Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I agree with you Justinian2.
Having been kicked by a police officer before, I remember that the only 1 who saw it was he who did it.

Alas, until any of the others who post here experience this, they will never really understand.
But I hope that this never happens!

In Amanda Knox's case, I can easily see a co-worker coverin' whomever's hide, so to speak.
But hey, that's just my own opinion!
Peace,
RWVBWL

It's good to know we aren't alone in the universe!
If the one cop that hit Amanda keeps quiet and the others never saw it, Amanda is going to be raped again by the Italian police.

The Italian prosecution should know that I am NOT influenced by the statements of the Knox family in what I write here nor am I related to them. I am a loose canon and the prosecution is the target of my right to free and truthful speech.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
GCM: Pubblico ministero, don't worry about the lines, please read.

GM: [reading] She said: "I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick."Suggesting, to use Amanda's words. I asked: "The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?" Knox: "The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him." This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn't know who it was--

GCM: Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.

AK: Okay.

CGM: Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?

AK: I explained it better now.
(..)

This that you posted Platonov, in fact seems to me one of the many Amanda's inconsistencies (lies).
Mignini shows that Amanda gave two different recollections of facts about the sms and her naming of Patrick, one in the December 18. interrogation and one before the court.
In one, she is shown the message only one moment before, than she mentions Patrick straightaway. In his court testimony, she describes how the police were asking about the sms for a very long time and repeatedy, they wanted a name, and she finally made a name only after this long process.

 

[LondonJohn]

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg[/qimg]

Note that this is hundreds of feet from the balcony. It is a momentary view, quickly obscured both before and after by intervening trees, and then intervening building. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that a brief glimpse of someone standing on a balcony is not exactly the sort of thing which causes instant suspicion in most people's minds. After all, that is what balconies are for.

At night? There would be virtually no chance that anyone on the balcony would be noticed at all, and it would be unremarkable even if they were.

Here is a different street view of Filomena's window than the one you picked out.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069f5f5d535.jpg[/qimg]

Note that it is only a little way down the road from the perspective you chose.

Why worry about ambient light (leaving aside the question of whether or not it was misty on the night of the murder)? What about headlights, which, unlike the approach from the opposite direction would be pointed very nearly at the side of the house instead of away from it? Pointed at what would be someone trying to scale the side of a building. From a fraction of the distance.

Can you honestly look at those two images and say that you believe that breaking in from the balcony would be just as conspicuous as the window?

I suspect that it might be relevant that these trees look decidedly deciduous, and the murder took place on 1st November, by which time the trees would have shed most if not all of their leaves. The Google Streetview car clearly passed through Perugia at some time over late spring or summer, when the trees were in full leaf.

Oh, and maybe when you've stopped laughing at my previous post, you could employ all your extensive building knowledge to actually refute my argument? I'd be grateful if you could explain the difference in strength and likely glass thickness between Filomena's window and the balcony door. Thanks in advance for your help!

 

[LondonJohn]

This that you posted Platonov, in fact seems to me one of the many Amanda's inconsistencies (lies).
Mignini shows that Amanda gave two different recollections of facts about the sms and her naming of Patrick, one in the December 18. interrogation and one before the court.
In one, she is shown the message only one moment before, than she mentions Patrick straightaway. In his court testimony, she describes how the police were asking about the sms for a very long time and repeatedy, they wanted a name, and she finally made a name only after this long process.

You don't think that it's at all possible that she became confused in her recollection of a hostile and traumatic interrogation? I would totally agree with you if this is just a case of the police asking her polite questions and her dropping the "Lumumba bombshell" right out of the blue. But what if this is a case of Knox being emotionally worn down to the point where Giobbi could apparently hear her screams and sobs in the "control room"? What about then?

 

[Kestrel]

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg[/qimg]

Note that this is hundreds of feet from the balcony. It is a momentary view, quickly obscured both before and after by intervening trees, and then intervening building. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that a brief glimpse of someone standing on a balcony is not exactly the sort of thing which causes instant suspicion in most people's minds. After all, that is what balconies are for.

Back up just a few meters from that view and here is a google maps image showing the balcony. Your estimate of distance is also off, the google link I provided is roughly 50 meters away from the balcony. The balcony is in full view of the road for at least another 50 meters.

But even if it was was somewhat better entry, why do you assume a burglar could not have chosen another way to enter the cottage?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

They might be better examples, but since the question is the comparative visibility of the two perspectives to each other I don't think that it needs a great deal of imagination to make a judgment between the two.

Yes. The road curves. It curves like this.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d06a98a21718.jpg[/qimg]

Note that from the east approach, driving towards the balcony side of the house, the road is already pointed about 45 degrees away from the building. It doesn't begin to turn toward the building until it is well past the point where trees and then the house itself obscure any view of the balcony. From the other direction the road is relatively straight towards to house until it has passed beyond the building entirely.

What's your opinion? Do you think that nightfall would make a big difference in the relative exposure of the two views?

Which one would you think was more conspicuous, if you were "casing the joint"?

Quad,

Do you know if any pictures exist of the back of the cottage? I just went to Google Earth and I honestly cannot come to terms with the choice of that window. I can see perhaps breaking that window to see if anyone was home but to actually get into the house through that window is really hard to square (for me) with the other available windows.

 

[Malkmus]

AK: Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was tellingme "Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you're not able to remember anything you've done." So I said, how could that be? And she said, "Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can't remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg..."

<snip>

GCM: .............. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven't really heard the answer to it. AK: Yes, sorry.

<snip>
GCM: So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun "him"? This "him", did they say who it could be?AK: It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying "Are you sure you don't remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message."
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene.
Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?

AK: Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
<snip>

GM: Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, "suggerire" means "indicate", someone who "suggests" a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what "suggerimento" is, and I...so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
?? Objection! Objection!
GM: On page 95, I read--
CDV: Before the objection, what was the question?
GM: The question was: the question that was objected was about the term "suggerimento". Because I interpret that word this way: the police say "Was it Patrick?" and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.

GCM: Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let's return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?
AK: So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

GCM: You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?

AK: To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember," and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

GCM: "Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather...

AK: But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

GCM: But they didn't literally say that it was him!
AK: No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."

GCM: So, these were the suggestions.
AK: Yes.
GCM: Go ahead, pubblico ministero.

GM: I object here on the dynamics, because here there's a contrast...well...per carita--[Brief interruption from GCM]-- From Amanda's answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this "Answer, answer," whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested-- [Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it's different in their version. ]

GCM: While the pubblico ministero is talking, let's avoid interrupting him. It's true that the pages are different, but still, if you can't find the page, ask for a moment's pause, don't interrupt the reading.

GM: So, on line number one, two, three, four...

GCM: Pubblico ministero, don't worry about the lines, please read.

GM: [reading] She said: "I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick." Suggesting, to use Amanda's words. I asked: "The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?" Knox: "The police were saying, 'We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.' And one moment before I said Patrick's name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him." This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn't know who it was--
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.

AK: Okay.

CGM: Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?

AK: I explained it better now.
GCM: You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.

GM: So, let's move forward.

I still see Amanda saying the same thing. That the police suggested the name of Patrick by demanding to know who sent the text message to her. I know what you would like the testimony to show: That Amanda thought of bringing Patrick into the conversation on her own. That simply isn't the case and none of the testimony you've cited shows anything other than what Amanda has always maintained.

 

[platonov]

This that you posted Platonov, in fact seems to me one of the many Amanda's inconsistencies (lies).
Mignini shows that Amanda gave two different recollections of facts about the sms and her naming of Patrick, one in the December 18. interrogation and one before the court.
In one, she is shown the message only one moment before, than she mentions Patrick straightaway. In his court testimony, she describes how the police were asking about the sms for a very long time and repeatedy, they wanted a name, and she finally made a name only after this long process.

Machiavelli

Indeed, that was Mignini's final point, which Massei noted the importance of, and pointed out to AK and was keen to have her explain.

She even contradicts herself during the few minutes that Mignini is cross examining here, as well as between the Dec 2007 'appearance' and this June 2009 testimony.

Hence my '18 mins & 18 mths' title

.

 

[platonov]

I'm starting to change my mind on this..........

Actually having had to try and make sense of & cut down to manageable posting length AK's 'testimony' (obfuscation and evasion) on this -- I am starting to have second thoughts on this 'cuffing' business.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of the cops or even the interpreter cuffed her over the back of the head or kicked a cat or something.

Indeed, the temptation to unholster a weapon and put an end to the babble must have overwhelming.

 

[Malkmus]

Machiavelli

Indeed, that was Mignini's final point, which Massei noted the importance of, and pointed out to AK and was keen to have her explain.

She even contradicts herself during the few minutes that Mignini is cross examining here, as well as between the Dec 2007 'appearance' and this June 2009 testimony.

Hence my '18 mins & 18 mths' title

.

There is no contradiction. Both Amanda's November and December interrogations show the same thing. That the police insisted they knew she was at the cottage, she denied that, they then took her phone and found the message, demanded to know who the message was sent to, and that she couldn't answer that question until they showed her the actual message.

 

[platonov]

You don't think that it's at all possible that she became confused in her recollection of a hostile and traumatic interrogation? I would totally agree with you if this is just a case of the police asking her polite questions and her dropping the "Lumumba bombshell" right out of the blue. But what if this is a case of Knox being emotionally worn down to the point where Giobbi could apparently hear her screams and sobs in the "control room"? What about then?

LondonJohn

You appear to be confusing her 'appearance' on Dec 17 and her court testimony with the Nov 5th 'waterboarding'.

The court were under no such misapprehension.

What if the court took notice of the 'fact' * [that I showed you before] that the Nov 5 and Dec 17 'interviews' produced the same 'frustration and confusion'.

* According to AK's own testimony.

 

[daydreamer]

This sort of illogic and cherry picking has been tried before. It still doesn't pass the sniff test.

From the road this is the best view of the balcony.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg[/qimg]

Note that this is hundreds of feet from the balcony. It is a momentary view, quickly obscured both before and after by intervening trees, and then intervening building. Then, of course, there is the simple fact that a brief glimpse of someone standing on a balcony is not exactly the sort of thing which causes instant suspicion in most people's minds. After all, that is what balconies are for.

At night? There would be virtually no chance that anyone on the balcony would be noticed at all, and it would be unremarkable even if they were.

Here is a different street view of Filomena's window than the one you picked out.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069f5f5d535.jpg[/qimg]

Note that it is only a little way down the road from the perspective you chose.

Why worry about ambient light (leaving aside the question of whether or not it was misty on the night of the murder)? What about headlights, which, unlike the approach from the opposite direction would be pointed very nearly at the side of the house instead of away from it? Pointed at what would be someone trying to scale the side of a building. From a fraction of the distance.

Can you honestly look at those two images and say that you believe that breaking in from the balcony would be just as conspicuous as the window?

More importantly , note that all those apartments in the background have clear view of the balcony.

 

[platonov]

'Martini - who do you see over there.. ?'

I still see Amanda saying the same thing. That the police suggested the name of Patrick by demanding to know who sent the text message to her. I know what you would like the testimony to show: That Amanda thought of bringing Patrick into the conversation on her own. That simply isn't the case and none of the testimony you've cited shows anything other than what Amanda has always maintained.

Yes, but you also claim to see transcripts statements from the Nov 5th interrogations posted on this site (when nobody else can) and have yet to produce them.
So I'm happy to stick with what I can see
[and what a rather significant member of the court seemed to see]

 

[Malkmus]

Yes but you also claim to see transcripts of the Nov 5th interrogations posted on this site (when nobody else can) and have yet to produce them.
So I'm happy to stick with what I can see
[and what a rather significant member of the court seemed to see]

Platonov, you've claimed that Amanda contradicted herself in her two interrogations. I used nothing more than your own citations to prove you wrong.
If you still believe that Patrick was brought into the conversation through any other means than the police demanding to know who texted her then please prove so.

Additionally, there are no transcripts of Amanda's interrogations that I'm aware of and having never claimed to have access to such things. If you're referring to her signed statements that Charlie Wilkes posted those are not the same thing.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

In case you missed it amongst the sudden flurry of posts tonight!!

TRANSLATION OF AMANDA'S SPEECH:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6654612#post6654612

 

[Kestrel]

You don't think that it's at all possible that she became confused in her recollection of a hostile and traumatic interrogation? I would totally agree with you if this is just a case of the police asking her polite questions and her dropping the "Lumumba bombshell" right out of the blue. But what if this is a case of Knox being emotionally worn down to the point where Giobbi could apparently hear her screams and sobs in the "control room"? What about then?

The interrogation of Amanda used the same basic techniques that were used on the Norfolk 4. Isolate the suspect from legal advice or any outside support, wear them down with repeated questioning, feed them false incriminating information and suggest they are suffering from memory loss.

The general public believes in repressed memories. Traumatic events cause us to hide our memories, but with special techniques a psychologist can bring them out again. There is in fact little if any scientific support for this theory. What science does tell us is that it's possible to give people false memories. A common technique is to convince the subject that they have a repressed memory, then help them "remember" the details. The subject's belief in repressed memories makes it easier to accept a false one.

The general public has a hard time accepting that a confession can be false, especially when the suspect comes to believe that they are actually guilty. (One of the Norfolk 4 sailors internalized his confession). So in this area, public perception is reversed. Repressed memory woo is accepted as true while a related but scientifically proven phenomena of internalized false memory is derided as woo.

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't think that it's at all possible that she became confused in her recollection of a hostile and traumatic interrogation? I would totally agree with you if this is just a case of the police asking her polite questions and her dropping the "Lumumba bombshell" right out of the blue. But what if this is a case of Knox being emotionally worn down to the point where Giobbi could apparently hear her screams and sobs in the "control room"? What about then?

I don't know why there are two different stories, what I know is, I can see there are two different stories she gave to explain why and how she named Patrick. One was told on Dec 18. 2007, the other in 2009.
Hence, her recollection of facts, being inconsistent, is obviously unreliable.
In her second story there is a whole additional narrative that goes on involving the subject of the sms and the discussion with the police about it, where in the first version this narrative is absent and the correspondent period of time is described as enclosed within the frame of "one moment".
These two different versions are both claimed and stated by Knox. Obviously they can't be both true. Thus, I can't help but conclude they are not true. The answer to why the story is not true, could be is a made up story, thus there is no memory behind it. Or, could be that you may prefere an innocent explanation, a trauma with hypnotic effects of erasing completely memories twice and fabricating or resuming precise but divergent memories at different times. Could be. If you want to believe it you are free to make this hypothesis.

 

[Malkmus]

I don't know why there are two different stories, what I know is, I can see there are two different stories she gave to explain why and how she named Patrick. One was told on Dec 18. 2007, the other in 2009.
Hence, her recollection of facts, being inconsistent, is obviously unreliable.
In her second story there is a whole additional narrative that goes on involving the subject of the sms and the discussion with the police about it, where in the first version this narrative is absent and the correspondent period of time is described as enclosed within the frame of "one moment".
These two different version are both claimed and stated by Knox. Obviously they can't be both true. Thus, I can't help but conclude they are not true. The answer to why the story is not true, could be is a made up story, thus there is no memory behind it. Or, could be that you may prefere an innocent explanation, a trauma with hypnotic effects of erasing completely memories twice and fabricating or resuming precise but divergent memories at different times. Could be. If you want to believe it you are free to make this hypothesis.

That doesn't equate to "two different versions". We have her entire testimony from June 2009 in which she goes into detail under cross examination about how Patrick's name came up. Then we have have Mignini in that same moment reading back a couple quotes of Amanda from her December 2007 interrogation where she states the "moment" she said Patrick's name was after they showed her the SMS. There is no contradiction. There is no "two stories" unless you can provide the full transcript of the December 2007 interrogation - not just Mignini's cherry-picked quotes.

 

[Fine]

Fine,

Ms. Napoleoni said that Raffaele was questioned from 10:40 to 3:35. She saw Amanda in the hallway around 11. There was no basis for arresting Raffaele in this time frame. The police went back to Raffaele's apartment to check his computer, etc. Also, Mignini would have to sign the arrest warrant. So Raffaele could not have gotten arrested in this time frame. It is worth remembering that this was a simultaneous interrogation, according to Dr. Giobbi.

_________________

Well, Halides, in Italy, apparently, getting arrested ain't so simple a matter as the cops telling you "you're under arrest."

I was able to confirm one important element of Barbie's account. Amanda wasn't asked any questions, the night of November 5th, until after Raffaele had changed his story. See Inspector Ficarra's court testimony HERE

///

 

[quadraginta]

Another thing, looking at this photo and knowing that the parking garage had an exit onto the road somewhere along the "other way" and if I was a Perugian driver, I might just be watching for a car to enter the roadway more than I would be paying attention to a house on the side of the road I had probably driven past multiple times. Also, isn't there a stop light at the garage exit? Another distraction.

I guess you're referring to this parking deck entrance,



which would probably encourage a cautious driver to slow down at the very moment when Filomena's window first comes into view, and keep them slowed down should a car entering traffic from it be making a right turn. After the entrance there are twenty or thirty yards left to approach the house, with the window in clear view for most of the way.

Obviously a conscientious driver is going to pay attention to the road, but that isn't where this part of the discussion started. It started with comparing the relative visibility of the two alternative means of entry.

I have not seen anything yet which has persuaded me that anyone with enough brains to walk unaided would choose Filomena's window as the best way to break into that apartment. Certainly not on the basis of visibility. Arguments that pursue the visibility line of attack have ranged from implausible to vacuous. That is what this recent exchange has addressed.