Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bri1]

The court did. That's far more important.

So if (when?) this court decides that there was no deception by Knox and Sollecito, you'll be happy to accept that there were circumstances surrounding these statements which made them less than lies?

 

[icerat]

Intent to deceive.

to what purpose?

 

[RWVBWL]

ah yes the "false memories" "implanted memories" & "visions"

i'd give them 20 years just for the lies.

implicating Lumumba. Then sitting in jail knowing full well Lumumba was innocent and not saying anything. It wasn't AK that got him out it was his alibi.

I'd give her another 20 years just for that

Gosh Yeti101,
You seem like 1 tough judge!
With your harsh sentences in mind,
I wonder what you would give ol' Rudy Guede?

Rudy's DNA, oddly was found inside Meredith Kercher's genitalia.
That huuuge kichen knife that Amanda supposedly brought over from Raffaele's place did not fit most of the wounds. After it was used, it was brought back so no one would notice it missing. If Amanda and Raff wre worried about someone noticing a knife missing, where is the knife that Raffaele used in the murder? Surely it was also returned to its rightful place.
Rudy, on the other hand, must have discarded his knife, as he also did so with his bloody Nike Outbreak 2 sneakers, when he ran away to Germany, for his knife wa never found.

So what kind of sentence would you hand down to Rudy Guede,
who, definitive proof shows that he inappropriately fondled the victim, hid or destroyed evidence, and left the scene of the crime?

16 years?

 

[lionking]

So if (when?) this court decides that there was no deception by Knox and Sollecito, you'll be happy to accept that there were circumstances surrounding these statements which made them less than lies?

If the appeal is dismissed, will you concede they lied? Somehow I don't think so.

 

[Grinder]

LK perhaps we could move to more new discussions if you and other PGP would address some of the issues people that are not convinced of guilt such as what the police was saying the day after arrest and what it could mean in terms of the interrogation.

Here's something brand new - stolen from another site - OJ and AK were born on the same date and OJ was acquitted on October 3rd the day schedule now for AK's verdict.

Since I've been here, I've seen new ideas and information about the case. While it is true much is rehashing, the case continues to be fascinating in so many aspects.

 

[davefoc]

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.

It seems like at the heart of your belief is that the misstatements attributed to Knox and Sollecito by the police prove their guilt or at least suggest their guilt strongly enough to sustain a guilty verdict based on a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. Do you think it is possible that the police misrepresented what went on during the interrogation? Do you have some thoughts about why the interrogation wasn't recorded?

I am not quite sure why you believe they are guilty so strongly. Clearly the police engaged in interrogation techniques that are known to produce false information. There is a reason why these kind of statements are deemed not admissible. Because it is understood that police can badger people into making false incriminating statements when they are in police custody. The main justification for these kind of techniques is not to produce confessions but rather to produce information that can be corroborated that can lead to convictions.

This didn't happen in this case. There is no credible evidence that was developed against Knox and Sollecito. Sure there were claims of a lot of evidence but all of that evidence has been shown to be not credible. What we are left with is a "confession" that doesn't actually involve a confession and that was ruled inadmissible. So even if you believe that the "confession" was evidence of guilt it seems that a juror complying with an instruction to disregard that evidence should find RS/AK not guilty.

Do you give much weight to Rolfe's time of death arguments?

On a slightly different topic, how do you think the murder was actually done? Do you think AK/RS were actually physically involved in perpetrating this murder? Do you have some thoughts about the lack of physical evidence to support this idea?

 

[js202]

Gosh Yeti101,
You seem like 1 tough judge!
With your harsh sentences in mind,
I wonder what you would give ol' Rudy Guede?

Rudy's DNA, oddly was found inside Meredith Kercher's genitalia.
That huuuge kichen knife that Amanda supposedly brought over from Raffaele's place did not fit most of the wounds. After it was used, it was brought back so no one would notice it missing. If Amanda and Raff wre worried about someone noticing a knife missing, where is the knife that Raffaele used in the murder? Surely it was also returned to its rightful place.
Rudy, on the other hand, must have discarded his knife, as he also did so with his bloody Nike Outbreak 2 sneakers, when he ran away to Germany, for his knife wa never found.

So what kind of sentence would you hand down to Rudy Guede,
who, definitive proof shows that he inappropriately fondled the victim, hid or destroyed evidence, and left the scene of the crime?

16 years?

Based on what passes for guilter profiling and justice, Randy, likely he'd *reduce* Guede's sentence to 10 years. And then at the end of that term, invite him over to his living room for high tea. After all poor Rudy was just a pitiful immigrant, cruelly abandoned by his parents and Italian benefactors. Not unlike an Ivorian Oliver Twist, say.

Amanda Knox is the evil American seductress witch, and deserves her comeuppance, no matter by what method.

 

[bri1]

If the appeal is dismissed, will you concede they lied? Somehow I don't think so.

Absolutely not. But I'm not the one using an argument from authority, by saying ' x, y, z is probably true because the court believed it was true'.
And when the acquittals come, and I'm discussing this case, I won't refer to the authority of the courts in arguing their innocence.
Because I admit that there are systemic failures of every justice system in the world, and it can be hard to tell when the courts have failed and when they are successful and because there are plenty of arguments and evidence showing innocence (or at the very least, reasonable doubt), and so weak arguments from authority won't be necessary.

You argued that we can trust the court's judgement (in it's belief that Amanda lied). So it would then follow that if this court doesn't believe that, we can trust the court's judgement.

 

[lionking]

Here's something brand new - stolen from another site - OJ and AK were born on the same date and OJ was acquitted on October 3rd the day schedule now for AK's verdict.

Fascinating.

Do you think I'm ruining the mood? Not joining in the innocentisti victory dance?

 

[js202]

If the appeal is dismissed, will you concede they lied? Somehow I don't think so.

I don't trust one thing that has come out of that town. I think it's best in this case to reason by one's own lights.

 

[bolint]

Ghirga is so emotional that Hellmann would confess.

 

[misteratunta]

If the appeal is dismissed, will you concede they lied? Somehow I don't think so.

I expect he won't, but he wasn't the one professing to have based his belief upon the decision of any court. In fact, quite the opposite.

You did though.

 

[Rolfe]

Fascinating.

Do you think I'm ruining the mood? Not joining in the innocentisti victory dance?

I just think you're being irrational. To describe the stuff Amanda was coming out with in the police station as "lying with intent to deceive" seems extraordinary.

You're also indulging in a fair bit of straw-manning. Although I have seen some people proposing some sort of grand conspiracy to convict Knox and Sollecito, most people (certainly including me) see it as the result of the police jumping the gun, jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and then engaging in confirmation bias and backside-covering to avoid having to admit their initial mistake.

Rolfe.

 

[Paninaro]

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?

A criminal should not be punished for lying to the police during a murder investigation.

For example Rudy Guede should be put in jail for the murder of Meredith Kercher and not receive extra punisment for his lies.

 

[bolint]

Nadeau:

Ghirga citing the Italian constitution and saying that in his professional life has never seen such mistakes

Interestingly Biscotti thinks that everything is alright in the Massei verdict, however, he in his professional life has never seen such mistakes as those made in Rudy's verdicts.

 

[Supernaut]

Do you think I'm ruining the mood?

You're obviously trying your hardest.

Not joining in the innocentisti victory dance?

"Victory dance"? Well, piss-poor metaphors aside, there are a great many people who will be very happy to see Amanda and Raff greeted by their family and friends when they are freed.

Joyful, in fact.

 

[lionking]

I am not quite sure why you believe they are guilty so strongly.

Where did I ever say I had a strong belief in guilt? Just a couple of pages ago I said the result was too close to call. Unlike many here I'm not convinced of their innocence, but will shrug my shoulders if they are acquitted. That is my right, although it hasn't stopped a few over the journey from telling me that it isn't.

 

[Justinian2]

Well, certainly all but the thickest thickie should be able to see by now (if they've followed the case at all) that Knox and the boyfriend are surely innocent.

And, without having read it, I would expect the profiler's take on this particular crime to be pretty accurate. But then you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is here a rather stereotypical crime.

But, in general, profilers are often wrong. And John Douglas is no exception. And, in the past, his mistakes have lead to at least one wrongful conviction that I'm aware of.

If he's claiming he's never been "proved wrong", that is nothing but specious marketing hype.

Without having read it!

So you are profiling the profiler!

But, in general, profilers are often wrong.

As this profiler said, you should convict on the basis of evidence. A profile only helps understand the personality that you are trying to identify. Many amateur profilers are trying to convict Amanda with their really lousy profiling methods such as: "A young woman doing cartwheels is guilty". "A women that swivels her hips is guilty" . "A young woman that drinks beer or smokes is guilty of murder". "This was a drug fueled sex game". "The American girl is guilty". "A young woman that kisses someone is guilty".

You should focus your attention on the amateur profilers that are so inept that they are evil.

 

[icerat]

bump

Intent to deceive.

to what purpose?

 

[Dan O.]

There is a socket in Meredith's room by the door, right where the plug was found, so there is no need to get the current from the corridor.

It all depends on what you need the extra light for. For a reading lamp at the desk you would just plug it in at that convenient outlet. For lighting the way into a bloody room so as not to step in any blood, perhaps you want the lamp plugged in before entering.

There used to be a computer plugged into that socket. Did anybody think to check that computer to see when it was last unplugged?