Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Ah, okay, so since Candace slightly exaggerated the distance between two points, we're not supposed to listen to anything she says. (..)

On the contrary. You should have searched everything she said, the discussions she had on her blog, her praxis as a jounalist of deleting and editing her own pages and posts time after she wrote them. Her way of participating to discussions and handling arguments. Her actual knowledge of topics she claims knowledge of, and above all the facts and details she is used to miss completely. Her stereotypes on Italian culture and local colour attitude towards characthers and reality of the story.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) 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.

I'd like to see where he gets a restaurant wrong, makes up a lie, and where he formulates tha notion that anybody who lives within 90 seconds of each other must already know each other. Because I think I missed this statements, but maybe I was reading PMF too hastily.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

I'd like to see where he gets a restaurant wrong, makes up a lie, and where he formulates tha notion that anybody who lives within 90 seconds of each other must already know each other. Because I think I missed this statements, but maybe I was reading PMF too hastily.

Oh, he definitely does.

1. The Kebab shop (in his video) where Rudy was supposed to have bought the kebab is the WRONG one - thoughtful pointed this out too on PMF.

2. He claims that Rudy and Raffaele MUST have known each other as his video 'shows' that they only lived 90 seconds or so away from each other.

3. There is another mention by him over the LSD/Cocaine use within the same timeframe he makes his claims above but I can't recall the page he has mentioned this - sure you will locate it quite easily there though.

4. He also claims that Amanda STOLE a replacement mop head the day she was supposedly seen by Quintavalle (spelling?) etc etc.

5. He makes several inferences too (such as insinuating that a male is a drug dealer in his opinion because he is standing between two buildings (see his video) and that he was offered hard drugs etc - a crystal clear agenda if ever there was one imho)

Ah well....

 

[Dan O.]

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)

///

Some day you are going to need to learn to count. That is only 2 versions with the aberration in the middle brought on by the intensive interrogation that was quickly corrected when his rights under Italian law were granted.


And on the subject of interrogations, it looks like Frontline is starting a series this week on false confessions: FRONTLINE "The Confessions" | Sneak Peek 1

 

[Danceme]

Let me take a wild guess here Dance, you're not a woman, right?

A box of tampons is in no way indicative that a particular person is having her period. How do you know those tampons weren't left there by the previous tenant?

Actually Alt+F4, I am a woman. and I think a box of tampons in full view in a new boyfriend's home is very indicative that Amanda was having her period. She wouldn't have brought them there if she wasn't and he most certainly wouldn't have left them lying around if they were leftovers from a previous tenant. That makes no sense to me, a woman.

Danceme, is there some reason (other than menstruation) to presume that Knox or Sollecito may have had detectable levels of blood in their urine or faeces? In the absence of any history of GI or urological disease, or recent abdominal trauma, this would not be an expected finding.

Apparently there can be trace amounts of blood present in urine, it's perfectly normal, and it can trigger luminol reactions.

He did say that. But, to me, that's an entirely natural thing for a non-culpable Sollecito to have said. After all, he knew that Guede had been on the run, and that presumably therefore Guede would have been monitoring the media. He would therefore have had every right to assume (correctly) that Guede had found out about the arrests of Knox and Sollecito before he himself was arrested.

Therefore, it seems perfectly rational that Sollecito would have worried that Guede might try to shift the blame (for the worst of the crime, if not even for the entire crime) to Knox and Sollecito - even if Guede knew they weren't involved - since he knew the police already suspected them of involvement (for reasons that Guede didn't even need to know). That would be an entirely logical gambit for Guede to attempt, and would therefore be an entirely logical concern for a non-culpable Sollecito.

Frankly I don't find it logical at all. A non-culpable Sollecito IMO would have breathed a sigh of relief and thanked his lucky stars Rudy was caught so the police could concentrate on the 'real killer'. His diary would have expressed this relief and the certainty this would all be cleared up soon. He would have expressed his anxiousness to go home and possibly to see Amanda again now that this horrible mistake would soon be cleared up.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

FOR DAN O. & KAOSIUM:

You may well miss my post for you both with the link to the video you were curious about. It is linked in my post #13836 on Page 346 of this thread.

Just saying...

 

[Fine]

Some day you are going to need to learn to count. That is only 2 versions with the aberration in the middle brought on by the intensive interrogation that was quickly corrected when his rights under Italian law were granted.


And on the subject of interrogations, it looks like Frontline is starting a series this week on false confessions: FRONTLINE "The Confessions" | Sneak Peek 1

___________________

Raffaele didn't blame any police coercion for changing his story. Instead, he blamed Amanda. In his own words (again):

"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."

///

 

[Machiavelli]

Some day you are going to need to learn to count. That is only 2 versions with the aberration in the middle brought on by the intensive interrogation that was quickly corrected when his rights under Italian law were granted.

What you say is strange, because in his diary he writes he is not sure about this correction. And he counts three versions. He also does this while writing under his full rights and never denied what he wrote.
Moreover, there was no suspending of Raffaele's rights in his last police interrogation as far as we know. He claimed no coercion, no threat, no mental confusion.

 

[Danceme]

___________________

Raffaele didn't blame any police coercion for changing his story. Instead, he blamed Amanda. In his own words (again):

"Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version...."

///

Just wait, there will likely be 3 or more pages of smokescreen posting on some extraneous topic rather than address this.

Raffaele did lie to the police and he said Amanda told him to. What could be the reason I wonder?

 

[Kaosium]

FOR DAN O. & KAOSIUM:

You may well miss my post for you both with the link to the video you were curious about. It is linked in my post #13836 on Page 346 of this thread.

Just saying...

Oh, I saw it alright. I just don't know what to say...

Thank you for digging that up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox and Provenzano, two trophies for ILE

I am unsure of what you mean here, other than Nadeau's objectivity is questionable. Which brings to mind one reason I didn't seek out her opinions specifically was it seemed both sides disliked her and complained of her factual errors.

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.

Kaosium,

My point is that it is what Ms. Nadeau chooses to write about (and not to write about) that makes me question her objectivity. The photograph on the wall has been discussed a number of times on this or the preceding thread. You can find it mentioned in Darkness Descending. Try searching for comments under my username and use Provenzano as the search term, and you will probably find it. The photo showed up at almost exactly minute 4 in a segment of a documentary on the case that made it onto YouTube. The documentarians were interviewing Dr. Giobbi, and the camerman caught the photo on film, IIRC. Amanda's photo is next to that of Bernardo Provenzano.

The impromptu parade is mentioned in Murder in Italy, BTW.

 

[samba]

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

This may be slightly off-topic (and possibly already discussed here), but in 1991 nine Buddhist monks were found murdered in their temple outside of Phoenix, AZ. Four men from Tucson confessed to committing the crime and were quickly arrested. It turns out that they had absolutely nothing to do with this crime in any way....zero connection. They confessed to murdering nine people!!

Seems to me that if the authorities could get that confession from adults, having a 20 yr old gal in a foreign country admit to hearing screams would be a piece of cake!

 

[Kaosium]

Just wait, there will likely be 3 or more pages of smokescreen posting on some extraneous topic rather than address this.

Raffaele did lie to the police and he said Amanda told him to. What could be the reason I wonder?

If you lie to and threaten two innocent college students about a murder they know nothing about on a night they were stoned they might just counter the lies with white lies to disassociate themselves from it?

Being as there appears to be a record of the interrogation of Raffaele, I'm assuming this was one of the sessions that was taped and was also deemed admissible in court going by the fact the judge commented on it. Is there a link to a transcript of this interrogation? I've googled and can find little in English on Raffaele's interrogation, perhaps there's something available in Italian?

 

[Dan O.]

FOR DAN O. & KAOSIUM:

You may well miss my post for you both with the link to the video you were curious about. It is linked in my post #13836 on Page 346 of this thread.

Just saying...

Yes, I guess I do owe you an obligatory thinks for confirming that my memory hasn't failed me yet. I was looking for another video to reply with and got distracted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false confessions and minimizing culpability

Alt+F4,

Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot confessed to a rape and murder that they did not commit. However, they named Otis Titsworth as the organizer and mastermind, thus minimizing their own culpability (Chapter 5, The Innocent Man). I have discussed this case several times in this thread, including today.

Frank Esposito falsely confessed to accidentally starting a fire that killed a number of horses in New Jersey. He was charged with arson, but he was acquitted when his lawyers proved he was nowhere near the stable at the time in question, by means of his cell phone records. In defending the seventeen year old Mr. Esposito, his lawyers ate $350,000 of his legal bill (I try to remember this whenever I am tempted to tell a lawyer joke). Inasmuch as arson is the intentional starting of a fire, he confessed to being present but not to committing a crime.

On a previous matter I am still waiting for you to explain how defense expert witness Sarah Gino could have possessed the electronic data files and yet not know the dates of the DNA testing. Howeve, Malkmus asked a better question; therefore, I would urge you to answer his question first.

 

[Fine]

If you lie to and threaten two innocent college students about a murder they know nothing about on a night they were stoned they might just counter the lies with white lies to disassociate themselves from it?

Being as there appears to be a record of the interrogation of Raffaele, I'm assuming this was one of the sessions that was taped and was also deemed admissible in court going by the fact the judge commented on it. Is there a link to a transcript of this interrogation? I've googled and can find little in English on Raffaele's interrogation, perhaps there's something available in Italian?

___________________________

The words of Raffaele are taken from his Prison Diary, where he recounts his interrogation, see HERE (scroll down to bottom of page)

///

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Citation needed, to put it very mildly.

 

[Dan O.]

The guilter community appear to be under some kind of delusion that false confessions only come after physical torture. They won't even watch videos such as this one that demonstrates the techniques employed...

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

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Frankly I don't find it logical at all. A non-culpable Sollecito IMO would have breathed a sigh of relief and thanked his lucky stars Rudy was caught so the police could concentrate on the 'real killer'. His diary would have expressed this relief and the certainty this would all be cleared up soon. He would have expressed his anxiousness to go home and possibly to see Amanda again now that this horrible mistake would soon be cleared up.

I simply do not understand the terrifying certainty with which guilters make claims like this.

How can anyone pretend that they know what young people they have never met, under circumstances they have never experienced, would say and do with such precision?

When these sorts of claims start sounding logical I really think that you need to take a big step back, take a few deep breaths, and consider that just maybe you are deep in the grip of confirmation bias gone rabid.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

My point is that it is what Ms. Nadeau chooses to write about (and not to write about) that makes me question her objectivity. The photograph on the wall has been discussed a number of times on this or the preceding thread. You can find it mentioned in Darkness Descending. Try searching for comments under my username and use Provenzano as the search term, and you will probably find it. The photo showed up at almost exactly minute 4 in a segment of a documentary on the case that made it onto YouTube. The documentarians were interviewing Dr. Giobbi, and the camerman caught the photo on film, IIRC. Amanda's photo is next to that of Bernardo Provenzano.

The impromptu parade is mentioned in Murder in Italy, BTW.

Geez...vae victis huh? Shades of Vercingetorix.
All I can say is that must be a cultural tradition, at least I know it has precedents going back thousands of years. I think I know why Nadeau excluded that information, it's the sort of thing that makes ones fist clench reflexively. It may be a good thing in some respects that first movie is supposedly going to be based off her book, an honest retelling of portions of this story might come across as 'Our Job in Italy.'

I'd seen it referenced on this thread, I just didn't believe it. Or maybe I just didn't want to.