Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Solange305]

Depends on what you're talking about, some was pedantry, some was semantics. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very closely. Jumping on little mistakes and then pretending that is all that matters in an argument is pedantry.

Kind of like everyone here jumping on Comodi for being off about the time of the call? But I know, THAT'S ok, just not when it's Steve Moore.


This is from him talking on TV right? He made mistakes talking on camera sometimes, most that aren't practiced public speakers do when they start.

So Steve Moore's excuse from you is that he was nervous about being on tv. Maybe poor Comodi was nervous questioning a suspect in front of an entire courtroom and made a mistake.

As for the one about the food, well, I thought that was a funny way of saying she 'recanted' soon after they let her out of that room, which wasn't any two weeks later, that's just how long they took to release Patrick. I find your interpretation rather obtuse semantics.

Are you actually saying you think she recanted as soon as she left the interrogation room? You are wrong, she did not. She even wrote a statement backing up what she had said, from jail.

That's just an insult, and it says to me that Mary really doesn't like PM Mignini, as I've seldom seen her use such terms. I understand why she says it too, even though it's not how I would put it. It's hardly a convincing argument to me though, and I doubt she intended it as such. A smear usually entails a disingenuous statement or argument in my mind.

I dont consider what Mary said a smear either, and I respect her right to say it. However, TJMK and whomever else wants to has the right to point out Steve's errors, and they are not smears anymore than what Mary said.

 

[Machiavelli]

Note the complete statement by the Minisry of Interior, at the time Giuliano Amato:

AMATO - «Una morte orribile - ha commentato il ministro dell'Interno, Giuliano Amato - una brutta vicenda, in cui persone che questa ragazza aveva in casa hanno tentato di portarla a rapporti che lei non voleva avere ed è stata uccisa. Questa sembra essere la ricostruzione di ciò che è avvenuto».

"A horrible death, an ugly story in which, people whom this girl had in her home attemted to take her into having intercourses she didn't want to have, and she was killed. This seems to be the reconstrction of what happened".


Just to notice the last statement - questa sembra essere la ricostruzione - => this appears to be, it seems like/looks like, apparently is, ....the reconstruction (what we think, our scenario).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Viola

This type remark doesn't help your argument.

tsig,

Dr. Giobbi himself said that one of the things that made him suspicious of Amanda is that she swiveled her hips in a way that was like that of Italian porn stars. This occurred when she put her foot into protective covers and said something like Viola. She was questioned about this incident during her testimony.

Did you think I meant something else? Thank you for your concern about my arguments.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dubious discernment

To be fair it could hardly hurt it, its dead in the water to begin with - a swipe at the nasty cops that arrested AK wont make a difference either way as regards this particular argument.

.

platonov,

Dr. Giobbi may or may not be nasty. However, when he himself cites this behavior as something that made him suspicious of Amanda, I am forced to doubt his judgment and to question the judgment of those who promoted him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

so many lies, so little time

OK. There have been posts within the last week or so complaining about the police lying to Knox. There was some discussion that the police lied to Sollecito about what Knox was saying. The only that I can find off-hand is Kaosium two days ago:

"I was wondering if you could post the list of 'lies' Amanda and Raffaele are accused of telling. I keep hearing about them but the ones I've seen posted by those thinking them to be evidence of guilt always seem to be inconsequential or a response to lies told to them. I've never seen an actual list so I could judge them as a whole."

ETA: The one example of a police lie that Halides gave was their telling Knox her HIV test was positive.

Not so much of a straw man.

TomM43,

Either you constructed a straw man or you misunderstood my comment. The HIV test is one of many examples. LondonJohn provided some more today: talk of a bleach receipt and the Harry Potter book. Charlie Wilkes presented a list here a few months ago. I mentioned the fact that the TMB test had been negative but its existence denied today. Another lie was that Amanda was not called in on the night of the 5th. Dr. Giobbi said that he was mathematically certain that he gave the order to bring them both in. Amanda was apparently unaware of this order but came anyway. The pro-guilt contingent strongly debated this last example a few months ago, but I stand by my statements at the tme. And this is just off the top of my head.

 

[platonov]

Depends on what you're talking about, some was pedantry, some was semantics. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very closely. Jumping on little mistakes and then pretending that is all that matters in an argument is pedantry.

Kind of like everyone here jumping on Comodi for being off about the time of the call? But I know, THAT'S ok, just not when it's Steve Moore.


This is from him talking on TV right? He made mistakes talking on camera sometimes, most that aren't practiced public speakers do when they start.

So Steve Moore's excuse from you is that he was nervous about being on tv. Maybe poor Comodi was nervous questioning a suspect in front of an entire courtroom and made a mistake.

As for the one about the food, well, I thought that was a funny way of saying she 'recanted' soon after they let her out of that room, which wasn't any two weeks later, that's just how long they took to release Patrick. I find your interpretation rather obtuse semantics.

Are you actually saying you think she recanted as soon as she left the interrogation room? You are wrong, she did not. She even wrote a statement backing up what she had said, from jail.

That's just an insult, and it says to me that Mary really doesn't like PM Mignini, as I've seldom seen her use such terms. I understand why she says it too, even though it's not how I would put it. It's hardly a convincing argument to me though, and I doubt she intended it as such. A smear usually entails a disingenuous statement or argument in my mind.

I dont consider what Mary said a smear either, and I respect her right to say it. However, TJMK and whomever else wants to has the right to point out Steve's errors, and they are not smears anymore than what Mary said.

Actually Solange (& I don't want to get on the wrong side of a saber tooth, especially a female ) you trying too hard to be fair here.

Moore has been shown to be a liar or completely ignorant of the case - that hardly compares to Comodi's lies.

Indeed neither is Mary H's 'wild' remark about Mignini in the same field as the detailed criticism of Moore's argument.
They couldn't be more different on the grounds of relevance or veracity and the comparison is probably unfair to those who took the time to detail Moore's errors - they are easy to spot admittedly but where to begin.

I'm lazy - I'd just write him off as a clown or a vulture.

* For all I know Mignini enjoys the fruit of the vine - I wouldn't hold that against him.

.

 

[Kaosium]

Hi Kaosium,
On the fatefull night of Novemeber 5, 2007,
Raffaele and I believe Amanda Knox both were stoned when they were called into the questura.
I too was dumbfounded when I finally found that out!

From page 137 in "Murder in Italy" I learned that Amanda and Raffaele were at the apartment of a friend of his who lived near Raffaele,
and they were having dinner with them, trying to be normal, according to what Amanda said later.

The police called Raffaele around 10 pm, and asked him/them to come in once again.

It bet it must have sucked, for if these 2 are innocent of any involvement in Meredith Kercher's murder,
I can only imagine that they must have started to feel A LOT of harrassment from the police.

Let's see, you're hangin' out with a few friends, smokin' out, tryin' to relax from all the stress of the last few days,
and have started to eat dinner when the cops call you.
What does Raffaele do?
He answers the phone!
(Why did he answer it?
Why didn't he just let it go to voicemail?
This is not something a guy, guilty of participating in a bloody, bloody murder a few days earlier, and currently stoned would do, in my humble opinion!!!)

Speaking with the police, they asked him/them both to come in again.

What does Raffaele do then?
He then asks the police for more time to finish dinner!

Now I don't know about you guys and gals here, BUT if these 2 were guilty of any involvement whatsoever in the bloody murder of Miss Kercher, and they were heading over to the police station, you would think that these 2 people would have coordinated their alibis to match perfectly! Especially after continuously speaking with the police.

But Raffaele is sooo stoned that he forgot he even had his knife on him...
Think about this for a moment.
This guy,
-(when told to come to the police station for further questioning in a murder where the killer had used not a gun, but a knife to take the life of a woman he knew),
brought his own knife with him when he went to the police station for further questioning, while high! Wow!

1 has to wonder, how high was Amanda?

Though I have been smokin' out for about 34 years,
I can not even imagine how heavy it must have been to deal with all the cops interrogating and also yelling at them late at night while they were buzzed.

No wonder the cops got what they wanted before Amanda's Mom arrived in town the next day and they both finally lawyered up!

Now you folks will have to excuse me, it's gettin' dark where I live and so I am gonna head over to some bro's pad,
drink a few beers and for the 1st time in this year 2010, blaze a bowl of some fine herb that I know 1 of my friends will have,
all along with what I just typed out 1 finger at a time definately in the back of my mind...
Peace,
RWVBWL

LOL! Thanks for filling that in, and good points. I knew Raffaele was more into that than Amanda whom I've seen described as a casual smoker, but I guess it just never occurred to me either, especially Amanda, went to that interrogation stoned. I just can't imagine going to a police station on drugs, especially something that's supposed to make most people paranoid. I didn't realize they called up out of the blue, I thought I'd read that Raffaele had an interview scheduled and Amanda tagged along because she was afraid to be alone. I would have thought I would have read it somewhere as an explanation for the cartwheel, if not for why she ended up freaking out.

However I don't really know what the effects of hash are, I guess I figured it was just like strong marijuana which if I recall correctly lasts about 2-3 hours. It's not something I've been in a position to do very often in recent years, and was never all that much into it like Raffaele apparently was, just like a lot of kids in college and a little while afterward.

So if they got there at about 10 PM and Amanda's freak-out occurred at roughly 1:45, would it be possible she was still feeling the effects?

Geez, no wonder those police were suspicious!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

errors

If the only proof that Amanda was paraded through the streets of Perugia is because Candace Dempsey says so, well, we can tick that item off the list.

Kermit,

I posted some of Barbie Nadeau's errors here last week or so. Perhaps you could look at those and give us your opinion.

 

[Machiavelli]

TomM43,

Either you constructed a straw man or you misunderstood my comment. The HIV test is one of many examples. LondonJohn provided some more today: talk of a bleach receipt and the Harry Potter book. Charlie Wilkes presented a list here a few months ago. I mentioned the fact that the TMB test had been negative but its existence denied today. Another lie was that Amanda was not called in on the night of the 5th. (...)

The HIV test is an egregious example of innocentisti straw man.

Bleach receips and Harry Potter books all proved to be good news for the defence, nothing more than wrong tiny pieces of circumstantial evidence that were tossed out. You'd rather worry about what is in.

In the trial, police officers just testified they notice they always came both as they called only one of them. This happened the 5th too: the other officers just noticed Amanda came unsummoned. They noticed this behaviour. This could be meaningless. But certainly is not an argument for innocence.

 

[platonov]

so many lies, lets deal with one.

platonov,

Dr. Giobbi may or may not be nasty. However, when he himself cites this behavior as something that made him suspicious of Amanda, I am forced to doubt his judgment and to question the judgment of those who promoted him.

halides1

Your opinion is noted (that cops should observe the behavior of one of the 'suspects' in a murder enquiry is indeed a flagrant abuse of the rights of an American abroad) but I'm more interested now in the 5.45 issue.

Was Dempsey mistaken or mendacious or was it an error on your part.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

that dog won't hunt

Thats one of the things about this case thats so hard to understand. Right when you think you've heard something one way, someone else comes along and tells you the opposidte. Here I was believeing that she actually said that she 'stands by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick'

I know she said both of these in her 'Gift', by why does one side only quote the parts they want to hear?

Sherlock Holmes,

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewto...=39&sid=19ef4237483c195bc5962c570243e4a1#p650

Here is a bit more from Amanda’s statement: “I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.”

Her confusion is manifest throughout the entire document. This is supposed to be the keystone of a case which Judge Matteini thought strong enough to warrant precautionary detention, by which I mean detention prior to being accused. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a larger question

halides1

Your opinion is noted (that cops should observe the behavior of one of the 'suspects' in a murder enquiry is indeed a flagrant abuse of the rights of an American abroad) but I'm more interested now in the 5.45 issue.

Was Dempsey mistaken or mendacious or was it an error on your part.

.

platonov,

I would not be surprised to learn that the police claim to have given her refreshments prior to 5:45 (in fact it is my understanding that they do make this claim). I am saying that their claim is disputed.

I think you are missing the larger question, one that I raised many months ago on the previous thread. I am less concerned with whether the investigators stayed within the letter of the law than I am concerned with whether their actions advanced justice. Likewise, I am less concerned with whether or not Amanda were hit or denied refreshments than I am interested in whether or not she were interrogated in a way that would produce false statements.

To define abuse and to address these issues, I have been asking myself the following questions with response to the actions of the investigators:
Was the behavior likely to produce accurate information, or (intentionally or not) likely to produce an outcome where the person became confused or felt pressured to lie?
Was the behavior in accordance with the expectations of liberal democracies?
Was the behavior in the public interest?
Was the behavior proportionate to the alleged crime?

By some (not all) accounts all four (Knox, Lumumba, Prescott, and Spezi) were interrogated and/or held in ways that run counter to one or more of the four principles I have listed. Therefore, by this standard they were abused.

 

[Dan O.]

could

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik​

I wonder if any of the native italian speakers in this thread know what the modal verb "could" actually means. Have they ever attempted to parse this sentence or did they just accept it when they were told this was a confession. Maybe one of them can explain what they think it means so we can attempt to correct the misconception.

link

 

[Chris_Halkides]

casual

The HIV test is an egregious example of innocentisti straw man.

Bleach receips and Harry Potter books all proved to be good news for the defence, nothing more than wrong tiny pieces of circumstantial evidence that were tossed out. You'd rather worry about what is in.

In the trial, police officers just testified they notice they always came both as they called only one of them. This happened the 5th too: the other officers just noticed Amanda came unsummoned. They noticed this behaviour. This could be meaningless. But certainly is not an argument for innocence.

After the interrogation some police officers claimed that Amanda came without being summoned. Yet Dr. Giobbi testified that he was certain that he did summon both. My point is that ILE has a very casual relationship with the truth.

 

[platonov]

platonov,

I would not be surprised to learn that the police claim to have given her refreshments prior to 5:45 (in fact it is my understanding that they do make this claim). I am saying that their claim is disputed.

I think you are missing the larger question, one that I raised many months ago on the previous thread. I am less concerned with whether the investigators stayed within the letter of the law than I am concerned with whether their actions advanced justice. Likewise, I am less concerned with whether or not Amanda were hit or denied refreshments than I am interested in whether or not she were interrogated in a way that would produce false statements.

To define abuse and to address these issues, I have been asking myself the following questions with response to the actions of the investigators:
Was the behavior likely to produce accurate information, or (intentionally or not) likely to produce an outcome where the person became confused or felt pressured to lie?
Was the behavior in accordance with the expectations of liberal democracies?
Was the behavior in the public interest?
Was the behavior proportionate to the alleged crime?

By some (not all) accounts all four (Knox, Lumumba, Prescott, and Spezi) were interrogated and/or held in ways that run counter to one or more of the four principles I have listed. Therefore, by this standard they were abused.

That was a very long 'non denial denial' in response to a short [13 words] simple question,while still trying to hang on to an obvious falsehood.

1.45 or 5.45 ?

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two way street

That was a very long 'non denial denial' in response to a short [13 words] simple question,while still trying to hang on to an obvious falsehood.

1.45 or 5.45 ?

.

I already answered your question. How about answering one of mine? Dr. Giobbi testified that he heard Amanda scream. When did Amanda scream and why?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

four questions about the interrogation methods

platonov,

How about explaining how well the interrogation methods employed by ILE fit with the four questions I posed?

 

[platonov]

platonov,

How about explaining how well the interrogation methods employed by ILE fit with the four questions I posed?

No problem, but lets get this simple 1.45 / 4.45* issue out of the way first.

*Was Dempsey mistaken or mendacious or was it an error on your part.

And we may have to address the 'non summons' summons.

.

 

[Mary_H]

Do they drive the suspects through the streets in a parade, sounding their horns as they go? And do the police publicly announce the case is solved before the trial begins?

No.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The HIV test is an egregious example of innocentisti straw man.

Bleach receips and Harry Potter books all proved to be good news for the defence, nothing more than wrong tiny pieces of circumstantial evidence that were tossed out. You'd rather worry about what is in.

In the trial, police officers just testified they notice they always came both as they called only one of them. This happened the 5th too: the other officers just noticed Amanda came unsummoned. They noticed this behaviour. This could be meaningless. But certainly is not an argument for innocence.

If I was guilty of murder I sure wouldn't show up at the police station if I didn't have to.