Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, excuse me Shuttit. I hadn,t read your entire post. You,re on it, so no worries:)
No worries, I've been going through the Italian media sources on this, the best I have so far is this article translated into English:

I still have faith in Italian justice. I still believe in it. I thought I’d be going home for Christmas but instead I have to wait. Of course, I’m desperate to be free but there is only one path I have chosen to get out of here, the appeal that my lawyers are now drafting

I have not stopped believing in Italian justice. Yes, I think my rights were respected.

http://www.corriere.it/International/english/articoli/2009/12/09/amanda_knox.shtml

I haven't yet found a decent source for the correct/fair issue in Italian.
 
Last edited:
I can see here (12/12/2009), ABC saying that the claim that the trial was "correct" is false:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568

"It has been widely reported in the media that Amanda Knox recently told a visitor to La Capanne prison that she was satisfied with the results of her recent trial," the Knox family said in a statement released today. "Those reports, like much of what has been reported about Amanda and this case, are inaccurate."

I have failed so far to find the "correct" quote as anything but an isolated word in quotes, so it is difficult to interpret. I did find this from her lawyer though:

"Ghirga also rejected insinuations that Knox did not get a fair trial in the Perugia court. "The issues in America do not interest me much," Ghirga told ABC News. "I am happy that there is support, and participation, but if you say it was a trial from the Middle Ages, that her rights were violated, then what do you have lawyers for?"


"Amanda's rights were respected during the trial," said Ghirga. Over the course of many hearings "evidence was presented in the course of debate in court. She had a fair trial."

Knox's rights were not respected during the investigation, however, Ghirga said, when Knox was questioned without a lawyer in the early days after the murder, and interrogation that led to her confused statement in which she said she had a vision she was at the house when Kercher was killed.

"During the investigation, her right to have a lawyer present was not respected, and we made that point very strongly in the trial," Ghirga said.

While noting that "we all were influenced by the media" in the course of this case, he ruled out that the media coverage of the case ultimately influenced the jury's decision.

"I rule out the fact that the jury could have been influenced by the media in a negative sense," Ghirga said. "And I can guarantee that at the trial, the rights (of Amanda) were not violated."
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-correct/story?id=9290666&page=2

I included the whole quote to avoid accusations of cropping, but it's clear that her lawyers believe she had a fair trial, that the media coverage was not important, and that all this stuff coming out of Seattle making out that justice in Italy hasn't moved much beyond trial by ordeal is nonsense.
 
And Mary, I tried REALLY, REALLY hard, to see sexual arousement in the police, and I have to tell ya, if guys were interested in me that way, I,d be very disappointed in what I see in those photos. BTW, Is that a big red bucket in one of the photos:)

Hi capealadin. I did not claim that the police in the photo were sexually aroused. I said there was an undercurrent of sexuality that affected the attitudes of the investigators. John Winters wrote an illustrative observation about the photo, which I thought was entertaining enough to share.

I did not post the photo on this site, someone else did.

If you want to respond to my posts, you should respond to them as they appear on this thread, not on PMF. Their information about this issue is mistaken.
 
I can see here (12/12/2009), ABC saying that the claim that the trial was "correct" is false:



I have failed so far to find the "correct" quote as anything but an isolated word in quotes, so it is difficult to interpret. I did find this from her lawyer though:


I included the whole quote to avoid accusations of cropping, but it's clear that her lawyers believe she had a fair trial, that the media coverage was not important, and that all this stuff coming out of Seattle making out that justice in Italy hasn't moved much beyond trial by ordeal is nonsense.

Thank you shuttit. You speak well here. Also, am I not right in believing the American diplomatic staff attended the trial to see it was fair? I believe this was true. And Hilary Clinton never intervened either, so I think they had nothing to report. This seems to suggest things were in order too.
 
If you want to respond to my posts, you should respond to them as they appear on this thread, not on PMF. Their information about this issue is mistaken.

Could you please explain how PMF's information is mistaken on this issue Mary?
 
Thank you shuttit. You speak well here. Also, am I not right in believing the American diplomatic staff attended the trial to see it was fair? I believe this was true. And Hilary Clinton never intervened either, so I think they had nothing to report. This seems to suggest things were in order too.
I would imagine that an American on trial abroad, particularly one with Knox's media profile would be on the radar of local US diplomatic staff. Whether they attended the trial or not, I don't know.
 
Could you please explain how PMF's information is mistaken on this issue Mary?

It seems to me that question would be better addressed on PMF and I don't post there. If you study what I have posted here and compare it with what is posted there, you will probably be able to analyze the differences on your own.
 
ABC also say this:

Several news outlets, including ABC News, interviewed Walter Verini earlier this week after he visited Knox in prison, where she has begun a 26-year sentence. She was convicted on Saturday of murdering roommate Meredith Kercher in November 2007.
So, all the articles on 9th December 2009 are, according to ABC, the result of different interviews by different news outlets. The "correct" statement may only be in the ABC version.

I guess you can see that from the different versions of the same statements:

"I expected to be home for Christmas but I must wait."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/amanda-knox-italy-meredith-kercher

"I thought I would be home for Christmas," Knox told Verini. "But instead I have to wait."
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-correct/story?id=9290666&page=1

Oddly the Guardian claim to be using a Corriere della Sera story rather than an interview with Walter Verini.
 
Well, Mary. What UNDERCURRENT is there to detect? Moths to a flame? Not anywhere can I detect the police having any sexual feelings for Amanda. Quite the opposite, imo. I thought the photos were quite telling, as to what they thought of Amanda. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not visible, as to the police, what I have seen.
 
Hi capealadin. I did not claim that the police in the photo were sexually aroused. I said there was an undercurrent of sexuality that affected the attitudes of the investigators. John Winters wrote an illustrative observation about the photo, which I thought was entertaining enough to share.

I did not post the photo on this site, someone else did.

If you want to respond to my posts, you should respond to them as they appear on this thread, not on PMF. Their information about this issue is mistaken.

Can you evidence that this sexual undercurrent acted against Amanda or are you just voicing your opinion again?

If you're voicing your opinion, then you should be very clear about that. If you're making a claim against the Perugian Police, you need to be very clear about that and provide evidence that the Officers involved had more than a professional involvement in this case.

It really doesn't matter much if you do or don't like how things work here at JREF. The regular JREF posters have all been called on our claims at some point in time - it's how this forum works. When I post a claim, I expect to be challenged on it, and I expect that I will have to have some kind of cite to back me up. Also note that at this point in the thread, many of the issues being discussed have been cited by both sides of the argument. You, however, have insisted on raising new accusations, and as such, you have a duty to provide citations evidencing this - this is the respectful thing to do.

As you'll find if you visit other parts of the forum, this is standard practice here at JREF. If you feel it does not fit you, then so be it - but failure to provide citations invalidates your argument and some would even label you a crank for your refusal to do so (and to even be brash enough to say it's disrespectful for you to not just be trusted implicitly without regard for evidence :boggled:).
 
Mary, you are finding out about the real world my little bird! You play nasty and people are nasty back to you. Run home to Mamma. Try to be LESS RACIST and STOP TELLING LIES and you will find people will not badger and harass you. You are out of your depth little baby. You mess with real men and they will mess with you back. Police in Italy are real men, but I don't know if you come across such types in the circles you mix in. You are in for a big shock dear Mary; you insult real people in Italy with real wives and girlfriends. For your fun and entertainment. They don't like it little bird.Fly away and play somewhere else. Please Mary. Go now.

Vincent Price, right? I *knew* it! Gosh, you're actually as creepy in real life as you are on the screen. I *love* your work. "House of Wax" was ace. But, aren't you dead?
 
It really doesn't matter much if you do or don't like how things work here at JREF. The regular JREF posters have all been called on our claims at some point in time - it's how this forum works. When I post a claim, I expect to be challenged on it, and I expect that I will have to have some kind of cite to back me up. Also note that at this point in the thread, many of the issues being discussed have been cited by both sides of the argument. You, however, have insisted on raising new accusations, and as such, you have a duty to provide citations evidencing this - this is the respectful thing to do.

I have no problem with how things work on JREF. I have a problem with people who have a personal agenda against a specific poster because they have been incited by sources outside JREF.

As you'll find if you visit other parts of the forum, this is standard practice here at JREF. If you feel it does not fit you, then so be it - but failure to provide citations invalidates your argument and some would even label you a crank for your refusal to do so (and to even be brash enough to say it's disrespectful for you to not just be trusted implicitly without regard for evidence :boggled:).

I joined this forum in good faith. My experience here has made me more curious than ever about the deficiency of personal boundaries among the guilters. You seem to want to make MY invalid arguments and MY status as a crank YOUR problem, as if there is anything you can do about it.

Control issues much?

In the same vein, you speak out for a victim who had absolutely no connection to your life and by so doing, you imply the Perugian police and its judiciary cannot do their jobs effectively without your input -- exactly what you accuse the "other side" of doing.

Even worse, you express contempt for the suspects, as if they had been convicted of committing a crime personally against you.

Where do you get the energy?
 
Last edited:
Mary,

Having relooked into it, I really don't see that Amanda's statements to Walter Verini can be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps she said it, perhaps she didn't. If she didn't say something along the lines of the trial being fair then of course Walter Verini is lying. Or perhaps Amanda or her family is. In any case, her own lawyer certainly says everything that Amanda is supposed to have said and more.

I'd be interested in Chris Halides's view on the Ghirga quote. If the FSA files were important and were withheld, then why would Ghirga say that the trial was fair and that her rights were respected?
 
Doesn't mean he's not dead though, does it...

Cite! :D
I heard him on the radio not more than 6 hours ago. He was telling some story about a demoniacally possessed painting he'd bought. Strangely he seemed to be working as an art dealer which may explain why he has fallen out of the limelight.
 
I joined this forum in good faith. My experience here has made me more curious than ever about the deficiency of personal boundaries among the guilters. You seem to want to make MY invalid arguments and MY status as a crank YOUR problem, as if there is anything you can do about it.
This is nothing to do with guilters and everything to do with the forum. If we think we can show somebody is wrong we get all excited and start spitting out wiki links to logical fallacies, links to counter examples, etc......
 
Mary,

Having relooked into it, I really don't see that Amanda's statements to Walter Verini can be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps she said it, perhaps she didn't. If she didn't say something along the lines of the trial being fair then of course Walter Verini is lying. Or perhaps Amanda or her family is. In any case, her own lawyer certainly says everything that Amanda is supposed to have said and more.

I'd be interested in Chris Halides's view on the Ghirga quote. If the FSA files were important and were withheld, then why would Ghirga say that the trial was fair and that her rights were respected?

My take on it was not that Verini was lying, but that he got a general feeling from Amanda that she was doing okay, and when he made a public statement to the press, he polished it up a bit. It happens. As I understand it, Amanda said her lawyers did a great job. It really isn't her place to evaluate whether or not the trial was fair, because she is not educated in procedures of Italian law.
 
This is nothing to do with guilters and everything to do with the forum. If we think we can show somebody is wrong we get all excited and start spitting out wiki links to logical fallacies, links to counter examples, etc......

I will believe that when one of Amanda's supporters spits me out a wiki link. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom