Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

I think the signature of a judge is slightly more impressive than the signature of a puppet. We are all entitled to our opinion of course.

It might have been slightly more impressive if he hadn’t displayed such stupidity and ignorance as in this quote from the letter:

On December 6, 2009, Secretary Clinton appeared on ABC. She new nothing of the Amanda Knox conviction the day before. She was surprised by questions concerning the conviction and did not know that Senator Maria Cantwell had called the conviction and process into question. This is evidence that the consular officials had done nothing to protect Ms. Knox’s rights to be treated fairly under Italian law, nor did they advise their superiors in Washington D.C. about the “trial of the century” taking place in Italy.

Bolding mine. Each year about 2,000 Americans are arrested abroad and this fool thinks that if Secretary Clinton isn’t personally aware of the details of each case that is “evidence” that consular officials had done nothing?

Why does Judge Heavy constantly say that consular officials did nothing for Amanda when released cables confirm that, "that State Department officials regularly monitored Amanda Knox since the day of her arrest and throughout her conviction."

Remember the case of Michael Fay, the American teenager sentenced to caning for vandalism in Singapore? President Clinton personally put strong diplomatic pressure on Singaporean government to grant Fay clemency, which they didn’t. So getting the federal government involved comes off to many nations as American bullying.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, he did a great job brokering the release of American reporters Lisa Ling and Euna Lee when they were arrested and convicted by North Korea in 2009. I wouldn’t be surprised if Amanda’s family isn’t working on a similar strategy – have someone with a respectable international repetition broker a release as a private humanitarian undertaking , not an official State Department mission. The Italians come off as merciful and Amanda gets to come home.

Making public statements regarding government malfeasance and providing no evidence of it isn’t going to help anyone’s cause.

 

[Poppy1016]

Alt, yes the case was monitored but no action or assistance was done. Although I do believe there was little they could do. The Italian judiciary must correct the wrongs in their system, although I see no desire on their part to change.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Each year about 2,000 Americans are arrested abroad and this fool thinks that if Secretary Clinton isn’t personally aware of the details of each case that is “evidence” that consular officials had done nothing?<snip>

How many have their convictions featured by virtually all major international news sources because of overwhelming interest in the controversial nature of their cases?

 

[lane99]

Any statement that a court verdict unarguably reflects objective truth is simply mindless. You can use the word sheeple if you want.

Judges and juries are fallible human beings like everybody else. They can be mistaken. They can be prejudiced. Or the truth can be the victim of the legal process, where admissibility and legal hair-splitting count for more than fact or logic.

We know for a fact that wrongful convictions occur. We can all reel off lists of people who were acquitted on appeal. Many of these people were the subject of discussions just like this before the appeal verdicts were announced. Court verdicts don't determine reality, and reality doesn't change because a verdict is overturned.

Justice is also supposed to be open and transparent. It should be possible for any reasonable person to understand why a particular verdict was reached, and why guilt was believed to be "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not an article of faith, you know. If it appears to many observers that there is indeed reasonable doubt, I would submit that something is wrong.

So yes, if you are simply stating that because a court decided something was so, then it unquestionably was so in reality, you are being a sheeple. If you can explain rationally why you believe the court verdict was indeed correct, then that's different of course. But a faith-based assertion of judicial infallibility is no more reasonable than a faith-based assertion of papal infallibility.

Rolfe.

I first heard about the language award some time back with someone suggesting, if I recall correctly, Rose should be nominated. Not sure what became of that, but she's someone I'm sure is more than capable of earning such recognition.

I have just nominated Rolfe's post above. If there is a single post which is better written and more meaningful in this thread, someone please show it to me.

Not sure how the language award works, or whether it will help if others also nominate it. If it will, I'm asking those of you who recognize what a breash of fresh air Rolfe's post is to re-nominate it.

Also not sure if there is any actual prize. Or whether the winner just gets an honourable mention. But even that would be nice, and well deserved.

 

[spartacus]

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.

Actually the majority of American students in a recent survey said that the case had an impact on their thinking about studying abroad in Italy. I'd say that's pretty significant, and something the Italians should be concerned about, since it looks like it will only get worse as this thing drags on and the negative publicity about the trial increases.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/amanda-k...y-abroad-italy-after-perugia-murder-case/2989

 

[Fine]

Deleted

 

[Fine]

Once again I ask what is the embassy required to do in cases like this? What actual power do they have in Italy? It's obvious they did nothing while Amanda's rights were trampled. My question is what could they have done in reality to right the injustice being Perpetrated on AK. Has the embassy been questioned about their lack of assistance?

____________________

Poppy,

In reality, maybe this should have happened......

On November 6th, the U.S. Embassy should have requested copies of all three statements from Amanda, her 1:45 am DECLARATION, her 5:45 am DECLARATION, and her hand-written MEMORANDUM she provided the same day. (Excerpts of which were published in the media.) Or, if they did receive those statements they should have studied them properly.

A reading of those statements would show that Amanda was charging the cops with striking her on the head prior to any of those statements she made and her confession was totally haywire---accusing someone who'd been working in a public place the murder night, and escorting him to the cottage so she could serve as witness to the murder. That conjoined with Amanda's confusion, disorientation, and amnesia would suggest to the Embassy that Amanda had suffered a concussion at the hands of the cops and was in need of immediate examination by a medical doctor.

Not to mention the possible convulsions Amanda was experiencing, another textbook symptom of concussion: "Si da atto che la Knox si porta ripetutamente le mani alla testa e la scuote." (A note added by Rita Ficarra to Amanda's 5:45 am DECLARATION.)

See: Concussion/Symptoms "Concussion:" from the Latin concutere ("to shake violently").

Had Amanda been evaluated by a medical doctor, in a timely manner, and diagnosed with concussion before the symptoms dissipated, a few days later, she might be in Seattle today.

///

 

[Poppy1016]

I agree with the points you make Fine. But most important I think was the refusal to allow legal council, failure to record the interview, and no proper translator provided.

 

[Rolfe]

I first heard about the language award some time back with someone suggesting, if I recall correctly, Rose should be nominated. Not sure what became of that, but she's someone I'm sure is more than capable of earning such recognition.

I have just nominated Rolfe's post above. If there is a single post which is better written and more meaningful in this thread, someone please show it to me.

Not sure how the language award works, or whether it will help if others also nominate it. If it will, I'm asking those of you who recognize what a breash of fresh air Rolfe's post is to re-nominate it.

Also not sure if there is any actual prize. Or whether the winner just gets an honourable mention. But even that would be nice, and well deserved.

Well, thank you, that was nice. Though I have to say, PhantomWolf had a very similar post nominated last month, though I don't think it made the final. (I remember it was nominated, because I nominated it!) It was a better post too, I think.

I have to tell you that anyone on the forum reading the above with my name on it, would never guess in a million years that I had posted it in relation to the Knox/Sollecito case. It is precisely the objection I have made many times about the same mindless approach to the Megrahi case by posters on this forum, including (but by no means limited to) Alt+F4. Never a word of rational discussion of the evidence, just repeated assertions that the court verdict was all they needed to know, to know the man was guilty.

The whole point of the discussion (in that case) is that the judges were wrong, for more reasons than I can count but starting with blatant circular reasoning. Probably for political reasons. But even Darat at one stage refused to allow me to raise the point that Megrahi wasn't actually guilty, in threads started to discuss his release, or the current political situation in Libya. Because the place to discuss that was in Conspiracy Theories.

There is a very strong determination among a number of long-time JREF posters to declare any suggestion that a court verdict (any court verdict) was erroneous to be "woo", or a conspiracy theory. I think it's related to the fact that mostly, the sceptical position is on the side of the establishment. Doctors are not trying to keep you sick and man really did land on the moon and Oswald shot JFK. So there comes a time when the "establishment" position becomes the default, and anyone who disagrees is a woo.

But this simply doesn't work for miscarriages of justice. It's not uncommon for court verdicts to be overturned on appeal, because the accused simply didn't do it and the original verdict was wrong. I wish we could discuss these cases on the strength of the evidence, but unfortunately most attempts to start threads about these cases is met by someone jumping in and posting "Conspiracy Theories thataway ====>"

In fact I envy you this thread, monster though it is, because you actually have a discussion, on the evidence, even if you also have the sheeple who merely bleat that the verdict defines the reality.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

See: Concussion/Symptoms "Concussion:" from the Latin concutere ("to shake violently").

Had Amanda been evaluated by a medical doctor, in a timely manner, and diagnosed with concussion before the symptoms dissipated, a few days later, she might be in Seattle today.

That's an interesting point. I remember concussing myself falling of my pony, and talking a lot of complete rubbish. I had bruised my shin, and was insisting that this must have been caused by the stirrup iron, which was too big for me. My father had to point out that I had been riding bareback at the time.

A minor point, but nobody was accusing me of murder at the time. Add a lot more stress, and the dope-smoking, and it doesn't seem so unlikely.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

I just wonder how the obvious violations of Amanda's rights could be totally ignored by the press, the courts and the public.

That's what the smear was for, she was a 'monster.' 'Foxy Knoxy' the capricious and remorseless killer of friends to satisfy insatiable appetites.

 

[Alt+F4]

How many have their convictions featured by virtually all major international news sources because of overwhelming interest in the controversial nature of their cases?

Just off the top of my head right now I can think of Lori Berenson. Look at what all the attention got her....15 years in prison.

 

[Alt+F4]

Actually the majority of American students in a recent survey said that the case had an impact on their thinking about studying abroad in Italy. I'd say that's pretty significant, and something the Italians should be concerned about, since it looks like it will only get worse as this thing drags on and the negative publicity about the trial increases.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/amanda-k...y-abroad-italy-after-perugia-murder-case/2989

How about this paragraph from your link:

More generally, the study shows a recent overall decline in Italy’s share of the US travel dollars. In 2007, Italy had a market share of 19.3% of all American tourism abroad; in 2009, it fell to 17.5%. The main reasons cited are neither Knox nor Trump, but the weak U.S. economy and strong euro. For those who have decided not to come to Italy for vacation or study abroad, the strength of the euro is given as the main reason (16%), with others citing the threat of terrorism in Europe (6%), and political instability (5%).

 

[Alt+F4]

It is precisely the objection I have made many times about the same mindless approach to the Megrahi case by posters on this forum, including (but by no means limited to) Alt+F4. Never a word of rational discussion of the evidence, just repeated assertions that the court verdict was all they needed to know, to know the man was guilty.

Sorry to be off topic but where did I ever post that I thought al-Megrahi was guilty or innocent? So where's the evidence of my mindless approach to that case?

As for relying on actual evidence, even you admitted that you never bothered to read the entire al-Megrahi trial transcript because it's too long. As for this case, there is no trial transcript to read. Over a hundred witnesses testified and we have the verbatim testimony of only one....Amanda Knox.

 

[Alt+F4]

Si da atto che la Knox si porta ripetutamente le mani alla testa e la scuote[/B]." (A note added by Rita Ficarra to Amanda's 5:45 am DECLARATION.)

Wow. Now your insinuating Amanda had convulsions?

 

[Alt+F4]

Given that the people who wrote the letter are all close to the family and working on behalf of the family, I am going to guess they have, but in private.

That doesn't mean they are getting good advice. Someone writing a letter to the President of the United States regarding how they believe that someone elses rights have been violated when that someone else has not publicy stated that they believe their rights were violated....just looks stupid.

 

[LondonJohn]

That doesn't mean they are getting good advice. Someone writing a letter to the President of the United States regarding how they believe that someone elses rights have been violated when that someone else has not publicy stated that they believe their rights were violated....just looks stupid.

You've not read Knox's appeal submission then? It lists in some detail the alleged violations of her rights.

To me, the issue is not the one you're arguing. The issue is one of the propriety and point of writing a letter to the President of the United States regarding these alleged violations. I personally believe that most of the allegations have some merit (and some have a lot of merit), but that's not the point. The allegations are to be addressed and corrected if necessary by either Hellmann's appeal court or the Italian Supreme Court (if things get that far, which I believe they won't).

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow. Now your insinuating Amanda had convulsions?

No: fine is suggesting that it is possible that Ficarra's note (which translates to: "It is noticed that the Knox repeatedly moves her hands to her head and shakes") might be referring to some sort of convulsive behaviour consistent with blunt trauma to the head. It might not, but it might.

 

[Alt+F4]

You've not read Knox's appeal submission then? It lists in some detail the alleged violations of her rights.

Two different topics. AK's appeal lists how she thinks her rights were violated by the Italians. The judge's letter is in regard to how he thinks her rights as an American citizen arrested abroad were disregarded by the Americans.

 

[Alt+F4]

No: fine is suggesting that it is possible that Ficarra's note (which translates to: "It is noticed that the Knox repeatedly moves her hands to her head and shakes") might be referring to some sort of convulsive behaviour consistent with blunt trauma to the head. It might not, but it might.

Ok, now we've gone to cuffed to blunt trauma?