Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

I see that you have chosen to evade (not to respond to) the arguments why Knox and Sollecito's supporters are not sexually obsessed.

Could you link to the post where I used the words lust or sexual obsession? That's right, you can't because those are your words, not mine.

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry

Which makes you an expert in biochemistry, not forensic pathology.

Rolfe is a pathologist. I suggest you check out some of Rolfe's comments on the stomach content in the Conspiracy thread.

I think Rolfe is a very smart woman and have enjoyed her insites on a variety of subjects but you do know that she is a veterinary pathologist, right?

Good night to all for tonight.

 

[billyryan]

I think you're right about most of them, Mignini might be the only head that actually rolls, fair or not. Even he might end up with just a slap and a tickle, sent out to merely 'retirement.' I think there's others deserving, perhaps even moreso, but accountability will fall on Mignini is my guess, plus he has the prior conviction so he'll be the obvious one to take the fall.



Right now I think the most interesting question is trying to delineate between the corrupt and the incompetent. I can kinda guess where you might stand on that.

I recall that I started on the opposite side of that question, and have been trending the other direction. There's simply a limit to how much 'constructive incompetence' I can accept.



That's an interesting choice! Would you expand on that?

Kaosium:
I am just working from memory now as I have not gone back reading Franks blog yet. Judge Matteini was the first judge Amanda Raffaele and Patrick Lumumba were brought in front of.She told Amanda "your arrest was carried out early so you would be in custody when your mother arrived to prevent your escape"the fact that you had made no attempt to escape and cooperated with the police fully in the days after the murder, means nothing. She produced a motivational report of that hearing detailing Patrick Lumumba's part in the murder who like Amanda and Raffaele was not present and played no part in the murder.I presume she also denied Amanda and Raffaele their freedom while the police Mignini and Stefanoni went about the business of framing them

She refused to remove herself from the hearing for defamation against Amanda,there is supposed to be a law in Italy that a judge cannot rule against a defendant more than once she sidestepped that legal requirement for the sheer enjoyment of bringing more despair into Amanda's life.Frank Sfarzo commented at the time before the hearing,Mignini indicts Matteini confirms can there be any doubt.That hearing was Amanda's first appearance in public after being successfully framed and she had to face the police Mignini Comodi Matteini and the Jackel Maresca,everybody in that courtroom knew full well that Amanda was hit on the back of her head during her interrogation yet they persisted with there charges.Edda Mellas just said ,these people have ruled against Amanda since the beginning and she was never going to get justice from them
I have written the above from memory without checking anything,anyway in relation to the police involved Mignini Comodi Maresca Stefanoni judge Matteini, there is a saying where I come from,hell ain't hot enough or eternity long enough for them shower of ********

 

[Rhea]

Indeed it is. Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal. What will the faithful do then? As the lovebirds final appeal to the Supreme Court drags on for a few more years most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to. And in the next case, as in this one, the faithful will continue believe that have complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from forensic pathology to international law to criminal psychology....all because they can Google.

Alt, of course you are talking about sexual attraction, if you mention she won't be young anymore but there will always be another cute american girl in trouble, that clearly implies sexual attraction, and you know that's what you meant.

I'm female and straight, so I'm not attracted to Amanda in the slightest, neither am I attracted to Raffaele.

Believe me, for me it is just as hard to understand how anybody with a clear mind could believe in guilt as it is for you the other way round. So you probably have to find an answer to what our motivation is …

I think there are many man attracted to this case because of Amanda's beauty, but that doesn't mean it's the reason they believe in her innocence, I think they studied the case, came to the conclusion that she's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and her beauty keeps them interested in the case.

You think you're right in your assessment about their guilt, one day you'll realize you weren't, that you were fooled by very week evidence like so many people (judges and jurors) before, you probably think that the "lies" show their guilt, but many innocent people have been convicted with much stronger evidence.

Why did Michael Crowe say he killed his sister?

Why did his friend say, Michael and another friend killed his sister?

Why did the Norfolk Four all confess to a murder they didn't commit?

People say some weird stuff when they get interrogated with the right methods. For some reason the guilt side has decided to ignore that and use everything Amanda said in the same type of interrogation as definite proof of guilt, without the need even of any other evidence.

The experts that are speaking out are practically all on our side, yet the guilt side believes we are conspiracy theorists …

 

[RandyN]

Here’s the latest scientific investigation technique over at PMF...Now I understand.


http://astropost.blogspot.com/2010/12/chart-of-amanda-knox-and-synastry-with.html

What did you guys do to them that made them post the following...and who are the people "driven out"?

Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 24 -


Ergon wrote:
"Here's what I wrote to Skep: Thanks, Skep, Everything's good now. My background in Psychology has been piqued by the increase in social media interactions, so I confess I was teasing (just a little, honest) the people who were driven out of JREF and are now regulars on this board. Hence the "Astrology" meat thrown to the lions
But yeah, I do believe we can get a bit of background to the very interesting personal dynamics between Amanda and Meredith from the linked article."


And Skep replies...

"And Skep, a lapsed Cancer, is quite okay with it!"


Let me guess...its the mighty Stillicho and or The Machine… the same PMF’ers who often brag that no one will debate them...but then refuse to come here to debate anything. Instead, they hide like &*(%(O*&… over at PMF where they know anyone with a mind has already been banned. (I sneak in ...shhhhh)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Indeed it is.

At this point I have to wonder is a) Amazer and Alt-F4 are looking at the same Appeal as everyone else, or b) if they are living in their own worlds.

If this is the Appeal going well for them, what would it be if it was going badly?

As far as I can tell the Prosecution has yet to get a point on the board. They have had their star witness shredded to the point when his reputation is so far out the window it's in another country, they have been forced to get independant testing on the DNA, which isn't exactly going their way by all reports, and now the Judge has had to intervene and demand that the prosecution's scientests hand over all of the files the independents want from them when they tried to get out of doing so, way to get the Judge on your side.

True it's a long way from match, but it's certainly not a good opening set from the Prosecution, in fact I doubt it could get a great deal worse for them right now, yet Alt-F4 and Amazer think it is going well, now that I find amazing.

 

[LondonJohn]

At this point I have to wonder is a) Amazer and Alt-F4 are looking at the same Appeal as everyone else, or b) if they are living in their own worlds.

If this is the Appeal going well for them, what would it be if it was going badly?

As far as I can tell the Prosecution has yet to get a point on the board. They have had their star witness shredded to the point when his reputation is so far out the window it's in another country, they have been forced to get independant testing on the DNA, which isn't exactly going their way by all reports, and now the Judge has had to intervene and demand that the prosecution's scientests hand over all of the files the independents want from them when they tried to get out of doing so, way to get the Judge on your side.

True it's a long way from match, but it's certainly not a good opening set from the Prosecution, in fact I doubt it could get a great deal worse for them right now, yet Alt-F4 and Amazer think it is going well, now that I find amazing.

I'd have to admit that, while I of course disagree entirely with their assessment, I'm not amazed by it. To me, it's just further illustration of how groupthink, confirmation bias, poor reasoning skills and stubbornness have conspired together to result in dreadful arguments.

None of us, of course, can tell exactly what's going on within the minds of the appeal court judges and judicial panel. But any person of reason could make an educated guess that the case for guilt already looks a fair bit weaker than that presented and accepted in the first trial. And if the alleged leaks about the DNA review have any validity, then this is unequivocally a serious (perhaps fatal) dent in the entire case against Knox and Sollecito.

You and I (and probably everyone with an open mind and decent reasoning powers) can see this, but there will always be those who are so wedded to a particular position that almost nothing will persuade them to assess a changing situation with anything approaching objectivity.

As they say: "Ne sej tikve gde jos nisu nikle!" Tant pis!

 

[LondonJohn]

Here’s the latest scientific investigation technique over at PMF...Now I understand.


http://astropost.blogspot.com/2010/12/chart-of-amanda-knox-and-synastry-with.html

What did you guys do to them that made them post the following...and who are the people "driven out"?

Posted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, MARCH 24 -


Ergon wrote:
"Here's what I wrote to Skep: Thanks, Skep, Everything's good now. My background in Psychology has been piqued by the increase in social media interactions, so I confess I was teasing (just a little, honest) the people who were driven out of JREF and are now regulars on this board. Hence the "Astrology" meat thrown to the lions
But yeah, I do believe we can get a bit of background to the very interesting personal dynamics between Amanda and Meredith from the linked article."


And Skep replies...

"And Skep, a lapsed Cancer, is quite okay with it!"


Let me guess...its the mighty Stillicho and or The Machine… the same PMF’ers who often brag that no one will debate them...but then refuse to come here to debate anything. Instead, they hide like &*(%(O*&… over at PMF where they know anyone with a mind has already been banned. (I sneak in ...shhhhh)

And indulging someone who's bringing astrology into the debate is a perfect illustration of why most of those commentators cannot begin to hack a debate in a decent, sceptical forum with clear rules of engagement.

I guess I shouldn't have to add the footnote that astrology is a bogus, medieval, completely-debunked pseudoscience....

 

[LondonJohn]

Alt, of course you are talking about sexual attraction, if you mention she won't be young anymore but there will always be another cute american girl in trouble, that clearly implies sexual attraction, and you know that's what you meant.

I'm female and straight, so I'm not attracted to Amanda in the slightest, neither am I attracted to Raffaele.

Believe me, for me it is just as hard to understand how anybody with a clear mind could believe in guilt as it is for you the other way round. So you probably have to find an answer to what our motivation is …

I think there are many man attracted to this case because of Amanda's beauty, but that doesn't mean it's the reason they believe in her innocence, I think they studied the case, came to the conclusion that she's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and her beauty keeps them interested in the case.

You think you're right in your assessment about their guilt, one day you'll realize you weren't, that you were fooled by very week evidence like so many people (judges and jurors) before, you probably think that the "lies" show their guilt, but many innocent people have been convicted with much stronger evidence.

Why did Michael Crowe say he killed his sister?

Why did his friend say, Michael and another friend killed his sister?

Why did the Norfolk Four all confess to a murder they didn't commit?

People say some weird stuff when they get interrogated with the right methods. For some reason the guilt side has decided to ignore that and use everything Amanda said in the same type of interrogation as definite proof of guilt, without the need even of any other evidence.

The experts that are speaking out are practically all on our side, yet the guilt side believes we are conspiracy theorists …

Alt+F4 is doing nothing more than employing semantic sophistry to claim that since she never used the actual word "lust", this is not what she was heavily (and clearly) implying.

I guess I'd concur with your view that Knox's looks keep some straight men interested in the case. I can say that this is not my motivation though - I'm purely interested in it from an intellectual and moral point of view, and I'm as interested in the case against Sollecito as that against Knox. I entered the online debate almost by accident after seeking clarifications of some issues following my chance reading of "Darkness Descending" - it was only then that I started to learn the complexities about the case, and my interest has grown since then. I would admit, however, that in addition to my interest in the case itself, I'm also interested in observing - and trying to understand - what makes a small group of people (who are totally unconnected to the case) so vociferous in support of guilty verdicts, especially when that thinking is being shown to be increasingly blinkered and irrational.

It goes without saying that I agree totally with your take on coercive interrogations and false confessions/accusations. Again, I'm interested in why some people seem to have totally closed their minds to the facts that a) such seemingly crazy and self-harming false confessions/accusations do occur, and they are very well documented; and b) the conditions and outcome in Knox's interrogation clearly tally with other documented examples of false confessions/accusations.

And lastly, yes it's interesting that not one expert has come out to defend the prosecution's/court's reasoning from the first trial. Why hasn't a DNA expert come out to say that Stefanoni's techniques were perfectly proper, and that the knife/clasp evidence is solid and reliable? Why hasn't an eminent forensic pathologist or GI consultant come out and said that Meredith's stomach/duodenum contents are in fact entirely consistent with her eating a meal at 6.30pm and being confronted and killed at 11.40pm? Why hasn't a computer expert come out and said that it's perfectly acceptable and normal for the Perugia Postal Police to have destroyed a number of potentially-important hard drives? Why hasn't an expert in interrogation techniques come out and said that, in his/her view, Knox's interrogation was properly conducted and that her confession/accusation should be evaluated as a deliberate and uncoerced lie/evasion on her part?

 

[RoseMontague]

You and I (and probably everyone with an open mind and decent reasoning powers) can see this, but there will always be those who are so wedded to a particular position that almost nothing will persuade them to assess a changing situation with anything approaching objectivity.

Exactly. Both Amanda and Raffaele have looked pretty sharp so far. I am a little bit more on the fence for Raffaele, however. His last haircut was a mistake, in my opinion. The big question is if he has since decided to let his hair grow back out. We will have to wait for the next hearing to find out.

 

[bri1]

Why should we believe one drugged up loser over another? Oh that's right, some folks think one of them is cute.

Alt, are you really going to try and deny that this was an insinuation of lust / sexual obsession?
To borrow a term, that would be mendacious!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Can't wait

Exactly. Both Amanda and Raffaele have looked pretty sharp so far. I am a little bit more on the fence for Raffaele, however. His last haircut was a mistake, in my opinion. The big question is if he has since decided to let his hair grow back out. We will have to wait for the next hearing to find out.

RoseMontague,

Raffaele has made good choices in shirt colors, pastels that work well with his skin tone. I can't wait for their next court appearance.

 

[Fine]

* * *

People say some weird stuff when they get interrogated with the right methods. For some reason the guilt side has decided to ignore that and use everything Amanda said in the same type of interrogation as definite proof of guilt, without the need even of any other evidence.

* * *

_________________________________

I take an intermediate position, Rhea. Both the cops and Amanda were misbehavin' that night. Yeah, as the interrogation progressed, Amanda told the cops what they wanted to hear---Patrick did it---and they even provided Amanda with the details on how he did it, but she would never have done so if she didn't believe Patrick was the culprit. She became convinced of Patrick's involvement on the morning of November 5th when she met him in front of the University for Foreigners. (Patrick surmised that it was during that meeting that Amanda decided to accuse him.)

One of the lies she told in court was that she quit her job during that meeting because she feared to be out at night. Huh? She had a boyfriend who could have escorted to and from work, using his car if they wished to be especially safe. Amanda quit her job because she feared Patrick. She feared Patrick because she thought he did it. She was wrong. (To paraphrase her private remark to Madison Paxton......she "copulated up." And so did the cops.) Where would she be now had she been right?

///

 

[Antony]

Alt+F4 is doing nothing more than employing semantic sophistry to claim that since she never used the actual word "lust", this is not what she was heavily (and clearly) implying.

I guess I'd concur with your view that Knox's looks keep some straight men interested in the case. I can say that this is not my motivation though - I'm purely interested in it from an intellectual and moral point of view, and I'm as interested in the case against Sollecito as that against Knox. I entered the online debate almost by accident after seeking clarifications of some issues following my chance reading of "Darkness Descending" - it was only then that I started to learn the complexities about the case, and my interest has grown since then. I would admit, however, that in addition to my interest in the case itself, I'm also interested in observing - and trying to understand - what makes a small group of people (who are totally unconnected to the case) so vociferous in support of guilty verdicts, especially when that thinking is being shown to be increasingly blinkered and irrational.

I will admit that this is a big factor for me, too - intrigue at what makes so many apparently normal people quite so passionate about asserting the guilt of 2 young students on such spurious grounds. It started with an instinctive doubt (based on following other miscarriages of justice) about the original verdict, and wanting to find out what the evidence was. Needless to say, instead of evidence, the discussion boards were full of character attacks upon Amanda Knox - so I quickly reached the conclusion that those making these attacks didn't have any genuine evidence.

I'm sure most on the innocence side are aware that in itself this is a relatively minor injustice in terms of the number of people directly affected, and the conditions they are enduring - it's the internet hate campaign directed against the defendants, and the antics of the prosecutor in pursuing them and everyone associated with them, that make this case extraordinary.

It goes without saying that I agree totally with your take on coercive interrogations and false confessions/accusations. Again, I'm interested in why some people seem to have totally closed their minds to the facts that a) such seemingly crazy and self-harming false confessions/accusations do occur, and they are very well documented; and b) the conditions and outcome in Knox's interrogation clearly tally with other documented examples of false confessions/accusations.

Yes, I remember finding out about this - largely from board contributors who regarded Amanda's statement as proof of her bad character ("she falsely accused an innocent man!") They didn't seem able to grasp the point that a false confession obtained in irregular circumstances was more indicative of police abuse than anything suggested by its content.

And lastly, yes it's interesting that not one expert has come out to defend the prosecution's/court's reasoning from the first trial. Why hasn't a DNA expert come out to say that Stefanoni's techniques were perfectly proper, and that the knife/clasp evidence is solid and reliable? Why hasn't an eminent forensic pathologist or GI consultant come out and said that Meredith's stomach/duodenum contents are in fact entirely consistent with her eating a meal at 6.30pm and being confronted and killed at 11.40pm? Why hasn't a computer expert come out and said that it's perfectly acceptable and normal for the Perugia Postal Police to have destroyed a number of potentially-important hard drives? Why hasn't an expert in interrogation techniques come out and said that, in his/her view, Knox's interrogation was properly conducted and that her confession/accusation should be evaluated as a deliberate and uncoerced lie/evasion on her part?

Rhetorical questions, all. And right on target.

 

[LondonJohn]

RoseMontague,

Raffaele has made good choices in shirt colors, pastels that work well with his skin tone. I can't wait for their next court appearance.

 

[Dan O.]

_________________________________

One of the lies she told in court was that she quit her job during that meeting because she feared to be out at night. Huh? She had a boyfriend who could have escorted to and from work, using his car if they wished to be especially safe. Amanda quit her job because she feared Patrick. She feared Patrick because she thought he did it. She was wrong. (To paraphrase her private remark to Madison Paxton......she "copulated up." And so did the cops.) Where would she be now had she been right?

///

Unlike the interrogations on the 5th/6th, Amanda's court testimony was recorded so we don't have to rely on innuendo's about what was said.

CP: Let's talk about November 5. Okay, on November 5 you met Patrick in front of the Universita per Stranieri.

AK: After class, yes.

CP: Can you tell us about that meeting and what you said to each other?

AK: So, I was on my way to Raffaele's house, and I crossed Piazza Grimana and he was standing outside of the Universita per Stranieri. He joined me, and asked me "How are you, what's going on, where have you been?" and all that. "Do you want to talk to journalists?" I said no, I wasn't doing well, I couldn't really talk to them, the police told me not to talk to them. Then he asked me about the police, for example. I told him they were interrogating me and I couldn't talk. Then I asked him, I told him I didn't feel like going out at night, I didn't feel like going to work. He said that was okay. That's all. Then I went to Raffaele's house. ​

 

[pilot padron]

Unlike the interrogations on the 5th/6th, Amanda's court testimony was recorded so we don't have to rely on innuendo's about what was said.

Oh Golly Gee; that is a tremendously jolly good idea indeed.

Let's all rely totally on Amanda's ' recorded Court Testimony' with alacrity and assurance.

Let's not use innuendo, but instead use the 'recorded' words of an individual who has been caught in so many carefully documented unequivocally totally erroneous and contradictory 'best truths that she can think of', that she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar.

Incidentally, of course, the ' recorded (WoW) Court Testimony' that you fallaciously allocate so much unwarranted credence to is not given 'under oath' in Italian Courts.
In fact, testimony and a spontaneous statement from a defendant in Italian Courts is routinely expected to be anything but truthful.

But surely you knew that.

 

[Matthew Best]

she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar.

Evidence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Salon and Saloon

One of the lies she told in court was that she quit her job during that meeting because she feared to be out at night. Huh? She had a boyfriend who could have escorted to and from work, using his car if they wished to be especially safe. Amanda quit her job because she feared Patrick. She feared Patrick because she thought he did it. She was wrong. (To paraphrase her private remark to Madison Paxton......she "copulated up." And so did the cops.) Where would she be now had she been right?///

Fine,

Raffaele was set to graduate and move in roughly two weeks, IIRC. So, that would have left Amanda to walk home alone from the bar at night.

 

[bri1]

No evidence

Evidence?

The fact is that were Amanda Knox a pathological liar, it would have been an established part of her personality by the age of 20, and there'd be loads of people who she'd annoyed or hurt by her lies coming forward to tell their stories.
There aren't.
She isn't.
To believe that she is, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am who I am

that she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar.

Pilot Padron,

Who are these many, and can you provide citations? I am who I am (not a man of leisure), and the burden of proof is on you.