Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

Treehorn/Jackie psycho ....

Does anyone know who the person on the right is?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From the mountains to the coast

I have been up to Mount Pilot a few times but not yet Italy. I have no idea what I would wear. Perhaps when Amanda is free she can come out with an appropriate clothing line.

Mount Pilot, isn't that where they filmed the series CSI Mayberry?

 

[RoseMontague]

Indeed, Rose....Are you referring to the "enough information" from the questioning that resulted in additional slander charges against Amanda ???

Forgive me if I demur and decide that this 'additional information' was important *to her guilt*

As was pointed out to me on the slander thread, she had made this statement in court prior to her testimony. I was under the same impression you were at that point.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mount Pilot, isn't that where they filmed the series CSI Mayberry?

Yes. Ernest T. Bass had taken a rock and broken a window.

 

[pilot padron]

a simple reply (from a simple guy)

pilot padron,

Would you define the term "pathological liar?"

Would you please inform me how going there would not be a direct venture to where my preface # 1 and # 3 respectfully delineated where I would not go ??

Hi Mary:

Good to see you back in full force today.
May I just address your quote above which, uncharacteristically fails to meet your usual test of accuracy when arguing.

In so doing, may I preface the proof below by asking you (and your inevitable defenders) to:

1) spare us movement of the goal post from the *single quote* we are addressing
2) spare us all the usual wailing, whining, and gnashing of teeth about reliability of the Daily Mail.
Since a quick search shows you and defenders quite often quote the Daily Mail when it fits your purposes.
3) spare us and wasted cyberspace from usual sophistic parsing between 'pathological' and other adjectives used by *some* of sources to describe a chronic, compulsive, brazen cold blooded, talented and calculating liar.
4) spare us the usual vitriol from some here that is little more than an 'injustice' to the Italian Law Enforcement, or a tired conspiracy crutch since apparently some of the more 'injustice aligned afficianados' may *per haps* (sp) be subject themselves to litigation, and themselves guilty of some recent lying while arguing.
Fair Enough??

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone know who the person on the right is?

[qimg]http://i54.tinypic.com/2rwxffp.jpg[/qimg]

Looks a bit like Romney.

 

[Rhea]

..........and she *was* found guilty.

With all due respect....how 'convincing' can a defendant's testimony be if it results in a *unanimous* verdict of guilt ?.

Do you wish us conclude that the defendant's testimony 'convinced' the jury of her guilt?

I could readily buy that.

Well, the first sentence was my personal opinion, she came across innocent to me …

… and then the general perception, from what I've read, at the time was; she did a very good job, was convincing. Even journalists who thought she was guilty conceded this, in their eyes of course that meant she did a good "acting job".

The guilty verdict was based on much more of course then just her testimony; if you believe somebody to be guilty due to other evidence, I think it is pretty unlikely that any kind of performance of the defendant would convince you of the contrary.

In contrast to your evaluation, what I saw was frequent obvious evasiveness, deliberate off topic rambling, shocking self defeating arrogance (may I continue), repeated transparent jack in the box jump up and down silly objection attempts by dalla Vedova to 'save Amanda from herself', repeated necessity for the Judge to intervene and require her to address the issue, and even for the Judge to intervene and force her to finally admit "yes, yes" about the suddenly impossible to recall phone call with Edda , etccccccc
Convincing yes, but not of innocence.

If you think she is guilty, not surprisingly you have a very different perception than I have of her testimony …

For me, during that testimony, she has this — Frank Sfarzo described it in his blog — this very honest way; a person who has nothing to hide and isn't afraid of the truth, who gets her strength and secureness from her innocence …

She doesn't come across to me as somebody who has to invent stories or explanations, I don't see signs of lying, deceiving or uncomfortableness.

 

[Supernaut]

I have been up to Mount Pilot a few times but not yet Italy. I have no idea what I would wear. Perhaps when Amanda is free she can come out with an appropriate clothing line.

What?

 

[Supernaut]

Looks a bit like Romney.

What?

 

[pilot padron]

*Complete* Mignini CNN Interview now up on PMF

Out of respect for fellow JREFers, I make only the comment that I was personally flabbergasted at the way CNN cherry picked from the full 2 hour Interview to give the hatchet job impression they wanted of the Prosecutor.

Compare the full interview with what viewers were shown.
Then make your judgment call.

Add a quick thanks to the six Volunteers and the Administrators who did all the translating and cyber stuff to make this available for all

 

[Supernaut]

Could some one PM me ....

..... if I'm out of the loop here?

I feel like like I'm getting answers in code.

 

[RoseMontague]

Out of respect for fellow JREFers, I make only the comment that I was personally flabbergasted at the way CNN cherry picked from the full 2 hour Interview to give the hatchet job impression they wanted of the Prosecutor.

Compare the full interview with what viewers were shown.
Then make your judgment call.

Add a quick thanks to the six Volunteers and the Administrators who did all the translating and cyber stuff to make this available for all

I just read it and they could have easily made this into a four hour piece ripping into Mignini. I encourage everybody to read it.

 

[RoseMontague]

..... if I'm out of the loop here?

I feel like like I'm getting answers in code.

The post you originally questioned was just a subtle satire on my part. I was not being serious about the haircut.

 

[Supernaut]

The post you originally questioned was just a subtle satire on my part. I was not being serious about the haircut.

Thanks for the reply RM.

But I don't think you know what Raff has gone through.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I Remember Mary

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.

pilot padron,

Here is your very first statement on the matter, with the word pathological in bold. Your more recent comment, "(3) spare us and wasted cyberspace from usual sophistic parsing between 'pathological' and other adjectives used by *some* of sources to describe a chronic, compulsive, brazen cold blooded, talented and calculating liar" was an attempt to move the goalposts (1).

 

[Kaosium]

1) 'When and how Amanda lied' is not only an obviously markedly moved goalpost that I politely previously asked to be spared....it is an entirely different playing field.

Out of respect for your devotion to your cause, do you really want me to go there ?

Bring it on!



BTW, considering you, and others, are so fond of noting it, would you like to know why this subject is 50k posts and climbing, and at times seems to go in circles, spirals and helices? That's because there are those on this thread who are not afraid of engaging every difficult question or concept related to this case, and who will gladly go through it again and in the process perhaps develop a greater understanding of each facet.

At other times, impertinent questions were 'handwaved' away with admonitions such as 'it has been established in this thread,' or 'read the thread,' which bespeaks a curious reluctance to reconsider old positions and adapt to new information or insight. In fact there's other places where the understanding of the case might be best described as a 'bunny in amber' due to their deep suspicion of anyone who doesn't accept outright their 'established' point of view, which has reached the prehistoric state at this point in the debate.

I am so glad to see you are not one of them and don't plan on dodging challenges to your posts...and postulates.

Surely, since the 'pathological' debate brought into play all the other certainly distasteful to you terms other than pathological that people definitely used to describe Amanda's penchant for being less than truthful.

Do you really want to endure yet another a thru z list of things you probably would rather not see in print again about when Amanda's statements were for example only as she admitted 'the best truths that she can remember' ?
By elementary introspection of that statement alone, she self categorizes what she is saying as something less than the full truth.

I disagree with that analysis. It's almost like that interpretation was developed by those who were passionately convinced she was guilty and looking for any rationale whatsoever to condemn her!

Considering the intended audience, and that when she wrote it she had no idea it would ever be seen by anyone else, what purpose would telling obvious untruths and admitting to it in that very missive serve?

Finally, even her own lawyer alluded to her 'problems with truth'

A lawyer for Knox, Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007] that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Oooohhh. Nice find. I will bring that one up the next time someone tries to pretend Amanda's lawyers were paragons of juridical adroitness.

Incidentally, was this the first day Amanda and Raffaele were allowed to see lawyers? Raffaele made a special point in court regarding his numerous pleas to talk to a lawyer or his father, and Amanda also asked if she could see one that fateful night and both were denied or threatened out of pursuing it. I know by the 8th when they first went before Matteini they still had not been permitted lawyers, thus this statement on the ninth may have been the first day, or even before, she'd been able to meet with Ghirga.

Which of those statements do you think is true? I am virtually certain it was the last, being as that's the only one she didn't have 'help' from ILE with...

 

[spartacus]

A DNA expert weighs in on the evidence here.

 

[Kaosium]

A DNA expert weighs in on the evidence here.

Excellent read! I couldn't help but chuckle over this part:

This case is a defense DNA expert’s dream! I would love to have access to the testing results, notes, data, procedures, etc. and compose a cross-examination for the Italian forensic scientist who performed the work.

Him and everyone else! My first question would probably be thrown out by the judge, however I suspect it might be the only dichotomy relevant in this instance:

'Are you corrupt or are you incompetent?'

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

*DSK's current situation at the Rikers Island Grand Hyatt is analogous in this respect. Although I see he's just got out on bail. Something denied to Knox and Sollecito.

I wonder if $1,000,000 cash and $5,000,000 in property bond as surety may have been helpful in getting Knox and Sollecito out on bail. That's what it took to get Strauss-Kahn out of the pokey.

That and braceleted house arrest.

Of course, he isn't charged with murder, either. And hasn't been tried at all.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Out of respect for fellow JREFers, I make only the comment that I was personally flabbergasted at the way CNN cherry picked from the full 2 hour Interview to give the hatchet job impression they wanted of the Prosecutor.

Compare the full interview with what viewers were shown.
Then make your judgment call.

Add a quick thanks to the six Volunteers and the Administrators who did all the translating and cyber stuff to make this available for all

CNN went easy on Mignini. The interview is very damaging to Mignini and I hate to say it, but I hope TJMK has an increase in traffic because everyone should read this interview.

Mignini acts like he doesn't remember exact details of this case, like it's no big deal. I doubt that any of the details are vague to him so why he behaves like that in the interview is anyone's guess. If the details are honestly vague to him then I find that even more disturbing. Either way, not a good interview for Mignini.

It's interesting how Peggy Ganong goes out of her way to attack Candace Dempsey while discussing the CNN documentary on TJMK. Candace simply reported on the documentary on her blog and offered no personal opinion. Peggy is more concerned with attempting to smear Candace than actually discussing the details of the interview. Her preoccupation may explain why she neglected to notice how bad the interview looks for Mignini.