Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

SB wrote this today:



This is a great example of the PR effort made by PGP. The style here is her pervasive approach of sophistry.

She writes "The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on."

Of course, except for SB and her band of merry followers nobody mentioned this prank except to say that it had no validity.

Then she says "I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place."

She contacts a commenter and gets the lowdown that it was hearsay but manages to call the noise ticket party "the rock throwing party", isn't she clever.

If you'd like to check him out his link still works - just search the link for joh

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

She claims she tried to contact the guy that told the guy but too common a name. The guy had said she got friends to dress up and break into her (Amanda's apartment) and harass her roommate. So the guy didn't actually see the prank but HE also got it from hearsay. But the big and decisive fact is that FOA NEVER DENIED IT. Also, did Amanda ever live in an apartment? I thought she went from dorm to house.

"No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke."

The actual comment said it happened in an apartment, but what the heck. I guess that they not denying it proves she murdered Meredith.

If anybody from the other side is reading this please go to the link and read the actual comment and then go to JOH's link. Reassess what your leader is poisoning you with and figure out who is drinking the Kool-Aid.

And how did she confirm that the second hearsayer had the name of a roommate of Knox?

This Joh Alwood STILL has a Myspace account. Talk about killing one's credibility.

 

[CDHost]

I think you might be misunderstanding where I'm coming from with this.

The view that not all of the evidence that originally convicted K&S was reviewed on appeal gains credence when stated by the BBC, and adds to the whispering campaign that somehow suggests that they got off on legal technicalities rather than lack of evidence (a view quite common in the UK).

(sorry, that was a long sentence - I expressed it much better just now but somehow deleted it).

I don't know if anything can be done about that. Kercher because of his occupation has the support of the UK papers, which came down on the side of her guilt. There were no major revelations at the appeal so:

a) She got off on a technicality.
b) The original case was stupid and the UK tabloids never should have supported it.
c) The court shouldn't have acquitted and should have reconfirmed.

I'm happy that the UK papers are going for (a) not (c), given there is no chance they are going to support (b).

But now that Berlusconi is going to make use of this we might see this split more naturally. This becomes more of an intra-European issue. And I know the UK on the civil side has been very supportive of demands to reform the Italian courts.

 

[Fine]

For the arrest of Lumumba, Amanda relesed her spontaneous statement before a magistrate and an interpreter. After a chamomille tee, without being hit or yelled at. Such statement compells the police and the judiciary to arrest him immediately.
* * *

_______________________________

Machiavelli,

Amanda--- the same day--- reported, in another written SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION, composed while not being hit or yelled at, that a cop had assaulted her. Why didn't such statement compel the police and judiciary to identify and arrest that person too?

///

 

[CDHost]

Hi CD! Welcome back!

Well thank you! I couldn't miss the week of her exoneration. Though I guess I'm on week 3 or so.

I simply found more evidence to suggest they were corrupt scumbags lying through their teeth to save their backsides and scapegoat her for their mistake--and provide more evidence of her bad character suggesting she was a murderess.

I think that's clear. That is why the press attention is freaking them out. They aren't use to having their actions examined by a press they can't control.

The thing is though, there's so many elements in my mind that suggest she's telling the truth in this note, and I was hoping to engage people in a discussion on it as most of the other scenarios don't take into account other factors. For example, one suggests that she's trying to recant the Statements but 'keep her options open,' however that doesn't seem to make any sense.

The Statements themselves aren't an accusation, they're too 'vague and confused' to begin with, and the note itself seems to fit more with her trying to explain what she was experiencing rather than 'recant' what doesn't come across as an accusation anyway. She ought to be confused considering the information she has been told, Raffaele said she went out, that they have 'hard evidence' she was there, she remembers something different, but had these mental images come to her which seem to support what the cops are saying but doesn't seem real otherwise.

I get what you are saying. And you are making a good point. The problem is why doesn't she articulate that on the stand during her cross-x at trial. At trial she asserts her reason for confusion was a very high degree of stress, in other words they freaked her out to the point she was having trouble distinguishing reality. Which is similar to what you are saying but subtly different. It comes down to how much did she believe those images of her covering her ears for example were real.

In your version she actually believes them. That is a very high level of suggestibility. I think she was on hashish during that interrogation. If she had previously used hallucinogens I could buy it, or better if she were in fact on them at the time of the interview. Otherwise, this was rather quick for her to actually believe what she was saying. And again she didn't say this at trial.

At this point she doesn't know that they will lock up Patrick for two weeks, she might not even know they arrested him for certain, she might have simply thought they were going to have a talk with him about it

Of course. She doesn't even know she is going to be arrested.

Exactly, scapegoat Amanda to save their backsides from the whupping they deserve, they have a motive to lie about what happened that night, I'm not seeing it so much from Amanda. Their web of lies seems too transparent to me, and it starts right here.

Oh I agree. This case is loaded with police misconduct and the police using further misconduct to hide earlier misconduct.

They use this to 'prove' Amanda is a 'compulsive liar' that she 'changed her story three times' right from the beginning. Then they go on to make it 'she accused an innocent man!' All of this fits with their strategy of the time to distort or outright lie about everything to prejudice everyone against Amanda. They seem to think if they keep saying it, people will believe it--because some will.

Sure because evidentially anytime the press disagrees with them, they charge the person with slander and arrest them. Mignini seems unfamiliar with the entire concept of a free press.

While that might have had an effect, I think it more likely it was local, not national concerns. The average judge or 'juror' might not be as interested in ammunition for complaining about American prisons as they are 'defending' the reputation of their local police for various reasons, notably reports that tourism and foreign students is supposedly down, and of course there's the fact they have to live with them and might not want to believe that of them....

Do you think there really was a tourism impact?

Frankly until the the 'Pack' gets neutered and spayed I don't think anyone should pretend that Perugia is absolved because of the exoneration of Amanda on the murder charge. Until that happens people ought to be awfully wary of sending students to Perugia.

I think they already got partially neutered. They sort of picked the track they were on, on November 7th when they held their press conference. The courts saved them from themselves.

 

[CDHost]

It is possible to pity Massei if you ever have tried to put together a cohesive guilt scenario squaring all factors like he tried. I think writing that was penance personally, I hope he learned something from it.

I don't think so. If he was the sort of learn something from it he could have distanced himself from the report. Just indicate what the prosecution argued, what the defense argued and what the findings of the court were on matters of fact. Don't engage in rampent speculation, and then give an interview where you distance yourself further.

(material in italic is an example of what such an interview would look like, this Q&A never happened):
Q: Justice Massei the report seems not to contain a cohesive version of events?
A: That's correct, there were no cohesive versions of events discussed by the jury that didn't contradict critical pieces of evidence.
Q: But shouldn't that have led to an acquittal?
A: It would be improper for me to speculate in that manner.

I don't know if Massei can set aside a verdict or not. But even if not, by trying to fully support this nonsense with rampant speculation Massei lent the respect of Italy's judiciary to a travesty. He deserves to be thrown off the court for life for that trial.

 

[Freddy]

I don't think so. If he was the sort of learn something from it he could have distanced himself from the report. Just indicate what the prosecution argued, what the defense argued and what the findings of the court were on matters of fact. Don't engage in rampent speculation, and then give an interview where you distance yourself further.

Q: Justice Massei the report seems not to contain a cohesive version of events?
A:That's correct, there were no cohesive versions of events discussed by the jury that didn't contradict critical pieces of evidence.Q: But shouldn't that have led to an acquittal?
A: It would be improper for me to speculate in that manner.

I don't know if Massei can set aside a verdict or not. But even if not, by trying to fully support this nonsense with rampant speculation Massei lent the respect of Italy's judiciary to a travesty. He deserves to be thrown off the court for life for that trial.

Holy ****, is that real?! Words fail.

Edit: Okay, no longer speechless. "Improper to speculate in that manner?" Perhaps so, but fortunately it is not necessary to speculate. That exchange is an admission that the original verdict was contrary to law. What say you, Machiavelli?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

QUESTION

In what possible scenario would LE (Law Enforcement) hit a witness?

I just find it very difficult to believe that someone would think it's possible that Amanda was hit, but also at the same time continue to believe that LE didn't consider her a suspect at the time or that there was even the slightest possibility that she was coerced,

Dave

 

[RoseMontague]

How do you dare to assert that I didn't fill a complaint?
Dozens of police officers were convicted in four separate trials.

Was this the one that the sentences were waived because the statute of limitations had past? There was also something about the higher ups getting out of this with not even a conviction. Maybe I am confusing this with another case but I am interested if you want to give some details.

 

[Freddy]

-

QUESTION

In what possible scenario would LE (Law Enforcement) hit a witness?

I just find it very difficult to believe that someone would think it's possible that Amanda was hit, but also at the same time continue to believe that LE didn't consider her a suspect at the time or that there was even the slightest possibility that she was coerced,

Dave

It has been suggested that being a suspect is not about what the police think, but about the evidence they have. Which is half right. But this explanation does not justify the police for one simple reason: if the police think you did it, there must be some reason they think that, or else the police are incompetent and/or corrupt. If the police have a reason to think someone has committed a crime, then there is enough evidence to make the person a suspect - this is a very low evidentiary bar. If there is not enough evidence for you to be a suspect (which means no evidence at all; reasonable suspicion is , as I said, a very easy bar to meet), that means the police believe, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, that the person they are speaking to committed a crime. If the latter, that is unprofessional/superstitious at best, and professional misconduct at worst.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think so. If he was the sort of learn something from it he could have distanced himself from the report. Just indicate what the prosecution argued, what the defense argued and what the findings of the court were on matters of fact. Don't engage in rampent speculation, and then give an interview where you distance yourself further.

Q: Justice Massei the report seems not to contain a cohesive version of events?
A: That's correct, there were no cohesive versions of events discussed by the jury that didn't contradict critical pieces of evidence.
Q: But shouldn't that have led to an acquittal?
A: It would be improper for me to speculate in that manner.

I don't know if Massei can set aside a verdict or not. But even if not, by trying to fully support this nonsense with rampant speculation Massei lent the respect of Italy's judiciary to a travesty. He deserves to be thrown off the court for life for that trial.

Must have missed this, is there a link to this interview?

 

[RoseMontague]

SB wrote this today:



This is a great example of the PR effort made by PGP. The style here is her pervasive approach of sophistry.

She writes "The first person to mention this prank did so in the comments section of the Seattle Stranger very early on."

Of course, except for SB and her band of merry followers nobody mentioned this prank except to say that it had no validity.

Then she says "I contacted the guy (I think his screen name was "joh" and he confirmed the story, saying he had heard it from one of AK's roommates in the house where the rock throwing party took place."

She contacts a commenter and gets the lowdown that it was hearsay but manages to call the noise ticket party "the rock throwing party", isn't she clever.

If you'd like to check him out his link still works - just search the link for joh

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/12/end_of_an_affair

She claims she tried to contact the guy that told the guy but too common a name. The guy had said she got friends to dress up and break into her (Amanda's apartment) and harass her roommate. So the guy didn't actually see the prank but HE also got it from hearsay. But the big and decisive fact is that FOA NEVER DENIED IT. Also, did Amanda ever live in an apartment? I thought she went from dorm to house.

"No one in the FOA has ever denied this story, which is about all that can be said. Incidentally, I don't know that this prank occurred on Halloween. It was said that AK and fellow pranksters wore ski masks and "kidnapped" someone in their dorm, who was terrified by this joke."

The actual comment said it happened in an apartment, but what the heck. I guess that they not denying it proves she murdered Meredith.

If anybody from the other side is reading this please go to the link and read the actual comment and then go to JOH's link. Reassess what your leader is poisoning you with and figure out who is drinking the Kool-Aid.

And how did she confirm that the second hearsayer had the name of a roommate of Knox?

I recently had an exchange with Michael at websleuths on this one. He said PMF "reported" this, admitted this lonely person commenting wished to remain anonymous and that PMF received no confirmation from a second source before running with this. When I first looked into this over a year ago I found some other comments elsewhere from this poster in a similar fashion, just happened to know somebody that knew somebody and he had the inside scoop on some big news event. Quite incredible, really.

 

[RoseMontague]

_______________________________

Machiavelli,

Amanda--- the same day--- reported, in another written SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION, composed while not being hit or yelled at, that a cop had assaulted her. Why didn't such statement compel the police and judiciary to identify and arrest that person too?

///

According to Amanda's testimony the questioning continued after the 1:45AM statement, pressing for more details, like the alleged scream. You must have heard a scream? OK I heard a scream. Ok we will write that down then. Frank puts the questioning starting again about 3AM. Mignini and the cops are lying liars, there was nothing spontaneous about the 5:45AM statement. It wasn't taped because it was illegal.

 

[AmyStrange]

It has been suggested that being a suspect is not about what the police think, but about the evidence they have. Which is half right. But this explanation does not justify the police for one simple reason: if the police think you did it, there must be some reason why they think that. Whatever the reason for that belief, either it is evidence (in which case the person is a suspect - this is a very low evidentiary bar) or the police believe, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, that the person they are speaking to committed a crime. If the latter, that is unprofessional/superstitious at best, and professional misconduct at worst.

-

That's certainly a convoluted way of looking at it.

I know that's not what you believe Freddy, but using the logic above, does that mean even if LE hits you, you are still considered a witness? How does that even work?

Dave

 

[Mary_H]

No. But I do not have a dialogue with any who accuses me of false ideintity or impersonating others, and I think your post is a blatant violation of forum rules.

Ah, so THAT'S why you haven't been having a dialogue with me! And here I thought it was because my arguments are valid and yours are not. My mistake.

I hate to break it to you, but everyone who uses a pseudonym, i.e., false name, is impersonating another.

That is, unless you actually believe you are Machiavelli....?

 

[Freddy]

-

That's certainly a convoluted way of looking at it.

I know that's not what you believe Freddy, but using the logic above, does that mean even if LE hits you, you are still considered a witness? How does that even work?

Dave

That is, I think, a fair representation of the position Machiavelli has advanced in this thread. That a person is not a suspect unless there is evidence, regardless of what the police think. I was trying to point out that police who are not incompetent or corrupt do not suspect people without a reasonable basis - otherwise known as evidence. Also, Machiavelli is wrong anyway, because under Italian law the right to counsel attaches when an interviewee says something "that might lead to his incrimination." So actual incrimination is not a prerequisite.

But the point is moot, because the police clearly believed that Knox was a suspect. How do I know? Easy. When she asked for a lawyer, they told her it would make things worse for her, and they also told her that they called a lawyer and got no answer. What they did not tell her was that she was not a suspect and thus had no right to an attorney, which is obviously what they would have said if that is how they perceived the situation.

 

[CDHost]

Holy ****, is that real?! Words fail.

Edit: Okay, no longer speechless. "Improper to speculate in that manner?" Perhaps so, but fortunately it is not necessary to speculate. That exchange is an admission that the original verdict was contrary to law. What say you, Machiavelli?

Freddy --

Sorry for the confusion, read the context. That was in the context of what I wish Massei had done rather than release the report he did. I was disagreeing he had no choice and was presenting an alternative. That interview never happened.

Had it happened. Amanda and Raffaele might have been out much earlier.

 

[CDHost]

Must have missed this, is there a link to this interview?

Wow. Read my response to Freddy. I'm going to edit to make that much more clear. Evidentially the context was not clear at all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy --

Sorry for the confusion, read the context. That was in the context of what I wish Massei had done rather than release the report he did. I was disagreeing he had no choice and was presenting an alternative. That interview never happened.

Had it happened. Amanda and Raffaele might have been out much earlier.

Ah. The sad thing is that it wasn't obvious.

 

[Mary_H]

this is one of the funniest things yet. According to nazione, lumumba's lawyer pacelli has written a letter to hillary clinton asking her to make sure knox pays up. http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/10/13/599903-amanda_paghi.shtml hillary clinton! Lol.

Here's her response:

Dear mr. Pacelli:

Thank you for your letter. We have reached out to us citizen amanda knox and asked her about paying you and your client. Unfortunately, it appears that she doesn't have any money and hasn't had a job for the last four years.

We did remind her that she did say something untrue about your client. But she said that you, on behalf of her former boss lumumba, said these untrue things about her:

"she was a diabolical, satantic, demonic she-devil, she was muddy on the outside and dirty on the inside. She has two souls, the clean one you see her before you and the other. She is borderline. She likes alcohol, drugs and she likes hot, wild sex."

i don't really understand her problem, though. After all, my boss says things like this about me all the time (well, except for the hot, wild sex part). What's the big deal?

Knox also claims that the only reason that she said the untrue thing was because she was getting a beat down by the police. This made me think about something very wise said by another great american who got a beat down by the police: "can't we all just get along"? And this made me think of a very diplomatic solution.

Since italy wrongfully imprisoned knox for at least a year and maybe more, she can get lots of money from the italian government. This money can be used to pay to help lumumba get his mojo back, to compensate knox, and most importantly, to pay you! All you have to do is join with knox in making the argument that mignini and comodi and massei and the cops illegally locked up knox. Then, knox will get lots of money and can share it with you! Perfetto!

Sincerely,

hillary clinton

ps: My husband doesn't think you should test the semen stain.

rofl!!!

 

[Bob001]

...
a) She got off on a technicality.
b) The original case was stupid and the UK tabloids never should have supported it.
c) The court shouldn't have acquitted and should have reconfirmed.

I'm happy that the UK papers are going for (a) not (c), given there is no chance they are going to support (b).
...

Here's a question: Why do so many people -- including, apparently the Kercher family -- seem so doggedly eager to believe that Amanda and Raffaele participated with a stranger in a bizarre sex-game murder of a nature that is almost unknown in criminal justice annals, rather than believing that Meredith surprised a known street thug burglarizing her home? Beyond the minutiae of Amanda's interrogation, I would enjoy reading some broader discussion of the mechanics of mass delusion.