Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

Seriously? You also believe that they think, while claiming to know nothing about the murder, she should have claimed to know stuff about the murder? The interpretation given by Fiona and Thoughtful is the only one that makes any kind of sense at all.

The point is that when this claim (she should have said Patrick was innocent) has come up in discussion, here and elsewhere, it's never conditional: it's never if she's guilty, she should have said he's innocent. The possibility, even hypothetical, as to what she should have done if innocent is just never addressed at all, yet at the same time the assumption of guilt underlying their view is often not acknowledged. Hence the argument put forward comes across simply as "she should have said he was innocent". No, it's not logical at all, but it's the argument that's been made over and over, even when the fact it's total nonsense is pointed out.

Probably the reason the underlying assumption of guilt is rarely acknowledged in that type of discussion is that people are using both the accusation itself and the fact that she didn't immediately state Patrick was innocent as evidence of guilt, yet their interpretation also relies on prior assumption of guilt. Hence the weird double-think going on: she didn't say Patrick was innocent, which makes her bad and is evidence of guilt; yet to make that interpretation I have to already assume she's guilty.

 

[shuttlt]

But I'm not postulating that being an honors student is evidence for innocence. Whereas you are making the postulation I objected to. So I don't understand your point here. Unless it's just to make this conversation even harder to follow than it already is.

Fine, I withdraw the assertion that anything about her personality background or incidental behavior is evidence, weak or otherwise, of guilt or innocence.

 

[Mary_H]

The point is that when this claim (she should have said Patrick was innocent) has come up in discussion, here and elsewhere, it's never conditional: it's never if she's guilty, she should have said he's innocent. The possibility, even hypothetical, as to what she should have done if innocent is just never addressed at all, yet at the same time the assumption of guilt underlying their view is often not acknowledged. Hence the argument put forward comes across simply as "she should have said he was innocent". No, it's not logical at all, but it's the argument that's been made over and over, even when the fact it's total nonsense is pointed out.

Probably the reason the underlying assumption of guilt is rarely acknowledged in that type of discussion is that people are using both the accusation itself and the fact that she didn't immediately state Patrick was innocent as evidence of guilt, yet their interpretation also relies on prior assumption of guilt. Hence the weird double-think going on: she didn't say Patrick was innocent, which makes her bad and is evidence of guilt; yet to make that interpretation I have to already assume she's guilty.

True and well put.

 

[Matthew Best]

Fine, I withdraw the assertion that anything about her personality background or incidental behavior is evidence, weak or otherwise, of guilt or innocence.

So you agree with me that her failure to exonerate Lumumba is not evidence of her guilt. Why don't you try running that past the big cheeses at PMF?

 

[RoseMontague]

Ok, look.... Rather than dancing around this for another hour, why don't I find out what the Machine means be this and we'll call that definitive? I'll PM him now and let you know. If the answer is contrary to my expectations I promise to let you know before sloping of in embarrassment.

While you are at it ask him about this statement he made yesterday:

There's no point asking in Rose Montague anything because he's thick and confused about many things. He really is away with the fairies.

 

[shuttlt]

So you agree with me that her failure to exonerate Lumumba is not evidence of her guilt. Why don't you try running that past the big cheeses at PMF?

I'll be sure and mention it to The Machine.

 

[Danceme]

What leads you to this conclusion? From the moment I started reading to learn about the case, I noticed that IIP allows people that are pro-guilt to discuss the case (of course, they get some vigorous arguments from the posters there), and PMF, when anyone dares disagree with the standard line there, first trashes the person personally, then bans them. Why can they not have a civilized discussion of the evidence? I am in favor of banning people who make personal attacks, but why ban anyone who disagrees?

IIP, as far as I know, has never banned anyone, and there are occasional pro-guilt posters that come over there and argue. It doesn't turn into a "brawl".

I used to read a little at IIP, I found Machiavelli's viewpoint interesting, the rest was just par for the course innocenters agreeing with each other and going over the same topics discussed here. But Machiavelli was consistently trashed personally, called names and slimed by numerous posters there even though he was always very polite himself. I got sick of the place, just as I did of PMF. To me the only interesting forum is where both points of view can be discussed without all the childish aggression and name calling. This place isn't perfect but so far it's the best of all three.

How would she know if she was not there? She knew Patrick was working that evening but not all night.

I think pro-guilt people have trouble understanding why she wouldn't just say something like the above, "as far as I know Patrick was working" or "how the heck should I know where he was all night" once his name was brought up.
I know the phenomenon of false memories exist and it's likely Amanda suffered a little post traumatic stress from the murder of Meredith, her roommate after all, so perhaps she was in no condition for quite a long time to emphatically refute what she had said.

 

[Rhea]

Did he flat out say that she left the apartment, or did he just concede that if he was asleep he couldn't possible know absolutely that she hadn't left?

Then, the police spun this as Raffaele saying that she had left the apartment,

Dave

I don't know what exactly he said during the interrogation and how it came to that statement other than that I'm sure he was pressured immensely.

In Candace Dempsey's book his signed statement was written down; it said that Amanda left his flat from 9pm to 1am … that's what he signed …

 

[RoseMontague]

I think pro-guilt people have trouble understanding why she wouldn't just say something like the above, "as far as I know Patrick was working" or "how the heck should I know where he was all night" once his name was brought up.
I know the phenomenon of false memories exist and it's likely Amanda suffered a little post traumatic stress from the murder of Meredith, her roommate after all, so perhaps she was in no condition for quite a long time to emphatically refute what she had said.

Sure, I agree Amanda should have done that, actually she should have just gotten a lawyer the same as Filomena and Laura. But that is not the question. It is not what Amanda should have done before she accused Patrick. It is common sense that if she didn't accuse him to begin with then the after the accusation question is meaningless. It is now a question of why she did not proclaim Patrick's innocence to the world after her statement.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, not exactly. The question is really, is what she actually said conclusive evidence that she murdered Meredith Kercher? The way some people are going on about this, you'd wonder why they bothered doing any forensics in the first place.

Rolfe.

 

[moodstream]

What I'm arguing against is the certainty about why Knox said what she said and signed what she signed.

I don't have much time to respond to your posts for now. However, if *all* you have been arguing is the standard of CERTAINTY, well, the odds favor you. I guess that explains the many 'who knows' that start your rebuttals. Certainty is a hard thing to come by.

Perhaps you should entreat GOD with your inquires. GOD knows with certainty. Maybe he will tell you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What about Dr. Giobbi's testimony?

RoseMontague,

You quoted Fiona at PMF as saying (highlighting mine), "She waited for him. At some point they decided to talk to her too, presumably because he changed his story and so they wanted to ask her about it: and since she was there why not now?" AK may have gone to the station voluntarily, but had she not, the police would have asked her to do so, on the orders of Dr. Giobbi, as per the report at Perugia Shock about his testimony (shuttlt, please take note of this reporting; this kind of reporting is why shutting down PS was so bad). I have had this debate with Fiona, Capealadin (IIRC), and perhaps others, but the discussion was always inconclusive.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let your lawyer do the talking (that is what he or she gets paid to do)

I can't believe that nobody has yet mentioned the simple fact that the first instruction from her lawyer would be "STOP TALKING TO THE PLOICE". Even without that instruction, Amanda would have gotten the hint given what has happened to her so far specifically because she was talking to the police without the protection and guidance of a lawyer.

But still, perhaps Amanda should have ignored her lawyers advice and told the police (or even better, put in a written note):

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my
mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw
myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But
I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.​

Dan O.,

She was denied even seeing a lawyer until just prior to coming in front of Judge Matteini on 8 November. Therefore, even her statement above is more than she should have said, IMO. Once one is arrested, one should be quiet until one speaks with a lawyer and then one should say only what he or she advises. This advice has nothing to do with one's guilt or innocence. By doing otherwise, Amanda could have done further harm to herself without doing Patrick one iota of good. Patrick should be a heckuva lot angrier at the police, for ruining his business, among other things, than anyone else.

 

[AmyStrange]

Or she just went along with them so the (physical and/ or psychological) beatings would stop which is what she said in court.

In which case she lied and knew she way lying and then made up a bunch of "best truth I can remember" lies to explain the original lie. Certainly there may well be reasons for her to have done so. They may be perfectly good reasons that we may feel sympathetically disposed to.

-

You really don't know anything about false confessions do you?

The Psychology of false confessions:
http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf

False Confessions - Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

False Confessions - Psychology Today:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-false-confession

FalseConfessions.org:
http://www.falseconfessions.org/

False Confessions - Innocence Project
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

-

Or she just went along with them so the (physical and/ or psychological) beatings would stop which is what she said in court.

This is almost a universal component of all false confessions.

Plus, no matter how I look at it or try to spin it or how any one else tries to spin it, the "confession" (accusation) is just too plain weird in the way it's written, and then what the police did (and didn't do) after they got it just doesn't jive with the police explanation that they didn't believe Patrick was involved and thus didn't tell Amanda who to point the finger at, but that's just me,

What she they have done after she accussed him?

-

They almost immediately went out (and without any kind of investigation) arrested Patrick, and then during the "case closed" press conference admitted that they kept at Amanda until she admitted to what they already knew to be the truth. This is evidence that supports Amanda's explanation in court as to why she confessed.

And until you've been in her shoes and experienced what she did then no one really should judge what she reflectively did (during and after her "accusation") as a result. It's easy to be analytical in foresight (and yes I know I'm being analytical), but that's just my opinion,

Dave

 

[Chris_Halkides]

huh?

I used to read a little at IIP, I found Machiavelli's viewpoint interesting, the rest was just par for the course innocenters agreeing with each other and going over the same topics discussed here. But Machiavelli was consistently trashed personally, called names and slimed by numerous posters there even though he was always very polite himself.

Dancme,

Your claim is several football fields distant from reality; perhaps it is in a different county altogether. I suggest you look up what Machiavelli said about me at IIP in our discussion of the electronic data files and other forensic records.
EDT
At about the time of that discussion, Carlo dalla Vedova confirmed that the defense had requested forensic files and never received them. I seem to recall one of Sollecito's lawyers confirming that they had not seen the negative controls in an article last week, but when I went back to find that news article, I was unsuccessful.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I used to read a little at IIP, I found Machiavelli's viewpoint interesting, the rest was just par for the course innocenters agreeing with each other and going over the same topics discussed here. But Machiavelli was consistently trashed personally, called names and slimed by numerous posters there even though he was always very polite himself. I got sick of the place, just as I did of PMF. To me the only interesting forum is where both points of view can be discussed without all the childish aggression and name calling. This place isn't perfect but so far it's the best of all three.


I think pro-guilt people have trouble understanding why she wouldn't just say something like the above, "as far as I know Patrick was working" or "how the heck should I know where he was all night" once his name was brought up.
I know the phenomenon of false memories exist and it's likely Amanda suffered a little post traumatic stress from the murder of Meredith, her roommate after all, so perhaps she was in no condition for quite a long time to emphatically refute what she had said.

Here's the thing you don't see discussed much: as far as Amanda knew Patrick might NOT have been working. He texted her not to come to work because it was slow. So when the police brought up his name and the texts, Amanda had some reason to believe he might very well not have been at the bar. For all she knew he closed the bar due to no patrons. I believe this played some part in her being easily convinced he could have been involved in the murder.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't know what exactly he said during the interrogation and how it came to that statement other than that I'm sure he was pressured immensely.

In Candace Dempsey's book his signed statement was written down; it said that Amanda left his flat from 9pm to 1am … that's what he signed …

Rhea,

you are right (Murder In Italy, p. 144):
" ...I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That's when we said goodbye... "

Of course, we now know he was talking about another night, but Amanda didn't realize that at the time,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

you are right (Murder In Italy, p. 144):
" ...I went home on my own while Amanda said she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to see some friends. That's when we said goodbye... "

Of course, we now know he was talking about another night, but Amanda didn't realize that at the time,

Dave

Oh, was he talking about another night? I don't know that, he was really confused probably …

It was a weird statement for sure because it was contradicted by Johanna Pavovich who saw them at the time he claimed to have been in town with Amanda in that signed statement.

 

[Danceme]

Sure, I agree Amanda should have done that, actually she should have just gotten a lawyer the same as Filomena and Laura. But that is not the question. It is not what Amanda should have done before she accused Patrick. It is common sense that if she didn't accuse him to begin with then the after the accusation question is meaningless. It is now a question of why she did not proclaim Patrick's innocence to the world after her statement.

I think she should have come out and emphatically said something like "I said something very false to the police during a long, tiring interrogation that I completely take back. They coerced me plain and simple, these were false visions they conjured up in me" but I already offered an explanation as to why she didn't do this, post traumatic stress. She wasn't in her right mind at the time. Sure she even had visions concerning Raffaele and the knife.

Dancme,

Your claim is several football fields distant from reality; perhaps it is in a different county altogether. I suggest you look up what Machiavelli said about me at IIP in our discussion of the electronic data files and other forensic records.
EDT
At about the time of that discussion, Carlo dalla Vedova confirmed that the defense had requested forensic files and never received them. I seem to recall one of Sollecito's lawyers confirming that they had not seen the negative controls in an article last week, but when I went back to find that news article, I was unsuccessful.

Halides, I don't care to look at whatever Machiavelli said about you. Perhaps I had already stopped reading there by then but to be sure whenever I had read there he was always polite, although I think the constant goading did sometimes cause him to fight back, though there usually wasn't much to that. I often marveled at his patience.

Anyway, i only brought it up in the first place to counter someone's argument that the guilters are accepted over there.

 

[AmyStrange]

Oh, was he talking about another night? I don't know that, he was really confused probably …

It was a weird statement for sure because it was contradicted by Johanna Pavovich who saw them at the time he claimed to have been in town with Amanda in that signed statement.

-

In the book, she writes on the next page (p. 145 - paraphrasing), that's about the time when the screaming started coming from the room in which she was being interrogated.

It certainly does sound like she went a little crazy about that time, in my opinion,

Dave