Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

platonov,

I gave a iink to the FOA to show a portion of the gift statement, one that was larger than the portion I had quoted. You objected, so I provided a link to the whole statement. The way you keep misrepresenting this incident is not helping your credibility.

Personally I think it is to the credit of FOA that this stuff has been released. Similarly it is to the credit of PMF that so many original documents are available and posted.

Given that the two statements were handed out by Charlie in May, I clearly chose the wrong moment to jump ship. It always bothered me that everything was so drip, drip, drip and yet clearly some people had access to things. It's not as if the Charlie and others wouldn't be helpful, sometimes surprisingly so but, while I was posting before, the floodgates hadn't opened.

Is it now the position that everything FOA has is out there and available? What about the "everything" Dr Waterbury referred to. Do we have access to that, or not?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I correct my typing (this post was full of errors, sorry, too hasty in typing and correcting without reading back). Amanda claims she wasn't treated badly after she made the name of Patrick, while she describes in fact of being treated well from that moment.
And that moment is before 01:45.

Interesting, lets consult Amanda if she agrees with you.

CP: Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino
over the night? They assisted you through the night?

AK: I was offered tea after I had made declarations.

CP: So they treated you well.

AK: No!​

 

[Kestrel]

We are talking about the same situations which have transpired for hundreds or thousands of years, where the authorities use a variety of techniques to break down a prisoner and make them confess. The basics are the same anywhere.

The basics of getting good information from a witness are also the same everywhere. Don't interview someone who is sleep deprived if you are seeking reliable information.

 

[shuttlt]

The basics of getting good information from a witness are also the same everywhere. Don't interview someone who is sleep deprived if you are seeking reliable information.

But Amanda was by this point permanently sleep deprived through stress. Could she interrogated at all?

In any case, surely the pace of events may dictate a less accommodating schedule.

 

[Chris C]

This is invented Italian law.
There is no difference between a police officer and any citizen. What makes you think that "nothing happens" if the accused man is acquitted and walks free? If an accusation was made which the accuser knew was false, this is formal calunnia.

So if Knox is found not guilty. Are they gonna charge, everyone that testified against her for formal calumnia?

Did they charge the guy with calumia that accused Knox and Sollecito of throwing olives at him? There is no way that happened. So this guy knows he is lying.

What about the shop keeper. Doesn't an investigator give testimony thats in direct conflict with the shopkeeper.

What about the homeless guy. Not only does he testify about buses, but he also claims they where looking at the house. Yet you can't see the house from the location he claims they where looking from.

How about Nara. She claims she can hear someone running down the driveway and hears them stepping on leaves.

How about Rudy. They gonna charge him with calumnia. He claims to have left the apartment before 1030pm. Yet knox/sollecito are convicted for a murder after 1130 pm. If Meredith died after 1130pm like Knox/Sollecito where convicted of, then Rudy has lied about 1030 pm since his fingerprint and shoeprints are in Meredith's blood.

Who is charged with calumnia? Knox

It seems its ok for everyone else to lie. Yet to prove knox is lieing you need the recordings which don't exist. So how do you prove that knox knows she is lying, when you can't prove she is without taking the unknown accused persons word for it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

theory and practice as applied to the interrogations

Personally I think it is to the credit of FOA that this stuff has been released. Similarly it is to the credit of PMF that so many original documents are available and posted.

Given that the two statements were handed out by Charlie in May, I clearly chose the wrong moment to jump ship. It always bothered me that everything was so drip, drip, drip and yet clearly some people had access to things. It's not as if the Charlie and others wouldn't be helpful, sometimes surprisingly so but, while I was posting before, the floodgates hadn't opened.

Is it now the position that everything FOA has is out there and available? What about the "everything" Dr Waterbury referred to. Do we have access to that, or not?

shuttlt,

I don't think that every possible document is out there, but the appeals have been available for some time in Italian, and they have some good stuff. On the question of interrogations, I think that the right question is were they well designed to produce reliable information? On that score, they failed miserably, both in theory and in practice.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting, lets consult Amanda if she agrees with you.

CP: Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino
over the night? They assisted you through the night?

AK: I was offered tea after I had made declarations.

CP: So they treated you well.

AK: No!​

I knew somebody would be about to quote this contradiction by Amanda. But in fact, Amanda claimed to have been well treated after he named Patrick, albeit she says a "no" in this point, when the lawyer points out this and in fact the lawyer points out the right thing. Note how in the previous line she highlights the word after in her speech.

In fact, here I don't know if she mens the declarations of 05:45 or the previous ones (I have to read the whole original in Italian). But I know there isn't any other description of "pressures" (of the kind that she described, in vague terms, as somebody hitting her head, saying she was a liar) following her naming of Patrick.

I also note that all her descriptions of how she made up the Patrick story appear unjustified and not credible, nothing concrete is matched with the term "pressure" to justify her fictional story. But above all, nothing is credible nor consistent when it comes to explain tat she had memories of Patrick who wanted to have sex with Meredith in her apartment, after they went home together to have some fun. Nothing is credible in her various and contradictory explanations for why she made a false accusation. And a false, unreliable memory is obviously inconsistent with her later claim to remember perfectly about an alibi. So many things are unacceptable and not credible that you really shouldn't need my help to notice this totally inconsistent texture of claims.

 

[Kestrel]

But Amanda was by this point permanently sleep deprived through stress. Could she interrogated at all?

In any case, surely the pace of events may dictate a less accommodating schedule.

The police were not asking Amanda new questions. They were simply repeating the same questions again and again, hour after hour, day after day.

It wasn't a quest for information, it was a tactic to wear down a suspect. Following the tunnel vision of the chief investigator, who had already decided that Amanda was guilty.

Meanwhile, Rudy is wandering off to Germany. Buying his ticket with cash stolen from the deceased. Taking with him the bloody clothing and shoes he wore during the murder.

 

[Withnail1969]

I knew somebody would be about to quote this contradiction by Amanda. But in fact, Amanda claimed to have been well treated after he named Patrick, albeit she says a "no" in this point, when the lawyer points out this and in fact the lawyer points out the right thing. Note how in the previous line she highlights the word after in her speech.

In fact, here I don't know if she mens the declarations of 05:45 or the previous ones (I have to read the whole original in Italian). But I know there isn't any other description of "pressures" (of the kind that she described, in vague terms, as somebody hitting her head, saying she was a liar) following her naming of Patrick.

I also note that all her descriptions of how she made up the Patrick story appear unjustified and not credible, nothing concrete is matched with the term "pressure" to justify her fictional story. But above all, nothing is credible nor consistent when it comes to explain tat she had memories of Patrick who wanted to have sex with Meredith in her apartment, after they went home together to have some fun. Nothing is credible in her various and contradictory explanations for why she made a false accusation. And a false, unreliable memory is obviously inconsistent with her later claim to remember perfectly about an alibi. So many things are unacceptable and not credible that you really shouldn't need my help to notice this totally inconsistent texture of claims.

If only we could just listen to the recordings of her questioning.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The view from the flats is obscured by the tree which is was in perfect full bloom on November 1st 2010 when I took this picture:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2215

Nice to have you back, SomeAlibi!

2010 you say?

In 2007 it looked a bit more leafless:
Global warming marches on...

The balcony is not illuminated by streetlight as shown on November 29th 2010 when I took this picture at about 9pm. NB this picture is taken with a one second exposure and is therefore much more illuminated than it was in practice. It's dark round that side of the house, really dark and as you can see, the entire climb is obscured by the outhouse. Only a momentary entry into the cover of the shutters would have been necessary - a matter of seconds easily timed.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2221

Lastly, if you want to see moving images of the area in question, watch this video from 3.00 onwards. You will have full view of the area and how it is obscured.

http://www.youtube.com/user/somealibis?feature=mhum#p/u/2/a1XQbQvuenQ

Thanks for that very interesting video! I noticed the area of the cottage driveway and gate is utterly black in your video. No way to see the house at all. No Filomena's window, no driveway, no nothing.
Do you have any closer video clips showing how well Filomena's window and the driveway is illuminated?

 

[SomeAlibi]

You keep saying this stuff but nobody believes you. The climb into Filomena's window is straightforward for a tall, slim, athletic guy like Rudy. 'Impossible', perhaps for you. The balcony is clearly exposed and would be too difficult to break into.

I've posted all the picture evidence necessary in the Cottage Gallery in PMF in the last couple of days.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=13

This single picture shows your suggestion that the balcony is too difficult to break in to be demonstrably false.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2164

Let it go - it's all there in front of everyone's eyes. It would be laughable to continue to assert on the basis of the evidence that Filomena's window is easy and the balcony too difficult. The balcony is plainly easier by a very considerable degree indeed - not even close, not even in the same ballpark. It is also a that it was broken into twice after this crime as the route of preference!

There's plenty you can argue with validity in trying to prove Amanda Knox innocent put this is a dead duck. No-one can argue this so just accept it for what it is. Credibility in part comes from conceding points which are well made, much less when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and all posters can see it on their screens.

 

[Machiavelli]

So if Knox is found not guilty. Are they gonna charge, everyone that testified against her for formal calumnia?

Did they charge the guy with calumia that accused Knox and Sollecito of throwing olives at him? There is no way that happened. So this guy knows he is lying.

Of course they investigated him. They even arrested him in early 2008 for this reason (before he was arrested again for drug possession). I don't think he is already formally charged, since Mignini believed his testimony was true.

What about the shop keeper. Doesn't an investigator give testimony thats in direct conflict with the shopkeeper.

The shopkeeper is not lying in my opinion. I don't think it can be proven he is lying.

What about the homeless guy. Not only does he testify about buses, but he also claims they where looking at the house. Yet you can't see the house from the location he claims they where looking from.

The same. In these cases you have to prove the person is lying and not just mistaking. But on this point you are incorrect: the homeless man said they were looking in a direction, he never climed he saw the cottage, nor that the could see the cottage. And, by the way, the cottage can be seen from that location. Andabove all the cottage gate can be seen very well.

How about Nara. She claims she can hear someone running down the driveway and hears them stepping on leaves.

This is always the same case. These kind of testimonies are not the ones likely to be prosecuted as calunnia.

How about Rudy. They gonna charge him with calumnia. He claims to have left the apartment before 1030pm. Yet knox/sollecito are convicted for a murder after 1130 pm. If Meredith died after 1130pm like Knox/Sollecito where convicted of, then Rudy has lied about 1030 pm since his fingerprint and shoeprints are in Meredith's blood.

Rudy carefully avoided to name the aggressor. He only named him where it was clear they were likely going to be found guilty.

It seems its ok for everyone else to lie. Yet to prove knox is lieing you need the recordings which don't exist. So how do you prove that knox knows she is lying, when you can't prove she is without taking the unknown accused persons word for it.

Maybe to proove she is lying about the police hitting her you need the video recordings. But to charge her, her accusation is enough.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But above all, nothing is credible nor consistent when it comes to explain tat she had memories of Patrick who wanted to have sex with Meredith in her apartment, after they went home together to have some fun.

I cannot agree more Yet it was credible enough for the ILE.

 

[Withnail1969]

I've posted all the picture evidence necessary in the Cottage Gallery in PMF in the last couple of days.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=13

This single picture shows your suggestion that the balcony is too difficult to break in to be demonstrably false.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2164

Let it go - it's all there in front of everyone's eyes. It would be laughable to continue to assert on the basis of the evidence that Filomena's window is easy and the balcony too difficult. The balcony is plainly easier by a very considerable degree indeed - not even close, not even in the same ballpark. It is also a that it was broken into twice after this crime as the route of preference!

There's plenty you can argue with validity in trying to prove Amanda Knox innocent put this is a dead duck. No-one can argue this so just accept it for what it is. Credibility in part comes from conceding points which are well made, much less when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and all posters can see it on their screens.

Your pointless completely black video shows nothing and your pictures are taken from the wrong angles.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

Thanks for that very interesting video! I noticed the area of the cottage driveway and gate is utterly black in your video. No way to see the house at all. No Filomena's window, no driveway, no nothing.
Do you have any closer video clips showing how well Filomena's window and the driveway is illuminated?

Why do you keep on believing the front window is dark and the rear balcony is visible? I told you the front window is illuminated. It is not as much illuminated as the centre of the road, but it is illuminated enough by street ights for the human eye to see it perfectly. I just know if I go with a light meter on the balcony it would detect a diffuse light 10 times lower than at Filomena's window.
But this is not the only difference. The balcony is on the back, far from sight, there is also one window totally not visible there, the balcony is not visible by cars, the person on the balcony is not suspicious. Filomena's window is under the nose of passers by. Right under your eyes! And the intruder may be caught a moment when he is stuck in position in which he cannot hide.
Almost all break ins in apartments take place from a 2nd store balcony, almost never from a window. That balcony is perfect for a break in.
And, also the physical feasability and hazards connected are to be compared with the very easy and safe entrace from the balcony, and the evidence of the distribution of unmoved glass shards on the sill and no evidence of soil traces, are further elements that show this climbing did not happen and they work in a system with the concept of "physical" obstacle for the climber.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Frank Sfarzo's latest post

To all,

Frank wrote, "The Supreme Court can’t increase the sixteen years inflicted by the Corte d’Assise d’Appello of Perugia (by canceling, for instance, the extenuating circumstances) since the prosecution didn’t appeal."

 

[billyryan]

One of the things the East European countries used to do was to charge dissidents with "slandering the state", when they said things the authorities didn't like. Ring any bells?



"Comparing" doesn't mean "equating". It's perfectly valid to point out parallels, even if the overall situation is very different.

Somewhere in the Italian governament and tourist industry alarm bells must be wringing about the damage this case is doing to Italies immage worldwide,I would be willing to bet that even in the dark days of the iron curtain that if an East German or Romanian or Albanian citizin reported being hit by a soldier or policeman they would not face charges and prison

 

[Machiavelli]

I cannot agree more Yet it was credible enough for the ILE.

I mean, how she later explained about why and how she had those memories.
(and then, how did these memories disappear).

About the credibility of facts themselves, I think that can be close to what actually happened, with the difference tha Patrick was the wrong person.

 

[shuttlt]

The police were not asking Amanda new questions. They were simply repeating the same questions again and again, hour after hour, day after day.

Surely the stuff that came out of Raffaele's interrogation was new and the mobile phone thing was new also?

 

[Withnail1969]

Somewhere in the Italian governament and tourist industry alarm bells must be wringing about the damage this case is doing to Italies immage worldwide,I would be willing to bet that even in the dark days of the iron curtain that if an East German or Romanian or Albanian citizin reported being hit by a soldier or policeman they would not face charges and prison

For sure. It's a dangerous place for foreigners. I always say about Italy, I love the buildings, I love the food, but I can do without the cheating thieving Italians.