• 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.
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.

But, Malkmus, it is illegal to provide the entire interrogation and bring it in to read it for comparison. The Public Minister is doing what he is paid to do: when he thinks a defendant gives an untrue statement based on previous declaration, he "cherry-picks" the part where he sees a contradiction and submits it to question the defendant, the court would judge after this confrontation. If you conclude there is no contradiction, this is jour judgement based on this point (a conclusion cannot be "give me the full interrogation"). I see different stories. I can't see how these two accounts on timings of the sms discussion can be reconcilable.
 
Last edited:
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.

Here are some of my favorite characteristics of lying:

3.Lack Of Detail
Liars’ stories often lack detail. Push for particulars. The more specific details that a liar has to provide, the more likely he is to slip up.

4.Uncooperative
Liars are noticeably less cooperative. They are also more likely to complaint, make more negative statements and appear unfriendly to minimize slip ups.

8.Inconsistency
Having someone repeat the story again will enable you to look for inconsistencies to ferret out lies.

9.Consciously Trying Too Hard
Someone who is consciously trying to make you think he’s honest may be lying. For example you may hear the phrase ‘to be honest’ more often than not. Generally, people assume that they will be trusted most of the time. If someone expects otherwise, take a moment to think.


13.Change Of Subject
Changing subjects quickly. A liar will definitely welcome the change and try to maintain the new subject. Their interests are clearly seen. An innocent person will appear confuse and may also try returning to the previous subject.

18.Over Formal Speech
Use of long words, painfully correct grammar and the full form of words or phrases that would normally be shortened, suggesting a scripted speech rather than natural conversation.

19.Very Few Gestures And No Pointing
iPhysical movements illustrating something being described is a common and natural activity.

20.Justification
Attempting to justify every detail with lengthy explanations.

Amanda tried to give Detail, cooperated, was consistant (except after the police lied to her), she assumed people trusted her, she kept to the subject, she did not use Over Formal Speech and even used her second language, used Gestures,
and did not attempt to justify every detail with lengthy explanations.

I give Amanda an A+ in truth telling, it's the cops that failed. You know the cops failed. (This is NOT the opinion of the Knox family or thier lawyers).
 
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.


Its very obvious in even AK's own words on the stand.

And yet again you seem to not appreciate that [as I keep pointing out] the lawyers have the transcripts of Dec 17 and more besides.
They are all shuffling to find the page - Massei even refers to this shuffling.

The case doesn't need to be proved to your satisfaction - merely that of the jury.
Nor do I see where AK's lawyers, who kept interrupting to protect her from 'tricky' questions, contradicted Mignini's reading of the transcript.

Or do you see that also ?
 
Last edited:
But, Malkmus, it is illegal to provide the entire interrogation and bring it in to read it for comparison. The Public Minister is doing what he is paid to do: when he thinks a defendant gives an untrue statement based on previous declaration, he "cherry-picks" the part where he sees a contradiction and submits it to question the defendant, the court would judge after this confrontation. If you conclude there is no contradiction, this is jour judgement based on this point (the judgment cannot be "give me the full interogation"). I see different stories. I can't see how these two accounts on timings of the sms discussion can be reconcilable.

I'm not crying foul about Mignini cherry-picking quotes. My point is that those two quotes of Amanda's he provides from December do not show any contradiction. You say it's a contradiction because it doesn't include the build-up to Amanda revealing that Patrick was the one who sent the message. But just because Mignini goes straight to that "moment" doesn't mean that build-up didn't happen in that version. Since it's not the full transcript how do you know Amanda didn't say anymore than that last part? A contradiction would be if in one version she said that she was cuffed on the back of the head by a female officer and in the other version that there were no female officers present. What we have seen are one incomplete version made up of a couple quotes from Amanda versus her full trial testimony. They're not different content-wise, just different length-wise - and only because we don't have the full December transcripts.
 
Its very obvious in even AK's own words on the stand.

Her words on the stand are: She was told they knew she was at the house, she denied that, they looked at her phone and saw the text to Patrick, they didn't know who the message was to but misunderstood it to be proof that she had met someone that night, then demanded that she tell them who she had planned to meet. They then showed her the message and she told them it was from Patrick. What do you see that is different?

And yet again you seem to not appreciate that [as I keep pointing out] the lawyers have the transcripts of Dec 17 and more besides. They are all shuffling to find the page - Massei even refers to this shuffling.

What is your point that the lawyers have the full transcripts? I never said they didn't. I'm saying no one here has the transcripts, yet swear that Amanda told a different version.

The case doesn't need to be proved to your satisfaction - merely that of the jury.
Nor do I see where AK's lawyers, who kept interrupting to protect her from 'tricky' questions, contradicted Mignini's reading of the transcript.

Or do you see that also ?

I never said anything about what the jury thought. I'm trying to assess how you and Machiavelli came to think that there is some contradiction when there clearly isn't.

What would Amanda's lawyers need to contradict? All Mignini established was that Amanda said the name "Patrick" after the police showed her the text message.
 
I'm not crying foul about Mignini cherry-picking quotes. My point is that those two quotes of Amanda's he provides from December do not show any contradiction. You say it's a contradiction because it doesn't include the build-up to Amanda revealing that Patrick was the one who sent the message. But just because Mignini goes straight to that "moment" doesn't mean that build-up didn't happen in that version. Since it's not the full transcript how do you know Amanda didn't say anymore than that last part? A contradiction would be if in one version she said that she was cuffed on the back of the head by a female officer and in the other version that there were no female officers present. What we have seen are one incomplete version made up of a couple quotes from Amanda versus her full trial testimony. They're not different content-wise, just different length-wise - and only because we don't have the full December transcripts.

On the contrary, it means there isn't any build-up in this terms in the Dec 18. interrogation. In the court testimony, for all we can deduce, this building up is a questioning that has the sms text as a subject for some time before the name of Patrick as a murder came out.
This discussion on the sms message can't be in the Dec 18. interrogation, because there is a space of time of only "one moment" between Amanda being shown the txt message, and her sudden "memory" of Patrick in her apartment.
 
Last edited:
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.


Are you suggesting that the trees become invisible in the wintertime?

Desperate. Very desperate. You're clinging to a sinking log. Even sans foliage they are still going to obstruct visibilty. Even more so at night. The simple fact is that the balcony is not as visible as the window, and that someone on a balcony would not be particularly out of place anyway, especially when viewed from a distance. Attempts to argue otherwise are rationalizations. They are not, however, rational.

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!


Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe you are the one who broached the topic. I have no reason to expect that there is any substantive difference between the two as far as resisting the efforts of a determined burglar with no reluctance to do damage.

In general, double glazing will not offer any significantly greater protection from a B & E than single glazing. Its purpose is to be a thermal barrier, not a security barrier. At worst, a burglar would have to break it twice.

Bang! Smash. Tinkle, tinkle.

...

Bang! Smash. Tinkle, tinkle.

As far as I can tell we have no reason to expect that the patio door is anything other than a regular, garden variety installation. I'm interested in seeing your sources for residential patio doors with impregnable security glass. After that we can move on to the evidence you have that such a rare beast is actually installed at the apartment.
 
On the contrary, it means there isn't any build-up in this terms in the Dec 18. interrogation. In the court testimony, for all we can deduce, this building up is a questioning that has the sms text as a subject for some time before the name of Patrick as a murder came out.
This discussion on the sms message can't be in the Dec 18. interrogation, because there is a space of time of only "one moment" between Amanda being shown the txt message, and her sudden "memory" of Patrick in her apartment.

Did the police know before they questioned Amanda that the text message was from Patrick?
 
<snip>

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.


What I'm referring to is - statements from the night of the 5/6th - as per this post
I've even edited my earlier post that you quoted here and noted the edit to avoid any further 'confusion'

You cant post them so why keep up the argument ?
 
Last edited:
Did the police know before they questioned Amanda that the text message was from Patrick?


According to AK ...

Yes

Yes

Ramble about something else

Yes

Ramble about something else

Babble

What

Ramble about something else

No


I may have missed a couple or got some in the wrong order :)

ETA The first & last [at time of going to press] are correct.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, it means there isn't any build-up in this terms in the Dec 18. interrogation. In the court testimony, for all we can deduce, this building up is a questioning that has the sms text as a subject for some time before the name of Patrick as a murder came out.
This discussion on the sms message can't be in the Dec 18. interrogation, because there is a space of time of only "one moment" between Amanda being shown the txt message, and her sudden "memory" of Patrick in her apartment.

Well it would only take a moment to realize who the message was to when she was actually shown it, wouldn't it?

And I stand by my claim that a shorter version of the story does not equate to a contradiction. Especially when you don't have the full transcript. In Mignini's selected portion he only mentions that one moment where she was shown the phone and what the police were yelling at her immediately preceding that moment. Yet we know that's an incomplete description of the interrogation - obviously the topic of the phone didn't start at the point which Mignini references. So to assume that's all she had to say about the interrogation leading up to that point is incorrect.
 
What I'm referring to is - statements from the night of the 5/6th - as per this post
I've even edited my earlier post that you quoted here and noted the edit to avoid any further 'confusion'

You cant post them so why keep up the argument ?

Those statements have nothing to do with what we were talking about. I already posted a link to Charlie's post containing the documents so I'm not doing it again. You lost your chance to have me link to anything else when you rudely called me a liar after I went through the trouble of giving you the link in the first place. Are you allergic to the search function?
 
Well it would only take a moment to realize who the message was to when she was actually shown it, wouldn't it?

And I stand by my claim that a shorter version of the story does not equate to a contradiction. Especially when you don't have the full transcript. In Mignini's selected portion he only mentions that one moment where she was shown the phone and what the police were yelling at her immediately preceding that moment. Yet we know that's an incomplete description of the interrogation - obviously the topic of the phone didn't start at the point which Mignini references. So to assume that's all she had to say about the interrogation leading up to that point is incorrect.



If you cant see she actually contradicts herself in the accounts she gives in the testimony in June 2009 alone, in the space of a few minutes - then the very direct evidence on the 18 mth contradiction will be harder to convince you of.

Not alone do some of us here see it , But so did AK, GM and GCM and the jury.
 
Last edited:
No.

Actually makes no difference: she is the one who claims she named Patrick first.

Machiavelli, do you think Amanda ever would have mentioned Patrick's name if the police hadn't misconstrued the SMS as being a rendez-vous with him and subsequently demanded to know who the message was to?
 
If you cant see she actually contradicts herself in the accounts she gives in the testimony in June 2009 alone, in the space of a few minutes - then the very direct evidence on the 18 mth contradiction will be harder to convince you of.

Not alone do some of us here see it , But so did AK, GM and GCM and the jury.

All you've done is post enormous chunks of testimony and stated "See there, she contradicted herself" without being specific.
 
Well it would only take a moment to realize who the message was to when she was actually shown it, wouldn't it?

And I stand by my claim that a shorter version of the story does not equate to a contradiction. Especially when you don't have the full transcript. In Mignini's selected portion he only mentions that one moment where she was shown the phone and what the police were yelling at her immediately preceding that moment. Yet we know that's an incomplete description of the interrogation - obviously the topic of the phone didn't start at the point which Mignini references. So to assume that's all she had to say about the interrogation leading up to that point is incorrect.

In the December 2007 interrogation, the moment when she sees the sms, and the moment when she has memories of Patrick being in the cottsge (she sees images of Patrick and so on) are separate by one moment.

In the court testimony, the same two moments are separate by a fairly long questioning in which the police had started to talk about the text, they addressed repeatedly the sms text and they ask her many times what he did, where they met (they tought this person had to do with the murder).

Close, by one moment. Separate by some time, development discussions and various other events.

Close (one moment)/distant (some tiime, events in between)

Do you see a difference?
 
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.


Beyond the use of Google Earth I have only looked at the photos from the sources offered here, which seem largely to be the infamous PMF.

After looking at the ones which were cherrypicked by Knox advocates for our bemusement I browsed around the rest of the images.

Link to PMF Photo Gallery

Link to folder of cottage pictures.

This is the best picture of the rear of the house that I have seen. Note that the upper window in this photo is the one into Meredith's bedroom. The PMF crowd seems to find it amusing that Knox had claimed to try and peer through this window from the balcony to see into the room, saved from a fatal plummet only through Sollecito's heroism. I find it a bit unlikely myself, since that window is at least three or four feet from the edge of the balcony. There is a bathroom between the two. Perhaps he could have grabbed her by the heels and swung her back and forth until she managed to get a good view.

This is a pic of the east side of the house with a better perspective on the difficulty of attempting to climb the balcony. It is immediately clear that even an accomplished gymnast such as Guede would think twice about attempting to essay such a formidable barrier. Especially after having knocked on the door of the downstairs apartment to make sure no one was home. No wonder he went for Filomena's room instead. It's the obvious choice.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli, do you think Amanda ever would have mentioned Patrick's name if the police hadn't misconstrued the SMS as being a rendez-vous with him and subsequently demanded to know who the message was to?

No, I don't think she ever would if she didn't have the opportunity. The police made a wrong hypothesis, and Amanda may have taken avantage of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom