ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 13th December 2011, 02:45 PM   #361
Fine
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Does anybody have Inspector Volturno's testimony in English?

Is there a picture of the male footprint in the hallway, not the bathmat?
_________________________

Grinder,

See Foto #3 in the report called Rindaldi2, HERE.

Note. The photograph depicts two blobs of something-or-other. Doctor Rinaldi identified the blob on the right side as Raffaele's right footprint. The blob on the left side was never identified. (So Amanda must have doctored it in some way.)

///
Fine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 03:09 PM   #362
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Originally Posted by Fine View Post
_________________________

Grinder,

See Foto #3 in the report called Rindaldi2, HERE.

Note. The photograph depicts two blobs of something-or-other. Doctor Rinaldi identified the blob on the right side as Raffaele's right footprint. The blob on the left side was never identified. (So Amanda must have doctored it in some way.)

///
I do not understand the statement, "So Amanda must have doctored it in some way"? This sounds to me like pure surmise, based on some underlying assumption that I am missing. How could Knox have "doctored" anything if she was not at the crime scene?

Unless you are saying that somehow this got "blobbed" as a result of the bathmat shuffle? And if Amanda had wilfully "doctored" one, why not the other? That would beg for explanation, too.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 06:31 PM   #363
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Bill he was being sarcastic because a group you don't want me to kid you as being one of would say something like that.

I'm not a member over there, is there any other place that photo is located?

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I do not understand the statement, "So Amanda must have doctored it in some way"? This sounds to me like pure surmise, based on some underlying assumption that I am missing. How could Knox have "doctored" anything if she was not at the crime scene?

Unless you are saying that somehow this got "blobbed" as a result of the bathmat shuffle? And if Amanda had wilfully "doctored" one, why not the other? That would beg for explanation, too.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 07:29 PM   #364
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,718
And here I thought that SA pays no heed to this board. But then, go figure, I learn that he has a complete working knowledge of my posts here. And apparently he doesn't like them. Oh well, at least I was right. And I didn't have to put together spreadsheets or pay Curatalo 20 Euro. I just practiced a little skepticism and critical thinking in a friendly and lively way. Try it.
Diocletus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 07:40 PM   #365
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,946
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My word - we're in disagreement and so far there has not been too much of a bun fight. Imagine if this is the way it had been all along?


I'd lost track of the specific of why I thought this way - to be far it was not my idea, but it sure seems right when I first read it. I was reading some stuff on the 'net about the calunnia section of Italian law (Section 368 I believe) and was trying to get my non-Italian head around a law halfway between "libel" and "holding someone's honour in disrepute." I got side tracked into having to come to grips with the fact that there is no crime scene clean - and with no crime scene clean, then Knox and Sollecito simply could not have been present in the cottage at the critical time.
Here's some materials germane to the discussion. This is the (google) translated Articles 368 and 369 of the Italian Criminal Code, quote below for convenience. Here's a post I wrote a while back where I collected the bit from Massei as well as explanations from Machiavelli and Broken_English at IIP, another Italian non-lawyer who has some familiarity with their legal system. Here's a google-translated explanation of this part of the Italian Penal code.

Here is the 'gift' note, and below I will quote Mignini reading the requisite parts of the 'memorial' of the Seventh in court, which Halides1 sourced to the end of the #3 audio tape at PMF.net, though as you can see it came up at other points in her testimony as well.

Originally Posted by Mignini Amanda Knox Trial transcript #4 PMF.net
"GM: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: 'I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick.' Then you add 'But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.' Can you explain these concept to me?"
Originally Posted by Italian Criminal Code
Art 368. Calunnia. Slander.

Anyone with a complaint, complaint, demand or request, even if anonymously or under a false name, direct judicial authority or other authority that has the obligation to report, blames someone of a crime which he knows is innocent, that simulates against him, the traces of a crime, is punished with imprisonment from two to six years.

The penalty is increased if s'incolpa someone of a crime by which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceed a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.

The imprisonment is from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, is from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence.



Art. 369. Art 369. Autocalunnia. Autocalunnia.

Whoever, in a statement to any of the authorities mentioned in the preceding article, even if done with written anonymously or under a false name, or by confession before the courts, blames himself that he knows is not a crime occurred, or an offense committed by others, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
So I think Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction for a reason different than Massei originally convicted. Not that I am an expert in Italian law, or the way judges interpret it - but it seems that Hellmann will be saying, "the finding of "did not do it" to the murder charge," and the finding of "crime did not exist or take place" with the so-called staging of the break-in, still Knox was not in a position of knowing or not knowing about Lumumba's (then) alleged involvement. There this is a finding of misleading the investigation by not saying unambiguously, "I could I possible know?"
Frankly I don't think the calunnia charge has much to do with anything outside the people in Perugia, as represented by the lay jurors, not being willing to accuse the police of wrongdoing on the interrogation. Also I suspect it might be the result of Perugian Patrick Lumumba's own 'PR campaign' where given the opportunity he went on Italian TV and going by accounts by Katie Crouch, Michael Winterbottom1, and of course the infamous 'soulless' Daily Mail article took the opportunity to regale his listeners with his tale of woe, blaming it all on Amanda Knox who he's spent four years now trying to convince everyone he meets (including Winterbottom though unfortunately I could not find the original article from Oct of '10 when he repeated what Patrick told him like a true believer) is worthless scum who must have murdered Meredith. He lies too, I guess serene in the knowledge that everyone around him figures him a victim of Amanda Knox he can say whatever he wants without censure.

Let us just take a look at what he says to the press, the most recent I could find is this where he makes these curious statements:

Originally Posted by Nick Pisa Daily Mail 10/11/11
Mr Lumumba said: 'One thing I could never understand is that Amanda has always said she was given a rough time by the police. But I was named as the one who killed Meredith, the black third-world African, and they never gave me any problems.

'I do find that very strange, and I also find it amazing that she has never actually said sorry to me - when we were questioned she didn't even tell the police that I had nothing to do with it.'
That's not what he said about the police at the time:

Originally Posted by Antonia Hoyle Daily Mail 11/25/07
At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.

"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
Now he was paid 70k Euros for that piece, and it is the Daily Mail which didn't exactly distinguish itself with its accuracy in this case, and of course he didn't mention any of the nastiness in court when he testified and described it like this:

Originally Posted by Andrea Vogt Seattle PI 4/2/09
"They said 'Police! Police! Open the door.' They were agitated," recalled Lumumba. "They took me in front of my son, handcuffed me and wouldn't tell me anything, they just said 'You know what you did.' I was not beaten, but it was a hard situation."

Lumumba said that he was later stripped of his clothes at a certain point and left nude facing a wall in police headquarters. The window was open, he said, and it was cold.
He reiterates that here to Nick Pisa after the appeal verdict, as I originally posted above, pretending the police in Perugia 'never gave him any problems:'

Originally Posted by Nick Pisa Daily Mail 10/11/11
Mr Lumumba said: 'One thing I could never understand is that Amanda has always said she was given a rough time by the police. But I was named as the one who killed Meredith, the black third-world African, and they never gave me any problems.
He was interrogated all day without a lawyer or the camera's rolling (as far as anyone knows...) and they refused to believe anything he said and instead went out on the Seventh to find a 'witness' that his bar was closed. Being as he was dragged out of his home we have to assume he was a 'suspect' and thus they completely disregarded his rights under Italian law. He was reported to have sued ILE for 500k Euros in the ECHR for this treatment, though I've not heard anything about the suit in about a year. I'd say they gave him some 'problems!'

Also, much more recently in the Katie Crouch Slate piece linked above he says again that he's the nephew of Patrice Lumumba despite the fact when arrested that family in Congo issued a statement saying he wasn't. That's minor though, what's important to the case is this:

Originally Posted by Katie Crouch Slate 10/15/11
Lumumba (whose uncle, he told me, was the real Patrice Lumumba, the great Congolese political leader slaughtered by the Belgians) wasn't sure exactly what I was doing asking him these questions. I wasn't either. But he didn't really care. What he wanted, like many wronged people, was for someone to listen to his story.

And what a story it was. Because of Knox's accusations, he was ripped away from his young son in the middle of the night, interrogated, beaten, and held in solitary confinement for 14 days. His business remained closed for four months, even after his name was cleared. And he definitely thought Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
Here he tells the original story, the one most 'compatible' with the Polizia did Stato's 'methods' when dealing with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

He also keeps telling people Amanda never apologized, when she did so first a mere month after her arrest, before the Court of Freedom if I recall correctly. Here this is mentioned at the time, though it abuses shorthand somewhat to put it as she 'made it all up' despite that she said something to the effect of she 'imagined' it as per her note, but I can't find another reference to the exact quote, I cannot find my copy of "Murder in Italy" which usually sits on my desk so this will have to do:

Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy 12/21/07 NBC
Four weeks after the murder, Amanda and her lawyer appeared before a judge ostensibly to ask for release from prison. But the big news that day was Amanda's startling confession before the court about Lumumba. She'd made it all up, she said. He hadn't been in the house the night Meredith was murdered. She apologized for her false accusation.
However, apparently Patrick wasn't at that court function, just having been released a week or so earlier, so I guess that wasn't good enough for him, as Broken English at the IIP site would say he'd go on TV after the trial and before the Appeal and appear on Italian TV demanding an apology from Amanda, so at the outset of the appeal he got it:

Originally Posted by Amanda Knox
“Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry because I didn’t mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naÔve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didn’t mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace.”
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My thing is that Knox was involved in doing Lumumba harm, as she as much said to her mother by the 10th. That's the way I look at it. My other reasons are upthread. I recognize I am in the minority with this view. And no, I do not work for Hellmann - some think I'm still employed by Marriott, and it would be unethical to double dip.
Heh on the latter.

What I have posted above has little to do with the legal case, but it does have something to do with the moral case. As you note she tells her mother she feels badly that she might have hurt Patrick Lumumba, I maintain that's because she's a nice person and liked Patrick and knows that he's said that arrest must have ruined his life.

On the other hand, Patrick feels perfectly justified in smearing Amanda every chance he gets, lying in court in hopes of 'discrediting' her story, taking money from the tabloids to expound upon her flaws real and imagined he 'discovered' from seeing her a couple times a week for at most two months. He did about all he could to ensure Amanda spent as much of the rest of her life in jail that an Italian Court can offer, hiring a lawyer who said in court:

Originally Posted by Melanie Eversley USA Today 10/26/11
One side of Knox is "angelic, good, compassionate and in some ways even saintly," Pacelli said. The other side is "Lucifer-like, demonic, satanic, diabolic" and "longs to live out borderline extreme behavior," he said, the BBC reports.
He hired a man to say trash like this in court when her effective life was on the line, and even if acquitted her reputation as well. He says it to the papers, he lies to make her sound badly given the opportunity knowing she can't speak for herself being under a gag-order from the Italian Courts, so he has free reign. He didn't fire her, she wanted her hours cut so she wouldn't have to walk around at night after the murder. He didn't think any of this before the arrest, as per the second statement he sought her out to find out if she would talk to the papers.


Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I call memoranums #3 and #4 waffling, making "I stand by my statements...." assertions, which are actually the only clear, unambiguous assertions. I wouldn't say she was "making it quite clear how unsure she was", she was just expressing confusion. However in writing she made a plain declarative statement, "I stand by....", that was perhaps the only clear thing about the note. Certainly, taken as a whole it's just a confusing way of putting it.
I think she cleared up what she meant by 'I stand by my statements' in the note of November 7th, she actually thought at that point Patrick was guilty, but eventually realized it wasn't true. I will disagree with you that she didn't make it perfectly clear she was unsure, in fact I think we ought to read the rest of her statement that starts "I stand by my statement..." along with the rest of the her tributes to confusion and lack of clarity, which incidentally includes her writing that she wants to make clear that she's doubtful of the verity of her statements:

Originally Posted by Amanda Knox 'Gift Note' 11/6/07

"...what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else."

"In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused"

"However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure."

"These things I am not sure about"

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night,I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion."

"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers."

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

"But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:"

"...but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real."

"I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure."

"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night"

"If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?"

"Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone"

Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused

(All emphasis and highlighting mine except 'REAL' and 'FOR SURE' retained)
Now here comes what it appears you see as a clear, unambiguous assertion. I think in the context of the confusion highlighted above and her qualification that the sentence ends with, along with the use of 'could' in the offending sentence fragment, she's making it perfectly clear she is unsure:

"And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

(emphasis mine)

My 'statement analysis' skills, which have nothing to do with techniques developed in Sweden in the Sixties to get children to talk about sexual abuse, suggest to me that the only thing she's clear and unambiguous about is how unsure she is about what she signed regarding Patrick.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I have no clue whatsoever. The answer to this should come from someone familiar and with long experience with the way the criminal and calunnia trails intermix. I am the first to say that the process sounds unwieldy, but then they never asked my opinion when the Italian Penal Code was put together.
I call it 'byzantine.'

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My guess is that Massei convicted because he thought Knox was involved in the murder, and accused Lumumba to throw police off the trail, and that Hellmann upheld the conviction for a differing reason. Not that she lied, but that when she was free and clear to make the statement, "Look, how could I possibly know?", she only seemed to be confusedly saying, "I imagined I could have been there, but it also seems more likely that I was at Raffaele's the whole time, but in any event I stand by the assertion I made last night."

To me, that is not lying. It is obviously trying to put the "truth" together, but it also had the effect of NOT drawing fire away from Lumumba, therefore, Hellmann will say, it's calunnia. Memorandum #3 and #4 make her an unwilling co-conspirator with the police in ruining Lumumba.

That's the way I see it. I think that's what Hellmann will say.
What makes you think if they didn't believe her note on the Sixth that she wasn't sure and somewhat dubious, her absolute withdrawal of her statement on the seventh, to go along with all the witnesses his lawyer is bringing forth, including the Swiss professional, that they'd have believed her? What could she have said on the Seventh, which is the day after his arrest, that would have convinced them to release Patrick? Especially if she's not admitting to the murder itself, why would they have believed her when they wouldn't believe anything else?

What do you think happened to her anyway? I suspect I know, as it is a known phenomena. Here's a law enforcement link to some material on false confessions, and if you haven't already you ought to read it. It details the various kinds of false confessions, and includes information for how law enforcement can avoid false confessions, being as good lawmen don't want to put away innocent people, but they might not realize just how power and authority can distort someone's perception or willpower if its used improperly. If you read through that whole ~40 pages you'll note they broke every rule in the book, including the one they make pains to repeat as it's so important:

Quote:
While this concept has been addressed frequently in this text, it is worth repeating again--at no time should an investigator attempt to persuade a suspect he is guilty of committing a crime he claims he doesn't remember committing. It is one thing to express high confidence in a suspect's guilt (which will not cause an innocent person to confess), but it's quite another to make statements designed to convince a suspect, who claims to have no recollection of committing the crime, that he must be guilty of the offense.

Absent these criteria, a defendant's claim of a coerced internalized confession should be viewed with extreme skepticism by the court. However, the ultimate test of the trustworthiness of any confession will be the degree and kind of corroboration included within the confession itself.

(emphasis mine)
Amanda was suffering from 'False Memories' in my opinion, which you'll note in that paper they recognize as a legitimate problem. As it's an older paper they refer to an Internalized False Confession as still a hypothesis, but with cases like the Norfolk Four it's not so much a 'hypothesis' anymore. What they did was set the stage perfectly to get her to believe she must have been there the night of the murder, and for a while they got her to believe it.

Does that seem unbelievable? Consider her position: she's just a college girl barely out of her teens and the police are telling her they have 'hard evidence' she was at the scene of the crime at the time Meredith was murdered. They tell her that Raffaele has 'dropped' her alibi so her 'story' of being with Raffaele must be untrue. They have just confronted her with the fact they know she was stoned, and have hammered home how 'suspicious' they are of the fact she can't recall in detail the exact sequence of events and timeline of what she was doing on a night she was smoking hash, watching movies and snuggling with Raffaele. The translator is telling her about repressing memories from trauma. So, as long as she believes the police, who she naively has no reason to disbelieve, she must have been there, and when she 'imagines' what might have happened she creates mental images.

Except they don't quite seem real, but they have to be, right? She has no clue the police are going to arrest her, she thinks she's 'helping' them, and trying to do the best she can. As the law enforcement link above suggests, they did everything to ensure the conditions were ripe for her to falsely think she must have seen something she hadn't. The Statements have her doing what most could imagine a college girl would be doing in the middle of extreme violence in the house, covering her ears away from the event--she doesn't even 'see' anything, all she has to do is imagine being terrified.

They set the stage with hammering her for not telling them she was using hash the night of the murder, as per Monica Napoleoni's testimony, which they might use, along with the fact her memory of the timeline that night is not exact, to suggest she may have forgotten it due to drug use, which doesn't actually happen with hash, but Amanda doesn't necessarily know that FOR SURE (:P) at the time. She has the suggestion she might have 'repressed' the memory, and after denying it for hours and hours, as she'd told them all the rest of the week what she was doing, doubt might well creep in: the police say they have proof she was at the scene at the time of the murder, and they have the weight of authority behind their words, so eventually she comes to believe she must have been there, nothing else makes sense. As she's tired, traumatized and eventually befuddled, she's not thinking straight, the cops keep yelling...and then they start hitting. She's become motivated to remember, and the images she summoned become 'real.'

It doesn't go away at once, in fact with an Internalized False Confession they can last far longer than the one day she couldn't figure it out, one of the Norfolk Four still believes he's guilty last I heard, even though he and the others have been cleared. Angry insistent policemen that won't let up can really do some psychological damage to a person in those circumstances.

At any rate, from the moral perspective I think Patrick Lumumba's reprehensible behavior, spending four years lying about Amanda and his numerous attempts to get money from the deal and help to see to it she's locked away for life and if not smeared to perdition, has exhausted any sympathy he might have had coming at one point. He might say his two whole weeks in jail 'ruined his life' but considering Amanda and Raffaele have endured a hundred times that a piece, and he did his best to help them stay there, I'd say his moral position at this point is just about bankrupt and he deserves punishment not payment.

From a legal position I don't think just cherry-picking that statement out of that morass of confusion and saying it's a 'clear and unambiguous' statement, with qualifiers riddling the sentence itself, not only the body of the note, qualifies as much 'proof' that she 'confirmed' her first two statements that were also rather ambiguous. I also think her completely retracting them the next day as she recovered from their meddling with her memories while still locked in solitary suggests even more so that she tried her best to give them 'the best truth I can think.'

It does appear she feels badly about what happened to Patrick, but I don't think that's any admission of guilt, but merely that Amanda is actually a nice person who liked Patrick and feels badly that he was hurt by the police. She suggests she was too weak and too naive and could have been stronger in her apology, which might also be what Hellmann will use in his Motivations, but I think that's a credit to her, not an admission. You can see in her note how she tries to empathize with people and understand their position, the the police who've yelled at her, threatened her, hit her and then arrested her and locked her in a room all by herself, yet she still tries to understand the pressure their under. She wonders why Raffaele might say she left and 'lie' and say she told him to lie (which he didn't--cops were 'exaggerating') and she figures he must just be scared like she is.

There's a poster called 'RashamonFan' who usually lurks but posted and PMed me recently that caused me to think of something going over Sharon Feinstein's blog, and this description of Amanda from her friends and the one given by Vittoria reminds me of how perceptions can differ:

"Generous, kind, genuine, optimistic, bubbly. Pretty much all the good words that you can find in a dictionary, she was."

That's a pretty common description from those that know her, and those who actually know her didn't think she had anything to do with it, in part as I read elsewhere as they knew the description of her from ILE that was going through the tabloid rounds thanks to people like Patrick and others who didn't know her but pretended they did. However, if you look at what they say, the examples they give, they generally fit the description above, but they take something different from it. When she's generous, like with the warder, it's being 'manipulative.' This Angela Antonelli appears to think Amanda thought her a friend just because she said nice things to her and gave her a 'present,' one of which was just translating the words to "Let it Be."

It might just be that Amanda is nice to people, so much so that when they think her a murderess it must seem sick and twisted. When she's bubbly it 'must' be just because she's a cold-blooded psychopath who doesn't empathize with Meredith. Being optimistic, in Vittoria's case annoying the hell out of her by thinking she'd be freed, it comes off as arrogant to the ones who are really guilty and think she must be too. The 'actress' comes into play as even Pacelli, Mignini and Maresca, the most vociferous of her contemners, must admit it's hard to think of what is seen in court and what others who actually know her say about her as a cold-blooded, manipulative demoness, so the rest of the time she must be acting, right?

Some people just absolutely believe what the authorities say, and if they say Amanda is a viscous murderess, she must be one cold-blooded manipulative witch-kin if she's being friendly and nice much of the time. Even Vittoria who by her own admission tormented Amanda frequently and at great length admits Amanda wished her luck when she got out of prison, even though Vittoria had herself recently removed from that cell as she couldn't leave her alone.

I remember going through this once thinking there must be some middle ground here, that her supporters weren't saying anything bad for obvious reasons, that there must be some truth to the ones who thought her 'cold, distant, manipulative, an actress etc, until I realized that people don't change that much just going overseas. Their behavior might for various reasons, but their personality doesn't. Not to the point where it's the complete opposite, not over any extended period of time for those not suffering from a disorder. Then I realized how clever the construction of 'Foxy Knoxy' was: no matter what she did, she would fit the description in one sense of the word. Then when you go through what they're talking about one can see the 'Rashamon' effect on Amanda. Those that think her guilty use the words they heard from the papers as they seemed to fit, as if she murdered someone then her acting friendly, bubbly and nice would make her about as cold-blooded as one can be, wouldn't it?

I still find it telling that the tabloids sent their spawn all the way to Seattle to wave around fistfuls of dollars to dig up dirt on Amanda and basically came up empty, the ones who did agree to even talk to them gave them generally glowing reports. I dunno about you, Bill, but many might fear what kind of things might be printed in the paper about most people if the tabloids came to their hometown offering thousands for juicy tidbits, one can find a reason to trash anyone, I recall reading a rather nasty piece on Mother Theresa from Hitchens or Corn once.

Sometimes it's the things that aren't found that have been looked for with effort that are most telling. They didn't find examples of old boyfriends or girls outraged at her behavior, as you may recall her 'frequentations' were a major concern of the Matteini Court and the tabloids, yet there's no broken-hearted boyfriends or girls who had their boyfriend 'stolen' or 'rented' from them? There's no violence in her history at all? There's no list of dislikes, or hatreds, or much of anything negative coming from her? Where's the anger in this girl?

Then I realized that if someone sees Amanda as guilty of murder, and at one point due to the lies emanating from the police and prosecution just about everyone did, then to some she must be 'acting' much of the time and really a cold-blooded, manipulative, heartless piece of work, a demoness hiding inside an otherwise perfectly nice girl.

There is no 'satanic demoness' lurking in Amanda Knox, they smeared this girl to the four corners of the world, they went through everything she did, or wrote, and believed inherently all the hangers-on who barely knew her that condemned her for the lamest reasons after she'd been accused of being a psychopathic murderess and all around bad-time girl, a grade-A whack-a-mole with a heart of darkness. They emptied her underwear drawer and then condemned her for getting some and what might have been overheard by someone who didn't speak English when she was talking to Raffaele in English. They put unconscionable pressure on her to confess to what she hadn't done, and tapped her phones and couldn't find anything juicy. To condemn Amanda Knox they had to take it out of context or interview those who thought her guilty and despised or hated her to get some pretty ridiculous reasons to dislike her. She kissed her boyfriend and cuddled, she got a noise-violation ticket, she didn't go over and comfort hardened criminals lashing out at the world in rage, she snapped at a vapid comment when distressed, she wiggled her hips, broke down in tears unexpectedly and went out for pizza after the murder. Some seem to think that pointing out how stupid and untrue most the things said about her is making her into some kind of saint, like even Pacelli has to admit she comes across sometimes, but she's not really that either. She's just the same nice, friendly, bubbly honor student that went to Perugia, a little quirky, maybe offbeat, but in the end, just a girl.






1
Originally Posted by Guardian Tom Kington 9/17/11
When British director Michael Winterbottom stopped in a bar while researching a film on the Kercher case, Patrick Lumumba, who was arrested and released in connection with the murder, happened to be DJ-ing.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."

Last edited by Kaosium; 13th December 2011 at 09:06 PM.
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 07:52 PM   #366
Dougm
Critical Thinker
 
Dougm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 497
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post



If your intent is to have me say what it is I would say, then I would say that the only clear statement in memoradums #3 and #4 are the clarity with which they say, "I stand by my statements made last night...." At its most basic level of parseing a sentence and interpreting it, that is a sentence meant to be clear, and which I also judge to be clear.

For me, and you will disagree I am sure, the subsequent statement of confusion itself is not clear - it is an unclear statement of confusion which does nothing on the face of it to NEGATE the only clear sentence in the memorandum. I am not sure if you are one of them, but criticism leveled my way has included the assumption that an unclear confusion-statement should NEGATE and render (as it it had not been written) the only clear part of the note.
So you are saying that she was confused when she said she was confused and not sure, but was not confused in the same statement when she said she was "standing by" her previous? I think that is facinating, and I don't see it that way at all.

I give you credit for telling us straight out why you think she should have been convicted on the calunnia charge, no matter if anyone else agrees or not. The guilter community (of which I do not consider you a part) should give that a shot more often.

My response would simply be that at the time of her making the statement she is either confused, or not confused. I don't think state of mind changes word to word or sentence to sentence, so if she is unclear and the facts of the statement seem unreal to her, saying she "stands by" the statement of the night before, "but" is unclear means she is unclear about all of it. I see your argument as cherry picking the statement.

Thanks for the post!
Dougm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 08:14 PM   #367
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
 
Katody Matrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Bill he was being sarcastic because a group you don't want me to kid you as being one of would say something like that.

I'm not a member over there, is there any other place that photo is located?
Bruce's site, membership not required:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html
__________________
Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Katody Matrass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 08:14 PM   #368
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,952
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
Yet traces of blood/water were visible in the bidet, but not found in the shower...?
This is easily explained if the cleanup is in the shower and perhaps impossible to produce otherwise. Halfway through the cleanup, Rudy steps out of the shower and reaches across the sink to grab the soap. A drop of watery blood falls from his hand into the sink. A similar action causes the drip into the bidet. Rudy retreats back to the shower and finishes rinsing the blood off himself then uses the shower sprayer to clean the sides and basin of the shower stall.

Now it's your turn. How does a drip of watery blood fall into an otherwise blood free sink and bidet without using the shower for the cleanup?
__________________
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number to that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was. -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (Order for arrests)
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 09:15 PM   #369
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Edited by Darat:  Moderated thread.



Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
What I have posted above has little to do with the legal case, but it does have something to do with the moral case. As you note she tells her mother she feels badly that she might have hurt Patrick Lumumba, I maintain that's because she's a nice person and liked Patrick and knows that he's said that arrest must have ruined his life.

On the other hand, Patrick feels perfectly justified in smearing Amanda every chance he gets, lying in court in hopes of 'discrediting' her story, taking money from the tabloids to expound upon her flaws real and imagined he 'discovered' from seeing her a couple times a week for at most two months. He did about all he could to ensure Amanda spent as much of the rest of her life in jail that an Italian Court can offer, hiring a lawyer who said in court:
The "moral case" is not what's at issue here. The legal case is. See below about the appropriateness of holding Lumumba to account for future actions which would not have taken place if the whole "let's get Lumumba" charade hadn't been initated - by police, corroborated by Knox. I also assume that if Knox had not confusedly corroborated it, they STILL would have gone after Lumumba. Again, it is not the police's actions or Lumumba's future actions which are the topic of this thread. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
What makes you think if they didn't believe her note on the Sixth that she wasn't sure and somewhat dubious, her absolute withdrawl of her statement on the seventh, to go along with all the witnesses his lawyer is bringing forth, including the Swiss professional, that they'd have believed her? What could she have said on the Seventh, which is the day after his arrest, that would have convinced them to release Patrick? Especially if she's not admitting to the murder itself, why would they have believed her when they wouldn't believe anything else?
It is actually irrelevant what the police thought of Knox's notes. All Knox did, at best, was corroborate their wacky take on Lumumba. This thread is not about the police's potential criminal liability, it is about Knox's. One day I'll write at length about what I think is the police's criminal liability. That's a different subject.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
What do you think happened to her anyway? I suspect I know, as it is a known phenomena. Here's a law enforcement link to some material on false confessions, and if you haven't already you ought to read it. It details the various kinds of false confessions, and includes information for how law enforcement can avoid false confessions, being as good lawmen don't want to put away innocent people, but they might not realize just how power and authority can distort someone's perception or willpower if its used improperly. If you read through that whole ~40 pages you'll note they broke every rule in the book, including the one they make pains to repeat as it's so important:

Does that seem unbelievable? Consider her position:
Thank you for reminding me.... for the millionth time! I know her position. I've already said 999,999 times that this information, for me, is applicable at sentencing. You, if I can be so bold to say, are arguing with someone else, not me.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
At any rate, from the moral perspective I think Patrick Lumumba's reprehensible behavior, spending four years lying about Amanda and his numerous attempts to get money from the deal and help to see to it she's locked away for life and if not smeared to perdition, has exhausted any sympathy he might have had coming at one point.
However, Lumumba's future potentially criminal behaviour had nothing to do with either the police inexplicably taking one of his text-messages to Knox out of context, and using a badly translated idiom, as well as Knox's waffling in those notes, which put him in the original distress. His behaviour since has, agreed, been less than stellar. What's THAT got to go with the facts of the original calunnia? Other than you want to yell at Lumumba the way guilters feel justified in yelling at Knox? My old granny said, two wrongs don't make a right.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
There is no 'satanic demoness' lurking in Amanda Knox, they smeared this girl to the four corners of the world, they went through everything she did, or wrote, and believed inherently all the hangers-on who barely knew her that condemned her for the lamest reasons after she'd been accused of being a psychopathic murderess and all around bad-time girl, a grade-A whack-a-mole with a heart of darkness. They emptied her underwear drawer and then condemned her for getting some and what might have been overheard by someone who didn't speak English when she was talking to Raffaele in English. They put unconscionable pressure on her to confess to what she hadn't done, and tapped her phones and couldn't find anything juicy. To condemn Amanda Knox they had to take it out of context or interview those who thought her guilty and despised or hated her to get some pretty ridiculous reasons to dislike her. She kissed her boyfriend and cuddled, she got a noise-violation ticket, she didn't go over and comfort hardened criminals lashing out at the world in rage, she snapped at a vapid comment when distressed, she wiggled her hips, broke down in tears unexpectedly and went out for pizza after the murder. Some seem to think that pointing out how stupid and untrue most the things said about her is making her into some kind of saint, like even Pacelli has to admit she comes across sometimes, but she's not really that either. She's just the same nice, friendly, bubbly honor student that went to Perugia, a little quirky, maybe offbeat, but in the end, just a girl.
Agreed.

Again, what does this have to do with the calunnia charge and conviction, other than an innocentatii venting his spleen over the whole, unjust mess?

You're barking at the wrong mailman on that part.

I believe wholely that Knox was honest through it all - the one remark made about her as being a liar is the most inexplicable one of all.

I read the following on the PMF site, which has an "In their own words" section. One of the prosecutors, Manuela Comodi, was commenting on why the prosecution did not call Knox to testify:

Originally Posted by Manuela Comodi
Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, said that the prosecution had not called either Ms Knox or Mr Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.

“If they have nothing to add and just repeat the same version of events, questioning them in court would be a waste of time. The facts will come from others.”
Read that three times. "They just repeat the same version of events."

In other words, where is Knox the liar in this? Where is Knox-the-always-changer-of-her-alibi in this?

I'm with you man. Besides, I have to be. The Marriott people monitor these posts and I've already blown my Christmas bonus, and don't want my plave at the Valentine's office party put in danger. (Marriott gives out the best chocolates.)

This schtick of mine gets me in trouble at the water cooler during coffee breaks at Marriott's firm. But given that the massive PR campaign has convinced Kaosium to write what he does, at length, we don't really need to worry.

Or is that you, Stan, up on the 4th floor with a funky alias?

Last edited by Darat; 14th December 2011 at 04:14 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 10:37 PM   #370
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Barbara Walters said on David Letterman's program this evening, commenting on her 10 most fascinating people of 2011:

"We don't do criminals."

Which is why she did not include Bernie Madoff.

But she is including Amanda Knox. "This is a good news story. She is free. The day after the murder, her mother told her to leave Italy. If she'd done that, no one would ever have heard of Amanda Knox. They certainly would never in a million years arrested her. She stayed, naively, thinking she could help the police."

The 90 minute special on the 10 most fascinating people (with an American bias) is on ABC television, Wednesday Dec 14. Two of the ten are only profiled, not interviewed - Amanda Knox is one of the two profiled.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 10:43 PM   #371
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Kaosium - this is your quote which you say ceoms from Knox. It summarizes the case against her with regards to calunnia fairly nicely. It has the added benefit of showing moral awareness and culpability and contrition. Does this make Knox better than anyone else as guilters say pro-Lnox supportprs are guilty of? No. It makes her decent. Culpable on the calunnia matter, but decent nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Amanda Knox
“Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry because I didn’t mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naÔve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didn’t mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace.”
Edited by Darat:  Moderated thread.
All I am doing is calling her decent.

Last edited by Darat; 14th December 2011 at 04:16 AM. Reason: Corrected quote tag
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 11:31 PM   #372
katy_did
Graduate Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
This is easily explained if the cleanup is in the shower and perhaps impossible to produce otherwise. Halfway through the cleanup, Rudy steps out of the shower and reaches across the sink to grab the soap. A drop of watery blood falls from his hand into the sink. A similar action causes the drip into the bidet. Rudy retreats back to the shower and finishes rinsing the blood off himself then uses the shower sprayer to clean the sides and basin of the shower stall.

Now it's your turn. How does a drip of watery blood fall into an otherwise blood free sink and bidet without using the shower for the cleanup?
The drips of watery blood could have just been left post-washing, from traces of blood left on Rudy's hand/foot. Most of it would have been rinsed away by the water. We know he had watery traces of blood on his hand/foot after washing, both from the marks on the bathmat and those on the wall/door.

I think he could have used the shower, but I don't see any really compelling evidence that he couldn't have used the sink/bidet instead. If he was only washing his hands/foot and/or a small portion of his clothing, it might have been easier, quicker and less messy to 'spot clean' just those areas, rather than risk getting his clothing soaked in the shower. Maybe he even tried to use the sink to start with for his foot/jeans and overbalanced, hence leaving the footprint, before deciding using the bidet would be easier. And given the circumstances, I doubt he would've been too squeamish about using it!

Like I said though, I think it's possible he used the shower, but can't see any reason to rule out the sink/bidet either - I'd probably put slightly more likelihood on the latter, because of the blood traces there.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 12:37 AM   #373
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,946
Gawd, I should have split that long post into about three, the latter two not really addressed to Bill. Just things I've been thinking about recently that spilled out when I had a chance to post, being busier these days and not having as much reason to check regularly with less frequent updates.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 01:55 AM   #374
HumanityBlues
Graduate Poster
 
HumanityBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,580
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
And here I thought that SA pays no heed to this board. But then, go figure, I learn that he has a complete working knowledge of my posts here. And apparently he doesn't like them. Oh well, at least I was right. And I didn't have to put together spreadsheets or pay Curatalo 20 Euro. I just practiced a little skepticism and critical thinking in a friendly and lively way. Try it.
Curatolo spent the 20 euro on heroin. I can't stress this enough.
__________________
Even if you hate the Knox case, you'll appreciate this example of confirmation bias. Taken down by the "impartial mods" because certain aviators kept clickiting clicking violation.
HumanityBlues is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 07:05 AM   #375
Diocletus
Master Poster
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,718
Originally Posted by HumanityBlues View Post
Curatolo spent the 20 euro on heroin. I can't stress this enough.
No doubt about it. Everyone who has spent time in a city knows that with a guy like Curatalo, if you give him cash, he buys a fix. If you want him to eat, then buy him a sandwich.
Diocletus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 07:29 AM   #376
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,952
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Edited by Darat:  Moderated thread.


...

I'm with you man. Besides, I have to be. The Marriott people monitor these posts and I've already blown my Christmas bonus, and don't want my plave at the Valentine's office party put in danger. (Marriott gives out the best chocolates.)

This schtick of mine gets me in trouble at the water cooler during coffee breaks at Marriott's firm. But given that the massive PR campaign has convinced Kaosium to write what he does, at length, we don't really need to worry.

Or is that you, Stan, up on the 4th floor with a funky alias?

Have you figured out who the new executive is? They said they were bringing someone on board who could directly control the message.
__________________
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number to that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was. -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (Order for arrests)
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 07:44 AM   #377
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Kaosium is there a Cliff's Notes version?

Bill, the fact that years later Amanda is able to apologize to Patrick for not being strong enough to withstand the organized pressures of a team of police interrogators shouldn't be used as proof she is guilty of the crime of callunia.

The acts of the police should give Amanda a free pass on callunia. She was convinced that she was telling the truth about Patrick by the lies of the police.

What are the police guilty of for lying to her and Raffaele? PGP just say that police always lie and that we want them to do so in order to get the crooks. Perhaps occasionally it is necessary, but that shouldn't absolve them of bad outcomes.

After reading the law one more time, I'm more convinced that she wasn't technically guilty and more me even more importantly she is not morally guilty given what the police did.

Katody Matrass - thanks for the patience. I appreciate the link.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 08:01 AM   #378
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
 
Katody Matrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
The drips of watery blood could have just been left post-washing, from traces of blood left on Rudy's hand/foot. Most of it would have been rinsed away by the water. We know he had watery traces of blood on his hand/foot after washing, both from the marks on the bathmat and those on the wall/door.
Not that it matters a lot, but I just took another look at the photos. The droplets of diluted blood appear to have fallen on a dry surface. Dan O. is a good observer
__________________
Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Katody Matrass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 08:13 AM   #379
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,946
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Edited by Darat:  Moderated thread.


The "moral case" is not what's at issue here. The legal case is. See below about the appropriateness of holding Lumumba to account for future actions which would not have taken place if the whole "let's get Lumumba" charade hadn't been initated - by police, corroborated by Knox. I also assume that if Knox had not confusedly corroborated it, they STILL would have gone after Lumumba. Again, it is not the police's actions or Lumumba's future actions which are the topic of this thread. Sheesh.
I wonder. What I mean is I don't necessarily think the calunnia verdict is grounded well in Italian Law, being as they have to prove a mens rea beyond a reasonable person's doubt. As I recall from a recent discussion that's one of the grounds the Court of Cassation can strike down the verdict. She had to know Patrick was innocent and intended to blame him for the murder. What I'm wondering is if the materials available can prove that Amanda both intended to blame Patrick and whether she knew he was innocent.

If not, then I suspect what might have at least influenced the decision somewhat was the fact Patrick was a Perugian who made a big display of how devastating that two whole weeks in jail was to him and how Amanda Knox was to blame. Also the fact they'd have to basically admit that their police force screwed up and blamed Amanda and lied through their teeth about it probably impacted on their decision as well.

Now, here's one where we can both be 'right.' Hellmann has to come up with a Motivations, and he'll have to use evidence to support his contention. You may very well hit upon the argument he'll use, however it may be like Massei's Motivations and will be on shaky legal and logical grounds. The ones who think her guilty and know enough about this appeared astonished at the fact she could be found innocent of the murder but culpable for the calunnia. Machiavelli appeared at one point to suggest a possible outcome of sending them both back for a new trial, as they were intrinsically linked together.

I don't know if that's the case or not, I liked LJ's scenario better, but it does suggest to me there might be difficulty proving the calunnia charge, one of the nice things about the Italian legal system is the Motivations Report requirement where it all has to be put together and explained. Here's the thing: if Amanda is guilty of murder, it's far easier to come up with a guilty mind, which they're going to have to prove. Other scenarios are certainly possible but are they provable beyond the doubt of a reasonable person?

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
It is actually irrelevant what the police thought of Knox's notes. All Knox did, at best, was corroborate their wacky take on Lumumba. This thread is not about the police's potential criminal liability, it is about Knox's. One day I'll write at length about what I think is the police's criminal liability. That's a different subject.
I'll look forward to it.

However if Amanda is convicted of calunnia all the way through, it may never come up. I wonder if the ECHR would be interested in hearing a case on it? I read that France initiated reforms due to a case like this being taken to Strasbourg.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post

Thank you for reminding me.... for the millionth time! I know her position. I've already said 999,999 times that this information, for me, is applicable at sentencing. You, if I can be so bold to say, are arguing with someone else, not me.
Busted!

Yes, I was kinda, you got me to thinking about some things and it all came out, some of it tout la monde.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
However, Lumumba's future potentially criminal behaviour had nothing to do with either the police inexplicably taking one of his text-messages to Knox out of context, and using a badly translated idiom, as well as Knox's waffling in those notes, which put him in the original distress. His behaviour since has, agreed, been less than stellar. What's THAT got to go with the facts of the original calunnia? Other than you want to yell at Lumumba the way guilters feel justified in yelling at Knox? My old granny said, two wrongs don't make a right.
Not quite, I challenged both the legal and moral case, the latter of which is seldom seen so I figured I'd put it together rather than just rely on discouraging words about his conduct since. My suspicion is the moral case is what swayed that jury, plus it offered a nice diplomatic way out of having to cut the local Polizia di Stato off at the knees.


Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed.

Again, what does this have to do with the calunnia charge and conviction, other than an innocentatii venting his spleen over the whole, unjust mess?
Well, maybe a little of that too.

Reading through all of it the first time around I was fully prepared to give Patrick Lumumba some latitude, that was until almost exactly a year ago when Amanda made that apology and Patrick refused to accept it, though he claimed he 'forgave her' long ago. She was so monstrous in his eyes she was incapable of contrition. He also promised to be at every court session of the appeal, making me wonder if he intended to stare her down as was suggested about Monica Napoleoni's frequent unscheduled appearances observing the court the first time around.

That made me curious and I went to looking through his 'contributions' to this issue, which made me wonder even more. Why does he blame Amanda? Why is he so adamant about her everlasting guilt? I think there's a number of possible reasons, though I think the most probable being his treatment in police hands who may have taunted him with Amanda's 'confession' much like they put pressure on her with the false positive HIV test, the release of her diary, the 'clear cut' CCTV video, and according to the defense lawyers, the knife from Raffaele's drawer. I do think other scenarios are possible though, his behavior seems curiously over-the-top regarding Amanda's total responsibility in something the police did.

Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
You're barking at the wrong mailman on that part.

I believe wholely that Knox was honest through it all - the one remark made about her as being a liar is the most inexplicable one of all.

I read the following on the PMF site, which has an "In their own words" section. One of the prosecutors, Manuela Comodi, was commenting on why the prosecution did not call Knox to testify:



Read that three times. "They just repeat the same version of events."

In other words, where is Knox the liar in this? Where is Knox-the-always-changer-of-her-alibi in this?

I'm with you man. Besides, I have to be. The Marriott people monitor these posts and I've already blown my Christmas bonus, and don't want my plave at the Valentine's office party put in danger. (Marriott gives out the best chocolates.)

This schtick of mine gets me in trouble at the water cooler during coffee breaks at Marriott's firm. But given that the massive PR campaign has convinced Kaosium to write what he does, at length, we don't really need to worry.

Or is that you, Stan, up on the 4th floor with a funky alias?
I'm striking for Fire Control Officer on the mighty Supertanker, I have to make grade! Up or out!

Seriously though, I've noticed myself my posts are getting longer and are less coherent. In part that's to stimulate discussion and 'catch up' someone who might be interested, which means I include multiple links--which I hate having to do--but do it because I figure I ought to. It may be pointless at this juncture though.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 08:55 AM   #380
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,946
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Kaosium - this is your quote which you say comes from Knox. It summarizes the case against her with regards to calunnia fairly nicely. It has the added benefit of showing moral awareness and culpability and contrition. Does this make Knox better than anyone else as guilters say pro-Knox supporters are guilty of? No. It makes her decent. Culpable on the calunnia matter, but decent nonetheless.
Do you see an admission or a confession in this? I see sorrow, noting that he was hurt and she feels bad and that she harmed him, but I also see her saying she didn't mean to, and isn't that the requirement that has to be met at least on some level? She also suggests coercion by including 'withstand the pressures.'

I dunno, I find this the best candidate so far, but does it meet the requirement simply because she feels bad that he was hurt and knows she contributed?

Here's the thing: would it be a crime if you were to sign a statement suggesting you thought--but weren't sure--I had been the person you saw leaving the scene of a murder? You might find out later I was innocent and felt bad if I was convicted in part on your mistaken testimony, but would you be culpable for three years in prison for it?

"I confusedly remember..." or the second one which is even less straightforward doesn't exactly suggest high confidence in what she's 'witnessing,' and of course at this stage she's officially a 'witness' for the first statement at the very least.

ďPatrick? I donít see you. But Iím sorry. Iím sorry because I didnít mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naÔve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didnít mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didnít deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace.Ē
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 10:28 AM   #381
Fine
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
This is easily explained if the cleanup is in the shower and perhaps impossible to produce otherwise. Halfway through the cleanup, Rudy steps out of the shower and reaches across the sink to grab the soap. A drop of watery blood falls from his hand into the sink. A similar action causes the drip into the bidet. Rudy retreats back to the shower and finishes rinsing the blood off himself then uses the shower sprayer to clean the sides and basin of the shower stall.

Now it's your turn. How does a drip of watery blood fall into an otherwise blood free sink and bidet without using the shower for the cleanup?
____________________

Dan,

Why the heck would Rudy need a bar of soap to rinse Meredith's blood from his trousers? (Or did he want to wash behind his ears?) And why would there be a bar of soap on the bathroom sink, since there was already a bottle of self-dispensing soap there. (See: HERE.)

Those drops of pink stuff on the sink, bidet, and toilet seat cover were vampire blood, so their presence predates Rudy's cleanup activities and don't figure in any reconstruction of Rudy's activities the night of November 1st. Knowing that Meredith applied the vampire blood in the bathroom on October 31st, and then on November 1st ---on two occasions---scrubbed the vampire blood from her face........shouldn't we expect to find traces of that vampire blood in her bathroom?

///
Fine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 12:39 PM   #382
katy_did
Graduate Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
Not that it matters a lot, but I just took another look at the photos. The droplets of diluted blood appear to have fallen on a dry surface. Dan O. is a good observer
Hmmm, but how can you tell? The entire surfaces of the sink/bidet would've been dry when they photographed the droplets, I guess, since it had been 17/18 hours at least since they were left there. The drips of blood would've only been visible because they dried a different colour.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 01:06 PM   #383
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,952
Originally Posted by Fine View Post
____________________

Dan,

Why the heck would Rudy need a bar of soap to rinse Meredith's blood from his trousers? (Or did he want to wash behind his ears?) And why would there be a bar of soap on the bathroom sink, since there was already a bottle of self-dispensing soap there. (See: HERE.)
So he is getting liquid soap from the dispenser. The reason should be obvious, he doesn't want to get caught red handed.


Quote:
Those drops of pink stuff on the sink, bidet, and toilet seat cover were vampire blood, so their presence predates Rudy's cleanup activities and don't figure in any reconstruction of Rudy's activities the night of November 1st. Knowing that Meredith applied the vampire blood in the bathroom on October 31st, and then on November 1st ---on two occasions---scrubbed the vampire blood from her face........shouldn't we expect to find traces of that vampire blood in her bathroom?

It's entirely possible that they were. But unless there is some new evidence I have been unaware of, these drops were not specifically tested and found to not be the victims blood. Even if they are vampire blood, their presence is evidence against the use of the sink or bidet on the murder night and do not contradict the use of the shower.

///[/quote]
__________________
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number to that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was. -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (Order for arrests)
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 02:36 PM   #384
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Do you see an admission or a confession in this?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
I see sorrow, noting that he was hurt and she feels bad and that she harmed him,
Me too. So would a judge using this sort of thing at trial. "That she harmed him" is admission of come sort of guilt.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
but I also see her saying she didn't mean to, and isn't that the requirement that has to be met at least on some level?
The accused is not a trier of fact. The accused is a giver of evidence, and it is up to the trier of fact to determine what she "meant" to to.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
She also suggests coercion by including 'withstand the pressures.'
Again, the accuser is not the trier of fact. I suggest to you that this is alos a tacit admission that she corroborated something, rather than initiated somethin, meaning the suspicion that Lumumba needed rounding up.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
I dunno, I find this the best candidate so far
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
but does it meet the requirement simply because she feels bad that he was hurt and knows she contributed?
Yes, it meets the requirement, and no, "feeling bad" doesn't figure into conviction, it figures into sentencing. There. Now I'm up to an even 1,000,000.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Here's the thing: would it be a crime if you were to sign a statement suggesting you thought--but weren't sure--I had been the person you saw leaving the scene of a murder? You might find out later I was innocent and felt bad if I was convicted in part on your mistaken testimony, but would you be culpable for three years in prison for it?
I would be if when free and clear of the coersion I asked for a pen and paper.... I think we're approaching the 1,000,000th time I've made this point.

Originally Posted by Amanda Knox
ďPatrick? I donít see you. But Iím sorry. Iím sorry because I didnít mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naÔve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didnít mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didnít deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace.Ē
This shows the awareness and admission I'd expect of a decent person, who nonetheless did the deed. I'm a "If you do the crime you do the time" sort of guy. Whether I actually like Amanda Knox as a person is completely beside the point.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 09:31 PM   #385
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,946
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Yes.


Me too. So would a judge using this sort of thing at trial. "That she harmed him" is admission of some sort of guilt.
So in other words in your view she put her own neck in the noose by proffering that apology? I wonder if that's why he kept demanding (another) one publicly? It certainly didn't appear to mean anything to him the way he refused it. If she had not made that statement do you therefore think it would be more difficult to convict her? Why do you suppose her lawyers let her make it then?

Quote:
The accused is not a trier of fact. The accused is a giver of evidence, and it is up to the trier of fact to determine what she "meant" to to.


Again, the accuser is not the trier of fact. I suggest to you that this is also a tacit admission that she corroborated something, rather than initiated something, meaning the suspicion that Lumumba needed rounding up.
Yes, but the 'trier of fact' has to prove that she both knew he was innocent (or probably so) and she meant to falsely accuse him. Relying on the fact she feels bad for what happened because of what the police did to him because of her confused statement doesn't necessarily prove either one of those things.

Quote:
Yes, it meets the requirement, and no, "feeling bad" doesn't figure into conviction, it figures into sentencing. There. Now I'm up to an even 1,000,000.
I understand, as I recall your argument is more technical in nature? In other words the letter of the law was breached and must be respected but not necessarily by three years in prison?

Quote:
I would be if when free and clear of the coersion I asked for a pen and paper.... I think we're approaching the 1,000,000th time I've made this point.
However does a statement that she might remember, but can't recall for sure due to confusion, prove that she deliberately accused an innocent man for nefarious purposes in the first place become more valid because she adds more about the confusion part? Amanda said she was trying to clear up that she wasn't sure about any of what she signed, that was the purpose of the first note, the second one the next day totally withdrew it.

The memoriale of the Seventh says she thought Patrick was the murderer when she signed the original statements, however there isn't a clear unambiguous accusation of murder in either one, in fact in the second it notes she didn't (supposedly) witness the actual murder. The first note merely adds definition to what she meant by confused.

As you've allowed, it wasn't her who initiated this sequence of events, and it was that which actually 'harmed' Patrick, her signing of two statements and writing two notes didn't do a damn thing to Patrick and wouldn't have if the cops hadn't taken action on them, which as you've also allowed they probably would have anyway. Amanda didn't mean to harm Patrick and she didn't at all, despite the fact she feels badly about what happened as a result of her statements.

Here's the thing: what is the difference between what she signed and wrote and someone who is unsure of what they witnessed--and makes that
clear in the witness statement itself? She 'confusedly' remembers Patrick is the murderer in the first one, followed up shortly thereafter by another one that says she didn't even witness the murder and includes more odes to confusion.

Should mistaken witness accounts made in good faith and qualified that they are not definite assertions be punishable by years in prison? I don't think it's a good idea for the Italian Republic to make clear that any violation of their laws regarding the protection of witness and suspect rights can be avoided by the police simply blaming any mistake made by them on the person they took into the back room in the middle of the night and turned off the cameras and got two signatures on statements that look like they come from someone who'd been slapped around.

Quote:
This shows the awareness and admission I'd expect of a decent person, who nonetheless did the deed. I'm a "If you do the crime you do the time" sort of guy. Whether I actually like Amanda Knox as a person is completely beside the point.
Here's the thing though: did she do the crime or does she feel badly that the result of her being used in the back room by police for their own purposes caused another to get harmed as a result? Incidentally do you think they could obtain a legitimate conviction without using her spontaneous statement?

Here's another thing. The Italian Court System doesn't work on precedent, instead the purpose of the Court of Cassation is to ensure rulings by lower courts are in compliance with Italian law, it is the 'final interpreter.' Therefore just because Massei ruled that the statements were admissible for the calunnia trial doesn't mean the Supreme Court, which disallowed both for the murder charge, (as evidence against Amanda) will even be permitted as evidence in the calunnia trial, Massei just made a very strange decision on that issue. It may very well be that there should have been no calunnia trial at all, as would be the case due to the 'evidence' being obtained in a matter not in compliance with Italian law, as already ruled by the Supreme Court.

If I understand properly you think she should face conviction on this charge, but not punishment outside being considered a felon for life with all the consequences of that, as an incentive for people not to sign things for the police no matter what violations of their right occurred, that's an entirely different issue in your mind?

I think this is a recipe for police abuse of staggering proportions as it provides an incentive for police to use any means possible to get what they want, secure in the knowledge that as long as they blame the results of any mistakes on the people whose rights they've abused they will not be prosecuted, and if anyone objects all they have to do is destroy the evidence (or ensure it never exists) and when they complain prosecute them for that. That is the situation as it stands in Italy, it would be nice if there was any reason to think the police might be held to account for their violations, but as long as Amanda is convicted on the calunnia charge there's no reason to think they will be, as the fault lies solely with Amanda and their 'punishment' of not being able to use the evidence they obtained in violation of her rights bypassed.


That is what the police have done here in this case, the interrogation that was deemed not in compliance with Italian law produced three trials against Amanda and her family for objecting to her treatment despite the fact the statements were deemed inadmissible due to her rights not being respected. I find it even more sickening that they could convince her that it was her fault for what they did to Patrick, despite the evidence suggesting she didn't want them to do any of that.

Incidentally, Bill, I just like to post on this subject, the stimulation causes me to think things through, don't take it personally. I find the present situation in Italy frightening if they can convict Amanda of calunnia and thus totally escape consequences for their actions despite the fact they lied through their teeth about all of it and might have taken away Amanda and Raffaele's effective lives as result, by simply prosecuting their mistake which started with what they did to obtain those statements. It is all well and good to say that they should be punished regardless, but as long as Amanda is convicted that simply isn't going to occur and might well not even if she is acquitted. It could very well be that you will be deemed correct and her spontaneous statement at the outset of the appeal will be the 'evidence' that she is guilty of this offense, but I find the big picture implications of her conviction on this charge appalling for the various reasons I laid out.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 10:15 PM   #386
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,952
Originally Posted by Katody Matrass View Post
Not that it matters a lot, but I just took another look at the photos. The droplets of diluted blood appear to have fallen on a dry surface. Dan O. is a good observer

I actually hadn't had a chance to look at the photos myself but that's what I suspected would be found. If the bowl were wet at the time the blood drops fell in, they would have merged with existing drops and surface wetness and would have become further diluted in the progression towards the drain. But the description we have is that the chain of drops are the same color all the way down. This is a single drop loosing parts of itself as it rolls down and not picking up any more water.
__________________
A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number to that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was. -- Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini (Order for arrests)
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 11:32 PM   #387
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
I'm reading through Kevin Lowe's JREF thread about the Amanda Knox threads here on JREF, his thread is called "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?"

I was not even much aware of the tragic Perugia murder when Mr. Lowe started his thread in Jan 2011. Much of the thread, to my read of it anyway, concerned which "side" of a rather wide debating-gulf had a corner on the facts? I'm sure that the folk who were around and following that thread back then have a better sense of it than I.

Both sides, acc. to Lowe's thread, accuse the other side thusly: "You on that side pull out your long-since discredited theories, we on this side simply rely on the facts. You on your side rely on an irrational love/hate of Amanda Knox, we on our side simply dispassionately assess facts."

Well, hopefully you do not regard this as too much of a set up, becuase it describes my recent experience rather well. I actually am on one side of the murder-guilt debate, and believe I do rely on facts, with no particular emotive feelings for Knox, Sollecito.... to be honest, not even Meredith may she rest in peace - at this point in time it is really Kercher's family I feel for. Apologies, that's just the way I feel.

So just when I thought there were no facts left for me to check out, someone pulls a subtle claim out of the great ether of the Internet claiming, "Of course Knox is a bad person, she bragged that she had sex with a stranger on a train while on her way to Perugia."

I've tracked down the hip swivel claims, the cartwheel claims, the "she ***** bled to death" claim, which all nitpickers, myself included, will recognize as canon in this case. When I first readthose things, I thought those were the needless inflammations of people wanting to sully Ms. Knox's reputation - especially ahead of trial, when passion can run high.

I discovered that in the main, those things actually did happen. The problem was in the meaning one assignes to them. Are hip swivelers and police-station-cartwheelers prone to the kind of violence claimed by the prosecution.

So I calmed down a bit, of course they are not. Knox is a strange person, obviously not very street wise, and oh so painfully young at the time.

But this "sex on a train with a stranger" business. I'll admit, the wanring bells went off - is this the type of Foxy Knoxy silliness the early tabloids used to sully the public record with sensationalism simply to sell papers?

Confession is good for the soul. I spent 45 minutes Googling, purposely staying away from pro-innocence sites, let I be doing my own version of confirmation bias. Pro-innocence people are not immune, c'mon folks, admit it.

But in answer to Lowe's question, "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?" as it relates to a potential argument about sex-on-a-train, this actually sounds like something you could actually establish a fact, or debunk. Black or white. No middle ground?

Now, before I get to the results of my wasted 45 minutes, there's always a second level to these sorts of minutiae, described by some as whack-a-mole. All of a sudden the "losing" side claims something conspiratorial about why the public record is as it is - that the "fact" itself has been massaged.

I bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that such a conspiracy is entertained by the losing side here. (Then again, I wouldn't be typing this if it didn't already confirm MY bias. Sue me!)

A lot of folk who don't like Knox very much made great use of this - Google shows. Some claimed to have read it in her prison diary, but unless I missed something, the claim is untrue.

It turns out that Knox did send an e-mail back to a family member in Seattle about sex on a train. BUT BEFORE STOPPING HERE!!!! (ALL CAPS becuase I know someone will take that bare admission out of context,) the first level of explanation is that pro-Guilt people saw such an admission on a My Space site, before it mysteriously disappeared, no doubt, they imply, because the massive PR campaign to sanitize the 'Net from anything that made Knox look anything less than lily white was found and pulled.

Also, the fact that the number one reference point that comes up in relation to this factoid is The Mail of the U.K. did not fill me, an innocentatii, with much hope (I assume The Mail is a tabloid, publishing well before the phone hacking scandal caused most tabloids to smarten up).

Apparently sister Deanna was with Knox, which without other facts, makes it seem even more sallacious. Acc. to the Mail, c Nov 2007.

However, the context of the offending e-mail? Turns out the man in question was named Frederico. They met him on the train from Florence to Milan. This is where it gets murky. One version of the e-mail I found after 45 minutes claims that, no, there was no sex on the train or afterwards - just Knox's musing in the e-mail that this might be an Italian male's fantasy. Ha ha ha ha. Not funny then Knox, and tragically not funny in 20-20 hindsight.

I guess that suggestion alone is enough to somewhat sully a 20 year old's reputation. Then I found another seemingly original citation - a note claiming to be the text of the e-mail which only makes mention of Frederico buying both Deanna and Amanda dinner once in Milan - and no mention of the 'S' word at all. It is plain, though, that Knox made a bad choice (in my eyes anyways) of agreeing to smoke marijuana with Frederico before they go their separate ways. Why do I say bad choice? I just disapprove of people smoking marijuana. Especially with people they have just met. Sue me. And, again, with 20-20 hindsight, who knows what disaster will befall you to be used against you later on?

Are we posting innocent stuff on Facebook in 2011 which will come back to haint us when an employer in 2025 reads it?

Back to the point at hand. Some still stick to this talking point, even though in 45 minutes of websearching, I could find only two items claiming to be original citations. There isn't even a citation that I could find (maybe you can help) on the guilter pages.

But even with this there's a question posed, which follows from this non-evidence - "Why are you defending someone who would have sex in a lavatory on a train?" One poster even goes so far as to imply that Knox is now a prostitute, trading sex for a meal.

But back to the "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?" Is not it at least incumbent upon us to first establish if the deed actually took place?

It turns out that there is scant evidence that it actually did. I know, I know, I know, someone is going to say that a major author (John Follain?) makes mention of this fact in his book - so it must be true, right? Or that the massive PR firm with supernatural powers erased the original source from the guilt-sites.

Where, though is the first source? Where does this factoid exist in situ? If BOTH sides argue this way, not going back to the original source, surely we're all doomed!?

This, to me, is a classic example of why I am on the side I'm on, so I can offer a partial answer to Kevin Lowe's query. We can argue our opinions, but let's at the very least stipulate a set of facts, and argue from there.

And to those who oppose the detail of what I've found out about sex-on-a-train, I do realize that your mileage varies. I do realize that you are suspicious that the My Space page came down, if in fact that is what happened. I do realize that you'll have your examples which work in the other direction. I wish you'd post them.

The final thing is this: why in the name of all that is good, would someone want to call anyone a "prostitute" based on this kind of flimsy connect-the-dots-which-mostly-do-not-exist?

That is the one of the queries I have that thread away from Kevin Lowe's original "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?"

Yes, your mileage will vary.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 08:04 AM   #388
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
So in other words in your view she put her own neck in the noose by proffering that apology?
Yes. Quite the double bind, eh? But that is my view, yes.


Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
I wonder if that's why he kept demanding (another) one publicly?
Even if Lumumba himself only wanted a further apology, I bet his lawyer was rubbing his hands together in anticipation.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
It certainly didn't appear to mean anything to him the way he refused it. If she had not made that statement do you therefore think it would be more difficult to convict her? Why do you suppose her lawyers let her make it then?
1) They had bigger fish to fry. 2) They dropped the ball. 3) they thought, as you do, that the last court would do away with the conviction based on law, not evidence. One of these three. Otherwise I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Yes, but the 'trier of fact' has to prove that she both knew he was innocent (or probably so) and she meant to falsely accuse him. Relying on the fact she feels bad for what happened because of what the police did to him because of her confused statement doesn't necessarily prove either one of those things.
If you had been the trier of fact, this is what would have happened, then.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
I understand, as I recall your argument is more technical in nature? In other words the letter of the law was breached and must be respected but not necessarily by three years in prison?
I now suspect you write this because you don't want me repeating my position for a 1,000,001st time. Either that or world peace is not far behind.

...<sinister deletia>.......

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Here's the thing: what is the difference between what she signed and wrote and someone who is unsure of what they witnessed--and makes that clear in the witness statement itself? She 'confusedly' remembers Patrick is the murderer in the first one, followed up shortly thereafter by another one that says she didn't even witness the murder and includes more odes to confusion.
1) both participated in doing harm to another. 2) Ah, er, I can't think of a #2 right now.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Should mistaken witness accounts made in good faith and qualified that they are not definite assertions be punishable by years in prison?
Mistaken is a 20-20 hindsight kind of word.


.... <more sinister deletia>......

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
If I understand properly you think she should face conviction on this charge, but not punishment outside being considered a felon for life with all the consequences of that, as an incentive for people not to sign things for the police no matter what violations of their right occurred, that's an entirely different issue in your mind?
Yes. Every one of us, whether frail elderly or naive twenty-something needs to find the strength someone down deep to resist colluding with the devil. Both when the devil offers us riches or beats the crap out of us. Ooooops, unduly medievalizing this situation belongs mainly to Mignini. I may have just committed calunnia. But you get my dirft.

I also believe we should also try our best not to be helpful. Esp. when they are putting the boots to us. Ask Patty Hearst about that phenomenon. Time heals even what you're fearing.

Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
I think this is a recipe for police abuse of staggering proportions as it provides an incentive for police to use any means possible to get what they want, secure in the knowledge that as long as they blame the results of any mistakes on the people whose rights they've abused they will not be prosecuted, and if anyone objects all they have to do is destroy the evidence (or ensure it never exists) and when they complain prosecute them for that. That is the situation as it stands in Italy,
Nice try, but not quite. The superior court got it half right when they ruled the interrogation illegal for the larger charges, but it was aquirk of criminal procedure that allowed the same jury to hear it on the lesser charge. Sound to me, a non expert, like some tweaking is being begged for, not radical overhaul on this point.

I'm sinisterly not responsing to the rest of this, because as you see, I can generate my own long posts above! Sharon Feinstein once asked, "Don't you people have jobs?" The fact is I do!
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 11:01 AM   #389
komponisto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 596
WOW. I did NOT expect the motivation to be released this early!

I've been quickly skimming through. Two points to note so far:

(1) (p. 27) On the issue of the implications of the Cassazione decision in the Guede case, Hellmann and Zanetti specifically quote the passage from that ruling that I translated earlier:

Quote:
... [R]ight from the outset we must resist the attempt -- reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision -- to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute; any participation of others in the crime will be taken into account only to the extent that this circumstance bears on the matter that is our only concern: the modification or confirmation of the judgement of responsibility of the defendant -- the latter being wholly agreed upon by the judges of the first and second level.
(2) (pp. 29-35) The theory adopted on the calunnia is that it was the result of pressure and stress (and most of the discussion is sympathetic to Amanda and sounds like Hellmann and Zanetti are agreeing with the defense!), but Amanda should have known that Lumumba was innocent, because he had little connection to Meredith. The decision to retain the calunnia charge appears to be narrow and legalistic in nature (they say that the law doesn't require that she have done it with any particular psychological motive, such as trying to shift blame away from herself) -- exactly the kind of thing that could be the subject of a Cassazione appeal.
komponisto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 11:24 AM   #390
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
This just in:

The Hellman motivations' report has commented on why the appeal upheld calunnia.

It seems Hellmann's et. al. judgment was that Knox should have known that Lumumba could not have done the crime. Reason? Knox knew there was little to none connection between Kercher and Lumumba, and therefore should have been skeptical in the extreme that Lumumba could have done the deed - even if the police were browbeating her with that claim.

It looks like the Hellmann report is not terriby complimentary of the police interrogation either.

In any event, some pro-guilt people are now assigning Hellmann with the same satanic influence that everyone else is assigned when they look at the evidence and sya, "There's nothing here to even hint that Knox and/or Sollecito had something to do with this."

My view: case closed. Your mileage will vary.

Bill W. Williams
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 11:51 AM   #391
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,869
Ah. I did expect it to come out before Christmas. I hadn't noticed quite how near Christmas we are. I need to ignore this and write some more cards.

Is someone working on a readable translation, and if so, any idea how long that will take? How long is the document, anyway?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 12:14 PM   #392
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
I do believe my December 23rd prediction may win closest to award - ah those that doubted Hellmann could finish ahead of deadline - my faith is rewarded.
Grinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 12:36 PM   #393
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Ah. I did expect it to come out before Christmas. I hadn't noticed quite how near Christmas we are. I need to ignore this and write some more cards.

Is someone working on a readable translation, and if so, any idea how long that will take? How long is the document, anyway?

Rolfe.
143/144 pages
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 01:00 PM   #394
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
 
Katody Matrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,026


Great news!



The court basically agreed with the defence about everything, including the reconstruction of the November 5 interrogation, ToD, Guede's responsibility..

Quite nice gift from the judges to Raffaele and Amanda before Christmas
__________________
Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Katody Matrass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 01:04 PM   #395
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
If all we are arguing about now that the Hellmann motiviation's report is:

1) will the calunnia conviction survive appeal?
2) how some pro-guilt people can call an Italian judge "a liar"

Then this is all but over. Sheesh, even those of us only accused Judge Massei of faulty reasoning. I don't think I ever once heard Massei described as a "liar".

Hellmann's criticsm of Massei is the use of 39 "probablies" in tying together what amounts to nonexistant evidence. "Amanda 'probably' brought a kinfe with her to the cottage from Raffaele's", that sort of thing. Hellmann was right on - you don't convict someone of transporting a weapon used in a murder based on a "probably", esp. when the weapon in question has Knox's DNA on the handle and a small piece of Rye-grain on the blade.

Case Closed.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 01:55 PM   #396
Dougm
Critical Thinker
 
Dougm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 497
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This just in:

The Hellman motivations' report has commented on why the appeal upheld calunnia.

It seems Hellmann's et. al. judgment was that Knox should have known that Lumumba could not have done the crime. Reason? Knox knew there was little to none connection between Kercher and Lumumba, and therefore should have been skeptical in the extreme that Lumumba could have done the deed - even if the police were browbeating her with that claim.
It looks like the Hellmann report is not terriby complimentary of the police interrogation either.

In any event, some pro-guilt people are now assigning Hellmann with the same satanic influence that everyone else is assigned when they look at the evidence and sya, "There's nothing here to even hint that Knox and/or Sollecito had something to do with this."

My view: case closed. Your mileage will vary.

Bill W. Williams
Re: the highlighted portion above. That reasoning seems somewhat "Massei-like". Sort of a "she should have known he didn't do it". About a man that she had only known a few weeks, and seemed nice, but was foreign to her. Well, the roomates and British girls should have known that Amanda did not do it either, because there was no reason to think she would. And Raffaele had no connection to Rudy at all, so there was no reason to think that he did the deed with him, but lots of people made that leap anyway.

This seems like very weak reasoning -- I thought it would be more of the "she requested the pen and paper when she was not under duress" reasoning.
Dougm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 01:55 PM   #397
katy_did
Graduate Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,977
I particularly like this bit, from Nick Pisa's Daily Mail article:
Quote:
He also picked up on the infamous CCTV footage of Miss Knox buying underwear with Mr Sollecito in which a shopkeeper said he 'overheard them discussing hot sex' and said: 'The fact she bought a G string and not a more conservative piece of underwear is not an indicator of an insensitive soul, inclined to obscene behaviour.'
See, now that just throws my whole moral universe into chaos.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 01:58 PM   #398
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,531
It turns out that both Raffaele and Amanda WERE convicted originally on the basis of a cartwheel.

Note to self: if ever arrested, do not do anything quirky. Do not eat pizza with a friend. Do not cry because of the death of a friend - then again, if you do not cry they'll hang you for that, too.

And do not, repeat: do not, say "hoopla". Do not sit on a friend's knee even if it is for comfort. Do not react with anger at the death of a friend, saying, "She *****....." <sigh> you know what I mean.....

I'm starting to repeat myself. Apologies.

But everyone of us, guilty or not guilty, needs a list of things not to do if arrested or suspected. Those things will result in the nastiest of comments made about you 4 years later by people with nothing better to do than make nasty comments.

And your friends and family will have nasty comments made about them. If you ever write a book, your publisher will be vulnerable to those nasty comments. Personally. Heck, even the acquiting Judge will have ad hominem attacks leveled at him.

So, do not, repeat, do not do anything quirky. You may have the right to remain silent, but you will have no right to be quirky with no street smarts.

Remember you read it here first.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 02:38 PM   #399
katy_did
Graduate Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,977
Originally Posted by Dougm View Post
Re: the highlighted portion above. That reasoning seems somewhat "Massei-like". Sort of a "she should have known he didn't do it". About a man that she had only known a few weeks, and seemed nice, but was foreign to her. Well, the roomates and British girls should have known that Amanda did not do it either, because there was no reason to think she would. And Raffaele had no connection to Rudy at all, so there was no reason to think that he did the deed with him, but lots of people made that leap anyway.

This seems like very weak reasoning -- I thought it would be more of the "she requested the pen and paper when she was not under duress" reasoning.
It's almost like it was written to be overturned, isn't it?
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 02:48 PM   #400
Fine
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 580
Amanda's calunnia conviction will be appealed and ---contrary to earlier reports---the Hellman court's acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele for murder was unanimous. Raffaele has already spoken. A statement from Amanda is expected shortly.
HERE.

///
Fine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.