Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

So, Justinian, I take it that you are not calling the Knox's or their lawyers * loose cannons*. Yeah, I wouldn't either. * An uncontrolled person, liable to cause danger to others*. There just doesn't seem to be a good connotation. I admire your honesty, however. *KNOW THYSELF*.

 

[Justinian2]

So, Justinian, I take it that you are not calling the Knox's or their lawyers * loose cannons*. Yeah, I wouldn't either. * An uncontrolled person, liable to cause danger to others*. There just doesn't seem to be a good connotation. I admire your honesty, however. *KNOW THYSELF*.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a bit of a loose cannon himself. He peacefully brought significant change for the better to three countries. He is one of the four people I admired most in the 20th century. His methods of protesting with total nonviolence should be emulated in any protest - should people want to protest in favor of Amanda Knox and Raffaele.

 

[capealadin]

Loose Canon:


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.

Well, it's good to know that you verify your finding in the Massei Report. You have used an EXCELLENT source, in the Report. Well DONE.

 

[Withnail1969]

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!

I don't see why any of this is a big deal. All Rudy needs to do is check there are no cars coming and then climb into the window. Why is it so impossible for people to believe he could do that?

When I got burgled the burglar would have been a lot more conspicuous, but he still got away with the crime.

 

[Withnail1969]

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.

Indeed, here in Europe, I regularly see people smashing through locked shutters on balconies with a rock or crowbar and think nothing of it.

 

[Dan O.]

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."

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

Apparently in addition to your lack of a working knowledge of how memory works,

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 12.

. I was requesting transcripts of the interrogations of the officers involved in Amanda's interrogations that were ruled inadmissible by the supreme court.

We've heard or seen a few testimonies such as from the interpreter who wasn't even there the whole time. This was a convenient arrangement that allowed the later part of the interrogation to be brought forward but precluded cross examination from extracting the earlier part.

Here is a piece that was supplied to us by a much earlier participant in this thread:

Anna Donnino, another interpreter, testified that she was called at her home around 11:00-11:30pm 4th/5th and asked to come in to the police station as her expertise were needed. She lives about 1/2 hour away and testified that after she arrived she spent the entire night in the same room as AK and acted as the interpreter. It was shortly after she arrived and started working with AK and the police that AK was shown the text messag by Lumumba, she was simply asked "did you see this sms? did you respond?" and Donnino testified that she will NEVER forget the reaction.. AK broke down, shocked, and put her hands on her head and said "its him, its him, he did it" etc etc. The interpreter testified that the statement came spontaneously by AK

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

If the Court confirms the verdict, yes.
It will be no longer possible to put him on trial again for the same crime (ne bis in idem). So he will be free to talk with no consequences.

Can he be forced to testify at AK/RS appeal?

No.

 

[Machiavelli]

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:

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:

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.


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"?

The court already has the whole transcript, and from the transcript it is obvious she accuses Patrick one moment after having seen the message, and the accusation takes shape in a similar dinamic to what Anna Donnino describes: sudden, a shock. In the dec. 17 interrogation she says the accusation takes place after she sees flashes of memories of of Patrick's face in her cottage, a sudden shocking memory. They ask repeatedly who was with her that night, then she admits she was with Patrick in the seme moment as she sees the message.

While in court, instead she accuses Patrick only some time after having discussed the sms text with the police. In her court testimony, the police talk a lot about the text before she says she was with Patrick.

The episode of Donnino speaking of the broken leg is obviously located prior to the sms text discussion.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli, you continue to show your ignorance about how memory works. Your whole argument is invalid because of that.

 

[Amazer]

Machiavelli, you continue to show your ignorance about how memory works. Your whole argument is invalid because of that.

Can you elaborate on how memory works?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

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.

In the UK, patio doors have to comply to BS EN 12600 and BS EN 12150 safety standards which specify additional strength and non-shatter properties of the glass used in such doors.

Oh, and for a builder you certainly don't seem to understand much about the properties of double glazing:

http://www.doubleglazing4windows.co.uk/windowsecurity.html

"Double-glazed windows, especially ones manufactured to British Standard BS 7412, are widely used because they are difficult to break. When they do break, they create a lot of noise."

The reason, by the way, is simple physics: In a sealed double-glazed unit, the air in between the panes acts as both a wall of resistance and a damper - it means that it's actually rather difficult to break the outer pane, since the air barrier pushes back against any impact and also disperses the force of the impact.

Lastly, I'm suggesting that trees with no leaves on them are significantly easier to see through than trees in full foliage. However, your use of the words "desperate, very desperate" is quite telling.....

 

[Withnail1969]

The court already has the whole transcript, and from the transcript it is obvious she accuses Patrick one moment after having seen the message, and the accusation takes shape in a similar dinamic to what Anna Donnino describes: sudden, a shock. In the dec. 17 interrogation she says the accusation takes place after she sees flashes of memories of of Patrick's face in her cottage, a sudden shocking memory. They ask repeatedly who was with her that night, then she admits she was with Patrick in the seme moment as she sees the message.

While in court, instead she accuses Patrick only some time after having discussed the sms text with the police. In her court testimony, the police talk a lot about the text before she says she was with Patrick.

The episode of Donnino speaking of the broken leg is obviously located prior to the sms text discussion.

You make reference to a transcript - does this mean a recording exists of Amanda's interrogation?

 

[Dan O.]

Memory is a collection of associations. The associations form chains with one event linked to the next. The chains form what we interpret as a memory of a time series of events. However, since there is no hard sequencing code, sometimes the sequences get out of order or blocks get misplaced. If there is enough context that form cross associations, and similar events from past experiences, the act of remembering can reprocess the chains and reconstruct the correct order and fill in the details. This act also reinforces the memory to make it more permanent. Much of this reprocessing takes place while we sleep and is not a conscious act.

 

[Amazer]

Memory is a collection of associations. The associations form chains with one event linked to the next. The chains form what we interpret as a memory of a time series of events. However, since there is no hard sequencing code, sometimes the sequences get out of order or blocks get misplaced. If there is enough context that form cross associations, and similar events from past experiences, the act of remembering can reprocess the chains and reconstruct the correct order and fill in the details. This act also reinforces the memory to make it more permanent. Much of this reprocessing takes place while we sleep and is not a conscious act.

The above refers to the creation of long-term memory, does it not?

I fail to see however how the above invalidates Machiavellis whole argument. Could you explain this in a little more detail?

 

[Dan O.]

In the UK, patio doors have to comply to BS EN 12600 and BS EN 12150 safety standards which specify additional strength and non-shatter properties of the glass used in such doors.

The US has similar codes that apply to any window that descends below a certain height due to the likelihood of putting a foot through the window or falling into it. But we aren't talking about the US or UK. Do we even know if a place like Italy has building codes?

 

[Withnail1969]

The US has similar codes that apply to any window that descends below a certain height due to the likelihood of putting a foot through the window or falling into it. But we aren't talking about the US or UK. Do we even know if a place like Italy has building codes?

European Community standards for double glazed windows would apply in Italy as they would anywhere in the EEC.

 

[Dan O.]

The above refers to the creation of long-term memory, does it not?

I fail to see however how the above invalidates Machiavellis whole argument. Could you explain this in a little more detail?

Memories can and do change over time. Details that were left out or misplaced will be restored. Sometimes incorrect details get inserted by mistake or the order of events gets confused. As I said, this happens mostly unconsciously. Those that study memories say that over time, memories become more detailed and less accurate.

The only way to get an accurate reconstruction of an event from memories is to take multiple independent reports and look for comonalities. Those will be the most likely to be the truth.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

LondonJohn is right, the trees looked quite different in November:


You mentioned cherrypicking before, and that make me wonder whether the balcony view is really as obstructed from the road, as you would like us to think. Here's your carefully selected image:

But is it really the best view, as you wrote?
Let's "drive" Viale Sant'Antonio towards the cottage. When we're some 120 m from the cottage, it comes into view, dead ahead:

Do we see a balcony? Let's keep on driving.

The balcony fully visible, and we're still some 100 m from it.

We're around 50 m from it now and the balcony in fact never went out of view.

 

[Amazer]

Memories can and do change over time. Details that were left out or misplaced will be restored. Sometimes incorrect details get inserted by mistake or the order of events gets confused. As I said, this happens mostly unconsciously. Those that study memories say that over time, memories become more detailed and less accurate.

The only way to get an accurate reconstruction of an event from memories is to take multiple independent reports and look for comonalities. Those will be the most likely to be the truth.

Okay, now how does the above invalidate Machiavellis argument?

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

So you agree that they fed her the idea of Patrick. If they disclosed their wrong hypothesis to her it must have taken some time and effort. You just contradicted yourself.