Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

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.

I don't think this is true at all, even if we just take the out of context quote. You're assuming that when she says they 'showed' her the message that this was the first time it had been mentioned, as if it had been suddenly revealed out of the blue. But she might simply mean that they held the phone up in front of her face, displayed the message to her, something they may or may not have done before, but which in any case certainly doesn't preclude them having questioned her about it for some significant time previously.

And while this scenario finds support in the rest of Amanda's testimony - including the extended quote provided by Malkmus, and Amanda's statements that they shoved the phone in front of her face prior to her naming Patrick - the idea that the whole thing happened in a mere moment is only supported by that out of context quote. I think it's a mistake to draw such unambiguous conclusions (she lied; she's guilty) from a sentence which is ambiguous at best.

 

[Fine]

Shuttlt,

* * *
I also commented on two cases that coincidentally took place in Ada, Oklahomo, one of which is discussed in both Grisham’s The Innocent Man and also the book The Dreams of Ada. I seem to recall that Karl Fontenot gave a false confession within as little as two hours. Also, Amanda said that the police would ask her about something, she would say that it did not happen, then they would write it down anyway. That may have been in reference to the 1:45 statement, which we know contains an impossibility in terms of the 8:30 time that is mentioned. Two good rules of thumb: don’t tell the police about any dreams you have had, and if they ask you to imagine how a crime might have happened, stop talking and ask for a lawyer, because you have already been damaging yourself by talking too much.

* * *

___________________________

Halides,

This is misleading. Even Amanda, in her court testimony, didn't say that the cops wrote it down anyway. According to Amanda, it was only after she had expressed uncertainty about the truth value of a statement that the cops wrote it down.

///

 

[Katody Matrass]

Why did he plant the scream?

IMO they tried to make her statement more detailed to make it look like a real testimony. So far they had only very vague 1:45 statement
"OK I texted Patrick let's meet, we went to the cottage, I don't know if Meredith was there or not. I vaguely remember Patrick killed her."

It's not much and it doesn't look like a real recollection of events or a real voluntary confession at all.

I guess Mignini was pressing, "he killed her, so she screamed, how could you not hear it" etc. Amanda describes the process in her trial testimony. That's how they put in some more details, like the scream, the covering of the ears, that she was in the kitchen and so on.

 

[RWVBWL]

RWVBWL,

If you told me you thought you might have been present in a small apartment during a murder, but didn't give any indication of having heard the murder taking place, I would have asked about screams as well.

Hi Shuttlt,
Have a look at this:

It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me:
"Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No. "But how could you not have heard the scream?"."I don't know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining...

1st of all, Prosecutor Mignini is asking about a scream, not screams, as you suggest.
So that, to me at least, says that he knows what he is asking about.

A scream.

Amanda Knox apparently answers NO, she did not hear a scream.
Then Prosecutor Mignini, not seeming to accept NO as an answer,
re-phrases the question, thereby getting Amanda Knox to incriminate herself.

BUT if no one had reported hearing "the scream" before Amanda Knox was interrogated on Nov. 5/6, '07,
isn't Prosecutor Mignini then full of it?
"The scream" never existed!
It then appears that he made it up, and lied to a suspect under his questioning at the questura to further his agenda.
Why would he do that? Heck I don't know.

But what do you think?
Is it OK for a "professional" prosecutor to lie when questioning a young woman late at night,
one whom it appears he did not even consider a suspect yet and therefore DID NOT audio/video record her statements
NOR allow her to have an attorney present at that time?

If you think that it is OK,
well I wonder what you would say if the same where to happen to your own Mother, sister, wife or girlfriend?
Would you feel a little differently then?
Hmmm, I wonder...
RWVBWL

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Amanda's speech - TRANSLATION & YouTube link

Hi RWVBWL,

I posted a link and the translation done by 'thoughtful' - please see my post #20434 on Page 511 of this thread.

No-one else has commented on it, so I guess they must have seen it elsewhere but I thought that you may be interested in it seeing as you requested the info.

All the best from rainy England!

 

[Fuji]

Burglars generally don't carry such items.

How would you know?

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi RWVBWL,

I posted a link and the translation done by 'thoughtful' - please see my post #20434 on Page 511 of this thread.

No-one else has commented on it, so I guess they must have seen it elsewhere but I thought that you may be interested in it seeing as you requested the info.

All the best from rainy England!

Scorpion NITE!
Thank you for doing that!
And I thank 'thoughful' for translating a part of it!

I had clicked on the YouTube video the other day, but noticed it was in Italian, which meant that I could not understand it.
So I turned off the volume and I just looked at a few of the photographs, which was nice.

After reading the translation you posted a moment ago, I just re-clicked the link to that YouTube video, and this time I, visitor #1442 heard the emotion in Amanda Knox's voice!
Bein' a sentimental OG surfer -(that's Old Geezer surfer), who enjoys simple pleasures such as watching the sun arise,
well I even got a lil' teary eyed myself when Amanda said, well whatever it was she did say in Italian around 4:40 into the clip...

I am glad she is speaking up!
I hope that she does it more often!
I also hope that Raffaele Sollecito stands up tall and speaks up too!
I DID NOT KILL MEREDITH!

For I do believe that these 2 were unjustly convicted and that it does not do honor to the memory of Meredith Kercher
to have 2 innocent young people in jail for the murder that they did not commit nor have anything to do with...

Peace to you all,
RWVBWL

 

[RoseMontague]

Hi RWVBWL,

I posted a link and the translation done by 'thoughtful' - please see my post #20434 on Page 511 of this thread.

No-one else has commented on it, so I guess they must have seen it elsewhere but I thought that you may be interested in it seeing as you requested the info.

All the best from rainy England!

It is interesting and I see they have filled in the rest and sent it over to the statement analysis guy. That's the one I have previously posted the link showing his qualifications in this area as stated by him (took an on-line class and read a book). Just amazing what the search for justification can justify, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is interesting and I see they have filled in the rest and sent it over to the statement analysis guy. That's the one I have previously posted the link showing his qualifications in this area as stated by him (took an on-line class and read a book). Just amazing what the search for justification can justify, in my opinion.

I think I can take a wild guess at that particular woo's conclusions too. An imaginary excerpt:


Amanda: I did not kill Meredith!

(Analysis: This blatant denial is characteristic of the true psychopath).

Amanda: I wasn't there, it's an awful tragedy, and this whole thing is a terrible mistake!

(Analysis: Notice that she didn't actually say she didn't do it! This proves she did it).

Amanda: I like ice cream.

(Analysis: It is well-established scientific fact that "ice cream" is unconsciously used as a sort of code word for "rape and murder").

Amanda: Thank you, that is the end of my speech.

(Analysis: References to "the end" mean that the speaker is a conscienceless killing machine who, if ever released on to the streets, will kill and kill until the streets are waist-deep in the blood of innocent babies).

 

[katy_did]

It is interesting and I see they have filled in the rest and sent it over to the statement analysis guy. That's the one I have previously posted the link showing his qualifications in this area as stated by him (took an on-line class and read a book). Just amazing what the search for justification can justify, in my opinion.

I always find myself wanting to statement analyze the statement analysis guy ("Note the excessive use of the word 'note'". Etc).

 

[RoseMontague]

I always find myself wanting to statement analyze the statement analysis guy ("Note the excessive use of the word 'note'". Etc).

Have fun with his statement here.

I am on my 5th read of this book! I have also read many other works but find that I return to McClish's book repeatedly, as it is the clearest and most concise study offered. As I have practiced his techniques, I have developed the skill to analyze "on the fly", as his "red flag" training is something that has become part of my subconcious. I have also revisited the original workbook from the online course many times, and may not take the course again.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZJEWZLP14MHR

 

[Scorpion NITE]

It is interesting and I see they have filled in the rest and sent it over to the statement analysis guy. That's the one I have previously posted the link showing his qualifications in this area as stated by him (took an on-line class and read a book). Just amazing what the search for justification can justify, in my opinion.

Could not agree more...have to admit I laughed when I read that they have sent it to him, although I guess 'taking an on-line class and reading a book' would be classed as being an 'expert' to some...lol. Disregarding the fact that these same people will happily trash the likes of Candace Dempsey!

By the way, RWVBWL (and others, of course) Clander has now posted the video with subtitles on the site. To me, it has a much more profound effect to listen to Amanda on the video, whilst reading the subtitles at the same time. Made it far more meaningful for me. Funny how most of the PMF'ers derided the speech though, but I guess Rose's words answer that...''amazing what the search for justification can justify...''

 

[katy_did]

Have fun with his statement here.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZJEWZLP14MHR

Oh. Just too tempting ("see all 173 reviews"...): "a tool I am unable to shut down". Well frankly, I see no other way to interpret that than to assume he's an uncontrollable psychopathic sex killer.

 

[RoseMontague]

Oh. Just too tempting ("see all 173 reviews"...): "a tool I am unable to shut down". Well frankly, I see no other way to interpret that than to assume he's an uncontrollable psychopathic sex killer.

Personally, I notice he had left the 2nd 's' out of subconscious when he must have subconsciously spelled it as subconcious. This indicates to me four possibilities.

1. Three s's (sss) sounds too much like a snake and he is trying to hide that he is speaking with the fork-ed tongue.

2. He has shortened it to just having two s's, as in the Nazi SS, subconsciously admitting he is taking advantage of people that can't defend themselves.

3. It could mean he had 3 siblings and one of the 3 suffered a tragic end and this could be some hidden guilt showing up in his subconscious.

4. He may have spelled the word wrong, even being a so called expert in a similar profession. But really, how likely is that?

 

[katy_did]

4. He may have spelled the word wrong, even being a so called expert in a similar profession.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Justinian2]

Oh. Just too tempting ("see all 173 reviews"...): "a tool I am unable to shut down". Well frankly, I see no other way to interpret that than to assume he's an uncontrollable psychopathic sex killer.

I find the techniques for spotting a lie all too simplistic. They never actually spot a lie. They spot other things like stress, or something someone doesn't want to reveal like hidden grief or even a sugar imbalance. Once someone surprised me with a sudden lie in court and I stammered until I figured out the sneaky lie. But by then, it was too late, the judge assumed I was guilty (one of the two times I lost in small claims court). I actually registered the lie of the other guy. (the judge found a lie, but he misassigned the ownership of the lie).

Furthermore, you may know there is a lie without knowing what the lie is. The trick is to get the person to communicate and give up his lie. That's easier said than done.

When you find a lie, the best technique is to sit on your knowledge for awhile. The truth will come out eventually.

Too many people guess and that's worse than not knowing, in my opinion.

Knowing when a child lies is the most useful tool of a parent. The lying child will not look you in the eye to the extent that it's comical.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Could not agree more...have to admit I laughed when I read that they have sent it to him, although I guess 'taking an on-line class and reading a book' would be classed as being an 'expert' to some...lol. Disregarding the fact that these same people will happily trash the likes of Candace Dempsey!

By the way, RWVBWL (and others, of course) Clander has now posted the video with subtitles on the site. To me, it has a much more profound effect to listen to Amanda on the video, whilst reading the subtitles at the same time. Made it far more meaningful for me. Funny how most of the PMF'ers derided the speech though, but I guess Rose's words answer that...''amazing what the search for justification can justify...''

I saw an amazing PMF post that I'd summarise as "Nobody can look at a picture of Amanda Knox without feeling uncontrollable hatred. I blame her family, her PR company and the media. Without them we wouldn't be exposed to her picture so often so we wouldn't hate her so much".

It was absolutely breathtaking in its lack of self-reflection, or responsibility, or even simple recognition that not everyone goes into a Pavlovian hate trip at the trigger of Amanda Knox's face.

 

[quadraginta]

Burglars generally don't carry such items.

Sure they don't. I mean after all, they wouldn't want to break any laws, would they?



(Hint: The real utility of statutes like that isn't to act as a deterrent, which would largely be intimidating only to people who were not all that committed to a criminal career in the first place, but to add another possible count in the litany of charges that LE likes to be able to prefer when they make an arrest. The more they can throw, the more they can make stick.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Norfolk Four and confirmation bias

To all,

When I was reading about the Norfolk Four, I came upon some interesting facts concerning Joseph Dick’s alibi. By the time his lawyer got around to checking the Navy’s duty roster, it had been destroyed (the Navy keeps them for six months, IIRC). Fortunately for him, an officer remembered ordering him to sleep on the ship, although the story gets a little complicated:

“Ziegler, the officer who took Dick under his wing, says that before Dick left for police questioning, he determined - by calculation backward over a rotating schedule - that Dick's duty section had been scheduled to work on the Saipan the night Moore-Bosko was killed. Ziegler says he was never notified that Dick missed a muster call and that he believes the sailor was on the ship.
Ziegler, who says he was never contacted about the case, says he had instructed Dick to sleep on the ship during that time period because he was showing up to work late. He was never notified that Dick disobeyed his orders, he says.
In a letter published in The Virginian-Pilot, prosecutor Hansen wrote that detectives found out Dick worked on the ship the day Moore-Bosko was found - not the night before, when she was murdered.”

This leads to a couple of questions. Why didn’t the police obtain the duty rosters themselves in the days after the confession? Were there others besides Ziegler who could have been interviewed right away? Not seriously attempting to falsify the hypothesis that Mr. Dick’s confession was accurate could be construed as confirmation bias.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

The right of appeal of the prosecution has limitation in the abbreviated trial.
General limitations are stated by article 443 - title I of the Code of Penal Procedure:

"Art. 443 - Limiti dell'appello

1. L'imputato e il pubblico ministero non possono proporre appello contro le sentenze di proscioglimento
2. (Comma abrogato).
3. Il pubblico ministero non può proporre appello contro le sentenze di condanna, salvo che si tratti di sentenza che modifica il titolo del reato.
4. Il giudizio di appello si svolge con le forme previste dall'articolo 599

Paragraph 1 is the remain of an article that has been modified by the Constitutional Court . Paragraph 2 was declared unconstitutional in 2006 and doesn't exist anymore.
Paragraph 3 is still active and of interest in our case.

The prosecutor could not appeal on the merits of Rudy's 16 years sentence, because the sentence was a verdict of guilt on all charges (all those that were appeald, in this case, being an appeal trial) and the defendant was pronounced guilty without modifcation of the title of charges.
So by the code, the prosecutor cannot appeal.
Anyway the prosecutor could not have appealed because it is already a sentence by a Court of Appeal.

An appeal of the prosecutor to the Supreme Court, at first sight would be against paragraph 3 and would be an unicum, a first case in judicial history, would imply a calling for a higher court to solve a question of constitutionality about paragraph 3. I don't know if any sentence by the Consitutional court already exist for the interpretation of this case.

More important to know is that an appeal by the Prosecutor General to the Supreme Court would be something entirely different fram what you apparently think. It would be a ridiculous move. It would mean, a Prosecutor General appeals a sentence where had won entirely in an abbreviated trial, and on which the defendant is appealing too, and not to obtain a change in the enalty but just to obtain a new trial, that would be identical to the previous, and where potentially he could only loose. The same result is obtained if Guede wins his appeal to the Supreme Court: he would just obtain a new trial.