PDA

View Full Version : Amanda Knox - guilty ot not guilty?



Pages : [1] 2

TimH
04-14-2008, 02:59 PM
what do you think?

Yeadon
04-14-2008, 03:07 PM
Hung jury. I've got zero gut feeling on this one.

I probably covered 40 or more murder trials when I was a newspaper reporter. I'd be there from the start to the end. You could usually tell when someone had it coming, and you could tell when a bit of latitude was in order. Even more often, people were guilty of something, just not quite murder. Often something a bit less than murder, but more than a slap on the wrist.

This girl ... I dunno.

Why do you ask?

htom
04-14-2008, 03:08 PM
No idea, hence "not". Wikipedia reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher)

TimH
04-14-2008, 03:09 PM
Hung jury. I've got zero gut feeling on this one.

I probably covered 40 or more murder trials when I was a newspaper reporter. I'd be there from the start to the end. You could usually tell when someone had it coming, and you could tell when a bit of latitude was in order. This girl ... I dunno.

Why do you ask?

I cant tell either.

Yeadon
04-14-2008, 03:18 PM
I tend to think that when you're in another country, you should be on your absolute best behavior. I have a pretty good idea of my rights here at home, but the moment you're somewhere else (like Italy) you're really at a disadvantage.

It's hard to know if they're just holding her because she's a material witness, or if she's the target of the investigation.

The moment they let her go, she'll squirm right back home to Seattle. Good luck getting her back to Italy after that. They probably have to hold her at this point. I guarantee they'd never see my face in Italy again.

TimH
04-14-2008, 03:24 PM
the weird thing is she is an honor student and worked her butt off to get there. Why would she do something this stupid? It doesnt make sense.

Kaa
04-14-2008, 03:37 PM
Who's Amanda Knox and why should we care?

Kaa

Yeadon
04-14-2008, 03:43 PM
Seattle is the center of the universe. And Amanda Knox is from here. She's being held in a murder case in Italy.

TimH
04-14-2008, 03:47 PM
hehe...geez talk about living under a rock :-)

TimH
04-14-2008, 03:50 PM
They talked about it on 48hrs. The investigator they hired said it was a railroad job and the only reason they are still holding her is because they cant admit they were wrong.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/48hours/main4005725.shtml

crawdaddyjim50
04-14-2008, 09:02 PM
I gotta go with the kid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately the guy that did do it had a pretty strong hold mentally on all the kids involved. She will do little time but she will do time.

Italy has a strange way of deciding sentencing. Seems like you would have to wack the Pope to get a serious sentence.

David Tabor (sailordave)
04-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Who is she?

Is she related to Amanda Huginkiss?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-16-2008, 12:01 AM
I pondered her problem after seeing the story. As best as I could determine she was a worldbeater kid who had a habit of coming out on top. When the chips were down she didn't know or was too emotionally strung out to keep her mouth shut. Her best out seems to be convincing the judge her confession was obtained under duress. It's along shot.

glenallen
04-16-2008, 12:22 AM
Who is she?

Is she related to Amanda Huginkiss?

Uh, No!:D
Why do you ask?

Yeadon
04-16-2008, 01:03 AM
I pondered her problem after seeing the story. As best as I could determine she was a worldbeater kid who had a habit of coming out on top. When the chips were down she didn't know or was too emotionally strung out to keep her mouth shut. Her best out seems to be convincing the judge her confession was obtained under duress. It's along shot.

I once covered a trial where a woman had watched her man dance with another girl at a bar, then went home and waited for him ...

When the cops showed up (she'd called, saying she was attacked and the fought her drunken boyfriend ...) he was dead, and there was a bit of blood, but no "smoking gun."

Anyways, her defense was absolute silence. Never said anything to anybody. Especially not the cops.

During the trial, her attorney called her to the stand and she told her side of what happened. The prosecutors had a tough time with her, because usually liars change their stories a bit each time they tell it. But with her, they had nothing to compare her testimony against.

She got something like 18 months, minus the 10 months time served in the county jail awaiting trial. (The prosecutors had slowed things down, hoping she'd crack and confess, then plea to some sort of murder charge. But she never cracked.)

The lesson here ... don't say anything that can be used against you. Often the only way to do that is to simply hand over your driver's license then stay very very silent.

martin schulz
04-16-2008, 03:32 AM
I tend to think that when you're in another country, you should be on your absolute best behavior.

Hear hear!

Paul Girouard
04-20-2008, 11:14 AM
New info out today ,

ROME -- A court-appointed expert says there is not enough evidence to conclude that a British student who was killed in Italy had been sexually assaulted or strangled.

Three suspects, including 20-year-old Amanda Knox of Seattle, have been jailed for months in the case, although no formal charges have been filed against them.

Link : http://www.kirotv.com/news/15933027/detail.html

Seems they can't figure out who did what , when! No charges , WTF , send them to the Hage (sp). Who knows , sure is a big mess! And one kid dead, life's ruined , etc etc . Legalize drugs that'll help I'm pretty sure:rolleyes:

Yeadon
12-04-2009, 06:23 PM
Amanda Knox ... guilty on all counts of murder.

Peerie Maa
12-04-2009, 06:30 PM
The moment they let her go, she'll squirm right back home to Seattle. Good luck getting her back to Italy after that. They probably have to hold her at this point. I guarantee they'd never see my face in Italy again.

Your nation is getting particularly hard nosed on the issue of extradition. If you believe that there may be double standards that you can apply, the howl of "hypocrites" will be deafening.

Mrleft8
12-04-2009, 06:34 PM
Guilty as a creep.

TimH
12-04-2009, 06:35 PM
Wow

Yeadon
12-04-2009, 06:38 PM
Still not too late to cast your vote in the poll above.

TimH
12-04-2009, 06:39 PM
I was really thinking she would get off.

ishmael
12-04-2009, 06:40 PM
I was going to ask who she was. After reading the thread I caught drift of it.

So, they found her guilty? It wouldn't surprise me one way or the other. Most said, "Oh, my, what a beautiful young woman, she must be innocent." I said, "Yeah, right." Drug fueled orgies have a way of getting out of hand. Bonnie Parker was beautiful too, and a killer.

Young, beautiful, and busted. I wonder how the food is in Italian prisons.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-04-2009, 06:52 PM
I just finished a book about The Monster of Florence (Italy). The case, which lasted more than 20 years and was just one travesty of justice after another. Something like 8 or 10 people were jailed over the course of time, being accused of being the Monster (a serial killer that preyed on couples having sex in cars).

The prosecutor, who took over the case about 10 years in, had very peculiar pet theories about what was behind the killings (satanic cults involving the richest families in the area) even though there was no evidence of this, he set about fabricating the evidence, paying unreliable witnesses to corroborate his theories, and in the process sending several people to jail for years who had no real involvement in the actual crimes. These people were unceremoniously released years later when some small piece of evidence was uncovered that exonerated them.

The prosecutor had no remorse. He only cared about the public's (and his superior's) perception of him.

This is the same guy who is prosecuting this case.

The author of the Monster of Florence has a chapter, towards the end of the book, examining the so called evidence, the witnesses, the witnesses whose testimony about seeing a local drug addict covered with blood washing himself off in a fountain in the same town the morning after the murder, is, for some reason, totally not permitted in the trial...

The prosecutor knows he'll look like the a-hole that he is, if it comes out he let the real killer go, while concentrating on kids that the real evidence tends to exonerate. So, he's got to try to convict them.

None of the ones on trial had anything to do with the killing, that's my guess.

Phillip Allen
12-04-2009, 09:22 PM
I just finished a book about The Monster of Florence (Italy). The case, which lasted more than 20 years and was just one travesty of justice after another. Something like 8 or 10 people were jailed over the course of time, being accused of being the Monster (a serial killer that preyed on couples having sex in cars).

The prosecutor, who took over the case about 10 years in, had very peculiar pet theories about what was behind the killings (satanic cults involving the richest families in the area) even though there was no evidence of this, he set about fabricating the evidence, paying unreliable witnesses to corroborate his theories, and in the process sending several people to jail for years who had no real involvement in the actual crimes. These people were unceremoniously released years later when some small piece of evidence was uncovered that exonerated them.

The prosecutor had no remorse. He only cared about the public's (and his superior's) perception of him.

This is the same guy who is prosecuting this case.

The author of the Monster of Florence has a chapter, towards the end of the book, examining the so called evidence, the witnesses, the witnesses whose testimony about seeing a local drug addict covered with blood washing himself off in a fountain in the same town the morning after the murder, is, for some reason, totally not permitted in the trial...

The prosecutor knows he'll look like the a-hole that he is, if it comes out he let the real killer go, while concentrating on kids that the real evidence tends to exonerate. So, he's got to try to convict them.

None of the ones on trial had anything to do with the killing, that's my guess.

pretty much corroborates my understanding of prosecutors...some brought on by FIRST hand experience (no...not me but someone who robbed my home back in the mid 70's)

George Jung
12-04-2009, 09:36 PM
While admitting I haven't followed this case from the start, from what I've heard in the news, this really does sound like a railroad job. The bit Michael posted about the prosecutor apparently is true, and as I understand it, he's being investigated for abuse of his position and may face criminal charges. Reportedly, he had a reporter in Italy jailed for critical comments he had made concerning a botched murder prosecution, apparently one preceding this case. The news story contends this girl wasn't even allowed to have rebuttal, the only evidence allowed was from the prosecution. The closing statement by this guy lasted 7 hours. Even the 'witnesses' provided conflicting testimony, and the prosecution changed their 'theories' about what happened, several times. I have to admit, I'm shocked, and a bit disilllusioned. I thought the Italians might have a bit more on the ball.
Noting the opinions on this thread, rather disturbing, as well. ACB - you seem so sure of yourself. What has your news media reported that makes this case so 'clear cut' for you? Nothing I've heard sounds remotely damning of this girl.

Lew Barrett
12-04-2009, 09:41 PM
I'm not Andrew, and Seattle isn't England apart from the fog, but here in the Emerald City the media seems to think Amanda's been railroaded. That's the tone of the coverage, at any rate.

Me? No idea whatsoever.

Fitz
12-04-2009, 09:45 PM
There are no murderers in Italy! It had to be the American!:rolleyes:

George Jung
12-04-2009, 09:49 PM
That's what's got me wondering, too, Lew. From what news I've seen, she's getting shafted.

I'd really like to know what ACB and others are hearing, that their take is so diametrically opposed.

Maybe a bigger question or topic - how much of what 'the news' reports is true, versus simple manipulation of 'the masses'? Now, that's disturbing.

BTW, 26 years is what I heard she got. With the uproar that's resulted, I'm really curious to see what broad daylight shines on this one, and am really curious to know who's messing with the justice system. If this prosecutor is really as dirty as he sounds (and by extension, the Italian govt.), this could have some interesting, really big, implications.

peter radclyffe
12-04-2009, 11:06 PM
what would you say if kercher was from seattle
& knox was english

George Jung
12-04-2009, 11:16 PM
Any comments I've made have been based on what I've read in the news, regardless of her country of origin. I don't know Knox, and her fate weighs little on me, other than my sense of justice.

That's the point - what are you being 'fed' on this case (and ACB, too, btw) that so convinces you of her guilt? What we're 'being fed' suggests a cooked system in Italy - and I have to wonder, what is true?

TimH
12-04-2009, 11:25 PM
How many 20 year old honor students run around murdering their room mates?

willmarsh3
12-04-2009, 11:26 PM
Guilty. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial/index.html

In the back of my mind I was kind'a hoping she would have been found innocent but this is Italy and not the USA. Having lived there myself I see that things are a bit different.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-04-2009, 11:36 PM
Just read the last couple of chapters from The Monster of Florence if you have any questions about this case. Preston does a nice job of presenting a very BASIC case that the kids couldn't possibly be involved... blood DNA at the scene, not belonging to the victim, nor any of the kids, matches a local drug addict with a known history of violent crimes, who shows up the day after the crime, covered in blood, washing himself in a local fountain, with personal effects of the victim. Shoe prints matching the drug addict. No mention of the drug addict in court. Tales of orgies grossly exaggerated.

As mentioned, an Italian reporter covering the Monster of Florence investigation was thrown into prison for 'impeding the investigation and suspicion of being involved in...' the crimes of the Monster of Florence, all because he disagreed with the prosecutor's bizarre theories... and, Douglas Preston, the American Author, was questioned, and basically threatened with prosecution unless he left the country indefinitely... all because they championed a more realistic theory about the case, than the star prosecutor...

So, I think the guy is slime, and yea, Amanda is innocent. Now, which one of you Guilty voters has some solid evidence that points to guilt? I'm really curious.

Yeadon
12-04-2009, 11:37 PM
How many 20 year old honor students run around murdering their room mates?

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsreel/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/heathers.jpg

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-04-2009, 11:39 PM
LOL... I love that movie

ishmael
12-05-2009, 04:24 AM
"I'm not Andrew, and Seattle isn't England apart from the fog, but here in the Emerald City media seems to think Amanda's been railroaded."

If so, then she'll get a second shot at it. What is the appeals process in the Italian courts? From the little I've heard she wasn't guilty of premeditation. The murder just sort of happened in the midst of dangerous play.

Golly, what happened to simple courtship? I bring you a bouquet and you give me a kiss. An equal exchange.

andrewe
12-05-2009, 06:02 AM
From just keeping an eye on it, rather than close attention. The evidence is Knox's DNA on the presumed murder weapon along with the victim's . Solicito's DNA on the victim's bra, which was cut off. The other convicted man, Guede, had his DNA all over the victim and tha apartment.
Knox and Solicito gave wildly varing stories over where they were that night. Most of these were contradicted by facts. She also tried to frame a bar owner, Lamumba, who had a cast iron alibi. He has been awarded €40.000. in damages. To be paid by Knox.
FWIW, I didn't think there was enough concrete evidence to convict. The jury obviously did.Mainly because of the mass of circumstantual evidence that supported the forensics.
From opinion in the press (!) unless one or other tells all, what went on will never be know, just that all three were in involved.
The text of the procedings will be released in 90 days, after which appeals can be submitted. It will take years.
A

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 06:03 AM
a local drug addict with a known history of violent crimes, who shows up the day after the crime, covered in blood, washing himself in a local fountain, with personal effects of the victim. Shoe prints matching the drug addict. No mention of the drug addict in court.


The person to whom you refer has already been convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. The question is not whether he did it, but whether the others were also present and party to the crime.

I have no idea whether or not justice has been done because I didn't hear the evidence. However, I do know that partisan presentations of evidence can look very convincing until the opposing case is made.

Press reports are usually partisan, selective, incomplete and often just plain wrong.

Note to Lee - fog is a rather rare weather condition in England. A couple of days a year, perhaps, and then it's usually cleared by mid-day. ;)

andrewe
12-05-2009, 06:21 AM
Creeky, I didn't realise that the guy they were talking about was Guede. Thanks.
A

ishmael
12-05-2009, 08:04 AM
"I don't think some Americans realise just how laughable their legal system is in the eyes of others - the OJ Simpson farce, the many reports of the shattering impact of DNA evidence on Death Row cases and President Bush's refusal to trust his own nation's legal system and setting up the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp have all contributed to American "justice" being held in complete contempt abroad."

Andrew,

Don't judge our system too hastily based on a few anecdotes. While I agree we could do better, for the most part it's not oppressive. The one time I was before the court I was rather impressed. It was handled professionally and fairly. I deserved every bit of the 90 day license to drive suspension I got, packed in between various cases of child abuse and domestic violence.

Are the British courts better? I hope never to find out, but I'll bet they are very similar.

P.S.Lest we forget, it was Brits who invented the "concentration camp." What else to do with POWs in an extended war? Keep them locked in cells? Give them free access to the courts? Not a easy dilemma.

JimD
12-05-2009, 11:17 AM
... What else to do with POWs ...

POWs? What POWs?

George Jung
12-05-2009, 12:00 PM
ACB, you seem to have a lot invested in this case - very passionate, even!

What gives? :confused:

George Jung
12-05-2009, 12:04 PM
Just read the last couple of chapters from The Monster of Florence if you have any questions about this case. Preston does a nice job of presenting a very BASIC case that the kids couldn't possibly be involved... blood DNA at the scene, not belonging to the victim, nor any of the kids, matches a local drug addict with a known history of violent crimes, who shows up the day after the crime, covered in blood, washing himself in a local fountain, with personal effects of the victim. Shoe prints matching the drug addict. No mention of the drug addict in court. Tales of orgies grossly exaggerated.

As mentioned, an Italian reporter covering the Monster of Florence investigation was thrown into prison for 'impeding the investigation and suspicion of being involved in...' the crimes of the Monster of Florence, all because he disagreed with the prosecutor's bizarre theories... and, Douglas Preston, the American Author, was questioned, and basically threatened with prosecution unless he left the country indefinitely... all because they championed a more realistic theory about the case, than the star prosecutor...

So, I think the guy is slime, and yea, Amanda is innocent. Now, which one of you Guilty voters has some solid evidence that points to guilt? I'm really curious.


Compare that to the link ACB provided - someone's lying, and I wonder if we'll ever know the truth.

I don't know much about this case or Knox - is her family loaded, and able to pull off an expensive, large scale manipulation of the media?

Addendum: In one of the early reports on the trial, it was claimed that the defense was not allowed to present evidence or rebuttal. Anyone know if this is true?

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 12:18 PM
Addendum: In one of the early reports on the trial, it was claimed that the defense was not allowed to present evidence or rebuttal. Anyone know if this is true?

Of course it's not true. However, Italy uses an inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system familiar in the USA and the UK, so the proceedings may not have appeared as some reporters might have expected.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7663/Inquisitorial-System.html

Paul Pless
12-05-2009, 12:22 PM
Fortunately this is not a case subject to American "justice".

The media campaign bought and paid for by Knox's family has not been able to snowball the Court.Interesting point of view considering that in such a case in the United States the jury would often be sequestered and mass media wouldn't be available to them; whereas there is no such 'protection' in Italy, as far as I know.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 12:24 PM
I wonder if the UK still Rudolf Hess locked up?

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 12:30 PM
I wonder if the UK still Rudolf Hess locked up?

What a strange non sequitur. Hess died in 1987.

ishmael
12-05-2009, 12:31 PM
Rudolf Hess!? Ain't that bad ol' Nazi long dead? If not, he must be old as dirt.

George Jung
12-05-2009, 12:35 PM
DTC - you seem familiar with this case - is there any truth to the accusations, outlined in Michaels post, about the Italian prosecutor? Is there (in your view) any question about the way this case was handled?

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 12:40 PM
What a strange non sequitur. Hess died in 1987.

Britan kept him locked up 'till he died...no trial...he surrendered before the war was over and was not allowed out even after other famouis Nazi were...and now someone from Britan is trying to claim the moral high-ground...WHAT non sequitur???

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 12:45 PM
WHAT non sequitur???

See Andrew's post above.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 12:46 PM
See Andrew's post above.

I did...it applies still

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 12:50 PM
I don't recall anything about any suicide...

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 12:55 PM
DTC - you seem familiar with this case - is there any truth to the accusations, outlined in Michaels post, about the Italian prosecutor?

I'm not particularly familiar with it and have access only to the same sources as you or anyone else here. However I am reluctant to jump in and comment on the basis of a superficial reading of media reports etc.

I don't know if Michael's comments are true. However, I suspect that the judge plays a much more active part in proceedings taken under Italian system than would be the case in the US or the UK, so I would be cautious about assumptions about the significance of the prosecutor's background or possible motivations (or the role of the jury, for that matter), based on the American system.

There's a lot of discussion here that might serve as something of a counterweight to partisan reporting by those who promote the idea that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

The nationalities of the protagonists are irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 12:57 PM
I did...it applies still

No. Your comment is pointless and irrelevant.

ishmael
12-05-2009, 01:14 PM
"Kirchner's comments about Knox's dirty habits"

Um, just what is a dirty habit? Not to dispute the verdict, it sounds like she got what she deserved, but "dirty habit" is so, um, quaint sounding to the Yank's ear. She was promiscuous, doing drugs, all manner of things we warn our young people about. They don't often end in murder. What she's being chastised for is murder, not "dirty habits."

I love the phrase. It describes my life too clearly these days.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 01:15 PM
getting back to knox...I did not vote in the poll...I have no idea at all of innocence or guilt...I just got annoyed at some of the comentary in this thread

since she is found guilty, I hope she is, for all our sakes

john l
12-05-2009, 01:17 PM
i don't know if she is innocent, but it doesn't appear that she was proven guilty.

Paul Pless
12-05-2009, 01:19 PM
since she is found guilty, I hope she is, for all our sakeswhy?

Yeadon
12-05-2009, 01:32 PM
He has no idea why. He's just talking.

frank pedersen
12-05-2009, 01:36 PM
If she had been found guilty in Texas she might have been executed.

Yeadon
12-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Reason No. 2,040,032 why it's better to wake up in Rome than in Dallas.

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 01:42 PM
As to why I think she is guilty, Kirchner's comments about Knox's dirty habits suggest the two did not get on, Knox's attempts to frame Lumumba are hardly the acts of an innocent and she seems to have been as high as a kite when first taken into custody.

I see my link (which was working fine earlier) goes nowhere at the moment. However, there is quite obviously a very great deal more to this case than the "headline" information reported in the media. If people are really interested, there are detailed summaries of both prosecution and defense cases, with analysis, which would certainly give those who prefer to denigrate Italian justice some pause for thought.

Maybe it will be back online soon, if anyone is interested.

ishmael
12-05-2009, 02:31 PM
Boy, I just looked at the pic above. Young ladies in hocky togs. I don't think I'd wanna mess with second from the left. She's putting on a great "I'm serious and you better not mess with me face." LOL.

As to Amanda's story, isn't it sad? What will she make of life now that she'll spend the next few decades in prison? I don't sense a mean spirit. To a question above, there is considerable money there, from what I understand.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 02:58 PM
why?

I thought it self-evident...if she is guilty, justice has been served. If she is not guilty then justice has miscarried...anytime justice miscarrys we all lose

any clearer?

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 02:59 PM
He has no idea why. He's just talking.

don't be ugly...I'm trying not to be...

George Jung
12-05-2009, 03:13 PM
The point I've taken from all of this is it appears we're all pretty easily manipulated. The folks writing these stories, and the PR/lawyers involved, both sides, are adept at pressing the right buttons. And it applies to both sides. ACB and the Italians/Brits etc. have come away with a markedly different picture than have those of us in the US - no one thinks that's accidental, right? And both sides have been similarly successful in eliciting a visceral response - and both sides, here in the forum, probably think they're right, and 'the other side' is a bunch of dolts!

That's my take, anyway. YMMV. But it might be a good idea to step back, see the whole picture, and then laugh at ourselves.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-05-2009, 03:42 PM
To clarify what Douglas Preston says about the Knox case in the Afterword of the book Monster of Florence (and I can't say that any of this is true, this is just what he's reported):

Evidence collected at the scene which included male DNA found inside of the victim and on her purse, feces in the toilet, a handprint under the head of the victim and hairs clutched in the victim's hand all pointed to Guede... known in Perugia as a small time drug dealer, house breaker and harasser of foreign girls. None of it matched Knox, her boyfriend or a third person arrested with them.

Knox and her boyfriend had been imprisoned for over a year and still no DNA evidence had been found linking them to the murder scene. (if some appeared later in the investigation/trial, I wouldn't be surprised, as the prosecutor had been accused of planting evidence in the Monster case as well).

Guede's story was that 'Some Other Dude Did It'. That he and the victim had had consensual sex, he'd gone to the toilet (his DNA was found in the toilet too), and when he came out, some other dude was cutting the victim's throat, they struggled and then the other guy ran off, and eventually Guede did too.

Guede was interrogated 5 times and never mentioned Knox or Raffaele (the boyfriend), and said that he did not know either person, but after five months in prision, he suddenly changed his story and recalled that the other man he saw struggling with the victim was Raffaele and that he now recalled hearing Amanda's voice clearly in the room.

A woman reporter from the town approached Mario Spezzi, the Italian journalist that Preston was working with on the Monster book and related a story about how, hours before the body was found, a local drug addict covered in blood, with a cut across his hand was seen washing himself in a nearby fountain shouting 'I killed her, I killed her'. Since he was mostly incoherent, he was carted off to a hospital for observation.

The very day she'd published the story, she was summoned to the prosecutor's office and interrogated, then indicted for the crime of 'inciting public alarm by publishing false information' (the same thing that he charged Spezzi with later in the Monster case and also threatened Preston with unless he voluntarily left the country). That story was crushed, even though there were several witnesses, and as far as I know, never came out in the trial.

"To this day, neither Mignini (the prosecutor) nor the police appear to have investigated the episode or questioned the drug addict; nor have they apparently taken his DNA to compare it to the many unknown DNA samples recovered from the scene of the murder. The addict has been shut up in a rehab clinic ever since, unavailable to the press. Stranger still, the description the half-dozen witnesses gave of the addict - thirtyish, blond, blue eyes, wearing a white wool beret pulled down on his head and a dark coat - matches the description Guede first gave of the man he claims to have struggled with at the scene of the murder."

The prosecutor, himself, was indicted for illegally wiretapping journalists, obstructing justice, violating judicial seal and harassing newspapers with illegal investigations. "Inexplicably, even while under heavy indictments, Mignini continues to serve as public minister of Perugia and chief prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case."

So, make of it what you will, but the prosecutor sounds like a real prize.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 03:59 PM
and there are those who think me wrong for questioning authority...

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 04:02 PM
buncha red X's

pcford
12-05-2009, 04:38 PM
Try again:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Michael, why do you prefer the story of one American writer with an obvious agenda (he has a book to push) over the judgement of an Italian Court?

Hmmm, let's see. Maybe because the judgment of the Italian court was a result of a head judge who has done very dubious work and a jury that was exposed to the toxic European press which has labeled Knox as a she-devil. Does that help?

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 04:43 PM
and there are those who think me wrong for questioning authority...

Trouble is, you seem to "question authority" aimlessly and on the basis of the most superficial information. In other words, your questioning appears to be unquestioning.

Lew Barrett
12-05-2009, 04:59 PM
For what it's worth Phillip, I knew exactly what you were trying to express and I agree with the sentiment. Best for her is that she be innocent and that her appeal be effective, but it is terrible to contemplate that she (or anyone for that matter) might be innocent and yet suffer the punishment of a guilty person.

Also....I agree with Ish, presuming what he was trying to say in respect to "filthy habits" means that finding her guilty based on the fact that she might be "promiscuous" (by whatever standards)....... or that she engages in substance abuse........ seems almost prejudiced. One set of behaviors doesn't prove the other.

ishmael
12-05-2009, 05:00 PM
Anymore I care less and less about the facts of the case. I know they are important, but I like to look at the faces. The victim's face, posted by Andrew, is so full of hope and jest. How could anyone snuff that out?

I'm trying to think of my deepest moments of anger. I couldn't kill someone except in defense.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 05:06 PM
Trouble is, you seem to "question authority" aimlessly and on the basis of the most superficial information. In other words, your questioning appears to be unquestioning.

okay...maybe it SEEMS that way...

pcford
12-05-2009, 05:12 PM
No, not really. Who labelled the "European press" "toxic" and who decided that the Judge had done "dubious work" - three months before his report is due to be published. Could it be the lilywhite American press and television?



Is not the judge a significant local politician as well as a judge? Doesn't he have legal action against him for wiretapping?

And what does "lilywhite" have to do with anything? Is this some kind of racial accusation? I am disappointed in you.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2009, 05:15 PM
No, not really. Who labelled the "European press" "toxic" and who decided that the Judge had done "dubious work" - three months before his report is due to be published. Could it be the lilywhite American press and television?

ya know Andrew, this sounds close to saying "Johnny did it too" to excuse one's own actions

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 05:19 PM
Knox and her boyfriend had been imprisoned for over a year and still no DNA evidence had been found linking them to the murder scene. (if some appeared later in the investigation/trial, I wouldn't be surprised, as the prosecutor had been accused of planting evidence in the Monster case as well).


As far as I can see, the most recent edition of the Preston book is dated June 2008. I suspect a lot has happened in the last 18 months and a lot has emerged during the trial of which he may take no account. The detailed summaries both of prosecution and defense evidence on the website posted (if and when it can be accessed) are probably the most up to date around on the net. It takes a fair bit of reading to get through it all, though.

I don't know if Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but I can't see any reason why they should have been brought to trial without significant evidence. That decision is made, in the Italian system, via an independent review of the evidence by six separate judges.

Opinion is one thing, but a serious and thorough review of the whole case, rather than a search for confirmation of prejudice either way, is quite another.

pcford
12-05-2009, 05:20 PM
No, not really. Who labelled the "European press" "toxic"

The fine upstanding British press has labeled Knox as "Foxy Knoxy." I suppose to link her with wanton sexuality. The name originated on her MySpace page. She was labeled that by her friends for her skill in girls' field hockey.

You might be interested that I have heard of NOBODY here that believes she would be capable of the crimes of which she is accused.

To argue that a motivating factor for the murder would be disagreements about housekeeping seems beyond bizarre. If this were true one would think that sharing a living space would be much more pernicious.

pcford
12-05-2009, 05:30 PM
Well, that settles it conclusively, doesn't it.

:D:D:D

Of course it doesn't, Andrew. But there is quite a contrast between the portrait that has been painted of her in the sleazy European press and the image of her on the part of those who know her best.

Or maybe she just changed into another person on contact with the Old World.

downthecreek
12-05-2009, 05:31 PM
Is not the judge a significant local politician as well as a judge? Doesn't he have legal action against him for wiretapping?


I think you may be confusing the judge with the public prosecutor.

Lew Barrett
12-05-2009, 05:32 PM
Whatever it's worth, the poll is tied at 12/12.

I think those here in town who know her (as Pat has said) find it impossible to believe she is guilty based on her character. Just the opposite of what the overseas press suggests?

Fitz
12-05-2009, 05:34 PM
I spent awhile reading DTC's links to the victim's family's website. No bias here right?

I still see no motive. (except maybe rape by someone other than Amanda).

What I think I see is two or more young people. One of them, a long way from home. In the wrong place at the wrong time. Fear about what is perceived. Influence by police. A media storm. Interrogation.....a long drawn out trial...botched police work...and much, much more.

And 26 years in a foreign jail.

pcford
12-05-2009, 05:50 PM
I think you may be confusing the judge with the public prosecutor.

I believe you are correct. Thank you, sir.

Lew Barrett
12-05-2009, 05:51 PM
Ham's out on the table, Pat. Coming along?

Fitz
12-05-2009, 06:06 PM
Well, I was kinda sick of the constant references to the website.

I read the "truth" in the website and came to my "impartial" conclusion.

Carry on.

George Jung
12-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Has there been any commentary from a law enforcement source that might be impartial? Ala CSI? Or doesn't that animal exist? I'd imagine those folk don't care to get drawn into this, or just don't have access to the evidence.

Antonio Majer
12-05-2009, 06:11 PM
a head judge who has done very dubious work
No, he is a serious man.


the toxic European pressOur trials last so long - years - that the newspapers cannot influence the opinion of a jury (I think it's one of the few advantages of our pachydermic system of justice).


a she-devil.This expression belongs - in my opinion - to the Italian love for the theatricality; but since the jury is Italian, they are able to understand it without any emotional involvement.

---

Many Italians like to blame their own country, and I am no exception: there are thousands things I hate in Italy. But about this case I liked the way Amanda Knox was treated, with all the respect for her dignity; just think the fact she was always accompanied by a female police officer at court. If Amanda Knox is really a murderer (as I believe too, just out of curiosity), she has now the possibility to be born a second time; if she wants to study and get a degree, she will able to do it; in 15 years or so she could ask for a semicustody condition, and she will even be able to give birth to a child. Life is long, and nobody will prevent Amanda Knox to look for and give a new sense to her life.

katiedobe
12-05-2009, 06:25 PM
REad the book Michael talks about.
This woman is not guilty.
The Italian justice system is too reliant on the power of the proscecutor. No sort of check's and balances. No decent recourse for civilians to turn in a prosecutor for wrongdoing. This judge/proscecutor should have been put in jail years ago for felonies regarding evidence fabrications.
It is a shame and travesty and the USA is not doing much about it.

Antonio Majer
12-05-2009, 06:32 PM
The book by Douglas Preston? This Douglas Preston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Preston) ?

Antonio Majer
12-05-2009, 06:37 PM
No decent recourse for civilians to turn in a prosecutor for wrongdoing
from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/europe/06perugia.html?ref=global-home)


“Our justice system is certainly in rough shape,” he added, “but it has a lot of self-correcting mechanisms.”
In the Italian system, the end of this yearlong trial closes only the first chapter. Unlike in the American system, where appeals center on issues of law, not fact, in the Italian system, appeals are automatic and defendants can ask to retry the entire case in a first round of appeals.
From there, the case can go to Italy’s highest court, which is required to hear every appeal.
It may be years before a definitive sentence is reached.

Antonio Majer
12-05-2009, 06:52 PM
...and I want to add this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcgYwTnBIIQ), not for controversy, but only because it's a wonderful song.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-05-2009, 09:44 PM
Michael, why do you prefer the story of one American writer with an obvious agenda (he has a book to push) over the judgement of an Italian Court?

Yea, the American has a book to push, but he has many other successful books, so, his career doesn't depend upon it. However, the career prosecutor in Perugia has his whole life's career at stake.

Have you read the book the Monster of Florence? If you had, I'd suspect that you wouldn't be commenting here. The Monster of Florence is as much about the failure of the Italian Judicial system as it is about a serial killer... very much apropos to the topic at hand.

Preston worked with an Italian journalist of impeccable credentials (Spezzi), who had worked the crime beat (in Italy) for his whole lifetime. In search of the truth in a murderous rein of terror by a serial killer, they (both Preston and Spezzi), became the victims of an overzealous prosecutor in the course of this investigation, because they realized that SERIOUS transgressions were being made by the 'officlals' in charge..

The prosecutor's own theories (about the Knox case as well as the Monster of Florence case) were echoed verbatim by a crazy woman conspiracy-theory wingnut blogger (Gabriella Carlizzi) - could this be Tylerdurdan's mom???, who actually published her theories well before the prosecutor adopted them as his official line of investigation. In the Monster of Florence case, these were the theories about a satanic cult comprised of the most powerful Italian families, ritually killing couples out f'ing in their cars. In the Knox case, she was the one who suggested the group sex scenario.

So, chicken and the egg... who was getting their theories from whom?

Then, whenever anyone published anything that might not support the prosecutor, he had them arrested, interrogated, imprisoned, deported... whew! Don't know why I might suspect the prosecutor of wrong doing... and the MF was indicted for doing just that... so, it wasn't the fanciful notion of an American author. Here is what the Florentine Public Minister (read this as no pro-biased American viewpoint) had to say about Mignini.

[he had] "fallen prey to a kind of delirium" [and would go to] "any extreme in defending himself from those who would criticize his investigation".

I don't know... call me crazy, but I'll trust an American author over an indicted local Italian wingnut prosecutor.

Did that answer your question ACB?

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-05-2009, 09:52 PM
The book by Douglas Preston? This Douglas Preston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Preston) ?

Yea, what's your point?

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 02:53 AM
I spent awhile reading DTC's links to the victim's family's website. No bias here right?


The website is not presented as a source of "unbiased" information. It does, however, give a lot of factual information that may act as a "counterweight" (my word) to the biased information coming from sources predisposed to your view (which, as your first comment on this thread shows, far from "impartial")

This is, of course, how the adversarial system of justice works. Each side presents its own version of the facts and interpretation thereof and thus is hammered out a verdict. Why would you object to that?

The fact is, any opinion expressed here that is not based on some conscientious study of the evidence put before the court is worthless. I see precious little discussion of that evidence. Unless, of course, you might like to put forward the key facts and reasoning behind your "impartial opinion"?

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 02:56 AM
Whatever it's worth, the poll is tied at 12/12.


The poll, as this thread demonstrates, is worthless.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 03:03 AM
Yea, the American has a book to push, but he has many other successful books, so, his career doesn't depend upon it. However, the career prosecutor in Perugia has his whole life's career at stake.


I think you are wrong here. That might be true in the American system, where "star" prosecutors make careers out of high profile cases, but in the Italian system the judge is the more significant figure. If you look at other high profile Italian cases (Mafia, for example, or Andreotti) you will find plenty of famous judges, but you will be hard put to it to find "star" prosecutors. The inquisitorial system works in a very different way from the American system.

I have the impression that your book doesn't touch on the conviction of Guede (since you didn't appear to know about it, or the actual basis of the Knox/Sollecito trial) This is one reason why I suspect it is out of date and written before the evidence from the trial was available. You mentioned that Preston had demonstrated that that they could not possibly have been present at the murder. Could you summarise his evidence for this?

Lew Barrett
12-06-2009, 04:47 AM
The poll, as this thread demonstrates, is worthless.

I don't disagree about that, but I do believe drawing conclusions based on her behavior in respect to either substance abuse or sexual activity is irrelevant. That's something that has been entirely ignored in this discussion apart from Jack's mention of it. ANd it is of consequence in respect to the discussion.

FYI: I didn't "vote" in this poll as I don't pretend to have a truly informed opinion.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 04:57 AM
I don't disagree about that, but I do believe drawing conclusions based on her behavior in respect to either substance abuse or sexual activity is irrelevant. That's something that has been entirely ignored in this discussion apart from Jack's mention of it. ANd it is of consequence in respect to the discussion.

FYI: I didn't "vote" in this poll as I don't pretend to have a truly informed opinion.

For the most part I agree, except that drug use may possibly have a bearing on the case. The only conclusions that matter are those drawn from the evidence. Discussion of that is, so far, non-existent on this thread.

Please may I ask you to revise your image of England as a foggy country? I'm afraid the evidence contradicts the stereotype in this case. ;) :)

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 06:20 AM
"get a rope"

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 07:52 AM
who was that?

BTW, good morrow Andrew. I trust you and yours are in good health...

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 08:32 AM
I believe the jury in this case is required to submit, within 90 days, a list of reasons for their verdict.

I hope that will be published online, in English*, and might provide at least some proper foundation for sensible discussion of this case.

* My Italian is largely learned from operatic libretti. I am quite fluent when I have to say, for example, "pray, let us recall for an instant the first rapturous moments of our love", or "my dearest, we shall leave Paris and your health will bloom again". This level of competence may not prove adequate.

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 08:35 AM
I believe the jury in this case is required to submit, within 90 days, a list of reasons for their verdict.

I hope that will be published online, in English*, and might provide at least some proper foundation for sensible discussion of this case.

* My Italian is largely learned from operatic libretti. I am quite fluent when I have to say, for example, "pray, let us recall for a moment the first rapturous moments of our love", or "my dearest, we shall leave Paris and your health will bloom again". This level of competence may not prove adequate.

laughing... :)

Peerie Maa
12-06-2009, 08:41 AM
Not since the 27th April 1945. And he was shot first.

and they tied the rope to the wrong end.

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 08:44 AM
I believe the jury in this case is required to submit, within 90 days, a list of reasons for their verdict.

I hope that will be published online, in English*, and might provide at least some proper foundation for sensible discussion of this case.

* My Italian is largely learned from operatic libretti. I am quite fluent when I have to say, for example, "pray, let us recall for a moment the first rapturous moments of our love", or "my dearest, we shall leave Paris and your health will bloom again". This level of competence may not prove adequate.
don't forget to mention Lorenzo da Ponte's libretti (born Italian and died American, btw)...:D

John Smith
12-06-2009, 08:44 AM
My two cents.

When the prosecution has actual evidence, trials go pretty quick. The guy who shot up the postal substation back in '91 had a trial that lasted a week. Dead, solid, clean evidence.

Trials with less evidence seem to last longer.

Look how long the O.J. trial lasted, and look at the evidence they didn't have. The coroner couldn't set a time of death, as he was kept from the bodies too long. So they established time of death by a dog barking.

When Simpson tried on the gloves, they didn't fit. We KNOW they didn't fit, cause the prosecution called a witness to testify as to why they didn't fit. This led to a defense witness conducting an experiment to prove the prosecution's witness was wrong.

They did NOT have Simpson's bloody clothes, a murder weapon, a place he cleaned up, etc.....

Yet, look how long it took to present the case.

From what little I've followed Knox, seems they didn't have a lot of evidence.

Convicted or not, we don't know if she's guilty.

I'm not even sure about Scott Peterson. The ONLY person who put him where his wife's body was found was him. If I killed my wife, and dumped her in the bay, and I was asked my whereabouts at the time, I wouldn't say on was on the bay.

I've been on several juries. One was a criminal case, and 11 people went back into the jury room ready to vote guilty. I asked if anyone believed the cop. Got some weird stares. I repeated what the cop testified to, and asked if anyone could believe it. When they gave it a moment's thought, they all agreed it could not have been true.

Once we didn't believe the cop who arrested they guy, we had no choice but "not guilty" Maybe the guy did it, but we couldn't convict if the cop was making up ****.

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 08:52 AM
Yea, what's your point?
he is a scandalmongering writer, without any authority on this subject. He has written books on the most different subjects, the next may be about, say, truffles or paper making.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 09:00 AM
don't forget to mention Lorenzo da Ponte's libretti (born Italian and died American, btw)...:D

I don't - I practically know them backwards...... :)

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 09:03 AM
yes, I guessed it

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 09:04 AM
My two cents.

When the prosecution has actual evidence, trials go pretty quick. The guy who shot up the postal substation back in '91 had a trial that lasted a week. Dead, solid, clean evidence.


Actually, I think there has been a very great deal of evidence brought forward - but no single "trump card". A very complex case.

Again, I suspect assumptions based on the American system may not hold entirely transferred to the Italian one. Inquisitorial trials take a long time.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 09:08 AM
yes, I guessed it

I think Da Ponte and Mozart were sometimes at their very finest in scenes where woman plot against men. "Canzonetta sull' Aria," for example, or "Prendero il Brunettino".

And, of course, the very greatest love song in the world - "Deh Vieni, Non Tardar", which teases as much as it enchants (think who is listening...)

:):):)

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 09:50 AM
Morning, Philip, all fine, thank you.

My reference was to the only "stringing up" that I can think of in Italy - Mussolini and his mistress, Clara Pettaci, and in fact they had been shot by Communist partisans before they were strung up (from the roof of a garage in Milan).

sorry...I thought you meant in England...

anyway Muso and company were strung up by their feet...not necks

John Smith
12-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Actually, I think there has been a very great deal of evidence brought forward - but no single "trump card". A very complex case.

Again, I suspect assumptions based on the American system may not hold entirely transferred to the Italian one. Inquisitorial trials take a long time.
Always hard to tell not being in the courtroom, and yes, they do things a bit differently, so I'm just guessing.

However, my guess is based on the observation that real evidence presents itself quickly, whereas it just takes longer when there is less evidence. We also tend to hear, in the evening news, testimony during direct. We seldom seem to hear what is said under cross, and that frequently changes things dramatically.

Whether she did it or not, they found her guilty. We'll still never know for sure. I really wish man could devise a less fallible system.

George Jung
12-06-2009, 10:10 AM
'The wrong ends', eh, Phillip?

This thread has actually been somewhat educational - and a topic I probably wouldn't have followed even this closely, were it not a topic here. I'm unfamiliar with 'inquisitional law', perhaps our Italian friends could give us a Readers Digest version?

They had a bit on this case on NBC last night - mostly a sensationalist show, not worth much - but attempting to show doubt as to her guilt (I was busy watching Nebr. get nipped with 1 second left....!). Her Seattle / family supporters were out in force, something I would not have appreciated without this thread. But the drug use comment is interesting. As I understand it, she had used marijuana.... correct? I thought that was a 'benign', 'mellowing' drug. Not true? On all counts?

Peerie Maa
12-06-2009, 10:25 AM
As I understand it, she had used marijuana.... correct? I thought that was a 'benign', 'mellowing' drug. Not true? On all counts?

There is medical opinion that hash can cause severe paranoia. There was a case of murder on a train in the NW UK where this was suggested as a partial cause.

George Jung
12-06-2009, 11:16 AM
The obvious fly in the ointment - I've seen enough of the way the English/europeon news media presented this case to recognize how easily the parties involved might have been influenced, to this defendants disadvantage.

My understanding - this goes to appeal now, but may take several years.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 11:20 AM
There is medical opinion that hash can cause severe paranoia. There was a case of murder on a train in the NW UK where this was suggested as a partial cause.

I have a friend whose son has been severely mentally ill for many years. The diagnosis is "drug induced psychosis" and heavy marijuana use is certainly implicated.

He is extremely paranoid at times and can also be violent - on one occasion stabbing his mother.

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 11:20 AM
I wonder how any one of us would feel if we lost our freedom for some years only to be found inocent later...?

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 11:21 AM
I have a friend whose son has been severely mentally ill for many years. The diagnosis is "drug induced psychosis" and heavy marijuana use is certainly implicated.

He is extremely paranoid at times and can also be violent - on one occasion stabbing his mother.

I doubt mj is the operative drug...gateway perhaps but not the cause

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 11:25 AM
I doubt mj is the operative drug...gateway perhaps but not the cause

That is one opinion. There are others and a lot of evidence has been put forward in recent years to support the implication of marijuana in the development of psychotic illness in certain, possibly predisposed, subjects. And, no, I'm not going to dig it all out for you.

The gateway drug, according to at least one international expert on drug abuse, is tobacco.

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 11:28 AM
That is one opinion. There are others and a lot of evidence has been put forward in recent years to support the implication of marijuana in the development of psychotic illness in certain, possibly predisposed, subjects. And, no, I'm not going to dig it all out for you.

The gateway drug, according to at least one international expert on drug abuse, is tobacco.

I accept tobacco as a gateway drug...but it's not the only one

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 11:32 AM
The obvious fly in the ointment - I've seen enough of the way the English/europeon news media presented this case to recognize how easily the parties involved might have been influenced, to this defendants disadvantage.

And in the American papers, influence to her advantage. I very much doubt if an Italian jury would be influenced by the English papers. The campaign in America was certainly designed to invoke diplomatic or political intervention. There was no similar campaign by the Kercher family.

So I think your quarrel is with the Italian papers.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 11:34 AM
I accept tobacco as a gateway drug...but it's not the only one

Let's put it this way - the expert concerned, whom I knew personally at one time and who had been involved in treating drug abuse for many years - said he had never yet met an addict who didn't smoke tobacco and whose addiction didn't start with smoking tobacco.

Be that as it may, its not an argument that greatly interests me.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 11:42 AM
Poor Raffaele Sollecito. Nobody seems to give a damn about him.... except his own family, I suppose. :confused:

George Jung
12-06-2009, 11:53 AM
No quarrel - just an observation. Again, I have no dog in this fight (I'm not that Nationalistic!) but have the same concerns Phillip voiced - I'd hate to see anyone imprisoned falsely, whether here or overseas. The obvious point - US campaigning may have intended influence, but much less likely to succeed over the homegrown version. Having four daughters, two of whom enjoy visiting overseas, this whole issue is cause for pause. As a parent, the spector of being totally helpless, and without other recourse, is concerning. I believe that's the perspective of many here.

Your point about Sollecito is one I've been thinking, as well. What's up with that? Not even a news blurb, even in your papers?

Lew Barrett
12-06-2009, 12:01 PM
For the most part I agree, except that drug use may possibly have a bearing on the case. The only conclusions that matter are those drawn from the evidence. Discussion of that is, so far, non-existent on this thread.

Please may I ask you to revise your image of England as a foggy country? I'm afraid the evidence contradicts the stereotype in this case. ;) :)

I think we agree more than not. However, I don't know that a propensity to kill has ever been tied to recreational pot use/abuse, although I am not prepared to support a long argument about that at the moment. However, I would be interested in any bone fide studies that demonstrate a connection between recreational marijuana use and violent behavior. I suspect a connection between the two would be very difficult to prove. Meanwhile, the suggestion has been made and seems to be standing amongst some here and perhaps elsewhere. Bad science.....or perhaps just a poor basis to by which to make a judgment.


Did I say England was foggy? You have me mistaken for another American, sir! ;)

paladin
12-06-2009, 12:04 PM
Gee....was Mata Hari innocent?

George Jung
12-06-2009, 12:08 PM
btw, dtc, your comment on 'discussing the evidence' is perhaps 'misdirected'.

I (and those here) have little access to 'evidence' - only what has been reported in the news media (and as we've seen, that varies wildly, depending on whether it's your news media, or ours).
Perhaps you are better connected - care to share all the evidence in this case? A show noted last night that lawenforcements handling of said evidence was quite questionable - at least not up to our standards. I'm not so sure about the objectivity of the Italian system. Again - from what I've seen on this side of the world, there is concern your inquisitional system got a bone to worry, and wasn't about to be distracted. I'd love to hear commentary by forensics experts in this country on just that topic - but suspect none will ever have a chance to review this case any closer than I will. No one will willingly put themselves in a position to look biased or incompetent.

TimH
12-06-2009, 12:12 PM
Venice has long been on my list of places to see before you die.

George Jung
12-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Venice has long been on my list of places to see before you die.


You talking to me? Sorry, I don't like your premise, at all! :D

Lew Barrett
12-06-2009, 12:17 PM
A great deal better than we would feel as we were led out to be executed, knowing that we were innocent.

The strongest argument against the death penalty, in my opinion, as it acknowledges the unquestioned fallibility of human judgment.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 12:49 PM
btw, dtc, your comment on 'discussing the evidence' is perhaps 'misdirected'.

You mean, it doesn't suit you?


I (and those here) have little access to 'evidence' - only what has been reported in the news media (and as we've seen, that varies wildly, depending on whether it's your news media, or ours).

Perhaps you are better connected - care to share all the evidence in this case? This thread started with a poll on whether or not Knox was guilty. There ensued a great deal of chatter about this question. I contend that this is pretty pointless without access to the evidence given at the trial. Although there have been a number of assertions made as to guilt or innocence, there has been almost no reference to any actual evidence and no response to enquiries as to the bases of these assertions.

There are, in fact, various quite comprehensive summaries of the evidence offered by the prosecution and the defense on the internet (including on the site I posted) but no-one seems very interested in reading or commenting on these.

There is also a good deal of material on the differences between court proceedings in America and Italy, but, once again, they don't seem to be of any real interest. So we are left with prejudice and speculation. Entertaining, perhaps, but not serious.

As I mentioned before, I have no access to any material that is not equally accessible to you or anyone else here. I have, however, taken a fairly close look at some of that material. As far as I can see, there is a relatively small amount of forensic evidence, some of which has (naturally) been disputed, connecting Knox and Sollecito to the murder. There is, however, a great deal of circumstantial evidence, much of it very hard to explain away, which, detail by detail and combined with the forensic evidence, amounts, as far as I can see, to quite a strong case against them.

But, to answer your question - no, I don't care to "share all the evidence in the case" because I don't have all the evidence, of what I can find there is a vast amount, the implications and possible interpretations of each piece of the jigsaw are extremely intricate and anyone who is interested can ferret it out just as I can.

Clearly the evidence convinced the Italian judges and jury. But I don't know. How can I? And how can anyone else here? There is good information out there, but idle speculation and prejudice prevail, it seems.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 12:51 PM
Venice has long been on my list of places to see before you die.

It may be a place to see before it dies....

But see it you must. Winter is good.

ishmael
12-06-2009, 01:36 PM
Motive is an interesting question. I can see some jealousy, two attractive, young American women footloose and fancy free in Italy. They probably dated some of the same young men. But murder over it is a stretch.

I'm going to take a flier as to motive and posit there was none. The two grew up seeing violence as a video game. When death came it was no different than blasting your opponent with the latest death ray. Oh, wait, I actually killed another person? Let me check my data bank. An issue in the West that needs revisiting.

pcford
12-06-2009, 01:37 PM
And in the American papers, influence to her advantage. I very much doubt if an Italian jury would be influenced by the English papers. The campaign in America was certainly designed to invoke diplomatic or political intervention.

What campaign? From my home in Seattle, which is about two miles from the University of Washington, where Amanda Knox went to school, I am not aware of any campaign. Yes, the papers published the fact that she and her boyfriend had been arrested and detained for murder. The papers did not do anything which would equal the intense negativity that the European papers which portrayed her as a sex and drug crazed "she-devil."

NOW there are the beginnings of a campaign...I guess we had too much faith in the Italian legal system. The prosecutor's summation... involving a "satanic" ritual slaying power by "the fumes of drugs and perhaps alcohol" is so over the top that no further comment is necessary.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 01:40 PM
Motive is an interesting question. I can see some jealousy, two attractive, young American women footloose and fancy free in Italy.

Only one attractive young American woman is involved. The victim was an attractive young British woman. And no, there is no reason to believe they dated the same young men.

Phillip Allen
12-06-2009, 01:41 PM
excuse me...but, are we speakinig of the drug mareewanna?...drug crazed?...reefer madness? kids wearing dungarees?

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 01:42 PM
NOW there are the beginnings of a campaign...I guess we had too much faith in the Italian legal system. The prosecutor's summation... involving a "satanic" ritual slaying power by "the fumes of drugs and perhaps alcohol" is so over the top that no further comment is necessary.

I don't think you really know anything about this. In fact, you know so little, it's hard to know where to start. So I won't. However, you might want to bear in mind that the important figure in all this is not the prosecutor, but the judge. It is quite possible to find records of his deliberations (although not yet on the verdict itself) if you should wish to do so.

ishmael
12-06-2009, 01:47 PM
"Only one attractive young American woman is involved. The victim was an attractive young British woman."

I hadn't realized the victim was a Brit. Shows how much I follow the news.

pcford
12-06-2009, 01:59 PM
I don't think you really know anything about this. In fact, you know so little, it's hard to know where to start. So I won't. However, you might want to bear in mind that the important figure in all this is not the prosecutor, but the judge. It is quite possible to find records of his deliberations (although not yet on the verdict itself) if you should wish to do so.

What?! The prosecutor is irrelevant? Amazing.

Maybe you are right. Perhaps I do know little about this...the fact is that the European press has featured this tragedy much more than the American press. But from what I can see, it absolutely stinks.

If drugs are involved, there has never been any implication that it was anything more than pot. Marijuana crazed killers? It's like this was taken from hysterical anti-drug movies of the 1930s.

ishmael
12-06-2009, 02:02 PM
I continue to be struck by what a waste this is. I don't know how to deal with it, but two vital people struck down at the beginning of their lives hurts my heart. Was there sexual jealousy, probably, was there evil intent? Probably not.

There are certain things I'm glad aren't in my purview. This is one of them. I think there is a mistaken notion, a notion born of WWII, that the West can fix anything. Sometimes things are screwed, not matter how good your justice system.

pcford
12-06-2009, 02:06 PM
Was there sexual jealousy, probably, was there evil intent? Probably not.



The two women had evidently argued about housekeeping.

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 02:34 PM
The strongest argument against the death penalty, in my opinion, as it acknowledges the unquestioned fallibility of human judgment.

Inquisitorial or adversarial, imo the key problem is the judicial error, and in all respects there is an ocean between us. To me the American system seems extremely pragmatic (and from time to time savage too, sorry). Think of a case of 9 years ago, the case of an Italo American, Rocco Barnabei; it had a great echo here. He was sentenced to death, but some weeks before the execution, he asked for a new DNA test, because the previous one was altered, or in those weeks there was the suspicion it had been altered. I remember the Governor of Virginia saying something like we cannot obstruct or retard our judicial system (this is the sense of his speech as I remember it).
What does it mean? as far as I can understand, it means that the injustice of few cases is a price Americans are willing to pay, to guarantee the well working of their whole judicial system.

In Italy we have a trial, plus the possibility of 2 appeals, plus the possibility to ask for another appeal IF there are new facts (but the 3rd appeal it's not automatic). Moreover all our penalties are reversible (I mean, there is no cut of hands or heads, sorry, I'm joking).

The price we are paying is a pachydermic system of justice, with trials that may last years and a few that will never see the end, because they are invalidated by prescription after a number of years (I think 10 years or so). Hence I have to admit there is injustice in our system too, but at least we don't kill anybody.

johnw
12-06-2009, 02:57 PM
Hence I have to admit there is injustice in our system too, but at least we don't kill anybody.
Well, that does make the apology more meaningful if a judicial error is discovered.

pcford
12-06-2009, 02:58 PM
The death penalty is a lamentable part of the American system of justice. It is practiced with enthusiasm in our bloodthirsty southern states.

But at issue is not the American system of justice nor the Italian. It is the specific instance of this prosecution and trial in Italy.

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 03:23 PM
Yes pcford, I should know USA is a huge country and one must not generalize, sorry



---
We'll have to wait for the publication of the reasons for this verdict, without generalizing about our merits and defects. I for one promise that I'll never suspect again that the Americans do not accept that a foreign jury might judge an American.

ishmael
12-06-2009, 03:41 PM
"Extraterritoriality for US citizens, just like they enjoyed in Qing Dynasty China - only US courts can judge Americans!"

Who said that? I don't know the facts of the case, but I don't distrust the Italian courts to reach a justice. No more than I do any other court. Well, maybe a few other courts.

Maybe your anti-Yank is showing, Andrew?

pcford
12-06-2009, 03:56 PM
Good one, Antonio.:D

"Extraterritoriality for US citizens, just like they enjoyed in Qing Dynasty China - only US courts can judge Americans!

I think some people here have got their centuries wrong...:(


Nonsense. And I have to say that I am surprised and disappointed with your attitude. If there were one European that might be assumed to take a calm rational stance on this event it would have been you, Andrew.

Americans are sent to prison for offenses in foreign lands often and there is not a similar protest. The justice system may not be as good in third world countries, for example, and the penalties may be harsher. But in general, an American traveling abroad should recognize that they are not in Kansas any more; different rules apply and you are at risk if you do not obey them. To assert that Americans wish for extraterritoriality is just a crock, Andrew. Amazing.

Senator Cantwell said in a statement that there was anti-Americanism operating in this affair. I was inclined to dismiss that opinion. ACB's post makes me think she might have a point.

Antonio Majer
12-06-2009, 04:06 PM
yes, senator Mary Cantwell, that's the point. I or you are free to think or say what we want, but a politician should be more cautious, shouldn't she? isn't it a sort of anti-Italianism by chance? what calm rational stance on this event can I see now in the words of this politician? and the fact that even Hillary Clinton is asked to do something, doesn't tell you anything? we are not Iran afterall...really they cannot wait few months before protesting?

johnw
12-06-2009, 04:09 PM
Funny how people who watch the news always seem to know better than people on the jury. I don't know if Knox is guilty. The jury thinks so, but sometimes those decisions are reversed on appeal. Let the Italian legal system work.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 04:42 PM
If drugs are involved, there has never been any implication that it was anything more than pot. Marijuana crazed killers? It's like this was taken from hysterical anti-drug movies of the 1930s.

Pretty much everything you say about this is miles off the mark. "Drug crazed"? No, but Knox claims one reason for her inability to stick to a consistent story about what she was doing at the time of the murder is that she and Sollecito were smoking marijuana together. There is some significance in this. "Quarrelling about the housekeeping"? Words fail me.

It seems that you have no interest in learning about this case or thinking rationally about it. If anyone is dealing with it hysterically, that person is you.

pcford
12-06-2009, 04:46 PM
yes, senator Mary Cantwell, that's the point. I or you are free to think or say what we want, but a politician should be more cautious, shouldn't she? isn't it a sort of anti-Italianism by chance? what calm rational stance on this event can I see now in the words of this politician? and the fact that even Hillary Clinton is asked to do something, doesn't tell you anything? we are not Iran afterall...really they cannot wait few months before protesting?

Perhaps Antonio, but ACB's statement that Americans expect the nations of the world expect to act like China in the Qing dynasty is so absurd that it naturally prompts one to think that there is anti-Americanism operating.

I can't speak for all Americans, I can only tell you what I was thinking during the lead-up to the trial and verdict. Believe it or not, during that time, this story was NOT front page news even in the Seattle paper. I did not pay a lot of attention to it. It knew it had happened of course, I thought she would be convicted if guilty and freed if she were not. Did not know the particulars of the case until recently. I thought justice would prevail. That was my thinking. Honest.

That is before I knew the extent of hateful stories in the British press...I can only presume there were similar stories in other countries. And it was before I know the bizarre story (pot smoking satanic killers) that the prosecution concocted. .

pcford
12-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Pretty much everything you say about this is miles off the mark. "Drug crazed"? No, but Knox claims one reason for her inability to stick to a consistent story about what she was doing at the time of the murder is that she and Sollecito were smoking marijuana together. There is some significance in this. "Quarrelling about the housekeeping"? Words fail me.

It seems that you have no interest in learning about this case or thinking rationally about it. If anyone is dealing with it hysterically, that person is you.

Quarreling about the housekeeping is one of the reasons I have read that the authorities give to show tension between the two women.

As to whom is being hysterical, I think I have a different opinion in that regard.

pcford
12-06-2009, 04:53 PM
Pretty much everything you say about this is miles off the mark. "Drug crazed"?

Did not the prosecutor say that the trio was fueled by "the fumes of drugs and perhaps alcohol?"

George Jung
12-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Very telling thread. We have two Brits talking down to us, one lecturing me on 'reviewing the evidence', though that's not possible, and ignoring the fact that, looking at the information we do have access to, it appears that both sides have presented compelling, though contradictory 'facts'. Yet DTC and ACB have found the evidence convicting this girl compelling.
The tone of DTC's, Majers and ACB's remarks are also quite similar - smug and condescending. What about yourselves would you say warrants such a position? Do you feel yourselves on the defensive, or feel you and your European heritage is under siege? This has, for the most part, been a civil discussion - the only ones at variance would be you. I don't know Mr. Majer that well; DTC tends to be a bit more pugnacious, so his abrasiveness isn't much of a surprise. But ACB - the side you've shown on a few of these political threads belies the thoughtful, cultured and educated man we've enjoyed on some of your other threads. This one does you no credit. And much as I disagree with Mr. Ford, in general, in this instance I do believe he's nailed it - anti-Americanism, indeed.

pcford
12-06-2009, 05:08 PM
I am not aware of any "hateful stories in the British Press" and I would expect an Italian jury to be even less aware of them.

I have seen headlines in the British press calling her a "she-devil." Sounds hateful to me.


Knox repeatedly changed her story, she tried to frame her employer, an African with, as she did not know, a cast iron alibi,for the crime and she was unconvincing in the witness box.

She has asserted that she was being intimidated by the police. Whether or not this is true...I don't know.


None of this makes her look innocent.

Look at the evidence in the case, not fantasisies of anti-Americanism.
Again, I did not consider anti-Americanism to be a factor until lately. Your absurd statements about the US wanting the rest of the world to behave like the Qing dynasty is one of the reasons I might change my mind.


Or do the Italians hate you because you are free, too?

Really Andrew. You plummet yet further.

pcford
12-06-2009, 05:11 PM
Very telling thread. We have two Brits talking down to us, one lecturing me on 'reviewing the evidence', though that's not possible, and ignoring the fact that, looking at the information we do have access to, it appears that both sides have presented compelling, though contradictory 'facts'. Yet DTC and ACB have found the evidence convicting this girl compelling.
The tone of DTC's, Majers and ACB's remarks are also quite similar - smug and condescending. What about yourselves would you say warrants such a position? Do you feel yourselves on the defensive, or feel you and your European heritage is under siege? This has, for the most part, been a civil discussion - the only ones at variance would be you. I don't know Mr. Majer that well; DTC tends to be a bit more pugnacious, so his abrasiveness isn't much of a surprise. But ACB - the side you've shown on a few of these political threads belies the thoughtful, cultured and educated man we've enjoyed on some of your other threads. This one does you no credit. And much as I disagree with Mr. Ford, in general, in this instance I do believe he's nailed it - anti-Americanism, indeed.

I have not until recently thought that anti-Americanism would be a major factor.

I really don't know DTC. Antonio Majer seems to me to be a reasonable person.

However, I am surprised and appalled by ACB's stance in regards to this affair.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 05:15 PM
I can't speak for all Americans, I can only tell you what I was thinking during the lead-up to the trial and verdict. Believe it or not, during that time, this story was NOT front page news even in the Seattle paper.

I'm rather surprised at this, because I can find many references to the case in the Seattle papers with very little effort, courtesy of Messrs. Google. Here's one of the latest - referring to the very determined "innocence campaign"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010429571_knoxfriends05m.html

The prosecutor is reported top have spoken the words you mention in the course of his seven hour speech. Not so very different from the slightly dramatic twist that many prosecuting attorneys might add in such circumstances in your own dear land, I feel sure.

In any case, how do you know that drugs and alcohol were not involved? It wouldn't be inconsistent with some of what is known about Knox? I don't know and neither do you.

None of the other hysterical stuff about Satanic cults etc. appears in the material about the evidence given at the trial that I have seen - Judge's report on his review of the evidence, evidence given in court, closing speeches.......

By the way, here's an extract from the report in my own paper - the Independent - relating to the original assertions you keep referring to, which were dismissed by the judge in his summary of the evidence at the stage of taking the decision to send the pair for trial:

The satanic Halloween rite version of the murder has gone around the world, but Judge Micheli rejected it out of hand in his summing-up. Mr Mignini's Halloween scenario was "to say the least, a fanciful descriptive reconstruction", he wrote, which belonged to the world of comic books. Nor did the judge give much credit "to the kneeling position espoused by the prosecutor in describing a scene suggestive of an orgy".

What persuaded Judge Micheli to send Knox and Sollecito to trial for murder was was the weight of circumstantial evidence against them, as well hotly contested forensic claims, including DNA traces on Ms Kercher's bra strap and on a knife found under Mr Sollecito's bed.

Well, I'm done. All you know about this is some screaming headlines and, it seems, that's all you want to know. Don't denigrate the gutter press - it seems they're selling just what you are looking for.

ishmael
12-06-2009, 05:17 PM
Gosh, she's been found guilty. I don't know if she was, I didn't sit on the jury.

But a point of the thread is to run down America, gratuitously. I'm gonna stand against that. Lot's of faults we need to answer for. It's not perfect. But I don't see people trying to get out.

George Jung
12-06-2009, 05:19 PM
Mulling over the implications of the 'reefer madness' line of prosecution, I have

to wonder what 'chilling effect' this might have on the recent gains made by

the reefer industry in this country (not to mention Europe) towards

legalization? So much for being 'Mr. Mellow' and eating munchies; Peace, not

War! Lots of good slogans gonna bite the dust after this.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 05:34 PM
Very telling thread. We have two Brits talking down to us, one lecturing me on 'reviewing the evidence', though that's not possible, and ignoring the fact that, looking at the information we do have access to, it appears that both sides have presented compelling, though contradictory 'facts'. Yet DTC and ACB have found the evidence convicting this girl compelling.
The tone of DTC's, Majers and ACB's remarks are also quite similar - smug and condescending. What about yourselves would you say warrants such a position? Do you feel yourselves on the defensive, or feel you and your European heritage is under siege? This has, for the most part, been a civil discussion - the only ones at variance would be you. I don't know Mr. Majer that well; DTC tends to be a bit more pugnacious, so his abrasiveness isn't much of a surprise. But ACB - the side you've shown on a few of these political threads belies the thoughtful, cultured and educated man we've enjoyed on some of your other threads. This one does you no credit. And much as I disagree with Mr. Ford, in general, in this instance I do believe he's nailed it - anti-Americanism, indeed.

I found the evidence "compelling"? Maybe you could have another look at my rather cautious post on that point. The master of subtle and not so subtle distortion. As for the rest, I see your habitual lofty commentary along with a lot of nonsense.

I suggest looking at some readily available facts and that is "lecturing". Our heritage is under threat? The suggestion that discussion of guilt or innocence might require some acquaintance with the facts - this is "anti-Americanism??? Oh, dear me. :rolleyes:

Never mind. Projecting attitudes and attributing motives always seem to be the end point of any dialogue with you, so it's par for the course. It does you no credit at all, Dr. Jung :D

pcford
12-06-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm rather surprised at this, because I can find many references to the case in the Seattle papers with very little effort, courtesy of Messrs. Google. Here's one of the latest - referring to the very determined "innocence campaign"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010429571_knoxfriends05m.html


And I am surprised that you did not bother to look at the date. As I said, over the course of this affair the Seattle newspapers, as far as I know, did not have blazing stories in support of Amanda Know and her boyfriend.

They do now. That article was published yesterday. It is fair to say that now that more details of the trial are available, outrage is growing here that what actually happened to Meredith Kercher has not been revealed in the course of the legal proceedings.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Funny how people who watch the news always seem to know better than people on the jury. I don't know if Knox is guilty. The jury thinks so, but sometimes those decisions are reversed on appeal. Let the Italian legal system work.

A reasonable man. Pretty much, in a nutshell, the point I have made. But I'm "anti-American". Are you? :)

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 05:37 PM
And I am surprised that you did not bother to look at the date. not been revealed in the course of the legal

I did bother to look at the date. This is one of several articles to be found on the net, dating over many months.

pcford
12-06-2009, 05:43 PM
I did bother to look at the date. This is one of several articles to be found on the net, dating over many months.

If that is a fact, then I was not aware of it. And I am a fairly well informed person. There was certainly nothing to equal the lurid accusations from the other side of the pond.

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 05:49 PM
There was certainly nothing to equal the lurid accusations from the other side of the pond.

As a matter of interest, I had a look for some of those lurid accusations. It is true that the Daily Mail referred to her as a she-devil - but only after conviction. That is, of course, the first place I would look as the Daily Mail (much beloved as a source for TD) specialises in that sort of thing.

In fact, the "luridness" is rather limited in the reporting of the trial itself. The reporting of matters that are sub judice does tend, even in the gutter press, to be mainly factual, even if the facts are highly selected to sell to a certain type of audience.

I think your quarrel is more with the Italian papers than the British ones, even though our gutter press is about as low as you can get in most situations.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-06-2009, 05:55 PM
.... even though our gutter press is about as low as you can get in most situations.

A distressingly large proportion of Our Gutter Press - is owned and run by an American.

Remember The Times before Wapping?

downthecreek
12-06-2009, 06:00 PM
A distressingly large proportion of Our Gutter Press - is owned and run by an American.

Remember The Times before Wapping?

Hush! Mustn't say that! Facts are anti-American! :rolleyes:

There was a time when The Times was a reputable newspaper....... :(

George Jung
12-06-2009, 06:31 PM
I don't think you really know anything about this. In fact, you know so little, it's hard to know where to start. So I won't.


Good one, Antonio.:D

"Extraterritoriality for US citizens, just like they enjoyed in Qing Dynasty China - only US courts can judge Americans!

I think some people here have got their centuries wrong...:(


Pretty much everything you say about this is miles off the mark. "Drug crazed"? No, but Knox claims one reason for her inability to stick to a consistent story about what she was doing at the time of the murder is that she and Sollecito were smoking marijuana together. There is some significance in this. "Quarrelling about the housekeeping"? Words fail me.

It seems that you have no interest in learning about this case or thinking rationally about it. If anyone is dealing with it hysterically, that person is you.


You missed 'condescending, DTC - so I give you points for owning up to that, at least. And I believe it's been established - in spite of some objections - that many folk have reservations about this conviction, and the 'facts' that have been made public. That you and others have made nasty comments about America(ns) is beyond challenge.

Don't like being called on this? Not a problem. Try treating folk here as you'd prefer to be treated.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-06-2009, 10:50 PM
You will trust a book published by an American writer of best selling novels, published in June 2008, over the verdict of an Italian Court reached in December 2009?

The prosecutor, be he seagreen incorruptible public servant or deep dyed villain, does not decide the sentence - the two judges and the six jurors do that, after hearing the evidence and the arguments for both sides.

There is no point in trying to have a serious exchange of views with you.

Absolutely. Preston spent two or three years (or maybe more, maybe many more) researching his book on the Monster of Florence case, and was confounded by the reach that Italian police and prosecutors had in obstructing independent investigations, especially in regards to free reporting of conflicting testimony. These things are highly regarded in America (freedom of the press and all that rot), for keeping the judicial system honest... apparently, that's not the case in Italy.

Again, since you haven't actually read the book I'm referring to, I understand why you are incredulous, but that doesn't mean you aren't talking out of your a-hole.

From the well documented transgressions of the [very same] prosecutor in the Monster of Florence case, it is not a terrific leap of faith to see how the same principles have been applied to her case.

If you want to take the coward's way out with the excuse 'There is no point in trying to have a serious exchange of views with you.' then so-be-it.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
12-06-2009, 11:22 PM
I have the impression that your book doesn't touch on the conviction of Guede (since you didn't appear to know about it, or the actual basis of the Knox/Sollecito trial) This is one reason why I suspect it is out of date and written before the evidence from the trial was available. You mentioned that Preston had demonstrated that that they could not possibly have been present at the murder. Could you summarise his evidence for this?

No, the book covers it in detail (in the Afterward). The fault is mine, posting after too much wine, and not enough fact-checking. Certainly, Preston's book was written in the closing months of 2008, but since the investigation had gone on for a few years, and nothing real (or new) was being revealed by the prosecution, I don't give much credence to the details released in the trial since then.

Preston's comments relate to the fact that Guede, for several months, related that he did not know who Amanda and her boyfriend were, nor had he any indication that they were in or around the murder scene.

Then, several months after his incarceration, he changed his story... damn strange isn't it?

The prosecutor has a history of cultivating witnesses who will say what he wishes...

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 03:33 AM
That you and others have made nasty comments about America(ns) is beyond challenge.

I'm not sure how well you have read the thread, if at all, since you seem to have missed the fact that I mentioned several times that I don't know if Knox is guilty (neither do you or anyone else here), was extremely circumspect in my summary of my own conclusions about what I have read, gave you a good link to start looking at the details of the judge's initial report and main lines of evidence (to which you say you have no access) and another to explain the differences between the different systems of legal proceedings etc. etc etc.

But it seems you are able to find what is not written by me. That is to say, "nasty comments about Americans". (Unless, of course, you choose to include forceful comments about what individual Americans have posted - in which case there are a lot of "nasty comments" about Americans, Brits, Aussies etc. on this board and you are hardly as pure as the driven snow in this matter) I find the whining about "anti-Americanism" by people who appear to have no interest in exploring the facts available to them, ridiculous, and made that plain. I never mentioned it, of course, until you did.


Don't like being called on this? Not a problem. Try treating folk here as you'd prefer to be treated.I don't mind what you call me. I don't take you that seriously. Indeed, I think your projections are, not to put too fine a point on it, a load of old codswallop! And I certainly won't be treating people here with the patronising and condescending (exactly the word that comes into my mind when I read your posts) passive aggression you so often display - almost invariably addressed "more in sorrow than in anger" to the world in general and almost never to the individual(s) you intend to insult. I don't admire that at all.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 03:46 AM
Then, several months after his incarceration, he changed his story... damn strange isn't it?

This case is full of all kinds of story changes from the protagonists and many very strange twists that are hard to explain. Knox certainly changed her story a couple of times.


The prosecutor has a history of cultivating witnesses who will say what he wishes...I would think that's true of most prosecutors, although I grant you this one may have been much more dubious than most. However, the summary of the judge's initial report (on the linked site and, no doubt, in other places on the net) giving his reasons for sending the couple to trial does, perhaps, indicate that there is a great deal more to this than just the prosecutor's witnesses.

May I return to the statement you made that Preston has proved the couple couldn't have been present when the murder took place? I was asked by Jung to summarise all the evidence - some task with a complex case such as this and a trial lasting a year - but I do wonder whether you might be able to summarise at least that small part of the evidence that Preston puts forward in support of this. If he is right, it would surely have been the trump card for the defense. It would be interesting to look at it alongside the relevant part of the evidence summaries now available.

ishmael
12-07-2009, 04:08 AM
"The two women had evidently argued about housekeeping."

And that's what led to murder, one factor anyway?

I remember a housemate, Pam, the the girlfriend of my housemate, putting her foot down one day. "Now look, you little boys who had your mammas clean up after you are gonna have to start doing dishes!" The kitchen did get pretty ugly at times. But it never led to even close to killing one another. You'd have to interview Pam to find out if that's true.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 06:13 AM
Antonio - did you delete your post? It was here last time I looked. I appreciated your confirmation of the relative significance of the prosecutor in Italian and American proceedings.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-07-2009, 06:31 AM
So, two hundred posts in what have we learned?

Beyond the fact the people tend to be jingoist, xenophobic and ignorant in about equal proportions.

Antonio Majer
12-07-2009, 06:57 AM
thank you downthecreek and Andrew, yes I preferred to delete that post, I have always the doubt to pass the line, you know. Well we are in the bilge after all. But moreover there was a writer that once defined the writing as a useless dialogue with oneself, maybe I have already written this here, I like this phrase a lot.
---
The fact is I do think Amanda is guilty, but I know Italy is the country of the most beautiful things and of the most horrendous ones. What shall we say if we will discover that Amanda is innocent and the prosecutor incompetent? The only thing to do is to wait, I guess.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 07:12 AM
thank you downthecreek and Andrew, yes I preferred to delete that post, I have always the doubt to pass the line, you know.

You made some telling points - but since you have chosen to delete, I will not repeat them.

This is, indeed, a perplexing and complicated case, with many loose ends ends and unexplained oddities. The detailed summaries and analyses of evidence before and during the trial make very demanding and disturbing reading.

And, at the heart of it, the truly horrifying, brutal murder of a young woman at the start of her adult life. Maybe we should spare a thought for Meredith Kercher.

Bruce Taylor
12-07-2009, 08:29 AM
That you and others have made nasty comments about America(ns) is beyond challenge.

Is it? I haven't gone through this thread with a nit-comb, but I don't remember DTC saying anything nasty about America. Could it be that you've glumped ACB and DTC together in your mind as a single, composite Brit? It was ACB who jumped (too eagerly, in my opinion) on an opportunity to generalize about a supposed American yearning for "extraterritoriality."

I don't find DTC's posts abrasive, but perhaps that's just because it's not my ox that's being abraded here. And, while his diction is distinctively British (which, to American ears, can sound a little headmasterly) he doesn't strike me as "condescending," either. Of course, reading a person's "tone" on a boisterous internet forum can be difficult, and I might have it all wrong. For what it's worth, I have often noticed a kind of chuckling paternalism in your posts. ;)

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 08:58 AM
Did I say England was foggy? You have me mistaken for another American, sir! ;)

Sorry, Lew, missed this....

Now, sir -

Are you, or are you not, the perpetrator of this vile calumny upon the fair land of England:-


I'm not Andrew, and Seattle isn't England apart from the fogHow do you plead? Guilty, or not guilty?

I warn you, sir, that a trial under English law will see you thrown into a deep, dark, dank dungeon for the duration of your natural life. We won't fry you, or pump you full of mortal drugs, but you will not enjoy a pleasant solitude, as we never bother to remove the skeletons of those who fail to endure and we have a special breed of rat down there that likes to feed upon the living dead.... That is how to treat the villains who accuse us of being foggy!

;);)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-07-2009, 09:01 AM
Wasn't there a folk song about the "Foggy Foggy Jew"?

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 09:07 AM
Is it? I haven't gone through this thread with a nit-comb, but I don't remember DTC saying anything nasty about America.

Thanks, Brian. I don't generally generalise in that way (if you see what I mean) because I think there is very little to be said about any country or nationality when using such a broad brush. Mind you, there are plenty of examples of American reluctance to submit to or respect "foreign" judicial systems. Antonio mentioned a famous one in his deleted post.


For what it's worth, I have often noticed a kind of chuckling paternalism in your posts. ;)So have I. :)

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 09:11 AM
Wasn't there a folk song about the "Foggy Foggy Jew"?

Well, I didn't say anything about flippin' Wales, did I? There may be plenty of foggy jews over there for all I know.

When we were down on the Kent coast earlier in the year it was so thick in the Thames Estuary that we heard one pilot complaining that he couldn't see the bow of his ship. Well, maybe it was the Emma Maersk or something ;) Over in Conyer we were basking in glorious sunshine.

But don't tell that Lew, whatever you do. :)

Tom Hunter
12-07-2009, 09:52 AM
I read the NYTimes article on the Monster of Florence, but not the book.

I read some of the news coverage on the Knox trial.

Michael I'm skeptical of the claims by Monsters author. Not being able to read Italian I can't get into the details of the prosecutors reports. However it seems very clear, corroborated by several news sources including Newsweek that Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder are not know to anyone but Knox.

Some of the facts you cite from the book appear to be in error, for example the statement about “no DNA from Knox found at the crime scene.” This from Newsweek: “The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled.” Maybe not a lot, but not “no DNA” either. Full article here, it also addresses the alibi question: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216903


I did read a recent NYTimes opinion piece on the case and found it very selective in the information it put forward.

pcford, you wrote “there is quite a contrast between the portrait that has been painted of her in the sleazy European press and the image of her on the part of those who know her best.” I would like to point out that “those who know her best” include a team headed by Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and well-known television legal analyst, David Marriott, a public relations advisor.

I don’t think that makes her either innocent or guilty, but I do think that having a high powered PR group managing you messaging makes it difficult for the rest of us to get a straight story.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in favor of the verdict, some against it. There is no question that she fingered an innocent black man, who suffered substantial losses as a result of the time he spent in jail.

I won't presume to judge the Italians who made the verdict.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 10:27 AM
Italian I can't get into the details of the prosecutors reports. However it seems very clear, corroborated by several news sources including Newsweek that Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder are not know to anyone but Knox.

Certainly seems to be the case from the evidence summaries. There are also some strange details - for example, the fact that both Knox and Sollecito switched off their mobile phones at the same time - around 8.30 that evening (? to avoid being traced? Or for some other reason?) Not a usual thing to do. Also, a CCTV image from a nearby car park that appeared very like Knox entering the cottage at around that time.


Some of the facts you cite from the book appear to be in error, for example the statement about “no DNA from Knox found at the crime scene.” This from Newsweek: “
The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled.” Maybe not a lot, but not “no DNA” either. Full article here, it also addresses the alibi question: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216903The evidence summaries regarding the clean up and faked break-in are very detailed. The police claim that when they arrived at the cottage (where Knox and Sollecito were present) the washing machine was in recent use and contained some of Kercher's clothes (still warm) This was corroborated by Filomena, a third young woman sharing the apartment, in whose room the break-in had been staged. Odd behaviour, especially when Knox and Sollecito claimed at that stage not to know what had happened to Kercher, whose room was locked.


pcford, you wrote “there is quite a contrast between the portrait that has been painted of her in the sleazy European press and the image of her on the part of those who know her best.” I would like to point out that “those who know her best” include a
team headed by Anne Bremner, a Seattle attorney and well-known television legal analyst, David Marriott, a public relations advisor.There are, in fact, a number of very different accounts of Knox's character to be found. Not all very complimentary. These include the letter from Sollecito to his father, in which described her as being interested only in having a good time and "hardly in contact with reality" (or words to that effect.) She does emerge in many ways as being a strange character.


There is a lot of circumstantial evidence in favor of the verdict, some against it. There is no question that she fingered an innocent black man, who suffered substantial losses as a result of the time he spent in jail. There is a very great deal to this case. Like you, I think a rush to judgment is misguided, to say the least.

pcford
12-07-2009, 11:32 AM
<snips> she couldn't pin it all on the black guy, in the time honoured manner, it must be the fault of the Italian legal system.



She has said that the police (after questioning her at length at length in a language she barely understood and without legal aid) led her into imagining what might have occurred if Lamumba had killed Kercher. (the police had reason to suspect a black person because hair had been found) She then supplied a scenario. She wrote as soon as possible (a few hours later) that this statement should not be taken as fact.

pcford
12-07-2009, 12:03 PM
* An interpreter was present throughout. And she chose to give evidence at her trial in both English and Italian, which suggests that she is reasonably fluent.



Alice in Wonderland indeed.

Andrew, did the trial did place on the same day as the police questioning? I was under the impression that it took place a couple years later. Now, Andrew, do you suppose that she might have learned the language better in those two years since she obviously had to speak it every day?

I was able to speak German well enough to get by after working in an auto repair shop in Munich for two months.

(Special emphasis on words like rubber mallet, sandpaper and closed end wrench.)

pcford
12-07-2009, 12:40 PM
Another note. There is a veritable sh!tstorm of circumstantial evidence in this affair. It is fascinating to sort through it. I have not been all that interested until the last few days but I am afraid I might be hooked now. And I have to make a living.

Often when you look at these claims they just fade away like the morning dew. Just one example, those supporting the verdict mention a shopkeeper's statement that the accused were in his store buying cleaning supplies after the time of the murder. However, his assistant who was present at the time says that this did not happen. In any case, this was never brought up in the trial...suggesting that the prosecutor did not believe the shopkeeper.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 12:49 PM
Another note. There is a veritable sh!tstorm of circumstantial evidence in this affair.

There is indeed, as well as a fair bit of forensic evidence connecting Knox and Sollecito to the murder. Of course not all the circumstantial evidence stands up - a complex case like this will throw up all kinds of oddities - but I suspect a lot of it does. I'm afraid one example of dubious evidence in this sh!storm doesn't disprove anything.

Whatever conclusions you draw - at least you are actually starting to look at the case itself, rather than the propaganda.

By the way, if you are using Egin's NYT blog at all, be aware that it has been hotly disputed in other quarters and even the NYT itself has had to disclaim responsibility for it.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 12:56 PM
only an idiot would publish without having read the text of the judgment and the transcripts.

Well, I won't be publishing any books, but I do hope the judgment and jury report are published on the net in English, because they will make exceptionally interesting reading.

pcford
12-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Whatever conclusions you draw - at least you are actually starting to look at the case itself, rather than the propaganda.


(Not condescending at all, DTC.)

Actually, I have been looking at the evidence from the beginning. (In another lifetime I took a couple law courses as an undergraduate. Same law school as John Yew, by the way.) Perhaps you should look at evidence which does not support your conclusions.

One thing I have not been able to find. The "pro-guilty" people say that the accused cleaned the scene after the murder. I have even seen one report that they were observed at the front door of the cottage with a mop and bucket.

Does anyone know specifics of this charge? Its refutation?

pcford
12-07-2009, 01:07 PM
There is indeed, as well as a fair bit of forensic evidence connecting Knox and Sollecito to the murder.

By the way, if you are using Egin's NYT blog at all, be aware that it has been hotly disputed in other quarters and even the NYT itself has had to disclaim responsibility for it.

"A fair bit"...one thing I thought most have observed is that there is a paucity of hard evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

Could you get me a source for your statement regarding the NY Times and Egan's blog? I suspect it might not be exactly what you seem to be implying.

pcford
12-07-2009, 01:19 PM
I'm not a policeman, but I have friends who are or who have been, and I understand from them that in the investigation of any crime which attracts extraordinary public interest, the investigators must expect to cope with a certain amount of "grandstanding" by members of the public who either want to be seen to be involved or who genuinely think that they remember something that might be material. In many British cases of this type, reams of such evidence have been taken and then discarded when they could not be cross-checked.

I suspect that a lot of the circumstantial evidence will have been of this type.

We must also keep in mind that a "witness" who is not taken at face value by the investigators will often find a willing ear with the Press.

That makes sense. One must realize that a lot of this stuff is also trotted out as fact by the pro-guilty advocates. You have to look at the source of the supposed fact. And, as I said above it often dries up like dew in the morning sun.

downthecreek
12-07-2009, 01:36 PM
(Not condescending at all, DTC.)

Actually, I have been looking at the evidence from the beginning.

Well, there wasn't much sign of it until now. If you think that's "condescending", well, tough. It really doesn't matter to me what labels you want to stick.

So you are using the NYT blog. I'll see if I can dig out their stuff, but it may take a while because I won't have much time for a day or two.

I think you are mistaken about my viewpoint (like Jung) I did mention that the weight of evidence I had seen appeared to mount up to a fairly strong case against Knox and Sollecito. But, unlike you (as it appears from all your earlier posts on this matter) I am not partisan. If I appear to be so, it is because pretty much every American poster, including you, seemed to take it as read that Knox is the victim of a miscarriage of Italian justice. Sometimes a little counterweight is not a bad thing.

For the record, I still think the weight of the evidence I have seen leans in the direction of the "guilty" verdict. Incidentally, I really don't think attending the same law school as John Yoo is much of a credential....

pcford
12-07-2009, 01:51 PM
Well, there wasn't much sign of it until now. If you think that's "condescending", well, tough. It really doesn't matter to me what labels you want to stick.

OK. I think condescending fits the bill perfectly.


So you are using the NYT blog. I'll see if I can dig out their stuff, but it may take a while because I won't have much time for a day or two.

I have not paid much attention to Egan's blog. I doubt if I have read an entire posting. He is a good writer; perhaps I should read more. I suspect the NYT "disavowal" was something along the line of drawing a line between an opinion piece and other content in an ongoing legal proceeding. Which is totally appropriate. It likely did not reflect a disavowal of the opinions in Egan's work on the topic. I think that is what you were attempting to portray.


I think you are mistaken about my viewpoint (like Jung) I did mention that the weight of evidence I had seen appeared to mount up to a fairly strong case against Knox and Sollecito. But, unlike you (as it appears from all your earlier posts on this matter) I am not partisan. If I appear to be so, it is because pretty much every American poster, including you, seemed to take it as read that Knox is the victim of a miscarriage of Italian justice. Sometimes a little counterweight is not a bad thing.

For the record, I still think the weight of the evidence I have seen leans in the direction of the "guilty" verdict.

Ya coulda fooled me. It seems...perhaps I was mistaken...that you have been rude and haughty to those of us that cast doubt on the guilty verdict. If you have an open mind on the affair, I missed that.

pcford
12-07-2009, 01:53 PM
Incidentally, I really don't think attending the same law school as John Yoo is much of a credential....

Don't have much of an ear for irony, do you?

pcford
12-07-2009, 03:24 PM
Ok, I found a discussion of the "cleanup" accusations on the friendsofamanda.org site.

Another claim that sounds pretty dubious.

And...in any case, none of this evidence was entered into the trial by the prosecution. It is said that the false rumors regarding the alleged cleanup were spread by the police.

pcford
12-07-2009, 05:51 PM
Hang on a minute! You raised the "clean up" story, nobody else has mentioned it and it was not part of the evidence. You have now knocked it down again ("not used in evidence") and added the throwaway line that "it is said" (by whom?) that "this allegation was spread by the police" .




I asked in #221 if anyone knew anything about the cleanup stories. Unlike you and your countryman DLC, I have been trying to fit all of this together, the facts that indicate guilt and the facts that indicate innocence. One of the damaging aspects was that the accused were supposed to have cleaned the cottage. I had heard no refutation of this; it seemed to be important. And one hears it repeatedly out in blogosphere. Sure, may be irrelevant but it seems yet another lie that was developed. Did it have any effect on the final judgment? At this point we don't know. But since the jurors are not sequestered, it is not much of a stretch to say that it did.

A month ago...I had no strong feelings one way or the other. I have to say, the more I look at the prosecution and trial, the worse it smells.

john l
12-07-2009, 06:25 PM
i have no clue who did what, but it appears that all folks involved here
are siding with nationalistic bias. and how come no one is mentioning
the guy who was seen in the Perugia town square fountain shortly after the murder time, cleaning blood off his hands and crying i killed her. who was that guy? his name was never mentioned. he was treated at the local hospital- surely there must be records of his name. it sounds to me that he could be suspect as much as anyone on trial. maybe she did it and maybe due to my own nationalistic tendencies, i have a hard time believing she did it. and maybe you brits want closure on the murder of one of your own and are willing
to accept a conviction of the american girl. i see prejudices on all sides. yes the british web site is well done but i don't believe for a minute that it isn't biased - at least as much as the american or italian sentiments. so where does that leave things?

john l
12-07-2009, 06:31 PM
and as far as dna is concerned - amanda knox lived in the same apartment and used the same utensils - off course her DNA is there. it's all over the place.
sollitos dna on the bra clasp? suppose it is there because he was handling the laundry? the amount of DNA Soleeto and Knox DNA found on the knife and the bra clasp seems minimal and likely to be there and not to me of degree to convict. but i'll wait to read the report. because given what is in the public so far - "the glove don't fit!"

pcford
12-07-2009, 06:35 PM
i have no clue who did what, but it appears that all folks involved here
are siding with nationalistic bias. and how come no one is mentioning
the guy who was seen in the Perugia town square fountain shortly after the murder time, cleaning blood off his hands and crying i killed her. who was that guy? his name was never mentioned. he was treated at the local hospital- surely there must be records of his name. it sounds to me that he could be suspect as much as anyone on trial. <snips>

Supposedly, the guy was nuts; he was sent to the local nuthouse. I read somewhere that he is still there.

As I have said earlier, I did not have any opinion up until recently on this case. The more you look into it, the more implausible details you find. The prosecution's case is a slender, slender reed. It seems to me that the best evidence they have is the DNA on the knife. And that is highly dubious.

It appears that the jury's judgment may not have been unanimous. Perhaps things will become clearer with the judge's report.

What troubles me, shocks me is really not too strong a term is the manner in which ACB and others has acted on this thread.

john l
12-07-2009, 07:00 PM
national pride is a big factor all around in this trial.
why is that nameless guy is nameless? have there been
any accounts as to who this is? interrogated? interviewed?

George Jung
12-07-2009, 07:41 PM
I see that I've been drawn and quartered in absentia; for a bunch of guys who really don't give a damn what I think, you seem to have chewed on that one for awhile. I especially want to thank my canadian friend Mr. Taylor for his contribution; appreciate it. But 'chuckling paternalism'? Perhaps I'm mis-read - I was aiming for 'calm and objective'. But the Brits, for whatever reason, appear to have a chip on their shoulders on this one (funny, given it's an Italian court case), so nationalism, perhaps, is a reasonable explanation. You may not find DTC's posts condescending; I have, but then again, his comments have been directed my way. And perhaps I've erred, naming 'the Brits', lumping their comments together. Without doubt, ACB has taken greater umbrage, and been much more abrasive, in his exchanges. Frankly, it's been puzzling, and seemingly out of character. It matters not, though it does say a bit about the man and his passions.

While I'm still interested in this case, and will continue to follow it in the news, I don't see where continued involvement on this thread is to anyones benefit.

Bruce Taylor
12-07-2009, 08:13 PM
I see that I've been drawn and quartered in absentia; for a bunch of guys who really don't give a damn what I think

Speaking of "tone," mine must have sounded a lot rougher than I'd meant it to. I do take an interest in what you think, or I wouldn't have bothered twisting your nose about it. I regret the "paternalism" remark, and hope you'll keep chuckling. :)

downthecreek
12-08-2009, 04:17 AM
Unlike you and your countryman DLC, I have been trying to fit all of this together, the facts that indicate guilt and the facts that indicate innocence. One of the damaging aspects was that the accused were supposed to have cleaned the cottage. I had heard no refutation of this; it seemed to be important. And one hears it repeatedly out in blogosphere. Sure, may be irrelevant but it seems yet another lie that was developed.

Ridiculous. I've been doing exactly the same (and reading the likes of Egan (whose very first blog was entitled "Innocent Abroad") the "Friends of Amanda Knox" etc. just as you have. I do, however, prefer summaries of what has been written and said by the protagonists to partisan descriptions and interpretations, which is why I don't find either of those sites (or many of the reports in the Seattle press) as persuasive as the straightforward translations. I must say, I find accusations from you and other Americans of partisanship very silly indeed. I think my own conclusions have been, all along, extremely cautious and open to doubt, by comparison with your dismissive, and, in my opinion, untenable certainty.

FOAK says there is no evidence for the "cleanup". The Italian police and forensic experts say there is - combined with the faked break in. Much of the evidence for both is described in the summaries. This certainly did play a part in the judge's preliminary report and trial. Also, bear in mind that the judge and jury had access to a large amount of written evidence that we cannot access.

I have no time today to take this further. I have some hope that the judge's full preliminary report (the evidence leading to committal) will be translated and made available shortly (I have seen summaries) That will make interesting reading.

By the way, it appears that your definition of irony and mine are rather different. Here's an example of what I would consider real irony (rather than simply saying or implying the opposite of what you actually think)

The Nigerian scammers rely on the reputation of their country for corruption to convince people of the likely validity of their scams.

It is reassuring to know, however, that you don't take pride in any association with Mr. Yoo. (That's how his name is spelled)

downthecreek
12-08-2009, 04:30 AM
I see that I've been drawn and quartered in absentia;
Oh dear. I imagine most of your commentaries on the behaviour, attitudes and motives of others are posted when they are "in absentia". How could it be otherwise?

objective Your opinions are "objective" (unlike those of others) Isn't that a little condescending? ;)


But the Brits, for whatever reason, appear to have a chip on their shoulders on this one (funny, given it's an Italian court case), so nationalism, perhaps, is a reasonable explanation. Dr. Jung, you cannot be serious! Do you, perhaps, mean that if you don't necessarily agree that the Italian courts are incompetent and Amanda must be innocent, as every American on this thread appears to assert, whether or not they have any knowledge of the evidence presented (along with the American press) you must have a "chip on your shoulder" and be in the grip of "nationalism".

You never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

downthecreek
12-08-2009, 04:56 AM
Does he exist?

Yes. However, there has been mention of motive and lack of motive. I'm hard put to it to imagine why the Italian police would want to "frame" Knox and Sollecito, or the state go through the interminable processes of the last 3 years, if they already had a complete and satisfactory case against Geude and/or this man and no reason to take matters further.

I have seen no mention of forensic evidence of any involvement of this character - and if he was "covered in blood" etc. I would have thought that would be pretty easy to prove.

skuthorp
12-08-2009, 05:59 AM
Just as well she didn't do it in Texas.

andrewe
12-08-2009, 01:10 PM
ACB, your reference to the pilot cutting the ski lift wire reminds me of my brother being hit head on outside Alconbury AFB by a USAF captain, who had forgotten which side of the road the UK drives on. DUI, he was back in the US the next day and the local police were stonewalled. Nobody died, but my s-i-l could never use high heels or walk backwards easily afterwards.
A

john l
12-08-2009, 01:56 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6945967.ece

interesting article - the entire first half is somewhat sensational. the prosecutors scenario is written/read as fact in spite of the warning. if knox did in fact do it, then i'd have no problem with this account. but on surface it appears as biased as any amercian rendition. having said that - the blood on knife found at solietos is somewhat incriminating - laboratory efficaciousness? who knows. crazy stuff on all counts. reading that article, i'd be inclined to an indictment and possibly guilty verdict. but from where i'm sitting it seems written to comfort the wounded. but i could be 360 degrees off. as for italian law - i'm not beholden to any sterotypes - italian, british or american. but i don't want to believe knox did it as much as others want to believe she did!
i'll tell you this much - if they did do it they must have been doing some crazy drugs. was there any toxology reports for knox and solieto?

johnw
12-08-2009, 01:57 PM
ACB, your reference to the pilot cutting the ski lift wire reminds me of my brother being hit head on outside Alconbury AFB by a USAF captain, who had forgotten which side of the road the UK drives on. DUI, he was back in the US the next day and the local police were stonewalled. Nobody died, but my s-i-l could never use high heels or walk backwards easily afterwards.
A
I met an Englishman in Greece who, serving there in the British army, told his commander he intended to marry a Greek girl. The commander, assuming he'd made the girl pregnant, offered to get him out of the country immediately. Instead, he was so offended that he resigned on the spot, married the girl, and when I met him was a successful restaurant owner on Spetsa.

Exceptionalism in this form is practiced by the military of many countries. To me, it's equally problematic that many countries will simply expel foreigners who have committed crimes against other foreigners, rather than try them for the crime. It seems to me that the Italians have made a good-faith effort to administer justice in this case. If you want to argue that in this case, they have failed, fine, but I've seen no reason to suppose that.

andrewe
12-08-2009, 02:26 PM
JohnW, slight difference between personal relationships and covering up criminal activity. DUI is criminal in the US?
A

Agree with you in the rest.

johnw
12-08-2009, 02:54 PM
DUI is criminal in the US. There are legal ramifications to abandoning a child, as well. You can go to jail for non-support.

andrewe
12-08-2009, 04:01 PM
Good point.
A

paladin
12-08-2009, 04:16 PM
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....who was the pilot that cut the wire on the ski lift?..........and did the U.S. gov't pay up?

stevebaby
12-08-2009, 06:00 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1401225.htm

pcford
12-08-2009, 07:53 PM
Wasn't the Alps, wasn't a fighter and Congress really really didn't want to pay up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster

What did the accused have to do with this?

pcford
12-08-2009, 07:54 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1401225.htm

What did the accused have to do with this?

johnw
12-08-2009, 08:30 PM
Pat, they're talking about extraterritoriality.

pcford
12-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Pat, they're talking about extraterritoriality.

What does that have to do with innocence or guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? When did the subject stray to this problem in international law? Are they responsible for this extraterritoriality? If not, why is it brought up? To bitch about the foreign policies of the US? Is that germane? I don't think so.

John, you seem to be a reasonable person. Have a look at [/URL][URL]http://www.friendsofamanda.org/ (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/friendsofamanda.org)

A lot of the "evidence" that you hear about on forums are rumors from the police or trash newspapers and were never even used in court.

I had no strong feelings one way or the other about case until very recently. It is amazing what we are seeing now...even from heretofore apparently intelligent people like ACB. To call the prosecution's case flimsy would be an overstatement.

George Jung
12-08-2009, 10:39 PM
Not to re-ignite the controversy, but this being at cross purposes is a bit irritating, and really, un-necessary. There was a bit on CNN, two US lawyers, well-versed in this case, addressing some of these very issues. Their most salient point - an obvious one, yet the discussion of which has been so inflammatory - was pointing out just how different the US and Italian systems are, and to note that, had this case been tried in the US, either it never would have been brough to trial (weak evidence, by US standards), or she would've been acquitted. Her take - on appeal, this conviction will be overturned. It's that difference in systems, and lack of experience with them, that has caused so much misunderstanding.

Second point, perhaps a bit more inflammatory - ACB continues taking his shots at the idea of 'US Exceptionalism'. It's there - matched only by an equally inflated 'Euro/English Exceptionalism'. Get off your hobbyhorse, and join the rest of the human race. That glass house you're hiding in just isn't up to the task.

johnw
12-08-2009, 11:16 PM
What does that have to do with innocence or guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? When did the subject stray to this problem in international law? Are they responsible for this extraterritoriality? If not, why is it brought up? To bitch about the foreign policies of the US? Is that germane? I don't think so.

John, you seem to be a reasonable person. Have a look at FriendsofAmanda.org (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/friendsofamanda.org)

A lot of the "evidence" that you hear about on forums are rumors from the police or trash newspapers and were never even used in court.

I had no strong feelings one way or the other about case until very recently. It is amazing what we are seeing now...even from heretofore apparently intelligent people like ACB. To call the prosecution's case flimsy would be an overstatement.
I clicked your link, and this is what I got:


Not Found

The requested URL /forum/friendsofamanda.org was not found on this server.


I find this unpersuasive.

pcford
12-08-2009, 11:58 PM
Hmmm. Ok I see what I did wrong. Fixed my previous post.
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/

You will find an absence of gratuitous generalizations about "the Italians", "the English", "and the Europeans." You will find no criticism of European foreign policy. If ACB and others have a problem with the idiotic policies of our former president, they should take it up with George W. There is no connection with the facts of this case.

You will also find that much of what has been written about the two is plain unadulterated bs.

pcford
12-09-2009, 12:12 AM
Her take - on appeal, this conviction will be overturned. It's that difference in systems, and lack of experience with them, that has caused so much misunderstanding.



I infer...partially from what the Antonio Majer (I gather he is Italian) said...that it is common for judgments to be overturned in Italian courts. Perhaps more common than in US courts. (?)

pcford
12-09-2009, 12:22 AM
FOAK says there is no evidence for the "cleanup". The Italian police and forensic experts say there is - combined with the faked break in. Much of the evidence for both is described in the summaries. This certainly did play a part in the judge's preliminary report and trial. Also, bear in mind that the judge and jury had access to a large amount of written evidence that we cannot access.


Prove it. This is from the friendsofamanda.org site. A quote:
Was there a cleanup after the murder?


http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/broken_pipe.jpg
The drainpipe beneath Raffaele's kitchen sink, minus the part that came loose on the night of November 1
No. This is a myth that the authorities have nurtured, both in the traditional media and on the Internet, without providing any significant detail about what exactly was cleaned, how it was done, or what evidence shows that it happened.

None of the prosecution's witnesses testified explicitly during the trial that a cleanup took place. Some hinted at such activity, however, because they expressed the opinion that prints and stains revealed with luminol were residual bloodstains connected to the murder.

Click here to read about the luminol results. (http://www.friendsofamanda.org/luminol.html)

Such insinuation without proof is typical of the case against Amanda and Raffaele. If the prosecutor has evidence that somebody cleaned the crime scene, why didn't he lay it out clearly and systematically?

The obvious answer is that he has no evidence to present. Let's take a look at some of the specific fallacies that have arisen with regard to the alleged cleanup.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/shoe_print_tags.jpg
Tags marking blood traces, seen from the entrance foyer looking toward the victim's room MYTH: The broken drainpipe in Raffaele's kitchen was a cover story for cleaning activity related to the murder.

On the night of November 1, 2007, when Raffaele and Amanda were washing dishes at his apartment, a drainpipe under the sink came loose, and water spilled out on the kitchen floor. Raffaele didn't have a mop, so he used towels to dam in the water for the time being.

The next morning, Amanda went to the cottage to take a shower. She returned to Raffaele's place with a mop to clean up the water in his apartment. After they did this and had a quick breakfast, they both went back to the cottage, taking the mop with them.

Much speculation has grown around these banal events. Insiders have known all along that the police investigated what Raffaele and Amanda told them, and every detail was confirmed to be true. But suspicion has continued to linger on the Internet. Perhaps now that the prosecution has wrapped up its case without any significant discussion of the broken drainpipe, we can close the book on a misconception that has no factual basis.

MYTH: Someone cleaned the cottage with bleach.

This story has its origins in the events surrounding the drainpipe as well as misinformation fed to the media. On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2894139.ece) on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. But in fact, no such receipts were ever found. Then, in a November 25, 2007, report (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2940901.ece), Owen quoted an apparently official source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith's room and the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been "thoroughly cleaned with bleach."

At the trial, the prosecution presented no evidence that anyone cleaned the cottage with bleach, and video of the crime scene strongly undermines such a claim. Along with the latent footprints in the corridor that were revealed with luminol, investigators found a number of faint but visible blood traces matching Rudy Guede's shoe. It would have been hard to mop the floor without destroying these blood traces.

pcford
12-09-2009, 02:04 AM
You seem to have forgotten the cleaned up bloodstains, the drops of mixed blood, the cut on Knox's neck, Sollecitio's DNA on Kercher's bra clasp - cut off with a knife - Knox's vile accusation of an innocent man who had been unwise enough to employ her, the curious switching off - not to "silent" - of Knox's and Sollecito's mobile phones, and so on, and on.




Out of the tattered remains of the British empire, there are two outstanding accomplishments: Victorian civil engineering and the elite universities of England. I think I may have to reconsider the latter of these. When I went to Britain long ago, when puppy dogs were the oldest thing in the world, I made it a point to hitchhike to Oxford. I had tremendous respect for the institution. However, now we see ACB who atttended attended Oxford's competitor, Cambridge University, falling into some rather scrambled thinking indeed.

He listed what he considers to be the best evidence against the accused. Let's look at them.

The cleaned up bloodstains. There were no cleaned up bloodstains. Please see my post just previous to this.

The drops of mixed blood. There was no mixed blood. There was mixed DNA.

from Friendsofamanda.org
Was "mixed blood" found at the crime scene?


http://www.friendsofamanda.org/images/blood_in_drain.jpg
This bloodstain revealed the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda. Meredith's genetic markers were much stronger than Amanda's, suggesting that the sample was composed of Meredith's blood mixed with residual DNA from Amanda. No. What forensic investigators found was the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda in a total of six samples among dozens that were taken. Three of these samples were from the bathroom shared by the two women (the other housemates shared a different bathroom). Mixed DNA was also found on swabs taken from Amanda's room and a latent shoe print in the corridor. A swab from Filomena's room revealed Meredith's DNA with what appears to be a very weak profile for Amanda.

All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.

The other three mixed DNA samples were taken from latent stains revealed with luminol. No test was performed to confirm the presence of blood in any of these samples.

The cut on the neck. I have been able to find little about this. This information was volunteered in court. One source stated that the accused said it was a hickey.

Sollecitio's DNA on Kercher's bra clasp. The bra clasp was on the floor in Meredith's room for weeks. Stills and video showed that it had been moved. If Sollecitio had ever been in Meredith's room it is possible that the clasp collected some of that DNA.

Knox's vile accusation of an innocent man
The police had a black man's hair from the crime scene. At first they thought Lumumba was involved in the murder. At first Knox kept to her story of not being involved in the crime at all. After days of questioning the police asked her to imagine what might have happened. At that point, she told a story of being in the cottage and Lumumba killing Meredith. A few hours later, she wrote the authorities that she did not want this imagining or musing to be taken as truth.

The switching off of phones. Seems like something you do when you don't want to be bothered. I do it; I'll bet you do too, Andrew.

I am surprised you did not mention the knife with the dna of Meredith and Knox on it. There was a tiny, tiny amount of what the prosecution claims was Meredith's blood on the tip of the knife. The amount was so small that it had to be handled by special techniques that extrapolate when a portion of the DNA is missing. This extrapolation happened a few times. Experts say that the chance of the DNA not being Ms. Kercher is as high as 70%. Also the technician who examined the DNA was not trained to examine normal DNA, let alone the specialized testing for fragmented DNA.

ACB said,
"You see a pretty girl, a Jesuit-educated American innocent abroad; I see a psychopath."

Well, Andrew I see bright, immature and loopy young woman. There is absolutely nothing in her history that would indicate a predilection to violence. There is no evidence that, except for normal housemate difficulties, she was anything but very friendly with Ms Kercher. Yet we are led to believe that within a few weeks of arriving in Italy she had been transformed into a satanic psychopathic killer.

Was this behavior caused by the "fumes of drugs?" In my observance, the most dangerous thing pot smokers do is eat too much junk food.

Ms. Knox has definitely not presented herself well in court. Seattle is a city of engineers and programmers. Neither group has a reputation for dressing well. And that's the way it is in Seattle as a whole. It's the kind of place that you can see people at the opera in a T-shirt and Levis. Europe is not like that. People dress up for important occasions like court. Why her lawyer did not make her wear appropriate clothing is a mystery to me. Also, her summation statement, at least the one I saw on tv here, seemed diffuse. Maybe a miscalculated attempt at eloquence that backfired.

On the other hand, most everything she has done has been used as an indicator of being a "psychopath." This includes, her sex life, her hygiene, possession of a vibrator, having condoms in sight, not flushing the toilet, hugging her boyfriend, buying underwear when her clothing was locked up a crime scene. You see such headlines in the trash press as "Amanda, mouth of an angel, eyes of a killer." She must be incredibly strong. She apparently is doing well in prison; that, at least is a blessing.

This stuff strikes close to home for me. I live a few miles from the University of Washington campus. If Amanda Knox is a sex-crazed satanic killer, I must see dozens everyday. My daughter looks a lot like Amanda Knox; I can imagine her getting dropped into such a snakepit. As a youngster I was involved in a traffic accident near Tehran, Iran. I knew no Persian. I may not have every even gone to a police station had the accident happened in this country. There, it took me four months to get out. Perhaps I know more than most what it feels like to be in prison in a foreign country.

One last thing...Amanda had the opportunity to leave the country...she decided to stay to help the investigation.

Italy is indeed not a third world country. Its court system, though strange to those of us used to the Anglo-american court system is no doubt ultimately fair.

I would like to point out which side has done the most ranting on this thread. It is the height of folly to bring out anger in this discussion about the past policies of this country. I can assure you that Amanda Knox had little to do with formulating them.

I do not hope to turn ACB blindered prejudice into awareness of both sides of the question. Nor do I hope to convince DTC of the incorrectness of his preconceived ideas.

I do hope to get the rest of you to consider that possibly a grave injustice has been done. The death of Meredith Kercher was a horrible tragedy. Ruining the lives of two innocent people is not a way to balance the scale.

Please go to here (http://www.friendsofamanda.org) for more and to see how you can help.

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 06:47 AM
The Friends of Amanda Knox - A website wholly devoted to the assertion that Amanda Knox is innocent.

Of course this site contains masses of material wholly devoted to the cause of persuading people of Amanda Knox's innocence.

There are many other sources of information. At least the "true justice" site includes many summaries of actual evidence given, cases both for the prosecution and the defense, judge's reports etc. It is also an open site upon which anyone may comment. The Perugia Murders File site - another independent site that is not directly connected with either party - also gives transcripts, summaries etc. It even has the full text of the Judge's committal report, although this can only be read in English via Google translation.

I imagine if you only listen to the case presented by the Defense and exclude the case for the Prosecution, you will readily agree that the accused must be innocent. Similarly, if you only listen to the case for the prosecution, you will be convinced of their guilt.

As I have stated before, my own reading, both of the "Friends of AK" (much of which is convincingly contradicted in other reports); the "True Justice" and "Perugia Murder File" sites and a range of other reports and analyses, is this: I don't know whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but I think there is quite a strong case against them. That has been interpreted as "chip on the shoulder nationalism", reaction to a "threat to my European heritage" and other such nonsense, but that is what I posted and that remains my view.

I think I prefer to wait for the reports of the professional and lay judges. These, of course will take account not only of the evidence given in court, but also the 10,000 pages of written material to which we don't have access.

About 90 days, I think. And, in due course, the Appeal.

(I was amused to see that even Ann Coulter has published a blistering critique of the Egan blog. Mainly motivated, I imagine, by her hatred of the NYT, but interesting reading all the same. Odd to find oneself tending to agree with that particular pundit. :o)

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 08:34 AM
Out of the tattered remains of the British empire, there are two outstanding accomplishments: Victorian civil engineering and the elite universities of England. I think I may have to reconsider the latter of these.


It seems neither Dr. Jung, with his self righteous nonsense, nor you, with this comically pompous bit of pontification, are capable of simply sticking to the point. Andrew disagrees with you. I disagree with you. By your own admission you knew almost nothing about this case when you first jumped in (not even the fact that it had been extensively reported and commented upon in your own local papers), preferring to quote the most lurid allegations, quite unaware, I suppose, that they had been long rejected.

And now, apparently you have done some reading - mostly, if your citations are to be believed, from a single website devoted to demonstrating a particular point of view, and without any reference to the many aspects of the case not addressed there and the controversies surrounding many of the aspects that are mentioned. If you pretend to have taken a "balanced view" there is no sign of it here. And you presume talk about preconceptions!

So now you are convinced that you have the "correct view" and anyone who disagrees - well, look at you go!

In the past I have often agreed with many of your opinions, as earlier posts will demonstrate. In this matter, however, your apparent lack of capacity for balanced or critical thinking is blatant and your arrogance simply astounding!

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 09:50 AM
Meanwhile, here is the Perugia Murder File website mentioned by Down The Creek:


The open discussions, as well as the information, posted on this site make interesting reading. It is by no stretch of the imagination a site designed solely to promote belief the guilt (or innocence) of Knox or Sollecito.

Just to take one example of folly of using just one, totally partisan site:-

Knox's failure to depart from Italy is put forward as a piece of evidence suggesting innocence. That is discussed on the site I have quoted as well as in other places on the net.

The answer is, of course, that she was a material witness from day one and, on the basis of her own frequently changing account of events (not least when she admitted to having been in the house at the time of the murder) she quickly became a suspect. Knox would not have been allowed to leave the country.

This is but one example. There are many more.

pcford
12-09-2009, 10:57 AM
The answer is, of course, that she was a material witness from day one and, on the basis of her own frequently changing account of events (not least when she admitted to having been in the house at the time of the murder) she quickly became a suspect. Knox would not have been allowed to leave the country.

This is but one example. There are many more.

Frequently changing? How many times did it change? You imply it may have changed several times. Do you have proof for that?

Whether or not she would have been allowed to leave Europe is not to the point. The fact is that she discussed with her mother whether or not to leave the country. She decided to stay to help with the investigation. It seems to me to that these are not the actions of a person wanting to cover up her involvement in a psychopathic satanic murder.

The dispassionate reader will note which side in this discussion has attempted to stick to the individual germane facts and which has resorted to vague ranting: for example, Amanda is nuts; US foreign policy sucks.

I encourage anyone to read both sides of the dispute. It will become obvious which partisans are more given to irrelevant raving.

See http://www.friendsofamanda.org

pcford
12-09-2009, 11:10 AM
Possibly our friends in Seattle have been reading the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/413063_joel09.html


"...The U.S. State Department has war, peace, nuclear proliferation, climate and trade issues trade on its stove. Still, it's an American tradition to put the heat on those who mistreat Americans....

...Isn't it time for the Obama Administration to quietly press for a quick, scrupulously fair hearing of Knox's appeal, and to tell Berlusconi it's time for a tangible sign of Italy's solidarity with the U.S?"

Meanwhile, here is the Perugia Murder File website mentioned by Down The Creek:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/portal.php

Andrew, what exactly are you trying to prove? People here is Seattle are increasingly upset about the murder charges. It is natural that they would hope that their government would help.

However, at this point any muscular pressure by the US government is bound to fail.

Do read the site suggested above and compare the information there with http://www.friendsofamanda.org

pcford
12-09-2009, 11:17 AM
Pat, you write:

"The switching off of phones. Seems like something you do when you don't want to be bothered. I do it; I'll bet you do too, Andrew."

Actually, Pat, I don't - and I bet you don't, either. I put my phone on "silent", and I bet that's what you do, too. I'm well aware that the cell network will continue to "ping" my phone for as long as its on, but that does not bother me, as I'm not anywhere that I would be embarrassed to be found to be. I reckon that, as with other bits of IT, it lasts longer if I leave it on. Young people, in my experience, are practically welded to their cellphones.

I do find it odd that two people turn off their cellphones at around the same time and turn them on again at around the same time. The simplest implication is that they did not want their location to be revealed from the phone company records. Only those phone company records would reveal where they were, and only the Police would have access to them.

In fact, I typically just turn it off. That's the truth.

By the way, Andrew, can you explain why there is a huge amount of evidence linking Guede to the murder scene and such a paucity linking anyone else?

Let's stick to the facts, Andrew, no more criticism of US foreign policy. OK?

pcford
12-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Andrew and DTC, will you at least agree with me that the florid reconstruction of murder by prosecution in their summation and video...muscular men striding along the street on their way to murder, words put in Amanda Knox's mouth...is over the top?

pcford
12-09-2009, 11:27 AM
It seems neither Dr. Jung, with his self righteous nonsense, nor you, with this comically pompous bit of pontification, are capable of simply sticking to the point. Andrew disagrees with you. I disagree with you. By your own admission you knew almost nothing about this case when you first jumped in (not even the fact that it had been extensively reported and commented upon in your own local papers), preferring to quote the most lurid allegations, quite unaware, I suppose, that they had been long rejected.

And now, apparently you have done some reading - mostly, if your citations are to be believed, from a single website devoted to demonstrating a particular point of view, and without any reference to the many aspects of the case not addressed there and the controversies surrounding many of the aspects that are mentioned. If you pretend to have taken a "balanced view" there is no sign of it here. And you presume talk about preconceptions!

So now you are convinced that you have the "correct view" and anyone who disagrees - well, look at you go!

In the past I have often agreed with many of your opinions, as earlier posts will demonstrate. In this matter, however, your apparent lack of capacity for balanced or critical thinking is blatant and your arrogance simply astounding!

Pot, meet kettle.

Observers will note which party in this discussion has attempted to keep to the facts of the case and which continually resorts to name-calling.

pcford
12-09-2009, 12:23 PM
The open discussions, as well as the information, posted on this site make interesting reading. It is by no stretch of the imagination a site designed solely to promote belief the guilt (or innocence) of Knox or Sollecito.

Just to take one example of folly of using just one, totally partisan site:-


From the http://perugiamurderfile.org/ site:

"Perugia Murder File, the Online Community Devoted to Truth and Justice for Meredith Kercher" There is a picture of Meredith at the top left of page.

I encourage anyone to look at the site. It is heavily weighted toward the "Amanda is a psycho-killer" side. And this is what DTC claims a nonpartisan site.

As I said earlier in the thread, until recently I had no strong feeling in the case. Now, the more I dig, the more it is obvious that a major injustice has been done.

There is one thing with which I agree with DTC. We must wait for the so-called "motivation" report by the judge. This is a report giving the reasons for the judgment. At that point we can more effectively weight the evidence for guilt. At this point it seems to me that the prosecution's case is unbelievable.

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 12:45 PM
Did I say England was foggy? You have me mistaken for another American, sir! ;)

My dear sir! What can I say? You are the victim of a terrible injustice!

I have just become aware that the true culprit was not you but that evil libel-monger, LeeG.

I have arranged for your immediate release from the dungeon in which you have been so long immured. I fear the guilty man has already fled the thread! :o

pcford
12-09-2009, 12:50 PM
I never criticised US foreign policy; I criticised American Exceptionalism - the belief, first articulated by Cotton Mather, that Americans are simply better than other people.

You brought up a criticism of American extraterritoriality. You quoted our idiotic former president saying that they hate us because of our freedom. (spoken to explain anti-US activity in Iraq). You brought up the plane incident...more than once.

Why are these not related to foreign policy? What do they have to do with this case?

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 01:06 PM
"Perugia Murder File, the Online Community Devoted to Truth and Justice for Meredith Kercher" There is a picture of Meredith at the top left of page.


Just a small reminder - Meredith Kercher is not one of the accused - she is the victim. This site, like the Truth and Justice site, is devoted to the case as a whole and its implications, not, like the FOAK site, the exoneration of one defendent. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that they will include information about the victim. Neither, incidentally, is owned or financed by the victim's family and both are open sites where anyone may join the discussion. They also contain a great deal of material directly from the court proceedings and documents - not just interpretations from Knox's supporters.

A site about a murder features the victim - and that means it must be biased against a particular defendant? That's a big assumption.

As it happens, I am very familiar with the Knox site as well as these and have taken a particular interest in the contrasts between them. That is how I arrived at my very tentative conclusions and recognition that I do not, and cannot know the answer. You seem to be quite unable to accept that I am not, and never have been, so dogmatic in my conclusions as you. My posts show this, but you see only what you want to see, I think.

If you can look at the different accounts and analyses of the various bits of evidence you cite - and address the many bits that are NOT recorded on the Knox site, you might get a bit of balance into your thinking. But you seem to be so emotionally invested in your belief that Knox is not guilty that I doubt if that can happen.

pcford
12-09-2009, 01:08 PM
Can we just establish some common ground?

You do agree that Meredith Kercher is, in fact, dead?

You do agree that she was, in fact, brutally murdered?

You do agree that to be brutally murdered is to suffer injustice?

(?)

Meredith was sadistically and brutally murdered.

Will confining persons that are innocent (speaking theoretically here without regard to the actual persons involved) redress this brutal murder and grave injustice?

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 02:23 PM
So, a picture of the victim on a website devoted to a murder is not, in itself, evidence of a cunning plot to besmirch the reputation of Amanda Knox?

When "information" drawn from a website entirely and specifically devoted to demonstrating the innocence of a specific defendant is swallowed without question and, at the same time, other websites bearing details of the victim are rejected on the grounds of bias......

What more can be said?

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Observers will note which party in this discussion has attempted to keep to the facts of the case and which continually resorts to name-calling.

Or, to put it another way, your unfavourable opinions of what I have written, or what Andrew has written, and your subsequent (irrelevant) pronouncements upon the subject of "the British Empire" etc. are perfectly fine, but anyone else's opinions of what you have written are reprehensible "name calling".

I really did think you were more clear headed than this.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-09-2009, 03:16 PM
Furtling about the back corners of the bottom drawer of the interweb I found a common quote

The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang that jurymen may dine.

and, close by, another from the same hand -


Oh woman, woman! when to ill thy mind, Is bent, all hell contains no fouler fiend.

pcford
12-09-2009, 03:44 PM
I did make a nasty crack about two glories of the British Empire...Victorian civil engineering and the English elite universities. Perhaps someone will come forward with an unbiased count for insults from either side. I think I will fare well.

All parties should refrain from cheap insults.

And while we are on the subject, Andrew, could you please stop with the Alice in Wonderland references already? The case against Sollecito and Knox is rather far from settled, to say the least. It is hardly mad to not believe the prosecution's case.

One thing more Andrew, you described Amanda Knox as a "psychopath." I have not run across the professional opinion which led you to that conclusion. Could you share it with me?

pcford
12-09-2009, 03:47 PM
When "information" drawn from a website entirely and specifically devoted to demonstrating the innocence of a specific defendant is swallowed without question and, at the same time, other websites bearing details of the victim are rejected on the grounds of bias......

What more can be said?

DTC, I have referred to facts...you keep up the insults. How about a exchange of opinion based on facts? I am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways. Insults will not carry the day.

pcford
12-09-2009, 04:04 PM
ACB,
You referred to the clean-up, yet the defense says that there was no clean-up; the clean-up was not developed as evidence in the trial. Can you give me your sources for saying there was a "clean-up."
Thank you.

downthecreek
12-09-2009, 04:42 PM
DTC, I have referred to facts...you keep up the insults. How about a exchange of opinion based on facts? I am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways. Insults will not carry the day.

No, sir, you have referred to assertions and interpretations - almost all open to contradiction or refutation. Even when alternative possibilities are presented, you ignore them. The post you quote is not an insult but a genuine observation of what I consider to be a glaring illogicality in your approach to this.

Two or three days ago I might have had the time and inclination to debate with you. Now, not so much. Not only is my time limited, but I can see no possibility of any enlightening, or even interesting dialogue - only an ongoing battle of egos. You may deny that. I think it's obvious.

Look back through the thread. My mind is not, and never has been made up with certainty. I have always acknowledged that I don't know the answer. You, on the other hand, are quite certain. You have already excluded from your thinking that essential ingredient of any rational enquiry - the possibility that you may be wrong.

You mention the "clean-up". Well, there is all kinds of information about this available if you want to look at alternatives to the FOAK version. It was, indeed, presented as evidence at the trial and is listed and discussed on the "True justice" site amongst many others. If you honestly want to know, you'll have a look. But I'm not going to waste my time battering at a door that I know to be locked.

George Jung
12-09-2009, 06:43 PM
Jung - self righteous

PCFord - comically pompous

ACB - objective, civil

DTC - cool, calm, detached

Hehe .... this is rich.

I wonder how this thread will go, after the appeal.

BTW, I'm having some T-shirts made up. The front will say 'I kicked DTC's ass!'

On the back, 'ACB's, too'

Let me know how many you want.

pcford
12-09-2009, 08:00 PM
I wrote that I see a psychopath, because it seemed to me to offer a rational explanation for what would otherwise be very odd behaviour.

But here's a professional opinion from a psychoanalyst:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/author,565,coline-covington

Interestingly, Professor David Wilson of the University of Birmingham thinks she is guilty, while Professor David Canter of Liverpool University says she does not have the right profile.

The professional quoted was a Jungian analyst; hardly in the mainstream of the profession. In fact it's in a dusty corner of the profession

She compares Amanda Knox to Adolf Eichmann:

"Knox's narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann's arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic's preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse."

There is absolutely no sign of tendency toward violence in her life. The analyst goes on to say that these violent episodes can erupt. Yet again fitting the observer's guilty judgment to public activity by Amanda Knox.

She acts like typical girl for her age in this town. It hardly makes her an Eichmann. (jebus!!!) The defense lawyer is certainly to blame for not advising her to act more appropriately for the situation. With a dark suit and a serious mien, she might be free and eating a good meal in Seattle.