Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

You're partially right. Mr Kercher is defending the memory of his daughter against cultists who have created a minor celebrity out of one of the three individuals responsible for her death.

Somewhat ironic, then, that he should be writing in a paper which headlined one article about the case "Secret diary reveals Foxy Knoxy was 'always thinking about sex'" (amongst many others: a search for "Foxy Knoxy" brings up 148 results).

 

[odeed]

odeed,

There is such a thing as the Knox defense team; when you talk about Knox PR, I don't know what you mean. It sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say. Your other comment is not exactly false, but it is irrelevant. The point is that none of the files were not released, not which team requested which files. Sollecito's lawyers were referring to the files Pasquali requested, and Gino and Hampikian were also clear about being refused files they requested. Moreover, you ignore the fact that some evidence is common to both appeals.

There is the Italian defense team which were hired to represent Amanda Knox, and there is the Knox "PR", ie Marriot PR, which is American based.

As for evidence that is "common to both appeals", that may be true but it does not ignore the fact that the two sets of lawyers should represent their clients in their best interest.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
PS The front of the cottage was at grd level - perhaps 'you stick with what you know'
.

Hi once again Platonov,
Well, you asked for it.
I know a bit about having a woman lie, under oath, while in a court of law.
I recently shared with you and the group here a very personal experience that I had to undergo involving a sexual crime, the crime of rape.
Though the LAPD never charged me, I did end up going to court after deciding not to pay this woman off and then to clear my name.

You know what Platonov?
Tha gal lied to the court!
In her court filings, she claimed that she was a customer of my store, came in, bought something, I then delivered it, and afterwards raped her.
A HUGE LIE!
For she "forgot" what really happened.
Among many, many, many lies, the 1st one, which another customer "friend" of mine, my attorney, pointed out to the court was this:
While she was hanging out at my surfshop, another customer "friend" stopped by. Soon afterwards, this women, whom had actually asked me over not to deliver purchased goods, but help her re-upholster a chair with her, asked my bro, -(who is a GM mechanic in life) if he too wanted to go to a hardware store called Home Depot. He didn't, but clearly did recall that evening at my shop many months later, after court papers were served, and agreed to testify, to her dismay...

You see, her little LIE was to help further her case against me, which didn't have enough legs to stand upon....

My incident,
which is truly "what I know",
reminds me of this incident, -(which I read about elsewhere today) in Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's first trial:
"Dr. Stefanoni stated that the luminol revealed footprints were not tested for blood. When forced to produce withheld information 6 months into the trial,
it was learned that Dr. Stefanoni had lied because the footprints had been tested and the results showed that the footprints were void of blood."

Now I don't know about you, Platonov,
but I know that if an innocent person has to ever face a real life major crime charge leveled against you,
you want every single item examined. You want no stone left unturned.
You are fighting for your life or your reputation, as I was.

In the case that I discuss with you and others here,
I find the fact that, in a sexual assault murder, a possible semen stain, found on a pillow case underneath the victim and between her legs,
which was then not tested to be simply mind boggling!

I also find the fact that it appears Dr. Stefanoni lied to the court about not testing the luminol revealed footprints for blood,
WHEN SHE ALREADY HAD, with the results negative,
and then afterwards seemingly decieved the court, to also be mind boggling!
And it raises many, many questions...

Would you want this to happen to you or a family member
if you or they were charged with participation in a brutal, bloody sexual assault and murder that you had nothing to do with?
I wonder...
RWVBWL

PS-This is the last I will mention of the details of my own court experience:
A few months later, a gal came into my old surfshop and bought a few things. As I rang her up, I remarked that she looked familiar.
She said she should, for she was 1 of 8 women who had found me innocent of raping my "friend".
She said that she knew the woman was full of,
well you get my drift...
RW

 

[katy_did]

A few other Daily Mail headlines:

Pictures of the moment Foxy Knoxy went shopping for sexy lingerie the day after Meredith's murder

Foxy Knoxy, the girl who had to compete with her own mother for men

Foxy Knoxy plays the field from her jail cell with new romance

Foxy Knoxy claims female cell mate begs her for sex 'because I'm so pretty'

The wild, raunchy past of Foxy Knoxy

Perhaps, after all, it's entirely appropriate that John Kercher should be complaining about "cultists who have created a minor celebrity" out of "Foxy Knoxy" in one of the papers which played such a big part in the very thing he's complaining about.

ETA: And btw, note the headline to John Kercher's own article: From Meredith Kercher’s father, a passionate attack on the cult of 'Foxy Knoxy'. Somehow, I really don't think it's those who believe in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence who created that "cult".

 

[Chris_Halkides]

disinterested

You accepted it first time around but not my doubt of your 'credentials in Italian law'.
Now when asked to back up the latter you drop it and now claim to be disinterested.

I don't accept you are disinterested on this issue - this thread is littered with examples.
As you no longer claim 'credentials' the specific point is moot, the general is not* and stands.

The alternative, should you choose to accept it, is that your arguments are not just uninformed by the facts of this case but skewed in a manner that would interest Randi if it were accidental.

.

Platonov,

My reply noted that your bringing up Italian law was irrelevant, inasmuch as I had not made any claims about Italian law. I would be grateful if you would belatedly acknowledge your error (your statement above falls short of that). You have made so many ill-judged statements that your claim to the effect that I am uninformed on this case is risible. I wonder whether English might be a second language for you. Here is the second definition of “disinterested” from the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary:

2: free from selfish motive or interest : unbiased <a disinterested decision> <disinterested intellectual curiosity is the lifeblood of real civilization — G. M. Trevelyan>

And from their legal dictionary:
free of any interest esp. of a pecuniary nature : IMPARTIAL disinterested person to witness the will

No one is paying me to comment on this case, meaning that I am disinterested in that sense of the word. I have made myself quite clear as to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito; therefore, if your claim that I am not disinterested means that I have a point of view, then you are adding nothing new to the conversation.

 

[LondonJohn]

A few other Daily Mail headlines:



Perhaps, after all, it's entirely appropriate that John Kercher should be complaining about "cultists who have created a minor celebrity" out of "Foxy Knoxy" in one of the papers which played such a big part in the very thing he's complaining about.

ETA: And btw, note the headline to John Kercher's own article: From Meredith Kercher’s father, a passionate attack on the cult of 'Foxy Knoxy'. Somehow, I really don't think it's those who believe in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence who created that "cult".

A fair point. In addition, I wonder if - for example - the family of Jill Dando were upset with all the press attention on Barry George in the run-up to his (successful) appeal against her murder? I don't remember them writing articles about it, but I might be wrong. And Jill Dando was certainly beautiful and talented. Interesting too that last week the mantra was that the Kerchers' silence was dignifying and classy (which I'd agree with), yet this week it's "high time" that John Kercher spoke out.....

To introduce some levity: tonight I went to an 80s revival night at Wembley Arena, featuring TPau, ABC, Howard Jones, The Christians, Go West, Sister Sledge and Kool & The Gang! It was fandabbidozie

ETA: Just to point out (to avoid *ahem* confusion), I think it's entirely appropriate that John Kercher is expressing his belief in Knox's (and presumably also Sollecito's) guilt in the murder of his daughter. It's also of course entirely appropriate for him to write about his memories of Meredith, and what she meant to him and others. And I'd think (or hope) that most other people posting on this thread (including those who have total belief in Knox's and Sollecito's innocence) would recognise this. I for one am most certainly not in the business of belittling or besmirching Meredith or her memory - why on Earth would I? We all - I hope - realise that a blameless young girl with potential died in Perugia on November 1st 2007 (although, to me, her relative levels of beauty and ability should have nothing whatsoever to do with the scale of tragedy of her death - it would be equally tragic if she had been neither of these things).

 

[Alt+F4]

Perhaps, after all, it's entirely appropriate that John Kercher should be complaining about "cultists who have created a minor celebrity" out of "Foxy Knoxy" in one of the papers which played such a big part in the very thing he's complaining about.

Katy, did it occur to you why John Kercher might have picked the Daily Mail to have his editorial published in? I think he is indeed attacking the Daily Mail but their editors are too stupid to see it.

I really don't think it's those who believe in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence who created that "cult".

Really Katy? Just Google "Amanda Knox innocent" and see what you get. There is one poster on this thread who's cultish fixation with Amanda is creepy beyond belief. Please also address the Italian parliamentarian who wrote an entire book about his visits with her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no such claims were made

Leaving aside the fact that your claims on what is or isn't correct in Italian Law[/HILITE] are neither informed nor disinterested.

.

platonov,

I have made no claims about what is correct in Italian law. This point actually precludes a discussion of whether or not such imaginary claims are informed or disinterested.

 

[LondonJohn]

Katy, did it occur to you why John Kercher might have picked the Daily Mail to have his editorial published in? I think he is indeed attacking the Daily Mail but their editors are too stupid to see it.

Yeah, that sounds likely......

Really Katy? Just Google "Amanda Knox innocent" and see what you get. There is one poster on this thread who's cultish fixation with Amanda is creepy beyond belief. Please also address the Italian parliamentarian who wrote an entire book about his visits with her.

You might want to go back and read what Katy actually wrote. Hint: the phrase "Foxy Knoxy" is the relevant part.

 

[Alt+F4]

A fair point. In addition, I wonder if - for example - the family of Jill Dando were upset with all the press attention on Barry George in the run-up to his (successful) appeal against her murder? I don't remember them writing articles about it, but I might be wrong. And Jill Dando was certainly beautiful and talented. Interesting too that last week the mantra was that the Kerchers' silence was dignifying and classy (which I'd agree with), yet this week it's "high time" that John Kercher spoke out.....

To introduce some levity: tonight I went to an 80s revival night at Wembley Arena, featuring TPau, ABC, Howard Jones, The Christians, Go West, Sister Sledge and Kool & The Gang! It was fandabbidozie

Well I will agree with you that the '80s bands you saw are indeed very good but what does Jill Dando being beautiful and talented have to do with this case?

EDIT....or her murder case?

 

[Machiavelli]

odeed,

There is such a thing as the Knox defense team; when you talk about Knox PR, I don't know what you mean. It sounds like something a conspiracy theorist would say. Your other comment is not exactly false, but it is irrelevant. The point is that none of the files were not released, not which team requested which files. Sollecito's lawyers were referring to the files Pasquali requested, and Gino and Hampikian were also clear about being refused files they requested. Moreover, you ignore the fact that some evidence is common to both appeals.

Just to say a defense expert witness (perito) is defined as a person who is acknowledged by a judge as such, after having filed his data to the tribunal, and if in a trial, who undergoes cross questioning, and submits his/her opinion usually in the form of written report of files.
The "defence consultant" is not an acknowledged role in the Italian trial. Sarah Gino is a perito, while a court would not interlocute with Hampikian since he is not in the trial as far as I know.

 

[platonov]

Hi once again Platonov,
Well, you asked for it.

<snip>

well you get my drift...
RW

I didn't - That referred to the ridiculous '2nd storey man' argument you were putting forward.The rest of your post is either OT or as well sourced and relevant as the above.

If you wish to continue to 'speculate' over 'possible semen stains' between the victims legs - that's your call.
You may find several others here willing to do so on your terms - but I am not among them.

.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you wish to continue to 'speculate' over 'possible semen stains' between the victims legs - that's your call.
You may find several others here willing to do so on your terms - but I am not among them.

Neither am I. That stain is probably Holloween makeup.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well I will agree with you that the '80s bands you saw are indeed very good but what does Jill Dando being beautiful and talented have to do with this case?

EDIT....or her murder case?

Well......Jill Dando was the victim in that case. But nearly all the press coverage about the case in the years after Barry George's original conviction for her murder focussed primarily upon Barry George: his prior history, his explanation of his movements at the time of the murder, the forensic evidence as it applied to him, and so on. Jill Dando was, of course, always mentioned as the victim, but usually only as a placeholder for readers to remember who Barry George actually was. There were very few pre-appeal articles, IIRC, which were chiefly any sort of remembrance of Dando herself. And I rhetorically asked what Jill Dando's family might have thought about that state of affairs....

Anyhow, long past time for bed.

 

[platonov]

Platonov,

My reply noted that your bringing up Italian law was irrelevant, inasmuch as I had not made any claims about Italian law. I would be grateful if you would belatedly acknowledge your error (your statement above falls short of that). You have made so many ill-judged statements that your claim to the effect that I am uninformed on this case is risible. I wonder whether English might be a second language for you. Here is the second definition of “disinterested” from the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary:

2: free from selfish motive or interest : unbiased <a disinterested decision> <disinterested intellectual curiosity is the lifeblood of real civilization — G. M. Trevelyan>

And from their legal dictionary:
free of any interest esp. of a pecuniary nature : IMPARTIAL disinterested person to witness the will

No one is paying me to comment on this case, meaning that I am disinterested in that sense of the word. I have made myself quite clear as to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito; therefore, if your claim that I am not disinterested means that I have a point of view, then you are adding nothing new to the conversation.

Actually you have a point, my argument on 'disinterested' was not put across with sufficient clarity.

What I meant is closer to the skewed 'alternative' option i.e. your 'interest' is very apparent in your arguments - obfuscation, selective quotations, incredulous interpretations, 'amnesia' regarding certain aspects etc etc etc.

If you claim its there is no connection between your interest and the arguments you put forward then its indeed a case for Randi & co - I believe he, like me, would go with the more mundane explanation.

PS English may indeed be my second language

.

 

[Machiavelli]

To Halides1,
while you make a point about the proseution not releasing data, you should acknowledge that this is a point of law, a point of formal acts, policy and trust. It cannot be assimilated to a point of science. In fact, it depends entirely on what exactly were the conditions and the facts by the law. To state something has been "refused" or "withheld" or requested, there must be some documentation that formally states this request and/or refusal, and motivations explaining the context.
In fact, a perito like Sarah Gino can express her/his opinion, but not make a request to judges or prosecutors. Only the attorneys may submit requests, like for the release of data. The position the attorney express is the only defence position. So if there is a request and a refusal, this is documented in the formal exchanges between lawyers and judges and other parties. If there is a pending request to obtain data that were not released yet, this must be expressed by attorneys. For a complaint about unreleased data, I would expect it to be stated in the appeal documents.
Otherwise there isn't any "refusal" to release data or files.

 

[Kaosium]

A few other Daily Mail headlines:

Perhaps, after all, it's entirely appropriate that John Kercher should be complaining about "cultists who have created a minor celebrity" out of "Foxy Knoxy" in one of the papers which played such a big part in the very thing he's complaining about.


ETA: And btw, note the headline to John Kercher's own article: From Meredith Kercher’s father, a passionate attack on the cult of 'Foxy Knoxy'. Somehow, I really don't think it's those who believe in Amanda and Raffaele's innocence who created that "cult".

Does anyone actually still believe in the character 'Foxy Knoxy' outside the UK's Daily Mail and the Sun? I don't think even most of the ones who are convinced of Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt want anything to do with that creation. Last time I saw it brought up by Treehorn I was half-convinced he/she was doing it so it could be knocked down one last time.

 

[platonov]

Neither am I. That stain is probably Holloween makeup.

Alt+F4

I suspect you may be slightly less cynical than I am on this (and related) issues.

 

[Malkmus]

Yeah, that sounds likely......



You might want to go back and read what Katy actually wrote. Hint: the phrase "Foxy Knoxy" is the relevant part.

Yes, as much as they want it to be, Stilicho et all are wrong in assuming that Mr. Kercher is talking about internet commenters. But nowhere do I see a mention of any in the article, and his ire seems pointedly focused on the media's attention with Amanda - the movies, the appeals, the parents' TV appearances, etc.

 

[Kaosium]

What I meant is closer to the skewed 'alternative' option i.e. your 'interest' is very apparent in your arguments - obfuscation, selective quotations, incredulous interpretations, 'amnesia' regarding certain aspects etc etc etc.

This is why you're the 'The white knight talking backwards' because I've come to think you believe it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE

Now, who's the 'Red Queen?' The one who sees the blood dripping from the hands of 'Lady McBeth?'

No idea about the dormouse, any ideas?

If you claim its there is no connection between your interest and the arguments you put forward then its indeed a case for Randi & co - I believe he, like me, would go with the more mundane explanation.

I think Randi would see through it in an instant. This whole case is an illusion, part Uri Geller, part Sylvia Brown.

Why do you suppose that despite concerted efforts to close it down this discussion endures?