• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, Rose. Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's LAWYER, told ABC news: Amanda had a fair trial. Amanda's rights were respected during the trial. Reported in the Daily News, December, 10th. You choose not to believe Walter Verini. How about Ghirga then.???????????????
 
I love your use of vocabulary and the selection of adjectives. Well done. I can admire the words without entirely agreeing with the content, in any case. My opinion is that she went against the advice of her lawyers on several occasions and displayed a real lack of "cunning" in both her dress and demeanor in court. If I were her parent I might have been tempted to slap her (ever so lightly) on the back of her head. Then again, her family came into some criticism for their actions and demeanor as well.

Interesting how 'beauty' is so definitely 'in the eye of the beholder'.
Naturally my self esteem is enriched by your observations about vocabulary.

At the same time my 'eye of the beholder' conviction is exemplified by Poster Best a few messages above who tells me that my skills indicate to him that English must be a second language for me.

HUH ??

Another hackneyed expression about 'pleasing all the people all the time' I surmise also here assumes another premier position of pertinence.

Drumroll please.... Documentation provided for eminently 'evidence emphasized' community:
( a little alliteration allowed at expense of absolute accuracy, Mary ?);)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgnw9EM_qbg

At about the 2:30 point, Ms Nadeau makes precisely the point you do concerning detrimental consequences of sub standard 'demeanor'

As an addendum concerning my earlier undocumented and questioned 'facts'.

I have narrowed the location where I probably read most of them to the three books, none of which I still have here, and/or the plethora of articles from Vogt and others on Daily Beast which I am re-reading as time allows.
 
Alright, Rose. Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's LAWYER, told ABC news: Amanda had a fair trial. Amanda's rights were respected during the trial. Reported in the Daily News, December, 10th. You choose not to believe Walter Verini. How about Ghirga then.???????????????

He is a lawyer, capealadin. His appeal speaks volumes more on his true feelings about the fairness of the judgment. Perhaps he is making one of those lawyerly distinctions between the trial and the judgment as well as the various rulings the court made. Read Amanda's appeal and then tell me what you think he believes. With lawyers it is hard to say sometimes.
 
no hard drugs on November first

The link says Amanda' parents issued a statement SHORTLY after READING the report.It would seem they did not have time to check with Amanda herself. Bruce wasn't there, only Walter and Amanda. Walter has made the statement. Amanda has not denied it. Bruce wasn't there. The Knox's issued a statement re : reading the report. Did Walter recant? Did Amanda? If not, the statement should be accepted as correct. Edda mentioned on TV that Amanda didn't do drugs. Oops. Amanda says she did. Should we believe Edda, or Amanda?

capealadin,

Neither Amanda nor Raffaele used drugs the night of the murder, other than cannabis. We also have Ms. Popovic's testimony that Amanda acted normally when the two met. There is no evidence that Amanda ever used hard drugs in her whole life. I have read a report or comment to the effect that Raffaele tried cocaine one time at age seventeen, but I have not tracked this report back to its source yet (and so neither believe nor disbelieve it). I infer that Edda's comments were in reference to hard drugs, about which there have been some baseless rumors, as I have said elsewhere.
 
And when Lumumba gave that interview, he was clearly exhibiting extreme anger towards Knox for her role in his incarceration. Add to that the fact that as he gave the interview he was well aware that Knox was herself sitting in a Perugia prison accused of the murder, and he had pretty much a carte blanche to "revise history" in relation to whether he'd fired her or even "demoted" her. She was, after all, a demon in most people's eyes by this time.

(Oh and by the way, I don't think that Lumumba's statements in the same Daily Mail article about his police treatment - or, more accurately, abuse - were false or exaggerated. They were very specific allegations of serious unlawful conduct by the police, and Lumumba seemingly had no reason to bear a grudge against the Perugia police - quite the contrary, in fact, as he seemed to blame Knox entirely for his arrest and detention, and in addition he would know he needed to foster a good relationship with the authorities to enable the smooth running of his bar business.)

(Bolness+underline is my own, RW)
_________________________________________________________________

Greetings LondonJohn,
I wanted to comment on this, but didn't get a chance last week.

I re-read the relevant portion from "I Fired Foxy Knoxy for Hitting on Customers" article that appeared on Nov. 25, 2007 in the Daily Mail):
"At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence."

Etc...

Link here::
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html


I have also been re-reading "Murder in Italy" by author Candace Dempsey and she too notes that, on page 228, (from that same " I Fired Foxy Knoxy for Hitting on Customers" article that appeared on Nov. 25, 2007 in the Daily Mail), "Patrick also claimed that police screamed at him when they arrested him, hit him over the head, yelled racial epithets, and kicked him.
As Frank Sfarzo pointed out, those details dovetailed with the kind of conduct described in Amanda's memoriale, "confirming the behavior of our police."
Etc...

BUT Mr. Lumumba afterwards says that the alleged written reports of police abuse didn't happen, or something of the sort.

How come he did not sue the "Daily Mail", the author of the article, Antonia Hoyle, for stating this, or the author of "Murder in Italy", Candace Dempsey, and also Frank Sfarzo for repeating these supposed "falsehoods"?
I find this strange, for after his arrest and then subsequent release, Diya Lumumba lost his business, Le Chic.

And what about the police department?
More strangely, why didn't they sue for libel, for this article surely portrays the police department in a not so kind light?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
RoseMontague said:
If I recall you had indicated you would address this question before you tackled Kevin's question on stomach contents and time of death. I understand you got sidetracked. I am still interested and would appreciate your expertise on this
.

I recall the topic of your question but I thought it in general terms, about whether Filomena and Amanda could have had language understanding problems in their phone call and in what terms Filomena asked the question about calling Meredith. But the problem here is I don't understand what you mean exactly with the difference in English between "that" and "the". This question is something very precise and very limited on the language that I'm not sure I got. Try to explain in different words.
As you know I contributed to the editing of significant portions of this translation, which, as far as I recall, included this sentence, and I am quite confident that the translation of the sentence is the most faithful possible in English by the word. However Italian has intrinsically diferent rules to express meanings, so I have to know what meaning you are looking for.
 
Last edited:
outside views

Alright, Rose. Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's LAWYER, told ABC news: Amanda had a fair trial. Amanda's rights were respected during the trial. Reported in the Daily News, December, 10th. You choose not to believe Walter Verini. How about Ghirga then.???????????????

capealadin,

When this case has reached its conclusion, Mr. Ghirga will still be a lawyer in Perugia. He is not exactly in a position to speak candidly about possible flaws in a system in which he has to earn his living on a daily basis. I have found Scott Greenfield's and Peter Popham's commentaries on legal aspects of this case to be helpful.
 
Just remember that we are working on the alibi, not the validity of the evidence. The prosecution needs to prove the evidence is valid and the alibi is invalid or insufficient. The defendant only needs to prove the evidence is invalid or irrelevant or that the alibi is valid.

1.) It shouldn't make any difference where Amanda was at the time of the text message as long as she was at RS's later when the witnesses and cell phone data placed her there. I think the alibi would be more secure if you get a fact that explains this, so go for it!

2.) ditto

3.) PL should have texted Amanda earlier. But that's just my opinion. Sorry. You are looking for facts. However, I just wonder why that fact is necessary in the grand scheme of things.

The prosecution did prove that her alibi regarding her location when she received the text message from Patrick was invalid. This goes directly to her credibility. Keep in mind we only have four pieces of evidence for her whereabouts the night of the murder: (1) Jovana Popvic stops by RS's apartment at approximently 5:45 pm; (2) the text from Patrick at 8:18 pm (away from RS’s apt); (3) her return text to Patrick at 8:36 (at RS’s apt.); and (4) Jovana Popovic stopping by RS’s apartment at approximately 8:40 pm. The next bit of evidence for Amanda’s whereabouts is the following afternoon phone call to Meredith’s cell phone at 12:07 pm from RS’s apartment.

We know she wasn’t where she said she was when she received Patrick’s text. So what was she doing? It seems strange that she would be on her way to work two hours before her scheduled start time.

Patrick texted Amanda at 8:18 pm not to come into work because, according to Amanda, “there wasn't anyone at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.” According to Patrick he didn’t arrive at the pub until 9:00 pm. I don’t know how this fits in the grand scheme of things, but it is odd.
 
Last edited:
Alright, Rose. Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's LAWYER, told ABC news: Amanda had a fair trial. Amanda's rights were respected during the trial. Reported in the Daily News, December, 10th. You choose not to believe Walter Verini. How about Ghirga then.???????????????
_________________________________________________________________

Hi capealadin,
I'll trade ya:
I'll believe the Daily News, December, 10th article, as you note, "that Amanda had a fair trial. Amanda's rights were respected during the trial".,

if you will believe the November 25, 2007 Daily News article that states:

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'",
etc...

Fair trade, OK?
RWVBWL
 
.

I recall the topic of your question but I thought it in general terms, about whether Filomena and Amanda could have had language understanding problems in their phone call and in what terms Filomena asked the question about calling Meredith. But the problem here is I don't understand what you mean exactly with the difference in English between "that" and "the". This question is something very precise and very limited on the language that I'm not sure I got. Try to explain in different words.
As you know I contributed to the editing of significant portions of this translation, which, as far as I recall, included this sentence, and I am quite confident that the translation of the sentence is the most faithful possible in English by the word. However Italian has intrinsically diferent rules to express meanings, so I have to know what meaning you are looking for.

Yes, that is why I wanted your imput. I see two possibilities. Either Massei is referring to the question already stated: Where is Meredith?; or he is referring to an implied question that I don't see listed anywhere else: "Did you try to call Meredith"? The question I had about possible communication problems between Meredith and Filomena is one I think you are qualified to answer and I would appreciate you opinion on that as well.
 
Jungle Jim said:
1. Why does Amanda maintain she was at Raffaele’s apartment when her cell phone records indicate she was not?
2. The Massei Report implies Amanda may have been on her way to work when she received the text message from Patrick. Why would she be on her way to work at 8:18 pm when her shift doesn’t start until 10:00 pm?
3. Why would Patrick text Amanda at 8:18 pm to tell her not to come in for work if he didn’t even open the bar until 9:00 pm?

Ths is one more very interesting point. Amanda is not telling the truth whan she says she was at Raffaele's apartment. She was not at her home neither. She was in the city centre near the central Piazza, in an area south of the tower in via del'Aquila.
But, as you observe, she was not walking to work, as the Court might have guessed, because her shift begins at 10:00.
So she was hanging around elsewhere doing something else.
 
RoseMontegue said:
Either Massei is referring to the question already stated: Where is Meredith?; or he is referring to an implied question that I don't see listed anywhere else:

The text can refer to an implied or unspecified question, not necessarily one of those explicitly mentioned. The sentence, because of the pronoun and the verbal mode chosen, is constructed in a way that is open to include a reference to other possible questions not specified, though it implies that there was "one" important question related to the topic and this is held as "granted" and not specified in the sentence.
 
Yes, Rose, Ghirga is a lawyer. AMANDA's Lawyer. Lawyers must deal with facts. And as a fact, he made the statement. It is his JOB to appeal the verdict. And to do his best to refute the evidence. He shouldn't be blamed for making an honest declaration, and holding the Court in obvious high esteem. I applaud him for it.
 
Ths is one more very interesting point. Amanda is not telling the truth whan she says she was at Raffaele's apartment. She was not at her home neither. She was in the city centre near the central Piazza, in an area south of the tower in via del'Aquila.
But, as you observe, she was not walking to work, as the Court might have guessed, because her shift begins at 10:00.
So she was hanging around elsewhere doing something else.
Perhaps the message came in at 8:18 but Amanda didn't actually read the message until around 8:30 at Raffaele's house. Also, didn't Patrick's phone ping a tower he wasn't in therefore causing him a lot of problems?
 
Halides: Cannabis IS a drug. People are jailed for it. What can you mean? And where, pray tell, did I mention hard drugs? Also, could you please cite how you know Ms. Popvic's credentials, as to how she knew that Amanda was acting normal? How long had she known Amanda? How many times had they met? Under what other circumstances? If you want to call it a meeting...talking to someone through a door. Does she know if Amanda's eyes were bloodshot? Thanks so much...
 
And by the way, Halides, Ghirga is in a perfect position to talk about the Court system, as he knows how it works. Can you cite where in Italy, a lawyer would be in jeapordy if he did so? Thanks.........
 
Perhaps the message came in at 8:18 but Amanda didn't actually read the message until around 8:30 at Raffaele's house. Also, didn't Patrick's phone ping a tower he wasn't in therefore causing him a lot of problems?

You may be correct regarding where Amanda read the message.

Amanda Knox Testimony – June 13, 2009, Audio #1. GM = Giuliano Mignini, prosecutor
GM: So now we get to Patrick's message.
AK: Okay.
GM: So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.
AK: Yes.
GM: More or less. What did it say exactly?
AK: I don't remember the exact words...
GM: [Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?
AK: Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn't anyone at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.
GM: And you saw this message at around what time?
AK: Uh, I don't remember the time.
GM: But was it after a little while or right away?
AK: I was on Raffaele's bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my phone.GM: But you don't remember when?
AK: No. I don't look at the clock.

So Amanda may have been at RS's apartment when she read the message. However, that doesn't change the fact that she was somewhere in the center of town when she received the message.
 
You may be correct regarding where Amanda read the message.

Amanda Knox Testimony – June 13, 2009, Audio #1. GM = Giuliano Mignini, prosecutor
GM: So now we get to Patrick's message.
AK: Okay.
GM: So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.
AK: Yes.
GM: More or less. What did it say exactly?
AK: I don't remember the exact words...
GM: [Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?
AK: Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn't anyone at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.
GM: And you saw this message at around what time?
AK: Uh, I don't remember the time.
GM: But was it after a little while or right away?
AK: I was on Raffaele's bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my phone.GM: But you don't remember when?
AK: No. I don't look at the clock.

So Amanda may have been at RS's apartment when she read the message. However, that doesn't change the fact that she was somewhere in the center of town when she received the message.
So, she was in another part of town when message came in, or did her phone just happen to ping there like Patrick's phone did in place where he wasn't?

But she was at Raffaele's when she read the message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom