• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
loverofzion said:
The lies are too numerous and too convoluted to answer in one post.

For starters though, she lied about where she had been the night of the murder.
She changed her alibi 3x, as did raf.
Click to expand...

I think aggressive interrogators under the sway of faulty data used coercive methods to change their alibis to fit their theory of Patrick as the murderer, but both Amanda and Raffaele realized soon after they'd been lied to. That's really only one change, and one quickly rectified.

What would you say if the police insisted you were somewhere you weren't, that they had hard evidence proving it, and you'd better stop 'lying' about not leaving unless you want to do thirty years? The first thirty times you might stick to your memories, but if they convinced you they could be false, perhaps due to smoking hash?

Over and over, for hours.
 
Last edited:
loverofzion said:
Really Justinian, it sounds like you have too much time on your hands.

So now we have raf rubbing his hands on Meredith's low cut back and transferring his DNA to her bra clasp.

Can you do a little better.
Click to expand...

Apart from your first sentence, I'd tend to agree with you here.

I think that trying to pursue a theory based upon bra-sharing or friendly back-rubbing is of little worth. I can't think of a reasonable way in which either of these activities could have ended up with Sollecito's DNA being on the hook of the bra clasp.

Personally, if the DNA can be correctly shown to be Sollecito's, then I think the bra clasp was contaminated either at the scene or in the lab. I certainly don't think there's any way in which his DNA could have found its way onto the small metal hook of the bra clasp during the removal of the bra from Meredith's torso - otherwise his DNA would almost certainly also be present on the material surrounding the clasp.
 
expelliarmus

treehorn said:
No she didn't.

Per usual, Knox created confusion.

This is what liars seek to do.

Innocent people have noting to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, treehorn but now you're just conjuring reality away.


treehorn said:
You'd know this if you'd ever spent any time representing clients facing criminal charges.
Click to expand...

It seems you claim to be a lawyer. Sorry but it's quite obvious that you're not. No amount of pompous Latin can change it :) It's funny that you not only expressed confusion about why Pacelli circles around and is unable to ask a straight question but you (apparently unconsciously) projected that evasiveness on Amanda.

Pacelli is circling around and Amanda's answers are straight:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

CP: Which substances were they?

AK: Marijuana.​
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
loverofzion,

Treehorn said that he was using the term narcotic in its legal, rather than its medical, meaning. Saying that marijuana is legally a narcotic is misleading at best, untrue at worst. Nothing I have uncovered about Italian drug laws suggests that marijuana is classed as a narcotic. From a previous cite, "Cannabis and cannabis products are classified as a Schedule II drug under Italian law."

Note that schedule II consists solely of cannabis.

Italy - Six Classes.
I opium, cocaine, hallucinogens, some amphetamines
II cannabis
III barbiturates
IV medicinal substances
V preparations of substances mentioned at I to III
VI antidepressants, stimulants

Do you have a citation that says otherwise?
Click to expand...

The problem with using the word Narcotics is you either use it nonspecific or specific.
If you get specific then it refers to psychoactive drugs.
When you get non specific it can refer to 2 things:
1. Illegal or illegally obtained drugs.
2. Or It can refer to all drugs.

PS. Psychoactive drugs are listed in 3 categories.
1. Stimulants: Example; Caffeine and Nicotine
2. Depressant: Example; Alcohol and Opioids
3. Hallucinogens: Example; LSD

THC falls into all 3 of those groups.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
This leads to semantics. I would concede the point. One may fairly describe someone who has been convicted of murder as a "convicted murderer."
Click to expand...

"Convicted murderer" is not the same as "murderer".

The point is not actually a semantic one (and I'll note that I was not the one to introduce the phrase "by definition" into this discussion). There are lots of people (lionking being an example) who seem unable to understand the idea that it is possible to disagree with a court decision, or at least seem to think there is something "inappropriate" about doing so. (PMF-watchers may recall that I was banned from that forum after suggesting that my opinion on whether Knox and Sollecito were likely to be acquitted at the appeal might be distinct from my opinion on whether they are innocent of the crime; this was considered unpardonable "arrogance" on my part.) In insisting that court decisions somehow necessarily settle an issue of fact, people confuse social authority with rational evidence -- a confusion that desperately needs to be cleared up.
 
Last edited:
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"
Click to expand...

That was not the question she was asked. Pacelli's question, in the original Italian (unfortunately the video seems to have been removed from YouTube, so you'll have to get your PMF friends to verify this) was:

Lei faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti?
Click to expand...

That's faceva, the imperfect tense, which indicates habitual or continuous action, not the preterite (fece) or perfect (ha fatto), which would more likely have been used had the speaker been asking specifically about a particular occasion. The question, as posed, means roughly, "were you in the habit of using mind-altering substances?"
 
loverofzion said:
It has negative connotations, especially when paired with issues of race.
If one means by that term that the person is unemployed, well then I believe Curt Knox and Chris Mellas would then also be drifters.
Click to expand...

I believe it's an established guilter talking point that people who believe Rudy Guede to be guilty and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be innocent do so out of racism, which makes them bad people.

The claimed proof of racism on the part of pro-innocent speakers is their use of terms like "creepy drifter" to describe Rudy Guede, which might not seem racist on the surface, but the backup guilter talking point is that terms like "creepy drifter" are code for racist terms.

So when I say "Rudy Guede was an unemployed man with no obvious means of support, linked by multiple reliable reports to crimes involving second-storey break-ins by means of a hurled rock, known to carry a knife while committing his crimes" what they take me to really mean is "Rudy was black and thus a criminal".

Or when I say "Amanda Knox was by all pre-trial accounts an entirely normal and well-liked person with no signs of violent, anti-social behaviour, as was Raffaele Sollecito" what they take me to mean is "They are of the master race and above the law! Heil Hitler!".

It's a matched set with the guilters' love affair with the second-hand hearsay published by Mudede ("And never retracted! So it's true!") that Amanda told a Jewish co-worker that "my people killed your people", and the photograph of Amanda horsing around in a museum which, in guilters' minds, transformed itself into a Holocaust memorial.

So if you think the Massei narrative is a load of old cobblers then probably you are secretly a racist, anti-semitic bigot. Apparently.
 
Gary Leiterman and the murder of Jane Mixer

lionking said:
So if courts don't decide guilt or innocence, who or what does?
Click to expand...

lionking,

Consider the conviction of Gary Leiterman. His DNA was found on the pantyhose of the deceased, Jane Mixer. Case closed? So was the DNA of John Ruelas, who was four years old at the time and living in a city 40 miles away. On the other hand, little if any DNA from Mixer herself was found on the pantyhose. A number of DNA experts, including Dr. Theodore Kessis, have pointed out some of the flaws in the case. I think he is innocent*, although I am not holding my breath waiting for the authorities in Michigan to change its mind.
*and that both Leiterman's and Ruelas's DNA arrived on the pantyhose from contamination
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Then be a bit altruistic and do it for the benefit of all the others :)
Click to expand...


Translation of the Court's judgment, page 375:

"The owner [of Sollecito's apartment]...would have been able to remember [the knife's]...presence and note the absence of this utensil, and this circumstance would have been able to constitute a trace, an invertigative hypothesis upon which...Sollecito may have been called in to supply an explanation for...opportune to carry the knife back ...its cleaning would have [in theory] ensured...non-traceability..."



First Kevin, then John, now you...

Have any of the pro-Knox set bothered to read the Court's judgment?!
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
lionking,

Consider the conviction of Gary Leiterman. His DNA was found on the pantyhose of the deceased, Jane Mixer. Case closed? So was the DNA of John Ruelas, who was four years old at the time and living in a city 40 miles away. On the other hand, little if any DNA from Mixer herself was found on the pantyhose. A number of DNA experts, including Dr. Theodore Kessis, have pointed out some of the flaws in the case. I think he is innocent, although I am not holding my breath waiting for the authorities in Michigan to change its mind.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered my question. Komponisto said that courts don't settle issues of fact (obviously in the context of a criminal trial). Who or what does?
 
treehorn said:
Knox got away with murder (no pun intended) when she took the stand.

Anyone trained in the common law would have found it excruciating to watch the way that Knox was allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions put.

In this regard, the Italian civil law tradition is a mystery to me.

Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions.

Just look at the way she answers a question clearly aimed at establishing the fact that she smoke dope during one of Rudy's visits to the cottage:

After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:

CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?

AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.

CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?

AK: Every once in a while with friends.

[emphasis added]

From Perugia Murder File

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16


"Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"

She'd never get away with that in a US courtroom. Ever.

That line of questions would have only been the tip o' the proverbial iceberg. I assure you.

I'm amazed that the pro-Knox supporters can behold evasive and incomplete answers of this kind only to turn around an conclude that Knox is not being deliberately deceptive.
Click to expand...

I had the vague idea you said you knew something about the law, but exactly what it was has slipped my mind.

Now there's a legal maxim that you should never ask a question of a witness that you don't know the answer to. I wonder if you've ever heard of it? Maybe not. Anyway, it's occasionally misinterpreted by people who don't know much about the law as a general rule of conduct in a discussion, but a moment's thought would show that would be very silly. You can't learn without asking questions.

It's a specific tactic for risk-averse cross-examination in a court. The idea is that if you ask a question which you do not know the answer to, two bad things can happen. One, the witness can lie to you and get away with it. Two, the witness can give an answer that you do not wish the court to hear and which will limit your ability to spin the case your way.

The reality is that despite pious promises on the part of the witness that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the cross-examination process is in fact a game where the lawyer uses the witness as a mouthpiece to deliver a carefully-chosen series of statements to the court that paint a picture that the lawyer wants the court to see. The "art of cross-examination" is in part the art of creating illusions by omitting important and relevant information.

If you didn't know that then I guess you could read that exchange as Amanda running rings around the interrogating lawyer. However any familiarity at all with courtroom processes would have let you read the exchange correctly.

The interrogating lawyer, in all likelihood, knows only that Amanda was at a party with Rudy where marijuana was used, and that Amanda sometimes used marijuana. The lawyer wants those two facts on the record and asks exactly those questions.

The lawyer might well think that Amanda shared drugs with Rudy for all we know, but if the lawyer had proof that this had ever happened then they would have asked directly "Did you ever share drugs with Rudy Guede?". The fact that the lawyer did not ask such a question indicates that the lawyer did not have proof one way or the other about that question.

How the law actually proceeds is a fascinating topic, and one worth studying if you want to understand cases like this. Have you considered one day perhaps studying law or science at a university? I think you could learn a lot that would be relevant to this case.
 
loverofzion said:
Even IF your reasoning is true, and that it's only "a vanishingly small number of murder cases that friends kill friends", that still says nothing about the fa ts of this case.
Click to expand...

Actually it says something very important to a rational person.

The prior probability of the prosecution's theory, that Amanda (a friend), Raffaele (a friend's boyfriend) and Rudy Guede (a creepy local criminal none of them knew beyond one or two chance meetings) ganged up to murder Meredith is extremely low.

It's a zebra hypothesis. An extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. It's not quite as unlikely as "Wonder Woman, Batman and the Green Lantern did it", but it's far, far more unlikely than "a lover, family member or burglar did it".

A rational person needs extremely compelling evidence before they will believe an extremely unlikely proposition. There needs to be a large body of sound and convincing evidence before a rational thinker will slide from thinking "it is overwhelmingly likely that Rudy Guede did it alone", the rational prior position, to "it is overwhelmingly likely that Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito teamed up to do it".

The prosecution claimed they had such evidence, but it turns out they were largely making it up or distorting the facts. There was no bleach receipt, the shoe print wasn't Raffaele's, the Harry Potter book was right where it should have been, there was absolutely no evidence of a clean-up, there was absolutely no evidence of a staged break-in, there was no sign of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder room, the bloody footprints were all compatible with Guede and so on and on.

What is left is a collection of weak and suspect evidence insufficient to convince a rational person of a zebra hypothesis.

So it turns out it's really important that the prosecution's theory is incredibly far-fetched from the start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom