Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive and incomplete answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.


PS Given that Knox was only in Perugia for 6 weeks, who were her 'friends' in mid-October if not the 3 girls and 4 boys living in the cottage, and in attendance at the small gathering (where dope was smoked, and where Rudy was in attendance)?
Click to expand...
I agree with this--and is is not even the most egregious example. She would have been pinned down in the US, and eviscerated in the UK. But she wasn't under oath. She had the presumption of innocence, but I doubt there is a presumption of truthfulness. At the trial Massei interceded in an attempt at more aggressive cross-x with a comment to the effect, "we must accept" what she says. That's not the same as saying "we must believe."

She truly did herself no favors with her testimony in this very different setting. Her evasions to simple questions are more understandable, more forgivable in our adversarial system than they are in the Italian system where honesty about conduct is met with leniency and lying to the court is punished.

Her demeanor, praised by her father for her confidence, was arrogant, and disrespectful of the place where she was.

There are some on this board who think that human factors, such as demeanor, should play no role in trials, that it should all be science. Well, no legal system in the world complies with that standard. Nor does most of our species.
 
TomM43 said:
I agree with this--and is is not even the most egregious example. She would have been pinned down in the US, and eviscerated in the UK. But she wasn't under oath. She had the presumption of innocence, but I doubt there is a presumption of truthfulness. At the trial Massei interceded in an attempt at more aggressive cross-x with a comment to the effect, "we must accept" what she says. That's not the same as saying "we must believe."

She truly did herself no favors with her testimony in this very different setting. Her evasions to simple questions are more understandable, more forgivable in our adversarial system than they are in the Italian system where honesty about conduct is met with leniency and lying to the court is punished.

Her demeanor, praised by her father for her confidence, was arrogant, and disrespectful of the place where she was.

There are some on this board who think that human factors, such as demeanor, should play no role in trials, that it should all be science. Well, no legal system in the world complies with that standard. Nor does most of our species.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this last point, Tom. Observing the defendant through one's cultural filter is inescapable.

About treehorn's comment: "Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

If Carlo wanted to know if Amanda smoked drugs at that party with Rudy, why didn't he just ask her? It's not the defendant's job to read the lawyer's mind.

I think many of us have wished Amanda had been tried in the US or the UK and, like treehorn, we have imagined the kinds of questions that might have been asked. That is why we believe the case would not have gotten as far as the courtroom if it had happened elsewhere.
 
TomM43 said:
I agree with this--and is is not even the most egregious example. She would have been pinned down in the US, and eviscerated in the UK.
Click to expand...

I think that to believe this, you have to believe (as Treehorn did before I explained the realities of how courts actually work to him) that the lawyer in question was idiotic enough not to realise that he hadn't actually asked whether or not Amanda smoked marijuana at that party. I think that unlikely.

It is far more likely, seeing as this is how cross-examination normally proceeds, that the lawyer was asking carefully-phrased questions to elicit exactly the answers he wanted. He didn't ask whether Amanda smoked marijuana at that party because he already knew, from reading the statements of Amanda, the boys downstairs, Rudy's friends and so forth, that she did not.

Lawyers and rationalists try to track exactly what was asked and exactly what was said. The untrained human mind is all too apt to fill in the blanks with whatever it thinks should go in there, which is in fact exactly the flaw in human cognition that questioning like this seeks to exploit.

There are some on this board who think that human factors, such as demeanor, should play no role in trials, that it should all be science. Well, no legal system in the world complies with that standard. Nor does most of our species.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. SomeAlibi went down this dark path as well.

It does you and your cause no favours to post "Who cares if facts and logic show she is innocent? She's going to rot in jail because juries are stupid and courts are irrational! Ha ha!".
 
TomM43 said:
I agree with this--and is is not even the most egregious example. She would have been pinned down in the US, and eviscerated in the UK. But she wasn't under oath. She had the presumption of innocence, but I doubt there is a presumption of truthfulness. At the trial Massei interceded in an attempt at more aggressive cross-x with a comment to the effect, "we must accept" what she says. That's not the same as saying "we must believe."

She truly did herself no favors with her testimony in this very different setting. Her evasions to simple questions are more understandable, more forgivable in our adversarial system than they are in the Italian system where honesty about conduct is met with leniency and lying to the court is punished.

Her demeanor, praised by her father for her confidence, was arrogant, and disrespectful of the place where she was.

There are some on this board who think that human factors, such as demeanor, should play no role in trials, that it should all be science. Well, no legal system in the world complies with that standard. Nor does most of our species.
Click to expand...

I am just going by the Treehorn post. CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs? AK: Every once in a while with friends.

How is Every once in a while with friends not a direct response to At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

Are you saying there is a limitation in the Italian legal system such that the prosecutors have a tradition of not asking straightforward questions and, if the answer is evasive or not specific, tradition forbids asking the witness clarifying follow up questions?

Is this what you mean when you say She would have been pinned down in the US, and eviscerated in the UK. and Massei interceded in an attempt at more aggressive cross-x with a comment to the effect, "we must accept" what she says. That seems so unlikely to me, but is that what you are saying?

Why did not the prosecutor simply ask ‘did you converse with Rudy Guede at that party, or did you share a spinello, or smoke hashish together with Guede at that party? One obvious possibility is because the prosecutor did not want to hear the word ‘NO’.

But your saying instead it is due to a tradition? And could you list additional examples, or perhaps at least the most egregious one you refer to at the start of your post?
Thanks.
 
Matthew Best said:
She's lucky she didn't OD on the "street drugs" she was abusing, of course, silly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You seemed to have missed my point:

Because she was using "street drugs", she had no idea what she was getting.

The risk is enormous.

God only knows what it may be laced with.

You might end up on a trip you never planned for. Next thing you know, you've pulled a Hallowe'en 'Rape Prank' on your roomie and the blood on your hands is real. Just sayin'
 
moodstream said:
How is Every once in a while with friends not a direct response to At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
Click to expand...


It is. As I noted earlier, treehorn is taking advantage of an ambiguity in English that doesn't exist in Italian in order to suggest otherwise. Pacelli's choice of verb tense shows that he wasn't asking about that specific occasion (for all that he may have been trying to insinuate something about it indirectly).
 
treehorn said:
You seemed to have missed my point:

Because she was using "street drugs", she had no idea what she was getting.

The risk is enormous.

God only knows what it may be laced with.

You might end up on a trip you never planned for. Next thing you know, you've pulled a Hallowe'en 'Rape Prank' on your roomie and the blood on your hands is real. Just sayin'
Click to expand...


You might end up in..... THE TWILIGHT ZONE!!!!!
 
TomM43 said:
...Her demeanor, praised by her father for her confidence, was arrogant, and disrespectful of the place where she was....
Click to expand...


I have always thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss. When people say Amanda was arrogant or disrespectful in court, I always think she had a right to show she was mad, especially at the architect of her suffering (even though all she did was ask Mignini if she could finish, during one of the myriad times he or another lawyer interrupted her).

On the other hand, someone else might say the courtroom is always sacred, regardless of how wrong the judge or the accusations may be.
 
treehorn said:
How many people that actually went to law school are you going to insult today, Kevin?

Remind my learned friends and I where, and in what field, you've studied, Kevin.
Click to expand...

You are licensed to practice law in Italy?

PS: Going to law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Graduating from a law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Going to law school doesn't make you a good lawyer. I've seen plenty of young pup lawyers that passed the bar and didn't survive Pro Bono before deciding on a career change.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
One shared spinello?
Click to expand...

They also admitted to using alcohol (which stimulates aggression).

They are also proven liars.

Do you honestly believe every word that falls from the lips of the accused?!

If so, WHY?


PS They both swore up and down that they'd never touch drugs again. If all they did was share one joint, why would they feel that way?
 
treehorn said:
I've noticed that many of the Knox supporters here tend to have a lax attitude toward the use of street drugs in combination with alcohol.
Click to expand...
What was Knox's BaC that night? What now she was drunk and stoned when committing the crime? If knox drank enough alcohol to stimulate aggression, to go with the Pot she smoked, how on Earth was she able to even walk? Both her and sollecito would have had their butts kicked by Meredith.

I suppose I used to be the same. However, after reprenting clients in criminal court, I no longer share that attitude.

To see why, go to your local set date court on a Monday morning and behold the carnage that alcohol and drugs (including psychedelics) hath wrought.
Click to expand...
You should do that. Then come back and tell us how many couples are being charged with helping a stranger Rape and Murder someone after smoking pot.


You'll hear example after example in which an ordinarily decent citizen committed a depraved act over the weekend (a man who kicks his wife in the stomach 8 times, a 20 year old man that pushes a 90 year old lady down a flight of stairs to take $7 from her purse, etc.).
Click to expand...

yep and they usually have evidence. Seems there is a lack of evidence that Rudy, Knox, and Sollecito collaborated to kill Meredith.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
They also admitted to using alcohol (which stimulates aggression).
Click to expand...

Cite?

They are also proven liars.
Click to expand...

Cite?

Do you honestly believe every word that falls from the lips of the accused?!

If so, WHY?
Click to expand...

They had neither a reason nor the tendency to lie.

PS They both swore up and down that they'd never touch drugs again. If all they did was share one joint, why would they feel that way?
Click to expand...

They were convinced at first that being high had prevented them from remembering things the way the police wanted them to remember them. There is no doubt they have recognized by now that their use of marijuana did not lead to their kidnapping and imprisonment.
 
treehorn said:
They also admitted to using alcohol (which stimulates aggression).
Click to expand...

BTW, alcohol may stimulate aggression in people with aggressive tendencies. It does not make a basically non-aggressive person aggressive.
 
treehorn said:
I just want to discuss the case without any games.
Click to expand...

Addressing those posts in which your errors were pointed out would be a good start then.

katy_did pointed out one.

komponisto showed your another mistake.

So far you're pretending you missed those posts. We could take it as a your silent acknowledgement of your mistakes, but you just keep on misrepresenting those facts like nothing happened.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Addressing those posts in which your errors were pointed out would be a good start then.

katy_did pointed out one.

komponisto showed your another mistake.

So far you're pretending you missed those posts. We could take it as a your silent acknowledgement of your mistakes, but you just keep on misrepresenting those facts like nothing happened.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation done by the volunteers at PMF.

On the other hand, I'm not fluent in Italian and cannot independently assess its accuracy or the accuracy of the version you are promoting.

Have the people at PMF been notified of this alleged error? (They expressly welcome any input that people may have to offer.)
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
I think that to believe this, you have to believe (as Treehorn did before I explained the realities of how courts actually work to him) that the lawyer in question was idiotic enough not to realise that he hadn't actually asked whether or not Amanda smoked marijuana at that party.
Click to expand...

"How courts actually work"...

Nice.

Alas, that's not what I said.

I said the cross was, from a common law perspective, very limited.

(I have no doubt that the lawyer knew what had, and what had not, been asked of the witness.)

Make no mistake: Knox would have been in for a much, much tougher time in a US court of law.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
"How courts actually work"...

Nice.

Alas, that's not what I said.

I said the cross was, from a common law perspective, very limited.

(I have no doubt that the lawyer knew what had, and what had not, been asked of the witness.)

Make no mistake: Knox would have been in for a much, much tougher time in a US court of law.
Click to expand...

That brings something frighteningly relevant to mind. Do you think they will pursue this angle harder in the appeal? I keep thinking, the appeal has already started, soon we might find out the DNA 'evidence' has been disallowed, perhaps Curatolo will be discredited.

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?
 
treehorn said:
They found a few (before the threat of defamation suits became SOP).

For example, Knox's Jewish co-worker.
Click to expand...

“The threat of defamation suites”? "SOP"? (standard operating procedure?)

I think this might be yet another (uncited) revelation pulled out of Treehorn's derriere.

You didn’t perhaps get the idea from this post and take my suggestion as a threat? If so, I'm gratified!

To recap, there is no reason to believe that Amandas's anonymous/pseudonymous "jewish co-worker" is not;

- a fraud who hoodwinked a gormless, but willing, Charles Mudede (who had selected himself as an obvious candidate for propagating such a hoax - he's a Seattle local and he clearly has a 'racist' axe to grind)

or

-a gratuitous and malicious invention by the latter.

Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.
 
Kaosium said:
What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?
Click to expand...

I'm not trained in the civil law tradition, so I'll be watching the appeal unfold with great interest.

The notion that it will be a trial de novo is hard for me to buy - that would be an affront to the doctrine of judicial economy.

I'll be stunned to the point of having to lie down if the appeal is not limited to a small subset of the 'questions of fact' raised during the course of the trial.
 
Fine said:
The cops never tried to conceal the fact that Meredith's throat had been cut. The cops revealed that information to the press the day Meredith's body was found.

A police source said: "This was a particularly nasty murder and the victim was found with a deep cut to her throat."

See Here

///
Click to expand...

I assume that the idiocy of their behaviour has escaped you.

They went as far as handing out graphic crime-scene photographs to the press within days of the murder (this, according to your muse, Latza Nadeau).

In recent decades, law-enforcment agencies in more advanced countries have realised that, rather than trying to inflame or tittilate the public with such crass (if not sick) "press releases", it can be much more useful if they withhold such information and compare it with what they obtain from witnesses and, of course, suspects. Well, DUH!

For example, in the last few weeks, the UK cops have desisted from releasing information about whether Jo Yeates was sexually assaulted, or even the cause of death (all of which has undoubtedly long since ascertained by the coroner).

I hasten to add that the cops here also showed every sign that they were willing, as ever, to try and stitch someone up on the slightest pretext. Funnily enough, for no other reason than the “odd behaviour” of her landlord.
 
Supernaut said:
Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.
Click to expand...

He'd have been sued for defamation LONG ago if the story weren't true.

'Ditto' for the Daily Mail if their article about Knox's rock throwing incident in Seattle weren't true.

As proof of Knox's capacity to engage in civil suits, you'll recall that Knox successfully sued an Italian media company for 'invasion of privacy' in respect of notebooks that weren't even part of the criminal case against her.
 
treehorn said:
They found a few (before the threat of defamation suits became SOP).

For example, Knox's Jewish co-worker.
Click to expand...

BTW, you said "they found a few" [people willing to speak ill of Amanda].

Apart from Mudede, who were the others. Show me.
 
Mary_H said:
I have always thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss. When people say Amanda was arrogant or disrespectful in court, I always think she had a right to show she was mad, especially at the architect of her suffering (even though all she did was ask Mignini if she could finish, during one of the myriad times he or another lawyer interrupted her).

On the other hand, someone else might say the courtroom is always sacred, regardless of how wrong the judge or the accusations may be.
Click to expand...


The courtroom is not sacred and you are deliberately once again twisting the intent.
She may have had a "right to be mad"; this however does not give her license to be disrespectful, arrogant or theatrical in order to serve her purposes.
Which of course she was, and is.
 
Kaosium said:
What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?
Click to expand...

I'm not trained in the civil law tradition, so I'll be watching the appeal unfold with great interest.

The notion that it will be a trial de novo is hard for me to buy - that would be an affront to the doctrine of judicial economy.

I'll be stunned to the point of having to lie down if the appeal is not limited to a small subset of the 'questions of fact' raised during the course of the trial.
 
Supernaut said:
“The threat of defamation suites”? "SOP"? (standard operating procedure?)

I think this might be yet another (uncited) revelation pulled out of Treehorn's derriere.

You didn’t perhaps get the idea from this post and take my suggestion as a threat? If so, I'm gratified!

To recap, there is no reason to believe that Amandas's anonymous/pseudonymous "jewish co-worker" is not;

- a fraud who hoodwinked a gormless, but willing, Charles Mudede (who had selected himself as an obvious candidate for propagating such a hoax - he's a Seattle local and he clearly has a 'racist' axe to grind)

or

-a gratuitous and malicious invention by the latter.

Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.
Click to expand...

Showing your ignorance once again with unfounded lies.
Fraud? Gratuitious? A "racist axe to grind"?

Ms Knox said: "My people killed your people"; you cannot whitewash this particularly appealing part of her personality so easily.
 
treehorn said:
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation done by the volunteers at PMF.

On the other hand, I'm not fluent in Italian and cannot independently assess its accuracy or the accuracy of the version you are promoting.

Have the people at PMF been notified of this alleged error? (They expressly welcome any input that people may have to offer.)
Click to expand...

I see una reason to doubt this particular portion of the translation.

Whose input on the innocent side is expressly welcome at PMF?
 
Supernaut said:
We'll see, won't we, sooner or later?
Click to expand...

Check the statute of limitations on libel claims in the state of Washington.

Time has run out.

(Not that Knox had a case anyway, or, as I said, she'd have sued long ago. Truth, you see, is a 'complete defense' to a libel action.)
 
Chris C said:
You are licensed to practice law in Italy?

PS: Going to law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Graduating from a law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Going to law school doesn't make you a good lawyer. I've seen plenty of young pup lawyers that passed the bar and didn't survive Pro Bono before deciding on a career change.
Click to expand...

Well graduating from law school and then passing the bar exam qualifies one as a lawyer.
Whether or not he/she is a good lawyer is not under discussion.

Kevin was asked about his law background; you immediately become agressive and abusive.

Why.
 
Kaosium said:
That brings something frighteningly relevant to mind. Do you think they will pursue this angle harder in the appeal? I keep thinking, the appeal has already started, soon we might find out the DNA 'evidence' has been disallowed, perhaps Curatolo will be discredited.

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?
Click to expand...

According to Curt Knox the analysis of the dna evidence will take forty to sixty days and the results should come in anytime from May to July,I find it hard to see how the appeal can go ahead until this issue is decided will the appeal be postponed on the 22ND of January until the independent analysis of the dna evidence is completed. I expect that Curatola will be discredited as soon as the disco owners and the bus drivers are heard,Curt Knox has also said this is his third time been a witness in a murder trial,lying for the prosecution,when he comes under pressure to tell who organises this and the press gets interested in how this guy is been used to get convictions,I really think there must be people in Perugia who must be in fear of what this man knows
 
Supernaut said:
Never forgive, never forget, eh LoZ?

Anyway, I'll say it again - this "quote" is entirely uncorroborated, and as actual dialogue sounds like something made up by a seventh-grader.

That is to say, it doesn't sound believable to me (at least, not in the context or tableaux alleged).

That you seem so desperate to think it MUST be true, this bit of hearsay (you understand the definition of 'hearsay' don't you?), well ......
Click to expand...

Look it up if you want corroboration.
I already did.
Whatever what one ignorant 20 year old twit says "sounds believable" to you or not, the fact remains that it occurred.

I am not desperate to think anything be true about this case.
I simply checked the facts and draw my conclusions as to the woman in question's character.

You might try doing the same.
 
Supernaut said:
The only person accusing AK of "rock throwing" is you - at least that's what your semi-coherent posts seem to be saying.
/QUOTE]

No. I'm not alone. The Daily Mail's story is still there. No retraction.

The limitation period has run (baring an extension on just and equitable grounds, there will be no suit).

As for semi-coherent, I cannot say - I'm fighting the flu and full of cough medicine, so it could be true.
Click to expand...
 
loverofzion said:
Look it up if you want corroboration.
I already did.
Whatever what one ignorant 20 year old twit says "sounds believable" to you or not, the fact remains that it occurred.

I am not desperate to think anything be true about this case.
I simply checked the facts and draw my conclusions as to the woman in question's character.

You might try doing the same.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'hearsay'.

As for having "checked the facts", I assume you mean you read Mudede's article. Did it take long?

I've actually read most of what I could find by him (and about him) on the web, and I noticed his militant anti-white politics, his victim/entitlement mentality quite early on. As many others have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom