• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jungle Jim said:
Can you elaborate, what is the issue? What was the question that came up? I believe Laura was in Rome and never saw Amanda on the day of the murder.
Click to expand...

It was listed as part of Amanda's Q&A to the supreme court as one of the things they found suspicious. If I recall, it was eventually found with some of Meredith's clothes in the washing machine. I was wondering when they questioned Amanda about this and why she did not just tell them she threw it in the washer that morning when she went home to take a shower. I wanted to know if this was asked of her prior to the November 5th questioning. I just found this very strange at the time I read this because the Q&A was several months later (going by memory here) and this issue had still not been cleared up.

Did Amanda not know she put the sweater in the washer (supports her claims of memory lapse)? Did she not want them to know she put it in the washer (supports more suspicions)? What did she tell them when they asked her about it? I believe the Q&A was listed at Frank's if not other places. Why did it take so long to track this down and was it confirmed this was the sweatshirt Filomena described (I remember Laura as well, by your question I might be remembering things wrong here).
 
tsig said:
You see I believe her guilt because her " emails and other correspondences were self-serving and disingenuous"

You seem to be doing it backwards.
Click to expand...

I do sometimes wonder.......

IT'S POSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT her emails and other correspondences were self-serving and disingenuous. If I wrote something like "I'm not saying Mr A killed Mr B", would you quote it back to me as "Mr A killed Mr B"?
 
Eyes for Lies

Someone mentioned the "Eyes for Lies" blog. Good grief. That woman is one of the biggest charlatans in the blog world. The so called "scientific test" she claims that shows she's somehow adept at detecting lies more than other people is a total joke. I know because I've actually emailed back and forth with her about it (unfortunately what she said she probably expects to be confidential).

To her credit, she is polite and means well. But there is literally nothing special about her, and I'm pretty sure the skeptics on JREF would have a field day with her.:boggled:
 
I'm intrigued by the posts linking to Lumumba's alleged protestations of police abuse. But I'm struggling to understand the logic of certain people's positions.

My position is this: Firstly, I would be fairly sure that the Italian police and prosecutors have been keeping a watchful eye on the major media outlets and on any publications that deal with this case. This is particularly likely owing to Mignini's experiences over the whole "Monster of Florence" case.

So, if a book published internationally - or a national newspaper in a major European country for that matter - makes specific allegations of police abuse and racism, I'd be fairly confident of three things: 1) that UK national newspapers and major international publishing houses are intimately acquainted with the UK and international laws of libel; 2) that they could be in no doubt of the potential gravity of what they were printing, with its attendant serious allegations against the police and prosecutors; 3) that they will have double- or triple-checked that they were quoting Lumumba accurately, and that they were reflecting his opinions as they stood at the time of publication.

Another poster alleged that either Lumumba never made such allegations in the first place, or that he subsequently disassociated himself from any such allegations. I'd argue strongly that the newspaper article and subsequent book publication indicate that he DID say and believe those things. And I've seen no explicit rebuttals/denials by him of these quotes that were attributed directly to him. It's possible, of course, that he HAS rebutted or refuted these original accusations - maybe someone can link to such a rebuttal if they know where to find one.

Once again, have Mignini or the Perugia police dept ever instigated libel proceedings against the Daily Mail or Simon & Schuster? Or, for that matter, against Patrick Lumumba? Or, indeed, has Lumumba ever instigated proceedings against either the Daily Mail or Simon & Schuster for libelling or misrepresenting him?
 
tsig said:
How the UK conduct criminal investigations has nothing to do with a case tried in Italy.
Click to expand...

I wonder still further.....

Firstly, if you look back, you'll see that I was responding directly to Fiona's assertion that it's non uncommon for police in the UK to announce that they've "solved the case" long before a trial begins. So, in my reply that you're referring to, I was explaining how UK criminal justice rules explicitly preclude police from saying such a thing. In that regard, you're correct on one level to say that it's irrelevant to an Italian case, but it was intended as a direct response to another poster's assertion. I thought that was clear.

Secondly, my post went on to explain the UK rules whereby police (or prosecutors or defence counsels or the media, for that matter) are banned from making these sorts of statements, or from giving details of evidence against the accused or any details of their background. I explained that the reason that these rules are in place are that it's been previously shown that such pre-trial disclosures can prejudice criminal cases in dramatic ways (and this can be either pro- or anti- the accused).

I would agree with you that the same rules of sub-judice don't operate in Italy. However, it's relevant to discuss this issue, since various people assert that statements such as "we've solved the case", or details of AK's sex preferences, or other leaks - from BOTH the defence and the prosecutors - would have had little effect on the outcome of the trial. I'm essentially arguing in my post that legislators in the UK certainly believe that disclosures/leaks of this kind most certainly CAN prejudice a fair trial. That's why UK sub-judice rules exist, and students of jurisprudence or legal systems would mostly agree that some sort of sub-judice rules make for a better - and fairer - criminal justice system. There are almost certainly ways in which the Italian justice system is better than the UK justice system, but I believe that this isn't one of them.
 
LondonJohn said:
I wonder still further.....

Firstly, if you look back, you'll see that I was responding directly to Fiona's assertion that it's non uncommon for police in the UK to announce that they've "solved the case" long before a trial begins. So, in my reply that you're referring to, I was explaining how UK criminal justice rules explicitly preclude police from saying such a thing. In that regard, you're correct on one level to say that it's irrelevant to an Italian case, but it was intended as a direct response to another poster's assertion. I thought that was clear.

Secondly, my post went on to explain the UK rules whereby police (or prosecutors or defence counsels or the media, for that matter) are banned from making these sorts of statements, or from giving details of evidence against the accused or any details of their background. I explained that the reason that these rules are in place are that it's been previously shown that such pre-trial disclosures can prejudice criminal cases in dramatic ways (and this can be either pro- or anti- the accused).

I would agree with you that the same rules of sub-judice don't operate in Italy. However, it's relevant to discuss this issue, since various people assert that statements such as "we've solved the case", or details of AK's sex preferences, or other leaks - from BOTH the defence and the prosecutors - would have had little effect on the outcome of the trial. I'm essentially arguing in my post that legislators in the UK certainly believe that disclosures/leaks of this kind most certainly CAN prejudice a fair trial. That's why UK sub-judice rules exist, and students of jurisprudence or legal systems would mostly agree that some sort of sub-judice rules make for a better - and fairer - criminal justice system. There are almost certainly ways in which the Italian justice system is better than the UK justice system, but I believe that this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Wonder no more.
 
Hi LondonJohn, Mary H, and Bruce Fisher,
You folks are kinda famous, for you 3 have got some of the regulars on PMF really angry at your posts here on JREF. Funny thing is that I see some of the regular's here are then talking crap of you 3 over there. One person even went as far as saying **** Bruce, and that person is a Site Admin on PMF. I don't know about you, but those are fightin' words where I am from...

Interestingly, there seems to be no new discussions about the up-coming appeal trial or what new evidence the defense lawyers plan to present to the court. It just seems to be a vicious circle going round+round discussing the same ol' stuff, here on JREF, and there, on PMF too...
RWVBWL
 
RWVBWL said:
Interestingly, there seems to be no new discussions about the up-coming appeal trial or what new evidence the defense lawyers plan to present to the court. It just seems to be a vicious circle going round+round discussing the same ol' stuff, here on JREF, and there, on PMF too...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

The appeals are going to be heard in October, correct? Will the appeals take as long as the orginal trial?

As for new evidence, is there any? Are the defense teams really going to introduce the prison informants?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Is there some reason to believe that Amanda's defense team (lawyers in Italy and the U.S.) are incompetent and/or not working in her best interests?
Click to expand...

I think that most - if not all - lawyers would strongly advise their client to say or write nothing concerning the case, whether in statement or email form. This would also apply to conversations within the prison or in the visitors' room. Criminal lawyers know full well how guilty people can rather casually implicate themselves in unguarded moments (note to certain other posters: please don't re-quote that previous phrase out of context...), or how innocent people can say seemingly inconsequential things that can come back to bite them.

With this in mind, AK should have said nothing whatsoever during her first (or indeed subsequent) appearances in court, save perhaps for a very short and simple declaration of innocence. Her lawyers should have been the ONLY ones arguing her case in court at that stage. She should not have been writing emails to her friends, and she should not have been discussing aspects of the case (phone calls and more) with her mother while in prison.

So, in answer to your question: yes, I think her legal team were falling down on their duty to her by letting her write and say all these things. A lawyer's first duty is to protect and represent his/her client. Even monsters deserve proper and professional legal representation from the moment of arrest. Of course, it's possible that her legal representatives DID give her this advice, but that she chose to ignore it. On the face of it, I doubt that though. Her court statement, for example, went on for some time, and I didn't hear her lawyer try to intervene to shut her up (as he absolutely should have done if he'd previously advised her to say little or nothing).
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm intrigued by the posts linking to Lumumba's alleged protestations of police abuse. But I'm struggling to understand the logic of certain people's positions.

My position is this: Firstly, I would be fairly sure that the Italian police and prosecutors have been keeping a watchful eye on the major media outlets and on any publications that deal with this case. This is particularly likely owing to Mignini's experiences over the whole "Monster of Florence" case.

So, if a book published internationally - or a national newspaper in a major European country for that matter - makes specific allegations of police abuse and racism, I'd be fairly confident of three things: 1) that UK national newspapers and major international publishing houses are intimately acquainted with the UK and international laws of libel; 2) that they could be in no doubt of the potential gravity of what they were printing, with its attendant serious allegations against the police and prosecutors; 3) that they will have double- or triple-checked that they were quoting Lumumba accurately, and that they were reflecting his opinions as they stood at the time of publication.

Another poster alleged that either Lumumba never made such allegations in the first place, or that he subsequently disassociated himself from any such allegations. I'd argue strongly that the newspaper article and subsequent book publication indicate that he DID say and believe those things. And I've seen no explicit rebuttals/denials by him of these quotes that were attributed directly to him. It's possible, of course, that he HAS rebutted or refuted these original accusations - maybe someone can link to such a rebuttal if they know where to find one.

Once again, have Mignini or the Perugia police dept ever instigated libel proceedings against the Daily Mail or Simon & Schuster? Or, for that matter, against Patrick Lumumba? Or, indeed, has Lumumba ever instigated proceedings against either the Daily Mail or Simon & Schuster for libelling or misrepresenting him?
Click to expand...

It would serve you well to read this thread in it's entirety. This has been discussed in depth in the past and a link was given to a statement by Patrick that he was, in fact, never abused and that he never claimed he was.
 
LondonJohn said:
I think that most - if not all - lawyers would strongly advise their client to say or write nothing concerning the case, whether in statement or email form. This would also apply to conversations within the prison or in the visitors' room. Criminal lawyers know full well how guilty people can rather casually implicate themselves in unguarded moments (note to certain other posters: please don't re-quote that previous phrase out of context...), or how innocent people can say seemingly inconsequential things that can come back to bite them.

With this in mind, AK should have said nothing whatsoever during her first (or indeed subsequent) appearances in court, save perhaps for a very short and simple declaration of innocence. Her lawyers should have been the ONLY ones arguing her case in court at that stage. She should not have been writing emails to her friends, and she should not have been discussing aspects of the case (phone calls and more) with her mother while in prison.

So, in answer to your question: yes, I think her legal team were falling down on their duty to her by letting her write and say all these things. A lawyer's first duty is to protect and represent his/her client. Even monsters deserve proper and professional legal representation from the moment of arrest. Of course, it's possible that her legal representatives DID give her this advice, but that she chose to ignore it. On the face of it, I doubt that though. Her court statement, for example, went on for some time, and I didn't hear her lawyer try to intervene to shut her up (as he absolutely should have done if he'd previously advised her to say little or nothing).
Click to expand...

Under the Italian Justice System could what Amanda and Raffaele wrote in their diaries be used against them in court?
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi LondonJohn, Mary H, and Bruce Fisher,
You folks are kinda famous, for you 3 have got some of the regulars on PMF really angry at your posts here on JREF. Funny thing is that I see some of the regular's here are then talking crap of you 3 over there. One person even went as far as saying **** Bruce, and that person is a Site Admin on PMF. I don't know about you, but those are fightin' words where I am from...

Interestingly, there seems to be no new discussions about the up-coming appeal trial or what new evidence the defense lawyers plan to present to the court. It just seems to be a vicious circle going round+round discussing the same ol' stuff, here on JREF, and there, on PMF too...
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Hey RWVBWL! I know it's not really proper to be talking about other forums whilst on JREF, but I think it's valid to expose some of the vitriol and insulting behaviour exhibited by some of the people who, as you say, also post regularly on here. I wonder why they save their worst insults for a forum where one of the chief instigators is also the co-moderator? Talking of which, Fulcanelli hasn't been posting on here much recently - I wonder why not?

As I understand it, the first appeal trial in the Italian system is more-or-less a fresh trial, albeit with a possible starting presumption of guilt. Although I'm far from sure about that last bit: in an Italian first appeal, does the burden of "proof" shift instead to the defence, or is it the prosecution's job to prove the case once again? I'm also not sure about the admissibility of brand new evidence at the first appeal stage - does someone know that as well?
 
LondonJohn said:
Hey RWVBWL! I know it's not really proper to be talking about other forums whilst on JREF, but I think it's valid to expose some of the vitriol and insulting behaviour exhibited by some of the people who, as you say, also post regularly on here. I wonder why they save their worst insults for a forum where one of the chief instigators is also the co-moderator? Talking of which, Fulcanelli hasn't been posting on here much recently - I wonder why not?

As I understand it, the first appeal trial in the Italian system is more-or-less a fresh trial, albeit with a possible starting presumption of guilt. Although I'm far from sure about that last bit: in an Italian first appeal, does the burden of "proof" shift instead to the defence, or is it the prosecution's job to prove the case once again? I'm also not sure about the admissibility of brand new evidence at the first appeal stage - does someone know that as well?
Click to expand...

You are presumed innocent until your appeals have been exhausted in Italy.
 
LondonJohn said:
So, in answer to your question: yes, I think her legal team were falling down on their duty to her by letting her write and say all these things. A lawyer's first duty is to protect and represent his/her client. Even monsters deserve proper and professional legal representation from the moment of arrest. Of course, it's possible that her legal representatives DID give her this advice, but that she chose to ignore it. On the face of it, I doubt that though. Her court statement, for example, went on for some time, and I didn't hear her lawyer try to intervene to shut her up (as he absolutely should have done if he'd previously advised her to say little or nothing).
Click to expand...

Has Amanda, her parents or her step-father ever stated that they were unsatisfied with her Italian legal representation? Might inadequate counsel be brought up as a point in her appeal?
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
It was listed as part of Amanda's Q&A to the supreme court as one of the things they found suspicious. If I recall, it was eventually found with some of Meredith's clothes in the washing machine. I was wondering when they questioned Amanda about this and why she did not just tell them she threw it in the washer that morning when she went home to take a shower. I wanted to know if this was asked of her prior to the November 5th questioning. I just found this very strange at the time I read this because the Q&A was several months later (going by memory here) and this issue had still not been cleared up.

Did Amanda not know she put the sweater in the washer (supports her claims of memory lapse)? Did she not want them to know she put it in the washer (supports more suspicions)? What did she tell them when they asked her about it? I believe the Q&A was listed at Frank's if not other places. Why did it take so long to track this down and was it confirmed this was the sweatshirt Filomena described (I remember Laura as well, by your question I might be remembering things wrong here).
Click to expand...

I was unable to find a reference to the sweatshirt on Perugia Shock (it does not have a search function). I did find several references on PMF basically reiterating your question about a missing sweatshirt. If you go there and do a search for "Amanda +sweatshirt" you will get a list of posts mentioning the sweatshirt. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Let us know if you find anything worth sharing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom