Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

Prove it. What exactly did Amanda say in that interrogation that can be shown to be a lie.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, let's see...that Patrick was at the cottage raping and murdering Meredith? That she was afraid of Patrick and Patrick 'wanted' Meredith? That she couldn't remember if Raffaele was there or not? That she couldn't remember what happened after that?

 

[shuttlt]

Prove it. What exactly did Amanda say in that interrogation that can be shown to be a lie.

If we are talking semantics here, then I am not sure it is ever possible to show that something is a 'lie' as such to the absolute exclusion of all other explanations. Everything from Amanda saying the door was normally locked, to the leaking pipe around 11pm, the DNA matching half of Italy and the CCTV footage currently under discussion can be explained in other ways. Even if, like Raffaele, you say that your previous statement was "a load of *&£$%£", one can still find other explanations than a lie. If this argument collapses to one about the meaning of words and logical truth then we are hopelessly. It is never a logical truth that somebody lied/didn't lie any more than it is a logical truth that the foundations of a bridge are solid.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, let's see...that Patrick was at the cottage raping and murdering Meredith? That she was afraid of Patrick and Patrick 'wanted' Meredith? That she couldn't remember if Raffaele was there or not? That she couldn't remember what happened after that?

Amanda says that those statements were the result of the interrogator leading her through an imaginary scenario. Imaginations based on false premises do not equate to lies.

 

[Fiona]

That is not what she said in court, however.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Amanda says that those statements were the result of the interrogator leading her through an imaginary scenario. Imaginations based on false premises do not equate to lies.

Who cares what she 'says'...it's a lie. But as it happens, she didn't say that. When asked on the stand who told her to 'imagine' she conceded she wasn't asked to imagine but to 'remember'. Since when does someone being asked to remember something turn them into Joan of Arc? If she was really innocent, why did she not instead 'remember' what she and Raffaele were doing at his apartment instead her being at the cottage while Meredith was being raped and murdered?

And tell me, just how far does all this 'imagining' go...did Amanda merely 'imagine' being supposedly in such a panic over Meredith's locked door she and Raffaele tried to climb up to her window and break her door down? Isn't it strange that Raffaele 'imagined' exactly the same thing? Yet when the Postal Police arrived neither of them even mentioned the door to them. Neither did they mention the door to the Carabinieri in either phone call and neither did they mention it to Filomena and friends when they arrived, except when Filomena noticed Meredith's door was locked, to run up and claim it was perfectly normal for Meredith to lock her door. Was all this door business imagination too, a 'mass imagining'?

 

[Dan O.]

If we are talking semantics here, then I am not sure it is ever possible to show that something is a 'lie' as such to the absolute exclusion of all other explanations. Everything from Amanda saying the door was normally locked, to the leaking pipe around 11pm, the DNA matching half of Italy and the CCTV footage currently under discussion can be explained in other ways. Even if, like Raffaele, you say that your previous statement was "a load of *&£$%£", one can still find other explanations than a lie. If this argument collapses to one about the meaning of words and logical truth then we are hopelessly. It is never a logical truth that somebody lied/didn't lie any more than it is a logical truth that the foundations of a bridge are solid.

stilicho made the claim that Amanda lied in the interrogation. If he can't actually produce the words that Amanda said and the context in which they were spoken, where is the basis for that claim?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Dan_O, you're going back to sophistry again.

You can find what Amanda said in this thread here: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39

 

[shuttlt]

Amanda says that those statements were the result of the interrogator leading her through an imaginary scenario. Imaginations based on false premises do not equate to lies.

Dan O. I don't think it is as clear as that. Regardless of how she aquired them, or how certain she is of them, she talks about them as memories. If she had been clear, say in her "gift", that her story was imagined then there would be no problem. Instead she hedges and says only that she had come to regard her story as probably imagined.

If the story is imagination based on a false premise and she is aware that she is imagining rather than remembering, then her statements about her memories as real things that she has doubts about are problematic. What we have to believe, I think, is that she was telling a story based on her imagination and false premises while at the same time believing she was remembering real events. The problem for me comes when we have to believe that in at most hour an hour and a half, and quite possibly an aweful lot less, she became so confused that she couldn't tell her own imaginings from memories. It could happen, I suppose, given the right subject, under the right conditions. What I then begin to wonder about is, how impressionable and easily led is Amanda? If under stress and in fear of spending many years in prison she can be persuaded to believe she is remembering her boss killing friend, what might she not also be persuaded to do under stressful conditions and in fear of spending many years in prison? Hold a door closed to stop someone escaping? Clean up a murder? More?

For myself, I think it is less incriminating to believe she lied rather than that she was so rapidly unable to tell reality from imagination.

 

[shuttlt]

stilicho made the claim that Amanda lied in the interrogation. If he can't actually produce the words that Amanda said and the context in which they were spoken, where is the basis for that claim?

Could you produce the text of the press release that went with the "bloody" bathroom photo?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Harper Lee

Did they lie or were they wrong in their analysis?
This is important because:
To actually "lie" they would have to know the person in the CCTV wasn't Amanda.
If they really thought it was Amanda and therefore confronted here with that, they were wrong, not lying.
And for the police correcting the possibly misleading impression by the press: I asked you to consider it before, is that their job or is it the job of the press to get the story straight?

Did the police lie when they said that Amanda came in of her own volition on 5 November, or were they just mistaken in their minds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

compatible knife

Perhaps everybody has seen this already, but Charlie was kind enough to mail me the following frame from a video of Raffaele's knife draw:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_271294bbf1bb92669d.jpg[/qimg]

Looking at that, and assuming it represents the draw as the police saw it minus the knife they took to test, I can see why they took the knife they took.

Is the bread knife compatible with one of Meredith's wounds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/neutral-expert-dismisses-murder-weapon.html

 

[shuttlt]

Did the police lie when they said that Amanda came in of her own volition on 5 November, or were they just mistaken in their minds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html

Wouldn't Amanda have to be confused about this also. There is testimony of her giving her reasons for accompanying Raffaele. She says something along the lines of not wanting to be alone, or some such.

 

[shuttlt]

Is the bread knife compatible with one of Meredith's wounds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/neutral-expert-dismisses-murder-weapon.html

I can't make out the end of the knife with certainty. It looks to me as if it's got a blunt end, though I might be wrong. I assume forensics can tell the difference between a wound inflicted be a coursely serrated knife like a breadknife and, say a flick knife, but I could be wrong.

 

[Fiona]

Did the police lie when they said that Amanda came in of her own volition on 5 November, or were they just mistaken in their minds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html

Shame that Amanda Knox said she went of her own volition, in court. You have been told this before and the testimony has been linked. Why do you persist with this ?

But once again, wearily: from her court appearance


AK:

Arriving in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all.

LG:

Now, I said we were just coming to the evening when you were called in, or rather when Raffaele was called in to
the Questura on Nov 5.

AK:

AK: Yes. What happened is that they weren't expecting me to come. I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework,

 

[quadraginta]

Did the police lie when they said that Amanda came in of her own volition on 5 November, or were they just mistaken in their minds?

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html

Shame that Amanda Knox said she went of her own volition, in court. You have been told this before and the testimony has been linked. Why do you persist with this ?

Fiona. It's all really very simple. I'm surprised you don't understand.

If Knox says it it must be the truth. Anyone who says anything against her is lying.

Therefore they must be lying about her telling the truth.

QED.

 

[shuttlt]

Off the back of a discussion on InjusticInPerugia I got thinking about how common sexual offences perpetrated by women are (is it a priori unlikely that a woman would get involved in the sexual assualt of another woman?). I did a bit of digging and was surprised by some of the statistics. Perhaps this is a tangent nobody is interested to go down, but I thought the following like might be of interest, and it as least something new to the thread:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

It's focus is on sexual offenses by women on children and teenagers, but still it is quite surprising how well the girls compete with the boys as sexual predators. Apparantly 20% of substantiated cases of sexual abuse in the US between 1973 and '87 were perpetrated by women. This despite "86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted."

It quotes figures as high as 25% of sexual abusers being women and that figure seems to hold up fairly well regardless of the gender of the victim.

The following quote seemed particularly good:

As recently as 10 years ago it was a common assumption that females did not or could not sexually abuse children or youth. Even some professionals working in the field believed that women represented only about 1%-3% of sexual abusers at most. However, mounting research evidence about sexual abuse perpetration at the hands of teen and adult females has begun to challenge our assumptions, though these earlier and dated views still tend to predominate.

The percentage of women and teenage girl perpetrators recorded in case report studies is small and ranges from 3%-10% (Kendall-Tackett and Simon, 1987; McCarty, 1986; Schultz and Jones, 1983; Wasserman and Kappel, 1985). When the victim is male, female perpetrators account for 1%-24% of abusers. When the victim is female, female perpetrators account for 6%-17% of abusers (American Humane Association, 1981; Finkelhor and Russell, 1984; and Finkelhor et al., 1990). In the Ontario Incidence Study, 10% of sexual abuse investigations involved female perpetrators (Trocme, 1995). However, in six studies reviewed by Russell and Finkelhor, female perpetrators accounted for 25% or more of abusers. Ramsay-Klawsnik (1990a) found that adult females were abusers of males 37% of the time, female adolescents 19% of the time. Both of these rates are higher than the same study reported for adult and teen male abusers.

Also:

There is some evidence that females are more likely to be involved with co-abusers, typically a male, though studies report a range from 25% - 77% (Faller, 1987; Kaufman et al., 1995; McCarty, 1986). However, Mayer (1992), in a review of data on 17 adolescent female sex offenders, found that only 2 were involved with male co-perpetrators. She also found that the young women in this study knew their victims and that none experienced legal consequences for their actions.

Self-report studies provide a very different view of sexual abuse perpetration and increase the number of female perpetrators substantially. In a retrospective study of male victims, 60% reported being abused by females (Johnson and Shrier, 1987). The same rate was found in a sample of college students (Fritz et al., 1981). In other studies of male university and college students, rates of female perpetration were found at levels as high as 72% - 82% (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1987, 1989; Seidner and Calhoun, 1984). Bell et al., (1991) found that 27% of males were abused by females. In some of these types of studies females represent as much as 50% of sexual abusers (Risin and Koss, 1987). Knopp and Lackey (1987) found that 51% of victims of female sexual abusers were male. It is evident that case report and self-report studies yield very different types of data about prevalence. These extraordinary differences tell us we need to start questioning all of our assumptions about perpetrators and victims of child maltreatment.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/ibc3.html

 

[shuttlt]

Fiona. It's all really very simple. I'm surprised you don't understand.

If Knox says it it must be the truth. Anyone who says anything against her is lying.

Therefore they must be lying about her telling the truth.

QED.

And if she says two contradictory things then the facts are like a piece of toast buttered on both sides, spinning inches above your kitchen floor as each side contends with the other to land butter side down.

 

[stilicho]

stilicho made the claim that Amanda lied in the interrogation. If he can't actually produce the words that Amanda said and the context in which they were spoken, where is the basis for that claim?

This is called "moving the goalposts" and it is a fraudulent form of argument. If you don't accept that Amanda told the police that she was in the cottage, covering her ears, while Patrick murdered Meredith, then you are ignoring all the evidence that she did. That includes her own words.

So, you move the goalposts to exclude all the evidence except something you think is important. In this case, it appears, it is recording police interviews.

If you want to start a separate thread to debate that topic then do so. I will be there and backing you up. I think that recording interviews is a boon to both law enforcement and suspects or defendants. They have been shown to be helpful to jurors in seeing the reactions of the accused when asked direct questions that might be otherwise inadmissible in court.

However, your assertions and your informal fallacies do not belong in a discussion of the lies told by Amanda and Raffaele in their ultimately futile attempts to deceive the investigators. As one observer on PMF noted recently, they very nearly got away with it. Their biggest mistake (after the murder, of course) was not getting rid of the body. Other than that, they had done a pretty good job of lying and covering up their scheme.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Giobbi

Shame that Amanda Knox said she went of her own volition, in court. You have been told this before and the testimony has been linked. Why do you persist with this ?

But once again, wearily: from her court appearance


Did Dr. Giobbi call them in?