Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw an article on that a while back and was unimpressed with the report. The headline was extravagant but the body of the article didn't seem to support it. I got the impression the results could easily have been confounded by economic factors. I'm just wondering if you've seen a more thorough study that you could present, not that I would encourage anyone to go study in Perugia right now. :)

I am sorry I can't, so you must be right.
 
Embassy

We all know that after Amanda was arrested, and if the Embassy demanded to see her, which even Mignini, could not stop that wish, and saw the state she was in.
Would they not have a doctor from the embassy staff, take a look at her, and also sent a lawyer, just to hear her side of the story.
The action of the American Embassy in in Rome was none.
If the Embassy took action at the early stage, this case would have never went to court.
But there again, as we know, they did not.
 
The EU takes a very dim view of accused persons being questioned without a lawyer. The Scottish courts have got themselves into big trouble on that one in the recent past. An ultimate appeal the the European Court of Human Rights would have a huge chance of success if it ever came to that, I think.

Rolfe.
 
I really don't see how you can claim to know "they didn't." Have you reviewed every motion filed in the case? Have you communicated with the clerk of the court in Italy and been told that no such motion was filed?

Why, if there were no discovery motion filed by the defense, did Hellmann write that note to Stefanoni instructing her to hand over the files?

It's also curious that you claim to know what halides1 knows or doesn't know.

There are 3 issues with regards to the raw data. The first is the question of did the defense get this or not and I believe the "not" has been established.

The second issue is the one of the "asking". We don't have copies of the motions or copies of the judges rulings. To deny that the defense asked for the raw data simply because no official motion has been produced showing that is not a valid argument as it can not be shown either way without such documents. Personally, I believe it is clear from Raffaele's appeal that numerous motions were filed over the course of this trial and many may have contained this request. For me it comes down to individual opinions on the accuracy of Frank's reporting:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235709/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

And yes, both defenses tried to do something, they explained that without raw data, without knowing the setting of the machine we still don't know how we got to that result. And they filed a claim to the judge. A little claim, simply the annulment of Micheli's decree of trial. Which means to cancel the whole process and send everyone home, free. As a sub-claim they asked to invalidate the sole DNA results.

I believe this request is contained in this motion which was denied.

The third issue is the question of the appeals and why the lack of raw data is not a point of emphasis. The fact is that the appeal is contesting the judges ruling on this motion regardless if you believe Frank's reporting of what the motion was about or what it contained. The questions I have come down to what Italian law says about discovery and what has to be provided and when it must be provided. Something as technical as this may not be spelled out and it very well may be that the judge makes a decision on any information that is contested, just as he did on this motion.
 
'Stretching' arguments beyond breaking point

platonov,

Your present claim "we both know they didn't" with reference to filing a motion is false, and I am beginning to suspect that you are already aware of this. I know no such thing with respect to what motions were filed with respect to the forensic files, nor have I ever claimed anything with what specific motions were filed other than what was documented at Perugia-Shock. In addition it is my understanding that the motion for a mistrial was based partly on this lack of discovery. Your attempt to put words into my mouth is impolite, given the number of times I have stated my position, corrected misunderstandings, and offered citations. So far your only evidence that motions were not filed is to some unspecified Italian speaker. Is it Machiavelli, or isn't it?

Did you read the relevant portions of Raffaele's appeal? If so, did Dr. Pascali lie, or was he denied the data he sought? You have evaded the same questions with respect to Dr. Krane and Mr. dalla Vedova. I hope for short, declarative answers if you want conversation to continue.

My understanding of what Amanda did or did not do is based on her testimony and what Frank Sfarzo reported, and it seems to me that you have misunderstood my position. The testimony of Amanda's with which I am familiar was ambiguous on the issue of just what athletic maneuvers she did and whether she did some of it after a policeman made a comment on her flexibility. The main problem is that both of the people asking questions lumped at least two things together, and Amanda's answers are general. Here is a link to some testimony.
Thus,

FM: All right. We heard, and you gave testimony on this point, about your
behavior in the Questura, the cartwheel, the gymnastics, the stretching and
so forth.

AK: Yes.

FM: According to you, was this behavior appropriate, a normal behavior faced with such a misfortune, or was this something special?

AK: According to me, each person confronts a tragedy in their own way, and I amused to trying to find normality, at least my own normality, in situationsof difficulty. This is my way of feeling more secure, because I was feelingreally, really, really scared of what had happened, very shocked. I didn'tknow how to face up to the situation, and for me it was surreal, but Iwas obliged to accept the fact that it had happened, so my behavior -- yes,I know that they are a bit lighthearted, but that's just how I am.



And,
LG: To the Questura. After the Questura...there followed all these phases,
you were heard, then they took photographs, and you did cartwheels and splits?
Are those things true? How did they happen? And where did they happen?

AK: So, on that first day, I didn't do those things, I was always talking withthe police, but...uh...in the following days, but also...in general, I'ma person who kind of, when I feel in difficulty, I kind of try to "lightenup" [in English, asks interpreter; silence, lawyer says "non lo so", "I don'tknow", the interpreter then suggests "to relax"], to relax the situation,it was too heavy, really everything was really, really heavy, so somehow Ihad to...uh [sigh] I don't know, it's an outlet, it's a way of, for me itwas a way of...

At one point Amanda said, "I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some 'stretching', so I did some 'stretching', and that's when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment." I think that it is possible that a policeman asked her whether she could do the splits or a cartwheel (which is what Frank Sfarzo reported, IIRC). I discussed the question in the first Knox thread, and it grew a little tiresome even then.

You can declare victory all you want, but that doesn't make your position correct. What you have written above is a failure in every respect. You failed to answer my questions or to provide citations. You have repeatedly failed to honestly engage in a discussion of the lack of discovery. I ask you again to withdraw your unproven allegations that I have made mendacious arguments.
dark red added by platonov

:)

You have done it again halides1.

You haven taken 3 separate portions ( & lumped them in together ) of the testimony, omitted AK's answers in the first 2 (which are in the wrong order) and thrown in part of the third in a bid to obscure the fact she admitted doing 'cartwheels' and of doing them of her own volition.
Oh and added the obligatory supporting comment from 'the gospel according to Frank S' to enhance the false impression you are trying to create, that this stretching was done at the behest of a cop.

Indeed, despite the fact that some of these links of yours refer back to the start of the Cartwheel thread, only a couple of months ago in FC you were still denying AK had done 'cartwheels'.
Do I need to find the link ?

And you wonder why I don't wish to discuss the finer points of Italian law with you.
 
Last edited:
At this moment of time, the tourist, are not flocking to Italy at this very moment, take Perugia, this small town depends a lot on,the students for their lively hood.
As numbers of students are down, which I am sure , and from the USA, this hurts all of the people from the food shops to the local farmers.
People will not go to Italy, because of this case, I read that the tourist numbers are down in Italy, and remember that a lot of people in Italy, depend on the tourist, for their living.

Statistics provided by Clander on the top rated site that prides itself on being a factual resource provider for interested people, PMF, seem to indicate that these *claims* made by you and Heavey are little more than that; claims that have little meaningful statistical or factual basis made by obviously biased observers with an agenda to continually bleat about, and treated as little more than such by knowledgeable people.

FROM Clander:
I want to complete my previous post on this subject since the Bank of Italy updated their website this morning with the January-March 2011 figures.
The number of US citizens that entered Italy in January-March 2011 has increased to 496.000 from 429000 of the same period of last year.
The Italian National Agency for Tourism also mentions that the number of tour operator packages purchased by Americans for the 2011 Easter holidays increased by 15% (Easter was on April 24 in 2011).

I'm starting to think that the Huffington Post chose to publish a "recent study" that was conducted at the lowest point of the US economic crisis (when American tourism was down everywhere) and Heavey thought it would be best to go with that... cl-)
 
I don't believe that many people are going to consider the Knox case when going to Italy, for students and the parents of students, it may be more of a factor. As far as positive/negative media influences, the book/movie combo Eat,Pray, Love had to give a big boost to Italy's tourism numbers, far exceeding any negative press generated from Italy's treatment of Knox. Just my opinion.
 
cartwheels versus important stuff

I find your ideas on this subject very interesting much as I did your claims that AK didn't perform cartwheels in the police station despite direct testimony from AK herself that she did.
Claims you have repeated several times even after this testimony had been posted in direct response. I make this comparison as your earlier 'curiosity' over mendacious arguments brought it to mind.
platonov,

Thanks for proving my point with respect to her testimony by quoting it. Both the questions and the answers are too broad to be definitive about what she did, IMO. The portion I previously quoted indicates that she was stretching, not doing cartwheels, when approached by a member of ILE.

I am not asking you to discuss the finer points of Italian law; I am asking you to respond to the points that katy_did and RoseMontague made and to answer the questions I posed. While you were worrying about cartwheels, they demolished your arguments.
 
I don't believe that many people are going to consider the Knox case when going to Italy, for students and the parents of students, it may be more of a factor. As far as positive/negative media influences, the book/movie combo Eat,Pray, Love had to give a big boost to Italy's tourism numbers, far exceeding any negative press generated from Italy's treatment of Knox. Just my opinion.
Interesting, I wonder whether Meredith’s murder as opposed to Raffaele and Amanda’s current legal status has had any impact on UK and US parents being reluctant to send their children overseas.
 
Last edited:
No. On the other hand, how often does someone get accused (and convicted) of murder with there being no evidence against them?

The court that found her guilty and apparently, the United States Department of State disagree with you.
 
Regarding what the United States can do for citizens arrested abroad:

Iranian prison guards abused and assaulted two U.S. hikers who have been detained in the Islamic Republic since 2009, according to their friend Sarah Shourd, who was released last year.

"My worst fear is that they're not safe," Shourd said. "They don't have consular access, they're not allowed to see their lawyer, and we fear the worst."



http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/09/iran.detained.hikers/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
 
platonov,

Thanks for proving my point with respect to her testimony by quoting it. Both the questions and the answers are too broad to be definitive about what she did, IMO. The portion I previously quoted indicates that she was stretching, not doing cartwheels, when approached by a member of ILE.

I am not asking you to discuss the finer points of Italian law; I am asking you to respond to the points that katy_did and RoseMontague made and to answer the questions I posed. While you were worrying about cartwheels, they demolished your arguments.


proving my point - Excellent :)

However you make a false comparison in this post & your post title.
Your arguments about cartwheels are just as important, relevant, informed and candid as your arguments on DNA discovery or indeed the DNA evidence itself.
Indeed they have all been disposed of in the same manner & your reluctance to accept this is equally consistent.


Your take on this is noted - I regard it in the same light as this opinion of yours.

Originally Posted by halides1

Amanda herself reported that she did not do any cartwheels. Please take note.
 
Last edited:
dark red added by platonov

:)

You have done it again halides1.

You haven taken 3 separate portions ( & lumped them in together ) of the testimony, omitted AK's answers in the first 2 (which are in the wrong order) and thrown in part of the third in a bid to obscure the fact she admitted doing 'cartwheels' and of doing them of her own volition.
Oh and added the obligatory supporting comment from 'the gospel according to Frank S' to enhance the false impression you are trying to create, that this stretching was done at the behest of a cop.

Indeed, despite the fact that some of these links of yours refer back to the start of the Cartwheel thread, only a couple of months ago in FC you were still denying AK had done 'cartwheels'.
Do I need to find the link ?

And you wonder why I don't wish to discuss the finer points of Italian law with you.

Does she say 'yes' to all five questions in the first sentence, are all five really questions or are they searching for the right description? It is ambiguous! After that she hems and haws and admits to being a little offbeat when they try to nail her down on the crucial cartwheel question! What is she trying to hide?!?! The cartwheel is critical to determining whether she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher!

But only in this way:

If Amanda Knox was on the phone with Filomena at 10:39 when the cops approached, how could she have been doing a cartwheel as testified to by Monica Napoleoni? The only interesting thing about the legendary cartwheel is why the cops lied about her doing it when they approached and wouldn't shut up about it. I suspect I know the answer to that, what do you think?

Yes I suspect she did a cartwheel at some time when she was in the Questura, just not when the cops said she did...
 
Does she say 'yes' to all five questions in the first sentence, are all five really questions or are they searching for the right description? It is ambiguous! After that she hems and haws and admits to being a little offbeat when they try to nail her down on the crucial cartwheel question! What is she trying to hide?!?! The cartwheel is critical to determining whether she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher!

But only in this way:

If Amanda Knox was on the phone with Filomena at 10:39 when the cops approached, how could she have been doing a cartwheel as testified to by Monica Napoleoni? The only interesting thing about the legendary cartwheel is why the cops lied about her doing it when they approached and wouldn't shut up about it. I suspect I know the answer to that, what do you think?

Yes I suspect she did a cartwheel at some time when she was in the Questura, just not when the cops said she did...



I suspect that, due to halides1 reordered and selective quotations perhaps, you have missed the fact that LG is AK's lawyer for starters.

I further suspect that should you revisit the OP of the first Cartwheel thread and reacquaint yourself with 'who wouldn't shut up about' (as you put it) the cartwheels, it probably still wouldn't make a difference.

Finally I suspect you know the answers to many questions that have never been asked :)
 
what should be in the spotlight

However you make a false comparison in this post & your post title.
Your arguments about cartwheels are just as important, relevant, informed and candid as your arguments on DNA discovery or indeed the DNA evidence itself.
Indeed they have all been disposed of in the same manner & your reluctance to accept this is equally consistent.

Your take on this is noted - I regard it in the same light as this opinion of yours.
Platonov,

I found the same quote in Forum Community as you did just this morning (it took some searching). Let me take this the opportunity to clarify my incomplete answer to The Central Scrutinizer, but you could have saved me a great deal of time by quoting this offhand remark in the first place. I wrote, “Amanda herself reported that she did not do any cartwheels.” I should have said something along the lines of “Amanda herself said that she did not do cartwheels prior to being approached by a police officer,” or “Amanda indicated that she never did cartwheels until prompted by a member of ILE.” That was my opinion when the issue arose in the first Knox/Sollecito thread over a year ago, and it is pretty much my position today. I believe that she was doing stretches or yoga poses when a police officer came by to chat her up, commenting on her flexibility. Then she did other gymnastic exercises. My reasons for believing so are her testimony and what Frank Sfarzo reported (see below).

Here is something that shuttlt found at Perugia-Shock: “Amanda explained from Capanne that on that evening at the police station, while waiting for Raffaele, she was doing her homework. After a while of sitting she was stiff, she stood up and did some stretching, leaning down with straight legs. There was a young guy from scientific police and he noticed that she could stretch so much. She told him she could go even more and showed him. He asked why she was so good at stretching and she explained she had been doing gymnastic when she was younger. So he asked her if she could do the other things, the cartwheel, the split, the bridge and she showed him.”

With respect to the lack of release of the electronic data files and other forensic files, you have misstated my position and failed to correct yourself despite my pointing out your errors. I am still waiting for you to do so and to make proper amends for distorting my position. I am also waiting for you to answer my questions and comment on the issues that katy_did and RoseMontague have brought to your attention.

The fact that TCS keeps making cartwheel jokes and you keep discussing cartwheels is symptomatic of the misdirection that has been employed throughout this case. Whether or not she did them (with or without prompting) is entirely irrelevant to her guilt or innocence. This trial also featured a witness who saw Ms. Knox buying underwear, an equally irrelevant detail. As long as the discussion is on Knox’s behavior, the hopelessly flawed forensics, ILE’s disgusting misrepresentations of the facts, and the prosecution’s utter failure to turn over the data files are shunted out of the spotlight. The failure to turn over the EDFs and the failure to disclose the TMB results prior to the trial are two of the many things that made the trial of the first instance unfair. I don’t blame the pro-guilt community for avoiding them; it undermines their comments on the unanimity of that court’s opinion.
 
Interesting, I wonder whether Meredith’s murder as opposed to Raffaele and Amanda’s current legal status has had any impact on UK and US parents being reluctant to send their children overseas.

You're more likely to get murdered here. Perugia seems to be the only place if someone is murdered nearby they can charge your daughter and her boyfriend with murder on scant and contrived 'evidence' and try to give them a life sentence, and then file charges on both families if they dare complain publicly about it.

Perugia is an 'all-in' kind of place.
 
Last edited:
double down

You're more likely to get murdered here. Perugia seems to be the only place if someone is murdered nearby they can charge your daughter and her boyfriend with murder on scant and contrived 'evidence' and try to give them a life sentence, and then file charges on both families if they dare complain publicly about it.

Perugia is an 'all-in' kind of place.
Kaosium,
If I were a parent, I would be equally concerned with the Scazzi case as the present one.
 
You're more likely to get murdered here. Perugia seems to be the only place if someone is murdered nearby they can charge your daughter and her boyfriend with murder on scant and contrived 'evidence' and try to give them a life sentence, and then file charges on both families if they dare complain publicly about it.

Perugia is an 'all-in' kind of place.
Most parents would be concerned about the brutal senseless murder of a student and this would weigh on any decision concerning their child’s wish to study abroad, now you and others focus on the judicial process which of course is your choice. My wife and I were very very concerned with our daughters wish to study abroad one year after Meredith was murdered, for us the murder of an innocent young women for no apparent reason was our focus rather than the judicial process in Italy.
 
Cartwheels and effective arguing

Doing a bit of more my own background reading on this topic of 'cartwheels'; a topic that indeed that indeed has been long and laboriously discussed here, but again consuming cyberspace, I came across this interesting exchange from last month on another site that involved personalities well known here.

Couple things I came away with about structuring effective arguments, and the current back and forth about cartwheels:

1) RoseMontague is indeed a very much admired arguer for reasons again evident here.

a) when s/he says something is factual, you can pretty much always 'take it to the bank'. You may disagree with the conclusions s/he draws, or the opinions s/he clearly delineates as such, but woe be to the unwary who doubts a fact s/he states in an argument.
b) s/he does not find it necessary to 'argue' each and every point to the absurdity of having to resort to diversions, pedantry, sophism, and spelling lessons.

Reference the way s/he handles the alleged inappropriateness of Knox's activities during the Memorial for the murdered Meredith, and resolves quickly with a quote from the Judge the quibbling about what Raffaele said.

2) Other much less effective arguers, who find it impossible to ever concede anything or ever admit any error about anything are reduced to the revealing minute of mindlessly 'arguing' the distinctions between 'good' versus 'close' friendships.

Personally, I learned from the exchange that resulted from 'Cartwheels' and believe others may benefit as well
http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/amanda-knox-who-breaks-a-butterfly-on-a-cartwheel/

PS:
Please spare us the usual Home Team whines about the site itself.
The exchange is what I emphasize, and could have very well been here.
It has absolutely zero dependence on the site or its moderator.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom