Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

It was a question. Perhaps you missed the 'question mark', those are normally regarded as clues.

So, 'when' do you mean then?* Or are you just going to continue to sling vague innuendos about and answer questions with questions?*


* Clue: There's a question mark on those.

Careful, Fulcanelli. If you challenge him too much about making sense he'll threaten you with his ignorance.

 

[katy_did]

You people keep saying stuff like this, and then pretend to not be bashing the Italians.

Lets look at what I've highlighted and discuss just one case example. Casey Anthony has been in jail in Florida, charged with the murder of her own daughter, since the summer of '08. Currently her trial is tentatively scheduled for May, 2011. Tentatively. The state has released over 12,000 pages of evidence accumulated against her, and it's still coming, and every scrap of that has been on national television on a nearly daily basis. The Grace creature's program aired virtually nothing else for over a year. Every night. Her family stopped visiting her in jail because every second of every visit was videotaped, released by the state, and the tapes played and criticized on the air. Her commissary purchases gets air time ... and ridicule.

I could go on for pages. And that's just one case. Do you really want to play this game?

Would you like to tryto play with prosecutorial discretion in the U.S. and its potential for misuse as a topic. Ask your buddy halides1 about Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team. That one had a happy ending, sort of, but it was a near thing. I'm sure we can find plenty of other examples.

It's disingenuous for you to say "I'm not sure why you're assuming I think it's any kind of 'conspiracy against an American'. I think that's a bit of a red herring" and then finish up the same paragraph with comments so completely without foundation and so pointedly and unambiguously prejudiced.

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with the cases you mention. As I understand it, the jury in Italy are permitted to follow press coverage of the case in a way they wouldn't be allowed to do under other legal systems, and the press are not restricted in their coverage of the case in the same way as they would be in other countries.

Clearly, this is a potential problem in terms of the jury being influenced by factors outside the courtroom. If it also takes place in America, then obviously it's a problem there too. National differences are relevant in so far as there are always going to be specific problems relating to a particular country's legal system, so in that sense I can't really see the problem in pointing those issues out. If they exist in America as well, then by all means let's say there are similar problems there too.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with the cases you mention. As I understand it, the jury in Italy are permitted to follow press coverage of the case in a way they wouldn't be allowed to do under other legal systems, and the press are not restricted in their coverage of the case in the same way as they would be in other countries.

Then you understand wrong. They are not permitted to read of the case in the media at all. Indeed, they take an oath not to and if it was to ever emerge any of their reasoning was based on anything they had read in the media, the case could be thrown out.

Also, define 'not permitted in other countries'...you mean physically restrained from doing so? Or, simply instructed not to? If it's the latter, then it's exactly the same in Italy.

Clearly, this is a potential problem in terms of the jury being influenced by factors outside the courtroom. If it also takes place in America, then obviously it's a problem there too. National differences are relevant in so far as there are always going to be specific problems relating to a particular country's legal system, so in that sense I can't really see the problem in pointing those issues out. If they exist in America as well, then by all means let's say there are similar problems there too.

But since this 'influence' is purely hypothetical, since you cannot evidence they were influenced, it is essentially a non-point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Careful, Fulcanelli. If you challenge him too much about making sense he'll threaten you with his ignorance.

That's okay, I'll just bully him with facts

 

[Megalodon]

Well, that's hitting the nail on the head.

IF Amanda had nothing to hide, why lie? IF Sollecito is innocent, why the lies?

Lumumba didn't lie when he was called in for questioning. His alibi was verified and he was released. See, that's how it works. You're not guilty, you tell the truth, the truth is verified, and you're released.

Yes, but Lumumba is a black man, and we know how much better they are treated by the police than white american girls or white italian boys.

Thus no stress, so no false memories, implanted memories, dream memories or whatever the new kind of memories will be made up to excuse the stream of lies that came from those two...

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, but Lumumba is a black man, and we know how much better they are treated by the police than white american girls or white italian boys.

Thus no stress, so no false memories, implanted memories, dream memories or whatever the new kind of memories will be made up to excuse the stream of lies that came from those two...

Ahhh, that explains the lack of false memories in Guede's trial.

Thanks for that, I completely missed the race issue

 

[katy_did]

Then you understand wrong. They are not permitted to read of the case in the media at all. Indeed, they take an oath not to and if it was to ever emerge any of their reasoning was based on anything they had read in the media, the case could be thrown out.

Also, define 'not permitted in other countries'...you mean physically restrained from doing so? Or, simply instructed not to? If it's the latter, then it's exactly the same in Italy.

But since this 'influence' is purely hypothetical, since you cannot evidence they were influenced, it is essentially a non-point.

Leaving aside any specific issues within the Italian legal system, the amount of press coverage in this case can't fail to have influenced the jury, as indeed would have been the case had it taken place in any other country. That's just a general problem with very high-profile trials like this one.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Leaving aside any specific issues within the Italian legal system, the amount of press coverage in this case can't fail to have influenced the jury, as indeed would have been the case had it taken place in any other country. That's just a general problem with very high-profile trials like this one.

Then I suppose the Mellas family should be looking for a refund from Gogerty Marriott

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unidentified DNA on clasp

It does not have the DNA of 3 unidentified people on it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...na-found-on-murdered-students-bra-776367.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

Leaving aside any specific issues within the Italian legal system, the amount of press coverage in this case can't fail to have influenced the jury, as indeed would have been the case had it taken place in any other country. That's just a general problem with very high-profile trials like this one.

What, is the amount of coverage in this case unique, or even unusual? I see no evidence for that. And even with that, you also have to split off all the coverage by the Anglo media which Italians would hardly be interested in.

In which case, what is the justification for the claim that the judges were any more susceptible to the media coverage on this case then in any other high profile case in any other country?

Do you have any evidence the judges broke their vow? Do you have any evidence that if they did, the coverage would have influenced their decision in any case?

I also am in the dark of why this is even a 'potential' issue. Why would the judges rely on information from the media on any aspect of the case when they have the full first hand case file in front of them? When they actually hear the testimony of the experts and witnesses first hand who they are also able to cross examine? Where they hear the arguments of the prosecution and defence and lawyers for the victims first hand? It's like a brain surgeon putting aside his training, experience, first hand knowledge of the patient and who has access to all the medical journals putting them all aside in order to pick up a newspaper instead to read articles on conducting brain surgery for his reference in order to carry out the operation. Not gonna happen.

Finally, unlike traditional juries in the common law system who simply have to provide a verdict with no explanation of how they arrived at it and therefore allows room for prejudice, the Italian judges must write up a full report of conclusions along with exactly why and how they came to those conclusions, on each piece of evidence and each aspect of the case. Were they to have been prejudiced in their decisions by the media, that would be quickly exposed in such a report and provide the grounds for the appeal. You can't hide prejudice, flawed reasoning or conclusions based on flawed sources when you have to write up your reasoning. After all, as proof of that fact, we watch you people do that here every day and all the aforementioned are painfully exposed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...na-found-on-murdered-students-bra-776367.html

We've been over this before. One of those people was identified as being Amanda's DNA. Therefore, that leaves the DNA of two unidentified persons. 3 - 1 = 2.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jama case

I don't see how it's relevant. Just pretend I'm one of those "juror like idiots".^* That report says that the victim may not have been raped and there were no witnesses. So, possibly no crime and no other evidence.

We have far too little information in any of the articles on the Jama case to conclude that it is similar to the case against RS and AK. Did Jama tell the police that he was with the woman, covering his ears, while another man was raping her? Was she found locked in a room in his house? Did he have an accomplice who lied to the police and then told them Jama wasn't reading the Koran at the bedside of his dying father? Was he turning cartwheels in the police station?

Help me out here.

---------
* http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5569159&postcount=2659

Stilicho and BobTheDonkey,

The prosecution’s scenario, that Jama raped this woman is less likely than that contamination occurred. Jama was too young to be in the club, he had alibi witnesses, etc. On the other hand, forensic DNA contamination could have happened given that his reference sample was run at the same time and by the same technician as the rape sample.

Something like this was also the case with Ms. Mixer, the murdered graduate student in Michigan, and it is a problem that William Thompson documented in a link I gave upthread. Contamination in the Mixer case is a better explanation than in positing that a 4-year old from a distant city had a nosebleed over a dead body, as the prosecution claimed. Here is possibly the most important point. No one proved how contamination occurred in the Jama case. Proving how contamination occurred is very roughly as difficult as proving how one picked up a cold virus. One usually doesn’t know how it happened, but one recognizes that it did happen from the sneezes and the runny nose.

In this case the lack of blood on the knife is playing the analogous role to the alibi and other evidence in the Jama case. It persuades one to acknowledge at least the possibility of contamination, IMHO. The other particulars of the two cases are very different.

Chris

 

[Dan O.]

You're right. You didn't.

So the other three options would be:...

So many tries yet you still miss the obvious one that was offered immediately after the DNA result was announced. A possibility that has never been refuted (at least publicly).


You also must have missed the lesson on "Burden of Proof".

It is the prosecutions claim that there was a biological trace from Raffaele left on the bra clasp during the murder. It is their burden to prove their claim. If you want to carry their claim, you also assume their burden.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You also must have missed the lesson on "Burden of Proof".

Says Dan o, who never misses an opportunity to accuse the prosecution, police, prosecution experts & witnesses or the Italian system of anything and everything without the slightest whiff of evidence, let alone proof. Dan o's world, where the concept of innocence until proven guilty and burden of proof is oh so selective and only ever applies to our little darlings, Amanda and Raffaele. But then, we know Dan o lives in what was once a glass house that no longer has windows since he's shattered them all long ago.

It is the prosecutions claim that there was a biological trace from Raffaele left on the bra clasp during the murder. It is their burden to prove their claim. If you want to carry their claim, you also assume their burden.

And they've done so, more then adequately. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted, unanimously.

 

[stilicho]

Yes, but Lumumba is a black man, and we know how much better they are treated by the police than white american girls or white italian boys.

Thus no stress, so no false memories, implanted memories, dream memories or whatever the new kind of memories will be made up to excuse the stream of lies that came from those two...

The FOA camp has never come up with a consistent scenario for this. I mentioned it first on this thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5381937&postcount=187. That was on 05 DEC 2009.

The same authorities who framed/assaulted/injected/brutalised poor AK and RS also worked tirelessly to find the right people to bring to trial for Meredith's murder. Mr Lumumba will live with that memory for the rest of his life--being falsely accused and left to the mercies of the authorities to vindicate him while AK sat in her cell penning her meanderings and humming Beatles tunes.

 

[stilicho]

The other particulars of the two cases are very different.

Especially the part about there possibly having been no crime at all. Next.

 

[tsig]

What facts have I ignored?

Mainly that a court found her guilty.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Mainly that a court found her guilty.

Dan o's forgotten there was even a trial, let alone a verdict

 

[Moss]

PMF is pretty much as waste of time for anyone interested in an honest examination of this case. It's essentially a cult website run by people with an ax to grind who shamelessly pollute the internet with misinformation.

This post is a prime example of FUD. Nice example of poisoning the well.
I'm getting fed up with the loaded statements about how evidence that seems to be rather ordinary is dubious and how the whole Italian system conspired to get a poor American and her Italian boyfriend into prison when it was just that bad black guy.
You can try to pick apart details as much as you like (and it does not seem to work convincingly, possibilities for manipulation and contamination are always there, it is still up to you to offer evidence about it and not just to insinuate it) but as in Holocaust denial, that does not make the whole case go away, no matter how hard you insist it does.
Let's see what the appeal court does with it. Will you accept the verdict of the appeal court when it comes out they are still guilty? Or is there never a possibility of Amanda and Raffaele being guilty of the murder of poor Meredith?

 

[tsig]

Dan o's forgotten there was even a trial, let alone a verdict

I notice all the FoA's here seem to forget that. They also seem to forget that the appeal will be much tougher to win because a court has already established as fact most of the things they are arguing over.

As I see it here's their theory:

Italian prosecutors take a poor innocent American girl and coerce her to confess her boss did it. When that doesn't work out they force her to confess she did it They then plant clues and ignore facts and a corrupt judiciary backs them up.

Of course none of this would have happened in America or the UK where the justice system is perfect.