• 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.
Fulcanelli said:
I really don't see the point you're trying to make. It seems you are simply trying to score points, points for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

Since you do not engage with the actual arguments of other posters (as opposed to making up straw men), there is no point in trying to argue with you. However there is still merit in pointing it out when you make claims which are provably false, which you have done several times just in the few pages in which I have been following this thread.

Doing so demonstrates that it is unwise to trust any of the statements you make which are not backed up by a specific citation of a primary source. It also demonstrates that it is necessary to check any citation you provide since you have a history of providing links which you claim go to evidence supporting your claims which in fact contradict your claims.

This is not scoring points for the sake of it, it is scoring points to demonstrate that your claims can not be trusted even provisionally.

As Stilicho said, nothing of any great importance hangs on the question of whether a suit was actually filed, nor where. So if you will misstate the facts about trivial matters, we should definitely not trust you on important matters.

Mary_H said:
You think you don't give a rat's ass about anything apart from the evidence, but I don't think you're being completely honest with yourself about that. Everyone eventually -- well, actually, it takes no time at all -- gets to the point where arguing the evidence is not effective. That's where the personal attitudes and feelings come into play, and you guys call us stupid and Kevin_Lowe calls you guys cuckoo.
Click to expand...

Please don't put words into my mouth, especially to use me to attack other posters by proxy. I think some of the Amanda-is-guilty crowd display sloppy thinking, and Fulcanelli I've already expressed my opinion of, but I don't think they're cuckoo.
 
banquetbear said:
...have you obtained permission to reprint those articles in full on your website?
Click to expand...

I would never put anyone's hard work on my site without permission. Crimesider and Injustice in Perugia have an agreement. Why do you ask?

The content of the articles is the more important topic.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I would never put anyone's hard work on my site without permission. Crimesider and Injustice in Perugia have an agreement. Why do you ask?

The content of the articles is the more important topic.
Click to expand...

...because reprinting the work of a copyright holder without their permission is wrong: and there is nothing on this webpage to indicate you have reprinted it with permission. If you do have an agreement then it shouldn't be too hard for you to indicate that?
 
Mary_H said:
That is not quite true. One witness for the defense is Raffaele's friend who came to his door and talked to Amanda at around 8:30.

If Amanda and Raffaele had been out and about in that rather busy city that night, it is likely more people would have seen them and come forward about it. No one did because Amanda and Raffaele spent the whole night at Raffaele's.
Click to expand...


Ummm. A small point but I think you got this wrong Mary. After 9:00 PM on All Saints Day, November 1, a Holy Day, I think Perugia would have been pretty much a ghost town (so to speak). Traditionally, Italians have celebrated this night much as we Americans celebrate Christmas Eve. That's the night Santa would bring gifts for the children, except that it wasn't exactly "Santa".... it was ghosts that brought the children gifts. (No I'm not making this up.) Anyway, the first website I found by googling "all saints day Italy" provided this warning:

"These [November 1 and 2] are both very important holidays in Italy, and November 1 in particular is a day when you may find many shops and businesses closed."

///
 
Last edited:
banquetbear said:
...because reprinting the work of a copyright holder without their permission is wrong: and there is nothing on this webpage to indicate you have reprinted it with permission. If you do have an agreement then it shouldn't be too hard for you to indicate that?
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the copyright laws. There is no reason for me to indicate anything on the site about our agreement. Doug Longhini emails me the articles formatted for the page.

This is simply another weak attempt to try and discredit the Injustice site. You can all try but you will fail. Why don't you spend more time reading the information and less time trying to find errors? You will learn a lot about this case if you do.
 
Fine said:
Ummm. A small point but I think you got this wrong Mary. After 9:00 PM on All Saints Day, November 1, a Holy Day, I think Perugia would have been pretty much a ghost town (so to speak). Traditionally, Italians have celebrated this night much as we celebrate Christmas Eve. That's the night Santa would bring gifts for the children, except that it wasn't exactly "Santa".... it was ghosts that brought the children gifts. (No I'm not making this up.) Anyway, the first website I found by googling "all saints day Italy" provided this warning:

"These are both very important holidays in Italy, and November 1 in particular is a day when you may find many shops and businesses closed."

///
Click to expand...


You may be right, Fine. I don't really know for sure how this holiday was being treated in Perugia. From my initial exposure to the case, I got the impression that from Halloween to Sunday (the 31st-4th) was a long holiday weekend, and that was why all the housemates were gone, visiting their parents in other towns or taking weekend breaks. I had read in some sources that All Souls' Day, November 2nd, is considered an important Italian feast day, too.

For this reason, I thought it was unlikely that the postal police would have been dispatched to the cottage on account of only one cell phone -- it seems too insignificant a reason for them to rush over there on a holiday, when schools were closed and kids were out of town. Now, if they knew they were looking for the owner of TWO mysterious cell phones, that would make the case a bit more urgent.

For the postal police to go to the cottage on account of two cell phones, though, they would not have been able to get there before around 1:00, because the second cell phone was first reported at 12:46.

When I brought up this argument on another thread a while back, though, I was corrected by one of the native Italians (Ivstitia or Al-Fakh or someone), who insisted that All Souls' Day (the 2nd) is NOT considered a holiday in Italy. However, we know all of the occupants of the house had gone out the night of 1st, and that Amanda and Raffaele had planned a day trip for the 2nd, which again suggests to me that November 2nd was indeed being treated as a holiday, at least that year.

At any rate, I think it is safe to say there was some social activity going on in town on the night of the 1st -- Le Chic had some customers. Rudy went to a crowded disco, etc. If the town were relatively deserted, though, that would be all the more reason for witnesses in addition to Curatolo to have noticed Amanda and Raffaele out and about.
 
Mary_H said:
At any rate, I think it is safe to say there was some social activity going on in town on the night of the 1st -- Le Chic had some customers. Rudy went to a crowded disco, etc. If the town were relatively deserted, though, that would be all the more reason for witnesses in addition to Curatolo to have noticed Amanda and Raffaele out and about.
Click to expand...


At any rate, there are 20,000 foreign students there on the beginning of a long weekend for them, they wern't leaving town. I'm somewhat suprised more people didn't see them about.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Stilicho,

The fact that you still believe that Amanda and Raffaele were surprised by the postal police along with the fact that you feel that the clasp was handled properly, leads me to question whether or not you are really in search for the truth.
Click to expand...

I simply think that they didn't expect the Postal Police or the boys to arrive before Filomena. They expected her to be the one to equally become increasingly alarmed by the state of the cottage's top floor. When she didn't arrive as expected, it created the need to improvise their staging further.

Whether I think the clasp was handled properly is aside from the point. There are experts and judges available to determine that and nobody with a vested advocacy site on the internet is going to change their evaluation of the evidence.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
At any rate, there are 20,000 foreign students there on the beginning of a long weekend for them, they wern't leaving town. I'm somewhat suprised more people didn't see them about.
Click to expand...

They didn't live in the middle of the city. All the activity that night was at the edges of what they call Old Perugia. If you look at the Google maps of the area, including Raffaele's and Rudy's places along with the basketball court and the Via Pergola cottage, you'll see that it's very easy to understand why few people would have seen them.

It was also dark at the time they committed the murder. By morning, Amanda was seen alone at Quintavalle's shop.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
I am well aware of the copyright laws. There is no reason for me to indicate anything on the site about our agreement. Doug Longhini emails me the articles formatted for the page.

This is simply another weak attempt to try and discredit the Injustice site. You can all try but you will fail. Why don't you spend more time reading the information and less time trying to find errors? You will learn a lot about this case if you do.
Click to expand...


Without a disclaimer, there is no way to establish the content has not been stolen from its rightful owner. There is little chance that a CBS employee would have the legal right to provide you with that authorisation.
 
LondonJohn said:
<snip>

In fact, I fully understand the current limitations of sub-judice rules in the USA. But thanks for reminding me of what I already know. And you also seemed to home in predominantly on the mid-trial news conferences that are routinely given in high-profile cases in the USA. These are obviously each side's attempts to put a "spin" on what's going on in the trial, and are different from what I was actually talking about.
Click to expand...


I don't think that you do understand them. The statements you are making suggest otherwise.

I'm not "homing in" on anything. I have no idea what gives you that impression.

What I was talking about was the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to publish - long in advance of a trial - actual evidence that will be presented at trial, and the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to "go to town" on a defendant's character, lifestyle, past life and previous misdeeds. As you well know, many American states (and federal statutes) limit pre-trial exposure of these sorts of things. And I believe that I used the qualifier "moderately" in my description of the US. If you're arguing that every state in America allows as much pre-trial publication of evidence and defendant character analysis as Italy, I'd argue that you were wrong.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't know that. Unless you are participating in a separate reality you don't know it either.

I note your facile use of qualifiers. It does not provide the plausible deniability you appear to think it does.

I could argue that the vast majority of publicity about any high profile case in the U.S. is pre-trial. For one thing, those sorts of cases generally are years in coming to trial. It is more common for people to have to be reminded of them when they finally do. The media outlets make hay while the sun shines. When public outrage shifts to the next crime du jour it all recedes from the spotlight.

Character analysis of the accused is an industry in the media. There are (regrettably) hordes of talking heads whose only employment is to pontificate on such matters on every imaginable sort of program from the morning shows to late night news recaps. We have cable channels devoted to nothing else. And it seems to get worse daily. They have absolutely no compunctions about doing this before a trial. They are only marginally restrained by even the lack of an arrest if a "person of interest" seems to be a vulnerable enough target.

I'd have to be convinced that Italy can hold a candle to the U.S. when it comes to pre-trial publication of evidence, or innuendo, or fabrication.

For one example, the Anthony case to date has generated thousands ... literally thousands ... of pages of evidence. Discovery documents from both the prosecution and the defense. Released by the state of Florida. Over 500 pages more just last week. The defendant's family quit visiting her in jail because all of the CCTV records of their conversations were released to the public. Her orders from the jail commissary are the subject of nightly discussion, as are donations to her commissary account. Her family's financial peccadilloes are common knowledge to anyone who cares to find out ... or doesn't turn their head quickly enough. This has been going on for over a year and a half so far and shows no signs of slowing down. Her trial is tentatively scheduled for next summer. Is that pre-trial enough for you?

For an example from a state on the other end of the transparency spectrum take some time and review the coverage of Melissa Huckaby in the Sandra Cantu murder. Tell me what you think of
"the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to "go to town" on a defendant's character, lifestyle, past life and previous misdeeds."
​
in that case. All of that coverage was pre-trial. There never was a trial, really. Knox was treated like a choir girl in the Italian press by comparison ... which is sort of funny in a sad way, because Huckaby actually was a choir girl, not to mention a minister's daughter. The media was publishing diary entries of hers from high school within days of her becoming a part of the investigation. LE got a lot of their background on her from the media.

Note that this is a state which generally plays their cards fairly close to the vest from a sub judice perspective.

And lastly, some of the tone of your post seemed to imply that you thought I believed that the lack of sub-judice rules was only potentially detrimental to the defence side of any case. However, I didn't argue this: in fact, arguably the strict sub-judice rules in force in the UK came about after the Crown lost cases in court due to prosecution-damaging pre-trial publicity. After all, there IS a remedy for bad procedure if the first trial ends in conviction (i.e reversal on appeal). But if the defendant is CLEARED, then the prosecution - by and large - has no redress to an appeal, let alone a retrial.
Click to expand...


Whatever "tone" you imagine is of your own making. Perhaps you should have your hearing checked.

I understand you to be saying that prosecutors in the UK have no right of appeal after an acquittal. This may be true. I have no great familiarity with the fine details of the system there. It isn't true here. Perhaps your "qualifier" of "by and large" covers this.

Double jeopardy protection carries a great weight in the U.S. system, but it is not as perfectly all-encompassing as some would believe. Ask Jeffrey MacDonald, for just one example.

Come to think of it, the MacDonald case offers some interesting parallels. I wonder if the people who believe that Knox would not have been convicted in the U.S. consider that trial to be a miscarriage of justice?
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
Guilty until proven innocent? :D
Click to expand...

In this case, absolutely. There is nothing to distinguish it from CBS copyrighted material. You know you wouldn't do that on a website that you operated.

I have a feeling that banquetbear is a legal type of some sort from his or her participation on threads regarding copyright infringements. Just a guess but Bruce should supply more proof than just his word. After all, isn't that why you've held Fulcanelli's feet to the fire?
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli said:
In response, I quote The Bard from PMF:


Originally Posted by The Bard
Then you get THIS from halides: 'I am hoping that progressive Italians use this case as a motivation for reform.' Know what? I am hoping that AK will use 26 years in the slammer as motivation for reform... Pffffff....

I think it's funny that you quoted The Bard.

Fulcanelli, you could walk off a cliff and The Bard would follow you. She really needs to find her own voice and stop trying so hard to please you. Why quote someone that cannot come up with a single independent thought?
Click to expand...

Personally, I find it somewhat stranger that people seem to be "reporting" - in some depth - the happenings on this forum over on another forum. "Hey everyone! Guess what's just been said over at JFEF:" Sounds, ermmmm, strange to me. Why the direct cross-referencing? Now, far be it for me to mention the words "conspiracy theory", but.......
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
Personally, I find it somewhat stranger that people seem to be "reporting" - in some depth - the happenings on this forum over on another forum. "Hey everyone! Guess what's just been said over at JFEF:" Sounds, ermmmm, strange to me. Why the direct cross-referencing? Now, far be it for me to mention the words "conspiracy theory", but.......
Click to expand...


Then why mention them?

And whose conspiracy?

People with better memories will hopefully correct me, but my recollection of the most significant genesis of this rather unfortunate bleed-over of petty disputes from other forums onto our small stage here began with Bruce Fisher's initial offerings, where he devoted his first two posts to boosting his own website, and used his fourth to take aim straight at Fulcanelli. We'd had a sprinkling of one-topic posters joining the forum for this thread up until then, but afterward the floodgates seemed to open wide.

Quite frankly I am unable to sort out who is conspiring to what.

Perhaps you have some thoughts on the subject beyond 'not' (:rolleyes:) mentioning it.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
I would never put anyone's hard work on my site without permission. Crimesider and Injustice in Perugia have an agreement. Why do you ask?

The content of the articles is the more important topic.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I do think that Frank does a better job (in terms of fairness) in explaining Mignini's "thinking" on this case.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/11/genius-or-evil.html

I don't particularly care for the title of this one however. Genius or Whackedness might work better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom