Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
But her statement to this effect won't have had any actual beneficial effect for her - since (as Mandy Rice-Davies said), "she would say that, wouldn't she". Not that it did her any harm, but it didn't do her any good either.

And this is a further example of why it's usually advisable for defendants to remain silent. They usually can't do themselves any good by testifying (or even speaking/writing), but conversely they have the potential to do themselves great harm.

Suppose, for example, that Knox had slipped up when making this statement, and that she had instead said that she and Guede had never been in the same room together. Since there's decent evidence that they had been in the same room together - and had probably even exchanged brief words with each other - such a slip could be extremely costly for Knox.

Or suppose that Knox had said something like this: "Guede was the one who was in Meredith's room, and it was he who plunged the knife into Meredith's neck". The prosecution could easily use such a statement to argue that the only way Knox could make such an accusation from a position of authority was if she had been present herself.

The court already knows that Knox and Sollecito deny involvement in the murder. The two defendants should start to understand this more properly, in my opinion, and they should leave it to their lawyers to argue the case on their behalf. As I keep saying, the best they can hope for by speaking out themselves is that the court hears what it already knows (that their position is that they weren't involved). But the worst they can fear by speaking out themselves is that they get caught out in a contradiction, or mistakenly say something that might be construed as a sign of guilt.
Click to expand...

I imagine it is extremely difficult to remain quiet after all that has happened. Not to mention the guy testifying is the one human on earth who has the potential to set the record straight.

Then you have people such as BLN tweeting Knox should have interrupted Rudy and called him a liar. There is clearly a segment of observers who feel not speaking out is somehow indicative of guilt.

As with many other aspects of this case she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
 
platonov said:
Wish fulfillment - hardly, unless its on the part of translation team used for the Sky News piece.

If that translation is accurate ? its bye bye to any slim chance the appeal had.

Either way not a good day for the defence.

Perhaps its time to talk about US constitutional law or Kercher Snr again.
Click to expand...


Nah... it's time to talk about the evidence and testimony from the appeal trial.

Firstly, you too are deluded into using terms such as "bye bye to any slim chance the appeal had". This is an entire trial de novo, and the judicial panel will deliberate based on all the evidence, testimony and argument that is available to it, completely autonomously from the first trial.

Secondly, it's impossible to hear or see what Knox was saying in the original Italian in that news clip, since the voice of the interpreter is too loud by comparison, and the picture quality is too poor.

Thirdly, don't you think that if Knox really had said the words attributed to her in this Sky piece, this would be the headline news coming out of the courtroom? don't you think that Latza Nadeau and Vogt might just have picked it up?

Here, by the way, is the Sky News piece, featuring the indomitable Nick Pisa as the man-on-the-spot:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...ilty_Says_Rudy_Guede_During_Appeal_In_Perugia
 
PDiGirolamo said:
I imagine it is extremely difficult to remain quiet after all that has happened. Not to mention the guy testifying is the one human on earth who has the potential to set the record straight.

Then you have people such as BLN tweeting Knox should have interrupted Rudy and called him a liar. There is clearly a segment of observers who feel not speaking out is somehow indicative of guilt.

As with many other aspects of this case she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
Click to expand...


I agree. But currently the main concern of Knox and Sollecito should not be what hacks like Latza Nadeau think or write. It should be all about maximising their chances of acquittal. And to my mind, they maximise their chances of acquittal if they remain quiet, and let their lawyers present their case.
 
halides1 said:
Kevinfay,

I did not see a link in your original comment, and what I have read and quoted here with respect to Ms. Knox's testimony is that she said that the first time the three of them were in the same room was in a courtroom.
Click to expand...


Wasn't the whole basis of the joint defense that they stayed home at Raff's?.

Now they all went out and got drunk, she doesn't know what 'happened' to Guede ... we know? ... he initiated the assault on Meredith.

It is even more certain now that they will be convicted than first time around .. the girl has to come clean and break ranks with Raff
 
Last edited:
Kevinfay said:
Wasn't the whole basis of the joint defense that they stayed home at Raff's?.

Now they all went out and got drunk, she doesn't know what 'happened' to Guede ... we know? ... he initiated the assault on Meredith.

It is even more certain now that they will be convicted than first time around .. the girl has to come clean and break ranks with Raff
Click to expand...

Kevinfay

Can you hear what she actually said ?

Was that a mistake or a sign of a shift in strategy (seems a little late in the day for that) ?
 
Last edited:
komponisto said:
An example of the often subtle ways that journalistic laziness can be harmful is provided by the headline of Andrea Vogt's latest story:

"Knox declares innocence; codefendant blames her".

As Vogt or whoever wrote the headline should very well know, people with vague knowledge of the case who glance at the headline and don't bother to read the story will tend to assume that this refers to Sollecito.

Worse than ambiguous, the word "codefendant" is in fact erroneous here: Guede is not being tried alongside Knox and Sollecito -- his process was separate and is now over. A fair headline would read: "Knox and boyfriend declare innocence; convict blames them". (Observe how different a story that suggests.)

This is part of a pattern that has persisted from the beginning: a failure on the part of reporters to put sufficient emphasis on Guede and the difference between the case against him and the case against Knox and Sollecito. (Only recently did I even see, for vitually the first time, a story that bothered to follow up the usual "all three maintain their innocence" with "unlike Knox and Sollecito, Guede has admitted being at the scene of the crime.")
Click to expand...

Good point. Remember that IQ tests measure logic and not everybody has the same IQ. Also remember that the Stockholm Syndrome is about the illogical influence that captors have on their captives. Put the two together and we can understand why some seem illogical. Furthermore, some may not be willing to do a logical evaluation of themselves or their decisions. Certainly schizophrenics aren't high on the list of people that consistently use logic either.

I believe that an evaluation of the use of logic by this court and the jurists will determine the outcome of this appeal. So far logic seems to prevail over non-logic.

According to my logic then, the appeal will be won.

Anybody know more about today's testimony or the reaction to it?
 
Last edited:
mistake

Kevinfay said:
Wasn't the whole basis of the joint defense that they stayed home at Raff's?.

Now they all went out and got drunk, she doesn't know what 'happened' to Guede ... we know? ... he initiated the assault on Meredith.

It is even more certain now that they will be convicted than first time around .. the girl has to come clean and break ranks with Raff
Click to expand...
Kevinfay,

I think that the audio voiceover is a mistake. Can you make out what Amanda is actually saying?
 
halides1 said:
CoulsdonUK,

Perhaps you would be kind enough to define civility in the context of this forum or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind gracious offer. However, I am not so arrogant as to think (unlike some) that I could possibly define civility to an entire forum; as ever we digress!
 
Kevinfay said:
Wasn't the whole basis of the joint defense that they stayed home at Raff's?.

Now they all went out and got drunk, she doesn't know what 'happened' to Guede ... we know? ... he initiated the assault on Meredith.

It is even more certain now that they will be convicted than first time around .. the girl has to come clean and break ranks with Raff
Click to expand...


"It is even more certain now that they will be convicted......"

Good to see that you're approaching all this with an objective, open mind :)

So you think that Knox actually stood up and said that the three of them (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) had got drunk together on the night of the murder? Or do you think that somehow there's a mistake in the translation? Because don't you think that if Knox really had said this (and she stood up in court about five hours ago now), someone in court would have twigged its importance by now? Or have you suspended rational thinking?
 
LondonJohn said:
Nah... it's time to talk about the evidence and testimony from the appeal trial.

Firstly, you too are deluded into using terms such as "bye bye to any slim chance the appeal had". This is an entire trial de novo, and the judicial panel will deliberate based on all the evidence, testimony and argument that is available to it, completely autonomously from the first trial.

Secondly, it's impossible to hear or see what Knox was saying in the original Italian in that news clip, since the voice of the interpreter is too loud by comparison, and the picture quality is too poor.

Thirdly, don't you think that if Knox really had said the words attributed to her in this Sky piece, this would be the headline news coming out of the courtroom? don't you think that Latza Nadeau and Vogt might just have picked it up?

Here, by the way, is the Sky News piece, featuring the indomitable Nick Pisa as the man-on-the-spot:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...ilty_Says_Rudy_Guede_During_Appeal_In_Perugia
Click to expand...


Deluded eh :)


BTW Thanks for the link to the sky piece - that would be the same piece I referred to when responding to your accusation of of wish fulfillment I guess.
 
LondonJohn said:
"It is even more certain now that they will be convicted......"

Good to see that you're approaching all this with an objective, open mind :)

So you think that Knox actually stood up and said that the three of them (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) had got drunk together on the night of the murder? Or do you think that somehow there's a mistake in the translation? Because don't you think that if Knox really had said this (and she stood up in court about five hours ago now), someone in court would have twigged its importance by now? Or have you suspended rational thinking?
Click to expand...


If you think that Sky got this wrong, no doubt you'll be confirming this with them?.

My best buddy is Tony Shargool, who was the boss of Sky Music Italia.

After you have confirmed with Sky that the translation should have been 'me and raff stayed at his place all night' instead of 'we all went out and got drunk', I'll be giving Tony and his pals a piece of my mind.
 
Kevinfay said:
If you think that Sky got this wrong, no doubt you'll be confirming this with them?.

My best buddy is Tony Shargool, who was the boss of Sky Music Italia.

After you have confirmed with Sky that the translation should have been 'me and raff stayed at his place all night' instead of 'we all went out and got drunk', I'll be giving Tony and his pals a piece of my mind.
Click to expand...


Time to give Tony a piece of your mind then :)

(Although I think you'd find that the ex-boss of Sky Music Italia doesn't have a great deal of involvement in an outside broadcast piece for Sky News in London. Good luck with that call to him anyhow)

(And, PS, any rational thinker would automatically start from the assumption that Sky News had got this wrong somehow - since if this had been a correct translation, it would be massive news and would have been over the news wires for hours already. You, on the other hand, started from the credulous position that Sky News got it right. And that's a very instructive signal to me.)
 
Kevinfay said:
Watch the Video ..... or are you in denial?

Knox said they went out and got drunk that evening .... what happened to staying home with Raff?

It's on the video, in the court record and also in the minds of the jurors?

Did you see the reaction of her lawyer?

Calling the jailbirds was a fiasco, but ultimately, irrelevant?. We might be entertained by the case of Buongiorno vs the convicts, but it is yet another side issue.

I hope Knox's lawyers now insist that she breaks ranks with Raff, and comes clean. It's her only hope of salvaging something from the mess she has gotten into?
Click to expand...


I listened to an Italian video (without the English translator) I don't hear her saying those things.
She seems to say what was reported earlier.


Edited:
This is the critical part, where the English translator said the juicy things:

"Sono veramente scioccata e angosciata a causa di queste dichiarazioni perché lui lo sa che noi non c’eravamo, lui sa che noi non c’entriamo. Non lo so quello che è successo quella sera. Avrei voluto dire a lui: “guarda gli sbagli si rimediano prima dicendo la verità"
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
I listened to an Italian video (without the English translator) I don't hear her saying those things.
She seems to say what was reported earlier.
Click to expand...


Yes. Tony Shargool and his pals are in for a serious grilling from kevinfay this evening :D
 
someone should be sacked

Kevinfay said:
If you think that Sky got this wrong, no doubt you'll be confirming this with them?.

My best buddy is Tony Shargool, who was the boss of Sky Music Italia.

After you have confirmed with Sky that the translation should have been 'me and raff stayed at his place all night' instead of 'we all went out and got drunk', I'll be giving Tony and his pals a piece of my mind.
Click to expand...

Kevinfay,

I communicated with an observer of the trial, and she/he thinks that there are other errors in this article as well.
 
halides1 said:
Kevinfay,

I communicated with an observer of the trial, and she/he thinks that there are other errors in this article as well.
Click to expand...


Well, I hope that kevin will bring these issues to Tony's attention as well. Poor old Tony - he's going to get a right monstering this evening.
 
bolint said:
I listened to an Italian video (without the English translator) I don't hear her saying those things.
She seems to say what was reported earlier.
Click to expand...

I listened to the video 5 or 6 times, rechecking what I had written down.

While LondonJohn is calling Sky, can you point me to the Italian version ... you can't hear the Italian over the translation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom