• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Danceme said:
I notice he got the sexy underwear bit in there too. Imagine if the press had known the cost of those items, 60 euros according to what Charlie said was on the receipt, not your run of the mill monday to fridays and pretty costly for a supposedly frugal college girl on a budget. I'm pretty sure that would have been an even bigger story than it was. Sometimes she just seemed to make a rod for her own back unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to Europe? 60 euros for a pack of underwear isn't that much.
 
Danceme said:
I notice he got the sexy underwear bit in there too. Imagine if the press had known the cost of those items, 60 euros according to what Charlie said was on the receipt, not your run of the mill monday to fridays and pretty costly for a supposedly frugal college girl on a budget. I'm pretty sure that would have been an even bigger story than it was. Sometimes she just seemed to make a rod for her own back unfortunately.
Click to expand...

60 Euros isn't a lot to spend when you have no clothes other than the ones you're wearing. A couple of spare bras would take most of that.

Doesn't the fact that the anti-Amanda media campaign had to resort to this kind of innuendo, tell you something? Buying clothes, looking for somewhere to live, even eating pizza all became "evidence of guilt".

Then there's all the outright falsehoods against Amanda's character that were peddled in the press in advance of the trial, and continue to be repeated in the online debate. The truth is that the pro-guilt side focus on all of this because there is no genuine evidence against her and Raffaele.

It's instructive to note that there is no equivalent campaign highlighting the all-too-obvious character defects of the bang-to-rights culprit, Rudy Guede.
 
one knife or two

To continue our discussion of SomeAlibi's hyperbole started yesterday, I think that Steve Moore's presentation a few weeks ago would have been marginally better had he mentioned that the prosecution posited two knives. This information would have helped those entirely unfamiliar with the case. However, everyone else probably knows that Amanda's and Raffaele's supporters here and elsewhere think that the two-knife theory is inferior to the one-knife theory. On the other hand, SA's comment to the effect that Mr. Moore does not know the two-knife theory seems to be pure conjecture.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Just out of curiosity Danceme, how does the action of buying underwear prove that someone is a murderer anyway?



For anyone else;

1) Is there a map of the cell phone towers and the areas they cover?

and

2) How long does it take to walk from Raffaele's place to the Cottage?
Click to expand...


1) I can't remember ever seeing a cellular coverage map of that area of Perugia, showing the base stations / node Bs and their sectors/ranges of coverage. It would be very interesting to see one, but I suspect that only the mobile operators' network engineering departments actually accurate maps of this information. If I were one of the defence lawyers, I'd be requesting those maps from the network operators.

2) About 5-7 minutes, at a moderately-brisk walk.
 
Edgardo Giobbi and the non-scientific approach

Antony said:
60 Euros isn't a lot to spend when you have no clothes other than the ones you're wearing. A couple of spare bras would take most of that.

Doesn't the fact that the anti-Amanda media campaign had to resort to this kind of innuendo, tell you something? Buying clothes, looking for somewhere to live, even eating pizza all became "evidence of guilt".

Then there's all the outright falsehoods against Amanda's character that were peddled in the press in advance of the trial, and continue to be repeated in the online debate. The truth is that the pro-guilt side focus on all of this because there is no genuine evidence against her and Raffaele.

It's instructive to note that there is no equivalent campaign highlighting the all-too-obvious character defects of the bang-to-rights culprit, Rudy Guede.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this, the two pro-guilt sites (really the same site, same posters) are rehashing old 2009 spins and interpretations about the words from the stand.

Its really interesting and scary, in a way, they're all looking like a bunch of little Edgardo Giobbi's who can "just tell" a person is guilty.

I use Edgado Giobbi, because of the film clip; he was even brave enough to go on film explaining he doesnt need scientific evidence. He said it with a serious, straight face.

Maybe Masseis from the same culture?
Maybe Mignini too?
Maybe the jurors too?
 
By the way, in case some people still have trouble comprehending this point (including some with razor-sharp legal minds): Filomena's outer shutters were not found by the postal police (the first authorities at the scene at around 1pm on 2nd November) in the position in which they were later photographed. When the postal police arrived, the outer shutters were both half-closed, with the left-hand shutter (as viewed from the outside) slightly more closed in than the right-hand one. Conversely, the crime scene photos taken either later that day or the following day show the left-hand shutter (as viewed from the outside) wide open, with the right-hand shutter half-closed.

The shutters were moved into a more open position (presumably either by the postals, Filomena, or the subsequent police responders) between the time when the postal police arrived and the time when the photos were taken. How hard is that to comprehend....?
 
Chris C said:
Have you ever been to Europe? 60 euros for a pack of underwear isn't that much.
Click to expand...

Yes Chris, I actually lived in Europe for three years, London for a year, Berlin for a year and a small town in former east Germany for a year. I've travelled a lot in Italy, been twice to Spain, once to Greece, and several times to Paris and southern France. I've been around. I'm also a relatively high earning professional female yet would still find 60 euros a little steep for two pieces of underwear.

Antony said:
60 Euros isn't a lot to spend when you have no clothes other than the ones you're wearing. A couple of spare bras would take most of that.

Doesn't the fact that the anti-Amanda media campaign had to resort to this kind of innuendo, tell you something? Buying clothes, looking for somewhere to live, even eating pizza all became "evidence of guilt".

Then there's all the outright falsehoods against Amanda's character that were peddled in the press in advance of the trial, and continue to be repeated in the online debate. The truth is that the pro-guilt side focus on all of this because there is no genuine evidence against her and Raffaele.

It's instructive to note that there is no equivalent campaign highlighting the all-too-obvious character defects of the bang-to-rights culprit, Rudy Guede.
Click to expand...

I agree there was an anti-Amanda media campaign but when an off-hand comment on an internet forum about how much she paid for two pieces of underwear sends everyone scrambling to defend the expenditure you're simply trying too hard and it sounds pretty disingenious. Not one person was able to say, "yeah that was expensive!" but it was!!
It doesn't mean she killed someone but it does mean she was frivolous with her money for someone on a budget. That's simply all. You have to drop the angel act, it sounds weird and not human.
 
Last edited:
value subtracted facts

Danceme said:
Yes Chris, I actually lived in Europe for three years, London for a year, Berlin for a year and a small town in former east Germany for a year. I've travelled a lot in Italy, been twice to Spain, once to Greece, and several times to Paris and southern France. I've been around. I'm also a relatively high earning professional female yet would still find 60 euros a little steep for two pieces of underwear.



I agree there was an anti-Amanda media campaign but when an off-hand comment on an internet forum about how much she paid for two pieces of underwear sends everyone scrambling to defend the expenditure you're simply trying too hard and it sounds pretty disingenious. Not one person was able to say, "yeah that was expensive!" but it was!!
It doesn't mean she killed someone but it does mean she was frivolous with her money for someone on a budget. That's simply all.
Click to expand...
Danceme,

I said it was a "little high," but if you factor out the VAT, it was 50 euros. However, Amanda had about 4500 dollars in the bank and had more from which to draw in Seattle, IIUC. What makes you say that Amanda was on a budget or "frugal?"
 
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to live in Europe? I do. And how can you say she wasn't on a budget? of course she was. Other than her money in the bank and a few shifts a week at Patrick's, she didn't have an unlimited bankroll from her parents. They are hardworking middle-class people who probably sacrificed to help her as any parent would but also would have imposed certain budgets on her. How many kids going off to Europe are told spend what you please, there's lots more where that came from honey!

Just another example of "don't tarnish the angel" that seems rampant on here.
 
Danceme said:
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to live in Europe? I do. And how can you say she wasn't on a budget? of course she was. Other than her money in the bank and a few shifts a week at Patrick's, she didn't have an unlimited bankroll from her parents. They are hardworking middle-class people who probably sacrificed to help her as any parent would but also would have imposed certain budgets on her. How many kids going off to Europe are told spend what you please, there's lots more where that came from honey!

Just another example of "don't tarnish the angel" that seems rampant on here.
Click to expand...


Could it be that the purchase of moderately-highly-priced underwear (rather than the most basic underwear that would have sufficed) might have been as some sort of reaction to the traumatic events of the previous couple of days? It's not as if Knox found herself in a humdrum normal situation at that time: her friend and next-room housemate had just been brutally murdered. Perhaps the slight "splurge" on underwear was part of a subconscious psychological attempt on her (and Sollecito's) part to try to find something different and diverting to focus upon: something other than death and mayhem.
 
budget

Danceme said:
Do you have any idea how expensive it is to live in Europe? I do. And how can you say she wasn't on a budget? of course she was. Other than her money in the bank and a few shifts a week at Patrick's, she didn't have an unlimited bankroll from her parents. They are hardworking middle-class people who probably sacrificed to help her as any parent would but also would have imposed certain budgets on her. How many kids going off to Europe are told spend what you please, there's lots more where that came from honey!

Just another example of "don't tarnish the angel" that seems rampant on here.
Click to expand...
Danceme,

I did not say that she was not on a budget. Unless one has literally unlimited money, all of us are on some kind of budget. It does seem to me that you are putting words into Amanda's supporters' mouths. I am not defending Amanda as being perfect; she is not, nor is Raffaele. What I am saying is that she was vilified in a way that I have only seen once before, and I found that incident very troubling and hoped that the media would learn their lesson. They didn't.
 
Yes LJ, all girls do that sometimes. Shopping can be a sort of therapy sometimes, no question about it.

Halides, I agree Amanda was subjected to an intensely negative media onslaught, much like Casey Anthony was. It wasn't right and didn't help her case.

I just get a little miffed when one can't even say anything even the slightest bit negative about her personality or habits without getting jumped on. She's only human after all and really does have faults and failings just like the rest of us but you wouldn't know it from reading here sometimes.
 
halides1 said:
Danceme,

I did not say that she was not on a budget. Unless one has literally unlimited money, all of us are on some kind of budget. It does seem to me that you are putting words into Amanda's supporters' mouths. I am not defending Amanda as being perfect; she is not, nor is Raffaele. What I am saying is that she was vilified in a way that I have only seen once before, and I found that incident very troubling and hoped that the media would learn their lesson. They didn't.
Click to expand...


Interestingly, the media in the UK have impressive form in character assassination of murder suspects. In two very high-profile cases over the past few years - the murder of Madeleine McCann in 2007 and the murder of Joanna Yeates late last year - the police arrested a suspect whom they later released without charge.

While it's true that the UK has very strict sub-judice rules, these only apply once the person has actually been charged. The police are not supposed to reveal details of people whom they've arrested (other than their gender and age) until/unless they charge them, but a combination of media sleuthing and police leaks usually elicits the names of those under arrest.

In both these cases, the media - particularly the tabloid press - conducted a full-court character assassination of the two men arrested. They had virtually convicted them in the court of public opinion, safe in the knowledge that they could write/say anything they liked about the men until/unless charges were brought. Of course, in neither instance were charges brought - it turned out that neither man had anything to do with the respective murder.

Both of the men in question (Robert Murat in the McCann case, and Chris Jefferies in the Yeates case) subsequently took legal action against the worst offenders among the papers. Murat won a £600,000 (around $720,000) settlement against eleven different UK papers, while Jefferies has just launched his case.

And this is one reason why the UK press has loved the Kercher case - it knows that it can carry on the salacious reporting and character assassination of the accused parties with impunity, because Italy has no significant sub-judice rules. This fact alone is responsible for the majority of the most sensational reportage on this case in the UK media: they do it because they can get away with it. There's an old adage used withing the UK press: "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". And in this case, the "good story" was along the lines of: "Foxy Knoxy teams up in sex game killing of demure UK student".
 
Last edited:
BTW, what's happening in the Joanna Yeates case lately LJ. I followed this a little in the beginning but not for several months now. Is that young guy who lived nearby still the prime suspect?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom