Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[s_pepys]

Draca, tronic is either trying to make a joke or, more likely, hasn't followed the case and is unaware that that conversation (in which Amanda refers to being at Raffaele's house, not her own) is old news.

in your opinion!

you guys shouldnt kepp stating absolutes when they dont exist. to simply brush aside a question by saying that it has been shown what she was referring to is dishonest.

it hasnt. nor will it ever be probably.

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

YOU CAN ALL PACK UP AND GO HOME NOW --- Knox admitted to her parents she was in Via della Pergola when Meredith Kercher was killed:

Transcript of tape recorded conversation of Amanda Knox with Curt Knox, Edda Mellas:

Amanda: Yes, there is a doctor. I took a medicine for a headache this morning, and now I feel better, but the reason I was crying yesterday is because there was this pressure on my head that wouldn’t go away because I felt horrible, this person looked at me as if I was a horrible person and I collapsed.

Edda: Like I said, the lawyers believe that they are doing it on purpose, because they sure have nothing, so they are trying to put pressure on like when they interrogated you to see if you would say something more and so you have to keep calm and do not say anything to anyone.

Amanda: Yeah, when I was in the room with him I said what? ... (Laughs) and then when I returned to my bedroom I was crying. I’m very, very worried for this thing about the knife... because there is a knife from Raffaele ...

Curt: Well, here, here, here are the facts… we talked yesterday with the lawyer and asked him about the knife. Every time that they have to review an item we have an expert there that will review it with them. This is an example of... this knife of which they are talking about, they have never notified anything about the knife.

E: So, it’s ********!

A: Is it ********?

E: It’s ********.

C: It’s complete ********. It’s a total fabrication.

E: That's what they're doing now. They are simply lying.

C: It's all a fabrication...

E: Yes, to make someone break down.

A: It’s stupid. I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can’t lie on this, there is no reason to do it.

C: Yeah, yeah, so what you have to do is not to talk about anything with anyone. Don’t write anything. You may receive letters. Have you received letters or anything else?

A: I'm getting loads of letters from admirers.

E: Well, people in Seattle, even your friends will start to write. They been asking me for some time, they want to send you things... probably many things can’t get through, e… but...

although an interesting and unfortunate quote from ak. this doesnt prove guilt and isnt an admission of anything as the context and meaning is not knowable and has been hotly disputed. miss know does seem to have a habit of repeatedly saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and potentially implicating herself further.

lxxx

 

[babycondor]

can you point to a cite that this is the "official" interpretation and not just yours. also, why would she be discussing lying about being at rs flat with her folks. it doesnt make any sense in that context imo. but who knows.

there seems to have been an awful lot of different statements made by ak that implicate her that get brushed aside or judged as misinterpretated etc... coincidence? this is one unlucky girl and her parents advice to keep her mouth shut is very good advice. that much is certain.

lxxx

Agree with you on that last point.

As for lying about being at Raffaele's flat to her folks...some parents wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that their daughter was sleeping at her boyfriend's flat. Some college-age women wouldn't be comfortable telling their parents they were sleeping at their boyfriend's flat. It might be something a young woman would lie about, depending on how open the communication was between her and her parents. That was my interpretation.

 

[Justinian2]

In this trial, even excrement is evidence.

 

[Matthew Best]

In this trial, even excrement is evidence.

In this trial the evidence is excrement.

 

[s_pepys]

Amanda has been living in a goldfish bowl. The only thing that has not been revealed are video tapes of her sitting on the toilet.

For three years, everything that Amanda has said or written has been revealed for all to see and speculate on. That the statement "I was there" is all they've got, is testimony to the absence of evidence.

Furthermore, Guede has on at least three occasions said that Amanda was NOT there.

If Amanda's "I was there" is to be considered, then the three statements that "Amanda was NOT there" should also be considered.

yes i agree. they have both been considered havnt they? and disregarded as not useful to the evidence presented in court?

also, to say that the authorities have everything she has said to anyone since being in her "goldfish bowl" is a bit daft.

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

Agree with you on that last point.

As for lying about being at Raffaele's flat to her folks...some parents wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that their daughter was sleeping at her boyfriend's flat. Some college-age women wouldn't be comfortable telling their parents they were sleeping at their boyfriend's flat. It might be something a young woman would lie about, depending on how open the communication was between her and her parents. That was my interpretation.

maybe, but i think that in the context of her being charged with her involvement in the murder and sexual assault of a young woman, lying to her parents about sleeping with her boyfriend might be quite far from her mind.

but again, who knows? we can only guess.

lxxx

 

[Katody Matrass]

As for lying about being at Raffaele's flat to her folks...some parents wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that their daughter was sleeping at her boyfriend's flat. Some college-age women wouldn't be comfortable telling their parents they were sleeping at their boyfriend's flat. It might be something a young woman would lie about, depending on how open the communication was between her and her parents. That was my interpretation.

You're overlooking the fact that her parents were perfectly aware that she had been staying at Raffaele after being locked out of the cottage.

 

[s_pepys]

You're overlooking the fact that her parents were perfectly aware that she had been staying at Raffaele after being locked out of the cottage.

oh yes. never thought of that. very true.

lxxx

 

[Justinian2]

yes i agree. they have both been considered havnt they? and disregarded as not useful to the evidence presented in court?

also, to say that the authorities have everything she has said to anyone since being in her "goldfish bowl" is a bit daft.

lxxx

The average woman speaks 3000 words a day. Amanda has been 'bugged' for over 1000 days. That's three million words! That's ten thousand pages!

Absence of evidence is the main way of proving innocence.

It's difficult to prove you are innocent.

 

[s_pepys]

The average woman speaks 3000 words a day. Amanda has been 'bugged' for over 1000 days. That's three million words! That's ten thousand pages!

"bugged for over 1000 days" ??

i must of missed that. can you explain?

lxxx

 

[Justinian2]

"bugged for over 1000 days" ??

i must of missed that. can you explain?

lxxx

The murder was over three years ago. Three years is over 1000 days.

Amanda was interrogated.
Amanda's cell phone messages are known.
They have Amanda's computer.
Amanda's diary was confinscated.
Amanda's phone was bugged.
Amanda's friends were interviewed.
Amanda's blogs were reviewed.

I accuse Mignini and the police of bugging her jail cell. Absense of contrary proof is proof [in Italy] that Amanda's cell was bugged. I'm sure her cell mates have been questioned.

 

[tronic]

It doesn't mention either the cottage or Raffaele's in the segment translated. Why exactly do you believe this if proof that she meant the cottage? For one thing, if she was at the cottage that would be a reason to lie and she is saying there is no reason. Do you have a longer translation that shows where they were talking about before she said that?

Why if it is so clear wasn't it used against her in her trial?

The context of the conversation means she was talking about the cottage. If she was referring to Sollecetos' apartment she would not be stating "but I cannot lie" -- because it would not be an issue. The family knows it is a problem -- right after that exhortation Knox Curt is saying "don't say anything more" (than you already have).

It's blatantly obvious what she is talking about -- that is why the prosecution has brought this up. I think there is probably more -- they will choose to release it as and when -- for instance the rest of that conversation. Maybe it is available. Where did Frank Sfarzo get this from? They were bugged validly.

 

[s_pepys]

The murder was over three years ago. Three years is over 1000 days.

Amanda was interrogated.
Amanda's cell phone messages are known.
They have Amanda's computer.
Amanda's diary was confinscated.
Amanda's phone was bugged.
Amanda's friends were interviewed.
Amanda's blogs were reviewed.

I accuse Mignini and the police of bugging her jail cell. Absense of contrary proof is proof [in Italy] that Amanda's cell was bugged. I'm sure her cell mates have been questioned.

ehh? what? you accuse them of bugging her cell?

 

[Justinian2]

The context of the conversation means she was talking about the cottage. If she was referring to Sollecetos' apartment she would not be stating "but I cannot lie" -- because it would not be an issue. The family knows it is a problem -- right after that exhortation Knox Curt is saying "don't say anything more" (than you already have).

It's blatantly obvious what she is talking about -- that is why the prosecution has brought this up. I think there is probably more -- they will choose to release it as and when -- for instance the rest of that conversation. Maybe it is available. Where did Frank Sfarzo get this from? They were bugged validly.

Amanda was at the cottage the day of the murder and the day after. Amanda can't deny that. Nobody denies that.

 

[Danceme]

can you point to a cite that this is the "official" interpretation and not just yours. also, why would she be discussing lying about being at rs flat with her folks. it doesnt make any sense in that context imo. but who knows.

there seems to have been an awful lot of different statements made by ak that implicate her that get brushed aside or judged as misinterpretated etc... coincidence? this is one unlucky girl and her parents advice to keep her mouth shut is very good advice. that much is certain.

lxxx

In one way, it doesn't make sense to discuss lying about being at Raffaele's flat, in any context, if that is what she meant. It does make sense to lie about being at the cottage, and for her to say to her parents "why should I lie" after she has already said in her interrogation that she was there. She may have thought she could minimize her role while admitting to being there but her parents clearly had more sense and told her to not say anything else, ever, not even to friends who write.

However, on the other hand, with the police accusing her of lying about being at Raffaele's all night, and he not corroborating her alibi, she could very well say what she did. She doesn't speak, write or phrase her sentences well, so it is often not clear what she really means plus we don't know the earlier part of the conversation which I think is necessary for a full understanding.

But also, she is very worried about the knife. Why not simply say the knife has to be a joke or something. Why validate it as she did.

Agree with you on that last point.

As for lying about being at Raffaele's flat to her folks...some parents wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that their daughter was sleeping at her boyfriend's flat. Some college-age women wouldn't be comfortable telling their parents they were sleeping at their boyfriend's flat. It might be something a young woman would lie about, depending on how open the communication was between her and her parents. That was my interpretation.

She had already written 25 people including professers saying she spent the night at Raffaele's, and repeated questions asked by the police on Meredith's sex life. I don't think she was so modest to want to hide the fact she had slept at Raffaele's.

 

[zeb]

I think I am right the murder took place on the 1st nov which is a bank hoilday for the people of Italy.
so as its Amandas routine, in the morning she went home and took a shower.
Amanda and Raffaele went out and had a pizza.
Meredith had plans for that day also.
but it was the night that Meredith was murder.
That the sicking point about what you say.
So of corse she was at the cottage, it was her home.
So what are you trying to point out.

 

[zeb]

Danceme.
Every bit of fact that has be put your way you keep danceing around that fact.
Do you do the tango by the way.

 

[Dan O.]

Is tronic saying that the prosecution is withholding even more evidence? In the civilized world this alone is sufficient grounds for declaring a mistrial and subjecting the prosecutor to prosecution. * *

 

[Draca]

The context of the conversation means she was talking about the cottage. If she was referring to Sollecetos' apartment she would not be stating "but I cannot lie" -- because it would not be an issue. The family knows it is a problem -- right after that exhortation Knox Curt is saying "don't say anything more" (than you already have).

It's blatantly obvious what she is talking about -- that is why the prosecution has brought this up. I think there is probably more -- they will choose to release it as and when -- for instance the rest of that conversation. Maybe it is available. Where did Frank Sfarzo get this from? They were bugged validly.

I don't read it this way. I think it is unclear where they are talking about in this portion of the conversation. You say "but I cannot lie" proves it's the cottage because it would not be an issue if she was at Raffaele's. Amanda Knox says the same thing "there is no reason to do it" (to lie). If she WAS at the cottage wouldn't that be a reason to lie? So, you can easily take the same statement and twist it different ways.

I think we would need to have the conversation proceeding it to show one way or the other where they are talking about. It seems the police would have the whole conversation and since they didn't use this against her, and only asked a question to clarify what it meant, I believe there is nothing to talk about and they know it refers to Raffaele's. If they had the whole conversation it is likely clearer where Amanda is talking about.