Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

If the police had her picture on the wall, that would be one thing, but the forensics division is another matter. I don’t see how forensic evidence could tell anything about who the ringleader is (message #7033). Moreover, your answer assumes without evidence that the other people on the wall were not convicted. Bernardo Provenzano was arrested in 2006 (the photograph on the wall shows his arrest), but he had already been tried in abstentia. There was also a picture of a serial murderer. Therefore, the equivalence you are claiming is false, but quite telling.

Really?

Because, correct me if I'm mistaken here, at the time, Amanda had been arrested on suspicion of a brutal murder, she was later convicted of such.

Thus, I fail to see how her picture was out of place on that wall...

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

You wrote (message #6828), “So what exactly do you hope to achieve? I am genuinely curious”

You asked (message #7008), “You don't agree that bringing in other cases is completely irrelevant to whether the information was withheld in this case and so cannot convince anyone one way or the other about this issue?”

There are two issues, whether the files were released, and whether they might be useful if they were. When I reconsidered the Leskie case, I argued the latter issue. IIRC in response to my earlier discussion of Leskie, Stilicho’s response was that Sollecito and Knox were not several hundred miles away; therefore, the case is not relevant. My response is that Ms. P need not have been several hundred miles away from Jaidyn Leskie, and contamination would still be the most likely explanation for her DNA being present on his clothing. My position is that the electronic files are extremely useful, and the Leskie case may convince some people who previously felt otherwise to change their minds.

I am pondering whether to look further into the former issue, and that is why I asked whether you and Stilicho agree that electronic data files should be released to the defense lawyers and their consultants (the defense team) as a general principle. Do you? I might not spend the time or capital to research this if your answer were no.

I think they should release whatever the law says they should release: and I know that they agreed to release all the information which the law does not require in this case. And I know that the judge made an order about the date that stuff should be passed over. And I know that the defence did not claim that was not complied with.

The general point has no bearing on this case. At. All.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I think they should release whatever the law says they should release: and I know that they agreed to release all the information which the law does not require in this case. And I know that the judge made an order about the date that stuff should be passed over. And I know that the defence did not claim that was not complied with.

The general point has no bearing on this case. At. All.

What if the issue of release is not settled in Italian law?

 

[Fiona]

Since they agreed to release stuff not required by law it remains irrelevant to this case

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Big difference

Really?

Because, correct me if I'm mistaken here, at the time, Amanda had been arrested on suspicion of a brutal murder, she was later convicted of such.

Thus, I fail to see how her picture was out of place on that wall...

Mr. Provenzano was convicted at the time that his picture was seen in the 2008 documentary, but Amanda Knox was not convicted at this time or even formally charged.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

are you mixing together two separate discussions?

What possible relevance could that picture have if this is true? Do cameras not steal souls but rather steal dna?

I am completely baffled by your comment. Please explain.

 

[Fiona]

What relevance does that picture, assuming the account is true, have on the case? Is it a source of dna or something?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Mr. Provenzano was convicted at the time that his picture was seen in the 2008 documentary, but Amanda Knox was not convicted at this time or even formally charged.

Oh, so, when did his picture go up on the wall?

 

[shuttlt]

The photo on the wall is clearly seen in the documentary. This has already been proven. You need to watch the documentary and you will see that I am being honest with you.

Thanks Bruce, I've seen it now (minus sound for the moment). As you say, it's clearly visible. If it's been known about for well over a year though, I don't see why it's hitting the headlines now.

 

[Fiona]

I have a vague recollection of reading this somewhere before (maybe PMF?) but I cannot find it now. Does it matter in any way at all?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I have a vague recollection of reading this somewhere before (maybe PMF?) but I cannot find it now. Does it matter in any way at all?

The spin goes something like:

"Amanda's picture was on the wall with other big-time criminals, therefore the forensics team was prejudiced against her, therefore the findings of the forensics team are invalid, therefore Amanda is an innocent angel that has been victimized by the big, bad Italian Justice System."

 

[Moss]

Reminds me of the Giobbi interview "bombshell". Same tactic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Provenzano's picture

Oh, so, when did his picture go up on the wall?

After he was convicted.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

After he was convicted.

Evidence/cite?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

logic

Evidence/cite?

You can use logic, as opposed merely to using the word "logically." He was convicted of murder in absentia while he was in hiding, then arrested in 2006.

However, I know you are not fond of doing your own research, so here goes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4899512.stm
http://gangstersinc.tripod.com/BernardoProvenzano.html

 

[Moss]

That tells us that the poster hung there after his conviction, not when it was put up. Which fails to prove your claim.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That tells us that the poster hung there after his conviction, not when it was put up. Which fails to prove your claim.

Which is my point, exactly.

And, Chris, you're the one making the claim - therefore you do the research to prove your claim.

 

[stilicho]

What relevance does that picture, assuming the account is true, have on the case? Is it a source of dna or something?

I think it's rather a part of some Satanic iconophilic ritual. Just ask Chris "Mesmer" Halkides.

@halides1: Any word yet on who "engaged" Johnson and Hampikian? A pdf of the email would suffice.

 

[stilicho]

Thanks Bruce, I've seen it now (minus sound for the moment). As you say, it's clearly visible. If it's been known about for well over a year though, I don't see why it's hitting the headlines now.

Two words: Paul. Ciolino.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Really?

Because, correct me if I'm mistaken here, at the time, Amanda had been arrested on suspicion of a brutal murder, she was later convicted of such.

Thus, I fail to see how her picture was out of place on that wall...

Mr. Donkey, can you honestly say that you don't see a problem with hanging a photo of someone up on a wall with Italy's famous criminals before they have even been charged with a crime? Do you not see that it shows the mindset of Edgardo Giobbi?

Why would you even try to defend that?