• 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.
LondonJohn said:
As an aside, this made me smile as it somehow reminded me of a sketch show series in the UK called "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" - featuring Stephen Fry (an awesome wit, actor, presenter, raconteur and pretty much "national treasure", who specialised in playing slightly aloof upper-middle class characters who often engaged in amusing wordplays) and Hugh Laurie (who most Americans will now know better as "House").

Anyway, the sketch in question starts with Laurie walking over to Fry, who's gyrating and waving his hands around in a ludicrous manner. Laurie says: What are you doing there, Stephen?", and Fry answers: "It's something I like to call "Dancercise"". ""Dancercise?!"" says Laurie. "Yes", says Fry, "It's a rather clever combination of the word "Dance"......and the word "Circumcise"".
Click to expand...

It had me very confuseezed.:D
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Corrected my spelling mistake.

Thanks, HB, for pointing it out. Have anything to say about the argument itself?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Edit: You mentioned slandering an attorney. Are you referring to Mignini? Who slandered Mignini? The West Seattle Herald?
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Are you joking? You are essentially claiming that once a political regime changes, the thinking and behavior of everyone in the country changes.

I am not denying that a citizenship can't change, but it usually happens -- as you imply -- by way of laws, not by the culture of the people themselves.

No, most people are not in favor of Jim Crow laws, but racism is alive and well in the United Staes, as the guilters love to point out. Slavery might even be alive if lawmakers had not stopped it, thus affecting cultural attitudes, which still have not changed completely even though it has been well over a hundred years.

When historians make observations about a culture, they don't look at how it changed every 50 or 60 years -- they observe what was constant for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
Woah there. You made a false comparison: Italy:Fascism::Saudi Arabia:Treatment of Women.

This is, on multiple counts, a false comparison. Most notably that Italy today is not actively fascist, whereas Saudi Arabia notably mistreats women in the current sense. When we look at the current Saudi court system, yes, we look at the current political climate - which would involve mistreatment of women (note: mistreatment by our standards, obviously their standards are different).

When I made the (more accurate) comparison between Italy:Fascism::US:Jim Crow Laws, I was comparing systems that were in place 50-60 years ago (yes, only 50-60 years, not over 100...) and how those affect our current system now. Is there still racism in the US? Without a doubt. However, that does not prove anything other than in a general sense in the Court room. Unless you can provide evidence that an Attorney objecting to being slandered is a result strictly of Fascism, then your evidence does not support your argument.

All you've done is add another generalization to the pile.



I asked a question, I don't believe it was answered:

Do you believe it's OK for an Attorney to be slandered as a strategy for the opposing side to win a court case?
 
It seems like only a few moments ago that somebody (I can't remember who) was trying to persuade me that this thread had not degenerated into nothing more than pointless bickering and points-scoring over irrelevant side issues.

As usual, I was right.:D
 
Matthew Best said:
It seems like only a few moments ago that somebody (I can't remember who) was trying to persuade me that this thread had not degenerated into nothing more than pointless bickering and points-scoring over irrelevant side issues.

As usual, I was right.:D
Click to expand...

Really? You were? We're "bickering" over an issue that you raised, Mary. So are you saying that all your issues are, in fact, pointless?

ETA: Again, I confused Matthew for Mary. I apologize again.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
Could someone who has read all 12,475 posts tell me why this thread is so damn long and when it will end? :confused:
Click to expand...

There are more posts than these in the various threads about the existence of Bigfoot. Yet some people still insist that Bigfoot exists and that Amanda Knox is innocent.

Go figure.
 
Mary_H said:
And you have evidence for these claims, I presume? Tell, me, how did the family vet the people who were interviewed in Seattle the week after the crime when they didn't know who they would be?
Click to expand...

Which individuals and which interviews are you talking about? Linky to anyone.
 
Mary_H said:
Originally Posted by Alt+F4
Yeah, let's not. I teach it.

If you disagree with his actions, fine. But to insinuate that his actions are somehow related to a regime in his country that existed before he was even born (or was only a small child) does nothing but cheapen your argument.
Click to expand...

You teach history but you deny that a political ethos is passed from generation to generation? You need to get a little perspective. Well, actually, a lot.
Click to expand...

Simply breathtaking. What political ethos was passed down from generation to generation that led to the rise of Italian fascism in the first place? And what political ethos, similarly passed down, led to the Italian people themselves wreaking retribution against Mussolini and other prominent fascists?

By way of your exciting new "ethos-passing" philosophy of history, there would never be any revolutions or any political change anywhere.

The mind boggles at your sweeping and unintentionally hilarious generalisations on everything from horny policemen through evidence-planting forensics teams to ethos-passing Italians. Did you perform any of your comedy at that club during Amanda's fund-raiser?
 
On a different subject, I've just read through some of TJMK's lengthy discourses by "Cesare Beccaria". I think this has been discussed at some level on this forum before, but I'd make a couple of small observations:

First, for someone who's described biographically on TJMK as "an Italian lawyer with a doctorate of jurisprudence", the following excerpt - which discusses the memorandum written by Guede during his detention - shows a significant lack of dispassionate scholarly analysis:

"First, he includes “kind words” for Meredith

"To see these written in a memorandum while denying his own role in her death and failure to save her seem simply repulsive. They seem about the lowest thing that a man with a minimum of decency could ever write.

"He was undeniably there when she was killed, and according to the judges he participated to the murder. His story of using an I-Pod when going to the bathroom and not hearing things and then hearing things seem simple stupidity."

These passages above imply a somewhat partisan attitude that's out of step with his trumpeted credentials.

Second, and more significantly in many ways, his analysis and interpretation of various elements of evidence also seem to be somewhat at odds with his alleged legal and scholarly status. Consider his interpretation of the following portion of an AK written statement:

“It’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife, because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well over the next few days, well, I just highly doubt all of that”.

The Italian lawyer and doctor of jurisprudence interprets this as follows:

"Doesn’t all this sound like a reciprocal veiled accusation? Why would two people accused of murder, with exactly the same fate, write down their doubts about the innocence of their presumed accomplice?"

I think it would be incredibly easy to argue that this statement by AK does not in any way constitute a veiled accusation of RS. Nor does it imply any doubts about his innocence. In fact, quite the reverse, if anything. AK is saying that the only scenario she could manage to imagine through which RS could have committed the murder is so far-fetched that it's unfeasible ("well, I just highly doubt all of that").

Now, again, I'm not saying that AK or RS had nothing to do with this horrific crime. What I AM saying is that there seems to be a fair amount of willful misinterpretation going on - on both sides, it should be added. And, in this case, I think TJMK might want to double-check "Cesare Beccaria"'s credentials. If indeed he is a lawyer and doctor of jurisprudence, he has a funny way of expressing himself in print...
 
Matthew Best said:
It seems like only a few moments ago that somebody (I can't remember who) was trying to persuade me that this thread had not degenerated into nothing more than pointless bickering and points-scoring over irrelevant side issues.

As usual, I was right.:D
Click to expand...

Innit, blud (as we say in Lahhndan) ;)

I must be developing some sort of strange reaction to all this to-and-fro anomosity - I misread one of the posts from the heat of the battle as something about the family vet being interviewed in Seattle, and I wondered what pet animals had to do with the case......
 
London John, seriously I suggest you reread Cesare. But this time with the sensitivity turned up. It sounds like the first reading too subtle for you?
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
They are selling the interview.

It seems to me, you're not only concerned about defending Amanda's case in regard to the evidence, but also her and her family's PR. I'm wondering why that is.
Click to expand...

You are completely incorrect. You took the story and ran with it long before you had the actual facts. They are not selling an interview. This story will be corrected. Here is the first correction.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/05/16/news/update-article-amanda-knoxs-tv-interview-inaccurate
 
Mary_H said:
I thought we were talking about why Amanda's family might want to increase awareness of the case, eventualy leading to widespread protests.
Click to expand...

By the same Italian populace that helped railroad her into jail?
 
Mary_H said:
Amanda's supporters KNOW something outside the courtroom affected the outcome of the trial. It is usually the argument of the guilters that the case was decided on the basis of evidence.
Click to expand...

Capital letters do not improve the truth of the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom