Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

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.

Only the Foakers apparently (see the original thread title), yourself included - the insistence on focusing on (old) 'sensational' media reports about AK as opposed to the evidence which actually convicted and 'confusing' the two seems to be a staple of this argument.

Those may be those who accept the verdict and seek to find an explanation in AK's past but its irrelevant to the actual judicial proceedings.

.

 

[Malkmus]

Only the Foakers apparently (see the original thread title), yourself included - the insistence on focusing on (old) 'sensational' media reports about AK as opposed to the evidence which actually convicted

Right. You're rather delusional about this thread if you think that those favoring innocence have been evading the topic of discussing the evidence that convicted Amanda and Raffaele. As if the guilters only want to talk about evidence and we just go on and on about the unfair portrayal of "Foxy Knoxy". Come on, be fair now. All that's discussed day in and day out on here is the evidence and I believe the "innocent" side has tackled every aspect of it, whether you agree with the point of view or not.

 

[platonov]

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?



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?

What I have no idea how this response relates to my post - and halides1 is well able to speak for himself !

On the last line - you seem confused, as London John was, about the new thread idea - its not a conspiracy, its a server/forum thing.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

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.

Raffaele's appeal documents that the requests have gone back at least as far as 2008. I contacted Chris Mellas about this question, and Amanda's attorneys made requests on more than one occasion for the forensic information. The case is more than three years old. I will even reimburse ILE for the cost of a blank CD ROM, if that is the hold-up.

 

[Kaosium]

Neither am I. That stain is probably Holloween makeup.

Personally I suspect it might be the boyfriend's. I think they interviewed him early on and he probably told them about it. To avoid 'confusing' the jury and to prevent a big deal made about the stain still being there, and what that might imply, they decided to be discrete.

 

[Machiavelli]

Raffaele's appeal documents that the requests have gone back at least as far as 2008. I contacted Chris Mellas about this question, and Amanda's attorneys made requests on more than one occasion for the forensic information. The case is more than three years old. I will even reimburse ILE for the cost of a blank CD ROM, if that is the hold-up.

If Chris Mellas is your legal resource the whole claim remains very vague to me.
We ought to be precise, and I don't know where Sollecito's appeal reports there is a withholding of data going on, and I don't find where the lawyers make a request to have the data released.
There have been court rulings on all defensive reqiests, and the existing files were actualy provided to the defense. Now, there has never been a furhter request of electronic data files nor a further denial to provide files. There has been a clear statement by the prosecution that all existing files had been released to the defence, and there no formal objection to attack this statement following by the defence.
Not only, but was also notified that the defence experts and attorneys were invited to be present in the laboratory as all the files were created, and were given full liberty to take any video/electronic recording and documentation of the work.

 

[Dan O.]

Personally I suspect it might be the boyfriend's. I think they interviewed him early on and he probably told them about it. To avoid 'confusing' the jury and to prevent a big deal made about the stain still being there, and what that might imply, they decided to be discrete.

By "discrete", I presume you mean they withheld the information from the defense.

 

[Kaosium]

What I have no idea how this response relates to my post - and halides1 is well able to speak for himself !

I know he is, what you said in what I quoted just cracked me up, I truly meant it in good humor, not to offend. Thought you might like the music and pretty pictures too.

On the last line - you seem confused, as London John was, about the new thread idea - its not a conspiracy, its a server/forum thing.

Not what I meant.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

undiscovered

If Chris Mellas is your legal resource the whole claim remains very vague to me.
We ought to be precise, and I don't know where Sollecito's appeal reports there is a withholding of data going on, and I don't find where the lawyers make a request to have the data released.

pp. 51-57 of Sollecito's appeal discusses the lack of discovery.

 

[NickPisa]

Everyone knows that the judge did not enforce the law and require all data (electronic) in regards to DNA testing by making PMs release the same to the defense. To this day this has not happen and is just one of the points the appeal will be based on.

Arguments we had and all everyone was able to see was the "too low" "too low" too low" entries made by Comode. What the defense wants and still has not obtained from the PM is the electronic results from these test and other areas where a verbal testiment is not enough proof. The court last year just accepted the testimony as fact without having all the testing results (electronic). The defense was never given thie right to review these as well.

 

[Justinian2]

For those who are interested, Meredith's father wrote an impassioned defence of his daughter here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.

It's important that we all remember the true victim of this despicable crime.

Krechers dad underwent a very tragic loss - one that I would never want to experience.

Having said that, he should realize that punishment and revenge will never bring happiness - not even when the person punished is guilty.

The second thing he and other guilders should realize is that it is the epic struggle that makes Amanda famous. That epic struggle is brought more by the prosecution than by the defense; Amanda just wants to go home.

Appeals to sympathy get all logical people mad, so the defense should careful.

 

[NickPisa]

Yes,


It does not matter if he is working "pro bono" or not, he was asked by Knox PR to put his opinion in writing, he did not volunteer this information spontaneously. Did he not also travel to Perugia with Charlie Wilkes or Mellas, who paid for this trip if he did?

Anecdotally, I know a number of "consultants" who do "pro bono" work and do very nicely for themselves when claiming the "out of pocket expenses".



I understood perfectly, however I was trying to point out that Hampikian and the Knox defense have nothing to do with Sollecito defense strategy/appeal, which was being discussed. It does seem to me that Knox supporters conflate the two defense teams into one, but Sollecito lawyers have every right to pursue their own strategy, despite the efforts of Mellas and Knox "clans" to insert themselves into Sollecito problems.

Of course it has everything to do with Sollecito's defense. Everybody knows that the machines used for DNA testing were re-used and not prepared correctly. Electronic Test results will show this to be true but the PM or Comode just don't want to release the information.

Look, what does the PM have to hide? Why be so secretive and why defend this tactic. Non of us would be here having this discussion if the PM followed the rule of law and released the data. He would also go many great strides by releasing some audio and/or video of the interogation of Amanda. If the court of appeals does not allow any of these matters to proceed and to allow 3rd party independent reviews, everyone (especially the media) will know the fix is in and will do everything they can to dig in to this case in order to obtain that one piece of proof that the system is not living up to its own laws.

So who cares that you want to see the stupid appeal information for Amanda. Most likely this information is being kept quiet until the 11th in order to prevent any grandstanding by the PM side of things prior to this date.

I for one wouldn't bother having this discussion with you or any other person who is not reasonable enough to ask for the actual results of the testing that was done. They don't release it because it screws up the PMs credibility when the data shows the descrepencies and invalidates everything.

 

[Kaosium]

By "discrete", I presume you mean they withheld the information from the defense.

Would that surprise you?

Mere speculation on my part. We'll see when it gets tested.

 

[Kaosium]

Only the Foakers apparently (see the original thread title), yourself included - the insistence on focusing on (old) 'sensational' media reports about AK as opposed to the evidence which actually convicted and 'confusing' the two seems to be a staple of this argument.

What do you believe is evidence of Amanda and Raffaele committing or being involved in this murder?

Those may be those who accept the verdict and seek to find an explanation in AK's past but its irrelevant to the actual judicial proceedings.

.

My point was I didn't see much indication that there were many who even advanced it anymore. Treehorn brought up the Streets of Bagdad Daily Mail piece and the DSM-IV 'checklist' in the last month or so, but that's about it. Treehorn even walked right into it like he/she was expecting the ambush, it appeared to me, and then dropped it.

I don't think I've ever seen you even bring up that facet, except perhaps in jest.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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

What "concerted efforts"?

 

[Dan O.]

Welcome to the continuing JREF thread Nick.

Just in case you haven't been following the discussion here for the last 33,000 posts, I should give you a fair warning: Our hosts have graciously allowed this discussion to continue and all they ask is that we obey the rules. Most notably, keep the discussion civil and stay on topic.

From the tone of your first posts here, I don't think you will have any trouble.

 

[Onofarar]

Personally I suspect it might be the boyfriend's. I think they interviewed him early on and he probably told them about it. To avoid 'confusing' the jury and to prevent a big deal made about the stain still being there, and what that might imply, they decided to be discrete.

I think Meredith was too good a housekeeper to want to sleep on a stained pillowcase and the pillowcase would have been tossed into the laundry with her other items on Nov 1. Therefore , the pillowcase was not stained Nov 1 AM. Therefore, the stain is neither the BF's or Halloween makeup or lip balm (an earlier guilter theory (Fulcanelli?)) and given its location the odds are the stain is related to the sexual assault on Meredith.

ETA - I just realized it could also be Meredith's bodily fluids as her body would lose all muscle control at her death. If ILE assumed same then that it is the only valid reason for not testing the stain - BUT still a huge assumption. Test, test, test.

 

[odeed]

Of course it has everything to do with Sollecito's defense. Everybody knows that the machines used for DNA testing were re-used and not prepared correctly. Electronic Test results will show this to be true but the PM or Comode just don't want to release the information.

I was addressing the Sollecito defense, or to be a little more accurate, why the mentioning of Knox forensic experts, who probably have nothing to do with what Sollecito lawyers filed in his appeal.

Look, what does the PM have to hide? Why be so secretive and why defend this tactic. Non of us would be here having this discussion if the PM followed the rule of law and released the data. He would also go many great strides by releasing some audio and/or video of the interogation of Amanda. If the court of appeals does not allow any of these matters to proceed and to allow 3rd party independent reviews, everyone (especially the media) will know the fix is in and will do everything they can to dig in to this case in order to obtain that one piece of proof that the system is not living up to its own laws.

So who cares that you want to see the stupid appeal information for Amanda. Most likely this information is being kept quiet until the 11th in order to prevent any grandstanding by the PM side of things prior to this date.

I never mentioned the Knox appeal, though for the record the Knox appeal was filed a few months ago.

I for one wouldn't bother having this discussion with you or any other person who is not reasonable enough to ask for the actual results of the testing that was done. They don't release it because it screws up the PMs credibility when the data shows the descrepencies and invalidates everything.

You could at least get what was being discussed correct before making a bold statement on who you will have a discussion with.

 

[Kaosium]

I think Meredith was too good a housekeeper to want to sleep on a stained pillowcase and the pillowcase would have been tossed into the laundry with her other items on Nov 1. Therefore , the pillowcase was not stained Nov 1 AM. Therefore, the stain is neither the BF's or Halloween makeup or lip balm (an earlier guilter theory (Fulcanelli?)) and given its location the odds are the stain is related to the sexual assault on Meredith.

ETA - I just realized it could also be Meredith's bodily fluids as her body would lose all muscle control at her death. If ILE assumed same then that it is the only valid reason for not testing the stain - BUT still a huge assumption. Test, test, test.

It could very well be, it will be found out during the appeal I'm sure. It's just that I thought it possible that if she'd forgotten to launder it and the boyfriend explained it early in the investigation they might not see the need to bring attention to it.

 

[Kaosium]

What "concerted efforts"?

A poor choice of words, I accept correction and withdraw them.

Would you allow 'the expressed wishes of some who dislike this discussion and think it should have died an ignoble death thirty-thousand posts ago?'