Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Kestrel and Halides,

I will give some thoughts to your recent posts and do some more reading. I do think it says something that this thread should come top of the list in Google for a question about the Norfolk 4 though. It's not so much that it undermines anything you are saying as indicates something about how odd and atypical this thread is.

 

[Justinian2]

Are you equating Amanda's contact with the police over the course of several days with 11 hours of intense brow beating? Has Amanda ever described her previous contact with the police in this way? The Norfolk 4 seem to be talking about 9-11 hours of being threatened with the death penalty and being told that confessing was the only way out. My impression from Amanda's statements was that she doesn't describe the worst of it as being as bad as what the Norfolk 4 went through, and even if it was as bad that the high pressure stuff only started in the early hours of the morning. I don't see how the two can be equated.

Also, the Norfolk 4 don't seem to have been confused about what actually happened. They confessed in the knowledge that their confessions were false.

Shuttlt,

If you can't even imagine the emotional turmoil that Amanda was going through, then you have led a life too sheltered.

Movies don't prepare us for the emotional turmoil. Movies don't show men soiling their pants before hitting the beach on D-Day. Or what the gladiators felt before a fight to the death. Hours on end in rage, confusion and fear. The upset stomachs, the inability to sleep, and the headaches.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I believe this is basically what I was saying when you told me to "get it".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6642292&postcount=19532

Originally Posted by RoseMontague View Post
There was no need for the prosecutor to appeal the sentence as Rudy got the maximum (30 years) in the first trial. Rudy did appeal that and got awarded the mitigation reduction at the appeal level. The process at the supreme court level may be different. Rudy has already appealed and will be heard shortly. I am interested in knowing if the prosecution can appeal at the supreme court level. That is the pertinent question at hand.

The prosecutor CANNOT appeal a verdict in a fast track trial. Get it?

 

[Justinian2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...hange-the-crime-to-fit-the-story-2159630.html

Tom Sutcliffe: Why we change the crime to fit the story

Tom makes the point that the story of Guede murdering Kertcher is not a story with any interest. To make the story interesting, we need to add a beautiful young damsel in distress, a love affair, and an evil prosecutor. Add that to the cries of the public for blood, international intrigue, a murder mystery, and police gone amuck, and conspiracies of all types. Then you have a story that could be told until the end of time. Maybe this tread will also continue forever...

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you equating Amanda's contact with the police over the course of several days with 11 hours of intense brow beating? Has Amanda ever described her previous contact with the police in this way? The Norfolk 4 seem to be talking about 9-11 hours of being threatened with the death penalty and being told that confessing was the only way out. My impression from Amanda's statements was that she doesn't describe the worst of it as being as bad as what the Norfolk 4 went through, and even if it was as bad that the high pressure stuff only started in the early hours of the morning. I don't see how the two can be equated.

Also, the Norfolk 4 don't seem to have been confused about what actually happened. They confessed in the knowledge that their confessions were false.

Previously I provided what I felt was a fairly conservative estimate of 17 hours of interrogation over the period from 2 Nov through 6 Nov. It is clear that as early as the 3 November she was already in a sleep deprived state, was stressed, the police were shouting at her, and she was being treated like a criminal. katy_did provided the translation of this passage from amanda's appeal:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6036799&postcount=1960

Quote:
The report on a conversation, an 'environmental' interception, which occurred 4 November 2007 at the Questura of Perugia reads:

<< The moment where we begin listening to the conversation, from the part where it is written that AMANDA SPEAKS ON THE TELEPHONE, and she says: "I was the only one who was with her and so they want me to squeeze my brain [rack my brain?] to say things..."

Then the girl relates to the other speaker that there is a boy with her who is helping her, who is nice and also speaks a bit of German; then she passes the phone to Raffaele for him to speak to the person on the other end. Raffaele (in English): "I can't do anything, we are in the Questura, they're squeezing our minds (literally: taking a kick at the mind) then the boy passes the phone again to Amanda).

Amanda: "There is nothing you can do. Yesterday with the girls who lived in the house, we tried to understand what happened. >>

And also: << Resuming discussion of the interrogation she underwent[??]: "I'm feeling bad... They shouted at me... I slept only two hours last night... I'm very stressed..." >>

And also: << One of the two girls begins immediately to say: "I don't feel well at the moment, jumping at anything", and then: "How are you, Amanda?"
Amanda: "Not good, I am treated like a criminal". >>

 

[RoseMontague]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...hange-the-crime-to-fit-the-story-2159630.html

Tom Sutcliffe: Why we change the crime to fit the story

Tom makes the point that the story of Guede murdering Kertcher is not a story with any interest. To make the story interesting, we need to add a beautiful young damsel in distress, a love affair, and an evil prosecutor. Add that to the cries of the public for blood, international intrigue, a murder mystery, and police gone amuck, and conspiracies of all types. Then you have a story that could be told until the end of time. Maybe this tread will also continue forever...

And as Frank points out, this same scenario seems to be playing again in the case of Sabrina Misseri who is accused of killing her cousin Sarah Scazzi. The medium is the message in terms of justice.

 

[quadraginta]

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:

I've seen more than enough of it broken to develop a fairly comprehensive appreciation of its properties.

Have you done a careful review of the standards you have cited above to determine the exact requirements to satisfy minimum compliance for small paned openings in residential applications. Pay close attention to the use of the term "non-domestic" and related inclusions and, more importantly, exclusions.

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."

Good citation of commercial hype from someone who is in the business of selling their product. You do realize that the BS-7412 standard is intended to address window and door units with frames manufactured from uPVC plastic materials, right?

A claim of "difficult to break" and "create a lot of noise" by someone trying to sell their product does not rise to any level of "impervious". Not even close.

It is particularly irrelevant when we are applying it specifically to an individual who had allegedly chosen throwing a large rock through a second floor window only a few yards from ... and in full view of ... a busy street.

Your task is to explain why you think that this miracle material you imagine might have been used in that residential door would have been sufficiently harder and nosier to get through in the sheltered alcove of a balcony on the far side of the house to cause a burglar to discount such an effort.

You haven't done that yet. Not with these cites.

Then you can move on to presenting the evidence that such a modern, high tech installation as you are suggesting was even in use there.

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.

It is remarkable how often "simple" physics is dragged out in a weak attempt to avoid good physics.

How much resistance do you believe is offered by this cushion of air?

How much greater is that than would be offered in its absence?

How much additional force beyond that used to attempt to break a single pane glaze would be needed to reach the level required to break a double glaze?

Since we're doing physics now you may feel free to express your answers in newtons or lb_F , just be sure to let us know which you are using.

As a hypothetical, if one glass configuration is five times stronger than another, and the force used (as opposed to needed) to break the weaker one is ten times more than required, how much difference in the result will be observed if the stronger glass is attacked with the same amount of force?

I will suggest to you that if I had a rock the size of the one which is pictured on the floor of Filomena's bedroom, and was determined to smash a hole in the sort of patio door which is very likely installed on that balcony, there would not be enough additional resistance or force required to make any practical difference, even if fabricated in compliance with the standards and out of these new materials you seem so enamored of.

If I were setting out to break into somewhere, though, I probably wouldn't carry a rock around. I'd use one of these instead.

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.....

Ahhh. Significantly easier.

It should be noted that your description of deciduous trees is somewhat restrictive and is predicated on assumptions not in evidence. At middle latitudes there will normally be some combination of deciduous, semi-deciduous, marcescent, semi-evergreen, and evergreen of both broadleaf and coniferous varieties. Note also that only one of these exhibits a behavior which involves "no leaves".

I'm looking out my patio door as I type this. In this part of NC at this time of year any leaves that are going to fall have pretty much fallen. This year more than most, since we have had one of the coldest falls and one of the earliest persistent snowfalls on record.

I mention this because across the lawn, less than thirty feet from my patio is a stand of un-manicured trees, sort of a long, skinny patch of woods, which offers a barrier between the lawn and a gravel access road to the basketball and tennis courts. It is less than ten feet wide, but still does a remarkably good job of obscuring the presence of passing dog-walkers and cold weather athletes.

This is in full daylight.

I am not presuming to suggest that there would not be somewhat less foliage, and hence somewhat less restricted visibility from the road to the Knox apartment in the winter. Why are you trying to suggest that the difference would be so great as to present a significant difference to a passing vehicle at night? In my estimation the obstruction would still be substantial, especially in the dark.

Leaving aside, of course, the problem of why a human presence on a balcony would be particularly remarkable in the first place, regardless of visibility.

 

[platonov]

Mignini obviously picked a sentence out of context to create an illusion of contradiction. It's a trick he tried more times, e.g. with the reasons for switching the phone off.

Mignini was trying very hard to show there's some contradiction between what she said on Dec 17 and in court year later. But his attempts were not exactly honest.There is no contradiction there, no matter how desperately you cling to what Migni's takes out of context. He needs to show that Patrick's name came out of the blue, that ILE never thought about him before Amanda told them to. But that's hopeless.

More confusion here it appears, this time between both Massei (GCM) and Mignini (GM) & the the various contradictions.

Massei interjected - presumably because the defence lawyers kept interrupting and also to try to cut thru AK's babble and 'confusion' and get a straight answer - and asked directly about who brought up PL's name.

AK admitted she did - thereby contradicting her earlier (both from Dec 17 and this testimony) claims.

Moments later Mignini highlighted this & the further contradiction in her stories about how this 'naming' occurred.


It is hopeless indeed even after I explained it better now

So, let's move forward.

This quote seems to sum up the 'defence' on this and many issues

AK: I was confused.

GM: You have repeated that many times. But what does it mean? Either something is true, or it isn't true. Right now, for instance, you're here at the audience, you couldn't be somewhere else. You couldn't say "I am at the station." You are right here, right now.

AK: Certainly.

GCM: The question is clear.

.

 

[Dan O.]

<snip>

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.
<snip>

Are you suggesting that Knox's testimony as a witness was excluded due to base motives and manipulation by the prosecution?

This seems contrary to the often expressed sentiment by Knox advocates that the exclusion was a victory (albeit a small one) against the evil prosecutors, proving their duplicity.

No contradiction here, of course.

What are you talking about? Your post makes no sense in the context here.

 

[capealadin]

I believe this is basically what I was saying when you told me to "get it".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6642292&postcount=19532

I have explained . I have also given a cite. The point here was not whether Rudy can appeal, but whether the PROSECUTOR can appeal. Get it?

 

[Kestrel]

Previously I provided what I felt was a fairly conservative estimate of 17 hours of interrogation over the period from 2 Nov through 6 Nov. It is clear that as early as the 3 November she was already in a sleep deprived state, was stressed, the police were shouting at her, and she was being treated like a criminal. katy_did provided the translation of this passage from amanda's appeal:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6036799&postcount=1960

What is interesting is the widespread assumption that stressing witnesses and suspects will get them to reveal the truth.

 

[JREF2010]

Amanda's interrogation occurred over several nights. When she showed up on the night of the 5th, it's probable that she was already in a sleep deprived state. She attended school that day after being interrogated much of the previous night. And I doubt she was sleeping well. Would you find it easy to sleep in the days after a friend had been murdered?

of course, this wasn't an accident. it was all thought out and planned.
they even had a serious squad head arrive from Italy, Edgardo Giobbi.

 

[shuttlt]

If you can't even imagine the emotional turmoil that Amanda was going through, then you have led a life too sheltered.

I can imagine lots of things. It doesn't make them true.

Movies don't prepare us for the emotional turmoil. Movies don't show men soiling their pants before hitting the beach on D-Day. Or what the gladiators felt before a fight to the death. Hours on end in rage, confusion and fear. The upset stomachs, the inability to sleep, and the headaches.

I don't think D-Day is a very helpful point of comparison, analogy, or whatever, for what Amanda went through. As for the rest, we don't know do we? Perhaps she slept just fine. I can sleep pretty much regardless of external factors. Other people can't sleep in response to stress. In any case, I'm sure many people who are suspected of murder, guilty or not, feel stressed, none of this is specific to innocent people who get induced false memories.

 

[quadraginta]

LondonJohn is right, the trees looked quite different in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21923http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d0756ec68859.jpg

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:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_324434d069e98a09f1.jpg
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:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075d522fefb.jpg
Do we see a balcony? Let's keep on driving.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21928http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075dfb7a75b.jpg
The balcony fully visible, and we're still some 100 m from it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21926http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_427054d075a23da96f.jpg
We're around 50 m from it now and the balcony in fact never went out of view.

Scene One. (Couple driving down street at night.)

"OMG!!! Look there!

No! No! Waayyy over there, through those trees.

Stop the car!

I think there might be a ... a ... a person on that balcony!!!"



"You hide in the trunk. I'll call the emergency number."

------------------------------------------

Scene Two.

"Tell me, dear, isn't that someone hanging from a bedroom window on the side of that house over there?"

"Phffft. Happens all the time. I wouldn't give it a second thought."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fast track complexities

I have explained . I have also given a cite. The point here was not whether Rudy can appeal, but whether the PROSECUTOR can appeal. Get it?

Capealadin,

LondonJohn’s cite indicates that both defendant and prosecutor can appeal a fast track trial in general. There was nothing for the prosecutor to appeal after the first trial; therefore, the prosecutor merely opposed Rudi’s asking for a reduction. From what Machiavelli said, the prosecution cannot exactly appeal the reduction to the supreme court, but it could appeal in such a way as potentially to obtain a new trial. For me the bottom line is that the issue is more complex than I thought it was, but it is also more complex than the absolute terms in which you presented it.

 

[Supernaut]

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.

You're not really thinking this through, or pretending not to.

Don't you think Guede would have been concerned about being seen outside a darkened property he was about to burgle? That someone might, you know, be able to give the police a description of him on hearing later that it had been robbed the same night?

And BTW, just to be pedantic (heh), I took the phrase "all those apartments" to mean "all those apartments [from which the balcony can be seen]".

 

[capealadin]

Capealadin,

LondonJohn’s cite indicates that both defendant and prosecutor can appeal a fast track trial in general. There was nothing for the prosecutor to appeal after the first trial; therefore, the prosecutor merely opposed Rudi’s asking for a reduction. From what Machiavelli said, the prosecution cannot exactly appeal the reduction to the supreme court, but it could appeal in such a way as potentially to obtain a new trial. For me the bottom line is that the issue is more complex than I thought it was, but it is also more complex than the absolute terms in which you presented it.

It is complex, and the Italians themselves have had issues with it , in the past. However, I stand by my explanation, and if you feel it is presented in the absolute, I invite you to give me one example that differs from what I have stated. The Prosecutor will not appeal a sentence, which is already the MAXIMUM .

 

[shuttlt]

Previously I provided what I felt was a fairly conservative estimate of 17 hours of interrogation over the period from 2 Nov through 6 Nov.

I'm happy with 17 hours worth of interrogation/interviews over that period.

It is clear that as early as the 3 November she was already in a sleep deprived state, was stressed, the police were shouting at her, and she was being treated like a criminal.

I don't dispute that she was tired or stressed. If the police shouted at her before, fine (by which I mean I'm not arguing the point). If they asked her to rack her brains about things connected to the crime, fine. She says she feels she is being treated like a criminal, but clearly before the 5th/6th there is no "we know you did it" stuff. This is still a long way away from what the Norfolk 4 went through. They didn't get to go home for pizza with the girlfriends/boyfriends, sleep in their own beds and go to college in between being interrogated for two or three hours.

 

[capealadin]

Also, Halides, the Defendant gives up his rights as to presenting new evidence, when he takes the Fast Trial route.

 

[Justinian2]

I can imagine lots of things. It doesn't make them true.


I don't think D-Day is a very helpful point of comparison, analogy, or whatever, for what Amanda went through. As for the rest, we don't know do we? Perhaps she slept just fine. I can sleep pretty much regardless of external factors. Other people can't sleep in response to stress. In any case, I'm sure many people who are suspected of murder, guilty or not, feel stressed, none of this is specific to innocent people who get induced false memories.

1.) I can imagine lots of things. It doesn't make them true.
It does if you've experienced a similar situation.

2.) I don't think D-Day is a very helpful point of comparison, analogy, or whatever, for what Amanda went through.
Amanda was going through a situation where she had to fight for her life, her reputation and the reputation of her family.

3.) As for the rest, we don't know do we? Perhaps she slept just fine. I can sleep pretty much regardless of external factors. Other people can't sleep in response to stress.
This isn't mere stress. This is super stress. This isn't an exam. This is super life altering stress coupled with rage, fear and extreme frustration.

4.) In any case, I'm sure many people who are suspected of murder, guilty or not, feel stressed,
Not stress, super stress.

5.) none of this is specific to innocent people who get induced false memories.
Just the police report is enough to jumble the old memory banks. In my own minor skirmish with the law and a similar skirmish of a relative a couple years later, I learned how easy it is for the police to FUBAR events with their reports.

What I learned is that the police reports have MASSIVE errors. I also learned that our own recall and the recall of others is easily influenced and altered.

Even a person's peers and family won't let him believe the truth of his own innocence. After all, AUTHORITY is always right.

How stressful was this event? For most, add together the ten most stressfull events of your life and multiply by ten.