Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

I don't know how the message could have seemed incriminating, at that point. " Don't come into work tonight". "OK, See you later. "

Which in Italian, unlike English, definitely implies a future meeting, thus the police thought for sure that Amanda and Patrick met up the night of the murder. It makes sense from their standpoint, they think they've got Amanda on video entering the house, and Patrick's cellphone records 'revealing' he wasn't where he said he was.

 

[Antony]

I'm impressed, Rose M. Finally, you write that there is SOLID evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. This is the first time, that I can remember, that one of the innoscenti has said this, without a caveat.

... and when is one of the PMF faithful going to admit that the police lied? The evidence for that is far more unequivocal than any indications of "lies" by Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Amazer]

... and when is one of the PMF faithful going to admit that the police lied? The evidence for that is far more unequivocal than any indications of "lies" by Amanda and Raffaele.

What difference does it make whether or not the police lied?

 

[Antony]

I have said this all along, including when I was allowed to post at PMF.

I think calling it "solid" evidence is overstating it. From what I can gather, all reports of Amanda and Raffaele "lying" have their origin either as:

1) statements attributed to them by police;

2) statements they made while under pressure by the police;

3) confused statements they made in response to false information from the police and/or media.

You are right to say that the "solid" evidence against the 2 of them doesn't extend beyond these suggestions of "lying". Of course, evidence isn't the same thing as proof, but that won't stop your comments being reported by some as an acknowledgement by an Amanda supporter that she and Raffaele lied.

 

[Antony]

What difference does it make whether or not the police lied?

It destroys the prosecution case.

 

[capealadin]

It destroys the prosecution case.

That's all the prosecution had? That the police lied? Right..the police lied. Poof, our case is destroyed.

 

[capealadin]

Which in Italian, unlike English, definitely implies a future meeting, thus the police thought for sure that Amanda and Patrick met up the night of the murder. It makes sense from their standpoint, they think they've got Amanda on video entering the house, and Patrick's cellphone records 'revealing' he wasn't where he said he was.

Saying see you later, probably does mean that AT SOME TIME in the future, you'll be seeing each other. Halides says that Amanda was not fired, therefore the assumption, indeed, it's positive, that Amanda was going to see Patrick, in the future. I don't see the jump as to sometime in the future, that that meant later that night. It took Amanda saying " It's him, I'm scared of him, he's bad, he did it, he fancied Meredith, that had Patrick arrested.

 

[capealadin]

I have said this all along, including when I was allowed to post at PMF.

Your position now is very different, as to when you first posted at PMF. You have stated that reading the Report, is what convinced you. And that's fair enough. What I am referring to, is that this is the first time that you have admitted that there is solid evidence that they lied, without adding excuses.

 

[Amazer]

It destroys the prosecution case.

An entertaining notion... nothing more then that though.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm impressed, Rose M. Finally, you write that there is SOLID evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. This is the first time, that I can remember, that one of the innoscenti has said this, without a caveat.

I said ages ago in the first thread that I thought Sollecito had made up the story about pricking Kercher's hand with the knife. It was a stupid thing to do.

 

[nopoirot]

Yes, Rose, it is regrettable that there isn't more tolerance for minority views. I posted a couple of comments before drifting here, and was denounced for being one Harry Rag, and drummed out of the forum.

On the one hand, the theories dreamed up by the prosecution are ridiculous. On the other, it is awfully difficult to believe that Raf and Amanda have been altogether candid with us. The defense team appreciates this. That's the reason I think they would have elicited from Amanda during her examination any further evidence they had of coercive tactics.

Having come late to this quagmire, I still have a bit of mucking around to do, here and there, before trying to come up with a "theory of the case."

 

[Kaosium]

Saying see you later, probably does mean that AT SOME TIME in the future, you'll be seeing each other. Halides says that Amanda was not fired, therefore the assumption, indeed, it's positive, that Amanda was going to see Patrick, in the future. I don't see the jump as to sometime in the future, that that meant later that night. It took Amanda saying " It's him, I'm scared of him, he's bad, he did it, he fancied Meredith, that had Patrick arrested.

That's what it means in English, and how Amanda meant it, but apparently in Italian it means a definite later meeting, not just a farewell. Amanda's Italian was pretty marginal at this stage.

The fact they convinced Amanda of something that turned out wasn't possibly true and then used that to arrest both Amanda and Patrick is hardly the fault of Amanda in my view. With authority comes responsibility and, ultimately accountability. Sloughing this off on their victim is repellent in my opinion, and I don't think in the long run they're going to get away with it. There will probably never be jail time for any of them, but I do believe in time it will dawn on most people that police make the decisions on who to arrest, not girls some five months out of their teens that have spent the better part of a week at the police station being interrogated or waiting to be interrogated.

 

[Antony]

That's all the prosecution had? That the police lied? Right..the police lied. Poof, our case is destroyed.

The scientific and witness "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele was hopelessly compromised by their incompetence alone; and that doesn't even bring in questions of bad faith on their part. Once we consider the number of times they showed that they cannot be trusted, then the prosecution case falls apart.

In any case, getting back to Rose's point about Amanda and Raffaele's alleged "lies", the way I read it is this: with no solid evidence behind the murder case, all there is left are the suggestions of lying to police.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, Rose, it is regrettable that there isn't more tolerance for minority views. I posted a couple of comments before drifting here, and was denounced for being one Harry Rag, and drummed out of the forum.

On the one hand, the theories dreamed up by the prosecution are ridiculous. On the other, it is awfully difficult to believe that Raf and Amanda have been altogether candid with us. The defense team appreciates this. That's the reason I think they would have elicited from Amanda during her examination any further evidence they had of coercive tactics.

Calunnia is an automatic charge against anyone claiming police misconduct in court, if I recall correctly what Machiavelli--who's no believer in Amanda's innocence--posted about it. I suspect Amanda's lawyers tried to skirt the edge of it and Mignini decided they sailed too close anyway.

 

[capealadin]

That's what it means in English, and how Amanda meant it, but apparently in Italian it means a definite later meeting, not just a farewell. Amanda's Italian was pretty marginal at this stage.

The fact they convinced Amanda of something that turned out wasn't possibly true and then used that to arrest both Amanda and Patrick is hardly the fault of Amanda in my view. With authority comes responsibility and, ultimately accountability. Sloughing this off on their victim is repellent in my opinion, and I don't think in the long run they're going to get away with it. There will probably never be jail time for any of them, but I do believe in time it will dawn on most people that police make the decisions on who to arrest, not girls some five months out of their teens that have spent the better part of a week at the police station being interrogated or waiting to be interrogated.

I would agree with you, if the message had stipulated * sta sera* or tonight. It did not. No italian speaker has defined the message than anything else, except see you later, which could mean ANY time, in the FUTURE.

Yes, police make the decision on whom to arrest. That does NOT MEAN they will get a conviction. The case has to be proved, in Court, and then the jurors have to make a decision. And, again, Amanda was not being interrogated for the best part of a week. Bringing up 5 months out of your teens, has no bearing on the case. A person of 18 can fight in a war. Or, is your inference that the World is sending children to fight?

 

[capealadin]

The scientific and witness "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele was hopelessly compromised by their incompetence alone; and that doesn't even bring in questions of bad faith on their part. Once we consider the number of times they showed that they cannot be trusted, then the prosecution case falls apart.

In any case, getting back to Rose's point about Amanda and Raffaele's alleged "lies", the way I read it is this: with no solid evidence behind the murder case, all there is left are the suggestions of lying to police.

Rose stated that there is solid evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. It seems you are calling her a liar.

 

[Antony]

An entertaining notion... nothing more then that though.

This exchange illustrates the difference in approach between an independent view of the case, and someone willing to go along with the Italian authorities regardless of the nonsense that they come up with. In the authoritarian view, it makes no difference if the police lie and manipulate the evidence, nor if the court acts as a rubber-stamp for police accusations without proper examination.

I can't help wondering why you think we should have trials at all - why not just have the police say to the judge, "we've caught the criminals, what punishment are you going to give them?"

 

[Antony]

Rose stated that there is solid evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied. It seems you are calling her a liar.

This was the statement by Rose that we are talking about:

I agree with you that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of murder. The only solid evidence against AK and RS is that they lied. The reason for the lies are the main questions TBD.

How, exactly, does that disagree with what I have responded?

"The only solid evidence against AK and RS is that they (allegedly) lied."

... is equivalent to:

"there is no solid evidence against AK and RS other than that they (allegedly) lied."

It is not the same as "there is solid evidence that AK and RS lied" - with the implication that it is to be added to other (non-existent) evidence. So you are misrepresenting what she typed.

The only logical difference between Rose's posting and mine is that I would add the word "allegedly".

 

[nopoirot]

Not to be mawkish about it, but is Meredith's right to justice deemed to have been forfeited by "police misconduct"?

I'm thinking about changing my handle to Sisyphus.

 

[Kaosium]

I would agree with you, if the message had stipulated * sta sera* or tonight. It did not. No italian speaker has defined the message than anything else, except see you later, which could mean ANY time, in the FUTURE.

Yes, police make the decision on whom to arrest. That does NOT MEAN they will get a conviction. The case has to be proved, in Court, and then the jurors have to make a decision. And, again, Amanda was not being interrogated for the best part of a week. Bringing up 5 months out of your teens, has no bearing on the case. A person of 18 can fight in a war. Or, is your inference that the World is sending children to fight?

I don't speak Italian, but I've seen that so many times from both believers in guilt and innocence in this thread I thought it was pretty much established that Amanda's poor Italian caused her to make that mistake which made the cops suspicious. There was testimony on this as well, if I recall correctly. If I recall it wrong, I withdraw it, of course.

We just added it up not long ago, and Amanda was either being interrogated or waiting to be interrogated about forty hours in about four days. That's a lot of time at the police station, and what I meant by 'the better part of the week.' I do think her age has some bearing, and she hadn't been through the coercive training those soldiers all go through. She's also not the one with the power to arrest anyone. She was a college student, it's the police who decide who gets arrested, and they were the ones who actually went and did it. Not Amanda, she got herself arrested too. I find the scapegoating of her by the Perugian police regarding the arrest of Patrick ludicrous and suggestive of blatant deception on their part.

Boy, it sure worked out well for the prosecution didn't it? Three charges, bringing the inadmissible 'confession' into play during the trial, and now a chance to get it in again potentially with the calunnia trial.