Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[charlatan]

I've been trying to get you to quote Amanda's lies for days.

I will admit that she was confused by all the police lies.
I will admit that when you are innocent and accused of a crime that will put you in jail for the rest of your life, you will feel that you are justified in lying.

Perhaps if you have to lie to counter a lie and thus save your life, you are justified. However, I don't believe that there is any moral justification for the lies of the police, the prosecution, the media, the witnesses, or the forensic technicians.

Since you think she is such a liar, why are you afraid to give me a few quotes?

He must be referring to the lies that were kindly typed up in Italian by the intrepid Perugian police on Amanda's behalf. You know, the lies that even the supreme court couldn't justify including in the proceedings -- that were typed up for her because the cops tried and failed for five days to dig up anything incriminating on her.

 

[Kaosium]

You know, in a way, this sort of thing is actually reassuring: it shows that they don't really hate Amanda Knox at all. Because that description has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda Knox. The person that they hate is an invented personage that bears absolutely no relation to the real individual named Amanda Knox who returned to Seattle last week, except for sharing the same name.

They can continue to hate "Amanda Knox" all day, but no one actually acquainted with Amanda Knox runs the slightest risk of confusing the object of their hatred with the oldest daughter of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas.

I agree, and this is one reason I was disappointed Amanda didn't make public appearances directly after the verdict, it would serve to discredit many of her detractors like whoever wrote that nonsense LJ posted. Everything I have been able to discover about Amanda is so divorced from that 'image' created for her by the prosecution and its allies as well as the online lynch mob it might demonstrate to some people how deluded those outlets that promote that 'image' really are, not just about her but the case itself.

 

[Machiavelli]

I've been trying to get you to quote Amanda's lies for days.

I will admit that she was confused by all the police lies.
I will admit that when you are innocent and accused of a crime that will put you in jail for the rest of your life, you will feel that you are justified in lying.

Perhaps if you have to lie to counter a lie and thus save your life, you are justified. However, I don't believe that there is any moral justification for the lies of the police, the prosecution, the media, the witnesses, or the forensic technicians.

Since you think she is such a liar, why are you afraid to give me a few quotes?

By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

There was a poster who thought it was good to quote what he considered "leaks" published by tabloids. I may take this as an example of the total lack of arguments.

Nobody is able to quote a single lie. Althogh, I am sure that, statistically, there must be some lie told by someone to anyone among maybe 100+ people in the law enforcing authorities who were dealing with the case.
But none of you is able to quote this one single lie.
In particular, none of you is able to quote a single lie told by an authority to Amanda Knox during interrogation.

Amanda Knox made nothing like lying to save her life. He had no need nor utility in lying for weeks and months (and years) if she were innocent. Provided the known facts and the evidence, the only scenario in which her lies make sense, is her implication in murder.

I have quoted many times little parts of Knox's lies and no one has ever been able to counter my addressing of this points with any argument.
But I am not going to make a list of Amanda's lies, I don't want to show details on this topic. I say that the lies are evident to anyone who wants to discover them, like for example - a tiny example - the little lie accusing by which Amanda accused Meredith of being dirty (Kaosium's counter arguments can be further objected and their weakness can be shown).

I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Wendy Murphy still has not mastered the basic facts of the case.

It actually gives an email address at which she can be reached. Perhaps we should set her straight?

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words, you can't interrogate someone once they're incriminated, but you may interrogate them before they are incriminated. Thus, they are not incriminated before the interrogation, but they are incriminated after the interrogation. The interrogation is the means by which they become incriminated. The interrogation transforms the person from witness to suspect.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along.

If they are guilty.
The interrogation transforms the person from witnss from suspect, only if the witness provides incriminating statements. People are incriminated after an interrogation only if the interroagtion was incriminating.
You know, this usually doesn't happen; most witness simply never become suspects. They never provide incriminating information. They answer questions, and there is nothing incriminating in their answers.

The problem stems, only if they provide incriminating statments, or if they refuse to answer. People who don't have anything to hide, well they don't do this.

The procedure code only establishes that the police cannot go on interrogating a person who has provided some obviously incriminating statement. But does not establish that the police should not collect incriminating statements.

There is a protection however: the statements are not usable in court. This is a difference from the US system, where instead the incriminating statements are usable.

This protection however has limiatations. In the case of Amanda Knox, the statements, which normally should be considered not usable (the supreme court acknowledged their non usability), became usable by a ruling of Massei court - by another Supreme Court ruling - because of the calunnia charge. The fact that the statments is not only incriminating, but constitutes a crime itself, is provided an exception that makes the statements become factually usable.

 

[komponisto]

The 'facts' over there are whatever they need them to be.

Hellmann: The simulation of the crime scene does not exist.
PMF: Pages upon pages of speculation as to how the motivations report is going to account for the simulation of the crime scene.

My mind! It boggles!

Exactly.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It actually gives an email address at which she can be reached. Perhaps we should set her straight?

Don't count on it. Look up Wendy Murphy and Duke LaCrosse in google. You will see.

 

[Machiavelli]

We're talking about th cops here. The cops are the ones who conducted the illegal interrogation of a suspect.

There was no illegal interrogation. Cite the law violated and the judge's verdict.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

And the court also acquitted them. If a court's ruling is enough, then you have to be consistent. That you were actually surprised by this verdict (regardless of whether they are actually innocent or guilty) really hurts your credibility. It was obvious they were going to be acquitted, just as it was obvious they were going to be found guilty in the first trial. With all your clever analysis, how did you not see it coming?

 

[komponisto]

If they are guilty.
The interrogation transforms the person from witnss from suspect, only if the witness provides incriminating statements. People are incriminated after an interrogation only if the interroagtion was incriminating.
You know, this usually doesn't happen; most witness simply never become suspects. They never provide incriminating information. They answer questions, and there is nothing incriminating in their answers.

The problem stems, only if they provide incriminating statments, or if they refuse to answer. People who don't have anything to hide, well they don't do this.

And there we come to it. You simply don't believe in the need for protections, because you don't think innocent people make incriminating statements.

I'm sure you've been corrected on this numerous times by this point, so I won't bother trying.

This protection however has limiatations. In the case of Amanda Knox, the statements, which normally should be considered not usable (the supreme court acknowledged their non usability), became usable by a ruling of Massei court - by another Supreme Court ruling - because of the calunnia charge. The fact that the statments is not only incriminating, but constitutes a crime itself, is provided an exception that makes the statements become factually usable.

According to that ruling, they are only usable with regard to the calunnia charge, not the murder charge. (Though of course, using them for the calunnia charge was just a clever trick by Massei to get them in court for the purpose of influencing the deliberations on the murder charge, while "technically" the cases were separate.)

 

[Justinian2]

By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

There was a poster who thought it was good to quote what he considered "leaks" published by tabloids. I may take this as an example of the total lack of arguments.

Nobody is able to quote a single lie. Althogh, I am sure that, statistically, there must be some lie told by someone to anyone among maybe 100+ people in the law enforcing authorities who were dealing with the case.
But none of you is able to quote this one single lie.
In particular, none of you is able to quote a single lie told by an authority to Amanda Knox during interrogation.
Amanda Knox made nothing like lying to save her life. He had no need nor utility in lying for weeks and months (and years) if she were innocent. Provided the known facts and the evidence, the only scenario in which her lies make sense, is her implication in murder.

I have quoted many times little parts of Knox's lies and no one has ever been able to counter my addressing of this points with any argument.
But I am not going to make a list of Amanda's lies, I don't want to show details on this topic. I say that the lies are evident to anyone who wants to discover them, like for example - a tiny example - the little lie accusing by which Amanda accused Meredith of being dirty (Kaosium's counter arguments can be further objected and their weakness can be shown).

I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

So the police telling her she had HIV wasn't during the interrogation, so it isn't a lie?

And just where did that idea of "A sex game gone bad", come from if not the police or prosecution.

And the first five or so motivations weren't lies? Just theories, I suppose.

What about the murder weapon, and the bra clasp?

What about the DNA?

I believe that the police suggested to Amanda that Raffaele had turned against her and vice versa. Aren't those lies?

I saw a police report written about an incident in which I was involved. It was so confused and convoluted that it was one massive lie. I have absolutely no doubt that in a case like this, there was no truth in the police report (from personal experience). Ok, you can probably extract the truth from a police report with something similar to a correlation (a mathematical type process).

 

[katy_did]

However, I will offer a prediction at this time: I predict that Hellmann's motivation will say that it was his court's opinion that the murder was most likely committed by a single person, Rudy Guede. I think he will add the important caveats that 1) his court does not exclude the possibility of other assailants, and 2) it was not the role of his court to rule on this matter. But I think that he will make a specific point of stating that the evidence is all consistent with a sole assailant: Guede.

I make that prediction for two main reasons: firstly, Hellmann has already expressed dissatisfaction with the previous trial against Knox/Sollecito, and has made public statements after the appeal trial which tend to indicate that he's inclined towards the "lone assailant" theory; and secondly, the staging charge was struck out by Hellmann's court on the 530.1 basis that "it did not take place". In other words, Hellmann does not believe that the break-in (or other elements of the crime scene) was staged. Therefore, by extension, Hellmann's court believes there was a real break-in that night. And if it believes that, then in my opinion it's almost certain that Hellmann's court believes that it was Guede who broke in, and who subsequently attacked, sexually assaulted and killed Meredith.

In other words, I believe that Hellmann's court has reached precisely the same conclusion that we reached here many months ago: Guede broke in; he went to the toilet; he was surprised by the unexpected arrival home of Meredith at 9pm; he tried and failed to exit the cottage without alerting Meredith; there was a confrontation which evolved into a sexual assault and murder; Guede cleaned himself up and exited the cottage, throwing the phones away on his way back to his flat.

Generally agree, except I think they may be neutral as to the question of whether there were one or more attackers: I think they'll probably emphasize that they can only go on the evidence presented in Court, and this evidence implicates Guede. However since the crime scene was handled so poorly, and since they failed to follow up any leads which may have led to other perpetrators (I have a feeling the police are going to really regret not testing that pillow stain!) it can't be ruled out that there were other unknown perpetrators, even in theory Amanda and Raffaele. I don't think the lack of staging of the break-in is too significant, since it's always possible someone else broke in with Guede.

I have a feeling Hellmann himself believes Guede to have been the sole perpetrator but that he (or Zanetti, if he's the one writing the report - if so I bet he starts off by writing "the only thing we can say for certain is that Rudy Guede was there!") will play the game and leave open the question of whether there were other attackers. A very neat way of getting around any perceived conflict with the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[komponisto]

There was no illegal interrogation. Cite the law violated and the judge's verdict.

Read the Knox appeal. It's the Primo Motivo (first ground of appeal):

Violazione e falsa applicazione dell’art. 63, comma 2, c.p.p. in punto
alle “dichiarazioni spontanee” di Amanda Knox rese il 6 novembre 2007 alle
ore 5,54 e dell’art. 188 c.p.p. sulle modalità di acquisizione della prova atte ad
influire sulla libertà di autodeterminazione o ad alterare la capacità di
ricordare e di valutare i fatti

 

[Freddy]

By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

There was a poster who thought it was good to quote what he considered "leaks" published by tabloids. I may take this as an example of the total lack of arguments.

Nobody is able to quote a single lie. Althogh, I am sure that, statistically, there must be some lie told by someone to anyone among maybe 100+ people in the law enforcing authorities who were dealing with the case.
But none of you is able to quote this one single lie.
In particular, none of you is able to quote a single lie told by an authority to Amanda Knox during interrogation.

Amanda Knox made nothing like lying to save her life. He had no need nor utility in lying for weeks and months (and years) if she were innocent. Provided the known facts and the evidence, the only scenario in which her lies make sense, is her implication in murder.

I have quoted many times little parts of Knox's lies and no one has ever been able to counter my addressing of this points with any argument.
But I am not going to make a list of Amanda's lies, I don't want to show details on this topic. I say that the lies are evident to anyone who wants to discover them, like for example - a tiny example - the little lie accusing by which Amanda accused Meredith of being dirty (Kaosium's counter arguments can be further objected and their weakness can be shown).

A recording of the interrogation would sure be helpful on this score. I wonder why there isn't one. But even so, the police told her there was hard evidence she was at the cottage during the murder. That was a lie; they had no such evidence. It was on the basis of that lie that they half-convinced her it was her memory that was faulty, rather than what the police were telling her. That is what led to the false accusation, which is so riddled with qualifying language it isn't really even an assertion at all.

I don't need to really prove anything because there is a conviction for calunnia, thus a formal acknowledgment that she is a liar beyond reasonable doubt.

So if the conviction is overturned (which it will be), you'll apologize for lying about Amanda on this forum, right? That's what I thought.

 

[Malkmus]

By the way, I have asked to quote a lie that people think the police told.
Nobody was able to quote a single one. I have explained what I mean by police lie. A factual lie told to the suspect during interrogation.

How can we quote someone that wasn't recorded? Some very interesting rules you've placed here. I assume since we don't have Amanda's recorded or written words during the interrogation, she didn't lie then either.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Wendy and Nancy

Don't count on it. Look up Wendy Murphy and Duke LaCrosse in google. You will see.

Indeed, I wrote a comparison between the two cases, and Wendy Murphy was a common element. In my mind though, a more important common element is that the strength of the case was inversely proportional to the amount of character assassination from law enforcement.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes you did -

In english that pretty clearly states you are part of the group "journalists and writers", and most likely journalists. If that is incorrect then please clarify and I'll put it down to english as a second language.

If I wanted to indicate that I was a journalist, I would have said that esplicitly. I purposely avoided to clarify.
And the part "most likely journalists" is added by yourself (the group included charachters like Follain and others).
I do not work as a journalist on this case nor as a writer on this case.

I thought it was you who said the public was sent out, my apologies if I have that incorrect. Are you saying they were simply warned by Maresca and invited to leave?

Basically, yes. There has been a little exchange with Hellmann who didn't want the people to leave. Hellmann told us: you are all adults, you have already seen much of this. There was kind of a silent agreement, something in between, by which the public sood up and moved back, but they were not sent out of the room. I must say, most of the pictures were absolutely useful for explanation and showed no nudity. But they were extremely dramatic.

 

[Machiavelli]

How can we quote someone that wasn't recorded? Some very interesting rules you've placed here. I assume since we don't have Amanda's recorded or written words during the interrogation, she didn't lie then either.

Well then cite them. Address them. Explain them. Quote the claim.

It's not me the one who addresses some "police lie".
You can't indicate them?

 

[Malkmus]

Well then cite them. Address them. Explain them. Quote the claim.

It's not me the one who addresses some "police lie".
You can't indicate them?

We have Amanda's word that they lied to her. Do you accept that?

 

[Freddy]

We have Amanda's word that they lied to her. Do you accept that?

Of course not, because a court has found she lied about something else, so she is a proven liar. Of course, if that verdict is overturned, surely he will change his mind. Right? Right?