Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[act1roson]

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.

Can you supply a source that shows these interrogators were near her during her testimony? I have never seen that in a reputable source.

In that website I mentioned that transcribed her testimony, it does not indicate that any interrogators were present.

 

[christianahannah]

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).

I do acknowledge that the appeals (for Amanda and Raffaele, as well as Mignini) will bring another dimension to the case and all three are afforded the presumption that their innocence or guilt hangs in limbo? I'm not exactly sure what they still enjoy but I do not have a problem with an automatic appeal of someone who has been found guilty in a first trial. If there is even the slightest chance that they are innocent and/or the judicial system erred in any way during the trial, hopefully it can be rectified during the appeal.

 

[Dan O.]

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

You seem to be pretty sure of yourself. Can you list any of that evidence against the trio that existed on November 6th which has not already been disproved?

 

[capealadin]

First of all, I stand corrected. Apparantly, Patrick did not fire/demote Amanda. I don't think she'll get a glowing reference from him, however
Thanks Chris, for the "welcome back".......You ask, what will my argument be, if Amanda wins the appeal? There are, of course, quite a number of cases, where people have walked, based on a technicality, or because procedures were not carried out correctly. Not mind you because they're innocent.

 

[Amazer]

You seem to be pretty sure of yourself. Can you list any of that evidence against the trio that existed on November 6th which has not already been disproved?

Now you are shifting the goal posts

 

[Chris_Halkides]

all the errors run in the same direction

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,

It is enlightening when all of a reporters errors fall in one direction, as Mr. Mudede’s did. Suppose he had consulted one of Ms. Knox’s employers, as Riccardo Stagliano did:

“If she’ll be freed earlier, one who is ready to hire her right away is Rick Kirsten. She worked for this art gallery owner for two months. but he’s betting on her qualities, as if he has known her forever. ‘I put an ad, I had 31 applications and I chose her. She used to finish her work in half the time and she would ask for more. And she knew how to deal with people’. His favorite episode-that Amanda’s parents recommended he tell me is about a 8-10 years old girl that seemed to be lost in the crowd at the gallery.

‘I was getting ready to go to take care of her, but a client stopped me, and Amanda was there already and the child was happily laughing.’ Not to speak of Amanda’s kindness to his father, a 90 years old painter and zen meditative that was often at the gallery.”

This anecdote does not prove that what “Matthew” said was false, but it does balance out the portrait of Amanda a bit. The dateline on Mr. Mudede’s article is February 6, 2008, which was before there was even a formal charge against Amanda and Raffaele, let alone a conviction. When a reporter contemplates hypotheticals that do not include the possibility of innocence under these circumstances, I start asking what narrative he is assembling.

 

[pilot padron]

Can you supply a source that shows these interrogators were near her during her testimony? I have never seen that in a reputable source.

In that website I mentioned that transcribed her testimony, it does not indicate that any interrogators were present.

Understand.

Agree that her testimony would hardly include roster of daily Courtroom attendees.

With all due respect, and certainly not a slight in any manner; although a new member here, I have tried to keep up with the case since the tragic murder, almost 3 years ago.

Maybe it is my personal *opinion* but certain forums and comment sections seem to call for 'citations' endlessly for each and every statement made.
Many of the statements are widely accepted and acknowledged by most people with more than superficial familiarity with the case.
In this case, the citation request sometimes seems unnecessarily disruptive rather than definitive

Again, your request is understood, accepted.
Please bear with my prioritizing as to 'game changer' justification dictating efforts being expended to comply immediately.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Now you are shifting the goal posts

I think he's making the point that the conclusion led to the evidence, rather than the other way around.

 

[capealadin]

Withnail, as far as the jury not having heard the audiometric of the scream or the rustling of leaves...there was obviously so much other evidence to consider. I will not bore everyone here with all of that, as it has already been discussed, at times ad nauseum. At the same time, certain things were kept out of the trial, that frankly, was to Amanda's advantage. The lies, can't remembers, the staging,especially the staging, is going to be a stick point, I believe. Will have to read the posts Ive missed. Check back later.

 

[capealadin]

Oh, Welcome, Pilot Padron!! Looking forward to reading your posts. The little I have read, leaves me quite impressed.....

 

[Amazer]

I think he's making the point that the conclusion led to the evidence, rather than the other way around.

I rather doubt that since our jumping off point for this little side discussion was the question if calunnia charges would/could apply in reverse to the prosecution.

 

[Mary_H]

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

You're partly right, pilot padron. What happened to Amanda is mild by many standards. As Frank Sfarzo wrote this morning:

About police abuse, then, what happened to Amanda is really nothing. We even had people flying from the window in a police station, so...

One wonders why Mignini and Comodi have taken such umbrage at what Amanda reported, when the "abuse" was relatively insignificant. A better strategy might have been to exploit what Amanda had written immediately following her first claim about being hit:

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

Some lawyers would really have played off that remark in court, getting Amanda to admit that getting whacked in the head a little was what the police believed to be a necessary part of the process, and that it would be generous of her to forgive them. That approach would minimize the complaint even further and gain sympathy for the police.

Mignini's strategy instead is to kill the messenger, an unpopular tactic that draws more negative attention to the abuse. Even colpevolisti can recognize that the charge of calunnia is a restriction of free speech, serving the purpose of demonstrating the consequences of speaking out against the police in Italy. To many observers, though, it makes Mignini and Comodi look like small and petty people who don't have the strength to let anything run off their backs without retaliating.

 

[Malkmus]

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

My misunderstanding, Pilot. Apparently, I have confused two things here, the use of the stack of papers for visual effect, and the claim that Moore had all trial transcripts and autopsy reports. I was not aware that a separate issue - that regarding the reporter's claims about Moore- had been raised, and thought we were still simply talking about the use of paper "props" in the King 5 report. You are correct: King 5 reported that Moore had all those things and he corrected that error made by them when he was on the radio show.

 

[pilot padron]

Mary, your thoughts, and courteous methods of presenting same (often spiced by great humor) are a pleasure for my sore eyes to behold here and elsewhere in cyberspace.

Excuse my not giving your well reasoned post a reply right now;...but I kinda feel like I am facing 12 to 1 odds here myself right now.

 

[Chris C]

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

Yes but she is being charged for calumnia by all the police because she couldn't identify the attacker. If she was able to identify the attacker they would charge her for calumnia for not being able to prove it. Where as the police are not charged for several violations to her rights and some of the violations could even be considered torture.

A good example would be if a woman caught a taxi and the taxi driver decided to rape the woman. Then she reports the crime and when asked to identify her attacker she is unable to do so. So using what the police are doing to knox, all Taxi drivers would be able to charge the woman that was raped for calumnia. Or better yet a young girl comes forward years later and say her uncle raped her when she was a child. They could then charge the girl for calumnia. Basicly you are charging people for slander for reporting a crime that happened to them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I would like to see evidence for this claim.

So add that to the very long list of completely unsupported claims you have made which we would like to see evidence for.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

You're welcome. Your concise carefully crafted comments will hopefully add to the dramatic dynamic debate.

What do you think led to Perugia Police Chief Arturo de Felice's ever so interesting statement to the media (made on the 6th or 7th November 2007) that Knox "crumbled" in her interrogation of the 5th/6th, and "made an admission of facts that we knew to be correct"?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, your thoughts, and courteous methods of presenting same (often spiced by great humor) are a pleasure for my sore eyes to behold here and elsewhere in cyberspace.

Excuse my not giving your well reasoned post a reply right now;...but I kinda feel like I am facing 12 to 1 odds here myself right now.

Thank you, pilot padron. Flattery will get you everywhere. There is no hurry on a response.

 

[Chris C]

I would like to see evidence for this claim.

So add that to the very long list of completely unsupported claims you have made which we would like to see evidence for.

/second

I know of 3 people that have been sexually assaulted and can't remember what their attacker looks like.

 

[pilot padron]

Pilot Padron,

It is enlightening when all of a reporters errors fall in one direction, as Mr. Mudede’s did. Suppose he had consulted one of Ms. Knox’s employers, as (URL snipped)

This anecdote does not prove that what “Matthew” said was false, but it does balance out the portrait of Amanda a bit. The dateline on Mr. Mudede’s article is February 6, 2008, which was before there was even a formal charge against Amanda and Raffaele, let alone a conviction. When a reporter contemplates hypotheticals that do not include the possibility of innocence under these circumstances, I start asking what narrative he is assembling.

Your example is irrefutable, as are some of the interesting points you raise.

I agree that it is 'enlightening' when any reporters efforts mistakes or otherwise seem to be "in one direction".

Surely you would agree that the CBS piece that so captivated Ms Moore was, to be most charitable, .. "in one direction"

Also, Mr Marriott by strictly limiting and rewarding access to Family by Media has definitely tended to have many, many "in one direction" resultant productions.

Matthew's anonymity is indeed,as you so accurately point out a cause for concern.

Maybe we see different aspects and causes for this lack of identification that understandably troubles you.

My slant is that as probably a young individual of Amanda's age living and working in Seattle, Mr Muede was just being prudent to protect him from possible Hometown retaliation ?

I was suitably impressed when one of your more prolific contributors here cautioned a fellow poster not to even ask about him surfboarding because of compromising anonymity.

Mary H was even cautioned here by him about protection from "nutbags".

Your categorization and evaluation of any 'hypotheticals' is also irrefutable, appreciated, and shared

But I guess my views of Mr Muede's justification for granting anonymity to Matthew are different than yours

But that's what makes this medium so valuable for all of us here ??