Knox and her boyfriend for trial is informative. It does assume some prior knowledge but you will have that. So what comment have you to make on these issues?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index..._judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm only picking out this one comment as an example. I don't mean to single it out as a particular 'smoking gun'.

Here is a site with an interesting discussion on the case and how it has been presented.

Among the things discussed is the apparent break-in into Filomena Romanelli's (the third roomate) room. This excerpt is interesting.

This is combined with many other aspects of the case that are not developed in recent U.S. news reports which provide a much less clear picture of railroading an innocent.

I had noted the case when it first broke, but have not followed it with great attention. When the media storm around the verdict blew up yesterday I was first dismayed, and then disgusted by the overwhelming and obvious spin being projected by U.S. sources. HLN was the worst, but all of them were guilty to some degree.

Understand that I approached this with no particular bias as to her guilt one way or the other, and no real study of the case as it has developed. If anything I would be inclined to hope that she was indeed innocent.

The presentation and vehemence of the media followup to the verdict, along with the style of approach used to spin a position set off alarm bells in my mind. There was virtually no effort to even contemplate the possibility that Knox was guilty. There was a definite aroma of "...doth protest too much." accompanied by a xenophobic stench.

I decided to start by taking a look at a true crime board I've found to be fairly even-handed. A quite large and well frequented one that generally manages good insights which usually prove correct. They started a thread on the case on 11/06/07, and developed an early consensus that there was a strong likelihood of Knox's guilt. That consensus did not change much over two years. It should be noted that most of the posters are American, even though there are many from overseas.

The more that I have reviewed different presentations of the story the less confident I have become that there is a slam-dunk case for prosecutorial misconduct. I won't list a string of links here. They're easily found if anyone wants to take the initiative to look. The thread I linked to offers many, and does so in the chronological order that the case developed, which allows for some additional insight all its own.

My suspicion, almost a certainty, is that if this tragedy had occurred in the U.S, and if Ms. Knox had been prosecuted in the U.S. with the evidence I have seen as available against her, even with all the extra protections of American jurisprudence, she would have been convicted, would not have been sentenced with less than LWOP, and would have been very fortunate not to ride a needle. Others have on far less.

If she's innocent then certainly that is much to be deplored, although it must be said that an erroneous conviction in Italy can bear much less .. fatal results than in the U.S.

If she is guilty then it might be that she should be grateful that she is guilty in Europe.

Wow. You cite a web source titled, "True Justice for Meredith Kurcher" as your main source of evidence and a forum discussion as the clincher.

I'll take a closer look later at your sources but at the moment I am really saddened by the claims sources such as these are evidence of someone's guilt.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No skeptigirl: it is not because I know little that I assume you know little as well: it is because you are apparently closing your eyes to a great deal of what is known: and you do not seem to realise that hearing the evidence which is actually presented at a trial is crucial to deciding whether there is a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

I linked a site above: it covers the trial and it examines much of what is said. It confirms that Agatha's link of the blog post which you dismiss is based on credible sources and summarises the actual evidence which is in play here.

You have now shown twice that you cannot understand the points which I and others are putting to you. But no matter.

The site I have linked is very interesting. In particular the account it gives of the judge's reasons for committing Knox and her boyfriend for trial is informative. It does assume some prior knowledge but you will have that. So what comment have you to make on these issues?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index..._judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/

Now you are citing the same source as quadraginta, "True Justice for Meredith Kurcher" as evidence Knox is guilty. Any chance you could investigate the sources that web site is citing?

You do know the web site uses itself as citations for the evidence I hope?

 

[quadraginta]

Wow. You cite a web source titled, "True Justice for Meredith Kurcher" as your main source of evidence and a forum discussion as the clincher. I'll take a closer look later at your sources but at the moment I am really saddened by the claims sources such as these are evidence of someone's guilt.

No. I didn't.

I didn't do anything of the sort, as a matter of fact.

I explicitly said,

"Here is a site with an interesting discussion on the case and how it has been presented."
​

I made no mention of it being a "main source". Nor did I imply in any fashion that it was a "clincher" of any sort at all.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in taking a confrontational position in regards to anything you have said. I have been doing my own research into the episode, and have not yet arrived at any firm conclusions of my own. I am continuing that study.

It should have been quite clear from my post that my major concern was the large degree of single perspective bias that I was observing. That link was simply an example of a different perspective.

That is how I presented it.

I am more than willing to consider more than one perspective. The tenor of your response makes me less inclined to take yours seriously. It is very reminiscent of the sort of one-sided media frenzy on HLN and other networks that caused me to become suspicious of the whole 'poor, innocent, little American girl' caricature in the first place.

 

[Fiona]

Now you are citing the same source as quadraginta, "True Justice for Meredith Kurcher" as evidence Knox is guilty. Any chance you could investigate the sources that web site is citing?

You do know the web site uses itself as citations for the evidence I hope?
Today 04:11 AM

Nope. I cited it before. Please note that like quadraginta, I specifically mentioned the nature of the site and some reservations.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C339/

This is a site which is dedicated to finding justice for Kerchner: but, acknowledging that, it seems to be serious in how it approaches things and there is a lot of good information there, including links to discussions of the DNA evidence and its status.

I do not know the qualifications of what they describe as their "DNA experts": the information may be there but I have not had time to read it all.

Now do you have anything actually relevant to say in response to their arguments?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. I didn't.

I didn't do anything of the sort, as a matter of fact.

I explicitly said,

"Here is a site with an interesting discussion on the case and how it has been presented."
​

I made no mention of it being a "main source". Nor did I imply in any fashion that it was a "clincher" of any sort at all.

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in taking a confrontational position in regards to anything you have said. I have been doing my own research into the episode, and have not yet arrived at any firm conclusions of my own. I am continuing that study.

It should have been quite clear from my post that my major concern was the large degree of single perspective bias that I was observing. That link was simply an example of a different perspective.

That is how I presented it.

I am more than willing to consider more than one perspective. The tenor of your response makes me less inclined to take yours seriously. It is very reminiscent of the sort of one-sided media frenzy on HLN and other networks that caused me to become suspicious of the whole 'poor, innocent, little American girl' caricature in the first place.

So the web site is interesting. What then is your source that you have used to draw your conclusions?

 

[Kestrel]

Her family and friends have sought to characterise Ms Knox as a faultless victim whereas the truth is that she'd already had a criminal conviction for hosting an out-of-control party near the University of Washington the same year she departed for Italy.

I don't really understand the relevance of a loud party to a murder case.

Can you explain your reason for posting this bit of trivia?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Now do you have anything actually relevant to say in response to their arguments?

In response to unsupported arguments from a source titled, "Justice for Meredith Kurcher"?

I'm happy to reply to valid sources. And if there is something specific in a less than credible source, I'll attempt to reply. But I'm not going to write an essay in reply to multiple claims in a source titled, "Justice for Meredith Kurcher" or someone's 30+ or - facts posted in a list in a forum post without a single citation. There is Google to answer such challenges to the citations linked to here that support the conclusion Knox is not guilty.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in taking a confrontational position in regards to anything you have said. I have been doing my own research into the episode, and have not yet arrived at any firm conclusions of my own. I am continuing that study.

<snip>

So the web site is interesting. What then is your source that you have used to draw your conclusions?

There appears to be a problem here.

Perhaps it is my writing skills. Perhaps it is your reading skills.

Which do you think it is?

 

[newton3376]

Have people in this thread gone nuts? The point was only that scientific (aka rational thinking) is based on evidence, not on proof. The reply was to a post demanding I PROVE my conclusion.

The example was idiotic in my opinion....

Wow.

You can say "wow" all you like...as if what I said is somehow "shocking" or scandalous....but I have a feeling that if I was sitting that jury I would have returned a verdict of guilty.

JUST AS THE ACTUAL JURY DID.

Wow.

I'm am floored by this response. Oh well.

Floored? Really?

Once again you seem to imply my statements are shocking or worthy of such a dramatic reaction...I'm afraid the reality of what I said is much more mundane though.

If you have read all the comments in this thread and still believe the jury convicted her IN SPITE of the evidence or lack thereof then I don't know what to tell ya. It seems your mind is made up and nothing would sway it.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I'm American, and doing cartwheels in a police station after you've been brought in for questioning in a murder case is quite bizarre behavior IMHO.

I personally become very physically agitated when stressed, and could easily imagine doing a cartwheel if left alone in a police interrogation room, just to release physical tension and adrenalin.

I said before in a thread about the O.J. Simpson case that anyone who read Vincent Bugliosi's book "Outrage" could not come to any other conclusion than that Simpson was guilty.

In this case, I have to say that anyone who has read Douglas Preston's book "The Monster of Florence" can come to no other conclusion than that the prosecutor in Amanda Knox's case is completely insane and living in a total fantasy world.

It was a clear cut case of an intruder murdering the woman he found in the house. He was clearly linked to the crime and there was absolutely no reason to assume that anyone else was involved. The evidence against Knox is non-existent or flimsy.

 

[newton3376]

I think the best other narrative is that Guede, and only Guede, did it. His DNA was all over the scene, including on the victim's body, toilet tissue, and tampon. His footprints and handprints were at the scene. There is no doubt he was there and had plenty of physical contact with the victim. By contrast, they had to stretch quite a bit to tie Knox or her boyfriend to the scene at all. The victim was supposedly held down, sexually assaulted, and stabbed in the throat, yet they found no DNA on her body from anyone but Guede, nor in the room itself, save for a tiny bit on a bra clasp that had been left at an active crime scene for 40+ days before being tested. And Guede had a history of burglary, including breaking and climbing in through a window higher than the one in this case.

Certainly it is a much simpler and far more common crime: a man sexually assaulted and then murdered a young woman. It is definitely a simpler scenario when contrasted with the prosecution theories, which included a Satanic rite, a sex game gone wrong, and then no real theory at all.

I'm not going to claim that narrative is what happened. I have no idea if she is guilty or not. But, IMO, it seems like a reasonable narrative that fits the evidence.

Is it simpler? Sure.....
More common? Yep....

But from what I have read of the case the circumstances and subsequent actions/reactions would cause me to doubt this. I believe the other two are involved.

Of course to be honest I actually don't care either way...if they are guilty then they should go to prison...if not then no. I have no ax to grind here...but for me (so far at least) I just don't buy that they weren't involved.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't get the obsession with the cartwheel in this thread not being relevant. See post #127 if you need to review my position on this matter.

Does post #127 address where exactly in America turning cartwheels in a police station after being arrested for murder is considered "normal"?

Or does the humiliation continue?

 

[newton3376]

While I am in total agreement the police in the US are just as capable of such an ignorant behavioral assessment, I don't think on its face that negates the fact the cultural differences here affected the Italian police's assessment of Knox.

I find it fascinating and somewhat comical that you believe it is "an ignorant behavioral assessment".....

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

With hazy knowledge of the case, I'd been convinced she was guilty... but seeing the post-trial analysis, I'm with Newton and Chicken on this. There's no way she did it.

To be clear, I haven't stated that I think she is definitely innocent. I am more like 50-50 on the whole thing. There is ample reason to be suspicious that she was involved. It's just that there are also enough red flags to give me pause (heck, that the prosecution actually attempted to present the case as a Satanic ritual killing is... well, it doesn't do much for their credibility in my book).

It's also quite possible the prosecutor is a complete, conspiracy-theorist nut, and that Knox is guilty. I'm pretty much on the fence.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I personally become very physically agitated when stressed, and could easily imagine doing a cartwheel if left alone in a police interrogation room, just to release physical tension and adrenalin.

Oh, that reminds me.

I was once in a very stressful and awful situation which left me frantic. When I was left alone, I dropped down to the floor and did several yoga positions I remembered from high school gym class and some jumping jacks and stretches.

I never, ever do that stuff. Ever. I hadn't done that stuff since high school gym class. I've never done that since.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I had the strangest experience of seeing someone who looked just like Amanda Knox at Piccadilly Circus tonight. Very freaky.

Was she turning a cartwheel?

Are you culturally biased?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The only reason people are halfway making fun of you in this thread is because you label this a cultural misunderstanding, while it's obvious to most it really isn't - that someone acting contrary to what we would expect gets a closer look. You really need to either discard this, or better explain what you mean. Until you do, continuing to label this a cultural misunderstanding is just stupid.

Halfway?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Was she turning a cartwheel?

Are you culturally biased?

I was just curious if he asked her out. Really, what's the worst that could happen?