Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I would pay $100+ for a self portrait from Amanda Knox and I'm no art collector.
[Guilters would say that's obvious]
They're neat.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just to know, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is a native from Padova.

Interesting, but doesn't he live in Perugia and work daily in Perugian court?

 

[Matthew Best]

Here is a "news" report on Amanda's latest works of art. For some reason I am reminded of that statement analysis fellow:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3205243/Weird-jail-pics-by-murderer-Knox.html

Jane: (Insert Dan Aykroyd quote here)

Just incredible.

Esteemed painting analyst Jane Firbank is also, strangely, a proponent of the "Human Givens" approach to mental health. Her website, where she calls herself a "human givens practitioner" is here:

http://hgi.org.uk/register/Therapists/Jane-Firbank.htm

The "Human Givens" approach is set out here

http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/human-givens.htm

and is summarised thus:

"If human beings' needs are met, they won't get depressed; they cannot have psychosis; they cannot have manic depression; they cannot be in the grip of addictions. It is just not possible."

I must admit I'd never heard of this approach before, but this seems a bit optimistic to me, quite frankly.

Just out of curiosity, how did this analysis go down in the guilt-based community?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I never agreed Quintavalle's story is pure fantasy.
I never thought he lied. I have doubts on the reliability of his memory in terms of recognize the right person. But I would never assume his recollation is fantasy. I think there is evidence it is not.

Whatever.
Whether his testimony is a lie, a fantasy, a false memory induced by media, or he simply saw someone else, on some other day, doesn't really matter.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Also this from LondonJohn:
Did Quintavalle testify to Amanda buying bleach or a mop head the morning of November 2? I thought he only testified to the fact that he saw her that morning in/near the shop.

I think guilters generally believe she stole a mop, maybe together with a bucket

There is a photo that Charlie linked on this thread a time back that showed clothes on Amanda's bed taken November 2 or 3. On the bed is what appears to be jeans, a gray jacket, a jean jacket, a scarf, a black and gray striped shirt, maybe some other clothing.

In the motivations, page 83, Quintavalle testifies to what he believes Amanda was wearing that morning:

It would be interesting to compare the description he gave in the TV interview with his testimony. If really there is such a match it would suggest he was couched about it, but of course there is a possibility he saw some photo in the media.

While this photo and Quintavalle's testimony does not carry enough weight for me to consider Amanda guilty (as with Nara's testimony or Curatola's testimony), it does suggest that Quintavalle may be telling the truth about having seen Amanda in his shop.

Apart from miraculously recollecting a year after what she was wearing there are more serious problems with his testimony, they are pointed out in Amanda's appeal and were discussed here at length.

 

[LondonJohn]

Apart from miraculously recollecting a year after what she was wearing there are more serious problems with his testimony, they are pointed out in Amanda's appeal and were discussed here at length.

And what makes this incredible "recollection" of Knox's precise clothing near-miraculous is the fact that Quintavalle would have had no reason to take special notice of Knox that morning. Even if she was acting in a "slightly strange" manner, that's still no reason to retain near-photographic memory of her clothing. It's simply not remotely feasible. If Quintavalle had heard gunshots inside his shop that morning, and had seen Knox running out of the front of the shop immediately afterwards, I suppose he would have retained a strong memory of what she was wearing, since he would have instantaneously linked her with a serious incident.

To make an analogy, do you remember what clothes the person in front of you in the supermarket queue was wearing the last time you were there? Would you even remember what clothes your mother/father/friend was wearing the last time you saw them, if it was over two days ago? I would suggest that nobody would remember such details, unless there was a compelling reason to do so. And in the case of Knox's alleged presence in the Conad store on the morning of November 2nd, there was no compelling reason for Quintavalle to have lodged this sort of information into his memory (or, for that matter, for him to remember in which direction she headed after leaving the store). I personally believe him to be a liar/embellisher - although it's also possible that he truly believes that he saw what he saw. The same applies to Curatolo, of course (who "saw what he saw" in about five different and contradictory versions!).

 

[Mary_H]

Esteemed painting analyst Jane Firbank is also, strangely, a proponent of the "Human Givens" approach to mental health. Her website, where she calls herself a "human givens practitioner" is here:

http://hgi.org.uk/register/Therapists/Jane-Firbank.htm

The "Human Givens" approach is set out here

http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/human-givens.htm

and is summarised thus:

"If human beings' needs are met, they won't get depressed; they cannot have psychosis; they cannot have manic depression; they cannot be in the grip of addictions. It is just not possible."

I must admit I'd never heard of this approach before, but this seems a bit optimistic to me, quite frankly.

Just out of curiosity, how did this analysis go down in the guilt-based community?

To stilicho's credit, he put the blame for the colors on the available markers.

Meanwhile, in some non-guilt quarters, Jane's last name has been changed to Firball.

 

[treehorn]

I believe Kevin Lowe has cited his sources on that topic many times.

No, Mary, he has not.

Lowe offered absolutely NO "evidence" in support of his assertions about the 'elasticity' of the human intestine and the displacement of alimentary matter within that organ.

Not one "peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Not one authoritative text.

Ergo, in order to back up his assertions in this regard, he must be able to point to PERSONAL training/ experience/ education of some kind.

To wit, he must be a medical doctor.

How else could one reasonably claim to know the ease/difficulty with which alimentary matter might be displaced within the human intestine during autopsy?

If he is not a M.D., well...

Of course, if I've missed a post of his in which he claims to be a medical doctor as a means of supporting the citation-free assertions he's made in respect of these matters, feel free to point it out.

 

[christianahannah]

And what makes this incredible "recollection" of Knox's precise clothing near-miraculous is the fact that Quintavalle would have had no reason to take special notice of Knox that morning. Even if she was acting in a "slightly strange" manner, that's still no reason to retain near-photographic memory of her clothing. It's simply not remotely feasible. If Quintavalle had heard gunshots inside his shop that morning, and had seen Knox running out of the front of the shop immediately afterwards, I suppose he would have retained a strong memory of what she was wearing, since he would have instantaneously linked her with a serious incident.

To make an analogy, do you remember what clothes the person in front of you in the supermarket queue was wearing the last time you were there? Would you even remember what clothes your mother/father/friend was wearing the last time you saw them, if it was over two days ago? I would suggest that nobody would remember such details, unless there was a compelling reason to do so. And in the case of Knox's alleged presence in the Conad store on the morning of November 2nd, there was no compelling reason for Quintavalle to have lodged this sort of information into his memory (or, for that matter, for him to remember in which direction she headed after leaving the store). I personally believe him to be a liar/embellisher - although it's also possible that he truly believes that he saw what he saw. The same applies to Curatolo, of course (who "saw what he saw" in about five different and contradictory versions!).

My memory is not good five minutes after seeing someone, much less a year later. I do not place importance on appearance so I have little memory of what a person wore, their hair or eye color, etc. I do know people who have extraordinary recall of memory down to the smallest detail even when the remembered event was rather boring.

Quintavalle may have had recall of Amanda and what she wore a day or two after the news of the murder was public and arrests made. He just may not have shared it until a year later. And even if he is correct in that recall Amanda's visit may have happened on another day. And, of course, all this is speculation.

I believe that Curatolo, Quintavalle, and Nara all see, remember or hear what they did and I do not think they are liars. There may be confusion concerning the time frame of when these things occurred, however, I hope that will be settled during the appeal process.

 

[Justinian2]

Esteemed painting analyst Jane Firbank is also, strangely, a proponent of the "Human Givens" approach to mental health. Her website, where she calls herself a "human givens practitioner" is here:

http://hgi.org.uk/register/Therapists/Jane-Firbank.htm

The "Human Givens" approach is set out here

http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/human-givens.htm

and is summarised thus:

"If human beings' needs are met, they won't get depressed; they cannot have psychosis; they cannot have manic depression; they cannot be in the grip of addictions. It is just not possible."

I must admit I'd never heard of this approach before, but this seems a bit optimistic to me, quite frankly.

Just out of curiosity, how did this analysis go down in the guilt-based community?

I think all of the pictures have been removed. There may be a copyright notice. Some art collector could offer a million for the drawing.

The guilters should know that this post has the supposition that Amanda is innocent and is written from that supposition.
I believe in the "Human Givens" approach. So did L. Ron Hubbard. His approach was similar. Make people happy, remove their problems and disconnect from the suppressive people and they will be healthy, happy and more intelligent. I trained to be Scientology Auditor in 1975 and was good at it. Then LRH died and things changed. I protested some of the changes and was banned for life from the Church. I don't like the church, but I still believe in Scientology and LRH.

Even the medical community attributes some cancers to 'depression'. So being happy and problem free does have merit as it effects health.

Amanda and her entire family should be given free psychiatric help and counseling to distance themselves from their suppressives.

I hope Amanda doesn't become a nun when she gets out. I hope she hasn't made a lot of promises to 'God'.

 

[christianahannah]

An article concerning the filing of additional documents to Raffaele's appeal (or I think it is in addition to the first documents filed). The details of the new filing are not known at this time. If I am wrong about the content of this article please correct.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/umbria/2010/11/04/visualizza_new.html_1704919157.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

plenty of reading for you

No, Mary, he has not.

Lowe offered absolutely NO "evidence" in support of his assertions about the 'elasticity' of the human intestine and the displacement of alimentary matter within that organ.

Not one "peer-reviewed scientific journal."

Not one authoritative text.

Ergo, in order to back up his assertions in this regard, he must be able to point to PERSONAL training/ experience/ education of some kind.

To wit, he must be a medical doctor.

How else could one reasonably claim to know the ease/difficulty with which alimentary matter might be displaced within the human intestine during autopsy?

If he is not a M.D., well...

Of course, if I've missed a post of his in which he claims to be a medical doctor as a means of supporting the citation-free assertions he's made in respect of these matters, feel free to point it out.

treehorn,

This morning I wrote two comments directed to you. One is from a textbook on anatomy and physiology that discusses the small intestine, and the other collects unanswered questions and comments from me to you. I would appreciate a response.

 

[Justinian2]

An article concerning the filing of additional documents to Raffaele's appeal (or I think it is in addition to the first documents filed). The details of the new filing are not known at this time. If I am wrong about the content of this article please correct.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/umbria/2010/11/04/visualizza_new.html_1704919157.html

The translation is something like this:

Defense Sollecito, new acts for Meredith murder trial Deposit a hundred pages documents on November 4, 19:55

Perugia, 4 NOV - New acts were filed by the defense of Raffaele Sollecito in view of the appeal process against the young man from Puglia sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher. It is a hundred pages of testimony and reports of new activity 'techniques play made by the lawyers, lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori. This however did not want to give details about the content of documents. "We are certain however - the Advocate Maori - which will prove the innocence of Sollecito".

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

I searched on my username and "treehorn" as my search term. I generated about 10 comments directed toward you that have not been answered. They included comment numbers 12773, 12752, 12723, 12682, 12640, and 12637, plus several others earlier than these. Would you be so kind as to have a look at them and to respond as you see fit? I would hate to think that all of my research that went into my responses was for nought, but maybe I was barking up the wrong tree.

I'm sorry, Halides.

Free time has been scarce of late.

I did, however, see that you recently characterized some of my posts as "misinformation."

I'm not sure how that could be, exactly...

I've got no agenda. I have no interest in anything but the truth - wherever it may lie. Ergo, I'm not "pushing" anything on anybody.

If I've made a mistake, my memory has failed me or a source I've cited has been discredited, I'm all ears. Just point it out.

However, 'blanket' assertions expressly dismissing all of my comments as tantamount to "misinformation" - without providing specific objections or details - are difficult to respond to! Indeed, where would I begin?

Can you be more specific about the alleged "misinformation" that strikes you as objectionable?

 

[Mary_H]

Really? I thought the opposite. I thought things went this way: they tried to put all the blame on him first - in particular, Sollecito's defense set things in this strategy - and only after he retaliated implicating them, albeit it is still a mild, retained retaliation.

There is a big difference between implicating a perpetrator based on actual evidence and "blaming" people with whom no connection can be made to the crime. Sollecito's lawyers had forensic grounds for removing responsibility for the crime from Raffaele and assigning it to Rudy. Rudy's lawyers had nothing but Rudy's word (supposedly based on his self-incriminating eyewitness testimony, but more likely originating from the lawyers' minds) in combination with the deeply prejudicial circumstances of Amanda and Raffaele already being locked up.

You seem to be implying that if Raffaele and Amanda's lawyers hadn't accused Rudy first, Rudy would not have accused Raffaele and Amanda. In that case, the prosecutor would have been left with only the paltry evidence he had against Amanda and Raffaele, and no corroboration from Rudy. In fact, Rudy presumably would have held to his original scenarios about strangers he didn't recognize having committed the crime.

In other words, you're suggesting that Amanda and Raffaele would likely have been acquitted had their attorneys not defended their clients by utilizing the forensic evidence that put Rudy at the scene of the crime.

Did they have any other choice?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

This morning I wrote two comments directed to you. One is from a textbook on anatomy and physiology that discusses the small intestine, and the other collects unanswered questions and comments from me to you. I would appreciate a response.

Thanks, Halides.

Hopefully, I'll have some time this weekend to give your thoughts some careful consideration and get back to you.

 

[Justinian2]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-marks-anniversary-imprisonment/story?id=12065617

"Amanda says prison is like not living because nothing changes. She says everything is the same incessantly," her stepfather Chris Mellas told ABC News.

This is about what I was saying earlier in that life in prison isn't life as we know it. All you have is hope.

 

[Mary_H]

This coment makes no sense. We don't know how three people did it. We only know three people were there and are responsible.

There may be nothing miraculous in finding DNA three weeks later.

How do we know three people were there and are responsible if we can't say how three people did it?

 

[Matthew Best]

I trained to be Scientology Auditor in 1975 and was good at it.

Oh dear.

 

[Matthew Best]

I've got no agenda. I have no interest in anything but the truth - wherever it may lie.

Obviously you're very interested in the elasticity if the intestines. Since that is what you're interested in, and not petty points-scoring on internet websites you will of course have looked into the matter as much as you can. What have you turned up in your no doubt voluminous research on the matter?