Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

I'm not sure that our posts do insinuate that you necessarily agree with seamusoriley. My intention was to clarify any impression that what seamusoriley is doing resembles the legitimate statement analysis you referred to in your post. My post doesn't say much about your beliefs one way or another.

The logic of your last sentence could be applied to anything we discuss in these threads, yet we continue to discuss. Interminably, it would seem.

That blog was an interesting topic to me because it is a good example of how some people use false information and illogic to come to incorrect conclusions about the case.

What was the false information or logic exactly?

 

[loverofzion]

A disinterested observer can rely on his intellect, analytical ability, life experience and knowledge of the facts to determine whether any given individual is unable to recall pertinent events. Recollection of pertinent events is not really at issue here, though, is it? Amanda recalled what she did the night of the murder. She did not recall what the police told her to recall, because it didn't happen.

In addition to her allegedly lying, what is it that you do hold as evidence for judgment of Amanda's character? As halides1 implies, offering examples will increase your credibility.

She recalled SEVERAL different versions of the night in question; including one in which she said she was present in the cottage during the murder, holding her hands over her ears.
As a matter of fact this is what she wrote and gave the police as her "gift" to them.

 

[loverofzion]

loverofzion,

A facile response to your question is that DNA cannot be dated either, so what does DNA testing prove for this case? However, let's assume it is semen and look further. If the semen belongs to her boyfriend (Giacomo?), then it can be ignored because he has a strong alibi. If the semen belongs to Raffaele, it would be the strongest clue against him. If the semen belongs to Rudy, it changes what we know about the sexual contact that took place. Whether or not it would lead to a rape charge is a question for someone else.

Judge Massei's report failed to give adequate reasons for preferring to believe one expert witness over another with respect to the bra clasp DNA and with respect to one of the knife wounds, as discussed upthread.

Bra clasp with DNA of RS was not disputed. If there is no contamination proven then there is no contamination.
The labaratory involved ahered to strict standards and had never been involved in any contamination of samples.
Funny you would put so much stock in forensics if it were RG's semen or DNA; when it pertains to Amanda or Raffaelo, then forensic evidence tends to become "contaminated" or "tainted" or it flies around.
DNA for your information can help convict someone many years after a crime.

 

[loverofzion]

That's a question for the pro-guilt faction. Why is every inaccuracy or minor discrepancy by Amanda or Raffaele taken as indication of "lies"?

Inaccuracy or "minor discrepancy?"
Accusing her boss of murder falls under this category?!
Or does not remembering- or remembering different versions- of what she had done that night.
The LIES are just that; and they do go on and on throughout their testimonies (or RS's diaries).

 

[Antony]

Inaccuracy or "minor discrepancy?"
Accusing her boss of murder falls under this category?!
Or does not remembering- or remembering different versions- of what she had done that night.
The LIES are just that; and they do go on and on throughout their testimonies (or RS's diaries).

The so-called "accusation" against Amanda's boss was manifestly coerced - and there is a quote from the police chief Arturo de Felice that implicitly states that. The Perugia police, not Amanda, bear total responsibility for the treatment of Patrick Lumumba.

My reference to inaccuracies and minor discrepancies is because of the constant attempts by the pro-guilt faction to read something sinister into them, when they do not do the same for other players in the tragedy.

There are no statements of Amanda or Raffaele that can be shown independently to be "lies". All such cases arise from statements attributed to them by police, or misrepresented by police (or media), or one of them trying to make sense of misleading or false information from the police. By contrast, there are plenty of independent indications that the Perugia police cannot be trusted to be either objective, or impartial, or truthful.

 

[katy_did]

Now that's what is called a brilliant comeback.

I think it was pretty obvious that Supernaut was making a tongue in cheek comment on your own lack of sourcing for any of your posts. If you say "So enough about poor Amanda being coerced. She wasn't", should you really be surprised when someone responds "Was too"?

The various ways in which Amanda's false statement aligns closely with what we know of coerced-internalized confessions have been discussed in some detail on the thread. Perhaps you could start by outlining why you think her statement doesn't fit that model? You may get more detailed responses then.

 

[loverofzion]

The so-called "accusation" against Amanda's boss was manifestly coerced - and there is a quote from the police chief Arturo de Felice that implicitly states that. The Perugia police, not Amanda, bear total responsibility for the treatment of Patrick Lumumba.

My reference to inaccuracies and minor discrepancies is because of the constant attempts by the pro-guilt faction to read something sinister into them, when they do not do the same for other players in the tragedy.

There are no statements of Amanda or Raffaele that can be shown independently to be "lies". All such cases arise from statements attributed to them by police, or misrepresented by police (or media), or one of them trying to make sense of misleading or false information from the police. By contrast, there are plenty of independent indications that the Perugia police cannot be trusted to be either objective, or impartial, or truthful.

You are being less than honest here.
Where did ANYONE on the Perugia police force ever say she accused Patrick due to coercion?
That is the first lie.
Then there are AK's and RS's differing alibis for what they were doing that night.
And the lies just go and on and on...

 

[loverofzion]

I think it was pretty obvious that Supernaut was making a tongue in cheek comment on your own lack of sourcing for any of your posts. If you say "So enough about poor Amanda being coerced. She wasn't", should you really be surprised when someone responds "Was too"?

The various ways in which Amanda's false statement aligns closely with what we know of coerced-internalized confessions have been discussed in some detail on the thread. Perhaps you could start by outlining why you think her statement doesn't fit that model? You may get more detailed responses then.

Because coerced/internalized admissions do not apply here.
No police officer- nor translator on this case- ever admitted to seeing any untoward treatment of AK.
She was given breaks, was NEVER cuffed as she claimed (see under her slander trial). was given food and drink.
Why would you believe her supporters on this?
There was never any documented proof of ill treament or coercion; I don't know where the "impicit" statement by the police chief comes from accusing the police and NOT Amanda for accusing Patrick.
Can you provide such a quote?

 

[loverofzion]

I think it was pretty obvious that Supernaut was making a tongue in cheek comment on your own lack of sourcing for any of your posts. If you say "So enough about poor Amanda being coerced. She wasn't", should you really be surprised when someone responds "Was too"?

The various ways in which Amanda's false statement aligns closely with what we know of coerced-internalized confessions have been discussed in some detail on the thread. Perhaps you could start by outlining why you think her statement doesn't fit that model? You may get more detailed responses then.

Well with Supernaut's "tongue in cheek" comments it is hard to read his astuteness on the case.
Examples please?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How many times are you wrong? Let me count the ways

Bra clasp with DNA of RS was not disputed. If there is no contamination proven then there is no contamination.
The labaratory involved ahered to strict standards and had never been involved in any contamination of samples.
Funny you would put so much stock in forensics if it were RG's semen or DNA; when it pertains to Amanda or Raffaelo, then forensic evidence tends to become "contaminated" or "tainted" or it flies around.
DNA for your information can help convict someone many years after a crime.

loverofzion,

There are several fallacies or lapses in logic in your response. Dr. Tagliabracci disputed six loci of the bra clasp DNA that Stefanoni attributed to Raffaele. The clasp had DNA from three unknown individuals. If not by contamination, how did it get there? An exact mechanism of contamination is not always known, even in cases where it has occurred. See my cites in the previous thread. The lack of glove-changing was documented on video and is contrary to guidelines that have been quoted on this thread and the previous one many times. Stefanoni’s claim of no contamination cannot be independently judged without access to electronic data files and various laboratory notebooks, things that she has repeatedly refused to provide. The very idea of a laboratory’s going seven years without a single contamination event is risible.

The forensic evidence against Rudy was what made him a suspect. The forensic evidence against Raffaele and Amanda was collected after they were suspects. That is one piece of evidence among many that suggests tunnel vision. Of course, if you have access to the electropherograms that implicate Rudy, let’s see them.

 

[Matthew Best]

The semen stain MIGHT have been Rudy's; the point is semen stains cannot be dated, so waht would that prove for the case?
My sources are the Motivations Report.
You may want to try reading it.

Wow! Look at those goalposts move!

So you've gone from the stain "was not Rudy's" to "might have been Rudy's". Who knows what you'll say tomorrow?

What does the Motivations Report say about the stain? I'm afraid just waving your hands in the direction of an enormous document and saying "it's in there somewhere" isn't going to fly on this forum.

You'll have to try a bit harder here.

 

[Matthew Best]

If there is no contamination proven then there is no contamination.

Really? Are you sure about this? If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does that mean it didn't fall?

Honestly, lover, you're not even making sense any more.

 

[Matthew Best]

There was never any documented proof of ill treament or coercion;

How devious must those policemen be not to document when they hit people?

 

[Dan O.]

ONCE SHE BECAME A SUSPECT AND NOT A WITNESS THERE WAS A LAWYER PRESENT.

When do you believe she "became" a suspect?

Did she have a lawyer present during the interrogation that began on the 5th?

Did she have a lawyer present when she signed the first statement in the 6th?

Did she have a lawyer present during the subsequent interrogation on the 6th?

Are you aware of the reasoning that the Italian supreme court gave for not allowing the two statements signed on the 6th to be used against her?

Do you really think that shouting will override the facts that we've already researched and discussed?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because coerced/internalized admissions do not apply here.
No police officer- nor translator on this case- ever admitted to seeing any untoward treatment of AK.
She was given breaks, was NEVER cuffed as she claimed (see under her slander trial). was given food and drink.
Why would you believe her supporters on this?

How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am in agreement with Massei's judgment (p. 384):

"Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith's murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out."

Hi Fuji, let me clarify my question.

You wrote

I see that Dan O. and Kestrel are continuing to spout the stupidity of the "no evidence of a clean-up" line.​

Does it mean that in your opinion there is evidence of a clean-up?

If so, could you give some concrete examples?

 

[Chris C]

ONCE SHE BECAME A SUSPECT AND NOT A WITNESS THERE WAS A LAWYER PRESENT.
WHERE DO YOU COME OFF ABOUT INTERROGATIONS BEING NECEASARILY RECORDED HERE OR IN ITALY?
As for the translator, she was a court appointed one; why would they fire someone who was accredited by the courts?

Your arguments are just palin silly, easily shot down I am afraid.

What part of the Interrogation was a lawyer present for? They started surveillance on Sollecito and Knox before their interrogations, yet claim to not had time to record the interrogation.

 

[Chris C]

Bra clasp with DNA of RS was not disputed. If there is no contamination proven then there is no contamination.
The labaratory involved ahered to strict standards and had never been involved in any contamination of samples.
Funny you would put so much stock in forensics if it were RG's semen or DNA; when it pertains to Amanda or Raffaelo, then forensic evidence tends to become "contaminated" or "tainted" or it flies around.
DNA for your information can help convict someone many years after a crime.

Not Disputed? You need to read the appeals. Your still dodging the semen problem.

 

[Chris C]

Hi Fuji, let me clarify my question.

You wrote

I see that Dan O. and Kestrel are continuing to spout the stupidity of the "no evidence of a clean-up" line.​

Does it mean that in your opinion there is evidence of a clean-up?

If so, could you give some concrete examples?

Its called caveman logic.

Found dead girl. She was murdered.
Found no evidence. It was cleaned up.

 

[loverofzion]

How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.

What in your opiinion wsa "vague" about her confession?
Sure sounded real to the police officers.
What errors of fact were there in her confession?:
There was only vaugeness and prevarication when the convicted killer was lying about her whereabouts and activities the night of the murder.. When she gave her confession, there was no vagueness or non specific details.
And the police had no theories about Patrick, for instance. Which theories of theirs were they trying to coerce her toward?
You are being unclear.
Reread it yourself.