Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bill Williams]

The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.

I'll repeat a post I made on IIP - when I first caught wind of this case, it was the debunking of the DNA evidence last summer against RS and AK which threw me into it. I had not found the IIP site back then, so went to the TJMK site.

On it was a long discussion about how FR's window was un-enterable, because of its height above the ground, the nature of the shutters, and a nail halfway up the wall that still is there undisturbed.

That image sat in the back of my mind for a few months, "How the heck could RG get up that wall?"

Then a recent post on this topic twigged my memory of when our windows in our three-storey house were replaced. When I contracted to have them done, I walked around the house and wondered, "How the heck are they going to get up to the third level? That wall is unscalable and there's no room for scaffolding?"

Suffice it to say that what was unscalable to my eye - once the young workers arrived, they were veritable Spidermen. They saw ways to climb a sheer wall that I had missed, and discounted as helpful.

Fact was, it was unscalable for me. These guys were mountain goats. Young guys with no fear, who hung from third storey heights with no visible means of support - no rigging, just their instinct and chutzpah.!

I then went back to the TJMK page and found it's "proof" that RG could not have scaled the wall. To a second storey window. Suddenly the "proof" seemed a little less sure..... to put it mildly.

Not only could Rudy have scaled that wall effortlessly, he would have broken the window and have been in through it in seconds. Afterall it is his M.O.!

 

[Keeper]

The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.

Thanks.

 

[smkovalinksy]

This is very much related to a perception that I have about innocentisti's belief as racist. Where the terms "racist" does not refer to skin colour or etnicity, but define a set of prejudicial beliefs and attitudes. On one hand, Amanda Knox deserves a special "innocent" bias (consious or unconsciously) not because just white and American but because familiar, similar to yuo, to your normality, to what you value and what you understand and wish to trust, someone who just represents your own normality and values. The idea that evil comes from within - your sister, your trusted normality, your home values - is something istinctively repulsive, disturbing, unacceptable; innocence of a familiar person who represents positive things represents in a degree the confirmation of an equilibrium of identity, of self trust.
On the other hand, to balance this need you project a generous load of prejudice on people and worlds which you don't know anything about. That you admittedly don't understand and possibly you have never seen. While after all, the idea that they don't matter (judges they are all crows, coterie), people they are all messy and different, even if they answer polls and speak against authority they probably act falsely because of local pride, and similar things.

I could not disagree more fully. As an American, I believe Knox exudes an aura of "the Other". Plenty of Americans hated her and even now still believe her guilty, despite the fair hair and skin, the blue eyes, and the soccer. I think it is this quality of "otherness" which got her into trouble, here and abroad, as I said in my above post. There is something foreign about her to her own people. Not to all - albeit, to a significant number.

Most Americans love Italy and Italians: Italy exudes a romantic aura, and one of good food, passion, and a classical history of the arts. Perugia is seen as beautiful and romantic. Mignini may be despised by some despite and not because he is Italian. I am an Italian-American and grew up in an area where almost everyone had an Italian last name, was Catholic, and took trips to Rome and Florence. I attended a college that was the same.

Amanda came to be viewed as innocent because the facts were not adding up. Nothing more than that, sorry to tell you.

 

[Machiavelli]

….
Incidentally, does the above include 'fast track' cases or well, or just the three stage trials? I understand that 'fast track' can also yield an acquittal, but that's even rarer than normal, right?
Would it be considered extraordinary, (in murder cases) or does it happen sometimes when the prosecution has a really weak case and the defendant just wants to get it over with?

No, acquittal on fast track trial is not that extraordinary. For example the most recent high profile case was the Garlasco murder, where Alberto Stasi was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence in first instance with a short trial. His appeal is starting now.
For short trial (or fast trial) maybe to avoid confusion we should just use the Italian term rito abbreviato (abbreviated procedure). That is the legal option we are talking about.

I think most time the rito abbreviato is opted because of a likely conviction, but it is not always so; sometimes the defendant chooses the option to exploit some basic shortcoming in the preliminary investigation, or because doesn’t expect to find further evidence in their defence, doesn’t have witnesses or experts.
It is not frequent, but not really something extraordinary. And it is not a matter of weak case versus strong defence, it is rather a technical strategy that may depend on the kind of evidence that the defence deems available. It is a strategy that exploits timings and time limitations in evidence collection.

So a handful of cases in those years that you can recall, perhaps not representative. I wonder just how much the media interest in the case perhaps impacts decisions made by the prosecutors and judges, or if the media naturally follows the cases in which unusual things happen?

The media are usually much more sober and less judgemental than you may think. However, reporters on main newspapers are specialized in murder investigations and usually perceive – and convey - the correct findings and the state of investigation/trial. There are no British – style tabloids, in fat there are some weekly magazines with this styles (like Oggi) but are marginal.

I see that twice the Supreme Court of Cassation has struck down an acquittal, though it doesn't look like it was for a good cause.

What do you mean for “good cause”? Franzoni was certainly guilty.

Even Mignini thinks they got the wrong guys in the Monster of Florence cases, doesn't he?

I have really no idea, but at the end of the Pacciani – Vanni trial there was an acknowledgment that the Monster was not a lone person, and possibly there was a higher level, a mastermind. The Monster of Florence was actually suspected of being a series of ritual murders of a satanic sect, resembling other cases of serial ritualistic murders that were later discovered in Italy, committed by sectarian groups. Mignini did not produce a satanic ritual theory on the Monster of Florence: the theory already existed, had been put forward officially. Moreover, doctor Narducci had fallen in suspicion since prior to Mignini entry in the story.

Incidentally, do you know what grounds the Court of Cassation used to scuttle the convictions?

The convictions, I don’t know. I only know something in detail about the Franzoni acquittal: this was annulled on several reasons, among them because the Cassazione found that the concept of “reasonable doubt” had not been not applied properly, the doubt as motivated was not reasonable.

Unfortunately I find quite difficult to make predictions on Supreme Court's decisions. I lack specific competence, and there is an intrinsic unpredictable element. The grounds can be very technical and reasons may appear exhoteric and bizarre to the normal observer taking in account only facts and evidence.

What does 'short track' mean in the Cogne case? At first I figured it was just a synonym for 'fast track' but the sequence of events doesn't match.

It’s always rito abbreviato, always the same thing. The term “fast” is relative, given that the Cogne process lasted 8 years.

Here's something else also interesting, this is Pictor's chart that he uploaded to PMF that Rose reposted recently. What does all of this mean for sure? I can puzzle some of it out, and I realize it's only for the Bologna Appeals court from 2001 to 2003 and it appears some of the data is only for six month periods, but I'm curious as to some of the results and what they might mean.

For example, just going by 'figura 15' for the category of 'violenza,' which I take to mean violent crime, it appears for 2001 and the first half of 2002 that 55.35% were modified. Would that be the definition applied to Amanda's case as the sentence was reduced to three years?

Yes. Although this is a very unusual case of “partial modification”. Partial modification usually is something minor like Rudy Guede’s sentence reduction. Technically however also the Sollecito-Knox verdict is only partly changed, not overturned. Knox technically still lost, she was found guilty on one of the charges.

That's what I thought, do you foresee the possibility of the calunnia charge being struck down, and what is the status of the other two calunnia charges brought by police and the case against the Sollecitos? Those are tough to get info on!

What I anticipate as most likely, is that the charges of calunnia and murder won’t be quashed or confirmed each one standing itself. A separate decision won’t be just seen as logically and procedurally possible; I think instead the verdict with the two charges will just be assessed as good or bad as a whole. The cassazione will only decide if the verdict can stand toghether as it is, if it’s consistent logically and procedurally, or not. If the supreme court doesn’t like it, they will send back the verdict and order a new trial on all charges.

 

[Rolfe]

As I have said elsewhere, this would have been true for many, but for the PMFs, if things were turned around, and Knox were the victim, they would have simply never noticed the case. They would be neutral and uninterested.

They might say in passing, "Do you think that Kercher girl really did the murder, or is it trumped up charges? Hard to tell." and there would be no forum. Amanda made them smell blood, and like sharks, they circled in for the kill. Somehow Amanda exudes a weakness that Kercher would not have exuded. It is a frightening fact of life, that a weakness will make certain mean-spirited humans just drool with a desire to devour. I have provoked many a person myself, simply because I share (or actually shared, because it was more pronounced in my youth) that will-o'-the -wisp quality which just drives the mean and the haughty crazy.

Hard to say. We've been able to see very little of Meredith as she was. I'm not convinced there's anything particular about Amanda that singled her out for the opprobrium, other than simply being accused.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Hard to say. We've been able to see very little of Meredith as she was. I'm not convinced there's anything particular about Amanda that singled her out for the opprobrium, other than simply being accused.

Rolfe.

Well, you may be right. I would like to think that most people would have to have something more than that, but I have a tendency to read deep, psychological motives into actions. You may just be right. Intuitively, though, I believe Amanda was especially vulnerable to people like those at pmf. ETA: And I believe Kercher would have handled herself more shrewdly. It may well have been an open, innocent, candor on the part of Knox which was unjustly her downfall.

 

[Antony]

No, my thinking is not conclusion-driven; it is driven by consistence.
I require logical tightness between elements. Logical continuity. A series of many likely details that follow as natural course, not a series of disconnected answers, each one of them intrinsically unlikely.

Machiavelli, I think others will be the judge of the "logical tightness" of your arguments. You seem to have a fondness for making positive statements about your own analysis - this is what is known as "blowing your own trumpet" in the UK. It doesn't do anything for your credibility; people whose arguments really are "consistent", "articulate", "well-grounded" and all the rest don't need to go around saying so.

I really don't have time to engage in any more "no it isn't" "yes it is" exchanges. If you are determined to have the last word over the points I've raised and regard that as some kind of victory, then it will be by persistence rather than having any reason on your side.

The killer was in a hurry and a state of agitation at the enormity of what he had done (never having murdered anybody before). He cleaned the blood off his own clothes as best he could, mopped up the immediate signs of having done this using the towels that were to hand, but overlooked his own footprint in blood and water on the bathmat. He dumped the towels in the murder room and locked the door, but in the frenzy of the events, forgot about his own faeces in the unflushed toilet in the other bathroom. There is absolutely no contradiction between his hasty clean-up in the bathroom, and the uncleaned traces elsewhere in the flat.

This is not reasonable: it’s just totally inconsistent. This one is indeed a rickety concocted conclusion-driven scenario, made of unrelated bits, each unlikely unsupported and unconnected. It is not driven by tightness of logical binding.

You really think that? Let's just list the evidence at the scene:

• broken window in bedroom 1;
• faeces in toilet in bathroom 1;
• isolated bare footprint in diluted blood in bathroom 2;
• specks of blood on fitments in bathroom 2;
• diluted blood remaining in drains outlets in fitments in bathroom 2;
• barely-visible shoeprints in blood in hallway;
• dead woman, masses of blood, fingerprints and DNA, plus blood-soaked towels taken from bathroom 2, all in bedroom 2;
• DNA from faeces in bathroom 1 matches DNA found in bedroom 2, and does not belong to members of household.

All of this is adequately explained by a break-in and murder committed by a single intruder, who cleaned himself up in bathroom 2. It's starting from the evidence, and leads to the conclusion; this is evidence-driven thinking, so not "totally inconsistent", not "rickety" and not "concocted".

Instead, the interpretation you favour involves 3 people with no evidence to support the presence of the other 2; "staging" of the break-in with no evidence that that happened; and a clean-up in the apartment outside bathroom 2 with no evidence to support it. This can fairly be described as conclusion-driven thinking; since the necessary evidence is missing, the "staging" of the break-in and the clean-up need to be invented to account for it.

...

The accounts of this piece of evidence are on the page http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html. Setting aside anything you think about the analysis presented on that page, do you agree that the 3 images towards the bottom of the page, of the bathmat print, "Rudy's footprint" and "Raffale's footprint" are correctly attributed? ...

Just to start, the pictures pasted in that paste are at a different scale. In order to make a reasoning, you should start from setting measurements and images at the same scale. This very first passage is totally missing.
There is absolutely nothing resembling a reasoning in the iip page.

That may be a fair point to start, but what about answering the question? Are these 3 images what they are presented as, on the IIP website? Since you do not answer, I will repeat the sentence of mine which you cut out:

The shape of the big toe on the print corresponds closely to Rudy Guede, and is quite different from Raffaele. In the face of these images, your assertion of the opposite has no credibility.
​

About the proof, I did not make allusions: I stated, and explained (on this forum) that I have made a research on the bathmat print, a visual analysis, but did not post my results. And I am not going to post it on this forum. However I will make it available elsewhere soon or later.

These are empty words. We have seen the images of the bathmat footprint and the reference prints from Guede and from Raffaele. There is no way the print came from Raffaele, and no way that Guede can be excluded.

You are not respectful for a specific reason: because you dare to make unsupported judgements about others. You state that you "know" why a person does or does not a certain thing, and what would do if. This is not correct because it's making statements on things you don't know, you shall just be humble about what you don't know concerning any person (not just me) and just assume that you don't know the personal reasons why people do or don't do something. There are people who are intrusive and provocative in their "guessing" about others.

All this because I state "you do not post the evidence because no such evidence exists". Let's just keep to the subject under discussion, shall we, and whether the claims made by the different sides stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Diocletus]

However, this view of things is also an expression of xenophobic prejudice. In fact it is equivalent to picturing a society where everything is corruption and fraud. That their decisions and rules after all don't matter and don't deserve to be given any weight any meaning, everytning is sullied and there is no right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that "your" kid comes back to the civilized world. This is very much related to a perception that I have about innocentisti's belief as racist. Where the terms "racist" does not refer to skin colour or etnicity, but define a set of prejudicial beliefs and attitudes. On one hand, Amanda Knox deserves a special "innocent" bias (consious or unconsciously) not because just white and American but because familiar, similar to yuo, to your normality, to what you value and what you understand and wish to trust, someone who just represents your own normality and values. The idea that evil comes from within - your sister, your trusted normality, your home values - is something istinctively repulsive, disturbing, unacceptable; innocence of a familiar person who represents positive things represents in a degree the confirmation of an equilibrium of identity, of self trust.
On the other hand, to balance this need you project a generous load of prejudice on people and worlds which you don't know anything about. That you admittedly don't understand and possibly you have never seen. While after all, the idea that they don't matter (judges they are all crows, coterie), people they are all messy and different, even if they answer polls and speak against authority they probably act falsely because of local pride, and similar things.

Wow. And here I was thought that the reason I thought Knox was innocent was because of the evidence, and it turns out it's just because I'm a racist. And I thought the process sucked because the cops and Stefanoni lied and the judge was a nitwit, but in reality, they're just different. Who knew.

 

[Machiavelli]

I could not disagree more fully. As an American, I believe Knox exudes an aura of "the Other". Plenty of Americans hated her and even now still believe her guilty, despite the fair hair and skin, the blue eyes, and the soccer. I think it is this quality of "otherness" which got her into trouble, here and abroad, as I said in my above post. There is something foreign about her to her own people. Not to all - albeit, to a significant number.

Most Americans love Italy and Italians: Italy exudes a romantic aura, and one of good food, passion, and a classical history of the arts. Perugia is seen as beautiful and romantic. ...

When I say "you" I am not talking to this forum in general, but rather about a number of people who expressed their empathy and understanding of Amanda Knox, or their trust in her innocence on very personal, profile-related motivations.
Yes, but some of the very same people who express this form of racism also express their fascination with Perugia or Italy as beautiful and romantic (see as example Candace Dempsey). This is not different from Orientalism as defined by E. Said: an aura, possible expressions of love or fascination mystery dream beauty and exoticism, but then a veil of stereotypes comes down to map areas of lack of knowledge and intellectual dark.
Anyway the posts defining Hellmann as one of the crows leave really no room for doubt: position like js2's and Randy N's are explicilty racist. The same goes for Bruce, Mary H and others. Others remark rigid etno-centric moral criteria (as Diocletus). RoseMontague is unfortunately also utterly prejudicial (in her case this might be not even so related to the personality of Knox) but on a totally different and more respectful level. It's quite clear that these positions are all slanted into employing prejudicial paradigms. The areas of dark in their knowledge are room to construct the wild fantasies needed to back their scenarios.
However I'm not criticizing you if you don't see it in my sam way. What I am saying is based on the words these posters write, these concepts are clear, independent from a general view that Amereicans like Italy and think it's a romantic place.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is very much related to a perception that I have about innocentisti's belief as racist. Where the terms "racist" does not refer to skin colour or etnicity, but define a set of prejudicial beliefs and attitudes.

I could not disagree more fully. As an American, I believe Knox exudes an aura of "the Other".
Amanda came to be viewed as innocent because the facts were not adding up. Nothing more than that, sorry to tell you.

It's why the lady with the scales is blindfolded. It is completely irrelevant whether or not AK is a true innocent in the psychological sense, or is a wiley, conniving schemer....

She could be either by character. But none of that makes her innocent or guilty in this case. It is not about mythologizing her character as either a vestil virgin or as the embodiment of Hades-on-earth.....

Truth is, she's not much different than ANY of her flatmates as they existed in the early morning of Nov 1, 2007. AK was a bit of a slob to live with, did socially unacceptable things like sang outloud, but each and every one of the flatmates had their own peculiarities.

On the morning of Nov 1 there was nothing particularly remarkable or mythological about any of them.

The lady with the scales is blindfolded - how's that for mythologizing the law! Fact is, I agree smkovalinksy, no matter the character assessment of ANYONE in that cottage as of Nov 1st, the evidence just isn't there which says that AK or RS did anything at the cottage until 10:30 on Nov 2nd, when AK admits to taking a shower - and being a tad gormless about the condition of the cottage.

All of that is in full character. And what she did do was seek the advice of others as to what to do. Rather than keep the condition of the cottage a secret, to be discovered by others (giving her a better alibi), she blabbed to all who would listen, all of whom said, "Call the police, you gormless git!" Or variations on this.

She even called MK's cell to see if MK had an explanation of why the cottage was the way it was. It would have been merciful for all to have had MK answer that call.

AK's actions in that critical period reveal nothing other than a person who's a bit of a fish out of water and about to reap a whirlwind not of her making.

 

[Antony]

Hellmann has already said there was no evidence of a break-in.

You mean, of course, "there was no evidence of a staged break-in". Hellmann's judgement implies that the break-in was a real one.

 

[Bill Williams]

You mean, of course, "there was no evidence of a staged break-in". Hellmann's judgement implies that the break-in was a real one.

Amanda and Raffaele were charged with "interference with a crime-scene", which would include both a staged-break in and a clean up. The judgment of the Hellmann court was, "the crime did not take place," meaning the staged-break in and the clean up did not take place. My reading of it is that Hellmann's judgment leaves no room for "someone else did those things".

You are correct, this implies that the break in was real.

 

[Skind]

The truth is that the lawyer easily climbed up the grating below the window, reached the sill and would have jumped in, if the window blinds were not sealed shut by the cops - an obvious fact that Foolain somehow missed. Another fact is that the climber still had a foothold or two to step up when he grabbed the window sill - Rudy's body size is a non-issue.
Photos of the stunt are all over the net.

Thank you, it never occured to me that the shutters were sealed shut.

Given that Filomena said that the shutters didn't always close properly, it should have been obvious to me.

Anywho, it's quite interesting that PMF and TJMK describe the attempt as 'halfway up the wall', when he's clearly breaching the lip of the sill and that he still has 2 more footholds to go.

This is despite being a lawyer, wearing unsuitable shoes, and not likely to have much experience at this sort of thing.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's why the lady with the scales is blindfolded. It is completely irrelevant whether or not AK is a true innocent in the psychological sense, or is a wiley, conniving schemer....

.....
All of that is in full character. And what she did do was seek the advice of others as to what to do. Rather than keep the condition of the cottage a secret, to be discovered by others (giving her a better alibi), she blabbed to all who would listen, all of whom said, "Call the police, you gormless git!" Or variations on this.

She even called MK's cell to see if MK had an explanation of why the cottage was the way it was. It would have been merciful for all to have had MK answer that call.

AK's actions in that critical period reveal nothing other than a person who's a bit of a fish out of water and about to reap a whirlwind not of her making.

Correct to say that her psychological profile doesn't matter to establish inocence.
But, Amanda Knox did not behave strangely: facts are that Knox told a series of lies. Se told a fictional story instead of a true testimony. She was a false witness and a manipulator.
This alone, might be insufficient to convict, but it is strong evidence against her in my opinion.

 

[Skind]

Skind, it's a news online poll. It is not meant to be logical. It's meant to be distinguished in less than five seconds by an average reader. This is why it is loaded with slogans.

I very clearly was not referencing the poll, but that response that indicated that the second part of a two part answer was redundant.

Answer that observation please, not one you chose to make up.

I realise English is your second (or third or fourth if you're like any of the Italians I know) language, but it's highly doubtful that you honestly and legitimately misread my statement as referring to the poll.

I am forced to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you yet again answer observations in just the right way to appear to be answering them, yet you inadvertantly betray yourself just enough for it to be reasonable to suspect that you misanswered the observations on purpose.

This has been you behaviour throughout and I am far from the only person to have caught you at it red-handed.

Get back to the topic please and do it properly this time.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, I think others will be the judge of the "logical tightness" of your arguments...

Here the point is technical. Defensive alternative must not be a series of unlikely and weak alternative explanations. The defensive points must also be strong, not systematically weaker compared to the guilty scenario. In fact we are not speaking about my arguments. What I am saying is that I reject the scenario of Guede-rinses-his-trousers because the whole series of explanations is made of weak elements not tightened together. It is a series of unlikely events not supported by a strong logical backbone. This is my final judgement on them, if I have to say why I reject them, I have to give this judgement. It is full of holes, it is not consistent and not consequent.

I really don't have time to engage in any more "no it isn't" "yes it is" exchanges.

Neither do I but that’s what I think.

You really think that? Let's just list the evidence at the scene:

I have to point out here that “my” list of what I consider evidence is very different from yours. Everything rests on this.
I gave a summary of its main points in my answer to LashL. But it is just a summary of the areas. The physical details that I consider evidence of staging/break in are many and organized o each point. And the logical assessment of things - like a cleanup took place - are also different from yours, as for example I explain why I conclude that any evidence of cleanup would be automatically evidence against Knox:

First, a cleanup always indicates the murder is an insider living in the house or very frequent visitor.
Second, burglars in particular don’t have an interest in a cleanup.
Third, this specific burglar gives further demonstration of his having no interest in cleaning up.
Fourth, this “burglar” leaves clear traces of what he did and of his style of moving around.
This is called evidence against Knox. It’s a very simple point.

Moreover, there is no chance to discredit Nara Capezzali.

So, you can understand from the above point, for example, what my logical - and neutral - conclusion on the evidence is, if I come to the conclusion that there is evidence of a cleanup.
Evidence of a cleanup means evidence of Knox's guilt. It is not totally undisputable, but it is evidence. There is a logical, independent consequentiality that determines this point.

That may be a fair point to start, but what about answering the question? Are these 3 images what they are presented as, on the IIP website? Since you do not answer, I will repeat the sentence of mine which you cut out:

The shape of the big toe on the print corresponds closely to Rudy Guede, and is quite different from Raffaele. In the face of these images, your assertion of the opposite has no credibility.
​

The sentence that you quote was not a question, thus it does not deserve an answer. It is just your opinion. I don’t want to argue your opinion, but I disagree, and I don’t use for my assessments the photo published on the IIP page, which is a low quality picture scanned from a copy of the image I have (albeit Jim Lovering claimed for long his was a “special” picture taken under a crimescope controlled- spectrum light).
I think my “credibility” – better to assess the footprint anyway - should be assessed on true quality pictures set in a correct scale, and on some numbers which represent correct measurements.
But I understand that as long as you don’t see the pictures you won’t be convinced.

All this because I state "you do not post the evidence because no such evidence exists". Let's just keep to the subject under discussion, shall we, and whether the claims made by the different sides stand up to scrutiny.

There is nothing personal but I like to clear things. Rush to conclusion is not good, and I don't like exortations to show the cards. I don't feel like following other's pace and requirements.

 

[Bill Williams]

facts are that Knox told a series of lies. Se told a fictional story instead of a true testimony. She was a false witness and a manipulator.
This alone, might be insufficient to convict, but it is strong evidence against her in my opinion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, friend. Whereas what AK signed her name to was false, I would be hard pressed to say that she bore willful false witness. I have been criticized by innocenters by expressing the opinion that AK is convictable on the caluunia charge, but not sentencable.

I do not call what she signed to "lies". Sue me. But I do hold her accountable for not clarifying the record in relation to Lumumba as soon as possible.

But I see her as not sentencable because of the conduct of the police, which created the situation in relation to Lumumba. The police were not neutral parties to this....

Failing to put the mistruths about Lumumba into their proper perspective is misleading. No, not lying, misleading.

 

[Antony]

Correct to say that her psychological profile doesn't matter to establish inocence.
But, Amanda Knox did not behave strangely: facts are that Knox told a series of lies. Se told a fictional story instead of a true testimony. She was a false witness and a manipulator.
This alone, might be insufficient to convict, but it is strong evidence against her in my opinion.

And all invented by the investigators and prosecution, just as they invented the bleach receipts, the missing sweatshirt, the false 11:45 time of death, the luminol footprints in blood, and the rest.

Obviously you will go on believing that there were "lies" from Amanda, but I have seen no evidence of any, just as I have seen no evidence of a "staged" break-in.

 

[smkovalinksy]

When I say "you" I am not talking to this forum in general, but rather about a number of people who expressed their empathy and understanding of Amanda Knox, or their trust in her innocence on very personal, profile-related motivations.
Yes, but some of the very same people who express this form of racism also express their fascination with Perugia or Italy as beautiful and romantic (see as example Candace Dempsey). This is not different from Orientalism as defined by E. Said: an aura, possible expressions of love or fascination mystery dream beauty and exoticism, but then a veil of stereotypes comes down to map areas of lack of knowledge and intellectual dark.
Anyway the posts defining Hellmann as one of the crows leave really no room for doubt: position like js2's and Randy N's are explicilty racist. The same goes for Bruce, Mary H and others. Others remark rigid etno-centric moral criteria (as Diocletus). RoseMontague is unfortunately also utterly prejudicial (in her case this might be not even so related to the personality of Knox) but on a totally different and more respectful level. It's quite clear that these positions are all slanted into employing prejudicial paradigms. The areas of dark in their knowledge are room to construct the wild fantasies needed to back their scenarios.
However I'm not criticizing you if you don't see it in my sam way. What I am saying is based on the words these posters write, these concepts are clear, independent from a general view that Amereicans like Italy and think it's a romantic place.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, come to think of it, there are people who absolutely "love" gays, or blacks, or women, but there is an element of condescension and bigotry and stereotyping in the whole thing. I must admit I have not seen such attitudes in the people you mention, but it is very much your right to opine so, and theirs to object if they believe they do not hold to such a stance. I just wish I could see some concrete examples.

 

[Rolfe]

And all invented by the investigators and prosecution, just as they invented the bleach receipts, the missing sweatshirt, the false 11:45 time of death, the luminol footprints in blood, and the rest.

Obviously you will go on believing that there were "lies" from Amanda, but I have seen no evidence of any, just as I have seen no evidence of a "staged" break-in.

No staged break-in, no magical selective clean-up, no bleach, and Meredith died soon after nine o'clock. These are simple facts, and must be taken into account in any theory of what happened. Even if you really, really can't stand Amanda Knox.

Rolfe.