Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Perhaps you will enlighten me as to the difference as to lying and false????

Go to Google and enter "false confessions."

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by TomCH
Perhaps it was consensual.

Or after she was dead.

Or tried to see if she was alive by groping her.

Or...

Yeah. Lol.

Murder with Rape/Sexual assault is funny now.

OK - for some apparently.

 

[capealadin]

You were wrong about Patrick's demoting Amanda. You misunderstood what Raffaele meant when he hoped that the real killer would confess. And now you want us to believe that the mitigation cannot be appealed? I think we have gone as far as we can go on this subject.

How about answering some of my questions, the ones you have been avoiding?

Halides: One LAST TIME: The prosecution cannot appeal a fast track trial verdict. Is that understood? I did not misunderstand Raff's statement: He asked THE REAL killer to confess, AFTER Rudi was convicted!!!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[capealadin]

Go to Google and enter "false confessions."

False and lying stand alone. Confessions is another google transcript. C'mon, Mary, I expect better from you.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H

Renewing the argument with you would not be a dream - similar but not a dream

You have already established that you know better than AK what she really meant and why she was mistaken [see here & here ] - I'm quite clear on what your opinion is.

But as I already pointed out, in the real world, courts, cops etc want to hear directly from the witness. Your translations or interpretations are neither required nor admitted.

I posted the link for shuttlt should he wish to check on the actual testimony.

I have faith that if shuttlt reads the testimony, he will see that it does not show that Amanda told her mother that Patrick was innocent.

The key phrase was 'any of them'.

Amanda and Raffaele have no testimony to offer against Rudy.

 

[capealadin]

The appeal addresses the evidence against Rudy. Why get vehement or vengeful? It would just reflect poorly on Amanda and Raffaele. As Justinian wrote, the lawyers call the shots. Both Amanda and Raffale spoke out for their innocence in court; they don't need to accuse Rudy in the process.

After three years, Amanda and Raffaele's stories haven't changed; that in itself should tell you something. The appeal is about the truth, not the technicalities.

Amanda and Raff can express their INNOCENCE all they want. That's what the guilty usually do. No-one wants to go to prison. Duh. They may not need to accuse Rudi, but Rudi accused them,, OOps. Their stories haven't changed? HAVEN'T??????? Where have you been, Mary? Their stories changed, umm, how many times? Now, of course, they're stuck with each other. What are ya gonna do? It's sink or swim, Hon.

 

[TomCH]

Of course not. My opinion is that the break in was poorly investigated. The white powder was not tested and could have come from the old white paint on the bricks of the exterior wall. Of course that would mean the break in may have have not been staged after all. The court goes to great lengths to point out the nail in the wall and I went to great 'links' to find a photo of that nail. Yet the court ignores what appears to be a nail broken out of that wall a couple of feet away. The court also makes a big deal about Filomena's statement that glass was on top of the clothes and fails to mention she also stated there was glass in the middle and underneath the clothes. The court also cherry picks her comments on the shutters, stating that both were pulled together based on one statement she made and ignoring two other versions:








My opinion is that the court picks and choses what evidence supports guilt and tends to ignore evidence that does not.

If you see this another way let me know.

Yes, I see it another way.

To wit, she closed the EXTERIOR shutters as best she could as the wood was swollen and they didn't close well.

She also closed the windows, but did NOT close the INTERIOR shutters!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Common experience would suggest that walking on that surface (as it was at the time) would cause to track soil around.

That's why we pointed out to you that your experience is mistaken. You were suggesting you have seen some pictures that could support your position. I asked you 2 or 3 times to share them. The pictures I've seen so far show ground covered with vegetation and dry leaves. No exposed soil or mud.

The "whitewash" theory is also going to remain out of the scope of a court. The white powder in the room is not whitewash (that "whitewash" in fact won't leave any powder, and its powder is impalpable, it is extremely thin powder). Although I understand that people who are committed in seeing innocence are availeble to just assume arbitrarily pro-innocent positions on all points even if unsubstantiated.

It's some form of dust and it's clearly tracked in by someone stepping on the clothes. The tracks are compatible with someone stepping in through the window. What is important is that it hasn't been tested. It very well can originate from the wall climbing.

If you think that you can substantiate your theories by looking at lawyer's shoes in a picture and think they are clean, and propose your common experience of gardens as an argument to me to assert it is normal there are no shoeprints and no traces of soil inside, or propose it to a judge who sees hundreds of burglaries every year, I anticipate this won't work.

Actually I used the lawyer picture to show you your error. You stated that although there was little to no precipitation the ground would be wet anyway, because it was always wet there, and the soil must have got on the climber's shoes. The photo clearly exposes your mistake.

I don't have to substantiate anything because it's you who claim that
1. The climber must track soil or grass on his path.
2. It's impossible for the police to miss such traces.

your 1. is successfully refuted by the photo and common sense.
your 2. is weak because: ILE missed and failed to test and record many other traces; apart from doubtful testimony there is no record of any search for the climber's traces. Photos show possible scuff marks on the wall, missing nails, dusty traces on stepped upon cloth pieces beside the window.

So your claim finally hangs only on the unsupported testimony while all the existing physical evidence indicates that the break in was real.

As for the judge, I don't know what judge you're talking about. If it's the same judge that believed that Raffaele persuaded Amanda to carry a huge kitchen knife for protection and Meredith fumbled aimlessly with her phone for an hour then it's not a very successful appeal to authority.

 

[platonov]

Yes, I see it another way.

To wit, she closed the EXTERIOR shutters as best she could as the wood was swollen and they didn't close well.

She also closed the windows, but did NOT close the INTERIOR shutters!

Yeah, I thought that was apparent from testimony/Massei.
ETA Or, from memory (mine not hers), she wasnt sure if she closed the inner shutters.

But much is made here of confusing the inner & outer shutters.

 

[Mary_H]

False and lying stand alone. Confessions is another google transcript. C'mon, Mary, I expect better from you.

Are you saying you really don't know the difference between lying and false? I find that very hard to believe. Here is an example:

At 9:07, you wrote, "I'm going out."
At 9:23, you wrote, "See you later."
At 9:38, you wrote, "By the way..."
At 9:41, you wrote, "Halides, keep up..."
You posted again at 9:42, 10:14, 10:32, 10:35, 10:39, 10:45 and 10:47.

Have you gone out yet? If not, were you lying? Not to my way of thinking.

 

[Justinian2]

I said:

That is why anybody that lives in the same house where a body (not dead by natural causes) is found is always a suspect; (s)he is always assumed guilty until being proven innocent.​

But then Guede was convicted...

As were Amanda and Rafaele.

So your point is?

Someone can only be murdered once.

The evidence for collusion is a cartoon.

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda and Raff can express their INNOCENCE all they want. That's what the guilty usually do. No-one wants to go to prison. Duh. They may not need to accuse Rudi, but Rudi accused them,, OOps. Their stories haven't changed? HAVEN'T??????? Where have you been, Mary? Their stories changed, umm, how many times? Now, of course, they're stuck with each other. What are ya gonna do? It's sink or swim, Hon.

capealadin, what is it about this concise response by halides1 that you object to? Can you offer any concrete, forensic evidence to the contrary?

"The pro-guilt commenters often talk about Amanda’s or Raffaele’s multiple versions. In reality both had two basic versions of what happened, what they said on the night of November 5th-6th and what they said before and after."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6639255&postcount=19338

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by TomCH View Post
Yes, I see it another way.

To wit, she closed the EXTERIOR shutters as best she could as the wood was swollen and they didn't close well.

She also closed the windows, but did NOT close the INTERIOR shutters!

Yeah, I thought that was apparent from testimony/Massei.
ETA Or, from memory (mine not hers), she wasnt sure if she closed the inner shutters.

But much is made here of confusing the inner & outer shutters.

I agree that Massei states she pulled the outer shutters tight (to the wood rub). That was the point I was making. The appeal refers to testimony (that I do not have) that states she left one of them open, and Micheli refers to testimony that she was not sure if she pulled them closed or left them open. It seems certain that we are talking exterior shutters with all three quotes.

The point is (again), Massei ignores the two other versions, without even mentioning them, to go with the version that fits the theory of a staged break in the best.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lying versus speaking falsely

Perhaps you will enlighten me as to the difference as to lying and false????

capealadin,

To speak falsely means to say something that is untrue. To lie requires that one knows that what one is saying is untrue. At least one of the Norfolk Four believed that he was culpable for some time after his interrogation. The facts of the case showed otherwise.

 

[Katody Matrass]

By a general rule, might be useful to know that I don't quitely accept anything. As long as I am quiet, this means my position has remained unchanged. When I change opinion I always declare it very clearly. In this case, the responses I read could only confirm my previous opinion, because of the weaknesses of the counter points.

Fair enough, you pointed out what you think suggest the break in was staged, I refuted your points one by one. If you see some errors in my reasoning you're free to point them out anytime you wish.

And, I still don't know why you believe the burglary was not staged. Because one thing is have concerns on points, like having a doubt on a testimony. One thing is being sure of the opposite.

I think I listed some exemplary reasons a post or two before.
Of course there is always a possibility that the staging was so perfect it is indistinguishable from the real deal. But the main point remains that by assuming staged break in I cannot see any scenario that would incorporate all of the known evidence. Any attempt of constructing it that I saw piles so many doubtful assumptions (starting with assumptions about the break in itself) that it quickly becomes quite unbelievable.
It wouldn't be so harmful for the guilt theory if there was no alternative.
But the mundane break-in gone wrong scenario has no such problems. Evidence clearly fits and explains the dynamics of the crime. The break-in with a rock points to Rudy, not flushed feces and Meredith's broken call shows she interrupted the break-in and was subsequently attacked etc. ToD that could be inferred from it doesn't defy logic. Crime scene evidence strongly points to Rudy alone, while all of the forensic evidence^*) against AK and RS surfaced only after they were arrested and all of it is disputable and doubtful.

As a neautral person is concerned about a point of suspicion, would ask for futher investigation and search in order to find further elements to confirm or disprove.

If I'm not mistaken that's what the defense is asking for. Apparently they are quite confident it will help them. It's the prosecution and investigators that were uninterested in anything apart from what could have helped their theory.

*) Apart from the bathroom DNA, but it is not something I could consider with a straight face.

 

[katy_did]

Some of the colpevolisti "brighter lights" jumped ship from JREF awhile back. Michael/Fulcanelli encouraged them to stay away after JREF suspended him. Now he writes to us from over at PMF.

Indeed.

In your quote Amanda is referring to the first statement before she was made a suspect.

No. She's talking about the second statement.

LG: All right, I've finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have a lawyer.

She gave the first statement, Mignini came, and then they asked her to make further statements. At that point, she says, she "was lost after hours and hours of the same thing". Unless you believe she's talking about her homework, she's clearly referring to questioning she had just undergone.

I've still seen no evidence that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard and that Mignini was dragged out of his warm bed in order to hear her (this all seems to be imaginative embellishment based purely on the word 'voluntary'). That seems a little unlikely, given the circumstances, and is specifically contradicted by Amanda's trial testimony. That the statement was 'voluntary' doesn't necessarily mean she demanded to make it (not, at least, purely on the basis of the term); people can voluntarily agree to make a statement, or - to use another example - they can voluntarily allow the police to search their house, rather than waiting for a search warrant to be issued. But that's hardly the same thing as inviting the police round for a raid and a cup of coffee.

This is obviously a legal term (and isn't simply 'interchangeable' with another, as you suggest - I doubt it was ILE who referred to the statement variously as 'voluntary' and 'unsolicited', but rather the translators who rendered the term differently) and I'm interested to know the specifics of it. So if you have a source to support your claim that overtired Mignini was dragged from his bed at Amanda's request - especially if some of those sources discuss the legal implications of this particular kind of statement - then I'd be very interested to read and discuss them; it would be good to get to the bottom of this, one way or another. On here, please, so that I don't have to skim the personal attacks on PMF in order to read responses to something I posted in a place I'm unable to reply to them (you are no longer suspended on JREF, I believe).

 

[RoseMontague]

Looking at the Micheli quote again, I notice something that I may have missed on the first visit:

His memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but with your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. who was celebrating his birthday), but was then removed in a hurry because he was already late.

This state of being "in a hurry" could account for at least some of the mess in the room. What clothes to wear, last minute makeup, running late with no time to tidy up, etc.

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,

Any chance that you could be a little more specific, perhaps a particular piece of evidence?

Seems each time an inaccuracy is pointed out, such as the availability of Appeal under Italian fast track, the slippery replies never address the inaccuracy or attempt correction, but always conclude with yet again this same type challenge to the poster who did little more than attempt to insure that the tenets of evidence based scientific skepticism are adhered to


With gratitude to some very astute, non sharp elbowed posters here and well versed others elsewhere, I do consider some pieces of evidence to be less convincing than others.
Some are indeed worthy of more careful examination by a Defense team executing their due responsibility to their clients.
Thus, the Appeal process.

However, at this time, I find the overall composite of all the evidence to paint a very compelling picture of the overwhelming guilt of all 3 defendants, as did each and every the dozens of judges and jurists to date .

Belaboring my personal strong and weak evidential parts here IMHO would be very repetitive and ultimately non productive to you or myself.

Entering this type discourse admittedly from past experience would give the very vocal verbose and bellicose 'sharp elbowed' few here yet another opportunity to regurgitate again the tired refrains about mole whacking, authority bias, BLAH, BLAH, as well as a podium to pontificate pious personally deemed game changing 'killer points', most of which do not even rate a line in the Appeal.

My choice is to deny that opportunity and avoid the inevitable but preventable common anguish.

 

[platonov]

Indeed.



No. She's talking about the second statement.



She gave the first statement, Mignini came, and then they asked her to make further statements. At that point, she says, she "was lost after hours and hours of the same thing". Unless you believe she's talking about her homework, she's clearly referring to questioning she had just undergone.

I've still seen no evidence that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard and that Mignini was dragged out of his warm bed in order to hear her (this all seems to be imaginative embellishment based purely on the word 'voluntary'). Under the circumstances, that seems a little unlikely, and is of course specifically contradicted by Amanda's trial testimony. That the statement was 'voluntary' does not necessarily mean she demanded to make it; people can voluntarily agree to make a statement, or - to use another example - they can voluntarily allow the police to search their house, rather than waiting for a search warrant to be issued. But that's hardly the same thing as inviting the police round for a raid and a cup of coffee.

This is obviously a legal term (and isn't simply 'interchangeable' with another, as you suggest - I doubt it was ILE who referred to the statement variously as 'voluntary' and 'unsolicited', but rather the translators who rendered the term differently) and I'm interested to know the specifics of it. So if you have a source to support your claim that overtired Mignini was dragged from his bed at Amanda's request - especially if some of those sources discuss the legal implications of this particular kind of statement - then I'd be very interested to read and discuss them; it would be good to get to the bottom of this, one way or another. On here, please, so that I don't have to skim the personal attacks on PMF in order to read responses to something I posted in a place I'm unable to reply to them (you are no longer suspended on JREF, I believe).

While you are waiting for Fulcanelli to respond you can quote/post the relevant testimony here in response to this post of mine.

We already have your supposition......Lets see the evidence from the trial.
If all you have is the earlier quote - then you have nothing to back this up.

That's precisely what I'm getting at.

Leaving aside her generalised 'confusion'/conflation about the whole 1.45 / 5.45 thing - about the whole 5/6th questra episode in fact...Where does AK or more importantly the defence lawyers make the claim [via a direct question for example] that the idea for the later 'spontaneous declarations' came from the cops or Mignini.

Surely her lawyers would have brought it up - as opposed to waiting for katy did to make the supposition on JREF/the net after the fact

I dont see it.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
I've still seen no evidence that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard and that Mignini was dragged out of his warm bed in order to hear her (this all seems to be imaginative embellishment based purely on the word 'voluntary'). That seems a little unlikely, given the circumstances, and is specifically contradicted by Amanda's trial testimony. That the statement was 'voluntary' doesn't necessarily mean she demanded to make it (not, at least, purely on the basis of the term); people can voluntarily agree to make a statement, or - to use another example - they can voluntarily allow the police to search their house, rather than waiting for a search warrant to be issued. But that's hardly the same thing as inviting the police round for a raid and a cup of coffee.<snip>

Katy, Fulcanelli and I discussed this very subject back in October. There is more to it than what I have edited it down to here; if you want to see the whole exchange, I've supplied the links.

Mary: Is there some evidence somewhere that Amanda demanded to make a statement at 5:45 a.m, which led to Mignini being called to the station to hear it? As I recall, Mignini has said in the past that he did not question Amanda, because once she placed herself at the crime scene at the 1:45 interrogation, she was a suspect but had no attorney. According to trial testimony and questioning, though, he did question her at 5:45.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6432848&postcount=10450

Mary: 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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6432941&postcount=10470

Mary: Maybe Amanda's lawyers never knew there was anybody out here in blogland who was making such a claim.

Okay, so from here on out, we all agree that the only evidence for the claim that Amanda demanded to make a voluntary statement following her 1:45 a.m. interrogation, which required the presence of Giuliano Mignini and which ended at 5:45 a.m., is the word of two biased guilters, Fulcanelli and Machiavelli, neither of whom can provide any documentation for the claim.

In other words, there is no evidence that Amanda asked to make an additional voluntary statement following her 1:45 a.m. interrogation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433095&postcount=10497

Fulcanelli: It isn't being made in blogland, it was made in the courts and in the legal documentation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433128&postcount=263

Mary: Then where is it?

Fulcanelli: Okay, enough whining: PROSECUTOR GIULIANO MIGNINI E-MAIL
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433160&postcount=266

Mary: Well, FINALLY. THANK you.

I do see Mignini's statement in his e-mail to Linda Byron. However, I recall a claim that, "It isn't being made in blogland, it was made in the courts and in the legal documentation."

Got any of that?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433194&postcount=267

(No, he did not.)