Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

No.

I cited his TV appearance (NBC):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22332240/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/

"Clint thinks Amanda, with the forensic evidence, her shifting stories -- yes I was there, no I wasn't -- coupled with her false accusation of Lumumba has put her in a perilous situation. ...

"Clint Van Zandt: These are good cops. They're linking together all of the technology, cell phone, internet, crime scene forensic evidence. I think when this is all over and done with we will find out what happened to Meredith that terrible night.

Clint Van Zandt: I think Amanda has got an uphill battle. She's painted herself back into a corner that she's going to have a hard time getting' out of. The only thing that's going to get her out of it is the truth. But this is someone, because of physical evidence and because of the statements of others, may very well take a hard fall for this homicide.

Clint Van Zandt: Realize that this is a young woman wearing two masks. One mask is Amanda, the good girl, grew up in a Catholic school, an athlete, does what her mother says. And then you've got this other mask that when she gets here it's: “I’m going wild, I’m having fun. This is where I sow my wild oats.” Now which is the true Amanda? Probably both.

[emphasis added]"

Is there anyone who doesn't think she's put herself into a "perilous situation"? Regardless, he never used "damning" to refer to the evidence himself. Do you agree with the additional statements he made that I and HB cited?

 

[treehorn]

Well, the following is Van Zandt's point of view:



http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_...nox-cold-blooded-killer-or-angel-faced-victim

Do you agree with him?

Yes.

I, too, do not buy the 'comic book' motivation.

I wonder what Clint would think of my 'rape prank' theory of the case...



PS It must be noted, however, that I have not seen the comic books and films in Q, referred to by the Court at page 367-8 of the translation:

"...free emotion (see the comic books seized from...Sollecito and the statements on the viewing of films...of the tutors of the...College attended by...Sollecito)..."


This is yet another example that underscores the limitations of the translation.

We need to see the comics.

We need to read the tutors' statements about the films.

They, obviously, had a very strong impact on the triers.

 

[Malkmus]

You can't even HINT at a swear word on this board!

My 'screen writing skills' suffer enormously as a result.

True

But still, imagining that proposal even laced with profanity doesn't make it anymore believable. Double, when you consider that she had to convince a second person to go along with it.

 

[treehorn]

True

But still, imagining that proposal even laced with profanity doesn't make it anymore believable. Double, when you consider that she had to convince a second person to go along with it.

Rudy, by all accounts, had the hots for Amanda.

Ditto for Raffaele.

I think it's safe to assume they were both eager to impress/ please her.

Asked for their assistance on a little post-Halloween prank, they wouldn't have thought twice.

Have you forgotten what it's like to be 20-23?

 

[nopoirot]

God dammit JREFers.

Treehorn, just take the bate will ya?

When first presented the evidence and theories of the prosecution, I believed what they said. Now, though I question the many lies told by Amanda and her boyfriend, I have not seen the evidence needed to convict in the USA.

While I believe she should have been tried, I question the hard evidence that proves murder and puts her at the crime scene. I have tried to keep an open mind regarding the evidence and not line up on one side or the other.

Too bad the jury wasn't given the alternative of finding obstruction of justice.

 

[Mary_H]

Rudy, by all accounts, had the hots for Amanda.

By how many accounts?

Ditto for Raffaele.

So after six days this shy guy was ready to share her with another man?

I think it's safe to assume they were both eager to impress/ please her.

Asked for their assistance on a little post-Halloween prank, they wouldn't have thought twice.

Have you forgotten what it's like to be 20-23?

I doubt there is anyone here who remembers being 20-23 and being invited to join in a rape prank, much less one featuring a real knife. If they had, they would have laughed it off as a joke, not eagerly joined in.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.)

BTW, the sources cited are LIMITED to

1) one of the authors of "Darkness Descending" (a book about the case that was heavily slanted against Knox and Sollecito) - who wrote an article for the BBC website - and not a BBC journalist;

2) a career freelance stringer who's supplied pay-per-piece contributions to Newsweek, Budget Travel, and the magazine of the World Monument Fund amongst others - and who's also written a book on the case that is heavily slanted against Knox and Sollecito.

Oh and both books authored by these "sources" turned out to have numerous errors of fact, and both contained unsupported conjecture that was hostile to Knox and Sollecito. But I'm glad that you seem to consider them to be impeccable sources. And - in passing - I also understand that this Wikipedia page is subject to aggressive and partisan editing (by both "sides"), so I think it's dangerous to lean on it as a balanced aggregator of information on the case...

 

[katy_did]

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.

Treehorn, RoseMontague has already explained that I and others aren't welcome to post at PMF. Last time I did so I was asked not to post again in big red writing, and I took that to mean my input wasn't welcome (maybe I was being over-sensitive). I fully share your admiration both for the size of the task undertaken by the translators and their bravery in publishing it, but they're not infallible.

Rose already asked you to report that error on PMF, and I'd ask the same thing; the best place to do so is here. Some time back on the thread, it was also pointed out that the phrase on p345/[369], "fluorescent measuring tapes were used", should read "fluorescent measuring tapes were not used", so maybe you can mention that one as well.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes.

I, too, do not buy the 'comic book' motivation.

I wonder what Clint would think of my 'rape prank' theory of the case...

I don't think you get to call it a theory yet.

It hasn't got any times attached to the supposed events, and until it does that it's not clear whether it can be reconciled with the autopsy evidence and the computer forensics evidence, and we need your story on whether and how there was a staged break-in and a clean-up, and we need your story on what happened in the aftermath of the murder.

Once we've got all that we can try to put rough probabilities on each of the required steps in the theory and see whether it's possible or plausible.

So far it's not looking good - how many "rape pranks" occur per year compared to how many knife murders? Is there any evidence Amanda played nasty pranks of any kind, let alone "rape pranks" involving live blades? What are the odds that on a five minute walk from Raffaele's house to Amanda's house they'd meet Rudy anyway, let alone invite him to join in a "rape prank" when one of them doesn't even know him and the other has met him once and seen him once? If it's a prank why did someone hold Meredith from behind and cut her throat, then sexually molest her while she lay dying? Why didn't any of the three who didn't do that (only one of them could have) call the police? Why did they then stage a burglary with Rudy's exact M.O.? Why did they leave Rudy's poo in the toilet and Rudy's bloody print in the murder room? Why are Meredith's wounds consistent with and indicative of a single attacker? Why hasn't one of the two who who didn't cut Meredith's throat rolled over?

It looks to me that you have to pile implausibility upon implausibility to get this story to work, and I haven't even started on the timing issues yet.

It's a whole lot easier to explain the evidence if Rudy does the murder all by himself, while Amanda and Raffaele stay home.

 

[treehorn]

By how many accounts?



So after six days this shy guy was ready to share her with another man?



I doubt there is anyone here who remembers being 20-23 and being invited to join in a rape prank, much less one featuring a real knife. If they had, they would have laughed it off as a joke, not eagerly joined in.

1) Read the Court's judgment starting at page 39 (about the boys downstairs) and count for yourself.

2) Raffaele did not want to share, so he had to impress - if she wanted to pull a rape prank, with or without others, he knew he'd better jump to. Alas, in his own lust for "extreme experiences" he was likely just as keen as Amanda.

3) Why so literal, Mary? Try conceptualizing of the work 'prank' in a broader way. Were your early 20's 'prank' free?

I suppose 'rape pranks' are a newer phenomenon...

As for Amanda's penchant for writing short stories about rapes and stalking, and Raffaele's penchant for collecting and wearing knives, between sessions with his animal porn, that is, I will concede that few - if any of us - were that deranged.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

1) Read the Court's judgment starting at page 39 (about the boys downstairs) and count for yourself.

2) Raffaele did not want to share, so he had to impress - if she wanted to pull a rape prank, with out without others, he'd better jump. Alas, in his own lust for "extreme experiences" he was likely just as keen as Amanda.

3) Why so literal, Mary? Try conceptualizing of the work 'prank' in a broader way. Were your early 20's 'prank' free?

As for Amanda's penchant for writing short stories about rapes and stalking, and Raffaele's penchant for collecting and wearing knives, between sessions with his animal porn, that is, I will concede that few - if any of us - were that deranged.

What percentage of people who write such stories, collect such knives or watch an animal porn video once in their twenties do you think commit murder, Treehorn?

This is not the PMF, or a timid church congregation who believe that rock and roll music, Dungeons and Dragons, pot and Grand Theft Auto turn people into serial killers.

If you present this as evidence they were likely to commit murder you need actual evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

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...


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.



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?!

It would help us all if you read posts properly (and noted who had posted them) before attempting a reply. Your response here to my first point was an utter straw man. My point was that Giorgio Cocciaretto (an occasional visitor to the boys' cottage) had given that testimony, but that you erroneously stated that it was Marco Marzan (a resident of the cottage) that had done so:

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...?

But your response seemed to be concerned with whether Cocciaretto had seen Guede and Knox together one time or more than once (which I did bring up, but not in the part that you quoted then "responded" to).

And secondly, it was I and not Kevin who posted the second point that you've quoted above. And yes, I DO presume to know what your "take" on this issue originally was - before you "reverse-ferreted" the situation. Although it pains me to do so, I'll quote back to you your ORIGINAL post on this issue. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me what your "take" on the "cross" was (my emphasis):

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.

Would you say that your "take" is that Pacelli didn't ask direct questions about whether Knox smoked cannabis in the boys' cottage when Guede was there, or was your "take" that Knox artfully and deviously avoided answering the questions put to her in this exchange? Because the truth is that your initial "take" was the latter, and your initial "take" was incorrect. However, if you prefer to pretend that this was never your "take", then go right ahead.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn, RoseMontague has already explained that I and others aren't welcome to post at PMF. Last time I did so I was asked not to post again in big red writing, and I took that to mean my input wasn't welcome (maybe I was being over-sensitive). I fully share your admiration both for the size of the task undertaken by the translators and their bravery in publishing it, but they're not infallible.

Rose already asked you to report that error on PMF, and I'd ask the same thing; the best place to do so is here. Some time back on the thread, it was also pointed out that the phrase on p345/[369], "fluorescent measuring tapes were used", should read "fluorescent measuring tapes were not used", so maybe you can mention that one as well.

I can't imagine what you did to get banned.

If all you did was present them with a different translation, I can't imagine their response would be to ban you!

There's got to be more to the story.

To be honest, this makes me wonder just how far off your "translations" are...

I don't want to approach them with something that's ridiculous. No one wants to be played for a fool. Why should I trust you?

 

[treehorn]

Would you say that your "take" is that Pacelli didn't ask direct questions about whether Knox smoked cannabis in the boys' cottage when Guede was there, or was your "take" that Knox artfully and deviously avoided answering the questions put to her in this exchange? Because the truth is that your initial "take" was the latter, and your initial "take" was incorrect. However, if you prefer to pretend that this was never your "take", then go right ahead.

Why are you assuming that my conclusions about Knox's evasiveness on the stand are limited to the questions put by Lumumba's lawyer?!

 

[LondonJohn]

Yup.

But he is a gun-for-hire now, so ...

I just hope that he won't tarnish his reputation (and the Bureau) in the process of 'consulting' for Team Knox.

Like Hal Holbrook's character, Lou, in the movie 'Wall Street' said:

"The main thing about money, Bud, is that it makes you do things you don't want to do."

So you're classifying John Douglas as a "gun for hire", and thereby dismissing his opinion, yet you're not according the same level of critical scrutiny to Clint Van Zandt, whose opinion you cited at the beginning of this exchange?

I must say, I can't fault your logic here. It's breathtaking

 

[LondonJohn]

Is that what's passing for a rebuttal these days?

(Now that your theory has imploded, have you at least bothered to read the Court's judgment with a little more care?)

Whose testimony was it again regarding Guede and Knox being seen together in the boys' cottage? Was it Marco Marzan's or Giorgio Cocciaretto's? Could you remind me?

People who live in glass houses....................

 

[LondonJohn]

I wasn't aware that a theory lost points for being 'derivative' ...

I thought it was all about getting at the truth simpliciter.

In any event, I wouldn't dream of claiming that I knew more about the fact pattern than any of the 'old guard' at PMF.

"Michael" et al. have likely forgotten more about this case (and the backdrop) than you and I will ever know, Kevin.

They do certainly seem to have forgotten quite a bit. Who knew, for example, that there was a mop at Sollecito's apartment? Or that blood is composed of "blood cells"?

 

[katy_did]

I can't imagine what you did to get banned.

If all you did was present them with a different translation, I can't imagine their response would be to ban you!

There's got to be more to the story.

To be honest, this makes me wonder just how far off your "translations" are...

I don't want to approach them with something that's ridiculous. No one wants to be played for a fool. Why should I trust you?

I didn't get banned, I was just asked not to post (in big red writing, as I said). And clearly, you are a newcomer to PMF if you think people are only banned there for good reason (though admittedly, RoseMontague's final post was particularly inflammatory). Feel free to cover yourself by writing 'katy_did at JREF said', if you like; it really makes no odds to me either way.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can't imagine what you did to get banned.

Which PMF have you been reading?

Nobody who deviates significantly from the received party line goes unbanned. The excuse varies, but the result is always the same and it never takes long.

Heck, a dyed-in-the-wool guilter who believes irrationally and implicitly in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito and was a major part of the translation effort got threatened with a ban for daring to acknowledge that Quintavalle's story had some problems with it even though they immediately also suggested a bit of fanfic to patch the problem.

I can't even remember the last time someone tried to rehabilitate Quintavalle here at the JREF forums. Even loverofzion hadn't tried to give that mole the kiss of life - that mole is deader than Mr Praline's Norwegian Blue parrot.

Questioning even the most absurd and flattened of guilter dogma will get you banned at that place, Treehorn.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why are you assuming that my conclusions about Knox's evasiveness on the stand are limited to the questions put by Lumumba's lawyer?!

I'm not. But that was the exchange you quoted in order to illustrate your point. If you were referring to other questions and answers, you should have cited those exchanges instead.

Please stop creating straw men to knock down - it's getting very tiresome.