Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
How is it her lawyer has credibility?

Just kidding, you don't have to answer that. I am alluding to shuttlt's post that "we don't have enough information to say with certainty unless, like Mary, we choose to take some peoples word for things."
Click to expand...
Apologies for singling you out. Her lawyer has access to the information on the case that we lack. His opinion carries some weight at least. Clearly on some level we have to take peoples word for it, but we really ought to do so conditionally and be aware of what the sources of various "facts" are. If Amanda's lawyer says the trial was fair, it counts for more than if Mignini says it. Neither statement is definitive. Perhaps he's said the reverse somewhere else?
 
Mary H said:
The cartwheel story, as I understand it, was a case of her doing some yoga-style stretching exercises while waiting at the police station. That does not strike me as outside the bounds of social convention. A lot of people stretch in a lot of situations that require a long wait, and Amanda is an athlete. There is even a report that an officer asked her to demonstrate what she could do, which I think is as likely as anything else.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the famous lie by Chris Mellas. Well, let's see what was established in court:

FM: All right. We heard, and you gave testimony on this point, about your
behavior in the Questura, the cartwheel, the gymnastics, the stretching and
so forth.

AK: Yes.

FM: According to you, was this behavior appropriate, a normal behavior faced
with such a misfortune, or was this something special?

AK: According to me, each person confronts a tragedy in their own way, and I am
used to trying to find normality, at least my own normality, in situations
of difficulty. This is my way of feeling more secure, because I was feeling
really, really, really scared of what had happened, very shocked. I didn't
know how to face up to the situation, and for me it was surreal, but I
was obliged to accept the fact that it had happened, so my behavior -- yes,
I know that they are a bit lighthearted, but that's just how I am.
Click to expand...


http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17375#p17375
 
Mary,

The 'In Their Own Words' section of PMF really is a valuable resource, if you haven't already checked it out, it's well worth a look.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Even Amanda's lawyer could be wrong. The notion of what a "fair trial" is goes beyond the context of just Italian law.
Click to expand...
What is objectively certain is Knox et al are behind bars for the duration.

We can parse ad infinitum about the vagaries of the verdict but the learned defense has not been able to overcome the evidence presented nor the prosecution's theory of the crime.

There are some cold definite realities that have taken place, fair or not.

The best evidence for a guilty verdict are the defendants themselves. They are where they are because they put themselves where they are.

A unanimous jury voting for conviction confirms this.

Sounds fair to me.
 
Last edited:
piktor said:
What is objectively certain is Knox et al are behind bars for the duration.

We can parse ad infinitum about the vagaries of the verdict but the learned defense has not been able to overcome the evidence presented nor the prosecution's theory of the crime.

There are some cold definite realities that have taken place, fair or not.

The best evidence for a guilty verdict are the defendants themselves. They are where they are because they put themselves where they are.

A unanimous jury voting for conviction confirms this.

Sounds fair to me.
Click to expand...

What is your syllogism here? That because they were convicted unanimously it was a fair trial? Even guilty people get unfair trials.

Or are you just saying, they were found guilty so neener neener?

The fairness of any trial must always be examined even when the parties are guilty.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
What is your syllogism here? That because they were convicted unanimously it was a fair trial? Even guilty people get unfair trials.

Or are you just saying, they were found guilty so neener neener?

The fairness of any trial always must always be examined even when the parties are guilty.
Click to expand...


So, exactly 'who' is saying it was an unfair trial?

The fairness of the trial has been examined and even her own lawyers agree it was fair. No expert who took part for any party has said it was unfair and no neutral observers who regularly attended the trial have said it was unfair. Also, representatives from the US embassy also attended the trial whose job it was to launch a complaint if they felt it to be unfair and they haven't done so, so I guess they're happy. Therefore, I think we can accept she got a fair trial.

Unless you have any evidence to show otherwise?
 
Fulcanelli said:
So, exactly 'who' is saying it was an unfair trial?

The fairness of the trial has been examined and even her own lawyers agree it was fair. No expert who took part for any party has said it was unfair and no neutral observers who regularly attended the trial have said it was unfair. Also, representatives from the US embassy also attended the trial whose job it was to launch a complaint if they felt it to be unfair and they haven't done so, so I guess they're happy. Therefore, I think we can accept she got a fair trial.

Unless you have any evidence to show otherwise?
Click to expand...

I didn't make a claim at all. The logic was false in his/her statement.
 
Fulcanelli said:
In this case we can take his word, since he is the expert working on her behalf and it is his job to say if she got an unfair trial.

But if you believe he's wrong, quick you'd better write to her family and recommend they sack him for he's clearly incompetent and doesn't know his job. In which case, we can dismiss all his defence arguments made in trial as invalid. You choose which.
Click to expand...

Has it been discussed in this forum that the attorneys have a financial incentive for allowing the case to go to trial more than once?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Ahh, so now even the Defense Attorneys are in on it?
Click to expand...

Bob, you're probably going think hell froze over, but I agree with this. Mary, a lawyer doesn't exactly help his or her reputation by losing a case. I can't imagine Ak and RS's attorneys lost the case purposely in order to just make money.

Edit: Were it not for OJ getting off, we probably would not have heard of Johnny Cochrane, F. Lee Baily (though he was amazing attorney in other cases), Shapiro, etc. It would be much more beneficial to their careers had they gotten AK and RS acquitted in the first instance.
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
Bob, you're probably going think hell froze over, but I agree with this. Mary, a lawyer doesn't exactly help his or her reputation by losing a case. I can't imagine Ak and RS's attorneys lost the case purposely in order to just make money.

Edit: Were it not for OJ getting off, we probably would not have heard of Johnny Cochrane, F. Lee Baily (though he was amazing attorney in other cases), Shapiro, etc. It would be much more beneficial to their careers had they gotten AK and RS acquitted in the first instance.
Click to expand...

We are talking about an entirely different culture from those of the U.S. and Britain. We are talking about a system where two appeals are built in and thus assumed. Under these circumstances, those in the legal business may not attach the same meaning to losing a case as our cultures do. There may even be a slim possibility that given the financial incentives, one is thought to be a bit of a fool if he gets the job done in one go (this is pure speculation on my part).

I know Italians love their country. It is reported Capanne prison is sort of a Cadillac of prisons. From our fast-paced, high-achieving cultural point of view, we see the loss of three years of Amanda's life as a tragedy. They may not agree.
 
Mary_H said:
We are talking about an entirely different culture from those of the U.S. and Britain. We are talking about a system where two appeals are built in and thus assumed. Under these circumstances, those in the legal business may not attach the same meaning to losing a case as our cultures do. There may even be a slim possibility that given the financial incentives, one is thought to be a bit of a fool if he gets the job done in one go (this is pure speculation on my part).

I know Italians love their country. It is reported Capanne prison is sort of a Cadillac of prisons. From our fast-paced, high-achieving cultural point of view, we see the loss of three years of Amanda's life as a tragedy. They may not agree.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mary, just can't on board for this one. Along with what I stated earlier, Ghirga put his heart and soul out so much in closing arguments that he is now being charged with defamation. I don't see any evidence they would fold the case for financial incentive, and I think there are substantiated reasons to think otherwise.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Sorry Mary, just can't on board for this one. Along with what I stated earlier, Ghirga put his heart and soul out so much in closing arguments that he is now being charged with defamation. I don't see any evidence they would fold the case for financial incentive, and I think there are substantiated reasons to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's fine; I'm a little surprised you guys haven't discussed this before.

It wouldn't be done consciously. If what you say is true, the same assumptions would still be going on, but apart from the defense. I understand convictions are expected on first trials; it would be a subtle, subliminal expectation on everyone's part -- the judges the jury panel, the lawyers, etc., even the prisoners, if they're Italian.

Is it the kind of system where you might find a reaction such as, "An acquittal at first trial? Unheard of!"

Are there no attorneys in the United States who secretly (or publicly) think they could have done a better job than the defense? If so, why?

I mean, if you build your prisons to be extremely comfortable, it says something about how you look at the prison experience.
 
Suicides, overcrowding, violence and infectious diseases are at an all time high in Italy. Capanne prison in Perugia is deluxe in comparison to most. A private bathroom with a bidet, a small well equipped kitchen, hairdresser once a week.Television and a desk.
 
Mary_H said:
That's fine; I'm a little surprised you guys haven't discussed this before.

It wouldn't be done consciously. If what you say is true, the same assumptions would still be going on, but apart from the defense. I understand convictions are expected on first trials; it would be a subtle, subliminal expectation on everyone's part -- the judges the jury panel, the lawyers, etc., even the prisoners, if they're Italian.

Is it the kind of system where you might find a reaction such as, "An acquittal at first trial? Unheard of!"

Are there no attorneys in the United States who secretly (or publicly) think they could have done a better job than the defense? If so, why?

I mean, if you build your prisons to be extremely comfortable, it says something about how you look at the prison experience.
Click to expand...

Well, Mary, how often are criminals found guilty on 1st trial and win either of their two appeals?

This was discussed earlier, actually. Quite a while ago, and only the once so far as I can recall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom