Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rhea]

I suppose I have another problem, as well, Lionking. And that is that this comparison is made at all.
When person A is responsible for person B's suffering, then any complaint person A makes about his or her suffering as a result of the actions which caused person B's suffering, then we can connect the two and say to person A, your suffering is nothing compared to person B's, so shut up.
However, when person A is not responsible for person B's suffering, and person A's suffering is a result of the actions of a third party (c), then any response given to person A's complaints about their suffering at the hands of C in terms of the suffering of person B is irrelevant at best, and disingenuous.

That is exactly the point. Succinctly put.

 

[lionking]

However, when person A is not responsible for person B's suffering, and person A's suffering is a result of the actions of a third party (c), then any response given to person A's complaints about their suffering at the hands of C in terms of the suffering of person B is irrelevant at best, and disingenuous.

I know you believe this, but Amanda may indeed by responsible to some extent or other.

Meredith is the real victim.

 

[Rhea]

Meredith is the real (and only certain) victim. Amanda may not be a victim at all.

Why does Meredith's horrible tragedy make somebody elses lesser suffering unreal?

As bri1 said, if Amanda was responsible for Meredith's death, then you could absolutely make that argument, but you have to have that undoubtly established …

If Amanda is innocent the argument is simply false …

 

[lionking]

Why does Meredith's horrible tragedy make somebody elses lesser suffering unreal?

As bri1 said, if Amanda was responsible for Meredith's death, then you could absolutely make that argument, but you have to have that undoubtly established …

If Amanda is innocent the argument is simply false …

Sorry I just don't sing from the same hymn book as you guys. Amanda has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and this finding may be confirmed soon. Amanda is not yet a victim.

 

[bri1]

I know you believe this, but Amanda may indeed by responsible to some extent or other.

Meredith is the real victim.

OK, can we agree then, that if Amanda was guilty, then reference to Merdith as the 'real' victim is justified and logical.
However, if Amanda is not guilty then the reference is unjustified and illogical.

You obviously have your view on guilt and I have mine.

Nadeau is still an idiot for (implicitly) making this comparison, because she is currently attempting to look unbiased, and she might mislead those who haven't thought in depth or examined in depth this crime and prosecution, into making the same comparison regardless of Amanda's culpability.

 

[GreyFox]

Merideth is a victim of Rudy. Amanda is a victim of Mignini. Why is it when we said Mignini had been found guilty of charges guilters say "no he hasn't been found guilty until all the appeals have been finished" yet when it comes to Knox you say she has already been found guilty?

 

[Wildhorses]

What is "rai?"

Please excuse my ignorance.

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's the Italian broadcasting station.

Rolfe.

 

[DarkStar2011]

It sounds like Hellmann just declared the verdict will be Monday, not Saturday. So I guess any tea-leaf-reading on what the earlier verdict might mean has just gone by the wayside.

 

[Wildhorses]

Thanks Rolfe.

Any guesses as to what the following means? Anyone?

@BLNadeauBarbie Latza Nadeau
CDV XXX=love, love, love, amore, amore, amore #amandaknox

2 minutes ago

Barbie must be tired.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Thanks Rolfe.

Any guesses as to what the following means? Anyone?

@BLNadeauBarbie Latza Nadeau
CDV XXX=love, love, love, amore, amore, amore #amandaknox

2 minutes ago

Barbie must be tired.

Maybe it means she has "amore" for the chianti she just had during the break?

 

[Rolfe]

Someone was kind enough to post this link on Websleuth's, so I am posting it here:

Unarresting the Arrested: FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito
This article was originally supposed to be published for Il Messaggero. It was given to me as an assignment, after the editor and legal expert of the newspaper saw the Maxim interview with famed FBI profiler, John Douglas, in the January 2011 issue.

When the article was turned in, my editor told me – “this article is too dangerous to print in Italy”.

So, for your reading pleasure, the article too dangerous for Italy.

http://womanonawire.blogspot.com/201...-profiler.html

This article, and I believe another relating to it, is no more. Dead link. Something going on, I think.

It was white-on-black, in quite small print. I found it hard to read on the screen, and for that reason I copy-pasted the text into Word. The file was still open on my computer this morning, all present and correct, so I just clicked on "save".

Even if the Wayback machine didn't catch it, I did.

Rolfe.

ETA: Wrong, it hasn't gone. That link is still live. Funny, they're saying it's gone at PMF.net, and the link there seemed to be dead.... Ah, bad move, to think that a bunch of guilters got anything right.

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks Rolfe.

Any guesses as to what the following means? Anyone?

@BLNadeauBarbie Latza Nadeau
CDV XXX=love, love, love, amore, amore, amore #amandaknox

2 minutes ago

Barbie must be tired.

I think she's declaring her undying love for the defence advocate. Strange lady.

Rolfe.

 

[Rhea]

Thanks Rolfe.

Any guesses as to what the following means? Anyone?

@BLNadeauBarbie Latza Nadeau
CDV XXX=love, love, love, amore, amore, amore #amandaknox

2 minutes ago

Barbie must be tired.

Amanda wrote this in a text message to Meredith the day before the murder; XXX which means Kiss, Kiss, Kiss. Conclusion; they didn't hate each other …

 

[Rolfe]

OK, I understand. The defence advocate is quoting the kisses in the text message, and Barbie is translating into English and Italian.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

For katy_did and Kaosium:

In the corriere.it article of November 7, 2007 they have what is allegedly Raffaele's statement given to the police on November 5-6. This is what is written in the last sentences:

"Ho cercato di sfondare la porta ma non ci sono riuscito e a quel punto ho deciso di chiamare mia sorella e mi sono consigliato con lei perché è un tenente dei carabinieri. Mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale."

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

This article is the only place I have seen what is supposed to be Raffaele's statement to the police. It was not brought against him in court.

I found the English version of their statements in the Telegraph - the 'in the meantime the postal police arrived' statement comes from that, not Raffaele's diary as I thought. Hmmm. Could the police have interpreted that as meaning he called them after the postal police arrived? Curious. I remember a discussion ages ago on PMF about that sentence, and even there the consensus in the end was that it could have just meant he called 112 but then the postal police arrived before the Carabinieri got there. Now I'm starting to wonder if the police read it differently...

ETA: Thanks Christiana, I see that you've found the original (LOL, too much time spent editing on my part).

Thanks to both of you!

Katy-Did, I don't think the police 'read' it that way, I think they put it there that way as that's what matched their erroneous information, either from the logs, the mistaken CCTV camera timestamp differential, or both.

 

[bolint]

Barbie Latza Nadeau
cdv talking about the presence of glass on top of clothes, implies that maybe cops or Romanelli disturbed the scene.

Hmm...
Weren't we patiently taught that the glass on top of clothes was pure imagination?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more than one explanation for the glass is possible

Hmm...
Weren't we patiently taught that the glass on top of clothes was pure imagination?

No, see my previous comments on the matter.
EDT
I have always thought that Filomena might have put the glass on her clothes accidently when she took her computer out of the case.

 

[Kaosium]

You are mistaken. Your use of "suspect" in this context means only "person of interest", not a legal category in Italian law.
Legally Amanda became suspect when there was evidence that she may be involved in the crime.


Amanda's 1:45AM confession produced this evidence.
Before that she had been only a "person of interest".
For example the police intercepted also Filomena ond others, so they were somewhat suspicous of them at that time.
But they never "gained" suspect status.

Then how come they didn't follow the rules even then and summon a lawyer for her at 1:45? She was a suspect the moment she walked into that room, their 'evidence' being the confusion they forced from from Raffaele at 10:40 when he signed his statement suggesting Amanda had been 'lying' to them all week.

Those cops never intended on playing by any rules, further evidence of which is Patrick's all-day long interrogation without a lawyer, them locking away Raffaele and Amanda and not allowing them lawyers, the lack of tapes for whatever contrived reason they come up with now, and that the Supreme Court threw out the whole mess 'o pottage.

The impression that it was not an engineered collapse.
In the first place they did not call Amanda. Great engineering.

Correction, Edgardo Giobbi said he was 'mathematically certain' he ordered Raffaele and Amanda in that night, with detailed reasons why he did so, an all-night effort with twelve extra cops on duty. This and the calunnia charge they made later put the lie to Napoleoni's previous pious prevarications.

Bolint, what were they doing calling Raffaele and Amanda in that late at night with all those extra cops on duty? Why did they instantly go after Raffaele about Amanda's alibi and when he called the carabinieri?

As I see they wanted to grill Raffaele, mostly beacuse of the intercepted phone conversation (same day afternoon) with his father in which he asked Raffaele not to walk around with the knives especially when he goes to the police. And Raffaele said "Why? These idiots will never discover it."
So they decided to teach him a lesson. And they did.

Considering how long he was there before they noticed it, I find that unlikely. Instead they talked about Amanda's alibi and when he called the carabinieri. This didn't take very long, 10:15 from the moment they walked into the door until the 10:40 timestamp on the statement Raffaele signed.

I don't think so.
The only reason I think they are guilty is because based on my knowledge of the case I find it more logical than the opposite.
Of course, I could be mistaken.

I think there's plenty of guilt to go around in this case, and very little of it emanates from Raffaele and Amanda. I think you need to logically consider that the word of the police and prosecution is not inviolate and their contentions must too stand scrutiny. In this case, they quite simply don't, and the epicenter of that event is the interrogation.

 

[yeti101]

Murder aside for a second.

i'm interested to know what others think the punishment should be for lying to police during a murder investigation?

we know for a fact AK & RS did this. Thoughts?