• 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.
Kermit said:
Stop! Stop!! STOP!!!!

My screen is all covered with café con leche!! Where's a rag??

Oh come on, where's a good source (not Dempsey) that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?
Click to expand...

I'll ask Frank what actually happened.
 
What will they think of next?

Kermit said:
You're now saying that they went from the main police headquarters (where the questionning took place) to police station of the Polizia Stradale - the traffic cops.
Click to expand...
Withnail1969 said:
Or one of the four carabinieri stations listed.
Click to expand...
.
Keep digging further and further down.

Other than the fact that RS's sister was a carabiniere, and RS called the carabinieri when the cops had arrived (as I see it, don't jump on me with your timing), the carabinieri have really nothing to do with this case.

The investigation was done by the state police. The suspects were questioned in the Questura of the state police.

Why are you having them being driven to the carabinieri??? To satisfy some "oh how she suffered story" written by a food blogger?

Come on, the suspects were driven from the Questura to Capanne prison, and when they were on trial, they were driven from Capanne prison to the court house.

You can put the carabinieri away.
 
Kermit said:
Stop! Stop!! STOP!!!!

My screen is all covered with café con leche!! Where's a rag??

Oh come on, where's a good source (not Dempsey) that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?
Click to expand...

I thought the claim was Patrick that was paraded around, I must have missed the one with Amanda. It is hard to follow all these posts from one day to another. I am however in agreement with good Mochavente's post just add a dab of whip and some pumpkin spice, hold the spew.
 
Kermit said:
.
Well, as I understand (I haven't read the book), Candace Dempsey wrote that Amanda had been paraded about like a prize turkey, with the police taking a purposely circuitous, torturous route through the city.

And here in this discussion, LondonJohn (wherever he may actually be from), was making reference to this.

If such a reference is indeed in Candace's book, maybe someone close to her could ask her to update the next edition, together with other errata we discover.
Click to expand...

(He's from London)
 
Mary_H said:
Yes, that's right -- Barbie Latza Nadeau.

Amanda Knox's Appeal: Could She Go Free?

Her defense team has assembled a sharp, powerful appeal that could retry the case from top to bottom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-18/amanda-knoxs-appeal-could-she-go-free/2/
Click to expand...

Mary_H;

From that same link:

In the meantime, the Seattle native’s lawyers say she is anxious to get back to court. She has reportedly been getting to know a new cellmate, Moldovian native Angela Biriukova, herself a celebrity criminal in Italy. Dubbed the Black Widow by the Italian press, Biriukova was tried for murdering her wealthy older husband by stabbing him 16 times. Her DNA was found on a cigarette butt near the corpse, but nowhere else at the murder scene. Unlike Knox, however, Biriukova was acquitted during her first trial. Knox might take comfort in what happened next: The prosecutors appealed and Biriukova’s acquittal was reversed—after being set free, she was convicted during the appellate process. Should Knox’s appellate trial yield the same dramatic reversal, it will be a stunning conclusion to a trial whose narrative has often sharply turned on twists of fate.​

Doesn't DNA on a cigarette butt sound like DNA on a bra clasp?

DNA testing rather than making a science of justice, has done just the opposite. Now the police can plant DNA evidence at the scene and frame anybody. The police become judge, jury and executioner.

For example, give the defendant a cigarette during the interrogation. Use the same brand as found at the crime scene. Take the smoked butt and place it into evidence. Presto: conviction.

Ya, they're using video at the crime scene and stuff like that to make it a little more difficult. However, if they want you, they can get you.

A policeman, a forensic scientist, a prosecutor, and a judge can all rape you with a false conviction.

The worst thing is that the majority of the sheepeople attribute magical powers of goodness to the justice system and all in their employ.

I suppose they put them together as cell mates hoping that they would cause each other to discuss their case. They both have to be constantly vigilant they don't say anything that could be misinterpreted by well paid idiots.
 
Last edited:
Hey Kermit, when you're finished disputing the parade issue (and I can't help but notice you have zero evidence it didn't happen, merely your incredulity), which after all has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele, do you think you could tell us how you think the murder happened, assuming that Meredith died around 21:10 and Raffaele's computer was in constant use from 6pm to 1am?

TomCH, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter too.

I think it's just a little bit more important than arguing over the claimed parade, don't you?

After all, the parade doesn't really matter if there's absolutely no sensible narrative anyone can come up with that explains all the facts and has Amanda and Raffaele murdering Meredith.
 
Maybe LondonJohn knows a source to support that parading stuff

LondonJohn said:
How's that campaign to oust Rocco Girlanda going? Has he replied to your ludicrous letter yet?
Click to expand...
.
Hi LondonJohn. What's ludicrous about the concern expressed in the letter to Girlanda?
- a member of parliament uses parliamentary privilege to visit Amanda over 20 times.
- he makes a diary and notes of these meetings which he doesn't even tell her he's doing
- he starts to write a book about it
- he says he has developed a friendship with her, yet doesn't even have the courtesy to give a copy of his book draft to his "friend's" lawyer, who may want to vet some of his client's comments
- he gives her gifts
- he has dreams about her. they embrace

Right now the FOAKers are heaving a sigh of relief that he came out very favourable to Amanda. But the guy's objectives and actions do seem strange, don't you think? Or do you prefer members of parliament and congressmen to start visiting young members of the opposite sex in their prison cells across the world?
=================================

Now that you're on line, please don't avoid the opportunity to achieve what Kaosium and Withnail have failed to do: provide some sort of believable link or reference to support the never-even-was-an-urban-legend that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?

After all, you started this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
.
Hi LondonJohn. What's ludicrous about the concern expressed in the letter to Girlanda?
- a member of parliament uses parliamentary privilege to visit Amanda over 20 times.
- he makes a diary and notes of these meetings which he doesn't even tell her he's doing
- he starts to write a book about it
- he says he has developed a friendship with her, yet doesn't even have the courtesy to give a copy of his book draft to his "friend's" lawyer, who may want to vet some of his client's comments
- he gives her gifts
- he has dreams about her. they embrace

Right now the FOAKers are heaving a sigh of relief that he came out very favourable to Amanda. But the guy's objectives and actions do seem strange, don't you think? Or do you prefer members of parliament and congressmen to start visiting young members of the opposite sex in their prison cells across the world?
=================================

Now that you're on line, please don't avoid the opportunity to achieve what Kaosium and Withnail have failed to do: provide some sort of believable link or reference to support the never-even-was-an-urban-legend that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?

After all, you started this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of 'gotcha' you think this is. If I am arrested by police and subsequently those same police drive through the streets of my local town in a large convoy, sirens blaring, waving clenched fists in the air, and then publicly announce that i am guilty, i don't see that it matters whether or not if i am physically part of the 'parade'.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
I do find it hard to believe that hip swiveling would be admissible as evidence of guilt in any court.
Click to expand...

I did not say that it was introduced as evidence of guilt in court, only that it made Dr. Giobbi suspicious. I am short on time today, but Frank mentions Amanda's testimony: About la mossa, as they call it in Italy the movement with hips she had --according to Giobbi-- while entering the house of horrors, she simply doesn't remember that.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Hey Kermit, when you're finished disputing the parade issue (and I can't help but notice you have zero evidence it didn't happen, merely your incredulity), which after all has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele, do you think you could tell us how you think the murder happened, assuming that Meredith died around 21:10 and Raffaele's computer was in constant use from 6pm to 1am?

TomCH, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter too.

I think it's just a little bit more important than arguing over the claimed parade, don't you?

After all, the parade doesn't really matter if there's absolutely no sensible narrative anyone can come up with that explains all the facts and has Amanda and Raffaele murdering Meredith.
Click to expand...


It's all magic!
 
Last edited:
urban legend

Kermit said:
.
Hi LondonJohn. What's ludicrous about the concern expressed in the letter to Girlanda?
- a member of parliament uses parliamentary privilege to visit Amanda over 20 times.
- he makes a diary and notes of these meetings which he doesn't even tell her he's doing
- he starts to write a book about it
- he says he has developed a friendship with her, yet doesn't even have the courtesy to give a copy of his book draft to his "friend's" lawyer, who may want to vet some of his client's comments
- he gives her gifts
- he has dreams about her. they embrace

Right now the FOAKers are heaving a sigh of relief that he came out very favourable to Amanda. But the guy's objectives and actions do seem strange, don't you think? Or do you prefer members of parliament and congressmen to start visiting young members of the opposite sex in their prison cells across the world?
=================================

Now that you're on line, please don't avoid the opportunity to achieve what Kaosium and Withnail have failed to do: provide some sort of believable link or reference to support the never-even-was-an-urban-legend that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?

After all, you started this discussion.
Click to expand...

Kermit,

Are you saying that it definitely did not happen?
 
Mary_H said:
Yes, that's right -- Barbie Latza Nadeau.

Amanda Knox's Appeal: Could She Go Free?

Her defense team has assembled a sharp, powerful appeal that could retry the case from top to bottom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-18/amanda-knoxs-appeal-could-she-go-free/2/
Click to expand...


About Amanda's new cellmate as discussed in the link you provided:

I suppose they put them together as cell mates hoping that they would cause each other to discuss their case. They both have to be constantly vigilant they don't say anything that could be misinterpreted by well paid idiots.

But after three years in prison with no further information, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The poll at that link says:

41% say Amanda is guilty
59% say Amanda is innocent
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
.
Hi LondonJohn. What's ludicrous about the concern expressed in the letter to Girlanda?
- a member of parliament uses parliamentary privilege to visit Amanda over 20 times.
- he makes a diary and notes of these meetings which he doesn't even tell her he's doing
- he starts to write a book about it
- he says he has developed a friendship with her, yet doesn't even have the courtesy to give a copy of his book draft to his "friend's" lawyer, who may want to vet some of his client's comments
- he gives her gifts
- he has dreams about her. they embrace

Right now the FOAKers are heaving a sigh of relief that he came out very favourable to Amanda. But the guy's objectives and actions do seem strange, don't you think? Or do you prefer members of parliament and congressmen to start visiting young members of the opposite sex in their prison cells across the world?
=================================

Now that you're on line, please don't avoid the opportunity to achieve what Kaosium and Withnail have failed to do: provide some sort of believable link or reference to support the never-even-was-an-urban-legend that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route?

After all, you started this discussion.
Click to expand...

FYI, I didn't start this discussion. Feel free to check back through yesterday's posts if you're unsure....

Something strange and unusual happened in the streets of Perugia on the 6th November 2007. The quotes in the media articles are testimony to that. Whatever the exact circumstances, the police were exhibiting triumphalist behaviour and unnecessarily driving a large convoy through the streets, all sirens blaring. Even if (and I do mean "if") the convoy was transporting Lumumba back to police HQ, there was no need whatsoever for such a large number of vehicles to turn their sirens on.

As others have said, it's a very peripheral discussion as regards the safety of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. But whatever happened, it can only give a less-than-favourable impression of the Perugia Police. Coupled with the very declarative and prejudicial statements of Police Chief De Felice, it paints a picture of a police force desperate to regain public trust in the shadow of the Marra case, and unprofessional enough to put its own "triumph" before the far more important interests of justice.

Regarding the letter to Girlanda, you're blind to the fact that it degenerated into a series of personal insults and rants? And why do you think Girlanda has any requirement to respond to it? He's answerable to the people who voted for his party, and to the leadership of his party, and to his family. Not to a disparate bunch of people from an internet message board. And frankly, I don't care what he's written or how he did it. I wouldn't have cared if he came out of it pro-Knox or anti-Knox. And I don't remember seeing much discussion of his book on forums such as this one. It's only TJMK and PMF that seem weirdly obsessed with him, to the extent of digging into his private life and pursuing him. Strange.
 
Mary_H said:
Innocent people are often arrested. That's the primary reason we have trials and lawyers -- in case the people who were arrested are innocent, and the police erred in arresting them. To say "case closed" before the trial is held is obviously an infringement of the rights of the defendants to a presumption of innocence.

The attitude of the questore De Felice is extremely meaningful. It is not something to be called a show for the media and disregarded. It set the tone for at least two years' worth of media reports based on a presumption of guilt, and there is evidence the judges and jury were influenced by these media reports. If the press didn't play an important role in how the case was tried, the police and prosecution would not have made sure they had so much information (much of it false).
Click to expand...

If you are convinced the investigation and trial depends on certain things said in newspapers, you will have to live with your convincement. The trial does not depend on things said in newspaper, and does not depend on what is said durint the investigation. Nothing can be done to prevent the press from reporting of clues that are later disproven, and nothing can be done to prevent these from being leaked to the public. If you are really convinced that this should never happen and that it is a necessary condition to achieve justice, you shall simply live in another country. Those who live here have to accept the kind of protections that the system provides, and accept the principle of those protections that are not provided. So accept a distincion is made between what is said outside the trial and the file, and what is inside the investigation file. If a defendant feels his/her case is mistreated by the media, they can use the ample freedom of speech to make their point in the courtroom. They must accept they have some ways to contrast possible prejudices or misinformation and they can do it later, they cannot appeal to other principles. If you are really convinced that complaining about certain detail press is an argument ex-post to question the trial, you are wrong. The questions about wrong details duing the investigation are simply irrelevant to the case.
 
Who's on first, what's on second

halides1 said:
Kermit,

Are you saying that it definitely did not happen?
Click to expand...
Things are getting mixed up here.

I was then one who asked LondonJohn for an original reference for the business about Amanda being paraded around Perugia on a purposefully circuitous route.

He hasn't given it to me.

Now you're asking me to say that something which hasn't been demonstrated didn't happen.

The logic you're using is this:
You: Do you see that blue car over there?
Me: No
You: Prove to me that it doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
If you are convinced the investigation and trial depends on certain things said in newspapers, you will have to live with your convincement. The trial does not depend on things said in newspaper, and does not depend on what is said durint the investigation. Nothing can be done to prevent the press from reporting of clues that are later disproven, and nothing can be done to prevent these from being leaked to the public. If you are really convinced that this should never happen and that it is a necessary condition to achieve justice, you shall simply live in another country. Those who live here have to accept the kind of protections that the system provides, and accept the principle of those protections that are not provided. So accept a distincion is made between what is said outside the trial and the file, and what is inside the investigation file. If a defendant feels his/her case is mistreated by the media, they can use the ample freedom of speech to make their point in the courtroom. They must accept they have some ways to contrast possible prejudices or misinformation and they can do it later, they cannot appeal to other principles. If you are really convinced that complaining about certain detail press is an argument ex-post to question the trial, you are wrong. The questions about wrong details duing the investigation are simply irrelevant to the case.
Click to expand...

The argument that this is just how it is in Italy doesn't make this sort of leaking to the press just, right or a good thing. Apparently hitting witnesses on the head when they don't come up with the "repressed memories" you need them to have is just how it is as well - certainly there's no sign of the police in question being disciplined, let alone prosecuted. That too is not right, even if that is how things are done in Italy.

I could dismiss the issue of poisoning the public discourse against a defendant as cavalierly as you do, if only I was convinced that the judges in this case were the kind of rigorously rational thinkers who are not influenced by prejudicial press coverage, and who would not fall prey to confirmation bias after being barraged with press coverage purporting to show damning evidence against Amanda and Raffaele.

However having read the Massei report, I don't think the judges had those kinds of minds.

Nor is the argument that the defence had equal opportunity to leak lies to the press to make their clients look innocent a very compelling one if your goal is to persuade us that their trial was a fair one, since the defence as far as I am aware completely failed to do so. Perhaps they didn't know how things are done in Italy as well as you do?
 
Amanda was in that convoy in thought if not in deed

Withnail1969 said:
I'm not sure what kind of 'gotcha' you think this is. If I am arrested by police and subsequently those same police drive through the streets of my local town in a large convoy, sirens blaring, waving clenched fists in the air, and then publicly announce that i am guilty, i don't see that it matters whether or not if i am physically part of the 'parade'.
Click to expand...
.
Ahh, so when Amanda was (probably) already in Capanne, and the police did their convoy and sirens routine, it was a virtual parade of Amanda along a purposefully circuitous route through Perugia.
 
Kermit said:
.
Ahh, so when Amanda was (probably) already in Capanne, and the police did their convoy and sirens routine, it was a virtual parade of Amanda along a purposefully circuitous route through Perugia.
Click to expand...

Well no. It wouldn't be a virtual parade because it was in fact a real parade or procession with the two other suspects physically present. i think this issue needs to be put to rest now because it's somewhat tangential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom