• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
loverofzion said:
Why is a fabrication more believable if offered immediately than if offered after several months?
She already knew she was guilty WHILE she was being questioned by the police; she was clever enough to come up with "the police hit me" to explain why she accused Patrick of assault and murder, and why she claimed to have been present at the murder, covering her ears from Meredith's screams..(Now how did she know there were screams?)

She acted coldly and quickly; "They hit me" lets her squirm free.
Or so she thought.
Click to expand...
PS-Why couldn't Amanda identify the police woman who allegedly hit her when confronted by the 8 policemen/women who were involved in her interrogation?

People remember the faces of their batterers forever; it is something which is etched into our memories.
 
LondonJohn said:
[...]

I think it's worth bringing up the height analogy again, since most people can find this intuitively easier to understand. Suppose that the average adult male height in a given population is 5ft10, that the 75th percentile is at 6ft1, the 95th percentile is at 6ft4 and the 99.5th percentile is at 6ft8.

[...]
Click to expand...

Great work LondonJohn. I just have one suggestion. The 95th percentile would make this more accurate than any of the prosecution's evidence.

OK, the one piece of evidence that is true is that Amanda lived in the house with MK. We are 100% sure of that.

Statistics also show that the murderer is usually a person close to the victim. What is that statistic, 75% or even 90%? How do we statistically show when that statistic is invalid for Amanda?

It's also true that Amanda is a human and 100% of all murders that happen with a gun or a knife were committed by a human. Amanda is a human, therefore, Amanda is guilty.
 
Last edited:
loverofzion said:
Why is a fabrication more believable if offered immediately than if offered after several months?
She already knew she was guilty WHILE she was being questioned by the police; she was clever enough to come up with "the police hit me" to explain why she accused Patrick of assault and murder, and why she claimed to have been present at the murder, covering her ears from Meredith's screams..(Now how did she know there were screams?)

She acted coldly and quickly; "They hit me" lets her squirm free.
Or so she thought.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that Knox might have thought that speaking of being hit by members of the police would "let her squirm free"?
 
loverofzion said:
PS-Why couldn't Amanda identify the police woman who allegedly hit her when confronted by the 8 policemen/women who were involved in her interrogation?

People remember the faces of their batterers forever; it is something which is etched into our memories.
Click to expand...

Maybe because this was well over a year since the incident, and maybe she felt she couldn't be 100% certain of which police officer it was, and was afraid of accusing the wrong one?
 
christianahannah said:
I do think it speaks on Amanda's behalf that she wrote of the hitting, cuffing, what-have-you, in her November 6 memorandum (and not six months or a year later, etc.). Barbie Nadeau has also said she finds Amanda's account believable.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree that it lends credibility to her claim. The problem remains though that it does not constitute evidence which can be used in court.
 
Dan O. said:
We seem to have conflicting reports on what Dr. Lalli said about the time of death. Lets play a little game and see who can come up with the best reference for what Lalli actually says.
Click to expand...

Charlie Wilkes said:
November 7, 2007:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2821154.ece
Pathologists have put the time of death as between midnight and 2am. ​

November 9, 2007:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2841412.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
The judge said that the pathologist, Luca Lalli, had established that Ms Kercher’s death had taken place "at 11pm at the earliest and at the latest one hour after, with a time frame between 10pm and midnight". The cause of death was "haemorrhage from a neck wound after a blow from a sharp and pointed weapon". ​


January 31, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3282588.ece
Forensic scientists working on the case also said they had revised the time of Ms Kercher's death, previously put at between 10pm and midnight on November 1, to between 9pm and 4am on November 2. ​
Click to expand...


I can give you points for the first two links. But the third one, while informative, doesn't say this is Lalli's statement so it can't be counted.

The reference katy_did provided back in August:
Dr. Lalli: at a distance of not more than 2-3 hours from the consumption of the last meal (see errate corrige [Latin: correction of error] on 15.2.2008, acquired during the trial hearing, and p. 47 of the stenotyped record from the hearing of 3.4.09);​
still seems to be the most current statement of Dr. Lalli's position.
 
Amazer said:
It's about what you can prove. And the sad, simple fact is that Amanda doesn't have any evidence that backs up her accusation.
Click to expand...

Of course using that reasoning neither can the police prove that she was referring to them when she said she was hit, since she didn't name a name and was unable to point out the person. They would need the tape to see which person she was referring to.
 
LondonJohn said:
Me too, especially since there was such a certainty attached to that statement about Italian press support for the conviction......
Click to expand...

I could not find any right off hand LJ, however these 2 had doubts about the conviction: (Italian links and a portion of Google translation provided)

http://www.inviatospeciale.com/2009...e-sollecito-non-solo-un-problema-giudiziario/

Anna Maria Franzoni, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito are known cases of a much larger universe of processes in which the absolute certainty of guilt is not there. Dozens of people in prison awaiting trial, convicted of error, acquitted on appeal or cassation.
Click to expand...

http://www.ilriformista.it/stories/...llary_la_pensa_come_silvio_di_marco_ferrante/

But the reaction of wounded pride expressed by some Italian politician on the statements of Mrs. Clinton is not convincing. From the time our legal system has entered a phase of decline of its reliability. Every day the majority, and the head of government, and with them a piece of the opposition as a whole explain that the Italian justice system does not work.
Click to expand...
 
Mary_H said:
But he also wrote: "And if you falsely accuse people of a crime it is not up to others to prove that you are lying, it is up to you to prove your accusations are true. If you cannot prove your accusations, then you don't make them," which is similar to what you wrote, Amazer.
Click to expand...

Using that definition then would not the prosecution have to be charged everytime someone is found innocent of a crime.
 
Justinian2 said:
No recent case in America, or perhaps the world, has had this vicious an attack on an accused woman. I remember black men getting this treatment during the 1950's in America. Fortunately, America has outlawed this type of prejudice and media bias.

About the new movie being made on this subject:
Click to expand...

Actually prosecutors didn't need media bias in the 50's to convict blacks, the jury's where already biased.
 
loverofzion said:
The verdict of the court I am sorry to inform you is indeed considered by society to be an objectively proven fact; in so far as human beings can be trusted to accomplish this feat.

It is not simply an "opinion", as say, yours or mine is.

If everyone in the civilized world treated court verdicts as no more than an "opinion" then where would be today.
Click to expand...

actually in Italy the first trial is just a part of the process of proving guilt. Its not like other country's where the first trial is they are guilty. The first trial just allows you to continue holding them if the sentence is longer than (3yrs?). If that was the case and they are proven guilty like you say, what is Mignini still doing acting as a prosecutor.
 
Chris C said:
Of course using that reasoning neither can the police prove that she was referring to them when she said she was hit, since she didn't name a name and was unable to point out the person. They would need the tape to see which person she was referring to.
Click to expand...

I do believe that she made a formal accusation. Wasn't there something that passed as an investigation by a magistrate? Something where she had the opportunity to point out the woman who allegedly hit her?
 
Amazer said:
I do believe that she made a formal accusation. Wasn't there something that passed as an investigation by a magistrate? Something where she had the opportunity to point out the woman who allegedly hit her?
Click to expand...

So basicly what your saying is everyone in Italy that has a crime committed against them can be charged with a crime (calumnia) if they can't identify who committed the crime against them? In other words if they can't identify the person its better to not report the crime.
 
Amazer said:
I do believe that she made a formal accusation. Wasn't there something that passed as an investigation by a magistrate? Something where she had the opportunity to point out the woman who allegedly hit her?
Click to expand...

I remember this differently. I don't believe she made a formal complaint. I think the investigation consisted of the Mignini saying she said it in court and we all heard her, or something along those lines. I believe a few of the investigators and interpreter testified she was treated well during their testimonies.
 
the forensic DNA evidence

Amazer said:
Yes, briefly considered the possibility and quickly arrived at the conclusion that it's unlikely to be the case.
Click to expand...

Amazer,

Do you know of any forensic DNA specialist equal in professional reputation to Dr. Krane or Dr. Hampikian who backs the prosecution case? Same question with respect to Steve Moore and Ron Hendry.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Amazer,

Do you know of any forensic DNA specialist equal in professional reputation to Dr. Krane or Dr. Hampikian who backs the prosecution case? Same question with respect to Steve Moore and Ron Hendry.
Click to expand...

No and yes, respectively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom