Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

As usual from these people, clear concise well argued points.

"I THINK SHE LIED BECAUSE SHE DID LIE" - is what tsig wrote! Do you know I'm starting to waiver because of this - it's so persuasive!

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".

But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

 

[Numbers]

As I have said the ECHR is a treasure trove of information.

The Court dealt with 2,950 applications concerning Italy in 2013, of which 2872 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 39 judgments (concerning 78 applications), 34 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Link to the above information Italy 2013 - Profile Document

The figures speak for themselves, little wonder there is wide spread agreement amongst member states that the ECHR requires reform. A 2012 article from UK Guardian newspaper. `

As I have said we do not know the strength of the slander application but as the figures show of the 2,950 applications against Italy in 2013 only 39 resulted in judgements.

The figures for 2013 speak for themselves logic is not required, check I have provided the links. As for an agenda, my only purpose is to set out context and as such in 2013 97% of applications against Italy were rejected.

Like the rest of us, you do not know the basis of the slander application, at best you can guess which of course is your prerogative.

I am sorry to see that you have adopted the bolded highlighted {my emphasis both}position, but that may be inline with your agenda.

You need to do a little more digging into the statistics involved, because of an apples v. oranges situation: the cases judged in a year are not (generally) selected from the ones that entered the system in that year. There is a large backlog of applications/cases going through the ECtHR system, for almost every country in the Council of Europe (the smaller ones may be exceptions in terms of size of backlog). A case entering the ECtHR is somewhat like a mouse that's been swallowed by a small snake; there is a lump rather slowly moving through the system.

It is also useful, for purposes of statistical validity, to examine several years of data. For example, see the table "Throughput of applications 1959-2013" in:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592013_ENG.pdf

Italy had 35,103 applications that were sent for judging; a judgment (violation or not) or decision (inadmissible or strike out) was reached in only 18,646 applications. The remainder (about 16,000) appear to be the backlog.
Judgment cases totaled 2,845 and decisions/strike outs 15,801.

In contrast, consider the UK, a country of about the same population size:
22,065 applications sent for judging; judgment or decision in 19,310; the backlog is about 2,700 applications.
Judgment cases totaled 576 and decisions/strike outs 18,734.

Not to belabor this issue more than may be necessary, but there is a need to understand what the numbers mean. Logic and a bit of library work are required.

Using HUDOC, I was able to find 36 ECtHR judgments that were finalized in 2013.

1. While some of these cases were for only one application, many cases were bundles of from 2 to 11 applications. A case may represent several - possibly even hundreds - of applications, if the applications are similar enough. (On a different search, I ran across a case involving several dozens of applications, resulting from the police "interaction" with and subsequent arrest of individuals at a demonstration in one of the Council of Europe countries located solely in Asia.)

2. None of the 36 cases had applications that had originated in 2013.

3. The oldest, 1 case, originated in 2000. It took about 13 years to reach judgment.

4. The newest, 2 cases, originated in 2011. It took them about 2 years to reach judgment.

5. The mode - most number of cases - was 11 cases, originated in 2003. It took them about 10 years to reach judgment.

6. The irony: many of these cases involved applications complaining about the excessive length of time required for specific civil litigations in Italy to become final.

7. Other cases related to inhuman and degrading conditions in Italian prisons This is a recurring problem partly due to overcrowding in Italy (and several other CoE countries), and is being addressed by the Italian government.

8. Yet other cases related to protection of family life and privacy (ECHR Article 8).

In summary, there were a large number of applications that were found inadmissible or struck from the list of cases in 2013, but the 36 (or 39) cases judged in 2013 are from earlier years. There is a carry over of many pending cases (applications) from 2013 to the future, awaiting judgment or decision.

 

[Kauffer]

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".

But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

A lie is an intentionally false statement - it is what Ms Knox was convicted of making, so tsig's profundity is best characterised (if I remember my charmingly eccentric philosophy tutor well enough) as a fallacy of presumption.

As you suggest, the ECHR will sort it out, I expect.

 

[Numbers]

As I have said the ECHR is a treasure trove of information.

The Court dealt with 2,950 applications concerning Italy in 2013, of which 2872 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 39 judgments (concerning 78 applications), 34 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Link to the above information Italy 2013 - Profile Document

The figures speak for themselves, little wonder there is wide spread agreement amongst member states that the ECHR requires reform. A 2012 article from UK Guardian newspaper. `

As I have said we do not know the strength of the slander application but as the figures show of the 2,950 applications against Italy in 2013 only 39 resulted in judgements.

The figures for 2013 speak for themselves logic is not required, check I have provided the links. As for an agenda, my only purpose is to set out context and as such in 2013 97% of applications against Italy were rejected.

Like the rest of us, you do not know the basis of the slander application, at best you can guess which of course is your prerogative.

I am sorry to see that you have adopted the bolded highlighted {my emphasis both}position, but that may be inline with your agenda.

You need to do a little more digging into the statistics involved, because of an apples v. oranges situation: the cases judged in a year are not (generally) selected from the ones that entered the system in that year. There is a large backlog of applications/cases going through the ECtHR system, for almost every country in the Council of Europe (the smaller ones may be exceptions in terms of size of backlog). A case entering the ECtHR is somewhat like a mouse that's been swallowed by a small snake; there is a lump rather slowly moving through the system.

It is also useful, for purposes of statistical validity, to examine several years of data. For example, see the table "Throughput of applications 1959-2013" in:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592013_ENG.pdf

Italy had 35,103 applications that were sent for judging; a judgment (violation or not) or decision (inadmissible or strike out) was reached in only 18,646 applications. The remainder (about 16,000) appear to be the backlog.
Judgment cases totaled 2,845 and decisions/strike outs 15,801.

In contrast, consider the UK, a country of about the same population size:
22,065 applications sent for judging; judgment or decision in 19,310; the backlog is about 2,700 applications.
Judgment cases totaled 576 and decisions/strike outs 18,734.

Not to belabor this issue more than may be necessary, but there is a need to understand what the numbers mean. Logic and a bit of library work are required.

Using HUDOC, I was able to find 36 ECtHR judgments that were finalized in 2013.

1. While some of these cases were for only one application, many cases were bundles of from 2 to 11 applications. A case may represent several - possibly even hundreds - of applications, if the applications are similar enough. (On a different search, I ran across a case involving several dozens of applications, resulting from the police "interaction" with and subsequent arrest of individuals at a demonstration in one of the Council of Europe countries located solely in Asia.)

2. None of the 36 cases had applications that had originated in 2013.

3. The oldest, 1 case, originated in 2000. It took about 13 years to reach judgment.

4. The newest, 2 cases, originated in 2011. It took them about 2 years to reach judgment.

5. The mode - most number of cases - was 11 cases, originated in 2003. It took them about 10 years to reach judgment.

6. The irony: many of these cases involved applications complaining about the excessive length of time required for specific civil litigations in Italy to become final.

7. Other cases related to inhuman and degrading conditions in Italian prisons This is a recurring problem partly due to overcrowding in Italy (and several other CoE countries), and is being addressed by the Italian government.

8. Yet other cases related to protection of family life and privacy (ECHR Article 8).

In summary, there were a large number of applications that were found inadmissible or struck from the list of cases in 2013, but the 36 (or 39) cases judged in 2013 are from earlier years. There is a carry over of many pending cases (applications) from 2013 to the future, awaiting judgment or decision.

ETA: The number of pending applications from 2013 is provided in Table 2, Applications allocated to a judicial formation, at the following site:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2013_ENG.pdf

For Italy, the number of pending 2013 applications is: 3184.

ETA2: Amanda Knox's application relating to her calunnia conviction is among those 3184.

 

[tsig]

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".
But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

You are right.

Clearly coerced accusations can happen I do not think it did in this case.

FYI I do not hate Amanda, I am a member of no pro guilt organization and have no personal stake in this one way or another.

I do not think the ECHR will take up the case because I see no substantial issues at work here.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not to belabor this issue more than may be necessary, but there is a need to understand what the numbers mean. Logic and a bit of library work are required.

Using HUDOC, I was able to find 36 ECtHR judgments that were finalized in 2013.

1. While some of these cases were for only one application, many cases were bundles of from 2 to 11 applications. A case may represent several - possibly even hundreds - of applications, if the applications are similar enough. (On a different search, I ran across a case involving several dozens of applications, resulting from the police "interaction" with and subsequent arrest of individuals at a demonstration in one of the Council of Europe countries located solely in Asia.)

2. None of the 36 cases had applications that had originated in 2013.

3. The oldest, 1 case, originated in 2000. It took about 13 years to reach judgment.

4. The newest, 2 cases, originated in 2011. It took them about 2 years to reach judgment.

5. The mode - most number of cases - was 11 cases, originated in 2003. It took them about 10 years to reach judgment.

6. The irony: many of these cases involved applications complaining about the excessive length of time required for specific civil litigations in Italy to become final.

7. Other cases related to inhuman and degrading conditions in Italian prisons This is a recurring problem partly due to overcrowding in Italy (and several other CoE countries), and is being addressed by the Italian government.

8. Yet other cases related to protection of family life and privacy (ECHR Article 8).

In summary, there were a large number of applications that were found inadmissible or struck from the list of cases in 2013, but the 36 (or 39) cases judged in 2013 are from earlier years. There is a carry over of many pending cases (applications) from 2013 to the future, awaiting judgment or decision.

ETA: The number of pending applications from 2013 is provided in Table 2, Applications allocated to a judicial formation, at the following site:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2013_ENG.pdf

For Italy, the number of pending 2013 applications is: 3184.

ETA2: Amanda Knox's application relating to her calunnia conviction is among those 3184.

Thank you the for the deeper analysis of the statistics. Do you still believe that an application submitted approximately a year ago has the slightest chance of logistically being heard by March 2015?

 

[Numbers]

"ETA: The number of pending applications from 2013 is provided in Table 2, Applications allocated to a judicial formation, at the following site:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/St...s_2013_ENG.pdf

For Italy, the number of pending 2013 applications is: 3184.

ETA2: Amanda Knox's application relating to her calunnia conviction is among those 3184."

To go into further detail, consult Table 3, The Court’s total caseload by stage of proceedings and judicial formation, in the ECHR - Analysis of Statistics 2013, published Jan., 2014, at:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2013_ENG.pdf

The total backlog for Italy = 14,379 applications.
Only Russian has a larger backlog = 16,813 applications.
The grand total backlog, for all 47 states of the CoE = 99,891 applications.

For Italy, the number of cases awaiting FIRST examination by a chamber (panel of 7 judges) or committee (panel of 3 judges) = 12,101 applications.

Amanda's application, which entered the ECHR system in 2013, is thus among these 12,101 applications, which include applications from 2013 and prior years, since it has not been declared inadmissible (AFAIK, since there has been no public statement) and has not been communicated to Italy (AFAIK, based on HUDOC public information).

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".

But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

A lie is an intentionally false statement - it is what Ms Knox was convicted of making, so tsig's profundity is best characterised (if I remember my charmingly eccentric philosophy tutor well enough) as a fallacy of presumption.

As you suggest, the ECHR will sort it out, I expect.

-

I don't know. I tend to agree with TSIG here. Amanda did lie when she said she vaguely remembered PL murdering Meredith, but I don't believe she did it
of her own free will like LJ said, but to get the hell out of that interrogation room, in my opinion. It's hard to argue that it wasn't coerced when you HONESTLY consider what ILE said the next day that she finally told them what they knew to be true.

Some (if not many) false confessions (which I don't believe Amanda's statement was, it's a false accusation more than a false confession) have this one element in common, making some kind of statement to stop the interrogation (and then hoping the truth will set them free).

And unless you already believe she's guilty (confirmation bias), it's DISHONEST to say you're neutral and not at least admit that it's possible that's what happened.

And how can you say you're neutral and in the same breath say that she should have taken it back if she didn't know for a fact that he wasn't the murderer... unless (once again) you've already decided (confirmation bias again) that she's guilty. It's fitting the facts to shore up your bias, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

You are right.

Clearly coerced accusations can happen I do not think it did in this case.

FYI I do not hate Amanda, I am a member of no pro guilt organization and have no personal stake in this one way or another.

I do not think the ECHR will take up the case because I see no substantial issues at work here.

If you are a "member" you have a "personal stake". Let us not delude ourselves. It is one of the many reasons why we see such relentlessness amongst police and prosecutors who have made up their minds for guilt. In a very real sense they are defending their personal stakes. Are you a member as you would be in a club?

Ps. I see I have done you a disservice. You wrote that you are not a member. My apologies!

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You are right.

Clearly coerced accusations can happen I do not think it did in this case.

FYI I do not hate Amanda, I am a member of no pro guilt organization and have no personal stake in this one way or another.

I do not think the ECHR will take up the case because I see no substantial issues at work here.

-

Thank you tsig, and although I don't agree with you that this didn't happen in this case (as I wrote above), at least you agree that coerced statements are possible. That at least gives you more credibility in my eyes,

d

-
ETA: I think there are some issues that make it probable that the ECHR will look at the case, or at least give it a hearing, but I'm not an expert here, and it's only my opinion and not a fact, and you might even turn out to be right, but I personally hope not. The more people that look at this case the better, and the more evidence that's honestly looked at, the better also, which are all just my opinions also.

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

If you are a "member" you have a "personal stake". Let us not delude ourselves. It is one of the many reasons why we see such relentlessness amongst police and prosecutors who have made up their minds for guilt. In a very real sense they are defending their personal stakes. Are you a member as you would be in a club?

Ps. I see I have done you a disservice. You wrote that you are not a member. My apologies!

-

I personally believe that tsig is telling the truth also about not being a member or that s/he hates Amanda,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

One additional detail for Italy's ECHR 2013 record. (Yes, I know -- Please stop, I'm bored - from the Ignoble Prize ceremony; broadcast 11/28/2014 on Science Friday.)

Italy had 44 unilateral settlements and 4 friendly settlements (Table 4 of the ECHR Analysis of Statistics 2013, site previously given). These would be listed, IIUC as "struck out" and not as judgments. But they are cases finalized in favor of applicants and against the state.

 

[Numbers]

From Luca v. Italy 33354/96; the climactic part. Notice how the ECtHR states that reasons given by the Italian CSC are not pertinent. Those who think that everything a court does is objectively correct may muse on that.

42. In the light of the foregoing, the reasons given by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 19 October 1995 for dismissing the appeal brought under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention – reasons on which the Government also relied in part – do not appear pertinent. In particular, the fact that under the domestic law in force at the material time (see paragraph 26 above) the court could rule statements made before the trial admissible if a co-accused refused to give evidence could not deprive the accused of the right which Article 6 § 3 (d) afforded him to examine or have examined in adversarial proceedings any material evidence against him.

43. In the instant case, the Court notes that the domestic courts convicted the applicant solely on the basis of statements made by N. before the trial and that neither the applicant nor his lawyer was given an opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to question him.
44. In those circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant was given an adequate and proper opportunity to contest the statements on which his conviction was based.
45. The applicant was, therefore, denied a fair trial. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).

ETA: One point of importance, whatever the domestic state courts believe or choose to ignore, the Convention overrides domestic laws and constitutions when there is a conflict. That is what the CoE states agreed to in the Convention.

 

[Bill Williams]

As usual from these people, clear concise well argued points.

"I THINK SHE LIED BECAUSE SHE DID LIE" - is what tsig wrote! Do you know I'm starting to waiver because of this - it's so persuasive!

I'm kind of with tsig on this.

I served as a panel member at a professional misconduct hearing. There were three of us on the panel. The standard of proof at the end of the day was, "on the balance of probabilities", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And that standard was for the whole case, but even in BARD cases, each item of evidence comes down to, really, "on the balance of probabilities".

We were guided by a lawyer in our deliberations. When taken "osmotically", the whole thing hinged, really, on whether or not we believed the respondent. And in this case it hinged, really, on whether or not we believed one aspect of his mitigating story.

I'll remember until the day I die what the lawyer said when I narrowed it down to that one thing. (The lawyer was amazing in not "leading" us.) He said, "It all comes down to, do you believe him when he said it?"

I said, "No, I don't - but I'll be damned if I can say why. On what basis, then, do I hold him accountable?"

The lawyer said, "It's why you're here." And he left it at that.

Perhaps the lawyers here could comment whether or not I have that right.

But tsig certainly has the right,as I see it, to say (on the balance of probabilities) that S/he thinks Amanda lied.

I'd be more troubled if tsig had said, "I think she lied because that's what she's been convicted of." That's an appeal to authority, and that's been one of the troubles with this case. Nencini's whole judgement, for instance, is one giant appeal to authority.... Cassazione basically directed Nencini to convict. Wrongful convictions are known for this phenomenon.

But tsig did not do that. There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with saying, "I think she lied," and leave it at that.

I'd like a rationale, because I am in that camp with you and LJ, etc., who believe that Knox did not lie in any meaningful sense of the term. But someone essentially does not need to defend a gut feeling. And I say all this as one who spent the first six months of my time commenting on this believing she had lied, and was convictable of calunnia.

I became convinced she had not - by Mignini himself. The proof of the pudding is in defending one's beliefs.... sometimes beliefs cannot be sustained based on evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

-
-

I don't know. I tend to agree with TSIG here. Amanda did lie when she said she vaguely remembered PL murdering Meredith, but I don't believe she did it
of her own free will like LJ said, but to get the hell out of that interrogation room, in my opinion. It's hard to argue that it wasn't coerced when you HONESTLY consider what ILE said the next day that she finally told them what they knew to be true.

Do you honestly believe that is something anybody would say: "I vaguely remember my boss murdered my roommate"? I don't believe this would ever be stated in that way. All we have is the police summary of the interrogation written in their words, not Amanda's. The police would have been asking her questions leading to what they needed to hear. The final question was probably along the lines of: "in your mind can you see Patrick murdering Meredith?" and Amanda's single word answer: "vaguely" would be all they need.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Should the interrogations have been recorded

FYI I do not hate Amanda, I am a member of no pro guilt organization and have no personal stake in this one way or another.

(highlighting mine)
tsig,

The truth of your statement may lie with one's definition of PG organization, but it is a misleading statement IMO. A poster named "tsik" or "tsit" posted at perugiamurderfile several years ago, and that person at least claimed to be you IIRC.

I am curious, however, what facts lead to your conclusion that Ms. Knox's statement was not coerced. I am also curious whether or not you think that the interrogations that evening should have been recorded, not as a question of Italian law, but as general question of best operating procedure.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is slightly off topic, but was thinking that many people here would enjoy this

http://serialpodcast.org/season-one/7/the-opposite-of-the-prosecution

I've just been listening to episode 7, which has made me think of this case. They interviewed a defence lawyer, who argued that she can often tell that someone is innocent, because their statements will be vague and contradictory and they will often be able to give no clear account of their actions at the time of the murder - mainly because it just wasn't something they ever thought they would have been questioned about and made no effort to remember. If guilty, they will have a much clearer account. It's all very interesting

It is an interesting case, and I see some relevance to Amanda's case, in comparing Jay Wilds with Amanda.

When the police tracked Wilds down and interviewed him, he started by saying he knew nothing. Very quickly, however, he cracked.

He said: "OK, I didn't do it, but I know what happened. I was with Syed on the day he did it, and I helped dispose of the body."

Then he led the cops to the victim's car, which had been missing for weeks.

This is what kids do if they are genuinely involved in a serious crime with one or more accomplices. They minimize their own role and blame others who were genuinely involved.

That's how I first realized Amanda was not involved in Meredith's murder. She sweated under the lamp without ever mentioning Guede. Instead, she signed a statement against someone who turned out to have no involvement whatsoever.

Scared, guilty kids do not think that way.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Do you honestly believe that is something anybody would say: "I vaguely remember my boss murdered my roommate"? I don't believe this would ever be stated in that way. All we have is the police summary of the interrogation written in their words, not Amanda's. The police would have been asking her questions leading to what they needed to hear. The final question was probably along the lines of: "in your mind can you see Patrick murdering Meredith?" and Amanda's single word answer: "vaguely" would be all they need.

-

No, I can't honestly say that I believe someone would say it that way. It's very odd. The whole accusation is odd. Like I've always wrote here, if it's a confession, it's the worst one that I have ever read. Even as an accusation, it's still oddly worded with almost no detail at all. I still think it sounds like it was written by someone who was not there at the time of the murder.

Another point that I find interesting is that her statement includes the words, "confusedly remember". People usually aren't confused by something they originally have thought or believed, but by something that flies in the face of their perceptions. Specifically by something (or someone, like the ILE) outside and independant of themselves.

These are two of the reasons (besides the ILE saying the next day that she finally told them what they already knew to be true) I believe her statement was coerced, but it's still a lie, unless Amanda honestly believed she could very well vaguely remember it happened at all, but I think she was just trying to get out of that room. By then, it had finally dawned on her that she wasn't there to help the police find her friend's murderer, but that they thought she had something to do with the murder.

But, that's all just my opinion,

d

-

 

[Samson]

I think she lied because she did lie.

None of the apologetic I've seen make those statements of hers go away.

She is a convicted liar.

The lie is unforgivable if she knows the narrative is false because she was a participant and a witness, but if she wasn't, as Rudy Guede confirmed originally, her statements become false conjectures.
And as I have been pointing out, the lies would be pointless, and she would know this, certain to be exposed when she knows Raffaele is giving a wildly different story in another room.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Far be it for me to try to explain what tsig meant by this, but I suspect that (s)he may have meant that by accusing Lumumba, Knox clearly said something which was not true. Therefore - by tsig's assessment - she "did lie".

But of course this comes back to the definition of a lie. Simply put, saying something that's not true is not always defined as a "lie". The normally-accepted societal definition of "lie" (not to mention the standard under which Knox was found guilty of criminal slander) is that the person stating the falsehood did so deliberately, knowingly and of his/her own free will.

I would argue that these criteria do not apply to the way Knox ended up making that confused "accusation" against Lumumba on the night of 5th/6th November 2007. We will, of course, see in due course whether the ECHR agrees with my definition or with tsig's........

-

After reading this again, I come away with one question. Is it really a lie if someone doesn't know if it's a lie?

In Amanda's case, it all comes down to, did she really remember seeing PL kill Meredith (regardless of how fantastical it sounds) or was she just trying to get out of that room? If the answer is yes to the first part, and no to the second part, than it's not a lie. If the answer is no to the first part, and yes to the second part, than it is a lie.

In my opinion any way.

As an aside, while thinking about this, I began thinking about people with multiple personalities. If each personality is really unaware of what the other personalities do, is the personality not involved with a murder lying when they say, "I didn't do it?"

Just curious,

d

-