Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Do you have details of what cameras and perhaps even why the defence wanted the footage from them?

Yes. This camera


It's right at the south end of Raffaele's street and would show Amanda walking back to the cottage to take her shower, Amanda returning to Raffaele's place with the mop to clean up the spill in his kitchen and Amanda and Raffaele returning to the cottage shortly before they call the police. It would not show Amanda headed to the cottage with knife in hand on the evening of the 1st and returning soaked in blood afterwards.

 

[shuttlt]

CoolSkeptic,

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/florence-murder/6

Preston wrote about his interrogation, “I began to stumble over my words (as I’ve noted, I am not fluent in Italian, especially legal and criminological terms). With a growing sense of dismay, I could hear from my own stammering, hesitant voice that I was sounding like a liar.”

I can see that Preston was given a tough time by the police. Whether or not it was abuse is a wider question that cannot be easily answered by a quote from him saying that he had a bad time and was made to feel like a criminal. To me, at the moment, it looks like Magnini was within the law unless it can be shown that he was acting improperly in having Preston brought in at all.

Preston also wrote of Spezi’s arrest, “The day of the arrest, Mignini asked for and received a special dispensation to invoke a law that is normally used only for terrorists or Mafia dons who pose an imminent threat to the state. For a period of five days Spezi was denied access to his lawyers, kept in a tiny isolation cell under conditions of extreme deprivation, and grilled mercilessly. It was noted in the press that Spezi’s treatment was harsher than that of Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia “boss of bosses” captured in Sicily a few days later. Spezi spent three weeks in Capanne, one of Italy’s grimmest prisons.”

Chris

Magnini looks to have stayed within the law again, unless it can be shown that he obtained the dispensation dishonestly. Did this form part of the case against Magnini, by the way?

I take it there is no reason to believe they might have been planting evidence?

 

[shuttlt]

Yes. This camera
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444b5dba7130e74.jpg[/qimg]

It's right at the south end of Raffaele's street and would show Amanda walking back to the cottage to take her shower, Amanda returning to Raffaele's place with the mop to clean up the spill in his kitchen and Amanda and Raffaele returning to the cottage shortly before they call the police. It would not show Amanda headed to the cottage with knife in hand on the evening of the 1st and returning soaked in blood afterwards.

Where are you getting this information from?

 

[quadraginta]

Yes. This camera
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18827http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444b5dba7130e74.jpg

It's right at the south end of Raffaele's street and would show Amanda walking back to the cottage to take her shower, Amanda returning to Raffaele's place with the mop to clean up the spill in his kitchen and Amanda and Raffaele returning to the cottage shortly before they call the police. It would not show Amanda headed to the cottage with knife in hand on the evening of the 1st and returning soaked in blood afterwards.

Or so the defense would hope. Right?

What more can you tell us about this camera? Who owns it? Who handles the data collection. What are its technical specs? What is its field of view, exactly? Does it operate 24/7? Does it provide a useful image at night? (Most webcams don't without substantial area lighting, you know.)

Do you know if relevant recording was asked for? By anyone? By whom?

That's a very pretty picture of a camera. What beyond conjecture and poorly concealed innuendo can you tell us that is actually relevant specifically to this case? Concerning specifically that camera?

 

[Fiona]

CoolSkeptic,

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/florence-murder/6

Preston wrote about his interrogation, “I began to stumble over my words (as I’ve noted, I am not fluent in Italian, especially legal and criminological terms). With a growing sense of dismay, I could hear from my own stammering, hesitant voice that I was sounding like a liar.”

So no brutality then?

Preston also wrote of Spezi’s arrest, “The day of the arrest, Mignini asked for and received a special dispensation to invoke a law that is normally used only for terrorists or Mafia dons who pose an imminent threat to the state. For a period of five days Spezi was denied access to his lawyers, kept in a tiny isolation cell under conditions of extreme deprivation, and grilled mercilessly. It was noted in the press that Spezi’s treatment was harsher than that of Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia “boss of bosses” captured in Sicily a few days later. Spezi spent three weeks in Capanne, one of Italy’s grimmest prisons.”

Chris

Capanne is one of Italy's grimmest prisons? Well I think that tells us something about the spin on Preston's writing, don't you? Capanne is where Knox was held

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKnox/amanda-knoxs-prison-cell/story?id=9329773

The reporter said the prison is "extremely clean." Knox's cell, which she shares with another American who has been sentenced on drug charges, is small. "It had a little bathroom with a door, a bidet, a sink, a shower.... better than some of the things I've seen at summer camp or boarding school."

The women inmates are allowed to go to a hairdresser once a week.

The prison is a new facility, just opened in 2005. The women's ward has an infirmary, an entertainment room with a pool table and ping-pong table, and a library. There is also a small chapel. Outside there is a little playground for children with benches and toys because there are cells specifically for women with children. Currently there are two women in Capanne with children.

This is interesting too

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-01/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/

So from a claim that 4 people claimed brutality we find that .....er... none did.

 

[shuttlt]

Capanne is one of Italy's grimmest prisons? Well I think that tells us something about the spin on Preston's writing, don't you?

False memory perhaps?

 

[quadraginta]

False memory perhaps?

"Injected false memory". We need to be careful to keep these highly technical distinctions correct. Lest we fall into the error of making things up out of whole cloth.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

This is interesting too

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-01/the-other-murders-that-could-save-her/

<snip>

That was a very good article. Thanks for the link.

It is clearly biased against Knox, though, since it presents more than one side of the argument.

 

[Fiona]

It is because I have been hanging around at the wrong sites, quadraginta. But I can't help it, till Dan_O tells me where I should be going, because I clearly cannot think for myself: my "friends" have to look after me. They are all very remiss, and I may just take a fit of the vapours if they don't step up soon

 

[Dan O.]

Or so the defense would hope. Right?

What more can you tell us about this camera? Who owns it? Who handles the data collection. What are its technical specs? What is its field of view, exactly? Does it operate 24/7? Does it provide a useful image at night? (Most webcams don't without substantial area lighting, you know.)

Those are all good questions that the police should have asked on the 2nd of November, 2007 when Amanda told them the first time what she had done that day. Where are their results?

Do you know if relevant recording was asked for? By anyone? By whom?

I already answered that. Please try to follow the thread.

That's a very pretty picture of a camera. What beyond conjecture and poorly concealed innuendo can you tell us that is actually relevant specifically to this case? Concerning specifically that camera?

I've told you where that camera was and what it would have recorded. And if that camera isn't enough, there is another up the road and two more in the square just to the south.

 

[Fiona]

Those are all good questions that the police should have asked on the 2nd of November, 2007 when Amanda told them the first time what she had done that day. Where are their results?

Why would they have done that? She was not a suspect at that stage

I already answered that. Please try to follow the thread.

Can you spell irony?

 

[shuttlt]

Those are all good questions that the police should have asked on the 2nd of November, 2007 when Amanda told them the first time what she had done that day. Where are their results?

Perhaps they did? Do you have any links/transcripts/quotes etc relating to these cameras? You've mentioned already that the defence made a request for the footage. Presumably you have a link or two relating to that.

I've told you where that camera was and what it would have recorded. And if that camera isn't enough, there is another up the road and two more in the square just to the south.

I'd be much happier if we had some documentation from the case relating to these cameras. For all we know there are perfectly good reasons why the cameras weren't used. If the police were negligent in retrieving the footage I struggle to believe the defence or the Knox family would have kept quiet about it.

 

[Dan O.]

Why would they have done that? She was not a suspect at that stage

The police were suspicious of the pair from the first day and commented on that in statements to the press. Deferring giving them the official status of "suspect" is only a legal play that gives them more freedom in their interrogationsinterviews.

Even if we grant that they were not suspects until the 6th, there is still time for the police to find and erasesecure their own video records.

 

[shuttlt]

The police were suspicious of the pair from the first day and commented on that in statements to the press. Deferring giving them the official status of "suspect" is only a legal play that gives them more freedom in their interrogationsinterviews.

Even if we grant that they were not suspects until the 6th, there is still time for the police to find and erasesecure their own video records.

Dan O.

Please provide the links/quotes etc that you are basing this on. Otherwise it's hard to know whether this talk of tapes getting erased is you idly wondering, or whether its something we need to give serious consideration to. Right now we have no evidence at all that any tapes were ever requested by the defence, erased, concealed, lost or anything else. All you've provided so far is a picture of a fairly generic looking security camera.

 

[odeed]

Where are you getting this information from?

Probably Google Maps/Street view.

http://tinyurl.com/ydhobxv

 

[quadraginta]

Or so the defense would hope. Right?

What more can you tell us about this camera? Who owns it? Who handles the data collection. What are its technical specs? What is its field of view, exactly? Does it operate 24/7? Does it provide a useful image at night? (Most webcams don't without substantial area lighting, you know.)

Those are all good questions that the police should have asked on the 2nd of November, 2007 when Amanda told them the first time what she had done that day. Where are their results?

Where is your evidence that they didn't? Besides the fact that Knox wasn't even a suspect yet. How do you know that was anything to be recovered of any evidentiary value at all? Unsubtle innuendo is not an argument, or a defense. Speaking of the defense, did they make any effort to ascertain whether or not this camera would even have been able to produce any images of value at the times in question? Was it even operational?

Do you know if relevant recording was asked for? By anyone? By whom?

I already answered that. Please try to follow the thread.

You answered nothing, you made some vague statements about the defense maybe trying to do something or other after it was too late. What, exactly, did they do? See above for examples of what a serious inquiry would have included. Was the defense even able to assert that there was a reasonable likelihood that useful images from the times in question had ever existed in the first place? Can you cite references to such an assertion?

That's a very pretty picture of a camera. What beyond conjecture and poorly concealed innuendo can you tell us that is actually relevant specifically to this case? Concerning specifically that camera?

I've told you where that camera was and what it would have recorded. And if that camera isn't enough, there is another up the road and two more in the square just to the south.

No. You didn't. You've claimed that the camera is in a certain location, and you've suggested that there might have been images of pertinence to the case recorded by that camera. You have established absolutely nothing.

For someone who is so adamant about demanding references and citations for every iota of debate which you find uncomfortable you certainly are pretty forgiving about the ones you find attractive.

 

[Fiona]

The police were suspicious of the pair from the first day and commented on that in statements to the press. Deferring giving them the official status of "suspect" is only a legal play that gives them more freedom in their interrogationsinterviews.

Even if we grant that they were not suspects until the 6th, there is still time for the police to find and erasesecure their own video records.

I will ignore the fact that you again gloss over the legal distinctions between witness and suspect: it is obvious you cannot open your mouth without injecting your preconceptions, and I can't be bothered pointing it out every time: we will take your xenophobia as read.

So what are you saying? That they did not collect the footage? or that they did and they destroyed it? It cannot be the latter without adding whoever was in charge of that footage to the conspiracy (I know that will not trouble you). But for me you have to be claiming it was not collected for there would be people involved and a record most likely.

Ok. You have already been asked to show your source that it was not collected and I will wait for that. The footage from the car park was collected because it was reported in the Telegraph on the 12th that the police were seeking a fouth suspect who had been caught on that camera. I have seen that footage somewhere and it is as bad as the rest: you cant tell anything from it beyond that someone is there. I do not know when it was collected though: it may have been after the 6th

Do you know whether the police need authorisation to take camera records? Do you know if they had a prima facie justification for seeking it if they did?

On the other hand if they did not have reason to do it; or if they did not have evidence on which to do it, why would they do it on the 6th, when they were busy arresting Lumumba?

Who had a problem about that camera at that stage? The police did not, because Knox had told them she was at the cottage with Lumumba. RS did not, because he said he never went out. At some point Knox did, though, because she reverted to saying she was at RS's all evening. So if the police had time to recover those records after the 6th so too did the defence: and they had a lot less to do. Why did they not do it? Perhaps there was some legal obstacle? What is your idea?

 

[lector]

I'd be much happier if we had some documentation from the case relating to these cameras. For all we know there are perfectly good reasons why the cameras weren't used. If the police were negligent in retrieving the footage I struggle to believe the defence or the Knox family would have kept quiet about it.

This bit reminds me of the Chandra Levy case (Washington DC, 2001), where the DC police were totally negligent in retrieving security-cam footage from her apartment building that might have cast light on what happened the day she disappeared. They did not retrieve it until after the tapes had been reused.

Very dissimilar cases, of course, since at that point they were looking for a missing person, but there was eventually a huge stink about the police bungling on that & other aspects of the investigation.

 

[tsig]

I think Dan O. is claiming to know that maybe somebody thinks there might have been, but since no one that he knows about bothered to ask until routine storage recycling might have maybe destroyed the hypothetical possible evidence there is obvious proof of a conspiracy against Knox.

At least that's what I got out of it.

Prosecutors routinely grab the first person off the street, beat a confession out of them*, then a corrupt judiciary sends them to prison. At least that's what I heard as the major tone in his concert.

*or use Jehdi mind tricks, not to sure on that.

 

[quadraginta]

Prosecutors routinely grab the first person off the street, beat a confession out of them*, then a corrupt judiciary sends them to prison. At least that's what I heard as the major tone in his concert.

*or use Jehdi mind tricks, not to sure on that.

Probably one of those Vulcan mind thingees.

Those Vulcans always looked suspiciously Mediterranean to me, anyway.