• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
please cite your source

treehorn said:
1) The video recording is not the only piece of evidence adduced in respect of Knox's g-string purchase. The lingerie shop keeper testified in open court, no? Were you, like Nadeau, in the courtroom to hear him testify? Even if you were able to do so, would you have understood a word of his Italian? On what grounds are you going to impeach his testimony, Halides?

2) If Knox had gone to the Italian equivalent of a Target for some no-name cotton undies, your argument (the PR spin) would be a little less laughable. However, she took her sex partner (of 6 days duration) with her to buy a single G-string (and, no, the "G" does not denote "Grandma Undies") in a fashion that raised the eyebrows of a man accustomed to watching couples purchase 'sexy underwear' on a regular basis. Does THAT accord with your idea of 'grief stricken' or 'in fear for her life'?! Does it accord with your notion of an 'emergency underwear re-supply trip'? Get real: ONE G-string instead of a 6 pack of cotton 'Fruit of the Loom' to get her through the week?!

3) Knox entered an ex post facto revision of the title for her list of sex partners, thereby raising confusion as to the time frame. On what grounds are you asserting that Nadeau's interpretation is incorrect? What number would you prefer? 3 in 6 weeks? (By any reasonable interpretation, Knox was busier between classes in Perugia than she was in Seattle.)

4) The "prison diaries" of the 3 accused/ convicted are one of the most astounding aspects of this case. There is, in ANY jurisdiction you can name, NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PRISION. NONE.

Every detainee is advised of this fact. By the police. By the warden. By their own counsel. Repeatedly.

There isn't a self-respecting lawyer on the planet, in either the civil or common law systems, that would advise a client to keep a "prison diary"! It utterly vitiates an accused's greatest asset: The Right to Remain Silent.

Anything an accused says in prison, to anyone other than their lawyer, can, and often will, be recorded and used in evidence. Similarly, anything written can be confiscated and used in evidence.

That these 3 accused/ convicted chose to IGNORE the advice of their expensive counsel in order to engage in these transparent, self-serving attempts to manipulate the proceedings is FASCINATING to me!!!

Strange, then, that you, Halides, would now intimate that the POLICE were somehow 'corrupt' for "leaking" the diaries!
Click to expand...

Treehorn,

Again you are wrong (I have lost count on how many times); I did not criticize the police for the leak in my recent comments (even though whoever leaked this information is clearly way out of line for releasing private medical information). I criticized Ms. Nadeau for using a translated/back-translated, inaccurate version of Ms. Knox’s diary. I also pointed out that her use of the word “escapades” was inaccurate. I have previously pointed out that no evidence or record exists of Ms. Knox being counseled about the possible meaning of her initial HIV test exists, and I have also pointed out that it is uncommon to give patients the preliminary results of the HIV test (usually one waits until the follow-up test is completed).

(1) You seem to be claiming that the shopkeeper testified. If so, please quote the testimony. You have previously expressed a strong preference for courtroom utterances. (2) Do you have a citation for your claim that Amanda bought a G string? I have heard that that sexy underwear shop was next door to the shop that Amanda and Raffaele patronized.

Amanda had two intimate partners during her time in Italy. This has been explained to you before. It bogs the discussion down when you either put words into my mouth or revisit the same topic that has been discussed before, without adding anything new. Truthfully, I cannot think of a single bit of research you have done for this thread. That is not an enviable record.
 
shuttlt said:
OK Platonov. I think you're more hard line than me. As for as I'm concerned I'm content to assume that Knox claims the the 5:45am statement wasn't something she asked to make. She could of course be confused again, or lying.
Click to expand...

No shuttlt

I am being a stickler :) - OK just joking.

What katy did, you or I are content to do is neither here nor there.
I prefer direct testimony or court records where have them

At no point was this claim made or brought up by her lawyers during AK's testimony [beyond her general rambling claims of confusion pressure etc which apply to the whole 5/6th questra episode].

Cases are tried in court - later supposition about what AK really meant don't carry any weight - I dont mean to apply this to you but we have seen arguments here that directly oppose what AK actually said, this is a relatively trivial issue but the resolution seems straightforward.

.
 
Last edited:
moodstream said:
Your post reminded me. The Massei report says that there is clear bruising on MK's neck where she was strangled. Which I would think would have to mean bruises where the fingers and thumb grabbed the throat.

My question is, did anyone measure the distance between the bruises from the thumb to the finger to determine whose hand it was?
Assuming the answer is Guede's, most of the experts seem to believe that the victim was strangled first, because of the bleeding. If Guede is accepted as strangling MK, why would Amanda need to stab her? What would be the point? If Guede is already killing her, why not let him finish the job. It seems superfluous.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that measurement would tell you since most people are able to move their fingers and touch their thumb. It's call an opposable grip.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...posable-thumb-gives-the-human-hand-its-unique
 
halides1 said:
Treehorn,

Again you are wrong (I have lost count on how many times); I did not criticize the police for the leak in my recent comments (even though whoever leaked this information is clearly way out of line for releasing private medical information). I criticized Ms. Nadeau for using a translated/back-translated, inaccurate version of Ms. Knox’s diary. I also pointed out that her use of the word “escapades” was inaccurate. I have previously pointed out that no evidence or record exists of Ms. Knox being counseled about the possible meaning of her initial HIV test exists, and I have also pointed out that it is uncommon to give patients the preliminary results of the HIV test (usually one waits until the follow-up test is completed).
Click to expand...
My recollection is that the early extended leaks within a few weeks of the diary being written were from people connected with Amanda. Prior to that not much of the contents of the diary was known outside short snippets translated into Italian, and then back into English with varying success. Isn't Nadeau's problem that she wasn't being shown the diary by the family/defence/whoever?
 
tsig said:
I'm not sure what that measurement would tell you since most people are able to move their fingers and touch their thumb. It's call an opposable grip.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...posable-thumb-gives-the-human-hand-its-unique
Click to expand...

But in a strangulation grip, it's usual that the entirety of the flesh running from the thumb round to the tip of the index finger is in contact with the neck. This is particularly usual for a single-handed grip. Try grabbing your own neck with one hand as if you were trying to partially strangle yourself, and you'll see that there will almost certainly be no air gap between your neck and your hand at any point between your thumb and your index finger.

So a clue might indeed be obtained from measuring the distance around the circumference of Meredith's neck, and comparing it to the circular distance (i.e. the distance following the edge of the hand) between the tip of the thumb and tip of the index finger for Guede, Knox and Sollecito.
 
Mary_H said:
I guess it depends on your definition of interrogation. As you said, Amanda spent however many hours in the presence of police over the course of three or four days, and she did say in her e-mail and in a taped phone call that the police were applying pressure and it was stressing her out.

On the other hand, the classic heavy-duty interrogation seems to have lasted "only" up to three hours until she agreed that she had met Patrick that night. As you point out, they wouldn't need any more time than that, given her age and the circumstances. One question that remains, though, is whether Amanda understood she was no longer being questioned after the questioning stopped. Did anyone tell her, okay, we're through with you, we don't need you to say anything else? No, they probably didn't, because she didn't lose the feeling over the next three or four hours that she had information to share and that the police would gladly accept it from her, which they (Mignini) did at 5:45. It's possible she was under the impression she was still the object of an interrogation during all that time.

Amanda testified at trial that she was waiting to go home from the questura on the morning of the 6th -- she was just hanging around waiting to get the word that she could leave. In other words, she didn't get the feeling they were done with her. Nobody told her she was free to go, maybe they told her to wait awhile for whatever, or maybe they stopped her if she asked if she could leave. At midday, they brought her a bunch of papers to sign, one of which was her arrest warrant, although she didn't know it at the time. They took her to jail shortly thereafter, much to her surprise.

Essentially, then, Amanda was a captive in the police station from 10:30 p.m. November 5th onward. Does the fact that she wasn't aware she was a captive make a difference? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Unless she was hallucinating I'd think the lack of questions being put to her would be a clear sign that they were not questioning her.
 
shuttlt said:
Apologies, I realize I have conflated the letter she wrote the following morning with the declaration to Mignini. She does indeed claim that the discussion with Mignini was not requested by her. I can only blame this on a a momentary attack of stupidity.
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough then. :)

I now need to remind myself why the discussion with Mignini is called spontaneous. :-)
Click to expand...

I think 'spontaneous' is just an alternative translation for 'voluntary' here, so the declarations were probably what we'd call in English 'voluntary statements'. That they're often called 'spontaneous declarations' is most likely just because that's the most literal English translation: "dichiarazioni spontanee". But as a legal term, I think 'voluntary statement' might be the more accurate English equivalent (see the second translation of 'voluntary' here, for example: "Voluntary: [statement] spontaneo"). Either way, it means I think that the statements were freely given outside of the normal interrogation process (as you say), rather than being the result of a formal interrogation.

I wonder if this is the source of the confusion over Amanda demanding to make the statements, actually. To me, 'spontaneous' in English suggests she suddenly stood up and started talking, while the police ran around trying to write down what she was saying! (OK, so not that unlikely, given her propensity to say far more than is good for her :D). 'Voluntary' on the other hand has more formal legal connotations, and I'm pretty sure (despite AK's foot in mouth tendency) that's how it's being used here.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Ah, fair enough then. :)



I think 'spontaneous' is just an alternative translation for 'voluntary' here, so the declarations were probably what we'd call in English 'voluntary statements'. That they're often called 'spontaneous declarations' is most likely just because that's the most literal English translation: "dichiarazioni spontanee". But as a legal term, I think 'voluntary statement' might be the more accurate English equivalent (see the second translation of 'voluntary' here, for example: "Voluntary: [statement] spontaneo"). Either way, it means I think that the statements were freely given outside of the normal interrogation process (as you say), rather than being the result of a formal interrogation.

I wonder if this is the source of the confusion over Amanda demanding to make the statements, actually. To me, 'spontaneous' suggests she suddenly stood up and started talking, while the police ran around trying to write down what she was saying! (OK, so not that unlikely, given her propensity to say far more than is good for her :D). 'Voluntary' on the other hand has more formal legal connotations, and I'm pretty sure (despite AK's foot in mouth tendency) that's how it's being used here.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, if only all this had happened in a police headquarters with an abundance of video and audio recording devices.....

And if only this had been a major and extremely high-profile case, rather than some common-or-garden investigation where investigative sloppiness might be more excusable.....
 
tsig said:
Unless she was hallucinating I'd think the lack of questions being put to her would be a clear sign that they were not questioning her.
Click to expand...


In fact going by her own testimony [not the most trustworthy source admittedly] the cops eventually had to tell her to STFU the next day.

It wasn't admissible, was probably garbage and they were busy arresting PL, serving arrest papers on AK & RS & arranging what later generations would refer to, in exalted tones, as Dempsey's Mardi Gras.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
What does being a liberal have to do with it? Is this a legal argument, or a moral argument?
Click to expand...


I intended to use the terms liberal, moderate and conservative in their general, literal sense, not in a political one. Sorry for the confusion.

If she requested to make an additional statement, then I think saying she was denied a lawyer is misleading. That's all I mean.
Click to expand...


It was the legal responsibility of the police or the prosecution to stop any more questioning or receive any more statements without advising Amanda of her right to remain silent. They were then required to provide her with a lawyer, since that is a right that cannot be waived by the suspect. It was not up to Amanda to know her rights or to obtain her own lawyer. It was up to the police and prosecutor to follow the law.

Has this been proven? There's been time enough that perhaps it has been clarified. When I last discussed it, what people meant by "illegal" was "inadmissable". Did the police break the law in not having a lawyer present, or is it simply the case that under certain circumstances evidence gathered is inadmissable?

That isn't the same as saying it was "illegal", or that she was "denied" access to a lawyer. I'm perfectly happy for it to be inadmissable. Could you clarify the sense in which you mean illegal? Is all inadmissable evidence illegally obtained?
Click to expand...


The reason the statements were inadmissible was because they were obtained under circumstances where the law was not followed. That sounds like the same thing as "illegal" to me. It is probable that when Amanda is acquitted, her lawyers will sue for her to be compensated for being denied a lawyer during this period, if the law allows the police and the prosecutors to be sued for breaking these laws.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Unless she was hallucinating I'd think the lack of questions being put to her would be a clear sign that they were not questioning her.
Click to expand...

A while ago, I posted a long list of statements from Amanda's testimony, in which she refers to questions which were asked during the second interrogation which lead to the 5:45 statement. She certainly does indicate that questions were asked during that interrogation, and as Mary_H suggests, seems to still be under the impression this was a more formal sort of questioning. I'll try and search that post out.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
To wit, you've offered us NOTHING.

I believe the first time you stiffed us, your words were something along the lines of: 'another anonymous poster' and I simply presumed you were referring to a poster on THIS board.

In any event, that's TWICE that you've effectively given us NOTHING to support your claims other than the equivalent of:

"Some nameless dude who doesn't post on JREF said so."
Click to expand...


What's the big deal about anonymity, treehorn? You seem to be overlooking the fact that you are anonymous, while the person you are debating here is not. His name and credentials can be found on his website: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/

If it is so important to you that sources not be anonymous, would you prefer we disregard every personal opinion you have presented in this forum?
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahhhh, if only all this had happened in a police headquarters with an abundance of video and audio recording devices.....

And if only this had been a major and extremely high-profile case, rather than some common-or-garden investigation where investigative sloppiness might be more excusable.....
Click to expand...


Indeed - Or if only the defence lawyers dealt with this 'claim' or even brought up in court for AK to give direct evidence on.

But you have already established they were incompetent as indeed were Introna and the other defence 'expert witnesses'.

OR if only there were later 'interrogations' or judicial appearances which might have put the specific matter [PL accusation/Nov 6th statements etc ] to rest ??

.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
OK Platonov. I think you're more hard line than me. As for as I'm concerned I'm content to assume that Knox claims the the 5:45am statement wasn't something she asked to make. She could of course be confused again, or lying.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what Amanda did or did not ask for. The police and the prosecutor were bound by law to provide Amanda with a lawyer once she became a suspect, and to videotape any interrogations thereafter. It was illegal and unethical for them to accept anything from her when she did not have a lawyer. They can't claim a lawyer had been summoned and was on the way, unless he lived so far away that it took him three or four days to get to the questura.

On the other hand, it is fortunate Amanda did offer her statement, because it is the only forensic evidence we have that she was confused, ambivalent and had been yelled at and hit.
 
Ask Frank ?

halides1 said:
treehorn,

Frank Sfarzo was there, and he heard "Forte, Raffaele." End of story.
Click to expand...


Is this another one of Frank S' facts as opposed to opinions ?
[Not that I'm overly concerned with the actual topic at hand]

I'm still not quite clear on the distinction [which you made earlier]
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
I'm curious, why does he have to reach the latch at all? When the rock hits the window, breaks the glass and hits the inner shutter, does the window stay shut? Does the inner shutter open? I'm looking at the window picture and I can not tell.
Click to expand...

The staged video disputing the staged break in seems to have the inner shutters unlocked or perhaps the lock was forced, hard to say from the video

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom