Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

LINKS can be 'clicked on'

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?

False
No Malkmus, that wont do, that's precisely what we were referring to -- the word 'post' in my post above is actually a LINK

Anybody can click on the LINK and then click on the top right corner of the single post to see exactly what we discussed.

What do you hope to achieve with this argument ??

But as a result of this (mendacious or confused ?? ) argument -- I will leave your arguments on the AK testimony that I posted, in the hands of Machiavelli or another poster - should he/they chose to deal with them.

 

[quadraginta]

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


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21921http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/436054d06bec29d35c.jpg

Even if true (though I expect that "all those apartments" is something of an exaggeration) it is unclear exactly why someone on a balcony should be cause for alarm. Perhaps they serve a different function in Europe. Over here people go out on them with surprising regularity. Almost as if that was what they were meant for.

 

[platonov]

Even if true (though I expect that "all those apartments" is something of an exaggeration) it is unclear exactly why someone on a balcony should be cause for alarm. Perhaps they serve a different function in Europe. Over here people go out on them with surprising regularity. Almost as if that was what they were meant for.

I can confirm, that in both new and old Europe, this is also the case.

Often indeed, to catch the last rays of the setting sun - lest the new Orb should be insulted on its sisters behalf and refuse to put in an appearance on the morrow.

 

[Malkmus]

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?

What Mignini chose to read of Knox's statements from the December 17 interrogation shows no mention of the visions of Patrick. So I'm puzzled why you are contrasting the mention of such visions between the two interrogations when it wasn't even mentioned. Here again is what Mignini read in court:

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--

See? No mention of the visions. It ends before it gets to that part. So how are you assessing the amount of time between the SMS and the visions when it wasn't mentioned?

And to reiterate my earlier notion that you and Platonov are seeing a incomplete version of her statements from the December 17 interrogation here is this excerpt from the June 2009 testimony:

CDV: Avvocato dalla Vedova. I wanted to start the examination again by talking about the interrogation of December 17, 2007.
AK: Okay.

CDV: In front of the pubblico ministero. You remember that the interrogation
took place in prison.

AK: Yes.

CDV: And what language were you speaking on that occasion

AK: I spoke English with the help of an interpreter who explained to me
what the pubblico ministero was saying.

CDV: Was the interpreter by any chance a certain Giulia Clemish, Austrian
citizen?

AK: I suppose she was, but I don't remember her name.

CDV: Were you satisfied with the translation from Italian into English and back, during the interrogation?
GCM: Excuse me, first can you explain if you were able to evaluate the
translation? Were you able to tell whether the translation was exact or
not? Whether it corresponded?

AK: No. I was quite frustrated with her, because she would take something I said in a hundred words and say it in two, and then she used words that weren't right, and then she forgot to tell me things that the pubblico
ministero had said. There was a lot of confusion.

CDV: How long did that interrogation last? Do you remember?

AK: At least six or seven hours.

So, you see it is likely that there is more to her explanation of the interrogation than what Mignini mentioned. In fact, here is a bit more.

This is from an Italian news program that aired audio of the December 17th interrogation.

AK: The reason I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick. They told me about - they kept saying, “His message , you sent a message to Patrick”.

GM: [Perche lei si e lanciata in un accusa di questo tipo?”] Google translation: Because you launched in to an accusation of this type?

AK: Because I thought it might be true.

GM: How could it be true?

AK: I said that because I had imagined him. Police were telling me that “We know you were at your house. We know you left the house.” Someone was showing me the message that I was sent on the phone. I couldn’t understand why they were telling me that I was lying”...

..."I was stressed. I was scared. It was after long hours. It was the middle of the night. (starts to cry) I was innocent and they were telling me I was guilty.

GM: We acknowledge that the suspect is crying.

In the audio she mentions the SMS before being shown the phone. In the trial testimony that Mignini reads there is no mention of the SMS until she is shown the phone. See what i mean by "incomplete"?

 

[Malkmus]

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.

But even after it was established that Patrick was the recipient of the SMS it took the translator convincing her that she was traumatized to remember going to the cottage with Patrick. This means that between the SMS and memory of going to the cottage with Patrick there was an effort made by Amanda to deny ever having been there with Patrick.

 

[Malkmus]

False
No Malkmus, that wont do, that's precisely what we were referring to -- the word 'post' in my post above is actually a LINK

Anybody can click on the LINK and then click on the top right corner of the single post to see exactly what we discussed.

Platonov, we were discussing Amanda Knox's trial testimony from June 2009 and her December 17th interrogation. I said I saw no difference between the two versions of her story and you decide to evade the topic by reverting back to our discussion of Amanda's signed statements from November 6th which had nothing to do with our current conversation.

What do you hope to achieve with this argument ??

But as a result of this (mendacious or confused ?? ) argument -- I will leave your arguments on the AK testimony that I posted, in the hands of Machiavelli or another poster - should he/they chose to deal with them.

Of course you will. You evaded it the first time by diverting the topic back to the signed statements from November 6th and now you're evading it completely by telling me to just discuss it with Machiavelli. If you truly cared about getting those documents you would simply click on the link I posted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6646282#post6646282

Your response to that was this:

There are about 50 links [all to dubious sites one dubious site*] in that post - which one

*But I will definitely check it out.

ETA Let me guess - its the zip file ?

So, you've acknowledged the link and Charlie's zip file named "Amanda's signed statements" but you haven't downloaded it because you'd rather argue for no reason.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.

This is the window I would have chosen however in the picture I have the shutter is closed and you cannot tell there are bars behind it.

But this makes me think of another issue. If Rudy would have initially chosen an easier window I wonder if there was any evidence of him having first attempted a different entry point and abandoned the approach. For example, if I had been Rudy and chosen "my" window of choice, I would have opened the shutter only to have discovered the bars. I have not read anything about a possible attempt at any other entry point (and I have read this whole thread - old one too - and the Massei Report, albeit over a 6-month span.)

Perhaps Rudy did attempt a seemingly simpler entry point but was foiled by bars or some other obstacle. Just possibly Filomena's window was not his first choice but rather one with which he 'settled' as a 2nd or 3rd resort.

Just a thought. This window thing has always bothered me.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

I agree, without complete information, all we can say is that we are seeing the same events from two different perspectives. Even a change in recollection of an event doesn't necessarily imply a deliberate attempt to fabricate the story. Machiavelli and platonov need to do a little research and learn what is already known about how memory works. They appear to have the delusion that there is a little cinema camera in our heads that plays pack these memories on demand.


What I would like to see is the transcripts of the rest of the interrogations. How many officers were there on Nov. 5th/6th? If there was an investigation into this incident, each one of the officers would have been independently interrogated and their recollections compared to determine which elements were factual. Where is the result of that investigation? I believe it culminated in: "we heard from some of the officers here in court so nothing needs to be investigated."

That leaves us with only Amanda's recollections of that night. But why should we need to rely on the memories of a foreign visitor who was traumatized to the point where she was heard screaming during the interrogation. This interrogation occurred at a time and place of the prosecutions choosing. The interview room which they moved Amanda into to continue the interrogation was equipped with the latest in audio/video recording equipment. All we need to do is replay the session to see and hear exactly what transpired that night. That is, if they can find those recordings. ILE certainly seems to have their difficulties with high tech equipment.

 

[platonov]

Platonov, we were discussing Amanda Knox's trial testimony from June 2009 and her December 17th interrogation. I said I saw no difference between the two versions of her story and you decide to evade the topic by reverting back to our discussion of Amanda's signed statements from November 6th which had nothing to do with our current conversation.

Of course you will. You evaded it the first time by diverting the topic back to the signed statements from November 6th and now you're evading it completely by telling me to just discuss it with Machiavelli. If you truly cared about getting those documents you would simply click on the link I posted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6646282#post6646282

Your response to that was this:

So, you've acknowledged the link and Charlie's zip file named "Amanda's signed statements" but you haven't downloaded it because you'd rather argue for no reason.

Malkmus

Post the (the night of the) Nov 5/6th 'statements'

- not the 'gift' from the 6th ...your 'alteration' in dates is VERY transparent.

- or concede that they haven't been posted on this thread already.

This LINK still stands

 

[Malkmus]

Malkmus

Post the Nov 5/6th 'statements'

- not the 'gift' from the 6th ...your 'alteration' in dates is VERY transparent.

- or concede that they haven't been posted on this thread already.

This LINK still stands

The signed statements were dated 1:45Am and 5:45Am on November 6th. No statements were actually taken November 5th. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[capealadin]

Halides: I don't care to discuss Candace Dempsey's *facts* any further. She's a food blogger, and I will let everyone come to their own opinion, as to her lack of frequency at the trial ( as against Barbie Nadeau) and whose Italian I would trust. ( as against Barbie's). So be it.

I have spoken to an Italian Lawyer I know, who practices law in Italy. I'll take his word on it.

url.http.// www.studiocataldi.it/codiceproce..eviato.asp.

The Prosecution cannot appeal on the merits of Rudy's 16 year sentence, because the verdict was ALREADY a verdict of the appeal.

On the other hand, a Prosecutor, would not, in practice, have appealed his previous 30 year sentence, because this sentence was already the MAXIMUM sentence they could get- in an abbreviated trial, given the number of aggraving circumstances, that could be proven.

If the Prosecutor was able to prove Rudy committed a continuation of the crime, i.e. staging the crime, theft, etc, only then would they think to increase the 30 years. But, these further charges would be impossible to prove, especially in an abbreviated trial, where the admission of new evidence is FORBIDDEN. Thus no Prosecutor would appeal.

( There are advantages to a Fast track trial).

I look forward to you giving me any examples, contradicting these statements. I know how much you like to give examples of other cases, so this should be interesting.

 

[capealadin]

To convict, the jury have to look at the defendant and think "I can believe that that person could do what they're accused of". I wouldn't discount demeanor in enabling the jury to reach that conclusion.

Oh, and I don't Shutlt. Not at all. It was simply a panacea to some here

 

[platonov]

I agree, without complete information, all we can say is that we are seeing the same events from two different perspectives. Even a change in recollection of an event doesn't necessarily imply a deliberate attempt to fabricate the story. Machiavelli and platonov need to do a little research and learn what is already known about how memory works. They appear to have the delusion that there is a little cinema camera in our heads that plays pack these memories on demand.


What I would like to see is the transcripts of the rest of the interrogations. How many officers were there on Nov. 5th/6th? If there was an investigation into this incident, each one of the officers would have been independently interrogated and their recollections compared to determine which elements were factual. Where is the result of that investigation? I believe it culminated in: "we heard from some of the officers here in court so nothing needs to be investigated."

That leaves us with only Amanda's recollections of that night. But why should we need to rely on the memories of a foreign visitor who was traumatized to the point where she was heard screaming during the interrogation. This interrogation occurred at a time and place of the prosecutions choosing. The interview room which they moved Amanda into to continue the interrogation was equipped with the latest in audio/video recording equipment. All we need to do is replay the session to see and hear exactly what transpired that night. That is, if they can find those recordings. ILE certainly seems to have their difficulties with high tech equipment.

Dan O

Before we get into these long complicated transcripts statements

If you can identify and post (all / any of) the direct contradictions in AK's June 2009 testimony that relate to this 'issue' from even my (highly edited) 'quote' [Forget the Dec 07' or Nov 07' issues for the moment]

...Then I'll see what I can do as regards (explaining) these .

Apparently they have been posted already but Malkmus wont repost. Not sure why

 

[moodstream]

Halides: I don't care to discuss Candace Dempsey's *facts* any further. She's a food blogger, and I will let everyone come to their own opinion, as to her lack of frequency at the trial ( as against Barbie Nadeau) and whose Italian I would trust. ( as against Barbie's). So be it.

I have spoken to an Italian Lawyer I know, who practices law in Italy. I'll take his word on it.

url.http.// www.studiocataldi.it/codiceproce..eviato.asp.

The Prosecution cannot appeal on the merits of Rudy's 16 year sentence, because the verdict was ALREADY a verdict of the appeal.

On the other hand, a Prosecutor, would not, in practice, have appealed his previous 30 year sentence, because this sentence was already the MAXIMUM sentence they could get- in an abbreviated trial, given the number of aggraving circumstances, that could be proven.

If the Prosecutor was able to prove Rudy committed a continuation of the crime, i.e. staging the crime, theft, etc, only then would they think to increase the 30 years. But, these further charges would be impossible to prove, especially in an abbreviated trial, where the admission of new evidence is FORBIDDEN. Thus no Prosecutor would appeal.

( There are advantages to a Fast track trial).

I look forward to you giving me any examples, contradicting these statements. I know how much you like to give examples of other cases, so this should be interesting.

After this Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on Guede's trial and sentence, will Guede be free to speak without fear of having his sentence extended or being put back on trial?

Can Guede tell what really happened without fear of having his term extended? Can he be forced to testify at AK/RS appeal?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

[capealadin]

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.

Well, I wouldn't have dared call you * A LOOSE CANNON* here, for fear of being suspended, but far be it from me to disagree with you

 

[capealadin]

From freedictionary.com/

A loose cannon: One who is uncontrolled, and therefore a danger........

 

[Mary_H]

Halides: I don't care to discuss Candace Dempsey's *facts* any further. She's a food blogger, and I will let everyone come to their own opinion, as to her lack of frequency at the trial ( as against Barbie Nadeau) and whose Italian I would trust. ( as against Barbie's). So be it.<snip>

capealadin, did you know that Barbie was a travel writer? What's the difference between a travel writer and a food writer? And what's so bad about being a food writer? There have been many very famous and well respected ones.

The thing about Candace's facts is that you don't have to discuss Candace at all if you don't want to. Go to her blog and see the dozens of Italian-language pieces she captured from Italian media outlets as they were happening; many are not available elsewhere on the web except for where they were preserved on Candace's blog. They are all documented and credited from their original sources. Her blog also has the whole complement of available trial records -- can Barbie say the same?

My first introduction to Barbie was the "article" she wrote about the clothes Amanda's sisters wore when they visited Perugia. There wasn't a citation in the whole piece -- it was all opinion. I thought, are they kidding? THIS is the Barbie Nadeau people have actually been crediting with information about the case? A journalist writing about how "trashy" she thought the girls looked? Tabloid City!

I think Barbie's take is sometimes is amusing, but I don't have any hard feelings against her, because I don't think she is very powerful or caused that much harm. She seems like kind of a sad sack who is going to keep on truckin' for the Daily Beast - reporting the news "objectively" until it becomes very apparent to ALL her readers that the objective truth is that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[capealadin]

I just can't discuss Candace any longer. It's hard to do, and keep a straight face. Let everyone come to their own conclusions, I feel. We've discussed Barbie's credentials, as against Candace. To be honest, if I was an innoscenti, I wouldn't think much of Candace's writing. And, I can never get that picture out of my mind. Her lurking with a camera, sneakily trying to take pictures of the Kerchers. If Barbie had done that, I would be equally as disgusted. So, you take Candace, I'll take Barbie. I think that's fair.

 

[Justinian2]

From freedictionary.com/

A loose cannon: One who is uncontrolled, and therefore a danger........

Loose Canon:

In the days of sail, naval vessels mounted cannon carefully and purposefully rigged into positions which optimised the effect of their fire. Occasionally, the rigging of these very heavy guns might come loose, and with the vessel pitching about on high seas or during manuever in battle, the results for the ship and crew could prove catastrophic.

I was using the term to express that my thoughts were independant of the Knox family and their lawyers so as to not cause them any legal trouble with the Italian government. I am well with my rights as an American to truthfully and factually express my opinions about police systems.


In reply to Candace Dempsey:
I found "Murder in Italy" to be quite factual. It's well written. Most of what I've found there, I've been able to verify in the Massei report. The Massei report makes for ugly cover to cover reading. I've gotten many ideas from "Murder in Italy", but I've then looked them up in the Massei report before quoting them so that I wouldn't get into a secondary argument about my source.

 

[capealadin]

After this Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on Guede's trial and sentence, will Guede be free to speak without fear of having his sentence extended or being put back on trial?

Can Guede tell what really happened without fear of having his term extended? Can he be forced to testify at AK/RS appeal?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

To my understanding, Guede will not appear in Court, on Thursday. Only his attorneys.