Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I think that he has made many misrepresentations about the nature of his previous work experience.

I know (as do you) that he has made many misrepresentations about this case.

I was specifically addressing this phrase written by you:

....the agency he claims to have once worked for

which clearly indicates that you have doubts that Moore actually worked for the FBI. Nice straw man, though

 

[LondonJohn]

Why on earth would you bother to ask this (and the related questions) of anyone not privy to the contract?

Errrr...... because you asserted that Knox's family had "hired" (your word) an "expensive Seattle PR firm" (your words).

So presumably, since you're not privy to any contract (if there even IS a contract), you're in no position to state that Knox's family hired an expensive Seattle PR firm. Glad to have settled that one.

 

[nopoirot]

Forgive me but I need a little help here. I am wondering why, if Amanda's so called confession is to be believed, why is Patrick not still in jail? Why on earth would Amanda confess to being there with Patrick, knowing this could easily be disproved?

The majority view is that she was bullied into confessing, and that she persisted in "confessing" even after interrogation ceased, because the police managed to implant "internalized false memories" in her noggin. This took the form of Jason Bourne type "flashbacks." Much the same for her sidekick, Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

The majority view is that she was bullied into confessing, and that she persisted in "confessing" even after interrogation ceased, because the police managed to implant "internalized false memories" in her noggin. This took the form of Jason Bourne type "flashbacks." Much the same for her sidekick, Sollecito.

No: after her initial 1.45am "confession/accusation", her subsequent statements became increasingly equivocal about whether her coerced "imaginations" had any basis in reality. Within days (after presumably much internal analysis and questioning) she came to the firm conclusion that these were false memories which had been coaxed out of her by police insistence and coercion.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not Jason Bourne

The majority view is that she was bullied into confessing, and that she persisted in "confessing" even after interrogation ceased, because the police managed to implant "internalized false memories" in her noggin. This took the form of Jason Bourne type "flashbacks." Much the same for her sidekick, Sollecito.

nopoirot,

Candace Dempsey discussed the period between 1:45 and 5:45 in Murder in Italy. She said that Amanda described it as more of the same high-pressure browbeating as before. No one but you uses the phrase Jason Bourne flashbacks, and I don't think it is a helpful one.

 

[lionking]

I formed my opinion after studying the available documentation, researching issues I wasn't sufficiently familiar with, formulating plausible scenarios that are consistent with the known evidence, and discussing the case to find more information to refine my opinion.

How do you know I haven't done the same? Oh, yes that's right. I have a different opinion to you, so clearly wrong.

 

[komponisto]

Of course, since you could write a similar list of necessary conditions for any scenario going back to (and beyond) the birth of any hypothetical perpetrator, the only logical conclusion is to assume that the murder is too unlikely to have happened at all and thus Meredith Kercher is still alive and thus Knox is innocent! It's an open and shut case!

THIS post is an perfect example of what makes JREF interesting to me.

Nicely put, "quixotecoyote."

We interrupt this program to bring you the following breaking news: treehorn has ignored the refutation of a pro-guilt point!

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[treehorn]

Errrr...... because you asserted that Knox's family had "hired" (your word) an "expensive Seattle PR firm" (your words).

So presumably, since you're not privy to any contract (if there even IS a contract), you're in no position to state that Knox's family hired an expensive Seattle PR firm. Glad to have settled that one.

It was (obviously) a rhetorical question.

You must be new to the case.

You've got a lot of catching up to do. Wiki is a good place to start:

"Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott, of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.

Marriott is a former television news reporter and has been the press secretary for a former Seattle mayor, as well as having run several communications consulting firms.

Marriott ensured that journalists in Perugia in the early stages of the case could only get access to the Knox family if they gave guarantees about positive coverage."

(BTW, The sources cited range from the BBC to a career journalist at Newsweek.)

 

[Justinian2]

"Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man's upper chamber, if he has common sense on the ground floor." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

"Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man's attic but you must normally use your prejudices, emotions and imitations." Justinian sarcasm.

 

[treehorn]

Sorry, was that the testimony of Giorgio Cocciaretto, or the testimony of Marco Marzan? Because I'm certain that you previously stated that it was Marco Marzan who gave this testimony. Maybe we should check with someone who's actually read the Massei ratio correctly, eh...?

I'd originally intended to type something along the lines of: Lowe's claim that Amanda met Rudy 'once, at most' is vitiated by the testimony of ONE of either GC or MM (depending on which translation/ interpretation you prefer).

Alas, I decided to defer (for the sake of argument) to the version advanced by Knox-supporters, and ascribed the phrase "2 or 3 times" to GC rather than MM.

I'd have thought you'd be happy to see me defer rather than criticize me for it...

Oh, and as has been pointed out to you several times now, Cocciaretto's testimony actually only mentions one time when he saw Knox, Meredith and Guede together at the boys' house.

According to the translation offered by ONE anonymous poster?!

Why do you choose to believe said poster over a diligent and dedicated volunteer group of bilingual doctors and lawyers that not only undertook the Herculean task of completing the translation, but that had the courage to publish it for the world to judge?!

Why hasn't this anonymous poster approached the translation team at PMF? (They've expressly invited ANYONE with something to add to come forward.)

Until this is done, I see no reason to doubt the impressive team at PMF.

No. Your "take" on the cross-exam of Knox was that she had been deliberately evasive and obstructive, and that she had not given proper answers to the questions put by Carlo Pacelli. May I take the opportunity to remind you of your original post, which was unequivocal in its attack on Knox (without a peep about the imprecision and vagueness of Pacelli's questions (my emphasis):


You now curiously appear to be misrepresenting your original position on this issue. Why is that?

Still, you know what they say: in dubio pro reo.......

So now YOU are going to presume to tell ME what MY OWN 'take' on the cross is?!

You're taking the epithet 'know-it-all' to heretofore unseen heights, Kevin. Congrats!

The fact that you (and a few others) have decided (unilaterally) to adopt a different translation of the cross in Q makes it all the more difficult for me to respond here: I simply do not know which version to address at this point.

My comments were directed to the translation published by PMF and, to repeat, my 'take' in respect of that version is that, from a common law perspective, the cross was EXTREMELY limited in scope.

In the result, Knox was allowed to remain equivocal in respect of the main thrust of the inquiry in Q (whether, and to what extent, Knox had socialized with Rudy) in a way that would not have occurred in a common law court.

Such, it seems, is the nature of the civil law tradition. (Tom's posts in this regard have been very interesting.)

As for Knox's 'forthrightness', I'd ask you this:

After living in Perugia for just 4 weeks or so, WHO were Knox's 'mid-October dope-smoking pals' if not the 3 girls and 4 boys that shared her cottage and that invited Rudy to a small gathering therein, where dope was smoked, in mid-October?!

 

[lionking]

We interrupt this program to bring you the following breaking news: treehorn has ignored the refutation of a pro-guilt point!

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

That's because it wasn't a refutation.

 

[moodstream]

I would also like to reinforce the fact that everyone on this board, including you LoZ, Treehorn, and even TomM43, all now agree that the example given by Treehorn in post 24821 shows that Knox is answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.
Isn't that so?

I don't recall ever saying that, or anything like it. A direct answer to the question would be, "Yes." although her answer is an affirmation by inference. Her answer would be a clear and direct answer to two questions, "When did you...? and "How often...?" .

Honestly, I do not fetishize beating dead horses, but I would like to get to the bottom of this and I do not know what to make of your reply. Below comes from a summary of the issue I posted earlier (# 322)

Treehorn’s original post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6726650#post6726650 argued Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions. Treehorn gives this example: After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party:
1) CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
2) CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.

Treehorn posts that Knox is allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions, and allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?".

When you say - ' A direct answer to the question would be, "Yes." ' and ' Her answer would be a clear and direct answer to two questions, "When did you...? and "How often...?"' - I do not know it relates to the questions above.


The root problem was identified by Katody Matrass @24863 and Komponisto @24868, who are fluent in Italian. Treehorn was misunderstanding question 2 to read ‘On the occasion of this party, (where Guede was in attendance) at that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?’, and from this Treehorn contrived the question ‘Did you (Knox) smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?’ Out of his mistaken understanding, Treehorn then mistakenly accused Knox of giving evasive and intentionally incomplete responses, presumably with an intent to deceive.

Komponisto kindly translated afresh and in full the relevant passage, which can be found upthread at post 7. Here Treehorn's questions are correctly translated:

CP: Nell'occasione di questo party, signorina, fumaste hashish?
CP: On the occasion of this party, Ms. Knox, did you [plural, referring to the whole group!] smoke hashish?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
CP: Lei, all'epoca dei fatti, ottobre 97, faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? 2007 -- chiedo, mi scusi -- faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti?
CP: During the period in question, October '97 [sic], did you [singular] use [imperfect tense, meaning "habitually use"] mind-altering substances? 2007 -- sorry -- did you [habitually] use mind-altering substances?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.

TomM43, I do not understand how you can continue to maintain that Knox answers these questions in any other way except clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Treehorn does seem to make the claim that the interlocutor, Carlos Pacelli, is hindered from asking the trenchant questions somehow because of an Italian civil law tradition, which I must say I find quite mysterious. You seem to have picked up this line of reasoning, and that becomes the subject of the rest of your post. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this issue as well.

I don’t know if Treehorn is trying to assert that every answer Knox gave was evasive, but he certainly is trying to assert that the answers she gave to the above questions were evasive, and he was wrong.

Now, everyone reading this board, including LoZ, Treehorn, and even you TomM43, all now agree that the example given by Treehorn in post 24821 shows that Knox is answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Isn’t that correct?

 

[Dan O.]

How do you know I haven't done the same? Oh, yes that's right. I have a different opinion to you, so clearly wrong.

What you haven't done is offered a detailed choreography of what happened so that we can critique your opinion. It's not too late to correct this oversight. Until you do though, your opinion is just your opinion and doesn't carry any weight.

 

[platonov]

Hmmmmm.......do you think he might have looked into Filomena's room and seen her laptop and camera lying there in plain view, and that he might also have checked with Knox as to whether any of her belongings were missing?
In any case, he's wrong, isn't he? Meredith's money, credit cards and keys were taken. Do you think he wove all that into the fabric of his "made-up" declaration to the police that "nothing had been taken"? Elaborate double-bluff, eh? GENIUS!

Hmmm ? not sure what good that would have done - when asked about it on the stand she (AK) was 'confused' as to whether she even checked if her money was missing.

As I pointed out in an earlier post 'strange burglary' or strange reaction to a 'burglary' - while you may be forgiven for ignoring/forgetting my posts you really should read AK's testimony.

PS Congrats on the new automobile.

 

[lionking]

What you haven't done is offered a detailed choreography of what happened so that we can critique your opinion. It's not too late to correct this oversight. Until you do though, your opinion is just your opinion and doesn't carry any weight.

Well I don't accept your opinion, and put greater value on the findings of the court. Weighing up your opinion against the court's after months of deliberation is pretty easy for me.

 

[treehorn]

I was specifically addressing this phrase written by you:


which clearly indicates that you have doubts that Moore actually worked for the FBI. Nice straw man, though

Steve Moore has given reasonable people everywhere more than enough cause to seriously doubt every claim that he makes in respsect of his past work and the evidence in this case.

His credibility is, at this point, less than zero.

 

[Draca]

Steve Moore has given reasonable people everywhere more than enough cause to seriously doubt every claim that he makes in respect of his past work and the evidence in this case.

His credibility is, at this point, less than zero.

Which is why he was invited to be in two upcoming documentaries?

Don't fool yourself that your opinion that his credibility is zero is shared by anyone but entrenched guilters.

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

Candace Dempsey discussed the period between 1:45 and 5:45 in Murder in Italy. She said that Amanda described it as more of the same high-pressure browbeating as before. No one but you uses the phrase Jason Bourne flashbacks, and I don't think it is a helpful one.

It was Amanda who settled on the term "flashback." Helpful or not, I regard it as contrived.

 

[Poppy1016]

Steve Moore has given reasonable people everywhere more than enough cause to seriously doubt every claim that he makes in respsect of his past work and the evidence in this case.

His credibility is, at this point, less than zero.

Steve Moore originally assumed AK and RS were probably guilty. After much research of the case he came to the conclusion that the trial was a travesty of justice. Many other experts have come to the same conclusion after studying the case. You however maintain your position in spite of the evidence. I commend you for holding on to your belief in regards to this case. However, I can't help but think that even if you know you are wrong, you would never admit it. It's the same thing Mignini and the Perugian justice system has done. They made a huge mistake and will do anything to avoid looking bad.

 

[babycondor]

deleted