Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

To Edda, the phone call was traumatic. Her daughter was in a crisis halfway around the world. To Amanda, the phone call to Mom was a minor incident compared to the discovery a few minutes later that her flatmate had been murdered. I am rather amazed that you don't understand the difference in perspective.

Oh, when it's ready, you should read the Massei report on this point...you're gonna love it

 

[stilicho]

The innocentisti believe Amanda's release can be obtained by ensuring that the facts -- and the injustices -- of the case are disseminated. This dissemination takes place in the media, in books like Candace Dempsey's, by word of mouth and in the blogs. The more people become aware of the truth about the case, the louder the outcry will be against Amanda's continued incarceration.

....

The colpevolisiti, on the other hand, deny that the jury panel in the first trial was prejudiced, and that the judges can be influenced by views from the outside. Their claim is that the vedict was and will be based exclusively on evidence.

The real world must seem frightening and puzzling to you.

Those who are convinced of their guilt do so because of the science and because of the belief the justice was served. As always, those who depend on science and evidence are open to correction. This is best accomplished by providing an effective, supportable, and coherent alternate narrative to what we now know to be true. To date, this project has been a failure. From what has been related in the media, there won't be any further success upon appeal either.

If this forum is any indication, the loud outcry has diminished to a barely audible whimper. People have taken to creating parody threads here as evidenced by the Lawrence Taylor entry. If you're depending on blogs and word of mouth instead of the creation and support of a credible alternative narrative, then you're likely to be met with derision instead of your predicted loud outcry.

Let's hope, for AK's sake, that her lawyers aren't listening to you or they might make things even worse for her than they already are.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you're depending on blogs and word of mouth instead of the creation and support of a credible alternative narrative, then you're likely to be met with derision instead of your predicted loud outcry.

I too can't understand how those who believe Amanda innocent think that blogs and websites, written in English, by Americans and Brits, can possibly help her appeal.

Let's hope, for AK's sake, that her lawyers aren't listening to you or they might make things even worse for her than they already are.

Imagine they were? What they would have learned by now is: bra swapping, horny cops, and that they themselves didn't mind that Amanda was found guilty at trial....after all, it's more Euros for them on the appeal!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Originally, I wasn't debating anything related to this subject matter. This started two pages ago when I commented to RWVBWL that Rudy changed his story a number of times, and you asked me for citations. Then it went from being a "minor bit" to being a lot of research for me. If you already knew everything you just claimed above, why did you ask for citations?

You ask me for citations and then denigrate me for providing them. This is more support for my previous arguments against providing citations to those of you who are familiar with the case but enjoy harassment and bullying.

Yes, I did respond when Fulcanelli claimed that the differences in Rudy's original statement and his final statement amounted to "a couple of little details." I am sure that you, with your razor-sharp intellect and all-encompassing knowledge of the case, will agree that that was a claim worth refuting. Odd that he couldn't glean the correct information from the citations I provided.

Could it be that he didn't read them?

I think you mistook my post for an attack against you. It was, I assure you, not.

My intent was to point out the silliness of continuing to discuss this issue after you and I had reached the agreement that Rudy was an unreliable witness. I appreciate your citations, as they proved your point that Rudy's story changed.

However, my caveats still remain. The changing story does not absolve Amanda, nor does it support the "Amanda's memory was implanted by false suggestion" meme.



What are we still arguing about Rudy's changing story for?

 

[Supernaut]

The store keeper was clearly important since his information was considered evidence. It was evidence since his testimony was heard in the trial. Therefore, it was indeed relevant.

Skeptics, the reasoning here is so inherently flawed I'm surprised it's not jumped on. You don't need any context whatsoever or know anything about the case to tear this illogical syllogism apart. Where are you all hiding?

It’s almost as if he read the definitions of the various ‘logical fallacies’ and simply substituted a few words in the example provided for “circular reasoning” (AKA begging the question).

What he was effectively saying was;

“Any and all evidence entered in court is relevant [question begged]. The shopkeeper’s testimony was entered. Therefore the shopkeeper’s evidence was relevant.”

He's actually doing a pretty good job of discrediting guilters generally.

 

[Supernaut]

There is no sequestration in the uk. There is an extensive discussion about all this upthread a long way. You might like to read it because you don't seem to understand the issues

Give me strength.

We have stringently applied laws concerning sub judice and contempt, which would have prevented anything remotely like the Italian prosecutions’ (mignini's) “narrative” being published by means of “leaks” from “official sources”.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility.

This applies to ALL judiciaries which have taken the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (i.e. North European) system as their model.

Which, by the way, was evolved in such away as to adhere, as far as possible, to the ‘rules of logic’, of which you keep showing your ignorance (or disregard).

Hence the presumption of innocence (and as a corollary, the requirement for proof of guilt), i.e. that one is not required to prove one’s innocence, IOW, one is not required to ‘prove a negative’ (remember that one?).

 

[Supernaut]

Marco Quintavalle was the shopkeeper who claimed to have seen Amanda outside his store on the morning after Meredith was killed. Claims to have recognized Amanda from seeing her in the news four days after the murder. But he didn't come forward at that time. He also didn't mention seeing Amanda when an officer came to ask questions about the crime a few days later. It was almost a year after the crime when he started telling his story.

An employee who was working at the store that day testified that Amanda wasn't there.

Ahh, yes. That would be Knox’s early morning shop for bleach, to clean up the crime scene, for which “official sources” claimed the police had discovered receipts (this a day or two after Knox’ arrest) - of which this shopkeeper was, no doubt, aware.

One of these receipts was explicitly said to to be from c.8.30 AM., which, unfortunately, turned out to be some time before the shop in question was actually open that day.

edit >> the receipts did turn up - they were dated months (IIRC) earlier. Hey - easy mistake for the cops to make before blabbing to the press.

 

[bucketoftea]

Only slightly OT because the universal consciousness is sort of every topic:

""Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue. No explanation and there's no point in looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN

My daughter just found a prawn's face in her potnoodle as I was reading Stillicho above.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ahh, yes. That would be Knox’s early morning shop for bleach, to clean up the crime scene, for which “official sources” claimed the police had discovered receipts (this a day or two after Knox’ arrest) - of which this shopkeeper was, no doubt, aware.

You should become more aware of the facts of the case. No bleach receipt was presented as evidence at trial. RS's first cleaning lady also testified that she bought the bleach in September, but she never used it in cleaning the apartment.

Do you have evidence that the jury paid more mind to unamed "official sources" rather than what was actually presented at trial?

 

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by Mary_H
I don't know, but long enough for Amanda and the police to argue for awhile and for someone outside the interrogation room to hearing yelling (or screaming or crying).

cite?

From TJMK

” Mr Giobbi said that he could hear Amanda Knox shouting when Diya Lumumba’s name was brought up.

The use of the word “shouting” by Mr. Machine is, er clever - like Amanda Knox was REALLY angry with all those cops and REALLY gave them a piece of her mind. One tough bitch, huh?

Others actually translate the word Giobbi’s used in his testimony (yes, in court) as “screaming”, which I’m inclined to believe is what she was doing, given the circumstances under which this “interview” was conducted –

This from Perugia shock.

"Giobbi would never take part on the interviews. He was hidden in the director's room, together with the SCO chief Profazio, and he could hear Amanda screaming."

Who do I trust more, Mr. Machine or Frank – let me think ……..

Thanks for the prompt, Bob-the-aptly-named.

 

[bucketoftea]

It’s almost as if he read the definitions of the various ‘logical fallacies’ and simply substituted a few words in the example provided for “circular reasoning” (AKA begging the question).

What he was effectively saying was;

“Any and all evidence entered in court is relevant [question begged]. The shopkeeper’s testimony was entered. Therefore the shopkeeper’s evidence was relevant.”

He's actually doing a pretty good job of discrediting guilters generally.

Not at all. What and whom determine the relevance/admissibility of evidence? It's not a fallacy at all.

 

[Supernaut]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher
So you posted the comment below as if it was a fact and you didn't have any clue if it was true?

BobTheDonkey wrote - "The interrogation was taped. But it was not allowed to be released due to Italian

I was, apparently, mistaken. Thanks for the catch, Bruce (but I already stated as much a few posts ago).


So, corrected all those errors on your website yet?

You seem to be shameless.

Let me remind you of some of your riffing on this “mistake”;

Actually, if either of you had bothered to actually read this thread, you'd find that the story is:

The interviews with witnesses are protected under Italian law. Thus, they cannot be obtained by either side without showing just cause and are not able to be entered as evidence into the case if the suspect later becomes a witness.

In other words, witnesses have more protections in Italy than they do here in the U.S..

As soon as Amanda told her lie that placed her in the house while Patrick was raping/murdering Meredith, she became suspected of being an accomplice. At this point, the interview was ended and Amanda was formally placed under arrest and became a suspect.

This is why her interview was not entered into evidence, nor released to the public record, while her "gift" statement from a few hours later was admissable/released to the public.

Your lack of concern for fact checking and accuracy, the casual interposition of your opinion with fact in an attempt to create ‘factoids’ (more prosaically, making stuff up), is strongly reminiscent of the way tabloid hacks work, the kind who were so accommodating to Mignini in his defamation of Knox.

You wouldn’t actually be one of these, by any chance?

 

[odeed]

Give me strength.

We have stringently applied laws concerning subjudice and contempt, which would have prevented anything remotely like the Italian prosecutions’ (mignini's) “narrative” being published by means of “leaks” from “official sources”.

And you know it, Ms. Prevaricator.

This applies to ALL judiciaries which have taken the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ (i.e. North European) system as their model.

Which, by the way, was evolved in such away as to adhere, as far as possible, to the ‘rules of logic’, of which you keep showing your ignorance (or disregard).

Hence the presumption of innocence (and as a corollary, the requirement for proof of guilt), i.e. that one is not required to prove one’s innocence, IOW, one is not required to ‘prove a negative’ (remember that one?).

Which North European countries use the 'Anglo-Saxon' system as a model for their law?

 

[bucketoftea]

title?

Machine
” Mr Giobbi said that he could hear Amanda Knox shouting when Diya Lumumba’s name was brought up.

The use of the word “shouting” by Mr. Machine is, er clever - like Amanda Knox was REALLY angry with all those cops and REALLY gave them a piece of her mind. One tough bitch, huh?

Others actually translate the word Giobbi’s used in his testimony (yes, in court) as “screaming”, which I’m inclined to believe is what she was doing, given the circumstances under which this “interview” was conducted –

This from perugia-shock.

"Giobbi would never take part on the interviews. He was hidden in the director's room, together with the SCO chief Profazio, and he could hear Amanda screaming."
.

Has Amanda ever said she was screaming and/or crying because of the pressure during the interview? The interviewers testified that she suddenly seemed to become distressed and shouted her accusation against Lumumba screaming (if you like) He's bad! I'm scared of him!

 

[Alt+F4]

The defenders of Amanda's innosence seem to believe that blogs and websites in English will somehow help her appeal. Next they state that the jury was biased by negative media reports.

So what do they do now? Keep the media bias alive by bringing up nonsense like cold sores people's sexual histories and desires.

 

[Supernaut]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for civility

 

[Supernaut]

Which North European countries use the 'Anglo-Saxon' system as a model for their law?

Not worth replying to.

 

[Alt+F4]

Which North European countries use the 'Anglo-Saxon' system as a model for their law?

Didn't the Saxons chop off body parts for wrongdoing?

 

[Supernaut]

I tend to agree that the one part of the Italian system that seems a little unfair is the classification of interviewees. This has been a feature of the thread, too.

1] You may suspect someone of a crime in Italy without legally declaring them a suspect.

What are you talking about? “suspect someone”? You mean some cop cogitating over a Gauloise and an espresso? Or what?

Or do you mean making someone a suspect? How does that differ from declaring them to be one?

2] Interviews in Italy are not necessarily recorded by audio or audio/visual means.

“Not necessarily recorded”? - do you mean recordings are not necessitated by law?

Interviews with whom - witnesses or suspects?

In Italy, at minimum, audio recordings of interviews (which would be better called ‘interrogations’) of suspects are required.

Are we all pretty much agreed on those things?

If you weren’t so unremittingly disingenuous (I think I’ll end up wearing the word out when it comes to you and people like you), “we” might have some idea of what it is “we” are supposed to be agreeing with. And then undoubtedly be able to tell you to get lost.

Perhaps you imagine you’re setting some fiendishly clever “logical trap”. I have a flash for you ……

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Your comments seem to suggest that you think the blogs are insignificant in the story of this case. Interesting point of view, considering not only that you are here spending energy on one, but also in light of the number of hits this thread has taken.

To start with, this isn't a blog. More than that, it isn't a blog devoted solely to the Knox trial. It's a discussion board with a number of forums and sub-forums on a multitude of topics. This is only one thread in only one of those forums.

It is only one thread in my"Subscribed" list, one of many which may contain new entries on any given day. Then there is a perusal of "Today's Posts", to see what new topics are attracting other members' attention, and a scan of the various forums I like to keep up with, to see what else may be of interest that might have fallen off the top page of "Today's Posts".

All this consumes very little energy on my part, or even time, for that matter. This one thread is not a particularly significant part of that, and the board in general is only a small part of daily activities. Perhaps you are attributing more significance to it than I do.

<snip>

What, exactly, is the point of you being here?

The short answer, as I said, is that it's just another entry on my "Subscribed" list.

Initially I was curious to see how someone would defend the assertion that Knox was convicted "all because of a cartwheel." That exercise in failure was unsurprisingly brief. Following that were a few dozen pages which had the potential to expand my knowledge of the facts of the case, which I had already researched to some degree prior to this thread appearing.

Since then it has mostly been for the entertainment value of observing torturous illogic repeated in infinite optimism, the desperate variety of sophomoric debating techniques, the stunningly flagrant displays of hard-shell xenophobia, the birth and evolution of bizarre conspiracy theories, the touching, sometimes humorous, and often heartfelt efforts to help guide people away from these sorts of errors, and increasingly the odd social magnetism this thread has exerted on one-note blog communities such as the ones you apparently frequent.

And even the possibility that some revelatory new facts may be uncovered, because, like the fable about the condemned man and the King, "Who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."