Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

1) Your use of the much more sophisticated, all encompassing terminology "curriculum vitae" is ever so superior to my.. "self written how great I am" description of Dempsey's web page.
However it does not lessen the reason I cited to find her aforementioned web page to be "less than breathtaking", which again, is:
"Many specific points there have been at best questioned, and at worst proven inaccurate and overly boastful by TJMK."

Forgive me, pilot, but when I have been able to stomach short visits to that sick, sick website, almost all of what I have read there is untrue. Peter Quennell is not in a position to question someone else's integrity.

I have a lot of experience with posters who come to other blogs armed with information they have picked up on TJMK, only to leave quickly, with their tails between their legs, when they find out they were misled by the words of that sick, sick Peter Quennell. Ergo, I give TJMK's opinion of Candace Dempsey no weight.

2). The Nadeau superior language fluency and much superior trial attendance relative Dempsey as well as Nadeau not requiring employment of a local Freelancer for the purpose of equalizing her above deficiencies just makes a lot of sense as an argument to me and makes Nadeau my preferred source.

Okay.

3) I do not believe I ever said nor even insinuated this valid point you make:"attending the sessions doesn't ensure one will think one way or another about the evidence."

What I still say is that much greater attendance at the actual trial by Nadeau instead of Dempsey's use of surrogates and need of Interpreter help to read transcript of many session she did not attend makes what Nadeau writes (and opines) more credible to me.
Additionally the US system of surrogate jurors is a strong indication of the value of complete attendance by one who must determine (or writes about) guilt or innocence

Okay.

4) What you think, (ie below A-D) is respected by me due to your well above average knowledge of facts.
But still accepted distinctly as thoughts that are "yours" and not "ours"

4A) Fails to cite sources ( well aware of how that most particularly irritates you personally
4B ) Offers opinion as fact ( definite fallacy, but certainly one few of us, especially in discussion forums are immune from, and most recognize difference and utilize accordingly
4C) Believes AK and RS are guilty (neither you nor myself are privileged to the not vocalized nor written beliefs of others

Did you mean to write "not guilty?"

4D My belief is that in fact Dempsey's book is much more tabloid like, and in fact required employment of Freelance assistance to rush in print at expense of full research and accuracy ..."to attract readers"

I wouldn't know about that, but in my opinion, it is unlikely. For one thing, Candace was working on her book the whole time she was keeping her blog, which was more than two years, so there was no rush. And I read somewhere recently that Candace's publisher said she had enough material for eight books, so I don't think there was any lack of research.

CITEeruse some of favorable/unfavorable reviews of each book on Amazon's reader review pages at your leisure

The reviews on Amazon were part of a campaign and are stacked.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm sorry you find my comments boring. Perhaps I should point out that you have no obligation to read them, much less respond. But since you did respond, I will do likewise.

I said I found the constant repetition of a pointless and flawed rhetorical technique boring. You are welcome to take that as personally as you like.

It happens that others besides ourselves are concerned with the problem of resolving anecdotal information into something that is generally useful. One such individual is Gregg McCrary, a retired FBI agent who contributed to a book called Criminal Investigative Failures. McCrary has studied confessions to figure out how it is possible to determine whether they are true or false. His conclusion is as follows:

To be considered reliable, a confession must have both internal and external validity; that is, it must be consistent with itself and with the external evidence. Professional law enforcement investigators understand that a confession is not an end to the investigation, as it must then be subjected to a vigorous follow-up investigation. A true confession typically contains a wealth of specific details that not only are consistent with the crime and the crime scene, but also includes new information beyond what is known by investigators. A confession's validity is strengthened through corroboration; it is weakend when the evidence does not support its claims.

<snip>

Of these 18 assertions, seven are known to be false. Two or three are known to be true, but they don't relate to what happened that night. The rest may or may not be true, depending on what you think happened. I am curious therefore - what exactly in these statements strikes you as having the ring of truth? Do you think McCrary would vouch for the authenticity of these statements? Or do you think McCrary is just another phony who should be dismissed out of hand, like Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore?

This is all very fascinating, but hardly relevant. If Knox's statements are in actuality nothing but self-serving but poorly thought out lies then none of your careful analysis is germane. The inconsistencies would fit right in with dishonesty, evasion, and incompetence. It is neither a false confession nor a real one, but only frantic and opportunistic dissembling. How do you suppose Mr. McCrary would score that?

Many people in these threads who quite vigorously defend Knox's innocence have taken serious objection in the past to characterizing Knox's statements as a "confession". I suppose that when it is more convenient that description seems more acceptable.

 

[Mary_H]

False.
First of all the burden of proof is reversed: there has been never an allegation of Amanda being intrrogated at 05:45 nor evidence or testimony ever brougnt about this, Amanda herself never claimed (or complaind) she was innterrogated by Mignini, above all never until before her trial.
Second, it is not true the defence maintains Amanda was interrogated. Absolutely not true. Albeit there has been sometimes a confusion in wordigs by some atteorneys (Carlo Pacelli and others) in the oral debate in court, the defence documents never claim Amanda was interrogated between 0,45 and 05,45. This claim of Mary H. is absolutely false.

I didn't make the claim. In the trial testimony of Amanda Knox, lawyers for both sides ask Amanda several times about the "5:45 interrogation."

 

[Mary_H]

Those are Amanda's words and the lawyers are simply using Amanda's language so that she understands their questioning, for she clearly doesn't understand the difference. After all, you also are struggling to understand the difference. The fact remains, the the 5:45 statement was a voluntary statement, not an interrogation.<snip>

Where is your evidence for that? And how do you explain the difference between the wording of the 5:45 statement (which Charlie just paraphrased) versus the voluntary memoriale?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I wouldn't know about that, but in my opinion, it is unlikely. For one thing, Candace was working on her book the whole time she was keeping her blog, which was more than two years, so there was no rush. And I read somewhere recently that Candace's publisher said she had enough material for eight books, so I don't think there was any lack of research.

It's about quality, not quantity and what we choose to use and how we choose to use it

 

[Fulcanelli]

I didn't make the claim. In the trial testimony of Amanda Knox, lawyers for both sides ask Amanda several times about the "5:45 interrogation."

And the why has been explained to you by both Machiavelli and myself.

 

[loverofzion]

This has all been documented here before, l-o-z, fairly recently, as a matter of fact. Instead of finding it for you, I will direct you to the "In their own words" section of your favorite website. Look for Amanda's trial testimony.

It is repeated several times during the questioning at trial that Amanda's first interrogation ended with her signing something at 1:45 a.m. on November 6th, then that her second interrogation ended with her signing something at 5:45 a.m. on November 6th Then around midday, she was brought several more documents to sign, including the arrest warrant, after which she was incarcerated.

She offered her "gift" declaration from her prison cell the evening of the 6th. She still had not seen a lawyer.

If you think someone who is locked up has free will, that is your privilege, but I don't agree. They certainly don't have freedom of choice. As a matter of fact, Italian law specifies that even a witness must be provided with a lawyer, if their freedom of movement is restrained. The law recognizes that a witness under those circumstances is in need of the protection of legal counsel.

That "something " she signed at 1:45 occurred while she was not a prisoner.
She wasn't even a suspect until then; just a witness.

So her free will was presumably still intact.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, I have been further advised that Dempsey's Food Blogger handle was firmly attached to her initially by Seattle locals (not guilters).

This was because her SeattlePI Blog "Italian Woman at the Table" was so named to emphasize her own focus (fetish ?) on nationality, as well as the original main purpose of the Blog, which was as I alluded previously, to go out and eat at local restaurants and to.. ...blog about food.

Thank you for the information. Mostly I was concerned that you stated she started her career as a food blogger, when she actually had a lot of journalistic experience prior to that.

Additionally the extent of Dempsey's "travel expertise" at that early time was limited to drives between Seattle eateries.

PS:Mary,my (admittedly extensive) discourse on preference of Authors which your query instigated applies also to the equally talented and extremely well informed RoseMontague who also expressed above her Author preference as being similar to yours; with which I also then respectfully disagree.

We'll live.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Where is your evidence for that? And how do you explain the difference between the wording of the 5:45 statement (which Charlie just paraphrased) versus the voluntary memoriale?

Where's your evidence otherwise? A good place to start would be to provide evidence of Amanda's lawyers ever complaining that Amanda's 5:45 statement was not a voluntary statement.

As for the difference between the voluntary statement and her Memorial you're best off asking Amanda that question. I'd say it's further evidence of her dissembling, wouldn't you?

 

[Mary_H]

Mignini didn't break any law. He was fully in line with all the codes. You keep saying he broke the law simply because you don't understand them, but that's not his fault.

You still haven't provided any evidence that Mignini was brought in in response to a request by Amanda to make another statement. I am willing to accept the claim because it has been made so many times, but I want to see documentation.

I also need a clear explanation for why it is said during the trial that the 5:45 interrogation took place in the presence of the PM, if that was not the case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you for the information. Mostly I was concerned that you stated she started her career as a food blogger, when she actually had a lot of journalistic experience prior to that.

What do you define as "a lot"? Please quantify that.

 

[Mary_H]

That "something " she signed at 1:45 occurred while she was not a prisoner.
She wasn't even a suspect until then; just a witness.

So her free will was presumably still intact.

Was she informed that she was allowed to refuse the interrogation questions and get up and leave at any time?

 

[Mary_H]

What do you define as "a lot"? Please quantify that.

I provided the link to Candace's website in my response to pilot padron.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You still haven't provided any evidence that Mignini was brought in in response to a request by Amanda to make another statement. I am willing to accept the claim because it has been made so many times, but I want to see documentation.

I also need a clear explanation for why it is said during the trial that the 5:45 interrogation took place in the presence of the PM, if that was not the case.

Because that is the Italian legal definition of a '"voluntary Statement" and how it has been so defined and referred to by the numerous courts, the prosecution and in the legal documentation, the fact of which has never been challenged by Amanda's legal team. It is only YOU that is challenging it.

Mignini wasn't even at the police station at the time of her 1:45 interrogation, he only appeared later to hear her 5:45 voluntary statement for at that time, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, Amanda was a suspect and suspects can only be heard by a judge.

 

[loverofzion]

Forgive me, pilot, but when I have been able to stomach short visits to that sick, sick website, almost all of what I have read there is untrue. Peter Quennell is not in a position to question someone else's integrity.

I have a lot of experience with posters who come to other blogs armed with information they have picked up on TJMK, only to leave quickly, with their tails between their legs, when they find out they were misled by the words of that sick, sick Peter Quennell. Ergo, I give TJMK's opinion of Candace Dempsey no weight.




Okay.




Okay.




Did you mean to write "not guilty?"




I wouldn't know about that, but in my opinion, it is unlikely. For one thing, Candace was working on her book the whole time she was keeping her blog, which was more than two years, so there was no rush. And I read somewhere recently that Candace's publisher said she had enough material for eight books, so I don't think there was any lack of research.




The reviews on Amazon were part of a campaign and are stacked.

Now Amazon joins the conspiracy!

 

[Mary_H]

It is repeated several times during the questioning at trial that Amanda's first interrogation ended with her signing something at 1:45 a.m. on November 6th, then that her second interrogation ended with her signing something at 5:45 a.m. on November 6th Then around midday, she was brought several more documents to sign, including the arrest warrant, after which she was incarcerated.

She offered her "gift" declaration from her prison cell the evening of the 6th. She still had not seen a lawyer.

I am going to correct what I wrote here. According to the testimony, Amanda did not offer her memorandum in the evening from her prison cell. She wrote it in the morning in the Questura. However, it is still not the same document as the one she signed at 5:45 a.m.

CP: Okay, let's talk about your memorandum of November 6.
AK: Okay.
CP: Did you, on the morning of November 6, ask the agents of the judicial police for paper to write on?
AK: Yes.
CP: Did you also spontaneously ask for a pen?
AK: Yes.
CPL In what language did you write your memorandum?
AK: In English.
CP: When you wrote it, were the contents suggested to you by the police?
AK: No. It wasn't. I wrote it to explain my confusion to the police. Because when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would remember everything later, that I should be patient, and keep trying to remember. I was feeling uncomfortable about these declarations that I had made, so I asked for paper to explain my confusion, beacuse I really wasn't sure.
CP: When did you write the memorandum? More or less?
AK: I don't remember.
CP: In the late morning? After you were served with an arrest warrant? Towards midday?
AK: Well, I was still in the Questura.
CP: Yes, but in the late morning? Of the 6th?
AK: You know, there was so much confusion during the night, and so many hours of interrogation, that my sense of time was gone.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yet there is evidence they did continue to ask questions. Also, she signed many documents after she had placed herself at the scene but before she was given a lawyer. Also, from my point of view, accepting the "free will" written statement from her before she had a lawyer should be looked upon as a violation.

This is complete nonsense. The interrogation was halted at 5:45 at which time she signed the statements and then was made a formal suspect, in line with Italian legal codes.

If she chose to write something in her cell, sign it all without a lawyer present and then hand it over to the police the police are entitled to accept and use it. This is all fully in line with Italian law and has been ruled as such by numerous courts including but not limited to, the Italian High Court.

Further, the presence of a lawyer is only a requirement for interrogations, not for the signing of forms.

You keep making pronouncements and assertions about what breaks Italian law when clearly you have zero knowledge of it.

 

[Mary_H]

Because that is the Italian legal definition of a '"voluntary Statement" and how it has been so defined and referred to by the numerous courts, the prosecution and in the legal documentation, the fact of which has never been challenged by Amanda's legal team. It is only YOU that is challenging it.

Mignini wasn't even at the police station at the time of her 1:45 interrogation, he only appeared later to hear her 5:45 voluntary statement for at that time, as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, Amanda was a suspect and suspects can only be heard by a judge.

I am getting explanations but no citations. WHY do the lawyers at the trial refer to the 5:45 statement as an interrogation?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Was she informed that she was allowed to refuse the interrogation questions and get up and leave at any time?

A witness does not have the right to remain silent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I provided the link to Candace's website in my response to pilot padron.

That doesn't quite answer the question though, does it?