Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for that correction to the PMF translation. I believe Christiana speaks Italian and perhaps others here as well that I am not as familiar with. The statement makes a little more sense the way you have interpreted it.

No problem! By the way, the bit about certain posters' pre-supposition of no Italian speakers wasn't in any way meant to include you.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Stilicho, do your faux copyright tears apply equally to photographs? WHACKEDNESS. (Love me that word Rose Montague)

 

[Mary_H]

As far as Melissa Huckaby is concerned it would appear that you need to read your Seattle Times more diligently. The most recent article they ran about her was this past Monday. There were plenty of others, at least according to a search done on their web page. I won't bother to search the other sources you mentioned for you. The results will be the same.

Perhaps national coverage is different in the Pacific Northwest, but for quite some time the Anthony case required all but a conscious effort to avoid down here in the lower fortyseven. It has tapered off a lot now, but the Anthony family ... father, mother, and brother, plus assorted lawyers ... were making regular rounds of the morning shows, daytime talk circuit, and evening reviews for many months. The Grace creature's program was virtually the Casey Anthony Show for more than a year, and her junior partner-in-sleaze JVM wasn't much better. Geraldo is a personal friend of Casey Anthony's lead attorney (they vacation together ), and took every advantage of the fact. That covers all the national broadcast networks and both of the cable news extremes.

The web coverage is even more devoted. By comparison the Knox case is barely a column filler. I can point you to one forum which alone probably has more traffic about the Anthony case than all of the Knox oriented websites and blogs mentioned here combined, and that isn't even a single issue forum. The topic comprises a fraction of their posts. There are a multitude just like it.

The Seattle Times you read so assiduously has had two articles on the Anthony case in just the last six weeks.

Perhaps there is some selection bias at work here.

You may be right. Now that you remind me, I realize I do know who Melissa Huckaby is, and I admit I am given to avoiding stories about children being harmed. On the other hand, it's possible the story from last Monday appeared only in the online version of the Times, whereas I read the paper version. There are no comments following the article, suggesting fewer people read it, or at least that fewer readers were interested in it.

This doesn't even address the question of comparable geography. A more accurate comparison to the Knox coverage in Italy would be the Anthony coverage in Florida.

So be it. It's that much easier to saturate a small market than a larger one.

Comparison to the Michael Jackson hysteria is meaningless. That episode was just pitiful. A revolution in the streets of Iran was forgotten in the noise of that mindless stupidity. I have never been so ashamed of our media, and that is a tough hurdle, coming from me. I started being ashamed of them in the '60s.

I don't know how to confirm the amount of coverage, or quantify it. We have discussed the issue of the influence of the media on the Knox jury at great length earlier in this thread. I don't think it has been established that the jurors were influenced by media coverage any more unduly than they would have been here in the U.S., which was, of course, the point of such insinuations.

By contrast it was the over-the-top positive coverage of the case here in the U.S. which aroused my suspicions about biased presentation in the first place. That and the thinly (badly) disguised xenophobia.

Comparison to the Michael Jackson coverage is not meaningles if the cases are comparable. At least the Michael Jackson mania ended after a couple of months; coverage of Amanda's case in Italy did not.

Can you provide examples of over-the-top positive coverage of the case here in the U.S.? There was a week or so of national coverage after the verdict came in, but most of what I see is the occasional 30 second bite on local news and articles in the Seattle P-I (since the Times seems to have virtually stopped covering the case). As far as I know, most of Amanda's supporters are disappointed by how little coverage there is at all in the U.S., never mind positive coverage.

I won't try to renew the discussion of the media's influence of the jury panel, except to say that it has been credibly reported that the police and prosecution took the initiative to release and leak information to journalists, making them partners in popularizing a certain view of the case, whereas the defense did not have similar power.

 

[Fulcanelli]

[quote="Mary H]Is this no longer the case?[/quote]

That's exactly the case Mary. On this we can agree. Can you offer an argument of why it shouldn't have been? Perhaps a hands and knees examination of Raffaele's butter knives...and forks...should have been prioritised instead? As the expert in the procedure, certainly you can tell us how that could, or should, have solved the case or even have been productive?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Righto, he just said there were people wearing "masks" then, did he? Well, that changes things completely, obviously.

Obviously, you didn't get it the first time. There were no masks, Halloween or otherwise in his statement. It's alriight, we forgive your lack of comprehension.

However, is total ignorance going to form the rest of your arguments and remain a theme? Yes...no...tell us now. If ir's yes, go back and read up a bit and save everyone some time, instead of spouting complete *****.

The original post wasn't addressed to you, so you didn't need to repeat yourself at all if you didn't want to. I was setting out the logical reasons why it isn't at all implausible Guede may have locked the door, which, no, you've never convincingly addressed.

It doesn't matter if your post was addressed to me or some other poor sap. If it's already been addressed in this thread, it's already been addressed. It doesn't suddenly become fresh because it's addressed to someone else.

Possible, yeah, although I would have thought the logical thing would be to stay the heck away from the place and let someone else discover it. But it's possible Guede locked it too, for the reasons I was setting out in my post; I think his motives were even stronger and certainly more obvious.

And as a result, have zero control. Yeah, 'that's' logical.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't distrust Curatolo's testimony because he is homeless, I distrust it because he appears to be, as Rose would say, "whacked." Coincidentally, this whackedness is probably the cause of his homelessness.

I await, with anticipation, the evidence fore Curatolo being 'whacked'. You never know, you may evidence it with...claims he was attracted to Amanda along with some claim from him that clearly all the police were attracted to Amanda...or, maybe he claimed all the evidence at the crime scene was fabricated. Or even 'something'. Who knows? I await your evidence for it all the same.

Assertions pass the time, but not the test.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Fulcanelli...it might behoove you to back off the attack/rhetoric a bit...

 

[Fulcanelli]

What is your source of information? I am going by what Frank has written, which includes the following:

It seems that the Foligno loan sharks were selling themselves as satanic killers of Narducci.

And also arrived a call from Gabriella Carlizzi of Rome who had information from the roman Gang of Magliana that the body found in the lake was not Narducci but it had been substituted for another.

So, Mignini reopened the case on the hypothesis that the Foligno loan sharks were really involved in the Narducci's murder and that the information coming from the Gang of Magliana was reliable.

Carlizzi as we all know is a psychic who communicates with the spirit of a dead priest.

Frank's writeup may be read here:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/20...s-or-evil.html

The nature of Mignini's thinking is also described in the Motivation following the verdict in his case, as translated by Google:

Mignini, by Act of 31.05.2004, asked already. P. authorization to intercept the users of Fiasconaro and De Stefano (in prod. Pm, 6 binder sheet 486).

The request is made within the proc pm. pen. No 8970/02/21, which was on the misleading on the investigation, and the related note of 05/17/2004 pg Giuttari was referring to. As seen Narducci murder (even against unknown).

The request goes over the steps of the survey widely, even from its origin, with the discovery of differences between the corpse fished in Lake Trasimeno and the exhumed by Narducci, on which were observed in terms of esoteric references to archaic rituals and references - Egyptian - local environments and Masonic paramassonici - fringe, then, explains the existence of serious evidence of guilt of the crime of slander to the detriment of the many journalists committed 18.4-2002 in Perugia from various relatives and dalTaw Narducci.

I read this to mean that Mignini filed a request in which he described how the corpse fished from the lake was not really Narducci, and explained that when the real body of Narducci was exhumed, it revealed signs of "archaic rituals" with a Masonic connection. Do I understand this correctly?

I.m sorry Charlie...but for an understanding of the Narducci case, are you throwing Preston, Spezi and Frank at me?

Let's stick with actual sources shall we?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli...it might behoove you to back off the attack/rhetoric a bit...

I'm not doing this for what may 'behoove' me Bob.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not doing this for what may 'behoove' me Bob.

Fine. It would behoove your side of the argument more.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think I must have missed them, because I keep reading people talking about there being only only one or two knives in the drawer, which is contrary to what Finzi testified.

Perhaps you should look at the picture. Is that tough?

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.

Whioch is clearly of no help, since Meredith was murdered after 11 pm.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Perhaps you should look at the picture. Is that tough?



Whioch is clearly of no help, since Meredith was murdered after 11 pm.

Wait, I'll field this one for Mary:


The picture was staged. It's all part of the Police framing Raffaele.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Someone will know:

Regardless of what she thought the other's plans might have been, is there any way Amanda Knox could have been certain that one of her other roommates, or their friends, would not have, unexpectedly, showed up at the cottage on the morning after the victim was murdered?

No, which is exactly the reason for all the intense planning (the shower and all the other BS). Finally, you're getting it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

Please clarify your position. Are you saying that Amanda and Raffaele Were expecting Filomena to show up long before Raffaele decided to call the police? Because she didn't show up, you feel that Amanda and Raffaele then felt the need to do more staging? When they were comfortable with their staging work, Raffaele called the Carabinieri?

Is that what you are saying?

Your theory doesn't work. Raffaele called the Carabinieri. He wanted the police to come to the cottage. He called before you claim that they were surprised.

Are you trying to claim that they had an elaborate plan to time the Carabinieri with Filomena to have her arrive just seconds or minutes before them?

No matter how you twist it, I cannot make your theory work.

Common sense based on the evidence, tells us that Raffaele called the Carabinieri because he wanted the police to investigate the cottage. This is not the action of a guilty person.


One other thing about the "staging" - If Raffaele made that bloody print on the bathmat he would have known the print belonged to him. Why would Amanda and Raffaele clean up every print in the entire cottage that belonged to them and leave the bathmat in the bathroom?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Perhaps you should look at the picture. Is that tough?



Whioch is clearly of no help, since Meredith was murdered after 11 pm.

You have no proof that Meredith was murdered after 11 pm. The time of her death is inconclusive.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is a good article regarding Mignini. I know Fulcanelli thinks that CBS is FOA but I would have to disagree.

CBS are rampant FOA. To quote them as any kind of a source is to scrape the depths. It may raise a laugh though.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Doug Longhini emails you articles does her Bruce? Thanks for telling us and I'm sure, Doug appreciates you doing so too. Nothing widens a mouth as much as hubris.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Guilty until proven innocent?

Or in this case, proven guilty. That was the verdict at the end of the TRIAL I believe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It seemed to me that the floodgates began shortly after Mary_H's initial flurry of posts. Regardless of the reasons people decided to join the debate, my personal opinion is that the more opinion and debate you get, the better a discussion you have.

I see nothing wrong with mentioning posts on other sites, especially if you are not a member or have been banned from that particular place or even made to feel unwelcome. I think that here as well as to a lesser extent, View From Wilmington are the best places to have a discussion with both sides of the argument participating. A little petty bickering and taking sides are to be expected.

You think the debate quality has gone 'up' since they arrived...really? Which part do you think has value...the personal observation that all the police were clearly aroused by the sight of AK...or was it something else that, for you, raised the tone?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not only that, but I think the police had already spoken to him after the murder, when he said he hadn't seen anything. It was only when the journalist 'found' him that he remembered he'd seen AK and RS there that night.

Then you 'think' wrong.

Seriously though, I agree that the 'lies' told outside the interrogation are normal instances of misremembering/forgetfulness, while the only obvious untruths (the accusation of Patrick) were told during the interrogation session, for which there's at least an argument of coercion. So describing those as 'lies' really just brings us back to a discussion as to whether the interrogation was coerced; they are certainly not straightforward 'lies'.

Funny how none of the other 84 people had these 'normal instances'. Not so normal after all then.

Yet aside from the coerced confession (which, as I said I would hardly class a 'lie') Amanda's errors were also "mistakes anyone could make" (the forgetting of a phone call, misremembering which phone 'rang and rang', etc). Those aren't lies, they're normal lapses in memory. It doesn't even make sense that she would 'lie' about those things.

'What' coerced confession? Can you tell us what that was...I think we all missed it?

Here's an extract from Matteini's report - really garbled I'm afraid. Normally I'd check it against the original but the site where it's hosted seems to be down (anyone know where's Dan O disappeared to?). This is about Patrick's "odd behavior" in changing his cell phone on November 2:

Dan O fell down a hole I hope think.