Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

I have searched for the sources of the misinformation that gets propagated by the guilters clan. If you want to be associated with skeptics that seek the truth instead of guilters that spread lies then you would be well advised to do some research.

* * *

Another source of the changing story is the claim the during the interviews on the 5/6th Raffaele dropped his alibi for Amanda and said that she returned to the cottage. If you read what Raffaele actually says you will see that it is nothing more than a hypothetical conjecture where Raffaele is saying that Amanda could have left while he was asleep. He also says he doesn't believe this is possible.

_________________________

Speaking of misinformation Dan, the oft-repeated claim that Raffaele was only making a hypothetical conjecture to the cops is contradicted by Raffaele's own words in his Diary. He told the cops not that Amanda may have done this-or-that while he slumbered---a trivial truism---but that Amanda had left. Period. Let's read what Raffaele actually said in his diary:

"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but
the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. ...It would have been better if I had done
nothing and had limited myself to saying that she had remained at my house."


While it's true that Raffaele says in his Diary that he can't remember whether or not she had left, the point is that Raffaele says he told the cops---during his interrogation---that Amanda had left. Period.

(Raffaele's Diary, in original Italian and translated English, is at PerugiaMurderFile > Index > In Their Own Words > Raffaele)

///

 

[Kaosium]

You must be having a conversation with others in your own head.

1. Amanda Knox never made a confession of murder.
2. All the cases linked to false confessions in this thread relate to someone who made a false confession of actually committing a murder or rape THEMSELVES.
3. Therefore, none of the case of false confession regarding murder have anything to do with Amanda Knox's case.

Get it?

No, I don't understand the reason for the distinction. It would seem even better proof of the phenomena that interrogation can cause innocent people to even more damning 'confessions.'

 

[Dan O.]

As for the picture of Amanda in the hallway in Rome, is that actually true? I came across a reference to that and I discounted it as being a mistake as it seemed barely possible.

I seem to recall that there is video footage of the picture on the wall in one of the documentaries and no official denial. Why do you say it seemed barely possible?

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you. Could someone just provide even one case where someone was convicted of murder based on a confession that they were only present at the scene of the the murder but did not participate in that murder?

I recall the case of Elisabetta Ballarin, who was convicted for the murder of a girl committed by Andrea Volpe (her boyfriend at the time).
Elisabetta was accused by Volpe in this terms:

"I called Mariangela - Volpe said - and I told her to come to Golasecca because I wanted to warn her, about the fact the others wanted her death. That’s why, when she arrived, Elisabetta was aiming the rifle on here. That was only to intimidate her. But then, after, we started to drink and to celebrate her birthday, we were all together. Elizabeth went in the kitchen to make some coffee, then meanwhile I and Mariangela we started to have a quarrel. Then I loaded the weapon and I fired".

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo224160.shtml
http://qn.quotidiano.net/cronaca/2007/05/17/11932-sentenza_ergastolo.shtml


Volpe killed Mariangela while Elisabetta was not there. Elisabetta was convicted to 23 years for the murder, and Volpe to 20.
Elisabetta claimed she was was in the garden when the shot occurred. In all testimonies, she never takes part actively to the murder nor masterminds. After the shot Mariangela was agonizing, Elisabetta and Volpe were unable to understand the situation properly being high with drug. They called a third person, Nicola Sapone, who arrived and he "finished" Mariangela with a shovel, and ordered them to bury her body.
Elisabetta was a contributor in chain of events which lead to Mariangela's death, events that she was part of before and after the killing, in which her role is maily not doing: she did not oppose the chain of events. Then she "covered" the fact and helped to hide the body.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why are you demanding to be shown cases of similar false confessions that have nothing to do with the case at hand?

There are no false confession cases that have any resemblance to the Amanda Knox case.

 

[Dan O.]

_________________________

Speaking of misinformation Dan, the oft-repeated claim that Raffaele was only making a hypothetical conjecture to the cops is contradicted by Raffaele's own words in his Diary. He told the cops not that Amanda may have done this-or-that while he slumbered---a trivial truism---but that Amanda had left. Period. Let's read what Raffaele actually said in his diary:

"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but
the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic. ...It would have been better if I had done
nothing and had limited myself to saying that she had remained at my house."


While it's true that Raffaele says in his Diary that he can't remember whether or not she had left, the point is that Raffaele says he told the cops---during his interrogation---that Amanda had left. Period.

(Raffaele's Diary, in original Italian and translated English, is at PerugiaMurderFile > Index > In Their Own Words > Raffaele)

///

Very fine. Let's not analyze this out of context. What were the three statements that Raffaele is referring to? What were the conditions when these statements were made? Are there recordings of those interrogations that would help us understand how the statements had been constructed?

 

[Kaosium]

I seem to recall that there is video footage of the picture on the wall in one of the documentaries and no official denial. Why do you say it seemed barely possible?

The context was she hadn't even been charged of a crime, yet her picture was hanging on the wall next to some of Italy's most notorious criminals. I assumed that CBS had just exaggerated the importance of it or misunderstood why it was there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I didn't see it mentioned very often in debates, after all if it means what CBS suggests it does, Amanda Knox had no hope at all in that trial, which was still more than a year away.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are no false confession cases that have any resemblance to the Amanda Knox case.

In fact one won't internalize he heard a terrible scream from the victim, so loud and disturbing he had to cover his ears.
To cover one's ears is an act identifiable with hypocricy. Don't want to hear, don't want to know. Don't want to be involved, don't want to intervene. This action hardly represents an internalization of guilt, fear, shame. The action of covering the ears expresses denial: Amanda suddently has a false memory representing her denial? It's odd, rather unusual. A confession of having been in denial, a false memory of a denial. It is a pretty strong image of ourselves, if you realize you were in denial or you recall the feeling of a terrifying situation expressing a desperate denial - like a horror movie, you can't wathc, you can't bear it - this kind of memory is anchored to a strong experience, shocking, physical, not easilly mistakable.

 

[Malkmus]

There are no false confession cases that have any resemblance to the Amanda Knox case.

Alt, two things:

1. I find it very telling that you have ignored my question twice now. Since it addresses the main issue of the circumstances surrounding the false confession and you would rather argue semantics I can only assume this is your way of writing off the issue since you know it's very likely that she was coerced into saying what she said.

2. I find it ironic that you choose to ignore citations of other false confessions on the basis that those people were talked into admitting more severe crimes than Amanda. In doing so, it only emphasizes the fact that Amanda was imprisoned under very dubious circumstances since her admission was only of being an (ear)witness to a crime, and equally odd that since others have been talked in to confessing to murder that it's somehow more difficult to talk someone into admitting that they were merely present during a crime. Your argument is nonsense.

 

[Dan O.]

In fact one won't internalize he heard a terrible scream from the victim, so loud and disturbing he had to cover his ears.

Fine. We'll write that down. Fine

 

[Justinian2]

In fact one won't internalize he heard a terrible scream from the victim, so loud and disturbing he had to cover his ears.
To cover one's ears is an act identifiable with hypocricy. Don't want to hear, don't want to know. Don't want to be involved, don't want to intervene. This action hardly represents an internalization of guilt, fear, shame. The action of covering the ears expresses denial: Amanda suddently has a false memory representing her denial? It's odd, rather unusual. A confession of having been in denial, a false memory of a denial. It is a pretty strong image of ourselves, if you realize you were in denial or you recall the feeling of a terrifying situation expressing a desperate denial - like a horror movie, you can't wathc, you can't bear it - this kind of memory is anchored to a strong experience, shocking, physical, not easilly mistakable.

Terrified people can't scream. Drowning victims can't scream. People with a knife in thier throat can't scream either.

Can you quote a reference to show that what you've just said isn't just pseudo psychology?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hehe SA's latest "devastating" video on PMF has identified the wrong kebab restaurant, as visited by Guede on the night of the murder. If he'd only looked about 20 yards further up the road, he'd have seen the correct restaurant - "Il Cedro" - whose name I even helpfully gave him during his weekend's "experiment" here. Nothing like getting the details right.... maybe it was calling it "Kebap" for so long that was the source of the confusion....

This is slightly condescending. SomeAlibi brough an invaluable perception of physical details of the place to those who don't know the location. He didn't mistake the cottage's gate for a muddy pool or 15 seconds with five minutes like Candace Dempsey.

 

[Magister]

Amanda Knox's testimony:

So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."
​

A leading question on a hypothesis.

 

[Dan O.]

There are no false confession cases that have any resemblance to the Amanda Knox case.

That's a pretty strong claim. Are you sure you are up to proving it?

 

[Machiavelli]

Terrified people can't scream. Drowning victims can't scream. People with a knife in thier throat can't scream either.

Can you quote a reference to show that what you've just said isn't just pseudo psychology?

It's my ritght to post my pseudo psychology here after other posted their pseudos.

However I guess you have misunderstood again something I wrote. What drowning people have to do with this? Why do you question - with what you would call pseduo science - the very fact Meredith could have screamed: what has to do with my comment?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

As for the picture of Amanda in the hallway in Rome, is that actually true? I came across a reference to that and I discounted it as being a mistake as it seemed barely possible.

I seem to recall that there is video footage of the picture on the wall in one of the documentaries and no official denial. Why do you say it seemed barely possible?

The context was she hadn't even been charged of a crime, yet her picture was hanging on the wall next to some of Italy's most notorious criminals. I assumed that CBS had just exaggerated the importance of it or misunderstood why it was there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002467-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I didn't see it mentioned very often in debates, after all if it means what CBS suggests it does, Amanda Knox had no hope at all in that trial, which was still more than a year away.

Here you go guys.

Says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_hq8lgw4vA

 

[Malkmus]

This is slightly condescending. SomeAlibi brough an invaluable perception of physical details of the place to those who don't know the location. He didn't mistake the cottage's gate for a muddy pool or 15 seconds with five minutes like Candace Dempsey.

Ah, okay, so since Candace slightly exaggerated the distance between two points, we're not supposed to listen to anything she says. But Some alibi gets the name of a restaurant wrong, makes up a lie about Amanda and Raf being LSD/cocaine users, and formulates the ridiculous notion that anybody who lives within 90 seconds of each other must already know each other - and that this constitutes a lie from Raf that he didn't know Rudy - okay, gotcha. No bias there.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fine. We'll write that down. Fine

Yes, I heared the original statement said by Amanda. And I read your quote. Do you think I should change my mind on this Amanda's comment? Do you think this particular answer of her explains things - or is consistent and credible? (and consistent with other facts, with her other statements). I don't.
I don't think "maybe I covered my ears" is a false memory, anything internalized.
And I don't think "maybe" was ever pronounced. Because "maybe I covered my ears" is an inconsistent, even more incriminating statement that couldn't be believed by the person who tells it, if is a normally rational person.
I also noticed how these nebulous/doubtful down playing logical words appear sevral times in Amanda's testimony, also on other points where they are obviously false and purposely inserted in a second moment, and are missing in a previous statement.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Ah, okay, so since Candace slightly exaggerated the distance between two points, we're not supposed to listen to anything she says. But Some alibi gets the name of a restaurant wrong, makes up a lie about Amanda and Raf being LSD/cocaine users, and formulates the ridiculous notion that anybody who lives within 90 seconds of each other must already know each other - and that this constitutes a lie from Raf that he didn't know Rudy - okay, gotcha. No bias there.

Yeah, yeah, but..but...he visited the shop (over 3 years later but hey) and looked at the layout (over 3 years later but hey) and er..took a picture (over 3 years later but hey) and er...erm...surmised that Amanda could have taken (STOLEN) a mop head and er...well...oh I dunno...

 

[Fine]

Very fine. Let's not analyze this out of context. What were the three statements that Raffaele is referring to? What were the conditions when these statements were made? Are there recordings of those interrogations that would help us understand how the statements had been constructed?

_______________________

As it happens, in a later entry in his Diary Raffaele answers your question....


"...that night and also due to the fact that in the
first statement I made I said that Amanda had stayed with me all night long, I must admit
[dire] that I said a 90% really stupid thing [grossa cavolata] in my second statement. And
that is:
1 that fact that Amanda persuaded me to say something is not true [è una cazzata, an obscenity] and I
have said so repeatedly to the judge and to the Squadra Mobile;
2 reconstructing [the events] I realize that it is actually very likely that Amanda was with
me all night long, never going out."


So, the three statements---or his versions of events that November 1st night---told to the cops are, apparently:

1. Amanda stayed all night. (Version of November 2, 3, and 4)
2. Amanda left. (Version of November 5/6)
2. Very Likely Amanda stayed all night. (Version subsequent to his arrest)

///