Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

In all this discussion about the potential extradition battle for Knox - with more than one anonymous State Dept source now apparently saying that if the convictions were confirmed and Knox's extradition were sought, the US would refuse to extradite - have the pro-guilt commentators yet managed to figure out that this wouldn't be a case of the US protecting a "murderer"?

If the reports (and the sources) are accurate, then the reason why the US would refuse to extradite Knox would be this: the US Government doesn't think Knox should be convicted of murder, and that any such conviction in an Italian court would be a miscarriage of justice. Knox is a private citizen of no other importance (strategic, military or otherwise) to the US Government, so there can be no other reasonable explanation for a refusal to extradite.

Perhaps the pro-guilt commentators might care to dwell on this factor for a while. Why might the US Government consider this to be a miscarriage of justice, and to conclude this so strongly as to refuse extradition? Could it possibly be that, under reasoned non-partisan analysis, there are clear indications of a miscarriage of justice? Surely not! (Obviously the more stupid and blinkered pro-guilt commentators are likely to retreat under the banner of "Bad old America protecting its own regardless", but maybe this might just give one or two of them pause for thought.....)

Indeed, I made this point a couple of pages back but it got lost in the fracas.

They can hardly put the US State Dept's response down to the actions of the PR Supertanker.

Surely some of them will start to wonder?

 

[Kauffer]

Rogue juror?

411 at PMF has found and posted the original Oggi interview with Genny Ballerini.

Says this:

"Of interest--she maintains that Nencini absolutely did not in any way influence the popular judges during the deliberation phase. According to what she says, Nencini and the other professional judge intervened to help ONLY when there were questions of law that the lay jurors did not understand. In fact, Ballerini insists that she had no idea whatsoever what Nencini's opinion actually was of the defendants' guilt or innocence-- until the last moments."

I would love to know what Nencini's guidance to the lay judges on "questions of law" was. But whatever it was, we know that it must have been substantially in error.

So, Nencini, with his error strewn guidance, did, in fact influence the lay judges! Duh!

 

[Bill Williams]

Your points as always are well made.

It is somewhat heartbreaking, amidst the cool analysis we try to do, to appreciate that a great deal of Ms Knox's post murder inclinations revolved around what she could do personally to help the Kercher family.

A further point I would make, is that from the many, many hours of surreptitious recording of Ms Knox's telephone (and Mr Sollecito), not one piece of incriminating evidence was ever uncovered - nothing she or he said revealed the slightest suspicion that she or he was involved in this terrible crime.

It is inconceivable that if they were involved, there would not have been some leakage.

Let's consider this osmotically for a moment.

Machiavelli claims he can diagnose narcissistic personality disorder simply by gazing into the eyes of a stranger across a courtroom.

Surely such a narcissistic person would let out one teeny tiny indication privately with Sollecito, her confederate. Surely a narcissistic person would risk ONE brag about how stupid the cops are, how she mocked them by returning to the scene of the crime with them.

But not once did this narcissist break team. This is Seal Team 6 dedication to the mission.!

Like Soviet/American competition for German rocket scientists after WWII, Italy should not be prosecuting Knox - they should be recruiting her!

 

[lonepinealex]

Let's consider this osmotically for a moment.

Machiavelli claims he can diagnose narcissistic personality disorder simply by gazing into the eyes of a stranger across a courtroom.

Surely such a narcissistic person would let out one teeny tiny indication privately with Sollecito, her confederate. Surely a narcissistic person would risk ONE brag about how stupid the cops are, how she mocked them by returning to the scene of the crime with them.

But not once did this narcissist break team. This is Seal Team 6 dedication to the mission.!

Like Soviet/American competition for German rocket scientists after WWII, Italy should not be prosecuting Knox - they should be recruiting her!

And yet she failed to dispose of the second knife!

Still, it looked like a pretty decent kitchen knife, I'd be reluctant to throw it away too.

 

[tsig]

Bill:
She managed to finish college and seems to be doing alright for herself. That is all us humans can really ever do. She seems to be a tough girl generally.

Unless you slap her in the back of the head, then she'll do anything you ask.

 

[Kauffer]

Unless you slap her in the back of the head, then she'll do anything you ask.

If we put you in a room with a bunch of rogue cops who think you've slaughtered someone and who are blathering on at you in a language you don't understand while getting their interpreter to convince you that you lost your mind and then we get one of them to slap you, I expect you'd do a lot too.

It's called inhuman and degrading treatment and it's a violation of a person's human rights.

 

[Mr Fied]

Spontaneous legally means the person is not forced to make it, and not bound within a questioning.

So you are saying that "legally", everything AK said that was not spontaneous was something she was forced to say?

Like when she buckled and told the police what they already knew was true?

spontaneous

adjective: spontaneous

performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks for that, and to those who did the translation/collation work.

One small detail interested me. In a call with her aunt, Knox says that she and Romanelli have tried to contact Kercher's father, and that they now know he's coming to Perugia that night, and that they want to meet with him and talk:

Doroty: Have you... have you spoken to the father?
Amanda: With whom?
Doroty:: With Meredith’s father.
Amanda: No, we... eh... Filomena talked to a policeman today to ask him for the father’s number. He’s coming... arriving tonight.
Doroty: Yes.
Amanda: ... and we want to meet him, kind of go eat out with him and talk to him and tell me all that we know, what happened and so on, because obviously he’s shocked, struck and so on because of what people are saying, and...

Now Knox might be totally lying to her aunt about this. But presumably Romanelli would be able to say whether she and Knox really did have these discussions. Though even if these things did occur, it could also be Knox trying to bluff to Romanelli and others.
...

Why does this have any bearing on Amanda? It's quite clearly Filomena that is instigating this meeting with the father. In fact, Filomena has been acting quite strange through all of this. She is the one that tries to control the situation. She doesn't call the police but calls her boy friend. She insists that Meredith's door be broken down right then instead of waiting wor the real police. She places herself right up front when the door is kicked despite how cramps that tiny hall is. Immediatly calling her lawyer, possibly even before the postal police call 113. Then going back inside to retrieve her laptop after the cottage has been declared a crime scene. There is much more circumstantial evidence against Filomena. Did the police ever check the knives of her boyfriend?

 

[Samson]

411 at PMF has found and posted the original Oggi interview with Genny Ballerini.

Says this:

"Of interest--she maintains that Nencini absolutely did not in any way influence the popular judges during the deliberation phase. According to what she says, Nencini and the other professional judge intervened to help ONLY when there were questions of law that the lay jurors did not understand. In fact, Ballerini insists that she had no idea whatsoever what Nencini's opinion actually was of the defendants' guilt or innocence-- until the last moments."

I would love to know what Nencini's guidance to the lay judges on "questions of law" was. But whatever it was, we know that it must have been substantially in error.

So, Nencini, with his error strewn guidance, did, in fact influence the lay judges! Duh!

This woman is correctly describing intimidation.
She knows that they were uninvolved.

 

[Machiavelli]

Excuse me, but all I did was quote your helpful reminder of their testimony.

The three of them agreed that Meredith had mentioned certain complaints she had about Amanda. It was your contention that these complaints could be taken to mean that Amanda resented Meredith.

I'd still like to know who ever testified to that.

No, actually you also called her names, you defined their characters, and you made a statement aimed at putting distance between their reports and Meredith.
Meredith was not like them, she did not share their feelings and opinions, that's what you said. And you implied their testimony and Point of view should not be taken as the truth.
Yes you were very quick having your amateurish opinion on human characters, quicker than me, for multiple people which you never saw. Whether you admit it or not, you draw logical conclusions directly linked to your derogatory attitude towards their characters and from the denial or dismissal of their words.
Do you want an example?

Let's say Sophie testifies: Amanda wa always acting to show off and to seek others' attention.

Let's draw logical options from a report of this kind; which one do you think is true, of the following:

a) report is true true, Knox had symptoms of narcissistic behavior pattern
b) report is false/biased , English girls are catty and bitchy

Which one do you chose?

 

[Machiavelli]

With this kind of very concrete and biased thinking, we can dismiss anything else that you have written as being voiced through a cloud of prejudice.

It is impossible to judge that someone has narcissistic personality disorder, by noticing that their eyes look a bit evil in photos or some other similar nonsense! Narcissistic personality disorder is very rare and incredibly hard to diagnose - and will usually be diagnosed after a prolonged period and usually by a panel of experts - and will definitely not to be based on some second hand accounts of someone's behaviour in the aftermath of a traumatic event.

Again this is all just mud slinging, slut-shaming nonsense - and says far more about your views on the lives and modern freedoms of young women, than it does about the character of AK

What makes you think that my diagnosis is based on eyes that look evil?
Physical behavior is important, but what makes you think that my judgement is based mostly on visual assessment?
People here seem to talk as if words, relational behaviors, reports and testimonies don't exist.

I have never met Berlusconi. His outlook might provide little information, but it's not because of how he looks like that I have no doubt he is a narcissist. And I have no doubt he has a pathological narcissism, no matter how he looks like.

 

[Dan O.]

Everybody knows that Mignini is lying about the spontaneity of the 5:45 statement. Including the italian supreme court that declared the statement could not be used.

Just look at the timing. This session began at 3am and went on till 5:45. Even leaving 45 minutes for Mignini's 2 finger typist to write this up, it's only 2 paragraphs of spontaneous speech. There is no way that this took 2+ hours to deliver.

When we see details like calling Patrick an ”African boy" it becomes clear that these are Mignini's statements and not Amanda's.

 

[NancyS]

No, actually you also called her names, you defined their characters, and you made a statement aimed at putting distance between their reports and Meredith.
Meredith was not like them, she did not share their feelings and opinions, that's what you said. And you implied their testimony and Point of view should not be taken as the truth.
Yes you were very quick having your amateurish opinion on human characters, quicker than me, for multiple people which you never saw. Whether you admit it or not, you draw logical conclusions directly linked to your derogatory attitude towards their characters and from the denial or dismissal of their words.
Do you want an example?

Let's say Sophie testifies: Amanda wa always acting to show off and to seek others' attention.

Let's draw logical options from a report of this kind; which one do you think is true, of the following:

a) report is true true, Knox had symptoms of narcissistic behavior pattern
b) report is false/biased , English girls are catty and bitchy

Which one do you chose?

Or c) Amanda was a slightly loud and outgoing American and the insular English girls found her a bit irritating and thus were a bit catty and gossiped about her a little behind her back.

This sort of nonsense goes on in every school, university, workplace - and is evidence of absolutely no pathology

 

[Diocletus]

So you are saying that "legally", everything AK said that was not spontaneous was something she was forced to say?

Like when she buckled and told the police what they already knew was true?

spontaneous

adjective: spontaneous

performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

"Spontaneous" is just a word that Italians use when they are trying to suggest that there is a waiver of procedural rights (right to lawyer, right to silence). The ECHR test for waiver, however, has nothing to do with "spontaneity". A waiver of procedural rights must be clear, informed and intentional. There is no chance that there is a waiver in this case, because they intentionally deprived her of a lawyer. That deprivation extends from at least moment in which the presented her with the 1:45 statement to sign until the Nov. 8 hearing, when she was finally allowed counsel. Nothing said, signed or written in that time can be used against her, regardless of whether Mignini or some Italian judges wants to call it "spontaneous."

 

[Kauffer]

Why does this have any bearing on Amanda? It's quite clearly Filomena that is instigating this meeting with the father. In fact, Filomena has been acting quite strange through all of this. She is the one that tries to control the situation. She doesn't call the police but calls her boy friend. She insists that Meredith's door be broken down right then instead of waiting wor the real police. She places herself right up front when the door is kicked despite how cramps that tiny hall is. Immediatly calling her lawyer, possibly even before the postal police call 113. Then going back inside to retrieve her laptop after the cottage has been declared a crime scene. There is much more circumstantial evidence against Filomena. Did the police ever check the knives of her boyfriend?

And there would be even more still if they had taken reference samples. The task of putting Romanelli in Ms Knox's place, as the murderer, would likely have been easier, should mad Mignini have chosen to attempt it. Romanelli had an alibi? Not if you pin the murder on her boyfriend too and not when the time of death evidence is utterly disregarded!

 

[Bill Williams]

What makes you think that my diagnosis is based on eyes that look evil?
Physical behavior is important, but what makes you think that my judgement is based mostly on visual assessment?
People here seem to talk as if words, relational behaviors, reports and testimonies don't exist.

I have never met Berlusconi. His outlook might provide little information, but it's not because of how he looks like that I have no doubt he is a narcissist. And I have no doubt he has a pathological narcissism, no matter how he looks like.

Well for one thing, you can't use any of the judicial rulings.

You do not appreciate how silly this response to NancyS makes you look

 

[Mr Fied]

Everybody knows that Mignini is lying about the spontaneity of the 5:45 statement. Including the italian supreme court that declared the statement could not be used.

Just look at the timing. This session began at 3am and went on till 5:45. Even leaving 45 minutes for Mignini's 2 finger typist to write this up, it's only 2 paragraphs of spontaneous speech. There is no way that this took 2+ hours to deliver.

When we see details like calling Patrick an ”African boy" it becomes clear that these are Mignini's statements and not Amanda's.

And to think that Guede's prison interrogation on 26/3/2008 lasted for 3 1/2 hours and produced 115 pages of transcript.

Two paragraphs would seem like 5 minutes worth speech. Perhaps it took a long time to convince AK what to say in her spontaneous statement.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, actually you also called her names, you defined their characters, and you made a statement aimed at putting distance between their reports and Meredith.
Meredith was not like them, she did not share their feelings and opinions, that's what you said. And you implied their testimony and Point of view should not be taken as the truth.
Yes you were very quick having your amateurish opinion on human characters, quicker than me, for multiple people which you never saw. Whether you admit it or not, you draw logical conclusions directly linked to your derogatory attitude towards their characters and from the denial or dismissal of their words.
Do you want an example?

Let's say Sophie testifies: Amanda wa always acting to show off and to seek others' attention.

Let's draw logical options from a report of this kind; which one do you think is true, of the following:

a) report is true true, Knox had symptoms of narcissistic behavior pattern
b) report is false/biased , English girls are catty and bitchy

Which one do you chose?

If Sophie testified that way she'd be describing teenagers......

.... it's not a psychological assessment.

Why don't you just admit you're using anything but professional analysis to justify Mignini's slut-shaming closing in 2009, something that came only out of his dirty mind?

 

[NancyS]

What makes you think that my diagnosis is based on eyes that look evil?
Physical behavior is important, but what makes you think that my judgement is based mostly on visual assessment?
People here seem to talk as if words, relational behaviors, reports and testimonies don't exist.

I have never met Berlusconi. His outlook might provide little information, but it's not because of how he looks like that I have no doubt he is a narcissist. And I have no doubt he has a pathological narcissism, no matter how he looks like.

I'm guessing it is based on what you can see in her eyes, as no other evidence has been provided to suggest that AK has longstanding narcissistic traits to her personality. And mildly bitchy comments from people that barely knew her and tabloid accounts of strange behaviour in the aftermath of a traumatic event, really do not count for anything as far as diagnosing a serious personality disorder.

I could say that you would need to have some narcisstic traits to your personality, to believe that you had some super-intuitive powers that allow you to diagnose personality disorders without extensive training and with minimal information

I am also starting to laugh a little at the thought of a psychiatrist saying to their patient "I'm going to diagnose you will Narcisstic Personaliy disorder, because your friend's friend has stated that sometimes you like to be the centre of attention, play your guitar and have occasionally forgotten to use the toilet brush" )

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps it took a long time to convince AK what to say in her spontaneous statement.

Of course, she couldn't talk while at the same time chowing down on those tasty cakes and carmile tea.