• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
Meredith did not complain; she showed them to Robyn (she also asked Amanda for condoms on one occasion). The vibrator was a joke gift, and there was not much storage space in the bathroom. As for the tampons, I did not recall that. However if that is true, then they are one more potential source of DNA in the shared bathroom.
Click to expand...

These are not issues for us to judge directly. We are reported of Meredith's observations which were judged as "puritan" by the prosecution. You claim that Meredith felt no annoyance by these objects, maybe; but that's your claim. There was storage space in the bathroom, but the vibrator was in full view, this was about. There are different claims in the trial, and I am not interested in sorting out the vibrator point here. It is anyway a point concerning Meredith's alleged and reported dislikes about Amanda's lack of inhibition and use of common spaces, not about the vibrator and condoms themselves.
The tampon and feces in toilet issues, as well as the cleaning shifts, are reported as generating complaints made directly by Meredith to Amanda, but also facts reported by Meredith to friends. Meredith in general had "mocked" Amanda around on these stories or complained about her on these and other topics.
Finally, the DNA of Amanda is not a point of discussion: the evidence is given by Amanda's blood which was found in two locations, above all on the faucet. This finding leads to conclude there is evidence of mixed blood from two individuals in the bathroom, since blood from two individuals is present in the same context in relation to the same event.
 
Last edited:
Malfie Henpox said:
Of course:

nytimes

As opposed to:

dailymail
See the difference?

I realise these are but two examples. But would you say they captured the reflective opinion of the nations?
Click to expand...


The comparison is slightly tortured as one is from a broadsheet and the other a tabloid. Of course tabloids are more populist and provoke the reader...if they didnt the newspaper industry would crumble due to lack of readership (existing only on the internet).


As for mis-characterisation this is admittedly questionable but isnt there some hypocrisy on the forum when after posting Filomena's comments about Amanda 'odd behaviour' in showering in a room with blood on the floor the response was 'oh well she is obviously a liar'.

hmm.. there is not a shred of evidence that she is a liar..so why say it?

blind adherence to a one-sided view perchance?
 
Malfie Henpox said:
It does seem a great opportunity for maybe a regular group to form from this? One that will express their concerns and logic in other travesties around the world.
Click to expand...

I have in fact had that precise thought. The innocenceproject is working on it in the US. There is little elsewhere I can find. Amnesty does it, but with political prisoners, not cases like this.

It strikes me that crowd-sourcing of rational minds used to logically evaluating data and evidence could be a powerful resource.

If anyone else is interested, I'm more than willing to support and set up the necessary internet resources. A forum for discussing cases, a wiki for collating information, an area for translation of materials, a place for people to register cases they'd like us to consider, a register of experts in different fields etc etc.
 
Ammonitida said:
He has already answered I think.

He wrote this in response to the quote;

"I don't know what he is writing in his report. I still don't know id he will chose 530.1 or 530.2; what I know is that he should have chosen one, not be in between.

I had already noticed that they did not mention the 530.2 in their reading; but I also noticed that they did not mention the 530.1 And this is the point.
They have to chose. They have to indicate what they chose; not what they don't chose. Such a reading is something I have never seen: they have to say what they decide, not what they did not decide, I have never heared a judge not mentioning paragraph on the main condition of the formula."

In other words, Hellmanns statement, "Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice" is not good enough to settle the issue because he "have to say what they decide not what they don't decide". I don't quite follow his logic here. Clearly from Hellmann's statement, 503.2 of the paragraph is ruled out. So isn't 503.1 the only other option left?
Click to expand...


Only just catching up so someone else may have responded to this BUT he did NOT respond to the quote - the section you have quoted from is actually his response to another question (I think from LondonJohn).

He has studiously avoided translating that particular sentence LashL refers to as far as I can see. :covereyes
 
Malfie Henpox said:
But this kind of thing happens all the time. I just wonder what makes it so special. I'd be interested to see if there is a geographical divide on opinions of guilt.

Being British, I would definitely say that their is a stronger feeling of guilt there. And the whole affair has been compared to Americans in general. I don't subscribe to this view, but I do wonder if the opposite opinion is, in general, held by the states.

What I mean is this:

UK: American girl kills poor British girl. Money thrown at case. Tramples all over local justice.

US: Innocent angel held captive by evil foreigners. But we'll get her back.

See what I'm saying? Am I right?
Click to expand...


No.
 
good idea

icerat said:
I have in fact had that precise thought. The innocenceproject is working on it in the US. There is little elsewhere I can find. Amnesty does it, but with political prisoners, not cases like this.

It strikes me that crowd-sourcing of rational minds used to logically evaluating data and evidence could be a powerful resource.

If anyone else is interested, I'm more than willing to support and set up the necessary internet resources. A forum for discussing cases, a wiki for collating information, an area for translation of materials, a place for people to register cases they'd like us to consider, a register of experts in different fields etc etc.
Click to expand...
This sounds like an excellent idea. There is a subforum at Injustice in Perugia where this should be reposted.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
But why does this bother you?
Click to expand...

Because there but the grace of god goes I and my kin. I don't like the world they have created and will fight it till the day I die!!

From the comfort of my home, sitting in a nice leather chair, behind my Mk1 Mod 0 fighting keyboard.
 
halides1 said:
Meredith did not complain; she showed them to Robyn (she also asked Amanda for condoms on one occasion). The vibrator was a joke gift, and there was not much storage space in the bathroom. As for the tampons, I did not recall that. However if that is true, then they are one more potential source of DNA in the shared bathroom.
Click to expand...

Condoms and vibrators have nothing to do with Maciavelli's claim that we know for certain that Meredith felt Amanda was not clean. What the Italian girls said about both of them have nothing to do with that either. The tampon thing I don't recall from Massei and I don't believe I have seen that one before either, a cite would certainly be helpful. At this point I consider what Machiavelli stated as unsupported and the mixed blood nonsense is just that.
 
Swimfish said:
Because there but the grace of god goes I and my kin. I don't like the world they have created and will fight it till the day I die!!
Click to expand...

I've been to Italy many times. Some years ago I was going through Marco Polo airport (Venice) when the drug dogs started circling the luggage I was dragging. Ended up they were concerned about a bag of one of my colleagues, who immediately admitted ownership. The police went through the bag then and there on a desk, in front of the public.

Fortunately they found nothing of concern and we went on our way.

How easy would it have been for something to have been planted?
(Schapelle Corby anyone?)

It could have been us. It could have been anyone. I think the Knox/Sollecito case strikes because they weren't only so obviously innocent - they were so obviously innocent - young, naive, inexperienced.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
Not sure what's ironic about it if I'm honest, so you've got me there.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said.

I just thought it was funny the way you posted on a thread to ask why people were posting on a thread. It's not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last, but I reserve the right to laugh every time nonetheless.

What is your opinion on the newspaper reports from across the pond?
Click to expand...

I find it's best not to express an opinion on things I haven't yet read.

And what's your reasoning for continued posting?
Click to expand...

Enjoyment. Same as most people here, I would imagine - including you.
 
halides1 said:
Malfie Henpox,

Fine by me. You can find among Ms. Knox's and Mr. Sollecito's supporters some people who have previous experience with wrongful accusations and wrongful convictions. I doubt that they will stop what they are doing any time soon.

With respect to the press, I would say that the British tabloid press has been very hard on Knox, printing many things that were completely untrue. Even the British mainstream press has made a number of erroneous statements about the case; especially notable are articles written by Richard Owen and John Follain. I am under the impression that Italian coverage changed over time, but I don't speak the language.

American press has been more favorable to Knox, but there were significant exceptions in all three nations. Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter were strongly anti-Knox. Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, and Candace Dempsey all have some ties to Italy, but the first two were strongly anti-Knox in their coverage, whereas Dempsey has been more pro-Knox.
Click to expand...

The british tabs were horrible. Anyone doubting this should go back and read the stories about her wild party life and how she had to compete with her mother for the affection of men.

Barbie is, well Barbie, a little like the doll but not obviously blond. Vogt took the PG side to the extent of actually using a fashion house marketer with a BS in biology as her forensic expert because that person posted on P**.

Although at this time Dempsey appears to be correct in supporting not guilty, she is a horrible reporter if that's what she alleges to be.

The guy named Rizzo IIRC did good reporting and some of the national/international sources were at least balanced.

It is interesting to me that a case that had so much interest for such a long period of time didn't seem to draw first class reporters. Vogt and Nadeau were literally travelzine stringers and restaurant reviewers before the murder. Dempsey had a food blog.

Pisa, Popham, Owen, Follian and Squires at least seemed to be "real" reproters.
 
halides1 said:
MH,

A straw man is an argument that is deliberately crafted to be weak, that one knocks down. I don't see the term "innocent angel" in the Egan article. The title is "Innocent abroad." Angel face is a term used to describe Knox, but usually it is meant in an unflattering way (as in the title of Barbie Nadeau's book). Occasionally one hears variations such as calling her the ice eyed angel, or variations thereof, thanks to mainstream journalists, such as Richard Owen.
Click to expand...

I think the wikipedia definition of Straw Man gives a better feel for how it is actually used.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.
 
RoseMontague said:
Wow, that is a very misleading headline and is contradicted by the article itself. An example of poor journalism.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the headline is contradicted by the article.

Commentary: What Will Happen to Rudy Guede?

In light of Knox and Sollecito’s release, Guede now says he’s also going to ask for a retrial. The difference for Guede, however, is that he’s far less of a sympathetic case than Knox. A smalltime drug dealer and Black African immigrant, Guede's case is not the same kind of front-page tabloid fodder as Knox, a pretty, young white American woman. To many people, Guede looks like a killer, while Knox does not. That’s not to say that the Italian courts are necessarily racist, of course. But the facts are the facts: The white woman and man are free. The Black man remains in prison.


It would be better if they mentioned the evidence he left behind, the initial story he told his friend by Skype and his recent, at the time, history of second story break ins and the use of knives.
 
It could have been us. It could have been anyone. I think the Knox/Sollecito case strikes because they weren't only so obviously innocent - they were so obviously innocent - young, naive, inexperienced.
Click to expand...


So were the Jamie Bulger killers.

In fact jails are jam full of wide-eyed young, naive, inexperienced...innocents.
 
At this point I consider what Machiavelli stated as unsupported and the mixed blood nonsense is just that.
Click to expand...

The Oracle has spoken.

Throw the Judges 400 page DNA document in the bin..its worthless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom