Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Hmm, no that isn't helpful, in fact it is confusing and somewhat contradictory.

Convention for liquids is an approximation to an exponential model, derived from an emptying rate proportional to the contents, i.e.

dv/dt = -kv

Where v is volume, t is time and k is a constant. This is a simple ODE which is trivially solved analytically

v(t) = v₀ exp(-kt)

Where v₀ is the initial conditions (volume at time t=0). Hence the term exponential model. For a given fixed change in time, ΔT, we get the expression

v(t+ΔT) = v₀ exp(-k(t+ΔT)) = v₀ exp(-kt) exp(-kΔT)

If we look at the ratio of these equations

v(t+ΔT)/v(t) = v₀ exp(-kt) exp(-kΔT) / (v₀ exp(-kt))

You get a whole bunch of cancelling leaving

v(t+ΔT)/v(t) = exp(-kΔT)

If we set the volume ratio to be a fixed value, say 1/2, we can solve for ΔT=T_1/2 and find independence from v₀:

0.5 = exp(-kT_1/2)

Now that is fine for an exponential model. But the authors of the paper above argue for a linear model. A linear model takes the form

dm/dt = -k

where m is mass of solid food, t is time and k is a constant. Solving the ODE:

m(t) = m₀ - kt

Where m₀ are initial conditions. Now expanding this by a fixed chunk of time ΔT

m(t+ΔT) = m₀ - k(t+ΔT)

Computing the ratio to allow T_1/2 to be assessed

m(t+ΔT)/m(t) = [m₀ - k(t+ΔT)] / [m₀ - kt]

Well, that's a mess. Substituting 0.5 for m(t+ΔT)/m(t) and ΔT = T_1/2 we get

0.5 [m₀ - kt] = m₀ - k(t+T_1/2)

0.5m₀ - 0.5kt = m₀ - kt - kT_1/2

0.5m₀ - 0.5kt - m₀ + kt = - kT_1/2

-kT_1/2 = -0.5m₀ + 0.5kt

T_1/2 = 0.5m₀/k - 0.5t

This shows that a linear model is, by rigorous mathematical definition, dependent on the initial mass of solid food. So quite why a paper would firstly endorse a linear model, then insist on independence from the initial mass of the meal, is a bit confusing. It is mathematically inconsistent.

Now it could be that the assumptions made by these authors are different to the assumptions I've made above - but if they are, then the authors are using the technical terminology in a very different way to - well, just about every other scientific field in the world. Which would be surprising. It is also possible I've made an error above. In which case I would invite corrections.

The thing that makes me more confident that my analysis above is correct is that pretty much every forensic text I've seen cautions that gastric emptying of solids is a function of the size of the initial meal. e.g. here, on Moore's analysis of gastric emptying for people eating meals until they felt full:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XyG3802xSdwC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37

With apologies if the following has typos (I hand copied it):



Other than the fact that the authors should really know grams are a unit of mass, not weight, we find that full meals have a far longer emptying time than the small meals used in scientific research, due to the dependency on initial conditions for the linear model that I outline above. Furthermore, even amongst healthy subjects, long lag times after a full meal can occur. Checking subject 5 from Moore et al 1981 referenced in the above text book, we find they had a T_1/2 of 638 minutes after their full meal - that is over 10 hours

Meredith's meal was 500 mil less gastric juices. You can probably tell us what the gastric juice percentage of this 500 mil total is, I certainly can't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

volume of gastric juices

Meredith's meal was 500 mil less gastric juices. You can probably tell us what the gastric juice percentage of this 500 mil total is, I certainly can't.

Samson,

After a quick look at the literature, I came to the tentative conclusion that gastric juices would be about 50% of that volume. I think I put a citation into continuation thread 9 about this, but the question could probably benefit from some further study.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
I think the idea that Amanda would want to take showers regularly, indeed more so than Italians perhaps are used to, contradicts the idea that Amanda's poor hygiene was a cause of the imaginary friction between Amanda and Meredith.

Mignini has to unravel reality to fit his fantasies, or his grand sexual murder fairy tale falls to pieces. Which is something he cannot allow, as his whole identity is wrapped up in this fraudulent concoction. Shame on Mignini yes, but shame on the Italian judiciary for covering for him when they know full well he is a menace to society.

Angela Antonelli, a former chief prison guard, recalls about Knox:

Angela Antonelli, a former chief prison guard, recalls about Knox:

Quote:
(...) she paid no attention to her personal hygiene. She was dirty and the others in her cell complained that she smelled.
Sweating
Every Monday was laundry day but she hardly ever had laundry and always let her hair get greasy. When she had to go to the tribunal I used to suggest she wash her hair, so she did.
But often she didn't wash it for a month and wore the same jumper and jeans for a week(...) She was always stretching and then running like a crazy person round the courtyard for the hours they were allowed out. She came in sweating but didn’t shower or change. She didn't look after herself.

According to Sophie Pourthon and Robyn Butterworth, Meredith complained that Amanda Knox had some poor personal hygiene habits.

Hi Mach, thanks for answering my post.

I would be curious to know where the quote from the prison guard came from. But if I recall from an article I saw in a Brit Tabloid, wasn't this the same prison guard who was also convinced of Amanda's guilt because Amanda would not talk about Meredith or the murder with the guard herself, and would not confide in her? All the while she was waiting for her appeal and facing decades in prison?

This guard thought Amanda would confide in her? Trust her? Does that tell you anything about this guard's level of intelligence?

The words of this prison guard, paid handsomely no doubt for her inflammatory opinions, and the coached British girlfriends of Meredith are not terribly convincing to me, though you may find them so.

It looks to me like more of the false portrait painted of Amanda, and its just amazing to me anyone still believes it. Have any of her cell mates actually repeated those claims, because there are a few to talk to, instead of the prison guard, who probably made more from giving her interviews about Amanda than she did in several years worth of her annual salary.
Amanda is a person who tells the truth. we know Mignini is not.

What is convincing to me, is that Amanda says she wanted to take a shower at her place, because she was more comfortable than taking a shower at Rafs.

That Mignini found this strange suggests that Amanda's personal habits were far higher than Mignini's or most Italians, or at least any Italians who would find Mignini's explanation on this point to be plausible.

I can tell you there is nothing surprising about Amanda's statement on this point, its totally understandable. To think otherwise indicates a different and lower expectation of personal cleanliness.

There never was any reason to suspect Amanda nor Raf of anything. And Mignini's fantasies, lying prison guards, and the coached English girls don't add up to any real evidence of anything.

I wish the whole thing could get into a real court, and Mignini et als had to answer for his/their crimes.

 

[Samson]

Samson,

After a quick look at the literature, I came to the tentative conclusion that gastric juices would be about 50% of that volume. I think I put a citation into continuation thread 9 about this, but the question could probably benefit from some further study.

Thank you Chris, this is much closer to the test meal than the all you can eat extravaganza.


- 1 egg equals 52 mils
- 50 mL of low-fat milk
- 50 g of brown bread
- 20 g of butter

Total 170 mil in scrambled format, or subtract milk liquids, and we have about 130 mil of solids, slightly more than 50% of Meredith's meal. All the issues are for the prosecution under any scenario, as testimony says 6 30pm was pizza time. I contend that a death much after 9 is precluded.

 

[Diocletus]

Angela Antonelli, a former chief prison guard, recalls about Knox:

Was this gal in cahoots with that prison guard rapist guy?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you Chris, this is much closer to the test meal than the all you can eat extravaganza.


- 1 egg equals 52 mils
- 50 mL of low-fat milk
- 50 g of brown bread
- 20 g of butter

Total 170 mil in scrambled format, or subtract milk liquids, and we have about 130 mil of solids, slightly more than 50% of Meredith's meal. All the issues are for the prosecution under any scenario, as testimony says 6 30pm was pizza time. I contend that a death much after 9 is precluded.

You're correct in your contention.

Of course it's fair to say that digestion evidence is fraught with temporal precision issues, but in this specific case we are extremely fortunate inasmuch as events conspired to minimise the levels of imprecision to the point where this evidence has real value.

Why? Because 1) we know roughly (to within half an hour or so) when Kercher began her last meal; 2) we know with certainty when she was last seen alive; 3) we know with certainty that all of her last meal was entirely contained within her stomach at the time of her death; 4) we have sufficient experimental data on stomach emptying to enable us to reasonably apply the same algorithm to our situation.

And because of all of these things, we know with a high degree of certainty that Kercher must have died (or at the very least been mortally wounded) within three hours of the commencement of her last meal, since none of that meal had yet started to transit from her stomach*. And since we know that Kercher started her last meal at around 6.30pm, she must have died by around 9.30pm. And since we know for sure that Kercher was alive at 9pm, this therefore implies that she must have died between 9pm and around 9.30pm.

It might be just possible to push this backstop ToD out to 9.45pm or so, but no later. It's beyond all doubt impossible that ToD occurred later than 10pm, let alone the 11.30pm+ used by Massei. And why is this important? Well, of course it renders the "earwitness" evidence of Capezzali et al either unreliable or irrelevant, and casts further aspersions (not that any more are needed...) on Curatolo's testimony. It also indicates that the 10pm phone activity was the work of the killer(s), not that of Kercher. It also chimes with Guede's admitted timings, and with other evidence (washing machine, no call back to mother, etc). And it also makes it significantly less likely that Knox and/or Sollecito could/would have travelled from Sollecito's apartment in the narrow time window now available, hooked up with Guede, and committed the murder in concert.

* There appears to be some ongoing confusion about whether food matter could have been accidentally manipulated by the autopsy pathologist so as to give misleading results. It could not have been. The pyloric sphincter (between the stomach and the duodenum) is a very strong, tight circular muscle which, in its relaxed state, allows only a very small opening between the pylorus and the duodenum. Furthermore, the anatomy of the stomach and duodenum also dictates that food matter does not and cannot travel easily by accident from the stomach to the duodenum or vice versa. And onward from the duodenum, the small intestine is a c.5m fleshy tube that is not rigid, meaning that food matter would have to be actively manipulated (by squeezing etc) along the intestine for it to travel. Simply put, there is no practical way in which there might have been food matter within Kercher's duodenum (or jejunum) that was somehow accidentally moved by the pathologist either back into the stomach or right along to the end of the small intestine.

 

[js202]

Was this gal in cahoots with that prison guard rapist guy?

Surely. Machiavelli's reliance on the Capanne prison proprietorship to add to his list of smears against Amanda Knox is just a shade more reliable than his own self-proclaimed ability to assess character by the vicissitudes of human body odor.

 

[Numbers]

You're correct in your contention.

Of course it's fair to say that digestion evidence is fraught with temporal precision issues, but in this specific case we are extremely fortunate inasmuch as events conspired to minimise the levels of imprecision to the point where this evidence has real value.

Why? Because 1) we know roughly (to within half an hour or so) when Kercher began her last meal; 2) we know with certainty when she was last seen alive; 3) we know with certainty that all of her last meal was entirely contained within her stomach at the time of her death; 4) we have sufficient experimental data on stomach emptying to enable us to reasonably apply the same algorithm to our situation.

And because of all of these things, we know with a high degree of certainty that Kercher must have died (or at the very least been mortally wounded) within three hours of the commencement of her last meal, since none of that meal had yet started to transit from her stomach*. And since we know that Kercher started her last meal at around 6.30pm, she must have died by around 9.30pm. And since we know for sure that Kercher was alive at 9pm, this therefore implies that she must have died between 9pm and around 9.30pm.

It might be just possible to push this backstop ToD out to 9.45pm or so, but no later. It's beyond all doubt impossible that ToD occurred later than 10pm, let alone the 11.30pm+ used by Massei. And why is this important? Well, of course it renders the "earwitness" evidence of Capezzali et al either unreliable or irrelevant, and casts further aspersions (not that any more are needed...) on Curatolo's testimony. It also indicates that the 10pm phone activity was the work of the killer(s), not that of Kercher. It also chimes with Guede's admitted timings, and with other evidence (washing machine, no call back to mother, etc). And it also makes it significantly less likely that Knox and/or Sollecito could/would have travelled from Sollecito's apartment in the narrow time window now available, hooked up with Guede, and committed the murder in concert.

* There appears to be some ongoing confusion about whether food matter could have been accidentally manipulated by the autopsy pathologist so as to give misleading results. It could not have been. The pyloric sphincter (between the stomach and the duodenum) is a very strong, tight circular muscle which, in its relaxed state, allows only a very small opening between the pylorus and the duodenum. Furthermore, the anatomy of the stomach and duodenum also dictates that food matter does not and cannot travel easily by accident from the stomach to the duodenum or vice versa. And onward from the duodenum, the small intestine is a c.5m fleshy tube that is not rigid, meaning that food matter would have to be actively manipulated (by squeezing etc) along the intestine for it to travel. Simply put, there is no practical way in which there might have been food matter within Kercher's duodenum (or jejunum) that was somehow accidentally moved by the pathologist either back into the stomach or right along to the end of the small intestine.

LondonJohn,

This is an informative posting. I believe one must allow some additional time for the start of gastric emptying due to the fat content of the meal compared to the typical test meal. But I think the argument that 9:30 pm is the most likely time of death, and anything after 10:00 pm is impossible, is sound.

 

[toto]

Angela Antonelli, a former chief prison guard, recalls about Knox:



According to Sophie Pourthon and Robyn Butterworth, Meredith complained that Amanda Knox had some poor personal hygiene habits.

How depressed she was in prison and how that may have affected her in prison is interesting but not pertinent to how accurate Nencini is being in his evaluation of the evidence. Also, are you referring to Amanda's misunderstanding of the difference between U.S. and Italian lavatories or specifically about an accusation that she didn't take showers? (Does one exist? - regarding her time at the cottage?)

 

[Numbers]

Surely. Machiavelli's reliance on the Capanne prison proprietorship to add to his list of smears against Amanda Knox is just a shade more reliable than his own self-proclaimed ability to assess character by the vicissitudes of human body odor.

js,

If the article Mach refers to is the one I read, it is a convincing illustration of the bias and extreme hatred directed toward Amanda Knox by some Italians. I can only wonder if that is their reaction to all young Americans. Because of the mean and vicious tone of the article, I felt reinforced in my belief in Amanda's innocence and good character upon reading it.

 

[AmyStrange]

PRISON INMATES CHEER AMANDA KNOX AFTER ACQUITTAL

-

Hi Mach, thanks for answering my post.

I would be curious to know where the quote from the prison guard came from. But if I recall from an article I saw in a Brit Tabloid, wasn't this the same prison guard who was also convinced of Amanda's guilt because Amanda would not talk about Meredith or the murder with the guard herself, and would not confide in her? All the while she was waiting for her appeal and facing decades in prison?

This guard thought Amanda would confide in her? Trust her? Does that tell you anything about this guard's level of intelligence?

The words of this prison guard, paid handsomely no doubt for her inflammatory opinions, and the coached British girlfriends of Meredith are not terribly convincing to me, though you may find them so.

It looks to me like more of the false portrait painted of Amanda, and its just amazing to me anyone still believes it. Have any of her cell mates actually repeated those claims, because there are a few to talk to, instead of the prison guard, who probably made more from giving her interviews about Amanda than she did in several years worth of her annual salary.

Amanda is a person who tells the truth. we know Mignini is not.

What is convincing to me, is that Amanda says she wanted to take a shower at her place, because she was more comfortable than taking a shower at Rafs.

That Mignini found this strange suggests that Amanda's personal habits were far higher than Mignini's or most Italians, or at least any Italians who would find Mignini's explanation on this point to be plausible.

I can tell you there is nothing surprising about Amanda's statement on this point, its totally understandable. To think otherwise indicates a different and lower expectation of personal cleanliness.

There never was any reason to suspect Amanda nor Raf of anything. And Mignini's fantasies, lying prison guards, and the coached English girls don't add up to any real evidence of anything.

I wish the whole thing could get into a real court, and Mignini et als had to answer for his/their crimes.

-

I remember reading about that guard a few days after this (contrasting) article came out the day after Raffaele and Amanda were released from prison:
-

Prison inmates cheer Amanda Knox after acquittal
http://nypost.com/2011/10/04/prison-inmates-cheer-amanda-knox-after-acquittal/

"Daclon said Knox walked back into the prison, where inmates crammed into each small window, cheering and waving clothing in the air like flags.

(...)

"'She was moved and jumped two times to greet them. She was so touched, you can't imagine,' Daclon said.

(...)

"'They always said that Amanda is a model prisoner, perfect,' he said. 'Never one argument in four years, never one problem with guards or other prisoners. The perfect behavior … but I didn't expect a reaction like this.'

(...)

"'She is very tired … it's a mix of emotions,' said Daclon. 'Tired by this long limbo of a year's appeal trial. … The uncertainty of the result made her more tense and she was very worried... '"​

-

I myself found this to be my favorite story from a day with many other great stories also, but soon stories like the prison guard's (that Mach refers to) began appearing.

Of course after the Hellman verdict, it was obvious that those who believed that their guilt (Raffaele and Amanda's guilt) was more probable than their innocence (I call them Gumpers) were simply furious about their acquittal.

And because of this fury, it became not about Meredith anymore, but about getting that B/ Witch Amanda and her little dog Raffaele too, in my opinion.

And for Gumpers to admit that there is any possibility, even the tiniest little bit, that they are wrong about one thing in their reasoning for guilt, that would mean that it's possible they've been wrong about everything, and that would also mean they've been supporting the real murderer, the real killer of Meredith, who will be getting out of prison soon, and that is just plain unthinkable to them.

If Gumpers at least acknowledged that some of the police and forensic work was bad, than that would prove to me, or at least make it less likely, that they weren't operating from confirmation bias, and instead were actually using real intelligence and objectivity in their reasoning for believing in their guilt. But like I said, that probably won't happen because that would mean they'd have to admit it's possible they've been supporting the real murderer all along and not Meredith at all.

At least in my opinion anyway.

I've always said, I'd be willing to be convinced that my probability estimates have been wrong and that they are probably not innocent, but not one Gumper has come forward to give me one probability estimate or one explanation (or even one piece of evidence) that proves absolutely (or even more probably that my probabilities are wrong and) that they probably really are guilty of murder.

Not one.

The only one who even comes here on a consistent basis and even talks about the evidence is Mach and even though I don't agree with most of what h/ she writes (some of which I've explained HERE), I have to give him/ her kudos for at least trying,

d

-

 

[acbytesla]

js,

If the article Mach refers to is the one I read, it is a convincing illustration of the bias and extreme hatred directed toward Amanda Knox by some Italians. I can only wonder if that is their reaction to all young Americans. Because of the mean and vicious tone of the article, I felt reinforced in my belief in Amanda's innocence and good character upon reading it.

I read the article and I actually thought it wasn't that negative at all. In fact, I saw it mostly positive. Even this prison guard said that there would be a lot less trouble in prison if all the prisoners were as well behaved as Amanda.

What I find interesting for all the talk about Amanda and drugs is that prescription drugs were readily available to her in the Italian prison. The prison was using them to keep the prisoners in line and treat depression. In Amanda's book and in the Daily Mail's article they said that Amanda refused the drugs. Amanda wanted to keep a clear head. Hardly someone who is obsessed with drugs.

 

[js202]

I read the article and I actually thought it wasn't that negative at all. In fact, I saw it mostly positive. Even this prison guard said that there would be a lot less trouble in prison if all the prisoners were as well behaved as Amanda.

What I find interesting for all the talk about Amanda and drugs is that prescription drugs were readily available to her in the Italian prison. The prison was using them to keep the prisoners in line and treat depression. In Amanda's book and in the Daily Mail's article they said that Amanda refused the drugs. Amanda wanted to keep a clear head. Hardly someone who is obsessed with drugs.

Yes, to both yours and Numbers' points, to anyone who is not profoundly - some would say irrationally - biased against Amanda Knox, there is so much *positive* character evidence to refute the grotesque silliness of their smears. Grotesque because of the stakes in play, but no less silly for that.

I have mentioned here that my wife lived and worked in Milan for five years. Last month we took a twelve day vacation, there - beginning in Milan, and working our way down to the wedding of one of her dearest friends in Positano - which only reinforced my notion that Mignini, Maresca and Machiavelli surely do not represent all Italians. The charges of "racism" are offensive and absurd, and just more distracting noise from the usual suspects. My wife's friends - in terms of career and education, most of them elite individuals - are all quick to discuss the twoness or duality of their state of consciousness about their home country. In my view, stupid pridefulness and nationalism on the part of some Italians is a profound bar to them properly apprehending this case.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That is essentially what happened with the West Memphis Three and my response is "tough". . . .If you don't like it then don't screw up.

I understand your position.

Couldson,

To me you appear to have some odd ideas, from an American view point, about freedom of speech.

Criticizing the official (or unofficial) actions of one's state or the Federal government, or another state or country (democracy or not) is a right in the US. Why would such criticism be considered "dictating"?

I understand that in Italy people are cautious about criticizing the police and courts too specifically because of Italian laws against defamation.

I do not know that my ideas are odd, different maybe.

I quiet understand Desert Fox’s response above (I assume he is an American). If a Brit committed a murder in a US state with the death penalty and they were sentenced to death then invoking my right of free speech by criticising America, and the state in particular would simply be ignored or attract the type of sentiments along the lines of Desert Fox.

And when Islamic countries decide that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for adultery, or that blasphemy can be punished by death, or leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death, none of that bothers you?

Just their tough luck for being born into a backwards society which we all need to respect, because to do otherwise would be just so inappropriate?

I wouldn't wish on anyone what Amanda and Raf have been through, but I doubt you'll be able to empathize with their plight until you yourself have a taste of that level of injustice. If such a fate should befall you, please know I'll be on your side, and do what I can to help.

The context of my comments have been western democracies! I note your views regarding Islamic theocracies; I have nothing further to add.

Couldson,

Does your statement mean that you would consider it improper, an infringement of Italian sovereignty, if an international court, composed of 7 or 17 non-Italian judges, as a result of a trial held in Italy and brought before them, advised in a judgement that certain rights of the convicted defendant had been violated? And further that the court suggested certain changes to Italian law to prevent or make less likely such violation in the future? And then a Committee of Ministers then met with the Italian government to oversee such changes?

Because that is the process in the ECHR/Council of Europe.

Discussions on this forum or elsewhere, even if known to the Italian people or government, are hardly likely to have much influence, let alone "dictatorial" power.

Italy is a signatory of the European Court of Human Rights and is bound to accept the ruling of the ECHR. That being said the type root and branch changes being discussed here would require an Italian government elected by its people to make such changes. Interestingly, there is talk of centre right European political parties seeking the reform of ECHR or in some cases withdrawing from it all together, after all America isn’t a signatory of any international judicial body or court.

And if what happened in Italy had happened in the UK, would you have remained equally as unconcerned?

Sorry I am not sure I follow what you are asking here. Murder in the UK would be regarded as a serious crime and as such would be subject to audio\video recording of any suspect. Having said that according to information provided by Chris Halkides only 17 out 51 US states record audio and or video of comparable crimes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

I assure that I did not mean that comment as a racist remark. Note that I qualified my remark as "some Italians", meaning not all.

(...)

Ok, let's withdraw the "racist" in consideration of "some"; I will not consider your previous post as racist after the more careful reading of the phrase structure, as you suggest.

However, I still see the comment as utterly disingenuous against Angela Antonelli, because it is still a twist of her report, it does not belong to the content of Angela Antonelli report.

Antonelli reports that Amanda Knox did not greet anyone when she left; that she did not became friends qwith anyone; that she had poor hygiene, would not shower nor change her clothes and her cellmates complained that she smelled; that she used to not share her things nor her food with cellmates; that she used to possess a number of things and receive a large number of presents; that she spent a lot of money buying things; that she never demonstrated feelings, nor kindness nor compassion towards anyone; that she never expressed concern for othes' distress; that she never thanked for the psychological support of her mother; that she was manipulative and always acting to show the best part of herself; that she behaved with others as though she was superior. Another inmate reports that she didn't do dishes or clean her cell; that she showed indifference towards others (even pretending to sleep); that she ran like a "mad person" and that she sang loud all the time, but she requested the TV to be off to not disturb her; that she enjoyed a huge number of undeserved privileges and she was "false" and "two faced".

These reports have nothing to do with books. It's disingenuos to put them in relation with a theory that "some Italians" maybe have a bad opinion about "reading books".

 

[acbytesla]

I quite understand Desert Fox’s response above (I assume he is an American). If a Brit committed a murder in a US state with the death penalty and they were sentenced to death then invoking my right of free speech by criticising America, and the state in particular would simply be ignored or attract the type of sentiments along the lines of Desert Fox.

Criticizing the government in the US is not only considered a right but a RESPONSIBILITY. Americans see criticism as a requirement for good government Without that feedback governments are unlikely to be responsive.

 

[NancyS]

Ok, let's withdraw the "racist" in consideration of "some"; I will not consider your previous post as racist after the more careful reading of the phrase structure, as you suggest.

However, I still see the comment as utterly disingenuous against Angela Antonelli, because it is still a twist of her report, it does not belong to the content of Angela Antonelli report.

Antonelli reports that Amanda Knox did not greet anyone when she left; that she did not became friends qwith anyone; that she had poor hygiene, would not shower nor change her clothes and her cellmates complained that she smelled; that she used to not share her things nor her food with cellmates; that she used to possess a number of things and receive a large number of presents; that she spent a lot of money buying things; that she never demonstrated feelings, nor kindness nor compassion towards anyone; that she never expressed concern for othes' distress; that she never thanked for the psychological support of her mother; that she was manipulative and always acting to show the best part of herself; that she behaved with others as though she was superior. Another inmate reports that she didn't do dishes or clean her cell; that she showed indifference towards others (even pretending to sleep); that she ran like a "mad person" and that she sang loud all the time, but she requested the TV to be off to not disturb her; that she enjoyed a huge number of undeserved privileges and she was "false" and "two faced".

These reports have nothing to do with books. It's disingenuos to put them in relation with a theory that "some Italians" maybe have a bad opinion about "reading books".

And if even a tiny amount of this is true, it means that a prison guard who is in charge of an incredibly vulnerable group of women, didn't pick up on any of the red flags for severe depression and vulnerability. Instead she went to the tabloids - it really is quite sickeningly unethical?

 

[NancyS]

Sorry I am not sure I follow what you are asking here. Murder in the UK would be regarded as a serious crime and as such would be subject to audio\video recording of any suspect. Having said that according to information provided by Chris Halkides only 17 out 51 US states record audio and or video of comparable crimes.

What I was asking was whether it would concern you if police in the UK extracted a 'confession', but couldn't provide the recordings - even though as a serious crime, they had a duty to record the interrogation?

 

[Desert Fox]

I understand your position.

I do not know that my ideas are odd, different maybe.

I quiet understand Desert Fox’s response above (I assume he is an American). If a Brit committed a murder in a US state with the death penalty and they were sentenced to death then invoking my right of free speech by criticising America, and the state in particular would simply be ignored or attract the type of sentiments along the lines of Desert Fox.

Not sure you do understand my position. . . .I want you to protest.
Texas deserves all the scorn they can get.

 

[toto]

Ok, let's withdraw the "racist" in consideration of "some"; I will not consider your previous post as racist after the more careful reading of the phrase structure, as you suggest.

However, I still see the comment as utterly disingenuous against Angela Antonelli, because it is still a twist of her report, it does not belong to the content of Angela Antonelli report.

Antonelli reports that Amanda Knox did not greet anyone when she left; that she did not became friends qwith anyone; that she had poor hygiene, would not shower nor change her clothes and her cellmates complained that she smelled; that she used to not share her things nor her food with cellmates; that she used to possess a number of things and receive a large number of presents; that she spent a lot of money buying things; that she never demonstrated feelings, nor kindness nor compassion towards anyone; that she never expressed concern for othes' distress; that she never thanked for the psychological support of her mother; that she was manipulative and always acting to show the best part of herself; that she behaved with others as though she was superior. Another inmate reports that she didn't do dishes or clean her cell; that she showed indifference towards others (even pretending to sleep); that she ran like a "mad person" and that she sang loud all the time, but she requested the TV to be off to not disturb her; that she enjoyed a huge number of undeserved privileges and she was "false" and "two faced".

These reports have nothing to do with books. It's disingenuos to put them in relation with a theory that "some Italians" maybe have a bad opinion about "reading books".

Well, having googled Antonelli's name and having come up with a Daily mail article I also read about an impression of "extraordinary self-confidence and steadfastness", of someone who was not vain, who wrote to Sollecito that "her accusers just cannot look at themselves properly and see that they are wrong. ", and that she gave Antonelli presents. True, I also read that: "even when she was released, she didn’t say goodbye to a single person in the prison,’ In Antonelli's opinion " she showed no compassion or sensitivity to others. She just walked out. "
This bit seems a bit different to the New York Post's account as posted above:

"Just hours after Amanda Knox was acquitted of murdering her British roommate, her fellow inmates reportedly gave her a loud hero’s welcome upon returning to the prison where she’d spent the last four years of her life...
“All the prisoners, 500 or 600 of them, started to greet Amanda from the windows, like soccer stardom...It’s difficult to describe the happiness of them seeing Amanda and greeting her and seeing her free now — yelling, ‘Oh, wow, ciao Amanda!’ It was really, really incredible emotion.”

(Corrado Maria) Daclon said Knox walked back into the prison, where inmates crammed into each small window, cheering and waving clothing in the air like flags.

“All the prison was greeting her like a champion,” he said.

An elated Knox returned the greeting.

“She was moved and jumped two times to greet them. She was so touched, you can’t imagine,” Daclon said.

He added Knox was a “model prisoner.”
​

Your evaluation of the evidence seems a bit Nenciniesque if you don't mind me saying so.