• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
I met him twice and I only spoke to him on one occasion.
I didn't know anything about him some year ago ago; at first, I didn't have any bad feeling but neither any real sympathy; later on I have learnt things about him as a person, and I like him and trust him.
Click to expand...

What things have you learned about him that make you like and trust Mignini?

I would like to sit in a jail cell (as a visitor, not an inmate) and talk to a serial killer. As long as he (the serial killer) was locked up, I could/might like him. I would listen and ask questions.
 
it would not have served any purpose

Machiavelli,
Patrick knew how to speak Italian and probably knew more about Italian law than Amanda did as of 8 November. I think it would have been very foolish to speak in front of Matteini under those circumstances. Patrick and Raffaele did speak, and it was not beneficial to them. The second date I mentioned was 30 November 2007.
 
AmyStrange said:
-

This is my favorite story about Amanda's day yesterday:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/amanda_knox_got_hero_welcome_from_VW6jLN97ymTQv8ogjmcFcK

" ...Daclon said Knox walked back into the prison, where inmates crammed into each small window, cheering and waving clothing in the air like flags.

[...]

"'Imagine, to see so many people, like a Hollywood movie, looking out of the windows, greeting Amanda and waving clothes. She was moved, like us, to see a show like this... '"
Click to expand...

That is a great story, isn't it?
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Machiavelli,
A question for you:
Say I, Mr. Joe Surfer, had met a beautiful Italian gal, fell madly in love and moved to Perugia and became a citizen too. Could I have just walked over to Prosecutor Mignini and talked with him in detail about a murder case that has attracted world wide attention also? Or would a person specifically need to be a journalist?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Do you feel you have the competence to talk about these topics with Mignini? Are you experienced about the place and its environments? I have no idea about the answer to your question: you have to ask Mignini, not me. I don't know if you would be able to chat with him.
I didn't know if I could neither, I didn't even look for that: it happened. It was unexpected. Moreover I found both him and Comodi open and friendly more than I thought, very polite even to a perfect stranger. None of them knows anything about my writing on forums. None of them knows my first name. But I know Comodi enjoys cooking pasta dishes, making trivial comments that I can't repeat, and has a dog.


Was that really a semen stain?
Click to expand...

I don't know.
 
smkovalinksy said:
:jaw-dropp That I am! I just fell in love with her :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I really don't understand all of this back and forth over what AK & RS said during their interrogations. They were denied representation period. The supreme court ruled on this, and the prosecution illegally used the interrogation in spite of the supreme court ruling. I can't wait for the prosecutions appeal so they can explain why they ignored the ruling. IMO everything that was said during the interrogations should be tossed including the so called fLse accusation. This whole case is a disgrace and and embarrassment to Italy. There are my two cents.
 
halides1 said:
Machiavelli,
Patrick knew how to speak Italian and probably knew more about Italian law than Amanda did as of 8 November. I think it would have been very foolish to speak in front of Matteini under those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Let's be realistic. It's not very foolish to speak to a judge or to anyone in English if you have anything to say.
Patrick's Italian is rather poor, which is surprising given his long stay in Italy. But Knox didn't speak at all: did not make even the spontaneous statement to clarify a bit what she wrote, which instead is, indeed, very foolish; but she did not speak even afterwards, she did not give further consistent explanations nor information for more than two weeks. She only kept on writing foolish and inconsistent things.
Do you honestly try to attribute responsbility of this to someone else?
Amanda was an adult of average normal intelligence, well educated, mentally sane with normal human relations and communication skills, who had just falsely accused an innocent and provided a series of false stories and false evidence on a murder investigation; and she was aware of this. Despite that, she kept on cheating, concealing the truth, keep a silence about her lies.
What do you expect me to think?

Patrick and Raffaele did speak, and it was not beneficial to them. The second date I mentioned was 30 November 2007.
Click to expand...

It was not beneficial to Raffaele. Because already Raffaele had told a load of crap. But no damage came to Patrick from his own interrogation. Raffaele and Amanda were damaged by their own declarations. Patrick was not; he was only damaged by Knox's declarations.
 
Machiavelli said:
...

[responding to a question about what the untested stain was that looked like it might have been semen.]
I don't know.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some insight into various aspects of the case. With regard to this particular issue, do you have some thoughts as to why the stain wasn't tested. Do you think it might have the semen stain of another attacker? This seems like a curious loose end unless the details about it have been misrepresented.

And on another issue do you have any insight into how the hard disks came to be damaged? As I understand it no data was ever recovered from one of the hard disks. Do you have some thoughts as to why? Was the hard disk ever submitted to a data retrieval center for analysis? If it wasn't do you have some thoughts as to why not?

My apologies but one more question: You seem to admire Mignini. Do you have any thoughts about his conviction and his apparently discredited actions with regard to the Monster of Florence case?

ETA: My apologies again, but I am curious about what people who have a strong belief in the guilt of RS/AK have to say, especially a knowledgeable individual such as yourself:

How do you think RS/AK were involved? I have never quite gotten what the prosecution theory is here. Is the idea that RS and AK actually actively took part in this murder? Does the lack of forensic evidence for this surprise you? Do you find the lack of criminal or violent behavior in the background of RS/AK surprising? Do you find the lack of any form of documented communication between the alleged conspirators surprising given your belief that these three people got together and killed Kercher?
 
Last edited:
Poppy1016 said:
I really don't understand all of this back and forth over what AK & RS said during their interrogations. They were denied representation period. The supreme court ruled on this, and the prosecution illegally used the interrogation in spite of the supreme court ruling. I can't wait for the prosecutions appeal so they can explain why they ignored the ruling. IMO everything that was said during the interrogations should be tossed including the so called fLse accusation. This whole case is a disgrace and and embarrassment to Italy. There are my two cents.
Click to expand...

This is plain false. Nothing illegal ever happened. The supreme court ruled, and you seem to not know anything about the ruling (nor anything about the other SC rulings on the topic). Why don't you read it?
 
davefoc said:
You seem to have some insight into various aspects of the case. With regard to this particular issue, do you have some thoughts as to why the stain wasn't tested.
Click to expand...

Yes I do have detailed thoughts about it.

Do you think it might have the semen stain of another attacker? This seems like a curious loose end unless the details about it have been misrepresented.
Click to expand...

No. I think it isn't.

And on another issue do you have any insight into how the hard disks came to be damaged? As I understand it no data was ever recovered from one of the hard disks. Do you have some thoughts as to why?
Click to expand...

Yes I do (a little on how it happened, more about why one was not recovered).

Was the hard disk ever submitted to a data retrieval center for analysis? If it wasn't do you have some thoughts as to why not?
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Yes I do know why.

My apologies but one more question: You seem to admire Mignini. Do you have any thoughts about his conviction and his apparently discredited actions with regard to the Monster of Florence case?
Click to expand...

Yes I do.

My apologies but, the fact is I cannot spend my time to unfold all these topics in this moment. They are all topics in which there are also narratives and perceptions in some way created by the innocentisti. They are not really interesting points in this case in my opinion. Some are felt as important by the innocentisti, not by me. Moreover, I had already expressed thougts about some of them, and also other people have given already the same explanations and information that I could give.
 
Malkmus said:
You left out the interpreter persuading her she was traumatized and forgot going to the cottage that night, a fact backed by Amanda's recounting of the interpreter's personal story of being traumatized after breaking her leg. Guilters always ignore this part. I wonder why.

And how does it take nearly three hours for Amanda to make a second statement if it was just her wanting to repeat what she had said before? A statement that was rather short and only changed to benefit LE's theory of the crime?
Click to expand...


Oh it was backed by more than just Knox's version of events. The interpreter (Anna Donnino) admitted this herself in her testimony in Massei's court. This from the mighty pen of Andrea Vogt, in a contemporaneous court report:


Anna Donnino, the interpreter who assisted during the interrogation, said she tried to establish trust with Knox, who was struggling to offer investigators a credible defense. Donnino told the suspect that she once broke her leg in an accident but suffered so much trauma she couldn't remember anything about it afterward.
Click to expand...

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Knox-kept-under-surveillance-1302448.php


Woooops........
 
Poppy1016 said:
I really don't understand all of this back and forth over what AK & RS said during their interrogations. They were denied representation period. The supreme court ruled on this, and the prosecution illegally used the interrogation in spite of the supreme court ruling. I can't wait for the prosecutions appeal so they can explain why they ignored the ruling. IMO everything that was said during the interrogations should be tossed including the so called fLse accusation. This whole case is a disgrace and and embarrassment to Italy. There are my two cents.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the original statements to the police were inadmissible against Knox with regard to the prosecution of any crime including both the murder and the false accusation charge.

However, Knox's retraction was admissible and ironically this allowed the prosecution to prove that she had made a false accusation because she admitted to it in her statement that was made without coercion.

And then of course the original statements were allowed in the trial because of what is to an American a bizarre idea, that a criminal trial and a civil trial can be combined and that jurors just need to keep track of when testimony that has been excluded for one case can be used in the other. Even without the possibility of prejudicing the jury from evidence that they were technically excluded from considering there seems to be a huge hole in the process. The civil trial needed to bring in to question the details of the interrogation to asses whether Knox had the requisite free will when she made the accusation. Since she was fighting for her freedom in this trial it is hardly reasonable that her lawyers should digress into the minutia of defending a civil suit against her.

However, all this is a bit moot with regard to the discussion as I see it. The issue that some are discussing is the issue of innocence or guilt and whether the evidence was allowed or not it seems reasonable to assess whether this evidence might offer some insight into that issue. In my opinion it offers very little, since there are very significant signs that the accusation was coerced and it was at best an equivocal accusation that was rescinded. But others disagree it seems.
 
Malkmus said:
You left out the interpreter persuading her she was traumatized and forgot going to the cottage that night, a fact backed by Amanda's recounting of the interpreter's personal story of being traumatized after breaking her leg. Guilters always ignore this part. I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Maybe, because it's irrelevant. The interpreter tried to help the parties communicate, she said things, and so what? Who cares? Should that produce any critical consequence?
Recall, by now Knox is just a proven liar. She falsely and willfully accused an innocent person, willfully obstructing an investigation on the murder of her roommate.

And how does it take nearly three hours for Amanda to make a second statement if it was just her wanting to repeat what she had said before? A statement that was rather short and only changed to benefit LE's theory of the crime?
Click to expand...

It took her about half an hour to make the statement, and read it, maybe a little more, according to Mignini.
 
davefoc said:
As I understand it the original statements to the police were inadmissible against Knox with regard to the prosecution of any crime including both the murder and the false accusation charge.

However, Knox's retraction was admissible and ironically this allowed the prosecution to prove that she had made a false accusation because she admitted to it in her statement that was made without coercion.

And then of course the original statements were allowed in the trial because of what is to an American a bizarre idea, that a criminal trial and a civil trial can be combined and that jurors just need to keep track of when testimony that has been excluded for one case can be used in the other. ...
Click to expand...


No, no. The calunnia against Patrick is no civil trial. Patrick himself could not stop it even if he wanted to.
Your understanding is all wrong; information is wrong, and reasons are entirely different.
 
Scorpion NITE said:
Raffaele and Amanda will probably meet up in Seattle !! (according to her father anyway)

:)


Was it BOLINT who was so interested in why Amanda and Raffaele did not hug in court (despite the guards whisking Amanda away almost as soon as the verdict was announced)? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Here ya go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-prepares-fly-Seattle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Click to expand...


And don't forget that it's a dogmatic belief of most of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators that Sollecito's father regards Knox as toxic, that he blames her almost entirely for his son's predicament, and that he will essentially forbid his son to have anything to do with her in the future.

The truth, I suspect, is that both families are by now fully aware that it was circumstances and police/prosecutor zealotry that got Amanda and Raffaele into trouble. I suspect that Knox and Sollecito will remain close friends for life, united by their common experience and their very brief romance. But I suspect that neither of them has any plans to rekindle the romance, and that neither regards the other as any sort of "life partner" material.
 
Machiavelli said:
Maybe, because it's irrelevant. The interpreter tried to help the parties communicate, she said things, and so what? Who cares? Should that produce any critical consequence?
Recall, by now Knox is just a proven liar. She falsely and willfully accused an innocent person, willfully obstructing an investigation on the murder of her roommate.



It took her about half an hour to make the statement, and read it, maybe a little more, according to Mignini.
Click to expand...

She never knowingly lied about anything. She said what she thought could be true at the time.
 
Antony said:
Some of the details of that account of course are verifiable, such as the dates when Amanda appeared in front of Matteini. I haven't paid much attention to details like this, so I'll defer to you on that information.

However, when you state as fact information about what happened in the early hours of Nov 6, that can only have come from the lying gang of bandits in police uniforms who destroyed and falsified so much of the other evidence about the case, you don't do your own credibility any good.
Click to expand...

It seems a court stated these as fact. And nobody, starting from Knox, ever claimed the slightest element, or argument or piece of information, or provide any shred of consistent argument, to assert this timeline is not a fact.
So this is a fact.
 
Machiavelli,
I have not found information on several of the topics that I asked about, and if you were ever moved to provide some insight on even one of the issues I'd be interested. However, I understand that treading over ground that you've already covered may not be of interest to you and I understand that.
-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom