Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

On this point, it's useful to note that Frank Sfarzo, a very good reporter, has expressed his fear of retribution from authorities several times, most recently expressed as "walking on eggshells" for fear of slander charges.

This is little more than a legal inconvenience for North American reporters. This is not a question of North America being superior, but clearly Perugia has a distinctive political and administrative power culture.

A blogger in a small or mid-sized US city could easily have problems if he took a stance that was critical of a major criminal investigation, especially if the police were getting a lot of bad publicity from outside the area.

Having said that, I do not doubt that there are important cultural differences between Perugia and a community in the US. Perugia is thousands of years old and was an independent or quasi-independent city state for most of its history. I don't begin to understand how that history affects the city as it exists today, but I have noticed, in following this case, that it bears many similarities with US cases I have studied. The behaviors are the same - the bombastic certainty through which officials try to compensate for the weakness of the evidence, and their absolute, white-knuckled refusal to admit to any errors of fact, procedure or policy.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Very sincerely, Mary I did not ever previously connect the acronym for friends of Amanda with any 'certain epithet', although now I 'got it', and already previously agreed to cease and desist.

Mary, I guess you are just a more worldly ,'experienced' person with lots more 'street savvy than I despite my suspected 'longer tooth' age

PS:
note the deliberately neutral gender reference..."person"

I'm ok with FOAKer. But it reminds me of a joke... I mentioned the other day how the Norwegians like to make ethnic jokes at their own expense. One of my favorites is about the Norwegian guy who goes to a HS assembly to talk about his experience as a fighter pilot in WW2. He describes his biggest battle, and he says, "I was scared, let me tell you. There was a Fokker on the left, and a Fokker on the right, and two more Fokkers behind me."

The boys start to giggle, so the principle steps up to the mike and says, "a Fokker is a type of German aircraft." To which the old Norwegian guy shakes head vigorously and says, "Oh, no. These Fokkers were Messerschmitts."

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm ok with FOAKer. But it reminds me of a joke... I mentioned the other day how the Norwegians like to make ethnic jokes at their own expense. One of my favorites is about the Norwegian guy who goes to a HS assembly to talk about his experience as a fighter pilot in WW2. He describes his biggest battle, and he says, "I was scared, let me tell you. There was a Fokker on the left, and a Fokker on the right, and two more Fokkers behind me."

The boys start to giggle, so the principle steps up to the mike and says, "a Fokker is a type of German aircraft." To which the old Norwegian guy shakes head vigorously and says, "Oh, no. These Fokkers were Messerschmitts."

The Liverpool comedian Stan Boardman got himself effectively banned from UK television for telling a joke along these same lines in an early-evening live TV interview

 

[LondonJohn]

Being unable to follow the site too closely lately, due to company B manoeuvres and an ongoing investigation into unauthorised use of army jeeps, I have had to content myself with a quick scan.

I notice that there is still some discussion regarding Marriott, the company that proudly boasts its involvement with the Knox family. It has gone from an inferred denial that they are involved at all, to a discussion as what they actually do for the family, to comments regarding the level of fees that they charge.

Originally,this stemmed from my questioning the extremely un-critical coverage of the case, as seen in the States and the fact that the supporters never appear alongside anybody prepared to question their claims. I remain convinced that this is so, and in the case of CBS especially, the coverage is an absolute disgrace!

It seems as if, posters are apt to wander off the point at times.

I'm not sure that anyone has implied that Marriott and/or his firm (Gogerty Marriott) has done no work at all for the Knox family. It's abundantly clear that some work has been done - the Gogerty Marriott website explicitly refers to it!

However, to me the problem is this: knowing that Gogerty Marriott has been involved, some people have looked at the firm's website, read the sorts of activities in which the firm typically gets involved, then illogically assumed that Gogerty Marriott is engaging in all these sorts of activities on behalf of Knox and her family. Then some figure of $500m fees jumped seemingly out of thin air.....

Personally, I can't see any evidence of Gogerty Marriott doing any more work on behalf of Knox and her family that the firm itself has stated: managing media demands, arranging media appearances, and giving some general PR advice. However, I can understand how it might suit some people's agendas to believe that Gogerty Marriott is influencing the media, lobbying politicians or paying for pro-Knox bloggers.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nonsense. They searched Sollecito's apartment a month earlier, and the book was lying out in plain sight, on a table. They got it on video.

But why nonsense? They found a book in Amanda's room and some detective presented her the finding as evidence. This makes sense. Obviously they had a video of Sollecito's house, but doesn't mean that the video would be checked by the police to search for exculpatory evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

But why nonsense? They found a book in Amanda's room and some detective presented her the finding as evidence. This makes sense. Obviously they had a video of Sollecito's house, but doesn't mean that the video would be checked by the police to search for exculpatory evidence.

I think this is a very weak line of argument. The publicisation of the discovery of the German Harry Potter book in Knox's room was clearly and specifically intended (in my opinion) to indicate that Knox had been lying when she had told investigators that she'd been reading a German Harry Potter book at Sollecito's apartment. This isn't about what the police and prosecutors presented to the defence in discovery. It's about what they chose to feed to the media.

 

[bucketoftea]

However, to me the problem is this: knowing that Gogerty Marriott has been involved, some people have looked at the firm's website, read the sorts of activities in which the firm typically gets involved, then illogically assumed that Gogerty Marriott is engaging in all these sorts of activities on behalf of Knox and her family.

WTF????

 

[Tricky]

A number of posts moved to AAH, some for bickering but mostly for "off-topic". Note we consider discussion of the actions (read: "soap operas) of other forums to be off-topic unless it specifically relates to the topic.

Thank you for discontinuing this practice.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Supernaut]

I take the "typical Italian tendency" to mean if it doesn't affect me it's not my business.......

Which could be seen as the root of the problem - "I'm alright, Jack".

In Italy, they have their priorities - 'style' and "la dolce vita". This seems to be why they've never troubled themselves with such niceties as a modern administration and judiciary.

Who cares if these institutions are magnets for incompetent, corrupt, self-serving bullys, that a few murderers are never caught, that a few innocent lives are ruined? Just as long as it's not me or mine - and what are the chances of that happening?

Not that Italy is the only country in the world with this problem, but you yourself seem to aknowledge it as a "typical Italian tendency", although with an implicit shrug.

I believe that's what three witnesses for the prosecution demonstrated in their reluctance to come forward immediately.

Erm, not so fast.

I assume you're refferring to three of these four?;

1) Kokomani, "The Mad Albanian Olive Thrower"
2) Curotalo, "The Principled Bum (And Serial Murder Witness?)"
3) Nara, "The Catwoman With A Bladder To Set Your Watch By"
4) Quintavalle, "The Memory Man"

So these people just wanted to "mind their own business", but having wrestled with their consciences for up to a year or more, telling neither the cops nor (God forbid) the press nor any of their acquaintences (or did they swear the latter to solemn secrecy?) about what they'd seen or, er, heard, they were finally compelled by their courage and integrity to come forward?

Uh-huh, I guess I can see how you might believe that.

Alternatively, it could be that ceaseless, hysterical media coverage and their suggestability allowed Migini and his cronies to coach them into fashioning their testimonies out of thin air, exactly as he has known to have done previously with exactly the same kind of "witnesses" in his pursuit of conviction-at-any-cost.

 

[christianahannah]

Which could be seen as the root of the problem - "I'm alright, Jack".

In Italy, they have their priorities - 'style' and "la dolce vita". This seems to be why they've never troubled themselves with such niceties as a modern administration and judiciary.

Who cares if these institutions are magnets for incompetent, corrupt, self-serving bullys, that a few murderers are never caught, that a few innocent lives are ruined? Just as long as it's not me or mine - and what are the chances of that happening?

Not that Italy is the only country in the world with this problem, but you yourself seem to aknowledge it as a "typical Italian tendency", although with an implicit shrug.

No implicit shrug. I'm not defending or castigating any country's system - they all have their benefits and faults. Thankfully, there are people who are dedicated to correcting those faults. I do believe people care and I don't believe that anyone wants the guilty to go free or the innocent to suffer for crimes they did not commit. And that applies to Amanda and Raffaele.

I should clarify my comment, I should not have made such a general characterization about a people. I was wrong to do that since people are individual in their responses and how they deal with situations and I definitely failed in my explanation.

It was more about what some have to offer as to evidence - a sighting where nothing was bought, a scream in the night, a sighting of two people at night; not exactly evidence which would make any one of those persons think that a murder had occurred so let us get this information to the authorities as quick as we can.

Erm, not so fast.

I assume you're refferring to three of these four?;

1) Kokomani, "The Mad Albanian Olive Thrower"
2) Curotalo, "The Principled Bum (And Serial Murder Witness?)"
3) Nara, "The Catwoman With A Bladder To Set Your Watch By"
4) Quintavalle, "The Memory Man"

So these people just wanted to "mind their own business", but having wrestled with their consciences for up to a year or more, telling neither the cops nor (God forbid) the press nor any of their acquaintences (or did they swear the latter to solemn secrecy?) about what they'd seen or, er, heard, they were finally compelled by their courage and integrity to come forward?

Uh-huh, I guess I can see how you might believe that.

Alternatively, it could be that ceaseless, hysterical media coverage and their suggestability allowed Migini and his cronies to coach them into fashioning their testimonies out of thin air, exactly as he has known to have done previously with exactly the same kind of "witnesses" in his pursuit of conviction-at-any-cost.

I don't know their motivations for coming forward, but forward they did come. I imagine the appeals will deal with their motivations and if any impediment is found their testimony will be invalid. I don't personally think their testimony, alone or together, points towards Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence or guilt.

 

[pilot padron]

I'm not sure that anyone has implied that Marriott and/or his firm (Gogerty Marriott) has done no work at all for the Knox family. It's abundantly clear that some work has been done - the Gogerty Marriott website explicitly refers to it!

. Then some figure of $500m fees jumped seemingly out of thin air.....

Personally, I can't see any evidence of Gogerty Marriott doing any more work on behalf of Knox and her family that the firm itself has stated: managing media demands, arranging media appearances, and giving some general PR advice. However, I can understand how it might suit some people's agendas to believe that Gogerty Marriott is influencing the media, lobbying politicians or paying for pro-Knox bloggers.

In the interest of your personal fetish about evidence oriented/based discussion, may I again respectfully correct another of your fact/evidence violated assertions.

The $500K figure you erroneously attribute to Marriott did not jump out of thin air
In fact I personally introduced that figure on this board myself, so I speak with some evidence based authority as to it's existence.

FACTS
1) It indeed did not originate in thin air .
2) Its introduction was in reference to Mr Ted Simon, and absolutely nothing to do with Marriott
CITATION: Please scroll past posts, on your dime, to contradict anything I said

Furthermore, in addition to another reading of the rules here, I really enjoyed more research into Mr J. Randi and his Educational Foundation.

Therefore, may I also state with some authority the fetish you wrap yourself in about incessantly demanding evidence is:

1) Not in accordance with what I read about the principles of Mr Randi
2) Not anywhere in Board rules here
3) Personally and very conveniently and profile generated primarily to smother views contrary to your own.

EXAMPLES:
1)Did you ever 'ask for citation' when one of your own persuasion said:... All prosecution witnesses are unbelievable because they were all coached...
2) Or when the same (or similar persuasion) poster says:..All Police are corrupt and not to be trusted
3) Yet you immediately throw up the 'citation smother device' to the new poster of the opposite persuasion (very familiar to me) to cite exactly where he knew he read about the $500K.
In earnest acquiescence to your now realized personal emphasis and distorted application, may I state again with intimate familiarity, that new poster will not repeat that exercise in futility lengthy search anytime soon

Conclusion
I share your desire for factual evidence when needed, but humbly suggest the desire be applied equally and not with sinister, partisan oriented motivation

 

[Chris C]

And, in THIS case, Mary, both client and her attorney came to the same conclusion. That the trial was fair, and that Amanda's rights were respected.

Just because they say her rights are respected doesn't mean the judge made the correct decisions. If the judge had made correct decision during the trial, they wouldn't be appealing the judges decisions on numerous points.

When you say you recieved a fair trial you are saying you dont believe the jurys or judges decisions where affected by anything outside the courtroom. If they where to say I believe we got shafted and the judge, jury and prosecutor are corrupt, then they would all get charged with slander.

 

[el buscador]

In the interest of your personal fetish about evidence oriented/based discussion, may I again respectfully correct another of your fact/evidence violated assertions.

The $500K figure you erroneously attribute to Marriott did not jump out of thin air
In fact I personally introduced that figure on this board myself, so I speak with some evidence based authority as to it's existence.

FACTS
1) It indeed did not originate in thin air .
2) Its introduction was in reference to Mr Ted Simon, and absolutely nothing to do with Marriott
CITATION: Please scroll past posts, on your dime, to contradict anything I said

Furthermore, in addition to another reading of the rules here, I really enjoyed more research into Mr J. Randi and his Educational Foundation.

Therefore, may I also state with some authority the fetish you wrap yourself in about incessantly demanding evidence is:

1) Not in accordance with what I read about the principles of Mr Randi
2) Not anywhere in Board rules here
3) Personally and very conveniently and profile generated primarily to smother views contrary to your own.

EXAMPLES:
1)Did you ever 'ask for citation' when one of your own persuasion said:... All prosecution witnesses are unbelievable because they were all coached...
2) Or when the same (or similar persuasion) poster says:..All Police are corrupt and not to be trusted
3) Yet you immediately throw up the 'citation smother device' to the new poster of the opposite persuasion (very familiar to me) to cite exactly where he knew he read about the $500K.
In earnest acquiescence to your now realized personal emphasis and distorted application, may I state again with intimate familiarity, that new poster will not repeat that exercise in futility lengthy search anytime soon

Conclusion
I share your desire for factual evidence when needed, but humbly suggest the desire be applied equally and not with sinister, partisan oriented motivation

Perhaps it's up to the poster who disputes a claim to ask for "cites". Personally I don't believe that the PR firm has anything whatsoever to do with the innocence/guilt of Amanda or Raffaele so I find all the hoopla around it to be less than interesting. Maybe that's why others don't respond to your posts, also.

 

[Chris C]

It may indeed be fruitless until the day comes that guilters are persuaded by facts and logic, or the day comes that guilters come up with facts and logic that prove Knox and Sollecito guilty. You will find that we're quite flexible here when it comes to changing our minds as new facts come in: that's the whole point of skepticism, to proportion our beliefs to the currently available evidence. So do come back if you find evidence or arguments based on verifiable facts that establish the guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

/agree

I'm still waiting on some evidence to prove they are guilty. Sadly all I see is the prosecution presenting contradicting evidence, refusing to allow evidence to be examined, withholding evidence, and targeting Knox's reputation in the media to get a conviction. Perhaps the court will release some evidence that proves she did the crime. Sadly I think we would have seen that evidence by now if the prosecution had it.

 

[loverofzion]

A blogger in a small or mid-sized US city could easily have problems if he took a stance that was critical of a major criminal investigation, especially if the police were getting a lot of bad publicity from outside the area.

Having said that, I do not doubt that there are important cultural differences between Perugia and a community in the US. Perugia is thousands of years old and was an independent or quasi-independent city state for most of its history. I don't begin to understand how that history affects the city as it exists today, but I have noticed, in following this case, that it bears many similarities with US cases I have studied. The behaviors are the same - the bombastic certainty through which officials try to compensate for the weakness of the evidence, and their absolute, white-knuckled refusal to admit to any errors of fact, procedure or policy.

Where do you find "bombastic certainty" to cover "weak eveidence"?

Methinks you are skewing the entire judicial system in order to prove your innocence theory; the facts are , your stance doesn't hold up to scrutiny as proved by the scrupulousness and drawn out , very thorough proceedings of the court in Perugia.

 

[loverofzion]

Just because they say her rights are respected doesn't mean the judge made the correct decisions. If the judge had made correct decision during the trial, they wouldn't be appealing the judges decisions on numerous points.

When you say you recieved a fair trial you are saying you dont believe the jurys or judges decisions where affected by anything outside the courtroom. If they where to say I believe we got shafted and the judge, jury and prosecutor are corrupt, then they would all get charged with slander.

Unless they could prove that in a court of law.
Otherwise of course it remains slander.

 

[loverofzion]

/agree

I'm still waiting on some evidence to prove they are guilty. Sadly all I see is the prosecution presenting contradicting evidence, refusing to allow evidence to be examined, withholding evidence, and targeting Knox's reputation in the media to get a conviction. Perhaps the court will release some evidence that proves she did the crime. Sadly I think we would have seen that evidence by now if the prosecution had it.

Try reading the Motivations Report and stop crying about lack of evidence.

 

[el buscador]

Try reading the Motivations Report and stop crying about lack of evidence.

Actually, the motivations report is a very good source for the lack of evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

It was more about what some have to offer as to evidence - a sighting where nothing was bought, a scream in the night, a sighting of two people at night; not exactly evidence which would make any one of those persons think that a murder had occurred so let us get this information to the authorities as quick as we can.

You need to properly characterize this evidence:

A sighting where nothing was bought which was not remembered when questioned by the police in the days immediately following the murder but over time filled in with exact details.

A scream in the night which at first doesn't even warrant a phone call to the police even when it is learned the next day that there was a murder but which grows over time to be recognized as a death scream that keeps the hearer up at night.

A sighting of two people at night, strangers with no particular memorable characteristics, who were remembered in detail months later.


In all three cases, if the witness had come forward immediately to in some way create a contemporaneous record of the event it would have validated these memories of the events. But by waiting so long before coming forward, there is no way now to distinguish whether the memories of the events are real or simply false memories created from the news of the events.

Proper police work would have sought out these witnesses immediately and not waited until their memories were contaminated by the news reports.

 

[pilot padron]

Perhaps it's up to the poster who disputes a claim to ask for "cites". Personally I don't believe that the PR firm has anything whatsoever to do with the innocence/guilt of Amanda or Raffaele so I find all the hoopla around it to be less than interesting. Maybe that's why others don't respond to your posts, also.

1) Yes, no gripe with that at all.
(although the entire point simply was to ask cites equally from innocent or guilt persuaded posts, and not use to smother

2) Please inform the Mellox families as well as all those individuals they are begging from that thi$$ 3 year long effort is so worthless (in your opinion)

3) The scroll feature on your puter inop to force reading of 'uninteresting'??

4) Response counting used as evidence of quality is for good reason absent from all I have read about Mr Randi and JREF

5) I have lots more to continue direct refutation of L.J' errors about Marriott, so I respectfully suggest you seek repair of your scroll or familiarize yourself with other JREF provided easily accessed features to limit your exposure