Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

Hm, no. I'd say that sums up your speech pretty accurately and takes a lot less typing.

Everybody with an IQ above common toast knows PMF is a one-track mind forum where an open debate is not welcome (no matter how you call it). So you could at least have the cojones and avow yourself to that fact.

Show some honesty...

There is nothing wrong with having a closed forum. Why the pretense though? Just say it's a closed forum set up for those who believe in guilt. We know that is what it is, but the song and dance to pretend its otherwise is ridiculous. The IIP forum was set up as a support group and was closed to others but it was clear about it. The open forum thread was a nice additon when added. It's great there is a place where everyone is welcome to speak.

 

[Antony]

Could we limit the number of emotions to 2 per post?

I'm against having rules like this, but over-use of emoticons does tend to tell us something about the poster. The thing that makes PMF hard to read for me, more than the black background (which I find entirely benign) is the liking of the regular contributors for dotting their posts with dancing icons.

ETA: also the wide-screen setting, which when read on an old laptop either means reducing the definition to an impossible degree, or constantly scrolling right and left. Fortunately the white pages word-wrap to the window size - it's just the black page that doesn't. Pity there isn't an option to hide the dancing anthropomorphic tennis balls.

 

[Antony]

You didn't need to explain about your poor mother Bruce. Nobody cares what PMF thinks or says about this. It is no ones business. It's a very sad part of American culture imo opinion that it would be considered strange to live with extended family anyway. She could have just been a widow who didn't want to live alone. Would it be so bad for her to live with her family who loves her? Really pathetic that they went there. Sorry again to hear about your mom.

Agreed absolutely. The behaviour you describe, Bruce, is truly shocking, but for some reason it doesn't surprise me any more.

 

[LondonJohn]

Agreed absolutely. The behaviour you describe, Bruce, is truly shocking, but for some reason it doesn't surprise me any more.

I find it both astonishing and disturbing that people are going to the lengths of interrogating numerous databases (many of which require paid access) in order to "investigate" people with whose views they disagree. One of them also appears to have made a 100-mile-plus detour in order to stalk this person's workplace and home town. This, to me, is behaviour that is strange and maladjusted in the extreme. I truly think that those who are engaging in such behaviour (and, to a slightly lesser extent, those who delight in it or actively endorse it) probably need professional psychological help with their very evident character disorders. It's sad, obsessive activity at best, and it's indicative of a dangerous sociopathic stalking/harassing disorder at worst.

 

[LondonJohn]

So AK's Nov 15 police slander trial is coming up, will it just be thrown out of court?

I strongly suspect that it will be re-adjourned and deferred to a much later date some time in the new year. I suspect that a decision on future action will be partly based on any potential defence appeal against the Lumumba slander charge (if this charge is successfully appealed, and if Knox is acquitted on retrial, then I suspect the police slander charges would be quietly dropped) and also on a general evaluation as to whether a prosecution is in the public interest. Given that it's inconceivable that Knox would return to Italy to answer the charge, and that she's already spent over three years in prison, it's not unlikely that these factors alone might lead to a dropping of the charges in the new year.

By the way, since I just referred to Knox's near four years in prison, it might be worth re-iterating just how this period of incarceration is currently viewed in law. It is absolutely not correct to suggest that three of these years are "justified" by Knox's guilty position on the Lumumba slander charge. In fact, this conviction has to be ratified by the Supreme Court before it takes effect, and no sentence can be handed down before that process either. Therefore, Knox has unequivocally NOT served a three-year prison sentence for that crime. Every single day of her incarceration currently has the status of remand rather than the serving of a custodial sentence: Knox is currently entirely innocent in law of the Lumumba slander charge. If (and it's no more than an "if") Knox is ultimately convicted of this charge by the Supreme Court, then the sentence will be applied retroactively. Only at that point will it be correct to say that Knox has served three years in prison for the criminal slander of Lumumba.

 

[Caper]

London John,
Do you have a legal background. You seem like one smart dude.

 

[Rolfe]

You didn't need to explain about your poor mother Bruce. Nobody cares what PMF thinks or says about this. It is no ones business. It's a very sad part of American culture imo opinion that it would be considered strange to live with extended family anyway. She could have just been a widow who didn't want to live alone. Would it be so bad for her to live with her family who loves her? Really pathetic that they went there. Sorry again to hear about your mom.

I got the same thing from some posters, before my mother died. I lived alone for 25 years, but in 2006 when my mother was 90 we decided to buy a house together so she wasn't living alone. We found a great property with a "dowager suite" of bedroom, en suite shower room and sitting room, on the ground floor, self-contained but still part of the main house. This arrangement meant that she never had to consider moving into care.

And yes, I got "dude, you live with your mom!" from some adolescent idiots.

Rolfe.

 

[Moss]

If they really show that kind of behaviour over at PMF I would consider going to the law. Even if they can not do anything about because no crime has been committed yet they will have to make notes which can be used later if anything happens.
There really is no excuse for such behaviour.

 

[Fine]

We should know within a week or so whether Sabrina and her mom, Cosima, will be indicted and tried for the murder of Sarah Scazzi. The preliminary hearing judge, Pompeo Carriere, said he'd decide by November 21. (HERE.) And the only physical evidence---that I'm aware of---linking Sabrina and Cosima to the murder has been discredited. A forensic scientist says the stain found in the back seat of Cosima's automobile ain't Sarah's blood. (HERE.)

///

 

[RoseMontague]

An Umbria24 poll asking for an opinion on the acquittal:

Cosa pensi dell'assoluzione di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito?

* Penso che siano colpevoli ma non c'erano le prove sufficienti per condannarli (33%, 62 Voti)
* L'ennesimo esempio di malagiustizia in Italia (22%, 41 Voti)
* Sono contrario, due assassini in libertà (18%, 35 Voti)
* Sull'assoluzione ha pesato la pressione dei media specialmente Usa (16%, 31 Voti)
* Sono d'accordo, ho sempre pensato che fossero innocenti (11%, 21 Voti)

Totale Votanti: 190

Guilty, bad decision 18%
Guilty, but not enough evidence 33%
Latest example of injustice in Italy 22%
Result of US pressure 16%
Innocent from the beginning 11%

http://www.umbria24.it/

 

[pilot padron]

Very Interesting poll, Rose

An Umbria24 poll asking for an opinion on the acquittal:

Guilty, bad decision 18%
Guilty, but not enough evidence 33%
Latest example of injustice in Italy 22%
Result of US pressure 16%
Innocent from the beginning 11%

http://www.umbria24.it/

The scant 11% believing in innocence from the beginning is of course the salient point for me.

I mention that with no gloating, and only a small sense of satisfaction.
This, because such statistical endeavors have obvious shortcomings.

Nevertheless, to me it is very significant that apparently only 11% of respondents agree with what is at best a very, very strong majority opinion here.
And at worst, simply a very long in tooth, very well worn talking point with near zero factual foundation.
Yet one that gets unwarranted attention and undue dissemination here.

A talking point that is unquestionably repeated ad nauseam here.
A talking point that often is combined with plentiful insults.
Insults directed to anyone favoring the views of 89% of above respondents.
Generic insults of course, so as to be MA acceptable.

With no personal satisfaction nor gloating intended, I close with a simple observation supported by the survey.
The ignorance so widely attributed to persons favoring guilt apparently is not confined to the guilters still here.(both of us)
Nor to the (hated) haters at PMF/TJMK who are all usually dismissed here as idiots and morons anyway.

And a BTW:
Rose, your impartiality and willingness to share information that is contrary to your own beliefs is a rare character trait in such Forums;here and 'elsewhere'.

May I again applaud you and your arguments for integrity as well as exemplary content, courtesy, and presentation.
Indeed, a model for all of us.

 

[RoseMontague]

The scant 11% believing in innocence from the beginning is of course the salient point for me.

I agree. It is interesting, that "scant" 11%.

Here is a quote from another local news source that Frank mentions:

They won, but did not convince us. We are with Comodi, Mignini, with police inspectors and even with Dr. Stefanoni

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/ca...solve-suo-pm-e-sua-polizia-impalati-dagli-usa

Question for me, is this opinion due to National pride, is it real, or is it another case of Let's Pretend.

 

[Caper]

You can hang your hat on that pp.

She will never have to spend another day in jail ever again. Hopefully the prosecutor will go to jail....

and you can have your big victory on the web poll.

 

[JREF2010]

I find it both astonishing and disturbing that people are going to the lengths of interrogating numerous databases (many of which require paid access) in order to "investigate" people with whose views they disagree. One of them also appears to have made a 100-mile-plus detour in order to stalk this person's workplace and home town. This, to me, is behavior that is strange and maladjusted in the extreme. I truly think that those who are engaging in such behavior (and, to a slightly lesser extent, those who delight in it or actively endorse it) probably need professional psychological help with their very evident character disorders. It's sad, obsessive activity at best, and it's indicative of a dangerous sociopathic stalking/harassing disorder at worst.

LJ, remember Charlie mentioning to take the stalkers seriously? Charlie made a statement about being concerned of some of them, and the reality of this world what stalkers can do in the end.

 

[JREF2010]

You can hang your hat on that pp.

She will never have to spend another day in jail ever again. Hopefully the prosecutor will go to jail....

and you can have your big victory on the web poll.

How long does Migninni have before he is finally dealt with? He reminds me of the Penn State crime, where everyone is looking the other way, pretending to not notice, allowing the crime to continue.

Migninni needs to go retire, I can only wonder how many other innocents he's had locked up over his satanic beliefs and witch hunts over the years.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

22% think it is the latest example of injustice in Italy

I agree. It is interesting, that "scant" 11%.

Here is a quote from another local news source that Frank mentions:



http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/ca...solve-suo-pm-e-sua-polizia-impalati-dagli-usa

Question for me, is this opinion due to National pride, is it real, or is it another case of Let's Pretend.

RoseMontague,

I am not sure what the 22% means. Does it mean that these people thought that the initial conviction was an injustice? If so, then it suggests that 33% believe the pair to be innocent.

 

[bri1]

An Umbria24 poll asking for an opinion on the acquittal:



Guilty, bad decision 18%
Guilty, but not enough evidence 33%
Latest example of injustice in Italy 22%
Result of US pressure 16%
Innocent from the beginning 11%

http://www.umbria24.it/

If this was framed as you say, Rose, (opinion on acquittal- verdict- rather than opinion on factual guilt or innocence), then we can count:
the 11% (innocent from the beginning) and the 33% (not enough evidence), totalling 44% of respondents believing that the verdict was just.

 

[katy_did]

RoseMontague,

I am not sure what the 22% means. Does it mean that these people thought that the initial conviction was an injustice? If so, then it suggests that 33% believe the pair to be innocent.

That's how I read it at first too, halides. If it doesn't mean that, then what option would you choose if you thought they were guilty at first but now think they're innocent?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That's how I read it at first too, halides. If it doesn't mean that, then what option would you choose if you thought they were guilty at first but now think they're innocent?

Katy_did,

When I first read it, I thought that perhaps the 22% believed that the decision of the appeals court was an injustice. However, your interpretation makes more sense.

 

[Dougm]

If this was framed as you say, Rose, (opinion on acquittal- verdict- rather than opinion on factual guilt or innocence), then we can count:
the 11% (innocent from the beginning) and the 33% (not enough evidence), totalling 44% of respondents believing that the verdict was just.

Not to jump on this totally from an innocence perspective, because I can accept the fact that the general public, in Italy, and elsewhere, has not studied the case indepth. However, it appears to me that, if one were doing some statistical grouping with this survey, we would have the following:

Wrong decision:

* Guilty, bad decision -- 18% +
* Result of US pressure -- 16%
= 34%

Correct decision to acquit:

* Guilty, but not enough evidence -- 33% +
* Latest example of injustice in Italy -- 22% +
* Innocent to begin with -- 11%
= 66%

Unless I read this incorrectly, the poll means that 66% of the respondents are saying they agree with the decision, regardless of their POV of guilt of innocence. Am I right?

PS -- I rethought this, and I am not sure what the 22% means (per earlier posters comments). Injustice in what way? So my numbers agreeing may be too high.