Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

It was an opinion. Yeti said that was what he/she would give them, not any justice system. And, heaven forbid, we've never seen hyperbolic opinions about what should happen to prosecutors and police involved.

I'm partial to the ones involving juicers and extremities myself!

 

[GreyFox]

The false accusation belongs to Mignini ! He's the one who had her interrogated until he got the statement he asked for. They were the ones implicating Patrick. Insisting he was in on it. So when she complied with what he asked for he had him arrested. She just wanted to go home but was told this is the only way out ! I think the statement speaks for itself. She is clearly saying heres a story I was told to write but it's not true. She went out of her way on several sentences to say it's not true. Had he made her say her name was Renaldo she would have done that too. Think about it if she went through all of the trouble to float in mid air while cleaning her and RF's DNA from the crime scene (after having sex with RF all nite) why screw it up later by throwing Patrick in the mix. It makes as much sense as her carrying a kitchen knife in her bag for protection while dating a knife collector. The Accusation belongs to the people who asked for it and benefited from it. Egg on there face! Like a rapist saying we'll she asked for it wearing those tight lil shorts.

 

[Grinder]

You will find very few concede this yeti. Prepare for the "internalized false memory" mantra. No evidence, of course, but AK simply cannot tell a lie, according to many.

I've asked before, but could you explain what the police chief meant when he said that
“Lots of people came and went through her house and she was unfortunately at the crossroads when this group came together.” De Felice also confirmed the contents of the statements that had been published in Italian newspapers but refused to add any further detail.

He said that the three had continually changed their stories and that things “just didn’t add up.” He explained:”Initially the American gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. “She buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in.


It was clear to me the day this happened that there was something amiss with the police investigation and proved correct when they substituted Rudy for Patrick.

At least 12 police participated enough in the interrogation to be eligible for the civil lawsuit.

The police could have done many things wrong and she could still be guilty, but the PGP just can't seem to admit anything done wrong by authorities.
Why?

 

[Kaosium]

Nothing wrong with the premise. They lied. There have been no end of rationalisations for their lies, but lies they were.

Did they tell the lie, or did the police tell the lie and then just convince them it was true, or it was in their best interest to agree?

Incidentally, how do you rationalize the endless litany of lies coming from the police and prosecution in this case? Do you just pretend none of it happened?

 

[icerat]

Nothing wrong with the premise. They lied. There have been no end of rationalisations for their lies, but lies they were.

Depends on how you define "lie". dictionary.com has these options -

lie1    [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Definition #1 and maybe #2, depending on circumstances, are the only ones for which a crime or "punishment" should be considered.

Lionking, do you believe there was a deliberate intent to deceive?

 

[lionking]

Lionking, do you believe there was a deliberate intent to deceive?

The court did. That's far more important.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lying versus speaking falsely

Nothing wrong with the premise. They lied. There have been no end of rationalisations for their lies, but lies they were.

lionking,

Lying means speaking falsely and knowing that it is false. I went through this once with BobTheDonkey in the first thread, IIRC.

Should Stefanoni be punished for her lies? Should the police be punished for putting out false information on the bleach receipts, the Harry Potter book, Amanda's clothes, the story that Raffaele cut girls in Puglia, the CCTV coverage, and the pink bathroom photo? If not, where is the disincentive not to put false information out in future cases?

How about Quintavalle? How about Curatolo?

 

[icerat]

lionking,

Lying means speaking falsely and knowing that it is false. I went through this once with BobTheDonkey in the first thread, IIRC.

Not necessarily, as per above. So we need to see what lionking thinks.

The court did. That's far more important.

I asked what you thought. We already know what the court thought.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Anyone guessing why they moved the verdict to Monday?

In respect for the judges? Maybe due to the media onslaught extra guards are needed, not readily available on a Saturday?

If it was a 10minute slamdunk, already known verdict....I dont see a reason to postpone.

why? other than the media blitz causing issues.

They should be able to handle the media, as they have today, and all day Friday to set up. I do hope it is media-related, and not Hellman conceding to the prosecution.

The rebuttal is Friday, so now what will Saturday consist of?? ETA: Maybe reporters need time to book long flights from the U.S.? Let us hope so.....Maybe to allow the Kercher family time to come over??

Amanda Knox appeal: Victim Meredith Kercher's family to travel to Italy for verdict

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-travel-to-italy-for-verdict-115875-23452044/

 

[lionking]

Icerat, these points have been rehashed time after time. In fact, I don't think there has been a new argument raised on this thread for over two years (ignoring those about the cost of a steak in Seattle). I think they intentionally, but inexpertly, lied.

 

[Kestrel]

Patrick's bar wasn't busy on the night Meredith was murdered, but it was open. Isn't it odd that it only took the Perugia police a day to find a witness who would swear it was closed?

 

[Rolfe]

What Amanda said doesn't sound like something that can straightforwardly be described as a "lie" to me. It's obvious there's something a lot more complicated than that going on. "The best truth I can remember...." "This now seems unreal to me...." "This seems less real than what I said the first time, that I was with Raffaele...." and so on.

On the other hand, the stuff Stefanoni came out with in the witness box, under oath, that does look like straightforward lying. Or "perjury", as lawyers like to call it.

Why no demands to know how we feel she should be punished?

Rolfe

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it may be time to stick a fork in this conversation

In fact, I don't think there has been a new argument raised on this thread for over two years (ignoring those about the cost of a steak in Seattle). I think they intentionally, but inexpertly, lied.

Lionking,

I have sought out and quoted expert opinions from Dr. Dan Krane, Dr. William Thompson, and Dr. Igor Lednev in response to points made here and elsewhere about the case. Oh, and by the way, the Conti-Vecchiotti report has been translated. 'Nuff said.

 

[Supernaut]

Well others don't feel the same way. I don't know how many times I've read posts about more than one police destroying or altering evidence; forensic scientists planting evidence or falsifying results and so on. If that's not a long standing conspiracy involving many, I don't know what is.

I can accept mistakes in the investigation, but not the grand conspiracy involving many.

You know, this "argument" of yours, the only one you seem to have and which you never seem to tire of, is actually the quintissential 'straw-man'.

The argument you are trying and failing to counter is this;

that stupidity/incompetence**, corruption and venality amongst the public officials and 'legal profesionals' involved was the reason for pursuing the "case" against AK and RS - no one making it has never invoked a "consipracy" (let alone a "grand conspiracy") either explicitly or implicitly

You are the one who keeps using the word (to the point of wearing it out) and attributing to those arguing the above in an effort to distort and mischaracterise it.

Whatever, to some people authority is truth instead of the other way round, and there will probably never be any way of reasoning with them.

** I think what can be seen is the The “Peter Principle” at work; it dictates that people climbing the ‘promotional ladder’ will always, eventually, obtain a position requiring capabilities which are beyond them, thereby screwing up an entire organisation or institution - Patrizia Stefanoni is a perfect example.

 

[JREF2010]

The breaking story from the Mirror (sorry, I can't post links yet) concludes with the suggestion that the Kerchers wouldn't be able to be there until Monday. If this is the case (and I don't see how it is, since I thought they were there already), it would strongly suggest that the verdict will be a reaffirmation of the conviction, since it would make sense that they'd want the Kerchers there for that, but less that they'd reschedule just so they could be there for an acquittal.

I wouldnt be surprised if the Kerchers lose interest in the courtroom work and move on. its become a confusing long, drawn out case. NickPisa confirmed his opinion, this case wouldnt have even made it into the British courts.

At some point, the Kerchers might just send a letter or not even comment publically.

After Maresca's vile and disgusting showing, I wonder if they'll even want to be seated near him?

 

[Rolfe]

The breaking story from the Mirror (sorry, I can't post links yet) concludes with the suggestion that the Kerchers wouldn't be able to be there until Monday. If this is the case (and I don't see how it is, since I thought they were there already), it would strongly suggest that the verdict will be a reaffirmation of the conviction, since it would make sense that they'd want the Kerchers there for that, but less that they'd reschedule just so they could be there for an acquittal.

I don't agree that you can read anything into this one way or the other. If the Kerchers want to be there when the verdict is announced, then it would be entirely inappropriate to refuse them ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ACQUIT.

If that is the reason for the delay (rather than the realisation that the timetable was getting a little tight, or even - as some have suggested - to benefit the Perugian economy by keeping the press pack in town over the weekend) then the only consideration would be whether the court is prepared to modify its schedule to accommodate the Kerchers' request.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

Icerat, these points have been rehashed time after time. In fact, I don't think there has been a new argument raised on this thread for over two years (ignoring those about the cost of a steak in Seattle). I think they intentionally, but inexpertly, lied.

Why do you believe that? In other words, what causes you to believe that Raffaele or Amanda intentionally tried to deceive the police? Both statements were to their disadvantage, not advantage, both caused more suspicion of them, and both got them arrested. In Raffaele's case it amounts to something easily proven false and which caused his own alibi to be put into question, and in Amanda's case she's 'vague and confused' about it which she reiterates in her note.

What do you believe was the cause for all the false statements made by the police and prosecution in the media and even the courtroom?

 

[Justinian2]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/10371962/knox-crucified-in-murder-case-lawyer-says

The article gives a very colorful summation from the defense attorneys.

I like this one:

PERUGIA, Italy (Reuters) - American student Amanda Knox was a naive young woman publicly "crucified" and "impaled" to justify wrongly imprisoning her for murder, her lawyer told an Italian court on Thursday.

I too believe she was trashed and bullied to justify her wrong imprisonment.

The prosecution team was not satisfied with their first crime, so they do another. Weird aren't they?

It's actually the way of the police. If they falsely arrest you, they charge you with another crime to deflect your counter attack. The problem is, in Italy or elsewhere, this method works. The best defense is to keep attacking. The courts let them get by with it, so they keep doing it. They even believe they are right because society lets them crucify people.

 

[icerat]

Icerat, these points have been rehashed time after time. In fact, I don't think there has been a new argument raised on this thread for over two years (ignoring those about the cost of a steak in Seattle). I think they intentionally, but inexpertly, lied.

Well I haven't been following this thread, or the case, so I'd appreciate you bearing with me a little!

If they did it intentionally, they must have had an intent. What do you believe it was? What was the purpose of the "lies"?

ETA: I see Kaosium asked the same.

 

[lionking]

Intent to deceive.