Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[daydreamer]

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?
.

Maybe because they rotated interrogators every hour in an overnight inquisition, it was like a twelve on one scenario and the “one” is 20 years old foreigner. Why do the interrogators get a break and the “witness” has to tough it out. I am sure her mind was reeling from the bombardment of questions and accusations

 

[pilot padron]

Am I to understand that you are suggesting that Amanda's head motion was in some way inhibited or restrained during her questioning ?

Help me to understand why she could not just turn her head and look to her rear during the Interrogation.
Additionally why she could not look to her left during testimony for simple identification that was requested and IMHO would have dramatically improved her credibility.

Halides excellent (and shared) dismay over lack of video probably would be the only proof of this never before mentioned 'restraint' factor

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

So the "Knox P.R. machine" consists of a single hired consultant?

Marriott's role is to screen media requests and advise the family on which ones to accept. He is not out recruiting advocates or instructing them on what to say. We have all recruited ourselves.

The emphasis on Marriott is a way of rationalizing and discounting the tide of outrage surrounding this case, by imagining that it is orchestrated by a scheming puppet-master. But it's not. It is spontaneous and genuine

 

[pilot padron]

Maybe because they rotated interrogators every hour in an overnight inquisition, it was like a twelve on one scenario and the “one” is 20 years old foreigner. Why do the interrogators get a break and the “witness” has to tough it out. I am sure her mind was reeling from the bombardment of questions and accusations

Surely you are aware of Mr Moore's oft repeated 2 at a time for 1 hour over 6 hours schedule...12?? on 1 ??

You then might also be unaware of Police testimony about breaks, snacks, and breakfast ??

Also isn't 'inquisition' somewhat of a leading, opinionated and spin type choice of words ??

Finally, isn't this precisely what Mr Simon is suggesting be ceased and desisted from in deference to Italian Officials.
He and others protecting Amanda have often stated just how counterproductive this 'overdramatization' 12 on 1 really is

 

[Chris C]

Am I to understand that you are suggesting that Amanda's head motion was in some way inhibited or restrained during her questioning ?

Help me to understand why she could not just turn her head and look to her rear during the Interrogation.
Additionally why she could not look to her left during testimony for simple identification that was requested and IMHO would have dramatically improved her credibility.

Halides excellent (and shared) dismay over lack of video probably would be the only proof of this never before mentioned 'restraint' factor

The real question that needs to be asked is why is Knox being punished for failing to identify her attacker.

 

[christianahannah]

I wish that I shared your sentiments. By July of 2006 substantial exculpatory evidence had long been available in the Duke lacrosse case. Gottlieb's statement could have put three innocent men away for thirty years apiece. Why did he do it? I cannot formulate an entirely satisfactory answer, but the fact remains that he did.

He didn't explain why he gave a false statement in court? He was convicted, though, correct?

Chris there is a difference between the two cases - Amanda and Raffaele were convicted with a guilty verdict. In the Duke case no one was convicted (the three men), correct? And, the authorities that abused the process in regards to the Duke case were punished and/or have cases pending against them, correct (I know Mignini stands convicted for abuse of office, which he is appealing, but that is not in connection to the Knox/Sollecito case)?

I guess it comes down to this for me, I know people in authority can abuse their position, but I don't think that is the majority. I do think the system has flaws in how to protect the rights and presumption of innocence of those who are arrested and awaiting trial, however, I think that has more to do with how the judicial system is structured rather than abuse of authority, trying to cover for themselves or others, or wanting a conviction at any cost.

 

[pilot padron]

What "Knox P.R. machine"?

Given the existence of such websites as PMF and TJMK, doesn't the absence of serious questioning tell you something?

By now, I see other here have helped with your unfamiliarity with the *multi million* corporation of Mr Marriott and his *long and wide* contractual activities for Amanda.
(He even self aggrandizes about it on his website)

RE: your equating PMF and TJMK as having same impact for example as Marriott arranging tightly restricted Interviews *on all three* US TV major morning shows *on the same day*.

IMHO, I am sure PMF and TJMK are flattered at your esteem for them, but excuse me if I consider your comparison as a bit of an overstatement.

 

[pilot padron]

The real question that needs to be asked is why is Knox being punished for failing to identify her attacker.

OK, if you now choose to back off the head restraint implication we were discussing....

Last I read the charge had nothing to do with 'failure to identify' and everything to do with the derogatory statements against the Police she *publicly* made during Court testimony

 

[act1roson]

I am confused over the issue that some people believe Amanda Knox could not identify the interrogator that slapped her on the head.

According to a PMF recommended site and their transcription of Knox's testimony, she clearly said the person that slapper her head was a female with long, chestnut brown hair. I consider that an identification.

Why are posters claiming she could not identify the person that slapped her?

I can understand her not wanting to actually use the name of that person, since Knox may have been trying to avoid yet another defamation suit.

Also, has this site addressed the benefits police enjoy if they NEVER record an interrogation, in light of what is happening to Miss Knox?

 

[pilot padron]

Good catch. Charles Mudede called his anonymous source Matthew, not Michael, and I have corrected my original comment. Did you find any other innacuracies in Mr. Mudede's article, besides the one's I mentioned?

Actually the information you provide is most helpful. I spent more time since on your suggested Search.

Your litany of Muede's errors is accepted as printed.

However, as you allude about his hypothetical lack of stating innocence, really none of the errors you cite are really of the magnitude of 'game changers' are they?

Don't a significant number of all reporters, tend to 'mis state' some facts.

Latest embarassing example of this was KING5 Linda Byron stating that Mr Moore had obtained *the complete trial testimony* while she flips a stack of legal looking papers for effect.

 

[pilot padron]

I am confused over the issue that some people believe Amanda Knox could not identify the interrogator that slapped her on the head.

According to a PMF recommended site and their transcription of Knox's testimony, she clearly said the person that slapper her head was a female with long, chestnut brown hair. I consider that an identification.

Why are posters claiming she could not identify the person that slapped her?

I can understand her not wanting to actually use the name of that person, since Knox may have been trying to avoid yet another defamation suit.

Also, has this site addressed the benefits police enjoy if they NEVER record an interrogation, in light of what is happening to Miss Knox?

I cannot understand her being unable comply with the request to simply point to this long haired chestnut slapper who was at the time in close proximity to her.

Assume you refer to videotape (Visual) as synonymous with 'recording'

Surely you have read here and of course on the PMF that you use as documentation that not all questioning *is required* to be recorded *on video.

I also am not certain that your conclusions about naming names would result in another charge/suit

We all most certainly agree that videotape would greatly simplify the 'he said she said element' unavoidably inherent in the upcoming trial

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And, i repeat, if anyone can find a credible scientific or medical source which has found a moderate-sized mixed-ingredient meal to be still completely present in a healthy adult stomach over five hours after ingestion, then I will be amazed and impressed. I can't help thinking that some people have been spending quite a lot of time and effort trying to find such evidence, but I think they will be looking for a very, very long time......

I have looked at the various references people have cited, and they all more or less agree on the basic parameters, but it is difficult reading for a lay person.

One of the issues in this field is that prosecutors have oversold digestive evidence in specific cases, by trying to narrow TOD to within half an hour. This has produced a backlash among pathologists who say, "no, it's not that accurate." Also, it becomes less accurate once the contents of the stomach have emptied into the bowel.

 

[LondonJohn]

I cannot understand her being unable comply with the request to simply point to this long haired chestnut slapper who was at the time in close proximity to her.

Assume you refer to videotape (Visual) as synonymous with 'recording'

Surely you have read here and of course on the PMF that you use as documentation that not all questioning *is required* to be recorded *on video.

I also am not certain that your conclusions about naming names would result in another charge/suit

We all most certainly agree that videotape would greatly simplify the 'he said she said element' unavoidably inherent in the upcoming trial

Well, you've certainly made some interesting points in your first Stint on this thread.........

 

[daydreamer]

Surely you are aware of Mr Moore's oft repeated 2 at a time for 1 hour over 6 hours schedule...12?? on 1 ??

You then might also be unaware of Police testimony about breaks, snacks, and breakfast ??

Also isn't 'inquisition' somewhat of a leading, opinionated and spin type choice of words ??

Finally, isn't this precisely what Mr Simon is suggesting be ceased and desisted from in deference to Italian Officials.
He and others protecting Amanda have often stated just how counterproductive this 'overdramatization' 12 on 1 really is

Well 2 times six is twelve, during the interrogation it was 12 on 1, one hour shifts for each interrogator, AK had to endure 2 on 1 six times consecutively. Does that sound better?
As far as inquisition, check www_merriam-webster_com, it was not capitalized, just varying the verbage a bit.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the system did not work very well

He didn't explain why he gave a false statement in court? He was convicted, though, correct?

Chris there is a difference between the two cases - Amanda and Raffaele were convicted with a guilty verdict. In the Duke case no one was convicted (the three men), correct? And, the authorities that abused the process in regards to the Duke case were punished and/or have cases pending against them, correct (I know Mignini stands convicted for abuse of office, which he is appealing, but that is not in connection to the Knox/Sollecito case)?

I guess it comes down to this for me, I know people in authority can abuse their position, but I don't think that is the majority. I do think the system has flaws in how to protect the rights and presumption of innocence of those who are arrested and awaiting trial, however, I think that has more to do with how the judicial system is structured rather than abuse of authority, trying to cover for themselves or others, or wanting a conviction at any cost.

Christianahannah,

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were prosecuted by someone who himself has now been convicted of abusing his office. Yet he still is participating in the appeals process. So, either one must acknowledge that they and he still enjoy the presumption of innocence, or one must admit that a PM who has been found guilty of a crime can still participate in the judicial process (a very odd state of affairs, IMO).

Neither Officer Gottlieb nor Officer Himan could possibly be prosecuted for any lies that they might have told to the grand jury without a record of its proceedings, which do not exist. Officer Gottlieb retired, and Officer Himan left for another state. The only time to reopen the question will be the civil trials, which have not happened yet. It would be very difficult to win a conviction against Officer Gottlieb for his from memory descriptions of the three defendants, since he could just argue that he was mistaken.

The defense attorneys in the DL case were concerned enough about the adverse effect of pretrial publicity to have prepared a motion for a change of venue, IIRC. No one can say with certainty how a jury trial will turn out. Did the system work in the DL case? Just barely, and only with an admirable effort from the blogosphere, which refused the baloney that the mainstream media all too often ate ravenously.

 

[Amazer]

How about that case from early November 2007 where the prosecutors declared that a couple of students and another man murdered one of the students room mates when they had exactly zero evidence. Perhaps you've heard of it.

No, i'm sure there is evidence in that particular case. There however seems to be some disagreement on what the evidence proves.

But please try again.

 

[Malkmus]

Don't a significant number of all reporters, tend to 'mis state' some facts.

Latest embarassing example of this was KING5 Linda Byron stating that Mr Moore had obtained *the complete trial testimony* while she flips a stack of legal looking papers for effect.

This is not a good analogy of reporters "mis stating facts". This issue was discussed back when that report originally aired, and someone else ( I forget who) tried to make the same point that since the reporter is not actually holding the trial transcripts that it somehow nullifies Moore's claims to have them in his possession. The Moore interview was done via satellite. The shot of the reporter holding papers was done in studio simply for visual effect. I doubt when the producers of that report handed her a stack of random papers and told her to flip through it when referring to the transcripts that they would guess people would be scrutinizing it so closely and jump to such erroneous conclusions.

 

[pilot padron]

This is not a good analogy of reporters "mis stating facts". This issue was discussed back when that report originally aired, and someone else ( I forget who) tried to make the same point that since the reporter is not actually holding the trial transcripts that it somehow nullifies Moore's claims to have them in his possession. The Moore interview was done via satellite. The shot of the reporter holding papers was done in studio simply for visual effect. I doubt when the producers of that report handed her a stack of random papers and told her to flip through it when referring to the transcripts that they would guess people would be scrutinizing it so closely and jump to such erroneous conclusions.

Guess I have to very respectfully disagree with your spin and your interpretation on the facts.


I consider my conclusion which was shared by many others not to be erroneous as you *opine*


May I respectfully suggest you take time to listen to bobrivers show Moore did the next day, especially the part where Mr Rivers asks him about the very 'overstatement' we are discussing

 

[pilot padron]

Well, you've certainly made some interesting points in your first Stint on this thread.........

Thanks for the 'compliment'

Not sure if it could be something more than that ??

Particularly since just above Daydreamer uses lack of capitalization as completely changing meaning of the terminology M. Simon specifically suggests not using.

Am I missing anything with your capitalization of my stint here??

But having closely scrutinized the Rules here before being graciously being allowed to discuss the case, I feel certain that a distinguished contributor with your longevity could not possibly have said that in anything other than a complimentary way.

Thanks again

 

[Withnail1969]

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.

Wrong. As we have said so many weary times before, to the point that many of us would rather be dead than say it again, unfortunately the verdict of the court is not an objectively proven fact but is the decision of a committee of fallible human beings who may or may not have been given fully scientifically correct, accurate, and truthful information as to the events of the night of Meredith's murder.