Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I am not under the illusion that anything I can say will have any impact on the proceedings taking place in Perugia (it’s not about me!), as I have said before and in particular with TOD I want see if it is even raised in the “appeal”. Meredith’s murder isn’t for me at least about how well I can debate or argue the case with you or others it is about the appeal (judicial process) which many of you who support Raffaele and Amanda have been saying is a new trial! I have this feeling of déjà vu from the actual trial; having followed Candace Dempsey’s blog on SeattlePI I found that 90% of what was raised there was never discussed in the trial.

What will most of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters do if TOD or Meredith’s bra clasp isn’t discussed to level of detail you debate here?

By the way is Mr Joyce actually employed by the BBC or is he like so many journalists these days “freelance”? Does Nick Pisa work for Sky News, Telegraph or Daily Mail I don’t know do you? Is Candace employed by SeattlePI?; if so what about her recent appearance in the recent debate event in Seattle?

I like that phrase from Frank “people see the Moon but look at their finger” or something like that.

I believe Joyce is employed by the BBC, although he'd be bound by their editorial standards whether he was or not.

I know that Nick Pisa is a freelance stringer who sells his pieces on an ad hoc basis. The same is true of Andrea Vogt and Barbie Latza Nadeau.

Regarding the ToD issue, Sollecito's appeal makes explicit reference to it, so it's highly unlikely that it won't be raised during the appeal trial (which is indeed an entirely new trial, albeit one which can use the testimony and evidence from the first trial as the basis for legal arguments). And yes, I'd be very surprised if the defence lawyers haven't realised the significance of the stomach/duodenum contents evidence (even though they dropped the ball on it in the first trial), and that they'll argue it properly this time if necessary.

Lastly, I'm bemused by your comment that you're "not under the illusion that anything I can say will have any impact on the proceedings taking place in Perugia". I never suggested that you were under such an illusion, and I doubt that anyone posting here (including myself) is under the same illusion either. We are discussing this case as outsiders: with less than complete information, for sure, but with enough information to be able to form certain opinions and judgements. Whether the appeal court will agree with those judgements is of course a separate issue...

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh; Puh...Leeze

You want us to list the benefits of membership to an Internet Forum (rather than just let it stand and admit your argument has no basis in fact????

With cognizance of why this thread goes on forever, here is a reply that is probably pretty much self evident to everyone else here.

For openers, membership allows him to contact directly and quickly via PM any of the member authors of the various informational articles appearing daily.
This is a huge advantage in case the he desires more information or permission to quote.
Need I enumerate the rather elementary benefit that this membership privilege connotes.... *for a Journalist*.

Forgive my skepticism at your sincerity in asking this.
These benefits seem so very well known to everyone I know who posts anywhere.

Speaking of who you know; surely you are cognizant of the fact that you cannot even look at a URL a poster puts on Brucie's IIP unless you are a member; much less access files, etc.

Again:

What are benefits of being a Forum member for a Journalist ??
Especially a member of the most authoritative and popular site about the case ??

Shades of the 5+ page 'Nara is Nuts' circular complete waste of cyberspace

Do you have any comments about the case at all.....?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't see the BBC thing as a big deal. The person was probably just looking for a way to contact the site owner and was forthright in using their real name. That person also hasn't posted any comments on that site (unlike another person there who appears to write for the Daily Mail).

I do get a sense of irony that certain posters are having a hub bub calling out character assassination, especially after the jumping the gun on this forum over Libby Johnson for some obscure conversation on Google about her as an expert witness, which was posted as a means to discredit her.

 

[quadraginta]

You've really got your teeth into this one, haven't you. I'm seeing a pattern developing.

What pattern would that be?

I am suggesting that it is strange and potentially improper for a BBC journalist writing reports on this case to have registered as a member with a partisan website. That is all.

I don't believe you.

I think it is strange to bring the point up in the first place if you had no intention of offering the datum as some sort of comment on his impartiality.

People register on websites for all sorts of reasons. Some of them do it as stealth posters with partisan motives contrary to their stated positions.

Some even do it innocently because many aspects of message board software are more convenient for members. Thread tracking and email notifications come to mind just as a start.

I know for a fact that journalists of many stripes join message boards while gleaning information on various topics. I know this because I have both seen them reveal themselves, and also seen information which was indisputably acquired from 'members only' areas of message boards end up in print or on the air. The single common thread was that they were hunting information. It wasn't necessary for them to either be partisan or to become partisan, and I rarely saw any signs that they had which weren't already evident.

I have not suggested that he had or has "ulterior motives". And yes, in my case the "super sleuths" laughably decided that I was some sort of spy/plant, which is a totally different case of affairs.

Yes, we've already established that things are somehow 'different' when you are the subject in question.

No, you didn't suggest it outright. Are you claiming that your purpose for bringing it up was utterly guileless and I am mischaracterizing your intent?

Anyway, here's an analogy (deliberately writ large so you might actually understand it): what would you say if one of the hosts of the next US Presidential TV debates (let's suppose the host was Bob Smith of XYZ News) was found to be a member of - say - the Republican Party? Would that be OK, particularly if he did not disclose it at the start of the debate? And can you see how that might be different from someone commenting on the forthcoming election, who had stated his own democratic viewpoint (and who might even be a self-professed member of the Democratic Party)?

I wouldn't say anything at all. Why should I? It is quite likely that a host for a Presidential debate is going to be a member of one party or another, and it wouldn't be much of a debate if none of the participants were from a different one.

The question would be; can that host avoid allowing his personal allegiance to a particular party to affect his professional demeanor? I would not assume that he couldn't, and I would want overt evidence if someone were to suggest that he had, merely on the basis of a party affiliation.

Not to mention that your analogy is deeply flawed to begin with. This writer whose professionalism you doubt so surreptitiously isn't voting for party candidates, he's (I would guess) doing research. I read stuff I don't necessarily agree with all the time. That's how I learn what I'm disagreeing with. Sometimes I start agreeing, sometimes I don't.

I understand the urge to defend a position at all costs, but sometimes the price is too high.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't see the BBC thing as a big deal. The person was probably just looking for a way to contact the site owner and was forthright in using their real name. That person also hasn't posted any comments on that site (unlike another person there who appears to write for the Daily Mail).

I do get a sense of irony that certain posters are having a hub bub calling out character assassination, especially after the jumping the gun on this forum over Libby Johnson for some obscure conversation on Google about her as an expert witness, which was posted as a means to discredit her.

Which "certain posters" have infused you with this sense of irony?

I'm not sure that Johnson and Hampikian's "open letter" is very comparable to Joyce's reporting in terms of bias or lack thereof, but I'm sure you'll enlighten us. As I recall, Johnson was sought out and given a copy of the DNA report by a Knox supporter from Seattle who was in search of a dissenting opinion of the evidence being presented against Knox.. The equivalence of this to a reporter checking out web sites escapes me.

I'm not sure what obscure conversation on Google you're referring to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

quadraginta, pilot padron, CoulsdonUK,

Since you have all returned to the thread, are any of you willing to discuss the evidence for guilt, or are you only interested in carrying in the sidetracks about irrellevant commentators who nothing to do with the actual case?

 

[Draca]

Concerning why Rudy Guede's blood wasn't found in MK's room. It turns out that is not necessarily true. When his DNA was found there would not be a way to tell if the DNA came from blood without a specific blood test. If his blood was in MK's room the only way to know is if they ran blood tests.

This explains a LOT to me about something I have been curious about for a long time. IMO his blood was very, very likely on the bra that was ripped off and the blue jacket, probably many other places also.

There was a bloody rag found on the walkway. This Rag was probably wrapped around his hand.

IDK why his DNA was not found in the sink. That is still a mystery....

 

[PhantomWolf]

There was a bloody rag found on the walkway. This Rag was probably wrapped around his hand.

This is a new claim to me, can you point me towards the evidence on this and if it was ever tested for DNA?

 

[quadraginta]

quadraginta, pilot padron, CoulsdonUK,

Since you have all returned to the thread, are any of you willing to discuss the evidence for guilt, or are you only interested in carrying in the sidetracks about irrellevant commentators who nothing to do with the actual case?

What is this "return" you speak of? I've been right here the whole time.

If these irrelevancies perturb you so then you might do well to address the sources, and not those who choose to respond to them.

(Hint: this most recent one began with the line,

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Apropos of nothing...

<snip>

)


I must agree that this lead sentence lends itself to your opinion of the content, but as I said, you are expressing your dismay to the wrong folks.

---------------------------------------------

And on the topic of choice ...

... I'll respond to what I damn well please to.

I don't know what it is about these Cartwheel threads that inspires so many wannabe Arbiters of Forum Propriety, but it sure is contagious.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is this "return" you speak of? I've been right here the whole time.

Really, I failed to notice you in the thread for a number of pages were the actual evidence was being discussed, only posting once the topic changed to LJ discussing some irelevant person.

If these irrelevancies perturb you so then you might do well to address the sources, and not those who choose to respond to them.

(Hint: this most recent one began with the line,

)

I must agree that this lead sentence lends itself to your opinion of the content, but as I said, you are expressing your dismay to the wrong folks.

If LJ and the others involved refused to answer my questions, prefering to yammer on about some personality I don't know and don't care about, they'd get the same response, however when I have adressed questions to them they actually answer quickly and with evidence, so I have little need to request things multiple times until it feels like all they are doing is sniping and refusing to adress the real issues.

And on the topic of choice ...

... I'll respond to what I damn well please to.

I don't know what it is about these Cartwheel threads that inspires so many wannabe Arbiters of Forum Propriety, but it sure is contagious.

So I'll take that as a "no, I'm not willing to discuss the evidence for guilt". Fine.

 

[quadraginta]

Really, I failed to notice you in the thread for a number of pages were the actual evidence was being discussed, only posting once the topic changed to LJ discussing some irelevant person.




If LJ and the others involved refused to answer my questions, prefering to yammer on about some personality I don't know and don't care about, they'd get the same response, however when I have adressed questions to them they actually answer quickly and with evidence, so I have little need to request things multiple times until it feels like all they are doing is sniping and refusing to adress the real issues.



So I'll take that as a "no, I'm not willing to discuss the evidence for guilt". Fine.

You present this as if I have alleged some statement of fact and then declined to defend it against your challenges. I don't believe that is the case.

You are committing two fundamental errors here. One is that I fit into some predetermined classification of your devising, and somehow must justify my membership there to you, even though I had no part in your stereotyping. The other is that what is important to you at any given moment should also be important to me at that same time.

Neither is true.

 

[Draca]

Tissue in Driveway

This is a new claim to me, can you point me towards the evidence on this and if it was ever tested for DNA?

Bloody Tissue not Rag.

Charlie gave me the data. So they didn't have any of their DNA on the tissues. He thinks they might have been used by drug users.


There were five paper tissues found near the crime scene. All were tested, with the following results:

Rep. 11 - unknown male.
Rep. 17 - (blood) unknown female.
Rep. 18 - (blood) second unknown male.
Rep. 19 - (blood) second unknown female.
Rep. 20 - (blood) same unknown female as Rep. 19.

 

[Mary_H]

I am not under the illusion that anything I can say will have any impact on the proceedings taking place in Perugia (it’s not about me!), as I have said before and in particular with TOD I want see if it is even raised in the “appeal”. Meredith’s murder isn’t for me at least about how well I can debate or argue the case with you or others it is about the appeal (judicial process) which many of you who support Raffaele and Amanda have been saying is a new trial! I have this feeling of déjà vu from the actual trial; having followed Candace Dempsey’s blog on SeattlePI I found that 90% of what was raised there was never discussed in the trial.

What will most of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters do if TOD or Meredith’s bra clasp isn’t discussed to level of detail you debate here?

I know what you mean, Coulsdon. I am alternately puzzled and impressed by the amount of work people are willing to put into studying this case. Many interested parties have compiled files of all the related documents, photographs and articles. As you suggest, very few of us as individuals will have an impact on the proceedings in Perugia, so the work we do is essentially for our own interest. If some who are interested in this case are also doing the same amount of research and study for other topics they are interested in, I am truly blown away by their scholarly dedication.

The prosecution did not prove its case in the least. Did that matter? No. The trial wasn't about forensics, details or science. The defense didn't try very hard to counter the "evidence" put forward because, in essence, they were in on the forgone conclusion that the trial was about drama, and that there were many more rewards in prolonging the process than in handling it efficiently and letting the two innocent students go about their business.

 

[LondonJohn]

Really, I failed to notice you in the thread for a number of pages were the actual evidence was being discussed, only posting once the topic changed to LJ discussing some irelevant person.

If LJ and the others involved refused to answer my questions, prefering to yammer on about some personality I don't know and don't care about, they'd get the same response, however when I have adressed questions to them they actually answer quickly and with evidence, so I have little need to request things multiple times until it feels like all they are doing is sniping and refusing to adress the real issues.

So I'll take that as a "no, I'm not willing to discuss the evidence for guilt". Fine.

It is strange, isn't it, that seemingly the only reason many on the side of guilt are finding to post is on issues that are totally peripheral to the case. I only dropped in the bit about the BBC journalist as a side thought (and prefaced it explicitly as such), but it seems to have lit the blue touchpaper for some strange reason.

I, like you, would welcome a discussion and debate over the important, core points in this criminal case - particularly in the light of the events to date in the appeal. It seems a shame that nobody who professes to believe in the safety of the convictions seems to want to engage, preferring instead to snipe around the periphery. As they themselves don't tire of pointing out, that is of course their prerogative ("I reserve the right" hehehe), but it would be nice - and thought-provoking - if they'd lay out just why they continue to think that Knox and Sollecito were justly convicted. Perhaps that's wishful thinking though, by the looks of it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know what you mean, Coulsdon. I am alternately puzzled and impressed by the amount of work people are willing to put into studying this case. Many interested parties have compiled files of all the related documents, photographs and articles. As you suggest, very few of us as individuals will have an impact on the proceedings in Perugia, so the work we do is essentially for our own interest. If some who are interested in this case are also doing the same amount of research and study for other topics they are interested in, I am truly blown away by their scholarly dedication.

The prosecution did not prove its case in the least. Did that matter? No. The trial wasn't about forensics, details or science. The defense didn't try very hard to counter the "evidence" put forward because, in essence, they were in on the forgone conclusion that the trial was about drama, and that there were many more rewards in prolonging the process than in handling it efficiently and letting the two innocent students go about their business.

I must admit to a smile when I see pictures posted which are captioned things like "Bongiorno looking surprised" or "FOA Wilkes with hat" - some people are clearly investing an inordinate amount of time documenting this case!

Regarding the first trial, I've wondered whether there's a kind of institutionalised behaviour at play, based around the automatic appeals process. I've wondered whether there's an element of thinking that the first appeal is where the real work is done. In fact, it's actually a fairly reasonable tactic from the defence's point of view, since they will have had a chance to view the prosecution's case in detail, and should be able to identify weaknesses or potential points of attack/rebuttal.

Of course, my thinking here may just be too Machiavellian (in the classical sense of the term!), but I can't help thinking that a criminal justice system such as Italy's may promote a certain ambivalence about the outcome of the first trial, safe in the knowledge that a "de novo" second trial is inevitably to follow.

 

[pilot padron]

Underwhelmed

Bloody Tissue not Rag.

Charlie gave me the data. So they didn't have any of their DNA on the tissues. He thinks they might have been used by drug users.


There were five paper tissues found near the crime scene. All were tested, with the following results:

Rep. 11 - unknown male.
Rep. 17 - (blood) unknown female.
Rep. 18 - (blood) second unknown male.
Rep. 19 - (blood) second unknown female.
Rep. 20 - (blood) same unknown female as Rep. 19.

Ahhh, Yes

Charlie doles and dribbles out yet another piece of previously undiscussed piece of 'evidence' to the repository of 50,000+ never changing 'opinions'.

Evidence that was probably collected by the Prosecution, provided to Defense Attorneys in compliance with rules of discovery, made available to their defendant client's families in compliance with customary procedures, and finally for some unknown reason and not customary, the Families divulge all this to Charlie.

So now Charlie allows the unwashed masses to peek at another of his 'treasure trove of trivia'.
So trivial incidentally, that most of it when received and evaluated by Defense experts is never resurrected again by anyone save....Yup, Charlie

In this instance, a few (very unsanitary) pieces of roadside litter from a known drug users shoot up area.

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn

BTW
Cannot resist noting the usual 'rumor-mill effect' consequences of Charlie's tactics

Roadside tissue, litter that contained probably also typical nasal discharges becomes 'a bloody rag that the (lone wolf, spiderman?) killer used to wipe his hands

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Ahhh, Yes

Charlie doles and dribbles out yet another piece of previously undiscussed piece of 'evidence' to the repository of 50,000+ never changing 'opinions'.

Evidence that was probably collected by the Prosecution, provided to Defense Attorneys in compliance with rules of discovery, made available to their defendant client's families in compliance with customary procedures, and finally for some unknown reason and not customary, the Families divulge all this to Charlie.

So now Charlie allows the unwashed masses to peek at another of his 'treasure trove of trivia'.
So trivial incidentally, that most of it when received and evaluated by Defense experts is never resurrected again by anyone save....Yup, Charlie

In this instance, a few (very unsanitary) pieces of roadside litter from a known drug users shoot up area.

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn

BTW
Cannot resist noting the usual 'rumor-mill effect' consequences of Charlie's tactics

Roadside tissue, litter that contained probably also typical nasal discharges becomes 'a bloody rag that the (lone wolf, spiderman?) killer used to wipe his hands

Previously undiscussed? There was some discussion here and here.

 

[LondonJohn]

A point of interest: If somebody totally unconnected to the case or the legal teams (let's call him Stan Black) were to stand up in a lecture hall, or appear on TV, and state something like this:

"Knox and Sollecito couldn't have committed the murder because they were provably at Disneyland Paris on the whole day and night of the crime, and anyhow Guede had admitted in front of a judge that he was the lone assailant, and Guede's DNA was found leading all the way up the wall outside Filomena's window",

would this - in and of itself - make any difference to Knox's/Sollecito's chances of acquittal in the appeal? I'm rather confused. I had thought that the finest legal minds knew better, but what do I know?

 

[Draca]

Bloody Tissue not Rag.

Charlie gave me the data. So they didn't have any of their DNA on the tissues. He thinks they might have been used by drug users.


There were five paper tissues found near the crime scene. All were tested, with the following results:

Rep. 11 - unknown male.
Rep. 17 - (blood) unknown female.
Rep. 18 - (blood) second unknown male.
Rep. 19 - (blood) second unknown female.
Rep. 20 - (blood) same unknown female as Rep. 19.

Here's a photo. With that much blood I would think its involved.......




49 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN25LqC08GY

 

[Danceme]

I don't see why all the fuss LJ. I saw the articles as pretty impartial. Both detail the smearing of Mignini by certain American parties and contain quotes from both sides, Anne Bremner and Mignini himself, Fiorenza Sarzanini and Peter Quennell. This was definitely newsworthy at the time and he certainly wasn't the only reporter writing about it. Anne is spokesperson for FOA, Peter heads up TJMK, 50/50 on the representation I think.

Why have you pointed these out LJ? Is it your hatred of Peter Quennell? You saw his name and saw red perhaps, because that's what it appears to me when you disparage this journalist for doing a story with opinions from both sides of the issue.