Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
I don't know how old you are Mary, (I'm 47), but Lori's story was headline news when she went to trial and then retrial (probably because of the terrorism angle). As for her face and sexual history...good question, why do you think Amanda got that attention and Lori didn't?
Click to expand...


Obviously because Amanda deserved it and Lori didn't.
 
Alt+F4 said:
How do you know what and how many "formal communications" occured at the State Department regarding this case, beyond this:

http://www.seattlepi.com/amanda-kno...ate-Department-has-monitored-Knox-1383417.php

So what evidence do you have that other then the above there was never a comment on it internally?



Evidence?
Click to expand...


You're quite something sometimes.....

Of course I don't have access to every single piece of internal communication within the US State Dept regarding this case. And of course I don't have absolute evidence that nothing at all was formally committed to paper or email within the State Department criticising the Italian justice system in this case.

I am, however, fairly confident in my opinion that the State Dept would never offer any criticism of the Italian justice system (whether direct or implied) in any traceable communication. This would (in my view) be true regardless of whether it was the belief of any individuals within the State Dept (or even an institutionalised view) that there were failings in Italian justice in Knox's case.

You may choose to understand and agree with my view - which is based on the rules of international diplomacy between friendly nations - or you may reject it. I don't care which. Either way, nobody outside of the State Department will likely ever know with certainty whether or not I'm correct.
 
Rolfe said:
Maybe later. Too many threads to dig up and search, for now, with a brand new hour-long documentary on the Lockerbie miscarriage of justice newly uploaded to YouTube. And two separate activists badgering me for information in relation to imminent submissions.

I don't care if all your contributions were framed as questions, I do recall you posted without ever once referring to any part of the evidence, and were extremely keen on noting that the court brought in a guilty verdict.

I note you take the same approach to this case. Why is that?




Bothered. It's 1,847,271 words long. Would you like to try? But that doesn't mean I'm not trying. However, I have it as a searchable pdf. What would you like to know? Which witness would you like summarised? Which item of evidence would you like to know the provenance of?

Of course, it is not essential to read it all, although I'm trying. That and six pretty chunky books. Not to mention that new documentary and a dozen others from The Maltese Double Cross on.

Nobody without an axe to grind who has read even the Opinion of the Court, never mind the critiques of the people who attended the trial starting with the official UN observer is in any doubt that Megrahi had nothing to do with it. The information is there, to be read.

If you're suggesting that those who have bust a gut and sat up late at night to read enormous swathes of it, can be summarily dismissed because you feel comfortable there's something hidden on page 6,394 (which you haven't read, just as you have read none of the rest of it) that proves guilt, then I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.

Your attitude in this thread is the same. You repeatedly post the insinuation that there's some killer argument for guilt hidden in the parts of the evidence nobody has reported on and nobody has highlighted. I don't really know why you would waste so much time on that.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


OT - but can you give the link to that new Lockerbie doc on YouTube (either on the board or via PM to me)? Thanks!
 
Alt+F4 said:
Remember the case of Michael Fay, the American teenager sentenced to caning for vandalism in Singapore? President Clinton personally put strong diplomatic pressure on Singaporean government to grant Fay clemency, which they didn’t. So getting the federal government involved comes off to many nations as American bullying.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, he did a great job brokering the release of American reporters Lisa Ling and Euna Lee when they were arrested and convicted by North Korea in 2009. I wouldn’t be surprised if Amanda’s family isn’t working on a similar strategy – have someone with a respectable international repetition broker a release as a private humanitarian undertaking , not an official State Department mission. The Italians come off as merciful and Amanda gets to come home.

Making public statements regarding government malfeasance and providing no evidence of it isn’t going to help anyone’s cause.
Click to expand...


In the case of Fay in Singapore, the reason why the US intervened was that it is ideologically opposed to the use of flogging as punishment (slightly ironic for a country in which many states retain the death penalty), and in particular it believed that the punishment was disproportionate to the crime committed by Fay (vandalising cars) and his age at the time of the crime (18). Many other countries - including the UK - have similarly protested the use of caning as a punishment by Singapore authorities.

I lived and worked in Singapore for two years around a decade ago, and I would certainly categorise their criminal justice system as authoritarian (at best) and brutal (at worst). Singapore thus sits in the netherworld - being on the one hand an ally of most westernised nations, but on the other hand possessing a justice system to which most of its allies are implacably opposed.

The US intervention in North Korea needs no explanation: it's a communist dictatorship (which should be an oxymoron but isn't!) with a totally non-transparent system of political and judicial processes. And it's also a political, economic and military enemy of the US. A "full house", you might say...

I don't believe there is any scope for any form of similar deal-brokering in Knox's case. This is not a case where it could be argued that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and it didn't take place in a country with an endemically disfunctional justice system or one which was an enemy of the US. That there may have been a miscarriage of justice (which, in my view there was) is an entirely separate issue, and it's one which only the Italian justice system has the power to address.
 
With all due respect LJ, Perugia is about as dysfunctional as it gets. I don't believe the entire Italian Justice system is corrupt. I do however believe there are problems in Perugia. They haven't totally grasp the idea of innocent until proven guilty. There appears to be widespread belief that if you are charged,you are guilty. Mignini has far to much power and it shows in the way evidence was gathered to support his wild theories.
 
Rolfe said:
That's an interesting point. I remember concussing myself falling of my pony, and talking a lot of complete rubbish. I had bruised my shin, and was insisting that this must have been caused by the stirrup iron, which was too big for me. My father had to point out that I had been riding bareback at the time.

A minor point, but nobody was accusing me of murder at the time. Add a lot more stress, and the dope-smoking, and it doesn't seem so unlikely.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

They weren't accusing her of murder at the time, at least as far as she knew. The police were telling her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the cottage at the time, that Raffaele had said she went out that night which she didn't remember at all, and that she must have 'repressed' the memory of the murder, and that they were convinced she was 'protecting someone.' Over and over during the course of about three hours from 10:40 PM or so on November 5th, to 1:45 AM on the 6th. Alternating between yelling and screaming at her and calling her names, to cajoling her to help them find the murderer of her friend. She'd been with police almost every waking hour from the discovery of the murder, 52 of about 90 hours total from the afternoon of the second until she was arrested at 5:45 AM on the sixth, upon which time she started her note.

It might be easier to explain if she'd been on hash when she walked into the Questura (the police station where she was questioned) like Raffaele was, but there's no evidence of that, nor has it been contended. It is possible she was hit harder than what I personally suspect, and that perhaps it caused some head trauma, but she didn't seem to suggest that either in her note or on the stand. Possible doesn't become probable in my world just because it makes the case better--Massei should take notes!

If you get an opportunity it might help to watch these two videos which is (part of) her testimony in English. Later she switches to Italian and you can find the transcripts of that and the previous English testimony as well here. It also affords a look at what she's really like, and what I mean by just a little offbeat, but basically just a girl. She'd be entirely normal around here, but some look at her and see a monster. Her quickly changing expressions at times were captured by photographers to produce very unflattering and sinister-looking photographs to help build the myth of 'Foxy Knoxy.' See what you think, if you have a chance.

Here's a rather thorough paper on the concept of an internalized false confession, how they are produced, and what sort of conditions make subjects more vulnerable to them. What Amanda experienced was a rather mild form, some confess to murders and walk the interrogators through an imaginary sequence of events step-by-step of their own volition. She didn't do that, she simply believed for a while she must have been there, after all why would the cops lie about having 'hard evidence' of her at the scene, or Raffaele lie about her going out? Perhaps what she'd been told to imagine was real, and she actually did repress the memory like they said?
 
Last edited:
But that is not what Amanda herself actually said

Mary_H said:
It is well known that Amanda believes her rights were violated. People are working to free her because of what Amanda has told her family and what her family has told the public.

We may infer from what Amanda testified about how she was treated during the interrogation that she believes her rights were violated.
Click to expand...

Errrr....Mary

May I suggest that what you state (without documentation):
1) as being "well known",
2) about "what Amanda has told her family"
3) about "what we may infer"

Is *all* absolutely diametrically opposite of what Amanda herself actually publicly stated to the world near the end of her trial.

She said:
At the time of her verdict last December, when many Americans were shouting about what they saw as an unfair conviction, Knox herself felt compelled to tell a member of Italian Parliament that she was actually treated fairly, ................... “I still have faith in the Italian justice system,” she told Walter Verini, a member of Italy’s center-left government.
“My rights were respected.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

PS:
1) Please spare another of the "I was there" redux type interpretation games
2) Please do not bother reading her mind to tell us 'what she meant'
3) Please lets not endlessly argue this obviously very weak and very inaccurate talking point from those favoring innocence.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
That doesn't mean they are getting good advice. Someone writing a letter to the President of the United States regarding how they believe that someone elses rights have been violated when that someone else has not publicy stated that they believe their rights were violated....just looks stupid.
Click to expand...

That's what she got the second calunnia charge for, saying her rights were violated on the stand. Potentially six years is prison even if acquitted on appeal, though it might be commuted to time served.
 
She didn't say that either

pilot padron said:
Errrr....Mary

May I suggest that what you state (without documentation):
1) as being "well known",
2) about "what Amanda has told her family"
3) about "what we may infer"

Is *all* absolutely diametrically opposite of what Amanda herself actually publicly stated to the world near the end of her trial.

She said:
At the time of her verdict last December, when many Americans were shouting about what they saw as an unfair conviction, Knox herself felt compelled to tell a member of Italian Parliament that she was actually treated fairly, ................... “I still have faith in the Italian justice system,” she told Walter Verini, a member of Italy’s center-left government.
“My rights were respected.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

PS:
1) Please spare another of the "I was there" redux type interpretation games
2) Please do not bother reading her mind to tell us 'what she meant'
3) Please lets not endlessly argue this obviously very weak and very inaccurate talking point from those favoring innocence.
Click to expand...


You get to say it and I don't get to argue against it? You jest, pilot.

Barbie Nadeau reported what Verini reported about what Amanda allegedly said. Hmm. I'm not impressed. I think her family has denied this anecdote, but I wouldn't believe it even if they hadn't.

Why? Because if Amanda says 99 times out of 100 that she is not okay with what happened, and then says 1 time (maybe) that she was okay with it, it is only logical to believe the 99 times, not the one.
 
Kaosium said:
That's what she got the second calunnia charge for, saying her rights were violated on the stand. Potentially six years is prison even if acquitted on appeal, though it might be commuted to time served.
Click to expand...

No, you are confusing the two issues. The judge's letter to Obama (which I have been referring to) has nothing to do with her calunnia charges in Italy. I've never made a post referring to the calunnia charges against her. The judge's letter is referring to rights he feels were denined to her as an American citizen arrested in a foreign country.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
Sorry to be off topic but where did I ever post that I thought al-Megrahi was guilty or innocent? So where's the evidence of my mindless approach to that case?

As for relying on actual evidence, even you admitted that you never bothered to read the entire al-Megrahi trial transcript because it's too long. As for this case, there is no trial transcript to read. Over a hundred witnesses testified and we have the verbatim testimony of only one....Amanda Knox.
Click to expand...


Alt+F4

I fail to see the logic of this argument (which you have made previously) as it relates to this thread. It misses a very obvious point and in doing so appears to give credence to much of the nonsense posted here.

The fact that the 'discussion' has gone on for 50k posts is not because of the lack of the trial transcript. As it is most of the repetitive Foaker arguments put forward are completely at odds with the 'limited' amount of data that is available [and with reality]. Having more data to ignore/deny/forget wouldn't make any difference.

Take as simple and trivial examples the recent 'cartwheels' or the 'out from 9pm-1am' issues. Anybody with even a basic knowledge of the case is aware of these points - the groundhog day nature of their repetition has nothing to do with the lack of data. On the contrary. Likewise with a host of FoA talking points and tropes particular to this thread.
It's a standard feature of CT type arguments - Repeated denial (or 'forgetting') of easily and oft established 'facts' along with completely spurious inventions* that have no bearing on the reality of the case.

*See recent posts for obvious examples - Concussion & 'Fake blood'.
Although I suspect Fine is posting this stuff tongue in cheek to see is there anything that wont fly here :). They are fairly ridiculous even by the standards of this thread and that takes some doing.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Maybe later. Too many threads to dig up and search, for now...
Click to expand...

You accuse me of having a "mindless approach" to the al-Megrahi case then when asked for evidence of this you couldn't be bothered. Ok, got it. :rolleyes:

I don't care if all your contributions were framed as questions, I do recall you posted without ever once referring to any part of the evidence, and were extremely keen on noting that the court brought in a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

What exact edvience are you referring to?

Bothered. It's 1,847,271 words long. Would you like to try? But that doesn't mean I'm not trying. However, I have it as a searchable pdf. What would you like to know? Which witness would you like summarised? Which item of evidence would you like to know the provenance of?
Click to expand...

You have access to actual evidence in the al-Megrahi case! That's great and helps support your viewpoint. You have none of that in this murder case.

If you're suggesting that those who have bust a gut and sat up late at night to read enormous swathes of it, can be summarily dismissed because you feel comfortable there's something hidden on page 6,394 (which you haven't read, just as you have read none of the rest of it) that proves guilt, then I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what might be hidden on page 6,394 of that trial transcript...and it seems neither do you.

Your attitude in this thread is the same. You repeatedly post the insinuation that there's some killer argument for guilt hidden in the parts of the evidence nobody has reported on and nobody has highlighted. I don't really know why you would waste so much time on that.
Click to expand...

Because I'm a skeptic.

BTW, do you know how many different translations there are of exactly what type of scream Nara Capezzali said she heard? Do you know that since her testimony she has been reported to be a mentally ill, deaf, shut-in? You don't think these are important pieces of information in determining if her testimony is true or not?
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 said:
No, you are confusing the two issues. The judge's letter to Obama (which I have been referring to) has nothing to do with her calunnia charges in Italy. I've never made a post referring to the calunnia charges against her. The judge's letter is referring to rights he feels were denined to her as an American citizen arrested in a foreign country.
Click to expand...

That calunnia charge was filed because she told her side of the story of the interrogation on the stand, in part that she was hit, but also that she was threatened out of getting a lawyer, denied food, drink and bathroom, yelled at and other forms of coercion etc. The judge's letter has a number of points regarding that night in the questura and it does make me wonder why the consulate wasn't more interested when that note was made public and she'd written about things, such as being hit, which were violations of her rights. They might have asked to see the tapes of the interrogation, under the law recently posted, to ascertain if her rights were violated.

The police 'story' of the interrogation has her being fattened up with cupcakes and tea, denies any violence or even the suggestion of coercion--she just blurts out Patrick's name as the murderer to their astonishment--claims she was offered a lawyer and refused, and otherwise gives the impression it was just a friendly chat amongst girls. She even gives Zugarini a kiss at the end of her 'perp walk' she's so 'thankful' of the kindness those interrogators showed her!

Alt, did you ever wonder why, if she actually blurted out something to the effect of 'It's him, he's the murderer!' they 'forgot' to put that in her statement? Isn't that kind of the damning sort of quote they should have been looking for, instead of 'I vaguely remember...?' ;)
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
I fail to see the logic of this argument (which you have made previously) as it relates to this thread. It misses a very obvious point and in doing so appears to give credence to much of the nonsense posted here.

The fact that the 'discussion' has gone on for 50k posts is not because of the lack of the trial transcript. As it is most of the repetitive Foaker arguments put forward are completely at odds with the 'limited' amount of data that is available [and with reality]. Having more data to ignore/deny/forget wouldn't make any difference.

Take as simple and trivial examples the recent 'cartwheels' or the 'out from 9pm-1am' issues. Anybody with even a basic knowledge of the case is aware of these points - the groundhog day nature of their repetition has nothing to do with the lack of data. On the contrary. Likewise with a host of FoA talking points and tropes particular to this thread.
It's a standard feature of CT type arguments - Repeated denial (or 'forgetting') of easily and oft established 'facts' along with completely spurious inventions* that have no bearing on the reality of the case.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I orginally began posting at the JREF forums because I couldn't stand all the 9/11 conspiracy nonsene I saw posted (especially as a person who was in NYC that day). And then after that the repeated denials of established facts. I guess it's not much different than in this murder case.
 
Kaosium said:
That calunnia charge was filed because she told her side of the story of the interrogation on the stand, in part that she was hit, but also that she was threatened out of getting a lawyer, denied food, drink and bathroom, yelled at and other forms of coercion etc. The judge's letter has a number of points regarding that night in the questura and it does make me wonder why the consulate wasn't more interested when that note was made public and she'd written about things, such as being hit, which were violations of her rights. They might have asked to see the tapes of the interrogation, under the law recently posted, to ascertain if her rights were violated.

The police 'story' of the interrogation has her being fattened up with cupcakes and tea, denies any violence or even the suggestion of coercion--she just blurts out Patrick's name as the murderer to their astonishment--claims she was offered a lawyer and refused, and otherwise gives the impression it was just a friendly chat amongst girls. She even gives Zugarini as kiss at the end of her 'perp walk' she's so 'thankful' of the kindness those interrogators showed her!

Alt, did you ever wonder why, if she actually blurted out something to the effect of 'It's him, he's the murderer!' they 'forgot' to put that in her statement? Isn't that kind of the damning sort of quote they should have been looking for, instead of 'I vaguely remember...?' ;)
Click to expand...

Again, the calunnia charges have nothing to do with how U.S. Consular officers handled her situation (the basis of the judge's letter). Can you provide any evidence that the U.S. Consular officers who handled her situation acted any differently than any other American arrested in Italy in 2007? Based on what U.S. and international laws allows, what exact assistance was Amanda not given?
 
Alt+F4 said:
You accuse me of having a "mindless approach" to the al-Megrahi case then when asked for evidence of this you couldn't be bothered. Ok, got it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Later.

Alt+F4 said:
What exact edvience are you referring to?
Click to expand...


Any of the evidence at all in the Pan Am 103 case.

Alt+F4 said:
You have access to actual evidence in the al-Megrahi case! That's great and helps support your viewpoint. You have none of that in this murder case.

I have no idea what might be hidden on page 6,394 of that trial transcript...and it seems neither do you.
Click to expand...


Easy. Just put [6394] into the Acrobat search.

It seems to be a policeman giving evidence about the layout of Heathrow airport.

Rolfe.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I have no idea what might be hidden on page 6,394 of that trial transcript...and it seems neither do you.
Click to expand...


It's about finding the original document referring to terminal 3 (or so I recall).

English to Italian translation

English to Italian translation

6394

1 di voi?

2 A che normalmente hanno una qualche forma di

3 Identificazione da qualche parte sul documento.

4 Q Va bene. Mi chiedo se possiamo vedere il

5 fondo al documento, per favore. È possibile?

6 E 'l'originale del documento disponibile,
​
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom