Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I would like Machiavelli to point out what he thinks is an accusation. For some reason whenever I ask him a question or answer one of his he decides to disappear.

I used to explain this at lenght for years.

I think you already know what I maintain an accusation is: it is the placing of false evidence against somebody.

 

[Steft50]

I used to explain this at lenght for years.

I think you already know what I maintain an accusation is: it is the placing of false evidence against somebody.

ac·cu·sa·tion/ˌækjəˈzeɪʃən/noun
plural ac·cu·sa·tions


: a claim that someone has done something wrong or illegal : a charge that someone has committed a fault or crime [count] ▪ Investigators have made/brought/leveled accusations of corruption against a group of former officials.▪ The police are investigating serious accusations of wrongdoing.▪ He denied/rejected the accusation that he had lied to the police.▪ a false accusation [noncount] ▪ There was a hint/tone of accusation in his voice when he asked her where she had been.

 

[Kaosium]

No. In order to lie, they must tell about some fact. Assert "clear and convincing evidence" seems to me too generic, it seems more like telling an assessment rather than telling a fact.
And if the you say "I have evidence" in generic terms, I would (anybody would) respond by asking "what evidence?", "why do you think it is evidence?". So it boils down to giving some fact.

Goon squad:

'We have hard evidence you were at the scene, who are you protecting? Tell us now or you'll be imprisoned for thirty years!'

Ragazza:

'I...uh...what hard evidence? I'm...not protecting anyone, please believe me!'

Goon Squad:

'We're asking the questions! You need to answer them or you'll never see your mother again! Who did you meet that night, tell us!'

Ragazza:

'I didn't meet anyone! I was home with Raffaele, why won't you believe me!?!? What evidence could you have?'

Goon Squad:

'You'll find out at your trial! Raffaele says you went out and told him to lie! We have all we need to put you in prison right now! If you tell us it will go easier for you!'


Ragazza: 'Raffaele? Why would--'

Goon Squad:

'No Questions, just answers! Stop lying! Tell us the truth! We know you met someone that night, tell us!'

Ragazza 'I don't know what you mean! Maybe....shouldn't I have a lawyer?'

Goon Squad: 'It will only get worse for you! We know you were there! We know you are lying! You are a dirty filthy liar and you will tell us the truth or we will arrest you!'

Then maybe someone comes along, things settle down, and they console her a little, regale her with their solemn duty to find Meredith, guilt-trip her a little for not helping etc. At any rate they're running the show, they're not taking questions! It's not a lecture hall or a discussion. They want answers and they're going to get them, just about anyway they can. They have to be pretty damn sure she's involved with Patrick to ever send those seven cars sirens screaming to Patrick to haul him out of his house off of those worthless statements, so they simply go too far to get what they want.

Machiavelli, the point here is that one cannot go from those vague and confused statements (with nothing else as they'd claim) to their actions later culminating in the victory lap and 'case closed.' Those statements don't produce that event, there's a confounding factor that explains both those statements and that bizzarre triumphalist behavior, that is their strong suspicions of both Amanda and Patrick going in which produced both those statements and their willingness to accept them as anything but ridiculous.

Anyway, there is no automatism like: police lie = explanation for false accusation. A lie or misconduct by the police does not imply a motive, a justification or even less necessity to release false testimony and false accusation. Thus it won't work, itself, as an explanation for Amanda's behaviour.

It's a tactic, Machiavelli, it works really well at getting criminals to confess because they figure they're 'caught' anyway, they might as well get it over with. Since if the interrogator says something too specific about what 'evidence' they have it might give it away, they cut those questions off and return to the offensive. The parts Amanda is going through a translator for, the police-beholden translator might not even translate that question, or do so more than once as they'll know how the game is played as well.

Machiavelli, what is your explanation for those statements looking like sheer lunacy and the cops being satisfied with that?

 

[Malkmus]

I used to explain this at lenght for years.

I think you already know what I maintain an accusation is: it is the placing of false evidence against somebody.

It's pretty easy. Instead of beating around the bush you could just cite the line you think is an accusation of murder in the note.

 

[Ammonitida]

I used to explain this at lenght for years.

I think you already know what I maintain an accusation is: it is the placing of false evidence against somebody.

Except that didn't happen in the handwritten note. Dream-like memories from a confused woman who strongly questions their authenticity do not constitute false evidence against somebody. Or at least it SHOULD NOT.

 

[Machiavelli]

How do you reason with someone who makes up his own definitions of the word LIE to support his argument.

Definition of LIE
....

The police can be accused of misconduct or bad work in this matter only if they give false information (information which they know false). However you like to call this.

If you claim someone gives false information, at least you should know what was the information.
Here, we have no claim by Amanda about the police giving her this alleged information, and no claim about what information was.

But this, anyway, won't change much. Does not explain her false account of facts.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The police can be accused of misconduct or bad work in this matter only if they give false information (information which they know false). However you like to call this.

If you claim someone gives false information, at least you should know what was the information.
Here, we have no claim by Amanda about the police giving her this alleged information, and no claim about what information was.

But this, anyway, won't change much. Does not explain her false account of facts.

Budget cuts=no video interrogation.
--Signed Mignini, interview with CNN

Please check a box:

True [ ] B.S. [ ] Long fake nuanced line of excuses for Mignini [ ].

 

[Kaosium]

Point of Order: Is there an actual "ignore" function available on this JREF board (as there is on some other boards, but which I haven't found here so far)? Or must Dan O just mean he will personally scroll past without reading the posts he finds counterproductive?

If there is a real "ignore" feature (that actually expunges from view the comments of any poster I have no interest in) someone kindly direct me to it. Reading this thead would be much more time-efficient if it's possible to do that.

Click on their user name in the upper left-hand corner of the post and a menu will drop down allowing you to ignore everything from that poster.

That's just what I've heard, I've never used it.

 

[Kaosium]

In your mind this is a fact?

It's a statement of normal police procedure, how else do you suppose they do it? Just believe everything their subjects say and do whatever they want?

 

[Machiavelli]

Except that didn't happen in the handwritten note. Dream-like memories from a confused woman who strongly questions their authenticity do not constitute false evidence against somebody. Or at least it SHOULD NOT.

Indeed they do. The evidence is maybe not usable to demonstrate the guilt of someone. But the quality of the evidence is not what makes a difference. It is enough if it is just false information containing an element of evidence.
Stating that you don't know if a man entered your house and raped and murdered your roommate, or writing that you remember having seen blood on someone's hands to police investigating a murder, it is a false testimony about others, which implicates other people. Not enough to convict other people, but enough to orient the investigation on them, to investigate them and at least to verify the path. Even if the indication is immediately discharged as not credible or not usable, yet it is a false indication.

 

[Ammonitida]

The police can be accused of misconduct or bad work in this matter only if they give false information (information which they know false). However you like to call this.

If you claim someone gives false information, at least you should know what was the information.
Here, we have no claim by Amanda about the police giving her this alleged information, and no claim about what information was.

But this, anyway, won't change much. Does not explain her false account of facts.

Depends on how you look at it.

Check this quote out

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house

I would say that qualifies as false information. There was no hard evidence at that time that could place her at the crime scene during Meredith's death imo.

 

[Steft50]

The police can be accused of misconduct or bad work in this matter only if they give false information (information which they know false). However you like to call this.

If you claim someone gives false information, at least you should know what was the information.
Here, we have no claim by Amanda about the police giving her this alleged information, and no claim about what information was.

But this, anyway, won't change much. Does not explain her false account of facts.

BBM
It's called, by definition, a LIE.

A pretty long list of lies the police and prosecutor told has been posted here, multiple times, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

A part of me wonders if it's because english is obviously not your native language. But then when you continue to make the same statements or misstatments I realize its how you view your culture. The meaning of words seem to have no set definition, and what someone else mentioned earlier is true, telling lies really is no big deal if you are the police, prosecutors and press.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's a statement of normal police procedure, how else do you suppose they do it? Just believe everything their subjects say and do whatever they want?

Actually I pay little attention at what the police say.
I wonder what people see in this English translation "they told things we knew were true". You seem to believe this statment is an evidence of something.
But it is nothing, just an elusive formula to the press. I dont see anything in it.

 

[Steft50]

But this, anyway, won't change much. Does not explain her false account of facts.

As has been proven by several studies and I think posted here many times, when lies are used to obtain "statements" those statements are often likely to be false.

 

[Dan O.]

Point of Order: Is there an actual "ignore" function available on this JREF board (as there is on some other boards, but which I haven't found here so far)? Or must Dan O just mean he will personally scroll past without reading the posts he finds counterproductive?

If there is a real "ignore" feature (that actually expunges from view the comments of any poster I have no interest in) someone kindly direct me to it. Reading this thead would be much more time-efficient if it's possible to do that.

You can get to the ignore function by clicking on the posters name in a post. You may need to have java enabled for this to work. You can also access the Edit Ignore List function from the User Control Panel. (I bookmark this for my usual access to the forum)

If you really want to not see that someone posted, you will also want to edit your options to set Hide Ignored Posts.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually I pay little attention at what the police say.
I wonder what people see in this English translation "they told things we knew were true". You seem to believe this statment is an evidence of something.
But it is nothing, just an elusive formula to the press. I dont see anything in it.

What you ought to see is simply them explaining normal police procedure. If they didn't do it like that, then what happened? What's your explanation for them being so easily 'fooled' by her 'lies?' Did she cast a spell on them? Did she wiggle her hips?

 

[Machiavelli]

Depends on how you look at it.

Check this quote out

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house

I would say that qualifies as false information. There was no hard evidence at that time that could place her at the crime scene during Meredith's death imo.

I don't understand the point, why you think this can have any meaning.

You call an hypothesis, the formulizing of a generic phrase, and I don't know: neither if the phrase was ever told, how you became sure about the stating of such phrase by the police or about the claim; nor why should it be considered malicious (note that in Italian the term "hard evidence" does not exist); nor how a claim of "hard evidence" could make sense (Amanda admitted of having been in the cottage); nor I can understand why you think should it be taken by the interlocutor as generic (anyone would ask "what evidence?") and not unfold; also consider that the information would even be factually true: there was, for example, a blood drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet that she claims was not there the evening before, there was a cigarette butt, there was an obvious evidence of cleanup and staging;

The staged break in, for example, is "hard evidece" against Amanda. In my opinion, the clean bathroom floor is hard evidence against Amanda.
If I had found this murder scene, I could have told Knox "I found hard evidence against you", and that won't be a lie, because this is what I think. So if you bring in a generic assessment like that, that's not something you can directly qualify as false information given maliciously.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually I pay little attention at what the police say.
I wonder what people see in this English translation "they told things we knew were true". You seem to believe this statment is an evidence of something.
But it is nothing, just an elusive formula to the press. I dont see anything in it.

I don't follow your logic here. If you pay little attention at what the cops say how can you claim they did not lie? If you admit that Amanda was hit as a real possibility and you also know the cops denied this, how can you continue to maintain this position? Your position is right only if you are wrong?

 

[Machiavelli]

What you ought to see is simply them explaining normal police procedure. If they didn't do it like that, then what happened? What's your explanation for them being so easily 'fooled' by her 'lies?' Did she cast a spell on them? Did she wiggle her hips?

But I am not the judge of police forces. I am not there to establish whether their relation to the public is bad or good. Or maybe I may judge it independently, but not put it in relation to evidence on Knox and Sollecito. The fact that they have PR problems in explaining what they do is not a thing that makes a suspect become innocent.

 

[lane99]

Click on their user name in the upper left-hand corner of the post and a menu will drop down allowing you to ignore everything from that poster.

That's just what I've heard, I've never used it.

You can get to the ignore function by clicking on the posters name in a post. You may need to have java enabled for this to work. You can also access the Edit Ignore List function from the User Control Panel. (I bookmark this for my usual access to the forum)

If you really want to not see that someone posted, you will also want to edit your options to set Hide Ignored Posts.

Tks for the guidance, folks. Very kind of you. Yes, I see the ignore feature now. Been looking for that. I should have asked long time ago.